Current research also shows extensive brain development far into adulthood.
I know what you have said is, or has been, accepted as "common" wisdom, but I think research is largely showing that these assumptions are simply either wholly wrong, or wrongly applied.
Brain development can occur long after a young age. Effort [especially the right kinds of effort] can stimulate brain development. Brain development can vastly increase your apparent ability.
So, IMO, your "IQ," as we've understood it, can be changed.
[All that said, and as I said in my prior posts, I'd probably agree there's some upper limit. I just think it is so poorly understood that it's a mostly useless theoretical point.]
What we claim to "know" about intelligence is probably just bloody wrong.
I can't take time to elaborate much more, but in short her tests showed students doing much better when told they were "Trying hard" vs. "Smart."
When you think you did well because you were smart, and not because you put forth lots of effort, it has all sorts of weird distortions in real life. In short, students who thought they were immutably "smart" did all sorts of things to protect that smartness - including not trying harder things, doing much worse when they did try because they worried about being labeled as "stupid" when they failed etc.
If you're "smart" and there's nothing you can do to change that - and you're smart because you succeeded, you'll be very careful about anything that might change your label to "stupid." And failure is one thing that will label you as stupid.
And remember, it's immutable - you're either smart [by an IQ test or something else] or stupid and there's nothing you can do to change that.
So, while I'd agree *in theory,* that there's some upper limit on the raw horsepower someone has, I don't think we really know where that limit is, and in practical terms it simply doesn't appear to work that way.
Individuals who put forth lots of "effort" are likely to vastly expand their capabilities. Perhaps one might be able to detect some upper bound beyond which they can't expand their capabilities any more, but from what I've seen, we've never determined it.
Class with a old prof. He'd been using test bank questions for years! (I didn't know that...) Was a horrible prof too - would just read, literally read, the book in class.
So, he had like three test rotations [all created from a test bank] and he'd pick one and use it for the year, each year. Once you knew what rotation he was on, you could get a copy of the test from somewhere - I never found out where...
First test, reasonable curve - but highest score was something like 93%.
The next test had multiple scores of like 97%+.
IIRC - [it's been like 20 years] - I finally wondered "what the heck?" after test 3. I graphed all the scores [all scores were publicly available, but you didn't know who belonged to which score.]
Those 97%+'ers? They scored in the mid 60's% on the first test.
Went to the department chair - dropped the graph on his desk, and said. "You know that simply doesn't happen. The test bank is out there, and the prof is making it tempting and easy to cheat.
Next test, I didn't notice any difference, but suddenly those killer scorers from test 2 and 3 went back to the low 60's and stayed there...
So, the cheating was the choice of the cheaters. No blame for their choice to the prof.
However, the prof was sloppy and horrid. He made it so easy and so profitable to cheat, he deserves ample blame for the low-hanging fruit.
He also deserves what he gets in blame for the fall-out the non-cheaters must bear because of his poor teaching/administration skills.
I guess I missed the part in the constitution that says it only applies to citizens?
So torture, as long as we only do it to non-citizens is just fine - we've not sacrificed our "values?" Jailing people in cages, without charges, without trial, picking the judicial venue at our convenience when we do offer a trial [No trial if we can't convict you, millitary tribunal if we can't convict you with real evidence] or regular civilian trial if we have good evidence] - as long as we do that to non-citizens, it's all well and good? We haven't sacrificed our values?
I don't know what your DAMN values are, but that's certainly sacrificing mine and those in the constitution we should respect.
Well Jimbo axe murdered, in cold blood, 100 people and I only murdered one, so we're really a lot different.
Sure, different in that Jimbo in a quantitative sense is worse. But in a qualitative sense, you're really just the same. [I'd probably be willing to say there's some qualitative difference [between US and China gvmts] too, but I think it's a lot less than most would argue it is.]
What we [the US] has done with Gitmo, Torture, Illegal Wiretaps/Rendition etc - is truly horrific. We don't have any [or much] qualitative difference as to "why" we did it, we just have a smaller pool of people we've done it to.
So, I have a hard time feeling a lot more secure with the US than with China - the only difference is there's at least some check on the government by the people - as long as I'm in a group that's not viewed as "terrorist" I would be difficult to torture or send to Gitmo - the public would decry it.
But the government would be glad to do it once the "cost" [in PR] is reduced. So, all they have to do is demonetize you or your group and ergo - you get tortured, sent to Gitmo [Bagram] etc.
They [the US Gvmt] certainly doesn't appear to have any moral qualm about doing it, only about the cost. And that doesn't make them much different in a moral sense than the Chinese gvmt.
You'll find a prior posted thread of mine about a spec analyzer. Perhaps it's out of financial range for the poster, since they seem to want a virtually no-cost solution, but I do offer suggestions on a spec analyzer for around $100, which is pretty good.
I didn't want to dupe that info in this thread, and it wasn't exactly the point of my post anyway. The GP claimed the FCC didn't care about unlicensed spectrum, but they do. However, they'll care a lot more if you show up with some real data - rather than "someone" must be doing something bad since my wifi doesn't work.
I don't know if they'll come and check things out, but they do care about unlicensed bands - if you're way outside the power envelope allowed, I'm sure they'll whack you upside the head just as bad as if you were doing it in licensed spectrum.
Given the symptoms, I wouldn't be surprised to find something in the spectrum being used that IS outside the allowed power-limits.
However, I think you're more likely to get results if you find out what the offending device/person/entity is and asking them to help resolve the conflict. If they don't then you can move on to a complaint with the FCC based on power-output.
802.11n can run in 5Ghz spectrum, but can also run in 2.4 spectrum. So, simply saying "use N" doesn't mean anything in terms of frequency.
In fact, most of the "consumer-grade" 802.11n equipment is 2.4Ghz exclusively.
--- I'd mostly agree that 5Ghz spectrum will be less cluttered, but I'd also guess that decent equipment using the tech in the N standard will do a lot better in 2.4 than b/g will. Multiple spacial streams, and (when implemented beam-forming) as well as beneficial use of "multi-path" etc will probably make N a lot better in most environments regardless of spectrum.
Get either the USB stick or one of the 2.4Ghz supported AP's from Ubiquiti. [www.ubnt.com]
The newest firmware supports a Spec analyzer mode - quite good, IMO - and it's not limited to WiFi equipment - anything in the radio spectrum is "seen."
Their wireless bridges in the 5Ghz spectrum using N tech (dual spacial streams) are seriously killer too - if you've got a wireless bridge, or WISP type situation, it's really, really cheap stuff. I'm likely to end up with 2.4 ghz and 5Ghz units just for spec analysis on the cheap. The units then double as AP's / routers / Bridges. (And at around $100 each, they're pretty awesome - Bullet M5, and Nano Station M5's for example.Find a wireless N bridge that will hold links over miles that are that cheap anywhere else!)
For around $100 you could have a nice AP and a spec unit in the same hardware. Antenna, unless built into the unit is a bit more difficult/pricey, but still do-able.
Anyway, I've got a setup using them in a PtMP setup, and though it's not miles, I'm seriously impressed - and the cost factor is simply *insanely* cheap.
Because 5E is certainly capable for Gb speeds - no problem at all.
Also, 5E is a lot less expensive, and less fragile.
I suppose that there's some chance that when Gb is not adequate, Cat6 will have some additional bandwidth available, such as 10Gb/s or some-such. But it's going to be a long while before any reasonable desktop can handle 1Gb/s, much less 10Gb/s.
Cat6 is just a whole ball of wax that doesn't _currently_ offer any performance advantages for virtually any user outside a data-center - and that "currently" isn't likely to change for some time. Since it's cheaper and less problem prone, etc - why not.
In short, the lab totally screwed up a (comparatively) very simple test that "showed" guilt.
In the course of the case, it was clear they had totally botched that simple test.
A much more technically difficult test using mass spectroscopy was a follow-up to the original test. The software on the MS machine was out of date and not certified for use in that configuration etc.
The prosecution wants us to believe that even though the lab couldn't get a simple test right, the exceedingly more complex task was, and that we should rely on that test to hold Landis guilty.
There are numerous other technical/procedural issues raised that also cause me great pause. [For example, a minor screw-up - taking a vitamin supplement that is tainted [but taken without malice] is enough to get you banned without recourse. However, if the lab screws up procedures and labeling and there is no penalty.]
So, while he did "fail a doping test" - I'm not sure I think the test was valid.
1000 kCal/hour isn't unrealistic. I'd expect it doesn't happen in those with serious weight problems for physical mobility reasons, though.
But as I've said upthread, I'm only 5'7" and 135lbs and I burn around 1000 kCal/hour during a workout.
Now, yes, it's intense - about an hour at very near maximum HR the entire time - but even at my size, 1000 kCal/hour is possible. Someone a fair bit bigger can probably do quite a lot more.
Now, as far as the parent losing 25 Lbs/month - I'd expect that's either not true, or very harmful to ones health. Those kind of weight loss deltas are not possible while also remaining healthy, IMO. (That's around 1lb/day - which isn't realistic.)
Not sure how the parent does this, but I use a heart rate monitor.
A typical outing is around an hour at 80-90+% of maximum HR. (In my case, that's 150-180 BPM, with max being ~180) Most of the time is spent above 155-160, and into 170+. However, once I burst up into the mid 170's - I have to back off fairly quickly since staying there will really crack you in a hurry - and once you're cracked you might as well go home.
Now it's a really severe work-out, and it's around 1000 kCal/hour - but yes, it isn't impossible. Harder than most people are willing to work, but it's quite possible.
Now, given my size, it's relatively a huge work-out, since I'm about 135lbs and 5'7". If you're a lot larger you ought to burn a lot more.
I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.
What's stupid about this comment is the flip side.
It's as if MS simply HAS to increase the price when they pay taxes.
But, then since they're only doing it because they have to make a small profit, then we can expect them to reduce the cost of the product when they start making too much money? Bah - everyone knows the reverse is crazy - there's simply almost no company that will do that.
They'll make as much as possible - regardless of what's fair.
And they'll eat the tax costs when they have to also.
It's not like Microsoft is barely profitable, and when they have to pay an extra 1% in tax they'll have to raise the price of their product to remain profitable.
--- Finally...lets look at the macro view... So, when everything is netted out, more tax probably does mean a bit more in the cost of the product. But take that further and look at the macro environment. If MS isn't paying those taxes, and the people want those services, they're going to be paying those costs somewhere else anyway. (i.e. They'll tax someone else...)
The final logic simply says that having MS pay those taxes might mean their product costs slightly more, but something else will cost slightly less.
By *default* XP doesn't have RDP running. But how many run XP in it's "defualt" configuration.
Run RDP and you're screwed, at least as far as anyone can tell. It appears that with ANY listening service, which probably includes RDP, your XP station is vulnerable. And forbid that you might be running some other agent/VNC/or other listening service.
To be clear... It appears that any non-firewalled listening service opens up this vulnerability. (ie. You run RDP and actually allow that port through even a running firewall. [You know, like it's not a lot of good running RDP if you can't get to it since it's firewalled.])
Go read the transcript. MS uses all sorts of weasel language to avoid the questions asked.
At best that means that someone could DoS all your XP stations (perhaps they'll have to be inside your network, but the next spyware/trojan infection could take down the whole network.) [This is true ONLY if the weasel explanation MS gave is actually what it appears - and given the true weasel nature, I'd guess it isn't.]
At worst, that next spyware/trojan could do remote code execution on the whole network running XP and turn everything into a zombie bot-net.
Oh, where do I sign up for that. That sounds like real fun!
Oh, and just to show how stupid the "Women will hate Obama" meme is:
Newsweek poll 9-12-08 Clinton supporters: 77% vs 16% BO/JM (77% vs 16% support BO instead of JM)
So, the numbers of professed Hillary supporters supporting McCain are pretty dang small. I'm guessing it's going to get smaller toward election day too.
And in another poll: Time from 9-17-08 Women voters: 54% vs 38% BO/JM
That's an 18 point margin among women generally that favors BO.
So, not only is the premise that voters were disenfranchised wrong, but further that they are going to vote for JM in mass instead of BO - because they are so mad about HRC not getting the nomination.
They weren't disenfranchised, and they aren't going to vote for JM in any serious numbers.
What's even more interesting is that it looks like Sara look-at-me-I'm-a-women-almost-just-like-Clinton Palin is going to be a net negative among women voters generally.
The rules of football say. The team with the most points wins.
--- Your team is behind on points. You say. Well, the guys who have the most rushing yards should really win. I mean, rushing - that shows you can move the ball. That really means that the team with the most rushing yards wins.
You say "Anyone who disputes that is disenfranchising everyone who things Rushing the the real deal." ---
No, rushing isn't how games are determined. Sure, it's a neat metric, and perhaps it says something interesting.
However, when you started playing the game, you voluntarily agreed to the rules. The rules say it's based on points - and here's how you get them.
If you want to change the rules in the middle of the game, it's clear to me that you've never grown up.
As far as Clinton people wanting to support McCain - be my guest. To think that McCain hold ANY of the values that Clinton holds dear is so misguided it's laughable.
But if people think chopping of their nose to spite their face is a great idea, I can't stop them.
I can say, that if you supported HRC because you believed in the things she believed in, and liked her thinking and policy positions, it would be completely inconceivable to vote for McCain.
Anyway, the base issue is here, that the voters voluntarily joined the party. They knew the party rules and how the primary process worked. That they are angry it works that way is too bad. But HRC and BO and everyone else knew what the deal was.
Perhaps next election cycle we can change things, but that something to do another day. Not in the middle of a race - when your red-herring candidate is losing.
Cheers, Greg
(Oh and BTW, I'm registered non-affiliated. I didn't vote, and couldn't vote in the Dem primary in my state. So, just get off tying me and the DNC.)
Clinton won the Democratic popular vote, but higher-ups disenfranchised her supporters anyway
Oh, get off it.
Sheesh. The rules for the primaries don't have any frigging thing to do with popular vote.
They have everything to do with delegates.
It's not like Clinton was hoodwinked into thinking she needed to win the popular vote and just stumbled onto the fact that she had to win delegates. She knew from the start.
She talked up how she'd win the delegates - at least she did until she was losing on the race for delegates. Then she (and STOOPID people like you) began harping on the "popular vote."
BO won and HRC lost on the rules of the contest - delegates. If the race had been on popular vote, you would have to assume that all the candidates would run their races differently. (And you can be sure they would have done so.)
Since the primaries are about the candidates meeting the voters and vice-versa, a system that doesn't simply focus on popular vote is probably better. (It tends to get the candidates out to less population dense areas and meet with more people - rather than blasting only at large groups of people...)
Now, if you want to complain that the delegate system currently in place is a poor system, you'd probably get me to agree with you.
BUT! Hillary most certainly didn't get screwed by the party ignoring the "popular vote," That's just the sound of a loser reaching for another set of rules that favors them, when they're losing by the rules they agreed to play by.
And people who do that - they're not only losing, they ARE losers.
-Greg
P.S. And even if you want to play a loser argument...exactly how do you count popular vote in caucus states? Hmmm. Just another huge, gaping, enormous hole in your inane, bullshit postulation that "Clinton won the Democratic popular vote, but higher-ups disenfranchised her supporters anyway"
And I'd bet you are REALLY PISSED that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and the WHOLE FRIGGING NATION was disenfranchised. Right?
You can argue with my reasoning - and that's all fine and good.
But, "Rabid Partisans"
Where the hell does that come from?
I'll easily consider voting for anyone I consider reasonable - party affiliation not withstanding.
But the logic to make me a "partisan" is simply faulty.
I personally DO think the founders would consider the activity of Nixon and such to be treason - or at a minimum treason-like. (The actions taken were direct threats to the function of a republic.)
The current legal frame-work may not agree with that position, but I think the discussions the framers of the constitution had make clear their most pressing view of "treason" was an external threat - of powers such as Brittan or France inducing a high official to subvert the republic. But I don't think they'd rule out massive election fraud as a treasonable offense either...
I believe massive systemic election rigging would also be considered the equivalent (or close equivalent) to treason by the founders of this country.
Since I'm no legal scholar, I wouldn't be surprised if the law doesn't agree with me, but I wouldn't be laughing whatever side is making the charge.
Tampering with elections at this level, with this pervasiveness is far beyond the scope of having dead people vote etc.
This is systemic gaming of the system - one that is exceedingly hard to detect and can dramatically impact many races simultaneously.
IMO, it's kind of like saying the gassing of the Jews during WWII in German concentrations camps was "murder, pure and simple."
It was murder, sure. But it was way beyond that in scope and was a systematic approach that was and is far more chilling than one or a few dozen murders.
IMO, subverting an election would be very close to "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
The enemies of the Republic would be any that would attempt to subvert the rule of the republic - which would include elections. (This is in practical terms, the equivalent of a coup.)
I'm not sure I exactly agree with this definition, but clearly an argument could be made that subverting elections would in essence be "war" against the republic.
It's certainly on less shaky ground than our governments declaration that all held at Guantanamo are legitimately held "unlawful combatants."
I can assure you that while a death from a heart-attack is no picnic, I've personally watched someone die from CJD (sporadic) - a non transmitted variant of CJD - and it's really, really ugly. Admittedly, deaths of those who caught CJD from BSE infected cattle appears to be very small - but it's a rather horrid way to die. (I was in the room when he died, BTW.) [I should clarify, he didn't die of variant CJD (the version from BSE infected cattle) but from sporadic CJD - a slightly different disease, but with very similar paths and the same terminal outcome.]
I guess I'd say that I can choose to avoid trans-fats etc, but I may well be unable to avoid cloned derived products, or certainly not with any ease or certainty. This makes my ability to avoid potential damage a lot harder.
While we may think odd damage to DNA won't cause any problems, I don't believe we know with any certainty it won't.
I say go ahead, do GM foods, cloning etc. Just make the producers put up a 10 trillion dollar bond. If the risks are SO well quantified, and that no risk exists, the cost of than 10 trillion bond should be very very small. But we both know it won't be small because no-one really actually KNOWS the real risk.
And, IMO, when we really don't actually know the risk, we ought to tread very lightly.
Slashdot Mirror
Additional follow-up:
Current research also shows extensive brain development far into adulthood.
I know what you have said is, or has been, accepted as "common" wisdom, but I think research is largely showing that these assumptions are simply either wholly wrong, or wrongly applied.
Brain development can occur long after a young age.
Effort [especially the right kinds of effort] can stimulate brain development.
Brain development can vastly increase your apparent ability.
So, IMO, your "IQ," as we've understood it, can be changed.
[All that said, and as I said in my prior posts, I'd probably agree there's some upper limit. I just think it is so poorly understood that it's a mostly useless theoretical point.]
-Greg
Read the works of Carol Dweck.
What we claim to "know" about intelligence is probably just bloody wrong.
I can't take time to elaborate much more, but in short her tests showed students doing much better when told they were "Trying hard" vs. "Smart."
When you think you did well because you were smart, and not because you put forth lots of effort, it has all sorts of weird distortions in real life. In short, students who thought they were immutably "smart" did all sorts of things to protect that smartness - including not trying harder things, doing much worse when they did try because they worried about being labeled as "stupid" when they failed etc.
If you're "smart" and there's nothing you can do to change that - and you're smart because you succeeded, you'll be very careful about anything that might change your label to "stupid." And failure is one thing that will label you as stupid.
And remember, it's immutable - you're either smart [by an IQ test or something else] or stupid and there's nothing you can do to change that.
So, while I'd agree *in theory,* that there's some upper limit on the raw horsepower someone has, I don't think we really know where that limit is, and in practical terms it simply doesn't appear to work that way.
Individuals who put forth lots of "effort" are likely to vastly expand their capabilities. Perhaps one might be able to detect some upper bound beyond which they can't expand their capabilities any more, but from what I've seen, we've never determined it.
Also, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Escalante
This is an example of "effort" based results vs "inherent intelligence."
-Greg
Yes.
Personal exp. Same kind of situation.
Class with a old prof. He'd been using test bank questions for years! (I didn't know that...) Was a horrible prof too - would just read, literally read, the book in class.
So, he had like three test rotations [all created from a test bank] and he'd pick one and use it for the year, each year. Once you knew what rotation he was on, you could get a copy of the test from somewhere - I never found out where...
First test, reasonable curve - but highest score was something like 93%.
The next test had multiple scores of like 97%+.
IIRC - [it's been like 20 years] - I finally wondered "what the heck?" after test 3. I graphed all the scores [all scores were publicly available, but you didn't know who belonged to which score.]
Those 97%+'ers? They scored in the mid 60's% on the first test.
Went to the department chair - dropped the graph on his desk, and said. "You know that simply doesn't happen. The test bank is out there, and the prof is making it tempting and easy to cheat.
Next test, I didn't notice any difference, but suddenly those killer scorers from test 2 and 3 went back to the low 60's and stayed there...
So, the cheating was the choice of the cheaters. No blame for their choice to the prof.
However, the prof was sloppy and horrid. He made it so easy and so profitable to cheat, he deserves ample blame for the low-hanging fruit.
He also deserves what he gets in blame for the fall-out the non-cheaters must bear because of his poor teaching/administration skills.
I guess I missed the part in the constitution that says it only applies to citizens?
So torture, as long as we only do it to non-citizens is just fine - we've not sacrificed our "values?"
Jailing people in cages, without charges, without trial, picking the judicial venue at our convenience when we do offer a trial [No trial if we can't convict you, millitary tribunal if we can't convict you with real evidence] or regular civilian trial if we have good evidence] - as long as we do that to non-citizens, it's all well and good? We haven't sacrificed our values?
I don't know what your DAMN values are, but that's certainly sacrificing mine and those in the constitution we should respect.
Your argument while technically true devolves to:
Well Jimbo axe murdered, in cold blood, 100 people and I only murdered one, so we're really a lot different.
Sure, different in that Jimbo in a quantitative sense is worse.
But in a qualitative sense, you're really just the same. [I'd probably be willing to say there's some qualitative difference [between US and China gvmts] too, but I think it's a lot less than most would argue it is.]
What we [the US] has done with Gitmo, Torture, Illegal Wiretaps/Rendition etc - is truly horrific. We don't have any [or much] qualitative difference as to "why" we did it, we just have a smaller pool of people we've done it to.
So, I have a hard time feeling a lot more secure with the US than with China - the only difference is there's at least some check on the government by the people - as long as I'm in a group that's not viewed as "terrorist" I would be difficult to torture or send to Gitmo - the public would decry it.
But the government would be glad to do it once the "cost" [in PR] is reduced.
So, all they have to do is demonetize you or your group and ergo - you get tortured, sent to Gitmo [Bagram] etc.
They [the US Gvmt] certainly doesn't appear to have any moral qualm about doing it, only about the cost. And that doesn't make them much different in a moral sense than the Chinese gvmt.
Cheers
-Greg
I think my email is in my profile.
If not, then try junk2009 at sloop period net.
-Greg
You'll find a prior posted thread of mine about a spec analyzer. Perhaps it's out of financial range for the poster, since they seem to want a virtually no-cost solution, but I do offer suggestions on a spec analyzer for around $100, which is pretty good.
I didn't want to dupe that info in this thread, and it wasn't exactly the point of my post anyway. The GP claimed the FCC didn't care about unlicensed spectrum, but they do. However, they'll care a lot more if you show up with some real data - rather than "someone" must be doing something bad since my wifi doesn't work.
-Greg
I don't know if they'll come and check things out, but they do care about unlicensed bands - if you're way outside the power envelope allowed, I'm sure they'll whack you upside the head just as bad as if you were doing it in licensed spectrum.
Given the symptoms, I wouldn't be surprised to find something in the spectrum being used that IS outside the allowed power-limits.
However, I think you're more likely to get results if you find out what the offending device/person/entity is and asking them to help resolve the conflict. If they don't then you can move on to a complaint with the FCC based on power-output.
You realize that N doesn't spec frequency, right?
802.11n can run in 5Ghz spectrum, but can also run in 2.4 spectrum. So, simply saying "use N" doesn't mean anything in terms of frequency.
In fact, most of the "consumer-grade" 802.11n equipment is 2.4Ghz exclusively.
---
I'd mostly agree that 5Ghz spectrum will be less cluttered, but I'd also guess that decent equipment using the tech in the N standard will do a lot better in 2.4 than b/g will. Multiple spacial streams, and (when implemented beam-forming) as well as beneficial use of "multi-path" etc will probably make N a lot better in most environments regardless of spectrum.
Get either the USB stick or one of the 2.4Ghz supported AP's from Ubiquiti. [www.ubnt.com]
The newest firmware supports a Spec analyzer mode - quite good, IMO - and it's not limited to WiFi equipment - anything in the radio spectrum is "seen."
Their wireless bridges in the 5Ghz spectrum using N tech (dual spacial streams) are seriously killer too - if you've got a wireless bridge, or WISP type situation, it's really, really cheap stuff. I'm likely to end up with 2.4 ghz and 5Ghz units just for spec analysis on the cheap. The units then double as AP's / routers / Bridges. (And at around $100 each, they're pretty awesome - Bullet M5, and Nano Station M5's for example.Find a wireless N bridge that will hold links over miles that are that cheap anywhere else!)
For around $100 you could have a nice AP and a spec unit in the same hardware. Antenna, unless built into the unit is a bit more difficult/pricey, but still do-able.
Anyway, I've got a setup using them in a PtMP setup, and though it's not miles, I'm seriously impressed - and the cost factor is simply *insanely* cheap.
http://www.ubnt.com/
-Greg
Because 5E is certainly capable for Gb speeds - no problem at all.
Also, 5E is a lot less expensive, and less fragile.
I suppose that there's some chance that when Gb is not adequate, Cat6 will have some additional bandwidth available, such as 10Gb/s or some-such. But it's going to be a long while before any reasonable desktop can handle 1Gb/s, much less 10Gb/s.
Cat6 is just a whole ball of wax that doesn't _currently_ offer any performance advantages for virtually any user outside a data-center - and that "currently" isn't likely to change for some time. Since it's cheaper and less problem prone, etc - why not.
-Greg
I thought I'd reply to this...
I'm not sure I'd agree with the "guilt" portion.
In short, the lab totally screwed up a (comparatively) very simple test that "showed" guilt.
In the course of the case, it was clear they had totally botched that simple test.
A much more technically difficult test using mass spectroscopy was a follow-up to the original test. The software on the MS machine was out of date and not certified for use in that configuration etc.
The prosecution wants us to believe that even though the lab couldn't get a simple test right, the exceedingly more complex task was, and that we should rely on that test to hold Landis guilty.
There are numerous other technical/procedural issues raised that also cause me great pause. [For example, a minor screw-up - taking a vitamin supplement that is tainted [but taken without malice] is enough to get you banned without recourse. However, if the lab screws up procedures and labeling and there is no penalty.]
So, while he did "fail a doping test" - I'm not sure I think the test was valid.
1000 kCal/hour isn't unrealistic. I'd expect it doesn't happen in those with serious weight problems for physical mobility reasons, though.
But as I've said upthread, I'm only 5'7" and 135lbs and I burn around 1000 kCal/hour during a workout.
Now, yes, it's intense - about an hour at very near maximum HR the entire time - but even at my size, 1000 kCal/hour is possible. Someone a fair bit bigger can probably do quite a lot more.
Now, as far as the parent losing 25 Lbs/month - I'd expect that's either not true, or very harmful to ones health. Those kind of weight loss deltas are not possible while also remaining healthy, IMO. (That's around 1lb/day - which isn't realistic.)
-Greg
Not sure how the parent does this, but I use a heart rate monitor.
A typical outing is around an hour at 80-90+% of maximum HR. (In my case, that's 150-180 BPM, with max being ~180) Most of the time is spent above 155-160, and into 170+. However, once I burst up into the mid 170's - I have to back off fairly quickly since staying there will really crack you in a hurry - and once you're cracked you might as well go home.
Now it's a really severe work-out, and it's around 1000 kCal/hour - but yes, it isn't impossible. Harder than most people are willing to work, but it's quite possible.
Now, given my size, it's relatively a huge work-out, since I'm about 135lbs and 5'7". If you're a lot larger you ought to burn a lot more.
I would also point out that MS does not really pay taxes. This is just another expense that gets passed to the consumer.
What's stupid about this comment is the flip side.
It's as if MS simply HAS to increase the price when they pay taxes.
But, then since they're only doing it because they have to make a small profit, then we can expect them to reduce the cost of the product when they start making too much money? Bah - everyone knows the reverse is crazy - there's simply almost no company that will do that.
They'll make as much as possible - regardless of what's fair.
And they'll eat the tax costs when they have to also.
It's not like Microsoft is barely profitable, and when they have to pay an extra 1% in tax they'll have to raise the price of their product to remain profitable.
---
Finally...lets look at the macro view...
So, when everything is netted out, more tax probably does mean a bit more in the cost of the product. But take that further and look at the macro environment. If MS isn't paying those taxes, and the people want those services, they're going to be paying those costs somewhere else anyway. (i.e. They'll tax someone else...)
The final logic simply says that having MS pay those taxes might mean their product costs slightly more, but something else will cost slightly less.
Net effect? Zero.
By *default* XP doesn't have RDP running.
But how many run XP in it's "defualt" configuration.
Run RDP and you're screwed, at least as far as anyone can tell.
It appears that with ANY listening service, which probably includes RDP, your XP station is vulnerable.
And forbid that you might be running some other agent/VNC/or other listening service.
To be clear... It appears that any non-firewalled listening service opens up this vulnerability. (ie. You run RDP and actually allow that port through even a running firewall. [You know, like it's not a lot of good running RDP if you can't get to it since it's firewalled.])
Go read the transcript. MS uses all sorts of weasel language to avoid the questions asked.
At best that means that someone could DoS all your XP stations (perhaps they'll have to be inside your network, but the next spyware/trojan infection could take down the whole network.) [This is true ONLY if the weasel explanation MS gave is actually what it appears - and given the true weasel nature, I'd guess it isn't.]
At worst, that next spyware/trojan could do remote code execution on the whole network running XP and turn everything into a zombie bot-net.
Oh, where do I sign up for that. That sounds like real fun!
-Greg
rdiff-backup is your friend.
Reverse diffs and all their goodness.
Not as good as full individual copies on tape, but given the situation, not bad either.
-Greg
Oh, and just to show how stupid the "Women will hate Obama" meme is:
Newsweek poll 9-12-08
Clinton supporters: 77% vs 16% BO/JM (77% vs 16% support BO instead of JM)
So, the numbers of professed Hillary supporters supporting McCain are pretty dang small. I'm guessing it's going to get smaller toward election day too.
And in another poll:
Time from 9-17-08
Women voters: 54% vs 38% BO/JM
That's an 18 point margin among women generally that favors BO.
So, not only is the premise that voters were disenfranchised wrong, but further that they are going to vote for JM in mass instead of BO - because they are so mad about HRC not getting the nomination.
They weren't disenfranchised, and they aren't going to vote for JM in any serious numbers.
What's even more interesting is that it looks like Sara look-at-me-I'm-a-women-almost-just-like-Clinton Palin is going to be a net negative among women voters generally.
-Greg
Perhaps, but no one did this. So, how retrospectively do you determine honestly who won the "popular vote?"
Answer, you really can't.
But even if you *could* definitively do so, it's a useless metric because the rules were that the one with the most delegates won.
Only people losing want to change the rules of the game they agreed to play.
The moral of the story is: If you think the game is unfair, get the rules changed before you play, or simply refuse to play.
-Greg
The rules of football say. The team with the most points wins.
---
Your team is behind on points. You say. Well, the guys who have the most rushing yards should really win. I mean, rushing - that shows you can move the ball. That really means that the team with the most rushing yards wins.
You say "Anyone who disputes that is disenfranchising everyone who things Rushing the the real deal."
---
No, rushing isn't how games are determined. Sure, it's a neat metric, and perhaps it says something interesting.
However, when you started playing the game, you voluntarily agreed to the rules. The rules say it's based on points - and here's how you get them.
If you want to change the rules in the middle of the game, it's clear to me that you've never grown up.
As far as Clinton people wanting to support McCain - be my guest. To think that McCain hold ANY of the values that Clinton holds dear is so misguided it's laughable.
But if people think chopping of their nose to spite their face is a great idea, I can't stop them.
I can say, that if you supported HRC because you believed in the things she believed in, and liked her thinking and policy positions, it would be completely inconceivable to vote for McCain.
Anyway, the base issue is here, that the voters voluntarily joined the party. They knew the party rules and how the primary process worked. That they are angry it works that way is too bad. But HRC and BO and everyone else knew what the deal was.
Perhaps next election cycle we can change things, but that something to do another day. Not in the middle of a race - when your red-herring candidate is losing.
Cheers,
Greg
(Oh and BTW, I'm registered non-affiliated. I didn't vote, and couldn't vote in the Dem primary in my state. So, just get off tying me and the DNC.)
Clinton won the Democratic popular vote, but higher-ups disenfranchised her supporters anyway
Oh, get off it.
Sheesh. The rules for the primaries don't have any frigging thing to do with popular vote.
They have everything to do with delegates.
It's not like Clinton was hoodwinked into thinking she needed to win the popular vote and just stumbled onto the fact that she had to win delegates. She knew from the start.
She talked up how she'd win the delegates - at least she did until she was losing on the race for delegates. Then she (and STOOPID people like you) began harping on the "popular vote."
BO won and HRC lost on the rules of the contest - delegates. If the race had been on popular vote, you would have to assume that all the candidates would run their races differently. (And you can be sure they would have done so.)
Since the primaries are about the candidates meeting the voters and vice-versa, a system that doesn't simply focus on popular vote is probably better. (It tends to get the candidates out to less population dense areas and meet with more people - rather than blasting only at large groups of people...)
Now, if you want to complain that the delegate system currently in place is a poor system, you'd probably get me to agree with you.
BUT! Hillary most certainly didn't get screwed by the party ignoring the "popular vote," That's just the sound of a loser reaching for another set of rules that favors them, when they're losing by the rules they agreed to play by.
And people who do that - they're not only losing, they ARE losers.
-Greg
P.S. And even if you want to play a loser argument...exactly how do you count popular vote in caucus states? Hmmm. Just another huge, gaping, enormous hole in your inane, bullshit postulation that "Clinton won the Democratic popular vote, but higher-ups disenfranchised her supporters anyway"
And I'd bet you are REALLY PISSED that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and the WHOLE FRIGGING NATION was disenfranchised. Right?
Sheesh!
You can argue with my reasoning - and that's all fine and good.
But, "Rabid Partisans"
Where the hell does that come from?
I'll easily consider voting for anyone I consider reasonable - party affiliation not withstanding.
But the logic to make me a "partisan" is simply faulty.
I personally DO think the founders would consider the activity of Nixon and such to be treason - or at a minimum treason-like. (The actions taken were direct threats to the function of a republic.)
The current legal frame-work may not agree with that position, but I think the discussions the framers of the constitution had make clear their most pressing view of "treason" was an external threat - of powers such as Brittan or France inducing a high official to subvert the republic. But I don't think they'd rule out massive election fraud as a treasonable offense either...
I believe massive systemic election rigging would also be considered the equivalent (or close equivalent) to treason by the founders of this country.
Cheers,
Greg
This is a bit late...
But I think this is beyond election fraud.
Since I'm no legal scholar, I wouldn't be surprised if the law doesn't agree with me, but I wouldn't be laughing whatever side is making the charge.
Tampering with elections at this level, with this pervasiveness is far beyond the scope of having dead people vote etc.
This is systemic gaming of the system - one that is exceedingly hard to detect and can dramatically impact many races simultaneously.
IMO, it's kind of like saying the gassing of the Jews during WWII in German concentrations camps was "murder, pure and simple."
It was murder, sure. But it was way beyond that in scope and was a systematic approach that was and is far more chilling than one or a few dozen murders.
Cheers,
Greg
IMO, subverting an election would be very close to "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
The enemies of the Republic would be any that would attempt to subvert the rule of the republic - which would include elections. (This is in practical terms, the equivalent of a coup.)
I'm not sure I exactly agree with this definition, but clearly an argument could be made that subverting elections would in essence be "war" against the republic.
It's certainly on less shaky ground than our governments declaration that all held at Guantanamo are legitimately held "unlawful combatants."
-Greg
I can assure you that while a death from a heart-attack is no picnic, I've personally watched someone die from CJD (sporadic) - a non transmitted variant of CJD - and it's really, really ugly. Admittedly, deaths of those who caught CJD from BSE infected cattle appears to be very small - but it's a rather horrid way to die. (I was in the room when he died, BTW.) [I should clarify, he didn't die of variant CJD (the version from BSE infected cattle) but from sporadic CJD - a slightly different disease, but with very similar paths and the same terminal outcome.]
I guess I'd say that I can choose to avoid trans-fats etc, but I may well be unable to avoid cloned derived products, or certainly not with any ease or certainty. This makes my ability to avoid potential damage a lot harder.
While we may think odd damage to DNA won't cause any problems, I don't believe we know with any certainty it won't.
I say go ahead, do GM foods, cloning etc. Just make the producers put up a 10 trillion dollar bond. If the risks are SO well quantified, and that no risk exists, the cost of than 10 trillion bond should be very very small. But we both know it won't be small because no-one really actually KNOWS the real risk.
And, IMO, when we really don't actually know the risk, we ought to tread very lightly.
-Greg