The article is a lot of FUD, and doesn't even directly address the notion of malware, popups, etc. What it does say it seems to gloss over in an unpersuasive manner while giving quotes from seeming authorities on how bad this problem has suddenly be revealed to be. It seems to be aimed at convincing its audience that pedophiles are far more common than they really are and that the adoption of this new product is very badly needed.
No doubt this will lead to actions taken by people who don't even understand what the internet is or what's going on here.
Get into a accident where there is no injury, just physical car damage, people/a tow truck will move the car as long as its not in a thousand pieces. Get into an injury, unless the person can walk away on his own, no one is moving that car until medical help arrives.
If you're in a wreck at 65 miles per hour, you should go to a hospital, seat belt or no. Seat belts reduce the injury from violent crashes. Broken ribs are better than getting your face through the dashboard. On the autobahn, they don't even have ambulances. If you get into a wreck at +100 mph, all you need is a towtruck.
How are the rates for a new insurer determined? Don't you think they use historical data and statistics? Your serious injury does cause other people's rates to go up. Look up how rates are determined for new and existing drivers (when they renew).
It's not my responsibility to help private industry reduce the cost of their product.
To respond properly to your other posts would take a day's worth of research so I'll let that matter rest.
Everyone else pays? Then why am I shelling out all this money for insurance.
Well, if you haven't been to the hospital lately, then your insurance money is being used to pay for other people's medical bills. If other people's medical bills were smaller, then there's a chance that your premiums would be lower...
Yes, it was a rhetorical question. Insurance is a private industry. Why is it the responsibility of government to decrease the cost of private industry at taxpayer expense? If insurance was administered by the government, it might be a different story.
What we need is better information for the insurance companies, so they can more accuratly assign rates to people and make them bear their own burdens. It creates a similar outcome (but not identical) to the current system, but a different philosophy based on freedom and responsibility.
Ummm I was more thinking about taking resources away from others that need it. The police/ambulance/doctor/nurse/medical tech. is not looking after someone else.
Thats not even talking about the jam up on the roads and insurance rates that go up for everyone.
Not wearing a seat belt causes road jam ups? The roads are going to be jammed up if you get in an accident or not.
Insurance is a private enterprise right now. A person's own rates go up if they get in an accident. Why should our publicly funded police be running around trying to increase profits for a private industry? It's the job of the insurance industry to judge the liklihood that you'll get in an accident and to set rates appropriatly. If insurance doesn't want to insure unbuckled riders, that's between the insurance industry and the rider.
Um... you might want to look up why many people outside of the government think its a good idea. Take a look at the private pension funds and see how much stock they own. Or look the academic research done on asset allocation.
The government was going to buy into the market just shortly before it took a nosedive. It may be a good idea for private pension funds to invest in the stock market. But private pension funds aren't taking hudreds of millions in campaign contributions and they aren't playing with other people's money.
>When you get into an accident, you have to get >rescued/treated and perhaps go to a hospital >and get treated there. Then everyone else gets >to pay.
Everyone else pays? Then why am I shelling out all this money for insurance. You go to a hospital in an ambulance, you pay for the ambulance. They make insurance mandatory for a reason. And I support mandatory insurance, because it forces people to be able to pay for their own mistakes.
If people hurt themselves, so long as it's their own fault, that's life. The alternative is other people making my choices for me. I don't want the government to be able to say I can't go white water rafting or rock climbing or scuba diving because it's too dangerous. Warnings are one thing. Telling someone to get down is one thing. Fines are idiotic.
Why doesn't anyone consider the political consequences of the US government's recent conversion to the belief that people are basically mentally incompetent and need a parental government to protect them?
I can't drive along a 20 mph stretch of road with my seatbelt off, but I can drive 65 mph down some strech of highway with it on. Where do you think I'm safer? The government is doing a shitty job of protecting me from myself. If I get in an accident, I should sue them for letting me drive on that fast, dangerous highway, right? It's their responsibility, not just to warn me, but to force me to be safe. Ah, but they figure people get more benifts driving down a fast highway. Shouldn't I be allowed to make that decision, for better or worse?
Maybe people just live in a society where they think others should force them to do the right thing, and the consequences for their actions should be other people's responsibility. It would explain a lot of the insane lawsuits flying around.
It's not the government's job to stop stupid people from hurting themselves or to decide what risks are acceptable. It's their job to stop stupid people from hurting me, or cheating me, or giving me false information. The government can give helpful information, but it isn't my parent and it shouldn't have any burden or compulsion to make my cost-benefit anlayses for me. These are the same people who wanted to invest Social Security in the stock market, remember? They suck at cost benefit analysis.
Amen to this. I'm sick and tired of fines intended to protect people from themselves. Not wearing a seatbelt? Get a fine. Walk across a train track. Get a fine. Hey, we're just trying to protect you from yourself.
The second example I could see if it were called a form of trespassing and justified as trying to protect the folks who run the trains from liability if someone got hit. I just don't buy it when cops try the "we're just trying to keep you safe" angle. But I resent the notion that people need the police to keep them from hurting themselves, and that 'fining' will convince people to value their lives.
Yeah, I met kids who went through and even helped administer those anti-drug programs in H.S. They're good friends of mine. They all do pot now. (well, except for two girls)
And I didn't go through the program and I'm clean. Shows you how well lying works.
Actually, if everyone does a particular thing, sometimes it becomes legal.
If you don't have 'no trespassing' signs on your yard and kids walk through it every day for, say about 7 years (this is the usual) you can actually lose the right to stop them. The area becomes public domain for a particular purpose.
It would be interesting to see this applied to a network.
Same thing with rapes on our campus. The logic was "why should a student's life be ruined because of a mistake they made in college." Bloody fucking stupid.
A lot of minor fake russian grammar mistakes in your writing, but your other posts are in perfect english.
One is reprinted below;
With all the respect, I was coding in Basic at age 7 too... And I was reading freely at age 4, so not everything is quite so unnatural as you may think. But I'm afraid that main problem with Linux today is only the fact that community has become too religious. You know, like those cool streetracers with 20 years old rusty cars that refuses to believe that their car IS a PILE OF SHIT. Be calm. And just agree that linux is nothing but a successful hack on everything. Lets be honest - Windows beats linux pants down when it comes to usability (everyday usability, I'm not talking about the ones who are keeping a full basement of computers just to be able to reinstall some os every evening) and as for system design - I may be wrong, but I really like FreeBSD's kernel design much much better. It's just that Linux gained monumentum. And now, everyone involved is doing everything possible to hide the fact that they have produced a big pile of shit that noone but they alone wants to use. Poor pity geeks.
You are kind and sensitive and enjoy talking to strangers. You bear a healthy disregard to political issues and are not offended by most things you see in the news.
While your friends view you as somthing of a pushover, they also respect your intelligence.
Your lucky number is 7 Your sun sign is Leo Your lucky day was 2 years, 3 months ago
... Till some wiseguy records grades in the thing. You can scan your kid to see how they did in their class that day. Hell, maybe they'll wire up the bathroom (The Japanese have the BEST lavatory technology.) "I'm sorry. You can't come in till your grades improve."
I think Buckminster Fuller had some stuff about this. Theoretically, an 'aircraft' that looked like a missle would be extremly efficient and have comparitivly little drag. I don't know the efficiency for lifting bodies, but maybe they're similar.
Slashdot Mirror
They're very high in Vitamin C. ... was it a wild rose? Cut roses from flower shops have detergent in them.
The article is a lot of FUD, and doesn't even directly address the notion of malware, popups, etc. What it does say it seems to gloss over in an unpersuasive manner while giving quotes from seeming authorities on how bad this problem has suddenly be revealed to be. It seems to be aimed at convincing its audience that pedophiles are far more common than they really are and that the adoption of this new product is very badly needed.
No doubt this will lead to actions taken by people who don't even understand what the internet is or what's going on here.
From an earlier slashdot article, a comedian got a member of parliment to say, in all seriousness, "Using an area of the Internet the size of Ireland, pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible."
Get into a accident where there is no injury, just physical car damage, people/a tow truck will move the car as long as its not in a thousand pieces. Get into an injury, unless the person can walk away on his own, no one is moving that car until medical help arrives.
If you're in a wreck at 65 miles per hour, you should go to a hospital, seat belt or no. Seat belts reduce the injury from violent crashes. Broken ribs are better than getting your face through the dashboard. On the autobahn, they don't even have ambulances. If you get into a wreck at +100 mph, all you need is a towtruck.
How are the rates for a new insurer determined? Don't you think they use historical data and statistics? Your serious injury does cause other people's rates to go up. Look up how rates are determined for new and existing drivers (when they renew).
It's not my responsibility to help private industry reduce the cost of their product.
To respond properly to your other posts would take a day's worth of research so I'll let that matter rest.
Maybe she can't afford a car?
Auto insurance covers you if you're poor and you get hit too.
Laws protect the rich? So... you're in favor of theft, anarchy and street justice? I don't think I'm following you.
Everyone else pays? Then why am I shelling out all this money for insurance.
Well, if you haven't been to the hospital lately, then your insurance money is being used to pay for other people's medical bills. If other people's medical bills were smaller, then there's a chance that your premiums would be lower...
Yes, it was a rhetorical question.
Insurance is a private industry. Why is it the responsibility of government to decrease the cost of private industry at taxpayer expense? If insurance was administered by the government, it might be a different story.
What we need is better information for the insurance companies, so they can more accuratly assign rates to people and make them bear their own burdens. It creates a similar outcome (but not identical) to the current system, but a different philosophy based on freedom and responsibility.
Ummm I was more thinking about taking resources away from others that need it. The police/ambulance/doctor/nurse/medical tech. is not looking after someone else.
Thats not even talking about the jam up on the roads and insurance rates that go up for everyone.
Not wearing a seat belt causes road jam ups? The roads are going to be jammed up if you get in an accident or not.
Insurance is a private enterprise right now. A person's own rates go up if they get in an accident. Why should our publicly funded police be running around trying to increase profits for a private industry? It's the job of the insurance industry to judge the liklihood that you'll get in an accident and to set rates appropriatly. If insurance doesn't want to insure unbuckled riders, that's between the insurance industry and the rider.
Um... you might want to look up why many people outside of the government think its a good idea. Take a look at the private pension funds and see how much stock they own. Or look the academic research done on asset allocation.
The government was going to buy into the market just shortly before it took a nosedive. It may be a good idea for private pension funds to invest in the stock market. But private pension funds aren't taking hudreds of millions in campaign contributions and they aren't playing with other people's money.
>When you get into an accident, you have to get >rescued/treated and perhaps go to a hospital >and get treated there. Then everyone else gets >to pay.
Everyone else pays? Then why am I shelling out all this money for insurance. You go to a hospital in an ambulance, you pay for the ambulance. They make insurance mandatory for a reason. And I support mandatory insurance, because it forces people to be able to pay for their own mistakes.
If people hurt themselves, so long as it's their own fault, that's life. The alternative is other people making my choices for me. I don't want the government to be able to say I can't go white water rafting or rock climbing or scuba diving because it's too dangerous. Warnings are one thing. Telling someone to get down is one thing. Fines are idiotic.
Why doesn't anyone consider the political consequences of the US government's recent conversion to the belief that people are basically mentally incompetent and need a parental government to protect them?
I can't drive along a 20 mph stretch of road with my seatbelt off, but I can drive 65 mph down some strech of highway with it on. Where do you think I'm safer? The government is doing a shitty job of protecting me from myself. If I get in an accident, I should sue them for letting me drive on that fast, dangerous highway, right? It's their responsibility, not just to warn me, but to force me to be safe.
Ah, but they figure people get more benifts driving down a fast highway. Shouldn't I be allowed to make that decision, for better or worse?
Maybe people just live in a society where they think others should force them to do the right thing, and the consequences for their actions should be other people's responsibility. It would explain a lot of the insane lawsuits flying around.
It's not the government's job to stop stupid people from hurting themselves or to decide what risks are acceptable. It's their job to stop stupid people from hurting me, or cheating me, or giving me false information. The government can give helpful information, but it isn't my parent and it shouldn't have any burden or compulsion to make my cost-benefit anlayses for me. These are the same people who wanted to invest Social Security in the stock market, remember? They suck at cost benefit analysis.
Amen to this. I'm sick and tired of fines intended to protect people from themselves. Not wearing a seatbelt? Get a fine. Walk across a train track. Get a fine. Hey, we're just trying to protect you from yourself.
The second example I could see if it were called a form of trespassing and justified as trying to protect the folks who run the trains from liability if someone got hit. I just don't buy it when cops try the "we're just trying to keep you safe" angle. But I resent the notion that people need the police to keep them from hurting themselves, and that 'fining' will convince people to value their lives.
Fucking paternalistic government.
Yeah, I met kids who went through and even helped administer those anti-drug programs in H.S. They're good friends of mine. They all do pot now. (well, except for two girls)
And I didn't go through the program and I'm clean. Shows you how well lying works.
Actually, if everyone does a particular thing, sometimes it becomes legal.
If you don't have 'no trespassing' signs on your yard and kids walk through it every day for, say about 7 years (this is the usual) you can actually lose the right to stop them. The area becomes public domain for a particular purpose.
It would be interesting to see this applied to a network.
(IANAL, btw)
Same thing with rapes on our campus. The logic was "why should a student's life be ruined because of a mistake they made in college." Bloody fucking stupid.
I'm curious what would have fit? Writing "I will not steal passwords" 500 times on the blackboard?
Not being able to use the lab?
Lucas has actually tried to make this exact explanation to cover what was probably a mistake on his part.
The Kessel run, I think, was supposed to be near a black hole or somthing like that.
Or "deficit spending republicans."
A lot of minor fake russian grammar mistakes in your writing, but your other posts are in perfect english.
One is reprinted below;
With all the respect, I was coding in Basic at age 7 too... And I was reading freely at age 4, so not everything is quite so unnatural as you may think. But I'm afraid that main problem with Linux today is only the fact that community has become too religious. You know, like those cool streetracers with 20 years old rusty cars that refuses to believe that their car IS a PILE OF SHIT. Be calm. And just agree that linux is nothing but a successful hack on everything. Lets be honest - Windows beats linux pants down when it comes to usability (everyday usability, I'm not talking about the ones who are keeping a full basement of computers just to be able to reinstall some os every evening) and as for system design - I may be wrong, but I really like FreeBSD's kernel design much much better. It's just that Linux gained monumentum. And now, everyone involved is doing everything possible to hide the fact that they have produced a big pile of shit that noone but they alone wants to use. Poor pity geeks.
What do you mean "nobody dies?"
How do you know that?
Who said /. nerd-boys have no clue?
oh. oh. I know
Bill Gates' wife
I've put in Flash in sites and dramatically increased the sales made by those sites- from one or two contacts a year to a few contatcs a week.
If it's made with usability in mind, Flash can be a good way to build value and rapport, which is important to many people on the net.
You are kind and sensitive and enjoy talking to strangers. You bear a healthy disregard to political issues and are not offended by most things you see in the news.
While your friends view you as somthing of a pushover, they also respect your intelligence.
Your lucky number is 7
Your sun sign is Leo
Your lucky day was 2 years, 3 months ago
In the US you can be 'legally blind' and still have some sight.
... Till some wiseguy records grades in the thing. You can scan your kid to see how they did in their class that day. Hell, maybe they'll wire up the bathroom (The Japanese have the BEST lavatory technology.) "I'm sorry. You can't come in till your grades improve."
Then there's Daedelus (sp?). Entirely man-powered flight.
If I ever win the lotto, I swear I'm buying one.
I think Buckminster Fuller had some stuff about this. Theoretically, an 'aircraft' that looked like a missle would be extremly efficient and have comparitivly little drag. I don't know the efficiency for lifting bodies, but maybe they're similar.
Wings are bad, m'kay?
More like Dig-Dug.
Try to tunnle under the wall and kill someone before the roaming IDF gets YOU.
It translates to "How are you gentleman. All your dacha are belong to us..."