Clarifying myself - privacy as such is listed, but not *inalienable privacy* - it is considered that privacy is a right unless there is, in essence, any overriding excuse to break privacy including a legal request from government.
The UN guy's opinion is in perfect harmony with article 12 which quite explicitly allows non-arbitrary invasions of privacy in a manner according to local law, as the government of India requests.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Privacy is not (and never has been) listed in any of the human rights charters.
Also, keep in mind that even in an utopia you can't have both inalienable right to free speech and an inalienable right to privacy; in quite many concerns one needs to be abandoned to keep the other.
Your ATM card (any card of the currently used EMV chipcard standard) has knowledge of your pin embedded and can verify/authorize the PIN at an offline POS terminal without contacting the bank.
In some sense you must say that "they're equally likely to exist" - we have completely identical knowledge/proof about all gods existence (no idea at all), and this means that *as far as we know*, none of the mutually exclusive God options can be reasonably given a priority.
If there is some logical reason to consider that Judeo-Christian God has a bigger likelihood of existing than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? We have no idea about both of them, so we can't compare.
Which God? Only ONE of the major religions can be true, so by upholding christian beliefs you are staking your eternal future on a hope that you don't meet Shiva or Allah when you die. One way or another, if God exists, then most of the high believers will suffer anyway because they chose the wrong God-idea to worship.
Any decent framework abstracts out the SQL syntax for you in a nice manner (say, ARel in the Rails 3.0 framework is quite nice) , but gain a lot of compatibility by using SQL, allowing to choose from engines from SQLite in a flat file to Oracle on a cluster.
Typically the NoSQL approach just shifts the problems from the database layer to the application programmer - if it's simply ignored, a typical app can't cope with unpredictable/corrupt data being returned from db, and results in weird bugreports that cost a lot of development time to find and fix; and with these fixes parts of the ACID compliance are simply re-implemented in the app layer.
You gain some performance of the db, you lose some (hopefully less) performance in the app, and it costs you additional complexity and programmer-time in the app.
In essence, TFA claims that if the traditional ACID guarantee "if three transactions (let's call them A, B and C) are active... the resulting database state will be the same as if it had run them one-by-one. No promises are made, however, about which particular order execution it will be equivalent to: A-B-C, B-A-C, A-C-B" is not abandoned (as in NoSQL systems), but is even strengthened to a guarantee that the result will always be as if they arrived in A-B-C order, then it solves all kinds of possible replication problems, requires less networking between the many servers involved, and allows for high scaling while also keeping all the integrity constraints.
Encrypt your data. Public VoIP gets the exact same treatment as the telephone network when you're calling your branch office in Mumbai - if the government asks, the call is intercepted, and any third parties will give out your data - your phone, mobile, mail and DHL/Fedex packages are all subject to this. If you want privacy, don't trust third-party public networks and do encrypted message exchanges that you and only you control.
As it's defined in court, if you, the judge or any of the lawyers present don't know it by heart and have to look it up - then it's clearly not 'common knowledge' and someone needs to testify how it really is - it doesn't matter if it's disputed, it matters if people outside of the field would know it.
It's definitely moral, as you have deliberately chosen a license that says that you want the product to be freely used also for commercial purposes - i.e., you intentionally forfeit any requests for compensation when it's used commercially, but in return get a wider usage for the product that gives you many indirect benefits - more users, more mindshare, more recognition which increases its value to everybody, including yourself.
This is the whole moral and ethical intent of the licence - that you are not only allowed, but also encouraged by creator to use it in every way, and if you can also get some money out of it, then it's even better - as the money flows support a sustainable development of the new products and motivates entrepreneurs to build new uses for the licensed software that people want so much that they are willing for pay for it.
I'd rather say that it's hamstwo of the OpenStreetMap guys - they have made a gift with a comment that only an acknowledgment/credit is expected, but then loudly complain at the receiver for not giving another gift back.
I code stuff in my free time, but I deploy them as small scale, but still commercial web projects that make some extra cash on the side, and might turn out into a startup if one of the ideas turns out more popular than expected - so none of that code is going on github/etc.
I'd say that this way of employee search will exclude most of developers with entrepreneur thinking, which would actually be the best suited candidates for a company in an early stage as the one in original article.
They had pretty much the most expensive support contracts possible. The problem is that apparently all this waste of taxpayers' money has bought nothing useful.
She really can't choose the time when the infant will ask for food, so your recommendation is that she+her kid should simply not be allowed to sit there, in a "move to the back of the bus" kind of way? Really?
Unless you are doing original research in history (either general history or history of some subject like maths) and handling primary sources, then no, you should never actually need to handle original manuscripts. Even most time in history research is actually spent on secondary sources - which naturally means some paper already written and typeset by somebody else. Many times the earlier notation is that way simply because it is the first clumsy attempt to present a new idea that is not yet understood fully - and it's abandoned because it was found out to be unclear and misleading.
And citing your self "how notation evolved and bounced", "the spirit of an old work" - these are terms that do not apply to the research in a subject, but apply only to research on history of the subject, the people in the subject and other 'feelgood' style-over-substance issues that are not actually relevant to the subject at hand.
For example, it is undoubtedly better and more efficient to learn geometry from a modern textbook instead of a direct translation of Euclides - by deliberately throwing away the original notation and the spirit of the work we are actually getting better understanding of the science.
Charge the involved officials personally with contempt of court or perjury. I mean, if I sue you for stealing a pet rock which I myself have put in your house, I would be held liable; and if they claim that breaking copyright should be compared to stealing, then this is just as applicable here.
In principle, you get the exact same result or worse as with a cheaper sensor with less resolution where each pixel is simply 4 times larger and gets 4 times the light for the dark areas, and the bright parts will be maxed out anyway. And HDR usually means a much larger exposure difference than simply 4 times - say, 10 stop difference is a 2^10 ~= 1000 times more light for the dark parts.
Have them insure it. No doctor could afford the potential millions of a malpractice claim, so they are practically required to get insurance, and the climbing/hiking issue can be handled the same way. Some mountain ranges (if I remember correctly, including Everest) do practice this already.
.. and if you call the firing a redundancy, then in case of disputes it's the employers duty to show that you were the worst of all the people with the same job position that was made redundant, and that it's not related to whistleblowing, exercising/demanding labor law rights or age/gender/racial discrimination; and in case if they lose, they owe you back pay for the full time when you were out of office.
The way I understand this was that Google agrees to remove the photos not to remove your house, but to remove inconvenient pictures of people that have been accidentally filmed - say, if your window is wide open and if you are visible mostly naked behind it, they'd immediately remove the pic out of courtesy.
However, they don't bother to re-photo the house due to cost reasons; but this guy aims to fix this. And he is making quite a point with his actions; the point being that given the current rules, you don't get an opt-out chance. And this may actually be a pro-privacy point - shoving in your face the fact that if you want it to be private, then you can NOT rely on everyone just being as polite as Google, but you need to push for changes in the legislation that will give you real rights to demand the photos to be removed or not filmed at all.
I'd consider that as framework bugs which were common a few years ago but should be fixed now - I often use AJAX in dirt-dumb pages exactly for the opposite reason, because the frameworks generate code+workarounds to make common layout/design features look&feel the same on all browsers, including old IE versions which would be a huge pain to support otherwise.
But in any case, to even consider using Silverlight, you must have a complete control over the environment - if your user devices are standartised enough to support Silverlight, then on these devices you shouldn't have any GWT incompability issues, isn't it so?
If the delivered analog voltage always delivers the exact 100% same 1s and 0s, then it delivers 1s and 0s.
SATA cables can be grouped according to their transmission quality - class A SATA cables (the usual ones) deliver 100% quality; class B SATA cables deliver less than 100% quality, so they don't work and you throw them back at the shop for a replacement.
Doing it by writing HTML+JavaScript manually sure can be suicidal, but with appropriate frameworks it is really easy to do rich functionality and handle entity and client state - like Ruby on Rails, Django and dozens of others for pretty much any development language.
There is quite a lot of functional power is available for you in your tools & libraries, but from the customer/browser side all they is see standards-compliant, lightweight AJAX stuff.
Plain old HTML plus AJAX where required, plus whatever parts of HTML5 are working now = superior functionality when compared to Flash/Silverlight, except if you are youtube or a pornsite.
Slashdot Mirror
Clarifying myself - privacy as such is listed, but not *inalienable privacy* - it is considered that privacy is a right unless there is, in essence, any overriding excuse to break privacy including a legal request from government.
The UN guy's opinion is in perfect harmony with article 12 which quite explicitly allows non-arbitrary invasions of privacy in a manner according to local law, as the government of India requests.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Privacy is not (and never has been) listed in any of the human rights charters.
Also, keep in mind that even in an utopia you can't have both inalienable right to free speech and an inalienable right to privacy; in quite many concerns one needs to be abandoned to keep the other.
Your ATM card (any card of the currently used EMV chipcard standard) has knowledge of your pin embedded and can verify/authorize the PIN at an offline POS terminal without contacting the bank.
In some sense you must say that "they're equally likely to exist" - we have completely identical knowledge/proof about all gods existence (no idea at all), and this means that *as far as we know*, none of the mutually exclusive God options can be reasonably given a priority.
If there is some logical reason to consider that Judeo-Christian God has a bigger likelihood of existing than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? We have no idea about both of them, so we can't compare.
Which God?
Only ONE of the major religions can be true, so by upholding christian beliefs you are staking your eternal future on a hope that you don't meet Shiva or Allah when you die.
One way or another, if God exists, then most of the high believers will suffer anyway because they chose the wrong God-idea to worship.
Any decent framework abstracts out the SQL syntax for you in a nice manner (say, ARel in the Rails 3.0 framework is quite nice) , but gain a lot of compatibility by using SQL, allowing to choose from engines from SQLite in a flat file to Oracle on a cluster.
Typically the NoSQL approach just shifts the problems from the database layer to the application programmer - if it's simply ignored, a typical app can't cope with unpredictable/corrupt data being returned from db, and results in weird bugreports that cost a lot of development time to find and fix; and with these fixes parts of the ACID compliance are simply re-implemented in the app layer.
You gain some performance of the db, you lose some (hopefully less) performance in the app, and it costs you additional complexity and programmer-time in the app.
In essence, TFA claims that if the traditional ACID guarantee "if three transactions (let's call them A, B and C) are active ... the resulting database state will be the same as if it had run them one-by-one. No promises are made, however, about which particular order execution it will be equivalent to: A-B-C, B-A-C, A-C-B" is not abandoned (as in NoSQL systems), but is even strengthened to a guarantee that the result will always be as if they arrived in A-B-C order, then it solves all kinds of possible replication problems, requires less networking between the many servers involved, and allows for high scaling while also keeping all the integrity constraints.
Encrypt your data. Public VoIP gets the exact same treatment as the telephone network when you're calling your branch office in Mumbai - if the government asks, the call is intercepted, and any third parties will give out your data - your phone, mobile, mail and DHL/Fedex packages are all subject to this.
If you want privacy, don't trust third-party public networks and do encrypted message exchanges that you and only you control.
As it's defined in court, if you, the judge or any of the lawyers present don't know it by heart and have to look it up - then it's clearly not 'common knowledge' and someone needs to testify how it really is - it doesn't matter if it's disputed, it matters if people outside of the field would know it.
It's definitely moral, as you have deliberately chosen a license that says that you want the product to be freely used also for commercial purposes - i.e., you intentionally forfeit any requests for compensation when it's used commercially, but in return get a wider usage for the product that gives you many indirect benefits - more users, more mindshare, more recognition which increases its value to everybody, including yourself.
This is the whole moral and ethical intent of the licence - that you are not only allowed, but also encouraged by creator to use it in every way, and if you can also get some money out of it, then it's even better - as the money flows support a sustainable development of the new products and motivates entrepreneurs to build new uses for the licensed software that people want so much that they are willing for pay for it.
I see no fault with this use. If the creators of the map project had intended that commercial users are intended to give something back to them - then they have failed in that by putting up a big sign saying the opposite; for example, in their own webpage they publicly state that the only thing they request is "If you are using map data only, we request "Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA""
I'd rather say that it's hamstwo of the OpenStreetMap guys - they have made a gift with a comment that only an acknowledgment/credit is expected, but then loudly complain at the receiver for not giving another gift back.
I code stuff in my free time, but I deploy them as small scale, but still commercial web projects that make some extra cash on the side, and might turn out into a startup if one of the ideas turns out more popular than expected - so none of that code is going on github/etc.
I'd say that this way of employee search will exclude most of developers with entrepreneur thinking, which would actually be the best suited candidates for a company in an early stage as the one in original article.
They had pretty much the most expensive support contracts possible. The problem is that apparently all this waste of taxpayers' money has bought nothing useful.
She really can't choose the time when the infant will ask for food, so your recommendation is that she+her kid should simply not be allowed to sit there, in a "move to the back of the bus" kind of way? Really?
Unless you are doing original research in history (either general history or history of some subject like maths) and handling primary sources, then no, you should never actually need to handle original manuscripts. Even most time in history research is actually spent on secondary sources - which naturally means some paper already written and typeset by somebody else. Many times the earlier notation is that way simply because it is the first clumsy attempt to present a new idea that is not yet understood fully - and it's abandoned because it was found out to be unclear and misleading.
And citing your self "how notation evolved and bounced", "the spirit of an old work" - these are terms that do not apply to the research in a subject, but apply only to research on history of the subject, the people in the subject and other 'feelgood' style-over-substance issues that are not actually relevant to the subject at hand.
For example, it is undoubtedly better and more efficient to learn geometry from a modern textbook instead of a direct translation of Euclides - by deliberately throwing away the original notation and the spirit of the work we are actually getting better understanding of the science.
Charge the involved officials personally with contempt of court or perjury.
I mean, if I sue you for stealing a pet rock which I myself have put in your house, I would be held liable; and if they claim that breaking copyright should be compared to stealing, then this is just as applicable here.
In principle, you get the exact same result or worse as with a cheaper sensor with less resolution where each pixel is simply 4 times larger and gets 4 times the light for the dark areas, and the bright parts will be maxed out anyway. And HDR usually means a much larger exposure difference than simply 4 times - say, 10 stop difference is a 2^10 ~= 1000 times more light for the dark parts.
Have them insure it.
No doctor could afford the potential millions of a malpractice claim, so they are practically required to get insurance, and the climbing/hiking issue can be handled the same way. Some mountain ranges (if I remember correctly, including Everest) do practice this already.
.. and if you call the firing a redundancy, then in case of disputes it's the employers duty to show that you were the worst of all the people with the same job position that was made redundant, and that it's not related to whistleblowing, exercising/demanding labor law rights or age/gender/racial discrimination; and in case if they lose, they owe you back pay for the full time when you were out of office.
The way I understand this was that Google agrees to remove the photos not to remove your house, but to remove inconvenient pictures of people that have been accidentally filmed - say, if your window is wide open and if you are visible mostly naked behind it, they'd immediately remove the pic out of courtesy.
However, they don't bother to re-photo the house due to cost reasons; but this guy aims to fix this. And he is making quite a point with his actions; the point being that given the current rules, you don't get an opt-out chance. And this may actually be a pro-privacy point - shoving in your face the fact that if you want it to be private, then you can NOT rely on everyone just being as polite as Google, but you need to push for changes in the legislation that will give you real rights to demand the photos to be removed or not filmed at all.
I'd consider that as framework bugs which were common a few years ago but should be fixed now - I often use AJAX in dirt-dumb pages exactly for the opposite reason, because the frameworks generate code+workarounds to make common layout/design features look&feel the same on all browsers, including old IE versions which would be a huge pain to support otherwise.
But in any case, to even consider using Silverlight, you must have a complete control over the environment - if your user devices are standartised enough to support Silverlight, then on these devices you shouldn't have any GWT incompability issues, isn't it so?
If the delivered analog voltage always delivers the exact 100% same 1s and 0s, then it delivers 1s and 0s.
SATA cables can be grouped according to their transmission quality - class A SATA cables (the usual ones) deliver 100% quality; class B SATA cables deliver less than 100% quality, so they don't work and you throw them back at the shop for a replacement.
Doing it by writing HTML+JavaScript manually sure can be suicidal, but with appropriate frameworks it is really easy to do rich functionality and handle entity and client state - like Ruby on Rails, Django and dozens of others for pretty much any development language.
There is quite a lot of functional power is available for you in your tools & libraries, but from the customer/browser side all they is see standards-compliant, lightweight AJAX stuff.
Plain old HTML plus AJAX where required, plus whatever parts of HTML5 are working now = superior functionality when compared to Flash/Silverlight, except if you are youtube or a pornsite.