You got it wrong. Getting elected is how to get the American media to control you.
Forget any real editing, the editors don't even use the "preview" button.
Yeah, but what you pay extra for dimensions, you save on sides.
The secure vs trustworthy issue is a fundamental flaw with HTTPS where both encryption and authenticity are meshed into the same protocol. Most places don't really need its authenticity validated (and really, the only way authenticity can be assured these days is with certificate pinning and advanced notice of cert changes, so the authenticity features of HTTPS aren't as reliable as they appear). But it'd be good to have the communications itself secure. But there aren't any alternatives, so even if it's a wrecking ball, it's better than nothing.
As for proxy filtering, you could always try filtering on the client side instead. For example, AdBlock allows you to block individual externally-loaded elements. And I don't use it myself, but I hear GreaseMonkey may have the functionality you're looking for.
Caching only works with static content anyway, and a good chunk of the web has largely moved onto dynamic, real time or near-real time content.
Also, note that caching methods like Google Cache and Coral Cache have no issues with encryption, as they can access a site via HTTPS separately, store the page's contents, and then serve the information back to whoever requests it. It's not as convenient as automatically caching at an intermediate hop, but it still works for situations where there's a sudden localized spike in traffic to a particular page.
Besides which, now that everybody has easy access to data centers all over the world, caching can (and arguably should) be done by the site administrators rather than by a server admin in between.
So your concerns aren't really valid. If you want to cache on your server and then serve the cached pages from your server as if the client was hitting the real site, well, tough shit. That was only feasible during the innocent days of the internet. Now, it's called MITM and frowned upon.
No, that's MapReduce. Hadoop is a distributed data store. Or a distributed file store optimized for large files.
It's not a database. It certainly isn't database management software. It won't manage your data for you. Even the myriad of tools built to run on top of it are nowhere near effective at it. Rather, they're more data consumers than data managers.
People are emotional creatures who lack internal consistency.
News at 11.
It's a shame the theaters caved to the threats. But the movie looks pretty bad from the previews and just because of the cowardice of some corporate heads won't make me suddenly change my mind and acquire a sudden desire to spend 2 hours of my life watching it. There are better ways of showing any outrage I might have over this matter.
For starters, I could go see a different movie (one presumably I'd want to see) in a theater that's playing The Interview on a different screen. Or not do anything special because all this really is none of my business to begin with.
Torrent sites might start running as TOR hidden services. It's just torrent files and magnet links they're hosting anyway. As long as the actual P2P traffic doesn't go over TOR, it wouldn't kill the system.
Actually, if TOR-enabled BT clients were to also automatically act as TOR bridge relays, that would really beef up TOR's resources.
The real cost of the service is $90 per line. The other $45 is subsidized by the NSA.
How's your job look now, keyboard monkey?
Considering I (and most other people here) have neither acting nor comedic talent, still pretty damn good. Especially since everybody wants talented programmers, I know I don't have to be waiting tables or doing odd jobs in between gigs, because there wouldn't be any time in between gigs, and even if there were, it'd be on my terms like a sabbatical.
Now, if I wasn't particularly good at programming, I'd probably be a bit more nervous. But because I got into a field I'm good at (and consequently enjoy doing), I wouldn't even consider doing anything else, no matter how glamorous another job might appear. There's a lot of money and glamor in management too, but I'm not one for navigating local political landscapes either (and I know the same applies to a lot of engineers and programmers out there).
If you're looking for an entertainment career, it's a roll of the dice. If you get lucky, you make it big. If you don't, you're stuck doing bit parts and odd jobs. For STEM, you won't hit it big, but the work's steady and the pay's acceptable (unless you're in academia in which case you might hit it big but the pay'll be shit in the meantime). If I had both STEM and entertainment talent, that would be how I'd weigh my career options anyway. Fortunately, having only STEM talent means this life choice isn't applicable to my situation.
Also note that entertainment is a subset of liberal arts in general. There are a ton of literature, history, "business", and other majors who also have no entertainment talent, and as such have significantly diminished employment prospects outside of academia. In which case, burgers and fries it is.
There's nothing quite as fast as the old school method of yanking the cord.
obviously without testing to Western standards
That's actually not fair. There's a good chance the supplier mixed in some bad cables with good ones. The percentage of bad cables could be small (10% or less). In which case, it may not come out even with the most rigorous of testing, unless every unit shipped out was tested.
Here, nobody'd ever do such a thing because the backlash (fines, public perception, etc.) would put the entire company out of business. In China, even such a small increase in profit is worth it because they can pocket the difference and start up a whole new company afterwards.
The lack of corporate accountability is the real issue here, not the lack of testing.
It is a complete straw man. GP is talking about liability, whereas TFA is talking about the illegality of circumventing electronic protections.
These are two completely different things. If GP is advocating for the anti-circumvention measures of the DMCA, GP would be advocating for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not cool.
Lying about certs is pretty bad, since it can be verified. But if you talk and act like you know what you're doing, there are plenty of people out there who'd be willing to hire you with or without certs. A lot of managers are pretty superficial, and good presentation is more than sufficient.
The thing is, usually, the job you get hired into won't be that demanding. A manager who can't tell know who's bullshitting and who isn't probably won't have terribly challenging work, no matter what the job descriptions say (because said manager probably pulled a bunch of buzzwords out of his ass for it anyway).
It's not a career, but it's enough to get by. And experience has taught me most of the world really just wants to "get by." It's a sad but not unreasonable fact of life.
Something about the necessary pressure perhaps?
It's like making diamonds. You need both the carbon, the heat, and the pressure. Geothermal vents only have two of the three (though they may spit out diamonds).
I'm just speculating. But I would imagine that if they thought geothermal was sufficient, they would have considered it. Of course, who knows, maybe it's the "science" journalist who's sensationalizing everything.