It is most likely compiled from C/C++ original using asm.js as the abstraction layer. Unreal plays in the browser reasonably, and Mozilla is working on speedups still.
I'm going to assume I'm right without confirming, but feel free to read more about it yourself and come up with details to complain about rather than js is bad.
Copyright controls the right to copy. You focused on money and fame in your post, but gp began with right to copy. Arguing different sides using different pieces of the argument almost never works. More so because of the personal investment here. So argue the point. If gp is a copyright holder, and objects to the copying even without the possibility of future income, what argument is to be made to that person? It is not merely academic. Disney and Conan Doyle both fought on creative control grounds. With Disney it was a clear money grab in disguise, but the legal argument won. How to convince a creator that as part of the social contract, you lose control after a period? Beyond just stating it if course, and more on topic how to come to grips with a clear legal violation before that contract expired?
The "inside job" nutters are not posting here, but they seem to be alive in other threads. That cut down on the normal useless chatter, leaving it open for this useless chatter.
Peoples' opinions don't change just because their guy is in charge. Sure it happens to some people, but not to others. Overgeneralize if you want, but to make sense you should start with some numbers which can be debunked.
In general, putting laws into place and then turning it over to the other guy really is bad - because you expected your guy to use it for good, and the other guy obviously is only going to abuse it. But that's just generalization.
Based on a sampling of all internet posters, I can conclude that you live in your mother's basement, you speak English as a second language, you have sex with your mother routinely, you smell bad, and your IQ is average at best.
We could be talking about specifics, but that's not where your focus is.
You have said nothing. Wikipedia links will survive until there is no one left to defend the "notability" requirement, and it's hard to tell if permanent notability is granted after a given length of time. I'm sure they will change the rules between now and then.
And then there are the links from tech magazines, which may or may not return responses in the "permalink" fashion. If they don't go bad, the name will probably outlast piles of people, because endless links will still pull dead people to the top of search engines.
Specifically to address your point, no one needs to "mention" anyone. It is an endless circle of search engine results, wiki, article results, and faceless people making stupid links on a moronic web page.
And another side of your point - people searching by name will find results. People searching by something else might find someone else who superseded importance, which is appropriate.
The internet means the typical rules about longevity have to take in to account things like server uptime and free space - all of which may be compromised in the interest of the future. The importance of your message may be hijacked by a power or service outage of a few weeks, intent to the contrary.
I have been arguing with myself for quite a while over this. Mostly American employees? American founders? American headquarters based in America? Started in America?
What prevents BP, previously known as British Petroleum, from moving their headquarters to America, where a large part of their production and sales actually happens? Are they still British, or are they now American?
What if I make a better beer, and want to move to Ireland? Okay this is impossible, but can I relocate my business to where the demand is?
What if the government shuts down my part of the economy, and I relocate in order to simply stay alive as a company, can I move my base of operations to somewhere where it is not illegal? And as long as the industry itself is able to sell to customers, I'm doing business where the customer is, but just based elsewhere so it is not illegal. Argue semantics if you want, I don't feel like typing more than I have.
How can you allow some movement, but not allow all movement? Do you just "know it when (you) see it"? Is that legal? Is it legal to apply an arbitrary standard so that the legal counsel cannot adequately predict and appropriately advise the business?
The status quo, long story longer, is complicated because business is complicated. Economies are complicated. Deciding what happens where in the global economy is a difficult problem, so who gets to decide?
You have taken the stance against a global economy. I'm going to ignore all of the little things, like finding a way to calculate all of the appropriate taxes without adding a cost to the consumers of purchasing a service to do exactly that in each nation, state, county, city, and locale on the planet.
If where things happen is important, we need all kinds of geo-tagging and tracking to ensure people are not cheating on their taxes. Billions of $(currency) are at stake.
You object to tracking internet traffic?
Okay, time for you to put up or shut up. How in the holy shitting fuck of an ass do you want to solve this problem?
The EULA part I agree with, to the extent that ELUA agreement by opening or clicking does not indicate agreement in many places. So piss on that. The other part, more important.
It doesn't look like blurry 2D photos in the middle of a sauna, which has been the problem. Not that there were hairy fat dudes in the background - there just weren't any hot people. Apologies to the furry crowd - I assume you're into hairy fat dudes, I just felt like appealing to the majority.
Now the 2D reductions look considerably better. Use your imagination just a little, compare with anything out there, and good gracious gobshite mcfuckerwad that's awesome.
I'm excited just so the people whining about how 3D, despite representing all 3 dimensions, isn't holographic to the point that you can re-focus or move your head. At least the tech is moving forward so I can say "you have your holograms - shut the fuck up and let me watch my movie".
I'm pretty sure you have your statistics really fucked up there.
I see you are trying to make a point about people generally finding reasons to hate people who are different. This is well known, as society is well defined between "us" and "them" due to basic human nature. It is how we identify friend vs. foe beyond people we know personally. Sociology introductory texts discuss this at length, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
The same people would most likely not be calling for castration. A statistically similar number probably, but that is only because societal norms have changed. There are still people claiming fire and brimstone awaits the gays, and I think they are most likely to be the ones calling for castration. More so, given their repetition of baseless information fed to them, than the folks who are accepting a long-vilified condition.
About the part where we feel more civilized - I think that is justified. A small part of the world hated Jews, a small part hated Commies, a small part hated Canaanites. But given your timeline, the fate of those people seems to be getting better. In your example, pedos go to jail. You have the rare parent who murders a suspect, but it is atypical.
And finally the "projection" accusation - that's so far out on a limb I won't try to explain how mixed up you are. There might be a place for such a profound statement, but in the middle of confirmation that tolerance is now the best approach, and should have been, is pitifully misplaced. In your entire tone, holistically, it seems much more an admission of your own nature, both the poster and the people who moderated it positively, to equate people calling for tolerance with those who hated commies, jews, and pedos.
If you read that last sentence again, and hopefully it does not exceed the amount of punctuation you can comprehend, it's actually quite disturbing. Off-topic, flame-bait, internally inconsistent, and just plain disturbing.
He's dead - nothing is going to do him good. Perhaps there are legalities which will positively affect his estate, perhaps not, I don't care to know.
Even if it is pandering, it is pandering that would not have happened 50 years ago. Or 25 years ago.
This is just a part of the slow generational change in acceptance of people who were persecuted against for no apparent reason. It is hugely significant even if you are completely disconnected from the Gay and Lesbian community, because it is obvious that at government levels, acceptance of homosexuality has crossed the hump. It may not be accepted as normal, but it is no longer inherently deviance nor immorality.
Think of it as pandering if that helps you sleep - but it is a reflection of people, as they grow up in an environment that has no need to vilify gayness, realizing there is nothing to hate. And next generation they may make no note of it at all.
Each generation learns what to hate from the ones previous - but unless there is good reason to keep up the hate, it eventually dies out. When your neighbor kills your father and you kill his brother and he kills your son - that will rage for centuries. But we are gradually learning, "I might find it personally repulsive, but gays don't seem to be causing me or society actual harm".
Mobile means it moves, typically anything "smaller than a notebook". Notebooks traditionally are portable, but not considered mobile. And of course the line is blurred by using mobile and desktop operating systems for in-between devices like tablets. No, a tablet is not a notebook.
So the answer sounds like: because of people like you.
From the tone of your post, you are mocking mobile devices because you hate developing for them. And people who hate working on mobile make bad websites for mobile. That makes it your fault.
You are failing to even acknowledge phones, which these days can make calls but normally communicate every other way possible. That's how I know it's your fault.
I don't need fancy hardware to display a very simple page with minimal graphics, minimal dependency on layout, and minimal functionality. In fact, it is so very easy to make a simple site that works on all mobile browsers - you just don't work so hard at it.
Your focus on speed also seals the deal - it's not about processing speed. If a site is slow, I will most likely blame my device. But if I can't read anything because you wanted to have a floating menu that takes up 3/4 of the screen and causes re-flowing the page when I scroll, you're an asshat. Read HTML, show pictures, load some bits of CSS - that doesn't require speed.
To even focus on speed makes you Chief General In Charge Of Asshattery For Mobiles.
I read the desktop sites for just about every site, including slashdot and excluding Ars Technica, because the AJAX nonsense means I can't open links in a new tab/window. Nothing to do with speed or display - just basic broken functionality. And it is possible to allow both, and make sure your output works on the browsers that hit your site. With just a little pathos that can be accomplished.
Or you can continue being intentionally ignorant, making crappy sites, and blaming hardware for your incompetence.
Despite the enormous threat that terrorism represents, there has been little attempt to put an infrastructure in place to take it head-on. Until now. In 2014, thanks to anti-extremist organizations, along with Secretary of State John Kerryâ(TM)s Global Counterterrorism Forum, society will finally have the resources, money, and time invested to challenge extremist viewpoints. â"Maajid Nawaz, author of Radical: My Journey Out of Islamist Extremism
It's cute that people repeat the "all politicians are bad" mantra, forgetting that America is made up of irrational people who are terrified of the boogeyman, but have no fear of every other thing on the planet that kills less than 3000 people per year.
They don't think the funding is adequate. They don't think metadata snooping is wrong. Not because they have nothing to hide - that is a separate demographic. Because they think that anything that can be done, should be done.
Go ahead and throw out statistics and logic and facts - all of that is irrelevant. Do you remember being a kid and hearing a strange sound in the house alone at night - your heart starts racing, and despite repeating "it's only a branch" or whatever other fact, your adrenal system is already in "fight or flight" mode. You can't logic that away.
For every old Russian immigrant, there are at least four completely irrational people who disagree with you, the Russian woman, and anyone armed with statistics.
Unfortunately, there is only one way to change such a person's opinion. Just as unfortunately, that same treatment will, in certain populations that feel superior and entitled, create a backlash revenge effect. It's the same as attacking someone's beliefs with facts - attack someone's belief of superiority and invincibility with the fact of actual successful attacks. In short, I don't see a solution. Repeated successful attacks won't inure this particular population, and repeated foiled attacks just reinforces the feeling of invincibility.
And yes, you can feel invincible and scared at the same time - that's at the heart of the huge spending, the apathy, and pretty much everything else that's bad about this.
Big government advocates may be happy to oblige, but it won't stop if you get every one of them out of Washington somehow, because the people will invite them right back in.
Because it is slow, making brute force slower. Because the NSA had a good crypto reputation. Because elliptical curve was in vogue. Because they shipped with options so the user can choose rather than accepting the vendor's defaults- isn't that rule 1 when buying?
You ask why as if there were no answer. I'm sure all of these, plus conversations with NSA, plus whatever wad part of the payoff, were all part of it. There is no single cause.
And, especially after being sold, they were under pressure to be a money maker. I might have accepted money to do something I was going to do anyway, under those conditions.
Not defending anyone. In retrospect it was obviously a dumb move, and someone should have been suspicious.
It won't. It is now the leading reason to to anything, legal or not. The actual war is psychological warfare on citizens who either are bad at math, or good at being led by appeal to emotion. If not one failed attack happened in the next ten years, the people in charge would either claim it is still necessary because it works, or point to any attack anywhere in the world and wish we had been monitoring them. The end game: the declaration of independence is not repeatable. The people who want it would be fringe terrorists, and convincing the rest for their own good is impossible. The ones in power have the upper hand, and will never let go. For any real change, the US needs its Hitler. Preferably without the genocide and world war, but it will take someone that innately powerful to take any steps away from what is in place.
Performance sensitive is not the issue here. The argument against JavaScript has always been no because it's slow. This at least opens the door for options other than Silverlight, ActiveX, Applets, and whatever other binary junk people want to run in my browser.
If you even considered for one minute running number crunching like Seti@home or other distributed computing, or bitcoin mining, or anything else that would tax your cooling and cost you energy, in JavaScript, sign yourself up for the looney bin.
In fact, just preface this to the headline and it really makes a lot of sense: "For all you whiny developers who insist on using proprietary plugins because scripts are SOOO slow - look at these results and ask yourself who needs native code now?"
Several people answered this question as if it were addressed to everything ever in the history of computers. You don't need native code because js is just as fast, so NOTHING you do will ever need native code. Is that how you read it? And you think it is a legitimate question? Won't a JavaScript implementation need native code? A BIOS?
Clearly there is a need - so there must be more to the question, like audience and context.
Instead of overgeneralizing, let's specify the subject. As was said above, "scripting isn't programming". This ignores many of the huge libraries written in scripts, such as ASM.js, which were nowhere near trivial to crap out.
A few lines of scripting isn't programming, but it qualifies as "website development". Also included is a fully separated 3-tier, pre-compiled architecture with persistence and unit tests.
Websites are frequently, way less than distributed applications. Speaking of websites as if they encompass only a part of what's true speaks of the ignorance of your experience. And I would have replied to Dahamma above but you got the mod points.
I don't see any proof of rigor in anything I have seen - I do see PHP and python, C# and jsp - all both with and without any rigor. Being compiled does not imply rigor, and being separated across N tiers does not mean rigor. I'm pretty sure you mis-typed, but the information here being general is, in general, completely without factual basis.
In fact, I would argue that more people are writing websites via programming, where they used to do the same via scripts, and with the exact same regard (or lack of) to rigor.
You took your definition, or connotation, of hobbyist, and objected when someone else's definition did not match yours. There are plenty of definitions; feel free to share yours. Meanwhile, the study here is not making changes to theirs. The result is valid for those scenarios where the definition matches. I would expect a data scientist to be better at this sort of thing, but here we are.
You would pay for direct benefit, but do not want to pay when it indirectly benefits you. That is so much more ethically corrupt than compulsion. I believe this thread is about privatising. There are two viable companies doing exactly that, and more trying. I would question whether they would have tried by now if not for the race to the moon. That initial spend was vital to the current environment. But no one directly benefitted from any of that spending. According to what you wrote, you would prefer that no space program got off the ground. Or, you assert that enough monied altruists would have donated to accomplish the same feat. Either is preposterous. But then you say you would give voluntarily. Do you see direct benefit? Ah, it boils down to the libertarian view. Even if you see the value, you do not want to force other people to act in their own self interest. Next time, just say "libertarian" and save us the time. Your argument is based on dogma, not logic, and you will gain no converts by arguing based on logic. Stick to dogma.
The government held 900 million shares of GM stock in 2009. The next data point I can find is Nov. 2010, when GM had 1.5M shares.
That would have made USA a major stockholder, if not the majority stockholder. Failing to enforce this control by voting is the government's fault.
If they only wanted to guarantee payback by investing in stock, they were stupid. If they failed to vote, they were stupid. Someone decided stock was a good idea, and it wasn't.
That GM lost money is at least partly the fault of the shareholders and board.
Even if it happened tomorrow, the suit is about what happened before the opinion, and the lack of instances before the opinion. It would be irrelevant, and far too obvious. Plus, a single instance would be argued as dumb luck, given the number of discovered and foiled attempts in that time. Did anyone really think about this before moderating up?
There is a huge difference this time. The NSA is on record both lying and clarifying. Standing will not be an issue unless the briefs are incompetently written.
I am just guessing here, but the number of EFF/ACLU/EPIC supporters who are helping fight back is probably way higher than the number of people who saw a difference in valuation of their pension as a result of this market blip.
Your derision is therefore both ill-conceived and clearly unconsidered.
Completely unrelated subjects here. Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund is a very small entity in the scheme of business, representing a single state's retirees for a single occupation. "We" in that case means the few people responsible for making sure that fund does not lose value.
On the other hand, entities such as the ACLU and EPIC are very much concerned about your rights when it comes to security and law enforcement, and are actively fighting back. They just happen not to be part of this news story. A simple search of one of them plus FISC or NSA shows that they are, indeed, actively working on this.
I assume you are responding to the part about "a law that probably wouldn't even stand up in court."
The court that issues these decisions (FISC) is not the court that decides what is Constitutional, FISC could very well be rubber-stamping warrants with little or none or the requirements for a proper warrant.
Fighting the decision to turn over data that law enforcement considers essential is not good business sense. The only lawsuits I am aware of are filed by individuals, EPIC, and ACLU.
Google could very well have said "this is not a legal decision and we refuse to comply with an illegal order". And it would have been very expensive, because anything that could be used as evidence would most likely be disallowed. Finding enough information to support the case would be time consuming.
The strategy is, in effect, to publicise the lawsuit, and the fact that evidence was not allowed, and they lost because of it. Lose the first battle, but go on record as having fought back. And, the various decisions made will likely unravel given additional lawsuits. In the same way that no one had standing to object to the information dragnet on everyone, because no one could prove they were affected. Eventually, that fell apart.
Because it was a court order does not mean it was a valid order.
Slashdot Mirror
It is most likely compiled from C/C++ original using asm.js as the abstraction layer. Unreal plays in the browser reasonably, and Mozilla is working on speedups still.
I'm going to assume I'm right without confirming, but feel free to read more about it yourself and come up with details to complain about rather than js is bad.
Copyright controls the right to copy. You focused on money and fame in your post, but gp began with right to copy.
Arguing different sides using different pieces of the argument almost never works. More so because of the personal investment here. So argue the point.
If gp is a copyright holder, and objects to the copying even without the possibility of future income, what argument is to be made to that person?
It is not merely academic. Disney and Conan Doyle both fought on creative control grounds. With Disney it was a clear money grab in disguise, but the legal argument won.
How to convince a creator that as part of the social contract, you lose control after a period? Beyond just stating it if course, and more on topic how to come to grips with a clear legal violation before that contract expired?
The "inside job" nutters are not posting here, but they seem to be alive in other threads. That cut down on the normal useless chatter, leaving it open for this useless chatter.
You're free to form them, you just haven't.
Peoples' opinions don't change just because their guy is in charge. Sure it happens to some people, but not to others. Overgeneralize if you want, but to make sense you should start with some numbers which can be debunked.
In general, putting laws into place and then turning it over to the other guy really is bad - because you expected your guy to use it for good, and the other guy obviously is only going to abuse it. But that's just generalization.
Based on a sampling of all internet posters, I can conclude that you live in your mother's basement, you speak English as a second language, you have sex with your mother routinely, you smell bad, and your IQ is average at best.
We could be talking about specifics, but that's not where your focus is.
You have said nothing. Wikipedia links will survive until there is no one left to defend the "notability" requirement, and it's hard to tell if permanent notability is granted after a given length of time. I'm sure they will change the rules between now and then.
And then there are the links from tech magazines, which may or may not return responses in the "permalink" fashion. If they don't go bad, the name will probably outlast piles of people, because endless links will still pull dead people to the top of search engines.
Specifically to address your point, no one needs to "mention" anyone. It is an endless circle of search engine results, wiki, article results, and faceless people making stupid links on a moronic web page.
And another side of your point - people searching by name will find results. People searching by something else might find someone else who superseded importance, which is appropriate.
The internet means the typical rules about longevity have to take in to account things like server uptime and free space - all of which may be compromised in the interest of the future. The importance of your message may be hijacked by a power or service outage of a few weeks, intent to the contrary.
Why is it not really a Bermuda company?
I have been arguing with myself for quite a while over this. Mostly American employees? American founders? American headquarters based in America? Started in America?
What prevents BP, previously known as British Petroleum, from moving their headquarters to America, where a large part of their production and sales actually happens? Are they still British, or are they now American?
What if I make a better beer, and want to move to Ireland? Okay this is impossible, but can I relocate my business to where the demand is?
What if the government shuts down my part of the economy, and I relocate in order to simply stay alive as a company, can I move my base of operations to somewhere where it is not illegal? And as long as the industry itself is able to sell to customers, I'm doing business where the customer is, but just based elsewhere so it is not illegal. Argue semantics if you want, I don't feel like typing more than I have.
How can you allow some movement, but not allow all movement? Do you just "know it when (you) see it"? Is that legal? Is it legal to apply an arbitrary standard so that the legal counsel cannot adequately predict and appropriately advise the business?
The status quo, long story longer, is complicated because business is complicated. Economies are complicated. Deciding what happens where in the global economy is a difficult problem, so who gets to decide?
Only if you don't understand a global economy.
You have taken the stance against a global economy. I'm going to ignore all of the little things, like finding a way to calculate all of the appropriate taxes without adding a cost to the consumers of purchasing a service to do exactly that in each nation, state, county, city, and locale on the planet.
If where things happen is important, we need all kinds of geo-tagging and tracking to ensure people are not cheating on their taxes. Billions of $(currency) are at stake.
You object to tracking internet traffic?
Okay, time for you to put up or shut up. How in the holy shitting fuck of an ass do you want to solve this problem?
The EULA part I agree with, to the extent that ELUA agreement by opening or clicking does not indicate agreement in many places. So piss on that. The other part, more important.
It doesn't look like blurry 2D photos in the middle of a sauna, which has been the problem. Not that there were hairy fat dudes in the background - there just weren't any hot people. Apologies to the furry crowd - I assume you're into hairy fat dudes, I just felt like appealing to the majority.
Now the 2D reductions look considerably better. Use your imagination just a little, compare with anything out there, and good gracious gobshite mcfuckerwad that's awesome.
I'm excited just so the people whining about how 3D, despite representing all 3 dimensions, isn't holographic to the point that you can re-focus or move your head. At least the tech is moving forward so I can say "you have your holograms - shut the fuck up and let me watch my movie".
I'm pretty sure you have your statistics really fucked up there.
I see you are trying to make a point about people generally finding reasons to hate people who are different. This is well known, as society is well defined between "us" and "them" due to basic human nature. It is how we identify friend vs. foe beyond people we know personally. Sociology introductory texts discuss this at length, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
The same people would most likely not be calling for castration. A statistically similar number probably, but that is only because societal norms have changed. There are still people claiming fire and brimstone awaits the gays, and I think they are most likely to be the ones calling for castration. More so, given their repetition of baseless information fed to them, than the folks who are accepting a long-vilified condition.
About the part where we feel more civilized - I think that is justified. A small part of the world hated Jews, a small part hated Commies, a small part hated Canaanites. But given your timeline, the fate of those people seems to be getting better. In your example, pedos go to jail. You have the rare parent who murders a suspect, but it is atypical.
And finally the "projection" accusation - that's so far out on a limb I won't try to explain how mixed up you are. There might be a place for such a profound statement, but in the middle of confirmation that tolerance is now the best approach, and should have been, is pitifully misplaced. In your entire tone, holistically, it seems much more an admission of your own nature, both the poster and the people who moderated it positively, to equate people calling for tolerance with those who hated commies, jews, and pedos.
If you read that last sentence again, and hopefully it does not exceed the amount of punctuation you can comprehend, it's actually quite disturbing. Off-topic, flame-bait, internally inconsistent, and just plain disturbing.
He's dead - nothing is going to do him good. Perhaps there are legalities which will positively affect his estate, perhaps not, I don't care to know.
Even if it is pandering, it is pandering that would not have happened 50 years ago. Or 25 years ago.
This is just a part of the slow generational change in acceptance of people who were persecuted against for no apparent reason. It is hugely significant even if you are completely disconnected from the Gay and Lesbian community, because it is obvious that at government levels, acceptance of homosexuality has crossed the hump. It may not be accepted as normal, but it is no longer inherently deviance nor immorality.
Think of it as pandering if that helps you sleep - but it is a reflection of people, as they grow up in an environment that has no need to vilify gayness, realizing there is nothing to hate. And next generation they may make no note of it at all.
Each generation learns what to hate from the ones previous - but unless there is good reason to keep up the hate, it eventually dies out. When your neighbor kills your father and you kill his brother and he kills your son - that will rage for centuries. But we are gradually learning, "I might find it personally repulsive, but gays don't seem to be causing me or society actual harm".
Mobile means it moves, typically anything "smaller than a notebook". Notebooks traditionally are portable, but not considered mobile. And of course the line is blurred by using mobile and desktop operating systems for in-between devices like tablets. No, a tablet is not a notebook.
So the answer sounds like: because of people like you.
From the tone of your post, you are mocking mobile devices because you hate developing for them. And people who hate working on mobile make bad websites for mobile. That makes it your fault.
You are failing to even acknowledge phones, which these days can make calls but normally communicate every other way possible. That's how I know it's your fault.
I don't need fancy hardware to display a very simple page with minimal graphics, minimal dependency on layout, and minimal functionality. In fact, it is so very easy to make a simple site that works on all mobile browsers - you just don't work so hard at it.
Your focus on speed also seals the deal - it's not about processing speed. If a site is slow, I will most likely blame my device. But if I can't read anything because you wanted to have a floating menu that takes up 3/4 of the screen and causes re-flowing the page when I scroll, you're an asshat. Read HTML, show pictures, load some bits of CSS - that doesn't require speed.
To even focus on speed makes you Chief General In Charge Of Asshattery For Mobiles.
I read the desktop sites for just about every site, including slashdot and excluding Ars Technica, because the AJAX nonsense means I can't open links in a new tab/window. Nothing to do with speed or display - just basic broken functionality. And it is possible to allow both, and make sure your output works on the browsers that hit your site. With just a little pathos that can be accomplished.
Or you can continue being intentionally ignorant, making crappy sites, and blaming hardware for your incompetence.
It's cute that people repeat the "all politicians are bad" mantra, forgetting that America is made up of irrational people who are terrified of the boogeyman, but have no fear of every other thing on the planet that kills less than 3000 people per year.
They don't think the funding is adequate. They don't think metadata snooping is wrong. Not because they have nothing to hide - that is a separate demographic. Because they think that anything that can be done, should be done.
Go ahead and throw out statistics and logic and facts - all of that is irrelevant. Do you remember being a kid and hearing a strange sound in the house alone at night - your heart starts racing, and despite repeating "it's only a branch" or whatever other fact, your adrenal system is already in "fight or flight" mode. You can't logic that away.
For every old Russian immigrant, there are at least four completely irrational people who disagree with you, the Russian woman, and anyone armed with statistics.
Unfortunately, there is only one way to change such a person's opinion. Just as unfortunately, that same treatment will, in certain populations that feel superior and entitled, create a backlash revenge effect. It's the same as attacking someone's beliefs with facts - attack someone's belief of superiority and invincibility with the fact of actual successful attacks. In short, I don't see a solution. Repeated successful attacks won't inure this particular population, and repeated foiled attacks just reinforces the feeling of invincibility.
And yes, you can feel invincible and scared at the same time - that's at the heart of the huge spending, the apathy, and pretty much everything else that's bad about this.
Big government advocates may be happy to oblige, but it won't stop if you get every one of them out of Washington somehow, because the people will invite them right back in.
Because it is slow, making brute force slower.
Because the NSA had a good crypto reputation.
Because elliptical curve was in vogue.
Because they shipped with options so the user can choose rather than accepting the vendor's defaults- isn't that rule 1 when buying?
You ask why as if there were no answer. I'm sure all of these, plus conversations with NSA, plus whatever wad part of the payoff, were all part of it. There is no single cause.
And, especially after being sold, they were under pressure to be a money maker. I might have accepted money to do something I was going to do anyway, under those conditions.
Not defending anyone. In retrospect it was obviously a dumb move, and someone should have been suspicious.
It won't. It is now the leading reason to to anything, legal or not. The actual war is psychological warfare on citizens who either are bad at math, or good at being led by appeal to emotion.
If not one failed attack happened in the next ten years, the people in charge would either claim it is still necessary because it works, or point to any attack anywhere in the world and wish we had been monitoring them.
The end game: the declaration of independence is not repeatable. The people who want it would be fringe terrorists, and convincing the rest for their own good is impossible.
The ones in power have the upper hand, and will never let go. For any real change, the US needs its Hitler. Preferably without the genocide and world war, but it will take someone that innately powerful to take any steps away from what is in place.
Performance sensitive is not the issue here. The argument against JavaScript has always been no because it's slow. This at least opens the door for options other than Silverlight, ActiveX, Applets, and whatever other binary junk people want to run in my browser.
If you even considered for one minute running number crunching like Seti@home or other distributed computing, or bitcoin mining, or anything else that would tax your cooling and cost you energy, in JavaScript, sign yourself up for the looney bin.
In fact, just preface this to the headline and it really makes a lot of sense: "For all you whiny developers who insist on using proprietary plugins because scripts are SOOO slow - look at these results and ask yourself who needs native code now?"
Several people answered this question as if it were addressed to everything ever in the history of computers. You don't need native code because js is just as fast, so NOTHING you do will ever need native code. Is that how you read it? And you think it is a legitimate question? Won't a JavaScript implementation need native code? A BIOS?
Clearly there is a need - so there must be more to the question, like audience and context.
Instead of overgeneralizing, let's specify the subject. As was said above, "scripting isn't programming". This ignores many of the huge libraries written in scripts, such as ASM.js, which were nowhere near trivial to crap out.
A few lines of scripting isn't programming, but it qualifies as "website development". Also included is a fully separated 3-tier, pre-compiled architecture with persistence and unit tests.
Websites are frequently, way less than distributed applications. Speaking of websites as if they encompass only a part of what's true speaks of the ignorance of your experience. And I would have replied to Dahamma above but you got the mod points.
I don't see any proof of rigor in anything I have seen - I do see PHP and python, C# and jsp - all both with and without any rigor. Being compiled does not imply rigor, and being separated across N tiers does not mean rigor. I'm pretty sure you mis-typed, but the information here being general is, in general, completely without factual basis.
In fact, I would argue that more people are writing websites via programming, where they used to do the same via scripts, and with the exact same regard (or lack of) to rigor.
You took your definition, or connotation, of hobbyist, and objected when someone else's definition did not match yours.
There are plenty of definitions; feel free to share yours. Meanwhile, the study here is not making changes to theirs.
The result is valid for those scenarios where the definition matches. I would expect a data scientist to be better at this sort of thing, but here we are.
You would pay for direct benefit, but do not want to pay when it indirectly benefits you. That is so much more ethically corrupt than compulsion.
I believe this thread is about privatising. There are two viable companies doing exactly that, and more trying.
I would question whether they would have tried by now if not for the race to the moon. That initial spend was vital to the current environment. But no one directly benefitted from any of that spending.
According to what you wrote, you would prefer that no space program got off the ground.
Or, you assert that enough monied altruists would have donated to accomplish the same feat. Either is preposterous.
But then you say you would give voluntarily. Do you see direct benefit?
Ah, it boils down to the libertarian view. Even if you see the value, you do not want to force other people to act in their own self interest.
Next time, just say "libertarian" and save us the time. Your argument is based on dogma, not logic, and you will gain no converts by arguing based on logic. Stick to dogma.
The government held 900 million shares of GM stock in 2009. The next data point I can find is Nov. 2010, when GM had 1.5M shares.
That would have made USA a major stockholder, if not the majority stockholder. Failing to enforce this control by voting is the government's fault.
If they only wanted to guarantee payback by investing in stock, they were stupid. If they failed to vote, they were stupid. Someone decided stock was a good idea, and it wasn't.
That GM lost money is at least partly the fault of the shareholders and board.
Even if it happened tomorrow, the suit is about what happened before the opinion, and the lack of instances before the opinion.
It would be irrelevant, and far too obvious. Plus, a single instance would be argued as dumb luck, given the number of discovered and foiled attempts in that time.
Did anyone really think about this before moderating up?
There is a huge difference this time. The NSA is on record both lying and clarifying. Standing will not be an issue unless the briefs are incompetently written.
Law is slow. Due process is slow.
I'm not worried about this being thrown out - it will be.
I'm worried that a law will be passed the next year that takes 15-20 years to be thrown out.
Unless you want to revolt against an army of drones, the only option is choosing carefully for whom you vote, to prevent bad law.
You replied to " blame congress also" with "blame the president also".
And at least 3 people thought it was important enough to waste mod points on.
I'm going to cry for you all when I get home, and hope you learn about context. It helps.
I am just guessing here, but the number of EFF/ACLU/EPIC supporters who are helping fight back is probably way higher than the number of people who saw a difference in valuation of their pension as a result of this market blip.
Your derision is therefore both ill-conceived and clearly unconsidered.
Completely unrelated subjects here. Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund is a very small entity in the scheme of business, representing a single state's retirees for a single occupation. "We" in that case means the few people responsible for making sure that fund does not lose value.
On the other hand, entities such as the ACLU and EPIC are very much concerned about your rights when it comes to security and law enforcement, and are actively fighting back. They just happen not to be part of this news story. A simple search of one of them plus FISC or NSA shows that they are, indeed, actively working on this.
I assume you are responding to the part about "a law that probably wouldn't even stand up in court."
The court that issues these decisions (FISC) is not the court that decides what is Constitutional, FISC could very well be rubber-stamping warrants with little or none or the requirements for a proper warrant.
Fighting the decision to turn over data that law enforcement considers essential is not good business sense. The only lawsuits I am aware of are filed by individuals, EPIC, and ACLU.
Google could very well have said "this is not a legal decision and we refuse to comply with an illegal order". And it would have been very expensive, because anything that could be used as evidence would most likely be disallowed. Finding enough information to support the case would be time consuming.
The strategy is, in effect, to publicise the lawsuit, and the fact that evidence was not allowed, and they lost because of it. Lose the first battle, but go on record as having fought back. And, the various decisions made will likely unravel given additional lawsuits. In the same way that no one had standing to object to the information dragnet on everyone, because no one could prove they were affected. Eventually, that fell apart.
Because it was a court order does not mean it was a valid order.