I did actually say it in my submission; Soulskill did some minor editing to the blurb, including adding the stars. I wonder if that's something each editor does independently, or if Slashdot has some sort of policy?
Those aren't necessarily incompatible. For example, lots of people think Microsoft's best days are behind it, but it still has loads of cash and publicity, so "Microsoft supports charity X" can be useful for charity X.
But probably true that the other story is a bit overplaying it.
Hmm, interesting; thanks for the link. I hadn't realized that the X.org people are moving in the same direction. Doing a bit of googling, this LWN article summarizes a Packard talk from last year that seems to be hitting some similar points.
I'm not too sure what the actual use-cases driving it are, either. Is there anybody who's really that excited about fancy graphical window effects, except as a curiosity? The article mentions Compiz developers having trouble getting patches merged, which I hope is not the main driver--- the main thing holding back Linux on the desktop is not insufficiently fancy animations when you minimize a window.
It'd be hard to claim that L.A.'s highway system is the result of "greenies"; it's just about the most generous possible highway system you could imagine. In L.A., unlike in most cities, if I miss my freeway exit, I take the next freeway, which comes up in 5-15 miles, instead of bothering to figure out how to turn around. Oh, and if I miss that, I take the freeway after that. Because in L.A., there are so many freeways that they're like arterial streets in other cities.
I'm not sure how many more freeways L.A. could put in, even if its ideology was 100% pro-sprawl (which it sort of is). The 10 is 8-10 lanes, the 210 is 8 lanes. Are you going to bulldoze another 10-lane freeway in the mere 5-10-mile strip between the two?
I appreciate the need to spice things up with novel plotlines, but in this kind of scenario you really want clear sides, so that spectators can rally around their favorite team. It's okay if it's subject, so some people pick the "Apple good!" side and others then "Google good!" side. But you've still got to keep the lines reasonable or it's not really conductive to building a fanbase.
Also, someone should print up some shirts that read, "No war but the patent war!"
Oops (responding to self), I misread your post. Trichloroethylene and trichloroethene are the synonymous ones (C2HCl3), while you mentioned Trichloroethane, which seems to be one of two different things. But as far as I can find, it's trichloroethylene/trichloroethene that is called "trike".
That's true, but I don't think this case even rises to that level. This seems more like typical "inept IT contractor". While it's not really possible to have 100% security while your box is connected to the internet, it is possible to at least have better security than is the norm in IT contracting (and yes, that includes "cybersecurity" contracting).
It's also an exception that's only become fully standardized relatively recently. Thomas Jefferson uses "its" and "it's" in a much more interchangeable way, for example.
(Though I also happen to dislike the misuse, because I seem to mentally expand "it's" to "it is", which throws me off.)
Yes, I think the thing being missed here is not, "can the government sometimes direct when/how its employees should release information to the public", and rather, "is there any reasonable explanation for this particular regulation?"
Not many people object that, say, the ambassador to a country is not allowed to just speak his personal opinion about foreign relations w/o clearing it with the government; and researchers on military projects can't just post some schematics to the internet. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to ask: why should scientific research carried out by the fisheries ministry be similarly restricted?
It's not nearly as good as a real patent license, but if you encourage someone to do something and then sue them for it, they can argue "detrimental reliance", that you had suggested it was fine for them to do something and they had relied on that representation--- and therefore, even if the use turned out to be unauthorized, it might not be equitable to allow damages to be collected in that case.
You could consider Symantec/McAfee a sort of disorder, which is tolerated or even sometimes selected for by its host because of the protection it confers against another pathogen. Sort of the sickle-cell anemia of the computer ecosystem. But probably not a "virus", so it depends on how specific that is...
So, he ran on a platform of slashing nearly all government programs, eliminating many agencies entirely, and halving the budgets of others--- because private-sector alternatives are always superior, whether it's private schools, private healthcare, or corporate research labs.
Oh, except NASA, which is a vitally important public service that can't be replicated in the private sector. Coincidentally, he represents a district in southeastern Houston, and NASA is one of the largest employers in that district.
Indeed, they're hoping to come out of this with the best of both worlds. They want to sell devices using commodity iPad / iPhone hardware, greatly lowering their costs compared to the low-production-run custom stuff that medical devices have typically been, but they still want to sell them in these "certified" packages w/ software for high medical-device prices without any commodity competition.
I can see that being a good idea in some cases, like monitoring for heart attacks, but I'm worried that the definitions will be too broad. As a private individual, it seems like I should be able to hook up a smartphone to a sensor and install an app that, say, monitors my sleep patterns. Maybe I'm "self-treating" some sort of sleep disorder; but maybe I'm just curious; or maybe I'm collecting data for an art installation based around my sleeping patterns. Either way it doesn't really seem like it should be the government's business to regulate it, unless it's actually being sold as a medical product.
Diesels are generally pretty good, but using raw miles per gallon to compare diesel to non-diesel is slightly off, since they're gallons of different stuff. In particular, a gallon of diesel and a gallon of petrol aren't the same in terms of hydrocarbon content or CO2 emissions: diesel is more carbon-dense, releasing 22.2 lbs of CO2 per gallon burned, versus 19.4 for petrol.
Admittedly, diesels generally have better fuel efficiency by more than that difference: for a diesel to come out ahead of a 35 mpg Civic, it needs to get over 40 mpg, which many do. However, this "mid 40s" on the Cruze doesn't sound like a huge win; that's comparable to high 30s for a gasoline car, which is only mildly better than a Civic, and worse than a hybrid. Now, 65 mpg, that's something.
But you did ask for it! It's not like they came to your house and installed on your computer software that would: 1) request Javascript from their servers; and 2) execute it. You installed software on your own computer that did that!
If anyone's at fault, perhaps it's Firefox for having JS retrieval and execution enabled by default.
Wouldn't that theory criminalize any Javascript that: 1) the user did not explicitly consent to execute; and 2) did anything the user found objectionable? I don't like this practice, but that cure seems worse than the disease.
I received a response to an emailed inquiry, which I had sent to the address for the Board of Directors, politely asking if they would consider looking into whether additional oversight of Cisco's legal strategy was needed. This does not at all sound like backing down:
Thank you for your email regarding Cisco's legal strategy, which will be provided to the Board of Directors together with this response. We appreciate your input and interest in our company.
In the specific case you referenced, Cisco discovered what it believed to be theft of Cisco software by Mr Adekeye. We brought civil claims against him and his company, and reported the matter to law enforcement, as we customarily do when we believe we have been a victim of theft. After nearly two years of independent investigation, the United States Secret Service issued a criminal complaint alleging that Mr. Adekeye violated the United States Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in 97 separate instances. As a result, a United States District Court judge signed an arrest warrant for Mr. Adekeye. The decision as to whether to prosecute any criminal matter must be made by governmental authorities, and not by any private citizen or company, and Cisco in no way controlled the bringing of criminal charges against Mr Adekeye, nor did we contact any other agency regarding the matter.
Separately, as part of the civil lawsuit, Cisco presented evidence that Mr. Adekeye repeatedly stole information and software from Cisco using a current employee's credentials to access Cisco's computer network. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with Cisco, and ruled that Mr. Adekeye's conduct violated the U.S. federal anti-hacking statute.
The Canadian judge apparently objected to the fact that Mr. Adekeye was arrested by Canadian authorities during a civil justice proceeding. This is a matter between the US and Canadian governments, and we believe any person or entity concerned about theft of its property would have acted as we did. We strenuously object to the judge's characterization of Cisco's actions, which was based on Mr. Adekeye's allegations in a proceeding in which we did not participate and in which we had no opportunity to present any information.
Again, thank you for your email.
Sincerely,
Mark Chandler
Senior Vice President, Legal Services, General Counsel and Secretary
Slashdot Mirror
I did actually say it in my submission; Soulskill did some minor editing to the blurb, including adding the stars. I wonder if that's something each editor does independently, or if Slashdot has some sort of policy?
We'll probably eventually find out who's on it when all our personal info ends up leaked on a torrent somewhere.
Console manufacturers see consoles as future gaming platform of choice.
Those aren't necessarily incompatible. For example, lots of people think Microsoft's best days are behind it, but it still has loads of cash and publicity, so "Microsoft supports charity X" can be useful for charity X.
But probably true that the other story is a bit overplaying it.
Hmm, interesting; thanks for the link. I hadn't realized that the X.org people are moving in the same direction. Doing a bit of googling, this LWN article summarizes a Packard talk from last year that seems to be hitting some similar points.
I'm not too sure what the actual use-cases driving it are, either. Is there anybody who's really that excited about fancy graphical window effects, except as a curiosity? The article mentions Compiz developers having trouble getting patches merged, which I hope is not the main driver--- the main thing holding back Linux on the desktop is not insufficiently fancy animations when you minimize a window.
It'd be hard to claim that L.A.'s highway system is the result of "greenies"; it's just about the most generous possible highway system you could imagine. In L.A., unlike in most cities, if I miss my freeway exit, I take the next freeway, which comes up in 5-15 miles, instead of bothering to figure out how to turn around. Oh, and if I miss that, I take the freeway after that. Because in L.A., there are so many freeways that they're like arterial streets in other cities.
I'm not sure how many more freeways L.A. could put in, even if its ideology was 100% pro-sprawl (which it sort of is). The 10 is 8-10 lanes, the 210 is 8 lanes. Are you going to bulldoze another 10-lane freeway in the mere 5-10-mile strip between the two?
I can't drive fifty-five, oh no.
I appreciate the need to spice things up with novel plotlines, but in this kind of scenario you really want clear sides, so that spectators can rally around their favorite team. It's okay if it's subject, so some people pick the "Apple good!" side and others then "Google good!" side. But you've still got to keep the lines reasonable or it's not really conductive to building a fanbase.
Also, someone should print up some shirts that read, "No war but the patent war!"
If we're finally getting around to CDs now, I guess sensible laws relating to downloaded/streamed content will be coming in around 2030.
Oops (responding to self), I misread your post. Trichloroethylene and trichloroethene are the synonymous ones (C2HCl3), while you mentioned Trichloroethane, which seems to be one of two different things. But as far as I can find, it's trichloroethylene/trichloroethene that is called "trike".
As far as I can find on Internet, those are the same thing; different names for C2 H Cl3.
Trichloroethylene was used for decades to decaffeinate coffee, among other uses, so it wasn't considered particularly dangerous until fairly recently.
That's true, but I don't think this case even rises to that level. This seems more like typical "inept IT contractor". While it's not really possible to have 100% security while your box is connected to the internet, it is possible to at least have better security than is the norm in IT contracting (and yes, that includes "cybersecurity" contracting).
It's also an exception that's only become fully standardized relatively recently. Thomas Jefferson uses "its" and "it's" in a much more interchangeable way, for example.
(Though I also happen to dislike the misuse, because I seem to mentally expand "it's" to "it is", which throws me off.)
Yes, I think the thing being missed here is not, "can the government sometimes direct when/how its employees should release information to the public", and rather, "is there any reasonable explanation for this particular regulation?"
Not many people object that, say, the ambassador to a country is not allowed to just speak his personal opinion about foreign relations w/o clearing it with the government; and researchers on military projects can't just post some schematics to the internet. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to ask: why should scientific research carried out by the fisheries ministry be similarly restricted?
It's not nearly as good as a real patent license, but if you encourage someone to do something and then sue them for it, they can argue "detrimental reliance", that you had suggested it was fine for them to do something and they had relied on that representation--- and therefore, even if the use turned out to be unauthorized, it might not be equitable to allow damages to be collected in that case.
You could consider Symantec/McAfee a sort of disorder, which is tolerated or even sometimes selected for by its host because of the protection it confers against another pathogen. Sort of the sickle-cell anemia of the computer ecosystem. But probably not a "virus", so it depends on how specific that is...
So, he ran on a platform of slashing nearly all government programs, eliminating many agencies entirely, and halving the budgets of others--- because private-sector alternatives are always superior, whether it's private schools, private healthcare, or corporate research labs.
Oh, except NASA, which is a vitally important public service that can't be replicated in the private sector. Coincidentally, he represents a district in southeastern Houston, and NASA is one of the largest employers in that district.
Indeed, they're hoping to come out of this with the best of both worlds. They want to sell devices using commodity iPad / iPhone hardware, greatly lowering their costs compared to the low-production-run custom stuff that medical devices have typically been, but they still want to sell them in these "certified" packages w/ software for high medical-device prices without any commodity competition.
I can see that being a good idea in some cases, like monitoring for heart attacks, but I'm worried that the definitions will be too broad. As a private individual, it seems like I should be able to hook up a smartphone to a sensor and install an app that, say, monitors my sleep patterns. Maybe I'm "self-treating" some sort of sleep disorder; but maybe I'm just curious; or maybe I'm collecting data for an art installation based around my sleeping patterns. Either way it doesn't really seem like it should be the government's business to regulate it, unless it's actually being sold as a medical product.
Diesels are generally pretty good, but using raw miles per gallon to compare diesel to non-diesel is slightly off, since they're gallons of different stuff. In particular, a gallon of diesel and a gallon of petrol aren't the same in terms of hydrocarbon content or CO2 emissions: diesel is more carbon-dense, releasing 22.2 lbs of CO2 per gallon burned, versus 19.4 for petrol.
Admittedly, diesels generally have better fuel efficiency by more than that difference: for a diesel to come out ahead of a 35 mpg Civic, it needs to get over 40 mpg, which many do. However, this "mid 40s" on the Cruze doesn't sound like a huge win; that's comparable to high 30s for a gasoline car, which is only mildly better than a Civic, and worse than a hybrid. Now, 65 mpg, that's something.
But you did ask for it! It's not like they came to your house and installed on your computer software that would: 1) request Javascript from their servers; and 2) execute it. You installed software on your own computer that did that!
If anyone's at fault, perhaps it's Firefox for having JS retrieval and execution enabled by default.
Wouldn't that theory criminalize any Javascript that: 1) the user did not explicitly consent to execute; and 2) did anything the user found objectionable? I don't like this practice, but that cure seems worse than the disease.
I received a response to an emailed inquiry, which I had sent to the address for the Board of Directors, politely asking if they would consider looking into whether additional oversight of Cisco's legal strategy was needed. This does not at all sound like backing down: