It is not always your job to second-guess what someone else wants to pay you to produce for them. You have a lot of leeway in determining _how_ the product is designed and implemented, but if said company has specifically asked for an in car coffee maker, who the hell are you to tell them that they don't need it? (Hint: They will be offended, they will not like you, they'll pay someone else to do the work)
It's a lesson that can be hard to swallow for a lot of engineers.
Ever hear the saying: "You can be right, and you can be dead right."
And then Informative on the correction as well. Wow.
So 2 posts now that taken together add up to exactly what is stated in the article description, both modded +4 Informative, when truly unfortunately they are actually Redundant. Interesting.
Guess that could be the new karma-whore strategy ehh?
I damned well will blame them unless they are entirely open and up front about Who paid for What research and Why. The motivation behind these reports means EVERYTHING.
As it stands, there's no way in HELL I'd ever take a report from these guys even remotely into consideration. It's just buying false advertising really, with no disclaimers attached. Or even the brand of the company paying for the advertising.
It's low down, sleazy, and IMHO, should be illegal.
No doubt. The way I read that, they're trying to convince small municipalities that they can't do it alone, but if they bring in some other business (that will drive costs up for the municipality) it'll work.
What they fail to mention is whom it works/doesn't work for. WIFI in small communities doesn't work for Big Business when the community does it effectively. It does work for Big Business if you can layer the FUD enough to convince the community to piss money into a private company for no reason at all.
I've seen enough small town WIFI installations, done by the community, to know that this 'report' is a low down dirty shame.
Anyone seen any reports from the other angle? Reports on communities successfully deploying WIFI on their own, for low cost?
OK then. Neighbor would be stealing cable. Not from you however, but from the cable co.
Still entirely different from the issue at hand. Cable connections do not do authentication, whereas WAP does. If yo can successfully connect to a WAP, it has _explicitly_ given you permission. Big difference from the cable analogy.
No, it's actually quite easy to explain. Quick powerpoint slide show of the handshake involved. Show the secured one, and the open one. One says 'you have permission, proceed'. The other says 'you are not allowed'
Pretty simple. The process _directly_ translates to an in person conversation that everyone can easily understand.
No, it's not like that at all. That involves physical access (trespassing) and theft (water, which is charged for by how much you use).
It's like having a sign over your tap that says 'You have permission to use this tap'. So you do. Then the owner comes out and says just because the sign says so doesn't mean I did.
Beating a dead horse, but, if you don't secure your WAP, you are granting permission for others to connect. Period.
It's only like your analogy if you split the cable yourself and ran the extra end out to your neighbor for him, whether you intend them to use it or not.
As others have mentioned, the WAP gives PERMISSION to connect, unless it is configured NOT to. There is no hacking or cracking involved, which would be analogous to running a cable splitter.
And from the other side, if one finds a WAP signal, and it's open, how is one supposed to know that it's not there _for_ public use? Hmm? It gives you permission to connect, just what are you supposed to do? Track down the physical source of the signal, find out who owns it and ask? Not the easiest thing to do.
Look at it this way, you go downtown, you've heard there is a public wifi available. You get there and in your connection list you see 4 signals avaialble. Which one is free to use? Well, if they're not secured, I'm going to have to assume that they _all_ are.
Again, as it has been stated over and over again: If you have a WAP, and you don't want to share, then secure the freaking thing.
An analogy that fits: Did you know that in a large number of places, it is illegal to leave your keys in the ignition of your car if you leave the car unattended? Not quite a perfect analogy, but similar. It's seen as an open invitation, whether acting on it is criminal or not.
Thank you! There appears to be a pretty serious misunderstanding of how and where VOIP is being used in business.
We've just deployed it where I work. VOIP is for inter-office voice communication. I have one at my desk, and one in my home office. Internal calls are handled entirely by our VOIP system. External calls are not VOIP, they're dumped to copper at the border to our network.
VOIP is not all or nothing. It can, and most certainly does co-exist with copper line systems.
I think that if they are offering to allow people to pay for downloads of their uploaded content, that they may have to perform these checks not only for major content, but all content. It's the charging part that I think makes this more complicated.
Someone uploads a video that they hold the copyright to. Someone pays to download it, then immediately re-uploads it and either a) attempts to charge for it themselves or more likely b) provides it for free.
Doesn't matter anymore who the copyright holder is, big business or just some guy. The only real difference is that the big business copyright holders have the resources to find violations themselves, and could easily deal with these provided Google has a violations reporting system in place. It would be _much_ more onerous on the individula copyright holders to find these violations.
So, if Google is going to do these checks for any violations, I believe they'll have to do it for all.
My guess though is that they will handle this the same way as they handle this issue everywhere else: leave it to the content owners. Likely provide a means for content to be removed where content has been proven to be in violation, but staying out of that process entirely. The only problem is whether they can still get away with that whey they are physically hosting said content. (Though they've managed for the most part to do so with google cache)
You mean will Google check through the files to find out if any are copyrighted by an entity that could sue the crap out of Google, but ignore the rest?
It'd be nice if whatever stand Google takes is consistent and treats ALL material the same, REGARDLESS of how deep the copyright holder's pockets are.
It's unfortunate that that's essentially what copyright boils down to now. I'd love to see that change.
How can you even remotely compare the Jewish situation with the Japanese situation. The Jews were persecuted by their own country. The Japanese supported their own country.
Now, you're making another assumption too. You are assuming that an aggressive country that is actively waging war, and whose entire nation and infrastructure is devoted to waging said war is even capable of having INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
That's a big assumption.
That would have been an even bigger assumption to make at the time.
"Oh, don't hurt Japan, leave them alone, there are innocent people there so we can't blame Japan for Japan's actions"
I'm sorry but FUCK OFF. It was WAR asshole.
Yes, it sucks that there are some people still affected by that war. But you know what? It's not all negative to say the very least. And I think they learned a lesson as well.
Do you really think it makes sense that a country intent on taking over the world should be able to expect to continue to exist if they fail? That's what you're arguing here.
Next time you try to take over the world, a word of advice: You and your kind just might be wiped out entirely. That would be the risk one takes when trying to take over the world.
(And yet here you are condemning the actions that avioded that and brought the world to where it is today)
Right, in other words, like I said. The Japanese had no justification for attacking the US except in expanding their aggression.
Again, as far as the US is concerned, it doesn't really matter what was going on between China and Japan. They didn't get actively involved until _after_ they were attacked at Pearl Harbor.
The US ensured it didn't happen again by reconstructing Japan and becoming their economic allies, not by defeating them. They could have done this just as well after a negotiated settlement.
Dude, here's a cluestick for the fact that you're STILL missing:
It was NOT OPEN FOR NEGOTIATION.
I am sorry, but wake the fuck up man. You can argue this all you want, but IT WASN'T AN OPTION. Japan WAS NOT OPEN TO DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE US.
Them's the facts. Please oh PLEASE quit changing them to fit your current view of the world.
Do you really think that the US would have, no, _could_ have reconstructed Japan if the US hadn't won decisively? Don't let the way it did turn out influence this decision.
Think about Japanese culture at the time. Actually, think about it now. It's the same, it's just been redirected. That's really what the US did.
It could not have turned out the same otherwise. I've heard this statement from Japanese people themselves.
Also, you are SERIOUSLY confused as to what was offered by the Japanese. Japan never offered the conditional surrender you describe to the US. That is essentially what the US gave Japan after their defeat.
If you are mistakenly bringing up the offer Japan had to Russia, it's details are disputed and short of that it was NOT up for offer to the US. Again, due to Japan's culture, they could not offer that to the US because _they_ had attacked the US.
So in your mind any nation that has had an embargo or other economic sanction placed against them, they are in turn justified in using military force against the sanctioning country?
Sure you don't want to re-think that one?
That's a tactic that when used wisely can be used instead of force. It is relied on heavily in our current world. Yes, it has been abused at times as well but I still prefer it over force.
Slashdot Mirror
You're so right you'll never get the job.
It is not always your job to second-guess what someone else wants to pay you to produce for them. You have a lot of leeway in determining _how_ the product is designed and implemented, but if said company has specifically asked for an in car coffee maker, who the hell are you to tell them that they don't need it? (Hint: They will be offended, they will not like you, they'll pay someone else to do the work)
It's a lesson that can be hard to swallow for a lot of engineers.
Ever hear the saying: "You can be right, and you can be dead right."
So where are the 'fine engineers' then and where is their superior product?
Are you telling me that you do a better job than the engineers at MS?
Would the hypocrit like to take his head out of his ass now? Sheesh.
Seriously, either step up or shut up.
Wow, that's certainly timely. Hard to believe something like this would come along so close to the release of a gaming console!
Yes, sarcastic, quite.
This would have been interesting about 15 years ago. Now, it just seems kind of sad really.
And then Informative on the correction as well. Wow.
So 2 posts now that taken together add up to exactly what is stated in the article description, both modded +4 Informative, when truly unfortunately they are actually Redundant. Interesting.
Guess that could be the new karma-whore strategy ehh?
I damned well will blame them unless they are entirely open and up front about Who paid for What research and Why. The motivation behind these reports means EVERYTHING.
As it stands, there's no way in HELL I'd ever take a report from these guys even remotely into consideration. It's just buying false advertising really, with no disclaimers attached. Or even the brand of the company paying for the advertising.
It's low down, sleazy, and IMHO, should be illegal.
Don't bother with warning the US, they invented this practice. ;)
No doubt. The way I read that, they're trying to convince small municipalities that they can't do it alone, but if they bring in some other business (that will drive costs up for the municipality) it'll work.
What they fail to mention is whom it works/doesn't work for. WIFI in small communities doesn't work for Big Business when the community does it effectively. It does work for Big Business if you can layer the FUD enough to convince the community to piss money into a private company for no reason at all.
I've seen enough small town WIFI installations, done by the community, to know that this 'report' is a low down dirty shame.
Anyone seen any reports from the other angle? Reports on communities successfully deploying WIFI on their own, for low cost?
It doesn't really make much sense to disagree with someone, and then prove your point by backing up that which you disagree with.
Very strange really.
OK then. Neighbor would be stealing cable. Not from you however, but from the cable co.
Still entirely different from the issue at hand. Cable connections do not do authentication, whereas WAP does. If yo can successfully connect to a WAP, it has _explicitly_ given you permission. Big difference from the cable analogy.
No, it's actually quite easy to explain. Quick powerpoint slide show of the handshake involved. Show the secured one, and the open one. One says 'you have permission, proceed'. The other says 'you are not allowed'
Pretty simple. The process _directly_ translates to an in person conversation that everyone can easily understand.
No, it's not like that at all. That involves physical access (trespassing) and theft (water, which is charged for by how much you use).
It's like having a sign over your tap that says 'You have permission to use this tap'. So you do. Then the owner comes out and says just because the sign says so doesn't mean I did.
Beating a dead horse, but, if you don't secure your WAP, you are granting permission for others to connect. Period.
It's only like your analogy if you split the cable yourself and ran the extra end out to your neighbor for him, whether you intend them to use it or not.
As others have mentioned, the WAP gives PERMISSION to connect, unless it is configured NOT to. There is no hacking or cracking involved, which would be analogous to running a cable splitter.
And from the other side, if one finds a WAP signal, and it's open, how is one supposed to know that it's not there _for_ public use? Hmm? It gives you permission to connect, just what are you supposed to do? Track down the physical source of the signal, find out who owns it and ask? Not the easiest thing to do.
Look at it this way, you go downtown, you've heard there is a public wifi available. You get there and in your connection list you see 4 signals avaialble. Which one is free to use? Well, if they're not secured, I'm going to have to assume that they _all_ are.
Again, as it has been stated over and over again: If you have a WAP, and you don't want to share, then secure the freaking thing.
An analogy that fits: Did you know that in a large number of places, it is illegal to leave your keys in the ignition of your car if you leave the car unattended? Not quite a perfect analogy, but similar. It's seen as an open invitation, whether acting on it is criminal or not.
Thank you!
There appears to be a pretty serious misunderstanding of how and where VOIP is being used in business.
We've just deployed it where I work. VOIP is for inter-office voice communication. I have one at my desk, and one in my home office. Internal calls are handled entirely by our VOIP system. External calls are not VOIP, they're dumped to copper at the border to our network.
VOIP is not all or nothing. It can, and most certainly does co-exist with copper line systems.
I think that if they are offering to allow people to pay for downloads of their uploaded content, that they may have to perform these checks not only for major content, but all content. It's the charging part that I think makes this more complicated.
Someone uploads a video that they hold the copyright to. Someone pays to download it, then immediately re-uploads it and either a) attempts to charge for it themselves or more likely b) provides it for free.
Doesn't matter anymore who the copyright holder is, big business or just some guy. The only real difference is that the big business copyright holders have the resources to find violations themselves, and could easily deal with these provided Google has a violations reporting system in place. It would be _much_ more onerous on the individula copyright holders to find these violations.
So, if Google is going to do these checks for any violations, I believe they'll have to do it for all.
My guess though is that they will handle this the same way as they handle this issue everywhere else: leave it to the content owners. Likely provide a means for content to be removed where content has been proven to be in violation, but staying out of that process entirely. The only problem is whether they can still get away with that whey they are physically hosting said content. (Though they've managed for the most part to do so with google cache)
You're mixing your americanism's with your canadianism's. There are no RCMP officers in the US, and we don't have states and thus no state laws.
I'm sure you know that, just trying to clear that up for the few that read this and now believe the US has RCMP officers.
You mean will Google check through the files to find out if any are copyrighted by an entity that could sue the crap out of Google, but ignore the rest?
It'd be nice if whatever stand Google takes is consistent and treats ALL material the same, REGARDLESS of how deep the copyright holder's pockets are.
It's unfortunate that that's essentially what copyright boils down to now. I'd love to see that change.
Yeah, those god-damned non-fiction writers... ...Oh, right, it's _fiction_.
Why are all of the studies that are being funded designed to prove that there is _no_ link between them?
Who is funding these studies and how can anyone involved claim this to be sound scientific research when the research itself starts off with a bias?
I'll feel better about this after some proper unbiased research has been done.
Dude, you're an idiot.
How can you even remotely compare the Jewish situation with the Japanese situation. The Jews were persecuted by their own country. The Japanese supported their own country.
Now, you're making another assumption too. You are assuming that an aggressive country that is actively waging war, and whose entire nation and infrastructure is devoted to waging said war is even capable of having INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
That's a big assumption.
That would have been an even bigger assumption to make at the time.
"Oh, don't hurt Japan, leave them alone, there are innocent people there so we can't blame Japan for Japan's actions"
I'm sorry but FUCK OFF. It was WAR asshole.
Yes, it sucks that there are some people still affected by that war. But you know what? It's not all negative to say the very least. And I think they learned a lesson as well.
Do you really think it makes sense that a country intent on taking over the world should be able to expect to continue to exist if they fail? That's what you're arguing here.
Next time you try to take over the world, a word of advice: You and your kind just might be wiped out entirely. That would be the risk one takes when trying to take over the world.
(And yet here you are condemning the actions that avioded that and brought the world to where it is today)
Right, in other words, like I said. The Japanese had no justification for attacking the US except in expanding their aggression.
Again, as far as the US is concerned, it doesn't really matter what was going on between China and Japan. They didn't get actively involved until _after_ they were attacked at Pearl Harbor.
Um, sure, that might be the US's response in that situation.
That wouldn't make it right.
That certainly wouldn't mean I'd agree with it.
And to answer your question, no, the US would most certainly NOT be justified in that scenario.
You seem to have the impression that just because the US does something, that it is OK and justified. Hardly the case.
You know it wasn't offered formally? And yet you've been using that argument all over this thread insinuating that it was fact?
And you have personal insight into the inner workings and thoughts of both the US government and the significant faction within Japan?
I've only been countering you because you've been spouting so much bullshit. I'm done discussing this with you. Either learn something or don't.
Dude, here's a cluestick for the fact that you're STILL missing:
It was NOT OPEN FOR NEGOTIATION.
I am sorry, but wake the fuck up man. You can argue this all you want, but IT WASN'T AN OPTION. Japan WAS NOT OPEN TO DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE US.
Them's the facts. Please oh PLEASE quit changing them to fit your current view of the world.
Do you really think that the US would have, no, _could_ have reconstructed Japan if the US hadn't won decisively? Don't let the way it did turn out influence this decision.
Think about Japanese culture at the time.
Actually, think about it now. It's the same, it's just been redirected. That's really what the US did.
It could not have turned out the same otherwise. I've heard this statement from Japanese people themselves.
Also, you are SERIOUSLY confused as to what was offered by the Japanese. Japan never offered the conditional surrender you describe to the US. That is essentially what the US gave Japan after their defeat.
If you are mistakenly bringing up the offer Japan had to Russia, it's details are disputed and short of that it was NOT up for offer to the US. Again, due to Japan's culture, they could not offer that to the US because _they_ had attacked the US.
So in your mind any nation that has had an embargo or other economic sanction placed against them, they are in turn justified in using military force against the sanctioning country?
Sure you don't want to re-think that one?
That's a tactic that when used wisely can be used instead of force. It is relied on heavily in our current world. Yes, it has been abused at times as well but I still prefer it over force.