HN user
I think the more likely cause was precisely that it wasn't a technical professional/lawyer/writer doing the redacting, but someone in the administration or close to it that has no idea how to redact information correctly.
I think if companies actually said what they did, a portion of them would say things like "we use our massive collection of user data to help you _____".
There are...there are multiple levels of auto-pilot to turn off, but the pilot can have pretty much full control.
Just playing the devil's advocate, "Fair Use" could be an interesting question here...I think it would fail the "academic use" rule, but worth consideration, if the criteria (from standford.edu) is:
1. The least amount of copyright material as possible should be used.
2. "Fair use" work must have significant new and unique material added (not be a compilation).
3. "Fair use" work must not harm future potential markets for the copyright work. (ex: not a highlight video)
4. Work must be either a parody, criticism, review, or "academic use" to qualify for "fair use".
If we're talking a 10s clip of audio where the original is significantly longer, I think the most significant question is whether the work could qualify under the legal term category of "academic/educational". A work can only be considered "academic/educational" if it meets all of the following (also from stanford.edu):
1. Noncommercial instruction or curriculum-based teaching by educators to students at nonprofit educational institutions.
2. Planned noncommercial study or investigation directed toward making a contribution to a field of knowledge.
3. Presentation of research findings at noncommercial peer conferences, workshops, or seminars.
I don't know the legal muster required to meet this, but from what I've read, this is where "almost all" youtube videos are going to be disqualified, especially by the intent of the rule, which is to provide an out for teachers/instructors and students.
The whole argument is rendered null by the fact that youtube has to comply with the DMCA, which requires that work be taken down if it contains work created by other people (clips, background music, photos), though.
Also youtube seems to have a fairly flexible amount of power here, can take down pretty much any content it wants, and if it chooses to side with the copyright side by default, they have the power to make that consideration.
My opinion is that if you're going to be creating content, and advertising and/or monetizing them, you really shouldn't have any copyright work in there. Saying "it's only 10 seconds of the work" may provide some legal footing for the "must have significant new work" rule, but it seems like you're just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying your side is okay, whereas youtube owns both sides and the whole beach.
I happened on a YouTube video of a TedX talk where a guy is really into this Google Maps scam. He got to the point where he was able to impersonate the US Secret Service and recorded a bunch of phone calls. The Secret Service told google to fix their maps issue, but he said they just disabled some features and reactived them without change a few weeks later.
It's probably the switching of devices that raises the level of security.
Well to be fair a lot of people contacting a front-line service center for a non-specialized product/service can't even articulate their problem accurately, if at all. I'm sure it'd be pretty easy to get jaded about people after hearing "I don't know if it's on or not, it just doesn't work...fix it" enough times.
You do need an email to sign up, although since they allow a user to be 'logged in' as more than one user at a time, they may allow more than one account per email address. And they don't do email confirmation, though. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.
It is based on human games until it can explore well enough to sufficiently break away from local optimums.
There is always a risk of getting stuck in a local maxima, thinking you've found an optimal way of playing, so you'd need more data that presents different strategies, I'd think.
I think it's less "software modules" than tables of data.
The rationale is to minimize the number of clearances. Even though you can't get information without a need-to-know, the government still likes to limit the number of clearances.
You're exactly right about the lack of a players union being the reason for disproportionately low salaries in minor league baseball. The reason they don't have one is because the minor league clubs have no incentive to allow one, and the major league clubs that feed from the minor league systems have no incentive to help either. When there are so many guys willing to play for basically nothing but a shot at the bigs, meaningful change is unrealistic, although there are some ex-minor league players attempting to change that. It's likely very similar for other sports.
I don't have much experience with the 330, but I assume it had some sort of stall-recovery mechanism, like a stick pusher. Why did it not override the pilots' inputs and force a pitch-down?
Also, the 330 is not equipped with pitot heaters? The military aircraft (simulators) that I've messed with will start to complain if you don't have the pitot heaters on, well before you ever leave the ground.
So it is your understanding that the US has only now just started spying on foreign countries? Capable nations have been spying on friends and foes for a long time, and they will continue to do so, exposed attempts will only change implementation. If countries decided they were not going to buy foreign technology, the majority of those countries would have no technology. You think Saudi, for example, will just start manufacturing their own hardware?
Experiences like that are very weird...it makes you wonder if they're actually interested in making an offer, and just completely change their minds, or whether they have no intention of making an offer but for some reason think it's less awkward to just give extremely positive feedback, and then fall off the face of the earth. The worst is when they apologize and give the excuse that they have been very busy...because it takes so long to send an email that says "Thanks for coming in but we decided not to move forward".
I waited for 3 weeks before I received an offer from my current employer. Actually, I emailed my recruiter/HR contact and explain I had an offer from a different company who were pressuring me for a decision, but I would prefer to work there..I guess sometimes things either fall through the cracks or there is a lot of dominoes that have to go.
I actually really enjoyed the lunch interview for Amazon in Seattle. The 2 interviews before and the 3 interviews after were strictly technical, and although each technical interviewer offered to answer any questions I had, it was clear that the time was up and I was scheduled to be moving on. The lunch interview was a good opportunity to find out more about the hiring team and the company, and was the only conversation I had that didn't start with "please write code to solve this problem" or "how would you design this". Although you're right, trying to eat while answering questions about yourself was challenging, but since I knew that going in, I didn't order very much food. But the cafeteria was pretty awesome!
And I'm surprised at the poster's experience, I received a polite rejection email just a few days later. I hate when companies just cease communication after an interview...at least let me know, regardless of the outcome; I'd rather receive a rejection notice than wait and wait. But I guess it's a big company, experiences probably vary rather wildly.
As mentioned above, these aircraft are actually less stable at slower speeds, and tend towards stable at higher speeds, so flying a jet capable of great speeds is much easier at those speeds as opposed to reduced speeds. With beyond-line-of-sight secure datalinks, there is really no reason to having manned aircraft in the vicinity. Live-fire exercises with modified, unmanned aircraft (which are not uncommon at present) as targets are not controlled from manned aircraft, but from the ground, and not necessarily from nearby.
arjn isn't saying CISPA itself is underhanded, just that the tactics employed to push it through may be. He said CISPA was unpopular, and you can't argue that.
This made me think that thought as well. Judging by the number of ushers usually at events like this, in practice they probably wouldn't even need sensors on the seats. The ushers probably know the system better than anyone, and given a list of seats that should be empty, I'd bet that it would not take them very long at all to check if someone was sitting there.
To be fair, he did say 'simple'. I'm assuming he meant clone in terms of the overall physical characteristics, and not so much that it was a full clone.
I think it's more likely that it's a result of their automatic pricing gone a bit haywire. I'd think that if the item was out of stock, it would automatically be marked as none available, not change the price to some huge number because you don't think anyone will pay that price. The link above does a pretty good job of explaining how their automatic pricing adjustments can get out of control.
I think there's a difference between not trusting an AV, and not trusting that the humans who created it didn't make any mistakes. By assuming that your AV is perfect and can in no way be compromised is a dangerous assumption, because if it fails even the tiniest bit, you are royally screwed.
Back of the line Ruby!
That line was from Broder's response to Musk's criticism...thus, it seems reasonable to infer that the offer was made after this whole ordeal. I think it is likely that Musk made the offer with a more favorable, redeeming article in mind. I don't think Musk repealed the offer after the posting of Broder's article, as your comment seems to imply.
On the point about the data logging, it was stated in Tesla's first response article that they "always carefully data log media drives". It is entirely possible that they were logging/monitoring far more data for Broder's adventure than they would for private consumers.
"A lot" of people can still like them if you don't. Jobs was, undeniably, a master of presentation, so even if you don't like him, or apple at all, there are still a lot of reasons to respect his stage presence.
I use my spare time at work on full-flight military aircraft simulators to fly around and try things like taking off, landing, etc...it was loads of fun, and once you were competent at landing a functional aircraft, you could try doing it with any combination of aircraft faults. I'm fairly confident I could land a [fully functional] C-130 if my life depended on it. My new challenge is trying to hook up with a tanker, during which I've caused many a catastrophic accident.
Very cool, but the fact that the keyboard on the screen doesn't match the output (input?) nor the asetniop 'idea' makes it incredibly confusing and was enough for me to say 'ok, I'm done'. Unless it's just a problem that I'm experiencing, it doesn't seem like the author (or anyone) ever tested this tutorial out.