I don't think that's all too uncommon for native English speakers. While pairing, I pretty regularly refer to chunks of code as "this guy" or "that guy".
Maybe they picked it up from someone while learning English and it stuck with them.
Chicago, IL | Software Engineer / Team Lead | ParkWhiz | https://www.parkwhiz.com/ | Full-Time | On Site
ParkWhiz is looking for experienced software engineers to help lead development efforts on the parking platform of the future. You'll get challenging problems to work on - complex pricing models, GIS/geospatial data, transaction processing, mobile apps - and flexibility to choose the best tools for the job.
We're looking for people with:
* 5+ years of experience and the wisdom that comes with it
* Strong working knowledge of Ruby, Rails, SQL, and web development in general. You are an expert in at least one language, and have experience in more. You have no problem jumping into a new toolchain or stack
* Master of backend development, but proficient across the stack
* Ability and desire to mentor other developers, as well as continually learn and grow yourself
* Workhorse capabilities. You can keep (and ideally set) the pace with incredibly talented developers
This position will be 100% development from the start, but as we continue to hire, we will look to you to help take on additional leadership roles. You will most often use Ruby, but we also have a fair amount of Go, PHP, and all the usual tools that come with the job (AWS, Postgres, Redis, Javascript, Coffeescript, etc).
If you have any questions please feel free to email mark@parkwhiz.com to learn if this position is the right fit for you.
Benefits that ParkWhiz offers:
* Competitive salaries
* Medical, dental, and life insurance
* Flexible schedules
* Paid holidays and generous vacation
* Workstation of your choice
* Casual office with stocked kitchen and a ping pong table
* You'll be working alongside a team of phenomenal people
For those put off by the first 40 lines, here's the good part:
"SonyPictures.com was owned by a very simple SQL injection, one of the most primitive and common vulnerabilities, as we should all know by now. From a single injection, we accessed EVERYTHING. Why do you put such faith in a company that allows itself to become open to these simple attacks?
"What's worse is that every bit of data we took wasn't encrypted. Sony stored over 1,000,000 passwords of its customers in plaintext, which means it's just a matter of taking it. This is disgraceful and insecure: they were asking for it.
ONE MILLION email addresses and clear-text passwords. Ouch.
That far surpasses the Gawker hack since all of Gawker's passwords were encrypted with a somewhat easily reversible hash (for simple passwords) and only a subset of those passwords were recovered.
Imagine what governments could do with all those email/password combinations. Cross reference email addresses with a target internal database and an agency could (is) within minutes begin to systematically download an enormous amount of emails and other private data.
And the spammers...
And nobody ever uses the same password across different systems, right?
> Imagine what governments could do with all those email/password combinations. Cross reference email addresses with a target internal database and an agency could (is) within minutes begin to systematically download an enormous amount of emails and other private data.
Sadly, governments don't need a hack like this to get at email.
Hard to believe after initial hack they didn't launch a group wide memo from the CEO to encrypt all personal data. Could have brought some DLP vendor in to find it and roll out rapid database level encryption without changing application code. SQL injection vulnerabilities in this day and age is unforgivable but unfortunatly not uncommon. Sony will not be the only global company with hundreds of such vulnerabilities
Yikes - I believe in the PSN hack there was some question as to whether the passwords were encrypted or not. I'm glad it's out in the open for this one. Think we'll see Sony changing their name any time soon?
> Think we'll see Sony changing their name any time soon?
Doubtful, 90% of people won't remember this in a year, just like barely anyone remembers about the BP oil spill or the Toyota brake incident.
Sony might drop their name from some of their tech enterprises. The next playstation will probably just be Playstation rather than Sony, but that's likely the biggest. Considering that Sony Bravia's are often sold as just 'Bravia', I don't see it as a huge change.
I'm not so sure. A lot of people still remember the fact that Sony smuggled a malware payload on to Audio CD's and that was in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit).
I for one make it my business to remember people and to point what an evil company with a totally twisted mindset Sony actually is.
Add to that their mindboggling technical ineptitude, which is so bad that I'm sure this will be remembered in a year's time.
(I'm aware that technically Sony BMG was behind the rootkit scandal. But hey: there's the SONY brand name very clearly to see, here)
I know, I was calling bullshit on it the first time I heard it. What I liked was that the incidence of actual problems (IIRC dealerships installing the wrong size mat that would ride up) was almost identical for the rates found at other companies.
I honestly don't think any of this news makes it to the mainstream. Go ask your mom or non technical friend if they heard about the Sony hack. I'd bet they haven't a clue what you're talking about. This only hurts them in the tech circles and as a bunch of other people said, it will be forgotten by next year.
My mom has certainly heard about the Sony hack. My younger brother (still at home) has a PS3.
This is different though. It's not as newsworthy since Sony is getting hacked every other week at this point, and Sony probably won't shut down any services over it.
I hope they change the CEO at least. He has treated this situation with arrogance ("just a minor glitch") and it's not like he did an amazing job at Sony over the past few years in the business side either.
SonyPictures.com has been owned,
this is its SQLi hole:
## http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/ghostbusters/photoupload/view.php?id=12838 ##
TEAR THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF IT WHILE YOU CAN; TAKE FROM THEM EVERYTHING!
Just as important: if I am already most certainly aware, why are you wasting my time by telling me?
The same goes for people who write "obviously". If it's obvious, why write it? If the person doesn't already know, then you sound pretentious or the person feels like they missed out on something. It's pretty much lose-lose.
On a more related note, I'll probably check this out sometime. The dashboard looks nice.
Hopefully this doesn't come off as too harsh, but would anyone mind telling me why Hype is better than Flash? Judging from their gallery, it's just as bad. It only "fixes" the CPU hogging part of Flash (and, presumably, Flash's lack of mobile support).
It still takes a long time for the initial page to load. We don't even get a loading bar, just a blank page and "Built with Hype" for seven seconds. When it does load, we still have to sit through all the pieces of the page sliding into place. The demos look like Flash pages straight from the 90s. And I dare suggest that Flash sites could be more SEO friendly.
Hype seems like all the annoyances of Flash under a different name. It seems to encourage bad, flashy design just as Flash did, which makes me wonder about your "[t]his is a very designer-friendly process" quote.
Flash has a number of issues in addition to the fatal ones you've mentioned.
I can offer a few more:
Inability to recognize and use the operating system font preferences like hinting, resulting in AIR apps looking ass-ugly on some systems.
Tendency to grab focus and have its own dumb hotkeys that don't match (or overlap) common/native conventions of the platform.
Its own set of security vulnerabilities and its secondary tier of cookies which browsers have no control over.
Flash not only has issues with "mobile devices", it severely hurts everyone who's trying to create new platforms - any kind of platforms. If you want to tinker with a CPU and a pair of micro-controllers, after some soldiering and bootstrapping linux on it you'll be able to run any web app you want on your very own platform, which is cool. Flash prevents this from happening in the first place.
The last paragraph is by far the #1 reason why Flash should not exist. I wish Mozilla and Google would simply drop NS extensions support one day, and the plague will be gone the day after.
> Flash not only has issues with "mobile devices", it severely hurts everyone who's trying to create new platforms - any kind of platforms. If you want to tinker with a CPU and a pair of micro-controllers, after some soldiering and bootstrapping linux on it you'll be able to run any web app you want on your very own platform, which is cool. Flash prevents this from happening in the first place.
What exactly does this have to do with flash though?
How does flash really prevent you from doing this? I suppose you mean without a flash-player on a platform you can't run swf's? Well okay, I think "prevents" is the wrong word here, even though I don't just mean to nitpick.
The biggest selling points for flash are it's ubiquity and the fact that you get around the download-hurdle when using it. It will be a while until there is a solution that 1) addresses those two problems and 2) does everything that flash does and does it just as well.
Of course flash isn't perfect, but there are good reasons for why it exists and will remain doing so for at least the near future.
"...would anyone mind telling me why Hype is better than Flash?... It only "fixes" the CPU hogging part of Flash (and, presumably, Flash's lack of mobile support)."
Seems like you answered your own question. Those are two major problems with Flash.
Kind of. They're cut down from carrots that are made to grow as long, thin and quickly as possibly. Not exactly from a carrot that you'd find in your garden. That's not to mention the peeling and washing they go through, which I can't imagine it not changing the taste.
If your point is that "baby carrots" taste like regular carrots, then I have my doubts that you've ever tasted a good carrot.
The swipe and onion skin are pretty simple. Both of them put the images in the same place. When you swipe, the width of the top image changes. For the onion skin, the opacity changes.
If everyone starts aiming for the little blue center, I wonder if people have a better chance of clicking the icon. Maybe they thought of it like extra padding around navigation links. When we aim for the original icon and miss by a couple pixels, nothing happens. If we are drawn to aiming for the little blue circle and miss by a couple pixels, Chrome still opens.
Maybe they picked it up from someone while learning English and it stuck with them.