I can enjoy something without agreeing with its creators' politics. And more specifically, Star Trek was never full-blown SJW militant where the hard-left politics was front-and-center. If this new one is, it would be the exception.
Is that "#Issues" comment mean to be a comment, or are you only capable of communicating in twitter tags?
That's the other reason I'm going to pass on this for a while and wait for the reviews to come in.
BTW I was pleasantly surprised by, of all things, The Orville and how of all people Seth McFarlane managed to pull off an adult story about a hot-button topic without coming off as a nutter extremist for either side.
I should also say that I'm not being paid by Fox, but I would like to boost their ratings because I find that I like the show and don't want it cancelled.
Python invites these misunderstandings. It has the everything and the kitchen sink in it, making it look attractive from afar. But it falls flat on its face with its syntactically meaningful whitespace. That little aesthetic choice makes it much much much harder to write large codebases in it, and part of the hit you take when you do so is make design compromises that favor readability but end up impacting performance.
This aesthetics bleeding into performance isn't unique to Python. Java makes it impossible to split a class definition over multiple files the way you can in C++. That means you either have big giant files that are hard to navigate by yourself and tricky to edit by multiple developers, or you "refactor" and split your logic into different classes, each of which take up a few more bytes of memory and a few more cycles of CPU time to create and destroy when they're needed. Not the sort of thing that ever happens in small programs, but happens plenty of times in large codebases that deal with tens and hundreds of millions of records or data points.
Depends on their level of involvement in the architecture and design of the buildings, doesn't it?
But just as the appropriate verbiage for my example would be, "X had their driveways repaved," the correct way to write TFA would be "Facebook and Microsoft commissioned/ordered/payed for/bought a trans-Antarctic cable."
Nevermind the failure at geography. The whole damn headline is wrong. Neither Facebook nor Microsoft did anything other than write a big fat check to the telecom company that runs undersea cables. If Amazon and Apple were to have the driveways of their headquarters repaved, would the slashdot headline breathlessly scream "Amazon and Apple Build New Highway!" or something similarly retarded?
Smart guy. Nice guy in person. Do not trust his engineering judgment for one second, period. From which I conclude and advise that it's safe to ignore his self-serving prognostications about the future, and probably safe to bet against them.
Smart guy, nice guy personally. But I wouldn't trust his engineering judgment, period. From which I conclude that it's safe to ignore his self-serving prognostications about the future, and probably safer to bet against them.
Depends on the terms of the tax deal. If the incentivized company and its entire workforce are declared tax-free from both income, property, and state sales taxes, then you could have a point. Then the state budget only benefits indirectly from increased economic activity. And be taking off of the unemployment rolls some number of people to take up the low skill and mid skill jobs providing services to high skill employees of these large tech companies.
I really don't understand how you can refer to hiring locals in exchange for wages and salaries as "being given labor." I might add that in the case of mid-skill jobs in Wisconsin, Foxconn might actually be taking people off of state benefits, even if they pay no taxes.
Private companies create wealth. Making widgets where there were none before creates wealth. Making software where there was none before creates wealth. How hard is that to understand?
Explain to me how that money is taken from the state budget if the alternative to 50k jobs and no direct tax revenue is zero jobs, no direct tax revenue, and no indirect tax revenue? Money is being added if those jobs are there.
In relative terms, maybe. In perceived terms, definitely agree. In absolute terms, it's less clear cut, but my educated guess is that it's not much of a difference. N people working at 100% of prevailing wage (SV salaries in Atlanta...really?) is the same amount of wealth flowing into Denver as it is into SF or Boston or Toronto.
It can't be zero unless you're actively subsidizing them out of tax revenues collected exclusively from people who have no connection to the new employer. Consider the following example: Even if the new employer were given tax-free status for ever, and anyone hired by them doesn't have to pay any kind of state or local taxes, even sales taxes, the fact that the company is doing work at that location and is being paid (a lot) by its customers to do that work, and is bringing that money to its new city and giving it out to its employees means that there is more money circulating through the local economy, the rest of which makes more profits selling to the newcomers and paying taxes on that economic activity.
Baloney. Income taxes and sales taxes (where they respectively exist) are paid to the state government (and sometimes city government) regardless of whether people pay their property taxes (if they exist) to a rich suburb or a less tony district. They also patronize businesses that can be located anywhere in the metro area to do things like eat, furnish their homes, etc etc etc.
Having an extra billion dollars or so of annual payroll is a positive, no matter how you spin it. Unless of course you choose to spin it as, "I'm not gettin' any therefore you can't have any either." In which case you're guilty of Envy and should be ashamed of yourself.
If it needs to look like an Xbox controller and have a grand total production run measured in dozens and scores rather than millions, sure. If I were on the procurement side, I might kill the idea and use an existing design that doesn't look like an Xbox controller, but then I'd be the boring old spoilsport. And who wants to be that?
You're laughing, but that 25k (nominally) pays for the following to not happen:
I have a 25 dollar Logitech joystick. For reasons I'll not go into, it's plugged into something that displays the nominal joystick position on a screen. Once every week or three, I come in to see the joystick sitting dead center but the position display showing it's full-tilt back and to the left because their the joystick, the USB controller it's plugged into, or the kernel module that talks to it hickuped. I nudge the stick with my carefully calibrated index finger and it rehomes itself and the display goes back to normal.
For what I'm doing, it's a nuisance that's to be expected with cheapo toys that use a plastic comb to interrupt an LED and two photodiodes to make an incremental encoder in the two axes. If it's got a million-dollar photonics mast plugged into it, I might spend some time and use multiply-redundant potentiometers with noise-immune readout circuits to give absolute positions. And I'd spend some time and energy doing all the engineering design, and testing, and etc etc to prove that the finished article won't hickup like that for the life of the device. It might cost my customer about 25k per unit to have that level of assurance.
You're running away with your examples. Streaming video (as in the raw bits and bytes that turn into pixels on the screen) does not need to be encrypted unless it's video of something you don't want to send in the clear. If you're executing any of those bits and bytes, that's on you for having a fundamentally insecure media player.
That's a failure on the part of the browser/website/OS designer if it's possible to spoof a UI image convincingly in a video.. You can just as easily spoof a UI image over an encrypted channel as you can over a cleartext channel.
Think that through again. How's it going to tell the difference between the phone just being jostled around and the phone being jostled around with a face staring at it? It's not like there's a physical button you can press to signal your intent to unlock so it scans your face on command.
There are many use cases where the a security signature or certificate needs to be transmitted once and the data transmitted orders of magnitude more times. In which case, the computational overhead of establishing an encrypted channel needs to be accepted infrequently and for a relatively small payload instead of every time for a large payload.
There are many use cases where the key distribution mechanism isn't over the internet at all.
There are use cases where you really honestly don't care if the cat video you're getting to kill time is authentic or not.
And lastly, there's a human factors dimension to this as well. People who see an encrypted channel will on occasion take that as a license to ignore good software engineering practices elsewhere. That's a problem.
It's a better use of just about anything I can think of to encrypt the file or make a secure hash of it or whatever ONCE, and transmit it in the clear with no computational or administrative (you updated your certs on time...right?) than it is to store it with nothing and encrypt/decrypt it each and every time it's accessed. May not matter if you think it's someone else's job to do that legwork or if designing for performance and limited computing power is something you think only dinosaurs care about, but guess what, stuff built my way will work and stuff built around a spider web of could services and certificates and trust models won't work as well and will break.
Well isn't security just good practice? you might ask. Yes. In many public-facing applications, but not everywhere. If you have physically secured lines internal to your facility, you don't care as much. If you have a hardware encryption layer between two facilities, you don't care as much. If all of the stuff we're talking about is a "network" of computers inside of one chassis (cars, facility control, etc) you don't care as much.
If the security were free, you'd do it in a heartbeat. But security isn't free. It costs compute cycles, administrative overhead, and introduces its own set of possible failure modes. So it's foolish to say "do it always" because those other costs count too and it's a matter of engineering judgment whether the risks of unsecured FTP outweigh the costs of securing it for any particular application.
See, it's IT-monkeys like you that make for most of the trouble in technical work. Yes, FTP isn't secure by itself, but it's simple. And in many contexts I can think of, simple and unlikely to break because someone forgot to update his certificate beats encrypted but way more fragile by a mile.
Slashdot Mirror
I can enjoy something without agreeing with its creators' politics. And more specifically, Star Trek was never full-blown SJW militant where the hard-left politics was front-and-center. If this new one is, it would be the exception.
Is that "#Issues" comment mean to be a comment, or are you only capable of communicating in twitter tags?
That's the other reason I'm going to pass on this for a while and wait for the reviews to come in.
BTW I was pleasantly surprised by, of all things, The Orville and how of all people Seth McFarlane managed to pull off an adult story about a hot-button topic without coming off as a nutter extremist for either side.
I should also say that I'm not being paid by Fox, but I would like to boost their ratings because I find that I like the show and don't want it cancelled.
If it ain't on Amazon or Comcast, I'm not watching it. Not gonna pay monthly fees for yet another streaming service just to watch one TV show.
I shudder to think what your other conversations are like because I suspect they consist entirely of you running your mouth and not your ears.
Python invites these misunderstandings. It has the everything and the kitchen sink in it, making it look attractive from afar. But it falls flat on its face with its syntactically meaningful whitespace. That little aesthetic choice makes it much much much harder to write large codebases in it, and part of the hit you take when you do so is make design compromises that favor readability but end up impacting performance.
This aesthetics bleeding into performance isn't unique to Python. Java makes it impossible to split a class definition over multiple files the way you can in C++. That means you either have big giant files that are hard to navigate by yourself and tricky to edit by multiple developers, or you "refactor" and split your logic into different classes, each of which take up a few more bytes of memory and a few more cycles of CPU time to create and destroy when they're needed. Not the sort of thing that ever happens in small programs, but happens plenty of times in large codebases that deal with tens and hundreds of millions of records or data points.
If it's Foxconn IP with an Apple sticker on the outside, then sure. If it's not, then no.
Depends on their level of involvement in the architecture and design of the buildings, doesn't it?
But just as the appropriate verbiage for my example would be, "X had their driveways repaved," the correct way to write TFA would be "Facebook and Microsoft commissioned/ordered/payed for/bought a trans-Antarctic cable."
Nevermind the failure at geography. The whole damn headline is wrong. Neither Facebook nor Microsoft did anything other than write a big fat check to the telecom company that runs undersea cables. If Amazon and Apple were to have the driveways of their headquarters repaved, would the slashdot headline breathlessly scream "Amazon and Apple Build New Highway!" or something similarly retarded?
Smart guy. Nice guy in person. Do not trust his engineering judgment for one second, period. From which I conclude and advise that it's safe to ignore his self-serving prognostications about the future, and probably safe to bet against them.
Smart guy, nice guy personally. But I wouldn't trust his engineering judgment, period. From which I conclude that it's safe to ignore his self-serving prognostications about the future, and probably safer to bet against them.
Depends on the terms of the tax deal. If the incentivized company and its entire workforce are declared tax-free from both income, property, and state sales taxes, then you could have a point. Then the state budget only benefits indirectly from increased economic activity. And be taking off of the unemployment rolls some number of people to take up the low skill and mid skill jobs providing services to high skill employees of these large tech companies.
I really don't understand how you can refer to hiring locals in exchange for wages and salaries as "being given labor." I might add that in the case of mid-skill jobs in Wisconsin, Foxconn might actually be taking people off of state benefits, even if they pay no taxes.
Private companies create wealth. Making widgets where there were none before creates wealth. Making software where there was none before creates wealth. How hard is that to understand?
Explain to me how that money is taken from the state budget if the alternative to 50k jobs and no direct tax revenue is zero jobs, no direct tax revenue, and no indirect tax revenue? Money is being added if those jobs are there.
In relative terms, maybe. In perceived terms, definitely agree. In absolute terms, it's less clear cut, but my educated guess is that it's not much of a difference. N people working at 100% of prevailing wage (SV salaries in Atlanta...really?) is the same amount of wealth flowing into Denver as it is into SF or Boston or Toronto.
It can't be zero unless you're actively subsidizing them out of tax revenues collected exclusively from people who have no connection to the new employer. Consider the following example: Even if the new employer were given tax-free status for ever, and anyone hired by them doesn't have to pay any kind of state or local taxes, even sales taxes, the fact that the company is doing work at that location and is being paid (a lot) by its customers to do that work, and is bringing that money to its new city and giving it out to its employees means that there is more money circulating through the local economy, the rest of which makes more profits selling to the newcomers and paying taxes on that economic activity.
Baloney. Income taxes and sales taxes (where they respectively exist) are paid to the state government (and sometimes city government) regardless of whether people pay their property taxes (if they exist) to a rich suburb or a less tony district. They also patronize businesses that can be located anywhere in the metro area to do things like eat, furnish their homes, etc etc etc.
Having an extra billion dollars or so of annual payroll is a positive, no matter how you spin it. Unless of course you choose to spin it as, "I'm not gettin' any therefore you can't have any either." In which case you're guilty of Envy and should be ashamed of yourself.
If it needs to look like an Xbox controller and have a grand total production run measured in dozens and scores rather than millions, sure. If I were on the procurement side, I might kill the idea and use an existing design that doesn't look like an Xbox controller, but then I'd be the boring old spoilsport. And who wants to be that?
You're laughing, but that 25k (nominally) pays for the following to not happen:
I have a 25 dollar Logitech joystick. For reasons I'll not go into, it's plugged into something that displays the nominal joystick position on a screen. Once every week or three, I come in to see the joystick sitting dead center but the position display showing it's full-tilt back and to the left because their the joystick, the USB controller it's plugged into, or the kernel module that talks to it hickuped. I nudge the stick with my carefully calibrated index finger and it rehomes itself and the display goes back to normal.
For what I'm doing, it's a nuisance that's to be expected with cheapo toys that use a plastic comb to interrupt an LED and two photodiodes to make an incremental encoder in the two axes. If it's got a million-dollar photonics mast plugged into it, I might spend some time and use multiply-redundant potentiometers with noise-immune readout circuits to give absolute positions. And I'd spend some time and energy doing all the engineering design, and testing, and etc etc to prove that the finished article won't hickup like that for the life of the device. It might cost my customer about 25k per unit to have that level of assurance.
You're running away with your examples. Streaming video (as in the raw bits and bytes that turn into pixels on the screen) does not need to be encrypted unless it's video of something you don't want to send in the clear. If you're executing any of those bits and bytes, that's on you for having a fundamentally insecure media player.
Except we aren't talking about performing secure transactions inside a browser window. We're talking about transferring files with FTP.
That's a failure on the part of the browser/website/OS designer if it's possible to spoof a UI image convincingly in a video.. You can just as easily spoof a UI image over an encrypted channel as you can over a cleartext channel.
Think that through again. How's it going to tell the difference between the phone just being jostled around and the phone being jostled around with a face staring at it? It's not like there's a physical button you can press to signal your intent to unlock so it scans your face on command.
True. However:
There are many use cases where the a security signature or certificate needs to be transmitted once and the data transmitted orders of magnitude more times. In which case, the computational overhead of establishing an encrypted channel needs to be accepted infrequently and for a relatively small payload instead of every time for a large payload.
There are many use cases where the key distribution mechanism isn't over the internet at all.
There are use cases where you really honestly don't care if the cat video you're getting to kill time is authentic or not.
And lastly, there's a human factors dimension to this as well. People who see an encrypted channel will on occasion take that as a license to ignore good software engineering practices elsewhere. That's a problem.
It's a better use of just about anything I can think of to encrypt the file or make a secure hash of it or whatever ONCE, and transmit it in the clear with no computational or administrative (you updated your certs on time...right?) than it is to store it with nothing and encrypt/decrypt it each and every time it's accessed. May not matter if you think it's someone else's job to do that legwork or if designing for performance and limited computing power is something you think only dinosaurs care about, but guess what, stuff built my way will work and stuff built around a spider web of could services and certificates and trust models won't work as well and will break.
Well isn't security just good practice? you might ask. Yes. In many public-facing applications, but not everywhere. If you have physically secured lines internal to your facility, you don't care as much. If you have a hardware encryption layer between two facilities, you don't care as much. If all of the stuff we're talking about is a "network" of computers inside of one chassis (cars, facility control, etc) you don't care as much.
If the security were free, you'd do it in a heartbeat. But security isn't free. It costs compute cycles, administrative overhead, and introduces its own set of possible failure modes. So it's foolish to say "do it always" because those other costs count too and it's a matter of engineering judgment whether the risks of unsecured FTP outweigh the costs of securing it for any particular application.
See, it's IT-monkeys like you that make for most of the trouble in technical work. Yes, FTP isn't secure by itself, but it's simple. And in many contexts I can think of, simple and unlikely to break because someone forgot to update his certificate beats encrypted but way more fragile by a mile.