One word: pinball wizard. Wait that's two words, or is it three?

You are taking the hardline "murica fuh yuh" FREEDOM stance. You need to start thinking about what freedoms you are protecting. It's not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. Don't children have a right to be free from being sexual assaulted, raped, and abused? When did your right to use Tor to download torrents exceed their right to be treated with some humanity?

No that is not the logic being applied. You are ignoring certain factors in the sake of making a very silly argument. A car manufacturer is not an accomplice because someone used one of their cars to commit a crime, because the design and typical use of a car is for legitimate purposes. If however, the car manufacturer provided features designed specifically to aid criminals, or features which happenstance had more common criminal uses than legitimate, then they would be an accomplice be cause the knowingly continued to provide these features without taking corrective action. It seems wrong that I am a criminal because I provide some product/service, and happenstance without my foresight it is used for criminal purposes. One would be expected to take responsible action to make amends to the product/service to eliminate or track this usage. For example, ISPs providing a physical link are capable of identifying the source of criminal activity.

So the distinction is when you provide a product/service that is known to have primary illegal usages. You can make arguments for Tor on a non-legal basis such as freedom, right to anonymity, anti regime, anti oppressive government arguments. However, from the standpoint of law, there is a certain distinction on what makes someone an accomplice.

Agreed. There are some very noble uses of Tor, but when you operate an exit node you are basically allowing any scum to use your connection to hide their activities, and some are really sick. I wish there were a good solution to allow an exit node to be operated, but prevent some of the more nefarious uses. In the absence of that, it is pretty irresponsible to contribute such a powerful component(the exit node) without discretion for what it will be used for. At least an ISP providing a physical link has the capability to identify households, whereas the Tor exit node prevents that, and exit node operators know this. So I think in that respect the ISP is not an accomplice, as they know and are willing to help catch criminals(although there is an argument to be made in oppressive regimes abusing this power). Where as an exit node operator should be knowledgeable that they are preventing the prosecution of criminals, some of which are towards the extreme of being really disgusting, and thus are knowingly acting as an accomplice.

There was a FreeNET that basically was an encrypted distributed WWW that hosted parts on different people's machines. It was encrypted to absolve hosts from responsibility, but it was used quite a bit for child pornography.

Of course even without Tor, when you identify a household sourcing criminal activities, you still have the grey area of things like unsecured Wifi. Is someone an accomplice because they left their Wifi open for anyone to connect to? It is a slippery slope and the tech illiteracy of judges contributes to some bad rulings in cases like this.

Was it wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent?

C# has optional parameters now. Long story short, they resisted adding them because they have the potential to introduce breaking changes across library versions as they are bound at he callsite.

If you looked at job listings C# is by far the majority. I reallize that doesn't prove anything, but I think it's a strong indicator that C# is the more prevalent of the .NET languages.

There is nothing overkill about MVC. It is far simpler than webforms. Webforms is the one that is overkill. The massive view state object that is serialized with every request, the fact that it tries to emulate windows forms controls with heavy objects and non-HTML tags. You want HTML, use MVC. You want the overkill of webforms controls? MVC is far faster even for simple cases.

I did webforms for even applications ranging from simple to complex for 3 years, and I've been using MVC for almost 3 years now, and I can tell you MVC is far simpler for both cases. Webforms was designed to be familiar to people coming from a Windows Forms background, and that layer that created on top of the simple html/http request/response model of the web is overkill. The viewstate for example is designed to give the programmer the sense that state is continuous through the user's interaction, as if it were a webforms app, to hide the request/response web model from the programmer. But this is overkill and actually makes things more difficult to debug and work around. Having to tweak what goes into viewstate and what doesn't. For those who do it alot it is probably second nature, but it is an unnatural layer of abstraction over how the web works.

Try to do something as simple as a small survey that has a dynamic list of questions. On postback, even though you have no intention of showing the user the form again, in order to capture the user's response you must recreate the entire form, and make sure you do it in just the right event handler in the pipeline. In MVC, all you need is a POCO in the Action method parameter.

Surprised to see someone mention one of my favorites. One of the few games where even losing was fun. Took a hit to the oil line? Now you've gotta get back to friendly borders before you crash.

I found the copter controls/weapons management to be a nice balance between complex and arcade. I also loved getting to pick my loadout for each mission. Was a fun game for a computer that had only 512Kb ram.

Granted VS can be pretty annoying, it shouldn't be hanging crashing that much. Extensions, even the really cool looking ones, have stability issues. I used to have more issues until I ditched almost all the extensions I had installed.

Do you have it setup to get-latest from TFS on solution open? I only get latest before I checkin to verify that there are no conflicts. This minimizes changes and dependency rebuilds. Sure YOU didn't change anything, but if you have it configured to get latest when you open solution, you are bound to get other peoples changes in dependencies.

Why Cancel at #6? That's only going to put you back at #1. You're making an annoying problem into an impossible never ending problem. Was your plan to cancel the build, and then have a stern talking to with the compiler and ask it not to compile dependencies? Only way you are going to control that is to reference DLL's instead of projects, which obviously isn't a solution, but point being if it decides for whatever reason it wants to compile a dependency, you aren't going to make things better cancelling the build.

38% of voters considered it an improvement if they opted for that method over the other(that's not to assume their outcome experience was better). Probably in Netflix's beginning their subscriber base was only people who already watched movies, and simply found it more convenient. They may not have initially turned non-movie watchers into movie watchers. Obviously that wasn't Netflix's goal metric, but the point being that the preference 38% people showed could be an indicator that it could me marketable to non-voters to turn them into voters.

Sometimes your goal metric isn't realized during trials, but you can gauge user satisfaction/preference as an indication of its potential. I would say getting 38% during a trial is pretty huge. Usually when you are trying to get people on board with something new it can be much more challenging. With marketing they might increase voter turnout. Obviously you have to look at the feasibility of it, and the cost is certainly a valid decision point. I just think it's a little silly to focus on one metric and call it failure based on such a narrow slice. If the cost-benefit doesn't meet your threshold and you want to bring to an end, fine, but that doesn't mean it is a failure!

Plenty of advancements faltered on their first outing before their time because there weren't enough driving factors in place to tip the cost-benefit ratio. Some of the first hybrid trials were followed by automakers saying that it was a failure and that they'd never make one, and some of those same automakers are making them today. Never speak in terms of absolutes or history+future will make you look like an idiot. Darn, that statement was an absolute.

These are all valid points. I was not implying that mathematics is anything like voting, nor was I presenting an opinion for or against online voting, nor was I trying to imply that online voting is the same caliber of breakthrough as the electronic calculator.

I was merely poking fun at the logic/reasoning presented in the summary of why they considered it a failure. You can list 1000 valid reasons why online voting is a bad idea, that doesn't change the humor of the particular logic presented in the summary :)

What logic is this? We found that although nearly a third of mathematicians used electronic calculators when they were invented, the electronic calculators did not encourage previously non-mathematicians to be mathematicians, so we threw them all away.

Even as a democrat I would have voted you down for bringing Repo/Demo conflict into a conversation that is anything but. The vast majority of people don't understand CC licensing. It is something only SOME artists and SOME programmers and maybe a handful of other types of content authors are familiar with, which is a minority of a minority. Even those familiar with the concept are unclear in the nuances of the licensing. So you can bet lots of people from both parties are unfamiliar with the licensing model, and thus you can expect those leveraging such content to make mistakes in documenting the licensing and attributing works. Therefore one must conclude that regardless of the party affiliation of your workforce, you must address this issue.

You sound pretty arrogant, maybe you should join the Republicans.

You're talking about history integrity, he's talking about gated checkins. He isn't worried about someone messing with the history, he's simply preventing images be added to the repo without certain metadata also being included with the image. It's not a matter of someone trying to subvert the history, but a standard addition of a image file with some insurance that it include the metadata that documents its licensing.

Did someone mention a no-GIT source control? -> If yes, mention GIT regardless of how irrelevant it is to the current conversation.

It is true that once that version of a photo is released under the license, then they can't revoke it, but you must document this as you can't guarantee the owner removes the statement that it is licensed.

This is what the OP is asking about, as you need to document that they released the image under that license at some point in time.