but as a practical matter, the worms didn't survive a re-entry by themselves. If you threw a handful of worms from orbit down toward the earth, all of them would burn up in the atmosphere and DIE. They survived the Columbia accident because they were encased in some kind of container that didn't get fully vaporized during re-entry.
Why didn't they make the whole shuttle out of the material used for the worm container?
This case sets the scary precedent that admins are criminally liable for the network they maintain.
Why the that scary? What's wrong with being held accountable for your actions? The White-Knighting this guy is getting only makes sense if it's an accident.
If this case was a result of a lack of skill or simple oversight, I'd agree he shouldn't go to prison or pay damages. If he didn't think to store passwords anywhere other than his head, and then left the company or forgot some key piece of information, I'd say no criminal liability.
But this guy took overt steps. Why shouldn't he be responsible for his actions?
A better punishment would have been to make him perform community service where he has to work for free for a certain number of hours fixing people's networks and eliminating THEIR downtime. That might have been a better solution.
Really? Do you think bank robbers should made to perform community service as bank tellers?
Perhaps pedophiles should do their time by volunteering at day care.
I think this guy has shown, while he has the technical knowledge, he should not be trusted to work on other people's networks.
They threw the guy in prison for what he did. What the hell is the point of demanding millions of dollars from him?
Should bank robbers should get to keep the money if they do time in prison? Ok, this guy didn't steal anything.
Someone sets your house on fire. The direct fire damage is small, but the water damage from putting out the fire destroys the house. The arsonists is caught, convicted, and sent to prison.
If presented the option of pursuing damages, would reaction be, what's the point?
Shouldn't "testing it for vulnerabilities" be part of their normal operating costs anyways? If my company gets hit by a virus, is part of the economic damages the cost to install antivirus on all the computers?
Yes, if it turns out the virus was introduced by the previous antivirus program. Testing for vulnerabilities introduced by a rouge admin are generally not part of normal operating costs.
So you know a way to get your answer, instead took the more labor intensive way and posted the question in/. in hopes someone would give you some summary?
No, the OP does not a way to get a quick answer.
If you googled "Google 900Mhz announcement" you'd know that. The first page of results all start, "Hot on the heels of Google's 900 mhz announcement, Green Wave Reality..." That is, they all point to this story and not the 900 MHz announcement.
'Just google it' is not always an appropriate answer.
Anyways, let say your bulbs are 10- Watts. That means if you use 1 of your 50 bulbs for 15 minutes less per day, you break even. Everything else is a gain.
Big house? Not really.
A quick mental count of bulbs in my 4-bedroom, 1400 sq ft house came up with 45 bulbs. Oops, forgot the basement.
Traditional commission on a house sale is 6%, split between the listing and selling agent. Though if you sold a house in the last 10 years, you shouldn't have paid more than 5%, mainly due to pressure from web-based alternatives to traditional agents.
If you've never worked with dual displays, well, you can't miss what you never had.
But once you've had it, and gotten used to having it, it can be hard to get used to not having it.
I'm not one to use full-screen windows, but if I'm working on, for example, a script to process data from a file, I'd like to have the script (obviously), a sample data file, probably Google, and the requirements doc all open at the same time. To have all those windows visible together is just a plus.
That said, if there was really wailing and gnashing of teeth, then the dev was being a prissy little diva.
The Internet as it was known to many back in 1992 does not exist today. It's been replaced by a flashy, empty-calorie Web. The difference is not literalist or nitpicky in the least.
Unless you're coming on/. and professing to not know the difference between the Internet and the Web.
Now, I haven't gone and looked at it, but I rather doubt that the patent filed in 1992, before what we know as the Internet existed, bore much resemblance to what is being claimed today...
You mean what you know of the Internet. And just because you didn't know about it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
That trick? Before 9/11 some of the attackers evaded email surveillance by not sending email. Instead they used webmail services but saved messages as drafts - and then shared their logins with their co-conspirators.
That's pretty clever.
I've often wondered if some gibberish spam contains convert messages of nefarious intent. If you're a known bad guy and want to send email without identifying your cohorts to anyone watching, why not send the same message to thousands (or millions) of addresses? (Assuming your message is adequately coded/encrypted. You don't want to broadcast your plans in plain text.)
Even if the good guys know one of the recipients is a bad guy, they don't know which recipient, and burn a lot of resources eliminating the red herring.
Yes, I know supposedly those gibberish emails are for poisoning spam filters. At least, that's what they want you to believe.
I've thought the same about those spams that were sections of text from famous literature. Again, supposedly targeted to spam filters. Could be a signal for a terrorist in a sleeper cell to go to the local library, go to a certain book, open to a certain page, where the secret plans have been hidden.
"We bet everything on Apple and iOS and then Apple killed us by changing the rules in the middle of the game."
Sounds like they ruined their own business by making bad decisions. If Apple is being short-sighted by killing off the providers of content users put on Apple devices, then those providers are just as short-sighted by assuming Apple would be considerate of their interests.
Oh wait, this isn't from a content originator, this isn't the authors guild, this is another middle man.
I have some buggy whip makers who want to talk with you.
You are lucky if it's only switching the channel that is slow. In my box, which I've already given away, everything took from hundreds of milliseconds to seconds. Powering on the device which took well over 15 seconds! Scrolling EPG channel list was awful. It was faster just to switch the channel and check if there's anything good going on.
And this box ran Linux so I don't think Visual Studio is the one to blame as the fine summary suggests:)
You're lucky! My box is so slow, it takes an hour and a half to watch 60 minutes!
Seriously? How many Play Stations are up on eBay or Craigs List, or in the trash, because their owners were fed up with dealing with Sony?
I'm guessing 3. Ah, the impotent rage of the Internet Tough Guy.
If you're affected by this PSN thing and you're upset, fine. But don't pretend this will affect business going forward. What are you going to do? Buy a Wii?
Disclosure: I don't own a PS, but I do have 2 Sony receivers, a subwoofer, a CD carousel, and somewhere an old yellow walkman.
... and no, it's not destined for use in tiny mobile phones or covert surveillance devices, instead the camera is designed for medical endoscopic procedures in hard to reach regions of the human anatomy."
Are you kidding me?
Not kidding. First, if you plant this camera in someone's home, you're basically littering dust. The 1mm camera does not contain any film, no hard drives, no way to transmit images. By the time you add the supporting hardware to run the camera, you're in the neighborhood of the 5x3cm brick.
Second, being designed for endoscopic purposes and being very small, I'm guessing this camera has a very short focal length. Another guess here, but I'd wager most surveillance involves a space more than a few millimeters in depth.
And no, I don't believe just building a runway, no matter how long, will attract jumbo jets, unless there is some other attraction in the area and the jet and runway are just means to that end.
The result of paying students for good grades? Basically, it doesn't work. Why? Because if you don't know what you need to do to get good grades, money won't change that. When asked how they would react to an offer of money in exchange for better grades, most students talk about cheating or finding some 'system' of acing standardized tests.
Which makes sense. You offer to pay for grades, students try to give you grades. And nothing more.
If you take a different approach, offer to pay students for doing the things that can lead to better grades--reading a book, completing assignments, etc--then you get the thing you really want, students who learn how to work to learn, and better grades happen as a consequence.
If you reward your CEO for higher stock price, you shouldn't expect anything other than a higher stock price. Don't expect a more stable company. Don't expect to be prepared for changes in technology. Don't expect benefit to the long term buy-and-hold investor.
If you reward your CEO for giving quality leadership, the company grows and the stock increases in value as a consequence.
The issue with the difference is how you measure the quality of a CEO. If your only measure is stock price, then absolutely, pay your CEO in stock and options.
I think my point about options being a worthless bribe stands. If a CEO is paid $millions in salary, yet isn't capable or motivated to do a good, honest job, then all the options in the world won't yield a better or more honest CEO.
If CEO's get options they should be at only a slight discount on the current stock price and not execisable for 20 years. Long term value is what is needed. Not short term decisions which strip assets and long term strength in trade for short term magic accounting numbers.
The very idea of giving stock options to high level executives is antithetical to the purpose of retaining quality executives who will make good decisions for the benefit of the company.
Options given in addition to other forms of compensation are basically bribes, and as such necessarily pointless. The person who will provide an honest day's work for an honest day's pay will not be persuaded to be any more 'honest' as a consequence. The person who insists on extra benefit above salary will always want more.
The cult of the stock option is a cargo cult. The lavish compensation package doesn't create a good CEO any more than building a runway will create planes.
Slashdot Mirror
but as a practical matter, the worms didn't survive a re-entry by themselves. If you threw a handful of worms from orbit down toward the earth, all of them would burn up in the atmosphere and DIE. They survived the Columbia accident because they were encased in some kind of container that didn't get fully vaporized during re-entry.
Why didn't they make the whole shuttle out of the material used for the worm container?
Just hope they don't have blasters.
This case sets the scary precedent that admins are criminally liable for the network they maintain.
Why the that scary? What's wrong with being held accountable for your actions? The White-Knighting this guy is getting only makes sense if it's an accident.
If this case was a result of a lack of skill or simple oversight, I'd agree he shouldn't go to prison or pay damages. If he didn't think to store passwords anywhere other than his head, and then left the company or forgot some key piece of information, I'd say no criminal liability.
But this guy took overt steps. Why shouldn't he be responsible for his actions?
A better punishment would have been to make him perform community service where he has to work for free for a certain number of hours fixing people's networks and eliminating THEIR downtime. That might have been a better solution.
Really? Do you think bank robbers should made to perform community service as bank tellers?
Perhaps pedophiles should do their time by volunteering at day care.
I think this guy has shown, while he has the technical knowledge, he should not be trusted to work on other people's networks.
They threw the guy in prison for what he did. What the hell is the point of demanding millions of dollars from him?
Should bank robbers should get to keep the money if they do time in prison? Ok, this guy didn't steal anything.
Someone sets your house on fire. The direct fire damage is small, but the water damage from putting out the fire destroys the house. The arsonists is caught, convicted, and sent to prison.
If presented the option of pursuing damages, would reaction be, what's the point?
Shouldn't "testing it for vulnerabilities" be part of their normal operating costs anyways? If my company gets hit by a virus, is part of the economic damages the cost to install antivirus on all the computers?
Yes, if it turns out the virus was introduced by the previous antivirus program. Testing for vulnerabilities introduced by a rouge admin are generally not part of normal operating costs.
make a graph: x axis is addictiveness, y axis is inebriation
something like caffeine is low on both x and y: harmless
Actually, caffeine is quite high on x. And y as well. (Depending on how you define inebriation.)
So you know a way to get your answer, instead took the more labor intensive way and posted the question in /. in hopes someone would give you some summary?
No, the OP does not a way to get a quick answer.
If you googled "Google 900Mhz announcement" you'd know that. The first page of results all start, "Hot on the heels of Google's 900 mhz announcement, Green Wave Reality..." That is, they all point to this story and not the 900 MHz announcement.
'Just google it' is not always an appropriate answer.
50 bulbs? really? big house.
Anyways, let say your bulbs are 10- Watts.
That means if you use 1 of your 50 bulbs for 15 minutes less per day, you break even. Everything else is a gain.
Big house? Not really.
A quick mental count of bulbs in my 4-bedroom, 1400 sq ft house came up with 45 bulbs. Oops, forgot the basement.
There's 50.
Wow, you're getting (got) screwed.
Traditional commission on a house sale is 6%, split between the listing and selling agent. Though if you sold a house in the last 10 years, you shouldn't have paid more than 5%, mainly due to pressure from web-based alternatives to traditional agents.
It's a tunnel for sneaking foreigners under the border, not that anyone would have guessed that based on the summary.
Looks like it's time to build a wall. Anyone know where I can get some cheap labor?
If you've never worked with dual displays, well, you can't miss what you never had.
But once you've had it, and gotten used to having it, it can be hard to get used to not having it.
I'm not one to use full-screen windows, but if I'm working on, for example, a script to process data from a file, I'd like to have the script (obviously), a sample data file, probably Google, and the requirements doc all open at the same time. To have all those windows visible together is just a plus.
That said, if there was really wailing and gnashing of teeth, then the dev was being a prissy little diva.
Actually, you've got it backwards.
The Internet as it was known to many back in 1992 does not exist today. It's been replaced by a flashy, empty-calorie Web. The difference is not literalist or nitpicky in the least.
Unless you're coming on /. and professing to not know the difference between the Internet and the Web.
Now you may get off my lawn.
Now, I haven't gone and looked at it, but I rather doubt that the patent filed in 1992, before what we know as the Internet existed, bore much resemblance to what is being claimed today...
You mean what you know of the Internet. And just because you didn't know about it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
In Soviet Russia: security cost pinches you!
I figured it was a made up name, so I didn't bother to wiki it. Thanks for the info. It still sounds more cool than it really is.
As it is with most things geek-related.
That's pretty clever.
I've often wondered if some gibberish spam contains convert messages of nefarious intent. If you're a known bad guy and want to send email without identifying your cohorts to anyone watching, why not send the same message to thousands (or millions) of addresses? (Assuming your message is adequately coded/encrypted. You don't want to broadcast your plans in plain text.)
Even if the good guys know one of the recipients is a bad guy, they don't know which recipient, and burn a lot of resources eliminating the red herring.
Yes, I know supposedly those gibberish emails are for poisoning spam filters. At least, that's what they want you to believe.
I've thought the same about those spams that were sections of text from famous literature. Again, supposedly targeted to spam filters. Could be a signal for a terrorist in a sleeper cell to go to the local library, go to a certain book, open to a certain page, where the secret plans have been hidden.
Yes, I am convinced all spammers are terrorists.
Famous people are famous. Film at 11.
"We bet everything on Apple and iOS and then Apple killed us by changing the rules in the middle of the game."
Sounds like they ruined their own business by making bad decisions. If Apple is being short-sighted by killing off the providers of content users put on Apple devices, then those providers are just as short-sighted by assuming Apple would be considerate of their interests.
Oh wait, this isn't from a content originator, this isn't the authors guild, this is another middle man.
I have some buggy whip makers who want to talk with you.
You are lucky if it's only switching the channel that is slow. In my box, which I've already given away, everything took from hundreds of milliseconds to seconds. Powering on the device which took well over 15 seconds! Scrolling EPG channel list was awful. It was faster just to switch the channel and check if there's anything good going on.
And this box ran Linux so I don't think Visual Studio is the one to blame as the fine summary suggests :)
You're lucky! My box is so slow, it takes an hour and a half to watch 60 minutes!
Does the phrase "I drink your milkshake" mean anything to you?
I really hope this puts sony out of business.
Seriously? How many Play Stations are up on eBay or Craigs List, or in the trash, because their owners were fed up with dealing with Sony?
I'm guessing 3. Ah, the impotent rage of the Internet Tough Guy.
If you're affected by this PSN thing and you're upset, fine. But don't pretend this will affect business going forward. What are you going to do? Buy a Wii?
Disclosure: I don't own a PS, but I do have 2 Sony receivers, a subwoofer, a CD carousel, and somewhere an old yellow walkman.
... and no, it's not destined for use in tiny mobile phones or covert surveillance devices, instead the camera is designed for medical endoscopic procedures in hard to reach regions of the human anatomy."
Are you kidding me?
Not kidding. First, if you plant this camera in someone's home, you're basically littering dust. The 1mm camera does not contain any film, no hard drives, no way to transmit images. By the time you add the supporting hardware to run the camera, you're in the neighborhood of the 5x3cm brick.
Second, being designed for endoscopic purposes and being very small, I'm guessing this camera has a very short focal length. Another guess here, but I'd wager most surveillance involves a space more than a few millimeters in depth.
I understand how stock options work.
And no, I don't believe just building a runway, no matter how long, will attract jumbo jets, unless there is some other attraction in the area and the jet and runway are just means to that end.
Perhaps a better analogy are the recent studies in paying students for performance.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978589,00.html
The result of paying students for good grades? Basically, it doesn't work. Why? Because if you don't know what you need to do to get good grades, money won't change that. When asked how they would react to an offer of money in exchange for better grades, most students talk about cheating or finding some 'system' of acing standardized tests.
Which makes sense. You offer to pay for grades, students try to give you grades. And nothing more.
If you take a different approach, offer to pay students for doing the things that can lead to better grades--reading a book, completing assignments, etc--then you get the thing you really want, students who learn how to work to learn, and better grades happen as a consequence.
If you reward your CEO for higher stock price, you shouldn't expect anything other than a higher stock price. Don't expect a more stable company. Don't expect to be prepared for changes in technology. Don't expect benefit to the long term buy-and-hold investor.
If you reward your CEO for giving quality leadership, the company grows and the stock increases in value as a consequence.
The issue with the difference is how you measure the quality of a CEO. If your only measure is stock price, then absolutely, pay your CEO in stock and options.
I think my point about options being a worthless bribe stands. If a CEO is paid $millions in salary, yet isn't capable or motivated to do a good, honest job, then all the options in the world won't yield a better or more honest CEO.
If CEO's get options they should be at only a slight discount on the current stock price and not execisable for 20 years. Long term value is what is needed. Not short term decisions which strip assets and long term strength in trade for short term magic accounting numbers.
The very idea of giving stock options to high level executives is antithetical to the purpose of retaining quality executives who will make good decisions for the benefit of the company.
Options given in addition to other forms of compensation are basically bribes, and as such necessarily pointless. The person who will provide an honest day's work for an honest day's pay will not be persuaded to be any more 'honest' as a consequence. The person who insists on extra benefit above salary will always want more.
The cult of the stock option is a cargo cult. The lavish compensation package doesn't create a good CEO any more than building a runway will create planes.