I should have bathed a little more regularly and thoroughly.
And I should have been a lot more presumptuous in the pursuit of sex. I viewed females as much more different in motivation than they actually are. Some are lonesome and looking to not be. It's hard to know which, but getting turned down hurts less than cumulative celibacy.
And Julie, if you happen to be reading this, please accept my apologies for being so obtuse.
I have a 19 month old son. He LOVES to type away at the keyboard, even when it's not his turn. I'm not sure if it is intrinsically interesting or his powerful hunger to mimic the adults around him. He can carry on a 1-sided conversation on a disconnected phone that is uncanny. "Hawo? Yeah. Bye-bye!" Pronunciation is a little unpolished, but his tone is spot-on.
How W. made his money: government seized property for the stadium site and much surrounding acreage for development of restaurants and bars and such. Imminent Domain made the land grab cheap. And the team owners benefitted from the surrounding development.
If there is a case for seizing private property by a government to build a sports stadium (and I doubt there is), there is no case for what happened in Arlington. No case but corruption.
He once posited that you basically figure out what attractiveness cohort you are in, and go across and start courting in the corresponding cohort of females. (If that's what you are after)
He then determined that, actually, the men in the top 10% bracket were banging everything in sight. We're actually herd animals with dominant males having harems.
I read "Waiting to Exhale", a chick book by an african american author. I was trying to broaden my horizens a bit from the white male science fiction usual suspects. (and maybe pick up some insight into female psychology) I had absolutely no sympathy for the female characters who were whining about the scarcity of absolutely perfect men, and the advantages taken by the very few who met all the criteria. There was nothing steller about any of them that would lead someone to forgoe the advantages they had. If I had dozens of not-that-special women clamoring for me, why pick just one? If you are that greedy and picky, you don't particularly deserve to be rewarded with faithfulness and devotion, you know?
Fortunately for me, I found my asperger-friendly partner. 2.5 years hitched, several years of history before that. We fit. The big thing for me is feeling like her thought processes don't make her a different species. She's also cute. Makes good babies. Is very, very tolerant. We met through a chain of geek acquantences, one introducing me to the next, until we met. My strategy - hanging out with geeks and geek-friendly women - worked out for me. Hiding in my apartment, waiting for them to seek me out - not so much.
The basic approach in the book makes some intuitive sense - try out different partners. It takes a while to figure out what will work for you, what traits you need in another person to be happy.
Needs to do some optimizing
on
Mathematics and Sex
·
· Score: 2, Informative
His search strategy is off.
Sure, a small proportion of the total population is actually eligible, but he can screen more than one candidate / day. Many will not meet his age requirements, attractiveness requirements, etc.
Apply some crypto-fu, take some shortcuts. Don't solve the problem the hardest way.
Of course, it's actually harder than he figures. I think the number of folks I could actually hang with lifetime are more than two standard deviations from norm...
I am on a first name basis because I sat through a dog & pony show he did at SANS last year...
They work pretty hard on Snort. It works really well. I can make it work really, really well for my net. Thanks! It sounds like you resent that they incorporate users' patches and such. That's the point of Open Source. If you don't like it, fork it. It's cool that they can make this great tool available to us, do some value-added work and profit. They aren't shipping Snort as cripple ware, a teaser, or come-on. They are selling stuff that they pay developers to come up with. If the add-on is worth the money, people can buy it. If not, or the money isn't there, the world still has a free tool that kicks ass.
Compared with others methods? This is weird. You can factor out hurricane relief. By the way, if God is telling us anything, it's that he hates red counties in Florida. Hurricane damage/landfalls in the past season veers around blue areas to get to red ones.
Also, Pat Robertson's town of Virginia Beach was hit shortly after he warned Florida was due to be smitten because Disneyworld extended benefits to partners in same-sex couples.
From this, I conclude that God does not appreciate being spoken for. Seek to know God's will, don't presume to state, without humility, what that will is. Spoken with humility...
In 2002 the governer had a huge lead in the polls and was defeated. Also, a popular Vietnam vet incumbant (who left most of his limbs in Vietnam) was defeated for Senate, by a draft-dodging empty suit. Again, polls showed a commanding lead for the incumbant.
on the HP, the command line to set ports 1,13, 22-24 for vlan 200 is: config t (same as cisco) vlan 200 untagged 1,13,22-24
All done. Imagine your joy setting this for 172 ports on a fairly typical HP4108gl, vs your misery doing it one port at a time on a cisco 3548. Probably should exit config mode and save, but that's not unique to HP. "Tag" is literally what vlan config does. If you are cisco-trunking (more than one vlan across a single physical link), the ethernet datagram gets a vlan tag to separate it from the 'native' vlan of the link. HP doesn't obfuscate that the way Cisco commands do.
To make port 25 what cisco calls a trunk, and pass traffic for vlan 200 and 300 on it, vlan 200 native:
int vlan 200 untagged 25 int vlan 300 tagged 25
done. I've had some real problems getting the right config for a cisco switch to interoperate with the HP, but not vice-versa.
You can also use a text-based menu, and toggle the vlan state (untagged, no, forbid, tagged) for each port. You see them all side by side, and that helps make sure you got the config correct.
The cisco stuff just seemed crankier and less intuitive- on the cat2924, anyway, and to a lesser extent the 3548. I have two 3548s that will silently fail any vlan config commands - it accepts them, but no port behavior changes. Pending a catos update, they are basically netgears with a price tag.
I grant that it is a feature to offer vlan types besides dot1q, but not one I welcome.
Finally, on the higher end, we are burdened with VTP. I may be a luddite; I'm willing to grant that possibility for the sake of argument. But I hate automagic stuff like vtp. This just does not seem like the sort of thing we should trust our net infrastructure to work out as its whim dictates. This kind of thing just doesn't save enough sysadmin time to make up for the weird errors and such. And it's hard to turn vtp off.
This post took on a lecturing tone - sorry about that. I don't presume to have greater knowledge of cisco and vlan tech.
1) Cost. We could buy NEW HP layer 2 switches for the price of refurb/used Cisco l2 switches. And the HP kit comes with a product lifetime warranty.
2) Support cost. We're planning to replace our Cisco 12000 GSRs with Foundry or Juniper stuff. The maintenance contract cost alone justifies trashing the old equipment and buying new. WTF?
3) IOS/CatOS variety Ever read a nightmarish vulnerability alert and had to figure out if it applied to you? And if so, what you need to upgrade to? There are THOUSANDS of versions, most of which are described generically. And at least once I've been told that a fix was backported, so the version number didn't increment.
4) Usability - HP kicks their asses at the access switch level. It is much easier to set up a bunch of inter-tied VLANS. The syntax is clearer and cleaner. I think every config I've tried to do is easier on the HP family. We updated a bunch of equipment all at once, mostly one model (HP2524, with a few HP4108gl's). It may be that other members of the product line are lame.
I will grant that Cisco tech support is good, and their stuff is good. But there are definitely elements of "We're No. 1, so open your wallet"
The responsibility goes as high as Rumsfeld, and not just because he's in charge. This was a predictable, massive fuckup, and the only instructions to come from the Administration would tend to encourage abuse of prisoners.
Per NGO estimates, 90% of whom were not involved in combat. Think some of them are now? Or their friends and relations?
A little bit of fraud, a little bit of fear, a massive amount of lies and smears - and the collective ignorance of the republican voter is what won it.
The majority of Bush supporters believe Saddam had WMDs. A near-plurality believe they were actually found.
The majority of Bush supporters believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11
Bush supporters believe world opinion supported the invasion of Iraq.
Bush supporters have no idea he flip-flopped on the core campaign issue of gay marriage/civil unions, about a week before the election.
"Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues."
Did he misquote other vets who spoke of atrocities witnessed and committed? They happened. Truth dishonors noone. Is there any doubt poorly-led American troops are, much like other folks, capable of torture? Hint:
Vietnam was an occupation. We don't do those well. It is inherently dishonorable to fight that kind of war.
Kerry was right to do what he could to truthfully testify to what was going on, in an attempt to end it. What can there be to dispute? Do you have an answer to his question? How do you ask someone to be the last one to die for a mistake? It was a mistake.
The reality based faction has its points. We suck at winning elections, but we're not delusional.
Who's the demagogue? Who ran a gay-baiting campaign to bring the fundies out of the woodwork? And then quietly said civil unions were o.k.?
The reason the Swift Boat liars came out was because Kerry took a principled stand to end the horror in Vietnam. He was right. In his testimony and his stance.
We know Bush isn't fit to be president - he was asleep at the switch when we got hit on 9/11, his compulsive secrecy undermines the Republic, he invaded the WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY and did it ineptly. Yet "things are going great in Iraq." If they were going great WE WOULD BE WITHDRAWING BY NOW.
No, the reason we Dems lost is because elections are beauty contests. Most Bush supporters have very little idea what he stands for. Polls show most of them believe he supports the Kyoto limits on greenhouse gases, is concerned about the deficit, would increase taxes on the wealthiest, wants healthcare coverage for all americans, etc. Most of them believe WMDs were FOUND in Iraq, and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
They went for the Bush brand, and found some reasons after the fact for doing so. Just like people buy cars.
a) what's the evidence that Bush turned the economy around? Recessions rarely last 4 years. I think this one fixed itself, in spite of Bush. He did do lots of Keynesian deficit spending, for a very sluggish result. The tax cuts did not increase the pool of investment capital much - money was cheap, it is still cheap. Supply side is pushing on a string. Now, if he had extended unemployment benefits or lowered payroll taxes, he would have put money in the hands of spenders. That would have heated up the economy. Anyone needed capital to make money off of those spenders would have found it. The deficit threatens to raise interest rates, so the tax cuts are pretty self-defeating.
b) he freed a tiny portion of Afghanistan, and allowed the rest to fall back into the hands of the warlords. The country is awash in opium and guns. Many of the guns are trained on Karzai. You will note that OBL was not apprehended in Afghanistan.
c) granted
d) In a characteristic move, he underfunded "NCLB" once the political advantage had been milked.
Let's look at a few more:
e) reducing the size of government. NOPE. And did you see how he proposed more spending at his convention than Kerry did in Boston?
Incompetent at war, delusional in peace. What do you see in the guy? He's not resolute - the go/stop in Falluja this spring just wasted a lot of marines for nothing. Exactly the sort of civilian interference that drove the military nuts in Vietnam.
National security betrayal: one or more of his top officials leaked the name of a CIA operative to exact revenge on her husband, who told the truth about the Nigerian Yellowcake fiasco. No arrests. They burned an investigation by leaking the name of an identified al-quaeda operative, pissing off both British and Pakistani intelligence agencies. They needed some press, so national security be damned. No arrests for that, either. Compare and contrast with the "Travelgate" scandal.
It may fail the realtpolitik test, but after much flip-flopping, liberation is apparently why we we invaded.
I have not heard even a trial balloon to the effect of "We invaded to establish a client state." I don't think that's what Congress voted for, and I don't think that's what Bush is running on.
Slashdot Mirror
I should have taken up soccer in 10th grade.
I should have bathed a little more regularly and thoroughly.
And I should have been a lot more presumptuous in the pursuit of sex. I viewed females as much more different in motivation than they actually are. Some are lonesome and looking to not be. It's hard to know which, but getting turned down hurts less than cumulative celibacy.
And Julie, if you happen to be reading this, please accept my apologies for being so obtuse.
I had a machine on my net that was using a list of roughly 1000 proxies to load a web bug. I figured it was a pay for click scam.
someone caught his neighbors hopping on his unsecured AP. He uploaded horse porn.
http://www.bash.org/?202477
Nah - just amputate his limbs and do medical experiments on him.
Those are off the menu as of now...
I have a 19 month old son. He LOVES to type away at the keyboard, even when it's not his turn. I'm not sure if it is intrinsically interesting or his powerful hunger to mimic the adults around him. He can carry on a 1-sided conversation on a disconnected phone that is uncanny. "Hawo? Yeah. Bye-bye!" Pronunciation is a little unpolished, but his tone is spot-on.
How W. made his money: government seized property for the stadium site and much surrounding acreage for development of restaurants and bars and such. Imminent Domain made the land grab cheap. And the team owners benefitted from the surrounding development.
If there is a case for seizing private property by a government to build a sports stadium (and I doubt there is), there is no case for what happened in Arlington. No case but corruption.
Nothing like the sacredness of property, eh?
"Dipshit" is a little closer.
Kerry got the second most, ever. More population means more of everything.
It's like when they trot out the old, "Home ownership is at the highest level..." when the economy is so weak they can't drum up any other stat.
They did that this time around.
He once posited that you basically figure out what attractiveness cohort you are in, and go across and start courting in the corresponding cohort of females. (If that's what you are after)
He then determined that, actually, the men in the top 10% bracket were banging everything in sight. We're actually herd animals with dominant males having harems.
I read "Waiting to Exhale", a chick book by an african american author. I was trying to broaden my horizens a bit from the white male science fiction usual suspects. (and maybe pick up some insight into female psychology) I had absolutely no sympathy for the female characters who were whining about the scarcity of absolutely perfect men, and the advantages taken by the very few who met all the criteria. There was nothing steller about any of them that would lead someone to forgoe the advantages they had. If I had dozens of not-that-special women clamoring for me, why pick just one? If you are that greedy and picky, you don't particularly deserve to be rewarded with faithfulness and devotion, you know?
Fortunately for me, I found my asperger-friendly partner. 2.5 years hitched, several years of history before that. We fit. The big thing for me is feeling like her thought processes don't make her a different species. She's also cute. Makes good babies. Is very, very tolerant. We met through a chain of geek acquantences, one introducing me to the next, until we met. My strategy - hanging out with geeks and geek-friendly women - worked out for me. Hiding in my apartment, waiting for them to seek me out - not so much.
The basic approach in the book makes some intuitive sense - try out different partners. It takes a while to figure out what will work for you, what traits you need in another person to be happy.
His search strategy is off.
Sure, a small proportion of the total population is actually eligible, but he can screen more than one candidate / day. Many will not meet his age requirements, attractiveness requirements, etc.
Apply some crypto-fu, take some shortcuts. Don't solve the problem the hardest way.
Of course, it's actually harder than he figures. I think the number of folks I could actually hang with lifetime are more than two standard deviations from norm...
An old Bachelor Party toast -
"Here's to nights of unrestricted access to sex...how you'll miss it!"
I am on a first name basis because I sat through a dog & pony show he did at SANS last year...
They work pretty hard on Snort. It works really well. I can make it work really, really well for my net. Thanks! It sounds like you resent that they incorporate users' patches and such. That's the point of Open Source. If you don't like it, fork it. It's cool that they can make this great tool available to us, do some value-added work and profit. They aren't shipping Snort as cripple ware, a teaser, or come-on. They are selling stuff that they pay developers to come up with. If the add-on is worth the money, people can buy it. If not, or the money isn't there, the world still has a free tool that kicks ass.
They aren't evil, they are heroes.
Compared with others methods? This is weird. You can factor out hurricane relief. By the way, if God is telling us anything, it's that he hates red counties in Florida. Hurricane damage/landfalls in the past season veers around blue areas to get to red ones.
Also, Pat Robertson's town of Virginia Beach was hit shortly after he warned Florida was due to be smitten because Disneyworld extended benefits to partners in same-sex couples.
From this, I conclude that God does not appreciate being spoken for. Seek to know God's will, don't presume to state, without humility, what that will is. Spoken with humility...
In 2002 the governer had a huge lead in the polls and was defeated. Also, a popular Vietnam vet incumbant (who left most of his limbs in Vietnam) was defeated for Senate, by a draft-dodging empty suit. Again, polls showed a commanding lead for the incumbant.
Couple of examples:
on the HP, the command line to set ports 1,13, 22-24 for vlan 200 is:
config t (same as cisco)
vlan 200
untagged 1,13,22-24
All done. Imagine your joy setting this for 172 ports on a fairly typical HP4108gl, vs your misery doing it one port at a time on a cisco 3548. Probably should exit config mode and save, but that's not unique to HP. "Tag" is literally what vlan config does. If you are cisco-trunking (more than one vlan across a single physical link), the ethernet datagram gets a vlan tag to separate it from the 'native' vlan of the link. HP doesn't obfuscate that the way Cisco commands do.
switchport access native vlan foo
switchport trunk allowed vlan foo, bar
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
switchport trunk mode trunk
Plus pruning!
To make port 25 what cisco calls a trunk, and pass traffic for vlan 200 and 300 on it, vlan 200 native:
int vlan 200
untagged 25
int vlan 300
tagged 25
done. I've had some real problems getting the right config for a cisco switch to interoperate with the HP, but not vice-versa.
You can also use a text-based menu, and toggle the vlan state (untagged, no, forbid, tagged) for each port. You see them all side by side, and that helps make sure you got the config correct.
The cisco stuff just seemed crankier and less intuitive- on the cat2924, anyway, and to a lesser extent the 3548. I have two 3548s that will silently fail any vlan config commands - it accepts them, but no port behavior changes. Pending a catos update, they are basically netgears with a price tag.
I grant that it is a feature to offer vlan types besides dot1q, but not one I welcome.
Finally, on the higher end, we are burdened with VTP. I may be a luddite; I'm willing to grant that possibility for the sake of argument. But I hate automagic stuff like vtp. This just does not seem like the sort of thing we should trust our net infrastructure to work out as its whim dictates. This kind of thing just doesn't save enough sysadmin time to make up for the weird errors and such. And it's hard to turn vtp off.
This post took on a lecturing tone - sorry about that. I don't presume to have greater knowledge of cisco and vlan tech.
Oh - Snort rocks!
I have some complaints about Cisco.
1) Cost. We could buy NEW HP layer 2 switches for the price of refurb/used Cisco l2 switches. And the HP kit comes with a product lifetime warranty.
2) Support cost. We're planning to replace our Cisco 12000 GSRs with Foundry or Juniper stuff. The maintenance contract cost alone justifies trashing the old equipment and buying new. WTF?
3) IOS/CatOS variety Ever read a nightmarish vulnerability alert and had to figure out if it applied to you? And if so, what you need to upgrade to? There are THOUSANDS of versions, most of which are described generically. And at least once I've been told that a fix was backported, so the version number didn't increment.
4) Usability - HP kicks their asses at the access switch level. It is much easier to set up a bunch of inter-tied VLANS. The syntax is clearer and cleaner. I think every config I've tried to do is easier on the HP family. We updated a bunch of equipment all at once, mostly one model (HP2524, with a few HP4108gl's). It may be that other members of the product line are lame.
I will grant that Cisco tech support is good, and their stuff is good. But there are definitely elements of "We're No. 1, so open your wallet"
The central tabulation in OH is a windows box with an access database.
So it doesn't really matter what voting machine is used. The tally is on a partisan machine.
The responsibility goes as high as Rumsfeld, and not just because he's in charge. This was a predictable, massive fuckup, and the only instructions to come from the Administration would tend to encourage abuse of prisoners.
Per NGO estimates, 90% of whom were not involved in combat. Think some of them are now? Or their friends and relations?
A little bit of fraud, a little bit of fear, a massive amount of lies and smears - and the collective ignorance of the republican voter is what won it.
_ 04 /Report10_21_04.pdf
The majority of Bush supporters believe Saddam had WMDs. A near-plurality believe they were actually found.
The majority of Bush supporters believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11
Bush supporters believe world opinion supported the invasion of Iraq.
Bush supporters have no idea he flip-flopped on the core campaign issue of gay marriage/civil unions, about a week before the election.
"Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues."
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election
Living a crack free existence. Try it.
Did he misquote other vets who spoke of atrocities witnessed and committed? They happened. Truth dishonors noone. Is there any doubt poorly-led American troops are, much like other folks, capable of torture? Hint:
http://www.aztlan.net/us_torture_pows.htm
Vietnam was an occupation. We don't do those well. It is inherently dishonorable to fight that kind of war.
Kerry was right to do what he could to truthfully testify to what was going on, in an attempt to end it. What can there be to dispute? Do you have an answer to his question? How do you ask someone to be the last one to die for a mistake? It was a mistake.
to Dr. Koolade
The reality based faction has its points. We suck at winning elections, but we're not delusional.
Who's the demagogue? Who ran a gay-baiting campaign to bring the fundies out of the woodwork? And then quietly said civil unions were o.k.?
The reason the Swift Boat liars came out was because Kerry took a principled stand to end the horror in Vietnam. He was right. In his testimony and his stance.
We know Bush isn't fit to be president - he was asleep at the switch when we got hit on 9/11, his compulsive secrecy undermines the Republic, he invaded the WRONG FUCKING COUNTRY and did it ineptly. Yet "things are going great in Iraq." If they were going great WE WOULD BE WITHDRAWING BY NOW.
No, the reason we Dems lost is because elections are beauty contests. Most Bush supporters have very little idea what he stands for. Polls show most of them believe he supports the Kyoto limits on greenhouse gases, is concerned about the deficit, would increase taxes on the wealthiest, wants healthcare coverage for all americans, etc. Most of them believe WMDs were FOUND in Iraq, and that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
They went for the Bush brand, and found some reasons after the fact for doing so. Just like people buy cars.
None are necessary. Ugh.
I realize that's a tired metaphor, but I'm tired.
a) what's the evidence that Bush turned the economy around? Recessions rarely last 4 years. I think this one fixed itself, in spite of Bush. He did do lots of Keynesian deficit spending, for a very sluggish result. The tax cuts did not increase the pool of investment capital much - money was cheap, it is still cheap. Supply side is pushing on a string. Now, if he had extended unemployment benefits or lowered payroll taxes, he would have put money in the hands of spenders. That would have heated up the economy. Anyone needed capital to make money off of those spenders would have found it. The deficit threatens to raise interest rates, so the tax cuts are pretty self-defeating.
b) he freed a tiny portion of Afghanistan, and allowed the rest to fall back into the hands of the warlords. The country is awash in opium and guns. Many of the guns are trained on Karzai. You will note that OBL was not apprehended in Afghanistan.
c) granted
d) In a characteristic move, he underfunded "NCLB" once the political advantage had been milked.
Let's look at a few more:
e) reducing the size of government. NOPE.
And did you see how he proposed more spending at his convention than Kerry did in Boston?
Incompetent at war, delusional in peace. What do you see in the guy? He's not resolute - the go/stop in Falluja this spring just wasted a lot of marines for nothing. Exactly the sort of civilian interference that drove the military nuts in Vietnam.
National security betrayal: one or more of his top officials leaked the name of a CIA operative to exact revenge on her husband, who told the truth about the Nigerian Yellowcake fiasco. No arrests. They burned an investigation by leaking the name of an identified al-quaeda operative, pissing off both British and Pakistani intelligence agencies. They needed some press, so national security be damned. No arrests for that, either. Compare and contrast with the "Travelgate" scandal.
It may fail the realtpolitik test, but after much flip-flopping, liberation is apparently why we we invaded.
I have not heard even a trial balloon to the effect of "We invaded to establish a client state." I don't think that's what Congress voted for, and I don't think that's what Bush is running on.