huh.. figured it was just a misconfigured bit that you hadn't gotten around to fixing.. didn't realize it'd open up a can of worms. Thanks for the secondary follow-up - and yes, please do post more info if you get it. ( Eventually Slashdot will stop allowing replies in this thread, of course :)

SQL ERROR [ mysqli ]

Table 'webscriptedtv_fora.phpbb_config' doesn't exist [1146]

An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists.

Does a Slashdot comment count?

Back on-topic: I wonder what exactly it is that doesn't work on IE9, although I'd put the bar at IE10 anyway if you're doing anything that marketeers would claim to be 'an HTML5 site'.

From previous Slashdot discussions I've come to learn that:

Safe distance following

Inviting an unsafe maneuver by creating a gap that fellow drivers will want to move into - keep gap short

Creating safe distance following (e.g. as a result of the above

Creating an unsafe situations for cars behind you - quit worrying about safe driving distance you pansy

Driving less than 7 miles over the speed limit

Not going along with the flow of traffic, creating unsafe situations for all - get off the road, grandpa!

Stopping at a stop sign

Freaking out the car behind you - practice a rolling stop instead

Stopping for a yellow when it's safe to do so

Dancing with the whiplash devil - just floor it man, you can make it!

Passing cyclists with a wide berth while staying in your own lane

Freaking out everybody from the opposite direction anyway, creating unsafe situations for all - try to hit the cyclists with your passenger side mirror, bonus points if they don't fall, even though they don't belong on the road anyway

Signaling your turn in advance of the turn

Confusing other traffic, leading them to believe you're trying to crash into a mailbox - turn the wheel, and at the same time turn on your blinker, saves energy too

I wish this was post was a lot less serious, but you can check previous stories on people's driving behavior. There's plenty people partaking in traffic who honestly believe that 'technically safe driving' is what causes unsafe situations, and you really should err on the technically unsafe side to be safe.

I was under the impression that HD dashcams are actually nothing new, they just tend to cost a bit more (the cheap ones tend to be 640x480 that upscale to 720p and crop the edges off). The really nice ones also include GPS and G-force data (which you can replay in proprietary software), and the really really nice ones either have 2 cameras or a slave camera port so you can film e.g. the inside (think taxis) or the rear view (typically mounted near the license plate).

the plastic knives they give the cattle class can still do plenty of damage, I'm sure you could make a real mess of someone's throat with one.

This can very much be the truth. One flight I was on (United) had plastic knives to cut the chicken with, but was sharp enough to cut not only through the chicken, but through the aluminum container, and gashed the tray when the person next to me bumped into my arm. While it was nowhere near as sharp as an xacto blade, it was much sharper than my own general food-cutting cutlery, while also being much more serrated. On the other hand, on a BA flight, the cutlery was blunt enough to require a ridiculous amount of force (relatively speaking) to pick anything up with the fork, never mind the almost completely useless knives.

I did also get metal cutlery one time, still in 'cattle class', wasn't particularly noteworthy in terms of sharp/bluntness. I don't remember which carrier that was, though.. might have been AA.

There's no solid proof indicating who is responsible

Thanks, all we really needed to know, I guess.

but the malware email contained a link to a website in Turkey.

Let me send you one with a link to a website in Mexico. Sorry, make that Sweden. Germany? Italy? Take your pick.

"Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance. If

And there the subject line finds its origin. I love a good tinfoilhat story, but this is not even that. This is pretty much wild guesses.

They may be thinking of CalDAV - which you'll have to be whitelisted for.

Actually, Grooveshark operates rather differently. Grooveshark works on the premise that artists (or the labels representing them) have a choice: 1. sign a contract with them for pennies, which is still better than.. 2. don't, see if we care. At the same time, the contract under 1 may or may not actually be honored on the part of Grooveshark ( pending court case: EMI Entertainment World Inc v. Escape Media Group Inc, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 650013/2012 ).

I'm sure they operate technically alike, but judges/juries tend not to care too much about the technical details and err on the side of the spirit of the law when there's a big ol' grey area between letter and spirit.

No, if I were to be holier-than-thou I wouldn't be working toward the abolition of copyright (see comments from waaaaaaaay long ago, but they still hold. Copyright needs to go.)

I'm also not saying it's not hypocritical. Of course it's hypocritical. On the other hand, there's a difference between, and let's roll with your example here, the politician shagging a mistress once, getting caught, admitting it to their constituents, typically going into family counselling and all that.. and the politician calling for a press conference, saying "yeah, I shagged my mistress so what? Hell, she's giving me a bj right now" (cue camera pan to reveal mistress on knees behind the mike stand).. and not just once, but continually.

It doesn't make the singular infringement less bad, and certainly does little to repair damages done to their credibility as a champion for family values - but the latter scenario should have even the most devout of campaigners thinking he should pack up.

As for the straw man that you allege is just mine: I assure you, it's not, it's called sarcasm. Tell me you've never seen the comments that make that jump in logic ( unless those were all mine, too, of course ;) )

Absolutely not. My brilliant logic(?) says nothing about the act itself, but only about how it was handled once discovered/pointed out. It was still handled badly, mind you, but at least it wasn't handled in a "yeah? so what? screw you." fashion.

If the copyright holders wish to go after this bunch, I say more power to them - and I should hope that Canipre would do a mea culpa to the full legal extent (though I doubt they will).

Yeahhh that would be why I picked that title ;)

And then they posted the complaint about it on their website and publicly ridiculed the copyright holders while leaving the material up, after moving it to a different server, citing that they're not actually hosting the files so the copyright holders should complain with whoever owns random-server-in-the-Seychelles, right?

Oh. They removed the images. Well, crap.

Still, hypocrits! Clearly they condone piracy and I feel justified in downloading Tears of Steel through TPB just now!

YouTube has licensing. The vast majority of songs, especially new ones, are released onto YouTube by the record labels themselves, free for everyone to enjoy unless you happen to live in a country with its own brand of insanity (GEMA in German, for example) or they have a branch in your country and they agreed that that branch would have to upload it instead. Keep in mind that record labels have flooded YouTube with DMCA requests before after negotiations broke down and they removed their videos;
http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/12/21/1710249/warner-music-pulls-videos-off-youtube

Perhaps a bit more timely, remember the story of a Windows Phone app, by Microsoft, which allowed users to download the videos, strips ads, and allows users to view videos on devices that the uploader has specified they shouldn't be viewable on?
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/13/05/11/0041224/microsoft-youtube-app-strips-ads-adds-download

Well, Google wants that app yanked right the beep now.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/15/4334030/google-demands-microsoft-remove-youtube-windows-phone-app

"Unfortunately, by blocking advertising and allowing downloads of videos, your application cuts off a valuable ongoing revenue source for creators, and causes harm to the thriving content ecosystem on YouTube,"

YouTube themselves aren't fond of people 'grabbing' things, and their legal department could probably do without the legitimate DMCA takedown requests in addition to the not-so-legitimate ones if for whatever reason the record labels didn't renew any agreements and went back to filing those instead. The current audio recognition stuff would probably be bumped up to just keep even more of the record labels' material from being uploaded in the first place, and there'd be little reason to having to block YouTube.

As it is, though, most people I know don't even 'grab' things from YouTube, let alone trying to find them on a 'pirate' website (even though it's not that hard) - they just look up the song on their phone and listen to it streaming from YouTube directly.. and that's just the ones who haven't gone with Spotify yet / buy the tracks on iTunes or Amazon or 7digital or, etc.

And the problem with that would be... what? I understand you wouldn't want a middle man, it just makes things complicated, drives up prices, etc. etc.

At the same time, the people who argue that the government should focus on crazy people buying guns clearly have no idea if 'the buddy he has known since childhood' doesn't have a few crazy ideas about what to do with a gun, a gun his buddy since childhood has been so happy to provide.

Can't really have both.

Why does this sound like the "we don't need background checks at gun shows, we need better help for the mentally unstable" argument?

You're right that there's people now who have 10 drinks and decide to go driving anyway, and this will do nothing to stop them.
You're also right that there's people now who are perfectly sober and still can't seem to find their turn signal.
And yes, there's people who have 1, maybe 2 drinks, who would not get a DWI now, but would under a lower level, while there has been no ascertainment of their actual ability of operating a vehicle; some will be fine, others will fall over if asked to stand on one leg. The former will whine and moan about it on facebook/twitter, the latter deserve the DWI in the first place.

But then there's the people who have 1, maybe 2 drinks, and would chance it under an 0.08% law, but not under an 0.05% law.
One may argue that they're just after the DWI, that it'll be a cash cow, that it goes against freedom and justice and the american way or whatever and that this last group is just a byproduct. But it's not one that should be ignored for the sake of those who think that they're the special ones who are fine.

Of course, if you can think of a reasonable impairment test that can be administered quickly and accurately that doesn't rely on BAC, I'd happily support any effort to have that test replace the BAC tests.