for games *nix is definitely NOT more developer friendly, it has improved massively in the last few years but for developer simplicity and tools it is only just starting to catch up now.
The only difference the decision on whether they invest in those stocks or not is who ends up getting the profits. I am sure others that will happily use the profits for far worse causes than Harvard ever would will be happy to take the shares off their hands. The amusing thing here is the divestment of such interests is more than likely to the detriment of the planet rather than to its good. who owns the shares doesn't change fosil fuel usage, it only changes who gets the money.
people and companies get sued all the time over things that they are supposedly protected from in the EULA/license. EULA's and licenses can't override laws and there are many laws around liability especially with negligence. Really it would come down to the court to decide if someone decided to sue over it and the outcome is far from guaranteed.
while the comparison between cars and software is ridiculous. Many places do not permit a EULA or any other agreement to sign away a persons rights to protection from negligence regardless of what the product is, such clauses can be deemed invalid.
trivial? excellent then you can show us how to trivially identify what data has been leaked/exposed and what needs to be reported to the various authorities that require reports on exposed privacy data.
As soon as the open source world produces something better than h.264, I'm sure everyone will rush to adopt it.
Because the market always chooses the best technology for the job? Next you'll be telling us that the best musicians end up at the top of the pop charts!
No they don't, but if you intend to replace an incumbent then you need to offer something better, not something "almost" as good.
I don't think this should be classified as an accident. It appears he breached many safety rules, isn't certified and was using non commercial grade equipment, with so much blatant negligence even if it was a hacker "highly unlikely" then the moron flying it should still be taken to the cleaners and be up on many charges from CASA.
"honest sir I didn't crash it, someone took control away from me", firstly Bullshit. secondly it is your drone, you are responsible for it, if you can't secure it then you should not be using it around people.
The unwashed masses are too cheap to upgrade or to even get editors that can even make at least a half arsed attempt at reading before submitting. Why would anyone think they are all going to run out and pay for a service, that is ignoring the incredible complexity of supplying said patches in the first place.
hardly surprising really, religion relies heavily upon ignorance and superstition. The more information and world views you expose yourself to the more likely you are to come out of the dark ages.
If they are used to citrix already then choppy cludgey connectivity will be something they are acustomed to so going to chromebooks won't be a noticible change.
Problem here is that you cannot ethically send anybody to certain death just to go explore Mars first hand.
The radiation exposure required for a trip to Mars is significant. The total expected dose is high enough to warrant asking ethical questions about what risks we are asking people to take to make the trip. Where I am sure all of the space going crew members would be totally aware of the risks and agree to them, that still doesn't exempt NASA from the moral and ethical obligation to asses the risks and mediate them.
At some point, somebody needs to draw a line and say, over there is too much risk to be acceptable, we will stay on this side of the line. If we don't have boundaries and stick by them, things like Challenger or Apollo 1 will happen and we will have needless loss of life because we didn't asses risks properly or take them seriously enough.
Of course you can send someone to certain death. The problem is peoples ethical radars are so fucked up today that they don't believe in peoples right to make such a decision for themselves. Personally I find it far more ethically questionable that you believe people don't have a right to make this decision for themselves.
In comparison at the time it was google that could do no wrong and was the high flyer, Apple was doing well but still had a very limited market and product set and were heavily reliant on the music market with nothing else at the time.
In 2006 google had a market value of over 100 billion while Apple was worth between 50-70 billion. Apple was NOT the big player threatening the little startup.
Many places any such work contract that prevents you from seeking work elsewhere or talking to competitors for better jobs is also illegal. You seem to be living in some dream world where only laws that benefit the company are valid and everything else can be safely ignored.
Anti poaching agreements ARE illegal in many places, including where this is being prosecuted. I can't see how you can see nothing ethically wrong with your employer going out and actively limiting your work opportunities and supressing your wages.
Google Glass seems to be countering Google Glass all by itself, why would anyone purchase an unrelated technology to counter something that has so far proven to be somewhere between hideously unpopular and the social equivalent of a wet fart. Dumb story even for slashdot.
my Tandy 1000ex most definitely required its DOS to be booted from the floppy drive. was damn frustrating when I was first learning computers and looking through commands, one of the first ones I tried was Format a:, spent the next 2 weeks waiting for a replacement dos disk:-(
Not a bitcoin fan but this seems pretty AWEFUL news for bitcoins not good. Now everytime you use a coin to purchase something you have created a taxable event. Purchase a thousand dollar equivalent item and you are potentially up for an additional $500 (minus costs) in real currency as capital gains tax
Slashdot Mirror
for games *nix is definitely NOT more developer friendly, it has improved massively in the last few years but for developer simplicity and tools it is only just starting to catch up now.
The only difference the decision on whether they invest in those stocks or not is who ends up getting the profits. I am sure others that will happily use the profits for far worse causes than Harvard ever would will be happy to take the shares off their hands. The amusing thing here is the divestment of such interests is more than likely to the detriment of the planet rather than to its good. who owns the shares doesn't change fosil fuel usage, it only changes who gets the money.
people and companies get sued all the time over things that they are supposedly protected from in the EULA/license. EULA's and licenses can't override laws and there are many laws around liability especially with negligence. Really it would come down to the court to decide if someone decided to sue over it and the outcome is far from guaranteed.
while the comparison between cars and software is ridiculous. Many places do not permit a EULA or any other agreement to sign away a persons rights to protection from negligence regardless of what the product is, such clauses can be deemed invalid.
The reviewer was named too.Dr Stephen Henson
none of those are even in the same ballpark of criticality compared to this vulnerability. All of them combined don't even come close.
trivial? excellent then you can show us how to trivially identify what data has been leaked/exposed and what needs to be reported to the various authorities that require reports on exposed privacy data.
As soon as the open source world produces something better than h.264, I'm sure everyone will rush to adopt it.
Because the market always chooses the best technology for the job? Next you'll be telling us that the best musicians end up at the top of the pop charts!
No they don't, but if you intend to replace an incumbent then you need to offer something better, not something "almost" as good.
except for Russel Crowe, we are actually rather happy to return him to NZ and America is also welcome to keep Mel Gibson permanently too.
In that case Windows XP is also still for sale and supported. Now they call it Windows 8.1
OS/2 was withdrawn from sale and ended support in 2006.
I don't think this should be classified as an accident. It appears he breached many safety rules, isn't certified and was using non commercial grade equipment, with so much blatant negligence even if it was a hacker "highly unlikely" then the moron flying it should still be taken to the cleaners and be up on many charges from CASA.
"honest sir I didn't crash it, someone took control away from me", firstly Bullshit. secondly it is your drone, you are responsible for it, if you can't secure it then you should not be using it around people.
The unwashed masses are too cheap to upgrade or to even get editors that can even make at least a half arsed attempt at reading before submitting. Why would anyone think they are all going to run out and pay for a service, that is ignoring the incredible complexity of supplying said patches in the first place.
Ease into it. One letter at a time.
hardly surprising really, religion relies heavily upon ignorance and superstition. The more information and world views you expose yourself to the more likely you are to come out of the dark ages.
If they are used to citrix already then choppy cludgey connectivity will be something they are acustomed to so going to chromebooks won't be a noticible change.
Problem here is that you cannot ethically send anybody to certain death just to go explore Mars first hand.
The radiation exposure required for a trip to Mars is significant. The total expected dose is high enough to warrant asking ethical questions about what risks we are asking people to take to make the trip. Where I am sure all of the space going crew members would be totally aware of the risks and agree to them, that still doesn't exempt NASA from the moral and ethical obligation to asses the risks and mediate them.
At some point, somebody needs to draw a line and say, over there is too much risk to be acceptable, we will stay on this side of the line. If we don't have boundaries and stick by them, things like Challenger or Apollo 1 will happen and we will have needless loss of life because we didn't asses risks properly or take them seriously enough.
Of course you can send someone to certain death. The problem is peoples ethical radars are so fucked up today that they don't believe in peoples right to make such a decision for themselves. Personally I find it far more ethically questionable that you believe people don't have a right to make this decision for themselves.
In comparison at the time it was google that could do no wrong and was the high flyer, Apple was doing well but still had a very limited market and product set and were heavily reliant on the music market with nothing else at the time.
In 2006 google had a market value of over 100 billion while Apple was worth between 50-70 billion. Apple was NOT the big player threatening the little startup.
Many places any such work contract that prevents you from seeking work elsewhere or talking to competitors for better jobs is also illegal. You seem to be living in some dream world where only laws that benefit the company are valid and everything else can be safely ignored.
Anti poaching agreements ARE illegal in many places, including where this is being prosecuted. I can't see how you can see nothing ethically wrong with your employer going out and actively limiting your work opportunities and supressing your wages.
Google Glass seems to be countering Google Glass all by itself, why would anyone purchase an unrelated technology to counter something that has so far proven to be somewhere between hideously unpopular and the social equivalent of a wet fart. Dumb story even for slashdot.
my Tandy 1000ex most definitely required its DOS to be booted from the floppy drive. was damn frustrating when I was first learning computers and looking through commands, one of the first ones I tried was Format a:, spent the next 2 weeks waiting for a replacement dos disk :-(
Not a bitcoin fan but this seems pretty AWEFUL news for bitcoins not good. Now everytime you use a coin to purchase something you have created a taxable event. Purchase a thousand dollar equivalent item and you are potentially up for an additional $500 (minus costs) in real currency as capital gains tax