So quit your whining and come up with something relevant.
You claimed that higher urbanization would lead to more violence - and yet Canada has 80% of the population living in urban centers, way over the US, and yet has 1/3 the homicide rate.
The fact is that 97% of the US population lives in states with higher murder rates than Canada, so it's apparent that population density, contrary to your assertion, has nothing to do with it, while the availability of guns correlates very well with the homicide rate. Per capita, both gun ownership and murder rates are 3x higher in the US.
So let's compare Chicago and Toronto. Chicago had 448 murders last year. Toronto had 60.
Or Phoenix, at 241. with Montreal, which never had more than 70 p.a.
You've got a gun problem. And a gun nut problem. Stop being in denial.
You're using misleading statistics to push an agenda.
And there's essentially no crime where I grew up, and where I live now. Crime usually exists where high population density exists -- not where guns exist. You might find it interesting to know that where there is extremely low population density, there is a much higher rate of gun ownership, and a much lower incidence of crime. I'll leave the why to your imagination, but I think I know what it is.
Canada is much more urbanized than the United States. Almost 80% of the population lives in cities. Even though Canada is larger than the United States, and has only 1/9th the population, most of the people live in cities, which is why Toronto, for example, is North America's 5th-largest city, and why, even though the US has 9x the population, it only has 3-1/2 times the number of cities (7) in the top 100 largest cities in the world vs Canada (2).
So, according to YOUR theory, murder rates should be several times HIGHER in Canada, not several times LOWER.
For most Canadians, a city of under 250,000 is a hick town.
The 8 states with a lower murder rate than Canada total less than 3% of the US population. Unless you grew up in one of those states, you grew up in a "high murder rate" state compared to most of the Western world.
Because saying "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people" is an attempt to duck the issue.
After all, it's not often that you to hear of someone who doesn't have a gun shooting someone near-fatally, and killing others.
And if this guy didn't have a gun, maybe he would have had to settle for shooting her with a camera. Or a paint-gun.
Gun control doesn't mean taking away peoples right to own guns - it means keeping guns out of the hands of nutcases and those not qualified to own a gun. The militia was defined as able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 who are otherwise qualified to serve. A nut job is neither "able-bodied" nor otherwise qualified by temperament or comportment.
But leaving aside the issue of "rights" (because certainly your right NOT to get shot by a nutjob is a right that is so basic that it shouldn't even need enumerating), there IS a gun culture in the US, and this is why the homicide rate is so much higher than other countries with guns that also have gun control laws.
Then again, the US also has more people in jail than any other country in the world... so obviously something can stand improvement.
That's why the subject of this thread includes the phrase "trusted source"...
If you trust them that much, then why do you only give either of them half the password?
Giving half to two people, neither of which you trust enough to give the whole password, isn't a solution. It just shows that you only know people you don't really trust.
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
...or to kill animals.
Human beings are also animals (even those who are vegetables or those living under a rock). Maybe when we can move our consciousness into silicon you'd be able to consider us "mineral".
Usual problem of 'eternity' in the computing world meaning about ten years or so. I've got a professor friend who proudly shows off his PhD thesis, it's all done on punched cards. It amuses him highly that neither he nor anybody else could read it these days, the machines just don't exist any more.
They can still be read. Your eyeballs or a scanner will do nicely. Or you can send them here.
First, there was word of mouth. Then there were cave wall drawings and stone carvings. Next, we had books. Then audio recordings, then video.
These days, you could wear a GPS sensor, body position sensors, body vital sensors, and cameras, and record your entire physical life, except for your inner thoughts.
Someday, we'll probably be able to record that too.
Then, people in the future could waste a lot of time just "watching" other people's lives.
My personal recommendation: Store "how to access my account" instructions with your will and estate papers but make them so cumbersome that it will take 2 people's cooperation and more than a day to get access to your accounts. For example, you might type up all your account info and passwords, ROT13 the passwords, send the account info to one relative, the "left half" of each ROT13 password to another relative, and the "right half" to your attorney, all in sealed envelopes with instructions that they not be opened unless you die or become incapacitated. Then put the how-to-reassemble instructions with your will. It's a bit complicated yes, and it requires re-sending with each password change, but with 3 people including your lawyer involved odds of compromise is very low.
That's easy enough to break.
A relative probably already has some of your account information - such as your email address and user name. Give me that, and half your password, I know the password length, +/- 1 character. I will own your email account, then go through it to get all your other accounts, use "forgot my password", and own them too.
There is no afterlife, so how about the more serious question of coming to terms with someone's death?
That's just as much a statement of faith as those who believe in the concept of an afterlife.
Ian Stevenson spent his life investigating cases that were suggestive of reincarnation. I have his books somewhere. He never found proof positive of reincarnation, but the evidence he did find is compelling. As long as it doesn't interfere with one's belief system, that is.
hth, hand.
Recent surveys say 28% of Americans believe in reincarnation. The rest use ordinary milk.
This wasn't a technical failure - it was a failure brought out by greed and corruption. The blow-out was only the symptom, and addressing the symptom isn't going to prevent similar incidents from happening again.
We've seen this before - the mortgage disaster and bank bailouts, the savings and loan disaster, etc.
Start by fixing campaign financing - private donations only, strict annual limit per capita, no 3rd party involvement, etc.
And there was another near-disaster because at one nuke plant, the button you had to press was back-lit by a bulb that, over time, had caused the plastic to expand to the point that the button COULDN'T be pressed - which they found out the hard way.
Things will always fail in weird, unexpected ways - that's why you need humans in the loop.
Persons in coma and infants have behind them a lot of humans that like them and want to give them rights.
So do dogs, and dogs can recognize themselves in mirrors too.
t's very simple with dolphins. They will get rights right when either:
a) When we humans will just give them rights because it's no big deal/cost for as and we'll just feel like it;
b) They successfully fight for them.
Just as for any other rights-gaining example in the history - rights of different ethnicities and races, rights of women, rights of lower social classes. Any 'universal' or 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights weren't such before they were either successfully *taken*, or simply the powerful ones didn't care much about granting them.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Look at how some countries (Japan!!!) continue whaling for "scientific purposes" because they believe "fish" is healthier than meat.
Then again, I've run into North Americans who still think whales and dolphins are "fish", and who also think that the flesh of a cod is "fish", not "meat".
$DIETY must have liked ignorant people - he made so many of them.
Slashdot Mirror
You claimed that higher urbanization would lead to more violence - and yet Canada has 80% of the population living in urban centers, way over the US, and yet has 1/3 the homicide rate.
The fact is that 97% of the US population lives in states with higher murder rates than Canada, so it's apparent that population density, contrary to your assertion, has nothing to do with it, while the availability of guns correlates very well with the homicide rate. Per capita, both gun ownership and murder rates are 3x higher in the US.
So let's compare Chicago and Toronto. Chicago had 448 murders last year. Toronto had 60.
Or Phoenix, at 241. with Montreal, which never had more than 70 p.a.
You've got a gun problem. And a gun nut problem. Stop being in denial.
What's the population density of Canada?
You're using misleading statistics to push an agenda.
And there's essentially no crime where I grew up, and where I live now. Crime usually exists where high population density exists -- not where guns exist. You might find it interesting to know that where there is extremely low population density, there is a much higher rate of gun ownership, and a much lower incidence of crime. I'll leave the why to your imagination, but I think I know what it is.
Canada is much more urbanized than the United States. Almost 80% of the population lives in cities. Even though Canada is larger than the United States, and has only 1/9th the population, most of the people live in cities, which is why Toronto, for example, is North America's 5th-largest city, and why, even though the US has 9x the population, it only has 3-1/2 times the number of cities (7) in the top 100 largest cities in the world vs Canada (2).
So, according to YOUR theory, murder rates should be several times HIGHER in Canada, not several times LOWER.
For most Canadians, a city of under 250,000 is a hick town.
New Orleans makes the list of the 5 most dangerous cities in the world, alongside Capetown and parts of Somalia ...
Because saying "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people" is an attempt to duck the issue.
After all, it's not often that you to hear of someone who doesn't have a gun shooting someone near-fatally, and killing others.
And if this guy didn't have a gun, maybe he would have had to settle for shooting her with a camera. Or a paint-gun.
Gun control doesn't mean taking away peoples right to own guns - it means keeping guns out of the hands of nutcases and those not qualified to own a gun. The militia was defined as able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 who are otherwise qualified to serve. A nut job is neither "able-bodied" nor otherwise qualified by temperament or comportment.
But leaving aside the issue of "rights" (because certainly your right NOT to get shot by a nutjob is a right that is so basic that it shouldn't even need enumerating), there IS a gun culture in the US, and this is why the homicide rate is so much higher than other countries with guns that also have gun control laws.
Then again, the US also has more people in jail than any other country in the world ... so obviously something can stand improvement.
That's why the subject of this thread includes the phrase "trusted source"...
If you trust them that much, then why do you only give either of them half the password?
Giving half to two people, neither of which you trust enough to give the whole password, isn't a solution. It just shows that you only know people you don't really trust.
Or in plain sight. You'd be amazed at how much you can "hide" in plain sight.
There are many things that "matter", shall we forget the purpose of Slashdot and turn it into a generic news site? To what purpose?
Riiiight - so let it go back to discussing star wars and comic books.
(Most) things evolve.
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
Human beings are also animals (even those who are vegetables or those living under a rock). Maybe when we can move our consciousness into silicon you'd be able to consider us "mineral".
The first moderation this comment received (-1 flamebait) was the correct one. Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people.
Wrong - people with guns shoot bullets. If you're going to attempt to argue a point by being a pedant, at least try to get it right.
By the way, the gunman was taken down by someone without a gun - so there goes your theory.
Usual problem of 'eternity' in the computing world meaning about ten years or so. I've got a professor friend who proudly shows off his PhD thesis, it's all done on punched cards. It amuses him highly that neither he nor anybody else could read it these days, the machines just don't exist any more.
They can still be read. Your eyeballs or a scanner will do nicely. Or you can send them here.
More info here and here.
First, there was word of mouth. Then there were cave wall drawings and stone carvings. Next, we had books. Then audio recordings, then video.
These days, you could wear a GPS sensor, body position sensors, body vital sensors, and cameras, and record your entire physical life, except for your inner thoughts.
Someday, we'll probably be able to record that too.
Then, people in the future could waste a lot of time just "watching" other people's lives.
Facebook already provides that ...
That won't help their business. They need a sucker dying every minute.
Suckers are no more special than anyone else. They won't die every minute - once per person is sufficient.
My personal recommendation: Store "how to access my account" instructions with your will and estate papers but make them so cumbersome that it will take 2 people's cooperation and more than a day to get access to your accounts. For example, you might type up all your account info and passwords, ROT13 the passwords, send the account info to one relative, the "left half" of each ROT13 password to another relative, and the "right half" to your attorney, all in sealed envelopes with instructions that they not be opened unless you die or become incapacitated. Then put the how-to-reassemble instructions with your will. It's a bit complicated yes, and it requires re-sending with each password change, but with 3 people including your lawyer involved odds of compromise is very low.
That's easy enough to break.
A relative probably already has some of your account information - such as your email address and user name. Give me that, and half your password, I know the password length, +/- 1 character. I will own your email account, then go through it to get all your other accounts, use "forgot my password", and own them too.
Your suggestion isn't very good.
There is no afterlife, so how about the more serious question of coming to terms with someone's death?
That's just as much a statement of faith as those who believe in the concept of an afterlife.
Ian Stevenson spent his life investigating cases that were suggestive of reincarnation. I have his books somewhere. He never found proof positive of reincarnation, but the evidence he did find is compelling. As long as it doesn't interfere with one's belief system, that is.
hth, hand.
Recent surveys say 28% of Americans believe in reincarnation. The rest use ordinary milk.
'We're entering a world where we can all leave as much of a legacy as George Bush or Bill Clinton'
I hope not!
Who do we blame?
I'll have to assume that's a rhetorical question, as I'm certain you know the answer :-)
Personally, I blame the voices in my head.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
'Failure of management' and regulators given blame for disaster
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7367856.html
How British oil giant BP used all the political muscle money can buy to fend off regulators and influence investigations into corporate neglect.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/07/slick-operator.html
This wasn't a technical failure - it was a failure brought out by greed and corruption. The blow-out was only the symptom, and addressing the symptom isn't going to prevent similar incidents from happening again.
We've seen this before - the mortgage disaster and bank bailouts, the savings and loan disaster, etc.
Start by fixing campaign financing - private donations only, strict annual limit per capita, no 3rd party involvement, etc.
-- Barbara
Things will always fail in weird, unexpected ways - that's why you need humans in the loop.
Those controls disappeared decades ago.
FTFA:
Screw the users. Looks like almost everyone has accepted the "you bought it but you don't control it" mentality.
Who do we blame? Steve Jobs. Verizon? Microsoft? The Supreme Court? Everyone for not making more noise?
Persons in coma and infants have behind them a lot of humans that like them and want to give them rights.
So do dogs, and dogs can recognize themselves in mirrors too.
t's very simple with dolphins. They will get rights right when either: a) When we humans will just give them rights because it's no big deal/cost for as and we'll just feel like it; b) They successfully fight for them.
Just as for any other rights-gaining example in the history - rights of different ethnicities and races, rights of women, rights of lower social classes. Any 'universal' or 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights weren't such before they were either successfully *taken*, or simply the powerful ones didn't care much about granting them.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Look at how some countries (Japan!!!) continue whaling for "scientific purposes" because they believe "fish" is healthier than meat.
Then again, I've run into North Americans who still think whales and dolphins are "fish", and who also think that the flesh of a cod is "fish", not "meat".
$DIETY must have liked ignorant people - he made so many of them.
-- Barbara
Booting off a network is nothing new. You've been able to buy NICs with ROMs that enable you to boot off the network for decades.
Every time I see -Barbie at the end of a post by tomhudson, it makes me wonder if this person's password was 12345.
don't be silly, it's 54321!
Oh, wait ..
-- Barbara
Now please step into this "shower" so we can test this new "disinfectant".
Yup, but that doesn't stop some people. I was just being preemptive.
Coincidentally, sow was Hitler.
And we see the same line being trotted out by DHS, the TSA, etc. Coincidence?