I don't believe I suggested that, no. You have little fear of the mugger killing you if they become frightened, there is a big difference.
An unarmed mugger will pick a target he can easily overpower. Give the target a gun and the mugger feels he has to carry a gun also. Give the mugger a gun and put any fear into the mugger and you're at risk of a shooting.
The other issue is that most muggings don't involve obvious approach at distance, this is the only situation under which you're likely to be able to draw a gun to defend yourself, so what good does it do?
With US laws, I would certainly want to own a gun, it doesn't pose any particular moral problems for me to do so. However, I prefer the situation here were gun ownership is low enough that I don't feel that need, and don't feel that carrying one would make me any safer
Nonsense, the point is not that major criminals have guns, of course hardened criminals will always have guns whatever the laws are, but that general low levels criminals will. In the US your everyday mugger will likely have a gun... if he gets scared, bam. In the UK he will not, it will not be worth the risk owning one, and certainly not carrying one around, too much evidence if he is suspected of anything. That means there's less chance of a criminal using a gun because they suddenly get frightened. Those who had always intended to use their guns will anyway, but do you really think that owning a ranged weapon like a gun is really a defence against someone who is practiced with one?
I always felt that the only person who couldn't complain was he who voted for the party in power, ie those who are at fault! (though I admit they could complain that they were lied to, I suppose)
That or it's malware and, not counting any of those unintentional visits, depending on how it reports that the page is blocked people who do WANT to visit the sites are likely to keep retrying. If it just reports "Page not found" on a site you wanted to visit, would you not try every so often to see if it's been fixed?
I didn't notice they were only 404ing. If that's all they do then the statistics are going to be heavily skewed in favour of continually retrying from the same few people anyway. "Oh, this site worked yesterday damnit! I'll try again... oh... well I'll have another go tomorrow, see if anything's changed"
*nod* it's a similar argument to that those of us who are pro gun-control use to argue that weak gun control reduces freedom. Or heavy taxation for that matter. In other words both sides of an argument like that can consider themselves more free than the other side, just looking at different parts of the analysis.
Hmm, you're right about default tab support, it is fairly poor. Still better than IE's basic support being there at all, but not good. Not being able to drag tabs out of the window and create a new browser window with the tab is annoting, and not being able to drag another window in and have it become a tab. Also not being able to reorder tabs is annoying.
Then again, having all these features as defaults might be considered too much in a stripped down browser, so maybe an extension is the best place for it.
You have a point there. Although that doesn't really affect the display, only what you display on it, if you see what I mean. MPEG video is 4:2:0 chroma subsampled, so digitised video on a computer suffers similarly from that. So the difference there isn't in the screen, but in the signal fed to it.
Hmm, but the relative blur is what makes it work for TV, makes movement seem that much smoother. The crispness of a computer monitor, particularly LCDs really doesn't help that.
Not VGA, but later, certainly, it depends on how you define quality of course. 525 line signals (NTSC - though strictly that's just for colour) (59.94Hz interlaced) are 644x483 visible, 625 line signals (PAL - although ditto) are 768x576 at 50Hz (interlaced).
Oh I have no idea, though I have heard the argument, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. I was disagreeing your statement, not that it was a world war.
I'm not a parent, but I certainly don't believe in censorship personally, and like to believe that I would not make undue efforts to shield my own children from certain content. I can certainly see that other people do want to though, and by legislating certain content restrictions you are giving them parameters they can work within, assuming they want to block certain channels it gives them support on what they should be blocking.
Block the channel? Surely the point is that there ARE porn channels out there, and those can be blocked, but the censorship being discussed is on the channels that one would not want to block. If there is none on any channel, how is one to know what to block?
*shrug* I didn't find American Pie the slightest bit funny and had people laughing all around me on the flight I watched it on, just differences in senses of humour.
A common rationalization not borne out by statistics or experience. As between the freeloader who wants to take software for free, and the software vendor who wants to sell software, I leave it to the latter to decide what is the best, most likely way for them to optimize the relationship.
I would agree on low to medium cost software. High end software, on the other hand, is very different. A student will NEVER buy lighwave 3d, say, no chance, while he's still a student. I would actually argue that the authors would want that kind of person to pirate it because it means more people get into doing the 3d artwork in the first place, and some of those decide they want to do it "for real", and actually buy a copy. Had they not pirated it, they wouldn't have bought it, would never have experienced the artform, and wouldn't get into it professionally. Is it really worth a company's while suing schoolkids for thousands of pounds worth of software that they'd never have bought anyway?
This is in fact exactly the reason Microsoft has had the sense to give Visual Studio away free to students, they know they couldn't afford to buy it, but they get them hooked. It's taken them a while to realise that, but now they are doing it. Software vendors often don't see past their primary market, the people they know are willing and able to buy their software, MS is now (worryingly, in a way) working that out for themselves.
Though, on one point I'm not totally clear, I've spoken to people in some companies that provide this sort of software, and I know they don't care about piracy of this sort and actually like it. They would never admit that as an official line though, which is understandable as it seems like they are supporting piracy, but they also don't release "free for non-commercial use" versions or the like, which wouldn't seem like supporting piracy... not quite clear on why they don't do that, didn't get any good answers.
Unfortunately quite true. I'm still trying to persuade my father to change his online banking password (which is something stupid anyway as I recall, typical of the kind of person), after finding viruses and spyware all over his machine I suggested it as a precaution.
Now effectively banned him from using IE... something he hasn't complained about once since (and he is aware of it)... but we'll see how things improve.
In my experience neither has happened, the computer just won't power on. That is I mean the power light refuses to come on at all, doesn't even attempt it. Fix the cabling and all is happy for years to come.
We have no windows only machines in the labs, they either dual boot, are linux only, or are G5s. So it does seem to depend on where you attend. Our network is managed by the department, and largely by student, however, people are fighting to keep it this way, if college IT gets hold of it, I dread to think what might happen.
In the current situation everyone at his ADSL provider AND the rest of the world can send mail from his domain. His ADSL provider can at least rate limit to stop individual compromised machines sending too much spam, and can do something about customers that are sending spam generally, as at least the mail is now going out through their servers, and being a (hopefully) respectable company you have someone to talk to, and if necessary to mount a legal challenge against. If the spam is coming from half-way round the world, it's much harder to do something about it.
I'm not sure how good a thing SPF is at all, but I'm certainly not sure that your argument against it is reasonable. You're moaning about people being asked to change things... what else do we do?
Take the "or" appoach of adding an SPF record containing your ISP's domain. SPF has an "include" record, so in your DNS you can say "Any server allowed to send mail from myisp.com is also allowed to send e-mail for mydomain.com". So your ADSL provider's servers can send mail for you. So if someone gets an e-mail you sent through your ADSL provider, they look up the domain, see that your ISP's domain list is important too, look that up, find the smtp server is listed there, and allow the mail through.
Number of calls per cell is variable, it's apparently 992 calls for the entire GSM frequency range (which isn't implemented at a single cell). A better comparison might be number of channels/cell/MHz. Which for GSM seems to be around 6.5, and for 2G CDMA, around 12. So in reality you're looking at about half the number for GSM, though interference between GSM cells tends to be smaller, so it does depend very much on cell density and geography (and cost too, of course), probably then an average of about 30 calls/cell for GSM, with many factors affecting that though (62 is a strange number anyway, for CDMA it's variable number of calls per channel but less than 56, maybe the average is much much lower, and you expect a fair number of channels per cell...).
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but the implication seems to be that the sizes should have been explained better. I have to question whether an original post by an American there would be any clearer, random US vehicle names and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe I suggested that, no. You have little fear of the mugger killing you if they become frightened, there is a big difference.
An unarmed mugger will pick a target he can easily overpower. Give the target a gun and the mugger feels he has to carry a gun also. Give the mugger a gun and put any fear into the mugger and you're at risk of a shooting.
The other issue is that most muggings don't involve obvious approach at distance, this is the only situation under which you're likely to be able to draw a gun to defend yourself, so what good does it do?
With US laws, I would certainly want to own a gun, it doesn't pose any particular moral problems for me to do so. However, I prefer the situation here were gun ownership is low enough that I don't feel that need, and don't feel that carrying one would make me any safer
Nonsense, the point is not that major criminals have guns, of course hardened criminals will always have guns whatever the laws are, but that general low levels criminals will. In the US your everyday mugger will likely have a gun... if he gets scared, bam. In the UK he will not, it will not be worth the risk owning one, and certainly not carrying one around, too much evidence if he is suspected of anything. That means there's less chance of a criminal using a gun because they suddenly get frightened. Those who had always intended to use their guns will anyway, but do you really think that owning a ranged weapon like a gun is really a defence against someone who is practiced with one?
Finally someone who agrees with me!
I always felt that the only person who couldn't complain was he who voted for the party in power, ie those who are at fault! (though I admit they could complain that they were lied to, I suppose)
That or it's malware and, not counting any of those unintentional visits, depending on how it reports that the page is blocked people who do WANT to visit the sites are likely to keep retrying. If it just reports "Page not found" on a site you wanted to visit, would you not try every so often to see if it's been fixed?
I didn't notice they were only 404ing. If that's all they do then the statistics are going to be heavily skewed in favour of continually retrying from the same few people anyway. "Oh, this site worked yesterday damnit! I'll try again... oh... well I'll have another go tomorrow, see if anything's changed"
*nod* it's a similar argument to that those of us who are pro gun-control use to argue that weak gun control reduces freedom. Or heavy taxation for that matter. In other words both sides of an argument like that can consider themselves more free than the other side, just looking at different parts of the analysis.
Hmm, you're right about default tab support, it is fairly poor. Still better than IE's basic support being there at all, but not good. Not being able to drag tabs out of the window and create a new browser window with the tab is annoting, and not being able to drag another window in and have it become a tab. Also not being able to reorder tabs is annoying.
Then again, having all these features as defaults might be considered too much in a stripped down browser, so maybe an extension is the best place for it.
You have a point there. Although that doesn't really affect the display, only what you display on it, if you see what I mean. MPEG video is 4:2:0 chroma subsampled, so digitised video on a computer suffers similarly from that. So the difference there isn't in the screen, but in the signal fed to it.
Hmm, but the relative blur is what makes it work for TV, makes movement seem that much smoother. The crispness of a computer monitor, particularly LCDs really doesn't help that.
Not VGA, but later, certainly, it depends on how you define quality of course. 525 line signals (NTSC - though strictly that's just for colour) (59.94Hz interlaced) are 644x483 visible, 625 line signals (PAL - although ditto) are 768x576 at 50Hz (interlaced).
at least on the East Coast
Based on that, is your comment really necessary?
Oh I have no idea, though I have heard the argument, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. I was disagreeing your statement, not that it was a world war.
I'm not a parent, but I certainly don't believe in censorship personally, and like to believe that I would not make undue efforts to shield my own children from certain content. I can certainly see that other people do want to though, and by legislating certain content restrictions you are giving them parameters they can work within, assuming they want to block certain channels it gives them support on what they should be blocking.
I'm saying that if there aren't good reasons for why the channels that do constantly stick within those parameters, then it's hard to trust them.
You're probably right to imply that some channels would continue to keep family oriented though... so it might work.
Block the channel? Surely the point is that there ARE porn channels out there, and those can be blocked, but the censorship being discussed is on the channels that one would not want to block. If there is none on any channel, how is one to know what to block?
I would have to argue that as the point was "some people consider it...", calling bullshit on it is laughable.
I could say "some people consider the world to be flat", would you be right in calling bs on that too?
*shrug* I didn't find American Pie the slightest bit funny and had people laughing all around me on the flight I watched it on, just differences in senses of humour.
A common rationalization not borne out by statistics or experience. As between the freeloader who wants to take software for free, and the software vendor who wants to sell software, I leave it to the latter to decide what is the best, most likely way for them to optimize the relationship.
I would agree on low to medium cost software. High end software, on the other hand, is very different. A student will NEVER buy lighwave 3d, say, no chance, while he's still a student. I would actually argue that the authors would want that kind of person to pirate it because it means more people get into doing the 3d artwork in the first place, and some of those decide they want to do it "for real", and actually buy a copy. Had they not pirated it, they wouldn't have bought it, would never have experienced the artform, and wouldn't get into it professionally. Is it really worth a company's while suing schoolkids for thousands of pounds worth of software that they'd never have bought anyway?
This is in fact exactly the reason Microsoft has had the sense to give Visual Studio away free to students, they know they couldn't afford to buy it, but they get them hooked. It's taken them a while to realise that, but now they are doing it. Software vendors often don't see past their primary market, the people they know are willing and able to buy their software, MS is now (worryingly, in a way) working that out for themselves.
Though, on one point I'm not totally clear, I've spoken to people in some companies that provide this sort of software, and I know they don't care about piracy of this sort and actually like it. They would never admit that as an official line though, which is understandable as it seems like they are supporting piracy, but they also don't release "free for non-commercial use" versions or the like, which wouldn't seem like supporting piracy... not quite clear on why they don't do that, didn't get any good answers.
Unfortunately quite true. I'm still trying to persuade my father to change his online banking password (which is something stupid anyway as I recall, typical of the kind of person), after finding viruses and spyware all over his machine I suggested it as a precaution.
Now effectively banned him from using IE... something he hasn't complained about once since (and he is aware of it)... but we'll see how things improve.
In my experience neither has happened, the computer just won't power on. That is I mean the power light refuses to come on at all, doesn't even attempt it. Fix the cabling and all is happy for years to come.
We have no windows only machines in the labs, they either dual boot, are linux only, or are G5s. So it does seem to depend on where you attend. Our network is managed by the department, and largely by student, however, people are fighting to keep it this way, if college IT gets hold of it, I dread to think what might happen.
In the current situation everyone at his ADSL provider AND the rest of the world can send mail from his domain. His ADSL provider can at least rate limit to stop individual compromised machines sending too much spam, and can do something about customers that are sending spam generally, as at least the mail is now going out through their servers, and being a (hopefully) respectable company you have someone to talk to, and if necessary to mount a legal challenge against. If the spam is coming from half-way round the world, it's much harder to do something about it.
I'm not sure how good a thing SPF is at all, but I'm certainly not sure that your argument against it is reasonable. You're moaning about people being asked to change things... what else do we do?
Take the "or" appoach of adding an SPF record containing your ISP's domain. SPF has an "include" record, so in your DNS you can say "Any server allowed to send mail from myisp.com is also allowed to send e-mail for mydomain.com". So your ADSL provider's servers can send mail for you. So if someone gets an e-mail you sent through your ADSL provider, they look up the domain, see that your ISP's domain list is important too, look that up, find the smtp server is listed there, and allow the mail through.
Number of calls per cell is variable, it's apparently 992 calls for the entire GSM frequency range (which isn't implemented at a single cell). A better comparison might be number of channels/cell/MHz. Which for GSM seems to be around 6.5, and for 2G CDMA, around 12. So in reality you're looking at about half the number for GSM, though interference between GSM cells tends to be smaller, so it does depend very much on cell density and geography (and cost too, of course), probably then an average of about 30 calls/cell for GSM, with many factors affecting that though (62 is a strange number anyway, for CDMA it's variable number of calls per channel but less than 56, maybe the average is much much lower, and you expect a fair number of channels per cell...).
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but the implication seems to be that the sizes should have been explained better. I have to question whether an original post by an American there would be any clearer, random US vehicle names and so on.