Again, a cert that is acceptable to Google is so dirt cheap as to be inconsequential to anyone running a server that needs one.... Google is more concerned with the health of their network, not random non-paying non-customers not really needy needs.
I know that sounds harsh, but Google is not a social services agency.
No, they aren't , but if they want people to us their services they will need to make their services suit their users' needs and wants.
And nothing is more secure than a self-signed cert distributed out-of-channel.
We have financial disclosure laws and public-release laws because of situations like this...
The problem is that, as usual, the law hasn't kept up with changes in technology and how people communicate. It's possible to view anything posted on Twitter (to the best of my knowledge) without logging in to view it. That would make it, by definition, "public". Anyone can access it. This differs from Facebook where an account is required to view it.
Thus, Twitter at least would seemingly meet the requirements for public disclosure; The information is available equally to everyone, and at the same time. And yet, here we are. The fact is, social media websites are where people are, and if you want to talk to them, you have to go there. The SEC however hasn't caught up with that, and still believes in pomp and circumstance like quarterly meetings and reports -- information exchange at the speed of molasses in an age where milliseconds matter.
It is not the law's job to "keep up with technology" which will always be a moving target. It is the responsibility of people to be cognizant of the law and obey it.
The SEC exists to look out for the general interests of investors. It is not in that interest to have to monitor all of potentially thousands of publicly-available news sources for unannounced releases of information so they don't lose a millisecond-long race to buy or sell on the basis of such information.
I correctly judged the credibility of the "Iraq has WMDs" based mostly on the tone of original news reports.
We had information from UN weapons inspectors stating they were able to go wherever they wanted and examine whatever they wanted and so far had not found any evidence of a currently-active program or any stockpiles of usable weapons. The tone of these reports was direct and devoid of pleas to emotion.
The White House labeled these reports "not helpful" and directed the public's attention to historic atrocities and put forward innuendo regarding alleged Iraqi support for terrorists. It certainly looked like fearmongering. The very fact that the WH was labeling actual current information from Iraq as "not helpful" was to me the most damaging to their case. If they were interested in the truth, I reasoned, current information from international inspectors could only be helpful.
You could use the same algorithm to derive credibility indicators for any language and region and use multiple verified events and facts to train the system.
By the way, what about no pronouns vs. 1st-person and 3rd-person? What about no emoticons?
What about links to known-unreliable sources as opposed to nominally credible sources?
The basic problem with any such approach is that tweets are individual opinions and you cannot arrive at the truth or falsehood of objective facts by analyzing a collection of he-saids and she-saids.
The hospital is either on fire or it is not on fire, regardless of what anybody says.
It's unreasonable to lay a burden on a private company that it must or even should continue to support any piece of privately developed and useful software.
The obvious solution is not just open APIs but fully open source software. This ensures that whoever finds the software useful can maintain a workable version as long as they need or want to use it. However, businesses are reluctant to do this because you don't want to give away your ability to do business to competing services. This means that even if you open-source parts of your business's code, you may want that code to pass information along to proprietary software for services that are important to your business but not to the generic-use aspects of it.
For a service like Flickr, there could be an open-source program for uploading, viewing and downloading pictures, but you might use proprietary and commercial software to manage such functions as controlling which other users and accounts can see your pictures, editing them online, managing commercial accounts, etc.
In general, I think industry would benefit greatly if companies would release superceded versions and obsolete and no-longer-marketed software as open source under free-to-use-and-modify-as-you-wish terms. There's no need to lock up old code that you're no longer interested in selling.
No, yes and no. There are influences other than big money at work too.
The mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to banks and the home building industry. You may believe you benefit from it. I believe it simply makes you pay more for a house.
You are absolutely correct about the mortgage interest tax deduction acting as an artificial price floor for a house.
I'd love to get rid of it, but only if the 16th amendment was repealed, all federal income and payroll taxes were outlawed. But the question becomes, would the average voter be willing to give up his or her favorite government program to allow for this to happen? Methinks the answer is no.
That's just you. Some of us can imagine trading the mortgage interest deduction for an increase in the personal exemption. It could be made revenue-neutral.
No, yes and no. There are influences other than big money at work too.
The mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to banks and the home building industry. You may believe you benefit from it. I believe it simply makes you pay more for a house.
If the Israeli government wants them back, theyll be searching every cargo container that goes out of the country for them, along with every truck that crosses the border. Like I said Israel is a security state. The government can do whatever it wants, no matter how intrusive, and the people will tolerate it because it's part of their war on terrorism or can be cast that way.
They'll either find these engines or we'll know they moved them to some Israeli company to be studied, disassembled, copied and perhaps improved upon.
Imagine how important military hardware is guarded in a country constantly beset by the likes of Hamas and with potential hostiles across every border. There's no way these engines were stolen by any outside group without help from insided the IDF and no way they're getting out of the country without that and help from the government itself.
And what do you think would happen to somebody in Israel caught going rogue with military weapons of this magnitude if they were caught?
Seriously, if anybody trusts the Israelis to not do everything in their power to get their hands on military technology they want, consider:
Stewart Nozette
Jonathan Pollard
Ben-ami Kadish
It has been suspected for decades that Israel stole nuclear weapons tech and uranium from the USA
GPLv2 says that it must be in a machine-readable form on a medium customarily used for software interchange, and that the cost charged for a copy of the source code must not exceed the "cost of physically performing source distribution". This prohibits additional considerations such as the diamond-encrusted USB key or employing a large number of Vatican virgins.
But it does allow the provider of the source to charge you for his time at a reasonable rate. I don't think $3.99 is excessive for his time. How much does a professional programmer's time cost? $40/hr minimum as a loaded cost. So maybe 5 minutes of his time? If he's sending it by email, that's completely reasonable. If he's sending it on a CD via mail, he'll have to charge you more.
The prime suspects are the Israelis themselves. They'd love to get into the fighter-aircraft business or even the jet engine business. Seriously, this is Israel, the penultimate security state. You don't get stolen military hardware out of Israel unless the government knows about it.
Aided others in doing so and probably conspired to do so, at least.
But here's the rub. Let's say you post a link to something that looks like a interesting information piece on Slashdot.
Unbeknownst (= really stupid word, by the way! ) to you, that site has a link on it to a file containing thousands of stolen credit card numbers, bank account numbers and unencrypted passwords. Now you are a suspect in an "identity theft" case. (We used to call this kind of thing bank fraud, but now it's identity theft.). Also, so is Slashdot. So is everybody who modded you up. So are the moderators and the hosting service.
And there are even more outlandish (but very possible) scenarios. You post a similar link to an informative piece. But the actual article you refer to is on some obscure site hosted by god knows whom. And the owner of that site decides to replace the article you referred to with bunch of links to identity-theft materials. By the time the FBI sees a complaint about this, they can't tell that you weren't referring everybody on slashdot, prolific identity thieves that they must be, to this hijacked material. It looks even more damning. Everybody's going to prison unless you can persuade the FBI that that shit wasn't there when you posted the link and you had no knowledge that the owner or more probably the hacker who took down his site was in the stolen-credit-card-number racket.
They can use the aid money to ship trash consisting mostly of cheap junk items manufactured in China and used once or twice before they broke in the United States to the Seychelles, where they can pile them on top of the island, creating a new surface a few meters higher.
I can understand Kodak owning some patents for digital imaging, but 1100? Are there really 1100 different ways of doing digital imaging, or just 1100 obvious ways of combining seven novel ideas?
back to doing what made them the company they are now:
Fucking over their customers based on the whim of a man child!
Some of us actually remember when Apple introduced the Apple II, the Lisa, the (original) Macintosh, iPads and iPhones rather than having to be told of these ancient things by our elders.
Each of those products represented a significant improvement in both quality and capabilities of consumer electronics. However, they didn't break much new ground. Their specialty was always making tech accessible to the mass market.
Why those assholes take years to determine 'full' invalidity is beyond me.
Also, this patent show up Steve Jobs for the sociopath asshole that he was. Patenting a 'complete solution' is okay; patenting a small process or a way of operating a device is a fundamentally flawed approach to granting patents in the first place.
Meanwhile, millions have been lost fighting this useless patent, and HTC were idiots to settle, etc etc
Make the holders of invalidated patents pay back their license fees.
Slashdot Mirror
But I'm taking bets.
Again, a cert that is acceptable to Google is so dirt cheap as to be inconsequential to anyone running a server that needs one. ... Google is more concerned with the health of their network, not random non-paying non-customers not really needy needs.
I know that sounds harsh, but Google is not a social services agency.
No, they aren't , but if they want people to us their services they will need to make their services suit their users' needs and wants.
And nothing is more secure than a self-signed cert distributed out-of-channel.
The headline suits from bad translation. What they did is filed a complaint.
Goddamn spell correction! -suits +suffers.
The headline suits from bad translation. What they did is filed a complaint.
We have financial disclosure laws and public-release laws because of situations like this...
The problem is that, as usual, the law hasn't kept up with changes in technology and how people communicate. It's possible to view anything posted on Twitter (to the best of my knowledge) without logging in to view it. That would make it, by definition, "public". Anyone can access it. This differs from Facebook where an account is required to view it.
Thus, Twitter at least would seemingly meet the requirements for public disclosure; The information is available equally to everyone, and at the same time. And yet, here we are. The fact is, social media websites are where people are, and if you want to talk to them, you have to go there. The SEC however hasn't caught up with that, and still believes in pomp and circumstance like quarterly meetings and reports -- information exchange at the speed of molasses in an age where milliseconds matter.
It is not the law's job to "keep up with technology" which will always be a moving target. It is the responsibility of people to be cognizant of the law and obey it.
The SEC exists to look out for the general interests of investors. It is not in that interest to have to monitor all of potentially thousands of publicly-available news sources for unannounced releases of information so they don't lose a millisecond-long race to buy or sell on the basis of such information.
I correctly judged the credibility of the "Iraq has WMDs" based mostly on the tone of original news reports.
We had information from UN weapons inspectors stating they were able to go wherever they wanted and examine whatever they wanted and so far had not found any evidence of a currently-active program or any stockpiles of usable weapons. The tone of these reports was direct and devoid of pleas to emotion.
The White House labeled these reports "not helpful" and directed the public's attention to historic atrocities and put forward innuendo regarding alleged Iraqi support for terrorists. It certainly looked like fearmongering. The very fact that the WH was labeling actual current information from Iraq as "not helpful" was to me the most damaging to their case. If they were interested in the truth, I reasoned, current information from international inspectors could only be helpful.
You could use the same algorithm to derive credibility indicators for any language and region and use multiple verified events and facts to train the system.
By the way, what about no pronouns vs. 1st-person and 3rd-person? What about no emoticons?
What about links to known-unreliable sources as opposed to nominally credible sources?
The basic problem with any such approach is that tweets are individual opinions and you cannot arrive at the truth or falsehood of objective facts by analyzing a collection of he-saids and she-saids.
The hospital is either on fire or it is not on fire, regardless of what anybody says.
I don't find it sad, other than it's sad that some public companies are run by people who don't understand their responsibilities to the public.
We have financial disclosure laws and public-release laws because of situations like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-insider-trading-scandals-2011-11?op=1
It's unreasonable to lay a burden on a private company that it must or even should continue to support any piece of privately developed and useful software.
The obvious solution is not just open APIs but fully open source software. This ensures that whoever finds the software useful can maintain a workable version as long as they need or want to use it. However, businesses are reluctant to do this because you don't want to give away your ability to do business to competing services. This means that even if you open-source parts of your business's code, you may want that code to pass information along to proprietary software for services that are important to your business but not to the generic-use aspects of it.
For a service like Flickr, there could be an open-source program for uploading, viewing and downloading pictures, but you might use proprietary and commercial software to manage such functions as controlling which other users and accounts can see your pictures, editing them online, managing commercial accounts, etc.
In general, I think industry would benefit greatly if companies would release superceded versions and obsolete and no-longer-marketed software as open source under free-to-use-and-modify-as-you-wish terms. There's no need to lock up old code that you're no longer interested in selling.
No, yes and no. There are influences other than big money at work too.
The mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to banks and the home building industry. You may believe you benefit from it. I believe it simply makes you pay more for a house.
You are absolutely correct about the mortgage interest tax deduction acting as an artificial price floor for a house.
I'd love to get rid of it, but only if the 16th amendment was repealed, all federal income and payroll taxes were outlawed. But the question becomes, would the average voter be willing to give up his or her favorite government program to allow for this to happen? Methinks the answer is no.
That's just you. Some of us can imagine trading the mortgage interest deduction for an increase in the personal exemption. It could be made revenue-neutral.
No, yes and no. There are influences other than big money at work too.
The mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to banks and the home building industry. You may believe you benefit from it. I believe it simply makes you pay more for a house.
Yes it does. It means next to ultimate. The ultimate security state, IMO, is North Korea.
North Korea
Bingo!
If the Israeli government wants them back, theyll be searching every cargo container that goes out of the country for them, along with every truck that crosses the border. Like I said Israel is a security state. The government can do whatever it wants, no matter how intrusive, and the people will tolerate it because it's part of their war on terrorism or can be cast that way.
They'll either find these engines or we'll know they moved them to some Israeli company to be studied, disassembled, copied and perhaps improved upon.
Imagine how important military hardware is guarded in a country constantly beset by the likes of Hamas and with potential hostiles across every border. There's no way these engines were stolen by any outside group without help from insided the IDF and no way they're getting out of the country without that and help from the government itself.
And what do you think would happen to somebody in Israel caught going rogue with military weapons of this magnitude if they were caught?
Seriously, if anybody trusts the Israelis to not do everything in their power to get their hands on military technology they want, consider:
GPLv2 says that it must be in a machine-readable form on a medium customarily used for software interchange, and that the cost charged for a copy of the source code must not exceed the "cost of physically performing source distribution". This prohibits additional considerations such as the diamond-encrusted USB key or employing a large number of Vatican virgins.
But it does allow the provider of the source to charge you for his time at a reasonable rate. I don't think $3.99 is excessive for his time. How much does a professional programmer's time cost? $40/hr minimum as a loaded cost. So maybe 5 minutes of his time? If he's sending it by email, that's completely reasonable. If he's sending it on a CD via mail, he'll have to charge you more.
The prime suspects are the Israelis themselves. They'd love to get into the fighter-aircraft business or even the jet engine business. Seriously, this is Israel, the penultimate security state. You don't get stolen military hardware out of Israel unless the government knows about it.
I think in this case his bragging that he was associated with a notorious cracker ring will come into the evidence somewhere.
Aided others in doing so and probably conspired to do so, at least.
But here's the rub. Let's say you post a link to something that looks like a interesting information piece on Slashdot.
Unbeknownst (= really stupid word, by the way! ) to you, that site has a link on it to a file containing thousands of stolen credit card numbers, bank account numbers and unencrypted passwords. Now you are a suspect in an "identity theft" case. (We used to call this kind of thing bank fraud, but now it's identity theft.). Also, so is Slashdot. So is everybody who modded you up. So are the moderators and the hosting service.
And there are even more outlandish (but very possible) scenarios. You post a similar link to an informative piece. But the actual article you refer to is on some obscure site hosted by god knows whom. And the owner of that site decides to replace the article you referred to with bunch of links to identity-theft materials. By the time the FBI sees a complaint about this, they can't tell that you weren't referring everybody on slashdot, prolific identity thieves that they must be, to this hijacked material. It looks even more damning. Everybody's going to prison unless you can persuade the FBI that that shit wasn't there when you posted the link and you had no knowledge that the owner or more probably the hacker who took down his site was in the stolen-credit-card-number racket.
They can use the aid money to ship trash consisting mostly of cheap junk items manufactured in China and used once or twice before they broke in the United States to the Seychelles, where they can pile them on top of the island, creating a new surface a few meters higher.
Of course not. But 1100 is a lot of patents.
I can understand Kodak owning some patents for digital imaging, but 1100? Are there really 1100 different ways of doing digital imaging, or just 1100 obvious ways of combining seven novel ideas?
back to doing what made them the company they are now: Fucking over their customers based on the whim of a man child!
Some of us actually remember when Apple introduced the Apple II, the Lisa, the (original) Macintosh, iPads and iPhones rather than having to be told of these ancient things by our elders.
Each of those products represented a significant improvement in both quality and capabilities of consumer electronics. However, they didn't break much new ground. Their specialty was always making tech accessible to the mass market.
Why those assholes take years to determine 'full' invalidity is beyond me.
Also, this patent show up Steve Jobs for the sociopath asshole that he was. Patenting a 'complete solution' is okay; patenting a small process or a way of operating a device is a fundamentally flawed approach to granting patents in the first place.
Meanwhile, millions have been lost fighting this useless patent, and HTC were idiots to settle, etc etc
Make the holders of invalidated patents pay back their license fees.
Maybe. Or maybe the agency gets a deal where the judge only makes them discover the evidence they will introduce in court.