I'm completely behind the theory that Russia is engaging in increased hacking of foreign state targets, but I think this is more about Dictator May's authoritarian stance.
For those not following British politics, the Conservatives were elected on a specific manifesto, with David Cameron as their leader expected to stay on until 2020 when he said he'd step down. After Brexit, Cameron decided he didn't want to deal with the mess the vote had created and resigned as PM. The Conservatives had to vote to elect a separate leader to lead the government and May rapidly won that election, after all the other candidates failed hard. With me so far? Good, nothing particularly wrong with all this, it's not ideal but it's the way everything works, fine.
So here comes the problem, May hasn't just become leader, she hasn't just replaced all the politicians in her top table in key jobs - that's fine, she's allowed to do that. What she's also done is completely defied the manifesto her government was elected on and created an entirely new programme - all this without a general election. The net result is that she is a defacto dictator, and will be until elections legally have to happen in 2020. She's a dictator because she wasn't elected, and she's a dictator because she's pursuing a set of policies for which there is no democratic mandate whatsoever.
On issues such as Brexit, which are kind of a fucking big deal to our country she's made it clear that she's absolutely unwilling to tell anyone whatsoever in the public what her plans are, she's also refused parliament a vote on any of her plans and claims she's just going to push them through regardless.
So here we are, with a dictator, pushing policies no one voted for, and keeping as much of her plans as possible completely secret and out of the public eye, such that we only find out what they are when it's either too late, or already gone to vote, preventing any opportunity to build effective opposition.
Yeah, this isn't about the Russians, this is about Theresa May's iron grip on on information in her cabinet and prevention of transparency by her government as to what their plans for the country are beyond the very few specific policies they've leaked (and that basically everyone hates).
Apparently this is what "getting our sovereignty back by voting for Brexit means" - secretive dictatorship. We can only hope there are enough decent Conservatives willing to rebel and block her via her thin parliamentary majority which is a hang over from the last election before she was in power, but I wont count on it.
Well that is really the problem in the UK media, the only people who buy physical print newspapers are old racists for the most part (because younger folk tend to use the internet for news), as such the majority of papers now sit somewhere between right (Telegraph) and far-right (Express) with hard-right in the middle (Daily Mail). Sitting on that spectrum you have countless papers.
Even The Mirror which is historically left leaning has had to jump on far-right bandwagons like hating migrants to stay profitable. The Guardian and The Observer are about the only truly centre-left papers remaining but are of course dwarfed by the likes of the above coupled with the other right wing papers such as The Sun, the The Spectator and so on.
So the issue is that there's no money for providing a viable print platform for, say, a truly centrist paper, or elevating the centre left, left, and hard-left to the same number of shelf spaces as the centre right, right, and hard-right.
The net result is that we have exactly the same problem you point out - for those who consume their news in print, they're really only hearing one side of the story, and that above all else is why Brexit is happening, because that's still a massive, probably the biggest active voting block - all they were hearing were the lies, and none of the rebuttals in the papers they were reading, hence why we are where we are.
But like you say what's the solution? State subsidies for papers of different political leanings? How do you stop them just becoming government mouthpieces and so on?
One solution I'd like to see in place is increased media plurality by increased restrictions on ownership - one individual, his family, or companies should only be able to own one paper. The situation you have where someone like Murdoch can buy up half the media and turn them hard-right is in itself a large part of the problem. Would the same thing work online? I've no idea, I suspect you'd need a different solution such as tying common carrier status to an inability to pick and choose clients and content, but as with all these solutions they require government to support it and therein lies the crux of the problem, governments are typically opposed to completely free speech.
"Like I mentioned, Bill Clinton DID far worse than what Trump SAID"
Did he? this seems to be the problem with this debate, Trump can say things without any actual evidence whatsoever, and it gets taken as gospel. In contrast Trump outright admitted to sexual assault (as opposed to merely an accusation against Bill) and it gets written off as not as bad as the mere accusation against Bill. Unless you're referring to Lewinsky which wasn't sexual assault, but consensual sex, but IMO having an affair isn't as bad as sexually assaulting someone.
But more to the point, last I checked, it's not Bill Clinton that's being elected here anymore than it is Melania Trump, who also has a history of sexual promiscuity as a prostitute. I mean, what, it's okay for Trump's spouse to sleep around because she's female?, but not Hillary's because he's male?
There's an awful lot of double standards going on here, and an awful lot of speculation taken as fact, and fact ignored as speculation.
FWIW I'm not American, but what's fascinating to us outsiders is the two realities that seem to exist, it's like the whole Bush Jr election all over again where the rest of the world could see he wasn't good for the country but internally people saw him as a legend. I get it - it's your election, so it doesn't matter what we think, but we do get affected by this just as we did by Bush's war on terror, and sure maybe you don't care about that either, but that's not really my point. My point is it's absolutely fascinating how the media and candidates in the US spin the reality you see, vs. what we see. It seems in the US that Trump is viewed as bad as Clinton, but from here we see a guy who has declared all the things I mentioned in my previous post (i.e. mass deportations, concentration camps, and so on) vs. a woman who has had a lot thrown at her, but where there seems to be not enough evidence for any of it to be deemed anything more than mere speculation or the issues being completely overblown - Hillary's e-mails might piss you off, but she was found to have no charges to answer, people will argue it's because the FBI are in her pocket, and yet 1 in 3 Americans are hardcore Trump supporters - if that's true why has not one of the many Trump supporters that are guaranteed to be in the FBI whistleblown evidence of that? There's talk of corruption about her foundation, the horror of the talks she does but I don't see anything even remotely as damning in her speeches as Trump says publicly and again, the evidence of corruption is still entirely speculative. All this despite the fact that Hillary's dirty laundry has been hacked and released left and right whilst Trumps is still a closely guarded secret. Personally I'd take the candidate where we know what the worst case is because everything has been release or leaked, than the guy who wont even release his tax return, yet alone match a release of his business associations, private speeches, and who pathologically lies about the most simple things, such as how and where he met his wife.
You have to also understand that Trump has had more than his fair share of dealings over here in the UK - we've seen his corruption and what it can do, we've seen people in Scotland lose their homes for his lies so when we hear "Corrupt Hillary" coming out of Trump's mouth, you'll have to excuse us if we scoff a little and wonder what the fuck your country is collectively smoking right now to allow your reality to be so brilliantly distorted by him and your media.
I just can't fathom the logic of taking the words of a pathological liar as fact when they're on the attack but dismissing them when they're embarassing to him, whilst calling the candidate whose dirty washing is there for all to see "corrupt", or a "liar". Yes Hillary has lied, but it's not in every fucking sentence that comes out of her mouth like Trump.
And don't get me wrong, I wasn't comparing Bush to Trump, right now I'd rather have Bush than Trump (just as I'd rather have Blair than our current leader or oppositio
"Not just that, they have to fish out something he said 11 years ago, and establishment Republicans have a collective hemorrhage - barring a few honorable exceptions, like Rudy, Newt, Hannity, Pirro... "
No, they didn't, for any of us decent human beings pulling out things he's said in recent months is sufficient, you know, stuff like saying he'd carry out nuclear war, calling for political opposition to be assassinated, being hateful to women in general, calling for the return of concentration camps, asking for mass deportations. You know, for many of us you barely have to go back 11 minutes, 11 days is usually fine, and 11 weeks is ample to realise that he's probably one of the most despicable human beings up for election in any Western country since the fall of fascism post World War II.
But if something he said 11 years ago is finally the turning point for you and other freaks who think the above is all okay, then that's fine, but don't blame "them" for having to go back 11 years.
Not everyone is like you or the other basement dwelling redneck creeps on Slashdot who think things like concentration camps are an acceptable policy, ever. Some of us are actually educated enough to understand why stuff Trump has been coming out with on a regular basis for the last year are pretty fucking disturbing, and completely fucking wrong to anyone with even the slightest amount of human decency.
.NET already supports this, but it has it's downsides too. For starters it breaks things like reflection, and as such it's not something that can simply be done for "free". It's something you do on a case by case basis - the reality is that performance isn't everything and there are always other factors to weigh in, sometimes performance loses, sometimes it wins, but you certainly can't assume performance always trumps every other factor.
"If performance is an issue, then it may be a sign that your interop API may be a bit too fine grained"
Therein lies the problem though, sometimes you have little choice but for that to be the case and in those circumstances managed to native marshalling is incredibly expensive.
I had some old legacy code I had to take on board that used native Lua as a scripting language, and the cost of marshalling between executions of Lua scripts was incredibly expensive - there wasn't really anything you could batch, the results of the former had to be . I tore out the old scripting engine and replaced it with a new one supporting multiple pluggable languages, for tests using our real world scripts those that ran on the CLR were drastically faster, using a managed Lua implementation (MoonSharp) execution was twice as fast, using IronPython it was 4x as fast, and supporting C# as a scripting language itself and precompiling those scripts at startup meant execution was between 40x and 80x as fast (though startup was marginally slower of course, which didn't really matter, as it's a long uptime server service). Individual precompiles post-startup when scripts are updated or replaced were negligible in impact.
It was an interesting exercise in understanding the performance impact of marshalling, and the DLR vs native vs precompiled managed. If the option is there I would always avoid dropping out to native where possible. When running the CLR is incredibly fast and the cost of marshalling to/from native will typically far more than outweigh any performance gain native code might offer (if it does at all - I still think JIT offers at least post-compilation performance parity in most cases from what I've seen).
We have different use cases to you somewhat though, so your experience may differ of course, this is for risk analysis in the financial services industry.
You don't need to formally verify everything, just the mission critical parts.
It's completely nonsensical to argue "writing a correct specification and proving it's correct is harder than writing correct software" because if it hasn't been formally verified, then you have no idea that what you're calling "correct software" is actually correct and that's precisely the problem of a lack of formal verification. You merely assume it's correct until you find out it isn't, and if you find that out with the control software on a nuclear reactor, the software to manage car breaks, or a fly-by-wire system on a plane then you've already killed someone.
Formal verification is a mathematical process and you hire competent mathematicians, or computer scientists with sufficient mathematical grounding to do it. Most companies don't ever have anything critical enough to justify this, but some do. Don't pretend it's not useful in the real world, it is, and it saves lives, your laissez-faire attitude to it is how people die from bad software on safety critical systems. I hope to god you're never allowed near such software and instead stick to coding shitty Drupal plugins for blogs in PHP or whatever where the only damage you can do is make a hipster cry about not being able to post their latest selfie.
There's a time and a place for it for sure, but in that time and place it absolutely matters and isn't just ivory tower nonsense. If you don't understand it, fine, just leave it to people that do. Don't criticise something of immense importance simply because it and it's use is beyond your understanding however.
"A wise person can correctly recreate what they have already done in the past, talented person can correctly create something entirely new."
This, for what it's worth, describes the difference between developers that know mathematics, and those that don't. It's true that you can program without an understanding of mathematics, but the truly new, the truly revolutionary development is done by those who know mathematics.
At the end of the day, pretty much all breakthroughs in computing and algorithms are performed by those who also have knowledge of mathematics.
That's why when people ask if you really need maths to be a programmer, I ask them first to decide if their goal in the industry is to be a sheep or a shepherd.
Yerrrr! fucking technology, taking our jobs. I remember when Jeeves would stand there and sing to me whilst holding a candle, I didn't need no speaker light bulb. Jeeves would never attack me as he knew his place unlike these internets, good old Jeeves, I miss him. Damn slavery laws, fucking god damn liberals and their "progress"!
Whilst I'd never defend manufacturers grossly inflated ink prices, I do recall years ago, in my first ever job I had to repair printers sometimes and you could always tell when people had bought 3rd party ink because it genuinely did completely fuck up the print heads. It would just clog the things up, and it'd be a nightmare cleaning the dodgy ink off, my advice back then was to suck it up and buy 1st party, because it was still cheaper than getting your printer repaired, or replacing it every 6 months. The other advantage of 1st party ink is that you could go without printing for months and still be able to print, with 3rd party your printer would basically be dead at that point without excessive use of solvents to eliminate the ink and even then it was hit and miss.
Does anyone know what the quality is like on these 3rd party inks nowadays? I'm assuming it's improved, or is there still some merit in the buy 1st party because 3rd party ink still clogs up your machine? If it was the latter I'd have at least some sympathy for HP, because it must have drastically increased support costs for them back then for a problem that was not really of their making. Does it still remain true now does anyone know? I haven't used ink based printers in a long time now, let alone had to repair any for the best part of 2 decades so I'm not really up on their resilience.
Again though, given this is Slashdot and you have to repeat yourself a lot, I'm not defending the costs here of 1st party ink, I agree it's extortionate and I absolutely agree what HP did here was wrong - you should never retroactively change people's systems, at worst they should just detect refilled or 3rd party cartridges and void warranty for repairs resulting from their use but still leave it up to users to decide what they want to do.
Thinking about it (and I should've probably included this in my previous post!), you can actually put some numbers on it quite easily. Netflix recommend 5Mbps for 1080p streaming, and so 655Gbps = 670720Mbps.
That's quite a lot of users, but when you consider that Netflix has 83 million users it's fairly easy to see how that's the sort of typical surge they may get for their most popular releases (especially as 70% of Netflix subscribes apparently binge watch, meaning their consumption of data could easily go on for 10hrs+ on release day of a new series). Of course you may be able to drop the 5Mbps down a bit as well as that's no doubt an estimate and hence increase the number of concurrent viewers, but the point is that traffic is still within reasonable surge bounds for some of the bigger services, or some of the surge periods on the net like Black Friday even if you do so.
They have a lot of spare capacity atm because they scaled up to support companies like Microsoft but Microsoft has now built it's own cloud and so no longer needs them, and they never really scaled down again afterwards.
As such they could more than withstand this attack without customers being affected. The problem is that because they have lost big customers their ability to maintain year on year growth has of course suffered and become far harder. As such I'd wager this is more about cost cutting in not having to pay the staffing costs of dealing with this type of attack as there should be no bandwidth limitation that would prevent them handling this.
To be clear, if this was a bandwidth issue, then that means that they also couldn't handle similar surges caused by things such as Netflix releasing the latest series of House of Cards. Yes, 655Gbps is a lot, but it's something a company like Akamai should have no problem dealing with, and if it now is, then they have bigger problems - like not being able to fulfil existing customer SLAs during times of extreme load even without a DDoS.
R has a big following amongst people who aren't actually programmers per-se. Typically you see it used for analytics everywhere ranging from credit scoring, to insurance risk analysis, to demographic/health/geographic analysis by health services, city planning services and so on and so forth.
That's probably why R does so well because although it's not a great choice for programmers in a lot of cases, it's fantastic for analysts.
Even this DDoS attack is still drastically smaller than Akamai's purported bandwidth. The whole point in their network is that they're supposed to be so distributed, with so much bandwidth that withstanding even this should be trivial - they claim to serve upto 30% of the world's daily requests, their network has a capacity of 30 Tbps and they're bottling it in the face of a 0.6 Tbps DDoS attack.
This was really always Akamai's selling point - precisely that they do have far more bandwidth than any DDoS will ever muster. DDoS protection is in fact one of Akamai's single largest selling points - it's plastered all over their site, so if they're now saying they can't be bothered to deal with them then again, what's the point in Akamai?
So sure you're argument makes sense for a provider that doesn't own a colossal amount of bandwidth, but you obviously don't know Akamai else you'd realise your entire argument is moot in relation to them because they're not short on bandwidth. You argued that you can't ever win against DDoS attacks unless you have more bandwidth, and, er, well, they do - by a massive margin and the chance of anyone building a bot net with the bandwidth to rival Akamai's capacity is basically zero.
Taking the DDoS on the chin, which they could trivially do even with existing customer commitments whilst working with ISPs to deal with infected machines would've been a massive benefit for InfoSec (and been great for their profits as it would let them boost their reputation further and reduce future impact on their network). Instead they've decided to act with the attackers and tell the world they can no longer be trusted on their main selling point.
They weren't hosting him for free, there's no such thing as free.
They were hosting him because it was good PR for them to be able to say "Yeah, we're capable of holding up this high value target's website just fine regardless of all the attacks he regularly comes under".
This is a tacit admittance that Akamai's business model has changed from high end bulletproof host to just another host that will not keep your site up in the face of a DDOS. This is rather unfortunate for them, because such low end hosts are widely available, and at a far lower price point.
I wish them luck with their new model as just another host chasing the low hanging fruit. They've sacrificed an incredibly important unique selling point for them - their reputation as a host that will keep you going no matter what.
I'd say a good level of technological advancement is knowing that GTA V is based in a mythical Los Santos, and not in San Andreas which featured in a GTA game released way back in 2004.
Not that I'm defending him, but there are some issues with your points, particularly context is important.
Part the reason you have to understand why someone might think the UK is safer than Sweden is because it was at a point at which public distaste for the UK's extradition treaty was at an all time high over cases such as the McKinnon case, extradition of Assange would've tipped it over the edge and have gotten the British public to force the whole treaty to be torn up. I suspect he saw a lot of political merit in trying to force that.
He went to Sweden I believe before he thought there was a threat of extradition to the US, the charges against him were raised, then dropped and he was told he was free to leave the country, at which point he went to the UK (in large part because he had a lot of high profile celebrity friends here). The charges were then raised again in Sweden after he'd been told he was free to live.
So whilst I'm not really disputing the rest of it, the questions you raise are easily answered in the context of the case at the time.
Interesting to hear this as I nearly bought the Hero 4 black for taking footage whilst diving, but was warned off it by numerous people saying that in the housing the thing just overheated and shutdown within about 10 minutes.
Sure enough, hundreds of complaints about this online. I ended up buying the Hero 4 silver which has been a fantastic piece of kit and I can't complain at all about it, but I still to this day can't for the life of me understand why the Hero 4 black was even allowed to stay on sale given that it was basically faulty out the box in that it would fail quickly in the housing it was shipped with.
I'd never buy a new GoPro release now if they're willing to ship something so fundamentally broken on release and keep it on sale for years after their tech support are admitting to people that that's just how it is. This is a real shame because their working kit is really impressive.
"First this is an American website, the correct spelling is favor."
Just because you're a nation of illiterates doesn't mean you have to bring everyone else down to your level. I'll stick with the actual international English spelling thanks. Last I checked there was no stars and stripes flying over the site's banner, nor any rules that claim we have to conform to American English, or in fact, English at all.
"Second, this kid probably would be found guilty of theft of services but that is only because judges have been misreading the law in corporations favor.. not just in these cases but pretty much across the board."
Or it could simply be because he did actually engage in theft of services and bragged about it across the internet. You know, just a thought.
That's an extraordinary claim, I await your extraordinary evidence with intrigue.
More likely it was (naively) never assumed that anyone would try and masquerade URLs through a speedtest URL and bypass the restrictions as a result. This doesn't help the kid though, naively leaving your car or front door unlocked doesn't give a criminal free reign to steal the car or rob your home.
But that's really the point isn't it? They engineered their network for speedtest URLs to bypass all their security measures.
The very act therefore of dressing something up as something it isn't - i.e. masquerading non-speedtest URLs as speedtest URLs is in itself clear an attempt to bypass the purpose of their engineering efforts. No one can rationally put forward a "How could he have known he wasn't allowed to do it argument" not least because the kid has fucking admitted that he recognises this wasn't their intention and that their intention is that he pays for data, and yet has done it anyway.
The problem is that it's hard in general to come up with any reason how or why you might "accidentally" proxy everything through a speedtest URL and hence accidentally bypass data usage restrictions - it's the sort of thing that's just never going to happen unless their is an intent to bypass restrictions, and when that intent is there any hope of winning a defence against argument of theft of services is basically impossible at that point.
This isn't like copyright infringement where you can reasonably argue that you were already paying for the bandwidth and you would never have bought the copyright material anyway, and thus no one has been deprived of anything and thus this isn't theft. This is someone using a service that actually costs the carrier money to maintain and provide, bandwidth that has to be paid for across networks by the carrier, and so the carrier has genuinely been deprived of data that it can now not provide to other users, instead it has to pay for more data transit costs for those users instead. That's why this is reasonable to describe as genuine theft unlike copyright infringement.
Hey I'm not defending T-Mobile's practices, no need to conflate the argument with that as I absolutely wouldn't dispute that with you, I'm just saying that the guy I responded too's "analysis" of the law was, at best, frankly completely and utterly retarded and would be laughed at in a court of law. It was classic internet forum lawyer drivel.
As much as all this might have sounded good in your head, when you wrote it, I outright guarantee you that a judge, and jury would trivially be persuaded that your attempt to twist the language has absolutely no legal validity.
This is why we have lawyers, to advise on reality of such things, unfortunately you're clearly not one, so you should probably stop pretending you are in case you give someone completely misguided advice and get them into trouble.
You obviously haven't been keeping track of trends in law relating to digital issues, if you had you'd know that there is no get out clause in the law that allows for wishful thinking posted on the internet by a random non-lawyer.
Like it or not, theft of services is a thing, and this kid would be guaranteed to have been found guilty of it regardless of how desperately you may wish to try and mis-read the law in your favour.
I know this because such cases have been brought and won succesfully since at least the time of the widespread use of phreaking in the 80s. If you want to argue this guy wouldn't be caught you'd need to explain why this guy's bypass of the security measures in place is somehow different to anyone elses. I think you'll struggle though, simply because it's really not.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm completely behind the theory that Russia is engaging in increased hacking of foreign state targets, but I think this is more about Dictator May's authoritarian stance.
For those not following British politics, the Conservatives were elected on a specific manifesto, with David Cameron as their leader expected to stay on until 2020 when he said he'd step down. After Brexit, Cameron decided he didn't want to deal with the mess the vote had created and resigned as PM. The Conservatives had to vote to elect a separate leader to lead the government and May rapidly won that election, after all the other candidates failed hard. With me so far? Good, nothing particularly wrong with all this, it's not ideal but it's the way everything works, fine.
So here comes the problem, May hasn't just become leader, she hasn't just replaced all the politicians in her top table in key jobs - that's fine, she's allowed to do that. What she's also done is completely defied the manifesto her government was elected on and created an entirely new programme - all this without a general election. The net result is that she is a defacto dictator, and will be until elections legally have to happen in 2020. She's a dictator because she wasn't elected, and she's a dictator because she's pursuing a set of policies for which there is no democratic mandate whatsoever.
On issues such as Brexit, which are kind of a fucking big deal to our country she's made it clear that she's absolutely unwilling to tell anyone whatsoever in the public what her plans are, she's also refused parliament a vote on any of her plans and claims she's just going to push them through regardless.
So here we are, with a dictator, pushing policies no one voted for, and keeping as much of her plans as possible completely secret and out of the public eye, such that we only find out what they are when it's either too late, or already gone to vote, preventing any opportunity to build effective opposition.
Yeah, this isn't about the Russians, this is about Theresa May's iron grip on on information in her cabinet and prevention of transparency by her government as to what their plans for the country are beyond the very few specific policies they've leaked (and that basically everyone hates).
Apparently this is what "getting our sovereignty back by voting for Brexit means" - secretive dictatorship. We can only hope there are enough decent Conservatives willing to rebel and block her via her thin parliamentary majority which is a hang over from the last election before she was in power, but I wont count on it.
Well that is really the problem in the UK media, the only people who buy physical print newspapers are old racists for the most part (because younger folk tend to use the internet for news), as such the majority of papers now sit somewhere between right (Telegraph) and far-right (Express) with hard-right in the middle (Daily Mail). Sitting on that spectrum you have countless papers.
Even The Mirror which is historically left leaning has had to jump on far-right bandwagons like hating migrants to stay profitable. The Guardian and The Observer are about the only truly centre-left papers remaining but are of course dwarfed by the likes of the above coupled with the other right wing papers such as The Sun, the The Spectator and so on.
So the issue is that there's no money for providing a viable print platform for, say, a truly centrist paper, or elevating the centre left, left, and hard-left to the same number of shelf spaces as the centre right, right, and hard-right.
The net result is that we have exactly the same problem you point out - for those who consume their news in print, they're really only hearing one side of the story, and that above all else is why Brexit is happening, because that's still a massive, probably the biggest active voting block - all they were hearing were the lies, and none of the rebuttals in the papers they were reading, hence why we are where we are.
But like you say what's the solution? State subsidies for papers of different political leanings? How do you stop them just becoming government mouthpieces and so on?
One solution I'd like to see in place is increased media plurality by increased restrictions on ownership - one individual, his family, or companies should only be able to own one paper. The situation you have where someone like Murdoch can buy up half the media and turn them hard-right is in itself a large part of the problem. Would the same thing work online? I've no idea, I suspect you'd need a different solution such as tying common carrier status to an inability to pick and choose clients and content, but as with all these solutions they require government to support it and therein lies the crux of the problem, governments are typically opposed to completely free speech.
"Like I mentioned, Bill Clinton DID far worse than what Trump SAID"
Did he? this seems to be the problem with this debate, Trump can say things without any actual evidence whatsoever, and it gets taken as gospel. In contrast Trump outright admitted to sexual assault (as opposed to merely an accusation against Bill) and it gets written off as not as bad as the mere accusation against Bill. Unless you're referring to Lewinsky which wasn't sexual assault, but consensual sex, but IMO having an affair isn't as bad as sexually assaulting someone.
But more to the point, last I checked, it's not Bill Clinton that's being elected here anymore than it is Melania Trump, who also has a history of sexual promiscuity as a prostitute. I mean, what, it's okay for Trump's spouse to sleep around because she's female?, but not Hillary's because he's male?
There's an awful lot of double standards going on here, and an awful lot of speculation taken as fact, and fact ignored as speculation.
FWIW I'm not American, but what's fascinating to us outsiders is the two realities that seem to exist, it's like the whole Bush Jr election all over again where the rest of the world could see he wasn't good for the country but internally people saw him as a legend. I get it - it's your election, so it doesn't matter what we think, but we do get affected by this just as we did by Bush's war on terror, and sure maybe you don't care about that either, but that's not really my point. My point is it's absolutely fascinating how the media and candidates in the US spin the reality you see, vs. what we see. It seems in the US that Trump is viewed as bad as Clinton, but from here we see a guy who has declared all the things I mentioned in my previous post (i.e. mass deportations, concentration camps, and so on) vs. a woman who has had a lot thrown at her, but where there seems to be not enough evidence for any of it to be deemed anything more than mere speculation or the issues being completely overblown - Hillary's e-mails might piss you off, but she was found to have no charges to answer, people will argue it's because the FBI are in her pocket, and yet 1 in 3 Americans are hardcore Trump supporters - if that's true why has not one of the many Trump supporters that are guaranteed to be in the FBI whistleblown evidence of that? There's talk of corruption about her foundation, the horror of the talks she does but I don't see anything even remotely as damning in her speeches as Trump says publicly and again, the evidence of corruption is still entirely speculative. All this despite the fact that Hillary's dirty laundry has been hacked and released left and right whilst Trumps is still a closely guarded secret. Personally I'd take the candidate where we know what the worst case is because everything has been release or leaked, than the guy who wont even release his tax return, yet alone match a release of his business associations, private speeches, and who pathologically lies about the most simple things, such as how and where he met his wife.
You have to also understand that Trump has had more than his fair share of dealings over here in the UK - we've seen his corruption and what it can do, we've seen people in Scotland lose their homes for his lies so when we hear "Corrupt Hillary" coming out of Trump's mouth, you'll have to excuse us if we scoff a little and wonder what the fuck your country is collectively smoking right now to allow your reality to be so brilliantly distorted by him and your media.
I just can't fathom the logic of taking the words of a pathological liar as fact when they're on the attack but dismissing them when they're embarassing to him, whilst calling the candidate whose dirty washing is there for all to see "corrupt", or a "liar". Yes Hillary has lied, but it's not in every fucking sentence that comes out of her mouth like Trump.
And don't get me wrong, I wasn't comparing Bush to Trump, right now I'd rather have Bush than Trump (just as I'd rather have Blair than our current leader or oppositio
"Not just that, they have to fish out something he said 11 years ago, and establishment Republicans have a collective hemorrhage - barring a few honorable exceptions, like Rudy, Newt, Hannity, Pirro... "
No, they didn't, for any of us decent human beings pulling out things he's said in recent months is sufficient, you know, stuff like saying he'd carry out nuclear war, calling for political opposition to be assassinated, being hateful to women in general, calling for the return of concentration camps, asking for mass deportations. You know, for many of us you barely have to go back 11 minutes, 11 days is usually fine, and 11 weeks is ample to realise that he's probably one of the most despicable human beings up for election in any Western country since the fall of fascism post World War II.
But if something he said 11 years ago is finally the turning point for you and other freaks who think the above is all okay, then that's fine, but don't blame "them" for having to go back 11 years.
Not everyone is like you or the other basement dwelling redneck creeps on Slashdot who think things like concentration camps are an acceptable policy, ever. Some of us are actually educated enough to understand why stuff Trump has been coming out with on a regular basis for the last year are pretty fucking disturbing, and completely fucking wrong to anyone with even the slightest amount of human decency.
.NET already supports this, but it has it's downsides too. For starters it breaks things like reflection, and as such it's not something that can simply be done for "free". It's something you do on a case by case basis - the reality is that performance isn't everything and there are always other factors to weigh in, sometimes performance loses, sometimes it wins, but you certainly can't assume performance always trumps every other factor.
"If performance is an issue, then it may be a sign that your interop API may be a bit too fine grained"
Therein lies the problem though, sometimes you have little choice but for that to be the case and in those circumstances managed to native marshalling is incredibly expensive.
I had some old legacy code I had to take on board that used native Lua as a scripting language, and the cost of marshalling between executions of Lua scripts was incredibly expensive - there wasn't really anything you could batch, the results of the former had to be . I tore out the old scripting engine and replaced it with a new one supporting multiple pluggable languages, for tests using our real world scripts those that ran on the CLR were drastically faster, using a managed Lua implementation (MoonSharp) execution was twice as fast, using IronPython it was 4x as fast, and supporting C# as a scripting language itself and precompiling those scripts at startup meant execution was between 40x and 80x as fast (though startup was marginally slower of course, which didn't really matter, as it's a long uptime server service). Individual precompiles post-startup when scripts are updated or replaced were negligible in impact.
It was an interesting exercise in understanding the performance impact of marshalling, and the DLR vs native vs precompiled managed. If the option is there I would always avoid dropping out to native where possible. When running the CLR is incredibly fast and the cost of marshalling to/from native will typically far more than outweigh any performance gain native code might offer (if it does at all - I still think JIT offers at least post-compilation performance parity in most cases from what I've seen).
We have different use cases to you somewhat though, so your experience may differ of course, this is for risk analysis in the financial services industry.
You don't need to formally verify everything, just the mission critical parts.
It's completely nonsensical to argue "writing a correct specification and proving it's correct is harder than writing correct software" because if it hasn't been formally verified, then you have no idea that what you're calling "correct software" is actually correct and that's precisely the problem of a lack of formal verification. You merely assume it's correct until you find out it isn't, and if you find that out with the control software on a nuclear reactor, the software to manage car breaks, or a fly-by-wire system on a plane then you've already killed someone.
Formal verification is a mathematical process and you hire competent mathematicians, or computer scientists with sufficient mathematical grounding to do it. Most companies don't ever have anything critical enough to justify this, but some do. Don't pretend it's not useful in the real world, it is, and it saves lives, your laissez-faire attitude to it is how people die from bad software on safety critical systems. I hope to god you're never allowed near such software and instead stick to coding shitty Drupal plugins for blogs in PHP or whatever where the only damage you can do is make a hipster cry about not being able to post their latest selfie.
There's a time and a place for it for sure, but in that time and place it absolutely matters and isn't just ivory tower nonsense. If you don't understand it, fine, just leave it to people that do. Don't criticise something of immense importance simply because it and it's use is beyond your understanding however.
"A wise person can correctly recreate what they have already done in the past, talented person can correctly create something entirely new."
This, for what it's worth, describes the difference between developers that know mathematics, and those that don't. It's true that you can program without an understanding of mathematics, but the truly new, the truly revolutionary development is done by those who know mathematics.
At the end of the day, pretty much all breakthroughs in computing and algorithms are performed by those who also have knowledge of mathematics.
That's why when people ask if you really need maths to be a programmer, I ask them first to decide if their goal in the industry is to be a sheep or a shepherd.
Fair enough, I guess that's one way to solve the clogged print heads problem - make the fucking things disposable :)
Yerrrr! fucking technology, taking our jobs. I remember when Jeeves would stand there and sing to me whilst holding a candle, I didn't need no speaker light bulb. Jeeves would never attack me as he knew his place unlike these internets, good old Jeeves, I miss him. Damn slavery laws, fucking god damn liberals and their "progress"!
Whilst I'd never defend manufacturers grossly inflated ink prices, I do recall years ago, in my first ever job I had to repair printers sometimes and you could always tell when people had bought 3rd party ink because it genuinely did completely fuck up the print heads. It would just clog the things up, and it'd be a nightmare cleaning the dodgy ink off, my advice back then was to suck it up and buy 1st party, because it was still cheaper than getting your printer repaired, or replacing it every 6 months. The other advantage of 1st party ink is that you could go without printing for months and still be able to print, with 3rd party your printer would basically be dead at that point without excessive use of solvents to eliminate the ink and even then it was hit and miss.
Does anyone know what the quality is like on these 3rd party inks nowadays? I'm assuming it's improved, or is there still some merit in the buy 1st party because 3rd party ink still clogs up your machine? If it was the latter I'd have at least some sympathy for HP, because it must have drastically increased support costs for them back then for a problem that was not really of their making. Does it still remain true now does anyone know? I haven't used ink based printers in a long time now, let alone had to repair any for the best part of 2 decades so I'm not really up on their resilience.
Again though, given this is Slashdot and you have to repeat yourself a lot, I'm not defending the costs here of 1st party ink, I agree it's extortionate and I absolutely agree what HP did here was wrong - you should never retroactively change people's systems, at worst they should just detect refilled or 3rd party cartridges and void warranty for repairs resulting from their use but still leave it up to users to decide what they want to do.
Thinking about it (and I should've probably included this in my previous post!), you can actually put some numbers on it quite easily. Netflix recommend 5Mbps for 1080p streaming, and so 655Gbps = 670720Mbps.
670720Mbps / 5Mbps = 134,144 simultaneous 1080p streams.
That's quite a lot of users, but when you consider that Netflix has 83 million users it's fairly easy to see how that's the sort of typical surge they may get for their most popular releases (especially as 70% of Netflix subscribes apparently binge watch, meaning their consumption of data could easily go on for 10hrs+ on release day of a new series). Of course you may be able to drop the 5Mbps down a bit as well as that's no doubt an estimate and hence increase the number of concurrent viewers, but the point is that traffic is still within reasonable surge bounds for some of the bigger services, or some of the surge periods on the net like Black Friday even if you do so.
They have a lot of spare capacity atm because they scaled up to support companies like Microsoft but Microsoft has now built it's own cloud and so no longer needs them, and they never really scaled down again afterwards.
As such they could more than withstand this attack without customers being affected. The problem is that because they have lost big customers their ability to maintain year on year growth has of course suffered and become far harder. As such I'd wager this is more about cost cutting in not having to pay the staffing costs of dealing with this type of attack as there should be no bandwidth limitation that would prevent them handling this.
To be clear, if this was a bandwidth issue, then that means that they also couldn't handle similar surges caused by things such as Netflix releasing the latest series of House of Cards. Yes, 655Gbps is a lot, but it's something a company like Akamai should have no problem dealing with, and if it now is, then they have bigger problems - like not being able to fulfil existing customer SLAs during times of extreme load even without a DDoS.
R has a big following amongst people who aren't actually programmers per-se. Typically you see it used for analytics everywhere ranging from credit scoring, to insurance risk analysis, to demographic/health/geographic analysis by health services, city planning services and so on and so forth.
That's probably why R does so well because although it's not a great choice for programmers in a lot of cases, it's fantastic for analysts.
Even this DDoS attack is still drastically smaller than Akamai's purported bandwidth. The whole point in their network is that they're supposed to be so distributed, with so much bandwidth that withstanding even this should be trivial - they claim to serve upto 30% of the world's daily requests, their network has a capacity of 30 Tbps and they're bottling it in the face of a 0.6 Tbps DDoS attack.
This was really always Akamai's selling point - precisely that they do have far more bandwidth than any DDoS will ever muster. DDoS protection is in fact one of Akamai's single largest selling points - it's plastered all over their site, so if they're now saying they can't be bothered to deal with them then again, what's the point in Akamai?
So sure you're argument makes sense for a provider that doesn't own a colossal amount of bandwidth, but you obviously don't know Akamai else you'd realise your entire argument is moot in relation to them because they're not short on bandwidth. You argued that you can't ever win against DDoS attacks unless you have more bandwidth, and, er, well, they do - by a massive margin and the chance of anyone building a bot net with the bandwidth to rival Akamai's capacity is basically zero.
Taking the DDoS on the chin, which they could trivially do even with existing customer commitments whilst working with ISPs to deal with infected machines would've been a massive benefit for InfoSec (and been great for their profits as it would let them boost their reputation further and reduce future impact on their network). Instead they've decided to act with the attackers and tell the world they can no longer be trusted on their main selling point.
They weren't hosting him for free, there's no such thing as free.
They were hosting him because it was good PR for them to be able to say "Yeah, we're capable of holding up this high value target's website just fine regardless of all the attacks he regularly comes under".
This is a tacit admittance that Akamai's business model has changed from high end bulletproof host to just another host that will not keep your site up in the face of a DDOS. This is rather unfortunate for them, because such low end hosts are widely available, and at a far lower price point.
I wish them luck with their new model as just another host chasing the low hanging fruit. They've sacrificed an incredibly important unique selling point for them - their reputation as a host that will keep you going no matter what.
So basically don't trust Akamai because apparently they're incapable of dealing with DDOS attacks.
Seriously, if they can take a blog offline, then who the fuck would trust anything of actual commercial value on Akamai's network ever again?
I'd say a good level of technological advancement is knowing that GTA V is based in a mythical Los Santos, and not in San Andreas which featured in a GTA game released way back in 2004.
Not that I'm defending him, but there are some issues with your points, particularly context is important.
Part the reason you have to understand why someone might think the UK is safer than Sweden is because it was at a point at which public distaste for the UK's extradition treaty was at an all time high over cases such as the McKinnon case, extradition of Assange would've tipped it over the edge and have gotten the British public to force the whole treaty to be torn up. I suspect he saw a lot of political merit in trying to force that.
He went to Sweden I believe before he thought there was a threat of extradition to the US, the charges against him were raised, then dropped and he was told he was free to leave the country, at which point he went to the UK (in large part because he had a lot of high profile celebrity friends here). The charges were then raised again in Sweden after he'd been told he was free to live.
So whilst I'm not really disputing the rest of it, the questions you raise are easily answered in the context of the case at the time.
Interesting to hear this as I nearly bought the Hero 4 black for taking footage whilst diving, but was warned off it by numerous people saying that in the housing the thing just overheated and shutdown within about 10 minutes.
Sure enough, hundreds of complaints about this online. I ended up buying the Hero 4 silver which has been a fantastic piece of kit and I can't complain at all about it, but I still to this day can't for the life of me understand why the Hero 4 black was even allowed to stay on sale given that it was basically faulty out the box in that it would fail quickly in the housing it was shipped with.
I'd never buy a new GoPro release now if they're willing to ship something so fundamentally broken on release and keep it on sale for years after their tech support are admitting to people that that's just how it is. This is a real shame because their working kit is really impressive.
"First this is an American website, the correct spelling is favor."
Just because you're a nation of illiterates doesn't mean you have to bring everyone else down to your level. I'll stick with the actual international English spelling thanks. Last I checked there was no stars and stripes flying over the site's banner, nor any rules that claim we have to conform to American English, or in fact, English at all.
"Second, this kid probably would be found guilty of theft of services but that is only because judges have been misreading the law in corporations favor.. not just in these cases but pretty much across the board."
Or it could simply be because he did actually engage in theft of services and bragged about it across the internet. You know, just a thought.
That's an extraordinary claim, I await your extraordinary evidence with intrigue.
More likely it was (naively) never assumed that anyone would try and masquerade URLs through a speedtest URL and bypass the restrictions as a result. This doesn't help the kid though, naively leaving your car or front door unlocked doesn't give a criminal free reign to steal the car or rob your home.
But that's really the point isn't it? They engineered their network for speedtest URLs to bypass all their security measures.
The very act therefore of dressing something up as something it isn't - i.e. masquerading non-speedtest URLs as speedtest URLs is in itself clear an attempt to bypass the purpose of their engineering efforts. No one can rationally put forward a "How could he have known he wasn't allowed to do it argument" not least because the kid has fucking admitted that he recognises this wasn't their intention and that their intention is that he pays for data, and yet has done it anyway.
The problem is that it's hard in general to come up with any reason how or why you might "accidentally" proxy everything through a speedtest URL and hence accidentally bypass data usage restrictions - it's the sort of thing that's just never going to happen unless their is an intent to bypass restrictions, and when that intent is there any hope of winning a defence against argument of theft of services is basically impossible at that point.
This isn't like copyright infringement where you can reasonably argue that you were already paying for the bandwidth and you would never have bought the copyright material anyway, and thus no one has been deprived of anything and thus this isn't theft. This is someone using a service that actually costs the carrier money to maintain and provide, bandwidth that has to be paid for across networks by the carrier, and so the carrier has genuinely been deprived of data that it can now not provide to other users, instead it has to pay for more data transit costs for those users instead. That's why this is reasonable to describe as genuine theft unlike copyright infringement.
Hey I'm not defending T-Mobile's practices, no need to conflate the argument with that as I absolutely wouldn't dispute that with you, I'm just saying that the guy I responded too's "analysis" of the law was, at best, frankly completely and utterly retarded and would be laughed at in a court of law. It was classic internet forum lawyer drivel.
As much as all this might have sounded good in your head, when you wrote it, I outright guarantee you that a judge, and jury would trivially be persuaded that your attempt to twist the language has absolutely no legal validity.
This is why we have lawyers, to advise on reality of such things, unfortunately you're clearly not one, so you should probably stop pretending you are in case you give someone completely misguided advice and get them into trouble.
You obviously haven't been keeping track of trends in law relating to digital issues, if you had you'd know that there is no get out clause in the law that allows for wishful thinking posted on the internet by a random non-lawyer.
Like it or not, theft of services is a thing, and this kid would be guaranteed to have been found guilty of it regardless of how desperately you may wish to try and mis-read the law in your favour.
I know this because such cases have been brought and won succesfully since at least the time of the widespread use of phreaking in the 80s. If you want to argue this guy wouldn't be caught you'd need to explain why this guy's bypass of the security measures in place is somehow different to anyone elses. I think you'll struggle though, simply because it's really not.