Most people's ideas of summer hours have little to do with the hours being shifted within the day, but either with hour extensions (like a zoo, which gets a lot less visitors in the winter anyway), or with office workers out early for the weekend (at my old job, good luck finding someone at the office after 2 pm on friday between the 4th of july and labor day)

Now that we go back to 'regular time', instead of DST, I have to drive home in the dark, and instead I have light at 6 am in the morning, which I do not want at all.

If we never had DST around here, In the summer we'd have dawn at 5 am in the morning, or something similarly obnoxious, and sunset would happen way earlier than I want. Compare that to the Spanish solution: Spain despite being more or less aligned with England, instead of using GMT, uses CET, or the same timezone that is used in Poland. So Spaniards get dark morning sometimes (that they don't care about anyway), and instead it's never dark before 5:30 or so, and in the summer, sunset is somewhere near 10 PM, which patches pretty well with a world where people wake up and head to work, which starts at some point between 8 and 9. So in American terns, they are in DST in the winter, and double DST in the summer.

Maybe we live in different Americas? Here in Missouri, if it says Baptist at the door, you can expect young earth creationism. And the worst part is, that's not even the worst of what they'll teach you. A friend of mine was OK with the YEC bullshit, but she ended up leaving her church, and really, her family, when she figured out the kinds of things that were being taught to her daughters.

"The Commonwealth must have the express written assurance from Ark Encounter, LLC that it will not discriminate in any way on the basis of religion in hiring."

Umm... anyone else reminded of this:

Agnes: Pinkie promise?

Gru: Oh yes, my pinkie promises.

It's precisely because of that fact that you see some silicon valley companies open up show in middle america, when they can get the senior people for the $120-$130 range

My point was that HBO has A LOT more high quality original programming than AMC, that lately has a lot more misses than hits. They have good, expensive content, but not enough to warrant subscriptions IMO. And when they have good content, they have trouble paying for it. Look at all the cuts they had to do to Mad Men's run length, and the issues they had with actors and pay. That's the reason they cannot 'move up' to being a premier, pay by itself channel.

In any given season, there are at least 3 new HBO shows worth watching. AMC, not so much.

ESPN has plenty of people that are willing to give them much more than $7 a month for their content: There is an entire demographic that uses TV just to watch sports.
The ones that are really in trouble are smaller channels that still have some real expenses. Think of someone like AMC, that justifies its existence due to a relatively small number of valuable content they finance themselves, while the rest is filler. Would people really subscribe to the channel if all they wanted as 20 hours of television a year?

Yes, and that's fine as an additional precaution, but not as pretty much the only one.

Aldermore: a bank!

They ask for e.g. first, third and fifth characters of a password that must be between eight and twelve alphanumeric characters, and the dropdowns to make the selection are lower case only.

This means they're storing the password unhashed, at best locally encrypted but decrypted to check the user login. Once past that, the second and final step of the login is to answer one of five questions as previously stored.

That website fails at entropy, because it doesn't really take into account multi-word dictionary attacks. For instance, it thinks that CakeBanana is just as strong as LRssBanana, when one uses two common dictionary words, while the other has a lot more entropy.

Naive websites that give people a false sense of security on their password safety are actually hurting our security.

If you have a small enough town with a small enough cell size, it should be blindingly obvious which handset IMSI numbers where usually in the area when a crime was committed.

With enough data, you can simply map out the handset IMSI of the most probable perpetrators. There were 5 instances of a street robbery, at night, and the only common denominator is IMSI xyz that has been in the vicinity and moving around the time of all 5 robberies. It either is a totally unlucky individual or the most likely suspect.

Follow that IMSI with a drone for a few nights, record evidence and then lock these people away.

Note that I don't mind any and all police activity directed against common street thugs, as long as they have reliable evidence against them. (not dealers, not pimps, not smugglers, maybe not even thieves - but violent criminals that assault and rob innocent people or even invade their homes deserve absolutely no mercy.)

We know that people that commit crimes are much more often from certain social and cultural backgrounds. There are untold numbers of "anecdotal evidence" around, but we don't want that to be true. So we tell ourselves white lies, blame victims, discount hundreds of incidents as "anecdotal evidence", pinpoint the few cases outside the norm and fabricate elaborate excuses about why such and such were practically forced to commit crime. We are constantly telling ourselves how we are to blame for not paying enough welfare, not enough education, not giving enough leeway while conveniently ignoring millions of people of other social and cultural backgrounds that simply don't commit any more crime than everyone else, being good people despite being poor and uneducated.

Choices of cellphone contracts and handset make and models are similar along cultural and social bonds. An algorithm will never know about that but detect the significance.

But anyway, even among the groups with the highest part in crime, only a few select individuals are responsible for a large percentage of crime.

Algorithms will find that when IMSI xyz is in the general area, people will get robbed. It will also find that when expensive handsets with IMSI abc where in the area when a phone robbery happened, they will probably be around the next crime area as well, since the thief will either have it now or sold it to a pawn shop in the high crime area.

The way it works is not relevant: What matters is that, if I am writing code under a patent system, I am at risk of doing something that has already been covered by a patent. I can check for patents related to what I am doing, which is a major drain in productivity, and will increase penalties if it goes to trial and I am infringing, or I can code without looking, and be at risk that I am reinventing something that I never knew about.

It's those costs, or the uncertainty that comes from acting as if the risk of getting sued do not exist, that make software patents a terrible deal.

I see what you did there: very good.