Microsoft has no interest in keeping yahoo as a distinct set of services. Every Yahoo service that has a Microsoft equivalent will be absorbed. The remains will be buried. This is just a very expensive land grab - the last echo of the dot.com boom.
If it goes ahead it will be hugely disruptive of Microsoft as various in-house factions battle to increase their own influence and grab as much of the meat off the Yahoo bones as they can.
How does this deal improve matters for end users? (I don't say customers as it is obvious that Microsoft now listens to third parties such as RIAA rather than the end users.)
The problem that is being addressed is that the end users prefer Google right now. Why would end users prefer Microhoo over Google?
As nuclear material arranged into any kind of bomb is amazingly rare outside the military, this scheme would fail because false positives will vastly out number actual bombs detected.
Testing for very rare events is always problematic when the reaction to the event has to be immediate and probably very expensive.
I have zero confidence in this claim by the CIA. If they have evidence, present it so all the utility companies can make any necessary changes to their systems.
Without evidence, anybody can claim anything. For example, the reason there have been no recent terrorist attacks in New York is the invisible magic power I spread around the city -- disprove it if you can.
The problem with these schemes will be false positives, each of which will tie up a couple of staff for a few hours. Fingerprint matching in the real world is not like CSI.
The design of ZFS is intended to ensure that the data on the disk is _always_ a valid file system. If a system panics when a ZFS file system is unexpectedly removed, that is a different issue.
Then, of course, checksumming everything does wonders to protect against bit rot and flaky cables.
I don't understand how searching everybody can be reasonable. If there was a high percentage of successful searches that disclosed illegal materials there may be some argument in favour. However, there are vanishingly few cases where examining a laptop shows that it is really a bomb or contains plans for blowing up some damn dam.
But then, of the billions of shoes examined over the past few years, exactly NONE turned out to contain a bomb. So, one has to wonder why the policy continues.
If you really want to worry, consider that the average human can carry at least a quarter pound of C4 + a detonator internally...
As Linux is supposed to be a reimplementation of Unix its lack of a new design paradigm is not surprising.
It is worrying that at the application layer, the most popular (or at least most common) designs are re-implementations of some really crap Windows applications.
Then the fact that most software is still written in C/C++ should cause a tear or two.
There are plenty of ways to provide identity to a pretty high level of confidence that do not require a huge centralised government database (which from recent evidence, will quickly leak all the data because governments seem to be clueless about data security.)
It is interesting to see that not one western government that has claimed that ID cards are essential for the war against fraud, terrorism, crime and quite possibly global warming, has been able to present a viable case to the public.
As costs rise (the UK ID card scheme is now expected to cost between 10 and 20 BILLION pounds over 10 years) the government arguments become more and more vague and frantic rather than more solid and sensible.
ID cards seem to be more about giving huge IT contracts to the usual suspect systems companies than actually solving real-world problems.
This could be good. It will demonstrate how useless "biometrics" are for identifying an individual from a set of millions. All biometrics used in these identity databases are reduced from actual photographs and measurements and represent lossy compression. As soon as you have lossy compression, you can have many to one mappings that make the usefulness for identity checks limited.
It's too late for the person in the article, but if your domain name is important and doesn't infringe any existing trade marks, trade mark it immediately.
The domain now has no value to another as they cannot use or sell it without violating the trademark. You also have a much stronger position in the various appeal processes.
I'm a bit concerned about the word "targets". Just how many shots do you get from a 12,000 pound payload? One, two? Is the destructive power better than 12,000 lb of high explosive ('cus the stuff they push through the laser is pretty nasty all by itself.) Would there be more damage done if you just fly the plane into the building?
HTML really must die, and Javascript along with it.
Let's stop pretending that markup doesn't have to be a fully specified programming language and create something that can safely run in a lightweight browser sandpit. Java should have been the solution but I think that it's missed the boat.
If (and it's questionable) the studios are losing money, they will surely be happy to pay for the development and deployment and running costs of any filtering technology the ISPs install...
Sorry, I can't finish that, shaking with laughter....
Voting is confidential, not secret. If it were _truely_ secret, voting fraud would be almost impossible to detect and prosecute.
The use of ATM machines is a very good idea that should be developed.
Well, WAFL is closed source and ZFS is open. So someone has to explain exactly how Sun expected to get away with "copying".
An added twist to the case will come when the native client/server CIFS support is shipped with Solaris (coming soon.)
Slashdot Mirror
If it goes ahead it will be hugely disruptive of Microsoft as various in-house factions battle to increase their own influence and grab as much of the meat off the Yahoo bones as they can.
The problem that is being addressed is that the end users prefer Google right now. Why would end users prefer Microhoo over Google?
If we ever let them learn how to lip read, we are doomed!
As nuclear material arranged into any kind of bomb is amazingly rare outside the military, this scheme would fail because false positives will vastly out number actual bombs detected. Testing for very rare events is always problematic when the reaction to the event has to be immediate and probably very expensive.
You forgot an option.
Reduce the need to commute.
Without evidence, anybody can claim anything. For example, the reason there have been no recent terrorist attacks in New York is the invisible magic power I spread around the city -- disprove it if you can.
Just Another Roadside Attraction then?
The problem with these schemes will be false positives, each of which will tie up a couple of staff for a few hours. Fingerprint matching in the real world is not like CSI.
By extension, Ford must be against, and not use, viral marketing.
The design of ZFS is intended to ensure that the data on the disk is _always_ a valid file system. If a system panics when a ZFS file system is unexpectedly removed, that is a different issue.
Then, of course, checksumming everything does wonders to protect against bit rot and flaky cables.
But then, of the billions of shoes examined over the past few years, exactly NONE turned out to contain a bomb. So, one has to wonder why the policy continues.
If you really want to worry, consider that the average human can carry at least a quarter pound of C4 + a detonator internally...
Of course, piratebay doesn't host any data, just pointers to data.
It is worrying that at the application layer, the most popular (or at least most common) designs are re-implementations of some really crap Windows applications.
Then the fact that most software is still written in C/C++ should cause a tear or two.
There are plenty of ways to provide identity to a pretty high level of confidence that do not require a huge centralised government database (which from recent evidence, will quickly leak all the data because governments seem to be clueless about data security.)
As costs rise (the UK ID card scheme is now expected to cost between 10 and 20 BILLION pounds over 10 years) the government arguments become more and more vague and frantic rather than more solid and sensible.
ID cards seem to be more about giving huge IT contracts to the usual suspect systems companies than actually solving real-world problems.
This could be good. It will demonstrate how useless "biometrics" are for identifying an individual from a set of millions. All biometrics used in these identity databases are reduced from actual photographs and measurements and represent lossy compression. As soon as you have lossy compression, you can have many to one mappings that make the usefulness for identity checks limited.
If you think your laptop doesn't need to run 8 programs at the same time you really should look under the hood more frequently :-)
The domain now has no value to another as they cannot use or sell it without violating the trademark. You also have a much stronger position in the various appeal processes.
I'm a bit concerned about the word "targets". Just how many shots do you get from a 12,000 pound payload? One, two? Is the destructive power better than 12,000 lb of high explosive ('cus the stuff they push through the laser is pretty nasty all by itself.) Would there be more damage done if you just fly the plane into the building?
HTML really must die, and Javascript along with it. Let's stop pretending that markup doesn't have to be a fully specified programming language and create something that can safely run in a lightweight browser sandpit. Java should have been the solution but I think that it's missed the boat.
Sorry, I can't finish that, shaking with laughter....
Voting is confidential, not secret. If it were _truely_ secret, voting fraud would be almost impossible to detect and prosecute. The use of ATM machines is a very good idea that should be developed.
Note to Darl. Next time remember to bring your evidence with you are next in court.
I wonder how many people genuinely answered yes to the terrorism question? Ask a stupid question, expect to be lied to.
Well, WAFL is closed source and ZFS is open. So someone has to explain exactly how Sun expected to get away with "copying". An added twist to the case will come when the native client/server CIFS support is shipped with Solaris (coming soon.)