The idea that a company can get access to all of those chat logs and potentially exploit it for their own personal gain is frightening. I have not asked ChatGPT anything that would embarrass me, but I know people who are asking questions that they would not want out there in the public. I believe that a compromise could be possible, but if The New York Times gets a complete copy of all the chat logs, I would never use their site again. I think that any company that requests this information from the courts should not exist. I would recommend everyone boycott the New York Times and any other companies that have joined in on the request for this information.

NSAPI is required for some of the applications I need to support at work, so in order to make everything work, I installed Firefox 51 and disabled updates. In addition to installing Firefox 51, I made sure I downloaded the complete Firefox 51 installation executable so that I could install it anytime I needed it. Firefox 52 does allow the plugins to work, but you need to do some backend configurations, so I just stop at Firefox 51. This has been a real problem since Google Chrome disabled NSAPI a little while ago and all other major browsers do not support it now. I just say get Firefox 51 and disable all updates.

Textbook publishers seem to have the ability to provide all of their stuff with ADA compliance for the starting cost of only $100 for cheap stuff and hundreds more for high quality stuff. When the Open Educational Resources (OER) stuff starts to eat their profits, they fight back by pushing for laws that hurt small free alternatives. Seems like it should be cheaper and easier to provide ADA compliance.

It seems to me that if more people sued when patents were not implemented, we might have less patents out there making every developers life worse. Patent trolls might think twice before setting up shop.

How can this be considered worth reading if it does not even look at Rand Paul. Clearly this was created by the joint Republican/Democratic party.

After looking at those examples, it seems to me that C programmers can claim something is an "ugly hack" because it was not what they wanted or because someone else's code was messed up. The C code hacks where there because they could not see an elegant solution. Programmers for other languages probably do not even know that the code they are writing is ugly.

There was an idea to do something related not too long ago. Universities and Community Colleges panicked and thought all of their students would leave in the future and move completely online. MOOCs would traditional education.

The reality is that not all people want to learn that way. The Slashdot crowd might be able to be completely successful watching a screen and talking to an in-class "Tech", but most people are not like that. Many people attend community colleges and smaller universities because they can ask questions and get answers in a much smaller and personal setting.

If this idea had true mass potential, it would have happened already and community colleges would already be gone.

If first sale does not apply than Capitol Records must have sold their copyright. If they sold the copyright, then we can ignore this whole battle because they have no right to sue. Now, the owners can distribute the work as copies instead because they are the copyright holder. I like the direction Google is taking this.

So, it appears that Google is claiming that Capital Records either sold a copy of the music or they actually sold their copyright to the music. Is that how I am supposed to read this?

Translation:

Researchers: Your walls are too low.
Japan Atomic Power: Oh, okay, we'll fix the wall.
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO): Hmm, whatever.

Then the tsunami came. Japan Atomic Power's wall was good enough. TEPCO's wall still was not good enough.

802.11a will get around the interference from other 802.11b/g devices as well as any microwave ovens that might be there, but the real problem might be all of the water interference in the room. Trade shows are full of people, who are full of water, who block your signal.

Microwaves operate at around 2.45GHz. This causes problems for 802.11b/g which operate at 2.4GHz, but not for 802.11a which operates at 5GHz. I imagine 802.22 will operate at a much lower frequency and will not conflict with microwave ovens.

Yes, but I believe the argument was basically about the math courses that really have little importance to Computer Science. Calculus is rarely used in computer science. When professors are asked why it is still in the program, a lot of them will respond with something about "maturity" or something else like that. If you need a lot of math for computer science, that is fine, but shouldn't it be the math that is more common to computer scientists?

The signal is not really open. If you lived in Japan, you would know that there is a law that allows NHK to collect money if you have a television or other device that can pick up the signal. You are required to pay money, even if you do not watch NHK. The funny part is that the law requires you to pay, but no one can do anything about it (except continue to visit and ask for money) if you do not pay.

I once paid for a Sony LocationFree box and had it hosted at a third party company so that I could watch Japanese television in the USA. What always confused me was that there was no good alternative to using Sony LocationFree, I wanted to have an Internet channel (also ruled illegal), not a box I paid for hosted in Japan somewhere.