...real address and phone number. That was enough to commit fraud with a couple of unrelated online services
This is the problem... when the fuck does it make sense to regard that information as sensitive. In a sane world the companies that allow anonymous customers to set up an account with so little info and verification would be responsible for the fraud.
I wonder how many of these leaked passwords are from disposable accounts. I use weak passwords like this when sites force you to create a useless account to perform an one time action... the account contains no valuable information (you can sign up with bogus email, name etc) but they force you to have one anyway.
I feel like these kind of shitty sites that force you to sign up for a pointless account are also likely to have shitty security and have their account info leaked.
The idea that cell phones 'heat up your brain' or cause direct brain damage is pretty ridiculous, given the energies involved
No, don't worry, it doesn't open up this question again:
Nobody smart was ever denying that EMF could interact with the brain... However an overwhelming number of studies have disproven that everyday EMF has a harmful (or even any measurable) effect on the brain. The correlation between perception/placebo and effect is ridiculously strong - so much so that you can invert the on LED in a wireless router and an ES will claim to be affected when it's off every time.
You don't need to try to explain the mechanisms of an effect that doesn't exist, that's a contradiction in terms, it's already been disproven there is no mechanism to explain... Try this as an analogy:
Ingesting water (in everyday quantities) is extremely hazardous to humans.
Obviously we know this to be false, but lets say that a large number of studies have disproven the claim anyway... there's not really anything else to say, what can you explain about this fictitious effect? On the other hand there are a great number of interactions between the human body and water... and we know it to be vital. Similarly the discovery of new interactions between EMF and the human body does not need worry about entertaining these crazy ideas that have been well and truly debunked.
Unfortunately, LOX/RP-1 like SpaceX uses now isn't a great fuel for lunar operations. For a small lunar craft, you want something that has very small, light and simple engines...
Am I missing something?
I know nothing of rocket fuels compared to you... but the falcon 9 only delivers payloads into space, doesn't that make it perfectly suitable to delivering a lunar lander + some other rocket to get it to the moon? In which case do earth bound reusable rockets need to be directly concerned with lunar fuels?
Unless the purpose of lunar operations is to get materials back to earth in which case I guess compatibility with lunar sourced fuels are more important, but a falcon 9 would probably be inappropriate for that task anyway.
Authors of the code snippets who understand that (regardless of ideology) this is not practical for most people who code for a living... can just re-post a link to their code as a gist, pastebin etc with an MIT / BSD / WTFPL license.
For those wondering about derivative license compatibility issues: remember that as the sole author you have the right to use as many licenses as you like unless exclusivity is part of your job/contract. I don't think Stack Overflow can force this requirement on a user without breaking their rights in most countries.
Since your code is shorter, other people can read and understand it easier
Assuming a simple null = 0 check:
object obj = 123;
int somenum;
Short:
somenum = obj is int ? (int)obj : 0;
Long:
if (obj is int) somenum = (int)obj;
else somenum = 0;
I would argue the Long one is easier to read.
Short does not mean try to condense it... you can stick everything on one line to achieve that and it will be the most illegible and hard to read format.
Ternary conditions are not a way to make your code short, you should consider them equal in length conceptually but more concise - that can be good or bad depending on the complexity of the statement.
That's not to say there is no value in trying to keep some things concise for legibility, but there is a difficult balance between terse and concise when doing this... I think the important thing is to focus on clarity, this other attributes are just ways to achieve that, they should not be used for their own sake:
Short, concise, simple (as possible) and DRY can help achieve clarity; using single letter variables and ternary statements for everything will achieve a short terse and unclear mess.
GPL: You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
BSD: You have the right to keep slaves
Saying "Use the code for whatever you want" === "You have the right to keep slaves" is as missleading as politicians saying "encryption" === "terrorist"
Did it ever occur to you that maybe they are both good at different things? maybe you don't have to ascribe to a single ideology like a religious extremist.
In other words: take your straw man absolutist interpretations of two equally good licences and go fuck yourself troll coward.
And someone comes along and embraces and extends it, then once it's adopted en masse, pulls the rug out from under everyone...
I'm possibly historically ignorant on this but when has this happened? (and how significant was it)
I can't think of large projects that had a "rug" to begin with when using BSD style licences... and if it was truly that open and suddenly became closed then forking is easy enough... if some company is building their proprietary empire around it and forking causes incompatibility then what do you expect? it was never truly open to begin with.
It depends on how you define "success". I'd bet there are more Android devices running Linux than developer PCs running GCC.
There are more users than developers so it would make sense, but then again "use" is ambiguous here because GCC is in a way used by both developers and users... but there is no sound metric for such an ambiguous criteria, the effect of GCC is perhaps so far reaching that it doesn't matter.
That does have a ring to it... "American smart pants" - tagline1 "you'l have to strip them from my cold dead body" - tagline2 "encourages smart device thieves to go one step too far"
yeah everyone knows the new way to make phone calls, surf the web and turn on light switches is with smart trousers (smart pants for you americans).
All i have to do is lift my foot to my ear to take a call or make a switching like gesture with my ankle when i walk into a room to turn on the light... and most intuitive of all, i just have to roll around on the floor and flail my legs in the air wildly to surf the web.
I'm sure this is just the beginning, think of all the "smart" things that you can get technology to do for you... say you could gesture to open a door and it would open for you, or you could gesture to open a draw and it would open without you having to lift a finger, or gesture to take a shit and it would teleport your faeces from inside you (and possibly your guts) for you.... the possibilities are endless, welcome to the "smart world"
You do realize you are arguing against someone on the same side of the copyright issue as you are, right?
Yes right after i posted it:P that's what i get for reading too fast and misinterpreting. Still i think my points were good i just wish i didn't post it in reply to the cyn1c77's comment:P
...people would actually aspire to create something new rather than spend their lives trying to profit off the mental effort of their dead relatives.
Because all creative thought is entirely original and has no connection to the rest of the world... even disregarding satire, parody, sampling etc etc do you really think creativity takes place in some void in the mind and is spawned from nothing?
Someone's new creations will be connected to any copyrighted material they have absorbed because creativity takes place in the neural network which is the human mind, and ultimately the output of a neural network is the product of it's cumulative input and some noise. Your thoughts are a derivative of the sum of your experiences.
So who are you to judge how creative something is based on how connected it is to previous content, do you have some magic threshold that dictates when it is no longer creative?... Using others work in a new way is legitimate creativity. Banning such use is both dangerous and based on a flawed understanding of creativity. The real problem here is that copyright does not accommodate how the real world works. (i don't care if this is some massive network making millions or a penniless artist toiling away in obscurity, the principle is the same)
Doesn't really factor into it, i'd use linux or FreeBSD on either, preferably the later but that depends on the specific hardware... Windows isn't really an option for me if i want to keep my sanity. Although OS X is less bad but still a bit bloaty.
I used to do that sort of thing, like shouting "DIVISIBILITY" will running at unwilling solid walls of opposing pedestrians... i've since learned to calm down:)
They must employ developers from suckless.org to help them remove the bloat from their software... Apple are into minimalism right? they will be left with a phone that never needs to be replaced and has one app (the phone app). So often i hear about iPhone users who only want a phone and texting, so this seems fitting.
I hate to defend Apple, I think your mostly correct - but i find it hard to match some of their MBPs with PCs at the same price at the moment, (you can match it) but then often you have to choose between poorer build quality and a worse display or a much lower spec with better build quality, i don't even care about getting the fastest thing, but if it's the same price and you get the best of both I might as well have an MBP, maybe the pricing is a little different in the UK though. I don't think this was as true a few years ago but i guess scale has caught up and now they can both make disgusting profits and be competitive in some aspects. (of course this is excluding all of their absurdly priced "extras", just get the base hardware and run away from their sales people)
The only other reason i might be inclined to buy a mac is because it's almost impossible to not give money to either Microsoft or Apple when buying a new laptop (sorry not a sys76 fan), I'd rather give to nether, but given a choice i'd rather give to Apple just to help Microsoft burn a little more... and then wait for the next underdog to destroy Apple:)
I think it would be really interesting if google actually did something like this because:
I'm not actually sure any abuse from pro-copyright groups would be able to outweigh legitimate opposition.
Google probably wouldn't stand for blatant abuse from pro-copyright groups on a system like this (web search is their bread and butter, youtube is not)
Obviously it would be bad for google because regardless of how well it works in favour of either side of the debate, it will further cast google as a censor of the web.
Laws against texting while walking would be absurd, but people do it all the time and i can see why it's dangerous, it's also really annoying when you're trying to walk on a busy pavement, i've had to resort to saying "look out" when someone in front of me has their head firmly glued in the downward position and i have no where to go, most of the time it just means they wander aimlessly into people and everyone else has to walk around them - in rare cases i've encountered a mob of mobile zombies and just had to stop to let them sense my presence and navigate around me as if the only way they can see their surroundings is by feel
Perhaps i need to make more noise or something... if they all white canes it would be easier to identify them and treat them the same as blind people... perhaps that should be the punishment for causing an accident while texting:P (no offence to blind people)
On the flip side: i've texted while walking plenty of times, but i keep it short, i hold the phone up in front of me like a total dork and if i need to cross a road or there are more things in front of me than my peripheral vision can make sense of i slow down and look away from the phone...
I'm not suggesting there's something unusual about blatant distribution of the original work... that's piracy, but if you make a patch - that's not, that's original work, or if you use none of the original content and create a replica and release it for free that's original content, sure if you sell it there might be an issue but no original content was used and it's free?? or you create software that utilises the original content but don't distribute it and require the user to have a copy of the original??, please read all of my points before responding.
Slashdot Mirror
With the ever-looming cyberpunk future in close proximity
This is what happens when slashdot is your only source of news and you frequent it too often.
All your trademarks are belong to us...
Seriously though why doesn't someone just do some automation on the Oxford English dictionary to stop this stupid system.
...real address and phone number. That was enough to commit fraud with a couple of unrelated online services
This is the problem... when the fuck does it make sense to regard that information as sensitive. In a sane world the companies that allow anonymous customers to set up an account with so little info and verification would be responsible for the fraud.
I wonder how many of these leaked passwords are from disposable accounts. I use weak passwords like this when sites force you to create a useless account to perform an one time action... the account contains no valuable information (you can sign up with bogus email, name etc) but they force you to have one anyway.
I feel like these kind of shitty sites that force you to sign up for a pointless account are also likely to have shitty security and have their account info leaked.
The idea that cell phones 'heat up your brain' or cause direct brain damage is pretty ridiculous, given the energies involved
No, don't worry, it doesn't open up this question again:
Nobody smart was ever denying that EMF could interact with the brain... However an overwhelming number of studies have disproven that everyday EMF has a harmful (or even any measurable) effect on the brain. The correlation between perception/placebo and effect is ridiculously strong - so much so that you can invert the on LED in a wireless router and an ES will claim to be affected when it's off every time.
You don't need to try to explain the mechanisms of an effect that doesn't exist, that's a contradiction in terms, it's already been disproven there is no mechanism to explain... Try this as an analogy:
Ingesting water (in everyday quantities) is extremely hazardous to humans.
Obviously we know this to be false, but lets say that a large number of studies have disproven the claim anyway... there's not really anything else to say, what can you explain about this fictitious effect? On the other hand there are a great number of interactions between the human body and water... and we know it to be vital. Similarly the discovery of new interactions between EMF and the human body does not need worry about entertaining these crazy ideas that have been well and truly debunked.
Unfortunately, LOX/RP-1 like SpaceX uses now isn't a great fuel for lunar operations. For a small lunar craft, you want something that has very small, light and simple engines...
Am I missing something?
I know nothing of rocket fuels compared to you... but the falcon 9 only delivers payloads into space, doesn't that make it perfectly suitable to delivering a lunar lander + some other rocket to get it to the moon? In which case do earth bound reusable rockets need to be directly concerned with lunar fuels?
Unless the purpose of lunar operations is to get materials back to earth in which case I guess compatibility with lunar sourced fuels are more important, but a falcon 9 would probably be inappropriate for that task anyway.
Authors of the code snippets who understand that (regardless of ideology) this is not practical for most people who code for a living... can just re-post a link to their code as a gist, pastebin etc with an MIT / BSD / WTFPL license.
For those wondering about derivative license compatibility issues: remember that as the sole author you have the right to use as many licenses as you like unless exclusivity is part of your job/contract. I don't think Stack Overflow can force this requirement on a user without breaking their rights in most countries.
Since your code is shorter, other people can read and understand it easier
Assuming a simple null = 0 check: object obj = 123; int somenum;
Short: somenum = obj is int ? (int)obj : 0;
Long: if (obj is int) somenum = (int)obj; else somenum = 0;
I would argue the Long one is easier to read.
Short does not mean try to condense it... you can stick everything on one line to achieve that and it will be the most illegible and hard to read format.
Ternary conditions are not a way to make your code short, you should consider them equal in length conceptually but more concise - that can be good or bad depending on the complexity of the statement.
That's not to say there is no value in trying to keep some things concise for legibility, but there is a difficult balance between terse and concise when doing this... I think the important thing is to focus on clarity, this other attributes are just ways to achieve that, they should not be used for their own sake:
Short, concise, simple (as possible) and DRY can help achieve clarity; using single letter variables and ternary statements for everything will achieve a short terse and unclear mess.
A comparison:
GPL: You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness BSD: You have the right to keep slaves
Saying "Use the code for whatever you want" === "You have the right to keep slaves" is as missleading as politicians saying "encryption" === "terrorist"
Did it ever occur to you that maybe they are both good at different things? maybe you don't have to ascribe to a single ideology like a religious extremist.
In other words: take your straw man absolutist interpretations of two equally good licences and go fuck yourself troll coward.
And someone comes along and embraces and extends it, then once it's adopted en masse, pulls the rug out from under everyone...
I'm possibly historically ignorant on this but when has this happened? (and how significant was it)
I can't think of large projects that had a "rug" to begin with when using BSD style licences... and if it was truly that open and suddenly became closed then forking is easy enough... if some company is building their proprietary empire around it and forking causes incompatibility then what do you expect? it was never truly open to begin with.
The most successful GPL-program is gcc
It depends on how you define "success". I'd bet there are more Android devices running Linux than developer PCs running GCC.
There are more users than developers so it would make sense, but then again "use" is ambiguous here because GCC is in a way used by both developers and users... but there is no sound metric for such an ambiguous criteria, the effect of GCC is perhaps so far reaching that it doesn't matter.
... with American Smart Pants.
That does have a ring to it... "American smart pants" - tagline1 "you'l have to strip them from my cold dead body" - tagline2 "encourages smart device thieves to go one step too far"
yeah everyone knows the new way to make phone calls, surf the web and turn on light switches is with smart trousers (smart pants for you americans).
All i have to do is lift my foot to my ear to take a call or make a switching like gesture with my ankle when i walk into a room to turn on the light... and most intuitive of all, i just have to roll around on the floor and flail my legs in the air wildly to surf the web.
I'm sure this is just the beginning, think of all the "smart" things that you can get technology to do for you... say you could gesture to open a door and it would open for you, or you could gesture to open a draw and it would open without you having to lift a finger, or gesture to take a shit and it would teleport your faeces from inside you (and possibly your guts) for you.... the possibilities are endless, welcome to the "smart world"
You do realize you are arguing against someone on the same side of the copyright issue as you are, right?
Yes right after i posted it :P that's what i get for reading too fast and misinterpreting. Still i think my points were good i just wish i didn't post it in reply to the cyn1c77's comment :P
Sorry cyn1c77 you must have been quite confused.
...people would actually aspire to create something new rather than spend their lives trying to profit off the mental effort of their dead relatives.
Because all creative thought is entirely original and has no connection to the rest of the world... even disregarding satire, parody, sampling etc etc do you really think creativity takes place in some void in the mind and is spawned from nothing?
Someone's new creations will be connected to any copyrighted material they have absorbed because creativity takes place in the neural network which is the human mind, and ultimately the output of a neural network is the product of it's cumulative input and some noise. Your thoughts are a derivative of the sum of your experiences.
So who are you to judge how creative something is based on how connected it is to previous content, do you have some magic threshold that dictates when it is no longer creative?... Using others work in a new way is legitimate creativity. Banning such use is both dangerous and based on a flawed understanding of creativity. The real problem here is that copyright does not accommodate how the real world works. (i don't care if this is some massive network making millions or a penniless artist toiling away in obscurity, the principle is the same)
Swivel char? i'm pretty sure this has been tried before: https://youtu.be/4cNmMLq9ZrQ?t...
Doesn't really factor into it, i'd use linux or FreeBSD on either, preferably the later but that depends on the specific hardware... Windows isn't really an option for me if i want to keep my sanity. Although OS X is less bad but still a bit bloaty.
I use FreeBSD on metal you insensitive clod
I used to do that sort of thing, like shouting "DIVISIBILITY" will running at unwilling solid walls of opposing pedestrians... i've since learned to calm down :)
They must employ developers from suckless.org to help them remove the bloat from their software... Apple are into minimalism right? they will be left with a phone that never needs to be replaced and has one app (the phone app). So often i hear about iPhone users who only want a phone and texting, so this seems fitting.
I hate to defend Apple, I think your mostly correct - but i find it hard to match some of their MBPs with PCs at the same price at the moment, (you can match it) but then often you have to choose between poorer build quality and a worse display or a much lower spec with better build quality, i don't even care about getting the fastest thing, but if it's the same price and you get the best of both I might as well have an MBP, maybe the pricing is a little different in the UK though. I don't think this was as true a few years ago but i guess scale has caught up and now they can both make disgusting profits and be competitive in some aspects. (of course this is excluding all of their absurdly priced "extras", just get the base hardware and run away from their sales people)
The only other reason i might be inclined to buy a mac is because it's almost impossible to not give money to either Microsoft or Apple when buying a new laptop (sorry not a sys76 fan), I'd rather give to nether, but given a choice i'd rather give to Apple just to help Microsoft burn a little more... and then wait for the next underdog to destroy Apple :)
I think it would be really interesting if google actually did something like this because:
I'm not actually sure any abuse from pro-copyright groups would be able to outweigh legitimate opposition.
Google probably wouldn't stand for blatant abuse from pro-copyright groups on a system like this (web search is their bread and butter, youtube is not)
Obviously it would be bad for google because regardless of how well it works in favour of either side of the debate, it will further cast google as a censor of the web.
no i'm not... i give in.
Laws against texting while walking would be absurd, but people do it all the time and i can see why it's dangerous, it's also really annoying when you're trying to walk on a busy pavement, i've had to resort to saying "look out" when someone in front of me has their head firmly glued in the downward position and i have no where to go, most of the time it just means they wander aimlessly into people and everyone else has to walk around them - in rare cases i've encountered a mob of mobile zombies and just had to stop to let them sense my presence and navigate around me as if the only way they can see their surroundings is by feel
Perhaps i need to make more noise or something... if they all white canes it would be easier to identify them and treat them the same as blind people... perhaps that should be the punishment for causing an accident while texting :P (no offence to blind people)
On the flip side: i've texted while walking plenty of times, but i keep it short, i hold the phone up in front of me like a total dork and if i need to cross a road or there are more things in front of me than my peripheral vision can make sense of i slow down and look away from the phone...
I'm not suggesting there's something unusual about blatant distribution of the original work... that's piracy, but if you make a patch - that's not, that's original work, or if you use none of the original content and create a replica and release it for free that's original content, sure if you sell it there might be an issue but no original content was used and it's free?? or you create software that utilises the original content but don't distribute it and require the user to have a copy of the original??, please read all of my points before responding.