It could be less about the value of your ID, and more about trying to get people into the fold. Not only would this likely simplify the development and testing (thus decrease the cost of deployment) but it could generate some good will and keep people using the Apple stack. And since Apple is more a hardware and media company then a software one, getting people to pay for their software is probably a relatively low priority, esp when it might be in conflict with the other two major ones.
When people talk about frameworks not surviving, what they are generally thinking is more in terms of 'will it still be sexy'.
There is an old saying, "The software is done when the last user is dead." Frameworks, languages, etc often stick around a LONG time past when they are the hot new thing, and chance are no matter which one you go with, a decade from now it will still be around and you will still be able to find people who know it well enough to be hired.
Look into what does the job NOW and focus on getting stuff out the door. You can always switch 5 - 10 years down the road.
There are all sorts of alternatives, but they tend to come with the problem of how much the user has to maintain. If you run a home server, you have to maintain a home server. If you rent a VM then you have to maintain the VM but not the hardware or network. If you rent cloud space, there is very little you as a user has to maintain.
That is not a terribly good place to start since the framers had a pretty diverse set of views, not only in terms of their debates but how they walked away understanding what had been agreed on. That is one of the reasons there was a Bill of Rights rather then having those amendments folded strait into the constitution, the arguments and political horse trading was lasting too long.
Pretty much, though the balance between 'more freedom for the powerful to exercise their freedom on others' and 'protect the weak from the powerfull's freedom' varies from state to state. For better or worse, a big part of Texas's ethics revolve around the idea that the best way for people to accumulate wealth is to not protect them, thus encouraging them to get stronger. Thus anyone who does not get one of those coveted higher slots are simply personal failures, which reenforces the idea of the rights of the powerful since not only did they 'earn' it, but the people who did not are inferior in one way or another, otherwise they would be powerful too.
Well, these dealers have more money, so they get more freedom. Texas freedom generally is not about individual for the masses, but about not keeping the power of the powerful in check.
Most people behind tech startups that did well have very little understanding of why they succeeded while the dozens of companies just like them with equally talented people did not.... and their self image does not really allow for 'you got lucky, right time right place' so they come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why they are so much better then everyone else, when in reality... if you have 10 companies doing something and there is only room for 1 titan, chances are luck is going to be the deciding factor, not some special sauce.
Ah, but you forget, they way these projects are structured they never have to give up all those things since they talk about building right next to well established countries. They do not want to give up all the advantages of a strong government and economy, they just do not want to help pay for it or be constrained by the same rules.
Which in a way is the point. These are generally people who feel they deserve more power then they have and it is the government's fault they are not doing better in life, thus if they break away THEY get to run things instead. There is a reason these types of projects tend to attract narcissistic people, it takes a certain amount of self centered confidence to believe that in such a shakeup they will come out on top rather then simply ending up worse then before since some new group of powerful people will simply have even more control over them.
People 'fold' because technological barriers are irrelevant when it comes to legal proceedings. For that matter, when you throw enough resources at it, the law is irrelevant to legal proceedings too. All you need is a name and enough lawyers to destroy the person's life.
I am not sure how much that helps since unless the person is doing something very specific, chances are it will just shift the problem into 'which library is best' debate, which will again mostly involve people suggesting libraries they like or because they believe they are easy to learn.
Was that supposed to be a crack about popularity? Because auditing fortran is no worse then most other languages, and it can be argued that fortran is better then most in terms of being able to validate models.
To expand, for instance, how I ended up dealing with my bullies was I 'nothinged' them. No reaction, no response, no acknowledgement, they stopped existing for me. They ramped it up for a while, but quickly found less and less benefit in harassing me. However this worked because of the specific people involved.
Well, the key point is not teasing, but harassment. In theory at least it has to rise to a pretty significant level to actually cross the law. Kinda like stalking, you don't get arrested for stalking just because you happened to walk behind someone one day, it takes a pattern of behavior and a significant impact on the victim.
Actually, no, fighting bullies works really well in the movies and some real life cases, but is often a very bad idea. Generally bullies do what they do because they are getting some benefit form it. If you challenge one you switch from 'source of benefit' to 'source of risk', at which point they often have a powerful incentive to not loose face. Even if you can take them once, they will often make an example of the person later. Escalation CAN be a solution, but by increasing the stakes one increases the blowback too, and the idea that bullies are just cowards who will back down is a common but dangerous myth.
So as with many things, the solution is pretty situation specific.
Oh, it goes well beyond just the status quo. Things that help a select few are often considered 'National Security' too. Quite a few times things like opening new markets (or suppliers) to well connected companies has counted as 'National Security' since it pushes American Culture into a region and Helps the Economy. And of course anything that helps the (right) economy is important to national security....
I have known people who carry copies of various laws around and show them to the police when questioned regarding something they know is legal. They usually then get arrested for resisting arrest or such.
Not all bullying is easily shrugged off. If someone chooses death over living with a situation, then it was probably somewhat worse then 'someone said something mean'.
While we like to think of ourselves as strong and can just decide 'it does not matter', people also have a rather bad habit of taking whatever they went through and assuming that other cases are as easily dismissed. I have seen some very strong people taken down by systematic harassment over an extended period. They knew how to 'deal' with bullies, but similar to how knowing how to walk is of limited utility when one has a broken leg, situations can be worse then what can be simply shrugged off.
The headline is somewhat sensational. There is a pretty wide gulf between an abstract and rather arbitrary metric and a practical vulnerability. This is kinda the security equivalent of pixel peeping, a fun mathematical exercise at best and pissing contest at worst, but ultimately not all that important.
Outside a few outliers that are in the tinfoil hat category, feminists (esp 3rd wave) say no such thing. The ones who do are routinely ignored even by the 2nd wave and are actively criticized by most 3rd wave.
Last I heard, snuff films (even if they did exist) are not illegal (to own or sell)... and neither is 'revenge porn' outside some pretty narrow circumstances which are just extensions of anti-harassment laws.
The part that is more frightening is how small groups (almost always religious and conservative) seem to have disproportionate sway over how those companies behave. It does not help that people who support free expression and adult material are so easily shamed into not fighting back... but even when they do, the response they get can be pretty different. Tell Amazon you are upset because they have naughty stuff and they go banning. Tell Amazon you are upset because they are deleting content and they are pretty dismissive (I actually tried a while back).
Slashdot Mirror
It could be less about the value of your ID, and more about trying to get people into the fold. Not only would this likely simplify the development and testing (thus decrease the cost of deployment) but it could generate some good will and keep people using the Apple stack. And since Apple is more a hardware and media company then a software one, getting people to pay for their software is probably a relatively low priority, esp when it might be in conflict with the other two major ones.
When people talk about frameworks not surviving, what they are generally thinking is more in terms of 'will it still be sexy'.
There is an old saying, "The software is done when the last user is dead." Frameworks, languages, etc often stick around a LONG time past when they are the hot new thing, and chance are no matter which one you go with, a decade from now it will still be around and you will still be able to find people who know it well enough to be hired.
Look into what does the job NOW and focus on getting stuff out the door. You can always switch 5 - 10 years down the road.
There are all sorts of alternatives, but they tend to come with the problem of how much the user has to maintain. If you run a home server, you have to maintain a home server. If you rent a VM then you have to maintain the VM but not the hardware or network. If you rent cloud space, there is very little you as a user has to maintain.
Yeah, california has plenty of its own problems.
That is not a terribly good place to start since the framers had a pretty diverse set of views, not only in terms of their debates but how they walked away understanding what had been agreed on. That is one of the reasons there was a Bill of Rights rather then having those amendments folded strait into the constitution, the arguments and political horse trading was lasting too long.
Pretty much, though the balance between 'more freedom for the powerful to exercise their freedom on others' and 'protect the weak from the powerfull's freedom' varies from state to state. For better or worse, a big part of Texas's ethics revolve around the idea that the best way for people to accumulate wealth is to not protect them, thus encouraging them to get stronger. Thus anyone who does not get one of those coveted higher slots are simply personal failures, which reenforces the idea of the rights of the powerful since not only did they 'earn' it, but the people who did not are inferior in one way or another, otherwise they would be powerful too.
Well, these dealers have more money, so they get more freedom. Texas freedom generally is not about individual for the masses, but about not keeping the power of the powerful in check.
To be fair, when you are talking about rocket launches, it kinda is everyone else's business.
Most people behind tech startups that did well have very little understanding of why they succeeded while the dozens of companies just like them with equally talented people did not.... and their self image does not really allow for 'you got lucky, right time right place' so they come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why they are so much better then everyone else, when in reality... if you have 10 companies doing something and there is only room for 1 titan, chances are luck is going to be the deciding factor, not some special sauce.
Ah, but you forget, they way these projects are structured they never have to give up all those things since they talk about building right next to well established countries. They do not want to give up all the advantages of a strong government and economy, they just do not want to help pay for it or be constrained by the same rules.
Which in a way is the point. These are generally people who feel they deserve more power then they have and it is the government's fault they are not doing better in life, thus if they break away THEY get to run things instead. There is a reason these types of projects tend to attract narcissistic people, it takes a certain amount of self centered confidence to believe that in such a shakeup they will come out on top rather then simply ending up worse then before since some new group of powerful people will simply have even more control over them.
People 'fold' because technological barriers are irrelevant when it comes to legal proceedings. For that matter, when you throw enough resources at it, the law is irrelevant to legal proceedings too. All you need is a name and enough lawyers to destroy the person's life.
I am not sure how much that helps since unless the person is doing something very specific, chances are it will just shift the problem into 'which library is best' debate, which will again mostly involve people suggesting libraries they like or because they believe they are easy to learn.
Was that supposed to be a crack about popularity? Because auditing fortran is no worse then most other languages, and it can be argued that fortran is better then most in terms of being able to validate models.
To expand, for instance, how I ended up dealing with my bullies was I 'nothinged' them. No reaction, no response, no acknowledgement, they stopped existing for me. They ramped it up for a while, but quickly found less and less benefit in harassing me. However this worked because of the specific people involved.
Well, the key point is not teasing, but harassment. In theory at least it has to rise to a pretty significant level to actually cross the law. Kinda like stalking, you don't get arrested for stalking just because you happened to walk behind someone one day, it takes a pattern of behavior and a significant impact on the victim.
Actually, no, fighting bullies works really well in the movies and some real life cases, but is often a very bad idea. Generally bullies do what they do because they are getting some benefit form it. If you challenge one you switch from 'source of benefit' to 'source of risk', at which point they often have a powerful incentive to not loose face. Even if you can take them once, they will often make an example of the person later. Escalation CAN be a solution, but by increasing the stakes one increases the blowback too, and the idea that bullies are just cowards who will back down is a common but dangerous myth.
So as with many things, the solution is pretty situation specific.
Oh, it goes well beyond just the status quo. Things that help a select few are often considered 'National Security' too. Quite a few times things like opening new markets (or suppliers) to well connected companies has counted as 'National Security' since it pushes American Culture into a region and Helps the Economy. And of course anything that helps the (right) economy is important to national security....
I have known people who carry copies of various laws around and show them to the police when questioned regarding something they know is legal. They usually then get arrested for resisting arrest or such.
I keep wondering if that is a typo of some type or I am really not getting something.
Not all bullying is easily shrugged off. If someone chooses death over living with a situation, then it was probably somewhat worse then 'someone said something mean'.
While we like to think of ourselves as strong and can just decide 'it does not matter', people also have a rather bad habit of taking whatever they went through and assuming that other cases are as easily dismissed. I have seen some very strong people taken down by systematic harassment over an extended period. They knew how to 'deal' with bullies, but similar to how knowing how to walk is of limited utility when one has a broken leg, situations can be worse then what can be simply shrugged off.
The headline is somewhat sensational. There is a pretty wide gulf between an abstract and rather arbitrary metric and a practical vulnerability. This is kinda the security equivalent of pixel peeping, a fun mathematical exercise at best and pissing contest at worst, but ultimately not all that important.
Outside a few outliers that are in the tinfoil hat category, feminists (esp 3rd wave) say no such thing. The ones who do are routinely ignored even by the 2nd wave and are actively criticized by most 3rd wave.
Last I heard, snuff films (even if they did exist) are not illegal (to own or sell)... and neither is 'revenge porn' outside some pretty narrow circumstances which are just extensions of anti-harassment laws.
The part that is more frightening is how small groups (almost always religious and conservative) seem to have disproportionate sway over how those companies behave. It does not help that people who support free expression and adult material are so easily shamed into not fighting back... but even when they do, the response they get can be pretty different. Tell Amazon you are upset because they have naughty stuff and they go banning. Tell Amazon you are upset because they are deleting content and they are pretty dismissive (I actually tried a while back).