If the crawling is so problematic, and easily attributable, set up a robots.txt and take a DMCA case if they continue to crawl.
Given what the courts have ruled counts as an”effective” security measure, this should be a fairly straightforward case.
250 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Jun 2017
The current price for spinners is around £20/TB for the largest ones. The price for a 60TB SSD is around £6000 or £100/TB. That is current prices for those SSDs.
Give it another 5 years and presumably they will drop in price. I am not convinced HDD prices will drop as fast, narrowing the price gap. At some point SSDs will overtake spinners on the price metrics.
And yes, I agree tape will continue. The problem for spinners is their niche is slowly shrinking as cheaper SSDs narrow the gap to tape.
Even more importantly, no startup in its first couple of years of operation should be making financial decisions based on 3 or 5 year time horizons. 3 and 5 year horizon problems are firmly in the nice to have category when the average life of a startup up is below 18 months.
Why use Signal? To avoid the proper recording of the discussions and to hide them from any formal auditing and review later.
I mean, whatever they used to chant regarding Hillary Clinton using a private email server, there were no actual sanctions aside from the political grand standing. I am not sure the Democrat critics really have much of a leg to stand on, the hypocrisy is rank on both sides here.
For Ubuntu I would need to hand feed 50 laptops, at the minimum I would need to run scripts at certain parts. But for Ubuntu I would have no idea how I could do this for a machine that is being delivered to someone's house 200 miles away.
The important bit here I have bolded.
What you are telling us is you know the MS tools, but don’t really know the Linux tools. Allowing for this, I completely agree Windows is the better choice for you.
Other people, with different skill sets, will draw different conclusions.
It may be an unpopular stance, and not what you want to hear, but if you are that heavily invested in photoshop and it is a business tool for you, probably your best and only viable option is to pony up the money to Adobe.
Which is just the way Adobe like it. The writing was on the wall about this when they first introduced their subscription licenses!
McKinsey says 70 percent of companies will deploy some sort of AI tech by 2030
To be honest, I am surprised they don't already.
That said, my definition of AI tech includes statistical pattern recognisers that make decisions which are NOT LLMs. Like SpamAssassin.
So the real question is "What do we mean by AI?" Does it include spam filtering systems? How about search engines? Is spell check an AI function? What about predictive typing? Even basic autocorrect has a modicum of AI to it. Most SatNav routing programs today have AI components.
The thing about good and successful AI products is they don't tend to need to advertise the fact they are AI, because they are so much better at solving whatever problem we buy them for we don't care!
The article seems to be saying it allows the CPU to ask for that, not that it is putting that through the CPU unasked.
If this is correct, than I think it is safe to say the CPU is defective. I do wonder if OEM systems exhibit the same behaviour though, because if they do, this would provide a very obvious avenue to really hurt the OEMs by burning out the CPUs while under warranty.
DLUHC could (and should) make this happen by offering the budget for the resources to define the process - in return for a cast iron agreement to adopt them from participating councils. This won't be easy or cheap, but nationally there's no excuse for hundreds of completely different systems and processes.
Most councils will see this as a recipe for getting forced onto a solution that is not fit for purpose and would run a mile from it. "Cast iron agreement to adopt" an unknown solution is an incredibly risky commitment to give, even if they actually trust the DLUHC.
Setting aside the questions around SMS 2FA (which I don't think is the core of the problem here), the question is "Who is responsible for a user maintaining correct contact details?".
As I see it, the complaint seems to be Meta provided the password reset details to the contact details the user asked them to provide them to. Why can Meta be held liable if the user fails to update those contact details? I am pretty sure we have seen similar stories when domain names have been recycled, and the new owner of the domain started receiving email for the previous owner. I know I still receive post for previous residents of my current home, some of whom last lived here over 20 years ago!
It won’t be a popular point, but… if the reported gain in productivity of 40% is correct, this is the single best investment they could make.
Doing some basic math, $39 per user per month is break even for a developer being paid $1000 a month if it gives a 4% improvement in productivity. They are claiming a productivity boost 10x that. Though it isn’t mentioned, I suspect they are using developers paid a lot more than $1000 a month.
Run a cable across the pavement? So who is liable when someone trips over the cable? We may not like the reality we live in with ambulance chasing lawyers, but it is a bad idea to ignore it when formulating national policy.
Ok, so you dealt with the lawyers… how about the copper thieves who come down the street in the middle of the night and steal all the cables?
Or the pram pushers trying to push a pram along that pavement? Are we really convicnced that making pushing prams and pushchairs difficult is really a great policy?
They lost against Apple because the judge ruled that the iPhone App Store was not a monopoly because the market should be defined as all smartphones.
The jury here have decided that Google Play Store is a monopoly, which at least implies they disagree with the Apple case judge on the question of how the market is defined.
Is a wine/proton port a "native port"? I suspect for the ideologues, it isn't.
My take is that an officially supported wine/proton port is effectively a native linux port of the game, so long as the developer is willing to commit to addressing issues that arise only on wine/proton. I don't dictate the game engine, why should I refuse to accept a usable stable set of libraries over the API they speak?
Except the European Commission, by entering Apples own marketing material, turn this argument into “if it works, you face prosecution across the EU (and beyond) for false advertising”. Add to that, anyone who bought an Apple device since the false advertising now has a case against Apple as well.
So yes, there may be a 1 in 1000 chance it works, which is better than a 0 in 1000 chance, but that only holds if you ignore the risk of it backfiring.
This looks a spectacularly silly argument to advance.
Yes, for a tiny minority of people, this is a feature worth paying a premium for. But it is a tiny minority. Most phone OEMs probably would prefer to wait for a working standards based solution than invest any effort into integrating a solution the overwhelming majority of their customer base don’t have care about. Once the working standards based solution arrives, they do the work, and they can be reasonably confident that work won’t be hostage to a single vendor.
I strongly agree with this, for one simple reason: "How do you do X?" questions, unless they are trivia, should really be answered "I google to find the correct process in the official docs, and follow them"
A poster child for this I have been asked in an interview was "How do you restore an Active Directory backup with the entire computer network offline?" As an interviewer, I would be seriously worried by any candidate who could answer that correctly and accurately in detail without prompts!
Does not require that manufactures allow repair shops to disable security features
So, basically, if Apple implement "security features" to prevent non-Apple parts working, repair shops would not be allowed to disable those features, and would have to use Apple parts, at whatever excessive price Apple charge?
Focuses on manufacturer obligations to support authorized repair channels
Who authorizes "authorized repair channels"?
Call me cynical, but surely those two caveats basically neuter the entire proposal?
Overall, only 9 percent of those surveyed have moved away and not subsequently returned, it said.
Given how long moving typically takes, and the fact that many people won’t have really believed that they would never have to come back to the office, isn’t 9% a fairly high number to have actually moved three years on?
While I completely accept they should not be allowed to enforce copyright they don't own, surely they have a copyright on their presentation of the lyrics: In this case, surely there is a "spark of creativity" to the "REDHANDED" morse code message which would be potentially worthy of copyright protection.
I mean, if a dictionary (or API!) is copyrightable because the presentation of the content has a "spark of creativity" to it, I'm failing to see how a hidden message in a bit stream is not.
In this case, that could probably be dismissed as insufficient to be protected.
The potential problem is not the with-holding the code, it's terminating subscription agreements for of end users who exercise their GPL rights. This is basically exactly the same legal argument advanced by GRSec, and it was called out as GPL violation then. Why is it not being called out the same now? Or were all the claims then FUD?
Truthfully until this particular model is legislated, we won't know if it breaches the GPL. If it IS legislated, and it DOES breach the GPL, RH and IBM are in a massive world of pain, as anyone who contributed anything to any GPL component of RHEL would have standing to sue. Including Oracle and Microsoft. Essentially, this is potentially a massive gift to those opposed to Linux.
Microsoft, they claim, acknowledged the findings and awarded a bug bounty, but "has decided that the vulnerabilities do not require immediate attention."
Perhaps MS telemetry tells MS that no one actually uses the signing functionality in OOXML documents anyway?
I have seen "password protected" documents from time to time, but never a digitally signed one. Once digital signatures are involved, IME, it's always been PDFs.
But Google should not be trusting the message headers.
In the scenario you outline, MS have allowed an account to relay for a sender domain that is not validated to the account. This would be a problem in O365, as it allows any customer to masquerade as any other customer!
Now we can argue that Google should have rejected because the DKIM signing key was wrong, but that is a problem with DMARC or BIMI, but if the policy is “one of two”, you can’t fault Google for correctly applying a one of two policy.
What happened in Office 365? It sounds like ups.com currently, or at some point, used Office 365 as a mail host leading to Office 365 SPF records. Any Office 365 customer would be able to send from the same servers. This is not a flaw in SPF so much as a scenario it simply was never designed to deal with.
How the bad actors were able to set up to send from ups.com through office 365 is probably a more interesting question.
> An older engineer (rightly or wrongly) will always be more likely to push back against progress.
I am going to have to take issue with this. A good engineer doesn’t push back against progress.
A more experienced engineer is more likely to question “fad of the day” hype, which is not the same thing!