People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government.
Um, no.
I'm with Google on doing what we can to alleviate the discriminatory burden, but it's really you who is missing the point. The only "government recognition" of a "family" that should occur is establishing who is legally responsible for any minor children (and then only if there is a practical issue that needs to be resolved). Past that, the government needs to stay the hell out of "recognizing" *anything*.
There is no way for the government to "recognize" families in a non-discriminatory way, because there's always going to be a situation that doesn't conform to the government's view on what constitutes a "family", no matter how broad that view tries to be. The correct solution is to eliminate the recognition entirely.
Virtual hosts mean if you just do an IP scan you will likely run into an SSL site that doesn't match the first URL associated with an IP.
Wish I had mod points. I was about to post the exact same thing.
Even ignoring servers hosting multiple distinct sites (e.g. at a typical webhosting company) on one IP with some sort of management interface behind SSL on port 443, sites are often configured with their "secure" portion behind a different vhost, but the same IP (e.g. http://example.com/ may point to the same IP address as https://secure.example.com/, but you're still going to get an SSL-secured response from https://example.com/, just not the one you might expect).
One can make reasonable arguments that these might not be ideal configurations, but they don't present the serious practical problems implied by the article.
I'm a freelancer in the US, most of my work is for a company in Taiwan. My work is legal and ethical. I keep not-well-organized but truthful and complete books with the help of a family member. I pay at least as much in taxes as I'm supposed to, and the cost of having a professional do them would quite probably outweigh any additional reduction they'd find.
The idea that I must be doing something wrong because I don't employ a full-time bookkeeper isn't just flawed, it's deeply offensive, and I believe worthy of an apology to me and every other ethical, law-abiding, tax-paying freelance developer.
Ah, you must be from the OO/Java/NoSQL crowd. Come on in, take a seat, don't mind that they only have three legs instead of four. What's that? What happened to the fourth one? Oh, you know, we thought it was unnecessary, I mean, it's a chair, right? You shouldn't have to think about a chair!
Remarkably, it's possible for someone to have an opinion without having other opinions you happen to associate with it in your confused little head.
For the record, my most commonly-used programming languages are Python and C, my most common database backend is MySQL, and I can't stand the clusterfuck that is Java.
Don't be stupid. If the developer does a "SELECT * FROM TABLE_X" and it works fine on his 2MB database, you really think that'll be ok with a 2TB database? Or even a 2GB database?
Strawman and you know it. That would apply to any datastore, even a filesystem, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the asinine behavior of certain overpriced RDBMS products when the developer clearly asks for a specific subset of the data.
You've pretty much proved the point. A developer wants a tool that works. A "professional DBA" wants to lecture the developer on why what he's doing is theoretically impure.
In 4+ years of dealing with professional DBAs, I've never once met one that got anything done, and twice I've directly witnessed companies move away from Oracle specifically because the developers did a better job of accomplishing business goals with MySQL than the "professionals" did with Oracle.
They called themselves teabaggers. It was months later that they tried to rewrite history because it inconveniently exposed them for the morons they are.
Absent specific laws or agreements to the contrary, each owner in a jointly-owned property has the right to do anything they want with said property, with or without the consent of the other owner(s).
The issue is that moderate Muslims so rarely have anything bad to say about this
Please link to your detailed study which carefully examined the proportion of Muslims who speak out against their extremist brothers.
Then please link to the equally-detailed study on the proportion of Christians who speak out against their extremist brothers.
Until you've done that, you're just making assumptions based on your personal impressions. And as everyone around here should know, such impressions rarely have basis in fact.
There are ways to deal with encrypted data such that it's impractical to determine whether the key you've been given really decrypts all of the data. TrueCrypt has provisions for this.
Under torture, you can reveal the first key, which will decrypt valuable-seeming data (real or fake), but not the second key, which protects truly damaging information.
You might still fry, but your compatriots have a better chance.
Criminals today, not the thugs on the street, are pretty savvy. Even the most complex alarm systems are broken into, encryption and systems still have other vulnerabilities and backdoors.
This, I think, may be the real reason cryptography in the US has never been strongly regulated. Somebody at the NSA realized you can't make sure government communications are secure if everybody's trying to hide the latest research from everybody else.
With the world's leading cryptographers publishing their research openly, everyone knows where they stand, and the NSA can react appropriately if a threat to US communication channels appears.
How about the fact that the person supposedly doing this comparison isn't even the one who encoded the video? Instead, he relied on a third party with a vested interest in h.264 to do the encoding for him.
In fact, he's such an utterly useless person that he claims he doesn't even "have access to a VP8 encoder".
What the albatross could do, however, was grab somebody else's satellite and bring it back. We just never used it for that.
How sure are you of that? There have been eight classified or partially-classified shuttle flights. Substantive details are known about most but not all.
G-forces in orbital space flight are not as problematic as you seem to think. Space Shuttle launch and reentry is generally 2-3 gravities (more for astronaut comfort than out of any actual safety concern). Everything from high-performance aircraft to race cars experience far more than that on a routine basis.
The forces are also largely predictable and steady. We know when they'll happen and their direction, and their buildup is gradual rather than a shock, making engineering for them quite easy.
There are lots of things about space flight that are difficult, dealing with the g-forces just isn't high on the list.
Reusability is not inherently impractical in a space vehicle, it's just hard, and post-Apollo NASA is spectacularly bad at anything that's hard.
It's also been 30 years. Advancement in understanding of the challenges, not to mention materials science and engineering, should make it a good deal easier than it was then.
Also, NASA isn't even in this equation. It's the Air Force asking for it from private contractors, and the USAF has a pretty reasonable track record on their military launch programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Because no one else on Earth _wants_ anything close to it. They cost way too much for the marginal benefits they provide.
It's called being prepared. The ISS is kept well-stocked and the loss of a single resupply run is expensive but not operationally critical.
You need to be punished for that.
People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government.
Um, no.
I'm with Google on doing what we can to alleviate the discriminatory burden, but it's really you who is missing the point. The only "government recognition" of a "family" that should occur is establishing who is legally responsible for any minor children (and then only if there is a practical issue that needs to be resolved). Past that, the government needs to stay the hell out of "recognizing" *anything*.
There is no way for the government to "recognize" families in a non-discriminatory way, because there's always going to be a situation that doesn't conform to the government's view on what constitutes a "family", no matter how broad that view tries to be. The correct solution is to eliminate the recognition entirely.
Virtual hosts mean if you just do an IP scan you will likely run into an SSL site that doesn't match the first URL associated with an IP.
Wish I had mod points. I was about to post the exact same thing.
Even ignoring servers hosting multiple distinct sites (e.g. at a typical webhosting company) on one IP with some sort of management interface behind SSL on port 443, sites are often configured with their "secure" portion behind a different vhost, but the same IP (e.g. http://example.com/ may point to the same IP address as https://secure.example.com/, but you're still going to get an SSL-secured response from https://example.com/, just not the one you might expect).
One can make reasonable arguments that these might not be ideal configurations, but they don't present the serious practical problems implied by the article.
Innocent until Proven Guilty. If they cannot prove you guilty they cannot hold you indefinitely.
Awww, you're so naïve it's adorable.
Have you so much as glanced at the news in the last decade?
I'm a freelancer in the US, most of my work is for a company in Taiwan. My work is legal and ethical. I keep not-well-organized but truthful and complete books with the help of a family member. I pay at least as much in taxes as I'm supposed to, and the cost of having a professional do them would quite probably outweigh any additional reduction they'd find.
The idea that I must be doing something wrong because I don't employ a full-time bookkeeper isn't just flawed, it's deeply offensive, and I believe worthy of an apology to me and every other ethical, law-abiding, tax-paying freelance developer.
Ah, you must be from the OO/Java/NoSQL crowd. Come on in, take a seat, don't mind that they only have three legs instead of four. What's that? What happened to the fourth one? Oh, you know, we thought it was unnecessary, I mean, it's a chair, right? You shouldn't have to think about a chair!
Remarkably, it's possible for someone to have an opinion without having other opinions you happen to associate with it in your confused little head.
For the record, my most commonly-used programming languages are Python and C, my most common database backend is MySQL, and I can't stand the clusterfuck that is Java.
Don't be stupid. If the developer does a "SELECT * FROM TABLE_X" and it works fine on his 2MB database, you really think that'll be ok with a 2TB database? Or even a 2GB database?
Strawman and you know it. That would apply to any datastore, even a filesystem, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the asinine behavior of certain overpriced RDBMS products when the developer clearly asks for a specific subset of the data.
You've pretty much proved the point. A developer wants a tool that works. A "professional DBA" wants to lecture the developer on why what he's doing is theoretically impure.
In 4+ years of dealing with professional DBAs, I've never once met one that got anything done, and twice I've directly witnessed companies move away from Oracle specifically because the developers did a better job of accomplishing business goals with MySQL than the "professionals" did with Oracle.
If every production database required an arrogant and overpriced Oracle shill to maintain it, nothing would ever get done.
Treating the database as a black box is the problem, not the solution.
Then the database is broken.
They called themselves teabaggers. It was months later that they tried to rewrite history because it inconveniently exposed them for the morons they are.
It's recommended that you look at your display or phone from around an arms length away or risk damaging your vision in the long term.
[[citation needed]]
"Code word"? "Apogee" was the term for point of greatest distance from Earth long before the company ever existed.
Absent specific laws or agreements to the contrary, each owner in a jointly-owned property has the right to do anything they want with said property, with or without the consent of the other owner(s).
The issue is that moderate Muslims so rarely have anything bad to say about this
Please link to your detailed study which carefully examined the proportion of Muslims who speak out against their extremist brothers.
Then please link to the equally-detailed study on the proportion of Christians who speak out against their extremist brothers.
Until you've done that, you're just making assumptions based on your personal impressions. And as everyone around here should know, such impressions rarely have basis in fact.
There are ways to deal with encrypted data such that it's impractical to determine whether the key you've been given really decrypts all of the data. TrueCrypt has provisions for this.
Under torture, you can reveal the first key, which will decrypt valuable-seeming data (real or fake), but not the second key, which protects truly damaging information.
You might still fry, but your compatriots have a better chance.
Criminals today, not the thugs on the street, are pretty savvy. Even the most complex alarm systems are broken into, encryption and systems still have other vulnerabilities and backdoors.
This, I think, may be the real reason cryptography in the US has never been strongly regulated. Somebody at the NSA realized you can't make sure government communications are secure if everybody's trying to hide the latest research from everybody else.
With the world's leading cryptographers publishing their research openly, everyone knows where they stand, and the NSA can react appropriately if a threat to US communication channels appears.
How about the fact that the person supposedly doing this comparison isn't even the one who encoded the video? Instead, he relied on a third party with a vested interest in h.264 to do the encoding for him.
In fact, he's such an utterly useless person that he claims he doesn't even "have access to a VP8 encoder".
What the albatross could do, however, was grab somebody else's satellite and bring it back. We just never used it for that.
How sure are you of that? There have been eight classified or partially-classified shuttle flights. Substantive details are known about most but not all.
Is it possible to generate the needed information in advance?
G-forces in orbital space flight are not as problematic as you seem to think. Space Shuttle launch and reentry is generally 2-3 gravities (more for astronaut comfort than out of any actual safety concern). Everything from high-performance aircraft to race cars experience far more than that on a routine basis.
The forces are also largely predictable and steady. We know when they'll happen and their direction, and their buildup is gradual rather than a shock, making engineering for them quite easy.
There are lots of things about space flight that are difficult, dealing with the g-forces just isn't high on the list.
Reusability is not inherently impractical in a space vehicle, it's just hard, and post-Apollo NASA is spectacularly bad at anything that's hard.
It's also been 30 years. Advancement in understanding of the challenges, not to mention materials science and engineering, should make it a good deal easier than it was then.
Also, NASA isn't even in this equation. It's the Air Force asking for it from private contractors, and the USAF has a pretty reasonable track record on their military launch programs.