FlemishBeeCycle

Although file-hosted TrueCrypt volumes (containers) do not contain any kind of "signature" either (until decrypted, they appear to consist solely of random data), they cannot provide this kind of plausible deniability, because there is practically no plausible explanation for the existence of a file containing solely random data. However, plausible deniability can still be achieved with a file-hosted TrueCrypt volume (container) by creating a hidden volume within it.

http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=plausible-deniability

...and they do a disservice to humanists and women everywhere. I can find no more appropriate analogy than the "boy who cried wolf". When all people see are logically unsound articles based on the forced, manufactured "offense" of the author, the more likely people will be to dismiss genuine issues of gender discrimination. Everybody loses except those that make their careers drumming up "discrimination" where none exists.

On a side note...I don't know why the media generally feels the need to add these hyperbolic and largely tenuous comparisons - her accomplishments can stand on their own.

Artificially injecting a demographic into an area in which they are underrepresented doesn't guarantee you anything. You can't assume that because of a person's race, gender or background that they think in a particularly different and/or novel way. Superficial differences should not result in mandatory quotas to be filled.

Part of my problem with this line of thinking is that there is this implicit idea that being in "tech" (whatever that means) is A Good Thing. Being a programmer is NO better and NO worse than being a carpenter, or a interior decorator or the President. But yet, when was the last time someone wrote an article about how there were not enough female garbage collectors?

"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal."

Perhaps different people, have different interests?

a) think and behave quite illogically in their day to day lives

b) express themselves in generalities and don't think in enough detail (which makes sense when your primary interaction is with other humans, it simply isn't necessary) to communicate their ideas to the degree that programming generally requires.

It's always interesting to see how municipalities handle "reverse graffiti" as an advertising campaign.

I also believe part of the original intent of original US copyright law was to promote progress by rewarding discoverers' contributions. To be in a state that we are now, where we are actually stunting discovery with ridiculous IP laws, is quite sad.

[Edit: Not sure the reason of the downvotes?]

I am not quite sure at what points these types of knowledge are equivalent.

Smaller, focused forums are much more suited to produce useful answers on highly subjective material. They generate more relevant content to participating parties because both asker and answerer are more likely have some knowledge of the other.

It's really hard to find functionality in the "hammer,screwdriver" size - more often than not I get a whole tool set with all sorts of things I'll never need, and end up having to devote more time figuring out how it all "hangs together" with the rest of the system.

It becomes a matter of whether you end up piecing your system together block by block or chiseling away to your end product.

http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2501

http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2531

As timwiseman said:

>With that said, the close tie in to material wealth is your place in society. A good hunter-gatherer might have none of the luxuries we take for granted now, but he probably has the respect of those around him and looks around and sees he is well off compared to his comrades. He is likely to be happy, and to feel that his work is paying off.

Imagine a world where every citizen was equipped with one spoon. They only needed one spoon, and they only ever used one spoon. Now say a few citizens acquire _two_ spoons. They never use these spoons, and they don't need them. But suddenly, everyone who only has one spoon starts to feel inferior.

If we woke up tomorrow and everyone had the same amount of wealth, it would be necessary to redefine poverty. The feelings that accompany poverty would still exist, albeit for a different perceptible difference between people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Rela... I can't find the original study, but this article references it.

It is absolutely important to care what others' think when it comes to topics in science. We live in a society, and others' views and ideas unfortunately will most likely impact people other than themselves. People are free to be as ignorant as they want in isolation, but the moment they start affecting policy, we should care.

Otherwise it just comes off as a roundabout way to talk about how awesome Haskell is.

If I'm earning a savings of < 1ms by making one choice over the other, it is probably more time efficient for me to simply not worry about it.

> 8 But if you have multiple string concatenation, prefer pushing to an Array and then calling the join() method on it. This is particularly helpful while building HTML snippets.

Depends on too many factors (browser, number of segments, segment length etc) to a be rule. Most of the time, the performance between this and += is going to be more or less the same.

> 26 With AJAX, GET works faster than POST. So prefer GET unless request length is more than 2K; yes, you guessed it right - IE.

Use GET or POST when you're supposed to not based on how much information you think you'll be sending.

> 27. Go easy on scripted animations.

What's easy? What's hard?

> 30. Always fall back to core JavaScript whenever possible. Limit framework usage.

It would be more prudent to _know_ your framework, and know when to not use it. IE (even in 9!) still doesn't implement indexOf - I can roll my own solution or use jQuery's inArray.

Here's a better article http://www.slideshare.net/nzakas/speed-up-your-javascript