No shorts? What about the sandals, socks pulled up, shorts a t shirt and a huge beard? Banning shorts will exclude me and my fellow unix programmers.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Obviously, the various stuff about "Access your files on all your devices!" and "Build into all your Amazon devices!" and whatnot is going to be less useful, so they are clearly expecting most customers to not do that(and implicitly encouraging them not to); but the service itself doesn't appear to have any objections to you dropping encrypted blobs into it.
(Now, what Amazon would do if you were to use something like PNGdrive, to get the advantages of the rather more expensive 'unlimited files' tier using only the 'unlimited photos' tier, I don't know; but I suspect that they would be less happy...)
However at least some former booth babes are models that really can't do things other than look good. Since they would not be good in an informational role, they would not be hired
You specifically stated it was "discriminatory against the good looking"? How is it. Looks are uncorrelated with intelligence. Being a model doesn't make one an idiot. There is no discrimination against the good looking, only rules about suitable clothing.
2) target customers are mostly there blowing their employers' budgets on a half-assed vacation and don't really care about the cost or value, and
I'm coming to the conclusion that that is the primary goal of about 78% of the world's company reps. It also explains why their so keen on taking out potential customers to fancy restaurants. I mean suuuuure it might make a sale, but the rep gets a bang up meal and top notch wine as a perk.
The people are attending because it's a security conference, not because of the presence of booth babes[*]. So people aren't paying to see the booth babes, they're there for the security stuff, and the vendors using the booth babes are taking advantage of people's presence there already. Personally I don't feel this is a bad thing, because it will substantially reduce the mental effort not to behave like a slack jawed idiot.
[*] Though I do have a mental image of a fat, balding, guy in a dusty, tatty brown suit who has managed to persuade his company to pay for him to attend for the last 20 years and spends the entire time ogling the booth babes.
The OS are not creating a new Google Maps-style service of their own but rather are providing their data for use by other third-party apps and online tools. They expect developers and designers to use the data to enhance their own products and improve the information people can access via the web.
What uses would you put this sort of data to if it were available in an easily parsable format for your area?"
Link to Original Source
Might reread the OP; you're in violent agreement with him that the McDonald's case did have merit.
Whoops. You're right, I was wrong, how lame.
I think of all the times anyone has tried to explain it to me, this is the one that clicked. If I'm understanding correctly, they're (electrons, photons, et al) not really either a "particle", as I think of it (like you say, teeny tiny baseballs with well defined boundaries and positions), or a "wave", but entirely different animals that happen to have some, not even all, of the features of both.
Thanks (assuming I didn't misunderstand!)
Most of the claims aren't listed so it's hard to draw a conclusion.
And don't hold your breath waiting for them to be listed publicly, either.
If this is over trade secrets, the alleged trade secrets, if legitimate, will still be secret. So unless/until Facebook gets a judgement that the claims are bogus, the proceedings will be under seal.
Even if they ARE bogus it may not be in Facebook's interest to publish them, either. They might be little-known enough that exposing them to their competition might make the competitive environent tougher for Facebook.
So don't be surprised if the "secrets" and the details of the verdict or settlement remain under wraps.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
It's too bad no one else seems to be able to make a decent competitor to them. Citibank tried a while ago and threw in the towel, even Google tried and gave up too. It's a simple concept: make a payment-processing service which nearly anyone can sign up for, which can allow you to accept credit-card payments from others (without having to get a $$$ merchant account), which lets people send money to each other easily without gigantic wire-transfer fees, and which lets people transfer money in and out of it. Why aren't the big banks doing this? I guess because they can't tack on all kinds of horrendous fees and still get people to use it, and PayPal's business model isn't profitable enough for them.
Elon hasn't been involved with PayPal for ages. He took his money and moved on to more interesting projects.
This is like blaming Woz for anything you don't like about Apple today.
The interviews, part of a running series of GAO audits of the NASA flagship observatory, which is billions of dollars overbudget and years behind schedule, were intended to identify potential future trouble spots, according to a GAO official. But Northrop Grumman Aerospace, which along with NASA says the $9 billion project is back on track, cited concerns that the employees, 30 in all, would be intimidated by the process.
To give Northrop Grumman the benefit of the doubt, these interviews were a somewhat unusual request. Then again, if all was well why would they resist? Note too that the quote above says the cost of the telescope project is now $9 billion. If the project was “back on track: as the agency and Northrop Grumman claim, than why has the budget suddenly increased by another billion?"