The UK is beyond unreasonable with that nonsense. What if you ask a foreign partner to create a key and secure the device without telling you until you are past the border or out of the country? What if you were collecting atmospheric data?
Not that I think the US has any moral high ground overall, but they only court-order your password under circumstances where someone's already seen evidence of something illegal on there.
I disagree with the UK stance on such things but such behaviour on your part would rightly be taken as proof of ill-intent because it would be an unreasonable thing to do and so could only have been intended to avoid complying with the law. These people may be 'unreasonable' but they are much, much, much cleverer than you.
Counter-example: You work for Company A and need to deliver documents to Company B. Your comrade X creates the key. You pass through a dangerous part of town where Company C works. Fearing that C might kidnap you, X created the key so that X must be present when they reach Company B through their alternate route.
>"but such behaviour on your part would rightly be taken as proof of ill-intent because it would be an unreasonable thing to do and so could only have been intended to avoid complying with the law."
Oh, is it about visas? I was going to snark it up and say they also recognize pizza as a vegetable. I approve of pro gamers getting visas to compete even if I'm not interested in watching.
You don't even need a jailbroken phone, just a provisioning profile. Objective-C is fully dynamic, so you can override UIView/CALayer so that it sends data to a server whenever it changes and is a child view of the key UIWindow.
They don't say it explicitly, but I would be shocked if Reveal does not work the same when testing on a device.
You would still need a way to get your code running in another process; simply replacing the implementations of methods in your own application would not cause them to change system-wide.
I don't know why hiring decisions would be based on gender at all, though, so I don't know why badclient seems to argue for it here. Both men and women can be frivolously litigative.
Obviously people would mow lawns but the price would be higher because they don't have to. If you wanted someone to mow your lawn, you would probably need extra income. Or, since you have more free time, you can now mow it yourself and enjoy it instead of feeling like it's cutting into your only spare 48 hours.
The attractive part of basic income for me is that everyone has enough to buy food and housing, so suddenly menial laborers have an iota of bargaining power.
This is literally true and goes beyond security. I hope everyone who complained about Google Reader takes note of this; once you have the freedom to modify and rebuild you are trivially able to continue using your software long after the creators have shut it down.
I don't buy this. Unless by slow you mean "heat death of the universe" slow. This is like the "open always wins" argument - wishful thinking devoid of evidence that caters to "If I want it it shall be".
Apple and Microsoft continues to grow. Samsung too, and they have little to no interest in OSS. Let's also keep in mind that most of the world's core services above the OS (eg Google's mail, docs, search, plus) remain closed source, as is the UI layer for most mobile devices (very, very few use stock android.)
Where OSS is doing very well is in commodity infrastructure - browsers, servers, databases, middleware, etc. It hasn't killed the closed source markets there conpletely, but it has made them work a lot harder.
Open-source also means: The entire planet's population is the pool (of developers). And this in turn means:
As soon as there is a real need for something, and somebody in this world is willing to work on it (for whatever motivation), this piece of software instantly becomes available to the _entire_ planet, without barrier (no price to pay, no payment method hurdles).
This is an _extremely_ powerful property which eventually will dominate the nature of solutions we use.
This is all very nice to state as goal, but it does not help if you need money as software developer.
I do a lot of open source on my free time, but that is because I get paid by one of those commercial bad guys companies to work on closed software, which allows me to contribute back for free.
How far do you think most open source projects would be without sponsoring from commercial companies that allow some developers to work on open source projects.
This is one of the reasons why most successful open source software is developer tooling, or nowadays hidden behind SaaS walls.
It is all nice and dandy to talk about open source ideals, but when you need to earn at least 1 000€ per month, those ideals start to fade away. Speaking from experience.
I'm not saying closed-source is "bad guys" or anything like that. I'm just saying what I'm observing: open-source is picking up steam and maturing across the board. It's not slowing down at all. It's true that it will kill some developer jobs. But that can't be an argument for not supporting open-source (tech is always about getting more efficient, resource-wise, and therefor a job killer by definition).
Software in general is 'picking up steam and maturing a across the board'. We now have almost 2 billion consumers carrying a unix box in their pockets, not running open source.
If anything, the relevance of open source is dwindling by comparison.
Useful software takes a lot of time and effort to write, and there is a lot of investment in learning required to get to the point where one can do it.
Unless a person is independently wealthy, a significant portion of ones time and energy must be devoted to efforts that will be paid.
Therefore open source is either subsidized directly by other paying ventures e.g. corporations for whom it is strategic, of it is engaged in by individuals in the time left over after their paid work.
Until the world changes so that people don't need money to live, developer hours will flow preferentially to the ecosystem according to the available monetary rewards.
The ecosystem that makes it easiest for the most developers to get paid will attract the most developers.
This could be the "open source" ecosystem at some point depending on what business models prevail, but I see no reason why it should automatically be so.
I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument, but you seem to be claiming A implies B, where in fact A is true and B is false.
> Open-source also means: The entire planet's population is the pool (of developers).
This is currently true, even when closed source software also exists. Or at least, getting rid of closed source software won't make it significantly more true than it is now.
> As soon as there is a real need for something, and somebody in this world is willing to work on it (for whatever motivation), this piece of software instantly becomes available to the _entire_ planet, without barrier (no price to pay, no payment method hurdles).
This either is not currently true, or is not as powerful a property as you claim.
Well it's like how can certain computer programmers be Christian fundamentalists[1]? They were taught that way as a child and have no influences that really refute what they believe. I thought USA was the bee's knees until I had a chance to interact with citizens of other countries.
[1] I think programmer implies they have critical thinking capabilities, and I think as empiricists we all must reject fundamentalism as a hypothesis.
Do you think because I have a religion that I am a poor empiricist? Or that because I know programming languages in the high double-digits I am a poor believer?
Einstein's 1930 NYT article [1] might serve as common ground for us to discuss this rationally. I have to point out, though, that my faith is not out of "fear, social morality, [or] a cosmic religious feeling." I believe as I do because it is an essential part of who I am (identity).
I actually agree with you that there is plenty of unwarranted, blind nationalism in the USA.
> I believe as I do because it is an essential part of who I am (identity).
Interesting. I do not think I've heard someone put it quite like that before. I find it quite bizarre and circular:
"I believe in X because I define myself as a person who believes in X, and therefore not believing in X means I lose my identity, therefore I believe in X"
So it's literally impossible for you to stop believing in anything, no matter how ridiculous, without losing your entire sense of self. Kind of defined yourself into a corner there, eh?
First off, it seems you've made X arbitrary large, when for the OP it seems to have been a carefully defined set of beliefs that are attached to their identity. In other words it does not follow they'll believe literally "anything".
Besides I don't see what would prohibit the OP from changing his identity or evolving it. Unless we've somehow established identity is unchangeable, of which I'm not convinced.
> I believe as I do because it is an essential part of who I am (identity).
What an odd reason to believe something. I generally try to only believe things because they're the conclusion that best fits the available evidence. Why would you use any other technique?
I don't think you are a poor empiricist in your field. If you can somehow equate fossil records with creationism, then yes you are a poor empiricist in that field. I specifically wrote that it's a kind confirmation bias, however.
What sort of programmer? Are you a computer scientist, or a computer engineer? I sincerely don't mean any offence, but I wonder if there are two ends of the spectrum of code and computer programming. Do you muck about in fractal algorithms or learn how best to utilise the latest protocols and languages for functional requirements?
I'm more interested in hearing what pi18n has to say, but it's a fair question:
I hold multiple degrees above my BSc in Electrical Engineering, one of which is in Computer Science. I'm also PE certified (US Professional Engineer certification).
I doubt that he's taking the book literally. It would be hard to follow the old testament to a T. (Maybe he's betting Pascal's Wager or having a spiritual life really does help him get through the rest of this irrational life's crazy times.)
As for geology, it's pretty evident that prophets that wrote the "Truth" millennia in the past probably didn't listen when the voices from on high droned on about plate tectonics and such.
I respect those who believe, for example, that the earth was created in 7*24 = 168 hours.
I don't believe that, however.
The pentateuch's creation story differs enough from how it appears in modern English translations that I have no problem believing it is literally God's word.
If you had removed that first sentence and the footnote, you'd have gotten an upvote (instead of a downvote) from me. This site isn't for your political/religious bashing. And btw, if you're going to talk about such things you should probably look into philosophy.
