Whatever happened before the video is irrelevant. He was down, he was arrested, you don't taser anybody twice and certainly not someone in that situation. I agree 100% with the grandparent, those cops need to be locked up.
A bigger problem than global warming - regardless of cause. That they are not very related is exactly the important point: we'd get more done if we wouldn't throw global warming into the mix in every single environmental discussion.
I'm not sure who this we is. You seem to be able to seperate the two issues, so can I. I don't see the two being intermingled a whole lot. If there is a problem, the solution is educating people about all the issues - it's not like those two were the only ones - not focusing on just one.
I also realise that the third world or booming industries down there are using the crap we used decades ago.
It's not so much that they're using our old technology. The high-pollution manufacturing industry has just pretty much moved out of Europe. Believe me, I know, I'm living in one of the regions hit hardest by that move (pretty close to the Netherlands, actually). Also one of the regions that has benefitted the most with respects to air quality and so on. Of course, that the manufacturing overseas is done using outdated technology doesn't help, and there need to be incentives for using cleaner technology. But I don't see that coming any time soon - incentivising clean technology was difficult in our wealthy countries, it's absurdly difficult in the expanding economies in the Far East.
On the long run though, we seem to be capable of solving our problems when we're focused and those solutions will trickle down.
Well, sort of, yeah - that's a fairly generic statement! But when there were problems, they weren't solved by, you know, ignoring them and hoping they will fix themselves. You have to identify them and develop a strategy to deal with them. Which is what people are trying to do with global warming - any other issues nonwithstanding.
Likewise, I'm skeptical of stop biomass fuel. Deforestation is a far bigger problem and bio diversity isn't going to improve one bit with biomass fuels.
That's a non sequitur. Deforastation is a bigger problem than - what? Global warming? Deforastation is a problem[1], so is global warming. They're not very related, though. Bio diversity isn't affected, either. You seem to think people are suggesting to chop down ancient groves to create bio fuels. (They only do that for surface coal mining.) That would defeat the whole point - which is to capture the amount of carbon dioxide you release instead of releasing CO2 sequestered a very long time ago.
[1] Not so much in Holland or anywhere in Central Europe, though, not to my knowledge. Scandinavia, maybe. Third world? Hell yes.
Furthermore, anyone remember acid rain and smog? Sure, it still happens, but it's nowhere as huge as it was in the eighties, not in the uber-capitalistic modern world (YMMV).
You're right - it does still happen, but not so much in the first world. Mostly because the heavy industry has been going down the drain for the past 30 years and is pretty much gone now. Not sure what your point is, though, moving the problem is not getting rid of it, it's just follows from cheaper manufacturing in China. And what progress there has been is pretty much all due to the extensive Green movement here in Europe.
Exactly. I'm always amazed that so many people don't know that. It's much faster than using the close button or, heaven forbid, a keyboard shortcut. Works in Opera, too.
Oh and another thing I forgot in my more general previous post, more to the point: Do you seriously think that a law like this wouldn't be enacted in individual countries? You've got to be kidding me. Just look at some of the shit that was made into law in the UK in the course of the terror scares. The remainder of Europe seems positively sane by comparison, although of course we've got our own ministries of the interior who are looking into changing that. And individual countries are more prone to lobbying pressure from the industry, as well, because it's easy to play them against one another. Although I'll readily admit that lobbying in the EU is out of control currently, and fairly opaque.
Can anyone point out to me how the UK benefits from being in the EU (as opposed to the EEA)?
Well, for one thing, some people welcome a culturual interchange - even a union - of European countries. I wouldn't mind seeing a single, federated government for Europe, as long as it's a sensible and democratic one. I certainly feel that way, and I certainly feel a certain bond to other people from European countries, the UK in particular because I'm fond of your language. It's sad that it doesn't go both ways, but such is life.
A more practical approach is that joining forces is really the only way the countries in the EU have any chance of remaining a political power on a global scale. The individual countries, including very much the UK and France already are fairly minor compared to the rising powers or, of course, the US. Great Britain in particular has seen an almost catastrophic loss of power over the course of the 20th century, or even the post-WW2 half of it. Even with a common foreign policy, the EU will have a hard time bargaining with Russia and Asia in 20 to 40 years, as individual states there is just no chance at all. Of course, predicting the global state in 20 to 40 years is prone to enormous errors.
Furthermore, political union makes sense as a step after economic union. For instance, there are currently plans to have a common level of taxation on cars and gasoline. As it is, people from Germany routinely drive over the open borders to fill up their cars, saving on taxes in the process. The reverse is true for other goods. This kind of competition might be good for the consumers, but it's not good for the states who lose tax revenue and a political means of rewarding fuel economy (or restraint from alcohol, or whatever), so they have a reason to level the playing field in those regards. And since by definition our governments represent us, of course we consumers want the playing field levelled, too.
Even as an employee here, I couldn't just go and read your gmail (or search logs, or writely docs, or anything else) myself; I don't have access to it, and would need to make a very strong case for a legitimate need in order to get access to it.
Erm. I bloody well hope that's the case. Actually, I bloody well hope no person at Google reads my mail (I use your service), there is no legitimate need for anybody to do so. I'm more or less fine with fairly stupid algorithms scanning my mail to determine which ads to show, but I don't want any humans to read it and if that's what you guys do I will cancel my account on the spot. It's probably illegal at least for the German Google to do it, incidently.
I was being sarcastic, but why does the browser have to handle its own low level rendering?
It doesn't. It uses a multi-platform API which in turn does the low level rendering (or delegates it somewhere else). Not sure what's wrong with that - I look forward to it.
I'm referring to HMOs, I understand the difference, whatever, it's nitpicking, I think health insurance is fairly well understood to refer to HMOs, too. It doesn't matter, though. The point is not that people pay less premium than indemnity, it's that the total indemnity paid by the insurance is not equal to the total "indemnity" paid if all members were not insured. (Accordingly the average cost per person in the insurance is lower, too.) The insurance has to pay a lower total because it concentrates the bargaining power of all the insured individuals.
An example: Of 1000 people 100 need heart surgery, nobody is insured, everyone is at the mercy of the hospital and gets a rate of $10000 per surgery, average cost is $1000. Now everyone is insured, and the insurance company forces the hospital to lower the rate per surgery to $5000, average cost is now $500. Of course the insurance premium would be something like $750, so that the insurance co still makes a lot of money.
Obviously, whether the average cost and accordingly the premium really is lower than the single bargaining average cost depends on how good a deal an insurance can get (maybe I'm overestimating it) and how large a profit the company wants to make.
You don't take into account the vastly larger bargaining power an insurance company has. On your own your possibilities are limited, extremely so if you are alone and sick.
Hey, I looked it up and have to apologise - tune actually can be pronounced tu:n (or "toon"), rhyming with rune. The pronounciation I'm familiar with it is tjun (or "tyoon"), which is the British variant. What's worse is that the u is considered long in both cases, although it doesn't seem very long to me in the British case. I like phonetics incidently, but it's quite hard to get it right, transcribing stuff into the phonetic alphabet is notoriously difficult.
Seems to me the standard pronounciation would be as in tune or punic. To be standardly pronounced as tsu:n it would have to be written Zoon as in toon, boon, harpoon.
I built a new system and just installed XP 64-bit edition earlier today, but I'm now considering installing the Vista Beta (got easy access to it via MSDNAA) - is it worth the trouble? I'll be using the system in multiple ways, browsing, gaming, watching video, and (Java) development.
Anybody trying to make a distinction on when and where the proper use of the term own vs. pwn is just talking out their tailpipe.
First of all, you just made such a distinction yourself, saying that "pwn" is (deliberately) used to imply a sense of frantic urgency. And second, I don't think that's correct. My experience is much more in line with what Wikipedia says, namely that pwn is used to refer to a very clear and humiliating defeat. It's not even treated as a misspelling of opwn, if anything it's an alternate spelling, or a word of it's own (pwn?) altogether. Of course the two variants are still very much similar in meaning, with I guess pwn actually being the more popular term (with the crowd I'm referring to, not overall).
The i-Opener was 'foolproof', and if things went wrong, you could just shut it off and try again, Everything I see today lacks that ability (to varying extents).
You can do just that with any Live CD Linux. Something not working as it should? Reboot. The only downside is the longer boot time. Install to a HD to make it faster (mounted as RO to keep it tamper-proof). I'm sure there are special live CD distributions that come with a fool proof GUI, ie. a big friendly button labeled "INTARWEB".
Trash incineration is very commonplace here in continental Europe - we just don't have enough free space to dump our garbage to - so it must work in some way. Maybe it's not profitable, I don't know, but properly maintaining a landfill is not free, either, as any Sim City player will know.;)
Huh? I did not talk about replacing YT with a normal BT tracker, I'm talking about seemlessly integrating BT (or any other P2P transport) as an alternative to the typical method of delivery, HTTP. YouTube could look virtually identical to the way it does today, but every file larger than 10k is distributed via BT instead of HTTP. This includes the web content, although distributed serving of dynamic content really is difficult. I think serving just the static content - including the movies - over a P2P network would make a huge difference to the overall traffic amount, though, apparently you disagree.
So you have heard of BT. Good. So what if it adds more complexity? It's still viable. Peer to peer networking for streaming content is difficult, but it's been done before. The difficulty isn't in designing a network that's technically able to deliver the goods in a distributed manner, the real difficulty is in seamlessly integrating it into the browsing experience. In theory, BT could be integrated into the browser just like any other transport like HTTP or FTP: Opera already downloads torrents, but the target would be to be able to use an HTML img tag with a (single file, not folder) torrent as the URL and have the image be downloaded and displayed on the fly, just like all the other URLs are retrieved.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a problem if the symptoms only go away while you are taking the drug. I use cold sprays, but I try not to get addicted to them.
Whatever happened before the video is irrelevant . He was down, he was arrested, you don't taser anybody twice and certainly not someone in that situation. I agree 100% with the grandparent, those cops need to be locked up.
A bigger problem than global warming - regardless of cause. That they are not very related is exactly the important point: we'd get more done if we wouldn't throw global warming into the mix in every single environmental discussion.
I'm not sure who this we is. You seem to be able to seperate the two issues, so can I. I don't see the two being intermingled a whole lot. If there is a problem, the solution is educating people about all the issues - it's not like those two were the only ones - not focusing on just one.
I also realise that the third world or booming industries down there are using the crap we used decades ago.
It's not so much that they're using our old technology. The high-pollution manufacturing industry has just pretty much moved out of Europe. Believe me, I know, I'm living in one of the regions hit hardest by that move (pretty close to the Netherlands, actually). Also one of the regions that has benefitted the most with respects to air quality and so on. Of course, that the manufacturing overseas is done using outdated technology doesn't help, and there need to be incentives for using cleaner technology. But I don't see that coming any time soon - incentivising clean technology was difficult in our wealthy countries, it's absurdly difficult in the expanding economies in the Far East.
On the long run though, we seem to be capable of solving our problems when we're focused and those solutions will trickle down.
Well, sort of, yeah - that's a fairly generic statement! But when there were problems, they weren't solved by, you know, ignoring them and hoping they will fix themselves. You have to identify them and develop a strategy to deal with them. Which is what people are trying to do with global warming - any other issues nonwithstanding.
Likewise, I'm skeptical of stop biomass fuel. Deforestation is a far bigger problem and bio diversity isn't going to improve one bit with biomass fuels.
That's a non sequitur. Deforastation is a bigger problem than - what? Global warming? Deforastation is a problem[1], so is global warming. They're not very related, though. Bio diversity isn't affected, either. You seem to think people are suggesting to chop down ancient groves to create bio fuels. (They only do that for surface coal mining.) That would defeat the whole point - which is to capture the amount of carbon dioxide you release instead of releasing CO2 sequestered a very long time ago.
[1] Not so much in Holland or anywhere in Central Europe, though, not to my knowledge. Scandinavia, maybe. Third world? Hell yes.
Furthermore, anyone remember acid rain and smog? Sure, it still happens, but it's nowhere as huge as it was in the eighties, not in the uber-capitalistic modern world (YMMV).
You're right - it does still happen, but not so much in the first world. Mostly because the heavy industry has been going down the drain for the past 30 years and is pretty much gone now. Not sure what your point is, though, moving the problem is not getting rid of it, it's just follows from cheaper manufacturing in China. And what progress there has been is pretty much all due to the extensive Green movement here in Europe.
Exactly. I'm always amazed that so many people don't know that. It's much faster than using the close button or, heaven forbid, a keyboard shortcut. Works in Opera, too.
Oh and another thing I forgot in my more general previous post, more to the point: Do you seriously think that a law like this wouldn't be enacted in individual countries? You've got to be kidding me. Just look at some of the shit that was made into law in the UK in the course of the terror scares. The remainder of Europe seems positively sane by comparison, although of course we've got our own ministries of the interior who are looking into changing that. And individual countries are more prone to lobbying pressure from the industry, as well, because it's easy to play them against one another. Although I'll readily admit that lobbying in the EU is out of control currently, and fairly opaque.
Can anyone point out to me how the UK benefits from being in the EU (as opposed to the EEA)?
Well, for one thing, some people welcome a culturual interchange - even a union - of European countries. I wouldn't mind seeing a single, federated government for Europe, as long as it's a sensible and democratic one. I certainly feel that way, and I certainly feel a certain bond to other people from European countries, the UK in particular because I'm fond of your language. It's sad that it doesn't go both ways, but such is life.
A more practical approach is that joining forces is really the only way the countries in the EU have any chance of remaining a political power on a global scale. The individual countries, including very much the UK and France already are fairly minor compared to the rising powers or, of course, the US. Great Britain in particular has seen an almost catastrophic loss of power over the course of the 20th century, or even the post-WW2 half of it. Even with a common foreign policy, the EU will have a hard time bargaining with Russia and Asia in 20 to 40 years, as individual states there is just no chance at all. Of course, predicting the global state in 20 to 40 years is prone to enormous errors.
Furthermore, political union makes sense as a step after economic union. For instance, there are currently plans to have a common level of taxation on cars and gasoline. As it is, people from Germany routinely drive over the open borders to fill up their cars, saving on taxes in the process. The reverse is true for other goods. This kind of competition might be good for the consumers, but it's not good for the states who lose tax revenue and a political means of rewarding fuel economy (or restraint from alcohol, or whatever), so they have a reason to level the playing field in those regards. And since by definition our governments represent us, of course we consumers want the playing field levelled, too.
Even as an employee here, I couldn't just go and read your gmail (or search logs, or writely docs, or anything else) myself; I don't have access to it, and would need to make a very strong case for a legitimate need in order to get access to it.
Erm. I bloody well hope that's the case. Actually, I bloody well hope no person at Google reads my mail (I use your service), there is no legitimate need for anybody to do so. I'm more or less fine with fairly stupid algorithms scanning my mail to determine which ads to show, but I don't want any humans to read it and if that's what you guys do I will cancel my account on the spot. It's probably illegal at least for the German Google to do it, incidently.
Seems to me to be a too harsh limitation on freedom of press and freedom of speech.
As such people took the mundane approach to it, which was to mourn his passing.
Dude, Jason Haas didn't die. Apart from that, I agree completely.
I was being sarcastic, but why does the browser have to handle its own low level rendering?
It doesn't. It uses a multi-platform API which in turn does the low level rendering (or delegates it somewhere else). Not sure what's wrong with that - I look forward to it.
I'm referring to HMOs, I understand the difference, whatever, it's nitpicking, I think health insurance is fairly well understood to refer to HMOs, too. It doesn't matter, though. The point is not that people pay less premium than indemnity, it's that the total indemnity paid by the insurance is not equal to the total "indemnity" paid if all members were not insured. (Accordingly the average cost per person in the insurance is lower, too.) The insurance has to pay a lower total because it concentrates the bargaining power of all the insured individuals.
An example: Of 1000 people 100 need heart surgery, nobody is insured, everyone is at the mercy of the hospital and gets a rate of $10000 per surgery, average cost is $1000. Now everyone is insured, and the insurance company forces the hospital to lower the rate per surgery to $5000, average cost is now $500. Of course the insurance premium would be something like $750, so that the insurance co still makes a lot of money.
Obviously, whether the average cost and accordingly the premium really is lower than the single bargaining average cost depends on how good a deal an insurance can get (maybe I'm overestimating it) and how large a profit the company wants to make.
You don't take into account the vastly larger bargaining power an insurance company has. On your own your possibilities are limited, extremely so if you are alone and sick.
Hey, I looked it up and have to apologise - tune actually can be pronounced tu:n (or "toon"), rhyming with rune. The pronounciation I'm familiar with it is tjun (or "tyoon"), which is the British variant. What's worse is that the u is considered long in both cases, although it doesn't seem very long to me in the British case. I like phonetics incidently, but it's quite hard to get it right, transcribing stuff into the phonetic alphabet is notoriously difficult.
Oh okay. That's not a long u, though. ;) Sorry for being a pedant.
Seems to me the standard pronounciation would be as in tune or punic. To be standardly pronounced as tsu:n it would have to be written Zoon as in toon, boon, harpoon.
I built a new system and just installed XP 64-bit edition earlier today, but I'm now considering installing the Vista Beta (got easy access to it via MSDNAA) - is it worth the trouble? I'll be using the system in multiple ways, browsing, gaming, watching video, and (Java) development.
Anybody trying to make a distinction on when and where the proper use of the term own vs. pwn is just talking out their tailpipe.
First of all, you just made such a distinction yourself, saying that "pwn" is (deliberately) used to imply a sense of frantic urgency. And second, I don't think that's correct. My experience is much more in line with what Wikipedia says, namely that pwn is used to refer to a very clear and humiliating defeat. It's not even treated as a misspelling of opwn, if anything it's an alternate spelling, or a word of it's own (pwn?) altogether. Of course the two variants are still very much similar in meaning, with I guess pwn actually being the more popular term (with the crowd I'm referring to, not overall).
Funnily enough, that'll work just fine in Java.
As every round takes an extra few seconds to sort out the price of the week.
Hey I've got an idea, figure it out once and then just don't forget it for a week.
Well, other people would have just looked into the log file. But I guess you wouldn't do that.
The i-Opener was 'foolproof', and if things went wrong, you could just shut it off and try again, Everything I see today lacks that ability (to varying extents).
You can do just that with any Live CD Linux. Something not working as it should? Reboot. The only downside is the longer boot time. Install to a HD to make it faster (mounted as RO to keep it tamper-proof). I'm sure there are special live CD distributions that come with a fool proof GUI, ie. a big friendly button labeled "INTARWEB".
Trash incineration is very commonplace here in continental Europe - we just don't have enough free space to dump our garbage to - so it must work in some way. Maybe it's not profitable, I don't know, but properly maintaining a landfill is not free, either, as any Sim City player will know. ;)
Huh? I did not talk about replacing YT with a normal BT tracker, I'm talking about seemlessly integrating BT (or any other P2P transport) as an alternative to the typical method of delivery, HTTP. YouTube could look virtually identical to the way it does today, but every file larger than 10k is distributed via BT instead of HTTP. This includes the web content, although distributed serving of dynamic content really is difficult. I think serving just the static content - including the movies - over a P2P network would make a huge difference to the overall traffic amount, though, apparently you disagree.
So you have heard of BT. Good. So what if it adds more complexity? It's still viable. Peer to peer networking for streaming content is difficult, but it's been done before. The difficulty isn't in designing a network that's technically able to deliver the goods in a distributed manner, the real difficulty is in seamlessly integrating it into the browsing experience. In theory, BT could be integrated into the browser just like any other transport like HTTP or FTP: Opera already downloads torrents, but the target would be to be able to use an HTML img tag with a (single file, not folder) torrent as the URL and have the image be downloaded and displayed on the fly, just like all the other URLs are retrieved.