You are right, I did. Then I got distracted trying to write a clever headline and botched it. Does that mean I'm now qualified to be a slashdot editor?
The union (as in set theory, not politically) between FOSS and government (at any level) is not as large as some would like to think or have us believe, due largely that software's relationship to government is simply that it's just another tool. Ideally, while government can advocate for a particular tool set, the reality of government's obligation as an influencer of commerce (directly and indirectly) combined with its role as a regulator of commerce (again, directly and indirectly) leads to the conclusion that government should be no more an advocate of FOSS than it should be of proprietary software. This is particularly true in the United States where corporations producing proprietary software could have Equal Protection grounds for arguing against being unilaterally excluding from bidding on contracts or providing unsolicited RFP's where companies producing FOSS products are not restricted.
and shouldn't be treated as one. Reliable backups, separation of privileges, and security of passwords are all things that should be going on regardless of the possibility or actuality of disgruntled employees. What you need is protection from behavior, and the only pro-active method for that is a contract. Whether you have the Admins as W-2 or 1099 workers, you need to have a contract in place that clearly delineates lines of authority and responsibility, with clearly stated consequences for crossing those lines--up to and including civil and criminal prosecution.
NBC will probably sell it off at a huge loss in a year or two.
We can certainly hope so.
And if the new owners turn it into nothing more than a home for reruns of all of the Star Treks, Space 1999, UFO. Firefly, Lexx, Andromeda, FarScape, Bablyon 5, etc., that would be awesome, and probably pay off better than the current mess that's happening now. But if they could keep Eureka and Warehouse 13, that would be even better.
Under the current patent law in the US, the obviousness tests hinges upon "a person having ordinary skill in the art"; so if it takes an expert to realize how to take an idea and make it real (i.e., the transformative part), then, by definition in the law, it's NOT obvious.
X windows for Unix goes back to the mid-1980s at MIT. A variety of desktop environments were created in the early 90s by HP, IBM, and Sun (among others), the culmination of which was CDE in 1994. Which, of course, Microsoft has conveniently ignored.
About half of that is the brain, which comes down to 25 million bytes, or a million lines of code.
What's so crazy about that?
The data points to lines of code don't correlate like that, and given that he doesn't explain at how, let alone why, he arrives at that proportion, we are left with the implication that he just made it up.
Given an example brain with 100 Billion neurons and hundreds of connections from each to the surrounding others, plus the corpus callosum and its 200 million connetions, this gives us over a trillion interface points. (Plus the limbic system which introduces not only hardwired connections, but chemically-variable messages.) And not all of these interface point are equal; some are grouped hierarchically, and some are grouped in a peer-to-peer network fashion. And all of them do different things, based upon what part of the body external to the brain they are ultimately tethered to via the nervous system.
A good program has to be just as much about context and error-handling as it needs to be about the desired utility functions. Do you really think all of the above can be encompassed in a mere million lines of code, no matter the language used?
Humans are inherently herd animals. So creating a web site on the premise that people will always, only act as individuals is unrealistic. This was demonstrated over 10 years ago on ebay when coordinate shilling was a huge problem in certain categories.
People must rely on properly configured OS-level permissions for securing against untrusted developers.
Why not also blame the web server, the middleware (e.g., Tomcat/Jboss/etc), the database, and the client-side browser as well? While security problems at these layers certainly exist, they don't excuse any problems in PHP--and they certainly don't exonerate any developer for writing insecure code in the first place.
Years ago during a congressional committee hearing, Alan Greenspan was addressing the proposed (and since passed into law) income tax deduction for student loans. He noted that this was going to have the desired effect of putting more students in college, but also cause student loans--and their corresponding default rate--to rise accordingly. And then he questioned the wisdom of that outcome. When challenged on this, he pointed out that which Congress taxes we generally get less of, and that which Congress provides incentives for, we get more of.
From a supply-and-demand perspective, this makes sense, especially if we consider taxation (and its opposite, tax deduction) to be "cost", wannabe students demand, and colleges supply, we will have more colleges cranking out more grads if the cost goes down.
About 10 years ago in its annual review of colleges & universities, U.S. News was speculating that we didn't have enough colleges to meet the ever-growing demands of future needs. Of course that was all based on the assumption that the economy was only, ever, always going to grow. I hope at some point we can get over that notion.
The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, has multiple names for God. The english word "God" is what is usually used to translate the Hebrew name "Elohim".
The HIPAA regs have a lot of criteria for data protection, but practically nothing about how to implement or measure a given implementation for that criteria. I worked at a hospital where the CIO honestly thought that having a backup tapes and spreadsheet of prioritized servers to bring back up in the event of a disaster was a sufficient D.R. plan to cover what HIPAA required. So how did the study measure compliance?
The ansewr is that they didn't. Nor did they measure effectiveness of compliance-based processes and procedures, nor did they take into account the benefit of being in compliance. There's a chart in the.PDF that contrasts "custodial data" with "secrets". One of the criteria is Consequences. For "Secrets", the consequence is revenue loss, which is not necessarily automatic; however, they don't list revenue loss for "custodial data", even though there will be some, even if short-term, drop-off in business due to the incident.
The study is presented from the bias that the two commissioning companies wanted, namely to drum-up a motive via this presumably expertly manufactured need for greater security for security's sake. And you can bet that both Microsoft and RSA are going to be using this study to drive more product sales, and doing so from the perspective that better overall security equal better compliance--whether it actually does, or not.
There's a difference between legitimate trade secrets (those often, but not always, involving intellectual properties, proprietary methods, plans for new markets, new products, new sales strategies, etc), and deliberately withholding quantified information that will have a potential impact on investment in the company. Up until recently, almost all companies included in their annual statement the number of employees. Headcount used to be a traditional measure of company growth. It is only recently that companies have started withholding this information.
I believe that most investors would think that a comnpany's US-based employee head-count to be "material" to their investment decisions, particularly when the Federal government is both a customer of that company, and interested in these numbers. I also think it wouldn't be that big a stretch to consider not disclosing these numbers a a violation of insider trading laws, given that the top executives and the board of directors would be familiar with the counts.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, I did. Then I got distracted trying to write a clever headline and botched it. Does that mean I'm now qualified to be a slashdot editor?
The union (as in set theory, not politically) between FOSS and government (at any level) is not as large as some would like to think or have us believe, due largely that software's relationship to government is simply that it's just another tool. Ideally, while government can advocate for a particular tool set, the reality of government's obligation as an influencer of commerce (directly and indirectly) combined with its role as a regulator of commerce (again, directly and indirectly) leads to the conclusion that government should be no more an advocate of FOSS than it should be of proprietary software. This is particularly true in the United States where corporations producing proprietary software could have Equal Protection grounds for arguing against being unilaterally excluding from bidding on contracts or providing unsolicited RFP's where companies producing FOSS products are not restricted.
and shouldn't be treated as one. Reliable backups, separation of privileges, and security of passwords are all things that should be going on regardless of the possibility or actuality of disgruntled employees. What you need is protection from behavior, and the only pro-active method for that is a contract. Whether you have the Admins as W-2 or 1099 workers, you need to have a contract in place that clearly delineates lines of authority and responsibility, with clearly stated consequences for crossing those lines--up to and including civil and criminal prosecution.
by Philip Jose Farmer in his "Dayworld" series.
make them all stand at tables and do their work. Nothing brings focus to a task like having to stand to do it.
NBC will probably sell it off at a huge loss in a year or two.
We can certainly hope so. And if the new owners turn it into nothing more than a home for reruns of all of the Star Treks, Space 1999, UFO. Firefly, Lexx, Andromeda, FarScape, Bablyon 5, etc., that would be awesome, and probably pay off better than the current mess that's happening now. But if they could keep Eureka and Warehouse 13, that would be even better.
Under the current patent law in the US, the obviousness tests hinges upon "a person having ordinary skill in the art"; so if it takes an expert to realize how to take an idea and make it real (i.e., the transformative part), then, by definition in the law, it's NOT obvious.
X windows for Unix goes back to the mid-1980s at MIT. A variety of desktop environments were created in the early 90s by HP, IBM, and Sun (among others), the culmination of which was CDE in 1994. Which, of course, Microsoft has conveniently ignored.
About half of that is the brain, which comes down to 25 million bytes, or a million lines of code.
What's so crazy about that?
The data points to lines of code don't correlate like that, and given that he doesn't explain at how, let alone why, he arrives at that proportion, we are left with the implication that he just made it up.
Given an example brain with 100 Billion neurons and hundreds of connections from each to the surrounding others, plus the corpus callosum and its 200 million connetions, this gives us over a trillion interface points. (Plus the limbic system which introduces not only hardwired connections, but chemically-variable messages.) And not all of these interface point are equal; some are grouped hierarchically, and some are grouped in a peer-to-peer network fashion. And all of them do different things, based upon what part of the body external to the brain they are ultimately tethered to via the nervous system.
A good program has to be just as much about context and error-handling as it needs to be about the desired utility functions. Do you really think all of the above can be encompassed in a mere million lines of code, no matter the language used?
Humans are inherently herd animals. So creating a web site on the premise that people will always, only act as individuals is unrealistic. This was demonstrated over 10 years ago on ebay when coordinate shilling was a huge problem in certain categories.
e-mail is actually over 40 years old, as it dates back to 1969.
It's the author's way of saying he doesn't understand physics, and that he doesn't get why anyone else would.
whose hind paws got cut off in a harvester accident
can bionic ears be too far behind now?
People must rely on properly configured OS-level permissions for securing against untrusted developers.
Why not also blame the web server, the middleware (e.g., Tomcat/Jboss/etc), the database, and the client-side browser as well? While security problems at these layers certainly exist, they don't excuse any problems in PHP--and they certainly don't exonerate any developer for writing insecure code in the first place.
a locked cockpit door and a the metal detectors at Boston's Logan airport set to the correct threshold.
Years ago during a congressional committee hearing, Alan Greenspan was addressing the proposed (and since passed into law) income tax deduction for student loans. He noted that this was going to have the desired effect of putting more students in college, but also cause student loans--and their corresponding default rate--to rise accordingly. And then he questioned the wisdom of that outcome. When challenged on this, he pointed out that which Congress taxes we generally get less of, and that which Congress provides incentives for, we get more of.
From a supply-and-demand perspective, this makes sense, especially if we consider taxation (and its opposite, tax deduction) to be "cost", wannabe students demand, and colleges supply, we will have more colleges cranking out more grads if the cost goes down.
About 10 years ago in its annual review of colleges & universities, U.S. News was speculating that we didn't have enough colleges to meet the ever-growing demands of future needs. Of course that was all based on the assumption that the economy was only, ever, always going to grow. I hope at some point we can get over that notion.
The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, has multiple names for God. The english word "God" is what is usually used to translate the Hebrew name "Elohim".
The HIPAA regs have a lot of criteria for data protection, but practically nothing about how to implement or measure a given implementation for that criteria. I worked at a hospital where the CIO honestly thought that having a backup tapes and spreadsheet of prioritized servers to bring back up in the event of a disaster was a sufficient D.R. plan to cover what HIPAA required. So how did the study measure compliance?
.PDF that contrasts "custodial data" with "secrets". One of the criteria is Consequences. For "Secrets", the consequence is revenue loss, which is not necessarily automatic; however, they don't list revenue loss for "custodial data", even though there will be some, even if short-term, drop-off in business due to the incident.
The ansewr is that they didn't. Nor did they measure effectiveness of compliance-based processes and procedures, nor did they take into account the benefit of being in compliance. There's a chart in the
The study is presented from the bias that the two commissioning companies wanted, namely to drum-up a motive via this presumably expertly manufactured need for greater security for security's sake. And you can bet that both Microsoft and RSA are going to be using this study to drive more product sales, and doing so from the perspective that better overall security equal better compliance--whether it actually does, or not.
Because the government has been so successful at preventing identity theft with the 9 digit social security numbers.
There's a difference between legitimate trade secrets (those often, but not always, involving intellectual properties, proprietary methods, plans for new markets, new products, new sales strategies, etc), and deliberately withholding quantified information that will have a potential impact on investment in the company. Up until recently, almost all companies included in their annual statement the number of employees. Headcount used to be a traditional measure of company growth. It is only recently that companies have started withholding this information.
Last I knew companies weren't legal or socially obligated to disclose this kind of info.
"The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation Fair Disclosure, also commonly referred to as Regulation FD or Reg FD, was an SEC ruling implemented in October 2000. It mandated that all publicly traded companies must disclose material information to all investors at the same time."
I believe that most investors would think that a comnpany's US-based employee head-count to be "material" to their investment decisions, particularly when the Federal government is both a customer of that company, and interested in these numbers. I also think it wouldn't be that big a stretch to consider not disclosing these numbers a a violation of insider trading laws, given that the top executives and the board of directors would be familiar with the counts.
How is this not a potential qui tam suit just begging to be initiated?
You do realize that the over-inflated costs the government charges against toilet seats and hammers are how the NSA and CIA black ops get funded?
Oil. You forgot to mention the oil.
Screw interesting, we need to find a way off this rock and a new place to go to; and we need to develop the means to find and get there.