Couldn't one argue that authorization was granted by the database when a valid login/password pair was provided?
No, not any more than owning a key to my front door gives you "authorization" to use it to enter my home.
Uh.. you'd have a pretty hard time arguing I wasn't authorized to enter your home if you gave me a key. By virtue of giving me the key you've authorized me to enter your home.
... stop calling artificial intelligence because, most of the time, it is not intelligent, it merely reproduces what it was taught to do.
Mod this up, up, and away. "Artificial Intelligence" is not a thing. Because intelligence is an emergent property of an entity, something is either intelligent or it's not. If it's self-generated, then it's just plain old intelligence. If it's not, then it's just a reflection of the intelligence used to program it. There will never be "artificial" intelligence. Machine intelligence perhaps, but then if we want to start making that ridiculous distinction, we need to start talking about "dog intelligence" and "cockroach intelligence" too.
Seems to me that people dumb enough to be worried about computers outsmarting them are already too late.
The court is specifically ruling on arrangements between two people in a relationship who share intimate photos without any formal contract between them, and the ruling is simply that each person has a right to control of their image and privacy. This is a good thing and likely is to directly combat the idea of revenge porn and to provide some legal recourse should such an event occur. The ruling is open to anyone who has shared an intimate picture.
Actually, no. The ruling is open to anyone who has shared any kind of picture at all as long as the "victim" deems them intimate. (Frankly, with the ludicrously broad "before, during, or after sexual intercourse" stipulation, that encompasses any picture ever taken during the entire duration of the relationship.) That would include photos taken while vacationing on a beach in Jamaica. This has nothing to do with revenge porn. It's punishing thought crime.
What you say makes sense for TAKING the photos, doing the actual photography.
One could argue that during the relationship she consented to him having those photos and viewing photos of her private parts, and she no longer consents to him jerking to her private parts today.
I'm gonna guess you write EULAs for a living.
"In the 1%" means you make $32,400 a year.
I personally sit in the top 0.38%.
Now you're just being pedantic. "The 1%" was a phrase popularized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and refers almost exclusively to wealth inequity in America. The median income for the cohort to which the phrase "The 1%" refers is $400,000. Global wealth has no seriously meaningful value when considered on the scale of the individual. By your metric, the average homeless person in the US will be in the top 15 - 20%.
He is neither trained nor paid to be a management consultant. Managers are paid humongous salaries not least because they are supposed to put in the work required for making qualified decisions. If they don't have the brains to pick that up on the job by talking to people in their language, they need to acquire that knowledge in courses catering to them. They don't get 10 times the salary of others for rolling dice.
If you're reporting to someone who gets 10 times the salary you do, either you or your company is fundamentally broken. And if you are incapable of explaining the reasoning behind the decisions you make in your position so that the person you report to can understand it, either you or your manager is seriously challenged in the communications arena. If you're capable, but just unwilling because you can't see past that massive chip on your shoulder, then you need to be replaced by someone who will. Either way, it sounds like your company has some serious problems.
A good manager doesn't have to be a technical person, they have to listen to their subordinates. When you tell your manager that something can't be reasonably fine or shouldn't be done their job requires them to listen to the technical experts on the project.
I've been on both sides of the managerial fence, and in my experience, you can't have one without the other. A good manager can't listen to their subordinates if they can't understand what they're hearing. It's like explaining color to a blind man. One of the primary responsibilities of a manager is communication. He or she has to be technically savvy enough to not only understand the decisions his direct reports are making, but be able to translate those decisions into the appropriate level of technical detail to the people he or she reports to. And that coin has two sides: a manager must also have enough business savvy to understand the decisions of his superiors and be able to translate them to his direct reports.
A manager who makes decisions on the say-so of his subordinates without being technically conversant enough to actually understand and explain why it's a good decision, isn't a manager at all: she's a proxy. The same goes for a manager who just tells his reports what to do without understanding why his own managers want him to do it.
I've worked with systemd long enough to realize that systemd is a really broken concept.
By "this," do you mean the cheating, or the getting caught? The getting caught wouldn't have happened without the cheating...
By "this," do you mean the running from the police, or the getting shot? The getting shot wouldn't have happened without the running...
By "this," do you mean wearing the short skirt, or the rape? The getting raped wouldn't have happened without the short skirt...
Nope. Still mindless victim-blaming, but at least we know who you keep company with.
It's like saying "We have no chips in the vending machine".
You cannot "have none" - but you can "not have any".
"We do not have any chips in the vending machine" would be correct.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what you're talking about either. Both of my assertions are grammatically and logically correct, with the former using the "no-negation" form of assertion.
I have yet to meet ANYONE that has found linked in to be useful in any way. 99% of the "employers" are headhunters that are doing shotgun requests.
Hello, I'm Mark. Glad to meet you. I've gotten two of my last three jobs via LinkedIn and have helped at least two other people get jobs via contacts I made there. I found funding for a non-profit I'm with there. It's also my primary communication method for business associates with which I don't wish to socialize.
Like pretty much everything else on the Internet, LinkedIn is a tool. Just because YOU don't know how to use it doesn't mean it's not useful.
Internet dating is for people who don't have the social skills to meet people and engage in more than a nod or good morning in passing. The same people who don't know their next door neighbors and then complain they have nobody to talk to. Getting out and actually doing something, which would help address the problem, is too outside their comfort zone due to lack of practice. I predict a rise in similar scams targeted at the aging male programmer population who think they'll never fall for it.
Your view is painfully naive, shallow, and uninformed. For many people, "getting out and actually doing something" is a pretty crappy way of meeting people to date. If your ideal date is... well... someone just like you, it's fantastic. Otherwise, not so much.
I'm very social as well as involved in my community, but the aspects of community involvement I like as well as most of my hobbies tend to be things other guys like, not other women. Because of my job, I live in primarily family oriented areas where most people are married. I go out a couple times a week and it's always with married couples or just the guys. Single women in my age range are needles in the proverbial haystack.
Internet dating has been a godsend in meeting people in neighboring areas with different interests and different social circles. Internet dating is a tool. It's a shame you feel the need to denigrate others just because you don't know how to use it.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.