Stardock sells Start11 and Open-Shell is still free and works with Windows 11

I can take a picture of a property from the street - I'm not sure why taking one from the sky is different enough to successfully put through the courts
 
Well, for one, taking imagery of a place from a public vantage, you aren't trespassing. A certain amount of sky above a property is considered part of that property, of course, to a certain point, which is trespassing. Anything above that, you have to deal with the FAA

... well, there won't be any profit here for slashdot. Profitability fell to - or below - zero a long time ago and won't likely ever return. Eventually someone will shut out the lights for the last time.

But of course since Reddit fills in for slashdot for a lot of tech people, here on slashdot we must celebrate when Reddit falters. Because of course bad news for the competition can only be good news for this site, right?

Yes I know I'll be down modded into oblivion on this one, if anyone with mod points is even reading this thread to look for something like this. Go ahead, I can take it. Don't bother trying to convince anyone that I'm somehow not right on this though.

The entire process could be done on a single server
 
Pretty clear you don't even know how bitcoin works... so why are you getting so mad?

Being curious isn't illegal. If this even makes it in front of a judge, there isn't a hope in hell that this isn't deemed an unconstitutional search

This would be ripe for killing your political opponents among other things. You are either trolling or braindead

But the last time I was on the job market I encountered quite a few job postings on other sites - including directly from the sites of employers who were posting them - that the companies already had candidates lined up for. There are some companies who have policies that dictate they must openly post a job, even when they have someone lined up for it. It appears that is as far as those policies tend to go though, as they are free to ignore every single one of those applications and leave the applicants in limbo for as long as they'd like.

I recall one company who posted well over a dozen positions over 2 years that I was very well qualified for (I was not unemployed for more than a few months of those 2 years; I was applying earlier when I was less satisfied with the position I held elsewhere at the time) that had a convenient page that allowed me to track how many positions I had applied for, and what happened with them. Unsurprisingly not one of them ever progressed to anything other than "closed".

In a fun turn of events I have been on their campus multiple times as a contractor for my current employer. Now that company is paying far more for me than they would have if they had hired me.

C# can target and perform on those system and run just fine. It isn't like it's an on-the-fly interpreted language. It compiles through the CIL, then translated to machine code.

Which C++ would that be? The one where it is C with class objects, overloading, and subclassing, or the modern one were auto pointers are used, template are abused as a way to do "generic programming", and exceptions are used for the most mundane "errors" instead of exceptional ones?

Why is there harping on "static analysis tools" as the main mitigation suggestion? Running you code in debug mode is going to catch a lot more runtime faux pas than random offline analyzer tool

Except that they aren't doing full genome sequencing (which is vastly more complicated and vastly more expensive). They are sequencing only specific regions of the genome. It would be similar to comparing the Bible to the Koran based on how many times they use the word "Thou". In the end you'll know they're both books and they're different but you won't know the chapter counts or the year of publication.

Not necessarily, and for more than one reason.

• One, it's a different test (genotyping vs karyotyping)
• Two, chromosomes aren't all that stable against shipping and storage (and hence could be degraded by the time they arrive)

That doesn't apply here though. Sequencing technologies are not biased towards or against particular chromosomes, and the chromosomes are not sorted out before sequencing. The whole sample goes in and primers bind to anything they have affinity to. Sequencing then proceeds regardless of whether it starts on chromosome 4, 16, 21, or some other chromosome entirely - as long as the start and end are on the same chromosome. And if you're looking at variable regions within genes, the likelihood of those starting and ending on the same chromosome is exceptionally high.

CBC Marketplace did such a test nearly a year ago... and yes, they even submitted human DNA as well. Quite a few of the tested companies did detect it as "non dog DNA".

Which may just mean that the other company had included some additional tests to look for "non dog DNA", and this company did not. That's a smart control that this company should have thought of, although depending on the scenario it might only tell you about contamination, not complete substitution.

I have quite a bit of experience in molecular biology, including DNA sequencing. In undergrad I was part of a consortium that sequenced ESTs from a couple different species of trees. After grad school I was part of a multi-discipline multi-omics team that handled DNA and protein sequencing data.

I don't work for any of these dog sequencing company, but I know more about Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) than most people. I've seen more DNA sequencing formats and done more DNA assembly than most people as well. There are only so many ways they can do this type of DNA work at a scale that makes it possible for them to turn a profit at the prices they charge. If they had some completely novel new DNA sequencing technology they'd be selling it to research labs and hospitals, not selling it on the cheap for people to identify the parentage of their pets.

It's pretty easy to tell a human from a dog by a karyotype. It's actually quite a bit more difficult by DNA sequencing, especially the kind of rapid sequencing that is used for this kind of work.

A good analogy are the old statements that "humans are 99% chimp", and similarly "humans are 90% banana". The genetic similarities between very different species are profound. To tell one breed of dog from another - where of course the chromosomes are the same - you need to look at certain highly variable regions of the genome. The problem though is that those same highly variable regions exist in our genome.

So what could they do differently? Well they could add a few more control reactions to their sequencing to try to rule out errant DNA. They were operating under the assumption that people were sending in only dog DNA, and now we see what happens when something else goes in. The real challenge though is what to do if you get a sample that has some of each - which could easily happen if a dog owner with a dirty house collects a dog sample in a cavalier manner and ends up sending in some of their DNA along with the DNA of their dog. It appears the company built their method without a terrible amount of concern for that either.

Theyd be more successful if they cancelled tax debt.
 
Are you seriously trying to sell Trickle Down in 2024?