So we are using computer analogies to describe cars, but we use car analogies to describe computers. I would have thought of a good joke hear, but my mind is too busy saying WTF .... Fizzle

Would love to see this technology used at long distant bus stations. Instead of having busses idling, running the engine, the parking spot would have an induction charger that could be used power things like A/C and possibly an engine warmer, when it is cold.

I am wondering if this is a case where authors should be omitted in the submissions, and instead have the review based on content and quality of citations? Beyond the gender aspect, it would also ensure that there is no preferential treatment given to a 'buddy' or someone with a certain reputation.

One benefit over Google Glass is that it is more discreet, doesn't tramp on other people's privacy and doesn't make you look a tech dude.

Google Glass has plenty of applications, just not where Google invisiged. For example, worn by a surgeon provides both a first person view of what is being seen to a third party and could allow data overlay, when combined with a kinect for positioning.

The DMCA does indeed suck. You should let your senator know that you don't want this and maybe even create one of those presidential petitions?

Well, then again this a Voyager reference, so they are safe :)

Then again, Voyager did end up in the Delta Quadrant ... not dead, but so screwed.

That is not always the best approach, since they may still cut corners. The real solution, IMO, is for the original customer to do acceptance testing and ensure the contract has penalties for failures to meet requirements. Acceptance testing should be done in-house or a separate sub-contractor, though where skills exist the former would be better.

I suppose too many TL;DR situations where it really counted. Though, I suspect, it would indicate that the documents were probably more to cover ass than communicate in a clear and concise fashion the requirements. Then again, some people are good at writing and poor at communicating. Case in point: I was once given a few paragraphs describing logic requirements for a new functionality in an application, though since I need to convert it into code, I first converted it into a logic flow in English and sent that back to the customer for verification. The, IMHO, more readable procedure revealed to the customer stuff they missed in the wordy original requirements.

In the current case I wonder whether the sub-contractor got a copy of the original requirements or an interpretation of the original requirements?

It will be if setting up an HTTPS and virtual-hosts using HTTPS becomes as easy as setting up a basic HTTP server.

The main issues as the moment is that getting a certificate is complicated, expensive and then dealing with setups is not always straightforward. Now, that is just for a basic Apache server. Create scenarios where you have load balancers, Apache servers serving multiple domain names and applications servers fronted by Apache and you have another set of problems.

HTTPS needs to become easy to setup for anyone, and not just necessary.

I may have missed some of the advances in simplification, so I would welcome any new information here.

The only question, is whether government sites will be blocked too?

All kidding aside, while I don't agree with terrorism, it needs to be defined in a very strict legal terms, such that other inconvenient sites don't also get blocked, due to some vagueness of definition.

As much as we can shit on corporations for not paying the piper, I am sure many are oblivious who they need to be supporting and funding. How many of us on /. actually are aware of the time and effort spend by certain individuals to ensure backbone implementations are kept in a healthy state. I am sure many corporations on in the same spot, after all they paid RedHat or some other vendor for a solution and that's probably as far as it went. Many of us take these projects for granted.

The other issue is the people who need funding are usually unknown until they are in dire straits. I am not sure the best way to address this issue? How does funding *BSD help? Does the FSF provide any method for easily providing funding, for them to distribute to these core solutions?

Is this also the same cost in Italy? Remember that Arduino originated in Italy.

Additionally, what are the costs for an international trademark?

It may be gone, in its current form, but I am sure it will spawn new markets in new incarnations. I can see this as nice solution for surgeons, to be able to record things from their perspective either for auditing or educational purposes. Maybe even get pilots to wear them to study user interactions with the cockpit.

We need to consider a few things:

  - What sort of drones are we talking about? For example those huge military drones that probably use as much fuel as a helicopter?
  - What is the relative cost compared to the previous method?
  - What are the cost break downs?

It is a huge amount of money and seems like they need to change there costing model.

While I dislike writing unit tests, I have to admit they are useful in protecting your butt when something breaks, since the test should catch it first. Of course you need to decide whether in a particular scenario they add value or just make you manager happy.

In a case like yours, you can make code modifications and hope nothing breaks or build unit tests and ensure that you don't break any of them when refactoring. Initially rather than just ripping out the seemingly duplicate methods, rip out/tweak their implementation and have them point to what they seems like a the right method to provide the common functionality. If your unit tests show breakage, then you know that you missed something.

If you do things wholesale, then you are likely to break something in an unmanageable way. Oh and make sure things are version controlled ;)