So when an artist writes and records a piece of music and uploads it to SoundCloud, what steps is the artist supposed to have taken to ensure that his song doesn't accidentally infringe copyright in one of the millions of existing songs? I ask because I compose music, am considering seeking extra exposure through SoundCloud, and want to limit my liability in cases of accidental infringement. Has anyone heard from a lawyer on this?
What do you expect a copyright lawyer to say? It's like asking a patent lawyer how you can be sure your invention doesn't infringe on any of the millions of patents out there - and they are all at least publicly available. He'd probably tell you it'd be a very long and very expensive search through convoluted legalese that wouldn't guarantee anything anyway. With copyrighted works there isn't even a repository to compare with, so I don't see there's anything you can do to truly avoid it. Even if someone offered a check for originality like for school papers, there's always a chance it's a copy of something not in that system.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure he'd say that's a bridge we'd cross when we get there, you publish it and if you make enough money and it's substantially similar enough for someone to sue, we'll look at the merits and try to find some prior art they infringe or go for a non-infringement defense or if it's really too close to a copy try to make a reasonable settlement. I remember reading about a case where an artist woke up with a tune in his head, didn't realize he'd heard it on the town the night before and published it as his own, he settled it quite amicably by handling over all his royalties and offering an unconditional apology. Shit happens.
ISIS isn't being defeated by American air superiority. Actually that was not working at all until its was done in concert with men on the ground, granted those largely are not American troops yet, but its still men on the ground. If we had to fight a large scale war again we would need riflemen and those would have to come from our citizen ranks in large part.
True, but then nobody denies the US government the right to draft, arm and train however many soldiers it needs, particularly not in a declared state of war. And those powers aren't listed in the Bill of Rights anyway. It's not about who you can give guns to, it's about whose guns you can't take away. And from what I understand of the early militia, they didn't have service weapons. So the only way to disarm the militia would be to take their personal arms away. And "they" in this context would be every free able-bodied white male 18-45, you didn't enroll or sign up. From what I can tell there were no degrees of militia, it's not like you had the well-regulated and unregulated militia which is a modern invention. So far the facts are pretty undisputed.
From this one interpretation of this is that guns are only protected in the context of the militia. If you're 46 years old, they're not protected. If you're a woman, they're not protected. If you're disabled (not able-bodied) they're not protected. If they're not usable in the militia, they're not protected. That the amendment grants only protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the militia. The other is that the first half is simply a prominent reason for the last half, like if the first amendment read "A free exchange of information being necessary for democracy, the freedom of speech and the press shall not be infringed." If that doesn't abridge the freedom of speech, then neither does the militia abridge "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
The whole knives thing is just a red herring. Having a gun or not doesn't determine whether someone is more or less likely to want to kill someone else.
If you're talking premediated murder, then no. But if you surprise a burglar, the chances of you both walking away from it is a lot higher with knives than guns. It's a lot harder to kill someone in a stabbing accident than a shooting accident. How many people have been killed because somebody thought they saw a gun? Or actually saw a gun and thought it's him or me, even though that wasn't really the case? Or just been the innocent bystander hit by a shootout? Guns are so efficient they cause deaths by accident or by being an imminent, inescable threat of death. Almost nobody dies by a knife unless somebody started it with murderous intent. The same can absolutely not be said for guns.
You know what? The vast majority of Norwegians can be tracked in real time by their card purchases. What an efficient cage.
Yes, but for ~98% of the adult population tracking the cell phone is much more efficient. Compared to that, paying my groceries by card is completely insignificant. The only time it matters if I don't like the purchase being linked to me, not the tracking aspect.
I've also come to the conclusion that I no longer want to do business with a company that treats its customs in this manner.
Neither do I. But I would like to get four more years of extended support that I paid for without constant harassment. I figure that by then I'll finally go back to Linux (yes, I left again) and maybe a Wintendo if AAA games are still absent.
Personally I think that it would be extremely unlikely for self driving cars to not become a reality. There is too much money being spent on it by too many smart people. It may be that the US ends up being late to the game though due to the nature of the US legal system.
Eventually. Like speech recognition, which also seemed to always be 3-5 years out until it finally went mainstream a few years ago. But I'm thinking more like 2030 or 2040 than 2020 at least around here, from what I can tell they haven't even begun to test snow and ice. I totally understand why they start with making it work under optimal conditions, but it also means they have a looooooooong way to go with non-optimal conditions.
The first step requires a significant cultural change, which is always difficult. We collectively need to stop considering mental illness as a failure of character, a visitation by some imaginary deity/demon, or any of the other cruelly fallacious delusions out there. Truth is, the mind is extremely complex, very poorly understood, and probably never quite 'right' in the sense we would want it to be. In other words, we are all nucking futs and we had better learn to be more kind to each other. After that first step, we most definitely should start talking, openly and kindly, about mental health online and in-person and in all social constructs.
That's not the issue, I don't think many believe mental illness has such an extraordinary explanation. The problem is that we don't know the true scope of your mental problems, if you tell me you're depressed is it like "got the blues" depressed or "dangling from a rope" depressed? Is your memory just a little fuzzy or will you leave the food burning on the stove so the house burns down? Are you just a tad neurotic or are you going to go full blown psychosis with hallucinations and voices in your head telling you to do things? We've all heard the worst case stories and most are going to say better safe than sorry, which of course makes everything worse for the person opening up. But I can't crawl into the heads of those around me, I just have to assume they act like normal people ordinarily would.
A mentally ill person is a wild card, a relative of mine that had Alzheimer's had to be put in a home because she could go out and not know where she lived or how to get back. She didn't want to go, of course she would have faked being well if she could. Another relative had a brain hemorrhage, he was mixing words and forgetting things and just couldn't be relied on for anything. He wanted to get his driver's license back, ended up being denied an electric wheel chair because he couldn't handle it. And a former class mate of mine did go nuts and stabbed a person to death with a kitchen knife, maybe I'm a little biased. I'm not sure anybody knew he had mental problems, but in retrospect it's certainly someone you'd want to stay well clear of. So from their point of view I think telling will continue to have negative consequences no matter what.
Nope. He is claiming he has implemented a method requiring multiple key servers to unanimously decide to work together to decrypt a message. Specifically there are nine servers, all of which must be used together. If 8 of the 9 wish to decrypt something but 1 chooses not to assist, the message can not be decrypted.
So far so good. But there's only two ways this works, either it's closed source, black box and absolutely not to be trusted or you can do: // encryptForTheNine( decryptionKey ) encryptForTheNine( someString() )
At least I don't know any algorithm that can prove the correct decryption key is embedded without actually decrypting the message. So you go through nine jurisdictions, get a court warrant in each and find the decryption key is 0xDEADBEEF. Then what? It only works if you make tampering with the backdoor a crime and even then it'll be practically unenforceable as anyone can feign ignorance that the build they used had disabled it. Besides decrypting the message is pretty much irrelevant, you could just use PGP to defend against that. What they'd like to know is decrypting the end points, who sent it and who got it. And if they really have the master keys to all this, I imagine every spy agency in the world will pay them a visit and steal their keys.
Way too many workers are too stupid or lack the backbone to tell their boss, "no, I will not give up my life because you are an asshole and refuse to hire the workers needed"
It's rational under US labor laws where you'll get laid off at the next opportunity, if they don't fire you on the spot for calling your boss an asshole. They'll hire the next guy, the "good" company you find that gets 40 hours/week is out-competed by the "bad" company that gets 60 hours/week and they either change their tune or go bankrupt. As long as it's one worker against the company, the blackmail is going to work. That is why most European countries have mandatory overtime pay where few are exempted.
I don't think I could work at any place without overtime pay, unless it's genuinely management which is exempted here too. It's not about the total compensation, it's about the incentive. One hour isn't free for me, so it shouldn't be free for my manager to ask for another hour. All businesses have something they want to do worth more than $0, so that just mean pile on the tasks until I am working overtime no matter how efficient I am. Sure that means that short term I could stretch my hours and bill overtime. Or more correctly, I have to say to my boss this can't get done in normal time, do you approve use of overtime. Maybe he feels he must approve to reach the deadline, even though he feels I shouldn't have needed it.
But that is not something that should be compensated with free hours, if my boss is not happy with the work/$ he's getting from me the correct time to deal with that is performance reviews and raises. If my work was poor, regular hours or not I should get laid off anyway. So we're talking about the cases where the work is good, but the boss just wants it cheaper. It's like a constant "renegotiation" of your hourly wage, doesn't matter if it's creative work one hour of "software development" is an hour. You get what you get inside that time slot.
Or the tl;dr version: If you have 120 hours of work that needs doing, hiring 3 people costs 300%. In the US, hire two and hound them to work 150% and it costs 200% + whatever compensation you manage to get. In Europe, hire two and pay 150% for the last 20 hours and it costs 200% + 150% = 350%.
That makes it pretty obvious why Americans work so much and Europeans so little. We get more expensive the more you work us, you get cheaper.
Like everything else, labor price is about supply and demand. For a long time using foreign labor was extremely impractical on so many levels, no doubt Henry Ford had to primarily hire US workers to work on US plants to sell cars to the US population. When it became practical to use Chinese and Indian labor, this lead to a massive influx of unnaturally cheap labor. Look at this table and graph. In 2000 you could hire 30 Chinese workers for the price of one American, productivity was only 13% but you still got 4:1 on your money. Today it's 6 Chinese workers to one American, productivity is up to 38% and 2.3:1 on your money. If you take high-cost China vs low-cost US, you're down to 1.45:1.
No doubt labor costs are going to continue to rise in China. India too is on the rise, though not quite as much. Within the next 5-10 years it'll probably be roughly as expensive to manufacture in China as it is in the US and the massive negative wage pressure will be gone. Same thing with software and India, whether you like it or not it's a global market now and our wages aren't going to rise again until the other workers of the world push global wages higher. If you've seen at the GDP distribution of the world there used to be a big lump at the top in the western world, then actually a drop and then the world's poor. Check out the difference between 1970 and 2006. We just can't keep up the level of inequality we used to.
These kinds of sequential benchmarks don't really tell me how much real-world time something like this will shave off booting a computer, launching an application, etc versus a more conventional solution.
About as much faster as you'd get to work in a race car. If you're not doing anything storage intense, the PCIe bandwidth is not going to make much of a difference. Same with NVMe, main advantage is at big queue depths. This technology isn't coming because consumers are demanding it, but because of enterprise needs. Now they're looking for prosumers who are willing to pay more, but not quite enterprise money for performance. I'm guessing eventually it'll trickle down to consumers since PCIe and NVMe are far more natural interfaces for SSDs than SATA but it won't make much of a real world difference. A bit like DDR4, it doesn't really offer much over DDR3 for consumers but because the enterprise needs it, it's trickled down to Skylake.
Actually when people use something like iCloud they have no concept of instances. Their data is just out there somewhere, the cloud is essentially the 2010s name for cyberspace. And everything else syncs against the cloud whether it's cell phone, tablet, laptop, pc, whatever. And I think that's really the business definition too, if it's in the cloud it's not your servers and not your job managing them. You're just buying the service. I could see benefits from organizing a large company the same way internally, one group runs their "cloud" with some headroom for expansion and everybody else is charged according to use. The point is, do you have the same flexibility to start up, shut down and repurpose servers as the cloud solution.
But back to individuals, what you want is the sync/backup service so physically it is just a 24/7 server but it's the software that matters. Are there clients so that when you take a photo with your cell phone you don't have to think about it, it just auto-syncs. If you added a contact as you were working on the laptop and need to call him on the phone to say you're late, is the contact there? If you update your music playlist on the cell phone because you're tired of the song, will it still play on your desktop back home? The cloud is 99% integrations, 1% hardware. I don't think most people would want to self-host anyway, but just like web hotels you'd have cloud hotels. Your choice of provider, costs/GB for storage, bandwidth, SLA and so on. At least it wouldn't be centralized at a few mega-corporations and you'd have the choice to do it yourself.
The free software movement has been successful at achieving its goals over the last 30 years.
I mean no doubt open source has scored victory upon victory from cell phones to supercomputers, but the FSF's goals? Most users do not use a platform or applications that gives them the "four freedoms". Users in general do not see proprietary software as wrong. In fact much of their data has moved from proprietary code to proprietary services, which use open source including GPLv2 software in their delivery but don't distribute it. I don't know any service I use using the Affero license, the "GPL for SaaS" license. And with online services the DRM is more or less baked into the service, naturally it won't work without the server side and you get to do a lot more live cheat detection and bans.
A lot of the code that big companies has released is under the Apache 2 license instead of the GPL, things like Android and LLVM has gotten far more attention lately than the GCC. The lone exception is the kernel, but it mostly lives in its own "universe" not affecting user space and drivers have found ways to use blobs when they want to. In short, I don't think RMS is happy with the state of things, maybe not even the direction things are going. But I'm happy that open source keeps "hollowing out" proprietary software, if it runs on top of a LAMP stack or Docker container or whatnot they're interested in making the foundation stronger. Eventually the layer thins out to where OSS volunteers making something "good enough".
Copyright holders: This subscriber is a copyright infringer. This subscriber is a copyright infringer. This subscriber is a copyright infringer. This subscriber is a copyright infringer. This subscriber is a copyright infringer. This subscriber is a copyright infringer. ISP: We're disconnecting him from the Internet Slashdot: OMG OMG you can't do that due process.
Cisco: This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler. This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler. This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler. This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler. This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler. This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler. ISP: We're not disconnecting him from the Internet Slashdot: OMG OMG get the ISP kicked off the net.
That sword cuts both ways, which way do you like it?
Male sex, being physically active, and good health status were independently associated with light to moderate drinking (P.001).
CONCLUSION: After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
The problem with these studies is that there's a huge elephant in the door called "phase of life" that probably correlates a bunch of variables. Like this sounds like the stereotype young bachelor, working to look attractive and out partying to meet women. I'm guessing that if you divide by alcohol consumption you get very different groups of people that affects mortality in many directions. Like suicide is a pretty big cause of death in young people and it's typically related to depression, not to people out partying. So it might be that those that are out drinking die from alcohol - I mean you have to be pretty blind to see there aren't alcohol related/caused deaths from DUI, violence, accidents - and the non-drinkers die for different reasons. I'm guessing that the same way they made it disappear, they can make it reappear by checking for more factors.
That measures not so much popularity as unpopularity - people having problems. I'd give that one negative weighting.
At any given time you have a *lot* of inexperienced developers and DBAs that are in way over their heads trying to use StackExchange and such as a substitute for competence, even for things that are pretty fucking obvious or in the documentation. At least problems show interest and usage, it's when the help requests stop you know it's really dead.
If said person was a founding member with an actual stake in the company, I wouldn't be too hard on them. I was part of a start-up and in the beginning it's all about making a profit and taking whatever shortcuts you can. If you get caught up in doing things "proper" and planning for when you have hundreds or thousands of employees you're probably not going to get there. Early Microsoft was hardly perfect but Gates ran with it. Early Oracle was hardly perfect but Ellison ran with it. Early Facebook was hardly perfect but Zuckerberg ran with it. Worrying too much about growth pains means you lose sight of the growth being the hard part and the pains the easy part. If you're just "an employee" and do things with your personal accounts then yeah, you deserve what's coming to you.
if popularity mattered, i would run Windows. what's popular is rarely good. how else do you explain beiber?
Apples and oranges, sometimes you just need *a* tool no matter how basic. I've done things in notepad. I've done things in MS Paint. I've done things in Excel that have absolutely nothing to do with a spreadsheet. Nobody has to suffer Justin Bieber unless they want to, there's always the off switch. But sometimes you just need a tool that's good enough for the job, and knowing the tool is more important than the quality of the tool. For a lot of things MySQL is perfectly sufficient. Oracle operates in the complete opposite of the scale, if you desperately need what they offer I'd do it. And if I don't I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
About half of the financing comes from NASA. Admittedly SpaceX can still waste money like in any way they like, but at that point it would be appropriate if NASA reduced the money they put in since there clearly is too much of it floating around.
Doesn't work that way, you can't go to Apple and say you make too much money so sell me an iPhone for half the price. Your choices are: 1) Buy something else 2) Not buy it 3) Create it in-house (since you're NASA)
There are alternatives, but not cheaper ones. Leaving the ISS stranded is not an option. And in-house you get a massive government project with pork to every district. But if you want to start your own rocket company, remove the bloat and undercut SpaceX on price just do it and NASA will be happy to award you contracts. What are you waiting for?
All we really know is that it landed. We don't know how flight ready it was for another launch, I imagine neither did SpaceX. So this first one I don't think they had any other choice but to strip it completely apart and test everything and then putting it all back together might not make sense. Next landing they probably know what needs replacing and can relaunch the rest. Makes sense to me at least.
The runtime was actually never particularly bad. Java mostly got its bad rap from poor Swing performance (not as smooth, and not as good looking as the native apps). People perceived that "visual lag" as the language being slow, while in reality it has always been pretty damn fast.
The VM initialization time and memory consumption in early Java didn't help, even the smallest program felt like a 747 taking off. That the controls felt like one too didn't help. Now a 747 is obviously a very useful plane in the right place and all but most people just wanted a Cessna. I remember running things like Azureus/Vuze, thank god for uTorrent and later qBittorrent. Maybe it's possible to write good java code but it seems to encourage being a sloth.
So, it would follow that any Linux distribution that works properly on a Sky Lake desktop / laptop would also work on one of these. That doesn't mean it won't be a huge ass pain to get it going.
Not really sure why, because there is almost no third party peripherals that need drivers and Intel got pretty good open source support for all of theirs. I mean their last stick already had an Ubuntu version...
But perhaps you think an active military response would be better? George W. Bush didn't seem to think so, even after North Korea blew past his "red line" on uranium enrichment and actually built the first of those bombs. Bottom line is, even the Bush administration didn't want a war in Korea, because it would be insanely bloody
I think the most compelling reason against was that it could become a proxy war with China based on the "he might be a bastard, but he's our bastard" doctrine.
In any case there is no reason you can't support a social welfare system and be a libertarian. Libertarians aren't anarchists (or at least they shouldn't be). Libertarians should believe in government doing the jobs that government can do better than the private sector, and libertarians are free to disagree on which jobs those are.
I think you've confused libertarians with social democrats. They're not anarchists, they want the rule of law and enforcement of contracts but that is pretty much it. All public services involve a loss of control, "they" take the money to fund it, "they" decide what, when and how to deliver and some have much bigger needs/wants than others. Even if the government can do better as a whole, there will always be those paying a lot for very little. And the libertarian mantra is that everyone should agree to things voluntarily through private agreements, not be forced into a public system whether they want to or not.
I think we all know what the killer app is. POV PR0N!
Unless you have a full 3D model and not just a 3D video, you only have one angle so you can't actually move your head and see it from another angle which would be pretty limiting. And virtual porn, well I don't think we've passed the uncanny valley yet so VR hentai porn would still have limited appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
So when an artist writes and records a piece of music and uploads it to SoundCloud, what steps is the artist supposed to have taken to ensure that his song doesn't accidentally infringe copyright in one of the millions of existing songs? I ask because I compose music, am considering seeking extra exposure through SoundCloud, and want to limit my liability in cases of accidental infringement. Has anyone heard from a lawyer on this?
What do you expect a copyright lawyer to say? It's like asking a patent lawyer how you can be sure your invention doesn't infringe on any of the millions of patents out there - and they are all at least publicly available. He'd probably tell you it'd be a very long and very expensive search through convoluted legalese that wouldn't guarantee anything anyway. With copyrighted works there isn't even a repository to compare with, so I don't see there's anything you can do to truly avoid it. Even if someone offered a check for originality like for school papers, there's always a chance it's a copy of something not in that system.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure he'd say that's a bridge we'd cross when we get there, you publish it and if you make enough money and it's substantially similar enough for someone to sue, we'll look at the merits and try to find some prior art they infringe or go for a non-infringement defense or if it's really too close to a copy try to make a reasonable settlement. I remember reading about a case where an artist woke up with a tune in his head, didn't realize he'd heard it on the town the night before and published it as his own, he settled it quite amicably by handling over all his royalties and offering an unconditional apology. Shit happens.
ISIS isn't being defeated by American air superiority. Actually that was not working at all until its was done in concert with men on the ground, granted those largely are not American troops yet, but its still men on the ground. If we had to fight a large scale war again we would need riflemen and those would have to come from our citizen ranks in large part.
True, but then nobody denies the US government the right to draft, arm and train however many soldiers it needs, particularly not in a declared state of war. And those powers aren't listed in the Bill of Rights anyway. It's not about who you can give guns to, it's about whose guns you can't take away. And from what I understand of the early militia, they didn't have service weapons. So the only way to disarm the militia would be to take their personal arms away. And "they" in this context would be every free able-bodied white male 18-45, you didn't enroll or sign up. From what I can tell there were no degrees of militia, it's not like you had the well-regulated and unregulated militia which is a modern invention. So far the facts are pretty undisputed.
From this one interpretation of this is that guns are only protected in the context of the militia. If you're 46 years old, they're not protected. If you're a woman, they're not protected. If you're disabled (not able-bodied) they're not protected. If they're not usable in the militia, they're not protected. That the amendment grants only protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the militia. The other is that the first half is simply a prominent reason for the last half, like if the first amendment read "A free exchange of information being necessary for democracy, the freedom of speech and the press shall not be infringed." If that doesn't abridge the freedom of speech, then neither does the militia abridge "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
The whole knives thing is just a red herring. Having a gun or not doesn't determine whether someone is more or less likely to want to kill someone else.
If you're talking premediated murder, then no. But if you surprise a burglar, the chances of you both walking away from it is a lot higher with knives than guns. It's a lot harder to kill someone in a stabbing accident than a shooting accident. How many people have been killed because somebody thought they saw a gun? Or actually saw a gun and thought it's him or me, even though that wasn't really the case? Or just been the innocent bystander hit by a shootout? Guns are so efficient they cause deaths by accident or by being an imminent, inescable threat of death. Almost nobody dies by a knife unless somebody started it with murderous intent. The same can absolutely not be said for guns.
You know what? The vast majority of Norwegians can be tracked in real time by their card purchases. What an efficient cage.
Yes, but for ~98% of the adult population tracking the cell phone is much more efficient. Compared to that, paying my groceries by card is completely insignificant. The only time it matters if I don't like the purchase being linked to me, not the tracking aspect.
I've also come to the conclusion that I no longer want to do business with a company that treats its customs in this manner.
Neither do I. But I would like to get four more years of extended support that I paid for without constant harassment. I figure that by then I'll finally go back to Linux (yes, I left again) and maybe a Wintendo if AAA games are still absent.
Personally I think that it would be extremely unlikely for self driving cars to not become a reality. There is too much money being spent on it by too many smart people. It may be that the US ends up being late to the game though due to the nature of the US legal system.
Eventually. Like speech recognition, which also seemed to always be 3-5 years out until it finally went mainstream a few years ago. But I'm thinking more like 2030 or 2040 than 2020 at least around here, from what I can tell they haven't even begun to test snow and ice. I totally understand why they start with making it work under optimal conditions, but it also means they have a looooooooong way to go with non-optimal conditions.
The first step requires a significant cultural change, which is always difficult. We collectively need to stop considering mental illness as a failure of character, a visitation by some imaginary deity/demon, or any of the other cruelly fallacious delusions out there. Truth is, the mind is extremely complex, very poorly understood, and probably never quite 'right' in the sense we would want it to be. In other words, we are all nucking futs and we had better learn to be more kind to each other. After that first step, we most definitely should start talking, openly and kindly, about mental health online and in-person and in all social constructs.
That's not the issue, I don't think many believe mental illness has such an extraordinary explanation. The problem is that we don't know the true scope of your mental problems, if you tell me you're depressed is it like "got the blues" depressed or "dangling from a rope" depressed? Is your memory just a little fuzzy or will you leave the food burning on the stove so the house burns down? Are you just a tad neurotic or are you going to go full blown psychosis with hallucinations and voices in your head telling you to do things? We've all heard the worst case stories and most are going to say better safe than sorry, which of course makes everything worse for the person opening up. But I can't crawl into the heads of those around me, I just have to assume they act like normal people ordinarily would.
A mentally ill person is a wild card, a relative of mine that had Alzheimer's had to be put in a home because she could go out and not know where she lived or how to get back. She didn't want to go, of course she would have faked being well if she could. Another relative had a brain hemorrhage, he was mixing words and forgetting things and just couldn't be relied on for anything. He wanted to get his driver's license back, ended up being denied an electric wheel chair because he couldn't handle it. And a former class mate of mine did go nuts and stabbed a person to death with a kitchen knife, maybe I'm a little biased. I'm not sure anybody knew he had mental problems, but in retrospect it's certainly someone you'd want to stay well clear of. So from their point of view I think telling will continue to have negative consequences no matter what.
Nope. He is claiming he has implemented a method requiring multiple key servers to unanimously decide to work together to decrypt a message. Specifically there are nine servers, all of which must be used together. If 8 of the 9 wish to decrypt something but 1 chooses not to assist, the message can not be decrypted.
So far so good. But there's only two ways this works, either it's closed source, black box and absolutely not to be trusted or you can do:
// encryptForTheNine( decryptionKey )
encryptForTheNine( someString() )
At least I don't know any algorithm that can prove the correct decryption key is embedded without actually decrypting the message. So you go through nine jurisdictions, get a court warrant in each and find the decryption key is 0xDEADBEEF. Then what? It only works if you make tampering with the backdoor a crime and even then it'll be practically unenforceable as anyone can feign ignorance that the build they used had disabled it. Besides decrypting the message is pretty much irrelevant, you could just use PGP to defend against that. What they'd like to know is decrypting the end points, who sent it and who got it. And if they really have the master keys to all this, I imagine every spy agency in the world will pay them a visit and steal their keys.
Way too many workers are too stupid or lack the backbone to tell their boss, "no, I will not give up my life because you are an asshole and refuse to hire the workers needed"
It's rational under US labor laws where you'll get laid off at the next opportunity, if they don't fire you on the spot for calling your boss an asshole. They'll hire the next guy, the "good" company you find that gets 40 hours/week is out-competed by the "bad" company that gets 60 hours/week and they either change their tune or go bankrupt. As long as it's one worker against the company, the blackmail is going to work. That is why most European countries have mandatory overtime pay where few are exempted.
I don't think I could work at any place without overtime pay, unless it's genuinely management which is exempted here too. It's not about the total compensation, it's about the incentive. One hour isn't free for me, so it shouldn't be free for my manager to ask for another hour. All businesses have something they want to do worth more than $0, so that just mean pile on the tasks until I am working overtime no matter how efficient I am. Sure that means that short term I could stretch my hours and bill overtime. Or more correctly, I have to say to my boss this can't get done in normal time, do you approve use of overtime. Maybe he feels he must approve to reach the deadline, even though he feels I shouldn't have needed it.
But that is not something that should be compensated with free hours, if my boss is not happy with the work/$ he's getting from me the correct time to deal with that is performance reviews and raises. If my work was poor, regular hours or not I should get laid off anyway. So we're talking about the cases where the work is good, but the boss just wants it cheaper. It's like a constant "renegotiation" of your hourly wage, doesn't matter if it's creative work one hour of "software development" is an hour. You get what you get inside that time slot.
Or the tl;dr version:
If you have 120 hours of work that needs doing, hiring 3 people costs 300%.
In the US, hire two and hound them to work 150% and it costs 200% + whatever compensation you manage to get.
In Europe, hire two and pay 150% for the last 20 hours and it costs 200% + 150% = 350%.
That makes it pretty obvious why Americans work so much and Europeans so little. We get more expensive the more you work us, you get cheaper.
Like everything else, labor price is about supply and demand. For a long time using foreign labor was extremely impractical on so many levels, no doubt Henry Ford had to primarily hire US workers to work on US plants to sell cars to the US population. When it became practical to use Chinese and Indian labor, this lead to a massive influx of unnaturally cheap labor. Look at this table and graph. In 2000 you could hire 30 Chinese workers for the price of one American, productivity was only 13% but you still got 4:1 on your money. Today it's 6 Chinese workers to one American, productivity is up to 38% and 2.3:1 on your money. If you take high-cost China vs low-cost US, you're down to 1.45:1.
No doubt labor costs are going to continue to rise in China. India too is on the rise, though not quite as much. Within the next 5-10 years it'll probably be roughly as expensive to manufacture in China as it is in the US and the massive negative wage pressure will be gone. Same thing with software and India, whether you like it or not it's a global market now and our wages aren't going to rise again until the other workers of the world push global wages higher. If you've seen at the GDP distribution of the world there used to be a big lump at the top in the western world, then actually a drop and then the world's poor. Check out the difference between 1970 and 2006. We just can't keep up the level of inequality we used to.
These kinds of sequential benchmarks don't really tell me how much real-world time something like this will shave off booting a computer, launching an application, etc versus a more conventional solution.
About as much faster as you'd get to work in a race car. If you're not doing anything storage intense, the PCIe bandwidth is not going to make much of a difference. Same with NVMe, main advantage is at big queue depths. This technology isn't coming because consumers are demanding it, but because of enterprise needs. Now they're looking for prosumers who are willing to pay more, but not quite enterprise money for performance. I'm guessing eventually it'll trickle down to consumers since PCIe and NVMe are far more natural interfaces for SSDs than SATA but it won't make much of a real world difference. A bit like DDR4, it doesn't really offer much over DDR3 for consumers but because the enterprise needs it, it's trickled down to Skylake.
Actually when people use something like iCloud they have no concept of instances. Their data is just out there somewhere, the cloud is essentially the 2010s name for cyberspace. And everything else syncs against the cloud whether it's cell phone, tablet, laptop, pc, whatever. And I think that's really the business definition too, if it's in the cloud it's not your servers and not your job managing them. You're just buying the service. I could see benefits from organizing a large company the same way internally, one group runs their "cloud" with some headroom for expansion and everybody else is charged according to use. The point is, do you have the same flexibility to start up, shut down and repurpose servers as the cloud solution.
But back to individuals, what you want is the sync/backup service so physically it is just a 24/7 server but it's the software that matters. Are there clients so that when you take a photo with your cell phone you don't have to think about it, it just auto-syncs. If you added a contact as you were working on the laptop and need to call him on the phone to say you're late, is the contact there? If you update your music playlist on the cell phone because you're tired of the song, will it still play on your desktop back home? The cloud is 99% integrations, 1% hardware. I don't think most people would want to self-host anyway, but just like web hotels you'd have cloud hotels. Your choice of provider, costs/GB for storage, bandwidth, SLA and so on. At least it wouldn't be centralized at a few mega-corporations and you'd have the choice to do it yourself.
The free software movement has been successful at achieving its goals over the last 30 years.
I mean no doubt open source has scored victory upon victory from cell phones to supercomputers, but the FSF's goals? Most users do not use a platform or applications that gives them the "four freedoms". Users in general do not see proprietary software as wrong. In fact much of their data has moved from proprietary code to proprietary services, which use open source including GPLv2 software in their delivery but don't distribute it. I don't know any service I use using the Affero license, the "GPL for SaaS" license. And with online services the DRM is more or less baked into the service, naturally it won't work without the server side and you get to do a lot more live cheat detection and bans.
A lot of the code that big companies has released is under the Apache 2 license instead of the GPL, things like Android and LLVM has gotten far more attention lately than the GCC. The lone exception is the kernel, but it mostly lives in its own "universe" not affecting user space and drivers have found ways to use blobs when they want to. In short, I don't think RMS is happy with the state of things, maybe not even the direction things are going. But I'm happy that open source keeps "hollowing out" proprietary software, if it runs on top of a LAMP stack or Docker container or whatnot they're interested in making the foundation stronger. Eventually the layer thins out to where OSS volunteers making something "good enough".
Copyright holders:
This subscriber is a copyright infringer.
This subscriber is a copyright infringer.
This subscriber is a copyright infringer.
This subscriber is a copyright infringer.
This subscriber is a copyright infringer.
This subscriber is a copyright infringer.
ISP:
We're disconnecting him from the Internet
Slashdot:
OMG OMG you can't do that due process.
Cisco:
This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler.
This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler.
This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler.
This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler.
This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler.
This subscriber is a cryptowall peddler.
ISP:
We're not disconnecting him from the Internet
Slashdot:
OMG OMG get the ISP kicked off the net.
That sword cuts both ways, which way do you like it?
Male sex, being physically active, and good health status were independently associated with light to moderate drinking (P .001).
CONCLUSION:
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
The problem with these studies is that there's a huge elephant in the door called "phase of life" that probably correlates a bunch of variables. Like this sounds like the stereotype young bachelor, working to look attractive and out partying to meet women. I'm guessing that if you divide by alcohol consumption you get very different groups of people that affects mortality in many directions. Like suicide is a pretty big cause of death in young people and it's typically related to depression, not to people out partying. So it might be that those that are out drinking die from alcohol - I mean you have to be pretty blind to see there aren't alcohol related/caused deaths from DUI, violence, accidents - and the non-drinkers die for different reasons. I'm guessing that the same way they made it disappear, they can make it reappear by checking for more factors.
That measures not so much popularity as unpopularity - people having problems. I'd give that one negative weighting.
At any given time you have a *lot* of inexperienced developers and DBAs that are in way over their heads trying to use StackExchange and such as a substitute for competence, even for things that are pretty fucking obvious or in the documentation. At least problems show interest and usage, it's when the help requests stop you know it's really dead.
If said person was a founding member with an actual stake in the company, I wouldn't be too hard on them. I was part of a start-up and in the beginning it's all about making a profit and taking whatever shortcuts you can. If you get caught up in doing things "proper" and planning for when you have hundreds or thousands of employees you're probably not going to get there. Early Microsoft was hardly perfect but Gates ran with it. Early Oracle was hardly perfect but Ellison ran with it. Early Facebook was hardly perfect but Zuckerberg ran with it. Worrying too much about growth pains means you lose sight of the growth being the hard part and the pains the easy part. If you're just "an employee" and do things with your personal accounts then yeah, you deserve what's coming to you.
if popularity mattered, i would run Windows. what's popular is rarely good. how else do you explain beiber?
Apples and oranges, sometimes you just need *a* tool no matter how basic. I've done things in notepad. I've done things in MS Paint. I've done things in Excel that have absolutely nothing to do with a spreadsheet. Nobody has to suffer Justin Bieber unless they want to, there's always the off switch. But sometimes you just need a tool that's good enough for the job, and knowing the tool is more important than the quality of the tool. For a lot of things MySQL is perfectly sufficient. Oracle operates in the complete opposite of the scale, if you desperately need what they offer I'd do it. And if I don't I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
About half of the financing comes from NASA. Admittedly SpaceX can still waste money like in any way they like, but at that point it would be appropriate if NASA reduced the money they put in since there clearly is too much of it floating around.
Doesn't work that way, you can't go to Apple and say you make too much money so sell me an iPhone for half the price. Your choices are:
1) Buy something else
2) Not buy it
3) Create it in-house (since you're NASA)
There are alternatives, but not cheaper ones. Leaving the ISS stranded is not an option. And in-house you get a massive government project with pork to every district. But if you want to start your own rocket company, remove the bloat and undercut SpaceX on price just do it and NASA will be happy to award you contracts. What are you waiting for?
All we really know is that it landed. We don't know how flight ready it was for another launch, I imagine neither did SpaceX. So this first one I don't think they had any other choice but to strip it completely apart and test everything and then putting it all back together might not make sense. Next landing they probably know what needs replacing and can relaunch the rest. Makes sense to me at least.
The runtime was actually never particularly bad. Java mostly got its bad rap from poor Swing performance (not as smooth, and not as good looking as the native apps). People perceived that "visual lag" as the language being slow, while in reality it has always been pretty damn fast.
The VM initialization time and memory consumption in early Java didn't help, even the smallest program felt like a 747 taking off. That the controls felt like one too didn't help. Now a 747 is obviously a very useful plane in the right place and all but most people just wanted a Cessna. I remember running things like Azureus/Vuze, thank god for uTorrent and later qBittorrent. Maybe it's possible to write good java code but it seems to encourage being a sloth.
So, it would follow that any Linux distribution that works properly on a Sky Lake desktop / laptop would also work on one of these. That doesn't mean it won't be a huge ass pain to get it going.
Not really sure why, because there is almost no third party peripherals that need drivers and Intel got pretty good open source support for all of theirs. I mean their last stick already had an Ubuntu version...
But perhaps you think an active military response would be better? George W. Bush didn't seem to think so, even after North Korea blew past his "red line" on uranium enrichment and actually built the first of those bombs. Bottom line is, even the Bush administration didn't want a war in Korea, because it would be insanely bloody
I think the most compelling reason against was that it could become a proxy war with China based on the "he might be a bastard, but he's our bastard" doctrine.
In any case there is no reason you can't support a social welfare system and be a libertarian. Libertarians aren't anarchists (or at least they shouldn't be). Libertarians should believe in government doing the jobs that government can do better than the private sector, and libertarians are free to disagree on which jobs those are.
I think you've confused libertarians with social democrats. They're not anarchists, they want the rule of law and enforcement of contracts but that is pretty much it. All public services involve a loss of control, "they" take the money to fund it, "they" decide what, when and how to deliver and some have much bigger needs/wants than others. Even if the government can do better as a whole, there will always be those paying a lot for very little. And the libertarian mantra is that everyone should agree to things voluntarily through private agreements, not be forced into a public system whether they want to or not.
I think we all know what the killer app is. POV PR0N!
Unless you have a full 3D model and not just a 3D video, you only have one angle so you can't actually move your head and see it from another angle which would be pretty limiting. And virtual porn, well I don't think we've passed the uncanny valley yet so VR hentai porn would still have limited appeal.