ONLY TWICE!? I apply ROT-13 no less than 20 times, 30 for e-banking passwords.
These this will naturally become shuttles and taxi services almost immediately. Given the protests of Uber and Lyft, what will the outcry be for these?
Well, given that the protests against those companies are mostly policy-rooted and not technology-rooted, at this point it is almost impossible to tell. Are you suggesting that these shuttles and taxis will defy existing laws and fail to get licenses? Then, I would assume that the outcry will be the same. If these hypotehtical taxis get licensed, probably none.
Someone should enshrine that in some sort of high code of law upon which all other laws will be based in some sort of new democratic society...
Every iOS device has a dedicated AES 256-bit crypto engine built in that is used to encrypt all data on the device at all times. In addition, the iOS Cryptographic Modules have been granted FIPS 140-2 compliance by the U.S. federal government on devices running iOS 6.
Emphasis mine. Sounds like doublespeak to me.
If passcode-protected whole phone encryption is enabled, no one should be able to access that without the key. I guess they know how it works more than I do. They've even redefined encryption. It's "encrypted" just like everything else these days. I guess it's still technically encrypted even if everyone has a key.
I guess that's a reasonable response. It fits in with the notion that SVN stores much more information in the actual repository. In practice, there are a few issues, however.
In a controlled (read: corporate) environment, the architect or lead or integration person may feel ownership over the repository, and, therefore, resist the excess creation of personal branches. In any environment, it can create a lot of clutter in the repo which leads to cognitive noise. Branches will be merged back in, potentially leaving a messier looking history. With the stash/shelve feature, when the code is finally committed, it ends up looking more like a linear development line. This, again, reduces cognitive noise.
I think having special "stash branches" in an SVN-like repo is an intriguing idea.
You're not alone. Git is great, but has a terrible interface. I know many respectable and intelligent software engineers who find the interface difficult. It goes beyond RTFM. OTOH, SVN has an amazing interface. Very well thought out. I think SVN would be just as great as git if not better if it added in some of Git's features.
What's cool about git?
- Distributed and offline operation. Repositories are local and can be "synced" to one another when online. There can be a central repo with which everyone syncs, or syncs can happen between individuals' workstations. It's hard to describe to a someone who's never used distributed version control exactly why this is great beyond the offline part of it.
- The stash/shelve feature is sorely missing from SVN. Ever performed an updated with uncommitted changes? It sucks. If you stash beforehand, it drastically reduces the possibility that you lose any work, as you can systematically revert to the previous working state. This is a 100% client side solution, so could be added to SVN without breaking any compatibility.
- Staging. All files are manually chosen for commit before a commit. In the most basic form, tracked and modified files are not automatically committed). Staging is actually a little more useful than that, but I don't know if I can describe well enough how. Again, totally client side operation.
- Auto-merging excellence. Git does makes a lot more merging automatic by using more history in the merge process. This can be done by subversion, but is somewhat of a divergence from how Subversion has historically treated changes. Most people agree that the git way is smarter, and should probably influence SVN's future direction IMO. Git's merge strategy would be implementable completely in a client. SVN saves more information in the repo than git.
- Rebasing. This is essentially a combination of stashing and merging. When changes are made to an older version of the code, a developer needs to pull in the new software and then merge in his or her changes again. Rebasing does this automatically (essentially using stash before the update and the excellent git merge algorithm to reapply those changes to the updated code).
In conclusion, Git is great, but you're not crazy for finding the interface insurmountable.
There is no way to stop this that I can think of
Poison the well. A browser plugin could be created that identifies trackers and just shovels so much false information that it is practically very difficult to identify what the user actually did verses what was false.
Shit. I totally whiffed on DEA!
Heh. With the pace we're on, whether or not you have access to your DNA information and whether or not it's in your medical history, it will be in a database with essentially unfettered access by the NSA, FBI, TSA, ATF, CIA and probably the local police should their buddy the 5 term, hard-on-crime judge agree.
To counter your terminology argument, often in technology, backwards compatible is preferable to a redesign. Git redesigned the version control interface and that seems unnecessary. Only the most stubborn git users would say git has a better interface than subversion, which has an excellent one.
If subversion took the git lessons and added them in, it would be so much better than git ever could be. The stellar parts of git could be added into subversion more cleanly than vice versa.
To make me never think of git again, subversion needs:
- * distributed and offline operation (duh)
- * the stash/shelve feature (and might as well add in auto-stashing when an update is performed on a repo with changes)
- * staging for all commits (no auto-staging of known files anymore)
- * the auto-merging excellence of git
For git to be better than subversion with those features, it needs a complete redesign.
People sold their soul and got nothing in exchange. I'd rather have been the martyr than the inquisitor, and that's saying a lot.
The idea that they will just very likely not be "mine" at all is kinda discouraging, though.
That should be completely revolting to you.
This smacks of moral relativism. You could take the same scenario, and if it were the type of person (ethical or not) who CNN would interview, it's completely ethical. By the same token, something completely ethical (kinda) like starting a political party will look like an evil thing when coming from a guy who society deems "bad." It's unfortunate no one things for themselves anymore... or maybe it's not.
Eric Schmidt is in my top 10 worst people alive. When I say this, people treat me like I am a complete nutjob. I don't think the average Joe (even the average technically savvy Joe) really understands the power he wields from drone policy to dragnet surveillance. The man is a true facist at his very heart, and an enemy of every free man and woman.