Moats can look good and can be crossable only at slower speeds:
Like I said in a previous post, infra-red imaging of the inner planets in our solar system shows them heating up at a rate similar to Earth. But, say that out loud and people like you friggin flip out.
Evidence? We measure the sun fairly carefully, so it would have to be in disagreement with those measurements: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Everyone has been spying on everyone for at least a couple of centuries.
Nothing's changed, other than public awareness of espionage.
But it is obviously not the same becuse of the scale. The reach and power of the spying have increased dramatically along with the general reach and power of technology. Spying has always happened but the nature of the beast transforms at certain levels of scale and pervasiveness. You could assume that if you "had nothing to hide" in a free society you were generally safe from surveillance because it wasn't worth the effort, that is no longer the case. You could assume that the means of surveillance were effectively limited to nation states, not to anyone with some technical proficiency. Things are not the same.
How does the IoT handle security problems? That seems the biggest stumbling block.
"Dumb" things have an important advantage in that they can't be hacked and remotely controlled - especially without your knowing.
The current maintenance nightmare of securing networked devices is already overwhelming (me) and the effects of being hacked are already incredibly expensive. I'm not sure the value gained from IoT is worth it.
Perhaps if the devices were not update-able and only sent and recieved particular commands... but then you lose some of the value that IoT promises?
I would expect both "open source" code to be of approximately equal quality to proprietary code. In each ideology you will get people who care (about quality), and people who don't, in approximately equal proportions, the same with skill, ingenuity and passion for the work.
The difference is that proprietary software is constrained by the number of developers able to view and work on the code. An open source project may have a similar number, or smaller set of core developers, but a much larger pool of developers that can spot problems, suggest alternatives, fix the one bug that is affecting them, etc. Having a more diverse set of developers will increase the chances that the software improves.
You could also make an argument about the motivations of the developers. Open source projects are often a community of people passionate about what they are building and have a strong incentive to make their code readable by others. By the nature of open source a developers reputation is on the line with every bit of code they make public. I've met far more developers scared to make their horrible code public than those worried about getting fired for equivalently horrible code.
For those that didn't read the article, there are a few important points to clarify:
Feinstein's staff is being (falsely) accused of hacking/spying on CIA since they got their hands on some documents the CIA did not want them to have: namely the CIA's own internal investigation of the documents being released to the senate investigation. It seems like the "search tool" provided to the senate staff picked up more than the CIA thought it would. The staffers smartly made their own copy of these docs (as previous evidence had disappeared) and then the CIA did a search of the investigations computers without seemingly any authority to do so.
The final twist is that the CIA internal investigation supposedly agrees with the senate investigation, while publically the CIA disagrees. Feinstein basically has them over a barrel, plus they pushed their luck to try and escape the trap and got themselves in deeper with the potentially highly illegal search.
It also seems likely that the CIA lawyer who allowed all the CIA torture is heavily involved now in trying to save his own ass.
Math, algorithms and data strctures are not really the critical thing to learn for web development. Hopefully your grads are not starting out architecting anything complicated but instead following best practices and good workflow and leaving the majority of the algorithm architecting to people with much more experience and training.
The important thing to teach are the best practices in web component composition and workflow. These are also rapidly changing, with many competiting tools, but in a consistent direction: modular, testable components as services on top of robust development infrastructure including source control (git), code reviews, continuous integration, rapid, numerous deploys wth no downtime etc. There are lot of good resources about this, but the key thing is to see it in practice, to get hooked on how good workflow and a focus on code quality can make your work a joy instead of a nightmare. There is a huge amount to learn about the latest web development processes, but students (like yours) should be helped to paddle out and get on top of the wave so they can keep riding it - not be taught liquid mechanics or how to build a surfboard.
My dream web dev class would have one website that is built many ways but with similar workflow and final result. Rails stack, python stack, php stack, node stack, etc all using the same assets. Enough versions of the same site that all the students can work in groups to implement the same thing on each stack. Teach what is the same between the stacks (e.g. MVC), without the details of the stack's implementation of that concept and you'll be teaching a lesson that they can carry with them for a long time. Although that might be too difficult for people who haven't done any programming ever, but I think I'd enjoy that class. Regardless, you should have some code that implements a real website with real workflow that they can learn from.
Couldn't find much about cancer rates except people repeating that particular line. However, this seems reiable and seems pretty deadly:
"Samples taken around the perimeter of Agbogbloshie, for instance, found a presence of lead levels as high as 18,125 ppm in soil."
"No safe threshold for lead exposure has been discovered—that is, there is no known sufficiently small amount of lead that will not cause harm to the body."
Sorry to reply to self, but the GP said: "The blame lies of course with politicians and industry regulators who had no clue what an immense influence personal computing would have on society until it was too late."
This isn't the case, the blame lies squarely on Gates, et al, who couldn't imagine how to run a successful software business using free software. They thought it was impossible, and perhaps for people of their ethical character it is. They have been proven wrong, ethically lacking and incredibly short sighted countless times.
I'm surprised this is (currently) marked as flamebait, this is essentially the sad truth of Gates, Jobs, Ellison, etc choosing to create a proprietary software industry rather than a free software economy (that has been proven to allow for successful businesses but without the horrible costs to the customers). Gates in particular may have had a choice to be remembered throughout human history as the great uplifter, the bringer of empowerment and freedom through software, a sort of software Ghandi / MLK, if he had run MS like Red Hat, etc.
It has become obvious over time which ecosystem is free, open, vibrant, and diverse and which puts corporate control, profits and lock-in first. Developers by in large want freedom to make what they want and proprietary software ecosystems have a feel of authoritarianism that is hated. Regardless if your Pappy was killed by Microsoft, or any oppressive regime, you fight for your own freedom, your children and the hope that no one will ever again be in a situation where their Pappy is killed (presumably because he was a threat to the regime). It is a complete rejection of an ideology that chooses control over liberty.
"The kids these days" that reject Microsoft and other proprietary regimes out of hand are an indication that the lessons from the sacrifices and hard fought non-violent struggle of the free software movement are starting to sink in. At some point we may be lucky enough to not have any of these authoritarian software companies around and instead enjoy a renaissance in software.
"Outside of our borders, the NSA's more aggressive. It's not constrained by laws."
and how is that working out for your foreign relations?
This. I find it appalling that this is seen as acceptable. The surveillance power that is now possible is not equivalent to anything we've seen before and changes the nature of the "lawless" foreign surveillance. Surveillance of foreigners used to mean having them spy on you when visiting their country plus some high value target monitoring in their own countries, but the cost and risk of surveillance enforced the selective nature of it. To treat every foreigner like an enemy is madness. For the most part non-US citizens felt that the US was an ally or at least harmless. Now the day-to-day decisions of all those people will take into account that the US is actively working against them. It won't be long before that is ingrained into the culture, tools and business practices of the rest of the world. Imagine the US being thought of as a worldwide Stasi: the day-to-day the common sentiment amongst the rest of the world will be "%*$k the US".
I just don't buy this argument. Do you also think that if the corporations decided to limit executive pay voluntarily they would have trouble enforcing that? How is limiting executive pay different from limiting pay for all the other classes of employees? If there is a difference then how is that difference a benefit for the organization? Best in class non-executive workers are obtainable at lower rates, why would attracting the best executive talent require different pay scales?
More importantly, since history shows pay rates in relation to others has changed significantly while the effectiveness of the executives has not, it is simply an evolution of a business culture oddity, not a business principle at stake here. It may be a cultural mistake that cannot be corrected internally, but needs significant external pressure (preferrably from competitive markets, but regulation will do) to enact change.
Lack of (free) competition creates opportunities for exploiters to siphon ill-gained money into their own pockets at all levels of the corporation, but it's always easiest for those that control the money flow to enrich themselves first. However, there is no reason why you can't use external controls to make it harder for exploiters when the organizations are weaken from lack of compeition.
There is nothing equal about taking from one and giving to the other. (...) What matters is the wealth and progression of the middle class and the freedom to move freely through the classes, based on ones' abilities and desires.
But reality is more messy than that, there are all sorts of people whose abilities and skills (ranked on how useful or desired by others) are a poor match for today's society. Having a system that only rewards those who fit in best is a recipe for disaster and dehumanizing/neglecting those that don't fit in / are less fit. Diversity is longterm strength, but more importantly we have the capability for rational compassion and care for others and the wealth to make supporting everyone a minor burden at worst. Anyone who has experience with family who cannot succeed financially, but brings them great joy otherwise could tell you how important compassion and care for others is for their entire family.
Setting up a system that takes away the fears and worries about living with a decent quality of life: food, shelter, health care, meaningful work, etc brings unimaginable, but generally indirect (until something terrible happens directly to you or your family), benefits to all. Think reduced crime, more opportunity for someone to make the thing you've always wanted, etc. In a perfect world, this would be common sense and giving and support of others would be voluntary, but (especially in societies that emphasize the rightness of owning and hording regardless of the impact on others) the enforcing of distribution of wealth is a useful but blunt tool.
In addition, in this particular example, capping pay has a direct benefit to the companies: the last sort of person we want running a large business/organization that is designed to outlast their tenure is someone motivated strongly by financial incentives. That sort of leader is a real risk to the organization as they will always make mistakes in their favour rather than sacrifice for the organization.