Amazon should take the HQ2 to another city, perhaps in Alabama where the German rocket scientists went after World War II. The children and grandchildren of the scientists that built the Saturn V rocket for the Apollo moon landings are in Alabama, and they could handle all the AWS programming needed by Amazon and more.
I disagree. It disturbs Amazon the same way that it disturbs all the rest of us: Cheating and lying by sellers is against the interests of all.
Seller beware!
And since Amazon is more efficient than Wal-Mart, and Amazon pays more to entry level workers, Wal-Mart will go out of business and leave Amazon with most of the market.
It is basic statistics and science, and it is unescapable. Law can present equal opportunity, but if you enforce equal outcome it will require denying opportunities to males based on their gender.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wa...
The plaintiff may sue whoever used it incorrectly. Subsequently, CBC may hold CNN responsible for their losses in court if CBC can show that it relied on CNN's presentation of facts in entering into their agreement, or the decision may assign all responsibility to one or all of the parties. The plaintiff does not need to locate the person ultimately responsible prior to making their claim of infringement.
The passage you cited only permits YouTube to display the user's content. Another section of the TOS prohibit use of the material unless done through YouTube. Section 5B of the TOS:
"You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content."
Section 6C:
"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content."
The copyright law cited is fairly clear. Removal of the copyright notice is a violation, and the act of removal also indicates willfullness and intent.
No, I'm not saying that anyone who breaks into your computer is a bad guy. What I am saying is that if the FBI gets a back door to do good things, then they also greatly increase the chance of crimes being committed by criminals who use the same back door the FBI uses.
I am also saying that is that without back doors, a rogue FBI agent violating his authority can do damage to people and the nation, but that a rogue FBI agent violating his authority and with back doors can do extremely large amounts of damage to people and the nation.
And performance recordings are copyrightable. All driving data is owned by the author (driver), not the auto company. Legally, they should have no say in how the data is used unless they buy it from the driver.
I think you've hit on something here. The reason I think it hasn't been done yet is that it makes people work much harder at authentication, and (so far) it is too expensive to implement authentication that doesn't use the obscurity of the personal identification data.
The article is quite good, and later on it points out that any back door leads to all of the bad guys having just as much or more access to communications as the government or law enforcement have. Comey, FBI, etc. are wishing for visibility into communications, but are not technical enough to realize that they are actually asking for there to be no encryption at all, since the presence of the backdoor renders the communication useless for sensitive information.
Another topic that isn't addressed is protecting the public from misuse of the backdoor by government. The existence of pervasive surveillance eventually will lead to the creation of two classes of citizens: The first class "good" ones with law enforcement access to all communications, and the second class, who do not have such access to back doors.
Limited hangout is wishful thinking. Anyone who is any good at this game gets everything they want from the limited hangout, regardless of the intent to deceive. Even misleading, incomplete, or deceptive data is still data.
Maybe in the United Kingdom Scotland Yard fears local fans of American science fiction programs, but they got it backwards. The real troublemakers, tracked by the F.B.I. and U.S. Secret Service, are American fans of the British television show Doctor Who. The American authorities fear that these American fans might go mad and kill themselves, turn against society or start a weird cult. After all, it is patently obvious that X-Files and Star Trek convey perfectly normal behaviors, but Doctor Who presents some very odd and disturbing ideas, not to mention the strange accents and misspellings of simple words like "color" and "civilization".
Your driving performance is just another performance, like singing or dancing. It doesn't matter than some company has created a device to record it. The copyright on the data that records the performance belongs to the performer. So any data collected by a company by an app belongs to the user, not the developer of the app.
To reiterate Roodvlees' point, the giving of the cards and the receiving of the cards is corruption. It may not be obvious what the dollar value is immediately, but if you count up the time saved by the politically-connected recipients when they get expedited service, then it almost certainly would exceed Federal standards for gifts.
Whatever you love doing, do more of it. Then just be sensitive, and maybe a little aggressive, about pursuing leads that naturally arise from your avocation.
Slashdot Mirror
NSA was cranking along connecting 98% of all spoofed numbers to other spoofed numbers when they suddenly realized that 100% of their data was crap.
Amazon should take the HQ2 to another city, perhaps in Alabama where the German rocket scientists went after World War II. The children and grandchildren of the scientists that built the Saturn V rocket for the Apollo moon landings are in Alabama, and they could handle all the AWS programming needed by Amazon and more.
I disagree. It disturbs Amazon the same way that it disturbs all the rest of us: Cheating and lying by sellers is against the interests of all. Seller beware!
I agree. Although it would cost Amazon some money, it would sweep away nearly all of Amazon's competition.
There is no "cost to society of supporting that wealth". It's just a bunch of stock certificates.
And since Amazon is more efficient than Wal-Mart, and Amazon pays more to entry level workers, Wal-Mart will go out of business and leave Amazon with most of the market.
Amazon pays more than Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart will disappear first.
Amazon pays a lot more than minimum wage to starting workers.
It is basic statistics and science, and it is unescapable. Law can present equal opportunity, but if you enforce equal outcome it will require denying opportunities to males based on their gender. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wa...
The plaintiff may sue whoever used it incorrectly. Subsequently, CBC may hold CNN responsible for their losses in court if CBC can show that it relied on CNN's presentation of facts in entering into their agreement, or the decision may assign all responsibility to one or all of the parties. The plaintiff does not need to locate the person ultimately responsible prior to making their claim of infringement.
The passage you cited only permits YouTube to display the user's content. Another section of the TOS prohibit use of the material unless done through YouTube. Section 5B of the TOS: "You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content." Section 6C: "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content." The copyright law cited is fairly clear. Removal of the copyright notice is a violation, and the act of removal also indicates willfullness and intent.
If there is no privacy, then why are you posting as AC?
Further proof that back doors will be hacked has already happened! http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
No, I'm not saying that anyone who breaks into your computer is a bad guy. What I am saying is that if the FBI gets a back door to do good things, then they also greatly increase the chance of crimes being committed by criminals who use the same back door the FBI uses. I am also saying that is that without back doors, a rogue FBI agent violating his authority can do damage to people and the nation, but that a rogue FBI agent violating his authority and with back doors can do extremely large amounts of damage to people and the nation.
And performance recordings are copyrightable. All driving data is owned by the author (driver), not the auto company. Legally, they should have no say in how the data is used unless they buy it from the driver.
I think you've hit on something here. The reason I think it hasn't been done yet is that it makes people work much harder at authentication, and (so far) it is too expensive to implement authentication that doesn't use the obscurity of the personal identification data.
The article is quite good, and later on it points out that any back door leads to all of the bad guys having just as much or more access to communications as the government or law enforcement have. Comey, FBI, etc. are wishing for visibility into communications, but are not technical enough to realize that they are actually asking for there to be no encryption at all, since the presence of the backdoor renders the communication useless for sensitive information. Another topic that isn't addressed is protecting the public from misuse of the backdoor by government. The existence of pervasive surveillance eventually will lead to the creation of two classes of citizens: The first class "good" ones with law enforcement access to all communications, and the second class, who do not have such access to back doors.
Limited hangout is wishful thinking. Anyone who is any good at this game gets everything they want from the limited hangout, regardless of the intent to deceive. Even misleading, incomplete, or deceptive data is still data.
Kudos. This is on the money. One of the best postings I have ever read on /.
Maybe in the United Kingdom Scotland Yard fears local fans of American science fiction programs, but they got it backwards. The real troublemakers, tracked by the F.B.I. and U.S. Secret Service, are American fans of the British television show Doctor Who. The American authorities fear that these American fans might go mad and kill themselves, turn against society or start a weird cult. After all, it is patently obvious that X-Files and Star Trek convey perfectly normal behaviors, but Doctor Who presents some very odd and disturbing ideas, not to mention the strange accents and misspellings of simple words like "color" and "civilization".
Your driving performance is just another performance, like singing or dancing. It doesn't matter than some company has created a device to record it. The copyright on the data that records the performance belongs to the performer. So any data collected by a company by an app belongs to the user, not the developer of the app.
To reiterate Roodvlees' point, the giving of the cards and the receiving of the cards is corruption. It may not be obvious what the dollar value is immediately, but if you count up the time saved by the politically-connected recipients when they get expedited service, then it almost certainly would exceed Federal standards for gifts.
Of course, an Anonymous Coward complaining about too many privacy rights. Nothing ironic about that.
Whatever you love doing, do more of it. Then just be sensitive, and maybe a little aggressive, about pursuing leads that naturally arise from your avocation.
It would be nice to see this result in pressure on other publishers to require similar access to data backing the papers in their journals.