It may play a roll in crowd dispersion, but its primary purpose is actually in self-defense. A scenario like the one in the movie "Blackhawk Down" is a good example. If you have to secure an urban area and their are numerous buildings from which enemies could fire on you, then you would point these at the buildings creating cones in which any potential attacks would be suppressed. If someone tried to fire on you from a window and you had the face of the building in the code, then it is unlikely that they would even be able to get a shot fired.
These are far more advanced than my first several computers. They are certainly not toys. If you are referring to the user interface decisions that are geared towards making the system more child friendly, then all I can suggest is that they are trying to make learning more fun. Not necessarily a bad idea. The machines are still capable of doing all of using productivity applications that are needed in a non-toy computer.
Netflix has way more streaming content for that same $10 a month, and no ads, and X-Box, etc. integration. Hulu will be a fail.
My understanding of the situation is that Netflix streaming doesn't actually generate any money for the company directly. What it has done is to generate record growth in the number of new subscribers. It's what in the business world is called a loss leader- something that's either underpriced or free so as to improve the overall business. What's unclear is how they're going to actually make money from streaming.
By that same logic, delivering DVDs does not generate any more sales. It also is done for free in the interest of selling subscriptions. Of course it would be a little more difficult to sell those subscriptions if you did not provide the subscribers with either a DVD or streaming service.
What you suggest may have been true 20 years ago. Today, public funds pays for approximately 20%. Profs may be able to make more in the private sector but they would probably be expected to actually show up and work and sometimes work on things that they do not like. There's a reason so many highly qualified people want to become university faculty instead of working in the private sector, it's not such a bad gig.
There are trade-offs.
The commercial products give you better quality, higher reliability, and the ability to record encrypted broadcasts. They are usually more power efficient as well. The homebrew products will be cheaper over the lifecycle, ecspecially if you can cannabalize some existing hardware, plus it is simple to add extender devices that allow you to watch at any television in the house. It is also easy to put the recordings on your ipod or other video device, or stream over the internet.
That is mostly managements fault. Who gives a network a bank account and says "build us our entire network an run it, we do not want to worry about details like, what happens if you die".
Hold on here! The actions that Mr Childs took was to do nothing! His crime was doing nothing and refusing to communicate information (passwords). We should be less concerned with whether Mr Childs is an unprofessional jerk and more concerned with the interpretation of laws that could negatively impact all of our lives. Here is the what put Mr Childs in jail according to the juror:
"(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the
disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of
computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer
system, or computer network."
This is obviously geared toward malicious actions like DDOS attacks. It should not extend to simple ISP outages or disputes within a corporation, while working for a corporation. If we are going to apply this with as wide a brush as has been done in this case, then anytime my ISP intentionally turns off my internet connection (even if for maintenance), then they are committing a felony.
I see your point, however, I think that this is a case of the jury stretching the meaning of tampering in order to make it fit their desires for this particular case. I seriously doubt that this is what legislatures had in mind when they wrote this law. What this man did is incredibly unprofessional and destructive, but it was not illegal according to the of the law and the definition of "computer tampering".
Sometimes they side with corporate personhood and sometimes they do not. There has not been a consistent view on this. It almost always depends on the details of the specific case.
If they break the law, they are fined. If they have to raise cash, they often do issue additional stock, and if they cannot raise the money then they often are liquidated and the US Gov is the first in line to get the proceeds of the liquidation. You pretty much just laid out the existing system.
Employees of corporations can be and often are prosecuted. It is often times very difficult to assign accountability and that is why we also try to hold corporations monetarily accountable. The threat of the fine encourages executives to keep watch over their operation and be sure that their employees are obeying the law and it keeps employees in line because if the company is fined because of your actions, then you are likely to lose your job.
1. Congress does not prosecute companies and if you RTFA you would see that there was actually a pretty harsh law on the books.
2. Those people who should be leveling the punishment were essentially left with only the nuclear option due to this harsh law. If Pfizer was found guilty, they were officially done.
When did the supreme court say that corporations have the same rights as citizens and how is that the root of this problem? You can take the rights away and give them a different set of rules, it would not matter. This is a case where the prosecution had to balance two public interests. One where they want to keep companies alive because the employ people, provide value to shareholders, and provide products for the market, and the other where they need to ensure that those whom commit crimes are held accountable. You can change the laws all that you like. It will not amount to anything if the prosecution decides not to prosecute.
In fact, it was the heavy handed nature of the existing law to corporations that caused the prosecution to take the actions that it did. Pfizer is an enormous company. A portion of the company's sales force decided to knowingly commit fraud. For that, they could not merely pay a fine or give up something else of value such as patents. The law mandated that if they are found guilty, they cannot receive any money from medicare or medicaid for any of their products. This would in effect, kill the company, as it would any pharma company. Had this law not existed, or were medicare and medicaid not such enormous programs, then the prosecuters could have gone after the company and extracted an appropriately sized fine. In this case, they were in essence only left with the nuclear option and they wisely chose not to employ it.
This was new to me, so I looked up this "systematic misappropriation" that was cited by the judge. Turns out that this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. It is based on the The Doctrine of Misappropriation. It is wild, but this is in essence a law created entirely by the judiciary. It is not like other cases where the judiciary is accused of stretching the constitution to the extreme. In this case, the judiciary literally created the law out of nothing.
You can find all the information included in a government background check here: http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
Sexual preference is not included. Identifying information like Male/Female is. There is a mental health section.
In my opinion, the use of existing libraries is one of the most interesting and contentious issues, especially when the customer negotiates for more than typical data rights.
For example, In a development effort contract the US Gov typically expects unlimited data rights or government purpose rights. When multiple contractors bid on a contract, the Gov has no insight into whom is planning to use existing libraries or 3rd party libraries. Obviously the contractor who can leverage off of existing software is going to scope a much lower level of work and be able to bid lower and win the contract. When the Gov office finds out that the contractor does not plan on delivering a full set of code with the level of rights that they were expecting to have, they are not going to be very happy.
I think the grandparent was basically stating that the lawyer should basically get his own trial for whatever punishment he is going to receive. Afterall, he was only representing the one on trial, not on trial himself.
I agree with the grandparent. It seems like this falls under that "due process" stuff.
Your over-thinking this. It is highly unlikely that this politician even read the plan (which he claims lacks any vision) that has been put on the table. So, would modifying the plan with a better vision or strategy or other additional elements really help? He will not read the new plan either.
While I see the appeal of being able to run Android Java apps, I would not declare Android to be ahead of many of the other options for Linux touchscreens. While it is certainly a decent system for phones, it has not demonstrated the flexibility to be successful in a wide variety of touch screen use cases. It probably would work great at the hobbyist level for getting a quick and powerful interface on a general purpose touchscreen device, but if you were planning to market the car stereo on a large scale it would probably come out looking like you tried to make software designed for a phone work on a car stereo. On the other hand, that may be a good trade-off because saying that your car stereo runs Android would probably convince a lot of Android fans to buy it.
Usually they have some form of debit or credit card and you normally want to get permission for the purchase prior to making it. Also, most government orgs have some form of reimbursement request process if you are brave enough to use your own money.
I don't know if there is some crazy rule in the state that you work for, but in most governments there is nothing wrong with "endorsing" a product. Open source has received the endorsement at some of the highest levels of the federal government. I could directly point to many executives within the DoD that have specifically endorsed open source software.
How is this a misconception? It was stated explicitly in what I quoted from GNUs own website. Not somebodies blog. I am not really sure where you are going with the other paragraph from the GNU FAQ. The fact that the interpreter would become GPL by extension is completely irrelevant because it does not effect either a) programs that are written using Qt, or b) programs that are written in python using PyQt or PySide.
Slashdot Mirror
It may play a roll in crowd dispersion, but its primary purpose is actually in self-defense. A scenario like the one in the movie "Blackhawk Down" is a good example. If you have to secure an urban area and their are numerous buildings from which enemies could fire on you, then you would point these at the buildings creating cones in which any potential attacks would be suppressed. If someone tried to fire on you from a window and you had the face of the building in the code, then it is unlikely that they would even be able to get a shot fired.
Or training from some US Government specific training center for some internal government certification.
These are far more advanced than my first several computers. They are certainly not toys. If you are referring to the user interface decisions that are geared towards making the system more child friendly, then all I can suggest is that they are trying to make learning more fun. Not necessarily a bad idea. The machines are still capable of doing all of using productivity applications that are needed in a non-toy computer.
Netflix has way more streaming content for that same $10 a month, and no ads, and X-Box, etc. integration. Hulu will be a fail. My understanding of the situation is that Netflix streaming doesn't actually generate any money for the company directly. What it has done is to generate record growth in the number of new subscribers. It's what in the business world is called a loss leader- something that's either underpriced or free so as to improve the overall business. What's unclear is how they're going to actually make money from streaming.
By that same logic, delivering DVDs does not generate any more sales. It also is done for free in the interest of selling subscriptions. Of course it would be a little more difficult to sell those subscriptions if you did not provide the subscribers with either a DVD or streaming service.
What you suggest may have been true 20 years ago. Today, public funds pays for approximately 20%. Profs may be able to make more in the private sector but they would probably be expected to actually show up and work and sometimes work on things that they do not like. There's a reason so many highly qualified people want to become university faculty instead of working in the private sector, it's not such a bad gig.
As for Manning - I have just about made up my mind that he is nothing but a push-button shitbird.
You win the debate on style points alone! As a side note, I will be adding "push-button shitbird" to my repertoire of insults.
There are trade-offs. The commercial products give you better quality, higher reliability, and the ability to record encrypted broadcasts. They are usually more power efficient as well. The homebrew products will be cheaper over the lifecycle, ecspecially if you can cannabalize some existing hardware, plus it is simple to add extender devices that allow you to watch at any television in the house. It is also easy to put the recordings on your ipod or other video device, or stream over the internet.
That is mostly managements fault. Who gives a network a bank account and says "build us our entire network an run it, we do not want to worry about details like, what happens if you die".
"(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network."
This is obviously geared toward malicious actions like DDOS attacks. It should not extend to simple ISP outages or disputes within a corporation, while working for a corporation. If we are going to apply this with as wide a brush as has been done in this case, then anytime my ISP intentionally turns off my internet connection (even if for maintenance), then they are committing a felony.
I see your point, however, I think that this is a case of the jury stretching the meaning of tampering in order to make it fit their desires for this particular case. I seriously doubt that this is what legislatures had in mind when they wrote this law. What this man did is incredibly unprofessional and destructive, but it was not illegal according to the of the law and the definition of "computer tampering".
Sometimes they side with corporate personhood and sometimes they do not. There has not been a consistent view on this. It almost always depends on the details of the specific case.
If they break the law, they are fined. If they have to raise cash, they often do issue additional stock, and if they cannot raise the money then they often are liquidated and the US Gov is the first in line to get the proceeds of the liquidation. You pretty much just laid out the existing system.
Sounds pretty similar to the system of laws that we currently have.
Employees of corporations can be and often are prosecuted. It is often times very difficult to assign accountability and that is why we also try to hold corporations monetarily accountable. The threat of the fine encourages executives to keep watch over their operation and be sure that their employees are obeying the law and it keeps employees in line because if the company is fined because of your actions, then you are likely to lose your job.
1. Congress does not prosecute companies and if you RTFA you would see that there was actually a pretty harsh law on the books.
2. Those people who should be leveling the punishment were essentially left with only the nuclear option due to this harsh law. If Pfizer was found guilty, they were officially done.
In fact, it was the heavy handed nature of the existing law to corporations that caused the prosecution to take the actions that it did. Pfizer is an enormous company. A portion of the company's sales force decided to knowingly commit fraud. For that, they could not merely pay a fine or give up something else of value such as patents. The law mandated that if they are found guilty, they cannot receive any money from medicare or medicaid for any of their products. This would in effect, kill the company, as it would any pharma company. Had this law not existed, or were medicare and medicaid not such enormous programs, then the prosecuters could have gone after the company and extracted an appropriately sized fine. In this case, they were in essence only left with the nuclear option and they wisely chose not to employ it.
This was new to me, so I looked up this "systematic misappropriation" that was cited by the judge. Turns out that this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. It is based on the The Doctrine of Misappropriation. It is wild, but this is in essence a law created entirely by the judiciary. It is not like other cases where the judiciary is accused of stretching the constitution to the extreme. In this case, the judiciary literally created the law out of nothing.
You can find all the information included in a government background check here: http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf Sexual preference is not included. Identifying information like Male/Female is. There is a mental health section.
For example, In a development effort contract the US Gov typically expects unlimited data rights or government purpose rights. When multiple contractors bid on a contract, the Gov has no insight into whom is planning to use existing libraries or 3rd party libraries. Obviously the contractor who can leverage off of existing software is going to scope a much lower level of work and be able to bid lower and win the contract. When the Gov office finds out that the contractor does not plan on delivering a full set of code with the level of rights that they were expecting to have, they are not going to be very happy.
I agree with the grandparent. It seems like this falls under that "due process" stuff.
Your over-thinking this. It is highly unlikely that this politician even read the plan (which he claims lacks any vision) that has been put on the table. So, would modifying the plan with a better vision or strategy or other additional elements really help? He will not read the new plan either.
While I see the appeal of being able to run Android Java apps, I would not declare Android to be ahead of many of the other options for Linux touchscreens. While it is certainly a decent system for phones, it has not demonstrated the flexibility to be successful in a wide variety of touch screen use cases. It probably would work great at the hobbyist level for getting a quick and powerful interface on a general purpose touchscreen device, but if you were planning to market the car stereo on a large scale it would probably come out looking like you tried to make software designed for a phone work on a car stereo. On the other hand, that may be a good trade-off because saying that your car stereo runs Android would probably convince a lot of Android fans to buy it.
Usually they have some form of debit or credit card and you normally want to get permission for the purchase prior to making it. Also, most government orgs have some form of reimbursement request process if you are brave enough to use your own money.
I don't know if there is some crazy rule in the state that you work for, but in most governments there is nothing wrong with "endorsing" a product. Open source has received the endorsement at some of the highest levels of the federal government. I could directly point to many executives within the DoD that have specifically endorsed open source software.
How is this a misconception? It was stated explicitly in what I quoted from GNUs own website. Not somebodies blog. I am not really sure where you are going with the other paragraph from the GNU FAQ. The fact that the interpreter would become GPL by extension is completely irrelevant because it does not effect either a) programs that are written using Qt, or b) programs that are written in python using PyQt or PySide.