Why shouldn't they? People building that close to disaster are a giant liability payout waiting to happen. This is pretty much a textbook case of "preexisting condition". If someone chooses their home's location so poorly, why should I have to subsidize their stupidity with higher premiums on my non-poorly-located property? If those builders want to take the risk, let them pay for it.

In response to this attack, the team that develops Simurgh has instituted a check that will warn the user if they are running a compromised version of the software

Ummm, and an attacker would be unable to modify the verifyIntegrity() function to return "I'm perfectly OK!"?

That's so sweetly naive and incredibly wrong. My wife and I are married and share a joint checking account. There's no difference between "my money" and "her money" at any important level; even if we kept track of who contributed how much, it still gets stirred into the same pot. It's not like I take her to dinner with "my money" and she buys clothes with "her money", regardless of whether we pretend that's the case.

It's the same with Planned Parenthood. Ultimately, they have a total budget. The government pays for non-abortion services, but the end result is that by financing those services, PP is freed up to spend some of its other-sourced money on abortions.

I'm sure that Planned Parenthood has a spreadsheet that demonstrates that abortion funds and non-abortion funds are separate. That's nice. But realistically, it's all drawn from the same pool.

Please tell me it's not screenshot compatible, because that's the ugliest freaking mess of a horrid GUI editor that I've encountered. Otherwise, no wonder I've seen so many Windows devs with multiple huge monitors: they'd need them to be able to see a useful amount of code at one time. Seriously, those screenshots dedicate, what, 20% of the window to actual content?

Strange to me that I do not recall writing this, but it's an almost perfect description of my upbringing and later re-evaluation.

I assure you you're not alone in your experience.

How would that be? Dams don't make the water go away. Over time, the amount of water going into the reservoir equals the amount leaving, or else the water levels would either drop or overflow the dam. The only significant change I'd see is that dams increase the surface area of the water and would therefore raise evaporation, so some of the water that would normally go downstream would turn into atmospheric moisture instead. For global warming purposes, that's probably not a good thing. But would it actually have a non-negligible effect on ocean levels?

1) "LOL I'M WAY SMARTER THAN TEH CHIP DESIGNERS". 2) So don't use those instructions when you need IEEE 754 math. 3) But do use them in your video decoder when you can sacrifice accuracy in the 5th digital of a float for 1/15th (.06668) the power consumption.

That seems much more reasonable. But also consider that half of all users are above average. I'd be more interested to know what the standard deviation is (if it even follows a Gaussian, which seems at least possible).

That was from three years ago, which I believe to be before Netflix even offered streaming service. A lot has changed since that now-obsolete report came out.

I hate you for that.