Yeah, too bad you and several mods are too busy being pedantic pricks. The OP's argument, though not new, points out that there is this overabundance of "blame the victim" here on/. when it comes to cybercrime. Did you have a point to make? I mean, other than you're a pedantic prick?
Let X1 be the event that a cell phone user gets brain cancer on the same side as he/she uses the cell phone. Let X2 be the event that a cell phone user gets cancer on the other side.
Hypothesis 1: P(X1) > P(X2) Result: At an appropriate level of confidence, P(X1) > P(X2)
Let Y1 be the event that a cell phone user gets brain cancer. Let Y2 be the event that a person not using a cell phone gets brain cancer.
Hypothesis 2: P(Y1) > P(Y2) Result: There is insufficient evidence to conclude P(Y1) > P(Y2)
So now we have a problem. We have no evidence to conclude that P(Y1) and P(Y2) are different, yet P(X1) > P(X2), meaning somehow cancer cells have an affinity for MIGRATING towards cell phones... or the X1 sample was biased. Since there was no way of objectively determining which side of the head a cell phone user used most often retrospectively, a presumption of bias is appropriate in this case.
As Mark Twain once said: It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Re-read what I wrote and maybe google a little.
To be fair to the post you're replying to, I interpretted "120mm" as a mistaken reference to "120 format" which is the format that most 645, 6x6 and 6x7 shots are taken on. A few use 220 format, which is almost just a longer 120 roll.
For display, I would never take a 35mm image higher than 5x7
What film are you using? I wouldn't hesitate to take a 35mm negative on Kodak Portra up to 8x10. I have Provia slides that I think would zoom to 11x14 and still be display quality.
Somewhat offtopic, but I have taken 35mm Ilford Delta 100 up to 11x14 many times and been pleased with the results. But B&W film is a somewhat different beast.
And for some people, such as my parents, it is by far better to just stick with analog stuff. At least B&W photography has a verified lifetime exceeding 100 years, and not just a calculated expected lifetime.
Yes and no. As one who spent many years with his own B&W dark room in his home, your typical B&W print is no longer archival. Unless you spend the considerable extra money to buy fiber based paper and wash your prints for a couple hours there's no telling how long they will last.
B&W negatives, of course, still last a good century. Assuming you don't throw them out and store them properly.
This conversation seems to come up about once a year on slashdot. I'm glad someone besides me pointed out the painfully obvious: There are archival quality CD's. I'm glad someone pointed this out early this time. Every time this conversation comes up, it is the same damned thing. Some expert pointing out that CD's that cost a nickel a piece don't last very long. News flash! Cheap stuff isn't long lived!
For those reading this and are confused about these mysterious CD's, follow this:
Those are moderately pricely but extremely long lived CD-Rs. Don't store your valuable family photos on the 5 cent CD-Rs from Costco. Spend some money and store your photos on something that will be around long after your great grandchildren have passed.
Maybe you should go tell Chevron that Gasoline isn't volatile. They've only made tens of billions of dollars on their understanding of gasoline, perhaps your new information would allow them to make more.
As the previous post pointed out, both those pages were for minimal systems. Didn't you notice that one of those Dell's was only $499? It still came with a 40GB drive.
Yes, because of those strongly westerly breezes on the moon that blow the dust around... Come on, unless the base walls move and someone keeps kicking dust at them, they will be just fine.
The language is neither archaic, nor hard to understand. It is actually relatively recently that historical revisionists with a religious agenda have gone back and muddied the meaning by combining establishment meaning "established church" and establishment meaning "public or private institution." And then carrying that so far as to imply that it is okay to give a nod to one religion as long as there are many denominations of it.
Reading other works by the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights makes it abundantly clear that the intention was separation of church and state. But more importantly it should be obvious to any clear headed individual that when you mix church and state the results have been disasterous EVERY TIME.
One might also note that the biggest pundit of "the constitution only says we can't create a STATE religion" is Pat Robertson. This is the guy who publicly advocates assassination of foreign leaders and publicly implies that God's wrath should befall cities who remove school board officials which support his idealogy.
The onus is on the person who uses this information to actually go out and kill the doctors in question.
Oh come on, you aren't that stupid. The information has only to be used ONCE, regardless of whether the individual using this information is apprehended, tried or convicted. From then on the list represents fear and intimidation you can use to limit your opponent's freedom.
Actually, he's right. The cops aren't obligated to do anything whatsoever about your actions.
Take for example a gander at this. Specifically 51.5. Or maybe this federal job posting for a police officer, particularly where it mentions "immediately responds to reports of a crime or a crime-in-progress, and intervenes to abort the criminal act".
That isn't "tyranny" to anyone but a raving socialist.
tyranny. For those who are historically ignorant: being kicked out in the middle of winter could easily translate to death or lifelong debilitation for you, your spouse and/or your children. It was a very real threat: it was too far to walk to shelter; you couldn't afford a car; you couldn't save for a car because the company store had jacked the prices on everything; you couldn't go to another job because it was too far away; and if you tried, your family was out on their ass.
If you refuse those choices, I'll call the nice sheriff and have your sorry ass hauled off to jail for trespassing.
Is this the same Sheriff who isn't obligated to do anything? Why would he bother doing such a thing?
Yeah, like I really want some of my Slashdot posts to affect my Wikipedia karma...
Every now and then I'll really piss someone off in a thread and for a month afterwards get spurious "overrated" moderations to my posts for a month. I don't know if slashcode ever fixed this, but it used to be that I discovered this happened because my karma dropped from 50 to 49 or 48 (the old 50 + 1 - 1 = 49 trick). And they would not be subject to metamoderation of course. Slashdot's moderation system is as useful as a weapon as it is a tool quality control.
I think a universal "moderation" system could be a good idea, but slashdot, being among the first to have such a system, has been so ineffective and/or broken, it has turned everybody off to the idea. (How many +1 insightful/informative posts do you see that are rantings of idealogues with whom the moderator agreed?)
Only in cases of fraud is there any reason to limit speech.
So if an anti-abortion groups publishes the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and time they normally arrive home after work of doctors performing abortions - that isn't fraud, it's just information. It should be protected speech, right? Google for the court's opinion. It doesn't match yours.
Federal agents aren't required, any more than cops, to respond to you yelling "Bomb".
Somewhat wrong. If you shout it in the middle of the woods and there is nobody to hear it, that's true. If you shout it in the middle of the airport, that's entirely false.
It is the simple case that federal agents and cops are there not to prevent crimes but to respond after the fact.
Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime. That argument is going to be circular. How can you prevent a crime until conspiracy to commit a crime has occurred, and then of course it is too late.
But the second they discover you do not have a bomb, they have no basis to stop you from shouting "Bomb" to your hearts content.
Let's conduct an experiment: Go to the airport; don't carry a bomb; shout bomb. When they discover you have no bomb, see if they just let you go. Explain to the judge your rantings on the 1st amendment.
If neighborhoods do not want outsiders yelling on their streets, they should own them so they can kick people out.
Yeah the Steel towns tried this already. The company owned the whole town - streets, houses, stores, everything. Trying to organize a union? Suddenly you, your wife, your children, will find themselves homeless out in the snow in the middle of winter. As with many things, such tyranny was eventually made illegal. It isn't enough to own the streets. You would have to be in a gated community with an effective means of keeping the unwanted people out and a fair process for expelling those already there.
Your employer may terminate you at any time after you've given notice provided they pay out the legally allowed notice time. Depending on the state this varies from 1 month to 2 weeks (that is, an employee cannot say "I'm quitting in 5 years" and expect 5 years severance if they walk him to the door).
If your friend was on his way out and affecting morale, his employer's only obligation was 2 weeks to 1 month of pay and they could boot him to the door. This isn't constructive dismissal, it's absolute dismissal.
Your friend was lucky. He was working at a company that was brain dead.
The company should have just escorted him from the building and told him never to come back. Even if it was an office building and he was hanging out in the corridors, unless he has legitimate business there, the company is within its right to have him escorted out if he is disrupting productivity in any way.
Tip to the wise: don't try this at your work. They'll kick your ass out *and* give you a bad reference.
Cell phone ring tones are about identifying you to the rest of the world: "Look I have the latest 50 Cent song as my ring tone, I am def gangsta cracker fan boy!" They appeal to people in a group identity kind of way.
A song you listen to on your iPod is there only for you.
Yes, it all sounds so simple... except how do you induce this high rate of mutations? Oh, you suggested radiation. Grand idea, except you don't seem to understand that radiation is not only mutagenic, but lethal. You have to play a balancing game between increasing mutation rate, and increasing mortality. The higher your mortality rate, the higher the probability that a "good" mutation will be killed due to radiation even though it had a survival advantage in heat.
You want to take a process that normally takes at least 1,000 years and cut it down to 20 years. By doing that your experiment becomes simple (um, have you ever applied for 20 years of grant funding??).
It is not as easy as you say. Your entire thought experiment hinges on fast mutation with low mortality. You haven't solved that problem.
I would still be curious to see this one brought through a full trial. Although there are people out there who religiously believe that if you build a linux kernel driver and distribute it, you absolutely must release the source code, if I remember correctly, Linus is not one of those.
Think about it... If I wrote software which contains none of your IP, but can be loaded by your product, you want your license to force itself on me. Huh? Could a bolt manufacturer force all nut manufacturers to abide by their license agreement in order to use their thread dimensions? (assuming the bolt isn't patent encumbered, of course)
To me the importance of the Linux kernel being GPL is to prevent anybody from doing an embrace and extend.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, too bad you and several mods are too busy being pedantic pricks. The OP's argument, though not new, points out that there is this overabundance of "blame the victim" here on /. when it comes to cybercrime. Did you have a point to make? I mean, other than you're a pedantic prick?
You're fishing to get naive moderators to mod you up, aren't you?
You're quite a skilled troll I must say!
Your comment assumes people get zero enjoyment out of their hobbies.
The statistics is pretty straight-forward.
Let X1 be the event that a cell phone user gets brain cancer on the same side as he/she uses the cell phone.
Let X2 be the event that a cell phone user gets cancer on the other side.
Hypothesis 1: P(X1) > P(X2)
Result: At an appropriate level of confidence, P(X1) > P(X2)
Let Y1 be the event that a cell phone user gets brain cancer.
Let Y2 be the event that a person not using a cell phone gets brain cancer.
Hypothesis 2: P(Y1) > P(Y2)
Result: There is insufficient evidence to conclude P(Y1) > P(Y2)
So now we have a problem. We have no evidence to conclude that P(Y1) and P(Y2) are different, yet P(X1) > P(X2), meaning somehow cancer cells have an affinity for MIGRATING towards cell phones... or the X1 sample was biased. Since there was no way of objectively determining which side of the head a cell phone user used most often retrospectively, a presumption of bias is appropriate in this case.
As Mark Twain once said: It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Re-read what I wrote and maybe google a little.
Second, it's 6cm, or 60mm film, not 120mm film
To be fair to the post you're replying to, I interpretted "120mm" as a mistaken reference to "120 format" which is the format that most 645, 6x6 and 6x7 shots are taken on. A few use 220 format, which is almost just a longer 120 roll.
For display, I would never take a 35mm image higher than 5x7
What film are you using? I wouldn't hesitate to take a 35mm negative on Kodak Portra up to 8x10. I have Provia slides that I think would zoom to 11x14 and still be display quality.
Somewhat offtopic, but I have taken 35mm Ilford Delta 100 up to 11x14 many times and been pleased with the results. But B&W film is a somewhat different beast.
And for some people, such as my parents, it is by far better to just stick with analog stuff. At least B&W photography has a verified lifetime exceeding 100 years, and not just a calculated expected lifetime.
Yes and no. As one who spent many years with his own B&W dark room in his home, your typical B&W print is no longer archival. Unless you spend the considerable extra money to buy fiber based paper and wash your prints for a couple hours there's no telling how long they will last.
B&W negatives, of course, still last a good century. Assuming you don't throw them out and store them properly.
This conversation seems to come up about once a year on slashdot. I'm glad someone besides me pointed out the painfully obvious: There are archival quality CD's. I'm glad someone pointed this out early this time. Every time this conversation comes up, it is the same damned thing. Some expert pointing out that CD's that cost a nickel a piece don't last very long. News flash! Cheap stuff isn't long lived!
= MAM-A+gold+cd-r&btnG=Search
For those reading this and are confused about these mysterious CD's, follow this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q
Those are moderately pricely but extremely long lived CD-Rs. Don't store your valuable family photos on the 5 cent CD-Rs from Costco. Spend some money and store your photos on something that will be around long after your great grandchildren have passed.
Gold reflective layer CD-R's with a stabilized pthalocyanine dye have an expected shelf life of 200 years.
That's 4 times longer than the expected life of an aluminum reflective layer pressed CD.
Do you even know what volatile means?
Tell you what, why don't you take a look at this:
The key gasoline characteristic for good driveability is volatility -- the gasoline's tendency to vaporize.
Maybe you should go tell Chevron that Gasoline isn't volatile. They've only made tens of billions of dollars on their understanding of gasoline, perhaps your new information would allow them to make more.
Didn't look to close at the pages did you?
As the previous post pointed out, both those pages were for minimal systems. Didn't you notice that one of those Dell's was only $499? It still came with a 40GB drive.
Apple's most popular laptop, the iBook 12" only comes with a 20GB drive, and all of Dell's laptops start at 20GB too.
O RLY?
or corrode a bases walls over time
Yes, because of those strongly westerly breezes on the moon that blow the dust around... Come on, unless the base walls move and someone keeps kicking dust at them, they will be just fine.
The language is neither archaic, nor hard to understand. It is actually relatively recently that historical revisionists with a religious agenda have gone back and muddied the meaning by combining establishment meaning "established church" and establishment meaning "public or private institution." And then carrying that so far as to imply that it is okay to give a nod to one religion as long as there are many denominations of it.
Reading other works by the framers of the constitution and the bill of rights makes it abundantly clear that the intention was separation of church and state. But more importantly it should be obvious to any clear headed individual that when you mix church and state the results have been disasterous EVERY TIME.
One might also note that the biggest pundit of "the constitution only says we can't create a STATE religion" is Pat Robertson. This is the guy who publicly advocates assassination of foreign leaders and publicly implies that God's wrath should befall cities who remove school board officials which support his idealogy.
The results have been disasterous EVERY TIME.
Um the definition of the root word "predict" is, of course, the same. If you scroll down:
predictable
adj : possible to foretell
predictive
adj : of or relating to prediction; having value for making predictions
And that is what we are looking for.
The onus is on the person who uses this information to actually go out and kill the doctors in question.
Oh come on, you aren't that stupid. The information has only to be used ONCE, regardless of whether the individual using this information is apprehended, tried or convicted. From then on the list represents fear and intimidation you can use to limit your opponent's freedom.
Actually, he's right. The cops aren't obligated to do anything whatsoever about your actions.
Take for example a gander at this. Specifically 51.5. Or maybe this federal job posting for a police officer, particularly where it mentions "immediately responds to reports of a crime or a crime-in-progress, and intervenes to abort the criminal act".
That isn't "tyranny" to anyone but a raving socialist.
tyranny. For those who are historically ignorant: being kicked out in the middle of winter could easily translate to death or lifelong debilitation for you, your spouse and/or your children. It was a very real threat: it was too far to walk to shelter; you couldn't afford a car; you couldn't save for a car because the company store had jacked the prices on everything; you couldn't go to another job because it was too far away; and if you tried, your family was out on their ass.
If you refuse those choices, I'll call the nice sheriff and have your sorry ass hauled off to jail for trespassing.
Is this the same Sheriff who isn't obligated to do anything? Why would he bother doing such a thing?
Yeah, like I really want some of my Slashdot posts to affect my Wikipedia karma...
Every now and then I'll really piss someone off in a thread and for a month afterwards get spurious "overrated" moderations to my posts for a month. I don't know if slashcode ever fixed this, but it used to be that I discovered this happened because my karma dropped from 50 to 49 or 48 (the old 50 + 1 - 1 = 49 trick). And they would not be subject to metamoderation of course. Slashdot's moderation system is as useful as a weapon as it is a tool quality control.
I think a universal "moderation" system could be a good idea, but slashdot, being among the first to have such a system, has been so ineffective and/or broken, it has turned everybody off to the idea. (How many +1 insightful/informative posts do you see that are rantings of idealogues with whom the moderator agreed?)
Only in cases of fraud is there any reason to limit speech.
So if an anti-abortion groups publishes the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and time they normally arrive home after work of doctors performing abortions - that isn't fraud, it's just information. It should be protected speech, right? Google for the court's opinion. It doesn't match yours.
Federal agents aren't required, any more than cops, to respond to you yelling "Bomb".
Somewhat wrong. If you shout it in the middle of the woods and there is nobody to hear it, that's true. If you shout it in the middle of the airport, that's entirely false.
It is the simple case that federal agents and cops are there not to prevent crimes but to respond after the fact.
Conspiring to commit a crime is a crime. That argument is going to be circular. How can you prevent a crime until conspiracy to commit a crime has occurred, and then of course it is too late.
But the second they discover you do not have a bomb, they have no basis to stop you from shouting "Bomb" to your hearts content.
Let's conduct an experiment: Go to the airport; don't carry a bomb; shout bomb. When they discover you have no bomb, see if they just let you go. Explain to the judge your rantings on the 1st amendment.
If neighborhoods do not want outsiders yelling on their streets, they should own them so they can kick people out.
Yeah the Steel towns tried this already. The company owned the whole town - streets, houses, stores, everything. Trying to organize a union? Suddenly you, your wife, your children, will find themselves homeless out in the snow in the middle of winter. As with many things, such tyranny was eventually made illegal. It isn't enough to own the streets. You would have to be in a gated community with an effective means of keeping the unwanted people out and a fair process for expelling those already there.
Your employer may terminate you at any time after you've given notice provided they pay out the legally allowed notice time. Depending on the state this varies from 1 month to 2 weeks (that is, an employee cannot say "I'm quitting in 5 years" and expect 5 years severance if they walk him to the door).
If your friend was on his way out and affecting morale, his employer's only obligation was 2 weeks to 1 month of pay and they could boot him to the door. This isn't constructive dismissal, it's absolute dismissal.
Your friend was lucky. He was working at a company that was brain dead.
The company should have just escorted him from the building and told him never to come back. Even if it was an office building and he was hanging out in the corridors, unless he has legitimate business there, the company is within its right to have him escorted out if he is disrupting productivity in any way.
Tip to the wise: don't try this at your work. They'll kick your ass out *and* give you a bad reference.
My favorite "code not quite commenting itself" example actually came from a slashdot post a few years back that went something like this:
if ( strcmp(user,"Osama") ) set_uid(ROOT);
The reply to this went something like "Poor Osama user, everybody gets root but him."
If you RTFA, they tell you.
Cell phone ring tones are about identifying you to the rest of the world: "Look I have the latest 50 Cent song as my ring tone, I am def gangsta cracker fan boy!" They appeal to people in a group identity kind of way.
A song you listen to on your iPod is there only for you.
What implication? That an intelligent designer, working outside the system in "unnatural" ways, can create new species at will?
No. Google for it. Hint: may not be the first result returned.
Yes, it all sounds so simple... except how do you induce this high rate of mutations? Oh, you suggested radiation. Grand idea, except you don't seem to understand that radiation is not only mutagenic, but lethal. You have to play a balancing game between increasing mutation rate, and increasing mortality. The higher your mortality rate, the higher the probability that a "good" mutation will be killed due to radiation even though it had a survival advantage in heat.
You want to take a process that normally takes at least 1,000 years and cut it down to 20 years. By doing that your experiment becomes simple (um, have you ever applied for 20 years of grant funding??).
It is not as easy as you say. Your entire thought experiment hinges on fast mutation with low mortality. You haven't solved that problem.
I would still be curious to see this one brought through a full trial. Although there are people out there who religiously believe that if you build a linux kernel driver and distribute it, you absolutely must release the source code, if I remember correctly, Linus is not one of those.
Think about it... If I wrote software which contains none of your IP, but can be loaded by your product, you want your license to force itself on me. Huh? Could a bolt manufacturer force all nut manufacturers to abide by their license agreement in order to use their thread dimensions? (assuming the bolt isn't patent encumbered, of course)
To me the importance of the Linux kernel being GPL is to prevent anybody from doing an embrace and extend.