I am not sure what this "globally assigned" means, but I imagine it means that they had a pile of IP addresses allocated to them decades ago and that they weren't using, and now they started using them. Doesn't sound like a bad thing if it is so...

a) you can't log into gmail from a different computer unless you brought your keys with you, because they don't have them; if you lose your keys, you're hosed.

Can have secure encryption at all without the "if you lose your keys, you're hosed" part? I have never seen a solution to this fundamental problem.

Then you're not using the correctly. If you understand how to design functional software (i.e., using closures), then you end up with far less code, and much better separation of concerns. Had to spend some time in lisp/scheme to really get it.

Thanks for the informative answer. I am looking forward to reading the new data privacy policy, to back up your claims.

Wait, how will they make money then?

Oh, right. The usual answer. Selling our data.

Here is the working link for: No scientists are not ignoring increase in sea ice.

This article is just another PRATT. No scientists are not ignoring the increase in sea ice. I think the parent comment reflects the depth of AGW opposition.

what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?

What is so illegal about changing 0 to 1 and 1 to 0?

Right, that would fit into an NSF grant. Also, their promo video says that they were the most read paper (in some time frame), but really, it would be more interesting to know how many times they are cited.

Yeah, and think of all the high technology jobs the UK would have created. Granted the military industry has big hooks into the government... and all that money talks...

Gee how to do you know that that cannot be done. You see, maybe the technology isn't around now, or maybe it is, and the electricity infrastructure needs to be updated. But it is not entirely stupid.

The financial industry is sitting on trillions of investment dollars that are looking for a home. Wonder who buys all that sovereign debt? That's because there's nothing better out there for all that money. Or at least, that's the financial industries story. We're really looking at the failure of financial institutions to manage investment dollars. They will only lift their game insofar as things like kickstarter forces them to.

Heavier penalties, or more frequent controls. Both methods work to reduce the expected value of fare dodging, and the latter has a better educational value: if controls are rare, when one gets caught they think "Wow, how unlucky", not "I shouldn't do that anymore".

What WoOS writes seems ok to me. He's not rearranging the components, he's pointing out that the correct formula is a different one. There's a constant involved in the most common definition of the big-O notation --- look at line 3 of the wikipedia page that you linked to.

"blame" - like it wasn't in their interest to be the ones who take the real decisions...