Don't distribute copyrighted material on the internet without permission?
When you do, don't purger yourself and destroy the evidence after you receive a subpoena.
When you lose, but there is another offer on the table, seriously consider taking it; particularly if you've puregerred yourself and destroyed evidence.
Don't claim your innocence and disregard your responsibility after you've puregerred yourself and destroyed evidence.
It reads like an ad for Toshiba. The battery life wasn't compared, they performed a test, declared it awful while acknowledging the test was completely unfair and they didn't do the same on the other devices compared. Statements like that in an article are intended to put a bad taste in someones mouth, while its dismissal is intended to imply they are being fair by not using it in the comparison.
Because, point of fact, they do not know how to be responsible with it.
A professors priority is his/her research.
If the professor was held solely responsible for the data in the eyes of the law then there probably would not be an issue. Instead the organization that actually owns the facilities is responsible for it. Professors are employees. I know they don't like to consider themselves as such, but they keep accepting paycheques and using the facilities.
When you are the legal entity responsible for the data you get to draw up the rules. And, while these types of people like to think they are above and beyond rules and regulations the equipment they use is not their personal property. Property purchased, supplied, or on the premises of such an organization is subject to the rules and regulations.
This stuff isn't a game. It's not about building pyramids, pleasing egos, or otherwise.
By the way, being responsible for a couple million dollars / year is jack-squate when you risk significant fines per record per incident; never mind revocation of said grants because of violations.
I have 20 years of IT experience, including bringing a companies into PCI compliance after a breach.
Scanning data, identifying what it contains and locking it down are not difficult tasks. 99% of the data scanned is unlikely to trip false positives and is a complete non-issue. The remaining data can be quickly categorized as likely, or unlikely to be relevant with an appropriate perusal. The remaining data, actual non-compliant data, will consume the most time in dealing with properly.
The first step is to identify who has data that actually meets the qualifications and which has to be dealt with. If you simply ask you -WILL- be lied to.
a) too fucking bad. b) Sign this waver that says you are legally responsible if your repository of data were to contain information such as SSN/Credit Card etc.
I don't get the premise of the article. Scanning for credit card data and SSN is quite easy and simple. It's no more intrusive than a virus scan. Being opened, or closed source doesn't make any bloody difference either.
Intrusion detection systems should also be running and scanning for data that conforms with SSN or creditcard formats.
I was thinking about this. If only the oldest one traveled in space, how many days in space would be required for him to be considered younger than his brother?
You can do IP4 over IP6, it's entirely possible some ISPs are doing it today. It is, however, exceedingly unlikely. There is very little reason to do IP4 over IP6, so why complicate things?
Now, if they are in the stages of rolling out IP6 and have decided to support IP4 only for their customers for a short while when they are getting their internal networks up to IP6 then maybe... and then they could flip the switch and everybody could have IP6 one day.
IP6 is going to be a security nightmare for a while. It really is different when you realize that all machines are potentially routable. Firewalls become -very- important.
With NAT you inherently have rudimentary firewall in place at all times, it takes effort to work around it. With IP6 it's the other way around. You need a real firewall and it takes a bit of effort to get it setup correctly.
(Good news is everybody has the same internal addresses so a firewall can be pre-configured to lock stuff down to the Lan, except for outbound traffic, or specific exceptions.)
The fix is to rotate the windows a few degrees to remove any convergence. The possible damage from this phenomenon is significant: increased chance of skin cancer; burned retinas; severe skin burns; fire; etc.
If you do research into telecommunications you'll find a history of industrial, and political espionage. From bribing telegraph agents, to operators relaying information about companies, and individuals they overheard while providing switching services. I'm sure the operators in the senate provided similar services to their favourite politicians too.
C is like a swiss army knife that can be used to assemble a chainsaw, a sword a lightsaber, etc. You'll have to carve out all the pieces, file them down and put them together yourself, but the swiss army knife will help you a long the way.
I think it's a fools game to pursue Flash on mobile. I think Adobe spent the majority of it's time putzing around with Flash on mobile instead of making it work. I also think they should have created a Flash Mobile flag to indicate if Flash was compatible with a mobile device. The it should otherwise be 100% Flash compatible, but have checks and balances for properly supporting a mobile device.
1 - flag for touched based interface. 2 - flag for bandwidth requirements.
etc.
Then, if Flash content didn't meet those requirements the user would be notified of such. It would create an incentive for the sites to update their Flash projects to be compatible.
But Adobe is too stupid to take the right approach. They think Flash on mobile is -EXCELLENT- and that the rest of the issues aren't their problem.
Here's a general hint: Video mostly works, and the vast majority of Ads work. They don't give a shit about anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Just keep shoving the toothpaste back into the tube
Large pieces of OAK were used, and OAK trees don't grow all that fast.
Bet it has a tag on it that says 'Made in China'.
They are shining an ultraviolet light on the trees, with the gold particles they are glowing red by transforming the ultraviolet to red light.
neat, but kinda useless as ultraviolet is dangerous. (not useless on a small scale; but you can't go and light up a neighbourhood with ultraviolet)
Don't distribute copyrighted material on the internet without permission?
When you do, don't purger yourself and destroy the evidence after you receive a subpoena.
When you lose, but there is another offer on the table, seriously consider taking it; particularly if you've puregerred yourself and destroyed evidence.
Don't claim your innocence and disregard your responsibility after you've puregerred yourself and destroyed evidence.
PEEK, POKE, SYS
Probably a couple others in particular dialects. (LOAD, as implemented on Commodore is an issue as well).
Really, BASIC isn't even close to secure by default.
I limit myself to two bits. A 0 and a 1.
Why would I need 8?
Not really an issue, they were probably the default codes anyway; i mean, why not, that's what they used at the minuteman silos anyway.
Is that what constitutes a review today?
It reads like an ad for Toshiba. The battery life wasn't compared, they performed a test, declared it awful while acknowledging the test was completely unfair and they didn't do the same on the other devices compared. Statements like that in an article are intended to put a bad taste in someones mouth, while its dismissal is intended to imply they are being fair by not using it in the comparison.
Complete lack of professionalism.
Because, point of fact, they do not know how to be responsible with it.
A professors priority is his/her research.
If the professor was held solely responsible for the data in the eyes of the law then there probably would not be an issue. Instead the organization that actually owns the facilities is responsible for it.
Professors are employees. I know they don't like to consider themselves as such, but they keep accepting paycheques and using the facilities.
When you are the legal entity responsible for the data you get to draw up the rules.
And, while these types of people like to think they are above and beyond rules and regulations the equipment they use is not their personal property. Property purchased, supplied, or on the premises of such an organization is subject to the rules and regulations.
This stuff isn't a game. It's not about building pyramids, pleasing egos, or otherwise.
By the way, being responsible for a couple million dollars / year is jack-squate when you risk significant fines per record per incident; never mind revocation of said grants because of violations.
I have 20 years of IT experience, including bringing a companies into PCI compliance after a breach.
Scanning data, identifying what it contains and locking it down are not difficult tasks. 99% of the data scanned is unlikely to trip false positives and is a complete non-issue. The remaining data can be quickly categorized as likely, or unlikely to be relevant with an appropriate perusal. The remaining data, actual non-compliant data, will consume the most time in dealing with properly.
The first step is to identify who has data that actually meets the qualifications and which has to be dealt with. If you simply ask you -WILL- be lied to.
a) too fucking bad.
b) Sign this waver that says you are legally responsible if your repository of data were to contain information such as SSN/Credit Card etc.
I don't get the premise of the article. Scanning for credit card data and SSN is quite easy and simple. It's no more intrusive than a virus scan. Being opened, or closed source doesn't make any bloody difference either.
Intrusion detection systems should also be running and scanning for data that conforms with SSN or creditcard formats.
I was thinking about this. If only the oldest one traveled in space, how many days in space would be required for him to be considered younger than his brother?
No. Not correct. At least, not really.
You can do IP4 over IP6, it's entirely possible some ISPs are doing it today. It is, however, exceedingly unlikely. There is very little reason to do IP4 over IP6, so why complicate things?
Now, if they are in the stages of rolling out IP6 and have decided to support IP4 only for their customers for a short while when they are getting their internal networks up to IP6 then maybe... and then they could flip the switch and everybody could have IP6 one day.
IP6 is going to be a security nightmare for a while. It really is different when you realize that all machines are potentially routable. Firewalls become -very- important.
With NAT you inherently have rudimentary firewall in place at all times, it takes effort to work around it. With IP6 it's the other way around. You need a real firewall and it takes a bit of effort to get it setup correctly.
(Good news is everybody has the same internal addresses so a firewall can be pre-configured to lock stuff down to the Lan, except for outbound traffic, or specific exceptions.)
The fix is to rotate the windows a few degrees to remove any convergence. The possible damage from this phenomenon is significant: increased chance of skin cancer; burned retinas; severe skin burns; fire; etc.
That look of disgust on your wife's face is the realization that she could have done better.
Same thing I was thinking.
Slashdot has really slipped these past few years.
If you do research into telecommunications you'll find a history of industrial, and political espionage. From bribing telegraph agents, to operators relaying information about companies, and individuals they overheard while providing switching services. I'm sure the operators in the senate provided similar services to their favourite politicians too.
They wanted to ban it because the operators were pooling information and providing it to various companies and politicians.
It's unlikely the employer has to prove anything at all.
Firing a system administrator is often easier than most employees.
GET A LAWYER.
Any further action on your part may be detrimental otherwise.
Selling an unfinished product, and having substantially amount of success at it will trigger PayPals fraud department.
Sad, but true...
No. Sorry, I strongly disagree.
C is like a swiss army knife that can be used to assemble a chainsaw, a sword a lightsaber, etc. You'll have to carve out all the pieces, file them down and put them together yourself, but the swiss army knife will help you a long the way.
But don't forget the bandaids.
I think it's a fools game to pursue Flash on mobile. I think Adobe spent the majority of it's time putzing around with Flash on mobile instead of making it work. I also think they should have created a Flash Mobile flag to indicate if Flash was compatible with a mobile device. The it should otherwise be 100% Flash compatible, but have checks and balances for properly supporting a mobile device.
1 - flag for touched based interface.
2 - flag for bandwidth requirements.
etc.
Then, if Flash content didn't meet those requirements the user would be notified of such. It would create an incentive for the sites to update their Flash projects to be compatible.
But Adobe is too stupid to take the right approach. They think Flash on mobile is -EXCELLENT- and that the rest of the issues aren't their problem.
Here's a general hint: Video mostly works, and the vast majority of Ads work. They don't give a shit about anything else.