Simple code is harder to write, because it is hard to define. I dont know of any filter to put code into and get back a value on "the simplicity scale". That said, some code is easier to follow (read) and does not contain unnecessary variables and routines. In general, I would say that the shortest amount of code to accomplish the intended goal is the simplest... but there is a limit to this. One code may be easier to debug and reproduce errors and output important values during execution.

When most programmers and debuggers look at 'complex' code... they are usually talking about the format and choice of loops and iterations. Or that the code has been upgraded and modified so many times, that the style no longer flows in a natural and readable way.

In summary: simple code takes longer to produce because it all needs to follow a single style and it needs to be created with a mindset for future developers who will be upgrading and debugging the code. And the total logical flow of the program needs to be considered in order to reduce and remove useless iterations. It is easier and faster to modify existing code without these considerations. The resulting code of fast upgrades without consideration for future changes is what programmers sometimes call: spagetti code. It is spagetti code that I would suggest is what most programmers think of when they call some code "complex".

Manned space missions are a terrible waste of money. I think people who support them dream of one day being able to fly out into space like in Star Trek. We can explore far more and at much less cost using rovers, satellites and probes. Expecting to fly men to Mars is a horrible waste of resources and will stall progress and funding spent on missions impossible for men. We would know far less about the planets and commets if we felt a need to put a person on every spaceship.

My 1000 year dream of space exploration is to one day have a probe fly to another star. It may be an outrageous idea, but certainly isnt something we should hope to achieve with a crew on board. My immediate dream is to never put another man in outer space and instead spend resources more wisely.

Does it bother anyone else that NSA wrote code that is in the kernel of most linux distributions? I dont know what it does, but it has something to do with basic security. I think it is called Selinux. I am not saying it is a backdoor, just that the NSA wrote it and last time I checked the default kernel settings for compiling a Ubuntu kernel, all the NSA modules had checkboxes next to them.

Can someone assure me that this code is "safe"? Or do all linux kernels have code in them that allows the NSA to do as it likes with my security?

Yes you do. From the perspective of men who did not travel it would take 382122 years (using the above posters estimate). But from the perspective on the ship it would take less time. The people on earth would see the people on the ship move and age much slower then if they had stayed on earth. On the ship, everything would seem normal and they wouldnt feel like they are aging slower, but looking back to earth it would appear that everyone else is aging much faster. So it would not take 5307 Lorne Greene lifetimes (from above post). It would take less lifetimes on the ship.

You cannot have relativity work both ways to deny time dilation. Either you look from the perspective of earth and observe the aging process is slowed in the ship. Or you look from the perspective of the ship and see that people on earth age much more quickly. The natural perspective is from earth as that is where most of us would be and so... the people on the ship WILL age more slowly.

It seems whenever this comes up. Some people want to deny the time dilation effect as a perspective issue. But it is not just a consequence of the time for light to travel between distances. It is real in that when the ship returns far less generations will have expired on the travellers then those remaining on earth. So in effect, the travellers will have travelled into the future using accelleration.

I would not want to be on that plane when it is diverted mid-flight to a secret European prison.

If the press knows he is flying to Moscow, you can be certain that there are certain paid agents who will also be attending that flight.

I think it is telling that the tor browser bundle uses firefox.

Also, firefox is the only browser I know of where the application takes responsibility for securely encrypting saved passwords.

Firefox is the only browser that securely lets you transfer all of your passwords, bookmarks, etc from one device to another without revealing it to a corporation or moving it in an insecure fashion.

My answer is that the best browser is: the tor bundle (using firefox)

I am also looking into iceweasle... which seems very secure so far.

Did you bother to read the EULA for IE or even worse the one for Windows OS? Microsoft is not a secure haven from mass surveillance. And you are only mentioning protection from rogue attacks... not protection from government spying which would be less likely to use application weaknesses and instead go directly to the corporation providing the software for access.

In general... if you are forced to run a MS windows operating system, then you are not protected from surveillance.

I claim to know as little as you do about the situation.

However, I can guess that she didnt file a report with the police because the rape did not occur. If that happened, then there would be more reason for her to stay in Poland for a long time and remain as a witness. Also, she probably recognizes that she does not have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction for assual.

But its interesting to note that she is the only one publicly stating how injuries occurred to both of them and a story of what occurred in the room and apparently the only one who contacted the police. You would think if some girl at a conference clocked you in the head with a mug without good reason and hard enough to make you bleed, that the first think you would do is contact the police.

She has stated publicly enough for this man to charge her with liable. So the ball is in his court. I certainly wouldnt stand for someone accussing me of attempted rape. But to do this, he would need to prove that what she claims happened did not happen. Both parties would have to state the events of the night under oath. Something one of the parties does not want to do... because one of them is lying and could be found out.

So in the court of public opinion, it certainly doesnt look good for him. She has stated enough for him to bring her to court, and yet he only says "she wants attention". And it appears he will do nothing to defend his good name.

I know nothing about either of them. But my opinion is: she is telling the truth and he is behaving as if she is too.

The question is, how can you make it clear that you are a US citizen without giving away your identity?

Are they saying that the evidence will be inadmissible in courts if it turns out to decrypt illegal activities from a US citizen? Otherwise, this statement is meaningless.

Choosing to be private is not "dodgy" behaviour. Your private words and images can be used against you by those who wish you harm or to steal your property. Taking precaution to keep your communication private from people other then your intended target is not suspicious behaviour at all... and it should be the standard for all communication online.

Likewise, choosing to be anonymous is not dodgy. I wouldnt feel comfortable having to swipe my id into a computer every time I walk into a store or restaurant to buy something. I wouldnt feel comfortable carrying a cell phone that tracks my movement around a city. I wouldnt feel comfortable having credit cards that broadcast some of my personal information using RFID tags. So why should my exact location and viewing behaviour be tracked when I walk around sites online?

Currently we live in a world where things we intend to keep private are broadcast to many other parties. There is no reason for this, except to allow authority to perform mass surveillance and make it easier for those who wish to do harm to us by using our own private information against us. Using encryption and remaining private is not at all dodgy... it is natural and should be the practice of any good citizens wishing to reduce crime and unreasonable searches.

Is it?

Must it?

Any other armchair justice opinions?

I guess to some it would seem the more time and money spent on this... the more guilty Assange becomes. Others may wonder why any government would waste £3.8 million trying to send someone to another country to talk about accusations for which he is not charged. If this was at all normal, the UK would be bankrupt.

If you want credit for your work then do it yourself and dont have a company pay you money for it. Hiring companies should know this and not expect your name to be on the work that you made while employed. If a hiring company questions you on it, then tell them to phone the company directly and confirm the claims in your resume. That is what references are for.

The solution is not to have your name on every piece of code you ever did. The solution is to inform the interviewer that another company owns the code you wrote for them and you do not have any control over the copyright statement.

If you think the company has a responsibility to attach your name to your work... youre nuts

US carriers route their long distance through Canada and calls from Canada route through the US. I forget the name of this process, but companies say it has to do with bandwidth rates. It seems to me that it is more likely a way to allow domestic only calls to be intercepted by a foreign nation.

You have absolutely no idea what you believe in.

You only know that whatever could ever be possibly known is not your god. Sounds like you dont know your god very well.

Sounds to me like a shadow god. He exists in the shadows where we havent looked yet. As soon as we look and see he isnt there... then you know that he was never in that shadow begin with. Oh yes, this is a useful god. He will always exist for you and no one can take that away from you.

Exactly. Religion is less interesting then the common human need to ask the questions that cannot be answered. And often they will fancy a more rediculous and outrageous tale then logic would naturally dictate. The historical need for man to fill in the blanks with fantasy is more interesting then the current flavors of organised religion that happen to be popular in this age.

I believe that all people are mentally ill. Obsessing about what cannot be known... like what happens after your brain dies and you can no longer think. Seems fairly obvious that according to occam's razor, that it is complete and permanent lack of conciousness... ie: nothing. Yet we cannot except this. In a foxhole, the mental illness is probably rampant where the threat of death is constant and the visual impact of dead bodies and other parts tests the limits of sanity. Of course, the mind will seek to escape reality and search for a calm and rational thought. Naturally, the mind will go to thoughts that have been repeated to you to think about in times of stress, even if you know that these thoughts have no logical basis and do not reflect your true beliefs about reality.

Many things in religious practice appear beneficial to the user. For example, prayer is simply a mechanism of visualization often used by non religious sports athletes. Public prayer is a means to express to those in attendance what you wish to say but may be more embarrassing to say directly. Although I never heard the voice of god guiding me... I can tell you that I do have a conscience. .. and I speculate it is the same thing.

My point is, I believe all people are slightly mentally ill. Religion is a good way to allow us to deal with it. But a better way is to just accept this and not worry about creating a fantasy to rationalize it.