: after all it wouldn't be a whole lot of use to display dialogs to users if you then couldn't handle the subsequent action.
Web pages don't need dialogs in separate windows. Seriously, they don't. That's an old-school UI concept dragged to an inappropriate place. You can present a dialog within the page, in a variety of ways. And if you really need to open a separate, permanent window, that's a new tab, and only if the user has explicitly granted permission for such.
There's simply no legitimate requirement for a web browser to ever open another desktop UI window - render what you need to within the tabs you present.
Sure, but that's how democracy works: a terrible system, but better than anything else that's been tried. But if (the lack of) Net Neutralityactually stats affecting people, not just geeks working about the future but real problems really happening, then the average voter will care. And most of politics operates on the basis of preventing the average voter from ever caring, so it's possible that some sort of Net Neutrality law will happen if content-based throttling starts reaching the threshold of screwing users, before the internet shatters into provider networks.
I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.
Mostly the housing collapse reduced the average "net worth" of American households, as a good many people had unsustainably inflated home equity.
Did you know, the average income of a 1%er in 1995 dropped by about 25% by 2005? No, I'm not taling about "the average income of the 1%", I'm talking about the specific people who were 1%ers in 1995. High incomes tend to be unstable, and it's very common for people to spend only a year or two in the top 1% of incomes before the winds of fate change.
Meanwhile, people become "radicalized" every generation in America, from the Whiskey Rebellion to today. The Great Recession really sucks, and the investment banks have never been held to account for their strong role in creating it (consumer banks were involved, but not really causing the big problems), but don't lay all the world's ills at its doorstep. We're still far better off economically than the 70s!
Anyone using a password like this to protect their bank account, or their email address (that they use to send forgotten password requests from their bank account) deserves to have their money stolen.
No one deserves to have their money stolen. The concept you're looking for is "responsibility". Anyone using an easy password for a bank account is irresponsible, but if they get their money stolen what they deserve is our compassion.
Currently banks seem to be proud of the level of fraud protection they offer customers, perhaps even competing on that basis. That's a good thing. Not everyone is capable of remembering a complex password, after all.
Bitcoin transactions are not tied to your IP address
Well, that's the ambiguity of English, sorry. An IP address is involved in every bitcoin transaction. You make a good point that, in order for a government to connect a bitcoin address to an IP address, that government would need ubiquitous surveillance of internet traffic, and a datacenter big enough to record that information for every bitcoin transaction ever. So, sure, maybe some governments can't do that.
If somebody picks your pocket who do you go cry to to get your money back. Bitcoin is cash and you should be careful who you do business with.
Bitcoins being a solution in search of a problem; I disagree, they are a solution to the many problems that plague the financial industry today. You don't see it as a problem that Visa and Mastercard take a 2% to 3% cut out of every transaction?
2-3% is a reasonable amount for the fraud protection provided. That 2-3% gives you someone to go crying to.
Anonymity: Bitcoin are pseudonymous. Anonymity is not the main goal of bitcoin. They are more anonymous then paypal, visa et al. but less so then cash.
The government can tie every IP address to some billing address, just as they can tie every CC# to some billing address. Every transaction with either credit cards or bitcoin thus identifies to the government the billing addresses associated with the transaction. Not much different, really.
The American industrial revolution from post-Civil War through the early 1900s was accompanied by ever-growing corruption of government by wealthy industrialists, reaching a peak around 1890 or so IMO. The robber barons had gradually become in charge. The 17th amendment finally got traction at a way to combat this, unions rose to fill the role the government was supposed to play in protecting people, and so on, but it was probably trust-busting and a series of stock market bubbles that shifted power enough for the voters to have some real say in government again.
While all that was going on, but before is had really peaked, the government was in the throws of the "spoils system", whereby it was assumed by many that the primary thing the president did was to give all the good civil service jobs to his friends, and that those jobs themselves would be mostly about accumulating money and power in the course of duty. James Garfield narrowly won the Republican primary, and one important issue was civil service reform, which Garfield advocated (though it was one concern among many - his inaugural address led with the need for civil rights for blacks). To secure the primary he accepted Chester Arthur as his veep, who was a "stalwart": strongly for the spoils system and against any sort of reform.
Six months into his presidency, Garfield was assassinated. His killer proclaimed that now Chester Arthur would be president, and that the stalwarts had won. Chester Arthur surprised everyone by gradually becoming a campaigner for civil service reform, not just signing the eventual reform bill but appointing strong reformers as commissioners to carry it out, and the old-school spoils system died forever.
Of course, now we've invented a new, more subtle system, focused on pensions, that most people don't see the problem with until the money runs out, and often not even then.
Well said! It's quite sad how people naturally distinguish the two. This is the second time we've faced such corporate entanglement in government, and the second time we've had the government more interested in the "spoils of victory" than governing, but it's the first time we have both at once. I really hope we can avoid the violence that accompanied the last cycle, as I doubt we have a Chester A. Arthur out there man enough to step up.
Well, in the normal course of the business cycle you'll get many competitors when times are good and then the poorly run ones fail, or get acquired in the bad times, leaving just a handful. But absent barriers to entry (yay regulatory capture!), there will be a new crowd when the economy comes full circle, and one of the new guys often displaces an older firm when the next culling comes.
That's the normal way it's supposed to happen, if not ruined by bailouts or other government selection of winners. Lots of competition during the boom, a few survivors during the bust, and repeat.
So the free market is being able to defraud people of money and the only consequence is to "lose their business"? Jesus you libertarians are dumber than I thought.
There are definitely self-appointed libertarians who believe exactly this. They are quite an embarrassment to the rational grown-ups in the crowd. Any rational libertarian believes in government using it monopoly of force for fraud prevention, contract enforcement, and standardization of weights and measures (needed for the first two). Those who don't believe in that role are properly anarchists, not libertarians, but of course while it remains a fringe in politics, the difference will remain blurred.
Well, this is Mini we're talking about, the world's most overpriced go-kart. If you'll buy coffee daily from Starbucks instead of making your own, why wouldn't you rent your car radio?
These days I only buy the WD Yellow (RE) drives. I'm sure they overcharge for a minor improvement in reliability, sorting drives form the same production batch into the various price categories much like processors by speed, but I just don't go through enough of them to care. Replacing a drive is a pain in my home systems, and I've never had a problem with the RE drives (I have with older Green drives, though they failed slowly and with ample warning).
I thought it was fairly conclusive that it wasn't a cypher - the symbols simply lack the entropy to represent language. It's just what you'd expect from someone combining a few symbols in nonsense ways as a hoax, and not statistically what cyphertext looks like at all. A bit disappointing, really.
There's very much relevance when some asshat suggests China has a better model of government (unless that was done sarcastically to highlight just how far we've fallen). There's a new trend on/. of love of totalitarian government, and it's a very dangerous idea. While US and Canadian scientists may struggle for funding, that's a far cry from fearing to publish research that could be somehow be taken as some sort of criticism of some government decision.
Sure, a Chinese scientists has so much less to worry about when he publishes. (That's one damn chilling article about stuff still happening today, if you think through the implications.)
In the bigger picture it's the right thing to do (it's mostly about pointers). You init the pointer to NULL in the init block. If you accidentally use it before initialization, you get a well-understood error condition, and you follow a well defined pattern in your exit block of freeing-if-not-NULL. It rarely comes up for ints, really.
To be fair, the transporter was a legitimate compromise on the special effects budget (showing shuttle flights was prohibitively expensive), not lazy writing.
And the "Star Trek transporter" has become quite a useful discussion point in the philosophy of identity.
I don't think I can stand to watch Trek again until we get someone running the show who promises public flogging for any writer suggesting a time-travel plot.
While we're ranting, why is _++ even a distinct operator from ++_?
Some platforms has a preincrement and postdecrement opcodes, but not the converse. Some vice versa. Once upon a time, a programmer would care about such things, and C would never have gained the acceptance it did without the ability to use what looked fast on your platform. Heck, there are still coders who use the "register" keyword, as if that still did anything.
Slashdot Mirror
: after all it wouldn't be a whole lot of use to display dialogs to users if you then couldn't handle the subsequent action.
Web pages don't need dialogs in separate windows. Seriously, they don't. That's an old-school UI concept dragged to an inappropriate place. You can present a dialog within the page, in a variety of ways. And if you really need to open a separate, permanent window, that's a new tab, and only if the user has explicitly granted permission for such.
There's simply no legitimate requirement for a web browser to ever open another desktop UI window - render what you need to within the tabs you present.
Sure, but that's how democracy works: a terrible system, but better than anything else that's been tried. But if (the lack of) Net Neutralityactually stats affecting people, not just geeks working about the future but real problems really happening, then the average voter will care. And most of politics operates on the basis of preventing the average voter from ever caring, so it's possible that some sort of Net Neutrality law will happen if content-based throttling starts reaching the threshold of screwing users, before the internet shatters into provider networks.
I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.
On can be against redistribution in principle, yet still take free money when offered. There's a lot of that here.
Mostly the housing collapse reduced the average "net worth" of American households, as a good many people had unsustainably inflated home equity.
Did you know, the average income of a 1%er in 1995 dropped by about 25% by 2005? No, I'm not taling about "the average income of the 1%", I'm talking about the specific people who were 1%ers in 1995. High incomes tend to be unstable, and it's very common for people to spend only a year or two in the top 1% of incomes before the winds of fate change.
Meanwhile, people become "radicalized" every generation in America, from the Whiskey Rebellion to today. The Great Recession really sucks, and the investment banks have never been held to account for their strong role in creating it (consumer banks were involved, but not really causing the big problems), but don't lay all the world's ills at its doorstep. We're still far better off economically than the 70s!
Anyone using a password like this to protect their bank account, or their email address (that they use to send forgotten password requests from their bank account) deserves to have their money stolen.
No one deserves to have their money stolen. The concept you're looking for is "responsibility". Anyone using an easy password for a bank account is irresponsible, but if they get their money stolen what they deserve is our compassion.
Currently banks seem to be proud of the level of fraud protection they offer customers, perhaps even competing on that basis. That's a good thing. Not everyone is capable of remembering a complex password, after all.
Bitcoin transactions are not tied to your IP address
Well, that's the ambiguity of English, sorry. An IP address is involved in every bitcoin transaction. You make a good point that, in order for a government to connect a bitcoin address to an IP address, that government would need ubiquitous surveillance of internet traffic, and a datacenter big enough to record that information for every bitcoin transaction ever. So, sure, maybe some governments can't do that.
If somebody picks your pocket who do you go cry to to get your money back. Bitcoin is cash and you should be careful who you do business with.
Bitcoins being a solution in search of a problem; I disagree, they are a solution to the many problems that plague the financial industry today. You don't see it as a problem that Visa and Mastercard take a 2% to 3% cut out of every transaction?
2-3% is a reasonable amount for the fraud protection provided. That 2-3% gives you someone to go crying to.
Anonymity: Bitcoin are pseudonymous. Anonymity is not the main goal of bitcoin. They are more anonymous then paypal, visa et al. but less so then cash.
The government can tie every IP address to some billing address, just as they can tie every CC# to some billing address. Every transaction with either credit cards or bitcoin thus identifies to the government the billing addresses associated with the transaction. Not much different, really.
The American industrial revolution from post-Civil War through the early 1900s was accompanied by ever-growing corruption of government by wealthy industrialists, reaching a peak around 1890 or so IMO. The robber barons had gradually become in charge. The 17th amendment finally got traction at a way to combat this, unions rose to fill the role the government was supposed to play in protecting people, and so on, but it was probably trust-busting and a series of stock market bubbles that shifted power enough for the voters to have some real say in government again.
While all that was going on, but before is had really peaked, the government was in the throws of the "spoils system", whereby it was assumed by many that the primary thing the president did was to give all the good civil service jobs to his friends, and that those jobs themselves would be mostly about accumulating money and power in the course of duty. James Garfield narrowly won the Republican primary, and one important issue was civil service reform, which Garfield advocated (though it was one concern among many - his inaugural address led with the need for civil rights for blacks). To secure the primary he accepted Chester Arthur as his veep, who was a "stalwart": strongly for the spoils system and against any sort of reform.
Six months into his presidency, Garfield was assassinated. His killer proclaimed that now Chester Arthur would be president, and that the stalwarts had won. Chester Arthur surprised everyone by gradually becoming a campaigner for civil service reform, not just signing the eventual reform bill but appointing strong reformers as commissioners to carry it out, and the old-school spoils system died forever.
Of course, now we've invented a new, more subtle system, focused on pensions, that most people don't see the problem with until the money runs out, and often not even then.
Well said! It's quite sad how people naturally distinguish the two. This is the second time we've faced such corporate entanglement in government, and the second time we've had the government more interested in the "spoils of victory" than governing, but it's the first time we have both at once. I really hope we can avoid the violence that accompanied the last cycle, as I doubt we have a Chester A. Arthur out there man enough to step up.
Well, in the normal course of the business cycle you'll get many competitors when times are good and then the poorly run ones fail, or get acquired in the bad times, leaving just a handful. But absent barriers to entry (yay regulatory capture!), there will be a new crowd when the economy comes full circle, and one of the new guys often displaces an older firm when the next culling comes.
That's the normal way it's supposed to happen, if not ruined by bailouts or other government selection of winners. Lots of competition during the boom, a few survivors during the bust, and repeat.
So the free market is being able to defraud people of money and the only consequence is to "lose their business"? Jesus you libertarians are dumber than I thought.
There are definitely self-appointed libertarians who believe exactly this. They are quite an embarrassment to the rational grown-ups in the crowd. Any rational libertarian believes in government using it monopoly of force for fraud prevention, contract enforcement, and standardization of weights and measures (needed for the first two). Those who don't believe in that role are properly anarchists, not libertarians, but of course while it remains a fringe in politics, the difference will remain blurred.
Well, this is Mini we're talking about, the world's most overpriced go-kart. If you'll buy coffee daily from Starbucks instead of making your own, why wouldn't you rent your car radio?
These days I only buy the WD Yellow (RE) drives. I'm sure they overcharge for a minor improvement in reliability, sorting drives form the same production batch into the various price categories much like processors by speed, but I just don't go through enough of them to care. Replacing a drive is a pain in my home systems, and I've never had a problem with the RE drives (I have with older Green drives, though they failed slowly and with ample warning).
I thought it was fairly conclusive that it wasn't a cypher - the symbols simply lack the entropy to represent language. It's just what you'd expect from someone combining a few symbols in nonsense ways as a hoax, and not statistically what cyphertext looks like at all. A bit disappointing, really.
There's very much relevance when some asshat suggests China has a better model of government (unless that was done sarcastically to highlight just how far we've fallen). There's a new trend on /. of love of totalitarian government, and it's a very dangerous idea. While US and Canadian scientists may struggle for funding, that's a far cry from fearing to publish research that could be somehow be taken as some sort of criticism of some government decision.
Sure, a Chinese scientists has so much less to worry about when he publishes. (That's one damn chilling article about stuff still happening today, if you think through the implications.)
One day they'll discover the origin of "that's very fair of you" and implode in self-shame. I do look forward to it.
In the bigger picture it's the right thing to do (it's mostly about pointers). You init the pointer to NULL in the init block. If you accidentally use it before initialization, you get a well-understood error condition, and you follow a well defined pattern in your exit block of freeing-if-not-NULL. It rarely comes up for ints, really.
To be fair, the transporter was a legitimate compromise on the special effects budget (showing shuttle flights was prohibitively expensive), not lazy writing.
And the "Star Trek transporter" has become quite a useful discussion point in the philosophy of identity.
Wait, isn't the Canadian Library Association controversy the story we just read? Or was that some different CLA?
(BTW, there was slow but steady technological and economic progress during the "dark ages", it led pretty smoothly into the Enlightenment)
Chlamydia, Lupus and AIDS
What are "better things than Dice's editing", Alex?
I don't think I can stand to watch Trek again until we get someone running the show who promises public flogging for any writer suggesting a time-travel plot.
While we're ranting, why is _++ even a distinct operator from ++_?
Some platforms has a preincrement and postdecrement opcodes, but not the converse. Some vice versa. Once upon a time, a programmer would care about such things, and C would never have gained the acceptance it did without the ability to use what looked fast on your platform. Heck, there are still coders who use the "register" keyword, as if that still did anything.
Wow, slashcode randomly removes newlines in code blocks. WTF? Well, there's always tt.