That's a fine approach if you don't frequent establishments that don't want to pay the merchant vigorish....as long as you also carry your damn grocery store loyalty card as well instead of making us all wait while you type in your phone number. I mean, how hard is it to carry one additional piece of plastic the same size and shape?
1) Crack head needs $20 for a hit, ASAP 2) Crack head holds you up for $50 3) Crack head leaves to go buy crack
Scenario B
1) Crack head needs $20 for a hit, ASAP 2) Crack head holds you up for $4.35 3) Crack head takes you at gunpoint to an ATM 4) Crack head robs you for $350 5) Crack head laves to go buy crack
...preverbalizing identifiers can aid in recall, though if they are not poorly named sometimes can be skipped. I don't preverbalize the following but this is what I think when I read your examples:
int i = 0; --> "there is a machine size int named i for a while, probably used as an LCV or index"
if(i == 0) --> "enter this area of code when i is 0"
for(size_t i = 0; i "start at 0 and go as many times as there are items in itemList...unless something messes with i in the loop. Also, how sure are you that itemList.size() is a compatible type to compare with a signed int?"
Well, at least there's a plausible "reason," however bad, why all the declarative constructs that get proposed in standards end up unimplemented in browsers (full SVG SMIL and sortable tables to name a couple) and instead get worked up in script form. I mean, a reason other than anemic coding vigor, which is a depressing reason rather than one one can get fired up about.
I've often wondered how much it would add to the cost of an AC unit to rework the motor/pump to run directly off a solar panel with minimal intervening power conversion... the motor being able to handle maximum power point tracking and the pump being able to handle high variations in input power.
You'd have additional grid-wired ACs, but this one would just opportunistically run and shave load off those.
With the low cost of solar panels these days and eliding the cost of whole 120/240VAC grid tie, it might actually work out cost-wise.
Well, you also pay distribution charges for the electricity network, just... you need electricity for other stuff anyway so yeah, not having multiple networks terminating at your house would be less expensive. Of course, then you have to worry about the heat going out when there's a power outage.
Here in the U.S., heat pumps, geotexchange systems like this, and solar hot water, has always been a niche market handled by a bunch of very small corporations which cannot ever seem to bring their prices down as there is no economy of scale. The news is in the price... though it's probably still too high to get the purely financial-minded to actuate.
Watch those change-in-term notices from your bank and CC provider. Recently mine reduced the standard of liability on debit card transactions. And online bill pay has less protection than the cards do... though supposedly they are limited as to how hard they can shaft you by Federal Reserve Regulation E. At least until the Fed gets seeded with cleptocrats.
I actually sacrificed a bunch of interest income to deactivate online banking, as it cannot be deactivated while keeping electronic statements, and you don't get the better rate if you are getting paper statements. That and the upside-down rate structure of that checking account has me occasionally browsing around for a different bank, but they all pretty much suck with what appears to be the same re-branded package deals from some upstream providers.
Wait so which is it? They should have this sort of thing or they should make bugs public
They should have post-exploit kit. Once they have found a way in they should have tools to take advantage of an adversary's system. That's all this is. It isn't a way into the system, it's just a way to discretely use the system once it has already been hopelessly p0wned.
They should also have a rolling inventory of exploits. They should find lots and lots of exploits. In the case that exposure of the exploit would harm the economic interests of the U.S. either due to making our IT industry's products look bad, or because it would allow compromise of lots of U.S. citizens by adversaries and criminals, they should work behind the scenes with the vendors and report the bug in the interest of improving cybersecurity of the nation at large. (Kaspersky is a more complicated situation but if I had to guess, their product wouldn't qualify.) In the interval between when they find the exploit and when the vendor fixes it, they should use it appropriately for the national interest... and part of that means preventing it from being posted on WikiLeaks by ensuring their employees and subcontractors are loyal and of good repute and competence.
It seems to me that they have forgotten within these programs that a large part of a national security mission is necessarily improving national defense measures, and have instead obsessed over offensive capabilities.
Aren't the developers of the OS primarily responsible for the security of their OS?
Ever read a EULA? Especially the part about not being warranteed for fitness for a particular purpose? Software developers have CYA up the A to prevent themselves from being held accountable for these things. And if they didn't, users would have to be happy with user interfaces and features that are decades old because that's about the level at which a product can get to before it exceeds the point of diminishing returns, profitability-wise, when you care about security. Now which vendor do you think the unwashed consumer market will flock to: the shiny one that lets them stream content from their cell phone to their TV, or the one that had well audited security and none of those spiffy features?
What products are being sabotaged to maintain backdoors, got a citation?
You cannot solidly cite these programs unless they get leaked and the leaks validated through proper reporting, of course. This is a rare occurrence. There are plenty of claims to be found around, but you are left to your own judgment as to which are for real and which are frauds/hysterical... not many have been diligently verified by professional journalists, but that does not necessarily make them untrue. Distinguishing the shrill supposition that a bug more likely caused by incompetence than malice is a government plot from an honest evaluation of the engineering process is very challenging given the limited information most of us citizens have about the matter.
Great idea! We should have done that with leaded gas so we could all enjoy a nice, natural, high crime rate. Or asbestos. Or that accidentally poisonous isomer of some vitamin or the other that caused all those miscarriages many decades ago. Or hell, why limit this to bans? Let's go all natural on everything. Bring back the polio and measles and mange. Ah those were the good old days.
I am glad she did. At least now we know it wasn't systematic in-house fraud instead of having to wonder. And frankly, had I given, I'd not want a refund if it could be applied towards election protection, since I support that anyway.
C'mon... I'd be mad if our intelligence agencies didn't have this. This is just post-exploit kit. They'd be incompetent if they didn't have it. Even more incompetent than they were for letting this material escape the barn.
The thing to get mad about is sabotage of products to maintain backdoors, and keeping bugs secret.
Translation: "We have an open tab at the GSA to run this farce of a commission but we're too lazy to cross-collate the publicly available information with other non-election data sources, so you do it. Then upload it to the webserver we payed the cousin of some campaign contributor some insane amount of money to set up, which, by the way, has no security whatsoever."
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Most cases of "Fraudulent use of Absentee Ballots" result from amateur volunteers not knowing that there are very strict rules about how absentee ballots must be filled out and delivered. In fact a huge number of the cases in that document are against (n00b) candidates themselves and many in minor off-year elections because that is where idiots think they can get away with it and it might make a difference. Barely anyone bothers in large elections... there's no way to pull it off.
See, what happens is this: Since ballots are usually counted in precinct, one of the little old ladies making bingo money running the roles, counting absentee votes or serving as a judge for one of the parties, bless their gossipy souls, has a very high chance of having personally known the dead person you try to vote for. The more dead people you try to vote for, the greater the odds she'll call the policeman over from the corner to ask you a few questions, or send one to the address from which the absentee ballot was requested.
So you cannot hang your hat on the number "848", as puny as it is, especially when averaged out over a dozen election cycles.
D.C. political operatives trawling through a giant list of voters are going to make huge mistakes because they lack this local perspective. They'll claim a bunch of dead people voted, and we'll find them mowing their lawns, yet again. And since their only intent is to cause chaos in the first place, they'll care even less. They might as well just pretend they went and got the data themselves and go publish their results now, since they'll make up whatever shit they feel like anyway.
Not only does my answer make sense, it's friggin obvious, unless you are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb. And yet you ask again, so I am going to assume the former.
No your "proof" is not *nearly* enough. Not even a start.
How much fraud is "acceptable" is a matter of how many legitimate disenfranchised voters would result from the proposed remedy for said fraud. We've made this perfectly clear, so why ask yet again? Also, these particular people have made it amply clear that their primary goal is to disenfranchise voters, not prevent fraud. So again, why do you ask?
you now refuse to allow anyone to study the issue.
Not anyone. These people in particular. The head of the committee should have been too embarrassed to show his face in public after he made a big issue about one dead guy voting and they found said "dead guy" mowing his lawn. And Ken Blackwell? Please. It;s a rogues gallery of people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our electoral system.
Slashdot Mirror
and really just Missy trying to make the Doctor feel uncomfortable.
...which makes regenning as a female a logical tit-for-tat. Erm... phrasing...
Anyway, as long as they don't run with the "sonic sunglasses" thing and give her sonic lipstick, I can live with it.
That's a fine approach if you don't frequent establishments that don't want to pay the merchant vigorish. ...as long as you also carry your damn grocery store loyalty card as well instead of making us all wait while you type in your phone number. I mean, how hard is it to carry one additional piece of plastic the same size and shape?
Scenario A
1) Crack head needs $20 for a hit, ASAP
2) Crack head holds you up for $50
3) Crack head leaves to go buy crack
Scenario B
1) Crack head needs $20 for a hit, ASAP
2) Crack head holds you up for $4.35
3) Crack head takes you at gunpoint to an ATM
4) Crack head robs you for $350
5) Crack head laves to go buy crack
int i = 0; --> "there is a machine size int named i for a while, probably used as an LCV or index"
if(i == 0) --> "enter this area of code when i is 0"
for(size_t i = 0; i "start at 0 and go as many times as there are items in itemList...unless something messes with i in the loop. Also, how sure are you that itemList.size() is a compatible type to compare with a signed int?"
cout "How bad do I want to use this software?"
Obviously this is just a scheme to trick investors into building a giant cannon from which to launch sharks... with lasers.
Well, at least there's a plausible "reason," however bad, why all the declarative constructs that get proposed in standards end up unimplemented in browsers (full SVG SMIL and sortable tables to name a couple) and instead get worked up in script form. I mean, a reason other than anemic coding vigor, which is a depressing reason rather than one one can get fired up about.
I thought a previous comment said "Humans are all just animals with all that entrails.
I got up too early today.
Anyway apparently maple trees aren't one of the ones who can do this... judging from the gypsy-moth-ravaged one near my friends house.
And stop calling it geothermal.
If you're going to complain, you might want to mention the correct term is "geoexchange".
We're talking about a lawn here, not a forest. Much work has already gone into, and continues to go into, killing the ecosystem off in these areas.
I've often wondered how much it would add to the cost of an AC unit to rework the motor/pump to run directly off a solar panel with minimal intervening power conversion... the motor being able to handle maximum power point tracking and the pump being able to handle high variations in input power.
You'd have additional grid-wired ACs, but this one would just opportunistically run and shave load off those.
With the low cost of solar panels these days and eliding the cost of whole 120/240VAC grid tie, it might actually work out cost-wise.
Well, you also pay distribution charges for the electricity network, just... you need electricity for other stuff anyway so yeah, not having multiple networks terminating at your house would be less expensive. Of course, then you have to worry about the heat going out when there's a power outage.
Here in the U.S., heat pumps, geotexchange systems like this, and solar hot water, has always been a niche market handled by a bunch of very small corporations which cannot ever seem to bring their prices down as there is no economy of scale. The news is in the price... though it's probably still too high to get the purely financial-minded to actuate.
Mandatory wikipedia.
You can move more heat energy than the energy required to move it, for the same reason you can't get all the energy out of letting heat move.
Yeah, these are credit unions... the banks suck even worse.
Watch those change-in-term notices from your bank and CC provider. Recently mine reduced the standard of liability on debit card transactions. And online bill pay has less protection than the cards do... though supposedly they are limited as to how hard they can shaft you by Federal Reserve Regulation E. At least until the Fed gets seeded with cleptocrats.
I actually sacrificed a bunch of interest income to deactivate online banking, as it cannot be deactivated while keeping electronic statements, and you don't get the better rate if you are getting paper statements. That and the upside-down rate structure of that checking account has me occasionally browsing around for a different bank, but they all pretty much suck with what appears to be the same re-branded package deals from some upstream providers.
Wait so which is it? They should have this sort of thing or they should make bugs public
They should have post-exploit kit. Once they have found a way in they should have tools to take advantage of an adversary's system. That's all this is. It isn't a way into the system, it's just a way to discretely use the system once it has already been hopelessly p0wned.
They should also have a rolling inventory of exploits. They should find lots and lots of exploits. In the case that exposure of the exploit would harm the economic interests of the U.S. either due to making our IT industry's products look bad, or because it would allow compromise of lots of U.S. citizens by adversaries and criminals, they should work behind the scenes with the vendors and report the bug in the interest of improving cybersecurity of the nation at large. (Kaspersky is a more complicated situation but if I had to guess, their product wouldn't qualify.) In the interval between when they find the exploit and when the vendor fixes it, they should use it appropriately for the national interest... and part of that means preventing it from being posted on WikiLeaks by ensuring their employees and subcontractors are loyal and of good repute and competence.
It seems to me that they have forgotten within these programs that a large part of a national security mission is necessarily improving national defense measures, and have instead obsessed over offensive capabilities.
Aren't the developers of the OS primarily responsible for the security of their OS?
Ever read a EULA? Especially the part about not being warranteed for fitness for a particular purpose? Software developers have CYA up the A to prevent themselves from being held accountable for these things. And if they didn't, users would have to be happy with user interfaces and features that are decades old because that's about the level at which a product can get to before it exceeds the point of diminishing returns, profitability-wise, when you care about security. Now which vendor do you think the unwashed consumer market will flock to: the shiny one that lets them stream content from their cell phone to their TV, or the one that had well audited security and none of those spiffy features?
What products are being sabotaged to maintain backdoors, got a citation?
You cannot solidly cite these programs unless they get leaked and the leaks validated through proper reporting, of course. This is a rare occurrence. There are plenty of claims to be found around, but you are left to your own judgment as to which are for real and which are frauds/hysterical... not many have been diligently verified by professional journalists, but that does not necessarily make them untrue. Distinguishing the shrill supposition that a bug more likely caused by incompetence than malice is a government plot from an honest evaluation of the engineering process is very challenging given the limited information most of us citizens have about the matter.
Why not let things unfold naturally if possible?
Great idea! We should have done that with leaded gas so we could all enjoy a nice, natural, high crime rate. Or asbestos. Or that accidentally poisonous isomer of some vitamin or the other that caused all those miscarriages many decades ago. Or hell, why limit this to bans? Let's go all natural on everything. Bring back the polio and measles and mange. Ah those were the good old days.
I am glad she did. At least now we know it wasn't systematic in-house fraud instead of having to wonder. And frankly, had I given, I'd not want a refund if it could be applied towards election protection, since I support that anyway.
C'mon... I'd be mad if our intelligence agencies didn't have this. This is just post-exploit kit. They'd be incompetent if they didn't have it. Even more incompetent than they were for letting this material escape the barn.
The thing to get mad about is sabotage of products to maintain backdoors, and keeping bugs secret.
Translation: "We have an open tab at the GSA to run this farce of a commission but we're too lazy to cross-collate the publicly available information with other non-election data sources, so you do it. Then upload it to the webserver we payed the cousin of some campaign contributor some insane amount of money to set up, which, by the way, has no security whatsoever."
To which the proper reply is "get stuffed".
It's been proven to overturn at least one election, which would indicate it most likely influenced many others
That logically does not follow.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Most cases of "Fraudulent use of Absentee Ballots" result from amateur volunteers not knowing that there are very strict rules about how absentee ballots must be filled out and delivered. In fact a huge number of the cases in that document are against (n00b) candidates themselves and many in minor off-year elections because that is where idiots think they can get away with it and it might make a difference. Barely anyone bothers in large elections... there's no way to pull it off.
See, what happens is this: Since ballots are usually counted in precinct, one of the little old ladies making bingo money running the roles, counting absentee votes or serving as a judge for one of the parties, bless their gossipy souls, has a very high chance of having personally known the dead person you try to vote for. The more dead people you try to vote for, the greater the odds she'll call the policeman over from the corner to ask you a few questions, or send one to the address from which the absentee ballot was requested.
So you cannot hang your hat on the number "848", as puny as it is, especially when averaged out over a dozen election cycles.
D.C. political operatives trawling through a giant list of voters are going to make huge mistakes because they lack this local perspective. They'll claim a bunch of dead people voted, and we'll find them mowing their lawns, yet again. And since their only intent is to cause chaos in the first place, they'll care even less. They might as well just pretend they went and got the data themselves and go publish their results now, since they'll make up whatever shit they feel like anyway.
Not only does my answer make sense, it's friggin obvious, unless you are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb. And yet you ask again, so I am going to assume the former.
No your "proof" is not *nearly* enough. Not even a start.
How much fraud is "acceptable" is a matter of how many legitimate disenfranchised voters would result from the proposed remedy for said fraud. We've made this perfectly clear, so why ask yet again? Also, these particular people have made it amply clear that their primary goal is to disenfranchise voters, not prevent fraud. So again, why do you ask?
you now refuse to allow anyone to study the issue.
Not anyone. These people in particular. The head of the committee should have been too embarrassed to show his face in public after he made a big issue about one dead guy voting and they found said "dead guy" mowing his lawn. And Ken Blackwell? Please. It;s a rogues gallery of people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our electoral system.