azm

ummmm no.

http://www.ancient.eu/Ganges/

Unfortunately this is in the Opinion section which has been known to be reliably frothing at the mouth, anti-goverment, ayn randian propaganda machine.

Is there any particular reason people don't use plain old xterm. I know that it does not provide tabs, but other than that what are the problems that people face when using xterm. I have had utf8 support, zoom and copy paste working on it forever.

Maybe its just me, but why not wipe your screen with a flannel cloth or even your t-shirt every so often. That would take care of most of the more egregiously straight-forward attacks won't it. This of course assumes that you have fairly secure number based key to begin with.

That is primarily because the prevailing wage is calculated by agencies like erieri and Cal EDD (in the case of California) surveys which are usually nine months to a year old. So ymmv. If the survey was taken during a boom year and is used in a bust year, the prevailing wages are usually higher than market. The reverse is also true. There is also a selection bias in the data as they only have data from organizations which are willing to share this. There is no mandated requirement for this.

Another thing to keep in mind is that (in theory) prevailing wage data reflects market wages (i.e. all types of engineers) not just those on a visa. Whether or not this is actually what happens is something I have not idea about.

So in theory the LCA data should be a good datum to start your salary negotiations on. However it should be tempered by current market conditions, location and most importantly your own position in the negotiations. Its always easier to negotiate from a position of strength. When you are looking to provide for your family, insurance, rent/mortgage etc and are unemployed, negotiating may or may not work depending on how desperate you are.

I have realized that all kool-aid is quite useless for most situations and thus have reduced my tests to two simple things: - write unit tests for units that actually are complex and do need it - focus on getting as much coverage as possible on functional and system tests

If you don't want a PDF or scribd, clicky to Cambridge project page: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/capsicum/

<rant>

Can we please, please, please stop trying to redesign everything under the sun, especially in the name of eco-friendliness or usability or some other such thing?

That is not to say that designs and decisions and concepts should not be questioned, but that they should not be questioned for questioning's sake. A lot of thought, time and effort goes into the design of recognizable brands and widely used things. Just because they are designed by behemoths does not necessarily mean that they don't know what they are doing. On the contrary I would think they have put a lot of thought into it and the designs work quite well given the constraints.

So if you are going to challenge it, please have something substantial that operates in the constraints that apply to the product, not just something that looks pretty.

</rant>

<spelling-nazi> s/compliments/complements/ </spelling-nazi>

The former changes the meaning of the sentence completely.

But otherwise looks great. I would give anything to completely ditch macports.

Neat use of development tools to illustrate a point. But, to be quite blunt, very naive in the best case and quite stupid in the worst case. We can "ship early, iterate often" in software because quite often it doesn't cost much (certainly a naive way of putting it) to do so. However that paradigm breaks down even in software when dealing with things like enterprise software or say medical device software or FDA approved software. Guess what would happen if the large scale infrastructure construction industry went with this model?

Think about what it costs for an organization to adapt to a new set of regulations. A boatload of new paperwork needs to be setup, ordered, printed and distributed, after a thorough analysis of the regulations and a whole long process to determine documentary requirements. If software or electronic records are used, those need to be updated. The new set of rules need to be communicated to a large number of participating health care providers with appropriate document and/or software updates. Each of those things needs to be audited and certified. Personnel have to be trained to understand and comply to the new set of regulations and potentially certified. There would be a period of enforcement where nobody will quite understand the limits and those limits would be tested and the legal system would then clarify those regulations.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. In such cases the massive one-shot refactor gives you way more bang for the buck than not.

Its all nice and good to point out the problem that parking causes in terms of the development or destruction of any downtown, however unless the lack of parking is compensated for by having an excellent public transit system (like Portland) simply removing parking or not starting to address the issue is a recipe for disaster.

Take Los Angeles for example, there are way too many parking structures and lots all over downtown. Unfortunately there isn't really a way to get into downtown unless you are withing 5 miles of it. And you don't really want to live in that area. Even the SF Bay area for that matter, yes there is BART and Muni, but unless you live in the city (for the most part) BART is quite useless if your area of interest is more than a mile outside the sliver that BART services (ignoring all the other problems BART has), and Muni is a joke during rush hour, not to mention the combination of BART + Muni + anything else that you use gets to be pretty pricey.

Unless the issues of public transit are addressed properly, nothing will fix the parking problem or the congestion problem or the gas usage problem or the pollution problem to mention a few.

This is one the primary reasons I have not watched anything sports related on NBC for a long time. The rah-rah, the overly obsessive coverage of only US players and related history, the focus on all the wrong parts of the games, I can (with great effort) tolerate. But once you add the absolutely useless and inane commentary and the tendency to shove the schedule on me, I prefer to switch to other sources and I strongly recommend that to as many people as I can (while trying not to be a grouch).

This was done to such a degree during the last FIFA world cup that I chose to watch it in Univision even though the only two words I understood were pelota and goal. And even that was oodles better than NBC. I wish I could stream CBC from somewhere or at least pay for coverage that just keeps the damn commentators quite unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately AFAIK the way the whole thing is setup, there really is no choice in the matter.

Whoops! I guess it is rare...

5 years, multiple thousands of almost illegal intercepts, 'blanket' PIs to cover up the unauthorized intercepts.

Surely redefining 'rare' is not the answer.

I think you are making an assumption regarding availability vs price vs demand. I would think that given the sort of capacity Amazon has, at some point of time the cost of a spot instance would be the same as or higher than the cost of a regular ec2 instance, at which time it would make more sense to just get a regular instance.

Per my understanding the attraction of spot instances is that you can get short-term instances at lower rates. Even as I say this I am making a big assumption that Amazon's spare capacity is much larger than demand for sport instances.

Finally slow ping times could be caused by any number of reasons, attributing them to one particular cause based on a coincidental date might be a bit much.

>> Are you sure about not stopping one bomb? Their service is like the electric company (and IT), you don't notice it until it stops working.

Are you kidding me! Utility companies don't try to place your gas line right next to a bad electrical circuit breaker "to keep you safe". Yes analogies always suck and this one is quite bad too, but it does illustrate the point. TSA's job should be contain and respond, not investigate and prevent. The latter should be left to investigative and intelligence agencies as that is their forte.

This was some time ago and I have not flown since so it might have changed, but things like: - dumping all the contents of all passengers water bottle into one big trashcan is stupid. Of course mentioning binary explosives will only get me into a lot of trouble. - spending 7m+ dollars on GE entry scans that make a ton of whooshing noises but are not really any better than plain ol' bulge under the shoulder check - checking your shoes when you can mold semtex or c4 into your belt just as easily and detonate it with something that looks like a fountain pen - turning on your laptop (what about the extra bay - how much explosive can you pack in there?)

Lets face it, unless we as consumers force the politicians to implement transparent, clear and measurable security policies and are willing to spend the time to think about it a bit, this sort of stuff will keep happening again and again and again.

" (because I refuse to read this) "

At the risk of getting down-voted on my first comment:

I am sorry, how can you comment on an article about the possibility of acquiring some form of ADD and attempt to provide a potential solution without actually reading the article. Perhaps the author is actually correct, especially considering the size of your response and the actual content.

Just because something does not agree with your outlook does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect or invalid. Try reading some of those types of things. You would be surprised how refreshing, entertaining or enlightening they are.

A