A neat trick for helping you write in the style of a particular author: use a list of all the words in their collected works as the dictionary in your word processor. Then you'll see any word that e.g. Jane Austin never used as a misspelling, so it's easy to only write using the vocabulary that she used.
There are a lot of middle-ground options, such as "buying back" taxi medallions before opening the floodgates and letting anyone run a taxi. This is obviously a tricky approach for a lot of reasons, but certainly there's a middle ground between "taxi medallions forever" and "all taxi medallions are worthless overnight".
I love the Slate Political Gabfest. I attended a live show in Chicago, and it was great fun; I strongly encourage anyone who likes the show (and/or who is interested in politics) to attend.
Circus looks huge and doesn't appeal for one or two apps. I do however wish to experiment with circus at some point. Do you have any comparison to make, assuming you have used both? Or anyone out there? Thanks
I think the MySQL one might be quite a big one for many people. I know Postgress is better (South tells me every time the migration doesn´t work) but for converting older projects it definitely going to be useful.
For what I can see, Invoke is just a revamped version of Fabric’s task running components.
Fabric 2.0 will "leverage Invoke for task running, leaving Fabric itself much more library oriented".
I am aware of that, but I still consider it one of my favorite libraries, and thought it would be useful to mention that it's not yet py3k-ready. I can imagine quite a few people might depend on it. What are you using instead?
The standard MySQL driver wasn´t working the other day when I tried. That might be quite a big one for some people. I saw you could apply a patch, but I didn´t get round to trying yet.
Alpha release of Oracle MySQL Connector/Python http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/connector/python/ actually works with Django 1.5+ and Python3. But you will be on the bleeding edge if you put it in production.
Yes. If you accidentally stumble upon something you shouldn't and don't exploit it or sell it to someone when you know you clearly shouldn't be you will be fine. It is pretty straightforward.
Everyone here keeps purposefully ignoring intent, but in the context of the law this is impossible. So no matter how much you hate it, this isn't something that can be a binary yes/no illegal/legal question based on some computer response to your query.
He didn't exploit it or sell it and he's fucked. We're ignoring intent because a crime has yet to be committed. Intent doesn't matter without a crime. If intent is the only dividing line, you are in favor of thoughtcrime.
Well...his crime actually was that he intentionally accessed data he knew he should not have been accessing. That is a crime. Thus he was found guilty. I'm not sure why this is so hard to reconcile or is being purposefully ignored just because this crime is one of many that involves a computer.
Please show me the section of US legal code regarding intentional access of data one knows one should not be accessing; without mentioning trespass, which he did not do, and without mentioning causing a computer to act in a manner the owner does not desire, which he also did not do.
Sorry no legal code offhand, but you can surely break the law without trespassing and "causing a computer to act in a manner the owner does not desire". This shouldn't be hard to comprehend.
The law involves intent. They proved he intended to act in bad faith while gathering that data and he was rightfully found guilty.
The law requires intent and a crime. If you cannot tell me which specific crime, your argument is invalid.
Why you are having a hard time understanding that "we put him in jail because we don't like what he did" is wrong I have no idea. You must be a troll disagreeing on purpose.
His crime was obtaining information he knew he shouldn't have been accessing. He didn't get out in jail because someone didn't like what he did, he got put in jail because he broke the law.
Strong agree that those documents had the potential to lead to the murder of informants - this alone convinces me that the mass release of those cables without any edits or redactions was irresponsible.
However, I've previously assumed that we (incredibly) made it through the aftermath of the leaks without any of those potential murders taking place, for the same reasons listed in the grandparent comment; the media would have reported it, and the government would have surely cited it at Chelsea Manning's trial. So I'm skeptical but intrigued by your assertion that informants may have been murdered, but that there's be no way for us to know whether this had happened. My (uninformed) expectation would be that we WOULD know, since:
- we had (previously but not anymore?) informants in those places in the first place
- such murders would be (easily?) dicoverable after the fact, especially since the Taliban would have motive to tout them
- the government had a strong motive for wanting to portray the leaks in the worst possible light, and therefore would want to discover and verify such murders
Your observation that we have very little knowledge of these places does make me more uncertain about whether any murders occurred, but at this point we're far enough out from the leaks that the burden of proof lies with anyone asserting that murders probably DID take place, for the reasons listed above. (As opposed to the question of whether the leaks were irresponsible in the first place, which for me is a resounding yes even if we somehow made it through without any murders.)
Why are you arguing about whether anyone was murdered over the releases? The circumstantial evidence that the thread was real is overwhelming, and the poor visibility we have into Afghan tribal culture makes it impossible to settle the argument. Furthermore, by continuing to litigate the point, you help build the argument that Assange bears some responsibility for that threat. Why not instead just say, "sure, bad things happened, but they're offset by the good Wikileaks did", or something like that?
Your assertion that we may never know whether anyone was murdered was a surprise to me, which is why I responded. It seems relevant because whether the good outweighs the bad depends on how much bad was actually done. (Technically what's relevant is how much bad one would expect to have happened in advance, but what actually ended up happening last time will affect our guesstimates of what is likely to happen next time.)
Don't know we also need to know how much good was actually done? Can that be quantified? (Can we name somebody who wasn't murdered because of the leaks?)
Asking how to quantify the good and bad that resulted from a thing is something we can ask about literally anything. It's especially hard in this case, because the potential harm was immediate and personal (people being murdered, etc) while the good was broad long-term (a public with greater insight into what its government is doing, etc). But there are plenty of areas with similar tradeoffs; if raising a speed limit lowers commutes for millions of people but raises fatalities by some amount, then that's equally hard to compare.
There are 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 possible 128-bit keys. So if you had a machine that could check a trillion possible keys per second it would take over 10 quintillion years to try all possible 128-bit keys.
Can you clarify why the master password isn't offering any protection? It encrypts your other passwords so that they are not stored in plaintext on the filesystem; this alone seems like it's offering a little security, since my (perhaps mistaken) assumption is that it's more likely for someone to be able to read a file on your filesystem than to read in-memory passwords stored in RAM.
EDIT: Your other comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6173111 probably explains your view on this; that there are few attacks in practice which would be thwarted by encrypting passwords at rest, and that the false sense of security on the part of the user would be disproportionately high.
I'm aware that many people don't use ORMs and feel they cause more problems than they solve. However, I'm struggling to think of a popular web framework in any language that doesn't include or suggest a specific ORM.
So out of curiosity, when you do web development, do you use an ORM-less framework, or do you simply not use the ORM that's included/recommended?
> Couldn't they pick a more sympathetic guy to talk about
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken
I don't just think his sentencing was improper, I don't believe that there was any criminal wrongdoing by anyone at any point. He did nothing criminal, and neither did ATT.
