Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't bet on that at all
Why would they expose themselves to liability?
There's no liability in keeping logs. They are useful for many things.
Metal monolith found by helicopter crew in Utah desert
511–515 of 515 posts
Re: Metal monolith found by helicopter crew in Utah desert
#512Earlier quoted context omitted.
This guy really is something: > I looked at rock type (Sandstone), color (red and white - no black streaks like found on higher cliffs in Utah), shape (more rounded indicating a more exposed area and erosion), the texture of the canyon floor (flat rock vs sloped indicating higher up in a watershed with infrequent water), and the larger cliff/mesa in the upper background of one of the photos. I took all that and lined…
You have to love the internet sometimes. Someone who works construction (as he stated) can develop a fun investigatory hobby just via the internet. The he can sign his work with a silly name like bear__f##ker (which I'm guessing is a reference to the movie super troopers).
Bear_Fucker, actually. I don't think # is even allowed in Reddit usernames.
Re: Metal monolith found by helicopter crew in Utah desert
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they expose themselves to liability?
There's no liability in keeping logs. They are useful for many things.
Logs that can be tied to individual users are PII and very much a liability.
Their privacy policy states that IP addresses are anonymized after 9 months and cookies after 18 months[1].
[1]: https://policies.google.com/technologies/retention?hl=en-US
Re: Metal monolith found by helicopter crew in Utah desert
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still works, doesn't it? How would they know the laws on this planet?
Ignorantia juris non excusat [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
I'm only responding regarding who "they" refers to, not about whether it excuses them.
Re: Metal monolith found by helicopter crew in Utah desert
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please tell me more! How come the calls to the old code went to nothing? It does not surprise me but I wonder how it happened in this specific instance. Who did the 900 modules rewrite?
Instead of declaring a message and creating it with a call to the (now obsolete) module specific to the structure being transmitted, one simply passed the structure to the message-send api. The conversion template to 'Message' automatically rewrote the structure argument as a message argument. I was re-writing the driver as a simple C++ set of pure virtual objects and implementations for my hardware. So when I scaven…
> Double structure definitions for everything.
I wonder if that's because two different teams worked on the two different abstractions.
> Nobody came to the 2nd hour after lunch.
I guess that the pain of that first hour convinced them that your rewrite was trustworthy.