sethist

I also wonder what percentage of the "hoarded currency" is actually currency that has been destroyed and if it will have any long term consequences. For example, in the early days of Bitcoin I mined a few blocks with an old laptop. The computer eventually died without any backup of my wallet thereby destroying the those Bitcoins. There doesn't appear to be anyway for anyone to know whether I am simply hoarding those Bitcoins to dump on the market at a later date or if they have been permanently removed from the money supply.

Another way to attack a similar set of problems is through the new bundling and minification settings in .Net 4.5[1]. It doesn't address everything, for example you need to know and account for the dependencies yourself. However, my early experiences with using it have been very positive.

[1]http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2011/11/27/new-bundli...

Anyone who would say that hasn't been paying attention. Not only had innovation on Reader slowed to a halt, but Google was also working on and prioritizing products that competed with it (G+). There is a reason why Feedly was able to move so quickly on replacing the Google Reader API, they were anticipating the shutdown of Reader for a while.

It is a lot easier for people to protest by not doing anything than actually putting effort into it. Switching from Gmail to some other provider involves a lot of friction. Not using a newly released product (assuming this will be one) is fairly easy.

This is an oversimplification and the type of thinking that gets IT labeled as nothing more than a business cost center. IT shouldn't just be limited to preventing downtime and making sure things continue to work. It should also be focused on making employees more productive. You might say allowing Chrome cost the company $6 million due to downtime, but are you factoring in the potential losses from having a more draconian IT policy. For example, how much more productive would employees be if they could automate part of their normal workload with a good browser extension or how does a more employee focused IT policy alter employee moral and in turn employee retention?

Forgive me, I hadn't heard of the company before this article. The name suggests and the article flatly states that the developer is "sold to the highest bidder." If there is really nothing binding about the bids and the highest bidder doesn't necessarily end up with the candidate, is this a relatively standard recruiting website that puts an early emphasis on a position's salary?

A job seems like the last thing I would want to leave up to be "sold to the highest bidder." From an employee's perspective there are so many other factors outside of compensation that are relevant to whether I would want to work somewhere. From an employer's perspective if you are hiring mercenaries willing to work for the highest bidder, what do you do when company X is willing to pay more than you can afford?

Which is one of the reason those degrees are viewed as less valuable than a similar degree from a more prestigious institution which is assumed to have higher (teaching/admission/grading) standards. That is still the biggest obstacle for non-traditional education. How do you assess the value of the degree and then communicate that value to others?

The problem is that people expect more from Google. People understand the conference is popular and so should Google. If anyone could handle this type of load, you would think they would be near the top of the list. However, every year people need to sit at their computer staring at animated gif or rapidly hitting F5. Even when you get past the first screen and are told that you have tickets waiting for you, the payment processing often fails. That is exceptionally frustrating.

But how many live chickens hop continents? Or are there other ways for the disease to renter the chicken population from a non-chicken source?

Until the value of Bitcoin is more stable and technology illiterate people start to use it, there is no way that something like this can replace PayPal.

What further exasperates the issue is the free hardware is often be kept by an individual while the ticket price is paid by their employer.

Are those limits established yet? There isn't any place on the page that would indicate any limits or even the existence of paid tiers. This stuff should be visible before requiring a user to signup.

So what is the catch on this? I am guessing there are legality issues and/or they extremely limit your library. No company can afford to offer what they claim to be offering without some serious cash behind them.

It is interesting that this wouldn't be assumed considering the reverse is so obviously true. The world is designed for people with the median amount of human senses. If you lose one completely or have a sense that isn't as perceptive as most other people, there are a variety of challenges that you will have to overcome. However, you do get to avoid some of the everyday annoyances that the rest of us have to deal with.

If the failure can be attributed to the credit card, the Xeround account, and the authors email client, then it isn't really a single point of failure. If one (or even two) of those failed, the others should have been able to identify the problem and address it before the sites were taken offline. It was the combination of the three failing at the same time that led to the ultimate failure.

It seems like their sample population is too small to be fully confident in their conclusions. For example, why does the average salary for Java, Ruby, and Python specialists peak 3-5 years into their career and then decline? Why do early career candidates from top schools make less than their counterparts from worse schools? I don't think this can all be explained away with the equity argument and if it can, it probably makes the whole exercise moot.

The same way the system allows you to type in 0213 without blurting out a big error the moment you type 02. Just don't validate the input while the user is still inputting it.

Secondly, remember this is for credit card expirations and not normal dates. You can probably make an assumption that 11/30 (November 2030) isn't currently valid input either. I have never seen an expiration date further than 10 years in the future. Although more research on the topic would be needed to figure out the true restrictions.

There are three ways to interpret it. It is either 11/3, 1/13, or an error. Since 11/3 isn't a valid date, I think it is safe to rule that out as an incorrect interpretation. Either of the other two interpretations seem acceptable to me.

I was referring to the live demo at http://stripe.github.com/jquery.payment/example/. Either way, I wouldn't consider the library interpreting 113 as 11/3 as a "working".

Fair enough, I haven't dug into the code yet. I was basing my comment on the live demo which prevents it.

This looks nice, but I ran into an immediate usability issue. The Card Expiry requires a leading 0 for January. It seems like bad UI to prevent a user from enter 1/13 or 1/2013 in those fields.

Furthermore, even if that statement is true does it mean we should blame the prosecution? The analogy I have been using is getting fired or going through a breakup. Those type of events are sometimes catalysts for suicide, but I don't think anyone would blame the employer or significant other for that. People are responsible for their own actions. They are responsible for how they react to adversity or tragedy. Aaron was the one who killed himself. The charges likely played a role in his decision, but that doesn't mean his "death was caused by [the] criminal justice system."

The irony in this article is pretty thick. In his original article, Jeff not so subtly admitted that he considered suicide and therefore likely battled depression as well. Yet Reed says Jeff has "a reckless lack of knowledge about how depression really works". Why does Reed label Jeff as ignorant in both his knowledge of depression and Aaron's situation when Reed himself doesn't know Jeff's?

Jeff was simply drawing an analogy to suicide that most of his readers would understand. A small percentage of us have experienced depression while almost all of us have played games. Yes, the annoyance of being quick scoped in Call of Duty can't be compared to the pain of depression, but it doesn't have to be for the analogy to still be helpful. Honestly, I don't think it benefits anyone to be offended by imperfect analogies.

The problem with that graph is that almost no one invests that way. People just don't dump their entire life savings into the market, wait x number of years, and then withdraw it all at once. Dollar cost averaging and changes in investment aggressiveness will likely smooth out those numbers.

I just don't understand how it is productive to spend the amount of money necessarily to dig this stuff out of the ground only to stick it in some bank vault to go untouched for decades. Now people are arguing whose bank vault we will use to keep the stuff that we won't touch?

No it isn't. If anything it shows that he didn't want to endure his potential punishment. If he didn't understand the potential punishment there would be no need to commit suicide.

In those cases isn't it due to the fact that the defendant is unable to mentally process their crime, trial, or potential punishment?

Regarding your second point, are you suggesting the legal system should go easy on criminals who may be suicidal?

I just think it is foolish to start blaming every entity that could have contributed to his mental state. Hypothetically speaking, if he had recently broken up with someone or was fired from a job would we claim that they killed him? No, they would simply be catalysts that might have contributed to his ultimate decision.

If they seriously infringe on the rights of other individuals, then yes I think they are immoral. Putting your own political motivations (no matter how righteous) above the rights of others is a selfish act.