He'll be in the second movie, playing a previously seen well known character. They'll tell everyone repeatedly he isn't playing that character, only to have an underwhelming scene in the movie where he reveals his true identity as said character.
Did she see a GI specialist? No. Were any actual diagnostic tests run? No. Was she verified to have mitochondrial disease as the source of these issues? Nope, even though such tests for it exists. Are there other medical issues that cause the same set of problems? Yep Do GI issues automatically imply she has mitochondrial disease? Hell to the no
She could very well have mitochondrial disease. But at this point she basically has Schrodinger's Cat disease because her parents won't run any actual tests that exist for the thing they say she has. That her parents refuse to run any tests for the problem they are adamant she has isn't damning, but it would set off the same Münchausen's by proxy flags it set off for the doctors.
If it's true that the parents shopped around for doctors to perform surgeries, and had extreme surgeries carried out around mitochondrial disease with no diagnostic based diagnosis that raises a ton of red flags.
If you're going to make your kid get a stomach shunt, you'd at least want to run a few tests first, no? It seems reasonable that the doctors would want to separate the child from her parents if they thought they were unreasonably subjecting their daughter to medical procedures. Worst case: Childrens runs the diagnostics that should have been run in the first place, finds evidence of mitochondrial disease, gives the child back, and there is no harm done. If the doctors are right? Then a child's health may have been destroyed for no reason.
1. Children's hospitals receive donations and nail research grants with an alarming deftness. Boston Children's Hospital is, according to their own architecture, the best. There's no shortage of money. They did have some layoffs a couple of years ago, but with a ridiculous savings ratio (255 jobs, costing 89.5 million annually, constituting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3% of their budget.)
Having income is not the same thing as having money. Hospitals and medical care is expensive, especially in the US. It looks like that job cut was due to a $150 million budget shortfall.
ISPs will just use more carrier grade NAT to free up IPs, maybe charge a little extra if you want your own IP outside of NAT to run game servers or skype or whatever (a relatively small group). Should hold of IPv6 for another 10 years or so.
People I know who work in things like media transports and video chatting are already being driven nuts by the number of problems and inefficiencies introduced by carrier grade NAT. You might as well be suggesting "Well sure, the wheel has fallen off the car, but let's just get someone to carry the car the rest of the way."
Can't wait for wide IPV6 deployment. Carrier grade NAT is NOT a good solution.
Crashes (with user permission) send up stack traces to Apple, and they can watch the general crash trend numbers on an app by app basis as well.
It's actually a great step forward. Devs tend to be more particular with our apps than users. Hopefully this gives Apple more data the next time they break a game or something.
The 10 people affected by this bus imrovement went out to celebrate but were hit by a car going twice the speed limit.. Oh the humanity!
Seriously though, I like to consider my needs a non-professional leading on the bleeding edge (2x 2560x1440's) But I don't even own a thunderbolt port, and unless some amazing peripherals come along to change my use case, I don't see that changing soon.
All I want is:
1. standard bus standard which can drive anything
2. said connector/cabling comes in 3 sizes from really really tiny cell phone variety to honking large clicking in connector that can't break
3. That is future expandible to whatever for the next 10 years minimum
4. No IP which prevents competition in said space except for standards bodies who's potfolios are both fair and unbiased in licensing terms
Addendum I. Monster cables is specifically banned from ever producing said cables for ever Nice to have's
5. Fibre option
6. Broadcast based networking support
7. Bus QOS control
8. Standard descriptive naming (NO BS marketing names like super-speed, hyper-active speed, high definition bandwidth, etc. )
9. Support host wake/power-on
10. Support at least bi-directional communications so I can plug in Bluetooth/IR/Wifi/etc.. message receivers and have if not chipset, at least OS support for pluggable and routable support for input methods without BS proprietary support all over the place
Thunderbolt supports 7 or 8 of these bullet points. Which is pretty good, if I may say so. So I'm not sure what your problem is with Thunderbolt, besides the big one of the Thunderbolt standard being enforced by Intel.
Thunderbolt is just PCIe, so it can drive anything. That makes it future expendable. As far as I know, monster doesn't make cables. There is a fibre option. It has network support, including at least on my Mac, broadcast based networking. It supports host wake/power-on. And it's bidirectional obviously, being PCIe (so it can implement all those receivers you don't have a chipset), and it supports plug ability. At work I have a USB/Firewire bus I can hot plug over Thunderbolt.
The most important line in the article is the very last:
The reservoir will reportedly cost $35,000 to clean
$35k is nothing when compared to even the lawyer fees of a single potential frivolous lawsuit over this. All it would take is one kid getting sick (likely for completely unrelated reasons). And then they'd have to start publicly defending the decision to not clean it. I'm not saying the cleaning is the practical choice. Just that the absurdity of the U.S. legal system makes it fiscally irresponsible for the city to do anything else.
The vaccinations crowd is bad enough. How much is the first lawsuit going to cost when some parent decides that their kid got autism because they drank pee in the water?
Does Portland even have conservatives? Surely not in Portland anyway.
Judging by bumperstickers, oh yes.
Conservatives in Portland are a funny bunch. They're hear, but definitely in the minority, so they're much louder about their political officiations. That's not to say I don't see liberals with cars covered in Obama and Kerry (yes, Kerry) bumperstickers. But typically conservatives in these parts have the bump stickers, signs in the windows, signs in the yard, etc etc.
And, unrelated to the point above, every so often there is a restaurant here that seems to prefer Fox News on the TVs. And there are definitely registered Republicans in government. Our Democratic Senator even worked on several bills with Paul Ryan, so even the Dems here are a little more willing to bend.
Short answer: Yes, there definitely are conservatives in Portland. Portland is kind of a live and let live city. Just as long as no one is bothering anyone else.
David Shaff obviously has a thing for watersports. It takes a Republican level of personal denial to drain 38 million gallons just to avoid drinking a little bit of pee.
Mr. Shaff began working for the City in 1978. He worked for the first 25 years in the Bureau of Human Resources, primarily in Labor Relations. While working in Labor Relations, Mr. Shaff was responsible for negotiating each of the City's collective bargaining agreements multiple times and ended his tenure there as the City's Labor Relations Manager in 2003.
Funny; sounds more like a "Progressive"...
I don't know the man's political leanings, but I know plenty of Republicans who have to deal with unions as part of their jobs. If you read (you know, read and understand), it says he's negotiating on the city's side, he's not part of the union.
I don't think any of this says anything the man's political persuasions. What it does say is you and the grandparent poster both need to go sit in the same corner wearing the same dunce caps for making the same dumb ass inferences for insanely stupid reasons.
All a state would have to do is amend their constitution to proclaim that all their able bodied citizens are members of the state militia for defense of their lives, property, and the state if mustered into action. What can the feds do then?
Nothing. I think that makes it a state by state concern, which is exactly where it belongs.
I live in the mid-west I can tell you now that although I don't own a gun, most of the people I know do own a gun or three and it has nothing to do with how big their reproductive organs are they are hunters. Most of them have gun safes if they don't then they have gun locks, and they don't keep them for self defense. If you are being robbed by the time you get a shotgun out of the safe and load it you would have been better off going for a kitchen knife or baseball bat if you have one handy.
Speaking as someone who doesn't own a gun, I think the second amendment is fine just they way it is.
I know a lot of people in the mid west who own a gun. I know zero people in the mid west who've ever had to use a gun for self defense.
I already know what their response would be. "I've never had to use it because I own one and people would be scared to break in!"
And I maybe understand that. Maybe. I think the excuse reaches new levels of absurd when one of the persons in question lives in a multistory secured condo complex in the middle of nowhere. Now to believe that the gun is keeping you safe from an actual threat, I have to buy that someone is a) going to care that your place in the middle of nowhere exists, b) break in past the secured door or be buzzed in by someone, c) break down your door, d) start shooting.
That's where I think the argument begins to break down. It's this bizarre idea of self importance. A lot of people actually believe that they are important enough that someone is going to break into their place and try and kill them. Or that their $500 Walmart TV is so important they have to buy a handgun to protect it. Nevermind the entire getting-to-the-gun-safe-unlocking-it-and-loading-the-gun-before-you-are-noticed-and-shot bit (which usually leads to an admission of "Well I don't keep it in my gun safe/don't lock it!")
I just rarely hear from anyone that owns a gun a reason why they need to own a gun that actually makes sense. They usually live in place with little crime, in a secured place, with little in the way of interest for a criminal (at least nothing worth killing over), but act like the gun is the only thing between them and someone from the Chicago inner city breaking in and raping and pillaging.
And I'm not sure I trust someone in that mental state with a gun.
At the time there were limited arms (you took about 2 minutes to reload) vs able to empty a couple clips in that same amount of time, now.
Umm, no.
A flintlock could be fire three-four times a minute by a skilled shooter. One of Napoleon's guys could manage 12+ shots per minute....
I'm not sure if this dramatically changes the point. One of Napoleon's top shooters could manage 12 shots a minute? Great. Now a 12 year old can too with little to no training.
(I'm over 50, have been looking for work for a while now, and I'm getting nothing; no interviews and certainly no offers. I have a lot of experience and a good work ethic, but it does no one any good if the companies routinely dismiss anyone with more than 2 pages of resume experience, since they are seen as 'too expensive' to hire).
I hate to say it... But I know quite a few developers who are around the 50 mark doing quite well and being very successful.
My feeling is a lot of it has to do with how current your skills are. You could be 85 years old, but as long as you can do mobile development at a reasonable proficiency level, I could probably find you a job.
I don't know about your current situation, so I don't know where your experience lies, but where agism (IME) typically plays in is that if one has to hire someone that one has to bring up to speed, one is far better hiring a junior engineer who you can pay peanuts vs. an older engineer who might actually want a real wage. I've worked for companies that have done that to a shocking degree (leading to broad incompetence across the organization.) But when people ask me how long it takes to be a good iOS developer, I usually tell them 3 years. So it's 3 years of paying someone next to nothing, vs. 3 years of paying someone a decent wage.
I myself become scared of what will happen when I become older. Will I not be able to get work anymore? The way I'm dealing with that is always staying on the cutting edge. I just hope my brain can keep up when I get older...
Zuckerschmuck saying "teach them to code and everything will be great", then he really is clueless and out of touch. But, we knew that anyway.
More likely is that Zuckerberg, being at the top of an established pyramid, would love to see a huge influx of programmers into the job market.
Wages would come down, saving money for all established players. Average quality would also come down, making it more difficult for startups to disrupt the status quo.
It's the same as all this visa and lack-of-STEM nonsense.
From the data I've seen there is a certain amount of slack before we'd hit these conditions. Maybe 100k-200k developer jobs before we'd start seeing wages come down. The deficit of needed developers vs. actual developers is just that large.
Obviously, as a developer, I don't want to see that gap turn into a surplus, as that would hurt my wages. But, it does impact my ability to find talent for if I eventually strike out on my own and become an indie developer. So I do want to see that gap filled to a certain extent. And I've definitely observed a huge lack of developers in the market, so it's not just Zuckerberg talking. I don't know of a single iOS or Android developer looking for work here in Portland, and I'm getting asked all the freakin time for help finding someone.
It's also worth pointing out there is also a huge lack of talent available for related jobs. There is a huge lack of graphic designers with the skill set to do either UI prototyping/design or the sort of graphics work suitable for applications or web sites. Those aren't developer jobs, but it's another section of the job market that is simply not putting out enough people for the tech industry. So when I look at the 250k (reportedly) deficit of available coding talent, you have to raise that number to include a certain number of other talent in related roles as well.
It sickens me... there is no more free speach... and some people clearly can be discriminated because of their political views...
There was plenty of free speech here. Just not a lot of free speech that agreed with his position.
Free speech doesn't bind people to your viewpoint, force people acknowledge your viewpoint as legitimate, or force them to support you in any way.
Quite often (but not always, there are actual far more serious threats) when people complain that free speech is dead, it's because they said something, and instead of being told they were a special flower with a special viewpoint, they were told by other people exercising their own free speech rights that they were stupid.
You have a right to free speech, not a right that everyone has to like what you say.
In this case he made a choice to do/say something, his employees responded by quiting, and his customers responded by boycotting him. Are you suggesting that those who quit and responded should have their free speech rights squelched?
It doesn't take a super genius to connect those dots. Slide-to-unlock was GOING to happen.
Years of experience tells me no. It would have been a button. If by going to happen you mean "a decade later", sure, I could see the Dells and Compaqs of the world eventually getting there. They all had portable touch screens for a decade prior, and no slide to unlock had yet to appear. I owned a 90s era PocketPC, and hey, no slide to unlock. So for something so obvious for people not to have come up with over a span of 10 years? Eh.
Patents also don't care if a competitor would have eventually come up with it on their own. Given that time is infinite, every idea possible is likely to be conceived by at least two different beings at some point. The point is to reward the first inventor. Being obvious and being able to be conceived at some point in the future are two standards that you are conflating. Obvious requires that the implementation by obvious to an everyman, and I'm not sure that's a leap the average American would make.
You missed one major technical rule: all browsers on iOS that support local rendering are required to use the system rendering engine.
Yeah. To Google and Mozilla, this is probably a big deal. To a developer? As long as the content runs, it doesn't really matter. I've never really found an instance where I'm going "Gee, I really wish I was able to embed Chrome here."
It is a little frustrating UIWebView on iOS doesn't have all the DOM editing/inspection functions that WebKit on the desktop has, but it is pretty flexible and customizable. In relation to the original article, you can even override the connection functionality and probably override any certificate validation.
Apple's approach is also relevant because by making everyone use the same web engine from the same dylib, Apple can patch security problems in everyone's apps without having apps have to update one by one. It's likely why they have this rule in place.
It's not like iOS where everything is required (by App Store rules) to use SecureTransport.
It's worth noting there is 100% no such rule. There is no app store rule enforcing any certificate validation or networking technology. Almost all the app store rules these days are around content, not technical implementations. The only technical rule I can think of off the top of my head is no using private functions in Apple's libraries, which is a no brainer.
OpenSSL is widely used, and in fact has it's own section in Apple's documentation acknowledging so. From TFM: "Further, although OpenSSL is commonly used in the open source community, it does not provide a stable API from version to version. For this reason, the programmatic interface to OpenSSL is deprecated in OS X and is not provided in iOS. Use of the Apple-provided OpenSSL libraries by apps is strongly discouraged.
To ensure compatibility, if your app depends on OpenSSL, you should compile it yourself and statically link a known version of OpenSSL into your app. Such use works on both iOS and OS X."
1.) It can be circumvented with sufficient effort and hardware access. Then it is useless as a theft deterrent.
Not useless still. You said it in your comment. "Sufficient effort." You're increasing the effort in the theft of the phone, thus making the resold phones more expensive, and possibly taking a lot of thieves who are unable to work around the problem out of play.
It's pretty easy to see how one could work around the block (change the hardware id of the phone). Is it worth the effort compared to the value of a new device? For some thieves maybe, for most probably not.
2.) It cannot be circumvented. Then it renders the handset vulnerable to the malice or incompetence of whoever controls the killswitch, and thus useless.
The kill switch is basically a network black list. It's not like the phone is catching fire mission impossible style. In the event of incompetence or malice, it can be reversed.
Plus the networks already have this "kill switch" present in that if you don't have an active account your device is banned from the network. So you're not really giving anyone power they don't already have. All that's being changed is a device can be submitted to a network to be banned, even if it is made active on an account.
They think a centralized kill switch would be a FANTASTIC idea! Just brick the phones for anyone who dares challenge the state.
I can really see how this might be useful in the US. Instead of the IRS investigating tea partiers, we could just selectively brick their phones. Or if you swing the other way, disable those iPhones from all those annoying hispter Occupy protesters. Seriously, you have an iPhone and you complain about the 99%? You are the 1% globally.
Yes, with centralized accounts, routing and billing for cell networks, the government definitely is totally unable to disable phones of people they don't like without a kill switch./sarcasm
Mac OS X recently added very aggressive disk caching (it will use any free memory for disk caching), and it dramatically improves performance, even on machines with super fast SSDs.
Recently? I was under the impression that this was how MacOS/X (and indeed most non-ancient flavors of *nix) had always worked. Was I mistaken about that?
I'm actually looking for technical information now...
Long ago, definitely before Mac OS X, Mac OS had a hard set disk cache size. You could go into your Memory control panel and chance the disk cache size.
There's information out there stating that earlier versions of Mac OS X had some sort of disk cache (which seems reasonable), but it doesn't say how large the disk cache is.
The most recent change in caching and memory management in OS 10.9 is that before actually cycling out cache, OS X will actually compress that memory, and continue trying to hold it in memory. The idea is that compressing memory and sending it into deep storage is less expensive than having to get that information from disk later. So in that respect, 10.9 is much more aggressive about disk caching.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought he had to be in everything these days
He'll be in the second movie, playing a previously seen well known character. They'll tell everyone repeatedly he isn't playing that character, only to have an underwhelming scene in the movie where he reveals his true identity as said character.
My money is on him playing Palpatine.
And virtually everyone else that offers payment processing services
Only in mobile app walled gardens. PayPal, 2checkout, authorize.net etc only take about 3%.
Bandwidth is cheap, so it's not a total excuse, but PayPal doesn't actually fulfill the entire transaction, just the payment. Apple hosts IAP content.
If you're mafia, or Apple.
Or Amazon in this case.
What, you think they're passing 100% of the profits to the comic book publisher? Hah!
I'd bet they're going to take the 30% that Apple used to take, and stuff it right back in their own pockets, right along with any other existing fees.
She was confirmed with GI issues.
Did she see a GI specialist? No.
Were any actual diagnostic tests run? No.
Was she verified to have mitochondrial disease as the source of these issues? Nope, even though such tests for it exists.
Are there other medical issues that cause the same set of problems? Yep
Do GI issues automatically imply she has mitochondrial disease? Hell to the no
She could very well have mitochondrial disease. But at this point she basically has Schrodinger's Cat disease because her parents won't run any actual tests that exist for the thing they say she has. That her parents refuse to run any tests for the problem they are adamant she has isn't damning, but it would set off the same Münchausen's by proxy flags it set off for the doctors.
I heard about it on the radio a couple of weeks ago. This case is an absolutely appalling abuse of power.
I did some Googling on this case in since I hadn't yet heard about it. Found this article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
If it's true that the parents shopped around for doctors to perform surgeries, and had extreme surgeries carried out around mitochondrial disease with no diagnostic based diagnosis that raises a ton of red flags.
If you're going to make your kid get a stomach shunt, you'd at least want to run a few tests first, no? It seems reasonable that the doctors would want to separate the child from her parents if they thought they were unreasonably subjecting their daughter to medical procedures. Worst case: Childrens runs the diagnostics that should have been run in the first place, finds evidence of mitochondrial disease, gives the child back, and there is no harm done. If the doctors are right? Then a child's health may have been destroyed for no reason.
1. Children's hospitals receive donations and nail research grants with an alarming deftness. Boston Children's Hospital is, according to their own architecture, the best. There's no shortage of money. They did have some layoffs a couple of years ago, but with a ridiculous savings ratio (255 jobs, costing 89.5 million annually, constituting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3% of their budget.)
Having income is not the same thing as having money. Hospitals and medical care is expensive, especially in the US. It looks like that job cut was due to a $150 million budget shortfall.
Nah.
ISPs will just use more carrier grade NAT to free up IPs, maybe charge a little extra if you want your own IP outside of NAT to run game servers or skype or whatever (a relatively small group). Should hold of IPv6 for another 10 years or so.
People I know who work in things like media transports and video chatting are already being driven nuts by the number of problems and inefficiencies introduced by carrier grade NAT. You might as well be suggesting "Well sure, the wheel has fallen off the car, but let's just get someone to carry the car the rest of the way."
Can't wait for wide IPV6 deployment. Carrier grade NAT is NOT a good solution.
Crashes (with user permission) send up stack traces to Apple, and they can watch the general crash trend numbers on an app by app basis as well.
It's actually a great step forward. Devs tend to be more particular with our apps than users. Hopefully this gives Apple more data the next time they break a game or something.
The 10 people affected by this bus imrovement went out to celebrate but were hit by a car going twice the speed limit.. Oh the humanity!
Seriously though, I like to consider my needs a non-professional leading on the bleeding edge (2x 2560x1440's) But I don't even own a thunderbolt port, and unless some amazing peripherals come along to change my use case, I don't see that changing soon.
All I want is:
1. standard bus standard which can drive anything
2. said connector/cabling comes in 3 sizes from really really tiny cell phone variety to honking large clicking in connector that can't break
3. That is future expandible to whatever for the next 10 years minimum
4. No IP which prevents competition in said space except for standards bodies who's potfolios are both fair and unbiased in licensing terms
Addendum I. Monster cables is specifically banned from ever producing said cables for ever
Nice to have's
5. Fibre option
6. Broadcast based networking support
7. Bus QOS control
8. Standard descriptive naming (NO BS marketing names like super-speed, hyper-active speed, high definition bandwidth, etc. )
9. Support host wake/power-on
10. Support at least bi-directional communications so I can plug in Bluetooth/IR/Wifi/etc.. message receivers and have if not chipset, at least OS support for pluggable and routable support for input methods without BS proprietary support all over the place
Thunderbolt supports 7 or 8 of these bullet points. Which is pretty good, if I may say so. So I'm not sure what your problem is with Thunderbolt, besides the big one of the Thunderbolt standard being enforced by Intel.
Thunderbolt is just PCIe, so it can drive anything. That makes it future expendable. As far as I know, monster doesn't make cables. There is a fibre option. It has network support, including at least on my Mac, broadcast based networking. It supports host wake/power-on. And it's bidirectional obviously, being PCIe (so it can implement all those receivers you don't have a chipset), and it supports plug ability. At work I have a USB/Firewire bus I can hot plug over Thunderbolt.
The most important line in the article is the very last:
$35k is nothing when compared to even the lawyer fees of a single potential frivolous lawsuit over this. All it would take is one kid getting sick (likely for completely unrelated reasons). And then they'd have to start publicly defending the decision to not clean it. I'm not saying the cleaning is the practical choice. Just that the absurdity of the U.S. legal system makes it fiscally irresponsible for the city to do anything else.
The vaccinations crowd is bad enough. How much is the first lawsuit going to cost when some parent decides that their kid got autism because they drank pee in the water?
Does Portland even have conservatives? Surely not in Portland anyway.
Judging by bumperstickers, oh yes.
Conservatives in Portland are a funny bunch. They're hear, but definitely in the minority, so they're much louder about their political officiations. That's not to say I don't see liberals with cars covered in Obama and Kerry (yes, Kerry) bumperstickers. But typically conservatives in these parts have the bump stickers, signs in the windows, signs in the yard, etc etc.
And, unrelated to the point above, every so often there is a restaurant here that seems to prefer Fox News on the TVs. And there are definitely registered Republicans in government. Our Democratic Senator even worked on several bills with Paul Ryan, so even the Dems here are a little more willing to bend.
Short answer: Yes, there definitely are conservatives in Portland. Portland is kind of a live and let live city. Just as long as no one is bothering anyone else.
David Shaff obviously has a thing for watersports. It takes a Republican level of personal denial to drain 38 million gallons just to avoid drinking a little bit of pee.
Funny; sounds more like a "Progressive" ...
I don't know the man's political leanings, but I know plenty of Republicans who have to deal with unions as part of their jobs. If you read (you know, read and understand), it says he's negotiating on the city's side, he's not part of the union.
I don't think any of this says anything the man's political persuasions. What it does say is you and the grandparent poster both need to go sit in the same corner wearing the same dunce caps for making the same dumb ass inferences for insanely stupid reasons.
All a state would have to do is amend their constitution to proclaim that all their able bodied citizens are members of the state militia for defense of their lives, property, and the state if mustered into action. What can the feds do then?
Nothing. I think that makes it a state by state concern, which is exactly where it belongs.
I live in the mid-west I can tell you now that although I don't own a gun, most of the people I know do own a gun or three and it has nothing to do with how big their reproductive organs are they are hunters. Most of them have gun safes if they don't then they have gun locks, and they don't keep them for self defense. If you are being robbed by the time you get a shotgun out of the safe and load it you would have been better off going for a kitchen knife or baseball bat if you have one handy.
Speaking as someone who doesn't own a gun, I think the second amendment is fine just they way it is.
I know a lot of people in the mid west who own a gun. I know zero people in the mid west who've ever had to use a gun for self defense.
I already know what their response would be. "I've never had to use it because I own one and people would be scared to break in!"
And I maybe understand that. Maybe. I think the excuse reaches new levels of absurd when one of the persons in question lives in a multistory secured condo complex in the middle of nowhere. Now to believe that the gun is keeping you safe from an actual threat, I have to buy that someone is a) going to care that your place in the middle of nowhere exists, b) break in past the secured door or be buzzed in by someone, c) break down your door, d) start shooting.
That's where I think the argument begins to break down. It's this bizarre idea of self importance. A lot of people actually believe that they are important enough that someone is going to break into their place and try and kill them. Or that their $500 Walmart TV is so important they have to buy a handgun to protect it. Nevermind the entire getting-to-the-gun-safe-unlocking-it-and-loading-the-gun-before-you-are-noticed-and-shot bit (which usually leads to an admission of "Well I don't keep it in my gun safe/don't lock it!")
I just rarely hear from anyone that owns a gun a reason why they need to own a gun that actually makes sense. They usually live in place with little crime, in a secured place, with little in the way of interest for a criminal (at least nothing worth killing over), but act like the gun is the only thing between them and someone from the Chicago inner city breaking in and raping and pillaging.
And I'm not sure I trust someone in that mental state with a gun.
Umm, no.
A flintlock could be fire three-four times a minute by a skilled shooter. One of Napoleon's guys could manage 12+ shots per minute....
I'm not sure if this dramatically changes the point. One of Napoleon's top shooters could manage 12 shots a minute? Great. Now a 12 year old can too with little to no training.
(I'm over 50, have been looking for work for a while now, and I'm getting nothing; no interviews and certainly no offers. I have a lot of experience and a good work ethic, but it does no one any good if the companies routinely dismiss anyone with more than 2 pages of resume experience, since they are seen as 'too expensive' to hire).
I hate to say it... But I know quite a few developers who are around the 50 mark doing quite well and being very successful.
My feeling is a lot of it has to do with how current your skills are. You could be 85 years old, but as long as you can do mobile development at a reasonable proficiency level, I could probably find you a job.
I don't know about your current situation, so I don't know where your experience lies, but where agism (IME) typically plays in is that if one has to hire someone that one has to bring up to speed, one is far better hiring a junior engineer who you can pay peanuts vs. an older engineer who might actually want a real wage. I've worked for companies that have done that to a shocking degree (leading to broad incompetence across the organization.) But when people ask me how long it takes to be a good iOS developer, I usually tell them 3 years. So it's 3 years of paying someone next to nothing, vs. 3 years of paying someone a decent wage.
I myself become scared of what will happen when I become older. Will I not be able to get work anymore? The way I'm dealing with that is always staying on the cutting edge. I just hope my brain can keep up when I get older...
Zuckerschmuck saying "teach them to code and everything will be great", then he really is clueless and out of touch. But, we knew that anyway.
More likely is that Zuckerberg, being at the top of an established pyramid, would love to see a huge influx of programmers into the job market.
Wages would come down, saving money for all established players. Average quality would also come down, making it more difficult for startups to disrupt the status quo.
It's the same as all this visa and lack-of-STEM nonsense.
From the data I've seen there is a certain amount of slack before we'd hit these conditions. Maybe 100k-200k developer jobs before we'd start seeing wages come down. The deficit of needed developers vs. actual developers is just that large.
Obviously, as a developer, I don't want to see that gap turn into a surplus, as that would hurt my wages. But, it does impact my ability to find talent for if I eventually strike out on my own and become an indie developer. So I do want to see that gap filled to a certain extent. And I've definitely observed a huge lack of developers in the market, so it's not just Zuckerberg talking. I don't know of a single iOS or Android developer looking for work here in Portland, and I'm getting asked all the freakin time for help finding someone.
It's also worth pointing out there is also a huge lack of talent available for related jobs. There is a huge lack of graphic designers with the skill set to do either UI prototyping/design or the sort of graphics work suitable for applications or web sites. Those aren't developer jobs, but it's another section of the job market that is simply not putting out enough people for the tech industry. So when I look at the 250k (reportedly) deficit of available coding talent, you have to raise that number to include a certain number of other talent in related roles as well.
It sickens me... there is no more free speach... and some people clearly can be discriminated because of their political views...
There was plenty of free speech here. Just not a lot of free speech that agreed with his position.
Free speech doesn't bind people to your viewpoint, force people acknowledge your viewpoint as legitimate, or force them to support you in any way.
Quite often (but not always, there are actual far more serious threats) when people complain that free speech is dead, it's because they said something, and instead of being told they were a special flower with a special viewpoint, they were told by other people exercising their own free speech rights that they were stupid.
You have a right to free speech, not a right that everyone has to like what you say.
In this case he made a choice to do/say something, his employees responded by quiting, and his customers responded by boycotting him. Are you suggesting that those who quit and responded should have their free speech rights squelched?
It doesn't take a super genius to connect those dots. Slide-to-unlock was GOING to happen.
Years of experience tells me no. It would have been a button. If by going to happen you mean "a decade later", sure, I could see the Dells and Compaqs of the world eventually getting there. They all had portable touch screens for a decade prior, and no slide to unlock had yet to appear. I owned a 90s era PocketPC, and hey, no slide to unlock. So for something so obvious for people not to have come up with over a span of 10 years? Eh.
Patents also don't care if a competitor would have eventually come up with it on their own. Given that time is infinite, every idea possible is likely to be conceived by at least two different beings at some point. The point is to reward the first inventor. Being obvious and being able to be conceived at some point in the future are two standards that you are conflating. Obvious requires that the implementation by obvious to an everyman, and I'm not sure that's a leap the average American would make.
You missed one major technical rule: all browsers on iOS that support local rendering are required to use the system rendering engine.
Yeah. To Google and Mozilla, this is probably a big deal. To a developer? As long as the content runs, it doesn't really matter. I've never really found an instance where I'm going "Gee, I really wish I was able to embed Chrome here."
It is a little frustrating UIWebView on iOS doesn't have all the DOM editing/inspection functions that WebKit on the desktop has, but it is pretty flexible and customizable. In relation to the original article, you can even override the connection functionality and probably override any certificate validation.
Apple's approach is also relevant because by making everyone use the same web engine from the same dylib, Apple can patch security problems in everyone's apps without having apps have to update one by one. It's likely why they have this rule in place.
It's not like iOS where everything is required (by App Store rules) to use SecureTransport.
It's worth noting there is 100% no such rule. There is no app store rule enforcing any certificate validation or networking technology. Almost all the app store rules these days are around content, not technical implementations. The only technical rule I can think of off the top of my head is no using private functions in Apple's libraries, which is a no brainer.
OpenSSL is widely used, and in fact has it's own section in Apple's documentation acknowledging so. From TFM:
"Further, although OpenSSL is commonly used in the open source community, it does not provide a stable API from version to version. For this reason, the programmatic interface to OpenSSL is deprecated in OS X and is not provided in iOS. Use of the Apple-provided OpenSSL libraries by apps is strongly discouraged.
To ensure compatibility, if your app depends on OpenSSL, you should compile it yourself and statically link a known version of OpenSSL into your app. Such use works on both iOS and OS X."
The More You Know(TM).
So scenario A It's true and we're all fucked and can't do anything about it. Thus we're arguing over..nothing.
Science: If we can't change it, well, fuck it.
1.) It can be circumvented with sufficient effort and hardware access. Then it is useless as a theft deterrent.
Not useless still. You said it in your comment. "Sufficient effort." You're increasing the effort in the theft of the phone, thus making the resold phones more expensive, and possibly taking a lot of thieves who are unable to work around the problem out of play.
It's pretty easy to see how one could work around the block (change the hardware id of the phone). Is it worth the effort compared to the value of a new device? For some thieves maybe, for most probably not.
2.) It cannot be circumvented. Then it renders the handset vulnerable to the malice or incompetence of whoever controls the killswitch, and thus useless.
The kill switch is basically a network black list. It's not like the phone is catching fire mission impossible style. In the event of incompetence or malice, it can be reversed.
Plus the networks already have this "kill switch" present in that if you don't have an active account your device is banned from the network. So you're not really giving anyone power they don't already have. All that's being changed is a device can be submitted to a network to be banned, even if it is made active on an account.
They think a centralized kill switch would be a FANTASTIC idea! Just brick the phones for anyone who dares challenge the state.
I can really see how this might be useful in the US. Instead of the IRS investigating tea partiers, we could just selectively brick their phones. Or if you swing the other way, disable those iPhones from all those annoying hispter Occupy protesters. Seriously, you have an iPhone and you complain about the 99%? You are the 1% globally.
Yes, with centralized accounts, routing and billing for cell networks, the government definitely is totally unable to disable phones of people they don't like without a kill switch. /sarcasm
Mac OS X recently added very aggressive disk caching (it will use any free memory for disk caching), and it dramatically improves performance, even on machines with super fast SSDs.
Recently? I was under the impression that this was how MacOS/X (and indeed most non-ancient flavors of *nix) had always worked. Was I mistaken about that?
I'm actually looking for technical information now...
Long ago, definitely before Mac OS X, Mac OS had a hard set disk cache size. You could go into your Memory control panel and chance the disk cache size.
There's information out there stating that earlier versions of Mac OS X had some sort of disk cache (which seems reasonable), but it doesn't say how large the disk cache is.
The most recent change in caching and memory management in OS 10.9 is that before actually cycling out cache, OS X will actually compress that memory, and continue trying to hold it in memory. The idea is that compressing memory and sending it into deep storage is less expensive than having to get that information from disk later. So in that respect, 10.9 is much more aggressive about disk caching.