Compilers ought to have switches that deliberately branch to the error cases they're trying to optimize away. Getting rid of a divide by zero? Force the error instead so it gets attention. Coder forgot to declare volatile variables? Make local static shadow copies of static variables for comparison at every reference. And so on. Development environments ought to be helping with this stuff, not confounding developers.
This is worthless pandering. The fact is that there is no way for the receiver of a spoofed CID call to complain. The number on the Caller ID doesn't identify the caller, and the caller won't identify themselves. If you can't identify the caller, you can't complain. If you can't complain, the callers can't be held accountable. The system is broken, and therefore so are all the laws that assume the system is working. Fix the system first, then write new laws if they're needed.
I will take my neighborhood civic association website down before I spend my personal, volunteer time to make it ADA compliant. It's not that I don't want it to comply, but there's simply no budget to hire people who know how to do this right, and I can't put the extra time in to do this myself.
That would only apply to the rightful owner of the software (on the phone), not to a thief.
Theft doesn't automatically release an owner from his obligations under a license, so the license remains in effect until it expires or is terminated under its terms, or until invalidated by a court. And even if the license terms allow Apple to unilaterally terminate the license for some reason (including their determination of a possible theft), their act of bricking the phone in response seems to fall squarely in line with concerns about self-help.
Legitimate theft that a licensee reports is a completely different matter, and it should be easy for both user and provider to agree to brick the phone until it's recovered.
There are two states, Maryland and Virginia, under which remote disablement of software is allowed under UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act. Even then, bricking, or "self-help" as UCITA calls it, has some limitations, and it's not allowed in "mass market transactions" such as those involving non-negotiated licenses. The intent was to address shrink-wrap licenses, but a cell phone contract is similarly non-negotiable. This sounds like an "invention" that can't really be used in most of the US.
UCITA and its self-help provisions have been an issue for a long time, and a lot has been written about it that's probably applicable here too.
The magnifying glass is scorching only the Western Hemisphere because it's been placed in a geosynchronous orbit. NASA is rumored to be preparing to reposition it to LaGrangian Point L1 to provide a greater degree of stability, provided that they can account for positional oscillation resulting from the moon revolving around the Earth. Meanwhile, the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum is preparing to return the Hubble Space Telescope's COSTAR lens to NASA for refurbishing and redeployment to correct LENS' focal length for its new location.
Aside from being able to put away our asbestos suits, another direct benefit of placement at L1 is a smaller footprint in the sky, letting more of the sun's light reach Earth.
I haven't wtfv (watched the video), but 4-D can be represented in 3- and 2-D using projections, just like we regularly watch 3-D images projected into 2 dimensions (TV, video games).
Think of a cone, a 3 dimension shape. In the 3-to-2 dimension projection, that cone can look like a triangle, a circle, an ellipse, or an ellipse with a point, all depending on how you rotate it.
Now imagine that there's a 4-D shape whose projection changes appearance as the shape is rotated about its fourth-dimensional axis. There's no reason you can't have one projection of it that shows a cube, and another of the same object that shows a sphere.
It's tough to conceive of what this shape looks like since we can't see or experience it in four dimensions. But it's still possible to develop enough of a concept of the shape to recognize its various projections, learn how they're connected, and eventually be able to navigate it.
Projecting a shape from 4 to the 2 dimensions of a screen will lose an awful lot of information, but we seem to be good at developing a 3-D concept based on motion and visual cues.
There are always going to be churn and minor movements of users among services, but I think people who have a lot invested in a network, e.g. home pages, relevant postings, active participation in groups, many photos, lots of friends they actually do interact with, etc., probably aren't going to pick up and leave en masse unless there's some grossly distasteful change in the policies or terms of service. If you're providing the service, you don't make those grossly distasteful changes at once, you progress toward them in increments that each fall below users' overall threshold of discomfort.
On the whole, we're still in the middle of a huge transition in the ways we communicate with each other, and the degrees to which we trust third parties with information that rightfully belongs to us. Facebook is no more accountable to its users than any other service; and no matter how much we might bitch and moan about changes in their privacy policies, the fact is that they are going to use our information in as many ways as they can to make money. Sharing information directly with third parties is the most obvious, but there are plenty of indirect means.
Now that we can't hide ourselves, we're bound to attract more friends. Every one of those relationships is a potential revenue stream, either directly or indirectly. Folks at MIT recently demonstrated that they can determine to a high probability who on Facebook is gay without knowing anything about them except their friends. I'm sure the same technique applies to religion, various types of hobbies, and a number of other things we don't always give as much thought to, like criminals, terrorists and the like. These affiliations and attributes have to be a gold mine for someone, and the policy changes are a new mother lode.
I'm glad that EPIC, FTC, etc., are interested in our privacy, as they can exert pressure to change things in ways that we as users cannot. What I'd really like to see out of all this might be some kind of formal privacy impact review before changes to social networking policies are made. Any change that degrades privacy would need to be identified by third parties, justified or mitigated by the social network, then reviewed again until it's clear that users will be better off after the change than they were before. I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic. The users are caught between a rock and a hard place, and Facebook will continue twisting their arms as long as the users are paying more attention to their friends and apps than they are to their privacy.
It will be sad, yet very interesting at the same time, to see what happens when lost privacy demonstrably results in crimes of various sorts. Facebook may find that its greed has a higher human price than it might ever have realized.
Look for science gifts in areas that you know well. This way you can extend the teaching far beyond the instructions by showing the kids all the other things the gift can do. This means that you'll have fun too, and the kids will think you're really smart! You can also toss instructions you happen not to like for some reason.
The genie is out of the bottle on this one. The document won't disappear, and even if it becomes illegal to host it, it'll continue circulating. The legislators need to accept this as a "teachable moment" and figure out ways to prevent it from recurring, perhaps through improvements in process and education of the folks producing the secure content.
Beyond "use better redaction", process improvements mean inserting a few steps between redaction and publishing.
The redacted document should go through a QA/review process that ensures it contains only content appropriate to the intended audience. The administrative review was undoubtedly done, but not a technical review. It's no secret that electronic documents have hidden data, whether it's redacted or whether it's document metadata, and there's no excuse for these not be examined as part of the release process.
The process should also ensure that the document is being posted only to the appropriate audience. If the document is meant to instruct contractors on security practices, then restrict access to the document so only those contractors can get it.
And now that some of the TSA's security practices are public knowledge, we'll have an opportunity to analyze and share concerns. A lot of this stuff is easily written off as security theater, but when decisions on who and who not to screen hinge on politics, something's clearly wrong and perhaps the legislators need to look at that instead of trying to undo this leak through unenforceable legislation.
so you just need 400 reams per 100GBytes and that includes some room for error correcting codes.
Which all is fine, for another 5 years or so. Then your 1 year-old will be 6 and learning how to fold paper airplanes. One day you'll go up in the attic and dicsover that you have the highest bit density paper airplanes on record, and no more video.
Printing movies on paper is crazy but not unprecedented. It's not helpful to the OP, but Hollywood places full prints of its movies (actual prints of each frame, not barcode) onto paper for submission to the Library of Congress. This way they can fully copyright the material, yet leave it in an otherwise useless form. Leave it to Hollywood to think of something like this:-p
I saw this announcement in my mailbox this morning, and one of the things that struck me was that Speakeasy will be branded as a "Best Buy For Business" service. The announcement was exclusively business focused and made no mention of the many residential customers Speakeasy serves.
With line sharing becoming difficult after last year's UNE-P decision, combined with a new corporate overlord, Speakeasy's already premium prices are probably going to go above what most of their residential users will bear. It probably makes sense from a business perspective, but for the residential users, I can only think that it's going to cause a loud sucking sound coming from the phone line.
Sorry, I've got to disagree that images and links are a luxury. What you're suggesting is that non-profits are second-class organizations who shouldn't expect to take advantage of the same technologies that keep for-profit businesses running. Many small non-profits already have enough challenges keeping their budgets in the black while doing good work, and being marginalized by others' thinking like this only makes their jobs more difficult.
I hope AOL will take it easy on legitimate non-profits, especially charitable ones.
Hopefully somebody investigates OpenVMS as potential prior art here. The OpenVMS Condition Handling Facility provides substantially the same exception-handling functionality as SEH and has had much of it since the 80's.
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/72final/5841/5841pro _038.html#chf_vaxalpha
Slashdot Mirror
Compilers ought to have switches that deliberately branch to the error cases they're trying to optimize away. Getting rid of a divide by zero? Force the error instead so it gets attention. Coder forgot to declare volatile variables? Make local static shadow copies of static variables for comparison at every reference. And so on. Development environments ought to be helping with this stuff, not confounding developers.
This sounds like aversion therapy. People will begin to associate pr0n with suffering animals and not want to view it any more.
Leave it to PETA to drain the fun out of our lives!
The navigational instruments have their own databases too. It's not like a plane will get lost or crash if an iPad doesn't turn on.
Those electronic approach plates aren't going to do anyone any good once the iPads are turned off and stowed for landing.
This is worthless pandering. The fact is that there is no way for the receiver of a spoofed CID call to complain. The number on the Caller ID doesn't identify the caller, and the caller won't identify themselves. If you can't identify the caller, you can't complain. If you can't complain, the callers can't be held accountable. The system is broken, and therefore so are all the laws that assume the system is working. Fix the system first, then write new laws if they're needed.
I will take my neighborhood civic association website down before I spend my personal, volunteer time to make it ADA compliant. It's not that I don't want it to comply, but there's simply no budget to hire people who know how to do this right, and I can't put the extra time in to do this myself.
Phone locks up when you're stumbling drunk - for some people that's a good thing!
Theft doesn't automatically release an owner from his obligations under a license, so the license remains in effect until it expires or is terminated under its terms, or until invalidated by a court. And even if the license terms allow Apple to unilaterally terminate the license for some reason (including their determination of a possible theft), their act of bricking the phone in response seems to fall squarely in line with concerns about self-help.
Legitimate theft that a licensee reports is a completely different matter, and it should be easy for both user and provider to agree to brick the phone until it's recovered.
There are two states, Maryland and Virginia, under which remote disablement of software is allowed under UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act. Even then, bricking, or "self-help" as UCITA calls it, has some limitations, and it's not allowed in "mass market transactions" such as those involving non-negotiated licenses. The intent was to address shrink-wrap licenses, but a cell phone contract is similarly non-negotiable. This sounds like an "invention" that can't really be used in most of the US.
UCITA and its self-help provisions have been an issue for a long time, and a lot has been written about it that's probably applicable here too.
The magnifying glass is scorching only the Western Hemisphere because it's been placed in a geosynchronous orbit. NASA is rumored to be preparing to reposition it to LaGrangian Point L1 to provide a greater degree of stability, provided that they can account for positional oscillation resulting from the moon revolving around the Earth. Meanwhile, the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum is preparing to return the Hubble Space Telescope's COSTAR lens to NASA for refurbishing and redeployment to correct LENS' focal length for its new location.
Aside from being able to put away our asbestos suits, another direct benefit of placement at L1 is a smaller footprint in the sky, letting more of the sun's light reach Earth.
I haven't wtfv (watched the video), but 4-D can be represented in 3- and 2-D using projections, just like we regularly watch 3-D images projected into 2 dimensions (TV, video games).
Think of a cone, a 3 dimension shape. In the 3-to-2 dimension projection, that cone can look like a triangle, a circle, an ellipse, or an ellipse with a point, all depending on how you rotate it.
Now imagine that there's a 4-D shape whose projection changes appearance as the shape is rotated about its fourth-dimensional axis. There's no reason you can't have one projection of it that shows a cube, and another of the same object that shows a sphere.
It's tough to conceive of what this shape looks like since we can't see or experience it in four dimensions. But it's still possible to develop enough of a concept of the shape to recognize its various projections, learn how they're connected, and eventually be able to navigate it.
Projecting a shape from 4 to the 2 dimensions of a screen will lose an awful lot of information, but we seem to be good at developing a 3-D concept based on motion and visual cues.
Interesting stuff.
Not an issue. We'll hit the Mayan calendar 2012 bug first.
There are always going to be churn and minor movements of users among services, but I think people who have a lot invested in a network, e.g. home pages, relevant postings, active participation in groups, many photos, lots of friends they actually do interact with, etc., probably aren't going to pick up and leave en masse unless there's some grossly distasteful change in the policies or terms of service. If you're providing the service, you don't make those grossly distasteful changes at once, you progress toward them in increments that each fall below users' overall threshold of discomfort.
On the whole, we're still in the middle of a huge transition in the ways we communicate with each other, and the degrees to which we trust third parties with information that rightfully belongs to us. Facebook is no more accountable to its users than any other service; and no matter how much we might bitch and moan about changes in their privacy policies, the fact is that they are going to use our information in as many ways as they can to make money. Sharing information directly with third parties is the most obvious, but there are plenty of indirect means.
Now that we can't hide ourselves, we're bound to attract more friends. Every one of those relationships is a potential revenue stream, either directly or indirectly. Folks at MIT recently demonstrated that they can determine to a high probability who on Facebook is gay without knowing anything about them except their friends. I'm sure the same technique applies to religion, various types of hobbies, and a number of other things we don't always give as much thought to, like criminals, terrorists and the like. These affiliations and attributes have to be a gold mine for someone, and the policy changes are a new mother lode.
I'm glad that EPIC, FTC, etc., are interested in our privacy, as they can exert pressure to change things in ways that we as users cannot. What I'd really like to see out of all this might be some kind of formal privacy impact review before changes to social networking policies are made. Any change that degrades privacy would need to be identified by third parties, justified or mitigated by the social network, then reviewed again until it's clear that users will be better off after the change than they were before. I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic. The users are caught between a rock and a hard place, and Facebook will continue twisting their arms as long as the users are paying more attention to their friends and apps than they are to their privacy.
It will be sad, yet very interesting at the same time, to see what happens when lost privacy demonstrably results in crimes of various sorts. Facebook may find that its greed has a higher human price than it might ever have realized.
Look for science gifts in areas that you know well. This way you can extend the teaching far beyond the instructions by showing the kids all the other things the gift can do. This means that you'll have fun too, and the kids will think you're really smart! You can also toss instructions you happen not to like for some reason.
Happy order of magnitude! May you see many more!
The genie is out of the bottle on this one. The document won't disappear, and even if it becomes illegal to host it, it'll continue circulating. The legislators need to accept this as a "teachable moment" and figure out ways to prevent it from recurring, perhaps through improvements in process and education of the folks producing the secure content.
Beyond "use better redaction", process improvements mean inserting a few steps between redaction and publishing.
The redacted document should go through a QA/review process that ensures it contains only content appropriate to the intended audience. The administrative review was undoubtedly done, but not a technical review. It's no secret that electronic documents have hidden data, whether it's redacted or whether it's document metadata, and there's no excuse for these not be examined as part of the release process.
The process should also ensure that the document is being posted only to the appropriate audience. If the document is meant to instruct contractors on security practices, then restrict access to the document so only those contractors can get it.
And now that some of the TSA's security practices are public knowledge, we'll have an opportunity to analyze and share concerns. A lot of this stuff is easily written off as security theater, but when decisions on who and who not to screen hinge on politics, something's clearly wrong and perhaps the legislators need to look at that instead of trying to undo this leak through unenforceable legislation.
so you just need 400 reams per 100GBytes and that includes some room for error correcting codes.
Which all is fine, for another 5 years or so. Then your 1 year-old will be 6 and learning how to fold paper airplanes. One day you'll go up in the attic and dicsover that you have the highest bit density paper airplanes on record, and no more video.
Printing movies on paper is crazy but not unprecedented. It's not helpful to the OP, but Hollywood places full prints of its movies (actual prints of each frame, not barcode) onto paper for submission to the Library of Congress. This way they can fully copyright the material, yet leave it in an otherwise useless form. Leave it to Hollywood to think of something like this :-p
If you'd been reading your spam, you'd know they're called "chemists" now, and they sell "pilules".
I predict a burgeoning market for bionic lens detectors. We wouldn't want anybody cheating on their exams.
Whatever. Just sell me a player that reads both formats.
With line sharing becoming difficult after last year's UNE-P decision, combined with a new corporate overlord, Speakeasy's already premium prices are probably going to go above what most of their residential users will bear. It probably makes sense from a business perspective, but for the residential users, I can only think that it's going to cause a loud sucking sound coming from the phone line.
I hope AOL will take it easy on legitimate non-profits, especially charitable ones.
Hopefully somebody investigates OpenVMS as potential prior art here. The OpenVMS Condition Handling Facility provides substantially the same exception-handling functionality as SEH and has had much of it since the 80's. http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/72final/5841/5841pro _038.html#chf_vaxalpha