You prefer the media continue to bastardize the word "hacker" into some sort of evil-doer?

And I guess plain text is also a code language for machine behaviour at the presentation level?
Or does an ASCII linebreak code not control machine behaviour?

Except that it's not valid XML but something even worse.
That language just looks horrible.

I know they're not the same; that's why they are different words.
TFA however, does not seem to recognize anything besides "affirmed" and "reversed", so "vacated" must be categorized as either of these.
Since the PDF I linked to grouped "vacated" with "reversed" in some of it's tables, I assumed that must have been what TFA has done, hence my use of the words "assuming vacated counts as a reveral".

Short; it doesn't matter what either of us thinks, it matter how the author of TFA defined these terms.

Overpriced devices sold to people who are not me may result in lower prices for me due to economy of scale.

What guarentee does anybody have these credentials are real and actually belong to ANY site?

They could just as well fabricate some large list of random credentials if their "disclosure" method doesn't actually require disclosing whose the data was.

All you would be paying for is a $120 "Thanks for the money, the credentials aren't from your site" notice.

http://www.americanbar.org/con...

I did some tallying on table 3 and found the following numbers on total decissions;
Reversed: 58.48%
Vacated: 12.58%
Affirmed: 28.94%

The article doesn't mention whether "vacated" is counted separately or as a reversal.
The graph shows only reversed and affirmed, so I'm assuming vacated counts as a reversal.
If this is the case, reversed and vacated together is 71.06%.
So if you'd guess "Reversed" all the time, you'd be slighly more accurate than the algorithm.

if defendant.bank_balance > plaintiff.bank_balance
      winner = defendant
else
      winner = plaintiff

I'd guess about 90% accurate.

If only he could have made some predictions, travelled to the future to test the predictions, then travelled back and put the results in his blog post.
Sadly, testing future predictability can only be done after the future has passed.

Yes. It would.
Those 330,000 get to vote in the place they live too.

Sounds like an insane argument. Defending a law because you're using it for something it wasn't intended to be used for.

They might mark conspicuous characters, like when multiple character sets are combined in a single domainname.

Yeah, network attached storage should not be attached to a network.

Yet when I once tried to remove some text describing a certain type of LCD technology as being lesbian, the editors had reverted my fix within an hour; LCD panels are apparently truely lesbian and I should not have wanted to hide that fact.

More likely, some Wikipedia editors are just very protective of "their" pages and will revert any edit without verification. After several removals of these obvious kinds of jokes, typos and some none-controversial, cited additions were immediately reverted without any reason given, I stopped editing Wikipedia.

Other websites: Celebrating the surrepitous distribution of DRM malware.

Slashdot: Angry DRM malware rant.