zfs supports checksums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_s ystems#Allocation_and_layout_policies) but it is incompatible with GPL (http://linux.inet.hr/zfs_filesystem_for_linux.htm l). However, Ricardo Correia has an alpha version of zfs for FUSE/Linux (http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com).
What relaxed requirements are you talking about as far as what you listed?
To be certified as organic by the California Certified Organic Farmers, organic animals must eat 100% organic feed, whereas as far as the USDA is concerned, a dairy herd being converted over to organic milk producers may be fed a minimum of 80% organic feed for a portion of the conversion period (which is 1 year). And in general the USDA allows for several classes of labeling scheme that include the word organic. For example, "made with organic ingredients" means that the product is made with >= 70% organic ingredients. (Refs. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9355830/http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-26-org anic-food-rules_x.htm )
Usually, something has to actually has to be linked to killing a bunch of people for it to be totally banned, not the other way around. Foods like corn syrup has been regarded to be generally safe by the FDA. That does not mean it is the best stuff for everyone to eat, however.
Off-topic. I never mentioned health aspects.
That does not mean it is the best stuff for everyone to eat, however. Why can't the consumer decide what is good or bad for themselves?
While I agree with you, the government hasn't been laissez-faire with this. Under the Foods Uniformity Act(s), the States cannot issue stricter standards regarding warnings on labels than provided for by the federal government. Thus a company need not have to design a new label for every state with the latter's own nuanced laws. While that is arguably easier on the companies, there is less choice for consumers.
The world has done very well without scientists mucking up our food sources. How many thousands of years have people lived off what the earth grows?
I now see in my grocery store "organic milk", it is priced twice as expensive as the gallon of regular milk. The same thing is in produce, they have organic vegitables. What is this? 20 years ago everything was organic, now only the rich can get normal food. The rest of us must eat crap that has been genetically modified.
Ra-men, brother. "Food" for the masses is based on ingredients that favor the companies' profit margins ONLY (think white flour for lengthened shelf life, corn syrup for avoiding the high cost of cane sugar due to tariffs, partially hydrogenated oils for convenience). We're lucky to have the ingredient lists we do have, as the food industry has successfully lobbied the government to relax the requirements in order to make it more profitable to sell product. It was a blow to the standards previously put in place by the organic food movement.
Dammit. Makes me want to live off a farm despite the work.
Is it possible this is a PR stunt to aid Intel's image in light of the antitrust trial? If Intel admits that it has lost significant market share, it makes AMD look that much less helpless.
I considered that a while ago. However the trial is to address Intel's alleged past behavior. So, probably not.
I'm not going to speculate on motives, or get into the politics, but 20 years as a computer scientist and software engineer tells me this is not an accident. Even the worst programmers do not make this sort of mistake.
Allow me to feed your suspicions further.
It's a fear tactic. It's a way to force people to warm up to the idea of mass-implementation of biometric ID. Then when you sign up, not only does the company get a copy of your information, but also the government.
Is it just me, or do others also prefer to not answer the phone and opt instead to have the answering machine pick up in order to screen calls?
Oh yes. I'm also on the do-not-call list, but I will answer before the machine in the heat of an emergency. Check my sig below.
Besides, why is it in the US that callers don't first identify themselves before asking who the call-ee is? (Hello? Hi, is so-and-so there?) Otherwise it's rude and invasive IMO.
As a Mormon myself (but not raised in Utah, so I'm usually considered cool), I'm not surprised. Most LDS members that I know kind of shrug their shoulders at the whole "intelligent design" thing. Sure, we believe God had something to do with it, but we're a) not going to force it down someone else's throat, based on the 11th article of Faith....
As the article says - if a super conservative religious state like Utah won't approve it, there's probably hope for the rest of the country.
So by this you seem to be implying the mormonism is on the libertarian side of conservative. I must admit that's a refreshing view. What I cannot deal with are those authoritarian conservatives, who are quite vocal I might add, who are trying to write their view into public education. For that reason, I don't think the whole "Just Say 'No' to Darwin" effort is going away all that soon.
Chances are with this level of technology, health concerns will start to be a moot point. Predisposed to being over weight or having cancer... Well why not just use gene therapy to fix that.
There are only a few successes of gene therapy. Getting the minute details of human physiology is hard. The results from mouse metabolism studies do not always carry over to humans. Researchers are make some progress on understanding the basis of obesity (i.e., leptin, ghrelin, etc.) that lies beyond the obvious "overeating makes you fat". Stay tuned.
What the moderator probably didn't know is just how instrumental Senator Russ Feingold was in rallying fellow senators' support. Here is the text to his speech:
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Remarks as the Senate Considers Ending Debate on Reauthorization of the USA PATRTIOT Act
As Prepared
December 16, 2005
Mr. President, on Wednesday evening, I laid out in detail my concerns about the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that we are now considering on the floor. In its current form, I cannot support the conference report, and I cannot consent to limit debate on it. The leaders of this Congress need to figure out a way to change this report to address the important civil liberties issues that I and other Senators from both sides of the aisle have discussed over the past three days.
This morning we saw an astounding story in the New York Times. Since 2002, the government has been reportedly wiretapping the international phone and email conversations of hundreds, even thousands of people inside the United States, without wiretap orders. You want to talk about abuses? I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power, to eavesdrop on American citizens without first getting a court order based on some evidence that they are possibly criminals, terrorists or spies. Mr. President, it is truly astonishing to read that this Administration would go this far beyond the bounds of the statutes and the Constitution. We as an institution have the duty, the obligation, to get to the bottom of this.
I hope that this morning's revelation drives home to people that this body must be absolutely vigilant in our oversight of government power. And I don't want to hear again from the Attorney General or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care. This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every Senator and every American.
With that in mind, let me review my main concerns about this conference report.
First, section 215. Remember, this is the section where Attorney General Ashcroft once said that librarians concerned about the privacy rights of their patrons were "hysterical." But then the current Attorney General conceded at his nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary that some changes would be justified. Unfortunately, the Administration was not willing to make real changes to the provision to protect the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans.
The other night, I described in detail the evolution of this provision through the legislative process. The bottom line is this - the Senate bill had a three prong test requiring some connection between the records sought and a person suspected of being a terrorist or spy. The conference report abandoned that connection and instead relies on a standard of relevance to an intelligence investigation. That is pretty much an "anything goes" standard that fails to protect the records of law-abiding Americans. There is no requirement in this conference report that will prevent government fishing expeditions. Read the provision and it is as plain as day. The three prong test has been turned into three examples of relevance. They are not protections at all against government overreaching.
The provisions of the bill relating to National Security Letters are also seriously deficient. There is no requirement that the records sought under that authority, which doesn't involve a court at all, have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. The judicial review that the conference report allows after the fact, of the NSL itself and the mandatory gag order, is a mirage. After what the Times reported this morning, no one in this body should be comfortable with the government having this kind of unreviewable power.
Finally, there is the issue of so-called sneak and peek searches, when the government secretly e
The original source of the "news" came from www.udn.com.tw
I have read that the translation emphasizes that Dell is *NOT* currently in AMD production, but only READYING for one. All that Dell is said to need to do is say "Do it!"
Also heed recent Forbes AMD headlines FUD:
Intel's Paxville Could Slow AMD's Server Growth Forbes - Nov 16, 2005
Intel Seen With 9-Month Lead On AMD On 65nm Forbes - Nov 16, 2005
AMD's Gross, Operating Margins Could Shrink In 2006 Forbes - Nov 16, 2005
Google has apparent interest in supplying data to shoppers while they're inside Wal-Mart.
There are instances where WalMart doesn't have the lowest prices. Obviously, items on sale is one case. However, in my area the WalMart checkers will price-match if you mention another store's sale price. (Don't know if that's company policy or not.) The other case I've noticed is where one chain store's private label is priced a few cents lower than WalMart's.
But all retail stores should be wary, particularly when city-wide wireless internet takes hold. I can't begin to tell you how often I have wanted to price-compare Best Buy vs. Staples vs. Circuit City vs. OfficeMax when standing in any one of those stores.
As to what else to do? Do you think that protests do any good? Calling your congress critters? No, it doesn't - all they care about is votes. If they are protested all the time and 98% of thier calls are negative but are voted in by 75% nothing other than that "75%" counts to them.
And even then, one can't be sure anymore because the voting machines may be rigged (think: Diebold, Ohio, Florida).
The election process really needs to be made transparent, but takes a real -- dare I say -- patriot to offers his head for the voter chopping block. And who knows, mabye it's those congress-critters who advocate transparent elections who will be perceived as in the favor of voters' rights and thus be re-elected.
The thing is, if you decide to ban encrypted traffic, you may as well say goodbye to internet commerce. All on-line purchases are done trough secure connections.
Why not? They could drop all encrypted traffic to non-authorized sites at the internet backbone level, and e-commerce survives. Then the question is, who controls the white list of approved web sites?
Section 215 is one of the surprising lightning rods of the Patriot Act, engendering more protest, lawsuits, and congressional amendments than any other. In part this is because this section authorizes the government to march into a library and demand a list of everyone who's ever checked out a copy of My Secret Garden but also because those librarians are tough.
What it does: Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches. Post-Patriot Act, third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.
The law before and how it changed: Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Under FISA--the 1978 act authorizing warrantless surveillance so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence information--that was somewhat eroded, but there remained judicial oversight. And under FISA, records could be sought only "for purposes of conducting foreign intelligence" and the target "linked to foreign espionage" and an "agent of a foreign power." Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge--(no need for evidence or probable cause) that the search protects against terrorism. The judge has no authority to reject this application. DOJ calls this "seeking a court order," but it's much closer to a rubber stamp. Also, now the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect herself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation... to protect against international terrorism."
Slashdot Mirror
Tom Baker's Doctor in Invasion of Time fired the demat gun at a Sontaran.
zfs supports checksums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_s ystems#Allocation_and_layout_policies) but it is incompatible with GPL (http://linux.inet.hr/zfs_filesystem_for_linux.htm l). However, Ricardo Correia has an alpha version of zfs for FUSE/Linux (http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com).
What relaxed requirements are you talking about as far as what you listed?
g anic-food-rules_x.htm )
To be certified as organic by the California Certified Organic Farmers, organic animals must eat 100% organic feed, whereas as far as the USDA is concerned, a dairy herd being converted over to organic milk producers may be fed a minimum of 80% organic feed for a portion of the conversion period (which is 1 year). And in general the USDA allows for several classes of labeling scheme that include the word organic. For example, "made with organic ingredients" means that the product is made with >= 70% organic ingredients. (Refs. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9355830/ http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Q&A.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-26-or
Usually, something has to actually has to be linked to killing a bunch of people for it to be totally banned, not the other way around. Foods like corn syrup has been regarded to be generally safe by the FDA. That does not mean it is the best stuff for everyone to eat, however.
Off-topic. I never mentioned health aspects.
That does not mean it is the best stuff for everyone to eat, however. Why can't the consumer decide what is good or bad for themselves?
While I agree with you, the government hasn't been laissez-faire with this. Under the Foods Uniformity Act(s), the States cannot issue stricter standards regarding warnings on labels than provided for by the federal government. Thus a company need not have to design a new label for every state with the latter's own nuanced laws. While that is arguably easier on the companies, there is less choice for consumers.
The world has done very well without scientists mucking up our food sources. How many thousands of years have people lived off what the earth grows?
I now see in my grocery store "organic milk", it is priced twice as expensive as the gallon of regular milk. The same thing is in produce, they have organic vegitables. What is this? 20 years ago everything was organic, now only the rich can get normal food. The rest of us must eat crap that has been genetically modified.
Ra-men, brother. "Food" for the masses is based on ingredients that favor the companies' profit margins ONLY (think white flour for lengthened shelf life, corn syrup for avoiding the high cost of cane sugar due to tariffs, partially hydrogenated oils for convenience). We're lucky to have the ingredient lists we do have, as the food industry has successfully lobbied the government to relax the requirements in order to make it more profitable to sell product. It was a blow to the standards previously put in place by the organic food movement.
Dammit. Makes me want to live off a farm despite the work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorr ent_clients
Is it possible this is a PR stunt to aid Intel's image in light of the antitrust trial? If Intel admits that it has lost significant market share, it makes AMD look that much less helpless.
I considered that a while ago. However the trial is to address Intel's alleged past behavior. So, probably not.
I'm not going to speculate on motives, or get into the politics, but 20 years as a computer scientist and software engineer tells me this is not an accident. Even the worst programmers do not make this sort of mistake.
Allow me to feed your suspicions further.
It's a fear tactic. It's a way to force people to warm up to the idea of mass-implementation of biometric ID. Then when you sign up, not only does the company get a copy of your information, but also the government.
Is it just me, or do others also prefer to not answer the phone and opt instead to have the answering machine pick up in order to screen calls?
Oh yes. I'm also on the do-not-call list, but I will answer before the machine in the heat of an emergency. Check my sig below.
Besides, why is it in the US that callers don't first identify themselves before asking who the call-ee is? (Hello? Hi, is so-and-so there?) Otherwise it's rude and invasive IMO.
As a Mormon myself (but not raised in Utah, so I'm usually considered cool), I'm not surprised. Most LDS members that I know kind of shrug their shoulders at the whole "intelligent design" thing. Sure, we believe God had something to do with it, but we're a) not going to force it down someone else's throat, based on the 11th article of Faith ....
As the article says - if a super conservative religious state like Utah won't approve it, there's probably hope for the rest of the country.
So by this you seem to be implying the mormonism is on the libertarian side of conservative. I must admit that's a refreshing view. What I cannot deal with are those authoritarian conservatives, who are quite vocal I might add, who are trying to write their view into public education. For that reason, I don't think the whole "Just Say 'No' to Darwin" effort is going away all that soon.
until it has Space Invaders!
Chances are with this level of technology, health concerns will start to be a moot point. Predisposed to being over weight or having cancer... Well why not just use gene therapy to fix that.
There are only a few successes of gene therapy. Getting the minute details of human physiology is hard. The results from mouse metabolism studies do not always carry over to humans. Researchers are make some progress on understanding the basis of obesity (i.e., leptin, ghrelin, etc.) that lies beyond the obvious "overeating makes you fat". Stay tuned.
Not only a great idea, but there is probably a world's record in that.
And it's a way to get back at cell phone users, especially if they are ever allowed in-flight calls.
I wonder if this could be a cheap way to gather random seeds...
I've seen this somewhere for generating SSH keys. Might have been on Windows.
Sorry you got modded a troll.
What the moderator probably didn't know is just how instrumental Senator Russ Feingold was in rallying fellow senators' support. Here is the text to his speech:
The original source of the "news" came from www.udn.com.tw
I have read that the translation emphasizes that Dell is *NOT* currently in AMD production, but only READYING for one. All that Dell is said to need to do is
say "Do it!"
Also heed recent Forbes AMD headlines FUD:
Intel's Paxville Could Slow AMD's Server Growth
Forbes - Nov 16, 2005
Intel Seen With 9-Month Lead On AMD On 65nm
Forbes - Nov 16, 2005
AMD's Gross, Operating Margins Could Shrink In 2006
Forbes - Nov 16, 2005
My Gmail account is my "send everything here" account. It gets spam from every where from tin foil hat sites to live journal.
That, and throwaway user accounts, is what I have used mailinator for.
disclosure: I have no affiliation whatsoever with mailinator.
Google has apparent interest in supplying data to shoppers while they're inside Wal-Mart.
There are instances where WalMart doesn't have the lowest prices. Obviously, items on sale is one case. However, in my area the WalMart checkers will price-match if you mention another store's sale price. (Don't know if that's company policy or not.) The other case I've noticed is where one chain store's private label is priced a few cents lower than WalMart's.
But all retail stores should be wary, particularly when city-wide wireless internet takes hold. I can't begin to tell you how often I have wanted to price-compare Best Buy vs. Staples vs. Circuit City vs. OfficeMax when standing in any one of those stores.
How does this reconcile with the demands of organizations like the FBI that want remote, on-demand access to network traffic?
If the traffic becomes encrypted, then it is just asking for legislation to require registering your encryption keys with law enforcement.
As to what else to do? Do you think that protests do any good? Calling your congress critters? No, it doesn't - all they care about is votes. If they are protested all the time and 98% of thier calls are negative but are voted in by 75% nothing other than that "75%" counts to them.
And even then, one can't be sure anymore because the voting machines may be rigged (think: Diebold, Ohio, Florida).
The election process really needs to be made transparent, but takes a real -- dare I say -- patriot to offers his head for the voter chopping block. And who knows, mabye it's those congress-critters who advocate transparent elections who will be perceived as in the favor of voters' rights and thus be re-elected.
The thing is, if you decide to ban encrypted traffic, you may as well say goodbye to internet commerce. All on-line purchases are done trough secure connections.
Why not? They could drop all encrypted traffic to non-authorized sites at the internet backbone level, and e-commerce survives. Then the question is, who controls the white list of approved web sites?
That's some pretty bad digitial zoom. Haven't NASA any better optical zoom built into the Surveyor?
Have there been any sandstorms on Mars lately?
Jack: I'm measuring the Tardis for The Doctor for a block transfer computation. Would you give me a leg up, Mr. Humphries?
Mr Humpries: Why, YES, I'd be delighted!
Inscribing or circumscribing circles are known geometric constructions. Is it possible just to put these into a plugin?
Zappa has beaten Shredder in competition, but not during speed chess. Five days later, Zappa was named the 2005 World Computer Chess Champion.
Download earlier Zappa engines from here
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/
... to protect against international terrorism."
Section 215, aka "Attack of the Angry Librarians"
Section 215 is one of the surprising lightning rods of the Patriot Act, engendering more protest, lawsuits, and congressional amendments than any other. In part this is because this section authorizes the government to march into a library and demand a list of everyone who's ever checked out a copy of My Secret Garden but also because those librarians are tough.
What it does: Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches. Post-Patriot Act, third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.
The law before and how it changed: Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Under FISA--the 1978 act authorizing warrantless surveillance so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence information--that was somewhat eroded, but there remained judicial oversight. And under FISA, records could be sought only "for purposes of conducting foreign intelligence" and the target "linked to foreign espionage" and an "agent of a foreign power." Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge--(no need for evidence or probable cause) that the search protects against terrorism. The judge has no authority to reject this application. DOJ calls this "seeking a court order," but it's much closer to a rubber stamp. Also, now the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect herself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation