You have to look at what they have now that they didn't have before, assuming it's a honeypot. Likely, they have detailed information of the transactions of their users, everything from the IP of the incoming TOR node to the amount and type of transactions a particular user was party to. And they can probably
I think they're still waiting for their users to slip up, reveal their real names or do some other silly thing to expose themselves. But now they don't need to set up sting operations on any potential suspects. Instead, they can simply arrest them, as the transaction logs are proof of misconduct.
Mobile is different. You practically pay out of your own pocket for every additional thing downloaded to your device. Advertisers are more cautious about what they say and do for mobile, in particular because they don't want users to realize this yet. Everyone is still trying to find a better strategy.
Presumably so that if you drop something heavy onto the screen itself, it'd be less likely to crack under the sudden load.
I don't know if anyone really knows what to do with this technology yet. It's not thin nor flexible enough for shrinking the size of the device while keeping the same maximum screen size. The supporting electronics haven't been miniaturized to that point either.
It does make some kind of wristband screen possible, but that form factor is clunky from a UI perspective if the device is smaller than a full arm brace.
Their system is probably custom-tailored to their business processes. Not only would it not be appropriate for many other businesses and thus have a very small market, but it could also expose some of Tesla's secrets on how they operate, which would then give their competitors (enemies really, because they have no actual competition at the moment) an advantage over them.
They could theoretically invest more money into its development to make it appropriate for mass market consumption. But entering the business software market may not be something they want to do at this very moment. And after pouring additional dollars into the project to make it more generic, it wouldn't be exactly a good use of resources to just open source it either. Nor might it be possible if it makes use of someone else's licensed proprietary technology.
No, it's a mark of a relatively young engineering field, where The Book is still being written. That's why there's disagreement. It's a matter of what technique gets into which section of The Book, if it gets in at all.
In other fields where the book has already been completed, there are no disagreements on the techniques available and the ones used, only on the priorities that dictate their application.
The builders are the guys who pour the cement and hammer nails. The engineer is the guy in charge of keeping the structure standing for as long as possible.
No, really, it doesn't. Taiwan is still a province of the ROC. People forget that there are technically two Chinas. One government operates out of the mainland (PRC). The other operates out of Taiwan (ROC). Technically, the ROC doesn't recognize the PRC as a legitimate government, and for a short time, the rest of the world did not either.
Irrespective, they both share very similar claims to sovereign territory and have the same areas divided out in similar ways. The only exception is that the ROC doesn't recognize Mongolia as its own country, which was done largely by the ROC and PRC at the time as a concession to Stalin's Russia.
Even people in Taiwan forget this and instead think they are a country independent of China. They are both the seat of the (only recognized--by them) Chinese government, and one province in that China.
Uh, what? A lot of them come over because they're among the lower class if not the lowest of the low, and are looking to make a better life for themselves. What they do is work their asses off, and take a large number of risks. They'll open up corner stores on corners that nobody else would for fear of being robbed every day. They'll commute 3 hours in each direction for below-minimum wage work so that they don't have to pay more rent than they should. There are even more egregious stories, but they're the exception and not the norm.
No, what immigrants in general, not just Chinese, Indian, Mexican, etc. understand is real poverty. They know the literal meaning of not being able to put food on the table. They have experienced illiteracy, and value highly the education that's freely given to them by this society. What they have in coming here is a dream, for a better life, not even for themselves necessarily, but for their children and grandchildren.
On the other hand, many people here have no dreams. They have no aspirations. They know not of abject poverty, because the government feeds them, because even at their poorest, they can run to McDonalds and gorge themselves. They value fancy cars and iPhones, but not being educated and working diligently at even the worst, least-paying job. That is why they are stuck where they are.
There are Americans, irrespective of class, who have dreams too, who work hard to fulfill their dreams. More often than not, they too succeed. The ones who see the life of others but have no want of the responsibilities, only of the rewards, they are the ones who fail.
Not twitter. Technology. Technology causes brain damage. Other people constantly solving your problems means you lose the capacity to solve them yourself.
Yeah, sounds more like a botched migration than any failure to test. And that was allowed to go forward because of a lacking in their formal migration process.
There are a lot of growing pains when moving to entire systems of new technology. Testing the technology in pieces (unit testing) and as a whole (system testing) is already a given. For things that really matter though (like money), the processes themselves need to be tested and refined. I've seen a lot of processes go to production, i.e. used on production machines, only to go wrong when they could have been tested on the existing test setup and the kinks worked out then.
'web designers' decided they needed the page to look exactly the way they wanted it to look.
These people need to be marginalized in any discussions regarding web technology. They're as bad as the people trying to fit everything into the browser *ahem* Google *ahem*. There's no way something designed for 1600x900 will look exactly the same as something designed for 1280x1024. Hell, you can resize your browser window to half your 1980x1200 screen, and it won't look the same. And I haven't even gotten to phone sizes.
The worst part is, nobody has it right. HTML(2) started off with not even the slightest concept of this, and then tried to tack on some extensions that somewhat made it possible, but was really just a bunch of hacks. HTML5 started off with it as the basic premise, then went off the deep end as more and more vested, moneyed interests had something to add. Now it's everything, and nothing all at the same time.
I'm waiting for HTML4.5, that happy medium between 4 and 5. Preferably, it won't be based on SGML, but that might be asking for too much (and it wouldn't be a *ML anymore).
I guess it depends on what your standpoint is. From a user standpoint, transitioning to a new technology via a familiar UI is better than doing it via an unfamiliar one. Once there however, the real test is how unintrusive and easy to use the UI actually is.
From a designer standpoint, again, when in transition, a familiar UI is easier to work with. However, once the transition period is over, it can be a limiting factor for improvements to the interface or to the functionality of the device.
Take the keyboard for example. We still use the same QWERTY layout of its predecessor, the typewriter. This was the natural course of evolution for typing as people transitioned away from typewriters to keyboards. But it is limiting, in that the key layout is not ideal for the typist, and the flat keyboard layout itself is not friendly to the hand at all.
On the other hand, look at the Segway. It has such a revolutionary interface that nobody really knows what to do with it. It probably would've gained far more traction had it looked closer to a bicycle. It could have eventually replaced all those motorized bikes with the 80cc engines, been legitimately the next revolution in transportation. Instead, it's now associated in my mind with being a fat slob, since the only people I've ever actually seen use one are mall security guards and the occasional beat cop.
How about, making logical sense, and being thorough?
You use a certain pattern because it makes sense. It's the best fit for the goals you were given. If you were given (or otherwise had) other goals, you probably would've used a different design pattern. Perhaps you would've used a different pattern, but also modified it slightly to work better towards your goals.
Those are the most important qualities of a developer. Figuring out what needs to be done (communicating, being thorough), and knowing how to get it done best (logical reasoning). Semantics are just semantics, and for the people who have no idea what they're doing but want to look like they do. Now, being a (good) manager or lead of programmers requires one more skill: delegating.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, never finished that thought. They can probably determine which time zone the user mostly is in from the logs alone.
You have to look at what they have now that they didn't have before, assuming it's a honeypot. Likely, they have detailed information of the transactions of their users, everything from the IP of the incoming TOR node to the amount and type of transactions a particular user was party to. And they can probably
I think they're still waiting for their users to slip up, reveal their real names or do some other silly thing to expose themselves. But now they don't need to set up sting operations on any potential suspects. Instead, they can simply arrest them, as the transaction logs are proof of misconduct.
Mobile is different. You practically pay out of your own pocket for every additional thing downloaded to your device. Advertisers are more cautious about what they say and do for mobile, in particular because they don't want users to realize this yet. Everyone is still trying to find a better strategy.
Hardware, software, energy, somebody's gotta pay for these things. If you don't pay directly, then the advertisers do.
It sounds like what you want is a free lunch. There is no such thing.
Presumably so that if you drop something heavy onto the screen itself, it'd be less likely to crack under the sudden load.
I don't know if anyone really knows what to do with this technology yet. It's not thin nor flexible enough for shrinking the size of the device while keeping the same maximum screen size. The supporting electronics haven't been miniaturized to that point either.
It does make some kind of wristband screen possible, but that form factor is clunky from a UI perspective if the device is smaller than a full arm brace.
Their system is probably custom-tailored to their business processes. Not only would it not be appropriate for many other businesses and thus have a very small market, but it could also expose some of Tesla's secrets on how they operate, which would then give their competitors (enemies really, because they have no actual competition at the moment) an advantage over them.
They could theoretically invest more money into its development to make it appropriate for mass market consumption. But entering the business software market may not be something they want to do at this very moment. And after pouring additional dollars into the project to make it more generic, it wouldn't be exactly a good use of resources to just open source it either. Nor might it be possible if it makes use of someone else's licensed proprietary technology.
No, it's a mark of a relatively young engineering field, where The Book is still being written. That's why there's disagreement. It's a matter of what technique gets into which section of The Book, if it gets in at all.
In other fields where the book has already been completed, there are no disagreements on the techniques available and the ones used, only on the priorities that dictate their application.
Because he was an artist, not an engineer .
FTFY.
The builders are the guys who pour the cement and hammer nails. The engineer is the guy in charge of keeping the structure standing for as long as possible.
Send it off a cliff. The cops will think you're dead and stop chasing. That or they might still chase after it.
No, really, it doesn't. Taiwan is still a province of the ROC. People forget that there are technically two Chinas. One government operates out of the mainland (PRC). The other operates out of Taiwan (ROC). Technically, the ROC doesn't recognize the PRC as a legitimate government, and for a short time, the rest of the world did not either.
Irrespective, they both share very similar claims to sovereign territory and have the same areas divided out in similar ways. The only exception is that the ROC doesn't recognize Mongolia as its own country, which was done largely by the ROC and PRC at the time as a concession to Stalin's Russia.
Even people in Taiwan forget this and instead think they are a country independent of China. They are both the seat of the (only recognized--by them) Chinese government, and one province in that China.
Uh, what? A lot of them come over because they're among the lower class if not the lowest of the low, and are looking to make a better life for themselves. What they do is work their asses off, and take a large number of risks. They'll open up corner stores on corners that nobody else would for fear of being robbed every day. They'll commute 3 hours in each direction for below-minimum wage work so that they don't have to pay more rent than they should. There are even more egregious stories, but they're the exception and not the norm.
No, what immigrants in general, not just Chinese, Indian, Mexican, etc. understand is real poverty. They know the literal meaning of not being able to put food on the table. They have experienced illiteracy, and value highly the education that's freely given to them by this society. What they have in coming here is a dream, for a better life, not even for themselves necessarily, but for their children and grandchildren.
On the other hand, many people here have no dreams. They have no aspirations. They know not of abject poverty, because the government feeds them, because even at their poorest, they can run to McDonalds and gorge themselves. They value fancy cars and iPhones, but not being educated and working diligently at even the worst, least-paying job. That is why they are stuck where they are.
There are Americans, irrespective of class, who have dreams too, who work hard to fulfill their dreams. More often than not, they too succeed. The ones who see the life of others but have no want of the responsibilities, only of the rewards, they are the ones who fail.
Can't wait to see TV news showing Neil Patrick Harris stick a probe into the mouth of a brain bug.
When they're about to collapse, they'll just ask the government for a bailout. Problem solved.
Not twitter. Technology. Technology causes brain damage. Other people constantly solving your problems means you lose the capacity to solve them yourself.
You tap the bottom in the center. Don't pop the tab open too quickly. None of it will come out.
I'd take a page from tech support people everywhere and just reinstall Windows/Linux.
I don't run Steam. But I can suck it up. If a game's not available as a stand-alone, I don't bother. The last game I bought? Torchlight 2.
This is completely off topic, but ever since I've seen the subject of your posts, I find myself reading the subjects even more than before.
Yeah, sounds more like a botched migration than any failure to test. And that was allowed to go forward because of a lacking in their formal migration process.
There are a lot of growing pains when moving to entire systems of new technology. Testing the technology in pieces (unit testing) and as a whole (system testing) is already a given. For things that really matter though (like money), the processes themselves need to be tested and refined. I've seen a lot of processes go to production, i.e. used on production machines, only to go wrong when they could have been tested on the existing test setup and the kinks worked out then.
'web designers' decided they needed the page to look exactly the way they wanted it to look.
These people need to be marginalized in any discussions regarding web technology. They're as bad as the people trying to fit everything into the browser *ahem* Google *ahem*. There's no way something designed for 1600x900 will look exactly the same as something designed for 1280x1024. Hell, you can resize your browser window to half your 1980x1200 screen, and it won't look the same. And I haven't even gotten to phone sizes.
The worst part is, nobody has it right. HTML(2) started off with not even the slightest concept of this, and then tried to tack on some extensions that somewhat made it possible, but was really just a bunch of hacks. HTML5 started off with it as the basic premise, then went off the deep end as more and more vested, moneyed interests had something to add. Now it's everything, and nothing all at the same time.
I'm waiting for HTML4.5, that happy medium between 4 and 5. Preferably, it won't be based on SGML, but that might be asking for too much (and it wouldn't be a *ML anymore).
I guess it depends on what your standpoint is. From a user standpoint, transitioning to a new technology via a familiar UI is better than doing it via an unfamiliar one. Once there however, the real test is how unintrusive and easy to use the UI actually is.
From a designer standpoint, again, when in transition, a familiar UI is easier to work with. However, once the transition period is over, it can be a limiting factor for improvements to the interface or to the functionality of the device.
Take the keyboard for example. We still use the same QWERTY layout of its predecessor, the typewriter. This was the natural course of evolution for typing as people transitioned away from typewriters to keyboards. But it is limiting, in that the key layout is not ideal for the typist, and the flat keyboard layout itself is not friendly to the hand at all.
On the other hand, look at the Segway. It has such a revolutionary interface that nobody really knows what to do with it. It probably would've gained far more traction had it looked closer to a bicycle. It could have eventually replaced all those motorized bikes with the 80cc engines, been legitimately the next revolution in transportation. Instead, it's now associated in my mind with being a fat slob, since the only people I've ever actually seen use one are mall security guards and the occasional beat cop.
Neither. Did you not hear what GP said? Don't trust clowns.
This assumes your adversaries only have the encrypted message. If they have your code, nothing but the math is going to save you.
I was employed at a large government agency that was involved with collecting government taxes from individuals and corporations
You could've just said IRS. We don't judge.
How about, making logical sense, and being thorough?
You use a certain pattern because it makes sense. It's the best fit for the goals you were given. If you were given (or otherwise had) other goals, you probably would've used a different design pattern. Perhaps you would've used a different pattern, but also modified it slightly to work better towards your goals.
Those are the most important qualities of a developer. Figuring out what needs to be done (communicating, being thorough), and knowing how to get it done best (logical reasoning). Semantics are just semantics, and for the people who have no idea what they're doing but want to look like they do. Now, being a (good) manager or lead of programmers requires one more skill: delegating.
No, first you start with: Is it plugged in?
Then you move on to: Did you hit the power button?
Has nobody here ever done tech support for family?