Someone else has thought of that too. (NSFW)
Maybe we should just put them on the jw axis, let it oscillate, and call it good.
The idea, known as Project M, is almost a guerrilla effort within NASA, cooked up a year ago by Stephen J. Altemus, the chief engineer at Johnson. He tapped into discretionary money, pulled in engineers to work on it part time, and horse-traded with companies and other NASA units to undertake preliminary planning and tests. “We’re doing impossible things with really very little, if any, money whatsoever,” Mr. Altemus said."
Link to Original Source
I was going to commit an act of terror, but then I got high.
I'm sorry, but as a mechanical adding machine guy, it's really hard to watch a computer guy get a chuckle at somebody else given their chosen platform's inferiority and not have a chuckle about it myself.
Link to Original Source
The proposal cites the UN Declaration of Human Rights and declares that "technology companies in the United States have failed to develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression". If adopted by shareholders, it would call for management to adopt 6 minimum standards including: not storing data that can identify an individual in repressive countries; using all legal means to resist censorship; and documenting and publicizing "all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with." The proposal was submitted by the Comptroller of New York City, which owns large amounts of Google stock in City pension plans.
Is a proposal like this (assuming it ever passed) feasible to implement? Would it actually do anything to open up repressive regimes? Is this a reasonable balance between upholding liberal democracy values and doing business in dictatorships? Would it have any effect on domestic issues such as DMCA takedown orders? Most of all, as a shareholder, what is Google's board of directors' justification for recommending that shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal? If you are a Google shareholder, were you aware of this proposal, and if so, are you going to vote for or against?"
What I don't know is, why most customer support representatives, in the event there is a data error, will treat the customer as if they are liars or trying to scam them. On a recent call to a company, let's call it Givo, my account number was accidently wiped from the system. Throughout the process, I spoke with half a dozen representatives who claimed I had never had their service before and at each step I was "guilty until proven innocent". What's worse was that at some moments, even when presented with evidence of my case history in their system, representatives would disregard it because the system told them my account did not exist and had never existed.
I can recall many similar support calls to other companies over the years in which the phrase "our computer system is never wrong" was repeatedly used as justification for an issue the representative knew little about. Since when did computers become infallible such that the customer is always wrong? Why does it take multiple escalations of support calls before anyone starts believing that maybe the computer made a mistake?"
From the article: "For subscriptions starting as low as $20 per month, enterprises can sell "fully managed exploit engines" that spyware distributors and spammers can use to infiltrate systems worldwide, said Gunter Ollmann, director of security strategies at IBM's ISS X-Force team.
Many exploit providers simply wait for Microsoft's monthly patches, which they then reverse engineer to develop new exploit code against the disclosed vulnerabilities, Ollmann said. "Then all you've got to do is just subscribe to them on a monthly basis.""
Everyone is still getting this story wrong. Everyone. Even conservatives. Even the National Review.
Gonzales never claimed he was not involved in the firings. He never claimed he was not in any meetings about the firings. He never claimed he was not in any conversations about the firings.