It's a video which presents logical information. In conversation, 7% of information is verbal; but in informational writing--reviews, mathematics texts, descriptions of the contents of tea and their pharmacological effects--100% of the information is verbal. Presenting this information as a video is not informational; it's entertainment at best, persuasive at worst.

Let's emphasize: A primary reason to make a review as a video is to deliver a persuasive speech so that people agree with you.

I can crunch through hundreds of Amazon reviews for dozens of products in ten minutes. If each were a video, they'd be 1-3 minutes each and it would take me several hours; I usually watch one such review if present, purely to see the operation of a device, and then avoid such slowly-delivered ranting. A common comment on Fark for links to videos with no article is, "Where's the transcript?" The US Government publishes both video and transcript of SOTU and Congressional sessions.

So when you can get me a source I can ingest at 800wpm and/or skip over the meaningless fluff in, I'll be interested. This is, however, not an interesting form of entertainment for me.

Still throwing a tantrum I see. Funny that this has been a long time coming, but it only happens when it's fashionable to bash OpenSSL.

Is Ceph a transactional system with an operations log for the relevant object stores, or just a haphazard backing store with some semblance of synchronization? GlusterFS needs to scan the entire filesystem after it's been offline to heal: if you offline Node 1 and place a file in /mnt/gluster/file.txt, then you must stat() /mnt/gluster/file.txt after Node 1 comes back up to propagate the file to Node 1. This provides much difficulty in auto-healing and conflict resolution.

I scanned it briefly. It was square, and black; I saw no useful content, and so closed it. One of the most poorly-written reviews I've seen by far.

The primary fraud problem with the current system isn't a window between a stolen card and its deactivation; it's stolen card numbers sold on an open exchange. Bruce Schneier covers ATM pin stealing mechanisms fitted over the card slot fairly often: read the mag stripe, record the pin with a camera, transmit wireless signal to a laptop in a nearby coffee shop.

A hardware verification process removes this possibility entirely: a person must physically gain control of your card to use it. The current system detects when you swipe in New York, then California an hour later; it also detects large geographical changes in gas station use without travel tickets--you won't drive from New York to California without hitting gas stations along the way. A PIN system does nothing to cover the majority threats; it covers a tiny stolen card threat which almost never happens, at the expense of annoying people who swipe credit cards because punching in 3387 or 4129 or whatever the hell the PIN for this card was usually ends in the card being deactivated.

Personally, I've had my HSA deactivated a few times because I couldn't remember the PIN. I had 3 debit cards and an HSA credit/debit card at the time, and the HSA always defaults to debit. The first time, I hadn't actually set a PIN. My solution was to unlock the card (wait an hour--even support can't unlock it) and press "CANCEL" on the PIN pad, then sign.

My solution with C&P will be to write the PIN on the back of the card or, more subtly, use 0(CVV). I don't do this with debit cards because I use them as credit cards to avoid entering a PIN ever.

Watch the film cut of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, with Tim Curry.

Then watch something like Avengers, SWE1, or the like.

You'll notice a lot of modern acting involves standing in a pose, focusing on the active dialogue deliverer or other direct action, then delivering a line of dialogue or taking an action. Opera and theater take this to an extreme: people exchange lines and actions in grand maneuver, conveying a story. Modern acting has made this form of simple delivery more fluid; however, it is not lifelike.

I point out RHPS because the actors appear to live in their roles: they acknowledge the set and the people around them as people in a place of fantasy. When Janet looks to Brad for security, she is Janet looking to Brad for security; she is not an actress executing a practiced motion with a deep inner focus on herself. Tim Curry isn't strutting around singing and acting flamboyant; he is throwing inner urges and rude mannerisms in the face of guests at his castle, largely for his own amusement.

Jar-Jar is so jarring in part because he doesn't feel like he belongs in Star Wars. He doesn't fit in the movie. There are people trying to act, and there's this jackass who hasn't figured out it's all just a show and is running around like it's real. He may be immature and obnoxious, but he's primarily out-of-place in a bland performance.

I peer down an alley.

A 13 year old girl is being raped by three large, muscular men.

I have a gun.

I go about my business. I am not responsible for this, and there is no weight of morality on my head for doing nothing with the power I possess.

What exactly was wrong with Jar-Jar? He was one of the most endearing characters in the series. Pretty much everyone has dead, lifeless acting; Jar-Jar's character was animate and dynamic, rather than stoic and prompted.

Chip-And-Pin has the annoying side-effect of requiring a PIN instead of a signature. I don't understand why you need a PIN at all, honestly.

My suggestion nearly a decade ago was straight PKI. An embedded IC would contain a burned, non-readable, unique private key and certificate. The certificate would be bank-signed, and verified dynamically with the bank.

When you insert the card into the reader, a command stream is sent. This includes the transaction, a time stamp, and a block of random data. The bank accepts each data set once (manageable by a bloom filter of large hashes per hourly time stamp and a database indexed by time stamp). The whole block of data [TIME(now),RANDBITS(1024),Transaction[]] goes to the card, gets signed by the private key on the card through a dedicated RSA4096+RC4 specified to avoid weak IVs (bank rejects if the IV is weak), and is returned to the terminal.

In this way, you must physically possess the card to carry out a transaction. Transacting with Amazon? Plug a USB reader into your computer, plug it in. Reader contains a display which can list the charge, the merchant, and the transaction. You see "$315.09 AMAZON" and a listing, can accept that. You see "$45 XXX TOOLBAR EROTIX INC" and you reject that. Nothing goes to the card until you press the "accept" button on the reader.

I don't see a need for a PIN. If someone steals your card, deactivate your card.

Then, in this case, we should not fear what we do. It may disgust us, as it has, but that is good; we are well to understand precisely what we do. We know firmly why we do it, and that we make no mistake.

We find our actions necessary, yet disturbing. We will not take such actions lightly in the future; we will assure their necessity.

Argument's based on psychology and internal systemic simulations. I've linked to papers before that argued the death penalty is a deterrent, and those that argue that it isn't. I linked to one a while back that argued both, without coherence, based on various statistics and seemingly unaware of self-contradiction; its summary didn't conclude anything, nor did it acknowledge the lack of conclusive evidence.

Mostly, I'm just outputting summary knowledge gleaned from a lot of consideration and a lot of information I've come across over the years; I don't keep a running scientific compendium to cite from. If the argument sounds convincing, you can either do your investigation to put it to rest or you can just assume I'm amongst the ranks of Locke and Voltaire. In any case, the argument that an action may or may not have an important effect isn't exactly sweeping: I'm basically telling you that policy involves examining hard the effects of that policy, and that some effects cannot be considered as general patterns. I've made the same argument about gun control.

Crime is a legal thing.

You indicated a person may deserve something--that it is morally his due to receive it. To decide we do not want to deliver it is based in arbitrary moral grounds. Often such views are held in parallel with the view that we may feel good about such a man experiencing hapless karma (e.g., getting attacked by a bear while standing over a woman he raped and murdered in the woods); while we are above inflicting the same (throwing the man in a cage with an angry bear). We openly hope that bad things happen to these people so that it is not upon our heads.

Such arbitrary morality absolves us from consequences. We concoct a fantasy of no consequences to deal with this, e.g., the insistence that the death penalty or even punishment itself provides no deterrent. Reality is both less pleasant and less simple: punishments provide deterrents based on a large array of factors, each of which varies with the local culture. In some places, execution provides no deterrent; in others, execution provides a major deterrent. Even in the latter, we absolve ourselves from the consequences of more innocent blood by convincing ourselves we are civilized; and besides, that particular blood is not on our hands, so it is not our concern.

I care more about suffering as a matter of totality and spread than a matter of the individual. Boundaries balanced with count of affected.

For example: UBI will increase suffering by taxing people and harming the economy, over the alternative of no welfare system (my proposed UBI system requires a lower tax than our current welfare system, so it's not a real trade-off on the large scale); but it also ensures that nobody will be homeless and nobody will be hungry, even though the poor and unemployed will fall into a situation of terrible housing and food and a hellish life. (It also provides for easier upward mobility by eliminating the welfare trap...)

On the other hand, I prefer a partial public healthcare system to a full one. Supplying clinical services for free has a small economic impact (infliction of general suffering), but a huge economic gain (alleviation of general suffering). Improvement of the general baseline health affects the poor greatly. Failing to supply a public health system for cancer and HIV maintenance--expensive services--results in a few people suffering greatly; however, attempting to supply a complete system bears a huge weight on all, pushing more into these situations of managed suffering, and significantly harming everyone else.

UBI: Less suffering. Inflated welfare system as ours: More suffering. Full clinical healthcare: Less suffering. Full healthcare: More suffering. It's more complex than a cherrypick.

In the same way, making people face death makes them more sensitive to death. We've comforted ourselves by making death appear peaceful with a slow, terrifying numbness that cannot be expressed by a dying man. The sickening crack of a man's neck or the image of his head being severed from his body would remind us of the fatally destructive thing we do. Perhaps we would then be less sensitive to the idea of execution seeming uncivilized and more sensitive to the idea of execution occupying a place in society which we find disturbing, a place where we send a man only on the strictest confidence that it is just, and regret doing so even before we enact the decision.

Look at the discussions on execution. People want to lock someone up "because he might be innocent", and talk as if they could throw a man in jail for 20 years and it's okay because if they're wrong they just let him out. Imagine ... between 25 and 35 you're in jail. Imagine the social disconnect, the trauma. If you have a family, it's been destroyed; if you have kids, you miss seeing them grow up. If you have no family, you've missed the prime time of your life to secure a mate and raise one. Your career has been destroyed. Your finances are destroyed. Your friends have moved on.

Just as people do not acknowledge execution correctly, so do they fail to acknowledge incarceration correctly.

Actually, providing for education creates a consistently oversupplied workforce, leading to unemployment and a crop of cheap skilled labor for businesses to choose from. Imagine if there were 300,000 CEOs out there and 15,000 companies. You have 30,000 well-above-average CEOs, and about 150,000 that are average or better, and 250,000 who are workable. Just give them $80k/year, if they bitch then throw them out and get another cheap CEO. No multi-million-dollar salaries.

We get this sort of setup with whatever's the "hot, high-paying job" of the day. You should be an accountant, because accountants are in demand. Everyone go to school, become an accountant. Now there's way more accountants, and the demand slumps, and we laugh at all you people and hire a few of you for $50k while you wonder where those $200,000 starting salaries went.

People do not want to face what they do. They want an execution to appear peaceful so that they can say justice was served, but so that they do not have to concern themselves with what that justice is.

Sometimes, a man deserves to die. This is unfortunate; people do not wish to feel this, instead opting to feel just. A good hanging, or injection with a burning poison to a slow, screaming, retching death, this makes the people recoil in disgust. It is good to look upon the horror of what you have done, understand why it needed to be done, and regret that it had to be.