Is that bad for the company? If he contributed meaningfully to their product, and then took advantage of the vestment terms as stated when he signed on, isn't that entirely OK?
Hateful rhetoric is never appropriate, ESPECIALLY when attacking irrational beliefs. It makes you little better than them, and will only make them entrench their position more tightly.
You can rebel against your nonsense (and seem to have a good argument for it), but you can certainly be clever and civil enough to do so without hate and without hateful rhetoric.
Yep. Once the directories were put online, and other data aggregated in a manner that was easily searchable, the degree of privacy was less. I couldn't easily search for Bob Schmidt in Some Town, Iowa, unless I lived close enough to leaf through a phone book. A determined attacker (stalker?) could still find someone by hiring a private investigator, or looking at publically available information, but that was a lot harder than firing up Google (or LinkedIn) and looking for their resume, or looking at metadata on their photo stream, or even just reading the things they tweet.
It used to be effectively anonymous for most dealings (aside from subpoenas), but now that you (or your friends) post images and videos on facebook or youtube, there's a large number of people who can say, "hey wait do I know that guy?". The "many eyes" principle applies to exposing identities as well as software errors, I guess.
"Your honor, we intercepted child porn traffic from this IP address, and chatted with a user from the same address. The defendant was the registered user of that address, and we have 9,372 separate images that were sent through his IP address."
"Your honor, it wasn't me! I share that with my entire neighborhood, so it was one of those other people, but I don't know which one."
"There were no logs indicating that others were using Mr. Smith's wireless network, and we argue that his wireless network was intended for use by his Wii and his iPad."
I'm pretty sure that the police will look for enough evidence to make their case against YOU. It's up to YOU to be able to have counterevidence. So, if you're running an open wireless connection, I hope you're keeping logs of who connected at what times, and perhaps even info on the volume of traffic. When the SWAT or FBI (or your local variation if you're not in the US) bust in your door and confiscate all of your hardware (and take you to a small room for questioning, most likely), it's in your best interests to be able to have ample evidence to show that it wasn't you. You probably want to consider talking to your lawyer before disclosing it, as they're likely to start arguing that you knowingly allowed the Bad Traffic to go through your network, and therefore were an accessory, or some stuff that sounds like BS to us but which they're likely to build a convincing case for.
I'd much rather keep an un-open connection, so that I don't have to worry (as much) about Other People's actions causing me to come under scrutiny. I trust myself not to do illegal stuff a LOT more than I trust random strangers on a connection they think is anonymous.
That's an interesting point. Rather than try to find what's legal, set out to make/get high quality versions of all of your music. Eventually, what's left will be things for which you don't have source media, and you will have a much smaller list of candidates to filter.
A suit doesn't need to show that the music MUST BE the same, merely that it's highly likely to be. MD5s show that it's highly likely to be the same file, as the odds of a collission are (by definition) low. Subpoenas can verify what songs you actually have.
The fun part would be having a music collection where each song matched the MD5s of a different song that was not part of your music collection...
Except, that would be useless for identifying that you own a Crappy Copy of That One Song. Of course the MD5s will be different, otherwise you wouldn't need to get the new copy. Surely they'd do some fingerprinting based on the sounds the song represents, not the bits involved in representing it.
I have no idea WHAT we are paying for, only that each year my company tells me "Health care is more expensive, it was the only way to keep the same coverage".
Does naming them verbosely, and having similarly verbose names of parameters, help? Sometimes I get annoyed by that in Lisp and its variants, but that plus a block comment illustrating its purpose seems like it ought to be sufficient. Am I missing something in what you were looking for?
Comparing books and cinema (and other entertainment) is similar to comparing Eating and Breathing. Both are something we'd sorely miss, and it's hard to say one is better than the other. When the voices are all in your head, how are you to hear Rutger Hauer's spiel at the end of Blade Runner? How are you to get the nuances that some of these actors have given to the works of Shakespeare, without a lifetime of study? Similarly, if one's never devoured a book, composed mental images of what cities, mountains, or monsters look like, we miss out on a ton of richness. Still, good ones of either are good enough that I'd have a less-rich life if I hadn't experienced both reading AND films (and other media).
Cinema is less than books when the movies are based on books. When a filmmaker makes the film on its own, there's no sacrifice to be made.
Or google "how to make soap" -- there appear to be some good blogs about making soap. The first site returned (teachsoap.com) appears to have several articles on how it can be made, with links to a shop that they'd love for you to use to buy your soapmaking supplies. Seems useful enough. Wikipedia also has an interesting article on saponification, which is more how soap WORKS than how it's MADE, but still interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least you don't have to worry about them getting locked out of the house. :)
Is that bad for the company? If he contributed meaningfully to their product, and then took advantage of the vestment terms as stated when he signed on, isn't that entirely OK?
Wait, three? Which one did I miss? (I'm serious - I think I missed a memo.)
Hateful rhetoric is never appropriate, ESPECIALLY when attacking irrational beliefs. It makes you little better than them, and will only make them entrench their position more tightly.
You can rebel against your nonsense (and seem to have a good argument for it), but you can certainly be clever and civil enough to do so without hate and without hateful rhetoric.
I think he wanted to post useful and interesting strategic information ("Here's how we do it") without risking being blasted as a karma whore.
I'm sure that a ton of people would like to be his customer, now, though, and would upmod a link to his company. :D
Yep. Once the directories were put online, and other data aggregated in a manner that was easily searchable, the degree of privacy was less. I couldn't easily search for Bob Schmidt in Some Town, Iowa, unless I lived close enough to leaf through a phone book. A determined attacker (stalker?) could still find someone by hiring a private investigator, or looking at publically available information, but that was a lot harder than firing up Google (or LinkedIn) and looking for their resume, or looking at metadata on their photo stream, or even just reading the things they tweet.
It used to be effectively anonymous for most dealings (aside from subpoenas), but now that you (or your friends) post images and videos on facebook or youtube, there's a large number of people who can say, "hey wait do I know that guy?". The "many eyes" principle applies to exposing identities as well as software errors, I guess.
"Your honor, we intercepted child porn traffic from this IP address, and chatted with a user from the same address. The defendant was the registered user of that address, and we have 9,372 separate images that were sent through his IP address."
"Your honor, it wasn't me! I share that with my entire neighborhood, so it was one of those other people, but I don't know which one."
"There were no logs indicating that others were using Mr. Smith's wireless network, and we argue that his wireless network was intended for use by his Wii and his iPad."
I'm pretty sure that the police will look for enough evidence to make their case against YOU. It's up to YOU to be able to have counterevidence. So, if you're running an open wireless connection, I hope you're keeping logs of who connected at what times, and perhaps even info on the volume of traffic. When the SWAT or FBI (or your local variation if you're not in the US) bust in your door and confiscate all of your hardware (and take you to a small room for questioning, most likely), it's in your best interests to be able to have ample evidence to show that it wasn't you. You probably want to consider talking to your lawyer before disclosing it, as they're likely to start arguing that you knowingly allowed the Bad Traffic to go through your network, and therefore were an accessory, or some stuff that sounds like BS to us but which they're likely to build a convincing case for.
I'd much rather keep an un-open connection, so that I don't have to worry (as much) about Other People's actions causing me to come under scrutiny. I trust myself not to do illegal stuff a LOT more than I trust random strangers on a connection they think is anonymous.
It's a trap! It's probably full of Bitcoins ...
Ah, but they threaten you with court costs and offer a settlement, effectively assuming that if you downloaded it, you also uploaded it.
That's an interesting point. Rather than try to find what's legal, set out to make/get high quality versions of all of your music. Eventually, what's left will be things for which you don't have source media, and you will have a much smaller list of candidates to filter.
Sony?
A suit doesn't need to show that the music MUST BE the same, merely that it's highly likely to be. MD5s show that it's highly likely to be the same file, as the odds of a collission are (by definition) low. Subpoenas can verify what songs you actually have.
The fun part would be having a music collection where each song matched the MD5s of a different song that was not part of your music collection...
Except, that would be useless for identifying that you own a Crappy Copy of That One Song. Of course the MD5s will be different, otherwise you wouldn't need to get the new copy. Surely they'd do some fingerprinting based on the sounds the song represents, not the bits involved in representing it.
I have no idea WHAT we are paying for, only that each year my company tells me "Health care is more expensive, it was the only way to keep the same coverage".
Does naming them verbosely, and having similarly verbose names of parameters, help? Sometimes I get annoyed by that in Lisp and its variants, but that plus a block comment illustrating its purpose seems like it ought to be sufficient. Am I missing something in what you were looking for?
You can, but his explanation made it funnier for those of us who didn't have that windows API background. :)
When did we discover alcohol? I wonder what they did to deal with the pain, if anything.
It depends on what size of an integer field he's counting with. :D
For those who have never heard that abbreviation (and I hadn't), "L-Mart" is apparently short for Lockheed Martin.
I thought the Falcon 9 was intended for heavy lift, not for human transport?
That was an excellent pun. :D
Comparing books and cinema (and other entertainment) is similar to comparing Eating and Breathing. Both are something we'd sorely miss, and it's hard to say one is better than the other. When the voices are all in your head, how are you to hear Rutger Hauer's spiel at the end of Blade Runner? How are you to get the nuances that some of these actors have given to the works of Shakespeare, without a lifetime of study? Similarly, if one's never devoured a book, composed mental images of what cities, mountains, or monsters look like, we miss out on a ton of richness. Still, good ones of either are good enough that I'd have a less-rich life if I hadn't experienced both reading AND films (and other media).
Cinema is less than books when the movies are based on books. When a filmmaker makes the film on its own, there's no sacrifice to be made.
Why is that an offense worthy of boycott? Is there something about Dan Brown that I missed?
Or google "how to make soap" -- there appear to be some good blogs about making soap. The first site returned (teachsoap.com) appears to have several articles on how it can be made, with links to a shop that they'd love for you to use to buy your soapmaking supplies. Seems useful enough. Wikipedia also has an interesting article on saponification, which is more how soap WORKS than how it's MADE, but still interesting.