Merkle had a huge influence also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Merkle
It also occurred to me that Moxie Marlinspike was in the unusual position of being the only one on the panel of five not to have (yet!) received a Turing Award. (He came off very well nonetheless.)
(In addition to Diffie and Hellman, the other two Turing-awarded panelists were Ron Rivest and Adi Shamir.)
When Lamport got his in 2013 I took the time to read "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System" . Been sleeping under the rock since then.
This is by Simon Singh, who wrote the excellent book "The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography", including a chapter on DiffieHellmanMerkle key exchange.
Marty and Whit deserve kudos for their important work in cryptography.
Some of the Q&A is pretty weird
((g^a) mod p)^b mod p = (g^ab) mod p = ((g^b) mod p)^a mod p
-- The beauty of math.
Why it takes such long time for Computer Scientist to achieve such Award. DH Algo has been well known for long time. On the other hand Physicists(Theoretical, Astro, ...) dont have to wait too long to gain such recognition.
Since I'm coming from Haskell I'm used to a vast Applicative and Monad vocabulary and making do with just `bind` and `return` is rather painful. So having a generic library of Monad combinators that one could use with any Monad would be great. Also, being able to just write `show x` is so nice!
Edit: while I often see "modular implicits are being worked on" it is not very clear whether there is a concrete plan to add them to the language. Is there any place in the official OCaml repository / issue tracking system / wiki etc where one could check the status?
I'm putting my notes on github, in case anyone wants a head start.
> A course taught as a bag of tricks is devoid of educational value. One year later, the students will forget the tricks, most of which are useless anyway. The bag of tricks mentality is, in my opinion, a defeatist mentality...In an elementary course in differential equations, students should learn a few basic concepts that they will remember for the rest of their lives...
I hated the DE cleass I took in college and it was largely because I felt like it was nothing but a bag of tricks. I very distinctly remember one problem that seemed unsolvable until the teacher showed that you had to substitute a "2" with "1/2 + 3/2". And then, to make matters worse, he put the exact same problem on the test. So we were being rewarded, not for really understanding the core basic concepts, but for memorizing the tricks needed to solve specific problems.
I absolutely love mathematics, for me it is the embodiment of pure beauty. Still, I positively, absolutely hated the sophomore course of ODEs. The way it was taught was extremely abstract: here is the equation, this is integration, this is separation, this is your SLP, now go deal with it.
It was totally pointless and life-sucking. It was not until I got to the 3rd year and learned about specific applications in physics (like heat dissipation, strings, and springs), and later in finance (stochastic calculus) and biology (e.g. Lotka-Volterra) when I realized how many wonderful and extremely useful applications they have.
Have this course started with that, things would be completely different.
> One of many mistakes of my youth waswriting a textbook in ordinarydifferential equations. It set me backseveral years in my career in mathematics.However, it had a redeeming feature: itled me to realize that I had no idea whata differential equation is.
Wow! Good to see that he wrote this.Looking at his book,
Garrett Birkhoff and Gian-Carlo Rota,Ordinary Differential Equations, Ginnand Company, Boston, 1962.
I got the same impression! I couldn't seewhat the heck they were driving at.Instead, they seemed to flit around with alot of tiny topics of little or nointerest for little or no reason.
Want to understand ordinary differentialequations, read Coddington:
Earl A. Coddington, An Introduction toOrdinary Differential Equations,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1961.
Then for more, to make such equations muchmore important, read some deterministicoptimal control theory, e.g., Athans andFalb
Michael Athans and Peter L. Falb, OptimalControl: An Introduction to the Theoryand Its Applications, McGraw-Hill BookCompany, New York,
that, BTW, also has some goodintroductory, but very useful, material onordinary differential equations.
More generally, want to know what to studyin a subject that will be useful? Okay,one approach is to go to more advancedmaterial that is an application of thatsubject and see what that materialemphasizes for prerequisites, e.g.,sometimes quite clear in an appendix.
E.g., Athans and Falb say quite clearlywhat is important in ordinary differentialequations for their work.
They had a custom textbook created for their 2-course ODE sequence that several of the faculty collaborated on. Though it did contain content on uniqueness theorems and some proofs, far and away the biggest two items hammered in were (a) linear equations with constant coefficients, and (b) Laplace transform methods.
They also offered (at the time) a 3rd, optional course called Boundary Value Problems that was focused on several physics-motivated BVPs like with Laplace's equation, heat equation, wave equation, Young's modulus, and others, and that course heavily used Fourier and Laplace methods.
We did have word problems, but they were almost exclusively "salt tank" problems. Literally, every word problem described a tank of water or pre-mixed brine solution, with some description of either more salt or more water being added or removed, either gradually or in discrete injections.
The fact that every problem was an infamous "salt-tank problem" essentially made its status as a word problem irrelevant. This seems like it wouldn't be that helpful but actually it was really nice. You got so used to the different pieces that comprised the modeling problem that when you went off and did something in other courses, like circuit systems or conservation systems in mechanical engineering, you knew how to translate the problem to 'salt tank' form, which really covered a huge range of practical problems.
As a math major, one fault I noticed of this method was that it did not make the connections to linear algebra very clear. It took me another few semesters afterward to catch up on that part, but I can understand how engineering majors cared less about that.
I don't know what Rose-Hulman does for this curriculum now, but it would be cool to somehow take a "snapshot" of their methods for it and compare it with other experiences like this OP.
I've been collecting interesting scientific papers and publications since early 2000 (I've a collection of 10,000 or so) and I've not yet seen a single academic, not even a computer scientist, who understands how to name your documents right so that when I download them I could quickly find them. I've to rename every single pdf. It's infuriating.
Someone should teach academics an SEO course.
I don't get this. Differential equations theory is about proving existence and uniqueness of solutions. If you have to use numerical techniques to actually compute the solution, then that's perfectly fine. After all, even if the solution is explicit, like sin(x), or especially a special function, then we still need to use numerical techniques to actually evaluate that explicit solution.
 Review here: http://www.maa.org/publications/maa-reviews/indiscrete-thoug...
> It is of the utmost importance to explain the relation between the solutions of the differential equation and the solutions of the system. The solutions of the system are trajectories, they are parametric curves endowed with a velocity given by the vector field. The solutions of the corresponding differential equation are integral curves, and their graphs are the graphs of the trajectories deprived of velocity. Often, instead of solving the differential equation, it is more convenient to solve the corresponding autonomous system.
Mathematicians have so much fun..
Edit: Awesome replies, thank you!
Read this: http://reactfordesigners.com/labs/reactjs-introduction-for-p...
If this article does not convince you, React is not for you and that's OK.
I had the chance to talk with him after a local JS meetup and he was super nice. Can't recommend his stuff more.
Apart from stubbornly refusing to accept embedding html in js directly is a good idea (although I see the pros), licencing is the main reason I avoid this ecosystem altogether. Even though it has an outstanding community.
perhaps I'm making a deal out of nothing.
In any case will definitely take the course, im sure it will be as excellent as the others. Many thanks for your efforts Tyler.
Opera on Android, cookies enabled; Adblock Plus enabled or disabled, no changes.
Edit: I checked with Firefox and Opera on Ubuntu and it works.
Thanks for making this free!
We currently use native JS and JQuery for these customizations, usually within a monolithic document.ready block. The problem is that our code can get pretty complex, especially when hooking up multiple event handlers to the same elements. I've been thinking that React may be able to solve this problem, but I'm uncertain about using it alongside Angular, especially since I have no control over the latter.
Based on this description, would there be any advantages to trying to shoehorn React into our projects, or should we stick with native JS and JQuery?
And that belief is based on what exactly?
Apple has being saying the opposite. Apple doesn't know it's own code? FBI knows it better.
I've written up a summary of the hearings at InfoQ here: http://www.infoq.com/news/2016/03/apple-fbi-congress
The general responses from Apple were that it wouldn't be possible to write this just for one phone; that once the FBiOS was available for one it would be available for any phone. Dr Landon also highlighted the fact that most people now use their phones as part of a two-factor authentication, and that the easiest way to break into a system (such as the IRS leak) is to compromise login credentials. The fear is, therefore, that once pandora's box is opened that the operating system would be installable on any device and thus potentially give access to any state actor to any account simply through device compromise.
The entire hearing was very well laid out, though in a few cases Apple's witnesses weren't quite as fluid as the FBI's.
The congress members have five days to ask additional questions, after which presumably a report will be made. More information is available at the House page here:
> "Apple has created a technology which is default disk encryption. It didn't exist before. It exists now. Apple is now claiming a right of privacy about a technology that it just created. That right of privacy didn't exist before Apple created the technology." 
Wrong. The first and fourth amendments grant rights to privacy. The exact transcripts of what we say in the privacy of our homes, prior to a warranted wiretap or without witness testimony, are not the subject of law enforcement's investigation. Our entire history of digital communications should not be open for government surveillance. It would be overreach to try to implement, and anyway it is impossible to guarantee without destroying the US tech industry and turning us into a big brother state.
There is a serious problem here. If you ask me any government official who forces a backdoor down the throat of a private company ought to be fired, yet he believes he should be fired if he DOESN'T do it.
There's a very big divide happening right now in the US. This is going to be a rough time.
I hate this kind of willful ignorance. That update, if properly signed, will work on similar phones. The software is distinct from the signing and it's the software that Apple doesn't want to create.
Or maybe Comey believes that every time his phone is updated, an engineer in Cupertino lovingly arranged the bits for him.
It also amazes me he thought it was a helpful metaphor to say that the FBI doesn't want a backdoor, just for Apple to take the vicious guard dog away and let us pick the lock. I think every American would prefer having a guard dog protecting their personal property and data than just let these liars pick the lock.
Truly, I'm getting weary of all the nearly-identical news of Uncle Sam's assault on digital privacy. If the strategy is to desensitize and wear down the US populace, it's working.
You know, the sad part about this (paraphrased) quote is that it'll probably be used as justification by the California court system to rule on this case specifically rather than on the circumstance more broadly. I wonder if that's Comey's strategy in admitting the error.
"We are a rule-of-law country. The FBI is not cracking into your phone or listening to your communications except under the rule of law," says Comey (1:37). I suppose that's the NSA's job...
The issue here isn't the reusability of the technologythe issue is the reusability of the legal precedent. And this is certainly a very scary precedent to set!
I skipped around the video. I mostly saw support for Apple, with a few exceptions, one being Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Sensenbrenner, a House republican of Wisconsin, asked Apple what legislation they would support, and Mr. Sewell, Apple's general counsel, said they support debate on the subject 
The congressman was clearly bullying Mr. Sewell here and using his position as congressman to make it appear as though Apple is not being agreeable. Well, encouraging debate before writing one-sided legislation sounds like great teamwork to me.
The congressman should have been reminded that not supporting new legislation is a valid position, and that every problem we face need not be solved with new laws.
Perhaps Mr. Sewell is trying to be respectful to the congressman. But I think he should not shy from responding in kind. Treat others as they treat you. No one will judge you for it. I think Apple missed an opportunity here to say they do not feel new legislation is needed, since guaranteeing back doors into devices would be an abridgement of consumers' right to privacy, and Apple's right to create safe products for consumers as it sees fit.
Overall though this seemed like a productive session.
Mr. Gowdy, a House republican of South Carolina, also bullies Sewell in the same manner , literally asking Apple to lobby for legislation.
In other words he is saying, get some lobbyists, do my work for me, pay for my next election campaign and solve your own problem. I don't know how you could be more blatantly obvious about being a corrupt, useless politician.
EDIT transcript here, though no speaker names are given and quotes are cut short
EDIT list of participants:
Any iPhone <5 running iOS <8 is comically exploitable. This should drive home the point that as time progresses, older vulnerabilities become easier to exploit, so that leaving them unpatched becomes irresponsible.
If the FBI asks Apple to create new software to grant the FBI the ability to unlock the phone, they are effectively asking Apple to exploit a vulnerability in their software. By definition, Apple will know that vulnerability exists. In the "arms race," when Apple identifies a vulnerability, they fix it. In this case, when Apple identifies the vulnerability, will the FBI allow them to fix it? Or would the FBI prefer that Apple have a responsibility to "maintain" the vulnerability and ensure it remains exploitable?
To start with get something to monitor errors/exceptions and email you. To name a few services:
https://github.com/errbit/errbit can be hosted on Heroku for free)
Also make sure that you have accessible logs that log useful information (timestamps, the user making the request, unique request ID). Then use syslog or a SaaS service to aggregate logs from all servers in one place, and keep them for as long as you can.
Three areas that I think would have been worth including:
You deploy to test & other pre-prod environments more often than prod. They should use the same scripts/tools/processes as production deployments, only with different permissions.
Test and production environments will always have different config settings, so no team will ever be able to deploy to more than one environment without encountering this problem. I think there's still an open question around whether those configuration settings should live in the same source control as the code, in a different source control repository, or a dedicated system. Source control systems and sensitive values (passwords, API keys, etc.) don't always mix.
3. Build your binaries once.
The article is more focussed on dynamic languages, but for compiled languages, I think this is important. If you branch, compile, deploy to test, test it, get the all clear, then compile again and deploy to production, there's a lot of opportunity for differences between what you tested and what goes to production to sneak in.
In fact even for dynamic languages, this might be a valuable practice. What if the JS minifier on one build server is different to another, and the deployed script ends up being different in production to what was tested.
Disclaimer: I'm the founder of Octopus Deploy, and these practices might be biased towards enterprisey .NET/on-premises deployments rather than cloud hosted, dynamic language projects.
Great writing. Spaces all the way.
I ended up going with Distelli, it's a SaaS but it's fantastic. These days deploys often involve more than just one app or language, and I really prefer a tool that can ship anything. Also, having a GUI to see deployment statuses is invaluable. With those requirements none of the Nodejs tools can stand up to the other, more mature utilities. And rather than have to write all my deploy logic in another language, I just purchase the service.
That said, the article does come off a bit as trying to be authoritative, but at the same time it doesn't leave enough room for possibilities where alternative approaches may have merit as well (i.e. "this is how to do it" vs. "what worked well for us, ymmv").Newbies that read this article will think that the principles described are the canonical way and even try and apply them in scenarios where alternatives may prove superior.
Other than that, a lot of good advice, well done!
I'd be much more interested to learn about how people develop mobile and web apps, where feature flags are far less useful as you need to push the entire app to the AppStore, so your iteration time is much slower.
* Contrary to popular belief, physical production is NOT the single largest part of a book's cost. In fact, even before ebooks, the cost of paper and ink and shipping was actually a pretty negligible part of the final cost.
Most of the cost of a book is the highly-skilled labor involved (writing, editing, copyediting, proofreading, designing, typesetting, marketing, selling) and these critically don't go away or even get much cheaper in an electronic world. Even ebooks need specialized design and typesetting, and I have some examples which did not get that love which will make your eyes bleed if you don't believe me.
Salaries in publishing have for decades been nosing around the minimum the market will bear---as just one example, freelance proofreaders get paid a penny per word; the good ones get two. Many freelance proofreaders are also editors, copyeditors, and authors in their own right, and hustle their asses off to make incomes that, coming from tech, we wouldn't consider starvation wages.
* Price is an important signalling mechanism, and so---given the costs of book production---it's important to the publishers not to drive the perceived fair cost of books down below, no matter whether Amazon is currently subsidizing that or not.
> They actually proved the consumer will buy the cheaper option, but okay
I find it alarming that an indie author does not seem to be concerned with cheap product flooding the market. Amazon's attempts to lower barriers to entry means more aspiring authors competing for a piece of the pie. Look at how the race to the bottom in the App Store is destroying indie iPhone developers.
The the comments about Amazon and publishing, Amazon has a very major publishing operation (called, suprise!, Amazon Publishing). It's grabbing market share very quickly. If you want information about this check authorearnings.com (which provides industry sales estimates that include self-publishing) Of course the big story in the publishing business is that self-publishing is rapidly eclipsing traditional publishers in the ebook space.
Amazon is not only doing Netflix for books. It's doing Netflix for film and TV. The big competitor to Netflix is not any network or studio -- it's Amazon.
You remove the barrier to entry so that as many people as possible will try your product (free).
You identify those people who really enjoy your book and want to consume more of the same.
You provide them with so much content that they can spend as must as they like.
It's not unreasonable for people to spend 100's of dollars a month enjoying their favorite pastimes.
Why put a $15 cap on it per book.
My guess is that it would drive authors into services like Kindle Unlimited, since they would be able to create a long-term income stream unlike physical books or non-transferrable ebooks.
Why is this insane? An ebook has more value to me than the print one as it's more convenient. Since it has more value to me I'm prepared to pay more.
The physical copy could be free and I'd still pay to get the ebook instead in most cases.
And maybe this will slow Amazon's success for a few profitable years, more profitable than current loses ? And maybe by that time the publishers will find an ebook strategy that will work(hard to believe, but maybe).
Also,let's look on the other side - what happens if ebooks fully kill print ? can publishing even make money in such state of affairs ?
Gotta catch 'em all!
"I had waited on Reverend Richard at a York Steak House I worked at, and one night he invited me out to his car to see some baby rabbits, and I didnt want to be rude, so here we are."
And Matt Lauer responds: "Im always amazed by what women will do because theyre afraid of being rude"
It's often hard for men to understand the societal pressure placed on women to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain female agency in the world.
I know a woman who owns nothing in her own name, changes her phone number frequently, and whose own family often does not know how to reach her. All to make it harder for her stalker to keep tracking her down. When she acquired the stalker she was high profile so the FBI actually did send someone to give her advice. The advice was basically that she was screwed, how to best hide, and to get trained guard dogs.
I wish I was joking.
It's hard to understand why, having previously already blocked this person elsewhere, they would accept a friend request from them. I suppose now, 10 years later, one can hope that people exact greater control over their online social networks.
I have to wonder though: If her local police was ignorant of actual laws applying to her case, as she indicated, couldn't she just tell the officers under which exact laws she is making a complaint?
Further, if the local police is generally ignorant and incompetent, what would her chances for success be in using a lawyer to try and identify appropiate channels and contacting them?
I would be. Danny clearly has more than a few screws loose.
This is a perfect case for civil law: causing emotional distress, harassment, defamation, etc. You should attempt to sue him and get a no-contact order if you can.
But legally the FIRST thing to do with a stalker or harasser is to TELL them unequivocally that you want NO further contact. Preferably document in writing; in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to. At this point further unwanted contact becomes more clearly a criminal matter.
Too often, those on the receiving end ignore or laugh off bad behavior. This is natural enough, but unless someone is clearly threatening, if they haven't been told unequivocally to stop all further contact, then they can always argue, sincerely or not, that they didn't know their contact was unwelcome. Or that in any event they were free to continue their advances.
The closest the author explicitly posts is "I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or Id block him." That is unlikely enough to suffice as "clearly informed to cease that conduct." All it would take is a message saying "never contact me again." Period, full stop. Better yet, add "or I will report you to police." At that point, further contact is actionable, criminal harassment.
That being said, much of this cyberstalker's behavior is independently harassing, e.g. forged emails to friends etc. But putting someone on notice is a first step to protecting yourself. It is premature to go to police to say, "X is bothering me, I'm not afraid of him and I haven't told him firmly to go away, but I really want him to go away." If someone isn't in any way actually putting you in fear, and all that is involved is unwanted communications/nonphysical contact, then it's on you to first tell him to go away before involving police. Then if he won't, you have an unambiguous complaint.
Edit: The author does also describe some poor policing. Good community-oriented policing centers around mediation. Ideally the police in this situation would not simply say "it's not a crime" and make the complainant feel helpless and ignored, but would try to solve help solve the problem. Specifically by taking a report and offering to communicate to the person that all further contact is unwelcome and may lead to a criminal complaint, and documenting this. This type of approach is likely to help bring an end to the behavior, or in the alternative lay a foundation for a future, actionable criminal complaint. In the best case, behavior improves, complainant can move on with her life, police don't have to deal with future complaints, everybody wins. Sadly many departments just don't want to get involved or have the resources to deal with community mediation, even if it pays for itself over time.
There are excellent reasons for police to be uninvolved in what amounts to people saying mean things, even if those mean things are directed at your employer or friends.
The police, I fear, want to start getting a bit more proactive. When someone is able to get away with sabotaging someone else's life with complete impunity from authorities, a lot of people take actions in their own hands.
Sure it probably freaks her out a lot (and rightfully so) but did she really expect any authority to be able to take action on that basis. Think of the kinds of shit that would hit the fan if "distasteful behavior that freaks others out" was enough to get someone arrested (and all the life ruining things that go with it).
The problem is organizing and collecting the information and ensuring it is useful later, rather than just during the 5 minutes. Let users break a chat message out into a threaded discussion for example. We already have plenty of voice and video chat options, we can just pick up a phone. Those things are ephemeral. Text is forever. Let's keep more of that so we can use it to further the business objectives.
Skype is also a mess right now; with chat application bugs, UX issues (why does the freakin' mute button move around) calls that can't be joined or start cyloning, participants are suddenly dropped mid call. Throw in the spying allegations ...
Hangouts is great for video but is a really clunky experience otherwise.
With everbody dropping the ball, there certainly is room for Slack to come in and take control of this space.
Right now we use Lync/Skype for communication, which I loathe almost as much as Lotus Notes. This sentiment is shared by many. Slack usage has organically grown (as a reaction to the failings of Lync) and I can envision Slack displacing Lync in many companies.
The command `/appear` is even built-in to slack.
That makes me curious about what their relationship is.
Our only complaint is no desktop client, but the web and phone clients make up for it.
So does Skype though, so whatever.
What is truly scary is that the banks and financial institutions have not implemented OAuth. Currently, financial data is provided to third party apps via aggregators, like Plaid and Yodlee.
Unlike OAuth, once you log into your bank with a third party app, they get an access token that allows access to your account indefinitely. There is no mechanism to monitor which apps have access to your account and ability to revoke the access to individual apps.
I posted about this a while back: https://medium.com/@johnie/let-my-financial-data-free-74f3b7...
- View and manage your mail
(click the "info" icon)
View, manage, and permanently delete your mail in Gmail
Create, update, and delete labels
Compose and send new email
View your settings (e.g., filters and labels)
- - -
Okay. So the author is saying that the user cannot be trusted to read dialog boxes or click "more info" on a process they don't understand. Which, if that's the case, I guess the user can't be trusted to connect Gmail to anything. That's an unfortunately wide swath of usability that would have to be categorically disallowed if the problem is that Google allows this "At all."
I try to mitigate this personally by creating multiple Google Accounts, but it isn't foolproof---plus, not every social network lets you do that.
Sorry but it is MY information and I should be able to do with it as I please. If Google removes the ability to extract it all to a third party then you're locked into Google forever. Removing the ability because some people aren't responsible isn't a good argument.
If this wasn't possible at all, this product couldn't exist in it's current form. And clearly, at some point, the author saw value in this product enough to give it a shot.
Do I agree Google should make it extra clear when you are signing over permission for unusually liberal access to your data? Absolutely.
A few scandals have risen because of it. I remember a popular "free" calculator app that was sending GPS data.
Oddly, most people don't seem to care. They'd rather give up their entire picture collection than spend $2 on a permissions restricted app.
Having more fine-grained restrictions than we already do won't solve the problem. Most people will simply accept the default "give this application permissions to do everything" right out of the gate. I'd be surprised if even close to 5% of the people on facebook have reviewed the applications they've given permission to in the last 12 months.
Quite arguably, Fleep gained access to data you held which was not yours to provide -- email content and contact information for those with whom you've corresponded.
This is among the reasons I'm increasingly limiting my use of electronic communications at all. The risks, reality, frequency, control, and disclosure of such cases is simply too high a negative to utilise them.
Yes, this means that I not only don't carry a smartphone, but by and large don't carry a mobile phone at all -- a regression to pre-2000 states of comms.
This is a case of race-to-the-bottom behavior, and bad (or simply grossly incompetent) actor behavior poisoning the well for all.
It's an exceptionally strong argument to replace, as rapidly as possible, the present set of hosted online services with privately provisioned ones. Sandstorm.io, FreedomBox, and similar concepts can't hit prime time too soon.
If Google knows what's good for it, it should support this as well. Its choices are having some access to user time and committment, or none.
(Google's previous behaviors mean I've largely left it behind for its namesake service. I interact with it principally through pseudonymous accounts, though I'm aware these offer fairly thin protections against a determined actor.)
As Cory Doctorow has said, data are the radioactive waste of the current age. My formulation is that data are liability.
Overreaching privacy-invading tools are bad news waiting to happen.
Isn't the alternative basically vendor lock-in?
Or that this would mean disabling things like IMAP & POP?
Fleep sounds like a shitty service from the description, but at some point user's need to take responsibility for their actions, no?
1. Don't allow 3rd party mail apps
2. Encrypt mail and provide open, verifiable clients and open server protocols.
Google make only a little money from my GMail account. I'd gladly pay them twice that for a strongly encrypted email system that provides infrastructure for key exchange with a web of trust.
I'm also curious if Mozilla is building in automatic updates in all of this software from the ground-up, seeing as how that appears to be the fundamental weakness of everything related to the IoT.
For me, and when I try to put myself in others' shoes, I find it hard to see how a professional organisation linking to "SurveyMonkey" can do anything but create a negative impression. The product seems good, I'm just surprised the name has lasted this long.
Does the name stick because the brand recognition is stronger than the features -- when compared to competitors? What happens when a name like this has "stuck"?
Given the stated revenue of $200M and the recent atmosphere around SaaS multiples, is a 10x valuation realistic here? (I'm not throwing shade - genuine semi-nave question.)
March 2012 - Google launches GCS
January 2013 - Google invests in SurveyMonkey
Is it common for Google to invest in competitors? Why would they do this?
I am giving this example only to show that when the British government cant enforce existing laws using available evidence, you cant expect them to dig up anything new with more powers.
It is something Mahatma Gandhi pointed out years ago about the British. In one of this Satyagrahas related to Champaran farmers, Gandhiji's modest and only demand was that the British must only acknowledge that there is a problem which needs to be solved. According to Gandhiji's colonial power's unwillingness to even show empathy to people means they are essentially uninterested in the helping people with their problems.
Law of Karma I guess.
 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/other-news/Indian-ori... http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/death-of-liberalism...