Workstation mode: Microsoft plans to optimize the OS by identifying "typical compute and graphics intensive workloads" to provide peak performance and reliability when Workstation mode is enabled.
So, if workshation-mode gives us peak performance and reliability, then what the hell are we receiving now?
Also, in the Microsoft sphere, isn't it generally acknowledged that performance and reliability are usually at-odds with each other? Reliability comes from using older, established technologies that have had time to mature through fairly expensive development over the long-term. Performance tends to come from embracing the latest/greatest as soon as it's available, often without giving the technology time to mature to get the bugs worked out.
If you can provide a specific example then we will evaluate it and reply to you.
Just so we're on the same page here, bear in mind that the history of the region within the last couple-hundred years is rather complicated, so you might not like the result.
Yep, and the argument can be made that the EZ-Pass subscriber could have paid for the trip across the toll gate in another way, like with currency, so the use of EZ-Pass is not mandatory, so it's an even greater argument as to the logs from EZ-Pass being usable by the government because unlike license plates, it's not compulsory.
If I understand right, being secure in your person is referring to your body.
I would rather this sort of thing, specifically data generated through the use of electronics, fall into, "effects" that might actually help protect the person's electronics more widely.
That may be another area that will require the courts to make decisions in the future.
In the past it has been perfectly legal for the police to follow a subject that is in-public throughout that person's movements, and the argument was that since anyone could observe the subject in-public, police were free to do so as well. Those kinds of observation required officers to do the observing though, present at the site, themselves.
The use of the GPS tracker is employing a tool as a tracker without a person doing the observing. We already have precedent that while police are allowed to enter the curtilage of private property to knock on the door to speak with the occupants, they are not allowed to employ tools beyond their own natural senses to look for crimes while doing so. It would not be a stretch that some middle-ground in tracking a subject's movements would require officers to be personally observing a subject in-public in order to do so without a warrant, or if they are allowed to employ tools, they must be simple in nature and must be personally operated by the observing individual on-scene. That would probably preclude most forms of autonomous observation without a warrant.
Don't forget with license-plate scanners, the license plate does not belong to the car owner, but belongs to the state. It may be a bit of a hollow argument, but perhaps the state has the right to look at their own property.
I never said he was perfect in his approach. On the other hand for a lot of Apple's products he forced developers to take a minimalist approach whose end-result was extremely easy for the end-user to use most of the time, and whose aesthetics were generally good, and at least during the era when OSX was their main focus he threw a bone to users that wanted to have more powerful tools like the commandline available to them. That balancing act is very hard to maintain, and I do not hold high hopes that any future Apple leader will manage that balance as well as Jobs did.
That would make sense to me, especially when popular understanding of data and partition structures is literally coached in the vernacular of "files" and "folders" these days. People already see this data in this light.
I agree with you, especially in an era when it appears that it is not that difficult for the police or the district attorney to create a convincing argument as to why the warrant is necessary.
What a court case may do though, is to establish the conditions in which warrants should be asked-for and the conditions for the judge to evaluate whether or not to grant, and even possibly conditions necessary to unmask who the subscriber for a given handset belongs to and if there are any other frequent contacts with that handset. For example, would the police be allowed to ask all carriers for all handsets that communicated in a given area for a given time duration? Given the nature of things like bombing attacks, how far ahead of an attack could a law enforcement agency look? Can they compare the probably large list of handsets to subscriber information to somewhat-identify who these people are? Or would they be limited to having previously narrowed-in on a particular subject, to only asking for the whereabouts of that person for specific time durations, say during the lead-up to the crime or during the window of a given incident?
It may depend on if they determine that the records are owned by the subscriber and only being warehoused by the carrier, or if they're owned by the carrier.
This is also arguably new caselaw, in that this wanders into the same arena as when law enforcement plants GPS trackers on suspects' vehicles, which I believe was ruled as requiring a warrant. If we have a fundamental right to privacy from our government then it would follow that the government would need a demonstrable reason to track our movements or to look up any available movement history, and that such a look would need to be sufficiently narrow in-scope. Additionally this isn't a case where police start monitoring a subject and do so for a duration, it's going back through records. So it seems to have aspects of both, but also not be the same as either.
If you look at the actual wording of the beginning of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution it reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause[...]" The language, "persons, houses, papers, and effects," seems pretty broad, like the intention was to be as literally as broad as possible, especially with the inclusion of, "effects," as a catch-all. If the police themselves were making records as they observe a subject then that would be creating their own records, but they're accessing someone else's records instead of their own. Perhaps these records about the person, created without the person's understanding of the technology involved, would count as, "effects," even if they don't necessarily count as, "papers."
Apple has a history of going off-the-rails when Jobs wasn't involved. Say what you want about him as a person, he was pretty good at figuring out what people wanted and giving it to them just in time for them to figure it out themselves. He also worked with something of a minimalist approach, at times to a fault, but with a great degree of success. Without that restraint this could become a problem.
If this is a genuine posting, good for you on trying to improve yourself. A+ is a first-step, a way of letting potential employers know that you've demonstrated a penchant for the skills to do some basic support.
Do not stop with A+. It's an entry-level certification and while it's been 20 years since I got my A+, as I understand from current test-takers it's still oriented toward user-focused desktop support, rather than focusing-in on networking, infrastructure, etc. Desktop support can pay the bills but it's in your interest to use it as a stepping-stone to more lucrative, more rewarding pursuits.
When collectors talk numbers-matching they're generally referring to the motor and body, and frame if the car has a separate frame, and sometimes the transmission if the car's transmission was labeled as such.
In most cases that I know, which are Chrysler products, it's predominately motor and body. No one really cares about anything else.
I've seen both in tech circles. I've seen women that were harassed, and I've seen women that got special treatment where they were good at deflecting the work that was supposed to be assigned to them to others, or faced no punitive action for severely underperforming to the point that it became obvious to outsiders.
I've also seen men that were bullied in the workplace and did not have any advancement, and men that also managed to underperform for extended periods of time. Gender doesn't really dictate this.
Frankly we're not going to ever know the particulars of this case. Basically none of us were there, and it would behoove anyone that was to not say anything unless it's part of any legal proceedings and behind closed doors, or potentially in-court. At the moment there's only a single datapoint, so there isn't enough information for us to make any real conclusions. She may well be right, and could have been the target of specific harassment that was covered-up by some element of management, or she could be making false claims. There just isn't enough information for us to conclude anything.
I remember the first time we were offered these kinds of services and I thought to myself that this would be a great way to find all of one's access compromised absolutely everywhere.
Sure, a security-company should by definition be the most secure business, but this has often proven to not be the case.
Arguably they're still in beta-test, at least as far as the technology to return the various crafts to the planet in a reusable state is concerned, and it sounds like they're well aware of that.
This arguably is a long-term game. We've been putting stuff into space in one form or another for 60 years, and up until now the vehicles were either disposed-of or else required so much refurb that perhaps disposable vehicles would have made more sense financially. The company that manages to re-fly and thus reduce customer costs is positioned to be the most financially successful space-launch company for the next few decades, possibly to the end of many existing players, at least in this particular market.
Reusable rockets could see far-reaching uses. Imagine if the technology scaled to allow for suborbital point-to-point flights for passenger livery, where the rockets could return to their air/spaceports for refuel/reuse, while the spaceliner glides to its destination port in a fraction of the time it takes to make such long commercial flights.
Have you actually worked with vehicles much? It does not sound like it.
Prior to the advent of computers controlling all aspects of the car it was just easier to swap the VIN tags over to the stolen car, and to basically rough-up and then fix and paint over stamped-in VIN tags. Alternately, cut-out and re-weld a larger section of firewall and do a good job finishing and grinding so after it's painted it's clean looking.
It's a hell of a lot of work to swap all of the auto parts over from the stolen car to a "body shell" as you call it. Most car thieves that steal to part-out that extensively do not put cars back together themselves.
In this day of modern computers it's also harder to re-VIN the car, as the VIN is also readable from the computer. The Jeeps in this article were being parted-out, but it doesn't say what was used versus abandoned. For all we know these were heavily upgraded vehicles with lots of aftermarket stuff, where it would make sense to strip all of the goodies to put on one's otherwise stock Jeep.
Last time I looked into that, it was a gimmick that the dealerships use to try to justify tacking on another thousand dollars to the purchase price, and they, not the manufacturer, etches the glass.
How about a low-tech solution of blocking the visible-under-the-windshield VIN with a piece of paper? Is that legal? It seems like it would help reduce the problems, or at least make the thieves more inclined to move on to a different vehicle.
I'm wondering if they've somehow been suppressed. I had a post that was a reply to a reply of that normal spam that shows up in my post list but when clicked on doesn't load. I'm thinking Slashdot is now seeing some behind-the-scenes editing more than it used to, beyond the normal moderation system.
Beyond that it gave us room to speculate about the person that posted it despite previous statements that others would now be handling the account, and let us joke about people wrestling with the phone or it being possibly dropped into the toilet.
It even gave some people amusement to consider if he pulled an Elvis on us and somehow managed to hit send.
I don't think that mosquitoes would be eliminated by thermonuclear weapons. Every square-foot of surface would have to be nuked at the exact same time.
Slashdot Mirror
What got me laughing was the following:
Workstation mode: Microsoft plans to optimize the OS by identifying "typical compute and graphics intensive workloads" to provide peak performance and reliability when Workstation mode is enabled.
So, if workshation-mode gives us peak performance and reliability, then what the hell are we receiving now?
Also, in the Microsoft sphere, isn't it generally acknowledged that performance and reliability are usually at-odds with each other? Reliability comes from using older, established technologies that have had time to mature through fairly expensive development over the long-term. Performance tends to come from embracing the latest/greatest as soon as it's available, often without giving the technology time to mature to get the bugs worked out.
If you can provide a specific example then we will evaluate it and reply to you.
Just so we're on the same page here, bear in mind that the history of the region within the last couple-hundred years is rather complicated, so you might not like the result.
Yep, and the argument can be made that the EZ-Pass subscriber could have paid for the trip across the toll gate in another way, like with currency, so the use of EZ-Pass is not mandatory, so it's an even greater argument as to the logs from EZ-Pass being usable by the government because unlike license plates, it's not compulsory.
If I understand right, being secure in your person is referring to your body.
I would rather this sort of thing, specifically data generated through the use of electronics, fall into, "effects" that might actually help protect the person's electronics more widely.
That may be another area that will require the courts to make decisions in the future.
In the past it has been perfectly legal for the police to follow a subject that is in-public throughout that person's movements, and the argument was that since anyone could observe the subject in-public, police were free to do so as well. Those kinds of observation required officers to do the observing though, present at the site, themselves.
The use of the GPS tracker is employing a tool as a tracker without a person doing the observing. We already have precedent that while police are allowed to enter the curtilage of private property to knock on the door to speak with the occupants, they are not allowed to employ tools beyond their own natural senses to look for crimes while doing so. It would not be a stretch that some middle-ground in tracking a subject's movements would require officers to be personally observing a subject in-public in order to do so without a warrant, or if they are allowed to employ tools, they must be simple in nature and must be personally operated by the observing individual on-scene. That would probably preclude most forms of autonomous observation without a warrant.
Don't forget with license-plate scanners, the license plate does not belong to the car owner, but belongs to the state. It may be a bit of a hollow argument, but perhaps the state has the right to look at their own property.
I never said he was perfect in his approach. On the other hand for a lot of Apple's products he forced developers to take a minimalist approach whose end-result was extremely easy for the end-user to use most of the time, and whose aesthetics were generally good, and at least during the era when OSX was their main focus he threw a bone to users that wanted to have more powerful tools like the commandline available to them. That balancing act is very hard to maintain, and I do not hold high hopes that any future Apple leader will manage that balance as well as Jobs did.
That would make sense to me, especially when popular understanding of data and partition structures is literally coached in the vernacular of "files" and "folders" these days. People already see this data in this light.
I agree with you, especially in an era when it appears that it is not that difficult for the police or the district attorney to create a convincing argument as to why the warrant is necessary.
What a court case may do though, is to establish the conditions in which warrants should be asked-for and the conditions for the judge to evaluate whether or not to grant, and even possibly conditions necessary to unmask who the subscriber for a given handset belongs to and if there are any other frequent contacts with that handset. For example, would the police be allowed to ask all carriers for all handsets that communicated in a given area for a given time duration? Given the nature of things like bombing attacks, how far ahead of an attack could a law enforcement agency look? Can they compare the probably large list of handsets to subscriber information to somewhat-identify who these people are? Or would they be limited to having previously narrowed-in on a particular subject, to only asking for the whereabouts of that person for specific time durations, say during the lead-up to the crime or during the window of a given incident?
This case could decide at least some of that.
It may depend on if they determine that the records are owned by the subscriber and only being warehoused by the carrier, or if they're owned by the carrier.
This is also arguably new caselaw, in that this wanders into the same arena as when law enforcement plants GPS trackers on suspects' vehicles, which I believe was ruled as requiring a warrant. If we have a fundamental right to privacy from our government then it would follow that the government would need a demonstrable reason to track our movements or to look up any available movement history, and that such a look would need to be sufficiently narrow in-scope. Additionally this isn't a case where police start monitoring a subject and do so for a duration, it's going back through records. So it seems to have aspects of both, but also not be the same as either.
If you look at the actual wording of the beginning of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution it reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause[...]" The language, "persons, houses, papers, and effects," seems pretty broad, like the intention was to be as literally as broad as possible, especially with the inclusion of, "effects," as a catch-all. If the police themselves were making records as they observe a subject then that would be creating their own records, but they're accessing someone else's records instead of their own. Perhaps these records about the person, created without the person's understanding of the technology involved, would count as, "effects," even if they don't necessarily count as, "papers."
Apple has a history of going off-the-rails when Jobs wasn't involved. Say what you want about him as a person, he was pretty good at figuring out what people wanted and giving it to them just in time for them to figure it out themselves. He also worked with something of a minimalist approach, at times to a fault, but with a great degree of success. Without that restraint this could become a problem.
If this is a genuine posting, good for you on trying to improve yourself. A+ is a first-step, a way of letting potential employers know that you've demonstrated a penchant for the skills to do some basic support.
Do not stop with A+. It's an entry-level certification and while it's been 20 years since I got my A+, as I understand from current test-takers it's still oriented toward user-focused desktop support, rather than focusing-in on networking, infrastructure, etc. Desktop support can pay the bills but it's in your interest to use it as a stepping-stone to more lucrative, more rewarding pursuits.
When collectors talk numbers-matching they're generally referring to the motor and body, and frame if the car has a separate frame, and sometimes the transmission if the car's transmission was labeled as such.
In most cases that I know, which are Chrysler products, it's predominately motor and body. No one really cares about anything else.
I've seen both in tech circles. I've seen women that were harassed, and I've seen women that got special treatment where they were good at deflecting the work that was supposed to be assigned to them to others, or faced no punitive action for severely underperforming to the point that it became obvious to outsiders.
I've also seen men that were bullied in the workplace and did not have any advancement, and men that also managed to underperform for extended periods of time. Gender doesn't really dictate this.
Frankly we're not going to ever know the particulars of this case. Basically none of us were there, and it would behoove anyone that was to not say anything unless it's part of any legal proceedings and behind closed doors, or potentially in-court. At the moment there's only a single datapoint, so there isn't enough information for us to make any real conclusions. She may well be right, and could have been the target of specific harassment that was covered-up by some element of management, or she could be making false claims. There just isn't enough information for us to conclude anything.
I remember the first time we were offered these kinds of services and I thought to myself that this would be a great way to find all of one's access compromised absolutely everywhere.
Sure, a security-company should by definition be the most secure business, but this has often proven to not be the case.
I've realized it's just safer to not discuss my password policy.
Arguably they're still in beta-test, at least as far as the technology to return the various crafts to the planet in a reusable state is concerned, and it sounds like they're well aware of that.
This arguably is a long-term game. We've been putting stuff into space in one form or another for 60 years, and up until now the vehicles were either disposed-of or else required so much refurb that perhaps disposable vehicles would have made more sense financially. The company that manages to re-fly and thus reduce customer costs is positioned to be the most financially successful space-launch company for the next few decades, possibly to the end of many existing players, at least in this particular market.
Reusable rockets could see far-reaching uses. Imagine if the technology scaled to allow for suborbital point-to-point flights for passenger livery, where the rockets could return to their air/spaceports for refuel/reuse, while the spaceliner glides to its destination port in a fraction of the time it takes to make such long commercial flights.
But ISS was designed by NASA, which has several conflicting priorities.
That is literally the most polite way I've ever heard used to refer to the morass and earmarking that is NASA's budgeting and operations.
This reads like an old UNIX Fortune entry.
Have you actually worked with vehicles much? It does not sound like it.
Prior to the advent of computers controlling all aspects of the car it was just easier to swap the VIN tags over to the stolen car, and to basically rough-up and then fix and paint over stamped-in VIN tags. Alternately, cut-out and re-weld a larger section of firewall and do a good job finishing and grinding so after it's painted it's clean looking.
It's a hell of a lot of work to swap all of the auto parts over from the stolen car to a "body shell" as you call it. Most car thieves that steal to part-out that extensively do not put cars back together themselves.
In this day of modern computers it's also harder to re-VIN the car, as the VIN is also readable from the computer. The Jeeps in this article were being parted-out, but it doesn't say what was used versus abandoned. For all we know these were heavily upgraded vehicles with lots of aftermarket stuff, where it would make sense to strip all of the goodies to put on one's otherwise stock Jeep.
Last time I looked into that, it was a gimmick that the dealerships use to try to justify tacking on another thousand dollars to the purchase price, and they, not the manufacturer, etches the glass.
How about a low-tech solution of blocking the visible-under-the-windshield VIN with a piece of paper? Is that legal? It seems like it would help reduce the problems, or at least make the thieves more inclined to move on to a different vehicle.
I'm wondering if they've somehow been suppressed. I had a post that was a reply to a reply of that normal spam that shows up in my post list but when clicked on doesn't load. I'm thinking Slashdot is now seeing some behind-the-scenes editing more than it used to, beyond the normal moderation system.
yes. At a minimum it was merely funny.
Beyond that it gave us room to speculate about the person that posted it despite previous statements that others would now be handling the account, and let us joke about people wrestling with the phone or it being possibly dropped into the toilet.
It even gave some people amusement to consider if he pulled an Elvis on us and somehow managed to hit send.
I don't think that mosquitoes would be eliminated by thermonuclear weapons. Every square-foot of surface would have to be nuked at the exact same time.
We test monthly. It's also a way to replenish the fuel before it becomes nonviable.