The Vice president accidentally shoots a man in the face, and it's the mans fault for getting in the way of the buckshot. The Air Force emails sensitive information to a website owner, and it's the site owner's fault for receiving it.
What would happen to E=mc^2 if m is negative? That's entirely possible. Einstein's energy-mass equation is actually derived as E^2 = (mc^2)^2. As a result, you can interpret that you can have negative energy as well as negative mass.
Antimatter anyone?
With all the chatter back and forth, has anyone stopped and asked what the two cookies contained and what they were used for? If NSA's use of cookies is truly an issue, one would think that learning the purpose of the cookie would be an obvious question.
A quick visit to the website (with my browser set to reject all cookies of course) shows that there are several things the cookie might track. Saved-state information for those who submitted an application or posted their resume for consideration, saved history on a request for information using a FOIA request, a small business registering with NSA to be considered for new/upcoming contract bids, a download flag for the latest version of SELinux, or maybe even some cookie set by the flash software in the kid's entertainment section.
Agreed, as stated in previous posts, the use of permanent cookies, intentional or otherwise, violates established policy. But before we spin out of control let's ask WTF they were doing with the cookies, THEN we can go storming the castle with torches held high in righteous indignation.
I agree that the article is useless drivel with the word addiction thrown in to alarm/titilate/intrigue a reader to sell more magazines.
What Wired is calling "addiction" is, IMHO, a natural result of an increase in disposable income that American consumers are earning. According to figures from the US Census Bureau, there has been nearly a [pdf alert] 300% increase in disposable income since 1980. What Wired calls addition I call a market economy that is providing cool toys for a growing popution that can afford to buy them and spend time playing with them.
Now, if I can only figure out how to use census data to explain/justify Ever-crack addiction...
I see one of the big benefits of the spread of these new technologies is in the vein of social equality. Every few decades there seems to be a surge in society that, for better or worse, makes a great change in the way that people interact. I think the surge we are riding right now is acting as a social equilizer that has the potential to blind us to the bigotries triggered by economic status, religion, race, or whatever.
I am not saying that this technology makes everyone equal, but what I am saying is that this technology gives everyone the chance to start out on the exact same footing when they use these new technologies to interact. Whether you connect to the web via your own dual-processor hyper pentium uber-computer with a dedicated T1 at your house or from a free terminal at a public library, the packets are the same. At that point no one cares about your race, economic status, religion, whatever, the playing field is level for you to express yourself. Now, what happens after you post -- that falls back to the current social climate and really depends on what you the individual has to express.
A lot of hopeful thinking I know... but hey, it's that time of year.
It's the Andromeda Strain all over again! Who needs invaders from Mars when we go out and bring back little invaders of our own.
I know they are claiming to be prepared, but color me a little skeptical and concerned if there's a chance that the same engineers who forgot to convert meters to feet and lost a spacecraft had something to do with the safeguards on this probe.
I agree that some people go overboard with "free speech rights" as an excuse to say anything and claim it's protected expression. People forget a basic tenet of constitutional rights -- their rights end where another's rights begin.
I am not claiming that the lawsuit has legal foundation, basis in truth, or anything of the sort (IANAL). I would claim, however, that many online posters tend to forget that the web is not a faceless, nameless, blameless wonderland where you can say anything, do anything, hack anything, or spread anything without there being real-world consequences.
Don't forget, "free speech" isn't a specific tangible thing that can be regulated, counted, given out, or taken away, rather it's a set of rules that we as Americans define through matters of law, social convention, and combinations of both. Free speech has evolved as our culture had evolved (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse). What we consider protected speech now may become reprehensible in the future (ask someone who grew up at the turn of the century about racial phrases acceptable then that are repugnant now).
In the context of this post, I think this lawsuit represents a growing notice that the internet isn't the wild west of expression many felt it to be, that before you post you should pause and consider...
From "Wiki: "The accuracy of the GPS signal itself is about 5 meters (16 ft) as of 2005 and has steadily improved over the last 15 years. Using differential GPS and other error-correcting techniques, the accuracy can be improved to about 1 cm (.4 in) over short distances.". Given a fixed GPS sensor, the relative accuracy in ground measurements would be more than adequate for seismic warnings.
I don't think the core idea is to be able say "In 23 minutes and 12 seconds a tsunami of height 13.6 meters will hit blah blah blah...". I believe they are building a warning system - "Within the hour conditions will be extremely favorable for tsunami conditions to occur, and residents should take precautions...".
Oh great...now we've gone and done it. The words 'recording' and 'DL' used in the same sentence and posted on the web. As I write this I bet a half-dozen attorneys for a certain industry association of America (for recordings) are furiously writing writs and filing motions.
Coming soon to a mailbox near you.. a cease and desist letter claiming that potential recordings are protected as well.
So far they've only used rats for the trials. I say they should take the next step and use politicians for the next round of tests. Medical science has shown that politicians and rats share 99.99% of their genes in common, so the risks should be minimal. Besides, with the current state of political affairs in the U.S. I doubt that many of the voting public would complain if a few wayward politicians made a valiant sacrifice in the name of science.
---
First step: Politicans with a heart. Second step: Politicians with a soul. Third step: . Fourth step: Utopia.
I agree with previous posts, talking with a lawyer to define your position is not necessarily a bad thing. Since you do not want to "spook" or taint your amicable relationship, your employer does not need to know that a lawyer has advised you.
Whatever agreement you come up with, simpler is better. The more words you put into it, you increase the chances for loopholes and confusion and other nasties to creep in.
I work for a small company the develops software that is sold as product as well as develops software for other companies. Our standard contract/license states that what we had when we started the development is ours and stays ours. Code developed on their nickel falls into one of three cases. Case 1: They pay lots of money to own the developed code outright and to retain all/exclusive rights to it. They can sell it, share it, give it away. It's theirs. Case 2: They pay not quite so much money and have unlimited irrevocable rights to use the code internally, but they cannot sell it, share it, or give it away. We have rights to use and sell the code, but may agree to not sell the code to specific identified competitors of theirs. Case 3: We own the code outright, and they simply have a license to use it. They get no source code, and their right of use typically isn't transferable (that is, they cannot transfer their license to another party even if they erase it from their machines). Your situation most likely falls into case 2, especially if you used parts of the codebase that you own for the software you delivered to them.
If you do not consult a lawyer before drafting your agreement, remember to keep whatever you write simple. If you are not a lawyer, don't try to talk or write one. Use straighforward language and write down exactly what you feel is fair. The key point is to end up with an agreement that you and your employer understand and find mutually acceptable. As our attorney has lectured us - contracts are what you end up falling back to when you can't agree on what was said. Any competent judge will first try to determine what the core understanding was supposed to be before diving into the verbage of a contract.
Slashdot Mirror
The Vice president accidentally shoots a man in the face, and it's the mans fault for getting in the way of the buckshot. The Air Force emails sensitive information to a website owner, and it's the site owner's fault for receiving it.
The Cheney Effect is spreading!
With all the chatter back and forth, has anyone stopped and asked what the two cookies contained and what they were used for? If NSA's use of cookies is truly an issue, one would think that learning the purpose of the cookie would be an obvious question.
A quick visit to the website (with my browser set to reject all cookies of course) shows that there are several things the cookie might track. Saved-state information for those who submitted an application or posted their resume for consideration, saved history on a request for information using a FOIA request, a small business registering with NSA to be considered for new/upcoming contract bids, a download flag for the latest version of SELinux, or maybe even some cookie set by the flash software in the kid's entertainment section.
Agreed, as stated in previous posts, the use of permanent cookies, intentional or otherwise, violates established policy. But before we spin out of control let's ask WTF they were doing with the cookies, THEN we can go storming the castle with torches held high in righteous indignation.
I agree that the article is useless drivel with the word addiction thrown in to alarm/titilate/intrigue a reader to sell more magazines.
What Wired is calling "addiction" is, IMHO, a natural result of an increase in disposable income that American consumers are earning. According to figures from the US Census Bureau, there has been nearly a [pdf alert] 300% increase in disposable income since 1980. What Wired calls addition I call a market economy that is providing cool toys for a growing popution that can afford to buy them and spend time playing with them.
Now, if I can only figure out how to use census data to explain/justify Ever-crack addiction...
I see one of the big benefits of the spread of these new technologies is in the vein of social equality. Every few decades there seems to be a surge in society that, for better or worse, makes a great change in the way that people interact. I think the surge we are riding right now is acting as a social equilizer that has the potential to blind us to the bigotries triggered by economic status, religion, race, or whatever.
I am not saying that this technology makes everyone equal, but what I am saying is that this technology gives everyone the chance to start out on the exact same footing when they use these new technologies to interact. Whether you connect to the web via your own dual-processor hyper pentium uber-computer with a dedicated T1 at your house or from a free terminal at a public library, the packets are the same. At that point no one cares about your race, economic status, religion, whatever, the playing field is level for you to express yourself. Now, what happens after you post -- that falls back to the current social climate and really depends on what you the individual has to express.
A lot of hopeful thinking I know... but hey, it's that time of year.
It's the Andromeda Strain all over again! Who needs invaders from Mars when we go out and bring back little invaders of our own.
I know they are claiming to be prepared, but color me a little skeptical and concerned if there's a chance that the same engineers who forgot to convert meters to feet and lost a spacecraft had something to do with the safeguards on this probe.
I agree that some people go overboard with "free speech rights" as an excuse to say anything and claim it's protected expression. People forget a basic tenet of constitutional rights -- their rights end where another's rights begin.
I am not claiming that the lawsuit has legal foundation, basis in truth, or anything of the sort (IANAL). I would claim, however, that many online posters tend to forget that the web is not a faceless, nameless, blameless wonderland where you can say anything, do anything, hack anything, or spread anything without there being real-world consequences.
Don't forget, "free speech" isn't a specific tangible thing that can be regulated, counted, given out, or taken away, rather it's a set of rules that we as Americans define through matters of law, social convention, and combinations of both. Free speech has evolved as our culture had evolved (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse). What we consider protected speech now may become reprehensible in the future (ask someone who grew up at the turn of the century about racial phrases acceptable then that are repugnant now).
In the context of this post, I think this lawsuit represents a growing notice that the internet isn't the wild west of expression many felt it to be, that before you post you should pause and consider...
Just my US$0.02 ($0.02341 Canadian, 2.3342 Yen)
From "Wiki: "The accuracy of the GPS signal itself is about 5 meters (16 ft) as of 2005 and has steadily improved over the last 15 years. Using differential GPS and other error-correcting techniques, the accuracy can be improved to about 1 cm (.4 in) over short distances.". Given a fixed GPS sensor, the relative accuracy in ground measurements would be more than adequate for seismic warnings.
I don't think the core idea is to be able say "In 23 minutes and 12 seconds a tsunami of height 13.6 meters will hit blah blah blah...". I believe they are building a warning system - "Within the hour conditions will be extremely favorable for tsunami conditions to occur, and residents should take precautions...".
Oh great...now we've gone and done it. The words 'recording' and 'DL' used in the same sentence and posted on the web. As I write this I bet a half-dozen attorneys for a certain industry association of America (for recordings) are furiously writing writs and filing motions.
Coming soon to a mailbox near you.. a cease and desist letter claiming that potential recordings are protected as well.
So far they've only used rats for the trials. I say they should take the next step and use politicians for the next round of tests. Medical science has shown that politicians and rats share 99.99% of their genes in common, so the risks should be minimal. Besides, with the current state of political affairs in the U.S. I doubt that many of the voting public would complain if a few wayward politicians made a valiant sacrifice in the name of science.
---
First step: Politicans with a heart.
Second step: Politicians with a soul.
Third step: .
Fourth step: Utopia.
I agree with previous posts, talking with a lawyer to define your position is not necessarily a bad thing. Since you do not want to "spook" or taint your amicable relationship, your employer does not need to know that a lawyer has advised you.
Whatever agreement you come up with, simpler is better. The more words you put into it, you increase the chances for loopholes and confusion and other nasties to creep in.
I work for a small company the develops software that is sold as product as well as develops software for other companies. Our standard contract/license states that what we had when we started the development is ours and stays ours. Code developed on their nickel falls into one of three cases. Case 1: They pay lots of money to own the developed code outright and to retain all/exclusive rights to it. They can sell it, share it, give it away. It's theirs. Case 2: They pay not quite so much money and have unlimited irrevocable rights to use the code internally, but they cannot sell it, share it, or give it away. We have rights to use and sell the code, but may agree to not sell the code to specific identified competitors of theirs. Case 3: We own the code outright, and they simply have a license to use it. They get no source code, and their right of use typically isn't transferable (that is, they cannot transfer their license to another party even if they erase it from their machines). Your situation most likely falls into case 2, especially if you used parts of the codebase that you own for the software you delivered to them.
If you do not consult a lawyer before drafting your agreement, remember to keep whatever you write simple. If you are not a lawyer, don't try to talk or write one. Use straighforward language and write down exactly what you feel is fair. The key point is to end up with an agreement that you and your employer understand and find mutually acceptable. As our attorney has lectured us - contracts are what you end up falling back to when you can't agree on what was said. Any competent judge will first try to determine what the core understanding was supposed to be before diving into the verbage of a contract.