The problem is the loopholes though. This act won't improve shit if companies are still allowed to skim 95% of that 100k salary and fill H1-B seats with 5$/hour contractors instead.
Yea uh, you missed the mark there by a mile. We don't hate technology - that's your fundamental error in judgment right there. We just hate overpriced, over-hyped consumer-grade usury. We're trying to protect people like you, who are so easily herded by advertising like so much cattle to the slaughter. Once you assume that because Apple gets grief from greybeards because of technology you've failed to make the critical mental distinction between good technology, bad technology, and marketing. When that happens, you've let the advertisers win control over your fundamental understanding of facts, which they will simply replace with much more easily manipulable emotions.
These planted emotions they've programmed you with are why you actually felt the need to make this post to which I'm replying. Take a few moments to think about it calmly and rationally in private, with no fear of reprisal. You deserve it.
Next, ask yourself if Apple really deserved to have a concession made to a testing procedure that no other company or product has previously ever received.
You missed the point entirely. It wasn't regulations that slowed down competition here. It was an uncontested monopoly; i.e., the exact opposite of a "free market."
AMD releases a new line of high-end CPUs called "Zen." ASUS releases multiple new product lines all called "Zen[Something]," relying on various Intel and Qualcomm CPUs. Seriously, fuck you guys.
No, they're fighting against both sides. Their own sock puppets even fight amongst themselves. They don't have any vested interest in either party winning, just in ensuring maximum collateral damage to both parties during the struggle.
Some information clearly wants to be free whether you like it or not. A socially mature society, however, would be able to distinguish this from identity theft.
Fun fact: It is actually against the terms of service of both Facebook and Twitter to sign up by incompletely or inaccurately identifying oneself. And, if they were able to actually properly police that, it would destroy their business plan in mere days because everyone would realize that neither platform is nearly as popular or exciting as the swarms of millions of astro-turfing bots suggest.
The advertisers aren't the ones paying for this service that the "Russian hackers" are providing. The site owners who host the ad campaigns are paying the hackers to inflate their traffic stats in order to defraud the advertising networks.
Granted, I have trouble feeling sorry for the advertisers here too, but these figures are also being used for public traffic stats, which then in turn drives investment and stock prices of internet startup businesses, eventually leading to massive derailment of one of the basic fundamental assumptions upon which the US market thrives. This is a much bigger problem than just the 5 million dollars.
Lol, you don't make money off defense contractors you sorry 3rd world troll. You make the rough equivalent of USD 200 per month, tops. How does it feel to be so irrelevant that you can only get a job pretending not to be?
Wow, so short sighted. You're missing the part about how they're supposed to spend a small portion of the massive savings in development costs on auditing the free public software they are profiting from. Above a given critical mass of implementation complexity, unless your developers are total noobs, this will be cheaper than writing the whole thing from scratch in-house, and more secure than doing that and NOT being able to afford to audit ANY of it.
He's most likely confusing some or another sysadmin or distro maintainer's transient mistake or error in judgement for an officially sanctioned action by the OpenSSL maintainers themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is the loopholes though. This act won't improve shit if companies are still allowed to skim 95% of that 100k salary and fill H1-B seats with 5$/hour contractors instead.
Yea uh, you missed the mark there by a mile. We don't hate technology - that's your fundamental error in judgment right there. We just hate overpriced, over-hyped consumer-grade usury. We're trying to protect people like you, who are so easily herded by advertising like so much cattle to the slaughter. Once you assume that because Apple gets grief from greybeards because of technology you've failed to make the critical mental distinction between good technology, bad technology, and marketing. When that happens, you've let the advertisers win control over your fundamental understanding of facts, which they will simply replace with much more easily manipulable emotions.
These planted emotions they've programmed you with are why you actually felt the need to make this post to which I'm replying. Take a few moments to think about it calmly and rationally in private, with no fear of reprisal. You deserve it.
Next, ask yourself if Apple really deserved to have a concession made to a testing procedure that no other company or product has previously ever received.
You missed the point entirely. It wasn't regulations that slowed down competition here. It was an uncontested monopoly; i.e., the exact opposite of a "free market."
Most of the world will forget, some may even forgive, but we will not.
Well, for starters, its against the Twitter T.O.S. not to.
AMD releases a new line of high-end CPUs called "Zen." ASUS releases multiple new product lines all called "Zen[Something]," relying on various Intel and Qualcomm CPUs. Seriously, fuck you guys.
It's curious that the security of the WWW is not addressed by those who could do something about it.
The problem is, the people whose job it is to do this, they decided to side with the hackers.
No, they're fighting against both sides. Their own sock puppets even fight amongst themselves. They don't have any vested interest in either party winning, just in ensuring maximum collateral damage to both parties during the struggle.
Some information clearly wants to be free whether you like it or not. A socially mature society, however, would be able to distinguish this from identity theft.
What makes you think psychological turmoil isn't a natural side-effect of everyone around you being so fucking wrong all the time?
A flower in a hailstorm. We'd need a lot more separate entities fighting the good fight in this fashion.
Oh, you mean like Lavabit?
... whether the passwords were "in character."
Fun fact: It is actually against the terms of service of both Facebook and Twitter to sign up by incompletely or inaccurately identifying oneself. And, if they were able to actually properly police that, it would destroy their business plan in mere days because everyone would realize that neither platform is nearly as popular or exciting as the swarms of millions of astro-turfing bots suggest.
The advertisers aren't the ones paying for this service that the "Russian hackers" are providing. The site owners who host the ad campaigns are paying the hackers to inflate their traffic stats in order to defraud the advertising networks.
Granted, I have trouble feeling sorry for the advertisers here too, but these figures are also being used for public traffic stats, which then in turn drives investment and stock prices of internet startup businesses, eventually leading to massive derailment of one of the basic fundamental assumptions upon which the US market thrives. This is a much bigger problem than just the 5 million dollars.
False. Most (well over 80%) of the porn in the world is of legal, registered, willing participants and is produced in Southern California.
This is now my fetish.
You can't land on a runway you can't see.
1) That is a fable, not a parable.
2) Its also a lie. This doesn't actually work on frogs. The author of that book had never even seen a frog.
Lol, you don't make money off defense contractors you sorry 3rd world troll. You make the rough equivalent of USD 200 per month, tops. How does it feel to be so irrelevant that you can only get a job pretending not to be?
More than one, and of different types.
You're like one of those people who thinks Java was written with more Java and its just Java all the way down, aren't you?
Wow, so short sighted. You're missing the part about how they're supposed to spend a small portion of the massive savings in development costs on auditing the free public software they are profiting from. Above a given critical mass of implementation complexity, unless your developers are total noobs, this will be cheaper than writing the whole thing from scratch in-house, and more secure than doing that and NOT being able to afford to audit ANY of it.
He's most likely confusing some or another sysadmin or distro maintainer's transient mistake or error in judgement for an officially sanctioned action by the OpenSSL maintainers themselves.
Dearth of independent audits endangers secure software development.