If only Steve Jobs were here to tell the employees how they've been misusing their walls.
But seriously, if your walls are glass, why bother using walls at all? Just have the necessary support beams (made of glass, even, if you really want to) and be done with it.
I find it interesting that just a few days ago there was an uproar with respect to the Univ. of Maryland commencement speech by a Chinese student (studying abroad here in the US) on freedom of speech. There was a huge backlash from China. And now this...
Unless your backup method is a full backup and keeping only the most recent backup, then of course your archives will likely also contain infected files. Differential backups should enable you to roll back to some point prior to being infected.
For Hackintoshes to become popular, presumably, there is some software on a Mac that isn't available elsewhere. What is driving the Hackintosh need? Personally (note the qualifier), I totally fail to see the need for a Hackintosh - I think all operating systems are fairly advanced and usable now, and it doesn't take long to be proficient in Linux or Windows (or FreeBSD or whatever). Why push a path that isn't supported by Apple? Just use Linux (or Windows) instead - whatever alternate platform your preferred tools work on.
Final Cut is exclusive to Mac OS. A lot of folks who work with audio and visual media will likely find Final Cut useful and perhaps necessary.
But beyond that, because is is much more "closed", has a much more uniform interface. Look at the hodge-podge of different widgets for a Linux desktop system. And on Windows, it's the same -- even the interfaces aren't uniform between different MS products, let alone between different vendors.
My own personal preference is that it has a nice UI and was built on top of *nix. As someone who used to be a die-hard Linux fan, OS X has become a preferred operating system for reasons above.
There's the question of how the car/truck is going to stop being targeted for theft. I am sure that these cars would be programmed to stop when people are standing in their way -- which would be a perfect way to steal delivery goods. Just have a group of people surround the car/truck at a stop light, and then you pretty much own a bunch of new toys from Amazon. I'll believe it when I see it, I guess.
Even if it is for a short time, I wonder if BK will get the hint if Google suddenly blacklists BK, or perhaps redirects all searches to a page explaining how BK is being a douche.
Sure they lost a huge chunk of money. But if they had housed their own data, how much would that have cost them up to this point? I wonder if it would have cost more than 150 million.
But to address the issue, they should get some redundancy. Mirror across several clouds if need be. It makes me wonder if mirroring would still give them an economic edge vs hosting their own hardware and all the support that requires in additional to the hardware costs.
They could have been credited with all known vulnerabilities but if they waited 3 months for all the other cases and not this one, then they are still suspect in my eyes. The lawsuit doesn't mean jack until they release the security advisory, so there was no reason not to sit on the 3 months waiting period.
In an email, a spokesperson for PwC acknowledged the existence of the vulnerability and confirmed that it had been fixed.
The spokesperson also said in separate prepared statement: "The code referenced in this bulletin is not included in the current version of the software which is available to all of our clients."
It seems the article does a poor job of being impartial. Despite the above quotes, they continue with:
It's far from the first time that a security firm or its researchers have faced the wrath from a company that fights instead of fixes.
I am not sure what to make of this since there is still too much information being withheld from both PwC and the article and ESNC.
I actually did read the article. Here's essentially the same comment (without Trump/Thiel referenced): https://slashdot.org/comments....
The fact that the program didn't start like that is just more support for why Thiel is not the reason behind the success. The program didn't become successful until it started recruiting already-successful candidates. So in effect, the program is successful because it basically "bought" its success through its selection process.
For the record: I don't like neither Trump (compulsive liar who likes to inflate the truth and take credit for things he had little to nothing to do with) nor Hillary (also a liar and complete fraud).
Well, like Trump, Thiel is basically taking credit for something he didn't really cause: the success of young entrepreneurs even though many of them were already successful prior to being part of the Thiel Fellowship.
It's nothing more than a common watering hole for all the already-successful young entrepreneurs to all gather. Let's see, basically get a bunch of already successful young people and throw more money at them and give them even more opportunities to succeed... and they do it!? *rolls eyes*
It does involve constitutionality. The constitutionality of any law passed by Congress must be be weighed by the possibilities of that law. (McCollough vs Maryland and Brown v Maryland). If the monetary award is a penalty against Samsung, it can be argued as excessive in the light of only a component of their phone was infringing (and both parties agreed that the infringing design could be be considered a component). Article 8 of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines.
Here's the court's opinions from HEYDENFELDT v. DANEY GOLD AND SILVER MINING COMPANY providing an example of how the court goes against explicit law:
It is true that there are words of present grant in this law; but, in construing it, we are not to look at any single phrase in it, but to its whole scope, in order to arrive at the intention of the makers of it. "It is better always," says Judge Sharswood, "to adhere to a plain common-sense interpretation of the words of a statute, than to apply to them refined and technical rules of grammatical construction. Gyger's Estate, 65 Penn. St. 312.
and
This interpretation, although seemingly contrary to the letter of the statute, is really within its reason and spirit.
Where the Supreme Court differs from you is that it sees a phone as being more than just a single patented object. Here's the law itself:
"That hereafter, during the term of letters-patent for a design, it shall be
unlawful for any person other than the owner of said letters-patent without the
license of such owner, to apply the design secured by such letters-patent, or
any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose
of sale, or to sell or expose for sale any article of manufacture to which such
design or colorable imitation shall, without the license of the owner, have been
applied, knowing that the same has been so applied. Any person violating
the provisions, or either of them, of this section, shall be liable in the amount
of two hundred and fifty dollars; and in case the total profit made by him
from the manufacture or sale, as aforesaid, of the article or articles to which
the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied, exceeds the sum
of two hundred and fifty dollars he shall be further liable for the excess of such
profit over and above the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars; and the full
amount of such liability may be recovered by the owner of the letters-patent
to his own use, in any circuit court of the United States having jurisdiction of
the parties, either by an action at law or upon a bill in equity for an injunction
to restrain such infringement
I think we can both agree that if Samsung had sold a phone chassis that copied Apple's design then all profits for said chassis would go to Apple. However, this is only a component of another product -- their phone. If a car company copies some other companies' bumper design, and then uses these bumpers on their next line of cars, why would the profits for the entire car be forfeited? Only in the case where it can be proved that sale of these new cars hinged specifically and only on the use of these bumpers would all profits be forfeit. For me, the key line is:
profit made by him from the manufacture or sale, as aforesaid, of the article or articles to which the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied
As for precedence, see Haydenfeldt v. Daney Co., 93 U. S. 629. Another good read is Some Questions under the Design Patent Act of 1887 by Frederic H. Betts
(The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 5 (May, 1892), pp. 181-192)
The Legislature may write laws, but the Courts will still interpret them.
So they're providing "Improvements to Bash on Windows and the Windows Console." Here I thought people did fairly well bashing Windows all on their own. Little did I know they were working on better ways to bash their OS.
Even an old Mac from 5 years ago would "tears strips off 'superior spec'd' Windows counterparts in the real world" when running FC since FC doesn't run on Windows at all.
To quote the summary's quote of the supposed actual article:
Sensors printed with this ink would magnetically attack to each other when a rip or tear occurs, automatically fixing a device at the first sign of disintegration.
Someone get the the editors (slashdot and linked article) some of that self-healing ink so that I do not have to put up with these typos ("broken words") any more.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/n...
Here's a snippet:
So who are these guys? Despite the fact that the group works out of Johnson, under the auspices of NASA, Eagleworks still only runs on $50,000 a year in funding. “That’s not enough to conduct a high-quality experimental research program,” says Davis. “They’d need $1.5 million, $2 million for five, six, seven years.”
Research into breakthrough propulsion physics—even when it had its own lab at Glenn, under Millis—has never been particularly well-funded. So “the way that this really happens is people dabble in addition to their day job,” says Millis. According to him, Eagleworks started with White working on concepts in his free time, not officially supported or sanctioned by NASA, and then eventually got a little money to run his lab out of Johnson. But the NASA banner doesn’t legitimize the work—if anything, NASA seems to want to keep the project under the radar.
Slashdot Mirror
...the article itself was example.
If only Steve Jobs were here to tell the employees how they've been misusing their walls. But seriously, if your walls are glass, why bother using walls at all? Just have the necessary support beams (made of glass, even, if you really want to) and be done with it.
I find it interesting that just a few days ago there was an uproar with respect to the Univ. of Maryland commencement speech by a Chinese student (studying abroad here in the US) on freedom of speech. There was a huge backlash from China. And now this...
Then shut down the VM.
Unless your backup method is a full backup and keeping only the most recent backup, then of course your archives will likely also contain infected files. Differential backups should enable you to roll back to some point prior to being infected.
Just put all that old crap on virtual machines. The only important parts are the data. And the easiest way to counter ransomware is with backups.
For Hackintoshes to become popular, presumably, there is some software on a Mac that isn't available elsewhere. What is driving the Hackintosh need? Personally (note the qualifier), I totally fail to see the need for a Hackintosh - I think all operating systems are fairly advanced and usable now, and it doesn't take long to be proficient in Linux or Windows (or FreeBSD or whatever). Why push a path that isn't supported by Apple? Just use Linux (or Windows) instead - whatever alternate platform your preferred tools work on.
Final Cut is exclusive to Mac OS. A lot of folks who work with audio and visual media will likely find Final Cut useful and perhaps necessary.
But beyond that, because is is much more "closed", has a much more uniform interface. Look at the hodge-podge of different widgets for a Linux desktop system. And on Windows, it's the same -- even the interfaces aren't uniform between different MS products, let alone between different vendors.
My own personal preference is that it has a nice UI and was built on top of *nix. As someone who used to be a die-hard Linux fan, OS X has become a preferred operating system for reasons above.
There's the question of how the car/truck is going to stop being targeted for theft. I am sure that these cars would be programmed to stop when people are standing in their way -- which would be a perfect way to steal delivery goods. Just have a group of people surround the car/truck at a stop light, and then you pretty much own a bunch of new toys from Amazon. I'll believe it when I see it, I guess.
Even if it is for a short time, I wonder if BK will get the hint if Google suddenly blacklists BK, or perhaps redirects all searches to a page explaining how BK is being a douche.
...err hang on a sec... hmm...
Sure they lost a huge chunk of money. But if they had housed their own data, how much would that have cost them up to this point? I wonder if it would have cost more than 150 million. But to address the issue, they should get some redundancy. Mirror across several clouds if need be. It makes me wonder if mirroring would still give them an economic edge vs hosting their own hardware and all the support that requires in additional to the hardware costs.
Did not bother to click it; the summary and the many comments saying "it doesn't work" make it sound like the site itself is click bait.
They could have been credited with all known vulnerabilities but if they waited 3 months for all the other cases and not this one, then they are still suspect in my eyes. The lawsuit doesn't mean jack until they release the security advisory, so there was no reason not to sit on the 3 months waiting period.
In an email, a spokesperson for PwC acknowledged the existence of the vulnerability and confirmed that it had been fixed.
The spokesperson also said in separate prepared statement: "The code referenced in this bulletin is not included in the current version of the software which is available to all of our clients."
It seems the article does a poor job of being impartial. Despite the above quotes, they continue with:
It's far from the first time that a security firm or its researchers have faced the wrath from a company that fights instead of fixes.
I am not sure what to make of this since there is still too much information being withheld from both PwC and the article and ESNC.
Did you bother to read the parent to which I was replying? Or are you guilty of what you are accusing?
I actually did read the article. Here's essentially the same comment (without Trump/Thiel referenced): https://slashdot.org/comments.... The fact that the program didn't start like that is just more support for why Thiel is not the reason behind the success. The program didn't become successful until it started recruiting already-successful candidates. So in effect, the program is successful because it basically "bought" its success through its selection process. For the record: I don't like neither Trump (compulsive liar who likes to inflate the truth and take credit for things he had little to nothing to do with) nor Hillary (also a liar and complete fraud).
Well, like Trump, Thiel is basically taking credit for something he didn't really cause: the success of young entrepreneurs even though many of them were already successful prior to being part of the Thiel Fellowship.
It's nothing more than a common watering hole for all the already-successful young entrepreneurs to all gather. Let's see, basically get a bunch of already successful young people and throw more money at them and give them even more opportunities to succeed... and they do it!? *rolls eyes*
It does involve constitutionality. The constitutionality of any law passed by Congress must be be weighed by the possibilities of that law. (McCollough vs Maryland and Brown v Maryland). If the monetary award is a penalty against Samsung, it can be argued as excessive in the light of only a component of their phone was infringing (and both parties agreed that the infringing design could be be considered a component). Article 8 of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines.
It is true that there are words of present grant in this law; but, in construing it, we are not to look at any single phrase in it, but to its whole scope, in order to arrive at the intention of the makers of it. "It is better always," says Judge Sharswood, "to adhere to a plain common-sense interpretation of the words of a statute, than to apply to them refined and technical rules of grammatical construction. Gyger's Estate, 65 Penn. St. 312.
and
This interpretation, although seemingly contrary to the letter of the statute, is really within its reason and spirit.
Where the Supreme Court differs from you is that it sees a phone as being more than just a single patented object. Here's the law itself:
"That hereafter, during the term of letters-patent for a design, it shall be unlawful for any person other than the owner of said letters-patent without the license of such owner, to apply the design secured by such letters-patent, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or to sell or expose for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation shall, without the license of the owner, have been applied, knowing that the same has been so applied. Any person violating the provisions, or either of them, of this section, shall be liable in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars; and in case the total profit made by him from the manufacture or sale, as aforesaid, of the article or articles to which the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied, exceeds the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars he shall be further liable for the excess of such profit over and above the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars; and the full amount of such liability may be recovered by the owner of the letters-patent to his own use, in any circuit court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, either by an action at law or upon a bill in equity for an injunction to restrain such infringement
I think we can both agree that if Samsung had sold a phone chassis that copied Apple's design then all profits for said chassis would go to Apple. However, this is only a component of another product -- their phone. If a car company copies some other companies' bumper design, and then uses these bumpers on their next line of cars, why would the profits for the entire car be forfeited? Only in the case where it can be proved that sale of these new cars hinged specifically and only on the use of these bumpers would all profits be forfeit. For me, the key line is:
profit made by him from the manufacture or sale, as aforesaid, of the article or articles to which the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied
As for precedence, see Haydenfeldt v. Daney Co., 93 U. S. 629. Another good read is Some Questions under the Design Patent Act of 1887 by Frederic H. Betts (The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 5 (May, 1892), pp. 181-192)
The Legislature may write laws, but the Courts will still interpret them.
So they're providing "Improvements to Bash on Windows and the Windows Console." Here I thought people did fairly well bashing Windows all on their own. Little did I know they were working on better ways to bash their OS.
Even an old Mac from 5 years ago would "tears strips off 'superior spec'd' Windows counterparts in the real world" when running FC since FC doesn't run on Windows at all.
Touche
Sensors printed with this ink would magnetically attack to each other when a rip or tear occurs, automatically fixing a device at the first sign of disintegration.
Someone get the the editors (slashdot and linked article) some of that self-healing ink so that I do not have to put up with these typos ("broken words") any more.
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/n... Here's a snippet: So who are these guys? Despite the fact that the group works out of Johnson, under the auspices of NASA, Eagleworks still only runs on $50,000 a year in funding. “That’s not enough to conduct a high-quality experimental research program,” says Davis. “They’d need $1.5 million, $2 million for five, six, seven years.” Research into breakthrough propulsion physics—even when it had its own lab at Glenn, under Millis—has never been particularly well-funded. So “the way that this really happens is people dabble in addition to their day job,” says Millis. According to him, Eagleworks started with White working on concepts in his free time, not officially supported or sanctioned by NASA, and then eventually got a little money to run his lab out of Johnson. But the NASA banner doesn’t legitimize the work—if anything, NASA seems to want to keep the project under the radar.