Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - diaspora* version 0.4.1.0 released-> 1

Submitted by jaywink
jaywink (3824665) writes "A new diaspora* version 0.4.1.0 is out. It includes a lot of pages ported to Bootstrap, many bug fixes and small enhancements. Also included is a Terms of Service -feature for podmins. Diaspora* is an open source social networking server that joins all running pods into one big decentralized social network."
Link to Original Source

Comment: FAA, not FCC (Score 1) 449

by koehn (#42436119) Attached to: FAA Device Rules Illustrate the Folly of a Regulated Internet

14 CFR 91.21: Portable Electronic Devices
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

Comment: For some, maybe (Score 1) 738

by koehn (#39778379) Attached to: Software Engineering Is a Dead-End Career, Says Bloomberg

I'm forty-two and an independent developer and my rate has gone up every year. If, as the article suggests, you allow your skills to go stale, then yes you will find it hard to get work. Duh.

If you keep yourself up to date and manage your career like any other field, you'll do fine. This doesn't mean you have to spend all of your free time training yourself on the next new thing, but you find work that involves newer technology and you learn how it works on the job. If you have a reasonable amount of curiosity you'll do this anyway.

It's worthwhile to talk to recruiters now and then to learn what skills are pulling in the top rates in the market. You may not want to pick them up (no matter how valuable, I simply won't do SharePoint), but you can find out where the market is heading. Networking with recruiters and colleagues is priceless, and it doesn't take much more than an extensive LinkedIn profile.

Personally I find I'm most effective when I switch back and forth between architecture (which emphasizes soft skills and leadership) and hands-on development (to keep my technical skills sharp). It's fun, challenging, and based on my experiences in the market, highly valuable. I try to cover as much ground as possible so that I'm as marketable as I care to be. Also, I don't commit to a particular technology/process/tool as if it's the "holy grail" of development. These things are like fashion and you need to roll on to the next new thing as it comes, even though it may be worse than the technology that it replaces.

Stay humble, stay curious.

Comment: Re:Short Answer: No (Score 1) 274

by koehn (#39569637) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is a Home Drone Feasible?

The MEMS gyros in an iPhone are worthless for this kind of application. Various people have tried to use them for emergency attitude indicators etc in small planes and they simply don't have the stability required. The GPS is nowhere near accurate enough for altitude: you need WAAS (which isn't available in all parts of the world) or LAAS (which you'd need to build yourself). The accelerometers are also not up to any kind of inertial guidance task: it's not what they're built for. iPhones have an amazing array of sensors, but they're intended for handheld operation.

The only way I could see this working would be a fairly large (6-20' wingspan) airplane or perhaps helicopter with a piston engine (you need the size and power to overcome inevitable mountain turbulence: mountains make their own wind, especially when they have snow/ice on them) and a whole pile of advanced avionics and software. Which wouldn't be cheap, or all that safe, really. I'd hate to be in the air with it unless it had some kind of see and avoid technology, and I'd hate to have it crash on me.

Also in the US as many others pointed out it wouldn't be legal.

Comment: They don't care (Score 1) 257

by koehn (#34942736) Attached to: Are Google's Patents Too Weak To Protect Android?

I don't think Google is remotely invested in Android as a platform. They're interested in getting more ad revenue, and Android provides a convenient vector for that right now. But once the lawsuits start coming to completion I suspect the economic incentive to supporting the platform will dwindle to the point where Google will let it whither on the vine. It's a business decision; Google doesn't care about free and open, they need to make a buck just like everybody else.

Music

Astronaut Sues Dido For Album Cover 264

Posted by samzenpus
from the get-me-off-that-thing dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Astronaut Bruce McCandless is suing Dido for her album cover that uses a famous NASA photograph of a tiny, tiny, tiny McCandless floating in space. McCandless doesn't own the copyright on the photo, so he's claiming it's a violation of his publicity rights ... except that he's so tiny in the photo, it's not like anyone's going to recognize him."

Comment: Re:Security (Score 1) 457

by koehn (#31587492) Attached to: Senate Votes To Replace Aviation Radar With GPS

No. In a GA aircraft (at least those flying under FAR 91, which covers private pilots) you can use whatever portable electronic devices you'd like. There are FCC regs that disallow the use of cell phones in flight, but I've never seen them obeyed, much less enforced.

Also I think you meant "untowered" airports. It's legal to land in controlled airspace without a radio, as long as that airspace is class E.

Comment: Re:You will have to know tech either way (Score 1) 592

by koehn (#28627655) Attached to: Tech Or Management Beyond Age 39?

If you do something stupid then piercing the S-Corp layer isn't that hard. At the end of the day you are really a sole proprietor, and having paid a few hundred bucks to file some paperwork isn't going to work any magic in court.

Not remotely true. If you keep your paperwork in order (not just upfront, but ongoing) piercing the veil is nearly impossible. The upfront paperwork takes a few yours, after that you're looking at one or two hours per year.

This would work if the owner of the S-Corp was someone else. As the sole owner of the S-Corp and the only person who does any work for the S-Corp then you are deemed to be an "active" owner. You owe SS and Medicare on all of the income, including the pass through income. You may not report the income this way, but you should be. I'm guessing you haven't been audited yet.

The IRS allows you to pay distributions to shareholders that are above "reasonable" compensation for the work done. They haven't yet defined "reasonable," although there's never been a case where employee/shareholders have been prosecuted if they are paying a fair amount of tax. Google John Edwards and Payroll Tax for more information.

As an S-Corp owner I legally reduce my tax burden by thousands of dollars while shielding my personal assets from lawsuits. Yes I need to file an additional return and do some additional paperwork, but the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Comment: Re:Not necessarily true. (Score 1) 767

by koehn (#27014665) Attached to: US District Ct. Says Defendant Must Provide Decrypted Data

The charge is that the contests of the hard drive are illegal. That's not just "evidence", that's the entire crux of the case. The question at hand is, "are the contents of this drive illegal?" If the prosecution can't prove that it is, that's their tough luck. If they can't view the contents of the drive then what the hell business do they have prosecuting this guy? Their inability to break encryptioon isn't the defendent's fault or problem. The state wants to prove that the guy did something wrong? Okay, let's see the proof. You have the guy's laptop, let's see why you think he's doing something illegal.

The prosecution could move forward with the case without the decrypted documents, presenting the sworn testimony of the ICE agent, but they're within their rights not to. They've decided that they need to examine the contents of the drive, shown probable cause to a judge (based on the testimony of the ICE agent), and gotten a warrant. The judge compelled the defendant to supply the documents pursuant to the warrant. He's not complying, therefore he's in contempt of a court order.

The defendant could easily claim to have forgotten the password, and the case would move forward without the evidence (although that's clearly not the prosecution's preferred outcome), but the judge would then instruct the jury about the defendant's claim, and let them weigh that against the ICE agent's sworn testimony. That doesn't look like a good option for the defense, so they're trying this first.

In any case, the 5th amendment doesn't protect defendants from handing over incriminating evidence, only from making self-incriminating statements to the government.

As many others pointed out, had the defendant not shown the documents to the ICE officer, the prosecution would not have probable cause to search the drive, a warrant would not have been issue, and we'd all be wasting our time discussing something else on slashdot right now.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...