Student pilots do not solo after "only a few hours training". In many places there's no minimum number of hours of supervised flying experience, but that doesn't mean competency requirements do not exist as a prerequisite for soloing.
Because it would be both inefficient and privacy-invasive to send every URL that is loaded to a server to do this check, the SafeBrowsing protocol takes the approach of downloading this data to the client. Every few minutes, the client will perform an update request to get new blacklist data from the server. This process is described in more detail under Update Process.
Unbridled capitalism is not the only path that leads to progress for the human race.
Agreed. However, it's usually the most efficient path. There needs to be a clear reason that capitalism is the wrong choice for an industry before I'd accept that we need to socialize it.
I dislike the idea of patents on genes, but as a mechanism for allowing private companies to research and develop improvements in food, it seems reasonable. Monsanto's attitude and tactics, on the other hand, seem wrong. But there are ways of dealing with that that don't involve destroying the entire GMO industry.
in time GM will be the only choice and the companies will be able to dictate the price they choose rather than having fair competition and reasonably priced alternatives
There will always be competition from unencumbered "organic" foods. As GM foods become cheaper to produce, organic foods will be relatively more expensive. I imagine at some point, most people would begin to agree that organic foods are no longer "reasonably priced" when GM foods get sufficiently cheap. But why is this a bad thing?
It's not like Monsanto can push all of the organic farmers out of business, declare victory, and hike up prices. It's trivial for a farmer to switch back to non-GM seed, just as it's trivial for you to start planting your own food. You say things like "dictate the price" as though Monsanto can unilaterally cause prices to skyrocket, but the ceiling will always be the price of non-GM food, and that isn't going away. Farmers planting Monsanto seed can only produce better food, or cheaper food than they would with natural seed. Otherwise, what's the point? They'll just go out of business.
(Also, health care providers in the US don't really set prices; Medicare does. While I agree that there are some efficiency gains we're missing out on by having a less efficient market around emergency medical services, this really isn't the cause of all of health care's problems. Your suggestion that ERs make up prices on the spot suggests you've never been to the ER. They give you a nice itemized bill with standardized procedure codes documenting everything they did.)
I think both of you are ignoring the costs of farming. Yield is an important metric, but so is the number of workers needed to tend the crop. Non-organic (GM or otherwise) crops may or may not have better yields, but they are certainly cheaper to farm and transport. (If they weren't, why would a farmer NOT go organic?) People may starve to death not because there is a shortage, but because they can no longer afford the more expensive organic foods.
Are you pleased at the idea of Monsanto no longer producing GM crops, or at the idea of GM crops not being produced? If it's the former, fine. If it's the latter, why?
I think there are usually two classes of farmers here: (1) has his crops contaminated by GM crops, in which case he ought to destroy the contaminated plants and possibly go after the source of the contamination for compensation; and (2) has his crops contaminated by GM crops, and then chooses to profit from the modification (such as using RoundUp, which he knows his "special" crops are resistant to). Bonus points to (2) for actually segregating the seed, and planting tens, hundreds or thousands of acres with it instead of his usual seed.
It sounds like Brazil is doing this stupidly and not distinguishing between the two, but generally speaking I don't believe farmers falling into (1) have to pay Monsanto anything.
I agree. Most of the arguments against using 403 for this case could easily apply to using 403 in any case. 400-series errors don't mean it's the client's fault, just that the objection is with the client's request. The client requested a URL it is not authorized to see. If the authorizing entity is the origin server, 403 is correct by definition. If it's an intermediate HTTP proxy, 403 is still used and considered correct. But when you shift the authorizing entity to a third party, suddenly it's not?
410 implies the URL was removed by the content owner, and will never be restored. But censorship could be fleeting (the browser could be moved to a network unaffected by the censorship, the content owner could "fix" the content, or the censorship rules could change).
Based on this interpretation, when would a 403, 404 or a 410 response ever be a valid response? It's not the client's fault the URL doesn't exist, or that they no longer have permission to read the resource.
If the client requests something that the server decides it should not be allowed to receive, 403 is the proper response code. If you accept that this is valid, why is a 403 no longer valid just because the entity doing the authorization changes from the server to a third party censor?
What about intermediate proxies? If I'm not allowed to access a resource via a proxy, what result code should I get? I believe 403 is used here as well. It seems perfectly consistent in light of that to continue using it for state censorship.
In fact, the OP may not even be a single data point. For all we know, none of those posts are public, and so would be invisible to this study entirely. That's the big flaw here, IMO.
And since I'm too lazy to post things twice and visit two different sites for the same purpose, I stick to Facebook.
For me, it happened that everyone I was friends with on Facebook were my actual close friends and family members. Before Facebook added the 'subscribers' feature (post-G+), I wouldn't have added strangers as my "friends" on Facebook, and I get annoyed "like"ing brand pages and the like because I don't want to participate in advertising for the brand on my own feed. So it turned out that Facebook was, for me, just a place for friends and family to keep in touch.
With G+, I was far more indiscriminate with my choices of who to circle, so I ended up actually seeking out people that wrote interesting content. I still post on Facebook occasionally, but I post completely different things there than I do on G+, and I read completely different things there than on G+. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. Some of my family have signed up to G+, and I have them in circles, but few post there compared to Facebook, and I'm actually fine with that.
A success story for G+ doesn't have to involve the destruction of Facebook.
The PP asked for producers of G+ content that do not post on FB. This has nothing to do with the issue of visibility for the study. I imagine the study would have seen these people, but that fact is not really relevant to this thread. These individuals do not make up the majority of my G+ feed.
I chose not to name the individuals that do post privately to me, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
The statement you're responding to was meant as a rhetorical device, in response to the PP asking why one would join a social network to read non-personal content. I actually believe the opposite of what my question implies.
I rather suspect that any names I provide here will be met with, "those people aren't interesting to me, therefore your point is invalid."
But off the top of my head (and it's possible that some FB posts exist for these people, but I don't generally see much content from them): - David Hobby (Strobist) - Wil Wheaton - Ben Krasnow - Randall Munroe (xkcd, not active lately)
The thing for me is that G+ and FB are just different. Different types of people are attracted to G+ versus Facebook, and so different types of content appear on G+. G+ is used in different ways than FB. A metric like "public posts" is pretty worthless when you consider that one of the big draws for G+ was its ability to keep your posts private to specific circles. People that find that valuable would have tried G+ early, might still prefer posting there, and would be invisible to a study like this.
I guess a social network means different things to different people. Why would I join a social network when I can just send e-mails to my family and friends? You talk about consuming content from "random people", and suggest internet sites where you can find random posts. I'm talking about following specific people (from close friends to strangers) that I know produce interesting content. These aren't quite the same things.
Maybe you're following the wrong people? If your goal is just to read idle ramblings from your friends and family members, those people are probably unlikely to switch over to G+ or even cross-post. If your goal is to consume interesting content, you can't just add your family members to your circles and expect interesting content to start appearing. I see a lot of people (and organizations) producing interesting content, and while some cross-post between FB and G+, many have different content on each platform, or only post on G+.
The study says they could only look at public posts. I rarely post publicly and instead use circles to limit who can see what I post. While many of the people I follow on G+ are silent (or at least they don't publish to me), so are most of the people on Facebook. I follow a comparable number of people on G+ and Facebook and my G+ feed is just as busy. I don't see how a study like this can draw any meaningful conclusions from their methodology.
Can't you solve this by sending many photons over a given period of time, and have Victor make the same decision over many photons? If they'd normally match 50% of the time just by chance, but for some group of a million photons they match 67% of the time, isn't that a signal with which you can construct a bitstream?
Slashdot Mirror
Student pilots do not solo after "only a few hours training". In many places there's no minimum number of hours of supervised flying experience, but that doesn't mean competency requirements do not exist as a prerequisite for soloing.
Please read a little deeper:
https://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/SafeBrowsingDesign
Unbridled capitalism is not the only path that leads to progress for the human race.
Agreed. However, it's usually the most efficient path. There needs to be a clear reason that capitalism is the wrong choice for an industry before I'd accept that we need to socialize it.
I dislike the idea of patents on genes, but as a mechanism for allowing private companies to research and develop improvements in food, it seems reasonable. Monsanto's attitude and tactics, on the other hand, seem wrong. But there are ways of dealing with that that don't involve destroying the entire GMO industry.
in time GM will be the only choice and the companies will be able to dictate the price they choose rather than having fair competition and reasonably priced alternatives
There will always be competition from unencumbered "organic" foods. As GM foods become cheaper to produce, organic foods will be relatively more expensive. I imagine at some point, most people would begin to agree that organic foods are no longer "reasonably priced" when GM foods get sufficiently cheap. But why is this a bad thing?
It's not like Monsanto can push all of the organic farmers out of business, declare victory, and hike up prices. It's trivial for a farmer to switch back to non-GM seed, just as it's trivial for you to start planting your own food. You say things like "dictate the price" as though Monsanto can unilaterally cause prices to skyrocket, but the ceiling will always be the price of non-GM food, and that isn't going away. Farmers planting Monsanto seed can only produce better food, or cheaper food than they would with natural seed. Otherwise, what's the point? They'll just go out of business.
(Also, health care providers in the US don't really set prices; Medicare does. While I agree that there are some efficiency gains we're missing out on by having a less efficient market around emergency medical services, this really isn't the cause of all of health care's problems. Your suggestion that ERs make up prices on the spot suggests you've never been to the ER. They give you a nice itemized bill with standardized procedure codes documenting everything they did.)
I think both of you are ignoring the costs of farming. Yield is an important metric, but so is the number of workers needed to tend the crop. Non-organic (GM or otherwise) crops may or may not have better yields, but they are certainly cheaper to farm and transport. (If they weren't, why would a farmer NOT go organic?) People may starve to death not because there is a shortage, but because they can no longer afford the more expensive organic foods.
Great!
Are you pleased at the idea of Monsanto no longer producing GM crops, or at the idea of GM crops not being produced? If it's the former, fine. If it's the latter, why?
I think there are usually two classes of farmers here: (1) has his crops contaminated by GM crops, in which case he ought to destroy the contaminated plants and possibly go after the source of the contamination for compensation; and (2) has his crops contaminated by GM crops, and then chooses to profit from the modification (such as using RoundUp, which he knows his "special" crops are resistant to). Bonus points to (2) for actually segregating the seed, and planting tens, hundreds or thousands of acres with it instead of his usual seed.
It sounds like Brazil is doing this stupidly and not distinguishing between the two, but generally speaking I don't believe farmers falling into (1) have to pay Monsanto anything.
I agree. Most of the arguments against using 403 for this case could easily apply to using 403 in any case. 400-series errors don't mean it's the client's fault, just that the objection is with the client's request. The client requested a URL it is not authorized to see. If the authorizing entity is the origin server, 403 is correct by definition. If it's an intermediate HTTP proxy, 403 is still used and considered correct. But when you shift the authorizing entity to a third party, suddenly it's not?
410 implies the URL was removed by the content owner, and will never be restored. But censorship could be fleeting (the browser could be moved to a network unaffected by the censorship, the content owner could "fix" the content, or the censorship rules could change).
Based on this interpretation, when would a 403, 404 or a 410 response ever be a valid response? It's not the client's fault the URL doesn't exist, or that they no longer have permission to read the resource.
If the client requests something that the server decides it should not be allowed to receive, 403 is the proper response code. If you accept that this is valid, why is a 403 no longer valid just because the entity doing the authorization changes from the server to a third party censor?
What about intermediate proxies? If I'm not allowed to access a resource via a proxy, what result code should I get? I believe 403 is used here as well. It seems perfectly consistent in light of that to continue using it for state censorship.
Please RTFS.
Details? Have you tried http://www.google.com/mapmaker ?
What makes you think Google had anything whatsoever to do with this?
Please read my response to the other reply to my post. I'm sorry for being confusing.
Click on your profile picture at the top right.
Click Account.
Click Google+ on the left.
Scroll to the bottom of the page.
In fact, the OP may not even be a single data point. For all we know, none of those posts are public, and so would be invisible to this study entirely. That's the big flaw here, IMO.
And since I'm too lazy to post things twice and visit two different sites for the same purpose, I stick to Facebook.
For me, it happened that everyone I was friends with on Facebook were my actual close friends and family members. Before Facebook added the 'subscribers' feature (post-G+), I wouldn't have added strangers as my "friends" on Facebook, and I get annoyed "like"ing brand pages and the like because I don't want to participate in advertising for the brand on my own feed. So it turned out that Facebook was, for me, just a place for friends and family to keep in touch.
With G+, I was far more indiscriminate with my choices of who to circle, so I ended up actually seeking out people that wrote interesting content. I still post on Facebook occasionally, but I post completely different things there than I do on G+, and I read completely different things there than on G+. I personally don't see that as a bad thing. Some of my family have signed up to G+, and I have them in circles, but few post there compared to Facebook, and I'm actually fine with that.
A success story for G+ doesn't have to involve the destruction of Facebook.
The PP asked for producers of G+ content that do not post on FB. This has nothing to do with the issue of visibility for the study. I imagine the study would have seen these people, but that fact is not really relevant to this thread. These individuals do not make up the majority of my G+ feed.
I chose not to name the individuals that do post privately to me, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
Please read my response to the other reply to my post. I'm sorry for being confusing.
The statement you're responding to was meant as a rhetorical device, in response to the PP asking why one would join a social network to read non-personal content. I actually believe the opposite of what my question implies.
I rather suspect that any names I provide here will be met with, "those people aren't interesting to me, therefore your point is invalid."
But off the top of my head (and it's possible that some FB posts exist for these people, but I don't generally see much content from them):
- David Hobby (Strobist)
- Wil Wheaton
- Ben Krasnow
- Randall Munroe (xkcd, not active lately)
The thing for me is that G+ and FB are just different. Different types of people are attracted to G+ versus Facebook, and so different types of content appear on G+. G+ is used in different ways than FB. A metric like "public posts" is pretty worthless when you consider that one of the big draws for G+ was its ability to keep your posts private to specific circles. People that find that valuable would have tried G+ early, might still prefer posting there, and would be invisible to a study like this.
I guess a social network means different things to different people. Why would I join a social network when I can just send e-mails to my family and friends? You talk about consuming content from "random people", and suggest internet sites where you can find random posts. I'm talking about following specific people (from close friends to strangers) that I know produce interesting content. These aren't quite the same things.
Maybe you're following the wrong people? If your goal is just to read idle ramblings from your friends and family members, those people are probably unlikely to switch over to G+ or even cross-post. If your goal is to consume interesting content, you can't just add your family members to your circles and expect interesting content to start appearing. I see a lot of people (and organizations) producing interesting content, and while some cross-post between FB and G+, many have different content on each platform, or only post on G+.
The study says they could only look at public posts. I rarely post publicly and instead use circles to limit who can see what I post. While many of the people I follow on G+ are silent (or at least they don't publish to me), so are most of the people on Facebook. I follow a comparable number of people on G+ and Facebook and my G+ feed is just as busy. I don't see how a study like this can draw any meaningful conclusions from their methodology.
Can't you solve this by sending many photons over a given period of time, and have Victor make the same decision over many photons? If they'd normally match 50% of the time just by chance, but for some group of a million photons they match 67% of the time, isn't that a signal with which you can construct a bitstream?