hifier

I see how it can be read that way, but it is far from clear. Not to mention that the design of the 'ad' makes it susceptible to misinterpretation.

Apologies if I'm being dense, but is there some technical reason why it does not use the referrer to selectively block this traffic rather than blocking it for everyone?

In that case, why is https://github.com/greatfire/ still returning the alert(..) js when not coming from Baidu?

Maybe a naive question, but in the original attack, couldn't the 'bad' requests have been identified using the referrer?

Rochester Institute of Tech. http://www.se.rit.edu/content/curriculum-overview-0

I have a B.S. in Software Engineering and I do in fact practice engineering on software systems. However, admittedly, I may be in the minority in terms of both education and practical application.

This is the framework the site is running on: https://github.com/bloomberg/brisket

I could be wrong, but it seems that the way Secret is designed it cannot be truly anonymous. They need to be able to decrypt your secrets to show them to others, and they need to be able to associate them with your account to show them to you when you log in. This means that Secret knows who you are (to the extent that your login credentials reveal your identity) and what you've posted. If coerced or attacked there is no reason to believe that posts to Secret will in fact be kept a secret.

I'm shocked by the supreme court's logic that resulted in the third party doctrine. I absolutely have an expectation of privacy when it comes to any data gathered by counter-parties that I enter into a business relationship with. Even if I didn't, and event if those contracts allowed for sharing of that identifying (or anonymized) information, it is an incredible leap to assert that government agencies are within their rights to access this information without a warrant!

What do you think a lot of those higher-level alternatives are written in?

I think you would be hard-pressed to make your same argument in other neighborhoods: Bed-Stuy? Crown Heights? Park Slope? Brooklyn heights? Boerum Hill? Clinton hill?

There were 1960s race riots in Bed-Stuy too.

In these places in prime Brooklyn what happened in the 1960s is divorced from the neighborhood's origins. Taking one unique case in Harlem and extrapolating it to gentrification all over NYC does not hold water. From my personal experience, it seems Harlem has seen the least amount of gentrification compared to these Brooklyn neighborhoods. If you were to take real-estate prices as a metric (you could choose others I'm sure), Brooklyn has far outpaced Harlem in the rate of change, especially in the last decade.

My point: In most cases current residents do not have a tie to the original culture or history.

Do not take my comments out of context. You're making my argument but acting like current residents have more credibility - they don't. They are not the "artifacts" and living through race riots does not have any relevance whatsoever.

In my neighborhood "gentrifiers" are coming and preserving 1890s brownstones, on which a new facade costs upwards of 300k (yes hundreds of thousands). Maintaining our architectural history is not cheap and I think it's great that it's happening.

I find your position absurd.

A lot of the gentrifying neighborhoods in NYC have histories that go much too far back to be attributed to the current residents, even if they've been there 50+ years. Maintaining a late 1800s brownstone is not cheap and without proper care these historic areas will just slowly deteriorate. I think it is an absolute positive that money is returning to these areas.

IMO, current residents have no more of a right to live somewhere than any newcomer.

I never implied that I could! Anyway, my comment was concerning communications. Physical security is another matter. I must have missed that portion of your OP.

I agree that such a thread model makes things difficult, however I'd like to believe that it can be solved for. Regardless, there is value in hiding your communications from mass, non-targeted surveillance.

I agree that it appears the developers are calling it quits. If you look at the diff itself, they have replaced large chunks of logic with an abort routine, passing the message "Insecure App".

This does not explicitly suggest vulnerabilities exist in older versions, but rather the latest version with these changes is very explicitly insecure and should not be used. This does leave room for issues to have been discovered in old versions - maybe rather than fix, they are throwing in the towel.

So, charge consumers for what they use. Why does this seem to rarely come up?

The problem with the networks comcast and others currently maintain is they are saturated. And I'm not getting what I pay for as a result. They need a new pricing structure that properly values their product (bandwidth) and charges me for it.

Can anyone explain why the ISPs don't go down this road?

There are some contradictions here. For example the author the following statement about encapsulation violations being permitted, but not followed as best practice:

"JavaScript does not enforce private state, but it’s easy to write well-encapsulated programs: simply avoid having one object directly manipulate another object’s properties. Forty years after Smalltalk was invented, this is a well-understood principle."

However, the author doesn't seem to really understand this as he makes the case that access to private state and behavior of a "superclass" violates encapsulation:

"In JavaScript (and other languages in the same family), classes and subclasses share access to the object’s private properties. It is not possible to change an implementation detail for Account without carefully checking every single subclass and the code depending on those subclasses to see if our internal, “private” change will break them."

Well, yes they do allow access, but that doesn't mean you have to use it! This is considered bad practice when extending any class in other languages that I'm familiar with (C++, Ruby). Please take some of your own advice.

I do agree that hierarchies do not fit the real world as well the contrived examples from my first OOP classes and they should be used with extreme caution. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water, however.

This is not unique to operations in tech startups. It also happens with "IT" employees in insurance companies and banks. It is what happens to people whose roles are considered peripheral by the core parts of the business. It is natural and to some extend it is valid, within limits. I'm not saying that overt disrespect and dehumanizing behavior is valid, however let's not be naive. Not all roles are as important to the business as others and if respect for your role is a primary motivator for you, I would suggest finding a business where your role is central to the core product.

I'm not sure if your comment is in jest. But in a world where machines are primary, the thinkers, the innovators, what use is this discussion at all?

I've either terribly represented my thought, or you have grossly misunderstood my statement.

I am arguing FOR a capitalist system. I'm saying I don't understand why the article authors will assume it is going to break down because of technological advances. It has not thus far.

Edit: I see that my second statement in my first reply is poorly written. I meant "this" to refer to technological advancement, not to joblessness.

So these machines will spontaneously appear?

I'm confused by the idea that technology will somehow eventually render most of the population jobless. Why should this cause a breakdown of the capitalist system? These discussions seem to take this for granted without explaining why this is true.

It looks like technology will continue to allow more and more people to pursue business ventures that are less and less related to filling basic needs. We will still consume, we will still find ways to trade that are mutually beneficial. We will simply have a better standard of living. It seems the logical conclusion is that there will be more opportunity for everyone, not less.

Different jobs and different opportunity is not the same as no jobs and no opportunity.

The beauty of the internet is that you have unfettered access to mountains of information. When I was in my early teens it was this information and ease of access that allowed me to learn about computers and how they worked. I would spend hours reading reviews of hardware components and researching solutions to hardware and software problems.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are ways of protecting your kids while still giving them the access that can seed a lifetime of curiosity.

I'm not claiming to know more than Bill. To backtrack a bit, there are other concerns more primary than these in certain situations (possibly a lot of situations). However, Bill's comment was not about assembly, it was about what 'great' programmers do. Even still, as skittles pointed out, I might have misinterpreted Bill's statement anyway.

So you can draw on a surface... How many tablet users need more drawing capabilities than an iPad grants? The Surface, in it's existing form, is not a viable product.

Umm, I don't buy Apple computers for their backlit keyboards...

Yeah, I could see interpreting this quote that way. However, if taken literally it implies a very intertwined world. It's probably not fair to to dissect this so much, however.

I stoppped reading when I got to this:

"If you’re a great programmer, you make all the routines depend on each other, so little mistakes can really hurt you."

I know things were different back then, and Bill did not have the luxury of building on the wisdom learned over decades of experience, but 'separation of concerns' and 'loose coupling' have been central to every design decision I've made. It's hard to conceive of how one would believe that a tightly coupled, brittle design was a good one.

Especially when you consider that after taxes, retirement savings, etc, you're likely to take home less than 50% of gross. If you're single you can still have fun on 80k, but it's peanuts if you want to have a family and/or travel.