If something's common, we can rule it out as something in proof-of-concept hell.
It could not be what the article is talking about.
638 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
The term, "corporate network", used to mean a portion of the corporate network that doesn't include distribution, together with the "weak passwords" comment, makes me think it's only fancy offices that were affected.
Full of business types who see network security strictly as a revenue stream.
Such a situation wouldn't surprise me enough even to be disillusioned.
The software did not do good hair.
He was hired specifically for his ability to do good hair.
Presentations were fictionalized against the belief that he would make the software do good hair.
He did not make the software do good hair.
He tried to take a work laptop out of the building after he was fired.
I like how Trump is excluded the the collection of other billionaires.
He alone, of all the billionaires, is good and true, I guess. Maybe because of his even temperament? His fair treatment of workers? His wise choices of cabinet members?
Maybe such blind regard is worthwhile because he stands by his sycophants, and never, ever, throws them to the wolves once they're no longer useful to him.
In the olden days, a TV or radio network would take some responsibility for its ad content.
On the Internet, site administrators wash their hands of every side-effect of the ad networks they decide to use. That, more than anything else, drives the use of ad blockers for me.
If site owners can't be bothered to vet the ads they display, I don't see why I should do it for them.
The word vectors revealed social constructs. These constructs affect every part of life. We hardly even notice them until we travel, and discover that they're different elsewhere.
It sounds like the first uses of AI are really more about identifying and reflecting social cues. That's a valuable use. It's not the use we were looking for, but that's progress for you.
That's what it sounds like they're trying to do. "Fluent" at least trivially sounds like "fluid."
It would be a mistake to rely on nothing but design fluidity to address different kinds of behaviors for different form factors. But it doesn't sound like the worst place to start, if you're looking for consistency across devices.
It's not like people materialize in our dimension full of business skills, but without any other life experiences.
If all a company can attract is the reckless and the incompetent, I'd focus the money on fixing the company, and firing the troublemakers. It's unlikely they're doing anybody any good in the first place.
My best guess is that clients resent when there is a problem so intensely, that they gather all their cognitive resources to determine the most effective way to transmit their anger and frustration to the developer.
The obvious solution is to wait until end of day Friday.
Clients who limit themselves to emotions no stronger than simple personal hatred only wait until exactly lunchtime.
The problem with arid landscapes is that they frequently have fragile ecosystems filled with at-risk species. They're not the barren wastelands that they seem to be at first glance, just waiting for the miracle of industrialization to make use of them.
This doesn't mean they're unavailable for solar farming altogether. But ignoring the issue is foolish at best.
I tend not to infer an intent to deceive in a lot of articles with false information.
Instead, I tend to infer laziness on the part of the reporter, indifference on the part of the editor, and a staunch refusal on the part of the public to actually educate themselves on topics they purport to care about.
Which is to say, I fault adults for not behaving as adults.
My guess is that they've been preparing for bankruptcy, but hoping against hope that somehow they wouldn't have to.
I'm guessing they are admitting that their hope was unrealistic, that they knew or should have known that it was unrealistic, and are apologising for not just laying everything out on the table right away.
I'm confused by the gender politics.
I'm curious about the new crisps, but I'm not a woman.
Should I not be, because I'm a man? Exactly what is the uniqueness that women have, that I do not share, that would guide them to choose one snack food over another?
It's likely that my view is flawed and simplistic, but I don't know how to learn unless I ask. How is this not sexist? I don't get it.
Is there any genuine legal use for cryptocurrency that isn't better served with normal currency? They sure don't take it at the supermarket.
Criminals stealing from criminals doesn't really bother me that much.
Criminals stealing from rich people that can afford to accumulate a startling $20K in useless cryptocurrency against its possible future use doesn't bother me either.
I'm trying to figure out how they managed to get the process so confused.
Surely keeping track of these things would be something an expert in "cognitive computing" would be able to do with its eyes closed.
Either they lack the expertise in information management necessary, or else it wasn't a good-faith offer in the first place.
Over the past year, we in the US have been studying up on Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
It sounds like you've got a textbook example right there. The consequences of her own actions are clearly somebody else's fault. Wait until your neighbors elect her to public office, and then claim her admittedly tepid opponent was "just as bad."
I remember in college somebody printed out a map of UUCP nodes. I was so impressed. If you worked at it, you could send an email all the way across the country with bang notation.
A couple weeks ago, I searched again for the lyrics to some of the cheese songs we posted to net.rec.religion, or some such (I can never remember all the words to "Cheese is Nice, Superstore"). I had found them with such a search last year. Today, they're all gone. Blank results.
I understand the point she was trying to make.
To be clear, we're not talking about a "service animal." We're talking about a pet. An "emotional support" animal is one where the owner has not even bothered to buy a counterfeit "service animal" vest from E-Bay.
These are the terrified dogs in the supermarket with their tails between their legs. These are the Shih-Tzus in purses in restaurants. They're frigging everywhere. And they don't want to be. Their owners are torturing them in the name of "emotional support."
It's disgusting, and the people doing it shouldn't be allowed to own animals.
The test of the ad delivery system will be how Mozilla behaves if there is a dispute about the content of one of its ads. You know, porn, booze, violence, or malware.
Will it own the problem, or will it scratch its head and say, "Gee, we're sorry, but nobody has any real control over this thing?"
They told us this in the 80s.
It's time for career counselors in high schools to once again steer kids away from computing as a career. It's all going to be obsolete Real Soon Now.
Unless, as before, it turns out that the general public is just too staggeringly lazy to bother.
Ah, everybody has his use case. LibreOffice suits me for all my document needs.
However, I need to open UI concepts from artists, and those come as Photoshop files.
I generally prefer to keep the layers and effects. That way I can extract the elements that I want, how I want.
GIMP can import simple layers, but can't do effects, and is iffy at importing masks.
That leaves WINE and Photoshop 5. I tend to bitch and moan and complain that I can't run anything newer with any reliability, but I also haven't had much trouble opening files created with newer Photoshops. So, you know, not a heartbreaker.
It will cost him $100,000 to start if he wants to defend against the lawsuit. A huge laundry list like this, call it $200,000.
And a jury can find him partially guilty. Say they find him 95% innocent. That's $300,000 on top of everything else.
So in the above scenario, he's $500,000 out of pocket. For a lawsuit which the newspapers would report as a win.
There's no meritocracy to go "back" to.
We believed the job market was a meritocracy because they told us it was. We believed them. We got jobs. We assumed it was because we had merit.
The presumption was flawed.
Naturally, that produces fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This is sometimes expressed as racism or sexism, but what it really is, is existential panic.
My car is probably what my great-grandfather might have considered an AI.
I'm not certain I know what the new AI is, when it will happen, and what the world will look like just before, and then forever after.
I could freak out, but there's a new actor playing Dr. Who in the fall, and they picked up The Orville for a second season. First I've got to see those. I'll kill myself after.
I know, right? It all seems more like philosophy than physics.
Scientists seem to like to refer to space with words we usually use to describe liquid. Matter is furiously spinning, tiny little whirlpools of -- something. Something that is, and also is not nothing. Except it's not those 2 1/2 dimensional whirlpools you get in water. They're 3 1/2 dimensional whirlpools. Something you can't actually imagine, but you can do math with.
Get enough of those whirlpools, and you get a big whirlpool. And those big whirlpools stuck stuff in. Except there's no stuff, just the liquid. Which isn't a liquid. Since all stuff is just whirlpools, the stuff it sucks in is other whirlpools. Crash a couple really, really, big whirlpools together, and you get a shock wave that travels out through the nothingness that isn't nothingness, nor is it a liquid.
It's just one holy psychedelic fever dream.
Does this mean that corporations resist due process, does it mean they're requesting due process, or does it just mean that they simply can't do what the government wishes it could, under the table, for free?
I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US, our congresspeople are so rich, they may as well be a different species. Their thoughts and motivations are alien and opaque. They use words in completely new ways, which at first seem to make sense, but fall apart with the barest investigation. At first it might seem that they're idiots, but you don't gain and keep power by being stupid.
My best guess, under the circumstances, is that when they say "expensive," they don't mean they don't have the money to pay for something. It just means they don't feel like it.
I have little expertise in anything apart from technology. I have to assume that technology reporting is indicative of the accuracy of the rest of a publication's reporting.
I'd have thought that the "fake news" meme being spewed by The Incarnation Of Satan On Earth would have stung more publications into being more precise.
I do wonder if mechanics have to deal with people who not only don't realize that tires have to be kept inflated, oil changed, fuel tank full, and so on, but who also feel insulted should anyone suggest that they learn these things about their own car.
I can handle the ignorance. It's the astounding sense of entitlement that sets my teeth on edge.
The links in the story have all gone dead, but it's still a fun article, and apropos:
Just because someone says a crime has been committed doesn't mean a crime has been committed. Even if -- perhaps especially if -- the alleged crime is especially horrible. And especially if there is social capital to be gained by the accusation.
I don't want to be known as being soft on witchcraft. But if Mary Proctor is alleged to be sending her spirit out in the form of a yellow bird, and only Abigail can see it, it's Abigail that I prefer to doubt.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021