I've been considering a move to the Linux Mint Debian Edition, which should circumvent all that amazingly stupid work that Canonical is doing with Ubuntu.
Or away from Ubuntu completely as this isn't going to be the last thing they plunk into the distro prematurely. I'm just waiting to find out how they ruin KUbuntu and XUbuntu, because they don't seem to be trying as hard to run those versions into the ground.
That was my first thought. This would be a godsend for anybody that's wanting to pretend to be somebody else. And what happens if it's stolen? I doubt very much that the police would accept that as an excuse if you've been arrested. It might add some doubt in court, but I wouldn't bet on it.
No, there was never any argument about that. For a long time there was little or no malware for Linux, that was a perk that came from the freedom you got with it.
It's a choice that folks have to make for themselves, it's easy to never get into trouble if you have an authority figure telling you what you can and can't do. And that works fine so long as you never want to do something that the authority hasn't authorized. Otherwise you end up not being able to do the things that you want to do.
That was one of my complaints about the way that they're handling them. I remember Wave, they discontinued it before there was any chance for users to figure out what it was for. I remember logging in a couple times and I couldn't figure out what need it filled. And I don't just mean for me, I couldn't figure out why anybody would use it.
They do provide more and more services with the ability to export the data, but it's still not always as convenient as it could be.
Hopefully not, this kind of bullshit could easily curtail the ability of news organizations to conduct their business. Really the whole business was Apple's fault for being a damned cult. If they didn't want the phones lost, then perhaps they shouldn't have bothered testing them in the real world, it's not like they were doing real testing anyways with that camouflage case covering it anyways.
That approach used to work, prior to the US Army Air Corps., there wasn't much in the way of pilots available so, they had to train them quickly after enlistment. Especially since the pilots that were available didn't come with dog fighting strategies already in hand. Cybersecurity isn't a new field and trying to train people from scratch without having the infrastructure in place is just going to end badly.
I'm not really sure what the solution is, but it strikes me as naive to assume that just because they can't train quickly enough that there isn't a real problem now. Perhaps they ought to be recruiting more heavily from people that have graduated, often times you can get an expert that's only 22.
The computers that troops use for personal use shouldn't have any sensitive information on them and they shouldn't have any access to it either. Granted the troops themselves will have access to information that's sensitive, but that's a different matter than this.
Depends, how confident are you that every eventuality has been planned for and provided for by the system? A significant outage can easily eat up an entire years worth of $15 an hour salaries if you hit an unforeseen condition which causes the whole data center to go down. Sure it's unlikely if the people doing the planning know what they're doing, but I'm sure that the folks in the WTC weren't expecting their records to be destroyed by a terrorist attack taking the entire building down.
If the OP is looking to get a good job in the future, he'd do well to bail right now. What gets nasty sometimes is if you make the mistake of sticking around an obviously incompetent firm, you tend to get some of it to rub off. It won't necessarily hurt your abilities, but some firms do become a sort of pox on ones CV.
I'd go so far as to say that it's probably something that the OP should have inquired about when being interviewed. Whoever is conducting the interview ought to be able to answer a basic question like that without having to go to too much trouble.
Every job has tools of the trade that are essential and a larger number of ones that are optional but greatly improve the efficiency of the job. A well run company will have all the mandatory ones, and in up to date versions, and probably a few of the optional ones as well. One of my previous employers used a crappy web app for a mandatory job function that would be down regularly. Suffice it to say that the company wasn't very well run in other ways.
It's a related problem. Yes, they are different, however, unless the motion blur is in one direction, the effect is similar. Typically you're not going to be dealing with motion blur in one direction unless you're barely missing it, in general you'll have motion blur in multiple directions which isn't that different from a photo being out of focus.
But, it's largely a moot point, because there's enough photographers out there that it's unlikely that the technology will ever really be good enough. At least not in my lifetime.
Apart from going out of business, precisely what do you propose they do? Seriously, once they sell their items to another company, they don't have any control over where they end up.
It remains to be seen if they truly are free of involvement here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't done by an authorized retailer.
It's not really true, the real story of that is that there was one posed shot and one that was real. The photo itself was sent over the wire directly after printing before the photographer had even seen it, which was a large part of why there was confusion over that aspect of it. If you take a look at the image from the film reel, if he did stage the actual photo, he did a damned good job at replicating how it really happened.
Assuming it works, which I highly doubt it ever will work properly, this could flood the market with those photos that were compositionally perfect, just just out of focus. That being said, I'm not holding my breath.
So, instead of big government you vote for big corporations. Like most people with any sense, I'd rather have big government as I at least get to vote for them. That being said, apart from libtards, most people recognize that you can have a moderately sized government, even if it does somewhat fluctuate in size without ending up in some Orwell novel.
They did pay to increase the wages at the plant, which is more than what any of the other companies did.
As for the torture, do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim? I did a quick search and I couldn't find any torture articles that weren't for Apple products being stress tested by people.
These policies tend to go on until security has to tell somebody important that they need management's approval to take photos. That was how that policy ended at the building I used to work at. Personally, I thought the policy was somewhat silly as it wasn't focused on photos of areas that were at all sensitive and ultimately there were drawings of the entire building online every time there was a build out for a new maintenance contract.
At the end of the day, you could get a photo and forward it to the FBI, but that's about it, few if any of the photos would ever be of any actual utility as the folks that were really up to no good were most likely never observed.
It depends a great deal on the state that you're in. I know that the SEIU wants more training for security, largely because it promotes workplace safety as well as giving them more leverage when bargaining for a new collective bargaining agreement.
Unfortunately, the conditions still largely suck and the licensing isn't anywhere near enough. And I say that from experience, they cover the basics of the law, but there's so much more that one really needs to know. Around here one doesn't require a license at all if one is working directly for the property owner, and in all cases private security gets the subset of ownership rights that the owner of the property chooses to grant to the officers. In many cases one has more rights as a general member of the public to stop something than security does.
There's also a lot of ignorance over what precisely security is and isn't allowed to do. I remember folks used to assume that I could do something about the smokers, and the truth is that we can't do anything about it. We can ask them to leave the property, or extinguish the cigarette, but in most cases that just involves them walking 3 feet to the sidewalk at which point nobody's really gotten what they want.
Unlikely, I used to work security in a highrise with a sizable food court area, it's unlikely that we could have gotten away with that for the simple reason that there was always a camera on us when we were doing those sorts of confrontations.
Any mall large enough for people to be in a crowd is going to be similarly set up. If you're going to places with insufficient camera coverage of the bouncer, you should really think again about going in, those cameras aren't just for the protection of the owner and the employees.
If they're doing it correctly, there shouldn't be any viruses exchanged. There's no reason why they should be executing random files from the image of the phone's memory, and there's definitely no reason why they should be mucking around on the phone itself other than to dump the contents of the memory to image.
That can be an issue, we have that problem around here with some of the local elections, seems like we're constantly voting against the incumbent. And we don't seem to ever run out of bad candidates to vote for.
From what I've read, it sounds like CA has similar problems at the state level, plenty of folks to vote for, but none of whom really ought to be elected.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been considering a move to the Linux Mint Debian Edition, which should circumvent all that amazingly stupid work that Canonical is doing with Ubuntu.
Or away from Ubuntu completely as this isn't going to be the last thing they plunk into the distro prematurely. I'm just waiting to find out how they ruin KUbuntu and XUbuntu, because they don't seem to be trying as hard to run those versions into the ground.
That was my first thought. This would be a godsend for anybody that's wanting to pretend to be somebody else. And what happens if it's stolen? I doubt very much that the police would accept that as an excuse if you've been arrested. It might add some doubt in court, but I wouldn't bet on it.
No, there was never any argument about that. For a long time there was little or no malware for Linux, that was a perk that came from the freedom you got with it.
It's a choice that folks have to make for themselves, it's easy to never get into trouble if you have an authority figure telling you what you can and can't do. And that works fine so long as you never want to do something that the authority hasn't authorized. Otherwise you end up not being able to do the things that you want to do.
That was one of my complaints about the way that they're handling them. I remember Wave, they discontinued it before there was any chance for users to figure out what it was for. I remember logging in a couple times and I couldn't figure out what need it filled. And I don't just mean for me, I couldn't figure out why anybody would use it.
They do provide more and more services with the ability to export the data, but it's still not always as convenient as it could be.
If you don't want malware, be mindful what apps you install, and flash the thing with Cyanogenmod, so that you can change permissions.
For all the hullabaloo about security problems on Android, it's still a very small number of apps, and probably no worse than in the computing world.
You planning on fixing the problem, eh?
Hopefully not, this kind of bullshit could easily curtail the ability of news organizations to conduct their business. Really the whole business was Apple's fault for being a damned cult. If they didn't want the phones lost, then perhaps they shouldn't have bothered testing them in the real world, it's not like they were doing real testing anyways with that camouflage case covering it anyways.
That approach used to work, prior to the US Army Air Corps., there wasn't much in the way of pilots available so, they had to train them quickly after enlistment. Especially since the pilots that were available didn't come with dog fighting strategies already in hand. Cybersecurity isn't a new field and trying to train people from scratch without having the infrastructure in place is just going to end badly.
I'm not really sure what the solution is, but it strikes me as naive to assume that just because they can't train quickly enough that there isn't a real problem now. Perhaps they ought to be recruiting more heavily from people that have graduated, often times you can get an expert that's only 22.
The computers that troops use for personal use shouldn't have any sensitive information on them and they shouldn't have any access to it either. Granted the troops themselves will have access to information that's sensitive, but that's a different matter than this.
Depends, how confident are you that every eventuality has been planned for and provided for by the system? A significant outage can easily eat up an entire years worth of $15 an hour salaries if you hit an unforeseen condition which causes the whole data center to go down. Sure it's unlikely if the people doing the planning know what they're doing, but I'm sure that the folks in the WTC weren't expecting their records to be destroyed by a terrorist attack taking the entire building down.
If the OP is looking to get a good job in the future, he'd do well to bail right now. What gets nasty sometimes is if you make the mistake of sticking around an obviously incompetent firm, you tend to get some of it to rub off. It won't necessarily hurt your abilities, but some firms do become a sort of pox on ones CV.
I'd go so far as to say that it's probably something that the OP should have inquired about when being interviewed. Whoever is conducting the interview ought to be able to answer a basic question like that without having to go to too much trouble.
Every job has tools of the trade that are essential and a larger number of ones that are optional but greatly improve the efficiency of the job. A well run company will have all the mandatory ones, and in up to date versions, and probably a few of the optional ones as well. One of my previous employers used a crappy web app for a mandatory job function that would be down regularly. Suffice it to say that the company wasn't very well run in other ways.
Ah, clearly I did.
It's a related problem. Yes, they are different, however, unless the motion blur is in one direction, the effect is similar. Typically you're not going to be dealing with motion blur in one direction unless you're barely missing it, in general you'll have motion blur in multiple directions which isn't that different from a photo being out of focus.
But, it's largely a moot point, because there's enough photographers out there that it's unlikely that the technology will ever really be good enough. At least not in my lifetime.
Apart from going out of business, precisely what do you propose they do? Seriously, once they sell their items to another company, they don't have any control over where they end up.
It remains to be seen if they truly are free of involvement here, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't done by an authorized retailer.
It's not really true, the real story of that is that there was one posed shot and one that was real. The photo itself was sent over the wire directly after printing before the photographer had even seen it, which was a large part of why there was confusion over that aspect of it. If you take a look at the image from the film reel, if he did stage the actual photo, he did a damned good job at replicating how it really happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima#Publication_and_staging_confusion
Assuming it works, which I highly doubt it ever will work properly, this could flood the market with those photos that were compositionally perfect, just just out of focus. That being said, I'm not holding my breath.
So, instead of big government you vote for big corporations. Like most people with any sense, I'd rather have big government as I at least get to vote for them. That being said, apart from libtards, most people recognize that you can have a moderately sized government, even if it does somewhat fluctuate in size without ending up in some Orwell novel.
They did pay to increase the wages at the plant, which is more than what any of the other companies did.
As for the torture, do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim? I did a quick search and I couldn't find any torture articles that weren't for Apple products being stress tested by people.
These policies tend to go on until security has to tell somebody important that they need management's approval to take photos. That was how that policy ended at the building I used to work at. Personally, I thought the policy was somewhat silly as it wasn't focused on photos of areas that were at all sensitive and ultimately there were drawings of the entire building online every time there was a build out for a new maintenance contract.
At the end of the day, you could get a photo and forward it to the FBI, but that's about it, few if any of the photos would ever be of any actual utility as the folks that were really up to no good were most likely never observed.
It depends a great deal on the state that you're in. I know that the SEIU wants more training for security, largely because it promotes workplace safety as well as giving them more leverage when bargaining for a new collective bargaining agreement.
Unfortunately, the conditions still largely suck and the licensing isn't anywhere near enough. And I say that from experience, they cover the basics of the law, but there's so much more that one really needs to know. Around here one doesn't require a license at all if one is working directly for the property owner, and in all cases private security gets the subset of ownership rights that the owner of the property chooses to grant to the officers. In many cases one has more rights as a general member of the public to stop something than security does.
There's also a lot of ignorance over what precisely security is and isn't allowed to do. I remember folks used to assume that I could do something about the smokers, and the truth is that we can't do anything about it. We can ask them to leave the property, or extinguish the cigarette, but in most cases that just involves them walking 3 feet to the sidewalk at which point nobody's really gotten what they want.
Unlikely, I used to work security in a highrise with a sizable food court area, it's unlikely that we could have gotten away with that for the simple reason that there was always a camera on us when we were doing those sorts of confrontations.
Any mall large enough for people to be in a crowd is going to be similarly set up. If you're going to places with insufficient camera coverage of the bouncer, you should really think again about going in, those cameras aren't just for the protection of the owner and the employees.
If they're doing it correctly, there shouldn't be any viruses exchanged. There's no reason why they should be executing random files from the image of the phone's memory, and there's definitely no reason why they should be mucking around on the phone itself other than to dump the contents of the memory to image.
That can be an issue, we have that problem around here with some of the local elections, seems like we're constantly voting against the incumbent. And we don't seem to ever run out of bad candidates to vote for.
From what I've read, it sounds like CA has similar problems at the state level, plenty of folks to vote for, but none of whom really ought to be elected.