That's old information. The National Background Investigations Bureau has done most of the background investigations for a while, but NBIB is now moving that entire function to be part of the DoD.
You don't get anonymity with blockchain currency unless you make significant efforts to hide who owns each wallet. This costs money in transaction fees (a lot of money, of you want it to effectively provide privacy), and is usually called money laundering in the non-blockchain world.
Every other car company seems to be more responsible than Tesla with regards to what they call "full self-driving" or autonomous. They use terms like "driver assistance features" for what they have now, and nobody is deluded by the marketing terms into thinking that the car can drive unattended.
How is that meaningfully different than the case of the modules, which were apparently under AGPL before they changed to Apache v2.0+Commons Clause (for six months) or this clearly non-open-source license?
The headline is wrong. This is not "Redis changes its open source license" -- as the company acknowledges, this is "Redis goes non-open source". In-house developers are not going to want to build on Redis if its license forbids them from using modified versions for the things that Redis is designed to do.
Lore, and especially morality plays, are fiction. They are intentionally exaggerated in order to make a point. In the case of Sam Vimes's theory of boots, the point (that you can get a more durable good by paying more for it) is exaggerated to the point that it fails to describe the real world; Pratchett did not favor jokes about how often the only thing people pay 5x or 10x the price for is the different label sewn into a garment at the end of a factory line.
It is okay to like the story as a joke, but it is not an accurate description of 21st century economics.
We can see who isn't smart enough to read to the end of a short comment. I pointed out exactly which parts of that fiction make it unlike the real world.
A single anecdote is not actual data. In your case, it's not even a cool story, bro. I have also bought $30 and $90 pairs of jeans, and have not seen even a 2x difference in durability.
Probably everyone has experienced cheaply made goods not lasting as long as more expensive goods, but the ratio in durability is less than the ratio in price. You can find cheap jeans for $10 to $20 at a big-box, low-end store. They will seldom last as long as $220 (or much more) jeans from a high-end store, but they will last a lot more than 1/11th as long at 1/11th the price. That is why the Sam Vimes argument is bunkum.
Pratchett wrote comedic fantasy, not economic research. He made things up, including Sam Vimes, the relative costs of boots, and especially their durability.
You don't have to take QCS's, or anyone else's, word about their work. Their report and the Ars article describe the statistically inappropriate decisions in the NHTSA study.
For example, the study did not have enough data to tell when Autosteer was enabled for about two thirds of the vehicles considered, so they approximated. That's not intently bad, but the approximation was that the 29,000 vehicles such vehicles had zero pre-Autosteer miles, which is very questionable. That mistake was seriously aggravated by including 18 accidents from these cars in the pre-Autosteer group, which obviously moves miles and/or accidents in a direction that made Autosteer look better.
I guess you missed the part where the professor explained that we have essentially complete coverage for earthquake detection. We don't have that for crime, and Americans generally reject the level of surveillance (total) that would be necessary to detect all crimes. If you use a predictive model to focus resources, but that model is trained on previous detections, you need that history to be statistically unbiased. Otherwise the bias tends to perpetuate itself, which is why the guy from the ACLU is concerned.
This. It hardly takes any reading between the lines to see that Google, as usual, wants all of the data about all the people. "We will use all this data to figure out good tactics for... yeah, the opioid epidemic, that's it."
They only need to work out entirely new protocols for routing calls between themselves, wait for equipment manufacturers to release new products, and either upgrade or replace all their existing exchange equipment. Easy peasy!
The current protocols are essentially based on the honor system, and these robocallers have no honor.
That is a seriously bad case of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". This guy's DDoS did not help save the girl's life. The girl's parents going to the press and drawing attention to the hospital's attempts to medically kidnap her saved the girl's life.
This guy was trying to DDoS hospitals. I can't think of any excuse that would actually excuse that, and "doing it to save some child's life" is flat out unbelievable. If it takes him 680 pages to document "conflicts of interest", I have to think there is a lot of smoke being blown to inflate that page count, and probably not much fire.
And you don't know how they were run. If they were overclocked or run in poorly ventilated areas, they may have significantly shorter remaining lifespans than you would expect for their age.
In those cases, it is clear who declared the person deceased, and it is literally true. In this case, the book-shilling stooge apparently wanted to obscure his own agency in making a ridiculous claim about language.
You probably have a weak argument if you put it into the passive voice so you don't have to admit that it originates with you. I pronounce good writing dead at the scene of this shill's Twitter account.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, now all Emacs needs is an editor!
That's old information. The National Background Investigations Bureau has done most of the background investigations for a while, but NBIB is now moving that entire function to be part of the DoD.
You don't get anonymity with blockchain currency unless you make significant efforts to hide who owns each wallet. This costs money in transaction fees (a lot of money, of you want it to effectively provide privacy), and is usually called money laundering in the non-blockchain world.
Every other car company seems to be more responsible than Tesla with regards to what they call "full self-driving" or autonomous. They use terms like "driver assistance features" for what they have now, and nobody is deluded by the marketing terms into thinking that the car can drive unattended.
They use electronically activated brakes to keep people from using the scooters without paying.
How is that meaningfully different than the case of the modules, which were apparently under AGPL before they changed to Apache v2.0+Commons Clause (for six months) or this clearly non-open-source license?
Oh, for fuck's sake, grow up. Someone choosing to preserve their attorney-client privilege does not mean "they don't actually believe in Openness".
But at least you made it blindingly obvious that you have a huge chip on your shoulder about OSI.
Clarification: The license for the Redis core is not changing *yet*.
They have altered the licence. Pray they do not alter it further.
This.
The headline is wrong. This is not "Redis changes its open source license" -- as the company acknowledges, this is "Redis goes non-open source". In-house developers are not going to want to build on Redis if its license forbids them from using modified versions for the things that Redis is designed to do.
Lore, and especially morality plays, are fiction. They are intentionally exaggerated in order to make a point. In the case of Sam Vimes's theory of boots, the point (that you can get a more durable good by paying more for it) is exaggerated to the point that it fails to describe the real world; Pratchett did not favor jokes about how often the only thing people pay 5x or 10x the price for is the different label sewn into a garment at the end of a factory line.
It is okay to like the story as a joke, but it is not an accurate description of 21st century economics.
We can see who isn't smart enough to read to the end of a short comment. I pointed out exactly which parts of that fiction make it unlike the real world.
A single anecdote is not actual data. In your case, it's not even a cool story, bro. I have also bought $30 and $90 pairs of jeans, and have not seen even a 2x difference in durability.
How much of The Lord of the Rings do you take as true? Having a well-read (or otherwise expert) author does not make fiction accurate. It's fiction.
Probably everyone has experienced cheaply made goods not lasting as long as more expensive goods, but the ratio in durability is less than the ratio in price. You can find cheap jeans for $10 to $20 at a big-box, low-end store. They will seldom last as long as $220 (or much more) jeans from a high-end store, but they will last a lot more than 1/11th as long at 1/11th the price. That is why the Sam Vimes argument is bunkum.
Pratchett wrote comedic fantasy, not economic research. He made things up, including Sam Vimes, the relative costs of boots, and especially their durability.
You don't have to take QCS's, or anyone else's, word about their work. Their report and the Ars article describe the statistically inappropriate decisions in the NHTSA study.
For example, the study did not have enough data to tell when Autosteer was enabled for about two thirds of the vehicles considered, so they approximated. That's not intently bad, but the approximation was that the 29,000 vehicles such vehicles had zero pre-Autosteer miles, which is very questionable. That mistake was seriously aggravated by including 18 accidents from these cars in the pre-Autosteer group, which obviously moves miles and/or accidents in a direction that made Autosteer look better.
I guess you missed the part where the professor explained that we have essentially complete coverage for earthquake detection. We don't have that for crime, and Americans generally reject the level of surveillance (total) that would be necessary to detect all crimes. If you use a predictive model to focus resources, but that model is trained on previous detections, you need that history to be statistically unbiased. Otherwise the bias tends to perpetuate itself, which is why the guy from the ACLU is concerned.
Those of us who are better at math know that 234 is slightly less than a FIFTH of 1200. Airbus, 19.5% is way below the "passing" threshold.
This. It hardly takes any reading between the lines to see that Google, as usual, wants all of the data about all the people. "We will use all this data to figure out good tactics for ... yeah, the opioid epidemic, that's it."
Sure, it's within their powers.
They only need to work out entirely new protocols for routing calls between themselves, wait for equipment manufacturers to release new products, and either upgrade or replace all their existing exchange equipment. Easy peasy!
The current protocols are essentially based on the honor system, and these robocallers have no honor.
That is a seriously bad case of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". This guy's DDoS did not help save the girl's life. The girl's parents going to the press and drawing attention to the hospital's attempts to medically kidnap her saved the girl's life.
This guy was trying to DDoS hospitals. I can't think of any excuse that would actually excuse that, and "doing it to save some child's life" is flat out unbelievable. If it takes him 680 pages to document "conflicts of interest", I have to think there is a lot of smoke being blown to inflate that page count, and probably not much fire.
And you don't know how they were run. If they were overclocked or run in poorly ventilated areas, they may have significantly shorter remaining lifespans than you would expect for their age.
In those cases, it is clear who declared the person deceased, and it is literally true. In this case, the book-shilling stooge apparently wanted to obscure his own agency in making a ridiculous claim about language.
You probably have a weak argument if you put it into the passive voice so you don't have to admit that it originates with you. I pronounce good writing dead at the scene of this shill's Twitter account.