Then, how do you interpret the first line of the specific article you linked to?
Thanks to some tips from a Dutch Profibus expert who responded to our call for help, we’ve connected a critical piece of the puzzle.
That Dutch Profibus expert was Rob Hulsebos, Industrial Network Expert and Owner of Enode Networks. The guy is an independent consultant, and could use the publicity. Don't you find it odd that Symantec didn't name him as their source?
Granted, he may have been under contract at the time, or he may have had a thousand and one reasons not to be quoted by name directly (liability reasons, or whatever).
In any case, the anti-virus companies are really not incentivized to reveal their original sources. I don't know if this is what happened in this case, but then again, I have pretty lowly opinion of anti-virus companies so I may not being objective in all of this.
The algorithm is described in a paper to be presented later this summer at the prestigious IEEE ASONAM conference.
I can just imagine the talk now.
We were dead wrong. The IEEE ASONAM conference is not prestigious at all. No one takes our tweets seriously. The algorithm proved conclusively that my 13 years old kid sister has more prestige and influence over the rest of academia than the entire IEEE ASONAM conference speakers and attendees combined.
The real trick is finding the right message that would even be accepted by the original seed set
Take that "occupy movement" for instance. It doesn't matter if you can retrospectively identify the top influencers of that movement. If you'd need to convince those influencers of something, you'd have to convince them of your message first, which I bet would be much more difficult than to convince regular members of that same network.
So the next thing you could do is hijack their account and try to transmit your message that way, but even that would be next to useless. If your message is not congruent with the previous messages those top influencers were previously sending, your message will likely be ignored by their followers.
The ISPs are very happy to offer service individually to residents. Rather then having some building wide system, let residents work it out for themselves.
I wish I could mod this post a thousand points. Getting this service as a group exposes your organization to all kinds of management nightmares and liability. Do not get into the business of becoming an ISP. It's not worth the trouble. Plus, it's not going to be worth the trouble personally when people start calling you every time their internet is down (or when they think someone else is taking all their bandwidth).
Do not trust what the sales people say. Sales people lie. Let the members of your condo make their own decisions, and if the company they picked is particularly awful, or becomes awful only later, then at least they'll be able to switch out of it.
I know people that actually do this kind of network support for a living at their workplace, who have had all kinds of difficulties trying do the same for their tenants (granted, condo owners are not the same as tenants, condo owners should be easier, but still).
But not the anti-virus companies, which is what we're talking about here. The anti-virus companies are just script kiddies. Their core competencies are public relations and cookie scaremongering, but that's all. They do not pay people to do original research, that would cut into their profit margins.
If they can detect something, it's only because someone else did the research and posted it on their blog. Once someone has written some manual instructions for detecting the malware and removing it, the anti-virus companies are capable of writing a script that tries to do the same automatically, but even that sometimes stretches the limit of their capabilities since they can't even do that part correctly many of the times.
The real research is done by people like Mark Russinovich (and yes, you don't have to trust anything he has written after his company was acquired by Microsoft, you can just take a look at his oldest blog posts first -- which pre-date the acquisition).
I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.
What's wrong with his phone? Does he have an iPhone?
My Android phone allows me to cache as much google maps tiles as I want for off-line navigation. It's just one of the google labs option that needs to be enabled from the google maps application, that's all. As to the data points themselves, I save every address I run across into my address book, that way it comes up automatically as an auto-complete item when I enter a destination.
But even then, I am glad I'm no longer using my standalone gps unit for its data, its data points were several years out of date. And it was frustrating going to a gas station that no longer existed, or seeing new neighborhoods that were not even listed in its database yet.
Those existing AT&T iPad plans aren't really "data only" plans, even those 4G AT&T iPad plans aren't data plans at all. If they were just about data and quotas, they'd allow you to use applications like FaceTime at the very least.
Those AT&T iPad plans are more like Amazon Kindle 3G plans, or some of those cable SmartTV plans. In other words, they're "data that we're getting money for providing to you plans" and sometimes they're "internet browsing plans", but they're certainly not "data only plans". If they were just about data, there would be no artificial distinction between the type of data you'd be allowed to move around as long as you remained within your own quota.
No. According to the founder, it's going to be 2/3 work, and 1/3 sniff whatever you want (thus exceeding the Googler's former practice).
And he intends on having 200 to 300 employees, plus around 200 dogs. Right now, it's just him (1 employee) and his dog so far (1 dog). Or to be more accurate, his current company is at 1 employee and 1.2 dogs (I'm counting 0.2 dogs for the skin of the dog/wolf he's wearing on his head for the article).
Also, he's looking for investors. And not just the big guys, he's willing to accept money from the little guys as well, because he's "willing to give everybody a chance".
Maybe they are hard to fill because they dont pay enough?
Most likely. The next thing they'll tell us is that roughly 50% of companies pay their US workers below average salaries, and roughly 50% of companies pay their workers salaries that are above average. It's a real statistical nightmare.
Individual researchers will be able to get an ORCID number for free as of later this year, whereas universities, companies and other organizations will pay tiered-subscription charges. So far, the scheme has been sustained by members working in kind, as well as by donations of US$574,000 and loans of $1.2 million. Once membership fees begin flowing, they are expected to raise $2.5 million each year.
With $1.2 million dollars of debt already, and with the expectation that ORCID will become a tiered paid subscription service, I don't see any reason why anyone would want to use ORCID instead of researcherID. What will happen to your ID if ORCID goes bankrupt?
Also, what happens when you're a prolific researcher into two different field of studies that usually do not mix very well? Can the new system assign you two different IDs?
0.1 microSv - airport security scan (backscatter X-ray) 0.25 microSv - airport security scan maximum permitted 1.0 microSv - using a CRT monitor for a year 5.0 microSv - dental X-ray 7.5 microSv - per day in Tokyo, 250 km SW of Fukushima plant 40 microSv - Flight from New York to LA 100 microSv - chest X-ray
Do you know anything about the Port of Oakland's scanner (in the San Francisco Bay Area) for trucks carrying containers? I have a truck driver friend who has to drive his truck through that scanner every time he picks up a container from there. Apparently, it's not that bad for him because he does long routes and doesn't go back and forth from the Port that often, but he knows some other drivers that have to come back from that Port up to 10 times a day on some of the busier days.
Also the new petition to the White House is not thought out at all. The big Corporations are already insulating themselves from blow back from their patent lawsuits by using Corporate shells to act as proxies, so if the proxy loses, it just goes bankrupt, and that's all.
It would be far better to do a petition for abolishing software patents once again. Re-abolishing software patents doesn't solve everything either, but that would be a far clearer goal in my opinion than trying to impose triple damages on a shell company that doesn't even have a penny to its name.
As I recall, it is so slow as to be unusable on my iPad (original model) and crashes frequently.
It deserves to die.
The Android Yahoo app is also slow on my Samsung Galaxy tab 10.1, mostly because of the new heavy banner advertisement they force you to load before each and every story. And there is really no reason for anyone to use it, when there are so many free alternatives that have smaller and less intrusive ads and that are getting far better ratings overall in the Android Market/Google Play Store.
They don't need to kill their apps. They just need to kill their current mobile advertising network, and purchase an existing one (or copy the features of an existing one) that doesn't try to kill the user experience trying to squeeze out every single penny out of our eye balls (and cell phone batteries).
No, this had nothing to do trying to get money from her.
When something bad happens, you sue everybody who's connected to the defendant and to the incident in any way. That's the standard unofficial rule. By doing that, you're hoping that the defendants turn on each other, or at the very minimum, that one of them talks too much.
(Go Daddy contends that their security systems were not breached, but instead that the recall website was brought down due to unauthorized access of the email address associated with the domain registration account.) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76723.html#ixzz1vpWrlb5a
Since Go Daddy is saying that this is not a security breach of their system, I guess this means they have no intention of ever fixing the this completely stupid and inane security response of theirs.
So assuming your edge speed is already 75 kbps, your maximum average speed over the entire month will be less than 75.8 kilobytes per second (is my calculation correct?).
For most existing University students, that represents a significant decrease in service. So hopefully, that means they're only just planning to scam their investors of out of millions/billions of dollars, and not the Universities themselves.
In Australia, our TV networks show an incredible amount of greed and disdain in regard to popular TV series.
Your Australia sounds an awful lot like our United States. We may be getting earlier releases, but we're probably getting as much if not more commercials than you guys are.
I dunno I found it somewhat interesting. Looking at some pictures of his new wife shows her to be rather plain looking and frequently struggling with her weight.
What the hell are you talking about? She's cute and she's fit, even if you consider her plain.
Top female super models and celebrities are also plain looking without make up on and without photoshop. And most of them are also struggling with their weight, whether it's the fact that they weight too much, or not enough (and are in denial about it).
...without looking at the specific provisions and language of the bill you cannot tell whether or not the restrictions placed are reasonable.
For once, the draft of the proposed law is linked directly from the Slashdot description. It's still pretty rough around the edges, but I personally can't see anything wrong with it. Can you?
The one part it doesn't mention is life insurance. Life insurance is such a tricky subject when it comes to dna privacy. When the last dna anti-discrimination law was passed in the US and signed into law by President Bush, health insurance was specifically included, but life insurance was specifically excluded from its protection.
The idea is that if someone knows when he's about to die because of some dna defect, it's pretty obvious that the person will try to get as much life insurance as he can just before he dies.
In my case, I can't ever say that my copy was ever found not to be genuine, or at least it never told me that's what it found, but it just seemed that every time I received a critical update, Microsoft seemed to have forgotten that my copy had previously passed the WGA validation test successfully.
And yes as someone else said already, there are ways to get around WGA, but as a paying customer, I wasn't about to get around WGA. The people that get around WGA are the ones that are using pirated copy of the software. And I wasn't about to replace a perfectly valid purchased copy of a software with an illegal copy of the same.
Stallman is not mentioned in the article. He's just mentioned in the slashdot description as additional click-bait.
The person we should be talking about is this "inventor" Ric Richardson. This guy patented the free trial/shareware/try and buy concept that required a unique unlock code to activate its software. In 1993, this concept may have been novel (perhaps, thought I doubt it), but the fact that the patent was granted at all is ridiculous.
Since some magazines were already distributing freeware inside of floppy disks with their magazines, it's not much of a stretch to think that it was just a matter of time that a number of those developers would start distributing shareware-like software that required an unlock code to activate it.
And I don't know if this guy got all the money he wanted out of it, since the verdict was overturned so many times over these last twenty years, but this guy's patent is the perfect example of a stupidly obvious idea that's only designed to stifle innovation, not promote it in any way.
Hopefully, that means you installed a decent Linux-based OS instead.
Re-installing Windows 7 without the crapware is still crapware in my opinion, since your DRM'd computer is still going to ask you to prove that your copy of Windows is genuine every couple of weeks (with yet another newer version of its genuine validation tool every time).
Slashdot Mirror
Then, how do you interpret the first line of the specific article you linked to?
Thanks to some tips from a Dutch Profibus expert who responded to our call for help, we’ve connected a critical piece of the puzzle.
That Dutch Profibus expert was Rob Hulsebos, Industrial Network Expert and Owner of Enode Networks. The guy is an independent consultant, and could use the publicity. Don't you find it odd that Symantec didn't name him as their source?
Granted, he may have been under contract at the time, or he may have had a thousand and one reasons not to be quoted by name directly (liability reasons, or whatever).
In any case, the anti-virus companies are really not incentivized to reveal their original sources. I don't know if this is what happened in this case, but then again, I have pretty lowly opinion of anti-virus companies so I may not being objective in all of this.
The algorithm is described in a paper to be presented later this summer at the prestigious IEEE ASONAM conference.
I can just imagine the talk now.
We were dead wrong. The IEEE ASONAM conference is not prestigious at all. No one takes our tweets seriously. The algorithm proved conclusively that my 13 years old kid sister has more prestige and influence over the rest of academia than the entire IEEE ASONAM conference speakers and attendees combined.
The real trick is finding the right message that would even be accepted by the original seed set
Take that "occupy movement" for instance. It doesn't matter if you can retrospectively identify the top influencers of that movement. If you'd need to convince those influencers of something, you'd have to convince them of your message first, which I bet would be much more difficult than to convince regular members of that same network.
So the next thing you could do is hijack their account and try to transmit your message that way, but even that would be next to useless. If your message is not congruent with the previous messages those top influencers were previously sending, your message will likely be ignored by their followers.
I wouldn't do anything fancy.
The ISPs are very happy to offer service individually to residents. Rather then having some building wide system, let residents work it out for themselves.
I wish I could mod this post a thousand points. Getting this service as a group exposes your organization to all kinds of management nightmares and liability. Do not get into the business of becoming an ISP. It's not worth the trouble. Plus, it's not going to be worth the trouble personally when people start calling you every time their internet is down (or when they think someone else is taking all their bandwidth).
Do not trust what the sales people say. Sales people lie. Let the members of your condo make their own decisions, and if the company they picked is particularly awful, or becomes awful only later, then at least they'll be able to switch out of it.
I know people that actually do this kind of network support for a living at their workplace, who have had all kinds of difficulties trying do the same for their tenants (granted, condo owners are not the same as tenants, condo owners should be easier, but still).
Sure, the OS companies. Yes.
But not the anti-virus companies, which is what we're talking about here. The anti-virus companies are just script kiddies. Their core competencies are public relations and cookie scaremongering, but that's all. They do not pay people to do original research, that would cut into their profit margins.
If they can detect something, it's only because someone else did the research and posted it on their blog. Once someone has written some manual instructions for detecting the malware and removing it, the anti-virus companies are capable of writing a script that tries to do the same automatically, but even that sometimes stretches the limit of their capabilities since they can't even do that part correctly many of the times.
The real research is done by people like Mark Russinovich (and yes, you don't have to trust anything he has written after his company was acquired by Microsoft, you can just take a look at his oldest blog posts first -- which pre-date the acquisition).
I only wish my phone would hold by default the X-million data points that my outmoded (but cheap and functional) dedicated GPS device does, without quite so much cloud-centric bottlenecking, and leave all expensive data use for optional overlays and current conditions.
What's wrong with his phone? Does he have an iPhone?
My Android phone allows me to cache as much google maps tiles as I want for off-line navigation. It's just one of the google labs option that needs to be enabled from the google maps application, that's all. As to the data points themselves, I save every address I run across into my address book, that way it comes up automatically as an auto-complete item when I enter a destination.
But even then, I am glad I'm no longer using my standalone gps unit for its data, its data points were several years out of date. And it was frustrating going to a gas station that no longer existed, or seeing new neighborhoods that were not even listed in its database yet.
Those existing AT&T iPad plans aren't really "data only" plans, even those 4G AT&T iPad plans aren't data plans at all. If they were just about data and quotas, they'd allow you to use applications like FaceTime at the very least.
Those AT&T iPad plans are more like Amazon Kindle 3G plans, or some of those cable SmartTV plans. In other words, they're "data that we're getting money for providing to you plans" and sometimes they're "internet browsing plans", but they're certainly not "data only plans". If they were just about data, there would be no artificial distinction between the type of data you'd be allowed to move around as long as you remained within your own quota.
No. According to the founder, it's going to be 2/3 work, and 1/3 sniff whatever you want (thus exceeding the Googler's former practice).
And he intends on having 200 to 300 employees, plus around 200 dogs. Right now, it's just him (1 employee) and his dog so far (1 dog). Or to be more accurate, his current company is at 1 employee and 1.2 dogs (I'm counting 0.2 dogs for the skin of the dog/wolf he's wearing on his head for the article).
Also, he's looking for investors. And not just the big guys, he's willing to accept money from the little guys as well, because he's "willing to give everybody a chance".
Maybe they are hard to fill because they dont pay enough?
Most likely. The next thing they'll tell us is that roughly 50% of companies pay their US workers below average salaries, and roughly 50% of companies pay their workers salaries that are above average. It's a real statistical nightmare.
Individual researchers will be able to get an ORCID number for free as of later this year, whereas universities, companies and other organizations will pay tiered-subscription charges. So far, the scheme has been sustained by members working in kind, as well as by donations of US$574,000 and loans of $1.2 million. Once membership fees begin flowing, they are expected to raise $2.5 million each year.
With $1.2 million dollars of debt already, and with the expectation that ORCID will become a tiered paid subscription service, I don't see any reason why anyone would want to use ORCID instead of researcherID. What will happen to your ID if ORCID goes bankrupt?
Also, what happens when you're a prolific researcher into two different field of studies that usually do not mix very well? Can the new system assign you two different IDs?
0.1 microSv - airport security scan (backscatter X-ray)
0.25 microSv - airport security scan maximum permitted
1.0 microSv - using a CRT monitor for a year
5.0 microSv - dental X-ray
7.5 microSv - per day in Tokyo, 250 km SW of Fukushima plant
40 microSv - Flight from New York to LA
100 microSv - chest X-ray
Do you know anything about the Port of Oakland's scanner (in the San Francisco Bay Area) for trucks carrying containers? I have a truck driver friend who has to drive his truck through that scanner every time he picks up a container from there. Apparently, it's not that bad for him because he does long routes and doesn't go back and forth from the Port that often, but he knows some other drivers that have to come back from that Port up to 10 times a day on some of the busier days.
As far as I know Memorial day is only observed in the US of A.
Memorial day is also known as a Microsoft-mandated bank holiday in the UK.
Also the new petition to the White House is not thought out at all. The big Corporations are already insulating themselves from blow back from their patent lawsuits by using Corporate shells to act as proxies, so if the proxy loses, it just goes bankrupt, and that's all.
It would be far better to do a petition for abolishing software patents once again. Re-abolishing software patents doesn't solve everything either, but that would be a far clearer goal in my opinion than trying to impose triple damages on a shell company that doesn't even have a penny to its name.
I wonder if you actually tried the app.
As I recall, it is so slow as to be unusable on my iPad (original model) and crashes frequently.
It deserves to die.
The Android Yahoo app is also slow on my Samsung Galaxy tab 10.1, mostly because of the new heavy banner advertisement they force you to load before each and every story. And there is really no reason for anyone to use it, when there are so many free alternatives that have smaller and less intrusive ads and that are getting far better ratings overall in the Android Market/Google Play Store.
They don't need to kill their apps. They just need to kill their current mobile advertising network, and purchase an existing one (or copy the features of an existing one) that doesn't try to kill the user experience trying to squeeze out every single penny out of our eye balls (and cell phone batteries).
Then why sue anybody at all?
Thanks for clipping my quote at the most important part, and therefore completely misquoting me. My original quote stands below:
No, this had nothing to do trying to get money from her.
Emphasis in bold is mine.
No, this had nothing to do trying to get money from her.
When something bad happens, you sue everybody who's connected to the defendant and to the incident in any way. That's the standard unofficial rule. By doing that, you're hoping that the defendants turn on each other, or at the very minimum, that one of them talks too much.
(Go Daddy contends that their security systems were not breached, but instead that the recall website was brought down due to unauthorized access of the email address associated with the domain registration account.)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76723.html#ixzz1vpWrlb5a
Since Go Daddy is saying that this is not a security breach of their system, I guess this means they have no intention of ever fixing the this completely stupid and inane security response of theirs.
So assuming your edge speed is already 75 kbps, your maximum average speed over the entire month will be less than 75.8 kilobytes per second (is my calculation correct?).
For most existing University students, that represents a significant decrease in service. So hopefully, that means they're only just planning to scam their investors of out of millions/billions of dollars, and not the Universities themselves.
to monitor ....... the mix of men and women,
How can they differentiate between them?
Does it really matter? If Eddie Murphy can't tell the difference, I don't think anyone of us can (until it's too late).
In Australia, our TV networks show an incredible amount of greed and disdain in regard to popular TV series.
Your Australia sounds an awful lot like our United States. We may be getting earlier releases, but we're probably getting as much if not more commercials than you guys are.
I dunno I found it somewhat interesting. Looking at some pictures of his new wife shows her to be rather plain looking and frequently struggling with her weight.
What the hell are you talking about? She's cute and she's fit, even if you consider her plain.
Top female super models and celebrities are also plain looking without make up on and without photoshop. And most of them are also struggling with their weight, whether it's the fact that they weight too much, or not enough (and are in denial about it).
...without looking at the specific provisions and language of the bill you cannot tell whether or not the restrictions placed are reasonable.
For once, the draft of the proposed law is linked directly from the Slashdot description. It's still pretty rough around the edges, but I personally can't see anything wrong with it. Can you?
The one part it doesn't mention is life insurance. Life insurance is such a tricky subject when it comes to dna privacy. When the last dna anti-discrimination law was passed in the US and signed into law by President Bush, health insurance was specifically included, but life insurance was specifically excluded from its protection.
The idea is that if someone knows when he's about to die because of some dna defect, it's pretty obvious that the person will try to get as much life insurance as he can just before he dies.
None of the systems I manage nor any of my systems at home exhibit the behavior you describe. Perhaps you are embellishing just a bit?
Yes, I embellished a bit, but not much.
Apparently, some people had it worse than I had.
In my case, I can't ever say that my copy was ever found not to be genuine, or at least it never told me that's what it found, but it just seemed that every time I received a critical update, Microsoft seemed to have forgotten that my copy had previously passed the WGA validation test successfully.
And yes as someone else said already, there are ways to get around WGA, but as a paying customer, I wasn't about to get around WGA. The people that get around WGA are the ones that are using pirated copy of the software. And I wasn't about to replace a perfectly valid purchased copy of a software with an illegal copy of the same.
Stallman is not mentioned in the article. He's just mentioned in the slashdot description as additional click-bait.
The person we should be talking about is this "inventor" Ric Richardson. This guy patented the free trial/shareware/try and buy concept that required a unique unlock code to activate its software. In 1993, this concept may have been novel (perhaps, thought I doubt it), but the fact that the patent was granted at all is ridiculous.
Since some magazines were already distributing freeware inside of floppy disks with their magazines, it's not much of a stretch to think that it was just a matter of time that a number of those developers would start distributing shareware-like software that required an unlock code to activate it.
And I don't know if this guy got all the money he wanted out of it, since the verdict was overturned so many times over these last twenty years, but this guy's patent is the perfect example of a stupidly obvious idea that's only designed to stifle innovation, not promote it in any way.
I did it to my Dell at home for free.
Hopefully, that means you installed a decent Linux-based OS instead.
Re-installing Windows 7 without the crapware is still crapware in my opinion, since your DRM'd computer is still going to ask you to prove that your copy of Windows is genuine every couple of weeks (with yet another newer version of its genuine validation tool every time).