Drupal. You already know wordpress, but with wordpress a fixed rate for a basic site runs $600, premium site $1800-$2000. There are premium+ sites that you get contract work for. But I've never heard of a boondoggle-scale Wordpress site. With Drupal that's all there is, boondoggle rates. I've never seen fixed rate sites done with Drupal, and there's a reason for that I suppose.
The precautions taken against thieves who open trunks, search bags, or ransack tills, consist in securing with cords and fastening with bolts and locks. This is what the world calls wit. But a strong thief comes and carries off the till on his shoulders, with box and bag, and runs away with them. His only fear is that the cords and locks should not be strong enough! Therefore, does not what the world used to call wit simply amount to saving up for the strong thief? And I venture to state that nothing of that which the world calls wit is otherwise than saving up for strong thieves; and nothing of that which the world calls sage wisdom is other than hoarding up for strong thieves.
For you heathens <g>, this is from a post-Laotzu Taoist essay called 'Opening Trunks'. This is a different translation from the one I learned, but the meaning is still clear. It's relevant to the discussion, in an abstract way.
Chuang Tzu is worth naming in his own right. His book may not be as elegant as the Tao Te Ching (is anything?) but it's great. He's also the one who came up with "Am I a man who dreamt he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he is a man?"
HN doesn't tolerate novelty accounts, but if there were going to be an exception, "apropos quotes from Taoist classics" is pretty good.
Q: what do you call the thief who takes the trunk back to his master?
A: a golden retriever
better than a black dog, but this kind of thieving still seems like such a waste of talent. why not go work for lemote or xiami and make something useful?
This is actually quite interesting though worded a bit strangely/abstractly. He's saying that the strong thief prefers a world in which low level thievery is guarded against because it makes targets fatten themselves up believing themselves to be safe.
I think s/he's saying that current security only protects us from script kiddies; so whatever we do only 'protects' data from them but data cannot be protected against state-sponsored attacks (but gives people a false sense of security)?
Altho' I don't quite agree with some of the implied premise, because it's not as if script kiddies can/would take data away (making it unavailable). But the false sense of security is relevant.
