Is it illegal to rent out infrastructure which is subsequently used in the commission of a crime, if you didn't know the crime was being committed? For instance, if someone uses the Amazon cloud to participate in something illegal, are Amazon liable?
There is currently no obvious way for users of a certain drug to get in contact with each other, other than taking out an ad somewhere, or starting a discussion group or whatever. A facebook page devoted to the drug seems like an obvious way to facilitate this, but I think the drug companies might not want to be the ones to make it easy for consumer groups to form around each of their products.
I was jk really, but actually, as we've seen recently it is probably a lot easier to set up a fake website on someone else's server than fake up an actual shop or 10.
(Sorry I didn't properly answer your question in the other post). Yes, a Masters in Bioinformatics would be a really good place to get the basics, and would be enough to get you a coder/researcher-level position.
Lots of universities have a great deal of difficulty finding good bioinformatics people, and there are unfilled vacancies that I know of. Vacancies are also starting to pop up in the pharma firms that are still in business round here. The pay is not what you would expect for contracting with a bank on payment systems, or something similar, but it's reasonably interesting work, and certainly there's a living to be made I think.
This crazy components thing the young people have these days sounds cool. Kinda reminds me of when we had to learn to use a programming language instead of writing machine code. Those who started writing in 1s and 0s (or assembler, or C....) have probably already experienced the process of learning to work at a different level of abstraction.
Also, if you don't feel like abstracting, someone has to write the tools and libraries.
The big worry is that you are in competition with people who don't have mortgages and never expect to be able to afford them, so are cheap.
I was similar to you then at 40 decided to learn genetics (genetics is just programming right?:) . Turns out high-end biology is full of enormous data analysis and management problems, and now I mostly do coding and stuff, with a little project management thrown in, but in a more varied and interesting domain than billing systems I specialised in before. I picked up perl, bits of python, java, javascript along the way, and moved from the propriatory monolith databases to the open ones. You have a wealth of valuable skills already, and are not too old to learn something new. Be prepared to do it for less income, If money is your main motivator, stay where you are but switch to managing something bigger in a different organisation, that seems to be the best way to keep fresh and keep working up the ladder if you don't want to start something completely new.
These summerfriends have already shown how easy it is to DDOS the legal system. I think it's unlikely that Cameron will hand them the tools to DDOS the comms system as well. They must realise how easy it would make it for activists to disrupt commerce by bringing down mobile networks in business districts. I'm sure he (and his advisors) aren't that stupid.
If you fine the company, isn't this the same thing? You are taking value away from the capital value of each shareholder's assets in proportion to their holding. Agreed, it doesn't get around the fact that most have no say anyway, but it seems equitable. The main problem is that fines are always so small that the shareholders never notice.
In the mid 90s when the internet was competing against the paywalled gardens of Compuserve, AOL and the like, I distinctly remember sensible business people asking the quite reasonable question "Why will the internet ever amount to anything other than a university system for public sector communications? If noone is willing to pay for anything they see online, then noone makes any money, and nothing ever gets built.". The answer, as far as I remember was always that advertising would pay for the internet. That our eyeballs are valuable enough for people to put up the money to put up the infrastructure to engage our eyeballs on behalf of their advertisers. Nothing has changed. The advertising company is putting up the money for the infrastructure and giving it away for the price of eyeballs, that is the economic bargain we all entered into.
There is something called the data protection act that requires organisations which handle the private data of individuals to, like, protect it. We are all getting too used to the idea that when we give our personal data to a company, they somehow own it. They do not, and this is very clear in law, wherever sensible data protection legislation is in place.
I thought they had also dropped integrated java and mysql. You may not use those particular features but they are a fairly big deal for those who do. If you develop, and these are part of your main toolset, then suddenly Apple have ditched one of their main differentiators. Why spend the extra money on the hardware when something cheaper will do the job just as well, since the extra money doesn't buy you a configuration that 'just works' any more?
So what you are saying is Apple knows best about how people should scroll and is in fact being helpful by reeducating its users to scroll properly? Give me a break. I like the scroll bar because it shows me where I am in the document and lets me adjust where I am - if I am half way through and want to be three quarters of the way through I pull the scroll bar down to three quarters. This is the right way to scroll. Although maybe your post was trolling, sarcasm, Apple dronery or post-hoc rationalisation.
I don't have a problem with anonymised arrest stats being part of the public record, I agree that this is necessary. Where I have a problem is publishing the name-photo-crime link. I believe in openness of pubic data where it relates to public money, public resources, and people who are public figures, and I also believe in data protection for the identities and what I consider the private data of 'private' individuals. I think that just because the state collects data, it does not necessarily own it. I think that private individuals own their own data. Normally, a photographer owns the copyright on the images they make, but if I choose to photograph the pages of a book, the data in the book do not belong to me and so I am not free to publish my photos. Similarly, where I go, what I do, whom I associate with, etc, are owned by me (as the author). Just because the state or a private organisation chooses to track, photograph, or otherwise record these things does not grant them ownership over these data, and unless I have committed a crime or otherwise surrendered my rights to my property (the data about me), then they have no business publishing it.
The problem seems to be that the police think it's OK to keep and publish your photo, and associate it with a particular crime, even when you are innocent. I don't see why it would be a good thing to put this kind of data in the public record.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it illegal to rent out infrastructure which is subsequently used in the commission of a crime, if you didn't know the crime was being committed? For instance, if someone uses the Amazon cloud to participate in something illegal, are Amazon liable?
There is currently no obvious way for users of a certain drug to get in contact with each other, other than taking out an ad somewhere, or starting a discussion group or whatever. A facebook page devoted to the drug seems like an obvious way to facilitate this, but I think the drug companies might not want to be the ones to make it easy for consumer groups to form around each of their products.
I was jk really, but actually, as we've seen recently it is probably a lot easier to set up a fake website on someone else's server than fake up an actual shop or 10.
(Sorry I didn't properly answer your question in the other post). Yes, a Masters in Bioinformatics would be a really good place to get the basics, and would be enough to get you a coder/researcher-level position.
Lots of universities have a great deal of difficulty finding good bioinformatics people, and there are unfilled vacancies that I know of. Vacancies are also starting to pop up in the pharma firms that are still in business round here. The pay is not what you would expect for contracting with a bank on payment systems, or something similar, but it's reasonably interesting work, and certainly there's a living to be made I think.
Like a cheap Apple product?
How do you know it was the 'real' Apple site?
All these new languages will still understand you, give or take bit of punctuation.
This crazy components thing the young people have these days sounds cool. Kinda reminds me of when we had to learn to use a programming language instead of writing machine code. Those who started writing in 1s and 0s (or assembler, or C....) have probably already experienced the process of learning to work at a different level of abstraction. Also, if you don't feel like abstracting, someone has to write the tools and libraries. The big worry is that you are in competition with people who don't have mortgages and never expect to be able to afford them, so are cheap.
I was similar to you then at 40 decided to learn genetics (genetics is just programming right? :) . Turns out high-end biology is full of enormous data analysis and management problems, and now I mostly do coding and stuff, with a little project management thrown in, but in a more varied and interesting domain than billing systems I specialised in before. I picked up perl, bits of python, java, javascript along the way, and moved from the propriatory monolith databases to the open ones. You have a wealth of valuable skills already, and are not too old to learn something new. Be prepared to do it for less income, If money is your main motivator, stay where you are but switch to managing something bigger in a different organisation, that seems to be the best way to keep fresh and keep working up the ladder if you don't want to start something completely new.
For the avoidance of doubt, my comment was intended to be ironic
Data centres are so old hat these days.
These summerfriends have already shown how easy it is to DDOS the legal system. I think it's unlikely that Cameron will hand them the tools to DDOS the comms system as well. They must realise how easy it would make it for activists to disrupt commerce by bringing down mobile networks in business districts. I'm sure he (and his advisors) aren't that stupid.
teens on bicycles seem to work well
If you fine the company, isn't this the same thing? You are taking value away from the capital value of each shareholder's assets in proportion to their holding. Agreed, it doesn't get around the fact that most have no say anyway, but it seems equitable. The main problem is that fines are always so small that the shareholders never notice.
In the mid 90s when the internet was competing against the paywalled gardens of Compuserve, AOL and the like, I distinctly remember sensible business people asking the quite reasonable question "Why will the internet ever amount to anything other than a university system for public sector communications? If noone is willing to pay for anything they see online, then noone makes any money, and nothing ever gets built.". The answer, as far as I remember was always that advertising would pay for the internet. That our eyeballs are valuable enough for people to put up the money to put up the infrastructure to engage our eyeballs on behalf of their advertisers. Nothing has changed. The advertising company is putting up the money for the infrastructure and giving it away for the price of eyeballs, that is the economic bargain we all entered into.
Was just going to ask if this is the real company name then thought better. Honestly though, who was it? Someone must know.
There is something called the data protection act that requires organisations which handle the private data of individuals to, like, protect it. We are all getting too used to the idea that when we give our personal data to a company, they somehow own it. They do not, and this is very clear in law, wherever sensible data protection legislation is in place.
I thought they had also dropped integrated java and mysql. You may not use those particular features but they are a fairly big deal for those who do. If you develop, and these are part of your main toolset, then suddenly Apple have ditched one of their main differentiators. Why spend the extra money on the hardware when something cheaper will do the job just as well, since the extra money doesn't buy you a configuration that 'just works' any more?
So what you are saying is Apple knows best about how people should scroll and is in fact being helpful by reeducating its users to scroll properly? Give me a break. I like the scroll bar because it shows me where I am in the document and lets me adjust where I am - if I am half way through and want to be three quarters of the way through I pull the scroll bar down to three quarters. This is the right way to scroll. Although maybe your post was trolling, sarcasm, Apple dronery or post-hoc rationalisation.
> (Prosumer? Pseudo professional? I'm not sure what you would call it)
Perhaps snobsumer? fashionfessional?
Do they think China wanted to change the results of the Olympics or something?
They heard about the new trend for no SQL
I don't have a problem with anonymised arrest stats being part of the public record, I agree that this is necessary. Where I have a problem is publishing the name-photo-crime link. I believe in openness of pubic data where it relates to public money, public resources, and people who are public figures, and I also believe in data protection for the identities and what I consider the private data of 'private' individuals. I think that just because the state collects data, it does not necessarily own it. I think that private individuals own their own data. Normally, a photographer owns the copyright on the images they make, but if I choose to photograph the pages of a book, the data in the book do not belong to me and so I am not free to publish my photos. Similarly, where I go, what I do, whom I associate with, etc, are owned by me (as the author). Just because the state or a private organisation chooses to track, photograph, or otherwise record these things does not grant them ownership over these data, and unless I have committed a crime or otherwise surrendered my rights to my property (the data about me), then they have no business publishing it.
The problem seems to be that the police think it's OK to keep and publish your photo, and associate it with a particular crime, even when you are innocent. I don't see why it would be a good thing to put this kind of data in the public record.