The good news is that driving under the influence of THC is a lot less dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol.
It seemed like you where missing the point that both are still dangerous. Which is why I reiterated that driving under the influence of THC is not the same as driving sober. I could have just misunderstood what you meant by "good news", there's no need to be snarky about it though.
Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana
and from the article you linked:
Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance. The Commission believes, nonetheless, that driving while under the influence of any psychoactive drug is a serious risk to public safety; the acute effects of marihuana intoxication, spatial and time distortion and slowed reflexes may impair driving performance. That the risk of injury may be greater for alcohol than for marihuana matters little.
Really though, the fact that marijuana has a negative impact on reaction time (something well documented) should be enough for you to realize that being high will affect your driving.
Yes, but my point was that a breathalyzer offers cut and dry proof that someone was drinking and driving(or was under the limit) where as there is no such method for detecting THC. I'd rather the sole deciding factor as to wether or not someone was driving under the influence of THC to NOT be up to a police officers judgment based off of a field sobriety test.
Maybe "prevent" was a bad choice of words, "discourage" would have probably been a better fit. As long is there is a way to accurately catch and punish people who drive high, them I'm all for legalizing marijuana.
So Google pushing their own services to voluntary users of it's free service warrants an anti-trust investigation, but for some reason net neutrality isn't taken seriously by hardly anyone in washington?
While I agree that driving under the influence of THC is not as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol, that does not mean that is as safe as normal driving. A car plowing into a pedestrian at 30mph instead of 60mph might not hurt as much, but it can still be fatal. I share the same concern as you about police having to do either invasive roadside tests or taking blood samples though, hence my want for a breathalyzer like mechanism for detecting high levels of THC.
I really hope something can be figured out though, since way to much time and money has been invested in criminalizing something that really isn't a big deal.
I think it is perfectly fine for an individual to do whatever they want to their own body, and that there are plenty of legal things that are much worse for you than marijuana. I basically have the same opinion of marijuana as I do alcohol: what you do on your own time to your own body is your business, but if those decisions you make can be directly harmful to someone else then that becomes a problem. My best example of this is driving under the influence, it is perfectly legal to drink alcohol, but it is NOT legal to do so and then drive a car. I think marijuana should be held to this same standard. I am not sure if there is a reliably accurate way to determine if someone is under the influence of marijuana or not (like a breathalyzer is for alcohol). Once something like that exists I will back the legalization of it 100%.
tl;dr I will fully support the legalization of marijuana once it is possible to prevent people from driving high.
Also, I'm not trying to insinuate that you are all about people driving high, I just wanted to point out my hesitation for supporting the cause at this time.
Evidence to that effect comes from the fact that "on iOS, user reviews for Battleheart average 4.5 stars (4000 total ratings), which is quite good. On Android it's a stunning 4.8, with 1000 ratings," writes the developer. "So not only is it reviewed more highly, it's also reviewed more often, with a huge percentage of android users taking the time to rate the app.
4.5 vs 4.8, How is that a big difference on a scale of 0-5?
4,000 is less than 1,000? That must be a typo and either way it doesn't matter unless we also know how many downloads each version has had as well.
So basically Oracle thinks that Google is expecting to spend about 6.2 Billion dollars to pay it's lawyers and is hoping they see it would just be cheaper for them to license the technology from Oracle.
Please oh please let Google fight this and win. Not because I love Google, but because I hate Oracle.
the star becomes elongated, first spreading out to form a "banana shape" before its inner edge - orbiting faster than the outer edge - pulls the star into a disc-shape that wraps itself around the hole.
At this point, can fusion even occur at the core of the star? If not, can it even be considered a star once it's matter has been wrapped around a black hole? At what point do we stop referring to it as a star and just consider it part of the black hole's accretion disk. I suppose it really doesn't make a difference what it's called though, since it won't be around for very long.
I was referring to people who were discussing various methods to circumvent the "feature". Which is why I suggested they just buy a different product that doesn't have such a stupid feature.
If police are taking advantage of the technology like you describe then the solution isn't to ban companies from making the effected product (people are not forced into buying the product). The solution would be to make it illegal for the police to do that in the first place.
But yes, I would very much like the average citizen to be able to document cases of police brutality.
ohhhhhh, I see what you're insinuating. The iPhone is like a golf course... Although I don't know if I'd refer to beverage cart girls as guards, you must be playing golf at a different country club than me.
Criminals will not be affected by this law at all, they are already breaking other laws, they aren't going to care about breaking one more. Meanwhile, people who follow procedure and legitimately need to do penetration testing on their own systems and services will be handcuffed. The result of this will be criminals tools will only get better, and "hacking" tools, used for legitimate purposes will be left in the stone age as developers have to jump through hoops just to get any security tests done.
Here is the real solution: Spend the time, money, and effort to make your shit secure, and hold people accountable who store sensitive information in a careless way. Almost anything could be considered a hacking tool, good luck enforcing that.
You make valid points, but I disagree that GET should be totally deprecated. It has very practical usage for things (such as pagination) that really should be in the url. Even having a unique identifier associated with a user account is fine as long is you are doing other things to verify the user, such as SESSION data validation and that unique identifier is only used for displaying in the url bar and not for referencing a user in other places.
One expert, who is part of the investigation and wants to remain anonymous because the inquiry is at an early stage, told The New York Times he wondered how the hackers could have known to breach security by focusing on the vulnerability in the browser.
He said: 'It would have been hard to prepare for this type of vulnerability.'
/epic facepalm
First, this is NOT a hard vulnerability to prepare for. If the only method of user authentication you are doing is based off a string of characters received from the URL your not even qualified to build an ecommerce site for some mom-and-pop 2-sales-a-week company, let alone a bank.
Second, why is this a surprise to this security "expert"? Anyone who has done development for a website with dynamic content would be familiar with passing information through the url. This is like web design 101. If I logged into my credit card account and saw my CC number in the URL bar the FIRST thing I would think of would be: "what would happen if I typed in another number in there." Security expert my ass, no wonder why some companies have this happen to them, look at the people they hire to test and investigate their systems!
They should call this technology point-n-grunt. Now I don't even have to worry about articulating my wants into words.
In all honestly thats pretty cool though, I've been expecting this for a while. Congrats on the cool new technology Google. *holds up picture of a a party hat and confetti*
Wall Street Journal (WSJ), a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
And from wikipedia:
[Dow Jones & Co., Inc.] became a subsidiary of News Corporation after an extended takeover bid during 2007.
I'm sure all leaks that get sent to the WSJ will receive equal attention, and that there won't be certain leaks that get prioritized over other leaks. Or "leaks" that could just be pure speculation...
I'm not trying to spread to much FUD here, and I'm not a huge wikileaks fan either. But if I was a whistle blower I'd be inclined to avoid any corporate controlled entities to give my info to.
I second Coda, I've been using it since close to day one. Since your trying to avoid doing a lot of coding by hand and want your website to just work, I recommend using a CMS like drupal or wordpress. At some point you'll get frustrated with the lack of options with something like Dreamweaver or iWeb. As a bonus, if you ever decide you want to start coding by hand, the syntax highlighting for php (what wordpress and drupal are both written in) is fantastic.
Slashdot Mirror
I said that because of this:
The good news is that driving under the influence of THC is a lot less dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol.
It seemed like you where missing the point that both are still dangerous. Which is why I reiterated that driving under the influence of THC is not the same as driving sober. I could have just misunderstood what you meant by "good news", there's no need to be snarky about it though.
This seems to find quite a few fatal accidents.
Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana
and from the article you linked:
Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance. The Commission believes, nonetheless, that driving while under the influence of any psychoactive drug is a serious risk to public safety; the acute effects of marihuana intoxication, spatial and time distortion and slowed reflexes may impair driving performance. That the risk of injury may be greater for alcohol than for marihuana matters little.
Really though, the fact that marijuana has a negative impact on reaction time (something well documented) should be enough for you to realize that being high will affect your driving.
Yes, but my point was that a breathalyzer offers cut and dry proof that someone was drinking and driving(or was under the limit) where as there is no such method for detecting THC. I'd rather the sole deciding factor as to wether or not someone was driving under the influence of THC to NOT be up to a police officers judgment based off of a field sobriety test.
Maybe "prevent" was a bad choice of words, "discourage" would have probably been a better fit. As long is there is a way to accurately catch and punish people who drive high, them I'm all for legalizing marijuana.
So Google pushing their own services to voluntary users of it's free service warrants an anti-trust investigation, but for some reason net neutrality isn't taken seriously by hardly anyone in washington?
What a joke.
While I agree that driving under the influence of THC is not as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol, that does not mean that is as safe as normal driving. A car plowing into a pedestrian at 30mph instead of 60mph might not hurt as much, but it can still be fatal. I share the same concern as you about police having to do either invasive roadside tests or taking blood samples though, hence my want for a breathalyzer like mechanism for detecting high levels of THC.
I really hope something can be figured out though, since way to much time and money has been invested in criminalizing something that really isn't a big deal.
I think it is perfectly fine for an individual to do whatever they want to their own body, and that there are plenty of legal things that are much worse for you than marijuana. I basically have the same opinion of marijuana as I do alcohol: what you do on your own time to your own body is your business, but if those decisions you make can be directly harmful to someone else then that becomes a problem. My best example of this is driving under the influence, it is perfectly legal to drink alcohol, but it is NOT legal to do so and then drive a car. I think marijuana should be held to this same standard. I am not sure if there is a reliably accurate way to determine if someone is under the influence of marijuana or not (like a breathalyzer is for alcohol). Once something like that exists I will back the legalization of it 100%.
tl;dr I will fully support the legalization of marijuana once it is possible to prevent people from driving high.
Also, I'm not trying to insinuate that you are all about people driving high, I just wanted to point out my hesitation for supporting the cause at this time.
Decoding the Inscrutable Logos On Your Electronics
Mine says "Don't forget to drink your ovaltine."
Evidence to that effect comes from the fact that "on iOS, user reviews for Battleheart average 4.5 stars (4000 total ratings), which is quite good. On Android it's a stunning 4.8, with 1000 ratings," writes the developer. "So not only is it reviewed more highly, it's also reviewed more often, with a huge percentage of android users taking the time to rate the app.
4.5 vs 4.8, How is that a big difference on a scale of 0-5?
4,000 is less than 1,000? That must be a typo and either way it doesn't matter unless we also know how many downloads each version has had as well.
So basically Oracle thinks that Google is expecting to spend about 6.2 Billion dollars to pay it's lawyers and is hoping they see it would just be cheaper for them to license the technology from Oracle.
Please oh please let Google fight this and win. Not because I love Google, but because I hate Oracle.
FTFA:
the star becomes elongated, first spreading out to form a "banana shape" before its inner edge - orbiting faster than the outer edge - pulls the star into a disc-shape that wraps itself around the hole.
At this point, can fusion even occur at the core of the star? If not, can it even be considered a star once it's matter has been wrapped around a black hole? At what point do we stop referring to it as a star and just consider it part of the black hole's accretion disk. I suppose it really doesn't make a difference what it's called though, since it won't be around for very long.
Dang, the guy everyone sent their dollars to in order to know that must be filthy rich!
I was referring to people who were discussing various methods to circumvent the "feature". Which is why I suggested they just buy a different product that doesn't have such a stupid feature.
If police are taking advantage of the technology like you describe then the solution isn't to ban companies from making the effected product (people are not forced into buying the product). The solution would be to make it illegal for the police to do that in the first place.
But yes, I would very much like the average citizen to be able to document cases of police brutality.
ohhhhhh, I see what you're insinuating. The iPhone is like a golf course... Although I don't know if I'd refer to beverage cart girls as guards, you must be playing golf at a different country club than me.
Don't buy an iphone if this bothers you.
I like a lot of apple products, but in this case I think i'll pass on the new iphone.
Give it 10 years, american children will be getting the same thing for christmas (batteries not included).
Someones been playing to much Call of Duty. I'll be impressed if they manage to call in an SR-71.
Criminals will not be affected by this law at all, they are already breaking other laws, they aren't going to care about breaking one more. Meanwhile, people who follow procedure and legitimately need to do penetration testing on their own systems and services will be handcuffed. The result of this will be criminals tools will only get better, and "hacking" tools, used for legitimate purposes will be left in the stone age as developers have to jump through hoops just to get any security tests done.
Here is the real solution: Spend the time, money, and effort to make your shit secure, and hold people accountable who store sensitive information in a careless way. Almost anything could be considered a hacking tool, good luck enforcing that.
You make valid points, but I disagree that GET should be totally deprecated. It has very practical usage for things (such as pagination) that really should be in the url. Even having a unique identifier associated with a user account is fine as long is you are doing other things to verify the user, such as SESSION data validation and that unique identifier is only used for displaying in the url bar and not for referencing a user in other places.
erm, when i say CC number, I mean account number. I was temporarily blinded by the text quoted in my above post...
From TFA:
One expert, who is part of the investigation and wants to remain anonymous because the inquiry is at an early stage, told The New York Times he wondered how the hackers could have known to breach security by focusing on the vulnerability in the browser. He said: 'It would have been hard to prepare for this type of vulnerability.'
/epic facepalm
First, this is NOT a hard vulnerability to prepare for. If the only method of user authentication you are doing is based off a string of characters received from the URL your not even qualified to build an ecommerce site for some mom-and-pop 2-sales-a-week company, let alone a bank.
Second, why is this a surprise to this security "expert"? Anyone who has done development for a website with dynamic content would be familiar with passing information through the url. This is like web design 101. If I logged into my credit card account and saw my CC number in the URL bar the FIRST thing I would think of would be: "what would happen if I typed in another number in there." Security expert my ass, no wonder why some companies have this happen to them, look at the people they hire to test and investigate their systems!
/rant
They should call this technology point-n-grunt. Now I don't even have to worry about articulating my wants into words.
In all honestly thats pretty cool though, I've been expecting this for a while. Congrats on the cool new technology Google. *holds up picture of a a party hat and confetti*
I suppose I should have picked a game besides frogger to get good at.
Wall Street Journal (WSJ), a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
And from wikipedia:
[Dow Jones & Co., Inc.] became a subsidiary of News Corporation after an extended takeover bid during 2007.
I'm sure all leaks that get sent to the WSJ will receive equal attention, and that there won't be certain leaks that get prioritized over other leaks. Or "leaks" that could just be pure speculation...
I'm not trying to spread to much FUD here, and I'm not a huge wikileaks fan either. But if I was a whistle blower I'd be inclined to avoid any corporate controlled entities to give my info to.
I second Coda, I've been using it since close to day one. Since your trying to avoid doing a lot of coding by hand and want your website to just work, I recommend using a CMS like drupal or wordpress. At some point you'll get frustrated with the lack of options with something like Dreamweaver or iWeb. As a bonus, if you ever decide you want to start coding by hand, the syntax highlighting for php (what wordpress and drupal are both written in) is fantastic.
You could have included a link to the actual book in question...
http://www.eg8forum.com/ebook/