The problem is that, since it is the default, people are coding their sites to rely on it. I keep finding discussion forums that don't work without them. Having this insecure default corrupts the entire system. The worst-case scenario is that you won't be able to purchase anything online without having 3rd-party cookies enabled, because devs just assume it is on.
The real problem is that sites are starting to expect this behavior by default. Someone with a lot of clout needs to ship a browser with 3rd-party cookies disabled, so sites stop relying on it.
When did Mozilla enable 3rd-party cookies? The original Netscape cookie specification back in the 90s specifically stated rules to prevent 3rd-party cookie usage. Yet somehow today it is on by default in most browsers. How and why did that change? There's simply no reason for it.
The government can forbid you from operating a motor vehicle. So by your own definition driving on public roads is not a right.
ehh...no. Two problems here: 1) I should have said "federal" government. The states can regulate these things. And driving laws are written by the states. 2) Just because the government passed such a law doesn't mean they had the power to do so. They can't suddenly make something not be a right.
Please stop the "X is a privilege not a right" because that is not how the US works. According to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, all things are rights unless otherwise stated. So yes, driving is a right.
The confusion is that people think "right" means "the government must provide this" which is not the case. It means "the government cannot forbid you from doing this."
Obama said that he would not allow lobbyists to server in government posts, but he put in a waiver procedure that permits it. Did this person go through that waiver procedure? FYI: Politifact information about the lobbyist promise. There haven't been any updates there regarding this position.
Day 1: Deregulation is evil!!! Day 2: Deregulation is wonderful!!
In this story, all deregulation is evil and capitalism is an illusion. In the Tesla story, deregulating car dealerships is great and everyone loves it. In states where people can choose their own power provider, deregulation is great. When we deregulated phone sales, everyone was happy. (For those who don't know: In the 1970s you had to buy phones from the phone company. they were all big, ugly, and expensive. No answering machines were allowed, etc.)
Can we just stop the blanket "all deregulation sucks" posts? Removing bad regulations is good. Updating old regulations to reflect modern technology is good. But not all regulations are bad. It just isn't black and white.
P.S. What deregulation of high-speed internet access were you even talking about? How can you say it was good or bad without even knowing what is being discussed?
Also, they aren't eliminating nuclear power. The article says:
The study recommended nuclear power capacity be kept between 22 and 29 percent of the total by 2035, well below existing plans to grow the sector to 41 percent in less than 20 years.
Although if they have a scandal going on, don't think that switching the power source will eliminate the underhanded behavior.
Interesting. Those sound like the same problems that batteries have: the main source of electricity is fossil fuels, and the need for infrastructure for charging stations.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals gave a resounding yes to that question today in a 2 to 1 decision.
I wonder what the arguments were on the other side. Especially in light of this:
the Supreme Court justices ruled in January 2012 that law enforcement’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The justices declined to rule at the time, however, on whether such a search was unreasonable and therefore required a warrant.
I suppose one justice thought that even though it was a search, it was not unreasonable.
So there is still wiggle room here for the police. Perhaps other jurisdictions will decide differently. Or perhaps, the search is reasonable in some cases but not others.
Very informative. So revising the original poster's statement:
Statutory damages don't allow for any discretion on the part of the judge. Thank Congress for that.
should really be:
Statutory damages don't allow for enough discretion on the part of the judge. Thank Congress for that.
Since there is room for discretion, but not enough for the fines to be reasonable. Downloading music should not bankrupt someone an individual for life.
Your statement is technically correct, but it misses the intended meaning:
While there is court discretion, there is a statutory minimum. The problem is that the law doesn't state what the unit of measure for a single infringement is. So when the unit of measure is one download of one song, a $200 minimum is unreasonable. That would be $3000 for a single download of a single audio CD. If the file was torrented, the dollar amount increases exponentially as the file is shared.
That is how Jamie Thomas wound-up with a settlement of over $2000 per song.
People do not want to see politics appear in their start menu. This is the stupidest idea in computing. This distracts people, it intrinsically makes them angry.
IMHO, posts that just say "Oh yeah right, like that will happen" aren't contributing to the discussion. It is a generic pessimistic sarcastic reply with nothing meaningful. There is too much of this on Slashdot. While I would not have modded it Troll, I can understand why someone else might have. Alternatively, if you had stated why you thought the SCOTUS would not take the case, or why you think they would support the DOJ's position, then that might be Insightful.
Blame Clapper for allowing the program. But don't blame him for his testimony, because there was no correct answer here. No = lie that preserves top-secret information. Yes = releases top-secret information. No answer = Yes
they appear to be running keyword searches and removing any title that mentions innocuous words like babysitter, sister, or teenager.
That statement is pure speculation. None of the linked articles has any evidence of this. The only mention of it is in the last link, to the-digital-reader.com, which says:
There is also The Nun’s Lover, which appears to have been removed simply because the description mentions the word sister.
And those very large companies are seeing the productivity drain. I worked at a company that did that, and I won't do it again. It is too easy for people to go AFK for a long period of time but appear to be working. You get more and more vague status reports. It is really hard to work on a design, or to do pair programming. It's not the same level of engagement.
Ever watch a presentation or a training video with someone sitting next to you? You probably whisper to each other, point things out, ask questions. But if you both watch it separately that level of collaboration doesn't happen. Even if you confer afterward it isn't the same. Now it takes longer, and it isn't as fresh on your minds. Plus you had to take notes on what to discuss later, which isn't how some people like to learn.
Technology could minimize this, but no practical solution we have today gets us even close. Even with telepresence robots, you can't bend down to whisper a question, trade a sideward glance, or bump their elbow to remind them of something.
Fallout: Radioactive particles that are carried into the atmosphere after a nuclear explosion or accident and gradually fall back as dust or in precipitation.
Terminology aside: Are you saying that the groundwater washed the radioactive material into the ocean, then it evaporated and fell on nearby areas?
As for the dosage:
One thing to note is chest X-ray is really quite little radiation. The famous XKCD chart states it's 0.02 mSv,
Her dosimeter should be telling her the number in mSv per hour. So when she says a chest X-ray, that it a meaningless number. I assumed she meant a chest x-ray per hour, which would quickly accumulate into a dangerous dosage.
It sounds to me like you share the same confusion on this that I do, but made a different assumption. This is the problem with these articles. It's all half-information and guesswork.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that, since it is the default, people are coding their sites to rely on it. I keep finding discussion forums that don't work without them. Having this insecure default corrupts the entire system. The worst-case scenario is that you won't be able to purchase anything online without having 3rd-party cookies enabled, because devs just assume it is on.
The real problem is that sites are starting to expect this behavior by default. Someone with a lot of clout needs to ship a browser with 3rd-party cookies disabled, so sites stop relying on it.
When did Mozilla enable 3rd-party cookies? The original Netscape cookie specification back in the 90s specifically stated rules to prevent 3rd-party cookie usage. Yet somehow today it is on by default in most browsers. How and why did that change? There's simply no reason for it.
If getting to Mars by rocket is a long haul, does that mean there is a shorter way?
The government can forbid you from operating a motor vehicle. So by your own definition driving on public roads is not a right.
ehh...no. Two problems here:
1) I should have said "federal" government. The states can regulate these things. And driving laws are written by the states.
2) Just because the government passed such a law doesn't mean they had the power to do so. They can't suddenly make something not be a right.
Please stop the "X is a privilege not a right" because that is not how the US works. According to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, all things are rights unless otherwise stated. So yes, driving is a right.
The confusion is that people think "right" means "the government must provide this" which is not the case. It means "the government cannot forbid you from doing this."
Obama said that he would not allow lobbyists to server in government posts, but he put in a waiver procedure that permits it. Did this person go through that waiver procedure?
FYI: Politifact information about the lobbyist promise. There haven't been any updates there regarding this position.
Day 1: Deregulation is evil!!!
Day 2: Deregulation is wonderful!!
In this story, all deregulation is evil and capitalism is an illusion. In the Tesla story, deregulating car dealerships is great and everyone loves it. In states where people can choose their own power provider, deregulation is great. When we deregulated phone sales, everyone was happy. (For those who don't know: In the 1970s you had to buy phones from the phone company. they were all big, ugly, and expensive. No answering machines were allowed, etc.)
Can we just stop the blanket "all deregulation sucks" posts? Removing bad regulations is good. Updating old regulations to reflect modern technology is good. But not all regulations are bad. It just isn't black and white.
P.S. What deregulation of high-speed internet access were you even talking about? How can you say it was good or bad without even knowing what is being discussed?
The article never loaded for me. Try this one: Stung by Scandal
Also, they aren't eliminating nuclear power. The article says:
The study recommended nuclear power capacity be kept between 22 and 29 percent of the total by 2035, well below existing plans to grow the sector to 41 percent in less than 20 years.
Although if they have a scandal going on, don't think that switching the power source will eliminate the underhanded behavior.
Interesting. Those sound like the same problems that batteries have: the main source of electricity is fossil fuels, and the need for infrastructure for charging stations.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one observes it, how long did it take to fall?
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals gave a resounding yes to that question today in a 2 to 1 decision.
I wonder what the arguments were on the other side. Especially in light of this:
the Supreme Court justices ruled in January 2012 that law enforcement’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The justices declined to rule at the time, however, on whether such a search was unreasonable and therefore required a warrant.
I suppose one justice thought that even though it was a search, it was not unreasonable.
So there is still wiggle room here for the police. Perhaps other jurisdictions will decide differently. Or perhaps, the search is reasonable in some cases but not others.
Very informative. So revising the original poster's statement:
Statutory damages don't allow for any discretion on the part of the judge. Thank Congress for that.
should really be:
Statutory damages don't allow for enough discretion on the part of the judge. Thank Congress for that.
Since there is room for discretion, but not enough for the fines to be reasonable. Downloading music should not bankrupt someone an individual for life.
Your statement is technically correct, but it misses the intended meaning:
While there is court discretion, there is a statutory minimum. The problem is that the law doesn't state what the unit of measure for a single infringement is. So when the unit of measure is one download of one song, a $200 minimum is unreasonable. That would be $3000 for a single download of a single audio CD. If the file was torrented, the dollar amount increases exponentially as the file is shared.
That is how Jamie Thomas wound-up with a settlement of over $2000 per song.
The reason people hate the Windows 8 start screen is because it displays politics. Seriously, take a look:
http://www.bleepstatic.com/tutorials/windows-8/introduction-start-screen/windows-8-start-screen.jpg
Peace envoy to visit Syria to broker ceasefire...
People do not want to see politics appear in their start menu. This is the stupidest idea in computing. This distracts people, it intrinsically makes them angry.
IMHO, posts that just say "Oh yeah right, like that will happen" aren't contributing to the discussion. It is a generic pessimistic sarcastic reply with nothing meaningful. There is too much of this on Slashdot. While I would not have modded it Troll, I can understand why someone else might have. Alternatively, if you had stated why you thought the SCOTUS would not take the case, or why you think they would support the DOJ's position, then that might be Insightful.
it doesn't bring his guilt into question. It would not, for example, get rid of the bank records of his financial transactions with terrorists.
Actually, it would. If the data was gathered improperly then it is not admissible in court, and that would significantly affect the trial.
Blame Clapper for allowing the program. But don't blame him for his testimony, because there was no correct answer here.
No = lie that preserves top-secret information.
Yes = releases top-secret information.
No answer = Yes
Just to clarify: The company I refer to was going teleconferencing for development, not just meetings. Hence the part about working on a design.
they appear to be running keyword searches and removing any title that mentions innocuous words like babysitter, sister, or teenager.
That statement is pure speculation. None of the linked articles has any evidence of this. The only mention of it is in the last link, to the-digital-reader.com, which says:
There is also The Nun’s Lover, which appears to have been removed simply because the description mentions the word sister.
But there is nothing to back up that assumption.
And those very large companies are seeing the productivity drain. I worked at a company that did that, and I won't do it again. It is too easy for people to go AFK for a long period of time but appear to be working. You get more and more vague status reports. It is really hard to work on a design, or to do pair programming. It's not the same level of engagement.
Ever watch a presentation or a training video with someone sitting next to you? You probably whisper to each other, point things out, ask questions. But if you both watch it separately that level of collaboration doesn't happen. Even if you confer afterward it isn't the same. Now it takes longer, and it isn't as fresh on your minds. Plus you had to take notes on what to discuss later, which isn't how some people like to learn.
Technology could minimize this, but no practical solution we have today gets us even close. Even with telepresence robots, you can't bend down to whisper a question, trade a sideward glance, or bump their elbow to remind them of something.
As far as I can tell, it's a problem in search of a solution
You meant a solution in search of a problem.
That's not the Nagle algorithm. Nagle is about delaying before sending packaets, to prevent lots of small packets instead of one big one.
I am not familiar with these import bans. Who sets them, and what power does the president hold here?
First they're blaming crime on video games. Now they're blaming war crimes?
RTFA. No, they did not do those things. In fact, they specifically state the opposite!
However the ICRC is not involved in the debate about the level of violence in video games.
The term fallout doesn't apply here.
Fallout: Radioactive particles that are carried into the atmosphere after a nuclear explosion or accident and gradually fall back as dust or in precipitation.
Terminology aside: Are you saying that the groundwater washed the radioactive material into the ocean, then it evaporated and fell on nearby areas?
As for the dosage:
One thing to note is chest X-ray is really quite little radiation. The famous XKCD chart states it's 0.02 mSv,
Her dosimeter should be telling her the number in mSv per hour. So when she says a chest X-ray, that it a meaningless number. I assumed she meant a chest x-ray per hour, which would quickly accumulate into a dangerous dosage.
It sounds to me like you share the same confusion on this that I do, but made a different assumption. This is the problem with these articles. It's all half-information and guesswork.