Even if that is the case, there is still a relatively straightforward attack on captchas: the mafia porn site.

Link please?

So, should employees of a public university where the President's annual compensation exceeds $1 million receive a full state-funded pension for educating 16,000+ out-of-state students?"

Why do I get the feeling that this is a leading question?

What planet are you from? 80%? Complete fiction. Vermont Yankee is very reliable, and had, from 2003-2009, an amazing 92.6% capacity factor. Which gives an employee/Mwatt ratio closer to 1.09, which while still slightly higher than the solar plant, isn't particularly bad.

Are you implying that a user with account name "mdsolar" is spreading FUD about non-solar power sources? Why would he do that?

Uh, isn't this credit card fraud?

It's obviously fraud. Adding a sarcastic "Uh" to your rhetorical question doesn't help make your point, though.

If you read the article (I know, I know) you'll discover that 75% of the people in the region already have access to the site via package deals. So it's actually surprising that 35 people did sign up for it.

So the potential regional market is only 1/4 the size that it otherwise might have been? Think, without these other access deals, they might have gotten 140 people to sign up.

Doesn't matter. Contracts can't override the law, regardless of how hard they try to make you think they can. They can say they have the right to change service at any time and that you can't terminate, but that is simply not true.

If the service materially changes, you can terminate the agreement, regardless of how many times they tell you that you can't.

And if they fight you on this, sue. Oh, wait, you can't: you signed away your rights to do so in an arbitration clause in your plan contract.

College kids *pay* for poon? I could barely afford gin...

Priorities.

I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but just in case it isn't: openDNS does the same sort of hijacking.

The days of the pimple-faced kiddy sitting in the basement and, out of frustration of not getting laid, releasing some worm on the world.

The days of /. users proofreading their posts, and posting complete sentences.

Ok, but how is offsetof() macro defined? Using something very similar to &(((struct foo*)(void*)0)->bar)

Perhaps, but perhaps not. That expression might be safe for some implementations of C; if so, there's no reason for the library that ships with that implementation to use something along the above lines to implement the offsetof() macro. But that doesn't mean it's generally safe or portable code.

Your fundamental premise is wrong, anyhow; not every implementation uses that trick to define offsetof(). In fact, gcc defines a special extension to C/C++, __builtin_offsetof(), to do the work. (gcc is allowed to introduce this new keyword because the standard reserves identifiers starting with a double underscore to the implementation.)