At least not in the article (I didn't watch the video). These companies are not the same. Facebook controls 'views' and advertising. Google controls 'search' and advertising, but of course there are alternatives for search. Amazon controls sales and delivery. Apple provides widely used, but not dominant, phones and computers.
Trying to make an argument that they're collectively the same is flat-assed wrong. And size itself is not a sufficient justification for government intervention.
Amazon, Google and Facebook arguably have potential monopolies in their markets, but each does have competitors. Apple clearly has viable competitors in each of its markets.
But hey, this guy gets to go around making bogus arguments, and probably collects nice speaking fees as well as a lot of clicks and publicity.
I was trying to get from the Domestic to the International terminal, about 5km, in a cab (along with wife and luggage). The lightrail system was under construction, which added to the mess. Traffic was gridlocked until about midnight, when it started moving. Turns out there was one traffic light that caused the gridlock. Once that went to flashing yellow, the drivers negotiated their way through the intersection.
That sure felt like a huge continuity gap, did they cut a scene?
Overall I thought the production values were first-rate, but the plot and script were mediocre and predictable. (And don't get me started about bad physics or bad tactics - I had to suspend A Lot of belief.)
I've already had Facebook posts where I included a link marked as Spam. One of them was Ben Thompson's excellent Stratechery article on Net Neutrality, to a thread discussing Net Neutrality. Maybe I said something offensive like "This article is worth reading."
Maybe they have some other content filters active and they're not properly tuned. Or maybe they're doing 'semantic editing' and marking stuff as Spam if it meets some other threshold, including "we at FB don't like this post's content".
Hanlon's Razor -probably- apples, but I'm not 100% sure of that. Nothing Facebook or Google does surprises me any more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Most were OK, I think the Apache license was one we saw frequently. The GPL 'contamination' clauses were a concern, and there was a lot of disagreement over how they should be interpreted.
In 35 years in that business, I saw and used a lot of open source development tools, as well as in deployed software. Red Hat is a major provider of OS to DoD, including embedded in weapon systems. GNAT Ada is open source.
And on my last project we kept 2 lawyers (one government, one prime contractor) busy nearly full-time evaluating various OSS licenses for our intended use. The GPL was a significant debate; most OSS licenses were deemed acceptable by both sides. In each case, we evaluated OSS and proprietary software for functionality, life-cycle costs, supportability, expected security/vulnerabilities, and made a decision that balanced these factors. Sometimes the OSS components won out, other times not. But there was a documented decision with rationale.
In general, the choice of software was not a government decision, but a prime contractor decision. Not sure how much we want Congress dictating to contractors what they put into their products.
The third option is they got laid off for being too old and/or ornery. Those pretty much cover the space as I see it across my friends/co-workers. (I'm 61. I was mostly burned out from an intensive job the previous decade, then pointed out someone's pet pig didn't look pretty with lipstick and subsequently got laid off. So I retired instead.)
By its nature, any national ID system would be the basis for tracking, if that ID is used for commercial as well as governmental purposes. So the question should not be "Would biometrics enable more illicit tracking?" but rather "Would biometrics be less susceptible to misuse than the current SSN?"
(contrast this with the US Navy, where the captain of the Fitzgerald was relieved, even though he was not on deck when the collision occurred and in fact was almost killed by the accident. Subsequently, the Navy relieved several higher ranking officers, including Flag officers, for supervisory failures.)
Until there are -real consequences- to management (personally and individually) from getting hacked, CxOs of all stripes (CEO, CIO, CISO, etc) will continue to get away with this.
In my experience, type errors are a lot more likely for scalars than for composite objects, i.e. I'm less likely to "add apples to oranges" than I am to add "count of apples" to "count of oranges". (Or horizontal pixels to vertical pixels, a real mistake I made once.)
I suppose it's possible to do typed scalars in C++, not sure about Java (without tool extensions). But making a scalar into a full 'class' is probably overkill (with runtime impacts).
The combination of typed scalars and named parameter associations that languages like Ada have can catch a lot of errors at compile-time (with good quality diagnostic messages). And this supports refactoring by making it easier to find the impacts when an interface changes (for instance, if you go from a single type 'pixel location' to separate types for 'horizontal pixel location' and 'vertical pixel location'), you just find and work off the type errors reported by the compiler. (Been there, done that.)
Of course, it's not Politically Correct to favorably mention Ada (so often a technology is panned by those without substantial experience using it.)
That's a key point and a key contributor to Internet insecurity. One could argue that, to make it 'perfect', the designers of PKI have made it unusable by the average user. And the OS vendors (Microsoft, Apple and Linux community) have not helped. Nor have the purveyors of PKI credentials, again to make trust "absolute", the cost and 'annoyance overhead' makes getting your own key too difficult for anyone short of a fully qualified IT department with PKI expertise.
We hear this a lot, but that doesn't explain the success that Tesla has had.
Sure, Tesla has some reliability problems and some software-related faults with the autonomous driving. But it's not the total catastrophic corporate failure that so many from the 'old industry' predicted.
And I'm reminded of how people said a bit more than 10 years ago, "No way Apple will waltz in, produce a new phone and change the way the TELCOs work.";-)
Florian Mueller predicts the (German) auto companies will become patent trolls, as the tech industry takes over autonomous car design: http://www.fosspatents.com/201...
Are we going to see a convergence, where tech companies and auto companies team up, or a divergence, where tech companies produce the new vehicles and legacy car companies shrink into irrelevance?
The only thing I can predict with great confidence is that the cost for a replacement CPU board for a Tesla will be A Lot More than the cost of the constituent parts. (Nissan charged me $1500 for a truck wiring harness after mice chewed the insulation. It's really hard to believe that almost 6% of the cost of that truck was in the wiring harness.)
If you believe in Net Neutrality, should this also include 1st Amendment protections for content that is legal but offensive?
I'm not sure if we want to add ISPs to the (relatively small) list of entities where the First Amendment is explicitly applied. On the other hand, I'm afraid of the consequences if internet companies have unlimited rights (subject to other existing laws) to decide what content is and is not made available on the internet.
(Do Telephone Companies have to right to refuse telephone service, and utilities the right to refuse power, water, etc? I don't know!)
The presumption would be that you have an existing Mac to run it on. For a large operation, the cost of buying hardware for this function is 'in the noise.' For a smaller operation that already has an investment in Macs, taking an older Mac, adding an external hard drive (if necessary) and running OS X Server on it for Software Updates is a wise use of existing resources.
As far as lights-out, Server comes with a remote manager that you can run on other machines (although you might have to pay $20 to get it on the machine you want to use to manage the otherwise headless server installations.) So that's not an issue. That being said, Minis do have some annoying issues rebooting when they're "headless". My Mini systems running Server get rebooted only when there's a Mac OS X update, that happens maybe 4 times/year. So screwing with the monitor and keyboard when rebooting the Mini is an acceptable cost for me.
I've been running OS X Server on low-end Minis since "Tiger", for at least 10 years, for file server, web server, internal DNS, LDAP, VPN for my small/home office. Earlier versions of Server were -expensive- (retail $1k!) and hard to configure. Over the years it's become a lot easier to configure (once you get DNS set up exactly right) and of course you can't complain about 2 orders of magnitude price decrease, particularly for what you get.
Now if you have the skill and the patience and the significant user base to justify a pure web-cache solution, go for it! But it's not quite clear to me that solution will understand some nuances on whether the currently cached software update (Mac OS or iOS) will work for all devices on your network.
And Mac OS X Server costs only $20. It's worth it for the update server and the ability to host remote Time Machine backups, even if you use nothing else.
and generate -negative- brand response. That's particularly true of in-line ads, and most of all of Facebook ads that are mixed in (deliberately camouflaged) with user-generated content.
And that's before taking user data mining into consideration, both sucking up my data, and then using it (most often to show me ads for something I've already purchased.)
And It's "Ada" not "ADA". The language name is not an acronym. Rather it's named after Ada Countess Lovelace, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The choice of the name was deliberate, Ada Lovelace is commonly cited as the first computer programmer (for Babbage's Analytical Engine). And that name long pre-dates the current initiatives for "women in computing." (There were a fair number of women involved with the Ada program, such as the late Jean Sammet, quite unusual in the late 1970s/early 1980s during the initial development of the requirements and then language itself.)
Only partially... Image processing routines have been subject to buffer overrun attacks. Buffer overrun attacks occur when array bounds aren't checked. The core question is the efficiency of such checks (versus the security they provide.)
If the compiler has type information on the index, then in many cases it can (easily) prove that a range check is not required.
Consider:
type index_t is range 1..10:
type image_element_array is array (index_t) of image_elements;
Now any object declared of type index_t does not require a range check when used as index for an object of type image_element_array. Under some circumstances, -creating a value of type index_t- does require that check (e.g."my_index:= my_index + 1;" will require a range check on the assignment. If you try to assign "11" to my_index, either directly or because the previous value of my_index was 10 and you tried to add 1 to it, you'll raise Constraint_Error exception at that statement. And this is where Ada started out superior to Pascal, because you never really knew what would happen in Pascal if you violated a range constraint.)
But the 'right way' to iterate over an array, one that is perfectly type safe, is
my_image : image_element_array; -- somehow my_image gets loaded
for an_index in my_image'range loop... -- all values of an_index are within the range of values for my_image; compiler does not need to generate any range checks for my_image (an_index) !!
Slashdot Mirror
At least not in the article (I didn't watch the video). These companies are not the same. Facebook controls 'views' and advertising. Google controls 'search' and advertising, but of course there are alternatives for search. Amazon controls sales and delivery. Apple provides widely used, but not dominant, phones and computers.
Trying to make an argument that they're collectively the same is flat-assed wrong. And size itself is not a sufficient justification for government intervention.
Amazon, Google and Facebook arguably have potential monopolies in their markets, but each does have competitors. Apple clearly has viable competitors in each of its markets.
But hey, this guy gets to go around making bogus arguments, and probably collects nice speaking fees as well as a lot of clicks and publicity.
I was trying to get from the Domestic to the International terminal, about 5km, in a cab (along with wife and luggage). The lightrail system was under construction, which added to the mess. Traffic was gridlocked until about midnight, when it started moving. Turns out there was one traffic light that caused the gridlock. Once that went to flashing yellow, the drivers negotiated their way through the intersection.
As long as she didn't have to crawl through the Jeffries Tube, I guess that makes sense.
That sure felt like a huge continuity gap, did they cut a scene?
Overall I thought the production values were first-rate, but the plot and script were mediocre and predictable. (And don't get me started about bad physics or bad tactics - I had to suspend A Lot of belief.)
I've already had Facebook posts where I included a link marked as Spam. One of them was Ben Thompson's excellent Stratechery article on Net Neutrality, to a thread discussing Net Neutrality. Maybe I said something offensive like "This article is worth reading."
Maybe they have some other content filters active and they're not properly tuned. Or maybe they're doing 'semantic editing' and marking stuff as Spam if it meets some other threshold, including "we at FB don't like this post's content".
Hanlon's Razor -probably- apples, but I'm not 100% sure of that. Nothing Facebook or Google does surprises me any more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4 Decimal or 4 Hex digits?
Most were OK, I think the Apache license was one we saw frequently. The GPL 'contamination' clauses were a concern, and there was a lot of disagreement over how they should be interpreted.
In 35 years in that business, I saw and used a lot of open source development tools, as well as in deployed software. Red Hat is a major provider of OS to DoD, including embedded in weapon systems. GNAT Ada is open source.
And on my last project we kept 2 lawyers (one government, one prime contractor) busy nearly full-time evaluating various OSS licenses for our intended use. The GPL was a significant debate; most OSS licenses were deemed acceptable by both sides. In each case, we evaluated OSS and proprietary software for functionality, life-cycle costs, supportability, expected security/vulnerabilities, and made a decision that balanced these factors. Sometimes the OSS components won out, other times not. But there was a documented decision with rationale.
In general, the choice of software was not a government decision, but a prime contractor decision. Not sure how much we want Congress dictating to contractors what they put into their products.
The third option is they got laid off for being too old and/or ornery. Those pretty much cover the space as I see it across my friends/co-workers. (I'm 61. I was mostly burned out from an intensive job the previous decade, then pointed out someone's pet pig didn't look pretty with lipstick and subsequently got laid off. So I retired instead.)
By its nature, any national ID system would be the basis for tracking, if that ID is used for commercial as well as governmental purposes. So the question should not be "Would biometrics enable more illicit tracking?" but rather "Would biometrics be less susceptible to misuse than the current SSN?"
Sign on the desk of CxO's everywhere
(contrast this with the US Navy, where the captain of the Fitzgerald was relieved, even though he was not on deck when the collision occurred and in fact was almost killed by the accident. Subsequently, the Navy relieved several higher ranking officers, including Flag officers, for supervisory failures.)
The level of incompetence in corporate IT at times is staggering!!! https://thedailywtf.com/articl...
Until there are -real consequences- to management (personally and individually) from getting hacked, CxOs of all stripes (CEO, CIO, CISO, etc) will continue to get away with this.
In my experience, type errors are a lot more likely for scalars than for composite objects, i.e. I'm less likely to "add apples to oranges" than I am to add "count of apples" to "count of oranges". (Or horizontal pixels to vertical pixels, a real mistake I made once.)
I suppose it's possible to do typed scalars in C++, not sure about Java (without tool extensions). But making a scalar into a full 'class' is probably overkill (with runtime impacts).
The combination of typed scalars and named parameter associations that languages like Ada have can catch a lot of errors at compile-time (with good quality diagnostic messages). And this supports refactoring by making it easier to find the impacts when an interface changes (for instance, if you go from a single type 'pixel location' to separate types for 'horizontal pixel location' and 'vertical pixel location'), you just find and work off the type errors reported by the compiler. (Been there, done that.)
Of course, it's not Politically Correct to favorably mention Ada (so often a technology is panned by those without substantial experience using it.)
That's a key point and a key contributor to Internet insecurity. One could argue that, to make it 'perfect', the designers of PKI have made it unusable by the average user. And the OS vendors (Microsoft, Apple and Linux community) have not helped. Nor have the purveyors of PKI credentials, again to make trust "absolute", the cost and 'annoyance overhead' makes getting your own key too difficult for anyone short of a fully qualified IT department with PKI expertise.
My friend with one hasn't had any problems (yet).
We hear this a lot, but that doesn't explain the success that Tesla has had.
Sure, Tesla has some reliability problems and some software-related faults with the autonomous driving. But it's not the total catastrophic corporate failure that so many from the 'old industry' predicted.
And I'm reminded of how people said a bit more than 10 years ago, "No way Apple will waltz in, produce a new phone and change the way the TELCOs work." ;-)
Florian Mueller predicts the (German) auto companies will become patent trolls, as the tech industry takes over autonomous car design:
http://www.fosspatents.com/201...
Are we going to see a convergence, where tech companies and auto companies team up, or a divergence, where tech companies produce the new vehicles and legacy car companies shrink into irrelevance?
The only thing I can predict with great confidence is that the cost for a replacement CPU board for a Tesla will be A Lot More than the cost of the constituent parts. (Nissan charged me $1500 for a truck wiring harness after mice chewed the insulation. It's really hard to believe that almost 6% of the cost of that truck was in the wiring harness.)
It will be absolute proof of the old saying, "No one gets fired for buying Microsoft."
The most charitable excuse for this is "IT understands how to work with Microsoft products." Of course, that's the IT flea wagging the Police Dog.
If you believe in Net Neutrality, should this also include 1st Amendment protections for content that is legal but offensive?
I'm not sure if we want to add ISPs to the (relatively small) list of entities where the First Amendment is explicitly applied. On the other hand, I'm afraid of the consequences if internet companies have unlimited rights (subject to other existing laws) to decide what content is and is not made available on the internet.
(Do Telephone Companies have to right to refuse telephone service, and utilities the right to refuse power, water, etc? I don't know!)
The presumption would be that you have an existing Mac to run it on. For a large operation, the cost of buying hardware for this function is 'in the noise.' For a smaller operation that already has an investment in Macs, taking an older Mac, adding an external hard drive (if necessary) and running OS X Server on it for Software Updates is a wise use of existing resources.
As far as lights-out, Server comes with a remote manager that you can run on other machines (although you might have to pay $20 to get it on the machine you want to use to manage the otherwise headless server installations.) So that's not an issue. That being said, Minis do have some annoying issues rebooting when they're "headless". My Mini systems running Server get rebooted only when there's a Mac OS X update, that happens maybe 4 times/year. So screwing with the monitor and keyboard when rebooting the Mini is an acceptable cost for me.
I've been running OS X Server on low-end Minis since "Tiger", for at least 10 years, for file server, web server, internal DNS, LDAP, VPN for my small/home office. Earlier versions of Server were -expensive- (retail $1k!) and hard to configure. Over the years it's become a lot easier to configure (once you get DNS set up exactly right) and of course you can't complain about 2 orders of magnitude price decrease, particularly for what you get.
Now if you have the skill and the patience and the significant user base to justify a pure web-cache solution, go for it! But it's not quite clear to me that solution will understand some nuances on whether the currently cached software update (Mac OS or iOS) will work for all devices on your network.
And Mac OS X Server costs only $20. It's worth it for the update server and the ability to host remote Time Machine backups, even if you use nothing else.
and generate -negative- brand response. That's particularly true of in-line ads, and most of all of Facebook ads that are mixed in (deliberately camouflaged) with user-generated content.
And that's before taking user data mining into consideration, both sucking up my data, and then using it (most often to show me ads for something I've already purchased.)
OK, not the right data type in that situation. In that case, you'll have to use a dynamic structure with runtime bounds-checking.
There's a lot of good stuff here: http://www.adahome.com/ and here: http://www.adaic.org/
And It's "Ada" not "ADA". The language name is not an acronym. Rather it's named after Ada Countess Lovelace, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The choice of the name was deliberate, Ada Lovelace is commonly cited as the first computer programmer (for Babbage's Analytical Engine). And that name long pre-dates the current initiatives for "women in computing." (There were a fair number of women involved with the Ada program, such as the late Jean Sammet, quite unusual in the late 1970s/early 1980s during the initial development of the requirements and then language itself.)
Only partially... Image processing routines have been subject to buffer overrun attacks. Buffer overrun attacks occur when array bounds aren't checked. The core question is the efficiency of such checks (versus the security they provide.)
If the compiler has type information on the index, then in many cases it can (easily) prove that a range check is not required.
Consider:
type index_t is range 1..10:
type image_element_array is array (index_t) of image_elements;
Now any object declared of type index_t does not require a range check when used as index for an object of type image_element_array. Under some circumstances, -creating a value of type index_t- does require that check (e.g."my_index := my_index + 1;" will require a range check on the assignment. If you try to assign "11" to my_index, either directly or because the previous value of my_index was 10 and you tried to add 1 to it, you'll raise Constraint_Error exception at that statement. And this is where Ada started out superior to Pascal, because you never really knew what would happen in Pascal if you violated a range constraint.)
But the 'right way' to iterate over an array, one that is perfectly type safe, is ...
my_image : image_element_array;
-- somehow my_image gets loaded
for an_index in my_image'range loop
-- all values of an_index are within the range of values for my_image; compiler does not need to generate any range checks for my_image (an_index) !!