... again, it makes you wonder, why is Congress so intent on hiding this taxpayer funded research -- which has a history of being credible, factual and useful -- from the public?
If this information were made public, then it wouldn't have any value. Keeping it private makes it valuable. (Ask Disney why their DVDs are only available for sale for limited times, and then not again for many years.)
If this information didn't have any value, then what incentive would there be for Congress to have the research done in the first place?
Furthermore, if it were easy to debunk the statements of congresscritters, then this would undermine their business model. How would these artists get paid for their amazing creative works of fiction? There would be no more incentive to create such fact free fanciful tales for political purposes if this information were made public.
a representative from Fox was adamant about pushing for stronger punishment for sites that hosted infringing content. But she also made sure to respond to a point raised earlier about abusive takedowns.
Both of those things need to bite Fox. Hard.
Their broadcast might contain infringing content. These are people who very likely do not believe in any kind of fair use. And if they acknowledge fair use at all, then their same standard should be applied to them. "fair use is a defense in a lawsuit, but the use is considered infringing until you raise the fair use defense", etc
Fox filed a bogus takedown, and should be punished accordingly. Fox demonstrated an abusive takedown after complaining that abusive takedowns are unusual, which we all know is not true any more than copyright infringement is unusual. There needs to be seriously steep punishments for doing this. Takedown notice issuers need to abide by the same high standards as they expect everyone else to abide by in not infringing copyright. Do by example.
Therefore, this Court, in an effort to ensure that all Justice Department attorneys who appear in the courts of the Plaintiff States that have been harmed by this misconduct are aware of and comply with their ethical duties, hereby orders that any attorney employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course. It shall be taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department. At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year. The subject matter shall include a discussion of the ethical codes of conduct (which will include candor to the court and truthfulness to third parties) applicable in that jurisdiction.”
In a footnote, Judge Hanen noted this was not the first time the DoJ has faced such an issue:
Just recently, the Sixth Circuit expressed a similar conclusion. It wrote:
In closing, we echo the district court’s observations about this case. The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws—all of them, not just selective ones—in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court [like the attorneys representing the DHS in this Court] falls outside that tradition. We expect that the IRS will do better going forward. And we order that the IRS comply with the district court’s discovery orders of April 1 and June 16, 2015—without redactions, and without further delay.
Concluding the order, Judge Hanen wrote, “This Court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed.”
According to the FBI agent, this software isn't malware because it doesn't do any permanent damage.
Similarly, enhanced interrogation isn't torture because it doesn't do any permanent damage.
Nice way to divert from the fact that there was harm, rather than on how long the harm lasts. While the harm may or may not be permanent, which can be debated, the fact is that harm WAS DONE. The computer has malware, a rootkit, of some sort installed on it.
Does the FBI do anything to remove this malware?
What makes the FBI so sure that without any updates, their brand of malware will not actually make the computer more vulnerable to other hacking efforts? They seem awfully confident of this.
former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
Can you point to an example of where some customers had real and serious cable / isp competition?
Then how can you compare the current situation of no competition with a situation where there exists real competition?
Therefore you have NO EVIDENCE.
The former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
There is NO EVIDENCE.
I'm less certain about whether the cable / isp industry is being 'unfairly attacked'.
And just as a friendly reminder from your friendly lobbyists... * smoking doesn't cause cancer * fracking doesn't cause earthquakes * man made co2 emissions does not cause global warming * abstinence only sex-education does not cause teen pregnancy
It works as follows. When a printer receives a print job, it parses the content for potential copyrighted material. If there is a match, it won't copy or print anything unless the person in question has authorization.
You don't need a parser for that.
ALL material that you can print is copyrighted.
Copyright exists the moment something if fixed in tangible form.
There might be non-copyrighted material, such as works in the public domain, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
Since I'm telling you things about Java, let me mention the JVM.
The JVM does garbage collection, and is a managed runtime. Java is one of many source languages that can be compiled to JVM bytecode. Types can be passed back and forth, because the types exist as concrete values to the underlying JVM runtime.
There are 3 compilers that you typically use. The first one is obvious, it compiled Java (or other language) into JVM bytecode. The other two compilers compile JVM bytecode into native code. Well call these compilers C1 and C2.
When you start a program, the JVM begins interpreting your bytecode. Then as dynamic profiling reveals that your method is using a lot of the CPU time, your method gets compiled into native code by C1, which rapidly compiles it into decent machine code. At the same time, your function is put on a list to be compiled later by C2. C2 will spend a lot of time highly optimizing your code. It will aggressively inline.
Now, classes containing bytecode can be dynamically reloaded at runtime.
Suppose YOUR function calls MY function. When your function gets compiled by C2, it has inlined my function into your function's native code for speed.
Now, later, for some reason, I reload a new version of my class, which contains a new version of MY function.
Problem: now YOUR function has inlined a stale version of my function. Not to worry. The JVM instantly de-optimizes your function back to being bytecode interpreted again. And now if your function is still using a lot of CPU time, it will get compiled by C1, and put on a list to later be compiled by C2 when the JVM gets an opportunity. So you will never be running the stale code.
Unlike an Ahead Of Time compiler such as C, or C++, the JVM C2 compiler can globally optimize the entire program that is running in this instance. It has access to ALL of the bytecode which makes up the program.
Imagine what your C compiler could do if it could know about the other code (that you might not write until tomorrow) that it will be linked with. It could reorganize method arguments. Change how methods are called.
Another thing about compiling at the very last moment is that the C2 compiler can use instructions that are ON YOUR PARTICULAR HARDWARE. Does your processor have SSE extensions. Or some other AMD processor extensions?
Yet java code is distributed as JAR files, which contains JVM bytecode and runs on any machine or OS.
Do you need a heap with dozens or HUNDREDS of gigabytes of RAM? Did you know there are multiple vendors of JVM implementations. Call Azul systems for their Zing VM. It can handle HUNDREDS OF GIGABYTES of ram, with GC pause times of about 10 milliseconds. Of course, you'll pay for this. (Disclaimer: I have no relationship with Azul.)
Or you can run your Java code on an IBM zOS mainframe. Etc.
IDEs have a learning curve, like any professional tool. Like Photoshop, for example. Or like using power tools in a machine shop. Be careful.
But once learned, a good IDE can be extremely powerful. A common refactoring example: Rename a function using the 'rename' command. First select the function name, and pick Rename. Now as you type in or edit the new name, anywhere on screen that you can see that same identifier (in other files, even!), you will see it renamed live, keystroke by keystroke, as you change the name.
And by "same identifier", I mean that this intelligent rename is NOT done by a stupid search and replace throughout your source code. The database knows precisely and exactly every reference to that identifier in your entire code base, even across other projects that use this class. The rename is universal. If I rename "foobar" to "foobaz", it will not affect other "foobar"'s that are different identifiers, in different context. The compiler knows exactly what is an exact reference to the foobar being renamed.
But here are a couple other quick examples:
In the middle of a big function, select six lines of it. Pick refactor, extract function. Now you have a new top level function with those six lines. At the location where those six lines were, is a call to this new function. But wait! Any local variables that were used in those six lines are passed as parameters to the function.
Pick an embedded class. Select it. Pick a refactoring command to lift to it's own file. All of the necessary editing, and changes are done for you.
Pick an if statement. A simple refactor is to simply reverse the then/else clauses and invert the condition. Lots of other power tools.
Anytime, anywhere, you see a variable, or something, and you want to go to where it is declared, simply click in it and hit F3. You're instantly at the declaration. And I don't mean somewhere that declares a similar identifier with the same name. I mean the ACTUAL declaration of the identifiers you selected -- the compiler know. And the compiler is built into the editor.