nomurrcy

This is a great tool. The api surface takes a bit to figure out, and navigating manipulating the syntax tree can require some trial and error, but I’ve used this to do large scale refactors that would have been very time consuming if done by hand.

99% of the time the tools provided by jetbrains / vscode are more than sufficient, but 1% of the time a tool like this saves you a bunch of time, both searching for what you need to change and making the changes you want.

Yes, I'm sure. Is is father or mother Austrian? There was a period in 2014 wherein children affected by this law were allowed to apply for Austrian citizenship - perhaps he took advantage of that. There has also been a recent change for descendants of holocaust survivors. I'm not sure about the german side of the equation.

See 'Obtaining Austrian Citizenship' here: https://www.bmeia.gv.at/en/austrian-embassy-london/service-f...

I hope Austria will make a similar change. Children born before 1983 only acquired citizenship if their father was Austrian or they were born out of wedlock to a single mother. When they changed the law in 1983 it was not made retroactive - so many half Austrian children are left with no legal connection to the country.

I have this same issue with my Sony headphones.

1. Open Utilities -> Audio Midi Setup 2. In the left pane click + and add a new aggregate device 3. Add your internal mic to the aggregate device 4. Go to System Preferences -> Sound and select the aggregate device as your input

Unlike the 'raw' internal mic device this one should stay active when you disconnect / connect your headphones.

I've never found a better solution than this :( Kind of shocking that this is required - but it works.

Overlays can be very helpful for this type of thing.

I have overlays in ~/.config/nixpkgs/overlays.nix (though you do this various ways)

My overlay file has the form:

let my-packages-overlay = self: super: { foo = super.callPackage ./path/to/package.nix {} } in [ my-packages-overlay ]

Then you can just nix-env -iA your-package.

See: https://nixos.wiki/wiki/Overlays

I've been using Anki for the past year while learning German and it has been (seemingly) very helpful. I doubt I would have acquired the vocabulary I have in the past year without it. I'm not sure if this is simply due the fact that it helps make studying a habit or that SRS is as beneficial as claimed.

I have found it useful enough that I'm extending its use to other subjects I'm interested in.

Has anybody used Anki and Supermemo have thoughts on the two? I've never used supermemo - would be very interested to hear if it is worth looking into vs Anki for any reason.

Are there any other more modern (read: available) books you recommend on the topic? Gloor's work is about $500 presently on amazon and not available electronically.

I've used it twice. Once for a Seattle -> Berlin -> Munich -> Seattle trip. Another time for my honeymoon (Seattle -> Krabi -> Tokyo -> Seattle)

Both times I found business class tickets for not a crazy spread over coach retail and significantly below the business class prices I was finding on my own.

I've had great experiences both times. For complex / long haul flights where you want to find a cheap business class seat, I'd recommend them without question. I'm a big fan of flightfox.

I switched a personal server over to freebsd (8 or so at the time) a while ago after battling with zfs on linux. (I was hitting some strange issues at the time which I can't really even remember at present)

After getting over the initial learning curve (files being in different places than I expect / named different things etc) I have really come to like freebsd. You get the sense that everything has been designed to fit together a bit more than the linux distros. I had been using ubutnu before and I got really tired of how much constantly changed between releases. With bsd I'm able to get very up to date software via the ports tree, but the overall 'system' design doesn't seem to change as much between releases as it did in linux land.

The freebsd handbook is great and makes it super easy to get up and running. I certainly don't think the differences for everyday use between freebsd / debian for example are enormous, but I plan on using freebsd for most of my boxes from now on, its just been really painless to work with.

Balderdash.

There were many examples of outright fraud in the years leading up to 2008, some of which are presently being discovered in civil suits. The perpetuators of these frauds have never been brought to justice. (or even really investigated by the justice dept) The victims of these frauds are still seeking relief.

Many people are frustrated as our supposed functionaries of justice in this country are too cozy by half with those entities they are supposed to be regulating. This is corruption writ large.

Here is just one example of outright fraud:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet...

This is a quote from the document in question:

1003. Specifically, plaintiffs performed an investigation concerning the mortgage loans purportedly transferred to the trust for the JPMorgan Defendants’ JPMAC 2006-WMC4 offering. The closing date for this offering was on or about December 20, 2006. Plaintiffs reviewed the transfer history for 274 loans that were supposed to be timely transferred to this trust. Sixty-six (66) of the loans were not and have never been transferred to the trust. In addition, several other loans that were supposed to be transferred to the trust were transferred to entities other than the trust, but not to the trust. The remainder of the loans (approximately 140) were eventually transferred to the trust, but all such transfers occurred between 2008 and the present, well beyond the three-month time period required by the trust documents and far after the three-month period for the trust to maintain its tax-free REMIC status. In other words, none of the reviewed mortgage loans were timely transferred to the trust, a 100% failure rate.

not a single one of the surveyed loans in this REMIC was actually deposited into the trust in a timely fashion and over half were never deposited at all

The trust is void under the law. Everyone who paid the servicer of this trust was screwed as the trust didn't legally own the debt it claimed to. Every investor who sold 'certificates' backed by this trust was robbed. These trusts, which don't really legally own the debts they claim too are foreclosing on debt they don't own. This isn't just failing to cross some t's and dot some i's.

Do you agree (if you assume the above to be true) that people should go to jail for this? Do you think none of the senior execs at JP Morgan Chase knew about this? Do you think it is acceptable that the neither the SEC, the OCC or the OTS have been looking into these problems?

You seem to think being a member of a group committing a crime absolves the individual actors of culpability? By this measure, many members of organized criminal enterprises aren't doing anything wrong.

Maybe we should actually investigate these crimes and at least try and assign responsibility and have trials? Isn't that what the court system is for?

Shouldn't we be embarrassed by this complete breakdown of the rule of law?

In Iceland at least, they've done something about it!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-20/icelandic-anger-bri...

Speaking of organized crime

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/hsbc-mexican-branch... and more money laundering http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-18/deutsche-bank-among...

The justice department 'probes' these matters and then issues civil penalties. These are criminal acts and deserve criminal investigations.

I agree that singling out and only blaming CEOs is ridiculous. Far more than just the CEOs of these banks should be in cuffs. Many of these banks should lose their US banking charters and be dissolved as US banking entities.

If you do not punish this behavior, harshly, it will continue. Civil suits are not enough. For this to stop, many people need to go to jail.

The regulators aren't looking; they don't want to throw their friends and future employers in jail.

How can we 'give it a rest' when we haven't even tried to fix the problem?

Right. My point is it is illegal to enter an order into the market with the intent of goading someone into trading or to manipulate the price unless it is a bona-fide offer to buy or sell. Intent matters with regard to illegality, and I don't think anybody questions the 'intent' of most HFT shops.

Creating the illusion of volume where none exists has long been illegal - people used to paint the tape long before HFT exists to achieve the same thing.

You've provided a good description of why HFT do what they do, and one could argue that laws need to be changed to allow this market behavior. (I would disagree) Much of what they do is illegal by present law, but none of the big market players want the law enforced, so the SEC looks the other way.

You can't be serious. Quote stuffing the channel is standard HFT practice. 99% of the orders placed are never meant to be hit. The SEC is incapable and uninterested in policing this stuff.

Put a .5 second minimum TTL on every order and you'd see all the 'liquidity' provided by the HFT world dry up instantly.

Or even (granted that I'm assuming the whole db api here is fake, and you'd actually probably be using core data here)

  NSArray *records = [[db find:[NSDictionary dictionaryWithObject:@"Joe" forKey:@"name"] limit:10]
                       sortedArrayUsingComparitor:^(id a, id b) {
                         // sort logic
                       }];

Which would enable you to do it all in one statament:

  NSArray *records = [[[db find:[NSDictionary dictionaryWithObject:@"Joe" forKey:@"name"] 
                       limit:10]
                       sortedArrayUsingComparitor:^(id a, id b) {
                         // sort logic
                       }]
                       mapSel:@selector(lowercaseString)];

  [[[[MyFetchRequest forEntityNamed:@"foo"
          orderedBy:@"SomeKey"
          limit:10] fetch]
    valueForKey@"nameField.lowerCaseString"]
    enumerateObjectsUsingBlock:^(id obj, NSUInteger idx, BOOL *stop) {
       // do stuff here
    }];

I don't really agree with the article that nesting message-sends leads to unreadable code. I think reading obj-c is a lot like reading lisp s-expressions and your eye / brain quickly learns to read nested constructs. I generally try not to save anything to an explicit var that I don't intend to use somehow. (of course there are limits to this) I don't find nested code above difficult to read, YMMV.

This is 'fixed' however in a bunch of server-side frameworks. (I'm not sure about rails, I don't use it)

I've used a hack (I think lifted from django) whereby if you are running firefox and and your request came in with an x-requested-with header and we redirect you, we keep a marker in your session that we just redirected you to url x via xhttp request and store any other custom headers we might have set.

Then when your subsequent request comes in (with all its custom headers including x-requested-with missing) we re-add the headers that were stripped out and route your request based on the infered headers. We only keep this lookup entry around for a very short time (like 30 seconds) and remove it after the first time it is used.

It is a total hack, but it works in most cases. Not using redirects on xmlhttp requests is pretty limiting - it is a real shame that the FF devs took so long to fix this bug as it now exits in tons of installs that will probably be around for years to come.

Another idea (sans - or in addition to a tax) to improve the signal / noise ratio of the markets: mandate that all B/Os put out there have a TTL of 5 seconds or until they are hit.

So if you Bid at X, you can't pull that bid 10 microseconds later. You can't quote stuff / probe with orders you never expect to get hit. You can't create the appearance of 'market depth' where none exists at all.

When I say I have seen it I mean I have seen it first hand. I have worked for banks where trades were unwound with the counter-party for this exact reason. The implementation is messy, but no bank on the other side of a trade wants to be party to trafficking in stolen goods resulting from a fraudulent trade.

What happened here is akin to me logging into your brokerage account with a stolen password and selling all your securities. This happens and those trades get busted. Sometimes the selling bank just eats the loss as it would take too much work or too much embarrassment to recover, but other times they work with the counter-party to unwind.

I'm not asserting this happens in all cases. As I said above, IANAL. I know equity laws in particular are a bit different than a lot of other types of property which fall under common-law.

That is kind of moot though as equity laws don't apply here - bit-coins aren't equity.

Yes I would say the exact same thing. The buyer was a direct counter-party to a trade involving stolen property.

The buyer isn't liable as he didn't know the property was stolen, but he don't get to keep the property. Typically in this case he would need to seek damages from the exchange to recover his assets (the dollars used in the trade)

IANAL but I have first hand seen this type of stuff on various exchanges. (i.e. stock gets fraudulently wired out one account, and sold. Trades get busted)

It sucks all around, but the fact of the matter is the great deal the buyer was getting never would have existed if somebody didn't steal from someone else. If I stole your life savings and sold it to your neighbor for a dollar, you don't really think your neighbor should be able to keep it do you?

Buying stolen goods on an exchange doesn't make it ok. It sounds to me that you'd like it to be - but that isn't how it works.

I received the following from Drop box late last night:

We are writing to let you know that there was some activity in your Dropbox account that we'd like you to review. On June 19, 2011, there was a brief bug with our authentication system that could have allowed unauthorized access to accounts. You can read more about it at our blog post linked here.

Based on a careful review of our records, we noticed that your account settings page was accessed during the time the bug was in effect. While it's unlikely, we'd like to be cautious and make sure this was you because if the activity was unauthorized, the information in your account could have been improperly accessed. Please review recent activity in your account, which you can view at http://www.dropbox.com/events, and let us know if you find anything suspicious.

We noticed that during the time the bug was in effect you also:

Logged into the Dropbox website Linked the desktop application to your Dropbox

As a precautionary measure, we logged you out of the website and disabled any apps.

We are very sorry and this should never have happened. We are scrutinizing our controls and will be implementing additional safeguards to prevent this from happening again. If you're not able to access your account or have any other questions or concerns, please contact us at support@dropbox.com.

I don't know what else they are supposed to do. They should have never screwed this up to begin with, but grandted that they did I think they've responded just fine.

IMHO All the moaning about how they've handled this is just a bunch of baloney. If a company spokesperson speaks out of both sides of their mouth, people cry for honesty. When a company is blunt and honest, they need to hire a PR person. I wonder how many people on these threads are 'PR' people.

I'm not really sure I agree with this.

The right to sell something is predicated on owning the item in question.

A buyer of stolen goods is unable to take legal ownership, it doesn't matter if he doesn't know the item is stolen. (i.e. I steal a car, and sell it to you, you don't own the car even though you gave me money and you didn't know the car was stolen)

It does matter that the coins were not put up for sale by the owner.

I've never found it to be that awkward to extend existing classes from java. Part of the problem in clojure are there are so many different ways to do it, all with different shortcomings.

For simple adding of a protocol to a class you can always just use (extend-class)

Proxies are simple and work well in other cases.

the gen-class documentation is a bit confusing, it helped me to look @ some examples. I used a different site that I can't find now, but this one seems helpful.

http://kotka.de/blog/2010/02/gen-class_how_it_works_and_how_...

One small note:

Debt for an individual is a choice. However our monetary system mandates that some people or entities must always be in debt. If there were no debt there would be almost no money in circulation.

So while you say that debt is a choice, it is impossible for everyone to be debt-free. If everyone stopped borrowing (consumers, industry and government) in this country, we would have a complete economic breakdown.

This is like saying smoking is a choice: from the perspective of the single potential smoker, it is. From the perspective of the marketer this is unimportant as they don't need you to smoke, they just need some people to smoke.

Exactly.

A lot of developers (myself included) don't use the dot syntax for property access for this reason and another:

x.foo = z; becomes an ambiguous statement in obj-c when you use dot access. Is x an object? then this is a message send. Is x a struct? then this is an assignment.

Typically in my interface file, I explicitly define my member variables with a leading '_';

@interface Foo { NSObject_bar; }

@property(nonatomic, retain) NSObject bar;

@implementation Foo @synthesize bar=_bar; @end

And if I want to access bar I use [x bar], [x setBar:y]; it is easy to visually scan for direct use of member values by looking for the leading '_'

What kind of outrageous claims? (Just curious)

To me what is shocking is that most people thing the Federal Reserve (which is probably the most powerful institution in the country) is part of the government and not privately owned.

I work for a very large bank and most employees here think you're crazy if you tell them the Fed is a private bank.

There is nothing informal about the following and it does seem unscrupulous:

* You give me $1000 asking me to develop a site for you, in addition to the $1000 you want to split ownership 50/50.

* I agree. We sign a contract. I cash your check and start working.

* I need more money so you send me another $1000 with no strings attached.

* You whine that things are taking longer than expected. Things get a bit heated. Eventually you agree to waive a 30% ownership penalty we had agreed to for slow performance.

* When the site is done, I see it is successful.

* Wishing to cut you out I lie to you and tell you the site is not living up to expectations and offer to mail you your money back.

Certainly whether or not Mr. Zuckerberg did the above is open for debate. Can't we agree that if he did do the above, he wasn't acting honestly?

I'm betting they took this on contingency and will take a cut of the winnings. If so the firm is willing to risk their own capital.

I'm not saying that Mr. Ceglia is right, but the amount of people on this thread outright dismissing his claims is laughable.

He has now had his claims vetted by at least one major law firm. I guarantee you they looked closely at his claims (they have both a legal and financial interest to do so) and found them worth pursuing.

The risk to Zuckerberg is probably a lot higher here than most people think.

I can't believe people are responding negatively to your comment.

Of course you can do development in the simulator or on an older model for a couple of weeks. Developing on the old model is probably a must-do for at least another year or two. Furthermore, while you do need to test on a device later in the dev cycle, I (and most other devs I know) actually don't deploy to hardware for days at a time early in the cycle.

Early in the iphone dev cycle there were enormous disparities between bugs on hardware and the simulator. Some symbols didn't even link consistently between the two and re targeting would cause compilation errors. This is no longer the case and the two targets are very, very close.

In fact, if someone told me they wanted to get into ipad development, I would tell them to write their app first, and then buy an iPad to test it on.

I don't see your point and the authors point being completely contradictory.

The purported role of the commodities futures markets is to 'provide liquidity' to commodities producers and consumers and allow them to sell the production (and buy their needs) forward.

In fact the futures markets are completely dominated by speculation and leverage. Relatively few buyers and sellers of futures contracts either possess the underlying commodity or have a need for it in the future. Almost all futures contracts are rolled forward. There is much more 'paper' trading than actual commodities exist to back. When leverage is this cheap and loose, (i.e. you have more dollars being constantly created through various borrowing mechanisms) futures tend to be very choppy and whip the spot prices around.

The price you pay at the pump is being driven higher by people who neither own nor need oil, but rather have access to cheap leverage and do it because they can and it makes them money. (This is happening in almost every tradable commodity right now)

You seem to think that this is just the way the world works. But please realize that these are synthetic contracts that are being traded around: works of legal fiction. If the reason society allows people to trade in these contracts is supposedly due to help the market function more smoothly, why should we not consider alternatives to the current state of affairs?

Imagine if there was a futures clearing house and futures contracts could only be originated by commodity producers. (and then only in a decaying relationship to their forward production) The set of all futures contracts in existence would actually have some relationship to the forward production of the commodity. Imagine then that in order to purchase a futures contract you had to demonstrate that a) you had facilities available to take delivery of the commodity and b) that your business wasn't just to trade. (Note: the above will never happen) Do you really think commodities prices would be as volatile as they are today?

The poor and middle classes are more affected by rising commodity prices. Even if the bubble will eventually contract (which is what you seem to be saying) Why should they be they be subjected to this just so a hedge fund can make a killing for its customers?

They are also seemingly fraudulent in another sense. Many of these mortgage-backed securities are coming under scrutiny for not being properly "mortgage-backed" at all.

When created proper paperwork trails were not kept, and the notes and mortgages were split (which is a no-no in some states) and proper records were not filed at the county level. In a lot of cases county and state law was just wholesale ignored through the MERS system.

None of this is ever a problem unless you actually need to collect on the home that serves as collateral for your note. Apparently some in Wall St didn't think far enough ahead. This is beginning to work its way through the courts and will open a whole new bag of worms for those holding these notes at par.

Just one example (of many) :http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-06/foreclosures-may-be...

So not only did the 'system' encourage the writing of irresponsible mortgages and scummy sales tactics, the banks also defrauded their customers: state endowments, pension plans, universities and other purchasers of these improperly structured financial products.

Yet this is all a civil matter and nobody will go to jail. Chalk another one up to the 'best and the brightest' of Wall St.

The author is a bit sloppy, but their heart is in the right place. What recourse do people have when the government that is supposed to be enforcing laws on the behalf of the citizenry is completely controlled by the very industry ripping them off?