I'll say nothing on this; except there are a lot of factors,
Alcohol is the biggest (drug) killer in Australia (don't have time to back that one up, do some Googling) but not because it's directly killing people, rather it's the side effect of doing something whilst impaired (drunk). A drunk driver rarely only takes out himself, 2 or 3 other people also in the car and that's if he hits a static object like a tree.
As for direct effect, I think Heroin kills the highest percentage of users.
If marijuana is legalised, I think we'll have to look out for the same problem as Alcohol, driving baked will also become deadly.
This is why I said I'd say nothing on this - because people like you make up your own statistics. These are your own thoughts and have no statistical backing, and are therefore useless.
You say "Alcohol" is the biggest killer - but that's because it's the most used drug.
Just to make the point that you shouldn't rely on opinion - go have a look online for people driving stoned; there was a report out that those baked were safer. Also stats from Holland and other countries where it's legal might be better than going by your own thoughts.
Sorry to argue, but you're done exactly what the parent of my post did - "Alcohol is worse than gambling because I think it is.". Are these things the same now? No. They are entirely different things with entirely different effects.
The discussion here is whether the Government should get involved, not making an arbitrary comparison of very different drugs/addictions based on your own experience.
Sorry, but I hate those "I'm not justifying, but..." comments. A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it. Yes, they are trolls, but it doesn't mean that every thing is fair in the name of "retaliation". Or as the saying goes "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". The phrasing of the opening sentence does justify Operation Payback's action, if somehow indirectly.
In my country there have been a few cases of violence against doctors by angered patients or their families. Whenever there is a news item about such a case you see the inevitable comment: "I am not justifying violence, but sometimes doctors can be such assholes/jerks/arrogant bastards/whatever and they just deserve a few blows to straighten them up".
I would have worded the sentence differently: "If the US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully, they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms, however, this does not justify bomb threats." I will refrain from using the FTFY word:)
Sorry, remind me again - when is 'Bomb Threat' considered 'Violence'? I know we all hate the word 'terrorism', but that's at least a little closer.
* Of course, drugs in this context do not include Alcohol or Nicotene, two of the most dangerous and addicting substances known to man
Alcohol is not chemically addictive, unlike tobacco. Nor does Alcohol have a high rate of developing a debilitating illness or condition later in life unless taken in extreme excess (I.E. getting plastered every day for 25 years). What makes Alcohol such a big killer is driving or operating machinery whilst impaired (drunk), to borrow one from the gun nuts, drinking does not kill people, driving drunk does.
I'll say nothing on this; except there are a lot of factors, even after ignoring the chemical/psychological addiction. The best way to look it is the numbers (of which Alcohol would be highest), but that's not a fair comparison considering legal/non-legal drugs.
Of course, it would get misused. You will have patrolmen seeing people in supermarkets texting, then pulling them over as soon as they drive out with a ticket for texting because the time was so close. However, if it is another revenue stream for municipalities looking for cash and can't raise taxes, I'm sure they will try to squeeze cellular providers into providing them a method for real time access to call logs by staff. Very simple method of trade -- no real time access, no right of way for new LTE towers or wiring. Fines and seized vehicles are a great income source, so as time goes on, we see the laws for the average person becoming more and more complicated, and the penalties for infractions get greater and greater. This isn't to protect the common citizen, it is to keep milking a cash cow.
Texting sucks and people doing that are clear and present dangers on the road, but there is a point where too much enforcement only benefits the attorneys in the justice system, and is of little to no benefit for citizens.
Sounds way too controlling, totalitarian, and far too profitable to me. What is wrong with educating people?
Care to explain that one? In the shop or the lab, we all heard that engineering safeguards (technology) are more effective than administrative safeguards (I.E. rules) because people don't follow rules.
Of course, I remember now. Censoring the internet, CCTV, ID Cards... they all work perfectly, and no-one ever gets around those; right?
However... How can you trust the people who control the database?
Short answer: by following the links.
Long answer: This is not a *trust* issue, because the function which converts
a short URL to the long version can be computed easily by anybody (the browser simply follows the link, and remembers the association).
I completely understand what you're suggesting; but those users who DO check with the online database, could be logged too. It's not quite as easy to track, but it's possible, even just for link popularity. Plus it's relying on a single point of failure for all shortening services.
Your idea would possibly even use more traffic anyway* - a 301 redirect is all in the header, and would be smaller, or at least no larger than any other way of returning a URL. I'm just not sure how it'd be advantageous. It is a nice thought though. I can't think of any decent solution to solve it without exchanging more bandwidth for privacy.
* presumably it'd use HTTP for lookup, rather than caching the database; which would get huge, and any new links would have to be looked up manually anyway
This would require a browser plugin to create a dictionary, by converting the short URLs into their long forms, and share that dictionary with others. Ideally, only one person would actually click through the shortened URL to learn what the long URL is, while everyone else would take advantage of that knowledge.
Basically, this amounts to creating a community driven middle man for the URL shortening middle men. The required technology isn't more sophisticated than spam blocklists, which have been done before.
If 80% of the most popular shortened links are community cached, then 80% of
the most valuable browsing statistics will be unavailable to the shortened URL provider, and they'll have trouble monetizing their "added value".
Or just connect to the URL, parse the headers and grab the URL that way? Storing a database of them would be an idea if you want to stop tracking, but it's not necessary to actually even visit the resulting URL.
However... How can you trust the people who control the database?
Read my other posts - Speeding in, say, a residential area that looks safe as you don't see anyone right now, that's more of a tricky issue. It's also where I was going with the example but it kinda came out wrong.
That wouldn't be considered a long, flat, strai(gh)t, empty road though; would it?
I understand your point, but it's totally irrelevant.
How is this a news article? Oxford University Press says that when they are ready to publish their next revision in 10 years, they might consider doing it online only if there isn't a demand for the hard-copy version.
Calling it "wild speculation" just doesn't do that term justice.
I'm actually surprised this wasn't the Collins English Dictionary announcing this - after all, it's them that's owned by Murdoch.
So the solution, clearly, is never to hire anyone who in the future might cause you to have to resort to disciplinary action.
Or perhaps, a more sane solution to take away is to not rely on just one person for security, especially when you're about to discipline them; and disgruntling your only administrator without any form of reprise is possibly a very stupid idea.
Though, feel free to try your Magic-Eight Ball version if you like.
Then there are hundreds of different Linux distros and configurations which all work a little bit different.
I know nothing about writing games, but even I'd imagine that writing compatible games on Linux is easier than on Windows. Certainly I've had less trouble playing them anyway.
Adobe's security track record is too poor for my liking
I agree entirely, but there's nothing quite so frustrating as needing information off a website that insists on using Flash. VNCing/RDPing to a remote machine from a phone just to get some info would be silly - but I've had to do it before!
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with Firefox though, but since I don't use it, I guess that is moot.;)
Just that the Nokia N900 uses a Firefox-compatible... thingy... that has the normal add-ons. Rather than having a specific 'mobile browser' (although there are plenty of options); using the same systems as Firefox makes sense to me.
Just because you don't want Flash on your phone doesn't mean it's not a necessity sometimes, as annoying as that might be! =]
Just because the vocal minority wants Flash on their Android phones, does not mean that we all do...
I for one will be removing anything Flash-related should it be pushed in my next firmware update.
The Nokia N900 does it well. Flash support, but it's easily disabled, and there's this plugin called Flashblock, and there's something called Adblock as well. Pretty useful for those few sites that NEED Flash.
Why reinvent what Firefox has already done quite well?
Slashdot Mirror
Alcohol is the biggest (drug) killer in Australia (don't have time to back that one up, do some Googling) but not because it's directly killing people, rather it's the side effect of doing something whilst impaired (drunk). A drunk driver rarely only takes out himself, 2 or 3 other people also in the car and that's if he hits a static object like a tree. As for direct effect, I think Heroin kills the highest percentage of users. If marijuana is legalised, I think we'll have to look out for the same problem as Alcohol, driving baked will also become deadly.
This is why I said I'd say nothing on this - because people like you make up your own statistics. These are your own thoughts and have no statistical backing, and are therefore useless.
You say "Alcohol" is the biggest killer - but that's because it's the most used drug.
Just to make the point that you shouldn't rely on opinion - go have a look online for people driving stoned; there was a report out that those baked were safer. Also stats from Holland and other countries where it's legal might be better than going by your own thoughts.
Sorry to argue, but you're done exactly what the parent of my post did - "Alcohol is worse than gambling because I think it is.". Are these things the same now? No. They are entirely different things with entirely different effects.
The discussion here is whether the Government should get involved, not making an arbitrary comparison of very different drugs/addictions based on your own experience.
Sorry, but I hate those "I'm not justifying, but..." comments. A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it. Yes, they are trolls, but it doesn't mean that every thing is fair in the name of "retaliation". Or as the saying goes "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". The phrasing of the opening sentence does justify Operation Payback's action, if somehow indirectly. In my country there have been a few cases of violence against doctors by angered patients or their families. Whenever there is a news item about such a case you see the inevitable comment: "I am not justifying violence, but sometimes doctors can be such assholes/jerks/arrogant bastards/whatever and they just deserve a few blows to straighten them up". I would have worded the sentence differently: "If the US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully, they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms, however, this does not justify bomb threats." I will refrain from using the FTFY word :)
Sorry, remind me again - when is 'Bomb Threat' considered 'Violence'? I know we all hate the word 'terrorism', but that's at least a little closer.
Alcohol is not chemically addictive, unlike tobacco. Nor does Alcohol have a high rate of developing a debilitating illness or condition later in life unless taken in extreme excess (I.E. getting plastered every day for 25 years). What makes Alcohol such a big killer is driving or operating machinery whilst impaired (drunk), to borrow one from the gun nuts, drinking does not kill people, driving drunk does.
I'll say nothing on this; except there are a lot of factors, even after ignoring the chemical/psychological addiction. The best way to look it is the numbers (of which Alcohol would be highest), but that's not a fair comparison considering legal/non-legal drugs.
I've just come to leave this here and perhaps point you towards this pretty interesting graph
what happens if there is an emergency in your theater and the people inside have no way of getting in touch with the outside world?
Not exactly the most common of scenarios.
Maybe it's not common right now because people inside have the ability to contact the outside world?
I'm fairly certain that's not the reason for the rarity of such events.
Ah, are you willing to risk the entire cinema-going country's lives just for the sake of not being able to drive with a mobile phone?
Of course, it would get misused. You will have patrolmen seeing people in supermarkets texting, then pulling them over as soon as they drive out with a ticket for texting because the time was so close. However, if it is another revenue stream for municipalities looking for cash and can't raise taxes, I'm sure they will try to squeeze cellular providers into providing them a method for real time access to call logs by staff. Very simple method of trade -- no real time access, no right of way for new LTE towers or wiring. Fines and seized vehicles are a great income source, so as time goes on, we see the laws for the average person becoming more and more complicated, and the penalties for infractions get greater and greater. This isn't to protect the common citizen, it is to keep milking a cash cow.
Texting sucks and people doing that are clear and present dangers on the road, but there is a point where too much enforcement only benefits the attorneys in the justice system, and is of little to no benefit for citizens.
Sounds way too controlling, totalitarian, and far too profitable to me. What is wrong with educating people?
Care to explain that one? In the shop or the lab, we all heard that engineering safeguards (technology) are more effective than administrative safeguards (I.E. rules) because people don't follow rules.
Of course, I remember now. Censoring the internet, CCTV, ID Cards... they all work perfectly, and no-one ever gets around those; right?
front line police officers would be able to check a person's call records for any calls/texts made in the past 1-5 minutes on the phone...
Of course, that'll never get misused by an officer thinking his wife is being unfaithful, right?
what happens if there is an emergency in your theater and the people inside have no way of getting in touch with the outside world?
Not exactly the most common of scenarios.
Maybe it's not common right now because people inside have the ability to contact the outside world?
Short answer: by following the links.
Long answer: This is not a *trust* issue, because the function which converts a short URL to the long version can be computed easily by anybody (the browser simply follows the link, and remembers the association).
I completely understand what you're suggesting; but those users who DO check with the online database, could be logged too. It's not quite as easy to track, but it's possible, even just for link popularity. Plus it's relying on a single point of failure for all shortening services.
Your idea would possibly even use more traffic anyway* - a 301 redirect is all in the header, and would be smaller, or at least no larger than any other way of returning a URL. I'm just not sure how it'd be advantageous. It is a nice thought though. I can't think of any decent solution to solve it without exchanging more bandwidth for privacy.
* presumably it'd use HTTP for lookup, rather than caching the database; which would get huge, and any new links would have to be looked up manually anyway
This would require a browser plugin to create a dictionary, by converting the short URLs into their long forms, and share that dictionary with others. Ideally, only one person would actually click through the shortened URL to learn what the long URL is, while everyone else would take advantage of that knowledge.
Basically, this amounts to creating a community driven middle man for the URL shortening middle men. The required technology isn't more sophisticated than spam blocklists, which have been done before.
If 80% of the most popular shortened links are community cached, then 80% of the most valuable browsing statistics will be unavailable to the shortened URL provider, and they'll have trouble monetizing their "added value".
Or just connect to the URL, parse the headers and grab the URL that way? Storing a database of them would be an idea if you want to stop tracking, but it's not necessary to actually even visit the resulting URL.
However... How can you trust the people who control the database?
should be 302 !! :)
iirc, don't 302 redirects suffer from the hijack problem?
Not everyone has 1MB/s.
Any ideas on how to convince people to stop?
Surely it's the latency, not the bandwidth that is the problem with 301s?
They can't be much more than a few hundred bytes!
Read my other posts - Speeding in, say, a residential area that looks safe as you don't see anyone right now, that's more of a tricky issue. It's also where I was going with the example but it kinda came out wrong.
That wouldn't be considered a long, flat, strai(gh)t, empty road though; would it?
I understand your point, but it's totally irrelevant.
How is this a news article? Oxford University Press says that when they are ready to publish their next revision in 10 years, they might consider doing it online only if there isn't a demand for the hard-copy version.
Calling it "wild speculation" just doesn't do that term justice.
I'm actually surprised this wasn't the Collins English Dictionary announcing this - after all, it's them that's owned by Murdoch.
You lost me at "cat".
Where can I find this blog. Sounds like a riot.
Maybe he meant this: http://www.simonscat.com/
BINGO!! I've got Bingo!
Dammit! I was only waiting for 'Synergy'!
So the solution, clearly, is never to hire anyone who in the future might cause you to have to resort to disciplinary action.
Or perhaps, a more sane solution to take away is to not rely on just one person for security, especially when you're about to discipline them; and disgruntling your only administrator without any form of reprise is possibly a very stupid idea.
Though, feel free to try your Magic-Eight Ball version if you like.
It's such a waste of perfectly good cannabis :(
IIRC, usually a different type of Cannabis plant is used for hemp vs. for 'medicinal' use.
How about not disgruntling the employee in the first place?
Relatively current events counterexample A: Terry Childs.
I would argue that Terry Childs was disgruntled, being as he had an ongoing disciplinary case.
Coincidence, or something more sinister?
Sir, was that an obscure quote from Time Gentlemen Please? If so, I heartedly applaud you!
Then there are hundreds of different Linux distros and configurations which all work a little bit different.
I know nothing about writing games, but even I'd imagine that writing compatible games on Linux is easier than on Windows. Certainly I've had less trouble playing them anyway.
Well then carry the gun in the open
Some of us would rather not have people running in terror from us when we walk down the street.
I don't understand. Why would you ever not want that?
I could burn through that much money just by having my dream home built.
Which is a physical asset that can be seized and sold.
Not if it's made out of dreams.
Adobe's security track record is too poor for my liking
I agree entirely, but there's nothing quite so frustrating as needing information off a website that insists on using Flash. VNCing/RDPing to a remote machine from a phone just to get some info would be silly - but I've had to do it before!
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with Firefox though, but since I don't use it, I guess that is moot. ;)
Just that the Nokia N900 uses a Firefox-compatible... thingy... that has the normal add-ons. Rather than having a specific 'mobile browser' (although there are plenty of options); using the same systems as Firefox makes sense to me.
Just because you don't want Flash on your phone doesn't mean it's not a necessity sometimes, as annoying as that might be! =]
Just because the vocal minority wants Flash on their Android phones, does not mean that we all do...
I for one will be removing anything Flash-related should it be pushed in my next firmware update.
The Nokia N900 does it well. Flash support, but it's easily disabled, and there's this plugin called Flashblock, and there's something called Adblock as well. Pretty useful for those few sites that NEED Flash.
Why reinvent what Firefox has already done quite well?