... not to mention the prestige factor of being able to say that you live there.
It's also an incredible place to base your business. If you leave a message saying "Pleasd call Bill Smith at The White House 773-555-1376", You're almost sure to get a callback.
Considering that BP doesn't even bother measuring how much oil is spilling
Well, I'm pretty sure that they have a rough idea, and it's way more than what they're saying in public. They just don't want to formalize their estimates, because then they'll have to report the numbers. I did some napkin (units(1)) calculations based on the volume of dispersant that they say they've been using and, if they're using at the suggested dilution, then at a minimum they're dealing with 60K~500K barrels per day.
((don't have the actual calculations on hand, right now, and I'm on a different computer, so I can't even just look at my command line history))
And that's a minimum.... the volume that they're using may be limited by the supply chain.
I'm guessing that, in internal conversations, they're duck-speaking their way around solid numbers... For example, they can talk about how much dispersant they'll need ( a number based on oil flow), but there's probably an unwritten rule about never mentioning the oil flow estimate that underlies that calculation, because it'll be seekable in disclosure requests, and they'll still be able to 'truthfully' claim that they've never talked about the actual oil flow.
In the case of the RIAA/MPAA/SPA, it's an assertion, not an assumption. They really don't care if it's true or not. In fact, they are probably fully aware that the claims are false. They make the assertions because they're good PR and not obviously false in the eyes of Joe Public.
(kinda like BP's original 5000 barrels/day claim.)
As I understood it, the Heisenberg principle declared that you could not determine both without affecting one or the other (or both).
In this case, the laser chopsticks, by suspending the particle are affecting the particle's velocity, if not it's location. Thus the principle survives to this day.
(It's easy to violate a principle if you ignore it's conditions.)
The GPL does not prevent dual licensing of code that someone owns the copyright for.l
In other words, for code produced by the employee, that can be provided free of GPL, but outside code that's GPL can't be....
if the employer can figure out a way to distribute the resulting code without any outside GPL code, then there's no reason to GPL it..... but if the code depends on GPL library code, then I'd say that the only way to distribute the code would be in source format (or possibly unlinked binaries that don't include any of the libraries).
IANAL
Re:Obvious missing section
on
The Laidoff Ninja
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Hmm. a first post with actual (and somewhat on-topic) information.... I think that this should be moderated as 'offtopic' just on general principle.
From my reading of the article, most of the machines "purchased with hospital funding" were workplace computers.... On the other hand, it sounds like the home boxes that IT wants users to bring in to install encryption software on really are private home boxes purchased with personal funds.
If my reading is correct, then my response would be "Go ahead. Cut me off or buy and set up a work box for my home." To boot, I'm running Linux at home, so they'd (hopefuly) not have the same problems (if they even manage the install).
I think that you misunderstand what he wants... His only reason for virtualizing Windows under Linux is to insulate from the Windows Driver hell that can sometimes arise when you have to swap out machines after a hardware failure.
The point is that, if Windows always sees the same hardware (no matter what the 'real' hardware is), then you have no driver problems. Linux has almost no driver issues when switching hardware, so virtualizing Windows into a consistent hardware VM under Linux is one way to avoid Windows Driver hell.
It's not necessarily the best solution, but it solves the immediate problem.
It's interesting that I see Microsoft shills pop up on Slashdot and elsewhere, from time to time 'complaining' about how Linux problems with hardware changes are a majour roadblock to owning the desktop... yet, when in real life, it's almost always Windows which I see having problems with hardware changes, while I've experienced Linux shrugging off a complete motherboard upgrade (P2 -> P3) a decade ago, and getting better ever since.
In fact, I use a hard drive that I pulled from a dying laptop as my 'traveling Linux box'. Any machine (desktop or laptop) which can boot from a USB drive is a happy host for Linux with no, or little, change to the system (sometimes resetting the X display for odd video cards). The biggest 'problem' is that, under Ubuntu, every ethernet/wifi card gets a unique number.... Right now I'm up around eth10 for the newest box.
(there are relatively simple ways to fix the ethN numbering oddity, but I'm just too lazy to write the scripts).
If a vendor blows you off with a problem this time, then you know that that's a stupid path to take next time. An anonymous report ((preferrably to other users, rather than to the public at large -- which is more likely to include black-hats)) is a bit less of a political problem if they don't know that you already know about it.
yeah. At least they're interested.... Half your work is done there... now all you have to do is prove to them that the breakage is because of what they're doing, not because of what you're doing.
If they're willing to work with you to fully understand the bug, then chances are that they'll throw better money after good and actually fix it once they understand what went wrong.
If they do know how to exploit your system, then it's too late, agreed. If on the other hand they don't (or they hadn't thought of it), the last thing you want to do is post a big message on your front window "The key is under the welcome mat". Some folk who might not have, otherwise, thought to ransack your house might just drop by to 'take a look'.
As somebody else pointed out... the least you owe to your employer is to (attempt to) lock down your own system before you tell the world where the hole is.
..... It is like the entire fashion industry is in denial about what medium they working in.
Dude, have you ever seen the bodies that they demand as 'models'?.... More to the point, have you ever met someone who looks like that naturally? We still have the problem of the occasional high-profile model dying from starvation trying to stay 'in vogue'.
How will you know if you like gay anal sex with a donkey until you try it?
Some things, you just know...
Would that be you going at the donkey, or the donkey going after you?
Not that it would make a difference to my answer, but it's not clear from your question.
((For me, it's basically the difference between 'eww, ick!,' and 'Holy freaking OUCH!!'. ))
.... Chinese didn't try do anything. ISP's elsewhere mistakenly configured their servers to use Chinese DNS servers.
Not quite accurate. The Netnod server 'causing the problem' claims to have and be serving proper information, but the Chinese instance of that server is having it's data stream filtered by China (on the presumption that nobody outside of China is getting information from that server). The problem arose when a couple of high-volume servers (one, or more, in Chile and one, apparently in California) got their root query packets routed through China and ended up filtered the same way that internal-Chinese queries get filtered.
To solve that problem without having to wander through layers of Chinese technical and political bureaucracy, the easiest solution was for Netnod to simply 'turn off' routes to it's Chinese server until the relevant Chilean and Californian routers get less problematic setups.
The root of the problem (if you'll allow the pun) is that China is silently hacking data from legitimate root servers that go through their systems. Normally this only affects users inside of China but, in this case, part of 'The Great Firewall of China' leaked out into the rest of the world.
Something like that.. Netnod apparently claims that the data on their server is accurate, so either China was hijacking the connection generally, or they were filtering the results being returned. This wasn't a problem until the server (and it's hacked data stream) started being accessed by machines outside of China due to a (silly but otherwise benign) routing change.
I recently ran into a situation where... having around a hundred chairs that would need to be moved around quickly during a function, I asked the hotel for a chair dolly. It was refused on 'safety' grounds... Lawyers had determined that, if they lent us the equipment they would be responsible if our volunteers hurt themselves with it.
So our volunteers were left slinging the chairs around by hand.
If this 'random error' came out of a two-bit fly-by-night operation putting together a proof of concept, I might accept that it was just an oops, but that's so far from describing Microsoft that it's not even worth considering.
this came out of Microsoft, a company with almost infinite resources.
Microsoft has a history of 'errors' that turn out to be to the detriment of their competition (some later proven to have been malicious.
This whole antitrust process has taken place at the highest levels of the company. It's highly unlikely that this page was 'just thrown together' without massive high, middle and low management input and oversight into the design.
It puts IE mostly in the most preferential location (first or last in a horizontal choice panel)
this is such a mind-numbingly and trivially 'bad' implementation, that the summary points out that you could probably [only] find one programmer that stupid in a freshman computing class.
even if this was a random mistake, the chances are only 1 in 5 that IE would have randomly been given the starting position that gave it this most preferential outcome.
I don't know about you, but me and my friends figured out, by grade 1, which starting points of 'enie, meanie, miney, moe' gave the counter the preferential result for small numbers of players (less than 6)
One simple, if cynical, explanation for how this occured is that someone at Microsoft came up with this simple, but predictably bad, implementation and then they figured out which starting position gave IE the best final position and that's the order that went out to production. It would have taken less than a programmer-day of experimentation to figure out which input array gave the optimal distribution and that kind of investment is completely worthwhile given what Microsoft sees as being at stake here.
For a country^W company with a history like Microsoft's, there's really no reason to be cutting them slack on a high-stakes 'error' that resolves in their favour -- In fact, it's a combination of such 'errors' that put them into the sights of anti-trust investigators in the first place.
Finally -- even if this was the result of massive managerial oversight, the error is now in the open, and the fix is (a)almost trivial, and (b)available on Wikipedia.
if MS doesn't fix this problem now, then I'd cite that refusal as evidence that the 'error' is really intentional.
In that case (as stupid as it is), they knew that they were making the pictures. In this cases, the pictures are being taken without their permission or knowledge. That difference known as Mens Rea, and is a necessary element for someone to be convicted of a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also an incredible place to base your business. If you leave a message saying "Pleasd call Bill Smith at The White House 773-555-1376", You're almost sure to get a callback.
Considering that BP doesn't even bother measuring how much oil is spilling
Well, I'm pretty sure that they have a rough idea, and it's way more than what they're saying in public. They just don't want to formalize their estimates, because then they'll have to report the numbers. I did some napkin (units(1)) calculations based on the volume of dispersant that they say they've been using and, if they're using at the suggested dilution, then at a minimum they're dealing with 60K~500K barrels per day.
((don't have the actual calculations on hand, right now, and I'm on a different computer, so I can't even just look at my command line history))
And that's a minimum.... the volume that they're using may be limited by the supply chain.
I'm guessing that, in internal conversations, they're duck-speaking their way around solid numbers... For example, they can talk about how much dispersant they'll need ( a number based on oil flow), but there's probably an unwritten rule about never mentioning the oil flow estimate that underlies that calculation, because it'll be seekable in disclosure requests, and they'll still be able to 'truthfully' claim that they've never talked about the actual oil flow.
In the case of the RIAA/MPAA/SPA, it's an assertion, not an assumption. They really don't care if it's true or not. In fact, they are probably fully aware that the claims are false. They make the assertions because they're good PR and not obviously false in the eyes of Joe Public.
(kinda like BP's original 5000 barrels/day claim.)
At this rate, he probably wouldn't even pass high-school math -- oh, wait!
In this case, the laser chopsticks, by suspending the particle are affecting the particle's velocity, if not it's location. Thus the principle survives to this day.
(It's easy to violate a principle if you ignore it's conditions.)
In other words, for code produced by the employee, that can be provided free of GPL, but outside code that's GPL can't be....
if the employer can figure out a way to distribute the resulting code without any outside GPL code, then there's no reason to GPL it. .... but if the code depends on GPL library code, then I'd say that the only way to distribute the code would be in source format (or possibly unlinked binaries that don't include any of the libraries).
IANAL
Hmm. a first post with actual (and somewhat on-topic) information....
I think that this should be moderated as 'offtopic' just on general principle.
This should be +4 funny!
If my reading is correct, then my response would be "Go ahead. Cut me off or buy and set up a work box for my home." To boot, I'm running Linux at home, so they'd (hopefuly) not have the same problems (if they even manage the install).
The point is that, if Windows always sees the same hardware (no matter what the 'real' hardware is), then you have no driver problems. Linux has almost no driver issues when switching hardware, so virtualizing Windows into a consistent hardware VM under Linux is one way to avoid Windows Driver hell.
It's not necessarily the best solution, but it solves the immediate problem.
In fact, I use a hard drive that I pulled from a dying laptop as my 'traveling Linux box'. Any machine (desktop or laptop) which can boot from a USB drive is a happy host for Linux with no, or little, change to the system (sometimes resetting the X display for odd video cards). The biggest 'problem' is that, under Ubuntu, every ethernet/wifi card gets a unique number.... Right now I'm up around eth10 for the newest box.
(there are relatively simple ways to fix the ethN numbering oddity, but I'm just too lazy to write the scripts).
If a vendor blows you off with a problem this time, then you know that that's a stupid path to take next time. An anonymous report ((preferrably to other users, rather than to the public at large -- which is more likely to include black-hats)) is a bit less of a political problem if they don't know that you already know about it.
If they're willing to work with you to fully understand the bug, then chances are that they'll throw better money after good and actually fix it once they understand what went wrong.
As somebody else pointed out ... the least you owe to your employer is to (attempt to) lock down your own system before you tell the world where the hole is.
..... It is like the entire fashion industry is in denial about what medium they working in.
Dude, have you ever seen the bodies that they demand as 'models'? .... More to the point, have you ever met someone who looks like that naturally? We still have the problem of the occasional high-profile model dying from starvation trying to stay 'in vogue'.
How will you know if you like gay anal sex with a donkey until you try it?
Some things, you just know ...
Would that be you going at the donkey, or the donkey going after you?
Not that it would make a difference to my answer, but it's not clear from your question.
((For me, it's basically the difference between 'eww, ick!,' and 'Holy freaking OUCH!!'. ))
For my part, I'm heading down to termulous headquarters to infect the team leaders.
Otherwise, people would have been able to claim that this 'win' was just a default verdict.
.... Chinese didn't try do anything. ISP's elsewhere mistakenly configured their servers to use Chinese DNS servers.
Not quite accurate. The Netnod server 'causing the problem' claims to have and be serving proper information, but the Chinese instance of that server is having it's data stream filtered by China (on the presumption that nobody outside of China is getting information from that server). The problem arose when a couple of high-volume servers (one, or more, in Chile and one, apparently in California) got their root query packets routed through China and ended up filtered the same way that internal-Chinese queries get filtered.
To solve that problem without having to wander through layers of Chinese technical and political bureaucracy, the easiest solution was for Netnod to simply 'turn off' routes to it's Chinese server until the relevant Chilean and Californian routers get less problematic setups.
The root of the problem (if you'll allow the pun) is that China is silently hacking data from legitimate root servers that go through their systems. Normally this only affects users inside of China but, in this case, part of 'The Great Firewall of China' leaked out into the rest of the world.
Something like that .. Netnod apparently claims that the data on their server is accurate, so either China was hijacking the connection generally, or they were filtering the results being returned. This wasn't a problem until the server (and it's hacked data stream) started being accessed by machines outside of China due to a (silly but otherwise benign) routing change.
So our volunteers were left slinging the chairs around by hand.
For our next function, we used a different hotel.
Gas companies whine to keep wind from passing them.
One simple, if cynical, explanation for how this occured is that someone at Microsoft came up with this simple, but predictably bad, implementation and then they figured out which starting position gave IE the best final position and that's the order that went out to production. It would have taken less than a programmer-day of experimentation to figure out which input array gave the optimal distribution and that kind of investment is completely worthwhile given what Microsoft sees as being at stake here.
For a country^W company with a history like Microsoft's, there's really no reason to be cutting them slack on a high-stakes 'error' that resolves in their favour -- In fact, it's a combination of such 'errors' that put them into the sights of anti-trust investigators in the first place.
Finally -- even if this was the result of massive managerial oversight, the error is now in the open, and the fix is (a)almost trivial, and (b)available on Wikipedia.
if MS doesn't fix this problem now, then I'd cite that refusal as evidence that the 'error' is really intentional.
In that case (as stupid as it is), they knew that they were making the pictures. In this cases, the pictures are being taken without their permission or knowledge. That difference known as Mens Rea, and is a necessary element for someone to be convicted of a crime.