Bcc is different than what he's describing

Assuming comma separated emails, here is the "product" in Python:

    import random, string
    email_list = "a@b.com, c@d.com".split(', ')
    random.shuffle(email_list)
    print string.join(email_list, ', ')

If the entire recipient list isn't disclosed to the recipients, then there would be no need to randomize it. So, bcc meets his goal of not disclosing the particular order in which he entered the email addresses.

Granted, in rare cases, it is desirable to disclose all recipients' email addresses to each other, but I'd personally prefer it if that were the exception, rather than common practice.

> Granted, in rare cases, it is desirable to disclose all recipients' email addresses to each other

It might be rare for some people's use of email, but it's hardly rare. It's essential if it's group email and others in that group need to be able to chime-in to the rest of the group.

I'd be curious to see a similar plot of average internet speed vs time.

And, correspondingly, a plot of Google homepage HTML file size divided by average internet speed vs time, so we wouldn’t have to compare the two curves in our heads.

Kul had an informative post about doing YC a second time: https://hackertimes.com/item?id=3520856

The difference is that you're not free to leave in an actual prison.

“I would invest in Facebook” isn't exactly the same as "I will invest in Facebook."

With a response time like that it seems like antivirus software is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

With exploits like that, it seems like sandboxing is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

I don't think it's a good argument - what about defense in depth? Don't antivirus packages have heuristic protections? Or are those, in general, useless?

A lot of computer viruses are spread by confused or ignorant people. It's not all about security holes....

Meanwhile, critical Android security holes remain unpatched for more than 2 yrs.

A real security hole, or one like "if someone watches you type your PIN code, they'll know your PIN code"?

Security holes that render the permissions system completely useless, since even a no-permissions app can end up doing anything.

Do you have an example?

The cases I've read about were of the form "app A asks app B to do something it can't via the Intent system". That sounds scary until you realize that a standard example of this is an app that can't access the network sharing something via email. In other words, app A has transferred control to app B and what the user does (or doesn't) decide to do with app B is their choice, not app A's.

Indeed. Delegation via intents makes things more secure as broken code can be patched in one place rather than in many. And, you get tighter control over what apps can do: if you never want an app to share something via Facebook, simply uninstall the app that provides the "share via Facebook" intent.

Interesting point. Sometimes I find myself wanting to keep the app, but drop the intent. Usually that is to shorten a list, but not always. I'd love to see low-level intent-blocking (as well as low-level, fine-grained permissions blocking, but that's a whole other story).

I'm not sure what they're using but if I recall from when this has come up before Amazon's EC2 ToS prohibits this usasge.

From a Reuters article about a similar program by German security researcher Thomas Roth [1]:

"Nothing in this researcher's work is predicated on the use of Amazon EC2. As researchers often do, he used EC2 as a tool to show how the security of some network configurations can be improved," said Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener.

[1]: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/07/us-amazon-hacking-i...

Which part of the ToS are you referring to?

I'd love it if MITx courses could give a chance for real credit, rather than a certificate. That said, what incentive does MIT have to give real credit? It seems like it would only devalue taking these courses in person.

I have to say, I found this article overly negative. Newry isn't a good host to startups because 10 years ago their population was 30k and they have a sheep industry?

Just because they're trying to encourage entrepreneurs to flock there doesn't mean they're trying to usurp Silicon Valley. As someone who isn't an American citizen I know how non visa friendly many companies in the Valley are, and I love to see smaller startup hubs around the world starting to pop up. Even if the author doesn't like the climate in Vladivostok (and I incidentally love it), that doesn't mean talent can't start to congregate there.

I think the author probably is maybe annoyed by the "The next Silicon Valley of...." rather than some other places trying to encourage entrepreneurs. It's the same thing like some VCs are annoyed when a startup recommends itself as "The Airbnb of blablalba..." or "The Mint of blablabla..." and such comparisons (although in some cases making such an analogy makes you understand better what they do because it gives you an example everybody knows).

I think there is a big, big difference between "talent can't start to congregate there" and " being the next Silicon Valley."

I guess I don't know how much "being the next Silicon Valley" is pundit talk or their actual stated objective. Newry using the term Emerald Valley is a bit much, but I don't think they should be told to "please stop trying."

I don't think the title was specific to Newry (I could be wrong-I didn't write it).

I think it was a generic answer. There are many examples of cities claiming they are the next Silicon Valley (Silicon alley, silicon prairie, silicon waters, silicon hills, silicon beach and silicon dubai to name a few).

SV is so unique though. I think they might be able to claim what silicon valley was in the 1960's (before the large tech anchors supported the every expanding ecosystem).

We hope that Newry "keeps trying" as is successful. The world could benefit from another silicon valley.

Even if the questionable content was legal I still support this. I don't think a website is under any obligation to allow content they don't want strictly to protect free speech. They don't want people posting sexually suggestive images of kids? That's their prerogative.