To put it another way, it's like saying the BBQ is just a variation on a campfire and not really all that impressive. Well... that's a pretty interesting variation with many practical applications.
Variations, if they allow new functions and capabilities, does not invalidate it's worth simply because it re-purposes existing tech.
Being a computer-literate relative, I have aggressively installed Firefox and ABP (Chrome too) on many many many systems. Corporate is also included. Although, the vast majority of the time IE is required for some vendor specific sites.
It's not against IE so much. Security is/was the primary reason to move away from IE (They're getting better) and to get rid of ads. Security is a fundamental problem of advertisements. The greed starts and the next thing you know major websites are just giving control away to have ads injected into their site willy nillly. You must trust the advertisers to sanitize all the ads. There is not a great track record of this either.
I use a hosts file in addition to AdBlock to stop their code from even running, and it is code too. Either Flash or Javascript included from an external source to the webserver.
I absolutely hate advertisements as the worthless filth that they are, but disabling all advertisements is simply good security practices.
The answer is not contacts. Direct retinal contact only separated by a thin transparent film. Bypass everything else.
Use the rest of the space in the eye for equipment. Processing, storage, CCD, power generation, etc. With a high enough resolution CCD (or equivalent) you create a cybernetic implant with incredible vision. Overlay any kind of visual information you want on to any surface you can see, or have it hover in front of you.
There is really no point. The ContentID system is broken, ineffective, and meaningless to the average user.
Adding advertisements over your content is also pointless to fight against, and it has nothing to do with copyright ownership in any way. Google will sell you space on a video based on demographics and how the content is tagged. To my knowledge you *CAN* pay to have your advertisements played over every video in a channel by specifying that as a demographic. That could certainly lead to some abuse.... but since advertisements are going to be there anyways.. I don't see what is to be done about it since everyone has equal opportunity to do the same. If CBS wants to sink millions of dollars into placing their ads in competing YouTube channels that is their prerogative.
You are not allowed to upload your own advertisements in the videos. The TOS is quite specific about that.
The real problem is that YouTube is *free*. It is very hard to compete with free, but it is even harder to compete with the branding. As a business you will get far far far far better service and features from a company like BrightCove. However.... BrightCove is not nearly as recognizable as a brand name.
Speaking from experience every single video that has been uploaded by a system I designed for a client has been flagged as being in violation by the ContentID system. Every single one. The client has a royalty free license to the content (music) and the ContentID system does not even identify the correct copyright owner.
After numerous exchanges with YouTube I came away with the following:
1) The video will not be taken down. 2) The account is not at risk for suspension simply due to the flag.
In my neck of the woods YouTube is a required evil. The API is sandboxed, limited, and in perpetual development. The policies for content are in constant flux and you cannot be really sure of just exactly what is going to happen. The API itself was offline for several hours one time and there are periods of time (6-12 hours) in which the API denies all requests period. It's almost random. The best you can do is good error handling and a queuing system. YouTube API devs are quite friendly and helpful, but even they are limited in what they know about the rest of Google and powerless to change many problems.
It's been almost 2 years now and tens of thousands of flagged videos later my client has yet to experience any action from anyone.
To my knowledge your type of revenge is happening on a day-to-day basis already. That registered content owner has been receiving tens of thousands of notices just from my client over two years. Now how much money does it take to pay somebody to review those notices? Hint, more than a 99c cheeseburger.
They are neither over priced or overrated. Just misunderstood.
Gen 1 was shit, much like the first automobiles. Just a curiosity for the early adopters and extremophiles. The latest ones are not really over priced. That's just what it costs, which reflects what the market will bear. Sure, there might be price fixing, but for what it *is*, it seems reasonable depending on the model and features.
It is most certainly not overrated. The performance increase is quite substantial over spinning media. Form factor and density are pretty darn good too. Let's not forget that with no moving parts you don't have to worry about letting it fall. Of course, spinning media has some features to mitigate that, but SSD mitigates it by fundamental design.
My own laptop has a small 64GB SSD and two 1TB "normal" drives. The responsiveness of the OS *skyrocketed*. You don't need huge SSDs. The smallest SSD on market would probably suffice.
This is where they are misunderstood. With proper configuration you can move all user data to the larger cheaper drives and use the SSD for core files and temporary storage/cache. Even with Windows 7 bloated to all hell I still have a lot of programs installed (faster to have their files on the SSD too) with almost 1/3rd of the drive free. It's nice to not have to defrag either. With TRIM support the reliability and lifetime of the drive goes up quite a bit too.
Where they are not overrated at all is server applications. You can build a very very fast DB server with some SSD's. So there are valid enterprise use cases for SSDs when you compare their costs against vastly more expensive solutions delivering higher I/O and throughput such as the ioDrive2. There are quite a few drawbacks to a PCI-E implementation of SSD that can balance against the resultant bottleneck of the SATA bus. However, with 6 GB/s SATA that is less of a concern and there are some pretty decent SATA RAID controllers that can better handle the load. For a number of database applications you don't need a large amount of space, but higher performance. Build a RAID with cheaper and more affordable 64GB SSDs with a decent controller ($1500-200$) and you have a storage solution at about 25% of the cost of the enterprise PCI-E SSD solutions.
Like I said, very misunderstood.
The vast majority of people would see a tangible and cost justified benefit simply be using it for the core OS files. I know I am.
Joel has some pretty damn good points in there. Although, common languages can be hard enough to weed out the weak programmers. You just need to place operational and performance constraints on the produced work.
For example, anybody with a basic understanding of databases can create one. Understanding transactional databases, indexes, and how to optimize a database for large datasets by understanding your data is what distinguishes a MySQL monkey from a true database professional. Ask them if they understand index selectivity and see if their eyes gloss over.
Pointers are really useful to understand if you are going to make programs. That is not where most of the work is today. The money is in interpreted languages and document standards like PHP and HTML. CSS will get you a fair amount of money simply because it was a created industry vis-a-vis the browser/rendering clusterfuck that we have today. Any code monkey can make a functional web page. Make a web page that is rendered and operates the same way on all browsers and you are ahead of the curve.
Sadly, adequate PHP programmers are becoming rare because newbies are just concentrating on Wordpress and plug-in modules. It's the difference between building your computer components and just assembling them into a computer. You may understand what a hard drive *is*, but you can't *build* one.
Recursion is something I use all the time. It's useful. However, very few newbies even understand it conceptually. It can be an efficient and elegant solution to a problem.
I get Joel's point. Although I learned recursion in elementary school, my CS course in college was quite difficult. No object oriented anything and I had to create polymorphic classes. That was really cool and intense. It even applies today since I can write whole classes in PHP that extend other classes. Not the same thing of course, but similar in concept.
That's sad. It's the programmers behind it. Whole point of the article really, which is how many newbie programmers come in without the fundamentals. Most don't need to know how to "program" but to develop. They just collect code snippets and 3rd party modules and stitch them together.
SQL injection is easily mitigated if you know what you are doing and pay attention to detail. Small websites can have great security just because the guy responsible paid attention to detail.
I was just on a website for a top Fortune 500 company and whatever code monkey they hired did a terrible job with sanitizing and validating data in the fields. Employee was complaining that there was something wrong with our "email". Their email address was on the form, but being rejected. I looked at it and intuitively I guessed the guy did not perform a trim on the input before attempting to validate the email address. Checked the end of the email and there was a single white space character. Removed and submitted the form and the angry employee went on with their work.
SQL injection attacks exist precisely for the reasons that Bill Curtis outlines.
It's called a hosts file. That will stop *any* attempt to load an external include on a page by resolving the redirected domain to localhost.
Only way around that would be a local include of Google's javascript, which greatly limits their ability for a common code base, but would make it at least run. That would be a one-trick pony. Just read the javascript, or if obscured, watch the connections and then add it to the hosts file as well.
It's just layers. I use Chrome, Adblock, and a large updated hosts file. You want more? Set up a transparent proxy for the internal network too:D
I understand the desire to promote more knowledgeable investing, but what you're proposing would probably eliminate investing as a feasible option for everyone except the very wealthy, who have insider knowledge of the deals they will make, and can afford to buy lawyers for when things go wrong.
You're wrong about that. It's worse.
Not all investment comes from Wall Street in public offerings.
In private offerings, that can still go through brokerages soliciting accredited investors, often involve limited partnership agreements. That is important. It specifically limits liability which is what wealthy people seeking passive income try to do. As a limited partner you have to be careful about even calling the company up and asking too many pointed questions because it change your status from a limited partner to a general partner. Once in court the executive could be forced to admit, "Yes. I had several conversations with Bob over the Atkinson deal in Canada".
If you remove the protections of a limited partnership agreement, which involves no stock ownership through revenue sharing agreements, then wealthy people will be *much* more reluctant because the risk is so much greater.
The only way to mitigate such risk is to *be* a general partner. Now as a wealthy investor my risk is not just 100% of my money, but whatever actions the executives are performing. That's a 2nd job in addition to the company, practice, firm that I may be working 12 hours a day in right now.
Holding investors strictly liable for all actions of the executives creates a burden, that quite frankly, will be insurmountable. All you will have left is direct partnerships that preclude the possibility of really wealthy investors participating in multiple and diverse investment portfolios.
Great. Now we have even more "dead" money. Wealthy people will just place their money with a bank.... unless the proposal says that is an investment too. So no returns on that unless you want to accept liability.
I hate short term thinking, but taking it this far just means that there will be nearly non-existent abilities to raise capital for small and medium size businesses.
It's a burden that is not logical or viable.
Look, I am a big boy, and I can accept that I can lose 100% of my money. ALL offerings will disclose that. What I cannot accept is that I might be at risk to 1000% (or far more) of my investment in ways that I cannot control (contractually or directly).
Thank You. My informal use of an oft misquoted phrase was inexcusable. I have been shamed sir, and I hereby undertake not to make any such utterances in the future, as it offends all civilized people, bruises fruit, and scares children. I humbly ask your pardon and your continued tolerance of my rampant ignorance.
Your generous attention to my logical and grammatical failures all the more impressive and deeply moving, since it meant taking you away from the wild parties, Grammar Nazi groupie orgies, and generally, a life of fame, fortune, and excitement to come call me out on the Internets in the middle of the night.
I shall name my two first born sons (twins god willing) Vortex and Cortex in your honor sir.
I never argued that there should be more liability and less protections for executives in corporations. Quit the contrary actually. The landlord analogy is insane because you are holding them strictly liable for all actions of the tenant. For a landlord to be truly negligent they would need to know. Murder is ridiculous, but crack house or meth lab.... might not be so much. Bimonthly inspections that just involve a cursory look through the property would not be unreasonable and are permissible in every rental/lease contract I have seen.
As for the executives and board members I absolutely agree that corporate person hood should not shield executives that meet your standards for negligence, gross negligence, knowledge required, and intentional. Treat them like everybody else. They still performed the act, only used the corporation as a vehicle for their actions. Ironically enough, we have laws for vehicular homicide and negligence for literal vehicles too.
My objection is providing strict liability to the investors. That is unreasonable period. Intentional and knowledge required indicates a conspiracy or aiding & abetting. No excuse for that. Gross negligence does not sound possible in an investor/stock holder context.
Negligence and Knowledge required are where it gets unreasonable to the investors because then it requires investors, even accredited investors, to perform ongoing audits that would be too resource intensive and impractical. It might not even be possible if the executives are actively attempting to hide their activities and falsifying records.
Especially so for somebody that owns a minuscule amount of stock in Exxon. Somebody needs to explain to me how Ma & Pa Johnson on a farm in Kansas could really know that the Valdez incident was about to happen or could have prevented it. Billing them for cleanup and reparations does not sound like a logical and reasoned position to take.
yes they are not. i didnt say they WERE. i say, they SHOULD BE.
Well you said...
landlord is responsible
You need to get together with President Clinton and have a lively discussion about the definition of the word "is".
In any case, your just nuts. Not trying to flame you, but you are just nuts. You're holding people responsible for actions they should not logically be held responsible for. Your analogies, which you strongly assert as reasonable, don't have anything to do with corporate responsibility.
Try saying those crazy things over a loud speaker in the park. I don't think I am the only one that will look at you strangely.
It's that mentality for short gains that has lead to our economic collapse. If it was illegal from the start to securitize mortgages, or that it would require very very well documented and physical transfers of the mortgage note from one owner to the other, we would not be in this situation.
It was the intense building greed of Wall Street that made the packaging and reselling of mortgage backed securities go faster and faster and faster, and eventually, the demand was so great that loans were originated that anybody with a brain new could not be repaid and would default within 4 years.
Subprime? Subprime my ass. Guaranteed 99.99% Loss Financial Loans is what I would have called them at the end.
The need to trade faster and faster only encourages this bullshit, and I don't buy for one second, that it is beneficial to the stock market by blah blah blah economist reasoning inserted here.
It also introduces arbitrage . Do you think they are building a multi-billion dollar fiber optical trans-Atlantic cable to reduce latency for shits and giggles? No. It is so they can link the stock exchanges and game the system even more. It won't be Call of Duty packets going across that pipe, but it will be warfare.
Why is it that in a certain building in New York that colocation of a server costs 50-100x that of the going rate?
Why is that some people are trying to make microsecond trading and "stock exchange on a chip"?
It's called unfair advantages far worse than insider trading and it is bullshit. So yes, screw day trading.
I want to see a federal tax on all trades based on the time the stock was held. 1 microsecond? 99.99% tax rate. 1 year?.01% tax rate.
That would start people thinking again about what the company will look like in two years instead of two minutes. That's a culture we need to get back to in this country desperately.
Even the executives that didn't know anything ? If bribery and corruption are the problem, then the solution would be to punish the people responsible, which is not necessarily, all of the executives.
Never said that or implied it. Only the executives directly responsible, or had knowledge, would be prosecuted and sent away. At some level, a board member claiming they had no knowledge is unreasonable. BP had a long history of disregarding safety for profit and even if the board member did not specifically know about the decisions around the blow out presenter, he damn well knew everyone had a corporate culture of having such disregard.
In any case, all executives would be innocent until proven guilty. Let the investigators determine who was really at fault and who knew what.
The landlord is not criminally or civilly liable for anything you said. Since when is it the landlord's duty to make sure the husband does not shoot his wife? How would that be accomplished anyways?
Continually leasing their land to murderers? How the heck would they know?!
Where does this psychopathic idea that corporate efficiency must be maintained at all cost come from?
You're being shortsighted and practicing reductio ad absurdum.
I never promoted the idea that corporate efficiency must be maintained at all costs. Only that efficiency at some level must be maintained otherwise the cost of the products and services would have to rise commensurately. There has to be a balance, otherwise we are just hurting ourselves.
Companies don't want that? OH NOES we can't have that!
Now you are just adding hyperbole. Companies can't have every single investor visiting the offices, or their lawyers offices, and hiring their own counsel and experts to inspect the financials and conduct audits attempting to find fraud or illegal activity.
They must hire experts. Accredited investors would not be excluded either. Just because you are an MD with a net worth of a couple million dollars meeting the current requirements for exemption under the Securities Act of 1933, does not mean you can walk into a mining company and understand what is wrong and what is right, and what is illegal .
Your hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum aside, corporations are already being monitored under current laws. Obviously, that needs to beefed up a bit, but requiring all investors (think how many that would mean for Exxon) to watch the company is just plain ludicrous. It can't work in the real world without making business so inefficient, it can't operate.
What if you own part of a mutual fund? Is it sufficient to investigate the mutual fund managers? Or must you then perform investigations and audits on the possible hundreds or thousands of investments they have? What if a mutual fund owns part of a different financial instrument?
WHAT IF... WHAT IF... (I get to do hyperbole) somebody that owned part of a mortgage backed security? Would they be required to make sure no lending laws were broken on each loan origination? Would they need to physically inspect each security to verify the possession of the note?
Of course these same companies want to monitor all of our forms of communication and behaviour to (enhance their marketing and) make sure we don't touch their oh so precious IP
More hyperbole. Of course things are not balanced. Not even close. However, this has nothing to do with the specific question at hand......
But we can't have companies watching what they are doing, that would be inefficient.
No. We can have increased regulations, penalties, and monitoring of corporate activities. What we can't have is thousands upon thousands of independent parties doing it at the same time. That would be grossly inefficient to the point that it is no longer possible to operate a viable business.
That's why you can't go after the small investor. What I did say was put the executives (and I implied the board of directors) in prison for long sentences. I have a hard time seeing how proposing that, and sparing the small investor makes me a corporate apologist, which is what your raving character assassination seems to be trying to accomplish.
Is this just for public companies or private?
I got some news for you... every company (with few exceptions) needed an IPO to go public. Before that, they had to raise capital. The proposal to make investors liable would raise the bar so high, that new businesses and small business would have a significant and oft insurmountable barrier to entry.
You have a +5 insightful. That means that your hyperbole has sentiments that many can get behind (including myself) but you need to take a couple of deep breaths and realize that you have to be smart, clear headed, and forward thinking when you come up with better ways to regulate corporations and curtail their sociopathic behaviors that we all hate so much.
It's like holding the landlord responsible if the tenant murders somebody on the property. Is it reasonable to assume that the landlord would have known about the murder to take place, assuming it is premeditated? Is it reasonable to assume responsibility for crimes of passion?
No small unaccredited investor purchases stock in a company expecting it to perform fraud, and you cannot reasonably hold them accountable for actions that are essentially unknowable.
Your solution raises the barrier to entry for stock ownership so high that only accredited investors and investment gateways (Wall Street investment firms) could meet them.
It will kill capitalism, which is your intent.
Either provide a reasonable solution, like holding the executives and board members personally and criminally liable for fraud, or just admit you want to replace capitalism and the stock market entirely.
Sorry, your position is just not reasonable in any way, shape, or form. Your analogies are false. There is a difference between personal responsibility with a hot coffee cup and indirect fraudulent actions that you have no way of knowing. If the average person did, then so would the authorities, and it would be stopped.
For people wondering how a mattress could possibly be mosquito resistant it was because it was made out of a specific plant that was a natural insecticide.
Which begs the question, was that lost technology? I don't see Africans using it for the past couple thousand years or anyone else.
My favorite from the article:
"There were no rules for separate eating, working, or sleeping places," she says. "Breakfast in bed may have been an almost daily occurrence."
Perhaps not. I am sure there was the, "Don't touch Thag's shit rule" though.
I am still curious about the reports recently about "virus" and "malware" on UAV's in the US. From those stories it does not sound like the Air Force had any networking security going on.
Cyberwarfare does imply they took control of it, but that did not have to involve radio signals direct to the UAV. It could have been a deep hack back in the US and they just landed the UAV and then shut it down.
What better point could they make about the state of our security then landing one of our UAVs in perfect condition and taking it?
You can't go after shareholders in a public company. Not all of them. It would kill day trading for one, not that I mind that one bit.
It would make investments nearly impossible. All that would end up happening is they would bypass it with strategic revenue sharing agreements and legal clauses preventing the company from funneling assets and revenue out to other companies.
Making a farmer or teacher responsible for their share in a company they invested partly in for retirement is going too far. They lack the sophistication and access to resources to truly assess risk. Most of that is just long term investment in a big well known company.
Going after mutual funds and pension managers probably won't work well either. How could you ever really know what is going on in a company if it is fraud?
I think it would be more reasonable to strip corporate person hood and limited liability for the executives and any shareholder that is an accredited investor. The accredited investor part is really really iffy for me.
Unless you can really define just how shareholder vigilance is supposed to work without an absolute *ton* of micromanaging and audits on a constant basis. Most companies don't want that. So unless the investor is actively involved on the board of directors I just don't see how it is reasonable for you to assume, "they should have known". All they know is what is in the offering and disclosed. They know their risk, not ongoing operations.
Linux users don't give a shit about a desktop, that's why they're running Linux
YAY HEADLESS SERVERS DURR
You know..... I have to laugh.
Linux users apparently done't give a shit about a nice desktop and user friendliness. I say that..... because... it is neither good looking, highly functional, or user friendly.
I just plain *enjoy* a Windows 7 desktop experience more than any Linux GUI. Just the truth. I even enjoy Mac OS X more than Windows as far as visual aesthetics are concerned.
The funny part is the headless servers. I run a *ton* of headless CentOS servers. I can honestly say that for what needs to be done on them I am not missing the desktop at all. Give me a terminal and I am good to go.
So you are actually correct. As a Linux user I don't give two shits about the desktop. It's about other things.....
Most Netgear routers that ship, by default, employ a DNS proxy. Any user machine that uses DHCP will be told the DNS server is 192.168.1.1 and use whatever DNS is defined in the WAN configuration.
Deploying a standard-less DNS encryption is only going to happen in one of two places. The user's machine or a DNS proxy being run on a server.
Routers are out of the question, even high end ones, for the time being without a standard. Even then, it will be a long long long time before firmware updates are pushed out to address most home routers. Considering Linksys's super-laid-back-who-gives-a-shit-approach to firmware development (it takes years for features) that leaves only Tomato or DD-WRT to pick it up. You will see TCP/IP v6 before you see a deployed standard for DNS encryption on home routers.
So, the vast majority of OpenDNS users have defaulted routers and Windows OS, and no home servers in sight. How is this supposed to work? Apple does not represent everybody at the moment by far.
Furthermore..... what about corporate use of OpenDNS? I like using it in corporate settings. Normally, I find it more reliable than the ISP. Unless they release an intercepting, or transparent, DNS proxy service that can run on Linux/Windows Server it will be useless.
Corporate machines depend on the local DNS server to resolve everything from printer addresses to which domain controller to authenticate too. It is essential to any Windows network (read domain controller) setup. Installing this on a corporate machine would just fuck everything up in a hurry unless their software is smart enough to forward queries to the machine defined DNS server.
This is a non-starter. Come back when you have a Windows app designed for home users first. Then after you see how well that works, release a corporate level product like a transparent DNS proxy that we can install on our servers.
What is the whole point? OpenDNS is not vulnerable to DNS poisoning? So instead of the local ISP, or government monitoring and altering my traffic OpenDNS gets to do it? They already do it to me anyways and they would just roll over for the government no different than any other major company.
So what am I getting out of this? Making sure that OpenDNS has its profits protected and that I completely rely on OpenDNS for secured DNS queries? That's all it sounds like.
When I am paranoid about my DNS queries I can just route them through TOR on a special throwaway machine. Then it is logged coming from the exit node's IP address.
Slashdot Mirror
To put it another way, it's like saying the BBQ is just a variation on a campfire and not really all that impressive. Well... that's a pretty interesting variation with many practical applications.
Variations, if they allow new functions and capabilities, does not invalidate it's worth simply because it re-purposes existing tech.
Being a computer-literate relative, I have aggressively installed Firefox and ABP (Chrome too) on many many many systems. Corporate is also included. Although, the vast majority of the time IE is required for some vendor specific sites.
It's not against IE so much. Security is/was the primary reason to move away from IE (They're getting better) and to get rid of ads. Security is a fundamental problem of advertisements. The greed starts and the next thing you know major websites are just giving control away to have ads injected into their site willy nillly. You must trust the advertisers to sanitize all the ads. There is not a great track record of this either.
I use a hosts file in addition to AdBlock to stop their code from even running, and it is code too. Either Flash or Javascript included from an external source to the webserver.
I absolutely hate advertisements as the worthless filth that they are, but disabling all advertisements is simply good security practices.
Ohhhhh, Jesuuuuuuuuuuus, caaaaaaaaaaaan youuuuuuu interpreeeeeeeeeeeeeeet... what's insiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide myyyyyyyyyyyyyyy underweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeear?
ROFL.
Ok. I don't care what anybody says... that's funny! Mods be damned, that is funny. +5 Sarcasm.
The answer is not contacts. Direct retinal contact only separated by a thin transparent film. Bypass everything else.
Use the rest of the space in the eye for equipment. Processing, storage, CCD, power generation, etc. With a high enough resolution CCD (or equivalent) you create a cybernetic implant with incredible vision. Overlay any kind of visual information you want on to any surface you can see, or have it hover in front of you.
So first we called them stupid, and now they are grossly overconfident according to another study.
I predict the next study will show that their mothers are fatter than average, and ugly.
There is really no point. The ContentID system is broken, ineffective, and meaningless to the average user.
Adding advertisements over your content is also pointless to fight against, and it has nothing to do with copyright ownership in any way. Google will sell you space on a video based on demographics and how the content is tagged. To my knowledge you *CAN* pay to have your advertisements played over every video in a channel by specifying that as a demographic. That could certainly lead to some abuse.... but since advertisements are going to be there anyways.. I don't see what is to be done about it since everyone has equal opportunity to do the same. If CBS wants to sink millions of dollars into placing their ads in competing YouTube channels that is their prerogative.
You are not allowed to upload your own advertisements in the videos. The TOS is quite specific about that.
The real problem is that YouTube is *free*. It is very hard to compete with free, but it is even harder to compete with the branding. As a business you will get far far far far better service and features from a company like BrightCove. However.... BrightCove is not nearly as recognizable as a brand name.
Speaking from experience every single video that has been uploaded by a system I designed for a client has been flagged as being in violation by the ContentID system. Every single one. The client has a royalty free license to the content (music) and the ContentID system does not even identify the correct copyright owner.
After numerous exchanges with YouTube I came away with the following:
1) The video will not be taken down.
2) The account is not at risk for suspension simply due to the flag.
In my neck of the woods YouTube is a required evil. The API is sandboxed, limited, and in perpetual development. The policies for content are in constant flux and you cannot be really sure of just exactly what is going to happen. The API itself was offline for several hours one time and there are periods of time (6-12 hours) in which the API denies all requests period. It's almost random. The best you can do is good error handling and a queuing system. YouTube API devs are quite friendly and helpful, but even they are limited in what they know about the rest of Google and powerless to change many problems.
It's been almost 2 years now and tens of thousands of flagged videos later my client has yet to experience any action from anyone.
To my knowledge your type of revenge is happening on a day-to-day basis already. That registered content owner has been receiving tens of thousands of notices just from my client over two years. Now how much money does it take to pay somebody to review those notices? Hint, more than a 99c cheeseburger.
Sorry.... the only part of the post I caught was about the nice pair of tits. Go on.
They are neither over priced or overrated. Just misunderstood.
Gen 1 was shit, much like the first automobiles. Just a curiosity for the early adopters and extremophiles. The latest ones are not really over priced. That's just what it costs, which reflects what the market will bear. Sure, there might be price fixing, but for what it *is*, it seems reasonable depending on the model and features.
It is most certainly not overrated. The performance increase is quite substantial over spinning media. Form factor and density are pretty darn good too. Let's not forget that with no moving parts you don't have to worry about letting it fall. Of course, spinning media has some features to mitigate that, but SSD mitigates it by fundamental design.
My own laptop has a small 64GB SSD and two 1TB "normal" drives. The responsiveness of the OS *skyrocketed*. You don't need huge SSDs. The smallest SSD on market would probably suffice.
This is where they are misunderstood. With proper configuration you can move all user data to the larger cheaper drives and use the SSD for core files and temporary storage/cache. Even with Windows 7 bloated to all hell I still have a lot of programs installed (faster to have their files on the SSD too) with almost 1/3rd of the drive free. It's nice to not have to defrag either. With TRIM support the reliability and lifetime of the drive goes up quite a bit too.
Where they are not overrated at all is server applications. You can build a very very fast DB server with some SSD's. So there are valid enterprise use cases for SSDs when you compare their costs against vastly more expensive solutions delivering higher I/O and throughput such as the ioDrive2. There are quite a few drawbacks to a PCI-E implementation of SSD that can balance against the resultant bottleneck of the SATA bus. However, with 6 GB/s SATA that is less of a concern and there are some pretty decent SATA RAID controllers that can better handle the load. For a number of database applications you don't need a large amount of space, but higher performance. Build a RAID with cheaper and more affordable 64GB SSDs with a decent controller ($1500-200$) and you have a storage solution at about 25% of the cost of the enterprise PCI-E SSD solutions.
Like I said, very misunderstood.
The vast majority of people would see a tangible and cost justified benefit simply be using it for the core OS files. I know I am.
It means he "mined" his post with grammaticl and spelling traps to get you to post in response.
In other words.. he created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Either that or he is just stoopid.
I found it a good read.
Joel has some pretty damn good points in there. Although, common languages can be hard enough to weed out the weak programmers. You just need to place operational and performance constraints on the produced work.
For example, anybody with a basic understanding of databases can create one. Understanding transactional databases, indexes, and how to optimize a database for large datasets by understanding your data is what distinguishes a MySQL monkey from a true database professional. Ask them if they understand index selectivity and see if their eyes gloss over.
Pointers are really useful to understand if you are going to make programs. That is not where most of the work is today. The money is in interpreted languages and document standards like PHP and HTML. CSS will get you a fair amount of money simply because it was a created industry vis-a-vis the browser/rendering clusterfuck that we have today. Any code monkey can make a functional web page. Make a web page that is rendered and operates the same way on all browsers and you are ahead of the curve.
Sadly, adequate PHP programmers are becoming rare because newbies are just concentrating on Wordpress and plug-in modules. It's the difference between building your computer components and just assembling them into a computer. You may understand what a hard drive *is*, but you can't *build* one.
Recursion is something I use all the time. It's useful. However, very few newbies even understand it conceptually. It can be an efficient and elegant solution to a problem.
I get Joel's point. Although I learned recursion in elementary school, my CS course in college was quite difficult. No object oriented anything and I had to create polymorphic classes. That was really cool and intense. It even applies today since I can write whole classes in PHP that extend other classes. Not the same thing of course, but similar in concept.
That's sad. It's the programmers behind it. Whole point of the article really, which is how many newbie programmers come in without the fundamentals. Most don't need to know how to "program" but to develop. They just collect code snippets and 3rd party modules and stitch them together.
SQL injection is easily mitigated if you know what you are doing and pay attention to detail. Small websites can have great security just because the guy responsible paid attention to detail.
I was just on a website for a top Fortune 500 company and whatever code monkey they hired did a terrible job with sanitizing and validating data in the fields. Employee was complaining that there was something wrong with our "email". Their email address was on the form, but being rejected. I looked at it and intuitively I guessed the guy did not perform a trim on the input before attempting to validate the email address. Checked the end of the email and there was a single white space character. Removed and submitted the form and the angry employee went on with their work.
SQL injection attacks exist precisely for the reasons that Bill Curtis outlines.
Yes you can block it. Regardless of browser used.
It's called a hosts file. That will stop *any* attempt to load an external include on a page by resolving the redirected domain to localhost.
Only way around that would be a local include of Google's javascript, which greatly limits their ability for a common code base, but would make it at least run. That would be a one-trick pony. Just read the javascript, or if obscured, watch the connections and then add it to the hosts file as well.
It's just layers. I use Chrome, Adblock, and a large updated hosts file. You want more? Set up a transparent proxy for the internal network too :D
I understand the desire to promote more knowledgeable investing, but what you're proposing would probably eliminate investing as a feasible option for everyone except the very wealthy, who have insider knowledge of the deals they will make, and can afford to buy lawyers for when things go wrong.
You're wrong about that. It's worse.
Not all investment comes from Wall Street in public offerings.
In private offerings, that can still go through brokerages soliciting accredited investors, often involve limited partnership agreements. That is important. It specifically limits liability which is what wealthy people seeking passive income try to do. As a limited partner you have to be careful about even calling the company up and asking too many pointed questions because it change your status from a limited partner to a general partner. Once in court the executive could be forced to admit, "Yes. I had several conversations with Bob over the Atkinson deal in Canada".
If you remove the protections of a limited partnership agreement, which involves no stock ownership through revenue sharing agreements, then wealthy people will be *much* more reluctant because the risk is so much greater.
The only way to mitigate such risk is to *be* a general partner. Now as a wealthy investor my risk is not just 100% of my money, but whatever actions the executives are performing. That's a 2nd job in addition to the company, practice, firm that I may be working 12 hours a day in right now.
Holding investors strictly liable for all actions of the executives creates a burden, that quite frankly, will be insurmountable. All you will have left is direct partnerships that preclude the possibility of really wealthy investors participating in multiple and diverse investment portfolios.
Great. Now we have even more "dead" money. Wealthy people will just place their money with a bank.... unless the proposal says that is an investment too. So no returns on that unless you want to accept liability.
I hate short term thinking, but taking it this far just means that there will be nearly non-existent abilities to raise capital for small and medium size businesses.
It's a burden that is not logical or viable.
Look, I am a big boy, and I can accept that I can lose 100% of my money. ALL offerings will disclose that. What I cannot accept is that I might be at risk to 1000% (or far more) of my investment in ways that I cannot control (contractually or directly).
Wow.
Thank You. My informal use of an oft misquoted phrase was inexcusable. I have been shamed sir, and I hereby undertake not to make any such utterances in the future, as it offends all civilized people, bruises fruit, and scares children. I humbly ask your pardon and your continued tolerance of my rampant ignorance.
Your generous attention to my logical and grammatical failures all the more impressive and deeply moving, since it meant taking you away from the wild parties, Grammar Nazi groupie orgies, and generally, a life of fame, fortune, and excitement to come call me out on the Internets in the middle of the night.
I shall name my two first born sons (twins god willing) Vortex and Cortex in your honor sir.
Forever grateful, My I please have another,
Ed III
Aptly put.
I never argued that there should be more liability and less protections for executives in corporations. Quit the contrary actually. The landlord analogy is insane because you are holding them strictly liable for all actions of the tenant. For a landlord to be truly negligent they would need to know. Murder is ridiculous, but crack house or meth lab.... might not be so much. Bimonthly inspections that just involve a cursory look through the property would not be unreasonable and are permissible in every rental/lease contract I have seen.
As for the executives and board members I absolutely agree that corporate person hood should not shield executives that meet your standards for negligence, gross negligence, knowledge required, and intentional. Treat them like everybody else. They still performed the act, only used the corporation as a vehicle for their actions. Ironically enough, we have laws for vehicular homicide and negligence for literal vehicles too.
My objection is providing strict liability to the investors. That is unreasonable period. Intentional and knowledge required indicates a conspiracy or aiding & abetting. No excuse for that. Gross negligence does not sound possible in an investor/stock holder context.
Negligence and Knowledge required are where it gets unreasonable to the investors because then it requires investors, even accredited investors, to perform ongoing audits that would be too resource intensive and impractical. It might not even be possible if the executives are actively attempting to hide their activities and falsifying records.
Especially so for somebody that owns a minuscule amount of stock in Exxon. Somebody needs to explain to me how Ma & Pa Johnson on a farm in Kansas could really know that the Valdez incident was about to happen or could have prevented it. Billing them for cleanup and reparations does not sound like a logical and reasoned position to take.
yes they are not. i didnt say they WERE. i say, they SHOULD BE.
Well you said...
landlord is responsible
You need to get together with President Clinton and have a lively discussion about the definition of the word "is".
In any case, your just nuts. Not trying to flame you, but you are just nuts. You're holding people responsible for actions they should not logically be held responsible for. Your analogies, which you strongly assert as reasonable, don't have anything to do with corporate responsibility.
Try saying those crazy things over a loud speaker in the park. I don't think I am the only one that will look at you strangely.
Up the dosage buddy.
I would ban day trading, and I will tell you why.
It's that mentality for short gains that has lead to our economic collapse. If it was illegal from the start to securitize mortgages, or that it would require very very well documented and physical transfers of the mortgage note from one owner to the other, we would not be in this situation.
It was the intense building greed of Wall Street that made the packaging and reselling of mortgage backed securities go faster and faster and faster, and eventually, the demand was so great that loans were originated that anybody with a brain new could not be repaid and would default within 4 years.
Subprime? Subprime my ass. Guaranteed 99.99% Loss Financial Loans is what I would have called them at the end.
The need to trade faster and faster only encourages this bullshit, and I don't buy for one second, that it is beneficial to the stock market by blah blah blah economist reasoning inserted here.
It also introduces arbitrage . Do you think they are building a multi-billion dollar fiber optical trans-Atlantic cable to reduce latency for shits and giggles? No. It is so they can link the stock exchanges and game the system even more. It won't be Call of Duty packets going across that pipe, but it will be warfare.
Why is it that in a certain building in New York that colocation of a server costs 50-100x that of the going rate?
Why is that some people are trying to make microsecond trading and "stock exchange on a chip"?
It's called unfair advantages far worse than insider trading and it is bullshit. So yes, screw day trading.
I want to see a federal tax on all trades based on the time the stock was held. 1 microsecond? 99.99% tax rate. 1 year? .01% tax rate.
That would start people thinking again about what the company will look like in two years instead of two minutes. That's a culture we need to get back to in this country desperately.
Even the executives that didn't know anything ? If bribery and corruption are the problem, then the solution would be to punish the people responsible, which is not necessarily, all of the executives.
Never said that or implied it. Only the executives directly responsible, or had knowledge, would be prosecuted and sent away. At some level, a board member claiming they had no knowledge is unreasonable. BP had a long history of disregarding safety for profit and even if the board member did not specifically know about the decisions around the blow out presenter, he damn well knew everyone had a corporate culture of having such disregard.
In any case, all executives would be innocent until proven guilty. Let the investigators determine who was really at fault and who knew what.
What are you smoking?
The landlord is not criminally or civilly liable for anything you said. Since when is it the landlord's duty to make sure the husband does not shoot his wife? How would that be accomplished anyways?
Continually leasing their land to murderers? How the heck would they know?!
LOL
Dude... seriously.... put the pipe down.
Where does this psychopathic idea that corporate efficiency must be maintained at all cost come from?
You're being shortsighted and practicing reductio ad absurdum.
I never promoted the idea that corporate efficiency must be maintained at all costs. Only that efficiency at some level must be maintained otherwise the cost of the products and services would have to rise commensurately. There has to be a balance, otherwise we are just hurting ourselves.
Companies don't want that? OH NOES we can't have that!
Now you are just adding hyperbole. Companies can't have every single investor visiting the offices, or their lawyers offices, and hiring their own counsel and experts to inspect the financials and conduct audits attempting to find fraud or illegal activity.
They must hire experts. Accredited investors would not be excluded either. Just because you are an MD with a net worth of a couple million dollars meeting the current requirements for exemption under the Securities Act of 1933, does not mean you can walk into a mining company and understand what is wrong and what is right, and what is illegal .
Your hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum aside, corporations are already being monitored under current laws. Obviously, that needs to beefed up a bit, but requiring all investors (think how many that would mean for Exxon) to watch the company is just plain ludicrous. It can't work in the real world without making business so inefficient, it can't operate.
What if you own part of a mutual fund? Is it sufficient to investigate the mutual fund managers? Or must you then perform investigations and audits on the possible hundreds or thousands of investments they have? What if a mutual fund owns part of a different financial instrument?
WHAT IF... WHAT IF... (I get to do hyperbole) somebody that owned part of a mortgage backed security? Would they be required to make sure no lending laws were broken on each loan origination? Would they need to physically inspect each security to verify the possession of the note?
Of course these same companies want to monitor all of our forms of communication and behaviour to (enhance their marketing and) make sure we don't touch their oh so precious IP
More hyperbole. Of course things are not balanced. Not even close. However, this has nothing to do with the specific question at hand......
But we can't have companies watching what they are doing, that would be inefficient.
No. We can have increased regulations, penalties, and monitoring of corporate activities. What we can't have is thousands upon thousands of independent parties doing it at the same time. That would be grossly inefficient to the point that it is no longer possible to operate a viable business.
That's why you can't go after the small investor. What I did say was put the executives (and I implied the board of directors) in prison for long sentences. I have a hard time seeing how proposing that, and sparing the small investor makes me a corporate apologist, which is what your raving character assassination seems to be trying to accomplish.
Is this just for public companies or private?
I got some news for you... every company (with few exceptions) needed an IPO to go public. Before that, they had to raise capital. The proposal to make investors liable would raise the bar so high, that new businesses and small business would have a significant and oft insurmountable barrier to entry.
You have a +5 insightful. That means that your hyperbole has sentiments that many can get behind (including myself) but you need to take a couple of deep breaths and realize that you have to be smart, clear headed, and forward thinking when you come up with better ways to regulate corporations and curtail their sociopathic behaviors that we all hate so much.
Your position is not reasonable.
It's like holding the landlord responsible if the tenant murders somebody on the property. Is it reasonable to assume that the landlord would have known about the murder to take place, assuming it is premeditated? Is it reasonable to assume responsibility for crimes of passion?
No small unaccredited investor purchases stock in a company expecting it to perform fraud, and you cannot reasonably hold them accountable for actions that are essentially unknowable.
Your solution raises the barrier to entry for stock ownership so high that only accredited investors and investment gateways (Wall Street investment firms) could meet them.
It will kill capitalism, which is your intent.
Either provide a reasonable solution, like holding the executives and board members personally and criminally liable for fraud, or just admit you want to replace capitalism and the stock market entirely.
Sorry, your position is just not reasonable in any way, shape, or form. Your analogies are false. There is a difference between personal responsibility with a hot coffee cup and indirect fraudulent actions that you have no way of knowing. If the average person did, then so would the authorities, and it would be stopped.
For people wondering how a mattress could possibly be mosquito resistant it was because it was made out of a specific plant that was a natural insecticide.
Which begs the question, was that lost technology? I don't see Africans using it for the past couple thousand years or anyone else.
My favorite from the article:
"There were no rules for separate eating, working, or sleeping places," she says. "Breakfast in bed may have been an almost daily occurrence."
Perhaps not. I am sure there was the, "Don't touch Thag's shit rule" though.
You bring up a *lot* of good points.
I am still curious about the reports recently about "virus" and "malware" on UAV's in the US. From those stories it does not sound like the Air Force had any networking security going on.
Cyberwarfare does imply they took control of it, but that did not have to involve radio signals direct to the UAV. It could have been a deep hack back in the US and they just landed the UAV and then shut it down.
What better point could they make about the state of our security then landing one of our UAVs in perfect condition and taking it?
You can't go after shareholders in a public company. Not all of them. It would kill day trading for one, not that I mind that one bit.
It would make investments nearly impossible. All that would end up happening is they would bypass it with strategic revenue sharing agreements and legal clauses preventing the company from funneling assets and revenue out to other companies.
Making a farmer or teacher responsible for their share in a company they invested partly in for retirement is going too far. They lack the sophistication and access to resources to truly assess risk. Most of that is just long term investment in a big well known company.
Going after mutual funds and pension managers probably won't work well either. How could you ever really know what is going on in a company if it is fraud?
I think it would be more reasonable to strip corporate person hood and limited liability for the executives and any shareholder that is an accredited investor. The accredited investor part is really really iffy for me.
Unless you can really define just how shareholder vigilance is supposed to work without an absolute *ton* of micromanaging and audits on a constant basis. Most companies don't want that. So unless the investor is actively involved on the board of directors I just don't see how it is reasonable for you to assume, "they should have known". All they know is what is in the offering and disclosed. They know their risk, not ongoing operations.
Nail the executives and leave it at that.
Linux users don't give a shit about a desktop, that's why they're running Linux
YAY HEADLESS SERVERS DURR
You know..... I have to laugh.
Linux users apparently done't give a shit about a nice desktop and user friendliness. I say that..... because... it is neither good looking, highly functional, or user friendly.
I just plain *enjoy* a Windows 7 desktop experience more than any Linux GUI. Just the truth. I even enjoy Mac OS X more than Windows as far as visual aesthetics are concerned.
The funny part is the headless servers. I run a *ton* of headless CentOS servers. I can honestly say that for what needs to be done on them I am not missing the desktop at all. Give me a terminal and I am good to go.
So you are actually correct. As a Linux user I don't give two shits about the desktop. It's about other things.....
That's the problem.
Most Netgear routers that ship, by default, employ a DNS proxy. Any user machine that uses DHCP will be told the DNS server is 192.168.1.1 and use whatever DNS is defined in the WAN configuration.
Deploying a standard-less DNS encryption is only going to happen in one of two places. The user's machine or a DNS proxy being run on a server.
Routers are out of the question, even high end ones, for the time being without a standard. Even then, it will be a long long long time before firmware updates are pushed out to address most home routers. Considering Linksys's super-laid-back-who-gives-a-shit-approach to firmware development (it takes years for features) that leaves only Tomato or DD-WRT to pick it up. You will see TCP/IP v6 before you see a deployed standard for DNS encryption on home routers.
So, the vast majority of OpenDNS users have defaulted routers and Windows OS, and no home servers in sight. How is this supposed to work? Apple does not represent everybody at the moment by far.
Furthermore..... what about corporate use of OpenDNS? I like using it in corporate settings. Normally, I find it more reliable than the ISP. Unless they release an intercepting, or transparent, DNS proxy service that can run on Linux/Windows Server it will be useless.
Corporate machines depend on the local DNS server to resolve everything from printer addresses to which domain controller to authenticate too. It is essential to any Windows network (read domain controller) setup. Installing this on a corporate machine would just fuck everything up in a hurry unless their software is smart enough to forward queries to the machine defined DNS server.
This is a non-starter. Come back when you have a Windows app designed for home users first. Then after you see how well that works, release a corporate level product like a transparent DNS proxy that we can install on our servers.
What is the whole point? OpenDNS is not vulnerable to DNS poisoning? So instead of the local ISP, or government monitoring and altering my traffic OpenDNS gets to do it? They already do it to me anyways and they would just roll over for the government no different than any other major company.
So what am I getting out of this? Making sure that OpenDNS has its profits protected and that I completely rely on OpenDNS for secured DNS queries? That's all it sounds like.
When I am paranoid about my DNS queries I can just route them through TOR on a special throwaway machine. Then it is logged coming from the exit node's IP address.