I actually think the opposite. I would imagine that a driving rain will come in under the wings and into the top of the large cabin. Conventional doors are not perfect and the inside of the doors get wet, however these wings appear to allow the person sitting and seats to get wet.
He is walking a tightrope. And protecting the privacy of those that are not deemed culpable in some way is understandable.
However to be consistent with his previous acceptance of MIT holding some responsibility, he probably should:
(1) release the redacted documents now.
(2) perhaps not refer to this as the "Aaron Swartz situation" or state that "In the time since Aaron Swartz's suicide, we have seen........ ", as this wording is less accepting of some responsibility and really is putting the full burden of the backlash on Aaron. (he could perhaps say "our handling of the Aaron Swartz situation".)
It would appear that regardless of what MIT does, it would be up to the court when and how to release the un-redacted version.
....and MIT, for Fks sake, get your Network security together, that is really not a great reflection on your reputation as world class engineering org.
The aspects of their lax security that are an intentional 'feature' presumably aren't the "vulnerabilities" they want to redact, because there's nothing secret or unknown about that intentional lax security.
Which makes me very curious about what the vulnerabilities they want to redact ARE.
Unless they are just being totally ridiculous and insisting on redacting things everyone already knows and were never secrets in the first place, like that any device can get on their network.
If Aaron's crime revolved around breaking a use agreement by downloading in bulk, and trespassing by stashing a laptop making those bulk downloads in a known-unlocked-utility shed, what "network vulnerabilities" would even have been be germane to the case and thus included in MIT's filings?
Not only am I curious about what the vulnerabilities are (in general), I'm more curious as to why they were ever sent.
Is it just email where network engineers mused about known-vulnerabilities while discussing 'how Swartz got on the network'? Or was MIT making additional accusations against Aaron, that they would prefer to let plunge down the memory hole to avoid being seen as having been party to the prosecution trying to 'throw the book' at Swartz?
A document saying that any device can get on their network, and that it is deliberate policy to allow that, already is in the public record --- aaronsw's father read from it at the recent media lab memorial.
That said, it's possible that a general document sweep, answering a subpoena, also swept up documents describing, say, internal routing policies, or technical measures protecting access to student records, or something like that, which would be tangentially relevant to the case, and which they would have some legitimate interest in keeping to themselves.
I think this is a great idea, however I think you can make less ambiguous if you don't say "will not share". I think you are better saying...."will not transmit any information to our server". A lot of services don't intend to "share" things that are uploaded to their servers. Much easier decision to download/install if you unequivocally state that nothing will ever be Transmitted to the server. I personally am hesitant to install this just because it has the capability for me to accidentally upload my private info if I click the wrong setting.
I have seen many Java based Process Modelers Fail to live up the the promise of allowing "business users" the ability to create workflows without writing any code. It appears however that Mendix may have figured out how to make it work. I think that it has to do with the entire closed-loop solution (develop, deploy, monitor, app store, SVN integration, Domain model management, DSL's etc). Without those supporting pieces all working together, developers would inevitably need to be involved, thus stunting business user adoption.
My personal take on this is that it helps to show/teach kids what the expected results are and then praise them for their hard work in trying to reach that goal. For instance, I think it is healthy to go outside and play basketball and say "The goal is to get the ball in the basket". If you miss the basket, try to figure out why you missed and adjust. I think that if your kid gets progressively closer to the hoop and they are trying different things to adjust, that they should be praised for their hard work/effort (even if then do not get any baskets). The kids will focus on both the goal and the process of trying to adjust to achieve that goal, both of those having rewarding outcomes. However if you only focus on the Result, certain kids that are not analytical or highly gifted athletically, could get discouraged when they are not attaining those results as quickly as others. Better results are attainable for others, however they need more nurturing and more practice. On the other hand, to go out and show a child exactly how to shoot the ball in great detail, does not allow the child the room for experimentation to learn how to adapt.
It is important to realize that there are some very successful guys in the NBA that can't really shoot that well (they can sure dunk or pass)....and some team owners that can not shoot at all. Each kid will be different. Find out what your kid is good at and help then along with that.
This makes good sense. As I recall, the new results focused on what you said after a successful result. Praising the kid for being smart tended to make them shy away from intellectual challenge, because they didn't want to be seen as not smart enough. Praising them for working hard for their result, on the other hand, resulted in kids not afraid to try hard things.
I agree with these things in general and being a father, I try to keep up on these "outlier" type conversations on parenting. However, being a father of two young children I am also starting to realize that people are programmed a certain way at birth. Some are naturally ambitious, some are cunning, some are observant, some are curious, some are naive, others sensitive, others tough, etc. You can see it very early on. There is no set rule or path to "Success". Not everyone is going to achieve "Success" no matter what you do as a parent. I grew up with three siblings all with the same parents in the same home...three different outcomes. I think that those who read these books (including myself) are part of the group of people who question if they fully optimized their potential and perhaps want to see if they can help their kids along in a different way. There are some kids that don't need an ounce of motivation and others that need to be nurtured at every step. You have to look at each individual differently and adapt to them and their needs. Bottom Line....to paraphrase from Barbara Corcoran's business book... I am trying to help my children "use what they've got"
I have extensive experience with both CNC milling and 3D printing. I feel that 3D printing is disrupting Product Design/Development vs. actual Manufacturing. Anyone with an idea can now make functional prototypes and proofs of concepts with the click of a button. As you wrote, in perhaps 10 years time, we will be able to get the size and surface finish from 3d printing required to make limited production parts that have certain characteristics (weight, shape, containing reentrant angles, etc) not feasible from CNC milling/turning, etc.
For the present time, 3D Printing is NOT revolutionizing the actual production of end products.
However the decreased pricing and increased availability (3D printing has been available for a very long time at a high cost) of 3D Printing machines IS revolutionizing the very important part of the product life cycle....Design For Manufacture (DFM)[1].
Rapid Prototyping, Kanban, lean, agile, and other concepts that are revolutionizing software development were all concepts that developed in the Manufacturing world many years ago.
3D Printing is a very valuable tool for rapidly validating and testing designs....release early and often, get feedback, validate, etc.
Most products for the time being(once through the DFM process) will still get produced using traditional methods (Injection Mouldings, Castings, etc).
On some level, Dropbox is a hardware company [1]. I think that once you have installed software at a clients location, you are in a different realm than simply being a cloud/software/service provider. The customer has full ownership of the device. I think that the move to hardware is tri-fold (a) hardware is easier now than ever (b) hardware is a good strategy and a natural barrier to entry for a startup (in general, less people grok hardware and systems software than they do web programming[2]) (c) a small/mini subconscious push-back against the Cloud[3] where more and more customers are being turned off by not owning something at the end of the day[4]
[1] The hardware is the customers PC.
[2] iOS device programming, w/ human interaction (gyroscope) has also been a natural training ground.
[3] Of course, many Hardware companies these days Square, Dropbox, etc, will be paired with a cloud service.
[4] Acqui-hires..."We are shutting Down. Please Download your stuff by next week. Thanks for being a User and getting me interest from a big fish, see you on my next startup"
