Note I said that both of them are living off their credit cards. I'm well aware of the poor state of the UK's finances.

Did you just claim that mass shootings at schools in the USA happen less frequently than nuclear meltdowns?

Ouch. I've seen quite a few family breakup analogies, but this is the first time I saw Scotland be the child instead of the spouse.

If we're going analogise a country to a person, actually I'd say it's pretty natural to seek out unions even though they involve giving up some independence. That's why people get married. That's why the EU keeps growing. Even the most perfect couples don't always agree all the time, but they find ways to figure it out because it's better together than apart. Divorces are universally considered a tragedy in our culture exactly because we recognise that unions bring strength: when one partner stumbles, the other is there to help.

Salmond's behaviour with Scotland has been like going to a wife in a working marriage where decisions are taken together and telling her constantly, repeatedly, that she's too good for the man she's with. That her husband treats her unfairly. That she's oppressed by him. That everything wrong in her life is her husbands fault. She didn't get the promotion she wanted? Husband's fault. She doesn't get enough attention? Husband's fault. She can't afford the clothes she wants? Husband's fault. He's just so unfair. How could she not be better off without him? She's strong and pure and good and she needs to break up with this loser.

Oh, the husband objects? He doesn't want a divorce? That's just bullying. He's promising to give her more say? It's just lies. He's asking how she'll pay the rent without him? Scaremongering. Of course you can pay the rent. Sure you may not earn enough to pay all the bills each month and you've both been relying on the credit card, but selling off the family silver will take care of that.

I could go on but you get the idea. The ultimate legacy of Salmond's failed campaign is that a significant chunk of the Scottish population has bought into the idea that they're somehow superior or morally better than the emotionally deformed English, whereas such feelings were not previously widespread. This is a toxic legacy that could take generations to resolve. It will certainly not make anything easier in future.

Given the relative percentages... it's likely that the "harassment escalating to assault" numbers for the men is underreported by a factor of 2.5, which would be about on a par with the underreporting of men being raped in the general population. There's a real cultural stigma to reporting by men, who are, by stereotype and therefore societal norms, "supposed to be" on the other end of the power equation.

They've already screwed the pooch.

They've published the source archive under the original TrueCrypt license. As a result, unless there's a legal entity (person or company) to which all contributors make an assignment of rights, or they keep the commit rights down to a "select group" that has agreed already to relicense the code, they will not be able to later release the code under an alternate license, since all contributions will be derivative works and subject to the TrueCrypt license (as the TrueCrypt license still in the source tree makes clear).

The way you do these things is: sanitize, relicense, THEN announce. Anyone who wants to contribute as a result of the announcement can't, without addressing the relicensing issue without having already picked a new license.

Most importantly the Parliament Act allows the Commons to force a bill through Lords if it's been sent back twice already, regardless of what the Lords want. Therefore the most the HoL can do is slow things down.

Given this fact it's probably not surprising that nobody cares much about reforming it. It's another check/balance and all it can ultimately do is throw sand in the wheels, it has no real power.

it's sad that the concept of independence and sovereignty boils down to mere money for some (or most) people.

Why? Scotland is not oppressed, it does not have severe racial/religious/ethnic divides with the rest of the UK. It was not conquered by England. Nobody has family members that have died because of the Union. In fact the Union has been ruled by Scottish PM's twice in recent history.

That makes splitting it out into a new country a largely technical matter of economics and future government policy. It's quite dry stuff. The Yes campaign chose to ignore this and attempted to whip up a notion of Scottish exceptionalism through the constant "fairer better society" rhetoric, but ultimately they lost because when people asked questions about the technical details of why Scotland would be better and whether it'd be worth the cost, they had no answers. Given that the primary impact of independence would be economic, this lack of planning proved fatal.

How would that split have worked out in the end? The UK would swing wildly right... Quickly get involved in lots of wars, crack down on "terrorists" etc... Scotland would have swung wildly left, and quickly bankrupted themselves with social programs. Balance is a good thing, even if you're currently getting the short end of the stick.

Just because historically politics has been dominated by two bundled sets of largely unrelated policies doesn't mean it has to be that way.

In a post-independence UK, the rUK would have been temporarily dominated by the Tories until Labour, freed from the need to constantly try and drag their Scottish MPs away from hard-socialist economics, found a new voice for themselves that didn't easily pigeonhole into left vs right. For example they could have campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility combined with pacifist policies, pro EU integration and raising taxes specifically for the NHS. That would likely have been an appealing combination even to many existing Tory voters. It'd be difficult for them to take up such policies with credibility because in fact the UK was taken into the Iraq war by Tony Blair, a Scottish Labour PM. And Cameron's similar attempt to go to war in Syria was rejected by a coalition Parliament. But staking out pacifism as a policy seems like such an easy win it's surely only a matter of time until Labour gets a leader with vision again and they try something like this.

With respect to Scotland, I suspect they would have ended up following economic policies closely aligned with that of rUK despite all the rhetoric about building a "fairer society" (means taxing the rich more up there). For one, they already have the power to raise income taxes even without full independence and they haven't actually used it. Actually the SNP's only post-independence tax policy they formally adopted was lowering corporation tax to try and grab businesses from the rUK. There are no socialist parties in Scotland with any real heft, so after the post-independence street parties died down the Scots who all voted to build a "fairer society" would have discovered that the neoliberal consensus is called a consensus because it turns out a lot of people agree with it.

Anybody who wants secession is just bad at economics.

Maybe. But I read that Congress has a lower approval rating than cockroaches. I doubt economics is the only thing they're thinking about. Much like the Scottish case, this 25% is being driven by disdain with Washington politics. And remember, when Salmond got started support for independence was only about 20-25% in Scotland too (maybe a bit higher, I forgot, but it definitely wasn't 50%). So watch out!

This reminds me the well known Americanism, "reality has a liberal bias".

I followed the BBC's coverage quite carefully and did not see any bias. What I did see is a lot of ardent highly emotional yes supporters interpret the stream of stories about the campaign as being against yes and therefore the authors must be biased. So let's take a look at your link about this "academic study" that claims to scientifically assess the bias of the BBC:

The study found that, overall, there was a greater total number of ‘No statements’ compared to Yes; a tendency for expert advice against independence to be more common; a tendency for reports to begin and end with statements favouring the No campaign; and a very strong pattern of associating the Yes campaign arguments and evidence with the personal wishes of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. Taken together, the coverage was considered to be more favourable for the No campaign.

Well fuck me. The evidence of this bias is that "expert advice against independence was more common"? Seriously? Did this guy even think before writing this so-called academic study? Here's another explanation: maybe expert opinion was against independence because it didn't make much sense?

What about "associating the Yes campaign arguments and evidence with the personal wishes of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond"? The entire independence campaign can be summed up as the personal wish of Alex Salmond. He devoted his entire career to Scottish independence. He led the party that called for it. It has been his project since day one. No surprise that disentangling the arguments and evidence from his personal wishes is so hard, especially because the yes campaign was so lacking in detail and substance.

Last reason to see the BBC as biased, "a greater total number of ‘No statements’ compared to Yes". Well, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The entire yes campaign can be summed up as repeating over and over that everything will be better post-yes because Salmond says so and anyone who disagrees is a scaremonger. That was the entire argument for independence. If you're a journalist there's only so many times you can publish this viewpoint as a story before it stops being news. The arguments against independence on the other hand were complex and multi-faceted. There was the currency union issue of course, but also the question of how the EU would react, whether there'd be border controls, how assets would be split up, whether the oil projections were really accurate and then the steady stream of people either with expertise or in highly placed positions coming out against yes. There was lots to write about, new stories every day.

Given that state of affairs, I don't see how the media could possibly have published more articles that were pro-yes than pro-no simply because the yes side had nothing to say.

Also, the over-65's have the shortest time stake in this. plus have had the trappings of gold plated pensions that the generation behind them cannot look forward to. It's a disgusting state of affairs and as a Scot I am embarrassed for my country.

I'm embarrassed for your country too, partly because of absurd arguments like the ones you just deployed - essentially saying that old people can't use the internet and therefore must be stupid and uninformed. Perhaps you should take the next logical step and argue for their disenfranchisement too.

I expect that it's a little bit of both. Look however at Kepler and Tycho Brahe. Brahe's observational contributions aided Kepler, but he started well before he was 30. Kepler had his theories before 30, and was aided by Brahe into his 30's proving them out. Counter examples include Newton, and so on. Most Large contributions that aren't ideas themselves are contributions based on the wealth of the contributor, e.g. The Allen Telescope Array.

Reason (a) is motivation to do something that could be big, if the new reason is passion.
Reason (b) is a piss poor reason to do something big; there's no passion involved.
Reason (c) is ennui.

If you get into something solely to satisfy (a), you have a chance at greatness; if you do it for the other two reasons, even in part, you are unlikely to have the fire to spark the necessary effort. For example, the OP's willingness to dedicate 10 hours a week from a 24x7 = 168 total hours in a week really speaks to the idea of someone acting out a dilettante reason, rather than a reason of passion. Excluding sleeping, you could probably argue for 86 hours a week for a passion, and that's less than 11% of the "every moment of every day" you'd expect with a passion.

This.

I read through the comments to find this comment so that I didn't just post a duplicate if someone else had covered the ground.

Let me be really blunt about the amount of time you are intending to invest in this project. If you were taking a college course, you should expect to spend 2 hours out of class for each hour you spend in class, and given that you only have 10 hours to dedicate to the idea, that's effectively 3 credit hours for every interval. So if you picked a community college, and they offered all the classes you needed, you should expect to have your Bachelor's of Science in any given degree field in about 23 years. That gets you to the necessary 210 credit hours for an Astronomy degree.

Let's say, though that you are a super genius, and can do 1:1 instead of 1:2 for in/out of class. That only cuts your time by 1/3, which means that you get that degree in 15 years instead.

Now add to this that most major contributions in any scientific field occur before someone hits their mid 20's; there are exceptions, but let's say again that you are exceptional. What contributions do you expect to be able to make after age 61 / 53, with your shiny new Bachelor's, since you're unlikely to find someone to hire you at that age, and you're unlikely to be able to afford instrument time on the necessary equipment on your own?

It's built into Android as well, typically accessible from the Setup/Security & Screen Lock menu. However, it is not the default in Android, the boot-up sequence is a bit hokey when you turn it on, it really slows down access to the underlying storage, and the keys aren't stored securely. Also, most telco's load crapware onto your Android phone that cannot be removed and that often includes backing up to the telco or phone vendor... and those backups are not even remotely secure.

On Apple devices the encryption keys are stored on a secure chip, the encryption is non-optional, and telcos can't insert crapware onto the device to de-secure it.

The only issue with Apple devices is that if you use iCloud backups, the iCloud backup is accessible to Apple with a warrant. They could fix that too, and probably will at some point. Apple also usually closes security holes relatively quickly, which is why the credit card companies and banks prefer that you use an iOS device for commerce.

-Matt

I would say you have it right.

Apple initially didn't open up the iPhone to Apps at all because Steve was deathly afraid of building another Newton.

Then they wanted to open them up, but there was not rational set of APIs, there was just an internal morass, because it had never been designed with the idea of hardening one app on the iPhone from interference by another app on the phone, or hardening the phones functions against a malicious app.

This is a single App on a single use, incomplete, API, one which was built only to host this App and nothing else. Could that API be exposed, and used for other applications? Yeah. Would that enable all possible NFC applications which you might want to implement in the future? Not a chance in hell.

This is just Apple wanting some bake time so that they can rationally support an API that they happily demonstrated opening hotel doors and other things which they are not prepared to open up at this point in time.

There's no reason they *should*, but they do unless you correct the test. The problem is in the test code, or in the wrapper that runs the test code. But consider an automated login test on an isolated network with a credentials server that races to come up with the browser that's attempting the login in the test case. If the login happens to start before the login server gets up and stable, then your login fails, and so does your test case, even though it's not a problem with the browser you are nominally testing.

This is/was a pretty common failure case with the ChomeOS build waterfall because Chrome was considered an "upstream" product, and therefore changes in Chrome, when they occurred, could throw off the timing. There wasn't a specific, separate effort to ensure that the test environment was free from timing issues. And since you can't let any test run forever, if you intend to get a result that you can act upon it in an automated way, you get transient failures.

Transient test failures can (sort of) be addressed by repeating failed tests; by the time you attempt to reproduce, the cache is likely warmed up anyway, and the transient failure goes away. Problem solved. Sort of. But what if everyone starts taking that tack? Then you end up with 5 or 6 transient failures, and any one of them is enough to shoot you in the foot on any given retry.

Now add that these are reactive tests: they're intended to avoid the recurrence of a bug which has occurred previously, but is probabilistically unlikely to occur again; when do you retire one of these tests? Do you retire one of these tests?

Consider that you remove a feature, a login methodology, a special URL, or some other facility that used to be there; what do you do with the tests which used to test that code? If you remove them, then your data values are no longer directly comparable with historical data; if you don't remove them, then your test fails. What about the opposite case: what are the historical values, necessarily synthetic, for a new feature? What about for a new feature where the test is not quite correct, or where the test is correct, but the feature is not yet fully stable, or not yet implemented, but instead merely stubbed out?

You see, I think, the problem.

And while in theory your build sheriff or other person, who's under fire to reopen the tree, rather than actually root-causing the problem, doesn't have time to actually determine a root cause. At that point, you're back to fear driven development, because for every half hour you keep the tree closed, you have 120 engineers unable to commit new code that's nor related to fixing the build failure. Conservatively estimate their salary at $120K/year, then their TCO for computers and everything else is probably $240K/year, and for every half hour you don't open the tree back up, that's ~$14K of lost productivity, and then once you open it up, there's another half hour for the next build to be ready, so even if you react immediately, you're costing the company at least $25K one of those bugs pops on you and you don't just say "screw it" and open the tree back up. Have that happen 3X a day on average, and that's $75K lost money per day, so let's call it $19.5M a year in lost productivity.

This very quickly leads to a "We Fear Change" mentality for anyone making commits. At the very least, it leads to a "We Fear Large Change" mentality which won't stop forward progress, but will insure that all forward progress is incremental and evolutionary. The problem then becomes that you never make anything revolutionary because sometimes there's no drunkard's walk from where you are to the new, innovative place you want to get to (eventually). So you don't go there.

The whole "We Fear Large Change" mentality - the anti-innovation mentality - tends to creep in any place you have the Agile/SCRUM coding pattern, where you're trying to do large things in small steps, and it's just not possible to, for example, change an API out from everyone, without committing changes to everyone else at the same time.

You can avoid the problem (somewhat) by adding the new API before taking the old API away. So you end up with things like "stat64" that returns a different structure from "stat", and then when you go and try to kill "stat" after you've changed everywhere to call "stat64" instead, with the new structure, you have to change the "stat" API to be the same as the "stat64" API, and then convert all the call sites back, one by one, until you can then get rid of the "stat64".

That leads to things like Solaris, where the way you endure binary compatibility is "give the hell up; you're never going to kill off the old stat, just live with carrying around two APIs, and pray people use the new one and you can kill off the old one in a decade or so". So you're back to another drunkard's walk of very slow progress, but at least you have the new API out of it.

And maybe someday the formal process around the "We Fear Change" mentality, otherwise known as "The Architectural Board" or "The Change Control Committee" or "Senior VP Bob" will let you finally kill off the old API, but you know, at that point, frankly you don't care, and the threat to get rid of it is just a bug in a bug database somewhere that someone has helpfully marked "NTBF" because you can close "Not To Be Fixed" bugs immediately, and hey, it gets the total number of P2 or P3 bugs down, and that looks good on the team stats.