I know that makes a great right-wing talking point, but in fact vaccine makers are shielded from almost all liability, barring gross misconduct.

Congress created the vaccine court that evaluates people who may have been injured by a vaccination (no action is 100% free of side effects in 100% of people 100% of the time, including taking no action which in the case of the target diseases is millions of deaths and maimings or stuff like allergic reactions in the case of giving vaccines).

If you are injured by a vaccination, the vaccine court awards compensation, up to and including lifetime medical care if needed.

Part of the reason these diseases are coming back is the anti-vaccination conspiracy nut jobs. If herd immunity drops below a certain percentage then the disease can persist and grow. Above that line and you have essentially 100% protection even though some people can't or won't get the vaccine (and some people who do don't develop perfect immunity). Unfortunately so many people are willing to but "JUST ASKING QUESTIONS" and "TEACH THE CONTROVERSY" bullshit that we are below the herd immunity line for some diseases. We can look forward to a lot more dead and crippled kids before Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield's body counts are tallied.

In those places, a $100 bill would work as well or better than a passport for getting through checkpoint guards. The idea that someone would bother with your passport number in trying to forge a passport to get through there is rather laughable, since they didn't even bother to check said number to see if it was legit.

At a border with better security? Not going to work. Passports have a lot more security to them than that, particularly now.

Basically if places have weak security, the have weak security. Someone isn't going to bother to try to get a legit name and number to forge a passport. If they have tight security, then it wouldn't do any good as they check the other features, which wouldn't match.

See if the point of someone having your information is to, well, be able to access your information then it needs to be stored in that format. A password can be hashed, but something like name and address needs to be stored in text. Encrypting it is the kind of thing that does a limited amount of good. They may well encrypt it on disk, but the software that accesses it still needs to be able to decrypt it, wouldn't be of much use if it couldn't. So if someone busts in through a problem in the software, they can get your data.

It is easy to get mad and say companies should "do something" but ask yourself what that something is, I mean really analyze the problem, and then try and come up with a solution that works. It is harder.

We deal with that kind of thing at work. Securing data isn't just a magic switch you can flick. Like our new storage array has self-encrypting drives. Great, we can, with no performance loss, encrypt everything on it... However that only really helps against it getting stolen, or if we forgot to wipe the disks when we decommission it. Being that all data is encrypted, the unit has the password (it is a power-on kind of thing) so if you bust in over the network, well then you can get at the data unencrypted.

For more sensitive stuff you can take it a step further, use Sophos (ya that is what they bought, no not my choice) full disk or file container encryption. That means that if a system with it is lost, nobody can get the data. However, when that system is online and the FS mounted, again a break in can get at the data.

The only way to stop network breakins from being a possible compromise is to take the systems entirely off the Internet. Not only is that unfeasible in normal cases, but it is impossible if you are talking the system that is to handle talking to the users online.

I can't come up with a way that you can have a system where the data is secure, even if the system gets compromised. Of course you try and stop systems from getting compromised, but the idea that data should be stored somehow that even if a system gets broken in to you can't get at it is rather silly.

For example the powers that be at work decided that the important thing was 3 of the 4 groups (upper, lower, numbers, and punctuation are the groups), and length, with 14+ being what makes it happy. So you input a short phrase like "I like puppies" it'll call it strong and take it. However if you input "@la2wo!d?o-z4" it'll call it weak because it is too short. Input something like "niecrlazleswiariucriuml7priu8roab7iuyluc0oawr1u5pl" and it'll reject it because there are only 2 of the 4 groups).

There's no further analysis, it is just a length and groups thing, with rather poorly defined groups.

Also in terms of strength, while there's no perfect one, measuring bits of entropy, which you can do, is pretty good. However few sites use anything that advanced.

I'd say I'm a pretty security aware individual, what with working in IT and all that. I do defense in depth on computer and physical security, I'm proactive about things, etc. Seems to have worked, I've never had a system owned.

So I never reuse passwords, right?

Wrong, I do all the time. Almost every forum online I have the same password for, and it is a weak one. Why? Because I don't care. Oh no, someone might hack my forum account and... I dunno, post something as me! Whatever would I do? I'm not going to bother to generate a great, unique, password for every site.

However my bank account? Random password (I don't seem to have trouble remembering them), long, and it requires two factor authentication. That protects my finances, and those matter. So security on that is pretty high.

The idea that everyone is going to have a high security password for every site and not reuse it is silly. There are plenty of things where if your account got compromised, you just don't care so much.

Also it can make sense to group systems. All my systems at home use a single password. There is no reason for them not to. They are all in the same security context, basically. It is no different than at work where my single account gets me access to any domain system.

The director. Not sure why he likes it so much but it is added in, mechanically, by him shining lights at the cameras. They really need to hire someone to poke him with a sharp stick when he tries to do that. I'm not sure why he likes it so much, but he does. In behind the scenes stuff he talks about how much he likes the look of it.

But that's why it is there, one of the very primary creative forces in the movie really likes it.

It's an interesting part of human psychology I never studied, and I don't know how much research has been done on it. However you see it with relative frequency. Someone will decide something is offensive to a given group without themselves being part of that group.

The two issues people seem to be being offended on behalf of women for are the fact that Uhura wasn't a very "strong woman" character, in particular with her somewhat self centered reaction to Spock's attitude toward death, and to the fact that Kirk leers at Alice Eve's character and we see her in her undergarments.

I don't really get it myself. Ya the Uhura thing was maybe a little silly and "girly" but it was done first to set up Spock's reaction with regards to emotions and second because they wanted a lover's quarrel for comic relief (which the audience I saw it with found quite funny at least).

It is just something you'll encounter from time to time: Someone will find something offensive for you on your behalf, even when they are not in that group. I think perhaps some of the male reviews are worrying too much about if the portrayal of women was "correct" for whatever definition of "correct" they have whereas the women watching the movie are just concerned about if they are enjoying the time they spend watching it.

The problem isn't people not liking the movie, it is people hating on it, often without even seeing it, because they feel like they SHOULDN'T like it. It is similar to the hipster attitude: Star Trek can't be good because it's popular and popular can't be good. The Onion had a hilariously spot on piece on the first one called "Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'." There was plenty of that happening. Trekkies hating on it as being "not Star Trek" or getting mad because it was "mainstream" without any real criticism of the movie, just that it wasn't ok to like because of what it was.

I can respect anyone who says "I don't care for this," but doesn't hate on it, they just don't care for it because it doesn't match their taste.

I can also respect someone who dumps on something, but has a well reasoned argument as to what they see is wrong with it. A great example are the Plinkett reviews on the Star Wars prequel. Mike Strokua presents plenty of reasons as to why they really aren't good movies, not just ones he doesn't care for.

I cannot respect people who hate on things for silly reasons, and who act like you are one of the unwashed masses if you happen to like it. That somehow liking that which is mainstream is bad and means you can't have any taste.

I encounter it with music all the time. I have a more refined taste than many and a lot more knowledge. I was a classical and jazz player for many years (about 10) and, well, if you play them for that long you either grow to enjoy them or you stop. My MP3 library is filled with Orff, Ravel, Bach, Motzart, Ellington, Bassie, Coltraine, Ferguson, and so on. I've also a good bit of theoretical music training, understanding of what actually makes music what it is, and a good bit of acoustics knowledge to boot. I can, should I wish, analyze a song on a fairly technical level.

However I also find I have a lot of enjoyment of new music, including some popular music. One such piece is Party Rock Anthem. It is no great masterpiece but I enjoy it. It is catchy and fun. I like to listen to it. It is also, of course, extremely popular. Something like 500m views on Youtube, where many haven't even heard of the composers I mentioned previously.

For that, I garner a sneer from some other "music lovers," as though you cannot possibly like the "trash" of the masses and still enjoy great works of the past. I say bullshit, you can like what you like, and you can appreciate things in different ways.

So the GP was very accurate, and there's been a lot of that shit in this thread. People whining it isn't "real" sci-fi. That it is dumb because of the actions, that it isn't good Star Trek, etc, etc. I say screw you, it was a fun movie. Not the best I've ever seen, but I enjoyed it. ...Though on the topic of sound the fucking theatres need to stop abusing the volume dial! I am seriously bringing my SPL meter next time and if it is exceeding maximum levels, I am going to try and get them in trouble. Movies are supposed to be loud for big hits, not all the damn time. 105dB for big brad band hits, 115dB for LFE explosions, 75dB, or less, for dialogue and standard effects. Not loud, louder and loudest!

Star Trek has a rating of 95% (94% with top critics) on Rotten Tomatoes. That puts it waaay up there. So if critic reviews are the "objective" measure, then it was very good. Or maybe we say "power to the people" and look at sales numbers. In that case it grossed $385 million, costing able $150 to make thus making it a success commercially. This is theatre numbers, not including rentals and DVD sales.

This also puts it over the gross for any other Star Trek movie, including the original motion picture, when adjusted for inflation. So by that "objective" measure it is also the best, since people spent the most on it in real dollars (meaning inflation adjusted).

As the parent says, it is fine not to like a movie. Your tastes are your tastes but stop trying to pretend like they are in any way, shape, or form "objective". They are subjective, that is what likes and dislikes are by definition. Particularly since if you put any numbers to it. Star Trek did really well. Film critics liked it, audiences liked it, that makes it good if you want to use metrics to define that.

Gravity is not the best example. The reason is that we really DON'T understand gravity very well. We know that there is a force that we call gravity that causes objects to attract. However we don't have a solid idea how it actually works. We can't get it to unify with the other forces, there are indications that our best theory on it (general relativity) is incomplete and so on.

The FACT of gravity, that objects attract or on a more human scale that shit falls down. We observe this all the time, there's not really a question that there is this force. However the THEORY of gravity, meaning the explanation for what it is and how it works, is something that is not solid.

Now one can of course argue this to global warming as well. There is the fact that average global temperature has been rising, outside of known cycles. There is then the theory as to why, in particular that the primary or exclusive cause is increased atmospheric CO2 levels due to human emissions. One can accept the fact but argue the theory.

Just saying, maybe pick a better example.

The question isn't people running the reds, it is traffic collisions. Cutting down on people running reds isn't useful when it leads to more collisions due to hard braking, which it does. The point of traffic laws is, or at least is supposed to be, safety.

The #1 thing you can do to reduce collisions in an intersection is lengthen the yellow. Go ask AAA, they've got plenty of data on it.

Shit like this, and this is not the first time it happens, proves that traffic cameras are 100% NOT about safety, they are about money.

That is probably one of the silliest arguments I've seen in awhile. First off, I normally AM on a desktop, one with a nice nVidia GTX 680 in it which is part of how I have a good comparison of AMD and nVidia drivers. However when I go mobile, I want all the power I can get my hands on. It isn't an either/or situation it is an "all of the above." The 7970M should have tipped you off, it being one of the highest end, most expensive, GPUs out there. My laptop has an Ivy Bridge quad core, and a 7970M, and a Samsung SSD and a Seagate SSHD (it has two drive bays), and 32GB of RAM and so on. I didn't trade off on anything to get an Intel CPU, it's a high end laptop. It doesn't stack up to my desktop, but it is the best I can do and still have it reasonably portable.

There's also the small matter of AMD not really having many good laptop offerings. Sager, the company I elected to use, has none, Dell has none that I know of, ASUS has a grand total of two, both low end (15" 1366x768 screens, for example). I cannot find an AMD CPU laptop that uses AMD's 7970M GPU. That right there might tell you a little something about their CPU offerings.

In terms of CPUs not being an issue, I take it you've never profiled any games have you? You find games are highly vaired in that regard. Some, it matters very little. Others under-utilize the CPU overall because they are not very multi-threaded, but need a lot of speed on a single core, something AMD is not good at delivering. Still others hit it hard all over. Take a look at Battlefield 3 some time. It'll hit a quad quite hard. It also turns out games are not the only thing that like a heavy hitting CPU.

Also, as someone else noted, this -is- and AMD issue. nVidia doesn't have issues with dGPU passthrough.

Finally there's the little problem of things like jittery framerates being 100% on the GPU and its drivers. This is a long standing AMD problem that they are finally, maybe, fixing with newer drivers that affects their desktop parts too.

Have you fixed your drivers yet? I have a laptop with their previous 7970M and man, it has been a trial. To being with performance was hamstrung really badly by under-utilization. It is set up in an Enduro config, meaning it passes its video through the integrated Intel GPU, just as nVidia does with Optimus. However they had continual problems with underuse. That is now mostly fixed, though it took over 6 months for a driver, but there's still big issues of stuttering and such. There's a driver coming "real soon now" that has been that way for a few months. Also they make getting it rather hard. If you go and download the driver from their site, you get the "notebook verification tool" which says that it isn't compatible with my laptop. You have to go find the actual driver file elsewhere and install it.

So really, I am a little unimpressed about their bragging compared to the 680M. The speed of the 680M was more impressive since it actually worked when it was launched. The best hardware is not that impressive if it isn't backed with properly working software, and AMD really seems to like to drop the ball on that. I've been rather annoyed at the problems I've had with my laptop and the length of time it has taken to fix them.

Are you also willing to require that people only drive when they are well rested? Turns out being sleepy is a major impairment to driving. So are we going to restrict that as well? After there is "no excuse".