H-1Bs are like gold to any company because morale is not an issue, they can be paid scraps, and payroll taxes don't apply to them.
Is that true? I admit I know very little about this, but I thought they largely had to pay the same tax as anyone else. Certainly that's what I understood from here - do you have a link that explains more clearly?
Comments don't help as much as people think they do. Unless you know the coder, comments cannot be trusted and you will normally need to go by what the code says far more than what the comments say.
Sure, you can't 100% trust comments, but that doesn't mean they're not useful. For cases like your "save starts here" example, even if there's a chance the comment is wrong, it provides a good place to start looking - if the comment turns out to be wrong, sure, I'll have to search the whole file, but without comments I'll always have to do so...
You may want to do a little research on "Passive HookSwitch Bypass Methods". Most require modifications to the phone itself, but not all, that is some of these methods can be accomplished between the phone and outside service line.
If you can modify the phone, it's easy, granted. If you can intercept the line between the phone and the outside line, then with the right design of telephhone there's a possibility you might get something audible. But the claim was that the sound is always relayed all the way to the CO; picking up such a tiny signal at that distance (over all the noise picked up along the way) seems implausible to me.
When the phone is on-hook a minor current is still flowing through it. This is enough for sensitive equipment to pick up the background sound in the room, and this mode of monitoring has actually been used in US court cases, as well as US intelligence gathering operations. It only works with old-school analog phones though.
Whether there's any current flowing at all will depend on the exact design of the telephone, of course (there wouldn't be any at all in the one I looked at). However, I'm sceptical that any sound could be reliably picked up at the CO: the magnitude of the signal current would likely be dwarfed by the level of background noise from interference etc... if this has been claimed in court cases it seems more likely to me that it's a cover story to hide the actual surveillance techniques used (e.g. modifying the phone / installing bugs / etc).
All I need to do is poison DNS pretending to be your pop3 server, then Google will connect to me instead of you.
Most CAs only verify that you have control of a domain before issuing a certificate (eg by sending an email to something@youdomain.com and asking you to prove you've received it). So if you have control over DNS like that, getting a certificate is (alas) not very hard - and there are free CA services out there. I'm not yet convinced that spam is a big motivation for this change...
I'm guessing you never disassembled one to see how it actually worked. I did. Go ahead and find an exemplar and give it a go.
I have done so, and what you say makes no sense. The old carbon microphones require a current flowing through them in order to produce any signal, and that current draw is what signals to the CO that the receiver is off-hook. Therefore the microphone has to be disconnected from the line when the phone is on-hook (or else the CO would see the phone as permanently off-hook) and that is indeed the case in actual phones.
Indeed. Or the 2nd of November
Not in Europe, that's the point - over here the convention is to put the day before the month when writing the day in figures.
Spamtrap accounts don't reply to confirmation emails or click on confirmation links - ever. That's the whole point of them. Even if you're a malicious troll who got a list of Hotmail trap accounts from somewhere, how do you get control over them to confirm signup?
The malicious troll doesn't need to confirm signup - only to request it, at which point the list server will send an email to the spamtrap, and boom, your reputation takes a hit. All while you're conforming 100% to best practice.
Look. It's possible that this guy has done everything totally by the book and somehow has just got unlucky that his behaviour happens to closely match that of actual spammers. Or it's possible that we don't have the full story. Having been on the other side of such stories and investigated cases like these, I think "sender is not following standard mail etiquette" is far more likely than some enormous conspiracy theory against him. After all, plenty of bulk mail senders do just fine.
I see what you're saying, but he's not actually having his IP blocked in this case. The blocking is taking place based on the content of the message, specifically whether it mentions certain domains set up as relays. The interesting question (from his point of view and ours) is exactly how those domains become flagged as "spammy". For instance, I'd be interested to know (as others have asked) whether the relays allow traffic on port 25, and whether this is a factor.
If the guy does not want his stuff flagged as spam he should try sending e-mails with the same address people opted in for.
He is doing that - but the mail is being blocked purely because it mentions certain domains in the body of the message.
Since 112 takes place in Europe, we should be remembering the 11th of February.
Indeed. Or the first of December
I was in the ER recently and while waiting around, I got to talk to a nurse who told me that most of the people they see in the ER are just people who could not afford their regular check-up, so they just come to the ER claiming to have a problem.
I think some people have misunderstood your comment - you're talking about the ER in the US, not the UK, right? (For the benefit of others, in the UK people don't have to pay to see their doctor, and the "ER" is called "A&E" (accident & emergency)).
regarding comments about drs fees in UK clogging up ER's most drs are bulk billed ur free under our Medicare system. I thought the NHS was the same?
Bengie's comment was unclear - you're absolutely right, nobody pays to see their doctor in the UK - his point was that in the US people have to pay for their doctor so if they can't afford it they go to the ER instead, which is less efficient...
You just don't understand do you? It's not up to you if it's worth trying or not. It's HER life. She gets to decide if she wants to try leeches to cure her cancer. In a private system, she can seek out and purchase insurance that covers what she wants. In a single payer system you HAVE NO CHOICE.
In fairness you do still have the choice to purchase insurance that will give you additional cover. That's not taken away from you - you just get given a baseline level of care that you don't (directly) pay for.
the only sane person who's an expert with another tool switching to SVN is just in the process of leaving CVS...
Or RCS. Or SCCS. Or PVCS. Or Clearcase. Or (shudder) Visual SourceSafe. There are a lot of tools out there that are more painful than Subversion...
Gender arguably is more relevant but seriously... there is no bias against women participating in free software projects. It's literally a sport open to anyone, with as few barriers as you can imagine. Age, gender, skin color, origin, perhaps the only filter that reduces diversity is the need for reasonably fluent English.
And still, the number of women in our communities is extremely low. That means the detailed technical world of software appeals to fewer women than it does to men.
Are you sure there are no barriers to participation by women? Have you, for example, asked any women who have tried to participate? A quick internet search suggests that those few women who have tried out participation in Open Source projects found that there was a significant element to the experience that wasn't pretty. That is plenty to discourage women from taking part.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
