FBI: We got the evidence through illict methods, so here is a nice little story we made up that is designed to be difficult to argue against.
The Yes and Better Together campaigns have sensationalised both sides of the argument, it has been very unfortunate that unbiased and impartial facts and information have been so out of reach. While I have no doubt the owner of the startup TFA is talking to has a much greater depth of knowledge in his field than a mere CompSci student like myself and if he feels a no vote is best for his company, then who am I to argue but some of his points are borderline repeat drivile of 'the world is going to fall down' propoganda that have been relented on Scotland increasingly as the referendum has got closer. It worked well for Canada, so it was to be expected for the No side at least. That said..
For tech start-ups, funding will be tougher to find and more expensive, there will be no local banks, access to EU markets and the freedom of movement will be curtailed.
His first argument about funding, who the hell even knows, he might be right, he might be wrong, it could be exactly the same. That really all depends on the policies of a government that would get voted in next year after a yes vote. Nobody has any idea what party that would be or what policies that party might have. Banks are going absolutely nowhere, two banks (RBS and Lloyds, who are both overwelmingly owned by the UK government is must be mentioned) have said they would move their registered address to London, and quite frankly this is a good thing. Their reckless gambling in part of the economic crash almost brought the UK economy in to chaos. We, the UK taxpayer woke up that day to be informed we bailed them out to the tune for trillions of pounds, and we better just deal with it. Of course it is in their best interests to be registered with a government who will tolerate such recklessness. The biggest threat to Scotland's membership of the EU is the UK wide referendum proposed in 2017. The current Scottish government has spent the last parliment drafting European Law in to Scots Law to make the process as easy as possible. Many of the arguments used to say rentry to the EU after a yes vote would take so long are based around examples like Turkey who are just a mile off meeting the many requirements set for EU entry.
Some countries may veto Scotland's entry into the EU because "they do not want their own secessionist regions to go for independence,"
Some countries with their own scessionist regions wanting independence have already stated that if Scotland votes for independence it will have no problem agreeing to her entry to the EU because the referendum is taken place in full agreement with the UK government. (He is referring to Catalonia in Spain)
Rest of the UK needs their nukes and has no place to put them.
A deal would be done where Scotland keeps the nukes on her shores until a suitable replacement site can be built, this would take a least 10 years, it's been suggested privately already by some Tory minister (I'm sure it was The Guardian that ran the story at the time). That said, this is all moot since the vote isn't going to pass unfortunetly.
But I'm a white male. I have nothing Google wants.
Modded parent funny, assuming sarcasm now I'm not so sure..
No, just no. The quality of OSS is too bad. Well, let's not say bad per se, but it varies a lot. What you win in software licensing costs, you lose in fighting all the bugs. Too many of your support calls will be wasting your time with silly glitches.
Unity (back in 2011 remember) is a very twisted example to go for, a piece of very immature software. Part of Ubuntu 11.10 which was an non LTS release. If any IT manager deploys that in the first place you've got much bigger problems than painful support calls.
Holy crap you have to actually compile it yourself! What is the world coming to? You mean hacking isn’t just plugging stuff together?
OK the thing has problems, that’s news. But if compiling is considered hard, well, it’s hard to see you as a nerd.
RTFA. The patches are a mess, don't compile cleanly and the wireless driver is missing. Rendering it an expensive paperweight.
This doesn't negate the fact that this was their favorite vulnerability. Realistically most intelligence services probably new about this shortly after that commit.
How so was it their "favorite vulnerability"? Is there even a shread of evidence linking them with it? Exploits exist in code - we found a big bad one - great. Many white hats will have looked at the code and not noticed the flaw. That doesn't mean the NSA were using it. I'm not for a moment saying the NSA wouldn't use a similar exploit but there's nothing special about Heartbleed.
It's the comedy that doesn't stop giving!