I would find that level of sophistication very unlikely, your average ISP's branded end-user box is put together from the cheapest pieces of shit they've been able to find.
And they have no reason to care about the power consumption of end-user equipment, they're not paying for that power.
You could always run only the non-shitty code outside the sandbox.
Good luck with that. Particularly, with the part of figuring out which software is good enough to not require a sandbox. And that's before considering the bugs your sandbox has.
Nobody ever got fired for using Microsoft..
Seems like a management oversight. I would be shocked to find that I have to pay for upgrades every couple of years.
- If I view the nightly report on the bus on my way to work (flaky internet connectivity, is the dashboard mobile optimized?)
- If I am resposible for watching reports for multiple sites (I don't want to learn 10 different url/username/password combos for 10 different dashboards + learn to use each one of them)
- If I need to forward the report to someone else (I don't want to give my personal username/password away)
- If I need someone else to temporarily take over watching the reports (ditto. It's just easier to set up mail forwarding than to get an extra temporary user account)
- If the dashboard uses something fancy like websockets to work that require me to ask the IT department to pop holes to firewall?
- If I need to see backwards in history and the dashboard doesn't provide that (as already mentioned above)?
- If the dashboard is just something someone threw up in one afternoon after lunch, with no consideration of contents and usability.
- If the dashboard is continuously "improving", i.e. they keep hiding the things I want to see every two weeks.
Try behaving like a seven-year-old in grown man's body (on the webs doesn't count), see how that works for you. Your older peers will be a bigger threat to you (and you to them) than disesase and predators.
Perhaps not, but the supposed "crime" was falsely shouting "fire", and the panic would have happened even if there really was a fire. In any case, no one forced the other patrons to panic. If they did, it was entirely their own fault, and they—not whoever shouted "fire"—are wholly responsible for the consequences.
My understanding of the "shouting fire" metaphore is that it generally assumes it's a false alarm, but I may be wrong. If there really is a fire, the situation becomes very different (there is damage potential for announcing the fact, but there is a larger damage potential for not doing it).
I see this boils down to free will of pepole in a situation they perceive threatening. My understanding about panic (a physical reaction turning off the decision making parts of your brain in a threatening situation, since the decision has already been made: there's a fire, get out now), is that you don't choose whether you get it or not. It depends on how prone you are to get in panic (something you do not have a choice in), and how threatening exactly you consider the situation (in which you do have some choice, by of practicing the situation beforehand).
If we look at the situation statistically, in a full theater there's likely several people who panic at the prospect of being burned alive while queuing for the exit (or by the fact that they may get trampled by other panicing people). The situation is set up in a way that there's direct damage potential from someone shouting a false alarm.
Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater necessarily leads directly to the harm of others
Nope. Wrong. Panicking and trampling over people does that, but it's not the speaker who directly made them do that.
So that mass panic in the theater would have happened anyway, without anyone shouting "fire"?
Looking at the events after they're happened, we can conclude that someone unnecessarily shouting "fire" in a crowded theater was a sufficient condition (thus, leading) to people getting hurt. Was it a necessary condition for people getting hurt that way? Common sense says it was.. also anyone who's looking someone to blame.
Before someone shouts it out? No way of knowing what will happen.
If you offer an incentive (survive a theatre fire / money) to someone for committing a crime (trampling someone to death / shooting someone), did you cause it, or was it all on the person who committed the act?
How about this: If you find yourself needing a firewall, your system design has already failed. Every single system should assume actively hostile environment.
I can only repeat your original subject.
This is network security for Windows 101.
I expect server side JS to be about as passing fad as writing operating systems in C.
It's not great for typical cron jobs or admin scripts. What it is great for, is small server damons. The single threaded everything-is-asynchronous model works so well for that, you don't want to go back once you get started.
I admit that your government's spending may be excessive, at least it seems to be driven more by partisan politics than rational thinking. The point I was trying to make was a different one: increasing the minimum wage to match actual minimum living costs won't be cause of hyper-inflation. The point I tried to make in my reply to OP was to present some counter-arguments for the unfairness he saw in raising the minimum wage. My view is that the status quo where people end up working on such a low compensation that their personal finance situation is unsustainable, is already unfair. When the market doesn't fix that by itself, someone needs to step up and take action. I'm not confident that a blanket minimum wage is the correct action, but it's an attempt.
Busineses escaping when their operating environment gets worse, is always a risk. Then on the other hand, it's been a while since the US has been the cheapest place in the world to do anything, so it seems that risk is there anyway. And for a local economy, people moving out because they don't earn enough to live there (or alternatively, get hungry in sufficient numbers to riot on the streets), is a risk also.
a) Congratulations, you're now more of a burden to your employer than you were before, and at higher risk of losing your job entirely when he/she decides it's no longer profitable to run a business.
What will the employer do after he shuts down the business, sit on his hands? I think he has to earn his living somehow, too. Entrepreneurs are not magic fairies (well, most of them aren't).
b) Um, inflation has to be managed, or else it wrecks the economy. Google Weimar or Zimbabwe hyperinflation and get a bit of an education on real world economics.
I didn't say inflation doesn't need to be managed. I said, inflation is inevitable. If you go to zero inflation, there's no incentive to invest. Money stops moving. Economy is screwed.
I know of hyperinflation. To get into one, you need serious economy mismanagement. A 100 million americans going from $10/hr to $15/hr is not going to have that effect. Assuming 40 hour working weeks, 52 weeks a year, the difference is about 1 trillion, or about 6% of the GDB of US (2012). Spread that over a couple of years, and you're well within "normal" inflation, and nowhere near hyperinflation.
c) Slacking in any job long-term doesn't help anyone. The employer gets less value, and the employee's skills don't develop. It's the formula for mediocrity, which you are advocating for gleefully.
Wait, what? Did you even read my post before replying?