I looked up some information about your statement. Having never used it myself, I speak only from talking to others and from research. Found some interesting facts to support your text:
From reading a couple articles (including the linked one above, it appears that there was a perfect storm of 'enemies' to the use of the plant including:
-Incidents of poisoning from individuals that laced the drug with other substances
-North / South rivalry (Prohibition hurt the south and forced other alternatives)
-Competition and propoganda by Alcohol industry
-Prejudice against certain groups who were more frequent users (Mexican and African Americans)
-Overall "prohibition" attitude that believed society could be whitewashed by laws to fix various societal issues.
Not only did opinion turn against the plant in the early 20th century, but it actually turned opposite of the historical stance. There was a point in certain colonies that people were punished if they did not grow the plant.
Most people would agree that this is not a "poison" as some see it. They would also acknowledge that classifying meth as less dangerous than pot can't be attributed to science in any way. Clearly, the schedule system imposed by the FDA and DEA is flawed and influenced by politics. Even for someone who feels it should be banned, they could at least be intellectually honest enough to say their ranking of pot as more dangerous than meth is flawed.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people with a vested interest in not reexamining the issue and in keeping the status quo. Obviously, people have important concerns about health and what you put in your body. I just wish we could focus on more facts and less politics so people could make the decisions based on more than just waves of political opinion.
Without getting in on either side of the "climate change" debate...
How about we spend that time and energy adapting to any changes that do occur and stop worrying so much about it. Humans adapt tremendously well. If you fear extreme weather, design better living spaces, build tunnels, etc. Here in Minnesota, some of our major cities are connected by skyways between buildings throughout the downtown. Why? Because the climate is not so pleasant for half the year. We engineered solutions to our issues without deciding to solve everybody else's perceived issues.
We should take a lesson from Australia. They introduced Cane toads to solve beetle problems. It was not the savior they hoped for and ended up being a bigger problem then they sought to solve. Too many well meaning and intelligent people think that their engineering of a problem will work, so they propose a huge experiment the size of a region or planet. I think one of our greatest weaknesses as humans is that we refuse to say no. It can be a strength in the right context, but it can be a means of unintended destruction as well.
A famous quote of CS Lewis was "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." I tend to agree. If we engineer climate and hurt people in the process, the powers that be are hardly likely to stop because they will think the overall good will even out in the end.
Besides the "do-gooders" who genuinely care, there will be others involved in the process. The people who make these decisions (politicians) want results to show off come election time. The engineers who execute the decisions want to get paid. Nobody will be there to stop a "botched climate experiment" until it is too late. Once that ball is in motion, it is not likely to stop.
We cannot assume everything will always be the same. In fact, trying to change the weather for everybody is probably one great way to start a world war. Instead, focus on adapting. Focus on using technology, common sense, and natural abilities to adapt into whatever climate may exist.
But the seconds before you hit, the difference is huge. Anyone care to do the math? That little two above the v kills...
It might matter, but in reality there are a lot of places in Montana where nothing is going to sneak up on you. Once you get up on the high altitude plateau, you can see for miles. That, coupled with the lack of incidents currently make it unlikely that it will get worse at 85mph.
I drove in Montana back when there was no speed limit. There were times where you would drive 90 and times when 65 was in order. The nice thing was that you did not have to watch your speedometer as much and could instead focus on what felt safe at the current time. There are a lot of places around the world where speed limits might aid in safety, but there are places (like vast expanses of Montana) where there is little need for such limits.
It'd be nice to trust a certain repository only. For example, I replaced the old 2.3.x stock rom with CM11. Google Play is too heavy for the device but f-droid runs fine. But you need to check the unknown sources option.
(Google have no interest in encouraging users to go outside the play store, naturally. The checkbox is mainly there so developers can load an apk via adb over USB)
You are absolutely correct.
In many Linux distributions, we are allowed to import a key and to add specific trusted software sources. Android, on the other hand has a "trusted source" (i.e. the play store) and everything else is untrusted. It would make sense to update this model in the future to allow additional trusted sources (of course with warnings explaining this is not for the faint of heart). That way, one might add an f-droid repository, but forgo installing from other outside sources.
This would work a lot like Yum or Apt on modern Linux platforms. Most users would never see it, but it would give a degree of security to those looking to trust only a small subset of outside sources.
People always say this, but they neglect to mention WHICH FEDERAL LAWS are being broken daily by everybody.
I suppose people either just assume it is true, or they know details but do not want to get too sidetracked... This video may help explain which laws we break daily: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
On a more on topic note, StingRay devices cover a broad range of uses. Some simply harvest unique cellular IDs, while others do much more to intercept communication and emulate legitimate towers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is because of people who are too lazy or too intimidated by technology to understand it. You buy the camera, many times you open a port on a router, but you fail to change the password. I am not going to blame the manufacturer for that.
However, manufacturers could make the default a lot more secure by using methods to randomize the default passwords of the cameras. I've setup routers where the default password is printed on a plate on the bottom (next to the mac address and default IP). This gives you a degree of randomness and makes brute force near impossible without physical access to the device. This way, the user still has the freedom to change to a blank password, 'password' as password etc. if they choose to unprotect themselves. But the default becomes reasonably secure.
This is mostly a problem with users, but sometimes the manufacturer needs to adjust the process to help the intimidated, ignorant, or lazy user along.
Once a language is adopted by a large organization, it is almost impossible for it to go extinct. Just the way that larger companies tend to work, means that the language will exist in some form for decades. If I were to predict a language to go extinct, I would say that it has to be one that has not been widely adopted already, has not made its way to mainstream organizations, and basically reproduces what is already done by another, more popular, language.
It is part of a larger problem with law enforcement lately where police can bring charges against the assets themselves and keep them...
Just to add to your statement to help clarify what is happening... I believe the RICO laws passed many years ago (1960's) were basically designed to drain the funds of mobsters so they could not higher big name lawyers to defend themselves. The promise at the time was that this would only be used for mafia like criminals. People agreed because the mafia was the "bad guy" and needed to be stopped at all costs.
The statutes use some legal tricks to define an inanimate object (currency) as a "person" or entity. Then they charge the entity with a crime. The targeted mobster, smuggler, etc. would then not be able to sue because they lack "standing". This basically means that they cannot sue to receive their money back because the money is the victim (because it was redefined as a person) instead of the accused being the victim. A person cannot sue if they do not have an interest in the offense (i.e. being a victim). Therefore, they have created a wall of red tape and legal definitions that allow them to take the resources from the accused and deny recourse to get them back.
Police departments got greedy and prosecutors wanted a shortcut to get tough on crime, so they started doing the same to those with drug offenses and other crimes. It is much easier to prosecute when the defendant is stripped of methods of defending themselves.
As a side benefit, that dealer's Ferrari looks pretty good parked next to the other squad cars.
Possibly, I was under the impression that Ansel Adams took most of his photos of national parks and not wilderness areas. This fine is levied by the US Forest Service which does not manage or have jurisdiction over national parks which the US National Park Service has jurisdiction. The US Forest Service is the same bunch of fools that thought bring what qualifies as essentially SWAT teams to the Bundy standoff was a brilliant idea. This fine, I have no doubt, is directly related to their bungling of how to handle that situation and the media circus that was created. This way they can greatly clamp down on any coverage of similar future standoffs.
Wasn't the forest service the ones that instituted a "free speech zone" during the Bundy incident last year? Not only that, but those taking pictures of the forest service harming animals were beaten and had their camera equipment confiscated. It seems to me that this may have more to do with silencing whistle blowers than it does with photographing nature on public lands.
I think this is a sad course of events. U.S. Forest service land should be open to the public to enjoy nature, take pictures, and more. It should not be hidden behind a locked gate, where nobody but the forest service can see it.
... taking somebody else's content and reposting is l...
Your premise is wrong here. "Taking" is not the right word when the other still has their original. "Copying" may be the correct term, but "taking" implies the other party no longer has possession of something.
I know you were not trying to be a copyright troll, but it is the language they use. We must be careful to use the correct language because "taking" has much different historical implications than "copying".
So why hasn't Steyn demanded the data under ordinary discovery rules? FOIA is an odd way to go about getting data you're supposedly entitled to in order to defend yourself in court.
I was wondering the same thing. However, it appears (based on other comments) that the FOIA request was not directly related to the defamation case. I would assume Steyn will still be able to use the discovery process for this.
If I were betting on this, I would say Steyn's lawyers may have put up the FOIA so that Mann's legal team would have to fight a fire on another front and possible redirect some resources to that request. The FOIA is probably much easier to file than it is to fight against it. But that is just my speculation.
And my opinion on the matter... If you research with public dollars, your source code, research, etc, should be open and free to use. We all payed for it, so why does only the one getting paid get to use it. If you want to keep your data private, research through a privately funded organization.
As someone who works on Linux on ARM projects, I would have to disagree. There are good reasons to bring devices into the tree.
It really does make sense to have a single ARM kernel source with a device tree. This is not a single binary for all, but a single source tree. When you compile, it is not like you are getting all the bloat of a hundred different board packages. You use a different make script that pulls in the appropriate files. What it does give us is great templates to use when porting to similar sources.
If you ever take a look at board manufacturers' kernel source, each distribution is often very different from another. It takes a while to reconcile it with mainline kernel source. And it is even more of a pain to upgrade to a new kernel when a board maker had some whacky code placed in there. By at least placing it in the device tree, it gives them the incentive to use a template of code that already exists. Then hopefully some of us have an easier time porting when we want to upgrade Kernels and such.
I know it does not seem like it makes a lot of sense to some, but there really are good reasons for the change.
P.S. The unified Kernel is a Linux issue as a whole, not just an Ubuntu thing.
I actually was in the same boat as you. I wasn't a fan early on, but now I actually like it. I mainly use Eclipse or the terminal, so the UI is not super important as long as it does not eat resources. 14.04 seems to be better in this realm. It seems resource use has been getting better.
In regards to the interface, I just setup my preschooler with an account on my Ubuntu laptop and Unity was easy enough for her (obviously I did some setup ahead of time). They have really started making the interface intuitive and I give them some serious credit for that.
As a developer, I can see the usefulness of this. This makes me consider developing Chrome apps where previously I had not considered it. Usually, we have to choose our platforms based on our projected return and our limited time. This usually means that only Android and IOS are supported. Given that one could kill two birds with one stone, and have a bonus of Chrome apps, it may be worth checking out.
You are right on. Tech is about innovation, not litigation.
The moral is simple, run like hell, don't look back because something might be gaining on you, and above all, don't stop to hire mercenaries to fight for you and then relax while a bunch of hired guns save your village with Elmer Bernstein's music in the background.
P.S. Nice "moral". If I had mod points, I would be scoring you as 'funny'.
Blackberry could come back as a semi successful phone manufacturer if they adopted an open platform for their hardware (i.e. Android) and build premium business apps that would be included with their phones.
There simply is not enough room for another OS when so many have IOS and Android.
Meanwhile, no one has a problem with the National Football League being considered "non-profit" by IRS standards ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/05/29/nfl-sports-leagues-irs-tax-exemption/2370945/ ). I am not saying that X.org did not screw things up, but we certainly have some strange qualifications to benefit from non-profit status.
X.org sounds like they had some trouble filing, but I am sympathetic to non-profits in general having difficulty filing. Oftentimes, they really are run by people who are passionate about their cause, but not necessarily familiar with the accounting standards needed to remain in good standing with the IRS. Compliance with reporting requirements can cost you a lot in accounting fees and time.
This is just an exercise in futility. Most software gets abandoned at some point. One usually owns a cell phone for two years. If it works for that time period, who cares if it is abandoned later? This is not an attack on open source solutions (I'm all for them), I just feel that restricting yourself to only open source for fear of abandonment is a little bit like a single guy staying away from all girls because one dumped him once.
Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?
Civilians, by nature should be valued as equally as possible. Obviously, a state's military has a duty to their own citizens, but I think we should find a way to avoid civilian deaths on each side. It is not their fight. Their children didn't ask for this. As decent human beings, it is our duty to prevent harm to civilians on either side.
As often as we need. We push based on features. Although we sometimes slip into batching up production moves. I find it is much easier to push often when you work with people that are unafraid of branching based on feature requests.
I'm just glad we don't do the "quarterly push" like some do. It sure saves us a lot of troubleshooting in the chance that the push introduces a production error.
If you are not smart enough to install non-market Android apps, you have no problem.
If you are smart enough to install non-market Android apps, you know what you are getting into.
With great power comes great responsibility. I think these pieces keep surfacing because the Anti-Virus companies desperately need to get into this market. They see it is the future and they want a piece of it.
I'm 35 and had been doing mostly C++ work for my career. I recently went back out to look for a new job, and finding mostly Java stuff, I got the Android SDK and wrote a few Android apps to hone those Java skills. Now I've got a new job doing Java stuff and learning a skillset that I think will be in demand for a while yet.
You did exactly the right thing. Pick up a fun, trendy, and easy to start language. The Android SDK is easy to pick up and can really teach you how to write good Java code.
I do the whole Enterprise Java, Spring, etc. job by day, but learn way more when programming in my free time on Android, PHP, etc. It gives me a fulfilled feeling and gives me the skills to advance my programming career far more than relying on my employer to provide training opportunities.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked up some information about your statement. Having never used it myself, I speak only from talking to others and from research. Found some interesting facts to support your text:
Why is marijuana illegal
From reading a couple articles (including the linked one above, it appears that there was a perfect storm of 'enemies' to the use of the plant including:
Not only did opinion turn against the plant in the early 20th century, but it actually turned opposite of the historical stance. There was a point in certain colonies that people were punished if they did not grow the plant.
Most people would agree that this is not a "poison" as some see it. They would also acknowledge that classifying meth as less dangerous than pot can't be attributed to science in any way. Clearly, the schedule system imposed by the FDA and DEA is flawed and influenced by politics. Even for someone who feels it should be banned, they could at least be intellectually honest enough to say their ranking of pot as more dangerous than meth is flawed.
But on the other hand, the drug war is big business right now. According to the Bureau of Justice, drug offenses account for about a quarter of all reasons for incarceration. Not only that, but 1 in 8 state employees in the country are employees of a corrections agency.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people with a vested interest in not reexamining the issue and in keeping the status quo. Obviously, people have important concerns about health and what you put in your body. I just wish we could focus on more facts and less politics so people could make the decisions based on more than just waves of political opinion.
How about we spend that time and energy adapting to any changes that do occur and stop worrying so much about it. Humans adapt tremendously well. If you fear extreme weather, design better living spaces, build tunnels, etc. Here in Minnesota, some of our major cities are connected by skyways between buildings throughout the downtown. Why? Because the climate is not so pleasant for half the year. We engineered solutions to our issues without deciding to solve everybody else's perceived issues.
We should take a lesson from Australia. They introduced Cane toads to solve beetle problems. It was not the savior they hoped for and ended up being a bigger problem then they sought to solve. Too many well meaning and intelligent people think that their engineering of a problem will work, so they propose a huge experiment the size of a region or planet. I think one of our greatest weaknesses as humans is that we refuse to say no. It can be a strength in the right context, but it can be a means of unintended destruction as well.
A famous quote of CS Lewis was "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." I tend to agree. If we engineer climate and hurt people in the process, the powers that be are hardly likely to stop because they will think the overall good will even out in the end.
Besides the "do-gooders" who genuinely care, there will be others involved in the process. The people who make these decisions (politicians) want results to show off come election time. The engineers who execute the decisions want to get paid. Nobody will be there to stop a "botched climate experiment" until it is too late. Once that ball is in motion, it is not likely to stop. We cannot assume everything will always be the same. In fact, trying to change the weather for everybody is probably one great way to start a world war. Instead, focus on adapting. Focus on using technology, common sense, and natural abilities to adapt into whatever climate may exist.
But the seconds before you hit, the difference is huge. Anyone care to do the math? That little two above the v kills...
It might matter, but in reality there are a lot of places in Montana where nothing is going to sneak up on you. Once you get up on the high altitude plateau, you can see for miles. That, coupled with the lack of incidents currently make it unlikely that it will get worse at 85mph.
I drove in Montana back when there was no speed limit. There were times where you would drive 90 and times when 65 was in order. The nice thing was that you did not have to watch your speedometer as much and could instead focus on what felt safe at the current time. There are a lot of places around the world where speed limits might aid in safety, but there are places (like vast expanses of Montana) where there is little need for such limits.
Yeah there's no UI to configure "known sources".
It'd be nice to trust a certain repository only. For example, I replaced the old 2.3.x stock rom with CM11. Google Play is too heavy for the device but f-droid runs fine. But you need to check the unknown sources option.
(Google have no interest in encouraging users to go outside the play store, naturally. The checkbox is mainly there so developers can load an apk via adb over USB)
You are absolutely correct.
In many Linux distributions, we are allowed to import a key and to add specific trusted software sources. Android, on the other hand has a "trusted source" (i.e. the play store) and everything else is untrusted. It would make sense to update this model in the future to allow additional trusted sources (of course with warnings explaining this is not for the faint of heart). That way, one might add an f-droid repository, but forgo installing from other outside sources.
This would work a lot like Yum or Apt on modern Linux platforms. Most users would never see it, but it would give a degree of security to those looking to trust only a small subset of outside sources.
People always say this, but they neglect to mention WHICH FEDERAL LAWS are being broken daily by everybody.
I suppose people either just assume it is true, or they know details but do not want to get too sidetracked... This video may help explain which laws we break daily: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
On a more on topic note, StingRay devices cover a broad range of uses. Some simply harvest unique cellular IDs, while others do much more to intercept communication and emulate legitimate towers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is because of people who are too lazy or too intimidated by technology to understand it. You buy the camera, many times you open a port on a router, but you fail to change the password. I am not going to blame the manufacturer for that.
However, manufacturers could make the default a lot more secure by using methods to randomize the default passwords of the cameras. I've setup routers where the default password is printed on a plate on the bottom (next to the mac address and default IP). This gives you a degree of randomness and makes brute force near impossible without physical access to the device. This way, the user still has the freedom to change to a blank password, 'password' as password etc. if they choose to unprotect themselves. But the default becomes reasonably secure.
This is mostly a problem with users, but sometimes the manufacturer needs to adjust the process to help the intimidated, ignorant, or lazy user along.
Once a language is adopted by a large organization, it is almost impossible for it to go extinct. Just the way that larger companies tend to work, means that the language will exist in some form for decades. If I were to predict a language to go extinct, I would say that it has to be one that has not been widely adopted already, has not made its way to mainstream organizations, and basically reproduces what is already done by another, more popular, language.
It is part of a larger problem with law enforcement lately where police can bring charges against the assets themselves and keep them...
Just to add to your statement to help clarify what is happening... I believe the RICO laws passed many years ago (1960's) were basically designed to drain the funds of mobsters so they could not higher big name lawyers to defend themselves. The promise at the time was that this would only be used for mafia like criminals. People agreed because the mafia was the "bad guy" and needed to be stopped at all costs.
The statutes use some legal tricks to define an inanimate object (currency) as a "person" or entity. Then they charge the entity with a crime. The targeted mobster, smuggler, etc. would then not be able to sue because they lack "standing". This basically means that they cannot sue to receive their money back because the money is the victim (because it was redefined as a person) instead of the accused being the victim. A person cannot sue if they do not have an interest in the offense (i.e. being a victim). Therefore, they have created a wall of red tape and legal definitions that allow them to take the resources from the accused and deny recourse to get them back.
Police departments got greedy and prosecutors wanted a shortcut to get tough on crime, so they started doing the same to those with drug offenses and other crimes. It is much easier to prosecute when the defendant is stripped of methods of defending themselves.
As a side benefit, that dealer's Ferrari looks pretty good parked next to the other squad cars.
Possibly, I was under the impression that Ansel Adams took most of his photos of national parks and not wilderness areas. This fine is levied by the US Forest Service which does not manage or have jurisdiction over national parks which the US National Park Service has jurisdiction. The US Forest Service is the same bunch of fools that thought bring what qualifies as essentially SWAT teams to the Bundy standoff was a brilliant idea. This fine, I have no doubt, is directly related to their bungling of how to handle that situation and the media circus that was created. This way they can greatly clamp down on any coverage of similar future standoffs.
Wasn't the forest service the ones that instituted a "free speech zone" during the Bundy incident last year? Not only that, but those taking pictures of the forest service harming animals were beaten and had their camera equipment confiscated. It seems to me that this may have more to do with silencing whistle blowers than it does with photographing nature on public lands.
I think this is a sad course of events. U.S. Forest service land should be open to the public to enjoy nature, take pictures, and more. It should not be hidden behind a locked gate, where nobody but the forest service can see it.
... taking somebody else's content and reposting is l...
Your premise is wrong here. "Taking" is not the right word when the other still has their original. "Copying" may be the correct term, but "taking" implies the other party no longer has possession of something.
I know you were not trying to be a copyright troll, but it is the language they use. We must be careful to use the correct language because "taking" has much different historical implications than "copying".
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
That is just something guilty people say ;-) It is usually preferable to be seen as a stupid free man as opposed to a smart, but imprisoned, felon.
So why hasn't Steyn demanded the data under ordinary discovery rules? FOIA is an odd way to go about getting data you're supposedly entitled to in order to defend yourself in court.
I was wondering the same thing. However, it appears (based on other comments) that the FOIA request was not directly related to the defamation case. I would assume Steyn will still be able to use the discovery process for this.
If I were betting on this, I would say Steyn's lawyers may have put up the FOIA so that Mann's legal team would have to fight a fire on another front and possible redirect some resources to that request. The FOIA is probably much easier to file than it is to fight against it. But that is just my speculation.
And my opinion on the matter... If you research with public dollars, your source code, research, etc, should be open and free to use. We all payed for it, so why does only the one getting paid get to use it. If you want to keep your data private, research through a privately funded organization.
It really does make sense to have a single ARM kernel source with a device tree. This is not a single binary for all, but a single source tree. When you compile, it is not like you are getting all the bloat of a hundred different board packages. You use a different make script that pulls in the appropriate files. What it does give us is great templates to use when porting to similar sources.
If you ever take a look at board manufacturers' kernel source, each distribution is often very different from another. It takes a while to reconcile it with mainline kernel source. And it is even more of a pain to upgrade to a new kernel when a board maker had some whacky code placed in there. By at least placing it in the device tree, it gives them the incentive to use a template of code that already exists. Then hopefully some of us have an easier time porting when we want to upgrade Kernels and such.
I know it does not seem like it makes a lot of sense to some, but there really are good reasons for the change.
P.S. The unified Kernel is a Linux issue as a whole, not just an Ubuntu thing.
I actually was in the same boat as you. I wasn't a fan early on, but now I actually like it. I mainly use Eclipse or the terminal, so the UI is not super important as long as it does not eat resources. 14.04 seems to be better in this realm. It seems resource use has been getting better. In regards to the interface, I just setup my preschooler with an account on my Ubuntu laptop and Unity was easy enough for her (obviously I did some setup ahead of time). They have really started making the interface intuitive and I give them some serious credit for that.
As a developer, I can see the usefulness of this. This makes me consider developing Chrome apps where previously I had not considered it. Usually, we have to choose our platforms based on our projected return and our limited time. This usually means that only Android and IOS are supported. Given that one could kill two birds with one stone, and have a bonus of Chrome apps, it may be worth checking out.
You are right on. Tech is about innovation, not litigation.
The moral is simple, run like hell, don't look back because something might be gaining on you, and above all, don't stop to hire mercenaries to fight for you and then relax while a bunch of hired guns save your village with Elmer Bernstein's music in the background.
P.S. Nice "moral". If I had mod points, I would be scoring you as 'funny'.
Blackberry could come back as a semi successful phone manufacturer if they adopted an open platform for their hardware (i.e. Android) and build premium business apps that would be included with their phones. There simply is not enough room for another OS when so many have IOS and Android.
Meanwhile, no one has a problem with the National Football League being considered "non-profit" by IRS standards ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/05/29/nfl-sports-leagues-irs-tax-exemption/2370945/ ). I am not saying that X.org did not screw things up, but we certainly have some strange qualifications to benefit from non-profit status. X.org sounds like they had some trouble filing, but I am sympathetic to non-profits in general having difficulty filing. Oftentimes, they really are run by people who are passionate about their cause, but not necessarily familiar with the accounting standards needed to remain in good standing with the IRS. Compliance with reporting requirements can cost you a lot in accounting fees and time.
We pay for it, why should some private party reap the rewards?
This is just an exercise in futility. Most software gets abandoned at some point. One usually owns a cell phone for two years. If it works for that time period, who cares if it is abandoned later? This is not an attack on open source solutions (I'm all for them), I just feel that restricting yourself to only open source for fear of abandonment is a little bit like a single guy staying away from all girls because one dumped him once.
Is it worth taking civilian deaths on our side, through terrorism, to avoid civilians deaths on the other side?
Civilians, by nature should be valued as equally as possible. Obviously, a state's military has a duty to their own citizens, but I think we should find a way to avoid civilian deaths on each side. It is not their fight. Their children didn't ask for this. As decent human beings, it is our duty to prevent harm to civilians on either side.
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black!
As often as we need. We push based on features. Although we sometimes slip into batching up production moves. I find it is much easier to push often when you work with people that are unafraid of branching based on feature requests.
I'm just glad we don't do the "quarterly push" like some do. It sure saves us a lot of troubleshooting in the chance that the push introduces a production error.
Meh...
If you are not smart enough to install non-market Android apps, you have no problem.
If you are smart enough to install non-market Android apps, you know what you are getting into.
With great power comes great responsibility. I think these pieces keep surfacing because the Anti-Virus companies desperately need to get into this market. They see it is the future and they want a piece of it.
I'm 35 and had been doing mostly C++ work for my career. I recently went back out to look for a new job, and finding mostly Java stuff, I got the Android SDK and wrote a few Android apps to hone those Java skills. Now I've got a new job doing Java stuff and learning a skillset that I think will be in demand for a while yet.
You did exactly the right thing. Pick up a fun, trendy, and easy to start language. The Android SDK is easy to pick up and can really teach you how to write good Java code.
I do the whole Enterprise Java, Spring, etc. job by day, but learn way more when programming in my free time on Android, PHP, etc. It gives me a fulfilled feeling and gives me the skills to advance my programming career far more than relying on my employer to provide training opportunities.