Posts by Kicker of Metaphorical Cats 21 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Nov 2017
Are we to somehow think that a specific search term that we are willing to put into a web search box is somehow less confidential than the words we put in a business email only to have it checked for grammar and spelling? But hey, at least the most recent update gives me suggestions on how to use the corrected version of my pourly spelt wurds.
Kind of sounds like you are describing a treadmill. Real-world trails shown on the screen as it adjusts the platform angle, gives you a target time to chase, shows you the difference between the target and your last effort, sends data to your phone which then alters your workout program.
Companies sell a lot of treadmills.
Jurors can be sympathetic, empathetic, and disinterested. If you are the accused then sympathetic is a great juror. Empathetic is a mixed bag since the juror may reflect on what you could have done to prevent yourself from getting in the spot you are in now so I am guessing nobody wants them around. The disinterested will side with whomever gets them home quickest. The move to strike those that are sympathetic is understandable from the position of prosecution but hardly practical given they will never get it right and also disenfranchises those that plan on being impartial regardless of how they appear.
If there was a way to only include those that would deal with the facts then I would be on-board for that. But life is not fair so why should a trial be?
What I want to know is how what is keeping them from admitting the sensors and camera setup is shit. White truck or not, aero barriers hanging down the side of the truck or not, driver paying attention or stroking in the passenger seat or not, the fact that they cannot detect a vehicle is about to be a square peg in a round hole with all that tech on board says they have a shit setup.
Oh no, some guy drove our truck in to a crowd and killed a bunch of people! We better buy back all the trucks and start selling paper towels!
Yes, extremely crude example but I simply cannot get on board with a vendor, service provider, or manufacturer being liable for someone else committing a crime. We would all need to give up our careers and go start mowing lawns or something, at least until someone buries a body in their yard and you take the hit for camouflaging it with such a well maintained natural green carpet.
"Many think companies have ethics but that is only allowed when the company is privately owned, or non-profit or isn't a company at all but instead a political or religious organization."
If only. Any organization that does not believe, or care, that they have to answer to another has to make a unconscious effort to be/remain ethical. Why do you think companies and governments have ethics committees? Hint, it is not because they are ethical.
The password is BOB. Unless he was dyslexic, in which case it will be BOB.
Seriously, to blame a lame engineer for this stuff is ridiculous. The guys boss should be on the chopping block for allowing his network to be run that way. Managers get a pass when someone goes rogue, but not when they ignore an ongoing problem with a critical process.
Tesla requires a VIN before they will even tell you if a part is available and flat out refuses to sell certain (most?) parts unless they are doing the service. Certain VW transmissions require a computer to set the fluid level and they will not sell the computer to anyone other than a VW dealer. Ford voids warranties on new vehicles if suspension work (e.g., leveling kits) was done by someone other than a Ford dealer. GM voids warranties if the serialization code in the computer does not match what they last pulled (you cannot save the config, re-flash, and put the original back on). Heck, dealers permission and a code from GM (which GM is unlikely to give) if you put significantly larger tires (lifted truck) on a vehicle that requires the transmission to be reprogrammed with the tire size for the speedometer to read correctly.
Now should they be forced to do these things? I say no. However, I do think they should be required to follow something similar to a perpetual licensing model. This is what you can/cannot do when you buy the vehicle, phone, whatever, and they cannot change the rules for your purchase after the sale. Change it all they want for future stuff, but then you get to decide if you want to buy that new agreement or point your wallet in a different direction.
The US has been selectively ignoring the Constitution for so long that teaching what it really is becoming a lost art. Law says X? Oh that's fine, we will just ignore that. Constitution says Y? Oh, well that is because it was written way back when they had horses and stuff; no need to apply that here.
As to if the US is constitutionally barred from these actions is a mute point.
Skype is dead. Teams is the replacement. VoIP to a phone number requires a per-user dial plan so it is not super attractive. The fact that MS keeps changing communication platforms (all started with Exchange Conferencing Server being replaced by LCS) is a major red flag for many an organization.
AWS has Amazon Connect (call center), Amazon Chime (conferencing), and a rumored soon to be announced desktop VoIP served up via AWS, and everything else will be in jeopardy of becoming background noise.
How come whomever is cleaning up someone else's mess gets the blame? US goods have been getting spanked for years while rules allow other countries to dump goods in to the US market devaluing US made products. I am not saying that I am happy about any of the current instability, but I am saying that I was frigging pissed for years that China has been ripping off the US market by duplicating US patented products and dumping the clones on the US market.
Down vote button is right here:
........\/ \/.......
At least we would only get one letter in the mail, and one news story, about the breach rather than the constant trickle of government breaches!
From an operational cost savings, single cloud makes sense. Depending on what metrics are being reviewed, it may even make sense from an anticipated uptime perspective. I also do not have a problem with the 10 year term; it is going to take 11 years (yes, more like 22) just to transition.
The "government" part of a business decision is perplexing. It is public money, and the government is not supposed to pick winners and create losers with that money which something of this magnitude can certainly do. However, if they put a portion of the contract in the hands of IBM or smaller cloud then they are funding way too much of that smaller cloud, thus jeopardizing the way it operates (would become the ibmcloud.gov). Where as larger players (AWS, Azure, Google) likely view the DoD contract as an amazing win, but not funding their future. At the same time, using taxpayer money-- that is going to be spent regardless --to foster competition and innovation by spreading out the contract has its own merits.
Tough call. I am interested in reading the documents should they ever be published for public review.
Your point on "unreasonable" is why warrants need to be cleared by the court system, as opposed to the FBI, or others, making up the rules as they go along. Within the court system, despite all of its failings, using case law as precedence does establish the boundary for reasonable vs unreasonable. Given that Article III of the Constitution established the Judicial Branch, in the full context of the Constitution, it is clear.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
