Sounds like a situation that could be polluted with something like what Moxie Marlinspike did with googlesharing, in an effort to bury the signal in the noise.
The myth is always that either one illegally downloads or pays for it through channels. However, most people I know will pay for some content and not others. It's a question of value. Just because the illegal download costs $250 does not imply that people will pay $10 or $20 instead. The third (and oft-ignored) option is that they will simply find other content that is worth the expense (both monetary and effort).
i can't offer an internship or any really sound advice, but my email is in my profile, and i can offer mentorship and answers to questions from a software developer of over 20 years. feel free to contact me if that will help.
My age probably shows in this statement, but it seems odd to me to suggest that someone else change their behaviour so the poster does not have to rtfm. We're coders. When we don't understand something, we read the manual, then the source.
I wonder how this correlating data can be used in cases of copyright infringement where the alleged infringer is only identified by IP address. Could a correlation between IP address and real-world identification be made by subpoena of FB records?
What concerns me is that I doubt the average user will understand the potential ramifications of entrusting a copy of their ID to a third party. If these documents are not well-protected or the user does not bother to or is not capable of covering up information that can be used for the purposes of identity theft, this could be catastrophic for some users.
Up-front disclaimer: I don't use facebook, but the precedent of this upsets me.
It seems to me that a website can define the API by which you access their site (some subset of HTTP), but can they really make a definitive claim to how data is rendered on the client side once that data is fetched through legitimate targets?
It strikes me that an ISP preparing a "test" page for a court order suggests they already anticipate the direction the court will take, an action they are content with so long as responsibility doesn't fall on them.
Isn't spyware you don't have to use and can uninstall just software with a feature you do not desire? I'm completely against the feature, but I don't see why something must be done about it? Feel free to add whatever features to your software you like, so long as nothing requires me to use it. There are plenty of linux distros, desktop environments, etc.
I run a simple djbdns setup locally with a caching resolver that passes specific domains to my dns server proper and the rest up the chain. Took about seven minutes to configure properly. This seems overly complex.
I for one love it when someone types whole paragraphs about the desire to avoid keystrokes. Every language has it's irritating quirks, none of which do I care enough to write about.
This labelling (501 or !501) is pointless and arbitrary. I'm a self-employed developer with four children. Some days I work until 11p or even as late as 1a. Some days I quit at 2p and take in a child's soccer game. This isn't a label as much as a choice every day. Both choices come at a cost. Big deal. All choices come at a cost. If I choose family over work, in all likelihood the perception of my dedication will suffer. Contrapositively, if I choose work over family, my relationships will need repair. The labels are meaningless, and perpetually choosing one side is simple indicative of a life out-of-balance. This is all just a side-effect of scarcity of time, and the labelling sounds like an attempt on both sides to justify choices. Ultimately, if I want to be done working at 5:01p (or any other time), then I am, and I take responsibility for those choices and the potential damage to my career. If I want to work until midnight, then I do, and I take responsibility for that choice and the potential damage to my relationships or the hinderance of my pursuit of other goals. Call it whatever you like. Why do we need a manifesto to categorize daily personal choices?
I don't have a degree at all, but I have been programming since the age of 9, completely self-taught. At first I found it difficult to find employment, but with enough work experience, degree or lack thereof no longer even comes up. The degree is a huge boon to getting your foot in whatever door you're looking at, but once in, suddenly becomes more or less irrelevant. However, this being said, I'm 37 and have been programming for what feels like forever, so my market entrance in the 90s may not parallel someone today. It may be more or less difficult; I have no idea.
I'm sure I'm not the target audience, but I'm surprised that in this day and age there isn't always a shared resource lying around (a linode, a slice, an ec2 instance). Or just allow ssh between developers with accounts limited to git access. The dropbox part seems unnecessary.
While as a programmer I understand that perhaps this load time could be improved, and maybe splash screens are a lazy solution, but I wonder if it warrants this level of anger. Even assuming a generous 5 minute load time on photoshop (I don't know as I don't use it, but I doubt it's that much), and that you reload twice a day (once at the beginning of the day and maybe once after lunch), and you use it every weekday of the year, that's still less than 0.5% of your year.
I'm not saying losing 43 hours of your life per year is insignificant, but a proportional response seems appropriate. You in all likelihood spend more time waiting at red lights.
I agree that the so-called "news" is entertainment, but being completely uninformed about current events will make you non-discerning in addition to more productive. Perhaps it would be better to consume better information as opposed to less information.
... and convincing my wife that I'll able to fly once I step off the cliff.
I was fortunate enough that my wife (although highly skeptical) was trusting enough to go along. Sometimes you just have to make the leap. Wish I had earlier, instead of listening to my fears and the fears of those around me.
I find it amusing that he starts off with a rant about long resumes. Then half of what follows goes on to talk about all the extensive information you have to communicate on your CV just to get an interview.
I severely disagree with the attitude conveyed. People would do well to remember that a work arrangement is mutually beneficial, always. You take a job because it is in your interest to do so. You are offered a job because it is in their interest to do so. No one employs someone while taking a loss on them, yet companies treat interviewees as if they would be lucky to land such a wonderful job.
If this attitude came out in my interview, I'd immediately walk out. If you're treating me in this way before I even work for you, odds are it's not ever going to get better, only worse.
In so much of this discussion, people seem to get distracted arguing whether pirating media is morally reprehensible or not. This is irrelevant to whether SOPA is a good solution to the alleged problem. I perceive two separate debates: whether piracy is a "problem" and whether SOPA solves that "problem."
SOPA is simply an industry of middlemen asking a heavier hand to come down and reinforce a business model the market has allowed to decline. Whether that is because customers demand better options and are not being satisfied or not is largely immaterial. The so-called act of piracy is already illegal, and what is being asked for is not legal recourse for this (that already exists) but a course of action immune from repudiation and challenge. It is a unilateral action without oversight or representation, and for this reason it is contrary to the foundation of the Constitution. Typically, the more egregious offenses carry the stiffest penalties, but all allow for some sort of defense and reasonable trial. If society has deemed that this is a more serious offense than previously evaluated, legislation increasing the penalty can be enacted, but legislation removing one's ability to defend oneself prior to punishment being enacted is unthinkable.
Private entities are being legislatively appointed to enforce public law, and this is unacceptable. It is a conflict of interest, as the public has no means to remove from "office" those serving the public in this manner. In all other aspects of public law, one has a vote somewhere in the chain to reconcile abuse of power. We can not vote on a private company whose enforcement of the law becomes corrupt, save economically, and economically our vote is severely disadvantaged.
Am I the only one that thinks someone bored by debate and process behind the passage of a bill (and childishly bragging about it) should be allowed (nay, encouraged) to spend their time elsewhere. Preferrably as far from Congress as possible?
I have spent years upon years programming in perl, and I love it dearly, but I laughed pretty hard at this. No offense to Larry Wall, but if you've spent any time writing perl code, surely you've had at least one moment where you wondered if someone hadn't gotten one over on you. I don't knw about relative ease of learning, but perl can be obscure. Of course, some think that adds to the fun. ;)
As is typical with this line of thinking, it only scales so far and only applies as long as you are "on the map" of what is standard. Stray too far and your devops personnel will spend more and more time "administrating" and less time coding. Being primarily a coder with considerable sysadmin skills, this has happened to me in every job I've worked in the last 5 years. I start out devops while everything is standard and slowly do more and more admin until I eventually quit (because I'm primarily a coder). The job I'm quitting this month is because I'm now 95% admin. Like all resources, you need what you need. Devops is sufficient is specific circumstances, but if you stray from that scenario eventually you need an admin. They're the glue when things don't quite fit seamlessly together.
I don't know anything about the poster or his relationship to Zuckerberg, but there is probably a built-in alert for mentions of Zuckerberg. Else unless they're friends, how would he see this within 6 minutes? If I had a Facebook account, I'd append "Zuckerberg" to every post, just to dilute the signal with a little noise.
A GET request for an embedded resource exposes the user's cookies for that domain and associates a user of one site as a user of another. This is fine when it is at the user's explicitly intended request, but when paired with certain sites known not to delete all cookies on logout, this is nefarious and should not be done.
Ensure the "tweet this" or "like this" button does not generate a request to the 3rd party site simply by loading the Mozilla webpage the button is on (e.g. no requests to third party site without user's intent via clicking on the button).
Another trick I especially like is to use the command="" syntax inside of an authorized_keys file to allow a user to execute certain commands via ssh, especially handy for git-shell.
I always disable remote root login and password authentication. Then I create purpose-specific remote users with sudo access only to the commands they need (and never access to sudo su). This is not only more security-conscious in my mind, but also allows me to just drop a friend or coworker's public key in the authorized_keys file for a certain user to allow that person to perform the function that user was purposed for (for instance, when I'm on vacation).
Has anyone actually seen the text of this "last-minute rewrite"? I'm skeptical, because I've been seeing this fear broadcast about this bill since day one. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems like a pretty large leap from temporary ip addresses to bank account numbers, names, phone numbers, etc. Every reference I can find to this bill still only contains the text for the initial retention of ip addresses.
Would love to see verification of the broader scope.