I recall a story several years ago when one of the biggest group of people suckered by these scams were accountants and people in similar financial professions. In short, the people that are in a position to know better than anyone else, but they're more likely to be suckered by the 409 type of scam.
You'd think the maintenance people would be more likely to get caught up in 409 Scams. We seriously need to clean this mess up.
I think "Yes, No, or Prompt me each time" would work. Then when you get prompted, it should offer the opportunity to never ask again.
I, too, was shocked that when you install an app on the Android, you get one opportunity to see the permissions that you are granting that app. Seemed like it was "take it or leave it", too - you can give it all the required permissions, or not use the app.
This guy should have let the "honeypot" article sit around and see what happens first, rather than having the explanation article AND have it be posted on slashdot. Doing this interferes with the experiment by making it less likely to be picked up - anyone who reads the slashdot article (or the article it links to) first will not believe and propagate the honeypot article.
A lack of inaccurate articles (alleging a causal relationship between cell towers and high birth rates) may not be caused by the explanation and the posting to slashdot. Rather, it could be caused by a third factor: Nobody gives a damn what this guy says.
Sorry, the iPhone is the easiest platform to monetize right now. It'll almost always be the first choice for apps.
On the contrary, I personally know of two new companies who are developing over 100 apps between them, and chose to aim for Android only (for the first rev).
Both companies' rationale: less competition, higher growth rate, and more investment dollars (Google plus MANY others, vs. just Apple) in the Android market. Note, it was NOT learning curve, compatibility of Objective C/Cocoa vs Java, and other technical factors.
There are tons of entrepreneurs out there, that create cool things like Delicious, literally creating something out of nothing.
Corporate America, including Yahoo, is generally good at tending to something, and keeping things going with 5% improvements.
What's lacking is the "Phase 2 Entrepreneur" that can take a "little something" and make it a "big something". When the Delicious founders sold to Yahoo, the talent and enthusiasm probably went out the door along with the cash.
This practice of letting people go right before Christmas is just despicable. Besides the obvious human cost, it also reflects VERY poorly on their company. Having worked for a company that did the same thing in the past, I know morale will be very low.
If you feel that 12/15 is a poor time to lay people, presumably you'd prefer that it be after the first of the year - say Monday 1/3. No wait, you can't hit them with a lay off immediately after they get back, so let's make it the 5th.
So, between 12/16 and 1/5, you have roughly 3 weeks of paid time, and maybe 8 or 9 days of productivity.
Of course, you are assuming that the company should postpone the layoff, but it seems equally likely that the company would accelerate the layoff, to meet your "not around Christmas" rule. So backing it up 3 weeks, you're looking at the day before Thanksgiving. But practically, it would probably be a day or two before that.
I say these people should be thankful that they got 3+ extra weeks of pay for the end of November and early December! They could have easily been laid off 11/21, thanks to you and others who think that "right before Christmas" is an issue (when in fact, it was mid-December!)
It's been a while since we had a Constitutional Amandment. This would be a good one: "Interstate commerce means only interstate commerce, fuckers".
But then we'll be arguing about the meaning of "fuckers", and Congress will be in our bedrooms.
"Were you in an orgasmic state?" "yes, well, eventually" "OK, so you went from the state of California to the State of Ecstasy? Sounds like it's covered under the 'interstate come-rce, fuckers' clause, your honor"
As someone else said, lawyers make huge demands, just as positioning in a lawsuit - for leverage.
The beauty of this threat (taking the domain name) is that it is a reasonable answer to the issue "How much damage did you really suffer from us using your photo."
"We're not asking for much - domain names are $30/year at Go Daddy. That seems about an even trade."
Point is, damage is well beyond the price of the image.
On the original IBM-PC, running MS-DOS, Y2K was not a problem.
The CLOCK Driver was a 6-byte sequence, used to determine the current date and time, counting up from January 1, 1980. From the old MS-DOS documentation:
Byte 0: Days low byte Byte 1: Days high byte Byte 2: Minutes Byte 3: Hours Byte 4: Seconds/100 Byte 5: Seconds
This means that any date and time could be represented (with.01 second accuracy) between January 1, 1980 and 65535 days later. So within the parameters of original MS-DOS and IBM-PC, we could support dates to June of 2159.
Further, MS-DOS supported software interrupts to get and set the system date. This provided a little tighter limitation, according to the documentation, limiting the year to the range of 1980 - 2099. But still was Y2K compliant.
Int 21H Function 2AH Get System Date Call with AH = 2AH Returns: CX=Year (1980 through 2099) DH=Month (1-12) DL=Day (1-31) and under MS-DOS version 1.10 and above, the day of week was also returned in AL
Int 21H Function 2BH Set System Date Call with: AH=2BH CX=Year (1980 through 2099) DH=Month (1-12) DL=Day (1-31) Returns AL=00 if successfully set or 0FFH if date invalid.
PCs and PC operating systems weren't really much of a Y2K issue. Application software was. Mainframe software was. But PCs, not so much.
There was one Microsoft (Excel) Y2K issue. As Wikipedia says:
The Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program had a very elementary Y2K problem: Excel (in both Windows and Mac versions, when they are set to start at 1900) incorrectly set the year 1900 as a leap year for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3.[8] In addition, the years 2100, 2200, and so on, were regarded as leap years. This bug was fixed in later versions, but since the epoch of the Excel timestamp was set to the meaningless date of January 0, 1900 in previous versions, the year 1900 is still regarded as a leap year to maintain backward compatibility.
There wasn't anyone to "blame" Y2K on, really. In the 1960s and 1970s, space was very expensive, literally per byte. So it was an extremely wise move to use a 2-digit year, and bet that the software or the programmer would be retired prior to 2000.
As I said, no one is forcing you to buy a policy from a Berkshire Hathaway Insurance company, or one that they re-insure.
There are plenty of alternatives, including, primarily: competitive companies, but also: not carrying insurance, self-insurance, starting your own insurance company, and renting.
Frankly, Berkshire's insurance businesses aren't providing overwhelming profits - yeah, it's profitable, but not to the extent that should cause people to call for reform.
I disagree. Signing your name is an action in itself.
Giving away 'half' your money, when you could give away 99% of it and still not change your lifestyle or ability to make more money != impressive.
I disagree. Giving away half of your money when you are not obligated to give away any is impressive.
The guys signing this 'pledge' are people that are disliked by most of the educated public
Being educated myself, I can't say I dislike all the signers. I have a great deal of respect for the business skills of many of them, and feel I can learn from them.
I am certainly not jealous of their success. Dislike? I don't even know them.
I'd love to see a poll that backs your allegations that "most" of the educated public dislikes these signers.
Gates could have quietly given away his fortune, while everyone called him a greedy S.O.B., and followed the advice of the Biblical quote. Instead, he announced that he was giving it away, and encouraged others to give it away. And many have agreed to, and the world should be a better place because of the public give-away and challenge of Gates.
I know several multi-millionaires who have decided to quietly commit to giving up half, because of this Billionaire Challenge. I'm sure there are many. So Gates' challenge has actually achieved more on earth than had he quietly donated.
Each billionaire that signs up calls more attention to the challenge, and probably causes a few more multi-millionaires to sign up.
Buffett is no kindly grandfather type... the Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group has reaped BILLIONS in just the last several years via policies that ensured insane increases in homeowner insurance policy...
Huh?
There is no customer of Berkshire Hathaway that is forced to purchase a policy from them. If you are unhappy that they raised your rates, go buy a policy elsewhere!
You capitalize BILLIONS as if this is an issue because it's a big number. Berkshire Hathaway is a huge organization, with annual revenues of roughly $112 Billion, from willing customers who choose to buy from this company. As a shareholder, I would be disappointed if they didn't reap BILLIONS.
So, you'd take Mother Theresa (if she were still alive), and try her along side of rapists, child molesters, and torturers. And potentially sentence her to prison or worse?
well, you can read the Wikipedia article for Republic, and see that different countries define the terms differently.
In the US, Republic refers to "Representative Democracy" which is technically not a Democracy and not a Direct Democracy.
I'm no civics teacher, so I'm not inclined to argue the point. The thing that set off alarms in my head though were his claims that the US is a majority-rule country, and what the majority says, goes, no matter how it impacts the minority. And this would be a "democracy" rule (not too far from "mob rule"), as far as I understand it.
If you are arguing from definitions established outside the US, you may be right based on your definitions. And I may be right based on the US definitions.
Then again, there exists the possibility that I have no idea what I am talking about!
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, it's pretty obvious that Perl usage is slowly declining.
I can't comment on the trend (declining or ascending?), but it sure looks like perl is still pretty popular, on this comment from last month.
It says:
Dice has a lot more programming listings than Monster.
Java - 14824 .Net OR C# - 10496
C++ - 5789
Perl - 4664
PHP - 2499
Python - 2196
Objective C - 1267
Ruby - 1169
Cobol - 638
(bolding emphasis mine)
I recall a story several years ago when one of the biggest group of people suckered by these scams were accountants and people in similar financial professions. In short, the people that are in a position to know better than anyone else, but they're more likely to be suckered by the 409 type of scam.
You'd think the maintenance people would be more likely to get caught up in 409 Scams. We seriously need to clean this mess up.
419 scams probably hit a disproportionate amount of Toledo residents.
I think "Yes, No, or Prompt me each time" would work.
Then when you get prompted, it should offer the opportunity to never ask again.
I, too, was shocked that when you install an app on the Android, you get one opportunity to see the permissions that you are granting that app. Seemed like it was "take it or leave it", too - you can give it all the required permissions, or not use the app.
This guy should have let the "honeypot" article sit around and see what happens first, rather than having the explanation article AND have it be posted on slashdot. Doing this interferes with the experiment by making it less likely to be picked up - anyone who reads the slashdot article (or the article it links to) first will not believe and propagate the honeypot article.
A lack of inaccurate articles (alleging a causal relationship between cell towers and high birth rates) may not be caused by the explanation and the posting to slashdot. Rather, it could be caused by a third factor: Nobody gives a damn what this guy says.
You do realize that smart phone market share for Android and IOS were tied in October and November at about 38% each.
and in May it was more like 70% IOS, 15% Android.
I'm quite certain these guys know what they're doing. They've had multiple business successes.
Sorry, the iPhone is the easiest platform to monetize right now. It'll almost always be the first choice for apps.
On the contrary, I personally know of two new companies who are developing over 100 apps between them, and chose to aim for Android only (for the first rev).
Both companies' rationale: less competition, higher growth rate, and more investment dollars (Google plus MANY others, vs. just Apple) in the Android market. Note, it was NOT learning curve, compatibility of Objective C/Cocoa vs Java, and other technical factors.
There are tons of entrepreneurs out there, that create cool things like Delicious, literally creating something out of nothing.
Corporate America, including Yahoo, is generally good at tending to something, and keeping things going with 5% improvements.
What's lacking is the "Phase 2 Entrepreneur" that can take a "little something" and make it a "big something". When the Delicious founders sold to Yahoo, the talent and enthusiasm probably went out the door along with the cash.
This practice of letting people go right before Christmas is just despicable. Besides the obvious human cost, it also reflects VERY poorly on their company. Having worked for a company that did the same thing in the past, I know morale will be very low.
If you feel that 12/15 is a poor time to lay people, presumably you'd prefer that it be after the first of the year - say Monday 1/3. No wait, you can't hit them with a lay off immediately after they get back, so let's make it the 5th.
So, between 12/16 and 1/5, you have roughly 3 weeks of paid time, and maybe 8 or 9 days of productivity.
Of course, you are assuming that the company should postpone the layoff, but it seems equally likely that the company would accelerate the layoff, to meet your "not around Christmas" rule. So backing it up 3 weeks, you're looking at the day before Thanksgiving. But practically, it would probably be a day or two before that.
I say these people should be thankful that they got 3+ extra weeks of pay for the end of November and early December! They could have easily been laid off 11/21, thanks to you and others who think that "right before Christmas" is an issue (when in fact, it was mid-December!)
Watch what you ask for!
(3) the author's heirs get none of my money because I don't pay when the author is dead, which is how I think things should go in the copyright world.
Why do you want to put a high price on the head of an author who has written a highly sought after, but expensive book?
Oh really? Anyone who at least didn't question the constitutionality of this really (regardless of where you end up standing) needs to get a clue.
Count Nancy Pelosi as one of those who didn't question the constitutionality. All she could say was "Are you serious? Are you serious?
It's been a while since we had a Constitutional Amandment. This would be a good one: "Interstate commerce means only interstate commerce, fuckers".
But then we'll be arguing about the meaning of "fuckers", and Congress will be in our bedrooms.
"Were you in an orgasmic state?"
"yes, well, eventually"
"OK, so you went from the state of California to the State of Ecstasy? Sounds like it's covered under the 'interstate come-rce, fuckers' clause, your honor"
Finally we're gonna see a decent implementation of Conway's Game of Life!
I built a set of logic gates using 5 and 6 year olds. (Human children, that is.)
We also simulated Conway's game of Life.
It was a lot of fun for the kids and the geeks, but most of the parents didn't get it.
As someone else said, lawyers make huge demands, just as positioning in a lawsuit - for leverage.
The beauty of this threat (taking the domain name) is that it is a reasonable answer to the issue "How much damage did you really suffer from us using your photo."
"We're not asking for much - domain names are $30/year at Go Daddy. That seems about an even trade."
Point is, damage is well beyond the price of the image.
On the original IBM-PC, running MS-DOS, Y2K was not a problem.
The CLOCK Driver was a 6-byte sequence, used to determine the current date and time, counting up from January 1, 1980. From the old MS-DOS documentation:
Byte 0: Days low byte
Byte 1: Days high byte
Byte 2: Minutes
Byte 3: Hours
Byte 4: Seconds/100
Byte 5: Seconds
This means that any date and time could be represented (with .01 second accuracy) between January 1, 1980 and 65535 days later. So within the parameters of original MS-DOS and IBM-PC, we could support dates to June of 2159.
Further, MS-DOS supported software interrupts to get and set the system date. This provided a little tighter limitation, according to the documentation, limiting the year to the range of 1980 - 2099. But still was Y2K compliant.
Int 21H Function 2AH Get System Date
Call with AH = 2AH
Returns:
CX=Year (1980 through 2099)
DH=Month (1-12)
DL=Day (1-31)
and under MS-DOS version 1.10 and above, the day of week was also returned in AL
Int 21H Function 2BH Set System Date
Call with:
AH=2BH
CX=Year (1980 through 2099)
DH=Month (1-12)
DL=Day (1-31)
Returns AL=00 if successfully set or 0FFH if date invalid.
PCs and PC operating systems weren't really much of a Y2K issue. Application software was. Mainframe software was. But PCs, not so much.
There was one Microsoft (Excel) Y2K issue. As Wikipedia says:
The Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program had a very elementary Y2K problem: Excel (in both Windows and Mac versions, when they are set to start at 1900) incorrectly set the year 1900 as a leap year for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3.[8] In addition, the years 2100, 2200, and so on, were regarded as leap years. This bug was fixed in later versions, but since the epoch of the Excel timestamp was set to the meaningless date of January 0, 1900 in previous versions, the year 1900 is still regarded as a leap year to maintain backward compatibility.
There wasn't anyone to "blame" Y2K on, really. In the 1960s and 1970s, space was very expensive, literally per byte. So it was an extremely wise move to use a 2-digit year, and bet that the software or the programmer would be retired prior to 2000.
The biggest computer mistake of all time has to be Microsoft's using 2 digits for the year! How quickly we forget!
Wow, you really didn't understand Y2K issues, if you blame them on Microsoft.
As I said, no one is forcing you to buy a policy from a Berkshire Hathaway Insurance company, or one that they re-insure.
There are plenty of alternatives, including, primarily: competitive companies, but also: not carrying insurance, self-insurance, starting your own insurance company, and renting.
Frankly, Berkshire's insurance businesses aren't providing overwhelming profits - yeah, it's profitable, but not to the extent that should cause people to call for reform.
Signing your name != actually doing anything.
I disagree. Signing your name is an action in itself.
Giving away 'half' your money, when you could give away 99% of it and still not change your lifestyle or ability to make more money != impressive.
I disagree. Giving away half of your money when you are not obligated to give away any is impressive.
The guys signing this 'pledge' are people that are disliked by most of the educated public
Being educated myself, I can't say I dislike all the signers. I have a great deal of respect for the business skills of many of them, and feel I can learn from them.
I am certainly not jealous of their success. Dislike? I don't even know them.
I'd love to see a poll that backs your allegations that "most" of the educated public dislikes these signers.
Tough call.
Gates could have quietly given away his fortune, while everyone called him a greedy S.O.B., and followed the advice of the Biblical quote. Instead, he announced that he was giving it away, and encouraged others to give it away. And many have agreed to, and the world should be a better place because of the public give-away and challenge of Gates.
I know several multi-millionaires who have decided to quietly commit to giving up half, because of this Billionaire Challenge. I'm sure there are many. So Gates' challenge has actually achieved more on earth than had he quietly donated.
Each billionaire that signs up calls more attention to the challenge, and probably causes a few more multi-millionaires to sign up.
Buffett is no kindly grandfather type... the Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group has reaped BILLIONS in just
the last several years via policies that ensured insane increases in homeowner insurance policy...
Huh?
There is no customer of Berkshire Hathaway that is forced to purchase a policy from them. If you are unhappy that they raised your rates, go buy a policy elsewhere!
You capitalize BILLIONS as if this is an issue because it's a big number. Berkshire Hathaway is a huge organization, with annual revenues of roughly $112 Billion, from willing customers who choose to buy from this company. As a shareholder, I would be disappointed if they didn't reap BILLIONS.
If the last century is to go by, I doubt we're going to see an increase in vegetation anytime soon. We've already lost 20% of the Amazon since 1970.
Isn't Kindle helping? Less dead tree editions, etc.
Their isn't?
Look again, for 2 more!
So, you'd take Mother Theresa (if she were still alive), and try her along side of rapists, child molesters, and torturers. And potentially sentence her to prison or worse?
well, you can read the Wikipedia article for Republic, and see that different countries define the terms differently.
In the US, Republic refers to "Representative Democracy" which is technically not a Democracy and not a Direct Democracy.
I'm no civics teacher, so I'm not inclined to argue the point. The thing that set off alarms in my head though were his claims that the US is a majority-rule country, and what the majority says, goes, no matter how it impacts the minority. And this would be a "democracy" rule (not too far from "mob rule"), as far as I understand it.
If you are arguing from definitions established outside the US, you may be right based on your definitions. And I may be right based on the US definitions.
Then again, there exists the possibility that I have no idea what I am talking about!
the US Constitution protects against the tyranny of the majority
And what, pray tell, happens when the majority amend the Constitution to allow tyranny?
A perfect system hasn't been invented. So the protection isn't perfect (as demonstrated in our past).
Without mistakes there isn't perfection.
Concise in it's message, thought provoking, and their's no way to dispute it, to.