So what you're saying is that a vehicle that is optimum to drive up a snowy mountain in Colorado is different than one optimized for cruising Miami Beach, right? So to some extent, it kinda makes sense to have different cars for different states?
On the other hand, the treatment for a broken leg in Colorado is exactly the same as the treatment for a broken leg in Florida, so prohibiting people in Colorado from choosing health insurance from a company in Florida is utterly ridiculous on its face?
> Trading across state lines won't help, it becomes a race to the bottom
Exactly. That's why each state has to have separate car companies, separate food companies, separate smartphone manufacturers - and separate insurance companies.
If you let people in Oregon buy a phone made in California, or a truck made in Texas, or fruit grown in Florida, you know it'll be garbage.
I say people should only be allowed to do business with companies in the same state, to avoid this race to the bottom. The fabulous success of this policy for health insurance demonstrates why we should do the same thing for all products and services.
I owned my job and/or company for over 20 years. Wow it's so nice to have OTHER PEOPLE, competent marketing professionals, doing the marketing now, so that I make a lot more money. It's so much less stress to let the accounting department handle the tax stuff, while I do what I'm good at.
Self-employed professionals have to file taxes at least six times per year. I did that for many years. Screw that. Not anymore.
Btw, if you hear the rumors that are going around out in California, talking about the high-paying jobs and low cost of living in Texas, thry aren't true. There on the coast, you may hear of people who just graduated with IT degrees who can easily afford a 2,000 square foot house. It's not true, thing are way better in California, so stay there. Texas is actually nothing but proletarianization.
" Any readers who have never used the word "proletarianization" as an excuse are welcome to contact me - we're hiring.
The CAN-SPAM act doesn't make unsolicited messages unlawful. So still just rude, not illegal.
Except, perhaps, for the "unsubscribe" requirement of CAN-SPAM.
Then you have the question of whether an eBay message is within the scope of the Act. To be applicable, the message must sent to an "electronic mail address":
(5) Electronic mail address The term âoeelectronic mail addressâ means a destination, commonly expressed as a string of characters, consisting of a unique user name or mailbox (commonly referred to as the âoelocal partâ) and a reference to an Internet domain (commonly referred to as the âoedomain partâ), whether or not displayed, to which an electronic mail message can be sent or delivered. (6) Electronic mail message The term âoeelectronic mail messageâ means a message sent to a unique electronic mail address.
All it can do is follow, it can't drive autonomously. It's a trailer, with an electronic hitch.
Other programs in development have significant autonomy. Those will, as you said, require a lot of attention to security. Fortunately, I've noticed a lot of the recruiting for security expertise comes is from companies with military contracts. Some of them, like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, are taking it very seriously.
I'd be interested to read the suit to see exactly which law eBay is cutting to make this unlawful.
You mentioned "so shut down their accounts". Perhaps after eBay shut down the accounts for this reason and notified them, they kept setting up new accounts with fraudulent info. In a way that's reminiscent of trespassing, I suppose. A store can kick you out, providing clear notice, and coming back in after receiving notice is trespassing.
-- IT is an essential need that's constantly getting screwed by C-level decision-making reducing benefits, lengthening hours and generally ensuring we're moving closer to wage-slavery with each passing month. --
You sound like the kind of person I'd LOVE to work with! Looking for a job?
In the original Star Wars, Obi-Wan, R2, and C3PO are sneaking through the city when they are stopped by Storm Troopers who are looking for them. The lead Storm Trooper demands to see identification (just as an openssh server would). Obi-Wan responds "you don't need to see his identification". Unprepared for this response, the lead Storm Trooper takes it at face value and announces to the others "we don't need to see his identification".
The next line has become a meme, "there aren't the droids you're looking for".
I "know* that I suck at UI/UX. I've been programming for 20 years, and actively studying programming the whole time, so I can generally add a feature or option I want very quickly - sometimes in a matter of minutes. The UI for the new option will be another checkbox or whatever. I'm not improving the UI overall, and hopefully not making it significantly worse.
So I spent 30 minutes and got the feature, fix, or option that I need. I suck at UI, but I don't suck badly enough that I then hire a *competent* professional to make the one part of the UX better for me. It does what I need it to do, the value prop isn't there for me to spend $10,000 getting the UI improved.
There is something else going on. My last job was working full time on an open source project. I sent most of my work upstream. Our organization also had some graphics arts and UI types that made it look pretty after I was done. To my knowledge, it never occurred to them to contribute their work back to the project. Contributing to open source just isn't something they think about. Programmers know about open source. In college and early in our careers we're told that contributing to open source can be a resume builder. Are UI folks told that? Is there an awareness of open source?
> Microsoft... tried to represent the best interest of the users
How exactly is killing DNT in the best interest of the users? What exactly did they accomplish that is in your best interest?
There was 0% chance that Google and all the other advertisers would stop tracking anyone by default. You can say they "should", fine whatever, that wasn't going to happen, not remotely possible.
What the advertisers had agreed to do was not track users who had explicitly chosen that, with the standard explicitly saying it cannot be the default for a general-purpose browser. Therefore by obscuring who had actively made that choice, the only effect of Microsoft's move was to hasten the death of DNT. I don't see how that's good for users.
Unfortunately, the full license says "you may use, modify, and distribute MongoDB without buying a license if you comply with the terms..."
If you can't comply with the terms, you have no license to the software.
Imagine I say to you "you can have all the money in my bank account if you take me to the moon". That's a condition you can't meet. You can't to take me to the moon, so therefore you can't have all my money. Your inability to take me to the moon does NOT mean you get all my money without meeting the condition.
You can: Comply with what we think they MEANT to say (risk here) Buy a license Not use MongoDB
The major advertisers had agreed to follow the standard. Then Microsoft quickly killed any chance of that happening by violating the standard in their browser. The agreement was that users could actively choose send DNT, selecting privacy over customization.
Microsoft made it the *default* setting, so a DNT header was sent for everyone, though most people have never heard of it. There is no chance that sites would a) degrade their site and b) lose money, by default, for every Windows user. Once Microsoft did that, the only reasonable thing for sites to do was ignore it.
Had Microsoft NOT violated the standard by setting it as the default, there would at least be a chance the the advertisers would have respected it for the small percentage of users who actively made that decision.
If your service is nothing more than just MongoDB, with backups provided, than yes you have to either comply by releasing your backup script, or buy a MongoDB license.
If your service is something other than just a cloud database, and specifically if it doesn't allow users direct access to the database, it's not intended to apply to you.
Just prior to the part you quoted, it tells WHO it applies to. It applies to people who use it to offer a cloud database service. It doesn't apply to those who offer a different service, which happens to use the database.
The new Section 13 of the SSPL reads as follows:
âoeIf you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Software or modified version.
âoeService Source Codeâ means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.â
Btw, here we can apply a useful principle called Occam's razor.
Suppose we notice what sounds like rain on the rooftop. We notice also the the window has drops of water on it. Thirdly, we notice that the weather radar shows rain clouds over our location.
Here's is a possible set of explanations: Perhaps someone is playing a recording of rain on a rooftop. And someone used a spray bottle to wet the windows. And we're accidentally watching a recording of last week's weather radar.
Or: It's frigging raining!
Intuitively we know which explanation is most likely. Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely. This is because the alternative requires three separate things to be true simultaneously; the odds of that are (probability of a) X (probability of b) X (probability of c).
We can apply Occam's razor here. Early Christians wrote about (and preached about) the crucifixion of Jesus.
Roman leaders and scribes wrote from detached perspective of his crucifixion as an interesting news event in the Roman empire.
Jewish leaders wrote of their victory in crucifying the bastard heretic Jesus.
Nobody suggested that he wasn't crucified.
You can come up with different elaborate theories for each of those. The simplest and most likely reason for everyone, from every side, talking about his crucifixion is:
We know that Roman leaders like Pliny and Tacitus wrote of the disgusting Christians and of Jesus, "their so-called Christ".
We have non-Christian Jewish writers like Flavius Josephus criticizing him.
In a province under Roman rule, where being Jewish was most definitely considered a bad thing, we have Roman records of putting people to death because they wouldn't retract their claims to have known JEWISH king of Kings.
We have Tacitus, a Senator of Rome and no friend of Christians or Jews, writing about the crucifixion of Jesus.
What we DON'T see in any writings for almost 2,000 is anyone ever questioning his existence. People called him a bastard and said all kinds of things about him, but it wasn't until the 20th century that anyone voiced the notion that that it could be possible he didn't exist. Contrast this with denial of such well-documented events as the Holocaust. Within just a few years you had people saying the Holocaust never happened. That didn't happen with Jesus. His enemies called him every name in the book, but to pretend he didn't exist would be ridiculous, it would make them look like utter fools, or insane.
Slashdot Mirror
The acting CIO, Jun Yung, actually has multiple federal charges. He's already done some jail time, and he's going to prison.
Funny how making shit up that is the opposite of the actual facts gets modded +4. People sure do enjoy being jealous of the boss.
The acting CIO has multiple federal charges. He's already done some jail time, and he's going to prison.
So what you're saying is that a vehicle that is optimum to drive up a snowy mountain in Colorado is different than one optimized for cruising Miami Beach, right? So to some extent, it kinda makes sense to have different cars for different states?
On the other hand, the treatment for a broken leg in Colorado is exactly the same as the treatment for a broken leg in Florida, so prohibiting people in Colorado from choosing health insurance from a company in Florida is utterly ridiculous on its face?
> Trading across state lines won't help, it becomes a race to the bottom
Exactly. That's why each state has to have separate car companies, separate food companies, separate smartphone manufacturers - and separate insurance companies.
If you let people in Oregon buy a phone made in California, or a truck made in Texas, or fruit grown in Florida, you know it'll be garbage.
I say people should only be allowed to do business with companies in the same state, to avoid this race to the bottom. The fabulous success of this policy for health insurance demonstrates why we should do the same thing for all products and services.
I owned my job and/or company for over 20 years.
Wow it's so nice to have OTHER PEOPLE, competent marketing professionals, doing the marketing now, so that I make a lot more money. It's so much less stress to let the accounting department handle the tax stuff, while I do what I'm good at.
Self-employed professionals have to file taxes at least six times per year. I did that for many years. Screw that. Not anymore.
Do you have to fly much, perhaps for business?
If so, I'll just leave these statements alone and let you think these things if you want to:
--
1. They do not turn on autopilot on a 12 hour flight and go to schmooze with the hot flight attendants.
2. takeoff and landing, but pilots do this manually. Just like Tesla.
3. Like autopilot, it can help you avoid impacts... warn the pilot of impending crashes ("Pull up!", "Terrain").
--
You're batting zero for three so far. This is fun, want to guess some more?
You're right.
Btw, if you hear the rumors that are going around out in California, talking about the high-paying jobs and low cost of living in Texas, thry aren't true. There on the coast, you may hear of people who just graduated with IT degrees who can easily afford a 2,000 square foot house. It's not true, thing are way better in California, so stay there. Texas is actually nothing but proletarianization.
" Any readers who have never used the word "proletarianization" as an excuse are welcome to contact me - we're hiring.
The CAN-SPAM act doesn't make unsolicited messages unlawful. So still just rude, not illegal.
Except, perhaps, for the "unsubscribe" requirement of CAN-SPAM.
Then you have the question of whether an eBay message is within the scope of the Act. To be applicable, the message must sent to an "electronic mail address":
(5) Electronic mail address
The term âoeelectronic mail addressâ means a destination, commonly expressed as a string of characters, consisting of a unique user name or mailbox (commonly referred to as the âoelocal partâ) and a reference to an Internet domain (commonly referred to as the âoedomain partâ), whether or not displayed, to which an electronic mail message can be sent or delivered.
(6) Electronic mail message
The term âoeelectronic mail messageâ means a message sent to a unique electronic mail address.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
All it can do is follow, it can't drive autonomously. It's a trailer, with an electronic hitch.
Other programs in development have significant autonomy. Those will, as you said, require a lot of attention to security. Fortunately, I've noticed a lot of the recruiting for security expertise comes is from companies with military contracts. Some of them, like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, are taking it very seriously.
I'd be interested to read the suit to see exactly which law eBay is cutting to make this unlawful.
You mentioned "so shut down their accounts". Perhaps after eBay shut down the accounts for this reason and notified them, they kept setting up new accounts with fraudulent info. In a way that's reminiscent of trespassing, I suppose. A store can kick you out, providing clear notice, and coming back in after receiving notice is trespassing.
--
IT is an essential need that's constantly getting screwed by C-level decision-making reducing benefits, lengthening hours and generally ensuring we're moving closer to wage-slavery with each passing month.
--
You sound like the kind of person I'd LOVE to work with!
Looking for a job?
In the original Star Wars, Obi-Wan, R2, and C3PO are sneaking through the city when they are stopped by Storm Troopers who are looking for them. The lead Storm Trooper demands to see identification (just as an openssh server would). Obi-Wan responds "you don't need to see his identification". Unprepared for this response, the lead Storm Trooper takes it at face value and announces to the others "we don't need to see his identification".
The next line has become a meme, "there aren't the droids you're looking for".
You don't happen to be confusing libssh with openssh, or libssh2 are you?
Shodan shows a few thousand servers in the world using libssh, and half of those aren't vulnerable.
Between the Windows authentication bypass that just came and out (again) and this one, tomorrow is going to be a busy day at work.
I "know* that I suck at UI/UX. I've been programming for 20 years, and actively studying programming the whole time, so I can generally add a feature or option I want very quickly - sometimes in a matter of minutes. The UI for the new option will be another checkbox or whatever. I'm not improving the UI overall, and hopefully not making it significantly worse.
So I spent 30 minutes and got the feature, fix, or option that I need. I suck at UI, but I don't suck badly enough that I then hire a *competent* professional to make the one part of the UX better for me. It does what I need it to do, the value prop isn't there for me to spend $10,000 getting the UI improved.
There is something else going on. My last job was working full time on an open source project. I sent most of my work upstream. Our organization also had some graphics arts and UI types that made it look pretty after I was done. To my knowledge, it never occurred to them to contribute their work back to the project. Contributing to open source just isn't something they think about. Programmers know about open source. In college and early in our careers we're told that contributing to open source can be a resume builder. Are UI folks told that? Is there an awareness of open source?
> Microsoft ... tried to represent the best interest of the users
How exactly is killing DNT in the best interest of the users?
What exactly did they accomplish that is in your best interest?
There was 0% chance that Google and all the other advertisers would stop tracking anyone by default. You can say they "should", fine whatever, that wasn't going to happen, not remotely possible.
What the advertisers had agreed to do was not track users who had explicitly chosen that, with the standard explicitly saying it cannot be the default for a general-purpose browser. Therefore by obscuring who had actively made that choice, the only effect of Microsoft's move was to hasten the death of DNT. I don't see how that's good for users.
I see what you mean. That wording sucks.
Unfortunately, the full license says "you may use, modify, and distribute MongoDB without buying a license if you comply with the terms ..."
If you can't comply with the terms, you have no license to the software.
Imagine I say to you "you can have all the money in my bank account if you take me to the moon". That's a condition you can't meet. You can't to take me to the moon, so therefore you can't have all my money. Your inability to take me to the moon does NOT mean you get all my money without meeting the condition.
You can:
Comply with what we think they MEANT to say (risk here)
Buy a license
Not use MongoDB
The major advertisers had agreed to follow the standard. Then Microsoft quickly killed any chance of that happening by violating the standard in their browser. The agreement was that users could actively choose send DNT, selecting privacy over customization.
Microsoft made it the *default* setting, so a DNT header was sent for everyone, though most people have never heard of it. There is no chance that sites would a) degrade their site and b) lose money, by default, for every Windows user. Once Microsoft did that, the only reasonable thing for sites to do was ignore it.
Had Microsoft NOT violated the standard by setting it as the default, there would at least be a chance the the advertisers would have respected it for the small percentage of users who actively made that decision.
Puck autocorrect!
Especially when you're trying to talk sexy and you end up plucking her fussy.
If your service is nothing more than just MongoDB, with backups provided, than yes you have to either comply by releasing your backup script, or buy a MongoDB license.
If your service is something other than just a cloud database, and specifically if it doesn't allow users direct access to the database, it's not intended to apply to you.
The wording could certainly be better.
Just prior to the part you quoted, it tells WHO it applies to.
It applies to people who use it to offer a cloud database service. It doesn't apply to those who offer a different service, which happens to use the database.
The new Section 13 of the SSPL reads as follows:
âoeIf you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Software or modified version.
âoeService Source Codeâ means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.â
Btw, here we can apply a useful principle called Occam's razor.
Suppose we notice what sounds like rain on the rooftop.
We notice also the the window has drops of water on it.
Thirdly, we notice that the weather radar shows rain clouds over our location.
Here's is a possible set of explanations:
Perhaps someone is playing a recording of rain on a rooftop.
And someone used a spray bottle to wet the windows.
And we're accidentally watching a recording of last week's weather radar.
Or:
It's frigging raining!
Intuitively we know which explanation is most likely.
Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely. This is because the alternative requires three separate things to be true simultaneously; the odds of that are (probability of a) X (probability of b) X (probability of c).
We can apply Occam's razor here.
Early Christians wrote about (and preached about) the crucifixion of Jesus.
Roman leaders and scribes wrote from detached perspective of his crucifixion as an interesting news event in the Roman empire.
Jewish leaders wrote of their victory in crucifying the bastard heretic Jesus.
Nobody suggested that he wasn't crucified.
You can come up with different elaborate theories for each of those. The simplest and most likely reason for everyone, from every side, talking about his crucifixion is:
He was crucified.
We know that Roman leaders like Pliny and Tacitus wrote of the disgusting Christians and of Jesus, "their so-called Christ".
We have non-Christian Jewish writers like Flavius Josephus criticizing him.
In a province under Roman rule, where being Jewish was most definitely considered a bad thing, we have Roman records of putting people to death because they wouldn't retract their claims to have known JEWISH king of Kings.
We have Tacitus, a Senator of Rome and no friend of Christians or Jews, writing about the crucifixion of Jesus.
What we DON'T see in any writings for almost 2,000 is anyone ever questioning his existence. People called him a bastard and said all kinds of things about him, but it wasn't until the 20th century that anyone voiced the notion that that it could be possible he didn't exist. Contrast this with denial of such well-documented events as the Holocaust. Within just a few years you had people saying the Holocaust never happened. That didn't happen with Jesus. His enemies called him every name in the book, but to pretend he didn't exist would be ridiculous, it would make them look like utter fools, or insane.
I had a typo. That should say "coveting your neighbor's wife" my lead to injury.
Anyway, the point is Jesus was asked directly if the disability was causes by sin, and he said no, it's not.