So...you want to make it easy for them?

That's a pretty naive view that over-simplifies the situation. One major use for a framework, for example, is to normalize the behavior of different browsers. Another major use is to provide implementations to create interface elements. Now, obviously, everything is natively supported because the Javascript framework is right there doing it, natively. But why should I write the necessary logic to create a draggable window, or a tree view, or sortable grid, when I can just pull that in from a framework? ExtJS is the kind of framework I'm thinking of. Why should I implement ajax-style uploads inside an iframe when they already did that for me, and I can just set up a form panel, indicate it is a file upload form, and write the important stuff?

Even though I can use a massive ExtJS application on a phone, we're not talking about massive applications per se, we're talking about mobile Javascript. So there are things like Sencha Touch for that. Sure, I could write native applications for every device listed under the supported devices section, but why is it smart to do that when I can write a single codebase that I can package for multiple devices?

Or maybe I'm just not "familiar" with Javascript, or development concepts in general. Hopefully you can enlighten me on the merits of reinventing the wheel every time you create something.

I have never heard of "intolerance of intolerance" being described as bigotry before. Card is actively campaigning against (i.e. spending money to oppress or support the oppression of) a whole group of people. h4rr4r's MetaIntolerance (if you want to call it that) is simply choosing not to support someone he/she sees as a bigot. There is a big difference there.

Don't forget to add that politicians should be monitored whether the laws they create "accidentally" aid companies where they go after they leave office to get comfy jobs where they don't do jack for a few millions a year.

You say that like shooting murderers and junkies on the moon is a bad thing.

You might be allowed to keep your oil. Or at least sell it instead of having it taken from you.

Nope. But the Brits did. So pack your crap and move out, the redcoats wanna move in again. You can pack your third amendment too, while you're at it.

Snide comments aside, when will humanity learn that "but I was here first" means exactly jack when it comes to land claims. How far back do you want to reach to determine who owns it? Should Europe belong to Austria, for they pretty much held a sizable portion of it in the 18th century? Or maybe the Germans, after all the Holy Roman Empire, which contained pretty much all of central Europe, was ruled by German Emperors for most of its existence? Maybe the French would be more fitting, after all Emperor Charlemagne ruled nearly all of Europe in 800. Or the Mongols? I mean, considering how much of it was conquered by Attila before? Or Italy, owning it to the Roman Empire? Maybe Greece would be fitting, considering they settled almost all over those parts of Europe that border the Mediterranean Sea. Or ... who is the legal successor of the Celts again?

Forget "I was here first" as a claims to land. You might find out that someone can say that to you, too.

He's so wrong on so many levels: see PopeHat.

Oddly, a movie is actually accurate in some degree. It was even named after the program.

In a nutshell, Navy and Air Force drew different conclusions from the horrible aircraft loss rate during Rolling Thunder, and both were right. And, as usual with actually sensible programs in the military, funding was crappy at best in the beginning.

Seriously. Binary might be faster, and that's cool: when it comes to sending / receiving data, compressed forms are awesome.

But yes, if there's an error...or if something doesn't work as expected, your choices may be a special tool to read the data stream, or trying to read it manually (which can, lacking practice, take a lot more of the developer's time).

Personally, I'd do what I normally do with other forms of storage: develop in human-readable, push to production in binary; boolean switch / comparable classes in the original code to swap back if / when some horrible error appears (and no one knows what it means, or why it's happening).

Dude, it depends if things are an employer's market, or an employee's market. If the US government needs a cracker that can slice through security like a hot knife through butter, and their choices are John Convict, or Joe Non-Convict, with the former being capable, and the latter not so much...well, would you prefer an employee that can perform the job, or not?

Of course, this sidesteps the entire issue of whether we should be engaging in such things to begin with. Nations spying on other nations has occurred since the beginning of civilization...and there's no reason for them to do otherwise (well, from their viewpoint, anyways; perhaps, if one pauses, and relfects that all nations who have engaged in this kind of warfare (and it is) have fallen, one would not be in such a hurry to emulate their possible mistakes).

Lol. I'd just synthesize a camera from available parts...and go the microfiche route (store the film inside the suit I'm wearing...do it right, it's flexible, and who is going to rip open the shoulder pads / inner lining of a $2000 suit? If they're wrong, that's $2K from the security budget.) Meh...actually, if I used cellphone filters / trickery, I could collapse the data somewhat holographically...maybe (who is going to question the use of a cellphone wrapper on your person if you bring in / acquire some candy with the right characteristics? Red, blue, yellow, green, etc. on a piece of film...extraction via Photoshop later on.).

But then, who wants to wander into the lion's den to get what you want, when you can just chill outside? I imagine that the security reports they are using to build their zero-day database are coming to them via emails, or phone calls, or even from the vendors themselves. Why take on the castle (a secure installation), when the tavern is more surmountable (the vendors themselves)?

But then, this entire thing is a distraction. Let's be honest...going this route is filled with fail.

By definition they are not. Because you would have to come up with every possible scenario that the enemy could design to outsmart your drones. Remember the V1, the first "drone", so to speak? English pilots came up with a clever (albeit quite dangerous) maneuver that could easily down them.

In Vietnam, the US made the mistake to only prepare for the "big war" against the USSR, ignoring minor conflicts that might appear. Planes didn't get guns anymore because "modern air combat will be fought beyond visual range. Then politicians came up with the stupidity that enemy planes first have to be visually identified. Not to mention that the long range air-to-air missiles of the time were unreliable at best and required an active lock (yeah, it's a really bright idea to fly straight towards and enemy plane coming at you with its weapons pointed your way...). In a nutshell, the USA relied on technology that was simply not ready to fill the role it should, coupled with political stupidity of epic dimensions.

I'd fear that this is heading towards the opposite. We're just preparing for an asymmetric war, ignoring the possibility that we might have to face an enemy of equal technological level. And while it is quite unlikely that there will be a full blown war between the USA and, say, China (just to name one country that might be some sort of threat, replace with your favorite boogeyman at leisure), if the past half century taught us anything then that proxy wars where one side is the US and the other side gets top level equipment from a "partner" are by no means far fetched.

Oh, like those are the only methods for getting things out. It exists, therefore a leak of it will exist somewhere.

I'm not saying the contractor is at fault per se, I'm just saying that the premium on their services is amazing. They were hired January 30th, and let's assume that, worst case, they were looking for infections through May 15th. That's 4 and a half months of work looking for infections. 4 and a half months of, what, running various malware scanners? What if your boss came to you and said that he wanted you to determine if there were any infected machines on the company network, and you gave him a timeline of 18 weeks to finish that job? Would you still have a job? Assuming they are working full-time weeks those 18 weeks, then that comes out to 720 hours per person, or $1143 per hour. That's a serious hourly wage, even if they divide that up between 5 people (and then you have 5 people spending 18 weeks scanning for malware?). It just doesn't really make sense what that contractor was doing in order to bill them for $823k.

But wait, there's more! There was another contractor (maybe the same one), hired to provide "assistance for a long-term recovery solution." So we're talking about designing a system where everything is backed up, relatively easy to recover if necessary, presumably with capabilities to save and push out disk images in the case an entire re-image is necessary. The cost for that one? $688,000.

$1.5 million dollars spent on contractors to do virus scanning and recovery assistance. Like I said, I'm in the wrong business.

How about if they get their requirements, respond with what they can and cannot do, do what they can do in an efficient way, and bill for a reasonable amount? Is that really too much to ask of a contractor? If they get asked to prove that it is not possible for a system to be infected, and they can't prove that, they can only prove that it is not currently infected, then state that, do the job, and move on. Don't sit there for 18 weeks doing nothing to justify your $823k bill for taxpayer money. And how about next time they put out bids for a long-term recovery solution, and let's see if they end up taking the bid that costs $688k (not for the equipment - just the recommendations) or if competition brings that price down one or two orders of magnitude.