Microsoft's Azure allows you to easily create VMs that run Windows or Linux (there are quite a few Linux distros you can choose from if you don't want to install your own). The price savings you get for running Linux over Windows is roughly the same that other cloud companies offer.
Take a look at how long it took Sun to open source Java. You can't just open source a major project like it was nothing. You have things like 3rd party code that might be included under a priority license, code cleanup to do, credentials that need to be sanitized, liability to worry about, etc...
I assume they give the details on how this was done in their security report, which requires registering to download. From their wording they have a tool that scans for common security issues and report them. So where things ranks depends heavily on how accurate the tool is.
Of interesting note is that java is higher than.NET and C++ on flaws, but lower on the list of critical flaws
Javascript is at the bottom. My guess that is because you generally run javascript on the client, and good server architecture doesn't trust any javascript code.
Sony would prefer games to be optimized for their latest hardware, but if a company pressures them enough to simply use an emulator to save development costs they will allow it.
Yes, they might fix up the emulator in the future to support more games, which is why it is not for general purpose right now.
Sorry, if my last line was confusing, I was referring to Sony, not Blizzard in reference to an emulator.
They haven't tested it for all games. So, they only support using it for this special case. Also, they probably don't want to encourage game makers to use it, but rather recompile (and retarget) their game for better support.
It is like running World of Warcraft on linux. The company has a linux build of the game. They don't release it. They don't support running WoW using Wine. They won't ban you for playing WoW using Wine. Their anti-cheat program will detect you using Wine to run their game, and will appropriately adjust.
In short, they don't want to deal with the customer support issue or any negative PR about a not fully functional emulator.
Biggest sport that encourages scientific and engineering? The US military.
Huge amounts of money are spent in the military, a good chunk of which is repurposed into civilian technology. And a huge amount of time is spent in practicing for conflicts that you could consider it a sport.
If there is one thing that comes to mind when it comes to good online submission in the government it is tax returns. The government contracts out to online businesses and essentially offers a bounty for each successful return filed. Simply adopt a similar solution for other forums, make it so the bounty is only given for a form that results in being processed (instead of rejected for errors) and companies will put in their own reasonable filtering.
P.S. Please no comments about the complexity of the tax system in the US.
The admin is given a choice, hand over data in secret or go to jail. A company would be on shaky legal ground for firing someone for following a court order.
For every big business you hear that they handed over data to the government, there are a dozen of small businesses that do so you don't hear about, as they just aren't news worthy. Pretty much every small agency that tried to oppose the government went out of business trying.
Except when your admin is issued a court order to turn over the data, and a gag order not to tell anyone. Does your small business have audit logging for read operations? Mandatory shadowing when working with data directly?
Big business have a reputation to hold up, and have the deep pockets to eat the court battles and potential fines for non-compliance. A small business has a major risk of going out of business for pulling a stunt like that. Very few will try and take the high ground. Plus, if the government raided a major business for data, it would be all over the news and the media would have a field day. No reasonable government official is going to push the envelope for that, and if they do, they ain't going to be with a job for very long.
Take a company like Amazon, they show very little profit, and instead reinvest the money into the business. I'm not saying this company hasn't improved, but wouldn't something like average stock price over the last month compared to 6 months ago be a better indicator of how well a company is doing, assuming the hype over the move has died down?
Malicious would be if Hillary left a security hole in the server with the intent to transfer state secrets to a spy. (Once again I only refer to the incident indicated in the article). I don't see any other way this could be considered malicious.
> repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious I am trying to understand what "it" refers too. Lying about the server being secure? That is kind of a stretch.
I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I am only referring to the incident listed in the article. I have not researched the topic enough to pass judgement on her other actions.
I'm saying she did something stupid, not malicious. So, yes this is an apology, it was negligence, not gross negligence. You generally don't end up in jail for simple negligence.
When it comes to building, or using, or setting up software for consumer use, it just sucks. They often have a bidding contract and hand it out to whomever pays the least.
Hillary isn't a techie, she simply reiterates what she is told about things like this. All this shows is that politicians need additional training on the proper way to handle security and privacy. Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach, which in some areas isn't a good idea unless you really know what you are doing.
Even without self driving cars, it is quite possible that you can be found to have 0 liability for injuring someone:
It was dark, you were driving with your headlight on the highway. As you turn the corner a small kid is out on the street chasing after her ball. You slam the breaks, but you still hit her. Your car was in full working order, and you reacted as fast as reasonably expected. Good chance that the judge finds no one liable, or maybe the parent of the kid for letting them be in a dangerous situation.
You are driving along, and hit the break at a stop light. Your breaks fail and you get into an accident. You've had a recent checkup, and you took all reasonable steps to ensure a safe car. Maybe the manufacture is responsible, maybe the last mechanic you saw, maybe no one.
The only case I see for someone being liable for an accident using self-driving car is:
1. Not keeping your software updated. It would be like not responding to a car recall.
2. Using unauthorized software,, beta software, or software that isn't compatible with your car (including modifying your car).
3. Operating the car beyond the safe operating parameters. Like running the car in extreme weather (in this case the car should detect this and pull over or not start unless the user enables an override, which may be needed in case of emergency).
Having been a long time player of the 1 vs 1 hearthstone game I can tell you that 80% of the time the emote button, which is the only way to communicate with your opponent, is often used in a negative way.
Some of the emotes are:
"Well played": Should be used to indicate a good move by your opponent of that you admit defeat. Often used to indicate "Give up I've already one"
"Thank you": Should be used to indicate a move by your opponent that was beneficial to you. Often used at the start to indicate "Thank you for the win I will get scrub"
"Hello": Should be used to indicate a friendly greeting. Often used to announce a play that swings the game in your favor.
If facebook simply allows any emotion for any post, people will associate certain emotes as "hate".
Laughing at misfortune. Being sad at accomplishments: "You call that an accomplishment, that is sad"
No matter how friendly you make them, people will associate some actions as less than favorable
If it is true and there is a low expectation of survival, then it isn't very economical to clone for non-research purposes. Is this really a wide spread problem?
As much as having genetic diversity help in disease resistance, we already heavily do cloning on plants. Pick any species of apple in the super market and you will find that all the apples there are clones of each other even if they were grew in different places.
You got what 98% or more of the desktop browser makers by usage in this club? Plus you have YouTube and Netflix on board for providing content. Even if no one else adopts this, it is enough to be both used and supported. The biggest hurdle is ensuring that it is at least as good as what is out there.
Don't confuse Legendary items with Artifacts (or for that matter Heirlooms).
Artifacts were originally a tier above Legendary. There is still a reference to them in the current game: If your the group/raid leader type:/script SetLootThreshold(6) and you (along with everyone in the group) will see: Loot Threshold set to Artifact.
You can normally only use the UI to set the threshold to Epic.
It sounds stupid looking back now. But, consider that MMOs weren't that well refined back then. Doing something like this would be perfectly reasonable in D&D, people just didn't understand that providing content to a very select few individuals wouldn't be looked upon nicely by the community. I wouldn't be surprised if EQ and UO did this, but may not have popularized it as much.
There actually is an item in the game that only one player across all servers in all regions has: Talisman of the Binding Shard (http://www.wowhead.com/item=17782/talisman-of-binding-shard)
This item was accidentally included on the loot table of a boss as part of creating a legendary weapon that was later redone. The player got to keep the item though as although it was powerful for the time, it wasn't overly so.
They are absolutely nothing like what was described back in the original wow days. Then: A unique item that only one person per server could have. Now: A leveling mechanic that allows you unlock bonuses different orders, but everyone will max out at or around when they hit max level. Definatly by the the top tier raid content.
The balance will generally be ignored as it affects only a small part of the experience. Any tweaks to them will be class balancing, treating artifacts as core abilities.
In some places you need permission of both parties to record a conversation. If a similar ruling was made in say Washington, then someone could "accidentally" call their friend and they could listen into a conversation that was intended to be private. Proving that the dialing was not an accident could be difficult.
A well programmed random number generator is going to be better than kind of "random drawing". The problem was the lack of oversight in having the code be submitted. Any code changes that would hurt the reputation of an organization this badly should require multiple sign offs by code reviewers.
Now, it is possible that this got past the code reviewers, in which case I either congratulate the fraudster for some real underhanded coding, or I accuse the code reviewers for being inept.
It is also possible that this came from the IT angle, in which case I congratulate the fraudster on being able to understand the code, the deployment process, and the steps to hide it all.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Azure allows you to easily create VMs that run Windows or Linux (there are quite a few Linux distros you can choose from if you don't want to install your own). The price savings you get for running Linux over Windows is roughly the same that other cloud companies offer.
Doesn't sound like lock-in to me.
Take a look at how long it took Sun to open source Java. You can't just open source a major project like it was nothing. You have things like 3rd party code that might be included under a priority license, code cleanup to do, credentials that need to be sanitized, liability to worry about, etc...
I assume they give the details on how this was done in their security report, which requires registering to download. From their wording they have a tool that scans for common security issues and report them. So where things ranks depends heavily on how accurate the tool is.
Of interesting note is that java is higher than .NET and C++ on flaws, but lower on the list of critical flaws
Javascript is at the bottom. My guess that is because you generally run javascript on the client, and good server architecture doesn't trust any javascript code.
Sony would prefer games to be optimized for their latest hardware, but if a company pressures them enough to simply use an emulator to save development costs they will allow it.
Yes, they might fix up the emulator in the future to support more games, which is why it is not for general purpose right now.
Sorry, if my last line was confusing, I was referring to Sony, not Blizzard in reference to an emulator.
They haven't tested it for all games. So, they only support using it for this special case. Also, they probably don't want to encourage game makers to use it, but rather recompile (and retarget) their game for better support.
It is like running World of Warcraft on linux. The company has a linux build of the game. They don't release it. They don't support running WoW using Wine. They won't ban you for playing WoW using Wine. Their anti-cheat program will detect you using Wine to run their game, and will appropriately adjust.
In short, they don't want to deal with the customer support issue or any negative PR about a not fully functional emulator.
Biggest sport that encourages scientific and engineering? The US military.
Huge amounts of money are spent in the military, a good chunk of which is repurposed into civilian technology. And a huge amount of time is spent in practicing for conflicts that you could consider it a sport.
If there is one thing that comes to mind when it comes to good online submission in the government it is tax returns. The government contracts out to online businesses and essentially offers a bounty for each successful return filed. Simply adopt a similar solution for other forums, make it so the bounty is only given for a form that results in being processed (instead of rejected for errors) and companies will put in their own reasonable filtering.
P.S. Please no comments about the complexity of the tax system in the US.
The admin is given a choice, hand over data in secret or go to jail. A company would be on shaky legal ground for firing someone for following a court order.
For every big business you hear that they handed over data to the government, there are a dozen of small businesses that do so you don't hear about, as they just aren't news worthy. Pretty much every small agency that tried to oppose the government went out of business trying.
Except when your admin is issued a court order to turn over the data, and a gag order not to tell anyone. Does your small business have audit logging for read operations? Mandatory shadowing when working with data directly?
Big business have a reputation to hold up, and have the deep pockets to eat the court battles and potential fines for non-compliance. A small business has a major risk of going out of business for pulling a stunt like that. Very few will try and take the high ground. Plus, if the government raided a major business for data, it would be all over the news and the media would have a field day. No reasonable government official is going to push the envelope for that, and if they do, they ain't going to be with a job for very long.
And you better believe that Amazon/Microsoft/Google are much better at telling the government "no" than your average small business.
Take a company like Amazon, they show very little profit, and instead reinvest the money into the business. I'm not saying this company hasn't improved, but wouldn't something like average stock price over the last month compared to 6 months ago be a better indicator of how well a company is doing, assuming the hype over the move has died down?
Malicious would be if Hillary left a security hole in the server with the intent to transfer state secrets to a spy. (Once again I only refer to the incident indicated in the article). I don't see any other way this could be considered malicious.
> repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious
I am trying to understand what "it" refers too. Lying about the server being secure? That is kind of a stretch.
I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I am only referring to the incident listed in the article. I have not researched the topic enough to pass judgement on her other actions.
I'm saying she did something stupid, not malicious. So, yes this is an apology, it was negligence, not gross negligence. You generally don't end up in jail for simple negligence.
When it comes to building, or using, or setting up software for consumer use, it just sucks. They often have a bidding contract and hand it out to whomever pays the least.
Hillary isn't a techie, she simply reiterates what she is told about things like this. All this shows is that politicians need additional training on the proper way to handle security and privacy. Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach, which in some areas isn't a good idea unless you really know what you are doing.
Even without self driving cars, it is quite possible that you can be found to have 0 liability for injuring someone:
It was dark, you were driving with your headlight on the highway. As you turn the corner a small kid is out on the street chasing after her ball. You slam the breaks, but you still hit her. Your car was in full working order, and you reacted as fast as reasonably expected. Good chance that the judge finds no one liable, or maybe the parent of the kid for letting them be in a dangerous situation.
You are driving along, and hit the break at a stop light. Your breaks fail and you get into an accident. You've had a recent checkup, and you took all reasonable steps to ensure a safe car. Maybe the manufacture is responsible, maybe the last mechanic you saw, maybe no one.
The only case I see for someone being liable for an accident using self-driving car is:
1. Not keeping your software updated. It would be like not responding to a car recall.
2. Using unauthorized software,, beta software, or software that isn't compatible with your car (including modifying your car).
3. Operating the car beyond the safe operating parameters. Like running the car in extreme weather (in this case the car should detect this and pull over or not start unless the user enables an override, which may be needed in case of emergency).
How is this much different from "Like"?
Having been a long time player of the 1 vs 1 hearthstone game I can tell you that 80% of the time the emote button, which is the only way to communicate with your opponent, is often used in a negative way.
Some of the emotes are:
"Well played": Should be used to indicate a good move by your opponent of that you admit defeat. Often used to indicate "Give up I've already one"
"Thank you": Should be used to indicate a move by your opponent that was beneficial to you. Often used at the start to indicate "Thank you for the win I will get scrub"
"Hello": Should be used to indicate a friendly greeting. Often used to announce a play that swings the game in your favor.
If facebook simply allows any emotion for any post, people will associate certain emotes as "hate".
Laughing at misfortune.
Being sad at accomplishments: "You call that an accomplishment, that is sad"
No matter how friendly you make them, people will associate some actions as less than favorable
If it is true and there is a low expectation of survival, then it isn't very economical to clone for non-research purposes. Is this really a wide spread problem?
As much as having genetic diversity help in disease resistance, we already heavily do cloning on plants. Pick any species of apple in the super market and you will find that all the apples there are clones of each other even if they were grew in different places.
You got what 98% or more of the desktop browser makers by usage in this club? Plus you have YouTube and Netflix on board for providing content. Even if no one else adopts this, it is enough to be both used and supported. The biggest hurdle is ensuring that it is at least as good as what is out there.
Don't confuse Legendary items with Artifacts (or for that matter Heirlooms).
Artifacts were originally a tier above Legendary. There is still a reference to them in the current game: /script SetLootThreshold(6) and you (along with everyone in the group) will see:
If your the group/raid leader type:
Loot Threshold set to Artifact.
You can normally only use the UI to set the threshold to Epic.
See http://wowwiki.wikia.com/API_S...
It sounds stupid looking back now. But, consider that MMOs weren't that well refined back then. Doing something like this would be perfectly reasonable in D&D, people just didn't understand that providing content to a very select few individuals wouldn't be looked upon nicely by the community. I wouldn't be surprised if EQ and UO did this, but may not have popularized it as much.
There actually is an item in the game that only one player across all servers in all regions has: Talisman of the Binding Shard (http://www.wowhead.com/item=17782/talisman-of-binding-shard)
This item was accidentally included on the loot table of a boss as part of creating a legendary weapon that was later redone. The player got to keep the item though as although it was powerful for the time, it wasn't overly so.
They are absolutely nothing like what was described back in the original wow days.
Then: A unique item that only one person per server could have.
Now: A leveling mechanic that allows you unlock bonuses different orders, but everyone will max out at or around when they hit max level. Definatly by the the top tier raid content.
The balance will generally be ignored as it affects only a small part of the experience. Any tweaks to them will be class balancing, treating artifacts as core abilities.
In some places you need permission of both parties to record a conversation. If a similar ruling was made in say Washington, then someone could "accidentally" call their friend and they could listen into a conversation that was intended to be private. Proving that the dialing was not an accident could be difficult.
A well programmed random number generator is going to be better than kind of "random drawing". The problem was the lack of oversight in having the code be submitted. Any code changes that would hurt the reputation of an organization this badly should require multiple sign offs by code reviewers.
Now, it is possible that this got past the code reviewers, in which case I either congratulate the fraudster for some real underhanded coding, or I accuse the code reviewers for being inept.
It is also possible that this came from the IT angle, in which case I congratulate the fraudster on being able to understand the code, the deployment process, and the steps to hide it all.