It's not really about the US; the US government's behavior is merely helping to illustrate the deeper errors made by the users.
If you are using VPN/encryption tool/secure communication network/etc. created by US based company, it is very unlikely that it is actually secure.
More generally:
If you are using an app created by a company, which is only compatible with itself rather than complying with a public spec, it is very unlikely that it is secure. (It's also pretty unlikely that it won't suck in other ways too.)
Stop talking about apps, and start talking about protocols. Answer the "which of these apps works best for me?" question later, after protocol selection. If telegram doesn't work with anything else except telegram, then you can be pretty sure that telegram is the wrong choice.
When you reasonably can, totally. By all means, try to break your problem up into processes. I'm all for replacing multithreading with multiprocessing when you can, because not only does it mean you get to use python, but it means there's a whole bunch of synchronization problems that you're never going to have to deal with. Faster coding and fewer bugs. Who doesn't want that?
But when you can't, you can't. If you're creating and destroying lots of processes and having to pickle lots of stuff into several megabytes to move over pipes to depickle, that's expensive and ugly, too. Sometimes, threads are the correct answer. And cpython really does have a problem with that.
I expect he may be charged with a criminal offense for leaking privlidged documents that did not belong to him.
Your expections are awesome. Please tell us some other things that you expect. (Do you do tech? Please, please do tech!) You could do a comedy album, which makes its own prediction about whether or not it'll be pirated.
Executives at the Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., argue that Google's policy is unfairly punishing them for trying to attract more digital subscribers.
Let's be clear about something, because if we can't agree on this one simple thing, then we're also not going to agree on anything else:
Google has some mechanism where they can blacklist certain sites for malware, and their web browser (Chrome) uses this to prevent users from visiting certain sites. That is something that they could possibly use to punish someone. But that's not being alleged here.
And as for search results themselves, Google Search never has, and never will punish someone, because it lacks the capability to punish, and would still lack it even if they were a hundred times more powerful. The worst case scenario for Google searches, would be if they had search results point to pages that criticize your business. But not linking to your pages is not punishment. Failing to go to extra trouble to help someone is not punishment.
WSJ is worried about Google becoming neutral to them. They are worried that Google will stop doing helpful things FOR them. They get free cake, and would hate for the free cake to stop.
Agreed? Punishment isn't what we're talking about here. (So stop using dishonest words to describe it, unless deception is your intent.)
If you understand and totally agree to this, then we're in the same ethical galaxy and might possibly have a good discussion. Else, we have absolutely nothing in common and we probably won't even be able to communicate.
Amateur hour? We're talking about this instead FBI investigations, aren't we?
If people complain too much about this, he'll just do something else that people hate even more, then we'll be talking about that ins-- oops, he'll already be on the next thing by then. You are going to stack overflow before you ever get to hold him accountable for anything.
By the time Congress impeaches him, he'll be saying something like "I can't believe you people are impeaching me over this trivial Russia thing. You don't care that I started a nuclear war that killed 90% of our citizens, outlawed women from owning property, deported all the negroes back to Africa, got caffeine onto the DEA's schedule 1, and made the FCC reclassify broadband as a food service?" and you'll reply by admitting you had forgotten everything near the middle of the list, though you do faintly remember that nuclear war thing. That was sure a bad day, but it was like, 2 months ago, and there have been so many scandals since then.
Whatever difficulties exist, were solved by previous engineers. Even the Chinese companies that make the lamest phones, are able to do it.
Anyone complaining that it's hard, gets no sympathy. It's your job to make the phone be usable. If you're not the kind of person who can do that, fine, but step aside and let someone else play hardware engineer.
Maybe we'll get that old white-bearded guy who designed phone hardware 3-4 years ago. He sure knew how to do it.
How can any stats at GitHub give you a clue about the total number of developers, unless you just happen to be the one person in the entire world who, magically, has a vague idea of what fraction of developers use GitHub?
What fraction of developers use GitHub? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 31.6%? If you pull 20% out of your ass (and that's exactly where you would be finding this number) and just to play contrarian, I say "No, you're wrong, it's only 10%" or "you idiot, it's more like 40%" can you explain how closer to right?
You don't have a clue. And the only reason we can't have a good fight about how amazingly wrong your estimate is, is that nobody knows the right answer. We might as well be arguing religion. BTW, the correct answer is 4%. Just kidding, it's 9%. Ha, fooled you again! It's actually only 0.8%.
Not a single one of those number is even slightly unbelievable.
Next up: sneaker sales used to estimate number of insurance claim adjudicators.
Why pay these guys for a movie that has lots of ways to break, most of them totally unrelated to piracy attempts? Save yourself some hassle and just download a pirate copy. Not only will you be able to watch the whole movie (a feature unavailable to most paying customers), but get this: it's also FREE!!
Face it, Sean Parker is still a pirate. He is creating a service whose entire purpose is to further encourage piracy and educate the public that piracy is the only convenient and reasonable way to get to see movies. I hope MPAA's members falls for it. They're just the kind of people who are dumb enough to.
Sounds swell, if your Android device happens to be non-portable. Ok, that's.. some.. Android devices, sure.
Alas, many Android devices are carried outside the home, so they'd have to VPN to your network to use the proxy. That's sort of a PITA, but I can see how it might be something that people end up doing anyway, to get access to their own "internal services" and such.
I am having a hilarious vision where everything I just said is wrong, though. In this fantasy, I'm talking to you at a bar about VPNing to a proxy and you interrupt me. "VPN? Why would I do that? I just connect to it directly." I stare at you, my eyes saying "WTF." That's when you pull a battery-powered Pi out of your pocket. "I never leave home without it."
Once you are used to chrome on your android device, you try it out and find that it's nice and fast and stick with it on your PC.
It amazes me that anyone possibly can get "used to chrome" on Android.
On the desktop, Chromium (and presumably Chrome) is better than Firefox. I'll admit that.
But on Android, Firefox beats the living shit out of worthless Chrome. Calling Chrome second place is a hateful, mean-spirited insult to the number two. Chrome doesn't let me install extensions like ublock origin and similar things, and without that stuff, the web is nearly unusable.
Trying to use the web without ad blocking is about as shocking as turning on a TV at a hotel, and realizing that TV still has ads. If you aren't used to that shit, it's like a punch in the face. I just don't know how anyone can tolerate Chrome on Android. It's garbage.
The "beacon" exception is interesting. Someone went to the extra trouble to pay somebody to add that. Who did it and why? What's the imagined scenario?
I view it as "leftist" because it expanded the powers of government at the expense of the people. ("It" being the anti-circumvention aspects, not the safe harbor and boat design aspects; I'm not addressing those here.) It created a new crime out of an innocent activity.
This is independent of it also being such an unusually bad idea. Unless you're a perfect anarchist or perfect totalitarian, left/right rarely implies much about good or bad.
It sounds like you're saying they're derived works of the original Aristocrats joke.
If I make a video that starts out with a mouse named Mickey (or a crime fighter named Batman, or a mafia guy named Corleone) who happens to experience totally difference hijinx than he does in any Disney video, lawyers still say that's a derived work of their client's copyrighted work. And that's going to have a lot less in common with anything Disney, than what all Aristocrats jokes have in common.
All of Amazon's hardware is conspicuously weird like that. I like Amazon as a store, but every single one of their own products, from the first seconds that you start learning about it, it immediately hits you in the face with a fart smell. And it's a fart that doesn't dissipate. You know that if someone gives you one of those things as a gift, you're going to have a fart smell in your life continuously until you regift it.
Google, even Apple and Microsoft: they all make less-suspicious, more attractive stuff than Amazon. Amazon is the worst. And yet of the "tech giants" they're the one I'd least like to see go, because their shitty products aside, they have a great, useful, user-friendy business. But some retard over there keeps also coming up with product ideas. At some point, people are going to start associating this crap with their brand name, and that'll be the time for another company to sweep in and become the new Internet Store.
Want, schmant. Behavior matters more than stated intent.
Maybe Lenin and Stalin didn't want those people to starve to death, but they did what they did and its outcome was predictable.
Especially when you get to Stalin. That guy was totally a killer. I name Stalin and while I think your "wanted to" isn't appropriate, Stalin lets me play with that handicap. He wanted to kill people. When Russ Hanneman met Stalin, he was all, "This guy kills! Am I right?"
It's not a math error; they just aren't excluding sleep. A day is 24 hours, regardless of however much of it is spent watching Lightspeed Briefs sponsored content.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really about the US; the US government's behavior is merely helping to illustrate the deeper errors made by the users.
More generally:
If you are using an app created by a company, which is only compatible with itself rather than complying with a public spec, it is very unlikely that it is secure. (It's also pretty unlikely that it won't suck in other ways too.)
Stop talking about apps, and start talking about protocols. Answer the "which of these apps works best for me?" question later, after protocol selection. If telegram doesn't work with anything else except telegram, then you can be pretty sure that telegram is the wrong choice.
Sounds like you have your wish (status quo), then. Congratulations!
When you reasonably can, totally. By all means, try to break your problem up into processes. I'm all for replacing multithreading with multiprocessing when you can, because not only does it mean you get to use python, but it means there's a whole bunch of synchronization problems that you're never going to have to deal with. Faster coding and fewer bugs. Who doesn't want that?
But when you can't, you can't. If you're creating and destroying lots of processes and having to pickle lots of stuff into several megabytes to move over pipes to depickle, that's expensive and ugly, too. Sometimes, threads are the correct answer. And cpython really does have a problem with that.
Your expections are awesome. Please tell us some other things that you expect. (Do you do tech? Please, please do tech!) You could do a comedy album, which makes its own prediction about whether or not it'll be pirated.
Let's be clear about something, because if we can't agree on this one simple thing, then we're also not going to agree on anything else:
Google has some mechanism where they can blacklist certain sites for malware, and their web browser (Chrome) uses this to prevent users from visiting certain sites. That is something that they could possibly use to punish someone. But that's not being alleged here.
And as for search results themselves, Google Search never has, and never will punish someone, because it lacks the capability to punish, and would still lack it even if they were a hundred times more powerful. The worst case scenario for Google searches, would be if they had search results point to pages that criticize your business. But not linking to your pages is not punishment. Failing to go to extra trouble to help someone is not punishment.
WSJ is worried about Google becoming neutral to them. They are worried that Google will stop doing helpful things FOR them. They get free cake, and would hate for the free cake to stop.
Agreed? Punishment isn't what we're talking about here. (So stop using dishonest words to describe it, unless deception is your intent.)
If you understand and totally agree to this, then we're in the same ethical galaxy and might possibly have a good discussion. Else, we have absolutely nothing in common and we probably won't even be able to communicate.
Amateur hour? We're talking about this instead FBI investigations, aren't we?
If people complain too much about this, he'll just do something else that people hate even more, then we'll be talking about that ins-- oops, he'll already be on the next thing by then. You are going to stack overflow before you ever get to hold him accountable for anything.
By the time Congress impeaches him, he'll be saying something like "I can't believe you people are impeaching me over this trivial Russia thing. You don't care that I started a nuclear war that killed 90% of our citizens, outlawed women from owning property, deported all the negroes back to Africa, got caffeine onto the DEA's schedule 1, and made the FCC reclassify broadband as a food service?" and you'll reply by admitting you had forgotten everything near the middle of the list, though you do faintly remember that nuclear war thing. That was sure a bad day, but it was like, 2 months ago, and there have been so many scandals since then.
Wait... retarded is a reason to vote people out now? I thought I was up to date with the 2016 rules.
Oh shit, 2016. This is 2017, isn't it? Dammit!
You can get it; you just might have to pay a little extra.
Whatever difficulties exist, were solved by previous engineers. Even the Chinese companies that make the lamest phones, are able to do it.
Anyone complaining that it's hard, gets no sympathy. It's your job to make the phone be usable. If you're not the kind of person who can do that, fine, but step aside and let someone else play hardware engineer.
Maybe we'll get that old white-bearded guy who designed phone hardware 3-4 years ago. He sure knew how to do it.
How can any stats at GitHub give you a clue about the total number of developers, unless you just happen to be the one person in the entire world who, magically, has a vague idea of what fraction of developers use GitHub?
What fraction of developers use GitHub? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 31.6%? If you pull 20% out of your ass (and that's exactly where you would be finding this number) and just to play contrarian, I say "No, you're wrong, it's only 10%" or "you idiot, it's more like 40%" can you explain how closer to right?
You don't have a clue. And the only reason we can't have a good fight about how amazingly wrong your estimate is, is that nobody knows the right answer. We might as well be arguing religion. BTW, the correct answer is 4%. Just kidding, it's 9%. Ha, fooled you again! It's actually only 0.8%.
Not a single one of those number is even slightly unbelievable.
Next up: sneaker sales used to estimate number of insurance claim adjudicators.
Ouch, that hits a little close to home. You procrastinate as much as me? Nice to meet you!
Why pay these guys for a movie that has lots of ways to break, most of them totally unrelated to piracy attempts? Save yourself some hassle and just download a pirate copy. Not only will you be able to watch the whole movie (a feature unavailable to most paying customers), but get this: it's also FREE!!
Face it, Sean Parker is still a pirate. He is creating a service whose entire purpose is to further encourage piracy and educate the public that piracy is the only convenient and reasonable way to get to see movies. I hope MPAA's members falls for it. They're just the kind of people who are dumb enough to.
Sounds swell, if your Android device happens to be non-portable. Ok, that's .. some .. Android devices, sure.
Alas, many Android devices are carried outside the home, so they'd have to VPN to your network to use the proxy. That's sort of a PITA, but I can see how it might be something that people end up doing anyway, to get access to their own "internal services" and such.
I am having a hilarious vision where everything I just said is wrong, though. In this fantasy, I'm talking to you at a bar about VPNing to a proxy and you interrupt me. "VPN? Why would I do that? I just connect to it directly." I stare at you, my eyes saying "WTF." That's when you pull a battery-powered Pi out of your pocket. "I never leave home without it."
It amazes me that anyone possibly can get "used to chrome" on Android.
On the desktop, Chromium (and presumably Chrome) is better than Firefox. I'll admit that.
But on Android, Firefox beats the living shit out of worthless Chrome. Calling Chrome second place is a hateful, mean-spirited insult to the number two. Chrome doesn't let me install extensions like ublock origin and similar things, and without that stuff, the web is nearly unusable.
Trying to use the web without ad blocking is about as shocking as turning on a TV at a hotel, and realizing that TV still has ads. If you aren't used to that shit, it's like a punch in the face. I just don't know how anyone can tolerate Chrome on Android. It's garbage.
How did they get screwed? Did someone really point a gun at their head and make them work there?
If you're allowed to walk away, and if you're also not being defrauded, then you can't get screwed. How is it even possible?
The "beacon" exception is interesting. Someone went to the extra trouble to pay somebody to add that. Who did it and why? What's the imagined scenario?
I view it as "leftist" because it expanded the powers of government at the expense of the people. ("It" being the anti-circumvention aspects, not the safe harbor and boat design aspects; I'm not addressing those here.) It created a new crime out of an innocent activity.
This is independent of it also being such an unusually bad idea. Unless you're a perfect anarchist or perfect totalitarian, left/right rarely implies much about good or bad.
It sounds like you're saying they're derived works of the original Aristocrats joke.
If I make a video that starts out with a mouse named Mickey (or a crime fighter named Batman, or a mafia guy named Corleone) who happens to experience totally difference hijinx than he does in any Disney video, lawyers still say that's a derived work of their client's copyrighted work. And that's going to have a lot less in common with anything Disney, than what all Aristocrats jokes have in common.
All of Amazon's hardware is conspicuously weird like that. I like Amazon as a store, but every single one of their own products, from the first seconds that you start learning about it, it immediately hits you in the face with a fart smell. And it's a fart that doesn't dissipate. You know that if someone gives you one of those things as a gift, you're going to have a fart smell in your life continuously until you regift it.
Google, even Apple and Microsoft: they all make less-suspicious, more attractive stuff than Amazon. Amazon is the worst. And yet of the "tech giants" they're the one I'd least like to see go, because their shitty products aside, they have a great, useful, user-friendy business. But some retard over there keeps also coming up with product ideas. At some point, people are going to start associating this crap with their brand name, and that'll be the time for another company to sweep in and become the new Internet Store.
Want, schmant. Behavior matters more than stated intent.
Maybe Lenin and Stalin didn't want those people to starve to death, but they did what they did and its outcome was predictable.
Especially when you get to Stalin. That guy was totally a killer. I name Stalin and while I think your "wanted to" isn't appropriate, Stalin lets me play with that handicap. He wanted to kill people. When Russ Hanneman met Stalin, he was all, "This guy kills! Am I right?"
You need to get out more.
Don't give it to them! If you give them ransomware, they're just going to use it to start attacking people and demanding ransoms from their victims.
Because it doesn't have the offending servos.
It's not a math error; they just aren't excluding sleep. A day is 24 hours, regardless of however much of it is spent watching Lightspeed Briefs sponsored content.
So in other words .. Netflix did it!