The author does specify both that this is not "Internet" (with capital I) and that they are not using bonjour, and that it is a proprietary technology. So it does not appear to be a mistake on the author's part. That is why the suggested solutions, where a third party http/https endpoint is needed, are not appropriate, as there would be no accessibility to those services.
According to the original asker:
"There is no Internet. we are providing chat and other services to people who dont have Internet."
and
"No, we are not using bonjour. Its a proprietary technology. We just provide chat service."
According to the original source[0], the solution has been in place since 2005, and had reduced the homeless population by 74% by 2012. The cost savings was about 5k per homeless person per year.
"In 2005, Utah did a study that found the average annual cost for emergency services and jail time for each chronically homeless person was $16,670. The cost to house them and provide case management services was only $11,000 per person."
Obviously those two numbers don't account for the fact that even a newly homed person might continue to have some emergency services, and jail time. Yet, Utah continues the program and "... the state is on track to meet its goal by 2015", where that goal is to eliminate chronic homelessness.
As Mr Deming once said, "In God We Trust. All others bring data."
I'm impressed that the typical moral outrage of people being given "handouts" was short-circuited by rational data analysis, and a solution driven by said data. Kudos Utah!
On the flip side of the other comments, I used the TrueCar service about 4 months ago. For the specific trim that I wanted (standard trim, not crazy options), several dealership websites had prices on them that were several thousand dollars lower than the TrueCar price, and that was before any negotiations happened at all. So I would use the TrueCar service again for doing research, but I am not confident of their ability to deliver a good "no haggle" price.
Since Apple provides the metadata tagging of the words via NSLinguisticTagger, then is this the web equivalent:
//dim non-anchor tags
$('*').not('a').addClass('dim');
//hightlight anchor tags
$('a').addClass('highlight');
If the browser provided the syntax metadata, then I don't see how this example with anchor tags is logically different. This appears to be obvious and trivial, where a patent requires non-obviousness and non-trivialness given the state of the art.
I'm not actively seeking new employment and am very happy at my current position. However, I am always (passively) interested in new opportunities, and am not going to ignore something awesome that falls in to my lap. A service like this is actually very valuable for someone like me.
That said, opt-in is the way to go. I definitely don't understand the seemingly contradictory point of view of them saying "we don't like recruiter spam either" and "we find ways for companies to send unsolicited requests".
So, I would fall under the categorization of "aren't looking for a new job", while at the same time don't agree with the opt-out (without an actual opt-out mechanism) nature of this service.
I would imagine a spike in the amount of Amazon Prime memberships increased this week due to console purchases.
This year I signed up for a free 30 day trial of Prime so that I could skip on the cost of shipping for Christmas. I will cancel it before the trial period ends. Last year my wife did the same thing on her account.
So I would be curious how many of those are trial memberships, and what the statistics are after 30-60 days once all of those trials expire.
Checksums do not offer this property if both the remote file and checksum are both sent unsecured. If an attacker can MitM the remote file, then they can also do the same for the checksum file.
Maybe it would be helpful to modify "entitled free of charge on PACER" to a phrasing that includes information about how the charges are unreasonable.
I happen to know that under the law, PACER access is not required to be "free of charge", and thus the rest of the statement falls flat. Even though I agree that PACER pricing is out of touch with the law due it's pricing being well above the costs required to maintain the system.
While I'm not sure of your target audience with your statement, it's clear that on some level federal employees of the court system are included. They may also know "free of charge" is not what the law says, and thus it may also undermine your argument with them as well.
Ken White has a post titled "Ninth Circuit Clarifies First Amendment Rights of Public University Professors" [0] which goes in to some detail about the various legal issues at the nexus of free speech rights and professorship.
According to the original asker:
"There is no Internet. we are providing chat and other services to people who dont have Internet."
and
"No, we are not using bonjour. Its a proprietary technology. We just provide chat service."