In a perfect world spammers would not exist.
In a perfect world spammers would not exist.
I was a hard-core conservative a few years ago, now I'm a hard-core liberal.
Did my brain rewire itself?
It's more likely that your definition if conservative and liberal changed.
My people call themselves conservative or liberal, while meaning totally different things.
Infact, the original meaning isn't left right :
the normal opposite of "conservative" would be "progessive" ( sticking to what's known to work versus taking the risk of trying new things ).
the normal opposite of "liberal" , would be authoritarian ( liberalism favoring more freedom , whereas authoritarianism favoring less freedom ( more control by state ) ). Although there is also the distinction between liberal (state should ensure freedom ) and libertarian ( state should be minimized, thus providing more freedom)
Left : more personal freedom, less economic freedom.
Right : more economic freedom, less personal freedom.
For example, you could be a left-leaning conservative liberal, which would mean that you value freedom, with emphasis on personal freedom, but prefer to stick to tried and true policies for achieving this ( just an example, I'm not saying you are ) .
(1) Seems most plausible. It's newsworthy today and so it's worth ( money ) mentioning it.
Reading the article, it seems that the other company did use the name 'python' before, but didn't enforce it, and now suddenly wants to make us of it ( after not caring for it for years ).
If I understand trademark law correctly ( maybe I don't ) , if you do not enforce a trademark, you forfeit your exclusive use of it.
The company didn't enforce their trademark ( they didn't contact the creators of Python back then to tell them they violated their trademark ).
They should contact EFF, I'm sure they would be more than willing to help out.
One "solution' i can think of, is a private cloud.
In other words : you do have a "cloud" , but it's only company wide, with strong encryption.
The company keeps the data in it's own cloud, and still has a lot of advantages of the cloud.
They just need to maintain the cloud themselves, which does require some expertise.
It's depends from company to company : if you are a big company, it's better to have your own people in IT. You can still set up a cloud yourself to have the advantages.
If you are a small company, then you may not be able to afford an IT department to set all of that up. So then using a cloud might make sense, in particular when using excess processing power of larger companies.
That only works well if no one else has access to the passfile and knows where to find it.
If you have it on a usb stick labeled 'passfile' , with a file on it named passfile.key, it's not going to be very difficult to use the passfile.
However, if you have a number of usb sticks ( unlabeld, or labeled differently ) , and you know which one has the passfile, that's different.
Also, you could give the passfile a name like libxml2.dll, and put it some standalone program folder.
ancient porn ?
Unless you use the money you would have otherwise spend to bail them out, in measures to stimulate the economy.
You could use it to stimulate start-ups, work out outplacement planning, re-training people so they can find a new job, etc...
Nothing is too big to fail, but it can certainly be too big to be saved ( I can cost many taxdollars and then still fail a few years later ).
Though I can understand writing some code just for fun, or even to get your mind of things, but that's all it is then : entertainment.
I have written plenty of code like that : just for fun, without any practical application.
However, I doubt this has any negative effect on coding professionally, just like an artist having some fun painting would make his professional paintings bad.
However, just like the artist paints because he loves it, many programmers code because they love it. Nothing wrong with that.
And how exactly is that not using a web browser ? It may not look the same way, but it does the same thing : it connects to a website ( using HTTP protocol ) , thus allowing you to browse the web. So it's still a browser.
However, being a browser doesn't mean it has to support applets.
The actual cost is hard to calculate :
Most people don't 'stumble' upon Amazon : they go there for a reason. So they will wait until the site is back up.
People who did accidentally stumble upon Amazon ( just googling for a product ) , will see a site that doesn't work, and ignore it, so that might be a lost purchase.
However, I think the biggest cost might come from the knowledge that Amazon got hacked : even if hackers didn't get anywhere near the users' credit card information, most people won't understand that, and the idea alone will scare people away ( I'm sure the media coverage won't help either ).
Luckily, people quickly forget, so the losses will only be short term.
Extremes are always a lot closer than it seems : in extreme socialism/communism everything is controlled by a single government entity ( the government owns everything, including all companies )
In extreme capitalism, everything is controlled by a single company ( the company owns everything, including the government ).
Unsurprisingly , the end results are the same.
Why is that? Because you are assuming that any action by your government is nefarious by default?
I assume any entity ( that includes governments ) will do what it thinks is best for itself.
So the government will do what is best for the government.
Don't be so sure that's automatically what's best for you.
I'm convinced that's true ( people being treated badly in Iran ) , but my comment was more broad than that. The fact is a lot of us have never been to a country like Iran, so basically I have no way of real knowing what going on there.
I don't have the money to go to Iran though, so don't worry
When you say "spend them on getting people out" , what are referring to ? I'd like to help where I can.
If a subordinate asks you a pertinent question, look at him as if he had lost his senses. When he looks down, paraphrase the question back at him.