Wow, you have *no* fucking idea what you're talking about, do you?
Let's see... there is simply nothing equivalent to the Mandatory Integrity Control system in NT versions before 6.0 (Vista/Server 2008). You can't build that on top of the existing ACL system, because the existing ACL system didn't support anything that behaves that way. ASLR is a major change in the way processes start and load libraries. The "split token" model for UAC - where the same account can usually be a non-Admin but sometimes be an Admin without actually changing to a different user - is also completely new and wasn't possible before, because that kind of group membership used to be tied to the user's identity.
Then there's all the tons of other stuff that changed. One good example is the removal of the global scheduler lock, which substantially improves performance on machines with multiple hardware threads when making frequent context switches (as desktop OSes often do). The switch to user-mode drivers for most things - including video drivers, which were one of the primary causes of BSODs on XP - is another big deal; the video driver model of XP requires kernel-mode drivers and it was a major effort to re-architect the driver model so that the kernel could simply restart a crashed video driver. Full IPv6 support required substantial changes to the network driver interface.
The fact that the ABI hasn't changed *more* is a testament to Microsoft's backward compatibility efforts - usually in the form of leaving legacy interfaces in place for legacy code to use, but deprecating them for new code - but it has definitely changed. Leaving aside the stuff that is purely additions to the ABI, you still have things like the updated NDIS requirement causing some legacy WiFi drivers to be unable to get IP addresses, and the removal of the XP video driver model in Win8+ makes anything pre-WDDM incompatible at the binary level.
Oh, bullshit. XP isn't a single monolithic and atomic (indivisible) entity. Microsoft has no further commercial interest in the particular combination of executable binaries, resource files, patents, and support obligations which, when combined, make up Windows XP. That doesn't mean "no... interest in XP whatsoever" at all.
Win7, Win8, WP8, and Windows RT are all based on the same kernel and user-space as XP. Presumably you agree that Microsoft can, with a "strait[sic] face", claim that those products contain "valuable intellectual property", right? Well, some of that valuable IP is also in XP. You cannot, with a straight face, reasonably claim that Microsoft has no further commercial interest in NT-based operating systems, can you?
If at some future point they completely drop Windows-as-we-know-it - the kernel, the subsystems, the shell, the libraries, the tools and utilities, etc. - then you can make that claim. Right now, they still have a lot to lose if they release that IP.
As for begging, I'm sure MS would happily sell you an XP copy if you could completely absolve them of all responsibility for it. That means not only remove their responsibility to maintain it (which, incidentally, you *can* pay them enough to do... it's just hideously expensive) but also to test compatibility and attach their reputation to its behavior. XP is substantially less secure than newer Windows versions, lacking important security features which have been standard for over five years now; if you buy XP and then get pwned, that reflects poorly on MS (especially if the news is publicized). How much are you willing to pay them to account for those kinds of risks?
Or populated the earth Himself. Or come up with a sin-free reproductive option. It's not as if the urges of lust need to lead to reproductive behavior, *or* that - for believers - engaging in a non-sinful and possibly even unpleasant reproductive act would have been unreasonable. I mean, cutting a boy's foreskin can't exactly be a pleasant act for any party involved, if not for the religious connection. If the ancient Jews were willing to do that then surely something similarly unpleasant and non-sinful would suffice for *making* the baby!
Of course, as long as we're allowing God to set the rules and ignoring all the ways in which evolutionary biology fits the fact better than *any* form of intelligent design, why the hell are we born as babies anyhow? Adam and Eve were not, to the best of my knowledge, created as newborns. They had adult bodies and adult-level intelligence, even if they were naive. If God's goal was to have there be lots of human "children" (in the sense that Adam and Eve were - innocents in the Garden of Eden) then why ever not allow humans to be created whole to he same state that the *first* humans were created? Of course, all of this is set up to support the commandment of going forth and multiplying; seems like there are any number of easier options God could have created if He just wanted some life made in His image. Why bother with things like aging (and why has it accelerated since "ancient times"? Methuselah was merely the longest-lived if his generation, he wasn't much an outlier within it though) or disease (I don't recall bacterium being implied necessary at any point), or indeed mortality at all?
Incredibly enough, the Mormon version of Genesis makes *even less sense* than the usual one! I could continue picking this apart for hours. Omnipotence is the ultimate cheat card in reasoning. It's like breaking the rules to even assume the potential existence of such a (benevolent) power, because everything that isn't perfect in the world is arguably proof - certainly evidence - that He doesn't exist!
Not just PS, that's a common pattern in many scripting languages, especially shell scripts. Microsoft picked from the best (there's a number of bash-isms in Powershell, for example) when writing that thing.
The compiler really *should* complain about assignment in a test statement, because it's a really common error to make. Or you can remove that option entirely (make assignments valueless statements, in which case that's a syntax error and won't compile at all) but then A) you're forking the languages, and B) a lot of handy stuff like a=b=c=50; stops working unless you special-case it. Better to special-case the if(herp=derp) case, although if you do it as a warning some people will just ignore that...
It's already completely possible to run native or managed desktop apps on RT. You just need to "jailbreak" it first to remove the signature enforcement on user-mode full-trust binaries. RT 8.0 has been jailbroken since like a year ago...
The jailbreak for RT 8.1 is in development. Microsoft put a completely unjustifiable amount of effort (IMO) into making sure RT 8.1 sucks even more than RT 8.0, but nothing that complex is perfect. If you have a gen1 RT device (anything except a Surface 2 or Lumia 2520) you can downgrade to 8.0 or even dual-boot. Or you can just be patient; the 8.1 jailbreak will be out as soon as it can be made stable.
So... if we *do* notice you're there (because your edits add things that are obviously unnatural to anybody who doesn't go through life half-asleep) does that mean you're doing your job wrong? Because that's what it sounds like to me.
Nobody objects to removing incidental sounds that are distracting (although a complete lack of background sounds, such as some older movies have in a number of shots that obviously shouldn't be so silent, is quite bad itself and "makes me see the stage" if you will, breaking immersion). We object to gratuitously *fake* editing (that being, after all, the topic of this whole discussion). And yes, it's gratuitous. Nobody is going to unhappy because the tires grind on gravel instead of screeching on pavement unless there is, in fact, pavement under said tires. The reverse (demonstrably) is not true.
Besides, there's still a lot you can do by adjusting what sounds are focused on (even if the mic barely caught them the first time). For example, a patter of falling gravel following the departure is the audible equivalent of a cloud of dust: it's what we expect from a fast departure on gravel (as opposed to a leisurely/polite one) because it's what actually happens.
Note that I never watched Dukes, so maybe there's some reason you couldn't establish (even after the fact) that they were on gravel, but I find it very hard to believe that the gravel was *so* incidental to the setting that squealing tires on pavement is *less* likely to break suspension of disbelief.
... That's half the RAM cache on my (3TB magnetic) secondary disk drive. It's one fifteen-thousandath the storage on my primary SSD. 32GB of Flash on a magnetic HDD would be nice. 32MB is quite worthless. It's slower *and* smaller than the RAM cache on any modern drive (my 3TB drive is 1.5 years old).
Well, that depends. JIT needs to be *really* fast. That limits the optimization it can do. Pre-compilation to native allows more processing time for optimizations between the CIL and the machine code than a JIT can really afford.
No need to use Mono for ARM..NET has been supported on numerous architectures, including ARM, as part of Windows CE for years. Sure, it was only a subset of the full framework, but not for any technical reason except keeping the footprint small.
WinRT (not to be confused with Windows RT; we're talking about the API set now) does often feel like a waste of effort to me, although there is something to be said for identifying/creating a sandbox-friendly set of APIs to use in creating sandboxed software...
Not to mention handy language features (call it sugar if you want, it makes the coding faster and easier) like LINQ, lambdas, method overloading, and so on.
He's free to *think* whatever he likes. Nobody is policing his thoughts. When he takes those thoughts out into the real world, people are going to judge him on them.
For example, based on the fact that you "think" (I'm using the term lightly, here) that "thought police" means people getting upset over somebody who publicly advocated (in actions, not thoughts) institutionalized discrimination being given control over an entire company, I'm going to take the action of calling you a moron. Contrary to what you seem to believe, getting upset with me for saying so would not make you the thought police!
If anybody starts employing mind-reading techniques and punishing people based on their thoughts, you may freely refer to them as thought police. I'll even accept it with no more than a token objection to the choice of terminology if they instead monitor everybody and punish people based on nothing more than comments made in casual conversation. Donating money goes way beyond that, though, and calling for him to step down (which is scarcely a "police" action by any stretch of the imagination) is far less.
I realize this may blow your tiny mind (here, have a tarp), but it's actually possible to object to merely some aspects of a person while not objecting to others.
Using JavaScript doesn't give Eich additional power to support institutionalized discrimination against a blameless minority group. Making him the CEO of a significant company does. His contributions to client-based scripting languages aren't widely objected to (although I have, perhaps, occasionally thought it'd be nice to smack whoever made certain design decisions in JS...). His contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere or to consumption of food resources or to any number of other things aren't singled out either, because he hasn't clearly demonstrated a willingness to harm people with those contributions.
Giving him the resources and control of a company is objected to, though, because he has demonstrated willingness to contribute his resources to harming others.... Sorry about that. I'll get a mop.
Institutionalized discrimination against minority groups is not a right, even if it's based on your religious views. You're welcome to have whatever religious views you want. It's the using them to harm others that's illegal (and certainly not a "basic right" even if you're doing it through your job).
Oh, by the way, he didn't lose his job because of his religious views. He didn't even, technically, lose his job; he gave it up (at the behest of many, none of whom he was under any obligation to listen to). He was asked to leave because his actions conflicted with the interests of the organization he was in charge of.
Under your argument, if a young-earth creationist somehow came to head the National Institute of Science, it would be wrong for people to even ask him to step down, because no matter how much his views make him the wrong person for the job, they're *religious* views and therefore he has a right to the job?
Leaving aside the fact that nearly all the calls I saw were asking him to step down (not the same thing as advocating that he be fired, although not completely different), you're still wrong. As CEO, Eich has influence over everything from HR policies to promotion within the company to product direction to (perhaps most importantly) using the company's resources to influence legal processes. When you have somebody who is unapologetically on the record for attempting to enforce legal segregation against a minority population, and somebody gives that person control over a company and all its resources, damn straight that's a job that has something to do "with the issue itself"!
Oh, and by the way, the whole concept of donating money to political causes is one that a lot of us have problems with. An awful lot of people can't afford to do that. Non-coincidentally, these are often the people who are marginalized by the legal processes in this supposed government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" we have here. There's no perfect system that I'm aware of, and Eich's contribution was modest, but to an awful lot of people it still is a *way* bigger deal than putting a sticker (that the campaign will gladly give you for free) on your car.
I don't see anybody claiming that they were unhappy with Eich for any reason other than his expressed and financially-backed political views. So no, it's nothing like that at all. Whoever modded this dross above me "insightful" needs to put down the crack pipe, you bias-addled idiot.
Oh, and Obama never made it a focal point of his campaign to deny equal rights to something on the order of 8% of the USA, either. That kind of thing tends to make people angrier than merely supporting somebody who stands for a number of issues, 80% of which he's probably lying about (yeah, I don't like Obama either... not that I think the Rs have anybody better to offer, so I vote third-party). So, even less like your example.
Of course you do. Everybody does. However, if your criticism is illogical or unfounded, we will criticize it right back.
For example, if you (general sense, I haven't bothered to check whether 800799 has posted in this conversation elsewhere or made any relevant claims) claim that people shouldn't have criticized Eich for his donation and/or Mozilla for promoting him on the basis of "he was exercising his freedom of speech, and you wouldn't want to be criticized for that"* then yes, we will criticize right back.
* Or any of the other stupid arguments people have presented, such as "well, would you like to be fired for expressing a political opinion?" which isn't even a *good* strawman...
Are you some weird kind of illiterate where you can write but not read, or are you just too arrogant to read the comment you're replying to? Whichever it is, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Salting provides no meaningful protection against brute forcing *one specific user's password* (although pepper - a "secret salt" that is not stored in the authentication database - can). It provides a shitload of protection against brute-forcing an entire password dump, or even brute-forcing just *some* user's password if you don't care which one.
An un-slated dump of password hashes can be brute-forced to give you *some* valid password trivially easily; hash the 10 most common passwords (which even with an expensive verifier derivation function will take almost no time), and you can trivially easily find the handful of users using those passwords. You now have some valid credentials to log in with (as well as the passwords that several people used, and therefore probably the ones they used on other sites too).
If the passwords are salted before hashing, then you have to try each of those ten passwords with the salt for each user. Assuming the time to hash passwords (through the verifier derivation function) dominates the time to compare against the dumped hashes, a unique salt per user takes the time to check M passwords via brute-force from trivial (M iterations of the verifier derivation) to impossible (M*N iterations, where N is the number of users).
Scientists observe red giants and brown dwarfs (either of which would make Earth uninhabitable) all the time. The fossil record indicates a number of very rapid mass extinctions (the *exact* rate of extinction is below the resolution of our dating techniques, so "very rapid" could mean six thousand years or six months) and at least one of them was clearly caused by meteor impact. Diseases like Bubonic plague have wiped out significant portions of the human population before, and if we didn't have anything close to modern medicine back then, we also didn't have people moving around the world nearly as fast, and we didn't have the capability to intentionally engineer super-diseases either. At the height of the Cold War, both the USA and USSR had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all human life several times over within mere decades of even learning how to build such weapons or their delivery systems.
There is a preponderance of evidence - it is blindness or idiocy to suggest otherwise - that human life could be wiped from the Earth. The odds of it *happening* in the next century or so are low, and the odds of it happening so fast that we can't do anything about it probably even lower, but a century ago we *couldn't* have done it to ourselves at all!
The difference is that humans can adapt the things they bring with them. Robots usually cannot. Take the example of one of the Mars rovers (I forget which, I think it was Opportunity though?) that had a wheel freeze up. They found that the frozen wheel could be used as a sort of digging tool, scraping a groove in the dirt as the other wheels forced the rover along despite the drag caused by the stuck wheel.
The implication is twofold: 1) The rover didn't have a way to dig a groove as it moved (something a human could do by picking up a random rock, easily). 2) The rover didn't have a way to *intentionally* lock one wheel while the others kept turning, enough though this would make a good improvised tool.
A human could do much, much more than that. Need to dig deeper than the tools you have on hand are capable of? Find a suitable rock to use as a pick/shovel, or *make* one using a chisel and hammer (which might just be different rocks you found). Human hands (even inside a spacesuit) are still better than any robotic manipulator we've been able to deploy on a robot, especially given the option of immediate feedback rather than a half-hour round trip time to allow humans back on earth to analyze the results of the robot's last action. Yes, robotic arms can be stronger and more precise, but they're also really awful at things like rotating a rough object to find the best grip on it, They also don't have anywhere near the flexibility of a human; something like a stuck wheel would be relatively easy for a human to fix but the robot probably can't manage it even if its manipulator arm can *reach* that wheel.
An accident on the level of Apollo 13 would probably have been un-"survivable" to robots. Yes, they don't need life support systems, but they do require power and temperature control and so on, and they wouldn't have been able to jury-rig solutions to equivalent problems the way humans were able to. That's the advantage of sending humans instead of robots: we can adapt in ways that robots simply cannot (and we can do so without needing instructions from a few million miles away).
Not necessarily true. For example, the Prius has no reverse gear. They reverse on electric only (the same motors used for regenerative breaking, I think); the gasoline engine *cannot* be connected in reverse. At least, this is the design on the (some years old now) Prius my neighbor has.
I don't know if the Prius has a reversing gear or not, but I would guess they simply reverse the electric motor instead. That's easy to do, and doesn't require additional moving parts or weight.
That is a situation in which I would feel completely justified in leaning on the horn (assuming it wasn't late at night or in a residential neighborhood) until the idiot got out of the way. Not because they need the audio cue (although it might help them realize what a dick they were being) but because car horns are (intentionally) rather grating on the nerves, and some negative reinforcement would do that moron good.
Much like 24FPS shooting (and no, HFR doesn't look like a "home movie" to me, it looks like it was done with technology from this century rather than people being too cheap to replace cameras from the 50s), the time for that kind of bullshit has passed. It is passé, it insults the intelligence of the viewers, and if you tell us we're supposed to like it we will cheerfully *and accurately* insult your intelligence too!
Speaking as a security engineer (who used to be a dev, and still codes sometimes), software devs that don't encrypt (and authenticate) sensitive data *are* morons. I really don't care if it was the PHB's orders or not; I would be ashamed to be responsible for such schlock.
Returning to the subject at hand, boo-fucking-hoo your job is hard. Too bad. SUCK IT UP AND DO IT RIGHT! Complaining about the people who left the fridge plugged in? Sure. Editing out the noise of an errant car door? Ok, fine. Editing *in* noise that doesn't belong there at all anybody with an IQ above room temperature could tell you that? What are you *doing*, you flaming idiot? If you're going to go adding sounds that your mic didn't pick up, at least display the minimum level of competence, integrity, and pride in your work required to ensure they are the *right* sounds!
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you have *no* fucking idea what you're talking about, do you?
Let's see... there is simply nothing equivalent to the Mandatory Integrity Control system in NT versions before 6.0 (Vista/Server 2008). You can't build that on top of the existing ACL system, because the existing ACL system didn't support anything that behaves that way. ASLR is a major change in the way processes start and load libraries. The "split token" model for UAC - where the same account can usually be a non-Admin but sometimes be an Admin without actually changing to a different user - is also completely new and wasn't possible before, because that kind of group membership used to be tied to the user's identity.
Then there's all the tons of other stuff that changed. One good example is the removal of the global scheduler lock, which substantially improves performance on machines with multiple hardware threads when making frequent context switches (as desktop OSes often do). The switch to user-mode drivers for most things - including video drivers, which were one of the primary causes of BSODs on XP - is another big deal; the video driver model of XP requires kernel-mode drivers and it was a major effort to re-architect the driver model so that the kernel could simply restart a crashed video driver. Full IPv6 support required substantial changes to the network driver interface.
The fact that the ABI hasn't changed *more* is a testament to Microsoft's backward compatibility efforts - usually in the form of leaving legacy interfaces in place for legacy code to use, but deprecating them for new code - but it has definitely changed. Leaving aside the stuff that is purely additions to the ABI, you still have things like the updated NDIS requirement causing some legacy WiFi drivers to be unable to get IP addresses, and the removal of the XP video driver model in Win8+ makes anything pre-WDDM incompatible at the binary level.
Oh, bullshit. XP isn't a single monolithic and atomic (indivisible) entity. Microsoft has no further commercial interest in the particular combination of executable binaries, resource files, patents, and support obligations which, when combined, make up Windows XP. That doesn't mean "no... interest in XP whatsoever" at all.
Win7, Win8, WP8, and Windows RT are all based on the same kernel and user-space as XP. Presumably you agree that Microsoft can, with a "strait[sic] face", claim that those products contain "valuable intellectual property", right? Well, some of that valuable IP is also in XP. You cannot, with a straight face, reasonably claim that Microsoft has no further commercial interest in NT-based operating systems, can you?
If at some future point they completely drop Windows-as-we-know-it - the kernel, the subsystems, the shell, the libraries, the tools and utilities, etc. - then you can make that claim. Right now, they still have a lot to lose if they release that IP.
As for begging, I'm sure MS would happily sell you an XP copy if you could completely absolve them of all responsibility for it. That means not only remove their responsibility to maintain it (which, incidentally, you *can* pay them enough to do... it's just hideously expensive) but also to test compatibility and attach their reputation to its behavior. XP is substantially less secure than newer Windows versions, lacking important security features which have been standard for over five years now; if you buy XP and then get pwned, that reflects poorly on MS (especially if the news is publicized). How much are you willing to pay them to account for those kinds of risks?
Or populated the earth Himself. Or come up with a sin-free reproductive option. It's not as if the urges of lust need to lead to reproductive behavior, *or* that - for believers - engaging in a non-sinful and possibly even unpleasant reproductive act would have been unreasonable. I mean, cutting a boy's foreskin can't exactly be a pleasant act for any party involved, if not for the religious connection. If the ancient Jews were willing to do that then surely something similarly unpleasant and non-sinful would suffice for *making* the baby!
Of course, as long as we're allowing God to set the rules and ignoring all the ways in which evolutionary biology fits the fact better than *any* form of intelligent design, why the hell are we born as babies anyhow? Adam and Eve were not, to the best of my knowledge, created as newborns. They had adult bodies and adult-level intelligence, even if they were naive. If God's goal was to have there be lots of human "children" (in the sense that Adam and Eve were - innocents in the Garden of Eden) then why ever not allow humans to be created whole to he same state that the *first* humans were created? Of course, all of this is set up to support the commandment of going forth and multiplying; seems like there are any number of easier options God could have created if He just wanted some life made in His image. Why bother with things like aging (and why has it accelerated since "ancient times"? Methuselah was merely the longest-lived if his generation, he wasn't much an outlier within it though) or disease (I don't recall bacterium being implied necessary at any point), or indeed mortality at all?
Incredibly enough, the Mormon version of Genesis makes *even less sense* than the usual one! I could continue picking this apart for hours. Omnipotence is the ultimate cheat card in reasoning. It's like breaking the rules to even assume the potential existence of such a (benevolent) power, because everything that isn't perfect in the world is arguably proof - certainly evidence - that He doesn't exist!
Not just PS, that's a common pattern in many scripting languages, especially shell scripts. Microsoft picked from the best (there's a number of bash-isms in Powershell, for example) when writing that thing.
The compiler really *should* complain about assignment in a test statement, because it's a really common error to make. Or you can remove that option entirely (make assignments valueless statements, in which case that's a syntax error and won't compile at all) but then A) you're forking the languages, and B) a lot of handy stuff like a=b=c=50; stops working unless you special-case it. Better to special-case the if(herp=derp) case, although if you do it as a warning some people will just ignore that...
It's already completely possible to run native or managed desktop apps on RT. You just need to "jailbreak" it first to remove the signature enforcement on user-mode full-trust binaries. RT 8.0 has been jailbroken since like a year ago...
The jailbreak for RT 8.1 is in development. Microsoft put a completely unjustifiable amount of effort (IMO) into making sure RT 8.1 sucks even more than RT 8.0, but nothing that complex is perfect. If you have a gen1 RT device (anything except a Surface 2 or Lumia 2520) you can downgrade to 8.0 or even dual-boot. Or you can just be patient; the 8.1 jailbreak will be out as soon as it can be made stable.
So... if we *do* notice you're there (because your edits add things that are obviously unnatural to anybody who doesn't go through life half-asleep) does that mean you're doing your job wrong? Because that's what it sounds like to me.
Nobody objects to removing incidental sounds that are distracting (although a complete lack of background sounds, such as some older movies have in a number of shots that obviously shouldn't be so silent, is quite bad itself and "makes me see the stage" if you will, breaking immersion). We object to gratuitously *fake* editing (that being, after all, the topic of this whole discussion). And yes, it's gratuitous. Nobody is going to unhappy because the tires grind on gravel instead of screeching on pavement unless there is, in fact, pavement under said tires. The reverse (demonstrably) is not true.
Besides, there's still a lot you can do by adjusting what sounds are focused on (even if the mic barely caught them the first time). For example, a patter of falling gravel following the departure is the audible equivalent of a cloud of dust: it's what we expect from a fast departure on gravel (as opposed to a leisurely/polite one) because it's what actually happens.
Note that I never watched Dukes, so maybe there's some reason you couldn't establish (even after the fact) that they were on gravel, but I find it very hard to believe that the gravel was *so* incidental to the setting that squealing tires on pavement is *less* likely to break suspension of disbelief.
... That's half the RAM cache on my (3TB magnetic) secondary disk drive. It's one fifteen-thousandath the storage on my primary SSD. 32GB of Flash on a magnetic HDD would be nice. 32MB is quite worthless. It's slower *and* smaller than the RAM cache on any modern drive (my 3TB drive is 1.5 years old).
I put a 240GB SSD and a 3TB spinny HD in my homebuilt PC about 17 months ago. They both cost the same, $90.
That was most of an iteration of Moore's Law ago. $0.50/GB is actually quite a lot.
Well, that depends. JIT needs to be *really* fast. That limits the optimization it can do. Pre-compilation to native allows more processing time for optimizations between the CIL and the machine code than a JIT can really afford.
No need to use Mono for ARM. .NET has been supported on numerous architectures, including ARM, as part of Windows CE for years. Sure, it was only a subset of the full framework, but not for any technical reason except keeping the footprint small.
WinRT (not to be confused with Windows RT; we're talking about the API set now) does often feel like a waste of effort to me, although there is something to be said for identifying/creating a sandbox-friendly set of APIs to use in creating sandboxed software...
Not to mention handy language features (call it sugar if you want, it makes the coding faster and easier) like LINQ, lambdas, method overloading, and so on.
He's free to *think* whatever he likes. Nobody is policing his thoughts.
When he takes those thoughts out into the real world, people are going to judge him on them.
For example, based on the fact that you "think" (I'm using the term lightly, here) that "thought police" means people getting upset over somebody who publicly advocated (in actions, not thoughts) institutionalized discrimination being given control over an entire company, I'm going to take the action of calling you a moron. Contrary to what you seem to believe, getting upset with me for saying so would not make you the thought police!
If anybody starts employing mind-reading techniques and punishing people based on their thoughts, you may freely refer to them as thought police. I'll even accept it with no more than a token objection to the choice of terminology if they instead monitor everybody and punish people based on nothing more than comments made in casual conversation. Donating money goes way beyond that, though, and calling for him to step down (which is scarcely a "police" action by any stretch of the imagination) is far less.
I realize this may blow your tiny mind (here, have a tarp), but it's actually possible to object to merely some aspects of a person while not objecting to others.
Using JavaScript doesn't give Eich additional power to support institutionalized discrimination against a blameless minority group. Making him the CEO of a significant company does. His contributions to client-based scripting languages aren't widely objected to (although I have, perhaps, occasionally thought it'd be nice to smack whoever made certain design decisions in JS...). His contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere or to consumption of food resources or to any number of other things aren't singled out either, because he hasn't clearly demonstrated a willingness to harm people with those contributions.
Giving him the resources and control of a company is objected to, though, because he has demonstrated willingness to contribute his resources to harming others. ... Sorry about that. I'll get a mop.
Institutionalized discrimination against minority groups is not a right, even if it's based on your religious views. You're welcome to have whatever religious views you want. It's the using them to harm others that's illegal (and certainly not a "basic right" even if you're doing it through your job).
Oh, by the way, he didn't lose his job because of his religious views. He didn't even, technically, lose his job; he gave it up (at the behest of many, none of whom he was under any obligation to listen to). He was asked to leave because his actions conflicted with the interests of the organization he was in charge of.
Under your argument, if a young-earth creationist somehow came to head the National Institute of Science, it would be wrong for people to even ask him to step down, because no matter how much his views make him the wrong person for the job, they're *religious* views and therefore he has a right to the job?
Leaving aside the fact that nearly all the calls I saw were asking him to step down (not the same thing as advocating that he be fired, although not completely different), you're still wrong. As CEO, Eich has influence over everything from HR policies to promotion within the company to product direction to (perhaps most importantly) using the company's resources to influence legal processes. When you have somebody who is unapologetically on the record for attempting to enforce legal segregation against a minority population, and somebody gives that person control over a company and all its resources, damn straight that's a job that has something to do "with the issue itself"!
So yeah, 0 for 2. Play again?
Oh, and by the way, the whole concept of donating money to political causes is one that a lot of us have problems with. An awful lot of people can't afford to do that. Non-coincidentally, these are often the people who are marginalized by the legal processes in this supposed government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" we have here. There's no perfect system that I'm aware of, and Eich's contribution was modest, but to an awful lot of people it still is a *way* bigger deal than putting a sticker (that the campaign will gladly give you for free) on your car.
I don't see anybody claiming that they were unhappy with Eich for any reason other than his expressed and financially-backed political views. So no, it's nothing like that at all. Whoever modded this dross above me "insightful" needs to put down the crack pipe, you bias-addled idiot.
Oh, and Obama never made it a focal point of his campaign to deny equal rights to something on the order of 8% of the USA, either. That kind of thing tends to make people angrier than merely supporting somebody who stands for a number of issues, 80% of which he's probably lying about (yeah, I don't like Obama either... not that I think the Rs have anybody better to offer, so I vote third-party). So, even less like your example.
Of course you do. Everybody does. However, if your criticism is illogical or unfounded, we will criticize it right back.
For example, if you (general sense, I haven't bothered to check whether 800799 has posted in this conversation elsewhere or made any relevant claims) claim that people shouldn't have criticized Eich for his donation and/or Mozilla for promoting him on the basis of "he was exercising his freedom of speech, and you wouldn't want to be criticized for that"* then yes, we will criticize right back.
* Or any of the other stupid arguments people have presented, such as "well, would you like to be fired for expressing a political opinion?" which isn't even a *good* strawman...
Are you some weird kind of illiterate where you can write but not read, or are you just too arrogant to read the comment you're replying to? Whichever it is, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Salting provides no meaningful protection against brute forcing *one specific user's password* (although pepper - a "secret salt" that is not stored in the authentication database - can). It provides a shitload of protection against brute-forcing an entire password dump, or even brute-forcing just *some* user's password if you don't care which one.
An un-slated dump of password hashes can be brute-forced to give you *some* valid password trivially easily; hash the 10 most common passwords (which even with an expensive verifier derivation function will take almost no time), and you can trivially easily find the handful of users using those passwords. You now have some valid credentials to log in with (as well as the passwords that several people used, and therefore probably the ones they used on other sites too).
If the passwords are salted before hashing, then you have to try each of those ten passwords with the salt for each user. Assuming the time to hash passwords (through the verifier derivation function) dominates the time to compare against the dumped hashes, a unique salt per user takes the time to check M passwords via brute-force from trivial (M iterations of the verifier derivation) to impossible (M*N iterations, where N is the number of users).
Scientists observe red giants and brown dwarfs (either of which would make Earth uninhabitable) all the time. The fossil record indicates a number of very rapid mass extinctions (the *exact* rate of extinction is below the resolution of our dating techniques, so "very rapid" could mean six thousand years or six months) and at least one of them was clearly caused by meteor impact. Diseases like Bubonic plague have wiped out significant portions of the human population before, and if we didn't have anything close to modern medicine back then, we also didn't have people moving around the world nearly as fast, and we didn't have the capability to intentionally engineer super-diseases either. At the height of the Cold War, both the USA and USSR had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all human life several times over within mere decades of even learning how to build such weapons or their delivery systems.
There is a preponderance of evidence - it is blindness or idiocy to suggest otherwise - that human life could be wiped from the Earth. The odds of it *happening* in the next century or so are low, and the odds of it happening so fast that we can't do anything about it probably even lower, but a century ago we *couldn't* have done it to ourselves at all!
The difference is that humans can adapt the things they bring with them. Robots usually cannot. Take the example of one of the Mars rovers (I forget which, I think it was Opportunity though?) that had a wheel freeze up. They found that the frozen wheel could be used as a sort of digging tool, scraping a groove in the dirt as the other wheels forced the rover along despite the drag caused by the stuck wheel.
The implication is twofold:
1) The rover didn't have a way to dig a groove as it moved (something a human could do by picking up a random rock, easily).
2) The rover didn't have a way to *intentionally* lock one wheel while the others kept turning, enough though this would make a good improvised tool.
A human could do much, much more than that. Need to dig deeper than the tools you have on hand are capable of? Find a suitable rock to use as a pick/shovel, or *make* one using a chisel and hammer (which might just be different rocks you found). Human hands (even inside a spacesuit) are still better than any robotic manipulator we've been able to deploy on a robot, especially given the option of immediate feedback rather than a half-hour round trip time to allow humans back on earth to analyze the results of the robot's last action. Yes, robotic arms can be stronger and more precise, but they're also really awful at things like rotating a rough object to find the best grip on it, They also don't have anywhere near the flexibility of a human; something like a stuck wheel would be relatively easy for a human to fix but the robot probably can't manage it even if its manipulator arm can *reach* that wheel.
An accident on the level of Apollo 13 would probably have been un-"survivable" to robots. Yes, they don't need life support systems, but they do require power and temperature control and so on, and they wouldn't have been able to jury-rig solutions to equivalent problems the way humans were able to. That's the advantage of sending humans instead of robots: we can adapt in ways that robots simply cannot (and we can do so without needing instructions from a few million miles away).
Not necessarily true. For example, the Prius has no reverse gear. They reverse on electric only (the same motors used for regenerative breaking, I think); the gasoline engine *cannot* be connected in reverse. At least, this is the design on the (some years old now) Prius my neighbor has.
I don't know if the Prius has a reversing gear or not, but I would guess they simply reverse the electric motor instead. That's easy to do, and doesn't require additional moving parts or weight.
That is a situation in which I would feel completely justified in leaning on the horn (assuming it wasn't late at night or in a residential neighborhood) until the idiot got out of the way. Not because they need the audio cue (although it might help them realize what a dick they were being) but because car horns are (intentionally) rather grating on the nerves, and some negative reinforcement would do that moron good.
Much like 24FPS shooting (and no, HFR doesn't look like a "home movie" to me, it looks like it was done with technology from this century rather than people being too cheap to replace cameras from the 50s), the time for that kind of bullshit has passed. It is passé, it insults the intelligence of the viewers, and if you tell us we're supposed to like it we will cheerfully *and accurately* insult your intelligence too!
Speaking as a security engineer (who used to be a dev, and still codes sometimes), software devs that don't encrypt (and authenticate) sensitive data *are* morons. I really don't care if it was the PHB's orders or not; I would be ashamed to be responsible for such schlock.
Returning to the subject at hand, boo-fucking-hoo your job is hard. Too bad. SUCK IT UP AND DO IT RIGHT! Complaining about the people who left the fridge plugged in? Sure. Editing out the noise of an errant car door? Ok, fine. Editing *in* noise that doesn't belong there at all anybody with an IQ above room temperature could tell you that? What are you *doing*, you flaming idiot? If you're going to go adding sounds that your mic didn't pick up, at least display the minimum level of competence, integrity, and pride in your work required to ensure they are the *right* sounds!