People on diet have lower performance because their brains are lacking fuel on diet.
Absolutely false. When I'm not "on diet" IE eating three square meals full of traditional American junk, I feel like garbage, my brain is fuzzy, and I'm generally rubbish at my job. Cut out the sugar & starch, eat enough protein, and I can easily eat only one or two meals a day (approx 1200Kcal), and work several times better. My brain has plenty of fuel between those limited calories and the lard on my ass that's getting burned off in the process. There's an acclimation period of about a week that's no fun at all, but once over the hump, I'm a much, much, much better code monkey when I lay off the bananas and stick to protein.
As far as being fat/not fat, exercise doesn't make much difference. You can't burn enough calories working out to make up for over eating. Can't out run the fork as they say... Exercise makes me feel better. I'm an endorphin junkie, no question. When I feel good, I stress/depressed eat much less, so that helps in weight management.
"Enough" exercise to get that effect in no way requires me to never see my family. I run three times a week. I do it at lunch time (those would be the one meal days usually), and I'm not actually away from my family any longer than if I'd spent lunch going to Mc HogBurger for a triple artery blocker... Or here's another idea... Want to be a present father? Exercise with your kids, and maybe even their mother too. Turn it into a family affair, teach your kids to enjoy something that's good for them, and be a far better parent than most.
If you want to exercise, you can absolutely find the time. If you don't, you'll spend the time finding excuses instead.
Source: Dropped about 180 lbs over 18 months by eating less and exercising more, all while working full time (plus standard tech career unpaid overtime) as a coder.
Nearly all of that slice-and-dice is driven by US producers. It’s not reciprocal.
Considering the US market is generally the highest paying and also the largest amount of big & copyright region restricted content, if Netflix was able to get world-wide customers to pay the US price (which it would seem they can to some degree), it’s likely they’re making more money than if they try to offer a tier more suited to local markets in India for example.
I doubt most Bollywood producers would complain for a second to have their content available world wide and get paid for it at US rates. Maybe not such a huge market (stoner set aside), so not worth it to Netflix to buy the content. But for better or worse, everyone seems to want to stream Hollywood’s blockbusters. No accounting for taste I guess.
You’ve heard of pre-paid debit cards perhaps? Easy to buy a US-based one over the interwebs and send to your address wherever. Sure, you can block those providers, but you risk pissing off legit in-country customers who use them. They’re also about as plentiful and quickly created as new VPN services, so you have the same whack-a-mole problem if you try to police which credit card prefixes you block.
Also, odds are good you can find a US friend willing to pay your sub for you on their credit card. You can buy year long Netflix gift certificates and send them wherever you like. Gimme a $10 premium, and I doubt I’d think twice of buying a gift cert & emailing you the code.
This type of VPN usage isn’t risky right now. You’re thinking of downloading bad stuff over VPN and trying to prevent nastygrams from your ISP. In that case, you’ve got a copyright owner or a LEO with subpoena power who can follow the paper trail back to you with minimal effort.
This is people paying for VPN’s for paid Netflix subs to stream content that’s not normally available in their market.
Is there law breaking going on? Probably, but thus far it’s not something that content providers have made the effort to send copyright cease & desist or whatever the local equivalent of DMCA letters for this type of stuff to end users. As for the VPN providers (where the money’s going), they’re arguably doing nothing wrong. They’re just moving packets from A to B, with ‘B’ being a frequently moving target, for Reasons.
Sure there’s a paper trail, things could get messy some day, but for the time being, paying for this service on your own credit card and accessing Netflix is a very low risk activity.
The VPN services getting paid have all kind$ of incentive$ to make sure they keep working with Netflix. It’s whack-a-mole with well funded & highly motivated moles. Not likely that any blocks will suceed for very long.
I’ve little doubt some law or top-secret treaty will attempt to add legal clout to close the loophole; but for now it’s not something that’s likely to get in you trouble. Enjoy it while it lasts...
The trigger on every thermostat I've seen comes down to just "short these two wires". You could wire a fail-safe analog thermostat in parallel to the fancy one somewhere. Just keep your old one, and you don't even have to figure out how to dispose of the liquid mercury properly.
Set it to 45-50F, and it should only trigger if something went very wrong.
Considering there is no screening test for HPV for people with penises, how would you propose someone considering having sex with such a person ensure they're not carrying any strain of HPV?
Given the number of users who can be fooled into thinking a site is "secure" just by having an image of a key appearing somewhere on the page (not the browser chrome, but actually in the HTML of the site), what's the point of adding more chrome?
I doubt most users are capable of understanding the concept of chain of trust nor levels of verification behind different certificates. I'm positive that capabilities aside, the vast majority don't want to learn the difference and willfully avoid learning.
On (3), most readers needn't agree. Life plus 70 or 95 years are the law, regardless of what most of anyone thinks.
As far as whether CBS dropped the ball or not (IE honest mistake / they thought they did the right thing), it might enter into the damages calculation for "willful" infringement, but it's otherwise irrelevant.
If the second artist *bought* the original licensed cards, glued them, and sold them, copyright shouldn't enter into it. No unauthorized *copy* was made. First Sale Doctrine should apply. You can buy a book, cut it up into little pieces, then sell the pieces.
If the second artist bought one copy, made additional copies on their own, and sold those, then no question it's a violation of the copyright.
A copyright statement in a 1930's vintage book may have become inaccurate in the intervening 86 years. If Wilis subsequently acquired full ownership, existing copies wouldn't be retroactively updated. Don't believe everything you read.
All parties will have to show up in court with the text of whatever agreements they may have, and the sum total of those (as sussed out by 12 idiots) will determine who owns what and who owes whom.
Copyright litigation doesn't work like that. If you go to the entity you *think* owns it, they take your money for it, but they didn't actually have the right to sell it to you, you don't get "good faith" credit for that. You could possibly sue them for misrepresenting that they owned the copyright and recover what you paid, but nothing in that transaction precludes the actual owner of the copyright from suing you for infringement.
The only instance that's close to what you're talking about would be if they also sold you indemnity against anyone else suing you, claiming they were the actual owner. In that case, you *still* get sued, but your agreement with the people you paid says *they* have to defend you in court, and *they're* on the hook for any damages.
I don't even think Fair Use is needed for that. To call a series of drawings of cats with adjectives under them a derivative work of the poem would be a bit of a reach.
The melody & the lyrics have separate copyright. It's inaccurate to say that putting words to music causes the song to become a derivative work of the words. Copyright of the song is the combination of the copyrights of the lyrics and the melody, and additionally performance rights of the combined work which may be conveyed separately. In order to perform the work and reproduce (IE broadcast) the performance, you'd need performance right of the song and copyright of both the words and melody.
Wilis (it would seem) had rights to publish both the words and the melody in a book. The question before the court is whether they had the right to sell the performance right of those to anyone else. That should come down to interpretation of the original contract between Wilis and Edith Newlin, and of course her estate and heirs inherit the right to litigate any infringement of that.
How exactly this being litigated 86 years after the work's creation serves to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," is a different matter...
Don't let the licensing FUD scare you. Linus has publicly stated that licensing in a case that's a very near equivalent to ZFS' licensing is fine.
The anticipated problem with the license has always been on the Linux side. The license ZFS is released under doesn't in any way prohibit the ZFS code from being used in other places with other licenses (like the *BSD's). There has never been a concern that using ZFS with Linux violates the ZFS license (and thus could bring Oracle's well-fed lawyers down upon you). The contention has been that combing CDDL code with GPL-2 in a derivative work violates the GPL and thus places you in trouble with Linux's license. The core problem is that CDDL places additional restrictions on binary code resulting from derivative works, which GPL-2 prohibits.
But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)? [...] Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray area.
Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to tell the AFS guys so. [Emphasis added]
- Linus Torvalds on the fa.linux.kernel group, Thu, 4 Dec 2003
Given that ZFS was originally written for Solaris and the core code works essentially unmodified (with a porting layer in some cases) on Solaris, *BSD, Linux, possibly other systems, there are lots of indications that it should fall into the same category as the AFS code: The ZFS modules are not derivative works of Linux and thus may be used with Linux even though their license prevents them from being incorporated into Linux.
There's no reason they'd be subject to HIPAA nor be fined under it. They're not medical providers. Users of their system willingly disclosed their status to a third party, non-medical provider with the explicit purpose of being placed in contact with other people who had also disclosed their status and the understanding that their status would be disclosed to those other people in the process.
Whether there are any fines related to general personal information breach, I don't know; but I kind of doubt it. Describing those laws as "a bit loose" would be charitable.
To the degree that banks actually pay tax (LOL...),should they find any technique to do ${taxable_thing} without incurring taxes, you can rest assured that oversight will be temporary at best. Laws will be amended to ensure revenue continues to flow to government.
See also: Bitcoin appreciation is taxable as capital gains in many jurisdictions.
Isn't the incentive for burning CPU for blockchain verification that you get to claim the transaction fees in BTC? And isn't a large element of its strength the fact that you need relatively crazy amounts of hardware plus consensus from multiple sources to build it, thus making forgery intractable?
How do you incentivize enough CPU power & players into a "semi-private in operation" system? Why do established big players want to mess around with this when they're already getting pretty serious transactions fees doing it the old fashioned, closed everything way?
Given the (very low) complexity that's possible in bootstrap level shell code before you've found usable libraries, it doesn't take a tremendous amount of randomness to make it intractable to exploit something in an ASLR environment. You might have a handful of usable executable bytes to use. You can't call ANY library code until you find it in memory. Shell code needs to be super simple until it manages to find enough library code to do usable things and possibly load a second stage for itself from somewhere.
Code needs to be written to be ASLR-compatible. For "normal" code, that means just write the code, flip the compiler flag, and don't do anything stupid with function pointers. For code that's trying to be overly tricky (maybe trying to do simulated execution of viral code in a sandbox to determine actual behavior from encrypted polymorphic code), it's not inconceivable that the code might depend on certain libraries and functions being at well-known addresses or within fixed offsets of each other. The more assembler or low-low level C you interface with, the more likely you'll encounter something that can't execute properly if relocated.
It's a naive way of writing code, but there's lots of it out there. Force ASLR on, and it crashes pretty spectacularly.
Honestly I'd think the truth would be better at keeping customers.
"You got pwn3d because you clicked the 'pwn me anyways' button when our software tried to save your butt."
versus
"The one time you actually got something legit, our software was too stupid to catch it because oh BTW, signature based malware does bugger all for zero-days or targeted attacks."
Software that's capable of saving me if only I hadn't disabled it is a bit more desirable than software that couldn't have saved me no matter what. The first one, I pay my money & I learn my lesson. The second one, what am I paying you again for anyways? Maybe I'll just keep my money.
Because writing a letter (just a letter, no anthrax, no bombs) and mailing it to somone isn’t terrorism.
Kind of sad to see a word’s meaning so dilluted that blowing people up and sending a piece of paper with words on it through the mail are the same thing now.
That said, she constructed a convenient out for PETA members whose lives rely on animal-tested or derived treatments. Because she’s working for animals, it’s for the greater good. So as long as you’re a PETA member, you can benefit from animal testing and stay alive with modern medicine so you can keep fighting to make sure no one else can. Everyone else has to die though. Wouldn’t be ethical for them to receive treatments that they’re not fighting to prevent anyone else from getting.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely false. When I'm not "on diet" IE eating three square meals full of traditional American junk, I feel like garbage, my brain is fuzzy, and I'm generally rubbish at my job. Cut out the sugar & starch, eat enough protein, and I can easily eat only one or two meals a day (approx 1200Kcal), and work several times better. My brain has plenty of fuel between those limited calories and the lard on my ass that's getting burned off in the process. There's an acclimation period of about a week that's no fun at all, but once over the hump, I'm a much, much, much better code monkey when I lay off the bananas and stick to protein.
As far as being fat/not fat, exercise doesn't make much difference. You can't burn enough calories working out to make up for over eating. Can't out run the fork as they say... Exercise makes me feel better. I'm an endorphin junkie, no question. When I feel good, I stress/depressed eat much less, so that helps in weight management.
"Enough" exercise to get that effect in no way requires me to never see my family. I run three times a week. I do it at lunch time (those would be the one meal days usually), and I'm not actually away from my family any longer than if I'd spent lunch going to Mc HogBurger for a triple artery blocker... Or here's another idea... Want to be a present father? Exercise with your kids, and maybe even their mother too. Turn it into a family affair, teach your kids to enjoy something that's good for them, and be a far better parent than most.
If you want to exercise, you can absolutely find the time. If you don't, you'll spend the time finding excuses instead.
Source: Dropped about 180 lbs over 18 months by eating less and exercising more, all while working full time (plus standard tech career unpaid overtime) as a coder.
Nearly all of that slice-and-dice is driven by US producers. It’s not reciprocal.
Considering the US market is generally the highest paying and also the largest amount of big & copyright region restricted content, if Netflix was able to get world-wide customers to pay the US price (which it would seem they can to some degree), it’s likely they’re making more money than if they try to offer a tier more suited to local markets in India for example.
I doubt most Bollywood producers would complain for a second to have their content available world wide and get paid for it at US rates. Maybe not such a huge market (stoner set aside), so not worth it to Netflix to buy the content. But for better or worse, everyone seems to want to stream Hollywood’s blockbusters. No accounting for taste I guess.
You’ve heard of pre-paid debit cards perhaps? Easy to buy a US-based one over the interwebs and send to your address wherever. Sure, you can block those providers, but you risk pissing off legit in-country customers who use them. They’re also about as plentiful and quickly created as new VPN services, so you have the same whack-a-mole problem if you try to police which credit card prefixes you block.
Also, odds are good you can find a US friend willing to pay your sub for you on their credit card. You can buy year long Netflix gift certificates and send them wherever you like. Gimme a $10 premium, and I doubt I’d think twice of buying a gift cert & emailing you the code.
This type of VPN usage isn’t risky right now. You’re thinking of downloading bad stuff over VPN and trying to prevent nastygrams from your ISP. In that case, you’ve got a copyright owner or a LEO with subpoena power who can follow the paper trail back to you with minimal effort.
This is people paying for VPN’s for paid Netflix subs to stream content that’s not normally available in their market.
Is there law breaking going on? Probably, but thus far it’s not something that content providers have made the effort to send copyright cease & desist or whatever the local equivalent of DMCA letters for this type of stuff to end users. As for the VPN providers (where the money’s going), they’re arguably doing nothing wrong. They’re just moving packets from A to B, with ‘B’ being a frequently moving target, for Reasons.
Sure there’s a paper trail, things could get messy some day, but for the time being, paying for this service on your own credit card and accessing Netflix is a very low risk activity.
The VPN services getting paid have all kind$ of incentive$ to make sure they keep working with Netflix. It’s whack-a-mole with well funded & highly motivated moles. Not likely that any blocks will suceed for very long.
I’ve little doubt some law or top-secret treaty will attempt to add legal clout to close the loophole; but for now it’s not something that’s likely to get in you trouble. Enjoy it while it lasts...
The trigger on every thermostat I've seen comes down to just "short these two wires". You could wire a fail-safe analog thermostat in parallel to the fancy one somewhere. Just keep your old one, and you don't even have to figure out how to dispose of the liquid mercury properly. Set it to 45-50F, and it should only trigger if something went very wrong.
Considering there is no screening test for HPV for people with penises, how would you propose someone considering having sex with such a person ensure they're not carrying any strain of HPV?
Given the number of users who can be fooled into thinking a site is "secure" just by having an image of a key appearing somewhere on the page (not the browser chrome, but actually in the HTML of the site), what's the point of adding more chrome?
I doubt most users are capable of understanding the concept of chain of trust nor levels of verification behind different certificates. I'm positive that capabilities aside, the vast majority don't want to learn the difference and willfully avoid learning.
That's true. And also a question of fact for a jury, so go fish...
On (3), most readers needn't agree. Life plus 70 or 95 years are the law, regardless of what most of anyone thinks.
As far as whether CBS dropped the ball or not (IE honest mistake / they thought they did the right thing), it might enter into the damages calculation for "willful" infringement, but it's otherwise irrelevant.
If the second artist *bought* the original licensed cards, glued them, and sold them, copyright shouldn't enter into it. No unauthorized *copy* was made. First Sale Doctrine should apply. You can buy a book, cut it up into little pieces, then sell the pieces.
If the second artist bought one copy, made additional copies on their own, and sold those, then no question it's a violation of the copyright.
A copyright statement in a 1930's vintage book may have become inaccurate in the intervening 86 years. If Wilis subsequently acquired full ownership, existing copies wouldn't be retroactively updated. Don't believe everything you read.
All parties will have to show up in court with the text of whatever agreements they may have, and the sum total of those (as sussed out by 12 idiots) will determine who owns what and who owes whom.
Either that or they settle out of court...
Copyright litigation doesn't work like that. If you go to the entity you *think* owns it, they take your money for it, but they didn't actually have the right to sell it to you, you don't get "good faith" credit for that. You could possibly sue them for misrepresenting that they owned the copyright and recover what you paid, but nothing in that transaction precludes the actual owner of the copyright from suing you for infringement.
The only instance that's close to what you're talking about would be if they also sold you indemnity against anyone else suing you, claiming they were the actual owner. In that case, you *still* get sued, but your agreement with the people you paid says *they* have to defend you in court, and *they're* on the hook for any damages.
I don't even think Fair Use is needed for that. To call a series of drawings of cats with adjectives under them a derivative work of the poem would be a bit of a reach.
The melody & the lyrics have separate copyright. It's inaccurate to say that putting words to music causes the song to become a derivative work of the words. Copyright of the song is the combination of the copyrights of the lyrics and the melody, and additionally performance rights of the combined work which may be conveyed separately. In order to perform the work and reproduce (IE broadcast) the performance, you'd need performance right of the song and copyright of both the words and melody.
Wilis (it would seem) had rights to publish both the words and the melody in a book. The question before the court is whether they had the right to sell the performance right of those to anyone else. That should come down to interpretation of the original contract between Wilis and Edith Newlin, and of course her estate and heirs inherit the right to litigate any infringement of that.
How exactly this being litigated 86 years after the work's creation serves to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," is a different matter...
Don't let the licensing FUD scare you. Linus has publicly stated that licensing in a case that's a very near equivalent to ZFS' licensing is fine.
The anticipated problem with the license has always been on the Linux side. The license ZFS is released under doesn't in any way prohibit the ZFS code from being used in other places with other licenses (like the *BSD's). There has never been a concern that using ZFS with Linux violates the ZFS license (and thus could bring Oracle's well-fed lawyers down upon you). The contention has been that combing CDDL code with GPL-2 in a derivative work violates the GPL and thus places you in trouble with Linux's license. The core problem is that CDDL places additional restrictions on binary code resulting from derivative works, which GPL-2 prohibits.
Linus has weighed in specifically on the AFS filesystem module here: http://yarchive.net/comp/linux...
Given that ZFS was originally written for Solaris and the core code works essentially unmodified (with a porting layer in some cases) on Solaris, *BSD, Linux, possibly other systems, there are lots of indications that it should fall into the same category as the AFS code: The ZFS modules are not derivative works of Linux and thus may be used with Linux even though their license prevents them from being incorporated into Linux.
There's no reason they'd be subject to HIPAA nor be fined under it. They're not medical providers. Users of their system willingly disclosed their status to a third party, non-medical provider with the explicit purpose of being placed in contact with other people who had also disclosed their status and the understanding that their status would be disclosed to those other people in the process.
Whether there are any fines related to general personal information breach, I don't know; but I kind of doubt it. Describing those laws as "a bit loose" would be charitable.
To the degree that banks actually pay tax (LOL...),should they find any technique to do ${taxable_thing} without incurring taxes, you can rest assured that oversight will be temporary at best. Laws will be amended to ensure revenue continues to flow to government.
See also: Bitcoin appreciation is taxable as capital gains in many jurisdictions.
Isn't the incentive for burning CPU for blockchain verification that you get to claim the transaction fees in BTC? And isn't a large element of its strength the fact that you need relatively crazy amounts of hardware plus consensus from multiple sources to build it, thus making forgery intractable?
How do you incentivize enough CPU power & players into a "semi-private in operation" system? Why do established big players want to mess around with this when they're already getting pretty serious transactions fees doing it the old fashioned, closed everything way?
Shame they can't just run `svn blame climate_change.doc` and figure out who's trying to be tricky...
Given the (very low) complexity that's possible in bootstrap level shell code before you've found usable libraries, it doesn't take a tremendous amount of randomness to make it intractable to exploit something in an ASLR environment. You might have a handful of usable executable bytes to use. You can't call ANY library code until you find it in memory. Shell code needs to be super simple until it manages to find enough library code to do usable things and possibly load a second stage for itself from somewhere.
Code needs to be written to be ASLR-compatible. For "normal" code, that means just write the code, flip the compiler flag, and don't do anything stupid with function pointers. For code that's trying to be overly tricky (maybe trying to do simulated execution of viral code in a sandbox to determine actual behavior from encrypted polymorphic code), it's not inconceivable that the code might depend on certain libraries and functions being at well-known addresses or within fixed offsets of each other. The more assembler or low-low level C you interface with, the more likely you'll encounter something that can't execute properly if relocated.
It's a naive way of writing code, but there's lots of it out there. Force ASLR on, and it crashes pretty spectacularly.
Honestly I'd think the truth would be better at keeping customers.
versus
Software that's capable of saving me if only I hadn't disabled it is a bit more desirable than software that couldn't have saved me no matter what. The first one, I pay my money & I learn my lesson. The second one, what am I paying you again for anyways? Maybe I'll just keep my money.
Funny you say that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Because writing a letter (just a letter, no anthrax, no bombs) and mailing it to somone isn’t terrorism.
Kind of sad to see a word’s meaning so dilluted that blowing people up and sending a piece of paper with words on it through the mail are the same thing now.
Given that PETA’s former director of research Mary Beth Sweetland is an insulin dependant diabetic, I’ll go with a “nope” on that one.
http://www.humanewatch.org/per...
That said, she constructed a convenient out for PETA members whose lives rely on animal-tested or derived treatments. Because she’s working for animals, it’s for the greater good. So as long as you’re a PETA member, you can benefit from animal testing and stay alive with modern medicine so you can keep fighting to make sure no one else can. Everyone else has to die though. Wouldn’t be ethical for them to receive treatments that they’re not fighting to prevent anyone else from getting.