I wonder if Amazon will change the default admin username/password for the system before giving it to the home user. If there's one thing we should have learned by now, the end user definitely doesn't follow best security practices.
HSBC Holdings P.L.C. is a British multinational banking and financial services organisation headquartered in London, United Kingdom and is one of the world's largest banks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC]
"HSBC... [has] resolved charges accusing the bank of having become 'preferred financial institution' for South American drug cartels" [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/03/hsbc-money-laundering-settlement-approved]
Is he seriously implying that current curricula was set with political blinders on. Not that I agree with the slant Texas has put on history, but to imply that the current histories taught do not have one is disingenuous.
There are plenty of systems I work on and develop for wherein I depend on the domain knowledge of others to help me along. I normally learn just enough of the systems to get the requested functionality to work. They tell me how to do things legally (as the time constraints don't permit me enough time to research all the statutes, nor am I a lawyer to trust my parsing of the requisite statutes). I can easily envision a scenario wherein the coders did break the law, but didn't know that the specific situation was unlawful.
Granted, the details will probably come out in the trial, but if they're innocent (or innocent enough not to go to pound me in the ass prison), I hope they can afford to defend themselves. I know ignorance of the law isn't an escuse, but I hope that the ones who designed the system are the ones to get punished.
To use a car analogy, who would you rather have sent to jail, the man who designed the Slim Jim used to break into your car, or the person that procured said Slim Jim, used it to overcome the locks in your car, and drove away with it while getting you to fork out for the loss of the vehicle.
I work in the US Health Care Industry, principally making tools for hospitals to use a patients electronic health record. The majority of our clients are forced into using IE6 by their IT departments.
There's a reason I use my HIPPA rights to make sure my records only live on paper.
A robot that would be use in any random setting or handling various chores would probably be best designed as a humanoid. The tools it would use while preforming the tasks are already designed for us to use. If I want to have a robot to do my chores, I'd rather not have to buy all new tools as well to enable it to do them. And even if I did get specialized accessories to enable the robot to work for me, How the hll am I going to use the lawn mover designed for the spider bot with 4 arms when it breaks?
Well, I suppose as long as it's a wire, I'm OK with it. I draw the line at wireless access though. I don't want anyone to be able to war-drive my frontal cortex.
Knowledge = Power Power = Work/time time=Money Knowledge = Work/Money via Substitution Principle (Knowledge)(Money) = Work via multiplying both sides by Money Money = Work/Knowledge via dividing both sides by Knowledge
Thus, for a constant amount of Work, the less you know, the more you make
Freedom of Speech applies to government censorship. Companies and private individuals have been allowed to censor speech as they wish, so long as there is no law explicitly prohibiting it. The Constitution only applies to the federal government.
Proofs are pretty simple, but they can be long.
Basically, for a proof, you start out with a set of axioms (things which are by definition true), and a pool of things like Laws, Theories, Postulates, and Lemmas. Those are basically well known results of combining the axioms above (sort of like open source black boxes, you feed it the right inputs, and out the other end comes the output). To do a proof, you start with your problem, and your toolkit from above. Then you go set by set, just like in school where you had to show your work. The difference is that for each set, you have to justify why something like (A + 5 = B) == (A = B - 5) by reference to the tools or something that you have in a previous step derived from the tools. The prood shows you how to get from point A to B and guarentees that you never go off the path while doing it.
If a driver is driving unsafely, then they should get penalized for unsafe driving (a requirement everywhere I've lived). Why do you need extra punishment for driving drunk or stoned? I'd rather have every stupid driver pulled over and have their license revoked than have to deal with the DUI check points.
Punish all unsafe drivers equally and severely, regardless of intoxicant levels. Otherwise you end up with the drunk driver getting their license revoked for several years, the stoned driver getting theirs revoked for some different time, and the couple rolling on the latest designer version of X (so not illegal yet) getting a ticket all for pulling the same bone headed maneuver. The all do the same thing, they should all be punished the same.
Does this mean I get to act out my favorite moments from 24 on that creepily suspicious neighbor of mine, the one who speaks that foreigner lingo in with his so call family? I can't wait. Now where'd I put my home waterboarding kit...
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Amazon will change the default admin username/password for the system before giving it to the home user. If there's one thing we should have learned by now, the end user definitely doesn't follow best security practices.
not sure why you say arabic countries...
HSBC Holdings P.L.C. is a British multinational banking and financial services organisation headquartered in London, United Kingdom and is one of the world's largest banks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC]
"HSBC ... [has] resolved charges accusing the bank of having become 'preferred financial institution' for South American drug cartels"
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/03/hsbc-money-laundering-settlement-approved]
For a patent, it should be the first to walk into the office with a working prototype, and that implementation is what the patent should cover.
Just arguing the point, but one of the databases where I work has the medical records of 1 out of every 4 Americans
Is he seriously implying that current curricula was set with political blinders on. Not that I agree with the slant Texas has put on history, but to imply that the current histories taught do not have one is disingenuous.
TvTorrents is your friend then. They've got it there.
There are plenty of systems I work on and develop for wherein I depend on the domain knowledge of others to help me along. I normally learn just enough of the systems to get the requested functionality to work. They tell me how to do things legally (as the time constraints don't permit me enough time to research all the statutes, nor am I a lawyer to trust my parsing of the requisite statutes). I can easily envision a scenario wherein the coders did break the law, but didn't know that the specific situation was unlawful.
Granted, the details will probably come out in the trial, but if they're innocent (or innocent enough not to go to pound me in the ass prison), I hope they can afford to defend themselves. I know ignorance of the law isn't an escuse, but I hope that the ones who designed the system are the ones to get punished.
To use a car analogy, who would you rather have sent to jail, the man who designed the Slim Jim used to break into your car, or the person that procured said Slim Jim, used it to overcome the locks in your car, and drove away with it while getting you to fork out for the loss of the vehicle.
I work in the US Health Care Industry, principally making tools for hospitals to use a patients electronic health record. The majority of our clients are forced into using IE6 by their IT departments.
There's a reason I use my HIPPA rights to make sure my records only live on paper.
A robot that would be use in any random setting or handling various chores would probably be best designed as a humanoid. The tools it would use while preforming the tasks are already designed for us to use. If I want to have a robot to do my chores, I'd rather not have to buy all new tools as well to enable it to do them. And even if I did get specialized accessories to enable the robot to work for me, How the hll am I going to use the lawn mover designed for the spider bot with 4 arms when it breaks?
Well, I suppose as long as it's a wire, I'm OK with it. I draw the line at wireless access though. I don't want anyone to be able to war-drive my frontal cortex.
Knowledge = Power
Power = Work/time
time=Money
Knowledge = Work/Money via Substitution Principle
(Knowledge)(Money) = Work via multiplying both sides by Money
Money = Work/Knowledge via dividing both sides by Knowledge
Thus, for a constant amount of Work, the less you know, the more you make
No kidding. I don't have nor want descendants, so what the hell am I saving the environment for exactly?
Freedom of Speech applies to government censorship. Companies and private individuals have been allowed to censor speech as they wish, so long as there is no law explicitly prohibiting it. The Constitution only applies to the federal government.
But then when will they have the time to engage in their real job, raising money for their reelection bid?
Offtopic yes, but Troll? Really?
Proofs are pretty simple, but they can be long. Basically, for a proof, you start out with a set of axioms (things which are by definition true), and a pool of things like Laws, Theories, Postulates, and Lemmas. Those are basically well known results of combining the axioms above (sort of like open source black boxes, you feed it the right inputs, and out the other end comes the output). To do a proof, you start with your problem, and your toolkit from above. Then you go set by set, just like in school where you had to show your work. The difference is that for each set, you have to justify why something like (A + 5 = B) == (A = B - 5) by reference to the tools or something that you have in a previous step derived from the tools. The prood shows you how to get from point A to B and guarentees that you never go off the path while doing it.
This would just be pre screening for appearance instead of a post screen for trainability </scrasm>
Ah, you'd never make a legislator. they do such convoluted mental gymnastics all the time, see the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937
If a driver is driving unsafely, then they should get penalized for unsafe driving (a requirement everywhere I've lived). Why do you need extra punishment for driving drunk or stoned? I'd rather have every stupid driver pulled over and have their license revoked than have to deal with the DUI check points. Punish all unsafe drivers equally and severely, regardless of intoxicant levels. Otherwise you end up with the drunk driver getting their license revoked for several years, the stoned driver getting theirs revoked for some different time, and the couple rolling on the latest designer version of X (so not illegal yet) getting a ticket all for pulling the same bone headed maneuver. The all do the same thing, they should all be punished the same.
Aren't all the ODF documents just XML documents? How much does Open Office have to pay for each download?
look up the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Does this mean I get to act out my favorite moments from 24 on that creepily suspicious neighbor of mine, the one who speaks that foreigner lingo in with his so call family? I can't wait. Now where'd I put my home waterboarding kit...
Microsoft has enough money that they could make any administration friendly. Enough money into the campaign chest = friendly political party.
any sufficiently advanced extortion racket is indinguisable from a government
How do you cross out a portion of a web form with 'I agree' and 'I do no agree' buttons?