We can just secure our things the same way that the things currently on the internet - power plants, dams, oil refineries - are secured.

'Outing' has a connotation of a) the public identification of an individual, b) the disclosure of private information about that individual, and c) being against the (not necessarily explicitly stated) wishes of the individual. Neither a) nor b) occurred, which also means c) is moot.

Never trust a /. summary. They confirmed the participant's ownership of a firearm through public sources.

Exactly. If he was operating as alleged, he has made things more difficult for responsible operators, because this will expedite regulation.

My comment was two simple sentences, yet you managed to miss the point. It takes no position on people who accept the facts of evolution.

I suppose I have to point out that accepting the facts of evolution means all of those facts, not some bowdlerized version that denies the random aspects of evolution, or claims that evolution is responsible for small changes only, or excludes the descent of Man.

And I guess I also have to point out that my statement does not imply that a version of creationism that accepts the facts of evolution is necessarily compatible with science. It could be incompatible in other ways, which is highly likely when you introduce hypotheses lacking any evidence in support. As I wrote in the first third of my original response, the issue here is evolution, specifically.

With regard to your last paragraph, the route by which someone arrived at a belief is immaterial to the question of whether that belief is consistent with science.

The issue here is evolution. Any version of creationism that denies evolution is incompatible with science.

I thought the evidence previously presented, that Nicholas Szabo was Satoshi, was plausible, albeit circumstantial. I suspect that this Satoshi Nakamato's involvement with Bitcoin was not as the primary innovator or leader, while the the person(s) who did play those roles prefer for Newsweek (and the rest of the world) to think otherwise.
     

If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Michael's got to pay for getting his eponymous company back, and he won't be able to do that just by selling computers.

Are you referring to the so-called 'super injunctions'? They are not so much NDAs as they are gag orders - they are certainly not agreements when they are forced on you.

The first amendment is supposed to stop that sort of nonsense in the USA.

Worse things can and do happen - like someone making off with confidential data.

My concern over these 'minimal knowledge' courses is that their graduates will be unprepared to deal with complex issues like security. On the other hand, given the dismal state of security, they might improve things, in which case I am in favor.

This article does not contain any description of calculus-like activities that five-year-olds are participating in. There's a lot of 'this is cool' commentary without any description of what 'this' actually is.

The NDA is irrelevant to the fact that you made a statement, about the exact wording of the article, that can unarguably be seen to be false, simply by reading the exact words of the article.
 

On the contrary, it is a fact that Mr. Snay has stated in a deposition that he explicitly told his daughter.

FWIW, I regard the incident as something like an unfortunate accident with disproportionately severe consequences, and I hope the family gets to keep the settlement, but I don't think the prospects look good. I would be interested in knowing what the outcome would have been if the daughter had actually guessed the existence and nature of the settlement. If you have any facts about how the circuit court came to its decision in favor of Mr. Snay, I would be interested.

I am responding to what you write, and if that's different from what you think, you need to get your thoughts and/or words better organized. For example, in the above quote, you seem to think that you are not contradicting yourself if the positions in question are in different posts. If that's not what you meant, then you made your statement unclear by bringing separate posts into it (and if it is what you meant, then you are simply wrong.)

Here's just one example:

It does not follow from my answer to your question that both judgments are correct. That would be a contradiction. In reality, at most one of these judgments is correct. Ultimately, it is by the rules of the court that the one from the higher court is chosen.

As for the sentence "The same facts will be found to be two opposite things", that's just gibberish. No-one could divine with any degree of certainty what you thought that meant.

Let me remind you of the original issue: Mysidia stated that the Snay's best option would have been to fabricate a story in which they never actually told the daughter about the settlement (implying that she guessed), and I pointed out that any such plan would have depended on the daughter never revealing that this was false. Your response was a non-sequitur on several grounds, not least because, as anyone who had read the exact wording of the article would know, and contrary to what you were assuming at that time, there is no doubt now that the daughter had been told that there was a favorable settlement, a fact that makes any speculation over whether she guessed both irrelevant and factually mistaken. The extent of uncertainty over what was said to the daughter was exaggerated in your mind, because you did not read the articles with sufficient diligence. You should understand that your personal ignorance is not evidence of a general lack of knowledge.

Having been contradicted by the facts in this case, you attempted to rephrase your position, and managed to contradict yourself over whether the daughter's guessing of the facts would or would not be grounds for voiding the settlement. This is not particularly important, as it has already been established by Mr. Snay's own deposition that this is not what happened, and your arguments here are only part of a futile attempt to unsay what you had previously stated. It is, however, an indication of your predilection for invalid arguments.

Here's another contradiction, all in one thread:
"We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement'
"The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it.'
Your language here is refreshingly straightforward, so if the evident meaning is not what you meant, the problem is yours.

A loser's tacit admission that he has lost.