Swift needed to be created because Objective C stinks, and no other modern language would have fit smoothly into the Smalltalkish legacy of the Cocoa framework. I'm just glad that the Apple fanboys who constitute most of my fellow iOS developers are finally allowed to believe bad things about Objective C, at least now that there's a nice alternative. Made me a little sick before to hear people praising Obj-C while writing reams of ridiculously verbose code that nobody will want to maintain 5 years from now.
Go is a fantastic language for server side development with concurrency that's not painful to wrap your head around, and is perfect for cloud development in Google's world.
Won't comment on Facebook Hack, since it's not clear to me why Facebook itself needs to exist. But to each their own...
Maybe Gangnam would be the one to exceed 2^32 in another 6 months, and maybe another video would. I assume YouTube's viewer base is being constantly increased, and that the "norm" for top viral video views is constantly rising.
The encryption keys used by a BES server are generated by that BES server, and not by BB. As such, there is no key that BB can give to any govt which will decrypt any data sent between a BES and a connected BB phone.
You can substitute the BES server for BB in my remark (see, still trusting a third party), or you can recognize that BB still has control over software and software updates, and thus by definition is able to subvert the system. The most you can say is "Sure, they _can_, but I trust that they never _would_." And the infosec guys will shake their heads sadly at you.
No, in fact it's a fundamental principle of infosec. Unless you keep keys close to your chest and perform tightly controlled, end to end encryption, there are opportunities for subpoenas by TLAs or for top tier hackers to compromise your keys. Trusting a middle man is a fundamental compromise in the provability of your security.
After it's a year overdue and 200% overbudget and everybody is completely blindsided by the fact that you can't quickly and trivially reimplement mature software systems, we'll hear a different take on this story. Of course, we get to pay for all this. *sigh*
Since multiple governments mandate that Blackberry share back doors with them, it's not clear to me what benefit more encryption will really add. Won't they be sharing keys with governments (and thus potentially hackers can get the same data)?
The only secure encryption is end to end encryption where you understand and actively control/limit how the key transmission works.
No, your partial quote of my sentence is misleading. Of course lots of things may be true, i.e. have a nonzero probability. We don't believe these things because we consider them to have a very small probability based on nobody being able to demonstrate them scientifically.
First, your comment is actually hilarious given the subject matter. Simply drinking tap water or inhaling air wherever you are may involve inadvertently taking in homeopathic "drugs", because there are always trace amounts of interesting things floating around in different places. (Yes, the land of homeopathy is a silly, silly place to be.)
Which is not what anyone would possibly be referring to.
Before going any further in this conversation... do you know what homeopathic medicine is?
By the way, I replied in a bit of haste before noticing your part about laying down the **** weopons. I could not agree more. Africans are by far the worst enemies of Africans today, and it's a problem without any easy solutions.
So wouldn't that mean you would want homeopathic remedies clearly labeled as such so you can make an informed choice?
First, your comment is actually hilarious given the subject matter. Simply drinking tap water or inhaling air wherever you are may involve inadvertently taking in homeopathic "drugs", because there are always trace amounts of interesting things floating around in different places. (Yes, the land of homeopathy is a silly, silly place to be.)
To answer your question seriously, absolutely I would like a medication to inform me whether it is merely homeopathic. And relax, because the government is way ahead of you on this. When companies provide "remedies" that are not scientifically shown to treat or cure any disease, they are already required to have it clearly labeled that they have not been shown to treat or cure any disease. Go and look, and you will already find such labels on homeopathic "medicines" sold (at least legally) in the USA.
For drugs prescribed under the auspices of Western medicine, they have been shown to be worthwhile (in some measure), by scientific methods. And similarly, GMO foods have been shown to be safe (in some measure) by scientific methods. So the government shouldn't give GMO food producers any grief unless further scientific inquiry gives a reason to do so.
This is a bad car analogy. Homeopathic medicine does not cure anything, you might as well compare homeopathy to prayer.
My point was that homeopathy has the same level of peer reviewed, scientific research supporting it as do hippie paranoias about GMO food. Specifically: none at all.
Look, I sympathize with your concern. But until there's a scientific basis, it's not fair for government to mandate stuff. For example, many Jews and Muslims care very deeply about labeling in regard to religious handling of foods. But since there aren't any substantiated scientific concerns in regard to any of that affecting people's health, it wouldn't be fair for the government to legislate Kosher labeling etc.
I'd like to, but Big Ag and GMO proponents have lobbied hard to keep labels on food from saying if it is GMO or not. If this shit is soooooo good for us, then label it and let the market decide.
GMO foods are harmful in exactly the same way that homeopathy can cure major illnesses. i.e. it may be true, but nobody has proven it yet, so it hasn't entered the pages of peer reviewed research, just like homeopathy hasn't penetrated Western medicine. I would guess that's the reason that laws about labeling of GMO foods aren't ubiquitous. If you are aware of respectable studies that prove otherwise about GMO foods, I'd love to see them -- seriously.
Perhaps the alternative is seeds for fragile crops that will die in a drought and never yield much despite access to cheap chemical fertilizers? Look, I get that it's fun to hate on "Big Ag", but I also get that hippies are fond of biting the hand that feeds them. And Big Ag doesn't just feed hippies, it feeds the world, and there currently isn't any good substitute for it.
Instead of disparaging charitable works in Africa that a rational person will perceive to be doing good to feed hungry people, why don't you focus on donating money to promote "open source" crop lines somewhere in the States so there are good alternatives to give to Africa and the rest of the world? Put your money where your mouth is (in a couple of senses).
Vinegar Joe, your post is a troll not because it's untrue (perfectly true), and not because it's irrelevant (the coverup has already been well documented), but because... well, honestly I'm not sure.
This got modded up? Media Matters may be left-leaning, but
No, you don't get it. They don't just happen to be "left leaning", they are left leaning by definition and organizational mission. They are very much like the SPLC in that regard -- from time to time individuals have approached the SPLC asking why they don't give airtime to exposing various left wing hate groups and individuals, and the response has always been "That's not our mission -- we are just pointing out problems we see on the right." If Media Matters started criticizing left leaning liberal excesses of Democrats, their Soros money would dry up in a hurry.
It's not that surprising to me that you didn't know this; probably next you're going to tell me that you get most of your news from Colbert and Stewart on CC. *sigh*
She got played by bad sources pedaling BS stories about Benghazi.
Given that the President of the United States and Secretary of State themselves personally pedaled BS stories about Benghazi (e.g. downplaying the terrorism angle and blaming an internet video), I suggest you adopt a more cynical and suspicious attitude toward the "official line" from the current administration. Not saying Attkisson's sources were right, just that this administration is willing to lie through its teeth to keep an unfavorable story from going public.
In particular, it is likely that the official account of Benghazi which most people accept today either omits significant material details (such as classified CIA programs including weapons movement) or includes outright lies in various respects.
I'm very curious about that as well. If they were real classified documents, then the FBI should be able to investigate, and I'd like to think that this would lead either to information about a crime possibly committed here, or to assurance that it was all a misunderstanding/paranoid delusion and there were no classified documents. Not that FBI agents don't sometimes lie or get their investigations quashed by Nixon administration types, but hey, just humor my naive optimism a little.
Media Matters is no more and no less than a leftist propaganda outlet. I'm not insulting them by saying that, it's actually their entire mission. If Obama stepped in front of a camera and mooned the nation, it would be their job to spin it in a positive way.
That said, I have no problem with taking a hard line on Attkisson's claims. Extraordinary demands and extraordinary evidence and all that sort of thing. So why not find a journalistic outlet instead? Example of MM spin: they quote "experts" who claim that TLAs wouldn't do any hacking that Attkisson could see, because they would have the ability to do it invisibly. But Attkisson claims that intelligence agent(s) were actively trying to intimidate and shut her up, and get her to stop pursuing sensitive stories. So maybe a hacker was showing off in front of her. As a kid I did this to my sibling's computer, so it's not so crazy to me. But on that note it is admittedly an adolescent sort of thing to do, so while I don't totally dismiss her claims, I'm skeptical and want to hear/see more.
Slashdot Mirror
Swift needed to be created because Objective C stinks, and no other modern language would have fit smoothly into the Smalltalkish legacy of the Cocoa framework. I'm just glad that the Apple fanboys who constitute most of my fellow iOS developers are finally allowed to believe bad things about Objective C, at least now that there's a nice alternative. Made me a little sick before to hear people praising Obj-C while writing reams of ridiculously verbose code that nobody will want to maintain 5 years from now.
Go is a fantastic language for server side development with concurrency that's not painful to wrap your head around, and is perfect for cloud development in Google's world.
Won't comment on Facebook Hack, since it's not clear to me why Facebook itself needs to exist. But to each their own...
Maybe Gangnam would be the one to exceed 2^32 in another 6 months, and maybe another video would. I assume YouTube's viewer base is being constantly increased, and that the "norm" for top viral video views is constantly rising.
If they'd used a 32 bit unsigned integer they might have bought another 6 months or something.
The encryption keys used by a BES server are generated by that BES server, and not by BB. As such, there is no key that BB can give to any govt which will decrypt any data sent between a BES and a connected BB phone.
You can substitute the BES server for BB in my remark (see, still trusting a third party), or you can recognize that BB still has control over software and software updates, and thus by definition is able to subvert the system. The most you can say is "Sure, they _can_, but I trust that they never _would_." And the infosec guys will shake their heads sadly at you.
This is a blatant lie.
No, in fact it's a fundamental principle of infosec. Unless you keep keys close to your chest and perform tightly controlled, end to end encryption, there are opportunities for subpoenas by TLAs or for top tier hackers to compromise your keys. Trusting a middle man is a fundamental compromise in the provability of your security.
After it's a year overdue and 200% overbudget and everybody is completely blindsided by the fact that you can't quickly and trivially reimplement mature software systems, we'll hear a different take on this story. Of course, we get to pay for all this. *sigh*
Since multiple governments mandate that Blackberry share back doors with them, it's not clear to me what benefit more encryption will really add. Won't they be sharing keys with governments (and thus potentially hackers can get the same data)?
The only secure encryption is end to end encryption where you understand and actively control/limit how the key transmission works.
News Flash: the Republicans are taking control of the Senate in January.
Hassle ton of Slashdot readers, get flamed in the comments. Seems to be a pattern, huh editors?
Somehow the tasks would involve reading Bennett Haselton essays and harvesting the scintillating nuggets of shared wisdom to...
*laughs until cries* Man, this guy is so much fun to hate...
No, your partial quote of my sentence is misleading. Of course lots of things may be true, i.e. have a nonzero probability. We don't believe these things because we consider them to have a very small probability based on nobody being able to demonstrate them scientifically.
First, your comment is actually hilarious given the subject matter. Simply drinking tap water or inhaling air wherever you are may involve inadvertently taking in homeopathic "drugs", because there are always trace amounts of interesting things floating around in different places. (Yes, the land of homeopathy is a silly, silly place to be.)
Which is not what anyone would possibly be referring to.
Before going any further in this conversation... do you know what homeopathic medicine is?
By the way, I replied in a bit of haste before noticing your part about laying down the **** weopons. I could not agree more. Africans are by far the worst enemies of Africans today, and it's a problem without any easy solutions.
So wouldn't that mean you would want homeopathic remedies clearly labeled as such so you can make an informed choice?
First, your comment is actually hilarious given the subject matter. Simply drinking tap water or inhaling air wherever you are may involve inadvertently taking in homeopathic "drugs", because there are always trace amounts of interesting things floating around in different places. (Yes, the land of homeopathy is a silly, silly place to be.)
To answer your question seriously, absolutely I would like a medication to inform me whether it is merely homeopathic. And relax, because the government is way ahead of you on this. When companies provide "remedies" that are not scientifically shown to treat or cure any disease, they are already required to have it clearly labeled that they have not been shown to treat or cure any disease. Go and look, and you will already find such labels on homeopathic "medicines" sold (at least legally) in the USA.
For drugs prescribed under the auspices of Western medicine, they have been shown to be worthwhile (in some measure), by scientific methods. And similarly, GMO foods have been shown to be safe (in some measure) by scientific methods. So the government shouldn't give GMO food producers any grief unless further scientific inquiry gives a reason to do so.
This is a bad car analogy. Homeopathic medicine does not cure anything, you might as well compare homeopathy to prayer.
My point was that homeopathy has the same level of peer reviewed, scientific research supporting it as do hippie paranoias about GMO food. Specifically: none at all.
Look, I sympathize with your concern. But until there's a scientific basis, it's not fair for government to mandate stuff. For example, many Jews and Muslims care very deeply about labeling in regard to religious handling of foods. But since there aren't any substantiated scientific concerns in regard to any of that affecting people's health, it wouldn't be fair for the government to legislate Kosher labeling etc.
Your "charitable organizations" are only creating a dependency situation for profit.
The 4H? Seriously?
I'd like to, but Big Ag and GMO proponents have lobbied hard to keep labels on food from saying if it is GMO or not. If this shit is soooooo good for us, then label it and let the market decide.
GMO foods are harmful in exactly the same way that homeopathy can cure major illnesses. i.e. it may be true, but nobody has proven it yet, so it hasn't entered the pages of peer reviewed research, just like homeopathy hasn't penetrated Western medicine. I would guess that's the reason that laws about labeling of GMO foods aren't ubiquitous. If you are aware of respectable studies that prove otherwise about GMO foods, I'd love to see them -- seriously.
Perhaps the alternative is seeds for fragile crops that will die in a drought and never yield much despite access to cheap chemical fertilizers? Look, I get that it's fun to hate on "Big Ag", but I also get that hippies are fond of biting the hand that feeds them. And Big Ag doesn't just feed hippies, it feeds the world, and there currently isn't any good substitute for it.
Instead of disparaging charitable works in Africa that a rational person will perceive to be doing good to feed hungry people, why don't you focus on donating money to promote "open source" crop lines somewhere in the States so there are good alternatives to give to Africa and the rest of the world? Put your money where your mouth is (in a couple of senses).
Vinegar Joe, your post is a troll not because it's untrue (perfectly true), and not because it's irrelevant (the coverup has already been well documented), but because... well, honestly I'm not sure.
This got modded up? Media Matters may be left-leaning, but
No, you don't get it. They don't just happen to be "left leaning", they are left leaning by definition and organizational mission. They are very much like the SPLC in that regard -- from time to time individuals have approached the SPLC asking why they don't give airtime to exposing various left wing hate groups and individuals, and the response has always been "That's not our mission -- we are just pointing out problems we see on the right." If Media Matters started criticizing left leaning liberal excesses of Democrats, their Soros money would dry up in a hurry.
It's not that surprising to me that you didn't know this; probably next you're going to tell me that you get most of your news from Colbert and Stewart on CC. *sigh*
She got played by bad sources pedaling BS stories about Benghazi.
Given that the President of the United States and Secretary of State themselves personally pedaled BS stories about Benghazi (e.g. downplaying the terrorism angle and blaming an internet video), I suggest you adopt a more cynical and suspicious attitude toward the "official line" from the current administration. Not saying Attkisson's sources were right, just that this administration is willing to lie through its teeth to keep an unfavorable story from going public.
In particular, it is likely that the official account of Benghazi which most people accept today either omits significant material details (such as classified CIA programs including weapons movement) or includes outright lies in various respects.
I'm very curious about that as well. If they were real classified documents, then the FBI should be able to investigate, and I'd like to think that this would lead either to information about a crime possibly committed here, or to assurance that it was all a misunderstanding/paranoid delusion and there were no classified documents. Not that FBI agents don't sometimes lie or get their investigations quashed by Nixon administration types, but hey, just humor my naive optimism a little.
Media Matters is no more and no less than a leftist propaganda outlet. I'm not insulting them by saying that, it's actually their entire mission. If Obama stepped in front of a camera and mooned the nation, it would be their job to spin it in a positive way.
That said, I have no problem with taking a hard line on Attkisson's claims. Extraordinary demands and extraordinary evidence and all that sort of thing. So why not find a journalistic outlet instead? Example of MM spin: they quote "experts" who claim that TLAs wouldn't do any hacking that Attkisson could see, because they would have the ability to do it invisibly. But Attkisson claims that intelligence agent(s) were actively trying to intimidate and shut her up, and get her to stop pursuing sensitive stories. So maybe a hacker was showing off in front of her. As a kid I did this to my sibling's computer, so it's not so crazy to me. But on that note it is admittedly an adolescent sort of thing to do, so while I don't totally dismiss her claims, I'm skeptical and want to hear/see more.
do we have any word from Bennett Haselton
I'd love to see the same: "Brevity is the soul of wit." How 'bout it, Bennett? One word?