What? POST is the non-idempotent one. See the table in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc..., section 8.1.3

Not much really needs to be said.

Ah, good to know. I'd love to know how much BTC overall was actually deposited that vanished.

A family friend made enough real cash money off of Bitcoins to afford a rather nice mortgage-free house and a ton of disposable money, but you're right, I highly doubt that it ever made it into multimillions. Never even thought about it that way.

if I'm correctly reading the figured I'm finding online, there's about 14 million bitcoins in existence, worth just under 4 billion dollars.

10% of all bitcoins were just stolen, and don't we see a story like this just about once a year?

Once in a rare while I regret not getting into Bitcoins during their huge growth phase. Then I'm reminded of how often this happens and I'm glad I kept my money.

So you have a bunch of stores for sale in tech-sector-friendly locations, just when Amazon is starting to establish a physical presence... Hmm.

In our big cities, it seems like it's too late to add more mass transit. Where the hell would you put it? There's already skyscrapers there. All I can figure is that we need stringent state or federal guidelines for new city planning above a certain size that mandates effective mass transit in the design. You can add it to new growth, you can't shove it into old cities.

It's pretty legit in this case. Not everybody who asks for funding is _only_ trying to enrich themselves. Hell, have you seen the state of our bridges lately? If I was in charge of them, I'd either want more funding, or to quit before I get blamed for them falling down.

See pg.116-125 of the report, it's not as freakishly alarmist as the summary indicates (and the pages are big font and full of pictures). It points out that Louis Armstrong airport in New Orleans is almost two feet below sea level, focuses on the increasing frequency of storms and their hazards to low-lying transportation hubs (costs of storms increasing over time and higher for major ports in high risk areas), and has graphs of historic sea levels with sources cited...there's a few hundred miles of track that will be underwater, which is an entirely reasonable statement given where they build some of them, but it doesn't really say that about airports at all.

Yeah, it does include that as part of the solution. Though at 300 pages it's still not all that in-depth.

"Congestion can also be managed through land use policies that help to reduce commuting distance.
Mixed-use developments, where homes are near jobs, mean that commutes are shorter, and often
make it possible for people to walk or bike to work. In general, development patterns that promote
denser land use rather than sprawl help to reduce total commuter travel demand.
Employers can be an important partner in managing congestion through travel demand, if they are
able to facilitate flex-time schedules and teleworking. This reduces the need for commuters to be
traveling during peak times. Employers may also provide benefits and amenities that encourage
employees to use public transit, or to bike or walk to work."

There is actually a serious problem here because the gas tax--by far one of the largest of these--is supposed to be a usage fee, and MPG is increasing. Raising the gas tax isn't a great solution, because people with low MPG are often those who can afford it least, and because raising taxes are always a political firestorm (imagine how much industry would push back too). Electric cars are a whole new issue entirely--don't know how widespread they'll be long term though.

No, transportation infrastructure needs to be fed from somewhere else. One of the current solutions is to stick a GPS tracker in every car, which is admirable on the basis of fair payment for public road usage, but utterly catastrophic in every other way. I think we just need to pay for transport infrastructure from a general fund instead.

Those charges were raised in a different state. They weren't in this trial, they could be another trial, but at this point I doubt they'll bother.

That's where you start getting into ugly policy discussions. Your teenager might be sexually active, in which case they really should have the vaccine, for their own good and for everyone else's. But they're sure as hell not going to opt into getting it where their parents can see it. Solution, force it on everyone and hope that the overall benefit outweighs the overall cost.

Vaccines are not 100% effective. If an average person is in sufficient contact to transmit to ten other people over the span of a disease, and have a 90% chance of passing something to them when they're unvaccinated, you've got an outbreak on your hands. If the transmission rate is 2% for vaccinated people, it might really suck to be in that 2%, but it won't cause an epidemic.

I'm going to bet he's referring to the HPV vaccine. Because obviously if you vaccinate your kids against an STD (even one that causes cancer!), you're just promoting sex. Never mind that the stats don't back that up at all.