heartbeats

If you are featured in the media for being a member of a political party or union, for example, people could recognize you. The cashier could be given directions by the management not to serve Mr. So-and-so from the TV.

They could just look at the credit card number, and observe that 7305 matches a blacklist.

They could use facial recognition in the checkout to check against a database and deny you service that way.

And so on, and so forth. There is no need to be hated by ordinary folks, just that the upper management/media doesn't like you.

What is the solution to this? Never adopting any objectionable views?

Couldn't you just use a whitelist for the features?

If the reader can open a PDF/A-1 file and ignore the bad parts, can't it open a PDF file as PDF/A-1 and remove the bad parts, before saving it again?

Then you could use the "re-rendering" technique to extract images:

1. Create a stripped PDF/A-1 file from the original PDF.

2. In a VM, render the two PDF files to two high-resolution image sets.

3. Use some CV algorithm to find the differences. For example, gaussian blur, subtract, threshold, find islands.

4. Use this to come up with areas which use complicated PDF features and/or images. Say this returns that there is an image on page 9 in the rectangle ((17, 338), (400, 300)).

5. Crop out page 9 in rectangle ((17, 338), (400, 300)) from the original PDF. Use some CV algorithm to detect the DPI and whether it's best to encode as JPEG or PNG. Encode it and add to list of images.

6. Add sanitized images back from list, mark PDF/A-1 file with images as PDF/A-2.

Of course, you could do this for links or whatever as well. Spit out a list of rectangles and link targets in the PDF, and then put them back in.

What about converting PDF to PostScript and back? It should keep most of the semantic information while removing the exploits.

And what do the South and DC have in common, that the North and Hawaii do not?

This is an interesting philosophical argument, but it doesn't actually stack up to the facts. While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence.

The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed?

This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban, for example. Yet from a purely mechanical point of view, bullets come out of the operational end when you pull the trigger. It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle, even if the designer did not intend for it to ever be used against humans.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

It's a quality of life thing. People think you only need to stockpile food. Obviously, it's better to have food than to starve. But there are also important psychological aspects: if the Internet goes out, what are you going to do all day?

Thus, it's important to stockpile "luxuries": board games, toilet paper, candy, etc.

That's incredibly racist.

Even within the states, there is no link. It is not possible to find any connection between gun ownership and gun violence on a county level either.

The urban/rural divide is a good starting point. If you look at the stats, an even clearer pattern emerges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

What sets Washington D.C., Louisiana, Mississippi, and Maryland apart from Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, and New Hampshire?

But I can do all sorts of dangerous stuff already and it isn't illegal.

Guns are like vaccines, I think. If only some people own guns for self-defense, as you say, they will not have too much use for them. But if some double-digit fraction of the population are packing heat at any given time, there is a sort of "herd immunity" effect. While the individual chance any single individual will get to use them is still low, it will put powerful incentives against robbery and free up our prisons.

It's true that the US has more gun violence than other first world countries, but we also has more violence and crime in general.

Within the US, there is no statistically significant correlation (r = -0.02) on the state level between firearm ownership and firearm homicide. (There is a statistically significant correlation between firearm ownership and firearm deaths, but this is due to suicides.)

Make of this what you will, but it's not substantiated by the facts the claim that restricting gun ownership would have a strong impact on homicides.

You can look at this list and sort by gun murder rate and see what kind of states come out on top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

Here is a strongly political Medium article about the matter: https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a...

This is already done in many countries.

Imageboards?

* Threads are sorted by bump order.

* Posts can include images. Opening posts must include images.

* To reply to a post, you link the ID.

* Hovering over an ID displays the post, and each post also links to its replies.

* No identities.

* Dead threads get deleted.

* Threads automatically refresh every 15 seconds.

It encourages a more fast-paced discussion, which is very conversational and often nearly live.

EDIT: Also trollboxes; like a cross between IRC and guestbooks.

It would have to be signed into law, as the title of the thread implies.

What do you mean? You would continue to use the copper infrastructure, but fibre connections in to it would be regulated. A serious ISP could still do them, but one that just allows random people to make an account wouldn't be allowed to connect.

So, Verizon could peer their copper network with Sprint's copper network and connect them over fibre, but if Verizon would accept fibre peering with random VoIP providers Sprint wouldn't peer with them because they would be liable for fines.

It seems like the opposite of "unpaid". Husband does X hours of labour each year and gets 0.5 * total salary. Wife does Y hours of labour each year and also gets 0.5 * total salary.

It's not unpaid labour if you're getting paid for it, right?

> Every carrier lets fiber route into copper.

Indeed, they'd have to stop doing that or require them to put up a security deposit.

> Your logic would work, but it is a lot of work for many entities to perform. The simple fact is that neither you nor I can control what the carriers choose to do.

No, this should be required by law. The only one who has to be bound by it is the last mile carrier - the rest is done as a voluntary agreement. If they don't sign it, they can't route calls into the US.

It could be trivially automated. Carrier A sends the message "pay us $X or we depeer you" to carrier B whenever they do not like what they got from carrier B. Their computer system evaluates whether the fine is worth continued peering with A. If it is, they pay, else they don't. This takes milliseconds. There is no need for a human to evaluate the evidence because there is no evidence needed.

Naive implementation:

  def accept_fine(this_fine, value_of_continued_peering, tot_fines):
      return (value_of_continued_peering > (tot_fines + this_fine))

Because your customers would like to call customers of that company.

If they would not, you have no reason to peer with them. If their laws are too arduous to comply with, they would simply be disconnected from the phone network.

> Will I be bound by a local bylaw in oregon county misouri?

That depends on whether Oregon County, Missouri has the "cell carriers are liable for spam calls" rule. If it's just a federal law like the current ones, no.

It's an interesting thought, but the key principle - that the exclusion is "unjust" - is not substantiated very well.

This.

Serious websites like the Financial Times just block you from reading articles altogether, without letting you first read the lede or anything.

They still give archivers access because it's an effective form of price discrimination, but they have complete control over what they're doing.

It's an easy rabbit hole to fall into, and comparatively harder to get out.

Sure, I could quit, but what would I do then? Browse HN all day?

> the inflation of prices “above prevailing market value” in order to attempt to profit from the outbreak.

It doesn't sound like those prices are above the prevailing market value, if that's what it costs to buy a mask.

"The best time to panic is before everyone else does" - even if you think 19-NCoV is nonsense, it's still a rational move to stock up on medical supplies - in particular those who are limited in production and sorely needed by hospitals.

Sure, but it's also a matter of when. If you can delay it for a few decades, that's going to be enough for a lot of people to retire.

The US could just cut interest rates whenever the stock market goes down. There's no real limit to how low they can go, and as long as the investors understand that the Fed is backstopping them they'll contribute in pumping it up.

This is a very good and thought-out comment - I don't understand why it was marked as dead.

That's just how it is with democracy. You can either be the politician who didn't really do anything for the economy, or you can be the politician who plunged the country into a recession.

Nobody wants to rip off the band-aid, even if it's infected underneath.

Prudent move? It's the only move. If it's either that or a recession, then they will do it, consequences be damned.

They will. Just look at Boeing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-...

Penny wise, pound foolish.

Indian outsourcing never ends well. I hope they get what's coming to them. Really, it should be banned.

Because otherwise Rostelecom won't peer with them.

And you did, but it's a forgery. It doesn't look like it has the fancy holo stickers or anything.

Yes, but I mean, what if you replace the sticker with the barcode and the serial number?

You have #C097412. You remove it, and put on #D108523. You then replace the barcode and serial number underneath with #D108523.