One of the reasons Apple can do this is that its dependency on government contracts is very, very low. Cell carriers are pretty dependent on the Feds and have a lot of revenue/relationships at risk.
That's not saying what Apple is doing isn't great, it's that it's easier for Apple to do that because the cost of doing it is relatively low.
The main problem with the blockchain is that it's a consensus. That's OK as long as anyone isn't actively trying to subvert it. If someone does actively attempt to subvert it, would anyone actually notice?
The other issue with it is, of course, trust. At some point you have to trust someone, which leads to the normal theft, fraud, etc issues. That's not really a blockchain problem per se, it's more of an operationalization issue.
Dunno, I've been a happy AWS user for years. Compared to everything out there they're the cheapest, best performing, most transparent, and easiest to use. I say that as someone who's getting abused by softlayer on a daily basis.
Clinton knowingly had classified information on a server that was not secured. If you can't understand that, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.
As SecState, she should be highly aware of what was classified and what wasn't...markings notwithstanding.
Just because you don't understand the rules doesn't make what she did OK.
"though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"
Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
These sort of things are too complicated for the public and press to understand, which is why the State Department and Clintons keep saying them. As the Secretary of State, Clinton should be aware of, say, the rules behind classified information.
If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.
In real life, people who start projects aren't as import and you'd think.
Who fixes the bugs and gets things to work? Maintainers. Who fixes the fucked up architecture? Maintainers. Who does the incremental improvements that make software better? Maintainers. Who cares that the software actually does what it's supposed to? Maintainers.
The difference between starters and maintainers is the difference between a sperm donor and a dad. Without maintainers there would be no good software, because starters generally don't make good software - they make software that does one thing.
As anyone who does this for a living knows, it's the execution that matters, not the ideas.
I was doing buffered reads 20 years ago. You only need 1k of buffer to get a substantial performance improvement...and that was with floppies and tape.
I mean, don't they teach this stuff in school? The disk travels at x RPM, so every byte you read means you have to wait for the sector to come around again. It doesn't really matter what x is (unless it's an SSD), because it's slow. It's like forever slow. You might as well get coffee and go to the bathroom waiting.
Wow, reading one byte at a time unbuffered? Who does that in real life? It's been well-known for like 30 years that buffered reading is an order of magnitude faster than byte-at-a-time - which matches the above result. The standard C library does buffered reads, unless you turn them off explicitly.
Did someone really turn that off explicitly? Why?
Jesus, someone should check the XML parsers. Maybe the same guy wrote an XML parser and it's doing byte reads.
The history of science is littered with ideas considered crazy.
The problem is that something is considered crazy until it isn't, and there's no way a priori to tell if something considered crazy will pan out. That doesn't stop people from having an opinion about it.
Of course, it's difficult for a reporter to actually quote someone saying "well, I really have no idea." Reportage is biased towards certainty, and the reporter can always find someone willing to say something.
Science reporting is bad because reporters are lazy and rewrite press releases.
If they did simple things, like looked at absolute numbers instead of percentages, or understood absolute and relative risks, or even understood statistics they might do a better job. But that requires math and statistical knowledge, both of which are hard for reporters. If they could do those they wouldn't have been reporters.
Maybe they could apply some critical thinking skills too? Although a reporter with no credentials probably wouldn't get real far down that path.
I gasp every time I see someone who bothered to learn emacs.
Actually a good UX person recognizes the audience for a given piece of software and designs for that audience. That was well known back in the stoplight book. The problem is that product people don't realize that grandma is not the appropriate target audience for everything.
Some of the older Oracle products only support SHA-1. Upgrading to a newer version or Oracle will cost them millions. Won't someone think of the Oracle user base?
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the list? For research purposes only, of course!
Theoretically, everything will balance eventually. Eventually can be a really long time, but it's usually a really short time.
One of the reasons Apple can do this is that its dependency on government contracts is very, very low. Cell carriers are pretty dependent on the Feds and have a lot of revenue/relationships at risk.
That's not saying what Apple is doing isn't great, it's that it's easier for Apple to do that because the cost of doing it is relatively low.
The main problem with the blockchain is that it's a consensus. That's OK as long as anyone isn't actively trying to subvert it. If someone does actively attempt to subvert it, would anyone actually notice?
The other issue with it is, of course, trust. At some point you have to trust someone, which leads to the normal theft, fraud, etc issues. That's not really a blockchain problem per se, it's more of an operationalization issue.
Grue Orange Haunches and Hands the lame few leopard that true in lavender?
Dunno, I've been a happy AWS user for years. Compared to everything out there they're the cheapest, best performing, most transparent, and easiest to use. I say that as someone who's getting abused by softlayer on a daily basis.
The tech world is littered with companies that dominated then died.
Nokia, Motorola, Blackberry.
When did NO and CO become toxins?
My brain has been going for decades, and not only have I not been able to upgrade it I've been actively degenerating it's performance.
3M figured out how to make a force field.
http://amasci.com/weird/unusua...
Clinton knowingly had classified information on a server that was not secured. If you can't understand that, you're either a moron or a hyperpartisan loon.
As SecState, she should be highly aware of what was classified and what wasn't...markings notwithstanding.
Just because you don't understand the rules doesn't make what she did OK.
Yeah, because whitespace never gets changed by stuff inadvertently.
Yeah, it's crazy. "Let's make some invisible character with a variable width significant."
"though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"
Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
These sort of things are too complicated for the public and press to understand, which is why the State Department and Clintons keep saying them. As the Secretary of State, Clinton should be aware of, say, the rules behind classified information.
If she was anyone else she'd be nailed to the wall already.
In real life, people who start projects aren't as import and you'd think.
Who fixes the bugs and gets things to work? Maintainers.
Who fixes the fucked up architecture? Maintainers.
Who does the incremental improvements that make software better? Maintainers.
Who cares that the software actually does what it's supposed to? Maintainers.
The difference between starters and maintainers is the difference between a sperm donor and a dad. Without maintainers there would be no good software, because starters generally don't make good software - they make software that does one thing.
As anyone who does this for a living knows, it's the execution that matters, not the ideas.
I was doing buffered reads 20 years ago. You only need 1k of buffer to get a substantial performance improvement...and that was with floppies and tape.
I mean, don't they teach this stuff in school? The disk travels at x RPM, so every byte you read means you have to wait for the sector to come around again. It doesn't really matter what x is (unless it's an SSD), because it's slow. It's like forever slow. You might as well get coffee and go to the bathroom waiting.
This is like I/O 101.
Wow, reading one byte at a time unbuffered? Who does that in real life? It's been well-known for like 30 years that buffered reading is an order of magnitude faster than byte-at-a-time - which matches the above result. The standard C library does buffered reads, unless you turn them off explicitly.
Did someone really turn that off explicitly? Why?
Jesus, someone should check the XML parsers. Maybe the same guy wrote an XML parser and it's doing byte reads.
Slapping kids upside the head, while amusing and culturally acceptable, seriously degrades the academic performance of Our Fellow Americans.
PSA: don't slap your child upside the head.
The history of science is littered with ideas considered crazy.
The problem is that something is considered crazy until it isn't, and there's no way a priori to tell if something considered crazy will pan out. That doesn't stop people from having an opinion about it.
Of course, it's difficult for a reporter to actually quote someone saying "well, I really have no idea." Reportage is biased towards certainty, and the reporter can always find someone willing to say something.
Science reporting is bad because reporters are lazy and rewrite press releases.
If they did simple things, like looked at absolute numbers instead of percentages, or understood absolute and relative risks, or even understood statistics they might do a better job. But that requires math and statistical knowledge, both of which are hard for reporters. If they could do those they wouldn't have been reporters.
Maybe they could apply some critical thinking skills too? Although a reporter with no credentials probably wouldn't get real far down that path.
I gasp every time I see someone who bothered to learn emacs.
Actually a good UX person recognizes the audience for a given piece of software and designs for that audience. That was well known back in the stoplight book. The problem is that product people don't realize that grandma is not the appropriate target audience for everything.
By definition, anyone here is someone the NSA doesn't care about anyway, so who cares about encryption?
Porting from Oracle to Postgres is free too, if you want everything to break.
Some of the older Oracle products only support SHA-1. Upgrading to a newer version or Oracle will cost them millions. Won't someone think of the Oracle user base?
I would think that if these subtle bugs exist they'd be caught by the test suites. Do you have any actual evidence of these subtle bugs?