The part that I find most interesting as a former enterprise systems administrator from the 90's is that the employer owns the device but does not have a pass code for it. Is this the normal IT policy for these kinds of devices?
I always wondered if the problem with the shaped charge was that the battery served to keep it from somehow being mechanically detonated rather than the battery being used to provide power for detonation. Seemed like the kind of red herring this bomb maker would use but I can't imagine how that would be hidden from x-rays.
As a small business owner, my main concern is that there are no assurances that my competitors large and small will not be able to see my contracts/suppliers/budgets/sales/processes at some point due to this ambiguous 'disclosure' mentioned or perhaps through some flaw that allows access to the data collected from the computers used in my small business.
I must be missing something here since I know Microsoft wants Windows to be used for businesses and the privacy of this information is vital to that.
I received the request to sign this recently and while I think it is good, I was concerned about its effect on the ability to pursue research into creating autonomous weapons that seek and destroy autonomous weapons. I don't know where to draw the line. Unlike nuclear and chemical WMD the barrier to entry in this may be pretty low in the near future. Therefore my greatest concern is for defense. Though I don't want the machines made at all, that won't stop others from making them. It's a tough one.
Wow! Derek has been entertaining me online for nearly thirty years now and instead of that realization making me feel old, it actually makes me feel kind of young.
The parts without the words "I" or "me" sprinkled all over them made it an insightful article from someone who's opinion is based on substantial knowledge of this subject. Good or bad.
Hi Derek, I know you must be reading these :)
I have tried for two years to monetize my programming blog without making $100 in that entire time while I make a nice living from ads on my other sites.
I save RAW hard drives via a post I wrote 2 years ago. It's not really a programming post on my programming blog but like forums, you have little control over the demographic that ends up flocking to your blog. Especially if it is eclectic like mine.
There are thousands of visitors daily to the post and I get emails and try to answer comments everyday.
Ads, affiliate links, Amazon, eBay, Adsense, BSA, direct ads, CPA, CPM, nothing works on my programming blog with thousands of visitors each day. Extensive a/b testing is inconclusive due to lack of actions.
So now I only have a bitcoin address in that particular post and hope one day to get something from that :)
Ads do not work for all niches on the internet. Unless, of course, you want to deceive your users and trick them into clicking on something that is not what they think it is. That always works, for awhile at least.
In the meantime, I'll keep helping the people who end up there for free as best I can because in the end, that is in line with what I have hoped the internet would be.
I thought it might follow backwards in space as well as time but when the book The Physics of Time Reversal by Robert G. Sachs came out in 1987 it made me skeptical of that possibility. I haven't followed the theory of CP violation for many years so this may not be a pertinent point anymore.
When I was younger I thought a lot about the physics of traveling back in time but I always seemed to hit a brick wall with spatial coordinates.
Where we are in the universe today is very far from where we were in the universe yesterday based on the movement of the earth alone. Add to that the movement of our solar system, galaxy, cluster, supercluster and movements I am not even aware exist and it becomes really far away. Grandpa would probably be light years away from me and my time machine.
Am I missing something here, because I've never heard this mentioned by anyone else?
There should probably be an open discussion on the forum engaging members and other moderators where the banned user can see it. Let them discuss the ban as well as the subsequent harassment and honor their decision.
I am a former admin of a large forum. I let trolls and spammers wear me down over years and regret that I did not handle some things openly.
I assumed this would have a significant effect on the supply since they indicated that they got over 150 carats simply by dragging a bucket across the sea floor.
We had a site get hit hard by Panda 4.0 but we are not surprised. About a 35% drop overnight May 20th.
An observation that we have made over the years is that significant changes to Google's algorithms always seem to soften in the subsequent months for us and we return to a high level in the Google SERPs.
The site in question is a site where we curate free crafts projects and patterns which my spouse and I began in the 90's with our family and friends. The idea was to gather together excellent crafts projects on little known mostly small sites with the criteria that they are free, complete, usually require no email/login and are within two clicks of us. We still update it every week.
Over the years we have used user feedback to make design decisions. For example, when Pinterest became popular we got a lot of feedback to use masonry instead of tables for our images/links and lately we've been moving to make it fully responsive because we get a lot of feedback from tablet users.
The only time we were manually penalized by Google involved an issue where we had ignored our user's complaints about so they were right and we were wrong. We fixed it.
Our site looks thin to an algorithm and we almost always get hit by large algorithm changes but over the subsequent months, the site always moves back up and ranks very well. We can only imagine that this means the algorithm is somehow tempered by our visitor's behavior (we use adsense and analytics so they see all) and is not simply a switch that is thrown and left on.
I have to wonder how much MetaFilter has done to gather user feedback. The answer to their problem may be there.
Yes, that is the problem. However, I know that at least one of them was penalized for using TextLinkAds and stopped advertising with us because they decided to adopt a scorched earth policy in an attempt to have manual penalties removed. They simply tried to remove all possible links to themselves that they had paid for.
I'm afraid the issue is not as black and white as I'd like it to be.
I do not believe that Google would intentionally punish sites for buying legitimate advertising.
We've noticed a decrease in tier 1 advertisers over the last 18 months. We get a million+ uniques per month and are very picky about the ads we run. The decrease in tier 1 has been small businesses who have become concerned that their ads may be misconstrued as 'link buying' and will cause them to be penalized in Google's search so all that is left for us are the large brands. Many of the small businesses had been advertising with us for over five years.
We've been considering BuySellAds because of the high quality of the ads we see them run on other sites.
Are these types of purchases primarily defensive in order to prevent new social networks from appearing that are simpler, more private or somehow more appealing?
I always thought it was inevitable that a solution will eventually evolve that allows individuals to communicate directly with each other and manage their own online social networks without intermediaries like Google or Facebook. Slowing down that evolution seems like a correct strategy for companies that stand to lose from it.