Ah. I don't even see the titles anymore. Besides, The guy I was responding to wasn't the person who misspelled it. I'll try to keep a better eye on the titles. There was a time when I intended to never start my posts with "Re:". Time to work on that, I guess.
does that mean I'm producing stem cells right now?
After a manner of speaking, yes. The thing is, they aren't nearly the same as hES. They're sometimes termed human adult stem cells. This is a misnomer on several levels. (1) They're not unique to adults, or even children. They appear early in fetal development (or sooner?). (2) They're partially differentiated. Each can only become specific types of cells (3) There are many different types depending on what they may become. Those found in the bone marrow are very different from those found in muscle. If you want to cure a liver problem (for example) you must draw cells from a liver, not an eye. (Research is progressing towards reversing the differentiation process.)
It's just another dimension of Microsoft's brokenware mentality. They design a product, then they break it before selling it to you so they can sell you an upgrade to a working version. CALs are the server equivalent to the PC/workstation scenario. They don't provide different versions of Windows with different capabilities. They do provide different versions of windows intentionally broken to different degrees. They're creating an artificial feature set that they can up-sell later.
It's diabolical, really, but it's hard to blame them. They are a business very near (or at) monopoly status trying to eke every last penny out of our pockets. What more should we expect?
No, you'd set up your own Wave server, in the same fashion that companies set up their own mail servers. Your content doesn't need to touch Google's servers at all. (or indeed, anybody else's server)
The "Rosie the Robot" translator is "pretty sweet" indeed, as is the context sensitive spell checker. Did anybody catch the cavalier way he mentioned using the entire Internet to build the thing? Only at Google could you build a spell checker using the entirety of robot crawl-able web resources!
They mentioned that in the Google IO demo. There's a check box to turn it off, but they admit that the functionality hasn't been implemented yet. They knew that it didn't work; they admited that it didn't work; they released it as a developer preview with it not working.
*sigh* It will be working before the actual release. If it isn't, then you can complain.
But even if I do want grouping, I can do that now. I hit CTRL-N and I've got a new group of tabs, which I do sometimes already use.
I do this all the time. They've already added the functionality to rearange tabs within a browser window. I just wish now they would allow us to move tabs between windows (and move existing tabs to their own windows, etc.) it would simplify my life, for one.
No, he's right. There are still a great many people who take their religion seriously, but I think they are now in the minority. I've spoken to many people who confess that they don't know much about their church, and only attend on Easter and Christmas.
Case in point: How many supposed-Christians view porno on the web with impunity? They either don't take their religion seriously enough to know about Matt 5:28, or don't care enough to live the lifestyle outlined by the religion. (I'm not even delving into disputed territory. This is clean-cut and universally understood.)
Not true, but it's hard to prove one way or the other. The chain of custody for the historic documents in question is scandalous at best. Even if it were true (I have no reason to believe that it is), it would not surprise me. He was repeatedly arrested on false charges and subsequently released. People like to complain about recent abuses of power and the failings of constitutional protections. Gitmo has nothing on Missouri. (historically speaking) Hate and prejudice were rampant compared to today. That included the judiciary.
Hardly thousands of years. All Churches operate in much the same way. They all prey (pray) on the hard of thinking.
You judge rashly and falsely. Don't worry, you're hardly the first to do so. (I'll even admit that many denominations cater to the dim witted.) Unless you're a theology major (at a bare minimum), and have exposed yourself to as many religions and churches as possible, you're not in a position to paint with such a broad brush.
I agree with the general sentiment you've expressed, but I have a conundrum for you:
What if the operator wasn't in the US? What if he/she was in a call center in India? Even if this one was in the States, what about the next incident? Who will be held accountable when the foreign judge laughs at extradition of their citizens? (We're talking India, not UK.)
Sufficiently large fines (of the like never seen) can make a large company less profitable... so long as it's not a monopoly. Companies will sit up an take notice if they need to raise their rates and their competition doesn't.
The problem is the slap-on-the-wrist fines that they simply absorb and ignore. Yes, that includes fines that you or I would consider "very large".
Personally, I think the answer is not fines, but more personal accountability. Criminal law should always stick to a human being. (There needs to be more of this.)
A car, even if its blueprints and schematics were open source IP, is constructed out of bits and pieces that cost money, and cost even more money to put together.
The same corporate entitlement problem happens among auto manufacturers. It's simply more subtle. As one example: how much would it cost to build a car from parts? Let's assume you supply all the labor, tools, and already know how it all fits together. If you only bought parts from the manufacturer's catalog, buying a car on the lot would be much cheaper. There's a reason "after market" parts are less expensive (and sometimes of equal quality). Why do dealer parts cost so much? They can get away with it. Nothing more; nothing less.
In fact, the entire U.S. movie industry got its start infringing on the copyrights and patents of the time.
I've heard that this is exactly the reason they moved to Hollywood in the first place. It made litigation very difficult (before transportation improved).
To him the problem is two-fold. First (and less important), he cannot "win" this case that way. Two, it opens the court to a flood of appeals, and not just DUI either. There may have been vehicular manslaughter cases that need to be revisited (in many states, an accident involving death is an automatic manslaughter if a driver is found to be drunk, regardless of his behavior while driving). Prosecutors hate appeals. I would too if I were a lawyer and a prosecutor.
This isn't to say that your point isn't a good one. Sometimes it's just hard for people to see the forest through the trees.
Verification can prove that your code is correct but for most programs it is unfeasible.
This is one of those times when it's a reasonable expectation. This code needs to stand up in court as verified to operate beyond any reasonable doubt. It really should have been a system requirement for the final product.
I don't know the size of the codebase in question, but I'm guessing it is reasonably small. If it is too large for verification of the whole thing, then vital sections of it should have been verified. Management probably had other ideas of how to spend the budget or meet the time schedule. (Could have been the lead developers fault; impossible to tell at present.)
Good question, but it needs to be reworded. Does it always work for all inputs?
Also important, if it's a poorly written mess, why is the company claiming that it works? I see no indication that they've done due diligence for a device used to convict people. Just because they've never observed it to fail, doesn't mean a thing.
You shouldn't be allowed to be directly connected to the internet at the same time you're directly connected to your VPN. It's exactly the same security risk as if he had a personal DSL line installed at his desk and was on both networks. If his machine is compromised, it can be spread to other trusted (or maybe if he's lucky, only semitrusted) machines.
Full tunnels for the VPN will solve the problems.
I see a whole bunch of people posting this, and I have to tell you that you're trading one security risk for another*.
Yes, it's currently the same as having a connection to both networks at the same workstation.
Forcing all employee traffic through the VPN is not a security solution, but much more akin to the laptop problem. They can be infected/compromised all day long while connected directly through the ISP (visiting "bad" sites, downloading malware infected freeware, whatever). Once connected to the VPN, all that bad stuff suddenly has access.
Yes, this is a lesser risk. It prevents real-time attacks. Still, the potential consequences are equal. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that this is a security fix. It's not.
(*presupposing that they are permitted to use the computer on their normal Internet connection while not "at work". You didn't say that explicitly, but others here have. We have no indication that these are work provided computers and work supplied Internet connections, so it is a reasonable assumption that these machines will go online directly.)
I don't think you actually read my post. Yes, I'm being pedantic, but I warned you that I was.
To beat a dead horse, the GPS and the transmitter are as separate and distinct as a webcam and a monitor. They may both be built into the same laptop, but they are not the same thing!
Likewise, you may build a GPS receiver and a transmitter into the same device. You're not suggesting someone "develop and market a device that can find a GPS unit on your vehicle". You'd like them "to develop and market a device that can find a" transmitter on your vehicle. They're entirely different things that may be parts of the same tracking device. Please tell me you see the difference. Furthermore, the transmitter that you must find can be transmitting in any band, with any type of encryption.
Coming at the problem from the other side: If I had a device to track all electromagnetic radiation coming from your vehicle, and if I found an unexplained signal, it might (or might not) be a transmitter in a GPS enabled device. Note that I'm not detecting the GPS receiver. I'm detecting a transmitter that could be transmitting anything (and indeed can be used to transmit anything).
A GPS receiver does not transmit. That you may connect it to a transmitter is true, but the actual GPS receiver is passive on its own.
Oh, you mean they shouldn't replace the numbers in all the problems and rearrange the pictures to change the page numbers? (intentionally making it impossible to mix versions)
For some publishers, it's so dishonest as to boarder on fraud. (in terms of ethics, not legality)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong... (I'm about to get pedantic.)
GPS itself is a passive technology. It reads a difference between signals from multiple military satellites, and computes coordinates. The GPS itself doesn't transmit anything.
Once the GPS has computed the coordinates, they can be given to another device which acts as a transmitter (in this case "built into" the same device). It could be a cellular transmitter, encrypted radio (of any unlicensed frequency), or even a satellite phone (unlikely because it would be quite large). With sufficient technology, a leo could track this without having GPS at all.
What you're really suggesting is that somebody develop and market a device that can find a radio transmitter on your vehicle broadcasting in any reasonable frequency.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. I don't even see the titles anymore. Besides, The guy I was responding to wasn't the person who misspelled it. I'll try to keep a better eye on the titles. There was a time when I intended to never start my posts with "Re:". Time to work on that, I guess.
does that mean I'm producing stem cells right now?
After a manner of speaking, yes. The thing is, they aren't nearly the same as hES. They're sometimes termed human adult stem cells. This is a misnomer on several levels. (1) They're not unique to adults, or even children. They appear early in fetal development (or sooner?). (2) They're partially differentiated. Each can only become specific types of cells (3) There are many different types depending on what they may become. Those found in the bone marrow are very different from those found in muscle. If you want to cure a liver problem (for example) you must draw cells from a liver, not an eye. (Research is progressing towards reversing the differentiation process.)
It's just another dimension of Microsoft's brokenware mentality. They design a product, then they break it before selling it to you so they can sell you an upgrade to a working version. CALs are the server equivalent to the PC/workstation scenario. They don't provide different versions of Windows with different capabilities. They do provide different versions of windows intentionally broken to different degrees. They're creating an artificial feature set that they can up-sell later.
It's diabolical, really, but it's hard to blame them. They are a business very near (or at) monopoly status trying to eke every last penny out of our pockets. What more should we expect?
No, you'd set up your own Wave server, in the same fashion that companies set up their own mail servers. Your content doesn't need to touch Google's servers at all. (or indeed, anybody else's server)
It seems AC hasn't watched the demo. "*sarcasm*"
The "Rosie the Robot" translator is "pretty sweet" indeed, as is the context sensitive spell checker. Did anybody catch the cavalier way he mentioned using the entire Internet to build the thing? Only at Google could you build a spell checker using the entirety of robot crawl-able web resources!
They mentioned that in the Google IO demo. There's a check box to turn it off, but they admit that the functionality hasn't been implemented yet. They knew that it didn't work; they admited that it didn't work; they released it as a developer preview with it not working.
*sigh* It will be working before the actual release. If it isn't, then you can complain.
Uh, Slashdot hasn't gone wave yet... If you're trying out that context based - auto correcting - spell checker from the demo... It isn't working here.
(there, they're, their)
But even if I do want grouping, I can do that now. I hit CTRL-N and I've got a new group of tabs, which I do sometimes already use.
I do this all the time. They've already added the functionality to rearange tabs within a browser window. I just wish now they would allow us to move tabs between windows (and move existing tabs to their own windows, etc.) it would simplify my life, for one.
No, he's right. There are still a great many people who take their religion seriously, but I think they are now in the minority. I've spoken to many people who confess that they don't know much about their church, and only attend on Easter and Christmas.
Case in point: How many supposed-Christians view porno on the web with impunity? They either don't take their religion seriously enough to know about Matt 5:28, or don't care enough to live the lifestyle outlined by the religion. (I'm not even delving into disputed territory. This is clean-cut and universally understood.)
Mormonism was established in the late 1820's...
It was 1830, formally speaking.
... by a convicted fraudster...
Not true, but it's hard to prove one way or the other. The chain of custody for the historic documents in question is scandalous at best. Even if it were true (I have no reason to believe that it is), it would not surprise me. He was repeatedly arrested on false charges and subsequently released. People like to complain about recent abuses of power and the failings of constitutional protections. Gitmo has nothing on Missouri. (historically speaking) Hate and prejudice were rampant compared to today. That included the judiciary.
Hardly thousands of years. All Churches operate in much the same way. They all prey (pray) on the hard of thinking.
You judge rashly and falsely. Don't worry, you're hardly the first to do so. (I'll even admit that many denominations cater to the dim witted.) Unless you're a theology major (at a bare minimum), and have exposed yourself to as many religions and churches as possible, you're not in a position to paint with such a broad brush.
I try to avoid replying to AC trolls, but I couldn't help myself this time. "Mormonism", in the most common sense, fails all of the above tests.
Please leave your prejudice at the door. Honest criticism is one thing, hate-mongering is another.
I agree with the general sentiment you've expressed, but I have a conundrum for you:
What if the operator wasn't in the US? What if he/she was in a call center in India? Even if this one was in the States, what about the next incident? Who will be held accountable when the foreign judge laughs at extradition of their citizens? (We're talking India, not UK.)
Sufficiently large fines (of the like never seen) can make a large company less profitable... so long as it's not a monopoly. Companies will sit up an take notice if they need to raise their rates and their competition doesn't.
The problem is the slap-on-the-wrist fines that they simply absorb and ignore. Yes, that includes fines that you or I would consider "very large".
Personally, I think the answer is not fines, but more personal accountability. Criminal law should always stick to a human being. (There needs to be more of this.)
touche, though I would argue that they behave in both fashions.
A car, even if its blueprints and schematics were open source IP, is constructed out of bits and pieces that cost money, and cost even more money to put together.
The same corporate entitlement problem happens among auto manufacturers. It's simply more subtle. As one example: how much would it cost to build a car from parts? Let's assume you supply all the labor, tools, and already know how it all fits together. If you only bought parts from the manufacturer's catalog, buying a car on the lot would be much cheaper. There's a reason "after market" parts are less expensive (and sometimes of equal quality). Why do dealer parts cost so much? They can get away with it. Nothing more; nothing less.
In fact, the entire U.S. movie industry got its start infringing on the copyrights and patents of the time.
I've heard that this is exactly the reason they moved to Hollywood in the first place. It made litigation very difficult (before transportation improved).
You can watch some full episodes on cbs.com. It varies by show. For example, you can get Numb3rs, but not The Mentalist.
To him the problem is two-fold. First (and less important), he cannot "win" this case that way. Two, it opens the court to a flood of appeals, and not just DUI either. There may have been vehicular manslaughter cases that need to be revisited (in many states, an accident involving death is an automatic manslaughter if a driver is found to be drunk, regardless of his behavior while driving). Prosecutors hate appeals. I would too if I were a lawyer and a prosecutor.
This isn't to say that your point isn't a good one. Sometimes it's just hard for people to see the forest through the trees.
Verification can prove that your code is correct but for most programs it is unfeasible.
This is one of those times when it's a reasonable expectation. This code needs to stand up in court as verified to operate beyond any reasonable doubt. It really should have been a system requirement for the final product.
I don't know the size of the codebase in question, but I'm guessing it is reasonably small. If it is too large for verification of the whole thing, then vital sections of it should have been verified. Management probably had other ideas of how to spend the budget or meet the time schedule. (Could have been the lead developers fault; impossible to tell at present.)
Good question, but it needs to be reworded. Does it always work for all inputs?
Also important, if it's a poorly written mess, why is the company claiming that it works? I see no indication that they've done due diligence for a device used to convict people. Just because they've never observed it to fail, doesn't mean a thing.
You shouldn't be allowed to be directly connected to the internet at the same time you're directly connected to your VPN. It's exactly the same security risk as if he had a personal DSL line installed at his desk and was on both networks. If his machine is compromised, it can be spread to other trusted (or maybe if he's lucky, only semitrusted) machines.
Full tunnels for the VPN will solve the problems.
I see a whole bunch of people posting this, and I have to tell you that you're trading one security risk for another*.
Yes, it's currently the same as having a connection to both networks at the same workstation.
Forcing all employee traffic through the VPN is not a security solution, but much more akin to the laptop problem. They can be infected/compromised all day long while connected directly through the ISP (visiting "bad" sites, downloading malware infected freeware, whatever). Once connected to the VPN, all that bad stuff suddenly has access.
Yes, this is a lesser risk. It prevents real-time attacks. Still, the potential consequences are equal. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that this is a security fix. It's not.
(*presupposing that they are permitted to use the computer on their normal Internet connection while not "at work". You didn't say that explicitly, but others here have. We have no indication that these are work provided computers and work supplied Internet connections, so it is a reasonable assumption that these machines will go online directly.)
I don't think you actually read my post. Yes, I'm being pedantic, but I warned you that I was.
To beat a dead horse, the GPS and the transmitter are as separate and distinct as a webcam and a monitor. They may both be built into the same laptop, but they are not the same thing!
Likewise, you may build a GPS receiver and a transmitter into the same device. You're not suggesting someone "develop and market a device that can find a GPS unit on your vehicle". You'd like them "to develop and market a device that can find a" transmitter on your vehicle. They're entirely different things that may be parts of the same tracking device. Please tell me you see the difference. Furthermore, the transmitter that you must find can be transmitting in any band, with any type of encryption.
Coming at the problem from the other side: If I had a device to track all electromagnetic radiation coming from your vehicle, and if I found an unexplained signal, it might (or might not) be a transmitter in a GPS enabled device. Note that I'm not detecting the GPS receiver. I'm detecting a transmitter that could be transmitting anything (and indeed can be used to transmit anything).
A GPS receiver does not transmit. That you may connect it to a transmitter is true, but the actual GPS receiver is passive on its own.
Oh, you mean they shouldn't replace the numbers in all the problems and rearrange the pictures to change the page numbers? (intentionally making it impossible to mix versions)
For some publishers, it's so dishonest as to boarder on fraud. (in terms of ethics, not legality)
Yes, but "gubernator" isn't used here by the media. "governator" is. (unfortunately)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong... (I'm about to get pedantic.)
GPS itself is a passive technology. It reads a difference between signals from multiple military satellites, and computes coordinates. The GPS itself doesn't transmit anything.
Once the GPS has computed the coordinates, they can be given to another device which acts as a transmitter (in this case "built into" the same device). It could be a cellular transmitter, encrypted radio (of any unlicensed frequency), or even a satellite phone (unlikely because it would be quite large). With sufficient technology, a leo could track this without having GPS at all.
What you're really suggesting is that somebody develop and market a device that can find a radio transmitter on your vehicle broadcasting in any reasonable frequency.