Um...

Does that mean that

1 > 1
0 < 0

Have you ever accepted a raise from 50,000$ a year to 50,000$ a year?

Wave was somewhere between IM, email, forums, and The Wall. It never made much sense to me - it was kinda like asking me to cook dinner Swiss Army Knife - yeah, I can open wine, cut the meat, saw open the bread, and, well, do something with a screwdriver, but the specialized tools are much better suited for each task.

Maybe some folks did find value in it, but it seemed that the easiest thing to do on Wave was to talk about ways that Wave was theoretically good for doing stuff. And then I'd end up going and doing that stuff with the tools I'd been using to do that stuff up until now with, anyway. Either way, a product with as significant an identity crisis as Wave had from the get go isn't meant for greatness.

Have to heartily agree here. I'm a techie, I understand code easily. It's natural for me.

However, I do agree with the OP that people in not-directly-technical roles should have more confidence with technology. Whether this comes from mucking around with SQL or HTML, or from just learning that most mistakes can be undone with ctrl-z, I think that gaining confidence through doing something that they actually want to accomplish is excellent.

For example, I gained confidence in home improvements by actually doing them - doesn't matter what, specifically. I know that I'll never use these skills to help feed my family - expecting that an amateur such as me can compete with folks who have actual training is idiotic - but I do know when to call the experts, how to call their bluffs, and when I can save myself some bucks by doing it myself.

A whole lot depends on implementation. The initial intent seems to be to provide a mechanism of blocking domain names that have just been created and have high probability of being phishing/spamming/whatever nefarious. Theoretically, DNS could be updated to include the age of the record to help clients make up their own minds of whether to connect or not, but then you'd start on a slippery slope of additional information about records.

By building the protocol around a layer of abstraction, additional information can be considered - the actual IP that it's resolving to, how rapidly that's changing, how many different domain names are being created against the netblock that this one is created against, and so on. Much richer information, and theoretically can provide much more useful results.

The implementation? It's going to be problematic for some, since the decision is being made by a 3rd party as to what is trusted. But this is the case with many ISPs DNS servers anyway - if it doesn't resolve, you end up at a search page instead of getting a DNS error. This won't affect the majority of users in a way they perceive. Is that a good thing? Most of the time...

Overall, if the DNS server I used was smart enough to prevent successful lookups of records created recently (>1 day), records associated with IPs that saw more than n records added per time period, and a maybe one or two other basic things, I'd probably have a significantly reduced vulnerability to drive by downloads, bots depending on fast fluxing C&C servers, and other actively nefarious threats.

If you don't know of this quarterly magazine, look it up. It emphasizes the value of curiosity, while often providing templates for additional investigation. Some of the content is crap, but most of the time there's at least a few things of value.

Check it out.

00:00 - Money transferred into your bank account
01:00 - You take money out of your bank account
01:30 - You send 92% of the money via Cash Transfer service
03:00 - Fraud is reported by the actual victim
04:00 - The 100% money is un-transferred from your bank account, leaving you with -92% of it.

If you keep the money, you're not ahead - but at least you're not behind. However, at 01:30, you've not yet been burned, and are seeing a whole heap of money, so the greedy voice is saying "Do the transfer so the free money doesn't stop!"

In short, the promise of this being a long term, low effort thing is what drives people to be "honest".

Definitely lame. Don't you know that 9.7 inches is the size of the week?

Is the other part because working when you're under 14 is illegal? And that working in hazardous environments (like harvest) when you're under 18 (given some exceptions for apprentices) illegal?

Nice assumption, but you know what they say about assumptions. The DOE chart shows "petro" values declining from a peak of 11M barrels in 1983-ish, while the Wikimedia chart shows a decline from about 9M barrels in 1985-ish. This should indicate to you that the DOE chart includes petrochemicals that are not oil - like LNG and coal.

Oh, and check the DOE's raw data for a chart that is specific to crude oil, that lines up pretty much exactly with Wikimedia chart.

In TFA, the author gripes that the glasses "take almost a full stop of light out of the image. That's almost half the amount of light!"

In fact, the glasses are designed to block at least half the light, since they are polarized to show half the content to one eye, and half to the other.

The author is similarly uninformed in other technical aspects, but I found this to be the most blatant.