Adding his name was flamebait. Mueller is a self-proclaimed analyst, rather than one that cogent individuals seeking referential integrity would choose, IMHO.
Pickins knew that it would up the pageview count by inserting his name is my guess.
Yet no one litigates to find out. Why? Imagine trying to invalidate dozens of patents, one at a time. Find out what they are, then find patches around them. How many patents can there be to be used against the Linux-Android kernel?
Gold is better, but probably superfluous. There is a dioding effect that can occur with corroding contacts, but it's negligable except when the amount of contact surface area between connectors is really really small, as in cheap microphone contacts, potentiometers with small wiper surface areas, and so forth. Contact cleaner usually does a good job of cleaning them, but by the time contacts corrode to unusability, we've already tossed the item because we're a throw-away society these days. Gone are the days when you bought audio or video gear that was expected to last a dozen years. And most of that gear has no more pots, just very low current switches that rachet something up or down digitally.
The HDMI scam is particularly onerous: it shows how people are willing to blatantly lie through their teeth.... uh, like computer salesmen.
Article about trolling copyright has a respondent to a post on the article that trolls copyright. Circular halo logic complete. Implosion pending. Please step away from your computer.
And "competitive" security let all of the terrorists thru their respective entrances for the four flights. The charade and harassment that is the TSA is both mean-spirited, and rife for abuse. We are free, in these United States. The TSA operates above the rule of law, extra-constitutionally, IMHO.
There are enough people that would shun such a tarrif that it will eventually be re-figured somehow. A few people will be caught in its web with a bill that's plainly awful. What's wrong is that there's not a way to prevent those hapless few from being really totally burned.
And so we call them out, mock them, and vilify them for their stupidity in hopes that shame will cause them to change. But corporations, especially telcos with monopolistic attitudes, are incapable of shame. It's the nature of such entities to be totally narcissistic and self-serving to the point of what any shrink would call pathological.
A regulatory authority might have the ability to hold sway of such pricing, so as to protect that small minority that will hurt themselves, often unwittingly. So it's not really like we vote with our business. We don't get a "vote" in the model that is the constraint within the context of telco tariffing models. You believe we do, but it doesn't actually work that way. Perhaps the pain of vilification might work, but rarely. Instead, we might gravitate to sanity, those of us that are willing to dive deeply into the rate structures of plans. We shouldn't have to take the time to become experts on telco plans; they should be reasonable from the onset.
Consider that nodes need a direct route, and that it's unlikely to need store-and-forward where messages are waiting in a queue. Cut a few key nodes and synchronicity is lost. Seeding instructions requires a number of reliable nodes; lose some of those, and you're hosed.
Sniffing traffic pairs to CnC destinations. Mirror a switch port, then sniff the traffic to nonsense destinations. Watch DNS logs for odd hit builds. Sift some more.
Look for local destination peers that don't make sense. Then you've got the local net infections.
I can write the same code set, alter it significantly, enough to easily pass the test of copyright, do a make, and have the results be identical in every possible way.
Approaching the logic of a chessboard layout, once having viewed open source code, I could rewrite it to yours, or anyone else's satisfaction. This is without reverse engineering the code, rather, following its logic and using a mime-- but satisfactory analog-- of what it does. Other concepts, like UI, may have protections, but I can alter these, too-- and a chessboard isn't copyrightable.
So they could be very close in logic. My chess opponents are very good, and I've been hammered playing chess. After a while, however, I can start to predict their moves, as they can predict mine. Such diminishing returns really proves nothing. I maintain you have to see the source, and have to know that the source license and copyrights haven't been abrogated.
Is this because the compiler does similar things to function calls? It's really NOT proof until you see the source. I can write a lot of code that compilers will optimize to the exact same bytecode. It's not really convincing without *source*.
Similarities alone don't mean plaigarism. Logic can be gleaned from open source code, then applied to other code, perhaps engines. So long as copyright isn't violated, and licensing strictures aren't violated, reading someone's code, understanding the logic, then re-writing it is a hallowed action. For arguments supporting this, go to Groklaw, understand what BSD is (or read about the AT&T-Regents of UCB litigation), and so forth. Ask RMS.
Logic and code might or might not be two different things. He might be inviolation of copyright law and the strictures of the license of the two programs in question. And he might not. Until you know, you don't. If he rewrote the logic, then an apology is in order. If he stole the code (e.g. copyright or license abbrogation) then he's in trouble.
No, the flooding causes more problems. Run off will make the Gulf Dead Zone larger than ever before because of runoff from decades of fertilizer and pesticide that will be pushed into solution, and travel down to the Gulf.
The fish die, as do shrimp, and other sea life. If BP wasn't bad enough, Elanco will be.
But someone needs to remind a bunch of people how to do parsers and isolate data types.
As regards DDoS, defense is a whole other strategy. Yes, you can recover. Yes, it's ugly for a few minutes. But it's survivable. And remember: most of these attacks got inside, not just hosed their TCP transports. They phished inside, got some dirty laundry, and hung it out to dry. They enjoyed watching orgs get punked.
But they've been doing really well with the customer experience thang. Thoughtful. Media. Video. Thinking it through brought lots of people in. This is thoughtless. It's like Porsche putting an ugly engine in their Carerra.
I think they made a laughing stock outta the billion dollar budgets of a lot of pseudo "security" experts in a random assault, kind of like digital "wilding".
They should have forked the product. The old branch is clearly different than the new branch, but they're said to be the same product, and while close, there are lot of people making money with FCP that are really disturbed.
Were Apple to have forked the product, none of the difference in expectations would have happened. Altering expectations isn't what Apple normally does, so this is quizzical. It's strange behavior for Apple, and I think they realize this now.
This is so much different than a death-grip antenna issue, that Apple should have been wayyyyy on top of this long ago. Not like them.
When I hire, or use interns, I can safely say through personal experience that I have to evaluate the individual. Some top schools in the states are really good, but it's tough to find someone with a generalist CS education. Engineering is a slightly different discipline in terms of course and syllabus compared to what I've seen CS students take.
But brain power, resourcefulness, tenacity, and a sense of humor when things go wrong are important. Give me someone that can learn quickly and not begrudgingly, and does it-- and I'm happy.
I respect what a few schools put into the heads of theirs students; MIT, Purdue, Georgia Tech, U of Texas, and a few other schools really shape the minds of their students in terms of becoming resourceful. Yet I've had interns from tiny schools, like University of Dayton, Rose-Hulman, Washington U of St Louis have great instinctive skills.
The whole idea is to confuse you, so that you won't jump ship, and the ______ that you use now will kinda sorta be ok, and hey, imagine stuff working from phones to tablets to notebooks to desktops, any of which could have a cool GPU to do stuff, and you can maybe sorta use your old code.
Got it? Great. Logon now. Please. Pretty Please. HTML5! Java! You're a FOSS guy, right? You like that Java stuff! We promise not to fork it! Not like that stuff that's in court facing a huge settlement with Oracle, right? C'mon, please???
Dielectric strength is tested; mains separation from consumer touchable parts are tested; holes can't be big enough to stick a small screwdriver or knife into (something that conducts more than.25") into the chassis, and so on. Yes, electrical safety, but beyond first article inspection, there's a long list of details to keep an object "safe" for consumers so that liability can be reduced, and insurance costs go down.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a specific place where Sun said they exclude Java on mobile stuff?
Adding his name was flamebait. Mueller is a self-proclaimed analyst, rather than one that cogent individuals seeking referential integrity would choose, IMHO.
Pickins knew that it would up the pageview count by inserting his name is my guess.
Yet no one litigates to find out. Why? Imagine trying to invalidate dozens of patents, one at a time. Find out what they are, then find patches around them. How many patents can there be to be used against the Linux-Android kernel?
Insurrection and sedition are unlikely to be productive in such matters. Making it expensive as hell is a better option.
A friend of Barnum quipped that there's a sucker born every minute, but in this case, it's consumer education that's necessary.
Gold is better, but probably superfluous. There is a dioding effect that can occur with corroding contacts, but it's negligable except when the amount of contact surface area between connectors is really really small, as in cheap microphone contacts, potentiometers with small wiper surface areas, and so forth. Contact cleaner usually does a good job of cleaning them, but by the time contacts corrode to unusability, we've already tossed the item because we're a throw-away society these days. Gone are the days when you bought audio or video gear that was expected to last a dozen years. And most of that gear has no more pots, just very low current switches that rachet something up or down digitally.
The HDMI scam is particularly onerous: it shows how people are willing to blatantly lie through their teeth.... uh, like computer salesmen.
Time collapse in 4:30--
Article about trolling copyright has a respondent to a post on the article that trolls copyright. Circular halo logic complete. Implosion pending. Please step away from your computer.
And "competitive" security let all of the terrorists thru their respective entrances for the four flights. The charade and harassment that is the TSA is both mean-spirited, and rife for abuse. We are free, in these United States. The TSA operates above the rule of law, extra-constitutionally, IMHO.
There are enough people that would shun such a tarrif that it will eventually be re-figured somehow. A few people will be caught in its web with a bill that's plainly awful. What's wrong is that there's not a way to prevent those hapless few from being really totally burned.
And so we call them out, mock them, and vilify them for their stupidity in hopes that shame will cause them to change. But corporations, especially telcos with monopolistic attitudes, are incapable of shame. It's the nature of such entities to be totally narcissistic and self-serving to the point of what any shrink would call pathological.
A regulatory authority might have the ability to hold sway of such pricing, so as to protect that small minority that will hurt themselves, often unwittingly. So it's not really like we vote with our business. We don't get a "vote" in the model that is the constraint within the context of telco tariffing models. You believe we do, but it doesn't actually work that way. Perhaps the pain of vilification might work, but rarely. Instead, we might gravitate to sanity, those of us that are willing to dive deeply into the rate structures of plans. We shouldn't have to take the time to become experts on telco plans; they should be reasonable from the onset.
Yes, and no.
Consider that nodes need a direct route, and that it's unlikely to need store-and-forward where messages are waiting in a queue. Cut a few key nodes and synchronicity is lost. Seeding instructions requires a number of reliable nodes; lose some of those, and you're hosed.
Sniffing traffic pairs to CnC destinations. Mirror a switch port, then sniff the traffic to nonsense destinations. Watch DNS logs for odd hit builds. Sift some more.
Look for local destination peers that don't make sense. Then you've got the local net infections.
I can write the same code set, alter it significantly, enough to easily pass the test of copyright, do a make, and have the results be identical in every possible way.
Approaching the logic of a chessboard layout, once having viewed open source code, I could rewrite it to yours, or anyone else's satisfaction. This is without reverse engineering the code, rather, following its logic and using a mime-- but satisfactory analog-- of what it does. Other concepts, like UI, may have protections, but I can alter these, too-- and a chessboard isn't copyrightable.
So they could be very close in logic. My chess opponents are very good, and I've been hammered playing chess. After a while, however, I can start to predict their moves, as they can predict mine. Such diminishing returns really proves nothing. I maintain you have to see the source, and have to know that the source license and copyrights haven't been abrogated.
Is this because the compiler does similar things to function calls? It's really NOT proof until you see the source. I can write a lot of code that compilers will optimize to the exact same bytecode. It's not really convincing without *source*.
Similarities alone don't mean plaigarism. Logic can be gleaned from open source code, then applied to other code, perhaps engines. So long as copyright isn't violated, and licensing strictures aren't violated, reading someone's code, understanding the logic, then re-writing it is a hallowed action. For arguments supporting this, go to Groklaw, understand what BSD is (or read about the AT&T-Regents of UCB litigation), and so forth. Ask RMS.
Logic and code might or might not be two different things. He might be inviolation of copyright law and the strictures of the license of the two programs in question. And he might not. Until you know, you don't. If he rewrote the logic, then an apology is in order. If he stole the code (e.g. copyright or license abbrogation) then he's in trouble.
Gives new meaning to "cloud kicker".
No, the flooding causes more problems. Run off will make the Gulf Dead Zone larger than ever before because of runoff from decades of fertilizer and pesticide that will be pushed into solution, and travel down to the Gulf.
The fish die, as do shrimp, and other sea life. If BP wasn't bad enough, Elanco will be.
I didn't say they were clever.
I didn't say consultants were clever.
But someone needs to remind a bunch of people how to do parsers and isolate data types.
As regards DDoS, defense is a whole other strategy. Yes, you can recover. Yes, it's ugly for a few minutes. But it's survivable. And remember: most of these attacks got inside, not just hosed their TCP transports. They phished inside, got some dirty laundry, and hung it out to dry. They enjoyed watching orgs get punked.
I remember the cash injection.
But they've been doing really well with the customer experience thang. Thoughtful. Media. Video. Thinking it through brought lots of people in. This is thoughtless. It's like Porsche putting an ugly engine in their Carerra.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, plus ca change.
I think they made a laughing stock outta the billion dollar budgets of a lot of pseudo "security" experts in a random assault, kind of like digital "wilding".
Now, it's time to make consulting money.
They should have forked the product. The old branch is clearly different than the new branch, but they're said to be the same product, and while close, there are lot of people making money with FCP that are really disturbed.
Were Apple to have forked the product, none of the difference in expectations would have happened. Altering expectations isn't what Apple normally does, so this is quizzical. It's strange behavior for Apple, and I think they realize this now.
This is so much different than a death-grip antenna issue, that Apple should have been wayyyyy on top of this long ago. Not like them.
When I hire, or use interns, I can safely say through personal experience that I have to evaluate the individual. Some top schools in the states are really good, but it's tough to find someone with a generalist CS education. Engineering is a slightly different discipline in terms of course and syllabus compared to what I've seen CS students take.
But brain power, resourcefulness, tenacity, and a sense of humor when things go wrong are important. Give me someone that can learn quickly and not begrudgingly, and does it-- and I'm happy.
I respect what a few schools put into the heads of theirs students; MIT, Purdue, Georgia Tech, U of Texas, and a few other schools really shape the minds of their students in terms of becoming resourceful. Yet I've had interns from tiny schools, like University of Dayton, Rose-Hulman, Washington U of St Louis have great instinctive skills.
Yeah.
The whole idea is to confuse you, so that you won't jump ship, and the ______ that you use now will kinda sorta be ok, and hey, imagine stuff working from phones to tablets to notebooks to desktops, any of which could have a cool GPU to do stuff, and you can maybe sorta use your old code.
Got it? Great. Logon now. Please. Pretty Please. HTML5! Java! You're a FOSS guy, right? You like that Java stuff! We promise not to fork it! Not like that stuff that's in court facing a huge settlement with Oracle, right? C'mon, please???
No, tuffer than that.
Dielectric strength is tested; mains separation from consumer touchable parts are tested; holes can't be big enough to stick a small screwdriver or knife into (something that conducts more than .25") into the chassis, and so on. Yes, electrical safety, but beyond first article inspection, there's a long list of details to keep an object "safe" for consumers so that liability can be reduced, and insurance costs go down.
Well, if you test it with BAPco's SysMark, not so well.