> No, I think it's more like a "plug a diagnostic device into the USB port and > it gathers sensor and log data".
And the clerk could do this at the point of sale, thereby assuring you (and the seller) that the device wasn't cooked or soaked in shipping or storage.
The container the shipment of devices was shipped to the store in probably already contains excess temperature sensors and would have been refused had they been tripped.
Outsourcing the handling of confidential data can be ok if and only if you a) Qualify the provider by doing a thorough investigation b) Get them to sign (by a corporate officer, not a salesman) an ironclad
contract with indemnification and hold-harmless clauses.
It'll be cheaper to hire staff and do it yourself (and there's no way you'll get that contract out of Google).
> Perhaps a Google engineer somewhere can "read your stuff" but only in the > same sense that you could as the person administering your clients mail. Is > that a worry?
Yes, because that engineer is not contractually obligated to you to keep the stuff confidential. Neither is Google.
If I found out that any lawyer or physician working for me had put any of my confidential documents up on Google I would immediately terminate the relationship and file an ethics complaint.
> It's possible, since Bell controls the last mile...
Possible, but very unlikely. Third-party ISP traffic does not go over their network as TCP. They'd have to install a lot of expensive hardware to mess with it.
There's no forgery. You are connecting to their server just as you intended to and it is giving exactly the response they configured it go give. However, that response is not the one specified by the RFC.
> With out an autofocus mechanism this idea is dead.
I don't see that. Adjusting the manual control would be easier, quicker, and more convenient than taking off one pair of glasses and putting on another.
I've had pretty severe myopia all my life, and now that I'm in my sixties my lenses have become rigid as well. Wish I could afford a set of those lenses.
The doofuses behind this are unaware of the existence of any software other than a browser that uses DNS. They would tell you that DNS is part of the Web.
According to the article Dan K was one of the people who discovered the flaw. Why do you assume that Microsoft and others weren't notified months ago when Mozilla was?
But what does the "license" actually say? Are they guaranteeing that, having paid them, you now can use the material with impunity? Not likely. Much more likely they merely promise that they won't sue you. Since you provided the words for their software to count, I don't see how you could claim that they misled you into believing that they owned the copyright. It's entirely reasonable for them to assume that no one in his right mind is going to paste anything in there that they didn't get from a work labeled as AP property.
Slashdot Mirror
n/t
> No, I think it's more like a "plug a diagnostic device into the USB port and
> it gathers sensor and log data".
And the clerk could do this at the point of sale, thereby assuring you (and the seller) that the device wasn't cooked or soaked in shipping or storage.
The container the shipment of devices was shipped to the store in probably already contains excess temperature sensors and would have been refused had they been tripped.
> I would look at is P2P networking, followed by Usenet...
Usenet is the original peer to peer network.
> ...star surfaces are not anywhere near that bumpy, except, I imagine, when
> there's something catastrophic going on.
I believe that is an accurate description of Betelgeuse. I agree that the "artists impression" is silly, though.
While email rarely is encrypted it certainly can be.
Outsourcing the handling of confidential data can be ok if and only if you
a) Qualify the provider by doing a thorough investigation
b) Get them to sign (by a corporate officer, not a salesman) an ironclad
contract with indemnification and hold-harmless clauses.
It'll be cheaper to hire staff and do it yourself (and there's no way you'll get that contract out of Google).
> Explain how this is different then a set of internal server?
Google is not contractually obligated to keep my stuff confidential.
Email could be confidential if people would use encryption.
Depends on what the contract says.
> Perhaps a Google engineer somewhere can "read your stuff" but only in the
> same sense that you could as the person administering your clients mail. Is
> that a worry?
Yes, because that engineer is not contractually obligated to you to keep the stuff confidential. Neither is Google.
If I found out that any lawyer or physician working for me had put any of my confidential documents up on Google I would immediately terminate the relationship and file an ethics complaint.
> It's possible, since Bell controls the last mile...
Possible, but very unlikely. Third-party ISP traffic does not go over their network as TCP. They'd have to install a lot of expensive hardware to mess with it.
> Is there any way a local caching name server can detect this brokenness and
> return the right answer
Just use different servers. You don't have to use theirs.
There's no forgery. You are connecting to their server just as you intended to and it is giving exactly the response they configured it go give. However, that response is not the one specified by the RFC.
You don't have to use your ISP's DNS. To violate net neutrality they'd have to be blocking access to any servers other than their own.
You, of course, always go with the high bidder, right?
> With out an autofocus mechanism this idea is dead.
I don't see that. Adjusting the manual control would be easier, quicker, and more convenient than taking off one pair of glasses and putting on another.
I've had pretty severe myopia all my life, and now that I'm in my sixties my lenses have become rigid as well. Wish I could afford a set of those lenses.
> I mean, other than in cases like this, what does it get you?
You'd be amazed at how bad the DNS of some ISPs can be.
The doofuses behind this are unaware of the existence of any software other than a browser that uses DNS. They would tell you that DNS is part of the Web.
According to the article Dan K was one of the people who discovered the flaw. Why do you assume that Microsoft and others weren't notified months ago when Mozilla was?
Evidently Mozilla was notified as early as February. What makes you think that Microsoft wasn't notified at the same time?
But what does the "license" actually say? Are they guaranteeing that, having paid them, you now can use the material with impunity? Not likely. Much more likely they merely promise that they won't sue you. Since you provided the words for their software to count, I don't see how you could claim that they misled you into believing that they owned the copyright. It's entirely reasonable for them to assume that no one in his right mind is going to paste anything in there that they didn't get from a work labeled as AP property.
We don't discriminate. If it writes decent code its contributions will be welcome.