Indeed. I actually have a high standard of driving, but I also prefer my passengers to wear their seatbelts;)
No matter how well someone drives, it only takes some other idiot who can't drive to cause an accident. If you are observant then hopefully you can reduce the risk of any accident actually being serious, but still, the risk is always there. This is why I don't have a motorbike.
Seatbelts also serve a secondary purpose to preventing injury. They keep you in a position to still operate the vehicle.
Accident occurs no seatbelt: The driver will probably be thrown from the seat, or jarred from the proper driving position. As a result, the vehicle is out of control from the moment that the driver lost contact with the wheel. This could increase the number of vehicles involved in the accident, injure others, or further damage the driver's vehicle if a secondary impact occurs.
Prior to accident no seatbelt: In attempting to avoid an accident, the driver could be forced from their seat during a swerve, as a result, they may not be able to avoid the accident at best, at worst they could exacerbate the accident as they are now out of control of their vehicle.
Jobs obviously has a shitty home theatre if he believes the "HD" crap in itunes is acceptable on anything other than little screens, with low-fi sound systems.
That wasn't an impediment to MP3s. Heck, I remember when people were transcoding popular songs to midi.
MP3s offered much reduced sound quality (at first) in return for greatly enhanced transportability and convenience. There is a huge market of people who will only watch these things while sitting at their desk looking at their computer monitor.
I believe it's the last spinning physical media device, it's not dead...
Excluding Hard drives of course. But that's not a generally 'shippable' item.
For a good portion of people, it will be. But what they also miss is that for a hell of a lot of people who will NEVER have access to broadband in the next 50 years, something similar will exist for them. There are a lot of people out there who live in the boonies (as of 2 years ago, I was one) and unless satellite really takes off, they are stuck with dialup (even cable isn't offered to a lot of people) Netflix was a godsend.
Why would you need to? Cached images don't get uploaded during normal page rendering. You need some sort of client-side scripting to look at the cached image.
Granted he said steganography, so this is slightly tangential. (I'm more of an RF/radar engineer than a web designer, so this might not be possible but...)
Would it be possible to create a unique image which was designed to be cached. Create a set of these images, small things so that it doesn't bog down the server or storage system (10x10 pixels).
Would it not be possible to selectively embed these images in a website which causes a user to download them and store it in the temporary internet files. Then if you wanted to check if some anonymous person accessing a site was someone you have previously 'tagged' you could simply observe which image files were NOT downloaded because they were already cached?
Granted it would be highly influenced by the cache getting cleared. But it could be possible. You could even arrange the files to be downloaded as a binary pattern. 10001 would mean that the first and last images were not cached and thus were downloaded but images 2,3, and 4 were cached and therefore this could correspond to someone you tagged as 01110 at an earlier time.
Only if it's a really, really flat and electrically charged, probably for having been hit by a lightning, lion.
Or a zoo lion run over by a Tesla roadster. Now THAT would be an interesting headline.
"Coulomb Car Careens and Crashes Cat Cage. Collision Causes Concussion, Catatonic Kitty Carries Charge. Cops Consult Caretakers and Consider Charging Car Caretaker as Careless."
Remember a time back in the mid-to-earlylate 90's when cookies had a super negative connotation to them? I find it interesting how integral they've become to experiencing the Internet in a timely fashion...
How integral is it? I'm half suspicious and half curious. What can cookies do from a user perspective (Not interested in the ever so delightful 'targeted ads') that can't be accomplished by simply allowing your browser to manage your passwords and not the site? Granted it's how the site knows to keep you logged in right? Other than that, why do any of them need to persist and be public to other sites?
I've not ever designed something that needed cookies, so I'm ignorant on this subject.
You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about me based on a simple statement in which I basically said: "I don't announce to the world that I have objects in my home of value and of value on the black market".
In fact, do you know what ELSE I don't tell people? The location of my powertools. THOSE things grow legs if left unattended.
the odds against crime are on my side, And you tell me that I have delusions?
Look, I HAVE been mugged. My car HAS been broken into, and people HAVE stolen items from my house. Bicycles, chairs (sold for scrap metal), ladders, and tools. My parents home has been vandalized before, their car spraypainted, and tires slashed. They live in Pennsylvania, I live near DC in one of the better areas.
All I can say is you are god damned lucky and must live in a quiet town. When I lived in upstate NY I didn't care about crime, because my next closest neighbor was over a half a mile from my house. Ironically, I felt more need of a firearm there due to bears and rabid animals... not to mention the fact that I was probably 30 minutes drive from the closest police officer.
Is ignorance bliss? In your case it may well be. Because to call me delusional for pointing out the dangers of drawing the attention of theives is beyond naive. Either that, or you must live in the town Walgreens puts in their ads.
A man with a knife reached for his hip, grabbed his knife, and... I was on his arm already. A man with a gun could do the same, and the barrel of the gun (the thing with the hole at the tip) would be pointed... down away from his hip, toward the floor. I could then dislocate his elbow with a quick movement forward, and he might fire... at the floor.
Are you seriously telling me that if I grab you in an alleyway, backed in a corner or against a wall with no way to take a quick step back, that you can mindlessly draw your gun and fire? With zero hand-to-hand combat training? Because the gun is magical and makes you an all-powerful killing machine and all I have is my bare hands?
I'll look into the fireman's knife, thanks. I also agree about the point first method of force assisted opening, I wouldn't touch one of those as that would be dangerous to me and of marginal benefit.
I just get tired of tools being demonized because they get featured in movies or become the latest media fear fad.
But seriously, the advice you've been getting makes me wonder about the efficacy of the argument for having guns as a deterrent to criminals. If one keeps one's gun ownership secret, how are the criminals going to know to avoid the gun owner's house when it looks just like the other houses in the neighborhood?
This is a much deeper topic than I think we can cover here, but I would argue that an effect similar to 'herd immunity'. While obviously different than infections/vaccinations it is possible to argue that if the only thing you know is that a significant portion of the households are 'protected' some of that protection is bestowed even on the households that lack the 'protection.
It isn't always a boolean problem either. It doesn't have to be disclose nothing, disclose everything. It could be: Disclose that I have easy access to a $200 shotgun but not disclose that there may be a $10,000 rifle stored in the safe. The same way you wouldn't disclose that you had a $10k emergency fund stored in a fireproof shoebox safe to people walking down the street.
A lot of gun owners who would support some of the more moderate suggestions for legislation will not do so. Not because of an irrational fear, but because organizations like The Brady Campaign (Handgun Control) have long approached the issue of firearms as an incremental process to illegalization.
What worries me: I don't expect organizations like the Brady Campaign to stop when they pass their current legislative goals. MADD has slowly become a near temperance organization due to the same problems, TBC can easily run into the same problem, if it hasn't already.
And an even bigger problem in my mind, is that their efforts are flawed to begin with as they attack symptoms of the problem (firearms) rather than trying to address the root causes that lead to crime in the first place. They will be forever chasing a goal which can never be accomplished by the methods they employ.
with an automatic aperture system based on internally stored force (mass, for gravity or inertial automatics is ok).
Not familiar with the terminology, are you referring to something like a switchblade?
It's a shame that a lot of places have banned those, because I find that they are VERY useful. I have one and it became my favorite knife to use while working in places where my hands are occupied. I can get it in my hand, disengage the safety and open it with my thumb, do the work, and then close it again easier than a typical lockback knife.
A typical folding knife can be nice, but I hate how loose the ones with blades you can open with one hand are. The awesome thing about a spring loaded knife is that the spring keeps positive pressure on the blade (even after you release the lock to close it) This positive pressure, combined with a dull 'back' to the blade (not double sided) lets you do the following:
To close the knife:
1. Hold the release to unlock the blade 2. push the back of the blade against a convenient surface 3. It locks in place, re-engage the safety.
With a typical folding knife, once you release the lock on the open blade, the sharp side is free to move and, in my opinion, is slightly harder to manipulate in a safe way, especially with one hand. If you have ever had the chance to use a quality switch blade (Not double edged), they are damned useful tools.
The only other thing I've used that fills this need is a box cutter, which is easy to open and close, but the razor blades aren't that great for the type of work I do and will typically shatter or chip after a few uses. When I'm in a place where a switchblade is illegal, I use box cutters, but I burn through the blades like crazy.
To this day, even when we have a firearm sitting in front of us dissasembled, we still treat it as if it could still fire off a round.
That's so damned true. I was cleaning a shotgun the other day, and had a spare barrel in my hands. I found myself peering through it from the back end and had an unconscious aversion to looking down the front of it even though it was just a metal tube at that point.
And since you were replying to me, I must ask someone else to mod you up. You have hit a lot of points which I won't try to comment on, but suffice it to say I agree and you put it very well.
You'd think so, but the US Military has bigger guns and bigger idiots, so revolt could never occur.
You are absolutely correct. The US has a completely uniform set of beliefs and personalities. The idea that a career officer and top graduate of the United States Military Academy might choose reluctantly choose a path contrary to the President is absolutely absurd.
Such a revolt could NEVER occur in the United States.
End sarcasm.
Now, regardless of your position on the Civil War in the United States (which historically speaking wasn't that long ago), the idea that IF things were to get bad in the US I highly doubt our military would remain unfragmented. I would actually expect it could have an outcome similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, while that result was surprisingly bloodless and fast, it could easily have been horrifically violent. The outcome hinged on the responses of the administration which, as we know, are always fluctuating.
Now let's say that the site owner is risking contempt of court if they move the website out of the U.S jurisdiction.
I wouldn't suggest that. Even if you are being charged with an unconstitutional crime, it IS possible that you could be jailed for contempt of court. It's a weird thing, but as with all things relating to contempt of court, don't risk it.
Do you have any evidence of this? I don't see how it follows from the article, so it sounds like paranoia, and I'll regard it as such until I have any evidence at all to back it up.
If you grant them the power to do it, they will. It's the law. If the answer to the question, 'Can they abuse this?' is ever yes, then the next question you have to ask is 'When will it inevitably happen?'
If you need an absolutely absurd example to prove the point: A girl had her phone illegaly searched. Nude (actually, I don't even know if they were nude) photos were found. These photos were never distributed. The prosecutor tried MULTIPLE times to charge her with a crime for possession of pornography of herself.
If it really were their property, would they fish it like they do now? Sustainable harvesting of renewable resources generally only happens when there's no tragedy of the commons.
They probably would. Tragedy of the commons doesn't address the issue that large short term profits without real penalties results in maximum exploitation.
This is Slashdot and I'm prefectly comfortable with having a discussion, but there is a lot of blind hatred that came out in this thread against gun owners that was being modded very high and was really rather vitriolic.
I'm sorry if my post came across as something more than was intended.
With regard to firearms, I've been encouraged many times to never let on to the fact that I own any, or where I keep them. They are a high value target for thieves. As a result, unless I'm very familiar with the person, I don't bring up my ownership of firearms. (Not worried about Slashdot, the people I'm worried about wouldn't know this username)
Explain New Hampshire or Vermont. Two states with relatively lax firearms laws (Hell, New Hampshire probably has the most lax in the world). Perhaps guns are just a convenient target that politicians can use to scare their base into getting to the polls?
They are going to force your kindergarteners to carry Glocks! GET TO THE POLLS!
Perhaps firearms and firearm fatalities can be seen more as a metric for measuring the severity of the cause of the problem and aren't the problem themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. I actually have a high standard of driving, but I also prefer my passengers to wear their seatbelts ;)
No matter how well someone drives, it only takes some other idiot who can't drive to cause an accident. If you are observant then hopefully you can reduce the risk of any accident actually being serious, but still, the risk is always there. This is why I don't have a motorbike.
Seatbelts also serve a secondary purpose to preventing injury. They keep you in a position to still operate the vehicle.
Accident occurs no seatbelt: The driver will probably be thrown from the seat, or jarred from the proper driving position. As a result, the vehicle is out of control from the moment that the driver lost contact with the wheel. This could increase the number of vehicles involved in the accident, injure others, or further damage the driver's vehicle if a secondary impact occurs.
Prior to accident no seatbelt: In attempting to avoid an accident, the driver could be forced from their seat during a swerve, as a result, they may not be able to avoid the accident at best, at worst they could exacerbate the accident as they are now out of control of their vehicle.
Why not order it off fry's and put the key into steam?
What is Fry's? Aren't they a brick and mortar store? I think the closest one to me is 1000 miles away. If they are online, why not steam?
Jobs obviously has a shitty home theatre if he believes the "HD" crap in itunes is acceptable on anything other than little screens, with low-fi sound systems.
That wasn't an impediment to MP3s. Heck, I remember when people were transcoding popular songs to midi.
MP3s offered much reduced sound quality (at first) in return for greatly enhanced transportability and convenience. There is a huge market of people who will only watch these things while sitting at their desk looking at their computer monitor.
Return of the cartridge. We truly will have come full circle.
(Well, maybe full circle will be when you can go buy a book, or a magazine for computing which publishes the code which you can then enter in by hand)
I believe it's the last spinning physical media device, it's not dead...
Excluding Hard drives of course. But that's not a generally 'shippable' item.
For a good portion of people, it will be. But what they also miss is that for a hell of a lot of people who will NEVER have access to broadband in the next 50 years, something similar will exist for them. There are a lot of people out there who live in the boonies (as of 2 years ago, I was one) and unless satellite really takes off, they are stuck with dialup (even cable isn't offered to a lot of people) Netflix was a godsend.
Why would you need to? Cached images don't get uploaded during normal page rendering. You need some sort of client-side scripting to look at the cached image.
Granted he said steganography, so this is slightly tangential. (I'm more of an RF/radar engineer than a web designer, so this might not be possible but...)
Would it be possible to create a unique image which was designed to be cached. Create a set of these images, small things so that it doesn't bog down the server or storage system (10x10 pixels).
Would it not be possible to selectively embed these images in a website which causes a user to download them and store it in the temporary internet files. Then if you wanted to check if some anonymous person accessing a site was someone you have previously 'tagged' you could simply observe which image files were NOT downloaded because they were already cached?
Granted it would be highly influenced by the cache getting cleared. But it could be possible. You could even arrange the files to be downloaded as a binary pattern. 10001 would mean that the first and last images were not cached and thus were downloaded but images 2,3, and 4 were cached and therefore this could correspond to someone you tagged as 01110 at an earlier time.
Only if it's a really, really flat and electrically charged, probably for having been hit by a lightning, lion.
Or a zoo lion run over by a Tesla roadster. Now THAT would be an interesting headline.
"Coulomb Car Careens and Crashes Cat Cage. Collision Causes Concussion, Catatonic Kitty Carries Charge. Cops Consult Caretakers and Consider Charging Car Caretaker as Careless."
Remember a time back in the mid-to-earlylate 90's when cookies had a super negative connotation to them? I find it interesting how integral they've become to experiencing the Internet in a timely fashion...
How integral is it? I'm half suspicious and half curious. What can cookies do from a user perspective (Not interested in the ever so delightful 'targeted ads') that can't be accomplished by simply allowing your browser to manage your passwords and not the site? Granted it's how the site knows to keep you logged in right? Other than that, why do any of them need to persist and be public to other sites?
I've not ever designed something that needed cookies, so I'm ignorant on this subject.
Just look at GoG
Didn't they just close up shop?
It's truly remarkable that they can see how the universe was 5999 years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59.9999999... seconds ago!
It's older than that.
Didn't they tally up the numbers in 1650. So it's at LEAST 6360 years old now.
You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions about me based on a simple statement in which I basically said: "I don't announce to the world that I have objects in my home of value and of value on the black market".
In fact, do you know what ELSE I don't tell people? The location of my powertools. THOSE things grow legs if left unattended.
the odds against crime are on my side,
And you tell me that I have delusions?
Look, I HAVE been mugged. My car HAS been broken into, and people HAVE stolen items from my house. Bicycles, chairs (sold for scrap metal), ladders, and tools. My parents home has been vandalized before, their car spraypainted, and tires slashed. They live in Pennsylvania, I live near DC in one of the better areas.
All I can say is you are god damned lucky and must live in a quiet town. When I lived in upstate NY I didn't care about crime, because my next closest neighbor was over a half a mile from my house. Ironically, I felt more need of a firearm there due to bears and rabid animals... not to mention the fact that I was probably 30 minutes drive from the closest police officer.
Is ignorance bliss? In your case it may well be. Because to call me delusional for pointing out the dangers of drawing the attention of theives is beyond naive. Either that, or you must live in the town Walgreens puts in their ads.
A man with a knife reached for his hip, grabbed his knife, and... I was on his arm already. A man with a gun could do the same, and the barrel of the gun (the thing with the hole at the tip) would be pointed ... down away from his hip, toward the floor. I could then dislocate his elbow with a quick movement forward, and he might fire... at the floor.
Are you seriously telling me that if I grab you in an alleyway, backed in a corner or against a wall with no way to take a quick step back, that you can mindlessly draw your gun and fire? With zero hand-to-hand combat training? Because the gun is magical and makes you an all-powerful killing machine and all I have is my bare hands?
FACT.
http://fashionablygeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dwight-schrute-fact.jpg
I'll look into the fireman's knife, thanks. I also agree about the point first method of force assisted opening, I wouldn't touch one of those as that would be dangerous to me and of marginal benefit.
I just get tired of tools being demonized because they get featured in movies or become the latest media fear fad.
But seriously, the advice you've been getting makes me wonder about the efficacy of the argument for having guns as a deterrent to criminals. If one keeps one's gun ownership secret, how are the criminals going to know to avoid the gun owner's house when it looks just like the other houses in the neighborhood?
This is a much deeper topic than I think we can cover here, but I would argue that an effect similar to 'herd immunity'. While obviously different than infections/vaccinations it is possible to argue that if the only thing you know is that a significant portion of the households are 'protected' some of that protection is bestowed even on the households that lack the 'protection.
It isn't always a boolean problem either. It doesn't have to be disclose nothing, disclose everything. It could be: Disclose that I have easy access to a $200 shotgun but not disclose that there may be a $10,000 rifle stored in the safe. The same way you wouldn't disclose that you had a $10k emergency fund stored in a fireproof shoebox safe to people walking down the street.
A lot of gun owners who would support some of the more moderate suggestions for legislation will not do so. Not because of an irrational fear, but because organizations like The Brady Campaign (Handgun Control) have long approached the issue of firearms as an incremental process to illegalization.
What worries me: I don't expect organizations like the Brady Campaign to stop when they pass their current legislative goals. MADD has slowly become a near temperance organization due to the same problems, TBC can easily run into the same problem, if it hasn't already.
And an even bigger problem in my mind, is that their efforts are flawed to begin with as they attack symptoms of the problem (firearms) rather than trying to address the root causes that lead to crime in the first place. They will be forever chasing a goal which can never be accomplished by the methods they employ.
with an automatic aperture system based on internally stored force (mass, for gravity or inertial automatics is ok).
Not familiar with the terminology, are you referring to something like a switchblade?
It's a shame that a lot of places have banned those, because I find that they are VERY useful. I have one and it became my favorite knife to use while working in places where my hands are occupied. I can get it in my hand, disengage the safety and open it with my thumb, do the work, and then close it again easier than a typical lockback knife.
A typical folding knife can be nice, but I hate how loose the ones with blades you can open with one hand are. The awesome thing about a spring loaded knife is that the spring keeps positive pressure on the blade (even after you release the lock to close it) This positive pressure, combined with a dull 'back' to the blade (not double sided) lets you do the following:
To close the knife:
1. Hold the release to unlock the blade
2. push the back of the blade against a convenient surface
3. It locks in place, re-engage the safety.
With a typical folding knife, once you release the lock on the open blade, the sharp side is free to move and, in my opinion, is slightly harder to manipulate in a safe way, especially with one hand. If you have ever had the chance to use a quality switch blade (Not double edged), they are damned useful tools.
The only other thing I've used that fills this need is a box cutter, which is easy to open and close, but the razor blades aren't that great for the type of work I do and will typically shatter or chip after a few uses. When I'm in a place where a switchblade is illegal, I use box cutters, but I burn through the blades like crazy.
To this day, even when we have a firearm sitting in front of us dissasembled, we still treat it as if it could still fire off a round.
That's so damned true. I was cleaning a shotgun the other day, and had a spare barrel in my hands. I found myself peering through it from the back end and had an unconscious aversion to looking down the front of it even though it was just a metal tube at that point.
And since you were replying to me, I must ask someone else to mod you up. You have hit a lot of points which I won't try to comment on, but suffice it to say I agree and you put it very well.
You'd think so, but the US Military has bigger guns and bigger idiots, so revolt could never occur.
You are absolutely correct. The US has a completely uniform set of beliefs and personalities. The idea that a career officer and top graduate of the United States Military Academy might choose reluctantly choose a path contrary to the President is absolutely absurd.
Such a revolt could NEVER occur in the United States.
End sarcasm.
Now, regardless of your position on the Civil War in the United States (which historically speaking wasn't that long ago), the idea that IF things were to get bad in the US I highly doubt our military would remain unfragmented. I would actually expect it could have an outcome similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, while that result was surprisingly bloodless and fast, it could easily have been horrifically violent. The outcome hinged on the responses of the administration which, as we know, are always fluctuating.
Now let's say that the site owner is risking contempt of court if they move the website out of the U.S jurisdiction.
I wouldn't suggest that. Even if you are being charged with an unconstitutional crime, it IS possible that you could be jailed for contempt of court. It's a weird thing, but as with all things relating to contempt of court, don't risk it.
Do you have any evidence of this? I don't see how it follows from the article, so it sounds like paranoia, and I'll regard it as such until I have any evidence at all to back it up.
If you grant them the power to do it, they will. It's the law. If the answer to the question, 'Can they abuse this?' is ever yes, then the next question you have to ask is 'When will it inevitably happen?'
Evidence... yes, let's see here. Ahh yes, here we are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
If you need an absolutely absurd example to prove the point: A girl had her phone illegaly searched. Nude (actually, I don't even know if they were nude) photos were found. These photos were never distributed. The prosecutor tried MULTIPLE times to charge her with a crime for possession of pornography of herself.
Ahh yes, the pucker factor.
If it really were their property, would they fish it like they do now? Sustainable harvesting of renewable resources generally only happens when there's no tragedy of the commons.
They probably would. Tragedy of the commons doesn't address the issue that large short term profits without real penalties results in maximum exploitation.
Things get too sticky when you talk about future events
Which is why I said that a 40 year repayment was way out of line.
This is Slashdot and I'm prefectly comfortable with having a discussion, but there is a lot of blind hatred that came out in this thread against gun owners that was being modded very high and was really rather vitriolic.
I'm sorry if my post came across as something more than was intended.
With regard to firearms, I've been encouraged many times to never let on to the fact that I own any, or where I keep them. They are a high value target for thieves. As a result, unless I'm very familiar with the person, I don't bring up my ownership of firearms. (Not worried about Slashdot, the people I'm worried about wouldn't know this username)
Explain New Hampshire or Vermont. Two states with relatively lax firearms laws (Hell, New Hampshire probably has the most lax in the world). Perhaps guns are just a convenient target that politicians can use to scare their base into getting to the polls?
They are going to force your kindergarteners to carry Glocks! GET TO THE POLLS!
Perhaps firearms and firearm fatalities can be seen more as a metric for measuring the severity of the cause of the problem and aren't the problem themselves?