This is definitely not a hypothetical scenario (from the do-consoles-exist-in-the-workplace-standpoint, but certainly a non-issue if your network admin has a clue). My previous three employers have all had game consoles in meetings room, sometimes one per floor. The most recent is a large Australian bank which has beer in the fridge, consoles in the kitchen and pool/ping pong tables in the meeting rooms; used mainly by software developers and economists.
I am interested to see what exactly needed to be redacted from the definition of BRAS (page 12).
How is a definition anything less than public knowledge? I already find it suspicious that a government organisation is obviously imposing bias on a 'definition' in a request for comments document.
That wouldn't make a difference. The idea of this, and similar clocks, is that you don't really care about the absolute time. 1980 or 2010 is no different to you; so long as you all agree on the time.
This is extremely important in cryptography and many other situations where freshness and order is important. You only care that packet 2 arrives after packet 1 and that nonce N is currently valid.
Is it just me or does anyone else find the need to disclose your sexual preference to your employer a little bit uncomfortable? I'm all for Google covering a ridiculous tax but it requires their employees to disclose the information before hand which opens them up to even more discrimination.
CAD was the only thing I could think of as a legitimate use for this thing. I definitely feel where you are coming from.
The myriad of available hotkeys/commands in AutoCAD is nothing short of overwhelming and a device like this is well suited for it IMO (since you don't want your hands off the mouse and the keyboard is the secondary input).
Cannot stress parent enough--I don't see the point in forcing people to use one particular browser let alone one particular patch of that browser. You may as well not develop a web app and write an application for it because you're going to have to distribute that very specific version with it and the entire benefits of web apps are gone.
It should work on all major browsers without any trouble (for the user) or its worthless.
I work at one of the major banks in Australia and our IT structure is one of the weirder I have seen. It technically falls under it's own department which is headed up by the CIO; all support is outsourced to HP-EDS though. The IT department essentially has smaller sub-departments that are placed within each individual business unit (Wealth Management, PBS, etc) where each sub department also has a CIO.
I find it an interesting and effective way of intertwining IT and business needs. This way IT always has a way up the ladder, all the way to the top, through people who understand what they need and what is going on in the IT side of things but at the same time is heavily connected with what that particular unit is doing. For example PBS, who run the share trading/margin lending etc brands, have a unit that is staffed by the IT department but takes business direction from the CIO of PBS. They do development, server maintenance and other general operations tasks (as it relates to their business/PBS only).
I imagine the finance side of things (who pays for servers, licenses, etc) is a fairly hot topic but fortunately it's an organisation where managers are willing to take a hit on the politics so the staff can do their jobs.
Horrible explanation, I know, I would be interested in hearing if there is a name for it though.
SIR RICHARD BRANSON: Three years from now we'll be sending paying passengers into space. We'll be sending them - you know, our spaceships will be launching every day.
Maybe he was a little early with his estimation... (link is 5 years old)
Uh, that's what everyone has been telling you and you have been giving incredibly rude and childish responses to.
If the language itself (i.e. SQL) was to enforce variable parametrization this would not be the problem that it is today. Has this entire thing from your side been a misunderstanding on what SQL actually stands for?
Perhaps someone should describe variable parametrization to you? A language that implemented it would take a variable in place of the 'userid' statement from the DELETE FROM users WHERE userid = userid; this variable would not allow any escape characters to be a part of it and therefore destroy injection possibilities.
When was the last time C had injection (buffer overflows are another story!)? It doesn't. Because if you have void func(int arg) you can't call func(1; exit(1)). This is a fundamental flaw in SQL and technologies that use ORM (i.e. a variable parametrization layer on top) do not regularly deal with issues like this.
At risk of starting an s-fight... what do you have against Drew? I've heard similar sentiments a few times but never really been able to get to the bottom of them.
I've actually met him and listened to his show for a couple of years and I don't have any particular issue with him. He definitely has his own opinions to broadcast on radio but none of which are radical or outcast in the medical community.
I don't know. I like Adam's antics as much as the next guy but he really did talk all over Drew and it made it pretty difficult at times; nothing worse then having an amazing celebrity guest and Adam talking all over them either.
Even if we ignore the fact that the Federal Marshals use regular.357 hollow points nowadays (as that wiki article even states), as far as I am aware the idea of de-pressurising a plane with a bullet is greatlyexaggerated.
it's missing on Google Maps right now... that's actually pretty interesting. I'm not really the conspiracy type but definitely interesting.
Bing has aerial photography that isn't really helpful.. http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=56.082778~37.089444&style=h&lvl=15&sp=Point.56.082778_37.089444_UVB-76___
In this thread, I'm getting a whole load of baseless accusations, and a tonne of "Oh no they're not", but I'm just looking for the reason why *this* non-practising entity is a "good guy" when other non-practising entities are trolls?
Can anyone help draw that line?
I guess it all comes down to your definition of troll, really. I think the fact that they are non-practising is not an implication of being a troll (likewise, patent trolling can be done by practising entities just fine) but in my mind trolling is patenting for the sole purpose of gaining the ability to sue for patent infringement where the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to legally make use of the research.
That isn't the case here. The CSIRO had an agreement with these entities, an agreement that they failed to uphold their end of. They had every reasonable chance under the law to make use of technology that the CSIRO had invested millions of research in; consumers benefitted from these technologies where the cost of royalties to be paid to the CSIRO were (presumably) passed on to the consumer. In my mind a patent troll would of waited for major companies to make use of their research, without intervening and warning them or offering them a royalty option, and then sued them for infringement.
Conversely the CSIRO exceeded their legal obligations and negotiated a fair deal for use of the technology. The money they were to make from these royalties was then to be put back in to further research that would again benefit consumers and the cycle continues; a perfect world and exactly why patents were invented.
How about the knowledge that this is not a software patent? Everyone here is always up-in-arms about software patents (hell, you have a wiki devoted to it) but this is just a case of you missing the forest for the trees. This is a scientific research patent which if you had bothered to read the actual patent for does not cover any software implementation; it covers the theories behind WiFi (and some low level scientific theories such as mQAM, BPSK, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
This is definitely not a hypothetical scenario (from the do-consoles-exist-in-the-workplace-standpoint, but certainly a non-issue if your network admin has a clue). My previous three employers have all had game consoles in meetings room, sometimes one per floor. The most recent is a large Australian bank which has beer in the fridge, consoles in the kitchen and pool/ping pong tables in the meeting rooms; used mainly by software developers and economists.
It's a new age.
When are we going to get over this cyber prefix bs?
A spy is a spy a spy. You don't call them "gun spies" or "explosive spies". Technology is a tool like anything else.
I am interested to see what exactly needed to be redacted from the definition of BRAS (page 12).
How is a definition anything less than public knowledge? I already find it suspicious that a government organisation is obviously imposing bias on a 'definition' in a request for comments document.
Did I seriously just recognise the Tristan aircraft from EVE Online in a photograph of a translucent monitor?
Fuck I need to get out more.
That wouldn't make a difference. The idea of this, and similar clocks, is that you don't really care about the absolute time. 1980 or 2010 is no different to you; so long as you all agree on the time.
This is extremely important in cryptography and many other situations where freshness and order is important. You only care that packet 2 arrives after packet 1 and that nonce N is currently valid.
Is it just me or does anyone else find the need to disclose your sexual preference to your employer a little bit uncomfortable? I'm all for Google covering a ridiculous tax but it requires their employees to disclose the information before hand which opens them up to even more discrimination.
A catch 22 in an extremely retarded situation.
CAD was the only thing I could think of as a legitimate use for this thing. I definitely feel where you are coming from.
The myriad of available hotkeys/commands in AutoCAD is nothing short of overwhelming and a device like this is well suited for it IMO (since you don't want your hands off the mouse and the keyboard is the secondary input).
Yep.
Cannot stress parent enough--I don't see the point in forcing people to use one particular browser let alone one particular patch of that browser. You may as well not develop a web app and write an application for it because you're going to have to distribute that very specific version with it and the entire benefits of web apps are gone.
It should work on all major browsers without any trouble (for the user) or its worthless.
I work at one of the major banks in Australia and our IT structure is one of the weirder I have seen. It technically falls under it's own department which is headed up by the CIO; all support is outsourced to HP-EDS though. The IT department essentially has smaller sub-departments that are placed within each individual business unit (Wealth Management, PBS, etc) where each sub department also has a CIO.
I find it an interesting and effective way of intertwining IT and business needs. This way IT always has a way up the ladder, all the way to the top, through people who understand what they need and what is going on in the IT side of things but at the same time is heavily connected with what that particular unit is doing. For example PBS, who run the share trading/margin lending etc brands, have a unit that is staffed by the IT department but takes business direction from the CIO of PBS. They do development, server maintenance and other general operations tasks (as it relates to their business/PBS only).
I imagine the finance side of things (who pays for servers, licenses, etc) is a fairly hot topic but fortunately it's an organisation where managers are willing to take a hit on the politics so the staff can do their jobs.
Horrible explanation, I know, I would be interested in hearing if there is a name for it though.
SIR RICHARD BRANSON: Three years from now we'll be sending paying passengers into space. We'll be sending them - you know, our spaceships will be launching every day.
Maybe he was a little early with his estimation... (link is 5 years old)
seriousity
I love that you invented a word to go with it. Awesome.
Uh, that's what everyone has been telling you and you have been giving incredibly rude and childish responses to.
If the language itself (i.e. SQL) was to enforce variable parametrization this would not be the problem that it is today. Has this entire thing from your side been a misunderstanding on what SQL actually stands for?
Jesus.
Did you miss what the SQL acronym is? Look it up and get back to me.
Perhaps someone should describe variable parametrization to you? A language that implemented it would take a variable in place of the 'userid' statement from the DELETE FROM users WHERE userid = userid; this variable would not allow any escape characters to be a part of it and therefore destroy injection possibilities.
When was the last time C had injection (buffer overflows are another story!)? It doesn't. Because if you have void func(int arg) you can't call func(1; exit(1)). This is a fundamental flaw in SQL and technologies that use ORM (i.e. a variable parametrization layer on top) do not regularly deal with issues like this.
White House advisor states a piece of software installed on almost every government desktop is a possible target for cyber war.
Can we start moderating submissions as flamebait?
At risk of starting an s-fight... what do you have against Drew? I've heard similar sentiments a few times but never really been able to get to the bottom of them. I've actually met him and listened to his show for a couple of years and I don't have any particular issue with him. He definitely has his own opinions to broadcast on radio but none of which are radical or outcast in the medical community.
I don't know. I like Adam's antics as much as the next guy but he really did talk all over Drew and it made it pretty difficult at times; nothing worse then having an amazing celebrity guest and Adam talking all over them either.
Even if we ignore the fact that the Federal Marshals use regular .357 hollow points nowadays (as that wiki article even states), as far as I am aware the idea of de-pressurising a plane with a bullet is greatly exaggerated.
I'm having a bad day. It's clearly a giant cloud. :( A bunch of areas around Moscow are blacked out (down and to the right, as well).
it's missing on Google Maps right now... that's actually pretty interesting. I'm not really the conspiracy type but definitely interesting.
Bing has aerial photography that isn't really helpful..
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=56.082778~37.089444&style=h&lvl=15&sp=Point.56.082778_37.089444_UVB-76___
More sources at http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=UVB-76¶ms=56_4_58_N_37_5_22_E_type:landmark_region:RU
So um... Has anyone thought about going out there to ask what it's been doing for 28 years?
In this thread, I'm getting a whole load of baseless accusations, and a tonne of "Oh no they're not", but I'm just looking for the reason why *this* non-practising entity is a "good guy" when other non-practising entities are trolls?
Can anyone help draw that line?
I guess it all comes down to your definition of troll, really. I think the fact that they are non-practising is not an implication of being a troll (likewise, patent trolling can be done by practising entities just fine) but in my mind trolling is patenting for the sole purpose of gaining the ability to sue for patent infringement where the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to legally make use of the research.
That isn't the case here. The CSIRO had an agreement with these entities, an agreement that they failed to uphold their end of. They had every reasonable chance under the law to make use of technology that the CSIRO had invested millions of research in; consumers benefitted from these technologies where the cost of royalties to be paid to the CSIRO were (presumably) passed on to the consumer. In my mind a patent troll would of waited for major companies to make use of their research, without intervening and warning them or offering them a royalty option, and then sued them for infringement.
Conversely the CSIRO exceeded their legal obligations and negotiated a fair deal for use of the technology. The money they were to make from these royalties was then to be put back in to further research that would again benefit consumers and the cycle continues; a perfect world and exactly why patents were invented.
How about the knowledge that this is not a software patent? Everyone here is always up-in-arms about software patents (hell, you have a wiki devoted to it) but this is just a case of you missing the forest for the trees. This is a scientific research patent which if you had bothered to read the actual patent for does not cover any software implementation; it covers the theories behind WiFi (and some low level scientific theories such as mQAM, BPSK, etc).
SP2 for XP64 is essentially SP3 for XP32. They are off a different code base (XP64 is off Windows Server). I wonder how this affects support?
I would guess that it shares product support lifetime with 2k3.
I don't understand why C# is off the list and Java is on. They are essentially the same in terms of ease/understanding and fundamentals.
This seems more like a political thing than an educational one.