The open-source x-platform server announcement was revealed on Scott Hanselman's blog in August 2014. But oddly, the permalink now points to this new announcement. Is there some conspiracy to pretend this wasn't already announced?
1) Because SSL/TLS was so poorly supported for years, many email clients default to using security only if the server supports it. Email software should simply drop support for unencrypted SMTP, or report a big warning if the server doesn't support it. We would not tolerate such a proxy for the web, so we should not tolerate it for email either. 2) A recent Slashdot discussion revealed that the STARTTLS stripping was due to misconfigured proxy servers. I think this is a rehash of the same incident.
So if I shoot a bike out of a cannon can I win the record for fastest bike? How about if I strap it to an airplane?
Shame on the author of the article though. This is a truly awesome creation. But focusing on the "record breaking" aspect taints the accomplishment. It shifts the discussion from "hey, look at this cool thing!! Awesome!!!!!" to "That's cheating!"
The summary claims that the retailers would bear the brunt of the legislation. The opposite is true. The letter is written by retailers, asking for increased regulation of cloud providers and banks. The letter is specifically calls out Apple and J.P. Morgan as the causes of recent data breaches. It complains that the retailers are responsible for notifying their customers of breaches, but they aren't the only link in the chain.
I like your comment, but I do want to point out a difference in magnitude about your example:
Case in point, a friend in the medical profession was actually complaining about tax dodges while setting up his own backdoor Roth IRA [personalcapital.com]. When I asked him about abusing the very rules he was decrying, he simply shrugged and said he doesn't make the rules he just follows them. He acknowledged it's shady as hell but pretty much felt like his hands were tied.
I will say that this example is an order of magnitude different from cheating on a school exam. In this case, the doctor is following the written laws. Of course, the laws are foolishly written in this case, and should probably be fixed, but few people believe that tax loopholes represent a "moral" quandary. (Update - another poster explained that backdoor Roth IRAs are explicitly allowed by the law, so it isn't a mistake apparently. Perhaps the name makes it sound worse than it really is.) Cheating however, is closer to lying. The cheater is lying about their knowledge and skills. That lie denies someone else their right to education, instead granting it to some lazy person who does not have the credentials.
Back to your medical professional, I would still go to a doctor who had a backdoor Roth IRA. But I would not want to go to a doctor who cheated their way through medical school! In America, we mostly accept the concept of "merit," but I'm not sure that all cultures do. It wasn't that long ago that India had castes, where birthright was more important than merit. Is it like racism in the US: publicly most everyone agrees it is wrong but there are still deep-seated biases?
I know very few people who turn down tax benefits because they disagree with that particular tax benefit.
I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions, but they certainly aren't universally true.
If you regularly out perform your peers that have more experience, then you get more pay than those slackers.
Some places don't give significant merit raises. Instead, they give bonuses or long-term-incentives that vest. That means that if you have been there for 5 years, and someone else has been there for 30 years, they might make more money than you do even if you perform better. This might depend on your location and vocation. What is the difference in profit between a top performer and a low performer? That is really really hard to calculate, and varies a lot.
Understand that Paying you an additional $10,000 a year is absolutely nothing to a stable and healthy company.
LinkedIn has $5,312 revenue per employee. That's revenue, not profit. So giving a $10,000 raise to an employee means that employee puts the company in the negative. Dreamworks makes $25,045 per employee. So I don't know if a $10,000 pay hike would make an employee no longer profitable or not, it depends on the actual profit per employee. Microsoft makes $221,212 per employee, so yes, all their employees could make $10,000 more and the company would still have revenue, but I cannot say about profit.
And honestly it's almost nothing to you when you look at your paycheck.
That can depend a lot. If you are in a position where 90% of your income goes to basic living expenses, then a 10% pay increase might double the amount of spending money you have.
The summary explains why that sand isn't appropriate for beaches.
One might think that desert sand would be a ready substitute, but its grains are finer and smoother; they don't adhere to rougher sand grains, and tend to blow away. As a result, the desert state of Dubai brings sand for its beaches all the way from Australia.
I did a quick search on Death Valley. Wikipedia mentions that the grains are "booming" which means they are 0.3mm. Beaches are 0.2m to 2mm. So Death Valley sand doesn't work either.
The NSA has a dual mission of information assurance–protecting American networks–and signals intelligence–gathering electronic data on foreign networks.
Unfortunately for them, both American networks and foreign networks use the same software. So their mission is "make sure nobody can get in that safe, including you" and also "break into that safe." This is a no win situation.
The problem with these kinds of studies is that there is no actual way to objectively measure software quality. You can correlate all the data you want, but garbage in means garbage out.
For this study they used two thinfactor gs to determine software quality: one is the number of bugfix commits. Ugh. I'm not even clear if the number of bugfix commits means higher quality, or lower quality. That could go either way. It might mean you had better testers, or that you committed things in small batches, or that you had more branches. The other factor was a natural language processor that read the check-in comments. While this is a really cool idea, you would need a lot of research just to prove that this approach actually works before you can start using the technique to draw conclusions about some other data.
So while this was very cool, and very ambitious, the results are completely meaningless until someone can prove that this technique actually measures software quality at all.
Space itself may be there, but the equipment to get there is around 10 million times more expensive than the equipment required to climb Everest. Thus, the OP's point holds: the financial model for Everest tourism is not comparable to the financial model for space tourism.
The key difference is that Everest was already there before we arrived. Mount Everest could never be built by charging people a fee to climb it. It would not be economical.
It seems like if you pick a random Joe who does not like these technologies, then put that person into the company that manufactures the product, he will completely change positions. There will be no end of excuses as to why it is okay and the public is paranoid. I've even see people slowly go from one viewpoint to the other as a result of project assignments.
I was brought up under biblical inerrancy too, but that didn't mean biblical literacy. I'm unclear if my family was sane, or if the common interpretations have changed.
Thanks for the reply, I was hoping to hear about other people's experiences. My experience with Baptists might be way off. I hesitated to list that one but I thought it might trigger a reply that might help me understand better.
1) I live in northern Maryland, so maybe things are different as you go north. I have relatives who live in Kentucky and I'm actually afraid to ever discuss this with them. 2) I attended a Baptist church as a kid, so maybe I just didn't know what they believed. The church also split at some point and maybe that was the kind of stuff it was over, I don't know.
I rarely reply to ACs, but since I actually based my statement on the very same Google search the AC recommended, I feel compelled to reply so everyone is clear on the definition.
Horseshit. Type "define:evangelical" into google and look at the full definition.
These are issues that Verizon cannot be neutral on, so it makes perfect ethical sense for them to recuse themselves from discussing such topics. Don't lambast them for it.
The real questions here are: 1) Who are the backers and why did they stipulate this requirement? 2) Why is Verizon starting a news & pop culture site in a time when such sites are prevalent and unprofitable?
Slashdot Mirror
Assume for a moment that robotic window washers could work:
Who will wash the washers?
The open-source x-platform server announcement was revealed on Scott Hanselman's blog in August 2014. But oddly, the permalink now points to this new announcement. Is there some conspiracy to pretend this wasn't already announced?
Google cache of the August announcement
1) Because SSL/TLS was so poorly supported for years, many email clients default to using security only if the server supports it. Email software should simply drop support for unencrypted SMTP, or report a big warning if the server doesn't support it. We would not tolerate such a proxy for the web, so we should not tolerate it for email either.
2) A recent Slashdot discussion revealed that the STARTTLS stripping was due to misconfigured proxy servers. I think this is a rehash of the same incident.
So if I shoot a bike out of a cannon can I win the record for fastest bike? How about if I strap it to an airplane?
Shame on the author of the article though. This is a truly awesome creation. But focusing on the "record breaking" aspect taints the accomplishment. It shifts the discussion from "hey, look at this cool thing!! Awesome!!!!!" to "That's cheating!"
The summary claims that the retailers would bear the brunt of the legislation. The opposite is true. The letter is written by retailers, asking for increased regulation of cloud providers and banks. The letter is specifically calls out Apple and J.P. Morgan as the causes of recent data breaches. It complains that the retailers are responsible for notifying their customers of breaches, but they aren't the only link in the chain.
I like your comment, but I do want to point out a difference in magnitude about your example:
Case in point, a friend in the medical profession was actually complaining about tax dodges while setting up his own backdoor Roth IRA [personalcapital.com]. When I asked him about abusing the very rules he was decrying, he simply shrugged and said he doesn't make the rules he just follows them. He acknowledged it's shady as hell but pretty much felt like his hands were tied.
I will say that this example is an order of magnitude different from cheating on a school exam. In this case, the doctor is following the written laws. Of course, the laws are foolishly written in this case, and should probably be fixed, but few people believe that tax loopholes represent a "moral" quandary. (Update - another poster explained that backdoor Roth IRAs are explicitly allowed by the law, so it isn't a mistake apparently. Perhaps the name makes it sound worse than it really is.) Cheating however, is closer to lying. The cheater is lying about their knowledge and skills. That lie denies someone else their right to education, instead granting it to some lazy person who does not have the credentials.
Back to your medical professional, I would still go to a doctor who had a backdoor Roth IRA. But I would not want to go to a doctor who cheated their way through medical school! In America, we mostly accept the concept of "merit," but I'm not sure that all cultures do. It wasn't that long ago that India had castes, where birthright was more important than merit. Is it like racism in the US: publicly most everyone agrees it is wrong but there are still deep-seated biases?
I know very few people who turn down tax benefits because they disagree with that particular tax benefit.
I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions, but they certainly aren't universally true.
If you regularly out perform your peers that have more experience, then you get more pay than those slackers.
Some places don't give significant merit raises. Instead, they give bonuses or long-term-incentives that vest. That means that if you have been there for 5 years, and someone else has been there for 30 years, they might make more money than you do even if you perform better. This might depend on your location and vocation. What is the difference in profit between a top performer and a low performer? That is really really hard to calculate, and varies a lot.
Understand that Paying you an additional $10,000 a year is absolutely nothing to a stable and healthy company.
LinkedIn has $5,312 revenue per employee. That's revenue, not profit. So giving a $10,000 raise to an employee means that employee puts the company in the negative. Dreamworks makes $25,045 per employee. So I don't know if a $10,000 pay hike would make an employee no longer profitable or not, it depends on the actual profit per employee. Microsoft makes $221,212 per employee, so yes, all their employees could make $10,000 more and the company would still have revenue, but I cannot say about profit.
And honestly it's almost nothing to you when you look at your paycheck.
That can depend a lot. If you are in a position where 90% of your income goes to basic living expenses, then a 10% pay increase might double the amount of spending money you have.
Stupid Slashcode. I actually wrote "less than 0.3mm" using the "less than" symbol, but Slashdot filtered it out causing all kinds of confusion.
Mod up! Good research!
The summary explains why that sand isn't appropriate for beaches.
One might think that desert sand would be a ready substitute, but its grains are finer and smoother; they don't adhere to rougher sand grains, and tend to blow away. As a result, the desert state of Dubai brings sand for its beaches all the way from Australia.
I did a quick search on Death Valley. Wikipedia mentions that the grains are "booming" which means they are 0.3mm. Beaches are 0.2m to 2mm. So Death Valley sand doesn't work either.
The NSA has a dual mission of information assurance–protecting American networks–and signals intelligence–gathering electronic data on foreign networks.
Unfortunately for them, both American networks and foreign networks use the same software. So their mission is "make sure nobody can get in that safe, including you" and also "break into that safe." This is a no win situation.
The problem with these kinds of studies is that there is no actual way to objectively measure software quality. You can correlate all the data you want, but garbage in means garbage out.
For this study they used two thinfactor gs to determine software quality: one is the number of bugfix commits. Ugh. I'm not even clear if the number of bugfix commits means higher quality, or lower quality. That could go either way. It might mean you had better testers, or that you committed things in small batches, or that you had more branches. The other factor was a natural language processor that read the check-in comments. While this is a really cool idea, you would need a lot of research just to prove that this approach actually works before you can start using the technique to draw conclusions about some other data.
So while this was very cool, and very ambitious, the results are completely meaningless until someone can prove that this technique actually measures software quality at all.
Space itself may be there, but the equipment to get there is around 10 million times more expensive than the equipment required to climb Everest. Thus, the OP's point holds: the financial model for Everest tourism is not comparable to the financial model for space tourism.
Can someone explain why a video decoder cannot decode at any arbitrary frame rate? The algorithm doesn't change.
The key difference is that Everest was already there before we arrived. Mount Everest could never be built by charging people a fee to climb it. It would not be economical.
It seems like if you pick a random Joe who does not like these technologies, then put that person into the company that manufactures the product, he will completely change positions. There will be no end of excuses as to why it is okay and the public is paranoid. I've even see people slowly go from one viewpoint to the other as a result of project assignments.
There must be a name for this phenomenon.
My Internet still has a cord. I'm fine with that.
Also, those so-called "cord cutters" are probably still buying their internet from Time Warner.
I meant literalism, not literacy.
Informative, thanks.
I was brought up under biblical inerrancy too, but that didn't mean biblical literacy. I'm unclear if my family was sane, or if the common interpretations have changed.
Umm... the entire article is about how they are bringing charges against a major corporation...
It is going to be difficult to make it into a good propaganda site if they don't post articles on the topic they are trying to propagate.
They cannot open a tech news site and then block 90% of what's really tech news...
Agreed!
...are 90% of the tech news.
While the topic riles me up too, this is not true even on Slashdot. Such exaggeration does not help.
Thanks for the reply, I was hoping to hear about other people's experiences. My experience with Baptists might be way off. I hesitated to list that one but I thought it might trigger a reply that might help me understand better.
1) I live in northern Maryland, so maybe things are different as you go north. I have relatives who live in Kentucky and I'm actually afraid to ever discuss this with them.
2) I attended a Baptist church as a kid, so maybe I just didn't know what they believed. The church also split at some point and maybe that was the kind of stuff it was over, I don't know.
I looked up the baptist church on Wikipedia to see if I could find their core beliefs and a quick search didn't show me anything involving literal interpretations or evolution. Wikipedia has an article that shows belief in literal creationism, amongst Christians, is almost 50/50 split and has a breakdown by denomination.
I rarely reply to ACs, but since I actually based my statement on the very same Google search the AC recommended, I feel compelled to reply so everyone is clear on the definition.
Horseshit. Type "define:evangelical" into google and look at the full definition.
ok!
Google search for define: evangelical
1. of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.
The first two hits below that are:
What is an Evangelical? which says
world-wide Protestant movement maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by faith in Jesus
and What is an evangelical which says
The term "evangelical" comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning "the good news" or the "gospel."
How is that different from my short definition of "people who believe in the gospels and follow Jesus?"
The rest just misquotes me and wanders into randomness so I won't bother replying to that part.
These are issues that Verizon cannot be neutral on, so it makes perfect ethical sense for them to recuse themselves from discussing such topics. Don't lambast them for it.
The real questions here are:
1) Who are the backers and why did they stipulate this requirement?
2) Why is Verizon starting a news & pop culture site in a time when such sites are prevalent and unprofitable?