wxWindows was a nice promise. I remember trying it out over a decade ago. And then again a few years later. The problem is, the code isn't written in a portable style; instead they try to bugfix their way to portability. So it often has trouble compiling. You can't just distribute a wxWindows app and have it work everywhere, for real, the way Gtk and Qt apps do. It will crash and burn for some percent of users; it will crash and burn if the compiler settings need to be adjusted; it will crash and burn just because a dev wants to use a new version that hasn't matured enough to get enough bug reports.
Gtk is actually the best example of OOP in pure C I've ever seen. It still works great, lots of apps use it. Mostly, apps that don't bother advertising their toolkit because it is besides the point.
These fanboys should lay off the drugs. Toolkits are not the current fad, you get no style points for loving Qt in 2014. People even hate on the code, guaranteed if they had to find an actual example of bad code it would be their first time opening it up, and they'd eventually just point to some app that uses it.
I've read the Linus flames, I'm not convinced at all. Clearly, somebody pissed him off when he was drunk and he Made a Decision. If you don't believe me... google it.
Sorry kiddo, but the comment I was responding to said, "Good luck eliminating every piece of bad behavior the kids can come up with." So that is the behavior ("bad behavior") that I was offering a counter-example to.
If you "can't afford to sue" then that right there proves that your reputation was not harmed in the way that adults care about; financially. If your reputation was in fact harmed financially, you can probably find a lawyer to take the case on contingency.
You should visit your local Makerspace to verify if the community is actually as narrow as you support, or if it already includes all the artists and artisans that could also be called "hackers."
You can train people to sue over anything. Training them to use strong passwords, well, you can force them to type them in, but you're really forcing these known-idiots to write them down in an unsecure place... like their gmail. Or to install an app, which may or may not be stealing their passwords, to manage their passwords.
Debit cards work because I trust my bank not to stick me with the bill for fraud.
Websites in general go the opposite direction, and indemnify themselves and require the user to accept full responsibility for whatever harm befalls them. So if you're saying, "sure you can protect the idiots, just buy insurance that covers everybody" then in that case, yeah, for sites/companies that offer that level of service, they can "protect" users, at least after the fact. But that is an eye-roller, sites don't offer that.
Even a banking app on a phone often leaves you exposed to fraud without your normal protections.
Other than insurance/accepting the idiot's fraud liability, you can't actually protect the debit cards. Idiots write their PIN number on a scrap of paper and put that in their wallet, right next to their card. There is no way to have users provide secrets as authentication, and to keep them protected. Maybe if you a DNA scanner that somehow couldn't be given a digital feed, then you could. Maybe. "Hi we're doing market research on toothbrushes, we'll pay you $10 just to try this new toothbrush for 30 seconds right now! Cash!"
More likely it involves schedule juggling so the contractor can increase their margins, and would not impact the timeline at all.
This recently came up in my town, when push came to shove regarding the permit, the contractor ended up admitting the timeline for the project would be the same if they work at 4am or wait until 7am. But it would save them money. In this case it would have meant less hours running some sort of concrete dryer. So we decided that they should have planned to start at the locally allowed time, and denied their special use permit.
So it very well could mean 24/7 noise and work, and still take the full time. You should expect that is the case unless the contractor put something else in writing. And even then, check what local lawyers say about the wording.
The commonly-accepted usage of words is determined by the majority.
While I do agree that whatever "hacker" used to mean is called a "maker" now, you're way off on how word meanings are determined.
It turns out, each word can have multiple meanings, and all the meanings with common published examples are the real meanings! Wow! Blows your mind, right?
How can nerds expect the world to believe in our vocabulary if we can't even read dictionaries?
Your system cannot protect the idiots from themselves. That is a trap you fell into somewhere. Most likely you simply agreed it would be nice if it was so. "Yeah, why can't we protect all our users?!"
This isn't brain science or rocket surgery. The idiots have to have a way to access the system. They will NOT remember strong passwords, they will write them in a stupid place or keep them in gmail with public information as the account recovery. And guess what, you can't control gmail. Put some real thought into it, your idiot users will hand their access away to the first thief, and you can't do much to protect them.
All you can do is protect your system and try to make anything important difficult enough to access that the idiots can't get in.
If only we had a time machine, we could go back to the 90s and fight thing battle again. At this point I think it is fair to say, the word means whatever it is used for. Makers are the new hackers.
Plus, he only claims to have talked to some coworkers/supervisors. What he didn't do was go where a whistleblower is supposed to go; for example he could have gone to Senator Wyden who is on the Intelligence Committee and had publicly raised concerns about these programs. If you're part of a secret program and need to "blow the whistle," you're not blowing it from the inside. You have to go to the people doing the oversight, which here in the US are elected members of Congress.
As an adult I don't have to deal with "bullying" on my own terms; if somebody manages to lie about me in a way that harms my reputation, there is a legal remedy for that.
And the business is not going to "shut down." They're going to disable the (location-based) service when the location is a school. That makes sense. Schools are full of children, who are supposed to be there to learn.
They can still use the service in a more appropriate place, such as a park, or concert, or the mall, where it actually makes sense to have location-based anonymous messaging. The main use-case for this app is obviously to "hook up" at concerts/malls, not to bully at school. At school you already mostly know who everybody is, so the legit uses of it there are hard to find. Plus, it is totally normal not to be able to use all apps in all locations. You also have to turn your electronic devices off in a courtroom, library, etc.
Good luck eliminating every piece of bad behavior the kids can come up with.
Gee, we can't stop all murders, so why try? Derp! That is a really pathetic straw-man. Surely you can do better than, "we can't stop everything bad so why stop anything."
Also, are you absolutely sure that not having this app at school "punishes everyone?" It might actually be a distraction to all the kids who are focused on learning at school. In fact, it might ONLY punish kids who don't care about school, even while they are there, and care more about bullying other kids. Surely the kids who are engaging in constructive conversations with their peers will be happy to do it using some sort of traditional IM where they choose a pseudonym that is "anonymous" to the outside world, but known to their peers.
If they're waiting around skulking behind corners waiting until nobody is looking, you can spot them "up to no good" before they even post it. And if they don't skulk around, they won't be anonymous. So, no, it is not actually the same thing at all.
Slippery slopes are always lies. In the real world, you're not constantly clinging to the side of a cliff where if you move an inch in either direction, you slide all the way to the most extreme possible position, like banning chalk.
And if the message is offensive enough, an administrator might even put out a call on the PA for teachers to pick up line 2, and tell them all to keep an eye out for a student with chalk-covered hands.
as a developer I can tell you that the main reasons that facebook-auth is used for comments are:
* Site doesn't have to require sign-up, or ask users to trust the site * Site doesn't have to protect user data * Social Networking checkbox is now checked * Free advertising for your site on the facebook pages of people who post comments * Can save money using drop-in comment system, you don't have to integrate a signup plugin and a comments plugin, or buy an integrated solution
Most of these sites would be using a comment service provider like disqus if not facebook.
It would be great for devs if everybody wanted a custom comments system for their sites:) Even just integrating OSS would allow for more billable hours than integrating facebook.
What I'm curious about is the use-case for this sort of anonymity. In the case of slashdot or something, this is like using anonymous coward to post. Why is that even good? Here it is only good because sometimes people without accounts say something useful, sometimes even people involved in the posted stories. But in general, a slashdot user id is already as anonymous as you want it to be. Never post your name, and nobody will know it. What is the use case for an extra level of anonymity? Generally, it is to say something offensive that you're not willing to stand up and say openly, even with your pseudonym.
The pseudonym already allows for legitimate speech, unpopular opinions, politics, that sort of thing.
So leaving aside paranoid concerns about DNA-locked ipv6. What is the actual use case for fully-anonymous messaging? Obviously it isn't being used to communicate with people you know...
Actually, yes. Yes it does. Heavy-handed it may be. But the app is an anonymous way for people to communicate based on physical location instead of some sort of network ID. So banning it in a location absolutely solves the narrow problem of the app being used in this way.
they're going to show up, talk to the guy, reveal that you called them in, and then leave.
That is why it is effective. You've shown them that it is officially recorded that they made a threat. If they act on it, they'll get caught. And, you're not intimidated; further, you're going to Do The Right Thing. It certainly isn't going to make them like you. But in the US, this really IS how people usually respond to threats from neighbors. Your idea that people actually freakin' sell their home to escape threats is absurd. Most people who "own" their home have a mortgage, usually with terms that include penalties if they sell at the wrong time, and "can't" simply sell and move. Further, selling and moving is epitome of being successfully bullied. Most people are not that easy to run out of town.
Slashdot Mirror
wxWindows was a nice promise. I remember trying it out over a decade ago. And then again a few years later. The problem is, the code isn't written in a portable style; instead they try to bugfix their way to portability. So it often has trouble compiling. You can't just distribute a wxWindows app and have it work everywhere, for real, the way Gtk and Qt apps do. It will crash and burn for some percent of users; it will crash and burn if the compiler settings need to be adjusted; it will crash and burn just because a dev wants to use a new version that hasn't matured enough to get enough bug reports.
Gtk is actually the best example of OOP in pure C I've ever seen. It still works great, lots of apps use it. Mostly, apps that don't bother advertising their toolkit because it is besides the point.
These fanboys should lay off the drugs. Toolkits are not the current fad, you get no style points for loving Qt in 2014. People even hate on the code, guaranteed if they had to find an actual example of bad code it would be their first time opening it up, and they'd eventually just point to some app that uses it.
I've read the Linus flames, I'm not convinced at all. Clearly, somebody pissed him off when he was drunk and he Made a Decision. If you don't believe me... google it.
Sorry kiddo, but the comment I was responding to said, "Good luck eliminating every piece of bad behavior the kids can come up with." So that is the behavior ("bad behavior") that I was offering a counter-example to.
You don't have to be an employee to use the method I just mentioned as the correct one. Jebus.
If you "can't afford to sue" then that right there proves that your reputation was not harmed in the way that adults care about; financially. If your reputation was in fact harmed financially, you can probably find a lawyer to take the case on contingency.
You should visit your local Makerspace to verify if the community is actually as narrow as you support, or if it already includes all the artists and artisans that could also be called "hackers."
Perhaps your concept of Making is too narrow.
You can train people to sue over anything. Training them to use strong passwords, well, you can force them to type them in, but you're really forcing these known-idiots to write them down in an unsecure place... like their gmail. Or to install an app, which may or may not be stealing their passwords, to manage their passwords.
You're late to the party, but you're still welcome to join your local makerspace :)
Debit cards work because I trust my bank not to stick me with the bill for fraud.
Websites in general go the opposite direction, and indemnify themselves and require the user to accept full responsibility for whatever harm befalls them. So if you're saying, "sure you can protect the idiots, just buy insurance that covers everybody" then in that case, yeah, for sites/companies that offer that level of service, they can "protect" users, at least after the fact. But that is an eye-roller, sites don't offer that.
Even a banking app on a phone often leaves you exposed to fraud without your normal protections.
Other than insurance/accepting the idiot's fraud liability, you can't actually protect the debit cards. Idiots write their PIN number on a scrap of paper and put that in their wallet, right next to their card. There is no way to have users provide secrets as authentication, and to keep them protected. Maybe if you a DNA scanner that somehow couldn't be given a digital feed, then you could. Maybe. "Hi we're doing market research on toothbrushes, we'll pay you $10 just to try this new toothbrush for 30 seconds right now! Cash!"
Hey, you must be one of the narcissistic psychotic sadists I read about on slashdot!
subway, well, it is below something. It isn't like they're called sub-street ways. Subways gives a lot of latitude.
Also, what if one end is underground? Then it would still be a sub-ground way, at least enough to join the set.
More likely it involves schedule juggling so the contractor can increase their margins, and would not impact the timeline at all.
This recently came up in my town, when push came to shove regarding the permit, the contractor ended up admitting the timeline for the project would be the same if they work at 4am or wait until 7am. But it would save them money. In this case it would have meant less hours running some sort of concrete dryer. So we decided that they should have planned to start at the locally allowed time, and denied their special use permit.
So it very well could mean 24/7 noise and work, and still take the full time. You should expect that is the case unless the contractor put something else in writing. And even then, check what local lawyers say about the wording.
The commonly-accepted usage of words is determined by the majority.
While I do agree that whatever "hacker" used to mean is called a "maker" now, you're way off on how word meanings are determined.
It turns out, each word can have multiple meanings, and all the meanings with common published examples are the real meanings! Wow! Blows your mind, right?
How can nerds expect the world to believe in our vocabulary if we can't even read dictionaries?
"Hackers" are called Makers now. We lost that language war, but we have a new term now.
Your system cannot protect the idiots from themselves. That is a trap you fell into somewhere. Most likely you simply agreed it would be nice if it was so. "Yeah, why can't we protect all our users?!"
This isn't brain science or rocket surgery. The idiots have to have a way to access the system. They will NOT remember strong passwords, they will write them in a stupid place or keep them in gmail with public information as the account recovery. And guess what, you can't control gmail. Put some real thought into it, your idiot users will hand their access away to the first thief, and you can't do much to protect them.
All you can do is protect your system and try to make anything important difficult enough to access that the idiots can't get in.
If only we had a time machine, we could go back to the 90s and fight thing battle again. At this point I think it is fair to say, the word means whatever it is used for. Makers are the new hackers.
mice
Plus, he only claims to have talked to some coworkers/supervisors. What he didn't do was go where a whistleblower is supposed to go; for example he could have gone to Senator Wyden who is on the Intelligence Committee and had publicly raised concerns about these programs. If you're part of a secret program and need to "blow the whistle," you're not blowing it from the inside. You have to go to the people doing the oversight, which here in the US are elected members of Congress.
As an adult I don't have to deal with "bullying" on my own terms; if somebody manages to lie about me in a way that harms my reputation, there is a legal remedy for that.
And the business is not going to "shut down." They're going to disable the (location-based) service when the location is a school. That makes sense. Schools are full of children, who are supposed to be there to learn.
They can still use the service in a more appropriate place, such as a park, or concert, or the mall, where it actually makes sense to have location-based anonymous messaging. The main use-case for this app is obviously to "hook up" at concerts/malls, not to bully at school. At school you already mostly know who everybody is, so the legit uses of it there are hard to find. Plus, it is totally normal not to be able to use all apps in all locations. You also have to turn your electronic devices off in a courtroom, library, etc.
Good luck eliminating every piece of bad behavior the kids can come up with.
Gee, we can't stop all murders, so why try? Derp!
That is a really pathetic straw-man. Surely you can do better than, "we can't stop everything bad so why stop anything."
Also, are you absolutely sure that not having this app at school "punishes everyone?" It might actually be a distraction to all the kids who are focused on learning at school. In fact, it might ONLY punish kids who don't care about school, even while they are there, and care more about bullying other kids. Surely the kids who are engaging in constructive conversations with their peers will be happy to do it using some sort of traditional IM where they choose a pseudonym that is "anonymous" to the outside world, but known to their peers.
If they're waiting around skulking behind corners waiting until nobody is looking, you can spot them "up to no good" before they even post it. And if they don't skulk around, they won't be anonymous. So, no, it is not actually the same thing at all.
Slippery slopes are always lies. In the real world, you're not constantly clinging to the side of a cliff where if you move an inch in either direction, you slide all the way to the most extreme possible position, like banning chalk.
And if the message is offensive enough, an administrator might even put out a call on the PA for teachers to pick up line 2, and tell them all to keep an eye out for a student with chalk-covered hands.
as a developer I can tell you that the main reasons that facebook-auth is used for comments are:
* Site doesn't have to require sign-up, or ask users to trust the site
* Site doesn't have to protect user data
* Social Networking checkbox is now checked
* Free advertising for your site on the facebook pages of people who post comments
* Can save money using drop-in comment system, you don't have to integrate a signup plugin and a comments plugin, or buy an integrated solution
Most of these sites would be using a comment service provider like disqus if not facebook.
It would be great for devs if everybody wanted a custom comments system for their sites :) Even just integrating OSS would allow for more billable hours than integrating facebook.
What I'm curious about is the use-case for this sort of anonymity. In the case of slashdot or something, this is like using anonymous coward to post. Why is that even good? Here it is only good because sometimes people without accounts say something useful, sometimes even people involved in the posted stories. But in general, a slashdot user id is already as anonymous as you want it to be. Never post your name, and nobody will know it. What is the use case for an extra level of anonymity? Generally, it is to say something offensive that you're not willing to stand up and say openly, even with your pseudonym.
The pseudonym already allows for legitimate speech, unpopular opinions, politics, that sort of thing.
So leaving aside paranoid concerns about DNA-locked ipv6. What is the actual use case for fully-anonymous messaging? Obviously it isn't being used to communicate with people you know...
Neither does blocking the app in their area.
Actually, yes. Yes it does. Heavy-handed it may be. But the app is an anonymous way for people to communicate based on physical location instead of some sort of network ID . So banning it in a location absolutely solves the narrow problem of the app being used in this way.
they're going to show up, talk to the guy, reveal that you called them in, and then leave.
That is why it is effective. You've shown them that it is officially recorded that they made a threat. If they act on it, they'll get caught. And, you're not intimidated; further, you're going to Do The Right Thing. It certainly isn't going to make them like you. But in the US, this really IS how people usually respond to threats from neighbors. Your idea that people actually freakin' sell their home to escape threats is absurd. Most people who "own" their home have a mortgage, usually with terms that include penalties if they sell at the wrong time, and "can't" simply sell and move. Further, selling and moving is epitome of being successfully bullied. Most people are not that easy to run out of town.