They aren't a problem in the long-term evolutionary sense, but that offers little consolation to farmers who would loose half their crop due to cross pollination because their neighbors planted terminator seeds the year before.
Sorry after rereading, I realize I worded that very poorly. The problem with terminator seeds is the fact that they still produce pollen and can cross-pollinate with other crops. If Monsanto were to develop plants which did not produce pollen, and were sterile, then other farmers wouldn't have reason to be concerned.
This is the problem. If Monsanto would have developed sterile or seedless plants then I don't think anyone would have been complaining. It was the fact that they developed fertile plants which then sterilize themselves (and any other non-Monsanto plants nearby) through the process of fertilization, that made it a horrible, horrible idea.
Motorola's actions have not been Fair, Reasonable, nor Non Discriminatory. They have targeted specific companies (that's discriminatory)
I haven't read anything about Motorola targeting specific companies. The only other company that I have heard speak out is Microsoft, and according to them they have been paying Motorola the same fees that Motorola has been asking of Apple. The rates may be unreasonable, but they are not discriminatory.
About 24% of changes are the result of people who have not declared an association with any company, and there is a very long tail of companies that have small changes, so while the top 5 corporate contributers are fairly consistent, the top 20 varies significantly from release to release.
In this case, these drivers have been 2.5 years in the making. They had been held out of the kernel for that time because their quality wasn't up-to-par before finally being approved. The metric used in this report basically comes down to git commits, and includes all the commits that were made in private git branches before being folded into the mainline kernel. So Microsoft has 2.5 years worth of work on Hyper-V credited to them during the 6 months in question, which amounts to 1% of the changes in that time period. It is a one-time blip, and not indicative of a trend.
No version of windows ever ran on an 8-bit processor. Windows 1.0-3.0 would run on an 8086, but that is still 16-bit, and Windows 3.1 won't even run on that, it needs a 286 or higher.
If you regularly swap out sims between phones (not just when you replace a phone) having the contacts on the SIM is very convenient, and infinitely more reliable that trying to perform an N-directional sync using SyncML.
Also every single one of the Smart Phone OSs have decided to abandon SyncML, and the alternatives they offer all involve various cloud services. Even if I was okay with storing that information in the cloud (which I am not), it doesn't help me, because my 10+ years of backup contact info isn't on the cloud right now, it's on my computer.
Note the "proper, full-featured" part of the post. All SIM have had basic support for contacts, but the standard is missing many important features that all phones today use (like a single contact having multiple numbers ). They also have very low limits on the number of contacts you can store.
Sure the terms of service specifically state that you must use your real name in your G+ profile and there is documented evidence of Google shutting down G+ accounts due to fake names, and Google has stated in public that they will start allowing pseudonyms but only if they are already well-established. But I managed to use a fake name without getting caught so it must all be a bunch of blogosphere hype.
The AC pointed out how litigatous the Scientologist and LDS Churches get when their secret texts are distributed to the general public. But even mainstream religions get in on copyright as well. For example the most commonly used English translations of the Bible are protected under copyright law, for some and this copyright is rigorously enforced.
They only published their results after people outside of the group found out about it and started talking about it. At that point publishing was the best thing to do. Unless Ereditato was the one who leaked the information outside of the group, then I don't see any reason to fault him.
The original paper had over a hundred co-authors listed, and I have only heard of 5 people in the entire project that asked to not have their name listed. If the director should resign over this, then why shouldn't the 100+ other people who were confident enough to put their name on the paper?
This is stupid. They did nothing wrong, there is no reason for anyone to resign.
Here is the actual study and is annoyingly light on details to help answer that question. The total number includes people diagnosed with Autistic Disorder, Aspergers, or Pervasive Developmental Disorder–Not Otherwise Specified. They have tables that slice and dice the data between gender, ethnicity, locality, IQ, and other factors, but nowhere in the paper do the say what the split between these categories is. The closest is a table that shows how many people were diagnosed before the age of 8.
If the increase is largely in Aspergers, the I would expect that it is mostly due to increased diagnosis, since it didn't didn't even have an official diagnosis standard until the early 90's and didn't enter into mainstream awareness till about a decade later.
Without this information I have no idea how to react. If we are seeing a huge increase in the number of people with low functioning Autism, that is a cause for alarm. If we are mostly seeing an increase in the number of people with Aspergers, then that's a good thing, because it means that more people with Aspergers are receiving information that can help them live their lives better, and there isn't much to be concerned about.
Just because you let Google handle the login doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past.
The only situation where that is true is where you previously provided them an email that was already associated with a social networking account (like GMail is). You could avoid providing Gawker with information about your social networking account by using an unrelated email account. No you know longer have that option. You must authenticate using some method which tells Gawker the account you use for social networking. And this is useful information to them. Gawker advertizes on Facebook, this indirectly gives them access to demographics information about the accounts they are advertizing to, which they can now link with Gawker accounts.
All this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target,
Except research is showing that outsourcing this task is more difficult than people think. Sites that do so are more likely to make a mistake that results in a data breech than those who use their own in-house authentication. Any sort of cross-site integration is tricky from a security point of view, and this is no exception. They haven't made things more secure, they have just introduced another point of failure.
I would have voted against this amendment, and I can't think of the last time I voted republican on the national level. Littering bills with special exemptions is a horrible way to write laws, and indicates that the congressmen either haven't given enough thought to the general effects of the bill, or are just doing it for political reasons.
The purpose of this bill is to define processes that the FCC must follow to preserve transparency in their rule making. Now either this bill does "limit or restrict" the FCC's ability to adopt privacy rules or it doesn't. If it doesn't, than this amendment is pointless; it just reasserts one specific power that the FCC already has. It is a feel-good act intended to make people think you are doing something, when all you are in fact doing is complicating the law for no good reason.
If the bill does "limit or restrict" the FCC in beneficial ways like ensuring transparency, then adding special exemptions to bypass that would be a bad idea. Alternately, if the bill "limits or restricts" the FCC in harmful ways, then I doubt that that harm is limited to just this case, and adding band-aid patches for your pet issues isn't going to fix it.
Finally, the FCC is limited to regulating the spectrum and telecommunication industries, so the scope of the amendment would only apply to people hired by "licensees or regulated entities", which only account for a small fraction of the businesses in this country.
If you are going to give this job to a regulatory body the FTC is a much better fit than the FCC. Alternately, you could create a new criminal law, which would then be enforced by the FBI/DOJ. Or you try using existing laws, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or Tortuous interference with a contract, just like Facebook has announced they are willing to do, and only pass new laws if they are inadequate. All of these approaches would make sense, unlike this amendment which is a stupid approach to the problem in every regard.
Yeah, but it's a shame that they agreed not to continue against the IAD. Individual police officers breaking the law isn't a huge threat to society if they are held accountable for it. However, when the IAD, whose entire job is to keep the cops in line, refuses to take legitimate complaints against the police, and the DA turns around and presses charges against anyone who does complain, that is when you know you have big problems. It shows the system is corrupt to the core, not the result of a few bad apples. Without the IAD and DA being held accountable as well there will be no real change, just a few scapegoats.
The only older one available for viewing is the Enterprise*, which was never a functional shuttle. It never had any of the engine components, or thermal tiles. Much of the electronics and other interior finishing were never installed, and the few useful pieces of equipment that were installed were later removed as spare parts for the actual shuttle fleet. It truly was an empty shell.
These should be quite a bit better than that, even after removing much of the guts.
*Or it could have been one of the mockups, like Explorer.
Reading the article it sounds more like it was considered easier/cheaper/less risky to just discard all the components that had touched any toxic/caustic liquids rather than clean and preserve them.
At this location, the retired former Shuttle Program manager Wayne Hale encountered the extracted tanks that made up the innards of the systems, cut up and lying in the dirt.
There were a few exceptions like the engines which were scavenged for use with STS (like that will ever actually happen), and other deconstruction to learn about the effects of 15 years of space flight (that is worthwhile).
Blackboard is one of those products where the idea is great but the execution is horrible. Compared to having to maintain a website themselves, it is a huge step forward for teachers and students. It enables them to do things that most education IT departments didn't support before, like discussion forums and per-student access permission (for grades, feedback etc). Compared to just about any other popular webapp however, it is complete shit. It is like all those horrible intranet applications sold to business that are completely dependent on plugins just serve static content, require 7 clicks to do something that should require 2, have poor browser support, break when you do normal things like click the back button, and seems to get worse with each new release.
It is easy to reconcile those two ideas. The problem was the asymmetry of the IP protection. If Murdoc was also leaking the encryption keys for his companies, then there wouldn't be an antitrust issue, as both companies would have been competing on the same footing. So a good punitive action is to force him to just that. Cognitive dissonance be gone.
Note that I don't actually think that it is okay to pirate (in most cases), and definitely don't support theft of service. I'm just pointing out that there is more to the issue than IP.
I know this answer is has nothing to do with the civil law question you asked, but I think eye for an eye would be a very appropriate response to the antitrust aspect of their actions. Since it is difficult to gauge the actual level of harm caused by their actions, I think the fairest response is to make them suffer the same fate. If they were leaking this information for X years, rule that all broadcast, satellite and streaming encryption keys for all Murdoc media must be freely available for the next X years.
You misunderstand. Yes, the goal was to get publicity, they are just shocked at how well it worked. Wired, BBC, and many other mainstream media sources fell for it.
Get a video card that supports multiple monitors and hook them to a KVM switch. All the software implementations I have used have been so buggy that I stopped using them after a few weeks.
But to hitch a ride on the Mars cycler you would need to match it's velocity with it at some point on it's orbit. But at that point you have already obtained the correct trajectory to get to Mars anyway, so why do you need the cycler?
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't a problem in the long-term evolutionary sense, but that offers little consolation to farmers who would loose half their crop due to cross pollination because their neighbors planted terminator seeds the year before.
Sorry after rereading, I realize I worded that very poorly. The problem with terminator seeds is the fact that they still produce pollen and can cross-pollinate with other crops. If Monsanto were to develop plants which did not produce pollen, and were sterile, then other farmers wouldn't have reason to be concerned.
Except the DRM can infect other plants.
This is the problem. If Monsanto would have developed sterile or seedless plants then I don't think anyone would have been complaining. It was the fact that they developed fertile plants which then sterilize themselves (and any other non-Monsanto plants nearby) through the process of fertilization, that made it a horrible, horrible idea.
I wouldn't make any decision based on that, as any user can add tags to a story.
Motorola's actions have not been Fair, Reasonable, nor Non Discriminatory. They have targeted specific companies (that's discriminatory)
I haven't read anything about Motorola targeting specific companies. The only other company that I have heard speak out is Microsoft, and according to them they have been paying Motorola the same fees that Motorola has been asking of Apple. The rates may be unreasonable, but they are not discriminatory.
About 24% of changes are the result of people who have not declared an association with any company, and there is a very long tail of companies that have small changes, so while the top 5 corporate contributers are fairly consistent, the top 20 varies significantly from release to release.
In this case, these drivers have been 2.5 years in the making. They had been held out of the kernel for that time because their quality wasn't up-to-par before finally being approved. The metric used in this report basically comes down to git commits, and includes all the commits that were made in private git branches before being folded into the mainline kernel. So Microsoft has 2.5 years worth of work on Hyper-V credited to them during the 6 months in question, which amounts to 1% of the changes in that time period. It is a one-time blip, and not indicative of a trend.
No version of windows ever ran on an 8-bit processor. Windows 1.0-3.0 would run on an 8086, but that is still 16-bit, and Windows 3.1 won't even run on that, it needs a 286 or higher.
If you regularly swap out sims between phones (not just when you replace a phone) having the contacts on the SIM is very convenient, and infinitely more reliable that trying to perform an N-directional sync using SyncML.
Also every single one of the Smart Phone OSs have decided to abandon SyncML, and the alternatives they offer all involve various cloud services. Even if I was okay with storing that information in the cloud (which I am not), it doesn't help me, because my 10+ years of backup contact info isn't on the cloud right now, it's on my computer.
Note the "proper, full-featured" part of the post. All SIM have had basic support for contacts, but the standard is missing many important features that all phones today use (like a single contact having multiple numbers ). They also have very low limits on the number of contacts you can store.
Sure the terms of service specifically state that you must use your real name in your G+ profile and there is documented evidence of Google shutting down G+ accounts due to fake names, and Google has stated in public that they will start allowing pseudonyms but only if they are already well-established. But I managed to use a fake name without getting caught so it must all be a bunch of blogosphere hype.
The AC pointed out how litigatous the Scientologist and LDS Churches get when their secret texts are distributed to the general public. But even mainstream religions get in on copyright as well. For example the most commonly used English translations of the Bible are protected under copyright law, for some and this copyright is rigorously enforced.
They only published their results after people outside of the group found out about it and started talking about it. At that point publishing was the best thing to do. Unless Ereditato was the one who leaked the information outside of the group, then I don't see any reason to fault him.
The original paper had over a hundred co-authors listed, and I have only heard of 5 people in the entire project that asked to not have their name listed. If the director should resign over this, then why shouldn't the 100+ other people who were confident enough to put their name on the paper?
This is stupid. They did nothing wrong, there is no reason for anyone to resign.
Here is the actual study and is annoyingly light on details to help answer that question. The total number includes people diagnosed with Autistic Disorder, Aspergers, or Pervasive Developmental Disorder–Not Otherwise Specified. They have tables that slice and dice the data between gender, ethnicity, locality, IQ, and other factors, but nowhere in the paper do the say what the split between these categories is. The closest is a table that shows how many people were diagnosed before the age of 8.
If the increase is largely in Aspergers, the I would expect that it is mostly due to increased diagnosis, since it didn't didn't even have an official diagnosis standard until the early 90's and didn't enter into mainstream awareness till about a decade later.
Without this information I have no idea how to react. If we are seeing a huge increase in the number of people with low functioning Autism, that is a cause for alarm. If we are mostly seeing an increase in the number of people with Aspergers, then that's a good thing, because it means that more people with Aspergers are receiving information that can help them live their lives better, and there isn't much to be concerned about.
Just because you let Google handle the login doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past.
The only situation where that is true is where you previously provided them an email that was already associated with a social networking account (like GMail is). You could avoid providing Gawker with information about your social networking account by using an unrelated email account. No you know longer have that option. You must authenticate using some method which tells Gawker the account you use for social networking. And this is useful information to them. Gawker advertizes on Facebook, this indirectly gives them access to demographics information about the accounts they are advertizing to, which they can now link with Gawker accounts.
All this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target,
Except research is showing that outsourcing this task is more difficult than people think. Sites that do so are more likely to make a mistake that results in a data breech than those who use their own in-house authentication. Any sort of cross-site integration is tricky from a security point of view, and this is no exception. They haven't made things more secure, they have just introduced another point of failure.
I would have voted against this amendment, and I can't think of the last time I voted republican on the national level. Littering bills with special exemptions is a horrible way to write laws, and indicates that the congressmen either haven't given enough thought to the general effects of the bill, or are just doing it for political reasons.
The purpose of this bill is to define processes that the FCC must follow to preserve transparency in their rule making. Now either this bill does "limit or restrict" the FCC's ability to adopt privacy rules or it doesn't. If it doesn't, than this amendment is pointless; it just reasserts one specific power that the FCC already has. It is a feel-good act intended to make people think you are doing something, when all you are in fact doing is complicating the law for no good reason.
If the bill does "limit or restrict" the FCC in beneficial ways like ensuring transparency, then adding special exemptions to bypass that would be a bad idea. Alternately, if the bill "limits or restricts" the FCC in harmful ways, then I doubt that that harm is limited to just this case, and adding band-aid patches for your pet issues isn't going to fix it.
Finally, the FCC is limited to regulating the spectrum and telecommunication industries, so the scope of the amendment would only apply to people hired by "licensees or regulated entities", which only account for a small fraction of the businesses in this country.
If you are going to give this job to a regulatory body the FTC is a much better fit than the FCC. Alternately, you could create a new criminal law, which would then be enforced by the FBI/DOJ. Or you try using existing laws, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or Tortuous interference with a contract, just like Facebook has announced they are willing to do, and only pass new laws if they are inadequate. All of these approaches would make sense, unlike this amendment which is a stupid approach to the problem in every regard.
Yeah, but it's a shame that they agreed not to continue against the IAD. Individual police officers breaking the law isn't a huge threat to society if they are held accountable for it. However, when the IAD, whose entire job is to keep the cops in line, refuses to take legitimate complaints against the police, and the DA turns around and presses charges against anyone who does complain, that is when you know you have big problems. It shows the system is corrupt to the core, not the result of a few bad apples. Without the IAD and DA being held accountable as well there will be no real change, just a few scapegoats.
The only older one available for viewing is the Enterprise*, which was never a functional shuttle. It never had any of the engine components, or thermal tiles. Much of the electronics and other interior finishing were never installed, and the few useful pieces of equipment that were installed were later removed as spare parts for the actual shuttle fleet. It truly was an empty shell.
These should be quite a bit better than that, even after removing much of the guts.
*Or it could have been one of the mockups, like Explorer.
Reading the article it sounds more like it was considered easier/cheaper/less risky to just discard all the components that had touched any toxic/caustic liquids rather than clean and preserve them.
At this location, the retired former Shuttle Program manager Wayne Hale encountered the extracted tanks that made up the innards of the systems, cut up and lying in the dirt.
There were a few exceptions like the engines which were scavenged for use with STS (like that will ever actually happen), and other deconstruction to learn about the effects of 15 years of space flight (that is worthwhile).
Blackboard is one of those products where the idea is great but the execution is horrible. Compared to having to maintain a website themselves, it is a huge step forward for teachers and students. It enables them to do things that most education IT departments didn't support before, like discussion forums and per-student access permission (for grades, feedback etc). Compared to just about any other popular webapp however, it is complete shit. It is like all those horrible intranet applications sold to business that are completely dependent on plugins just serve static content, require 7 clicks to do something that should require 2, have poor browser support, break when you do normal things like click the back button, and seems to get worse with each new release.
It is easy to reconcile those two ideas. The problem was the asymmetry of the IP protection. If Murdoc was also leaking the encryption keys for his companies, then there wouldn't be an antitrust issue, as both companies would have been competing on the same footing. So a good punitive action is to force him to just that. Cognitive dissonance be gone.
Note that I don't actually think that it is okay to pirate (in most cases), and definitely don't support theft of service. I'm just pointing out that there is more to the issue than IP.
I know this answer is has nothing to do with the civil law question you asked, but I think eye for an eye would be a very appropriate response to the antitrust aspect of their actions. Since it is difficult to gauge the actual level of harm caused by their actions, I think the fairest response is to make them suffer the same fate. If they were leaking this information for X years, rule that all broadcast, satellite and streaming encryption keys for all Murdoc media must be freely available for the next X years.
You misunderstand. Yes, the goal was to get publicity, they are just shocked at how well it worked. Wired, BBC, and many other mainstream media sources fell for it.
Get a video card that supports multiple monitors and hook them to a KVM switch. All the software implementations I have used have been so buggy that I stopped using them after a few weeks.
But to hitch a ride on the Mars cycler you would need to match it's velocity with it at some point on it's orbit. But at that point you have already obtained the correct trajectory to get to Mars anyway, so why do you need the cycler?