I consider myself a below average driver, and the reason I am a safe driver (according to my insurance agent) is that I allow for my capabilities. I had another friend who thought himself a below-average driver and drove cautiously. It happens.
Before Apple, there were no home computers you could just buy, set up on your desk at home, plug a few things in, and use. (There were two others, the TRS-80 and Commodore Pet, within a few months afterwards.) Before the Macintosh, there was nothing comparable to its UI commercially available, and the GUIs available for some time were bad copies of the Mac.
The iPod wasn't the only MP3 player, but it was the easiest for most people to use. The iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, but it was the easiest for most people to use. Jobs was able to make nerdy gadgets easy to use.
I try to be predictable when I drive. I don't worry about giving advantages to other drivers thereby. I can be manipulated on the road. In practice, it doesn't seem to matter.
The thing is, we're *supposed* to leave enough following space behind the car in front of us
It's good when we can do that, but in some circumstances, if you leave such a gap, someone will pull into it, and you'll be unable to avoid hitting the car in front if it stops somehow. If you insist on that gap, you'll wind up going much slower than traffic, disrupting flow, and making accidents in your vicinity more likely. Heck, there's places where driving the speed limit is disruptive.
Or, for that matter, having a driver move into your lane suddenly, because the driver dropped something, after driving completely reasonably for a couple of minutes. If you keep an occasional eye on that driver, you might get a little forewarning.
Self-driving vehicles have to be safe enough in all sorts of traffic conditions, including the case where other drivers are driving like lunatics. In cases like this, it can be valuable to be able to spot the most likely problems.
Answer: Why in the world would you want to do that? Here do this
This is often the best answer possible. Back when I was on SO a lot, there were a lot of questions asked that made bad assumptions. The questioner had a problem, had started solving it in a bad way, and ran into trouble, and was basically having trouble pounding the screw into the block using the wrench (one of my analogies for certain software development). In a case like that, it's far more useful to tell them to use a screwdriver and turn it, instead of recommending duct-taping a tape measure to the back of the end of the wrench you're not holding to increase the force.
Also, if you've got a serious logic error, it's likely to bite you fairly fast. If you've got bad performance, you'll notice. If your security is abysmal, you can test all you want and it's going to look just fine. If you're trying to get past an existing problem, you're very likely not that fussy about security.
Security experts can leave comments on answers, and if people like the comments they drift up to be the first comment under the answer. They can leave full answers and point to them in the comments. This isn't a structural SO problem.
You can easily get protection from buffer overflows and use-after-free in C++, also, and that language is very good for systems programming. You don't have to go to a new language for that.
Whether the iPhone runs slower, in my experience, depends on individual iPhone model and OS too much to make sweeping generalizations. My advice is to Google articles on running iOS X on iPhone Y, and then decide if you want to upgrade.
Apple didn't force upgrades. I had no problem refusing the last OS upgrade for my iPhone 4, and from the reviews it looked like it was a good idea to do so.
So, it would be precisely as accurate to say that it became slow when Steve Jobs started barbecuing unicorns.
My standard practice has been to wait on upgrading and read the reviews. If my phone model is reported to run well on the new OS, upgrade. My iPhone 4 ran slower after upgrading, and I skipped the last one available, but my 5S has been running just fine on upgraded iOS.
What design flaw would that be? The only major stupid design decision I know of about the iPhone 4 was the antennae, and that wasn't as bad as some of the media claimed. The home buttons on our iPhone 4s (plural, not model) worked just fine, bought new and shiny and one of them passed down to my sister-in-law, who replaced it a couple of months ago.
There's a difference between disputing a charge because it's fraudulent from the start and disputing a charge because the vendor didn't come through with the advertised product.
That requires people who want to use the system to create a key pair, and keep the private key safe in a place where it can be used. That's difficult. Even reasonably computer-savvy people can get their computers hacked into. The message is almost certainly going to be composed on the user's main computer, and even if the private key is held on a USB drive and only plugged in when needed (which isn't going to go over well) a hostile process can monitor USB drives and act accordingly.
If I had low production for a month, my employment status would still be "full-time employee". It's not like Tesla disappeared or produced nothing for September.
I'm aware of the statute. I'm also aware of how it is used in practice. Criminal prosecution is done only in cases where there is intentional mishandling, which this wasn't.
What change in the law was there between Powell (who also used private email) and Clinton? It was legal for Clinton to use private email, if she provided for record-keeping, as far as I've been able to tell.
The value of a dollar is what you can get for it. If you can't get as much for a dollar these days, it's inflation. If distribution systems become more efficient, or you can get better information about costs, you can get more for a dollar rather than less.
Are you saying that it's likely that Kaspersky would be coerced by the Russian government into giving out information that they then sell to criminal gangs? Do you have evidence? It sounds far-fetched to me. If I'm going to worry about that possible breach of security, I have to worry about US AV companies, since some of them can get pretty shady, and any market in AV-generated information isn't going to be accessible only from Russia.
Exactly what's wrong about this email? Powell and Clinton are discussing how to use their personal devices, which appear to be against security protocol, not the law. Powell warns Clinton that a device that has official government business on it could be classified as something having official documents, and subject to that law. Powell describes how he fought with security restrictions. I see no mention of classified documents or classifications. I see no mention of violating the law. (During both Powell's and Clinton's tenure, it was legal for the Secretary of State to use a private email server for official business. That law was changed about a year after Clinton left the State Department.)
Did you mean to post something else, or were you hoping I wouldn't read it thoroughly?
Continued misbehavior is when a person is warned about his or her behavior and persists in it anyway. It doesn't have anything to do with the length of time the person has been misbehaving. Misbehavior that doesn't occur after a warning isn't continued. If someone has made a mistake, and no attention is called to it, that person is likely to continue making that mistake. Only if the misbehavior continues after a warning is it a matter of conscious choice.
The thing about criminal negligence is that it's only going to be prosecuted if there's actual harm. Nobody's shown any actual harm from the classified emails.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider myself a below average driver, and the reason I am a safe driver (according to my insurance agent) is that I allow for my capabilities. I had another friend who thought himself a below-average driver and drove cautiously. It happens.
Before Apple, there were no home computers you could just buy, set up on your desk at home, plug a few things in, and use. (There were two others, the TRS-80 and Commodore Pet, within a few months afterwards.) Before the Macintosh, there was nothing comparable to its UI commercially available, and the GUIs available for some time were bad copies of the Mac.
The iPod wasn't the only MP3 player, but it was the easiest for most people to use. The iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, but it was the easiest for most people to use. Jobs was able to make nerdy gadgets easy to use.
I try to be predictable when I drive. I don't worry about giving advantages to other drivers thereby. I can be manipulated on the road. In practice, it doesn't seem to matter.
It's good when we can do that, but in some circumstances, if you leave such a gap, someone will pull into it, and you'll be unable to avoid hitting the car in front if it stops somehow. If you insist on that gap, you'll wind up going much slower than traffic, disrupting flow, and making accidents in your vicinity more likely. Heck, there's places where driving the speed limit is disruptive.
Or, for that matter, having a driver move into your lane suddenly, because the driver dropped something, after driving completely reasonably for a couple of minutes. If you keep an occasional eye on that driver, you might get a little forewarning.
Self-driving vehicles have to be safe enough in all sorts of traffic conditions, including the case where other drivers are driving like lunatics. In cases like this, it can be valuable to be able to spot the most likely problems.
This is often the best answer possible. Back when I was on SO a lot, there were a lot of questions asked that made bad assumptions. The questioner had a problem, had started solving it in a bad way, and ran into trouble, and was basically having trouble pounding the screw into the block using the wrench (one of my analogies for certain software development). In a case like that, it's far more useful to tell them to use a screwdriver and turn it, instead of recommending duct-taping a tape measure to the back of the end of the wrench you're not holding to increase the force.
Also, if you've got a serious logic error, it's likely to bite you fairly fast. If you've got bad performance, you'll notice. If your security is abysmal, you can test all you want and it's going to look just fine. If you're trying to get past an existing problem, you're very likely not that fussy about security.
Also, Stack Overflow is not intended to facilitate conversations. It's intended to help good answers and comments be in obvious places.
Security experts can leave comments on answers, and if people like the comments they drift up to be the first comment under the answer. They can leave full answers and point to them in the comments. This isn't a structural SO problem.
You can easily get protection from buffer overflows and use-after-free in C++, also, and that language is very good for systems programming. You don't have to go to a new language for that.
Whether the iPhone runs slower, in my experience, depends on individual iPhone model and OS too much to make sweeping generalizations. My advice is to Google articles on running iOS X on iPhone Y, and then decide if you want to upgrade.
No, it isn't very clear for me to see on my iPhone 5S running iOS 10. I consider its performance to be just fine.
Fortunately, there's always people who don't do what I say, recommend, and do, to test out these new releases for us.
Apple didn't force upgrades. I had no problem refusing the last OS upgrade for my iPhone 4, and from the reviews it looked like it was a good idea to do so.
So, it would be precisely as accurate to say that it became slow when Steve Jobs started barbecuing unicorns.
My standard practice has been to wait on upgrading and read the reviews. If my phone model is reported to run well on the new OS, upgrade. My iPhone 4 ran slower after upgrading, and I skipped the last one available, but my 5S has been running just fine on upgraded iOS.
What design flaw would that be? The only major stupid design decision I know of about the iPhone 4 was the antennae, and that wasn't as bad as some of the media claimed. The home buttons on our iPhone 4s (plural, not model) worked just fine, bought new and shiny and one of them passed down to my sister-in-law, who replaced it a couple of months ago.
There's a difference between disputing a charge because it's fraudulent from the start and disputing a charge because the vendor didn't come through with the advertised product.
That requires people who want to use the system to create a key pair, and keep the private key safe in a place where it can be used. That's difficult. Even reasonably computer-savvy people can get their computers hacked into. The message is almost certainly going to be composed on the user's main computer, and even if the private key is held on a USB drive and only plugged in when needed (which isn't going to go over well) a hostile process can monitor USB drives and act accordingly.
So far, my favorite Musk pie-in-the-sky promise was dramatically lowering cost to low Earth orbit.
If I had low production for a month, my employment status would still be "full-time employee". It's not like Tesla disappeared or produced nothing for September.
I'm aware of the statute. I'm also aware of how it is used in practice. Criminal prosecution is done only in cases where there is intentional mishandling, which this wasn't.
What change in the law was there between Powell (who also used private email) and Clinton? It was legal for Clinton to use private email, if she provided for record-keeping, as far as I've been able to tell.
The value of a dollar is what you can get for it. If you can't get as much for a dollar these days, it's inflation. If distribution systems become more efficient, or you can get better information about costs, you can get more for a dollar rather than less.
Are you saying that it's likely that Kaspersky would be coerced by the Russian government into giving out information that they then sell to criminal gangs? Do you have evidence? It sounds far-fetched to me. If I'm going to worry about that possible breach of security, I have to worry about US AV companies, since some of them can get pretty shady, and any market in AV-generated information isn't going to be accessible only from Russia.
Exactly what's wrong about this email? Powell and Clinton are discussing how to use their personal devices, which appear to be against security protocol, not the law. Powell warns Clinton that a device that has official government business on it could be classified as something having official documents, and subject to that law. Powell describes how he fought with security restrictions. I see no mention of classified documents or classifications. I see no mention of violating the law. (During both Powell's and Clinton's tenure, it was legal for the Secretary of State to use a private email server for official business. That law was changed about a year after Clinton left the State Department.)
Did you mean to post something else, or were you hoping I wouldn't read it thoroughly?
Continued misbehavior is when a person is warned about his or her behavior and persists in it anyway. It doesn't have anything to do with the length of time the person has been misbehaving. Misbehavior that doesn't occur after a warning isn't continued. If someone has made a mistake, and no attention is called to it, that person is likely to continue making that mistake. Only if the misbehavior continues after a warning is it a matter of conscious choice.
The thing about criminal negligence is that it's only going to be prosecuted if there's actual harm. Nobody's shown any actual harm from the classified emails.
Personal computers come with lots of crapware nowadays, and a tool to remove it all is useful.