0x44

Singular they predates singular you in the English language by about three hundred years.

how does it not make more sense to go with MacStadium?

If you're already in AWS, your deployment infrastructure and tooling is already configured and tuned for AWS. Deploying a Mac EC2 instance is just adding another target. Whereas deploying to another provider is an unknown amount of work to integrate with their API (if they even have one). The wall-time cost of people's time and effort vastly outweighs the marginal savings you'd get by going with a low-cost provider.

Whilst you can lose a trademark for not enforcing it, you cannot lose a copyright by not enforcing it (in the United States).

Speaking from experience, OpenStack was no longer hot by 2015. :)

    * A protocol that leaks metadata, including some message content, at the envelope layer.
  Could you elaborate more on this? I don't really understand what you mean.

  EHLO your.mx.example.tld
  MAIL FROM:<bob@example.tld>
  MAIL TO:<alice@recipient.tld>
  DATA
  From: Definitely Not Bob <bob@example.tld>
  To: Probably Not Alice <alice@recipient.tld>
  Date: Mon, 12 June 2017 16:02:43 -0500
  Subject: Super Secret EMAIL! Don't let Eve see!
  
  -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
  ...
  -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
  .
  QUIT

Speaking as one of roughly fifty founders thereof, and also the founder of a (now acquired) startup in the space, it really isn't. The point the OP made about needing an Ops team is magnified by the introduction of OpenStack, and the existence of Rackspace as a (not-quite) provider of OpenStack won't help because their public cloud is going away and there isn't really a replacement as the field consolidated and the consolidated players have shed their OpenStack investments (or are laying off and trying to get away from it).

If your goal is to avoid the lock-in to a particular IaaS vendor while avoiding ops overhead, your better bet is to go up-stack and lock yourself into either Cloud Foundry or OpenShift. At least then you'll be able to migrate from IaaS to IaaS semi-transparently, but you are locking into a platform.

You could leverage the TPM and some version of remote attestation and only permit key-requests from attested machines. Alternatively (or concurrently), you could PXE boot all devices with a parameterized shared-secret individualized for each node.

I spent a bit getting it to work on OS X. The ASM becomes:

    movq $0x2000004, %rax  ; // BSD syscalls are divided into classes.
    movq $1, %rdi          ; // 64-bit registers use %rdi instead of %ebx
    lea message(%rip), %rsi; // Relative Address of message
    movq $13, %rdx         ; // Same Length
    syscall                ; // x86-64 ASM syscall

    movq $0x2000001, %rax  ; // Exit Syscall
    movq $0, %rdi;
    syscall

    message: .ascii "Hello World!\n";

With very constrained exceptions, in most jurisdictions of the United States, it's entirely legal to take a photograph of an individual in a public place and post it to the Internet without their permission.

I'm afraid you misunderstood my point, as I never mentioned software patents at all. The iPhone is a synthesis of prior research that (in 2007) encompasses advances in both hardware and software. That is the synthesis that I think advances the useful arts, and it's beneficial to society for us to provide a legal framework to protect it.

I did say I was making an analogy, not establishing a direct link between patents and copyright. Patents protect a specific method of implementing an idea, so Palm synthesizing a smart phone with a color LCD (controlled by a stylus) does not prevent Apple from protecting the synthesis of smart phone with a color LCD (controlled by fingertips). If there was no innovation in bringing multi-touch to smart phones, why wasn't everyone doing it in 2007 when the iPhone was first released?

Patents are time-limited not eternal. The first company to build a laptop most certainly obtained a patent on it, as did the creator of the first flat-screen.

If the resulting synthesis is something new, why wouldn't we want to protect it legally? To make a literary analogy, any book written in an established genre necessarily synthesizes work that went before it… are these new works less worthy of legal protection because the ideas and tropes (and in the case of works synthesized from the Commons characters, setting, etc.) are things we've already seen? In the technology fields, it is common to base new innovation on that which came before. So long as the prior art is referenced in the claim for protection, aren't the useful arts strengthened by legal protection in exchange for continued disclosure of innovation, even in the case of innovations synthesized of prior development?

That assumes that every sale is identical and that the lessons one need learn to make a $150,000.00 sale are identical to those one need learn to sell something for $150.00.

I do not know what experience you have with traditional publishing, but Charles Stross (cstross here on HN) wrote a series of blog posts[1] that explain rather in detail the benefits of publishing through a traditional publisher instead of doing it yourself. It isn't nearly so tangibly one-sided as you would suggest.

[1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/common-m...

One of the complaints about Google's true-name policy is that it unfairly discriminates against people who don't have Western sounding names, or who aren't middle-class white guys. The reported retort is that they're not yet out of beta and shouldn't have to concern themselves with multi-culturalism, so people with "non-standard" or "unique" names should just use something else.

Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.

With the proliferation of buttons on most android phones I've seen, they could have easily added a hardware unlock button.

The Amazon judgment only denied the preliminary injunction, it didn't resolve the ownership of the trademark (if any). The case is still on-going and Apple may introduce additional evidence as the case continues.

How exactly does one build a black hole without obliterating ones host species/planet/solar system?

There are several exponential growth laws in computer science: for example, Nielsen's law for bandwidth, Kryder's law for storage. It's misleading to address them all as Moore's.

C++ is one of the languages blessed by Apple in addition to C, Objective-C, and Javascript.

When you submit a pull request, github sends an email to the addresses you have on record. All that would be required for your suggestion would be to add the project's mailing-list to the list of emails on the account. Though emails would be sent for every other project on your account also.

The customer ars was referring to was Wikileaks and potential future customers who engage in non-mainstream political/commercial action. The resulting backlash from the Wikileaks affair will encourage the decision makers at Amazon or Paypal to avoid doing business with non-mainstream customers in the future if there is an even insignificant chance that in the future some non-mainstream customer will offend those in power.

  Can't we push for an open government without extremes?

Julian Assange mentions a young Rupert Murdoch writing in 1958 and suggests that the Murdoch's observation reflected on the latter's father's actions in World War 1 nearly 100 years ago. Within Australia the date is probably understood from cultural memory/context.

Pavia, Italy/Zurich, Switzerland.

Global Earthquake Model Secretariat is hiring a Senior Software Engineer who is familiar with large scale computing, has serious Python chops, and some experience in open source development. GIS, numpy/scipy experience is a plus.

http://globalquakemodel.org/node/76

Aha! My apologies, I should have realized.

I'm sorry, I fail to see how that resolution would be recognizably altruistic from a modern perspective. Had Abraham Lincoln "saved" the Union without freeing any slaves, there would have been no philanthropic regard for others, it would have instead been the government capitulating to monied interests. That Abraham Lincoln was willing to sacrifice an altruistic and noble outcome for political expediency shouldn't detract from the actual good freeing the slaves wrought.

To be fair, I'm a consequentialist, we might be arguing morality at cross-purposes.

Why does he have to be in it for altruistic purposes if what he does accomplishes an altruistic outcome?