If you go a bit beyond the corporate-mandated annual security training, most information security curriculum says that step one is identifying the assets at risk and their value. It would be silly to spend $50,000 turning your garage into a vault to protect a $15,000 car, and similarly for information security the value of the asset determines the maximum effort you should put into protecting it. This not only avoids wasting more time/money/hassle than the asset is worth, but it allows you to spend your efforts on the most valuable assets. Any time/money spent on a low-value asset is time NOT spent protecting a higher-value asset.
The identity of your favorite gaming site is worth about 5 cents US, so it is error to spend more than 5 cents worth of time trying to protect that information.
Additionally, in most cases it is better to protect and encrypt data on a per-account basis, for both technical and practical reasons. On a laptop, that means you encrypt the home directory, not the system. Multiple user logins have separate encryption, and one account can't access the encrypted files of another account. If you want to take it a step further, you can have a work account on the machine and a separate account for checking personal email, etc. Along with the obvious security benefits, that avoids having the browser or search engine auto-complete a URL based on *personal* browsing history in the middle of a presentation.
Given per-account security, a guest account with restrictions on it is quite feasible, and a theif would likely click the guest account.
In many cases, it is better to encrypt files for each account separately, rather than full-disk encryption. This is partly because most full-disk encryption sucks in one of two ways. (Google "ecb penguin" for an example.)
Along with avoiding technical problems with full-disk encryption modes, this improves security because the user of one account can't access files owned (and encrypted) by another account. You can even have a "guest" account for a houseguest to use, and guest can't access your files.
Since you have a guest account anyway, the guest account might also be configured appropriately given the knowledge that a thief might one day use it.
That's awesome. I respect anyone who has the desire to learn, the puts in the work, and has the discipline to see it through.
PHP is of course a language, a set of vocabulary. At the back of any textbook, you'll find a glossary, the language or vocabulary used in the book. You've already learned the language, the glossary, of PHP programming. If you look, you may find there's a lot of cool stuff in the other parts of the book, systems architecture stuff, software engineering, analysis of algorithms, etc.
You need to learn a programming language or two before you learn analysis of algorithms or software engineering, because the languages are the vocabulary words of the field.
To give a concrete example, when I started my current job, the company had a software system that worked - mostly. A team programmers had worked several years on it, and all knew the language they were working in. Customers just wanted it to be faster. It was definitely too slow. Although it was my first month on the job, when I heard the complaints of slowness I said in a meeting "I'd like to take a look at that; I can probably make it 20%-30% faster easily enough for now, then do more after I understand how it all works." The team was rather skeptical, in fact they chuckled out loud at my claim, saying "I rather doubt you can do that". "How long do you think that'll take?", they asked. "Give me a week", I said, though I hadn't yet seen the code. They laughed again, hundreds of thousands of lines of code and this new guy was going to make it 20%-40% faster in a WEEK? Doubtful, they said. To put me in my place, they said "sure, go ahead and try that [wiseguy]."
As I left the meeting I realized I had just taken a big risk. When I went home I told my wife that I had just bet my reputation at the new job on a claim I only hoped I could fulfill. If I failed, it would establish that I'm an arrogant prick. If I succeeded, I'd be known as possibly the best programmer in the building.
Well a week later I had it running 30% faster. Why could I, in a week, make drastic improvements to code they'd been trying to speed up for months and years, code I'd never even seen before? They all knew the language almost as good as I did. But I had been taught to study much more than the language. They knew C, Perl, and Erlang; I knew algorithms and cache theory. So in a week I did in fact make major improvements to their years of work.
Now, I'm going to go upstairs and check the progress of my benchmark. Now six months into the job, a major customer again complained about slowness, so I've been looking at that for a few days. I hope to see that my three day's work has made the system another 20% faster. I'm a tad nervous because I need to impress the new boss, I think that by learning more than just the language (glossary terms) I'll be able to do that.
It is perhaps worth noting that the guidelines are an additional grant of license by Paramount / CBS. People who want to do something outside of those guidelines can still ask permission, and I suspect it would be granted if it were in the same spirit as what the guidelines envision.
Of course, people can also still make Fair Use works, and "not for profit" gets you halfway to fair use.
> Star Trek Continues also violates the guidelines, but I have a hard time seeing how their copyright infringement is harmful to CBS/Paramount in any significant way.
It appears CBS and Paramount may agree with you - they haven't taken any enforcement action against Star Trek Continues, as far as I know.
I don't think CBS and Paramount could announce a policy of allowing "non-profit" use with professional cast and crew. They can be forced to honor whatever policy they publish, and a producer could pay himself a salary of $1 million. No "profit", that's his salary as professional producer.
The hardware is vastly different between the Arduino and the Pi, but in neither instance is the hardware the point. The point is all the community and everything which makes them easy to use, even for hobbyists.
At work we had a "show and tell" type event for a while. One guy brought his RPi, which he had hooked up to some triacs (think relays) to allow it to turn 120V devices on and off. I shared that I had built almost exactly the same thing with an Arduino. (I had also done the same with an old Pentium I got from the scrap pile). So same project, he used an RPi, I used an Arduino.
I'm not the only person who owns both RPi and Arduino - they attract some of the same buyers and community members. Sometimes when thinking about a project, I'm not sure at first if I want to do it with the Arduino or with the Pi. The Arduino probably *could* handle it, but there wouldn't be room left to add features later. So this Arduino I have right here and this Pi I have in this red case directly compete for my projects, even though the hardware is vastly different.
The annual cap on H1-Bs is 65,000 and they are valid for six years max. If everyone with an H1-B stays the full six years, that would be 360,000 total.
That reminds me of John Elway on Trevor Siemian. Siemian was the last quarterback drafted that year. He had already lined up a job in real estate because he figured he might not be drafted - he wasn't that good. Fans were surprised and a bit dismayed when Elway drafted him for the Broncos, who were a powerful team -they won the Superbowl that year. Elway said Siemian "has potential".
It turns out that in his first year as a starter Siemian had a an 18-10 touchdown-to-interception ratio and an 84.6 passer rating, both stats better than Peyton Manning and Brock Osweiler in the previous Superbowl-winning season.
Elway later reminded one fan who had been dismayed by the Siemian pick that Elway does indeed know how to spot potential:
The Roman Republic issued government contracts to build aquaducts, chariots to publicani (publicly held corporations) who bid on the projects. One publicana had a contract to handle the geese on the capital. Roman publicani could have numerous investors (stockholders), and be run by a few managers. Some employed thousands of workers and had limited liability.
Did the Roman corporations attract a lot of investors, like today' stock market does? Polybius wrote: __ There is scarcely a soul, one might say, who does not have some interest in these contracts and the profits which are derived from them. __ Polybius, Histories IV, circa 170 BC
Somebody lied to you, Silentcoder. A lie big enough that one must rewrite thousands of years of history to believe it.
> Most people told me that what I had already invented, built, and sold was unfeasible.
I've owned a few companies built aroundv things I created, one that did over a million dollars in sales.
Later, I found out that I didn't own an investable business as much as I owned my JOB. My creations paid my bills for 15 years. I worked, I took home a paycheck. The question for an investor is: If I give you a million dollars today, can I reasonably expect to get back $200,000 each year for a few years, then also get my million dollars back within five years?
The long term average in a broad-based, fairly safe mutual fund is about 9%, and you can get your investment back whenever you want to. For a risky investment in a new business to make sense, it has to offer much better than 9% returns, and the ability to get your principal back in a reasonable time frame.
Also, to "go big", I learned, you'll have much higher costs than you have as a hobby/small business. You'll need to put 25%-50% of the retail price into sales and marketing, another big chunk into taxes, admin staff, regulatory compliance, insurance, etc. So something that costs $100 to make and sells for $200 isn't viable on a large scale - to sell a shitload of them at $200 each, your marketing expenses will be at least $70 each, often more if you're going through a retailer. To go big, the item that sells for $200 better not cost more than $40-$50 to produce.
What I owned was a decent job for myself, but not a feasible investment for an investor who could instead make 9% in a much more diversified, and therefore much safer, investment. I wonder if your situation may have been similar.
> The only thing I can read from this is that in order to meet CBS/Viacom/Paramount requirements, it can't retain any of the Star Trek elements we'd like to see
Read the actual guidelines rather than reading between the lines of the Slashdot summary. IF you want to use all the Star Trek trademarks and copyright stuff, you're not allowed to dob the following, unless you ask permission first:
Sell tickets Have a long-running TV show with many episodes Buy knock-off costumes (you can make them or buy licensed costumes) Hire professional actors and crew
The guidelines they set out are sufficient that another company isn't allowed to have Star Trek TV show.
In this particular case, actually the guy WAS pocketing the money, which was the biggest issue. You can still make fan fiction if you want, you just can't sell tickets to a professionally-produced full-length feature film starring well-known actors b without getting permission first.
Raising the minimum H1-B salary from $60K to $150K would mean we could still bring in people like like Linus Torvalds or Tim Berners-Lee, who truly can't be found in the US. People who are truly special. A $150K minimum would eliminate the issue ofb replacing US workers with cheaper imports.
For 2017, there are regular 65,000 H1-Bs, plus 20,000 reserved for graduating students only. If graduating students are given preference for those 65,000, they'll maybe 50,000 of them. That leaves only 15K for imported workers, instead of 65K.
So yeah, it ends up meaning you have to get a degree in the US in order to have a reasonable chance of getting an H1-B.
Further reforms, like doubling the minimum H1-Bb salary, would help ensure those 15K imported workers are people you really can't find in the US, like Linus Torvalds or Tim Berners-Lee.
> On trade, what if trade-wars start and it becomes clear after a while those wars are hurting our economy? Will he back down, or double down?
We've seen in the campaign, he doesn't tend to back down.
> And what will he do if Russia invades more territory? If he keeps ignoring it, we may get Soviet Union 2.0. Those were scary days with too many close calls; we don't want them back.
Same - he doesn't back down.
In some situations, this tendency to double-down rather than back down could lead to some "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" moments. (That was considered very inflammatory by foreign policy people at the time). It may also result in "Mr. Pieto, pay for this wall!", which would be a facepalm.
When Hillary gets a quarter million dollars from one Wall Street bank, another quarter million from another bank, and half a million from Time Warner, she depends on those donations. When Trump (worth $4.5 BILLION) gets $500, that's like you and I finding a nickel. He doesn't give a shit about $500.
Yes, laws were indeed made so that a corporation itself could be sued, rather than trying to prove which individual employee was responsible and trying to recover from that person. Specifically, this occurred during the reign of Justinian the Great, around 534 AD.
Trump is certainly *different* from previous Presidents and major candidates in important ways. Some good differences, some bad, and some with both good and bad aspects. We'll see what happens. I've been wrong when I predicted what Obama and Bush Jrs presidencies would be like, so I'm not going to try to predict Trump - we just have to wait and see.
Bad includes his seemingly impulsive Twitter comments to "fight back" against criticism. He probably should have ignored Meryl Streep, for example.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
We'll just see where the roulette ball lands. I'll oppose any bad policies he proposes and support any good ones.
If a president-elect dies AFTER the electoral college, the VP becomes president and picks a new VP who is confirmed by Congress.
On the other hand, if the president-elect were to die between election Tuesday and the electoral college, things get much more interesting. The electoral college would choose (at least initially) but state laws limit their choices. State laws which bind electors but don't account for death make it tricky. Likely, the VP-elect would become president (Pence in this case), and the LOSING VP candidate (Tim Kaine) would become VP. http://presidentelect.org/art_...
Slashdot Mirror
If you go a bit beyond the corporate-mandated annual security training, most information security curriculum says that step one is identifying the assets at risk and their value. It would be silly to spend $50,000 turning your garage into a vault to protect a $15,000 car, and similarly for information security the value of the asset determines the maximum effort you should put into protecting it. This not only avoids wasting more time/money/hassle than the asset is worth, but it allows you to spend your efforts on the most valuable assets. Any time/money spent on a low-value asset is time NOT spent protecting a higher-value asset.
The identity of your favorite gaming site is worth about 5 cents US, so it is error to spend more than 5 cents worth of time trying to protect that information.
Additionally, in most cases it is better to protect and encrypt data on a per-account basis, for both technical and practical reasons. On a laptop, that means you encrypt the home directory, not the system. Multiple user logins have separate encryption, and one account can't access the encrypted files of another account. If you want to take it a step further, you can have a work account on the machine and a separate account for checking personal email, etc. Along with the obvious security benefits, that avoids having the browser or search engine auto-complete a URL based on *personal* browsing history in the middle of a presentation.
Given per-account security, a guest account with restrictions on it is quite feasible, and a theif would likely click the guest account.
In many cases, it is better to encrypt files for each account separately, rather than full-disk encryption. This is partly because most full-disk encryption sucks in one of two ways. (Google "ecb penguin" for an example.)
Along with avoiding technical problems with full-disk encryption modes, this improves security because the user of one account can't access files owned (and encrypted) by another account. You can even have a "guest" account for a houseguest to use, and guest can't access your files.
Since you have a guest account anyway, the guest account might also be configured appropriately given the knowledge that a thief might one day use it.
> I taught myself PHP
That's awesome. I respect anyone who has the desire to learn, the puts in the work, and has the discipline to see it through.
PHP is of course a language, a set of vocabulary. At the back of any textbook, you'll find a glossary, the language or vocabulary used in the book. You've already learned the language, the glossary, of PHP programming. If you look, you may find there's a lot of cool stuff in the other parts of the book, systems architecture stuff, software engineering, analysis of algorithms, etc.
You need to learn a programming language or two before you learn analysis of algorithms or software engineering, because the languages are the vocabulary words of the field.
To give a concrete example, when I started my current job, the company had a software system that worked - mostly. A team programmers had worked several years on it, and all knew the language they were working in. Customers just wanted it to be faster. It was definitely too slow. Although it was my first month on the job, when I heard the complaints of slowness I said in a meeting "I'd like to take a look at that; I can probably make it 20%-30% faster easily enough for now, then do more after I understand how it all works." The team was rather skeptical, in fact they chuckled out loud at my claim, saying "I rather doubt you can do that". "How long do you think that'll take?", they asked. "Give me a week", I said, though I hadn't yet seen the code. They laughed again, hundreds of thousands of lines of code and this new guy was going to make it 20%-40% faster in a WEEK? Doubtful, they said. To put me in my place, they said "sure, go ahead and try that [wiseguy]."
As I left the meeting I realized I had just taken a big risk. When I went home I told my wife that I had just bet my reputation at the new job on a claim I only hoped I could fulfill. If I failed, it would establish that I'm an arrogant prick. If I succeeded, I'd be known as possibly the best programmer in the building.
Well a week later I had it running 30% faster. Why could I, in a week, make drastic improvements to code they'd been trying to speed up for months and years, code I'd never even seen before? They all knew the language almost as good as I did. But I had been taught to study much more than the language. They knew C, Perl, and Erlang; I knew algorithms and cache theory. So in a week I did in fact make major improvements to their years of work.
Now, I'm going to go upstairs and check the progress of my benchmark. Now six months into the job, a major customer again complained about slowness, so I've been looking at that for a few days. I hope to see that my three day's work has made the system another 20% faster. I'm a tad nervous because I need to impress the new boss, I think that by learning more than just the language (glossary terms) I'll be able to do that.
Av handheld laser cutter sounds fun. You could use it to cut a mount for itself, to mount it to a shark's head.
Interesting
It is perhaps worth noting that the guidelines are an additional grant of license by Paramount / CBS. People who want to do something outside of those guidelines can still ask permission, and I suspect it would be granted if it were in the same spirit as what the guidelines envision.
Of course, people can also still make Fair Use works, and "not for profit" gets you halfway to fair use.
> Star Trek Continues also violates the guidelines, but I have a hard time seeing how their copyright infringement is harmful to CBS/Paramount in any significant way.
It appears CBS and Paramount may agree with you - they haven't taken any enforcement action against Star Trek Continues, as far as I know.
I don't think CBS and Paramount could announce a policy of allowing "non-profit" use with professional cast and crew. They can be forced to honor whatever policy they publish, and a producer could pay himself a salary of $1 million. No "profit", that's his salary as professional producer.
The hardware is vastly different between the Arduino and the Pi, but in neither instance is the hardware the point. The point is all the community and everything which makes them easy to use, even for hobbyists.
At work we had a "show and tell" type event for a while. One guy brought his RPi, which he had hooked up to some triacs (think relays) to allow it to turn 120V devices on and off. I shared that I had built almost exactly the same thing with an Arduino. (I had also done the same with an old Pentium I got from the scrap pile). So same project, he used an RPi, I used an Arduino.
I'm not the only person who owns both RPi and Arduino - they attract some of the same buyers and community members. Sometimes when thinking about a project, I'm not sure at first if I want to do it with the Arduino or with the Pi. The Arduino probably *could* handle it, but there wouldn't be room left to add features later. So this Arduino I have right here and this Pi I have in this red case directly compete for my projects, even though the hardware is vastly different.
I was walking while typing. 390K of course.
> H-1b holders at 1 million+
The annual cap on H1-Bs is 65,000 and they are valid for six years max. If everyone with an H1-B stays the full six years, that would be 360,000 total.
> after it made a hole in his desk
> Still, what possesses a man to say "This thing cannot possibly work" after having seen it work?
The same thing that possesses a man to destroy his potential investor's furniture? ;) LOL
Seriously, I can only imagine your face when he said that.
That reminds me of John Elway on Trevor Siemian. Siemian was the last quarterback drafted that year. He had already lined up a job in real estate because he figured he might not be drafted - he wasn't that good. Fans were surprised and a bit dismayed when Elway drafted him for the Broncos, who were a powerful team -they won the Superbowl that year. Elway said Siemian "has potential".
It turns out that in his first year as a starter Siemian had a an 18-10 touchdown-to-interception ratio and an 84.6 passer rating, both stats better than Peyton Manning and Brock Osweiler in the previous Superbowl-winning season.
Elway later reminded one fan who had been dismayed by the Siemian pick that Elway does indeed know how to spot potential:
http://www.si.com/extra-mustar...
The Roman Republic issued government contracts to build aquaducts, chariots to publicani (publicly held corporations) who bid on the projects. One publicana had a contract to handle the geese on the capital. Roman publicani could have numerous investors (stockholders), and be run by a few managers. Some employed thousands of workers and had limited liability.
Did the Roman corporations attract a lot of investors, like today' stock market does? Polybius wrote:
__
There is scarcely a soul, one might say, who does not have some interest in these contracts and the profits which are derived from them.
__
Polybius, Histories IV, circa 170 BC
Somebody lied to you, Silentcoder. A lie big enough that one must rewrite thousands of years of history to believe it.
I feel for you, that sucks. Having said that:
> Most people told me that what I had already invented, built, and sold was unfeasible.
I've owned a few companies built aroundv things I created, one that did over a million dollars in sales.
Later, I found out that I didn't own an investable business as much as I owned my JOB. My creations paid my bills for 15 years. I worked, I took home a paycheck. The question for an investor is:
If I give you a million dollars today, can I reasonably expect to get back $200,000 each year for a few years, then also get my million dollars back within five years?
The long term average in a broad-based, fairly safe mutual fund is about 9%, and you can get your investment back whenever you want to. For a risky investment in a new business to make sense, it has to offer much better than 9% returns, and the ability to get your principal back in a reasonable time frame.
Also, to "go big", I learned, you'll have much higher costs than you have as a hobby/small business. You'll need to put 25%-50% of the retail price into sales and marketing, another big chunk into taxes, admin staff, regulatory compliance, insurance, etc. So something that costs $100 to make and sells for $200 isn't viable on a large scale - to sell a shitload of them at $200 each, your marketing expenses will be at least $70 each, often more if you're going through a retailer. To go big, the item that sells for $200 better not cost more than $40-$50 to produce.
What I owned was a decent job for myself, but not a feasible investment for an investor who could instead make 9% in a much more diversified, and therefore much safer, investment. I wonder if your situation may have been similar.
> The only thing I can read from this is that in order to meet CBS/Viacom/Paramount requirements, it can't retain any of the Star Trek elements we'd like to see
Read the actual guidelines rather than reading between the lines of the Slashdot summary. IF you want to use all the Star Trek trademarks and copyright stuff, you're not allowed to dob the following, unless you ask permission first:
Sell tickets
Have a long-running TV show with many episodes
Buy knock-off costumes (you can make them or buy licensed costumes)
Hire professional actors and crew
The guidelines they set out are sufficient that another company isn't allowed to have Star Trek TV show.
In this particular case, actually the guy WAS pocketing the money, which was the biggest issue. You can still make fan fiction if you want, you just can't sell tickets to a professionally-produced full-length feature film starring well-known actors b without getting permission first.
Raising the minimum H1-B salary from $60K to $150K would mean we could still bring in people like like Linus Torvalds or Tim Berners-Lee, who truly can't be found in the US. People who are truly special. A $150K minimum would eliminate the issue ofb replacing US workers with cheaper imports.
For 2017, there are regular 65,000 H1-Bs, plus 20,000 reserved for graduating students only. If graduating students are given preference for those 65,000, they'll maybe 50,000 of them. That leaves only 15K for imported workers, instead of 65K.
So yeah, it ends up meaning you have to get a degree in the US in order to have a reasonable chance of getting an H1-B.
Further reforms, like doubling the minimum H1-Bb salary, would help ensure those 15K imported workers are people you really can't find in the US, like Linus Torvalds or Tim Berners-Lee.
> On trade, what if trade-wars start and it becomes clear after a while those wars are hurting our economy? Will he back down, or double down?
We've seen in the campaign, he doesn't tend to back down.
> And what will he do if Russia invades more territory? If he keeps ignoring it, we may get Soviet Union 2.0. Those were scary days with too many close calls; we don't want them back.
Same - he doesn't back down.
In some situations, this tendency to double-down rather than back down could lead to some "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" moments. (That was considered very inflammatory by foreign policy people at the time). It may also result in "Mr. Pieto, pay for this wall!", which would be a facepalm.
Let me preface this by saying I voted against Trump, twice.
Yes, Trump's companies have mortgages on the buildings. Which is why he's not worth $25 billion or whatever, just $4.5 billion (Forbes 2016).
I'd much rather someone own a building that has mortgage payments than be owned by lobbyists. Just sayin.
Certainly yes, Trump, like anyone, would tend to feel more friendly toward someone who offered him some small token.
Which is different from being dependent on a bank that gave Hillary (and other career politicians) hundreds of thousands of dollars.
When Hillary gets a quarter million dollars from one Wall Street bank, another quarter million from another bank, and half a million from Time Warner, she depends on those donations. When Trump (worth $4.5 BILLION) gets $500, that's like you and I finding a nickel. He doesn't give a shit about $500.
Yes, laws were indeed made so that a corporation itself could be sued, rather than trying to prove which individual employee was responsible and trying to recover from that person. Specifically, this occurred during the reign of Justinian the Great, around 534 AD.
Trump is certainly *different* from previous Presidents and major candidates in important ways. Some good differences, some bad, and some with both good and bad aspects. We'll see what happens. I've been wrong when I predicted what Obama and Bush Jrs presidencies would be like, so I'm not going to try to predict Trump - we just have to wait and see.
Bad includes his seemingly impulsive Twitter comments to "fight back" against criticism. He probably should have ignored Meryl Streep, for example.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
We'll just see where the roulette ball lands. I'll oppose any bad policies he proposes and support any good ones.
If a president-elect dies AFTER the electoral college, the VP becomes president and picks a new VP who is confirmed by Congress.
On the other hand, if the president-elect were to die between election Tuesday and the electoral college, things get much more interesting. The electoral college would choose (at least initially) but state laws limit their choices. State laws which bind electors but don't account for death make it tricky. Likely, the VP-elect would become president (Pence in this case), and the LOSING VP candidate (Tim Kaine) would become VP.
http://presidentelect.org/art_...
> If he gets our soldiers killed or sells us out, it's because SHE'S sleazy scumbag.
FTFY
Trump wouldn't have been elected if the Dems hadn't nominated Cruella de Vil.