I hadn't heard the piled-on-a-blanket approach before.
I got robbed. They stole one (and only one) set of curtains. They were pulled down, not taken down gently. This indicated to me that the curtains were pulled down to make a carrying case. Things were thrown in, and they ran off with the "bag" full. They took their time. They went back for at least 3 trips. I suspect the neighbors.
In Europe and Australia burglars are more likely to enter occupied dwellings than they are in the US because they know self defense is illegal there and they can have fun with the cowardly homeowners.
Self defense in Australia is not illegal. In the US, executing someone for scaring you is legal almost everywhere. That low standard may not be the same elsewhere, but that's most certainly not "self defense is illegal".
The sticker is free exercise of speech - it's not an admission of guilt any more than 420 stickers are.
That begs the question. You seem to be assuming that a 420 sticker won't get more attention than someone without. No, it will get you pulled over, in the absence of other fun things to do for the cop. So, with your logic, one with a gun sticker should expect to get pulled over without cause. And yes, that is the case.
It's not another $150, it's another $150 per device, some of which may be less than $150.
Engraving a code on all the devices is something that was recommended back in the '80s. I don't know if it's done anymore, but if the items get sold to pawn shops and such, they can be identified and returned.
The problem with less sensitive is that they are less sensitive. Ours are about as sensitive as physically possible. It doesn't take much for a rod to fire. So what happens when you have less sensitive ones? To they fire exactly 1/10th of the time for the same amount of light? Do they increment their hit counter once every 5-20 photons, with a random sensitivity variation that could result in new and unexpected artifacts? Does the greater covering (by wiring) around the dense areas work well with density of receptors?
And what about the effect of the wiring on the inside blocks light, but on the outside blocks blood? You'd end up with restricted blood flow to the receptors if you reversed the location of the sensor wiring.
I think I come back to the idea of the blind spot being around the edges, outside the visual field. But I haven't got funding to reengineer the human genome and perform my experiments on the Island of Dr Moreau.
The biggest problem I find with outsourcing is that the answers are predictable, even without knowing much about the problem. That indicates to me that the consultants don't know what they are doing. And yes, I've been on both sides, and I've not seen anything on either side to change my mind.
Call a mongoose salesman and tell him that you have a snake problem in your garden. I'm sure he'll recommend a number of traps, poisons, and fencing options that will optimally solve your problem. Or he'll just try to sell you some mongooses.
That's what consultants do. Calling someone who provides outsourcing and asking them if you should outsource will get the same answer every time.
That simply isn't how modern operating systems work.
Creating virtual memory and swap doesn't change the fact that it gets loaded into "memory" it just lets pedants argue about whether virtualized RAM, stored on a disk is "memory" which is a completely different and unrelated argument to whether modern programs on a modern OS generally "load" all of a file opened, rather than bits and pieces at a time.
I've had a microwave where that would get you 3-4 tbsp (about 1/4 to 1/2 the bag) unpopped, and the popped parts black, charred and inedible. For my current microwave, that works.
If someone claiming to be a networking expert said he was an expert in TPC/IPX (in a context obviously meaning TCP/IP), you wouldn't take that as a good sign. Someone that can't spell something he's an "expert" in doesn't seem like much of an expert. Especially when the rest of what he's saying is no more accurate. But it drifts into "opinion" territory where I know he's wrong, but it's harder to prove, as it's closer to a personal opinion of how a federal judge would rule, should those points get litigated in court.
Why the heck do you think a cloud provider would indemnify you for your risks involved with using that kind of product that the cloud provider has no control over; which no server vendor cloud virtual server vendor, or physical server vendor indemnifies against?
They wouldn't because they know their product sucks. Cisco indemnifies me against lawsuits caused by inherent use of their product (as a "user" of a patent, if Cisco's product is found to violate someone else's patent, I'm liable, unless there's some indemnification clause). So yes, I have indemnification for the hardware I use. That's an inherent liability for using an item I don't have control over, like sending sensitive data to the cloud. That you don't understand proves you incompetent. That the cloud providers don't indemnify against inherent risks of using their service proves they don't have faith in their own product. My hardware does. Your analogy fails. Quite horribly. It proves the opposite of what you assert.
Cephalopod eyes have no blind spot. Perhaps the fish that spend more time at the surface had different evolutionary pressure (more light).
The blind spot appears because the light sensible cells are built in reversely. Their connection to the brain leaves the cells from the outside, e.g. from the skin side of the cells. Thus this eye needs a place where the nerval connections cross the light sensible area again to get to the brain. This place, where the nerves crosses the retina is the blind spot. This is a general flaw in all vertebrate eyes.
Had the eye been intelligently designed, you could run them radially out, then around the back to the brain, rather than making a blind spot. Well, that and the issue of the light blocked by the connections running in front if the sensors, a problem the Cephalopod eyes don't have.
If an eye with no blind-spot somehow causes a person to be more likely to have offspring than a person with a blind-spotted eye then perhaps there would be selection pressure.
We don't know if the first human proto-eyes had a blind spot or not. It has been proposed that blind-spot gives better vision in direct sunlight, which is why the land dwellers have it, and the sea eyes (never in direct sunlight) don't have one. But you can't just invent sunglasses and get any evolutionary pressure for no blind spot.
Anyone human-like advanced enough to locate us and travel to us would be cyborg anyway. A brain cased in a robot 1000 times more advanced than us.
Or, Iron Giant style. All that'd be left of the foreign civilization is AI war machines.
The sci-fi going for "unlike human" almost always goes to insect (Starship Troopers, Aliens), but nearly all Sci-Fi stays human-like for the purposes of depicting it on TV/screen.
Finally, the U.N. passed the Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which was not signed by the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zeland; four countries that have, ahem, problems with their indigenous population.
New Zealand wouldn't have signed because they already signed a treaty with the indigenous people. Why sign two conflicting treaties? What problems does New Zealand have with the indigenous?
The USA would be hard to deal with in that manner. There were separate treaties and treatment for different groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... being the largest and one of the most recent. The UN resolution you linked to didn't indicate who signed it (being a resolution, is it "signed"?). It looks to be basic human rights, all of which are granted by every industrialized country except Russia and China (both who exterminate/relocate undesireable indigenous, whether Tibetans or Ukrainians in their way). Oz, NZ, USA, and Ca all grant more than the minimum outlined in that document. As it didn't indicate any reparations (that I saw in a skim of it), nothing you mention with the resolution indicated payment for inhabiting previously inhabited land. Oh, and the treaties didn't carve out sovereignity for the indigenous, but instead promised non-immigration to US lands covered in the treaty. If the USSR had re-drawn the Crimea to be Russian while the USSR included the Ukraine, would that have been such an issue? Because that's closer to what happened in the USA.
Yes, your proud country went back on its word twice and to this day, it refuses to honor the treaties it signed and were approved by Congress.
I am familiar with SOX, PCI, HIIPA, FISMA and other privacy requirements. It is my job.
Then you are an incompetent idiot. I even said HIPAA (properly spelled) in the post you referred to. HIPAA When you can spell it correctly, we might have considered you "familiar" with it. When you can't even spell it correctly in reply to a post that used it spelled correctly, I find it quite hard to believe anything else you say. You obviously rate your skills higher than you can demonstrate.
The only good thing is all the incompetent "experts" like yourself that got me piles of work implementing expensive and ineffective security measures recommended by outside consultants. Idiot "expert" consultants buoyed the tech bubble. More than once, I printed out the HIPAA law to show people that what was "recommended" was contrary to the law. But a written recommendation from a self-appointed "expert" was due diligence, so that's what they wanted.
Oh, and speak to a privacy expert because your "reading" of privacy law is incorrect.
Ah yes, asserting I'm wrong, without any specifics. Why not? Because you just want me to be wrong, but have no information that would indicate otherwise. Some privacy laws specify "no customer data" may be shared without explicit permission. That doesn't say "can't be shared in a usable manner" or anything like that. SOX and some of the other laws (like HIPAA and others) do specify it must not be usable, so you can upload encrypted files the cloud provider can't read. But those aren't the only secrecy laws out there.
Go on, prove me wrong. Oh wait, you (and your experts) can't, because I'm right.
If their controls are so effective, why didn't you link to one of the providers with an indemnity clause accepting legal responsibility for any breaches? Is that because nobody actually stands by their "certification" with a legal promise? Seems the "experts" at all those companies agree with me, not you. Is that the real reason you are so angry?
I've never "used" a mainframe. I used a terminal to remotely control a mainframe. I don't know where the cloud mainframe was, but I remotely controlled it. I've seen a cloud. It was a server. One was even an actual mainframe. IBM still sells "cloud" services on actual mainframes.
A cloud is a computer. You can run your home PC as a "cloud" (people that play WoW on their tablets through remotely controlling their computer are "cloud computing").
Mainframes were the original "cloud". A cloud is a computer (or group of computers). Yes, I know now people think that a cluster of computers, virtualized is somehow different than a mainframe. Denial doesn't make it true.
Hilariously, the laws are usually broken as well. "Customer data" must not be given to someone without authorization. But "encrypting" it doesn't remove that legal requirement. It may, for SOX, but not for other laws (SOX is more effect oriented, where you can't share something that would give a competitive advantage, and unbreakable encrypted information shouldn't affect that). So without written indemnity from a cloud provider, I wouldn't consider moving to one.
Also due diligence would be requesting to see their indemnity clause, protecting you in case their security is breached or other actions of being in "the cloud" caused some legal liability.
As I've not seen such a clause yet, no cloud provider has ever passed basic "due diligence". So anyone who brags about being on the cloud or selling the cloud is an idiot incapable of even the most basic due diligence.
And my reading of many cloud services break many privacy laws. The service provider can see/use the data too. Oops, SOX compliance out the window. Save one critical email to the cloud, and you are breaking the law. Customer data in the cloud? Privacy laws broken. Student or medical info in the cloud? More laws broken. Where are the SOX compliance statements from the cloud?
I've seen none that promise legal indemnity for any data stored on their cloud.
Until they offer that, I'll hug my server, rather than get fined or sent to prison (yeah, nobody goes to prison for something like that, but it's theoretically possible) .
Slashdot Mirror
I hadn't heard the piled-on-a-blanket approach before.
I got robbed. They stole one (and only one) set of curtains. They were pulled down, not taken down gently. This indicated to me that the curtains were pulled down to make a carrying case. Things were thrown in, and they ran off with the "bag" full. They took their time. They went back for at least 3 trips. I suspect the neighbors.
Would you consider him liable if someone stole his car and ran someone down?
If he left it running unlocked with the keys in it, then yes, the law would generally consider him liable.
In Europe and Australia burglars are more likely to enter occupied dwellings than they are in the US because they know self defense is illegal there and they can have fun with the cowardly homeowners.
Self defense in Australia is not illegal. In the US, executing someone for scaring you is legal almost everywhere. That low standard may not be the same elsewhere, but that's most certainly not "self defense is illegal".
The sticker is free exercise of speech - it's not an admission of guilt any more than 420 stickers are.
That begs the question. You seem to be assuming that a 420 sticker won't get more attention than someone without. No, it will get you pulled over, in the absence of other fun things to do for the cop. So, with your logic, one with a gun sticker should expect to get pulled over without cause. And yes, that is the case.
It's not another $150, it's another $150 per device, some of which may be less than $150.
Engraving a code on all the devices is something that was recommended back in the '80s. I don't know if it's done anymore, but if the items get sold to pawn shops and such, they can be identified and returned.
The problem with less sensitive is that they are less sensitive. Ours are about as sensitive as physically possible. It doesn't take much for a rod to fire. So what happens when you have less sensitive ones? To they fire exactly 1/10th of the time for the same amount of light? Do they increment their hit counter once every 5-20 photons, with a random sensitivity variation that could result in new and unexpected artifacts? Does the greater covering (by wiring) around the dense areas work well with density of receptors?
And what about the effect of the wiring on the inside blocks light, but on the outside blocks blood? You'd end up with restricted blood flow to the receptors if you reversed the location of the sensor wiring.
I think I come back to the idea of the blind spot being around the edges, outside the visual field. But I haven't got funding to reengineer the human genome and perform my experiments on the Island of Dr Moreau.
The biggest problem I find with outsourcing is that the answers are predictable, even without knowing much about the problem. That indicates to me that the consultants don't know what they are doing. And yes, I've been on both sides, and I've not seen anything on either side to change my mind.
Call a mongoose salesman and tell him that you have a snake problem in your garden. I'm sure he'll recommend a number of traps, poisons, and fencing options that will optimally solve your problem. Or he'll just try to sell you some mongooses.
That's what consultants do. Calling someone who provides outsourcing and asking them if you should outsource will get the same answer every time.
That simply isn't how modern operating systems work.
Creating virtual memory and swap doesn't change the fact that it gets loaded into "memory" it just lets pedants argue about whether virtualized RAM, stored on a disk is "memory" which is a completely different and unrelated argument to whether modern programs on a modern OS generally "load" all of a file opened, rather than bits and pieces at a time.
No, it is when the provider says it is and sells it as such.
I've had a microwave where that would get you 3-4 tbsp (about 1/4 to 1/2 the bag) unpopped, and the popped parts black, charred and inedible. For my current microwave, that works.
If someone claiming to be a networking expert said he was an expert in TPC/IPX (in a context obviously meaning TCP/IP), you wouldn't take that as a good sign. Someone that can't spell something he's an "expert" in doesn't seem like much of an expert. Especially when the rest of what he's saying is no more accurate. But it drifts into "opinion" territory where I know he's wrong, but it's harder to prove, as it's closer to a personal opinion of how a federal judge would rule, should those points get litigated in court.
Why the heck do you think a cloud provider would indemnify you for your risks involved with using that kind of product that the cloud provider has no control over; which no server vendor cloud virtual server vendor, or physical server vendor indemnifies against?
They wouldn't because they know their product sucks. Cisco indemnifies me against lawsuits caused by inherent use of their product (as a "user" of a patent, if Cisco's product is found to violate someone else's patent, I'm liable, unless there's some indemnification clause). So yes, I have indemnification for the hardware I use. That's an inherent liability for using an item I don't have control over, like sending sensitive data to the cloud. That you don't understand proves you incompetent. That the cloud providers don't indemnify against inherent risks of using their service proves they don't have faith in their own product. My hardware does. Your analogy fails. Quite horribly. It proves the opposite of what you assert.
The blind spot appears because the light sensible cells are built in reversely. Their connection to the brain leaves the cells from the outside, e.g. from the skin side of the cells. Thus this eye needs a place where the nerval connections cross the light sensible area again to get to the brain. This place, where the nerves crosses the retina is the blind spot. This is a general flaw in all vertebrate eyes.
Had the eye been intelligently designed, you could run them radially out, then around the back to the brain, rather than making a blind spot. Well, that and the issue of the light blocked by the connections running in front if the sensors, a problem the Cephalopod eyes don't have.
If an eye with no blind-spot somehow causes a person to be more likely to have offspring than a person with a blind-spotted eye then perhaps there would be selection pressure.
We don't know if the first human proto-eyes had a blind spot or not. It has been proposed that blind-spot gives better vision in direct sunlight, which is why the land dwellers have it, and the sea eyes (never in direct sunlight) don't have one. But you can't just invent sunglasses and get any evolutionary pressure for no blind spot.
Anyone human-like advanced enough to locate us and travel to us would be cyborg anyway. A brain cased in a robot 1000 times more advanced than us.
Or, Iron Giant style. All that'd be left of the foreign civilization is AI war machines.
The sci-fi going for "unlike human" almost always goes to insect (Starship Troopers, Aliens), but nearly all Sci-Fi stays human-like for the purposes of depicting it on TV/screen.
Finally, the U.N. passed the Resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which was not signed by the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zeland; four countries that have, ahem, problems with their indigenous population.
New Zealand wouldn't have signed because they already signed a treaty with the indigenous people. Why sign two conflicting treaties? What problems does New Zealand have with the indigenous?
The USA would be hard to deal with in that manner. There were separate treaties and treatment for different groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... being the largest and one of the most recent. The UN resolution you linked to didn't indicate who signed it (being a resolution, is it "signed"?). It looks to be basic human rights, all of which are granted by every industrialized country except Russia and China (both who exterminate/relocate undesireable indigenous, whether Tibetans or Ukrainians in their way). Oz, NZ, USA, and Ca all grant more than the minimum outlined in that document. As it didn't indicate any reparations (that I saw in a skim of it), nothing you mention with the resolution indicated payment for inhabiting previously inhabited land. Oh, and the treaties didn't carve out sovereignity for the indigenous, but instead promised non-immigration to US lands covered in the treaty. If the USSR had re-drawn the Crimea to be Russian while the USSR included the Ukraine, would that have been such an issue? Because that's closer to what happened in the USA.
Yes, your proud country went back on its word twice and to this day, it refuses to honor the treaties it signed and were approved by Congress.
Only twice? What country are you in/from?
I am familiar with SOX, PCI, HIIPA, FISMA and other privacy requirements. It is my job.
Then you are an incompetent idiot. I even said HIPAA (properly spelled) in the post you referred to. HIPAA When you can spell it correctly, we might have considered you "familiar" with it. When you can't even spell it correctly in reply to a post that used it spelled correctly, I find it quite hard to believe anything else you say. You obviously rate your skills higher than you can demonstrate.
The only good thing is all the incompetent "experts" like yourself that got me piles of work implementing expensive and ineffective security measures recommended by outside consultants. Idiot "expert" consultants buoyed the tech bubble. More than once, I printed out the HIPAA law to show people that what was "recommended" was contrary to the law. But a written recommendation from a self-appointed "expert" was due diligence, so that's what they wanted.
Your service *is* a VPS. That you don't know the difference doesn't make it true.
No, he said that non-US companies won't deal with US companies for cloud services.
Oh, and speak to a privacy expert because your "reading" of privacy law is incorrect.
Ah yes, asserting I'm wrong, without any specifics. Why not? Because you just want me to be wrong, but have no information that would indicate otherwise. Some privacy laws specify "no customer data" may be shared without explicit permission. That doesn't say "can't be shared in a usable manner" or anything like that. SOX and some of the other laws (like HIPAA and others) do specify it must not be usable, so you can upload encrypted files the cloud provider can't read. But those aren't the only secrecy laws out there.
Go on, prove me wrong. Oh wait, you (and your experts) can't, because I'm right.
If their controls are so effective, why didn't you link to one of the providers with an indemnity clause accepting legal responsibility for any breaches? Is that because nobody actually stands by their "certification" with a legal promise? Seems the "experts" at all those companies agree with me, not you. Is that the real reason you are so angry?
I've never "used" a mainframe. I used a terminal to remotely control a mainframe. I don't know where the cloud mainframe was, but I remotely controlled it. I've seen a cloud. It was a server. One was even an actual mainframe. IBM still sells "cloud" services on actual mainframes.
A cloud is a computer. You can run your home PC as a "cloud" (people that play WoW on their tablets through remotely controlling their computer are "cloud computing").
Mainframes were the original "cloud". A cloud is a computer (or group of computers). Yes, I know now people think that a cluster of computers, virtualized is somehow different than a mainframe. Denial doesn't make it true.
Hilariously, the laws are usually broken as well. "Customer data" must not be given to someone without authorization. But "encrypting" it doesn't remove that legal requirement. It may, for SOX, but not for other laws (SOX is more effect oriented, where you can't share something that would give a competitive advantage, and unbreakable encrypted information shouldn't affect that). So without written indemnity from a cloud provider, I wouldn't consider moving to one.
I think due diligence can be done with audits,
Also due diligence would be requesting to see their indemnity clause, protecting you in case their security is breached or other actions of being in "the cloud" caused some legal liability.
As I've not seen such a clause yet, no cloud provider has ever passed basic "due diligence". So anyone who brags about being on the cloud or selling the cloud is an idiot incapable of even the most basic due diligence.
And my reading of many cloud services break many privacy laws. The service provider can see/use the data too. Oops, SOX compliance out the window. Save one critical email to the cloud, and you are breaking the law. Customer data in the cloud? Privacy laws broken. Student or medical info in the cloud? More laws broken. Where are the SOX compliance statements from the cloud?
I've seen none that promise legal indemnity for any data stored on their cloud.
Until they offer that, I'll hug my server, rather than get fined or sent to prison (yeah, nobody goes to prison for something like that, but it's theoretically possible) .
That, and Bush restored the monarchy, not any democracy.