scarhill
AWS isn’t killing your business
- FAA ATP AMEL and ASEL certificate with CL-65 SIC rating and Part 121 experience; CE-510S rating (single pilot, Cessna Mustang)
- Helicopter ATP
- single-engine seaplane rating at the commercial level
- FAA Flight Instructor certificate with airplane single-engine, airplane multi-engine, helicopter, instrument airplane, and instrument helicopter ratings
He has also worked as a commercial pilot for Delta/Comair. See https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/resume
Boeing 737 MAX crash and the rejection of ridiculous data
Facebook Seeks to Leverage Its Own Failings to to Cement Its Monopoly Position
The Cloud and Open Source Powder Keg
There’s a Larger Lie Beyond the College Admissions Bribery Case
Given that it was just made public this morning, it would be surprising if it were otherwise. The real question is what the contribution model looks like going forward. The blog post says "Contributions are welcome, as are bug reports and feature requests"[1], but of course the devil is in the details.
1 - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-open-distro-for-elastic...
Less than a month to go before Google breaks links to Google+ Picasa albums
Google’s Digital Dementia: It’s Forgetting Stuff
CVS Fixes Security Hole Without Acknowledging Report about It
Lesson from the A380 and California HSR: Smaller Is Better in Transportation
1) Extremely weak ones that lots of people use (e.g. 'password1') 2) Somewhat unique ones (their pet's name and birthday) 3) Truly strong ones (random, long strings)
I don't want users on my site using type 1 passwords at all. If a password is really type 3, the odds say that no user will ever try to use it again, so there's no collateral damage in blocking it. The person signing up with a type 2 is almost certainly the same user whose credentials are in the breach. I don't want them to reuse that password on my site because it makes their account vulnerable to credential stuffing.
A brief history of Algol 68 Genie (2016)
Money quote: "You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
Abandoned S3 Bucket Allows Malicious Script to Run on 800 Sites
[1] - https://hobbypcb.com/rs-hfiq [2] - https://www.pi-sdr.net/pi-sdr/index.php/pi-sdr-projects/pi-s...