What the fuck? "they're causing many narcolepsy cases" - [citation needed] to the max. I don't even know of any mechanism by which a vaccine could have anything to do with narcolepsy.
Then you go and revise history. It was a pandemic, even though not everybody got sick (pandemic has a specific definition that was met). And it was on par with the average flu in terms of mortality, but it was affecting the young and able-bodied disproportionately - a characteristic it shared with the 1918 flu epidemic, which was also an H1N1 strain. Young and able-bodied are both more resistant to infection in the first place, and more capable of spreading it, so there was absolutely cause for alarm.
It was probably overhyped (mostly by the media) but it was not "many kids getting their lives ruined". From what I can find, one person died from an anaphylactic reaction, but that says more about the environment in which they were vaccinated because we know how to treat anaphylaxis. About 30 people had temporary problems possibly resulting from the vaccine, but they all recovered.
Nice try, but it would be an invalid contract because there was no "meeting of the minds" to assent to the new contract. Of course if the terms were unfavorable, you might not be interested in a valid contract, and just wanted to shut HR up... which is fine, but it's not an enforceable contract.
More seriously, I can't figure out if PHP actually has a coding standard, in which case it's obviously preferable to use something more readable than less. It always seemed less like it was thought out and more like it grew organically as people started using it for more than forms and counters and things. But my knowledge of PHP is limited to "it's a scripting language, embed it with <?php... ?>, basic imperative syntax, here's the docs". Thankfully, I don't do anything with PHP more than hack on stuff for personal use sometimes. Can anyone enlighten me? What does quality PHP code look like? I'd guess frameworks like CodeIgniter or CakePHP would be the place to look.
I have no particular love of Javascript, but when I work in it, I write Javascript. When I use Python, I write Python, not Java. When I use C++, I write C++, not C.
It's hard. It's annoying. But the idea is that you write the language like a "native". If you're really a generalist, it's not such a big deal. Read plenty of good Javascript to learn the idioms common to the language, and go from there.
I could write for loops using counters and statements terminating with semicolons in Python. But I don't. I use iterators, list comprehensions, and so on. Because that's how Python code is written.
The way I see it, the goal of learning a new language is the same whether it's a programming language or a spoken language - to be able to do useful things with it, and ideally come off as a native speaker. Look at it as a matter of pride.
I'm sympathetic to that argument, but not with VHS/DVR. VHS is an astonishing pain to set up to record in advance. Substantially harder than setting the clock (which as we all know is nearly impossible, apparently). And even more difficult now that they're no longer publishing the "VCR+" codes (remember those?) that made it only mildly unpleasant instead of quite unpleasant. Recording a show that's currently on is equally easy for each - just hit the "record" button - except that the DVR will start from where you tuned to the channel, if you've been watching for 5 minutes, and automatically "labels" the recording with the name and time.
Frankly, I can't believe that somebody can set a recording to happen in the future can't find the same show at the same time on the guide and hit "record" there instead. Compare "Menu->Schedule recording->Time/Date/Channel/Duration" to "Guide-> (Scroll to channel, date and time, channel and show helpfully named for your convenience) -> Record". Of course, some will refuse to do it merely because it's different, but I'm not particularly interested in catering to them (and it says more about the person than their age).
Fair enough, but that's a pretty subtle difference compared to other image quality metrics. Even on an old 480i CRT, where VHS arguably looks its best, there's noticeably less definition than a DVD.
I should add that I understand and accept that VHS was revolutionary for giving people the ability, for the first time, to consume media on their own schedule. Being able to record something to watch it later is a big deal, and we've actually taken a step backwards in that respect - less people have DVRs than had VHS recorders (though I'm not sure most people taped much - I know I only did it occasionally because it was a pain).
But we moved away from VHS as soon as possible, much like we did with the hand-starter in a car. And that's a good thing.
Stupid article, stupid person, stupid premise, stupid argument. Stupid stupid stupid. Video has followed the same trajectory as audio, from analog to to digital physical to downloads. Except that analog video sucks just as much as, if not more so than, analog audio tapes. I know there's something of a vinyl resurgence, and I even think there's something to it (not audio quality, experience), but there's a reason nobody ever wants to screw around with audio tapes again. They're a pain in the ass, there's static, you need to rewind them, etc. Except video is even more finicky. Remember screwing with the tracking? Pulling the tape out of the box and finding it not rewound? Finding a particular scene?
And is he seriously arguing that obscure films are *more* obscure now that you can watch them online, as opposed to finding them tucked away somewhere in the local video store? I'm also pretty sure that those obscure films have been digitized and are easy to "acquire" if you wanted to watch them.
DVDs are superior to VHS in literally every respect. You don't have to rewind them, random access is as easy as sequential access, quality is better, audio is better (5.1 channels), smaller media, smaller players, quieter players, no static, no head cleaning, no moving parts in the media, cheaper media, extra features... the list goes on and on.
Alright, fair enough. MSWord is really good. The ribbon is actually not a terrible invention, once you make the mental shift from memorizing menu structure to working on context.
But I don't want to spend $100 on it. And it doesn't work on Linux. So LibreOffice is my office suite, and I don't really have any complaints about it. It's less polished, but I don't think any less functional. I don't do much word processing (write any papers in LaTeX), so I don't really care.
My objection was more to the formatting complaints. I must say, I've never had that happen for Word or Excel documents. Powerpoints don't work very well, which could absolutely be a dealbreaker for some people, but I've never had a problem with even complex documents with charts and tables, at least not in the last 2 years or so. Again, I don't work with many Word documents, but when I do, it's been fine.
While we're dueling anecdotes, I was once able to fix a corrupted Word file for my mother that nobody could open because it confused their parser, and all their products have the same one. OO.o (at the time) was able to open and re-save the file so that it would work correctly, with no loss of formatting.
First thing I noticed (other than the creepy flying things) was the drop sheet and the attempts to make a uniform environment, presumably to help the tracking system focus on the targets.
That, and to cover up all the crap they've got before their shiny video.:p
Do you not realize that collision avoidance becomes rather more difficult when the things you're trying to avoid colliding with are themselves moving? They're not setting up a pattern to fly in, the computer is calculating trajectories for each robot such that they won't interfere with each other at any point in the future. A rather taller order.
Hey all - These guys work down the hall from me. I don't work with them, but I've seen the lab.
Basically, it seems like it's a motion capture setup with IR cameras and some mostly off-the-shelf software to track 3D position (standard mocap stuff, which I have worked with). I think each drone has an IR emitter on it (you can see it in some shots since the camera has no IR filter). The novel thing here is the algorithmic work required in keeping track of each drone and planning out all the trajectories relative to the other bots (see the figure 8 demo at the end).
It's not going to fly through your window any time soon, unless you can fit a Kinect and some serious horsepower on there without going over the weight budget. But there's no reason to think that the algorithms wouldn't work to control the local bot, with some sort of ad-hoc mesh network for the synchronization.
LGPL is a good fit for this (although it's really more for libraries). However, the busybox folks seem to be quite happy about being "that piece of software that nails everybody that tries to violate the GPL", so they may not be interested in relicensing.
The implication is clearly that we (as a community) shouldn't discourage people from using OSS code, or they'd start rewriting it to "get around" it.
That's the entire argument for the GPL. Basically, if some simple conditions aren't met, you don't get to take advantage of all the work that's been put into it. The idea being that you'd rather they not use your code at all if they're going to be dicks about it.
Sony, for reasons I don't quite understand but are entirely up to them, seems unhappy about putting the publicly-available-and-not-competitively-relevant source code on their website. More power to them, but the tradeoff is spending a bunch of time rewriting software that already exists and works fine. More power to them.
When I license my code under the GPL, I realize that the odds of its reuse are somewhat smaller. But that's fine, since I'd rather that somebody saving time by building off my work makes their source available (to me, and everybody else). If they don't want to do that, I don't want to save them the trouble of having to write it themselves.
The more interesting story here is that Sony's got it in its head that it'll be cheaper to rewrite Busybox than continue to have links to it. Not sure how they figured it.
You had a good point, but you lost your credibility by claiming that Obama hates the rich. I find it unlikely that he would particularly hate himself for his own wealth (he is a millionaire).
Despite what the Republicans have been saying, the Democrats, Obama, and the OWS folks (most of them, anyway) actually have a relatively nuanced argument. The basic principle is that the wealthy have received the benefit of society in excess of the middle class or the poor, so they should pay a higher percent in taxes. It's the same philosophy behind donating to your university - it helped you get where you are, so you want to give back. It's the same principle that explains why the poor pay fewer taxes than the middle class. The government, if you believe one ought to exist, should be a joint effort. (If you don't believe that a government has a role, I have nothing to say). What "class warfare" exists is in the wealthy attempting to wiggle out of their moral, ethical, and legal obligations to pay a proportion of their income as taxes to the entity that secured their ability to make that income.
A more specific issue is the capital gains tax. "Normal" people work; they get paid, and that income is taxed. But "the 1%" don't need to work (if they don't want to) since the earnings on their investments aren't the same, and they're taxed at a much lower rate. But they haven't produced anything, they're leveraging their wealth to produce more wealth. It's not bad in and of itself, but if you subscribe to the economic principle that people act according to incentives, you can see that we, as a society are incentivizing the wealthy to avoid doing anything productive with that money, since then they might be taxed at a higher percentage than if they'd just let it sit. People also have problems with the "soft power" that the wealth brings, like accountants that can figure out how to pay even less in taxes.
The problem people have isn't with success. They work hard, they make a good living, support their family, pay their bills and taxes and things - but then they see that there's this other class, where if they could possibly get into it, they wouldn't need to worry about pesky things like work and money, because it'd all take care of itself. The objection isn't to the wealthy, or even the disparity, but to the feeling that there's an institutional clique that's keeping them out. And they hear the wealthy still complaining about taxes and trying (successfully!) to get them lowered. And they get angry.
Remember all those old movies or TV shows, where the good man who's being harassed always tries to defend himself with "I pay my taxes"? When did that stop being a matter of pride?
You can unite a lot of different peoples with hate. Hate the Jews (Hitler), hate the Commies (McCarthy), hate the Rich (currently Obama), hate the Muslims (911 and the Patriot Act), etc.
As a current CS major at a school you've heard of, I don't take notes. Ever. Sometimes it hurts, sometimes it helps, but I find that if I take notes, I lose the point of the lecture. Most of my professors were good enough that their lecture was a sort of a story, and if you paid attention and followed the story, you got more out of that than the the slides and the books. Of course, the books are usually quite helpful, more or less depending on the class, and most-to-all of my professors have posted slides online.
But the biggest help has been lecture recordings that they've started to do. You can watch the slideshow, synchronized with the lecture, and it's a huge help. If you miss something during lecture, you can go and watch that section with the book or reference materials open, pause, rewind, etc. It removes the time constraint, and seems to be making a big difference.
I wasn't concerned with the author's name. I will admit I skimmed some of the non-relevant portions, since I was short on time, but I believe I got the substance of the post.
As for the old website, sites tend to grow organically. The content on the old website was put there one-at-a-time, as it came to exist. The new website would've required a bulk import, and those are pretty slow. I'd rather they have the new site up earlier than delaying until everything is copied over. Should it have been done better? Probably. But this wasn't an article about "it should have been done better", this was an article about nontransparency and deliberate obfuscation, with the implication that it's for political reasons. I don't think the evidence supports such a bold accusation.
I read the article, and he's basically got problems with the search feature, the size of PDFs (or the quality of their previews?), and what happens to agency documents when an agency closes (they go to an agency that handles 'legacy' documents)
This is a very accusatory article and summary for the problems he's got. Non-transparency? Obfuscation? Or a work-in-progress? If new work is hidden away, or old work isn't made available in a straightforward and reasonable fashion, then complain... but this guy just comes off as complaining.
I heard that it's been the case before that discovered vulnerabilities would be kept secret so that they could be used across multiple years. This changes the incentive to reward whoever's found the most, which is what the point was all along - exposing as many vulnerabilities as possible.
Yes, it does. Those are stored in plain text anyways, at least the mysql ones (your config files). The passwords in question are for shell/FTP accounts, as the title says.
As a Dreamhost customer, I watched this unfold in real time. Apparently the passwords were hashed, and there's no indication that they were compromised, other than the fact that it was technically possible. So they changed the passwords because it's cheaper, PR-wise, than being wrong.
There's a big warning up on the panel, which has a password stored in a different, non-compromised DB. Between the panel and the email, I doubt anybody's confused as to what's going on.
In other words, it's really not that big of a deal. The database shouldn't have been compromised, and I'll expect a full postmortem of how they screwed that up, but in terms of damage (or even inconvenience), there really isn't any to speak of.
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck? "they're causing many narcolepsy cases" - [citation needed] to the max. I don't even know of any mechanism by which a vaccine could have anything to do with narcolepsy.
Then you go and revise history. It was a pandemic, even though not everybody got sick (pandemic has a specific definition that was met). And it was on par with the average flu in terms of mortality, but it was affecting the young and able-bodied disproportionately - a characteristic it shared with the 1918 flu epidemic, which was also an H1N1 strain. Young and able-bodied are both more resistant to infection in the first place, and more capable of spreading it, so there was absolutely cause for alarm.
It was probably overhyped (mostly by the media) but it was not "many kids getting their lives ruined". From what I can find, one person died from an anaphylactic reaction, but that says more about the environment in which they were vaccinated because we know how to treat anaphylaxis. About 30 people had temporary problems possibly resulting from the vaccine, but they all recovered.
Nice try, but it would be an invalid contract because there was no "meeting of the minds" to assent to the new contract. Of course if the terms were unfavorable, you might not be interested in a valid contract, and just wanted to shut HR up... which is fine, but it's not an enforceable contract.
PHP is an exception (isn't it always?) :P
More seriously, I can't figure out if PHP actually has a coding standard, in which case it's obviously preferable to use something more readable than less. It always seemed less like it was thought out and more like it grew organically as people started using it for more than forms and counters and things. But my knowledge of PHP is limited to "it's a scripting language, embed it with <?php ... ?>, basic imperative syntax, here's the docs". Thankfully, I don't do anything with PHP more than hack on stuff for personal use sometimes. Can anyone enlighten me? What does quality PHP code look like? I'd guess frameworks like CodeIgniter or CakePHP would be the place to look.
I have no particular love of Javascript, but when I work in it, I write Javascript. When I use Python, I write Python, not Java. When I use C++, I write C++, not C.
It's hard. It's annoying. But the idea is that you write the language like a "native". If you're really a generalist, it's not such a big deal. Read plenty of good Javascript to learn the idioms common to the language, and go from there.
I could write for loops using counters and statements terminating with semicolons in Python. But I don't. I use iterators, list comprehensions, and so on. Because that's how Python code is written.
The way I see it, the goal of learning a new language is the same whether it's a programming language or a spoken language - to be able to do useful things with it, and ideally come off as a native speaker. Look at it as a matter of pride.
I'm sympathetic to that argument, but not with VHS/DVR. VHS is an astonishing pain to set up to record in advance. Substantially harder than setting the clock (which as we all know is nearly impossible, apparently). And even more difficult now that they're no longer publishing the "VCR+" codes (remember those?) that made it only mildly unpleasant instead of quite unpleasant. Recording a show that's currently on is equally easy for each - just hit the "record" button - except that the DVR will start from where you tuned to the channel, if you've been watching for 5 minutes, and automatically "labels" the recording with the name and time.
Frankly, I can't believe that somebody can set a recording to happen in the future can't find the same show at the same time on the guide and hit "record" there instead. Compare "Menu->Schedule recording->Time/Date/Channel/Duration" to "Guide-> (Scroll to channel, date and time, channel and show helpfully named for your convenience) -> Record". Of course, some will refuse to do it merely because it's different, but I'm not particularly interested in catering to them (and it says more about the person than their age).
Fair enough, but that's a pretty subtle difference compared to other image quality metrics. Even on an old 480i CRT, where VHS arguably looks its best, there's noticeably less definition than a DVD.
I should add that I understand and accept that VHS was revolutionary for giving people the ability, for the first time, to consume media on their own schedule. Being able to record something to watch it later is a big deal, and we've actually taken a step backwards in that respect - less people have DVRs than had VHS recorders (though I'm not sure most people taped much - I know I only did it occasionally because it was a pain).
But we moved away from VHS as soon as possible, much like we did with the hand-starter in a car. And that's a good thing.
Stupid article, stupid person, stupid premise, stupid argument. Stupid stupid stupid. Video has followed the same trajectory as audio, from analog to to digital physical to downloads. Except that analog video sucks just as much as, if not more so than, analog audio tapes. I know there's something of a vinyl resurgence, and I even think there's something to it (not audio quality, experience), but there's a reason nobody ever wants to screw around with audio tapes again. They're a pain in the ass, there's static, you need to rewind them, etc. Except video is even more finicky. Remember screwing with the tracking? Pulling the tape out of the box and finding it not rewound? Finding a particular scene?
And is he seriously arguing that obscure films are *more* obscure now that you can watch them online, as opposed to finding them tucked away somewhere in the local video store? I'm also pretty sure that those obscure films have been digitized and are easy to "acquire" if you wanted to watch them.
DVDs are superior to VHS in literally every respect. You don't have to rewind them, random access is as easy as sequential access, quality is better, audio is better (5.1 channels), smaller media, smaller players, quieter players, no static, no head cleaning, no moving parts in the media, cheaper media, extra features... the list goes on and on.
Stupid.
Alright, fair enough. MSWord is really good. The ribbon is actually not a terrible invention, once you make the mental shift from memorizing menu structure to working on context.
But I don't want to spend $100 on it. And it doesn't work on Linux. So LibreOffice is my office suite, and I don't really have any complaints about it. It's less polished, but I don't think any less functional. I don't do much word processing (write any papers in LaTeX), so I don't really care.
My objection was more to the formatting complaints. I must say, I've never had that happen for Word or Excel documents. Powerpoints don't work very well, which could absolutely be a dealbreaker for some people, but I've never had a problem with even complex documents with charts and tables, at least not in the last 2 years or so. Again, I don't work with many Word documents, but when I do, it's been fine.
While we're dueling anecdotes, I was once able to fix a corrupted Word file for my mother that nobody could open because it confused their parser, and all their products have the same one. OO.o (at the time) was able to open and re-save the file so that it would work correctly, with no loss of formatting.
First thing I noticed (other than the creepy flying things) was the drop sheet and the attempts to make a uniform environment, presumably to help the tracking system focus on the targets.
That, and to cover up all the crap they've got before their shiny video. :p
Do you not realize that collision avoidance becomes rather more difficult when the things you're trying to avoid colliding with are themselves moving? They're not setting up a pattern to fly in, the computer is calculating trajectories for each robot such that they won't interfere with each other at any point in the future. A rather taller order.
Yes.
Longer answer: Probably. http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/09/19/1811254/u-penn-super-quadcopter-learns-new-tricks and a few more. They've also been on "Penn & Teller Tell A Lie" and 'The Colbert Report".
Hey all - These guys work down the hall from me. I don't work with them, but I've seen the lab.
Basically, it seems like it's a motion capture setup with IR cameras and some mostly off-the-shelf software to track 3D position (standard mocap stuff, which I have worked with). I think each drone has an IR emitter on it (you can see it in some shots since the camera has no IR filter). The novel thing here is the algorithmic work required in keeping track of each drone and planning out all the trajectories relative to the other bots (see the figure 8 demo at the end).
It's not going to fly through your window any time soon, unless you can fit a Kinect and some serious horsepower on there without going over the weight budget. But there's no reason to think that the algorithms wouldn't work to control the local bot, with some sort of ad-hoc mesh network for the synchronization.
LGPL is a good fit for this (although it's really more for libraries). However, the busybox folks seem to be quite happy about being "that piece of software that nails everybody that tries to violate the GPL", so they may not be interested in relicensing.
The implication is clearly that we (as a community) shouldn't discourage people from using OSS code, or they'd start rewriting it to "get around" it.
That's the entire argument for the GPL. Basically, if some simple conditions aren't met, you don't get to take advantage of all the work that's been put into it. The idea being that you'd rather they not use your code at all if they're going to be dicks about it.
Sony, for reasons I don't quite understand but are entirely up to them, seems unhappy about putting the publicly-available-and-not-competitively-relevant source code on their website. More power to them, but the tradeoff is spending a bunch of time rewriting software that already exists and works fine. More power to them.
When I license my code under the GPL, I realize that the odds of its reuse are somewhat smaller. But that's fine, since I'd rather that somebody saving time by building off my work makes their source available (to me, and everybody else). If they don't want to do that, I don't want to save them the trouble of having to write it themselves.
The more interesting story here is that Sony's got it in its head that it'll be cheaper to rewrite Busybox than continue to have links to it. Not sure how they figured it.
What am I missing here?
Mass-energy equivalence.
You had a good point, but you lost your credibility by claiming that Obama hates the rich. I find it unlikely that he would particularly hate himself for his own wealth (he is a millionaire).
Despite what the Republicans have been saying, the Democrats, Obama, and the OWS folks (most of them, anyway) actually have a relatively nuanced argument. The basic principle is that the wealthy have received the benefit of society in excess of the middle class or the poor, so they should pay a higher percent in taxes. It's the same philosophy behind donating to your university - it helped you get where you are, so you want to give back. It's the same principle that explains why the poor pay fewer taxes than the middle class. The government, if you believe one ought to exist, should be a joint effort. (If you don't believe that a government has a role, I have nothing to say). What "class warfare" exists is in the wealthy attempting to wiggle out of their moral, ethical, and legal obligations to pay a proportion of their income as taxes to the entity that secured their ability to make that income.
A more specific issue is the capital gains tax. "Normal" people work; they get paid, and that income is taxed. But "the 1%" don't need to work (if they don't want to) since the earnings on their investments aren't the same, and they're taxed at a much lower rate. But they haven't produced anything, they're leveraging their wealth to produce more wealth. It's not bad in and of itself, but if you subscribe to the economic principle that people act according to incentives, you can see that we, as a society are incentivizing the wealthy to avoid doing anything productive with that money, since then they might be taxed at a higher percentage than if they'd just let it sit. People also have problems with the "soft power" that the wealth brings, like accountants that can figure out how to pay even less in taxes.
The problem people have isn't with success. They work hard, they make a good living, support their family, pay their bills and taxes and things - but then they see that there's this other class, where if they could possibly get into it, they wouldn't need to worry about pesky things like work and money, because it'd all take care of itself. The objection isn't to the wealthy, or even the disparity, but to the feeling that there's an institutional clique that's keeping them out. And they hear the wealthy still complaining about taxes and trying (successfully!) to get them lowered. And they get angry.
Remember all those old movies or TV shows, where the good man who's being harassed always tries to defend himself with "I pay my taxes"? When did that stop being a matter of pride?
You can unite a lot of different peoples with hate. Hate the Jews (Hitler), hate the Commies (McCarthy), hate the Rich (currently Obama), hate the Muslims (911 and the Patriot Act), etc.
One of these things is not like the others...
As a current CS major at a school you've heard of, I don't take notes. Ever. Sometimes it hurts, sometimes it helps, but I find that if I take notes, I lose the point of the lecture. Most of my professors were good enough that their lecture was a sort of a story, and if you paid attention and followed the story, you got more out of that than the the slides and the books. Of course, the books are usually quite helpful, more or less depending on the class, and most-to-all of my professors have posted slides online.
But the biggest help has been lecture recordings that they've started to do. You can watch the slideshow, synchronized with the lecture, and it's a huge help. If you miss something during lecture, you can go and watch that section with the book or reference materials open, pause, rewind, etc. It removes the time constraint, and seems to be making a big difference.
I wasn't concerned with the author's name. I will admit I skimmed some of the non-relevant portions, since I was short on time, but I believe I got the substance of the post.
As for the old website, sites tend to grow organically. The content on the old website was put there one-at-a-time, as it came to exist. The new website would've required a bulk import, and those are pretty slow. I'd rather they have the new site up earlier than delaying until everything is copied over. Should it have been done better? Probably. But this wasn't an article about "it should have been done better", this was an article about nontransparency and deliberate obfuscation, with the implication that it's for political reasons. I don't think the evidence supports such a bold accusation.
I read the article, and he's basically got problems with the search feature, the size of PDFs (or the quality of their previews?), and what happens to agency documents when an agency closes (they go to an agency that handles 'legacy' documents)
This is a very accusatory article and summary for the problems he's got. Non-transparency? Obfuscation? Or a work-in-progress? If new work is hidden away, or old work isn't made available in a straightforward and reasonable fashion, then complain... but this guy just comes off as complaining.
I heard that it's been the case before that discovered vulnerabilities would be kept secret so that they could be used across multiple years. This changes the incentive to reward whoever's found the most, which is what the point was all along - exposing as many vulnerabilities as possible.
Yes, it does. Those are stored in plain text anyways, at least the mysql ones (your config files). The passwords in question are for shell/FTP accounts, as the title says.
As a Dreamhost customer, I watched this unfold in real time. Apparently the passwords were hashed, and there's no indication that they were compromised, other than the fact that it was technically possible. So they changed the passwords because it's cheaper, PR-wise, than being wrong.
There's a big warning up on the panel, which has a password stored in a different, non-compromised DB. Between the panel and the email, I doubt anybody's confused as to what's going on.
In other words, it's really not that big of a deal. The database shouldn't have been compromised, and I'll expect a full postmortem of how they screwed that up, but in terms of damage (or even inconvenience), there really isn't any to speak of.