One of the questions this issue raises, is: why do people (not just women; men just as well) put all that information out in the open on the Internet?
I think that's one of the more interesting questions. For whatever reason people elect by themselves to put their personal information (such as name, age, gender, religion, where they work, live, where they are right now, who they are friends with, conversations with those friends, etc. often including images of themselves) out there.
Are they intent to meet strangers? Trying to make new friends? Just some casual contact to waste some time at the bar? Totally different reasons?
And by the way I don't think this information increases the risk for them getting raped. A rapist doesn't generally care about who their victim is. Following someone you just met to their home or hotel room is asking for trouble, whether they have a Facebook profile or not.
It does possibly increase the chance of getting hit on by someone, and it increases the chance (assuming the parties involved want this) for a relationship, if only as short as until breakfast. It helps finding likeminded people, and that can be interesting for some. Sure it's always presented as men chasing women but there are women that like to be chased, or women that chase themselves, just like the men do. And it's not even necessarily for casual sex, though probably it often is.
way too many young people think nothing of posting every detail of their life and personal musing online for the world to see.
Exactly, that is the problem. Not the app itself, it just makes it more convenient to browse the available information.
If those women find that their personal information is out there on the street, including where they are *right now*, and that people are using that to find dates or for whatever purpose - then they have only themselves to blame for putting it out on the street to begin with! But then maybe that's what they are actually after. You never know.
TFA says April 2011 "Hester was using Facebook on her own time (when she wasn’t working at the school).", and also that she was fired last year, apparently shortly after the posting of the offending image. I interpret this as: she was an employee at the time, but the picture was posted in her own time, when she was away from the school.
Though it's definitely ambiguous. And you may actually be correct.
Apple has mind share, Linux not. That's a big difference. It's also why every new minor update release of the iPhone or iPad is frontpage news in papers all over the world, and Linux is basically never even mentioned.
That's not the point. Indeed education lowers birth rate, but even if you get it down to one child per woman immediately (which is what such legislation would accomplish), there are so many young people that your population continues to grow. China experienced just that, too. That it's not a good legistlation - sure, but that's not the point here.
The problem with quick easy fixes, is that people use them, then abuse them, and treat them like permanent ones.
Absolutely true. But that doesn't mean that a quick fix is not necessary sometimes. When someone is bleeding heavily, you will put a quick-fix bandage on that arm, to stop the bleeding. You're not going to wait fixing it until someone comes with a needle and thread to stitch it up properly. Without the quick fix there is no patient left to sow up.
I don't know about Africa but I have another example for you how US crops can outcompete local farms.
US produces a lot of heavily subisidised cotton, and exports a lot of it to China to make clothes out of - they produce much more than they can use themselves. China also produces a lot of cotton: lower land cost, lower wages, less transport cost (it's local, no import duties to be paid). Yet the US cotton arrives at the Chinese factory at lower cost than the local Chinese cotton, putting Chinese farmers out of work!
$30 billion is not much. Bill Gates could fund that personally, if he wanted. Yet he chooses to fund other research - while also important possible doesn't have as much bang for the buck when it comes to saving lives. The US has spent a multitude of that for "rebuilding" Iraq and Afghanistan (which wouldn't be necessary in case they hadn't spent a similar amount into demolishing it to begin with, but that's another discussion). There is no reason a rich country like the US could not afford as little as $30 bln to solve world hunger.
Without having read the proposal I mainly wonder how the UN thinks to have that money actually spent on the target, instead of ending up in the pockets of the people in power in those countries. As that corruption is one of the major obstacles that stand in the way of improving people's livelyhoods.
The fact that this plan is not being implemented is for me a major indication that it's simply not feasible.
That doesn't feed many people that are hungry now. And even on a one-child policy like China (if enforceable) their population will continue to grow for a long time.
While your solution for soil improvement may be technically correct (though you need lots and lots of shiploads of dirt to make it work), it's commercially impossible.
The Africans themselves don't have money. Well not entirely true, there is a lot of money, but all in the hands of a few people who are not interested in sharing any of it. Subsidising such activities is difficult, as it's hard to prevent the money to end up in the wrong hands (i.e. those with a lot of money already, and only eager to get more).
Finally, most Africancs are hungry RIGHT NOW. So they want food on the table RIGHT NOW. An instant solution is needed to solve that issue; only when they are fed RIGHT NOW they will be interested in thinking about being fed tomorrow, next week and next year. Artificial fertiliser can solve that part of the problem, but will need a more longer-term strategy to follow up.
For the wire part: traditional superconductors are metallic (pure metals and alloys) materials that superconduct typically at temperatures of <20 K - those should be "easy" to cast into wire. Metals are naturally flexible and malleable.
The current "high-temperature" (around 130 K give or take) superconductors are ceramic in nature, and ceramics are very hard to get into shape. The shape is created when the material is manufactured and that's about it. So no wonder they're not used in coils or so, it's nigh impossible to make wires out of.
Do we really know already what causes superconductivity? And understand it in a manner that the critical temperature of superconductivity in materials can be predicted theoretically? That would be a key issue. When we know how superconductivity works, we could design materials with the right properties, instead of using the trial and error method. We could possibly find other classes of materials that superconduct, and that are malleable.
And interestingly they add the dot-matrix printer, while that's one of the technologies that just doesn't go obsolete.
Sure you don't use them at home anymore, but try to print any pressure form - like invoices, order forms, and many more of such uses. One of the few old technologies that's likely to stay with us forever.
And that's the easiest way for citizens, imho. And the government can centralise all calculations, and do this relatively cheap. Even if the tax payers do it, the government will anyway have to do the calculations again just to verify the totals.
I'm used to do it that way. The tax software would calculate for you to let you know the preliminary result (then at least you know what to expect); not official but usually the exact same as the final, official calculation. As it should be, of course.
I have the same idea. Why would they bother so much?
Also: why try to do it all in the browser? Most video players (mplayer, VLC, etc) use separate codec packs. This is how mplayer happily plays WMV: they call upon the Microsoft-provided codec, without having to bother to implement it themselves, or about licenses (it's a system codec), etc. It just works.
So limiting a browser to just one or two video codecs is just stupid imho. The browser should basically be able to handle anything that's thrown at it: some natively, and the rest via the system libraries. Why re-invent the wheel? Why does a computer need to have several H.264 decoders installed, for example?
As an end user I don't really care much about the video format. When I download something, it has to Just Work. For the rest I don't care much, except quality wise of course. So avoid rm if there is a choice, go for the higher resolution version, etc. But first and foremost it has to Just Work. And if e.g. a video plays in mplayer but not in Firefox, then that's Firefox failing to do its job.
Also when something better than H.264 comes around, and the world decides to switch to using that new format, it'd be just a matter of downloading that new codec and your system can play the new format. No need for Mozilla to re-implement it, they would just call upon the system to decode it.
AC before you explained how there is actually a dump-all function. The proof-of-concept just doesn't check for all existing plug-ins. Besides, the detection of even a few plug-ins other than via their external behaviour (e.g. not loading ads like ABP does) is bad enough.
There is a big difference between bits and pieces of information about you in many different databases, versus a collection of all those bits and pieces in a single database. That's part of the problem.
Also the mining of such data collections is getting easier with the day thanks to increasing computer power, and smarter data mining algorythms (which, in part, become possible thanks to the increasing computing power available).
Well most terrorists don't fly. Those that do, are pretty rare.
We had the 9/11 troupe (19 of them), 11 years ago, and since then we had the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. That's 21. I have probably missed a few, but this from the top of my head. Not exactly many.
Yearly airline passengers are about 2.5 bln, that'd be around 28 bln in the past 11 years, making well nearly one in a billion a terrorist. So that estimate from the TSA is quite correct indeed.
Yet if we were to look at the past 10 years - so after 9/11, then it'd be 2 terrorists on 25 bln people, or more like 1 in 10 billion. Order of magnitude difference.
Of course I'm not counting planned and foiled attacks, just the ones where the would-be terrorist actually arrived at the airport and got through.
By the way has anyone ever heard of a would-be terrorist being caught by airport security? I mean someone with say bombs in their pockets being flagged out by a body scanner?
A great roundabout way to get that highly desired fingerprint database of every single American citizen done. Including full background checks, making it easier to find an individual later if needs be.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the questions this issue raises, is: why do people (not just women; men just as well) put all that information out in the open on the Internet?
I think that's one of the more interesting questions. For whatever reason people elect by themselves to put their personal information (such as name, age, gender, religion, where they work, live, where they are right now, who they are friends with, conversations with those friends, etc. often including images of themselves) out there.
Are they intent to meet strangers? Trying to make new friends? Just some casual contact to waste some time at the bar? Totally different reasons?
And by the way I don't think this information increases the risk for them getting raped. A rapist doesn't generally care about who their victim is. Following someone you just met to their home or hotel room is asking for trouble, whether they have a Facebook profile or not.
It does possibly increase the chance of getting hit on by someone, and it increases the chance (assuming the parties involved want this) for a relationship, if only as short as until breakfast. It helps finding likeminded people, and that can be interesting for some. Sure it's always presented as men chasing women but there are women that like to be chased, or women that chase themselves, just like the men do. And it's not even necessarily for casual sex, though probably it often is.
way too many young people think nothing of posting every detail of their life and personal musing online for the world to see.
Exactly, that is the problem. Not the app itself, it just makes it more convenient to browse the available information.
If those women find that their personal information is out there on the street, including where they are *right now*, and that people are using that to find dates or for whatever purpose - then they have only themselves to blame for putting it out on the street to begin with! But then maybe that's what they are actually after. You never know.
If nobody believes it, it's a bad joke to begin with.
TFA says April 2011 "Hester was using Facebook on her own time (when she wasn’t working at the school).", and also that she was fired last year, apparently shortly after the posting of the offending image. I interpret this as: she was an employee at the time, but the picture was posted in her own time, when she was away from the school.
Though it's definitely ambiguous. And you may actually be correct.
Apple has mind share, Linux not. That's a big difference. It's also why every new minor update release of the iPhone or iPad is frontpage news in papers all over the world, and Linux is basically never even mentioned.
That's not the point. Indeed education lowers birth rate, but even if you get it down to one child per woman immediately (which is what such legislation would accomplish), there are so many young people that your population continues to grow. China experienced just that, too. That it's not a good legistlation - sure, but that's not the point here.
The problem with quick easy fixes, is that people use them, then abuse them, and treat them like permanent ones.
Absolutely true. But that doesn't mean that a quick fix is not necessary sometimes. When someone is bleeding heavily, you will put a quick-fix bandage on that arm, to stop the bleeding. You're not going to wait fixing it until someone comes with a needle and thread to stitch it up properly. Without the quick fix there is no patient left to sow up.
I don't know about Africa but I have another example for you how US crops can outcompete local farms.
US produces a lot of heavily subisidised cotton, and exports a lot of it to China to make clothes out of - they produce much more than they can use themselves. China also produces a lot of cotton: lower land cost, lower wages, less transport cost (it's local, no import duties to be paid). Yet the US cotton arrives at the Chinese factory at lower cost than the local Chinese cotton, putting Chinese farmers out of work!
$30 billion is not much. Bill Gates could fund that personally, if he wanted. Yet he chooses to fund other research - while also important possible doesn't have as much bang for the buck when it comes to saving lives. The US has spent a multitude of that for "rebuilding" Iraq and Afghanistan (which wouldn't be necessary in case they hadn't spent a similar amount into demolishing it to begin with, but that's another discussion). There is no reason a rich country like the US could not afford as little as $30 bln to solve world hunger.
Without having read the proposal I mainly wonder how the UN thinks to have that money actually spent on the target, instead of ending up in the pockets of the people in power in those countries. As that corruption is one of the major obstacles that stand in the way of improving people's livelyhoods.
The fact that this plan is not being implemented is for me a major indication that it's simply not feasible.
That doesn't feed many people that are hungry now. And even on a one-child policy like China (if enforceable) their population will continue to grow for a long time.
While your solution for soil improvement may be technically correct (though you need lots and lots of shiploads of dirt to make it work), it's commercially impossible.
The Africans themselves don't have money. Well not entirely true, there is a lot of money, but all in the hands of a few people who are not interested in sharing any of it. Subsidising such activities is difficult, as it's hard to prevent the money to end up in the wrong hands (i.e. those with a lot of money already, and only eager to get more).
Finally, most Africancs are hungry RIGHT NOW. So they want food on the table RIGHT NOW. An instant solution is needed to solve that issue; only when they are fed RIGHT NOW they will be interested in thinking about being fed tomorrow, next week and next year. Artificial fertiliser can solve that part of the problem, but will need a more longer-term strategy to follow up.
For the wire part: traditional superconductors are metallic (pure metals and alloys) materials that superconduct typically at temperatures of <20 K - those should be "easy" to cast into wire. Metals are naturally flexible and malleable.
The current "high-temperature" (around 130 K give or take) superconductors are ceramic in nature, and ceramics are very hard to get into shape. The shape is created when the material is manufactured and that's about it. So no wonder they're not used in coils or so, it's nigh impossible to make wires out of.
Do we really know already what causes superconductivity? And understand it in a manner that the critical temperature of superconductivity in materials can be predicted theoretically? That would be a key issue. When we know how superconductivity works, we could design materials with the right properties, instead of using the trial and error method. We could possibly find other classes of materials that superconduct, and that are malleable.
What that guy really pulled off is getting more impressive by the minute!
And interestingly they add the dot-matrix printer, while that's one of the technologies that just doesn't go obsolete.
Sure you don't use them at home anymore, but try to print any pressure form - like invoices, order forms, and many more of such uses. One of the few old technologies that's likely to stay with us forever.
And I suppose the US government will re-calculate everything? Otherwise fraud will get really easy.
And that's the easiest way for citizens, imho. And the government can centralise all calculations, and do this relatively cheap. Even if the tax payers do it, the government will anyway have to do the calculations again just to verify the totals.
I'm used to do it that way. The tax software would calculate for you to let you know the preliminary result (then at least you know what to expect); not official but usually the exact same as the final, official calculation. As it should be, of course.
I have the same idea. Why would they bother so much?
Also: why try to do it all in the browser? Most video players (mplayer, VLC, etc) use separate codec packs. This is how mplayer happily plays WMV: they call upon the Microsoft-provided codec, without having to bother to implement it themselves, or about licenses (it's a system codec), etc. It just works.
So limiting a browser to just one or two video codecs is just stupid imho. The browser should basically be able to handle anything that's thrown at it: some natively, and the rest via the system libraries. Why re-invent the wheel? Why does a computer need to have several H.264 decoders installed, for example?
As an end user I don't really care much about the video format. When I download something, it has to Just Work. For the rest I don't care much, except quality wise of course. So avoid rm if there is a choice, go for the higher resolution version, etc. But first and foremost it has to Just Work. And if e.g. a video plays in mplayer but not in Firefox, then that's Firefox failing to do its job.
Also when something better than H.264 comes around, and the world decides to switch to using that new format, it'd be just a matter of downloading that new codec and your system can play the new format. No need for Mozilla to re-implement it, they would just call upon the system to decode it.
Indeed, I just tried the script in Firefox and it worked 100% correct!
It detected no Chrome extensions, which is correct as I don't even have Chrome installed, let alone any of its extensions.
AC before you explained how there is actually a dump-all function. The proof-of-concept just doesn't check for all existing plug-ins. Besides, the detection of even a few plug-ins other than via their external behaviour (e.g. not loading ads like ABP does) is bad enough.
There is a big difference between bits and pieces of information about you in many different databases, versus a collection of all those bits and pieces in a single database. That's part of the problem.
Also the mining of such data collections is getting easier with the day thanks to increasing computer power, and smarter data mining algorythms (which, in part, become possible thanks to the increasing computing power available).
At least the members of European parliament are directly elected.
Sure there are no metal parts in those, like attachment points?
Well most terrorists don't fly. Those that do, are pretty rare.
We had the 9/11 troupe (19 of them), 11 years ago, and since then we had the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. That's 21. I have probably missed a few, but this from the top of my head. Not exactly many.
Yearly airline passengers are about 2.5 bln, that'd be around 28 bln in the past 11 years, making well nearly one in a billion a terrorist. So that estimate from the TSA is quite correct indeed.
Yet if we were to look at the past 10 years - so after 9/11, then it'd be 2 terrorists on 25 bln people, or more like 1 in 10 billion. Order of magnitude difference.
Of course I'm not counting planned and foiled attacks, just the ones where the would-be terrorist actually arrived at the airport and got through.
By the way has anyone ever heard of a would-be terrorist being caught by airport security? I mean someone with say bombs in their pockets being flagged out by a body scanner?
Not many people have seen a terrorist and lived to tell the tale. Assuming it's a good terrorist, that is, and not a would-be sucker.
A great roundabout way to get that highly desired fingerprint database of every single American citizen done. Including full background checks, making it easier to find an individual later if needs be.