Plenty of computer manufacturers manage to sell product without you ever hearing the names of any of their marketing workers. Apple's janitors were also essential to their success as a company, but unless we start giving everyone praise, it's not fair to give any to someone like Jobs. It's the engineers who made the product, everyone else was auxiliary.
The question isn't who played an essential role because pretty much everyone in the company played an essential role, but if you re-role the hiring dice and end up with another janitor they probably would have been just as successful. In most companies this holds true for most of the marketing and engineering staff, they've great at their jobs but they're far from the only people who could be great at their jobs.
As for Apple I think Jobs and Wozniak were both exceptional. Replace Jobs and the Apple I might never have existed as more than a hobbyist project, or even if you had another co-founder Apple never would have found the same success. Replace Wozniak with an average good engineer and you just don't have the same level of hardware to sell.
The main one is that he's strongly Democrat. For reasons I don't fully understand (electoral college mumble mumble) it seems US candidates cannot ever be independent, they have to pick a side.
It's a common characteristic of first past the post systems, of course it's not inevitable, particularly in the US. I could easily imagine the US supporting a Tea Party based in the deep south and the rest of the country being fought out between moderate Republicans and Democrats at the legislative level.
The only issue is the Presidential elections, the concern isn't vote splitting, either a Republican or Democrat could win, but I suspect both Republicans and Democrats would unify to make sure the Tea Party candidate didn't get in and that might cause the Tea Party to simply fall back into the Republicans.
So that's going to cause issues right there. Reform of Washington should be a bi-partisan issue: I had expected him to run as an independent and then resign and trigger fresh elections once his platform was passed. That way anyone could feel secure voting for him. But I guess that sort of thing isn't possible.
The other is that surely he it takes more than one man to deliver the reforms he wants. Why isn't he creating a political party rather than running for President? This must be the only-two-parties rule again? I heard once that there are more than just Dems and Reps in the US political system but I never hear much about them.
Going as an independent is basically a way of signalling that you're in it as a spoiler (and possibly just for your ego). Running in the Democratic primary signals that he might actually be trying to get the job.
Uhh, the last major reform bill we had was McCain-Feingold, and McCain is a Republican and it had bipartisan support.
That was also back in 2002. I don't know exactly when it happened but at some point in the ensuing 13 years the mainstream Republican party went off the deep end, bought a backhoe, then kept on digging. It might be possible to build support for campaign reform among Republicans but only if you play the extremist at the same time.
There might be someone who can sell moderate bi-partisan policies to Republicans, but it's not Lessig.
Lessee, we have shows about insane hairdressers in LA.
Never heard of it.
We have weird shows about making people run around in the woods without clothing - but in a twist, blur out the tittilating bits.
Actually a good show, the nudity premise is dumb and tacky, but it's the first decent Survival show I've seen since Survivorman.
We have shows about the contents of storage units and parking meter attendants, we have shows about idiots who live in teh Alaskan bush, yet seem to know as much about survival in the bush as someone from New York city. We have shows about how people are stupid, and every human advance is because of ancient aliens. We have shows about peole who think that a woman's vagina is a clown car. I gotta stop - but there are hundreds more examples.
The fact is, Television today is simply bottom of the barrel bad!
And the channels that were good at one time have been taken over. The learning channel was once about learning, The history channel once had history, not swamp logging midgets who run a pawn shop in Alaska's north slope.
So no - it isn't too much programming. It's that none of it is worth watchning
You only remember the great shows of the past, the really crappy sitcoms, dramas, and documentaries of the past were just as unwatchable as the bad reality TV today. Sometimes things work and you have True Detective Season 1, and sometimes it just doesn't click and you get True Detective Season 2.
Yes there's more crappy stuff by volume and a lot of the reality stuff is a write off, but I also think it's a bit of a golden age, 20 years ago shows would basically hit reset at the end of every episode. Now because the Internet and downloading we can see long form serial drama in the mass media for maybe the first time since Dickens.
I think the one thing we can legitimately be said to have lost because of the number of choices is a common conversation. I have a bunch of geek friends and I can't discuss GoT with any of them because none of them watch it, yeah they watch TV but their favourite shows happen to be different than mine so we've lost that thing were people can turn to eachother at the office and all discuss the show from last night.
The scientists administered the drug to 657 people at high risk for contracting HIV, including users of injected drugs. At the end of the study, every single subject was still free of the virus.
Can anyone who can view more than the abstract tell me how many they would normally expect to contract HIV?
Nevermind, buried in the NYT article:
That amounts to 388 “person years” of observation.
By contrast, in a 2014 clinical trial among gay men in England, participants who received a placebo instead of Truvada had nine infections for every 100 person years of observation, said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
So assuming similar populations 388 * 9 / 100 = ~35, of course I'm too lazy to compute the confidence intervals.
The scientists administered the drug to 657 people at high risk for contracting HIV, including users of injected drugs. At the end of the study, every single subject was still free of the virus.
Can anyone who can view more than the abstract tell me how many they would normally expect to contract HIV?
Funny thing is - it DID just end in all the rest of the world. Only in the United States are the descendants of slaves still reviled by a significant portion of the former slave holders.
Only a small percentage of all the slaves transported from Africa to the New World were destined for the US. Brazil got far more slaves than the US did. Brazil has no serious race problem, do they? Maybe you can point to the history of SJW's in Brazil struggling to keep the black man on the plantations? No? Didn't think so.
YES, SJW'S CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROBLEM!!
Well you could blame US race relationions on a SJW phenomena that has only been around for 10-20 years, or you could blame it on a country which had to fight a civil war with the south to eliminate slavery, had another massive political fight with the south to eliminate institutional racism, and still has legislators and government officials actively trying to suppress minority voters.
Yeah, I guess it's totally the SJWs' fault*...
* Yes I realize you said "contribute" not "cause" but racism is heavily entrenched in US society (and many other societies). SJWs are guilty of suppressing some legitimate speech, but not of causing racism.
the long slow death of literacy could not possibly be harmed by more emjois.
I like the joke but think it might be wrong.
I use emojis for the same reason I use big words and complex syntax, it gives me the ability to communicate with more clarity, nuance, and fun.
Sometimes the emotion I'm trying to convey is properly captured using real words and proper sentences. But sometimes I'm simultaneously trying to imply a child-like state of mind, and emojis do that really really well.
Of course I don't know what they hell they're doing in unicode, not to mention the quixotic quest to make them gender neutral. Do they think they're going to make them race and culture neutral as well or is the standard just going to contain this big blog of largely Western references and the rest of the planet is unrepresented?
The company was dead the moment it came out that all the female accounts were fake and paid for account deletions never happened.
It should be dead. I'm not convinced yet it will actually die. Even with the leak.
Depends what you mean by die. As one of the top cheat-on-your-spouse sites they should be done. As a widely known name and a pre-existing website that could be run with a skeleton staff for cheap it could go on indefinitely.
A lot of the information that has been released, most notably employee emails and internal company documents, couldn't possibly have also been on the servers that held the databases for the AM site. So either (1) the hackers thoroughly penetrated the company and got *everything*, or (2) the people running AM were stupider than I believe possible (actually you would have to *work* to put all of your eggs in one basket that way)
I think a combination of 1 & 2 is most likely. There's no real way for a user to tell if a site is secure or not, and an insecure site is easier to run than a secure one. No need to manage a bunch of different logins, sign out keys, create fake databases, etc. The easiest thing is to simply give devs the power to go anywhere and do anything and I wouldn't expect the management of a site like AM to spend money on something like security.
In that scenario all you need is to get a remote login to one machine, from there you sneak in a logger and grab the one admin password they use everywhere and then all you need is a bit of patience before you have everything on their network.
Are you suggesting that the hackers are some sort of vigilante activist group out to stomp out infidelity or immorality in general?
Huh? I felt the hackers made a stand against the fraud perpetrated by the company, not infidelity in general. Where did you infer infidelity from my post?
The company was dead the moment it came out that all the female accounts were fake and paid for account deletions never happened. It was unnecessary to release personal user information to punish the company.
Primarily to refute the claim made in the post I replied to that "because the hackers committed an illegal act that what they did was immoral, and it's immoral to 'celebrate' their hack."
I didn't raise the topic of infidelity or its morality at all in my post.
That wasn't the quote, the poster wasn't clear if he considered the hacks immoral just because they were illegal or because of the exposed user information coupled with the illegality: Just because they used illegal techniques to attack a morally reprehensible company doesn't mean their techniques are magically vindicated. Celebrating the hack is immoral as well.
True the poster didn't mention the user information directly but I feel it's implied due to the volume of coverage and discussion about the user info.
I think the hackers would be morally justified if the simply hacked AM and demonstrated they were lying about the female users and the deleted accounts. They became immoral when they also released very sensitive and potentially devastating user information.
It's when paid businesses go to Ubuntu they have to worry, but the requirements of the customers willing to pay out big money for licenses and support are vastly different than those of desktop users
And here's the rub, they made the desktop platform pretty bleeding edge (major kernel changes are inflicted in routine updates, breaking things like nvidia driver if you choose to use it, not merely being mostly unhelpful about closed source realities but actively making it more painful). Even if drivers didn't break, updates can change things dramatically at a whim, and there's no blessed 'long term' servicing branch that so nearly matches their 6 month cycle releases like Ubuntu does. RedHat is making the free situation needlessly complicated and risky to push people to RHEL, but instead are giving ubuntu the free market. Like you say, the free market by itself is no huge threat, but it influences the commercial market in the long term.
So maybe not all people like the bleeding edge and new fancy stuff like I do though I suspect Fedora's primary trouble comes from RedHat seeming too corporate and people going to what looks like a more community oriented distro.
You could also say RedHat has very little to lose by having something more like Ubuntu in lifecycle out there for free. Those folks won't pay for anything, but their mindshare is valuable among the audience that will pay.
That matters for sure, but when you're looking at an IT system responsible for millions or even billions of dollars then things like enterprize support and a dedicated server OS designed with stability in mind become really important. Whether or not you enjoy using that particular Linux flavour at home becomes really a non-factor really quickly.
RedHat got into the datacenter by being a popular desktop distro, people setting things up in the datacenter used what they were familiar with.
People have been predicting that RedHat would run into this sort of problem ever since they abandoned the home/workstation market. It's taken a lot longer than I expected, but it's happening.
RedHat was able to hold this off for a while by getting the datacenter managers to mandate standardization, but in AWS such rules are far less enforced.
David Lang
I don't feel like RedHat abandoned the home/workstation market, both my home and work desktop run Fedora 22.
As for AWS who is using those machines? My gut is these are individuals or small shops willing to pay for cloud hosting but unwilling to pay the extra for support. For instance CentOS is beating RHEL 29% to 11%, granted I'm not sure what support you get for RHEL in AWS but I doubt there's any reason to use CentOS over RHEL in the cloud aside from cost. I tried switching to Ubuntu for my personal cloud server but went to CentOS instead.
My hunch is the vast majority of those Ubuntu VMs aren't paying any support and thus wouldn't really impact RedHat's bottom line anyway. It's when paid businesses go to Ubuntu they have to worry, but the requirements of the customers willing to pay out big money for licenses and support are vastly different than those of desktop users.
Am I they only one that is completely freaked out by this ? These are some seriously scary numbers !
I think some context is important. From what I can tell is a criminal organization hacking the hospital so they can access patient records and blackmail the patients is going to be counted the same as the secretary opening an email attachment, getting a virus, and temporarily turning into part of a botnet. It might not even be clear from IT's perspective which is which but I'm guessing most of those breaches are fairly benign.
I'm not sure either of those applies. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt a judge or jury would agree with your interpretation of "intentionally causes damage".
Agreed.
In the wire fraud definition you cited, I don't think AT&T is fulfilling the core of the definition: "defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises". Advertising, by and large, is not considered fraud (as much as we might feel that way about most ads we see).
Here I'm not so certain. The fraud isn't the ad itself, but the fact that the ad being on the site claims a relationship between their client (the advertiser) and the site owner that does not exist. Stanford accepted that jewelry ad? They must be legit. My favourite webcomic is advertising X? Well I know the guy really vets his advertisers and I like to support the comic so I'll go through.
Of course AT&T is not the first to insert their own ads into web pages, any charges are likely thwarted by whatever click-through consent they obtained or by the precedent of adware companies getting away with the same thing for years.
" Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin. "
Sounds like a good use of state authority to me.
Imagine logging on to a grocery store website, choosing the items you want and clicking deliver. Drone is loaded up at the warehouse and flies the goods right to your door.
It's cheaper and more environmentally friendly since you're not driving, you can save time and reduce food waste by replacing single massive shopping trips with a bunch of small immediate need purchases, and you can replace the massive grocery store with its giant parking lot with something more interesting.
Sure there's a lot of potential problems to, but there could be some very nice benefits.
By your logic black people are "white" to non-racists.
No, black people are still black, it just that non-racists don't care. Jews might even be white to many racists, they're just a category of white they don't like.
I'm not sure I really get your insistence with the idea that Jews are non-white. If you want to argue Jews are discriminated against that's fine, it's also true that there are a lot of Jews who aren't white by any metric. But if you're going to consider the US context, namely people like Jerry Seinfeld, I'd say Jews are white.
Jews aren't "white", there was this little kerfuffle about it about 70 years ago. We might not always have dark skin but we're not "white" and have never been "white". Anyone insisting Jews are "white" needs to get a goddamn time machine and go tell it to the people who've been enslaving, slaughtering, and persecuting us for the last 4000 or so years.
Assume you're taking about Jews who are white skinned I'd consider them white.
Yes they were subjected to horrific discrimination in the past, and in some places or settings they still are, and depending on the scenario it might even depend on ethnicity instead of religion.
But in the context we're talking about now, and in fact most contexts, I'd include them as "white".
This complaint just doesn't make any sense. We are moving to this pricing model all over the place, even in traffic control situations. Tolls on bridges and tunnels and express lanes are often "surge priced" these days. The express lanes into Miami on I-95 are only a quarter most of the time. But during rush hour and other heavy traffic times the lanes bump up towards $10.
And those are fixed resources - so there is no way to get more cars through the tunnel or over the bridge. With Uber the raised prices will theoretically get extra drivers on the street - limiting the surge in prices and getting service to more people.
And as others have mentioned - if you don't like the policy, you have alternatives.
I suspect it's a question of predictability. You know the I-95 will be ridiculously expensive, but you might be counting on that affordable Uber to get home not realizing that there's a concert increasing demand and driving the price way up. Being told the price is $10 when you were expecting $10 is fine, but seeing $10 when you expected the price would be $0.25 is going to piss you off. I suspect a lot of people would be much happier waiting around a while for the regular price than having regular wait times with a higher price.
I suspect the solution might be two pricing lanes during high demand. A regular priced Uber with high wait times or a surge priced Uber with priority and try to split the cars 50/50. You can average the money for the drivers so it doesn't matter which fare they get.
Maybe it pissed off people for the two-tiered service, but I think it will piss them off less than being priced out of the service.
Y'all just need to grow a pair and remember that employment is a business contract between equals.
No, it's not. In late-stage capitalism, employment is more like a monopsony. In fact, most of Amazon's business model is based on monopsony.
Corporate consolidation has created these megacorps, grown to unimaginable size. When an employer reaches a certain size, it can drive down wages and working conditions.
It doesn't have to be only one buyer to be a monopsonistic market.
I wonder if this is the case.
Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, they all pay extremely well. But at the same time because of the winner-take-all nature of the market place they take a massive portion of revenue and profits which drives down what their competitors can afford to pay staff.
If they took a smaller portion of total profit wages across the industry, both from them and their competitors, could be higher.
People are good at compartmentalizing, I wouldn't be shocked if a few people are able to be happily married but still cheat every chance they get.
As for this story paying off a blackmailer only works when they're the only one with the info, but in this case the information is available to anyone who looks. Even if you pay off one extortionist another one will simply pop up and make the same demand, and you still run the risk of a curious friend finding and leaking the info or some digital vigilante tracking down your spouse and spilling the info.
If the cheaters make the admission pro-actively they at least have a chance of controlling the message.
4.4 million total viewers and posted a 3.5 household rating
So what? You seriously think there's not someone even MORE famous, or good for gossip, in that set of data?
Why Josh, of all people, to be first there? It's not like I'm a fan, or car at all about what people think of him. I just find it odd that his is the only well-known name floated, and it happened just hours after the release of the data.
Someone had to be first.
Besides, anyone really famous isn't going to use a site like that. Imagine you're Tom Cruise looking to have an affair, if you put your picture up and somehow convince contacts it's real there's a huge risk it will be leaked to the tabloids. And if you don't put your picture up you'll never have a shot at the high end women you're used to.
Now you might get some mid-level politicians and CEOs since they have a fairly anonymous profile and I expect that to make the second round of news reports, but as for celebrities he could easily be the biggest name.
Slashdot Mirror
Plenty of computer manufacturers manage to sell product without you ever hearing the names of any of their marketing workers. Apple's janitors were also essential to their success as a company, but unless we start giving everyone praise, it's not fair to give any to someone like Jobs. It's the engineers who made the product, everyone else was auxiliary.
The question isn't who played an essential role because pretty much everyone in the company played an essential role, but if you re-role the hiring dice and end up with another janitor they probably would have been just as successful. In most companies this holds true for most of the marketing and engineering staff, they've great at their jobs but they're far from the only people who could be great at their jobs.
As for Apple I think Jobs and Wozniak were both exceptional. Replace Jobs and the Apple I might never have existed as more than a hobbyist project, or even if you had another co-founder Apple never would have found the same success. Replace Wozniak with an average good engineer and you just don't have the same level of hardware to sell.
The main one is that he's strongly Democrat. For reasons I don't fully understand (electoral college mumble mumble) it seems US candidates cannot ever be independent, they have to pick a side.
It's a common characteristic of first past the post systems, of course it's not inevitable, particularly in the US. I could easily imagine the US supporting a Tea Party based in the deep south and the rest of the country being fought out between moderate Republicans and Democrats at the legislative level.
The only issue is the Presidential elections, the concern isn't vote splitting, either a Republican or Democrat could win, but I suspect both Republicans and Democrats would unify to make sure the Tea Party candidate didn't get in and that might cause the Tea Party to simply fall back into the Republicans.
So that's going to cause issues right there. Reform of Washington should be a bi-partisan issue: I had expected him to run as an independent and then resign and trigger fresh elections once his platform was passed. That way anyone could feel secure voting for him. But I guess that sort of thing isn't possible.
The other is that surely he it takes more than one man to deliver the reforms he wants. Why isn't he creating a political party rather than running for President? This must be the only-two-parties rule again? I heard once that there are more than just Dems and Reps in the US political system but I never hear much about them.
Going as an independent is basically a way of signalling that you're in it as a spoiler (and possibly just for your ego). Running in the Democratic primary signals that he might actually be trying to get the job.
> only Democrats supported the idea.
Uhh, the last major reform bill we had was McCain-Feingold, and McCain is a Republican and it had bipartisan support.
That was also back in 2002. I don't know exactly when it happened but at some point in the ensuing 13 years the mainstream Republican party went off the deep end, bought a backhoe, then kept on digging. It might be possible to build support for campaign reform among Republicans but only if you play the extremist at the same time.
There might be someone who can sell moderate bi-partisan policies to Republicans, but it's not Lessig.
because the light is better there.
Lessee, we have shows about insane hairdressers in LA.
Never heard of it.
We have weird shows about making people run around in the woods without clothing - but in a twist, blur out the tittilating bits.
Actually a good show, the nudity premise is dumb and tacky, but it's the first decent Survival show I've seen since Survivorman.
We have shows about the contents of storage units and parking meter attendants, we have shows about idiots who live in teh Alaskan bush, yet seem to know as much about survival in the bush as someone from New York city. We have shows about how people are stupid, and every human advance is because of ancient aliens. We have shows about peole who think that a woman's vagina is a clown car. I gotta stop - but there are hundreds more examples.
The fact is, Television today is simply bottom of the barrel bad!
And the channels that were good at one time have been taken over. The learning channel was once about learning, The history channel once had history, not swamp logging midgets who run a pawn shop in Alaska's north slope.
So no - it isn't too much programming. It's that none of it is worth watchning
Remember ninety percent of everything is crap.
You only remember the great shows of the past, the really crappy sitcoms, dramas, and documentaries of the past were just as unwatchable as the bad reality TV today. Sometimes things work and you have True Detective Season 1, and sometimes it just doesn't click and you get True Detective Season 2.
Yes there's more crappy stuff by volume and a lot of the reality stuff is a write off, but I also think it's a bit of a golden age, 20 years ago shows would basically hit reset at the end of every episode. Now because the Internet and downloading we can see long form serial drama in the mass media for maybe the first time since Dickens.
I think the one thing we can legitimately be said to have lost because of the number of choices is a common conversation. I have a bunch of geek friends and I can't discuss GoT with any of them because none of them watch it, yeah they watch TV but their favourite shows happen to be different than mine so we've lost that thing were people can turn to eachother at the office and all discuss the show from last night.
The scientists administered the drug to 657 people at high risk for contracting HIV, including users of injected drugs. At the end of the study, every single subject was still free of the virus.
Can anyone who can view more than the abstract tell me how many they would normally expect to contract HIV?
Nevermind, buried in the NYT article:
That amounts to 388 “person years” of observation.
By contrast, in a 2014 clinical trial among gay men in England, participants who received a placebo instead of Truvada had nine infections for every 100 person years of observation, said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
So assuming similar populations 388 * 9 / 100 = ~35, of course I'm too lazy to compute the confidence intervals.
The scientists administered the drug to 657 people at high risk for contracting HIV, including users of injected drugs. At the end of the study, every single subject was still free of the virus.
Can anyone who can view more than the abstract tell me how many they would normally expect to contract HIV?
Funny thing is - it DID just end in all the rest of the world. Only in the United States are the descendants of slaves still reviled by a significant portion of the former slave holders.
Only a small percentage of all the slaves transported from Africa to the New World were destined for the US. Brazil got far more slaves than the US did. Brazil has no serious race problem, do they? Maybe you can point to the history of SJW's in Brazil struggling to keep the black man on the plantations? No? Didn't think so.
YES, SJW'S CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROBLEM!!
Well you could blame US race relationions on a SJW phenomena that has only been around for 10-20 years, or you could blame it on a country which had to fight a civil war with the south to eliminate slavery, had another massive political fight with the south to eliminate institutional racism, and still has legislators and government officials actively trying to suppress minority voters.
Yeah, I guess it's totally the SJWs' fault*...
* Yes I realize you said "contribute" not "cause" but racism is heavily entrenched in US society (and many other societies). SJWs are guilty of suppressing some legitimate speech, but not of causing racism.
the long slow death of literacy could not possibly be harmed by more emjois.
I like the joke but think it might be wrong.
I use emojis for the same reason I use big words and complex syntax, it gives me the ability to communicate with more clarity, nuance, and fun.
Sometimes the emotion I'm trying to convey is properly captured using real words and proper sentences. But sometimes I'm simultaneously trying to imply a child-like state of mind, and emojis do that really really well.
Of course I don't know what they hell they're doing in unicode, not to mention the quixotic quest to make them gender neutral. Do they think they're going to make them race and culture neutral as well or is the standard just going to contain this big blog of largely Western references and the rest of the planet is unrepresented?
The company was dead the moment it came out that all the female accounts were fake and paid for account deletions never happened.
It should be dead. I'm not convinced yet it will actually die. Even with the leak.
Depends what you mean by die. As one of the top cheat-on-your-spouse sites they should be done. As a widely known name and a pre-existing website that could be run with a skeleton staff for cheap it could go on indefinitely.
This whole thing screams "inside job".
A lot of the information that has been released, most notably employee emails and internal company documents, couldn't possibly have also been on the servers that held the databases for the AM site. So either (1) the hackers thoroughly penetrated the company and got *everything*, or (2) the people running AM were stupider than I believe possible (actually you would have to *work* to put all of your eggs in one basket that way)
I think a combination of 1 & 2 is most likely. There's no real way for a user to tell if a site is secure or not, and an insecure site is easier to run than a secure one. No need to manage a bunch of different logins, sign out keys, create fake databases, etc. The easiest thing is to simply give devs the power to go anywhere and do anything and I wouldn't expect the management of a site like AM to spend money on something like security.
In that scenario all you need is to get a remote login to one machine, from there you sneak in a logger and grab the one admin password they use everywhere and then all you need is a bit of patience before you have everything on their network.
Are you suggesting that the hackers are some sort of vigilante activist group out to stomp out infidelity or immorality in general?
Huh? I felt the hackers made a stand against the fraud perpetrated by the company, not infidelity in general. Where did you infer infidelity from my post?
The company was dead the moment it came out that all the female accounts were fake and paid for account deletions never happened. It was unnecessary to release personal user information to punish the company.
Primarily to refute the claim made in the post I replied to that "because the hackers committed an illegal act that what they did was immoral, and it's immoral to 'celebrate' their hack."
I didn't raise the topic of infidelity or its morality at all in my post.
That wasn't the quote, the poster wasn't clear if he considered the hacks immoral just because they were illegal or because of the exposed user information coupled with the illegality:
Just because they used illegal techniques to attack a morally reprehensible company doesn't mean their techniques are magically vindicated. Celebrating the hack is immoral as well.
True the poster didn't mention the user information directly but I feel it's implied due to the volume of coverage and discussion about the user info.
I think the hackers would be morally justified if the simply hacked AM and demonstrated they were lying about the female users and the deleted accounts. They became immoral when they also released very sensitive and potentially devastating user information.
It's when paid businesses go to Ubuntu they have to worry, but the requirements of the customers willing to pay out big money for licenses and support are vastly different than those of desktop users
And here's the rub, they made the desktop platform pretty bleeding edge (major kernel changes are inflicted in routine updates, breaking things like nvidia driver if you choose to use it, not merely being mostly unhelpful about closed source realities but actively making it more painful). Even if drivers didn't break, updates can change things dramatically at a whim, and there's no blessed 'long term' servicing branch that so nearly matches their 6 month cycle releases like Ubuntu does. RedHat is making the free situation needlessly complicated and risky to push people to RHEL, but instead are giving ubuntu the free market. Like you say, the free market by itself is no huge threat, but it influences the commercial market in the long term.
So maybe not all people like the bleeding edge and new fancy stuff like I do though I suspect Fedora's primary trouble comes from RedHat seeming too corporate and people going to what looks like a more community oriented distro.
You could also say RedHat has very little to lose by having something more like Ubuntu in lifecycle out there for free. Those folks won't pay for anything, but their mindshare is valuable among the audience that will pay.
That matters for sure, but when you're looking at an IT system responsible for millions or even billions of dollars then things like enterprize support and a dedicated server OS designed with stability in mind become really important. Whether or not you enjoy using that particular Linux flavour at home becomes really a non-factor really quickly.
RedHat got into the datacenter by being a popular desktop distro, people setting things up in the datacenter used what they were familiar with.
People have been predicting that RedHat would run into this sort of problem ever since they abandoned the home/workstation market. It's taken a lot longer than I expected, but it's happening.
RedHat was able to hold this off for a while by getting the datacenter managers to mandate standardization, but in AWS such rules are far less enforced.
David Lang
I don't feel like RedHat abandoned the home/workstation market, both my home and work desktop run Fedora 22.
As for AWS who is using those machines? My gut is these are individuals or small shops willing to pay for cloud hosting but unwilling to pay the extra for support. For instance CentOS is beating RHEL 29% to 11%, granted I'm not sure what support you get for RHEL in AWS but I doubt there's any reason to use CentOS over RHEL in the cloud aside from cost. I tried switching to Ubuntu for my personal cloud server but went to CentOS instead.
My hunch is the vast majority of those Ubuntu VMs aren't paying any support and thus wouldn't really impact RedHat's bottom line anyway. It's when paid businesses go to Ubuntu they have to worry, but the requirements of the customers willing to pay out big money for licenses and support are vastly different than those of desktop users.
Am I they only one that is completely freaked out by this ? These are some seriously scary numbers !
I think some context is important. From what I can tell is a criminal organization hacking the hospital so they can access patient records and blackmail the patients is going to be counted the same as the secretary opening an email attachment, getting a virus, and temporarily turning into part of a botnet. It might not even be clear from IT's perspective which is which but I'm guessing most of those breaches are fairly benign.
Frequency is important but would you rather 1 car or 1.5 drones?
But I agree the prospect of falling drones (or stuff falling from drones) could be a deal breaker, reliability is a major risk.
I'm not sure either of those applies. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt a judge or jury would agree with your interpretation of "intentionally causes damage".
Agreed.
In the wire fraud definition you cited, I don't think AT&T is fulfilling the core of the definition: "defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises". Advertising, by and large, is not considered fraud (as much as we might feel that way about most ads we see).
Here I'm not so certain. The fraud isn't the ad itself, but the fact that the ad being on the site claims a relationship between their client (the advertiser) and the site owner that does not exist. Stanford accepted that jewelry ad? They must be legit. My favourite webcomic is advertising X? Well I know the guy really vets his advertisers and I like to support the comic so I'll go through.
Of course AT&T is not the first to insert their own ads into web pages, any charges are likely thwarted by whatever click-through consent they obtained or by the precedent of adware companies getting away with the same thing for years.
" Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin. "
Sounds like a good use of state authority to me.
Imagine logging on to a grocery store website, choosing the items you want and clicking deliver. Drone is loaded up at the warehouse and flies the goods right to your door.
It's cheaper and more environmentally friendly since you're not driving, you can save time and reduce food waste by replacing single massive shopping trips with a bunch of small immediate need purchases, and you can replace the massive grocery store with its giant parking lot with something more interesting.
Sure there's a lot of potential problems to, but there could be some very nice benefits.
By your logic black people are "white" to non-racists.
No, black people are still black, it just that non-racists don't care. Jews might even be white to many racists, they're just a category of white they don't like.
I'm not sure I really get your insistence with the idea that Jews are non-white. If you want to argue Jews are discriminated against that's fine, it's also true that there are a lot of Jews who aren't white by any metric. But if you're going to consider the US context, namely people like Jerry Seinfeld, I'd say Jews are white.
Make sure to tell that to all the racists who still refuse to consider them "white".
And for those people, in that context, they are not considered white.
But for a significant majority of people in the US and particularly those in the computer industry (whom we're talking about), they are white.
Jews aren't "white", there was this little kerfuffle about it about 70 years ago. We might not always have dark skin but we're not "white" and have never been "white". Anyone insisting Jews are "white" needs to get a goddamn time machine and go tell it to the people who've been enslaving, slaughtering, and persecuting us for the last 4000 or so years.
Assume you're taking about Jews who are white skinned I'd consider them white.
Yes they were subjected to horrific discrimination in the past, and in some places or settings they still are, and depending on the scenario it might even depend on ethnicity instead of religion.
But in the context we're talking about now, and in fact most contexts, I'd include them as "white".
This complaint just doesn't make any sense. We are moving to this pricing model all over the place, even in traffic control situations. Tolls on bridges and tunnels and express lanes are often "surge priced" these days. The express lanes into Miami on I-95 are only a quarter most of the time. But during rush hour and other heavy traffic times the lanes bump up towards $10.
And those are fixed resources - so there is no way to get more cars through the tunnel or over the bridge. With Uber the raised prices will theoretically get extra drivers on the street - limiting the surge in prices and getting service to more people.
And as others have mentioned - if you don't like the policy, you have alternatives.
I suspect it's a question of predictability. You know the I-95 will be ridiculously expensive, but you might be counting on that affordable Uber to get home not realizing that there's a concert increasing demand and driving the price way up. Being told the price is $10 when you were expecting $10 is fine, but seeing $10 when you expected the price would be $0.25 is going to piss you off. I suspect a lot of people would be much happier waiting around a while for the regular price than having regular wait times with a higher price.
I suspect the solution might be two pricing lanes during high demand. A regular priced Uber with high wait times or a surge priced Uber with priority and try to split the cars 50/50. You can average the money for the drivers so it doesn't matter which fare they get.
Maybe it pissed off people for the two-tiered service, but I think it will piss them off less than being priced out of the service.
No, it's not. In late-stage capitalism, employment is more like a monopsony. In fact, most of Amazon's business model is based on monopsony.
Corporate consolidation has created these megacorps, grown to unimaginable size. When an employer reaches a certain size, it can drive down wages and working conditions.
It doesn't have to be only one buyer to be a monopsonistic market.
I wonder if this is the case.
Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, they all pay extremely well. But at the same time because of the winner-take-all nature of the market place they take a massive portion of revenue and profits which drives down what their competitors can afford to pay staff.
If they took a smaller portion of total profit wages across the industry, both from them and their competitors, could be higher.
Seems to be at odds with having an affair.
People are good at compartmentalizing, I wouldn't be shocked if a few people are able to be happily married but still cheat every chance they get.
As for this story paying off a blackmailer only works when they're the only one with the info, but in this case the information is available to anyone who looks. Even if you pay off one extortionist another one will simply pop up and make the same demand, and you still run the risk of a curious friend finding and leaking the info or some digital vigilante tracking down your spouse and spilling the info.
If the cheaters make the admission pro-actively they at least have a chance of controlling the message.
The Mars One project just announced they were reviewing a multi-million dollar study that proved humans could build sustainable habitats on Mars.
4.4 million total viewers and posted a 3.5 household rating
So what? You seriously think there's not someone even MORE famous, or good for gossip, in that set of data?
Why Josh, of all people, to be first there? It's not like I'm a fan, or car at all about what people think of him. I just find it odd that his is the only well-known name floated, and it happened just hours after the release of the data.
Someone had to be first.
Besides, anyone really famous isn't going to use a site like that. Imagine you're Tom Cruise looking to have an affair, if you put your picture up and somehow convince contacts it's real there's a huge risk it will be leaked to the tabloids. And if you don't put your picture up you'll never have a shot at the high end women you're used to.
Now you might get some mid-level politicians and CEOs since they have a fairly anonymous profile and I expect that to make the second round of news reports, but as for celebrities he could easily be the biggest name.