Precedent has already been set (at least in Canada) that if Monsanto "owns" any plant with its genes, Monsanto must pay for the cleanup costs of wherever those seeds may sprout. Since seeds can potentially end up growing almost anywhere and happily do so with no help from humans, Monsanto's arguments of ownership of a gene could bankrupt the company in the long term as their patented genes end up all over the place.
The easiest way to eliminate this threat is to lock down hardware sampling rates such that ultrasonic frequencies cannot be reliably reproduced (e.g. in the BIOS), and allow the user to flip the switch for higher rate support. At least, that's the first idea that came to mind. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's better than "kill all audio!"
You don't even know the difference between a product and a service. You also didn't read anything I wrote past the one word you're trying to latch on to in order to twist what I've said to suit what you want to think. Either you have a logical discussion about the topic or keep enjoying your incoherent, baseless, fundamentally broken monologue. At this point I might as well respond to you with [citation needed] and leave it at that.
The Novena costs way too much. It has a noble goal but is not accessible to anyone but those who either have a niche purpose for it or have money to burn. Why so expensive? Is it the lack of mass manufacturing?
I'm looking at it from a bottom-up perspective. You're looking at it as "industry exist, industry is regulated, therefore anyone who wants to do something similar should be regulated exactly the same way." I'm looking at it as "why do we need the regulation that exists? What justifies each specific regulation? Are those justifications sufficient to reasonably support the regulation? What is the definition of a "taxi service" and how does it apply to Uber?"
Also, a correction to your statement: Uber is NOT giving anyone a ride. Uber is a middleman service. They don't employ any of the drivers. By your logic, anyone who organizes a carpool is a taxi service and subject to the same onerous regulations that a taxi service is. If that means paying exorbitant amounts of money to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a "taxi license" then so be it. Don't like it? Don't set up a carpool or vanpool.
Not being the one who made the assertion, I was simply attempting to illustrate that very long-standing security holes can and do exist in modern operating systems in common use. I'm not here to defend that assertion as it is not necessarily correct (most security holes in 8.1 are as-yet undiscovered since the OS itself is quite new!) The bugs I've pointed out existed for many years before being found and fixed. The standard response to "open source is better because people can find and fix the bugs" is to wait for a bug to appear, then screech loudly about how the existence of the bug shows that open source is a fatally flawed security-hole-ridden model of software development, blah blah blah ad nauseam. Clearly this is complete and utter bullshit since an infinite pool of available code reviewers != all bugs preemptively fixed, but such is the process of arguing with zealots on the Internet, so the next best thing is to illustrate that closed source is no better than open source.
I'd like to point out that in one of my other comments here, I've tried to explain that Apple's critical SSL bug was there for years even though Apple leverages the full advantages of both closed- and open-source models in their Darwin kernel. If that happened despite having the positives of BOTH models available, how the hell is anyone in either-or supposed to avoid making the same mistakes? Humans code, humans commit errors, end of discussion.
It is, but it has a massive team of paid developers behind and working on that open source code every single day. My point was that even Apple had such a serious flaw, despite the benefits of both open source code AND hordes of paid developers actively working on it. Every new OpenSSL bug now triggers a bombardment of knee-jerk ignorant armchair quarterbacking about how "OpenSSL is clearly shit and the developers clearly suck and open source software sucks." Yet we see that even taking on the benefits of BOTH sides of software development, somehow Apple's SSL stack ended up with a devastating security-murdering bug not unlike Heartbleed.
At the end of the day, devs are human and make mistakes like everyone else, and that's just not a good enough explanation to some of the people here.
Feel free to look up a CVE for it yourself. This is just one example. Other long-standing MS security holes include the infamous WMF bug. Plenty of such things exist in the wild.
The same problems that OSS has with code not being reviewed is present in closed-source models as well, such as the recent Apple security hole that managed to make it past review and stick around for quite a while. They pay developers to work on this stuff. The devs missed it. Software development is done by humans and humans commit mistakes. No source availability model can ever fully mitigate that.
If you've been following OpenSSL Heartbleed coverage, you know that the project has only had one full-time developer working on it. Since Heartbleed (a recent discovery, you'll recall) they've discovered more holes to close such as this one. I'd call less than two months since more eyes started staring at OpenSSL "quickly."
The more of these we find, the more secure OpenSSL will be. I hope we continue to find these kinds of problems and see them fixed. If open source has one strength, it's that when many skilled eyes DO converge on the code it can be tested and fixed far more quickly than a corporation with limited resources and only paid developers can do the same sort of debugging work. The trick is getting the eyes there in the first place.
Thanks for that, it was interesting. It also explains why one of the V300 SSDs I bought in a batch for a set of desktop builds tested out at half the raw read speed when the standard hard drive diagnostic was performed. (Still pretty darn fast though.)
Newegg routinely discounts the Kingston V300 120GB SSD to $60 if you watch out for it (currently at $75 as of this posting). Why pay $80 when you can pay $60 for the same size and performance? If this post is an ad, it kinda sucks.
BAM. This. If women choose to avoid tech jobs from the start, how's discriminatory preferential hiring going to change anything? If Google's gender and race ratios are similar to that of the overall Comp Sci student population makeup, it looks like they're doing equal opportunity hiring awfully well.
The GNOME Foundation ran out of money because they funded a women's outreach program which ate a quarter of their entire budget a couple of years ago and pretty much destroyed their overall finances in 2013. The programs to do this stuff already exist, and they destroy otherwise well-meaning nonprofits. If a woman wants to do tech, she should work for it like anyone else who wants to do anything has to do. The problem is not that women are discriminated against, it's that women are given handicap +1s over men and STILL opt for "easier" lines of work than the classic grueling on-call long-hours tech job...and who the hell could blame them? Why would they WANT to work such a lackluster and mentally exhausting job?
Furthermore, what makes you or any of the HR fucks at Google the authority that can tell these women that THEIR CHOICES ARE NOT VALID? Let women exercise their agency and stop trying to shove them all in shitty tech jobs.
I didn't talk about how I personally drive. Since you have nothing more than ad hominem to babble about, it is clear that you lack the ability to add anything of substance and value to the conversation. Instead, here's my response to your assertion; an example of a rebuttal that actually discusses what was brought up.
I generally stick to the speed limit unless everyone starts trying to get around me, in which case I speed up to match. Speeding rarely shaves off enough time to matter so I opt out of receiving traffic tickets for it, confident in the knowledge that while I have not arrived at my destination 30 seconds faster, I also don't have to worry about paying bullshit traffic fines to the government and a ton of extra money every month for higher insurance.
I can't open my own ISP. If I do (let's say I want to run a fiber-based ISP), I will face many legal hurdles simply because that's the nature of the business; one may need to rent space on towers or get right-of-way permits from the town and the whole mess will be overseen by the public utilities commissioner of the state I'm in.
That's all normal ISP business stuff, but the giants have so much power that they are guaranteed to put me out of business through lawsuits. They shroud anything that they don't like in a giant neon sheet of "UNFAIR COMPETITION" and bury the little guy in legal red tape and paperwork. Little guys cannot win the battles of attrition in our legal system against gigantic corporations as it is, but these bastards have managed to lobby so hard that the law is heavily on their side as well. If I get financial assistance from a local government to build my ISP, I'll get shut down because of "unfair competition" since there are laws in many states now making municipal broadband de facto illegal to run and the funding could be construed as attempting to skirt those laws.
There is no competition in broadband services today because the largest companies have slanted the laws so hard in their favor that all competition is legally shut out.
Slashdot Mirror
Precedent has already been set (at least in Canada) that if Monsanto "owns" any plant with its genes, Monsanto must pay for the cleanup costs of wherever those seeds may sprout. Since seeds can potentially end up growing almost anywhere and happily do so with no help from humans, Monsanto's arguments of ownership of a gene could bankrupt the company in the long term as their patented genes end up all over the place.
The easiest way to eliminate this threat is to lock down hardware sampling rates such that ultrasonic frequencies cannot be reliably reproduced (e.g. in the BIOS), and allow the user to flip the switch for higher rate support. At least, that's the first idea that came to mind. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's better than "kill all audio!"
You don't even know the difference between a product and a service. You also didn't read anything I wrote past the one word you're trying to latch on to in order to twist what I've said to suit what you want to think. Either you have a logical discussion about the topic or keep enjoying your incoherent, baseless, fundamentally broken monologue. At this point I might as well respond to you with [citation needed] and leave it at that.
I think we're done here.
The Novena costs way too much. It has a noble goal but is not accessible to anyone but those who either have a niche purpose for it or have money to burn. Why so expensive? Is it the lack of mass manufacturing?
I'm looking at it from a bottom-up perspective. You're looking at it as "industry exist, industry is regulated, therefore anyone who wants to do something similar should be regulated exactly the same way." I'm looking at it as "why do we need the regulation that exists? What justifies each specific regulation? Are those justifications sufficient to reasonably support the regulation? What is the definition of a "taxi service" and how does it apply to Uber?"
Also, a correction to your statement: Uber is NOT giving anyone a ride. Uber is a middleman service. They don't employ any of the drivers. By your logic, anyone who organizes a carpool is a taxi service and subject to the same onerous regulations that a taxi service is. If that means paying exorbitant amounts of money to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a "taxi license" then so be it. Don't like it? Don't set up a carpool or vanpool.
You'll have to explain exactly how it is that people giving other people car rides for a few bucks is a scam.
Yes, and the solution is to eliminate that requirement.
Heh. I never heard of Redbox Instant before now. Big marketing failure there, chaps.
Not being the one who made the assertion, I was simply attempting to illustrate that very long-standing security holes can and do exist in modern operating systems in common use. I'm not here to defend that assertion as it is not necessarily correct (most security holes in 8.1 are as-yet undiscovered since the OS itself is quite new!) The bugs I've pointed out existed for many years before being found and fixed. The standard response to "open source is better because people can find and fix the bugs" is to wait for a bug to appear, then screech loudly about how the existence of the bug shows that open source is a fatally flawed security-hole-ridden model of software development, blah blah blah ad nauseam. Clearly this is complete and utter bullshit since an infinite pool of available code reviewers != all bugs preemptively fixed, but such is the process of arguing with zealots on the Internet, so the next best thing is to illustrate that closed source is no better than open source.
I'd like to point out that in one of my other comments here, I've tried to explain that Apple's critical SSL bug was there for years even though Apple leverages the full advantages of both closed- and open-source models in their Darwin kernel. If that happened despite having the positives of BOTH models available, how the hell is anyone in either-or supposed to avoid making the same mistakes? Humans code, humans commit errors, end of discussion.
It is, but it has a massive team of paid developers behind and working on that open source code every single day. My point was that even Apple had such a serious flaw, despite the benefits of both open source code AND hordes of paid developers actively working on it. Every new OpenSSL bug now triggers a bombardment of knee-jerk ignorant armchair quarterbacking about how "OpenSSL is clearly shit and the developers clearly suck and open source software sucks." Yet we see that even taking on the benefits of BOTH sides of software development, somehow Apple's SSL stack ended up with a devastating security-murdering bug not unlike Heartbleed.
At the end of the day, devs are human and make mistakes like everyone else, and that's just not a good enough explanation to some of the people here.
http://news.softpedia.com/news...
Feel free to look up a CVE for it yourself. This is just one example. Other long-standing MS security holes include the infamous WMF bug. Plenty of such things exist in the wild.
Most people are not researchers and furthermore don't have the expertise to even FIND this issue, much less fix it properly.
The same problems that OSS has with code not being reviewed is present in closed-source models as well, such as the recent Apple security hole that managed to make it past review and stick around for quite a while. They pay developers to work on this stuff. The devs missed it. Software development is done by humans and humans commit mistakes. No source availability model can ever fully mitigate that.
If you've been following OpenSSL Heartbleed coverage, you know that the project has only had one full-time developer working on it. Since Heartbleed (a recent discovery, you'll recall) they've discovered more holes to close such as this one. I'd call less than two months since more eyes started staring at OpenSSL "quickly."
The more of these we find, the more secure OpenSSL will be. I hope we continue to find these kinds of problems and see them fixed. If open source has one strength, it's that when many skilled eyes DO converge on the code it can be tested and fixed far more quickly than a corporation with limited resources and only paid developers can do the same sort of debugging work. The trick is getting the eyes there in the first place.
Thanks for that, it was interesting. It also explains why one of the V300 SSDs I bought in a batch for a set of desktop builds tested out at half the raw read speed when the standard hard drive diagnostic was performed. (Still pretty darn fast though.)
I've never seen such a thing. Adblock Plus and all that rot.
Newegg routinely discounts the Kingston V300 120GB SSD to $60 if you watch out for it (currently at $75 as of this posting). Why pay $80 when you can pay $60 for the same size and performance? If this post is an ad, it kinda sucks.
I'll drink them under a table. , anyone?
BAM. This. If women choose to avoid tech jobs from the start, how's discriminatory preferential hiring going to change anything? If Google's gender and race ratios are similar to that of the overall Comp Sci student population makeup, it looks like they're doing equal opportunity hiring awfully well.
The GNOME Foundation ran out of money because they funded a women's outreach program which ate a quarter of their entire budget a couple of years ago and pretty much destroyed their overall finances in 2013. The programs to do this stuff already exist, and they destroy otherwise well-meaning nonprofits. If a woman wants to do tech, she should work for it like anyone else who wants to do anything has to do. The problem is not that women are discriminated against, it's that women are given handicap +1s over men and STILL opt for "easier" lines of work than the classic grueling on-call long-hours tech job...and who the hell could blame them? Why would they WANT to work such a lackluster and mentally exhausting job?
Furthermore, what makes you or any of the HR fucks at Google the authority that can tell these women that THEIR CHOICES ARE NOT VALID? Let women exercise their agency and stop trying to shove them all in shitty tech jobs.
I didn't talk about how I personally drive. Since you have nothing more than ad hominem to babble about, it is clear that you lack the ability to add anything of substance and value to the conversation. Instead, here's my response to your assertion; an example of a rebuttal that actually discusses what was brought up.
I generally stick to the speed limit unless everyone starts trying to get around me, in which case I speed up to match. Speeding rarely shaves off enough time to matter so I opt out of receiving traffic tickets for it, confident in the knowledge that while I have not arrived at my destination 30 seconds faster, I also don't have to worry about paying bullshit traffic fines to the government and a ton of extra money every month for higher insurance.
And here's the rebuttal that argues more on your current level: fuck you, asshat.
That doesn't address the problem of starting an ISP. I don't have an interest in buying an existing ISP, I have an interest in starting a new one.
This is the kind of bill that I'm talking about.
I can't open my own ISP. If I do (let's say I want to run a fiber-based ISP), I will face many legal hurdles simply because that's the nature of the business; one may need to rent space on towers or get right-of-way permits from the town and the whole mess will be overseen by the public utilities commissioner of the state I'm in.
That's all normal ISP business stuff, but the giants have so much power that they are guaranteed to put me out of business through lawsuits. They shroud anything that they don't like in a giant neon sheet of "UNFAIR COMPETITION" and bury the little guy in legal red tape and paperwork. Little guys cannot win the battles of attrition in our legal system against gigantic corporations as it is, but these bastards have managed to lobby so hard that the law is heavily on their side as well. If I get financial assistance from a local government to build my ISP, I'll get shut down because of "unfair competition" since there are laws in many states now making municipal broadband de facto illegal to run and the funding could be construed as attempting to skirt those laws.
There is no competition in broadband services today because the largest companies have slanted the laws so hard in their favor that all competition is legally shut out.