And that is great and all, but also at point, how do you prove you were passed up on a job because of this without a company coming straight out and telling you the reason? There is no law that says a company needs to tell you why you were not chosen for a position. Your resume may simply be tossed into the "do not trust due to lies" pile automatically by the automated compute checking system that performed the check of the information in the resume with the information in the automated background checks, and you would simply be filtered out without even having an interview.

THAT is the point that this lawsuit is trying to bring to the forefront. This kind of data IS being used by many places for finding potential employees, new clients/consumers, loans, and many other use cases. Things that you write in your resume are being cross-checked against other sources and if things don't match, well, lets just say your word then becomes suspect, which is not a good position to be in when trying to get a job.

Or as is very likely the case, a company passes up on hiring him for something like a basic data entry position because he is "over qualified" for the position and will be more likely to ask for raises or leave the company once he finds another position more at his level, making the company start the hiring process all over again (which costs the company money).

Oh, come on, we all know that you need to get ice cold milk to touch the Captain Crunch nuggets right as they hit to spoon and go into the mouth, or more ideally have both enter the mouth at the same time from separate sources, such as they mix perfectly at that time.

Its a homebrew cart with the video and images hardcoded into the chip. There is no networking being done with the video streaming. One of the videos even leaks that when the one developer says something to the effect of "In all its 2 bit glory, as that is all that would fit in 512k".

In my experience, there are always candidates out there that can fill the position. The problem is that you and/or your company doesn't want to do what it takes to get such a candidate. That may mean paying relocation costs for someone to move, signing bonuses, or (god forbid) raise the salary. Its pretty clear that the market is tight in your area. That simply means you need to pay more than the company next door...

DO NOT DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION TO ANYONE ELSE!!!! I can't state that enough. Also, DO NOT ACCESS IT EVER AGAIN!!!!!! I also can't state that enough either. Any subsequent accesses/"breach" of their security will be blamed on you, and used as evidence that you sent others the information, since you were the only one who knew. Anything anyone else does will be painted as you working in conjunction with a "group of hackers" in an attempt to defraud others, or even possibly extort the company in some way. Any continued access attempts on your part will be used to show that it wasn't a onetime mistake that let you uncover the issue, and that you continued to "hack" the site over a period of time.

Well as others have already stated, you already made the rookie mistake of trying to report the issue and gave them your name and contact information. Now you are on the record as having breached their "security", even as pathetic as it is. When big money is possibly involved (as it would be in the case that financial information of hundreds/thousands of people are involved), you just became the "scapegoat". They will now use you as "hacking" them to attempt to make claims on their insurance to cover the cost of fixing the problem. That also means they will need to report to law enforcement, etc., to have the case brought forward.

You have a shit calibrated monitor/display. The reason why most people see white+gold is because the majority of monitors have crappy color calibration, lumen balance, contrast, and white/black levels, especially "out of the box". My monitors are calibrated at the factory and come with custom color map for each monitor from the factory, so that they have less than 0.1dE2000 from sRGB.

This is why your iPhone 5 or 6 shows the image and it looked black+blue (they have "decent" color calibration of under 2.5dE2000, but that still is not even close to the 0.1dE2000 of a really good monitor), and most probably is still pushing way to many lumens for environment, which washes out the image (making it look white+gold).

Pretty much is what you are looking for.

One year vaper, previously 20 year smoker. I've had the medical labs done to show how much damage was undone in just one year.

At 41, I can run farther and faster, keep up with young folk better than most of my non-smoker friends of the same age. 3 years ago this was not the case.

Your solution is a good one, however, you need a computer "literacy" test first before implementing something like mandatory classes.

One of the prevailing theories on why boys dominate the field is due to the fact that they have had more exposure on their own time (in essence have done "self study" work in the field). When schools finally begin offering classes in computers, it is typically 6th grade and later. At which point, many students who have been exploring the field on their own know significant more advanced skills than ones who are only just being introduced to it for the first time. And in schools that teach for the "majority" of students, they will skip past a lot of the more "basic" things because it is below the average skill set of the majority of the students in the course, with the students who don't have the basics down getting lost and as a result discouraged from the field. The converse is also a problem when the schools try to teach to the students with the lowest skill sets in the course. The ones who know it already get bored, complain, and ridicule the students who don't know how to do it so they can speed up the classwork to get to things that meet their skill level.

The real solution is something that school officials and state legislatures will be likely to want to do. If they truly want to have more equality in computers, they need to start having computer classes in kindergarden/1st grade, with individualized progression for the students (i.e. be able to "test out" of any material being taught). Initial costs to setup a system like this would be expensive, but long-term may be relatively in-expensive. The only way for this to really work would be for a mostly automated coursework up and through programming theory, and object oriented design. Everything being most entirely based on the foundation of "online learning" principals, but on a more individual pacing. Grading would not really happen at all for the majority of the work, simply skill progression in passing and completing projects, modules, and practical exams (i.e. very little memorization of definitions, vocabulary, etc., but actual real world useful skill tests such as being able to create a proper formatted paper/document, creating spreadsheets, setting up and using the computer, basic debugging of computer problems, creating a basic program with input and output, etc., etc...). And because it is all self paced, the students don't become discouraged with both themselves or at the other students who "are slowing them down". But school systems would hate something like this because there is no scoring.

Someone missed a key option for the poll. With all the science deniers out there (evolution, climate change, etc.,), how in the world do you not believe there will be people that would deny this as well.

I think you are reading more into the small print than actually exists.

They state this because you OBVIOUSLY won't have touch interface on non-touch devices, and thus any/all touch features available in the OS will not work on that device (that is just a single example of features that will vary, large screen UI won't make sense to use on a 4 inch smart phone, phone capabilities won't work on a desktop with no phone number, picture taking won't work on a device without a camera, etc., etc., etc., the list goes on and on).

This is explained. They exclude upgrading Enterprise editions of the software. Those editions were purchased typically as site licenses for businesses, and are excluded. You need to arrange new site license agreements (or maintain your existing ones) in order to upgrade your windows licenses (in which you will be covered by your site licenses, and not the free upgrade license anyway).

This has been a problem for a long time on not just the Macbook Pro, but plenty of other laptops that used a few specific CPU/GPU sockets in their designs along with in-adequate heatsinks/fans for the thermal load. Those sockets should never have been used for those designs due to the temperature points of molten solder on a part that is specifically designed to be mobile (and thus subject to falls, movement, and other torques when the system may still be hot, especially moments after a shutdown or sleep when they are closed up and placed in a bag/backpack and slung over the shoulder).

Actually, they are simply continuing to prove the point that current security technology has gaping holes in it. And that until there is a MAJOR rework of system, software, and site security, these holes will continue to exist and continue to be exploited. The real bad guys would have simply kept, sold, or used the information themselves and no one would have really known until the credit cards were used to fill cars full of gas, or purchased gift cards which were emptied to accounts which were transferred, etc., etc., and by the time anyone could do anything the money would be out of the systems (no longer electronic) and the people gone.

Until passwords are not typed by people on keyboards, moved through accessible memory on client systems or servers, two factor confirmations, one time use payment numbers, etc., are all in place, these hacks will occur. Fundamental level changes need to occur to fix these things (including hardware interrupt handling, memory segmentation and randomization, whitelisted program execution/startup, passwords/credit card numbers with timebased key tokens required, etc...). Problem is, it will cost a lot of money to change many of these, including hardware changes. Even if the technology was available today that fixed all these things (and you couldn't buy a computer without these changes), we would still have vulnerable systems out there for 20 years or more while industry and consumers replace their hardware.