It is like the executable files restriction. It does not really hinder you, since you can always encrypt zip the files you want to send. It is an almost win-win situation, in that all bad attachments are rejected and the few users that do need the feature, it takes them only 10s more effort. Huge security gain, little effort on the users.
But I would not drop or reject the email, I would remove the attachment and attach an atachment-deleted.txt. This allows the user to react to the communication, even though the files did not go through.
True and false. Through the TOS of github you grant github and it's users the right to view and fork the code; github and it's users are ok; as long as it is done in the context of github. The moment some user clones the repository locally, your start to get in the domain, where the license of the project becomes relevant. Here is the point where all the critique came from, viewing the code on the website ok, viewing on you machine, mabe ok, unsure, alliterating one bit or processing it, not ok.
First you chose the right tool for the job at hand. node.js is not intended for serious number crunching, but neither is Java or.Net. If you need multi-threading in node.js you are doing it wrong; node.js efficiently handles many thousand parallel executions, in one thread. Node.js is very efficient at waiting and reacting to input. One node.js instance can get up to 99% on one CPU core, something that is really hard with a Java or.Net application that happens to do I/O. If your needs extend one core you can always use cluster and thus spawn multiple node.js processes working the same program. node.js is awesome, since in almost all applications this approach results in a very easy solution to scaling out.
So far with npm, I have found everything I can possible want under the sun and all with permissive licenses, such as MIT. I don't see the issue here.
Finally if you really need the raw power, use C or Fortran, seriously. Java and.Net are the last places to look for performance.
"And while the BND hasn't admitted much about their foreign intelligence gathering..."
Exactly, the discussion was about foreign espionage and the and Germany is in general very carefully about anything that could be considered an act of war. For example bugging a foreign embassy. Now spying on private citizens and individuals within German borders, different story.
Anecdotal evidence shows the contrary. The people working for the StaSi where selected for their belief in the socialist system. You must also put yourself into their shoes, they where hammered with the idea that socialism is great and solves all problems from very early age. There where a large number of people that believed in the system, at least up to the early 80s. In addition (what the sibling poster missed) is that the German wall was stated and partially seen as a protection from the capitalist west. People that thought about emigrating to the west where seen as traitors.
Does that sound slightly familiar... s/socialism/capitalism/ s/Stasi/NSA/
I strongly believe that most people that chose a career in the Military, Police or Intelligence strongly believe in the cause, at least at the point where they are hired. You don't make that much money, in addition of being put in harms way. This is why I hate it when "we" are fighting an war that has no merit, except fattening some pig.
Regional? Hm... Well I would say that it would be considered wrong to say "Nein, bitte." from the Alps to the North See and from the Rhein to the Oder... I would not know of what region you are talking about.
Well it depends on what you are doing. Using your own private service over the internet secured by SSL, no big deal, register the cert. Using your online banking and the cert is self signed, better check on that. The reason is that no encryption is clear that it is unsafe and most people will (hopefully) not do anything sensitive. But putting trust in a self signed certificate is a gamble, especially when you assume that this SSL connection is being used to transfer secure data. The reason why it is considered worse, is that it is assumes that the SSL connection will carry sensitive data, but the unsecured one not, yet the level of protection (authentication, not encryption) is the same.
I can say this for Germany, but it probably applies to any sane Government. The BND does intelligence gathering that any private individual could, such as areal photos and driving by installations. Their main effort is centered around inferring information from what is "publicly" available. To actually infiltrate installations, the country in question must be at war with Germany.
The US has always cheeped me out. The level of paranoia is astonishing and I think it is a mere wonder that we came out of the cold war without any major incident.
Except that espionage is considered and act of war and can be sufficient to actually stat a war. The reason why some nations get away with it, is that the cost of an actual war does not merit the incident.
I second that. Remember Great Britain and France are members of the NATO and have sufficient nuclear weapons to bomb the US to the stone age. Throwing the *only* superpower stance around is a good idea to make some friends not so friendly. In addition the US is far from being THE superpower when it comes to economical terms. The US can not trample all over it's allies; the next time the US wants to force something in the UN security council, some of it allies will give the US a hard time.
In fact, they'll almost certainly catch the transaction before it's finalized.
I totally agree with this sentiment. Actually my bank has a an oversensitive heuristic. On about 10% of all internet transactions I need to call up the bank for them to authorize the payment. And I know I got a good bank, when I can do that at 3 a.m. on a Sunday.
The problem is probably not Ecuador, but Britain that would object. The thing being, in this case, to violate Ecuadorian sovereignty, they first have to violate Britain's sovereignty. Yes, they have troops stationed in Britain, but only under very specific conditions and using live weapon systems is definitely not one of them. The problem with Britain vs. Ecuador is that Britain is an ally of the US and they have nuclear weapons.
I would rather think that he is a bargaining token against the US. I am pretty sure that, if the US wanted, they could get him delivered on a silver platter. But the US probably have not named a sufficiently high price. In addition, being confined to the embassy is probably suiting the US just right. The only reason why there is a big police presence guarding the embassy, is because they don't want him relaxing with a cocktail on a beach in Ecuador.
Modern GPUs are massively parallel in their execution. Yes they work "only" on one image, but when rendering one scene the sharers work in parallel. For example a fragment (aka per pixel) shader will be run in parallel for each pixel, limited by the number of available shader units (aka core). THIS is why you get the awesome performance: small, self contained programs running in parallel.
Slashdot Mirror
It is like the executable files restriction. It does not really hinder you, since you can always encrypt zip the files you want to send. It is an almost win-win situation, in that all bad attachments are rejected and the few users that do need the feature, it takes them only 10s more effort. Huge security gain, little effort on the users.
But I would not drop or reject the email, I would remove the attachment and attach an atachment-deleted.txt. This allows the user to react to the communication, even though the files did not go through.
Man, don't bash bash! It's awesome and most tools that do real work are written in C anyway. It is just the glue between small tools.
I think GP was mixing privacy and security...
Actually that would be the letter C.
True and false. Through the TOS of github you grant github and it's users the right to view and fork the code; github and it's users are ok; as long as it is done in the context of github. The moment some user clones the repository locally, your start to get in the domain, where the license of the project becomes relevant. Here is the point where all the critique came from, viewing the code on the website ok, viewing on you machine, mabe ok, unsure, alliterating one bit or processing it, not ok.
So the localisation for Arabian and other middle eastern languages is preinstalled... cool.
First you chose the right tool for the job at hand. node.js is not intended for serious number crunching, but neither is Java or .Net. If you need multi-threading in node.js you are doing it wrong; node.js efficiently handles many thousand parallel executions, in one thread. Node.js is very efficient at waiting and reacting to input. One node.js instance can get up to 99% on one CPU core, something that is really hard with a Java or .Net application that happens to do I/O. If your needs extend one core you can always use cluster and thus spawn multiple node.js processes working the same program. node.js is awesome, since in almost all applications this approach results in a very easy solution to scaling out.
So far with npm, I have found everything I can possible want under the sun and all with permissive licenses, such as MIT. I don't see the issue here.
Finally if you really need the raw power, use C or Fortran, seriously. Java and .Net are the last places to look for performance.
so?
"And while the BND hasn't admitted much about their foreign intelligence gathering..."
Exactly, the discussion was about foreign espionage and the and Germany is in general very carefully about anything that could be considered an act of war. For example bugging a foreign embassy. Now spying on private citizens and individuals within German borders, different story.
Anecdotal evidence shows the contrary. The people working for the StaSi where selected for their belief in the socialist system. You must also put yourself into their shoes, they where hammered with the idea that socialism is great and solves all problems from very early age. There where a large number of people that believed in the system, at least up to the early 80s. In addition (what the sibling poster missed) is that the German wall was stated and partially seen as a protection from the capitalist west. People that thought about emigrating to the west where seen as traitors.
Does that sound slightly familiar... s/socialism/capitalism/ s/Stasi/NSA/
I strongly believe that most people that chose a career in the Military, Police or Intelligence strongly believe in the cause, at least at the point where they are hired. You don't make that much money, in addition of being put in harms way. This is why I hate it when "we" are fighting an war that has no merit, except fattening some pig.
Regional? Hm... Well I would say that it would be considered wrong to say "Nein, bitte." from the Alps to the North See and from the Rhein to the Oder... I would not know of what region you are talking about.
...ignoring the fact that the programs where OKed by congress...
Well it depends on what you are doing. Using your own private service over the internet secured by SSL, no big deal, register the cert. Using your online banking and the cert is self signed, better check on that. The reason is that no encryption is clear that it is unsafe and most people will (hopefully) not do anything sensitive. But putting trust in a self signed certificate is a gamble, especially when you assume that this SSL connection is being used to transfer secure data. The reason why it is considered worse, is that it is assumes that the SSL connection will carry sensitive data, but the unsecured one not, yet the level of protection (authentication, not encryption) is the same.
unless you end up on the sex offender list... like many teenagers... for posting pictures... It is a REAL problem.
I can say this for Germany, but it probably applies to any sane Government. The BND does intelligence gathering that any private individual could, such as areal photos and driving by installations. Their main effort is centered around inferring information from what is "publicly" available. To actually infiltrate installations, the country in question must be at war with Germany.
The US has always cheeped me out. The level of paranoia is astonishing and I think it is a mere wonder that we came out of the cold war without any major incident.
... and then become a martyr. Not everybody wants to be shot on sight for the good cause.
Except that espionage is considered and act of war and can be sufficient to actually stat a war. The reason why some nations get away with it, is that the cost of an actual war does not merit the incident.
I second that. Remember Great Britain and France are members of the NATO and have sufficient nuclear weapons to bomb the US to the stone age. Throwing the *only* superpower stance around is a good idea to make some friends not so friendly. In addition the US is far from being THE superpower when it comes to economical terms. The US can not trample all over it's allies; the next time the US wants to force something in the UN security council, some of it allies will give the US a hard time.
In fact, they'll almost certainly catch the transaction before it's finalized.
I totally agree with this sentiment. Actually my bank has a an oversensitive heuristic. On about 10% of all internet transactions I need to call up the bank for them to authorize the payment. And I know I got a good bank, when I can do that at 3 a.m. on a Sunday.
Sweden actually has quite good prison conditions. He may actually have internet access... maybe not much will change for him...
The problem is probably not Ecuador, but Britain that would object. The thing being, in this case, to violate Ecuadorian sovereignty, they first have to violate Britain's sovereignty. Yes, they have troops stationed in Britain, but only under very specific conditions and using live weapon systems is definitely not one of them. The problem with Britain vs. Ecuador is that Britain is an ally of the US and they have nuclear weapons.
I would rather think that he is a bargaining token against the US. I am pretty sure that, if the US wanted, they could get him delivered on a silver platter. But the US probably have not named a sufficiently high price. In addition, being confined to the embassy is probably suiting the US just right. The only reason why there is a big police presence guarding the embassy, is because they don't want him relaxing with a cocktail on a beach in Ecuador.
"The Euro is the only other thing that has a chance, except it does not have a sovereign backing."
Wrong, it has 17 sovereign backing... More is better right?
You might want to read / view these slides:An Introduction to Modern GPU Architecture Especially slide 42.
Modern GPUs are massively parallel in their execution. Yes they work "only" on one image, but when rendering one scene the sharers work in parallel. For example a fragment (aka per pixel) shader will be run in parallel for each pixel, limited by the number of available shader units (aka core). THIS is why you get the awesome performance: small, self contained programs running in parallel.
I am not sure if this is an attempt at censorship. This smells more like a case of the government helping out with corporate interests.