Realize you have no control over it. You don't know where "the" microphone is, whether it is active, nor how many there are. And you never will.
That's always been true. It's not your car.
I'm not sure that the surest sign of nefarious monitoring is to
A thousand points to the person/group that does a "positive hack." Instead of the obvious string of obscenities, have Barbie embrace geekiness and the maker culture instead of being a brainless bimbo.
Little girl: "Barbie, do you want to go shopping?" Barbie: "Sure. I could use a new soldering iron. Also, my favorite comic book has a new issue out. I can't wait to read what happens this issue!"
Hey, since real world girls refuse to become geeks despite all the countless programs everyone is coming up with, I guess we do have to make some mechanical ones
The reality is that the smart money is now with those who divest in fossil fuels first and put their earnings in alternative energy stocks will be the big winners and those who are left holding fossil fuel stocks until they finally collapse the big losers, which rather than a complete collapse will be like a leaky tire, loosing its value steadily over time, while production costs continue to climb. State investment funds, universities, and trusts in progressive states are already lightening up on fossil fuels, so their shareholders will come out ahead.
Yeah, nothing kills an industry like low prices and near ubiquity.
You guys actually believe this stuff, don't you?
40% of all working-age Americans have a criminal record.
If that's true
Maybe we need to change the violent subcultures, instead of trying to shame people for not wanting to hire ex-cons.
Who will we teach to "code" next?
Babies? Nursing home residents? Beagles?
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak were part of the Digital Revolution where they wanted to decentralize data and put computers in the hands of the people.
Now it looks like we need a backlash.
No, the solution isn't centralization of our data systems. You can already see where that is leading with the high profile exposures today (Sony, Target, et al). It is a fallacy to assume corporations have all the answers, or will act in the general public's best interests. Short term profit is the only thing that has any meaning in that system.
At the same token we can't continue going along like we are - as that is already proven to fail.
The very thing that makes the internet useful for communications and commerce for large populations spread all over the globe, is the same thing that is at the core of it's weakness: public key encryption. To be more specific, computers are designed not to be random, and the systems we've devised to get around this problem have limits that may be exploited. When paired with encryption these limits open up potential exposure, and advancements in computing technology allow those exploits to be more readily used. For certain short term transactions, this level of exposure may be an acceptable risk - for data that is transient in nature, and not useful to someone at some future point in time. However, much of the data we trust to encryption could be useful to a 3rd party in the future.
We could ensure our systems (personal or corporate - doesn't matter) are completely secure from a remote attacker - by placing them inside a Faraday cage, and disconnecting them from the internet. While the data would be secure, it wouldn't be very useful in the broader context of communication and commerce - but for some types of information it might be an appropriate approach, and I imagine is what some sensitive government networks opt for their classified systems. For all other systems it would be as useful as throwing them into the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean - secure, but useless.
In order to communicate on the wider stage then, we must accept a certain amount of risk. I think we are all in agreement that the current risks are unacceptable the way they are today. I also think there is no single magic bullet. I think you will see the teams focus on the following areas, assuming corporate interests are not overly impacted by the potential solutions:
Tools - tools need to be devised that don't allow neophyte application programmers to shoot themselves in the foot.
Training - training has to be developed based upon new approaches, and made available widely.
Willpower - everyone - corporations down to individual developers - must have the willpower to do some things that might be hard at first (e.g. code reviews of all code - including libraries, refactoring/rewriting same in light of security issues etc) - and these things need to become habit.
Whatever the outcome, there will be no silver bullet.
The anecdotes illustrate typical experiences.
Unless you are in a concentration camp, suicidal ideation and behavior is a mental health symptom. Interrupting someone's "MO" actually is a smart thing to do.
A common technique is "chain analysis"; analyzing the chain of events that led up to a suicide attempt, and then looking at how to disrupt any future chains.
I have found (while reading through resumes trying to find candidates) that the response of most applicants to this phenomenon is to just apply for jobs for which they aren't really qualified at all, because no one is completely qualified. Which leads to probably the exact situation employers are trying to avoid (having tons of unqualified people apply)
It does add a layer to the process for the job seeker
I suppose one could pass that off as assessing your skill at requirements gathering
2017 cannot come fast enough.
You don't actually believe this will change anything, do you?
Why not? 2008/9 sure changed a lot.
Oh wait, that's right; there was some fabulous advance in robotics right then. Or something. That's it.
Then you fall into the second category. Or you're just ignorant.
Well, I'm a copyright lawyer, so I doubt I'm "completely and totally ignorant of the law." Have you considered the possibility that your analysis is wrong?
Since we're talking about works that haven't been around long enough to have their copyrights expire, that's totally irrelevant.
Just thought I'd mention it, since you did make a rather broad statement suggesting that works cannot enter the public domain unless deliberately placed there by the copyright holder. While copyright holders can put works into the public domain, it's not true that that is the only way for works to enter the public domain.
"Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine."
The scenes a faire doctrine, which I don't have to google for, thanks, permits people to copy without fear of infringement, stock elements from works, which are typical, if not indispensible, for works that have a particular setting, genre, theme, etc.
In this case, where you have a show about teenagers fighting monsters with martial arts and giant robots, it would not infringe if you had a five person team, each member of which had personalities as described above, and where the members of the team were color-coded. It's simply expected of the genre, and therefore fair game, even if you copied it from another copyrighted work.
Now if the specific thing you copied was a very detailed example, and you kept all the details, you might then have a problem. So it depends on how much Power Rangers embellished on this standard device, if they did, and if so, how much of that embellishment, if any, was used in this case.
If you disagree as to my explanation, please feel free to actually say what you think the scenes a faire doctrine is.
I didn't say Disney's Peter Pan. I was talking about JM Barrie's Peter Pan, which Disney's Peter Pan is based on.
A new version of Peter Pan, based on Barrie's, could still tarnish the character well enough (if done right, and if widely published) so as to harm Disney's Peter Pan merely by association. But it would be lawful to do this. Disney's copyright on their version of Peter Pan does not extend to stopping other people from making their own derivatives of Barrie's work, even if they're very unwholesome derivatives.
Save the whales. Collect the whole set.
