Good news! Something like 'Array.map(document.querySelectorAll("div.commentBody"), function(e){})' works in recent versions of Firefox, jQuery or not (obviously, you would normally want the function there to actually do something).
(I suppose that the collection returned by querySelectorAll will probably eventually support map directly, but it doesn't currently seem to; it might also be more proper to use forEach if the array resulting from the call to map is not needed)
They aren't particularly more interesting than what tower your phone last connected with, and it takes some doing to be surprised that the phone company would have the latter, so it strikes me as tone deaf that they would bother having the coordinates sent home (I suppose it might be handy when recovering stolen phones, but that sounds like more resources than would typically be invested in recovering a stolen phone).
Wheat and corn and rice and soy all largely self pollinate (or wind pollinate, there seems to be some technical difference there), so the food supply would probably be 'okay', only variety would be destroyed (as most fruits and vegetables would require hand pollination and become quite a bit more expensive).
Right, but if the collaborators are doing their job, those files look interesting. At least more interesting than the tens of thousands of bog standard Windows files on the disk.
I'm sure there are also tools that 'know' what media files are 'supposed' to look at, further easing the task of apportioning human attention.
Overall, I think my point that generating a unique file is a bad way to create obscurity is a reasonable one.
If I have a giant database of files that I have previously hashed (and classified; something I would do is do a fresh install of Windows and Office and hash every single file, classifying them as "Windows and Office file". The names of the files and the sizes would also be stored in the database; I would do this for lots of popular software, and maybe (probably) collaborate with other people who would find such a database useful...). With that database, I can hash a file and check if I have ever seen it before; if I have not seen it before, then it is 'interesting'.
So checking hashes against the database lets me automatically discard much of the haystack, making it quite a bit easier to find the needle.
"Cryptographically strong" at this point means that the signature you are talking about is not present (because things have come a long way since Enigma).
Showing them your harmless personal or financial data doesn't prevent them from wondering if there is a more sinister volume hidden within the Truecrypt volume.
So you could have nothing to hide from the police, show them all of your encrypted data, and still be suspected of hiding something.
If I were doing serious forensics work, I would hash and categorize every file I ever saw (on any system). I can't imagine this idea is particularly original, and it would quickly expose any interesting binary files ('quickly' especially in terms of investment of human time).
But it is tough to claim that the fees were entirely bogus when I initiated the transactions that my bank was not comfortable with (I think when I checked the online help system, there were rather narrow parameters for such transactions; it was not a full service account...). And the fees were very much from the bank, not Sprint.
(Later on, when I dropped Sprint, I got the dates slightly wrong and switched carriers on day 1 of a billing cycle, meaning that they billed me for the entire month, even though I could no longer even use their network (I had ported my number); I called them to complain (and to waste their time, I was no longer a customer so the call was pure cost for them) and they wouldn't (the customer service people couldn't) do anything about it, so I think they are assholes, I just question how quickly they jam bad information onto credit reports.)
As close as possible. A couple of years ago, China was having a significant impact on the price and availability of portland cement in the U.S. (they were still exporting cement to the U.S., but far less of it).
Are the cell phone companies really that bad? I once was trying to move my electronic payments to Sprint to a different account, and the bank didn't like the way Sprint wrote the electronic check, so they bounced it as unauthorized; Sprint's jackass biller resubmitted the payment (even though it had bounced as unauthorized). Sprint called me 3 or 4 weeks later to explain that they were going to turn off my phone if I didn't pay, waived the late fee and accepted payment on a different account, all without any reporting of anything.
I didn't even bother contacting my bank about the 2 $25 bounce fees (I think I bitched at Sprint about them, but no way could the person I was dealing with do anything about reimbursing them for me, and I didn't feel like spending a lot of time on it, not to mention the fact that on some level it was my mistake).
Do most countries provide free health care (hell, even low cost care) to foreign travelers? I sort of doubt it, but I haven't looked into it or anything.
There are soft checks that don't affect your score (for instance, if a car insurance company checks your score, they probably aren't doing it in order to extend you a line of credit, so your score won't be affected).
Basically, someone running around trying to open a bunch of accounts probably is a higher risk than someone who isn't opening new accounts.
Simply having a revolving line of credit in good standing for long periods of time should increase your score (that is, have a credit card, don't max it out, and don't miss a payment, ever). Carrying 10 to 15 percent of your maximum balance will probably increase your score faster than paying off the balance every month (because people who are willing to use credit are better people to extend credit to than people who don't want to pay interest).
Well, I based that price quote on a 2008 vehicle, so no, it would not be entirely out of warranty (the powertrain would still be covered for another 20,000 miles or 2 to 3 years):
Buy a model year that is 2 or 3 years into the design for that model (I'm not saying that clearly so here is an example: if a car design launched in 2004, try to buy one that was manufactured in 2007) and the warranty coverage will be less of a big deal, as they do actually correct defects and such.
I wildly disagree that 40,000 miles makes a vehicle heavily used, but that's, like, just my opinion, man.
Yeah, well, let me know when you can buy a used one from your neighbor.
But anyway, when I buy a car, I certainly would compare the economics of a used cars to a new cars. The fact that the Volt happens to be a relatively expensive new car just makes it look even worse to me. I did acknowledge that one has to be willing to buy a used vehicle for the comparison to be relevant, but I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that I should not compare two reasonable, available options (a used car and a new Volt), and further, that I can not conclude that one is ridiculously more expensive than the other.
At the end of the day, I'm buying something that takes me from here to there and back, I understand that other people inject all sorts of fascinating ideas into their car ownership, but I really don't (I'm currently driving a 12.5 year old 4 door sedan fit for an old man, at an age of not quite 30), so it is perfectly reasonable for me to compare how well two cars take me from here to there and back.
Right up there in the summary, it says "Running off the gasoline engine yields approximately 50 mpg."
In what way was that insufficient for you? I don't give much credence to the 230 mpg equivalent number, but they really aren't obfuscating the 40 mile pure electric range or the 50 mpg gas-only performance.
People were quitting their jobs when gas hit $4.50 last summer because it wasn't profitable to drive to work. At $10 a gallon, gas stations will be begging people to come in and buy it. They might even have to lower the price. Planning for $20 as if it is a sure thing is a fools bargain.
(but owning a smaller car generally costs less now, and living closer to work results in spending less time in a car, so there are easy ways to hedge your bets)
Slashdot Mirror
There are markets for esoteric goods that are essentially dysfunctional (stuff like high end art and black market goods), so yes, it is possible.
Good news! Something like 'Array.map(document.querySelectorAll("div.commentBody"), function(e){})' works in recent versions of Firefox, jQuery or not (obviously, you would normally want the function there to actually do something).
(I suppose that the collection returned by querySelectorAll will probably eventually support map directly, but it doesn't currently seem to; it might also be more proper to use forEach if the array resulting from the call to map is not needed)
They aren't particularly more interesting than what tower your phone last connected with, and it takes some doing to be surprised that the phone company would have the latter, so it strikes me as tone deaf that they would bother having the coordinates sent home (I suppose it might be handy when recovering stolen phones, but that sounds like more resources than would typically be invested in recovering a stolen phone).
Wheat and corn and rice and soy all largely self pollinate (or wind pollinate, there seems to be some technical difference there), so the food supply would probably be 'okay', only variety would be destroyed (as most fruits and vegetables would require hand pollination and become quite a bit more expensive).
Do you have any other guesses to share?
Right, but if the collaborators are doing their job, those files look interesting. At least more interesting than the tens of thousands of bog standard Windows files on the disk.
I'm sure there are also tools that 'know' what media files are 'supposed' to look at, further easing the task of apportioning human attention.
Overall, I think my point that generating a unique file is a bad way to create obscurity is a reasonable one.
If I have a giant database of files that I have previously hashed (and classified; something I would do is do a fresh install of Windows and Office and hash every single file, classifying them as "Windows and Office file". The names of the files and the sizes would also be stored in the database; I would do this for lots of popular software, and maybe (probably) collaborate with other people who would find such a database useful...). With that database, I can hash a file and check if I have ever seen it before; if I have not seen it before, then it is 'interesting'.
So checking hashes against the database lets me automatically discard much of the haystack, making it quite a bit easier to find the needle.
People are actively doing such things:
http://www.google.com/search?q=5E28284F9B5F9097640D58A73D38AD4C
"Cryptographically strong" at this point means that the signature you are talking about is not present (because things have come a long way since Enigma).
Showing them your harmless personal or financial data doesn't prevent them from wondering if there is a more sinister volume hidden within the Truecrypt volume.
So you could have nothing to hide from the police, show them all of your encrypted data, and still be suspected of hiding something.
If I were doing serious forensics work, I would hash and categorize every file I ever saw (on any system). I can't imagine this idea is particularly original, and it would quickly expose any interesting binary files ('quickly' especially in terms of investment of human time).
I always imagine a casual laptop thief not having easy access to my financial documents.
But it is tough to claim that the fees were entirely bogus when I initiated the transactions that my bank was not comfortable with (I think when I checked the online help system, there were rather narrow parameters for such transactions; it was not a full service account...). And the fees were very much from the bank, not Sprint.
(Later on, when I dropped Sprint, I got the dates slightly wrong and switched carriers on day 1 of a billing cycle, meaning that they billed me for the entire month, even though I could no longer even use their network (I had ported my number); I called them to complain (and to waste their time, I was no longer a customer so the call was pure cost for them) and they wouldn't (the customer service people couldn't) do anything about it, so I think they are assholes, I just question how quickly they jam bad information onto credit reports.)
As close as possible. A couple of years ago, China was having a significant impact on the price and availability of portland cement in the U.S. (they were still exporting cement to the U.S., but far less of it).
You don't need to worry, that ship appears to have already sailed.
Are the cell phone companies really that bad? I once was trying to move my electronic payments to Sprint to a different account, and the bank didn't like the way Sprint wrote the electronic check, so they bounced it as unauthorized; Sprint's jackass biller resubmitted the payment (even though it had bounced as unauthorized). Sprint called me 3 or 4 weeks later to explain that they were going to turn off my phone if I didn't pay, waived the late fee and accepted payment on a different account, all without any reporting of anything.
I didn't even bother contacting my bank about the 2 $25 bounce fees (I think I bitched at Sprint about them, but no way could the person I was dealing with do anything about reimbursing them for me, and I didn't feel like spending a lot of time on it, not to mention the fact that on some level it was my mistake).
Do most countries provide free health care (hell, even low cost care) to foreign travelers? I sort of doubt it, but I haven't looked into it or anything.
There are soft checks that don't affect your score (for instance, if a car insurance company checks your score, they probably aren't doing it in order to extend you a line of credit, so your score won't be affected).
Basically, someone running around trying to open a bunch of accounts probably is a higher risk than someone who isn't opening new accounts.
Simply having a revolving line of credit in good standing for long periods of time should increase your score (that is, have a credit card, don't max it out, and don't miss a payment, ever). Carrying 10 to 15 percent of your maximum balance will probably increase your score faster than paying off the balance every month (because people who are willing to use credit are better people to extend credit to than people who don't want to pay interest).
I took "this tech" to mean using a device to overlay information on a view of the world in realtime, not this iPhone app.
The app looks like a gizmo. Information overlay that works well will enable all sorts of neat stuff.
I'm actually only a moron, not a complete fucking idiot, that 'than' there is just a typo.
If that is the choice, than that's fine.
The good news is that we are all proles and can continue to get drunk and complain about how shitty the world is on the internet.
Well, I based that price quote on a 2008 vehicle, so no, it would not be entirely out of warranty (the powertrain would still be covered for another 20,000 miles or 2 to 3 years):
http://www.toyota.com/camry/warranty.html
Buy a model year that is 2 or 3 years into the design for that model (I'm not saying that clearly so here is an example: if a car design launched in 2004, try to buy one that was manufactured in 2007) and the warranty coverage will be less of a big deal, as they do actually correct defects and such.
I wildly disagree that 40,000 miles makes a vehicle heavily used, but that's, like, just my opinion, man.
Yeah, well, let me know when you can buy a used one from your neighbor.
But anyway, when I buy a car, I certainly would compare the economics of a used cars to a new cars. The fact that the Volt happens to be a relatively expensive new car just makes it look even worse to me. I did acknowledge that one has to be willing to buy a used vehicle for the comparison to be relevant, but I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that I should not compare two reasonable, available options (a used car and a new Volt), and further, that I can not conclude that one is ridiculously more expensive than the other.
At the end of the day, I'm buying something that takes me from here to there and back, I understand that other people inject all sorts of fascinating ideas into their car ownership, but I really don't (I'm currently driving a 12.5 year old 4 door sedan fit for an old man, at an age of not quite 30), so it is perfectly reasonable for me to compare how well two cars take me from here to there and back.
Right up there in the summary, it says "Running off the gasoline engine yields approximately 50 mpg."
In what way was that insufficient for you? I don't give much credence to the 230 mpg equivalent number, but they really aren't obfuscating the 40 mile pure electric range or the 50 mpg gas-only performance.
People were quitting their jobs when gas hit $4.50 last summer because it wasn't profitable to drive to work. At $10 a gallon, gas stations will be begging people to come in and buy it. They might even have to lower the price. Planning for $20 as if it is a sure thing is a fools bargain.
(but owning a smaller car generally costs less now, and living closer to work results in spending less time in a car, so there are easy ways to hedge your bets)