That's a great idea, however it'd tax the database too hard to cross-reference a video search with just your (or anyone's) votes. This is because there are millions of vote records in the database and scanning through those is too tall a task for the system.

Why? Because you say so? I don't think you even know what that means.

Gun nuts choose to believe this is all about taking their guns away so they can't fight back when the government comes knocking on their doors for... some reason. Or that it's some furtive attempt by the government to track them and get them in some national database for mysterious and spurious reasons. This belief is often revealed via terse bullet points and catchy, oft-metered phrases that don't require a whole hell of a lot of memorization or deep understanding. Just short, simplistic regurgitations of bullshit from the rightie cesspool they are drowning in.

Authoritarians? Really? An authoritarian would want ALL your guns. Are you saying any government control is authoritarian, or does the term "government control" give you the "1984" willies? Are the old ladies behind the counter at my local DMV authoritarians, or just slaves to them? How about the building inspector? Passport office? Fish and Game Department? The person who decided there needed to be a red light at an intersection where I'd never had to stop on my way to work before? IRS? Why do I need a license/permit for everything? I mean, with the exceptions of my driver's license, passport, tax returns, fishing license, trail park pass, voter registration, car registration, smog certificate, and their records on the amount of water and electricity I use, I just wish they'd respect my privacy, right?

But, this isn't a privacy issue with you guys, is it? This is about the Alex Jones/Bachman/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh (the Thousand-Yarders) fantasy world where the government is out to get you and throw your children into liberal indoctrination camps. This is about "taking your rights" from you. This is about being prepared for the coming post-zombie apocalypse you hope is right around the corner so you can justify the thousands of dollars you spent prepping. A whole industry has sprung up around prepping, and they are happy to stoke your paranoia and reinforce your belief that you really do need all this gear, not to mention the boxcar shelter buried in the back yard with a year's supply of MREs. Money in the bank.

The 2nd Amendment? It's not a holy relic. The Amendments are subject to interpretation and limitation by Congress. If Congress passes an assault weapons ban, it's not denying you your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. It's simply defining it, just as the 1st Amendment has been further defined by the legislative and judicial branches of government since it was ratified. The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, or reveal state secrets, etc., just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily give you the right to arm yourself with anything you please, wherever you please.

Good troll, btw.

When was torture last sanctioned by the state? The dark ages? Of course violent crime was higher in the dark ages. It was pretty difficult to enforce the law back then due to the lack of cars, satellites, computers, security cameras, guns, etc, not to mention that laws varied greatly depending on which part of the land you lived in and what lords you served under. Does Pinker's book have any contemporary examples that support your position?

In any case, regardless of whether you favor punishment or rehabilitation, the real solution is to address the root of the problem: lousy upbringings. Anyone can have children, no matter how qualified they are. They can have a criminal record, a history of mental illness and be unemploymed and still have as many kids as they want. It's ridiculous and the reason why so many children grow up to be criminals. We need to have strictly enforced regulation of reproduction. Parents should have to go through a thorough testing process and meet certain requirements (like having enough money to actually support a family) before being allowed to have kids. If a woman walks into a hospital with an unlicensed pregnancy, both she and the father should be arrested and executed without trial. Legal births would be recorded in an international database, which employers and government workers would reference during any hiring, licensing or authorization process. Essentially, illegal children would have no chance of ever becoming a part of regular society, forcing them to the outskirts and slums. This would make it easier to focus raids and clear out the most prominent concentrations of criminals.

This may sound dystopian but it's really the only way to fix the root of the problem. You will never be able to make people better if you let them be raised under lousy conditions. Morality is learned, not innate. If we want everyone to follow the same rules, they need to be taught to respect them. If the parents don't, why would the children?

Can you imagine the nerd rage if you needed a top of the line PC to run Sim City? Or if the cities were even smaller? The servers run some of the simulation so that the game could run on most machines. This is why Maxis is taking responsibility. Polygon.com had answers from Maxis very quickly where they explain all this stuff. Something about each user needing 80% more processing than during the Beta because of some problem with databases and the crazy load from selling way more copies than the pre-orders had indicated. Whatever code runs on the servers now I am sure they could eventually run locally but they probably weren't planning on doing that work for years. If something doesn't work you will be able to get a refund if you push hard enough. That is what I would have done if I had bought the game and it didn't work.

This is kinna cool-A database of the satellites in orbits around the circle-Includes links to recent images, data, etc.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/space_weapons/technical_issues/ucs-satellite-database.html

I remember it well, Crisis always brings people together.
Although the Sift team was "sifting bricks" on the back end, I though the job you guys did on the recovery was amazing. I've been through a few complete database crashes at various places I've worked and I know they aren't pretty.

From my side, sure there was some confusion and a little panic, which is to be expected, but I found the recovery, from an outside point of view, went "tickity-boo." I especially liked that you guys came forward and just stated it as it was so we all knew what we were dealing with. We all went through it together. It could have been handled by shutting down the site, nursing the wounds, and then popping back up online a week later, but that's not what happened.

By coming forward and keeping us all in the loop with both the negatives and positives, we all went through it together. Not only that but all who had the capabilities pitched in and worked together.

That's how communities are born!

Facing 30 years in prison for making information free... ludicrous.

I'm an academic and it infuriates me to no end when I'm doing research and some journal publisher wants to charge me $35 to read an electronic version of a paper--$35 that is almost pure profit for the publisher since the author of the article doesn't see a dime of it and the publisher has already collected publication costs through journal subscription fees.

All of this information should be free to the public. Any minimal costs associated with maintaining servers or customer service agents should either be provided through private donations or government assistance.

JSTOR, to its credit, made part of its database free after this incident. I can't blame them for their pricing--they are a non-profit but are forced by the publishers to pay licensing fees for the articles they host. The publishers are laughing all the way to the bank. I'm sad that Aaron Swartz became a victim of what seems to me to be a clear case of greed.

Dear Ant,

Can you please confirm you have "Newness" selected on the front page?

That listing is without any doubt displaying published videos in order of newest publish date. This is the listing of the latest published 15 videos as directly fetched within the database:
Best Drive Thru Prank Ever
Porn Sites (RealLifeDickParty.com) - Aziz Ansari
Everything Wrong With The Hunger Games In 4 Minutes Or Less
Close Your Eyes and Fall Down
You ever get so broke, that it just becomes funny to you?
Russian Extreme Sport Mountain Ball Ends In Tragedy
The wobbly beam of the Vela pulsar
Chinese Don't Need No Stinkin' Cannons
Tosh.0 - Uncle and Niece Talk
Male to Female - 3 Year Timeline
The Ronettes - Baby I Love You (Isolated Vocals)
New Changes to YouTube?
The new russian 5th generation stealth fighter Sukhoi T-50
Atheist TV host boots Christian for calling raped kid "evil"
Star Trek TNG - Test Footage

That listing is identical to the videos currently displayed in the front page's Newness listing.

If you'd like, you can continue pretending I'm not here and respond to Dag again, but I'm sitting right here.

Sincerely,
lucky760 (not Dag)

Usually no one reads comments this far down, but I'd like for the pro-gun people to weigh in on these six specific policies, and see if maybe they still sound like reasonable policies to you guys. (Borrowing entirely from here)

1. Ban people on the terrorist watch list from legally buying guns.
   
2. Require background checks on every gun sale.
   
3. Ratify the UN Arms Treaty to tamp down on gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico.
   
4. Allow the public to access the FBI's database of guns used in Federal crimes.
   
5. Ban guns in bars.
   
6. Allow any business to legally bar people from bringing in firearms.
   

Good point. I'll have to sweep through the database and wipe out any group playlist data.

I guess that is because they look at it as a temporary diet (Yoyo dieting) and not a change in their diet for the rest of their lives... I'm a (self-described) "carbaholic" and as such when I "fall of the wagon" I eat carbs like nobodies business (as in 4 doughnuts, a pound of chocolate, about a gallon of soda and energy drinks, 3-6 candy bars and ~2 pounds of assorted pick-and-mix candy every single day). As it is now I will never return to a carb heavy diet because I cannot handle it, in the same way that an alcoholic can't handle drinking just one beer. And not to go all Ad-Hominem on you but as an MD you are specialised on disease and not health.

I recommend that you look at this page as it has 17 links to 17 RCT studies on the effects of LCHF diets.

Also from the mayo clinic which I assume is a pretty good source: "There have been a number of studies comparing weight loss with these two types of diets [LCHF/HCLF - My clarification]. In general, low-carb diets may result in a little more weight loss in the first 3 to 6 months. However, after 1 to 2 years there isn't much difference. What's interesting is that the amount of weight loss varies widely among people following either diet. So which type of diet you choose may matter less than whether you stick to it."
On an LCHF diet where you are full all and have a stable blood sugar level all the time it is a lot easier to stay on the diet and not splurge... (Kind of an anecdote... see my previous post in this thread)

Also some more science posts here
1 LCHF vs. HCLF diet (I recommend reading all of it)
2 (A full text from 2002 that might not be available for all [I logged on my Uni resources to search databases for the it] and it is a decade old but still a bit interesting. Name of the study is: Very-low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets revisited. Authors: Volek JS; Westman EC in case you need to search for it on Google scholar or the like)
3 Long term (1 year +) effects

I'm drunk right now so can't be arsed to find more sources.. it is Friday Damn it!!


>> ^DocDarm:

>> ^pyloricvalve:
In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

Acriticalpath microsoft certifications offers several lines of certification in areas such as network administration, systems engineering, and even database programming. Our MS Word tips that will help enable you to master MS Word.

Exactly, @bareboards2 , it's likely that we aren't talking about an epidemic of rapists, but an epidemic of rape. 95% of the rapes may be by serial rapists [1], greatly multiplying the effect of their behavior. It's the current system that encourages a cover-up and non-prosecution of the crime that permits the rapes to continue so that the victims of rape so prevalent.

If you have access to a university's journal database - look up:
1. Reports of Rape Reperpetration by Newly Enlisted Male Navy Personnel by Stephanie K. McWhorter, et al., published in Violence and Victims, Vol, 24, No. 2, pg 204-218, 2009 (McWhorter 2009)