I'm not sure if this was addressed in the Credit Suisse report, but these kind of comparisons can be very misleading. The problem is that a lot of people in the bottom 10% have net negative assets (every fresh grad with college loan debt for eg). This skews the distributions, making the wealthy seem richer than they really are.
Suppose A has 50$, B has 30$ and C has -20$ (owes a creditor).
A seems to control ~82% of all the wealth, but B is actually in much better shape than that number suggests.
Names, titles and short phrases are not protected by copyright. http://copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf If you'd like to take that phrase and make a better T-shirt, it's perfectly legal for you to do so.
Um, the 'statement' they issued was in an email response to the journalists. These guys reached out, and they responded, presumably with some vanilla message about how it was all poppy-cock. If they hadn't bothered to respond, you'd have gotten the same article except with "Boeing and Airbus have not been available for comment", making it just as awkward. There is no good way out for them.
Major privacy issues, single point of failure etc etc. We leave payments to third party services because nobody wants to deal with the compliance nightmare that PCI-DSS is, not for security reasons. Payment is also mostly less sensitive to availability and latency issues than authentication.
So in a world where PCI-DSS isn't a thing, you're fine entering your credit card data directly on the forms available on random websites?
Why's a password so different, seeing as most people reuse those passwords? Why do we essentially allow (and yes, I am excluding those that use password managers in this statement, I'm one of those) access to our webmail and other critical services to random websites on the internet? What makes this right?
> Payment is also mostly less sensitive to availability and latency issues than authentication.
That's patently untrue. Latency issues are nonexistant in both areas, and availability issues are critical in both areas.
Yes, I have no problem entering my credit card data directly on the forms available on random websites.
Credit card payments online are so ludicrously insecure that it baffles me it's even legal. I only use them when dealing with the US (although some of the major retailers like Apple have finally started accepting 21st century payment methods), and I simply assume my credit card info has been leaking all over the place for ages.
The whole basic premise of credit cards is "we know it's totally broken, we'll just refund you the money because it's cheaper than fixing the problem".
I've always enjoyed what I call uncoding, which is taking a working piece of code and taking stuff away until things break, and examining how they break. It's really helped me understand what each piece does, and be more efficient when I'm writing it myself.
Amusingly, that's also more or less how we've learned to understand the various functions of the different parts of the human brain. We don't know what it does until it's been removed/damaged.
I love that term. You described exactly how I work: take an existing block of code, break it apart until I fully understand every line, then reassemble to meet my needs.
Why is reaching every corner of the phone such a big deal anyway? Speaking for myself, one of the biggest reasons I like large screens is that reading and viewing content is so much easier - I don't have to squint when I'm watching a video, or deal with awkward reflowing. Interface designers don't have to use the new real estate just because it's there, they can design touch areas that are well within reach, while using the new extra space for other visual elements.
>Why is reaching every corner of the phone such a big deal anyway?
It's a big deal because the upper left corner is where Android places notifications and thus you're likely to perform this operation frequently and in a number of contexts. Whenever you get a notification you're very likely to want to evaluate it (and possibly take action) as quickly and reliably as possible. On my Nexus 5 I can easily unlock, swipe down and swipe left or tap with one hand and very quickly as well. On my OnePlus One unlocking is fine, but getting to the top left corner is tricky, slow and unreliable when I'm using one hand, and two hands is not always desirable or practical depending on the context.
On my Galaxy Nexus you can swipe down on the entire top edge of the phone to bring down notifications. On the home screen you can actually swipe down anywhere to bring it down.
Sadly, even though interface designers don't have to use the new real-estate, they still do. Even Google is guilty of this - Google Maps has interface controls at the top and bottom of the screen. This is aggravated by the fact that Maps is one of those apps people tend to use while walking (or driving), specifically when two-handed use is most inconvenient (and just plain unsafe).Folks don't care as much if Facebook or Mail takes two hands because you're far more likely to be sitting down (or at least standing still) operating them.
I wonder if this can cause security issues. In particular, suppose you can create an arbitrarily named file in a directory. What if there's a service running that does not handle this correctly ( interpreted bash script that is ) - what unexpected behavior might one accomplish by naming the file weirdly?
As a benign example, consider "ls". If you create a file named "-la", then an "ls *" that tries to do a 1-deep recursive listing is going to print the extended listing with permissions and including hidden files, interpreting the "-la" as a flag instead of a file name.
Suppose A has 50$, B has 30$ and C has -20$ (owes a creditor). A seems to control ~82% of all the wealth, but B is actually in much better shape than that number suggests.