I can get a T1 line - that's about the extent of my options for broadband, besides satellite which I do have. I really would prefer a T1, but the last time I got a quote (~1yr ago) it was still running ~$1k/mo where I am.
It would probably be cheaper to tap into the fiber that Verizon has running about a half-mile from me. Since I could theoretically get a business FIOS line for about the same as I'm paying for satellite (roughly 1/10 of the T1 cost) and at least 10x the bandwidth of a T1 it would certainly make more sense.
Why are they running through a bunch of links that never be clicked? Why wouldn't their link scanner be just as effective if it only worked on clicked links?
Seems like the Open AV project needs step up it's progress (or become active again?).
I'll add a larger LCD is much better. A ~1600x~1000 resolution works alot better on a ~22" LCD than it does on a 17-19" CRT.:)
Though I like the old green on black in general, it will start to get blurry on me after a while. I've also been using (mostly) black on light grey since I started using Eclipse for the majority of the coding I do. When I do use vim it's still with the default color scheme, maybe just because I'm used to it, and I usually open it up on the CRT though I've bumped the font size up. Anyway, the white background I find gets annoying to look at sooner now than I recall it being before. Kinda like/. - but maybe that has more to do with content than color scheme.:)
Shingles don't seem to make as much sense as panels for a couple reasons which is why I would suspect that there hasn't been enough market for the shingles hence their discontinuation.
I'm just going based on my sometimes unreliable memory (and maybe pure speculation) here but unless there has be some change in technology: 1) The efficiency of PV cells tends to decrease as their temperature increases, so having panels which allow for some type of airflow behind them which offsets their 'heat magnetism' should be more efficient, even if that percentage is small. 2) The cost factor - I would think that the cost of shingles is much greater than the traditional panel design, not to mention installation cost is probably considerably higher. 3) Risk of damage? - Shingles would seem to be more susceptible to damage.
that we couldn't just let go to waste (back into the general fund - they might give it back to taxpayers as a refund), so we've decided to do a study and come up with an Energy Star rating for.... uhh... datacenters! they use alot of electricity - we'll start handing out a shiny gold^H^H^H^H Energy Star rating for ones that don't use so much. This should be interesting.
The law very specifically states that it applies to companies doing work as a private security consultant. ... From what I read in the law, it is meant to prevent a company from telling customers they are providing a security solution when in fact they know nothing about security.
Then they should require a computer security license based on evidence of having one or more of several generally accepted security certifications (which BTW should be sufficiently acceptable to assure customers of this expertise) or some such thing, not a PI license. Even simple data recovery would generally fall under the definition of "review and analysis of data." I suppose it really only matters how the legislation defines the term if it even does so. I didn't read TFA so I don't know and I'll take your statements as being correct.
This only goes to show that government really doesn't know how to take care of us better than we do. 1) Requiring a PI license of computer techs for anything outside of maybe specific forensics work is just bizarre and illogical. 2) The presumption that just because nannystate government has given their seal of approval to someone or some business (though most likely has rather blindly just taken the tax and license fees) doesn't mean customers won't get ripped off or will be provided a service that meets any particular standard - caveat emptor still applies regardless.
If I provide security analysis and consulting, or otherwise promise security solutions, it comes with the disclaimer that I as an individual can only guarantee that security up to a certain point. There's a very good chance that someone in the world is more clever than I or happens to know of a vulnerability that I don't and can break that security. This is true no matter who secures the system. Of course the weakest link in almost any system is the social engineering factor.
These are things I try to relate to any client, whether the work I'm doing is security related or not. My own philosophy on it is this: Security is somewhat of a misnomer. There is no absolute security. There are degrees of security, the increase of which can lessen risk. All implementations of computer, network, or system security are based on compromise. The question is where to draw the line of compromise or how much time and money should be expended on security to reduce the level of risk? The greatest risk in security is the human factor, in one form or another.
a valid proof of ID, I'm not surprised in the least.
Bank's have certainly outlived their usefulness. They are far too concerned about making money themselves than they are in keeping the money of their customers safe. Real security costs too much and security theater works just as good for public image and getting customers. For example, ID theft protection services. As a bonus this one actually makes the bank money too!
Something is seriously wrong when it's impossible to find a bank that will cash a US Treasury check (and in increasingly more cases a check drawn on their own bank) anymore unless you have an account with them. Those that still do allow non-accountholders to cash a check drawn on them will require two random forms of ID (something they've made up to meet the law (reg. C? I think it is) on verifying ID, which is just ambiguous enough) a driver's license, CC, vehicle registration, etc. any of which could easily be forged and most of which are utterly useless for verifying that someone is who they say they are.
Pardon my LISP-like sentence structure, even though I haven't done any coding in LISP at all for years.
I knew the FBI were essentially terrorists, I just didn't know they had such a penchant for bombing public buildings. I thought they pretty much stuck to blowing up private buildings of citizens.
Even further I didn't realize the FBI was so seriously against the weather underground. I mean really, they probably have better data than the weather channel.
LOL, this (and parent) is probably one of the funniest things I've seen here in quite a while. Though I agree that the sentiment of corbettw's GP post is so true.
Exactly, had the legislature been doing their job to begin with and not passing laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster, the government wouldn't have wasted thousands of dollars in tax money. Hmmm.. kinda the same issue with the DC/Heller thing.
Although, more to blame than.gov and the legislators are the people that think.gov is the be-all and end-all arbiter/solver/fixer of societal ills; along with those who vote for elected officials that hold such a nannystate philosophy, if there be such a separate group of people.
Then there's always the option of getting something like a WRT54GL and loading OpenWRT on it and setting that up - which would be even more complex since you're then getting into vlan configurations for the ports and such.
The insurgency tactics being used in Iraq require access to things like plastic explosives and knowledge of bomb making. Those aren't available under your 2nd amendment rights, and if you tried to get them Homeland Security would come a-knocking.
If the Iraqi insurgents were using the sort of guns available to American citizens they'd have lost a long time ago.
.50 cal rifles are available to (at least most) US citizens, even if they do cost > USD$2k. AK47's are quite plentiful in the States, even though for the most part they are semi-auto. It's even possible to legally own full auto rifles (machine guns) albeit quite expensive. So generally I think the only difference would be that RPG's aren't available to citizens.
On the other hand, the right of privacy, not clearly stated in the American constitution, is necessary, and should be added.
Umm...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Yep, it's there already. Not that it hasn't been watered down by legislation, court interpretation, "war on drugs" exceptions, bypassed by false statements, etc. so much that it hardly means anything anymore, but it is there.
Does that count for him personally or does it go against his foundation's 5% minimum?
As of 2006, the foundation has an endowment of approximately US$34.6 billion. To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year. Thus the donations from the foundation each year would amount to over US$1.5 billion at a minimum.
Compared to ~$51 billion (as of 2007) in Microsoft revenue (which has to cover ~90k employees and other expenses), having one's own charitable foundation must be ludicrously profitable, not to mention free of many tax burdens. Not that I'm saying that the Gates Foundation doesn't do quite a bit of what looks like very good things despite the partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation.
Exactly, this is great news for mice, but I'm sure they don't really care that much anyway.
Now if they can figure out a way to make researchers and those that approve funding for such nonsense smart enough to realize what many others in the field have known for quite some time, they may be onto something.
There is more money to be made in the treatment of symptoms (and having some foundation to raise money purportedly for a cure) than there is in any actual cure, which is the reason that no cure for anything will be televised.
Animal research does not work, as every species of animal is a different biomechanical and biochemical entity. Non-human animals are different not only from humans, but also from each other: anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, genetically and histologically.
Animals react differently to different drugs, vaccines and chemical substances, not only from humans but also from each other. Aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. Yet guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine - one of the deadliest poisons for humans but not for monkeys.
Human diseases cannot be recreated in animals because once a disease is "recreated" it is artificial and no longer the original, natural disease that the body itself produced.
Our environment - air, land, water and food supplies - is being systematically destroyed by thousands of pesticides and toxicants that no matter how destructive are routinely and conveniently found safe and thus allowed to be marketed based on inherently invalid and misleading animal tests. - 1999 Cancer Research Review
There's probably dozens of doctors and researchers that have said basically the same thing publicly.
Seeing if the 2nd Amendment further gets applied to cryptography in the future.
From the Heller SC opinion:
b. "Keep and bear Arms." We move now from the
holder of the right-"the people"-to the substance of the
right: "to keep and bear Arms."
Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we inter-
pret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons
of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary
defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dic-
tionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinaf-
ter Webster) (similar).
Seeing as how the history of border patrol only goes back to around 1904 and the case law setting precedent on a border patrol exception to the 4th Amendment is circa 1977, I fail to see where the Constitution specifically comes into it. But generally I see your point.
Slashdot Mirror
It would probably be cheaper to tap into the fiber that Verizon has running about a half-mile from me. Since I could theoretically get a business FIOS line for about the same as I'm paying for satellite (roughly 1/10 of the T1 cost) and at least 10x the bandwidth of a T1 it would certainly make more sense.
Seems like the Open AV project needs step up it's progress (or become active again?).
It will block all traffic from legitimate IE6 users
And that's a bad idea why?
Mod parent up. In that sense, the Web is more true to it's name than it ever was. And there's alot more spiders now.
Amazing - that's the same combination I have on my luggage!
Dammit, remind me to change that.
I'll add a larger LCD is much better. A ~1600x~1000 resolution works alot better on a ~22" LCD than it does on a 17-19" CRT. :)
/. - but maybe that has more to do with content than color scheme. :)
Though I like the old green on black in general, it will start to get blurry on me after a while. I've also been using (mostly) black on light grey since I started using Eclipse for the majority of the coding I do. When I do use vim it's still with the default color scheme, maybe just because I'm used to it, and I usually open it up on the CRT though I've bumped the font size up. Anyway, the white background I find gets annoying to look at sooner now than I recall it being before.
Kinda like
Shingles don't seem to make as much sense as panels for a couple reasons which is why I would suspect that there hasn't been enough market for the shingles hence their discontinuation.
I'm just going based on my sometimes unreliable memory (and maybe pure speculation) here but unless there has be some change in technology: 1) The efficiency of PV cells tends to decrease as their temperature increases, so having panels which allow for some type of airflow behind them which offsets their 'heat magnetism' should be more efficient, even if that percentage is small. 2) The cost factor - I would think that the cost of shingles is much greater than the traditional panel design, not to mention installation cost is probably considerably higher. 3) Risk of damage? - Shingles would seem to be more susceptible to damage.
that we couldn't just let go to waste (back into the general fund - they might give it back to taxpayers as a refund), so we've decided to do a study and come up with an Energy Star rating for.... uhh... datacenters! they use alot of electricity - we'll start handing out a shiny gold^H^H^H^H Energy Star rating for ones that don't use so much. This should be interesting.
Sorry but the Hemp desk jobs have been outsourced due to the discontinuation of proper desk accessories.
The law very specifically states that it applies to companies doing work as a private security consultant.
... From what I read in the law, it is meant to prevent a company from telling customers they are providing a security solution when in fact they know nothing about security.
Then they should require a computer security license based on evidence of having one or more of several generally accepted security certifications (which BTW should be sufficiently acceptable to assure customers of this expertise) or some such thing, not a PI license. Even simple data recovery would generally fall under the definition of "review and analysis of data." I suppose it really only matters how the legislation defines the term if it even does so. I didn't read TFA so I don't know and I'll take your statements as being correct.
This only goes to show that government really doesn't know how to take care of us better than we do. 1) Requiring a PI license of computer techs for anything outside of maybe specific forensics work is just bizarre and illogical. 2) The presumption that just because nannystate government has given their seal of approval to someone or some business (though most likely has rather blindly just taken the tax and license fees) doesn't mean customers won't get ripped off or will be provided a service that meets any particular standard - caveat emptor still applies regardless.
If I provide security analysis and consulting, or otherwise promise security solutions, it comes with the disclaimer that I as an individual can only guarantee that security up to a certain point. There's a very good chance that someone in the world is more clever than I or happens to know of a vulnerability that I don't and can break that security. This is true no matter who secures the system. Of course the weakest link in almost any system is the social engineering factor.
These are things I try to relate to any client, whether the work I'm doing is security related or not. My own philosophy on it is this: Security is somewhat of a misnomer. There is no absolute security. There are degrees of security, the increase of which can lessen risk. All implementations of computer, network, or system security are based on compromise. The question is where to draw the line of compromise or how much time and money should be expended on security to reduce the level of risk? The greatest risk in security is the human factor, in one form or another.
a valid proof of ID, I'm not surprised in the least.
Bank's have certainly outlived their usefulness. They are far too concerned about making money themselves than they are in keeping the money of their customers safe. Real security costs too much and security theater works just as good for public image and getting customers. For example, ID theft protection services. As a bonus this one actually makes the bank money too!
Something is seriously wrong when it's impossible to find a bank that will cash a US Treasury check (and in increasingly more cases a check drawn on their own bank) anymore unless you have an account with them.
Those that still do allow non-accountholders to cash a check drawn on them will require two random forms of ID (something they've made up to meet the law (reg. C? I think it is) on verifying ID, which is just ambiguous enough) a driver's license, CC, vehicle registration, etc. any of which could easily be forged and most of which are utterly useless for verifying that someone is who they say they are.
Pardon my LISP-like sentence structure, even though I haven't done any coding in LISP at all for years.
I knew the FBI were essentially terrorists, I just didn't know they had such a penchant for bombing public buildings. I thought they pretty much stuck to blowing up private buildings of citizens.
Even further I didn't realize the FBI was so seriously against the weather underground. I mean really, they probably have better data than the weather channel.
I didn't say there would be many of us. ;)
LOL, this (and parent) is probably one of the funniest things I've seen here in quite a while.
Though I agree that the sentiment of corbettw's GP post is so true.
Exactly, had the legislature been doing their job to begin with and not passing laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster, the government wouldn't have wasted thousands of dollars in tax money.
.gov and the legislators are the people that think .gov is the be-all and end-all arbiter/solver/fixer of societal ills; along with those who vote for elected officials that hold such a nannystate philosophy, if there be such a separate group of people.
Hmmm.. kinda the same issue with the DC/Heller thing.
Although, more to blame than
I for one welcome our new evil Open Source friendly Microsoft overlords.
What is running on the box? With GNU/Linux it can range from not all that difficult to quite complex.
Then there's always the option of getting something like a WRT54GL and loading OpenWRT on it and setting that up - which would be even more complex since you're then getting into vlan configurations for the ports and such.
The insurgency tactics being used in Iraq require access to things like plastic explosives and knowledge of bomb making. Those aren't available under your 2nd amendment rights, and if you tried to get them Homeland Security would come a-knocking.
Those sorts of things (knowledge of bomb making) would however be available under our 1st Amendment protected rights. And apparently making purchases related to landscaping or lawn care which may be questionable don't seem to set off any "terrorist alarms", yet.
If the Iraqi insurgents were using the sort of guns available to American citizens they'd have lost a long time ago.
.50 cal rifles are available to (at least most) US citizens, even if they do cost > USD$2k. AK47's are quite plentiful in the States, even though for the most part they are semi-auto. It's even possible to legally own full auto rifles (machine guns) albeit quite expensive. So generally I think the only difference would be that RPG's aren't available to citizens.
On the other hand, the right of privacy, not clearly stated in the American constitution, is necessary, and should be added.
Umm... "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Yep, it's there already. Not that it hasn't been watered down by legislation, court interpretation, "war on drugs" exceptions, bypassed by false statements, etc. so much that it hardly means anything anymore, but it is there.
Yay! Now M$ will go down in flames without the evil Gates behind them. bwuhahahaha!
:)
Or something like that.
As of 2006, the foundation has an endowment of approximately US$34.6 billion. To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, it must donate at least 5% of its assets each year. Thus the donations from the foundation each year would amount to over US$1.5 billion at a minimum.
Compared to ~$51 billion (as of 2007) in Microsoft revenue (which has to cover ~90k employees and other expenses), having one's own charitable foundation must be ludicrously profitable, not to mention free of many tax burdens.
Not that I'm saying that the Gates Foundation doesn't do quite a bit of what looks like very good things despite the partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation.
Now if they can figure out a way to make researchers and those that approve funding for such nonsense smart enough to realize what many others in the field have known for quite some time, they may be onto something.
There is more money to be made in the treatment of symptoms (and having some foundation to raise money purportedly for a cure) than there is in any actual cure, which is the reason that no cure for anything will be televised.
Animal research does not work, as every species of animal is a different biomechanical and biochemical entity. Non-human animals are different not only from humans, but also from each other: anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, genetically and histologically. Animals react differently to different drugs, vaccines and chemical substances, not only from humans but also from each other. Aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. Yet guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine - one of the deadliest poisons for humans but not for monkeys. Human diseases cannot be recreated in animals because once a disease is "recreated" it is artificial and no longer the original, natural disease that the body itself produced. Our environment - air, land, water and food supplies - is being systematically destroyed by thousands of pesticides and toxicants that no matter how destructive are routinely and conveniently found safe and thus allowed to be marketed based on inherently invalid and misleading animal tests. - 1999 Cancer Research Review
There's probably dozens of doctors and researchers that have said basically the same thing publicly.
~$50 (USD) after rebate at newegg last I checked, though I'd use OpenWRT personally.
Hardware compatability for OpenWRT
From the Heller SC opinion: b. "Keep and bear Arms." We move now from the holder of the right-"the people"-to the substance of the right: "to keep and bear Arms." Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we inter- pret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dic- tionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinaf- ter Webster) (similar).
This would never had happened if only all those customers had used Citibank's Identity Monitor protection service
Seeing as how the history of border patrol only goes back to around 1904 and the case law setting precedent on a border patrol exception to the 4th Amendment is circa 1977, I fail to see where the Constitution specifically comes into it.
But generally I see your point.