Slashdot Mirror

How can this be - how can there exist a formula to get a hexadecimal digit but not a decimal digit?

Easy. There can't. Pi is irrational. By the definition of an irrational number there is no repeating pattern that defines the number, hence no formulas. And for the second impossibilty, how can there possibly be a formula for aribtrary hex digits and not decimal? All you have to do is find at most two hex digits and convert to find the decimal digit.

Could it be that people simply make up stats to put in their articles? You be the judge.

Through the magic of Google, here is a definitive list of what ~65% of IT managers thought, through the ages (of the net that is):

65% of IT managers report that their websites were unavailable to customers over a 6-month period

65% of IT managers surveyed by InformationWeek Research say Windows 2000 won't reduce their number of system administrators or related costs a year from now.

65% of IT managers said it's very important for vendors to offer consistent PC configurations over the course of a multiphase PC rollout.

Over 65% of IT Managers and CIOs in Southern California expected their level of hiring to remain the same or even increase in the post-Y2K age

67% of IT managers have been contacted by headhunters in the last year

67% of IT managers would rather pretend to understand an acronym than admit they didn't know what it meant. [tlu - here's one that sounds low to me]

66% of IT Managers have experienced "complete project failure" [tlu - hopefully not in bed]

(66%) of IT managers said the best solution for preventing monopolies in IT is a combination of moderate government regulation and market forces

Could it be that people simply make up stats to put in their articles? You be the judge.

Through the magic of Google, here is a definitive list of what ~65% of IT managers thought, through the ages (of the net that is):

65% of IT managers report that their websites were unavailable to customers over a 6-month period

65% of IT managers surveyed by InformationWeek Research say Windows 2000 won't reduce their number of system administrators or related costs a year from now.

65% of IT managers said it's very important for vendors to offer consistent PC configurations over the course of a multiphase PC rollout.

Over 65% of IT Managers and CIOs in Southern California expected their level of hiring to remain the same or even increase in the post-Y2K age

67% of IT managers have been contacted by headhunters in the last year

67% of IT managers would rather pretend to understand an acronym than admit they didn't know what it meant. [tlu - here's one that sounds low to me]

66% of IT Managers have experienced "complete project failure" [tlu - hopefully not in bed]

(66%) of IT managers said the best solution for preventing monopolies in IT is a combination of moderate government regulation and market forces

Could it be that people simply make up stats to put in their articles? You be the judge.

Through the magic of Google, here is a definitive list of what ~65% of IT managers thought, through the ages (of the net that is):

65% of IT managers report that their websites were unavailable to customers over a 6-month period

65% of IT managers surveyed by InformationWeek Research say Windows 2000 won't reduce their number of system administrators or related costs a year from now.

65% of IT managers said it's very important for vendors to offer consistent PC configurations over the course of a multiphase PC rollout.

Over 65% of IT Managers and CIOs in Southern California expected their level of hiring to remain the same or even increase in the post-Y2K age

67% of IT managers have been contacted by headhunters in the last year

67% of IT managers would rather pretend to understand an acronym than admit they didn't know what it meant. [tlu - here's one that sounds low to me]

66% of IT Managers have experienced "complete project failure" [tlu - hopefully not in bed]

(66%) of IT managers said the best solution for preventing monopolies in IT is a combination of moderate government regulation and market forces

Very, very memories. It's been a bad couple of years, hasn't it?

After all you have a much better chance of building something just as successful as the real thing!!

See, almost any time we've had people spam before, it's been someone who has signed up for an unlimited dialup account, then goes and spams right away before they get cut off. It got to the point where I was able to guess that someone was going to do this when I was taking down their details for an account; this happened with someone signing up for this guy, and I locked the account before it was even active. This person, like every other spammer I'd dealt with, never called back: they knew exactly what they were doing, and what I would tell them. But this customer did.

Furthermore, she was extremely convincing when she told me she knew nothing about spam. To all appearances she was nearly clueless about computers (no offense to her -- I'm sure I couldn't do her job), could not believe her computer had done anything wrong, and was offended by the spam her computer had sent when she saw the complaint from SpamCop. She didn't argue that it wasn't really spam, or say that she didn't know that it was wrong, or that everyone had opted in, or that it was just an experiment, or anything: she didn't know what she had done, and was confused and astounded when I told her. I ended up letting her back on, against my better judgement, with a warning that if it happened again I'd close her account and that would be that. We changed her password just to be sure that no one else was using her account; unfortunately, the modem she'd dialed in on didn't have caller ID, but she swore blind that no one else knew her password or used her computer.

So a month goes by and I get another complaint from SpamCop -- and it turns out to be the same customer. "Teach me to be nice," I thought, and locked her account. Caller-ID was recorded this time, and it was her number. I told the guy at the branch office where she lived that I'd locked this customer's account -- he had dealt with her the last time -- and he gave her a call. Again, he was convinced that she couldn't be spamming, and he convinced me that we should at least look at her computer. We brought it in to the branch office for a look.

Unfortunately, neither one of us really knew what to do beyond the obvious. It was running Windows 98, no updates; the guy at the office knew Windows, and I know Unix, but neither one of us had experience with this sort of thing. I did a portscan and found one port open (1234), but it the banner said "Express Search"; eventually found this link, which didn't seem to offer much. Meanwhile, the guy in the office ran Trend Micro's HouseCall and Panda's online virus scanner, and didn't find much of interest.

He ended up reinstalling Windows on her computer, adding a firewall, doing all the updates, and letting her back on; we didn't know what else to do. We kept looking around for some mention of a virus or trojan with an SMTP engine (beyond something like Klez, I mean), but couldn't really find anything -- just lots of "This is weird, anyone seen anything like this?".

Sorry to be so vague on the details, but like I said, I really don't know Windows and I'm really not a security guy. But I'm still fairly sure that either she was a wonderful actress, or some 133t haX0r had rooted her box to send spam. Needless to say, this is going to wreak havoc with anyone who has to be the abuse guy -- "Innocent victim of a virus or spammer scum? Hm..."

ObRant: Fucking goddamned spammers anyway. Fuckwads.

Going to ban heavy trucks? Their exhaust is loaded with microparticulates. Living in a modern society has risks, what's the news there? Living in the woods has worse risks. That's the price of advancement.

Google search on diesel particulate and cancer.

• SABC - South Africa Broadcasting Corporation
• New.com.au
• South african news sources

doesn't apple also have, i mean, _taste_ ? mabye we'll see an actual influx of talent into universal, as apples initial influence is felt. none of this "crap" music and art and movies that are just pointless to watch, propeganda, or just painfully badly done... we'll actually be seeing technology work in the cause of creating beautiful things. sure it's going to turn into a media monopoly, peice by peice, but initially at least i really think that a lot of talent that would otherwise not be known by anyone would suddenly get their chance - in this i say to artists everywhere, pick up an apple _now_...support this at least until they start screwing things up... as for myself i'm going to make the switch as soon as it's reasonable to do so :)

No, it's torque. Go do a Google search and learn about the experiment.

Indeed. Here's what happens when it goes wrong. Looks/sounds sadly familiar, don't it? (Start with the top item.) Right down to bickering over who gets the spoils of war.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Did you read the first link? As of right now this is what I get.

Now, let's look through the page. Nope, Moore doesn't appear anywhere. Ok, this seems fine.

Oh. Wait. That paragraph that's triggering the Google hit looks familiar. Thankfully there's a link to where the page's creator got it. Let's follow it, shall we?

Hmmmm... Well, what do you know? She got the paragraph from the page we are at, which, if you check the link to the original article on that page, got it from Mr. Moore's essay.

Hmmmmm.... Let's take a look at the rest of the links on this 1st page of results, shall we?

Well, the second one makes an explicit mention of "JimMoore?'s idea" right in the Google summary. So it's out.

The third one seems a little confused as to what the hell it means by it, but it references "Joi Ito" which, having read the Register article, means that it's a reference to Moore's definition.

Numbers 4 and 5 are links to different pages as the same site for number 1.

6 links to a sports article from the Palm Beach Post.

7 & 8 link to "Library Planet discussion on Second Superpower" which, if you follow the link on the page, ends up being Mr. Moore's article again.

9 links to comments on an article called "The Second Superpower" which, if you go back to the site's main page, turns out to m=be Mr. Moore yet again.

That leaves just site number 10 on the first page. It's a historical discussion on the Truman doctrine and the Cold War.

So: 8 out of the first 10 results returned by "Second Superpower" -moore reference Mr. Moore. The other two have nothing to do with the definition referred to in the Register article.

It seems to me that knowing how to use Google has little to do with why the authors were unable to find it.

Yeah, good point. There have been quite a few articles about this. Here is one from Wired (which wasn't the actual one I was thinking of). (Wired.com seems to be down so here is a google cache.)

Considering that Pepsi in fact used that technique 50 years ago ... a not too detailed summary of each's advertising techniques can be found here:

The Coke and Pepsi Cola Wars [Google Cache]

Federal regulations limit the workweek to a maximum of 48 hours, but the number of hours of work per week is regulated by contracts that directly or indirectly affect 80 percent of the working population. The average workweek for industrial workers is 36 hours in the western part of the country and approximately 39 hours in the eastern states; rest periods for lunch are accepted practices. Provisions for overtime, holiday, and weekend pay vary depending upon the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

There is no legislated or administratively determined minimum wage; wages and salaries are set either by collective bargaining agreements between unions and employer federations or by individual contracts. Covering approximately 90 percent of all wage and salary-earners, the collective bargaining agreements set minimum pay rates and are enforceable by law. These minimums provide a decent standard of living for a worker and family.

It seems simple enough. What we are experiencing here is a reversal of an issue Canadians have had to deal with in the height of the dot-com hype...

Many, many talented IT workers, doctors and other skilled labourers were moving down south, because the jobs were there and the same jobs were paying more. Now, the tables have turned. The employers seem to have the upper hand, and the jobs are returning here. True, I don't earn as much as someone with an equivalent job in the U.S. (ie: I earn the same amount in Canadian dollars as someone in the U.S. would earn in U.S. dollars).

I hate to say "that's life", but that's what it is. I didn't move south, even though I had considered it. I stayed put in Toronto, earning less, but I am now rewarded with somewhat improved (arguably) job security. I've had the same job for the last three years, since I left school. Bad or good, the world economy is certainly changing things around a lot.

I shall refute this point by point:

>You will notice consistant definitions which are in agreement with the author. Your assertion that most people use the phrase "CD-ROM disc" is anecdotal and unverifiable.

You are incorrect. It is verifiable. And it only takes seconds.

In summary -- use the tools available to you.

>Additionally, you go on to make some rather rude remearks that the author is wrong about the history of acronym for DVD.

If you think bullshit is rude, I would suggest you dislike Penn and Teller, known scpetics who, I'm willing to bet, despise grammarians (Although I haven't asked them this. Perhaps a reading of some old PC Computing rags might shed some light on this matter.)

In essence, there is no consensus as for what the letters stand. Originally it meant "digital video disc"; some tried to shoe-horn "digital versatile disc", but there was never an agreement reached. However, the author of the site never makes a claim as to the current meaning. He states merely:

[O]riginally "Digital Video Disc"-even though some manufacturers now claim the initials stand for "Digital Versatile Disc."

What he says is true. It did at one point stand for "digital video disc" and some manufacturers currently do claim that it stand for "digital versatile disc." The dictionary offers both as a possibility and, in the end, both may end up as satisfactory answers.

Half-true. All manufacturers call it Digital Versatile Disc. I can find none that, today, would call it otherwise, except when they want to point out how a DVD player plays only Videos. Therefore the author was incorrect. It isn't some. It is all. The fact that there is a new logo that has been used by all manufacturers since, and that the DVD group now call it Digital Versatile Disc is just icing on the cake, as it were.

>If what you meant, however, was that "UFO" is the phrase to be applied to a creature not from Earth, then you are mistaken. Both "extraterrestrial" and "alien" already serve this purpose.

Yes, that is what I meant. The fact that there are already 2 words with this meaning does not preclude another word being used as such.

Princeton university supports my definition, and provides no specific definition that supports the argument of the author:

ufo

n : an (apparently) flying object whose nature is unknown; especially those considered to have extraterrestrial origins [syn: unidentified flying object, UFO, flying saucer]

The author is incorrect in his assumption that the term UFO cannot be applied to alien spacecraft. The military would also agree with Princeton University.

>On the matter of usage [of ok], you are correct. However, no one ever disagreed with you.

Bullshit. Read the site with a text browser next time. It clearly states "WRONG: OK". If this is a mistake on the part of the author, so be it. He is an english professor, and not a CS professor.

>He also claims that humanists (believers in the principles of Humanism) are more likely to use the "analogue" spelling.

Being pretentious, are we? I think if I were to lump myself with a group of people I'd know what the definition of Humanism are.

How's about an apology from you, since we apoligize for so much, it would appear.

>The author who wrote the page holds a degree Ph.D in English and is a professor of English at Washington State University. Not only does this qualify him as an expert of the English language, but it also exposes him to more samples of writings than most people. As such, if he claims that one spelling is preferred over another depending

I shall refute this point by point:

>You will notice consistant definitions which are in agreement with the author. Your assertion that most people use the phrase "CD-ROM disc" is anecdotal and unverifiable.

You are incorrect. It is verifiable. And it only takes seconds.

In summary -- use the tools available to you.

>Additionally, you go on to make some rather rude remearks that the author is wrong about the history of acronym for DVD.

If you think bullshit is rude, I would suggest you dislike Penn and Teller, known scpetics who, I'm willing to bet, despise grammarians (Although I haven't asked them this. Perhaps a reading of some old PC Computing rags might shed some light on this matter.)

In essence, there is no consensus as for what the letters stand. Originally it meant "digital video disc"; some tried to shoe-horn "digital versatile disc", but there was never an agreement reached. However, the author of the site never makes a claim as to the current meaning. He states merely:

[O]riginally "Digital Video Disc"-even though some manufacturers now claim the initials stand for "Digital Versatile Disc."

What he says is true. It did at one point stand for "digital video disc" and some manufacturers currently do claim that it stand for "digital versatile disc." The dictionary offers both as a possibility and, in the end, both may end up as satisfactory answers.

Half-true. All manufacturers call it Digital Versatile Disc. I can find none that, today, would call it otherwise, except when they want to point out how a DVD player plays only Videos. Therefore the author was incorrect. It isn't some. It is all. The fact that there is a new logo that has been used by all manufacturers since, and that the DVD group now call it Digital Versatile Disc is just icing on the cake, as it were.

>If what you meant, however, was that "UFO" is the phrase to be applied to a creature not from Earth, then you are mistaken. Both "extraterrestrial" and "alien" already serve this purpose.

Yes, that is what I meant. The fact that there are already 2 words with this meaning does not preclude another word being used as such.

Princeton university supports my definition, and provides no specific definition that supports the argument of the author:

ufo

n : an (apparently) flying object whose nature is unknown; especially those considered to have extraterrestrial origins [syn: unidentified flying object, UFO, flying saucer]

The author is incorrect in his assumption that the term UFO cannot be applied to alien spacecraft. The military would also agree with Princeton University.

>On the matter of usage [of ok], you are correct. However, no one ever disagreed with you.

Bullshit. Read the site with a text browser next time. It clearly states "WRONG: OK". If this is a mistake on the part of the author, so be it. He is an english professor, and not a CS professor.

>He also claims that humanists (believers in the principles of Humanism) are more likely to use the "analogue" spelling.

Being pretentious, are we? I think if I were to lump myself with a group of people I'd know what the definition of Humanism are.

How's about an apology from you, since we apoligize for so much, it would appear.

>The author who wrote the page holds a degree Ph.D in English and is a professor of English at Washington State University. Not only does this qualify him as an expert of the English language, but it also exposes him to more samples of writings than most people. As such, if he claims that one spelling is preferred over another depending

For instance, they recognize my IP as being from Canada, and all links to google.com redirect to google.ca, no matter what I do.

I think the best measure of Linux desktop usages has got to be Google Zeitgeist, which shows Linux stagnant at 1%. Linux has been 1% for so long that I suspect that Google might be being kind to even separate Linux into its own category, instead of lumping it in with the bots in the "Other" category.

A doubling of this would mean 2% still half of Mac at 4% (was 5% in Sept 2002) and no where near the beast (91%).

Browser stats are also interesting, but difficult to interpret the share due to the unlabeled y-axis.

It would have only taken two minutes of research for you to find it yourself: There are several unique benefits of the Java Card technology, such as: Dynamic- New applications can be installed securely after a card has been issued, providing card issuers with the ability to dynamically respond to their customer's changing needs.

That's how Sun is advertising Java Smart Cards. Personally, I'm glad somebody is investigating their claims.

Also, the length of a siderial day (less than 23 hours) is not why we have leap years, though it is somewhat related. We have leap years because there are not exactly 365 days in a year.

Actually, you can also calculate the earth's siderial period for yourself. You know that a year is roughly 365.25 days long, with the extra 0.25 days coming from the 1 in 4 leap years. The earth turns once relative to the sun in almost exactly 24 hours (by definition), but once per year we revolve once around the sun, effectively getting one more rotation relative to the universe for free. Thus, the actual length of a day is:

24 hours X 365.25 / 366.25
= 23.93447 hours = 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds

Also, the length of a siderial day (less than 23 hours) is not why we have leap years, though it is somewhat related. We have leap years because there are not exactly 365 days in a year.

Actually, you can also calculate the earth's siderial period for yourself. You know that a year is roughly 365.25 days long, with the extra 0.25 days coming from the 1 in 4 leap years. The earth turns once relative to the sun in almost exactly 24 hours (by definition), but once per year we revolve once around the sun, effectively getting one more rotation relative to the universe for free. Thus, the actual length of a day is:

24 hours X 365.25 / 366.25
= 23.93447 hours = 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds

It depends on an arbitrary vision of what constitutes "superiority", and led to some truly barbaric practices, both in Germany and in the United States. I do not know how well the theory was received in other countries. I am, however, truly grateful that it is no longer accepted.

Eugenics was adopted in most major Western nations. The United States more or less led the way, Britain, Canada, several other countries soon followed. What's interesting to note here is that Germany actually came into the game extremely late compared to the rest of the Western world, and that the Eugenics laws in Germany were formed and passed before the instatement of the Nazi party. The Nazis just happened to take it up with a vengance.

A little history for the crowd: Eugenics rose from the ideas of Social Darwinism, which of course rose from Darwin's ideas of evolution, though Darwin was rather appalled by Social Darwinism and never supported it at all. Social Darwinism took the ideas of evolution and applied them to society. The idea was that society, like nature, would become increasingly better over time, by nature of evolution. Those who fit in well with society and contributed would help advance society, and those who were a drag on society would fall by the wayside, and the ideas taken on by society would evolve and become better, closer and closer to perfect. This caused great hope amongst the people - don't worry, there's nothing bad around the corner, because society will continue to get better indefinitely. Talk about cheery ideas.

Then someone had the bright idea of meddling. We cull our herds, we cull our crops. We breed the best with the best to make even better, don't we? Why shouldn't we do that to humanity? We'll take the best and brightest and encourage them to reproduce, often, and we'll... well, we'll cull the sick and useless from the herds so they don't taint the stock. And so they did. Eugenics laws involving sterilization of the sick, the feeble-minded, the low of society, were passed, and how. Leilani Muir is a perfect example. An Albertan girl, 'feeble minded', she was sterilized. Today, her IQ is measured at around the 90's, I believe, and she's perfectly capable of functioning in society. They didn't care. It was for the glory of society.

Eugenics laws were gleefully adopted by everyone... Then World War II came. The Nazis came, and they took Eugenics to the logical extreme, and the world watched in horror at what lay at the end of the path they all had decided to travel down. Laws were thrown out, lawsuits were filed, and everything went to shit. People realized that ideal society was something we'd have to work towards, that there was no free ride. Supposedly. Some governments, including some in Canada, took as late as the 1970s to repeal their Eugenics laws, even though they weren't being used. Sad, but at least it happened.

So, for anyone who thinks that racial superiority and the like was born with the Nazis, think again. Canadians, Americans, Britons, we're guilty, because we started it. The Nazis took it to the extreme all at once, but I fear that if they hadn't been so quick about it, that might've been the way the rest of our societies went.

Frightening.

--Dan

Dell never ceases to amaze me. Until recently I was a diehard Toshiba supporter, that is until their Canadian division dropped the ball on their choice of adopting the Legacy Free BIOS design (bad for Linux) and issues surrounding desktop processors in their notebooks.

I'd written that article two months before I decided on a Dell Inspiron 8200 complete with a 64 meg GeForce440 and all its UXGA glory. Runs Q3A in a full-out 1600x1200 with nary a hitch. Typing this article on that same 8200 now actually.

Dell truly knows how to cater to geek needs. They're a progressive minded company with cool commercials and damn good laptops. So long as they maintain their high standards, I'll be a customer of theirs for awhile to come.

- IP

Google found a site where you can buy an e-book of it. They have an excerpt, too. Putting a line from the excerpt into google turned up a couple sites with a full copy. The first one doesn't work anymore, but google has it cached. I found another site that has all stories from the Neutron Star collection in one text file.

Just a friendly suggestion.

>Let me clue you into something. Knives do not go 'dull' that easy. You have to try at it. Using them to cut food is not trying at it.

Then, pray tell me, why do professional restaurants have their knives professionally sharpened if knives stay sharp forever without abuse? Are all those thousands of companies scammers? Isn't it hard to scam someone when checking if the problem exists is as simple as resting your knife on a tomato?

YOU HAVE got to be kidding me if you're going to tell me professional chefs haven't a clue how to use knives properly.

Only shitty "laser" knives last forever. Yes, I know that doesn't make sense, but what I mean is that "laser" knives remain at their mediocre sharpness level forever. Real knives, the type that you normally sharpen, go dull from use.

Google is a play on the word "googol", which was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, to refer to the number represented by 1 followed by 100 zeros. A googol is a very large number. There isn't a googol of anything in the universe. Not stars, not dust particles, not atoms. Google's use of the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense, seemingly infinite, amount of information available on the web.

(from Google's Corporate History)

hypocrites.

I mean the moron who modded this offtopic. Just search Google for Louis Armstong and you might get it.

Dave King, a very common name, but now that I have a modest blog I'm the number 2 Dave King, any one who knows me would be able to add other terms that should make my blog #1, so why would I need daveking.name?
-Peace
Dave

Ok, so far we're talking about either Charles Perrow-type normal accidents here, or we're trying to build a high reliability system and failing. However, since large, catastrophic events in unusual areas (such as space travel) draw a lot of attention, public risk perception may be higher than the actual risk. I don't know. Personally, even a catastrophic 2% "normal accident" rate is too high for my taste when it comes to space travel.

Unfortunately, as everyone who works in occupational health and safety (as I do) knows, good safety practice is expensive, and requires a lot of good safety theory and research behind it, which is also expensive. NASA has a history of having funding taken away from it, and according to recent press statements, NASA has been having trouble (of one variety or other) retaining safety personnel.

The upshot is, of course, that unless anyone doing space is willing to pay the extraordinary overhead costs of space safety, people, both on the ground and in the air, are going to keep dying.

A google search for spaceplane turns up lots of articles. Another slashdot reader already recommended Gregg Easterbrook's 1980 article on Columbia's first launch. I guess one lesson from looking back on it is to take the claims of the designers with considerable skepticism. Fity or more launches per year? Cost a third or less per ton of the cost of single shot rockets? Ha.

Yet, I would guess that the general public was seeing the American shuttle as being a big success. I expect people will see it as a success again.

I like the idea of putting aerospace workers from the former Soviet Union to work. I like the idea of putting them to useful, peaceful, dignified work. I don't like the idea of them being owed six months of paltry back-pay. Not when some of them have skills developing WoMD.

I like Dennis Tito's answer to one of the questions he was asked when he returned from being the world's first space tourist. He was asked whether it was frivilous to spend $20,000,000 on a vacation, when the world faced terrible problems, like grinding poverty. He said something like:

You are correct. That money should have been spent helping the poor. And it was. Do you know the average wage of a Russian aerospace worker? About $100 per month.

But then it turned out that the Buran cafe project was a project of the former Buran workers. They were all involved.

I couldn't help really feeling for these men and women. I imagined they had traded back-pay they were never likely to see for the Buran mockup they were turning in to a cafe. (Cafe patrons were going to get to order real cosmonaut space rations.) But they hadn't given up. They hadn't given up on aerospace. They hadn't given up their dignity. They hadn't given up on peace. They hadn't given up on their country.

The Soviet Union had a space program any former citizen could be proud of. I'd like to see their talents put to use. This isn't charity. They were talented.

Plus, there is the peace factor. Everyone is worried that "rogue states" are going to acquire weapons of mass destruction by subverting penniless former defense workers from the former Scviet Union. Well, why don't we address this issue by making sure they weren't left penniless?

Yes, I know organized crime is (was?) a terrible problem throughout the former Soviet Union.

Still, would the dollars, yen, euros of the international community be better spent in the former Soviet Union, where paying an aerospace worker $1000 a month would be a ten-fold pay increase, then in, let's say, the USA.

The USA, or more precisely, the US aerospace industry, is the land of the $1000 spanner. Let's be honest. That too, is a kind of corruption.

The US's milltary-industrial complex built many weaspons systems over the years. Do you know which one provided the greatest invulnerability?

That would have to be the one with a sub-contractor in every congressional district.

You can find unicode are at here.

You can find unicode art in here. It can create more realistic rendering that plain old ASCII cannot.

Yeah, you sure wouldn't find it by googling java ssh or maybe by going to javassh.org.

I mean... that would just be too easy and too obvious.

Just as I wouldn't go out and buy a classic arcade console, but rather would run MAME, why would someone want this when the 6502 can be completely emulated very well? Emulation isn't an option when extreme performance is required, but I'd wager that a modern Ghz+ would emulate a 6502 and subsystems at a speed greatly outpacing a actual 20Mhz 6502.