Re: Bit ridiculous
Maybe it took them a while to believe they might be taken seriously...?
Q: How many members of the Apache identity groups are involved in producing the software "Apache"?
1616 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Yes, but I'm going to ask a question: what nationality/ethnicity are you?
Would you be OK with a product taking on the name of your own identity group even though it contained no workers of the given group?
Who would think it OK for a group of Scots to make "English mustard" in a facility in Scotland? Or for a group of English people living in England to open a farm rearing purported "Scotch beef"?
I would agree, but then again the language is called "Calculus of constructions" and not "Calculus des constructions". If the name is basically English, you really have to consider the other things about Anglophone culture.
Et oui: mon français est superbe ; ainsi j’ai bien sûr le droit de dire ce que je viens d‘écrire.
Thunderf00t may be an irritating blowhard, but he's good with numbers.
Here, he discusses Musk's figures:
Summary: Musk's alleged "costs" seem to be ticket price rather than cost price. Thunderf00t speculates that this is creative accounting aimed at turning it into a massive tax write-down that will be net profit for SpaceX. He also speculates that SpaceX may be in the financial trouble that Musk himself predicted not too long ago...
" References in this Regulation to the processing of personal data for the
purposes of scientific research (including references to processing for
“scientific research purposes”) are references to processing for the purposes of
any research that can reasonably be described as scientific, whether publicly or
privately funded, including processing for the purposes of technological
development or demonstration, fundamental research or applied research. "
I reckon "technological development or demonstration" gives a very broad definition of "scientific research". Like... writing a website on the origami might even qualify.
" References in this Regulation to the processing of personal data for the
purposes of historical research (including references to processing for
“historical research purposes”) include processing for the purposes of
genealogical research. "
So Ancestry.com is now to be considered on a par with the National Archives/...?
Very disappointed myself.
I'd assumed good faith and thought there was going to be something in the article referring to some reason why the outputs of the project were not going to transfer across languages, but... nothing.
Just a lazy joke.
I thought the Reg was better than that.
Pretty sure it's attested in Middle English literature.
I saw the claim once that scribes were paid by the letter at some point in the Middle Ages, and therefore started adding in silent Es and unnecessary double letters. I wasn't convinced, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility...
Was on a training course at a newly-opened college building. We were sat in a computer room when the ceiling turned into a waterfall. Nobody moved until I shouted something like "electricity... water... GET OUT"
Turns out the boiler room was directly above the computer rooms. Rather stupid (and expensive) mistake.
Or look at it a different way -- all we're talking about is the long overdue shift from plain-text procedural code to a hacky version of declarative programming.
The next generation will hopefully move to true declarative programming with AI procedural code generation in the back end.
Well the point of the term "cloud" was always that the internet is the part of the network you can never know the shape of, hence so it was shown on the network diagrams as a cloud symbol.
When cloud computing started to gain traction, I could not understand why so many companies would use unauditable services.
I was in an IT company that refused to offer cloud services because we insisted our client do due diligence. Vindication came in the form of companies being sued for data loss and being found negligent for failing to do due diligence.
Then the industry decided that maybe cloud computing was bad and just went back to hosted datacentres... but we now called them "clouds".
My spin on that is that the existence of the likes of PanWriter in the form it's in is a failure in software development as a whole. (And therefore not any reflection on or misunderstanding of what you wrote!)
Why isn't it now a straightforward matter to take a full-fat code editor and rebuild it with a few clicks to do only a single one of the million and one tasks it does, and with that, all the now-unnecessary chrome?
I find it baffling how we still struggle with the basics of software development.
...and I would further point out that what he's asking for isn't outside of Google's current technological capabilities: they've implemented right-to-be-forgotten for GDPR compliance, and they could (if they chose to) provide those same mechanisms to people outside of EU jurisdiction.
That's the angle I'd've been pushing if it was me: Google can take reasonable steps to mitigate harm, so they should take steps to mitigate harm. The fact that they implemented that for another jurisdiction is by-the-bye -- once the infrastructure exists, it's arguably a reasonable step.
" I make a point of using words, speech and Emojis that align with 'my' interpretation of what they mean. As an English speaker, it's not my job or place to try to translate, or consider every possible permutation of how a given utterance could potentially be interpreted by a non-English speaker,"
If you don't want to adapt your English, then maybe you should learn their language yourself...?
Really I don't get why virtualisation hasn't already solved this problem. It's always been possible to remote host niche apps and give users really basic workstations... or even dumb terminals.
Then you can reserve the lion's share of your silicon for the CAD users, rather than leaving most of your potential CPU cycles idle on the desk of desk jockeys who use Word, Excel and a browser...
It's more than a little out of date -- about 15 years ago there was still a lot of software that worked this way, but practically nothing off the shelf needs admin rights now, and the problem is usually bespoke software.
Either way -- any business that still has software that needs admin rights to use is going to be something that IT have already tried to get the business to replace, and have failed. It'll be that same software that would wreck a Linux migration.
Perhaps, but it doesn't break once a year, and their time limit here is 12 months.
It was, but they seem to have found that the Chromebook needs the perception of being a "real computer" to overcome perceptions of it being a "clumsy tablet with keyboard".
They'll be hoping that the path of least resistance sees customers sticking with Google-run services and that the Linux subsystem is hardly touched, much like how parents in the 80s and 90s bought computers because they could be used for educational purposes, but all us kids ever did was play games....
The article mentions a previous sacking as a potential red flag. If they would not have employed him had they followed the process that they should have, then the murder would not have happened had they followed the process that they should have, and is therefore a(n unforeseen) consequence of the negligence.
Compensation based on outcome is one thing, but we're also talking about punitive damages here, not only compensation, and in the case of drunk-driving, it's 100% a matter of punishment and not compensation.
We can be a bit inconsistent on that, and I'm not yet convinced that punishment based on outcome works -- if a particular form of negligence is something you learn you can get away with, the maximum penalty in the event of the worst possible outcome is not really going to constitute much of a disincentive...
We as a society have made a decision.
In acts of negligence, punishment is related to the consequences arising from the negligence, not the potential consequences nor the reasonably foreseeable consequences.
This is why the penalty for hitting a child while drunk-driving is higher than if you are caught drunk-driving without being in an accident.
In this case, the company were demonstrably negligent, and the consequences of that negligence were extreme. They got in the car drunk, as it were.