rdancer

Marvellous!

:w<CR> should count the same as ZZ for the purposes of hiding better solutions, else it's fairly easy to walk up the leaderboard even though the better solutions are ostensibly hidden.

Ctrl-[

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll try to find the policy release where they say this is not necessary.

Which law? The 2002/58/EC doesn't.

You can enable session cookies only, even in the current UIs. Ditto for third-party cookies. Duplicating UI in a website is a solution looking for a problem. The web devs can nag the 0.01% who don't have cookies enabled, and leave the 99.99% who have them enabled alone.

It has never been enforced that way to my knowledge, anywhere in the EU. Which law or court decision says that it is actually illegal?

When everybody was running Windows on a smorgasbord of hardware / patchlevel / plugins / fonts, it was easy to fingerprint. Are we moving towards a more monolithic landscape where fingerprinting is less able to track individual users?

* If I have a fleet of Chromebooks running the same version of Chrome OS, will they all have the same fingerprint?

* Will, say, all iPhones 6 with the same hardware parts, running the same Mobile Safari and iOS version, have the same fingerprint?

Thank you!

The EU Commission and the regulatory agencies actually agree with you. The stupidity is 100% with the web devs and customers.

Note that you can use your webserver logs for analytics and that doesn't require the cookie banner

In the EU, tracking user IPs actually requires consent. Even logging them does.

If you can set cookies, the user has already expressed their consent by enabling the cookies in the browser. As long as cookies' existence is common knowledge (it is by now), there is no need to duplicate browser UI within every website.

This is the official stance of the ICO[1], the UK national authority: there was a need to educate users what cookies were when the directive was passed. No such need exists now. ICO itself briefly used consent overlays, but does not anymore (EDIT: Aaaaand they've apparently use them again; I'll try to find the policy release where they say this is not necessary.). Cookies not used for tracking of persons never needed any consent, as they have no privacy implications.

People who make their living creating cargo-cult UI designs, have predictably added cargo-cult law-compliance to their toolset. It is beyond stupid.

[1] https://ico.org.uk/

This is the kind of nonconsensual sureptitious user tracking that the EU privacy directive 2002/58/EC concerns itself with, not those redundant, stupid cookie consent overlays.

My point is that this will become the new social norm, much like now it is the norm to write short cryptic messages that readers may or may not understand.

That's a very good point. I would argue that insurance is a long-term relationship, it's a very mature industry, I don't expect there will be great savings in changing providers, and finding the best provider means doing due diligence and reading through dozens of small print — not something I would relish anyway. They're offering a 33% annual ROI. If they can guarantee an option to re-up for at least four years, we're good.

You should adjust the car alarm's settings. If you don't, and you happen to live in my neighbourhood, I have a stack of bricks in my back yard, one of which will just about fit through that hole in your windshield.

I'd ask them if I can install another one on the back door. If they're giving me free money, who am I to judge their motivation?

Brick-through-the-windshield tax.

I wonder what they will do once people start using http://the.links http://to.write.longer http://messages

If AAPL were interested in selling more shares (their cash reserves growth indicates they don't), they would usually sell the whole bunch of them at once, either to one investment bank, or a consortium (who then resell it on the open market). So yes, Berkshire is buying a lot, so instead of selling to Goldman Sachs, Apple may sell to them.

It all comes down to whether both Apple and Berkshire can agree on a price and cash flow that is better than buying/selling on the open market. This would probably not be a great discount for the buyer. Other companies would probably still ask Goldman to broker the sale (at a lower fee) and take care of regulatory compliance, but both AAPL and BRK like to maintain in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of the stock market in-house, so they may just do everything themselves.

The liability in car insurance is virtually unlimited. Cars are very good at killing people and damaging property. You don't have to insure against small payouts (large excess gives you small premiums), and this is an area where the insurance companies want to upsell you.

The risk you're insuring is negligent or wilful bad driving, and risks inherent in the technology.

All of the above is true for self-driving cars, only with much-reduced negligent risk. The premiums will go down significantly, but the consumer motivation and the public policy interest to have insurance will remain. It may be assumed by the manufacturers for 100% self-driven cars, but insurance of outsized payouts is not something unique to the current iteration of the car industry.

Revenue is an iffy yardstick anyway. If you're the only player who is squeezing blood from that stone, it is not to the credit of the other players that they're squeezing harder. Apple still capture almost all profits in the sector, they take the meat and leave bones to the others. If there were more meat, they would be taking it, but there isn't.

You remember your searches on Altavista, Yahoo, or Hotbot having the same quality as Google???

Don't they traffic shape and have much lower speeds, though? If everybody in a building used mobile data at the full speed, where would the telcos put the base stations? And since the frequency spectrum is shared, how many handsets can a 3G or 4G base station even accommodate at once at a full speed?

Unlimited data with tethering is a recipe for disaster; capped data plans usually do have tethering.

Loads of products have fake bad reviews now, left by competition. The next logical step is fake corrections, and fake silly reviews on own product. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future every product has a 4.75 star average, and the shills instead of bad reviews start writing fake-sounding good ones.

Mitochondria are self-contained organelles. Gene transfer would be if their DNA became part of the nuclear DNA. What you suggest is that there was first a lateral transfer, and then that transferred DNA was ejected from the nucleus, and the cell somehow formed organelles that look surprisingly like bacteria. The theory I believe is that symbiosis evolved into mutual dependency, with the mitochondria starting to live inside the cells instead of outside them sometime along the way.

This is not complicated. My opinion (the statement nicely sums up a defensible political position, and the Tampa Bay Times' assessment is wrong) is based on the facts they brought to the fore, as well as a few of my own — as any argument would be —, but I also show my own reasoning:

Same-day voter registration puts a pressure on the bureaucracy to be more forgiving and less thorough; that's a fact. But is that driven by the political elements who benefit from illegals voting, and do people on either side actually believe that it has an effect? That's not a factual question, that's a question for a political debate. Mr Trump's hyperbole captures this with a surprising pith.

Politifact [...] is [...] not a[n independent] third-party watchdog. [... Further, f]act-checking cannot provide [data about speakers' telling the truth] for [statements using] hyperbole [...].

Your overarching position seems to be that this stuff is too complicated for you to reason about on your own, and you need to rely on other (presumably qualified) people to do some of your analysis (I disagree); Politifact provides a good unbiased, trustworthy, well-sourced, and most importantly impartial set of facts (I disagree); and the candidates that have the most fraught relationship with truth just happen to be those who you oppose politically (we may agree on that one). That's, I believe, at the core of a big problem with American journalism: the intellectual trepidation to analyse facts independently, based on all available evidence, and present a conclusion that is one's own; in a word, the pretence that a journalist can escape bias by simply choosing between what others are saying, without ever directly challenging their reasoning or assumptions.

That is not really important: all I'm asking of you is to present, preferably without swearing, your own reasoning for why you think Mr Trump gave anything but an honest answer on this particular occasion?

It's a segment of the populus who have thus far been uniquely positioned to make up their own mind. That has political implications in a democracy that relies on media to shape the electorate's consensus. As Milo Yiannopoulous recently commented on the 2016 primaries: "If the lying mainstream media ever had the power to shape elections, those days are gone." Will that baton be simply picked up by the new media?

it's an elipsis, if you want to get technical: BLM [no less than lives of different colours]

As a conduit of political news dissemination, it services a different segment: namely, the segment of people who predominantly get news online.

The article is correct, though: if you see Ů, it's Czech.

I like how in the last sentence the author hints his approximate age and marital situation. Genius!

The problem with heavy editing of speech is exactly what you say. We find it difficult to dissociate what we see (somebody giving a speech) with what really is happening (editor piecing a narrative together, at the extreme splicing words together phoneme-by-phoneme). I found it edited too heavily, with tedious pacing, and pretentious graphics. Perhaps it's a good first introduction to Chomsky, and I'm happy if that audience finds it a fine movie!

Mr Chomsky gives a lot of interviews. Does he always require a veto power, how would that even work?

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

If you want people protected from harassment and bullying, perhaps it follows that you would enlist the help of some of the more valiant SJWs. After all, who should know more about bullying than bullies themselves?