Haven't claimed to have considered all factors, just refuting one. :-P

For example, the Ars article indicates that because Netflix does ~97% of the DVD mailer volume, and because of that, and the fact that Netflix mailers are easily identifiable due to their red packaging, they are often sorted out from standard mail and handled differently, reducing costs. I'm not sure how I feel about this, as on the one hand, a business has the right to pass costs (or savings) on to the customer, but on the other, a governmental institution should not be favoring or discriminating.

Just read the article you linked. While interesting, it does kinda support Gamefly's case. A 2-ounce mailer cost $1.05, whereas a 1-ounce mailer cost $0.44. In other words Gamefly pays ~238% of what Netflix pays, 38% above any differences in weight. Further, at these weights, the majority of the cost of delivery is a flat cost, rather than an increase in fuel consumption due to weight. The cost of fuel to transport 1 ounce of additional weight is certainly less than a penny; the vehicle, occupant, and other cargo make up the vast majority of the weight (and the occupant's time is no small factor on the cost). Just basing numbers on the weight of the packages alone, charging ~$0.10 extra for the additional ounce will more than make up for the added costs.

Given the wide range of companies targeted by this group, I'm inclined to believe that there was some bit of underlying software they all used that had a vulnerability for the hackers to exploit. Otherwise I'm not sure I believe that 5 hackers alone managed to compromise diverse systems developed independently from each other; finding SQL injection vulnerabilities is like probing for weak spots in armor, it's a very time consuming process that can't be automated (decently) and often ends in failure despite considerable effort. Sometimes some idiot doesn't bother sanitizing inputs and makes it easy, but considering these are major international companies, I doubt every single one of the listed failed basic security measures.

What probably happened is that one of the hackers through some channel got hold of the source for some common bit of internal web portal code used by employees of these companies (stuff that isn't intended for public access generally has less security). They examined said source, and found an obscure (one would hope obscure) SQL injection vulnerability. They then searched for companies using the software, and leveraged the known vulnerability to compromise machines, gaining footholds in their internal networks. From there it's just a matter of figuring out what valuables you can get using your access.

I think the GP got confused by the "Machine Learning" part of the headline, and thought that the network algorithm uses some sort of adaptive mechanism. What the software actually does is uses genetic learning (i.e. natural selection) to generate sets of network algorithms, each generation of which is better than the one before (that's how Genetic AI works). The actual algorithms in question are a set of static rules, not much different in function than the existing TCP algorithms, just more efficient.

I co-founded a software consulting company, for pretty much those exact reasons. Give me a steady stream of new, interesting, and challenging problems to solve, and I am a very happy (brilliant jerk of a) programmer. :-p

Seriously. Being professional and communicating clearly are by no means mutually exclusive.

I'm probably the type of person who would fall under the category of "brilliant jerks", at least on the surface. I'm very direct, saying what I think without prevarication, or worrying about hurting someone's feelings. I don't use subtext, or passive aggressive politicking; what I say has no hidden meanings. This directness can be abrasive to some people, particularly those who don't know me, who sometimes see subtext when there is none. However, any abrasiveness is indirect, meaning not intentional. This directness of mine is useful in maintaining clear communication. My colleagues rely on my ability to, as one of them put it, "cut through the bullshit".

However, I never attack someone directly, or insult them, and any profanity is mild, never directed at someone, and is usually just for emphasis. You can be direct and clear without being unprofessional. By professional, I don't mean biting back valid comments for fear of hurting someone's feelings, or hiding vitriol behind a polite facade, I mean having some basic respect for the people you work with, whether in person at an office, or online in an OSS project. Somehow, what people think "professionalism" implies is often the exact opposite of what it really means. To be "professional", one just needs to treat those they work with as an ally and an asset, rather than an enemy and a liability. In those instances where someone actually is an enemy/liability, it is that person who is acting unprofessional, and adding more unprofessionalism to the mix is just going to make things worse. So long as some professionalism standards are enforced, people like that will be taken care of without others needing to stoop to the same level.

Problems of a professional nature are usually endemic of a lack of respect for one's peers. Being able to communicate clearly and get work done is completely orthogonal to that concept.

I read the GP as saying that video games, in lieu of actual physical violent behavior, don't expose an individual to the risk of physical injury (i.e. being "scarred"), for those individuals who are less skilled in that specific behavior (i.e. aren't good at it). Thus, video games provide an outlet for violent impulses without the inherent risks involved in violent behavior.

I think you two are actually in agreement.

Who says that I'm limited to worrying about one agency at a time? I can multitask.

It may not be slippery, but there sure as hell is a definite downward trend.

You would be absolutely correct... if this was 1995. Web sites haven't been a "static, read-only experience" in ages (many of them, anyway). You interact with web pages, not merely consume them, as you would an RSS feed. While I hate javascript with a passion, it has made it possible for us to move from web pages to web apps. Many of the sites most people use everyday would be completely impossible without client side scripting. I wish that scripting would be done in something that doesn't suck as hard as javascript, but that's neither here nor there.

Doesn't actually work like that. Each "coin" or wallet does not maintain it's own separate chain. There is one block chain which contains all transactions. New transactions are added to the chain with each block mined. That's simplified a bit, but more or less accurate.

Specifically what happens is a miner (disregarding mining pools for now, as a pool can be treated as a single miner for the purposes of the mechanics of bitcoin) gets a list of transactions from other miners and clients in the peer-to-peer network, each with a transaction fee attached. The miner uses this transaction list in conjunction with the most recent block hash to generate a hash of a new block which meets certain requirements (based on the current difficulty of mining, which is self-regulated by the network). This new block is sent off to the network, and once that block is used to generate another, the transactions in the created block are "verified", including the 25BTC (currently) transaction to the address of the miner, from nowhere. The miner also gets all transaction fees for transactions in the block. Not counting attempts to manipulate the block chain (i.e. forking, making a series of fake blocks and attempting to pass them off as legitimate), there is only ever the one block chain, just many copies of it.

If you think Google Docs is free (as in cost) you are deluding yourself. Google didn't create and release this webapp just because they're nice people. It's a platform play, drawing in users to sell their true product, advertising. Do you really think they take on the costs of servers, bandwidth, and storage, without any intention of recouping these costs? Besides hardware costs, there's also the cost of developing and maintaining the software. While, true, they could amortize these costs by making Google Docs Open Source, if they do so it becomes trivial for someone else to set up a competing service using the software Google developed, meaning Google loses the point of developing the app in the first place, that Platform play. If Google were forced to release all of their web apps as open source, Google Docs wouldn't have been made in the first place. I love open source software as much as the next guy, and I would absolutely love it if everyone decided to release everything as open source, but the real world isn't so simple. So, before you start on the "Proprietary software is evil" bandwagon, stop for two seconds and consider the economics of the system you're trying to derail.

That's true, but it's generally enough information to figure out what you need to. Comparing unminifiers to disassemblers is just facetious; they're on an entirely different scope.

I really don't understand the arguments against proprietary software. It's generally just people whining about things not being free (as in cost). That's not to say I don't get the benefits of open source software. Open source is awesome. It allows amortization of technical debt across an industry, rather than a company. Which is a great thing. However, a company choosing to keep their software internal is not a sin. Sometimes it's stupid, but sometimes it's not (e.g. maintaining competitive advantage in your industry). Sometimes it just doesn't make economic sense to release your software to the world, and people should understand and respect that. (Not to imply I know your thoughts on subject.)

Completely different beasts. Have you poked at an unminifier before? They provide easily readable code at the push of a button. Minified JS is not compiled source.

You realize a bunch of tools already exist to un-minify javascript, yes?