I have to admit, that I am a long way from being ready to inject anything in my eyes.
I personally know a few people who get injections into their eyes about once a month to prevent their sight from deteriorating. I think this one comes down to what is normal for some people.
In all practical effects most contract negotiations boil down to
If you want a job with us you will sign our employment contract, we will not enter into negotiation If that's not effectively the same as "forced" I don't know what is.
The exception to the above rule tends to be at C level.
Forget about the FOSS angle, apply a closed source angle and approach it in the same light as a singer / songwriter etc.
If I'm employed by a company who writes software / libraries and they make alot of money from code I was paid to write, can I then assert my rights because I was paid much less than the software has later proven to be worth?
How many employees from large tech companies could make that claim ?
So I don't use apple products so I've never had the chance to personally experience this issue
Error 53 "security keys don't match"
If it said that, maybe people wouldn't be as annoyed. From what I can see on Apple's website about error 53 there is no indication of "security keys don't match".
My initial response however was to the bulk of the statement, all of which is about 3rd party parts.
The courts can't hold apple accountable for third party repairs that weren't within the spec of the official original parts used.
You repaired your phone with a substandard part, so what if it works for *THAT* IOS version - it's not going to work for any future versions if apple decide to fully utilise that part's speed/capabilities, and apple can't know the shit parts third party repairers are going to try to pass-off as working.
Let me iterate that again - the spec on the replacement part has changed, to that of a lower specification which *appears* to work. A typical 'car' analogy would be you getting to sue GM because your aftermarket fuel filter fucked the engine over after another 10k miles.
My response was that the whole 3rd party parts does not cover this. The same error occurs with original parts. Perhaps if there was one error code for 3rd party parts and another for "security keys don't match", or maybe the error was descriptive enough to allow the end user some way of figuring out the issue, or maybe if Apple wasn't so bad about right to repair issues, didn't gouge their customers for repairs and allowed 3rd partied to purchase official parts, OR had repair programs in place that covered any repair that an end user may have eg Linus Tech Tips iMac Pro. There might be something in it.
We took a fully functional, space gray iPhone 6s and removed its original home button. In its place, we dropped in the stock home button from a different, rose gold iPhone 6s.
We downloaded and installed the latest iOS through iTunes by connecting to a computer (in this case, a MacBook Pro). Halfway through the process, iTunes gave us the bad news: The iPhone could not be updated. An unknown error occurred (53).
I may have cherry picked the sentences, but not changed the context etc to imply a different meaning.
Search for yourself for "iphone 6 error 53 refurbished screen"
Apple didn't intentionally "brick" anything. It's not reasonable to expect them to support 3rd party displays which they neither designed nor vetted for their products.
Fake Auto parts can cause serious injury or even death
Personally I'd prefer to use a 3rd party part in my phone than my car. I'm far less likely to have a life changing injury from my phone
If the user can't fix it and it didn't get fixed until Apple was forced to fix it. Then it was fucking bricked.
Perhaps we need to start using the term Apple Bricked for "Manufacturer has decided you're not allowed to use the device you've paid for until the manufacturer is forced to concede you consumer rights"
I think this should be used in a similar way to the term Streisand Effect
No, in DevOps there is no distinction between developers and QA. It's as insane as it sounds.
Er No, Normally the developer will write unit tests, integration tests etc, A QA might write a bunch of other tests and get them automated into the pipeline and then the QA's will be able to focus on the really weird stuff (from a dev's point of view) that a regular user would have normally discovered at some point.
The Idea is to get the testing done as early in the process as possible true, but there is still a good difference between dev & QA
1) As you mention yourself, a congested pipe is not the same as throttling. The idea that a startup will have the same access to a consumer as Youtube under NN is simply not true.
This is a double edged sword and why throttling is very different from a congested pipe. As an ISP such as Comcast grows it's likely to have pipes that fit into one of three categories.
Private Peering: For those not familiar is a direct connection between two providers eg Comcast & YouTube. This can either be at a geographically common point eg at a hosting facility. This is typically the most preferred way for an ISP to exchange traffic
Public Peering: Again for those not familiar is an indirect connection through an exchange eg AMS-IX where you rent a port on the exchange and then exchange prefixes with any other ISP's you can setup a BGP session with
Transit : Again for those not familiar is where an ISP will use as a last resort to get their traffic to the rest of the world. This is typically the least preferred way for an ISP to send and receive traffic
In a number of these occasion the route filters will be set to only allow traffic over a private peering link and as such when that gets congested a startup will get a better deal from coming over the Public peering or transit.
Youtube has (or can have) a private pipe with with every ISP on every internet exchange in the world. A startup may accomplish that in one or two cities but will rely on shared pipes and/or 3rd-party CDN's everywhere else.
A point you highlight above is quite different from NN. The point above just is a business case, the only reason the startup does not have the private pipes is the cost. And for that case YouTube does not have pipes to every ISP because some ISP's are too small for them to bother with. Again this is a business issue.
Or is the argument one of "If YouTube has a private peering agreement with one ISP it should have a private peering agreement with all ISP's everywhere on the globe" ? After all this is a Cost / Reward / Control question.
2) What does it accomplish exactly for the consumer? Suppose NN provides equal access to various video services (not true, see above)
Sorry but I don't agree with this one. As a startup you typically do not either the funds or the users to justify the global presence (would you require them to have content in every language). In many cases for the initial phases of a startup you may not even have the finances or user demand for a CDN. Again this is a StartUp vs Established business in any field. A corner store cannot compete directly with a chain supermarket in terms of discounts from suppliers, how is that a NN question. I apply the same logic.
- what prevents these video services from becoming the very gatekeepers that we didn't want ISP's to be? Does a videomaker have any chance if Youtube and Netflix refuse his videos? Don't we already see Youtubers complain that there's no viable alternative?
Is FaceBook attracting the number of users it has a NN question? Are you saying that your local cinema should be forced to show any video a local unskilled wannabe movie maker produces ?
I think lumping YouTube and Netflix into the same statement isn't the right thing argument to make. Netflix is a subscription video service where YouTube is there to host advertising (with user generated content there to attract the eyeballs for the advertisers).
YouTube has been trying to put itself in a common carrier position, so yes it should either allow anyone to post anything (legal) or it should loose the DMCA Safe Harbour status and similar legal protections it currently enjoys.
How about AppStores? So NN now gives you full access to the consumer's pipe. But Apple and Google don't allow your app in their store for whatever reason.
Comcast was throttling BitTorrent and lying about it to its customers before the FCC regulations. Comcast also intentionally let their interconnections get saturated
I know we're talking about Comcast, but for some things we need to take the approach of what is reasonable for a mom & pop ISP and then apply the same answer to any ISP (including the bad ones).
Throttling is one thing and I agree against NN.
Allowing a pipe to become saturated and not upgrading it on the other hand is a completely different argument. Adding new interconnects, or growing existing ones can be a costly exercise. A router may simply not have additional ports. It might not be as simple as running a cable around a hosting / interconnect facility. It may require upgrading the connection to said hosting / interconnect facility (or multiple ones). It might require upgrading multiple switches / routers along a path to handle the increased capacity.
I also get, but don't agree with the point of the "If you throttle then the pipe won't be saturated".
As much as NN is an issue, the bigger elephant in the room is the lack of choice. In many locations you can only get a "fast" internet connection from Comcast. That monopoly should be broken so people who care about their internet connection can buy their connectivity from a reputable provider and those who don't care can choose the cheapest.
Now hackers know how much they can reasonably demand from Atlanta.
They can demand all they want. The question is will Atlanta ever pay?
The core of the issue boils down to something like blackmail. As soon as you pay once you'll end up paying over and over again. At which point do you say no? Is the no point at the second time they ask for $55,000, the 10th, maybe after you've spent $5 million?
While I get "A sensible business decision dictate that you pay the original $55,000 rather than the estimated $2.6 million" I've also got to question if the original sum would have gotten their data back. There have been many occasions where paying the ransom did not get the data back
Author, You mean BuzzFeed ! I don't find it surprising at all that they haven't got about encryption or hacking. Most content from BuzzFeed is along the lines of more keyboards with more windows open is how you hack stuff. Many consider the average trashy glossy mags to be more reputable.
Sadly I believe the response boils down to Steam is selling a service / licence and so not a physical product. As such when you loose access to your steam account you loose access to all the games you have paid them for.
I'd prefer that it was the other way, but there's been a lawsuits in both EU and USA which sets this as the current position.
It seems to change every few years so if you wanted to exit you might want to wait for the correct time. You could always use www.gog.com
From the link provided
"The regulations in force until now contained a legal loophole which allowed the import and sale in France of DVDs from zone 1 which had no sub-titles, sometimes even before the film had been shown in a cinema"
Looks like all they needed to do was release the video without subs before Cannes and they would have been fine
"Unless they set up an independent company and license everything, but even then I'd be the courts wouldn't let them get away with that either since it's obviously just set up to get around the law"
Isn't that exactly how most companies run things for tax reasons ?
The possible issue here is that this may constitute shrink wrapped licencing terms.
By purchasing the combo pack you have purchased
1x DVD
1x Blueray
1x Digital Code
by First Sale Doctrine Disney cannot prevent you from splitting that combo pack and selling the DVD and Blueray's independently.
Now comes the tricky question of the digital code. To make use of the code you need to accept additional terms and conditions which legally is known as a "Shrink Wrap Contract" which is unenforceable.
Why shouldn't the average person on the street would think that the digital code should be considered the same as each of the physical disks.
Well post your list and all those who have been file sharing now have a valid excuse, My pc was hacked and while it was spewing out spam it was also downloading stuff
Also the contention ratio (adsl terms) While a dsl provider may advertise the standard 50:1 (home) or 20:1 (business) with the larger pipes it's much more likely to be 200:1 or more. It's standard practise, just like it was when there was only dialup.
Also as for the ADSL being sold for the speed, yes and no, do remember that until not long ago internet calls in the uk (dialup) were charged on a per minute rate. Now if you look around you can get flat rate for dialup, but typically it still works out cheaper and easier to get a DSL connection.
We did, a bunch of the servers didn't. what is surprising is how many of them remained operational. It's not like you stand around in the DC with those sort of temperatures. More like take a drink of cold water, go in and do what you have to before you get out as quickly as you can.
I've also swam (well scuba dived) in water that was only just above freezing point
Slashdot Mirror
I have to admit, that I am a long way from being ready to inject anything in my eyes.
I personally know a few people who get injections into their eyes about once a month to prevent their sight from deteriorating. I think this one comes down to what is normal for some people.
In all practical effects most contract negotiations boil down to If you want a job with us you will sign our employment contract, we will not enter into negotiation If that's not effectively the same as "forced" I don't know what is.
The exception to the above rule tends to be at C level.
It would be nice if people posting these store enhance the content so it's not just the click bait that the media outlets insist on
Forget about the FOSS angle, apply a closed source angle and approach it in the same light as a singer / songwriter etc.
If I'm employed by a company who writes software / libraries and they make alot of money from code I was paid to write, can I then assert my rights because I was paid much less than the software has later proven to be worth?
How many employees from large tech companies could make that claim ?
Error 53 "security keys don't match"
If it said that, maybe people wouldn't be as annoyed. From what I can see on Apple's website about error 53 there is no indication of "security keys don't match".
My initial response however was to the bulk of the statement, all of which is about 3rd party parts.
The courts can't hold apple accountable for third party repairs that weren't within the spec of the official original parts used.
You repaired your phone with a substandard part, so what if it works for *THAT* IOS version - it's not going to work for any future versions if apple decide to fully utilise that part's speed/capabilities, and apple can't know the shit parts third party repairers are going to try to pass-off as working.
Let me iterate that again - the spec on the replacement part has changed, to that of a lower specification which *appears* to work. A typical 'car' analogy would be you getting to sue GM because your aftermarket fuel filter fucked the engine over after another 10k miles.
My response was that the whole 3rd party parts does not cover this. The same error occurs with original parts. Perhaps if there was one error code for 3rd party parts and another for "security keys don't match", or maybe the error was descriptive enough to allow the end user some way of figuring out the issue, or maybe if Apple wasn't so bad about right to repair issues, didn't gouge their customers for repairs and allowed 3rd partied to purchase official parts, OR had repair programs in place that covered any repair that an end user may have eg Linus Tech Tips iMac Pro. There might be something in it.
We took a fully functional, space gray iPhone 6s and removed its original home button. In its place, we dropped in the stock home button from a different, rose gold iPhone 6s.
We downloaded and installed the latest iOS through iTunes by connecting to a computer (in this case, a MacBook Pro). Halfway through the process, iTunes gave us the bad news: The iPhone could not be updated. An unknown error occurred (53).
I may have cherry picked the sentences, but not changed the context etc to imply a different meaning.
Search for yourself for "iphone 6 error 53 refurbished screen"
Except that this happened even if you swapped the screen from one working iphone 6 to another, or swapped a broken screen with a refurbished one.
And what behavior is that?
Apple didn't intentionally "brick" anything. It's not reasonable to expect them to support 3rd party displays which they neither designed nor vetted for their products.
Except that Apple have also done this with refurbished displays eg where the glass has cracked, but the underlying electronics are fine so the gladd was replaced
It's also been proven when a display was swapped from one fully working iphone6 to another working iphone6
This ain't auto parts.
Fake Auto parts can cause serious injury or even death
Personally I'd prefer to use a 3rd party part in my phone than my car. I'm far less likely to have a life changing injury from my phone
If the user can't fix it and it didn't get fixed until Apple was forced to fix it. Then it was fucking bricked.
Perhaps we need to start using the term Apple Bricked for "Manufacturer has decided you're not allowed to use the device you've paid for until the manufacturer is forced to concede you consumer rights"
I think this should be used in a similar way to the term Streisand Effect
No, in DevOps there is no distinction between developers and QA. It's as insane as it sounds.
Er No, Normally the developer will write unit tests, integration tests etc, A QA might write a bunch of other tests and get them automated into the pipeline and then the QA's will be able to focus on the really weird stuff (from a dev's point of view) that a regular user would have normally discovered at some point.
The Idea is to get the testing done as early in the process as possible true, but there is still a good difference between dev & QA
When you fuck up. They just fire you.
The funny thing is that is typically both the cheaper and in the long term, better option for the company
1) As you mention yourself, a congested pipe is not the same as throttling. The idea that a startup will have the same access to a consumer as Youtube under NN is simply not true.
This is a double edged sword and why throttling is very different from a congested pipe. As an ISP such as Comcast grows it's likely to have pipes that fit into one of three categories.
In a number of these occasion the route filters will be set to only allow traffic over a private peering link and as such when that gets congested a startup will get a better deal from coming over the Public peering or transit.
Youtube has (or can have) a private pipe with with every ISP on every internet exchange in the world. A startup may accomplish that in one or two cities but will rely on shared pipes and/or 3rd-party CDN's everywhere else.
A point you highlight above is quite different from NN. The point above just is a business case, the only reason the startup does not have the private pipes is the cost. And for that case YouTube does not have pipes to every ISP because some ISP's are too small for them to bother with. Again this is a business issue.
Or is the argument one of "If YouTube has a private peering agreement with one ISP it should have a private peering agreement with all ISP's everywhere on the globe" ? After all this is a Cost / Reward / Control question.
2) What does it accomplish exactly for the consumer? Suppose NN provides equal access to various video services (not true, see above)
Sorry but I don't agree with this one. As a startup you typically do not either the funds or the users to justify the global presence (would you require them to have content in every language). In many cases for the initial phases of a startup you may not even have the finances or user demand for a CDN. Again this is a StartUp vs Established business in any field. A corner store cannot compete directly with a chain supermarket in terms of discounts from suppliers, how is that a NN question. I apply the same logic.
- what prevents these video services from becoming the very gatekeepers that we didn't want ISP's to be? Does a videomaker have any chance if Youtube and Netflix refuse his videos? Don't we already see Youtubers complain that there's no viable alternative?
Is FaceBook attracting the number of users it has a NN question? Are you saying that your local cinema should be forced to show any video a local unskilled wannabe movie maker produces ?
I think lumping YouTube and Netflix into the same statement isn't the right thing argument to make. Netflix is a subscription video service where YouTube is there to host advertising (with user generated content there to attract the eyeballs for the advertisers).
YouTube has been trying to put itself in a common carrier position, so yes it should either allow anyone to post anything (legal) or it should loose the DMCA Safe Harbour status and similar legal protections it currently enjoys.
How about AppStores? So NN now gives you full access to the consumer's pipe. But Apple and Google don't allow your app in their store for whatever reason.
Again not a
Comcast was throttling BitTorrent and lying about it to its customers before the FCC regulations. Comcast also intentionally let their interconnections get saturated
I know we're talking about Comcast, but for some things we need to take the approach of what is reasonable for a mom & pop ISP and then apply the same answer to any ISP (including the bad ones).
Throttling is one thing and I agree against NN.
Allowing a pipe to become saturated and not upgrading it on the other hand is a completely different argument. Adding new interconnects, or growing existing ones can be a costly exercise. A router may simply not have additional ports. It might not be as simple as running a cable around a hosting / interconnect facility. It may require upgrading the connection to said hosting / interconnect facility (or multiple ones). It might require upgrading multiple switches / routers along a path to handle the increased capacity.
I also get, but don't agree with the point of the "If you throttle then the pipe won't be saturated".
As much as NN is an issue, the bigger elephant in the room is the lack of choice. In many locations you can only get a "fast" internet connection from Comcast. That monopoly should be broken so people who care about their internet connection can buy their connectivity from a reputable provider and those who don't care can choose the cheapest.
Now hackers know how much they can reasonably demand from Atlanta.
They can demand all they want. The question is will Atlanta ever pay?
The core of the issue boils down to something like blackmail. As soon as you pay once you'll end up paying over and over again. At which point do you say no? Is the no point at the second time they ask for $55,000, the 10th, maybe after you've spent $5 million?
While I get "A sensible business decision dictate that you pay the original $55,000 rather than the estimated $2.6 million" I've also got to question if the original sum would have gotten their data back. There have been many occasions where paying the ransom did not get the data back
Author, You mean BuzzFeed !
I don't find it surprising at all that they haven't got about encryption or hacking. Most content from BuzzFeed is along the lines of more keyboards with more windows open is how you hack stuff. Many consider the average trashy glossy mags to be more reputable.
Sadly I believe the response boils down to Steam is selling a service / licence and so not a physical product. As such when you loose access to your steam account you loose access to all the games you have paid them for.
I'd prefer that it was the other way, but there's been a lawsuits in both EU and USA which sets this as the current position.
It seems to change every few years so if you wanted to exit you might want to wait for the correct time. You could always use www.gog.com
From the link provided "The regulations in force until now contained a legal loophole which allowed the import and sale in France of DVDs from zone 1 which had no sub-titles, sometimes even before the film had been shown in a cinema" Looks like all they needed to do was release the video without subs before Cannes and they would have been fine
I forgot to ad Obama's team did it all within America where went foreign companies
What's the difference between what Trump's team did and what Obama did in 2012?
Obama did it with FB's blessing.
From other news reports either FB or people at FB supported Obama
Trump used a 3rd party company which didn't give FB their cut / fee
How is what Trump did worse?
see above
"Unless they set up an independent company and license everything, but even then I'd be the courts wouldn't let them get away with that either since it's obviously just set up to get around the law"
Isn't that exactly how most companies run things for tax reasons ?
The possible issue here is that this may constitute shrink wrapped licencing terms. By purchasing the combo pack you have purchased
1x DVD
1x Blueray
1x Digital Code
by First Sale Doctrine Disney cannot prevent you from splitting that combo pack and selling the DVD and Blueray's independently.
Now comes the tricky question of the digital code. To make use of the code you need to accept additional terms and conditions which legally is known as a "Shrink Wrap Contract" which is unenforceable. Why shouldn't the average person on the street would think that the digital code should be considered the same as each of the physical disks.
Well post your list and all those who have been file sharing now have a valid excuse, My pc was hacked and while it was spewing out spam it was also downloading stuff
Also the contention ratio (adsl terms)
While a dsl provider may advertise the standard 50:1 (home) or 20:1 (business) with the larger pipes it's much more likely to be 200:1 or more.
It's standard practise, just like it was when there was only dialup.
Also as for the ADSL being sold for the speed, yes and no, do remember that until not long ago internet calls in the uk (dialup) were charged on a per minute rate. Now if you look around you can get flat rate for dialup, but typically it still works out cheaper and easier to get a DSL connection.
We did, a bunch of the servers didn't. what is surprising is how many of them remained operational.
It's not like you stand around in the DC with those sort of temperatures. More like take a drink of cold water, go in and do what you have to before you get out as quickly as you can.
I've also swam (well scuba dived) in water that was only just above freezing point
You haven't ever seen a water cooled PC ?3 9.JPG
http://www.copiaedius.org/albums/Tims_Case/101_02