The assertion in the OP is that OpenSSL is run for profit by guys who don't necessarily know security. My own experience with security gurus is the same as GP's; they talk in jargon and blow a lot of smoke.
The distinction here is that opposing Net Neutrality isn't illegal.
If congressmen want to support it and their constituents continue to reelect them, then the congressmen are fulfilling their duty as elected representatives.
This high-speed chase and shooting wouldn't have happened without the ridiculous requirement to have a prescription for certain things people willingly choose to ingest.
Read a bit of history. Before the late 19th century there were no restrictions on drugs. Opium dens were commonplace and the resulting damage to people who used those drugs was enough to bring about the laws restricting their use.
1 - A robot may not harm a human being, or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.
The contradiction in that sentence makes whole rule worthless. Suppose the robot knows an aircraft has been hijacked and is being flown toward a building full of people. It can't shoot down the aircraft, but not shooting it down means other people are harmed. This was a real life scenario on 9/11, the fourth plane was headed toward Washington, but it would not get there because an armed fighter jet was already on the way to intercept it.
"The document is identified as a training tool used in an in-house training exercise where students learn about the basic concepts of military plans and order development through a fictional training scenario,"
They didn't scrimp on testing the mirror; grinding, polishing, and testing was done completely to spec - they thought. The problem was that the instrument used to measure the curvature malfunctioned during the polishing step, resulting in the aberration.
I don't understand why people keep using the Boston bombings as an example of the system failing. The US had no reason to arrest or deport them. No amount of security will ever stop two brothers from setting off pressure cookers full of 4th of July fireworks in a crowd.
I think a better topic for discussion is the killing of al-Awlaki. Was he trying to organize attacks against Western targets? Was killing him wrong?
No, it goes beyond that. Scientific calculations are just that - calculations. You don't need services, facades, annotations, etc. that mostly obscure what the code is doing. You just need a sequence of calculations.
As others have said, the less visibility you have the better. Mention things like how your system is not vulnerable to something like Heartbleed when the execs read headlines, then go back to playing minesweeper.
If SpaceX does win the contract next time it's competed (which is likely, given how much NASA is helping them) I wonder how they'll react when some other upstart jumps in and wants their contract voided.
Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley wrote. "On this record, however, we find that the district court failed to distinguish between the threshold question of what is copyrightable — which presents a low bar — and the scope of conduct that constitutes infringing activity."
Does this mean that even though Oracle can copyright something (not sure what), Google might still be able to use it without infringing? That's what it sounds like to me. And it took a whole lot of wasted money for Oracle to barely make it over the "low bar".
Another big part of the problem is that nobody wants to accept limitations in their shiny soon-to-be-built new system. The 80/20 rule always applies, but trying to convince creative architects to accept 80% of their dream at only 20% of the cost is impossible.
What? And destroy the current lucrative system of kickbacks, cronyism, and propping up otherwise unprofitable, unaffordable, unworkable systems and businesses?
Slashdot Mirror
What will they do once a base is established that a rover can't do?
Nobody (except maybe you) wants 3 SD cards in their phone. CEOs know what they're doing.
The assertion in the OP is that OpenSSL is run for profit by guys who don't necessarily know security. My own experience with security gurus is the same as GP's; they talk in jargon and blow a lot of smoke.
The distinction here is that opposing Net Neutrality isn't illegal.
If congressmen want to support it and their constituents continue to reelect them, then the congressmen are fulfilling their duty as elected representatives.
The pill bottle didn't hurt the guy.
This high-speed chase and shooting wouldn't have happened without the ridiculous requirement to have a prescription for certain things people willingly choose to ingest.
Read a bit of history. Before the late 19th century there were no restrictions on drugs. Opium dens were commonplace and the resulting damage to people who used those drugs was enough to bring about the laws restricting their use.
Well, except for the dozens of witnesses.
1 - A robot may not harm a human being, or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.
The contradiction in that sentence makes whole rule worthless. Suppose the robot knows an aircraft has been hijacked and is being flown toward a building full of people. It can't shoot down the aircraft, but not shooting it down means other people are harmed. This was a real life scenario on 9/11, the fourth plane was headed toward Washington, but it would not get there because an armed fighter jet was already on the way to intercept it.
"The document is identified as a training tool used in an in-house training exercise where students learn about the basic concepts of military plans and order development through a fictional training scenario,"
They didn't scrimp on testing the mirror; grinding, polishing, and testing was done completely to spec - they thought. The problem was that the instrument used to measure the curvature malfunctioned during the polishing step, resulting in the aberration.
I don't understand why people keep using the Boston bombings as an example of the system failing. The US had no reason to arrest or deport them. No amount of security will ever stop two brothers from setting off pressure cookers full of 4th of July fireworks in a crowd.
I think a better topic for discussion is the killing of al-Awlaki. Was he trying to organize attacks against Western targets? Was killing him wrong?
They didn't have enough work to keep the people employed. I wouldn't call that slinking away from responsibility.
It's not clear to me that a thumbdrive is a better alternative than a Google account. But I applaud their effort.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
No, it goes beyond that. Scientific calculations are just that - calculations. You don't need services, facades, annotations, etc. that mostly obscure what the code is doing. You just need a sequence of calculations.
Democrats have ruled for 14 of the past 22 years. How much time do they need?
As others have said, the less visibility you have the better. Mention things like how your system is not vulnerable to something like Heartbleed when the execs read headlines, then go back to playing minesweeper.
One Microcontroller Per Child. At $2 a pop they could give one to every kid in the world.
If SpaceX does win the contract next time it's competed (which is likely, given how much NASA is helping them) I wonder how they'll react when some other upstart jumps in and wants their contract voided.
They better not spend it just yet.
This is about copyright, not patents
Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley wrote. "On this record, however, we find that the district court failed to distinguish between the threshold question of what is copyrightable — which presents a low bar — and the scope of conduct that constitutes infringing activity."
Does this mean that even though Oracle can copyright something (not sure what), Google might still be able to use it without infringing? That's what it sounds like to me. And it took a whole lot of wasted money for Oracle to barely make it over the "low bar".
No, they're subsidizing it with revenue from their other broadband markets.
I wish I had some mod points for you.
Another big part of the problem is that nobody wants to accept limitations in their shiny soon-to-be-built new system. The 80/20 rule always applies, but trying to convince creative architects to accept 80% of their dream at only 20% of the cost is impossible.
What? And destroy the current lucrative system of kickbacks, cronyism, and propping up otherwise unprofitable, unaffordable, unworkable systems and businesses?
Nobody said a restructuring would replace that.
Apps don't violate DMCA, people do.