... is that the companies don't sell them for the same price in europe as they do in the us (ie. they are more expensive in europe). Hence, the euro being more "valuable" than the dollar may be correct from the perspective of a conversion ratio but not from the perspective of how far it will go in its market.
I've had everything friends only for a year now, haven't even looked at it. They add some random custom privacy options now and then when people request them but keeping everything but your picture hidden from the general public hasn't been a problem for a long time now.
It's one thing to say it to your friends, it's another thing to post it to all of your "facebook friends" on what amounts to a publicly visible web-site if you don't have your privacy settings appropriately adjusted.
Lots of lessons here. Don't make a public announcement of your intent to kill someone, even if it is in jest. Set your facebook privacy settings to friends only if you intend on posting anything that would negatively affect you professionally. Don't facebook friend every person you've had a 10 minute conversation with in the past 20 years. Be aware of your audience.
Luckily I'm sure she can either be re-admitted if she is very apologetic and explains her situation. And if not, she can find another college to go to and not make the same stupid mistakes.
Launch platform too.. I'd imagine that launching a rocket off of the moon would cost much less fuel than launching one from Earth and that it would be easier to maintain a sustainable base on the moon than floating in space. You could probably also construct and launch a much heavier Mars exploratory craft from parts shipped to a moon base than you could from Earth.
These things would be expensive, but if we had a sustainable / expanding base there it would get cheaper and easier over time.
I refer to a bureaucrat in this case as someone who is a narrow minded administrator of the bureaucracy that is the United States legal system, which is a perfectly valid definition and can be applied to a politician.
In this case, I also specified him as a bureaucrat who has no idea what he is talking about. The examples you gave would be bureaucrats who do, indeed, know what they are talking about:).
So, I would counter that it is you, sir, who does not completely understand the definition of a bureaucrat!
I know I'm not the only one who FREAKING HATES the idea of bureaucrats making decisions on this shit about which they have NO IDEA what they are talking about.
Argh, I know it's happened and will happen for years, but I hate hate hate it. They need to make a board of legitimate professionals in the industry who know WTF they are talking about to come up with any regulations that might be made.
Definitely have not lol (I was IT in college and ran a few labs that had tons of annoying engineering specialization applications), hopefully with Vista and 7 being more like Linux in the security department (and I know this is probably hoping too much) new projects will start developing their windows applications from the ground up to run at user level so that we can actually effectively and simply secure the computer.
In at least 60% of the cases (and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage), you will either A. Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential, or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.
50% of statistics worldwide are made up entirely,/. accounts for 10% of statistics worldwide and 9.99999% of those that are made up.
An 'IQ' is quantitative. The term 'smart' is qualitative. Comparing them at all is like comparing ones 'income' with how 'rich' they are.
Exactly, it's pretty damn obvious that IQ is just a measure of your brain's raw computing power. And we all know that just because you have a fast CPU doesn't mean your computer is great at everything, it depends heavily on the software and OS (experience).
Also to further the analogy, some stuff can run great on a weak CPU (math/science) but require a powerful sound card (music), GPU (art), fast burner (sports) or high quality monitor and keyboard/mouse (social).
We deal with a lot of industry specific software (ie. badly produced software) and many of the users need to have full access to absolutely everything in order for it to work, including mapped drives to the data!
In my administration experience, I've found that this is never the case. There is no such software that requires access to everything. It may require you to make exceptions for particular files or entries, and this may be painful to track down, but you will be rewarded by not having calls to re-install their computer.
I've seen horribly written engineering software that was written by maybe 3 guys in a lab somewhere and sold to maybe a few schools. I couldn't get the damn thing to run for hours in locked down user mode until I finally realized it required WRITE ACCESS to a.dll.... Which makes absolutely ZERO sense for an application but I just made an exception for that.dll and everything ran great.
Point being, the setup is a hassle but every application can run in user mode. IMHO, the cost of figuring out how to install and get an application running in user mode is your JOB as an IT professional and it will save you hundreds of man hours in fixing malware.
Normal users are retarded, but the worst are doctors and smart/high IQ people that think, "hey, I'm smart in this field, so I must be smart everywhere"... WRONG.
Also, I know from experience that getting over the initial hump of installing and getting all software to run in super locked down user mode (as in, write access to most of the root is locked out) saves you hundreds of hours of fixing malware/viruses.
People will bitch and moan about it to start, but once they realize their computers are running 5x faster than before, stuff works and they don't have to keep calling for help they'll get over it.
When you have little or no say in what software gets selected for use but are required to maintain local support for the same software as well as maintain the security of the network, it is not a waste of time at all. You do not give users Admin privileges. You give them the permissions they require to do their job and no more. That's basic best practice.
It's really not even that difficult to figure out. Nine times out of ten, the program either wants to write to HKLM\Software\$appname or wants to write to two or three configuration or log files in %programfiles%\$appname. About a quarter of the time (IMX) the documentation contains detailed information about what permissions are necessary. After that it's merely a case of using the various SysInternals monitors to figure out what's causing the problem. Between Xcacls and regini it's not difficult at all to script the changes. I typically maintain a single script which checks for the presence of each application and, if found, applies the necessary permissions changes.
^^ This ^^. 99.9% of users (special case exceptions being IT and software engineers/developers) should be on locked down User access with special cases made for applications they need to have installed that are specifically approved and setup by the administrator. End of story.
If you are in IT and on one hand complain about having to setup user's access and field calls for software installs and on the other hand complain that Windows is too insecure then you are a fucking baby who needs to get a new job, since securing and installing software IS your job.
It seems very plausible to me. Rats have abundant sources of food in the environments they thrive in (under cities, etc.). Better memory provides no advantage to food gathering as they are already more than saturated. So whether they can remember 10, 20 or 50 x as much it doesn't matter, they'll still find more food than they need to survive.
Similarly, it would have no advantage to reproduction.
The only feasible advantage I can think of is to avoid predators. But as you said, they reproduce so quickly that having a longer memory may very well have no significant statistical impact on their ability to reach breeding age and/or survive any longer than other rats to breed more.
Given the short generation span of rodents, they should be pretty close to the local optimum of expression for all existing proteins.
If that presumption is correct and it does occur naturally then maybe this just isn't an optimal mutation for their locality. Doesn't necessarily have a downside, but the upside is statistically negligible in terms of reproduction and survivability.
Or (IMHO) the most probable presumption is that rats are not at the peak of their evolution and this particular trait just hasn't occurred yet or would not be a naturally occurring mutation.
Your presumption that "if they haven't evolved to do this yet then there must be some disadvantage" is inherently false.
To extrapolate further, using your presumption, "if rats were humans they'd have an evolutionary advantage, why aren't rats humans". I would imagine one could list a million "simple mutations", each giving an advantage, that would lead to a rat having all of the genetic advantages of humans. Why haven't each of these in the chain occurred?
Evolution is not necessarily really even about selective advantage or survival of the fittest. It's about who reproduces the most (which is not necessarily the fittest or most advantaged). In fact, evolution only seems to really accelerate in extreme conditions.
Anyways, I'm going on too far, but I reject your presumption that a genetic advantage must necessarily have a disadvantage if it isn't naturally occurring.
That's the "no-fly" list, which is not the "watch-list". However, those ON the no-fly list are also on the watch-list. Those on the watch-list are mostly not on the no-fly list.
Test some software that they have written to trawl the web searching for specific words among the randomness of the intertubez.
There will likely be several facebook groups, twitter groups and websites devoted to this where people will send in camera phone pics + coordinates (not that I have any fucking idea how to come up with the coordinates, someone will have to post a tutorial somewhere). The submission format is also very standardized (DDD-MM-SS).
I imagine someone could parse these groups and come up with probabilities based on match duplication, etc. on the day of the event.
But why, then, would you go to the not inconsiderable effort and expense of keeping a list?
Have you ever taken a personal note before? Or as a better example, ever used the scientific method?
I have a hypothesis "this guy may be a criminal because he did something criminals usually do", I investigate to determine yes (crap, this guy is building bombs), no (false lead) or undetermined (nothing conclusive but still suspicious). If yes, bust him, if no remove from the list, if undetermined leave on the list.
I'd think they were retards if they DIDN'T have a list.
The STASI (East German Secret Police) got awesome participation from its citizens when it asked them to help them spy on their fellow citizens.
There is a scary lesson in that.
Yea... and the FBI is trying to find terrorists who plan on killing American citizens and people who plan on raping children. Big fucking difference. Increasing their effectiveness and ability to find actual criminals through citizen participation over patriot-act-esque big brothering is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"europeans are idiots" bonus (1 dollar = 1 euro)
BRILLIANT!
I've had everything friends only for a year now, haven't even looked at it. They add some random custom privacy options now and then when people request them but keeping everything but your picture hidden from the general public hasn't been a problem for a long time now.
It's one thing to say it to your friends, it's another thing to post it to all of your "facebook friends" on what amounts to a publicly visible web-site if you don't have your privacy settings appropriately adjusted.
Lots of lessons here. Don't make a public announcement of your intent to kill someone, even if it is in jest. Set your facebook privacy settings to friends only if you intend on posting anything that would negatively affect you professionally. Don't facebook friend every person you've had a 10 minute conversation with in the past 20 years. Be aware of your audience.
Luckily I'm sure she can either be re-admitted if she is very apologetic and explains her situation. And if not, she can find another college to go to and not make the same stupid mistakes.
Launch platform too.. I'd imagine that launching a rocket off of the moon would cost much less fuel than launching one from Earth and that it would be easier to maintain a sustainable base on the moon than floating in space. You could probably also construct and launch a much heavier Mars exploratory craft from parts shipped to a moon base than you could from Earth.
These things would be expensive, but if we had a sustainable / expanding base there it would get cheaper and easier over time.
But yes, I'm stretching here by using it as more of a descriptor of attributes than actual profession, thanks for the clarification!
I refer to a bureaucrat in this case as someone who is a narrow minded administrator of the bureaucracy that is the United States legal system, which is a perfectly valid definition and can be applied to a politician.
:).
In this case, I also specified him as a bureaucrat who has no idea what he is talking about. The examples you gave would be bureaucrats who do, indeed, know what they are talking about
So, I would counter that it is you, sir, who does not completely understand the definition of a bureaucrat!
I know I'm not the only one who FREAKING HATES the idea of bureaucrats making decisions on this shit about which they have NO IDEA what they are talking about.
Argh, I know it's happened and will happen for years, but I hate hate hate it. They need to make a board of legitimate professionals in the industry who know WTF they are talking about to come up with any regulations that might be made.
Definitely have not lol (I was IT in college and ran a few labs that had tons of annoying engineering specialization applications), hopefully with Vista and 7 being more like Linux in the security department (and I know this is probably hoping too much) new projects will start developing their windows applications from the ground up to run at user level so that we can actually effectively and simply secure the computer.
It won't happen, but I can always daydream.
In at least 60% of the cases (and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage), you will either A. Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential, or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.
50% of statistics worldwide are made up entirely, /. accounts for 10% of statistics worldwide and 9.99999% of those that are made up.
"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer."
Albert Einstein
An 'IQ' is quantitative. The term 'smart' is qualitative. Comparing them at all is like comparing ones 'income' with how 'rich' they are.
Exactly, it's pretty damn obvious that IQ is just a measure of your brain's raw computing power. And we all know that just because you have a fast CPU doesn't mean your computer is great at everything, it depends heavily on the software and OS (experience).
Also to further the analogy, some stuff can run great on a weak CPU (math/science) but require a powerful sound card (music), GPU (art), fast burner (sports) or high quality monitor and keyboard/mouse (social).
We deal with a lot of industry specific software (ie. badly produced software) and many of the users need to have full access to absolutely everything in order for it to work, including mapped drives to the data!
In my administration experience, I've found that this is never the case. There is no such software that requires access to everything. It may require you to make exceptions for particular files or entries, and this may be painful to track down, but you will be rewarded by not having calls to re-install their computer.
.dll.... Which makes absolutely ZERO sense for an application but I just made an exception for that .dll and everything ran great.
I've seen horribly written engineering software that was written by maybe 3 guys in a lab somewhere and sold to maybe a few schools. I couldn't get the damn thing to run for hours in locked down user mode until I finally realized it required WRITE ACCESS to a
Point being, the setup is a hassle but every application can run in user mode. IMHO, the cost of figuring out how to install and get an application running in user mode is your JOB as an IT professional and it will save you hundreds of man hours in fixing malware.
Normal users are retarded, but the worst are doctors and smart/high IQ people that think, "hey, I'm smart in this field, so I must be smart everywhere"... WRONG.
Also, I know from experience that getting over the initial hump of installing and getting all software to run in super locked down user mode (as in, write access to most of the root is locked out) saves you hundreds of hours of fixing malware/viruses.
People will bitch and moan about it to start, but once they realize their computers are running 5x faster than before, stuff works and they don't have to keep calling for help they'll get over it.
When you have little or no say in what software gets selected for use but are required to maintain local support for the same software as well as maintain the security of the network, it is not a waste of time at all. You do not give users Admin privileges. You give them the permissions they require to do their job and no more. That's basic best practice.
It's really not even that difficult to figure out. Nine times out of ten, the program either wants to write to HKLM\Software\$appname or wants to write to two or three configuration or log files in %programfiles%\$appname. About a quarter of the time (IMX) the documentation contains detailed information about what permissions are necessary. After that it's merely a case of using the various SysInternals monitors to figure out what's causing the problem. Between Xcacls and regini it's not difficult at all to script the changes. I typically maintain a single script which checks for the presence of each application and, if found, applies the necessary permissions changes.
^^ This ^^. 99.9% of users (special case exceptions being IT and software engineers/developers) should be on locked down User access with special cases made for applications they need to have installed that are specifically approved and setup by the administrator. End of story.
If you are in IT and on one hand complain about having to setup user's access and field calls for software installs and on the other hand complain that Windows is too insecure then you are a fucking baby who needs to get a new job, since securing and installing software IS your job.
It seems very plausible to me. Rats have abundant sources of food in the environments they thrive in (under cities, etc.). Better memory provides no advantage to food gathering as they are already more than saturated. So whether they can remember 10, 20 or 50 x as much it doesn't matter, they'll still find more food than they need to survive.
Similarly, it would have no advantage to reproduction.
The only feasible advantage I can think of is to avoid predators. But as you said, they reproduce so quickly that having a longer memory may very well have no significant statistical impact on their ability to reach breeding age and/or survive any longer than other rats to breed more.
Given the short generation span of rodents, they should be pretty close to the local optimum of expression for all existing proteins.
If that presumption is correct and it does occur naturally then maybe this just isn't an optimal mutation for their locality. Doesn't necessarily have a downside, but the upside is statistically negligible in terms of reproduction and survivability.
Or (IMHO) the most probable presumption is that rats are not at the peak of their evolution and this particular trait just hasn't occurred yet or would not be a naturally occurring mutation.
Your presumption that "if they haven't evolved to do this yet then there must be some disadvantage" is inherently false.
To extrapolate further, using your presumption, "if rats were humans they'd have an evolutionary advantage, why aren't rats humans". I would imagine one could list a million "simple mutations", each giving an advantage, that would lead to a rat having all of the genetic advantages of humans. Why haven't each of these in the chain occurred?
Evolution is not necessarily really even about selective advantage or survival of the fittest. It's about who reproduces the most (which is not necessarily the fittest or most advantaged). In fact, evolution only seems to really accelerate in extreme conditions.
Anyways, I'm going on too far, but I reject your presumption that a genetic advantage must necessarily have a disadvantage if it isn't naturally occurring.
That's the "no-fly" list, which is not the "watch-list". However, those ON the no-fly list are also on the watch-list. Those on the watch-list are mostly not on the no-fly list.
Pot, meet kettle. Stereotypes are bad.
As long as the list is private and completely internal to the FBI (which is the impression I get), I see no issue with it.
Test some software that they have written to trawl the web searching for specific words among the randomness of the intertubez.
There will likely be several facebook groups, twitter groups and websites devoted to this where people will send in camera phone pics + coordinates (not that I have any fucking idea how to come up with the coordinates, someone will have to post a tutorial somewhere). The submission format is also very standardized (DDD-MM-SS).
I imagine someone could parse these groups and come up with probabilities based on match duplication, etc. on the day of the event.
My guess is nobody gets the 40k though.
I think they just want to find out how fast someone can hack into their network at DARPA HQ and locate the coordinates of all the balloons.
But why, then, would you go to the not inconsiderable effort and expense of keeping a list?
Have you ever taken a personal note before? Or as a better example, ever used the scientific method?
I have a hypothesis "this guy may be a criminal because he did something criminals usually do", I investigate to determine yes (crap, this guy is building bombs), no (false lead) or undetermined (nothing conclusive but still suspicious). If yes, bust him, if no remove from the list, if undetermined leave on the list.
I'd think they were retards if they DIDN'T have a list.
The STASI (East German Secret Police) got awesome participation from its citizens when it asked them to help them spy on their fellow citizens.
There is a scary lesson in that.
Yea... and the FBI is trying to find terrorists who plan on killing American citizens and people who plan on raping children. Big fucking difference. Increasing their effectiveness and ability to find actual criminals through citizen participation over patriot-act-esque big brothering is a good thing.