Perhaps, but it's a missed opportunity to actually bring facts where they could actually be of some use. You can certainly feel justified in the minimum possible rebuttal, but you will have the minimum possible effect (usually applause from the echo chamber).
I don't know. Certain ideas seem obvious that perhaps are only obvious in hindsight because we think they should be obvious, but in reality, no one had seriously considered the idea until someone actually took the time to think it out and maybe test it.
It depends very much on how much work they did on this. Balloon wireless may not be a hard idea to think up, but the engineering needed to make it feasible may be at least a little challenging. If it's just a crayon drawing of Linksys router attached to a party balloon floating around the sky, then yeah, not really a big deal.
American copyright law probably does not have meaning, but there are international copyright conventions that I am pretty sure both countries adhere to. In which case, he's being sued under Sweden's law which was created via acceptance of those treaty conventions.
Note this can seem like its unfair on against the Swedes or other small countries with the US flexing its muscles at them, but to be fair, these conventions protect Swedish material as well, its just not as prevalent as the American stuff being shared (for many reasons).
As for the torrent file being illegal in and of itself... I am not sure that can be guaranteed to hold up as a defense for what they are pointing at in terms of infringement. Perhaps yes, if a very specific interpretation is used, but probably not, since torrent file or not, they are facilitating copyright infringement by hosting an informational service that provides the capability to connect with the sharers. A torrent file is perfectly legal. A torrent file that happens to be a pointer to illicit content is still not illegal, but is evidence of the intent to aid and abet infringement on the part of the site hosting the file.
Mind you, I think the torrent file argument is good enough that they won't just come knock down your door or sue you for hosting a few torrents, but when you are a torrent site the size of TPB, the discretion tends to start falling on the side of trying to make a go at an infringement case because TPB is a major player and a defiant one who doesn't even pretend to hide their intentions to permit what amounts to mass infringement.
Music publishers don't give a shit about mix tapes, because the quality is shit. And they don't care about friends passing along songs by sneakernet or even passing them to each other directly over networks, because distribution in that way is pretty slow. It's when you have a public, searchable site with thousands of torrents that it starts becoming a threat to their distribution channels and profits and they will come looking for you, they really have no choice unless they want to abdicate their entire business model.
There's also the chance that you accidentally "click" on it while you're trying to scroll and it starts playing at you with audio on. I can usually avoid it, but it's harder to do with mobile devices where there is less real-estate and everything is some sort of touch control.
They have things like this, only it is usually those survivalists who are making "warning" videos about this bad thing that their "friend in the government/CIA/FEMA?etc." told them was going to happen on such and such a date. They spend a lot of time talking about all of these non-existent programs and government preparations that clearly show that the world is going to end on September 12th. And you should totally hoard bottled water and 5.56mm ammunition for your AR-15 knockoff to prepare for the economic crash/tsunami/giant lizard/Obama-Antichrist Takeover that is obviously coming.
Well obvious if you aren't one of those sheeple.
In this case, he'd be talking about the clear advantages of hosts files and bottled water, while scribbling horns, pentagrams, and red eyes on the pictures of anti-virus company executives. His friend in the government *knows* that the NSA doesn't want you to use hosts files because that would thwart the Obama takeover plot to use subliminal mind control mp3s embedded in anti-virus signature files.
Agreed. You can't just be a media organization and have no responsibility to the truth or privacy under the law. I agree that if a media organization maintains journalistic ethics and stays within the law, they should not be screwed with. But they aren't supposed to be untouchable.
While I don't like the way this went down, I have to admit, I'm glad someone had the ability to take them on. Some parts of the press seem to get away with a lot that perhaps they should not. And they do have a lot of real power, so that should concern us as much as the power that the rich has.
I don't think any reputable media with actual editorial standards is overly concerned about this. People just don't like seeing the rich flex their wallets like this.
Considering what a bunch of dicks that Gawker could be, I'm not sure I'm upset that one rich guy went after a prickish media organization. What we miss here is that Thiel is rich, but Gawker was equally untouchable to normal people. They're a gossip rag covering themselves in the freedom of the press with their own set of lawyers which are likely well paid, if not as well paid as Thiel's proxies.
If Gawker decided that, for some odd reason, my life was going to be under their microscope, I wouldn't be able to do shit about it, even if I was justified. Hell, even Hulk Hogan couldn't really have touched them without Thiel's money, and while Hogan is certainly not the richest man on Earth, he's probably better able to obtain and pay for legal counsel than I am.
So, I can see the concern, because this fight pretty much rips the covers off of the reality of how things really work. I can't affect either one of them, so it's sort of like Godzilla fighting Mothra or something. All I could ever do is watch, but I'm glad they're keeping each other busy.
Our system only plasters over the realities that still exist out there. The press is no more my champion than Peter Thiel. The reason the press is useful is that they make money on exposing things that might be in my interests to know, but ultimately they're trying to sell information for money. And that doesn't prevent them from being overbearing, abusive, and working for their own agenda. If they have too much ability to act with impunity, they can have a poor effect on society, just like everyone else. So, yeah Thiel is a rich guy with a grudge, but this is more of a natural selection thing where press outlets who act as if they are completely untouchable are brought back into line.
Well, the Secretary of State is a statutory member of the National Security Council and while she cannot authorize military action, it is likely that she would be wanted to at least provide advice and sign-off on that action. It wouldn't have stopped Obama and SecDef from actually launching attacks, if they really, really wanted to, but the NSC influence is pretty huge, and leaving the State Department out of the decision would cause all kinds of political problems for the President.
So yeah, she likely had a large hand in drone strike planning. It is not clear how much, but she certainly had the power to really be a pain in the ass *against them* if she really wanted to be.
I'm not sure. The Democrats could fire her as a candidate and replace her with their VP candidate, unless that person is too much of a flake to win. I'm almost certain that most people who were planning to vote for Hillary wouldn't stay home if she was replaced with a similar candidate. Especially with Trump op
If she's guilty, the best thing the Democrats can do for themselves is dump her for someone who doesn't have that black mark. I agree that it would be a risk electorally, but if she's basically immune to indictment, how can that be a good thing for the country?
I admit, I am not voting for Hillary (or Trump), and even I find that the email charges against her are sort of weaksauce. But at the same time, so what if they are? Is she immune to a law that someone else would be prosecuted for, just because she's more "important"? I know we'll elect nobody if we expect a perfect ideal person, but at the same time, are we creating two different laws for people? And if so, then why do we get to complain when they act as if that is the case?
Sanders has probably 10x better chance of winning a write-in campaign than Johnson, at this point. Which is admittedly, 10x nearly zero.
I do agree that you don't get rid of the people you don't want by voting for them. So, I do agree that you have to vote who you really want to win, even if you lose.
But there is something more important. By voting even for a losing candidate, you have them on the books has having gotten a certain amount of votes. That can make them a player in the *next* election. For instance, making them eligible for Federal matching funds for their election.
The problem is that no one looks at the long term, and perhaps, maybe they can't. People who are mad now will probably calm down and roll over for the second term election of whoever the incumbent is. The real make or break of a third party happens when there isn't a big election. It's where the third party solidifies their base, builds an organization on the ground, and gets out the vote at all possible levels.
Honestly, I think Sanders supporters and other third party sorts are best off fighting for local and state elections and building up at the lower levels. This allows them to both create an effective organization without as much outlay, and also means that they can actually get younger candidates elected into positions that give them experience.
Look at Sanders himself, he was a mayor and then a legislator. The only reason anyone is taking him seriously right now is because he fought his way up the ranks in his state and DC and had a long record as a Senator. Too many people think that they can just declare themselves as candidates for the Presidency with no constituency. While Trump has no governmental experience, he's a billionaire, and even he did not run as a third party candidate, because he needs the GOP machine to ultimately have a hope or prevailing in November.
Libertarians and the other people out there need to do themselves a favor and work the local level and create coherent power blocs that can cut deals with the existing power brokers and slowly increase their power to affect policy and to get their leaders experience in government. I would almost stop having them run protest Presidential candidates, because I think it makes them look like perennial losers. While there is not a huge amount of power at the local levels, that's where everything starts.
They also have to stop with the idea of getting local power and turning their municipalities into the People's Republic of Ithaca or whatever. Allow your ideals to inform your policies, but don't try and turn over the entire world in one sitting. Nothing persists that has not been built up carefully over time.
Incidentally, this is why conservatives can maintain power even when they seem like dinosaurs. They may not be cutting edge, but you don't become the status quo without having something going for you. If we'd stop trying to have revolutions all the time, and take our time and make good decisions and build on those good decisions, we'd make real progress.
It just seems so odd that she'd think she could get away with such a huge scam from the very beginning. Medical testing is serious business.
My guess is that she was/is delusional about her product and it just snowballed from there. As much as this is going to be a fiasco, I don't think it started as a scam originally.
Of course, no matter how it started, it's a huge scam now, and I think their purchase of normal lab equipment for their labs was after their "oh shit" moment when they realized that their stuff was actually a crock of shit and they were hoping to brazen through it.
I just have to wonder how I would have reacted when I found out that the thing I thought was going to change the world was not real, and how I'd deal with all the investors and attention and possible court cases. As horrible as it seems to fake your way through that, caught up in her own little world, she probably has a distorted view of things that makes her believe that a cover up is the only move that made sense, even though it is only going to make things worse.
In their defense, if you have "homeopathic" on the label, then Walgreen's is selling a correctly labelled product.
Which is to say "homeopathic" == "placebo".
The problem with Theranos is that their product was labelled "accurate medical testing" explicitly. And it's not. At least people who see "homeopathic" on a box have not been deceived as to their purchase. They're just generally deluded, it's not Walgreen's that is lying to them.
This is true. I've been employed for close to twenty years now, and only a few times has perl been in the job description.
And I have used it at every job I have worked at since 1997. Not because I was required to know it, but because I had something that needed to get done, and that did the job. And still does do the job.
In fact, you're only reason to not walk into a job with up to date perl knowledge and use it at least every so often is if you get employed by a brogramming shop where they sneer at you for not knowing the favor of the month language. And they then fail about six months later after they burned through the financing by trying to "improve coding practices" instead of actually producing anything.
Which is why perl was not adopted instead of java or C++ for certain tasks.
I agree that perl5 would make it a pain in the ass to write a fully featured application in, but perl itself does not cause these issues. At worst, it confuses some people into not doing proper validations. Or they're just lazy and didn't do them.
But considering everything that was written in perl, and everything today written in other languages that seems to be just as vulnerable to various attacks, I don't really see these examples as being more than someone who coded in perl who didn't understand how to write an application securely with it. You get the same thing with just about any language.
Hacks to create non-symbolic types do exist, but honestly, anyone who bothers with perl for long enough just gets used to them.
And it's not really all that hard. I actually never really understood why people found them to be all that confusing. $ is a scalar, @ is a list or array, and % is an associative array or hash. Yes, they can be used in some odd ways, and that's annoying to learn, but once you figured it out, perl is just fine.
I mean sure, typing out "Integer myInteger" is nice and all, but perl isn't a strongly typed language, so what would that do other than make me write out a word that doesn't really say more than that dollar sign did. In perl, casting a scalar as an integer can happen, but you can also use that same scalar as a string, so you might as well call it '$'.
The problem with perl was that you would have a lot of trouble making objects out of perl when OO is/was all the rage. And yeah, some of the built-in variables like your $$ and your $ and all of that required a cheat sheet to know which ones they were, but it really wasn't that bad.
I do agree that you do need to do a little staring at someone's perl code to figure it out sometimes, but at least it doesn't take as long to read as the verbosity of some languages which use multicharacter words to describe what could be described in one character.
Although I really have been working to adopt other languages to stay current, the fact is that if I want to do something, I can actually still do it in perl and have to force myself not to, most of the time. Most of that is CPAN remaining really strong and providing interfaces. The language itself is just a language, and I learned it long ago, so as long as people write drivers/interfaces for it, the oddities of perl have long been a non-existent problem for me.
"sh" IS the Bourne shell. "Bash" is the "Bourne Again Shell", a nicer backwards compatible follow-on to be sure, but not the original. And the Bourne shell does predate perl. Bourne shell is indeed where perl gets much, if not most, of its odd syntax.
That's why it had high sysadmin adoption. You can pretty much turn a shell script into a perl script with very little work, and then expand from there. All the cryptic syntax is actually very familiar to shell scripters. It's just that your OO language developers are those who were wont to go from languages like C/C++ and Pascal to Java and then further on to all the various follow-ons, and they didn't really hang out much with the shell. You can still see this today when I still have to teach an experienced developer how to run his own application on a Linux box.
Not really. Trump is using "Crooked Hillary" not because he's a two year old, but because he's actually being very savvy by creating a short, media friendly sound byte.
He's using repetition after repletion to make us associate "Crooked" with Hillary, and even if we don't believe it, it has an effect. One of those effects is more media results. It's not a bias, its that the media are having their strings pulled because Trump knows how to play them.
And to be honest, she's kind of an easy target to begin with. She's one of those folks who you never manage to convict, but you can never quite believe she's aboveboard. She's just been in politics too long with too many things happening around her.
Racism is the extension of natural instinctive discrimination against people outside your family group. Being able to instinctively know your friends from your potential foes by visual discrimination is useful.
Unfortunately, it also leads to some pretty inaccurate conclusions about those other people, which is the genesis of some of the odder notions of racism. It is easy to fear people that you can easily discern as being different from you, and differing skin color is a very, very easy thing to identify as "other".
This notion affects whites and blacks identically, although obviously, the differing cultures and economic position of those groups in the US makes this a much, much more difficult situation for blacks to overcome.
That's not an invalid point, but there is a balance that has to be reached. We can be critical of the balance that has been reached between security and liberty without suggesting that there can be no security. Particularly if the steps being taken are not only intrusive, but actually ineffective.
Deploying VDI is not without its challenges, and I suspect that rather than work it out, the simple governmental response was to ban things. It also makes them look tough.
It may well be that they end up with VDI when they tire of being back in the 1990s, but it is just as likely that they'll open themselves in a hodgepodge, case-by-case way that makes them even less secure than they were previously.
What I don't really agree with is his certainty about it, given the complete lack of actual evidence.
Does the universe work like a computer simulation, or does a computer simulation work something like the universe? It would seem to me that the more simple explanation is that our simulations are a mirror of real physics because they are bound by real physics.
I think there is a real bias against what I'd call a "digital" universe. People don't like the fact that there are things like the Planck length where there seems to be nothing that is happening with anything smaller than that. They want an "analog" and infinitely divisible universe, or it isn't "real". I'd say the "we're inside of a simulation" is merely a sort of reactionary pining away for some sort of "real" universe which doesn't appear to actually exist.
The actual universe may quite simply be quantized and limited. What do we have to compare the universe to in order to say it "must" be a hologram or simulation?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but it's a missed opportunity to actually bring facts where they could actually be of some use. You can certainly feel justified in the minimum possible rebuttal, but you will have the minimum possible effect (usually applause from the echo chamber).
His point may well be bullshit, but you'd have an excellent opportunity to find your own numbers and tell him to GTFO with actual facts behind you.
It's annoying to see people throw around demands for citations when they don't actually follow through themselves.
I don't know. Certain ideas seem obvious that perhaps are only obvious in hindsight because we think they should be obvious, but in reality, no one had seriously considered the idea until someone actually took the time to think it out and maybe test it.
It depends very much on how much work they did on this. Balloon wireless may not be a hard idea to think up, but the engineering needed to make it feasible may be at least a little challenging. If it's just a crayon drawing of Linksys router attached to a party balloon floating around the sky, then yeah, not really a big deal.
American copyright law probably does not have meaning, but there are international copyright conventions that I am pretty sure both countries adhere to. In which case, he's being sued under Sweden's law which was created via acceptance of those treaty conventions.
Note this can seem like its unfair on against the Swedes or other small countries with the US flexing its muscles at them, but to be fair, these conventions protect Swedish material as well, its just not as prevalent as the American stuff being shared (for many reasons).
As for the torrent file being illegal in and of itself... I am not sure that can be guaranteed to hold up as a defense for what they are pointing at in terms of infringement. Perhaps yes, if a very specific interpretation is used, but probably not, since torrent file or not, they are facilitating copyright infringement by hosting an informational service that provides the capability to connect with the sharers. A torrent file is perfectly legal. A torrent file that happens to be a pointer to illicit content is still not illegal, but is evidence of the intent to aid and abet infringement on the part of the site hosting the file.
Mind you, I think the torrent file argument is good enough that they won't just come knock down your door or sue you for hosting a few torrents, but when you are a torrent site the size of TPB, the discretion tends to start falling on the side of trying to make a go at an infringement case because TPB is a major player and a defiant one who doesn't even pretend to hide their intentions to permit what amounts to mass infringement.
Music publishers don't give a shit about mix tapes, because the quality is shit. And they don't care about friends passing along songs by sneakernet or even passing them to each other directly over networks, because distribution in that way is pretty slow. It's when you have a public, searchable site with thousands of torrents that it starts becoming a threat to their distribution channels and profits and they will come looking for you, they really have no choice unless they want to abdicate their entire business model.
That was a fabulous rebuttal. Thank you for making my day.
There's also the chance that you accidentally "click" on it while you're trying to scroll and it starts playing at you with audio on. I can usually avoid it, but it's harder to do with mobile devices where there is less real-estate and everything is some sort of touch control.
They have things like this, only it is usually those survivalists who are making "warning" videos about this bad thing that their "friend in the government/CIA/FEMA?etc." told them was going to happen on such and such a date. They spend a lot of time talking about all of these non-existent programs and government preparations that clearly show that the world is going to end on September 12th. And you should totally hoard bottled water and 5.56mm ammunition for your AR-15 knockoff to prepare for the economic crash/tsunami/giant lizard/Obama-Antichrist Takeover that is obviously coming.
Well obvious if you aren't one of those sheeple.
In this case, he'd be talking about the clear advantages of hosts files and bottled water, while scribbling horns, pentagrams, and red eyes on the pictures of anti-virus company executives. His friend in the government *knows* that the NSA doesn't want you to use hosts files because that would thwart the Obama takeover plot to use subliminal mind control mp3s embedded in anti-virus signature files.
Agreed. You can't just be a media organization and have no responsibility to the truth or privacy under the law. I agree that if a media organization maintains journalistic ethics and stays within the law, they should not be screwed with. But they aren't supposed to be untouchable.
While I don't like the way this went down, I have to admit, I'm glad someone had the ability to take them on. Some parts of the press seem to get away with a lot that perhaps they should not. And they do have a lot of real power, so that should concern us as much as the power that the rich has.
I don't think any reputable media with actual editorial standards is overly concerned about this. People just don't like seeing the rich flex their wallets like this.
Who is *really* the victim of this?
Considering what a bunch of dicks that Gawker could be, I'm not sure I'm upset that one rich guy went after a prickish media organization. What we miss here is that Thiel is rich, but Gawker was equally untouchable to normal people. They're a gossip rag covering themselves in the freedom of the press with their own set of lawyers which are likely well paid, if not as well paid as Thiel's proxies.
If Gawker decided that, for some odd reason, my life was going to be under their microscope, I wouldn't be able to do shit about it, even if I was justified. Hell, even Hulk Hogan couldn't really have touched them without Thiel's money, and while Hogan is certainly not the richest man on Earth, he's probably better able to obtain and pay for legal counsel than I am.
So, I can see the concern, because this fight pretty much rips the covers off of the reality of how things really work. I can't affect either one of them, so it's sort of like Godzilla fighting Mothra or something. All I could ever do is watch, but I'm glad they're keeping each other busy.
Our system only plasters over the realities that still exist out there. The press is no more my champion than Peter Thiel. The reason the press is useful is that they make money on exposing things that might be in my interests to know, but ultimately they're trying to sell information for money. And that doesn't prevent them from being overbearing, abusive, and working for their own agenda. If they have too much ability to act with impunity, they can have a poor effect on society, just like everyone else. So, yeah Thiel is a rich guy with a grudge, but this is more of a natural selection thing where press outlets who act as if they are completely untouchable are brought back into line.
Well, the Secretary of State is a statutory member of the National Security Council and while she cannot authorize military action, it is likely that she would be wanted to at least provide advice and sign-off on that action. It wouldn't have stopped Obama and SecDef from actually launching attacks, if they really, really wanted to, but the NSC influence is pretty huge, and leaving the State Department out of the decision would cause all kinds of political problems for the President.
So yeah, she likely had a large hand in drone strike planning. It is not clear how much, but she certainly had the power to really be a pain in the ass *against them* if she really wanted to be.
I'm not sure. The Democrats could fire her as a candidate and replace her with their VP candidate, unless that person is too much of a flake to win. I'm almost certain that most people who were planning to vote for Hillary wouldn't stay home if she was replaced with a similar candidate. Especially with Trump op
If she's guilty, the best thing the Democrats can do for themselves is dump her for someone who doesn't have that black mark. I agree that it would be a risk electorally, but if she's basically immune to indictment, how can that be a good thing for the country?
I admit, I am not voting for Hillary (or Trump), and even I find that the email charges against her are sort of weaksauce. But at the same time, so what if they are? Is she immune to a law that someone else would be prosecuted for, just because she's more "important"? I know we'll elect nobody if we expect a perfect ideal person, but at the same time, are we creating two different laws for people? And if so, then why do we get to complain when they act as if that is the case?
Sanders has probably 10x better chance of winning a write-in campaign than Johnson, at this point. Which is admittedly, 10x nearly zero.
I do agree that you don't get rid of the people you don't want by voting for them. So, I do agree that you have to vote who you really want to win, even if you lose.
But there is something more important. By voting even for a losing candidate, you have them on the books has having gotten a certain amount of votes. That can make them a player in the *next* election. For instance, making them eligible for Federal matching funds for their election.
The problem is that no one looks at the long term, and perhaps, maybe they can't. People who are mad now will probably calm down and roll over for the second term election of whoever the incumbent is. The real make or break of a third party happens when there isn't a big election. It's where the third party solidifies their base, builds an organization on the ground, and gets out the vote at all possible levels.
Honestly, I think Sanders supporters and other third party sorts are best off fighting for local and state elections and building up at the lower levels. This allows them to both create an effective organization without as much outlay, and also means that they can actually get younger candidates elected into positions that give them experience.
Look at Sanders himself, he was a mayor and then a legislator. The only reason anyone is taking him seriously right now is because he fought his way up the ranks in his state and DC and had a long record as a Senator. Too many people think that they can just declare themselves as candidates for the Presidency with no constituency. While Trump has no governmental experience, he's a billionaire, and even he did not run as a third party candidate, because he needs the GOP machine to ultimately have a hope or prevailing in November.
Libertarians and the other people out there need to do themselves a favor and work the local level and create coherent power blocs that can cut deals with the existing power brokers and slowly increase their power to affect policy and to get their leaders experience in government. I would almost stop having them run protest Presidential candidates, because I think it makes them look like perennial losers. While there is not a huge amount of power at the local levels, that's where everything starts.
They also have to stop with the idea of getting local power and turning their municipalities into the People's Republic of Ithaca or whatever. Allow your ideals to inform your policies, but don't try and turn over the entire world in one sitting. Nothing persists that has not been built up carefully over time.
Incidentally, this is why conservatives can maintain power even when they seem like dinosaurs. They may not be cutting edge, but you don't become the status quo without having something going for you. If we'd stop trying to have revolutions all the time, and take our time and make good decisions and build on those good decisions, we'd make real progress.
It just seems so odd that she'd think she could get away with such a huge scam from the very beginning. Medical testing is serious business.
My guess is that she was/is delusional about her product and it just snowballed from there. As much as this is going to be a fiasco, I don't think it started as a scam originally.
Of course, no matter how it started, it's a huge scam now, and I think their purchase of normal lab equipment for their labs was after their "oh shit" moment when they realized that their stuff was actually a crock of shit and they were hoping to brazen through it.
I just have to wonder how I would have reacted when I found out that the thing I thought was going to change the world was not real, and how I'd deal with all the investors and attention and possible court cases. As horrible as it seems to fake your way through that, caught up in her own little world, she probably has a distorted view of things that makes her believe that a cover up is the only move that made sense, even though it is only going to make things worse.
In their defense, if you have "homeopathic" on the label, then Walgreen's is selling a correctly labelled product.
Which is to say "homeopathic" == "placebo".
The problem with Theranos is that their product was labelled "accurate medical testing" explicitly. And it's not. At least people who see "homeopathic" on a box have not been deceived as to their purchase. They're just generally deluded, it's not Walgreen's that is lying to them.
This is true. I've been employed for close to twenty years now, and only a few times has perl been in the job description.
And I have used it at every job I have worked at since 1997. Not because I was required to know it, but because I had something that needed to get done, and that did the job. And still does do the job.
In fact, you're only reason to not walk into a job with up to date perl knowledge and use it at least every so often is if you get employed by a brogramming shop where they sneer at you for not knowing the favor of the month language. And they then fail about six months later after they burned through the financing by trying to "improve coding practices" instead of actually producing anything.
Which is why perl was not adopted instead of java or C++ for certain tasks.
I agree that perl5 would make it a pain in the ass to write a fully featured application in, but perl itself does not cause these issues. At worst, it confuses some people into not doing proper validations. Or they're just lazy and didn't do them.
But considering everything that was written in perl, and everything today written in other languages that seems to be just as vulnerable to various attacks, I don't really see these examples as being more than someone who coded in perl who didn't understand how to write an application securely with it. You get the same thing with just about any language.
Hacks to create non-symbolic types do exist, but honestly, anyone who bothers with perl for long enough just gets used to them.
And it's not really all that hard. I actually never really understood why people found them to be all that confusing. $ is a scalar, @ is a list or array, and % is an associative array or hash. Yes, they can be used in some odd ways, and that's annoying to learn, but once you figured it out, perl is just fine.
I mean sure, typing out "Integer myInteger" is nice and all, but perl isn't a strongly typed language, so what would that do other than make me write out a word that doesn't really say more than that dollar sign did. In perl, casting a scalar as an integer can happen, but you can also use that same scalar as a string, so you might as well call it '$'.
The problem with perl was that you would have a lot of trouble making objects out of perl when OO is/was all the rage. And yeah, some of the built-in variables like your $$ and your $ and all of that required a cheat sheet to know which ones they were, but it really wasn't that bad.
I do agree that you do need to do a little staring at someone's perl code to figure it out sometimes, but at least it doesn't take as long to read as the verbosity of some languages which use multicharacter words to describe what could be described in one character.
Although I really have been working to adopt other languages to stay current, the fact is that if I want to do something, I can actually still do it in perl and have to force myself not to, most of the time. Most of that is CPAN remaining really strong and providing interfaces. The language itself is just a language, and I learned it long ago, so as long as people write drivers/interfaces for it, the oddities of perl have long been a non-existent problem for me.
"sh" IS the Bourne shell. "Bash" is the "Bourne Again Shell", a nicer backwards compatible follow-on to be sure, but not the original. And the Bourne shell does predate perl. Bourne shell is indeed where perl gets much, if not most, of its odd syntax.
That's why it had high sysadmin adoption. You can pretty much turn a shell script into a perl script with very little work, and then expand from there. All the cryptic syntax is actually very familiar to shell scripters. It's just that your OO language developers are those who were wont to go from languages like C/C++ and Pascal to Java and then further on to all the various follow-ons, and they didn't really hang out much with the shell. You can still see this today when I still have to teach an experienced developer how to run his own application on a Linux box.
Not really. Trump is using "Crooked Hillary" not because he's a two year old, but because he's actually being very savvy by creating a short, media friendly sound byte.
He's using repetition after repletion to make us associate "Crooked" with Hillary, and even if we don't believe it, it has an effect. One of those effects is more media results. It's not a bias, its that the media are having their strings pulled because Trump knows how to play them.
And to be honest, she's kind of an easy target to begin with. She's one of those folks who you never manage to convict, but you can never quite believe she's aboveboard. She's just been in politics too long with too many things happening around her.
Racism is the extension of natural instinctive discrimination against people outside your family group. Being able to instinctively know your friends from your potential foes by visual discrimination is useful.
Unfortunately, it also leads to some pretty inaccurate conclusions about those other people, which is the genesis of some of the odder notions of racism. It is easy to fear people that you can easily discern as being different from you, and differing skin color is a very, very easy thing to identify as "other".
This notion affects whites and blacks identically, although obviously, the differing cultures and economic position of those groups in the US makes this a much, much more difficult situation for blacks to overcome.
That's not an invalid point, but there is a balance that has to be reached. We can be critical of the balance that has been reached between security and liberty without suggesting that there can be no security. Particularly if the steps being taken are not only intrusive, but actually ineffective.
Deploying VDI is not without its challenges, and I suspect that rather than work it out, the simple governmental response was to ban things. It also makes them look tough.
It may well be that they end up with VDI when they tire of being back in the 1990s, but it is just as likely that they'll open themselves in a hodgepodge, case-by-case way that makes them even less secure than they were previously.
Yes. He could be right, or he could be wrong.
What I don't really agree with is his certainty about it, given the complete lack of actual evidence.
Does the universe work like a computer simulation, or does a computer simulation work something like the universe? It would seem to me that the more simple explanation is that our simulations are a mirror of real physics because they are bound by real physics.
I think there is a real bias against what I'd call a "digital" universe. People don't like the fact that there are things like the Planck length where there seems to be nothing that is happening with anything smaller than that. They want an "analog" and infinitely divisible universe, or it isn't "real". I'd say the "we're inside of a simulation" is merely a sort of reactionary pining away for some sort of "real" universe which doesn't appear to actually exist.
The actual universe may quite simply be quantized and limited. What do we have to compare the universe to in order to say it "must" be a hologram or simulation?
Ataturk must be spinning in his grave.