And if that happens and it's not your fault (you don't have JS disabled or some weird non-standard ad-block script that overblocks everything), then they'll be in violation of the law, as the onus is on them to make it work.
There's clear links between high levels of atmospheric lead and anti-social behavior, including crime, so it's not as clear cut as suggesting that everything boils down to "personal choices". Those "choices" had external influences.
As an aside, I rather like Atrios's theory that while high levels of lead caused higher crime rates among the poor and unprivileged, it also explains high levels of legal anti-social behavior among the rich and powerful, which is why we've seen 50-70 years or so of businesses reducing the quality of life for their employees, the rise of predatory investors, and so on.
It can and frequently does have side effect of some degree of memory impairment (not "turn into vegetable")... but that definitely is a better outcome than killing yourself.
I'm not certain there's anyone trustworthy and in sound mind who can actually accurately make that assertion. It might be "better" for other people to have someone with severe depression be brain damaged but not depressed, but in and of itself that's horrific.
The reason why it was on the plane was because the parachutes were procured from a local flying school, and the dummy was included by accident.
The overwhelming evidence is that Cooper knew absolutely nothing about parachuting, which means this guy isn't DB Cooper. There have been plenty of candidates before for which there was far more evidence, and no dealbreakers proving it couldn't have been them (just check the Wikipedia page), but thus far the problem is nobody has been actively proven to be Cooper. In this case, not only have they not made a stronger case that it is him, but unless Cooper was suicidal, they've contradicted something key to his identification.
+3 Insightful. I think that might be a new low for slashdot moderation.
It's +5 right now. Reminder, you can at least reduce the amount of terrible moderation - we seem to be getting it in droves right now - by visiting this page and voting opposite bad moderation.
1) It reduces the number of trackers, which since they still track most sites through their analytics, raises the value of their data.
No it doesn't. You think the trackers aren't also upgrading to HTTPS? My employer's marketing department switches tracker every year or two (and we don't use GA except the free version as a back-up), I've yet to come across a single company that choked on our websites all being HTTPS.
2) It gets people used to Google dictating how their websites look and function.
You think that's new? Here's an exercise: look for a book on SEO that's now in its 7th or 8th edition. Now find out when the first edition was published.
People have been trying to make sure their websites conform to Google's standards since a year or two after Google became the most popular search engine.
Most libraries do actually have a staff that maintains the library. They ensure it meets current fire code regulations, they work on the library's security, especially if there's a spate of thefts. The entire "Public library" model is hundreds of years old in its current form, built upon hundreds of years of experience.
As an analogy, it's... one that favors what Google and the EFF are doing for the most part.
It is absolutely stunning to me how so many Slashdot posters and moderators have no idea what a MITM (Man-In-The-Middle) attack is, especially today in an age of ubiquitous public Wi-fi when it's easier to do than ever before.
Slashdot used to be full of people who may be clueless on many issues but were ultimately tech savvy. I guess DICE chased them all away.
What does any of this have to do with the issue under discussion? Nobody's suggesting it's a problem Google won't include search results from your router's configuration page. The topic here are websites that are currently HTTP. There are very few that do not have domain names, and if they're running off of IP addresses, they're likely to face problems being accessible in the future anyway.
I'm mostly in agreement with the view here that public facing websites should be HTTPS, and Google is right to encourage webmasters with relevant information to switch to HTTPS. The notion that the needs of people who forgot they set up a website 20 years ago should be held above the very real privacy needs of modern web users is not sustainable.
Actually it possibly is. If Bitcoin is slowly inflating, rather than violently oscillating between extremes, it might start to be possible to take it seriously as a "currency".
It doesn't include all the people alive now, just those that are over 115 years old, which is probably less than a hundred. It also doesn't include everyone who has died in the 20th Century, just those whose birthdays are known and reliably recorded. That's most people in the developed world, but not all of them.
Wasn't today the day they were planning to switch over the Pentagon computers to that new AI system they're calling "Skynet"? Maybe some teething issues, probably just overloaded a router or something, nothing to worry about.
Meanwhile, what does Google really have to offer any gamers?
The ability to from a situation where you had to buy and have set up three games consoles in order to have access to all the major AAA stuff, but in practice where you'd buy one and have access to maybe 50% of the AAA stuff, to a situation where you have to buy and set up four games consoles or only have access to maybe 40% of the AAA stuff.
Because that's what we want, to have to buy more consoles or have less choices.
In a weird way, I see this failing precisely because of that. Game publishers don't to have to port games to four platforms, and they don't want to lose 60-70% of potential buyers by only supporting one console. They didn't go for the Steambox even though the latter was really easy to port to. I don't see them letting Google in unless they all in unison decide to stop Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft; and they're not going to do that.
There is no public database anywhere in the world that links your name, address, and telephone number to the websites you visit, products you buy, and pornography you masturbate to.
The complaint is that Microsoft, Google, et al, are trying to trick you into linking that information.
I ran it past our marketing department, and great news, we can give you a Mobile Celeron with a 16Gb SSD (awesome battery life, more than six hours!), with a 14" 1366x768 screen, and Intel graphics for $500. Sounds awesome right? Well, get this: we'll install a one month FREE TRIAL of Norton Antivirus for NO ADDITIONAL COST.
Yeah, sticking a car in space has definitely advanced our knowledge and understanding of how cars... uh, float in space.
And while a case could be made that a leisure flight does nothing to advance humanity (but who knows?), is it reasonable to say the same is true of a business flight? Or do you happen to know the GP personally and know for certain he or she is completely useless who could not possibly be working on anything important?
That's a view few people hold at my age (I'm in my 40s), after a while people's world view becomes difficult to change - they might "find religion", but it's not going to come out of a polite... or not so polite... discussion, especially with an idiot like me who gets angry about it.
I don't doubt there are some issues that people are closer to each other than they think, even if they call the other side "evil" - gun rights would be a classic case - but, on other issues, like the one I gave, I just don't see it, you have to have a particular world view to feel that way, I could be patronizing and suggest the only way some might change their minds would be to become parents, but that's really patronizing to non-parents who are on the same side I am about it.
I've heard people whine when I've blocked them or people they agree with.
Really though, if you feel someone argues in bad faith (putting words in your mouth, lying, etc), or has an opinion you find so genuinely objectionable you'll never find common ground ("there's nothing wrong with taking people's kids from them and torturing them"), then what the hell is wrong with blocking?
Beats stabbing. Every "social media system" (be it Facespace or a blog that's enabled comments) should make it easier to block people you don't want to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
Another way in which clean, non-polluting, energy efficient, forms of transportation like cycling helps the environment.
Holy shit, I'm going to start flying a Boeing 787 to work every day, the fuel savings over my 30mpg Corolla will be enormous!
And if that happens and it's not your fault (you don't have JS disabled or some weird non-standard ad-block script that overblocks everything), then they'll be in violation of the law, as the onus is on them to make it work.
There's clear links between high levels of atmospheric lead and anti-social behavior, including crime, so it's not as clear cut as suggesting that everything boils down to "personal choices". Those "choices" had external influences.
As an aside, I rather like Atrios's theory that while high levels of lead caused higher crime rates among the poor and unprivileged, it also explains high levels of legal anti-social behavior among the rich and powerful, which is why we've seen 50-70 years or so of businesses reducing the quality of life for their employees, the rise of predatory investors, and so on.
I'm not certain there's anyone trustworthy and in sound mind who can actually accurately make that assertion. It might be "better" for other people to have someone with severe depression be brain damaged but not depressed, but in and of itself that's horrific.
OMG I was just saying the exact same thing to a friend of mine, have you hacked my PC's microphone or something????
The reason why it was on the plane was because the parachutes were procured from a local flying school, and the dummy was included by accident.
The overwhelming evidence is that Cooper knew absolutely nothing about parachuting, which means this guy isn't DB Cooper. There have been plenty of candidates before for which there was far more evidence, and no dealbreakers proving it couldn't have been them (just check the Wikipedia page), but thus far the problem is nobody has been actively proven to be Cooper. In this case, not only have they not made a stronger case that it is him, but unless Cooper was suicidal, they've contradicted something key to his identification.
NEXT!
It's +5 right now. Reminder, you can at least reduce the amount of terrible moderation - we seem to be getting it in droves right now - by visiting this page and voting opposite bad moderation.
What do you mean "sorry, but?" You're agreeing with TFA.
No it doesn't. You think the trackers aren't also upgrading to HTTPS? My employer's marketing department switches tracker every year or two (and we don't use GA except the free version as a back-up), I've yet to come across a single company that choked on our websites all being HTTPS.
You think that's new? Here's an exercise: look for a book on SEO that's now in its 7th or 8th edition. Now find out when the first edition was published.
People have been trying to make sure their websites conform to Google's standards since a year or two after Google became the most popular search engine.
Most libraries do actually have a staff that maintains the library. They ensure it meets current fire code regulations, they work on the library's security, especially if there's a spate of thefts. The entire "Public library" model is hundreds of years old in its current form, built upon hundreds of years of experience.
As an analogy, it's... one that favors what Google and the EFF are doing for the most part.
It is absolutely stunning to me how so many Slashdot posters and moderators have no idea what a MITM (Man-In-The-Middle) attack is, especially today in an age of ubiquitous public Wi-fi when it's easier to do than ever before.
Slashdot used to be full of people who may be clueless on many issues but were ultimately tech savvy. I guess DICE chased them all away.
What does any of this have to do with the issue under discussion? Nobody's suggesting it's a problem Google won't include search results from your router's configuration page. The topic here are websites that are currently HTTP. There are very few that do not have domain names, and if they're running off of IP addresses, they're likely to face problems being accessible in the future anyway.
I'm mostly in agreement with the view here that public facing websites should be HTTPS, and Google is right to encourage webmasters with relevant information to switch to HTTPS. The notion that the needs of people who forgot they set up a website 20 years ago should be held above the very real privacy needs of modern web users is not sustainable.
Actually it possibly is. If Bitcoin is slowly inflating, rather than violently oscillating between extremes, it might start to be possible to take it seriously as a "currency".
It doesn't include all the people alive now, just those that are over 115 years old, which is probably less than a hundred. It also doesn't include everyone who has died in the 20th Century, just those whose birthdays are known and reliably recorded. That's most people in the developed world, but not all of them.
Wasn't today the day they were planning to switch over the Pentagon computers to that new AI system they're calling "Skynet"? Maybe some teething issues, probably just overloaded a router or something, nothing to worry about.
The ability to from a situation where you had to buy and have set up three games consoles in order to have access to all the major AAA stuff, but in practice where you'd buy one and have access to maybe 50% of the AAA stuff, to a situation where you have to buy and set up four games consoles or only have access to maybe 40% of the AAA stuff.
Because that's what we want, to have to buy more consoles or have less choices.
In a weird way, I see this failing precisely because of that. Game publishers don't to have to port games to four platforms, and they don't want to lose 60-70% of potential buyers by only supporting one console. They didn't go for the Steambox even though the latter was really easy to port to. I don't see them letting Google in unless they all in unison decide to stop Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft; and they're not going to do that.
Maybe it shouldn't be giving timelines and photos to third parties to begin with? What the f--- does a "Quiz App" need with that information?
There is no public database anywhere in the world that links your name, address, and telephone number to the websites you visit, products you buy, and pornography you masturbate to.
The complaint is that Microsoft, Google, et al, are trying to trick you into linking that information.
I ran it past our marketing department, and great news, we can give you a Mobile Celeron with a 16Gb SSD (awesome battery life, more than six hours!), with a 14" 1366x768 screen, and Intel graphics for $500. Sounds awesome right? Well, get this: we'll install a one month FREE TRIAL of Norton Antivirus for NO ADDITIONAL COST.
It's actually great news, all that grease will significantly reduce any friction you'd otherwise encounter traveling in the vacuum of space.
Yeah, sticking a car in space has definitely advanced our knowledge and understanding of how cars... uh, float in space.
And while a case could be made that a leisure flight does nothing to advance humanity (but who knows?), is it reasonable to say the same is true of a business flight? Or do you happen to know the GP personally and know for certain he or she is completely useless who could not possibly be working on anything important?
You don't watch the news much do you?
That's a view few people hold at my age (I'm in my 40s), after a while people's world view becomes difficult to change - they might "find religion", but it's not going to come out of a polite... or not so polite... discussion, especially with an idiot like me who gets angry about it.
I don't doubt there are some issues that people are closer to each other than they think, even if they call the other side "evil" - gun rights would be a classic case - but, on other issues, like the one I gave, I just don't see it, you have to have a particular world view to feel that way, I could be patronizing and suggest the only way some might change their minds would be to become parents, but that's really patronizing to non-parents who are on the same side I am about it.
I've heard people whine when I've blocked them or people they agree with.
Really though, if you feel someone argues in bad faith (putting words in your mouth, lying, etc), or has an opinion you find so genuinely objectionable you'll never find common ground ("there's nothing wrong with taking people's kids from them and torturing them"), then what the hell is wrong with blocking?
Beats stabbing. Every "social media system" (be it Facespace or a blog that's enabled comments) should make it easier to block people you don't want to deal with.