wnight

61 ms·

571.
by wnight 15y ago
> if you take your position to the extreme then there should be NO concept of citizenry. Yeah. It's just what the first people to go somewhere say when someone else tries to join them. "Take off, we first settlers don't want you here."
572.
by wnight 15y ago
> Ok, I've let this slide up until now, but this is a very poor attempt at implying that America has been a primary perpetrator of crimes throughout history or has somehow obtained success by "stealing" it from others. It's true. If we
573.
by wnight 15y ago
> That means that if my country goes to war and I'm drafted then I must fight and possibly die for my country. Societies that raise slave armies aren't free. Or, did I miss where you'd be able to abstain if, for instance, you knew the w
574.
by wnight 15y ago
If it has to balance out we could send you...
575.
by wnight 15y ago
There's likely no policy of killing, but there is a policy of covering up inconvenient leaks, arresting photographers, etc, that gets used when there is a killing, or any other crime from drunk-driving to bribery. The police code of never a
576.
by wnight 15y ago
You do understand that if anything happened to the company he'd be legally prohibited from releasing anti-DRM patches, right? It'd destroy the shareholders' value. Unless it's in writing as a condition of your purchase, and the code is in e
577.
by wnight 15y ago
I feel that the boilerplate code IDEs spit out on demand is far more of a liability than not. Once it's created it's your responsibility to maintain. By focusing on the creation of the simplistic code we ignore the burden of maintaining ten
578.
by wnight 15y ago
> Honestly, this whole forum post reeks of "I know I did something wrong, hopefully posting here will make the pit in my stomach go away." This is what you said about him contemplating transferring more money out of mtgox. You're acting
579.
by wnight 15y ago
No, they simply mean that you quickly gather many whole frames and even if the signal is mostly lost in most of them, enough would remain.
580.
by wnight 15y ago
> It sounded like he [...] contemplated hitting that $1000 limit a bunch of times. That's the thought, and you treat it like a crime. Hence, thought-crime.
581.
by wnight 15y ago
That said, I think it's fair for the Bitcoin people to feel abandoned by the EFF for their sudden refusal to deal with btc without a thorough legal explanation that others could work with. The EFF is pretty much who you'd expect to fight fo
582.
by wnight 15y ago
Funny how people thing this system could ever work. Companies are the original trolls, making up new accounts and coming back without any negative karma or legal responsibilities. As long as corporations are separate from the people running
583.
by wnight 15y ago
I wasn't suggesting you hire everyone who walks through the door, but I bet my hour-long test is within 80% as accurate as those crazy all-day stress tests, and much cheaper. Asking for code (even a few lines) in the application itself woul
584.
by wnight 15y ago
Wanting to avoid single points of failure doesn't seem that strange to me. It's an engineering decision, not a political one. Central authority is just a central system to hack, or become corrupt. You wouldn't let your business become relia
585.
by wnight 15y ago
What risk though? Instead of these days-long interviews with multiple people (and the inevitable meetings after to discuss their results) why not just hire people provisionally and see how they do? Especially if you pair-program, code revie
586.
by wnight 15y ago
The problem is that down-votes have account consequences. They aren't the mirror opposite of an up-vote. Ten upvotes and a post is just popular, ten downvotes and you might get banned. If moderation was a flag that some people cared about b
587.
by wnight 15y ago
>> [broken economy, can't stop playing] > 'tis the voters' fault, though, isn't it? The quants didn't ask for the system to be the way it is. Not the voters. Voting can't fix anything because politicians can't be held to their c
588.
by wnight 15y ago
The comparison with meth is closer than you think. As the other comment says many people Facebook more than they enjoy doing so. If you really charged them for it, to establish this value, they've vanish in a second. Not that I'm saying it'
589.
by wnight 15y ago
Most of finance these days is finding ways to subvert actual trading of value and dilution of risk, instead attacking (in the security sense) currencies and markets. While markets and liquidity are helpful to the world the finance workers d
590.
by wnight 15y ago
Sure, spend your life working on whatever you want, even something selfish. It does decrease what you could do elsewhere and as such has opportunity costs, but as you say it's your choice. But "finance" means theft these days. It's only wil
591.
by wnight 15y ago
This is opposed to the alternative of traditional advertising, where you're losing money on the people who aren't even in your restaurant. These deals are reasonable to offer if your overhead is more than your incremental costs, for instanc
592.
by wnight 15y ago
> No, they might not be deserving of customers trust but that doesn't mean that throwing egg on their face is helping the situation any. But not throwing egg on their face was helping less. As long as security bugs are mostly invisible
593.
by wnight 15y ago
It is a silver bullet, if project-management overhead and related assumptions are your werewolf.
594.
by wnight 15y ago
Users who liked the feature might have been a bit surprised. It's not like the app randomly mucked with the UI, it did precisely what the user requested - nobody needed to be saved.
595.
by wnight 15y ago
Remember Ballmer chanting "Developers! Developers! ..."? Well, here Apple is saying "Screw the developers". Sure, they have a right to do this, and perhaps an obligations, but the developers put out business without warning probably won't k
596.
by wnight 15y ago
So you do a lot of work and achieve what you might call "near-perfect real-world security" and are not hacked, are you secure? When you later find out you were vulnerable. Were you secure? Does knowing that an undetectable root-kit could ha
597.
by wnight 15y ago
> The flip side of this is that if you suddenly use one more field in a tuple, way down the line in some unrelated portion of the code, you might trigger a very expensive computation. This is unacceptable in many large apps written by m
598.
by wnight 15y ago
Secure vs who? With what budget? Are you content with achieving 'security' by shredding the server or do you plan to hook it up to a network?
599.
by wnight 15y ago
Oh my god, you're right. He's one of them! (damn lawyers)
600.
by wnight 15y ago
> Seeing as you have no problem threatening further theft and violence, it seems "a good conscience" is out of reach for you Not at all. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of standing there holding a blood-covered TV arguing that this

More ›