Innovation is just a buzzword. None of your thoughts were "new." Like any other second-hand items you come to possess, they may be "new to you," but they're not actually new.
Court rulings aren't the sort of blah-blah you posted. You weren't mis-remembering anything other than whatever blather your friends spew about the subject. Not the same thing as having looked it up, and then decided to talk about it. Maybe in the future you could preface these types of wild guesses with something like, "Some guy at the bar told me..." instead of just saying it cold as if it is knowledge you have.
You looked up something as obscure and irrelevant as "As-Easy-As," but you didn't bother to look up Apple vs Microsoft to find out if the guy at the bar was even correct before repeating it. The court didn't say MS already had a license, the court said mainly, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."
If not being a "sustainable business" or not actually being all that new makes ideas "suck," then my advice is to expand your personal value system.
The idea that a lack of "true" originality means that art sucks is a failing of the philosophy that things have to be "original" to have value, it is not any sort of failing in the art. That should be totally obvious by simply looking at which claim was found to be wrong; the claim about art having value, or the claim about originality being a prerequisite. If we know that art has had value in the past, and then we find out that none of it was new, that tells us about our system of value and verifies that it is not based on newness. It does not imply in any way that the art never had value.
If you cling to a philosophy even after its own claimed causal relationships are disproven, expect it to fail as a basis for a business strategy.
In that situation it is actually very very hard to hold as many idle connections as you could create. Even if you build a custom linux kernel to handle that many, it won't be reliable. Intermediate routers will also turn out to have per-host cache tables, and they'll start silently dropping your connections if you have that many.
In reality I can just look at my logs and see the pattern; each IP only does a few tries per minute, and usually appears to be part of a cluster of IPs that schedule attempts together.
Excess attempts get the IP firewalled rather quickly using a wide variety of automated tools. Rather few of the attackers actually get IP-banned this way, though. Check that log, too! Instead, they try to stay just under the limits. In the past that was different. ~2000 it was more normal to see a big blast from a single IP until it got banned, and then a rotation to a new IP. Black hats take better care of their zombies these days.
If you really want to look under that rock, the spoiler is that it comes down to definitions of words like "is" and "in," there is not really much dispute about the facts. It just depends who you ask if listing the money on one ledger or another changes where it was really "made."
All of Apple's defenses are blatant lies to people who focus on the physical transactions rather than the creative theories that involve profits actually being "made" literally on the ledger itself, as if a company is paid merely to record its profits. But lawyers will disagree with various parts of that, depending which lawyers they are.
Did you actually read that privacy policy there, Jr?
You're presented with two companies. One tells you in writing that they sell your data, but feed you advertising telling you that they're very very Virtuous when it comes to handling your data. The other tells you that they don't sell your data at all, they only use it themselves to decide which advertising to show you, but they neglect to feed you propaganda telling you how Virtuous they are.
And you walk away from that with no knowledge at all about who sells your data, even though everybody told you. All you remember is who is Virtuous, but even then you don't really remember why you think so. You just presume it must be a good reason, since they're so Virtuous!
They're not smart enough to comprehend what "nerd" even means in the phrase "news for nerds." That's why they're pissing it away and chasing off the demographic that made it a valuable property.
Sad, really. It isn't actually that hard to hide the clickbait next to actual content. They'd only need to hire a single fucking nerd, and have them screen the stories and send the obvious crap like this back for some wordsmithing that actually targets the audience.
I don't think the free Mountain Dew in the breakroom is helping any, either. Nor does the Free Pizza Fridays.
I've spent some time in the Portland area, including near the Intel campus, and I have to say that if the team is entirely made up of H1B recipients then you'll get like, 3 times as many team members per metric ton compared to using domestic neckbeards.
Europe is much fonder of MS than Google these days, who knows why. Also, MS is more willing to stand up to governments and fight these things. Ultimately this is not about Getty at all, it is about the willingness of Google to do anything, internationally, when demanded by a local government.
I'm not even in Europe, why did my features change? Because google doesn't care if governments use them to harm me. They just don't care.
Try reading it another 20 or 30 times, but actually read the words instead of skimming them. Were you one of those people who took a "speed reading" class and lost 15 IQ points, permanently? Because you'd no longer be capable of reading directions and following them carefully?
The "misunderstanding" is to just presume that bro-whatever is literate. He can read, but he's aliterate. He knows how, but won't do it. So you think there is a misunderstanding, but really he just has no idea what the conversation is and even after using the internet for years, he still doesn't understand that the context menu "view image" only shows the preview, and the google feature linked not to the preview but to the full size original. And, that they cache those links and even after the page that links to it goes away, the link to the original images are usually still valid even after the "page" that included the links has changed.
There isn't really much to "understand," so much as, he'd have to stop knowing he's right long to actually read a paragraph to find out how it works. Never going to happen. Give him ten more years, he still won't know how to internet.
You are wrong you fucking moron. And somebody already corrected you, but you don't understand how the computers work so you didn't comprehend it.
Yes, once in awhile the image is so small that the preview was actually the original. But usually not. Fucking duh.
The feature they removed would never have even existed if what you said worked the way you think it does.
Be wrong before being corrected, it is the best you can do. But please stop continuing to be wrong even after your betters have corrected you. Yes, anonymous coward is your better. That's how stupid you were here.
Well, when people already consider basic human decency in public language to be "political" there might not be any hope at all about having a rational discussion. You can already predict from the first time they use the phrase "politically correct" that they'll be upset not only about fostering diversity, but about any other response to real-world horribles that contain -ists or -isms.
If that were true, it would be entirely unnecessary to have a huge government apparatus trying to enforce it
Good news! The program that "told" you about that gubermint apparatus wasn't news, it was newsvertainment, that's fictional reports on the same topic as the days news. For entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't be the first idiot to think his ideas were original, that's for sure!
Naw, I'm filing this under "drunk teenager yells at cloud."
Innovation is just a buzzword. None of your thoughts were "new." Like any other second-hand items you come to possess, they may be "new to you," but they're not actually new.
If it is that easy to copy you, it might not have even been "hard" work.
If you can't compete with somebody new who literally just saw what you were doing and roughly copied your motions, it might not have even been "work."
No, that's not even true.
Court rulings aren't the sort of blah-blah you posted. You weren't mis-remembering anything other than whatever blather your friends spew about the subject. Not the same thing as having looked it up, and then decided to talk about it. Maybe in the future you could preface these types of wild guesses with something like, "Some guy at the bar told me..." instead of just saying it cold as if it is knowledge you have.
You looked up something as obscure and irrelevant as "As-Easy-As," but you didn't bother to look up Apple vs Microsoft to find out if the guy at the bar was even correct before repeating it. The court didn't say MS already had a license, the court said mainly, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]..."
Ideas can be copied. It is allowed.
If not being a "sustainable business" or not actually being all that new makes ideas "suck," then my advice is to expand your personal value system.
The idea that a lack of "true" originality means that art sucks is a failing of the philosophy that things have to be "original" to have value, it is not any sort of failing in the art. That should be totally obvious by simply looking at which claim was found to be wrong; the claim about art having value, or the claim about originality being a prerequisite. If we know that art has had value in the past, and then we find out that none of it was new, that tells us about our system of value and verifies that it is not based on newness. It does not imply in any way that the art never had value.
If you cling to a philosophy even after its own claimed causal relationships are disproven, expect it to fail as a basis for a business strategy.
Nobody cares if you were first, or only copied yourself.
In that situation it is actually very very hard to hold as many idle connections as you could create. Even if you build a custom linux kernel to handle that many, it won't be reliable. Intermediate routers will also turn out to have per-host cache tables, and they'll start silently dropping your connections if you have that many.
In reality I can just look at my logs and see the pattern; each IP only does a few tries per minute, and usually appears to be part of a cluster of IPs that schedule attempts together.
Excess attempts get the IP firewalled rather quickly using a wide variety of automated tools. Rather few of the attackers actually get IP-banned this way, though. Check that log, too! Instead, they try to stay just under the limits. In the past that was different. ~2000 it was more normal to see a big blast from a single IP until it got banned, and then a rotation to a new IP. Black hats take better care of their zombies these days.
only thing that matters is total dollar amount. not percentage.
Dude, I'm high as fuck too but that's the stupidest thing you said all week.
If you really want to look under that rock, the spoiler is that it comes down to definitions of words like "is" and "in," there is not really much dispute about the facts. It just depends who you ask if listing the money on one ledger or another changes where it was really "made."
All of Apple's defenses are blatant lies to people who focus on the physical transactions rather than the creative theories that involve profits actually being "made" literally on the ledger itself, as if a company is paid merely to record its profits. But lawyers will disagree with various parts of that, depending which lawyers they are.
leave Leave Britney Alone alone, WTF is wrong with you?
Bingo, Boingo, Bongo!
Did you actually read that privacy policy there, Jr?
You're presented with two companies. One tells you in writing that they sell your data, but feed you advertising telling you that they're very very Virtuous when it comes to handling your data. The other tells you that they don't sell your data at all, they only use it themselves to decide which advertising to show you, but they neglect to feed you propaganda telling you how Virtuous they are.
And you walk away from that with no knowledge at all about who sells your data, even though everybody told you. All you remember is who is Virtuous, but even then you don't really remember why you think so. You just presume it must be a good reason, since they're so Virtuous!
They're not smart enough to comprehend what "nerd" even means in the phrase "news for nerds." That's why they're pissing it away and chasing off the demographic that made it a valuable property.
Sad, really. It isn't actually that hard to hide the clickbait next to actual content. They'd only need to hire a single fucking nerd, and have them screen the stories and send the obvious crap like this back for some wordsmithing that actually targets the audience.
Sure, trim the neckbeard back a bit and call it a "chimp," nobody will notice.
Also, I think that rabbit was an ewok yesterday, so be careful.
Max Headroom was certainly a great movie. But that TV show they made of it really sucked bad.
It was the only show on TV when I was a child where I would watch the awesome intro, and then change the channel when the show started.
That's only even one small team!
I don't think the free Mountain Dew in the breakroom is helping any, either. Nor does the Free Pizza Fridays.
I've spent some time in the Portland area, including near the Intel campus, and I have to say that if the team is entirely made up of H1B recipients then you'll get like, 3 times as many team members per metric ton compared to using domestic neckbeards.
If it had been discovered by a third party and the company had to be forced to do anything about it, then you'd have a point.
But the company discovered it themselves, and chose to not only correct it but also notify affected customers.
This story increases confidence in the test results given out by Kobe Steel, it doesn't decrease it. Which company are you posting for, anyways? lol
Please note that is sometimes true, but often not. As stated it is simply false.
Europe is much fonder of MS than Google these days, who knows why. Also, MS is more willing to stand up to governments and fight these things. Ultimately this is not about Getty at all, it is about the willingness of Google to do anything, internationally, when demanded by a local government.
I'm not even in Europe, why did my features change? Because google doesn't care if governments use them to harm me. They just don't care.
Try reading it another 20 or 30 times, but actually read the words instead of skimming them. Were you one of those people who took a "speed reading" class and lost 15 IQ points, permanently? Because you'd no longer be capable of reading directions and following them carefully?
The "misunderstanding" is to just presume that bro-whatever is literate. He can read, but he's aliterate. He knows how, but won't do it. So you think there is a misunderstanding, but really he just has no idea what the conversation is and even after using the internet for years, he still doesn't understand that the context menu "view image" only shows the preview, and the google feature linked not to the preview but to the full size original. And, that they cache those links and even after the page that links to it goes away, the link to the original images are usually still valid even after the "page" that included the links has changed.
There isn't really much to "understand," so much as, he'd have to stop knowing he's right long to actually read a paragraph to find out how it works. Never going to happen. Give him ten more years, he still won't know how to internet.
You are wrong you fucking moron. And somebody already corrected you, but you don't understand how the computers work so you didn't comprehend it.
Yes, once in awhile the image is so small that the preview was actually the original. But usually not. Fucking duh.
The feature they removed would never have even existed if what you said worked the way you think it does.
Be wrong before being corrected, it is the best you can do. But please stop continuing to be wrong even after your betters have corrected you. Yes, anonymous coward is your better. That's how stupid you were here.
Well, when people already consider basic human decency in public language to be "political" there might not be any hope at all about having a rational discussion. You can already predict from the first time they use the phrase "politically correct" that they'll be upset not only about fostering diversity, but about any other response to real-world horribles that contain -ists or -isms.
Because ethics in gaming, or some shit.
Jobs aren't about whatever you want them to be about. They're about profit. For the employer.
If you knew that, you wouldn't have even had to be leaning over the cesspit, you might not even have fallen in!
There are huge profits to be made from diversity.
If that were true, it would be entirely unnecessary to have a huge government apparatus trying to enforce it
Good news! The program that "told" you about that gubermint apparatus wasn't news, it was newsvertainment , that's fictional reports on the same topic as the days news. For entertainment.
No such apparatus even exists.