Not just GoDaddy, it seems to be common practice with all registrars now. Domain expires, gets transferred to a subsidary which squats on the domain 'til it gets bought out.
Correct. The exchanges are legally required to provide collocation services to other providers (I can't remember if "fair" fees are also regulated - I wouldn't be surprised), those companies then resell exchange access to third party ISPs (basically any ISP outside the "Big 6"). In all, it basically goes: BT manages the copper -> B2B ISP manages the PoP at the exchange -> Consumer ISP terminates the connection.
Anthropomorphic Global Warming suggests *we* are a major cause of rapid global warming. With enough data, that can be disproved - you can compare current records with past & future records to see if man made CO2 (& other gases) has made any difference to global trends.
I personally prefer the term "Climate Change", as "Global Warming" only describes one part of the trend. That the global climate goes through cycles & changes is not under debate in the scientific community, we have overwhelming evidence that the world goes through glacial & interglacial periods. What's under debate is whether human activity is the cause behind the most recent changes. For what it's worth, current models do predict brief periods of cooling between increasing warmer periods.
Regardless, anyone who claims to "know" the exact whats & whys of our climate is a numpty & clearly taking liberties.
What tripe. "We don't know" is what drives science. You're spouting the same shit over semantics that creationists do over the "theory" of evolution. The only things we can know for certain are mathematical proofs. Outside pure mathematics, all we can do is form models that make predictions which most accurately match our observations. There are holes in most of our scientifically accepted theories. That doesn't mean you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just that modifications need to be made to the models (exactly as was done with Einstein's Relativity).
We don't "know" with a 100% certainty that gravity exists, but our models match our observations well enough that we can say it's "pretty fucking likely".
AGW most definitely is falsifiable, however neither camp currently has enough data to prove either way.
I suspect this is more in reference to mosquitoes. It's only the females that drink blood & transfer diseases. Still, my first thought was...why bother? Just kill 'em all.
Refer to the post I was replying to. He's not questioning what it's for, but why it's being done in this manner. In the case of leaving enough to pay off the taxes, an insurance policy guarantees a bigger share of the money to the heirs than if it were left in a savings fund.
Because the insurance payout won't be taxed & the overhead costs of the insurance policy are still likely to be less than the 45% inheritance tax that would otherwise be charged. It's a loophole to make sure a bigger share of your estate lands in the hands of your heirs, rather than in federal pockets.
Logistically, the "who" could give could give a big clue as to the "where". Once you can narrow down the geographical area, you can better focus deduction as to where a 777 could possibly land. It's a big piece of kit & concealing a runway large enough to land it may be an even tougher feat than hijacking it in the first place.
Oh, no doubt the casualties would be catastrophic, but don't underestimate the power of sheer numbers. The Arab uprisings are a good example of its efficacy.
NK wants the nukes to fend off the US, not South Korea.
Their only influence on the US is through their threat to the South, as they lack any long range capability. The best they've managed to do was fire a chunk of metal into the lower atmosphere - that's a long way from an ICBM.
Whilst horribly under-equipped & outdated, North Korea has the largest army of foot-soldiers/infantry in the world. Adding that Seoul is also only 35km from the NK border, I wouldn't want to place any bets. If the North goes down, it'll take the South with it & flood China's already delicate border regions with a huge number of refugees.
Unless it gets taken down from the inside, I don't expect to see any changes in NK during my lifetime.
How is this modded 4+ Insightful?! It's ignorant, hypocritical bollocks!
"Women, gays, Muslims & atheists" are no more special interest groups than bible-bashing white males. And how the fuck do you make "accommodations" for atheists? Not force them to sing words of praise to your special interest deity? On an organisational level, religion should have no place in military procedures. If you're having to make "accommodations" for people absent of any religion, then there's something horribly wrong with the procedures of your military. And how the hell can you complain that atheists DON'T have to follow your religious doctrine, AND at the same time complain that other religious groups get to follow theirs?
A recent article shows that the Pentagon is reconsidering uniform requirements to permit beards and turbans for Muslims.
A number of highly decorated professionals have been drummed out of service for the crime of failing to wholeheartedly support the gay agenda.
So it's OK for people to break with agreed military procedures & speak out against a minority, but it's not for a minority to request to do the same? Go fuck yourself.
...often enough, accusations of sexual harassment and/or assault are political tools used against good soldiers. It is impossible to even guess at the numbers of such instances, but I know for a fact that it happens. Other times, a female soldier who is busted for drugs or other infractions tries to turn the tables by accusing supervisors and investigators of sexual harassment. Again - it's impossible to even guess at the numbers, but it happens.
Given the accuracy of your comments so far, I'll choose to take these self-professed baseless assumptions with a pinch of salt. You don't have enough information to even make a guess, but you "know" it happens? Do you have *anything* to back this up?
...the fact is, our military is being improperly used to advance a number of political agendas.
Something the whole world would probably agree with you on.
Whilst I understand the dilemma, this is a defeatist attitude & not in the heart of democracy.
We had a similar problem in the UK with Labour & the Conservatives. The Conservatives lost many voters due to the huge controversies created during their reign in the 80's & 90's (symbolised by Thatcher), and the following Labour government took us into an illegal war & steered us into the financial crisis (it was the collapse of Lehman's in London that sent the dominoes falling). The disillusion gave way to the Liberal Democrats getting their highest share of the vote in a *century*, forcing a coalition government. They didn't get a majority, however it gave the two leading parties a massive reality check & kick in the backside.
Prior to the election, we were all warned to vote tactically & that a vote for one of the minor parties would be a vote wasted.
What complete bollocks. The usage of an armed response is so infrequent here that every event is heavily scrutinised. The media circus surrounding the 2011 Mark Duggan case as a good example.
An atheist with a chip on their shoulder and lots of insults. How unusual. I suspect that you have a rant queued up on how religious people are judgemental too;-)
Whilst I would expect someone involved enough to start hacking their servers would be better informed, the general population are *very* uninformed about foreign politics. Forgiveable given the local politics mirrors a soap opera.
I made reference to the NSA & recent events during a meeting at a state department here & only one person in the room had any clue what I was talking about.
Unless they've changed in the last 10 years, they *are* taught & examined as different subjects. The difference is that unless you specifically take science as a subject, study of the 3 sciences rotates in 2 slots & the final qualification is only worth 2 GCSEs instead of 3.
This promise means one of either 3 things: a) A subject will be dropped from the curriculum to make way for the extra science classes; b) More will be put on the already overloaded curriculum (especially an issue when all finals are sat over the same period, with no gaps); c) Empty words, Bollocks & Bullshit.
Trying to cover operating costs whilst providing users a free service != hate. If you don't want to pay for the content you consume, to complain when they try to make up costs some other way.
Bar pop-ups & intrusive flash ads, I see ad-blocking as unethical. Don't like the ads? Don't consume their content.
Wow, props for the well addressed, calm response. It deserves a reply. There were a number of areas I didn't make reference to purely for the sake of being brief, but I'll raise them now.
I did consider the issue of sports, however that can easily be tidied up with tighter restrictions on equipment. As is the case in many (most?) other countries, the equipment isn't owned by individuals, but "leased" from the ranges. Ammo is counted in & out, so it can't go "missing". As for your burglary comment, I again point out that in an unarmed state it's highly unlikely that the intruder would have a gun themselves. This would be due to a) lack of availability & b) being caught in possession of a firearm can turn a 6 month sentence into a 40 year sentence.
I can possibly empathise with people not wanting to give up their arms once they've already got them. a) for sentimentality, b) because the non law abiding citizens who have now got hold of guns, won't mind breaking the law to keep them. This leaves the law abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage. This isn't an argument *not* to disarm the populace, just that it would need to be done carefully. You can probably draw a very similar analogy with nuclear proliferation & MAD - no one wants to make themselves vulnerable by backing down first, but everyone agrees it's a counter-productive situation that needs to be resolved. In fact it's almost exactly like MAD, except with nations instead of individuals.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a fully fledged, card holding civil libertarian & I'm not averse to arguing controversially strong views in support of our civil rights. However, I don't think every man, woman & child should have the natural right to possess equipment whose sole design & purpose is to kill other people. I the same light, I also don't have problems with the government restricting the public's access to lethal chemicals & radioactive compounds (which have legitimate scientific use).
Proceeding onto the research & article...
Bad data. They are only accounting for people *IN* Philadelphia, PA. They aren't comparing gender, age, upbringing, income, ethnicity, or other factors *from other areas of the country/state/world*.
Unless the PA is a total anomaly which bears no similarities to other states, I think it's fair to draw inferences - and 667 cases isn't a bad sample size. At no point did the study overstate the certainty of its conclusions. As for the other factors you mention, are they relevant? The aim of the study was simple: Will being armed make you safer?
Yes, there are still gun related crimes in the UK, that's unavoidable. However, incidents tend to be limited to the rare gang shootings on a couple of infamous council estates. Armed crimes (lethal or not) outside of this tiny subset are infrequent enough that it'll be covered in the national news for days. The Duggan case you refer to was a good example of this. The alleged gang member was in mere possession of a gun, having only just received it & the police were all over him. Our homicide by firearm rate is 0.1/100,000 (40/yr). Taking into account that most incidents are within the small communities mentioned above, I think that shines quite well on us as a whole.
As to your last point - the fact people have died in gun fights isn't an argument for more guns.
That doesn't address my comment on the nature of the "demand".
There's a demand for substances, because people like to get "high"; There's a demand for guns, because people are afraid of other people with guns.
Disarm everyone, and you stem the demand. The problem is when each side tries to out-arm the other, and you just end up with a big lethal mess with everyone's finger on the trigger (literally).
The belief that possessing a firearm makes you safer is a fallacy.
For comparison, the homicide rate per capita is 5x higher in the US than in the UK. (source, UN)
If I were to have a confrontation with somebody, my chances would be far better than if we were faced with an "I'll shoot you before you shoot me" situation. American Journal of Public Health:
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
And it's not even a case of law abiding UK citizens being defenceless. Because of the tight restrictions, there are less guns in circulation, and because less people are armed, crimes are far less lethal. If a shop keeper were to be targeted here, no one would get shot, the perp'd just get hit upside the head with a chair & chased down the street.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just GoDaddy, it seems to be common practice with all registrars now. Domain expires, gets transferred to a subsidary which squats on the domain 'til it gets bought out.
Correct. The exchanges are legally required to provide collocation services to other providers (I can't remember if "fair" fees are also regulated - I wouldn't be surprised), those companies then resell exchange access to third party ISPs (basically any ISP outside the "Big 6").
In all, it basically goes: BT manages the copper -> B2B ISP manages the PoP at the exchange -> Consumer ISP terminates the connection.
That's not AGW, that's just "GW".
Anthropomorphic Global Warming suggests *we* are a major cause of rapid global warming. With enough data, that can be disproved - you can compare current records with past & future records to see if man made CO2 (& other gases) has made any difference to global trends.
I personally prefer the term "Climate Change", as "Global Warming" only describes one part of the trend. That the global climate goes through cycles & changes is not under debate in the scientific community, we have overwhelming evidence that the world goes through glacial & interglacial periods. What's under debate is whether human activity is the cause behind the most recent changes.
For what it's worth, current models do predict brief periods of cooling between increasing warmer periods.
Regardless, anyone who claims to "know" the exact whats & whys of our climate is a numpty & clearly taking liberties.
What tripe. "We don't know" is what drives science.
You're spouting the same shit over semantics that creationists do over the "theory" of evolution. The only things we can know for certain are mathematical proofs.
Outside pure mathematics, all we can do is form models that make predictions which most accurately match our observations.
There are holes in most of our scientifically accepted theories. That doesn't mean you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just that modifications need to be made to the models (exactly as was done with Einstein's Relativity).
We don't "know" with a 100% certainty that gravity exists, but our models match our observations well enough that we can say it's "pretty fucking likely".
AGW most definitely is falsifiable, however neither camp currently has enough data to prove either way.
I suspect this is more in reference to mosquitoes. It's only the females that drink blood & transfer diseases.
Still, my first thought was...why bother? Just kill 'em all.
Refer to the post I was replying to. He's not questioning what it's for, but why it's being done in this manner.
In the case of leaving enough to pay off the taxes, an insurance policy guarantees a bigger share of the money to the heirs than if it were left in a savings fund.
Because the insurance payout won't be taxed & the overhead costs of the insurance policy are still likely to be less than the 45% inheritance tax that would otherwise be charged.
It's a loophole to make sure a bigger share of your estate lands in the hands of your heirs, rather than in federal pockets.
Logistically, the "who" could give could give a big clue as to the "where". Once you can narrow down the geographical area, you can better focus deduction as to where a 777 could possibly land. It's a big piece of kit & concealing a runway large enough to land it may be an even tougher feat than hijacking it in the first place.
Oh, no doubt the casualties would be catastrophic, but don't underestimate the power of sheer numbers. The Arab uprisings are a good example of its efficacy.
NK wants the nukes to fend off the US, not South Korea.
Their only influence on the US is through their threat to the South, as they lack any long range capability. The best they've managed to do was fire a chunk of metal into the lower atmosphere - that's a long way from an ICBM.
Whilst horribly under-equipped & outdated, North Korea has the largest army of foot-soldiers/infantry in the world. Adding that Seoul is also only 35km from the NK border, I wouldn't want to place any bets. If the North goes down, it'll take the South with it & flood China's already delicate border regions with a huge number of refugees.
Unless it gets taken down from the inside, I don't expect to see any changes in NK during my lifetime.
As someone who has lived & travelled across much of the world, the UK's public transport infrastructure, especially within cities, ranks very highly.
How is this modded 4+ Insightful?! It's ignorant, hypocritical bollocks!
"Women, gays, Muslims & atheists" are no more special interest groups than bible-bashing white males. And how the fuck do you make "accommodations" for atheists? Not force them to sing words of praise to your special interest deity?
On an organisational level, religion should have no place in military procedures. If you're having to make "accommodations" for people absent of any religion, then there's something horribly wrong with the procedures of your military.
And how the hell can you complain that atheists DON'T have to follow your religious doctrine, AND at the same time complain that other religious groups get to follow theirs?
A recent article shows that the Pentagon is reconsidering uniform requirements to permit beards and turbans for Muslims.
Suddenly - we are courting Muslims...
Under pressure from Sikhs, the Pentagon has publicly clarified its existing procedures to permit certain practices "as long as the practices do not interfere with military discipline, order or readiness."
And not just that, they have to go the through the procedures to request permission for every individual deployment.
A number of highly decorated professionals have been drummed out of service for the crime of failing to wholeheartedly support the gay agenda.
So it's OK for people to break with agreed military procedures & speak out against a minority, but it's not for a minority to request to do the same? Go fuck yourself.
...often enough, accusations of sexual harassment and/or assault are political tools used against good soldiers. It is impossible to even guess at the numbers of such instances, but I know for a fact that it happens. Other times, a female soldier who is busted for drugs or other infractions tries to turn the tables by accusing supervisors and investigators of sexual harassment. Again - it's impossible to even guess at the numbers, but it happens.
Given the accuracy of your comments so far, I'll choose to take these self-professed baseless assumptions with a pinch of salt. You don't have enough information to even make a guess, but you "know" it happens? Do you have *anything* to back this up?
...the fact is, our military is being improperly used to advance a number of political agendas.
Something the whole world would probably agree with you on.
[/RANT]
Doubtful, but no worries, Flash will save the day!
Whilst I understand the dilemma, this is a defeatist attitude & not in the heart of democracy.
We had a similar problem in the UK with Labour & the Conservatives. The Conservatives lost many voters due to the huge controversies created during their reign in the 80's & 90's (symbolised by Thatcher), and the following Labour government took us into an illegal war & steered us into the financial crisis (it was the collapse of Lehman's in London that sent the dominoes falling).
The disillusion gave way to the Liberal Democrats getting their highest share of the vote in a *century*, forcing a coalition government. They didn't get a majority, however it gave the two leading parties a massive reality check & kick in the backside.
Prior to the election, we were all warned to vote tactically & that a vote for one of the minor parties would be a vote wasted.
If enough people act, change CAN happen.
Your comparison's a bit moot given you're comparing it to the wrong sport. "Rugby", y'know, from the bit you quoted from.
What complete bollocks. The usage of an armed response is so infrequent here that every event is heavily scrutinised. The media circus surrounding the 2011 Mark Duggan case as a good example.
An atheist with a chip on their shoulder and lots of insults. How unusual. I suspect that you have a rant queued up on how religious people are judgemental too ;-)
I think you just made your own post redundant...
Countless physical artefacts, several of the world's dominant languages & entire fucking cities. A touch more solid than 2000 year old fairy tales.
Whilst I would expect someone involved enough to start hacking their servers would be better informed, the general population are *very* uninformed about foreign politics. Forgiveable given the local politics mirrors a soap opera.
I made reference to the NSA & recent events during a meeting at a state department here & only one person in the room had any clue what I was talking about.
Unless they've changed in the last 10 years, they *are* taught & examined as different subjects. The difference is that unless you specifically take science as a subject, study of the 3 sciences rotates in 2 slots & the final qualification is only worth 2 GCSEs instead of 3.
This promise means one of either 3 things:
a) A subject will be dropped from the curriculum to make way for the extra science classes;
b) More will be put on the already overloaded curriculum (especially an issue when all finals are sat over the same period, with no gaps);
c) Empty words, Bollocks & Bullshit.
Trying to cover operating costs whilst providing users a free service != hate.
If you don't want to pay for the content you consume, to complain when they try to make up costs some other way.
Bar pop-ups & intrusive flash ads, I see ad-blocking as unethical. Don't like the ads? Don't consume their content.
Dear Mr Pot, ...
The Lib Dems are strongly pro EU...
Wow, props for the well addressed, calm response. It deserves a reply.
There were a number of areas I didn't make reference to purely for the sake of being brief, but I'll raise them now.
I did consider the issue of sports, however that can easily be tidied up with tighter restrictions on equipment. As is the case in many (most?) other countries, the equipment isn't owned by individuals, but "leased" from the ranges. Ammo is counted in & out, so it can't go "missing".
As for your burglary comment, I again point out that in an unarmed state it's highly unlikely that the intruder would have a gun themselves. This would be due to a) lack of availability & b) being caught in possession of a firearm can turn a 6 month sentence into a 40 year sentence.
I can possibly empathise with people not wanting to give up their arms once they've already got them. a) for sentimentality, b) because the non law abiding citizens who have now got hold of guns, won't mind breaking the law to keep them. This leaves the law abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage.
This isn't an argument *not* to disarm the populace, just that it would need to be done carefully.
You can probably draw a very similar analogy with nuclear proliferation & MAD - no one wants to make themselves vulnerable by backing down first, but everyone agrees it's a counter-productive situation that needs to be resolved. In fact it's almost exactly like MAD, except with nations instead of individuals.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a fully fledged, card holding civil libertarian & I'm not averse to arguing controversially strong views in support of our civil rights. However, I don't think every man, woman & child should have the natural right to possess equipment whose sole design & purpose is to kill other people.
I the same light, I also don't have problems with the government restricting the public's access to lethal chemicals & radioactive compounds (which have legitimate scientific use).
Proceeding onto the research & article...
Bad data. They are only accounting for people *IN* Philadelphia, PA. They aren't comparing gender, age, upbringing, income, ethnicity, or other factors *from other areas of the country/state/world*.
Unless the PA is a total anomaly which bears no similarities to other states, I think it's fair to draw inferences - and 667 cases isn't a bad sample size. At no point did the study overstate the certainty of its conclusions.
As for the other factors you mention, are they relevant? The aim of the study was simple: Will being armed make you safer?
Yes, there are still gun related crimes in the UK, that's unavoidable. However, incidents tend to be limited to the rare gang shootings on a couple of infamous council estates. Armed crimes (lethal or not) outside of this tiny subset are infrequent enough that it'll be covered in the national news for days.
The Duggan case you refer to was a good example of this. The alleged gang member was in mere possession of a gun, having only just received it & the police were all over him.
Our homicide by firearm rate is 0.1/100,000 (40/yr). Taking into account that most incidents are within the small communities mentioned above, I think that shines quite well on us as a whole.
As to your last point - the fact people have died in gun fights isn't an argument for more guns.
That doesn't address my comment on the nature of the "demand".
There's a demand for substances, because people like to get "high";
There's a demand for guns, because people are afraid of other people with guns.
Disarm everyone, and you stem the demand. The problem is when each side tries to out-arm the other, and you just end up with a big lethal mess with everyone's finger on the trigger (literally).
The belief that possessing a firearm makes you safer is a fallacy.
For comparison, the homicide rate per capita is 5x higher in the US than in the UK. (source, UN)
If I were to have a confrontation with somebody, my chances would be far better than if we were faced with an "I'll shoot you before you shoot me" situation.
American Journal of Public Health:
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
(source)
And it's not even a case of law abiding UK citizens being defenceless. Because of the tight restrictions, there are less guns in circulation, and because less people are armed, crimes are far less lethal.
If a shop keeper were to be targeted here, no one would get shot, the perp'd just get hit upside the head with a chair & chased down the street.