If you divide the wattage by 3 to get the BTUs/hour, the AC's going to be undersized. According to my notes, you approximate the BTUs/Hour by multiplying the power in watts by 3.41. At least that's how I calculate the numbers for my customers, when they need those figures.
Buying a blank keyboard is just annoying if someone else than you tries to use your computer and can't manage to use your keyboard
That's good enough for me! I'm sold. My Kinesis keyboard alone, does a good job of keeping others from using my computers. Now combine that with blank keycaps, for a keyboard that really says "hands off!"
Thank god people who work the government never lie, because otherwise I might believe the people who actually witnessed the event.
I hate to point this out, but your fighter pilot once worked for the government. Oh, but wait, his story supports your point of view, so different standards apply, right?
If you were to do a little research on the subject, you'd find out that eye-witnesses are usually the least accurate source of information. Try looking at the research of Elizabeth Loftus, and you'll see why some of us are unimpressed by the stories of the witnesses, over the findings of a metallurgist who was actually looking at was left of the aircraft in question. If you could come up with convincing piece of physical evidence, a video recording of the "attack" for instance, you might be more convincing.
I think you're close. My pet theory is that the flash from a failing lamp lit up the image more-or-less uniformly (due to scattering from the air and/or lens). The "dark streak" is the shadow of some stucture between the lamp and the camera (either internal to the lamp or its mounting). The bright "smoke", which appears on the other side of the bright flash, would be the reverse, light from the flash reflected into the lens creating a flare.
Just got the first page of the other form to load and it looks like one poster there (smith @ canada.com) had the same idea.
You might want to find yourself a more credible source of information than a LaRouche cult rag. Check out their "Statement of Purpose" at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/about.html which contains the following gem "Original studies by the controversial economist Lyndon LaRouche have challenged the epistemological foundations of the von Neumann and Wiener-Shannon information theory, and located physical science as a branch of physical economy."
Now, do you have any reasons for opposing fetal stem-cell research?
If you can guarentee that the jammer blocks calls within a private place of business, that's one thing. However, if your jammer interferes with calls in adjacent public or private spaces, say the sidewalk out front or my office next door, you lose the moral high ground you imagine you occupy.
And, the same FCC laws you quote about accepting interference also prohibit devices that produce intentional interference.
I agree that most wouldn't catch it. However, unless the number of votes changed is very, very small, a few would. (Case it point, CA recall election, I walked into my polling place with a palmtop running kismet, just out of curiosity. And, No, it didn't pick up anything that's not still there.)
But there is a world of difference between "probably wouldnt catch it" and "can't catch it".
But why have we let ourselves be roped into holding back life-altering discoveries that work just because it doesn't have some commission's stamp on it?
Doesn't that beg the question: How do you tell the "life-altering discoveries that work" from those that don't?
The only way to be sure, is to test them and have someone stand over them to make sure that the tests are done in a reasonable manner. No amount infomercial airtime, anecdotal testimonials nor authoritative claims by actors dressed up in white lab coats, will answer that question. Just ask those people who drank radium laced water, becuase they were told it would cure their diseases and make them healthy and vigorous. Oh wait! You can't! They died horrible deaths from it's toxic effects. Quite a life-altering discovery for them, wasn't it?
I wonder just how many of the "Linguists" are fluent with ASL and/or familar with child development?
The example you give is pretty weak. If we were to replace Koko and the researcher, with some young children and their parent, we might have the following:
P: Who wants some icecream?
YC1: Icecream! Icecream! Me! Me! I want some! Icecream!
YC2: Icecream! Me too! Icecream! Me! Me! Icecream!
P (thinks): I guess they want some icecream.
Would you look at that and say "The children hadn't learned that the words were symbols,or any sort of grammer that could qualify what they were doing as using language"? No, anyone who you said that to, would laugh in your face.
I think I'm going to use the following as a sig:
"The politicans had simply learned that saying certain words increased the likelihood of achieving some particular goal -- getting elected, in this case. More complicated than a mouse learning to press a plate to get food, but not very different.":-)
Chernobyl? You mean the plant that was built by the Soviets, who were *SO* concerned with the welfare of the workers? If you judge the safety of nuclear power by the events there, you're a moron. Unlike the commercial power plants in the US and elsewhere, there was no containment structure to contain releases of radioactive materials. In commercial power plants, the rate of reaction decreases as the core gets hotter. In Chernobyls design, the rate increased when the core overheated. And so on.
Talking about how long the radioactivity lasts is just a scare tactic. Don't forget that your body contains radioactive materials, produced naturally (thanks to "solar power"), that will last for 10's of thousands of years. Should your family bury you in a lead lined coffin, when you die? Or, just keep your body in a pool in the backyard until all the radioactivity dies away?
Why don't you just be honest and admit that Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants for the same reason GWB wants to ban Stem Cell research. It's just appeasing a different group of ignorant zelots.
Astounding. Someone who's entire knowledge of orbital mechanics comes from watching re-runs of "Red Dwarf".
The one detail you forgot from your "cosmic game of 8-ball", the pool table's the size of the state of Nebraska. Now, how likely do think you are to hit the cueball hard enough to even reach the edge, much less bounce around the table a few times.
I guess that all depends on what your idea of what a desktop OS is supposed to be. I just happen to like the idea of running a reliable operating system on my desktops and laptops as well as my servers.
That's why I run OpenBSD on my firewalls, FreeBSD on my laptop, desktop(s) and x86 based servers. My lone remaining Linux machine is my Zaurus palmtop.
It doesn't matter if damage is done out of malice or incompetence, it still takes time and effort to recover a compromised server. I make the effort to secure my systems at work and at home for the same reason I keep the kitchen knives away from my children.
It's not demonizing curious children, it's called childproofing.
Just think of security as childproofing your network.
Much of what's been done to discredit "hacking" (in the original sense) has been done by clueless vandals who imagine that breaking into someone elses computer made them some kind of "brilliant techie" or "3733t hax0r d00d".
It's a pretty pathetic site, if you ask me. When I visit it, all I get is:
Welcome to Happydemic!
[index.gif]
But with a domain name like that, the owners are probably either stupid or crooked. Or both. Either way, I'll add them to by web blocking list, they're obviously an outfit I'll want to avoid doing business with.
If you can't tell the difference between acts done to anothers computer without authorization and those done on computers you own, with resources you've purchased, I'd suggest that you're the one lacking a moral compass.
I think Ken Thompson understands this difference, even if you don't.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom -- go from us in peace.... Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
Bay Tech makes another network connected powerstrip. I've these and the APC MasterSwitches in colo's. They also have a series of remote terminal servers.
I don't have a lot of details for how the whole system works. But I can think of two ways to get more public pressure against it:
1. Publish the "wrong" photos from the cameras. A few photos looking down womans blouses would let the public know that it's not just "those people" who are being watched. (The camera angle from the published photo would be almost perfect, so it can be done.)
2. If the face scanning software is really automatic, see if you can track peoples activity based on where the cameras recognize them. The idea that they can be "stalked" by the computers might make even more people uncomfortable.
Will the police "swarm" people based on bad information? Innocent people have been swarmed, and some have been killed, by police acting on bad information.
The fact that nothing seriously bad happened in this case, will be the typical result. What if, instead, he had been mis-identified as a cop-killer? Do you think the police would have been just a polite?
I'd suggest that only the fact that he was white, and wasn't identified as potentially violent, is the only reason that he wasn't on the ground, and handcuffed, with guns pointed at his head, before the police looked at his ID.
One other issue I have, is the choice of what photo the police released. Isn't it interesting how they chose to release of photo of a younger man, with a beard, wearing a tank top and a bandana on his head. Someone the elderly might view with suspicion. Do you suppose that releasing a photo of (for example) an elderly woman with a walker, wouldn't have given the "right" impression to the public? (i.e. "We're watching ''them'', not you." )
1. No, If RedHat uses GPL code, they only have to give back any changes they've made. They still get a free ride on the development of the code itself. OTOH, I'm not sure MS's changes would be worth getting back.
2. Not all the MS-DOS TCP/IP stacks and clients were "freeware", some were "shareware", too. Also, there were third-party stacks for early versions of MS windows as well.
3. Right, not everyone uses the BSD stack. But it's very existance eliminates a great many excuses for having an incompatable implementation.
4. Prior to '90, I'd be willing to bet most of the UNIX systems on the internet were running some form of BSD with the BSD stack. Most of those that weren't were probably connecting in via UUCP, if they were networked at all. Most of the Vaxen not running BSD were probably running VMS and so if they were networked, they were talking DECnet, not TCP/IP.
5. No, I'm not saying that people can't make fully compatable implementations if they want to. Nor, that they couldn't create one as good, or better, than that in BSD, if they are willing to make the effort. But other than the petty spitefullness that the Stallmanites and Linux zealots, seem to have towards anything not GPL'd, should we force vendors to reinvent their own version of the wheel, if we want systems to interoperate? After all, DEC would have been happy to say DECnet was the system to use; IBM had SNA; ISO/OSI, etc.
Would the Internet have been better if M$ had its own slightly incompatable version of TCP/IP, that simply by the force of their market share, became the de facto standard? Let's say, one that allowed Windows to access the Internet, so that it would be accepted by Windows users as standard, but was different enough that non-windows clients couldn't connect to MS servers? Do you think M$ would consider that a bug, and fix it? Or is the Internet better off because M$ used code that started off compatable from the beginning and didn't make the effort to break it?
Oh, and I'd advise you to skip pointing out spelling glitches. Unless, you want to explain what you meant by "I'm looking to look the other way"? The common idiom is "willing to look the other way" when excusing ones double-standards.
Sorry, but the analogy to RedHat is accurate. The key point was "companies don't have a right to save money on implementations" if it's M$, but you're willing to look the other way if it's RedHat. Can you say "hipocrite"?
On the other hand, it seems you're the one with the short memory. I was running telnet and mounting NFS filesystems on MS-DOS boxes well before 1995. IIRC, this does require TCP/IP to be available.:-) Just because M$ didn't ship TCP/IP with the OS, didn't mean stacks didn't exist.
My point was, if the BSD implementation of TCP/IP wasn't freely available as a reference for multiple vendors to use, the Internet as we know it, probably wouldn't have been around for M$ to exploit. Either we'd heave been stuck with the bloated ISO/OSI stack, courtesy of GOSIP, or, more likely, the Internet would still be restricted to universities and DARPA, because commercial vendors wouldn't have bothered to develop their own TCP/IP implementations.
You seem to have noticed that TCP/IP is a published standard, but seem to overlook that the BSD licensed TCP/IP stack is a reference implementation of that standard. And that it's use by any and all partys, is exactly what was intended. Even with a published standard, making different implementations compatable isn't always an easy task. Without the BSD TCP/IP stack being out there to use, the Internet as we know/knew it, might never have existed. Or worse, might have been ISO-OSI based. Maybe you should go learn what a connectathon was. And, why they were necessary?
Too bad your anti-M$ knee jerking seems to have given you a concussion. I doubt I'd hear you claiming:
The only thing having Linux freely available for RedHat to copy did was allow RedHat to save money on R&D. Sorry, but companies don't have a right to save money on implementations.
Feel free to substitute "VA Linux", "Caldera" or any of the other companys out there, who are trying to build a business based on Free/Open Source software.
Of course, in the absense of such the BSD TCP/IP reference implementation, the world might have been treated to MS TCP/IP becoming the de facto internet standard.
The BSD license. All the freedom of the GPL, without the Napolean Complex.
The assumption that the DS II could not have been in a free orbit, but instead was supported by a field generated on the moon is unwarrented. If you were to assume the forest moon was tidally locked with Endor, the construction of the station could have taken place at the L2 point Endor/forest moon system.
Such a configuration would have kept the DS-II in a free orbit, but still stationary relative to the shield generator, which could use ALL available power for shielding. Only minimal manuvering power would be needed to maintain postion at L2.
Attempting to support the station from the moon has addition problems. First, the generators for any type of repulsion field would themselves bear the full weight of the DS-II and would themselves need to be supported in some way, lest they be shoved through the moons crust. Also they would be a tempting target for sabotage, allowing the destruction of the station, without requiring or risking the rebel fleet.
Compromise: You're asked to do various things you think are innocent. (e.g. You're asked for a copy of the internal phonebook, or org chart.) The requests get ratcheted up, until you get to the point where the agents can threaten to expose you as a spy, unless you do whatever they ask.
Extortion: Should be obvious. (e.g. Do what they ask or they'll hurt your faimily. )
Slashdot Mirror
If you divide the wattage by 3 to get the BTUs/hour, the AC's going to be undersized. According to my notes, you approximate the BTUs/Hour by multiplying the power in watts by 3.41. At least that's how I calculate the numbers for my customers, when they need those figures.
That's good enough for me! I'm sold. My Kinesis keyboard alone, does a good job of keeping others from using my computers. Now combine that with blank keycaps, for a keyboard that really says "hands off!"
I hate to point this out, but your fighter pilot once worked for the government. Oh, but wait, his story supports your point of view, so different standards apply, right?
If you were to do a little research on the subject, you'd find out that eye-witnesses are usually the least accurate source of information. Try looking at the research of Elizabeth Loftus, and you'll see why some of us are unimpressed by the stories of the witnesses, over the findings of a metallurgist who was actually looking at was left of the aircraft in question. If you could come up with convincing piece of physical evidence, a video recording of the "attack" for instance, you might be more convincing.
I think you're close. My pet theory is that the flash from a failing lamp lit up the image more-or-less uniformly (due to scattering from the air and/or lens). The "dark streak" is the shadow of some stucture between the lamp and the camera (either internal to the lamp or its mounting). The bright "smoke", which appears on the other side of the bright flash, would be the reverse, light from the flash reflected into the lens creating a flare.
Just got the first page of the other form to load and it looks like one poster there (smith @ canada.com) had the same idea.
Now, do you have any reasons for opposing fetal stem-cell research?
If you can guarentee that the jammer blocks calls within a private place of business, that's one thing. However, if your jammer interferes with calls in adjacent public or private spaces, say the sidewalk out front or my office next door, you lose the moral high ground you imagine you occupy.
And, the same FCC laws you quote about accepting interference also prohibit devices that produce intentional interference.
> I guarantee people probably wouldnt catch it...
I agree that most wouldn't catch it. However, unless the number of votes changed is very, very small, a few would. (Case it point, CA recall election, I walked into my polling place with a palmtop running kismet, just out of curiosity. And, No, it didn't pick up anything that's not still there.)
But there is a world of difference between "probably wouldnt catch it" and "can't catch it".
Doesn't that beg the question: How do you tell the "life-altering discoveries that work" from those that don't?
The only way to be sure, is to test them and have someone stand over them to make sure that the tests are done in a reasonable manner. No amount infomercial airtime, anecdotal testimonials nor authoritative claims by actors dressed up in white lab coats, will answer that question. Just ask those people who drank radium laced water, becuase they were told it would cure their diseases and make them healthy and vigorous. Oh wait! You can't! They died horrible deaths from it's toxic effects. Quite a life-altering discovery for them, wasn't it?
The example you give is pretty weak. If we were to replace Koko and the researcher, with some young children and their parent, we might have the following:
P: Who wants some icecream?
YC1: Icecream! Icecream! Me! Me! I want some! Icecream!
YC2: Icecream! Me too! Icecream! Me! Me! Icecream!
P (thinks): I guess they want some icecream.
Would you look at that and say "The children hadn't learned that the words were symbols,or any sort of grammer that could qualify what they were doing as using language"? No, anyone who you said that to, would laugh in your face.
I think I'm going to use the following as a sig: :-)
"The politicans had simply learned that saying certain words increased the likelihood of achieving some particular goal -- getting elected, in this case. More complicated than a mouse learning to press a plate to get food, but not very different."
If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
On my part, I like the idea that there's more than one way to do something.
Chernobyl? You mean the plant that was built by the Soviets, who were *SO* concerned with the welfare of the workers? If you judge the safety of nuclear power by the events there, you're a moron. Unlike the commercial power plants in the US and elsewhere, there was no containment structure to contain releases of radioactive materials. In commercial power plants, the rate of reaction decreases as the core gets hotter. In Chernobyls design, the rate increased when the core overheated. And so on.
Talking about how long the radioactivity lasts is just a scare tactic. Don't forget that your body contains radioactive materials, produced naturally (thanks to "solar power"), that will last for 10's of thousands of years. Should your family bury you in a lead lined coffin, when you die? Or, just keep your body in a pool in the backyard until all the radioactivity dies away?
Why don't you just be honest and admit that Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants for the same reason GWB wants to ban Stem Cell research. It's just appeasing a different group of ignorant zelots.
Astounding. Someone who's entire knowledge of orbital mechanics comes from watching re-runs of "Red Dwarf".
The one detail you forgot from your "cosmic game of 8-ball", the pool table's the size of the state of Nebraska. Now, how likely do think you are to hit the cueball hard enough to even reach the edge, much less bounce around the table a few times.
I guess that all depends on what your idea of what a desktop OS is supposed to be. I just happen to like the idea of running a reliable operating system on my desktops and laptops as well as my servers.
That's why I run OpenBSD on my firewalls, FreeBSD on my laptop, desktop(s) and x86 based servers. My lone remaining Linux machine is my Zaurus palmtop.
(Hmmm, I wonder if NetBSD will boot on it...)
It doesn't matter if damage is done out of malice or incompetence, it still takes time and effort to recover a compromised server. I make the effort to secure my systems at work and at home for the same reason I keep the kitchen knives away from my children.
It's not demonizing curious children, it's called childproofing.
Just think of security as childproofing your network.
Much of what's been done to discredit "hacking" (in the original sense) has been done by clueless vandals who imagine that breaking into someone elses computer made them some kind of "brilliant techie" or "3733t hax0r d00d".
It's a pretty pathetic site, if you ask me. When I visit it, all I get is:
Welcome to Happydemic!
[index.gif]
But with a domain name like that, the owners are probably either stupid or crooked. Or both. Either way, I'll add them to by web blocking list, they're obviously an outfit I'll want to avoid doing business with.
If you can't tell the difference between acts done to anothers computer without authorization and those done on computers you own, with resources you've purchased, I'd suggest that you're the one lacking a moral compass.
... Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
I think Ken Thompson understands this difference, even if you don't.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom -- go from us in peace.
-- Samuel Adams
How far underground is it?
building in western Missouri, one of the most siesmically stable
Three words: New Madrid Earthquake
areas of the country.
Bay Tech makes another network connected powerstrip. I've these and the APC MasterSwitches in colo's. They also have a series of remote terminal servers.
I don't have a lot of details for how the whole system works. But I can think of two ways to get more public pressure against it:
1. Publish the "wrong" photos from the cameras. A few photos looking down womans blouses would let the public know that it's not just "those people" who are being watched. (The camera angle from the published photo would be almost perfect, so it can be done.)
2. If the face scanning software is really automatic, see if you can track peoples activity based on where the cameras recognize them. The idea that they can be "stalked" by the computers might make even more people uncomfortable.
Will the police "swarm" people based on bad information? Innocent people have been swarmed, and some have been killed, by police acting on bad information.
The fact that nothing seriously bad happened in this case, will be the typical result. What if, instead, he had been mis-identified as a cop-killer? Do you think the police would have been just a polite?
I'd suggest that only the fact that he was white, and wasn't identified as potentially violent, is the only reason that he wasn't on the ground, and handcuffed, with guns pointed at his head, before the police looked at his ID.
One other issue I have, is the choice of what photo the police released. Isn't it interesting how they chose to release of photo of a younger man, with a beard, wearing a tank top and a bandana on his head. Someone the elderly might view with suspicion. Do you suppose that releasing a photo of (for example) an elderly woman with a walker, wouldn't have given the "right" impression to the public? (i.e. "We're watching ''them'', not you." )
2. Not all the MS-DOS TCP/IP stacks and clients were "freeware", some were "shareware", too. Also, there were third-party stacks for early versions of MS windows as well.
3. Right, not everyone uses the BSD stack. But it's very existance eliminates a great many excuses for having an incompatable implementation.
4. Prior to '90, I'd be willing to bet most of the UNIX systems on the internet were running some form of BSD with the BSD stack. Most of those that weren't were probably connecting in via UUCP, if they were networked at all. Most of the Vaxen not running BSD were probably running VMS and so if they were networked, they were talking DECnet, not TCP/IP.
5. No, I'm not saying that people can't make fully compatable implementations if they want to. Nor, that they couldn't create one as good, or better, than that in BSD, if they are willing to make the effort. But other than the petty spitefullness that the Stallmanites and Linux zealots, seem to have towards anything not GPL'd, should we force vendors to reinvent their own version of the wheel, if we want systems to interoperate? After all, DEC would have been happy to say DECnet was the system to use; IBM had SNA; ISO/OSI, etc.
Would the Internet have been better if M$ had its own slightly incompatable version of TCP/IP, that simply by the force of their market share, became the de facto standard? Let's say, one that allowed Windows to access the Internet, so that it would be accepted by Windows users as standard, but was different enough that non-windows clients couldn't connect to MS servers? Do you think M$ would consider that a bug, and fix it? Or is the Internet better off because M$ used code that started off compatable from the beginning and didn't make the effort to break it?
Oh, and I'd advise you to skip pointing out spelling glitches. Unless, you want to explain what you meant by "I'm looking to look the other way"? The common idiom is "willing to look the other way" when excusing ones double-standards.
On the other hand, it seems you're the one with the short memory. I was running telnet and mounting NFS filesystems on MS-DOS boxes well before 1995. IIRC, this does require TCP/IP to be available. :-) Just because M$ didn't ship TCP/IP with the OS, didn't mean stacks didn't exist.
My point was, if the BSD implementation of TCP/IP wasn't freely available as a reference for multiple vendors to use, the Internet as we know it, probably wouldn't have been around for M$ to exploit. Either we'd heave been stuck with the bloated ISO/OSI stack, courtesy of GOSIP, or, more likely, the Internet would still be restricted to universities and DARPA, because commercial vendors wouldn't have bothered to develop their own TCP/IP implementations.
You seem to have noticed that TCP/IP is a published standard, but seem to overlook that the BSD licensed TCP/IP stack is a reference implementation of that standard. And that it's use by any and all partys, is exactly what was intended. Even with a published standard, making different implementations compatable isn't always an easy task. Without the BSD TCP/IP stack being out there to use, the Internet as we know/knew it, might never have existed. Or worse, might have been ISO-OSI based. Maybe you should go learn what a connectathon was. And, why they were necessary?
Too bad your anti-M$ knee jerking seems to have given you a concussion. I doubt I'd hear you claiming:
Feel free to substitute "VA Linux", "Caldera" or any of the other companys out there, who are trying to build a business based on Free/Open Source software.
Of course, in the absense of such the BSD TCP/IP reference implementation, the world might have been treated to MS TCP/IP becoming the de facto internet standard.
The BSD license. All the freedom of the GPL, without the Napolean Complex.
The assumption that the DS II could not have been in a free orbit, but instead was supported by a field generated on the moon is unwarrented. If you were to assume the forest moon was tidally locked with Endor, the construction of the station could have taken place at the L2 point Endor/forest moon system.
Such a configuration would have kept the DS-II in a free orbit, but still stationary relative to the shield generator, which could use ALL available power for shielding. Only minimal manuvering power would be needed to maintain postion at L2.
Attempting to support the station from the moon has addition problems. First, the generators for any type of repulsion field would themselves bear the full weight of the DS-II and would themselves need to be supported in some way, lest they be shoved through the moons crust. Also they would be a tempting target for sabotage, allowing the destruction of the station, without requiring or risking the rebel fleet.
Close, but IIRC you have the last two incorrect.
It's Money, Ideology, Compromise and Extortion.
Compromise: You're asked to do various things you think are innocent. (e.g. You're asked for a copy of the internal phonebook, or org chart.) The requests get ratcheted up, until you get to the point where the agents can threaten to expose you as a spy, unless you do whatever they ask.
Extortion: Should be obvious. (e.g. Do what they ask or they'll hurt your faimily. )