MarkHarmon

Maybe the best candidates are so apt at covering their tracks that they never make a blip on the radar. hehe.

That makes sense. Hopefully my comment doesn't sound like I think people with degrees are worse. My point was that I feel it comes down to the person and not the source of their education.

"it is not a fallacy to bring in personal details which raise legitimate questions about the credibility of what's being said. Snowden did have a difficult time in HS and he does not possess a formal CS/technical education."

Having worked decades in the IT industry, my experience shows that formal education rarely makes a positive contribution to a person's skills or credibility. I could be biased though, I'm self taught.

Can we conclude from this that it is better to leak anonymously? On one hand, anonymous leaks might be more immune to character assassination attempts. On the other, having a real live person stand behind the information adds some credibility and possibly deeper understanding of surrounding conditions.

That's the same conclusion I've come to. These headlines lately have given me reason to dig in and do lots of research and it seems that 9/11 was the catalyst for a majority of this. Or at least 9/11 was the convenient excuse for doing something that was going to happen anyways. [EDIT] Removed my stupid remark that was probably caused by me waking up grouchy. Sorry.

Error 404 now.

Money is just a symbol of value. Who doesn't want to be highly valued. People love coming up with grand reason for justifying their desire for massive amounts of money. I suspect most people, deep down inside, just want the secure feeling that having tons of money provides. It's your license to freedom.

The story seems relevant due to recent news articles about people printing guns. It makes me wonder about what other printable items will be criminalized. Also gets me thinking about the materials used by 3d printers. Right now plastic is the most popular, but who knows, maybe someday it will be "goop".

The code creates a new buffer for each frame and then pushes that into the gif. There is no freeing of memory or any kind of ring buffer being setup. So yes, it keeps eating memory.

I'm against all of the complex regex as well, having learned through trial and error that it is usually way more trouble than it's worth. That being said, there are many cases where the email address being verified is not the user's email, but maybe someone they are doing business with, and they don't want the system sending a verification email to every email address they are saving with your software.

In both cases it sounds like the designer/developers were not qualified to make the decisions they did about their systems. Not to sound like a snob or anything, but using Rails plugins? Really? That just sounds sloppy.

I'm trying to think of a way that the machine could be designed where it's veracity is verified and viewable by all as it works. In other words there is some kind of mechanism that prevents falsifying the count. Something equivalent to being able to watch over people's shoulders as they count votes. A website that anyone can go to and monitor each machine and its code as it is working but with read-only ability.