Please if you're going to create stuff like this provide some context and answer questions like "What does this actually mean?". Without those things, this is just another scary looking title and graph that will make people more panicky than they already are. Given the ramp up in testing seen in my state, the large jump up to the cases in the graph isn't surprising. We know that the US has a far higher population than Italy and that testing rates in the US have been very low. Large spikes in confirmed cases are obviously going to happen as the testing ramps up. That's when we can start drawing conclusions and make better decisions. When we have a more clear picture of how widespread this is and what that actually means. What's the R0 and what's the mortality rate? On the other hand, if we accept that there are far more infected people right now than we know, the logical conclusion is that the mortality rate is low, otherwise there'd be dead people everywhere.
Yeah, those are the only two peering points in the area. There are tons of other data centers in the area, but these are also exchanges. Fun fact, Markley Group actually owns that whole building and Macy's is a tenant of theirs. I've had a few super weird and interesting conversations with drunk/high people when badging into the building late at night when I had gear in there.
Yes, Rio sees many visitors regularly. What Rio does not see is an influx of visitors from nearly every country on earth. It's that spread that is the problem. The financial impact on hosting the games is already negative for host cities. That's no longer debatable without ignoring fact. Your argument that all the experts studying the Zika epidemic and drawing the ever more cemented conclusion that this is a very serious problem are wrong is what is hogwash.
It's pretty well known and well documented at this point that the host cities for olympic games see no financial benefit at all, and in fact they lose money. Most recently, look at the Sochi games, which cost $50+bn. There is a 0% chance that the games brought in that much money. The entities making money are the IOC and the broadcast companies, NBC being the primary. It would be sad if the games were cancelled, but at the risk of a global pandemic it's hard to see how people can argue in favor anymore.
It's important to point out that all the Whisper Systems code is open source (https://github.com/whispersystems/). So if you have concerns, go read their code. Some of the best minds in security have, and they've come away with good things to say. There's a desktop version of Signal coming, which I'd personally be inclined to use over WhatsApp, but this is still a fantastic move.
Even the digital part. There is a thing called the Sails Library Network (http://www.sailsinc.org) that offers full digital catalogs for libraries. They have mobile apps and it works with Kindles or Kindle apps. It's also not back catalog stuff only as is the case with Oyster. Libraries have been the "Netflix for Books" for centuries before there was a "Netflix". Maybe people should use them more, they are wonderful things and you're already paying for them to exist and serve you.
When a PaaS/Cloud provider says private networking, they mean RFC1918 address space. It's not publicly routed IP space which is private. So saying they offer private networking is accurate against that long standard definition. The technology and effort involved in providing the equivalent of AWS' VPC is huge and most smaller providers don't have the scale, man power, or resources to do it. It's a non-trivial solution to deploy.
Not understanding the platforms you choose to use is not an excuse to write something like this article. It's also not an excuse to not understand how to manage the platform(s) you run your services on.
He was not a performer. He was a songwriter and composer mostly for Broadway and he was a great one. The draw would be something like "an evening with Cole Porter and his music" or "Cole Porter and his Broadway orchestra play his hits". You can imagine the marketing around hearing the music live, standing on its own. That kind of stuff makes money today, and lots of it.
Above CD quality has been tried many times. Currently, the service with the most to offer in terms of catalog is https://www.hdtracks.com/faq. You do have to re-buy albums you might already own, but the choices are ever expanding and include a lot of great stuff.
The point in the article about the new format helping lesser known artists really shows just how little U2 and Bono actually get about the current state of the music industry. Artists are getting completely screwed by labels and must tour by necessity to make money. In fact, with the huge growth in the festival industry, small acts (and large acts of old) can make significant chunks of money they otherwise wouldn't. To Bono's point, Cole Porter could tour and make lots of money doing it today. He may not have wanted to, but it'd be possible. A new digital format isn't going to change that.
The linked article is about package management, not configuration management. Whoever set the title of this post didn't understand the point of the article. From the comments, people seem to confuse and conflate configuration management, job automation and package management. To run a successful infrastructure at any scale you need all three.
Yes it is and has been for a long time. What this article really boils down to is a terribly poor understanding of how DNS works and why certain records are use for certain serivces. A CNAME doesn't "redirect" anything at any level outside of a resolver. In the case of www.example.com and example.com you use a web server to achieve the desired result. Even then it's not a redirect, it's a replacement the resolver determines the record is a CNAME, inserts the value the CNAME points to, then resolves the A record. In the case of the MX record for a domain a CNAME is a problem because in the absence of a MX record, the A RR record is used, in this case a CNAME. Would protocol specific SRV records be better? Yes, but since that change isn't happening quickly do what's right now and change in the future.
Somewhere along the line, this concept of a founder/CEO taking a tiny salary got worked into the way start-ups work. Should a founder be paying themselves a huge salary and living it up based on that? No. Should they be able to pay themselves a livable wage that doesn't mean they are spending their nest egg or making drastic cuts in how they live? Yes.
This article is lacking in one key area, which makes the argument valid or not. How much money these startups are making. With out that data, this is just another self fulfilling prophecy that the VCs and their followers can point to and say, see?
I'd be lumped into the older founder class and having a family to support I could not take a giant pay cut if I started a business. I save and manage my money carefully but I would pay myself the same salary I make now so that I could at least have the same level of money comfort I have now. Doing anything differently is simply stupid and a VC that is angry about it isn't someone you should do business with. It's a way they keep their power when at the end of the day the people with the idea that makes all the money should have the power. You want 10 or 20% of my company? Great, I'm going to pay myself what I'm worth. The minute people stop letting themselves be bullied by VCs is exactly when this kind of stupidity stops happening.
Is there some mistake in your NoScript item? Installing the plug-in and then using "allow scripts globally" is the equivalent of never installing the plug-in. It provides almost no value at all when run that way.
PagerDuty is a fantastic service. The flexibility in scheduling on-call rotations (they added a custom schedule for my team at my last company), the support for integrating with lots of different monitoring platforms and the generally fantastic support make it well worth the monthly cost.
Very few protocols fully or properly implement the entire 7 layer OSI stack. Most times you see layers 3-5 lumped together. The way that they are looking at it is that the application (a browser, something else?) is being used to generate HTTP requests. So while it's technical accurate to say that because a browser or other application is acting as an HTTP client, the attack itself it not at layer 7 because they are receiving the attachs on layers 3 and 4 on their side.
Where the article says "But layer 7 attacks, where the attacker actually connects to our hardware using TCP and makes apparently valid HTTP requests are another matter"
Those would be layers 3 and 4.
Mis-communication and outright wrong communication about layer 7 in networking has been rampant for years.