I suspect the part they've fallen down on is fraud.
I recently worked for a start-up, and 1/3 of our gross income was sucked up by our (North American) payment processor, who charges about six times more than a European processor who we'd have loved to use. Five sixths of the difference was purported to be handing and ensuring us against fraud.
Conversely, my credit-card provider will happily hand out ephemeral "ids", good only for a single use. Do you suppose they know something more about the trustworthyness of the folks who want to send them a bill than this company does?
If they start up, I'm starting a company to offer them fraud insurance, for a shatteringly high fee.
Oracle loved complexity and magic incantations in xml. Sun liked simplicity and elegance, thus the comment about ee. I don't think testing came into the discussion at that time.
Ihere is nothing in the articles suggesting that Mr. Vickery did anything except find the unsecured data and publish reports, so the accusation of vigilantism and/or improper behavior is strictly a claim by RCM, as yet unproven.
They have 170,000 * 500,000 faces, for a total of 85,000,000,000 comparisons.
If you have a 99% chance of sucess (ie, NOT identifying grandma as a wanted terrorist), then a 1% failure rate will give you 850,000,000 wrong comparisons.
In tests with football-crowd-sized sets of people, the very best recognizers hit 80% and the worst were below 20% accurate. See http://www.washington.edu/news...
How many people will be pulled out of line, I wonder, before the police notice that the're getting an larger number of false positives than they were prepared to handle? I wonder if it will identify everyone who shows up as a terrorist (:-))
--dave
[The German federal security service noticed this many years ago, when they tried to scan airports with a former employer's product]
I get habituiated to things fairly quickly, bit I'm still amazed at what my colleagues think is going to go on forever. A while ago it included falling temperatures and more people from Canada spending time in Florida. We even went and visited some friends down there who were going to stay, or did stay. Oddly enough, that's _not_ what Environment Canada was worried about at the time. They seemed to think it was getting hotter, not colder (;-))
One year is probably enough for 99% of the people involved to think of it as "normal".
The EFF wasn't represented, and so the court gave them 28 days to reply if they wanted to overturn the order. Courts are cautious about cases where only one party appears...
An old employer was a Windows 2.0 licensee: it wasn't even supposed to be secure, it was to run on a machine that wan't on a network, or was on a secure network.
Can you say "red-book at system-low" ? It was logical, but assumed there was no internet.
And have appointments out of the office at odd times. A colleague started that, and promptly got button-holed by the VP Financial (who had been our receiver in a former startup). The VP then started a reference check on the problematic boss...
When the Canadian house and senate do a joint resolution, they usually mean "Hey everybody, look at this! We want you do do it this way!"
Regrettably the's no case law on it in Google Scholar (someone with Pacer should check), so an ISP is free to take an interpretation from his lawyer, and the lawyer to take his interpretation from the sense of the resolution.
Bother!
This, by the way, is now part of the reopen-NAFTS discussions with Canada, so we can be dragged into having to do the same thing unless the US gets it right
Trolls are already pushing "it's illegal to pay for the browsing history of the politicians", pointing to an article[1] that says some things "arguaby" may still be prohibited by laws, pased previous to the FCCs regulation. Watch out for "false facts" here.
--dave [1. http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15115382/buy-congress-web-history-gop-fake-internet-privacy] see also https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/03/29/1717201/activist-starts-a-campaign-to-buy-and-publish-browsing-histories-of-politicians-who-passed-anti-privacy-law
I have a corporate Mac, which is enough for all the corporate security bits I need, plus a screen and a stand for my personal BYOD, which has all the stuff a developer needs, but only access to the office net with git, etc. A good desk and chair. It's sorta too open still, but the rows aren't crowded close like the last place, so it's quiet. And that's it for the corporate contribution (!)
On my machine I run a vm or a container with the exact configuration of our production machines, one of a number of copies so I can very quickly switch to another project, plus another container with the automated test suite. I have 32GB of socketed memory, so I can support even JVMs full of bloat, like my <I>former</I> production system. I tried running the old company's system on an 8GB Mac, with no results that can be discussed without long strings of curses (;-)) Few companies will believe what it takes to do back-end development, so while working as a consultand and for start-ups, I invested in the equivalent of a good box[1] of mechanic's tools.
--dave [1 https://sarasota.craigslist.org/tls/6060935656.html, Snap On Tool Box With Tools - Fully Loaded - $5000]
Early Christians used the Roman rules: some few days after birth, the pater familias either picked up the child, giving it a soul, or left it down, to be exposed, soulless, on a hillside (;-))
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the part they've fallen down on is fraud.
I recently worked for a start-up, and 1/3 of our gross income was sucked up by our (North American) payment processor, who charges about six times more than a European processor who we'd have loved to use. Five sixths of the difference was purported to be handing and ensuring us against fraud.
Conversely, my credit-card provider will happily hand out ephemeral "ids", good only for a single use. Do you suppose they know something more about the trustworthyness of the folks who want to send them a bill than this company does?
If they start up, I'm starting a company to offer them fraud insurance, for a shatteringly high fee.
Oracle loved complexity and magic incantations in xml. Sun liked simplicity and elegance, thus the comment about ee. I don't think testing came into the discussion at that time.
Oracle loves EE: my team at Sun detested it (:-))
Ihere is nothing in the articles suggesting that Mr. Vickery did anything except find the unsecured data and publish reports, so the accusation of vigilantism and/or improper behavior is strictly a claim by RCM, as yet unproven.
I quite agree: it's the stupidly-large-number part of the equation that causes the false positives to be insane!
They have 170,000 * 500,000 faces, for a total of 85,000,000,000 comparisons. If you have a 99% chance of sucess (ie, NOT identifying grandma as a wanted terrorist), then a 1% failure rate will give you 850,000,000 wrong comparisons.
In tests with football-crowd-sized sets of people, the very best recognizers hit 80% and the worst were below 20% accurate. See http://www.washington.edu/news...
How many people will be pulled out of line, I wonder, before the police notice that the're getting an larger number of false positives than they were prepared to handle? I wonder if it will identify everyone who shows up as a terrorist (:-))
--dave
[The German federal security service noticed this many years ago, when they tried to scan airports with a former employer's product]
The folks at University of Montréal aren't to be sneezed at. https://lyrebird.ai/ethics makes a nice bilingual joke.
Number 8 could have been a very good thing for one of my customers (;-))
I could have retired years ago, and I didn't have to go to university... but life is much more fun if you learn things and do stuff.
Saskatechwan did, and published some interesting results, mostly about educatiuon choices.
I get habituiated to things fairly quickly, bit I'm still amazed at what my colleagues think is going to go on forever. A while ago it included falling temperatures and more people from Canada spending time in Florida. We even went and visited some friends down there who were going to stay, or did stay. Oddly enough, that's _not_ what Environment Canada was worried about at the time. They seemed to think it was getting hotter, not colder (;-))
One year is probably enough for 99% of the people involved to think of it as "normal".
https://twitter.com/nlfrank1 is her own tweets, http://www.uvic.ca/home/about/... is the press release from the university.
The EFF wasn't represented, and so the court gave them 28 days to reply if they wanted to overturn the order. Courts are cautious about cases where only one party appears...
An old employer was a Windows 2.0 licensee: it wasn't even supposed to be secure, it was to run on a machine that wan't on a network, or was on a secure network.
Can you say "red-book at system-low" ? It was logical, but assumed there was no internet.
And have appointments out of the office at odd times. A colleague started that, and promptly got button-holed by the VP Financial (who had been our receiver in a former startup). The VP then started a reference check on the problematic boss...
Thanks!
... as it ties down less frequency range than analog. But will there be enough auctioned off?
If they're doing business in MN, the Minnesota courts can enforce the law. (BTW, that's been around since the Hanseatic league, who introduced it)
When the Canadian house and senate do a joint resolution, they usually mean "Hey everybody, look at this! We want you do do it this way!"
Regrettably the's no case law on it in Google Scholar (someone with Pacer should check), so an ISP is free to take an interpretation from his lawyer, and the lawyer to take his interpretation from the sense of the resolution.
Bother!
This, by the way, is now part of the reopen-NAFTS discussions with Canada, so we can be dragged into having to do the same thing unless the US gets it right
I mildly suspect that it's the number of ISPs who admit to selling information is zero.
Trolls are already pushing "it's illegal to pay for the browsing history of the politicians", pointing to an article[1] that says some things "arguaby" may still be prohibited by laws, pased previous to the FCCs regulation. Watch out for "false facts" here.
--dave
[1. http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15115382/buy-congress-web-history-gop-fake-internet-privacy]
see also https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/03/29/1717201/activist-starts-a-campaign-to-buy-and-publish-browsing-histories-of-politicians-who-passed-anti-privacy-law
I have a corporate Mac, which is enough for all the corporate security bits I need, plus a screen and a stand for my personal BYOD, which has all the stuff a developer needs, but only access to the office net with git, etc.
A good desk and chair. It's sorta too open still, but the rows aren't crowded close like the last place, so it's quiet.
And that's it for the corporate contribution (!)
On my machine I run a vm or a container with the exact configuration of our production machines, one of a number of copies so I can very quickly switch to another project, plus another container with the automated test suite. I have 32GB of socketed memory, so I can support even JVMs full of bloat, like my <I>former</I> production system. I tried running the old company's system on an 8GB Mac, with no results that can be discussed without long strings of curses (;-)) Few companies will believe what it takes to do back-end development, so while working as a consultand and for start-ups, I invested in the equivalent of a good box[1] of mechanic's tools.
--dave
[1 https://sarasota.craigslist.org/tls/6060935656.html, Snap On Tool Box With Tools - Fully Loaded - $5000]
They were mad as hatters: that earns them ridicule.
Early Christians used the Roman rules: some few days after birth, the pater familias either picked up the child, giving it a soul, or left it down, to be exposed, soulless, on a hillside (;-))