Back when people rode horses relatively few people did it. In the 1870s US, the cost to keep a horse in stable would cost almost a third of a typical laborer's daily wage ($0.50 out of $1.75), most of which was already spoken for.

You mean like this one (text available here)? Or this one? Or this one? Or this one?

The problem is that people who demand Muslims condemn violence actually don't care what Muslims have to say. It's just posturing.

You know, Apple has given out over $25B (billion, with a B) to its iOS developers since its inception. You don't have to like all the terms, frankly, but in the real world being too altruistic isn't going to do you any favors. Apple puts a premium on the security of its devices and has to continuously juggle the sensibilities of dozens large companies.

History is littered with open-source programmers with so little business sense they wind up living in a RV park their whole lives and retiring with zero savings. Or worse.

-Matt

This isn't really correct. HTML5 apps aren't even remotely as smooth as a native iOS app, particularly when it comes to scrolling and window moves. I have a few on my ipad. Developers will use them in a pinch but pretty much just until they are able to get a native app approved.

-Matt

And a waste of time and money. Are these supposed to be game machines or business machines? Come on....

-Matt

Except there's no way of telling whether those addresses weren't being used proxies too.

This is an exercise in Bayesian logic. If you had a high degree of prior suspicion that NK was behind this, it'll look like a smoking gun. If you have a low degree of prior suspicion, it won't look nearly so significant. Personally, I'm in the middle. I think this makes it more likely that NK was behind the attack, but I don't regard it as a "smoking gun". It seems perfectly credible that someone who can orchestrate the Sony hack could hack an NK host. We know that the attackers *sometimes* used proxies. So which is more likely, that the NK addresses are just another red herring, or that they "got sloppy"?

The reason for my agnosticism is the sheer diversity and chaos of the Internet. Arguments that "it makes sense" for so-and-so to have done something hold no water with me, because there are people out there who will do things for reasons that make no sense to me, or won't do things when I think they should. It makes perfect sense for NK (as we understand them) to be behind this, but that doesn't signify.

Motivations are weak evidence for anything. It's like me and my brother-in-law, who is a big-shot cultural studies professor at a prestigious university. I once mentioned to him I always wanted to have a Unimat -- a miniature desktop machine shop. This totally mystified him. He couldn't imagine why someone would want to have such a thing. On the other hand, if I'd said I'd wanted to meet third wave feminist philosopher Judith Butler he'd have found this perfectly understandable and logical. Many people who understand the attraction of mini-machine tools might not understand the appeal of meeting with a major post-structuralist thinker, and vice versa. Unless you see the attraction of both, your understanding of one or the other group's motivations is bound to be unreliable.

Our reading of other people's motivations is apt to say more about ourselves than about them. Hard evidence is what is needed before motivations can contribute to our beliefs one way or the other. Tracing the attack (in part) is a step in the right direction, but far from conclusive.

That's not a crisis, it's the way things should be.

I've been in the business 30 years now, and I've never seen anything like Google's attempt to support older versions of the platform with backports new APIs. In Android you can target an API level like 20 (Lollipop) but support installation on an older API like 16 (early Jelly Bean). On API 16 all the stuff that goes around your app (notifications) and under your app (the VM) will still be "archaic", but the app itself will look modern because of the backports in the support library. Of course you should still *test* on older devices because not everything may work, but getting something to work across the vast majority of devices (> 86% run API 16 or later) is practical for a competent programmer.

So a user who doesn't immediately jump on the upgrade bandwagon can still run the latest version of the vast majority of apps. You miss out on some of Lollipop's bells and whistles, and most importantly on the new VM which reported extends battery life by 1/3 on some devices. You also miss out on all the bleeding edge bugs, of which reportedly there are still quite a few. If your device is perfectly good, it remains practically useful even if it's four years or so behind the bleeding edge.

That's something new. Forced march upgrades have been the norm over my career, but there's no reason to take that stance when you're talking about mobile devices. Most people replace them every two years or so, and in any case the Li-ion batteries soldered into the things begin to lose capacity after three years regardless of use. And with hundreds of independent Android device makers version fragmentation is inevitable, so it's sensible to make it benign.

It makes no sense to wring your hands because everyone isn't jumping on the bleeding edge release when there are so few practical consequences for anyone. It's almost as if the lack of a crisis is perceived as a crisis. People eventually *will* move to Lollipop because they'll eventually replace their old devices. Manufacturers *will* put Lollipop on their devices to get the battery life and performances, but in their own time. In the meantime their customers are OK on KitKat, and so should they be.

Well then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks.

5% of the general population are sociopaths; 1% are psychopaths. So in any sufficiently large group you you will find plenty of individuals acting in deplorable ways -- even horrifically deplorable. Christians, Muslims, rural Southerners, lesbian golfers, people who like avocados -- any group is bound to have it's share of monsters.

It is just the nature of a combined software / hardware solution that hardware teams tend to win. They have tangible manufacturing, costs and physical limitations that managers understand. While software has very different kinds of limitations -- often human limitations -- that managers don't understand.

Basically so, yes. Although - and I say this as a software person - there's good reason for that to be the case. Hardware incurs per-unit costs, so any design change that makes it cheaper to build will be paid back million-fold. If that increases the cost/time of developing the software you have to show that increase is higher than all the money you save in manufacturing. Unless the hardware changes are truly extreme, that is unlikely to be the case with a volume consumer product. Software has no unit margin cost, so the same logic doesn't apply in reverse.

The Rashomon reference was not an idle one, by the way. No matter how honest and well-intentioned, you're unlikely to have an unbiased or particularly correct view of what happened if you were involved directly in something. It's great to hear the point of view - but that's what it is, a point of view. Other teams and people at other levels certainly have others, and it'd be foolhardy to try to understand what happened based on ony one or two of them.

I'll take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that you possibly were in the software team? I wonder what a hw team members version of this would read like. Or that of a manager overseeing both teams.

Rashomon is a really good movie, apropos nothing in particulal.

Oh for Pete's sake.

Writing a book is a lot of work, and when you're done you promote it for the simple reason that you want people to read it.

Very few people get rich from writing a book, and it's fairly safe to say that nobody sits down to write a book on space policy because he thinks he'll "strike it rich".

I block Javascript, and everything except the video displays just fine.

They have four partner universities and several other research institutions, most or all of who already have one or more full-time staff dedicated to help projects with their grant application process.

Yes, EU grant applications are big and cumbersone - though the payoff is commensurate - but the process is not going to be the main hurdle. With all the available expertise at their disposal, if they can't navigate the application process then they're unlikely to successfully steer a major project over several years either.

I think you just answered the poster's question, by the way. SSH is quite good for what it does, but what it does doesn't cover every conceivable need.

A better question might be,"Why aren't we using SSH *in more situations where it might be useful*?"