rlidwka
They can name an important navigation element "ad", so ad blocker will hide it for example. Then, when a bunch of users start complaining that the website does not work, point out that it's all ad blocker's fault (because without it everything works).
I've seen a few precedents already.
After that you can ditch server-side hashing, and use authentication protocol like CRAM-MD5 (I don't remember what the modern alternatives are) to protect against network traffic interception. While still not technically storing your users' passwords in the database.
EDIT: Using asymmetric crypto with a private key derived from the password would probably be better. But still, client-side hashing DOES gain you something.
// quoting https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-principle-of-least-power/
Why would you want to cast mixer to something else? What real-life task does it solve?
> If we assume we have both a hardware mixer and a soft mixer which both have the set volume method, we wan't polymorphism so we can treat them equally.
Polymorphism isn't OOP feature. You can have overloaded `mixer_set(struct, int)` without any OOP wizardry involved.
Like alchemy, astrology or theology? Or medical sciences in middle ages?
Like all those "sciences", psychiatry lacks a solid base, a set of verifiable facts which entire science is based upon. Why those disorders happen? Which substance causes them? Anybody can answer that?
No, it really doesn't.
If someone comes into a clinic and ask psychiatrist for a help, he is gonna be diagnosed with some kind of a disorder 100% the time.
But if you think about it, it's not psychiatrist who determines if the person is healthy, it's the person himself. If you meet with a psychiatrist, you have a disorder. Period.
> treat individuals who have mental influences that cause them to be a danger to themselves or society?
It reminds me of an old Soviet practice to treat people who were under influence from Western countries. Quite obviously, it was considered a mental disorder which was dangerous to themselves and for the (Communist) society. So those were usually locked up in a psychiatric clinic and never heard from ever since.
The methods to determine if a person is "ill" never changed. "I think that person has disorder, so let's come up with a disorder that fits more or less." As mentioned in the article above, the response should be: where is your blood test?
> If not, by what means to propose that we do so?
Quite easy really. Whether a person is a danger to society or not, should be determined by a court jury based on his previous actions.
BEGIN TRAN; DELETE (without where clause)
I've lost a lot of data to "oh lets find that line in mysql history... up, up, enter, FUCK"
Nonetheless, there is an external "Just let me ignore this!" button here:
It lets you bypass registration with the most extremely annoying websites, so you don't have to register.
Or just keep your privacy, browse using TOR/VPN, and you can ignore ToS completely with no real-life consequences.
Thankfully, the battle between users and lawyers usually favor former.
Saying "you can't view this content unless you register/disable adblock" is NEVER polite, no matter how many times you say "please".
Suppose a terrorist did something with his shoe that he wasn't supposed to. Here is how it should be solved:
"Based on our research, the probability of dying because of the terrorist attack is XXX, which we can reduce by YYY using blah-blah, therefore we should allocate ZZZ funds in that area."
Would you vote for this guy? Well, most people won't even understand what he is talking about.
So here is what happens in practice:
"Okay, I don't know how to decrease national debt or prevent poverty, so let's find something else. Oh hey, terrorism! I know how to solve it. Forbid shoes at the airport. Sounds simple enough. So we can say 'we successfully fight terrorism'. And just in case people don't care enough, make this issue the most important one and add 'hey, think of the children' into the mix."
So the general population becomes scared of terrorism 'cause guys running for office told them they should be.
It's not politicians who are stupid, it's people who vote for them.
You have to refer to actual written offer made to one of their customers. The argument that "I didn't see the written offer, but I believe it exists" doesn't seem very convincing.
edit: "own" is defined loosely here, you may ask a friend for a copy of the offer, or rent a car, or download it if someone publishes it on the Internet. But if you have never seen the offer, I'm pretty sure you're not in a position to enforce it.
"Mercy" is a very popular way to counteract -1's, but it disappears if we get rid of the ability to minus a post.
I believe "Contributory" is very rare as is. Hard to distinguish it from "Agreement" though.
You know, "+1" usually has only one meaning:
- "I agree with whatever you're saying".
- "I disagree with whatever you're saying because I believe that blah-blah-blah (reasons here)"
- "I disagree with whatever you're saying because fuck you that's why"
If webgl will be adopted widely enough, this might even look plausible for some.
Yes, I know, common carriers are overselling bandwidth like hell, but it's not a good excuse for blaming customers for using the service they paid for.
Even if every single human being using it was meant to be insulting, it still wouldn't make it a bad word.
Because there are no bad words. Just like there are no bad numbers or bad colors or bad images. Information can't be good or bad. It has no such property.
A message becomes offensive only when its sender said it with the intention to be offensive. And the same message could be offensive in one case and not be offensive in others. Context matters.
> They are not trying to get people to say "r-word" instead of the r-word. They want people to be more thoughtful and stop using the term altogether.
It doesn't work like that. There will always be a word for mentally ill people. And there always will be some asshole who will try to use it against anybody who he doesn't like. Then it becomes derogatory. And it starts all over again.
They ("r-word campaign") will just change one word with another word (and burn a bunch of books containing the old word in the process). They will never change how people think.
Well, actually... you can remove all negative words from the language like it was suggested by George Orwell in 1984 novel [1]. Then "bad people" will have no words to express what they're thinking. But I really hope you aren't intending to go that way.
Applying it to someone is hurtful. Using this word is not.
It doesn't matter if you substitute "retard" with "r-word" everywhere, nothing will change. Even if you change the name of the condition, you don't change the condition.
If someone wants to be offensive, I'd bet saying "Hey, you're r-word" will do the job just fine. If it was said with an intention to be offensive, it is offensive. And trying to censor certain words doesn't change it. Because words aren't the problem, people are.
I'll quote George Carlin here:
"They're only words. It's the context that counts. It's the user. It's the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad. The words are completely neutral. {...} For instance, you take the word 'nigger.' There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word 'nigger' in and of itself. It's the racist asshole who's using it that you ought to be concerned about." [1]
I am thinking about it in binary terms, because it helps to prevent security through obscurity trap many seem to fall in.
My point is: the fact that a particular bug has security impart seems pretty binary. And dismissing one because "hey nobody will think of/work hard enough/have enough money/etc. to make use of it" isn't a very bright idea.
See 3rd party content under a legitimate url? The system is insecure. Period.
While it's useful for phishing pages to be interactive, it's not strictly necessary:
----
"Your paypal account is locked, because we suspect it to be hacked. To unlock it, please call our tech support (phone number 1-234-56789) and tell them your paypal password to prove your identity (and CVV of all the credit cards pretty please)."
Well, the number 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 is actually copyrighted.
With a fake name there is no proof that the information in question ever existed.
I would've probably masked a name, but institution url should stay there, so anyone could check that the point is valid.
Though this is a job that is already done by JXCore.
It is completely different from Automattic, because they took over almost dead project. I saw socket.io at the moment with months without commits, and it was necessary to do something about it.
It is different from Joyent. I would rather see node under a foundation now, but five years ago Ryan probably couldn't promote it by himself and needed help.
Express.js had three active developers working on a new version already. It had an organization named "expressjs" where all related modules are stored. It didn't need to be transferred anywhere (especially not to a for-profit organization for using the repo as an advertising place).
Even if strongloop guys will manage to avoid doing harm (not sure about that), seeing the company name in the all hyperlinks to github is a harm enough (considering that the company did nothing for it... well... except for the transfer payment...).
My point is: any single package README contains a phrase "install me using `npm install whatever`". It feels like it is generalized already...