For computers that are on the network could they remote in to the computer they're searching and set it playing a full-screen video of flashing lights with "Call IT you've won a prize!" in neon text??
Won't work for headless computers.
May cause harm in a scientific paper should mean they found evidence of harm but not at a sufficient level to say it was certainly from eating placenta. It should mean that they believe that further study will show there is definite harm. Instead it appears that they just made it up - they should then say "we propose a hypothesis for later testing that placentaphagy causes measurable detriments to health".
Perhaps he wanted to give the kid enough rope to hang himself. Change the password and lock the kid out, or keep it and have the kid incriminate himself and get punished
Until very recently the trademark search from the UK government had office hours, it was turned off on weekends
The reason behind it was to stop companies (e.g. amazon, apple and google) setting up shop in the lowest tax countries in the EU (luxembourg and ireland), and thus by only charging a low rate of VAT when exporting to the rest of the EU. This enables them to beat smaller domestic companies on final price, pay less tax overall, and funnels what little tax is collected into these tax havens. So the bigger EU countries were seeing a hefty fall in their direct VAT receipts, and loss of business from domestic companies to these giants that can relocate where they like, thus employment costs and indirect tax losses.
Fixing it by harmonizing VAT rates would require treaty changes and be politically hard to hand one of the big financial levers to the european central bank, especially given not all countries are in the eurozone - imagine the US forcing all state sales taxes to the same rate, set by the fed, and you get the idea.
Thus making companies pay VAT in the buyer's country, not the seller's. What they should have done though is put in a threshold, so companies/sole traders below a certain size were exempt, but that was opposed by some so it was dropped, and well, here we are where a mechanism intended to help small traders against the multinationals is a lot easier for the big boys to follow, particularly the requirements to keep id information about buyer location. Once they roll it out for physical goods too, it's going to be such a cluster f**k.
Hopefully though, the rise of MOSS compliant payment processors should make the system easier to follow - you just put a disclaimer up that final price will be based on the buyers VAT rate, and let the payment processor calculate the right rate and store the records.
Doesn't BBT say that men working in STEM are actually just dumb kids but women working in STEM are intelligent, rich, well respected and never put a foot wrong? Bernadette and Amy never seem to make goofs or mope around like little kids but the men are so brainless they can't even fix themselves a meal or plan a vacation, it seems. Indeed the most brilliant can't just be an amazing scientist but has to be mentally deficient. Even the supposed "dumb blonde", Penny, merely has to look at the men and she has the idiots eating out of her hand.
Now that stereotype of men in STEM maybe has a lot going for it, but holding up BBT as supporting men as cherished scientific role models seems pretty far off the mark.
Link to the videos?
>To expect someone to make lame dick and c*nt jokes in source code?
Yeah, who'd expect to find something that doesn't meet with their own standards of decency on the internet of all places
>*most people like to get through their workday without having to deal with a bunch of skeevy guys who believe wagging their dicks all over is the height of sophisticated masculine behavior.*
Most [Western] countries have laws that make exposing your genitals to anyone at work, out of context, unlawful. In other countries you'd probably just be laughed at and fired. Both reasonable responses IMO.
In your own time however, most democratic countries will preserve your right to dance around and wave your genitals in private with like minded individuals no matter who thinks you're immature or "skeevy" [is that like slimy?].
Certain groups of men, and women, have different mores. What gives you the right to set the public standard of behaviour for everyone?
Can I maybe suggest that either you don't contribute to this project then or if you choose to that you don't put it on your CV?
There, problem solved.
Some people don't care what other people's definition of "professional" is.
>*the idea of a software repository, and open source projects, is that anyone can contribute*
So because of this one project suddenly the whole repo is unusable or the whole idea of OSS is untenable?? Like because one guy flicked a booger in a restaurant now no one in the world can eat at a restaurant - the whole concept of restaurants is tainted and all chefs must commit seppuku?
On a wider view it could well be argued that you're simply trying to deny something inherent to the character of many males. Personally I'm not in to jokes about genitalia, and toilet humour but it seems pretty widespread amongst men and not entirely uncommon amongst women. So do we stop men being men?
Does this mean that women in majority female employment have to stop discussing soap operas and fashion - stereotypically female mores. If not why not, many men find them toxic and unhelpful and that a pre-occupation with such things excludes them.
I choose making strict - democratically agreed - boundaries within working environments, assessing work on the merit of the work, and leaving people who want to make adolescent jokes to do so as they please so long as they don't do it during work and it doesn't affect their performance.
In defence of Latin you can probably read it on monuments, tombs, and in old buildings in every major city in Europe; it provides loan words and base words for most European languages; it's useful for lawyers and historians at least; you can look intelligent by making quotes in Latin.
I think it would increasingly create problems with EU legislation not to have USB port on telephone
Well, sort of. The goal was to get rid of the umpteen different standards for phone chargers, so you wouldn't end with all the obsolete ones going to landfill or polluting recyclers - the goal being able to change any mobile phone with any charger; and have that roll over onto other small devices via halo effect, though current requirements mean tablets et al aren't actually part of the standard per se.
They do have to provide microusb as an option for phone chargers, as the vast majority of devices currently use that. If the device the changer comes with has microusb, they can provide a hard-wired microusb charger. Alternatively, and this is what pretty much everyone does, they can provide a charger with a USB-A female socket, and a standard A -> microusb cable. Either is called a common External Power Supply.
If the device uses an alternative standard, i.e. lightning or type-c, then they still need to ship a common EPS, and make available an adapter for use with microUSB. The usual method of course, and the one apple follows, is to ship a power supply with a USB-A plug, and the USB-lightning adapter. Once phones turn up with type-c connectors (if they haven't already?) in the EU, they will likely do the same. As long as they ALSO make available (it doesn't have to be 'in box') an adapter for the device to use hard-wired microUSB adapters, then they're complying.
So now, any microUSB device can be charged from any mobile phone charger, including apple (though obviously not necessarily at max speed). Any non microUSB device can also be charged from other makers chargers, either by using a type A -> lightning/type C cable, or a microUSB adapter on the phone itself if the charger is the rare hard-wired type.
Long term, the regulations will no doubt be updated once microUSB devices go on the wane, and type-c provision will become the norm. But since almost all chargers use the USB A option, swapping out the cable is simple without needing to replace -and bin - the entire charger.
>He never actually said he wanted to ban encrpytion. That was the tech media taking some vague statements and running with it.
>He said that he wanted to make sure that the security services could read any communication.
So he doesn't want to ban encryption only useful, working encryption? Not sure that really changes anything.
Logically your alternative doesn't work - if I die and the password dies with me then SS can't read the communication. Even just making it a crime not to assist with decryption doesn't make the SS able to read communications. It can't be done without breaking privacy - it's an either-or; either we have private communications or SS can read any communications they wish (ie all communication's privacy can be compromised).
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
