It is posts like this that reminds me why I never become an author.

This tool looks very intriguing, so I gave it some malicious code for a spin (all codes are from malicious drive-by sites in the last 24 hours.)
 
 

/** @type {function (string): *} */
e = eval;
/** @type {string} */
v = "0" + "x";
/** @type {number} */
a = 0;
try {
  a *= 2;
} catch (q) {
/** @type {number} */
  a = 1;
}
if (!a) {
  try {
    document["bod" + "y"]++;
  } catch (q$$1) {
/** @type {string} */
    a2 = "_";
  }
  z = "2f_6d_*snip*"["split"](a2);
/** @type {string} */
  za = "";
/** @type {number} */
  i = 0;
  for (;i < z.length;i++) {
    za += String["fromCharCode"](e(v + z[i]) - sa);
  }
  zaz = za;
  e(zaz);
}
/**
  * @param {string} n
  * @param {string} k
  * @param {number} v
  * @param {string} reason
  * @return {undefined}
  */
function SetCookie(n, k, v, reason) {
/** @type {Date} */
  var defaultCenturyStart = new Date;
/** @type {Date} */
  var expiryDate = new Date;

Sort of useful, I guess. But ultimately not an essential feature for malicious javascript analysis. I think the tool would be more useful to legitmate JS reverse-engineering tasks as their obfuscated JS are much much bigger.

Maybe, but from what I've heard, Africans much prefer western aids.
 
Westerners just drop their pile of money on the Africans' door and tell the Africans to save themselves with it.
 
Chinese on the other hand distributes/build the aids themselves with lots of strings attach (nothing evil, mind you, just enough to make sure that both the Chinese and Africians get their money's worth.)
 
To the Africans, they see Chinese' policy as an intrusion.

Do you know the definition of Ponzi scheme? Because I don't think that term means what you think it means.
 
Bitcoin is many things, but it is as much of a Ponzi scheme as gold, real estate, or stock speculations. ie. not a Ponzi scheme at all.

While one can argue that Bitcoin is a scam (and most definitely a bubble), it does not fit the formal definition of a ponzi scheme.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

>>A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.

The key point here is the "solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns" section. In a normal Ponzi Scheme, the previous investors would attempt to guarantee newcomers that profit is certain.

In comparison, Bitcoin promises no such thing. While it is true that the profit of previous investors (or speculators) do indeed come from newcomers, the newcomers are not promised anything beyond their belief that the price will continue to rise.

This key difference makes the Bitcoin phenomenal a 'Bubble', not a 'Ponzi Scheme'.

That gives me a patent idea:

A patent on using a smart phone device as a chisel to open pain cans. After the phone is inserted into the crack, the vibrator would turn on rhythmically and attempt to loosen the lid.

I am sure this idea is novel, and is about as obvious as the patent mentioned in the summary.

Just something to add.

I am not sure if this has been reported in the western world, but for the first time ever in China, the price of corn (per weight) has exceeded the price of rice.

Think about this for a second. It's China, where people eat rice daily. Yet corn, a staple food for livestock, is now more expensive than rice itself. Leaving aside it takes 10x more energy to raise cattle than plant, this is a dramatic reversal of fortune.

Also, Americans like to whine how China has them by the balls- Hell no. If America stops selling food to China tomorrow, you can guarantee that there is going to be massive starvation within a week(and revolution, and probably WW3) in China.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2019/why-do-telephone-keypads-count-from-the-top-down-while-calculators-count-from-the-bottom-up

The story begins back in pre-calculator days, when there were cash registers. We're not talking cash registers that scan, but mechanical things where you actually had to push the keys hard to punch numbers. The cash registers were designed with 0 at the bottom, and the numbers going up. Why did cash registers choose this organization? I was unable to find any clear answer. These were the days before customer surveys and mass marketing opinion polls. The people who designed cash registers evidently just thought it was the obvious approach--lowest numbers at the bottom, highest numbers at the top.

In fact, the earliest cash registers had multiple keys. You didn't enter 7 and 9 and 5 for $7.95; there was a separate column of keys for each decimal place. Think of a matrix, with the bottom row of 0's, next a row of 1's, then a row of 2's, going up. The right hand column would represent single units (cents), the next column for tens, then hundreds, etc. So, to enter $7.95, you'd actually enter 700, then 90, then 5.

When calculators made their appearance, they copied the cash register format. In fact, some of the earliest mechanical calculators (ah, how my wife loved her Friden!) had multiple columns, like the cash register. The earliest calculators had keypads that were ten rows high and generally 8 or 9 columns across.

When hand-held and electronic calculators made their appearance, they copied the keypad arrangement of the existing calculators--0 at the bottom, 1-2-3 in the next row, 4-5-6 in the next row, and 7-8-9 in the top row, from left to right. So, basically, they evolved from the cash register.

The Touch-Tone phone emerged in the early 1960s. Before that, there were rotary dials, with the numbers starting at 1 at the top right and then running counterclockwise around the dial to 8-9-0 across the bottom. Why would "0" be on the bottom? Probably because the dialing mechanism was pulse, not tone. Since they couldn't do zero pulses for 0, they did ten pulses, and hence put the 0 at the end. (Thanks to Radu Serban for this suggestion.)

There seem to be three reasons that the Touch-Tone phone keypad was designed as it was:

(1) Tradition. People were used to dialing with 1-2-3 on top, and it seemed reasonable to keep it that way.

(2) AT&T (the only phone company at the time) did some research that concluded there were fewer dialing errors with the 1-2-3 on top (possibly related to the traditional rotary dial layout).

(3) Phone numbers years ago used alphabetic prefixes for the exchange (BUtterfield 8, etc.). In the days of rotary dials, no doubt it seemed logical to put the letters in alphabetical order, and to associate them with numbers in numerical order. The number 1 was set aside for "flag" functions, so ABC went with 2, DEF with 3, and so on. When Touch-Tone phones came in, keeping the alphabet in alphabetical order meant putting 1-2-3 at the top.

So there we have it. Basically, calculator keypad design evolved from cash registers, while telephone keypad design evolved from the rotary dial. Tradition has kept them that way ever since.

It wouldn't kill you to actually read the article, you know.

The word ambush seems to be about right.
 
Usually for this kind of interviews, both parties agree on a set of topics they are about to discuss. In this case it appears to be the CEO demoing the newest tablet.
 
He probably was not expecting that question at all, so he got offended, and left.
 
Imagine your future mother-in-law asked you over for a BBQ, and when you start roasting, she suddenly asks you about your past sex lives. Yes she has every reasons to ask (for the sake of her daughter's well being), but that doesn't make it any less rude.

Exactly. A good analogy would be geeks who buy the Blu-ray edition of Star Trek TV series- the shows are exactly the same as they were 50 years ago. The fans aren't buying the 'new edition' so that they can watch it for the 10th time. They are buying it for collection sake.
 
Anime are aired on TV weekly, and if you missed that, there are always online illegal streaming sites that you can catch. Downloading the episode is just another way to watch.

Good idea. I have an improvement to suggest though.
 
The receiving side's phone should also have a reverse text-voice system. That way the driver can convert the voice to text, send the msg across the network to the receiving device, convert it back to voice, and play it to the receiver. Bonus point if the voice sounds like HAL. We can call it the telelocational phonetic system!

You fool! We are the baggage! The luggage will be in the passenger compartment. Now down you go!

I think the confusion stems from the fact that we are talking about money (even though it's not real).

A better example would be instead you getting counterfeit money, you are trading for a fake Rolex watch.

So you trade your car for a watch you thought worth $1000. After the trade you found out its real value is $10. Would you call that theft?
Wait a second I think there is a term for this kind of situation...I think it's something that rhyme with 'floor'....It's fraud!
 
  Is fraud the same as theft? That's the argument you are having. The effect is the same in which you are deprive of $990, but is it theft?
 
Personally, like you, I don't think so, even though the end result is the same; but that's just a technicality.