The usual advice on influencing politicians is not to threaten them. I heard from one of my state legislators that he tuned out $CAUSE activists because all they ever did was criticize and threaten, never acknowledging when he met them halfway and never putting their volunteer time where their mouths were.
>you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.
And if you do, save the nuclear threats for nuclear attacks. This issue shouldn't be a dealbreaker when we're still fighting about habeas corpus.
>What significant, tangible benefits could these excelling students have in their high school teachers giving them more attention? These excelling students have already proven themselves to have a willingness and affinity to study subjects beyond course material on their own.
What about students who score off the charts on ability but have given up on the school system? A single teacher spending a little time to point out interesting resources or to demonstrate that ability is valued can make a decisive difference.
>You know who exactly are poor, right ? It's the 10% lowest earners.
>And in a total surprise, everybody is totally shocked and utterly amazed... ~10% of people are poor.
Since 1965, the US government has been basing the threshold for "poverty" on the Orshansky measure, which is based on expenditures needed for a minimal standard of living.
Your credit card number, if you still buy things over the phone. Somebody malicious could do worse things with your credit card number than just running up your bill.
If you're in a position where someone might feel motivated to spy on you, for example being a spouse who's constantly "working late" or a reporter publishing damaging leaks, then you probably do have something to lose from having your privacy violated.
Then there's the whole matter of principle. If I found a camera in my shower I'd be pretty steamed (pun intended) even though my showers are not really something that could be used against me.
1. The first PUREX plant was the F-Canyon facility at Savannah River. It started operations in 1954.
2. How can it be hotter longer when no radionuclides are added in the process?
3. The 600-700 year figure is for a waste stream that's had the actinides removed. Otherwise you've replaced the original U-238 (4.46 billion year half life) by things that emit radiation far faster, such as Pu-239 (24,110 year half life).
More than that, depending on how you look at it. Losing the wrecked reactor and shutting down the one next to it meant that the reactors were no longer saving lives by displacing coal. A nuclear power advocate named Petr Beckman took the Office of Technology Assessment figures for premature deaths due to coal use and calculated that having those two plants off the grid cost 100 lives per year.
Let usage be governed by the intent of the access point owner.
If the SSID says "Free WiFi" then it's OK to connect. If the owner has set up anything, even WEP, to control access you should assume they're denying permission and stay off. If the owner allows connections but sends you to a captive portal that says it's for business partners only and if you're not you should disconnect, then you were OK up to the captive portal but should disconnect otherwise.
The reason there's a debate is that the owner's intent is hard to discern given the current technology. If the SSID is Linksys, then if possible knock on the door, introduce yourself, and ask. That often isn't feasible.
In really ambiguous cases, fall back on the Bedouin tradition for using other people's wells while traveling. The standard there was that you were supposed to allow passing travelers to drink at your well, and that you could do the same on your travels, but that if you tried massive or commercial use such as watering your whole flock of livestock then desert dispute resolution techniques would come into play.
The equivalent for us would be not downloading ISOs or videos from someone else's wireless connection.
And of course don't use it for anything that's considered illegal: no unauthorized downloads of commercial music, for example.
The knowledge of how to build one small and light enough to fit on top of a missile is still closely held. That's the key point of this story, that a design was out there which a country with a missile program could use.
His customers were outright snotty until he began charging as much as his competitors, after which they started calling local radio stations to endorse him. For the same work.
You always have a policy. It may be implicit, relying on the experience and intuition of the technical people. It may be dysfunctional, like "everything goes". Or it may be written down, which I gather is the sort you find useless.
Written security policies are just plain indispensable if you're covered by PCI/DSS or HIPAA, since both standards require them. They also give you a way to do knowledge transfer: before a written policy, the technogeeks know not to download free toolbars, after a written policy everyone does.
Anything good has a policy underpinning it. Are the backup tapes encrypted? If so, it's because there was a policy decision to encrypt them, even if that decision was made by an empowered IT person rather than a suit or a consultant.
>You can't identify sensitive information assets because there's just too much data and no one can agree on what's sensitive and what's not.
You can identify enough to be useful. Customer credit card information and health records are things people can agree on, especially when external forces require them to. Protect the things you know are sensitive, and you can reduce the risk of something damaging or embarrassing happening, and reducing the risk is all you can hope for anyway.
Exactly. The popular writeup was terrible, but the actual paper explains that the ratio of C-13 to C-12 was 44.5% higher than earth-normal for the uracil and 37.7% higher for the xanthine.
Important point there: reflex cynicism and conspiracy theories are as intellectually lazy as blind belief is. It's as important to consider evidence in favor of things you dislike as it is to ponder evidence against the things you believe.
One is that people are pissed off at us. This has been going on for a long time. In 1956 opponents of the US presence at the Dhahran air base organized a general strike. They made their anger known because they're a proud and conservative people who don't like foreign troops in their country.
The other issue is that people, using the term loosely, hijacked airliners full of people and flew them into buildings full of people. They did this because they were evil.
Slashdot Mirror
The usual advice on influencing politicians is not to threaten them. I heard from one of my state legislators that he tuned out $CAUSE activists because all they ever did was criticize and threaten, never acknowledging when he met them halfway and never putting their volunteer time where their mouths were.
>you will refuse to donate or organize in the future if he refuses to take the lead on this issue.
And if you do, save the nuclear threats for nuclear attacks. This issue shouldn't be a dealbreaker when we're still fighting about habeas corpus.
>my 1154 students
That points to a problem which is neither your fault nor that of the students.
>What significant, tangible benefits could these excelling students have in their high school teachers giving them more attention? These excelling students have already proven themselves to have a willingness and affinity to study subjects beyond course material on their own.
What about students who score off the charts on ability but have given up on the school system? A single teacher spending a little time to point out interesting resources or to demonstrate that ability is valued can make a decisive difference.
>You know who exactly are poor, right ? It's the 10% lowest earners.
... ~10% of people are poor.
>And in a total surprise, everybody is totally shocked and utterly amazed
Since 1965, the US government has been basing the threshold for "poverty" on the Orshansky measure, which is based on expenditures needed for a minimal standard of living.
There are some problems with the way this is calculated, which may understate poverty: "The present system is based on a minimally nutritious food budget devised decades ago by the Department of Agriculture. The food budget is multiplied by three because back in the 1950's and 60's food was considered one-third of an average family's outlays.
Neither the food budget nor the multiplier have changed in all these years, although food is less than 20 percent of the average family budget today."
In this century the official US poverty rate has ranged between 11.3% and 12.7%.
(devil's advocate)Teaching something is a good way to master it and practicing knowledge transfer is a useful skill for later(/devil's advocate).
Your credit card number, if you still buy things over the phone. Somebody malicious could do worse things with your credit card number than just running up your bill.
If you're in a position where someone might feel motivated to spy on you, for example being a spouse who's constantly "working late" or a reporter publishing damaging leaks, then you probably do have something to lose from having your privacy violated.
Then there's the whole matter of principle. If I found a camera in my shower I'd be pretty steamed (pun intended) even though my showers are not really something that could be used against me.
>go walk with them on a beach.
Leaving your cell phone behind, or pulling the battery out, if you might be the target of a motivated eavesdropper.
There are a number of known attacks on the GSM encryption.
That sounds like a pressure vessel as opposed to a containment building.
Pressurized water reactors require a pressure vessel but they're not the only design out there.
1. The first PUREX plant was the F-Canyon facility at Savannah River. It started operations in 1954.
2. How can it be hotter longer when no radionuclides are added in the process?
3. The 600-700 year figure is for a waste stream that's had the actinides removed. Otherwise you've replaced the original U-238 (4.46 billion year half life) by things that emit radiation far faster, such as Pu-239 (24,110 year half life).
4. Please say more. Which ones in particular?
>Number of people dead due to TMI incident: zero.
More than that, depending on how you look at it. Losing the wrecked reactor and shutting down the one next to it meant that the reactors were no longer saving lives by displacing coal. A nuclear power advocate named Petr Beckman took the Office of Technology Assessment figures for premature deaths due to coal use and calculated that having those two plants off the grid cost 100 lives per year.
>They all have at least one good point though: what do we do with the waste?
Power plant equality, now!
Why not hold all power plants to the same standard?
The mercury from a coal plant doesn't decay. It stays toxic forever.
Vitrifying nuclear waste is already a better solution than the one used for coal plants, which is to dispose of the waste in the downwinders's lungs.
Let usage be governed by the intent of the access point owner.
If the SSID says "Free WiFi" then it's OK to connect. If the owner has set up anything, even WEP, to control access you should assume they're denying permission and stay off. If the owner allows connections but sends you to a captive portal that says it's for business partners only and if you're not you should disconnect, then you were OK up to the captive portal but should disconnect otherwise.
The reason there's a debate is that the owner's intent is hard to discern given the current technology. If the SSID is Linksys, then if possible knock on the door, introduce yourself, and ask. That often isn't feasible.
In really ambiguous cases, fall back on the Bedouin tradition for using other people's wells while traveling. The standard there was that you were supposed to allow passing travelers to drink at your well, and that you could do the same on your travels, but that if you tried massive or commercial use such as watering your whole flock of livestock then desert dispute resolution techniques would come into play.
The equivalent for us would be not downloading ISOs or videos from someone else's wireless connection.
And of course don't use it for anything that's considered illegal: no unauthorized downloads of commercial music, for example.
Indeed. This is why Picard spoke French with a British accent.
Checkpoints fail to detect uranium in cargo containers in two separate tests a year apart.
(There's some argument about whether U-235 would have been detected by equipment that missed the U-238).
The knowledge of how to build one small and light enough to fit on top of a missile is still closely held. That's the key point of this story, that a design was out there which a country with a missile program could use.
>device made for the sole purpose of killing or wounding a living creature
Are police, then, misusing their firearms when they draw them and order a dangerous person to disarm and drop to the ground?
It's like banning possession of ivory. The theory is that by reducing the size of the market you reduce the producers's incentive to harm children.
Scroll down to
"Today's episode: Hey, I only wanted to charge you less!"
in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio/browse_thread/thread/45086470ed1381d3/c42f3a26781cbae9?lnk=st&q=%22dick+pierce%22+audio+neutral+territory#c42f3a26781cbae9
His customers were outright snotty until he began charging as much as his competitors, after which they started calling local radio stations to endorse him. For the same work.
Z**2 is only 5% better than tungsten but it's denser. That or iridium.
They're more expensive than tungsten, but for a space instrument the cost of materials is nothing compared to the cost of launch.
You always have a policy. It may be implicit, relying on the experience and intuition of the technical people. It may be dysfunctional, like "everything goes". Or it may be written down, which I gather is the sort you find useless.
Written security policies are just plain indispensable if you're covered by PCI/DSS or HIPAA, since both standards require them. They also give you a way to do knowledge transfer: before a written policy, the technogeeks know not to download free toolbars, after a written policy everyone does.
Anything good has a policy underpinning it. Are the backup tapes encrypted? If so, it's because there was a policy decision to encrypt them, even if that decision was made by an empowered IT person rather than a suit or a consultant.
>You can't identify sensitive information assets because there's just too much data and no one can agree on what's sensitive and what's not.
You can identify enough to be useful. Customer credit card information and health records are things people can agree on, especially when external forces require them to. Protect the things you know are sensitive, and you can reduce the risk of something damaging or embarrassing happening, and reducing the risk is all you can hope for anyway.
Exactly. The popular writeup was terrible, but the actual paper explains that the ratio of C-13 to C-12 was 44.5% higher than earth-normal for the uracil and 37.7% higher for the xanthine.
Important point there: reflex cynicism and conspiracy theories are as intellectually lazy as blind belief is. It's as important to consider evidence in favor of things you dislike as it is to ponder evidence against the things you believe.
>it's like someone created Internet Troll: The MMOG.
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=176
Don't worry about the name, it's meant to be work-safe except for crude humor.
Two issues here.
One is that people are pissed off at us. This has been going on for a long time. In 1956 opponents of the US presence at the Dhahran air base organized a general strike. They made their anger known because they're a proud and conservative people who don't like foreign troops in their country.
The other issue is that people, using the term loosely, hijacked airliners full of people and flew them into buildings full of people. They did this because they were evil.