A fun read:
A fun read:
A fun read:
Do we condone the true bad actors? No, we put them in jail with the rest of the criminals
Usually we send them on vacation (aka "suspended with pay") then close the cases against them "for lack of public interest".
I understand your need to spew ad hominem attacks, trying to denigrate others is always easier than dealing with your own inadequacy. Please continue, you are highly entertaining.
The next time you hear a window in your house shatter at 2am, try calling the fire department and let me know how that works out for you.
Or you could ask Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro and Miriam Douglas how calling 911 has worked out for them.
The solution is pretty simple, but often skipped:
1) The reason for every search should be required and logged by the searcher.
2) The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched.
But to check it the auditors need detailed access to the records. So who audits THEM?
This kind of question has been asked repeatedly since at least the Roman Empire.
(The U.S. answer to "Who guards the guardians?" , at least for direct abuse of person under color of law, is the Fourth and Fifth amendments and the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine: Fail to follow the law and you don't get a conviction, because misbehaving police are FAR more of a problem for the population than even a lot of violent private-enterprise crooks going back to work. But while it does reduce the incentive, it doesn't block the behavior.)
Not one organization I have ever worked for has seriously cared about IT security.
When it comes to rolling out new products, ignoring security is the norm.
This is because the "window of opportunity" is only "open" for a short time - until the first, second, and maybe third movers go through it and grab most of the potential customers. Companies that spent the time to get the security right arrive at the window after it closes.
This happens anywhere the customers don't test for and reject non-secure versions of the "new shiny" - which means enterprises sometimes hold suppliers' feet to the fire (if the new thing doesn't give them an advantage commensurate with, or perceived as outweighing, the risk) but consumer stuff goes out wide open.
Then, if you're lucky and the supplier is clueful, they retrofit SOME security before the bad guys exploit enough holes to kill them.
I expect this will continue until several big-name tech companies get an effective corporate death penalty in response to the damages their customer base took from their security failings. Then the financial types will start including having a good, and improving with time, security story (no doubt called "best practices") among their check boxes for funding.
While it is true that there are a few officers that deserve jail time (and the do get it most of the time) 99.99% of the LEOs our there are the good guys.
No, they are not.
Because if they were, they would be fighting nail and tooth to get the 0.01% off the force and behind bars, where they belong.
As things are, there are three kinds of cops:
3. On the way out
If you are looking for a group to fawn over, I suggest that volunteer firefighters are much more worthy of your respect.
In England they call this "penny wise, pound foolish".
That one's old enough that it made it into American English (where it is still in use despite more than two centuries on a non penny-pound currency.)
And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.
Actually you CAN manage it with radio - very difficultly, with very careful antenna design.
But the combined antenna has to be far from anything that reflects, absorbs, or just phase-shifts any substantial amount of the transmitted signal energy. If not, the discontinuity destroys the careful balance that nulls out the transmitted signal at the receiver. That gets you back to the "transmitter shouts in the receiver's ear much louder than the distant communications partner" case. So it's not very practical in the real world.
Really? Please tell us which Subway stores sell Big Macs, which Wendy's stores sell seafood, which Arby's sell bloomin' onions, or which Denny's sell sushi.
Two of these don't have any wait-to-get-seated, as they are fast food restaurants.
But anyhow, whether the details and naming of the food differs, it is to large extents the same. The diversity is minimal in American restaurants. Customers aren't willing to try new things, and the restaurants that try either have to revert to the standard pseudo-Italian and American standards like steaks and burgers, and if there's fish, it's breaded and with lemon.
Don't expect big differences. None of them will serve black pudding, sardines, savory pies except chicken pot pie, boiled cabbage, or anything much out of the ordinary you can get at a number of these places. It doesn' t really matter all that much where you go - the difference between US restaurants is as minimal as between the US political parties. From an outside point of view, it's all pretty much the same.
Sure, "Chinese", "Japanese", "Thai", "Mexican" and "Indian" restaurants have different fare from the typical American/Italian one, but it's also standardized and adjusted to the American palate. No surprises; all interchangeable within their "nationality" (to use the word loosely).
Yeah I don't see them much anymore, come to think of it. Most restaurants I go to these days seem to use the "reservation or GTFO" queueing mechanism, with maybe 1 or 2 walk-on parties waiting for a table. Not worth investing in beeping coasters or self driving chairs for.
With the amount of chain restaurants having exploded, I think that more customers find a wait unacceptable - instead of waiting, they can just cross the parking lot to one of four other restaurants. With most restaurants serving largely the same, there's little incentive to wait.
Back on topic, I see these chairs being more useful for amusement parks (with or without velociraptors), schools and nursing homes.
Coax is half-duplex too
No, it's not.
With proper impedance matching networks and reasonable termination at the ends of a run you can send separate signals at the same frequency/band of frequencies down a cable in each direction. (Impedance discontinuities DO reflect some of the signal going one way back the other way, causing some interference. But even that can be "tuned out" by suitable corrections if it's too severe to just ignore.)
You can do it on a balanced pair, too. Telephones have done this with audio for more than a century, and I recall encountering a simple hack to do it all the way down to DC back in the days of discrete-transistor logic. (And it has nothing to do with two wires being involved, either. With N (= any power of 2) conductors and "phantoming" you can have up to N-1 balanced and one unbalanced two-way transmission lines on N wires.
Time Domain Reflectometry does this to FIND and MEASURE discontinuities in a cable, essentially firing a pulse down the cable and listening to the reflections, radar-style.
It doesn't even need to be the case that there is a difference in mental capabilities between races. It could be that certain groups have a culture that leads them to be better or worse at certain tasks on average, and those groups can be predominantly of one race/ethnicity. It could be that some cultures cause people to be overconfident in their abilities (e.g. causing them to be more likely to apply for jobs they are unqualified for).
Or more desperate to get a job, making more of them apply for positions they don't match, or pad their resumes.
Or have worse connections, not getting headhunted to jobs, making relatively more of them apply for jobs than natives do.
Or have less resources and means, making them pick from the bottom of the barrel when choosing recruiters; the type that pads resumes and work on the redneck duck hunting principle (fill the sky with lead and you'll hit something), instead of taking time to search for employers that are a good match.
In either case, if 80% of applicants to a job are from somewhere, it doesn't mean that 80% of qualified applicants for a job are.
And it doesn't imply discrimination if a large amount of them get turned down. That some are, indeed, hired, goes a long way to hint at it being merit that lands the jobs.
Also, they're only looking at resumes to determine qualifications. I'll tell you right now that we get a TON of bogus resumes from body shops, especially Indian ones. Make no mistakes: we have many qualified Indians, including management, but you get a ton of padded resumes that don't hold up under questioning. And yes, you do get those from everywhere, but the predominately Indian body shops can drown you in them.
I concur. Unfortunately, of all the job interviews I do, there's a strong correlation between padded interviews and the origin of the applicant. That doesn't say anything about the individuals from these countries, but based on the original number of applicants, a proportionally higher number of them will not get hired - their qualifications did not meet the requirements.
For applicants from some other countries, there is a pattern of not listing all qualifications they have. That doesn't mean that the individuals are better, but statistically, those applicants are more likely to advance in the queue after an interview.
This is not racism. It's looking at actual qualifications.
I couldn't care less whether you're green and furry, but if something in your resume appears to be an untruth, you're not going to get hired. If a higher percentage of Indians put qualifications they don't have on their resumes, a higher percentage of Indians are going to get turned down.
The recruiting companies have to take a lot of the blame, I think. Some, i fear i have reason to believe, suggests what the applicants should add.
But if your resume says several years of Unix sysadmin experience, and you cannot name a Unix vendor or OS name when asked, you're not discriminated against when turned down.
Perl, yeah. I like it a lot too.
But sometimes I need to be able not only to write, but also read what I've written.
To determine what a piece of code actually does.
Good thing then, that perl not only supports comments, but its own embedded documentation system.
Today using 128bit address having the ability to give more IP Addresses than possible in the universe, really make sure that just randomly picking an address probably will not create a duplicate address.
That would be well and fine if most IPv6 addresses didn't have a 64-bit or even 80-bit prefix, identical for everything routable at the endpoint. Then there are DHCP addressing schemes that use the MAC as part of the address, further reducing it.
Sure, it can be planned better, but we're doing our damndest already to use up parts of the IPv6 address space through thoughtless assignments and rules.
"All we are given is possibilities -- to make ourselves one thing or another." -- Ortega y Gasset