Option 1. That's how ethics work- you do the right thing even if it isn't the most profitable or convenient thing to do. If the most ethical option were the most profitable and convenient, you wouldn't need a code of ethics anyway.
If it were customary in some country to murder a dozen orphans to celebrate closing a deal, while it is obviously illegal (and considered somewhat unethical) to do so in your country, you opt for Option 1- you don't do it. Justifying doing it in order to make more money is the absolute height of ethical failure.
So in what way is this an improvement over a regular CAPTCHA (with a random set of letters and numbers, not set by the user)? A conventional random CAPTCHA will defend against brute force attacks in exactly the same way.
TFA's proposed method would mean that either a) users will manage to remember the second part of their password (in which case why display it on screen- why not treat it like a regular password and keep it in the user's head) or b) users will need to read the CAPTCHA and enter the word as they see it (in which case why keep the word the same each time, why not randomise it like normal).
Why bother having the user set the word that is going to be displayed as a CAPTCHA? Why not just have the user set a password in the conventional way, and then show them a random CAPTCHA (also in the conventional way)? You'd get the same defence against a computerized brute-force or dictionary attack, but without the added security weakness of the user giving away the second part of the password (such as by key logger, or nosy desk neighbour, or writing it on a post-it).
I suspect the reason most systems don't ask for a CAPTCHA alongside password entry is because CAPTCHA is a pain in the rear for users- which the system in TFA would still be.
Actually (assuming this is the same as the documentary on the BBC a few days ago- I'm not going to RTFA to find out), no meat was taken. Just the skull, tusks and a few other bones. Very mysterious.
Hydrogen evaporates quicker. I've heard the argument (can't confirm it, so treat as hearsay) that a hydrogen-leaking car crash is less dangerous than a petrol one, as petrol pools under the vehicle where it can burn fully- releasing all potential energy in a very local, very damaging way. Hydrogen disperses (very) quickly, so by the time a spark ignites it most of the energy is already lost to the clouds.
Not all websites are about things happening now. Wikipedia has a nice article on The Battle of Hastings, despite a distinct lack of internet in 1066.
If there were dozens of models by respected scientists in the 1970's, I suspect some of them would be mentioned somewher on the internet. Especially considering the controversial nature of the Global Warming issue, and the straw-grasping of the most rabid deniers.
Amazon wouldn't pay Income Tax in any case; Income Tax is the tax paid by individuals on their yearly earnings from salaries, dividends, savings interest, etc.
TFA is about Amazon evading Corporation Tax, which is an entirely different thing.
The problem is that Amazon (a US company based in Luxembourg) are tax exempt, while local companies that employ local people and contribute to local society are not. Amazon has a price advantage by virtue of a £0 tax bill, and UK-based companies can't compete.
You need to either tax Amazon or stop taxing local companies in order to restore competitive balance. As colossal tax cuts for big business aren't top of the agenda in the middle of a painful economic slump and massive budget deficit, the former option needs to be investigated.
I think that rather than plan to keep the servers up forever, I could see them release a patch that would allow LAN play if it were true that they had to close down for some reason" or, failing that, to at least patch it to remove the must be online part.
What if they go bankrupt? Blizzard are a strong company now, but 10 years is a long time and plenty of great companies have fallen before. Then they wouldn't have the resources to throw at that sort of thing- you'd be stuck with things in the state they are when the bailiffs move in.
What if they're purchased by someone less trustworthy. What if Oracle decided to move into video gaming and bought them out- do you trust Oracle to do right by you? Or some faceless private equity firm?
Better to not put the stupid broken-by-design features in in the first place, rather than cripple your product at launch and hope to fix it later.
You might call it a pendantic asshole point when I say that we haven't gone to "war" in 70 years. But, calling every military action a "war" is incorrect. Just as the president using the military as his personal pop-gun squad without the approval of the people (or more accurately, their elected representatives.) is incorrect.
What a ridiculous thing to say. War is an English word with a commonly accepted meaning, i.e.:
war (wôr) n. 1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The Iraq War was a war. The Vietnam War was a war. The Afghanistan War is a war. They're all called wars in natural English language, and they all meet the criteria. Sending 100,000 troops into a sovereign nation with the express purpose of toppling their government and replacing it with one friendly to your cause is a war in as classic a sense as you can get.
Whether the White House has found some legal loop hole that allows them to avoid doing what the constitution says they have to do to go to war doesn't have any relevance. If the Attorney General found a way of classifying Afghanistan as a Charity Bake Sale it still wouldn't make it one; it would just mean that the legal code has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Sounds like a vehicular version of No True Scotsman to me.
It's a vehicle that is road-legal and can fly. That's basically a flying car (or flying three-wheeler, or whatever) to me. VTOL would make it a USEFUL flying car; but I'm not sure that that's relevant. A George Forman grill is more useful than some twigs piled in a heap, but they're still both cookers.
What you're after is a Blade Runner style flying car- but you're setting your stick too high for a new technology. You're thinking Star Trek rather than Sputnik.
How the retailer deals with the warranty is up to the retailer.
My parents' fancy Samsung TV went wrong under warranty last year. They took it back to the retailer (Currys) who had their own repair guys assess it. They assessed that it couldn't be repaired economically, and gave them a store credit voucher for the price they paid, so that they could pick a replacement. They will then go about reclaiming this cost from Samsung behind the scenes. I don't know what would have happened if they had decided to repair it- whether they would have sent it back to Samsung to do the work, or if they would have done it themselves and sent Samsung the bill.
The point is that it's between the retailer and the supplier how they settle it. From the consumers point of view, they will get a repair, a replacement or a refund, and it doesn't matter how it gets done.
Quite. This is creepy, but not in the way that people have been harping on about. The outcry is at entirely the wrong target.
It's creepy that people publish so much about themselves without thinking, it's creepy that it's possible to know exactly where people are and who they are and everything they like and dislike and do and who their friends are. The fact some guy comes out with some cheap data scraper that takes readily available information and packages it up with a smutty logo and tacky name doesn't make it any worse- it was already a bad thing.
To ensure that a complex electromechanical device does not do something is nearly impossible. Sure, the default configuration might allow you to shut the camera down and you could see that nothing from the camera is being transmitted, but you could always put the machine into a 'nasty' mode which surreptitiously turns the evil eye back on.
Sometimes the old solutions are the best. Retro solution- a physical switch. When the button (mechanical affair with springs and levers) is pressed, the wire that connects the camera to the power supply is moved a millimetre in this direction, breaking the circuit. The only way to reactivate the camera is to have someone press that springs-and-levers button again.
That's the way I was taught electronics in primary school. No need to over-engineer a solution; you can't improve on an original like that.
At least as far as LOTR is concerned, you could also make an argument for just staying faithful to the spirit of the original text. Tolkien was an Englishman (moved to England at the age of 3) who would have spoken with either Received Pronunciation or a Black Country accent. The characters he invented and the locations he wrote about would have been based on his local experiences.
So if you want to make the movies sound like Tolkien was imagining when he wrote it, British accents are probably a good place to start (and certainly a better bet that North American accents).
I'm not convinced that Irish (which is heavily influenced by Gaelic routes) is the best guide to English accents of the past (German with French pretentions). I've heard convincing arguments that Geordie accents are a good guide to "the English of yesteryear"- but Britain is a big place, so it probably wouldn't have been universal.
My heritage is West Country- certainly some of the broader versions of that dialect still spoken by some of my older relatives could have some fairly ancient pedigree. It's a rhotic accent, too, which is in its favour.
Think about it in more literal terms. Let's say you measure wealth as who has the best food. Or furniture. Or land. Or electronic gadgets. Each of those is a strictly finite object (there is only as much food as there is arable land; furniture as there is wood; land as there is, er, land; electronic gadgets as there is plastic/metal/etc.). You can increase the level of production of each of these above the levels they're at today, but there are still limits. At some point, you will not be able to increase food production on planet Earth in any further significant way. Can we feed 10 billion humans? 100 billion humans? A trillion? A googolplex of humans (which would be more people than there are particles in the universe)? The limit will be somewhere.
I'm not saying this limit isn't high enough that there will be plenty to go around. But it is definitely finite, not infinite.
The point being that Red Hat is not competing against Microsoft but rather they are filling a different market than Microsoft.
Nonsense. Red Hat's core business is for corporate servers and desktops. You know, the life blood of Microsoft's sales. It'd be true to say that Red Hat aren't competing with MS in the home computing space- but Microsoft has always been about the enterprise customers at its heart.
Not that $1 billion will worry MS overly, but it's nice to see a FOSS company carving out a good living in a heavily competitive environment like that.
Money is valueless except as something to be exchanged for other things. You produce some goods or services, and your employer/client gives you money. You then exchange that money for goods and services that you want or need.
"Wealthy" people are those who have access to "plenty". In the real world, this means wealthy people have plenty of money (potential stuff) in addition to plenty of actual stuff.
Wealth is extremely finite. Where wealth is a measure of what you have, there are only so many goods and services to go around. If resources on Earth are finite (and they are), then the amount of goods you can make must also be finite, the number of people who can live here to do services must be finite.
While you can always print more money, if you aren't increasing the amount of "stuff" alongside it, you're just going to make each individual unit of money worth less.
The rest of the world doesn't have unlimited food production capacity. Trying to import food for one billion people into Africa will mean other places in the world will need to produce one billion peoples' worth of new food. That's no small thing.
Technically the statement is (or can be) true. There's no reason Africa couldn't have "some of the poorest" AND "some of the richest" soils at the same time.
A lot of Africa has poor soil, and a lot of the more fertile areas are rainforests which we wouldn't want to advocate burning to the ground to turn into farmland. Africa also has more than a billion people to feed. So the question is still a reasonably valid one- how do you turn the large expanses of infertile wasteland into productive arable land?
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you've never driven a car with a manual gearbox then? They were sort of the original design for cars, too.
Option 1. That's how ethics work- you do the right thing even if it isn't the most profitable or convenient thing to do. If the most ethical option were the most profitable and convenient, you wouldn't need a code of ethics anyway.
If it were customary in some country to murder a dozen orphans to celebrate closing a deal, while it is obviously illegal (and considered somewhat unethical) to do so in your country, you opt for Option 1- you don't do it. Justifying doing it in order to make more money is the absolute height of ethical failure.
So in what way is this an improvement over a regular CAPTCHA (with a random set of letters and numbers, not set by the user)? A conventional random CAPTCHA will defend against brute force attacks in exactly the same way.
TFA's proposed method would mean that either a) users will manage to remember the second part of their password (in which case why display it on screen- why not treat it like a regular password and keep it in the user's head) or b) users will need to read the CAPTCHA and enter the word as they see it (in which case why keep the word the same each time, why not randomise it like normal).
Why bother having the user set the word that is going to be displayed as a CAPTCHA? Why not just have the user set a password in the conventional way, and then show them a random CAPTCHA (also in the conventional way)? You'd get the same defence against a computerized brute-force or dictionary attack, but without the added security weakness of the user giving away the second part of the password (such as by key logger, or nosy desk neighbour, or writing it on a post-it).
I suspect the reason most systems don't ask for a CAPTCHA alongside password entry is because CAPTCHA is a pain in the rear for users- which the system in TFA would still be.
You know, Mammoths aren't actually bigger than living African Elephants. This is the size of a baby elephant, so must have been a baby mammoth.
Actually (assuming this is the same as the documentary on the BBC a few days ago- I'm not going to RTFA to find out), no meat was taken. Just the skull, tusks and a few other bones. Very mysterious.
gasoline evaporates pretty quick...
Hydrogen evaporates quicker. I've heard the argument (can't confirm it, so treat as hearsay) that a hydrogen-leaking car crash is less dangerous than a petrol one, as petrol pools under the vehicle where it can burn fully- releasing all potential energy in a very local, very damaging way. Hydrogen disperses (very) quickly, so by the time a spark ignites it most of the energy is already lost to the clouds.
Not all websites are about things happening now. Wikipedia has a nice article on The Battle of Hastings, despite a distinct lack of internet in 1066.
If there were dozens of models by respected scientists in the 1970's, I suspect some of them would be mentioned somewher on the internet. Especially considering the controversial nature of the Global Warming issue, and the straw-grasping of the most rabid deniers.
Amazon wouldn't pay Income Tax in any case; Income Tax is the tax paid by individuals on their yearly earnings from salaries, dividends, savings interest, etc.
TFA is about Amazon evading Corporation Tax, which is an entirely different thing.
The problem is that Amazon (a US company based in Luxembourg) are tax exempt, while local companies that employ local people and contribute to local society are not. Amazon has a price advantage by virtue of a £0 tax bill, and UK-based companies can't compete.
You need to either tax Amazon or stop taxing local companies in order to restore competitive balance. As colossal tax cuts for big business aren't top of the agenda in the middle of a painful economic slump and massive budget deficit, the former option needs to be investigated.
I think that rather than plan to keep the servers up forever, I could see them release a patch that would allow LAN play if it were true that they had to close down for some reason" or, failing that, to at least patch it to remove the must be online part.
What if they go bankrupt? Blizzard are a strong company now, but 10 years is a long time and plenty of great companies have fallen before. Then they wouldn't have the resources to throw at that sort of thing- you'd be stuck with things in the state they are when the bailiffs move in.
What if they're purchased by someone less trustworthy. What if Oracle decided to move into video gaming and bought them out- do you trust Oracle to do right by you? Or some faceless private equity firm?
Better to not put the stupid broken-by-design features in in the first place, rather than cripple your product at launch and hope to fix it later.
You might call it a pendantic asshole point when I say that we haven't gone to "war" in 70 years. But, calling every military action a "war" is incorrect. Just as the president using the military as his personal pop-gun squad without the approval of the people (or more accurately, their elected representatives.) is incorrect.
What a ridiculous thing to say. War is an English word with a commonly accepted meaning, i.e.:
war (wôr)
n.
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The Iraq War was a war. The Vietnam War was a war. The Afghanistan War is a war. They're all called wars in natural English language, and they all meet the criteria. Sending 100,000 troops into a sovereign nation with the express purpose of toppling their government and replacing it with one friendly to your cause is a war in as classic a sense as you can get.
Whether the White House has found some legal loop hole that allows them to avoid doing what the constitution says they have to do to go to war doesn't have any relevance. If the Attorney General found a way of classifying Afghanistan as a Charity Bake Sale it still wouldn't make it one; it would just mean that the legal code has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Sounds like a vehicular version of No True Scotsman to me.
It's a vehicle that is road-legal and can fly. That's basically a flying car (or flying three-wheeler, or whatever) to me. VTOL would make it a USEFUL flying car; but I'm not sure that that's relevant. A George Forman grill is more useful than some twigs piled in a heap, but they're still both cookers.
What you're after is a Blade Runner style flying car- but you're setting your stick too high for a new technology. You're thinking Star Trek rather than Sputnik.
How the retailer deals with the warranty is up to the retailer.
My parents' fancy Samsung TV went wrong under warranty last year. They took it back to the retailer (Currys) who had their own repair guys assess it. They assessed that it couldn't be repaired economically, and gave them a store credit voucher for the price they paid, so that they could pick a replacement. They will then go about reclaiming this cost from Samsung behind the scenes. I don't know what would have happened if they had decided to repair it- whether they would have sent it back to Samsung to do the work, or if they would have done it themselves and sent Samsung the bill.
The point is that it's between the retailer and the supplier how they settle it. From the consumers point of view, they will get a repair, a replacement or a refund, and it doesn't matter how it gets done.
Quite. This is creepy, but not in the way that people have been harping on about. The outcry is at entirely the wrong target.
It's creepy that people publish so much about themselves without thinking, it's creepy that it's possible to know exactly where people are and who they are and everything they like and dislike and do and who their friends are. The fact some guy comes out with some cheap data scraper that takes readily available information and packages it up with a smutty logo and tacky name doesn't make it any worse- it was already a bad thing.
Someone would need to look inside and see how it's hooked up. Maybe give it a kite mark to say they approve. Maybe someone like a standards agency.
I won't labour the point; I mean the thing mentioned at the top of this thread.
To ensure that a complex electromechanical device does not do something is nearly impossible. Sure, the default configuration might allow you to shut the camera down and you could see that nothing from the camera is being transmitted, but you could always put the machine into a 'nasty' mode which surreptitiously turns the evil eye back on.
Sometimes the old solutions are the best. Retro solution- a physical switch. When the button (mechanical affair with springs and levers) is pressed, the wire that connects the camera to the power supply is moved a millimetre in this direction, breaking the circuit. The only way to reactivate the camera is to have someone press that springs-and-levers button again.
That's the way I was taught electronics in primary school. No need to over-engineer a solution; you can't improve on an original like that.
At least as far as LOTR is concerned, you could also make an argument for just staying faithful to the spirit of the original text. Tolkien was an Englishman (moved to England at the age of 3) who would have spoken with either Received Pronunciation or a Black Country accent. The characters he invented and the locations he wrote about would have been based on his local experiences.
So if you want to make the movies sound like Tolkien was imagining when he wrote it, British accents are probably a good place to start (and certainly a better bet that North American accents).
There are an awful lot of South Wales accents in the Doctor Who universe. Not least because it's filmed in Cardiff.
I'm not convinced that Irish (which is heavily influenced by Gaelic routes) is the best guide to English accents of the past (German with French pretentions). I've heard convincing arguments that Geordie accents are a good guide to "the English of yesteryear"- but Britain is a big place, so it probably wouldn't have been universal.
My heritage is West Country- certainly some of the broader versions of that dialect still spoken by some of my older relatives could have some fairly ancient pedigree. It's a rhotic accent, too, which is in its favour.
Wealth may keep growing, but it is not infinite.
Think about it in more literal terms. Let's say you measure wealth as who has the best food. Or furniture. Or land. Or electronic gadgets. Each of those is a strictly finite object (there is only as much food as there is arable land; furniture as there is wood; land as there is, er, land; electronic gadgets as there is plastic/metal/etc.). You can increase the level of production of each of these above the levels they're at today, but there are still limits. At some point, you will not be able to increase food production on planet Earth in any further significant way. Can we feed 10 billion humans? 100 billion humans? A trillion? A googolplex of humans (which would be more people than there are particles in the universe)? The limit will be somewhere.
I'm not saying this limit isn't high enough that there will be plenty to go around. But it is definitely finite, not infinite.
The point being that Red Hat is not competing against Microsoft but rather they are filling a different market than Microsoft.
Nonsense. Red Hat's core business is for corporate servers and desktops. You know, the life blood of Microsoft's sales. It'd be true to say that Red Hat aren't competing with MS in the home computing space- but Microsoft has always been about the enterprise customers at its heart.
Not that $1 billion will worry MS overly, but it's nice to see a FOSS company carving out a good living in a heavily competitive environment like that.
Money is valueless except as something to be exchanged for other things. You produce some goods or services, and your employer/client gives you money. You then exchange that money for goods and services that you want or need.
"Wealthy" people are those who have access to "plenty". In the real world, this means wealthy people have plenty of money (potential stuff) in addition to plenty of actual stuff.
Wealth is extremely finite. Where wealth is a measure of what you have, there are only so many goods and services to go around. If resources on Earth are finite (and they are), then the amount of goods you can make must also be finite, the number of people who can live here to do services must be finite.
While you can always print more money, if you aren't increasing the amount of "stuff" alongside it, you're just going to make each individual unit of money worth less.
The rest of the world doesn't have unlimited food production capacity. Trying to import food for one billion people into Africa will mean other places in the world will need to produce one billion peoples' worth of new food. That's no small thing.
Technically the statement is (or can be) true. There's no reason Africa couldn't have "some of the poorest" AND "some of the richest" soils at the same time.
A lot of Africa has poor soil, and a lot of the more fertile areas are rainforests which we wouldn't want to advocate burning to the ground to turn into farmland. Africa also has more than a billion people to feed. So the question is still a reasonably valid one- how do you turn the large expanses of infertile wasteland into productive arable land?