That is the really stupid thing about the argument. Outlawing private ownership of pools would save more lives than outlawing guns. And pools have no positive attributes, they are a pure luxury item that kill many people each year. Guns on the other hand save people in many situations and are a tool that can be used for good at least sometimes.
Of course the emails should just use the username, but the username will be something like VoloKrynytskyy anyways, so that is not solving your problem with typing.
it is literally impossible to allow every name in existence to fit perfectly with any single convention. The best you can do is use whatever is the common solution for your area/country (in this case a first and last) and let anyone who does not fit in this mould make up whatever they want to use.
If you migrate to north america you simply have to come up with some first and last name combo, and it would probably be best if you used the same one every time. There is really not much we can do if you have no name or at least no written name, or if your name has characters that are not in Unicode.
"It also fits names that are outside the typical western naming convention." Actually, no there are a wide range naming conventions. I am sure some people do not have middle names, some do not have any order to their names, some have 50 names, others have 1. You have just come up with a naming convention that is no more universal than just first and last.
And even if we assume everyone is existence has three static names in a static order, some people will still have an identical email address. Maybe it will only be 1% of 1%, but you still have to come up with a universal solution to these outliers.
Well there is also no cap on character length for any given name. But if any name is infinite than no one could ever know it or use it, so obviously they would never input it into any type of text field.
It is impossible to input an infinite string given that eventually the universe will end, so there exists some certain defined amount of space that will fit any data someone would ever input into any field.
"People have exactly N names, for any value of N. People’s names fit within a certain defined amount of space."
So how many people have a uncertain number of names at any given time? Is your name involved in some quantum uncertainty fluctuation? And I do not believe that some people have infinite names. That is obviously untrue.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That is the point of a password, to have an unguessable field that assuming minimal security measures are kept is unbreakable.
If the username is not something like your name of a display name than you might as well not even have one. two passwords are no better than one good one.
I remember finding a similar security flaw is the printing system of Waterloo University that would kick the system into some administrator mode full of everyone's usernames and passwords.
Yes, but when it is unlabeled generic value meat they do not care about something they do not know.
And it is not like we turn them into glue anymore, and it cannot be economical to ship it to the UK. One way of another NA eats its old horses, it just has to be better hidden.
I would also agree mostly, but I would worry that some of them would of been given some medicine that was not meant to be given to any food animals. As long as that is taken care of, I would also prefer it over the alternatives found in generic value meat.
But I got to disagree on the names, most of the meat I eat had a name.
I do not see why the court would be against his self censorship. I can see jailing someone who was forcibly stopped from saying something that was illegal, there are tons of laws in the west where what someone thinks you would of done is applicable (even if you have not yet committed any crimes). But it sounds like Thailand wants its citizens to self censor, so why punish it?
The ability to resist a government could be considered a good guard against tyranny. But any sane man hopes they never have to and that they can continue to live in the comfort and security of a decent government under their laws.
You are implying that living peacefully in a free society is just as enjoyable as rebelling against a tyrannical government. AKA because someone is willing to defend their freedom no matter what, they do not care if they are forced to.
It would be like saying if someone is willing and able to resist any type of torture they wound not care if their were tortured or not.
It deeply disturbs me how freedom never enters into any of these arguments. For arguments sake, say I admit that allowing citizens to own guns will absolutely result in a significant rise if innocent deaths. As an aside: the same thing could be said of ownership of many other things.
Still why is freedom not even worth mentioning. Has it just become a buzzword, meaningless and not even understood? How did freedom ever become so meaningless and unwanted that it is not even included as a single point in arguments fundamentally about freedom?
"mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm"
So how long until everyone who wants to own a gun is considered likely to do harm? Note that lack of mental illness qualifier; Insane people are already not allowed guns, this allows some person to say you are mentally fine, but still cannot own a gun.
I do not understand how any of these reduced clip laws, or assault rifle bans, get passed when it is supposed to be legal to operate and join a militia and to have the ability to fight your own government if they turn tyrannical enough.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the really stupid thing about the argument. Outlawing private ownership of pools would save more lives than outlawing guns. And pools have no positive attributes, they are a pure luxury item that kill many people each year. Guns on the other hand save people in many situations and are a tool that can be used for good at least sometimes.
Personalty, I rely on high-powered "lasers" strapped to dangerous predators.
You must of missed all the news for the past month. "Guns" are the new "terrorism".
Of course the emails should just use the username, but the username will be something like VoloKrynytskyy anyways, so that is not solving your problem with typing.
So what convention do you suggest?
it is literally impossible to allow every name in existence to fit perfectly with any single convention.
The best you can do is use whatever is the common solution for your area/country (in this case a first and last) and let anyone who does not fit in this mould make up whatever they want to use.
If you migrate to north america you simply have to come up with some first and last name combo, and it would probably be best if you used the same one every time. There is really not much we can do if you have no name or at least no written name, or if your name has characters that are not in Unicode.
"It also fits names that are outside the typical western naming convention." Actually, no there are a wide range naming conventions. I am sure some people do not have middle names, some do not have any order to their names, some have 50 names, others have 1. You have just come up with a naming convention that is no more universal than just first and last.
And even if we assume everyone is existence has three static names in a static order, some people will still have an identical email address. Maybe it will only be 1% of 1%, but you still have to come up with a universal solution to these outliers.
Well there is also no cap on character length for any given name. But if any name is infinite than no one could ever know it or use it, so obviously they would never input it into any type of text field.
It is impossible to input an infinite string given that eventually the universe will end, so there exists some certain defined amount of space that will fit any data someone would ever input into any field.
OK, then I guess they can never use a computer.
Come up with an acceptable alternative name that at least is printable using unicode.
Some of those points are just stupid.
"People have exactly N names, for any value of N.
People’s names fit within a certain defined amount of space."
So how many people have a uncertain number of names at any given time? Is your name involved in some quantum uncertainty fluctuation?
And I do not believe that some people have infinite names. That is obviously untrue.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That is the point of a password, to have an unguessable field that assuming minimal security measures are kept is unbreakable.
If the username is not something like your name of a display name than you might as well not even have one. two passwords are no better than one good one.
It is a Western university.
First off, no one wants a 200 character email address and we are limited to Western characters.
Anyone going to a Western university has a Western style name to use in cases such as this.
And you have still not solved the problem. You still have some minority of users who have the exact same address.
So are the purchasers still pirates? Just guaranteed (hopefully) a high quality, virus free experience?
I assume the US would still treat any of its citizens who purchase these as pirates, but what about Canada or the UK?
Any real AI needs loads of experience, I am sure anyone interested enough to write a book about it knows this...
I doubt that he simply overlooked it.
I remember finding a similar security flaw is the printing system of Waterloo University that would kick the system into some administrator mode full of everyone's usernames and passwords.
Expensive pet food probably, the reduced regulations, etc. make cheaper alternatives possible the others.
Yes, but when it is unlabeled generic value meat they do not care about something they do not know.
And it is not like we turn them into glue anymore, and it cannot be economical to ship it to the UK. One way of another NA eats its old horses, it just has to be better hidden.
I would also agree mostly, but I would worry that some of them would of been given some medicine that was not meant to be given to any food animals. As long as that is taken care of, I would also prefer it over the alternatives found in generic value meat.
But I got to disagree on the names, most of the meat I eat had a name.
See this name, I assume this is a prank and not an actual name. http://cheezburger.com/6981818880
I do not see why the court would be against his self censorship.
I can see jailing someone who was forcibly stopped from saying something that was illegal, there are tons of laws in the west where what someone thinks you would of done is applicable (even if you have not yet committed any crimes).
But it sounds like Thailand wants its citizens to self censor, so why punish it?
How is this confusing?
The ability to resist a government could be considered a good guard against tyranny.
But any sane man hopes they never have to and that they can continue to live in the comfort and security of a decent government under their laws.
You are implying that living peacefully in a free society is just as enjoyable as rebelling against a tyrannical government.
AKA because someone is willing to defend their freedom no matter what, they do not care if they are forced to.
It would be like saying if someone is willing and able to resist any type of torture they wound not care if their were tortured or not.
It deeply disturbs me how freedom never enters into any of these arguments. For arguments sake, say I admit that allowing citizens to own guns will absolutely result in a significant rise if innocent deaths. As an aside: the same thing could be said of ownership of many other things.
Still why is freedom not even worth mentioning. Has it just become a buzzword, meaningless and not even understood? How did freedom ever become so meaningless and unwanted that it is not even included as a single point in arguments fundamentally about freedom?
"mental health professional determines a gun owner is likely to do harm"
So how long until everyone who wants to own a gun is considered likely to do harm? Note that lack of mental illness qualifier; Insane people are already not allowed guns, this allows some person to say you are mentally fine, but still cannot own a gun.
The way I understood it, often you can put a little clip thing inside a normal magazine to not allow more than a certain number of bullets
I do not understand how any of these reduced clip laws, or assault rifle bans, get passed when it is supposed to be legal to operate and join a militia and to have the ability to fight your own government if they turn tyrannical enough.