In that case, you don't need them to write it. You can do it yourself.
"Per your request, we will be making these changes in production with no rollback mechanism." If you can show you sent that email, that's as good as receiving it.
4489 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Mar 2010
Partisan bullshit.
In 2019-2020, Congress passed at least 250 bills with broad bipartisan support. (Meaning, a clear majority vote including significant numbers from both parties.)
I haven't found any figures for the current Congress, but I don't see why it should be significantly worse.
Of course most of these bills died without ever being tabled in the Senate, but that's another story.
Depends on the size of your glass and the strength of your wine. Both of these have been trending upwards (in average) for many years, and are now about 50% higher than the average levels when I was a kid. (Which, compounded, means "a glass of wine" contains more than twice as much alcohol as it did.)
One thing I have been very careful of with my TV is never, ever to let it connect to the Internet. There are plenty of other devices to do that, I don't want the bloody TV bricking itself with a security update - or, worse, ransomware.
If you can indeed do without water, electricity, banking or cellphone provision, I suggest your lifestyle is probably one that is not easily - or even difficultly, come to think of it - available to most of us. "Homesteading in Wyoming" is simply not an option that scales.
I don't know what the basis of the justices' thinking is here, and I can't be bothered to find out, but one possible loophole I see in the law is that although it criminalises "exceeding authorized access" to "information from any department or agency of the United States", it's not clear that that extends to state government records. Maybe states were supposed to pass their own versions to protect their own systems, I don't know. But the defendant has tried - successfully, it seems - to frame the law as an all-or-nothing prohibition on "doing anything unauthorized on your work computer", which is surely not the intent.
You may not "need" a cellphone (possibly - I haven't tried living without one for more than a couple of days, I imagine it's still doable but I may be wrong). But it may severely limit your job options if you "choose" to do without. I suspect this "option" is only even technically possible to a minority of people.
But you probably do need electricity supply in your house. And water. And it's pretty hard to get along without some kind of banking service. And depending where you live, some kinds of insurance may also be either mandatory or highly advisable.
"Opting out" is an illusion fostered by megacorps who want to avoid regulation by pretending that people interact with them of their own free will. As the recent debates around Google and Facebook have shown, merely "avoiding using someone's services" is not nearly enough.
So - sure, prosecute government employees who abuse their access. But let's not assume ab initio that this abuse is either more pervasive or more serious than the private sector.
Yeah, I tried that once.
What I found: most of the posts on Twitter were rehashing, and "hash" was definitely the word, stories from conventional media. Others were reacting, amplifying and generally distorting those same stories. A few were speculating wildly, and attracting much the same "tail" of reaction as the first category. There was no (as in, zero) actual first hand information on the story I was looking for.
Actually, "back in the day" large swathes of prairie were indeed "owned" by absentee landlords, mostly on the East Coast. The homesteaders who developed it were squatters, and it took decades for the law to catch up and decide that, actually, yes they did have the better claim to the land.
Battles were fought, both in courts and on the land itself, over that principle. The supreme court came down on the landlords' side, and the result was the wholesale rejection of its authority. Politicians, sheriffs and judges from Mississippi to Michigan lined up to declare that the justices didn't know what they were talking about, and they would refuse to apply the law.
My favourite amendment, the 16th, says states may not "deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
By reverse incorporation, the same principle applies to the federal government.
So if there is any basis for bringing a suit in a federal court, it follows that anyone in the USA can bring that suit, and to deny them on the basis of their address would be unconstitutional.
All you need to do is identify a federal law that might be violated by refusing to consider your application. (You don't have to prove that it has been violated, you only need enough plausibility to issue the writ.) I would imagine various anti-discrimination statutes, such as the ADA, could sserve the purpose.
What he has shown is that he can build a useful and usable app, and meet needs that aren't being otherwise addressed.
That's a great ability, practically a superpower in itself - if he decides to set up his own business. But it's a very different skill set from what most employers want, and it would definitely be wasted in the public sector (where the obsession from public watchdog types is not "is he doing something useful?", but rather "is he doing what he's told?").
A government job is probably the last thing he wants.
First, a standard issue install of Office does not include Access, much less SQL Server.
Second, what they're talking about is effectively an escalation vulnerability that affects you when someone with privileged access to a JET engine also has privileged access to a SQL server. That's why it's not a priority to fix: the answer is "well, don't give that kind of privilege to people you don't trust, then". Frankly, anyone who is vulnerable to this already has much bigger things to worry about.
Back in the days of Times New Roman, I used to take the trouble to change the font in every document I wrote, because the font itself is unbelievably horrible to read in anything other than narrow columns on a crowded, printed page (what it was designed for). I suppose that's an upside.
The word is "licensed", and sure, there will be a few issues like that. But then, Calibri is also licensed in the same way. Doesn't seem to have been a huge thing, though.
In practice, it's not clear how they could exploit that position. Consider how documents are usually shared. Web? - pah, catch any web designer using a default font anyway. PDF? - embeds the fonts in the file, there'll be trouble if the license prevents them from doing that but it won't. That leaves "sharing working files", which is already enough of a nightmare that font issues are generally pretty low down the list of worries - and if they do come up, they're trivial to fix.
People, by the thousand, demand help on a daily basis with "driving their own car". You don't notice them because you're not the AA, but it happens.
You also don't notice the millions of computer users who successfully manage their own gear for years on end without needing the help of an expert of any sort, because they don't call you.
Funny how that works.
When I see one of those announcements, I find myself actively looking at the junction numbers for a change so I can work out roughly how far it may be. Once out of the car, of course, I forget all that information, but that's OK, it's not something I'm likely to need again until next time.
The trouble with denoting junctions by nearest town is that it's ambiguous. What if there are three towns near the junction, which one do you personally know it by? Or if there are multiple junctions near $TOWN, which one is it talking about?