No, you don't. You buy batteries, motors, controllers, and 99% of the structure from Hobby King and you 3D print the hood ornament or a weird part for the camera swivel.
Sure, and you don't write in English, your English teacher is writing in English through you. And you're not typing, the food you bought at the food store is typing.
This is about money and maybe ego. A combination of what some shortsighted idiot thinks of as free advertising and maybe some ego-hungry folk involved in the decision-making who feel the need to be cited.
And it will start moving every major company away from stackoverflow. You can't be putting snippets of other people's code in your product with attribution because you're going to be making lawsuits and licensing that much more complicated. People who worry about those things will use stackoverflow less and less.
Stackoverflow has a great network effect from all the users. But stuff like this will make anyone who brings another game to town look a lot more attractive.
Do you actually live in Europe? Integration does not work. We have whole suburbs of "insert immigrant nationality" because they don't integrate. Even politicians have to admit that multiculturalism failed. The cultures are just too different and there are far too many at the same time.
Except when it does. If you have a large, secular society that orients more along the lines of politics than race, culture, or religion, than over time immigrants and more importantly the children of immigrants become part of the larger society. Some people are real jerks to outsiders no matter where they are or what culture they join--the idea is over generations to try to get their kids to be more and more accepting of outsiders, to be part of the larger community.
Integration is not an experiment that succeeds or fails. It's life, and people and even entire populations change across as little as fifty years. That explains everybody's racist uncle.
The problem is not a particular president or a particular Congress. It's the fact that space missions have, somehow, become politicized. So, every time the balance of power shifts, the new legislature/administration immediately cancels the space program decided upon by the previous administration/legislature, because they want to screw over the other party. Then the new guys propose their own plan for space exploration, which, just like the old one, will take 15 years to show results, which of course guarantees that it will be cancelled in its turn when the electorate gets tired of the clowns in charge and votes them out again.
If NASA is ever again going to be a serious participant in the exploration of space, then it's going to need to either run missions that only take a couple years start-to-finish, which severely limits what can be done, or get buy-in from both parties for a longer-term project, which will be almost impossible to achieve.
This is actually a problem throughout government. It's impossible to plan long-term missions well when you have to argue for funding every year, rather than being able to get a five-year spending plan approved. This bugs the hell out of the CIA, for example.
Clearly you haven't worked for the Government. My favorite was the mainframes built in the '60's that we were trying to retrofit into more modern day laptops using an emulator card.
As if you can just commit changes directly to Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, Android, Firefox, Gnome, KDE etc with no one related to those projects "vetting" them.
Wait, so it's easier to edit the Wikipedia Page of Ted Cruz to explain his Canadian name was "Cruz'); -- DROP TABLE DONORS" than it is to edit the MySQL source?
Almost as if mysql were more important than who gets elected President.
Smart, though definitely a market-following move. This leads to a microsoft-built open-source equivalent to node, which will make people who are used to the microsoft ecosystem or who want microsoft support to keep their clients happy seriously consider them for a whole host of project types.
The competition also means we can have some benchmarking competitions between the two javascript engines, which will inspire both to get a little better.
But it's only a lie if you have been convicted of terrorism, surely?
It depends on the precise question. Usually it's not "are you a terrorist" so much as "Have you ever been a member of, or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with a terrorist organization." That's the question on the n-400 application for naturalization. Lying about it can get you arrested even if the way you were associated would not have. Like, I don't know, if you married a girl and then found out she has an uncle in ISIS. It's not a crime to marry a girl who has an uncle in ISIS (unless you invite them to the wedding), but it's a crime to answer no to that question if you married her.
requires something that so far the gov't has shown no interest in...not invading peoples privacy.
Yes. I remember hearing someone had basically developer very similar, very careful tech for the NSA that did one of the surveillance routines they wanted but was *very* careful about user privacy... and they couldn't care less and decided to completely go a different direction. i.e. the one that didn't care about that. Maybe there was a slashdot article on it a few years ago?
You joke, but this is actually a question on the customs declaration and entry form given to everyone arriving in the United States.
Of course, they don't actually expect anyone to say 'yes' - the idea (as I understand it) is to give the authorities one more thing to charge an actual terrorist with.
If you're a US Citizen they don't make you sign that on entry, at least not normally. I don't know offhand for foreigners of if you're bringing in a lot of goods. They *do* have that on security clearance applications.
And you're right, the idea isn't that you'll answer yes, it's that if you answer no and turn out to be a terrorist or have supported terrorism, etc..., then you've committed a felony by having lied to a federal officer. (YES. Lying to feds is a crime. The First Amendment doesn't protect you from that.) So they can arrest you and throw away the key, at least for a while.
I used to walk a mile in suburbs. It wasn't a big deal. As population goes up, though, the density of things you have to worry about increases. So I don't mind a parent deciding they don't feel their kids are safe--but most places, a cop who arrests a parent for letting their kids walk to school should be fired and arrested himself, because HE had a duty to keep the community safe, and instead he violated that duty and terrorized a parent. It turns out arrest is a pretty big deal.
actually we do. not allowed to own a gun where i live.
Where do you live, inside the White House?
There are places in the U.S. that have some gun control laws, but you're always allowed to own a gun if you own your own home. If you rent, or sign an agreement with a coop not for, for example, you might not be allowed to own a gun contractually, but it's not illegal to do so.
Some places make it hard to own a gun--DC tries to, for example, and I'm not sure if any gun stores exist there at the moment. But you have a constitutional right to bear arms. Even when it's utterly absurd.
Nerds play D&D. Labyrinth was fantasy, much like a D&D game. So I guess it kinda explains why this is tech news.
Not just D&D--a huge number of Nerds enjoy fantasy. And Labyrinth was not quite old-school fairy-tale, but it was definitely fantasy. If slashdot were here when Tolkien died, it would have been news. David Bowie isn't Tolkien, but he's definitely relevant to fantasy culture.
Well for some jobs people with serious mental illnesses should never ever be placed in those positions. Like airline pilots. A crazy person's right to privacy does not trump the right of passengers to not be smeared all over the Alps because some lunatic decides to kill himself and take a bunch of people with him.
Such a person is homicidal, not suicidal. They just also happen to be suicidal.
It really depends on the mental illness. The problem you have comes when you stigmatize the mental illness and make the breadth of jobs you're disqualifying people from too big. In the United States, we have an absurd number of jobs that require security clearances and really shouldn't. Between that, the stigma, and the fact that you need to report mental treatment, we have at *least* hundreds of thousands of people in sensitive positions who can do their job, but are working with *undiagnosed and untreated* mental illnesses. Which is just dumb. A pilot or a low-level analyst at the CIA should be able to talk to a psychologist about his depression without having to worry that he's going to lose his job. Otherwise it makes him more depressed, he *doesn't* seek help or treatment, and he is much more likely--for example--to commit suicide and take a bunch of people with him. Or to compromise national security.
Some professions and institutions are better about it than they were twenty years ago, certainly. But the stigma is still very high and the pro-treatment aspect is nowhere where it needs to be.
What you describe about discrimination in the workplace is illegal in most sane jurisdictions. I can't speak for the USA though. Plus, it doesn't make sense anyway, because you have to have sociopathy - a form of mental illness - to be a corporate exec anyway. Some types of autism spectrum people make way better software testers and thorough coders too. I'm sure there are many more examples.
Illegal, yes, frequently. Actually done? Absolutely. It's not like HR tells you the illegal reason they don't hire you. They stopped doing that when people started winning lawsuits.
I'm mentally ill and don't give a fuck. Thanks to socialism they'll take care of me on their dime and I get all the free meds and support I want.
It's fine to make that decision about *your* mental issue. Making it about someone else's, at least while they're alive, is not okay, because it can cost them their job or career.
Especially if they ever hold or want to hold jobs with security clearances, or certain jobs with a very, very public profile where a company is especially sensitive to the PR around a role. A company is much less likely to hire you for a C-level position, for example, if people are openly discussing your mental issues online.
But also just if you make someone's mental issue come up in the first page of google hits, the chances of them making it past HR in the normal hiring process probably also drops at least 10%.
Google has a right to restrict people however they want with their APIs. This site, although useful, can clearly serve as an alternative to Google maps, unlike e.g. flightradar24 where the map is not the core functionality of the site. I am on Google's side in this conflict.
No, they have a *contract* with someone who has agreed to their TOS. But there is also a principle in law called "estoppel," where someone else relies on your act or omission to your benefit or there detriment and therefore you are prevented from doing thing X that is inconsistent with that act or omission historically; like you can't cancel their map API access after using it to spread goodwill around google maps for a decade. You ALSO have antitrust issues--this app is arguably a lot more than Google maps, not really a wrapper, and it can probably be fairly argued that Google is taking advantage of their market position to limit competition with expansions to their app. So if someone cares enough or has the money to actually fight this, while Google may ultimately win, it's far from guaranteed.
It turns out that you DON'T always have a right to change how you are doing business with someone unilaterally.
Oauth 2.0 will never be "secure enough" until it is very, very hard to implement it *incorrectly*.
Right now there are a lot of modules out there to integrate Oauth 2 into your website, and you can re-use a lot of your code from old projects, but there is no single trivial way to make your website secure. So long as that's the case, people are going to screw it up. LOTS of people are going to screw it up. Especially when they're being paid to deliver a marketable website, and nobody outside of a few key market sectors are going to pay for serious security auditing. Or, you know... any security auditing.
Geez, what's wrong with you? Norberg filed the case under state law in state court. Get the f*cking facts.
Why? Random idiots are bleating away and the supposed summary doesn't actually link to anything. Better to provide some basic context on how state law cases can wind up in federal courts. Researching the specific case docket history is not something you do for a slashdot post.
This case may actually be in Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 rather than diversity jurisdiction--applies where the amount in controversy is greater than $5 Million, there is some diversity, and at least 100 plaintiffs are involved. Whether it was initially filed in state or federal court doesn't really matter, so long as the court it's in has jurisdiction--what matters is where it is now. Judge Norgle, a Federal District Judge, is the one who denied the motion to dismiss. See, e.g., http://www.jdsupra.com/legalne...
Norberg filed the civil case under state law. Shutterfly went to a federal judge to have it dismissed.
State courts can usually hear cases under federal law. Federal Courts can ALSO hear cases under state law when there is a federal law specifically allowing them to do so. The most common is "Diversity Jurisdiction," which occurs when the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and enough money is at stake. Basically it's recognizing that state courts van have a problem favoring the guy from their state over the out-of-towner, and also that for cases where a lot of money is involved, you often want more than your local overworked state court to think about it. (There are some state courts that are excellent, of course, but usually federal courts have more time and are a bit more cerebral and a LOT more impartial. Because they don't have to be re-elected, and they do have to work with colleagues from across the aisle.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, you don't. You buy batteries, motors, controllers, and 99% of the structure from Hobby King and you 3D print the hood ornament or a weird part for the camera swivel.
Sure, and you don't write in English, your English teacher is writing in English through you. And you're not typing, the food you bought at the food store is typing.
Production has inputs.
This is about money and maybe ego. A combination of what some shortsighted idiot thinks of as free advertising and maybe some ego-hungry folk involved in the decision-making who feel the need to be cited.
And it will start moving every major company away from stackoverflow. You can't be putting snippets of other people's code in your product with attribution because you're going to be making lawsuits and licensing that much more complicated. People who worry about those things will use stackoverflow less and less.
Stackoverflow has a great network effect from all the users. But stuff like this will make anyone who brings another game to town look a lot more attractive.
Do you actually live in Europe? Integration does not work. We have whole suburbs of "insert immigrant nationality" because they don't integrate. Even politicians have to admit that multiculturalism failed. The cultures are just too different and there are far too many at the same time.
Except when it does. If you have a large, secular society that orients more along the lines of politics than race, culture, or religion, than over time immigrants and more importantly the children of immigrants become part of the larger society. Some people are real jerks to outsiders no matter where they are or what culture they join--the idea is over generations to try to get their kids to be more and more accepting of outsiders, to be part of the larger community.
Integration is not an experiment that succeeds or fails. It's life, and people and even entire populations change across as little as fifty years. That explains everybody's racist uncle.
The problem is not a particular president or a particular Congress. It's the fact that space missions have, somehow, become politicized. So, every time the balance of power shifts, the new legislature/administration immediately cancels the space program decided upon by the previous administration/legislature, because they want to screw over the other party. Then the new guys propose their own plan for space exploration, which, just like the old one, will take 15 years to show results, which of course guarantees that it will be cancelled in its turn when the electorate gets tired of the clowns in charge and votes them out again.
If NASA is ever again going to be a serious participant in the exploration of space, then it's going to need to either run missions that only take a couple years start-to-finish, which severely limits what can be done, or get buy-in from both parties for a longer-term project, which will be almost impossible to achieve.
This is actually a problem throughout government. It's impossible to plan long-term missions well when you have to argue for funding every year, rather than being able to get a five-year spending plan approved. This bugs the hell out of the CIA, for example.
Clearly you haven't worked for the Government. My favorite was the mainframes built in the '60's that we were trying to retrofit into more modern day laptops using an emulator card.
The mainframes couldn't be emulated in software?
Lesson of the day... probably should have bought the honeywell.
Lesson of the day... probably should have connected an old bimetallic mercury switch thermostat in parallel
Lesson of the day: design your battery-powered thermostat to FAIL ON. Or at least have a bypass-on physical switch.
As if you can just commit changes directly to Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, Android, Firefox, Gnome, KDE etc with no one related to those projects "vetting" them.
Wait, so it's easier to edit the Wikipedia Page of Ted Cruz to explain his Canadian name was "Cruz'); -- DROP TABLE DONORS" than it is to edit the MySQL source?
Almost as if mysql were more important than who gets elected President.
"Little Teddy Tables," we call him.
Europeans are slow like that... LOL
Slow courts are not a uniquely European phenomenon.
Smart, though definitely a market-following move. This leads to a microsoft-built open-source equivalent to node, which will make people who are used to the microsoft ecosystem or who want microsoft support to keep their clients happy seriously consider them for a whole host of project types.
The competition also means we can have some benchmarking competitions between the two javascript engines, which will inspire both to get a little better.
But it's only a lie if you have been convicted of terrorism, surely?
It depends on the precise question. Usually it's not "are you a terrorist" so much as "Have you ever been a member of, or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with a terrorist organization." That's the question on the n-400 application for naturalization. Lying about it can get you arrested even if the way you were associated would not have. Like, I don't know, if you married a girl and then found out she has an uncle in ISIS. It's not a crime to marry a girl who has an uncle in ISIS (unless you invite them to the wedding), but it's a crime to answer no to that question if you married her.
requires something that so far the gov't has shown no interest in...not invading peoples privacy.
Yes. I remember hearing someone had basically developer very similar, very careful tech for the NSA that did one of the surveillance routines they wanted but was *very* careful about user privacy... and they couldn't care less and decided to completely go a different direction. i.e. the one that didn't care about that. Maybe there was a slashdot article on it a few years ago?
You joke, but this is actually a question on the customs declaration and entry form given to everyone arriving in the United States.
Of course, they don't actually expect anyone to say 'yes' - the idea (as I understand it) is to give the authorities one more thing to charge an actual terrorist with.
If you're a US Citizen they don't make you sign that on entry, at least not normally. I don't know offhand for foreigners of if you're bringing in a lot of goods. They *do* have that on security clearance applications.
And you're right, the idea isn't that you'll answer yes, it's that if you answer no and turn out to be a terrorist or have supported terrorism, etc..., then you've committed a felony by having lied to a federal officer. (YES. Lying to feds is a crime. The First Amendment doesn't protect you from that.) So they can arrest you and throw away the key, at least for a while.
Of course, that has nothing at all to do with the problem at hand.
Ho-Ho-Ho. :)
If you don't have a habit of covering any pad you are entering a PIN on with another hand, you are naive at best.
Small cameras aimed at pads to capture PINs have been around for years.
I used to walk a mile in suburbs. It wasn't a big deal. As population goes up, though, the density of things you have to worry about increases. So I don't mind a parent deciding they don't feel their kids are safe--but most places, a cop who arrests a parent for letting their kids walk to school should be fired and arrested himself, because HE had a duty to keep the community safe, and instead he violated that duty and terrorized a parent. It turns out arrest is a pretty big deal.
actually we do. not allowed to own a gun where i live.
Where do you live, inside the White House?
There are places in the U.S. that have some gun control laws, but you're always allowed to own a gun if you own your own home. If you rent, or sign an agreement with a coop not for, for example, you might not be allowed to own a gun contractually, but it's not illegal to do so.
Some places make it hard to own a gun--DC tries to, for example, and I'm not sure if any gun stores exist there at the moment. But you have a constitutional right to bear arms. Even when it's utterly absurd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nerds play D&D. Labyrinth was fantasy, much like a D&D game. So I guess it kinda explains why this is tech news.
Not just D&D--a huge number of Nerds enjoy fantasy. And Labyrinth was not quite old-school fairy-tale, but it was definitely fantasy. If slashdot were here when Tolkien died, it would have been news. David Bowie isn't Tolkien, but he's definitely relevant to fantasy culture.
Well for some jobs people with serious mental illnesses should never ever be placed in those positions. Like airline pilots. A crazy person's right to privacy does not trump the right of passengers to not be smeared all over the Alps because some lunatic decides to kill himself and take a bunch of people with him.
Such a person is homicidal, not suicidal. They just also happen to be suicidal.
It really depends on the mental illness. The problem you have comes when you stigmatize the mental illness and make the breadth of jobs you're disqualifying people from too big. In the United States, we have an absurd number of jobs that require security clearances and really shouldn't. Between that, the stigma, and the fact that you need to report mental treatment, we have at *least* hundreds of thousands of people in sensitive positions who can do their job, but are working with *undiagnosed and untreated* mental illnesses. Which is just dumb. A pilot or a low-level analyst at the CIA should be able to talk to a psychologist about his depression without having to worry that he's going to lose his job. Otherwise it makes him more depressed, he *doesn't* seek help or treatment, and he is much more likely--for example--to commit suicide and take a bunch of people with him. Or to compromise national security.
Some professions and institutions are better about it than they were twenty years ago, certainly. But the stigma is still very high and the pro-treatment aspect is nowhere where it needs to be.
What you describe about discrimination in the workplace is illegal in most sane jurisdictions. I can't speak for the USA though.
Plus, it doesn't make sense anyway, because you have to have sociopathy - a form of mental illness - to be a corporate exec anyway. Some types of autism spectrum people make way better software testers and thorough coders too. I'm sure there are many more examples.
Illegal, yes, frequently. Actually done? Absolutely. It's not like HR tells you the illegal reason they don't hire you. They stopped doing that when people started winning lawsuits.
I'm mentally ill and don't give a fuck. Thanks to socialism they'll take care of me on their dime and I get all the free meds and support I want.
It's fine to make that decision about *your* mental issue. Making it about someone else's, at least while they're alive, is not okay, because it can cost them their job or career.
Especially if they ever hold or want to hold jobs with security clearances, or certain jobs with a very, very public profile where a company is especially sensitive to the PR around a role. A company is much less likely to hire you for a C-level position, for example, if people are openly discussing your mental issues online.
But also just if you make someone's mental issue come up in the first page of google hits, the chances of them making it past HR in the normal hiring process probably also drops at least 10%.
Google has a right to restrict people however they want with their APIs. This site, although useful, can clearly serve as an alternative to Google maps, unlike e.g. flightradar24 where the map is not the core functionality of the site. I am on Google's side in this conflict.
No, they have a *contract* with someone who has agreed to their TOS. But there is also a principle in law called "estoppel," where someone else relies on your act or omission to your benefit or there detriment and therefore you are prevented from doing thing X that is inconsistent with that act or omission historically; like you can't cancel their map API access after using it to spread goodwill around google maps for a decade. You ALSO have antitrust issues--this app is arguably a lot more than Google maps, not really a wrapper, and it can probably be fairly argued that Google is taking advantage of their market position to limit competition with expansions to their app. So if someone cares enough or has the money to actually fight this, while Google may ultimately win, it's far from guaranteed.
It turns out that you DON'T always have a right to change how you are doing business with someone unilaterally.
Oauth 2.0 will never be "secure enough" until it is very, very hard to implement it *incorrectly*.
Right now there are a lot of modules out there to integrate Oauth 2 into your website, and you can re-use a lot of your code from old projects, but there is no single trivial way to make your website secure. So long as that's the case, people are going to screw it up. LOTS of people are going to screw it up. Especially when they're being paid to deliver a marketable website, and nobody outside of a few key market sectors are going to pay for serious security auditing. Or, you know... any security auditing.
Geez, what's wrong with you? Norberg filed the case under state law in state court. Get the f*cking facts.
Why? Random idiots are bleating away and the supposed summary doesn't actually link to anything. Better to provide some basic context on how state law cases can wind up in federal courts. Researching the specific case docket history is not something you do for a slashdot post.
This case may actually be in Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 rather than diversity jurisdiction--applies where the amount in controversy is greater than $5 Million, there is some diversity, and at least 100 plaintiffs are involved. Whether it was initially filed in state or federal court doesn't really matter, so long as the court it's in has jurisdiction--what matters is where it is now. Judge Norgle, a Federal District Judge, is the one who denied the motion to dismiss. See, e.g., http://www.jdsupra.com/legalne...
Norberg filed the civil case under state law. Shutterfly went to a federal judge to have it dismissed.
State courts can usually hear cases under federal law. Federal Courts can ALSO hear cases under state law when there is a federal law specifically allowing them to do so. The most common is "Diversity Jurisdiction," which occurs when the plaintiff and defendant are from different states and enough money is at stake. Basically it's recognizing that state courts van have a problem favoring the guy from their state over the out-of-towner, and also that for cases where a lot of money is involved, you often want more than your local overworked state court to think about it. (There are some state courts that are excellent, of course, but usually federal courts have more time and are a bit more cerebral and a LOT more impartial. Because they don't have to be re-elected, and they do have to work with colleagues from across the aisle.)