Resident of the world, traveling the road of life
4388 stories
·
7 followers

September 15, 2014

1 Comment and 5 Shares

SQUEE!
Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
bronzehedwick
14 hours ago
reply
Oh man, there's the payoff.
Brooklyn NY

Future Self

6 Comments and 14 Shares
Maybe I haven't been to Iceland because I'm busy dealing with YOUR crummy code.
Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
5 public comments
toddmichaelryan
20 hours ago
reply
Love it.
mrobold
22 hours ago
reply
From my own vault:

* To the person who ever has to modify this that isn't me:
*
* I'm really, really sorry. This project started out so simply. It was a pretty straightforward
* dumb-client. All processing was done on the back-end routine and all this
* code did was display the appropriate data. That was it.
*
* Over the past 8 years (Christ, have I been here that long?), rather than rewriting the client,
* we have simply affixed more and more functionality to it - most of which would have necessitated
* a complete redesign of the client in any other organization. However, in the interests of
* expediency, those things have been bolted on - turning this dumb client into a 14,000+ line
* monstrosity that, frankly, I doubt anyone other than myself could actually maintain without
* losing their sanity. It's quite possible that the only reason I've been able to maintain
* this code is that my sanity left me a long time ago.
Orange County, California
jimwise
23 hours ago
reply
...
jepler
1 day ago
reply
the day that stretches out before me, ladies and gentlemen
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
emdeesee
23 hours ago
The #-delimited comments are cute.
spencerdubya
1 day ago
reply
Alt: Maybe I haven't been to Iceland because I'm busy dealing with YOUR crummy code.
San Diego, CA

When I stumble upon self-documented code

2 Shares

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Apple Creates Tool for Users to Delete Unwanted U2 Album

2 Comments
During Apple's keynote announcement, the company announced plans to provide U2's new album, "Songs of Innocence," to all iTunes customers for free. Rather than letting customers choose to download the album on their own, however, Apple pushed it to iTunes accounts, causing some devices to automatically download the album without explicit user permission.

The move upset users who did not want to have U2's album listed on their devices, which has now prompted Apple to create a process for removing the album from user's devices. According to Apple spokesperson Tom Neumayr, who gave a statement to Re/code, customers were asking Apple how to delete the album after it was distributed, which has led Apple to create both a tool and a support document that outlines the process for removing the album from iCloud.

u2albumremoval
Here's Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr's explanation: "Some customers asked for the ability to delete 'Songs of Innocence' from their library, so we set up http://www.itunes.com/soi-remove to let them easily do so. Any customer that needs additional help should contact AppleCare."
To remove the U2 album, users are directed to Apple's new removal tool that will automatically remove the U2 album from an account after signing in with an Apple ID and password.

Apple warns that once the album has been removed from an iTunes account that it will no longer be available as a previously purchased album. Users have until October 13, 2014 to manually reinstall the album for free.






Read the whole story
mkalus
14 hours ago
reply
This is America. Of course next up is a class action lawsuit for the mental anguish suffered.
iPhone: 49.287476,-123.142136
Tlaloc
19 hours ago
reply
OMG
is this really necessary ? Whats next - refund for unintended data downloads for that album someone doesn't what and forgot to turn off automatic downloads ?
Share this story
Delete

Sorry, the college sex tribunal is not "bizarre and cruel" for women who cry rape, it's "bizarre and cruel" for the presumptively innocent accused of rape

1 Share
A former Philadelphia prosecutor who now works for a company dedicated to "increas[ing] victim safety and offender accountability" said that Franklin and Marshall College's protocol for handling sexual assault hearings is “bizarre and cruel." We agree, but not for the reasons the former prosecutor thinks. He thinks it is "bizarre and cruel" to the accuser. Why? Because "it requires victims to sit at the same table as the person who raped them and basically try their own case. It demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of the impact of sexual trauma on victims.”

The former prosecutor's failure to mention that sometimes accusers are not elevation of accusers to the status of "victims" betrays his bias and should banish him from the adult table on this very serious issue.

Let's talk about "bizarre and cruel," shall we? At Franklin and Marshall College, the Policy on Sexual Misconductmakes clear that men who never dreamed of raping a women are to be viewed right off the bat with suspicion. It cautions students about the "warning signs" or ”red flags” that indicate "a risk of sexual misconduct." These include: if the person you are with "interrupts" you (yes -- interrupts -- and, no, we're not making that up), or "drinks too much or uses drugs" (by this standard, when a women drinks herself into oblivion, isn't that a warning sign that she's engaging in sexual misconduct -- or is that "victim blaming"?), or "wants to be alone with you before getting to know you" (you see, it isn't possible that someone wants to be alone with you in order to get to know you).

When an accuser decides she's been sexually wronged, Franklin and Marshall the school assures her that "students who report . . . sexual misconduct involving students will not be disciplined by the College for any violation of the College’s drug or alcohol possession or consumption policies in which they might have been engaged in connection with the reported incident." This is an echo of the Department of Education's infamous April 4, 2011 "Dear Colleague" directive that instructs college administrators to consider whether punishing students (almost always women or gay men) for alcohol offenses will have a "chilling effect on victims' . . . reporting of sexual violence offenses." In contrast, if an intoxicated underage male reported he'd been beaten badly, he would be charged with underage drinking because his victimization isn't the right kind of victimization. While charging for intoxication might have a chilling effect on reporting rape, announcing immunity for charges of intoxication for students who cry rape might provide a handy excuse for intoxication.

At Franklin and Marshall, when the woman decides to file a complaint, she's assisted by an advisor she selects from the school's roster of Title IX approved advisors.

At the hearing, the accused is not permitted to confront or cross-examine his accuser. They may be seated at the same conference room table (a conference room table is generally very long -- it's not like sitting across the kitchen table from your rapist), and according to this article, "a barrier may be set up between the complainant and respondent if the complainant so wishes." This is somehow "bizarre and cruel" to the accuser? In fact, it is "bizarre and cruel" to the accused. It makes a mockery of any semblance of due process. accuser. In marked contrast to criminal and civil judicial proceedings, the accuser doesn't have to answer a single question posed by the accused. accuser. While the Dept. of Education insists the preponderance of the evidence standard is appropriate for college sex hearings because that's the civil law standard in Title IX cases, what they forgot is that in civil cases, the defendant is afforded all manner of evidentiary protections that colleges routinely deny young men accused of sex offenses. In civil cases, defendants are permitted to vigorously depose prior to trial, and vigorously cross-examine during trial, the accuser and any other pertinent witnesses. In civil cases, the defendant is also permitted to engage in all manner of discovery besides depositions, including proffering requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories. In a civil case, if the plaintiff fails to respond to proper discovery requests, she is sanctioned by the court, up to and including dismissal of her case and requiring her to pay the other side's attorney's fees. Franklin and Marshall's procedure mirrors the procedures at colleges all across America: none of the procedural safeguards available in civil trials are afforded the accused.

Beyond that, unlike civil trials, there are no provisions (except for one) to regulate the admission of evidence at the hearing. For example, there are no prohibitions about admitting hearsay evidence against the accused or about keeping out evidence against the accused where the prejudicial effect far outweighs the probative value. The only evidentiary safeguard that the school has bothered to spell out provided is for the accuser; specifically, the school incorporates the policy behind rape shield laws that generally prohibits the admission of evidence about the accuser's sexual activity with anyone other than the accuser.

At Franklin and Marshall, the three-person hearing panel reaches its verdict by majority rule, and the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence (so if two panel members are swayed even a little more by the complainant's story, the accused is found responsible). The dangers of this de minimis standard in potentially life-altering procedures are well-known -- we've written about them extensively and won't repeat them here.  Franklin and Marshall College thinks its perfectly acceptable to destroy a young man's life even if all panel members have a serious doubt about his guilty so long as two out of three panel members think he "probably" did it.

The school's procedure also contains this bizarre requirement: "Both students will prepare an impact statement describing the impact that the initial event and subsequent related events have had on their lives. The impact statement will be reviewed by the Hearing Panel only in the event of a finding of responsibility."  What on earth is the accused student who protests his innocence supposed to say in an "impact statement" -- other than that he was wrongly accused?

The reason that a former prosecutor can say with a straight face that the procedure is "bizarre and cruel" for the accused, and that newspapers print comments like that without challenge, is because there is a widespread assumption that accusers are victims and that the men they accuse are rapists. This assumption is buttressed by junk science and feminist mantras chanted with such frequency that they are assumed to be true. The widespread belief that that men get away with rape too often leads these gender crusaders them to the Orwellian conclusion that it's okay to assume this particular man is guilty on the basis of a mere accusation.

College sex tribunals are nothing more than window-dressing to make mom and dad think the school cares about fairness for their sons window-dressing to lend the facade of fairness to the accused in proceedings stacked against them. him.  The public discourse on this issue has become so loopy, so topsy turvy, so downright hateful, that "up" is "down" and "wrong" is "right." And for too long, people of good will have nodded politely when gender crusaders jabber their idiocy. they jabber. It's time for all persons of good will to say, "enough!"
Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

Tree

1 Share

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories