Who is responsible for injuries when the fault is clearly with the self driving car?
Why would self driving cars be any different than ordinary cars, surely design flaws and manufacturing defects have caused accidents in the past. I don't see the need to invent any new process or any new law for that, if you want to blame the car for the accident you do it like today. I'm sure a lawyer could fill you in on how it's done today.
SpaceX used to call them "experimental landings". I don't think they use that term any more; nowadays a landing failure would be seen as a pretty significant setback.
IIRC the last three-engine landing burn used up pretty much the entire crush core. As in, it almost failed. They still seem pretty willing to push it straight to the limit rather than the conservative approach of trying it little by little. And as long as the expectations are set right to the engineers that you can push the limits and fail and to the public that we're pushing the limits and might fail, it works quite well for everyone. As long as it's cargo and dry-runs anyway, I'm sure NASA has made it very clear that you don't try any new funny business on manned flights.
Meh, for every person who achieves something there's ten people who want to slap them down and find their faults and their weaknesses and belittle whatever they do. Everything from jocks bullying nerds to the people who have to hate on Jobs, Ballmer, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Jimbo Wales, Musk etc. almost out of principle. That just have to find that Jobs was an asshole and a terrible family man, so the universe is back in balance. Doesn't matter if you're fucking Gandhi somebody's going to get so pissed at you they'll want to shoot you dead. Maybe he's read a bit too many sci-fi novels. Still better to be a dreamer than a bitter, miserable old coot. Because that's mostly what your post comes across like.
Or is the difference that a streaming viewer isn't sending pieces to other viewers and you believe that watching it illegally is less criminal than watching it and distributing it?
From what I've understood of US law, yes. The exclusive rights of a copyright holder include reproduction (that is, storage to a medium) and distribution (sending it to someone else), but streaming doesn't use any of those rights. Copies that are purely transitory like buffers and caches do not count as storage. Note that it's more about the nature of the use than the actual technology, if you start a hundred copies of a piece of software from one shared network drive they may consider that as a hundred fixed copies even though they're only stored to RAM, that is still a gray area. But unless they've made any additions to the law recently I haven't caught, watching streamed content is legal at least with respect to copyright law. This logic would not apply to anything that violates any other laws though.
I know they here in Norway have created some kind of quasi-law to make watching streamed pirate copies illegal but I think it's mostly symbolic because the requirements is basically that you know it's a pirate copy and you're doing it intentionally. How is anyone to know what sites have licensed and what artists may or may not have made their stuff available for public distribution through any medium? And you're under no obligation to investigate. Basically it's a feelgood law that says anything on YouTube is okay, if you visit a pirate site you might be doing something wrong. I really doubt they'll manage to prove a single case ever though, particularly since they also have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who was streaming first, then what that streaming person thought. But hey, it's officially illegal here.
I'm European and I think the EU was nuts to recognize a "right to be forgotten". It should more properly be named the "right to silence", because what it does is compel other people's free speech to go away. Not by gagging it, but by making sure nobody finds it which is underhanded and wrong in more ways I can count. It's like saying you can have your soap box, as long as I can put a glass dome around you so nobody can listen. If there's anything actually illegal published like your medical records or sex photos there's reason to remove it immediately. The only time this "right" comes into play is when you want people to forget the past.
But people have every right to remember the past, they made some kind of quasi-legal theory that humans forget and computers remember forever that is just wrong. People write diaries, memoirs, old newspapers and all sorts of papers have been archived for a long time, computers only made it easy to find which they didn't like. And from that dislike they tried conjuring a right that completely lacks principle and has no place in a free democracy. It's like they took 1984's removal of unwanted elements from the past and turned it into law. If people should have their past cleared why not nations, should Germany ask to be unlinked to the Holocaust because it's no longer relevant for what Germany is like today?
We all have a past, whether someone else is willing to forget and forgive it should be up to them. Not to the person who wants their past buried, not to Google, not to the courts. You can present whatever whitewashed version of the past that you want. But you shouldn't be able to stop other people from coming with their side of the story. Even Wikipedia realized vanity pages that removed any information the subject didn't like was a bad idea, which should tell you that the EU really screwed up on this one. Hopefully the world won't let the EU forget.
The whole approach to this is screwed up. Why is Google in the middle of it?
Because Google is the international company they got some jurisdiction over unlike a US web host who would tell the EU to suck it. Because it's okay for countries to have different laws and if France wants some fucked up law for Google France that's their choice. But if they don't like that other countries on have different laws and that the French can access it over the Internet, they should just cut the wire. Not try to force their laws on anyone else.
Think of all the times patients are prescribed a medication but they cannot finish taking them (there are side affects, or the medicine isn't effective so another med is prescribed, etc, etc) and there are full pill bottles sitting around that could be used to treat other family members when they become ill. That would be.... efficient, would it not?
I think you intentionally wrote "other family members" rather than "others" because even you realize how much of a cluster fuck it would be to try re-issuing medicine in general and even then I'd be skeptical of anyone but my closest family. Apart from a few very generic prescription-free drugs that are probably kept/shared today, you expect people to keep stock of old medications for years on the off chance that someone else in close family will suffer from the same condition and need the exact same medication? That would be... stupid. It's a hoarder's mentality that maybe, someday, no matter how ridiculously pointless it seems now maybe one day it'll be good for something. If you don't need it, get rid of it.
Once that bag and its contents is issued to her, it cannot be issued to someone else for use - it she were to hand the bag back, it would have to be destroyed, another GP wouldn't get it because the chain of "custody" has been broken. That means that my wife has to regularly do "stock" rotations on her drugs bag, which means old stock simply gets destroyed when its traded in for newer, longer life stuff.
Aren't you talking about two completely different things? If she has to rotate the stock in her bag, it's presumably for a reason that would mean no other GP could use it either. If she quits her job the week after being issued a new bag and they have to just throw it away then it's the custody rules that are absurd. Maybe what you were trying to say - but in that case you left out several important bits - is that towards the end of the useful life of your wife's doctor bag it could be returned and re-purposed to hospitals and/or patients under treatment that have a high turnaround and would use the drugs before they expire to reduce waste, but that the regulations prevent that. If not the TL;DR version is just "Think of drugs kept for emergencies that never see any use".
In the UK, it is *incredibly* uncommon for you to get a pill bottle any more (...) I wouldn't know why you would get handed a generic pill bottle with individual pills in it these days, I haven't seen it happen in a couple decades.
Here in Norway I'd say pill bottles are still common for many medications, but it's never a generic bottle that anyone at the pharmacy creates or is reused. Typically they're bulk medicines that gets prescribed at different or on-demand rates to different people like pain killers and not "cures" that follow a particular schedule like antibiotics or to kill a fungal infection or anything like that, those have blister packs. Many people have their own pill box which has a grid of days and times that they load up once a week, but there obviously it doesn't stay long.
The pre-made alternative is usually custom made vacuum packs, like you get a strip of them and work your way from the top to bottom where everything is time stamped and the individual packs contain exactly those meds you're supposed to take then. This is particularly useful post-surgery etc. where people are often on a complicated step-down program. From what I've seen, very little is made child-proof these days. The thinking seems to be that if you're in an environment where that's a hazard, get a medicine cabinet/shrine and keep that locked.
Now just think of the harrowing situation someone had to go through to discover this flaw.
You mean like every person in need of emergency services before cell phones were invented? Not that I'm defending the company or want to turn back time, but this used to be the norm. Either crawl back to civilization where someone has a landline, pray that someone will report you missing and a search party or random stranger will find you or lay down and die. In fact quite a few people have died because of their over-reliance on being able to call help and you might say a lot of people that ought to have died have been saved despite their poor judgement. It's just that modern society has moved the goal posts to where you expect 911 to be available at your whim.
What's more, sales and profit aren't necessarily the same thing; you can easily go bankrupt while profitable; you can also run a company that loses money for years on end if it has a cash cow.
Actually the former is usually a sign of gross management incompetence. If you're really profitable after paying interest on your debt you're in a liquidity problem because you got assets but not cash. There's usually some form of line of credit, sale and rental/lease-back agreement, joint venture merging your assets with their cash, offering new stock for cash or some other way to liquefy your assets for a price. If you go under it's usually because you're now turning a small profit but you're buried under a mountain of debt, which is not being genuinely profitable. If you're going to offer a taxi service then in the long run it has to pay for the car, you can't just ignore that and say you're making a profit driving it.
If you use KeePass you can configure it to not use so many confusing characters. Sometimes you run into places where the moron designer thought that only alphanumeric characters make valid password characters.
If you go outside ASCII and depend on the keyboard mapping there's been an annoyingly high number of bugs perpetrated by developers who only use the US/English keyboard. Particularly if you rely on this early in the boot process, like you want to unlock your BitLocker/TrueCrypt/LUKS partition with a password or make some kind of single-sign on solution that won't fail when one of the applications has been made by 'tards. And I say that as a Norwegian where our alphabet has 29 letters but for any technical purpose æøå doesn't exist in my book. It's not worth the pain of crappy US-centric software.
That might be what he meant to say, but that's not what he said. He should have said, "we anticipate a reduction in cash as we make substantial investment in our in house programming. We expect a substantial return on this investment in the future."
What part of "Look, when we produce an amazing show like Stranger Things, that's a lot of capital up front, and then you get a payout over many years. " doesn't sound like just that?
Question: if the GPL "viral" or "cancerous", what do you call this, this son-of-Apache closed source freeware license that Jibe used for Remix OS ?
The "viral" nature referred to the need to release source code so it would be "non-contagious". If you want a better genetics-style analogy they're like a ship that left Open Source Island, settled on their own Proprietary Island and went extinct so whatever unique traits they had became dust. Other Proprietary Islands like macOS still thrive, but they only allow a few carefully selected people to return to Open Source Island. The Free Software Islands is like a federation, they'll let you travel to any island for what you seek as long as others can travel to your island for what they seek. And the inhabitants of Open Source Island are pissed because people from the Free Software Islands cherry pick people from Open Source Island, but they can't bring anyone back because they don't want to join the Free Software Islands. So far it's the Holy War with least bloodshed in history though.
Meh, truth is you're probably going to die roughly when it's time. I checked the stats here in Norway not that long ago and 70% of the population (from 80% to 10%) die between ages 75 and 95. Of the early deaths there are many due to suicide, traffic accidents and other non-medical conditions, more still due to excessive use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco with a lot of alcohol-induced stupidity leading up to the former. The rest mainly show up as "statistical" diseases, yes if you carry 10 kg too much all your life your heart will work slightly harder and you will give up the ghost a bit sooner. The question is what do you gain and what do you lose by always living the "right" life, if it's only chopping off a bit when you're old and frail anyway.
In fact, if you baseline the "invariant" death rate based on ages 1-45 (excluding 0-1 as a few are born with fatal defects) only about 4% die from things that would kill a young person, 96% of us at least partially die from old age. Old age and cancer. Old age and heart failure. Old age and respiratory failure. Old age and "harmless" diseases. We're getting constantly better at curing the specific ill that threaten an old person's life but we're not really addressing the accelerating frailty inherent in old age meaning that at some point even a stiff breeze will send you over the edge. And that curtain call is coming no matter how much clean living you do, though there's no reason to kill yourself prematurely there's also no point in thinking it'll give you more than a few years.
That sort of stability an backward compatibility used to be something that Microsoft at least tried at and cared about; the change isn't a flattering one.
On the application side perhaps, the driver side has never been that way. Microsoft releases a new version of the OS, the manufacturer may or may not update their driver. Which if it was a shitty vendor often did not happen on products more than a few years old because they already have your money and want to sell you the shiny new stuff. But that was okay because you could just stay on your current Windows version and get 5+5 years of support from MS even though the manufacturer dropped the ball after two.
I thought it was bloody obvious what the consequences of "last version of Windows ever" and "the supported lifetime of the device" were, basically Windows will continually change and the hardware vendor has to keep up. If it doesn't, put it in the junk bin (or install Linux, but last I heard these PowerVR chips had even more terrible Linux support). Did you really think the plan was to continue to give you 10-15 years (manufacturer supporting version N+1, then 5+5 from Microsoft) of useful device life? Oh no, this is planned obsolescence at work.
This sounds like a lot of marketing bullshit for the latest "take this pill to correct your chemical imbalance" cure that doesn't actually involve making an effort or maybe you're just a fat person grasping at straws to make excuses that your body is pre-programmed to be fat. Yes, the body has some resistance to losing weight - it's after all a survival mechanism to preserve energy in times of shortage. All it means is that it takes a while before the body will accept your new weight as normal and keeping it will be as easy for you as others that have lost weight. Pretty much everything else you wrote is BS.
Congress will handle that. Just as soon as they fix health care, eliminate all taxation, straighten out the Middle East, and restore American manufacturing to its proper place in the world.
If by "straighten out" you mean "level" one seems more plausible than the rest.
Of course you could. Technically it's not even a problem, create some kind of master key that clients will accept the signature of instead of the user's key and it'll be the almighty god of that crypto-currency. And who would you like to have sitting on that key? What makes them trustworthy, what standard of proof, what appeals process in what jurisdiction against having your assets seized? The Internet Court of public opinion and loose allegations? What happens if the hacker manages to spend the money first, do you take the money away from an innocent third party effectively creating a counterfeiting problem?
By the time you're done with the dispute process you'll basically have poorly re-invented banks and credit cards. And what would happen if a hacker got hands of the key and started randomly moving money around? There would be total chaos. The lack of any kind of centralized control is the headline feature. As a consequence done is done and there's no undoing it, a crowd-sourced blacklist would be useless. All that would happen is that a lot of people would get stuck with "tainted" money that would be randomly rejected, they'd get pissed from being scammed and the currency would collapse.
MPC-HC has been incredibly feature complete for a long time. I mean the list of fixes, changes, and features look impressive with each release but frankly I'm running a 3 year out of date version on my desktop and compared to my laptop running something very recent... errr.... the buttons look a bit different...?
Same here, there's not a single feature that I miss. The only thing that concerns me is if there should be some kind of security-related parsing/codec bug, even though they're extremely rare these days. I was hoping it would stay supported-ish until Win7 is EOL'd in 2020, after that I'm actually not sure what the plan is. Probably Linux and a Wintendo for games, don't care if Microsoft spies on my Steam install.
I was called out to fill the position in his absence. In fact, just to show how hard of a worker I was, I took extra effort (...) So what's the point in telling this story?? That no good deed goes unpunished.
You know, this could have been a success story if this was work duties you really wanted but didn't have the qualifications or experience for. Yeah, showing great aptitude for a job you don't want is a bad idea because at the end of the day the company is trying to solve a giant puzzle matching work with workers, if you're already a great fit for a missing piece why shuffle the tiles? If you want to move upwards you have to show the skills necessary for that position and could contribute more value there, not that you're great/indispensable at the one you have. Though I'm not exactly where you expected to go from sacker or janitor, both seem like rather dead-end jobs to me...
I think you're setting up a false impression that "uncrackable" is the standard most people have had or are looking for.
Most people consider:
their home private, even though it can be invaded and searched by the police.
a safe private, even though it can be seized and drilled open by the police.
letters private, even though they can be opened and read by the police.
packages private, even though they can be opened and inspected by the police.
phone calls private, even though they can be wiretapped by the police.
That the general public has access to truly unbreakable encryption (except for the $5 wrench) is a new situation that's fundamentally different from the past few centuries. Did people really ask for it? Or did it more or less just happen, robbing law enforcement, military intelligence etc. of powerful tools to fight crime, terror and enemy states? Look at all the people who saw Snowden and more or less said "duh, that's what the NSA should be doing you traitor". There are a lot of people that want to revive the Clipper chip and backdoor everyone's phones.
That said, I think globalism will throw a monkey wrench in their efforts. Would Americans trust a backdoor made by Apple? Maybe. Would Russia, China, Germany or the rest of the world? Hell no, not as long as all the keys are on US soil, one NSL or NSA black ops job and it's all compromised. And no handing the keys directly to the government, that's too open for abuse. It would have to be to my local ISP or telco, with the government asking permission through a warrant. But as long as I could use some inner crypto without repercussions, what's the point? They decrypt it, find my PGP message and... nothing. They'd also have to outlaw everything else.
That could be one route though, say that if you use these law enforcement compliant devices there is a system and a process for retrieving the key. Everything else, you either hand over the key or go to jail. I think you're kinda missing the point of what he said, if you've built a system relying on some form of "willful ignorance" of what the key is, they can always make a law to force you to change the way the system works. Like, either comply or shut down - those are your options, like they did with Lavabit. They can't compel you to the impossible, but they can compel you to cease doing whatever they don't like.
Since he describes himself as "the IT guy" I think this is very far from the enterprise, probably a jack-of-all-trades position in a small company. Since he switched from software development he probably thought of it as running operations keeping the production servers, clients and the network running, secure and up to date.
As a software engineer who is new to the IT side of things, I have to ask, what else have you learned about IT?
I never worked that position but... forget the I in IT. You're now the "tech guy", expect to deal with everything from conference phones, photocopiers, printers, the coffee machine, the vending machine, phones and tablets, basically everything the janitor won't touch. And even then expect to get roped in if the thermostat or window shutters aren't working properly to see if you have any tech tips. If you become a bigger organization you split out the server/client into ops and leave the rest for an infrastructure guy. If you become really big you split out the network from that again and put that into ops too. But until there's somebody else you can point to - and no, they think of you as the most qualified "tech" person - you're stuck with it.
Can't tell if serious or just an elaborate troll... but in other words, privacy is fine until you want to enter a country. Then you should have to provide all information about everywhere you've been, everyone you've communicated with and the contents of that communication, every group or organization you're ever been a member of, every photo you've ever taken, basically every scrap of information about your life from birth to present day? Sounds like a fascist country I wouldn't want to visit. Sounds more like a fascist country you should escape from and never return.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is responsible for injuries when the fault is clearly with the self driving car?
Why would self driving cars be any different than ordinary cars, surely design flaws and manufacturing defects have caused accidents in the past. I don't see the need to invent any new process or any new law for that, if you want to blame the car for the accident you do it like today. I'm sure a lawyer could fill you in on how it's done today.
SpaceX used to call them "experimental landings". I don't think they use that term any more; nowadays a landing failure would be seen as a pretty significant setback.
IIRC the last three-engine landing burn used up pretty much the entire crush core. As in, it almost failed. They still seem pretty willing to push it straight to the limit rather than the conservative approach of trying it little by little. And as long as the expectations are set right to the engineers that you can push the limits and fail and to the public that we're pushing the limits and might fail, it works quite well for everyone. As long as it's cargo and dry-runs anyway, I'm sure NASA has made it very clear that you don't try any new funny business on manned flights.
Meh, for every person who achieves something there's ten people who want to slap them down and find their faults and their weaknesses and belittle whatever they do. Everything from jocks bullying nerds to the people who have to hate on Jobs, Ballmer, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Jimbo Wales, Musk etc. almost out of principle. That just have to find that Jobs was an asshole and a terrible family man, so the universe is back in balance. Doesn't matter if you're fucking Gandhi somebody's going to get so pissed at you they'll want to shoot you dead. Maybe he's read a bit too many sci-fi novels. Still better to be a dreamer than a bitter, miserable old coot. Because that's mostly what your post comes across like.
Or is the difference that a streaming viewer isn't sending pieces to other viewers and you believe that watching it illegally is less criminal than watching it and distributing it?
From what I've understood of US law, yes. The exclusive rights of a copyright holder include reproduction (that is, storage to a medium) and distribution (sending it to someone else), but streaming doesn't use any of those rights. Copies that are purely transitory like buffers and caches do not count as storage. Note that it's more about the nature of the use than the actual technology, if you start a hundred copies of a piece of software from one shared network drive they may consider that as a hundred fixed copies even though they're only stored to RAM, that is still a gray area. But unless they've made any additions to the law recently I haven't caught, watching streamed content is legal at least with respect to copyright law. This logic would not apply to anything that violates any other laws though.
I know they here in Norway have created some kind of quasi-law to make watching streamed pirate copies illegal but I think it's mostly symbolic because the requirements is basically that you know it's a pirate copy and you're doing it intentionally. How is anyone to know what sites have licensed and what artists may or may not have made their stuff available for public distribution through any medium? And you're under no obligation to investigate. Basically it's a feelgood law that says anything on YouTube is okay, if you visit a pirate site you might be doing something wrong. I really doubt they'll manage to prove a single case ever though, particularly since they also have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who was streaming first, then what that streaming person thought. But hey, it's officially illegal here.
You mean just like Linux crushed Windows and macOS on the desktop when they did the same? Oh, wait...
I'm European and I think the EU was nuts to recognize a "right to be forgotten". It should more properly be named the "right to silence", because what it does is compel other people's free speech to go away. Not by gagging it, but by making sure nobody finds it which is underhanded and wrong in more ways I can count. It's like saying you can have your soap box, as long as I can put a glass dome around you so nobody can listen. If there's anything actually illegal published like your medical records or sex photos there's reason to remove it immediately. The only time this "right" comes into play is when you want people to forget the past.
But people have every right to remember the past, they made some kind of quasi-legal theory that humans forget and computers remember forever that is just wrong. People write diaries, memoirs, old newspapers and all sorts of papers have been archived for a long time, computers only made it easy to find which they didn't like. And from that dislike they tried conjuring a right that completely lacks principle and has no place in a free democracy. It's like they took 1984's removal of unwanted elements from the past and turned it into law. If people should have their past cleared why not nations, should Germany ask to be unlinked to the Holocaust because it's no longer relevant for what Germany is like today?
We all have a past, whether someone else is willing to forget and forgive it should be up to them. Not to the person who wants their past buried, not to Google, not to the courts. You can present whatever whitewashed version of the past that you want. But you shouldn't be able to stop other people from coming with their side of the story. Even Wikipedia realized vanity pages that removed any information the subject didn't like was a bad idea, which should tell you that the EU really screwed up on this one. Hopefully the world won't let the EU forget.
The whole approach to this is screwed up. Why is Google in the middle of it?
Because Google is the international company they got some jurisdiction over unlike a US web host who would tell the EU to suck it. Because it's okay for countries to have different laws and if France wants some fucked up law for Google France that's their choice. But if they don't like that other countries on have different laws and that the French can access it over the Internet, they should just cut the wire. Not try to force their laws on anyone else.
Think of all the times patients are prescribed a medication but they cannot finish taking them (there are side affects, or the medicine isn't effective so another med is prescribed, etc, etc) and there are full pill bottles sitting around that could be used to treat other family members when they become ill. That would be.... efficient, would it not?
I think you intentionally wrote "other family members" rather than "others" because even you realize how much of a cluster fuck it would be to try re-issuing medicine in general and even then I'd be skeptical of anyone but my closest family. Apart from a few very generic prescription-free drugs that are probably kept/shared today, you expect people to keep stock of old medications for years on the off chance that someone else in close family will suffer from the same condition and need the exact same medication? That would be... stupid. It's a hoarder's mentality that maybe, someday, no matter how ridiculously pointless it seems now maybe one day it'll be good for something. If you don't need it, get rid of it.
Once that bag and its contents is issued to her, it cannot be issued to someone else for use - it she were to hand the bag back, it would have to be destroyed, another GP wouldn't get it because the chain of "custody" has been broken. That means that my wife has to regularly do "stock" rotations on her drugs bag, which means old stock simply gets destroyed when its traded in for newer, longer life stuff.
Aren't you talking about two completely different things? If she has to rotate the stock in her bag, it's presumably for a reason that would mean no other GP could use it either. If she quits her job the week after being issued a new bag and they have to just throw it away then it's the custody rules that are absurd. Maybe what you were trying to say - but in that case you left out several important bits - is that towards the end of the useful life of your wife's doctor bag it could be returned and re-purposed to hospitals and/or patients under treatment that have a high turnaround and would use the drugs before they expire to reduce waste, but that the regulations prevent that. If not the TL;DR version is just "Think of drugs kept for emergencies that never see any use".
In the UK, it is *incredibly* uncommon for you to get a pill bottle any more (...) I wouldn't know why you would get handed a generic pill bottle with individual pills in it these days, I haven't seen it happen in a couple decades.
Here in Norway I'd say pill bottles are still common for many medications, but it's never a generic bottle that anyone at the pharmacy creates or is reused. Typically they're bulk medicines that gets prescribed at different or on-demand rates to different people like pain killers and not "cures" that follow a particular schedule like antibiotics or to kill a fungal infection or anything like that, those have blister packs. Many people have their own pill box which has a grid of days and times that they load up once a week, but there obviously it doesn't stay long.
The pre-made alternative is usually custom made vacuum packs, like you get a strip of them and work your way from the top to bottom where everything is time stamped and the individual packs contain exactly those meds you're supposed to take then. This is particularly useful post-surgery etc. where people are often on a complicated step-down program. From what I've seen, very little is made child-proof these days. The thinking seems to be that if you're in an environment where that's a hazard, get a medicine cabinet/shrine and keep that locked.
Now just think of the harrowing situation someone had to go through to discover this flaw.
You mean like every person in need of emergency services before cell phones were invented? Not that I'm defending the company or want to turn back time, but this used to be the norm. Either crawl back to civilization where someone has a landline, pray that someone will report you missing and a search party or random stranger will find you or lay down and die. In fact quite a few people have died because of their over-reliance on being able to call help and you might say a lot of people that ought to have died have been saved despite their poor judgement. It's just that modern society has moved the goal posts to where you expect 911 to be available at your whim.
What's more, sales and profit aren't necessarily the same thing; you can easily go bankrupt while profitable; you can also run a company that loses money for years on end if it has a cash cow.
Actually the former is usually a sign of gross management incompetence. If you're really profitable after paying interest on your debt you're in a liquidity problem because you got assets but not cash. There's usually some form of line of credit, sale and rental/lease-back agreement, joint venture merging your assets with their cash, offering new stock for cash or some other way to liquefy your assets for a price. If you go under it's usually because you're now turning a small profit but you're buried under a mountain of debt, which is not being genuinely profitable. If you're going to offer a taxi service then in the long run it has to pay for the car, you can't just ignore that and say you're making a profit driving it.
If you use KeePass you can configure it to not use so many confusing characters. Sometimes you run into places where the moron designer thought that only alphanumeric characters make valid password characters.
If you go outside ASCII and depend on the keyboard mapping there's been an annoyingly high number of bugs perpetrated by developers who only use the US/English keyboard. Particularly if you rely on this early in the boot process, like you want to unlock your BitLocker/TrueCrypt/LUKS partition with a password or make some kind of single-sign on solution that won't fail when one of the applications has been made by 'tards. And I say that as a Norwegian where our alphabet has 29 letters but for any technical purpose æøå doesn't exist in my book. It's not worth the pain of crappy US-centric software.
That might be what he meant to say, but that's not what he said. He should have said, "we anticipate a reduction in cash as we make substantial investment in our in house programming. We expect a substantial return on this investment in the future."
What part of "Look, when we produce an amazing show like Stranger Things, that's a lot of capital up front, and then you get a payout over many years. " doesn't sound like just that?
Question: if the GPL "viral" or "cancerous", what do you call this, this son-of-Apache closed source freeware license that Jibe used for Remix OS ?
The "viral" nature referred to the need to release source code so it would be "non-contagious". If you want a better genetics-style analogy they're like a ship that left Open Source Island, settled on their own Proprietary Island and went extinct so whatever unique traits they had became dust. Other Proprietary Islands like macOS still thrive, but they only allow a few carefully selected people to return to Open Source Island. The Free Software Islands is like a federation, they'll let you travel to any island for what you seek as long as others can travel to your island for what they seek. And the inhabitants of Open Source Island are pissed because people from the Free Software Islands cherry pick people from Open Source Island, but they can't bring anyone back because they don't want to join the Free Software Islands. So far it's the Holy War with least bloodshed in history though.
Meh, truth is you're probably going to die roughly when it's time. I checked the stats here in Norway not that long ago and 70% of the population (from 80% to 10%) die between ages 75 and 95. Of the early deaths there are many due to suicide, traffic accidents and other non-medical conditions, more still due to excessive use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco with a lot of alcohol-induced stupidity leading up to the former. The rest mainly show up as "statistical" diseases, yes if you carry 10 kg too much all your life your heart will work slightly harder and you will give up the ghost a bit sooner. The question is what do you gain and what do you lose by always living the "right" life, if it's only chopping off a bit when you're old and frail anyway.
In fact, if you baseline the "invariant" death rate based on ages 1-45 (excluding 0-1 as a few are born with fatal defects) only about 4% die from things that would kill a young person, 96% of us at least partially die from old age. Old age and cancer. Old age and heart failure. Old age and respiratory failure. Old age and "harmless" diseases. We're getting constantly better at curing the specific ill that threaten an old person's life but we're not really addressing the accelerating frailty inherent in old age meaning that at some point even a stiff breeze will send you over the edge. And that curtain call is coming no matter how much clean living you do, though there's no reason to kill yourself prematurely there's also no point in thinking it'll give you more than a few years.
That sort of stability an backward compatibility used to be something that Microsoft at least tried at and cared about; the change isn't a flattering one.
On the application side perhaps, the driver side has never been that way. Microsoft releases a new version of the OS, the manufacturer may or may not update their driver. Which if it was a shitty vendor often did not happen on products more than a few years old because they already have your money and want to sell you the shiny new stuff. But that was okay because you could just stay on your current Windows version and get 5+5 years of support from MS even though the manufacturer dropped the ball after two.
I thought it was bloody obvious what the consequences of "last version of Windows ever" and "the supported lifetime of the device" were, basically Windows will continually change and the hardware vendor has to keep up. If it doesn't, put it in the junk bin (or install Linux, but last I heard these PowerVR chips had even more terrible Linux support). Did you really think the plan was to continue to give you 10-15 years (manufacturer supporting version N+1, then 5+5 from Microsoft) of useful device life? Oh no, this is planned obsolescence at work.
This sounds like a lot of marketing bullshit for the latest "take this pill to correct your chemical imbalance" cure that doesn't actually involve making an effort or maybe you're just a fat person grasping at straws to make excuses that your body is pre-programmed to be fat. Yes, the body has some resistance to losing weight - it's after all a survival mechanism to preserve energy in times of shortage. All it means is that it takes a while before the body will accept your new weight as normal and keeping it will be as easy for you as others that have lost weight. Pretty much everything else you wrote is BS.
Congress will handle that. Just as soon as they fix health care, eliminate all taxation, straighten out the Middle East, and restore American manufacturing to its proper place in the world.
If by "straighten out" you mean "level" one seems more plausible than the rest.
Of course you could. Technically it's not even a problem, create some kind of master key that clients will accept the signature of instead of the user's key and it'll be the almighty god of that crypto-currency. And who would you like to have sitting on that key? What makes them trustworthy, what standard of proof, what appeals process in what jurisdiction against having your assets seized? The Internet Court of public opinion and loose allegations? What happens if the hacker manages to spend the money first, do you take the money away from an innocent third party effectively creating a counterfeiting problem?
By the time you're done with the dispute process you'll basically have poorly re-invented banks and credit cards. And what would happen if a hacker got hands of the key and started randomly moving money around? There would be total chaos. The lack of any kind of centralized control is the headline feature. As a consequence done is done and there's no undoing it, a crowd-sourced blacklist would be useless. All that would happen is that a lot of people would get stuck with "tainted" money that would be randomly rejected, they'd get pissed from being scammed and the currency would collapse.
MPC-HC has been incredibly feature complete for a long time. I mean the list of fixes, changes, and features look impressive with each release but frankly I'm running a 3 year out of date version on my desktop and compared to my laptop running something very recent ... errr.... the buttons look a bit different...?
Same here, there's not a single feature that I miss. The only thing that concerns me is if there should be some kind of security-related parsing/codec bug, even though they're extremely rare these days. I was hoping it would stay supported-ish until Win7 is EOL'd in 2020, after that I'm actually not sure what the plan is. Probably Linux and a Wintendo for games, don't care if Microsoft spies on my Steam install.
I was called out to fill the position in his absence. In fact, just to show how hard of a worker I was, I took extra effort (...) So what's the point in telling this story?? That no good deed goes unpunished.
You know, this could have been a success story if this was work duties you really wanted but didn't have the qualifications or experience for. Yeah, showing great aptitude for a job you don't want is a bad idea because at the end of the day the company is trying to solve a giant puzzle matching work with workers, if you're already a great fit for a missing piece why shuffle the tiles? If you want to move upwards you have to show the skills necessary for that position and could contribute more value there, not that you're great/indispensable at the one you have. Though I'm not exactly where you expected to go from sacker or janitor, both seem like rather dead-end jobs to me...
I think you're setting up a false impression that "uncrackable" is the standard most people have had or are looking for.
Most people consider:
That the general public has access to truly unbreakable encryption (except for the $5 wrench) is a new situation that's fundamentally different from the past few centuries. Did people really ask for it? Or did it more or less just happen, robbing law enforcement, military intelligence etc. of powerful tools to fight crime, terror and enemy states? Look at all the people who saw Snowden and more or less said "duh, that's what the NSA should be doing you traitor". There are a lot of people that want to revive the Clipper chip and backdoor everyone's phones.
That said, I think globalism will throw a monkey wrench in their efforts. Would Americans trust a backdoor made by Apple? Maybe. Would Russia, China, Germany or the rest of the world? Hell no, not as long as all the keys are on US soil, one NSL or NSA black ops job and it's all compromised. And no handing the keys directly to the government, that's too open for abuse. It would have to be to my local ISP or telco, with the government asking permission through a warrant. But as long as I could use some inner crypto without repercussions, what's the point? They decrypt it, find my PGP message and... nothing. They'd also have to outlaw everything else.
That could be one route though, say that if you use these law enforcement compliant devices there is a system and a process for retrieving the key. Everything else, you either hand over the key or go to jail. I think you're kinda missing the point of what he said, if you've built a system relying on some form of "willful ignorance" of what the key is, they can always make a law to force you to change the way the system works. Like, either comply or shut down - those are your options, like they did with Lavabit. They can't compel you to the impossible, but they can compel you to cease doing whatever they don't like.
Since he describes himself as "the IT guy" I think this is very far from the enterprise, probably a jack-of-all-trades position in a small company. Since he switched from software development he probably thought of it as running operations keeping the production servers, clients and the network running, secure and up to date.
As a software engineer who is new to the IT side of things, I have to ask, what else have you learned about IT?
I never worked that position but... forget the I in IT. You're now the "tech guy", expect to deal with everything from conference phones, photocopiers, printers, the coffee machine, the vending machine, phones and tablets, basically everything the janitor won't touch. And even then expect to get roped in if the thermostat or window shutters aren't working properly to see if you have any tech tips. If you become a bigger organization you split out the server/client into ops and leave the rest for an infrastructure guy. If you become really big you split out the network from that again and put that into ops too. But until there's somebody else you can point to - and no, they think of you as the most qualified "tech" person - you're stuck with it.
Can't tell if serious or just an elaborate troll... but in other words, privacy is fine until you want to enter a country. Then you should have to provide all information about everywhere you've been, everyone you've communicated with and the contents of that communication, every group or organization you're ever been a member of, every photo you've ever taken, basically every scrap of information about your life from birth to present day? Sounds like a fascist country I wouldn't want to visit. Sounds more like a fascist country you should escape from and never return.