Sure, and that's the way it works by default: In a <textarea> Enter adds a new line - in a single-line <input> Enter submits the form.
What I'm saying is that if you have a single-line <input> field and pressing Enter doesn't submit the form, you should add some HTML/JS to ensure that Enter submits the form.
I don't know if they edited the article, but right now it says "dozens of millions of pounds", which would mean at least £24 million, or roughly $36 million.
How about a browser plugin that lets you mark as interesting a certain comment or even part of a comment. Some threads are very long with one hundred replies or more and we'd appreciate a quick highlights. Like a sports game recap video.
The people were also consulted to an extent in Greece, though you might say the results were inconclusive. The series of 2012 elections were de-facto a referendum on whether to accept the bailout/austerity or not, since it was the main issue in the campaigns. There were also pro- and anti- parties on both the right and left, allowing people to make that choice independently of their usual political alignment (left voters could choose between PASOK and SYRIZA; right voters could choose between New Democracy and Independent Greeks). If you go by popular vote, the pro-bailout/austerity parties narrowly lost the May election (48-52%) and narrowly won the June election (51-49%).
There's a little bit of subjectivity in assigning those numbers, because a number of pro-bailout/austerity parties were trying as hard as possible to take up tough-sounding, qualified positions, e.g. in the first round Democratic Left was "less" pro- than the others, even though it eventually joined a coalition government that implemented the demanded conditions. So one could argue that Greek sentiment was more anti-bailout/austerity than the results implied, since some people voted for what they thought were moderate anti- parties who turned out to be grudgingly pro- in practice.
During the 2009 elections party A said: "Oops! We're screwed! No more money!". Party B said: "No! Party A is lying! There are lots of money!".
Guess who won? That's right: Party B.
0.0000001 seconds later
Party B: "After all there is no money as we thought... But hey! We're in charge now! We'll save you! It's what we do best!". Nobody said that what they do best isn't very nice...
Forward to 2012.
Party B: "Vote us, so that we'll keep saving you with our great plan and our great banker friends!"
Party A: "Noooo!!! Don't vote for Party B! Their plan and their banker friends are baaaaaaaad!!! We have a better solution! A magic solution!"
Guess again who won? That's right: Party A.
0.0000001 seconds later
Party A: "Shit! Actually Party B's plan is the only real plan... But we are in charge now! Why bother to bring back Party B to keep going with their plan? We can do it as well! Probably even better!"
The End.
Desperate people? Yes.
Retarded voters? Yes.
Incompetent government? Not really.
Corrupted government? Most likely.
This is exactly how things work here in Cyprus and Greece for many years now! These very same people now are responsible to handle the bailout money. But we voted for them. They know better...
I don't understand the need for this. Hosting 10 GB costs $1 per month on Rackspace Cloud Files and even less on Amazon S3.
Secondly, if you use a paid service you don't need to run your files through scripts to upload them, and you don't risk the files being taken down by the image host admins.
Also, while hosting non-image files on image file hosts technically might not be illegal, it still essentially is abusing a free service. Do you really want to be that guy?
The killer app for this would likely be data leaks and piracy.
>while hosting non-image files on image file hosts technically might not be illegal, it still essentially is abusing a free service
Those are image files, just not ones meant to be directly viewed by humans. I wonder how many image hosts explicitly forbid such images from being hosted in their ToS. If the idea behind this spreads I would expect many of them to do so.
Edit: IANAL, but I wonder if it would be hard to define legally what exactly those images are. If you say they're images not meant for human viewing, well, what about a photograph of a printed QR code? It need not only show a QR code; it can be an otherwise aesthetically pleasing picture that also features a QR code somewhere. Same with this encoding technology: what happens if instead of dedicating the whole picture to the encoded binary data you embed it in a larger artistic image?
You're thinking of steganography [1], hiding the existence of information in an image (or other medium).
I'm aware of at least one case where Russian spies were known to have actually passed messages this way: "they embedded coded texts in ordinary-looking images posted on the Internet," according to the NYT [2].
Not quite. Having a QR code featured in a photograph isn't steganography since the existence of information is hardly hidden at all. Rather than hiding the information's existence what I'm considering here is how you could make it legally difficult to unequivocally prohibit spreading information that's in plain sight (think "Free Speech Flag" [1]).
The big thing that killed market fundamentalism for me was doing a stint in business consulting and seeing what the average rich person actually is: a glorified street hustler.
Capitalism isn't just about the rich people. Small business owners are capitalists, too, and most of the ones I know don't fit your description.
What I'm saying is that if you have a single-line <input> field and pressing Enter doesn't submit the form, you should add some HTML/JS to ensure that Enter submits the form.