Since the Google search pointed to several scientific studies, there is no irony here. Plus, the point of showing the Google search was to demonstrate how obvious and prevalent such information is.
Yay, Slashdot. This is why I so rarely post anymore.
First: Disagreement is not cause for a -1 Flamebait moderation. Second: You have to actually read the articles I linked to, not just the summaries, to understand why "Lead does not cause crime" is a valid statement. It is awesome all the "did you even read the articles??" replies from the people who clearly didn't. So for those TLDR but posted anyway, here is what those articles point out:
Lead poisoning can delay brain development and can lead to violent and thus criminal behavior. But that does not mean that "Lead causes crime." A hockey puck to the head can kill you, but we don't say "Hockey pucks cause death." Current scientific evidence shows that lead has never been a significant factor in crime rates. It is just a correlation, and only for a few decades. Each of the linked articles, except for the Mother Jones article from the summary, point out that reducing lead levels in the environment did not decrease crime rates. There are also many more plausible explanations for crime rates.
The context of the article and discussion is reducing lead in bullets. The summary insinuates that lead in bullets is increasing crime. That is not true, plus it is not relevant to the discussion. Several other posters also pointed out that lead in bullets does not get into the environment significantly.
Exactly! If Comcast could write a program where I give it a file, and it tells me where I can legally obtain it, I would PAY for that service, just so I know where I can get it from! Of course, such a magical program is impossible.
it's a whole different ball game when you got mouths to feed
No, it isn't. We are talking about software engineers with degrees. They aren't a starving lot you know. If they are, it certainly isn't because they are refusing to work at the NSA.
What we should learn from this is that a constitution needs to be a living document. Perhaps constitutional conventions should be required every 20 years or so.
Instead of having courts arguing over the wording of it, the people should just correct the words. Is "persons, houses, papers, and effects" not clear anymore? Change it. Do we honestly think that nuclear weapons aren't "arms?" Let's just fix that so there's no question.
According to the voters Congressman are magically endowed with a super-human understanding of the intricacies of both Federal law and public policy, therefore they not only have the time to read every bill they vote on (including all bills and amendments for everything that comes before their committee), they also magically understand all it's implications without help from their staffs
This is an important point. They probably don't understand most of what they pass.
But ultimately, this is a problem they created and continue to perpetuate. They can't say that the bills are too complicated to read, or that there isn't enough time to understand them, since THEY should be the ones writing these bills and laws. If they simply stopped voting to send things to the floor for a vote until they understood them, they would not have this problem.
It is not a common practice to have lawyers involved in software tool decisions. Having worked as a software engineer and consultant for companies ranging from 3 employees to Fortune 500s. None of them ever had lawyers review software licenses.
At my most recent job at a Fortune 500, I reported 2 cases where we were completely ignoring licenses: one was a click-through that said I agree to allow the company logo to be used in their marketing. Naturally, I have no such authority and putting that in a click-through makes no sense. The other simply said "All Rights Reserved" which was nonsense because it was an SDK, with a royalty-free redistributable. Clearly someone threw that text into the install without thinking.
When I suggested that the legal department make some guidelines, everyone ran and hid because no one wants lawyers involved in their lives any more than is necessary.
That must depend on the jurisdiction or something. In Baltimore, "expunging" means you walk out of the building with the records in a manilla folder and do whatever you want with them. Of course, who can say what other copies exist?
Starting multiple TCP connections to the same host would be slower.
Why? How is the connection setup in HTTP better than the one in TCP?
TCP has been used and vetted for decades. It has survived creative hacks like SYN attacks for decades. I am highly suspect that HTTP can re-implement those features, in a higher layer, more efficiently.
We need a law that states what is legally protected responsible vulnerability disclosure. Something that says "If you do it this way you are not a criminal." Something like:
1) Notify the responsible organization. 2) Give them X days. 3) After that, you may optionally notify a responsible government agency or industry organization like CERT. 4) Give them X days. 5) After that, you may go public with the information. etc.
Anyone in the security industry should already know to do this, but a law would make it clear.
Yes, because a google search is the equivalent of a critical review, and not a popularity contest subject to clever tricks such as search engine optimizat at all.
I have no idea why you are attacking Google. You asked a question, and I answered by citing Dr. Glen Morris, PBS, the FDA, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the CDC.
As for the rest of your post: since I only responded to your question about livestock, I have no idea what your subsequent rant is about.
What Wikipedia article are you talking about? Articles like Constitution of Egypt say almost nothing informative. Where does power reside? What is the power of the president? What is the power of parliament? What houses are there? What are their terms? Who may be elected and for how long? Who determines the budget? What is the court system? How does hte constitution get updated?
None of these questions are answered by the Wikipedia article, nor any of the armchair analysis that I hear on NPR. I don't understand why the most important concepts of the constitution aren't explained. It's like those sports news shows where all they talk about is the personal life of the players, but nothing about the game.
The title of the article shows the author misunderstood what a 3D printer is for: "Printing Plastic Tchotchkes Was Fun, but MakerBot Was Just Too High-Maintenance"
Don't buy a 3D printer to print trinkets. I use mine (mostly) to print gears, axles, motor mounts, custom train tracks, replacement parts, etc. If you want trinkets, buy them from China. This is similar to 2D printers: When color dot matrix printers and inkjet printers were cool, everyone bought one to print silly signs, banners, and jokes. But the novelty wore off and "Print Shop" is no longer a killer-app for your PC.
Hobbyist-level printers really are unreliable and high maintenance. Fortunately, the next generation might be a lot better in that area.
Your conclusions seem limited to the hobby-based machines. If you look at the broader market you will see that some of your assumptions do not hold.
Extruder-based machines aren't a very good technology...The UV polymerization machines seem to work quite well.
The term for extruder-based machines is "Fused Deposition Modeling" or FDM. If FDM machines aren't very good, then why did companies replace their UV polymerization machines with extruder-based machines over a decade ago? UV polymerization is an older technology that hobbyists are excited about because of the Form1. But unless something has changed, the parts it produces are too weak for anything other than chess pieces. It isn't strong enough to make a gear with it. Parts shatter when dropped on a hard floor and degrade in sunlight.
The fundamental problem is that you're trying to weld a hot thing to a cold thing.
There are lots of challenges with FDM, but that is not one of them. Adhesion between layers is very reliable.
The high-end [UV polymerization] machines produce consistent results and don't need to be watched while running
Same with the high-end FDM machines. The problem is the low-end, not the technology itself.
Heating the build platform helps a little, but once you've built something of any height, the heater is too far from the action.
Heating the build platform is a hack to get around the fact that Stratasys has a patent on heated build chambers. This is also part of why the Makerbot Replicator 2 is using PLA exclusively. PLA doesn't require a heated build platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the Google search pointed to several scientific studies, there is no irony here. Plus, the point of showing the Google search was to demonstrate how obvious and prevalent such information is.
Yay, Slashdot. This is why I so rarely post anymore.
First: Disagreement is not cause for a -1 Flamebait moderation.
Second: You have to actually read the articles I linked to, not just the summaries, to understand why "Lead does not cause crime" is a valid statement. It is awesome all the "did you even read the articles??" replies from the people who clearly didn't. So for those TLDR but posted anyway, here is what those articles point out:
Lead poisoning can delay brain development and can lead to violent and thus criminal behavior. But that does not mean that "Lead causes crime." A hockey puck to the head can kill you, but we don't say "Hockey pucks cause death." Current scientific evidence shows that lead has never been a significant factor in crime rates. It is just a correlation, and only for a few decades. Each of the linked articles, except for the Mother Jones article from the summary, point out that reducing lead levels in the environment did not decrease crime rates. There are also many more plausible explanations for crime rates.
The context of the article and discussion is reducing lead in bullets. The summary insinuates that lead in bullets is increasing crime. That is not true, plus it is not relevant to the discussion. Several other posters also pointed out that lead in bullets does not get into the environment significantly.
So yes, "Lead does not cause crime."
Almost no users actually use this:
Of course not. Anyone security minded won't let Firefox save the passwords in the first place.
Exactly! If Comcast could write a program where I give it a file, and it tells me where I can legally obtain it, I would PAY for that service, just so I know where I can get it from! Of course, such a magical program is impossible.
it's a whole different ball game when you got mouths to feed
No, it isn't. We are talking about software engineers with degrees. They aren't a starving lot you know. If they are, it certainly isn't because they are refusing to work at the NSA.
Please do pump-up summaries by including pseudoscientific commentary. Lead does not cause crime any more than global warming causes piracy.
It may not be Google. It could have been any one of many intermediaries. Their ISP. Their Wifi. Their router. Snooping software on their computers.
Marketing would never let that happen.
What we should learn from this is that a constitution needs to be a living document. Perhaps constitutional conventions should be required every 20 years or so.
Instead of having courts arguing over the wording of it, the people should just correct the words. Is "persons, houses, papers, and effects" not clear anymore? Change it. Do we honestly think that nuclear weapons aren't "arms?" Let's just fix that so there's no question.
We need data protection laws. They should not be able to share such data without a warrant.
According to the voters Congressman are magically endowed with a super-human understanding of the intricacies of both Federal law and public policy, therefore they not only have the time to read every bill they vote on (including all bills and amendments for everything that comes before their committee), they also magically understand all it's implications without help from their staffs
This is an important point. They probably don't understand most of what they pass.
But ultimately, this is a problem they created and continue to perpetuate. They can't say that the bills are too complicated to read, or that there isn't enough time to understand them, since THEY should be the ones writing these bills and laws. If they simply stopped voting to send things to the floor for a vote until they understood them, they would not have this problem.
It is not a common practice to have lawyers involved in software tool decisions. Having worked as a software engineer and consultant for companies ranging from 3 employees to Fortune 500s. None of them ever had lawyers review software licenses.
At my most recent job at a Fortune 500, I reported 2 cases where we were completely ignoring licenses: one was a click-through that said I agree to allow the company logo to be used in their marketing. Naturally, I have no such authority and putting that in a click-through makes no sense. The other simply said "All Rights Reserved" which was nonsense because it was an SDK, with a royalty-free redistributable. Clearly someone threw that text into the install without thinking.
When I suggested that the legal department make some guidelines, everyone ran and hid because no one wants lawyers involved in their lives any more than is necessary.
What if I don't skip the commercials? What if instead, I simply time-shift them to 5 minutes after I go to bed? :-)
That must depend on the jurisdiction or something. In Baltimore, "expunging" means you walk out of the building with the records in a manilla folder and do whatever you want with them. Of course, who can say what other copies exist?
This was news to me, and every news article just vaguely mentions it without providing details. For those unfamiliar, here is an article by the Free Software Foundation explaining the incompatibility. and here is another article which represents a more nuanced position.
[citation required]
The pizza is a lie.
Good summary. Thanks.
I wonder if we should consider a change to TCP for the case of reconnections with the same source/dest?
Starting multiple TCP connections to the same host would be slower.
Why? How is the connection setup in HTTP better than the one in TCP?
TCP has been used and vetted for decades. It has survived creative hacks like SYN attacks for decades. I am highly suspect that HTTP can re-implement those features, in a higher layer, more efficiently.
What is the purpose of a security policy if it does not have firing as the *minimum* consequence?
Someone already edited the article to remove that statement. It has no citation and is hardly believable.
RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE! RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE! RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE!
We need a law that states what is legally protected responsible vulnerability disclosure. Something that says "If you do it this way you are not a criminal." Something like:
1) Notify the responsible organization.
2) Give them X days.
3) After that, you may optionally notify a responsible government agency or industry organization like CERT.
4) Give them X days.
5) After that, you may go public with the information.
etc.
Anyone in the security industry should already know to do this, but a law would make it clear.
Yes, because a google search is the equivalent of a critical review, and not a popularity contest subject to clever tricks such as search engine optimizat at all.
I have no idea why you are attacking Google. You asked a question, and I answered by citing Dr. Glen Morris, PBS, the FDA, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the CDC.
As for the rest of your post: since I only responded to your question about livestock, I have no idea what your subsequent rant is about.
What Wikipedia article are you talking about? Articles like Constitution of Egypt say almost nothing informative. Where does power reside? What is the power of the president? What is the power of parliament? What houses are there? What are their terms? Who may be elected and for how long? Who determines the budget? What is the court system? How does hte constitution get updated?
None of these questions are answered by the Wikipedia article, nor any of the armchair analysis that I hear on NPR. I don't understand why the most important concepts of the constitution aren't explained. It's like those sports news shows where all they talk about is the personal life of the players, but nothing about the game.
The title of the article shows the author misunderstood what a 3D printer is for:
"Printing Plastic Tchotchkes Was Fun, but MakerBot Was Just Too High-Maintenance"
Don't buy a 3D printer to print trinkets. I use mine (mostly) to print gears, axles, motor mounts, custom train tracks, replacement parts, etc. If you want trinkets, buy them from China. This is similar to 2D printers: When color dot matrix printers and inkjet printers were cool, everyone bought one to print silly signs, banners, and jokes. But the novelty wore off and "Print Shop" is no longer a killer-app for your PC.
Hobbyist-level printers really are unreliable and high maintenance. Fortunately, the next generation might be a lot better in that area.
Your conclusions seem limited to the hobby-based machines. If you look at the broader market you will see that some of your assumptions do not hold.
Extruder-based machines aren't a very good technology...The UV polymerization machines seem to work quite well.
The term for extruder-based machines is "Fused Deposition Modeling" or FDM. If FDM machines aren't very good, then why did companies replace their UV polymerization machines with extruder-based machines over a decade ago? UV polymerization is an older technology that hobbyists are excited about because of the Form1. But unless something has changed, the parts it produces are too weak for anything other than chess pieces. It isn't strong enough to make a gear with it. Parts shatter when dropped on a hard floor and degrade in sunlight.
The fundamental problem is that you're trying to weld a hot thing to a cold thing.
There are lots of challenges with FDM, but that is not one of them. Adhesion between layers is very reliable.
The high-end [UV polymerization] machines produce consistent results and don't need to be watched while running
Same with the high-end FDM machines. The problem is the low-end, not the technology itself.
Heating the build platform helps a little, but once you've built something of any height, the heater is too far from the action.
Heating the build platform is a hack to get around the fact that Stratasys has a patent on heated build chambers. This is also part of why the Makerbot Replicator 2 is using PLA exclusively. PLA doesn't require a heated build platform.