For the enterprise version we really need it predictable so it can be managed. Even if talking to MS is harmless and overall a good thing, it means you are having your computer talk to something you may not want too.
At work we are still on Windows 7 with little chance going over to 10 because of stuff like this. (I would prefer Linux, but our management is stuck in the 1990s)
a) how do you know Windows 7 _doesn't_ do same thing ? b) I can predict that a new Win 10 (or 7) install will try and contact KMS (activation) server and WSUS (windows update) server, and if no local ones are there or configured, it will go out to MS servers - there is no indication in the article that the test was done with local KMS and WSUS, in which case most of the traffic is "No Shit, Sherlock", and the setup is not representative of most enterprise users c) my guess is that if the install was "unused" it still had default users configured with live tiles on start menu (which enterprises can turn off or unpin or block), I am not sure what the OS would do to update data for tiles before a user had logged in, but I wouldn't bet on it _not_ doing it so there is something to show at first login
By the way, if your management are stuck in the 1990s it is a choice of solid stable Linux or Win 3.1/95/98 - Linux all the way. Or you could go with NT for Linux-like flat 32bit programmability and stability, but poor software and driver support... Really, it was only in the 2000s with the unified driver model and Win XP that MS began to catch up. IMO, of course.
I could probably agree with that - 25/5 would be nice, but not exactly _need_. So, all that is left is for the ISPs to provide oh, say, 8/1 _per_ _user_. Five users in my house, 40/5 would be fine thanks.
Oh wait, that's not what you meant, you don't provide service per user but per household/residence ? Well, mr ISP and ISP-bought-politicians, stop talking about what a "user" needs and start talking about what a household needs then - can't have it both ways.
If the power isn't disconnected by a physical switch (or pulled out) then it isn't powered off. Period.
Not understanding that distinction may be just about ok when messing around inside a PC, but then that person goes and messes around inside a light fitting believing that it is turned of at the light switch. Live is live.
Intel AMT is available even if the machine is powered off.
Yep, sure, uses vacuum zero point energy or something. I bet it is can also listen on the ethernet even if the cable is unplugged and on wi-fi even if the AP/router is off, in fact it probably has knowledge of wi-fi auth backdoors built in so it can connect to any of your neighbours' wi-fi, and if that fails it'll go directly to satellite. It also has a full AI core and will actively attack you if you try to open up the machine and mess with it, and if you so much as think of unplugging everything and putting it in a faraday cage it'll fry you. Be afraid...
Firstly - no one knows what the performance cost of compliance will be yet, no fix has yet been approved. If they retro-fit an AdBlue SCR it may be negligible.
Secondly, it isn't clear that any other car or mfr would be better, you could have bought an Opel instead - they are currently silently updating cars during services to reduce emissions (and allegedly performance according to some reports I've seen) - http://boingboing.net/2016/01/...
Thirdly, once the dust settles on this the VW engines might even be among the best, they are certainly not amongst the worst in recent independent testing (e.g. http://www.which.co.uk/cars/dr... ). Even the petrols are busting limits (majority exceed CO limits, 10% exceed NOx), and the hybrids.
Or you could have bought a Tesla, which is probably the only unaffected option...
Yeah, but don't forget all classroom crypto projects must include a back door for teacher access.
Bonus marks are available for using steganography or other methods to provide plausible but inaccurate plain text through the back door such that the teacher does not know you are actually passing secret messages in class (before attempting, candidates may wish to note that teachers must be aware of the feature to award bonus, and that teacher awareness of such also indicates failure)...
Forget the gubmint spahs stuff, they've already established they can shoot anything out of the sky over their property ( http://www.cnet.com/news/judge... ), _and_ that it's also ok for the drone owner to be TTFO at gunpoint...
Now there's going to be free stuff flying through the air, and it's legal to shoot it down and keep it. That's gonna be redneck heaven, a fairground tin can shoot but free to play, real guns and real prizes...
Physical access was not actually (definitely) implied.
We did similar in late 80s on unix / X-Windows boxen - the uni had set them up with a nifty graphical login because command line was so-last-year, but no security (standard in those days) on the X display connections. All you needed was a program that showed the same password prompt window and grabbed the username/pw. Even when display security was added it was bodged so any "local" process could connect to:0, and anyone could remote into any workstation any time...
I'm sure later years of students had the same fun with xdm (which was eventually implemented IIRC) and xspy, but by then we'd moved on to popping up (half-tone or ascii art) topless pictures on unsuspecting colleagues' workstations, preferably when lecturer / supervisor was behind them.
It was all good learning, but seems as an industry as a whole, we never learn and the old tricks still work...
you should have the same duty to go to the scene of the accident
Stupid idea from politician not engaging brain.
In a car (in most places) you are required to not-leave the scene of the accident, and (most places) that requirement only applies when driving on a public highway (or equivalent concept). In most cases the crash site is on, or very nearly on, public property. This won't be the case with drones, at all. The crash site may be inaccessible, dangerous to access, illegal to access or just plain private property, and drone pilots already have been TTFO at gunpoint trying to do what he requires.
Someone should ask this guy if his law gives drone pilots the _right_ to go to the scene of an accident (think similar powers to the NTSB...) as well as the duty, if so why is he giving every Joe drone-pilot such power, and if not how are they supposed to carry out their duty?
Not in the license recommendations or the FAQ though is it - which was the point.
I'm aware of the passage from 3rd draft (which is not in the final rationale), as far as I am concerned it is a sell out to big corporate lobbyists. It basically says: some big corporate suppliers and users thought the status-quo (tivo-allowed) was the correct interpretation and therefore we'll exempt them from requirement to give their users this freedom. Seems some users are more free than others ? I wonder if they asked any of the end-user consumers who thought tivos interpretation was correct, or do those users not count because they are not big-corp? I wonder if they spoke to any small business users (the vast majority of businesses are small after all) about whether or not there saw any "disparity in clout" if they had a say half-million budget and were negotiating with, say, SAP, or Oracle ?
The final rationale says something about extending the provision (another incompatible GPL version and further balkanisation of the GPL world) if problems appear in currently exempted areas. Wonder what the big corporate lobbyists thought of that - "well we'd better be good" or "right we've bought a few years to get ourselves off this GPL stuff" ? Who they were is left unsaid, but various possible suspects are currently now pushing LLVM etc.
And it is not "a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device.", it is "a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device in one field of use" - devices in other fields of use being conveniently exempt from compliance. If you can't comply (say because of contractual, legal or regulatory obligations) then it is a field of use restriction.
They leave unclear and unanswered _why_ there is a clause in GPLv3 that applies _only_ to a specific class of products. If the Tivo clause is necessary to ensure user's freedoms, then why does it only apply to a class of products / users:
(1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.
Or, conversely, why do business / professional users get less protection, why is there effectively a field-of-use restriction in the licence (where it is more restrictive in one field of use) ?
If it is there to ensure freedom, why do only some users get the benefit, and if it is not then why is it there at all ?
I think the problem is that X.ORG Foundation, LLC no longer actually exists. They need a legal trail to show that the current foundation is the legal successor in interest, which they haven't got. Possibly they messed up the legals somewhere along the way so they are not in fact successor in interest and title to the domain was never transferred. In which case the domain is not, in fact, theirs.
You say it's not true and then agree with me. Yes of course you can have fancy complex contributory benefits schemes with same rules for everyone, that is what the dutch already have - but the whole _point_ of a basic income scheme is to get away from that and have a _simple_ scheme effectively with no rules, or only very simple ones. Just that everyone gets paid, the same. Presumably they will pay the parents for kids as well, the only logical way to do it. That is essentially the same as child benefit in the UK, which suffers from the same problem - people can claim for kids who aren't even here, and who may not even exist and that cannot be checked without going through another country which is getting the money...
The essential problem is that "everyone", or every child, effectively becomes everyone in the whole of the EU, there cannot be any nationality requirement or (time of) residence requirement. All that would be needed would be an address in the city, which any EU national is entitled to. Twenty to a studio flat - no problem, it's not as though you are going to be there long, if at all, it's not as though anyone is going to check - the whole point of the system is to get rid of the cost of having people to check on the rules...
Good summary - unfortunately I don't have mod points today
I would add that the likely reason we can't get clear info from MS about Azure AD is that Azure is international and located in multiple regions / jurisdictions and I think the court cases are still ongoing about whether or not the US can short-circuit international treaties and local laws elsewhere and force MS to hand over data located in other jurisdictions. So, MS basically don't know.
It's safest to assume that govts are always likely to be able to get hold of keys whether stored on your own recovery server or with MS, and the likelihood rises with size of govt concerned...
Or you only give the benefits to Dutch nationals who've lived in the city longer than X years.
Just like the David Cameron wants to do in the UK... but cannot because it is against the EU rules.
After as little as 3 months (I believe), they have to treat any migrant from within the EU _exactly_ the same as a Dutch national resident for 50 (or whatever) yrs. The EU migrant can also claim local benefits for non-resident family back home, we know this because they already do it with UK benefits and it cannot be stopped because "EU rules".
* It's yet another flash bug, Outlook is just the host instead of IE or whatever. If you still have Flash on your system you should just assume you are pwned already and post your bank account, credit card details and nude photos straight to 4chan to shorten the painful process * It is not even zero-day, like many Flash bugs are, because it's already patched/fixed (by MS on the Outlook side by the looks of it) * It only affects you if you have preview window on, _and_ the malicious email happens to be the first one in the mailbox when Outlook is started * If you still remember when internet connection speeds were measured in baud and you had to whistle for your email, you will use email in the way $deity intended and get the headers first so (at least some of) the crap never even hits your system, making this even less likely
Still, the real patch MS should issue is the one that kills Flash, at least as an embedded object, forever, it is just a serial security hole that Adobe are incapable of maintaining properly.
So you would stop refugees coming in because ISIS infiltrated their ranks.
Not what was said, OP said everyone would be stopped unless vetted and checked, if refugees pass the checks then they obviously they can pass the border, like anyone else.
You don't stop drinking all water because the source is infiltrated, you ensure you filter and purify it. You don't not-dress a wound because the dressing may be contaminated, you ensure the dressing is sterile.
Of course, most of the "refugees" don't seem to want to be checked at borders, they would rather sneak across or use force of numbers to storm the border. They don't want to say who they are or how old they are or where they come from, they would rather destroy documents if they have to go through passport control, pick a country of origin that has most sympathy and lie about being a minor, all to get best chance of asylum. That all needs to stop.
Refugees need a safe place to go, but that doesn't need to be in any European country. Western nations should look to ensure safe camps in countries nearest to the war zones, to minimize the numbers undertaking fatal journeys, defend and police them with our troops if necessary (be a better use than bombing the war zones).
No, but some "impossible" things may just be very very hard and take a long long time, and that also means it may take a long, long time to show that it definitely can't be done.
Apple should use the deep thought defence:
Judge: your task is to decrypt this phone Apple: tricky Judge: but can you do it? Apple: yes, but it may take a while Judge: how long? Apple: approximately seven and a half million years
Now find an expert witness to prove Apple is wrong...
Perhaps, but can you get me a sample certified to be the stuff being pumped into the ground so that my study has merit? Otherwise it's almost useless - I can get a container of random chemical sludge to test from anywhere. And if we could get certified samples there wouldn't be a host of unanswered questions about the potential effects.
of course there would.
There are certified samples of radiation levels around nuclear power stations, there are also studies showing those levels are too low to have any health effects, and there are also studies showing adverse health effects...
Same applies to wind turbines, there are plenty of infrasound readings, plenty of industry people saying the levels are too low to affect health, and plenty of reported adverse health effects...
the same unanswered, or disputed, questions will remain in every case - a) is there a real effect or just a quirk of statistics or noise and b) what is responsible for the effect from the millions of variables.
Even if you answer those, there are still issues. We have been mining coal for hundreds of years, we have plenty of data on the risks of working in mines and of living near them, and it sure looks like coal mining is the cause. Yet we still mine coal. And when we close the mines, oddly we still have the health problems, yet they get blamed on poverty resulting from the mine closure, not on any residual pollution. This is possibly because there is no owner left to sue, or because people naturally want a fashionable cause to blame for their effect.
Well, just as long as you go for the occasional motorway long drive to burn all the stuff out, you should be fine, the problem is if you leave it to clog. The particle filter will only clear at high temperatures, like long high-speed journeys. So as long as you somehow do that, the car won't complain and it should go without any issues.
How often is occasional, how much motorway? I've seen stuff that says you need at least every two weeks and never-drop-below 50mph for 20mins? Sometimes, as said above, my current diesel has gone months without a motorway, nearest motorway is over 30mins, and you need a clear stretch without 50-limit roadworks which means going further - basically a 60mile 2hr run every two weeks, thats a hell of a lot of time and fuel if you aren't doing it anyway, and like I said, some years I do, some I don't.
Also, dpf max lifetimes are rumoured to be only 100k miles or so (pre-dpf VW diesels are usually good for much much more than that) and replacements may be 2-3k, i.e. about the same price as a new engine. Even if we assume no dpf issues until end of expected dpf life, you would be better off with a petrol that was 15mpg less fuel efficient. Crazy.
All I want is Golf TDi like they made 15 yrs ago, but new. Instead I will have to get something that is less efficient (real-world mpg) or less reliable or has shorter lifespan, or all three. All in the name of meeting tighter emissions standards, which it turns out they don't actually meet in the real world anyway (not VW or anyone else). And this is progress!?
The governments of the world are criminalizing otherwise legitimate business by enacting laws that make the cost of doing business such that actually complying would put them out of business.
The business of government is regulation (and taxation). This is not news, it's been the way of government since probably before the Roman empire. It is a business risk, I hope you identified it and planned appropriately.
Now the FCC is passing a law that is going to *outlaw* for all practical purposes my business. Is there intent good? Sure. I want to be able to use the airwaves and we need some regulation. However banning free software doesn't solve the problem of stopping a small number of people (the ones intent on breaking the law) from continuing to violate the good rules.
Regulations never stop the small number of people intent on breaking the law - that is not their purpose, it is to reduce the larger number of people who accidentally break the law because it is easy to do so and easy to claim ignorance "all I did was... how is that illegal". The gun laws in my country do not stop criminals (the ones intent on breaking the law) from getting hold of guns, they make it harder, more dangerous, more expensive maybe, but really they only prevent ordinary law abiding people. But they work. Ordinary people are not armed. Result: police are not routinely armed, Result: US police shoot and kill more people in a typical _day_ than ours do in a typical _year_, about 50 times fewer accounting for population size. But the people intent on breaking the law can still get guns, the laws do not stop them.
Secondly, the FCC regs as I understand it do not ban free software, rather they ban modifiable devices. Devices may still be made with free software, but must be locked down in some way. That may require redesigning your software to lock down only the bits legally required, or locking down the device - your choice.
Should everybody involved in GNU/Linux just stop shipping product and go out of business? Those who don't are outlaws. Either they follow the law, lock down devices, and violate other laws on copyright, or they stop shipping there product!!!!
Ah, you must be talking about GPLv3 software. Linux itself is ok - it is v2 - you can ship a locked down Linux device.
For other GPLv3 software, I think you are reading the GPL incorrectly. There is no "either/or" in S12, you MUST stop shipping because that is what the GPL says, there is no option to not comply with the conditions and not lock down - you would still violate the GPL (IMO, IANAL, and I am not in your jurisdiction).
"if conditions are imposed on you [...] that contradict the conditions of this license [...] you may not convey it at all."
Again, there is no option to not comply with those other conditions, it is the imposition of the conditions whether you comply or not (and likely even if the conditions exist in law but are not generally enforced) that triggers the clause.
Even the FSF has referred to this as a "liberty or death" clause. The GPL has always been a political license, intended to subvert copyright (and patent) law by using it against itself, some conflict with the law is inevitable and when the law wins the GPL software dies. Your business is a pawn in someone else's bigger political battle. That is by design, clearly inherent in the license of the software you chose to use - other Free Software does not have this issue, with BSD of course you wouldn't have a problem complying with the law.
But of course you know all this from back whenever you chose GPL over BSD etc., and when you assessed the relative risks of each license and regulation (and the risk of gplv3 conflicting with regulations was known before gplv3, because I knew and I am damn sure I wasn't the only one to raise it in the consultation), and before you bet your business on it. So, I am just reminding you that you took a ris
Engineers design things to meet the constraints they are given, This doesn't indicate malice on the part of the engineers, this indicates that the testing methods are faulty. Put the cars on a dynamo and simulate real world driving conditions!
Trouble is, there are various systems (traction control, stabilty, braking, abs/esp/ebs/ecs/dcs/tcs/lalala) on a modern car that _have_ to know if they are on dyno or they f**k up and trash the test, the car, and maybe the dyno.
Real world driving conditions are variable, unpredictable and unrepeatable, test conditions are not, that is the point. Any test that is predictable and repeatable and hence fair to the multiple participants is also going to be detectable and hence can be designed-to or cheated.
This is the greatest thing to happen to the libre firmware movement.
no, it is the worst.
It is the clearest, easiest to explain to dim people (e.g. politicians), real-world example of why "end users must _not_ be allowed to control firmware".
Pretty much all emissions control measures in cars reduce performance and/or fuel economy, and therefore removing them tends to be made illegal. Now it has been shown that a practically undetectable (escaped detection for almost 10yrs) firmware change can reduce emissions when tested and improve performance at other times. How tempting is that for users ?
Govt.s can afford to investigate VW and fine them billions, they cannot afford to do complex technical investigations on millions of car owners many of whom wouldn't be able to pay a fine that covered the cost of the investigation. So they will go back to VW (and other mfrs) and demand that they make it impossible for users to change the EPA-approved firmware, and this scandal will be the reason given.
Slashdot Mirror
For the enterprise version we really need it predictable so it can be managed. Even if talking to MS is harmless and overall a good thing, it means you are having your computer talk to something you may not want too.
At work we are still on Windows 7 with little chance going over to 10 because of stuff like this. (I would prefer Linux, but our management is stuck in the 1990s)
a) how do you know Windows 7 _doesn't_ do same thing ?
b) I can predict that a new Win 10 (or 7) install will try and contact KMS (activation) server and WSUS (windows update) server, and if no local ones are there or configured, it will go out to MS servers - there is no indication in the article that the test was done with local KMS and WSUS, in which case most of the traffic is "No Shit, Sherlock", and the setup is not representative of most enterprise users
c) my guess is that if the install was "unused" it still had default users configured with live tiles on start menu (which enterprises can turn off or unpin or block), I am not sure what the OS would do to update data for tiles before a user had logged in, but I wouldn't bet on it _not_ doing it so there is something to show at first login
By the way, if your management are stuck in the 1990s it is a choice of solid stable Linux or Win 3.1/95/98 - Linux all the way. Or you could go with NT for Linux-like flat 32bit programmability and stability, but poor software and driver support... Really, it was only in the 2000s with the unified driver model and Win XP that MS began to catch up. IMO, of course.
Yeah, but when the W key falls off the keyboard of your curve a replacement costs peanuts:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Genu...
I still have a couple of spares - mostly I broke the front housing and front screen and replacements came with keyboard...
In fact you can replace/repair just about all of it for next to nothing - problem now is the software is completely unsupported
"users don't need that kind of speed anyway"
I could probably agree with that - 25/5 would be nice, but not exactly _need_. So, all that is left is for the ISPs to provide oh, say, 8/1 _per_ _user_. Five users in my house, 40/5 would be fine thanks.
Oh wait, that's not what you meant, you don't provide service per user but per household/residence ?
Well, mr ISP and ISP-bought-politicians, stop talking about what a "user" needs and start talking about what a household needs then - can't have it both ways.
If the power isn't disconnected by a physical switch (or pulled out) then it isn't powered off. Period.
Not understanding that distinction may be just about ok when messing around inside a PC, but then that person goes and messes around inside a light fitting believing that it is turned of at the light switch. Live is live.
Intel AMT is available even if the machine is powered off.
Yep, sure, uses vacuum zero point energy or something. I bet it is can also listen on the ethernet even if the cable is unplugged and on wi-fi even if the AP/router is off, in fact it probably has knowledge of wi-fi auth backdoors built in so it can connect to any of your neighbours' wi-fi, and if that fails it'll go directly to satellite. It also has a full AI core and will actively attack you if you try to open up the machine and mess with it, and if you so much as think of unplugging everything and putting it in a faraday cage it'll fry you. Be afraid...
Firstly - no one knows what the performance cost of compliance will be yet, no fix has yet been approved. If they retro-fit an AdBlue SCR it may be negligible.
Secondly, it isn't clear that any other car or mfr would be better, you could have bought an Opel instead - they are currently silently updating cars during services to reduce emissions (and allegedly performance according to some reports I've seen) - http://boingboing.net/2016/01/...
Thirdly, once the dust settles on this the VW engines might even be among the best, they are certainly not amongst the worst in recent independent testing (e.g. http://www.which.co.uk/cars/dr... ). Even the petrols are busting limits (majority exceed CO limits, 10% exceed NOx), and the hybrids.
Or you could have bought a Tesla, which is probably the only unaffected option...
Yeah, but don't forget all classroom crypto projects must include a back door for teacher access.
Bonus marks are available for using steganography or other methods to provide plausible but inaccurate plain text through the back door such that the teacher does not know you are actually passing secret messages in class (before attempting, candidates may wish to note that teachers must be aware of the feature to award bonus, and that teacher awareness of such also indicates failure)...
Forget the gubmint spahs stuff, they've already established they can shoot anything out of the sky over their property ( http://www.cnet.com/news/judge... ), _and_ that it's also ok for the drone owner to be TTFO at gunpoint...
Now there's going to be free stuff flying through the air, and it's legal to shoot it down and keep it. That's gonna be redneck heaven, a fairground tin can shoot but free to play, real guns and real prizes...
Physical access was not actually (definitely) implied.
We did similar in late 80s on unix / X-Windows boxen - the uni had set them up with a nifty graphical login because command line was so-last-year, but no security (standard in those days) on the X display connections. All you needed was a program that showed the same password prompt window and grabbed the username/pw. Even when display security was added it was bodged so any "local" process could connect to :0, and anyone could remote into any workstation any time...
I'm sure later years of students had the same fun with xdm (which was eventually implemented IIRC) and xspy, but by then we'd moved on to popping up (half-tone or ascii art) topless pictures on unsuspecting colleagues' workstations, preferably when lecturer / supervisor was behind them.
It was all good learning, but seems as an industry as a whole, we never learn and the old tricks still work...
you should have the same duty to go to the scene of the accident
Stupid idea from politician not engaging brain.
In a car (in most places) you are required to not-leave the scene of the accident, and (most places) that requirement only applies when driving on a public highway (or equivalent concept). In most cases the crash site is on, or very nearly on, public property. This won't be the case with drones, at all. The crash site may be inaccessible, dangerous to access, illegal to access or just plain private property, and drone pilots already have been TTFO at gunpoint trying to do what he requires.
Someone should ask this guy if his law gives drone pilots the _right_ to go to the scene of an accident (think similar powers to the NTSB...) as well as the duty, if so why is he giving every Joe drone-pilot such power, and if not how are they supposed to carry out their duty?
Not in the license recommendations or the FAQ though is it - which was the point.
I'm aware of the passage from 3rd draft (which is not in the final rationale), as far as I am concerned it is a sell out to big corporate lobbyists. It basically says: some big corporate suppliers and users thought the status-quo (tivo-allowed) was the correct interpretation and therefore we'll exempt them from requirement to give their users this freedom. Seems some users are more free than others ? I wonder if they asked any of the end-user consumers who thought tivos interpretation was correct, or do those users not count because they are not big-corp? I wonder if they spoke to any small business users (the vast majority of businesses are small after all) about whether or not there saw any "disparity in clout" if they had a say half-million budget and were negotiating with, say, SAP, or Oracle ?
The final rationale says something about extending the provision (another incompatible GPL version and further balkanisation of the GPL world) if problems appear in currently exempted areas. Wonder what the big corporate lobbyists thought of that - "well we'd better be good" or "right we've bought a few years to get ourselves off this GPL stuff" ? Who they were is left unsaid, but various possible suspects are currently now pushing LLVM etc.
And it is not "a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device.", it is "a requirement for distribution in a particular form, namely preinstallation in a device in one field of use" - devices in other fields of use being conveniently exempt from compliance. If you can't comply (say because of contractual, legal or regulatory obligations) then it is a field of use restriction.
They leave unclear and unanswered _why_ there is a clause in GPLv3 that applies _only_ to a specific class of products.
If the Tivo clause is necessary to ensure user's freedoms, then why does it only apply to a class of products / users:
Or, conversely, why do business / professional users get less protection, why is there effectively a field-of-use restriction in the licence (where it is more restrictive in one field of use) ?
If it is there to ensure freedom, why do only some users get the benefit, and if it is not then why is it there at all ?
I think the problem is that X.ORG Foundation, LLC no longer actually exists. They need a legal trail to show that the current foundation is the legal successor in interest, which they haven't got. Possibly they messed up the legals somewhere along the way so they are not in fact successor in interest and title to the domain was never transferred. In which case the domain is not, in fact, theirs.
You say it's not true and then agree with me. Yes of course you can have fancy complex contributory benefits schemes with same rules for everyone, that is what the dutch already have - but the whole _point_ of a basic income scheme is to get away from that and have a _simple_ scheme effectively with no rules, or only very simple ones. Just that everyone gets paid, the same. Presumably they will pay the parents for kids as well, the only logical way to do it. That is essentially the same as child benefit in the UK, which suffers from the same problem - people can claim for kids who aren't even here, and who may not even exist and that cannot be checked without going through another country which is getting the money...
The essential problem is that "everyone", or every child, effectively becomes everyone in the whole of the EU, there cannot be any nationality requirement or (time of) residence requirement. All that would be needed would be an address in the city, which any EU national is entitled to. Twenty to a studio flat - no problem, it's not as though you are going to be there long, if at all, it's not as though anyone is going to check - the whole point of the system is to get rid of the cost of having people to check on the rules...
Good summary - unfortunately I don't have mod points today
I would add that the likely reason we can't get clear info from MS about Azure AD is that Azure is international and located in multiple regions / jurisdictions and I think the court cases are still ongoing about whether or not the US can short-circuit international treaties and local laws elsewhere and force MS to hand over data located in other jurisdictions. So, MS basically don't know.
It's safest to assume that govts are always likely to be able to get hold of keys whether stored on your own recovery server or with MS, and the likelihood rises with size of govt concerned...
Or you only give the benefits to Dutch nationals who've lived in the city longer than X years.
Just like the David Cameron wants to do in the UK... but cannot because it is against the EU rules.
After as little as 3 months (I believe), they have to treat any migrant from within the EU _exactly_ the same as a Dutch national resident for 50 (or whatever) yrs. The EU migrant can also claim local benefits for non-resident family back home, we know this because they already do it with UK benefits and it cannot be stopped because "EU rules".
To disguise the fact that the rest of it is inconsequential shit...
Similar to Sirius Cybernetics Corp products - their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.
* It's yet another flash bug, Outlook is just the host instead of IE or whatever. If you still have Flash on your system you should just assume you are pwned already and post your bank account, credit card details and nude photos straight to 4chan to shorten the painful process
* It is not even zero-day, like many Flash bugs are, because it's already patched/fixed (by MS on the Outlook side by the looks of it)
* It only affects you if you have preview window on, _and_ the malicious email happens to be the first one in the mailbox when Outlook is started
* If you still remember when internet connection speeds were measured in baud and you had to whistle for your email, you will use email in the way $deity intended and get the headers first so (at least some of) the crap never even hits your system, making this even less likely
Still, the real patch MS should issue is the one that kills Flash, at least as an embedded object, forever, it is just a serial security hole that Adobe are incapable of maintaining properly.
So you would stop refugees coming in because ISIS infiltrated their ranks.
Not what was said, OP said everyone would be stopped unless vetted and checked, if refugees pass the checks then they obviously they can pass the border, like anyone else.
You don't stop drinking all water because the source is infiltrated, you ensure you filter and purify it.
You don't not-dress a wound because the dressing may be contaminated, you ensure the dressing is sterile.
Of course, most of the "refugees" don't seem to want to be checked at borders, they would rather sneak across or use force of numbers to storm the border. They don't want to say who they are or how old they are or where they come from, they would rather destroy documents if they have to go through passport control, pick a country of origin that has most sympathy and lie about being a minor, all to get best chance of asylum. That all needs to stop.
Refugees need a safe place to go, but that doesn't need to be in any European country. Western nations should look to ensure safe camps in countries nearest to the war zones, to minimize the numbers undertaking fatal journeys, defend and police them with our troops if necessary (be a better use than bombing the war zones).
Anything is possible.
So it's impossible for anything to be impossible?
No, but some "impossible" things may just be very very hard and take a long long time, and that also means it may take a long, long time to show that it definitely can't be done.
Apple should use the deep thought defence:
Judge: your task is to decrypt this phone
Apple: tricky
Judge: but can you do it?
Apple: yes, but it may take a while
Judge: how long?
Apple: approximately seven and a half million years
Now find an expert witness to prove Apple is wrong...
Perhaps, but can you get me a sample certified to be the stuff being pumped into the ground so that my study has merit? Otherwise it's almost useless - I can get a container of random chemical sludge to test from anywhere. And if we could get certified samples there wouldn't be a host of unanswered questions about the potential effects.
of course there would.
There are certified samples of radiation levels around nuclear power stations, there are also studies showing those levels are too low to have any health effects, and there are also studies showing adverse health effects...
Same applies to wind turbines, there are plenty of infrasound readings, plenty of industry people saying the levels are too low to affect health, and plenty of reported adverse health effects...
the same unanswered, or disputed, questions will remain in every case - a) is there a real effect or just a quirk of statistics or noise and b) what is responsible for the effect from the millions of variables.
Even if you answer those, there are still issues. We have been mining coal for hundreds of years, we have plenty of data on the risks of working in mines and of living near them, and it sure looks like coal mining is the cause. Yet we still mine coal. And when we close the mines, oddly we still have the health problems, yet they get blamed on poverty resulting from the mine closure, not on any residual pollution. This is possibly because there is no owner left to sue, or because people naturally want a fashionable cause to blame for their effect.
Well, just as long as you go for the occasional motorway long drive to burn all the stuff out, you should be fine, the problem is if you leave it to clog. The particle filter will only clear at high temperatures, like long high-speed journeys. So as long as you somehow do that, the car won't complain and it should go without any issues.
How often is occasional, how much motorway? I've seen stuff that says you need at least every two weeks and never-drop-below 50mph for 20mins? Sometimes, as said above, my current diesel has gone months without a motorway, nearest motorway is over 30mins, and you need a clear stretch without 50-limit roadworks which means going further - basically a 60mile 2hr run every two weeks, thats a hell of a lot of time and fuel if you aren't doing it anyway, and like I said, some years I do, some I don't.
Also, dpf max lifetimes are rumoured to be only 100k miles or so (pre-dpf VW diesels are usually good for much much more than that) and replacements may be 2-3k, i.e. about the same price as a new engine. Even if we assume no dpf issues until end of expected dpf life, you would be better off with a petrol that was 15mpg less fuel efficient. Crazy.
All I want is Golf TDi like they made 15 yrs ago, but new. Instead I will have to get something that is less efficient (real-world mpg) or less reliable or has shorter lifespan, or all three. All in the name of meeting tighter emissions standards, which it turns out they don't actually meet in the real world anyway (not VW or anyone else). And this is progress!?
The governments of the world are criminalizing otherwise legitimate business by enacting laws that make the cost of doing business such that actually complying would put them out of business.
The business of government is regulation (and taxation). This is not news, it's been the way of government since probably before the Roman empire. It is a business risk, I hope you identified it and planned appropriately.
Now the FCC is passing a law that is going to *outlaw* for all practical purposes my business. Is there intent good? Sure. I want to be able to use the airwaves and we need some regulation. However banning free software doesn't solve the problem of stopping a small number of people (the ones intent on breaking the law) from continuing to violate the good rules.
Regulations never stop the small number of people intent on breaking the law - that is not their purpose, it is to reduce the larger number of people who accidentally break the law because it is easy to do so and easy to claim ignorance "all I did was... how is that illegal". The gun laws in my country do not stop criminals (the ones intent on breaking the law) from getting hold of guns, they make it harder, more dangerous, more expensive maybe, but really they only prevent ordinary law abiding people. But they work. Ordinary people are not armed. Result: police are not routinely armed, Result: US police shoot and kill more people in a typical _day_ than ours do in a typical _year_, about 50 times fewer accounting for population size. But the people intent on breaking the law can still get guns, the laws do not stop them.
Secondly, the FCC regs as I understand it do not ban free software, rather they ban modifiable devices. Devices may still be made with free software, but must be locked down in some way. That may require redesigning your software to lock down only the bits legally required, or locking down the device - your choice.
Should everybody involved in GNU/Linux just stop shipping product and go out of business? Those who don't are outlaws. Either they follow the law, lock down devices, and violate other laws on copyright, or they stop shipping there product!!!!
Ah, you must be talking about GPLv3 software. Linux itself is ok - it is v2 - you can ship a locked down Linux device.
For other GPLv3 software, I think you are reading the GPL incorrectly. There is no "either/or" in S12, you MUST stop shipping because that is what the GPL says, there is no option to not comply with the conditions and not lock down - you would still violate the GPL (IMO, IANAL, and I am not in your jurisdiction).
"if conditions are imposed on you [...] that contradict the conditions of this license [...] you may not convey it at all."
Again, there is no option to not comply with those other conditions, it is the imposition of the conditions whether you comply or not (and likely even if the conditions exist in law but are not generally enforced) that triggers the clause.
Even the FSF has referred to this as a "liberty or death" clause. The GPL has always been a political license, intended to subvert copyright (and patent) law by using it against itself, some conflict with the law is inevitable and when the law wins the GPL software dies. Your business is a pawn in someone else's bigger political battle. That is by design, clearly inherent in the license of the software you chose to use - other Free Software does not have this issue, with BSD of course you wouldn't have a problem complying with the law.
But of course you know all this from back whenever you chose GPL over BSD etc., and when you assessed the relative risks of each license and regulation (and the risk of gplv3 conflicting with regulations was known before gplv3, because I knew and I am damn sure I wasn't the only one to raise it in the consultation), and before you bet your business on it. So, I am just reminding you that you took a ris
Engineers design things to meet the constraints they are given, This doesn't indicate malice on the part of the engineers, this indicates that the testing methods are faulty. Put the cars on a dynamo and simulate real world driving conditions!
Trouble is, there are various systems (traction control, stabilty, braking, abs/esp/ebs/ecs/dcs/tcs/lalala) on a modern car that _have_ to know if they are on dyno or they f**k up and trash the test, the car, and maybe the dyno.
Real world driving conditions are variable, unpredictable and unrepeatable, test conditions are not, that is the point. Any test that is predictable and repeatable and hence fair to the multiple participants is also going to be detectable and hence can be designed-to or cheated.
This is the greatest thing to happen to the libre firmware movement.
no, it is the worst.
It is the clearest, easiest to explain to dim people (e.g. politicians), real-world example of why "end users must _not_ be allowed to control firmware".
Pretty much all emissions control measures in cars reduce performance and/or fuel economy, and therefore removing them tends to be made illegal. Now it has been shown that a practically undetectable (escaped detection for almost 10yrs) firmware change can reduce emissions when tested and improve performance at other times. How tempting is that for users ?
Govt.s can afford to investigate VW and fine them billions, they cannot afford to do complex technical investigations on millions of car owners many of whom wouldn't be able to pay a fine that covered the cost of the investigation. So they will go back to VW (and other mfrs) and demand that they make it impossible for users to change the EPA-approved firmware, and this scandal will be the reason given.