Your doctors won't be using it either, as the terms of service are pretty much incompatible with legal requirements of any real medical record. For instance, doctors are required by various states' laws to maintain their records for some number of years after you are no longer an active patient which is incompatible with the ability to "revoke" the doctor's access to your record, and looking at the developers' TOS, this revocation power is required to be supported in any product that interfaces with Google Health, so if your doctor uses a fancy computerized chart and has it automatically load up with information from Google Health, the patient is supposed to have the power to pull your information back out of there... talk about an enormous legal minefield!
From many people's perspectives, this kind of tool (in general, called a "Personal Health Record"... Google is far from the first one) is a really neat idea: you can be sure that the information about yourself is accurate and up to date by yourself, and you can share it with multiple providers (say, if you want to switch doctors, or if you have a general practitioner and a specialist or two) without having to wait (and pay) for illegible handwritten medical records to be even more illegibly faxed around and around. From every single doctors' perspective, though, once you give them medical data (whether online, on a thumb drive, or by mouth), it goes in your chart and it stays there, no takebacks allowed.
Personally, I think I'll fill mine up with all sorts of terminal illnesses, not share it with anyone, and see how long it takes before adsense sites start showing me ads for cancer treatment and pain killers.
See Also: network.http.pipelining.maxrequests (naming consistency?)
Hitting these limits explains why new tabs after N loading tabs do nothing at all, however they don't explain why the slow page holds up the other tabs that ARE within the limit (maybe due to FF's singlethreadedness?)
exactly what constitutional right do you think this impinges upon?
The constitution does not give rights, it limits the power of government.
Which constitutional power gives the government the ability to decide what someone can and cannot do with Photoshop?
While we're at it, who decides whether the result is "sexual" or "explicit", and are we going to get a comprehensive and exhaustive list ahead of time, or is it going to be another blatantly unconstitutional position of "I know it when I see it and can decide that it's illegal after the fact".
... Especially since it could have been done as someprocess > somefile without the cat in the first place, assuming you wanted to have record of the query in a file (and didn't know about tee).
True that, though I don't think that I've ever done business with a CA that didn't allow for screwing up a key/cert at least once (though you might have to beg real hard), and I've used several.
Thawte claims to be the only one to have free reissues for the lifetime of the certificate: http://www.thawte.com/reissue/
Yeah, and tell these people to stop building their summer homes on our "Do not build, public trail" land, after bribing the local officials to ignore the laws...
Ignore the laws? What laws? The 300-year-old house predates America!
Well, something like this would mean they're not saying "unlimited" anymore.
In fact, having a published cap would mean that customers would know the information they need to make a decision on their ISP in advance, rather than discovering some secret shadowy cap after they've hit it and called tech support 10 times about their problems before finding someone willing (or knowledgeable enough) to admit that such a cap exists, and maybe the approximate value of said cap.
As for existing customers, they'll just send out a notice saying they are changing your contract and you have 30 days to cancel otherwise you agree to the new cap.
Ideally, when it starts to looking "like a tree farm", it gets cut down and turned into lumber. Then the lumber goes to building things that stand around for decades to centuries (while more trees suck up more carbon).
The three that challenged it broke the "law" by so much as telling their lawyer that they had received The Letter. I'm sure that if The Letters permitted people to discuss them, more than three people would have spoken to their lawyers and done something about it.
Obviously the problem is in assuming that all of the laptops were "worth" the same. Actually, there were 999 laptops that the government paid about $1,000 each for, which had important documents containing SSNs, medical and employment records, etc of every single person in the united states who was not a member of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as various secret anti-terrorist initiatives, identities of government moles working within terrorist groups and so on, totaling a value of about $999,000.
The other $29,001,000 is due to the loss of one laptop containing the SSN and medical records of the director of the Department of Homeland Security.
IVR works as well as it does because it only has to understand numbers when it's expecting numbers and words when it's expecting words (and then only the words it expects to hear, try yelling "banana" at one). Also try calling your credit card company and telling it your card number is four quadrillion three hundred fifty-two trillion one hundred twelve billion five hundred forty-two million six hundred ninety-five thousand and one.
If your audio captcha reads each letter one at a time, then your "IVR" only has to be able to distinguish 26 sounds (36 if you have digits too).
And you want to suggest that people buy four different cars so that when driven they can drive the one that has exactly as many seats as they need? Excellent thinking there.
Or maybe they can buy two: a tiny commuter car for the person commuting to work, and a family car for whoever drives the kids around. You know, something like how many families choose their cars these days.
It\\'s broken, it\\\\\'s restrictive for normal users, and is a bad idea in the same way that forgiving developer for using bad html was, but it\'s there. never used it, but I know because of some bug that it was introducing in an unrelated application. Magic quotes is the absolute coolest thing since sliced arrays, or my name isn\\'t Jeffery O\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'Donnel!
So much "superstition" in such a small thread... (is there a better word for doing something that you're sure will make things better but doesn't actually do anything at all?)
Blocking urls containing;--? (what about;%20-- or;+-- or;%20%20%20%20%20%20--?) Redirecting the user to google if they use the word "cast" or "set"? (but not "CaSt"?) Why not wave dead chickens or throw salt at the server, it'll do just as good.
Slashdot Mirror
Your doctors won't be using it either, as the terms of service are pretty much incompatible with legal requirements of any real medical record. For instance, doctors are required by various states' laws to maintain their records for some number of years after you are no longer an active patient which is incompatible with the ability to "revoke" the doctor's access to your record, and looking at the developers' TOS, this revocation power is required to be supported in any product that interfaces with Google Health, so if your doctor uses a fancy computerized chart and has it automatically load up with information from Google Health, the patient is supposed to have the power to pull your information back out of there... talk about an enormous legal minefield!
From many people's perspectives, this kind of tool (in general, called a "Personal Health Record"... Google is far from the first one) is a really neat idea: you can be sure that the information about yourself is accurate and up to date by yourself, and you can share it with multiple providers (say, if you want to switch doctors, or if you have a general practitioner and a specialist or two) without having to wait (and pay) for illegible handwritten medical records to be even more illegibly faxed around and around. From every single doctors' perspective, though, once you give them medical data (whether online, on a thumb drive, or by mouth), it goes in your chart and it stays there, no takebacks allowed.
Personally, I think I'll fill mine up with all sorts of terminal illnesses, not share it with anyone, and see how long it takes before adsense sites start showing me ads for cancer treatment and pain killers.
Were each of these tabs on a different server?
See:
network.http.max-connections
network.http.max-connections-per-server
network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server
See Also:
network.http.pipelining.maxrequests (naming consistency?)
Hitting these limits explains why new tabs after N loading tabs do nothing at all, however they don't explain why the slow page holds up the other tabs that ARE within the limit (maybe due to FF's singlethreadedness?)
exactly what constitutional right do you think this impinges upon?
The constitution does not give rights, it limits the power of government.
Which constitutional power gives the government the ability to decide what someone can and cannot do with Photoshop?
While we're at it, who decides whether the result is "sexual" or "explicit", and are we going to get a comprehensive and exhaustive list ahead of time, or is it going to be another blatantly unconstitutional position of "I know it when I see it and can decide that it's illegal after the fact".
2: Pull some other component so it doesn't boot and say it is a non-working laptop
Might work on customs, but airline security will take it from you since non-working laptop = a bomb.
True that, though I don't think that I've ever done business with a CA that didn't allow for screwing up a key/cert at least once (though you might have to beg real hard), and I've used several.
Thawte claims to be the only one to have free reissues for the lifetime of the certificate: http://www.thawte.com/reissue/
Of course, Comodo says it has unlimited reissues as well... http://www.instantssl.com/ssl-certificate-products/ssl.html
Fortunately, I renew SSL certs for several years rather than on a yearly basis.
Bigger question: does the seed issue affect the session keys generated for every https connection?
since $20 in the middle of a forest isn't going to do it
Isn't going to do what? Make back the company's investment in time for the quarterly report?
My understanding is that the law only requires the Universal Access Fee to be used to provide phone service. Broadband isn't covered.
Yeah, and tell these people to stop building their summer homes on our "Do not build, public trail" land, after bribing the local officials to ignore the laws...
Ignore the laws? What laws? The 300-year-old house predates America!
I don't have a family, you insensitive clod!
Well, something like this would mean they're not saying "unlimited" anymore.
In fact, having a published cap would mean that customers would know the information they need to make a decision on their ISP in advance, rather than discovering some secret shadowy cap after they've hit it and called tech support 10 times about their problems before finding someone willing (or knowledgeable enough) to admit that such a cap exists, and maybe the approximate value of said cap.
As for existing customers, they'll just send out a notice saying they are changing your contract and you have 30 days to cancel otherwise you agree to the new cap.
Ideally, when it starts to looking "like a tree farm", it gets cut down and turned into lumber. Then the lumber goes to building things that stand around for decades to centuries (while more trees suck up more carbon).
that sort of says it all, no?
The three that challenged it broke the "law" by so much as telling their lawyer that they had received The Letter. I'm sure that if The Letters permitted people to discuss them, more than three people would have spoken to their lawyers and done something about it.
"Don't Tread on Me".
Obviously the problem is in assuming that all of the laptops were "worth" the same. Actually, there were 999 laptops that the government paid about $1,000 each for, which had important documents containing SSNs, medical and employment records, etc of every single person in the united states who was not a member of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as various secret anti-terrorist initiatives, identities of government moles working within terrorist groups and so on, totaling a value of about $999,000.
The other $29,001,000 is due to the loss of one laptop containing the SSN and medical records of the director of the Department of Homeland Security.
Are they allowed to track him down without a warrant because his wife reported him missing?
That depends, are they going to bill him $500,000 for the search when they find him?
IVR works as well as it does because it only has to understand numbers when it's expecting numbers and words when it's expecting words (and then only the words it expects to hear, try yelling "banana" at one). Also try calling your credit card company and telling it your card number is four quadrillion three hundred fifty-two trillion one hundred twelve billion five hundred forty-two million six hundred ninety-five thousand and one.
If your audio captcha reads each letter one at a time, then your "IVR" only has to be able to distinguish 26 sounds (36 if you have digits too).
And you want to suggest that people buy four different cars so that when driven they can drive the one that has exactly as many seats as they need? Excellent thinking there.
Or maybe they can buy two: a tiny commuter car for the person commuting to work, and a family car for whoever drives the kids around. You know, something like how many families choose their cars these days.
I saw one 3:Funny over in the Fossett search article.
I guess the modpoint well done gone and ran dry.
Heart attack on a public street requiring EMTs? That's a billin'
Yeah, that is.
I guess back then, the bad guys were generally competent.
Yet it still fails...
It goes from crime, crime, crime, everyone.
Looks like they didn't fail, if you didn't catch that "file-sharing" isn't a crime.
So much "superstition" in such a small thread... (is there a better word for doing something that you're sure will make things better but doesn't actually do anything at all?)
;--? (what about ;%20-- or ;+-- or ;%20%20%20%20%20%20--?)
Blocking urls containing
Redirecting the user to google if they use the word "cast" or "set"? (but not "CaSt"?)
Why not wave dead chickens or throw salt at the server, it'll do just as good.