Too bad the Anniversary Update was free, and the product is the operating system, not the Linux subsystem that still can't be used unless you're a Windows Insider running in Developer Mode (the penultimate beta, the ultimate being a strictly closed beta).
That depends.. If bash/Ubuntu on Windows 10 is just another program on Windows, you may expect AV software not to interfere with it, and proper support is in order.
But the DNC knew about the leaks at latest back in mid-June. So there's no time travel required.
Tell me, which Russian hacker group was Seth Rich a part of? All you've shown in that there were multiple, perfectly plausible outside sources for the leaks. How does that tie to a staffer and a need to eliminate him?
Are you suggesting that ClouldStrike identified him to the DNC as a leaker but, despite being very publicly associated with the intrusion forensics, haven't gone to the authorities with that fact?
To believe this, you have to believe that a political organization that can't help but leak information, and a forensics company that should be running for the hills (to a Congressional committee), have the discipline and information security practices in place to keep this quiet. And, by the way, have completely excluded Bernie supporters from the circle of those "in the know."
They still should not be returning coordinates if the location is unknown.
Society, having implemented subk's dictat, promptly collapsed. For Professor Heisenberg had already proved that it was impossible to be certain of an object's location, and subk had decided that the concept of precision simply required too much thought. Freight service everywhere simply stopped, as the pickup and delivery locations for any item were decidedly "unknown."
Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.? Days after a huge scandal? Double tapped in the back and nothing taken? Does that sound like robbery to you?
Days after a huge scandal? Was July 10th days after July 22nd in your universe? Because it wasn't in mine.
Even if you were somehow referring to the June 12th interview, it would take an unheard of efficiency for the DNC/Clintons/etc. to track this man down simply on the basis of an interview where Assange claimed to have "emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication."
Anyone who could pull that off would deserve the Presidency. I'd look forward to years and years of the U.S.'s external security problems being eliminated weeks before they could actually materialize, rather than morphing into post hoc debacles run by the Keystone cops.
No technical reason at all. You hear politicians discussing making London and Paris-type proposals for LA, SF, NYC, Boston, and Chicago all the freaking time... right?
The allowed NOx levels being much lower in the US than most other countries makes an argument for the EPA regulations being unreasonable
The pre-Euro 6 (2014) regulations allowing NOx levels for compression engines (i.e., diesel) three times higher than those for spark-ignition engines (i.e., petrol) makes an argument for the European regulations being drafted to permit diesel engines lacking NOx controls regardless of the smog issue. Their own governments say so.
The Euro 6 regulations that came into effect in the 2015 model year (late 2014) finally push NOx limits down to 0.08 g/km (diesel) vs. 0.06 g/km (petrol), approximating parity for the first time. Meanwhile, the US Tier 2 standard is a fleet average of 0.07 g/mi (~0.043 g/km) for both engine types.
So, if the US regulations were devised to protect manufacturers of gasoline engines, then why are the Euro regulations clamping down from 0.50 g/km to only slightly more than double the US limits now? Why are spark-ignition engines even closer to the US limits now? What is your basis for levels being "unreasonable" besides the apparent fact that you view the European regulations as being infallible, even though they themselves do not.
The smog in European cities more than makes an argument that the Euro regulations are unreasonable, not the other way around.
Ok, I totally get your point, and I agree with you. I just don't $15 billion fine agree with you.
It's hard to engage in jury nullification when there's no jury involved. Even more so when you'd be hard pressed to assemble 9-12 random people who'd agree with you.
Did you object to the BP settlements as well, or is your issue merely that NOx pollution isn't as gross as oil-coated animals and shorelines? They get an "orange haze is pretty" discount?
For my part, I actually got a new furnace and AC recently, and I brought up that I didn't want any networking technology, and that an analog ("mechanical") thermostat would be ideal. He was easily able to accommodate the first, but the "mechanical" thermostats were a pain- they were rare and way more expensive because there's not much market for them. What will that conversation sound like in twenty years?
The first requirement is understandable. The second, I just don't get. I installed a bog-standard Honeywell programmable electronic thermostat. Programmable in the sense that I can set four temperature/time targets per day (manually); but it doesn't network to anything, doesn't learn anything, and the only input it cares about from outside the house is the temperature of an air-source heat pump as a run/not-run threshold (where not-run simply burns natural gas). A mechanical thermostat would remove most of that functionality in favor of -- surviving an EMP? I'd have bigger problems.
Anyone who can mess with mine can mess with yours -- once you're inside the house and getting your grubby mitts on it, you can change the settings on either one.
Whatever you think of their hardware business, which does indeed still exist, BBM and BBM clients remain real products, and provide better message security/traceability (think regulated securities traders) than pretty much anything else out there.
"Troll" passed from having a particular meaning to being simply a pejorative tossed at any patent owner someone didn't like long ago. From a policy perspective, you're either a practicing entity or not, and Blackberry remains a practicing entity.
People stopped having the right to expect more from journalism when they stopped paying for it.
So you're saying that journalism from pre-WWII to the end of the 20th century was merely a fluke, given that people never directly paid for radio or television news in the first place, just as they don't directly pay for web-based news now.
From the article that you yourself linked: [E]ven the highest-end Mac you can buy would not provide an enjoyable experience on the final Rift hardware, which is significantly more powerful than early development kits. "It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't prioritize high-end GPUs," he said. "You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top-of-the-line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn't match our recommended specs."
Mac hardware can run Windows, and thus drive the Oculus hardware. Name the Mac hardware that meets their specifications. Or provide some factual basis for the claim that their specifications are too high. Either way, four letter words do no impress.
2. I believe there are PLENTY of other non-Mac computers that don't meet Oculus' specs.
Not relevant, since nobody required that all Mac hardware be able to adequately drive the Oculus hardware. There are PLENTY of non-Mac computers that do meet Oculus' specs. Name one Mac.
Since the court went the way they went, expect some companies in Oregon to go back and spell out very clearly that when you are using company equipment in violation of company policy, your authorization to use the equipment is immediately suspended for the duration of your out-of-policy use and, as a result, you are violating Oregon state law and that the company reserves the right to press charges.
Personally, I think the court made the right decision, because 1) it's very easy for companies to "work around it" by modifying their policies...
Which will have absolutely no effect. The court opinion does not leave room "suspension for the duration of out-of-policy use." It's quite clear (pp. 41-42) in that respect:
"Viewed in that light, the text supports defendant's assertion that her use of the lottery terminal to print Keno tickets -- as she was trained and permitted by her employer to do -- was "authorized" use. The fact that she printed the tickets for her own use and did not pay for them may have violated company policies and other parts of the computer crime statute (in addition to the theft statute), but her use was not "without authorization" as that term is used in ORS 164.377(4). That conclusion is supported by the evidence that, once a store manager had signed into the terminal and activated it at the beginning of the work day, employees such as defendant could use the terminal to print Keno tickets without additional authentication or permission. When defendant physically accessed and used the terminal to print Keno tickets, that access and use was authorized by her employer. Moreover, there was, for example, no evidence that defendant circumvented any computer security measures, misused another employee's password, or accessed any protected data. The sole basis for the state's claim that defendant's printing of Keno tickets was "unauthorized" was the employer's policy that employees were not supposed to print tickets for their own use and were supposed to obtain payment for tickets before printing them."
Saying that "we really, really mean that our policy is that you are not authorized to print tickets for your own use and without obtaining payment" does not change that analysis. It's not a "magic word" case, it's a physical process case. If you authorize an employee to access the computer and do not set up actual access controls to prevent an employee from engaging in misuse, such misuse might be a crime, but cannot be this crime.
I am just interested to know if this is legal in the UK. It wouldn't be legal in the US.
Even if a building were an FCC regulated device (for all practical purposes, buildings are not), FCC regulations require that devices emit essentially only in permitted or unlicensed frequencies at permitted power levels, accept harmful interference, and not produce harmful interference. They don't require that devices or structures facilitate radio communications.
A proper faraday cage isn't emitting much of anything, accepts harmful interference, and does not produce harmful interference. It's a radio-opaque object. Unless you can point to a regulation against radio-opaque objects (hint: there isn't one), it's perfectly legal in the US.
Depending on which state they were in at the time it was recorded, remember that adultery is illegal in some states and can include jail time. In some states it's a crime without punishment and/or a cause for divorce without the expense of alimony.
A law that cannot be enforced is effectively not a law even if the legislature has yet to remove it from the books. Just as that deed restriction that says that you cannot sell your suburban home to people of color will neither be enforced nor serve to protect you from being charged with housing discrimination.
Lawrence v. Kansas put an end to adultery as a crime. Yes, it can still be a basis for divorce, but despite TMZ's best efforts, prospective divorces are not matters of public interest that justify the non-consensual publication of sex tapes and the like -- my proof: there's no adultery exception to anti-revenge pron laws.
Read the whole document (which is what I quoted), not just the bits you like.
The part you quoted was just an introductory statement, it has no content.
Yes, read the whole document, including the hyperlinked order and consent decree at the bottom.
What makes you think the FCC has even the slightest authority to demand that a manufacturer allow open source, especially for an unlicensed product like a WiFi router?
The fact that the FCC has the authority to levy much larger fines, and thus the ability to ask for the manufacturer to agree to other actions that further their policy objectives in lieu of the larger fine.
Sec. 8 As part of the Compliance Plan, TP-Link also agrees to take the steps set forth herein to support the development of software by third-parties, including open-source software, for use with its routers, which comply with the U-NII security requirements.
Sec. 15(a)(iv): TP-Link, working with TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd., will investigate for certain of its router models the development of U-NII security solutions that would allow for the use of third-party firmware with its devices while meeting the Commission's U-NII security requirements and maintaining the integrity of critical radio parameters. As part of this effort, TP-Link, working with TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd., will cooperate and share information with interested developers of third-party software and chipset manufacturers. Nothing in the foregoing is intended to limit or affect the ability of TP-Link or TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd.: (a) to assess, including by requiring demonstration by any such third-party software developer, whether the developer's proposed designs will prevent access to the frequency or power level protocols in TP-Link devices and otherwise comply with the U-NII security requirements, and (b) to select, in its sole discretion, particular chipsets, that it will use in the manufacture of its devices.
Open source mentioned, mandatory language, part of the Compliance Plan, and enforced by a Compliance Monitor (sec 17). Like I said, you're simply not looking at the right document, or the right portion of it. It's required.
Hit the submit button instead of the preview button a second time, so apologies for the fragmented post...
Emphasizing the word "SUPPORT" while disregarding phases "commitment to work... to enable third party firmware" and "committing to investigate security solutions... that would permit the use of third party firmware," and the key words "agree," "commitment," and "committing" in connection with a settlement agreement is also a bit off.
When you agree and commit in a settlement agreement, and other manufacturers have solutions on the market that achieve those goals, then those agreements and commitments are tantamount to requirements.
The Official FCC announcement suggests that there is that requirement and that you're simply not looking at the right document, or the right portion of it:
"TP-Link has also agreed to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable consumers to install third-party firmware on their Wi-Fi routers."
And once again, Ajit Pal shows clearly where his whole head is stuck:
From Ars: "Pai issued a statement saying he agrees "that AT&T may have violated that rule in Florida" but says the FCC acted too late, after the one-year statute of limitations. The FCC decision claims that AT&T's 'violations are continuing because the forms have not been corrected and AT&T has retained the excessive reimbursements,' even though the last charges were collected on June 1, 2015."
It's not stuck in the same place in this case. Using a novel theory to essentially eliminate the statute of limitations for an offense doesn't exactly make my heart sing.
"New Republic Prosecutor Andrew Marshall said the rail-less walkway over the nearly bottomless pit 'could have killed somebody.' The fact that it didn't was because the writers 'pulled a deus ex machina out of their nether regions.' The engineering firm responsible for the Starkiller's power control station, Foodles Production, pleaded guilty to two breaches under health and safety legislation, one count under section two of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 9624, which related to a breach of duty in relation to employees, a second under section three, a breach over people not employed by the company. The lawyer for Foodles Production, which is owned by Disney, said "AARGHHHH" as he was force-stangled by Disney's newly-revealed CEO, the aforementioned Kylo Ren."
The republicans are saying the government should stay out of it, not take over it.
ROTFL,
It's the republicans in state government telling the democrats in a city government that the city cannot permit those nasty transsexuals to use the public bathroom of their choice.
Transgender people who have not taken surgical and legal steps to change the gender noted on their birth certificates have no legal right under state law to use public restrooms of the gender with which they identify. Cities and counties no longer can establish a different standard. Critics of the Charlotte ordinance cite privacy concerns and say it was "social engineering" to allow people born as biological males to enter women's restrooms.
McCrory's office says businesses arenâ(TM)t limited by the bill, and that private companies and private universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies.
Tell us again how a city government should not set a policy for its own bathrooms and state government is staying out of it, not taking over it.
That said, AFAIK, Coca-Cola is the ONLY company authorized to buy de-cocanized coca leaves from the federal government's sole authorized supplier. So as a practical matter, even if you downloaded their allegedly secret formula online, you'd never be able to replicate it exactly unless you wanted to risk getting raided and arrested by DEA agents, since there's no legal second source for that key ingredient.
Tell that to Red Bull. You're mostly right -- there are only certain companies licensed to trade in coca leaf, probably because it'd be too easy otherwise to trade coca leaf under the cover of it being de-cocanized coca leaf -- but Stepan can sell to other beverage makers besides TCCC.
Yes, in these situations, I am this much of a douche.
If you'd bothered to read the complaint, Bitmanagement cites a specific email sent on a specific date by a specific NAVFAC employee with a specific document allegedly planning for deployment of the software onto a specific number of computers.
Your first post in this chain demonstrates that you are not familiar with the Navy program, not familiar with the contractor(s) involved, and for some reason assume that contractors would only include software technical support rather than, say, the engineering services, construction services, and other services that would be incolved in assessing and repairing all that infrastructure.
Then you double down and announce "OK, I know this business," which you clearly do not, and pull some numbers out of your nether regions that we should totally trust. You know better than the plantiff, who merely developed the software and was negotiating the agreement with the Navy. You also know better than the people who actually read the complaint and know that, no matter what, you do not make material misstatements of fact in documents that you submit to a Federal judge.
Finally, when it's pointed out to you that the complaint identifies a specific basis for the numbers used, you announce "It's my business and I know how such projects are run" and I stand by the small numbers." You demonstrably do not know how this project is deployed and run, and your pseudononymous, fact-free postings do not "stand[] behind your numbers." I could create another Slashdot pseudonym tomorrow and then stand behind a claim that there are actually only 20 million people on the entire Earth. Neither the identify nor the self-declared expertise are verifiable, so there is nothing standing behind those posts.
You are an uninformed blow-hard helicoptering into a dispute that will be resolved in a U.S. Federal Court based upon actual evidence. Yes, your estimate is meaningless, and I don't feel remotely "douchy" for pointing that out.
Well, the neat thing is that they claim to have have an email from NAVFAC Deputy Program Manager Alexandre Viana with a deployment schedule for installation onto 558,466 Navy computers.
Either they have that email or they don't. Unless you have personal knowledge of this deal or could be qualified as an expert by a party with the approval of the court, your estimate is, frankly, meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad the Anniversary Update was free, and the product is the operating system, not the Linux subsystem that still can't be used unless you're a Windows Insider running in Developer Mode (the penultimate beta, the ultimate being a strictly closed beta).
It's not remotely so. They've created a new subsystem and introduced picodrivers and picoprocesses to enable the use of Linux binaries.
Tell me, which Russian hacker group was Seth Rich a part of? All you've shown in that there were multiple, perfectly plausible outside sources for the leaks. How does that tie to a staffer and a need to eliminate him?
Are you suggesting that ClouldStrike identified him to the DNC as a leaker but, despite being very publicly associated with the intrusion forensics, haven't gone to the authorities with that fact?
To believe this, you have to believe that a political organization that can't help but leak information, and a forensics company that should be running for the hills (to a Congressional committee), have the discipline and information security practices in place to keep this quiet. And, by the way, have completely excluded Bernie supporters from the circle of those "in the know."
Righhhhhhhhhhht...
Society, having implemented subk's dictat, promptly collapsed. For Professor Heisenberg had already proved that it was impossible to be certain of an object's location, and subk had decided that the concept of precision simply required too much thought. Freight service everywhere simply stopped, as the pickup and delivery locations for any item were decidedly "unknown."
Days after a huge scandal? Was July 10th days after July 22nd in your universe? Because it wasn't in mine.
Even if you were somehow referring to the June 12th interview, it would take an unheard of efficiency for the DNC/Clintons/etc. to track this man down simply on the basis of an interview where Assange claimed to have "emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication."
Anyone who could pull that off would deserve the Presidency. I'd look forward to years and years of the U.S.'s external security problems being eliminated weeks before they could actually materialize, rather than morphing into post hoc debacles run by the Keystone cops.
Yep. Nothing to do with smog and proposals for center city bans on diesel vehicles (never mind the alternating day travel schemes already being imposed). European smog problems are clearly rumors. The London ULEZ is simply a scheme by U.S. engine manufacturers to take over the European market.
No technical reason at all. You hear politicians discussing making London and Paris-type proposals for LA, SF, NYC, Boston, and Chicago all the freaking time... right?
Try again.
The pre-Euro 6 (2014) regulations allowing NOx levels for compression engines (i.e., diesel) three times higher than those for spark-ignition engines (i.e., petrol) makes an argument for the European regulations being drafted to permit diesel engines lacking NOx controls regardless of the smog issue. Their own governments say so.
The Euro 6 regulations that came into effect in the 2015 model year (late 2014) finally push NOx limits down to 0.08 g/km (diesel) vs. 0.06 g/km (petrol), approximating parity for the first time. Meanwhile, the US Tier 2 standard is a fleet average of 0.07 g/mi (~0.043 g/km) for both engine types.
So, if the US regulations were devised to protect manufacturers of gasoline engines, then why are the Euro regulations clamping down from 0.50 g/km to only slightly more than double the US limits now? Why are spark-ignition engines even closer to the US limits now? What is your basis for levels being "unreasonable" besides the apparent fact that you view the European regulations as being infallible, even though they themselves do not.
The smog in European cities more than makes an argument that the Euro regulations are unreasonable, not the other way around.
It's hard to engage in jury nullification when there's no jury involved. Even more so when you'd be hard pressed to assemble 9-12 random people who'd agree with you.
Did you object to the BP settlements as well, or is your issue merely that NOx pollution isn't as gross as oil-coated animals and shorelines? They get an "orange haze is pretty" discount?
The first requirement is understandable. The second, I just don't get. I installed a bog-standard Honeywell programmable electronic thermostat. Programmable in the sense that I can set four temperature/time targets per day (manually); but it doesn't network to anything, doesn't learn anything, and the only input it cares about from outside the house is the temperature of an air-source heat pump as a run/not-run threshold (where not-run simply burns natural gas). A mechanical thermostat would remove most of that functionality in favor of -- surviving an EMP? I'd have bigger problems.
Anyone who can mess with mine can mess with yours -- once you're inside the house and getting your grubby mitts on it, you can change the settings on either one.
Whatever you think of their hardware business, which does indeed still exist, BBM and BBM clients remain real products, and provide better message security/traceability (think regulated securities traders) than pretty much anything else out there.
"Troll" passed from having a particular meaning to being simply a pejorative tossed at any patent owner someone didn't like long ago. From a policy perspective, you're either a practicing entity or not, and Blackberry remains a practicing entity.
So you're saying that journalism from pre-WWII to the end of the 20th century was merely a fluke, given that people never directly paid for radio or television news in the first place, just as they don't directly pay for web-based news now.
From the article that you yourself linked:
[E]ven the highest-end Mac you can buy would not provide an enjoyable experience on the final Rift hardware, which is significantly more powerful than early development kits. "It just boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't prioritize high-end GPUs," he said. "You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top-of-the-line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn't match our recommended specs."
Mac hardware can run Windows, and thus drive the Oculus hardware. Name the Mac hardware that meets their specifications. Or provide some factual basis for the claim that their specifications are too high. Either way, four letter words do no impress.
Not relevant, since nobody required that all Mac hardware be able to adequately drive the Oculus hardware. There are PLENTY of non-Mac computers that do meet Oculus' specs. Name one Mac.
https://ask.slashdot.org/story...
Which will have absolutely no effect. The court opinion does not leave room "suspension for the duration of out-of-policy use." It's quite clear (pp. 41-42) in that respect:
"Viewed in that light, the text supports defendant's assertion that her use of the lottery terminal to print Keno tickets -- as she was trained and permitted by her employer to do -- was "authorized" use. The fact that she printed the tickets for her own use and did not pay for them may have violated company policies and other parts of the computer crime statute (in addition to the theft statute), but her use was not "without authorization" as that term is used in ORS 164.377(4). That conclusion is supported by the evidence that, once a store manager had signed into the terminal and activated it at the beginning of the work day, employees such as defendant could use the terminal to print Keno tickets without additional authentication or permission. When defendant physically accessed and used the terminal to print Keno tickets, that access and use was authorized by her employer. Moreover, there was, for example, no evidence that defendant circumvented any computer security measures, misused another employee's password, or accessed any protected data. The sole basis for the state's claim that defendant's printing of Keno tickets was "unauthorized" was the employer's policy that employees were not supposed to print tickets for their own use and were supposed to obtain payment for tickets before printing them."
Saying that "we really, really mean that our policy is that you are not authorized to print tickets for your own use and without obtaining payment" does not change that analysis. It's not a "magic word" case, it's a physical process case. If you authorize an employee to access the computer and do not set up actual access controls to prevent an employee from engaging in misuse, such misuse might be a crime, but cannot be this crime.
Even if a building were an FCC regulated device (for all practical purposes, buildings are not), FCC regulations require that devices emit essentially only in permitted or unlicensed frequencies at permitted power levels, accept harmful interference, and not produce harmful interference. They don't require that devices or structures facilitate radio communications.
A proper faraday cage isn't emitting much of anything, accepts harmful interference, and does not produce harmful interference. It's a radio-opaque object. Unless you can point to a regulation against radio-opaque objects (hint: there isn't one), it's perfectly legal in the US.
A law that cannot be enforced is effectively not a law even if the legislature has yet to remove it from the books. Just as that deed restriction that says that you cannot sell your suburban home to people of color will neither be enforced nor serve to protect you from being charged with housing discrimination.
Lawrence v. Kansas put an end to adultery as a crime. Yes, it can still be a basis for divorce, but despite TMZ's best efforts, prospective divorces are not matters of public interest that justify the non-consensual publication of sex tapes and the like -- my proof: there's no adultery exception to anti-revenge pron laws.
Yes, read the whole document, including the hyperlinked order and consent decree at the bottom.
The fact that the FCC has the authority to levy much larger fines, and thus the ability to ask for the manufacturer to agree to other actions that further their policy objectives in lieu of the larger fine.
Also, I actually read the consent decree:
Sec. 8
As part of the Compliance Plan, TP-Link also agrees to take the steps set forth herein to support the development of software by third-parties, including open-source software,
for use with its routers, which comply with the U-NII security requirements.
Sec. 15(a)(iv):
TP-Link, working with TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd., will investigate for certain of its router models the development of U-NII security solutions
that would allow for the use of third-party firmware with its devices while meeting the Commission's U-NII security requirements and maintaining the
integrity of critical radio parameters. As part of this effort, TP-Link, working with TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd., will cooperate and share information
with interested developers of third-party software and chipset manufacturers.
Nothing in the foregoing is intended to limit or affect the ability of TP-Link or TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd.: (a) to assess, including by requiring
demonstration by any such third-party software developer, whether the developer's proposed designs will prevent access to the frequency or power
level protocols in TP-Link devices and otherwise comply with the U-NII security requirements, and (b) to select, in its sole discretion, particular
chipsets, that it will use in the manufacture of its devices.
Open source mentioned, mandatory language, part of the Compliance Plan, and enforced by a Compliance Monitor (sec 17). Like I said, you're simply not looking at the right document, or the right portion of it. It's required.
Hit the submit button instead of the preview button a second time, so apologies for the fragmented post...
Emphasizing the word "SUPPORT" while disregarding phases "commitment to work... to enable third party firmware" and "committing to investigate security solutions... that would permit the use of third party firmware," and the key words "agree," "commitment," and "committing" in connection with a settlement agreement is also a bit off.
When you agree and commit in a settlement agreement, and other manufacturers have solutions on the market that achieve those goals, then those agreements and commitments are tantamount to requirements.
The Official FCC announcement suggests that there is that requirement and that you're simply not looking at the right document, or the right portion of it:
"TP-Link has also agreed to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable consumers to install third-party firmware on their Wi-Fi routers."
From Ars:
"Pai issued a statement saying he agrees "that AT&T may have violated that rule in Florida" but says the FCC acted too late, after the one-year statute of limitations. The FCC decision claims that AT&T's 'violations are continuing because the forms have not been corrected and AT&T has retained the excessive reimbursements,' even though the last charges were collected on June 1, 2015."
It's not stuck in the same place in this case. Using a novel theory to essentially eliminate the statute of limitations for an offense doesn't exactly make my heart sing.
"New Republic Prosecutor Andrew Marshall said the rail-less walkway over the nearly bottomless pit 'could have killed somebody.' The fact that it didn't was because the writers 'pulled a deus ex machina out of their nether regions.' The engineering firm responsible for the Starkiller's power control station, Foodles Production, pleaded guilty to two breaches under health and safety legislation, one count under section two of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 9624, which related to a breach of duty in relation to employees, a second under section three, a breach over people not employed by the company. The lawyer for Foodles Production, which is owned by Disney, said "AARGHHHH" as he was force-stangled by Disney's newly-revealed CEO, the aforementioned Kylo Ren."
ROTFL,
It's the republicans in state government telling the democrats in a city government that the city cannot permit those nasty transsexuals to use the public bathroom of their choice.
To wit:
Tell us again how a city government should not set a policy for its own bathrooms and state government is staying out of it, not taking over it.
Tell that to Red Bull. You're mostly right -- there are only certain companies licensed to trade in coca leaf, probably because it'd be too easy otherwise to trade coca leaf under the cover of it being de-cocanized coca leaf -- but Stepan can sell to other beverage makers besides TCCC.
Yes, in these situations, I am this much of a douche.
If you'd bothered to read the complaint, Bitmanagement cites a specific email sent on a specific date by a specific NAVFAC employee with a specific document allegedly planning for deployment of the software onto a specific number of computers.
Your first post in this chain demonstrates that you are not familiar with the Navy program, not familiar with the contractor(s) involved, and for some reason assume that contractors would only include software technical support rather than, say, the engineering services, construction services, and other services that would be incolved in assessing and repairing all that infrastructure.
Then you double down and announce "OK, I know this business," which you clearly do not, and pull some numbers out of your nether regions that we should totally trust. You know better than the plantiff, who merely developed the software and was negotiating the agreement with the Navy. You also know better than the people who actually read the complaint and know that, no matter what, you do not make material misstatements of fact in documents that you submit to a Federal judge.
Finally, when it's pointed out to you that the complaint identifies a specific basis for the numbers used, you announce "It's my business and I know how such projects are run" and
I stand by the small numbers." You demonstrably do not know how this project is deployed and run, and your pseudononymous, fact-free postings do not "stand[] behind your numbers." I could create another Slashdot pseudonym tomorrow and then stand behind a claim that there are actually only 20 million people on the entire Earth. Neither the identify nor the self-declared expertise are verifiable, so there is nothing standing behind those posts.
You are an uninformed blow-hard helicoptering into a dispute that will be resolved in a U.S. Federal Court based upon actual evidence. Yes, your estimate is meaningless, and I don't feel remotely "douchy" for pointing that out.
Well, the neat thing is that they claim to have have an email from NAVFAC Deputy Program Manager Alexandre Viana with a deployment schedule for installation onto 558,466 Navy computers.
Either they have that email or they don't. Unless you have personal knowledge of this deal or could be qualified as an expert by a party with the approval of the court, your estimate is, frankly, meaningless.