-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "The United States Government: significantly less cruel and sadistic than the Taliban." - Dara Posts: 1289 | From: Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Among his purchases during a stop at a sporting goods store was an athletic supporter. One may think that when surrounded by cameras and journalists, perhaps it is not the opportune time to buy a JOCK STRAP, but on the other hand, who cares? I assume he had some running to do, or some other activity requiring the package to be wrapped up tight. There just happened to be a camera crew there during the transaction."
I love it. Great site, thanks for the link!
ETA: "It is my firm belief that Bush and Co. acted on this internationally significant issue with haste, arrogance, and a “17-year-old-in-a-Camaro” machismo that is not only unbecoming of the leader of the free world, but inappropriate to the point of being tremendously dangerous."
Gosh, but this guy has a way with words...what a great writer!
-------------------- And I never want to see your rodentish faces again! Posts: 1215 | From: Connecticut | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several people have pointed out to me that I am no genius when it comes to the economy. I would also like to point this out. Although I've had one course in micro-economics years ago in high school, for which I earned college credit, economics in general is mostly a mystery to me. When people start tossing around terms like GDP and Federal Interest Rate, my mind turns to other more interesting things, like the Ninja Turtles. Remember that one where they saved the train that April was riding from Shredder and his evil plot? It was totally killer.
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
That's 45 characters.
The question is how long a domain name (the part before the .com) can be, not the url itself - the whole url can be much longer than that. Try a search on Amazon or similar.
This microsoft article says that URLs can be "up to 64 UTF-8 bytes". I have no idea what "UTF-8" means in that phrase - a byte is a byte. I assume it was written by somebody who was trying to talk about multi-byte character formats but didn't quite get it right. Even so, the "8" implies that they do mean a byte.
Anyway, 64 ASCII characters would be the limit as far as Microsoft are concerned, and the above URL has 45, plus the "www." and the ".com", making 53. I'm not sure which characters count though - somebody else must know more...
(edit) plus "http:\\" it's 60; allowing for terminators that name is probably pushing it. Certainly haven't seen a longer one myself, but they could theoretically have another 3 characters or so, as long as you didn't want to access the page from China.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
SlinkyBinky
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
I just did a google on "longest domain name" and got this:-
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's about funny quotes, bad writing, and other oddities of the English language.
Anyone have any idea as to what the shortest URL is?
- Pseudo_Croat
-------------------- "At all events, people who deny the influence of smaller nations should remember that the Croats have the rest of us by the throats." - Norman Davies, Europe: A History
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts. Posts: 4578 | From: Sunrise, FL | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
In the words of Wayne (right?) from Wayne's World... tht site is RIGHTEOUS!!
Geez I'm a dork. But that site is awesome. Kerry is making somewhat an idiot of himself, but I'd vote for him anyways (If I was old enough to vote).
drama queen
-------------------- "I'm Jimmy Joe Dean," he said, "Sort of like James Dean, but with a Texas twist" "Yeah," Brent muttered. "The original Rebel Without a Brain." ~Drive me Wild, Julie Ortolon Posts: 444 | From: Round Rock/San Angelo, TX | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with quite a few sentiments on the site but did anyone else read his view of environmental policies? This just amused me.
quote: In June of 2002, the EPA under George W. Bush admitted for the first time that humans cause global warming. In a baffling statement just months later, the EPA asserted that carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming, is not a pollutant. To me, if global warming is bad, it only follows logically that the cause of global warming must also be bad. Also, as a general rule, chemicals produced that are bad for the environment are referred to as “pollutants”.
Lucian "it's as bad as dihydrogen monoxide" Phoenix
-------------------- "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei Posts: 183 | From: Rocky Mount, North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- All along the untrodden paths of the future, I can see the footprints of an unseen hand. Posts: 6912 | From: Flanders | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That site is incredible. Being a Canadian I have no say whatsoever in what happens come this November, but I hope for the sake of America, which is a wonderful country, that Americans are no longer subjected to this horrific administration.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS A POLITICAL RANT THAT MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR YOUNGER OR CONSERVATIVE VIEWERS. DISCRETION IS ADVISED
> > > > > > > > > > If Bush is reelected, America is screwed. He will constitutionally ban gay marriages and abortion. He will invade all privacy in the name of combatting terror. Freedom of speech will slowly continue to be taken away. Critisism will be seen as "unamericanism". America will be living the book 1984. Don't vote Bush and don't vote for a 3rd party candidate either because then you are splitting the liberal vote between Kerry and Nader.
< /rant >
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: This microsoft article says that URLs can be "up to 64 UTF-8 bytes". I have no idea what "UTF-8" means in that phrase - a byte is a byte. I assume it was written by somebody who was trying to talk about multi-byte character formats but didn't quite get it right. Even so, the "8" implies that they do mean a byte.
UTF-8 is a variable length Unicode format. Each Unicode character is between 8 and 48 bits (1 and 6 bytes) long. The article states that the Active Directory Domain Control Promotion tool (the program that converts a Windows 2K/XP/2K3 server to a PDC or BDC) has a limit of 155 UTF-8 bytes in length because DNS limits (I think this limit only applies to DNS stored in Windows DNS tables) fully qualified domain names (FQDN) to 255 UTF-8 bytes and there is other data (GUID, etc) stored in the record in addition to the DNS name.
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: Anyway, 64 ASCII characters would be the limit as far as Microsoft are concerned, and the above URL has 45, plus the "www." and the ".com", making 53. I'm not sure which characters count though - somebody else must know more...
(edit) plus "http:\\" it's 60; allowing for terminators that name is probably pushing it. Certainly haven't seen a longer one myself, but they could theoretically have another 3 characters or so, as long as you didn't want to access the page from China.
The part between the "http://" and the first "/" is the FQDN. The "http://" is the protocol type ("mailto:", "ftp://", and "gopher://" are other types) and the part after the the FQDN is the path. The path limits are generally set by the server's OS and ranges from 255 characters for older OS's and 2^64 for newer ones. Sometimes after the FQDN, there appears a colon followed by a number, which indicates which port to which to try to connect (each protocol has a default port to try if no port is specified).
quote:Originally posted by Pseudo_Croat: Anyone have any idea as to what the shortest URL is?
http://w3.org/ or http://www.sg/. Of course, you could always get a domain like a.ca and then you'd have a shorter domain name. Then, if you set .ca is one of your default DNS search domains, you could use http://a/ as a URL.
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MapleLeaf: [Bush] will constitutionally ban gay marriages and abortion.
He can't. It would take 2/3rds of the House and of the Senate plus 3/4 of the State legislatures or State conventions(Amendment V, US Constitution).
quote:Originally posted by MapleLeaf: He will invade all privacy in the name of combatting terror. Freedom of speech will slowly continue to be taken away. Critisism will be seen as "unamericanism". America will be living the book 1984.
He can't without Congressional approval and I don't see them doing that. Nor do I see the US Supreme Court upholding such laws without repeal of the First Amendment (and see above again).
Contrary to the claims of Presidential candidates ("I will cut taxes if elected", "I will restore solvency to Social Security", etc), the President's power is not unlimited.
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elbe, aka Dr. Curt Connors: http://q/ redirects you to Q4music.com
Doesn't seem to work for me. What might I be doing wrong?
- Pseudo_Croat
-------------------- "At all events, people who deny the influence of smaller nations should remember that the Croats have the rest of us by the throats." - Norman Davies, Europe: A History
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts. Posts: 4578 | From: Sunrise, FL | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Morrison's Lament
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
The Q continuum will not be pleased, someone took their domain name!
posted
There is a website, something like 111 (60 1's or something like that) .com. I don't remember the exact number of 1's in it, or even if it were 1's, could have been 6.
Either way, there was at some point a website with a name like that, and it had a bunch of crazy pictures and music on it. I'm at work so I don't want to try opening it as I don't remember the content exactly.
Posts: 846 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elbe, aka Dr. Curt Connors: http://q/ redirects you to Q4music.com
Doesn't seem to work for me. What might I be doing wrong?
Nothing. You're computer doesn't have .com set up as a default search domain. That means, it if you enter a server name (such as www.snopes.com), it doesn't automatically try the same name with .com added (it doesn't try www.snopes.com.com).
quote:Originally posted by MapleLeaf: [qb]He will invade all privacy in the name of combatting terror. Freedom of speech will slowly continue to be taken away. Critisism will be seen as "unamericanism". America will be living the book 1984.
He can't without Congressional approval and I don't see them doing that. Nor do I see the US Supreme Court upholding such laws without repeal of the First Amendment (and see above again).
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MapleLeaf: [qb]He will invade all privacy in the name of combatting terror. Freedom of speech will slowly continue to be taken away. Critisism will be seen as "unamericanism". America will be living the book 1984.
He can't without Congressional approval and I don't see them doing that. Nor do I see the US Supreme Court upholding such laws without repeal of the First Amendment (and see above again).
I'd also suggest checking out Eric S over at 411 Black.
-------------------- "The United States Government: significantly less cruel and sadistic than the Taliban." - Dara Posts: 1289 | From: Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Simetrical
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
MapleLeaf wrote:
[Bush] will constitutionally ban gay marriages and abortion.
It would take three-fourths of the states to pass that. Not happening.
He will invade all privacy in the name of combatting terror. Freedom of speech will slowly continue to be taken away. Critisism will be seen as "unamericanism". America will be living the book 1984.
This is mostly a rather dramatic example of the slippery slope fallacy, so I won't bother to address most of it beyond that. However, you've thrown in the implication that he's somehow restricted freedom of speech—care to elaborate?
AnglRdr: Could you point out the clause(s) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (to use its "short title") that you take issue with?
IP: Logged |
mizake the mizan
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
The site in the OP is pushing a very strong anti-Bush campaign, but hasn't really raised any specific points in favour of Kerry. Other than the specific instances of "douchebagness", you could pretty much do a search and replace of Kerry's name with Nader's...or Gore's...or Perot's, even, and the argument would be just the same.
IP: Logged |
hendy
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
This URL is rather long, and (for most people) totally impossible to remember.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Simetrical: AnglRdr: Could you point out the clause(s) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (to use its "short title") that you take issue with?
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Simetrical
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
201-2, 210, 220: These seem like rather minor extensions of laws that already exist. If you had no problem with the government doing something or other with someone's name, address, phone bills, phone number, and length of service, why do you care if connection records, temporarily assigned network addresses, and the payment source are added?
206-7, 211, 503, 505, 622: I would have to look up the relevant laws to comment on these. I may do that sometime.
213: Wait, so you think that you should have to inform someone of a warrant immediately if doing so would have adverse consequences? Why?
214: I need to look this one up, but I can't see why you would object to it.
215: So a judge has to approve the application, and there's Congressional oversight, and it doesn't even apply to activities protected by free speech. What's the problem?
216: I'd have to look up the law to see the difference, but at a glance, it seems that the changes mostly relate to an extension of existing laws to digital media.
355: Okay, so employers are allowed to disclose suspicious activity, and if it's not malicious, they're shielded from liability. I'm actually not sure what purpose this provision was meant to serve, so I can't really evaluate whether it serves the function well enough to warrant possible problems that could arise from this.
Title IV: Subsection A does indeed deal with the northern border, but that doesn't constitute any kind of infringement of rights or anything. Subsections B and C have nothing to do with the northern border.
412: So basically, the Attorney General gets to detain aliens he suspects of being a threat to national security for exactly seven days before filing charges or commencing removal proceedings. Otherwise, he has to let the alien go. What's the problem again?
506: What's wrong with the Secret Service investigating stuff?
507: I can't see any problem here, either. The government is allowed to subpoena all sorts of stuff, so why not educational records?
905: Sometimes it would be a bad idea to submit the intelligence reports to Congress right away, I suppose. Why does Congress need to review specific intelligence reports anyway, however? Or is this talking about general indications of security threats or something? I guess I don't really understand the context of this one.
1008: There's a problem with authorizing a study of the feasibility of such a system?
IP: Logged |
posted
I have major problems with denial of habeus corpus, and searches in which the "person of interest" is not informed that a warrant has been issued.
My problem with Title IV, which I explained, is that it does not deal with our border with Mexico. It is not a real solution.
The executive branch receives its funding from the legislative branch. As such, the legislative requires oversight into the executive's activities. It is part of checks and balances, and I like it that way.
The Secret Service does not exist to "investigate stuff." It exists to protect the president and to investigate currency-related crimes.
But hey, if you don't mind your civil liberties being winnowed away right in front of your eyes for no good reason, you're welcome to give them up.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Simetrical
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
AnglRdr wrote:
I have major problems with denial of habeus corpus . . .
For a maximum of one week, and probably used only rarely, only when there's evidence that it's really necessary. Sometimes there's simply not time to file formal charges before detaining someone. Might this provision result in some minor injustice? Yeah. It also might prevent a terrorist attack. Overall, I think that the price is quite a small one to pay. It's not even as if jail is so terribly unpleasant here in the U.S.
Potential for injustice: small. Potential for usefulness: moderate.
. . . and searches in which the "person of interest" is not informed that a warrant has been issued.
"Searches" such as those already exist, in a sense, in the form of wiretaps and similar stuff. Surely you have to realize that sometimes telling somebody that you have a search warrant could potentially inhibit your ability to carry out the search properly.
The executive branch receives its funding from the legislative branch. As such, the legislative requires oversight into the executive's activities. It is part of checks and balances, and I like it that way.
I assume that you're talking about 905 here. As I said, I don't really understand the context—what kind of intelligence reports we're talking about and so forth. If you understand it, please enlighten me. Otherwise, you're not qualified to comment.
The Secret Service does not exist to "investigate stuff." It exists to protect the president and to investigate currency-related crimes.
Another part that I found somewhat mysterious. Again, since I don't understand why the provision was instituted, I can't comment on whether it was acceptable to do so. And again, if you understand better, please explain; if you don't, please don't complain.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MapleLeaf: He will invade all privacy in the name of combatting terror. Freedom of speech will slowly continue to be taken away. Critisism will be seen as "unamericanism". America will be living the book 1984.
He can't without Congressional approval and I don't see them doing that. Nor do I see the US Supreme Court upholding such laws without repeal of the First Amendment (and see above again).
I wouldn't have seen them upholding drug forfeiture laws without repealing the 8th Amendment, but they did, through the legal fiction of action against property. That's why you see cases name The People vs. A Tractor.
-------------------- "Well, it looks we're on our own ... again."--Rev. Lovejoy Posts: 3572 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Simeowtrical
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
What are drug forfeiture laws?
IP: Logged |
Level 47
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Simeowtrical: Jay Temple is referring to laws in some states that authorize the legal confiscation (permanently, not just as seizure as evidence) of property allegedly involved in drug crimes, even if the owner of said property is not charged in connection with said crimes.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
