Slashdot Mirror

+1 again. And if you use a 301 redirect then search engines will quickly attribute the old domain's page rank to the new domain (but anyone coming to the old one will still get where they want to go).

This aggregation of old sites to a single core site shows what I mean:
coupletherapynyc.com
traumatherapynyc.com
individualpsychotherapynyc.com
All the above point to the following link (which accrues all the search engine rank because of the 301 redirect):
gennabrocone.com

Here's a brief google article about it: 301 redirects

What liquid agent is a terrorist going to use to blow up a plane?

Are you really that uninformed, after years of coverage of binary liquid explosives, demonstrations of their effectiveness when used correctly, and actual use of them by actual terrorists who actually killed people? You can't possibly be. So, what's your real point?

Uninformed? Really? Better that than misinformed by watching too many bad action movies. Getting it all to work is a little harder than they make it look on screen.

It only takes the slightest effort with Google to see how unlikely such a plan is to succeed (unless, of course, success is creating more security theater).

Despite the explosion quickly filling the terminal with smoke and the airport being evacuated, miraculously Domodedovo has now reopened for service for flights just a few hours after the terrorist attack. Russian news outlet RT.com reports that flights for this evening are departing on time.

citation (with poor taste in a title): USA Today Story

Pics of Putin

I've replied to a comment earlier, but I'd like to give a big thumbs-up to the Chrome Dev Tools.

The Chrome tools are great to work with and at least as powerful as any of the other browser tools -- as this blog post shows.

If you haven't used them for a while, I suggest you give them another try.

(Full disclosure -- I work for Google.)

As far as debugging tools. Don't bother with Chrome. It's nearly worthless for Javascript testing or debugging.

The Chrome Dev Tools are at least as good as Firebug now -- as this blog post shows.

I did that recently with the Apple iPad[2]. I didn't want to have to root or buy anything extra - what I had to do is prevent access to the home & power buttons (we bought mounting cases). I created a web page that was "full screen-able" then directed Safari there, made a shortcut button to it on the home screen & then disabled (restricted) all the apps. Also disabled the "ask to join wifi when one is avail". etc. etc. Now there is no way to exit the Safari app and you can't access the URL bar so you can only visit URL's that are clickable. This was for a digital signage system. All it does is visit my slackware servers, and the media I've loaded to them.... https://sites.google.com/a/alaska.edu/digitalsigna/home/setup-instructions https://sites.google.com/a/alaska.edu/digitalsigna/ Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Pat

I did that recently with the Apple iPad[2]. I didn't want to have to root or buy anything extra - what I had to do is prevent access to the home & power buttons (we bought mounting cases). I created a web page that was "full screen-able" then directed Safari there, made a shortcut button to it on the home screen & then disabled (restricted) all the apps. Also disabled the "ask to join wifi when one is avail". etc. etc. Now there is no way to exit the Safari app and you can't access the URL bar so you can only visit URL's that are clickable. This was for a digital signage system. All it does is visit my slackware servers, and the media I've loaded to them.... https://sites.google.com/a/alaska.edu/digitalsigna/home/setup-instructions https://sites.google.com/a/alaska.edu/digitalsigna/ Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Pat

That's the weakness of ANY rule system : in the end it's humans interpreting the laws. Iran's laws, for example, have a constitution that guarantees human rights as they signed the relevant documents.

Judges think allah entitles them to violate any agreement they make (technically sharia requires any muslim to violate any agreements they make if it suits the cause - it is "haram" to respect peace treaties if they can win militarily)

The laws are quite resonable. In the end, the question comes down to : do you trust American judges to be reasonable ? If you don't, for the love of God, leave the country ASAP.

Any sane person would have no problems here.

In other words, I don't want some motherfucking marketing firm tracking me to sell me their shit - and it's always shit - and sell my information to the Government because they want to track "terrorists" or whatever to justify they're existence.

you are talking as if the two are two different parties. facebook's ancestor started as a university project to find saddam hussein through his social connections, and it still has connections to 'intelligence' services.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&site=webhp&source=hp&q=facebook%20backed%20by%20cia&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=2ea555e16508ec1f&ix=sea&ion=1&ix=sea&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=1d3c910caa16445a&biw=1177&bih=934&ix=sea&ion=1

Apparently her name is Virginia Da Cunha, so just go to Google pictures and search for "Virginia Da Cunha racy photos" (warning: NSFW! )

No, it does help... in that Apple couldn't get a patent on "a sliding lock switch." The claims at issue have several specific limitations, however, which aren't met by a physical sliding lock switch - images sliding between two locations, etc. You could potentially combine the physical sliding lock switch with other art to show obviousness, but the sliding lock switch alone doesn't show everything in the claims.

No, that's exactly what they got a patent on. They got a patent on an obvious touchscreen analogue to the physical sliding lock switch that already existed on several electronics previous to this. My portable radio has one. My old MP3 player has one. Apple's claims are exactly what you'd need to do to implement an analogue for that type of switch. There's nothing original or non-obvious in them at all.

Patent US20090241072. Claims:

1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:

detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Well, that's just a straight-up definition of what a lock switch would look like on a touch screen. It's a sliding switch that slides if you slide it. Whoopdeefuckingdo.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along any desired path.

Left-to-right?

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the moving comprises movement along a predefined channel from the first predefined location to the predefined unlock region.

Again, this is what a physical slider switch does. It moves from a locked position, along a channel to an unlocked one.

4. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.

A slider switch that looks like a slider switch will violate this. So imaginative.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the visual cues comprise text.

I guess the physical ones don't usually have this (though they may in the instruction manual), but I wouldn't on-screen instructions imaginative or in any way non-obvious.

6. The method of claim 4, wherein said visual cues comprise an arrow indicating a general direction of movement.

Bloody hell

7. A portable electronic device, comprising:

a touch-sensitive display;
memory;
one or more processors; and
one or more modules stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more modules including instructions:
to detect a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
to move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact while continuous contact with the touch-sensitive display is maintained; and
to unlock the hand-held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions to display visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.

9. The device of claim 8, wherein the visual cues comprise text.

10. The

Root is no longer required: http://gizmodo.com/5883913/google-wallet-has-been-hacked-again-now-you-should-panic However, I did just get off the phone with Money Network (the company that manages the Google Prepaid card on Google Wallet. After speaking with them and doing a little reading, I discovered that the phone owner is not liable for fraudulent charges. You must notify them as soon as possible though (855-492-5538, toll free).

BTW, to address this Google has temporarily disabled re-provisioning of Prepaid cards. If you or someone else erases your Google Wallet configuration and then attempts to re-configure it, you will not be able to get your Prepaid card back. Currently-provisioned devices will work as they should, meaning you can add and spend value at will, and new devices that have never been provisioned can be provisioned and will work properly, but any device that once had a Google Prepaid card added to it and then was subsequently wiped will not be able to have the Prepaid card added again.

This is a temporary situation until the long-term fix can be deployed. This temporary fix is an improvement over the temporary fix deployed late last week, which completely disabled provisioning and balance increases for all Google Prepaid cards (though money already on a card already provisioned on a phone could still be spent).

The correct, long-term fix will be deployed soon. It will restore the ability to delete and re-provision, but with an authentication step to verify the ownership of the prepaid card before re-provisioning it.

For what it's worth, you can get it now: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/epanfjkfahimkgomnigadpkobaefekcd

(though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a default exception in place for you-know-who...)

"It's AWWWRIGHT!!!" is an opinion.

Where are the coal versions of Fukushima and Chernobyle? Surely you can point to tens of examples easily as coal has been in use much longer and on a larger scale.

Why yes, one can -- of course, the exact examples you are looking for depend on what aspects of "Fukushima and Chernobyle" you are asking for coal-mining versions of.

Are you asking about examples of sudden, unexpected disasters causing mass death or destruction of nearby cities? Okay, here are some:

      Ok Tedi disaster
      Buffalo Creek Flood

Or perhaps you are asking about situations in which large numbers of industry workers were killed in an accident? Yep, we've got those too... thousands of coal workers die from accidents every year.

Or maybe you're wondering about if there are entire regions whose ecosystem has been destroyed by coal? Yes, there are.

Or perhaps you are asking about the slow-motion health and environmental damage caused by coal even when everything is working as designed? Yup, there's that as well.

Nuclear certainly has its problems, but coal is much, much, much worse.

What are the alternatives?

2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky.

What happens now if you you publish an encryption product based on that algorithm:

• If the product supports network encryption, BigCorps 1, 2 and 3 sue you because they have patents on "network encryption"

• if the product supports file system encryption, BigCorp 4, BigCorp 5, Big Corp 6 or Big Corp 7 sue you depending on how you implemented it

• if the product just encrypts files, Big Corp 7 and Big Corp 8 will sue you (and Big Corp 9 if it's a symmetric key algorithm --so not modular exponentiation-- and you add support for using the encryption in zip files).

Now, those are results from just a quick google search, and obviously not all of those patents will be infringed by every implementation. However, how many small software have the resources to figure out which patents exist, whether or not they infringe on those patents (nobody likes being served with an injunction that prevents them from selling the software they designed and wrote all by themselves) and how to rewrite their software so that they won't on any currently filed patent, or patent that may be filed up to a year from now (grace period).

Indeed, good luck. I'll take my chances that someone else will reverse engineer what I did and try to duplicate my work, rather than that I have to watch out that nothing I did may have been patented within the last 17 years by at least one company.

What are the alternatives?

2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky.

What happens now if you you publish an encryption product based on that algorithm:

• If the product supports network encryption, BigCorps 1, 2 and 3 sue you because they have patents on "network encryption"

• if the product supports file system encryption, BigCorp 4, BigCorp 5, Big Corp 6 or Big Corp 7 sue you depending on how you implemented it

• if the product just encrypts files, Big Corp 7 and Big Corp 8 will sue you (and Big Corp 9 if it's a symmetric key algorithm --so not modular exponentiation-- and you add support for using the encryption in zip files).

Now, those are results from just a quick google search, and obviously not all of those patents will be infringed by every implementation. However, how many small software have the resources to figure out which patents exist, whether or not they infringe on those patents (nobody likes being served with an injunction that prevents them from selling the software they designed and wrote all by themselves) and how to rewrite their software so that they won't on any currently filed patent, or patent that may be filed up to a year from now (grace period).

Indeed, good luck. I'll take my chances that someone else will reverse engineer what I did and try to duplicate my work, rather than that I have to watch out that nothing I did may have been patented within the last 17 years by at least one company.

What are the alternatives?

2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky.

What happens now if you you publish an encryption product based on that algorithm:

• If the product supports network encryption, BigCorps 1, 2 and 3 sue you because they have patents on "network encryption"

• if the product supports file system encryption, BigCorp 4, BigCorp 5, Big Corp 6 or Big Corp 7 sue you depending on how you implemented it

• if the product just encrypts files, Big Corp 7 and Big Corp 8 will sue you (and Big Corp 9 if it's a symmetric key algorithm --so not modular exponentiation-- and you add support for using the encryption in zip files).

Now, those are results from just a quick google search, and obviously not all of those patents will be infringed by every implementation. However, how many small software have the resources to figure out which patents exist, whether or not they infringe on those patents (nobody likes being served with an injunction that prevents them from selling the software they designed and wrote all by themselves) and how to rewrite their software so that they won't on any currently filed patent, or patent that may be filed up to a year from now (grace period).

Indeed, good luck. I'll take my chances that someone else will reverse engineer what I did and try to duplicate my work, rather than that I have to watch out that nothing I did may have been patented within the last 17 years by at least one company.

What are the alternatives?

2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky.

What happens now if you you publish an encryption product based on that algorithm:

• If the product supports network encryption, BigCorps 1, 2 and 3 sue you because they have patents on "network encryption"

• if the product supports file system encryption, BigCorp 4, BigCorp 5, Big Corp 6 or Big Corp 7 sue you depending on how you implemented it

• if the product just encrypts files, Big Corp 7 and Big Corp 8 will sue you (and Big Corp 9 if it's a symmetric key algorithm --so not modular exponentiation-- and you add support for using the encryption in zip files).

Now, those are results from just a quick google search, and obviously not all of those patents will be infringed by every implementation. However, how many small software have the resources to figure out which patents exist, whether or not they infringe on those patents (nobody likes being served with an injunction that prevents them from selling the software they designed and wrote all by themselves) and how to rewrite their software so that they won't on any currently filed patent, or patent that may be filed up to a year from now (grace period).

Indeed, good luck. I'll take my chances that someone else will reverse engineer what I did and try to duplicate my work, rather than that I have to watch out that nothing I did may have been patented within the last 17 years by at least one company.

What are the alternatives?

2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky.

What happens now if you you publish an encryption product based on that algorithm:

• If the product supports network encryption, BigCorps 1, 2 and 3 sue you because they have patents on "network encryption"

• if the product supports file system encryption, BigCorp 4, BigCorp 5, Big Corp 6 or Big Corp 7 sue you depending on how you implemented it

• if the product just encrypts files, Big Corp 7 and Big Corp 8 will sue you (and Big Corp 9 if it's a symmetric key algorithm --so not modular exponentiation-- and you add support for using the encryption in zip files).

Now, those are results from just a quick google search, and obviously not all of those patents will be infringed by every implementation. However, how many small software have the resources to figure out which patents exist, whether or not they infringe on those patents (nobody likes being served with an injunction that prevents them from selling the software they designed and wrote all by themselves) and how to rewrite their software so that they won't on any currently filed patent, or patent that may be filed up to a year from now (grace period).

Indeed, good luck. I'll take my chances that someone else will reverse engineer what I did and try to duplicate my work, rather than that I have to watch out that nothing I did may have been patented within the last 17 years by at least one company.

What are the alternatives?

2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky.

What happens now if you you publish an encryption product based on that algorithm:

• If the product supports network encryption, BigCorps 1, 2 and 3 sue you because they have patents on "network encryption"

• if the product supports file system encryption, BigCorp 4, BigCorp 5, Big Corp 6 or Big Corp 7 sue you depending on how you implemented it

• if the product just encrypts files, Big Corp 7 and Big Corp 8 will sue you (and Big Corp 9 if it's a symmetric key algorithm --so not modular exponentiation-- and you add support for using the encryption in zip files).

Now, those are results from just a quick google search, and obviously not all of those patents will be infringed by every implementation. However, how many small software have the resources to figure out which patents exist, whether or not they infringe on those patents (nobody likes being served with an injunction that prevents them from selling the software they designed and wrote all by themselves) and how to rewrite their software so that they won't on any currently filed patent, or patent that may be filed up to a year from now (grace period).

Indeed, good luck. I'll take my chances that someone else will reverse engineer what I did and try to duplicate my work, rather than that I have to watch out that nothing I did may have been patented within the last 17 years by at least one company.

What are the alternatives?

2) The inventor builds an encryption product out of the invention. BigCorp Inc. reverses the code of the encryption program, and next version of their OS has encryption by modular exponentiation. The inventor gets a email saying "thanks for all the fish". Or a job offer, if lucky.

What happens now if you you publish an encryption product based on that algorithm:

• If the product supports network encryption, BigCorps 1, 2 and 3 sue you because they have patents on "network encryption"

• if the product supports file system encryption, BigCorp 4, BigCorp 5, Big Corp 6 or Big Corp 7 sue you depending on how you implemented it

• if the product just encrypts files, Big Corp 7 and Big Corp 8 will sue you (and Big Corp 9 if it's a symmetric key algorithm --so not modular exponentiation-- and you add support for using the encryption in zip files).

Now, those are results from just a quick google search, and obviously not all of those patents will be infringed by every implementation. However, how many small software have the resources to figure out which patents exist, whether or not they infringe on those patents (nobody likes being served with an injunction that prevents them from selling the software they designed and wrote all by themselves) and how to rewrite their software so that they won't on any currently filed patent, or patent that may be filed up to a year from now (grace period).

Indeed, good luck. I'll take my chances that someone else will reverse engineer what I did and try to duplicate my work, rather than that I have to watch out that nothing I did may have been patented within the last 17 years by at least one company.

Example: Suppose you want to patent RSA encryption

You mean like U.S. Patent 4,405,829 which was issued to Rivest, Shamir and Adleman and was enfoced requiring RSA implementations to be licensed until shortly before it expired in 2000? There's a reason PGP used El-Gamal and DSA for a long time without supporting RSA keys.

I teach at a university, my course is about network protocols and IT security. I prefer to trust my students rather than use punishment as a way to influence them. My attempts to eliminate cheating are quite effective, because the results of the exams are always within my expectations, i.e. a mediocre student never got an A out of the blue.

Here's a review of my methods:
- The final grade is derived mostly from the practical assignments they get throughout the semester. In this context I get to talk to each of them and spend a lot of time interacting with everyone in my group; this is how I know what they know.
- The final grade is computed as 60% = practical assignments and 20+20% = midterm and final exam. This way, even if you cheat at the exam, it won't help you very much, unless you also worked hard during the _entire_ semester.

- Formulate questions that don't take answers that can be copy/pasted from a book, the lecture notes or the Internet. Any question must require analysis. One who thought about it in the past will easily deal with it, one who has never been exposed to the ideas of the course won't be able to construct a good answer in a reasonable amount of time.
- Give them more time than they need, to ensure that time is not a bottleneck of their performance.

When I mentioned social engineering, I relied on research by Daniel Ariely. You can influence people's behaviour in multiple ways:
- a written commitment not to cheat
- give them a moral problem to think of, before giving them the exam itself
- adjust the environment (in your case, tell them that all the Internet traffic is logged - so they know that they _can_ get caught)

For example, I used these tasks in the previous semesters:
- "write as many of the 10 commandments as you can remember" (taken "as is" from Ariely's experiment)
- "actually, there were 11 commandments, but one of them was lost. Think about it and write down a rule which is worthy of being listed as the 11th commandment"
- I once tried a written commitment too. Everyone who was in class signed it and smiled: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=469536753019&set=a.453850808019.243204.739418019&type=3&theater Three years after that exam, people are still talking about it and are proud to be a part of that experience.

You may be interested in:
- "Predictably irrational" and "The upside of irrationality" by Daniel Ariely
- http://duke.edu/~dandan/Papers/BadApples.pdf - here's an example of a paper he wrote about cheating, there are other ones too.

You must also make sure the students care about the course and want to learn, rather than just get a passing grade. Have a look at my notes of a book about this, "Punished by rewards" by Alfie Kohn: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150475760123020.375546.739418019&type=3&l=70e1f3712e

I tried to ensure my assignments are not only useful, but also interesting and fun to play with. A basic requirement is to make sure some humour is always involved, with some references to Futurama or Monty Python or some sci-fi book or movie. Here are some examples:
http://info.railean.net/index.php?title=Lab2_-_HTTP_crawler
http://info.railean.net/index.php?title=Lab1_-_simple_client/server_application

At the moment I'm in the process of devising a very short code of ethics (if it is long, no one reads it). You can read the draft: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=115bLhvMUisnw

That's only because you (and google, and the media) weren't listening

Google is your friend: https://www.google.com/?q=salvation+army+turns+away+gays None of what you wrote changes the fact that you named an organization as working for the betterment of all that actively discriminates against a substantial portion of society. For examples of their "work" toward refusing to assist gays, look at any of the results in the above search. The rest of what you wrote is bullshit justification and ignoring the argument. You don't work at Hooters because the goals of a Hooters employee include being eye-candy for patrons. You can't claim that the Salvation Army is primarily a service organization if they maintain an active policy to discriminate against employing gays and lesbians. Why would it be a problem for them to have a gay or lesbian individual on staff unless they were pushing dogma? Supposedly the goals of the organization are to provide service for the less fortunate. Is a homosexual somehow less capable of performing this duty? Why or why not? Does this sound like the Christianity you've portrayed? It's exactly this kind of closed-minded bigotry and the willingness to accept it from people like you that makes the rest of the civilized world look at Christians as hypocrites or worse.

That is cool.

I believe I saw one that did that and did not have the brown problem but it used a gal chip which most likely did the value change before being sent to a DAC. It was way more expensive than the solution listed which has more features as it was such a niche device. This was 1998-99 and was 350

It's a composite to RGBI to VGA converter. ;)
http://home.comcast.net/~kkrausnick/c128-vga/
This is pretty nifty and they have a workaround for the intensity problem. Price is now higher for the parts mentioned about 190. One of the companies listed has a dead website, dns problem maybe.

Here's another solution using and RGB to VGA and a resistor network to feed to the I input so that it's an RGBI to VGA converter. I think there's something wrong here but it works so it's not wrong.
http://sites.google.com/site/h2obsession/CBM/C128/rgbi-s-video

But this is not a big problem -- there's dead-simple passive analog circuits (e.g.) to do a passable conversion, and if you want to fix the dark-yellow/brown issue, that's not hard either.

RGBI signals in CGA are TTL, so converting to analog RGB is as simple as connecting them to the address lines of a suitable 8-bit PROM (or SRAM, in which case you'll want a battery to retain memory) programmed with appropriate RGB values, and three 2-bit ADCs on the output (0=0v, 3=0.7v for VGA).

You want to program the ROM/RAM as follows, assuming I as MSB (note color 6, brown, deviates from the expected 220):
N | RGB | xxRRGGBB
--+-----+---------
0 | 000 | 00000000
1 | 002 | 00000010
2 | 020 | 00001000
3 | 022 | 00001010
4 | 200 | 00100000
5 | 202 | 00100010
6 | 210 | 00100110
7 | 222 | 00101010
8 | 111 | 00010101
9 | 113 | 00010111
A | 131 | 00011101
B | 133 | 00011111
C | 311 | 00110101
D | 313 | 00110111
E | 331 | 00111101
F | 333 | 00111111
Or use a 16-bit ROM and wider DACs, and you could customize each color to exactly match your old 1902.

Seems a PCB with a preprogrammed ROM, DACs (could be as simple as R-2R ladder), and a scan doubler IC, should be much cheaper than a $100 replacement video chip.

You mean, will that keyboard fit in your pocket?

yes

They only pay property tax if they own a place. They do pay sales tax, if they buy locally. However, in most states, the main money is from income taxes, not property taxes.

In addition, by having illegals work here, they lower the salaries/wages, which lowers the taxes paid.

Finally, look at alabama. They enacted a anti-illegal bill. Now, I am not in favor of how harsh it is WRT privacy. The ability to stop a car and haul ppl in just because they 'look' illegal, is just plain wrong. BUT, the requirement of e-verify on ALL businesses has had a telling impact. Namely that for the last 6 months, they have fallen from 10% unemployment to 8% unemployment. In addition, gov. assistance PLUMMETED. Not only is taxes up, but they have said that they can now start increasing money back to education and other programs that had to be cut before. So, to say that illegals are useful to America, is just plain wrong.

That spot happens to be an indian reservation - very poor people and possibly some weird legal reasons why they can't put coverage there. It is one of the few big black spots on the map that deserves coverage though.

Take for example that small black spot just south of the wyoming border in Utah (bottom of the 'notch' in the state map) That is the High Unitas Wildernes area. Backpackers and forest rangers only. - there are few roads, and no houses or farms, let alone cell phone towers.

How about that black spot just west of the great salt lake? Salt flats Those poor poor tourists and travelers that have to wait a few hours for their high-speed wireless internet access as they gawk at the barren desert, get back in their cars and drive on. (nobody lives there)

That map actually does a pretty good job of showing the most worthless parts of the US. (Oh, and national forests! places people aren't allowed to go live.)

T

You are in the wrong forum for this type of advice.

You are in the wrong forum for this type of advice.

Except there's still parts unnecessarily shoved down the kernel mode, like the infamous win32k.sys

It would be kinda like X doing basic blits and what-not in ring 0.

I don't do anything to try and fool Google, but the last time I looked at the data they provided in my advertising preferences, they thought I was 35 years older than I am, based on my political and research interests. My algorithms professor who pointed me to the appropriate page also mentioned that Google can't even figure out her gender, so evidently their servers are just as susceptible to stereotypes to about who goes into computer science as us humans are. But if I really wanted to mess with them, my girlfriend and I could easily do so if we weren't so compulsive about logging in/out when browsing on each other's computers - the way we did to Netflix (recommends The Sarah Connor Chronicles, "Kourtney and Khloe take Miami", and the PBS Redwall series).

1) http://www.google.com/search?q=(6+ton+%2F+acre+%2F+year)+*+(50+gallon+%2F+ton)+*+(25+miles+%2F+gallon)+%2F+(40+miles+%2F+day)+in+acre

4) Welcome to peak oil, dipshit.

Another option is to opt out of all Google tracking and ads personalization. Check out the tools at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

All you have to do to "opt out" of Google tracking is ... keep a Google tracking cookie on you everywhere you go.

Well, yes. There has to be some way for Google's systems to know that they should not log or aggregate information about your requests.

When it comes to security of Google's own, internal information they go to great lengths to limit who can access it because they know they cannot rely on contractually-enforced trust of their own employees but when it comes to security of your information they insist that you rely on no-contract-whatsoever trust of Google.

The privacy policy is an enforceable contract, I believe (IANAL).

Beating/killing reporters that are making successful companies or politicians look bad is the standard operating procedure in China. It doesn't just happen sometimes, it happens all the time. If you are arguing that it doesn't happen, or is just random, isolated incidents, it shows that you are completely ignorant of how bad the situation is in China. Go ask any Hong Konger how frequently Hong Kong reporters or beaten. Hell, just go ask any Chinese person how frequently Mainland reporters are beaten, tortured, or killed. Everybody knows it happens like every American knows that corporations bribe our politicians frequently. A quick Google search comes up with 8.8 million results for "China reporter beaten." China is not at the bottom of the Press Freedom Index for nothing. Chinese society and the common man does not like it, but there is little they can do about it but document it on social networks.

Another option is to opt out of all Google tracking and ads personalization. Check out the tools at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

All you have to do to "opt out" of Google tracking is ... keep a Google tracking cookie on you everywhere you go.

When it comes to security of Google's own, internal information they go to great lengths to limit who can access it because they know they cannot rely on contractually-enforced trust of their own employees but when it comes to security of your information they insist that you rely on no-contract-whatsoever trust of Google.

Another option is to use the tools Google provides to opt out of tracking and personalization and to view and delete data stored about you. http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

I am extremely uncomfortable even considering what they are up to. If this is Google's future, it is time to cut my losses and go anywhere else.

Another option is to opt out of all Google tracking and ads personalization. Check out the tools at http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/tools.html

Did anyone actually click through to read the offering from Google? They aren't interested in everyone's data, they are interested in data from some to use for market research and rather than snooping it from all the Chrome users they've got, they are paying for it.

I can understand why someone wouldn't want to sell their browsing habits like this, I'm certainly wouldn't either. But if you've ever been at the other side of the table trying to figure out how to make a web site better for your visitors, you'll know that each individual is completely irrelevant. What you're interested in learning about is what people in general do and why.

The code for Khan Academy uses Google Code and runs on Google App Engine so he should at least have a passing familiarly with the technology stack that his new company uses :-)

Source: http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/109/

Edited Repost of an earlier comment I made

Nuclear power is only expensive because of the coal and enviromental lobbists

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=886&dat=19890326&id=dOdSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KYEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,6110878

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

Inital proposed costs 2.8 Billion

Final Cost 5.8 Billion, 9.3 Billion with Financing added in

1.8 million Manhours wasted

Unreasonable costs attributed to APS management from the post construction independent audit:
50.34 Million

I talked once with a senior security administrator at APS who started out back in the day working security at the construction of that plant and he told me this story.

Due to regulations each contractor had to have the contents of their tool bag inventoried before they were allowed to begin work or leave work and had to log each item used and where it went.

Each item brought into the plant had to be listed on a sheet with each Item getting a line.

Example 1 box of screws
1. cardboard box screws with plastic window 50 count
2. plastic window from box of screws 50 count
3. 1 screw - from box of screws 50 count
4. 1 screw from box of screws 50 count
5. 1 screw from box of screws 50 count

I could go on but you get the point

This was in the days before computers were everywhere so it had to be hand written. At the end of the shift the same procedure was followed and the lists were compared and if there was any discrepency between the two and the contractors work log which recorded each item used and where it was used, a security guard had to accompany the contractor to locate the missing item and recover it.

Initally contractors were put on the clock before they entered security and taken off the clock after they exited security, so there was incentive for workers to pad their hours by bring in unnecessary boxes of screws, and ocassionally leaving an item in the facility so that they could milk overtime. eventually it was sorted out but the contractors constantly found ways to abuse the regulations to justify extra pay.

The plant at the time of the above story had no nuclear material present and the above work area that the contractors were being let into would never be exposed to nuclear material during operation (office building), but the regulation was in place purportedly to reduce the amount of potential nuclear waste by limiting and controlling the amount of material that went into the plant.

Until the regulations governing nuclear power plant construction are rationalized there will be little nuclear plant construction in the US and it will always be expensive and over budget. Nuclear is cheaper than current solar technologies and coal but its the ridiculous unnecessary regulations that drive up the cost. Corner cutting is a logical outcome of excessive and unnecessary regulation. Regulations need to be in place, but they need to make sense too.

Nuclear power is only expensive because of the coal and enviromental lobbists

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=886&dat=19890326&id=dOdSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KYEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6879,6110878

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

Inital proposed costs 2.8 Billion

Final Cost 5.8 Billion, 9.3 Billion with Financing added in

1.8 million Manhours wasted

I talked with a Senior Security employee at APS once who started out back in the day working security at the construction of that plant and he told me this story.

Due to regulations each contractor had to have the contents of their tool bag inventoried before they were allowed to begin work or leave work.

Each item brought into the plant had to be listed on a sheet with each Item getting a line.

Example 1 box of screws
1. cardboard box screws with plastic window 50 count
2. plastic window from box of screws 50 count
3. 1 screw - from box of screws 50 count
4. 1 screw from box of screws 50 count
5. 1 screw from box of screws 50 count

I could go on but you get the point

This was in the days before computers were everywhere so it had to be hand written At the end of the shift the same procedure was followed and the lists were compared and if there was any discrepency between the two and the contractors work log which recorded each item used and where it was used, a security guard had to accompany the contractor to locate the missing item and recover it.

Initally contractors were put on the clock before they entered security and taken off the clock after they exited security, so there was incentive for workers to pad their hours by bring in unnecessary boxes of screws, and ocassionally leaving an item in the facility so that they could milk overtime. eventually it was sorted out but the contractors constantly found ways to abuse the regulations to justify extra pay.

The plant at the time of the above story had no nuclear material present and the above work area that the contractors were being let into would never be exposed to nuclear material during operation (office building), but the regulation was in place purportedly to reduce the amount of potential nuclear waste by limiting and controlling the amount of material that went into the plant.

Until the regulations governing nuclear power plant construction are rationalized there will be almost no nuclear plant construction in the US and it will always be expensive and over budget. Nuclear is cheaper than current solar technologies and coal but its the regulations that drive up the cost.

https://www.google.com/search?q=greenpeace+coal+plant+protest+pictures&hl=xx-elmer&sa=G&gbv=2&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=f-40T-m5EqnK0QXeq8iYAg&ved=0CBoQsAQ&biw=1787&bih=1139

I miss Google Answers

Fukushima is/was NOT as bad as some coal power related incidents, it just happened faster, and had the new N word in it, so it gets attention.

I dunno, these happen pretty fast.

"School resources" are still used to read personal email, so the problem of using school resources for something that doesn't violate the AUP couldn't have been avoided by using a different email address when using the university resources to do this.

True only if you they're accessing from campus, you know you can send and receive email from off campus? Don't use your school email account to do things you agreed not to with it. Why is this such a challenge for you (and the students) to understand?

I disagree with your definition of spam (and I believe your definition is contrary to most or all of the common definitions

Except it's not mine, I used the first one returned by Google because I had a hunch you'd have an issue with the definition. Definition of spam per Google, yet another link with an aggregate from multiple dictionary sources. We're in the information age and you're at a computer, take some initiative and back up your claims. So far it's been all about how you feel, not about what the facts are about this situation.

and I find it absurd to assert that completely blocking a web site is in any way appropriate response to emails.

What if it was a gambling or malware site?

you don't have good reading comprehension.

Thanks, that's a really nice way to start a conversation.

They promise not to randomly share SPI (which may not mean you think it means) to random individuals (e.g., making it publicly available) but they can provide it to business partners. The kicker is that your identity is not considered SPI, nor is your location, nor information about your economic or financial situation.

Where are you getting the definition? From the glossary linked to by the privacy policy, personal information "is information which you provide to us which personally identifies you, such as your name, email address or billing information, or other data which can be reasonably linked to such information by Google."

So wherever the privacy policy mentions "personal information", it includes anything that could be used to link your data back to your real identity. What that means is that advertisers may be given your other information (such as your interests), but only in aggregate form, and they would not be able to link it back to your real identity without being in violation of this privacy policy.

but they can provide it to business partners

If you read the privacy policy carefully, I believe (and this is just my reading; remember that I don't have good reading comprehension) that they couldn't get away with providing personal information to trusted business partners for any reason. The policy states:

We provide personal information to our affiliates or other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us

Emphasis mine. That means that they would be able to hire a third party to perform data aggregation or the like. The data would specifically have to be used by this third party to process the data on Google's behalf. They would not be able to use this data for their own arbitrary purposes without violating this privacy policy.

which their "privacy" policy is ballsy enough to mention some particularly nasty aspects of

You say it like it's a bad thing that they had the "balls" to make it so clear what they were doing, as if you'd consider it better somehow if they jumbled it up in a long legal document. Isn't this what we've been asking companies to do all along -- provide clear and transparent policies on what they are doing with our data?

I won't deny that it is a hell of a lot of information, considering that Google has a piece of JavaScript on most non-Google web pages. But I'm happy to see that, given that's the underlying technology, they have a really clear privacy policy that, to me, seems to protect my interests and limit third-party access to my data to acceptable levels.