JS on the server is clearly big contender for PHP: it's great for quick and dirty prototyping, awful for large projects, and significantly faster than PHP.

JS is the perfect recipe for language lock-in that's even stronger than PHP: front end developers already "know" it, they write a botched version of the backend code that 10 years later turns into an incomprehensible behemoth; any attempt to rewrite it will be rejected for "performance" reasons.

What you need to expect in a case like this (assuming you can pull the perfect crime, technically speaking, and leave no digital tracks) is be prepared to face the most vicious face of law enforcement. The officers will know you did it, but they will have no proof, so they will push you to the extreme, for months or years, until they get a confession. They will ransack your home, multiple times, harass your employers and loved ones, etc. All in all, not a good side project for a geek with no soft skills.

I mean, if you can pull the perfect cybercrime and resist the best prosecutors in town, then why not hack into City Bank and transfer a billion dollars to some nice old lady in Russia ? Surely a billion dollars is better than some momentary satisfaction. You can even set aside 500 million for the purpose of bankrupting your ex employer.

The "knowledge" is no longer useful or monetizable in a world where a 20$ GPS device can do a better job and an internet connected device can do a perfect job, taking congestion into account etc.

2 hundred times lower, actually. You can point all you want at countries like Canada and Norway but the truth is the much lower GINI and higher equality of these countries produces an overall violence level that US can only dream of. Still, they are at the same order of magnitude to US at gun violence (when adjusted for ownership rates) debunking the "cultural factor" hypothesis (Bowling for Columbine, etc.)

The dominant factors for a country's violence level are gun availability and inequality: unequal countries with lots of guns, like US, some African and some South-American countries have significantly more homicides, and by significant I mean statistically significant at the > 99.99% confidence level and pretty much an established scientific fact.

Than the nation should pay for it. Every affected state should bid for storage in the Yucca mountain repository, and if it reaches a reserve set by Nevada, they can use it. All proceeds go to Nevadians, after expenses. If no one is willing to pay what Nevada is asking, then no one is allowed to store their shit in Nevada.

What you are proposing is that the Government can step right it, declare your backyard a nuclear waste repo and all their industry lobyist can dump toxic shit there because it's "a national emergency". As a staunch nuclear proponent, you can go straight to hell.

Actually, pack it into a copper cylinder and bury it in a whole in a granite bedrock. Should be safe just about until the end of the world really, disposal is the best understood and cheap component of the nuclear cycle.

The whole article is more about FUD and NIMBYism than real nuclear technology.

There is no such thing as a "black market value" of a security vulnerability. Both the demand and supply have curves. I.E there are security researchers who would demand say 1 million bucks before selling the bug to the CIA (because they view that action as unethical, illegal and risky careerwise) while they would gladly accept 10.000$ in a responsible disclosure offer. Other color hats would go to the highest bidder. Similarly, there are large transaction costs and information asymmetries, it's not necessarily true that the demand and supply meet or that they can trust each other. A spy agency might rather develop in house (at a much larger cost) then shop around and rise suspicion.

In short, offering a non-trivial sum of money will always increase the costs of the average attacker and might completely shut off the low impact attacks like spam zombification, email harvesting etc., the developers of which can't invest millions in an exploit but would gladly use the free zero day+exploit just made public.

The free market will yield low competition because providing the service is a strong technical monopoly, similar to electricity, gas and water. The author proposes we treat Internet like a basic utility but this is a bad idea: the municipal internet pipe will soon become outdated, the city council will reject any improvements because "it works good enough for most citizens", a private alternative will emerge and we are back at square one.

Instead of treating internet like a utility, the preferred solution in Europe is to create a public corporation that digs the trenches and channels where fiber and equipment are placed, with equal access for all competing providers. Since the technology evolves quickly, a nimble private investor is much more efficient in upgrading the network and maintaining a competitive speed. The low tech, highly expensive trench or pole can be amortized over a few decades with a flat fee that ISPs can pass on to consumers. It works.

The issue is not choosing between the market and the state, rather we should correct market failures with keyhole solutions that restore competition without creating bureaucratic and governmental behemoths. Municipal internet is probably better than what you have now, but is still an inferior solution.

Here's a map of the pings:
http://theaviationist.com/wp-c...

Cheap, effective, but maybe incorrect. Seems more like a bullshit proposal from a politician spewing buzzwords he can't understand:

Let's hope some good research can come of this, it's not like basic science research is included in the budget of any corporation. Of course, it's unlikely that any of it will directly help UK, with maybe the sole exception of keeping talented researchers in the country.

You would fave picked a fight with the husband of your female boss then quit you job in a hissy fit citing "a sexist culture" ? A people's problem indeed.

I wonder, can we legally go full throttle on this "borz culture" for a tech firm ? It has been proven, time and time again, that despite major effort by the companies to accommodate females they still make up no more than 10% of some firms (most gaming companies for example), and they are still rejected/discriminated/unable to fit in/whatever.

It stands to reason that a firm who openly promotes a male culture, without actively discriminating against females, would be far more productive and retain the best male talent. Unisex lavatory. Alcoholic beverages allowed and provided. Unlimited fastfood allowances. An in-house Bunny Ranch (legal for a Nevada campus). No bullshit anti-discrimination training and assorted brainwashing. Crash couches where you can chill or sleepover if you don't feel like going home. Generous basements for those of us who can't stand direct sunlight anymore. We hire females but they never stay more than a few days, with the exception of the Bunny Ranch of course. Man, I'm excited only typing this, where do I send my CV ?

That may all be true, but that does not change the fact that Sutter is also part of the establishment and also looking at viewers as a revenue stream. Google vs Hollywood are two bears fighting over a beehive, and we are the bees. Pick your side carefully, when the fight is over someone eats the honey and it's not you or me.

Or as Simpsons' Lenny would put it: "All we want is brand new, big-budget entertainment in our homes for nothing. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?"

A service problem indeed.

Up mod parent:
http://www.virginiaedition.com/media/spaceelevators.pdf

I don't see how this makes sense. Shouldn't they criminalize export of waste (ex.shredded electronics) and allow the export of usable office equipment, Pentium 4 computers and first generation flat panels ? That stuff has a high chance of being reused in Africa, it's market value is much above the lead and tin they contain. Reuse is the best form of recycling: a poor family gets a perfectly usable, 4-5 year old computer at 50$, and no waste is generated. My first computer was a second hand unit imported in Eastern Europe from the West. It cost $90, a month of income for my family, I used it for 5 years and it was the best purchase I have ever made in terms of ROI. I am now a software engineer earning a internationally competitive paycheck.

What they are doing is destroying usable electronics and exporting THE JUNK. This must be lobbied by the IT industry, it has nothing to do with environmentalism.

Sure, the second hand computers will eventually end up in the Lagos dump. But so would new ones, after a few more years. So you either deny computers to Africans or you fix the waste management problem. Banning export of USABLE hardware will improve waste problem but massively impact the growth of the African economies, which in turns generates all the other symptoms: bad public finances and public education, corruption, and no environmental policy.