AWS targets interrupted sessions with virtual desktops upgrade

Amazon Web Services has made its WorkSpaces virtual desktops less annoying to use with a feature that resumes the previous session after it detects an interruption.

Today, if users close a laptop lid or lose the network connection, their session will be interrupted and they may be disconnected and have to log back in. But thanks to the auto-session resume feature, that’ll be a thing of the past.

It might seem like a small upgrade. But if Amazon wants the use of its WorkSpaces to take off on a larger scale, it’s small things like that it has to get right. The default time for resuming a session is 20 minutes, but it can be extended to a maximum of four hours or disabled by the administrator.

To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here


Original URL: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2905914/aws-targets-interrupted-sessions-with-virtual-desktops-upgrade.html#tk.rss_all

Original article

Tesla Stockholders Can’t Take a Joke

Yesterday, Tesla issued a press release that starts like this:

Announcing the Tesla Model W

PALO ALTO, Calif., April 1, 2015 – Tesla today announced a whole new product line called the Model W. As many in the media predicted, it’s a watch. That’s what the “W” stands for.

This incredible new device from Tesla doesn’t just tell the time, it also tells the date. What’s more, it is infinitely adjustable, able to tell the time no matter where you are on Earth. Japan, Timbuktu, California, anywhere! This will change your life. Reality as you know it will never be the same.

It goes on, but you get the idea by now. Because you are a human. You have context clues to guide you. Maybe you remember how awful the Internet was that day that was all about the Apple Watch. Maybe the phrase “April 1” means something to you. Perhaps you didn’t laugh, exactly, at this press release — I didn’t — but you are able to recognize that it takes the form of a joke.

Computers are notoriously terrible at jokes:

With about five minutes remaining in the trading day, the company posted a statement on its official website under the headline: “Announcing the Tesla Model W.”

In the following minute, the stock jumped about $1.50 or about 0.75 percent from its level the moment before to as high as $188.50.

Nearly 400,000 shares traded in that time, and it was the heaviest one minute of trading volume in the stock since the opening 60 seconds of trading on Feb 12.

Tesla shares quickly retraced most of that upward move and ended the session at $187.59, down 0.63 percent from Tuesday’s close.

So people lost maybe as much as a few hundred thousand dollars because, for a brief stupid minute, they thought that Tesla was introducing … a watch? No, of course they didn’t. They thought Tesla was introducing a thing called the Model W, and they didn’t read any further than the headline, and they bought Tesla stock hoping that the Model W, whatever it was, would be a huge success (or would be perceived as a huge success by someone else a minute later), and then they realized that they’d been fooled, and they sold the stock at a small loss and moved on with their day. And when I say “people” I mean mostly “algorithms,” which are faster and more literal than humans, though in the space of a minute it is conceivable that an actual human saw that headline and fired off a buy order before reading any further.

A reader named Jakob Stoeber sent this story to me and asked what I thought the Securities and Exchange Commission would think of a corporate press release, like this one, that (1) is false and (2) moved the price of the company’s stock. It’s a good question! Of course I won’t give you legal advice, though it does seem like there’s a simple best-practices answer, which is that whatever the SEC thinks, come on, put out your fake press releases at 4:05, not 3:55. There is no reason to tempt fate, or annoy your shareholder-algorithms, like this.

More generally, though, this is a nice data point for a problem that I think about a lot, which is the problem of materiality. It’s securities fraud to “make any untrue statement of a material fact,” etc., “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security,” and companies that make misstatements that are material to their own shares can get in trouble even if they’re not buying or selling. The “materiality requirement is satisfied when there is ‘”a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.”‘”

Would this press release significantly change a “reasonable investor’s” view of Tesla? Obviously not. Did it move the price? Apparently! This joke added — very briefly, sure — more than $100 million to Tesla’s market capitalization. Would a reasonable investor care about a price move? Does the unreasonableness — let us say charitably, the speed and literalness — of the market make things that would not otherwise be material, material? My instinct is no: I think that materiality means what it says, and if people or algorithms do dumb things with trivial information that’s their problem. But markets are a lot faster and more literal than they were when the materiality standard was created, and I wonder whether regulators or courts will one day decide that materiality is too reasonable a standard for modern markets. The materiality standard depends on the reasonable investor, and in many important contexts the reasonable investor has been replaced by a computer. 

To contact the author on this story:


Matt Levine

at mlevine51@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor on this story:


Zara Kessler

at zkessler@bloomberg.net


Original URL: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/feedsapi/BwPx/~3/Bb3sHlHPCP4/tesla-stockholders-can-t-take-a-joke

Original article

Automakers Say You Don’t Really Own Your Car

EFF is fighting for vehicle owners’ rights to inspect the code that runs their vehicles and to repair and modify their vehicles, or have a mechanic of their choice do the work. At the moment, the anti-circumvention prohibition in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act arguably restricts vehicle inspection, repair, and modification. If EFF is successful then vehicle owners will be free to inspect and tinker, as long as they don’t run afoul of other regulations, such as those governing vehicle emissions, safety, or copyright law.

You can support EFF’s exemption requests by adding your name to the petition we’ll submit in the rulemaking.

Most of the automakers operating in the US filed opposition comments through trade associations, along with a couple of other vehicle manufacturers. They warn that owners with the freedom to inspect and modify code will be capable of violating a wide range of laws and harming themselves and others. They say you shouldn’t be allowed to repair your own car because you might not do it right. They say you shouldn’t be allowed to modify the code in your car because you might defraud a used car purchaser by changing the mileage. They say no one should be allowed to even look at the code without the manufacturer’s permission because letting the public learn how cars work could help malicious hackers, “third-party software developers” (the horror!), and competitors.

John Deere even argued that letting people modify car computer systems will result in them pirating music through the on-board entertainment system, which would be one of the more convoluted ways to copy media (and the exemption process doesn’t authorize copyright infringement, anyway).

The parade of horribles makes it clear that it is an extraordinary stretch to apply the DMCA to the code that runs vehicles. The vast majority of manufacturers’ concerns have absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. And, as the automakers repeatedly point out, vehicles are subject to regulation by other government agencies with subject matter expertise, which issue rules about what vehicles are and are not lawful to operate on public roadways.

The DMCA essentially blundered into this space and called all tinkering and code inspection into question, even acts that are otherwise lawful like repairing your car, making it work better at high altitude, inspecting the code to find security and safety issues, or even souping it up for use in races on a private course. We’re presenting the Copyright Office with the opportunity to undo this collateral damage and leave regulating auto safety to specialized agencies, who understandably have not seen fit to issue a blanket prohibition against vehicle owners’ doing their own repairs and safety research.

Here’s how you can help. The opponents of the vehicle exemptions say that no one really cares about the restrictions they place on access to vehicle code, so the Copyright Office should deny the exemptions. Now, we cited a number of projects, and thousands of people wrote to the office to support the exemptions, but we are confident there are even more projects, businesses, and individuals out there who need these exemptions and it would be a shame if the Copyright Office didn’t know it.

If you have had problems with vehicle repair or tinkering because you were locked out of your vehicle’s computers, if you would have engaged in a vehicle-related project but didn’t because of the legal risk posed by the DMCA, or if you or your mechanic had to deal with obstacles in getting access to diagnostic information, then we want to hear from you—and the Copyright Office should hear from you, too.

Email us at 1201cars@eff.org to let us know. It will help strengthen our case for the Copyright Office. We can also incorporate your comments anonymously, if you’d prefer.


Original URL: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/feedsapi/BwPx/~3/yiPcf94PTmg/automakers-say-you-dont-really-own-your-car

Original article

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: