In the sense of them using the associated contract against you, that is true; they can't really force you to agree to it.
But if you're the one taking some legal action against them regarding the code, then the existence of the contract may or may not make a difference, depending on details.
So the point is defense. Actually, defense is what the Department of Defense does, so it should be no surprise.
But note that there is no red tape, just a declaration of claimed facts.
Right, it is still just like Linus said about the git sha-1, not really a big deal because it isn't even the security layer.
If developers with write access to your repo are malicious, you have much worse problems. This is not a serious threat, it is just an edge case that the future will prevent.
The real lesson IMO is, if you do roll your own security, use a library for the password hashing. And if the algorithm ends up having been the wrong one, you'll just update the library. If it is on the network, use ssh or similar. Trust is bad, but that doesn't mean trusting yourself. It means to minimize the need for trust whenever possible. If you absolutely have to trust something, trust the normal generic Best Practice. Being able to look that up in the manual with all the noisy info glut might be non-trivial, though.
Or, it means more generally that updates are bad, and true security will only come from removal of code thrash. We have to figure out what features we actually want, and implement them, and then stop changing those features.
As long as everything is thrashing, everything is vulnerable. Protections will be temporary and new bugs will be introduced even into the protections because those too are always experiencing code thrash.
Dudebro, this is 2017 and Japan is full of automatic toilets, and yes, they get hacked. No, nobody cares, except the person getting the wrong wash cycle.
There is no luck required at all. If it is shit, or random, don't log in. If they ask you to, leave. There is an information glut, after all. Other content awaits.
The more important prerequisite for your question: Do you think he cares how it sounds to you? And even if you think he might care, isn't it still entirely your own problem that you're worried about him worrying about it?
Get a grip, you sound pathetic. Nobody cares if you care, though.
Sorry, but are you claiming that if I reference a movie, that that tells you something about what else I said? I think a more logical idea would be that the movie reference added no value. But if you can comprehend the meaning of the words I used you might realize that I didn't use the reference as anything other than establishing the identity of a historical figure based on modern culture. Sure, Thai people would use the number of the King as a reference, but that would have no meaning. I used the reference that has the most meaning to the least informed readers, and those are exactly the readers with the most potential to benefit.
Also, you seem to be claiming to have personal experience. Who gives a fuck? Maybe I do, maybe I don't, I won't tell you because it has nothing to fucking do with the truth of anything that I said.
No, this isn't kindergarten. Try harder. Do better.
[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So actually your business isn't automatically even protected by that. If they do issue a warrant to search a commercial truck, it would have be upon probable cause, but since you don't have any right to be secure in your commercial truck, as you do in your house, papers, effects, and person, you can have that searched without a warrant. For protecting the contents of a semi truck, you simply balance the interests of the government and the individuals according to Common Law; and the result is that the government can search that stuff however they want, and especially if they made a policy and are following it consistently.
Mexico and Iran, in your story, have no meaning. A commercial shipment can be searched in the first place. It makes no difference if the owner is Mexican or Iranian or Texan. There are definitely parts beyond that that are in dispute; not all lawyers and judges agree on the searching of papers at the border. But clearly the searching of a commercial vehicles is allowed most of the time even away from a border. A disputed area might arise when it comes to searching the sleeping compartment, for example. But the 4th applies or does not apply based on if they are a person, not based on what country citizenship they hold.
Current precedent says that anything can be searched at the border and that you have to clear the border protections for the 4th amendment to apply; it doesn't apply in the threshold. Some people dispute that, but nothing about that dispute would cover anything other than personal items.
That's why a law like this would be needed; if the 4th doesn't cover the border threshold, then Congress is free to pass a law granting the same protections. Or in this case, granting narrower protection that specifically covers the area of abuse.
Also, the searching of cell phones is unlikely to uncover the presence of a truck bomb. And furthermore, trucks are available freely for rent in the US. Controlling trucks at the border is important for trade and revenue reasons, not for preventing terrorism.
I chose an AMD APU because I don't want the energy consumption of high performance graphics, but I do want the API capability to run 3d stuff sometimes. They sell well for a variety of use cases. Probably the majority of non-gaming systems are like this; the users benefit from 3d capability but not from performance.
Performance is going to mainly depend on choice of motherboard and what IO technologies it uses for the vast majority of professional end-user systems.
That does explain why it intended as a way to glue services together as data sources, instead of being a "file sharing project." Files could certainly be at both ends though.
It can matter depending on the use case. If a person wants better end user file sharing for IoT devices, then they might not be happy with anything other than C. Or, they might be happy to use python or Lua or Go or whatever. But probably not all at once, and they're probably not choosing based on the file interface.
For use on a general purpose desktop computer, it seems pretty boring because there are so many existing solutions.
Certainly if you hit Thai history with a big enough hammer, you can shrink it down to a paragraph. That said, you really went off the rails at the end on the politics. It isn't a rich/poor split, it is a Central (Thai) Thai vs ethnic Laos/Khmer. Poor people nearer to Bangkok mostly support the traditional power structures. In the north and east regions that only have a few hundred years of being part of the country, they support the corrupt populists.
If you see the movie "The King and I," (any version) the character of the young prince, in real life he grew up and banished slavery and the old system of numerical social status. It used to be that everybody had an assigned numerical value that they wore pinned to their shirt. It was like that for a long time, generations, and most of the working class were valueless (literal) slaves. It was changed simply by decree; not in response to a social movement or unrest or anything, simply because the King was well educated and told people another way of doing things. So they don't have the same history that most of the world has, of people struggling for rights and freedoms. Rights and freedoms have generally been thrust on them unrequested. And so they do not really have functioning politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Aliens?
Definitely aliens. Mork was being sued by Alf, and only Judge Wapner could sit through that case. So they recalled him.
Well they sure weren't too busy counting the beans to respond. ;)
In the sense of them using the associated contract against you, that is true; they can't really force you to agree to it.
But if you're the one taking some legal action against them regarding the code, then the existence of the contract may or may not make a difference, depending on details.
So the point is defense. Actually, defense is what the Department of Defense does, so it should be no surprise.
But note that there is no red tape, just a declaration of claimed facts.
Right, it is still just like Linus said about the git sha-1, not really a big deal because it isn't even the security layer.
If developers with write access to your repo are malicious, you have much worse problems. This is not a serious threat, it is just an edge case that the future will prevent.
The real lesson IMO is, if you do roll your own security, use a library for the password hashing. And if the algorithm ends up having been the wrong one, you'll just update the library. If it is on the network, use ssh or similar. Trust is bad, but that doesn't mean trusting yourself. It means to minimize the need for trust whenever possible. If you absolutely have to trust something, trust the normal generic Best Practice. Being able to look that up in the manual with all the noisy info glut might be non-trivial, though.
Or, it means more generally that updates are bad, and true security will only come from removal of code thrash. We have to figure out what features we actually want, and implement them, and then stop changing those features.
As long as everything is thrashing, everything is vulnerable. Protections will be temporary and new bugs will be introduced even into the protections because those too are always experiencing code thrash.
There is no luck in that either.
And, by your logic, people should build their own OS from scratch, complete with ring zero hardened security and no telemetry that calls mommy ...
Yes more people should build their own OS from scratch. Complete with features. And they should call somebody. Good idea.
Dudebro, this is 2017 and Japan is full of automatic toilets, and yes, they get hacked. No, nobody cares, except the person getting the wrong wash cycle.
I can offer you financing on your own cloud, if you'd like.
There is no luck required at all. If it is shit, or random, don't log in. If they ask you to, leave. There is an information glut, after all. Other content awaits.
And if you don't want to be a rockstar, instead of trying to offer patches just post insulting bug reports and call the developers names.
greynecks know, we had dozens of solutions for this before they even implemented this featureless proprietary pap!
I thought tech news was where all the good news is, with commodity parts and standards everywhere.
I guess it depends which technologies you use.
The more important prerequisite for your question: Do you think he cares how it sounds to you? And even if you think he might care, isn't it still entirely your own problem that you're worried about him worrying about it?
Get a grip, you sound pathetic. Nobody cares if you care, though.
Sorry, but are you claiming that if I reference a movie, that that tells you something about what else I said? I think a more logical idea would be that the movie reference added no value. But if you can comprehend the meaning of the words I used you might realize that I didn't use the reference as anything other than establishing the identity of a historical figure based on modern culture. Sure, Thai people would use the number of the King as a reference, but that would have no meaning. I used the reference that has the most meaning to the least informed readers, and those are exactly the readers with the most potential to benefit.
Also, you seem to be claiming to have personal experience. Who gives a fuck? Maybe I do, maybe I don't, I won't tell you because it has nothing to fucking do with the truth of anything that I said.
No, this isn't kindergarten. Try harder. Do better.
You have that sideways and upside down.
The 4th Amendment says:
So actually your business isn't automatically even protected by that. If they do issue a warrant to search a commercial truck, it would have be upon probable cause, but since you don't have any right to be secure in your commercial truck, as you do in your house, papers, effects, and person, you can have that searched without a warrant. For protecting the contents of a semi truck, you simply balance the interests of the government and the individuals according to Common Law; and the result is that the government can search that stuff however they want, and especially if they made a policy and are following it consistently.
Mexico and Iran, in your story, have no meaning. A commercial shipment can be searched in the first place. It makes no difference if the owner is Mexican or Iranian or Texan. There are definitely parts beyond that that are in dispute; not all lawyers and judges agree on the searching of papers at the border. But clearly the searching of a commercial vehicles is allowed most of the time even away from a border. A disputed area might arise when it comes to searching the sleeping compartment, for example. But the 4th applies or does not apply based on if they are a person, not based on what country citizenship they hold.
Current precedent says that anything can be searched at the border and that you have to clear the border protections for the 4th amendment to apply; it doesn't apply in the threshold. Some people dispute that, but nothing about that dispute would cover anything other than personal items.
That's why a law like this would be needed; if the 4th doesn't cover the border threshold, then Congress is free to pass a law granting the same protections. Or in this case, granting narrower protection that specifically covers the area of abuse.
Also, the searching of cell phones is unlikely to uncover the presence of a truck bomb. And furthermore, trucks are available freely for rent in the US. Controlling trucks at the border is important for trade and revenue reasons, not for preventing terrorism.
I chose an AMD APU because I don't want the energy consumption of high performance graphics, but I do want the API capability to run 3d stuff sometimes. They sell well for a variety of use cases. Probably the majority of non-gaming systems are like this; the users benefit from 3d capability but not from performance.
Performance is going to mainly depend on choice of motherboard and what IO technologies it uses for the vast majority of professional end-user systems.
That does explain why it intended as a way to glue services together as data sources, instead of being a "file sharing project." Files could certainly be at both ends though.
These days I can easily use Ruby in my COBOL. (true story)
It can matter depending on the use case. If a person wants better end user file sharing for IoT devices, then they might not be happy with anything other than C. Or, they might be happy to use python or Lua or Go or whatever. But probably not all at once, and they're probably not choosing based on the file interface.
For use on a general purpose desktop computer, it seems pretty boring because there are so many existing solutions.
The great thing about Ruby is that you can do all the work in C if you want, easily.
If you want to make sure your library works well in Ruby, just write it in C. Problem solved.
even WebTV users could manage a directory structure.
Certainly if you hit Thai history with a big enough hammer, you can shrink it down to a paragraph. That said, you really went off the rails at the end on the politics. It isn't a rich/poor split, it is a Central (Thai) Thai vs ethnic Laos/Khmer. Poor people nearer to Bangkok mostly support the traditional power structures. In the north and east regions that only have a few hundred years of being part of the country, they support the corrupt populists.
If you see the movie "The King and I," (any version) the character of the young prince, in real life he grew up and banished slavery and the old system of numerical social status. It used to be that everybody had an assigned numerical value that they wore pinned to their shirt. It was like that for a long time, generations, and most of the working class were valueless (literal) slaves. It was changed simply by decree; not in response to a social movement or unrest or anything, simply because the King was well educated and told people another way of doing things. So they don't have the same history that most of the world has, of people struggling for rights and freedoms. Rights and freedoms have generally been thrust on them unrequested. And so they do not really have functioning politics.
Wires might light up pretty easy on radar though.
Or at least a pop-up butterfly net.