Its far more convenient to have the pdf open in a separate tab than having to manage it in a separate window, or being greeted with a "what to do with this file" dialog.
Now they need the state, crying for help because evil nasty criminals stole stuff from them. But when its about paying taxes, or helping the FBI decrypt a shooter's iPhone, they say fuck the state.
I don't have anything against companies building products that can't be decrypted. But this iPhone was a product that *could* be decrypted by apple, but they refused simply to protect their image as manufacturer of phones that can't be decrypted.
The feds should decline investigating until apple pays its fucking taxes and agrees to aid law enforcement with the decryption of iPhones.
I agree, having a centralized repository is bad, but what is even worse is what we are currently having: hundreds of CAs world-wide being able to sign certs for any domain in the planet without any oversight.
So while it is a good reflex to be upset about something centralized, in the case of CAs its the opposite: the more CAs you trust, the bigger the chance that one of them sold a signing cert to some shady country or something.
Yes, a system where multiple entities have to agree before giving out a cert would help the system alot.
Your criticism of "free" looks misplaced. Handing out certificates barely require any manual intervention, nor any resources (if you disregard for the server costs). So its only straightforward to make obtaining them free.
The process of dealing with certificates was shitty to begin with, but at least I figured it out already and it's relatively simple, now I'm forced to deal with another layer of crap on top of that?
In fact they've tried to make it easier. Most people just want to get the job done, nothing more. The "layer" of crap removes one big problem with SSL certificates: manual renewal. Usually you have to renew certificates manually, but with the program from Let's Encrypt, this happens automatically.
Maybe in the future this is even built into the HTTP servers, so that you don't have to install third party software. Its all just checking whether the cert is expired, and running the ACME protocol to get a new one automatically.
Why the heck do they actually require to store e-mail addresses the first place? ACME works with public keys and cryptography, no? Or was it the email addresses for some forum or something, unrelated from the core service?
For facebook, you are the product, not the customer. I don't get it why people think otherwise and then first use it and after that get upset if they get treated like a product.
Elon Musk is a bit critical about silicon valley, saying that there is too much talent bound by internet startups.
I think he is right. We do need people to innovate in many other areas as well, and apply the same kind of "disruption" in non-software markets. Tesla is really disrupting the car industry, and there are many more industries.
I think one sector which still can see lots of growth and innovation is the medicine sector. We haven't understood so many processes in the body, and health issues impact the lives of many people sometimes very severely.
Also, I think politics needs disruption as well. Think of climate change for example, the threat of islamism and other despotist ideologies, or of instable states around the globe. All these problems are really complex and solving them requires really good skills.
Working for startups that disrupt how one tags images or something is really waste of talent IMO. Also, there is lots of potential $$$ to be made on this.
More people use google every day (or have an iphone) than have ever set foot on US soil.
These companies are involved in every part of our lives, and a single descision of their headquarters has implications *worldwide* and depending on how fast its enrolled *the next day*.
They do have this major influence, and they actually use it. Facebook is manipulating news stories. Google is lobbying for TPP.
These tech giants *are* governments. They get their own exceptions from the US government to get foreign workers to work for them in the US. They don't pay any taxes, in no nation they operate. One of the first things you do if you don't accept the sovereignty of another nation is to not pay taxes. Remember the "no taxation without representation" debate?
- Rust is essentially a proprietary language, even if the source code is available.
I'd guess you say this because there is no standards committee for Rust? Well yeah, maybe that makes it "proprietary", but that isn't something bad. Linux has a dictator as well, just like many other projects. In the context of programming languages, at least Go, Java and Swift are "proprietary but open source" as well.
The great thing about open source is that if upstream fucks up, people create a fork. Think of LibreOffice for example.
- There is only one implementation of Rust. You're fucked if there's a problem with it. You can't use an alternative compiler, even temporarily, because none exist!
Does Go have an alternative compiler? Does Swift have one? This is standard for younger programming languages.
- The only implementation of Rust is very buggy (over 2,000 open bugs right now! [github.com]), despite it being written in Rust, which is a language that's supposed to make it harder to write buggier code!
This incredibly weird and wrong argument has been posted by ACs on slashdot for some months now. I'll just put this link here: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
In fact, its a bad sign for Rust to have "only" 2k open bugs, more successful projects have even more bugs in their trackers than Rust.
- The "safety" Rust promises is only as good as the compiler that implements it, which as we can see from the over 2,000 open bugs is very questionable!
The major security benefits added by Rust are thanks to things people coding e.g. in C have to do themselves, like free()-ing stuff. As with self driving cars, this added automation only needs to be better than human in order to be the better alternative, not perfect. And I'm sure Rust is inside that range.
- Rust isn't as portable as C++ and many other languages.
You can't write an operating system in Go, but you can do it in Rust. In fact there is even a project writing one.
- Rust's syntax is mediocre, and it some cases it's worse than C++.
This is about taste. I like Rust syntax. If you don't like it its your problem.
- Rust's ownership semantics are inconvenient to use and difficult for many typical programmers to understand, even compared to C++'s RAII.
There is a high entry barrier, yes. But I think for people who are generally not accustomed to lower level languages like C/C++ its easier to not have to worry about stuff like allocation, and have the compiler say "this is wrong" if there is a problem, instead of stuff compiling but then failing horrendously or doing stuff like memory leaks or even stuff like race conditions, which only mean a problem in a fraction of the cases.
- Rust lacks proper class OO.
That's true. I can avoid it, for me its not a problem.
- Rust lacks proper exceptions.
I consider this a feature. Exceptions are one of the major sources of bugs in C++. Its much better to have the Result type, where you can recover from errors much faster. Recovering from errors is faster in Rust than in C++!
- Rust's standard library is inadequate and incomplete.
The standard library of C++ is far more inadequate and incomplete than Rust's. I am missing many functions I have available in Rust when writing C++.
Some nice stuff is marked unstable but you can use the nightly compiler if you want to use it.
- Rust's supposed benefits are typically no better than what
If your restaurant is anything but shit and produces the food from fresh ingredients (maybe this kind of restaurant doesn't exist in england and its former colonies like America, dunno), then the owner is actually really happy if you pre-order by a day or two. They need to know what to buy. Their alternative is to let stuff rot away, and maybe sell it to customers just before its too rotten to be kept longer. Or to say "its out" when the customers want it. But neither of them is pleasing for the customer. So better pre-order if you are organizing a larger party.
Rust can be seen as some kind of imperative Haskell:
* Like Haskell, Rust has very strong typing, and auto-deriving of types. * Guards and case in Haskell becomes match in Rust, with all the pattern matching you can do in Haskell * The Result and Option types in Rust are essentially the same as the Either and Maybe types in Haskell
I'm not 100% certain, but I think one of the two OCaml compilers is written in C. With this you can bootstrap OCaml from a language where multiple compiler vendors exist in order to bootstrap Rust.
Well there was a history of how the Rust compiler was "first" compiled: in the beginning, it was written in OCaml, and then they re-implemented it in Rust, using the OCaml compiler to bootstrap it. Theoretically you could now check out the sources of the OCaml compiler and then compile the Rust compiler with it, step by step. This way you can "bootstrap" the trust from the OCaml compiler.
Slashdot Mirror
Its far more convenient to have the pdf open in a separate tab than having to manage it in a separate window, or being greeted with a "what to do with this file" dialog.
Now they need the state, crying for help because evil nasty criminals stole stuff from them. But when its about paying taxes, or helping the FBI decrypt a shooter's iPhone, they say fuck the state.
I don't have anything against companies building products that can't be decrypted. But this iPhone was a product that *could* be decrypted by apple, but they refused simply to protect their image as manufacturer of phones that can't be decrypted.
The feds should decline investigating until apple pays its fucking taxes and agrees to aid law enforcement with the decryption of iPhones.
I've thought the same thing. Although one is copyright and the other is patent law...
And even if, you still have to trust the certificate log.
The only real way to be sure your domain is yours is by getting your cert pinned by google and shipped in the browsers.
In the case of these people, it's to pretend that you need them WAY more than you actually do.
Not really. There are multiple reasons why long term certs are bad: https://letsencrypt.org/2015/1...
Manual renewal is a bad habit.
I agree, having a centralized repository is bad, but what is even worse is what we are currently having: hundreds of CAs world-wide being able to sign certs for any domain in the planet without any oversight.
So while it is a good reflex to be upset about something centralized, in the case of CAs its the opposite: the more CAs you trust, the bigger the chance that one of them sold a signing cert to some shady country or something.
Yes, a system where multiple entities have to agree before giving out a cert would help the system alot.
Your criticism of "free" looks misplaced. Handing out certificates barely require any manual intervention, nor any resources (if you disregard for the server costs). So its only straightforward to make obtaining them free.
The process of dealing with certificates was shitty to begin with, but at least I figured it out already and it's relatively simple, now I'm forced to deal with another layer of crap on top of that?
In fact they've tried to make it easier. Most people just want to get the job done, nothing more. The "layer" of crap removes one big problem with SSL certificates: manual renewal. Usually you have to renew certificates manually, but with the program from Let's Encrypt, this happens automatically.
Maybe in the future this is even built into the HTTP servers, so that you don't have to install third party software. Its all just checking whether the cert is expired, and running the ACME protocol to get a new one automatically.
Wasn't ACME partly about making renewing certs automatic?
Why the heck do they actually require to store e-mail addresses the first place? ACME works with public keys and cryptography, no? Or was it the email addresses for some forum or something, unrelated from the core service?
For facebook, you are the product, not the customer. I don't get it why people think otherwise and then first use it and after that get upset if they get treated like a product.
Don't make a facebook account, that's it.
Trump often says "I like hispanics". It is always followed by "their leaders are smarter than our leaders, they are ripping us off".
I doubt this is a troll post, unless you consider Trump to be a twitter troll (which is 100% legitimate although I don't agree with it).
Elon Musk is a bit critical about silicon valley, saying that there is too much talent bound by internet startups.
I think he is right. We do need people to innovate in many other areas as well, and apply the same kind of "disruption" in non-software markets. Tesla is really disrupting the car industry, and there are many more industries.
I think one sector which still can see lots of growth and innovation is the medicine sector. We haven't understood so many processes in the body, and health issues impact the lives of many people sometimes very severely.
Also, I think politics needs disruption as well. Think of climate change for example, the threat of islamism and other despotist ideologies, or of instable states around the globe. All these problems are really complex and solving them requires really good skills.
Working for startups that disrupt how one tags images or something is really waste of talent IMO. Also, there is lots of potential $$$ to be made on this.
More people use google every day (or have an iphone) than have ever set foot on US soil.
These companies are involved in every part of our lives, and a single descision of their headquarters has implications *worldwide* and depending on how fast its enrolled *the next day*.
They do have this major influence, and they actually use it. Facebook is manipulating news stories. Google is lobbying for TPP.
These tech giants *are* governments. They get their own exceptions from the US government to get foreign workers to work for them in the US. They don't pay any taxes, in no nation they operate. One of the first things you do if you don't accept the sovereignty of another nation is to not pay taxes. Remember the "no taxation without representation" debate?
They just scan the user agent of the browser connecting, and if it contains "Linux" it means there is a cancer infection in the eyes of Microsoft.
Here we go again...
- Rust is essentially a proprietary language, even if the source code is available.
I'd guess you say this because there is no standards committee for Rust? Well yeah, maybe that makes it "proprietary", but that isn't something bad. Linux has a dictator as well, just like many other projects. In the context of programming languages, at least Go, Java and Swift are "proprietary but open source" as well.
The great thing about open source is that if upstream fucks up, people create a fork. Think of LibreOffice for example.
- There is only one implementation of Rust. You're fucked if there's a problem with it. You can't use an alternative compiler, even temporarily, because none exist!
Does Go have an alternative compiler? Does Swift have one? This is standard for younger programming languages.
- The only implementation of Rust is very buggy (over 2,000 open bugs right now! [github.com]), despite it being written in Rust, which is a language that's supposed to make it harder to write buggier code!
This incredibly weird and wrong argument has been posted by ACs on slashdot for some months now. I'll just put this link here: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
In fact, its a bad sign for Rust to have "only" 2k open bugs, more successful projects have even more bugs in their trackers than Rust.
- The "safety" Rust promises is only as good as the compiler that implements it, which as we can see from the over 2,000 open bugs is very questionable!
The major security benefits added by Rust are thanks to things people coding e.g. in C have to do themselves, like free()-ing stuff.
As with self driving cars, this added automation only needs to be better than human in order to be the better alternative, not perfect. And I'm sure Rust is inside that range.
- Rust isn't as portable as C++ and many other languages.
Most common targets are already supported: https://github.com/rust-lang-n...
You can't write an operating system in Go, but you can do it in Rust. In fact there is even a project writing one.
- Rust's syntax is mediocre, and it some cases it's worse than C++.
This is about taste. I like Rust syntax. If you don't like it its your problem.
- Rust's ownership semantics are inconvenient to use and difficult for many typical programmers to understand, even compared to C++'s RAII.
There is a high entry barrier, yes. But I think for people who are generally not accustomed to lower level languages like C/C++ its easier to not have to worry about stuff like allocation, and have the compiler say "this is wrong" if there is a problem, instead of stuff compiling but then failing horrendously or doing stuff like memory leaks or even stuff like race conditions, which only mean a problem in a fraction of the cases.
- Rust lacks proper class OO.
That's true. I can avoid it, for me its not a problem.
- Rust lacks proper exceptions.
I consider this a feature. Exceptions are one of the major sources of bugs in C++. Its much better to have the Result type, where you can recover from errors much faster. Recovering from errors is faster in Rust than in C++!
- Rust's standard library is inadequate and incomplete.
The standard library of C++ is far more inadequate and incomplete than Rust's. I am missing many functions I have available in Rust when writing C++.
Some nice stuff is marked unstable but you can use the nightly compiler if you want to use it.
- Rust's supposed benefits are typically no better than what
Let's hope it works, as for the usual stem cell treatments this is as helpful as the treatment itself.
Damn shit. This is the most SJW thing mozilla has ever done, I've thought kicking out Brendan Eich was already bad enough.
Tell me how Rust is a failure. Have you even coded a single line in Rust?
If your restaurant is anything but shit and produces the food from fresh ingredients (maybe this kind of restaurant doesn't exist in england and its former colonies like America, dunno), then the owner is actually really happy if you pre-order by a day or two. They need to know what to buy. Their alternative is to let stuff rot away, and maybe sell it to customers just before its too rotten to be kept longer. Or to say "its out" when the customers want it. But neither of them is pleasing for the customer. So better pre-order if you are organizing a larger party.
So one of the VMs can nicely include the NSA backdoor? How convenient.
Yeah, it decays into lower elements like Redditium. One of the forms this happens is the so called slashdot beta decay.
Rust can be seen as some kind of imperative Haskell:
* Like Haskell, Rust has very strong typing, and auto-deriving of types.
* Guards and case in Haskell becomes match in Rust, with all the pattern matching you can do in Haskell
* The Result and Option types in Rust are essentially the same as the Either and Maybe types in Haskell
and many other common things.
I can see from your comment that you've probably never actually written a line of code in Rust, nor have you actually tried Servo.
I've done both in fact, and yes Servo is immature, I never said anywhere that it was ready for anything.
Maybe I've exaggerated in my post by saying that it is "Beta". I should have rather said "pre-alpha".
I'm not 100% certain, but I think one of the two OCaml compilers is written in C. With this you can bootstrap OCaml from a language where multiple compiler vendors exist in order to bootstrap Rust.
Well there was a history of how the Rust compiler was "first" compiled: in the beginning, it was written in OCaml, and then they re-implemented it in Rust, using the OCaml compiler to bootstrap it. Theoretically you could now check out the sources of the OCaml compiler and then compile the Rust compiler with it, step by step. This way you can "bootstrap" the trust from the OCaml compiler.