qyv

Invariably when I am trying to setup some kind of international conf call I cant help but think that communication would be easier without timezones. Imagine the ease of coordinating world-wide tele-meetings if everyone just understood and used UTC. Yes technology often uses it under the hood, but if used it societally things would be so much simpler.

> But he'd be unable to have anything on his resume and would likely be unqualified for any work outside the organization if he wanted to leave

That is an exceptional talent retention mechanism that I don't think enough people consider when they talk about how the three-letter-agencies maintain their large talent pools. Once you are in in is very difficult to get out.

The only direct quote in the article that offers any real context:

"Forcing Apple to extract data in this case, absent clear legal authority to do so, could threaten the trust between Apple and its customers and substantially tarnish the Apple brand"

This quote, granted taken without full context, seems to indicate a pretty clear stipulation of "clear legal authority". Not sure what to make of that, but I do think that in matters of privacy and surveillance the words are always chosen very carefully indeed.

Why is it so absurd? Because young people never do stupid things for attention? Was the school/police reaction over the top? Yes, for sure. Is the counter-reaction given to this kid in an effort to appear to appear to be on the side of goodness and rationality equally silly? Absolutely.

In a lot of ways I think what you are saying is actually in line with what the article is saying: Most people don't actually understand REST and it is leading to a lot of poorly designed API's. Unfortunately, the zealots are often the worst offenders in propagating the misunderstandings. For instance:

> Surface area and complexity are a big deal. REST encourages creating a CRUD interface for every single resource. I've met people who have created literally 100 endpoints upfront for a small application - how is that maintainable?

I disagree, REST does NOT encourage a CRUD interface for every single SERVER SIDE resource. Your rest resources should be modelled after the resources your CLIENT needs. You should not be designing your client resource models based on the underlying server models regardless of using REST, SOAP or some kind of roll-your-own system.

> The problem when using REST "correctly" is that the way your objects interrelate is not necessarily the same way on the backend as it is on the UI. So you end up creating custom REST endpoints for complicated UI that does not map directly to how your objects are related in the database.

Not defending the article here, but I don't see this as a problem at all. Yes, you API objects should not necessarily map directly to your persistence layer; that is a good thing. The problem domains of the UI and the persistence layer are completely different and should therefore be modelled differently. Your API mediates between the two, acting like a repository for your UI models and abstracting away the persistence layer completely.

Less inhumane != humane

As for grey areas, is it more humane to kill 1 to prevent them from killing 10? Or 2? Or 10,000,000? Two things that should not be spoken of categorically are war and humane/inhumane, they are routinely defined by their grey areas.

> And where is that?

To censorship[1].

[1]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33280133/apple-removes...

The quote specifically says they don't share data between apps, but not that they don't collect data from all of the apps and correlate it behind the scenes. Perhaps it is an overly cynical point of view, but true to the spoken words.

I cannot help but think about the article last week about WhatsApp needing only 50 engineers for over 900M users. Evernote just let go that many people and their software is bug-ridden next to WhatsApp. Seriously, what do all of these engineers do?

My experience, and several others I have talked to, is completely opposite of yours. Making the claim, even through a 3rd party consultant, was a pain in the ass and the results were very underwhelming. We needed to submit a lot more detail about the work done on the claim than that. Can I ask what years you did your claims?

Seems to me that any 'fix' that lowers fuel economy would have a real and measurable damage on the owners in the way of increased fuel costs. Wouldn't this just be deflecting the problem from one area to another?

The car may have been better than it should have been, but it was NOT better than was claimed. It is not the product itself that is the problem, it is the claims made of the product by the manufacturer. VW made claims about the power, fuel economy and emissions. In as-delivered configuration the emissions claim is false and in order to live up to the emissions claim they will need to negate the power and economy claims.

To expand on this, I think a better question is why do other need so many more engineers for so many fewer users?

Not particularly directed at OP, I haven't tried or even downloaded the app. But am I the only one that when I see 'Node' and 'Desktop' in a headline immediately think 'this may be really nice but it is just gonna be to big for what it does'? And, as a followup, what is the appeal of using Node for desktop dev?

Of course. And don't get me wrong, the iPad is far from worthless and Apple is far from Trivial in the space. The point is that Apple is no longer the leader/innovator in the space. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that a lot of iOS devices get sold on intangibles rather than concrete benefits or capabilities. Apple has created tremendous value in these intangibles by being so awesome/innovative/ahead for the last 8 years, that has created a tremendous amount of loyalty in iOS users and sells a LOT of iOS devices every single generation despite the substantial (to most people) costs. People who depend on tech to make their living (often) require more than intangible benefits, and the competition has now caught/surpassed them as far as tech goes, and usually for a lower price.

It began a while ago, it is just now more apparent because the level of innovation in each successive generation has become so small. I wonder if we will look back at the last 8 years as Apple's golden years, because it is really feeling like their best is now behind them. The level of innovation that has created their most loyal of fans and zealots no longer exists, and there is so much less to indoctrinate the next generation. Newcomers no longer think that Apple is a head and shoulders above the rest innovator and Apple is built on the loyalty created by being different.

The weird part for me is that everyone I know who tried an iPad for getting work done (ie: PROfessionals) gave up on it. iOS is simply not geared towards productivity nor content creation, it is a consumption device. The surface pro is the exact opposite, it is a machine that works for getting shit done on the go (for some people, not all obviously).

This. This whole thread is people saying how great IntelliJ is, but damn them for changing their prices. I can't believe how short sighted people can be when confronted with even the smallest change. Jetbrains needs to make money both to stay in business and to continue to innovate with their products, that is a fact. Prices on things go up over time, why should software be excempt? Would it be better if they put in ads and sold your personal data to pay for it? With constant uproar or using the consumer as the product you would think that folks would relish supporting a software company with their dollars instead.

Besides, this pales in comparison to a yearly MSDN license and that new fancy macbook every couple years, or even that morning starbucks fix.

These images were posted in the above thread purportedly from 777 maintenance manuals. The diagrams bear a very good resemblance to the photos thus far:

http://i.imgur.com/OAw6AOc.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Ti09xEh.jpg

Yes, that is true, which is why wording is important. However, this article is not talking about a single post being taken out of context, it is about a systematic online persona that is affecting real life.

Anyone who posts anything online using their real identity or anything associated to their real identity, needs to understand that it is now potentially publicly tied to them indefinitely. Do you think that when you apply for a job your employer doesn't look at your social media? The private sector uses social media data extensively when making judgment calls on individuals, and the scope of this is only getting larger.

It is actually extremely simple: Don't act online how you would not act in person.

Perhaps the technological singularity that we end up facing is not one of AI but one of nation-scale automation?

I am no means an expert, but from my understanding you are only partially correct. Betz's law essentially says that because the velocity of the fluid exiting the cross section of the turbine is lower than the velocity or the fluid entering, the exiting fluid must consume more volume, and that their is a calculable limit to that difference. If these devices are in fact using vortices/turbulent airflow to induce resonance then perhaps different rules apply to the amount of energy that can be extracted?

Betz's Law applies to turbines, but it this thing really a turbine? "No moving parts" and the fact that it operates via oscillation rather than rotation implies that this is not in fact a turbine. If it is not a turbine then there is no reason to assume Betz's Law must apply to it, perhaps there is something else that governs efficiency in this case?

There are some things I agree with in this, however I think the context in which it is presented is flawed. This is particular: "Technical Debt is a Positive and Necessary Step in software engineering" is just incorrect. If technical debt was positive and necessary we would call it Technical Credit.

IMO a better context for this would be: real software engineering requires compromises. There are a number of competing factors that need to be juggled in order to be successful: time, money, complexity, quality, etc. The point should be that you need to balance these factors, not focus on one above all else.

I don't this the author is advocating dropping all frameworks, and certainly not making your own custom framework for every project. The point is more moderate than that: There is just to much reliance on frameworks in general, especially in SPA/front-end development. Frameworks work great until they don't, and then what? Over-reliance on frameworks does create a dependency on the developers, they learn to implement their framework of choice instead of learning good software design. And worse, this can foster the belief that frameworks are a necessity on every project. When all you use is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Frameworks can be a force-multiplier, but they are also constrictive in a lot of ways. I have run into this first hand, especially with longer-running projects.

It is even more than that, the FBI PR quote that this is based on is the following:

"For example, the FBI discovered that several Internet protocol (IP) addresses associated with known North Korean infrastructure communicated with IP addresses that were hardcoded into the data deletion malware used in this attack."

Firstly, this isn't a statement of evidence, it is an generalized example of the type of evidence the FBI apparently has. Given the lack of any further clarifications on this statement, I don't see how you can make and presumptions as to what the actual evidence is. there just is not enough data here.

Secondly, the statement is carefully worded to say that the C&C IP's have communicated with known NK infrastructure. This is massively different than saying that the C&C IP's are associated with NK infrastructure. What the FBI is saying is that they have been able to apparently collect evidence that shows NK was communicating with the C&C IP's, presumably while the attacks were going on. With what we know about the state of internet surveillance, is it really that unrealistic to think that US SIGINT is collecting every single packet that transits known KN networks? Seems right in their wheelhouse.

Point is, the FBI aint telling us squat about what evidence they may or may not really have. Maybe this is because they are making the whole thing up, or maybe it is because they just don't want to tell us how much evidence they got, and how they got it.

How does multiple-number thing work when using the card physically (mag swipe, chip-pin or tap) on current CC processing terminals?