Slashdot Mirror

This opens up entirely new uses for a projector for the nerdy crowd:

Some examples/ideas:
  * Projector tiling
  * Cheap, portable 3D Scanning
  * Real-time photo sharing (obvious)
  * Portable video-conferencing, telepresence (think projector-screen-like avatars around the screen with a tiny projector attached to each of them)
  * Pseudo-Invisibility!! (Think helmet-mounted camera, white t-shirt, dorky looking wearable projector mount)
  * Head-Mounted Projector applications (other types of invisibility, "Virtual Cockpit", freaking people out at night clubs, etc.)

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:http://www.xconomy.com/national/2008/09/26/boston-unblurred-debunking-the-google-maps-censorship-myth/

Google cache of network scandal article

Yeah? You sure about that?...

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:7vyEf2HgVDUJ:law.justanswer.com/state-law/j451-need-carry-id-times-state-new+nys+law+carry+identification+always&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

(cached, websense doesn't like this site)

From the article:
I contacted the North Bergen, NY police department .. According to Officer Rovelo, it is a state law that a person must carry an ID on them at all times.... He then went on to say that you would not get cited in accordance with this law, but rather the more recent "failure to produce ID" or obstruction code. And to re-confirm, this is indeed a state, not municipal or county ordinance.

The Google cache of the comparison doesn't include McCain's responses yet, but here is the link anyway:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yzwwifpqCyAJ:sharp.sefora.org/innovation2008/compare/race/president/2008/+http://sharp.sefora.org/innovation2008/compare/race/president/2008/

A Measure of Media Bias

<GrayBeardMode> I was working at PR1ME when the Morris Worm hit. Nobody really new what was going on at first. Then word was getting out that there was something running rampant over the internet and our feed was taken down. Later it was learned that our systems had the wrong architecture and we were safe from the attack, but the impact on the net was so great that everything was glacially slow. </GrayBeardMode>

There's a great write-up by Don Seeley, Department of Computer Science, University of Utah that (as posted by Francis Litterio). (I used to work with Fran - Hi there!) Anyway, the link to it from wikipedia (Morris Worm) is broken, but I found a copy in Google's cache at "A Tour of the Worm". There are other links available (e.g. to a pdf) if you search Google for this title, but I don't want to unnecessarily bog down someone's server. Highly recommended!!

the boardgame is slashdotted, but the google cache is working: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:http://www.waronterrortheboardgame.com/

The facts of the case are not quite as open-and-shut as they seem. The plaintiffs used the comments of a few to bootstrap their case against others. A few anonymous trolls posted most of the libelous and offensive statements. However, the plaintiffs chose to sue the operator of the web site and other posters (one of whom said something like "I want to lick whipped cream off the plaintiff") just to spite and out them. The plaintiffs intentionally didn't serve the operator of the web site to make sure he couldn't respond in court, while they negotiated with his colleague using the removal of the operator from the web site from the suit as a bargaining chip.

The plaintiffs and their agents also started a libelous campaign against the operator of the web site to try to get him fired. They falsely stated that he had written the posts, which was not true. The operator of the web site has brought his own lawsuit against the plaintiffs in the first action and their attorneys. The complaint in the second case is pretty damning, if true, and it's too detailed to be all made up.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:XFH9CX3EBhsJ:abovethelaw.com/images/IravaniComplaint.pdf+ciolli+v.+heller&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23920

5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.

It Depends.

If you're being poisoned by air pollution, it's $6.1 million dollars (down from $8 million in 2000) but if a company is dumping poison in your water supply, it's $8.8 million dollars. If you need to know how much more to pay for little rubber caps to make your Pinto not explode, the DoT suggests $5.8 million, but starting this year wants everyone to analyze their work at $3.2 and $8.4 million, just to be sure. $5.8 million is also used by the FAA.

Laura Taylor of North Carolina State University, said her figure was lower because it emphasized differences in pay for various risky jobs, not just risky industries as a whole.[emphasis mine]

Anyone have a link to the actual study? I've found all sorts of people pontificating on whether it's done right or even the right thing to do, but not the study itself. I'm interested in knowing whether these "various" risky jobs included illegal immigrants in jobs like meatpacking or whether certain very dangerous and well-paying jobs were left out (surely an accidental oversight), similar to how energy and food costs are too "volatile" (read: embarrassing) to consider in inflation.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:vLwnQT2-RMIJ:www.matasano.com/log/1103/reliable-dns-forgery-in-2008-kaminskys-discovery/+matasano+%22reliable+DNS+forgery+in+2008%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

Despite the Telecoms gaining immunity from civil complaints through this bill, Obama can start a federal criminal prosecution when/if he wins the presidency.

The Google Cache.

Now scroll down and see the date is: This entry was posted on Saturday, July 5th, 2008 at 9:26 am and is filed under future design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. That would ....2 days ago not a month.

Says the guy that's never paid a gas heating bill.

Have too. BTW, the US is a net importer of natural gas (warning - pdf). Also, the government predicts shortfalls after 2020 (google cache to avoid pdf).

Ahh, they're just trying to mod me out of /. existance. I've actually read most of the responses to my post and gone WAAAY to the bottom of the page making responses... even those are getting marked troll. So it's an effort to blacklist me. They're just looking at my user page and modding everything I say troll. Can't say I'm the least bit surprised. They do the same on Wikipedia. I'd point you to the original article instead of a google cache, but it seems that has been pulled down too. You can see the page that article refers to has been edited hundreds of times to "cleanse" it of descent. There's so much money and so many careers on the line at this point... if the general public realized it was a hoax, they'd all be ruined. I'm modded up on several posts right now, but they won't forget about me. They'll be modding me down for the rest of the week.

Google Cache to the rescue
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:IftbAe-ZB3gJ:www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/20/jack-thompson-guilty-27-31-misconduct-charges-says-bar-trial-judge-fl-supreme-court-must-&hl=en&strip=1

I think Steve's blade may be a bit dull trying to cut through all the red tape set forth in their own EULA.

from: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yZd3DfSTe6cJ:www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/psystar-says-rumors-of-its-demise-are-greatly-exaggerated-still/comments/11642842/+leopard+eula+unenforceable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Psystar/Open Computing is reselling a full (read: fully-licesned) copy of MacOSX Leopard. They are then preinstalling it onto the system, telling you that they do modifications, and telling you that the copy is no longer under warranty. In addition, the courts have been moving in the direction of saying EULA's are not necessarily contractual, because of the low barrier of people to click "I Accept", weakening any potential Apple case.

To be fair, DMCA is vague on modifying software for personal use, and violating license, but only from the perspective of "taking away revenue". In this case, Apple is getting attributed as creating the software, and sells a retail copy of Leopard every time Psystar/Open Computing sells one to buyers.

from: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:dIo9yM9-QvMJ:timmorton.blogspot.com/2008/04/apple-vs-psystar-clone-mac-era.html+leopard+eula+unenforceable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

What it boils down to is that running Leopard on a machine that Apple did not make violates the EULA. EULA's are largely NOT legally enforceable, and in those states where they are the degree to which they are varies widely. EULA's are not active contracts, and are largely invalid because you cannot read them in entirety (or at all usually) on the packaging before making your purchase, leaving you vulnerable to stipulations that were unknown at the time of purchase. EULA's are legally weak, all but entirely unenforceable, and would be outrageously expensive to attempt to enforce on any type of broad scale.

Basically I think Apple really would have to pay to play this game that it might lose. EULA's are largely flawed and usually unenforceable. Will be interesting to see what Apple does, if not nothing.

I think Steve's blade may be a bit dull trying to cut through all the red tape set forth in their own EULA.

from: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yZd3DfSTe6cJ:www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/psystar-says-rumors-of-its-demise-are-greatly-exaggerated-still/comments/11642842/+leopard+eula+unenforceable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Psystar/Open Computing is reselling a full (read: fully-licesned) copy of MacOSX Leopard. They are then preinstalling it onto the system, telling you that they do modifications, and telling you that the copy is no longer under warranty. In addition, the courts have been moving in the direction of saying EULA's are not necessarily contractual, because of the low barrier of people to click "I Accept", weakening any potential Apple case.

To be fair, DMCA is vague on modifying software for personal use, and violating license, but only from the perspective of "taking away revenue". In this case, Apple is getting attributed as creating the software, and sells a retail copy of Leopard every time Psystar/Open Computing sells one to buyers.

from: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:dIo9yM9-QvMJ:timmorton.blogspot.com/2008/04/apple-vs-psystar-clone-mac-era.html+leopard+eula+unenforceable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

What it boils down to is that running Leopard on a machine that Apple did not make violates the EULA. EULA's are largely NOT legally enforceable, and in those states where they are the degree to which they are varies widely. EULA's are not active contracts, and are largely invalid because you cannot read them in entirety (or at all usually) on the packaging before making your purchase, leaving you vulnerable to stipulations that were unknown at the time of purchase. EULA's are legally weak, all but entirely unenforceable, and would be outrageously expensive to attempt to enforce on any type of broad scale.

Basically I think Apple really would have to pay to play this game that it might lose. EULA's are largely flawed and usually unenforceable. Will be interesting to see what Apple does, if not nothing.

03/04/2008 04:09:28 PM changed by deryni

jason0x21: Yes, it proved to be impossible to get both manual sizing and automatic resizing to work at the same time. We are trying to figure out if there is a way for the current mechanism to be usable by everyone, because that would be a *better* answer than simply adding a preference.

You don't need a reason beyond that to want it, you do need a reason beyond it to convince us that adding the preference is the only solution. Which is exactly why I keep asking for reasons. I'm more than happy to give in to them when they are given and reasonable.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ce0P64aoa48J:developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4986+http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4986&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Google Cache of the discussion. It is more interesting than the developers believe. I found the trac message fairly obnoxious.

Oh, and I want video support!

The OP makes it seem like all of the developers are acting arrogant and unreceptive to users wishes. This is not the case.

It's not that they think they are right and everyone is wrong. They just don't want to spend hours hacking with GTK+ to get it working correctly. Sean Egan posted this on the Trac ticket:

"The main problem is getting GTK+ to play nice with auto-resising and user-resizing. If anyone wants to submit a patch that gets it all right, I would gladly accept it."

Sean Egan is the the project leader of the pidgin project. The guy that ran off and made a fork could have sent a working patch, one that lets users enable or disable, and it would have been integrated.

Etan Reisner makes an ass of himself when he says

"Enjoy using Trillian, or whatever other client you choose. Oh, and the fact that someone actually took the time to implement the preference for switching back to the old behaviour is a very nice surprise and I would like to thank nodashi for doing so (assuming the patch is yours). I have no intention of accepting such a patch because I still believe that is the wrong way to fix this and I would think it could be written as a plugin as well, but it at least shows a proper way of handling this situation and for that I want to commend you."

Fortunately for the users he is not the project leader.

My guess for the future is that Etan will get respect-minus-minus from the other developers on the team and a patch will be integrated to add the option.

here

Without a body, it's hardly reasonable to conclude she is dead. You assume that the jury was reasonable, or that you are. People disappear all the time, and they are not dead. Women in abusive relationships "disappear" all the time. Many aren't dead, they go underground, moving across country. Why is this not a likely scenario? You really think it's more probably that people that disappear are dead? Where are you stats to back that up? What grounds are you basing that assumption on?

I know the legal defintion of circumstantial evidence because I've read it. It's also soundly based on logical fallicy. Consider this: in HS, your principal sees you sitting at a certain table during lunch. Later that afternoon, he comes back and finds the table vandalized. He gives you detention because he concludes that you vadalized the table, because you were the last person someone saw sitting at the table. Do you find that to be a logical or reasonable conclusion? Or is it just as likely that someone else vandalized the table between the time you were last seen there and the time the crime was discovered?

That's pretty much the case here. Finding blood does not mean someone has died. It means someone has bleed. Being unable to locate the person does not mean that person has died. It means no one knows where that person is. Put it all together, I don't see how any reasonable person can believe "beyond any reasonable doubt" that there is no other scenario that lead to the evidence at hand.

Check this link. Circumstacial evidence is not allowed in many states for liable in defective product cases. If we don't allow it there, why are we allowing it for criminal murder trials?

Actually, ID doesn't help.
This guy had a false death certificate submitted for his name and is still having problems with it. He finally was able to get his accounts unfrozen, his marriage official, and a new ID card, but only after months of calls and visits to UK ID agency. To this day with his son, he still gets letters of "fraud detection" whenever they try to do something that piggy-backs on the ID system.


Google cache as main page isn't currently loading for me.

For me the quicker starting/stopping of X sounds nice (provided by google since Fedora's server is overloaded right now). An interest of mine is in Operations Research and I typically turn off X when running simulations to remove some of the variability. It'd be nice to have a quicker response from X. I'm not sure if that's on everyone's list though ...

Judging from the google cached pages, it looks like that's precisely what his research is for. Google cached pages: here, and here, and here

Judging from the google cached pages, it looks like that's precisely what his research is for. Google cached pages: here, and here, and here

Judging from the google cached pages, it looks like that's precisely what his research is for. Google cached pages: here, and here, and here

"if you can SEE the neighbours, they're too close!") ... dunno about NH, but surrounding states have become quite kennel-hostile.

There are plenty of towns without zoning ordinances but your important point is about seeing the neighbors.

I have a friend who wanted to start a kennel right in the middle of an area with like 4 houses on not much property. I told her not to, but it was cheap. She wound up not buying the house (fortunately) at the last moment because the neighbors went apeshit. As would be expected.

In NH you need to get 10 acres of land or more to qualify for the "Current Use" program, where taxes are low on the property that isn't developed. If you have 9.5 acres, you're really screwed. I have 32 acres myself, but our house is near the road rather than in the middle of it, so we can see three of our neighbors. In my zone there's 400' minimum of road frontage, and we have 12 houses on a mile-long road so it's not too bad. And it's easier to plow my 200' driveway than if I had to go 1/4 mile like one of my neighbors does, but for a kennel it would be worth it.

There is a distinct lack of good kennels around here. Our dog passed last summer, but we were driving half an hour to get to the good one, and the others (closer) are always booked. So the business climate is probably pretty good. Not sure how the gas prices are affecting people's travel frequency of late, though.

If you have any interest the FSP is sponsoring a week-long festival in June for prospectives. I was way out in front, and beat the FSP by a number of years, but I came for the same reasons and try to give 'em a hand where I can.

On Monday, KTVU reported scientists have received an odd signal from space and some readers may have interpreted this as a confirmed extra-terrestrial contact.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2XfYwvrr1vMJ:www.humanized.com/

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable [emphasis mine -mi] searches and seizures

Kinda vague, is not it? What's reasonable? Up to the courts, really...

And the courts have determined, that such "administrative searches" are Ok "as long as they are "conducted as part of a scheme that has as its purpose something "other than the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecutions."

Microsoft has a certain amount of resources available to make parsers secure. Let's say they can make one file parser secure in one month. If they have 12 parsers to secure, how should they spend their resources?

* Should they secure the most common ones (i.e. post-Word 6.0) first and issue an update with the common ones secure and leave the rest vulnerable for the rest of the year?

* Should they secure all of them and issue an update all at once, leaving all users vulnerable all year?

* Or should they secure the most common ones first, issue an update that secures the common ones and disables the uncommon ones, then at the end of the year issue an update that secures and re-enables the uncommon ones?

I'm pretty sure that Theo de Raadt would immediately audit the code everybody depends on, then disable the rest until an audit is complete. Of course everybody on /. drools over themselves talking about how secure OpenBSD is when he does something like that. When Microsoft does it, they're just incompetent.

Remember, these parsers were written back when the worst a bad .DOC file would do is crash Word and /.'s complaints about Word mainly centered around bloat. If MS had spent time on hardening the parser, /. would have bitched about how Office was late, slow, and bloated. Nobody would know (or care) about the security.

And don't think every other program out there doesn't have similar bugs. I have no doubt you could effectively attack Lotus 1-2-3 too, but nobody does because it's easier to write an exploit than it is to find a Lotus user. Unix programs are notoriously bad in this regard also.

dom

Microsoft has a certain amount of resources available to make parsers secure. Let's say they can make one file parser secure in one month. If they have 12 parsers to secure, how should they spend their resources?

* Should they secure the most common ones (i.e. post-Word 6.0) first and issue an update with the common ones secure and leave the rest vulnerable for the rest of the year?

* Should they secure all of them and issue an update all at once, leaving all users vulnerable all year?

* Or should they secure the most common ones first, issue an update that secures the common ones and disables the uncommon ones, then at the end of the year issue an update that secures and re-enables the uncommon ones?

I'm pretty sure that Theo de Raadt would immediately audit the code everybody depends on, then disable the rest until an audit is complete. Of course everybody on /. drools over themselves talking about how secure OpenBSD is when he does something like that. When Microsoft does it, they're just incompetent.

Remember, these parsers were written back when the worst a bad .DOC file would do is crash Word and /.'s complaints about Word mainly centered around bloat. If MS had spent time on hardening the parser, /. would have bitched about how Office was late, slow, and bloated. Nobody would know (or care) about the security.

And don't think every other program out there doesn't have similar bugs. I have no doubt you could effectively attack Lotus 1-2-3 too, but nobody does because it's easier to write an exploit than it is to find a Lotus user. Unix programs are notoriously bad in this regard also.

dom

Yes, first past the post voting is not as good as proportional. But what is recommended in this article is just the frosting on the cake. Before you can put on the frosting, you have to have the cake. America does not have the cake. THe approach espoused in this article is like a mechanic who, when presented with a car that does not start, decides that a paint job will fix the problem. The problem is that america is NOT a democracy. And where democracy is crippled, money rules. The lack of democracy in america creates a vacuum, filled by Big MOney. We have a choice--democracy or plutocracy. If you do not have democracy, you have plutocracy. the solution must return power to the voters by changing the constitution so as to empower the voters. How do you do that? The same way they do in Europe, canada, oz,etc they use governmental infrastructure to empower voters. They empower by parliamentarian democracy. Look to western europe. There is a reason why they have universal healthcare, progressive taxation, less police brutality, a small war machine, etc etc. You see, THEY have democracy in the form of parliamentarianism. We do not. The founding fathers were ANTI-DEMOCRACY. THe reason they illegally installed the present constitution is because the several states under the articles of confederation were becoming parliamentarian democracies, and then passing laws that were helpful to working people and harmful to the rich people like the founding fathers, e.g. debt relief laws and progressive taxation. The founding fathers hated democracy. James Madison, the father of the American constitution, said that democracy is not right for America. Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the COnstitution, said that there was an "excess of democracy." Read all about how america is not a democracy: How did the FOunding Fathers stop democracy in America? Primarily with strong checks and balances and the Presidential System. Read these articles and this online book to learn more about what I am talking about. These articles are written by Phds in history and political science (or are articles reviewing books by those PHDs). http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/10/31/taxation_revolution_and_some_other_rebellions/ and here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1023/p13s01-bogn.html and here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4026/is_200607/ai_n17187913/pg_1 and here: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:u1pjfiO0X_8J:www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/62.2/holton.html+woody+impera&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=opera and here: http://cyberjournal.org/authors/fresia/

Have I really submitted to that when I bought a ticket? Hmm...I don't remember reading anything like that on the website when I bought my ticket.

Check carefully — I'm pretty sure, it is there...

I never signed anything of the like saying I read and understand that I gave up my rights when I bought a ticket to fly somewhere.

You did not give up any rights. If you don't want to be searched, you can say so. But they are unlikely to let you into the boarding area... Such is the "legal" game — entering that area is a privilege, you see, not a right...

Similar to your access to public roads — all of them. If you don't mind the Executive branch's sole power to grant (and revoke!) driving licenses, without which you can not use the roads, that your taxes are paying for, you should not be too upset over the tight controls over access to the boarding areas...

According to this case, such "administrative searches" are fine as long as they are "conducted as part of a scheme that has as its purpose something "other than the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecutions."

there is apparently some unpublished laws supporting what the TSA says, but, since we cannot see them....how do we know what they say?

Uhm, unpublished laws? Not sure, what you mean... Are you referring to TSA's own regulations? Those may, indeed, apply to areas under TSA control. But the worst they can do to you, is escort you is prevent your entering those...

Specialists (the people who help match buyers and sellers in floor trading) can make seven figures and the average salary of a securities industry worker in NYC is nearly $300k.

Well if you want me to use information that's available (I hardly think that's in the spirit od /.), I would use R&D total numbers to determine the amount spent on R&D, and not limit myself to computing (after all not all research is super computing).

If I do such, a quick googling finds the UK is 4th worldwide (http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guiintl.htm). here (this is a google cache link, to view a PDF as HTML) is a table showing it just above China as a percentage, but about 3/4 of the highest percentage (korea) and a little less behind France, Germany,US and the Japan. And if the 2 sites are using similar methods we see the UK just above the EU-27 as a whole.

The UK is certainly not the top that one may hope, but it does appear to be above average (4th place in raw number).

Anything around here that allows you to hook up to a PC is ridiculously expensive and works like crap, and they still reserve the right to mysteriously cap your "unlimited" usage or to bill you extra if you go over that limit. That's the plans that do allow hooking up to a PC at all. Mine, like many, is "unlimited" for the phone, but I still have to pay per kB to hook it to another device and let that use the connection.

There was a news story not long ago about a guy on a plan like mine in Canada who ran up an $85,000 phone bill because he didn't see the distinction in the fine print. Yahoo, DSL Reports, The Huffington Post, CNet UK, Canada.com, Geek.com, and /.'s own Firehose have had the story, among many other sources.

I can get Sprint, AT&T, or possibly Verizon (haven't check on their coverage and plans here lately for data) here that will allow me to hook up to my PC for "unlimited" data transfer, but it runs about $100 a month on top of a required voice plan, and although most phones will do it only certain phones or a dedicated cell modem is allowed to have the plan. Sprint says theirs is both "unlimited" and "broadband", but they also say it's not to be used to replace a leased line Internet service. So which is it?

They wanted to preserve rendering of "broken" pages hacked for IE6 and 7, while rendering standards-compliant pages correctly. This means that web developers that use a proper doctype will get something that renders the same in IE8 as it does in other browsers. Pages with tag soup targeted at IE6 are the most likely to have an incomplete (or no) doctype anyway.

Being able to force it to render things correctly is a good thing. Additionally, most other browsers (including Firefox and Opera) do essentially the same thing, deciding (Google cache because page had trouble loading for me) whether to use "standards mode", "quirks mode", or "almost standards mode" based entirely on the doctype.

This is the best way to preserve compatibility with pages targeted at IE6 (of which there are lots) while making life easier for web developers pissed at having to jump through hoops for IE (of which there are lots).

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:xUBFtJUU2NYJ:www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html+prescott+bush&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

it's always about a little more money, at what cost to the rest of us?

the lights are coming up all over now.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

Alright, since you brought it up:

Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.

In those studies, they specified that the youths responding adversely to video games were already aggressive, or otherwise disruptive. It's in the first sentence of the actual report, if you don't want to rely on MSNBC's scaremongering.

Despite what these readers say, many scientific studies clearly show that violent video games make kids more likely to yell, push, and punch, says Brad Bushman.

Reading this paper he produced for Iowa State University, it seems that
many types of violent media produce identical reactions (2nd column, 1st page), and that video games are only the "most recent type of media violence to come under the research microscope". Again, scaremongering.

Recently released medical studies indicate that violent video games damage the brain, possibly permanently.

Actually, if you read the link you pointed to, it uses the exact same study as the first post you linked to, and even mentions the same shortcomings. Regarding Mr Akio Mori's study, according to him, the risk is to gamers in their "earlier years", people who shouldn't have access to the kinds of violent video games that are suggested to cause these problems. I found the quote here (page 13, left column).

As I've effectively countered your claims with only mild Google research, feel free to reply with further arguments, or admit that the ill effects of video games is largely the fear they cause unfamilar adults.

Alright, since you brought it up:

Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.

In those studies, they specified that the youths responding adversely to video games were already aggressive, or otherwise disruptive. It's in the first sentence of the actual report, if you don't want to rely on MSNBC's scaremongering.

Despite what these readers say, many scientific studies clearly show that violent video games make kids more likely to yell, push, and punch, says Brad Bushman.

Reading this paper he produced for Iowa State University, it seems that
many types of violent media produce identical reactions (2nd column, 1st page), and that video games are only the "most recent type of media violence to come under the research microscope". Again, scaremongering.

Recently released medical studies indicate that violent video games damage the brain, possibly permanently.

Actually, if you read the link you pointed to, it uses the exact same study as the first post you linked to, and even mentions the same shortcomings. Regarding Mr Akio Mori's study, according to him, the risk is to gamers in their "earlier years", people who shouldn't have access to the kinds of violent video games that are suggested to cause these problems. I found the quote here (page 13, left column).

As I've effectively countered your claims with only mild Google research, feel free to reply with further arguments, or admit that the ill effects of video games is largely the fear they cause unfamilar adults.

Admittedly, both salting and complex passwords increase the size of the database involved. However, there's no reason one couldn't generate those databases as well. In fact, one of the Google results is for an on-line Password hash database. So, all a group of hackers has to do is put the thing online in some manner of distributed storage, and wait for Google to index all the pages for 'em.

Fortunately, the problem grows exponentially with the number of allowable characters. Unfortunately, so does Google's headaches. I suspect Google will take some "don't be evil" measures on this shortly, if only to keep their Data Storage department from needing to give Earth a second moon....

You do know that the US exports were a larger percentage of GDP than ever in 2006? http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HTP0L7C38GUJ:www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_FactSheets/PROD01_002835+U.S.+trade+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a Exports were 11.6 percent of GDP in 2006. They were 5.2 percent of GDP 50 years ago.
As for the weak dollar, the dollar is (mostly)falling against currencies of countries that fall into one of two classes (or in some case both classes), commodity(oil, for example) producers (Canada, for example), or higher central bank interest rates (Brazil and Canada, for example). The primary exception to this is the euro. However, the EU's central bank interest rates were lower than the US Fed interest rates until recently, when the Fed lowered interest rates and the EU central bank raised their's. We did not see a lot of "the sky is falling" talk about the euro when it dropped in value in 2005, why should we buy such talk when the U.S. dollar is falling in 2007?
The best evidence still suggests that the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Which I would say is at best 5 years. However, considering that all of the current potential contenders to displace the U.S. as the number one economy have major demographic issues that start in about 10 years, I believe that the U.S. economy will remain the strongest in the world for at least the next 20.

• Architecture Review process http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:D8MOfsHi7Q0J:www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~rnkazman/att.ps+%22architecture+review+board%22
  
• recurring training (so the operators knew WHY they had to reboot)
  
• following operational procedures (so they did reboot)
  
• lack of a backup system (Seattle area had one)
  
• software code reviews that imposed a warranty obligation on the vendor (bad contracting)
  

Here is a link to the html file