You make it sound like Reagan was duplicitous from the beginning. He started out hardass on terrorism. Do you know what caused him to secretly reneg on his "no negotiating with terrorists" pledge?
He met with the parents of one of the hostages and listened to their sob story. That's right. He developed a bleeding heart.
I'll join the chorus of voices saying it was incredibly stupid to use an online service as your only copy of your materials, with no local backup. But what's done is done. If the Wayback Machine doesn't have a copy, try installing the Resurrect Pages add-on to Firefox. It links to a lot more caching and archiving services than just the Wayback Machine.
That's data Tesla should have, since they get driving statistics from their cars. They should be able to easily calculate the accident rate for their cars under similar driving conditions with and without Autopilot on.
JPEG2000 suffered from the same problem JPEG initially did - it was slow. I remember downloading the first sample JPEG images in the early 1990s. An 800x600 image took about 20 seconds to decode on my PC back then. JPEG2000 had a similar problem, though it was asymmetric. Over 1 min to encode a 3504x2336 image from my DSLR, about 5-15 seconds to decode.
JPEG didn't have any competitors, and the growth of the Internet and Web made smaller-size picture files very important in the coming years Couple that with the rapid development of digital cameras in the late 1990s, and the use of photos on the web exploded. So as computers became faster, the decode time approached zero and JPEG eventually became the standard.
JPEG2000 faced rapidly increasing network speeds, decreasing storage costs, and a large growth in digital video. So even though computer became faster, it didn't really matter since it took less time to transmit the larger image file over the now-faster network than it took to decompress a JPEG2000 image on the now-faster computer. You could easily buy a bigger HDD to compensate for the larger size of other image formats, and you did so anyway to store all the videos you were recording.
This is largely the reason JPEG has hung on despite being over 20 years old (even MPEG2 was displaced by MPEG4 and now by h.264/h.265). Compared to modern storage capacities and network speeds, JPEGs are small enough that making it 22% smaller just doesn't matter. Unless you're a massive storage company dealing with billions of JPEG files.
Earth exploration and space research (65.0 - 66.0 GHz)
Radio navigation (66.0 - 71.0 GHz)
Although Summary makes it sound like this is entirely a 5G thing, the unlicensed 64-71 GHz band suffers from high attenuation due to rain and oxygen, and aren't useful for distances more than about 1 mile. So this spectrum is clearly aimed at higher speed wifi (multi-gigabit).
tl;dr version is that any orbit (of a planet, comet, satellite, etc) can be defined by just 6 numbers, called orbital elements. (The lack of friction in space helps tremendously.)
From there, it becomes simple multi-variable algebra. You take 3 photos of the target object at known time intervals. You measure the x and y position of the object (relative to the background) in each of those photos. If your photo platform is moving (i.e. taking photos from the spacecraft, or if the time interval is large enough for the Earth to have moved), you need to compensate for that, but essentially you're boiling down the measurement of the object in each photo into 2 numbers - an x and y coordinate against the background.
You now have 6 unknown variables, and 6 measurements you can plug into six very complex equations. Do the algebra, and you can calculate the orbital elements, which allow you to predict the target object's location at any point in time.
The other major complication is that the precision of your measurements affect the margin of error in your calculations. So observations from Earth are good enough to get you into the right neighborhood. But for precise maneuvers and orbital insertions, you need more accurate measurements. For Jupiter these come from observations made by Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, and the HST (as well as observations made during flybys by Cassini and New Horizons). Those past missions let us calculate Jupiter's orbital elements to incredible precision, allowing us to do pinpoint maneuvers like with Juno's insertion. For "first" missions like New Horizons arriving at Pluto, the spacecraft has to make its own observations in transit, relay them back to Earth, where more accurate calculations of the orbital elements are made, and the spacecraft is commanded to make course corrections while on the way in light of these more accurate calculations for Pluto's position.
The copycat hijackings section of the main wiki article lists 5 people who also hijacked the plane and used this stairway to escape (4 727s, 1 DC-9). So yeah, I can see why the FAA required the Cooper vane be added.
Just to back this up, that's what the Supreme Court decided in Kyllo v. United States. That just because new technology allows the government to peer into your home without physical access in ways which we couldn't have imagined before, that doesn't mean they're suddenly allowed to use these technologies to look inside your home without a warrant.
It's also worth pointing out that that decision didn't split along liberal / conservative lines. It split along liberterian / statist lines. I suspect if the same case were brought up today, it would go the other way. Not that I think the American people have shifted, but that a lot of the new justices are "strong government" types.
Why should YouTube have to pay the writers? I used to manage a restaurant and we'd play recorded music for the guests and occasionally had live bands. We'd pay the requisite fees to the copyright holders. They own the copyright on the actual sound recording, we use the actual sound recording, we pay them.
If the writers hold a copyright on the lyrics to the song, the place for them to negotiate is with BMI, ASCAP, SESAC before the sound recording is allowed to be distributed. After all, it's using their copyright, it can't be distributed unless they agree to license their copyright. My restaurant and YouTube have nothing to do with that, just like when I buy a Dell laptop, I don't have to pay Samsung a licensing fee for patents they hold on the memory and NAND, LG for patents they have on the LCD, Intel for patents they have on the CPU, etc. Dell does all that so the end-user (whether an individual or a corporation) pays a single price for "everything" in the laptop.
If the writers don't like how much money they're getting per YouTube play, they need to negotiate better terms with BMI, ASCAP, SESAC. YouTube and my restaurant have nothing to do with this - we're licensing the final sound recording from these associations under terms which the writers agreed to with these associations to use their copyright. If the writers don't like those terms, they need to renegotiate it with these associations. Not drag YouTube into it.
For live bands, we paid a cover to a different organization (don't remember which) since for live performances the copyright for the music and lyrics was at play, not the copyright for the sound recording. Most of the bands actually pay this themselves, but as the venue you also have to pay it to CYA in case you unknowingly hire a band which hasn't paid. So the composers and writers are actually getting double-paid in most cases here.
I was helping troubleshoot the tablets my sister had bought for her kids, and noticed that you could access her gmail and text messages from all of them. I asked why she was logged into her Google account on her kids tablets, and she said it was the only way to let the kids use the apps and movies that she'd bought with the account back in the day when all their family had was one Android phone which they gave to keep the (at the time) one kid occupied during car rides.
It's a huge security hole that's needed to be plugged for a while now. If a kid loses their tablet, whoever finds it potentially has access to all your Google stuff.
The fact that they only got one piece of major legislation through is to me testament to the fact that they were taking their time to do things right instead of pushing through more pre-written, unread garbage.
It took them so long to pass Obamacare because the legislation was so far left that even the moderate members of their own party wouldn't vote for it, and they spent weeks negotiating and offering concessions to each one of those members to assure they'd have the votes to pass it. If the Republicans had passed legislation in a similar fashion, the Left would be screaming about how corrupt and an affront to democracy the whole process was.
To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring several Republican senators aboard; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. Negotiations continued even after July 7 â" when Franken was sworn into office, and by which time Specter had switched parties â" due to disagreements over the substance of the bill, which was still being drafted in committee, and because moderate Democrats hoped to win bipartisan support. Then, on August 25, before the bill could come up for a vote, Ted Kennedyâ"a longtime healthcare reform advocateâ"died, depriving Democrats of their 60th vote.
Hint: if the hash of the data before and after it is sent remains the same then that satisfies one of the requirements to being forensically sound
If the data is sent as cleartext, it becomes much, much easier for an attacker to alter the cleartext into a different form which contains a plausible message yet generates the same hash. There's an entire branch of cryptography dedicated to these types of attacks.
If it's transmitted while encrypted, the attacker (assuming he can't break the encryption) has no way to verify that his altered ciphertext which generates the same hash still decrypts into a cleartext message which makes any sense in the context of the original cleartext, much less has been altered to his liking.
While it's not required that this sort of data be encrypted before transmission, it is prudent to do so whenever possible. It drops the chances that the data has been forensically compromised from very small to vanishingly small (it is easier for the attacker to break your encryption).
Either it is collusion, or they have a legitimate gripe that the government is ignoring. Unlike most of the comments here, I tend towards the latter. Telecom in most of the EU isn't like in the U.S. They have lots of competition. If a few companies tried to withhold 5G service just to try to get concessions from the government, all that would happen is they'd lose market share to competitors who are willing to implement 5G without the concessions. So the fact that so many major telecom companies there are willing to take that risk tells me they probably have a legitimate gripe.
As I've pointed out before, net neutrality is not some perfect ideal. it's just a band-aid to try to cover up problems caused by other regulation. It wouldn't be necessary if there was unfettered competition in this particular market - any company which tried to throttle Netflix to force Netflix to pay them extra would simply lose customers to companies which didn't throttle Netflix. And like all band-aids, it has drawbacks as well.
Well, if lightning or bathtub drownings compounded as they became more common, then yeah you'd be right. Diseases are different from those causes of death in that animals transmit it to each other, so a small increase in transmission rate translates into a large increase in number of cases. Rabies is rare in the U.S. because we've worked extensively to control it. Dog vaccinations are mandatory, and we set up baits with vaccines to vaccinate wild raccoons, foxes, and skunks. That's why most of the transmission in the U.S. is via bats - the baits don't work on them. In Asia and Africa which don't have these extensive rabies control programs, it kills about 25,000 people per year. (Most of the transmission there is via dogs, but the dogs are getting it from other animals.)
It's like immunization programs for children - where a successful vaccination program can almost complete eliminate the disease. But if the vaccination rate drops below a certain threshold (or in this case, you increase the number of un-vaccinated organisms causing a drop in the percentage which are vaccinated), you start to get outbreaks of the disease again.
Just to reiterate this, here are the U.S. rabies cases in people from 2003-2013. Although human rabies has nearly been eliminated in the U.S., you can see that more than half the cases were transmitted by bats, more than 2/3 if you only look at cases where the exposure happened within the U.S.
I think bats are much-maligned too, but rabies is something you just do not screw around with (nearly 100% fatality rate - even our best treatment only has a 8% success rate).
That's actually a good analogy, but missing some nuances. You allowed your photo to be used for free by a select group and raised objections when you found it being used outside that group. Sun gave away Java to be used for free by anyone, and Oracle (as inheritors of the copyright) raised objections when it was being used later in time. Not only that, but they wanted to be paid retroactively for its use during the time Sun was allowing everyone to use it for free.
So to fit your analogy, the story would be that back in 1996 you took a nice photo of an oil refinery. You put it on the Creative Commons and told everyone they could use it for free, which they did. 15 years later you quit photography and sold all your copyrights to Oracle. Oracle then proceeds to sue everyone using your oil refinery photo and demands payment for copyright violations dating back to 1996 when you still owned the copyright and had been giving it away for free.
I can see an argument that Oracle, as the copyright holder, can force people to stop using the photo now in the present, beginning the moment after they announce they're exercising their copyright and the photo will no longer be free to use. But in no way can I see an argument that they can collect copyright fees or sue for copyright violation during the time before that announcement.
Likewise, pre-existing copies do not suddenly become illegal and have to be re-licensed just because you the copyright holder have changed your mind. If you told the refinery you changed your mind and will now be charging $10 to reproduce the photo, that does not mean they have to pay you $10 for each copy of the photo they ever made in the past. It just means they have to pay you for new copies they decide to make starting now. I got a copy of Lord of the Rings for free during a promotion. If the studio later decides to sell it for $25, I do not owe them $25 or my copy becomes illegal. My copy is legal and still remains legal today even though I haven't paid anything - because it complied with the terms of the copyright at the time I acquired it. Even if Oracle had won the case, Google does not have to pay them for that old Android phone running Gingerbread that's still being used.
And anyway, this was all made moot by the fair use argument. In essence, Sun/Oracle holds a copyright on a mold (API). Google's use of that API is an implementation of the inverse of that mold (calling the API). And using that inverse is fair use even though it duplicates the original mold in some ways. I don't see this appeal going very far either. Some forms of fair use hinge on the use being non-commercial. But the vast majority (parody, news, clips, thumbnails, etc) have no such restriction.
The petition in question was about confirming the electorate's wishes if the vote was close. Rather like one of those "are you really sure" questions you get before doing something potentially dangerous (like reformatting a hard disk).
In this case, I think there are good grounds for the government to confirm the electorate's wishes, given the closeness of the vote and the enormity of the decision.
It's worth pointing out that unless you believe in ex post facto legislation (passing laws which apply to acts which occurred before the law was ever a law), the consequence of approving this petition would be that a vote to overturn the referendum and remain in the EU would need to win by a 60% margin with 75% of the electorate participating. In other words, it would not invalidate the already-counted vote to Leave. The Remain side would need to get at least 60% in a new vote, while simultaneously convincing roughly half of the people wishing to leave to even bother to vote (so they could get over 75% participation) to invalidate the previous referendum. You cannot move the goalposts after the fact, then claim previous goals are invalidated based on the new goalpost position.
As has been pointed out, the petition was initially a last ditch spoiler backup plan in case the Leave side lost, and wasn't a very well thought-out one at that. It actually makes it harder for the loser to reverse a referendum (25% of the population on the winning side simply has to refuse to participate in the re-vote), than a straight-up majority-wins vote at a later time. And it's worded poorly enough that you'd have to constantly run referendums if the 60% and 75% thresholds were not surpassed.
I'm not sure this is a good thing. Every advancement seemed to have moved the needle to this direction. While everyone was able to run CPU miners is was very democratic. Then GPUs came, but still people could drop in a few hundred, and continue. After FGPA, and the ASICs, it's not just very large firms, where smaller people can only "rent" nodes, and hope they can trust the infrastructure.
Which causes deflation (need less of the currency to buy the same thing - in other words the currency's value goes up). Which is the whole reason countries moved off the gold standard. The rate at which new gold was being mined was not keeping pace with the rate at which the economy was expanding (population and productivity increases), causing deflation, which destabilized the economy (you could "make" more money by stuffing it under a mattress, than by using it to do something economically productive).
We might need a "reset", where ASIC is no longer viable, but I'm not sure that would still be possible.
Which is exactly what governments do with a fiat currency - adjust the availability of the currency to stabilize and moderate its value, to maintain a slight inflation rate.
And we've come full circle. The folks who rejected fiat currencies and advocated bitcoin have learned the lesson governments learned with gold eighty years ago, and are advocating changes to make it behave more like a fiat currency.
(This is unlike SSL/TLS/HTTPS where clients usually automatically verify the ID of the server, and servers often automatically verify the ID of the client.)
SSL et al don't verify the ID of the server/client. They ask a certificate authority (CA) to verify those IDs. That's why those protocols are vulnerable to MitM attack due to a bad or compromised certificate authority (which for example is exactly what Lenovo did - inserting their own CA into the list of trusted CAs).
You can think of CAs as a repository of public keys in the public/private key system. They link a claimed identity to a public key. You want to connect to the citibank.com website, you ask a CA what their website's public key is, the CA tells you, and use it to encrypt your traffic to the bank. But if you happen to accidentally type cifibank.com as the URL, and you have a compromised CA in your trusted list who gives you the public key for that bad website, that website can see everything you think you're sending to the real bank, and forward everything you're sending to the real citibank.com website and forward the response back to you to keep up the charade, while they're eavesdropping in on everything.
If you have some other way to validate the public key of the individual you are messaging with, doing so without a CA is actually more secure. It just can't be done automagically - the end user has to do the work of validating it him or herself. (Although the whole thing remains dodgy as long as we're storing our private keys on the communication device itself, which could be hacked over the network and the private key copied. Ideally the private key would be stored in a separate self-contained processor. The device would send ciphertext to this processor, which would do the decrypting and return plaintext. Vice versa for encryption.)
tl;dr - They're both vulnerable, just in different ways. CAs are more convenient for random encounters where you have no other secure means to communicate with a person, directly verified keys are more secure when you also have another secure channel with the person you are communicating with - like a one-time face to face meeting.
Um, most companies which fire you without notice will pay you a severance package of several weeks or months worth of pay. This is equivalent to giving you several weeks or months notice, except they don't require you to work those weeks or month. So the company is actually more considerate to your well-being than an employee who quits with notice is to the company (they'd have to work without pay during the notice period for the situation to be equivalent).
I suppose people who quit without notice could be required to pay the company the equivalent of their salary for as many weeks or months as the severance package they would've received had the situation be reversed.
Let me put it this way since this has become so heavily politicized people are having trouble thinking about it objectively.
Say you had your bank account login details, passwords, and credit cards stored on a password service like LastPass which is supposed to store it securely, and you later learned they weren't securing it at all and in fact were storing all your sensitive info in cleartext. Would you be satisfied and let the company off the hook if they claimed "but it's ok - no harm was done since we weren't hacked"?
The problem isn't whether or not that info was hacked. The problem is that sensitive info which was supposed to be handled securely was not. The only difference actually being hacked makes is a hypothetical outcome vs a real outcome, and is largely irrelevant. It just means you got lucky and dodged a bullet; it does not validate or excuse how that info was mishandled. This is like a 5-year old who runs across a busy street instead of waiting with you for the light to change, and when you berate him for not staying by your side and waiting until it was safe says, "but I made it across OK" as if that somehow justifies his behavior.
Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.
I was pulled over one night for speeding, and happened to have my camera tripod on the passenger seat. The officer asked what it was, and I made the mistake of reaching over to grab it so he could get a better view. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw the officer reach for his gun. They are extremely jumpy about any sudden movements with your hands. Leave your hands in sight at all times, like on the steering wheel.
As for Facebook, what probably happened is when you upload a video it gets put onto a single server that happens to host your FB wall. If the video goes viral, it needs to be moved to a higher capacity server or server farm, to better handle the load.
They did that with older CF flash cards (x32, x144, etc - same as CD speeds) and it left people asking "how many MB/s is that?"
They did that again with SD cards with "class 2, class 4, class 6, class 10" and it again left people asking "how many MB/s is that?"
And they did it one more time with newer SD cards with "UHS-1, UHS-2, UHS-3" and it again left people asking "how many MB/s is that?"
At least with this announcement, it's trivial to do some math and figure out that the card can read at 500 MB/s max. (The reason they can't just label it in MB/s is because read/write speeds differ depending on the size of the file you're reading or writing. So a speed "class" is actually less deceptive than a MB/s label.)
Because we are emotional creatures, and exotic* things make a bigger impact on our judgement. (*English doesn't have a word for it like some other languages do, so I'm using the word exotic. It's the upsetting "that's just not right" or "this shouldn't be happening" feeling you get when you see something unusually discomforting or really unfair.)
It's why the press gives much more attention to certain types of stories - because our emotional reaction makes us unable to look away, like watching a train wreck. So plane crashes are more attention grabbing than car crashes. Death by radiation (most people don't realize they get irradiated all the time) gets more attention than death by drowning (we deal with water every day). Child abductions by strangers get disproportionate news coverage even though they're incredibly rare. Shootings at schools get unprecedented attention even though schools are statistically where your kids are least likely to be shot. (Which is another result of this emotion - we hold others caring for our children to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.)
Here's the thing. Petraeus was unfit to head the CIA not because he had an affair, but because he tried to keep it secret. Morality wasn't the issue. The fact that he wanted to keep the affair secret was. Since he was trying to keep it secret, someone who learned about it could've potentially used the info to blackmail him. That immediately disqualifies him from a sensitive post with access to classified information. That's why they ask you all sorts of seemingly discriminatory questions when you're getting a security clearance - like are you secretly gay, have you used drugs before, are you having an affair? They don't care if you're gay, have used drugs, or are sleeping around. But if you're keeping it secret, they do care that someone could use one of these things to blackmail you into compromising national security.
Clinton should've just turned over everything - private emails and all. The fact that she even requested to keep personal emails private means there's something potentially damaging or embarrassing in those personal emails. Something a hacker who gained access to her server or a foreign state which received copies of her emails could use to blackmail her in the future, like when she is President of the U.S.. She admits she screwed up, but owning up to the screwup means turning over all the emails sent through that server. Failing to do that and brushing it under the carpet doesn't make the problem go away, it creates the potential for an even bigger future political disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
You make it sound like Reagan was duplicitous from the beginning. He started out hardass on terrorism. Do you know what caused him to secretly reneg on his "no negotiating with terrorists" pledge?
He met with the parents of one of the hostages and listened to their sob story. That's right. He developed a bleeding heart.
I'll join the chorus of voices saying it was incredibly stupid to use an online service as your only copy of your materials, with no local backup. But what's done is done. If the Wayback Machine doesn't have a copy, try installing the Resurrect Pages add-on to Firefox. It links to a lot more caching and archiving services than just the Wayback Machine.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/resurrect-pages/
That's data Tesla should have, since they get driving statistics from their cars. They should be able to easily calculate the accident rate for their cars under similar driving conditions with and without Autopilot on.
JPEG2000 suffered from the same problem JPEG initially did - it was slow. I remember downloading the first sample JPEG images in the early 1990s. An 800x600 image took about 20 seconds to decode on my PC back then. JPEG2000 had a similar problem, though it was asymmetric. Over 1 min to encode a 3504x2336 image from my DSLR, about 5-15 seconds to decode.
JPEG didn't have any competitors, and the growth of the Internet and Web made smaller-size picture files very important in the coming years Couple that with the rapid development of digital cameras in the late 1990s, and the use of photos on the web exploded. So as computers became faster, the decode time approached zero and JPEG eventually became the standard.
JPEG2000 faced rapidly increasing network speeds, decreasing storage costs, and a large growth in digital video. So even though computer became faster, it didn't really matter since it took less time to transmit the larger image file over the now-faster network than it took to decompress a JPEG2000 image on the now-faster computer. You could easily buy a bigger HDD to compensate for the larger size of other image formats, and you did so anyway to store all the videos you were recording.
This is largely the reason JPEG has hung on despite being over 20 years old (even MPEG2 was displaced by MPEG4 and now by h.264/h.265). Compared to modern storage capacities and network speeds, JPEGs are small enough that making it 22% smaller just doesn't matter. Unless you're a massive storage company dealing with billions of JPEG files.
Although Summary makes it sound like this is entirely a 5G thing, the unlicensed 64-71 GHz band suffers from high attenuation due to rain and oxygen, and aren't useful for distances more than about 1 mile. So this spectrum is clearly aimed at higher speed wifi (multi-gigabit).
tl;dr version is that any orbit (of a planet, comet, satellite, etc) can be defined by just 6 numbers, called orbital elements. (The lack of friction in space helps tremendously.)
From there, it becomes simple multi-variable algebra. You take 3 photos of the target object at known time intervals. You measure the x and y position of the object (relative to the background) in each of those photos. If your photo platform is moving (i.e. taking photos from the spacecraft, or if the time interval is large enough for the Earth to have moved), you need to compensate for that, but essentially you're boiling down the measurement of the object in each photo into 2 numbers - an x and y coordinate against the background.
You now have 6 unknown variables, and 6 measurements you can plug into six very complex equations. Do the algebra, and you can calculate the orbital elements, which allow you to predict the target object's location at any point in time.
The other major complication is that the precision of your measurements affect the margin of error in your calculations. So observations from Earth are good enough to get you into the right neighborhood. But for precise maneuvers and orbital insertions, you need more accurate measurements. For Jupiter these come from observations made by Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, and the HST (as well as observations made during flybys by Cassini and New Horizons). Those past missions let us calculate Jupiter's orbital elements to incredible precision, allowing us to do pinpoint maneuvers like with Juno's insertion. For "first" missions like New Horizons arriving at Pluto, the spacecraft has to make its own observations in transit, relay them back to Earth, where more accurate calculations of the orbital elements are made, and the spacecraft is commanded to make course corrections while on the way in light of these more accurate calculations for Pluto's position.
The copycat hijackings section of the main wiki article lists 5 people who also hijacked the plane and used this stairway to escape (4 727s, 1 DC-9). So yeah, I can see why the FAA required the Cooper vane be added.
Just to back this up, that's what the Supreme Court decided in Kyllo v. United States. That just because new technology allows the government to peer into your home without physical access in ways which we couldn't have imagined before, that doesn't mean they're suddenly allowed to use these technologies to look inside your home without a warrant.
It's also worth pointing out that that decision didn't split along liberal / conservative lines. It split along liberterian / statist lines. I suspect if the same case were brought up today, it would go the other way. Not that I think the American people have shifted, but that a lot of the new justices are "strong government" types.
Why should YouTube have to pay the writers? I used to manage a restaurant and we'd play recorded music for the guests and occasionally had live bands. We'd pay the requisite fees to the copyright holders. They own the copyright on the actual sound recording, we use the actual sound recording, we pay them.
If the writers hold a copyright on the lyrics to the song, the place for them to negotiate is with BMI, ASCAP, SESAC before the sound recording is allowed to be distributed. After all, it's using their copyright, it can't be distributed unless they agree to license their copyright. My restaurant and YouTube have nothing to do with that, just like when I buy a Dell laptop, I don't have to pay Samsung a licensing fee for patents they hold on the memory and NAND, LG for patents they have on the LCD, Intel for patents they have on the CPU, etc. Dell does all that so the end-user (whether an individual or a corporation) pays a single price for "everything" in the laptop.
If the writers don't like how much money they're getting per YouTube play, they need to negotiate better terms with BMI, ASCAP, SESAC. YouTube and my restaurant have nothing to do with this - we're licensing the final sound recording from these associations under terms which the writers agreed to with these associations to use their copyright. If the writers don't like those terms, they need to renegotiate it with these associations. Not drag YouTube into it.
For live bands, we paid a cover to a different organization (don't remember which) since for live performances the copyright for the music and lyrics was at play, not the copyright for the sound recording. Most of the bands actually pay this themselves, but as the venue you also have to pay it to CYA in case you unknowingly hire a band which hasn't paid. So the composers and writers are actually getting double-paid in most cases here.
I was helping troubleshoot the tablets my sister had bought for her kids, and noticed that you could access her gmail and text messages from all of them. I asked why she was logged into her Google account on her kids tablets, and she said it was the only way to let the kids use the apps and movies that she'd bought with the account back in the day when all their family had was one Android phone which they gave to keep the (at the time) one kid occupied during car rides.
It's a huge security hole that's needed to be plugged for a while now. If a kid loses their tablet, whoever finds it potentially has access to all your Google stuff.
It took them so long to pass Obamacare because the legislation was so far left that even the moderate members of their own party wouldn't vote for it, and they spent weeks negotiating and offering concessions to each one of those members to assure they'd have the votes to pass it. If the Republicans had passed legislation in a similar fashion, the Left would be screaming about how corrupt and an affront to democracy the whole process was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Senate
If the data is sent as cleartext, it becomes much, much easier for an attacker to alter the cleartext into a different form which contains a plausible message yet generates the same hash. There's an entire branch of cryptography dedicated to these types of attacks.
If it's transmitted while encrypted, the attacker (assuming he can't break the encryption) has no way to verify that his altered ciphertext which generates the same hash still decrypts into a cleartext message which makes any sense in the context of the original cleartext, much less has been altered to his liking.
While it's not required that this sort of data be encrypted before transmission, it is prudent to do so whenever possible. It drops the chances that the data has been forensically compromised from very small to vanishingly small (it is easier for the attacker to break your encryption).
Either it is collusion, or they have a legitimate gripe that the government is ignoring. Unlike most of the comments here, I tend towards the latter. Telecom in most of the EU isn't like in the U.S. They have lots of competition. If a few companies tried to withhold 5G service just to try to get concessions from the government, all that would happen is they'd lose market share to competitors who are willing to implement 5G without the concessions. So the fact that so many major telecom companies there are willing to take that risk tells me they probably have a legitimate gripe.
As I've pointed out before, net neutrality is not some perfect ideal. it's just a band-aid to try to cover up problems caused by other regulation. It wouldn't be necessary if there was unfettered competition in this particular market - any company which tried to throttle Netflix to force Netflix to pay them extra would simply lose customers to companies which didn't throttle Netflix. And like all band-aids, it has drawbacks as well.
Well, if lightning or bathtub drownings compounded as they became more common, then yeah you'd be right. Diseases are different from those causes of death in that animals transmit it to each other, so a small increase in transmission rate translates into a large increase in number of cases. Rabies is rare in the U.S. because we've worked extensively to control it. Dog vaccinations are mandatory, and we set up baits with vaccines to vaccinate wild raccoons, foxes, and skunks. That's why most of the transmission in the U.S. is via bats - the baits don't work on them. In Asia and Africa which don't have these extensive rabies control programs, it kills about 25,000 people per year. (Most of the transmission there is via dogs, but the dogs are getting it from other animals.)
It's like immunization programs for children - where a successful vaccination program can almost complete eliminate the disease. But if the vaccination rate drops below a certain threshold (or in this case, you increase the number of un-vaccinated organisms causing a drop in the percentage which are vaccinated), you start to get outbreaks of the disease again.
Just to reiterate this, here are the U.S. rabies cases in people from 2003-2013. Although human rabies has nearly been eliminated in the U.S., you can see that more than half the cases were transmitted by bats, more than 2/3 if you only look at cases where the exposure happened within the U.S.
I think bats are much-maligned too, but rabies is something you just do not screw around with (nearly 100% fatality rate - even our best treatment only has a 8% success rate).
That's actually a good analogy, but missing some nuances. You allowed your photo to be used for free by a select group and raised objections when you found it being used outside that group. Sun gave away Java to be used for free by anyone, and Oracle (as inheritors of the copyright) raised objections when it was being used later in time. Not only that, but they wanted to be paid retroactively for its use during the time Sun was allowing everyone to use it for free.
So to fit your analogy, the story would be that back in 1996 you took a nice photo of an oil refinery. You put it on the Creative Commons and told everyone they could use it for free, which they did. 15 years later you quit photography and sold all your copyrights to Oracle. Oracle then proceeds to sue everyone using your oil refinery photo and demands payment for copyright violations dating back to 1996 when you still owned the copyright and had been giving it away for free.
I can see an argument that Oracle, as the copyright holder, can force people to stop using the photo now in the present, beginning the moment after they announce they're exercising their copyright and the photo will no longer be free to use. But in no way can I see an argument that they can collect copyright fees or sue for copyright violation during the time before that announcement.
Likewise, pre-existing copies do not suddenly become illegal and have to be re-licensed just because you the copyright holder have changed your mind. If you told the refinery you changed your mind and will now be charging $10 to reproduce the photo, that does not mean they have to pay you $10 for each copy of the photo they ever made in the past. It just means they have to pay you for new copies they decide to make starting now. I got a copy of Lord of the Rings for free during a promotion. If the studio later decides to sell it for $25, I do not owe them $25 or my copy becomes illegal. My copy is legal and still remains legal today even though I haven't paid anything - because it complied with the terms of the copyright at the time I acquired it. Even if Oracle had won the case, Google does not have to pay them for that old Android phone running Gingerbread that's still being used.
And anyway, this was all made moot by the fair use argument. In essence, Sun/Oracle holds a copyright on a mold (API). Google's use of that API is an implementation of the inverse of that mold (calling the API). And using that inverse is fair use even though it duplicates the original mold in some ways. I don't see this appeal going very far either. Some forms of fair use hinge on the use being non-commercial. But the vast majority (parody, news, clips, thumbnails, etc) have no such restriction.
It's worth pointing out that unless you believe in ex post facto legislation (passing laws which apply to acts which occurred before the law was ever a law), the consequence of approving this petition would be that a vote to overturn the referendum and remain in the EU would need to win by a 60% margin with 75% of the electorate participating. In other words, it would not invalidate the already-counted vote to Leave. The Remain side would need to get at least 60% in a new vote, while simultaneously convincing roughly half of the people wishing to leave to even bother to vote (so they could get over 75% participation) to invalidate the previous referendum. You cannot move the goalposts after the fact, then claim previous goals are invalidated based on the new goalpost position.
As has been pointed out, the petition was initially a last ditch spoiler backup plan in case the Leave side lost, and wasn't a very well thought-out one at that. It actually makes it harder for the loser to reverse a referendum (25% of the population on the winning side simply has to refuse to participate in the re-vote), than a straight-up majority-wins vote at a later time. And it's worded poorly enough that you'd have to constantly run referendums if the 60% and 75% thresholds were not surpassed.
Which causes deflation (need less of the currency to buy the same thing - in other words the currency's value goes up). Which is the whole reason countries moved off the gold standard. The rate at which new gold was being mined was not keeping pace with the rate at which the economy was expanding (population and productivity increases), causing deflation, which destabilized the economy (you could "make" more money by stuffing it under a mattress, than by using it to do something economically productive).
Which is exactly what governments do with a fiat currency - adjust the availability of the currency to stabilize and moderate its value, to maintain a slight inflation rate.
And we've come full circle. The folks who rejected fiat currencies and advocated bitcoin have learned the lesson governments learned with gold eighty years ago, and are advocating changes to make it behave more like a fiat currency.
SSL et al don't verify the ID of the server/client. They ask a certificate authority (CA) to verify those IDs. That's why those protocols are vulnerable to MitM attack due to a bad or compromised certificate authority (which for example is exactly what Lenovo did - inserting their own CA into the list of trusted CAs).
You can think of CAs as a repository of public keys in the public/private key system. They link a claimed identity to a public key. You want to connect to the citibank.com website, you ask a CA what their website's public key is, the CA tells you, and use it to encrypt your traffic to the bank. But if you happen to accidentally type cifibank.com as the URL, and you have a compromised CA in your trusted list who gives you the public key for that bad website, that website can see everything you think you're sending to the real bank, and forward everything you're sending to the real citibank.com website and forward the response back to you to keep up the charade, while they're eavesdropping in on everything.
If you have some other way to validate the public key of the individual you are messaging with, doing so without a CA is actually more secure. It just can't be done automagically - the end user has to do the work of validating it him or herself. (Although the whole thing remains dodgy as long as we're storing our private keys on the communication device itself, which could be hacked over the network and the private key copied. Ideally the private key would be stored in a separate self-contained processor. The device would send ciphertext to this processor, which would do the decrypting and return plaintext. Vice versa for encryption.)
tl;dr - They're both vulnerable, just in different ways. CAs are more convenient for random encounters where you have no other secure means to communicate with a person, directly verified keys are more secure when you also have another secure channel with the person you are communicating with - like a one-time face to face meeting.
Um, most companies which fire you without notice will pay you a severance package of several weeks or months worth of pay. This is equivalent to giving you several weeks or months notice, except they don't require you to work those weeks or month. So the company is actually more considerate to your well-being than an employee who quits with notice is to the company (they'd have to work without pay during the notice period for the situation to be equivalent).
I suppose people who quit without notice could be required to pay the company the equivalent of their salary for as many weeks or months as the severance package they would've received had the situation be reversed.
Let me put it this way since this has become so heavily politicized people are having trouble thinking about it objectively.
Say you had your bank account login details, passwords, and credit cards stored on a password service like LastPass which is supposed to store it securely, and you later learned they weren't securing it at all and in fact were storing all your sensitive info in cleartext. Would you be satisfied and let the company off the hook if they claimed "but it's ok - no harm was done since we weren't hacked"?
The problem isn't whether or not that info was hacked. The problem is that sensitive info which was supposed to be handled securely was not. The only difference actually being hacked makes is a hypothetical outcome vs a real outcome, and is largely irrelevant. It just means you got lucky and dodged a bullet; it does not validate or excuse how that info was mishandled. This is like a 5-year old who runs across a busy street instead of waiting with you for the light to change, and when you berate him for not staying by your side and waiting until it was safe says, "but I made it across OK" as if that somehow justifies his behavior.
Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.
I was pulled over one night for speeding, and happened to have my camera tripod on the passenger seat. The officer asked what it was, and I made the mistake of reaching over to grab it so he could get a better view. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw the officer reach for his gun. They are extremely jumpy about any sudden movements with your hands. Leave your hands in sight at all times, like on the steering wheel.
As for Facebook, what probably happened is when you upload a video it gets put onto a single server that happens to host your FB wall. If the video goes viral, it needs to be moved to a higher capacity server or server farm, to better handle the load.
They did that with older CF flash cards (x32, x144, etc - same as CD speeds) and it left people asking "how many MB/s is that?"
They did that again with SD cards with "class 2, class 4, class 6, class 10" and it again left people asking "how many MB/s is that?"
And they did it one more time with newer SD cards with "UHS-1, UHS-2, UHS-3" and it again left people asking "how many MB/s is that?"
At least with this announcement, it's trivial to do some math and figure out that the card can read at 500 MB/s max. (The reason they can't just label it in MB/s is because read/write speeds differ depending on the size of the file you're reading or writing. So a speed "class" is actually less deceptive than a MB/s label.)
Because we are emotional creatures, and exotic* things make a bigger impact on our judgement. (*English doesn't have a word for it like some other languages do, so I'm using the word exotic. It's the upsetting "that's just not right" or "this shouldn't be happening" feeling you get when you see something unusually discomforting or really unfair.)
It's why the press gives much more attention to certain types of stories - because our emotional reaction makes us unable to look away, like watching a train wreck. So plane crashes are more attention grabbing than car crashes. Death by radiation (most people don't realize they get irradiated all the time) gets more attention than death by drowning (we deal with water every day). Child abductions by strangers get disproportionate news coverage even though they're incredibly rare. Shootings at schools get unprecedented attention even though schools are statistically where your kids are least likely to be shot. (Which is another result of this emotion - we hold others caring for our children to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.)
Here's the thing. Petraeus was unfit to head the CIA not because he had an affair, but because he tried to keep it secret. Morality wasn't the issue. The fact that he wanted to keep the affair secret was. Since he was trying to keep it secret, someone who learned about it could've potentially used the info to blackmail him. That immediately disqualifies him from a sensitive post with access to classified information. That's why they ask you all sorts of seemingly discriminatory questions when you're getting a security clearance - like are you secretly gay, have you used drugs before, are you having an affair? They don't care if you're gay, have used drugs, or are sleeping around. But if you're keeping it secret, they do care that someone could use one of these things to blackmail you into compromising national security.
Clinton should've just turned over everything - private emails and all. The fact that she even requested to keep personal emails private means there's something potentially damaging or embarrassing in those personal emails. Something a hacker who gained access to her server or a foreign state which received copies of her emails could use to blackmail her in the future, like when she is President of the U.S.. She admits she screwed up, but owning up to the screwup means turning over all the emails sent through that server. Failing to do that and brushing it under the carpet doesn't make the problem go away, it creates the potential for an even bigger future political disaster.