You seem to have misunderstood what is going on. There isn't really a 'viral problem' in the browser, there is (was) a comment that would cause your browser to spam the server with copies of itself. So the problem is described as viral because it spreads to new users as they hover over an infected comment, but the problem is pretty well localized to reddit.com, and browser security is in no way compromised.
The persons body has a certain amount of energy. Half of what the crumple zones do is keep parts of the car from intruding into the passenger compartment. The other half of what they do is extend the amount of time taken to dissipate the energy in the body.
My point is exactly that it would not require such a revision. As far as I can tell sites are free to do what they please with identifiers; it might be more popular to use a system that was explicitly under the control of users, but I don't see anything in the specification that says that a site has to keep the identifier and associated information private.
As I understand it, OpenID does not require consumers to keep identifiers private (sorry for the jargon), so it doesn't really have to allow anything for a reputation exchange to come about (consumers just have to choose to use such a service).
That individuals may or may not be able to influence the publishing of their reputation information (or rather, the reputation information associated with a particular identifier) in such an exchange has good aspects and bad aspects.
I don't think the system is broken. I have low expectations and figure it is about what we are going to get.
Mostly, I wish more people had a healthy distaste for rules (this doesn't mean having zero rules, it just means not having rules about every goddamn inane thing some tiresome biddy thinks about once).
You believe that about every single race (National politics covers a wide range...)?
Did the Democratic party change Barack Obama more than Barack Obama changed the Democratic party? If so, maybe there is a point, but I'm pretty sure he influenced the party a great deal, and it is a little hard to write him off as previously entrenched and powerful.
I'd rather get shot with an armor piercing bullet (generally something with a hard metal jacket) than with something designed to mushroom and spall. Of course, I'd rather not get shot at all, but there you go.
This is so much BS. There is nothing stopping voters from voting from candidates they like (or from joining a party and actually becoming a candidate).
If local politics actually worked better than state and national politics, I might believe it, but (in my experience) they are often worse, with even more blatant favoritism and abuses of power.
The problem you have is that voters are apathetic and easily bought off with things you don't like, not some two party hegemony holding power from everyone else.
Do you have clear examples of people either calling something a computer game when it isn't, or people denying that something that is a computer game?
As it is, you claim to have knowledge that other people do not (a clear definition of what a computer game is), but then decide not to share it with us.
I have some decent compact flash cards (30 MB/s), and transferring data from the camera they are in takes a nice long time over USB2 (but it could be the camera or my laptop, I don't know or have much interest in figuring it out).
I'm not opposed to regulation, but every idiot who bought a house they couldn't afford is also partly responsible. Hell, at least there is a chance that the government will actually profit on the Wall Street bailout, as opposed to the money that was given away to try to prop up the housing market.
He is positing that many generations will exist in a vegetarian environment and wondering about the results, not wondering about whether the many generations will be successful in teaching the next to only eat vegetables (so evolution is very much in play if you give the hypothetical question a fair reading).
Also, take a look at epigenetics, there is evidence building that parents can mark their own DNA in ways that alter expression in the child (the genes don't change, the regulation does).
He hasn't lost email as a medium, he just lost 1 address. That the address was a primary communication medium for him is nothing other than your assertion.
So no, the First Amendment probably doesn't come into play. I do hope he eventually gets access to the account back though, the bank really shouldn't be able to bring legal pressure to Google for a mistake that the bank itself made.
Yes, that is the real story. However, there has long been a mystery surrounding why winter babies do not do as well, and the fact that they tend, slightly, to be the children of teen mothers is an interesting explanation (hence the research and the article in the newspaper...).
The shipping of produce around the world often contributes less to the energy cost of the produce than the drive home from the supermarket (because the shipping is done very efficiently, and the driving is done in a mostly empty car).
Of course, compared to taking a multivitamin, eating any vegetables that didn't come from your own garden is incredibly indulgent (in your sacrifice-is-noble world).
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have misunderstood what is going on. There isn't really a 'viral problem' in the browser, there is (was) a comment that would cause your browser to spam the server with copies of itself. So the problem is described as viral because it spreads to new users as they hover over an infected comment, but the problem is pretty well localized to reddit.com, and browser security is in no way compromised.
Throwing out terms like strong and weak and simply talking about fitness for a given environment makes it easier.
The persons body has a certain amount of energy. Half of what the crumple zones do is keep parts of the car from intruding into the passenger compartment. The other half of what they do is extend the amount of time taken to dissipate the energy in the body.
Assume I am extremely obtuse. Try stating the core thesis of your paper in a sentence or two, without being coy about your thinking.
My point is exactly that it would not require such a revision. As far as I can tell sites are free to do what they please with identifiers; it might be more popular to use a system that was explicitly under the control of users, but I don't see anything in the specification that says that a site has to keep the identifier and associated information private.
As I understand it, OpenID does not require consumers to keep identifiers private (sorry for the jargon), so it doesn't really have to allow anything for a reputation exchange to come about (consumers just have to choose to use such a service).
That individuals may or may not be able to influence the publishing of their reputation information (or rather, the reputation information associated with a particular identifier) in such an exchange has good aspects and bad aspects.
Whoever made the decision, I bet they never heard of Google, or thought qualifying a Google search with site:stackoverflow.com.
Don't kick the baby.
There are plenty of questions with obvious answers.
I don't think the system is broken. I have low expectations and figure it is about what we are going to get.
Mostly, I wish more people had a healthy distaste for rules (this doesn't mean having zero rules, it just means not having rules about every goddamn inane thing some tiresome biddy thinks about once).
You believe that about every single race (National politics covers a wide range...)?
Did the Democratic party change Barack Obama more than Barack Obama changed the Democratic party? If so, maybe there is a point, but I'm pretty sure he influenced the party a great deal, and it is a little hard to write him off as previously entrenched and powerful.
You still didn't directly say anything, you only talked about how you have this special knowledge.
I'd rather get shot with an armor piercing bullet (generally something with a hard metal jacket) than with something designed to mushroom and spall. Of course, I'd rather not get shot at all, but there you go.
This is so much BS. There is nothing stopping voters from voting from candidates they like (or from joining a party and actually becoming a candidate).
If local politics actually worked better than state and national politics, I might believe it, but (in my experience) they are often worse, with even more blatant favoritism and abuses of power.
The problem you have is that voters are apathetic and easily bought off with things you don't like, not some two party hegemony holding power from everyone else.
Do you have clear examples of people either calling something a computer game when it isn't, or people denying that something that is a computer game?
As it is, you claim to have knowledge that other people do not (a clear definition of what a computer game is), but then decide not to share it with us.
I have some decent compact flash cards (30 MB/s), and transferring data from the camera they are in takes a nice long time over USB2 (but it could be the camera or my laptop, I don't know or have much interest in figuring it out).
I'm not opposed to regulation, but every idiot who bought a house they couldn't afford is also partly responsible. Hell, at least there is a chance that the government will actually profit on the Wall Street bailout, as opposed to the money that was given away to try to prop up the housing market.
Hopefully they don't go much over 'you break it, you buy it', the tonne of money should basically cover replacing 1 of them.
Come to America.
Nothing new, most of the sweeteners used in soda are derived from corn, resulting from a combination of sugar tariffs and corn subsidies.
(I think sucrose and HFCS are equally unhealthy, I just think sucrose tastes better, so would prefer to see it used more in soda)
He is positing that many generations will exist in a vegetarian environment and wondering about the results, not wondering about whether the many generations will be successful in teaching the next to only eat vegetables (so evolution is very much in play if you give the hypothetical question a fair reading).
Also, take a look at epigenetics, there is evidence building that parents can mark their own DNA in ways that alter expression in the child (the genes don't change, the regulation does).
It looked an awful lot like a hypothetical to me.
He hasn't lost email as a medium, he just lost 1 address. That the address was a primary communication medium for him is nothing other than your assertion.
So no, the First Amendment probably doesn't come into play. I do hope he eventually gets access to the account back though, the bank really shouldn't be able to bring legal pressure to Google for a mistake that the bank itself made.
Dude, I've never seen 2 people successfully keep a secret, let alone 10. You're nuts.
Yes, that is the real story. However, there has long been a mystery surrounding why winter babies do not do as well, and the fact that they tend, slightly, to be the children of teen mothers is an interesting explanation (hence the research and the article in the newspaper...).
The shipping of produce around the world often contributes less to the energy cost of the produce than the drive home from the supermarket (because the shipping is done very efficiently, and the driving is done in a mostly empty car).
Of course, compared to taking a multivitamin, eating any vegetables that didn't come from your own garden is incredibly indulgent (in your sacrifice-is-noble world).