on a much smaller scale, but I think the model still works: skeet. When you're shooting, you aim ahead of the skeet - not where it is, but where it will be. The shot travels at a constant speed, and meets the skeet at a predetermined point in space. If you know how fast your skeet is moving, the distance to your aiming point, you know exactly when to pull the trigger and guarantee that every shot will shatter the ceramic.
what about service level guarantees, bundled access, database features, physical security, power redundancy - all the other things that you wouldn't think of right away that would be requisite in providing a five nines uptime? What corners are cut to allow competitors to offer what at first glance appears to be pretty much the same thing but with only a "99" and at 1/3 the cost? Reduced redundancy? Colocating with a kindergarten? Reduced access features?
If I'm sourcing a secure solution for a company, the first thing I want to do is visit the proposed site. I want to make sure it's as far from flood-prone as possible. I want to be sure it's as far from earthquake-vulnerable as it's practical to get. I want Get Smart-levels of physical access barriers including EMP hardening maybe. I want multiple failovers on everything and (just to be a bastard) a closed-loop temperature control system. Maybe use the server heat to heat the admin portion of the building?
They want it to just fucking work without having to worry about how much air space their monitor has or what to do or who to call if/when things go tits up. That's how I did my service agreements. The client might have known something was up, but by the time they got round to picking up the phone I was already there fixing it. The whole package, "Database &c.,", one price, done.
All you anon fucks complaining about the cost should STOP and ask yourselves: WHAT IS MY DATA WORTH TO ME?
Is it worth a 1TB external drive stored in a drawer?
Or is it worth being stored securely offsite in a purpose-built structure with redundant *air molecules* on top of redundant everything else, with someone else having the responsibility and TRAINING to make sure it stays that way?
If you're storing company data it might be worth also noting that even in cases of notified breaches in data security you stand to be SUED for not only actual damages, but also punitive damages which have NO LIMITS. Losing a drive could break a large company.
I wouldn't have figured that the foremost thoughts on the minds of people fighting to survive a disaster (either natural or manmade) is how Honey fucking Boo Boo is doing. I would have thought that the foremost thing on peoples' minds would be the following, in order of necessity: water, food, shelter.
Water is easy: seal and stock. Stock a couple filters as well. Food is easy: cook, seal and stock. Most of this is already done for you; it comes in cans. Bonus! Get a hand turned can opener or a survival kit multitool and learn how to use it, forget the electric can opener - it's no good without power. Shelter: you have a house or other manmade structure around you, right now, do you not? You have the ability or knowledge to make fire? It's something Homo sapiens has enjoyed for several tens of thousands of years, now. Surely we have not forgotten how to strike two rocks together and use hair for kindling?
Have we as a species become so dependant on Edison technology that we're destined to extinction when the last bulb flickers and dies? I hope not.
...that any company which holds personally identifiable information (so that's all of them - it goes from CRM databases to employee records and payroll) has a Statutory obligation to register Company details with the Information Commissioner's Office and to report any breaches to the Information Commissioner.
For the definition of "breach", read: lost or stolen mobile phone, laptop, notepad, application or registration document, tablet, audio recording, video capture, or any other method, known or unknown, of recording personally identifiable information.
Translation: conversion from one language to another using local syntax. Things get "lost in translation" for one reason: some words do not "translate". Transliteration: conversion from one language to another using the syntax of the original language. Nothing gets lost, though this might get syntactically confusing (such as the "All your base" thing) because syntaxes are different across most languages.
Example:
Übersetzung: Konvertierung von einer Sprache in eine andere mithilfe von lokalen Syntax. Dinge erhalten "lost in Translation" aus einem Grund: einige Wörter nicht "übersetzen". Transkription: Konvertierung von einer Sprache in eine andere mithilfe der Syntax der ursprünglichen Sprache. Nichts geht verloren, obwohl dies möglicherweise verwirrend erhalten (z. B. die "All your Base" Sache) Da die Syntax in den meisten Sprachen unterschiedlich sind.
Thanks, Bing. A demonstration there of a (rough) translation engine. Looks good to me. Any native German speakers here care to comment? Do the translated sentences make sense in Native German? I do know that a transliteration here would not make sense, there would be a lot of words in the wrong place, and why Bing went for the translation path instead. Speech Recognition, if it ever does get near 100%, uses transliteration because that is the nature of necessity of its design: it has a hard enough time separating phonetics, leave off it trying to extract meaning in not so much of what was said but how it was said.
From: this article...: "[T]he first science-fictional reference to the idea of automatic speech translation is found in Hugo Gernsback's 1911 classic Ralph 124c 41 +."
The Babel Fish does not live in your brain, it lives in your ear.
The Book (according to every version I've ever seen committed to film) shows a picture of a Babel fish in situ, inside the hosts ear.
From THHGTTG:
"The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix."
It is a universal translator which simultaneously translates from one spoken language to another. It takes the brainwaves of the other body and what they are thinking then transmits the thoughts to the speech centres of the host's brain, the speech heard by the ear decodes the brainwave matrix. When inserted into the ear, its nutrition processes convert unconscious sound waves into conscious brain waves, neatly crossing the language divide between any species.
The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore both proves and disproves the existence of God:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
1. I don't think there will be much chance of a laptop being carelessly knocked off a window sash onboard the ISS any time soon. 2. If such a thing were to happen, solar radiation and cosmic rays on bare electronics would likely take care of any data. 3. If the laptop does survive that, it's unlikely to survive re-entry. 4. If it does survive re-entry, it'll likely still be travelling at several hundred miles per hour and be uncomfortably hot by the time it falls *through* the hands of some nefarious individual.
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" - Justinian, 6c.
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" - Code of Alfred, 870
"innocent until proven guilty" - Garrow
"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception..." - Lord Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"
Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states: "Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court"
Section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution states: "Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings."
The Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, but presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.
The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence".
no, possession without a prescription is illegal. Distribution without a valid licence to do so is illegal. Consumption is not illegal (if it were, then you wouldn't be able to take it even if you were legally in possession of it).
legally, "must" is freely interchangeable with "may". There is the choice of not complying with this clause. This does not complicate matters, as it is perfectly legitimate to discard portions of an adhesion.
"If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable." Patterson, 1919.
There is precedent either way. Klocek -v- Gateway, Inc. finds boilerplate contracts unenforceable, while ProCD -v- Zeidenberg finds them enforceable. In the UK this is specifically prohibited by Statute: Section 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 limits the ability of the drafter of consumer or standard form contracts to draft clauses which would allow him to perform in a substantially or totally different manner than would be reasonably expected. In my humble opinion, a GPL claim in the UK would fail because of clause 2.b and the Doctrine of First Sale which allows that the owner of an item, whatever it is, has no further obligation to the person who sold it to him once the Contract of Sale is fulfilled.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, we're going faster again... if you're driving a car at 299792458ms^-1 and you flick the headlight switch, what happens?
touché!
on a much smaller scale, but I think the model still works: skeet. When you're shooting, you aim ahead of the skeet - not where it is, but where it will be. The shot travels at a constant speed, and meets the skeet at a predetermined point in space. If you know how fast your skeet is moving, the distance to your aiming point, you know exactly when to pull the trigger and guarantee that every shot will shatter the ceramic.
what about service level guarantees, bundled access, database features, physical security, power redundancy - all the other things that you wouldn't think of right away that would be requisite in providing a five nines uptime? What corners are cut to allow competitors to offer what at first glance appears to be pretty much the same thing but with only a "99" and at 1/3 the cost? Reduced redundancy? Colocating with a kindergarten? Reduced access features?
If I'm sourcing a secure solution for a company, the first thing I want to do is visit the proposed site. I want to make sure it's as far from flood-prone as possible. I want to be sure it's as far from earthquake-vulnerable as it's practical to get. I want Get Smart-levels of physical access barriers including EMP hardening maybe. I want multiple failovers on everything and (just to be a bastard) a closed-loop temperature control system. Maybe use the server heat to heat the admin portion of the building?
They want it to just fucking work without having to worry about how much air space their monitor has or what to do or who to call if/when things go tits up. That's how I did my service agreements. The client might have known something was up, but by the time they got round to picking up the phone I was already there fixing it. The whole package, "Database &c.,", one price, done.
All you anon fucks complaining about the cost should STOP and ask yourselves: WHAT IS MY DATA WORTH TO ME?
Is it worth a 1TB external drive stored in a drawer?
Or is it worth being stored securely offsite in a purpose-built structure with redundant *air molecules* on top of redundant everything else, with someone else having the responsibility and TRAINING to make sure it stays that way?
If you're storing company data it might be worth also noting that even in cases of notified breaches in data security you stand to be SUED for not only actual damages, but also punitive damages which have NO LIMITS. Losing a drive could break a large company.
I'll vouch. ::limps off in search of lotion::
I wouldn't have figured that the foremost thoughts on the minds of people fighting to survive a disaster (either natural or manmade) is how Honey fucking Boo Boo is doing. I would have thought that the foremost thing on peoples' minds would be the following, in order of necessity: water, food, shelter.
Water is easy: seal and stock. Stock a couple filters as well.
Food is easy: cook, seal and stock. Most of this is already done for you; it comes in cans. Bonus! Get a hand turned can opener or a survival kit multitool and learn how to use it, forget the electric can opener - it's no good without power.
Shelter: you have a house or other manmade structure around you, right now, do you not? You have the ability or knowledge to make fire? It's something Homo sapiens has enjoyed for several tens of thousands of years, now. Surely we have not forgotten how to strike two rocks together and use hair for kindling?
Have we as a species become so dependant on Edison technology that we're destined to extinction when the last bulb flickers and dies? I hope not.
heh... tell that to the firemen who could do nothing but stand in the pouring rain and watch entire blocks burn down...
Completely OT; I agree with your usage of the Oxford here, however I tend not to use it unless omission would cause obvious confusion.
This is a story from the BBC concerning children.
I don't think, given the current situation, that the BBC are the best judges of what children need, do you?
...that any company which holds personally identifiable information (so that's all of them - it goes from CRM databases to employee records and payroll) has a Statutory obligation to register Company details with the Information Commissioner's Office and to report any breaches to the Information Commissioner.
For the definition of "breach", read: lost or stolen mobile phone, laptop, notepad, application or registration document, tablet, audio recording, video capture, or any other method, known or unknown, of recording personally identifiable information.
Translation: conversion from one language to another using local syntax. Things get "lost in translation" for one reason: some words do not "translate".
Transliteration: conversion from one language to another using the syntax of the original language. Nothing gets lost, though this might get syntactically confusing (such as the "All your base" thing) because syntaxes are different across most languages.
Example:
Übersetzung: Konvertierung von einer Sprache in eine andere mithilfe von lokalen Syntax. Dinge erhalten "lost in Translation" aus einem Grund: einige Wörter nicht "übersetzen".
Transkription: Konvertierung von einer Sprache in eine andere mithilfe der Syntax der ursprünglichen Sprache. Nichts geht verloren, obwohl dies möglicherweise verwirrend erhalten (z. B. die "All your Base" Sache) Da die Syntax in den meisten Sprachen unterschiedlich sind.
Thanks, Bing. A demonstration there of a (rough) translation engine. Looks good to me. Any native German speakers here care to comment? Do the translated sentences make sense in Native German? I do know that a transliteration here would not make sense, there would be a lot of words in the wrong place, and why Bing went for the translation path instead.
Speech Recognition, if it ever does get near 100%, uses transliteration because that is the nature of necessity of its design: it has a hard enough time separating phonetics, leave off it trying to extract meaning in not so much of what was said but how it was said.
Now I've gone cross-eyed.
From: this article...:
"[T]he first science-fictional reference to the idea of automatic speech translation is found in Hugo Gernsback's 1911 classic Ralph 124c 41 +."
Yeah. I never heard of it, either.
The Babel Fish does not live in your brain, it lives in your ear.
The Book (according to every version I've ever seen committed to film) shows a picture of a Babel fish in situ, inside the hosts ear.
From THHGTTG:
"The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix."
It is a universal translator which simultaneously translates from one spoken language to another. It takes the brainwaves of the other body and what they are thinking then transmits the thoughts to the speech centres of the host's brain, the speech heard by the ear decodes the brainwave matrix. When inserted into the ear, its nutrition processes convert unconscious sound waves into conscious brain waves, neatly crossing the language divide between any species.
The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore both proves and disproves the existence of God:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
This has NOT hit UK mainstream media. Over here they're more concerned about who's first to get kicked out of the studio camp in I'm A Celebrity...
1. I don't think there will be much chance of a laptop being carelessly knocked off a window sash onboard the ISS any time soon.
2. If such a thing were to happen, solar radiation and cosmic rays on bare electronics would likely take care of any data.
3. If the laptop does survive that, it's unlikely to survive re-entry.
4. If it does survive re-entry, it'll likely still be travelling at several hundred miles per hour and be uncomfortably hot by the time it falls *through* the hands of some nefarious individual.
...does it work with Windows Media Center or XBMC to cut streaming ads without killing content streams?
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" - Justinian, 6c.
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" - Code of Alfred, 870
"innocent until proven guilty" - Garrow
"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception..." - Lord Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"
Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states: "Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court"
Section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution states: "Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings."
The Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, but presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.
The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence".
Enough for you?
Educate yourself.
a license is a contract. Ergo, it is everything to do with contract law.
well no, not really, since his analogy was fatally flawed. Suppose you enlighten me?
no, possession without a prescription is illegal. Distribution without a valid licence to do so is illegal. Consumption is not illegal (if it were, then you wouldn't be able to take it even if you were legally in possession of it).
weeeeell... +0.5 since it was a collaboration with IBM. :)
legally, "must" is freely interchangeable with "may". There is the choice of not complying with this clause. This does not complicate matters, as it is perfectly legitimate to discard portions of an adhesion.
"If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable." Patterson, 1919.
There is precedent either way. Klocek -v- Gateway, Inc. finds boilerplate contracts unenforceable, while ProCD -v- Zeidenberg finds them enforceable. In the UK this is specifically prohibited by Statute: Section 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 limits the ability of the drafter of consumer or standard form contracts to draft clauses which would allow him to perform in a substantially or totally different manner than would be reasonably expected. In my humble opinion, a GPL claim in the UK would fail because of clause 2.b and the Doctrine of First Sale which allows that the owner of an item, whatever it is, has no further obligation to the person who sold it to him once the Contract of Sale is fulfilled.