Ask why they're not following the policies. If the policies are onerous (they usually are) then you're wasting your breath asking that they be followed. Instead, rearchitect the policies so that you maximize their effectivenes -short of- getting in the way of the work.
Pay attention. They proved she was offering the music for distribution. Remember the whole "making available" theory? They didn't prove was that there were greater than zero direct or indirect recipients of her distribution. But with statutory damages they don't need to prove how many recipients there were. They just need to prove she was distributing the music. Which they did.
Call me crazy but it seems to me that judges and juries might have an easier time assessing sensible penalties if we used the more commonly understood word, "theft," instead of the more exotic "ingfingement."
Ironically you're right, but not in the way you mean. If you're not a chemist "molarity" means nothing at all while "tart" is known to anyone who enjoys food. Likewise, "infringement" holds little meaning to someone not steeped in intellectual property law while theft is comprehensible even to a child.
When you want to explain something in a way that will make sense, it helps to use words the reader will understand. Nitpicking the precise fit of those words is the very definition of pedantry.
If I knee you in the groin, your actual monetary damages are -zero-. If I kick hard enough, I may even save you some money that you'd otherwise have to spend supporting children...
Perhaps, but I didn't miss the part where the judge explained (citing case law) that statutory damages are intended to be a replacement for unproven and potentially unprovable actual damages.
I'm also not that absolutest. The endorsement of a newspapers editorial board doesn't pack quite the corruptive punch of a Walmart ad campaign.
I only meant to say that if the price of allowing congress to stop Walmart's political ad campaign was also allowing them to stop the newspaper from making an official endorsement then it's a price cheaply paid with zero harm to liberty. The newspaper can as easily and as effectively report the endorsement of its editors and report the endorsement of any other notables it deems interesting.
And if the newspaper had to report that it's editor endorses a particular candidate instead of the newspaper itself officially endorsing a candidate, that would be a truly ghastly loss of liberty.
Last I heard, the press' job was to report facts and to some extent offer analysis. NBC shouldn't be advocating for a particular candidate for office and neither should FOX.
I believe that individuals (i.e. real persons with citizenship) should have the right to spend any or all of their money on campaigns.
I believe they and I should have the right to band together and do so as a group.
I do not believe that my or your rights are in any way trampled merely by forcing structural separation between the groups banded together for the purpose of political persuasion and the groups banded together for for the purpose of buying, selling and producing products.
Nor should you have any difficulty understanding why groups organized primarily for buying and selling have such a corruptive influence on the process of political persuasion.
That's a badly broken mental model of how security works.
Encryption with an unsigned or self-signed certificate isn't claiming to be secure. It's claiming to be encrypted. Nothing more, nothing less.
If encrypting with a signed certificate is claiming to be secure, it's a false claim. The signature authorities have made errors as with microsoft. Certificate algorithms have been usefully hacked as happened last year creating collisions with the hash algorithm. And relatively few users will notice that the site and certificate are actually bankofameriKa.com. Or bank.ofamerica.com. Or even bankofamerica.xyz.com.
Encrypting with a signed certificate is more secure than encrypting without, but it is not -secure- in any absolute respect. What's more, the difference in security between plaintext and encryption is far greater than the difference in security between signed and unsigned encryption.
Claiming otherwise is not good science. It's really something of an ideological error.
Firefox offers no complaint if you send your information in the clear. It also offers no complaint if you encrypt your information with a signed certificate.
In what bizarro world does it then make sense to complain when your encryption is unsigned?
Maybe it would help to have a different protocol designator, httpe, for unsigned encrypted traffic.
I don't know. Is BitLocker the one in use at the US EPA? Because that one has had a crippling effect on the portion of their scientists and managers that actually use the computers. Or at least used to...
With the right software, it is possible to protect the fixed disks of all PCs in the enterprise
Unless of course you actually want to use your computer. Then you discover how painfully slow it is. How it happily encrypts your USB drive too, rendering it useless. You take a power point presentation with you and look like a fool in front of your customers because it's encrypted and they can't display it on the projector from you thumb drive.
Seriously, the windows software-based hard disk encryption solutions right now are total POS.
Re:Where it matters most.
on
Framerates Matter
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The pictures drawn on the screen aren't the real model the game uses.
That's not necessarily true. There's a long history of games relying on the graphics processor to determine when two objects overlap or otherwise meet specific conditions relative to each other. Goes all the way back to the 8-bit days when the graphics processor could tell you whether the non-transparent parts of two sprites overlapped.
As a software developer, I've used little calculus-based math since college. Unless you want to develop software in a specific problem domain that uses a lot of higher math, your encounters with math beyond Trig will be as sparse as a carpenter's.
That having been said, since your degree probably requires more math I would steer towards graph theory and discrete math. Stay well clear of differential equations. Graph theory has some relevance to computer networking while differential equations a) damn near killed me and b) doesn't buy you anything in CS that I've been able to figure.
That's precisely what I don't want. A screen is not a page of paper and a window on a screen is very definitely not a page. I want the e-book to reformat itself to fit my current viewing preferences which, by the way, will change from device to device, will change depending on lighting and may even change for no reason at all.
Part-time in this context means the user doesn't use the computer all the time during their work process. Like a guy who stocks shelves and then makes entries in the inventory computer. It can also mean that they use a computer all the time only part of which are the computing resources you're responsible for. Like users of an ISP.
The OP noted that he has 2600 workers but only 900 computers. That means at least 1700 of the workers are part-time computer users.
You could manage a server cluster of substantial size, perhaps thousands of nodes, but managing more than 100 distinct servers would stretch you very thin. It's also fair to note that there tends to be far less automation involved in the process of managing a Windows server, so you get fewer servers per admin.
This is like you complaining there's a huge pothole on the road, and the DOT demanding the keys to your vehicle.
I checked the road where you said the pothole was. There is no pothole. Either I somehow missed it or that bump you experienced came from something else. Maybe a faulty suspension, you hitting the curb or trying to play bumper-cars.
Full service guy that I am, I'm willing to ride along with you and observe. But if you want me to go that extra mile, you will have to unlock the passenger door.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask why they're not following the policies. If the policies are onerous (they usually are) then you're wasting your breath asking that they be followed. Instead, rearchitect the policies so that you maximize their effectivenes -short of- getting in the way of the work.
If I knee you in the groin, the monetary damage amount you can prove is -zero-. If I kick hard enough, I may even save you some money.
Pay attention. They proved she was offering the music for distribution. Remember the whole "making available" theory? They didn't prove was that there were greater than zero direct or indirect recipients of her distribution. But with statutory damages they don't need to prove how many recipients there were. They just need to prove she was distributing the music. Which they did.
Here's a spot of irony for you...
We used to say, "Dude, it's just infringement. It's not really theft."
Now we say, "Christ, it's just petty theft."
Call me crazy but it seems to me that judges and juries might have an easier time assessing sensible penalties if we used the more commonly understood word, "theft," instead of the more exotic "ingfingement."
Ironically you're right, but not in the way you mean. If you're not a chemist "molarity" means nothing at all while "tart" is known to anyone who enjoys food. Likewise, "infringement" holds little meaning to someone not steeped in intellectual property law while theft is comprehensible even to a child.
When you want to explain something in a way that will make sense, it helps to use words the reader will understand. Nitpicking the precise fit of those words is the very definition of pedantry.
You don't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic?
If I knee you in the groin, your actual monetary damages are -zero-. If I kick hard enough, I may even save you some money that you'd otherwise have to spend supporting children...
Perhaps, but I didn't miss the part where the judge explained (citing case law) that statutory damages are intended to be a replacement for unproven and potentially unprovable actual damages.
I'm also not that absolutest. The endorsement of a newspapers editorial board doesn't pack quite the corruptive punch of a Walmart ad campaign.
I only meant to say that if the price of allowing congress to stop Walmart's political ad campaign was also allowing them to stop the newspaper from making an official endorsement then it's a price cheaply paid with zero harm to liberty. The newspaper can as easily and as effectively report the endorsement of its editors and report the endorsement of any other notables it deems interesting.
And if the newspaper had to report that it's editor endorses a particular candidate instead of the newspaper itself officially endorsing a candidate, that would be a truly ghastly loss of liberty.
Last I heard, the press' job was to report facts and to some extent offer analysis. NBC shouldn't be advocating for a particular candidate for office and neither should FOX.
I believe that individuals (i.e. real persons with citizenship) should have the right to spend any or all of their money on campaigns.
I believe they and I should have the right to band together and do so as a group.
I do not believe that my or your rights are in any way trampled merely by forcing structural separation between the groups banded together for the purpose of political persuasion and the groups banded together for for the purpose of buying, selling and producing products.
Nor should you have any difficulty understanding why groups organized primarily for buying and selling have such a corruptive influence on the process of political persuasion.
That's a badly broken mental model of how security works.
Encryption with an unsigned or self-signed certificate isn't claiming to be secure. It's claiming to be encrypted. Nothing more, nothing less.
If encrypting with a signed certificate is claiming to be secure, it's a false claim. The signature authorities have made errors as with microsoft. Certificate algorithms have been usefully hacked as happened last year creating collisions with the hash algorithm. And relatively few users will notice that the site and certificate are actually bankofameriKa.com. Or bank.ofamerica.com. Or even bankofamerica.xyz.com.
Encrypting with a signed certificate is more secure than encrypting without, but it is not -secure- in any absolute respect. What's more, the difference in security between plaintext and encryption is far greater than the difference in security between signed and unsigned encryption.
Claiming otherwise is not good science. It's really something of an ideological error.
Firefox offers no complaint if you send your information in the clear.
It also offers no complaint if you encrypt your information with a signed certificate.
In what bizarro world does it then make sense to complain when your encryption is unsigned?
Maybe it would help to have a different protocol designator, httpe, for unsigned encrypted traffic.
Signed certificates are holding up encryption. Opportunistic encryption doesn't happen if it has to be carefully pre-planned.
Yes, unsigned encryption is vulnerable to MITM. So what? It protects against the far more common traffic sniffing and a plethora of other attacks.
I don't know. Is BitLocker the one in use at the US EPA? Because that one has had a crippling effect on the portion of their scientists and managers that actually use the computers. Or at least used to...
With the right software, it is possible to protect the fixed disks of all PCs in the enterprise
Unless of course you actually want to use your computer. Then you discover how painfully slow it is. How it happily encrypts your USB drive too, rendering it useless. You take a power point presentation with you and look like a fool in front of your customers because it's encrypted and they can't display it on the projector from you thumb drive.
Seriously, the windows software-based hard disk encryption solutions right now are total POS.
James-Bond those urine samples.
The pictures drawn on the screen aren't the real model the game uses.
That's not necessarily true. There's a long history of games relying on the graphics processor to determine when two objects overlap or otherwise meet specific conditions relative to each other. Goes all the way back to the 8-bit days when the graphics processor could tell you whether the non-transparent parts of two sprites overlapped.
As a software developer, I've used little calculus-based math since college. Unless you want to develop software in a specific problem domain that uses a lot of higher math, your encounters with math beyond Trig will be as sparse as a carpenter's.
That having been said, since your degree probably requires more math I would steer towards graph theory and discrete math. Stay well clear of differential equations. Graph theory has some relevance to computer networking while differential equations a) damn near killed me and b) doesn't buy you anything in CS that I've been able to figure.
preserves the original format of books
That's precisely what I don't want. A screen is not a page of paper and a window on a screen is very definitely not a page. I want the e-book to reformat itself to fit my current viewing preferences which, by the way, will change from device to device, will change depending on lighting and may even change for no reason at all.
Part-time in this context means the user doesn't use the computer all the time during their work process. Like a guy who stocks shelves and then makes entries in the inventory computer. It can also mean that they use a computer all the time only part of which are the computing resources you're responsible for. Like users of an ISP.
The OP noted that he has 2600 workers but only 900 computers. That means at least 1700 of the workers are part-time computer users.
You could manage a server cluster of substantial size, perhaps thousands of nodes, but managing more than 100 distinct servers would stretch you very thin. It's also fair to note that there tends to be far less automation involved in the process of managing a Windows server, so you get fewer servers per admin.
You need 1 IT staff (helpdesk, sysadmin, etc.) per:
20 Windows servers
50 Linux servers
100 full time computer users
1000 part time computer users
This is like you complaining there's a huge pothole on the road, and the DOT demanding the keys to your vehicle.
I checked the road where you said the pothole was. There is no pothole. Either I somehow missed it or that bump you experienced came from something else. Maybe a faulty suspension, you hitting the curb or trying to play bumper-cars.
Full service guy that I am, I'm willing to ride along with you and observe. But if you want me to go that extra mile, you will have to unlock the passenger door.