"there is a huge variation in ability between competent programmers and exceptional ones, and while you can train people to be competent, you can't train them to be exceptional"

This two sentences are the most blunt truths an IT professional has to cope with. 10x programmers just render us regular 1x programmers pretty much useless. If I lived in the US, and I had been raised as right-winged patriot, I would trust the local 10x are enough and some local 1x deserve to occupy 10x positions and salary slots.

But even if that's not the US picture, you don't want companies full of 10x's - it's proven to be hard to manage and to hinder company growth in the long run. Many will be headhunted, and many will leave.

If a company needs to be constantly looking for 10x programmers, it should be big enough to look for them locally. Unless it doesn't want to be paying the salary they deserve. This way you can fool a "foreign 10x" with the "El Silliconado" promise. Add some free housing, fast lane green card and a not-so-above-average salary, topped with the "I work for (e.g.) Google" factor. And that's how you're set for some long-term consequences when they to go back and fund their own 1B companies in Mumbai/Warsaw/Moscow/Beijing/Seoul, and start siphoning the local 10x and the local industry profits.

Oh and don't forget to thank GCHQ. Now that they disclosed they have reduced tapping into communications, they pretty much gave carte blanche to criminals. Just imagine: if they had disclosed illegal tapping before, they would have actually prevented a lot more crime than they actually detected with it secretively. Then again, they might be bluffing this time. In any case good job GCHQ...

So, (potentially) a quarter more class A narcotics entered the country due to (potentially) a quarter of the communications intercepted no longer being so. For one, I highly doubt those numbers translate to effective raise in class A narc. consumption or even availability. Let's not forget Snowden's actions also alerted the criminals, so they are EFFECTIVELY more aware, and thus LESS active since.

In any case, the number of drug addicts does not always increase with availability. Some studies actually indicate consumption is most influenced by other factors such as popularity/public opinion, novelty or ease of access (it's still socially difficult to contact dealers, thankfully). Some pioneer regions are proof availability is a deterrent for substance abuse, or induce more responsible use (Netherlands anyone?).

But even if I'm totally wrong, I'm personally happy with the trade off. I'll give in a few communications between criminals going undetected, for the assurance of private, universal communications any day.

Just spend the extra money on proven deterrents of narcotic use. Like prevention

This is probably based on statistical models, based on our own civilization, that predict genuine AI will be achieved way before we can either communicate with extraterrestrial life, or travel to such life.

So, you see, this is just the same paradox again: however we came to be whatever we are now (usually called the homo sapiens), we have evolved in a synthetic way by itself, and our DNA is the catalyst that promoted our evolution. So, to believe the evolution of animal life, and the appearance of rationality in homo sapiens is but randomness, is the only way to admit we are not synthetic - highly improbable occurrence, unless we happen to be the very first sentient beings in the universe (a very egocentric thought to say the least, except if you take religion as proof). It is much more probable that we have been synthesized ourselves by an entity that hasn't presented itself to us (and is God in one way or another, but that's a philosophical matter).

tl:dr - we are most likely synthetic life forms too, so whoever we find we should not be distinguishing sentience categorization with them. There will be other (more important) divergences in the event of 3rd kind close encounters

A joke for a joke heh ^_^. In any case, I doubt there are any black hat (open) courses anywhere across the globe, and even white-hat cyber-security courses won't teach you 1% of what you need for such an attack. They do provide guidelines though.

What you need to succeed in such attacks is: open-minded, out of the box thinking; access to computers; and some very open access to the webs deepest corners. All of this has to be set up in line with the emancipation of IT abilities, which is usually around teenage-hood to its end around 20-24, or else there's no aptitude inception for it to become any useful. All of the above boxes do NOT tick for 99.99% of the NK population (that's like everyone but the top 10 NK government executives, including KJU).

So unless NK government started breeding hackers before Y2K (which most developed countries didn't, and underdeveloped countries were still thinking plutonium enrichment back then), and SHA-2 is no slouch, so this was certainly not a solo-NK attack. This has Beijing written all over.

What should be seen from these blaming statements is one of two inevitable conclusions:

• - either US is trying to set up North Korea's public opinion in order to excuse some new (military or cyber-) incursion to them, or...
• - they are actually making honest statements, in which case China is surely helping these cyber-attacks. It should be obvious that North Korea doesn't have the IT background necessary for such attacks... Unless Kim Jong-Un took some hardcore CS crash-course back in his Switzerland days.

In any case, Korea is deepening its role of battleground in the economical and social proxy-war between China and the US. This is nothing more than a turn of that chess game, but this time I'm pretty sure I heard "check" from the "red" side...

Yeap, i thought exactly the same. AEDE is probably asking the government to pretty much make the extortion for them: " hey government, Google there can just walk away, so please do something we can't, like fining or restricting their non-news related services if they don't buy our news. Because, well the law we lobbied for you to pass for us was not enough to force Google to give us profit we didn't deserve in the first place. And that were probably not gonna get because Google is paying for those fines rather than paying us for news, but we still want them to burn for giving us traffic..."

This is why my Yahoo account is my "disposable account" creation SH*TBOX . Way back since 1998

...do we get to see Jennifer Lawrence's "account balance"?

Your'e not giving enough credit to the organization that enabled you to write comments that look this c o o l

Oh, nevermind, it actually makes sense because the top fans are supposed to heat the fluid circuit, which renders my point of air traveling throughout the case moot.

This is Slashsdot mate, not PhD Comics. Gaming is also geeky, and if you don't know and/or crave Alienware, I have good (bad) news for you... You need to get out of the lab more often :D

Despite the hype they make about the unencumbered airflow front and back, I seriously have my doubts on a system that has a pump-in fan so close to a pump-out fan.

I mean, look at the top triangle tip.

In their defense, there are 2 extra fans below, but some fluid dynamics graph would be nice for prooving good thermals exist there.

I personally like the idea of learning algorithms, through Mark as Spam or Add to Contacts. But as a sysop in a somewhat busy, mid-scale company MX, I find 2 big user-preference deterrents to its use:

• 1. wide email client preference, and thus flawed learning due to inconsistent behavior of Mark as Spam and Add to Contacts
• 2. user-specific enforcing of spam-to-inbox - older peers, usually managers, just prefer to get everything and filter manually, as they are allergic to new paradigms such as webmail (which interact well with learning algorithms, e.g. roundcube), and just panic to the possibility of getting an important mail not getting to their Outlook Inbox

My most used technique involves configuring amavis (spamassassin, amavis, etc) just like OP does, but then, and since I use ISPConfig with a plethora of configurable per-user Spam policies, I just tell everyone responsible for creating mailboxes to arbitrate between them, ad hoc. It works somewhat well: every month or so I get an unhappy camper, and I just accept the fact it happens.

I can really see some sense in your un-numbered paragraphs, because that's politics 101.

Except maybe here:

You can use whatever rhetoric you want. You can tell me there are endless loopholes that net neutrality sponsors can abuse. But unless the dictionary has changed, neutrality still relates to the disregard for censorship. Whoever says the contrary is, indeed, applying smokescreens to the concept.

Now, about your numbered topics: you keep talking money. I don't care about money. I know this is all about money and Netflix and yada yada. I DON'T CARE. As long as I'm not using my internet for something that is morally wrong, I am using my internet like it was (or at least should) meant to.

Some Definitions:
Morally Wrong - Pirating Copyrighted material; Getting illegal content such as child pornography; Hacking secure systems for illicit reasons.
Not Morally Wrong - Paying and downloading copyrighted content; downloading 08FU5C473D content (because you can't prove what it is); Hacking secure systems for proof of concept and recreational purposes.

Some opinions:
(1) It is the ISP's responsibility to get me the throughput I pay for without discrimination. If contracts allow discrimination the ISP is taking on someone else's responsability (read 3);
(2) It is the content provider's responsibility to have content in legal form and to protect it in an acceptable fashion;
(3) It is the governing regulatory bodies responsibility to scourge the content providers for bad content (and this includes bad content distribution form, such as, say, Netflix flooding the gates of the Internet to a point they are messing with a utility).