We recently switched from Jabber to Skype because Jabber keeps IM history and that is considered a security risk.
I'm fairly certain that the Jabber protocol (i.e. XMPP) does not mandate storing message history. I've used Kopete for OTR (end-to-end encrypted) messages, and Kopete lets you disable local logging.
Did you mean some specific server or client software?
I think the company only has to produce materials that they have at the time they are notified that legal action is coming. If the company sets an email retention policy of 30 days, then they aren't responsible for producing emails from 5 years ago, since those were deleted in the ordinary course of business. The same would likely apply to material that the company never had possession of in the first place, such as SMS messages sent between personal phones or email sent between personal addresses.
As for Slack (and any similar IRC-like systems), I had thought that one of the big selling points was being able to join a channel and see messages from before you joined. In that case, where are those messages stored?
So is he basically like George R.R. Martin? He doesn't live in Westeros himself, but he can still kill of his characters whenever he feels like?
If you believe in an "active" God, yes.
An alternative is a God that set the laws of nature and then leaves everything to take its course. Or, perhaps a better analogy for Slashdot, writes a bunch of code and then runs it (without a debugger).
Ironically, up until recent times, most wars were the result of people fighting over who had the best god or, if they had the same god, the proper way to worship this god.
Religion is a convenient excuse that can be given to the general population in order to get support for starting a war, but most wars are the result of one or both of two things: desire for power/control and resources.
The ridiculous accounts of Genesis and Revelation, and everything in between...
Everything in between chronologically? I think you're vastly overestimating how exciting those parts are.
After Genesis, most of the Torah is just descriptions of religious practice and civil law; several chapters of Exodus are just Ikea instructions for putting together the portable sanctuary used during the migration from Egypt to Canaan. Most of the early parts of the books of Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) read like a history book, though the books of Samuel (primarily covering the period of Saul and David) could make a pretty good TV drama or soap opera. The later prophets get more preachy about how evil the people are, but the beginning of Ezekiel is a good example of what certain mushrooms can do to you.
The simple fact is we've made some crude machine learning algorithms that can be trained but this is not true intelligence, that can make intuitive leaps and predictions about things it has never experienced based on first principles.
Humans aren't always very good at those things, either.
In order to be useful, an artificial intelligence doesn't have to be as intelligent as an intelligent person, it just has to be as intelligent as an average (or even below average) person.
Ever since 1976, scientists have been running exhaustive studies to track the loss of insects that involve trapping and killing millions of bugs. Scientists now believe running constant sampling on that scale may have affected the bug populations.
How the hell is this modded insightful?
Probably because Funny votes don't increase karma, so some people will use a different vote so that the person who posted the joke will gain karma.
I'm not saying that moderators should do it, only that some of them do it.
Less than 20 years ago 32 megabytes of memory was the norm under Windows NT Workstation.
Minor quibble, but you might be off by a few years. 20 years ago, Dell was selling regular desktop computers that supported 256-512 MB of RAM. 32 MB would have been common more than 20 years ago, but probably less than 25 years ago.
Just thought I'd mention it, since I remember upgrading my old 486 computer to 16 MB in 1996 or so, and the P2-400 I bought in 1998 came with 128 MB, I think.
It really doesn't matter whether you or I believe that its better for congress to create laws or not. The constitution states that congress is where laws get created.
Executive agencies, like the FCC are only empowered to create regulations to enforce already created laws. they are not empowered to create laws of their own.
Right, and Congress passed a law that empowered the FCC to create regulations, such as those pertaining to telecommunications providers. Congress frequently delegates the creation of regulations (which are really just laws that have more specific details) to executive agencies.
Generally speaking regulatory capture is a bad thing and explains why this situation has even come up. In the Obama administration the FCC was under the control of industries that wanted net neutrality, because it served them. Now it is under the control of industries who don't want net neutrality, because that position serves them.
In no case is anyone asking what serves the electorate or the consumer.
Not sure that it is true that they cannot claim both sides in separate cases...
Technically they can say whatever they want, but statements that an entity (person, corporation, etc.) makes in one court case can be cited in other court cases, and the judge can use contradictory statements in rulings against them.
Regulation of radio and, later, television that is broadcast over radio frequencies, is a separate part of the law from regulation of wired communications.
The FCC may not have the legal mandate to enforce NN, but that's not the same thing as not having the legal standing to prevent states from doing the regulation themselves. The contention that because the FCC claims they don't have the authority to enforce NN they cannot prevent the states from enacting the same regulation is not logically related.
If the FCC has no authority to regulate Network Neutrality, then how can the FCC dictate what states can and cannot do about it? You can argue that the Commerce clause gives Congress that authority, so Congress could pass a bill that prohibits states from enforcing Network Neutrality, but the FCC is arguing that Congress has not delegated that authority to the FCC.
While I am a proponent in general of Net Neutrality, and I want ISPs to treat the internet as just a phone call with no ifs, ands or buts; the FCC is right in this case. What we really need is for this question to be answered where the framers meant for it to be answered: in law.
We can't change the rules for something as long-lasting and fundamental as the internet every time we change administrations. We can't rely on the executive branch to define the rules. The constitution calls on Congress to make the rules, and the administration (executive branch) to enforce them. Congress has to act. This purview should be codified into a bill, and passed. Thereby Establishing legal authority and imperative.
Congress can change stuff with every new election just as much as an executive agency can (see, e.g. the Affordable Care Act). You could even argue that it's easier for Congress, since executive agencies are required to follow a process that's defined by Congress.
As for Congress making the rules instead of an executive agency, I'm not convinced that's always better. Members of Congress are elected for several various reasons, but specific domain expertise is rarely one of them. Most members of Congress have no idea what amount of a given chemical will cause significant environmental damage, how to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a new drug being tested, or how to allocate radio frequencies. So instead of making uninformed decisions, Congress delegated those specific decisions to agencies that are responsible for enforcing those broader laws, and those agencies in turn employee experts in the appropriate fields.
Todays thread about something that has been released under a CC licence, free for anyone to use or modify provided the attribute the source... and then wanting to add EXTRA conditions after the fact...
If the summary is accurate (I know, I know), that emphasized bit is what Amazon isn't doing. Requiring monetary payment would be adding extra conditions, but requiring attribution is part of the license.
No, it shows the problem with increasing minimum wage by a large amount once every 10 years, which is basically what the US has been doing since 1980, instead of having small increases every 1-2 years. You can argue that $15/hour is too high, but based on the past 50 years or so, minimum wage should be around $10/hour now. In the 1960's and 1970's, minimum wage went up 10 cents almost every year (up to 20-25 cents per year by 1980). After 1980, it went up every 10 years instead (except for one shorter gap of 5 years in the 1990's), with a larger increase spread over 2-3 years.
The last increase was 2007-2009, with a total increase of about 40% from the previous minimum wage from 1997. So we're due for another 40% increase, which would bring it up to about $10/hour.
Well, you could simply use the performance of people, instead of the judgement of said performance by others. Of course, that would require you to introduce proper metrics. Which is something that a lot of managers resist in this field as soon as it applies to "thinking jobs". I wonder if the fact that the group includes their own jobs has any influence on that distaste.
Would you like to share some of your proper metrics? Lots of (all?) companies use bad metrics, but is there any other kind?
Slashdot Mirror
If so, which direction is the fourth wall?
It's a straight line along the w axis.
We recently switched from Jabber to Skype because Jabber keeps IM history and that is considered a security risk.
I'm fairly certain that the Jabber protocol (i.e. XMPP) does not mandate storing message history. I've used Kopete for OTR (end-to-end encrypted) messages, and Kopete lets you disable local logging.
Did you mean some specific server or client software?
(I am not a lawyer)
I think the company only has to produce materials that they have at the time they are notified that legal action is coming. If the company sets an email retention policy of 30 days, then they aren't responsible for producing emails from 5 years ago, since those were deleted in the ordinary course of business. The same would likely apply to material that the company never had possession of in the first place, such as SMS messages sent between personal phones or email sent between personal addresses.
As for Slack (and any similar IRC-like systems), I had thought that one of the big selling points was being able to join a channel and see messages from before you joined. In that case, where are those messages stored?
So is he basically like George R.R. Martin? He doesn't live in Westeros himself, but he can still kill of his characters whenever he feels like?
If you believe in an "active" God, yes.
An alternative is a God that set the laws of nature and then leaves everything to take its course. Or, perhaps a better analogy for Slashdot, writes a bunch of code and then runs it (without a debugger).
Ironically, up until recent times, most wars were the result of people fighting over who had the best god or, if they had the same god, the proper way to worship this god.
Religion is a convenient excuse that can be given to the general population in order to get support for starting a war, but most wars are the result of one or both of two things: desire for power/control and resources.
The ridiculous accounts of Genesis and Revelation, and everything in between...
Everything in between chronologically? I think you're vastly overestimating how exciting those parts are.
After Genesis, most of the Torah is just descriptions of religious practice and civil law; several chapters of Exodus are just Ikea instructions for putting together the portable sanctuary used during the migration from Egypt to Canaan. Most of the early parts of the books of Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) read like a history book, though the books of Samuel (primarily covering the period of Saul and David) could make a pretty good TV drama or soap opera. The later prophets get more preachy about how evil the people are, but the beginning of Ezekiel is a good example of what certain mushrooms can do to you.
The simple fact is we've made some crude machine learning algorithms that can be trained but this is not true intelligence, that can make intuitive leaps and predictions about things it has never experienced based on first principles.
Humans aren't always very good at those things, either.
In order to be useful, an artificial intelligence doesn't have to be as intelligent as an intelligent person, it just has to be as intelligent as an average (or even below average) person.
So they say, but it makes no sense - insects thrive in warmer climates.
Do you have a citation for that conclusion? And no, "common sense" is not scientific evidence.
Ever since 1976, scientists have been running exhaustive studies to track the loss of insects that involve trapping and killing millions of bugs. Scientists now believe running constant sampling on that scale may have affected the bug populations.
How the hell is this modded insightful?
Probably because Funny votes don't increase karma, so some people will use a different vote so that the person who posted the joke will gain karma.
I'm not saying that moderators should do it, only that some of them do it.
Less than 20 years ago 32 megabytes of memory was the norm under Windows NT Workstation.
Minor quibble, but you might be off by a few years. 20 years ago, Dell was selling regular desktop computers that supported 256-512 MB of RAM. 32 MB would have been common more than 20 years ago, but probably less than 25 years ago.
Just thought I'd mention it, since I remember upgrading my old 486 computer to 16 MB in 1996 or so, and the P2-400 I bought in 1998 came with 128 MB, I think.
It really doesn't matter whether you or I believe that its better for congress to create laws or not. The constitution states that congress is where laws get created.
Executive agencies, like the FCC are only empowered to create regulations to enforce already created laws. they are not empowered to create laws of their own.
Right, and Congress passed a law that empowered the FCC to create regulations, such as those pertaining to telecommunications providers. Congress frequently delegates the creation of regulations (which are really just laws that have more specific details) to executive agencies.
Generally speaking regulatory capture is a bad thing and explains why this situation has even come up. In the Obama administration the FCC was under the control of industries that wanted net neutrality, because it served them. Now it is under the control of industries who don't want net neutrality, because that position serves them.
In no case is anyone asking what serves the electorate or the consumer.
You won't get any disagreement from me here.
It's not a horror story at all, it's a science fiction story.
Not sure that it is true that they cannot claim both sides in separate cases...
Technically they can say whatever they want, but statements that an entity (person, corporation, etc.) makes in one court case can be cited in other court cases, and the judge can use contradictory statements in rulings against them.
I always wondered why ancients feared eclipses so much.
If you haven't read Nightfall (Isaac Asimov and Rober Silverberg), you should check it out.
They did. The FCC exists because Congress created it, and the FCC has the authority that Congress gave it.
Regulation of radio and, later, television that is broadcast over radio frequencies, is a separate part of the law from regulation of wired communications.
The FCC may not have the legal mandate to enforce NN, but that's not the same thing as not having the legal standing to prevent states from doing the regulation themselves. The contention that because the FCC claims they don't have the authority to enforce NN they cannot prevent the states from enacting the same regulation is not logically related.
If the FCC has no authority to regulate Network Neutrality, then how can the FCC dictate what states can and cannot do about it? You can argue that the Commerce clause gives Congress that authority, so Congress could pass a bill that prohibits states from enforcing Network Neutrality, but the FCC is arguing that Congress has not delegated that authority to the FCC.
While I am a proponent in general of Net Neutrality, and I want ISPs to treat the internet as just a phone call with no ifs, ands or buts; the FCC is right in this case. What we really need is for this question to be answered where the framers meant for it to be answered: in law.
We can't change the rules for something as long-lasting and fundamental as the internet every time we change administrations. We can't rely on the executive branch to define the rules. The constitution calls on Congress to make the rules, and the administration (executive branch) to enforce them. Congress has to act. This purview should be codified into a bill, and passed. Thereby Establishing legal authority and imperative.
Congress can change stuff with every new election just as much as an executive agency can (see, e.g. the Affordable Care Act). You could even argue that it's easier for Congress, since executive agencies are required to follow a process that's defined by Congress.
As for Congress making the rules instead of an executive agency, I'm not convinced that's always better. Members of Congress are elected for several various reasons, but specific domain expertise is rarely one of them. Most members of Congress have no idea what amount of a given chemical will cause significant environmental damage, how to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a new drug being tested, or how to allocate radio frequencies. So instead of making uninformed decisions, Congress delegated those specific decisions to agencies that are responsible for enforcing those broader laws, and those agencies in turn employee experts in the appropriate fields.
Todays thread about something that has been released under a CC licence, free for anyone to use or modify provided the attribute the source ... and then wanting to add EXTRA conditions after the fact...
If the summary is accurate (I know, I know), that emphasized bit is what Amazon isn't doing. Requiring monetary payment would be adding extra conditions, but requiring attribution is part of the license.
Then give us a non-generic example. You're the one who said it was simple and that the reason it isn't done is because of resistance by management.
No, it shows the problem with increasing minimum wage by a large amount once every 10 years, which is basically what the US has been doing since 1980, instead of having small increases every 1-2 years. You can argue that $15/hour is too high, but based on the past 50 years or so, minimum wage should be around $10/hour now. In the 1960's and 1970's, minimum wage went up 10 cents almost every year (up to 20-25 cents per year by 1980). After 1980, it went up every 10 years instead (except for one shorter gap of 5 years in the 1990's), with a larger increase spread over 2-3 years.
The last increase was 2007-2009, with a total increase of about 40% from the previous minimum wage from 1997. So we're due for another 40% increase, which would bring it up to about $10/hour.
Minimum wage data
Should I take your handwaving to mean that you don't know any "proper metrics"?
Well played, sir.
Well, you could simply use the performance of people, instead of the judgement of said performance by others. Of course, that would require you to introduce proper metrics. Which is something that a lot of managers resist in this field as soon as it applies to "thinking jobs". I wonder if the fact that the group includes their own jobs has any influence on that distaste.
Would you like to share some of your proper metrics? Lots of (all?) companies use bad metrics, but is there any other kind?
Bias is a non-factual prejudice against someone.
Floating point numbers are prejudiced against someone?