I wonder if those are good companies to work at. I understand that they probably use it to filter through applicants quickly, but ignoring a person with 20+ years of experience without even giving them the chance of, I don't know, presenting recommendation letters or even practical tests seems silly. Specially since you were already employed.
There is compressing, distorting, and cranking up to 11... and then there is brickwalls (which is the previous, except over 9000).
See, there is nothing wrong with compressing, distorting and cranking your guitar(or some other instrument) up to eleven. It's all right. However, you probably don't want to do that to all tracks. If you do, you are exposing yourself to ending with a dull, flat, boring result (I've heard a few. Sure, there was guitars and drums and stuff.. but it all sounded so dead and flat it sounded bad regardless of what was actually playing).
Now, I do agree that live is (or should be) better than a recording.
A quick listen to a something I found on Xerath resulted in this: I hear clipping (could be from where I found it, or could also be present on the CD). It's also loud, but it's not uncomfortable to listen to. Different instruments feel like distinct, and the audio doesn't sound like an indistinct mass. Which is quite nice. And it doesn't all exactly sound like it's at the same volume all the time.
I think it's the new one:
"During presentations and hands-on demos at Crytek's GDC booth, attendees can see for the first time ever full native Linux support in the new CRYENGINE.
That's what the summary says. I assume it's not that one, but the newest (which would be 4, according to wikipedia).
You want OpenAL for audio.
Well... I suppose I mostly saw that passwords managers as an extension of my brain. Also, because I usually trust the systems I use my passwords managers. Also because I trust from where I got the binary. And because I trust the implementation.
I will consider it, though, in the future. I'm not entirely sure what I'll do to solve the "learn all those randomly generated passwords AND remember exactly which one is for what" issue of having unique, as strong as universally possible passwords for every website (that matters). And no, the horsestaplecorrect is NOT a valid option for me. There are websites that limit password length to 16 characters, and the example above is larger.
The way I see it, storing your password (or really, an authentication key) in a device isn't really replacing passwords — you are just changing where it is located and how it's going to be obtained; using biometrics is basically just reading information from you body to produce a password no different than using mouse swipes as a password no different than touching parts in a picture. Two factor authentication is barely more than a longer password (or really, two passwords) with the biggest different being the method of obtaining/keeping the different parts. Ultimately they rely on the user inputting a piece of information (a password, maybe with a matching identifier/username) that will get compared to stored records and will allow access if there is a positive match."
The thing is, there is the general public definition of hacker (ie a criminal), and then there is the definition of hacker by other people that is something along the lines of: somebody who likes to take things apart, exploring the system's limits; an expert on the field. The later definition includes people like the Elf Lord you mentioned, Abby (from the same show), most security consultants, criminals, etc.
Therefore, his comment is valid for a certain definition of hacker (and most hackers don't reach the news because they are security consultants, or work in IT in a company, or report the issues to the companies who don't go "YOU HACKED INTO MY SYSTEM NEED TO SUE"). And thus: the biggest problem IT people have when communicating with the rest is that neither side really talks the same language. How are we going to communicate effectively and solve issues if we don't really share the same language?
I was not aware of the second rule. Which is broken by all those password manager software, btw.
It's not a bad advice, to be honest, but it also depends on the fact that you are writing (storing) your passwords already.
Seems like a sensible idea, to be honest. At least you could then let them know, (and it should be recorded) that you don't like any of them but voted anyway for the one that seems less bad to you.
Of course, the fact that if nobody buys what you are selling, there isn't much you can do does not mean you should stop trying. Even if it isn't much, something will get through. Somebody will change their mind. Maybe that somebody will be able to reach further than what the
Note: I am not in USA
If it's stated somewhere, sure. There is nothing wrong with it. If you tell people "hey install this if you want to get into our network but we won't tell you what it does" I take issue with it. It's fine to monitor and filter traffic at school. It's NOT fine to do it without letting your students know. It's NOT fine to deny it. Specially because you will find a student that can notice and/or get by it, and you want them on your side, playing by the rules (or not being to obvious about not following them).
Indeed. This is one of those things that should be very clear without any room for error. Either the person tried taking the photo (success irrelevant) and is guilty, or didn't try and is innocent. There shouldn't be a middle ground.
I can't really say the ruling is wrong or bad. Instead, and quoting from TFA, "If the statute as written doesn't protect that privacy, then I'm urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does."
Now, question to slashdotters who are not a lawyer but know the law better than me: wouldn't there be any other way the victims would be able to convict the photographer? Couldn't they claim that amounted to harassment or something? Or... well... anything?
I could give you a few reason it might not work: LAN speeds/latency. If the buildings are next to each other, you probably can get away with opening a few holes and putting some cables. If they don't happen to be next to each other, you're going to have to talk to somebody about it (or perhaps you can get away with a wireless solution, don't know). If you want buildings in completely different places, then you limit one workplace to not have the resource availability from the other (using a rendering farm doesn't seem practical if it's on the other side of the country and you are bandwidth limited by business connections). You will also need to have dedicated tech support on each of the locations (not everything can be solved through the Internet or phones). It also generates more overhead (you will need at least a manager working at the other place, which you might already have if you are big enough, but the manager's boss won't be able to move there quickly if a situation arises).
On the other hand, it could certainly work. I mean, multiple companies already have various offices around the world. I do think that they tend to be independent in terms of what they do.
Do please correct me if I'm wrong, though.
It prepares you for jobs because it's not uncommon you will have to deal with people who don't speak your native language. It's also not uncommon for people to move somewhere else because of a job. In non-english countries, it's in your best interest to teach your students english because a lot of information is available in that language.