Okay. Let's focus on the first scenario first. Here's a hypothetical but probably not unrealistic court dialog:
Prosecution (P): Your acquaintance sent you a message that was clearly work-related, and other than the hacker's discovery, investigators and technicians can find no record of it. How do you explain this?
[Note that hacker's claims have not been verified, but I'll ignore that fact for now.]
Defense (D): I cannot claim I recall with 100% certainty, but I believe I did forward a copy to my assistant at the State Department, and thus the email entered into our standard email system.
P: The hacker's copy didn't have a "CC" going to your assistant.
D: I often send a copy AFTER I reply to certain people. That action wouldn't show up in the original reply's CC.
P: Then why couldn't we find a copy of that after-the-fact message in the State Department system?
D: As my legal council pointed out, the State Department's system has what are now known problems or limitations. That system may have simply lost the message at some point before the investigation started.
P: Your assistant did know about a special secondary server intentionally designed to have better archiving, correct?
D: Based on the testimony given, I believe that is the case. My assistant did know.
P: Then why didn't your assistant use that system to make a lasting copy?
D: I don't know. I rarely have the time to micromanage those kinds of details. I usually leave the decision about what to formally archive or not up to them unless it becomes an executive-level decision, which this situation was not. The written guidelines didn't require executive-level decisions for this kind of message, as it's covered nicely with guideline steps 7, 12, and 15; as my defense attorney pointed out.
P: So you believe it's possible your assistant simply forgot to archive the copy in the advanced server?
D: It's possible, yes, but I have no specific knowledge of that happening or not happening.
P: Can you prove your assistant forgot?
D: This is the defense attorney speaking. I don't believe my client is obligated to prove her assistant skipped the advanced archive step. It's within "reasonable doubt" that the assistant could have forgotten. The exact actions of the defendant and her assistant have not been filmed or stored in a way that we can verify either way. Prosecution, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client failed to send a copy of the original reply to her assistant?
We need law suits like this to succeed, so lying to the public has a serious cost
Based on our "inventive fee" experience, lawsuits couldn't keep up. They are quite creative in their ability and excuses to slap weird fees onto things. While being sued for Gimmick 7, they are already working on Gimmick 8 and 9.
The most successful liars don't outright lie; they skillfully milk the boundary between truth and lie.
Indeed! We are almost forced to use them due to various circumstances. They play billing games with surprise fees all the time. They fart fees. And their telemarketers keep calling us and won't get the clue that we don't want to talk to them.
Competition is sorely needed in telecom. Oligopolies suck rotting eggs. I think I'd rather have "commie" gov't services than the current batch of clowns we have to choose from. Socialists have fewer telemarketers, at least, and they are too lethargic to add so many new and creative fees.
But that may not be the case when Windows 10 comes out. To make Windows 10 "normal" again, they may have to add some of the bloat back.
Or you may order software designed for Windows 7 machines that assumes at least 2GB because that's the typical target machine they would have built it for.
If you accept this universe is simply mathematical function, weirdness goes away. Function, that is itself probably intersection of multiple functions...
Just replace all the objects and sounds with different things. Make Mario a green lumpy alien and replace all the stuff with whacky alien stuff. Name it Blamfoog*.
Flip the image so the green alien is jumping on the ceiling. It's the same gravity rules, just upside down. Nobody would even know it had anything to do with Mario if you don't tell them.
The primary purpose of code is to communicate ideas (algorithms) with other developers (humans) and secondly to communicate with machines. The "art" of programming is thus closer to writing good and update-able technical documentation than it is to math or engineering. It is user-interface-design where the the "user" is another programmer (or your future self).
Good code is ironically more about people than machines.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes, I noticed how the air is so fresh and crisp while I'm waiting in the unemployment line wrapping around the building."
Okay. Let's focus on the first scenario first. Here's a hypothetical but probably not unrealistic court dialog:
Prosecution (P): Your acquaintance sent you a message that was clearly work-related, and other than the hacker's discovery, investigators and technicians can find no record of it. How do you explain this?
[Note that hacker's claims have not been verified, but I'll ignore that fact for now.]
Defense (D): I cannot claim I recall with 100% certainty, but I believe I did forward a copy to my assistant at the State Department, and thus the email entered into our standard email system.
P: The hacker's copy didn't have a "CC" going to your assistant.
D: I often send a copy AFTER I reply to certain people. That action wouldn't show up in the original reply's CC.
P: Then why couldn't we find a copy of that after-the-fact message in the State Department system?
D: As my legal council pointed out, the State Department's system has what are now known problems or limitations. That system may have simply lost the message at some point before the investigation started.
P: Your assistant did know about a special secondary server intentionally designed to have better archiving, correct?
D: Based on the testimony given, I believe that is the case. My assistant did know.
P: Then why didn't your assistant use that system to make a lasting copy?
D: I don't know. I rarely have the time to micromanage those kinds of details. I usually leave the decision about what to formally archive or not up to them unless it becomes an executive-level decision, which this situation was not. The written guidelines didn't require executive-level decisions for this kind of message, as it's covered nicely with guideline steps 7, 12, and 15; as my defense attorney pointed out.
P: So you believe it's possible your assistant simply forgot to archive the copy in the advanced server?
D: It's possible, yes, but I have no specific knowledge of that happening or not happening.
P: Can you prove your assistant forgot?
D: This is the defense attorney speaking. I don't believe my client is obligated to prove her assistant skipped the advanced archive step. It's within "reasonable doubt" that the assistant could have forgotten. The exact actions of the defendant and her assistant have not been filmed or stored in a way that we can verify either way. Prosecution, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client failed to send a copy of the original reply to her assistant?
P: Um.....no, I cannot.
Based on our "inventive fee" experience, lawsuits couldn't keep up. They are quite creative in their ability and excuses to slap weird fees onto things. While being sued for Gimmick 7, they are already working on Gimmick 8 and 9.
The most successful liars don't outright lie; they skillfully milk the boundary between truth and lie.
We outsourced our jobs and our pollution.
Indeed! We are almost forced to use them due to various circumstances. They play billing games with surprise fees all the time. They fart fees. And their telemarketers keep calling us and won't get the clue that we don't want to talk to them.
Competition is sorely needed in telecom. Oligopolies suck rotting eggs. I think I'd rather have "commie" gov't services than the current batch of clowns we have to choose from. Socialists have fewer telemarketers, at least, and they are too lethargic to add so many new and creative fees.
But that may not be the case when Windows 10 comes out. To make Windows 10 "normal" again, they may have to add some of the bloat back.
Or you may order software designed for Windows 7 machines that assumes at least 2GB because that's the typical target machine they would have built it for.
http://xkcd.com/224/
The headline is chopped and non-chopped at the same time. It collapses into a concrete state when an article dupe is later made.
I don't buy it. April 1 joke, right?
That is the Charlie Brown Great Pumpkin speech, isn't it? With a few word mods.
The penalty is being flooded with bad April Fool's jokes.
No, that would give you:
41.999387
Compromise, people: Obelith.
If you complain, you get /. beta.
- Dice.moc
41.9999999999999387
R2-R5 has to vacuum houses to survive.
You do realize this is Slashdot, dontcha? In the words of Kirk, It is....what...we........Do!
In the ending, they encounter Duke Nukem.
Just replace all the objects and sounds with different things. Make Mario a green lumpy alien and replace all the stuff with whacky alien stuff. Name it Blamfoog*.
Flip the image so the green alien is jumping on the ceiling. It's the same gravity rules, just upside down. Nobody would even know it had anything to do with Mario if you don't tell them.
* Sounds like an open-source project name
I see RC planes from time to in fields and parks. Are drones considered different? What's the Fed weight limit for an RC plane?
NRA just added that "benefits" bullet point* to their brochure.
* No pun intended
and it keeps vampires away
The primary purpose of code is to communicate ideas (algorithms) with other developers (humans) and secondly to communicate with machines. The "art" of programming is thus closer to writing good and update-able technical documentation than it is to math or engineering. It is user-interface-design where the the "user" is another programmer (or your future self).
Good code is ironically more about people than machines.
Come on, it's premature to blame it on Sasquatch