In addition, the author claimed he spent a week preparing the story. Yet he only contacted the Acting Privacy Commissioner yesterday. He blog was published before the government had a chance to fix the issue. I find this irresponsible.
Once it was clear that there was was a leak of confidencial information, he should have taken what was required as minimal evidence (a few screenshots?) and then contacted the Acting Privacy Commissioner.
Did he really need to go through files related to Doctors/Radiology, Debt Collectionn, Fraud Investigations, Care and Protection, HCN? Snooping through the servers beyond what was necessary was wrong.
The bigger story is the lack of security on the New Zealand servers. However, what he did was wrong and possible illegal IMHO.
"You haven't explicitly licensed your code under any license and so, to be conservative, third parties should operate under the assumption that the code is proprietary"
I would have guessed that without an explicit license, open source is free for anyone to take/modify/reuse. After all, it is open source.
In other words, the default would be the most permissive license. You suggest it is the opposite - that without a license, the code should be considered proprietary. Can anyone more familiar with open source licenses clarify?
I am not sure why this is on Github? Typically, I applaud when anything is shared on Github. But why this? What positive value is it to anyone other then script kiddies?
(Certainly, most any adequate web developer with nefarious intensions would be able to reproduce this quite easily. But why make it point-and-click easy for them?)
The point of the article is not the turtlenecks or who Steve Jobs knew. The point is that Steve Jobs was unique and followed his own path. Which other CEO or person do you know which would wear the same clothes every day?? Most people wouldn't and would fear they would get laughed at for doing so.
But Steve was unique. Wearing the same clothes every day made sense for Steve and that is why Steve did that, period. He wasn't concerned about fashion or trends or what others thought - he did what he felt was right. Period.
This is very true. I have repeatedly been called a great communicator which surprises me as I find in group conversations I tend to listen 70% of the time and talk only 30% of the time. I believe because I talk less, more weight is given to what I say. Also, because I talk less, I choose my words wisely instead of just blurting out anything that comes to mind.
"Looks like it was discontinued in 2006 (?), but introduced back in 2004 -- so, older than I thought."
Your laptop is 5 to 7 years old - do you realize how long that is in tech years? I am not sure you can run the latest Windows OS well on a 5 - 7 year old laptop.
"Intel switches have all forced me to upgrade before I wanted to."
The switch to Intel processors was very gradual and not painful at all. Apple kept PPC support for many years.
Why are you against the upgrades? If it is because of the cost associated with upgrading that is understandable. But the tech industry moves so fast and computer performance increases every year - do you really want to be using 5 - 7 year old technology?
"I've also had this conversation on HN a couple times. It often ends in multiple people expressing surprise that I'd be interested in continuing to use such old, out-of-date hardware"
Time to listen to the crowd my friend.
You CAN still use your computer to access email, write, browse, communicate, play, etc. But you can't complain when it doesn't run all software or isn't the fastest.