"Seems to be" is one key phrase here. People can sleep around and still love an SO, or can do that when they are unhappy and later they become happy. Turns out people are more complicated than "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Who knew?
Actually, this is ONC RPC, originally developed by Sun, not DCE RPC, originally developed by Apollo, adopted by the OSF, and then adopted by Microsoft, but I guess there are Windows boxes offering NFS or some other ONC RPC-based service (or providing clients for those services and, for some unknown reason, running the portmapper even if they're not offering any such services, but I digress).
"You have to deal with files from other folks outside the organization."
No you dont. NOBODY sends excel spreadsheets and raw DOC files around. This has always been the biggest straw man argument, it just does not happen.
When I get a contract from Company XYZ, It's a PDF it is not a DOCX. When Vendor ZZT sends me the latest catalog and price list, its a PDF file not a spreadsheet.
It is this way in 95% of the business world. nobody sends raw editable document files around.
Except the millions of lawyers who do it every day...
NEVER confess to anything! All they've done is to hang themselves. Gubbermint says, "We don't like what you're doing." Your response? Are you really going to tell gubbermint, "Oh, I'm so sorry - please, just lock me away for a few decades!"
The better response is, "Prove your case, assholes!"
No, the correct response if you are arrested and interrogated is "laywer" and then shutting the hell up. Not being rude to the police. Your odds of saying anything that will make them change their mind and decide not to prosecute you are like 1 in ten thousand. Your odds of shutting up and saying "lawyer" helping you are much, much, much higher.
There are places where "lawyer" does not help. These are mostly places where the cops feel free to beat the crap out of you, so being nice to the cops there is even more important.
Never confess to anything, or try to explain your way out of it, or god-help-you apologize, or trust what the officer says. Lying is a regular part of police interrogation, and Cops use apologies to prove guilt because they are trained to, even though it's a real asshole thing to do. ("Do you feel guilty about your crime? If so, let me use that to penalize you more than I would penalize a sociopath.")
Sounds like IBM is pushing to make these almost a specialized chip for each machine. That sounds like your client's so fat it warps space-time approach in moderately thin-client world... There needs to be a major advantage before a math coprocessor for AI becomes viable at the consumer level...
Package it in a retrovirus and pass it around. And maybe we can use it to make an STD that will make people smarter. Stop being so damn conservative that you only use it on people with cognitive problems if society as a whole could benefit from fewer stupid people.
Seems like a planning problem. Storage is a drop in the bucket for a big org and there could be some goodwill for this, plus maaaaaybe some utility for anyone who supports legacy systems. Does LOC want them? Smithsonian? Some tech museum? Or one of the big tech companies?
She got caught. Good. I want to see prosecution of people who commit voter fraud. But are you assuming that there must be hundreds or thousands of people who did the same thing without getting caught? Enough to materially affect the election? Seems like a big stretch to me.
I want to see the people who think it's okay to disenfranchise entire groups of people because they're not likely to vote your way get prosecuted. There is absolutely *no* excuse for the voter ID laws they are putting in place today--it's like jim crow laws, you're just trying to exclude people who won't vote for you. It's reprehensible and in a civilized society it would be criminal.
The problem is they didn't build enough F-22s for that to be a viable strategy. There are only 184 of them, which is a pitifully small number when you spread them over all the potential hotspots. If even a handful are shot down it'll be catastrophic to any plan that depends on them.
Yes, but those 184 could each shoot down a dozen lesser jets pretty easily. You don't need them at every potential hotspot--you need to be able to deploy them.
The JSF is designed for more roles and we haven't had serious dogfights for decades. By the time we do it will be all drones.
Yes and no. Just because it's hard to do well doesn't mean you can't make it easier to implement. The easier you make good programming, the more likely people are to do it. The entire point of API documentation, for example, is to make it easier to do good programming.
On web app scecurity, right now there's a hodge-podge of solutions and no clear industry leader for a secure and efficient answer.
He's a New York Real Estate Developer. That means he's experienced at corruption and getting things done and returns on investment. Of course he's not interested in going to Mars--there are no people there to build things. Now if you asked him if he wanted to build a space tourist hotel in orbit...
And then some an IP legal firm can just come along, blanket declare it theirs whenever they feel it, and he's buggered anyways.
Take it from me. Unless your worth a few billion bucks, your ownership and right to dispose of IP as you please is long gone. We have new lords and masters, and we will do what they like, or we'll get the hose again.
Actually, there are sanctions for lawyers who are untruthful to a tribunal, and federal judges, as a rule, are not complete morons. If the copyrighted work is clearly out of copyright, you can win, you just need to understand the process well enough and to spend some time and/or money on it. (Usually this means you have to be or hire a lawyer.)
For Superman, I'd be concerned, though, that even *if* the old version you identify is out of copyright (which seems odd), it would be easy to borrow elements introduced in later versions of Superman that are still in copyright.
Setting up authentication for a web api should be trivial. Right now it's not--you can figure it out, but it's substantially more complicated than Googling "what authentication model should I use for this" and adding a couple of lines to your source files. Many programmers outside of critical areas are not going to spend enough time on it to get it right so long as that is true.
Making it worse is bad auth implementations by third-party providers which consume programmer-hours in debugging. (I'm looking at you, Facebook, with your really unhelpful error messages.)
CNN and CBC would do well to settle. Fighting this would be admitting that they don't truly believe that copyright deserves protection, and could be used against them in future lawsuits in which they are plaintiff.
CNN and CBC likely will settle just to get rid of it, even if paying a lot. They know they'll lose, unless they have a licensing agreement with google, for example.
The big boys regularly use content others produce without disclosing who they bought it from. A random low-level independent or semi-independent media guy will get a call about his footage after a relevant disaster and then his material will magically appear on the news network as if they had done the work themselves, and the low-level guy will usually give it away really cheap because it's a boost for his resume.
News is a really cutthroat business, despite all the ethics training.
is a huge joke. Just close it down. It's very little about investment anyway. It's mostly about people having inside information grabbing cash from people who don't. And high frequency trading. The sad thing is that Economists don't seem to see this as a problem. Well, maybe this type of event on a much larger scale could actually do good by showing how bad things really are.
Because it's better if investing your savings and diversifying is hard?
You want a way for not-super-rich-people to buy small chunks of companies and invest. It gives them a way to get a return on their savings.
It's going to let them invest in these really interesting long term projects without shareholders bitching about the risk.
Yes. It's all about segmenting the business to limit risk. Self-driving cars are the big one that come to mind as they would be insane if they didn't put it in its own risk-bubble, because they don't know the economics yet of whether juries will always blame self-driving cars, for example.
Exactly. I suspect that the companies laying fiber would be willing to split the common costs with him; but they're not interested in paying for his sensor network for him.
Only if they get paid for it.
If someone wants it they have to pay for it. That's largely the way our economic system works at present. It will change as we get smarter AIs involved, hopefully without revolution, but in the meantime that's what we're stuck with.
Considering the classic trend to have lots of people do the work for you while taking all the credit and delaying their graduation from grad school as long as possible, it's probably better this way.
It probably also goes some distance to protecting Google's product development from any threats against its advertising business by cranking regulators.
And courts. This helps to segment Google's advertising business so that if they get slammed by a government for refusing to censor, it's much harder to go after the parent company's assets. It's risk-management for shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to be at odds with having an affair.
"Seems to be" is one key phrase here. People can sleep around and still love an SO, or can do that when they are unhappy and later they become happy. Turns out people are more complicated than "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Who knew?
Great line from a SCOTUS opinion a while back. Applicable here.
"by any clinic that want to take part in the Collaborative Cancer Cloud or to build its own data-sharing network with healthcare partners."
Oh, yeah, because my local clinic's tech guy is TOTALLY going to do that with good data security practices.
Who the FUCK leaves RPC open to the internet!
You think you're secure. I only allow internet traffic once every seven minutes for six sec...NO CARRIER
Actually, this is ONC RPC, originally developed by Sun, not DCE RPC, originally developed by Apollo, adopted by the OSF, and then adopted by Microsoft, but I guess there are Windows boxes offering NFS or some other ONC RPC-based service (or providing clients for those services and, for some unknown reason, running the portmapper even if they're not offering any such services, but I digress).
Gesundheit.
"You have to deal with files from other folks outside the organization."
No you dont. NOBODY sends excel spreadsheets and raw DOC files around. This has always been the biggest straw man argument, it just does not happen.
When I get a contract from Company XYZ, It's a PDF it is not a DOCX. When Vendor ZZT sends me the latest catalog and price list, its a PDF file not a spreadsheet.
It is this way in 95% of the business world. nobody sends raw editable document files around.
Except the millions of lawyers who do it every day...
NEVER confess to anything! All they've done is to hang themselves. Gubbermint says, "We don't like what you're doing." Your response? Are you really going to tell gubbermint, "Oh, I'm so sorry - please, just lock me away for a few decades!"
The better response is, "Prove your case, assholes!"
No, the correct response if you are arrested and interrogated is "laywer" and then shutting the hell up. Not being rude to the police. Your odds of saying anything that will make them change their mind and decide not to prosecute you are like 1 in ten thousand. Your odds of shutting up and saying "lawyer" helping you are much, much, much higher.
There are places where "lawyer" does not help. These are mostly places where the cops feel free to beat the crap out of you, so being nice to the cops there is even more important.
Never confess to anything, or try to explain your way out of it, or god-help-you apologize, or trust what the officer says. Lying is a regular part of police interrogation, and Cops use apologies to prove guilt because they are trained to, even though it's a real asshole thing to do. ("Do you feel guilty about your crime? If so, let me use that to penalize you more than I would penalize a sociopath.")
Sounds like IBM is pushing to make these almost a specialized chip for each machine. That sounds like your client's so fat it warps space-time approach in moderately thin-client world... There needs to be a major advantage before a math coprocessor for AI becomes viable at the consumer level...
Maybe, but we're working on it pretty hard, and in the meantime we could always just add it to an existing STD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Package it in a retrovirus and pass it around. And maybe we can use it to make an STD that will make people smarter. Stop being so damn conservative that you only use it on people with cognitive problems if society as a whole could benefit from fewer stupid people.
Seems like a planning problem. Storage is a drop in the bucket for a big org and there could be some goodwill for this, plus maaaaaybe some utility for anyone who supports legacy systems. Does LOC want them? Smithsonian? Some tech museum? Or one of the big tech companies?
She got caught. Good. I want to see prosecution of people who commit voter fraud. But are you assuming that there must be hundreds or thousands of people who did the same thing without getting caught? Enough to materially affect the election? Seems like a big stretch to me.
I want to see the people who think it's okay to disenfranchise entire groups of people because they're not likely to vote your way get prosecuted. There is absolutely *no* excuse for the voter ID laws they are putting in place today--it's like jim crow laws, you're just trying to exclude people who won't vote for you. It's reprehensible and in a civilized society it would be criminal.
The problem is they didn't build enough F-22s for that to be a viable strategy. There are only 184 of them, which is a pitifully small number when you spread them over all the potential hotspots. If even a handful are shot down it'll be catastrophic to any plan that depends on them.
Yes, but those 184 could each shoot down a dozen lesser jets pretty easily. You don't need them at every potential hotspot--you need to be able to deploy them.
The JSF is designed for more roles and we haven't had serious dogfights for decades. By the time we do it will be all drones.
Yes and no. Just because it's hard to do well doesn't mean you can't make it easier to implement. The easier you make good programming, the more likely people are to do it. The entire point of API documentation, for example, is to make it easier to do good programming.
On web app scecurity, right now there's a hodge-podge of solutions and no clear industry leader for a secure and efficient answer.
He's a New York Real Estate Developer. That means he's experienced at corruption and getting things done and returns on investment. Of course he's not interested in going to Mars--there are no people there to build things. Now if you asked him if he wanted to build a space tourist hotel in orbit...
And then some an IP legal firm can just come along, blanket declare it theirs whenever they feel it, and he's buggered anyways.
Take it from me. Unless your worth a few billion bucks, your ownership and right to dispose of IP as you please is long gone. We have new lords and masters, and we will do what they like, or we'll get the hose again.
Actually, there are sanctions for lawyers who are untruthful to a tribunal, and federal judges, as a rule, are not complete morons. If the copyrighted work is clearly out of copyright, you can win, you just need to understand the process well enough and to spend some time and/or money on it. (Usually this means you have to be or hire a lawyer.)
For Superman, I'd be concerned, though, that even *if* the old version you identify is out of copyright (which seems odd), it would be easy to borrow elements introduced in later versions of Superman that are still in copyright.
https://xkcd.com/1553/
The tools aren't user friendly.
Setting up authentication for a web api should be trivial. Right now it's not--you can figure it out, but it's substantially more complicated than Googling "what authentication model should I use for this" and adding a couple of lines to your source files. Many programmers outside of critical areas are not going to spend enough time on it to get it right so long as that is true.
Making it worse is bad auth implementations by third-party providers which consume programmer-hours in debugging. (I'm looking at you, Facebook, with your really unhelpful error messages.)
CNN and CBC would do well to settle. Fighting this would be admitting that they don't truly believe that copyright deserves protection, and could be used against them in future lawsuits in which they are plaintiff.
CNN and CBC likely will settle just to get rid of it, even if paying a lot. They know they'll lose, unless they have a licensing agreement with google, for example.
The big boys regularly use content others produce without disclosing who they bought it from. A random low-level independent or semi-independent media guy will get a call about his footage after a relevant disaster and then his material will magically appear on the news network as if they had done the work themselves, and the low-level guy will usually give it away really cheap because it's a boost for his resume.
News is a really cutthroat business, despite all the ethics training.
is a huge joke. Just close it down. It's very little about investment anyway. It's mostly about people having inside information grabbing cash from people who don't. And high frequency trading. The sad thing is that Economists don't seem to see this as a problem. Well, maybe this type of event on a much larger scale could actually do good by showing how bad things really are.
Because it's better if investing your savings and diversifying is hard?
You want a way for not-super-rich-people to buy small chunks of companies and invest. It gives them a way to get a return on their savings.
It's going to let them invest in these really interesting long term projects without shareholders bitching about the risk.
Yes. It's all about segmenting the business to limit risk. Self-driving cars are the big one that come to mind as they would be insane if they didn't put it in its own risk-bubble, because they don't know the economics yet of whether juries will always blame self-driving cars, for example.
Exactly. I suspect that the companies laying fiber would be willing to split the common costs with him; but they're not interested in paying for his sensor network for him.
Only if they get paid for it.
If someone wants it they have to pay for it. That's largely the way our economic system works at present. It will change as we get smarter AIs involved, hopefully without revolution, but in the meantime that's what we're stuck with.
Lots of things "hinder" justice. The fact that we don't all wear trackers that inform the government of where we are at all times hinders justice.
Bad example. We do. They're called "cellphones" and the government collects "metadata" and operates "stingrays."
Considering the classic trend to have lots of people do the work for you while taking all the credit and delaying their graduation from grad school as long as possible, it's probably better this way.
It probably also goes some distance to protecting Google's product development from any threats against its advertising business by cranking regulators.
And courts. This helps to segment Google's advertising business so that if they get slammed by a government for refusing to censor, it's much harder to go after the parent company's assets. It's risk-management for shareholders.