So yes, they should be criticized, but they should be criticized for the ridiculously short certificate expiration times that result in them issuing so many certificates each day, not for the number of certificates per se. That silly policy decision inherently limits the amount of verification that they can do, so even if they wanted to do more, they can't.
Or possibly they know something that you don't.
The certificate revocation system is broken, doesn't work. CRLs didn't work for anything but the big sites and have been depreciated. OCSP doesn't work against man in the middle attacks, which is the primary attack vector.
What does work is the expiration date, once a certificate has expired it is safe. So you can improve things significantly by having a short certificate life span, shorter the better. To make this manageable you need to automate the acquisition, essentially build the letsencrypt system. 90 days is a compromise, they have been open about the fact once the automation is smoother that time frame will drop significantly.
Programs which hide (delete) menu entries based on state.
I once spent two days trying to figure out how to recover a low quality software raid disk because the recover menu entry had been deleted and the documentation was useless. The menu entry to start the recovery wasn't visible until the spare disk had been precisely configured as the software wanted. Of course with no feedback of that being the case I was left searching through the interface and floundering around until I managed to luck into the solution.
All over the world timber is sold using the undressed dimensions,
Not true. When I buy a board in Australia that advertises to be 10mm thick it is 10mm thick.
That is planed, made into a slotted floor board or rough. The only dimension that is ever wrong is the length, often a 2m board will be 2.2m, it is never less that advertised.
For what it is worth, which is nothing. Coding has never landed me a job no matter what I do.
The tech industry can suck the rancid shit out of my old bitter asshole. Fuck you all to hell, you fucking motherfuckers.
You should try writing decent code, and maybe working on your people skills.
It is nice of you to warn potential employers off though.
The logic of the court case isn't specific to the GPL, any licence you choose to distribute source with, or even a straight binary distribution would probably involve the creation of an implicit contract.
You shouldn't be scared of contracts, they are just a way for lawyers to formalise agreements. Buying a coffee - a contract. Buying a bus ticket - a contract. Agreeing to terms and conditions you never bothered to read - a contract.
Often you will see GPL projects that "allow" a corporate license.
The unwritten detail that you aren't seeing is that a GPL project that dual licences is almost exclusively developed by one company. It isn't a collaboration, because contributors provide their code under the GPL and that can't be included in the commercial product. This means that the GPL code is a gift by the company to the wider world with conditions which allow the company to continue to profit, they typically don't request significant contributions such as donations. The difference with a purely closed source company like Microsoft is that you, as the consumer, have a choice you otherwise wouldn't. For example you can use the GPL version for early development work and switch to the commercial license when you are sure you want to use the library and distribute a final product. The library development process closely mimics a standard closed source company.
Collaborative GPL products work very differently and are never dual licensed. The GPL provides a guarantee for each company contributing that every other company must also contribute. This allows direct competitors to cooperate on a product knowing that they aren't putting themselves at a disadvantage. These projects work very differently to the dual licensed ones, the development process is open to allow communication across multiple companies. They also take code contributions and sometimes financial contributions, often to maintain infrastructure.
I regularly have my company donate to many open source projects. These donations are pretty good (1-5k each) but we all fully agree that never in a million years would we donate to a GPL project or any over arching project ever.
Companies I have worked for have supported projects vital to our work. The license influences libraries we use and the way way we use them. If you are adamantly opposed to the GPL and don't rely on their work then it would make perfect sense not to direct your money or time there.
Not supporting a collaborative GPL project because of a few non-collaborative GPL projects just shows off your ignorance.
Lawyers call an agreement a contract.
The court has just affirmed what you said, Hancom publicly stated that they had agreed to the GPL. Thus there is a contract in place.
The contract has terms, defined by the GPL that Hancom agreed to. These terms were not complied with. Now we have a breach of contract.
Once a breach of contract has been established the case becomes much clearer, lots of existing case law which covers how it should be dealt with.
XSLT, dear god.
Does your workplace include nets on the stairs?
You are thinking from your experience of flying a bug smasher.
The airport is clearly designed for larger planes and would be managed by a tower.
Most of your issues are solved by simply doing as the tower instructs.
Landing on a runway with a curve is certainly doable, I've known pilots to land on all sorts of odd surfaces. Many of the issues about traction etc. can be trivially solved by making the circle a bit bigger.
The excitement of managing the airspace is touched upon in the Business Insider article but not really fleshed out and I believe handling it in practice would diminish many of the suggested benefits.
The standard single runway is currently managed with a basic queue (simplified version). The planes circle in large loop around the airport. The airspace controller lines them up on a fixed marker above the end of the runway and they are passed on to the control tower for the landing. Take off is the same in reverse, they lift off, fly to a fixed marker and are then handed from the tower to the airspace controller.
Running a circular runway with three approaches would be doable, you would have three fixed approach markers, the same process would be used. Issues like turbulence from adjacent planes would need to be managed but this is standard in a multi-runway airport and would actually be greatly improved compared to two parallel approaches.
Once you start rotating the approaches with the wind things start getting far more exciting. Dynamic marker points aren't going to work, too much communication required and futzing around to communicate the approach point to every plane. So you are going to have to have multiple fixed sets, keeping it simple with only 3 options, 3 approach markers, 3 departure markers you have a total of 27 waypoints in a tight area around the airport. The odds of a plane flying to the wrong waypoint is huge (multiply it out by the number of flights a day, the number of passengers in a plane etc) and the consequences catastrophic, without extensive changes to the way planes are managed the risks are just far too high.
He may well be a troll. Entirely possible. But the videos I've thus far seen were not of a trollish cast, and the "Death to All Jews" one in particular is not remotely anti-semitic. [trimmed ad hominem attack]
I didn't say he was anti-semitic, I don't believe that he is. I said that he is an attention whore. The entire reason he asked for THAT phrase to be written was to get a reaction.
If he was truly horrified by what he and they did, as he claimed in the video, he could have solved the problem by simply not posting the video. Instead he posted it and got waves of free publicity.
This is part of a campaign:
I am disgusted by this article, almost as disgusted as I am at myself taking the time to respond to it.
PewDiePie is a professional attention whore and it is fascinating to watch him ply his craft. This latest response is perfectly timed, just as the flames were dying down he fans them and gets another round of attention.
He is a troll and like any troll the way to defeat it is by ignoring it.
Some conferences are great for sharing ideas, meeting people in the field and learning some really awesome stuff. Most of these make recordings of the talks available but being there and being able to chat to a speaker over breakfast or a talking with someone over a beer who is tackling the same problems you are can be invaluable. You learn about new techniques, new approaches, the latest trick from field Y which may be applicable to your field X and just have a really good time.
Some conferences are shit money grabs which operate as scams and should be avoided. As a hint, look at the reputation for the conference and who is paying. If companies can buy ('sponsor') speaker slots then you are going to be subjected to sales pitches.
A good employer wants a happy employee that grows within the company, expanding their skills and adding more value over time. They can't be too concerned that you will get poached, if you are not happy you are going to leave anyway. Sending you to a conference is a way of investing in you, increasing your skill level and making you a more valuable employee.
6.023 x 10 to the 23rd power alligator pears = Avocado's number