One thing that was really entertaining I did once: I had an offer from one dealer, and actually went in to visit another dealer. While I was there, I got the first dealer on my cell phone, so I was chatting with both salesmen at the same time. It was hilarious. Yes, definitely the best thing to do is to get the dealers fighting with each other, and make sure they know that they are.
Seems like a pretty barbaric test on the subjects. I know, for the greater good and everything etc. etc., but at some point where do we draw the line and say this isn't humane to perform?
So that means Google feels it is more important to have technical skills than to have soft skills. Hopefully they have stronger filters on the interview side of things, or over time they will have tons of brilliant engineers that can solve puzzles but can't work with other people or understand user's problems.
200 licenses per year? If anything, that doesn't speak to technical concerns. It points towards incompetent legal / licensing / contracting. Who's negotiating those licenses with Oracle? Do they know what they are doing at all?
This already happens for large US companies, think Google, Microsoft, Verizon, etc. I'm sure they all have on-site government reps from some major departments to make it easier and quicker to process requests back and forth.
These rules DO apply to drones. In fact, the FAA talks about them all the time, and even has an informational website to explain it to drone users: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/fo...
I think this is a good move. Make people take some basic safety classes and tests and pay a fee to become certified. Pull their certification if they are jerks or are operating unsafely. People that are serious about the hobby are usually the people that are polite, careful, etc, and they are the people willing to put in the effort to get licensed. People that are serious about flying drones are usually the people most annoyed by the crazies that are doing things recklessly and ruining the hobby for everyone else.
Yeah my thoughts exactly. "Drug company realizes that an extremely debilitating rare disease may have a cure with modern science, so they are researching how to cure that." Doesn't sound like exploitation to me.
Really? How is a university planning to fund a $23 billion purchase? Are they going to leverage themselves into an insanity level? Are they an extremely rich university? Something doesn't add up. Maybe they are just a shady front for a shady investment group?
"Gee, how do we create a legal category for workers that don't have any of the hard-won protections of being employed, but also don't have the flexibility of being contractors? Something like non-skilled dependent slaves that can be hired and fired several times a day, depending on the market?"
"web-scale data centers are designed to cope with hardware failures". So.... it's OK if you use my motherboard design and they randomly fail, because you should just make up for that in software or hardware redundancy? Um, no.
Companies that make these devices are driven by business interests, not technology concerns. Which is what their shareholders expect and require. So the question isn't "Can someone hack this?" the question is "Given 0.001% of these get hacked, and our recourse is to return the $50 in a refund which is our highest liability exposure due to terms & conditions, that equates to five cents cost per unit. So if we are selling 10 million of these per year, we should not spend more than $500,000 on security engineering. That pays the full run rate for two full-time engineers. Hire them and see what they can do".
We sometimes forget the economics side of things in technology arguments...
At the heart of the matter, it comes down to being fair. If you want to require people that drive customers commercially to go through additional training, insurance, licensing, inspections, etc. then you should require Uber drivers to do that as well. If you don't want to require that, then taxi drivers should not be required to do any licensing either. But you can't enforce licensing on taxis and ignore it with Uber drivers.
The problem you can run into is with the network neutrality / common carrier issue. I can see the value of blocking spam calls, but once you open the door to the phone company filtering calls, it can cause more problems. Just something to consider.
So it was actually captured in 6k, and then was scaled to 8k. I don't think it should count unless it is captured in 8k. I mean, I could take a normal DVD and upscale it to 8k, but that doesn't mean much.
Baidu isn't just "a computer research and services organization", they're the Chinese version of Google. They're a massive company with eight billion USD in revenue last year. The headline is either misleading or completely clueless.
Depends a lot on where you are located. Natural gas is the standard in my area, it's abundant, cheap (about 1/10 electricity), and everyone knows how to service it. Geothermal is an interesting investment and something to consider, but when it's the middle of the night on Christmas Eve and your heating system goes down and it's near zero outside (actually happened to me once), it's nice to have a standard system that every technician in the area knows how to service.
The problem is that the criminals will still have drones. And the media will still have them. And the police will still have them. And the terrorists will still have them. You just won't be able to have your own.
What makes me mad in this case is that the pilot is ruining it for everyone else. Every time an idiot does something like this, it's going to contribute to locking down the ability for everyone else to fly them.
The problem with frameworks is that they lower the end product to the common denominator. Instead of having an app for each platform that exploits the strengths of that platform, you end up with whatever you can manage to get to work on every platform. That works for simple apps like news websites maybe, but not when you want to integrate tightly with device hardware and how the established user base is used to interacting with their chosen platform.
A way to get "halfway there" and increase your security without having a separate password for every single site is to have passwords by security level. For all the crapware websites you have one password, for work use one password, then use frequently changed high security pass phrases for certain specific sites, like one for each major bank you use and one for each major email account, etc. You don't need a hundred passwords just because you have been forced to create useless profiles on low security sites.
This is easily solved with a one-time bond. Insurance companies work with secondary insurance all the time. If you're buying a $250,000 ticket, it's easy to throw on a $3000 one-time bond for space-travel related issues. People do the same type of thing all the time for international travel.
In other words, think of the bag the same way you think of a software buffer. Just because the buffer isn't full doesn't mean the flow of data isn't happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't you do this at a company owned store? What value does a middleman provide that buying from a company owned distribution center wouldn't?
One thing that was really entertaining I did once: I had an offer from one dealer, and actually went in to visit another dealer. While I was there, I got the first dealer on my cell phone, so I was chatting with both salesmen at the same time. It was hilarious. Yes, definitely the best thing to do is to get the dealers fighting with each other, and make sure they know that they are.
Seems like a pretty barbaric test on the subjects. I know, for the greater good and everything etc. etc., but at some point where do we draw the line and say this isn't humane to perform?
So that means Google feels it is more important to have technical skills than to have soft skills. Hopefully they have stronger filters on the interview side of things, or over time they will have tons of brilliant engineers that can solve puzzles but can't work with other people or understand user's problems.
200 licenses per year? If anything, that doesn't speak to technical concerns. It points towards incompetent legal / licensing / contracting. Who's negotiating those licenses with Oracle? Do they know what they are doing at all?
This already happens for large US companies, think Google, Microsoft, Verizon, etc. I'm sure they all have on-site government reps from some major departments to make it easier and quicker to process requests back and forth.
These rules DO apply to drones. In fact, the FAA talks about them all the time, and even has an informational website to explain it to drone users: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/fo...
I think this is a good move. Make people take some basic safety classes and tests and pay a fee to become certified. Pull their certification if they are jerks or are operating unsafely. People that are serious about the hobby are usually the people that are polite, careful, etc, and they are the people willing to put in the effort to get licensed. People that are serious about flying drones are usually the people most annoyed by the crazies that are doing things recklessly and ruining the hobby for everyone else.
Yeah my thoughts exactly. "Drug company realizes that an extremely debilitating rare disease may have a cure with modern science, so they are researching how to cure that." Doesn't sound like exploitation to me.
Really? How is a university planning to fund a $23 billion purchase? Are they going to leverage themselves into an insanity level? Are they an extremely rich university? Something doesn't add up. Maybe they are just a shady front for a shady investment group?
"Gee, how do we create a legal category for workers that don't have any of the hard-won protections of being employed, but also don't have the flexibility of being contractors? Something like non-skilled dependent slaves that can be hired and fired several times a day, depending on the market?"
"web-scale data centers are designed to cope with hardware failures". So.... it's OK if you use my motherboard design and they randomly fail, because you should just make up for that in software or hardware redundancy? Um, no.
Well, at least he included "on the signature of a warrant". That's something that seems to be going away swiftly.
Companies that make these devices are driven by business interests, not technology concerns. Which is what their shareholders expect and require. So the question isn't "Can someone hack this?" the question is "Given 0.001% of these get hacked, and our recourse is to return the $50 in a refund which is our highest liability exposure due to terms & conditions, that equates to five cents cost per unit. So if we are selling 10 million of these per year, we should not spend more than $500,000 on security engineering. That pays the full run rate for two full-time engineers. Hire them and see what they can do". We sometimes forget the economics side of things in technology arguments...
At the heart of the matter, it comes down to being fair. If you want to require people that drive customers commercially to go through additional training, insurance, licensing, inspections, etc. then you should require Uber drivers to do that as well. If you don't want to require that, then taxi drivers should not be required to do any licensing either. But you can't enforce licensing on taxis and ignore it with Uber drivers.
The problem you can run into is with the network neutrality / common carrier issue. I can see the value of blocking spam calls, but once you open the door to the phone company filtering calls, it can cause more problems. Just something to consider.
So it was actually captured in 6k, and then was scaled to 8k. I don't think it should count unless it is captured in 8k. I mean, I could take a normal DVD and upscale it to 8k, but that doesn't mean much.
Baidu isn't just "a computer research and services organization", they're the Chinese version of Google. They're a massive company with eight billion USD in revenue last year. The headline is either misleading or completely clueless.
Depends a lot on where you are located. Natural gas is the standard in my area, it's abundant, cheap (about 1/10 electricity), and everyone knows how to service it. Geothermal is an interesting investment and something to consider, but when it's the middle of the night on Christmas Eve and your heating system goes down and it's near zero outside (actually happened to me once), it's nice to have a standard system that every technician in the area knows how to service.
The problem is that the criminals will still have drones. And the media will still have them. And the police will still have them. And the terrorists will still have them. You just won't be able to have your own.
What makes me mad in this case is that the pilot is ruining it for everyone else. Every time an idiot does something like this, it's going to contribute to locking down the ability for everyone else to fly them.
The problem with frameworks is that they lower the end product to the common denominator. Instead of having an app for each platform that exploits the strengths of that platform, you end up with whatever you can manage to get to work on every platform. That works for simple apps like news websites maybe, but not when you want to integrate tightly with device hardware and how the established user base is used to interacting with their chosen platform.
A way to get "halfway there" and increase your security without having a separate password for every single site is to have passwords by security level. For all the crapware websites you have one password, for work use one password, then use frequently changed high security pass phrases for certain specific sites, like one for each major bank you use and one for each major email account, etc. You don't need a hundred passwords just because you have been forced to create useless profiles on low security sites.
This is easily solved with a one-time bond. Insurance companies work with secondary insurance all the time. If you're buying a $250,000 ticket, it's easy to throw on a $3000 one-time bond for space-travel related issues. People do the same type of thing all the time for international travel.
In other words, think of the bag the same way you think of a software buffer. Just because the buffer isn't full doesn't mean the flow of data isn't happening.