Well, nothing to worry about except identity theft, fraud, burglary, car theft, extortion, the physical safety of yourself and your family, misinterpretation of innocent data by governments, employers, insurers and other financial services...
But sure, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Right. Good luck with that.
The problem for insurance companies is often the "accidents" that involved a motorcycle and another vehicle, but no actual collision between them. Car pulls out in front of motorcycle and the rider swerves to avoid it and loses control. Car changes lanes right in front of motorcycle coming up to overtake, and the rider brakes sharply and loses control.
The insurer for the car driver who actually caused the accident has every incentive to argue that the rider was at fault in such cases.
I live near Cambridge, UK, where not only do we have motorcyclists on the road, we also have a lot of cycling generally, with cycles often using quite narrow lanes further to the edge of the road than the normal driving line for larger vehicles. In a couple of decades of driving here, I have never managed to not see a cycle or motorcycle while I was pulling out of a junction in my car and cause a crash. Nor, as far as I'm aware, has any other driver I know. So yes, I think if someone manages to turn right out of a junction (i.e., across the path of traffic going right-to-left on our roads) in front of a cycle or motorcycle and causes a crash as a result, under normal conditions I'm going with it being 100% their fault.
99% of motorcycle related fatalities are self inflicted.
A lot of motorcycle accidents happen at road junctions where the bike is not noticed by drivers of larger vehicles crossing its path, or when vehicles change lanes without their drivers properly checking for a bike already in the other lane. You can ride defensively to mitigate some of these risks, but ultimately if a driver in a larger vehicle does something dangerous because they didn't look properly and see you, there is only so much you can do, and you're inherently in a much more vulnerable position on a motorcycle.
I've heard that the insurance industry likes to argue that motorcyclists are the sole cause of many motorcycle crashes, but then the insurance industry is trying to avoid paying out for the drivers who forced the motorcycles off the road, so it's not exactly neutral here.
That's the theory, at least here in the UK. Sadly, from personal experience, it doesn't always work like that and the relevant authorities are not good at fixing oversights, sometimes with very dangerous results.
Our deal-breaking reservations are much the same, though it seems the UI is also significantly worse than 7 because of the weird-Metro-hybrid doing-things-in-more-than-one-place factor. On the other hand, there also seem to be few good reasons to upgrade. There don't seem to be many big improvements even today compared to 7, except that 7 is no longer getting updates for compatibility with newer hardware and communications standards, and only has a limited window left for security updates. The most compelling reason not to use 7 on a new PC today seems to be that Microsoft have forced vendors to stop supplying it, so unless you're on a volume plan it's probably not available any more. That move pretty much tells the whole story about how good 10 is and how desperate Microsoft are to get everyone to move anyway.
I wonder whether the hardware parts are just a smokescreen for trying to make it harder to continue with Windows 7 instead of giving in and moving to 10 if you don't really want to.
Ironically, given the average usefulness of Microsoft's forums, they may have just improved the search result signal/noise ratio enough that they've actually extended the useful lifetime instead...
For example, it could mean having to say no to a CEO that wants to change things, to creatively handle certifications and audits without imposing a detailed process...
And this right here is why a lot of "Agile" efforts are misguided.
Yes, for sure, hire smart people and let them be the experts at how to do their thing. Let them automate, test, develop in small steps and integrate often, if those things work for your organisation. Don't micromanage or dictate policy unnecessarily.
But remember that developers are usually not operating in isolation. They are part of a wider organisation, and the software they build serves a purpose as part of the organisation's wider strategy. That strategy is senior management's responsibility, and the idea that the developers should be fully aware of that strategy or have final authority over anything affecting the organisation is no more credible as the idea that the CEO should understand every line of code.
Three strikes and you're out and any revenue is confiscated.
I personally saw that happen well over three times with the exact same content and more times with other content in a period of just a few days by the same user. There was no apparent consequence for them at all and no acknowledgement from YouTube that they had any obligation to act on the repeated infringement despite this being actively drawn to their attention. The user only backed off when we made it clear to them that we knew who they were and they were about to be in court.
Moreover, confiscating their revenue does nothing to compensate us for thousands of views of our content on YouTube during that period, in direct competition with our own site where the content was available but chargeable. That is simply YouTube benefitting from copyright infringement at our expense, pure and simple.
Right, but the real question is surely why YouTube should be entitled to benefit from copyright infringement either. The safe harbour provisions under the DMCA and its counterparts are really very generous to mass content hosting sites, and it's not obvious that they deserve the special treatment they get (again, often at the expense of legitimate rightsholders) just because their business model fails without it. It's not as if the market hasn't already given us numerous authorised alternatives for people who enjoy listening to music or watching shows online, and there's no inherent reason independent creators of original content like vloggers or game casters couldn't make their own arrangements to host their content instead of relying on the centralised money magnet that is YouTube.
The trouble with this approach is that it's still YouTube itself still benefits from that content being available, directly or indirectly, and potentially at the expense of the legitimate rightsholder.
Maybe, but if someone has already had the exact same content taken down four times this week because of formal notifications that they are infringing, what are the odds that they are suddenly a properly licensed distributor of that content when they upload it again the following day?
But schemes like that are typically only available to the bigger players whose work gets ripped all the time. They're not much use to small, independent content creators, who may suffer significantly even from less frequent infringement but don't have the resources to be uploading everything just in case.
You are being far too kind to them. From direct personal experience, you can have the exact same account uploading the exact same infringing content they have already been notified about just hours after it's been taken down in response to a formal notification, and they still don't do anything.
They have some arrangements with the big content creators.
From direct personal experience, they do not even acknowledge their legal obligations under the DMCA and its counterparts if you're a small creator that is reporting repeated infringement by the same account.
Some businesses outside the EU are already doing that because of the perceived threat of the GDPR. The potential damages for a site like YouTube, which has had a very comfortable ride in recent years given the nature of what it does and the normal effects of copyright law if not for the safe harbour schemes, could easily be high enough to justify pulling out.
Well, they can certainly tell when the same content is uploaded repeatedly after they've already received a formal notification that it is infringing. Fixing that problem alone would already be quite helpful to a lot of smaller content producers, whose overheads issuing takedown notices every time can be significant.
But none of those sites, to my knowledge, has been used to host significant amounts of content that belonged to a business where I worked, in direct competition with the business itself and making real money for both the infringing poster and the hosting site through attached ads. YouTube has, and its takedown processes were absurdly onerous compared to the effort for someone to just create another new account and upload again, and it failed to comply with the rules about persistent offenders even under the very generous protections it gets with the DMCA and EUCD. So frankly, it made its bed, and now it gets to lie in it. I have absolutely no sympathy for it.
It's not paranoia if they really are all out to get you.:-) I too use different banks and other financial services for just about everything, due in part to past experiences with too many eggs in one basket when something stopped working.
Bank != credit card != mortgage lender != any service for business != any other service for business.
But that sentence there will not win you over with management.
No doubt you're right, at least regarding a lot of businesses. Without both management and tech people on board, you're certainly not going to escape the trap, and if Oracle believes that's the position you're in, you have no leverage at all in negotiations.
In that case, management just has to accept that they wrote a blank cheque to an organisation like Oracle and now they have to pay up.
Surely that at least depends on how long you've been using it for? Some places have been on Oracle for many years, and the alternatives have come a long way in that time. Migrating fundamental infrastructure in your organisation is always risky, expensive, time-consuming and generally not great, but being abused by a supplier who holds you captive isn't great either.
Because once the application are written to one flavor of SQL and the large amount data stored into that database, it is prohibitively expensive and disruptive to migrate out
It's probably expensive, yes, but whether it's prohibitively so depends entirely on your circumstances. Maybe you can afford to hire enough smart people to get the job done if the alternative is being forced to migrate to some new cloud/subscription mess, which itself comes with a lot of risk and with unknown stability and uncertain future costs.
No, they couldn't. The provisions in the enterprise schemes that Oracle and other large IT organisations set up in return for offering deep discounts to their biggest customers almost invariably contain significant obligations around audits, which will be expensive and disruptive regardless of whether anything contravening any terms is actually found.
The correct solution is probably to respond in kind. "Nice Oracle deployment we've got, and quite lucrative for you guys over many years now. Be a shame if the relationship broke down and we had to spend that money migrating our whole infrastructure to [competitor] instead."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, nothing to worry about except identity theft, fraud, burglary, car theft, extortion, the physical safety of yourself and your family, misinterpretation of innocent data by governments, employers, insurers and other financial services...
But sure, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Right. Good luck with that.
The problem for insurance companies is often the "accidents" that involved a motorcycle and another vehicle, but no actual collision between them. Car pulls out in front of motorcycle and the rider swerves to avoid it and loses control. Car changes lanes right in front of motorcycle coming up to overtake, and the rider brakes sharply and loses control.
The insurer for the car driver who actually caused the accident has every incentive to argue that the rider was at fault in such cases.
I live near Cambridge, UK, where not only do we have motorcyclists on the road, we also have a lot of cycling generally, with cycles often using quite narrow lanes further to the edge of the road than the normal driving line for larger vehicles. In a couple of decades of driving here, I have never managed to not see a cycle or motorcycle while I was pulling out of a junction in my car and cause a crash. Nor, as far as I'm aware, has any other driver I know. So yes, I think if someone manages to turn right out of a junction (i.e., across the path of traffic going right-to-left on our roads) in front of a cycle or motorcycle and causes a crash as a result, under normal conditions I'm going with it being 100% their fault.
Maybe this is a cultural thing. I am in the UK, and in my entire life I have never seen a motorcyclist doing anything like what you described.
99% of motorcycle related fatalities are self inflicted.
A lot of motorcycle accidents happen at road junctions where the bike is not noticed by drivers of larger vehicles crossing its path, or when vehicles change lanes without their drivers properly checking for a bike already in the other lane. You can ride defensively to mitigate some of these risks, but ultimately if a driver in a larger vehicle does something dangerous because they didn't look properly and see you, there is only so much you can do, and you're inherently in a much more vulnerable position on a motorcycle.
I've heard that the insurance industry likes to argue that motorcyclists are the sole cause of many motorcycle crashes, but then the insurance industry is trying to avoid paying out for the drivers who forced the motorcycles off the road, so it's not exactly neutral here.
That's the theory, at least here in the UK. Sadly, from personal experience, it doesn't always work like that and the relevant authorities are not good at fixing oversights, sometimes with very dangerous results.
Our deal-breaking reservations are much the same, though it seems the UI is also significantly worse than 7 because of the weird-Metro-hybrid doing-things-in-more-than-one-place factor. On the other hand, there also seem to be few good reasons to upgrade. There don't seem to be many big improvements even today compared to 7, except that 7 is no longer getting updates for compatibility with newer hardware and communications standards, and only has a limited window left for security updates. The most compelling reason not to use 7 on a new PC today seems to be that Microsoft have forced vendors to stop supplying it, so unless you're on a volume plan it's probably not available any more. That move pretty much tells the whole story about how good 10 is and how desperate Microsoft are to get everyone to move anyway.
I wonder whether the hardware parts are just a smokescreen for trying to make it harder to continue with Windows 7 instead of giving in and moving to 10 if you don't really want to.
Ironically, given the average usefulness of Microsoft's forums, they may have just improved the search result signal/noise ratio enough that they've actually extended the useful lifetime instead...
For example, it could mean having to say no to a CEO that wants to change things, to creatively handle certifications and audits without imposing a detailed process...
And this right here is why a lot of "Agile" efforts are misguided.
Yes, for sure, hire smart people and let them be the experts at how to do their thing. Let them automate, test, develop in small steps and integrate often, if those things work for your organisation. Don't micromanage or dictate policy unnecessarily.
But remember that developers are usually not operating in isolation. They are part of a wider organisation, and the software they build serves a purpose as part of the organisation's wider strategy. That strategy is senior management's responsibility, and the idea that the developers should be fully aware of that strategy or have final authority over anything affecting the organisation is no more credible as the idea that the CEO should understand every line of code.
But what about all the information other people post about me?
The greatest con that social networks ever pulled was to get everyone to spy on everyone else for them so they didn't have to do it themselves.
Three strikes and you're out and any revenue is confiscated.
I personally saw that happen well over three times with the exact same content and more times with other content in a period of just a few days by the same user. There was no apparent consequence for them at all and no acknowledgement from YouTube that they had any obligation to act on the repeated infringement despite this being actively drawn to their attention. The user only backed off when we made it clear to them that we knew who they were and they were about to be in court.
Moreover, confiscating their revenue does nothing to compensate us for thousands of views of our content on YouTube during that period, in direct competition with our own site where the content was available but chargeable. That is simply YouTube benefitting from copyright infringement at our expense, pure and simple.
Right, but the real question is surely why YouTube should be entitled to benefit from copyright infringement either. The safe harbour provisions under the DMCA and its counterparts are really very generous to mass content hosting sites, and it's not obvious that they deserve the special treatment they get (again, often at the expense of legitimate rightsholders) just because their business model fails without it. It's not as if the market hasn't already given us numerous authorised alternatives for people who enjoy listening to music or watching shows online, and there's no inherent reason independent creators of original content like vloggers or game casters couldn't make their own arrangements to host their content instead of relying on the centralised money magnet that is YouTube.
The trouble with this approach is that it's still YouTube itself still benefits from that content being available, directly or indirectly, and potentially at the expense of the legitimate rightsholder.
Maybe, but if someone has already had the exact same content taken down four times this week because of formal notifications that they are infringing, what are the odds that they are suddenly a properly licensed distributor of that content when they upload it again the following day?
But schemes like that are typically only available to the bigger players whose work gets ripped all the time. They're not much use to small, independent content creators, who may suffer significantly even from less frequent infringement but don't have the resources to be uploading everything just in case.
You are being far too kind to them. From direct personal experience, you can have the exact same account uploading the exact same infringing content they have already been notified about just hours after it's been taken down in response to a formal notification, and they still don't do anything.
They have some arrangements with the big content creators.
From direct personal experience, they do not even acknowledge their legal obligations under the DMCA and its counterparts if you're a small creator that is reporting repeated infringement by the same account.
Some businesses outside the EU are already doing that because of the perceived threat of the GDPR. The potential damages for a site like YouTube, which has had a very comfortable ride in recent years given the nature of what it does and the normal effects of copyright law if not for the safe harbour schemes, could easily be high enough to justify pulling out.
Well, they can certainly tell when the same content is uploaded repeatedly after they've already received a formal notification that it is infringing. Fixing that problem alone would already be quite helpful to a lot of smaller content producers, whose overheads issuing takedown notices every time can be significant.
But none of those sites, to my knowledge, has been used to host significant amounts of content that belonged to a business where I worked, in direct competition with the business itself and making real money for both the infringing poster and the hosting site through attached ads. YouTube has, and its takedown processes were absurdly onerous compared to the effort for someone to just create another new account and upload again, and it failed to comply with the rules about persistent offenders even under the very generous protections it gets with the DMCA and EUCD. So frankly, it made its bed, and now it gets to lie in it. I have absolutely no sympathy for it.
It's not paranoia if they really are all out to get you. :-) I too use different banks and other financial services for just about everything, due in part to past experiences with too many eggs in one basket when something stopped working.
Bank != credit card != mortgage lender != any service for business != any other service for business.
But that sentence there will not win you over with management.
No doubt you're right, at least regarding a lot of businesses. Without both management and tech people on board, you're certainly not going to escape the trap, and if Oracle believes that's the position you're in, you have no leverage at all in negotiations.
In that case, management just has to accept that they wrote a blank cheque to an organisation like Oracle and now they have to pay up.
Surely that at least depends on how long you've been using it for? Some places have been on Oracle for many years, and the alternatives have come a long way in that time. Migrating fundamental infrastructure in your organisation is always risky, expensive, time-consuming and generally not great, but being abused by a supplier who holds you captive isn't great either.
Because once the application are written to one flavor of SQL and the large amount data stored into that database, it is prohibitively expensive and disruptive to migrate out
It's probably expensive, yes, but whether it's prohibitively so depends entirely on your circumstances. Maybe you can afford to hire enough smart people to get the job done if the alternative is being forced to migrate to some new cloud/subscription mess, which itself comes with a lot of risk and with unknown stability and uncertain future costs.
No, they couldn't. The provisions in the enterprise schemes that Oracle and other large IT organisations set up in return for offering deep discounts to their biggest customers almost invariably contain significant obligations around audits, which will be expensive and disruptive regardless of whether anything contravening any terms is actually found.
The correct solution is probably to respond in kind. "Nice Oracle deployment we've got, and quite lucrative for you guys over many years now. Be a shame if the relationship broke down and we had to spend that money migrating our whole infrastructure to [competitor] instead."