They've been censoring scam/malware sites for awhile now. Many games have virtual items, some of which have significant value. Scammers seek to steal these items through various techniques including phishing sites that look like Steam's website. Once aware of these sites, Steam chat censors them. It's not silent in that case, but replaces the URL with "{LINK REMOVED}". Of course, then scammers use link shorteners and such to try to continue distributing the malicious links.
Or, "you're going to the Grand Canyon for the day, so why not rent a higher resolution camera module." If you don't do photography every day, maybe the cost would be too great for a high-res camera mod (i.e., over time camera will no longer be a discrete instrument, but will become part of the mobile kit (don't worry, you will still be able to get a camera-like platform for the usability it offers)), but if you're taking a special trip (or going to a wedding), it might make sense to rent the mod for something as low as $10 per day.
Even if it were taking place entirely on private property (which it isn't: their lines run across public land, and they are already giving up some rights to control that property due to that fact), they still must not interfere with the individual's right to contract. The exchange of information via IP is a voluntary exchange between two legal entities, and the exchange amounts to a contractual relationship (ie, the initial request is a unilateral contract). For an ISP to do any more than simply route that exchange is tortious interference of contract.
Even though the ISP might block the relationship before it exists (ie, preemptive network bias such as forging packets or simply dropping the initial request packets), it will still fit the terms. The contract is unilateral, so in the initiator's view the contract exists unless the receiving party fails to act of their own accord (letting the request time out, for example) or explicitly declines (sending a HTTP status code in the 400 range, for example).
Tortious interference, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships.
A lot of the comments here say that the... let me just quote one:
The thing that makes "social media" useful is its userbase. You could never have found/kept in touch with your old friends if you weren't signed up for a service they were also signed up for. Trying to find a smaller service by definitions means it's not going to be as useful to you.
But e-mail is a federated medium. Anyone can run a server, and anyone can send/receive. Their argument wouldn't hold water for e-mail, but it currently does for social networks.
That needs to change, and it will change in time. Many of the technologies to make it happen already exist: RSS, OpenID/OAuth, pingbacks, etc. They just haven't been coordinated and solidified.
There are certain artifacts of the old web that remain affixed like so many barnacles. They include the little buttons that litter major websites, beckoning you to spread their content for them. Not to say you shouldn't, but that it shouldn't be button-based. That's where the user agent is supposed to do the work, not each website implementing its own sharing widgets.
Like I say, it'll go away, but it will require a federated system. Your friends will subscribe to an RSS of your statuses. If they comment, it'll send you a pingback. And so on.
Though Google seems to have lost most of the articles, I remembered this from back in 2002, and I was able to find at least a few results such as Eyes in the Back of Your Mouth. It sounds like this article is talking about improvements (more refined matrix, portability) and deployments of the same technology. A quote from the link above:
His latest technology sends visual data through the tongue, which is jam-packed with nerves and coated with conductive saliva. A video camera worn on the forehead sends images to a laptop, which dumbs down the picture to 144 pixels. That signal is sent to a soviet-gray box, called a Tactile Display Unit, which converts the image to electrical impulses. The current winds up on a matrix of electrodes that tingle the image onto the tongue. In lab tests, the system enabled blind people to recognize letters, catch rolling balls, and watch candles flicker for the first time.
All I've heard from people that are "skeptical" of the current climate science is that the science is faulty/incomplete/etc. Where is their alternative?
My understanding of science is that it works a lot like the kids' game 'king of the hill.' Whichever hypothesis/model fits the data best is the king, and remains king until either a better hypothesis/model (ie, one that fits the data better) arises or new data comes along that either fits the king so poorly or fits an existing contender better.
Various scientists get ideas for experiments that could knock the king down or help it stay up, others have ideas that could get their contender to the top, and they fight to do just that.
Science is about alternative possibilities. There's the way things are, and there's the way things look. The latter a shadow of the former. It's in our best interest to try to extrapolate from shadow to form, but it's tricky. We go with the best we have for now, and we improve as we continue. If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
As to particular data that would debunk the anthropogenic hypothesis, that is defined by the hypothesis itself. Data showing the emissions to be smaller than thought, or that the emissions from human activity have some peculiarity that exclude them from significant contribution to the climate, etc. would be necessary to take down the current hypothesis. Data would have to show that man's activities do not significantly contribute to climate.
Back when I was in grade school some middle school kid in the same school district cut off the tip of his nose using scissors (it was reattached). They banned regular scissors for all kids through middle school and we all had to use these stupid, feeble scissors that barely worked. I assume that to this day the kids at those schools still are deprived decent scissors over what an outlier did a couple of decades ago.
As you say, it's asinine. It completely defies any understanding of science and statistics. But there's more to the story: they are doing this out of fear of lawsuits. If they hadn't banned those scissors and another kid had done a repeat, the parents would have sued and might have won. The lawyer would have stood before the jury and railed about how just months or years before the same thing had happened and the school did nothing. In this case, if they make no change and someone gets hurt in a repeat then there will be a lawsuit and the lawyer will do the same thing: paint it as if the airlines and government should have changed the rules.
The object of this ballot system is to let users know that a choice even exists. It's not to promote any specific competitor. You seem to overlook the fact that there are people out there (and quite a few, I might add) that don't know they have a choice. They don't know what a browser is. They just know they click that specific icon to get on the internet. They don't know there is an internet separate from the web. A lot of computer users have very limited knowledge.
As to why they should know, that is everything to do with economics. You can go read about that in depth, but the gist of it is that information is the lifeblood of a market (particularly an information market). The more nuanced an understanding the average participant has of the marketplace, the healthier that market will be. This is because as sophistication grows in the market, the options must become refined to compete. To put that in terms of browsers, as more browsers compete they all become standards-compliant and have to differentiate on other factors such as speed, security, extensions, portability (both the browser and the data), and so on.
I would question whether he did admit liability. The quote:
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings"
is a horrible question akin to "have you stopped beating your 30 wives?" One can easily intend to answer the numerical quantity without considering the issue of liability.
[...] tragicomic to see otherwise-intelligent people peddle false information and conspiracy theories when actual, real data is out there.
It's also tragicomic to see an otherwise-intelligent company not get ahead of a problem like this from a PR standpoint.
I can accept that it was a technical mistake and not a policy change or a gaming or breach of their systems. But it's very hard to accept that they wouldn't immediately cop to the problem and give an explanation. Other sites take pains to inform their users of technical difficulties and disabled features.
At the very least there should be a window of time after a title has been de-listed from sales rank that it includes a notice explaining that has happened. It's very difficult to trust a system that may change arbitrarily at a moment's (lack of) notice.
Err, the road construction isn't heavily subsidized?
While I agree we can't just build a whole rail system overnight, I think there are places it makes a lot of sense (especially to take some burden off of heavy-traffic roads).
But no, I don't buy the subsidy argument when we're subsidizing the current system (and paying a lot of hidden costs to boot) already.
Having a distributed system where individuals are responsible for rating resources (other individuals, websites, basically _anything_ with a unique ID or URI) would go a long way not just to combat phishing and malware, but other sorts of scams, trolls, etc. I call that system a "reputation system."
We need a system where I can rate a site as vapid (ie, experts-exchange is a waste of my time in search results) and then people who choose to subscribe to my ratings will see those sites may not be worth their time.
The key is to make it extensible such that it can encompass the internet at large and even things in real life like menu items in restaurants.
It's one thing to get feedback about something from one or a handful of people. It is more valuable to have a large graph of opinions which you can prune at will to give you the best information available.
Well it certainly wasn't because they care about openness. I suggest next time you offer a more plausible reason they chose this technology, rather than just dismissing what is at least a mildly plausible explanation as kooky.
I can't think of one that doesn't make them come off as flakes, though. YMMV.
Eventually the model changes for big boxes (just like it is, slowly, for utilities giving you green-power choice at a higher price):
5) Items ordered online from a warehousing store like Wal*mart where you:
Select the exact items and quantities you want a week+ in advance
Have the choice of where (for available products) they are made or how they are packaged, etc.
Receive a modest discount for pre-shopping as it represents a contractual obligation to pick up items and includes pre-payment (guaranteed revenue)
If you look at most business models that exist today you can find similar shifts that will inevitably take place.
Example: Instead of your medical history being sold out from under you, it'll be yours to sell (and receive a discount on insurance and/or medical supplies, medications, etc.)
The biggest change is informational. When the FDA requires that products list their trans fat content it lets a consumer eat better foods. When the MPG is required on advertisements it lets a consumer drive a more efficient car. And so on.
I'd have thought there would be best practices. Note I've never worked in such an environment but these are some things I'd think would be no-brainers.
1. No one gets direct access to the database
All data is segregated by purpose and accessible only via a credential-enforcing interface. Identifying characteristics are suppressed and replaced with keys used only for internal purposes.
2. No one gets to connect their laptop or PDA to a sensitive system, period.
This goes back to the people I hear ask, "How do I play game XYZ on my system with SELinux?" You don't. Really. If you want to play games on your system then you don't need to run SELinux on it. If you need SELinux that system should not be used to play games.
3. No paper.
The paperless office is essential for data security. No external electronics, no paper, and limited network access. No installing crap. No, no, no.
If the data is sensitive, it should be protected. If you can make the data non-sensitive enough (via data segregation/scrubbing/separation of duties) for your lawyers and customers and auditors to be comfortable with it being published in 72pt in the NYT Sunday edition then you can take that out (via limited, secure network access) to a non-sensitive area and listen to your mp3 player or yammer on your phone or fristpsot on/. while you work. Otherwise, sensitive means sensitive and you should be paid well enough to forgo such luxuries.
I'm sure I could think of more rules given time, but seriously it should be pretty straightforward. If the data is sensitive treat it like codes for nukes and don't be loose with it. If it's not really sensitive but due to government or other rules/laws you must treat it as such then you still treat it as nukes. If it really isn't sensitive then stop pretending it is.
You know, in an ideal world I don't think that Jobs should have to reveal his medical information to anyone he doesn't want to.
But this isn't an ideal world. We live in a world where tons of people are forced to give medical information to their employers as a precondition of employment. It's called "drug testing."
They scan for narcotics, some of which are legal by prescription. They test for stimulants and hallucinogens and so on. Again, some of which fall under prescriptions.
Does that mean that you're not being tested to see if you're on antidepressants or antipsychotics? I'm sure they'd be sued into oblivion if it were found out they're screening out the bipolar and schizophrenic applicants.
Point is, if the man on the street has to pee for the man on the top floor, the man on the top floor has to pee for the man on the street.
And, yes, Apple employees are drug tested. Mr. Jobs doesn't have a leg to stand on. But again, I don't think he should have to reveal his information. I don't think his employees should have to reveal theirs to him, either.
We could all be hit by a giant beer ship delivering hyperale to some far off star tomorrow. What would that do to AAPL's stock price?
I recognize that the web has taken over as the main conduit for the internet. Even though e-mail still gets from outbox to inbox via other protocols more people than ever are using http or https to check their e-mail.
This is insane.
Stop trying to cram everything into one protocol. There are so many opportunities for using other protocols and developing new ones to fit our purposes better. If you're trying to sell your customers more products do it on the website. If you're trying to let them handle their accounts and pay their bills can't there be a minimal protocol without all this extra baggage where criminals can try to hide knives, guns, etc.?
In short, as the kitchen sink gets added to the web, expect more people to drop their wedding rings, wallets, car keys, and the like, down the drain as it were.
And, to defend the idea that there should be a "SBAMP" (Simple Banking Account Management Protocol), it opens up the world of specification to be defined as a standard and implemented by various software companies. If someone doesn't fit the standard everyone will know about it and that bank will be singled out for it. Without an IP banking protocol the best we have are consumer and industry groups and so-called experts advising consumers which banks are or aren't following good practices.
As I understand it the lower gravity one is experiencing, the slower time is moving and the higher the gravity, the faster time is moving (relatively speaking).
Since radioactive decay is a function of time (warning: I'm a layman), would placing nuclear waste in a high gravity region for shorter periods of time make it safe "faster?"
And if so how much gravity would be needed? That is, if we were able to have direct access to the center of the earth (where gravity is highest on earth from my understanding) and placed our waste there, how long would it take to become "safe?" What about other, more accessible regions?
(I'm assuming that if we could put stuff in the center of the earth then we wouldn't have to worry about how long it would take to decay, and only using that because of it being of highest gravity on earth).
It's okay for GUI tools and programs to just be front-ends for their command-line equivalents, even if it puts unnecessary limits on the graphical version.
On the other hand, there's a pretty strong argument this should always be the case EXCEPT for the tools that build the GUIs themselves.
Consider the standard menu of a program[1] where you'll find the same options from the File menu almost always as buttons in the application right under the file menu and you'll find the edit menu items in the context menu.
Point is, there are plenty of ways to display these UI options to the user. They can and should be separated from their actual implementations. This would ultimately mean that the UI can be generated according to a user's personal preferences and needs (including assistive technologies or device limitations) while the actual guts of the application stays the same.
At least, I believe this is the way forward for GUIs.
I believe the intent is that AVG will then follow all the links on that search page that is included as content in your pages (thus hammering grisoft.com with 100 hits every time a user of this visits one of your pages).
Yes, it could be. And if we had sane representation in Congress there would be laws on the books that stated unequivocally that for such purposes as these the data would have to be scrubbed.
Of course, even lacking that, if we had sane judges their orders for this sort of data would state unequivocally that the data would have to be scrubbed.
I just hope that Viacom doesn't choose to publicly humiliate me for being rickrolled 1,000,000 times:(
This may be the source of your difficulty? Not sure.
Recognizing that Firefox 3 is only slated for release on Tuesday, I'd guess that you'll see more options forthcoming including an improved version of Weave.
Slashdot Mirror
They've been censoring scam/malware sites for awhile now. Many games have virtual items, some of which have significant value. Scammers seek to steal these items through various techniques including phishing sites that look like Steam's website. Once aware of these sites, Steam chat censors them. It's not silent in that case, but replaces the URL with "{LINK REMOVED}". Of course, then scammers use link shorteners and such to try to continue distributing the malicious links.
Or, "you're going to the Grand Canyon for the day, so why not rent a higher resolution camera module." If you don't do photography every day, maybe the cost would be too great for a high-res camera mod (i.e., over time camera will no longer be a discrete instrument, but will become part of the mobile kit (don't worry, you will still be able to get a camera-like platform for the usability it offers)), but if you're taking a special trip (or going to a wedding), it might make sense to rent the mod for something as low as $10 per day.
Even if it were taking place entirely on private property (which it isn't: their lines run across public land, and they are already giving up some rights to control that property due to that fact), they still must not interfere with the individual's right to contract. The exchange of information via IP is a voluntary exchange between two legal entities, and the exchange amounts to a contractual relationship (ie, the initial request is a unilateral contract). For an ISP to do any more than simply route that exchange is tortious interference of contract.
Even though the ISP might block the relationship before it exists (ie, preemptive network bias such as forging packets or simply dropping the initial request packets), it will still fit the terms. The contract is unilateral, so in the initiator's view the contract exists unless the receiving party fails to act of their own accord (letting the request time out, for example) or explicitly declines (sending a HTTP status code in the 400 range, for example).
— Wikipedia: Tortious interference
A lot of the comments here say that the ... let me just quote one:
—slashdot.org: #31978746 Missing the Point by thePowerOfGrayskull
But e-mail is a federated medium. Anyone can run a server, and anyone can send/receive. Their argument wouldn't hold water for e-mail, but it currently does for social networks.
That needs to change, and it will change in time. Many of the technologies to make it happen already exist: RSS, OpenID/OAuth, pingbacks, etc. They just haven't been coordinated and solidified.
There are certain artifacts of the old web that remain affixed like so many barnacles. They include the little buttons that litter major websites, beckoning you to spread their content for them. Not to say you shouldn't, but that it shouldn't be button-based. That's where the user agent is supposed to do the work, not each website implementing its own sharing widgets.
Like I say, it'll go away, but it will require a federated system. Your friends will subscribe to an RSS of your statuses. If they comment, it'll send you a pingback. And so on.
Though Google seems to have lost most of the articles, I remembered this from back in 2002, and I was able to find at least a few results such as Eyes in the Back of Your Mouth. It sounds like this article is talking about improvements (more refined matrix, portability) and deployments of the same technology. A quote from the link above:
All I've heard from people that are "skeptical" of the current climate science is that the science is faulty/incomplete/etc. Where is their alternative?
My understanding of science is that it works a lot like the kids' game 'king of the hill.' Whichever hypothesis/model fits the data best is the king, and remains king until either a better hypothesis/model (ie, one that fits the data better) arises or new data comes along that either fits the king so poorly or fits an existing contender better.
Various scientists get ideas for experiments that could knock the king down or help it stay up, others have ideas that could get their contender to the top, and they fight to do just that.
Science is about alternative possibilities. There's the way things are, and there's the way things look. The latter a shadow of the former. It's in our best interest to try to extrapolate from shadow to form, but it's tricky. We go with the best we have for now, and we improve as we continue. If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
As to particular data that would debunk the anthropogenic hypothesis, that is defined by the hypothesis itself. Data showing the emissions to be smaller than thought, or that the emissions from human activity have some peculiarity that exclude them from significant contribution to the climate, etc. would be necessary to take down the current hypothesis. Data would have to show that man's activities do not significantly contribute to climate.
Back when I was in grade school some middle school kid in the same school district cut off the tip of his nose using scissors (it was reattached). They banned regular scissors for all kids through middle school and we all had to use these stupid, feeble scissors that barely worked. I assume that to this day the kids at those schools still are deprived decent scissors over what an outlier did a couple of decades ago.
As you say, it's asinine. It completely defies any understanding of science and statistics. But there's more to the story: they are doing this out of fear of lawsuits. If they hadn't banned those scissors and another kid had done a repeat, the parents would have sued and might have won. The lawyer would have stood before the jury and railed about how just months or years before the same thing had happened and the school did nothing. In this case, if they make no change and someone gets hurt in a repeat then there will be a lawsuit and the lawyer will do the same thing: paint it as if the airlines and government should have changed the rules.
The object of this ballot system is to let users know that a choice even exists. It's not to promote any specific competitor. You seem to overlook the fact that there are people out there (and quite a few, I might add) that don't know they have a choice. They don't know what a browser is. They just know they click that specific icon to get on the internet. They don't know there is an internet separate from the web. A lot of computer users have very limited knowledge.
As to why they should know, that is everything to do with economics. You can go read about that in depth, but the gist of it is that information is the lifeblood of a market (particularly an information market). The more nuanced an understanding the average participant has of the marketplace, the healthier that market will be. This is because as sophistication grows in the market, the options must become refined to compete. To put that in terms of browsers, as more browsers compete they all become standards-compliant and have to differentiate on other factors such as speed, security, extensions, portability (both the browser and the data), and so on.
I would question whether he did admit liability. The quote:
is a horrible question akin to "have you stopped beating your 30 wives?" One can easily intend to answer the numerical quantity without considering the issue of liability.
[...] tragicomic to see otherwise-intelligent people peddle false information and conspiracy theories when actual, real data is out there.
It's also tragicomic to see an otherwise-intelligent company not get ahead of a problem like this from a PR standpoint.
I can accept that it was a technical mistake and not a policy change or a gaming or breach of their systems. But it's very hard to accept that they wouldn't immediately cop to the problem and give an explanation. Other sites take pains to inform their users of technical difficulties and disabled features.
At the very least there should be a window of time after a title has been de-listed from sales rank that it includes a notice explaining that has happened. It's very difficult to trust a system that may change arbitrarily at a moment's (lack of) notice.
Which is, go figure, no different than an equivalent use-tax on public transportation.
Err, the road construction isn't heavily subsidized?
While I agree we can't just build a whole rail system overnight, I think there are places it makes a lot of sense (especially to take some burden off of heavy-traffic roads).
But no, I don't buy the subsidy argument when we're subsidizing the current system (and paying a lot of hidden costs to boot) already.
Having a distributed system where individuals are responsible for rating resources (other individuals, websites, basically _anything_ with a unique ID or URI) would go a long way not just to combat phishing and malware, but other sorts of scams, trolls, etc. I call that system a "reputation system."
We need a system where I can rate a site as vapid (ie, experts-exchange is a waste of my time in search results) and then people who choose to subscribe to my ratings will see those sites may not be worth their time.
The key is to make it extensible such that it can encompass the internet at large and even things in real life like menu items in restaurants.
It's one thing to get feedback about something from one or a handful of people. It is more valuable to have a large graph of opinions which you can prune at will to give you the best information available.
Well it certainly wasn't because they care about openness. I suggest next time you offer a more plausible reason they chose this technology, rather than just dismissing what is at least a mildly plausible explanation as kooky.
I can't think of one that doesn't make them come off as flakes, though. YMMV.
-hobo
Eventually the model changes for big boxes (just like it is, slowly, for utilities giving you green-power choice at a higher price):
5) Items ordered online from a warehousing store like Wal*mart where you:
If you look at most business models that exist today you can find similar shifts that will inevitably take place.
Example: Instead of your medical history being sold out from under you, it'll be yours to sell (and receive a discount on insurance and/or medical supplies, medications, etc.)
The biggest change is informational. When the FDA requires that products list their trans fat content it lets a consumer eat better foods. When the MPG is required on advertisements it lets a consumer drive a more efficient car. And so on.
I'd have thought there would be best practices. Note I've never worked in such an environment but these are some things I'd think would be no-brainers.
1. No one gets direct access to the database
All data is segregated by purpose and accessible only via a credential-enforcing interface. Identifying characteristics are suppressed and replaced with keys used only for internal purposes.
2. No one gets to connect their laptop or PDA to a sensitive system, period.
This goes back to the people I hear ask, "How do I play game XYZ on my system with SELinux?" You don't. Really. If you want to play games on your system then you don't need to run SELinux on it. If you need SELinux that system should not be used to play games.
3. No paper.
The paperless office is essential for data security. No external electronics, no paper, and limited network access. No installing crap. No, no, no.
If the data is sensitive, it should be protected. If you can make the data non-sensitive enough (via data segregation/scrubbing/separation of duties) for your lawyers and customers and auditors to be comfortable with it being published in 72pt in the NYT Sunday edition then you can take that out (via limited, secure network access) to a non-sensitive area and listen to your mp3 player or yammer on your phone or fristpsot on /. while you work. Otherwise, sensitive means sensitive and you should be paid well enough to forgo such luxuries.
I'm sure I could think of more rules given time, but seriously it should be pretty straightforward. If the data is sensitive treat it like codes for nukes and don't be loose with it. If it's not really sensitive but due to government or other rules/laws you must treat it as such then you still treat it as nukes. If it really isn't sensitive then stop pretending it is.
You know, in an ideal world I don't think that Jobs should have to reveal his medical information to anyone he doesn't want to.
But this isn't an ideal world. We live in a world where tons of people are forced to give medical information to their employers as a precondition of employment. It's called "drug testing."
They scan for narcotics, some of which are legal by prescription. They test for stimulants and hallucinogens and so on. Again, some of which fall under prescriptions.
Does that mean that you're not being tested to see if you're on antidepressants or antipsychotics? I'm sure they'd be sued into oblivion if it were found out they're screening out the bipolar and schizophrenic applicants.
Point is, if the man on the street has to pee for the man on the top floor, the man on the top floor has to pee for the man on the street.
And, yes, Apple employees are drug tested. Mr. Jobs doesn't have a leg to stand on. But again, I don't think he should have to reveal his information. I don't think his employees should have to reveal theirs to him, either.
We could all be hit by a giant beer ship delivering hyperale to some far off star tomorrow. What would that do to AAPL's stock price?
Second-class citizen? Linux is being treated like a criminal.
I recognize that the web has taken over as the main conduit for the internet. Even though e-mail still gets from outbox to inbox via other protocols more people than ever are using http or https to check their e-mail.
This is insane.
Stop trying to cram everything into one protocol. There are so many opportunities for using other protocols and developing new ones to fit our purposes better. If you're trying to sell your customers more products do it on the website. If you're trying to let them handle their accounts and pay their bills can't there be a minimal protocol without all this extra baggage where criminals can try to hide knives, guns, etc.?
In short, as the kitchen sink gets added to the web, expect more people to drop their wedding rings, wallets, car keys, and the like, down the drain as it were.
And, to defend the idea that there should be a "SBAMP" (Simple Banking Account Management Protocol), it opens up the world of specification to be defined as a standard and implemented by various software companies. If someone doesn't fit the standard everyone will know about it and that bank will be singled out for it. Without an IP banking protocol the best we have are consumer and industry groups and so-called experts advising consumers which banks are or aren't following good practices.
As I understand it the lower gravity one is experiencing, the slower time is moving and the higher the gravity, the faster time is moving (relatively speaking).
Since radioactive decay is a function of time (warning: I'm a layman), would placing nuclear waste in a high gravity region for shorter periods of time make it safe "faster?"
And if so how much gravity would be needed? That is, if we were able to have direct access to the center of the earth (where gravity is highest on earth from my understanding) and placed our waste there, how long would it take to become "safe?" What about other, more accessible regions?
(I'm assuming that if we could put stuff in the center of the earth then we wouldn't have to worry about how long it would take to decay, and only using that because of it being of highest gravity on earth).
Who eats more, the average fit (ie, bike riding) person or the average unfit (ie, sedentary) person?
Which requires more materials, the average bicycle or the average automobile?
Which costs more (both daily and over lifetime), the fit or unfit?
Which costs more (both daily and over lifetime), the bicycle or the automobile?
Just curious.
It's okay for GUI tools and programs to just be front-ends for their command-line equivalents, even if it puts unnecessary limits on the graphical version.
On the other hand, there's a pretty strong argument this should always be the case EXCEPT for the tools that build the GUIs themselves.
Consider the standard menu of a program[1] where you'll find the same options from the File menu almost always as buttons in the application right under the file menu and you'll find the edit menu items in the context menu.
Point is, there are plenty of ways to display these UI options to the user. They can and should be separated from their actual implementations. This would ultimately mean that the UI can be generated according to a user's personal preferences and needs (including assistive technologies or device limitations) while the actual guts of the application stays the same.
At least, I believe this is the way forward for GUIs.
[1]
[...]
I believe the intent is that AVG will then follow all the links on that search page that is included as content in your pages (thus hammering grisoft.com with 100 hits every time a user of this visits one of your pages).
Yes, it could be. And if we had sane representation in Congress there would be laws on the books that stated unequivocally that for such purposes as these the data would have to be scrubbed.
Of course, even lacking that, if we had sane judges their orders for this sort of data would state unequivocally that the data would have to be scrubbed.
I just hope that Viacom doesn't choose to publicly humiliate me for being rickrolled 1,000,000 times :(
http://sqlite.org/faq.html#q5
This may be the source of your difficulty? Not sure.
Recognizing that Firefox 3 is only slated for release on Tuesday, I'd guess that you'll see more options forthcoming including an improved version of Weave.