Really? H2O2 is said to cause cell walls to burst in bacteria and have good antifungal properties. Thats why it provides almost immediate relief for infected teeth. Don't post stuff like this if you have no clue what you're talking about.
I don't know much about what it's said to do or who says it, but in the brewing industry, everyone uses something stronger than peroxide. Bleach, chlorine dioxide, and peracetic acid are common. Anionic acid sanitizers and iodophor are faster than peroxide, though not necessarily stronger. Chlorine dioxide and paraformaldehyde were used for anthrax remediation, not peroxide. Am I cherry-picking the data? I don't know of any places peroxide is used, except when the goal is to *not* kill everything, such as in agriculture.
Yes we do: it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically article 27, which states that “everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits...
But it does mean that rights holders, once they publish their work, are required to make it available at a price all members of the community can pay.
That seems like a big leap. First, one may participate in culture without being able to participate in all aspects. Would you advocate that a concert in a small venue should be priced so everyone can attend? But more importantly, having the right to something doesn't obligate others to provide it to you. Everyone has the right to a happy love life, but that doesn't mean anybody has to sleep with you!
Ahh, he was using their app's API. Still, I'm not sure where the line is when using data you already have access to, but for an unintended purpose. I see crushing their competitor (so they can be a monopoly) as a bigger story than how exactly they used their competitor's APIs.
It sounds like he was scraping the web site of a rival company. Is that even unethical? The worst he could have done is ignored robots.txt, and I don't know whether that is considered serious in Australia. Was there some more serious breach which evaded my attention? The title mentioned spyware, but the article didn't.
I applaud you for taking the time to come up with such a concise and clear example. I think it really illustrates that the complex laws are clearer in their intent. The first law is clearly not meant to cover setting a dumpster on fire, and possibly not thermite (depending on what it's used for). This is an ideal case, because real world laws are written with special interests in mind, often being written in entirety by special interest groups.
When a law is vague, application is left up to the discretion of the executive and judicial systems. This can be good, but good police make bad decisions, and bad officers are also hired. Among other issues, a vague law is an opportunity for corruption (as this article's summary alleges). A vague law could be enforced strictly or not, depending on whether an inspector is feeling happy.
See the end of the article for a short example. He convinced wikipedia to remove the section on Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia's charges of a hit-and-run. The charges were later reduced as part of a plea bargain. Is that relevant for a public figure? Maybe. Is it whitewashing? Sure.
Just create an etherium payable contract that pays when the ransom where evil doer is killed, as measure by whatever method the contract specified as satisfactory proof the right person received the right result.
Setting aside for now the fact that that's horrible, how would it be implemented? Say it's not about killing someone but about buying a puppy. What is the oracle which tells the system that the requirements have been met?
I suspect you know more than me about this. But it seems you are not interested in the type of discussion that is elucidating for both sides. Plus, you ignored my fact that complex economic realities should be taken into account, though (I assumed) that was beyond the scope of this discussion. That is not how productive arguments work.
Monks practice like hell to change their experience of reality. They aren't born that way. If you managed to detach from your ego to a large extent, you wouldn't feel compelled to do a lot of your current lifestyle stuff, either.
That's obviously not what this is about. You're eager to share something you know, but next time, take the time to read the summary and actually consider what it says.
I'm not sure that is relevant, given that we're complaining the "low tax" states have a low tax rate, not lower taxes in an absolute sense. And no, the GP's point about tax flow from some states to others isn't entirely relevant either. In other words, we've all gotten onto the wrong track. An oversimplified story.
It's okay for Alabama to need more federal aid. What's not so nice is for it to get more federal aid AND to tax proportionally lower. (Of course, a better analysis would also analyze the differing effect of tax rates on the economy, which I'm glossing over.) That's why it makes sense for the fed to tax Alabama residents higher. Because Alabama is not taxing as it should be, considering not only its own budget shortfalls, but the wealthy people and companies it is not taxing comparably to other states. Yet there is no obligation for Alabama to be fully self sufficient, because as you said, there is no Alabaman Silicon Valley.
The rule of thumb is that hydrocarbons contain around 9 kcal of energy per gram. One kcal is enough to raise a gram of water by a thousand degrees, and almost every other substance is heated more easily than water (specific heat being around 1/4 to 1/2 that of water). PP has a specific heat of 0.46 calorie per gram degree. If my math is correct, burning one gram of plastic (not necessarily PP) could heat a little over 5 grams of PP to the needed temperatures.
What I'm wondering is where the energy would come from to reach these intense temperatures and pressures for this process. Not many things burn this hot. Would this be a kind of coal blast furnace like that used to make steel? That seems like a rather silly idea if the goal is to reduce the production of waste and CO2.
The pressures are hard, yes. But the temperature is easy. Every flame I've heard of will reach that temperature (500C). Even a candle flame reaches 1000C.
Skype and WeChat used to log themselves out, but I don't remember others. WhatsApp allows muting a chat for a set duration (with limited choices), which is a feature I use frequently. I haven't seen it in other apps, but I haven't been looking. Skype can't mute a conversation, period (Android app). Chats are now displayed chronologically by most applications, but that was a nifty feature, back when WhatsApp was new.
Some other features I use heavily: "reply" is built in so you never need to manually copy and add "> " to show what you are responding to. You can scroll and search without lag. I "star" messages for future reference, so I can find something like an address from the menu.
You could still be found or added to a contact list by phone number, even if you login with a username or email address. Even skype allows this I think. But at least Skype allows you to hide your phone number. I consider my phone number much more private than my email address as it's harder to change and filter.
Furthermore, I know that if a person uses WhatsApp, it is generally a good way to reach them, unlike other services. (Good luck trying to reach me on Skype if I haven't opened the app in two months.)
The same can be said for whatsapp. I haven't opened it in over two years. The only difference is that you probably have more people using whatsapp than skype in your inner circle. It's not because whatsapp does anything better.
You are completely right. And it's not just my inner circle, but my city.
You've raised legitimate points. We are back to what I said yesterday: for years, WhatsApp was the only chat app to have a really good user interface on mobile (using contact discovery and displaying chats in a way that users found convenient, with powerful options to mute chats and set privacy options, yet almost never dropping messages and absolutely never silently logging itself out), it's a program my locale has gotten comfortable using. Despite the inconvenience of needing phone connectivity to chat on a computer, I find its other features to be better than the competition. For another app to win in my locale, it would need to be significantly better than WhatsApp, not a mixed bag of better/worse features, as seen by the failure of WeChat to fully take over in my locale (despite it having big market share already).
You have made some great points, but you're so adamant about your opinion that I wonder whether you actually want the answer. Since it's a sentence, here goes: when I meet a new person, the only piece of information I want to exchange is a phone number. I throw away cards, I consider my e-mail address private, and I don't use Facebook. That trumps all other concerns, as exchanging e-mails is simply not something I will do when other options are available.
Furthermore, I know that if a person uses WhatsApp, it is generally a good way to reach them, unlike other services. (Good luck trying to reach me on Skype if I haven't opened the app in two months.)
By the way, LINE and Viber use the same model as WhatsApp, so it's hardly alone. Telegram uses a hybrid model like Google Hangouts.
I stand corrected, Hangouts does seem to have a convenient UI for integrating proprietary address book with contact phone numbers. Though note that even that system wouldn't work without a phone number still acting as a unique identifier.
There is no excuse to use a phone number as an identifier nowadays.
The thing I think you are not paying attention to is that users like the way the system was designed, including the simplicity and authentication being your SIM, for both the phone and the computer.
But your points about the drawbacks are valid. I'm just one of those users who likes the end result so much that he overlooks the drawbacks.
I think if you look at other implementations which attempted to do what you are describing (Facebook, Skype for Android), you'll find that the integration of a standard online account/contact list with the phone's address book is hardly "trivial". Or has someone actually managed to integrate as well as WhatsApp without using phone numbers as unique identifiers?
What you see as a disadvantage is to me a big advantage: I never need to login. There is no password to lose. Contacts are managed automatically by systems that already exist (address books linked to the phone). Identity is account and contact.
Some people don't like this characteristic. For example, some women prefer to give out their contact information for a different chat program, because giving out a phone number opens them up to possible future harassment.
I've never wanted a "mod +terrifying" before. It's rotten that that happened to you! The same things have happened to me and people I know, but it was traditional nonsense rather than new nonsense. For example someone had a small issue with his documents and didn't know to pay the bribe that was needed. It did not end pleasantly.
I love their API. You can do a search without submitting any sensitive information. Not even a full sha1sum. You send a partial sha1sum, and they send back possible matches. Locally, you see if any are exact matches.
Here is a bash/zsh function which looks up a password (obviously without printing it to console or sending it anywhere):
function haveibeenpwned() {
echo "Enter password to check:"
stty -echo
read line
stty echo
echo
local sha1="$(echo -n "$line" | sha1sum - | cut -f1 -d' ')"
echo sha1 is "$sha1"
local prefix="$(echo "$sha1" | sed 's/\(.....\)\(.*\)/\1/')"
local suffix="$(echo "$sha1" | sed 's/\(.....\)\(.*\)/\2/')"
echo "Searching for prefix: $prefix and suffix: $suffix"
echo
curl "https://api.pwnedpasswords.com/range/$prefix" 2>/dev/null | grep -i "$suffix"
}
While I don't condone your ad hominem attack, you forgot to mention that Charles Murray was shouted down and physically attacked (based on an interview about the incident) at Middlebury College. If I recall, the professor who was escorting Murray was hurt by a student. It went beyond protesting, disinviting, or boycotting.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? H2O2 is said to cause cell walls to burst in bacteria and have good antifungal properties. Thats why it provides almost immediate relief for infected teeth. Don't post stuff like this if you have no clue what you're talking about.
I don't know much about what it's said to do or who says it, but in the brewing industry, everyone uses something stronger than peroxide. Bleach, chlorine dioxide, and peracetic acid are common. Anionic acid sanitizers and iodophor are faster than peroxide, though not necessarily stronger. Chlorine dioxide and paraformaldehyde were used for anthrax remediation, not peroxide. Am I cherry-picking the data? I don't know of any places peroxide is used, except when the goal is to *not* kill everything, such as in agriculture.
Yes we do: it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically article 27, which states that “everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits...
But it does mean that rights holders, once they publish their work, are required to make it available at a price all members of the community can pay.
That seems like a big leap. First, one may participate in culture without being able to participate in all aspects. Would you advocate that a concert in a small venue should be priced so everyone can attend? But more importantly, having the right to something doesn't obligate others to provide it to you. Everyone has the right to a happy love life, but that doesn't mean anybody has to sleep with you!
Ahh, he was using their app's API. Still, I'm not sure where the line is when using data you already have access to, but for an unintended purpose. I see crushing their competitor (so they can be a monopoly) as a bigger story than how exactly they used their competitor's APIs.
It sounds like he was scraping the web site of a rival company. Is that even unethical? The worst he could have done is ignored robots.txt, and I don't know whether that is considered serious in Australia. Was there some more serious breach which evaded my attention? The title mentioned spyware, but the article didn't.
I applaud you for taking the time to come up with such a concise and clear example. I think it really illustrates that the complex laws are clearer in their intent. The first law is clearly not meant to cover setting a dumpster on fire, and possibly not thermite (depending on what it's used for). This is an ideal case, because real world laws are written with special interests in mind, often being written in entirety by special interest groups.
When a law is vague, application is left up to the discretion of the executive and judicial systems. This can be good, but good police make bad decisions, and bad officers are also hired. Among other issues, a vague law is an opportunity for corruption (as this article's summary alleges). A vague law could be enforced strictly or not, depending on whether an inspector is feeling happy.
He's being paid by companies to whitewash.
You claim whitewash; do you have an example?
See the end of the article for a short example. He convinced wikipedia to remove the section on Nextdoor CEO Nirav Tolia's charges of a hit-and-run. The charges were later reduced as part of a plea bargain. Is that relevant for a public figure? Maybe. Is it whitewashing? Sure.
This article is about reputation hacking, not race.
Just create an etherium payable contract that pays when the ransom where evil doer is killed, as measure by whatever method the contract specified as satisfactory proof the right person received the right result.
Setting aside for now the fact that that's horrible, how would it be implemented? Say it's not about killing someone but about buying a puppy. What is the oracle which tells the system that the requirements have been met?
I suspect you know more than me about this. But it seems you are not interested in the type of discussion that is elucidating for both sides. Plus, you ignored my fact that complex economic realities should be taken into account, though (I assumed) that was beyond the scope of this discussion. That is not how productive arguments work.
Cheers.
Monks practice like hell to change their experience of reality. They aren't born that way. If you managed to detach from your ego to a large extent, you wouldn't feel compelled to do a lot of your current lifestyle stuff, either.
That's obviously not what this is about. You're eager to share something you know, but next time, take the time to read the summary and actually consider what it says.
I'm not sure that is relevant, given that we're complaining the "low tax" states have a low tax rate, not lower taxes in an absolute sense. And no, the GP's point about tax flow from some states to others isn't entirely relevant either. In other words, we've all gotten onto the wrong track. An oversimplified story.
It's okay for Alabama to need more federal aid. What's not so nice is for it to get more federal aid AND to tax proportionally lower. (Of course, a better analysis would also analyze the differing effect of tax rates on the economy, which I'm glossing over.) That's why it makes sense for the fed to tax Alabama residents higher. Because Alabama is not taxing as it should be, considering not only its own budget shortfalls, but the wealthy people and companies it is not taxing comparably to other states. Yet there is no obligation for Alabama to be fully self sufficient, because as you said, there is no Alabaman Silicon Valley.
The rule of thumb is that hydrocarbons contain around 9 kcal of energy per gram. One kcal is enough to raise a gram of water by a thousand degrees, and almost every other substance is heated more easily than water (specific heat being around 1/4 to 1/2 that of water). PP has a specific heat of 0.46 calorie per gram degree. If my math is correct, burning one gram of plastic (not necessarily PP) could heat a little over 5 grams of PP to the needed temperatures.
What I'm wondering is where the energy would come from to reach these intense temperatures and pressures for this process. Not many things burn this hot. Would this be a kind of coal blast furnace like that used to make steel? That seems like a rather silly idea if the goal is to reduce the production of waste and CO2.
The pressures are hard, yes. But the temperature is easy. Every flame I've heard of will reach that temperature (500C). Even a candle flame reaches 1000C.
Skype and WeChat used to log themselves out, but I don't remember others. WhatsApp allows muting a chat for a set duration (with limited choices), which is a feature I use frequently. I haven't seen it in other apps, but I haven't been looking. Skype can't mute a conversation, period (Android app). Chats are now displayed chronologically by most applications, but that was a nifty feature, back when WhatsApp was new.
Some other features I use heavily: "reply" is built in so you never need to manually copy and add "> " to show what you are responding to. You can scroll and search without lag. I "star" messages for future reference, so I can find something like an address from the menu.
You could still be found or added to a contact list by phone number, even if you login with a username or email address. Even skype allows this I think. But at least Skype allows you to hide your phone number. I consider my phone number much more private than my email address as it's harder to change and filter.
Furthermore, I know that if a person uses WhatsApp, it is generally a good way to reach them, unlike other services. (Good luck trying to reach me on Skype if I haven't opened the app in two months.)
The same can be said for whatsapp. I haven't opened it in over two years.
The only difference is that you probably have more people using whatsapp than skype in your inner circle. It's not because whatsapp does anything better.
You are completely right. And it's not just my inner circle, but my city.
You've raised legitimate points. We are back to what I said yesterday: for years, WhatsApp was the only chat app to have a really good user interface on mobile (using contact discovery and displaying chats in a way that users found convenient, with powerful options to mute chats and set privacy options, yet almost never dropping messages and absolutely never silently logging itself out), it's a program my locale has gotten comfortable using. Despite the inconvenience of needing phone connectivity to chat on a computer, I find its other features to be better than the competition. For another app to win in my locale, it would need to be significantly better than WhatsApp, not a mixed bag of better/worse features, as seen by the failure of WeChat to fully take over in my locale (despite it having big market share already).
You have made some great points, but you're so adamant about your opinion that I wonder whether you actually want the answer. Since it's a sentence, here goes: when I meet a new person, the only piece of information I want to exchange is a phone number. I throw away cards, I consider my e-mail address private, and I don't use Facebook. That trumps all other concerns, as exchanging e-mails is simply not something I will do when other options are available.
Furthermore, I know that if a person uses WhatsApp, it is generally a good way to reach them, unlike other services. (Good luck trying to reach me on Skype if I haven't opened the app in two months.)
By the way, LINE and Viber use the same model as WhatsApp, so it's hardly alone. Telegram uses a hybrid model like Google Hangouts.
I stand corrected, Hangouts does seem to have a convenient UI for integrating proprietary address book with contact phone numbers. Though note that even that system wouldn't work without a phone number still acting as a unique identifier.
There is no excuse to use a phone number as an identifier nowadays.
The thing I think you are not paying attention to is that users like the way the system was designed, including the simplicity and authentication being your SIM, for both the phone and the computer.
But your points about the drawbacks are valid. I'm just one of those users who likes the end result so much that he overlooks the drawbacks.
I think if you look at other implementations which attempted to do what you are describing (Facebook, Skype for Android), you'll find that the integration of a standard online account/contact list with the phone's address book is hardly "trivial". Or has someone actually managed to integrate as well as WhatsApp without using phone numbers as unique identifiers?
What you see as a disadvantage is to me a big advantage: I never need to login. There is no password to lose. Contacts are managed automatically by systems that already exist (address books linked to the phone). Identity is account and contact.
Some people don't like this characteristic. For example, some women prefer to give out their contact information for a different chat program, because giving out a phone number opens them up to possible future harassment.
I've never wanted a "mod +terrifying" before. It's rotten that that happened to you! The same things have happened to me and people I know, but it was traditional nonsense rather than new nonsense. For example someone had a small issue with his documents and didn't know to pay the bribe that was needed. It did not end pleasantly.
local prefix="$(echo "$sha1" | sed 's/\(.....\)\(.*\)/\1/')"
local suffix="$(echo "$sha1" | sed 's/\(.....\)\(.*\)/\2/')"
For recent Bash versions that have built-in RegEx :
[[ "${sha1}" =~ ^(.....)(.*)$ ]]
local prefix="${BASH_REMATCH[1]}"
local suffix="${BASH_REMATCH[2]}"
Nice! But if you use that, it's actually a bear to keep compatibility with zsh. You need to add this to the beginning of the function:
[[ ! -z $ZSH_VERSION ]] && setopt local_options ksh_arrays bash_rematch
I love their API. You can do a search without submitting any sensitive information. Not even a full sha1sum. You send a partial sha1sum, and they send back possible matches. Locally, you see if any are exact matches.
Here is a bash/zsh function which looks up a password (obviously without printing it to console or sending it anywhere):
function haveibeenpwned() {
echo "Enter password to check:"
stty -echo
read line
stty echo
echo
local sha1="$(echo -n "$line" | sha1sum - | cut -f1 -d' ')"
echo sha1 is "$sha1"
local prefix="$(echo "$sha1" | sed 's/\(.....\)\(.*\)/\1/')"
local suffix="$(echo "$sha1" | sed 's/\(.....\)\(.*\)/\2/')"
echo "Searching for prefix: $prefix and suffix: $suffix"
echo
curl "https://api.pwnedpasswords.com/range/$prefix" 2>/dev/null | grep -i "$suffix"
}
Definitely don't need to know Zurich's position on the matter, thanks for omitting it
From the summary: Both companies declined to comment on the case. It appears their position on the matter will be disclosed at court.
While I don't condone your ad hominem attack, you forgot to mention that Charles Murray was shouted down and physically attacked (based on an interview about the incident) at Middlebury College. If I recall, the professor who was escorting Murray was hurt by a student. It went beyond protesting, disinviting, or boycotting.