I'm glad I'm not the only one who's had this reaction. Rules and laws in the US are already affecting how we (those not in the US) deal with US based companies. I work for a fairly large telecommunications company in Canada, and when we're looking at service providers, we pretty much won't consider a company if our data will be hosted within the US. That's because we don't want our data falling under the Patriot Act. This is happening more and more in Canada, and presumably elsewhere.
So know you've got less international business going to US based companies. This bill would provide even more incentive for US based companies to consider moving their operations elsewhere. Given this is most applicable to IT based companies in the online world, physical location is less and less important.
Personally, if I owned a US based business and saw this law passed, I'd start looking at the steps involved to move the business outside of the US.
Of course if you'd actually read the article, you might see his point, which is not that a specific character can't be copyrighted. Here's a quote from the article: "Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited."
Hydrogen could be generated at the powerstation and transported or pumped to more local distribution points. That gives it a head start on batteries right there, since to charge the batteries, you've dealing with a ~7% loss just getting the electricity from the facility to your home.
I'm not sure how the numbers work out in the end, but there are some other advantages to hydrogen over electric vehicles. Neither solution is perfect, but don't dismiss hydrogen so quickly.
Hydrogen can be as clean to obtain as anything. Don't think of it as a fuel, think of it as a battery. Yes, storage can be interesting, but there's a lot of headway being made there as well. Imagine if we built nuclear reactors and used some of the energy from them to produce hydrogen, which could then be used to power our vehicles. We get clean energy (well, relatively, there is some radioactive waste), and we don't have all the assorted issues with electric vehicles.
Economics is only one of many motivations for attempting to exploit a system. There's also fame and politics that we see quite regularaly.
Secondly, even if by some unbelieveable turn of events, there were no financial motivations for hacking, that's no reason at all to be lax about security.
If you're going to try an be a grammar nazis, you'd think you would at least get it right. I got 1/3 correct. There was nothing wrong with my usage of "don't"
I never suggested it was vendor specific. There is not a good way (that I see) of getting around this, except as Z00L00K originally mentioned, the onion principal. Security comes in layers, if you're using layers of security, an exploitable hole in a specific application may not actually make you vulnerable, or be high risk. That's why my desktop machines are firewalled and NAT'd. That's why I run more than one virus scanner. That's why I follow simple guidelines with email and web surfing.
Not only that, but suppose I search for something, that is hidden behind a form. Assuming I click the link on the search results, I'm going to (most likely) taken to an error page saying I have to fill out the form.
I'd really rather not be a central point of failure. My thought was to let others be mirrors of the entire service, maybe using round robin DNS (or something more robust) for load distribution. I hadn't thought too much about it.
My thought was not to charge for it, but yet find some sort of revenue stream, not necessarily to make a huge profit, but to at least pay for the hardware and bandwidth.
I was really only concentrating on the weaknesses in CAPTCHA, which even a couple years ago were quite obvious.
I had been working on a community driven system of identifying media. It had the benefit of being useable by vision or hearing impaired persons. Users could upload a piece of media (generally audio or a picture). Users would then submit their best identification of that media. For example, you could have a picture of a cow. Users would submit "Cow", "Mammal", "Bovine", etc, or in the case of audio, it could be as simple as repeating the words in the audio, or answering a simple math test.
Another advantage, at least of the pictures, woudl be that it could handle multiple languages. The audio could simply be tagged as "en" or "fr".
The idea was then that a site owner could insert a bit of code to request the media, any language preference, and a list of the top n answers. They display the media in place of a captcha. The user submits the form, as well as their answer. Their answer is compared to the list of top n answers.
The system I was building would host all the media, so web masters would not incur extra bandwidth. Filenames would be randomly chosen, and changed on a regular basis.
I'm replying to myself just to point out to all you that think I'm wrong, why I'm right. I'll explain it a completely different way.
Same scenario. Object has twice the mass as object A. They are both traveling at 40km/h. Let's assume that the various friction and resistance reduce its speed by 10km/h/h. (Yes, that's unrealistic, but it doesn't matter). That's true for BOTH objects because the mass doesn't matter. Now, if they are both decelerating at 10km/h/h, then to maintain their speed, they need to accelerate at 10km/h/h. This way the acceleration and deceleration cancel out and we maintain 40km/h.
With me so far? Hopefully. Now, as has already been discussed, a heavier object takes more energy to accelerate.
Therefore, it takes more energy to maintain the velocity of a heavier object, because it takes more energy to accelerate, and (by the numbers) you have to constantly accelerate to overcome the forces that are slowing you down.
You've completely missed the point. Object A and Object B are identical, except that Object B has twice the mass of object A. Which takes more energy to maintain a constant velocity? The answer is Object B. Because object B has more mass, it takes more energy to maintain its momentum.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point. I read it that the release was pushed from above Eric in their management structure. He may or may not have protested this, I don't know, that point isn't clear to me. I realize he was not a low level guy, but he wasn't the top guy either. As I see it, the release was forced before it was ready, Eric had to deal with the fallout, and did, by following the procedures that had been agreed upon.
We could go into quite a debate on if he could/should have held the release back, but there's not information there for me to really go there.
From the article, I can't make that judgement. Perhaps he had pushed to make sure training and documentation were in place before the release went live. I'm working from the information in the article, and trying not to assume anything. All we have is that senior management pushed for the release date, so that was above Eric's call. We don't know much he did or did not push to hold back the release. Secondly he, and his staff did follow proper support procedures. Its right there that they can go directly to the engineers for a major issue if the managers are notified, which they were.
As long as we don't take into account road friction, air resistance, friction of any moving parts in the vehicle itself, etc. then yes, we don't have to worry about maintaining momentum. Out here in the real world, those all cause us to slow down unless we continually expend more energy.
Maybe you missed the second page... I'll quote the first paragraph for you:
Granted, there was much pressure from top management to get this release out by Friday and thus documentation and any internal training were pushed aside. That being said, it turned out a major bug was in the new release and the on-call support engineer had run a baseline test, but couldnâ(TM)t put the results in context with the new reality introduced by this new bug. His only recourse was to escalate, and do it quickly.
So:
Senior management was more interested in making the release date than getting documentation in place beforehand.
The support team didn't have the knowledge to document the problem properly.
Our "VP" (Eric - the author of the article) used a previously agreed upon procedure, they escalated to the developers by first notifying their manager (Eric) who then tried to notify the development manager (Dirk).
From the details given, I'd like to know what you expected Eric to do differently. Management pressed for the release, even though they knew the support staff wasn't ready. When an issue happened, the support staff tried to follow process to document the issue, couldn't, and followed a proper escalation process.
A heavier car is less susceptible to wind gusts. And drag isn't effected by weight, so the only downside to adding more weight is the initial cost of getting the thing moving. You also have to account for maintaining your velocity. The more mass, the more energy required.
p=mv
Wikipedia has a much better explanation. Basically, if you stick with your original door, you have a 1/3 chance of winning. If you switch, you have a 2/3 chance of winning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem#Solution
I think that's starting to change. Rogers says it relatively clearly on their site when you're looking at plans "A $6.95 monthly System Access Fee (non-government fee), ", and I believe others do as well.
That's one of the reasons I do prepaid service. Its about the only way to avoid these fees. We'll be getting a second phone soon and doing the same thing. I was thinking about a couples' package for ~$35/month, until you realize that its actually over $50/month once you total up all the extra fees.
There is no government imposed system access fee. Every provider in Canada that I've seen charges it, and nobody has to. It was originally intorduced to help expand the network but that day has passed, and now there are no requirements for it, but that didn't stop anybody (including Rogers) from charging it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's had this reaction. Rules and laws in the US are already affecting how we (those not in the US) deal with US based companies. I work for a fairly large telecommunications company in Canada, and when we're looking at service providers, we pretty much won't consider a company if our data will be hosted within the US. That's because we don't want our data falling under the Patriot Act. This is happening more and more in Canada, and presumably elsewhere.
So know you've got less international business going to US based companies. This bill would provide even more incentive for US based companies to consider moving their operations elsewhere. Given this is most applicable to IT based companies in the online world, physical location is less and less important.
Personally, if I owned a US based business and saw this law passed, I'd start looking at the steps involved to move the business outside of the US.
Maybe you should RTFA:
"If the companies violate any of these new restrictions, they could face civil and criminal penalties of up to $2 million"
Of course if you'd actually read the article, you might see his point, which is not that a specific character can't be copyrighted. Here's a quote from the article: "Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited."
Hydrogen could be generated at the powerstation and transported or pumped to more local distribution points. That gives it a head start on batteries right there, since to charge the batteries, you've dealing with a ~7% loss just getting the electricity from the facility to your home.
I'm not sure how the numbers work out in the end, but there are some other advantages to hydrogen over electric vehicles. Neither solution is perfect, but don't dismiss hydrogen so quickly.
Hydrogen can be as clean to obtain as anything. Don't think of it as a fuel, think of it as a battery. Yes, storage can be interesting, but there's a lot of headway being made there as well. Imagine if we built nuclear reactors and used some of the energy from them to produce hydrogen, which could then be used to power our vehicles. We get clean energy (well, relatively, there is some radioactive waste), and we don't have all the assorted issues with electric vehicles.
Economics is only one of many motivations for attempting to exploit a system. There's also fame and politics that we see quite regularaly.
Secondly, even if by some unbelieveable turn of events, there were no financial motivations for hacking, that's no reason at all to be lax about security.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/FeatureList
If you're going to try an be a grammar nazis, you'd think you would at least get it right. I got 1/3 correct. There was nothing wrong with my usage of "don't"
I never suggested it was vendor specific. There is not a good way (that I see) of getting around this, except as Z00L00K originally mentioned, the onion principal. Security comes in layers, if you're using layers of security, an exploitable hole in a specific application may not actually make you vulnerable, or be high risk. That's why my desktop machines are firewalled and NAT'd. That's why I run more than one virus scanner. That's why I follow simple guidelines with email and web surfing.
Its not that simple. My parent's turn their computer on maybe twice a week. Other's don't have constant net connections.
Not only that, but suppose I search for something, that is hidden behind a form. Assuming I click the link on the search results, I'm going to (most likely) taken to an error page saying I have to fill out the form.
I'd really rather not be a central point of failure. My thought was to let others be mirrors of the entire service, maybe using round robin DNS (or something more robust) for load distribution. I hadn't thought too much about it.
My thought was not to charge for it, but yet find some sort of revenue stream, not necessarily to make a huge profit, but to at least pay for the hardware and bandwidth.
I was really only concentrating on the weaknesses in CAPTCHA, which even a couple years ago were quite obvious.
I had been working on a community driven system of identifying media. It had the benefit of being useable by vision or hearing impaired persons. Users could upload a piece of media (generally audio or a picture). Users would then submit their best identification of that media. For example, you could have a picture of a cow. Users would submit "Cow", "Mammal", "Bovine", etc, or in the case of audio, it could be as simple as repeating the words in the audio, or answering a simple math test.
Another advantage, at least of the pictures, woudl be that it could handle multiple languages. The audio could simply be tagged as "en" or "fr".
The idea was then that a site owner could insert a bit of code to request the media, any language preference, and a list of the top n answers. They display the media in place of a captcha. The user submits the form, as well as their answer. Their answer is compared to the list of top n answers.
The system I was building would host all the media, so web masters would not incur extra bandwidth. Filenames would be randomly chosen, and changed on a regular basis.
Maybe I should resurrect it.
I'm replying to myself just to point out to all you that think I'm wrong, why I'm right. I'll explain it a completely different way.
Same scenario. Object has twice the mass as object A. They are both traveling at 40km/h. Let's assume that the various friction and resistance reduce its speed by 10km/h/h. (Yes, that's unrealistic, but it doesn't matter). That's true for BOTH objects because the mass doesn't matter. Now, if they are both decelerating at 10km/h/h, then to maintain their speed, they need to accelerate at 10km/h/h. This way the acceleration and deceleration cancel out and we maintain 40km/h.
With me so far? Hopefully. Now, as has already been discussed, a heavier object takes more energy to accelerate.
Therefore, it takes more energy to maintain the velocity of a heavier object, because it takes more energy to accelerate, and (by the numbers) you have to constantly accelerate to overcome the forces that are slowing you down.
You've completely missed the point. Object A and Object B are identical, except that Object B has twice the mass of object A. Which takes more energy to maintain a constant velocity? The answer is Object B. Because object B has more mass, it takes more energy to maintain its momentum.
That may be true, who knows? Regardless of which, Dirk's attitude and comments were not appropriate.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point. I read it that the release was pushed from above Eric in their management structure. He may or may not have protested this, I don't know, that point isn't clear to me. I realize he was not a low level guy, but he wasn't the top guy either. As I see it, the release was forced before it was ready, Eric had to deal with the fallout, and did, by following the procedures that had been agreed upon.
We could go into quite a debate on if he could/should have held the release back, but there's not information there for me to really go there.
From the article, I can't make that judgement. Perhaps he had pushed to make sure training and documentation were in place before the release went live. I'm working from the information in the article, and trying not to assume anything. All we have is that senior management pushed for the release date, so that was above Eric's call. We don't know much he did or did not push to hold back the release. Secondly he, and his staff did follow proper support procedures. Its right there that they can go directly to the engineers for a major issue if the managers are notified, which they were.
As long as we don't take into account road friction, air resistance, friction of any moving parts in the vehicle itself, etc. then yes, we don't have to worry about maintaining momentum. Out here in the real world, those all cause us to slow down unless we continually expend more energy.
Maybe you missed the second page... I'll quote the first paragraph for you:
Granted, there was much pressure from top management to get this release out by Friday and thus documentation and any internal training were pushed aside. That being said, it turned out a major bug was in the new release and the on-call support engineer had run a baseline test, but couldnâ(TM)t put the results in context with the new reality introduced by this new bug. His only recourse was to escalate, and do it quickly.
So:
From the details given, I'd like to know what you expected Eric to do differently. Management pressed for the release, even though they knew the support staff wasn't ready. When an issue happened, the support staff tried to follow process to document the issue, couldn't, and followed a proper escalation process.
p=mv
- The Car
- Goat A
- Goat B
You have a 1/3 chance of picking the car from the beginning. Wikipedia explains it quite well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem#SolutionWikipedia has a much better explanation. Basically, if you stick with your original door, you have a 1/3 chance of winning. If you switch, you have a 2/3 chance of winning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem#Solution
I think that's starting to change. Rogers says it relatively clearly on their site when you're looking at plans "A $6.95 monthly System Access Fee (non-government fee), ", and I believe others do as well.
That's one of the reasons I do prepaid service. Its about the only way to avoid these fees. We'll be getting a second phone soon and doing the same thing. I was thinking about a couples' package for ~$35/month, until you realize that its actually over $50/month once you total up all the extra fees.
There is no government imposed system access fee. Every provider in Canada that I've seen charges it, and nobody has to. It was originally intorduced to help expand the network but that day has passed, and now there are no requirements for it, but that didn't stop anybody (including Rogers) from charging it.