So, you're saying the problem is that there are currently too many messaging apps, and no agreed upon standard? And the solution to that problem is to create yet another messaging app?

As for communicating with someone who is nearby without having to type an email address or user name: Apps like Bump have been around for years. Oh wait, you don't have bump? No I don't have Google Tone. How about OkCupid?
 

If I want to send you a link to a webpage, then it is safe to assume that we're both connected to the internet. So why not send the link that way?

What if the sign doesn't say "no entry", but instead "feel free to request any URL that you want" ?

So, the question is: Is it illegal to issue HTTP GET requests (that conform to all specifications and obey the robots.txt of the site in question) if the owner of the site didn't intent for the content at that URL to be available to you?

In other words: Is requesting a (non password-protected) webpage equivalent to representing yourself as someone who is authorized to access than page?

Answer "no" on a law-abiding website and it will ask you again every time you load a new page, because it has no way of knowing whether you already answered the question...

"No" is really the wrong answer here

FTFY.

(Probably they want to test if applicants understand basic logic.)

"Digital Native" means this.

"Four of the five individuals who have access to control the camera's settings will testify they did not change the cameras' recording instructions -The fifth person is defendant."

Sounds convincing, until you realize that this would also be true if they were prosecuting any one of the other four.

The cost of cycling an EV battery is about 50 cents per kWh (source). In many cases, electricity from the grid is far cheaper than that from the battery, even when the battery can be charged for free.

Assuming that Tesla can cut that cost in half, things start to get interesting. It would then make sense to use the battery whenever the difference between what you pay for electricity and what you can get for it is less than 25 cents (plus a few cents to account for losses in the battery). But the profit, if any, would be small, and the initial investment is high.

I don't think that anybody who is on the grid today will benefit from going off it. This technology currently only makes sense for new construction in remote areas. But maybe a decade from now, prices will have come down, and there will be a huge market for this. Tesla will then have a big share of that market.

How is this different from what ICANN did when tried to get every major brand to pay them $185.000 for a gTLD?

There's an app that instantly wipes your (android) phone after X incorrect attempts. Set X=1 before going through customs.

I don't think it's about the "cool" factor as much as the fact that the same people that own the military industry also own the politicians who make these decisions.

I wouldn't call it "covered". What is says is: "If randomly distributed, the probability of the same redundant piece being hosted on the same controlled node is statistically quite small." It does not attempt to quantify what "quite small" means. So I'll try to do that.

Assume that you have a million blocks stored in the network. Each block is stored as three identical copies. Then assume that 1 % of the storage network is taken down at the same time. The probability that all copies of an individual block got lost is one in a million. However, the probability that at least one out of your one million blocks was lost is approximately 1-1/e or 63 %. So in this scenario, you are more likely than not to have lost data.

The bitcoin transaction chain is public, so in theory it is possible to track stolen bitcoins. People could arbitrarily decide not to accept bitcoin from tainted sources (or not to accept bitcoin at all) and that would make life much harder for thieves and extortionists. However, the accepted practice is that all bitcoins are equal. There is no governing authority that has the power to declare that certain transactions are "tainted".

If a mechanism for declaring bitcoin "tainted" would be introduced today, it would not only affect the original thieves, but also a large number of innocent extortionists and drug dealers who just happened to run their bitcoin through the same "tumbler" as the thieves. The whole system would collapse. So it's not going to happen.

Yep. Not checking your own spelling while attacking someones grammar on slashdot is stupid.

Dyslexia, on the other hand, does not appear to be correlated to intelligence.