Yep, and as we all know global warming stopped in 1998.
Yep, and as we all know global warming stopped in 1998.
Well, you could argue that the reason you have to push women to enter coding as a career is that they're also being pushed to aim high on the career ladder.
That was the thing that made me laugh at the whole Barbie "I Can Be a Computer Engineer" fracas. Oh, it was sexist alright -- against men. Here's how I construe that story: Barbie is an entrepreneur who obtains free commodity coding and sysadmin labor from her male pals and yet retains total ownership of the resulting intellectual property. It's a cynical way of doing business, but that girl is going places.
Here is where they'll be in ten years:
Stephen -- works as a network admin where the pay is lousy and everyone treats him like shit. Despite the fact he hates his job, he's terrified that it will be outsourced.
Brian -- works as a coder. His pay looks pretty good, until you factor in the hours he puts in to meet deadlines management pulls out of its ass, the cost of his Bay Area apartment, and the time he spends commuting on the clogged freeway. He gets through the day with Adderall he scores of the neighbor's kid and comes down every night with booze. His apartment is full of expensive sports equipment he doesn't have time to use anymore. He's gained fifty pounds since he was in High School and will gain another fifty in the next five years. Brain can live with all this, but the thing that really bothers him is that when he does a great job, nobody cares.
Barbie -- Sold her girl-power themed indie computer game studio for millions, landing her on the cover of Time's "30 Entrepreneurs under 30" issue. She parlays this into a senior VP position at a hot social media startup, and after cashing out on the IPO joins an angel investor group. She's currently bankrolling research in parthenogenesis.
Then small companies can no longer make any IoT product.
Not necessarily. It depends on what your standards and rules are.
Sure, you could write the rules in such a way that only big companies can afford to comply with them. It doesn't mean you have to. What's more rules could actually ensure small companies could remain competitive by creating safe harbors if you do certain things. Believe me there are lawsuits coming in the future, whether there is legislative or regulatory action or no. It would go a long way toward keeping the little guy competitive if he could point to rules that he was supposed to follow and did. This would socialize the cost novel attack vectors evenly rather than distribute the costs stochastically.
Eliminating the low-hanging fruit could make IoT devices reasonably safe, and "reasonable" is a much more attainable goal than "absolutely". Everyone fails at "absolutely", but only big companies can afford to bear the cost of that failure.
As for stuff getting designed in China, it's the low prices, period. I actually evaluated some Chinese radio linked flow meters a few years ago -- they were intended for metering liquor being poured in casinos (where the "free drinks" paid for by the casinos are acdtually paid for by a subcontractor and poured by a bartender who lives on tips). We wanted to adapt them for pesticide flow metering. The guy we were working with was selling these gizmos at $200, but they arrived on his US loading dock from China all boxed and ready to ship out to customers at a wholesale price of about $3. I was astonished. That's why stuff like that doesn't get made in the first world anymore, it's the jaw-droppingly low wholesale prices. Quality wasn't great, but with a $197 margin you can afford to ship replacements out for free.
Adding regulatory compliance costs to a device like that actually favors domestic producers.
He got a nice picture. It's just a golf cart.
A flying golf cart sounds pretty cool.
Yeah, her opponents end dead in the middle of the night by "suicide" with the pillow on their face
... like the late Scalia.
I hope she made him suffer before he died.
If you read the fucking article, you'll see there's photos.
No, look again. there are not photos of anything flying.
Why the fuck didn't this "photographer" take a picture of this "flying car"? Could it be the same reason cameras don't seem to work around UFOs and Bigfoot?
They are all essentially the same class of plutocrats.
No. Despite what you've been led to believe by Alex Jones, Hillary Clinton does not murder her critics by putting polonium in their food.
Alcohol consumption in Russian Federation is 15.1 liters per year per capita, and it is 9.2 liters in the United States. It is not twice, but 67%:
It's not 67%, it's 67% more.
Now the Ruskies will be patching the server (and maybe other insecure servers) like crazy.
I wouldn't count on it. People in Russia are just as lazy and arrogant as Americans, and twice as drunk.
That's why Russia has an economy about the same size as Spain's.
When we try to put forward Putin as some sort of brilliant super-leader, let's not forget that it was guys like him who got his country bogged down in Afghanistan and allowed his country to get head-faked into flushing their economy down the toilet trying to keep up with a non-existent "Star Wars Initiative", which led to their collapse as a superpower. They can't even field a respectable Olympics team any more.
They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.
If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."
It isn't 100% clear, there is no cut and dried supreme court ruling and there have been some conflicting lower court rulings but in general the opinion of the courts seems to be that you can't be forced to hand over a password/code/etc because that is something in your head, which falls under 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.
The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case. Without knowing the specifics I can't say for sure but this sounds like it would be an illegal search since it was a general warrant and that isn't allowed. The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.
They probably rigged Mitt Romney too.
No, but his yacht was rigged.
Sorry, but North Dakota has the best hockey arena anywhere. #RalphEngelstadArena
I've been to a UND game there, and it is very nice.
You're always here, and always with a reason we should just laugh off all this negative stuff.
That's not the part for laughing. The laughing comes when you remember that goofballs in the "alt-Right" actually nominated someone who is so awful that people are willing to overlook all "this negative stuff" about Hillary.
Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?