It looks like you can already start playing in C/C++ if you want, you just need Go to build the libquic BoringSSL dependency (and there's already a discussion around trying removing Go from the build process in Issues).
Yep. No regulation has done a great job historically, just look at the economy. I mean, how else are we supposed to have things like price-fixing and monopolies.
Seriously though, why does everything have to be black and white. Personally, I think regulation has a place, but in moderation, where it makes sense. Unfortunately though, no regulation only works when people can regulate themselves, which doesn't appear to be reality.
If the masses stood up and said "we'll support the station that doesn't have loud ads", then those broadcasters would eventually listen.... The loudness of advertising is none of the states business.
That would work if they didn't all do it. Unfortunately I've never seen/heard of a broadcaster who does this, and it appears that many of the commenters haven't. Instead of just saying "regulation bad!", why not be constructive and provide an example?
Evolution is a process of change in generation severe enough to result in the arise of new species.
Hereditary change within a species is very proven and isn't a debately point to me.
Since you appear to not know what this word means, below is an excerpt from Webster's.
Evolution
Ev`o*lu"tion\, n. [L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. ['e]volution evolution. See Evolve.]
...
6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development. (b) That theory of generation which supposes the germ to pre["e]xist in the parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to epigenesis.
...
-- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
Oh, and debately is not a word, maybe you meant debatable.
Oh wait, that's not what it actually says. It only talks about infringing material. ... And who decides what's infringing or not? If Google archive's a torrent tracker, does that not make Google a facilitator to copyright infringement as well? This could easily get out of hand (more so then it already has) very quickly if this passes.
Also, if you read the the article you must have also read this sentence:
For example page three, paragraph one is a "Pirate Bay killer" clause designed to criminalize the non-profit facilitation of unauthorized information exchange on the internet. Really, that doesn't sound to me like it refers only to infringing material.
I'm shocked and surprised that the submitter chose to use such an inflammatory statement in the summary... This is Slashdot you clod. I don't think a poor summary should be surprising or shocking to anyone who frequents this site. Although, I don't actually believe that this summary is as full of hyperbole as you seem to think it is, I've definitely seen worse summaries.
Document says "Procedures enabling rights holders... to obtain information regarding the alleged infringer". It doesn't mention ISPs. And where do you suppose that information is going to come from? Honestly... come on. If you don't really believe that information would be obtained from ISPs then you must be smoking something. How does the RIAA or the MPAA obtain this information today? ISPs. How does the government obtain this type of information today? ISPs.
And, being that you've already RTFA you must have read this:
If adopted, a treaty of this form would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon internet service providers, including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. Um, does that not refer to internet service providers? It seems pretty spelled out there...
And if you continue and read the document linked to from the wikileaks article, you must have also read on Page 3 the line below. Which very clearly metnions ISPs.
...safeguards for Internet service providers (ISPs fro mliability to encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing material.)
It says "remedies against circumvention of.. protection.. and the trafficking of circumvention devices". It says NOTHING about restricting your ability to use privacy measures online (which would be dumb, because all e-commerce depends on it). Your assertion that all e-commerce depends on privacy measures shocks and surprises me... I'm sure that there's got to be at least one e-commerce site out there that doesn't rely on privacy measures. Just look at the whole facebook fiasco that ensued earlier this year. It sure didn't seem to me like the e-commerce sites that participated and allowed others to view the items that you've purchased relied heavily on privacy measures.
In short, I find you to be exaggerating. A lot. Unless you have another document up your sleeve to back up your assertions, which I doubt. In short, I find you shallow and pedantic. Unless I'm looking at a different document, which I doubt.
This is at least one of the problems with the American school system. Apparently teachers care more about their students' personal lives, and less about their education.
Sweet Jesus, have you even read the comments leading up to your post? Yes, I've read them.
This discussion does not presume that having a conversation in the car is a proven hazard. You're right, however the company producing the product in TFA does presume this. Where is the study, data, or analysis that proves the claims in the post to which I replied? As a matter of fact, even if I were to assume the post which I replied to was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, substantial, the social situation in which you are actively engaged in a conversation with a passenger seems as though it would be of greater importance than that of a phone conversation, and as such would require more attention. As the poster said themselves...
We're social animals and our brains are wired to give social interaction priority. And, as for this so-called-research, where is it? The post I replied to didn't quote, or reference any research.
If there's a red light coming up and you're not stopping for it, the passenger will either stop talking or say something about it (according to taste) I highly doubt that any study, or statistical data would prove or show that all passengers will stop talking or say something about an upcoming stop. Have you actually followed the link to the company manufacturing these products? They list several studies, and after reading through several, none of them address differences between passenger conversations and phone conversations. In fact, all of the studies posted refer to the distraction of the conversation itself.
One study in particular, addresses the issue, and even states that...
Other occupant distractions. Distractions caused by babies, children, or other adults
riding as passengers in the vehicle were all associated with higher levels of both eyes
looking inward and adverse vehicle events And yet another study found that, contrary to the participants' beliefs undertaking the tasks of both conversing and driving on a regular basis did not improve the amount of distraction in their driving.
That is, practice in this dualtask combination did not result in improved performance... Clearly, driving while talking on an actual handset/non-hands-free phone provides a greater distraction than a mere conversation, as most people require taking a hand off the wheel to talk on the phone. However, no where in any of these studies has it been shown that conversing to a passanger, or having a child in the car for that matter, provided less of a distraction than a hands-free cellphone conversation.
So I will ask again. What is the difference, where is the data to show the difference, where are the studies proving the difference, between passenger distractions and conversations from [hands free] cell phone conversations?
Does that mean that, as the studies suggest, merely holding a conversation with the passenger next to you impair your driving as well? In which case, why aren't passengers made illegal, or required to stay silent?
Born and raised in the south, and recently moved to the north. Never been happier, and I'm never going back. A salary more than 2x what I made in the south, and actually having constitutional rights really helps too.
And, as for this so-called New England animosity, you might want to actually take a look at the south. The south has never been a great place filled with "shiny happy people", when in reality the south is simply filled with a dying breed of trigger-happy hypocritical egocentric bigoted racists.
Definately true. Just trying to make sure that people realize that simply disabling cookies makes you untrackable, and in many cases cookies are required.
Really? It'd be nice if you read the article and checked your 'facts'. The article statest that NYT is GOING to be data mining, not that they've begun already. And just to check on the session handling I just disabled cookies and tried to view an article on the site, and sure enough the query string contains OQ=_rQ3D5Q26hpQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26o refQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&REFUSE_COOKIE_ERROR=S HOW_ERROR
Indicative of both a requirement of cookies (REFUSE_COOKIE_ERROR=SHOW_ERROR) for the use of session handling, and '_rQ3D5Q26hpQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26ore fQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin' appears to be a session hash to tell them where you came from, and where you're going.
Just because the url doesn't have a session_id key in it doesn't mean there's no session or server data being passed through the URL.
Even if you disable cookies, its trivial to pass a session id through the url to maintain a user's authenticated session. They'd still be able to determine which/what article you were reading and provide 'similar' links etc. Not to mention that most cookies are used to track and maintain user logins and server sessions, not to data mine... NYT is saying that they're explicitly going "to determine hidden patterns of uses to our website." using data mining, this isn't about Cookies, its about the tracking and monitoring of browsing habits.
Yes and no... Though Japanese does have words which are pronounced the same, and can be written the same way using kana, the words are spelled using different kanji, making them homophones, not homonyms. Either way though, English already uses context to determine the difference between two words in writing. (I read a book yesterday. I can read a book. etc...)
Just because you don't prefer to use single quotes, doesn't mean he has to use double quotes...
"Single or double quotation marks are used to denote either speech or a quotation. Neither style is an absolute rule though double quotes are preferred in the USA, but a publisher's or even an author's style may take precedence. The important rule is that the style of opening and closing quotes must be matched." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22#Quotation_marks_ in_English
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like you can already start playing in C/C++ if you want, you just need Go to build the libquic BoringSSL dependency (and there's already a discussion around trying removing Go from the build process in Issues).
libquic: "sources and dependencies extracted from Chromium's QUIC Implementation with a few modifications and patches to minimize dependencies needed to build QUIC library."
If I could I'd mod this up. Definitely seem more insightful that the parent.
Regulation is bad. Period.
Yep. No regulation has done a great job historically, just look at the economy. I mean, how else are we supposed to have things like price-fixing and monopolies. Seriously though, why does everything have to be black and white. Personally, I think regulation has a place, but in moderation, where it makes sense. Unfortunately though, no regulation only works when people can regulate themselves, which doesn't appear to be reality.
If the masses stood up and said "we'll support the station that doesn't have loud ads", then those broadcasters would eventually listen. ... The loudness of advertising is none of the states business.
That would work if they didn't all do it. Unfortunately I've never seen/heard of a broadcaster who does this, and it appears that many of the commenters haven't. Instead of just saying "regulation bad!", why not be constructive and provide an example?
Evolution is a process of change in generation severe enough to result in the arise of new species. Hereditary change within a species is very proven and isn't a debately point to me.
Since you appear to not know what this word means, below is an excerpt from Webster's.
Evolution Ev`o*lu"tion\, n. [L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. ['e]volution evolution. See Evolve.]
...
...
6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development. (b) That theory of generation which supposes the germ to pre["e]xist in the parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to epigenesis.
-- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
Oh, and debately is not a word, maybe you meant debatable.
Because it isn't really a natural form of sex....many people consider it as abnormal as necrophilia, pedophilia, or bestiality.
Really? Many researchers and observers of animal behaviors in the wild would disagree. Many species perform 'gay sex', and other homosexual behaviors, naturally. There's tons of research on the subject, you should do some reading some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html
Apparently there is some more information and a form letter you can send to your senators on the EFF website: https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383
...safeguards for Internet service providers (ISPs fro mliability to encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing material.) It says "remedies against circumvention ofThis is at least one of the problems with the American school system. Apparently teachers care more about their students' personal lives, and less about their education.
Does that mean that, as the studies suggest, merely holding a conversation with the passenger next to you impair your driving as well? In which case, why aren't passengers made illegal, or required to stay silent?
Born and raised in the south, and recently moved to the north. Never been happier, and I'm never going back. A salary more than 2x what I made in the south, and actually having constitutional rights really helps too. And, as for this so-called New England animosity, you might want to actually take a look at the south. The south has never been a great place filled with "shiny happy people", when in reality the south is simply filled with a dying breed of trigger-happy hypocritical egocentric bigoted racists.
Edit: The above comment should read: "simply disabling cookies *DOES NOT* makes you untrackable"
Definately true. Just trying to make sure that people realize that simply disabling cookies makes you untrackable, and in many cases cookies are required.
Really? It'd be nice if you read the article and checked your 'facts'. The article statest that NYT is GOING to be data mining, not that they've begun already. And just to check on the session handling I just disabled cookies and tried to view an article on the site, and sure enough the query string contains OQ=_rQ3D5Q26hpQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26o refQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&REFUSE_COOKIE_ERROR=S HOW_ERROR
e fQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin' appears to be a session hash to tell them where you came from, and where you're going.
Indicative of both a requirement of cookies (REFUSE_COOKIE_ERROR=SHOW_ERROR) for the use of session handling, and '_rQ3D5Q26hpQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26or
Just because the url doesn't have a session_id key in it doesn't mean there's no session or server data being passed through the URL.
Even if you disable cookies, its trivial to pass a session id through the url to maintain a user's authenticated session. They'd still be able to determine which/what article you were reading and provide 'similar' links etc. Not to mention that most cookies are used to track and maintain user logins and server sessions, not to data mine... NYT is saying that they're explicitly going "to determine hidden patterns of uses to our website." using data mining, this isn't about Cookies, its about the tracking and monitoring of browsing habits.
Yes and no... Though Japanese does have words which are pronounced the same, and can be written the same way using kana, the words are spelled using different kanji, making them homophones, not homonyms. Either way though, English already uses context to determine the difference between two words in writing. (I read a book yesterday. I can read a book. etc...)
Just because you don't prefer to use single quotes, doesn't mean he has to use double quotes... "Single or double quotation marks are used to denote either speech or a quotation. Neither style is an absolute rule though double quotes are preferred in the USA, but a publisher's or even an author's style may take precedence. The important rule is that the style of opening and closing quotes must be matched." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22#Quotation_marks_ in_English
A murderer CAN deny access to their premises, that's why police have to obtain search warrants in order to search the premises even without consent.
Wouldn't this allow kidnappers or anyone else for that matter to block cell phone signals maliciously, or unintentionally in the case of an emergency?