Can you point me to where in the GPLv2 it indicates that the original binaries must be able to be redistributed without restriction?
You mean GPL v3. Don't you?
In any case, you're asking the wrong question. CopperHeadOS is clearly implying that their new licensing applies to the entire source code, not just the binaries. And they're actually happy that this new license has had a chilling effect on their competitors capable of building their own binaries themselves.
Aleksa Sarai: @LordCyphar - 23hr Wouldn't that be an argument that GPLv3 would still work, you just need to not provide binaries that people can hock off for their own products? Bad actors will always exist, so I don't see how GPLv3 is less helpful than CC-BY-NC-SA in this area?
CopperHeadOS: @CopperHeadOS - 23h There are very few individuals and companies willing to build illegal businesses on our code. GPLv3 let them do it legally and we were unable to have even close to a sustainable business. CC-BY-NC-SA has substantially improved the situation.
And if you don't believe my interpretation of CopperHeadOS's response, just read the content of their new CC-BY-NC-SA license for yourself and take a look at one of the many locations where they placed it within the source code!
then if you turn around and steal it, then you are a thief.
Yes, the people who wrote CopperheadOS are thieves. The security layer of Android is at the Linux level.
The people who wrote CopperheadOS are free to charge whatever they want for their modifications, but they are not allowed to retroactively change the open source license of Linux by dictating that their code can only be used non-commercially.
The two types of violence that Uber can actively help with
1. For those passengers that have doors visible from the road, you can ask your driver to wait and make sure you safely get in your place before they drive away. Many women take advantage of this when they live in a sketchy neighborhood and are returning home at night. It sure beats taking the bus.
2. Passenger-on-driver violence. You may not like the type of background check an Uber driver gets, but the real problem is that passengers do not get a background check at all, despite the fact that passengers are often the ones who travel drunk, or who outnumber the driver.
They sold Uber-China to Didi Chuxing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... And most of the money they're using is from investors. That's why they're trying to do an IPO, because they're running out of private Venture Capital funds.
Yes, that's it. Taking someone's child away is taboo (even if you say you know better than the parents and that's why you're taking that child away) and there was a knee-jerk reaction against that. But attacking a hospital is also taboo (even if the guy assumed it wouldn't cause any harm, I don't think he could have known that for sure) and there was a knee-jerk counter-reaction against his reaction.
If you ask me, he should have approached the pro-Aaron Schwartz community by asking for due process, not necessarily freedom. "Due process" is something that a number of people would be willing to back, even if no one thinks that he is as harmless as Aaron Schwartz was.
Of course, his girlfriend should continue to call him a hero when she's lobbying Fox News, conservative radio, etc. because President Trump might just be crazy enough to take his side and get him released. But he/she/she really does need to frame his argument differently depending on who they're expecting the help from.
The key will be to establish "open source" peer-reviewed journals that are backed by the biggest names in science and the major universities. That at this point it hasn't happened makes me think that the biggest names in science and the major universities like the way things are now...
When my University created a brand new graduate program in a new category, it only graduated one person out of that program initially. By making that program ridiculously difficult to get into, and ridiculously difficult to get a degree from, it made it so that the new program would be ranked by outsiders ridiculously high.
Now, I don't know much about scientific journals, but I wouldn't be surprised if they took a similar approach. A journal's reputation doesn't create itself in a day. Making a journal "open access" or "open source" doesn't magically make it good. And if a grad student is used to trusting one particular journal for his particular scientific field, he's going to want to publish in that same journal (instead of publishing in an unknown journal, even if it's backed by his own University).
Why don't we admit that we have hypocrites on both sides of the aisle? Both on the left and the right. For instance, I'll agree that the 49ers had the right to fire Colin Kaepernick. And other teams have had the right to avoid hiring him to avoid further controversy.
But for most conservatives out there, those of you who worship the constitution, why did many of you stay silent when Trump threatened the special tax status of the NFL because he didn't like their speech. That is a direct assault on free speech from an actual government in this case.
Thus far, the only right-wing talk show host that has said something is Rush Limbaugh. And I applaud Limbaugh for standing by his principles on this particular issue. It's actually very rare that I agree with him on anything. But as to the rest of the conservative outlets I've been listening to, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Fox and friends, and Gresham. It just seems like the end justifies the means to them. And it seems they're willing to abandon the constitution as soon as it becomes slightly inconvenient for their cause.
I've been at places where managers get a variation on this lovely idea: Hey, maybe you would be more careful coders if you had to do your own testing. You're all so sloppy!
But most likely, that's not even how it went down. What most likely happened was that they created toggles for every new piece of functionality. Then they wrote a script that would switch to the old version of the functionality as soon as an error with of the new functionality was detected. In other words, they wrote a safe-mode to relaunch their application under, every time an unrecoverable error or a runtime exception were detected.
And by itself, this is actually not a bad idea. It's one more way to protect your company from disastrous consequences. Imagine, it's Friday afternoon, a developer fixes a small typo and doesn't bother to test it before uploading the new version to production. At first, everything seems to still work, so the developer goes home for the weekend, but over the weekend the application is basically unusable and stops generating revenue during the entire three-day weekend.
And this type of functionality solves that problem at least.
But then management sees that and says to themselves, we actually don't need QA anymore, if there is a problem now, the app can just go into safe-mode. We'll just reassign QA and pat ourselves on the back for saving so much money.
Unfortunately, they overlooked a few things:
1. If the developers were "lazy" before because of QA, they're probably going to be "lazy" again now because of safe-mode. After all, if a bug is introduced into production, it's no longer the end of the World anymore. Also, I'm putting the word "lazy" in quotes because I am not convinced that his developers were lazy to begin with. Talking about being lazy, the manager doesn't back up his claim with any kind of data whatsoever about his developers' velocity or his application's number of bugs, either before or after the change (not that the total number of bugs after the change can be trusted either since not all the bugs will appear in the logs or be found right away).
2. Applications using this type of safe-mode recovery don't usually tell the user what's happening. Don't ask me why. It's just a trend I have noticed. Windows did it, but applications for some reason do not. And so the user has no idea why the UI for his application changes from day to day, or hour to hour, either adding new functionality or removing functionality. And as a user myself, I can tell you that this is not a good feeling to have about an application. Now, I can understand new functionality being added, but when I see that the application is acting weird, or that the application is removing some of its earlier functionality it had just introduced. I can tell you that I consider the application flaky and buggy (even when it didn't hit me over the head with an error message or with a crash). And if I have a competing product/site I can choose to use, I might just switch to that other product/site instead.
3. Not all errors are going to throw an exception and not all errors are going to crash the server. For instance, let's say I have a shopping cart and I confused the Mexican Peso with the American dollar. So for every item that my shopping cart sells for $100, it's only charging around $5 instead. Now, my system wouldn't be able to detect and recover from such an error. And my QA people are no longer testing the app, they're too busy doing something else. So that means that a week could easily go by and my company could lose millions of dollars because of such a small mistake. Of course, this problem could be mitigated with unit tests to a small degree, but I really doubt that a manager that gets rid of the QA role would be very supportive of unit-tests either.
4. So let's say the system works mostly as intended. The majority of errors is getting logged. And the system recovers itself every time. That's all great. But now, that just means that the developers are up
Oops, I hit the submit button prematurely. Hopefully, I was able to explain the gist of the story.
Basically, I am with Chelsea Manning on that one because I have no idea if Gottesfeld is a hero or not. Part of the problem is that the hospital can't release any information about the child in question because of HIPAA restrictions and the parents are free to tell their side of the story without the hospital being able to defend itself.
In essence, that's why there was a gag order by the judge in the first place. It was to prevent the parents from speaking out since the hospital wouldn't be able to defend itself against their charges.
Aaron Swartz was a guy who made digital scientific journals accessible to the public by routing the requests through his University. Aaron Swartz was then arrested and told by a prosecutor that he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison thanks to a new crazy hacking law that had been recently enacted. So then Aaron Swartz killed himself a few days afterward.
Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradly Manning, hopefully, you know who that is) was pardoned by President Obama as one of his last act in office. Chelsea and some other person decided to create a day to celebrate the sacrifice and the injustice that occurred to Aaron Swartz. To my knowledge, there is no trademark on Aaron Swartz. "Aaron Swartz Day" is just a construct. Anybody is free to create their own day and call it whatever they want. But Chelsea Manning may have an easier time promoting that day because she's already pretty famous (or infamous) with the community that thinks that Aaron Swartz was treated unfairly.
Then there is this guy, Gottesfeld, who organized and led a Denial Of Service attack with 4chan against the external network of a Boston hospital during one of its major fundraising drive. His reasoning was that the critical infrastructure would be on an internal network and wouldn't be affected by a Denial of Service attack, but that the fundraising efforts of the hospital would get stalled because of that and that perhaps, the Boston hospital would bow to his pressure, stop the psychological treatment of a child and return her to her parents.
The reason he hated the hospital in question is because with the help of a judge, the hospital forcefully removed a sick child, Justina Pelletier, from her parents and the hospital thought that the parents were (the mother especially was) inducing the symptoms in the child. For a more neutral opinion on that original case, please see this: http://www.harpocratesspeaks.c...
Please stop repeating the rightwing talking points, it's getting nonsensical, and just think for yourself for one minute.
Treason is still treason, even if it's unsuccessful. And President Trump is just protesting too much. If some of Trump's underlings have been compromised by Russian interests, he needs to know that. Everyone needs to know.
Furthermore, some of his underlings, including his son-in-law and son, have been moving the goal post every time they have been caught in a lie. First, it was the fact that they never met with Russians. Then, it's the fact they may have run into the Russian Ambassador during a reception and said 'hi' to him. Then, it's something else. And then, something else again. When are they going to stop lying? And I know that lying to the public is perfectly valid, but what about lying to the FBI. Is that now permitted under President Trump?
when it filters down to the IT managers and what kind of money they represent to Hilton and what they cost, $700,000 error is big.
Hilton lost a lot more than $700,000 because of the breach. I'll bet you that the overall blow to their worldwide brand was much higher. After all, if you're going to hold a corporate event, hold a wedding, cheat on your spouse, have a furry convention, or travel the world, why would you risk using a Hilton hotel when there are so many other hotels to choose from.
So their IT is responsible for losing a lot more than $700,000, but I'm not sure the delay of the notification to the public once discovered can be blamed on them too.
Most likely, Public Relations, their general counsel, and the CEO chose to delay the disclosure of the breach to a time when no one else would be paying attention. And the reason the fine is $700,000 is due in big part to that 9+ month delay from the time of first discovery to the time of the disclosure, which just made the situation a lot more worse.
The article says that a huge benefit of wood is that it can be taken down/disassembled much more easily and with less energy than concrete. I believe that's what the OP was referring to when he said "Maybe this wave of construction is only expected to stand for 30yrs?". I don't think he meant to say that wood wasn't durable.
Personally, I still think that wood is a luxury. It may not be a luxury in Canada, but in France, wood is still a lot more difficult to buy than cement and rebar. So I still expect cement and rebar to be the default for low-income housing and lower budget office buildings.
And even in the picture of the article in question, or in a better picture of the same building I found here, cement and rebar are still being used for the lower floor and the stairs/elevators shafts, not just the foundation, so obviously the promoters of this pre-fab wood idea still think that cement has a place.
And my second concern would be the chemicals used in those slabs of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels.
Wood construction has been propelled forward by the growing availability of cross-laminated timber (CLT). These enormous, prefabricated panels, made from several layers of wood glued perpendicular to one another and measuring up to 20 inches in thickness, are strong enough to hold up bigger buildings and arrive on site ready to be assembled like Jenga pieces. It’s also this heft that helps make CLT fire-resistant: the outside layers char slowly, protecting the wood inside from burning.
For instance, what is the glue used in those panels? And is it only the glue and the wood that make those structures fire-resistant? Or is it something else?
Prefabricated slabs of CLT, which form the framework of most timber buildings, are usually shipped in from Austria. “CLT manufacturing isn’t sufficiently developed in France,” says Viguier. “I’d like this project to help revive wood consumption and trigger the growth of factories in the region.”
Usually shipped from Austria? Are they sure about that? Aren't those slabs of CLTs going to come from China instead where they usually don't have good records of what chemicals are used in their manufacturing processes? That being said, those CLT slabs are as likely to be coming from Ukraine or Finland also.
Your math needs work. From your own article you cited. It said "less than 100,000" for Google, 100,000 for Facebook, and it didn't say an amount for Twitter.
This is not to mention the DNC servers that someone hacked into, or socially engineered themselves into. Or the 21 states, in which elections were breached, even if nothing was changed.
Because let's face it, if a large foreign power attacks your election process, it is an act of war. It is still an act of war, whether they succeeded or not. And if an American colluded with that foreign power, it is an act of treason. And it still is an act of treason, whether that foreign power succeeded or not.
And if an American in a position of power collaborated with Russia, that American should be considered potentially compromised. After all, if Russia can prove that an American collaborated with them, and if that American didn't disclose that fact to the FBI when first asked about it, or if that American didn't disclose that fact when he applied for his security clearance through the FBI, then that means that Russia could easily blackmail that person for the rest of their life.
And if you think I am being paranoid for thinking stuff like that, then so be it, call me paranoid.
I long for the day my phone will be able to tell if the person I'm about to have sex with is attractive enough. With beer goggles, one can't be too careful. And with Facebook, the reply from your friends may not arrive fast enough.
Now those same left want US social media companies to clamp down more and more on 'hate speech' which in this case means 'speech they hate'.
You mean like athletes kneeling during their national anthem.
But hey, at least it's not the government censoring people.
It is in the case of Trump actually. The free market couldn't convince the NFL to take a unified stand, but the threat to revoke their tax status quickly got the job done. It's like the constitution never even existed.
witness the 'Russians-under-the-bed' paranoia in the US about Russian companies spending a few tens of thousands of dollars during the last US election.
A few tens of thousands of dollars? Really, I thought the current tally was at $300,000 + 247,000 (by Russia Today) + tens of thousands of dollars. And what about Paul Manafort, he may have been the unpaid Campaign Manager of the Trump Campaign, but it turns out, somebody was paying him all along. How much did that cost? Apparently, Manafort isn't cheap. And what about the hacking? The hacking doesn't count?
But your data is still used by Google to sell to the highest bidder. That was the point.
Google doesn't sell data to the highest bidders, it sells ads to the highest bidders. That's how its business model works. It sells the milk, not the cow, nor the know-how. That's how it ensures that advertisers can't go elsewhere. That's why I believe Google when it claims it doesn't use paid gmail accounts for advertising.
That being said, and if I remember correctly, the free academic accounts are another story. Google does point out that once a free academic account is converted to alumni status, then it will receive ads and its data will be used for advertising.
Doesn't Bing have the same issues, especially since it copies some of the fake index data Google purposefully generates?
For a time, when I didn't have money, I used Baidu and Chinese blogs to find mp3s of American and European Pop music. I don't read Chinese, but the file names are in English.
The newer Samsung Note screens are even more expensive to replace, at $300 a pop. This is because they're using the Samsung Pen/Wacom technology. Even the S8 screen seems to be super expensive for some reason. I have no idea why, maybe it's because of its curved screen? Maybe that's "the next big thing" to manufacture a screen that is as fragile as a Doritos chip and that is super expensive to replace.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you point me to where in the GPLv2 it indicates that the original binaries must be able to be redistributed without restriction?
You mean GPL v3. Don't you?
In any case, you're asking the wrong question. CopperHeadOS is clearly implying that their new licensing applies to the entire source code, not just the binaries. And they're actually happy that this new license has had a chilling effect on their competitors capable of building their own binaries themselves.
Aleksa Sarai: @LordCyphar - 23hr Wouldn't that be an argument that GPLv3 would still work, you just need to not provide binaries that people can hock off for their own products? Bad actors will always exist, so I don't see how GPLv3 is less helpful than CC-BY-NC-SA in this area?
CopperHeadOS: @CopperHeadOS - 23h There are very few individuals and companies willing to build illegal businesses on our code. GPLv3 let them do it legally and we were unable to have even close to a sustainable business. CC-BY-NC-SA has substantially improved the situation.
And if you don't believe my interpretation of CopperHeadOS's response, just read the content of their new CC-BY-NC-SA license for yourself and take a look at one of the many locations where they placed it within the source code!
then if you turn around and steal it, then you are a thief.
Yes, the people who wrote CopperheadOS are thieves. The security layer of Android is at the Linux level.
The people who wrote CopperheadOS are free to charge whatever they want for their modifications, but they are not allowed to retroactively change the open source license of Linux by dictating that their code can only be used non-commercially.
Is OpenOffice now completely free from Oracle? I recall that was the main reason most OpenOffice developers had fled to LibreOffice.
The two types of violence that Uber can actively help with
1. For those passengers that have doors visible from the road, you can ask your driver to wait and make sure you safely get in your place before they drive away. Many women take advantage of this when they live in a sketchy neighborhood and are returning home at night. It sure beats taking the bus.
2. Passenger-on-driver violence. You may not like the type of background check an Uber driver gets, but the real problem is that passengers do not get a background check at all, despite the fact that passengers are often the ones who travel drunk, or who outnumber the driver.
They sold Uber-China to Didi Chuxing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... And most of the money they're using is from investors. That's why they're trying to do an IPO, because they're running out of private Venture Capital funds.
Yes, that's it. Taking someone's child away is taboo (even if you say you know better than the parents and that's why you're taking that child away) and there was a knee-jerk reaction against that. But attacking a hospital is also taboo (even if the guy assumed it wouldn't cause any harm, I don't think he could have known that for sure) and there was a knee-jerk counter-reaction against his reaction.
If you ask me, he should have approached the pro-Aaron Schwartz community by asking for due process, not necessarily freedom. "Due process" is something that a number of people would be willing to back, even if no one thinks that he is as harmless as Aaron Schwartz was.
Of course, his girlfriend should continue to call him a hero when she's lobbying Fox News, conservative radio, etc. because President Trump might just be crazy enough to take his side and get him released. But he/she/she really does need to frame his argument differently depending on who they're expecting the help from.
The key will be to establish "open source" peer-reviewed journals that are backed by the biggest names in science and the major universities. That at this point it hasn't happened makes me think that the biggest names in science and the major universities like the way things are now...
When my University created a brand new graduate program in a new category, it only graduated one person out of that program initially. By making that program ridiculously difficult to get into, and ridiculously difficult to get a degree from, it made it so that the new program would be ranked by outsiders ridiculously high.
Now, I don't know much about scientific journals, but I wouldn't be surprised if they took a similar approach. A journal's reputation doesn't create itself in a day. Making a journal "open access" or "open source" doesn't magically make it good. And if a grad student is used to trusting one particular journal for his particular scientific field, he's going to want to publish in that same journal (instead of publishing in an unknown journal, even if it's backed by his own University).
Why don't we admit that we have hypocrites on both sides of the aisle? Both on the left and the right. For instance, I'll agree that the 49ers had the right to fire Colin Kaepernick. And other teams have had the right to avoid hiring him to avoid further controversy.
But for most conservatives out there, those of you who worship the constitution, why did many of you stay silent when Trump threatened the special tax status of the NFL because he didn't like their speech. That is a direct assault on free speech from an actual government in this case.
Thus far, the only right-wing talk show host that has said something is Rush Limbaugh. And I applaud Limbaugh for standing by his principles on this particular issue. It's actually very rare that I agree with him on anything. But as to the rest of the conservative outlets I've been listening to, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Fox and friends, and Gresham. It just seems like the end justifies the means to them. And it seems they're willing to abandon the constitution as soon as it becomes slightly inconvenient for their cause.
I've been at places where managers get a variation on this lovely idea: Hey, maybe you would be more careful coders if you had to do your own testing. You're all so sloppy!
But most likely, that's not even how it went down. What most likely happened was that they created toggles for every new piece of functionality. Then they wrote a script that would switch to the old version of the functionality as soon as an error with of the new functionality was detected. In other words, they wrote a safe-mode to relaunch their application under, every time an unrecoverable error or a runtime exception were detected.
And by itself, this is actually not a bad idea. It's one more way to protect your company from disastrous consequences. Imagine, it's Friday afternoon, a developer fixes a small typo and doesn't bother to test it before uploading the new version to production. At first, everything seems to still work, so the developer goes home for the weekend, but over the weekend the application is basically unusable and stops generating revenue during the entire three-day weekend.
And this type of functionality solves that problem at least.
But then management sees that and says to themselves, we actually don't need QA anymore, if there is a problem now, the app can just go into safe-mode. We'll just reassign QA and pat ourselves on the back for saving so much money.
Unfortunately, they overlooked a few things:
1. If the developers were "lazy" before because of QA, they're probably going to be "lazy" again now because of safe-mode. After all, if a bug is introduced into production, it's no longer the end of the World anymore. Also, I'm putting the word "lazy" in quotes because I am not convinced that his developers were lazy to begin with. Talking about being lazy, the manager doesn't back up his claim with any kind of data whatsoever about his developers' velocity or his application's number of bugs, either before or after the change (not that the total number of bugs after the change can be trusted either since not all the bugs will appear in the logs or be found right away).
2. Applications using this type of safe-mode recovery don't usually tell the user what's happening. Don't ask me why. It's just a trend I have noticed. Windows did it, but applications for some reason do not. And so the user has no idea why the UI for his application changes from day to day, or hour to hour, either adding new functionality or removing functionality. And as a user myself, I can tell you that this is not a good feeling to have about an application. Now, I can understand new functionality being added, but when I see that the application is acting weird, or that the application is removing some of its earlier functionality it had just introduced. I can tell you that I consider the application flaky and buggy (even when it didn't hit me over the head with an error message or with a crash). And if I have a competing product/site I can choose to use, I might just switch to that other product/site instead.
3. Not all errors are going to throw an exception and not all errors are going to crash the server. For instance, let's say I have a shopping cart and I confused the Mexican Peso with the American dollar. So for every item that my shopping cart sells for $100, it's only charging around $5 instead. Now, my system wouldn't be able to detect and recover from such an error. And my QA people are no longer testing the app, they're too busy doing something else. So that means that a week could easily go by and my company could lose millions of dollars because of such a small mistake. Of course, this problem could be mitigated with unit tests to a small degree, but I really doubt that a manager that gets rid of the QA role would be very supportive of unit-tests either.
4. So let's say the system works mostly as intended. The majority of errors is getting logged. And the system recovers itself every time. That's all great. But now, that just means that the developers are up
Thanks. My mistake.
Oops, I hit the submit button prematurely. Hopefully, I was able to explain the gist of the story.
Basically, I am with Chelsea Manning on that one because I have no idea if Gottesfeld is a hero or not. Part of the problem is that the hospital can't release any information about the child in question because of HIPAA restrictions and the parents are free to tell their side of the story without the hospital being able to defend itself.
In essence, that's why there was a gag order by the judge in the first place. It was to prevent the parents from speaking out since the hospital wouldn't be able to defend itself against their charges.
Aaron Swartz was a guy who made digital scientific journals accessible to the public by routing the requests through his University. Aaron Swartz was then arrested and told by a prosecutor that he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison thanks to a new crazy hacking law that had been recently enacted. So then Aaron Swartz killed himself a few days afterward.
Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradly Manning, hopefully, you know who that is) was pardoned by President Obama as one of his last act in office. Chelsea and some other person decided to create a day to celebrate the sacrifice and the injustice that occurred to Aaron Swartz. To my knowledge, there is no trademark on Aaron Swartz. "Aaron Swartz Day" is just a construct. Anybody is free to create their own day and call it whatever they want. But Chelsea Manning may have an easier time promoting that day because she's already pretty famous (or infamous) with the community that thinks that Aaron Swartz was treated unfairly.
Then there is this guy, Gottesfeld, who organized and led a Denial Of Service attack with 4chan against the external network of a Boston hospital during one of its major fundraising drive. His reasoning was that the critical infrastructure would be on an internal network and wouldn't be affected by a Denial of Service attack, but that the fundraising efforts of the hospital would get stalled because of that and that perhaps, the Boston hospital would bow to his pressure, stop the psychological treatment of a child and return her to her parents.
The reason he hated the hospital in question is because with the help of a judge, the hospital forcefully removed a sick child, Justina Pelletier, from her parents and the hospital thought that the parents were (the mother especially was) inducing the symptoms in the child. For a more neutral opinion on that original case, please see this: http://www.harpocratesspeaks.c...
How come they never teach about this in high school?
Correction: I meant to use the word 'legal' instead of 'valid' in my previous post.
Please stop repeating the rightwing talking points, it's getting nonsensical, and just think for yourself for one minute.
Treason is still treason, even if it's unsuccessful. And President Trump is just protesting too much. If some of Trump's underlings have been compromised by Russian interests, he needs to know that. Everyone needs to know.
Furthermore, some of his underlings, including his son-in-law and son, have been moving the goal post every time they have been caught in a lie. First, it was the fact that they never met with Russians. Then, it's the fact they may have run into the Russian Ambassador during a reception and said 'hi' to him. Then, it's something else. And then, something else again. When are they going to stop lying? And I know that lying to the public is perfectly valid, but what about lying to the FBI. Is that now permitted under President Trump?
when it filters down to the IT managers and what kind of money they represent to Hilton and what they cost, $700,000 error is big.
Hilton lost a lot more than $700,000 because of the breach. I'll bet you that the overall blow to their worldwide brand was much higher. After all, if you're going to hold a corporate event, hold a wedding, cheat on your spouse, have a furry convention, or travel the world, why would you risk using a Hilton hotel when there are so many other hotels to choose from.
So their IT is responsible for losing a lot more than $700,000, but I'm not sure the delay of the notification to the public once discovered can be blamed on them too.
Most likely, Public Relations, their general counsel, and the CEO chose to delay the disclosure of the breach to a time when no one else would be paying attention. And the reason the fine is $700,000 is due in big part to that 9+ month delay from the time of first discovery to the time of the disclosure, which just made the situation a lot more worse.
The article says that a huge benefit of wood is that it can be taken down/disassembled much more easily and with less energy than concrete. I believe that's what the OP was referring to when he said "Maybe this wave of construction is only expected to stand for 30yrs?". I don't think he meant to say that wood wasn't durable.
Personally, I still think that wood is a luxury. It may not be a luxury in Canada, but in France, wood is still a lot more difficult to buy than cement and rebar. So I still expect cement and rebar to be the default for low-income housing and lower budget office buildings.
And even in the picture of the article in question, or in a better picture of the same building I found here, cement and rebar are still being used for the lower floor and the stairs/elevators shafts, not just the foundation, so obviously the promoters of this pre-fab wood idea still think that cement has a place.
And my second concern would be the chemicals used in those slabs of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels.
Wood construction has been propelled forward by the growing availability of cross-laminated timber (CLT). These enormous, prefabricated panels, made from several layers of wood glued perpendicular to one another and measuring up to 20 inches in thickness, are strong enough to hold up bigger buildings and arrive on site ready to be assembled like Jenga pieces. It’s also this heft that helps make CLT fire-resistant: the outside layers char slowly, protecting the wood inside from burning.
For instance, what is the glue used in those panels? And is it only the glue and the wood that make those structures fire-resistant? Or is it something else?
Prefabricated slabs of CLT, which form the framework of most timber buildings, are usually shipped in from Austria. “CLT manufacturing isn’t sufficiently developed in France,” says Viguier. “I’d like this project to help revive wood consumption and trigger the growth of factories in the region.”
Usually shipped from Austria? Are they sure about that? Aren't those slabs of CLTs going to come from China instead where they usually don't have good records of what chemicals are used in their manufacturing processes? That being said, those CLT slabs are as likely to be coming from Ukraine or Finland also.
http://www.alibaba.com/corpora...
Your math needs work. From your own article you cited. It said "less than 100,000" for Google, 100,000 for Facebook, and it didn't say an amount for Twitter.
This is not to mention the DNC servers that someone hacked into, or socially engineered themselves into. Or the 21 states, in which elections were breached, even if nothing was changed.
Because let's face it, if a large foreign power attacks your election process, it is an act of war. It is still an act of war, whether they succeeded or not. And if an American colluded with that foreign power, it is an act of treason. And it still is an act of treason, whether that foreign power succeeded or not.
And if an American in a position of power collaborated with Russia, that American should be considered potentially compromised. After all, if Russia can prove that an American collaborated with them, and if that American didn't disclose that fact to the FBI when first asked about it, or if that American didn't disclose that fact when he applied for his security clearance through the FBI, then that means that Russia could easily blackmail that person for the rest of their life.
And if you think I am being paranoid for thinking stuff like that, then so be it, call me paranoid.
I long for the day my phone will be able to tell if the person I'm about to have sex with is attractive enough. With beer goggles, one can't be too careful. And with Facebook, the reply from your friends may not arrive fast enough.
Now those same left want US social media companies to clamp down more and more on 'hate speech' which in this case means 'speech they hate'.
You mean like athletes kneeling during their national anthem.
But hey, at least it's not the government censoring people.
It is in the case of Trump actually. The free market couldn't convince the NFL to take a unified stand, but the threat to revoke their tax status quickly got the job done. It's like the constitution never even existed.
witness the 'Russians-under-the-bed' paranoia in the US about Russian companies spending a few tens of thousands of dollars during the last US election.
A few tens of thousands of dollars? Really, I thought the current tally was at $300,000 + 247,000 (by Russia Today) + tens of thousands of dollars. And what about Paul Manafort, he may have been the unpaid Campaign Manager of the Trump Campaign, but it turns out, somebody was paying him all along. How much did that cost? Apparently, Manafort isn't cheap. And what about the hacking? The hacking doesn't count?
But your data is still used by Google to sell to the highest bidder. That was the point.
Google doesn't sell data to the highest bidders, it sells ads to the highest bidders. That's how its business model works. It sells the milk, not the cow, nor the know-how. That's how it ensures that advertisers can't go elsewhere. That's why I believe Google when it claims it doesn't use paid gmail accounts for advertising.
That being said, and if I remember correctly, the free academic accounts are another story. Google does point out that once a free academic account is converted to alumni status, then it will receive ads and its data will be used for advertising.
Not true. If you pay for gmail, you don't get ads. This has been going on ever since I can remember.
And unlike Microsoft, Google still accepts new paying customers for that particular service.
Doesn't Bing have the same issues, especially since it copies some of the fake index data Google purposefully generates?
For a time, when I didn't have money, I used Baidu and Chinese blogs to find mp3s of American and European Pop music. I don't read Chinese, but the file names are in English.
Let me guess, she wants to be a social media star?
Well, now she has to become a social media star. There is no going back.
Her dad's unemployment is certainly not going to cover the rent in Silicon Valley.
It will cover food and a few expenses, but that's about it.
The newer Samsung Note screens are even more expensive to replace, at $300 a pop. This is because they're using the Samsung Pen/Wacom technology. Even the S8 screen seems to be super expensive for some reason. I have no idea why, maybe it's because of its curved screen? Maybe that's "the next big thing" to manufacture a screen that is as fragile as a Doritos chip and that is super expensive to replace.