Since arresting young males should be a goal in itself, I wonder why the stated target of 100% is never reached? Sounds like bureaucratic inefficiency and inertia ...
In simplified terms, an object is just a hashtable pointing to a parent hashtable. Now the question becomes: Is it better to embed another hashtable inside the hashtable ('has') or better to store its fields in the parent hashtable ('is')?
My question is: Why would this question even be relevant?
Over fifty years? The person you marry is going to change.
All of this is a total non-issue in other cultures. Outside the pathological situations in the West, you can just focus on how to get ahead in your job, which automatically creates a fanclub of women who want to join in, and the rest follows. I can't see myself brooding over that kind of trivialities.
I think that Susanne really "gets it". You could build a platform and abide by all reasonable and also silly regulations across the 200+ jurisdictions around the world, or else just like bitcoin, you could cause a "grasshopper syndrome" and make the platform virtually impossible to shut down. You know how that medieval court ordered the grasshoppers to cease and desist camping on farmer John's field. They didn't leave. So, farmer John and his court just learned to live with it. Bitcoin is seriously changing the world in many unexpected ways.
That is difficult to say, because I am a man too. I may also not be able to decode what women from a traditional environment really think about mainstream western men. There's one thing that strikes me, though. Men don't seek divorce that easily. The burden to keep things together seems to fall almost squarely on the female side. That could be a reason why women may less see it as a risk.
This is how 80% of the world thinks about marriage. This is also how people in the West thought about marriage only a few decades ago. In other words, it is the normal way of thinking about marriage. There is nothing misogynistic about that. Why would other cultures be misogynistic? Keeping marriages together is a feature, not a bug.
Take her around the world--nice and, not so nice places; then decide if you still want to get married.
I think that this is the wrong approach.
Anybody is suitable for marriage, on the condition that their culture says that there is no other realistic option than to stay married. That is the reason why both of you will do what it takes to make it work, and believe me that it will work.
In that respect, women from the wrong (western) communities are simply not suitable for marriage. Pick randomly a woman elsewhere and you should be ok.
People are always compatible, if they have to. That is why rampant marriage failure is a cultural problem, not an individual one. Therefore, if you just avoid to pick someone from the wrong (western) community, you should already be ok.
I do not believe that marrying the "wrong person" is fundamentally that common. The problem is rather that it could be simple and easy to divorce someone for the inevitable quirks that you do not want to learn to put with.
That is why I have never considered and would never consider to marry a woman from a mainstream western community. The fact that it is culturally an easy option to move on, turns them into unsuitable marriage material. I would just be getting into an accident waiting to happen.
Prince Charles and lady Diana only divorced because it was culturally acceptable and rather easy to do. Otherwise, they would still be married today. Especially Diana would have learned how to deal with the drawbacks of that, and probably not be more unhappy for it.
It has always been like that. Women have never "fallen in love" with men who are not sufficiently socially successful. There is nothing new under the sun in that respect.
But then again, "socially successful" is a very relative thing. You will find that women "fall in love" with you all the time in third-world countries, even if you are only on unemployment benefits back home where women may snub you over that.
Furthermore, the appearance of success is probably much more important to women than any real success. The ability to pretend that they caught a fish who could have money, is often enough.
Enlisting more cores in order to get something done faster, you know, by splitting the work is indeed a serious pain.
I recently wanted to get lpsolve to split an integer branch-and-bound programming problem across multiple cores and then get a large on-demand AWS instance to deal with.
The branch-and-bound algorithm is eminently parallellizable. So, it should have been possible.
I came to the conclusion, however, that I would have to rewrite lpsolve for that. That program sticks to one process and there is no way to get it to fork other processes and read back the results.
Yes, you are right. This entire NSA thing is bad business for American companies. Even an erstwhile global darling such as Google suffers from this. They are now being viewed with suspicion ...
It does not even matter that "the majority of Tor users are using it for nefarious purposes". Any attempt at intimidation will work out exactly the other way around.
Doing anything that the NSA do not like, is "cool"; even more so in the global scene.
Seriously, if you want to get people to use Tor, all you have to say is that the NSA do not like it.
The NSA strategy of spying on everyone only works when most people are not aware of it. The surprise element is now gone. They can undoubtedly already see the effect of the recent scandals in a serious decrease in quality of the information that they collect. The entire internet is now slowly but surely moving to stronger forms of encryption. On the long run, it probably means that the entire internet will go dark for them. In other words, the ones who wanted to see everything will end up seeing nothing at all.
It would be enough to attack the machine holding the decrypted bitcoin key in order to steal the money. So, you still have that dreaded single point of failure problem there.
The security solution consists in forcing the attacker to attack lots of machines and successfully control them in order to steal the money.
Unfortunately, multisig forces you to use the blockchain. There are use cases where you don't want that. SSS, on the other hand, seems too complex to feed back through the ECDSA signing algorithm. In the link above they just use the factors of the private key to distribute as shared secrets. So, your private key cannot be a prime. But then again, ECDSA does not seem to require that from a private key. It's not that using a composite number would make it easier to work your way back to the discrete ECC logarithm ...
Uber is actually a good example of how existing regulations can be a formidable barrier to startups; or even any kind of innovation. You are not just free to offer a new product or service that competes with existing ones. The incumbents will have the existing regulations on their side and use them to shut you down.
They may not have a choice. I can perfectly well see why they erect barriers and put large obstacles in front of people trying to cross their borders. The problem is rather that startups should not demand that you physically move over there. I have had the case several times and I had to refuse the project. Moving over there, is unpractical. Why not collaborate remotely with people around the world? Do people really need to sit next to you in order to work with them?