A lot of software developers are doing what RMS says a lot of time. It's just that almost noone does it all the time.
It's clearly evident from the amount of GNU and GPL software out there that wasn't written by RMS that people are following his ideas. And that those ideas have succeeded, simply by the success of that same software in the marketplace.
It's not a failure of the ideal when developers of open source also write proprietary software to pay the bills.
I bought a Lenovo X131e Chromebook second hand for exactly that purpose. Went online for the instructions to boot it into developer mode so I could change the OS
I now have a device that runs ChromeOS and nothing else. So it's going to get sold on to the next victim. Make sure if you do buy one for this purpose that you really are able to change the OS.
The Open Web Application Security Project website is a great place to start browsing from, to investigate both pen testing and secure development.
I would also recommend getting some familiarity with the PCI DSS standard. It is aimed at companies involved in online payments (and a bitch if you have to prove compliance.) However when used as a descriptive framework rather than a prescriptive one, it's great foundation for planning a company's IT security aspect.
I'm sure there's a bunch of other security standards for other industries that could be used in much the same way. A good security consultant should at least be able to name check them.
Who else remembers, back in the day, when whistleblowers used to escape from Russia and seek political asylum in the USA?
I feel old.
Most of use are aware of not-invented-here syndrome, but the opposite problem is perhaps equally troublesome. We can get stuck in the mindset that there must be a product, library, or code sample, that already does what we want. Instead of just writing the code we need a lot of effort is spent testing out modules and trying to accommodate our own code. At some point we need to just say, “stop!”, and write the code ourselves.
Link to Original Source
Consider a horse that isn't stupid.
Trust me, the only reason anyone can ride an animal that weighs more than 1,000 pounds and can kill us with a single kick is because they are stupid.
So I can dual boot two actually useful operating systems.
Mac OS X for video editing, Linux for development - and nearly everything else, really.
We are already 'engineering the climate' - we're just doing it randomly and without plan.
If the price of oil goes down and everybody starts burning more of it, we're engineering the climate with more CO2.
If we chop down hundreds of square miles of amazon rain forest and replace it with cattle ranches we're engineering the climate with more methane.
If we want to start engineering the climate in a more directed manner, we MUST control these activities as well. Trying to control some of the strings while others are being yanked in a haphazard manner is not a practical approach.
The Kyoto Protocol has many critics - and with reason. It is clumsy, largely ineffectual and tainted by accusations of corruption. But real practical climate engineering will only be achieved by some sort international cooperation along these lines.
Every laptop has one built in.
Harmony in music is based almost directly on the simplicity of the ratio of the frequencies of notes in a chord.
Octave = 1/2
Fifth = 2/3
Fourth = 3/4
Major Third = 4/5
Minor Third = 5/6
and so on.
Their are certain cultural anomalies; For example our our preference for three notes in a simple chord (first, third and fifth) means that fourths are generally considered slightly more disharmonious that thirds, due to their relationship to the third and the fifth.
Also the intervals in most instruments are fudged slightly to make the work in any key. This practice started with Bach I believe.
The point, of course, is that it is not that surprising that harmony is more universal that human culture. The mathematics that underlies harmony is more universal than human culture.
Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up and settle the case for a portion of their money. “They’re going after people who are really not criminals,” said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. “They’re middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.”
The article describes several specific cases, all of which are beyond egregious and are in fact entirely unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is very clear about this: The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation.