I don't understand how it's possible to be locked out of a system that you have direct local access to. You should at least be able to pop in a livecd and edit/etc/password from a livecd.
That gets you into the operating system. Once you are there, what do you do?
SQL databases can/should use passwords.
Web servers can/should use passwords.
Payroll systems MUST use passwords, with all data encrypted.
The above (and others) are where the problem lies, and no single user reboot will fix this.
Jus' how hard IS it to develop decent multi-threaded/multi-core code....?
Not hard at all, as long as the problem you are trying to solve can be broken down into parallel steps.
OTOH, if the problem requires sequential steps, you are fsck'd
Re:How exactly does CopySense work ?
on
ISP Sued By Irish RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Then they also say they can filter out porn/kiddie porn P2P traffic. Have they got fingerprints of THAT ? All existing porn movies ? Sounds like the largest porn collection on Earth.
Not only that, they have now confessed to possessing child pornography!!
Some of the best input you can get is by giving the software to someone completely unfamiliar to the project, and ask them to accomplish 6 objectives that require them to navigate the application's interface.
The concept is called "Useability Testing". Do not stop with asking them to "accomplish 6 objectives". Match the objectives to the product requirements. Match the tester to the appication (if it is a Computed Aided Dispatch system, your primary testers should be dispatchers (I know, a novel concept;-) ).
Provide a telephone for them to call the "Help Desk" when they have problems. Record the screen and keyboard. Document all of their problems. (LATHER)
Review the recordings, noting all problems encountered. Update any user documentation as needed. Note any areas where the requirements do not match the existing test product. Make any required modifications to the product. (RINSE)
Grab a new guinea pig. (REPEAT)
Yes, this can be expensive, but not as expensive as rolling out a product that does not do what is needed. If it is not what the target audience needs to perform their job (the reason you are doing this in the first place), you will fight an uphill battle what will only be "won" by management mandate. This will guarantee project failure. You will always need buy-in from the users for a project to succeed. Besides, once you have set this up once you can implement it whenever you want.
Remember, "Do it right or do it over"
The first thing to do is remove arbitrary barriers. IE, "must" have X years of experience, X degree, held X previous positions, must move to our area. That's the sum of major mistakes most operations make.
Also remove two other major mistakes:
Asking for salary history (you don't need to know what I have made in the past)
Asking for salary requirements (you need to tell me what my expertise and talent are worth to you)
In the first case, as a consultant I may have been working on a multimillion dollar project with a short time frame. This is the sort of job that pays a significant premium. Or, I might have been working on something that just seemed interesting at the time. Past earnings have no bearing on present and future opportunities.
In the second case, I will quote you what I want, not I will accept and definitely not what I will settle for.
13) I will testify to the procedures used and results obtained by MediaSentry coupled with the information supplied by Defendant's ISP, to demonstrate the Defendant's Internet account and computer were used to download and upload Copyrighted music from the Internet using the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.
14) I will testify that based on the MediaSentry data mentioned above and registry entries recovered from the computer that the computer had a public IP address and was not connected to the Internet via a wireless router.
This is his testimony. He states that he can testify as to the procedures used and results obtained. This is not an "assumption".
Jacobson's testimony was perfectly fine. There's certainly room to question the accuracy of the data given to him, and to a lesser extent, some room to dispute how conclusive his findings were, but this is way beyond that.
We are way beyond questioning "the accuracy of the data", we are looking at the veracity of his testimony. To state that he will testify to the procedures used and then state:
Q. Do you know what processes and procedures MediaSentry employed?
A. I do not know the inner works of MediaSentry processes and procedures.
Q. Do you know what software they used?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if it was well known off-the-shelf software or if it was proprietary software?
A. Again, I do not know the inner workings of MediaSentry's operations.
Q. Do you know if their software had been peer-reviewed or published or anything like that?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
(from deposition dated February 23, 2007) is deceptive at best, perjury at worst.
1) What was Prof. Jacobsen hired to do? If he was not hired to investigate something like how Verizon identified the IP addresses, he cannot be faulted for not knowing these.
He was hired to testify that the RIAA's investigator (Media Sentry) was accurate in pinpointing Ms. Lindor as the infringer. In the process of doing so, he testified in a deposition that all of their methods and means were correct. Since he did so, he can indeed be faulted for this. Prof Pouwelse was correct in identifying this as an issue.
When hired, what level of forensic proof was requested? If the RIAA did not specify a level that would hold up in criminal court then Prof. Jacobson cannot be faulted for not meeting that level.
He was hired to testify as an expert witness on behalf of the RIAA. By definition, this requires a level that would hold up in civil (not criminal) court.
2) Stating that you did not know what processes and procedures MediSentry employed is not incompetence. Stating that you were absolutely certain of the process but in reality have no clue would be incompetence.
Stating that you did not know... is not incompetence unless you already stated under oath that the procedures were complete and accurate, only to later testify (in a second deposition) that not only did you not observe the procedures, but had no idea what they were. This is worse than borderline incompetence, this potentially crosses the line into perjury.
b) a simplified explanation that can get the main point across and be understandable to the average person. So explaining a "network of networks" should not imply incompetence.
You are correct if your explanation is intended to simplify the subject. If your intention as demonstrated by your testimony under oath is to mislead the finder(s) of fact (regardless of whether this is a bench or jury trial), this shows incompetence. However, it also implies if not outright screams deception. The only question that remains is whether this deception is inadvertent or willful. That would be the line that defines perjury.
I highly suggest that you read the assorted documents on Ray Beckerman's site (referenced in many other posts in this article), specifically Mr. Jacobsen's sworn testimony (read first) and then Prof. Pouwelse's report as to the veracity of Mr. Jacobsen's testimony (the subject of this article).
If someone has Dr. Jacobson's reports and declarations or has a link to them, please feel free to send them along, and I'll take a look at them directly
Knowing "officials", we should be thankful they at least confirmed that the damage was caused by a collision with the ground.
There, fixed it for ya...
Something like 60 percent above the current stock price if I recall.
No, it was a 62% premium above the stock price at the time of the offer. When the offer was made Feb 1st, the deal was valued at 44.6Bn. It is now at approx 41Bn and heading south (due to Yahoos stock price going up and Microsoft' s going down). Unless the deal is all in cash, the value of the deal is highly dependent on the spread.
Given the available information, it's arguably clear that $40 per share is just a pipe dream
According to some news reports, $40 per share was what was on the table when MS tried this last year. If that is the case, this is not a pipe dream or ploy. This is what MS was willing to pay at that time. The board can argue that this is a legitimate counter, without actively courting another suitor.
Since this was not a purchase that Yahoo was looking for, "maximizing shareholder value" requires that they look for other (possibly more lucrative) arrangements.
I would also add that suing your own company brings bad publicity to it- are they interested in their company well being or what?
Not to mention that it requires your own company to expend funds on defending itself from you. However, if the pension funds believe that a $2 per share profit is worth this suit (notice that the suit mentions the pre-offer value, not the current one), they should knock themselves out.
If you're looking where there should be nothing and there's a moving object, red flags go up real quick.
There is also the technique for locating "stealthy" objects. If you are looking where there should be something and there is nothing, something is there with rather interesting properties. For reference, think of the situation where stars should be visible.
Patents are supposed to cover a *specific implementation* of an idea.
This is the reason for the original requirement of a working model.
Which is fine, but in software, there are ALWAYS multiple ways to do things.
Multiple, but in most ways limited (how many ways can you devise to count from one to six?).
So should a software patent cover the *functionality* of the software, or the the *implementation* (which would amount to the source code, and maybe some of non-standard elements of the interface).
Neither, there is the concept of Trade Secret. This is where the implementation of the function is held close within the company. Unfortunately the current climate allows for "trade secrets" to be protected by patents. Some patents have been issued in such a way that, contrary to the original intent, obscure the ability for any one to duplicate the functionality using different means. For instance, a patent that broadly covers "monitoring a network" which is then used to obtain license fees from anybody who does so by any means. This is what KSR vs. Teleflex started as the road back to rationality.
Additionally, the new scrutiny will alleviate the current passion for patenting an existing process (balancing your checkbook) by adding "over the Internet" or "using a computer" to the claim (don't laugh - it's been done multiple times). There is one memorable application which used an email message to confirm an order placed over the 'net - it was originally approved.
And no, I will not do your homework for you - that is what search engines are for.
Wrong - the phrasing is "obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art", not experts in the field. This is why it is commonly abbreviated "PHOSITA" in documents.
In the mid-90s, my parents picked up a cheap analog Motorolla. It sounded so good, no one could tell that it was a cell phone.
That's because even the "cheap" Motorola's were still commercial quality radios. The new phones are indeed cheap (as in trash, not as in low cost). Give me a StarTac (or for that matter a MoCom or MoTrac) over most of what you will find today. There is a reason that Sabres and Astros still command high prices on the secondary market.
The words "matter of national security" should carry a bit of weight.
This would be the case if the phrase (and it's cousin - Executive Privilege) were not used so frequently and so obviously to hide illegal/unethical actions on the part of members of the current (and former) administrations.
Among the other members of Oasis is IBM, which, with its Lotus Symphony office suite, has interest in ODF as well.
Among the other members of Oasis is Microsoft, which declined to participate in the process as regards ODF.
If Microsoft, which proclaims interest in interoperability was telling the truth in the matter, they would (and could) have added their $.02 to the process which resulted in ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (also known as Open Document Format).
You missed my point (and did not RTFA).
Omniture expects to see a cookie which indicates that I opted out instead of opt-in. The article specifically states that if you delete the cookie you have to opt-out again. The normally accepted method is that if a site is unable to get/set cookies this indicates that the machine has told them to buzz off (your words).
Also, note that the page being visited assumes that you are already connecting to Omniture's tracking server (again, your words), without having been given permission to make this happen. If the page being visited is responsible for verifying that permission has been secured (with the appropriate prior notification) then this might be acceptable. When this action is being taken "under the radar" it is not.
This, coupled with a DNS entry that can only be called misleading is what leads some to condemn this particular practice. It seems to be way to close to what a [mal|spy]ware type process would do.
You are correct in saying "it's not really Omniture's problem". It is Adobe's problem in that the perception is that they are "quietly monitoring software use" according to the title of the article.
Hope this helps to remove some of your confusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, don't send money. Sign up for a PACER account, then when she says "we need this from PACER" go get it
Instant donation plus accountability
If you are not willing to do so, please refrain from being so righteous.
Oops, meant that's the way the machine works ;-)
More importantly, that's the way the language works. Each jump or longjump is a GOTO. Each function call in a program is a GOTO (or GOSUB).
When you have to unconditionally exit a set of nested condition tests, you either code explict tests all the way down the line or GOTO to escape.
There is a difference between:
GOTO should not be used
-and-
GOTO should not be used unless it results in cleaner, more understandable code
That gets you into the operating system. Once you are there, what do you do? SQL databases can/should use passwords.
Web servers can/should use passwords.
Payroll systems MUST use passwords, with all data encrypted.
The above (and others) are where the problem lies, and no single user reboot will fix this.
Not hard at all, as long as the problem you are trying to solve can be broken down into parallel steps.
OTOH, if the problem requires sequential steps, you are fsck'd
Take that, Audible Magic!
Author: Platt, David S.
ISBN: 0-321-46675-6
Get it and read it.
Provide a telephone for them to call the "Help Desk" when they have problems. Record the screen and keyboard. Document all of their problems. (LATHER)
Review the recordings, noting all problems encountered. Update any user documentation as needed. Note any areas where the requirements do not match the existing test product. Make any required modifications to the product. (RINSE)
Grab a new guinea pig. (REPEAT)
Yes, this can be expensive, but not as expensive as rolling out a product that does not do what is needed. If it is not what the target audience needs to perform their job (the reason you are doing this in the first place), you will fight an uphill battle what will only be "won" by management mandate. This will guarantee project failure. You will always need buy-in from the users for a project to succeed. Besides, once you have set this up once you can implement it whenever you want.
Remember, "Do it right or do it over"
yes.
In the first case, as a consultant I may have been working on a multimillion dollar project with a short time frame. This is the sort of job that pays a significant premium. Or, I might have been working on something that just seemed interesting at the time. Past earnings have no bearing on present and future opportunities.
In the second case, I will quote you what I want, not I will accept and definitely not what I will settle for.
I highly suggest that you read the assorted documents on Ray Beckerman's site (referenced in many other posts in this article), specifically Mr. Jacobsen's sworn testimony (read first) and then Prof. Pouwelse's report as to the veracity of Mr. Jacobsen's testimony (the subject of this article).
Knowing "officials", we should be thankful they at least confirmed that the damage was caused by a collision with the ground. There, fixed it for ya...
Since this was not a purchase that Yahoo was looking for, "maximizing shareholder value" requires that they look for other (possibly more lucrative) arrangements.
Additionally, the new scrutiny will alleviate the current passion for patenting an existing process (balancing your checkbook) by adding "over the Internet" or "using a computer" to the claim (don't laugh - it's been done multiple times). There is one memorable application which used an email message to confirm an order placed over the 'net - it was originally approved.
And no, I will not do your homework for you - that is what search engines are for.
Wrong - the phrasing is "obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art", not experts in the field. This is why it is commonly abbreviated "PHOSITA" in documents.
If Microsoft, which proclaims interest in interoperability was telling the truth in the matter, they would (and could) have added their $.02 to the process which resulted in ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (also known as Open Document Format ).
Omniture expects to see a cookie which indicates that I opted out instead of opt-in. The article specifically states that if you delete the cookie you have to opt-out again. The normally accepted method is that if a site is unable to get/set cookies this indicates that the machine has told them to buzz off (your words).
Also, note that the page being visited assumes that you are already connecting to Omniture's tracking server (again, your words), without having been given permission to make this happen. If the page being visited is responsible for verifying that permission has been secured (with the appropriate prior notification) then this might be acceptable. When this action is being taken "under the radar" it is not.
This, coupled with a DNS entry that can only be called misleading is what leads some to condemn this particular practice. It seems to be way to close to what a [mal|spy]ware type process would do.
You are correct in saying "it's not really Omniture's problem". It is Adobe's problem in that the perception is that they are "quietly monitoring software use" according to the title of the article. Hope this helps to remove some of your confusion.