On the issue/problem/topic of H1-B misuse, Sessions is correct! Glad to hear he really is following common sense. The Republican party is in the better position to make reform on this happen, just hope this does not get lumped in with the larger issues of immigration. By itself, both parties could agree on this and it could even overcome a veto.
"Never, ever, anywhere should you gloat about your security, we are ALL vulnerable. If you think otherwise and gloat about it you only increase your risk."
Signed, Colonel Klink.
I'll bet is was because both of them had unacceptable policies regarding privacy, security/integrity and/or what they are responsible to do if a breach does occur. I'll also bet that those same policies were/are acceptable to various branches of American government, because our standards for those issues here in The United States lag waaaaay behind European standards.
Ewww. THAT's creepy. But your point about the drones is only partially right. It's not so much the acknowledgement that "someone" is passively (but intrusively) watching you as it is the invasion of "your space" . One of those fragile Quad-Helicopter Drones would also be creepy, not because it could hurt you as much as it is invading your "space". My IMPLIED point was that anything that is mobile and right there in-your-face is creepy. I "person" holding the camera is probably the most creepy, the only way it could be creepier would be if he was just starring at you without even a camera. You could make it less creepy by having him keep his distance. Or have fixed position stand (aka a tripod). Or if the drone were high enough up that you didn't immediately notice it.
His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON, and he keeps getting right up in other peoples face (within distance to physically touch or be touched) A much better test that would eliminate the CREEPY GUY factor, would be to just mount a camera on a tripod and place it by the doorway of a building or even in the middle of a crowd or public square and then walk away from it. Maybe have it mounted on a stand that can turn and focus...
I could should that people were "afraid of balloons" if I stepped right up in there faces and stared at them while holding balloons. Possibly interesting idea executed very lamely. Next.
It's not the quality of the app you write, it's how easy people find it and perceive it. I am very slowly learning this. Go read the book "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz. Whether you like it or not, it's true.
"Fortunately, the trademark laws are fairly cut and dried. To be in violation, you either need to be using a trademark without permission in a way likely to cause confusion, or using the trademark in a way that causes "trademark dilution" which "dilutes the distinctive quality of the trademark". You seem to be doing neither in this case."
Note - I am not a lawyer, I just found and paraphrased this by googling "referencing a trademark"
at least at the start of this next frontier how about testing for the chip profiling software. It's one thing to be able to "detect subtle differences" in floating point operations but another to do it while also trying to avoid detection while you're doing it.
I am a "computer guy" for a fairly affleunt K-12 district, and for years I have been saying that for K, 1 & 2 there shouldn't even be computers or other "gadgets". As Clifford Stoll asked in his book "Silicon Snake Oil", "Where are the sand tables?" and other hands-on, tactile, open ended learning stations. Most teachers, even Principals I bring it up to more or less agree... but... everyone says the parents won't stand for it.
Exactly! It's not like this is going to hurt their reputation in any significant way, so the fines HAVE to be higher than the illicit profits for them to have any real teeth.
Well, yes, there's probably that, immediate upfront scratch is not to be ignored...
but I worried about the idea that they'll try to force subscribers to load their P2P software on any/all machines that want to connnect, even if you don't WANT to use ANY P2P. This is just pure paranoia on my part of course, unless I'm right.
Why not "legally" turn ALL their customers into "bots" via the seducing promise of better video sharing on "their" P2P network. I'm just saying...
Requiring authorization will probably cripple its usefulness as a Linux App Server...
BUT! whoever sells/buys this gets to say both "Yes, we're running Linux too" and "But were not really because its all locked down" depending on which constituency they are talking too: The pro open source crowd or the pro security through obscurity crowd.
Reminds me of way back in the days when Novell used to claim Netware 4.x-6.5 was an App Server too: It was a GREAT File and Print Server, with GREAT Directory Services (eDirectory compared to early Active Directory), but it sure was NOT a great App Server.
Human-based KNOWLEDGE searches vs. automated INFORMATION searches.
Very fun, charming little movie, all about the perils of automation. Check it out, even if you have to use up your next Netflix delivery. Worth, if for nothing else than seeing Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn onscreen again. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050307/
Slashdot Mirror
On the issue/problem/topic of H1-B misuse, Sessions is correct! Glad to hear he really is following common sense. The Republican party is in the better position to make reform on this happen, just hope this does not get lumped in with the larger issues of immigration. By itself, both parties could agree on this and it could even overcome a veto.
What do you make of it Johnny?! Well, you can make a hat, a broach, a pterodacty!....
"Never, ever, anywhere should you gloat about your security, we are ALL vulnerable. If you think otherwise and gloat about it you only increase your risk." Signed, Colonel Klink.
I'll bet is was because both of them had unacceptable policies regarding privacy, security/integrity and/or what they are responsible to do if a breach does occur. I'll also bet that those same policies were/are acceptable to various branches of American government, because our standards for those issues here in The United States lag waaaaay behind European standards.
Ewww. THAT's creepy. But your point about the drones is only partially right. It's not so much the acknowledgement that "someone" is passively (but intrusively) watching you as it is the invasion of "your space" . One of those fragile Quad-Helicopter Drones would also be creepy, not because it could hurt you as much as it is invading your "space". My IMPLIED point was that anything that is mobile and right there in-your-face is creepy. I "person" holding the camera is probably the most creepy, the only way it could be creepier would be if he was just starring at you without even a camera. You could make it less creepy by having him keep his distance. Or have fixed position stand (aka a tripod). Or if the drone were high enough up that you didn't immediately notice it.
His antics are DIFFERENT because he is a PERSON, and he keeps getting right up in other peoples face (within distance to physically touch or be touched) A much better test that would eliminate the CREEPY GUY factor, would be to just mount a camera on a tripod and place it by the doorway of a building or even in the middle of a crowd or public square and then walk away from it. Maybe have it mounted on a stand that can turn and focus... I could should that people were "afraid of balloons" if I stepped right up in there faces and stared at them while holding balloons. Possibly interesting idea executed very lamely. Next.
She might also have been signed with SONY.
What's to discuss? When a particular "mission" is taken to "religious" extremes, with no good can come of it.
Vendor: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find information being leaked here!" Waiter: "Here's your mined data sir..." Vendor: "Thank you"
Cash will ALWAYS exist. Whether out of the desire for anonymity, the convenience or the underground economy.
themselves!
It's not the quality of the app you write, it's how easy people find it and perceive it. I am very slowly learning this. Go read the book "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz. Whether you like it or not, it's true.
Kudzu!
"Fortunately, the trademark laws are fairly cut and dried. To be in violation, you either need to be using a trademark without permission in a way likely to cause confusion, or using the trademark in a way that causes "trademark dilution" which "dilutes the distinctive quality of the trademark". You seem to be doing neither in this case." Note - I am not a lawyer, I just found and paraphrased this by googling "referencing a trademark"
at least at the start of this next frontier how about testing for the chip profiling software. It's one thing to be able to "detect subtle differences" in floating point operations but another to do it while also trying to avoid detection while you're doing it.
See Karl?!?!? I TOLD YOU we shouldn't have created those accounts so closely together...
Step away from the song lyrics. Or there will be... trouble.
I am a "computer guy" for a fairly affleunt K-12 district, and for years I have been saying that for K, 1 & 2 there shouldn't even be computers or other "gadgets". As Clifford Stoll asked in his book "Silicon Snake Oil", "Where are the sand tables?" and other hands-on, tactile, open ended learning stations. Most teachers, even Principals I bring it up to more or less agree... but... everyone says the parents won't stand for it.
Exactly! It's not like this is going to hurt their reputation in any significant way, so the fines HAVE to be higher than the illicit profits for them to have any real teeth.
and do NOT believe is true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb9urNUFzAM Would love for Consumer Reports to do an expose on it.
Well, yes, there's probably that, immediate upfront scratch is not to be ignored...
but I worried about the idea that they'll try to force subscribers to load their P2P software on any/all machines that want to connnect, even if you don't WANT to use ANY P2P. This is just pure paranoia on my part of course, unless I'm right.
Why not "legally" turn ALL their customers into "bots" via the seducing promise of better video sharing on "their" P2P network. I'm just saying...
Now that you're done with testing, they'd like all their "missing" laptops back...
Requiring authorization will probably cripple its usefulness as a Linux App Server...
BUT! whoever sells/buys this gets to say both "Yes, we're running Linux too" and "But were not really because its all locked down" depending on which constituency they are talking too: The pro open source crowd or the pro security through obscurity crowd.
Reminds me of way back in the days when Novell used to claim Netware 4.x-6.5 was an App Server too: It was a GREAT File and Print Server, with GREAT Directory Services (eDirectory compared to early Active Directory), but it sure was NOT a great App Server.
Misanthropic Principle: I don't give a damn what you or your sig have to say.
Human-based KNOWLEDGE searches vs. automated INFORMATION searches.
Very fun, charming little movie, all about the perils of automation. Check it out, even if you have to use up your next Netflix delivery. Worth, if for nothing else than seeing Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn onscreen again. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050307/