vancan1ty

While bitcoin abc is the main bitcoin cash implementation for now, the plan is to have multiple "independent development teams" for BCC [https://www.bitcoincash.org/].

It is true that BCC will be a continuation of the original chain, and it is also true that in some substantial sense bitcoin cash can be said to be a continuation of the original bitcoin blockchain and incentive model to a greater degree than bitcoin core will soon be, as bitcoin core moves over to segregated witness with a "block weight cap" rather than "block size cap".

I therefore rate MichaelBurge's sentence "BCC is not actually a fork but is the original chain/software, isn't it?" as false (it is a fork), true (it is a continuation of the original chain), and true (it is a continuation of the original software).

Despite the browsers' dire warnings, you are still far more protected visiting a website with a self-signed certificate than visiting a plain http website.

Considering that this was apparently one person doing investigative research, and a very small fraction of each code base (freebsd apparently has about 9 million LOC, openbsd 2.9 million), I do not think it is reasonable to state that freeBSD "only had 20% more bugs", but rather only that the investigator found 20% more bugs in it in his research. He probably examined a similar number of LOC of each OS and spent a similar amount of time on each OS if I had to make a guess -- the slides do not say however.

If he had spent three times more time on freebsd than on openbsd I would agree with you.

In response to: "could be interpreted as a violation of his oath of office"

The oath of office of the president of the united states is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [1]

There is nothing in this oath about the president not having the ability to make a judgement call over what national security information to share with an ally in a given conflict. Nor does the constitution say anything on the matter.

Whenever we get into "could be interpreted territory" with no basis in the letter of the document we are getting in to the territory where we let our prejudices decide our verdict. This unfortunately seems to be the trend across American political discussion today.

Whether this was a good call or bad call by the president, neither you nor I are really in a position to say, as we both know that we are getting an incomplete and politically motivated leak without full context of the discussions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden... [2] http://constitutionus.com

but that is not what happened. from the original washington post article:

"The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities." [1]

That means that the Post, and presumably other media outlets, have access to a bunch of details about the intelligence source. It is very possible that through this leak these details could escape the media outlets and get into ISIS allied hands, and that therefore the intelligence source could be terminated.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump...

So, regardless of whether it is illegal for a US president to discuss specific classified ISIS terror threats with another country, do you agree with me that the person who leaked the ISIS terror threats to the press doubtless committed a crime detrimental to US national security under US code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 37, Section 798 [1] (regardles of his/her intentions)?

(Notice that the law as quoted below encodes that it is the president who ultimately chooses who is authorized to share classifed information).

Quote: "The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States."

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

The claim is that Trump discussed information about a potential ISIS terror threat with russian diplomats (Russia is fighting ISIS and supporting Assad in the Syria conflict).

Then, some anonymous source which apparently either wiretapped the meeting or was present at the meeting, leaked the same information to numerous news agencies, complaining that Trump shared the information with the Russian diplomats.

Consider that sharing targeted anti-terrorism information with partners against a common enemy is doubtless something that presidents have done many times in the past. Also consider, that, if the source of the story was really concerned about the safety and secrecy of whatever intelligence assets were involved, he/she completely blew this up by leaking the information to multiple newsrooms where doubtless the details have now been seen by many, and possibly could make their way to ISIS itself.

There was one person who committed a crime at this meeting, and it was not Trump. It was the person who leaked the "highly classified" information to the world, doubtlessly endangering the safety of whatever intelligence asset is involved.

Benchmarks with Intel vs AMD here:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Ashes-Singularity-G...

Whatever they did for AoS significantly increased 1800x performance while keeping 6900k performance essentially flat.

No law was passed in the first place.

If legal opinion is now that the FTC does not have the ability to regulate internet privacy, it is not the fault of congress, it is the fault of the 9th circuit's ruling ruling last year [1], which has effect over its area of jurisdiction.

Traditionally it is the FTC which regulates consumer privacy. The republican's position w.r.t. internet privacy is that regulating this is in the domain of the FTC, as has always been the case before [2][3][4].

Sources:

[1] https://iapp.org/news/a/the-att-v-ftc-common-carrier-ruling-...

[2] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017...

[3] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/protecting-c...

[4] http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/the-ftc...

One thing that I think is being ignored and was not mentioned in the article is that the referenced regulations were passed by the FCC near the tail-end of the Obama administration and never actually went into effect. So, strictly speaking, this vote did not change ISP regulations, it just keeps them the same as they have been in the past.

Something that is not mentioned in the article is that the FCC regulations in question were passed in October 2016 and have never gone in to effect. So, to be strictly accurate, the vote does not roll back any regulations which actually ever affected the internet.

Sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/02/fcc-sets-... http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/03/28/broadband...

The title is misleading. Their "error codes" are not simple C error codes but are rather structs which they are dynamically allocating upon error occurence. Their "create_error" function below is very inefficient compared to using traditional int error codes with a lookup table for the messages.

   struct Error* create_error(const char *msg) {
    struct Error *e = malloc(sizeof(struct Error));
    e->msg = strdup(msg);
    return e;
   }

Those of you who run your own email servers -- do any of you run it from a residential connection with dynamic ip address? Or do you pay extra for a static ip address/host using a VPS?

I think BASIC! for android by Paul Laughton is a modern good modern alternative for an entry to programming. It comes with good documentation and examples, and is a classic basic-type language. link: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rfo.basic&...

Once a kid might want to move up from that to solve perhaps more practical problems using PCs, I think a combination of bash (including basic usage of rsync, crontab, grep, sed, find, wget, ssh,...) and maybe VBA/Libreoffice Basic can take you a long way. (You can easily make nice little form/button based applications by dragging and dropping in the office suites. Also check out http://excelunusual.com/ for some inspiration on things you can do in VBA which I would not have thought practical!).

Come over to Pale Moon [https://www.palemoon.org/] (firefox fork continuing XUL) and FossaMail [https://www.fossamail.org/] (thunderbird fork based on Pale Moon Goanna engine).

These products aren't perfect, but they allow the traditional strengths of firefox (powerful extensions based on XUL/XPCOM) as opposed to the new chromification of the firefox extension api. Also, you don't have the mozilla politics and constant moral hectoring (if you read the firefox start page or go to mozilla's website, I think you might know what I mean).

You can definitely buy a 4k IPS monitor for less than $1000, the amount they spent on a monitor. Source:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&Is...

Taken from this link: https://libreboot.org/faq/

"The ME firmware is compressed and consists of modules that are listed in the manifest along with secure cryptographic hashes of their contents. One module is the operating system kernel, which is based on a proprietary real-time operating system (RTOS) kernel called "ThreadX". The developer, Express Logic, sells licenses and source code for ThreadX. Customers such as Intel are forbidden from disclosing or sublicensing the ThreadX source code. Another module is the Dynamic Application Loader (DAL), which consists of a Java virtual machine and set of preinstalled Java classes for cryptography, secure storage, etc. The DAL module can load and execute additional ME modules from the PC's HDD or SSD. The ME firmware also includes a number of native application modules within its flash memory space, including Intel Active Management Technology (AMT), an implementation of a Trusted Platform Module (TPM), Intel Boot Guard, and audio and video DRM systems."

Based on these links which we traded, while you appear to be incorrect in your claims about literal CO2 emissions (which was what I originally commented on), perhaps what is more important is that you are correctly alluding to the effect of greenhouse gases besides CO2, such as methane.

Note that these links are talking about total greenhouse gas production, not just CO2 as was originally stated in pitchka's comment and questioned in mine. Pitchka's "18%/51%" estimates are not actually talking about literal CO2 output, but rather about general "GHG" (greenhouse gas) emissions, including gases like methane.

Do not reproduce, encourage others to not reproduce. The 100% most effective way to reduce the human effect on the planet is to reduce the number of humans on the planet.

But of course if you follow that philosophy that probably just means you lose the evolutionary lottery and someone else will have plenty of children to take your kids' place.

Can you provide a link supporting your claim that animal agriculture has >50% of the CO2 footprint or that the American continents produce much more CO2 than China?

The first claim seems to be incorrect at least based on simple googling to obtain the following link: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

According to that link agriculture/land-use appears to have about 1/6 the impact of industrial processes/fossil fuel.

The second claim appears to be incorrect for "human produced" CO2 at least, using standard numbers. Perhaps there is another source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Summing up the numbers there, I get the following results:

Annual CO2 Emissions:

(China): 10,540,000 kt

(USA + Canada + Mexico + Brazil + Argentina + Venezuala): 7,245,000 kt

Did Lee Sedol have access to a dataset of AlphaGo games in preparation for this match series? I wonder if it would help him if he could study the computers moves and strategies in other matches.

Does Lee Sedol have access to AlphaGo training games and/or matches?

If Google really wants the March matchup with Lee Sedol to be fair, it should make available a number of AlphaGo's training games for Sedol to evaluate. Otherwise, we have a similar situation to Deep Blue vs Kasparov, where Deep Blue had access to hundreds of Kasparov's games but Kasparov did not have access to Deep Blue's past games to evaluate. This is a major disadvantage for the human player.

From the article: "The Lua standard library uses the POSIX C library, making it portable; but that also means that you can’t use sockets, it doesn’t support signals or timers, and all OS calls block the thread. Using the POSIX C library is like going backwards in time."

I can't speak to the "Lua standard library" but I can say that I believe every single statement above about the POSIX C standard is incorrect as written.

POSIX Sockets: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/socket.2.html

POSIX Signals: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/signal.7.html, http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/sig...

POSIX Timers: http://www.2net.co.uk/tutorial/periodic_threads, http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/tim...

Nonblocking IO: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/aio.7.html

That doesn't mean that the POSIX features are best in class or easy to use -- rather just that the features exist.

I did not mention "css animations" in my post. Animations in general are certainly a common cause of website bloat, as they are often effected with a mix of images, javascript, and css which combine to waste bandwidth and cpu cycles. The article lists numerous sites for which animations contribute strongly to large website size. One such site listed in the article is this one: http://pollenlondon.com/ .

I think the primary reason for the rise of increasingly heavy sites is that animations and visuals can be used to attract and "hook" your reader.

Just as fish like shiny spoons and minnow lookalikes and monkeys like shiny objects, humans like pretty pictures and flashing visualizations.

Distraction is the same principle that drives the success of TV. It is so damn easy to just sit in front of the screen and grok out, never mind the fact that the signal to noise ratio is often astonishingly low.

Quality thought and challenging content consumption is much harder than simply letting yourself admire shiny visuals. Therefore, simple websites, while they may contain excellent and meaningful content, will often not stimulate the user's interest as much as animated websites with large pictures.

"Take a look at the link I included in my original post, which shows 108 commits in jdt.core just in the last month."

You need to take another look at the timeframe for that statement.

The link (http://git.eclipse.org/c/jdt/eclipse.jdt.core.git/stats/?per...) in your original post shows 15 commits so far in September, not 108 as you claim. The 108 figure is total commits since the beginning of June.

I have always wondered if there is some way to make a distributed network which provides content in such a way that users' freedoms are maximized. I don't particularly like handing over all control of my data and internet presence to cloud providers. IPFS looks really, really cool!

As ot asked, I am also curious about how this compares to other efforts to create decentralized networks, like Freenet and GNUnet. I definitely plan to pick one in the coming weeks and start using it, hope this catches on.