Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are not particularly widely abused for hosting malware to be distributed through emailing deceptive links to unsophisticated users.
This is easily prevented by not allowing direct download links.
For example, by requiring a hashcode in the HTTP request string accompanied by a cookie
which is only set by answering a prompt.
and by restricting the files that can be made downloadable to.tar.gz and.zip files.
If someone tries to hide by creating a new wallet, you can also see that money from a known account got transferred to a wallet for which no previous transactions exist. Perhaps this is a different person, but when you see the same transaction patterns in the new account you can start narrowing your assumptions.
You could generate a large number of holding wallets in advance of any transaction, and retain a set amount of money in each wallet.
Then when you are planning to make another transaction, you generate a new transaction-specific wallet, and execute some sequence of transfers from a random assortment of your holding wallets to your transaction wallet, and then execute the transaction.
You could also have multiple layers of holding wallets and transaction wallets, and conduct some bitcoin rotations with friends to shuffle things around.
I envision if a few people are doing that, it could be very difficult indeed to correlate transaction to holder; now, I won't say impossible, because there are probably bound to be some patterns that might be detected through statistical analysis...
Not general problems, but implementation-specific problems that would be likely to occur.
There is also the issue about transaction cost, since the 'holding' and temporary/thorwaway wallets generates spurious non-transactions that look like transactions, and therefore, would use part of the bitcoin network's capacity.
I wouldn't say that... I would say that exchange will sometimes not be anonymous.
Especially when that exchange is made from bitcoins to a currency, and one of the trading partners is a large institution with regulatory requirements to meet.
But there will be other cases where it could be nearly anonymous. Mainly when neither of the trading partners keeps records of the identity of the other trading partner; or when they trade without learning the identity of whom they are trading with in the first place -- probably for intangible goods like data.
A private cloud would be a single physical server on-premises, or uplinked to the clients office from a datacenter via MPLS circuit
The private/public distinction seems totally artificial then.
Does it really matter whether their internet service is residing in a VRF, with IP space routed to a VLAN on the virtualization cluster, or whether the end user has a site-to-site VPN solution, as if a VPN suddenly makes it public?
Is the distinction private/public not totally artificial?
Of course there should be a scalable cluster and a large storage array, as shared storage is required for high availability.
If you don't have a cluster, then you have a single physical server... not a cloud, where things are distributed and protected.
I see no reason OpenStack, CloudStack, OpenNebula would be required.. right... those are essentially APIs to optionally enable developers to do a lot of fancy things. just create a user in vCenter for the admins in each organization, with read access and remote console/power/reboot to only their vApp, and a couple orchestrator workflows for setup/teardown, which is more than most need -- when most people are reliant on the technology provider support department to do all their planning and provisioning anyhow.
the U.S. branch of Apple probably has gigantic expenses that it owes to another branch of the company that operates in international waters (or the Cayman Islands, or Ireland) for the use of the trademark "Apple". It's a shame
If it's legal to do, then I suppose it is the rational approach, and we can't fault Apple for that.
However, one of two things. Either; a company operating in international waters should not be permitted by the USPTO to be assigned a trademark right, OR, there should be a 40% tariff for the licensing by a company (outside US borders) of a right to a US company,
unless that overseas company reports US income in the amount of the total of "exported trademark revenues".
In other words.... the transfer of US dollars overseas to cover the expense associated with a "trademark", "patent", "copyright", "contract", or other intellectual property license, should have a duty assessed, slightly in excess of the income tax rate.
This bad publicity can cause the companies involved to suffer a punishment of a loss in revenue - the public are less likely to do business with companies they see as not paying their fare share of tax.
I'm not less likely to buy any Apple product because of this.
What seems unfair is the US government attempting to lay a claim to revenues that were generated by Apple's related entity in another country.
This is because the "income tax" itself is immoral.
The only country that should fairly have any ability to be able to tax the revenues is the country that they were generated in.
The so called "social acceptability" is just an attempt at manipulating companies into fiscally irresponsible behavior to prop up the poor behavior of fiscally irresponsible governments.
If you are really concerned about latency then a private cloud would be the best solution.,
Ah, but you see... It's not about private clouds... it's not me alone that is concerned about latency... it would be my customers that would be considering using a cloud service for their internal servers, because there are no big datacenters nearby, but my datacenter is nearby...
The big cloud providers' datacenters are far-away net-wise, so I ought to be able to service some latency-sensitive workloads with good performance at a level of service that Linode/Rackspace could not possibly hope to provide...
naturally, I would expect to be paid a premium for doing this, but if there is sufficien demand, it still ought to be reasonable for me to build..
I'm not sure what kind of methods used to calculate this 99,000 number comes from anyways.
Maybe stock grants for developers involved in startups? Or maybe it's a geographic thing.
I've been professional in this field for 6 years; I have a bachelor of science in CS, 8 programming languages, and I don't see nearly half of that.
Admittedly i'm the only developer in my organization, and I get hit with system engineering tasks and working with IT technicians as well, to provide them the help they need to understand what actions they need to be taking.
But I think the 99,000 number is a fiction.
Compensation probably varies from company to company... so where appreciation from stock option grants is considered in some companies 99,000 may be Demo-God status... in other companies 99,000 might be feh...
Companies are unlikely to pay programmers more than their CEO though; furthermore, pay decreases down the chain of managers, and the more managers there are above the developer.... probably, the more people there are that the programmers' definitely won't get paid more than.
Share value increases most when jobs are cut. Any idiot can cut salaries and jobs to get a quarterly bump in share price. The success of US corporations has more to do with corporate consolidation increasing pricing power than it does brilliant management.
Share value increases when jobs are cut, and the resulting decrease in costs is more than the resulting decrease in revenue and future revenue prospects.
The ultimate corporation(TM) is one that has sky-high revenue expected to be repeated and increase every year into the future and no employees or costs required to support this revenue.
Don't know what to tell you except to say that I don't view my manager as a "bastard", nor do I think those two statements of mine would be received identically.
That makes sense... it's not your manager's job to be "the bastard"; its to manage appropriately.
Now your manager's manager may order your manager to do something that is adverse to you; regardless of how nicely you have handled the situation with your manager.
Your manager might not be able to approve the raise, without in essence the counteroffer; your manager's manager when informed of this, may order that your manager start going about the process to replace their person who has done this.
Having accepted then changed his mind, he didn't realize what the other company had put into the process. They had spent hours screening candidates, performing phone interviews, calling people in for personal interview, etc. And then when they had offered him a job that he'd accepted, they had needed to call up the other candidates
If you're going to be seeking a counteroffer, don't lie and accept the offer, until you are finally able to commit to it.
You better inform the prospective employer of your actual intentions
Except there are ways to get around that. Ever known anyone who got a loan from parents/friends/ to start a business? Spin it as debt rather than equity.
If you could avoid it looking to the government like a fixed income security; maybe they could work out a mechanism involving an optional promise to return contributors money after giving out the reward, plus the imputed interest to compensate for cost of capital at the fair market value for consumer debt; conditioned on the project generating revenue or obtaining future funding; less the fixed cost of production.
In other words: a promise that you as an enabling contributor will recapture your contribution, before the project creator is allowed to generate revenue from the project and pocket profit.
It makes sense; but I think the liability to the contributor would have to be a liability from Kickstarter's to the contributor; instead of a liability of the project creator in order for it to possibly be legal.
Because I don't see every project creator going through the paperwork and expense to register individuall with the SEC.
Its not supposed to be you con people into giving you money, let them take the risk that you can't complete development (or that you're just a scam), and then profit as well.
Kickstarter doesn't fully transfer the risk. According to the terms of the site, if the project creator cannot deliver the rewards, they are liable to the contributors, to refund the amount of their contributions; otherwise, they could be sued by the contributors.
So the contributors have the risk if the project creator becomes insolvent, but they don't have the risk if the project creator has other resources, or is not insolvent but just fails to deliver
It would be interesting to have some statistics about Kickstarter projects that were funded but failed to deliver, regarding... what exactly the result was.
Did the contributors just accept their loss, with no legal issues; was the project creator insolvent (as in unable to pay their liabilities to the contributors); did they refund; or did a class action lawsuit result?
Except there are ways to get around that. Ever known anyone who got a loan from parents/friends/ to start a business? Spin it as debt rather than equity.
On November 24, 2008, the SEC found Prosper.com to be in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. As a result of these findings, the SEC imposed a cease and desist order on Prosper.[11] Due primarily to the novel nature of the peer to peer lending models, the SEC, after review, now treats all peer to peer lending transactions as sales of securities and requires that all platforms must register with the SEC.
Then let me invest, rather than prebuy. Let me buy a tiny part of the profits.
This would be in violation of SEC regulations against selling unregistered securities to the public.
The only way they would potentially be able to do so would be to require that all site members prove they are accredited investors;
E.g. by providing a copy of their paystub, showing sufficient income to meet the $200,000 per year income minimum set by the government for accredited investor status.
Yes. And I feel like the community is being abused by the VC people, if they can just get kickstarter funding, and then go grab additional VC funding at the same time.
Why the VC people can just make 'starting a kickstarter' project as a precondition to obtaining VC funding, and approve the funding, after success of the kickstarter project; so the venture capitalists take the equity of the business, anyways, instead of the project founders.
If they could get VC funding, from the bankers, then the VC should be funding development too.
I don't see the resolution as to ban VC funding.
I think Kickstarter project creators should be required to disclose, if they are also seeking or obtaining VC funding, or other investments, prior to the completion of their project and fullfillment; In other words, any other funding should be disclosed.
That way, the crowd can if they choose to, rank/sort their projects that they are considering gifting to, based on their perceived need for those funds.
Why not in addition to requiring a password... give the user a 255x255 grid (Total 65,000 boxes).
Require the user to place 3 symbols on the grid, by clicking, not within the vicinity of any two symbols lining up horizontally, diagonally, or vertically,
and not within a certain euclidian distance of any other symbol.
The symbol in a box can be placed in the center, left edge, right edge, bottom edge, top edge, upper-left corner, upper-right corner, lower-right corner, or lower-left corner.
In addition to the password, the placement of the symbols must be remembered
(which box, and where in each box, each marker was placed).
The result is an extra ~19 bit field.
Then a heavy work-factor PBKDF2, BCrypt, or SCrypt hash of this 19-bit field could be appended to the password.
Thereby, creating a password augmentation that will be very difficult to brute force
You agree that Microsoft respects your privacy more than Google?
They both "respect" your privacy; your private information is very important to them, and they want to be sure they are the ones that get to monetize it first and foremost.
If they weren't careful in safeguarding your data sufficiently well against the prying eyes of others, they might be in danger of losing monetary value to competitors in the advertising biz.
Their "financing" is 0% APR. A Galaxy S4 is $20/mo for 24 months and $149 down, the same $629 as pay-up-front.
Time value of money says there's no thing as a 0% APR. The vendor is making back the cost of that capital somehow, probably by including it up front, by increasing the initial loan amount, in the price of the phone, or in the price of the subscription.
I'd say that's very good for T-Mobile, except the predatory anti-consumer term that you immediately owe the remaining balance if you stop the service. That should hint at you that some part of the subscription fee is actually being used quietly to fund the cost of capital, including the risk component.
Slashdot Mirror
"We're grandfathering existing accounts that signed up before day X", duh.
Advanced notice doesn't mean there's a frenzy of new signups; it just means existing users are treated fairly.
Version control systems, unlike file downloads, are not particularly widely abused for hosting malware to be distributed through emailing deceptive links to unsophisticated users.
This is easily prevented by not allowing direct download links. For example, by requiring a hashcode in the HTTP request string accompanied by a cookie which is only set by answering a prompt.
and by restricting the files that can be made downloadable to .tar.gz and .zip files.
If someone tries to hide by creating a new wallet, you can also see that money from a known account got transferred to a wallet for which no previous transactions exist. Perhaps this is a different person, but when you see the same transaction patterns in the new account you can start narrowing your assumptions.
You could generate a large number of holding wallets in advance of any transaction, and retain a set amount of money in each wallet.
Then when you are planning to make another transaction, you generate a new transaction-specific wallet, and execute some sequence of transfers from a random assortment of your holding wallets to your transaction wallet, and then execute the transaction.
You could also have multiple layers of holding wallets and transaction wallets, and conduct some bitcoin rotations with friends to shuffle things around.
I envision if a few people are doing that, it could be very difficult indeed to correlate transaction to holder; now, I won't say impossible, because there are probably bound to be some patterns that might be detected through statistical analysis...
Not general problems, but implementation-specific problems that would be likely to occur.
There is also the issue about transaction cost, since the 'holding' and temporary/thorwaway wallets generates spurious non-transactions that look like transactions, and therefore, would use part of the bitcoin network's capacity.
That exchange will never be anonymous.
I wouldn't say that... I would say that exchange will sometimes not be anonymous. Especially when that exchange is made from bitcoins to a currency, and one of the trading partners is a large institution with regulatory requirements to meet.
But there will be other cases where it could be nearly anonymous. Mainly when neither of the trading partners keeps records of the identity of the other trading partner; or when they trade without learning the identity of whom they are trading with in the first place -- probably for intangible goods like data.
A private cloud would be a single physical server on-premises, or uplinked to the clients office from a datacenter via MPLS circuit
The private/public distinction seems totally artificial then.
Does it really matter whether their internet service is residing in a VRF, with IP space routed to a VLAN on the virtualization cluster, or whether the end user has a site-to-site VPN solution, as if a VPN suddenly makes it public?
Is the distinction private/public not totally artificial?
Of course there should be a scalable cluster and a large storage array, as shared storage is required for high availability. If you don't have a cluster, then you have a single physical server... not a cloud, where things are distributed and protected.
I see no reason OpenStack, CloudStack, OpenNebula would be required.. right... those are essentially APIs to optionally enable developers to do a lot of fancy things. just create a user in vCenter for the admins in each organization, with read access and remote console/power/reboot to only their vApp, and a couple orchestrator workflows for setup/teardown, which is more than most need -- when most people are reliant on the technology provider support department to do all their planning and provisioning anyhow.
the U.S. branch of Apple probably has gigantic expenses that it owes to another branch of the company that operates in international waters (or the Cayman Islands, or Ireland) for the use of the trademark "Apple". It's a shame
If it's legal to do, then I suppose it is the rational approach, and we can't fault Apple for that.
However, one of two things. Either; a company operating in international waters should not be permitted by the USPTO to be assigned a trademark right, OR, there should be a 40% tariff for the licensing by a company (outside US borders) of a right to a US company, unless that overseas company reports US income in the amount of the total of "exported trademark revenues".
In other words.... the transfer of US dollars overseas to cover the expense associated with a "trademark", "patent", "copyright", "contract", or other intellectual property license, should have a duty assessed, slightly in excess of the income tax rate.
They'll eventually get fed up of being told their code is bad even though it is and will just leave it bad and ignore any warnings.
The developers who don't ignore them, and consistently improve their CQM or have good CQM get all the important development work.
Those who choose to ignore successful metrics ultimately get marginalized and eventually laid off.
So all government is evil?
1. No government is terrible.
2. A little limited government is good.
3. A little more government than a tiny limited government is extremely good
4. A little bit more government is a tiny bit better
5. A lot of government is really no better -- there are diminishing benefits at this point.
6. A big government is a bit worse than (4) -- too costly, too controlling, few advantages over (5).
7. A huge government is much worse than (3) -- massive cost, drain.
8. A massive tyrannical government is terrible -- worse than (1).
This bad publicity can cause the companies involved to suffer a punishment of a loss in revenue - the public are less likely to do business with companies they see as not paying their fare share of tax.
I'm not less likely to buy any Apple product because of this.
What seems unfair is the US government attempting to lay a claim to revenues that were generated by Apple's related entity in another country.
This is because the "income tax" itself is immoral. The only country that should fairly have any ability to be able to tax the revenues is the country that they were generated in.
The so called "social acceptability" is just an attempt at manipulating companies into fiscally irresponsible behavior to prop up the poor behavior of fiscally irresponsible governments.
If you are really concerned about latency then a private cloud would be the best solution.,
Ah, but you see... It's not about private clouds... it's not me alone that is concerned about latency... it would be my customers that would be considering using a cloud service for their internal servers, because there are no big datacenters nearby, but my datacenter is nearby...
The big cloud providers' datacenters are far-away net-wise, so I ought to be able to service some latency-sensitive workloads with good performance at a level of service that Linode/Rackspace could not possibly hope to provide... naturally, I would expect to be paid a premium for doing this, but if there is sufficien demand, it still ought to be reasonable for me to build..
And if Linode/Rackspace's nearest datacenters are so far from your geography, that the latency is too high for internal business apps?
Because a good design doesn't overcome bad code.
In theory, a good design ought to be provide some insight into how that design can be tested.
Often tests only look at 'correctness'; does the code yield the proper output given the right input.
Ideally there should be some code quality metrics included in testing, and also performance benchmarking including resource usage.
E.g. in addition to required input/required output; required satisfactory runtime characteristics and code quality metrics (CQM)
Anyways; it may be a challenge, if the code quality metric is good enough, it could be used to overcome bad code by flagging it for review and rewrite
$99,000 makes the developer a demi-god.
I'm not sure what kind of methods used to calculate this 99,000 number comes from anyways. Maybe stock grants for developers involved in startups? Or maybe it's a geographic thing.
I've been professional in this field for 6 years; I have a bachelor of science in CS, 8 programming languages, and I don't see nearly half of that.
Admittedly i'm the only developer in my organization, and I get hit with system engineering tasks and working with IT technicians as well, to provide them the help they need to understand what actions they need to be taking.
But I think the 99,000 number is a fiction.
Compensation probably varies from company to company... so where appreciation from stock option grants is considered in some companies 99,000 may be Demo-God status... in other companies 99,000 might be feh...
Companies are unlikely to pay programmers more than their CEO though; furthermore, pay decreases down the chain of managers, and the more managers there are above the developer.... probably, the more people there are that the programmers' definitely won't get paid more than.
Share value increases most when jobs are cut. Any idiot can cut salaries and jobs to get a quarterly bump in share price. The success of US corporations has more to do with corporate consolidation increasing pricing power than it does brilliant management.
Share value increases when jobs are cut, and the resulting decrease in costs is more than the resulting decrease in revenue and future revenue prospects.
The ultimate corporation(TM) is one that has sky-high revenue expected to be repeated and increase every year into the future and no employees or costs required to support this revenue.
Don't know what to tell you except to say that I don't view my manager as a "bastard", nor do I think those two statements of mine would be received identically.
That makes sense... it's not your manager's job to be "the bastard"; its to manage appropriately.
Now your manager's manager may order your manager to do something that is adverse to you; regardless of how nicely you have handled the situation with your manager.
Your manager might not be able to approve the raise, without in essence the counteroffer; your manager's manager when informed of this, may order that your manager start going about the process to replace their person who has done this.
Having accepted then changed his mind, he didn't realize what the other company had put into the process. They had spent hours screening candidates, performing phone interviews, calling people in for personal interview, etc. And then when they had offered him a job that he'd accepted, they had needed to call up the other candidates
If you're going to be seeking a counteroffer, don't lie and accept the offer, until you are finally able to commit to it.
You better inform the prospective employer of your actual intentions
Except there are ways to get around that. Ever known anyone who got a loan from parents/friends/ to start a business? Spin it as debt rather than equity.
If you could avoid it looking to the government like a fixed income security; maybe they could work out a mechanism involving an optional promise to return contributors money after giving out the reward, plus the imputed interest to compensate for cost of capital at the fair market value for consumer debt; conditioned on the project generating revenue or obtaining future funding; less the fixed cost of production.
In other words: a promise that you as an enabling contributor will recapture your contribution, before the project creator is allowed to generate revenue from the project and pocket profit.
It makes sense; but I think the liability to the contributor would have to be a liability from Kickstarter's to the contributor; instead of a liability of the project creator in order for it to possibly be legal.
Because I don't see every project creator going through the paperwork and expense to register individuall with the SEC.
Its not supposed to be you con people into giving you money, let them take the risk that you can't complete development (or that you're just a scam), and then profit as well.
Kickstarter doesn't fully transfer the risk. According to the terms of the site, if the project creator cannot deliver the rewards, they are liable to the contributors, to refund the amount of their contributions; otherwise, they could be sued by the contributors.
So the contributors have the risk if the project creator becomes insolvent, but they don't have the risk if the project creator has other resources, or is not insolvent but just fails to deliver
It would be interesting to have some statistics about Kickstarter projects that were funded but failed to deliver, regarding... what exactly the result was.
Did the contributors just accept their loss, with no legal issues; was the project creator insolvent (as in unable to pay their liabilities to the contributors); did they refund; or did a class action lawsuit result?
Except there are ways to get around that. Ever known anyone who got a loan from parents/friends/ to start a business? Spin it as debt rather than equity.
Are you familiar with the case of Prosper.com ?
On November 24, 2008, the SEC found Prosper.com to be in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. As a result of these findings, the SEC imposed a cease and desist order on Prosper.[11] Due primarily to the novel nature of the peer to peer lending models, the SEC, after review, now treats all peer to peer lending transactions as sales of securities and requires that all platforms must register with the SEC.
Then let me invest, rather than prebuy. Let me buy a tiny part of the profits.
This would be in violation of SEC regulations against selling unregistered securities to the public.
The only way they would potentially be able to do so would be to require that all site members prove they are accredited investors; E.g. by providing a copy of their paystub, showing sufficient income to meet the $200,000 per year income minimum set by the government for accredited investor status.
Yes. And I feel like the community is being abused by the VC people, if they can just get kickstarter funding, and then go grab additional VC funding at the same time.
Why the VC people can just make 'starting a kickstarter' project as a precondition to obtaining VC funding, and approve the funding, after success of the kickstarter project; so the venture capitalists take the equity of the business, anyways, instead of the project founders.
If they could get VC funding, from the bankers, then the VC should be funding development too.
I don't see the resolution as to ban VC funding.
I think Kickstarter project creators should be required to disclose, if they are also seeking or obtaining VC funding, or other investments, prior to the completion of their project and fullfillment; In other words, any other funding should be disclosed.
That way, the crowd can if they choose to, rank/sort their projects that they are considering gifting to, based on their perceived need for those funds.
Why not in addition to requiring a password... give the user a 255x255 grid (Total 65,000 boxes). Require the user to place 3 symbols on the grid, by clicking, not within the vicinity of any two symbols lining up horizontally, diagonally, or vertically, and not within a certain euclidian distance of any other symbol.
The symbol in a box can be placed in the center, left edge, right edge, bottom edge, top edge, upper-left corner, upper-right corner, lower-right corner, or lower-left corner.
In addition to the password, the placement of the symbols must be remembered (which box, and where in each box, each marker was placed).
The result is an extra ~19 bit field.
Then a heavy work-factor PBKDF2, BCrypt, or SCrypt hash of this 19-bit field could be appended to the password.
Thereby, creating a password augmentation that will be very difficult to brute force
You agree that Microsoft respects your privacy more than Google?
They both "respect" your privacy; your private information is very important to them, and they want to be sure they are the ones that get to monetize it first and foremost.
If they weren't careful in safeguarding your data sufficiently well against the prying eyes of others, they might be in danger of losing monetary value to competitors in the advertising biz.
How about this: Gold's innate value is about 3 to 5% more than Copper's innate value, but less than silver's innate value.
Their "financing" is 0% APR. A Galaxy S4 is $20/mo for 24 months and $149 down, the same $629 as pay-up-front.
Time value of money says there's no thing as a 0% APR. The vendor is making back the cost of that capital somehow, probably by including it up front, by increasing the initial loan amount, in the price of the phone, or in the price of the subscription.
I'd say that's very good for T-Mobile, except the predatory anti-consumer term that you immediately owe the remaining balance if you stop the service. That should hint at you that some part of the subscription fee is actually being used quietly to fund the cost of capital, including the risk component.