stevejones

Actually it is. The article seems to describe an algorithm with a catastrophic failure mode where no (or not enough) ants return. Without retransmission the ants just hang around waiting for a returning ant. So there must be some sort of retransmission.

The big deal in the UK, a few years ago, was that a person would go overdrawn, deposit money to cover it immediately but then get charged an overdraft fee by an overnight process. This fee would put them overdrawn, leaving them liable for a second overdraft fee - which would be charged the next night...

This was ruled to be illegal and banks had to set up whole departments to process return claims. I suspect this is the main cause of the big headwind.

One advantage of solar is the requirement for an electrical grid is lessened, when photovoltaics get cheap enough the requirement for a grid is eliminated.

I don't know anyone who works for Facebook. I'm thousands of miles away from Facebook HQ. I keep careful tabs on who has what info about me and use many different email addresses.

My inbox.

IRC and email are federated systems, they have always been that way. The nature of the federation is different, email systems talk to each other, IRC systems don't. The issue with bitcoin is purely that it solves a problem no-one has, we don't need cryptographic gold. Consensus changes happen to DNS and email all the time, because they solve actual problems and have been made flexible enough to handle change.

The task is not to make a magic free-floating decentralised system, but one which is resistant to getting central points lopped off or controlled. For that look at bittorrent, or even DNS. Whenever the US government has flexed it's muscle, trying to assert control over DNS, other countries have threatened to make their own DNS root and the US has backed down. Anyone can run a DNS root, but that alone doesn't fix the problem, it takes people actually using that fact to prevent centralisation. Bitcoin is stuck in a place where the vast majority of users have to agree to a change before change can be made.

> They made it very clear to us during HR onboarding that the only zero tolerance policy was on unauthorized access to user data.

Given that Facebook HR trawls user data to send job spam I find this claim quite ironic.

Imagine you were to take the example further, unlocking the device required a sequence of fingerprint reads, with a precise ordering. i.e. left-ring finger, right index finger, right little finger, etc... That sequence would be a passcode, just as a precise sequence of keypresses would be. The government can insist on all your fingerprints, but not (in this argument) the correct sequence of uses of those fingerprints to unlock it. If it's only a single finger this same argument could apply.

Do any of them say it must be re-radiated omni-directionally as infra-red light?

So we can safely say that IMSI catchers have been used as a matter of routine since 2002.

It's almost certainly an offence under RIPA.

ITT: people who've never done an online resize

It's a search engine, so it searches for prices among many providers such as Expedia and Travelocity as well as individual airlines.

"the way it would seem to"

{} initialises all elements to 0.

{0} initialises the first element to 0 and the rest to 0.

The latter form just introduces confusion.

I've not seen anyone use that construct anywhere.