If such "bullying" is found illegal in court, then I don't see the problem here. Nobody is saying the FCC should be in charge of deciding these things, just that companies are still required to comply with court orders.
Speaking of "bullying," assault, "an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact," [1] is already illegal. Sounds an awful lot like credible bullying. Why should this be legal online?
I'd be extremely interested to see if this brings greater security to the "container" model. Something resembling BSD jails is sorely lacking in the Linux world.
Yes, at least in my circle of coder-friends. Younger people seem to be using some new-fangled thing like Sublime more often, but there's still plenty of us using and hacking on emacs. Don't worry, we won't let it die.
Why do we need a technical solution. My understanding is that the author is arguing for a change in how URL shorteners are being used, not a technical change making this impossible. The problem is that once a technology exists, it will be abused. Sometimes this abuse is just a clever and useful hack, and sometimes it is annoying and anti-usable.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't really think speculating on fights like this from the outside without full and complete information is beneficial, or even sane and rational. Can we just all agree that we don't know the full story here, and that any and all players might be misleading or not telling the whole story publicly? This is an internal issue. The only opinions I am interested in are internal opinions of other github co-workers, and that only if I was interviewing for a position at the company.
Unless there are hidden costs to maintaining a P2P architecture. Support costs may grow superlinearly, or the company might decide they want (or need) more central control.
I think more important than the P2P network shutting down is how it allowed Spotify to get up and running with relatively low up-front investment. What they do after this is, ultimately, unimportant and not terribly interesting.
Now who do we believe... an anonymous source or an official press release (from an agency with both motivation to lie and a history of misleading statements). Both seem fairly unsubstantiated to me.
Would you rather he compromise his integrity to "change" his opinion on something based on pressure? I personally respect people who do not pretend to change their views, regardless of whether I agree with them. I also respect people who, after careful consideration, do truly change their mind, but I cannot require this of anyone but myself.
I was using a broader definition of lynching to mean any punishment meted out by popular opinion rather than proper processes. I certainly was not using the term literally, and I am fully aware of the horrible historical background of lynching. I certainly did not mean to trivialize this history.
Does this view conflict with the job description? If this is so, then this makes the person ill-suited for the job, just like innumerable other workers who don't have the best qualifications for their jobs. Does this mean the view is wrong? Not necessarily, but that is an entirely different question. Does this mean that we should publicly deride this person for their view and boycott the company who hired them? No. This is the job of the board of directors, who answer to the shareholders of the company, and their responsibility. Certainly anyone outside can offer advice, but only as an outsider, who has no right or reason to blackmail and threaten the company.
This is very sad and unfortunate. Brendan was basically forced out of his own job because of a political view he supported. No matter whether you agree or disagree with someone's views, a discussion should be reasonable and fair, not a lynching in the court of popular opinion. We should respect others views, and their freedom to support any political position, if we wish those same freedoms for ourselves.
This is getting somewhat off-topic, but Mailman warns you during the sign-up process that this password will be sent in cleartext, so do not use a valuable password. In fact, if you leave the password field blank mailman will kindly generate a random password and send you that. If your subscription status on a mailing list is valuable enough to care about compromise, then I recommend you not use an email list at all.
Very cool idea. The idea of automatically verifying public keys over publicly accessible and known channels is great. This is more or less the manual process I follow when I want to verify a key remotely. Looking forward to seeing where this goes!
Also, being able to use this with arbitrary crypto software (eg GPG) would be even better!
Unfortunately, even in programming, there are fields where programmers can't even share their work with many other programmers they know. Responses like: "Oh that's low-level x86 assembly, I don't touch that stuff." "Ugh I hate GUI programming, give me something real." or "Web programming? I only know about databases, sorry." Programming is such a varied field that discussing your work might require online discussion of the handful of people spread across the world that actually care about the problem you solved.
There's been plenty of proposed proofs on both sides, however there has been little agreement on whether these proofs are indeed correct. See http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm for more links.
I beg to differ. Why should we describe a visual artifact using tools that are suited to describe logic and algorithms? Now, if you are wanting a DSL to describe HOW to make the visual artifact, that's one thing. However, the way art is created is not algorithmic, but rather a try something, visually inspect, and repeat process. Describing how the icon was created is not the main goal. Instead, the goal is simply a visual artifact.