216.239.37.100 · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Hmmm... by Planx_Constant · 2003-03-22 15:07 · Score: 1 · on Military Grade Laptops

Perhaps this or this may clear things up for you.

/.ed again by vonsneerderhooten · 2003-03-16 06:30 · Score: 1 · on XPde Makes X11 Resemble Windows

But heres the google cache of the screenshots page

-D

Microsoft funds terrorism.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2003-03-14 02:19 · Score: 4, Interesting · on MPAA, Microsoft Testify Piracy Funds Terrorism

Seriously,..remember the Muslim Charity that was nailed funneling money to al Qaeda? Well here's the news story.. (Google Cache)

In case you don't have time to read the story, MS admitted to giving Benevolence International, the Muslim charity that funnled money to al-qaeda, around $20,000. You can buy a lot of box cutters with that money.

MS had better not throw stones in their glass house. And if you're going to start giving money to charities, it's a good idea to research them and make sure they are legit. Say what you will but MS is SUPER guilty of not doing research on this "charity".

Re:Tcl in the Mars Explorer project! by qohen · 2003-03-13 09:12 · Score: 1 · on Tcl Core Team Interview

Google to the rescue (i.e. you can do a "view as text" on .ps.gz files):
Here's the article as text

Re:Apple DRM... by Zathrus · 2003-03-04 07:00 · Score: 2, Informative · on Apple to Launch Music Service?

For those who are interested, AAC is the "Advanced Audio Coding" codec, and apparantly a Dolby standard. It's the same format that BMG and Universal are using for their online downloads, and it claims to have better audio quality than MP3 while using 1/3 the space.

It does contain DRM tech to prevent copying. There appear to be a number of portable digital music players that support it, such as the Panasonic SV-SD80 and the Nokia Music Player.

For more info, see the AAC homepage and a Google cache of Dolby's announcement regarding BMG and Universal.

Personally, I'd rather see FLAC or some other lossless encoding available. But that'd give them DRM nightmares (burn it to CD as CD-A and the DRM is gone, but you can recreate the song perfectly - no transcoding issues). Oh well. They'll eventually get there.

Re:Iraqi lives and future vs an ancient battery. by jms · 2003-03-03 09:23 · Score: 1 · on The Riddle of Baghdad's Battery

There can't be any doubt whatsoever that Bush' policy has completely changed the fundamental playing field and given a new incitament to acquire nukes.

Bush has not threatened and will not threaten any country with invasion that is not harboring or supporting terrorists. Hussein is known to be supporting terrorists, and appears to be harboring them.

Nevertheless, you have to address to root issues, why are people becoming suicide bombers in the first place.

Ok. Let's start with the Palestinians. Besides the cash payouts to the bombers' families, the basic problem is that the Palestinian leadership have created a death cult on an unprecedented scale. Palestinian children are taught in school and in "summer camps" to hate Jews and want to murder them. Others are recruits, usually either filled with fanatical hate towards Israel, or suicidal, or both. They are promised paradise and privilege in the afterlife. (72 virgins? Paradise is a brothel?) They are promised that their families will be well provided for on earth. They are indoctrinated with classic brainwashing techniques. They are isolated from their families, told to spend every waking hour in prayer, told to engage in repeated purification rituals. When they are ready for their mission, their handlers hold elaborate, videotaped "graduation" ceremonies, honoring the bomber, where the bomber says goodbye to his family and commits to his mission. The bomber is provided with an explosive belt, or a mission, told how to use it, and dropped off at his target. Then, once the mission is completed, the bomber is lionized in heroic posters which are plastered through the towns. Schools are named after the suicide bombers, all of which lay the groundwork for the next batch of suicide bombers.

What is happening in Israel is not random people deciding to kill themselves by murdering Jews. It is a well-funded terrorist organization that utilizes classic brainwashing techniques to create "martyrs," and it is destroying the Palestinian people from within. All this costs lots of money, and that money is coming from outside of the Palestinian territories, from Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The same thing goes on in Al Quaeda training camps, formerly in Afghanistan, and allegedly currently in Iraq. The airline hijaakers had massive financial support, and according to the documents they left, were instructed to engage in the same concentrated prayer and to engage in purification rituals.

You have some other root causes in mind, I suppose? Ok, what are they? Poverty? Hopelessness? Suppression? Those are everywhere, but suicide bombers are not! Why are there no suicide bombers in Mexico? Why are there no waves of suicide bombings in India? Why are there no North Korean suicide bombers? Why do all of the suicide bombers happen to come from Islamic fringe sects that practice brainwashing and indoctrination, and have explicit political agendas that involve suicide bombing?

Why did the 9/11 hijackers complete their mission? They weren't desperate. They came to America, lived here comfortably for years, went to flight school, received advanced educational training. Why didn't their sense of hopelessness subside? They certainly didn't live in poverty. Why did they get on those planes? They certainly could have defected, or disappeared. The "root cause" was that they were members of a terrorist organization with a political agenda of mass murder. Those are the root causes of terrorism.

I'll have to defer to you on [Uzbekistan and Kirgistan] I don't know what we are doing there.
Please, don't have a wait-and-see attitude on this.

What I meant was that I really have no information on those situations, not that I want to wait and see. If we are providing covert aid to one side, then that will probably fail, but that's not what we are doing in Iraq, so I don't see how it enters in.

Even though an U bomb is easy to make, it is still a lot of metallurgy involved, and during that process, it is impossible not to leave any trace. Just go to any physics lab where there has been tiny radioactive sources involved

Physics labs use tiny amounts of extremely radioactive sources to deliberately cause small nuclear reactions for study. This produces small amounts of intensely radioactive fission products that escape into the lab environment and wind up in the corners. Industrial uranium enrichment uses large amounts of barely radioactive natural uranium, and produces no highly radioactive fission products. They are not comparable.

If you have to sweep the corners of the room to find radioactivity in such a lab, then your argument doesn't hold water. There's no way that anyoue would find a hidden isotope separation lab based on radioactive emissions. The process just doesn't give off radiation. You can easily find a breeder reactor, because it gives off lots of radiation, tritium and the like. That's how the U.S. was able to track Soviet plutonium production, with sniffer planes.

I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, that it might be impossible for Iraqi scientists to "sanitize" an existing isotope separation facility for the inspectors, but that's meaningless because obviously the inspectors are not being shown those secret facilities, and don't know where they are! Hussein has had a decade to hide his WMD programs. By all accounts he has spent the vast majority of his country's oil revenues in doing so. Those facilities are probably hollowed out of a cave, or built into the ground, and we won't find them until we're in there, on the ground. They could very well have highly contaminated radiation laboratories, and such a laboratory could fit in a boxcar, and be anywhere in the entire country.

Just think about the unthinkable for a moment: What if it was true: He didn't have any WMDs right now. How could he possibly prove that he didn't? It is in fact impossible.

Ok, let's go by your argument. You would have to believe that he:

1) Kicked the weapons inspectors out of the country
2) Secretly destroyed his existing stockpiles of WMDs.
3) Deliberately decided that, rather then doing so in public and getting the sanctions lifted, he would do so secretly, so that he could ... um ... why would he do that?

But to directly answer your question, he could lead the inspectors to the facilities that were used to destroy the WMDs. He could lead them to inspect the sites containing the destroyed weapons casings. He could show them the destroyed manufacturing facilities. He could show them the destroyed storage containers and handling equipment. He could show them the incineration facilities that were used to destroy the nerve, mustard, and VX gas. He could show the records detailing the progress of the destruction process -- shipping and transportation logs showing the movement of WMD stockpiles from arsenals to destruction facilities. He could show the inspectors the dump sites containing the contaminated residue of the incineration operations. He could show the inspectors the equipment that was salvaged from the Osirak nuclear weapons development site (which was completely stripped of all equipment following the Israeli destruction of the breeder reactor core.) He could show the inspectors the actual rockets that were allegedly being made from those aluminum tubes that had been specially anodized to protect them against Uranium Hexaflouride gas, and finished to microscopic smoothness to make them suitable as gas centrifuges. I could go on and on. Hussein still has some 600 metric tons of chemical agents, 25,000 rockets, 15,000 chemical artillery shells, 520 Kg of Anthrax growth medium, all unaccounted for. It is simply beyond credibility that he even could destroy them without a trace (We can't even do that), and it is incomprehensible that he would do so in secret, instead of doing so in public to get the sanctions lifted. That makes no sense whatsoever!

Doesn't it make more sense that he still has them and is still hiding them?

I mean, you'd think that he would actually present the best available evidence before the security council

No he wouldn't. That presentation was not to reveal all of our evidence. That presentation was to reveal the absolute minimum information necessary to show that Hussein was lying about 1441, which called for full and complete disarmament

Every bit of information that Powell presented represented a destroyed intelligence source or method that cannot be used again. It was a costly presentation, and largely wasted on the audience. What you saw were deep secrets that are almost never revealed, and by their very nature, you don't get to see all of the details. The "best evidence" is certainly being held very closely, because once we are on the ground, we are going to use it to quickly locate and secure the WMD facilities. Powell showed the photographs of the decontamination trucks parked outside of the "unused" chemical weapons depots. Then he said, the next day, they were gone. Do you think we weren't tracking those decontamination trucks? Do you think we weren't tracking those truck convoys after they moved? Heck, we moved spy satellites into different orbits for this war. Every bit of recon capability we have is deployed, and you can rest assured that we have far, far more intelligence information than what Powell revealed.

The reason why we don't provide information about where to look to the inspectors is that they have a proven track record of tipping off the Iraqis. If we told the UNSC, or the Inspectors all that we knew, then Iraq would just move everything, and we wouldn't know where anything was.

the Bush administration is ... trying to stage a war... but they have to create an illusion of playing by international rules.

What do you mean by "have to?" The U.N. mechanations are being done for two reasons. First, we aren't ready to attack. Second, for the benefit of Tony Blair, who needs to keep his coalition government intact in order to participate in the war. Europeans care a lot about the U.N., but the United States really doesn't. We participate in the U.N. for pragmatic reasons. If the U.N attempts to block the war, the U.N. will be finished. But really, the U.N. is effectively an ongoing diplomatic summit, not a source of moral authority in any sense whatsoever, and certainly not a source of military or economic power. Your economic power comes from the EU(or is being eviscerated by the EU, your choice), and your small amount of non-U.S. military power comes from the few countries that have bothered to maintain a standing army despite half a century of U.S. military protection. But in reality, the military protection of Europe is still the U.S. army. I'm still looking for your source of moral authority, given Europe's ongoing loving embrace of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime, and it's incredible ignorance of its own past. Millions of Europeans have taken to the streets to protect Hussein and Iraq I can't find a single protest sign calling for Iraq to disarm, or stop using chemical weapons on the Kurds, or stop murdering dissidents. You think we don't see those signs at your protests? Do you think we don't know how little Europeans care about the Iraqi people?

big fat line big fat line big fat line big fat line big fat line

Ok, I'm drawing a big fat line because you're completely changing the subject. (I'd use a sequence of dashes, but, alas, the lameness filter.) We're not talking about Iraq anymore, you're talking about the internal politics of the U.S. None of this has any relation whatsoever to the Iraq war. It's completely off topic, but I'm going to dive in anyhow because I see a lot of common European misconceptions about American politics.

OK, look at this way: The Bush administration is clearly attacking the american public. [long list of things that I fully agree are very bad and most certainly unconstitutional.]

In times of war, our courts have traditionally deferred to the presidency and allowed the enforcement of policies and laws that they would not permit during peacetime. I agree that these laws are uncalled for, unnecessary, and probably will be found unconstitutional once the war is over. It's overreaction on the part of the Bush administration, and one of the most serious flaws of his presidency.

In addition, he is a significant threat to world peace and sits on the biggest arsenal of WMDs, and he has stated he will not hesitate to use them against any target.

Actually, he has stated that he will not hesitate to use them against any country that uses them against us first. This is the entire point of deterrence, and has proven to be a wise policy. It is the reason why, during the first Gulf war, the Scuds that fell on the Marine Barracks and Israel contained explosives, not nerve or mustard gas.

You are clearly incapable of dealing with Bush yourself.

No we aren't. We have plenty of options for "taking care of" Bush if we want him out. We can simply not elect him next time. While I agree with you that Bush "stole the election", I should point out that the election came down to a difference of about 200 votes, with thousands of ambiguous votes. No one knows who really won that election, and the truth was unknowable. It was a very unique and maddening situation, because the margin of victory was many times smaller then the margin of error, and it was the most closely scrutinized ballot count in our history.

Regardless, you can't compare that to Hussein "stealing an election" by being the only candidate on the ballot, and receiving 100% of the vote in a country that hates his guts. If Bush is voted out in 2004, he will step aside, as is our unbroken tradition.

Aside from that, we have a Congress that can effectively block Bush on domestic policy issues. The TIA was killed by Congress, who refused to fund it. Congress has the power to pass laws to override any action that Bush tries to take, and Congress has the power to override a presidential veto.

Congress also has the power to impeach the president, and remove him from office. The serious threat of using that power was enough to prompt Nixon to resign, and that power was abused on Clinton. That power could be used on Bush if necessary.

Basically you are seeing a difference between the U.S. government and European governments. We have no coalition government. We alternate between Democratic and Republican control of both houses of Congresses and the Presidency. Once a President is elected, he has a very free hand for the next four years, and does not have to tailor his policy to opinion polls the way that Tony Blair has to do so in order to keep his coalition from breaking apart.

This does not mean that he is unaccountable.

Now tell me, why shouldn't we, the rest of the world go to war and overthrow him, to liberate the US?

Because there will be an election shortly in which we will have the power to remove him from office ourselves. This is not true in Iraq.

The other option is to use those $50 billion for something good.

Ok, spend $50 billion to stop terrorism. What are your plans?

Up until that speech, the message was "disarm Hussein." That speech was, "Bring democracy to the Arab world."

Bush has been trying to say that to Europe for a long time. Perhaps your news are differently angled than what we hear here. And the reaction has always been "yeah, sure".

A long time? You mean since he was elected, or since 9/11, or since he started laying groundwork to remove Hussein?

You know, Clinton tried the same thing in Kosovo, the idea isn't actually new...

You know, Clinton was an idiot who didn't know what he was doing. He had no moral credibility, and his presidency was a foreign policy disaster from beginning to end. Kosovo was a disaster. We had no business being there. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we would have no business being in Iraq.

Then, it has been because you have failed to take precautions in time. If US use violence now, it is because they failed to take the chance to pressure Saddam out of office in early 80-ties, and so on.

Unfortunately, lacking a time machine, we have to deal with the situation, as it exists, right now. You're probably right. Hindsight is 20-20.

This theory seems especially popular with dictators and corrupt governments, but I don't buy it.

I look upon your government as one of those now (there are differences, of course),

Bush is not a dictator. He does not have absolute power. He is subject to removal in the next election. Everything law passed in this country must be passed by Congress. Every Congressman runs the risk of being thrown out of office if he or she fails to represent the people, and it happens regularly. Everything Bush does is reviewable by the Supreme Court.

OK, you may reject it, but the Security Council is intended to be that authority. OK, so the US can do whatever they like, but they are partly playing with the UN, so that means that they are partly recognizing this authority.

The UN and the UNSC are not authorities. The United States has never subjugated control to any international authority. The UN and UNSC are diplomatic bodies. We are "playing with the UN" not because we are submitting to their authority, but because we perceive it as beneficial to do so.

Well, of course, for US, it doesn't really matter, because the US can nuke anybody who doesn't want to play ball back to the stone age,

If the UNSC vetoes the war resolution, we are not going to nuke them.

and Bush has stated that he doesn't mind doing so

I talked about that earlier.

but for smaller countries, that is not really an option. We have to cooperate.

That's not what I see. What I see is a lot of small countries with near-zero economic, diplomatic, military, or leadership assets who are delighted to be part of the U.N., because it gives them wildly exaggerated power and authority. Do you think that Libya would ever head up an international human rights commission if not for the UN? Do you think that Iran and Iraq would ever be placed in charge of international disarmament if their countries hadn't happen to turn up in alphabetical order? Do you think that Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan would ever have the power to influence a U.S./Iraq war if they weren't members of a divided UNSC? For the record, they are not being forced to cooperate. They are being asked to cooperate, and support the war, or to not cooperate, and pay the diplomatic consequences.

That's how I'm looking at this moron of yours. He can still be sincere and yet dead wrong. I believe he is sincere when he says that the only way to ensure disarmament is to remove Saddam. And I think he is sincere when he thinks that he will put in some sort of democracy. But, he is lying when he talking about all the "evidence" they have, that's a smokescrean for attacking.

As I said, not revealing evidence does not mean that you don't have it. There are many compelling reasons to reveal the minimum amount of evidence to prove the narrow case that Hussein has not complied with 1441 and fully, completely disarmed.

If any such thing as a "preemtive attack" was legitimate, there is no reason why Saddam (and pretty much any other nation that has a beef with the US) should not attack the US right now, it would have been legimate.

Sure it would be legitimate. We're about to overthrow his regime. He could preemptively attack us, but it would guarantee his death, probably the death of all the Tikritis, and possibly the death of most of Iraq if he used WMDs. That's not what he's after though.

[Bush] has the mind of a religious fanatic, who can't see colors, only that "either you are with us or you are against us".

That isn't what he said, actually. He said that either your are with us, or you are with the terrorists. This isn't a threat, it's an observation. It means that no country can afford to stand by and pretend that they are immune to terrorism. Indonesia did exactly that. They pretended that they weren't involved in the dispute, and then Al Quaida blew up a nightclub in Bali. What it means is that if a country doesn't commit to fighting terrorism, then terrorists will gravitate towards it.

I believe that Al Quaida attacked New York because Clinton had proved to them that we would not fight back with everything we have. I believe that the Palestinians are constantly attacking Israel because the Israelis are proving that they will not fight back with everything they have.

Someone with a world-view like that is an extremely dangerous man. Unfortunately, USians are the only ones who legitimately can get rid of him.

Unfortunately for you, most Americans support Bush, and I think that he is going to be reelected in the next election cycle.

I don't think that anyone is reading this except for us, and this is starting to reach the point of rehash. I know where you're coming from, you know where I'm coming from. I'm ready to wrap it up.

Re:MIT's policy about the BSA by jonesvery · 2003-02-28 06:53 · Score: 1 · on BSA Accuses OpenOffice Mirrors

At this time, MIT is not aware that the BSA has been granted authority to enforce the copyrights of its members.

According to a "fact sheet" on the BSA site (PDF, HTML-ified Google cache is here), they do actually have that authority:

What legal authority does BSA have to sue companies or conduct raids?
On behalf of each of its worldwide members, BSA has the power of attorney to their rights under the copyright laws. BSA also works directly with law enforcement officials on criminal prosecutions.

Re:Question... by jonesvery · 2003-02-28 06:43 · Score: 1 · on BSA Accuses OpenOffice Mirrors

On what authority can the BSA come into my place of business, audit, and fine me?

Easily answered:
On behalf of each of its worldwide members, BSA has the power of attorney to their rights under the copyright laws. BSA also works directly with law enforcement officials on criminal prosecutions.

See Google's HTML-ified cache of a fact sheet from the BSA Web site.

Re:GNU/WINE?!?! by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-02-24 12:11 · Score: 1 · on Compiling Under Wine

Yes, but now RMS is a Windows project (Google Cache). Will it now be Windows/RMS/GNU/Linux?

Almost by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-22 09:35 · Score: 0 · on Reason on IP Protection and Creativity

according to this.
Googlecached because of site failure or so it seems.

Re:Text editors by KnightStalker · 2003-02-18 04:23 · Score: 1 · on Jedit, Jext & J: Java-based Editors Compared

Ah... Fair enough. Didn't realize it was an actual thing... I thought it was just wishful thinking. :-)

But in the first two pages of Google results for "Executable UML", I can find no concrete information about it. Lots of claims of "100% code generation" and that sort of thing, but very little that says how you actually define your UML-described behaviors, though there are lots of books, and lots of products for sale.

The best I can find is a quick reference in a PDF to a "set of archetypes" and this: "you'll use a CASE tool to develop detailed UML diagrams, and then supplement them with specifications written in a formal language." (Google cache) That sounds a lot like .... traditional programming. Something you'd perhaps use a text editor for. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Come to think of it, this is a lot like the results I got searching for a completely different software engineering fad, Aspect Oriented Programming. Of course that had an entire issue of the Communications of the ACM filled with claims and no actual demonstrations. :-)

Re:Oh no! by Menkhaf · 2003-02-17 08:33 · Score: 1 · on Larry Page: Google Was an Accident

Haha... You're screwed if Google's cache get's /.'ed. But don't worry my friend, here's Googles cache of Googles cache of Googles cache of Googles cache of Google.

Can you make the server blow up if you do it too many times?

Mirror URLs by sabat · 2003-02-14 06:30 · Score: 3, Informative · on Some Geek Guides for Dating

The legendary "Girl's Guide to Geek Guys" by Mikki Halpin (and originally published in Bunnyhop, a great 'zine) is slashdotted at antioch.edu, apparently.

The Google cache is here

Some more mirrors are here, and here at XS4ALL in Holland.

And btw, one of the pages mentions that Mikki has written a book based on the article. The book is available on the Evil Patenting Amazon.com.

A lack of backbones in the Linux 'community' by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-07 16:14 · Score: 0 · on Japan Subsidizes Linux Development, Considers Switch

Given what happened with the Virgin WebPlayer (GPL Linux, no code EVER, EULA that said all the code was Virgin property), no one who owns any of the copyrights in the linux kernel will step forward and sue.

Go visit this and look for webplayer.

If no one sues, the GPL has no teeth.

Re:An Engineer's view on the first flights... by LinuxParanoid · 2003-02-01 10:59 · Score: 1 · on Space Shuttle Columbia Breaks Up Over Texas

Your comments about missions riddled with errors reminds me of Feynman's comments on that subject in his appendix to the Challenger failure report:

It is true that if the probability of failure was as low as 1 in 100,000 it would take an inordinate
number of tests to determine it ( you would get nothing but a string
of perfect flights from which no precise figure, other than that the
probability is likely less than the number of such flights in the
string so far). But, if the real probability is not so small, flights
would show troubles, near failures, and possible actual failures with
a reasonable number of trials, and standard statistical methods could
give a reasonable estimate. In fact, previous NASA experience had
shown, on occasion, just such difficulties, near accidents, and
accidents, all giving warning that the probability of flight failure
was not so very small.

One wonders to what degree failure analysis of such "near misses" and "minor errors" was really conducted post-Challenger to determine overall saftey and reliability. One also wonders if the economic and political infrastructure involved in the shuttle program would accomodate someone doing such analysis (which would likely be hard enough to defend and validate, the counter-intuitiveness of statistics being what it is.)

It does appear that most of the various "off-scale low" sensor errors/failures immediately before the Columbia breakup were considered routine and nothing directly to worry about.

--LP

bring back the VentureStar by constantnormal · 2003-02-01 05:49 · Score: 4, Informative · on Space Shuttle Columbia Breaks Up Over Texas

... there's simply no reason why we should continue using the ancient expensive dangerous shuttle technology, when there's been MUCH better stuff developed.

Check out the milnet page on VentureStar, which is apparently being funded by black-budget ops (speculation -- but something is happening, the Air Force doesn't warehouse dead NASA projects out of the goodness of its heart). Link here

Had to pull the page from the Google cache, as much of the X-33/VentureStar info has disappeared from the web. But there's still plenty of stuff from non-governmental sites.

One of the X-33 design goals was to reduce cost per pound of payload from $20,000 to $2000, but in my mind, the more efficient and reliable engines, lack of strap-on boosters, slower reentry, no ceramic "bricks" for heat protection make good enough reasons to move forward with such a replacement for the shuttle, even if it had zero cost advantage in lifting payload to orbit.

There's no good reason to continue using the obsolete and dangerous shuttle technology forever.

Feynman on reliability of the space shuttle... by Karpe · 2003-02-01 03:57 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Space Shuttle Columbia Breaks Up Over Texas

can be found here (Google cache)

Re:I'd claim FIRST POST... by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-01-30 13:18 · Score: 3, Interesting · on Father of Video Games turning 60

"... but Al Gore would claim he's the father of that."

I'm a little surprised he was modded as off-topic. I think he was making a humorous allusion to Steve Russell, the guy who created Space War in the 1960's. This site has the info.

He should have gotten modded up, not down. Oh well, I guess not everybody is versed in Video Game History.

Karma whoring... by mikeage · 2003-01-30 07:20 · Score: 0, Offtopic · on Xbox Linux Cluster

Google Cache
That's all.

Re:Where are emoticons when you need 'em? by Chymaera · 2003-01-25 18:23 · Score: 1 · on Top of the Crops 2002

Glancing at a few of his comments and the google cache of his webpage(?), I'd say he's serious. Ah, well, stuff like this is good once in a while.

"It's funny. Laugh."

Re:Google cache by kasperd · 2003-01-23 08:33 · Score: 1 · on Using Redundancies to Find Errors

Its completely unreadable.

True, but the PS version previously mentioned is in fact readable (except from the tables).

Google cache by Una · 2003-01-22 16:31 · Score: 1 · on Using Redundancies to Find Errors

Dont even bother using the google cache of the pdf.
Its completely unreadable.

If you dont believe me, look for yourself:
here

Here's a text link by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-22 16:27 · Score: 4, Informative · on Using Redundancies to Find Errors

PDF usually crashes my computer (crappy adobe software). So here's a convenient text link!

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:yuZKW8CjTqIC: www.stanford.edu/~engler/p401-xie.ps+&hl=en&ie=UTF -8

Google Cache by skwog · 2003-01-17 02:06 · Score: 2, Informative · on SAUNAAB

is here [google.com]

C&D Google aswell? by raverbuzzy · 2003-01-16 09:16 · Score: 1 · on The End of the Free PCI Device List (Update)

The database is still avalible using google's cache:

www.yourvote.com/pci/

http://www.yourvote.com/pci/pciread.asp?sort=fulln ame

Does someone want to whip up a quick perl script to extract it all from google?

Also sysinfo contains a 10,000 pee cee eye device database as a textfile within the source.

C&D Google aswell? by raverbuzzy · 2003-01-16 09:16 · Score: 1 · on The End of the Free PCI Device List (Update)

The database is still avalible using google's cache:

www.yourvote.com/pci/

http://www.yourvote.com/pci/pciread.asp?sort=fulln ame

Does someone want to whip up a quick perl script to extract it all from google?

Also sysinfo contains a 10,000 pee cee eye device database as a textfile within the source.

Cache by missing000 · 2003-01-11 14:35 · Score: 1, Informative · on Barcode-Controlled Home?

Here

The Pink Lady is a harsh mistress by plimsoll · 2003-01-10 15:15 · Score: 1 · on Linux-Based Bar-Monkey

As an aside, the alcoholic 67-year old survivor of The Andromeda Strain had a penchant for strained Sterno - causing the acidosis that spared him from the (fictional) pestilence.

Crighton's character explained the process of deriving potable hooch from the magenta glob, and referred to the product as 'squeeze.'
Here's a recipe I found via a cursory googling:

Sterno [is] warmed over a fire of newspapers preparatory to squeezing it through a sock to make a drink called "Pink Lady."

EE majors: could the bar-monkeys control a sock with a solenoid, or something?

Google's Cache by breon.halling · 2003-01-09 16:23 · Score: 2 · on Put The Demoscene In Your DVD Player

Google's cache of the pricing page is here.

Re:Pixel Noise by Arthur+Dent · 2003-01-08 07:22 · Score: 5, Interesting · on Improving Digital Photography

Actually, there are four.

Another possible effect of having two X-chromosomes is that a woman who is a carrier for colour-blindness might have one X-chromosome with red and green and one with green and a different green. Her son, who has only the two green pigments, is colour blind. But the woman herself may have cone cells for blue, red, green and the extra green. Instead of having the usual three dimensions of colour she might have four. She would be a tetrachromat.

Re:AOL by Eil · 2003-01-08 03:15 · Score: 3, Informative · on Metaverse Launched?

But apparently hundreds of thousands of users all over the world

Er, according to a recent news article, AOLs user base clocks in at around 35 million worldwide.

EFF said it better by Lumpish+Scholar · 2002-12-31 02:00 · Score: 5, Informative · on The Spam Problem: Moving Beyond RBLs

whirlycott's article points to the Electronic Freedom Foundation's Public Interest Position on Junk Email (Google cache), which begins:

Executive Summary: Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.

For the past several years, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has watched with great interest the debate regarding what to do about unsolicited bulk email from strangers, or spam. We have been asked to lend our support to bills that have been introduced in Congress, and we have been approached in various other ways to help lead the fight against this annoying intrusion into people's email mailboxes.

While members of the EFF staff and board find this unsolicited email to be as annoying as everyone else, we believe that the two most popular strategies for combatting it so far--legislation and anti-spam blacklists--have failed in their fundamental design. Anti-spam bills have been badly written, are unconstitutionally overbroad, and frequently wander into areas where legislators have no expertise, such as the establishment of Internet standards. And anti-spam blacklists, such as the MAPS RBL (Mail Abuse Prevention System Realtime Blackhole List, the most popular), result in a large number of Internet service providers (ISPs) surreptitiously blocking large amounts of non-spam from innocent people. This is because they block all email from entire IP address blocks--even from entire nations. This is done with no notice to the users, who do not even know that their mail is not being delivered.

The focus of efforts to stop spam should include protecting end users and should not only consider stopping spammers at all costs. Specifically, any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients. Proposed solutions that do not fulfill these minimal goals are themselves a form of Internet abuse and are a direct assault on the health, growth, openness and liberty of the Internet.

Email is protected speech. There is a fundamental free speech right to be able to send and receive messages, regardless of medium. Unless that right is being abused by a particular individual, that individual must not be restricted. It is unacceptable, then, for anti-spam policies to limit legitimate rights to send or receive email. To the extent that an anti-spam proposal, whether legal or technical, results in such casualties, that proposal is unacceptable.

project page by Klerck · 2002-12-30 09:11 · Score: 5, Interesting · on The Joystick Is The Root of All Evil

You can find his project page here where he has graphs from his hit counter among other things.

David calls me the inspiration for his final project, as we both visit the same IRC channel. The inspiration came from my petition (cached because petitiononline.com has seemingly removed my petition) to rename the LOTR movie "The Two Towers" to something else. Of course, it was a joke. However, I'm still receiving responses to this day thanks to a site another friend of mine set up and which I wrote the FAQ for.

Congratulations, David, on another successful internet hoax!

Easter Eggs forbidden? by alpha264 · 2002-12-26 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative · on A Christmas Easter Egg in iPhoto?

According to this pdf:
http://www.dvmug.org/ApplePRESS/ApplePRESS1002.pdf (or view as HTML with Google)

"Apple has strictly forbidden engineering staff to create Easter Eggs in software created at Apple's campus"

Can anyone confirm?

Google Cache Link by lucifuge31337 · 2002-12-26 02:25 · Score: 1 · on Dual Screen/Display Laptop

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:GmJgBGbHXCsC: dualscreen.com/+Estari%E2%80%99s+2-VU%E2%84%A2+Dua l+Screen+Computer&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Re:Slashdot... by Joey+Patterson · 2002-12-25 05:19 · Score: 1 · on XPde: Cloning the XP Interface

But /. (hopefully) won't kill Google. :) The Google cache has the XPde main page and the screenshots page.

Re:Slashdot... by Joey+Patterson · 2002-12-25 05:19 · Score: 1 · on XPde: Cloning the XP Interface

But /. (hopefully) won't kill Google. :) The Google cache has the XPde main page and the screenshots page.

Long range WiFi, Stationkeeping + Some more links by StCredZero · 2002-12-21 03:04 · Score: 5, Informative · on Wi-Fi From The Sky

To make this viable, they will need Phased Array Wi-Fi as covered here earlier. This will increase their range to many miles. There is also a paper about stationkeeping for a group of such balloons.

Some more links on the story itself:

Chest^H^H^Hipmunks roasting... by Xtraneous · 2002-12-19 16:07 · Score: 2 · on LinuX-Mas Caroling We Shall Go

On of the funniest SNL (I think) sketches that I ever saw had a version of "Chestnuts roasting..." It went something like "Chipmunks roasting over an open fire..."

Actually when on a google search for the song, I found the following site Google'c cachse of Fractured Christmas Carols.

Oh, and by the way, the version of "chipmunks on the fire" (on the site mentioned above) was most definatly not the one I heard on SNL.

American technological edge...or not by Glock27 · 2002-12-16 10:58 · Score: 2 · on Whither America's Technological Edge?

First in the "Hall of Shame" is the H1-B Visa bill that is importing mass quantities of foreign workers to compete for US jobs:

"Moving at Internet speed, the House and the Senate approved legislation Tuesday to increase non-immigrant H-1B specialty occupation visas to 195,000 for FY 2000 through 2002." Full article here.

That was courtesy of the Clinton administration. THIS YEAR we are importing 100,000 foreign technology workers to compete for your jobs, due to the incredible shortage of workers we have in the current technology bubble. What, the bubble's over? Too bad...

These workers must keep their jobs, or they are deported. "You don't mind working 80 hour weeks do you? I thought not...". Plus 40K a year is a fortune to many of these folk!

Second is the abysmal rate at which we're turning out math, science and engineering graduates in the US. The US (if memory serves correctly) will turn out about 50,000 EE grads this year, of which 2/3 are foreign citizens likely to leave with their new expertise at some point. Mainland China alone will graduate over 600,000 EE grads this year, of which the vast majority are Chinese citizens. Also, in 2001 Mainland China opened ten shiny brand new software engineering universities. India is another large counry with a vast potential tech workforce.

I think there are legitimate worries regarding America's technological future.

Re:sheesh by PyroMosh · 2002-12-11 17:45 · Score: 1 · on New Mad Max Film

All you've proven with all of that is if you don't know how to drive large vehicles, then you can roll the vehicle.

You make it sound trivial. I don't know about you, but I fear for my life with half the drivers I see on the road today. Nobody has any fucking clue how to drive. And you're overlooking one very important fact.

Any car that handles better, more like you expect it to is always a good thing. You shouldn't have to know how to drive a specific vehicle. You should just be able to get in a car and have that car be safe so long as you have basic driving skills.

But the very fact that you have to "know how to drive a heavy vehicle" prooves that it's not simple. It's not basic, and that's a large part of what makes it unsafe. It's not as forgiving. Cars should be as forgiving as possible. At least most cars should be. Yeah, there can be exceptions. Enthusiests and people that know what they're doing. People that really do have a reason to drive something less forgiving. But that's not what's happening. It's as if everyone is driving dodge vipers. I don't know if you've ever driven a Viper, but it's a very unforgiving beast of a car. At the time I wasn't so so great with a stick, and I was barley able to get it out of the lot. As soon as I did, I wanted to get back into the lot and park, and I don't consider myself a slouch of a driver (with the exception of not being too familliar with stick). Contrast that with say, a Nissan Maxima (I don't particularly like this car, but it's a good example in thsi case). It handels like you expect it to. You turn the wheel, the car moves. It has good traction in all but the worst conditions, it stops when you ask it to, it doesn't oversteer or understeer, it doesn't want to fishtail, or anything.

SUVs aren't alone with being challenging to drive. The Chevy Caprice / Impalla SSes were notoriously bad in even mildly wet weather. Rear wheel drive, and something about them made them particularly bad about loosing the rear. Probably a combination of long wheel base, rear wheel drive and good power.

But like it or not, SUVs are not optimal road cars. They do have a function. But it's not as a commuter car. Or as a grocery getter, or even to take the whole family out. (Unless you're using it for what it's intended for (read: more than a glorified, high center of gravity minivan)).

How does the weight save you? It doesn't matter if your car weighs 100 Lbs or 100,000 Lbs. If it goes from 60 to 0, that force is going to be transfered into your body in a most uncomfortable way. The best protection is through crumple zones so that this force is transfered as slowly as possible. Most SUVs have poor crumple zone protection since they are built on stiff truck chasies.

As for what you say it sounds like, no, it's noting like saying I never wear seat belts, because what if I went off the road into a lake? I would be a dead man!". Because that's stupid. SUVs make up a disproportionate number of accidents on the road.

Read up on your facts.

There are sligltly better survivability numbers IN A CRASH for SUVs than cars. But that's at the expense of the cars' rates. And the accident rate on SUVs is so much worse that the New Jersey Garden State Parkway has considered banning or restricting SUVs.

Now, I'm going to make up these numbers to illustrate my point, but check it out and you'll see what I mean. If Car A has a crash survival rate of 50%, and car B has a crash survival rate of 75%, but B gets in to accidents 10 times as often as A, despite having equal numbers on the road, which car would you pick? Add to that that B is 10 times more likley to kill someone that you hit in a multi vehicle crash? Still want your big land boat?

What if the trend died tomorrow and instead, everyone wanted to get an 18 wheeler? Would that be good? Yeah, you have to get a CDL, and yeah, they're prohibativly expensive, but it's illustrating a point. It's rediculous, and it's not safer. That's a myth. There's a reason we don't build cars like the 50s Bel Airs and 60s Impallas any more. They weren't safer, and they wasted gas.

Goodbye OS/2. by TPS+Report · 2002-12-11 04:47 · Score: 1 · on OS/2 Going, Going... Gone

I thought a lot of ATM's used OS/2. I wonder what OS they'll eventually migrate those to -- QNX perhaps?

It's sad to see OS/2 die - I had hopes that BeOS was going to be "everything OS/2 could have been, but wasn't." Too bad it died too :( It's interesting to just sit back and wonder what the computing world would be like now (and what type of operating system we'd be running today) if IBM would have actually marketed OS/2 effectively.

Help Save Farscape! (Use one of the links below) by ekrout · 2002-12-09 12:35 · Score: 3, Informative · on Slashback: Pliancy, Antennae, Gobe

Results 1 - 10 of about 46,800. Search took 0.10 seconds.

Save Farscape
Farscape.wdsection.com has moved to www.savefarscape.com.
You will be redirected in 3 seconds.
Description: Headquarters of a fan-based effort to save the show. Includes news and contact information.
Category: Arts>Television>...>ScienceFictionandFantasy>F>Far scape
farscape.wdsection.com/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages

Save Farscape
... Sci-Fi Network vs. Scapers 12-08-02 - Save Farscape Campaign in the St. Paul Pioneer
Press, ... The Save Farscape TV Spot Fan funded, fan produced, TV history. ...
www.savefarscape.com/ - 12k - Dec. 9, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

SAVE FARSCAPE!
... Update: The Save Farscape Petition is now the first link in the Featured Petitions
section of ipetitions.com's homepage. Thanks, ipetitions.com! ... SAVE FARSCAPE! ...
www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SAVE_FARSCAPE/ - 28k - Dec. 9, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

SaveFarscapeCentral.com
This is the home for #farscape's Save Farscape, Never Say
Die, Cracker's Do Matter, Scapers Unite Not Fight. ...
www.savefarscapecentral.com/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

Help Save Farscape! - Farscape World
Help Save Farscape! Note ... TRANSCRIPT. [CLICK HERE FOR ALL THE LATEST SAVE
FARSCAPE NEWS] Click here to read Sci Fi's Cancellation FAQ. ...
www.farscapeworld.com/helpfarscape.shtml - 27k - Dec. 9, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

FarscapeWeekly Farscape CANCELLED
... [19:47] <Barbarella> also they'd like an address to write to to try to Save Farscape
[19:47] <FrooniumRicky> We have ideas and stuff, sure, but right now we're ...
www.farscapeweekly.com/cancelled.htm - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

Save Farscape!
... Read the Original Chat Transcript here. How to Save Farscape! (thanks ... We
have a home at SFX --the Save Farscape fan table!!! We ...
homepage.mac.com/chryse/Guiding%20Star/Cancelled .html - 52k - Cached - Similar pages

Save Our Show: Save Farscape.net
Save Our Show - Save Farscape - links - petitions, information on how to save
our show. This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.
www.savefarscape.net/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

Save Farscape!
... Scapers Sanctuary > Save Farscape!! ... Save Farscape Cyber Party: From November 11-17th
there will be an on-line convention hosted on the SciFi Farscape BBoard! ...
www.scaper.com/savefarscape.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

: RevolutionSF - Save Farscape! : Feature
: Search RevSF. : Save Farscape Well? What are you waiting for? ... WTF? What it's
all about. : Merchandise Scare your neighbors! Save Farscape! © RevolutionSF. ...
www.revolutionsf.com/article/1423.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages