What does that have to do with anything? Your argument (incorrect as it is) was that a word with two meanings in the same domain is useless, and should not be allowed. The prefix kilo (from the greek for thousand) has been applied as a prefix to all sorts of things for 200 years. Meters, liters, pascals, volts, ohms, amperes, etc. And it ALWAYS meant 1000. But, for some magical item called a 'byte' it suddenly doesn't mean that anymore? Do explain.
When 'KB' meant 1024 bytes that was largely just technical lingo. When it moved into popular culture people already knew that 'kilo' means 1000 and it took on that meaning.
Yes, it means exactly that. Or do you still use 'awful' to mean 'inspiring awe' and 'terrific' to mean 'causing terror'? Does 'cleave' mean to join or to separate? Do you put on your napron when cooking, or do you put on an apron like the rest of us?
Language is living, and it changes. Get used to it.
And your drive size example is quite ironic. 'kilo' meant 1000 LONG before it ever meant 1024. By your standards that change should never have been allowed.
* Run your own communications system with 2-way radios, or do you trust telcos for that? * Run your own wires to every customer, or do you trust ISPs for that? * Run your own fleet of trucks to deliver product, or do you trust shipping cos for that? * Have all you customers pay you directly in cash that you keep in your own vault, or do you trust credit card companies and banks for that? * Perform all your own accounting, or do you trust outside accountants for that?
The list goes on and on. Every one of those is at least as important as servers (and in some cases they are far more important)
Just to make things clearer, audio CDs are NOT MP3. If your definition of 'lossy' is that there is an upper frequency limit, then there is no such thing as 'lossless' recording, digital or analog.
The vinyl record industry grew because people are idiots.
ASLR is not memory protection. Breaking ASLR does not give read nor write access to any memory that the process did not already have. ASLR was introduced to help mitigate a bunch of buffer overflow attacks, by not having a 'predicatable' address that the attacker could branch to to execute his malicious code.
So exactly HOW are you going to intercept that password, using a technique that would not be possible if ASLR was not broken?
That might actually mean something if Illinois law meant anything in FEDERAL court (where this case was). Federal law is:
For an injury-in-fact to be "concrete", it must be "real, and not abstract" and that a "bare procedural violation" under a federal statute, "divorced from any concrete harm" that "may result in no harm" would not "satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement"
And none of that is ACTUAL HARM, which is what is required. Furthermore, they don't even CLAIM that the data was incorrectly stored, only that 'it might be'.
You keep repeating the same thing, and it is completely wrong. Direct quote from federal law:
For an injury-in-fact to be "concrete", it must be "real, and not abstract" and that a "bare procedural violation" under a federal statute, "divorced from any concrete harm" that "may result in no harm" would not "satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement" Id. at 1549
In other words, merely breaking the law (the bare procedural violation), in the absense of any REAL harm, does not entitle you to sue.
First, you seem to be confusing civil and criminal law. In CRIMINAL law all that needs to be shown is a violation of the law. Criminal law is prosecuted by the state, not individuals. In CIVIL law you have to show you were harmed, always. You have no standing to sue otherwise.
For your ADA example, there are only two possibilities: the guy is himself harmed by ADA violations (ie he has a disability and has been denied access), or he is actiing on behalf of someone else who is being harmed (n that case, the someone else would be the one receiving the damages). In either case, harm must be demonstrated. In this case, not only was no harm demonstrated (to anyone), the plaintiffs don't even try to CLAIM there was harm.
Your example makes no sense, because in the case of the security deposit you ARE harmed (they have your money).
Your ridiculous interpretation of the law would mean that I could sue you, and be entitled to an award, because I saw you exceeding the speed limit. Now, if your speeding harmed me (like you crashed into me), THEN I could sue you, but I sure as hell can't sue you just because I think you broke some law.
Where are people getting the idea they got paid? They are game PLAYERS who used a feature of the game to make personalized avatars. Even the plaintiffs don't make the claim that the scans ever were disseminated. Their entire case is based on speculation that the data is stored 'somewhere' and could 'fall into the wrong hands'. There is no claim that any of that actually happened.
They weren't paid to be in the game. They bought the game, and used a feature of the game to create personalized avatars. Then apparently they hatched some get-rich-quick scheme with a shyster who brought a class-action suit.
His statement is entirely correct, and you are wrong. The Part 15 statement, which you are obviously misinterpreting, consists of three parts:
'Complies with part 15' - means this is an UNLICENSED device, and by design all emissions from the device are within allowable limits. No other requirements.
'May not cause harmful interference' - means that this unlicensed device may not interfere with any LICENSED operation. Even if the device is operating 100% correctly, if it is causing interference with a licensed operation you must stop using the device or face a a fine. This is not a technical requirement, it is a legal one.
'Must accept all interference' - means that if ANYTHING is causing interference with your unlicensed device, even if it makes the device unusable, you have no legal recourse through the FCC to make the interfer stop. Again, a legal statement, not a technical one.
No, it does not. Part 15 means that if your unlicensed device is causing interference with a licensed service, you have to stop using it. Likewise, if someone is interfering with your unlicensed device, too bad. Neither apply here.
The IBM PC may have been good for the PC industry, but it sure wasn't good for IBM. Hardly surprising other manufacturers are not looking to repeat that mistake.
It is common to be able to express a change in value in both additive and multiplicative terms. The price went up $2. The price went up 20%. It is obvious what the speaker means because for addition you use the name of the thing being counted (dollars), and for multiplication you don't use the name, you use percent.
So what happens when the thing being counted is a percentage? If I say 'the market share went up 2%', am I referring to addition or multiplication? So they don't refer to the market share as 'percent', they refer to it as 'basis points'. Now there is no ambiguity.
They understand math just fine. They also understand ambiguity. What is the difference between 1% and 1.5%? 0.5%, 50%, or 67%? On the other hand, 50bps makes it perfectly clear to everyone who knows what basis points are.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is what they are using as criteria: https://thedigitalstandard.org...
What does that have to do with anything? Your argument (incorrect as it is) was that a word with two meanings in the same domain is useless, and should not be allowed. The prefix kilo (from the greek for thousand) has been applied as a prefix to all sorts of things for 200 years. Meters, liters, pascals, volts, ohms, amperes, etc. And it ALWAYS meant 1000. But, for some magical item called a 'byte' it suddenly doesn't mean that anymore? Do explain.
When 'KB' meant 1024 bytes that was largely just technical lingo. When it moved into popular culture people already knew that 'kilo' means 1000 and it took on that meaning.
Yes, it means exactly that. Or do you still use 'awful' to mean 'inspiring awe' and 'terrific' to mean 'causing terror'? Does 'cleave' mean to join or to separate? Do you put on your napron when cooking, or do you put on an apron like the rest of us?
Language is living, and it changes. Get used to it.
And your drive size example is quite ironic. 'kilo' meant 1000 LONG before it ever meant 1024. By your standards that change should never have been allowed.
Yeah. Do you also
* Run your own communications system with 2-way radios, or do you trust telcos for that?
* Run your own wires to every customer, or do you trust ISPs for that?
* Run your own fleet of trucks to deliver product, or do you trust shipping cos for that?
* Have all you customers pay you directly in cash that you keep in your own vault, or do you trust credit card companies and banks for that?
* Perform all your own accounting, or do you trust outside accountants for that?
The list goes on and on. Every one of those is at least as important as servers (and in some cases they are far more important)
Just to make things clearer, audio CDs are NOT MP3. If your definition of 'lossy' is that there is an upper frequency limit, then there is no such thing as 'lossless' recording, digital or analog.
The vinyl record industry grew because people are idiots.
Yes, you can RAID memory. See https://www.ibm.com/developerw...
Which has absolutely nothing to do with ASLR. In fact, since it was published in 2015 ASLR was most likely in use for that attack and did not stop it.
ASLR is not memory protection. Breaking ASLR does not give read nor write access to any memory that the process did not already have. ASLR was introduced to help mitigate a bunch of buffer overflow attacks, by not having a 'predicatable' address that the attacker could branch to to execute his malicious code.
So exactly HOW are you going to intercept that password, using a technique that would not be possible if ASLR was not broken?
It is quite possible to be the most banned app in the world, but not be the most banned app in an individual country. Is that so hard to figure out?
Oh, but they did abbreviate it! They managed to remove all the paragraph formatting.
There is no requirement to be immune to external RF. The requirements are all about EMISSIONs of RF.
UL is concerned with safety. If the monitor doesn't catch fire when a router is near it UL does not care.
You left out some critical information:
Did the product perform as the customer required?
Did the product have a defect rate that the customer found acceptable?
If the answer to those questions is 'yes', then why exactly was saving 6.36 cents wrong?
That might actually mean something if Illinois law meant anything in FEDERAL court (where this case was). Federal law is:
For an injury-in-fact to be "concrete", it must be "real, and not abstract" and that a "bare procedural violation" under a federal statute, "divorced from any concrete harm" that "may result in no harm" would not "satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement"
And none of that is ACTUAL HARM, which is what is required. Furthermore, they don't even CLAIM that the data was incorrectly stored, only that 'it might be'.
You keep repeating the same thing, and it is completely wrong. Direct quote from federal law:
For an injury-in-fact to be "concrete", it must be "real, and not abstract" and that a "bare procedural violation" under a federal statute, "divorced from any concrete harm" that "may result in no harm" would not "satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement" Id. at 1549
In other words, merely breaking the law (the bare procedural violation), in the absense of any REAL harm, does not entitle you to sue.
First, you seem to be confusing civil and criminal law. In CRIMINAL law all that needs to be shown is a violation of the law. Criminal law is prosecuted by the state, not individuals. In CIVIL law you have to show you were harmed, always. You have no standing to sue otherwise.
For your ADA example, there are only two possibilities: the guy is himself harmed by ADA violations (ie he has a disability and has been denied access), or he is actiing on behalf of someone else who is being harmed (n that case, the someone else would be the one receiving the damages). In either case, harm must be demonstrated. In this case, not only was no harm demonstrated (to anyone), the plaintiffs don't even try to CLAIM there was harm.
Your example makes no sense, because in the case of the security deposit you ARE harmed (they have your money).
Your ridiculous interpretation of the law would mean that I could sue you, and be entitled to an award, because I saw you exceeding the speed limit. Now, if your speeding harmed me (like you crashed into me), THEN I could sue you, but I sure as hell can't sue you just because I think you broke some law.
Where are people getting the idea they got paid? They are game PLAYERS who used a feature of the game to make personalized avatars. Even the plaintiffs don't make the claim that the scans ever were disseminated. Their entire case is based on speculation that the data is stored 'somewhere' and could 'fall into the wrong hands'. There is no claim that any of that actually happened.
They weren't paid to be in the game. They bought the game, and used a feature of the game to create personalized avatars. Then apparently they hatched some get-rich-quick scheme with a shyster who brought a class-action suit.
They sued in federal court. The court is in New York, because that is where the defendant is.
His statement is entirely correct, and you are wrong. The Part 15 statement, which you are obviously misinterpreting, consists of three parts:
'Complies with part 15' - means this is an UNLICENSED device, and by design all emissions from the device are within allowable limits. No other requirements.
'May not cause harmful interference' - means that this unlicensed device may not interfere with any LICENSED operation. Even if the device is operating 100% correctly, if it is causing interference with a licensed operation you must stop using the device or face a a fine. This is not a technical requirement, it is a legal one.
'Must accept all interference' - means that if ANYTHING is causing interference with your unlicensed device, even if it makes the device unusable, you have no legal recourse through the FCC to make the interfer stop. Again, a legal statement, not a technical one.
No, it does not. Part 15 means that if your unlicensed device is causing interference with a licensed service, you have to stop using it. Likewise, if someone is interfering with your unlicensed device, too bad. Neither apply here.
The IBM PC may have been good for the PC industry, but it sure wasn't good for IBM. Hardly surprising other manufacturers are not looking to repeat that mistake.
It is common to be able to express a change in value in both additive and multiplicative terms. The price went up $2. The price went up 20%. It is obvious what the speaker means because for addition you use the name of the thing being counted (dollars), and for multiplication you don't use the name, you use percent.
So what happens when the thing being counted is a percentage? If I say 'the market share went up 2%', am I referring to addition or multiplication? So they don't refer to the market share as 'percent', they refer to it as 'basis points'. Now there is no ambiguity.
They understand math just fine. They also understand ambiguity. What is the difference between 1% and 1.5%? 0.5%, 50%, or 67%? On the other hand, 50bps makes it perfectly clear to everyone who knows what basis points are.