stevejones

Actually it is. The article seems to describe an algorithm with a catastrophic failure mode where no (or not enough) ants return. Without retransmission the ants just hang around waiting for a returning ant. So there must be some sort of retransmission.

The big deal in the UK, a few years ago, was that a person would go overdrawn, deposit money to cover it immediately but then get charged an overdraft fee by an overnight process. This fee would put them overdrawn, leaving them liable for a second overdraft fee - which would be charged the next night...

This was ruled to be illegal and banks had to set up whole departments to process return claims. I suspect this is the main cause of the big headwind.

One advantage of solar is the requirement for an electrical grid is lessened, when photovoltaics get cheap enough the requirement for a grid is eliminated.

I don't know anyone who works for Facebook. I'm thousands of miles away from Facebook HQ. I keep careful tabs on who has what info about me and use many different email addresses.

My inbox.

IRC and email are federated systems, they have always been that way. The nature of the federation is different, email systems talk to each other, IRC systems don't. The issue with bitcoin is purely that it solves a problem no-one has, we don't need cryptographic gold. Consensus changes happen to DNS and email all the time, because they solve actual problems and have been made flexible enough to handle change.

The task is not to make a magic free-floating decentralised system, but one which is resistant to getting central points lopped off or controlled. For that look at bittorrent, or even DNS. Whenever the US government has flexed it's muscle, trying to assert control over DNS, other countries have threatened to make their own DNS root and the US has backed down. Anyone can run a DNS root, but that alone doesn't fix the problem, it takes people actually using that fact to prevent centralisation. Bitcoin is stuck in a place where the vast majority of users have to agree to a change before change can be made.

> They made it very clear to us during HR onboarding that the only zero tolerance policy was on unauthorized access to user data.

Given that Facebook HR trawls user data to send job spam I find this claim quite ironic.

Imagine you were to take the example further, unlocking the device required a sequence of fingerprint reads, with a precise ordering. i.e. left-ring finger, right index finger, right little finger, etc... That sequence would be a passcode, just as a precise sequence of keypresses would be. The government can insist on all your fingerprints, but not (in this argument) the correct sequence of uses of those fingerprints to unlock it. If it's only a single finger this same argument could apply.

Do any of them say it must be re-radiated omni-directionally as infra-red light?

So we can safely say that IMSI catchers have been used as a matter of routine since 2002.

It's almost certainly an offence under RIPA.

ITT: people who've never done an online resize

It's a search engine, so it searches for prices among many providers such as Expedia and Travelocity as well as individual airlines.

"the way it would seem to"

{} initialises all elements to 0.

{0} initialises the first element to 0 and the rest to 0.

The latter form just introduces confusion.

I've not seen anyone use that construct anywhere.

tl;dr: Stop using Node, it only encourages them.

Works fine on my phone, yours must be broken.

The initialisers bit seems downright dangerously wrong. This code:

    uint32_t array[10] = {0};

Does not initialise every element to 0 in the way it would seem to. To see the difference contrast the difference you get when you a) remove the initialiser and b) replace the initialiser with {1}.

I was kinda sceptical about the article until I saw the quotes advocating that DID is totally a real thing from the doctors.

Then I was very sceptical.

Despite what everyone is saying here, the median salary in the uk is 26K. 40K puts you in the top 20% of earners. 100k would put you in the top 1%.

Although people are quite right in saying that on 40K you probably couldn't pay the rent in London.

You'd be better off working out a way to compile smalltalk to FPGA.

> The article is about how people into "futurism", like people over at /r/futurism or a large part of HN's userbase, keeps wishing people would stop "concerning" themselves with society and politics to bring technological future faster, have a big blind spot about what really matters and changes our lives.

The article, and you, fail to make the case that this is anything more than a strawman.

This isn't about money, this is about abuse of the trademark.

Those recordings are subject to the Data Protection Act. Most are blatantly not following the Data Protection Act, and as such are illegal.

> So, that's the thing, in some ways it's worse. It has more detail, it's voluntary and less intrusive. The one thing which is quite different is it's not a system to control people, by control I mean controlling as in Orwell's vision.

So to start, there's this. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/schedule/1 It actually replaced the even worse 2005 act. This is not voluntary, is very intrusive and is exactly a system to control people.

But then the actual surveillance, where on earth do you get that it's voluntary. Unless you're suggesting that simply having an Internet connection, a phone or travelling in a town is volunteering to be be surveilled.

The ToS is Spotify's word on this matter. If the ToS says they can do X, you can only assume they are going to do X. An apology doesn't fix the problem, no amount of grovelling by the CEO changes anything until the ToS are fixed.

I am immediately reminded of http://zapatopi.net/mindguard/

How do you feel about imposing a blanket ban on said flag for PR purposes?

Curious as to whether that was an open channel.

Also https://www.freebsd.org/community/irc.html

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

In computer science, we stand on each other's feet. -- Brian K. Reid