Frozenlock

I think this would be much better if it answered the question "Why?"

The author is making it easy for himself with a contrived example with a key information already available.

> I want to call my Uncle Steve in Melbourne. What time is it there?

In a world with timezones, if your uncle is on the Internet and says "call me at 13h30" but doesn't tell you where he is, you can't call him, because you dont't know when is 13h30. (Think about that... he just gave you the time, but you still don't know the time...)

With timezones, you can't just give the time, you must also give a location. "Time" doesn't exist with timezones, only "time-location".

It's as if a physicist couldn't give you the mass of something without giving you the color.

"This table is 10kg-blue, which is the equivalent of 20kg-pink." (Because kg-colors aren't equal everywhere.)

On the other hand, with a universal time (UTC for example), 13h30 is the same for everyone, everywhere. The time can be given without any other information. If someone says call me at this number at 13h30, I can just do that without having to know where he is.

Let's look back at the initial problem: > I want to call my Uncle Steve in Melbourne. What time is it there? Well, if I have a universal time, it's very easy: it's the same time as where I am! I don't even need to ask google! Beat ya!

But of course the author want to know if he can call someone out-of-the-blue by knowing where he is. Well, if you can use google to tell you what is the time in another timezone, you can use google to tell you what is the usual waking hour in this location. You don't need additional information in this example.

With universal time, the worst case scenario is needing the same amount of information as we do today (current time + location). The best case scenario is having a sane way of communicating time.

Was Apple a sponsor?

At the other extreme, my father commenting on the news couldn't care less if his account is hacked. All he wants is a fast and easy way (using the same password he always uses) to post on the Internet, with a relatively secure way to identify himself to other users on the site.

You need to sit next to someone who doesn't live on the Internet to realize how simple measure, such are requiring a minimum password, can really piss them off.

"Oh, my account got hacked... I guess I'll make another."

"God FUCKING DAMNIT this stupid website won't accept my password!"

8 characters is way too much for someone just 'poking around'. Sure, 6 characters is much less secure, but then again how secure do you need to be for a forum/commenting platform?

It's much better to let the user know his password is weak while letting him take it anyway.

It then goes on to conclude "Demand diversity near you".

I know what they try to accomplish, but I still think it's a dishonest (or at least incomplete) approach.

Seems to me a localization scheme should be open if it ever hopes to get traction.

Men are usually the outliers. (See % of male prisoners)

Note that he also said "Maybe just a total coincidence".

I'll refer you to the parent comment, where you can see that its sole purpose was to describe the relevance.

Not exactly. And saying what will be is a little presumptuous.

Here's what you can find in the wikipedia entry about criminal conspiracy in Common Law:

"There was an additional problem that it could be a criminal conspiracy at common law to engage in conduct which was not in itself a criminal offence (...) Henceforward it would only be an offence to agree to engage in a course of conduct which was itself a criminal offence."

Or, in other words, it would only be an offence if making the tools that helped the criminals was a criminal act in itself.

As an (extreme) example of the problem of criminal conspiracy: you could end up in prison for giving/selling food to someone you know will commit a crime.

With this in mind, it's not really surprising to see people baffled by the possibility of being put in jail for doing something that is, in itself, legal.

Now, it might be illegal under the current US laws, but that's what's surprising. Most people expect to NOT be sent in prison for obeying the laws.

> Pretending that criminalizing helping to commit crimes erodes civil liberties is somewhere between silly and stupid.

Eh no, it's really not. It's pretty much the definition. By criminalizing an action, your are reducing the civil liberties.

In a weird way, almost all 'news' websites are on one side, while the other side (gamers), are on youtube and some other social medias not yet censored. (Thunderf00t got his Twitter account suspended, reddit threads are being deleted...)

Journalists hating their readers, feminists, straight white males... DRAMAAAAA!

Really? The USA is considering everything as under its jurisdiction, but the banks are overreacting?

How about American (not USian) making content for Americans? Or Terran, making content for Terrans? Why this divide?

As someone who lives in Canada, why should I let someone else decides what I'm going to watch?

Why should Québec and New Hampshire be so different? They are geographically close. It would make sense for them to tend to become more and more alike. If anything, those laws are artificially creating different cultures.

It's not 'assimilation', it's living with other people. Do you think of yourself as 'assimilated' if you start playing the same games as one of your friends?

"How a Libertarian Paradise in Chile Fell Apart"

Oh wow, much better!

If someone really wants to come in, they can easily do so.

Many seasons start with a great potential, only to fall on their face. It can create such nice ideas... and then destroy them by reusing and abusing them. (Weeping angels)

It also doesn't know how to 'scale'. In the first (2005+) episode with the Dalek, you see how terrible and brutally efficient they are. Fast forward a few episodes/seasons, and now you must have an entire army to show how things are 'bad'.

Did you notice how many times the overall arc changes? Or rather, how it isn't described at all so the writers can come up with whatever they want?

SPOILERS

"Bad wolf" ---> "Oh I've just taken these words and sent them myself in the past." Yeah, right.

"Silence will fall" ---> So it's an event? Eh... no... it's a species that make you forget when you watch them? Almost... It's a religious movement! There! Phew, we almost had to plan something!

HVAC controls most work as a team, otherwise they end up fighting each other.

As a simple example, picture an office building in which each room has a temperature sensor and air supply.

If a room says "Oh, it's hot here!" The system will try to send cooler air.

Now, imagine that in one of those rooms, there's a little lady who's a little cold. The system however, is in cooling mode, because the room is slightly warmer than the temperature setpoint.

The lady won't have it a decides to bring an electric heater. Now she is heating her room and feels more comfortable. From the point of view of the system, her room is much warmer than it should be. As a consequence, the system sends even more cooler air to her room.

The lady now has to crank up her electric heater to counteract this increase in cooler air...

This would have been logical with short and understandable laws.

Nowadays, however, it's impossible to know the law in it's entirety. (Nor is it possible to deduce logically from similar known laws).

If it's literally impossible for an expert to know all the laws (let alone a common citizen), 'ignorance of the law excuses no one' is a meaningless sentence used to dismiss a much, MUCH bigger problem.

Try saying it this way:

"Well, you should have known what no human being is able to learn. You're not a super human? Too bad."

I don't remember acting crazy in my teens. In fact, I think I'm the same boring self that I was years ago.

What I think many adults are victim of, is being encapsulated in a little set of habits and behaviors, with the expectation that everyone else will follow the same rules.

Thus, when one sees someone old enough to not be a 'child' anymore, it's expected of them to immediately follow the same habits (thoughtless actions) then everyone else.

Well, it turns about that many habits are completely non-intuitive (and perhaps even irrational). For individuals going through the motion for the first time, they might pause for 2 minutes and try to understand what's going on, without ending with the same conclusions as everyone else.

If everyone was acting crazy, how would someone not acting like them look like?

Wouldn't anyone intercepting the email be able to use the reset link themselves and gain access to the account?