If there was actually a shortage, all of those companies would insist on being free to poach where they could to make sure their own needs are met. If they can afford to ignore a large pool of potential employees, they aren't suffering from a shortage.
Any number of reasons. A big one is stability. If it's open source, it won't go *POOF* one day. It won't double in price one day. It won't get an ugly redesign with no ability to stick with the version that worked.
Then there's the ability to work out the finer points where the documentation was unclear, greater ability to debug any problems
I can't imagine a good reason that open source with a strong community wouldn't at least be a nice to have for any software.
And naturally, out of a sense of fairness, the boss will give the employee a substantial raise or bonus for saving the company all that money, right? No? No chance in hell?
The corporation would in no way be impared from fulfilling it's fidiciary duties. In the same way that making theft and fraud illegal doesn't prevent a corporation from fulfilling it's fidiciary duties.
As for the rest, you are referring to crown charters that were granted by the king of England when the states were still colonies and so subject to English law and the king. I cannot imagine why you might think that would have any bearing on U.S. law. Further, I can't imagine why you would think the founding fathers were on-board with that given the Revolutionary War.
Once the Constitution was signed (marking the beginning of the U.S. government as we know it), the federal government granted a very few charters to great controversy. After that, the whole mess was left to the states.
It is, however, quite clear that the intent is deception. A reasonable person would expect "own it on BluRay" would mean you OWN the thing that is on BluRay. Somehow I doubt they'll find it acceptable if they agree to "put it on my credit card" by which I mean they place the box physically on my credit card and then I leave with both.
Sure, and absent the whole corporations = people with free speech, they can remain hands off if they like. No change there.
Corporations don't actually get a vote, but they do spend bazillions on lobbiests and campaign funds. Instead, how about they tell their owners (stockholders) what will be good for the company (and presumably the investment) and if those stockholders care to lobby or donate, they are free to do so.
Nowhere in there are the owners being denied the ability to carry their rights with them (as the post I replied to claimed (or more properly, stated that others claim).
More like: They already do. Let each advocate and vote as his conscience dictates,. Their votes will align with the values of any corporation they might create.
Corporate personhood gives the owners a double vote.
However, time marches on. There will always be new data to test against.
The more interesting question though is to look at what factors were involved in the successful algorithm. Ideally there won't be terms in there like gender or race of the justices or political affiliations. That, in turn offers a way to look (theoretically, of course) at how the current SCOTUS might have decided key cases in the past.
Currently, the plan is for the spent fuel to be stored underground for thousands of years. After running it through this reactor, the resultant concentrated waste is to be stored not more than 500 years. The great reduction in volume and storage time is a tremendous simplification of the whole problem.
If we replaced all fossil fuel power plants with these reactors, we could run for over 100 years on nothing but the waste we are currently committed to put somewhere. Meanwhile, holding the spent fuel above ground becomes safer because it gets turned from a waste product people wish would just go away to a valuable fuel that is worth guarding carefully.
They should re-position the reactor as a nuclear waste destruction system that just happens to generate power as a waste product. It wouldn't even be entirely untrue.
The article isn't circumventing anything. I showed it to my scope and nothing changed.
Actually carrying out the steps in the article would result in a small device that if inserted into the scope would circumvent it's feature lock,
For the same reason, a TV show depicting killing someone with a gun is not itself committing murder even if you could copy the steps as shown to commit murder yourself.
A big problem is that they learn everything they know in relation to only one language. They should be using more than one throughout their education so that they properly generalize the principles. Personally I think Python is a good choice because it supports a variety of programming styles from procedural to functional. It has a number of features that are either missing or clunky in Java. On the flip side, Java's strong typing is a good contrast to Python's duck typing.
Another issue is that CS is treated as if it was an engineering program when it really isn't anything of the sort. As a result, the recent CS grad will have little to no knowledge of maintainability or making code to be genuinely reusable. They will know little to nothing about designing an API that can be lived with years later.
The real killer is when they can 'see' the tower but just barely. That forces them to transmit at max power to stay in contact. If they can't see a tower at all, they don't transmit.
No doubt they're trying to do that, but the FDA doesn't do anything to assure it. At the end of the day, they will push the new patented drug over the old generic even if the only benefit is to their balance sheet (and so a detriment to the patients). That doesn't mean the new drug is never better (or just better for some patients).
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently they do, since both professions have one. Further, both professional bodies have their authority enshrined in law.
If there was actually a shortage, all of those companies would insist on being free to poach where they could to make sure their own needs are met. If they can afford to ignore a large pool of potential employees, they aren't suffering from a shortage.
Any number of reasons. A big one is stability. If it's open source, it won't go *POOF* one day. It won't double in price one day. It won't get an ugly redesign with no ability to stick with the version that worked.
Then there's the ability to work out the finer points where the documentation was unclear, greater ability to debug any problems
I can't imagine a good reason that open source with a strong community wouldn't at least be a nice to have for any software.
And naturally, out of a sense of fairness, the boss will give the employee a substantial raise or bonus for saving the company all that money, right? No? No chance in hell?
Screw it then.
But note that the iodine is an acute risk only. It has a half life of about 8 days.
Much of the leakage was cesium which reacts violently with water forming a cesium hydroxide solution. So yes, it will disperse nicely.
The corporation would in no way be impared from fulfilling it's fidiciary duties. In the same way that making theft and fraud illegal doesn't prevent a corporation from fulfilling it's fidiciary duties.
As for the rest, you are referring to crown charters that were granted by the king of England when the states were still colonies and so subject to English law and the king. I cannot imagine why you might think that would have any bearing on U.S. law. Further, I can't imagine why you would think the founding fathers were on-board with that given the Revolutionary War.
Once the Constitution was signed (marking the beginning of the U.S. government as we know it), the federal government granted a very few charters to great controversy. After that, the whole mess was left to the states.
When the other half comes from the previous frame, it's probably over the line.
To properly qualify, something in the frame needs to be rendered at full resolution.
It is, however, quite clear that the intent is deception. A reasonable person would expect "own it on BluRay" would mean you OWN the thing that is on BluRay. Somehow I doubt they'll find it acceptable if they agree to "put it on my credit card" by which I mean they place the box physically on my credit card and then I leave with both.
Sure, and absent the whole corporations = people with free speech, they can remain hands off if they like. No change there.
Corporations don't actually get a vote, but they do spend bazillions on lobbiests and campaign funds. Instead, how about they tell their owners (stockholders) what will be good for the company (and presumably the investment) and if those stockholders care to lobby or donate, they are free to do so.
Nowhere in there are the owners being denied the ability to carry their rights with them (as the post I replied to claimed (or more properly, stated that others claim).
The problem is that as technique improves, the theory that the photo/video was altered in a way that can't be detected becomes ever more plausible.
It was easy to take the witness's word for it when the alternative would involve millions in equipment and would likely be trivial to detect.
More like: They already do. Let each advocate and vote as his conscience dictates,. Their votes will align with the values of any corporation they might create.
Corporate personhood gives the owners a double vote.
However, time marches on. There will always be new data to test against.
The more interesting question though is to look at what factors were involved in the successful algorithm. Ideally there won't be terms in there like gender or race of the justices or political affiliations. That, in turn offers a way to look (theoretically, of course) at how the current SCOTUS might have decided key cases in the past.
That would make the hash just an alternate cc number with no security benefit.
Monthly recurring charges require the plaintext CC number. They could encrypt the ccnumber (and probably should) but they can't just hash it.
Currently, the plan is for the spent fuel to be stored underground for thousands of years. After running it through this reactor, the resultant concentrated waste is to be stored not more than 500 years. The great reduction in volume and storage time is a tremendous simplification of the whole problem.
If we replaced all fossil fuel power plants with these reactors, we could run for over 100 years on nothing but the waste we are currently committed to put somewhere. Meanwhile, holding the spent fuel above ground becomes safer because it gets turned from a waste product people wish would just go away to a valuable fuel that is worth guarding carefully.
They should re-position the reactor as a nuclear waste destruction system that just happens to generate power as a waste product. It wouldn't even be entirely untrue.
I would imagine it is equivalent to clothes in the closet. If you leave them behind, the apartment owner can dispose of them as he sees fit.
The DMCA prohibits manufacturing the circumvention device. It does not prohibit describing it.
Guilty until found innocent. That's worth a bit of alarm.
The article isn't circumventing anything. I showed it to my scope and nothing changed.
Actually carrying out the steps in the article would result in a small device that if inserted into the scope would circumvent it's feature lock,
For the same reason, a TV show depicting killing someone with a gun is not itself committing murder even if you could copy the steps as shown to commit murder yourself.
Only if it is copied. Paraphrasing technical information is not a copyright violation.
A big problem is that they learn everything they know in relation to only one language. They should be using more than one throughout their education so that they properly generalize the principles. Personally I think Python is a good choice because it supports a variety of programming styles from procedural to functional. It has a number of features that are either missing or clunky in Java. On the flip side, Java's strong typing is a good contrast to Python's duck typing.
Another issue is that CS is treated as if it was an engineering program when it really isn't anything of the sort. As a result, the recent CS grad will have little to no knowledge of maintainability or making code to be genuinely reusable. They will know little to nothing about designing an API that can be lived with years later.
The real killer is when they can 'see' the tower but just barely. That forces them to transmit at max power to stay in contact. If they can't see a tower at all, they don't transmit.
No doubt they're trying to do that, but the FDA doesn't do anything to assure it. At the end of the day, they will push the new patented drug over the old generic even if the only benefit is to their balance sheet (and so a detriment to the patients). That doesn't mean the new drug is never better (or just better for some patients).