How is that fancy laser going to work when the enemy uses a smoke screen? Or a mirror?

rm "-rf *"
rm: invalid option -- ' '
Try 'rm --help' for more information.

Neither the asterisk nor the space are valid options.

This is easily fixable: just declare I"P" to be not property, at least for this purpose. You already don't pay any taxes for holding it (which would fix some obvious copyright abuses).

This would leave physical property, services and financial operations as means of shifting cost.

Physical property is easiest to check: the company would need to ship a constant stream of one-sided widgets. These have obvious value: selling a box of screws $1M a piece is obvious fraud. Purchasing no end of usable wares at no more than 20-30% loss for 90% of the company's revenue, year by year, is not something reasonably doable.

Services mean the wealth is actually created overseas.

Financial operations are the hardest to oversee reliably, but if you skip all the creative accounting and look at the total net of money moved around, then again, shifting 90% of the company's revenue year by year is not something easy to hide.

Use Request Policy instead of Ghostery -- it makes advertisers opt-in rather than opt-out. Besides killing any non-first-party tracking dead, it hardly leaves anything for Adblock to clean up.

You're cherry-picking a single crime where NYC leads. In every other field, London wins handily. Compare: 1 vs 2.

I'd take a tiny chance to get murdered over not being able to walk in the middle of the city without being robbed or assaulted. Living in Poland, I have so far been robbed twice and assaulted 7 times (once with an injury), and murdered... still not even a single time. And by statistics, my chances to do so are really, really slim.

And these stats ignore the fact that murders happen predominantly between rival gangs, while robbery, assaults and rapes tend to target honest upstanding citizens.

You mean, http[s] CONNECT? With openvpn as the payload (double encryption might be wasteful, but I'd keep it). You can then multihome over those connections with existing tools to your heart's content.

This "danger" keeps violent crime at less than 1/7 the level of UK, comparing New York to London (similar population, similar percentage of "bad" minorities, etc).

All the USB slots are in the mouse.

Does anyone actually use wireless mice? They used to be a fad a decade ago, but I can't remember the last time I've seen one.

Cons:

• batteries are constantly out
• too easy to displace
• hard to manage orientation

Pros:

• ???

Enjoy using a mouse with a bunch of cables attached to it. Not so ergonomic, you see...

As this mouse needs a display anyway, it'd be so much better to put the brains in something that doesn't move.

Every spam message that goes past the filters takes several seconds out of someone's life -- and not just the "gross" part that includes sleep, commutes, bathing, etc but of the actual productive part of the day (around 1/3 of it). Averaging batch reading of mail at the start of a day vs full context switch, let's take 5s per piece of spam. Let's assume a 95% spam filter effectiveness rate. Now the hardest part -- how big a spam campaign run is? Let's assume 100M delivery attempts (I'm doing a Fermi estimate -- or rather, pure rectal extraction -- on this number).

This means, a single spammer who did just 10 spam campaign runs effectively murdered a person -- in a death of thousand cuts.

And it's that calibration that's problematic here. The brains of men and women are typically very different, making them excel at different types of tasks. The modern IQ calibration manipulates weights for these tasks to give both an average score of 100. The result is politically correct, but makes IQ an even more worthless measure than it was before gender-balance calibration was introduced.

The other problem lies in people assuming that the average for a gender tells you anything about a particular individual. If women are better/worse at task X, this doesn't mean a woman who applied for a position that requires X is better or worse than a man whom you can pick or not over that woman.

The result? Giving preferential treatment to either group is wrong, and will hurt not only the group you discriminate against, but your profits as well. No matter whether your task is a biology researcher, a lumberjack or a kindergarten teacher, the only valid method of choosing is being totally gender- (and race-, and so on)-blind. That woman who applied for that lumberjack job? She probably has a clue what she does, and thus deserves a try at the chainsaw. This kind of self-selection is not free of biases, but it makes comparing averages for men-vs-women (or blacks-vs-whites-vs-polka-dotted) pointless.

Yes, such selection of merits will make your team not represent the diversity ratios of the general population -- that's expected.

Don't you want to name your fruit U+1F4A9? (can't write this as a literal because Slashdot)

For storing a single character: UCS-4 (aka UTF-32), and that's without possible combining character decoration. For everything else, UTF-8 internally, no matter what the system locale is.

wchar_t is always damage, it shouldn't be used except in wrappers that do actual I/O: you need such wrappers as standard-compliant functions are buggy to the level of uselessness on Windows and you need SomeWindowsInventedFunctionW() for everything if you want Unicode.

And why UTF-8 not UCS-4 for strings? UTF-8 takes slightly longer code:
while (int l = utf8towc(&c, s))
{
        s += l;
        do_something(c);
}
vs UCS-4's simpler:
for (; *s; s++)
{
        do_something(*s);
}
but UCS-4 blows up most your strings by a factor of 4, and makes viewing stuff in a debugger really cumbersome.

My credentials: I'm the guy who added Unicode support to Dungeon Crawl.

Or ,"go" the language. Utterly ungooglable, and conflicts with at least three other programming languages.

(It's a name that's good for humans but useless for other reasons.)