moving people into STEM that would otherwise work in lower paid occupations.
While I can agree that the perspective is a bit protectionist, that would not pan out that way. Generally speaking, improving wages overall is either not going to happen, or happen because of inflation. While very rarely is something a zero sum game in economics, it also is the case that it doesn't at least somewhat behave like a zero sum situation. It's not necessarily a bad thing for society in general, but one should not pretend for a second that such moves would magically enable everyone to get six-figure standard of living.
Though I'm not usually dealing with Microsoft platforms, I have enough experience with it to consider classifying it as 'legacy' in any sort of universal way an odd proposition. It is after all *the* first-party supported development framework for Microsoft platforms, very much continuing to be supported and developed by a pretty important market force (like it or not).
Of course 'Legacy' is mostly in the eye of the beholder. About the only place 'Legacy' seems to have unambiguous meaning is within a single development organization replacing/phasing out projects they control. COBOL continues to see pretty significant deployments and is actively being enhanced, though most people in the industry would consider that 'Legacy'. Similar story for Fortran. A number of languages that don't get so much 'glory' these days continue to play important roles in particular segments and continue to be developed. There are those that would consider PHP 'legacy' and others just moving onto the platform. If you try to name a platform that by popular opinion is almost certainly totally 'Legacy' you'll probably discover not only some groups doing new development in the language, but some companies or projects actually continuing to enhance the language for others. Basically, if you can remember it, it by some definition is probably still alive.
It is at least a kinda clever idea, unlike many patents we hear about on
To say it's 'export controlled' is an oversimplification of the restrictions around working with those nations.
But in simple terms, this is about *contributors*, not downloading. And if it weren't an issue, then Fedora people wouldn't be trying to game it for plausible deniability (which of course doesn't work when you say "Hey everyone, I want to be able to claim plausible deniability so could you just omit some information so I can do that?"
Twin doctors, one eats nothing but fats and the other eats nothing but carbs, for a month. They document it, they work out, they do tests.
The result (spoiler alert), either is not great. Eating only fat cannibalizes your muscles, and makes you not get any enjoyment out of food. Whereas eating only carbs makes you feel hungrier all the time.
But their conclusion had a twist, the main problem is processed foods that have a 50/50 mix of fat and carbs. An excellent example is whipped cream. Your body would reject you drinking pure cream, and also pure sugar. But mix them together, and you cant stop eating it! Same with many of our favourite foods, ice cream, doughnuts. All have the 50/50 mix that vendors long ago realized was the most addictive mix. Your body basically never gets the signal to stop eating.
Anyone who is interested should check it out.
While I agree that a government is almost certainly not behind this and thoughts that it is are people thinking a bit too much of BitCoin. That said, hypothetically I could see why a government would choose an underhanded way to bring down something like this compared to overt regulation.
Consider that bitcoin is in no small part driven by people fanatically thinking fiat currency is the devil (for some very literally calling the dollar the mark of the beast) and that gold standard or something like that is 'the' answer to all that ails any economy. Explicitly banning it bears the risk of inducing the supporters to say 'see, told you so!' (even though there are very practical reasons to not let it get carried away, the reasons are sufficiently complicated and nuanced that it would be hard to simply explain).
Of course, knowing precisely why an unregulated currency of this nature is a bad idea would leave the opportunity for a government to cause it to collapse by exploiting those flaws. Most likely the flaws are just naturally being exploited because you don't have to give crooks a big reason to be crooks, but it is a strategy that might be more effective than blanket laws.
You're at a computer! And if you're on Slashdot probably more than 8 hours a day!
I think bitcoin will succeed like email!
no utilities of your own written specifically for this purpose.
Why not? That is *precisely* what wolfram did here. He designed the 'language' and decided 'gee it would be nice to have a first class function for travelling salesman', and then when he goes to demo, he whips that out to say 'look at this obscure capability omitted from most languages'. This may be useful, but being excited around the linecount is not something compelling in this case, as it shows no particularly exciting grammer/syntax stuff, just that Wolfram deemed 'travelling salesman' a problem worthy of being a first class function in the namespace.
Pretty much anyone can submit an IETF RFC if they really want. The existence of a draft does not guarantee a ratified version will exist someday.
For another, it could be much worse. There is explicit wording at least here about seeking consent from the user and allowing opt-out even in the 'captive' case, as well as notifying the actual webserver of this intermediary, and that the intermediary must use a particular keyusage field meaning that some trusted CA has explicitly approved it (of course, the CA model is pretty horribly ill-suited for internet scale security, but better than nothing). Remember how Nokia confessed they silently and without consent had their mobile browser hijack and proxy https traffic without explicitly telling the user or server? While something like this being formalized wouldn't prevent such a trick, it would be very hard to defend a secretive approach in the face of this sort of standard being in the wild.
Keep in mind that in a large number of cases in mobile, the carriers are handing people the device including the browser they'll be using. A carrier could do what Nokia admits to in many cases without the user being the wiser and claim the secretive aspect is just a side effect today. If there was a standard clearly laying out that a carrier or mobile manufacturer should behave a certain way, that defense would go away.
I would always elect the 'opt out' myself, but I'd prefer anything seeking to proxy secure traffic be steered toward doing things on the up and up rather than pretending no one will do it and leaving the door open for ambiguous intentions.
Gracenote sounds familiar, but they are the ones who commercialized CDDB! Also now they are owned by sony.
That's the problem with these for profit companies. Now everyone is selling my meta data, for lookups that I had never even considered left a footprint. Hopefully my DNS servers are not thinking of commercializing my metadata! how far can they go in search of every last scrap of profit? commercialize ntp! why the fuck not!!!! profit profit profit! stocks go up up up!!!
Even if it did need to have something like IR cameras to observe IR leds in the headset (or vice-versa, as the Wii did), I don't think it would be too bad.
They have gyroscopic in there already. That's how they can do yaw and such. Still does nothing to help you with linear movement.