It could just be an intimidation, but give both parties business is optimissation of page ranking this whole things seems to have a very odd smell to me.
I'm suspicious this whole episode is about getting links from high page ranked sites like the WSJ and slashdot.
"raised concern" is a perfectly reasonable rating.
Established email servers are not usually used to sent UCE, a result of RBL's is that most are now secure. Most UCE is sent from zombies and these are typically unknown as email servers. Therefore the default status of an email server that is unknown to TrustedSource can reasonable be expected to be "raised concern".
AOP is not a future programming model but an historical one. t's reminisent of systems programmers who didn't 'get' high level programming so they would patch executables using a linker. Yes it was a useful technique to get your self out of a situation but you dont use the technique to build new systems.
AOP allows the OO design to be broken. It's a kludge that harks to the past for procedural programmers who dont get OO, it was conceived to allow procedural programmers to patch a OO program without understanding the design or obeying OO principles. It useful for a quick and dirty patch but it makes the design and function of the program more opaque. If the underlying design is wrong it should be REPLACED not PATCHED.
your total information goes down, so the information in the transaction is negative.
Yep, I know that is what the paper say's but I can see a flaw that is never really addressed.
You have the S (state before transaction) & E (Entangled state before transaction). After the transaction you have S' (state after transaction) & E' (Entangled state after transaction). You also have a new piece of information (S' AND E') which is created/shed which transcends the subjects' state and tells you something about the systems during the event.
The new information should be called transcend information. Perhaps this is a clue into how the chaotic quantum world combines to form the regular world.
I don't know Rankspaces management setup, but if the warrent was served on more senior management in the US who subsequently ordered less senior UK staff to turn over the data, those staff would be in an unenviable position. Their Managment is telling them to do something which may be against the law either way. Handing over the data may(#1) be illegal under the UK's Data Protection Act, not fulfilling the warrent may be illegal in the US, where you can extradited very easily, many people would probably take the path of least resitence, and do as they are told.
(#1) The UK Data protection act includes a very clear exemption for handing over data that is illegal or evidence of illegal activity. However it also prohibits exporting data where it won't have the protection of the data protection act. However the Data Protection Act is and EU treaty law so the data would be protected in Italy but not in the US.
So as I said trying decide what is the right & lawful thing, would be a pretty tough call.
It could be 'Irrational Exuberance' but it could also be something else. It's just possible that whoever wins the Home Page/Search market will achieve defacto monopoly status. The value of being _first_ for _mostly_ people in a mature information age is huge. There is likely a lot of highly leverage investment insurance in Google because if (when) the information age market matures whoever is leading will be the winner and realistically unassailable until somebody rewrites the rules for the next big thing, which is mostly likely in a completely new market anyway.
The position with Goggle is identical to what can be seen in the market as a whole. Essentially rampant stock inflation. It is basic economics, shares are scarce resource and the 'market' has an essentially unlimited money supply through paper debt and near limitless leverage through options. The value of the market is one giant bubble.
Which give the authorities the access they require quickly. You shouldn't doubt GCHQ's ability to crack it when it's truely needed, but could they do it quick enough to prevent an attack ?
The silence alone cannot convict him, but it would compound the severity of any crime exposed by cracking the data. While providing a good judicial check-balance to somebody hiding nothing of serious criminal intent.
Stability, PC's should be absolutely stable, they should be as reliable as televisions, telephones or cars. Security, PC's should be secure, they should be as secure as your car, or your house your wallet. Universalality, PC's (& Software) should be as consistent to use as cars or televisions, if you learn how to drive one car you can drive all cars. Transparency, Software should not form a barrier to the task at hand, you should watching/editing video/music or playing games or music, not operating a PC. Portability, you should be able to transfer your software and data between platform easily and simply.
A PC is now a consumer device, it should just work, like other consumer devices.
You can be assured the people of the Briton will never surrender to Terrorism. We faced down the IRA for 30 years despite their attacks being many times more often and many time more serious in casualties and damages each year.
In UK law he was dismissed, and has a very strong position.
The Company must have a justifiable reason to dismiss somebody, your political views are not a justifiable reason. if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal. The Company must have a dismissal procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal. The Company must follow that dismissal procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal. The dismissal procedure cannot be summary, if it is summary, (i.e. a director taking you into a meeting room to sack you on the spot) the company automatically loses at an employment tribunal. The Company must have an appeals procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
This guy has got this company by the short and curlies, not only will he get basic damages (about 1 weeks pay per year of service) he will get compensatory damages, because the Company never had or didn't follow even the most basic dismissal procedures. He can expect to walk away from a early settlement with about 18 month pay.
I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake.
gotten to should be reached. written wrong should be wrongly written for pete's sake should be for petes' sake it's the plural of pete as a substiture people in general and possesive. So the apostrophe goes on the end.
Normally I would let these slide but given your position I assume you would want to know:)
Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?
They care about the message not the protocol. In many cases obscure grammar rules hide that message, not enhance it. The smart people are even be enhancing that protocol on fly, for the purposes of speedy communication or clarity. for example I often break grammar rules on purpose, and other times I'm simply clueless as to understanding the rule. And I'm not going to waste any more time trying to learn/correct it. e.g. WTF is a passive sentence. Passive sentence are always clearer than the grammatically correct substitute.
Or consider the classic, split infinitive, example you people like to fall back on.
"To boldly go where no one has gone before."
Clear and lyrical, compared to the grammatically correct.
"To go boldly where nobody has previously been."
Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?
Your nit-picking at the 'mediocre English' is a substitute for thinking and understanding. When most people make the error correction automatically, and more on to the message, you're still consider the grammar. So it show up your lack of intelligence or laziness or speed of comprehension. Not theirs.
Am I missing something here?
Yes, the original message and likely the sighs of everybody else whenever you start up on one of your rants.
The Critical National Infrastructure is private infrastructures such as Water Boards/Eletricity, Electricity, banks etc, it doesnt carry anything approaching a secret classification.
The CNI is completely different from the GSI (government secure intranet) which links low level government departments and and public authorities, police, hospitals, etc.
Those are also completely different and unconnected with the GDN (Government data network) which links confidential but lowish security government departments.
The GDN has a secure overlay which allows for more secure traffic using dedicated cryptographic and scrambling technologies.
These are all complete unconnected with military and intelligency data networks.
Why would they spend all the extra time and money to do that when it doesn't bring them any more profit?
Simply because it does increase profits, it's just difficult to measure and demonstrate, so talk using language these corporations can understand. Good Documentation is marketing for geeks.
Einstein didn't directly observe E=MC^2, he deduced it with mathmatics; but we dont argue against his have discovered special relativity. In fact there is a strong case to be made that a proof is better science than observation since to paraphrase my school physics teacher. Observation is constrained by the limits of human error whereas mathmatics is an absolute proof.
as to what they are actually doing with all this computing power.
OK I broadly understand 'sequencing the human genome' is mapping out all the combinates of genes. There are 23 chromosomes in the human genome. That chromosomes are a pair of the genes. I understand that each gene is one of four DNA molecules called A,G,C & T. There 16 combinations of those mlecules and I can map those out with a pencil and paper, I can produce all 23 sets with desktop computing power.
So why does it take so much computing power ?
What are the really doing with it ?
Why do they dum down these stories down so much ?
Facts and figures dont make a science story/article!
Slashdot Mirror
It's the clueless ones.
So they gain the reputation they deserve, a poor one.
The "simple economic forces" that you wish for
Strawman tilting at windmills.
consumers typically do not make ideal decisions,
Which is why a reputation based system is so much better. It simple enough for any moron^Wconsumer to understand.
and therefore cannot police themselves
The responsible netizens that do police themselves get a reputation they deserve, a good one.
It could just be an intimidation, but give both parties business is optimissation of page ranking this whole things seems to have a very odd smell to me.
I'm suspicious this whole episode is about getting links from high page ranked sites like the WSJ and slashdot.
look it up before you accept it.
Nope the ISP should police its own network proffessionally.
If they fail to do so the responsible customers should move to a more responsible ISP.
"raised concern" is a perfectly reasonable rating.
Established email servers are not usually used to sent UCE, a result of RBL's is that most are now secure.
Most UCE is sent from zombies and these are typically unknown as email servers.
Therefore the default status of an email server that is unknown to TrustedSource can reasonable be expected to be "raised concern".
And here the first thought that came to my mind when the "tenth" reference was made was that a tenth of the participants of LinuxWorld are female!
And I though it a reference to One in Ten and about unemployed Geeks.
sold away that right in exchange from a large advance
Or as the record companies have been so fond of explaining for years music is licenced not sold.
They are just trying to talk up a storm, trolling if you like.
We only have their word that they've been blacklisted and given their history of publish both FAD and FUD.
All I have to say is move on nothing to see here.
AOP is not a future programming model but an historical one. t's reminisent of systems programmers who didn't 'get' high level programming so they would patch executables using a linker. Yes it was a useful technique to get your self out of a situation but you dont use the technique to build new systems.
AOP allows the OO design to be broken. It's a kludge that harks to the past for procedural programmers who dont get OO, it was conceived to allow procedural programmers to patch a OO program without understanding the design or obeying OO principles. It useful for a quick and dirty patch but it makes the design and function of the program more opaque. If the underlying design is wrong it should be REPLACED not PATCHED.
your total information goes down, so the information in the transaction is negative.
Yep, I know that is what the paper say's but I can see a flaw that is never really addressed.
You have the S (state before transaction) & E (Entangled state before transaction). After the transaction you have S' (state after transaction) & E' (Entangled state after transaction). You also have a new piece of information (S' AND E') which is created/shed which transcends the subjects' state and tells you something about the systems during the event.
The new information should be called transcend information. Perhaps this is a clue into how the chaotic quantum world combines to form the regular world.
I don't know Rankspaces management setup, but if the warrent was served on more senior management in the US who subsequently ordered less senior UK staff to turn over the data, those staff would be in an unenviable position. Their Managment is telling them to do something which may be against the law either way. Handing over the data may(#1) be illegal under the UK's Data Protection Act, not fulfilling the warrent may be illegal in the US, where you can extradited very easily, many people would probably take the path of least resitence, and do as they are told.
(#1) The UK Data protection act includes a very clear exemption for handing over data that is illegal or evidence of illegal activity. However it also prohibits exporting data where it won't have the protection of the data protection act. However the Data Protection Act is and EU treaty law so the data would be protected in Italy but not in the US.
So as I said trying decide what is the right & lawful thing, would be a pretty tough call.
It could be 'Irrational Exuberance' but it could also be something else. It's just possible that whoever wins the Home Page/Search market will achieve defacto monopoly status. The value of being _first_ for _mostly_ people in a mature information age is huge. There is likely a lot of highly leverage investment insurance in Google because if (when) the information age market matures whoever is leading will be the winner and realistically unassailable until somebody rewrites the rules for the next big thing, which is mostly likely in a completely new market anyway.
The position with Goggle is identical to what can be seen in the market as a whole. Essentially rampant stock inflation. It is basic economics, shares are scarce resource and the 'market' has an essentially unlimited money supply through paper debt and near limitless leverage through options. The value of the market is one giant bubble.
Which give the authorities the access they require quickly. You shouldn't doubt GCHQ's ability to crack it when it's truely needed, but could they do it quick enough to prevent an attack ?
The silence alone cannot convict him, but it would compound the severity of any crime exposed by cracking the data. While providing a good judicial check-balance to somebody hiding nothing of serious criminal intent.
Stability, PC's should be absolutely stable, they should be as reliable as televisions, telephones or cars.
Security, PC's should be secure, they should be as secure as your car, or your house your wallet.
Universalality, PC's (& Software) should be as consistent to use as cars or televisions, if you learn how to drive one car you can drive all cars.
Transparency, Software should not form a barrier to the task at hand, you should watching/editing video/music or playing games or music, not operating a PC.
Portability, you should be able to transfer your software and data between platform easily and simply.
A PC is now a consumer device, it should just work, like other consumer devices.
Be strong people of England.
You can be assured the people of the Briton will never surrender to Terrorism. We faced down the IRA for 30 years despite their attacks being many times more often and many time more serious in casualties and damages each year.
to start to wonder if I was entirely suitable as an employee, too.
Wondering is ok, even following disiplinary procedures is ok, summary dissmissal is not.
In UK law he was dismissed, and has a very strong position.
The Company must have a justifiable reason to dismiss somebody, your political views are not a justifiable reason. if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The Company must have a dismissal procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The Company must follow that dismissal procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The dismissal procedure cannot be summary, if it is summary, (i.e. a director taking you into a meeting room to sack you on the spot) the company automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
The Company must have an appeals procedure, if it doesn't it automatically loses at an employment tribunal.
This guy has got this company by the short and curlies, not only will he get basic damages (about 1 weeks pay per year of service) he will get compensatory damages, because the Company never had or didn't follow even the most basic dismissal procedures. He can expect to walk away from a early settlement with about 18 month pay.
I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake.
:)
gotten to should be reached.
written wrong should be wrongly written
for pete's sake should be for petes' sake it's the plural of pete as a substiture people in general and possesive. So the apostrophe goes on the end.
Normally I would let these slide but given your position I assume you would want to know
Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?
They care about the message not the protocol. In many cases obscure grammar rules hide that message, not enhance it. The smart people are even be enhancing that protocol on fly, for the purposes of speedy communication or clarity. for example I often break grammar rules on purpose, and other times I'm simply clueless as to understanding the rule. And I'm not going to waste any more time trying to learn/correct it. e.g. WTF is a passive sentence. Passive sentence are always clearer than the grammatically correct substitute.
Or consider the classic, split infinitive, example you people like to fall back on.
"To boldly go where no one has gone before."
Clear and lyrical, compared to the grammatically correct.
"To go boldly where nobody has previously been."
Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?
Your nit-picking at the 'mediocre English' is a substitute for thinking and understanding. When most people make the error correction automatically, and more on to the message, you're still consider the grammar. So it show up your lack of intelligence or laziness or speed of comprehension. Not theirs.
Am I missing something here?
Yes, the original message and likely the sighs of everybody else whenever you start up on one of your rants.
The official title is Her Royal Highness in the third person or Your Royal Highness in the second person.
However being a republican I would address her as 'Yo Beth' just to see the reaction on the faces of all the sycophants.
The Critical National Infrastructure is private infrastructures such as Water Boards/Eletricity, Electricity, banks etc, it doesnt carry anything approaching a secret classification.
The CNI is completely different from the GSI (government secure intranet) which links low level government departments and
and public authorities, police, hospitals, etc.
Those are also completely different and unconnected with the GDN (Government data network) which links confidential but lowish security government departments.
The GDN has a secure overlay which allows for more secure traffic using dedicated cryptographic and scrambling technologies.
These are all complete unconnected with military and intelligency data networks.
Why would they spend all the extra time and money to do that when it doesn't bring them any more profit?
Simply because it does increase profits, it's just difficult to measure and demonstrate, so talk using language these corporations can understand. Good Documentation is marketing for geeks.
Einstein didn't directly observe E=MC^2, he deduced it with mathmatics; but we dont argue against his have discovered special relativity. In fact there is a strong case to be made that a proof is better science than observation since to paraphrase my school physics teacher. Observation is constrained by the limits of human error whereas mathmatics is an absolute proof.
as to what they are actually doing with all this computing power.
OK I broadly understand 'sequencing the human genome' is mapping out all the combinates of genes. There are 23 chromosomes in the human genome. That chromosomes are a pair of the genes. I understand that each gene is one of four DNA molecules called A,G,C & T. There 16 combinations of those mlecules and I can map those out with a pencil and paper, I can produce all 23 sets with desktop computing power.
So why does it take so much computing power ?
What are the really doing with it ?
Why do they dum down these stories down so much ?
Facts and figures dont make a science story/article!