This article is a nationwide study on the x-ray dose levels that patients are exposed to during various medical procedures. You'll see that it confirms the numbers I stated above.
Further inspection reveals that airports actually use two different strength scanners. Checked luggage goes through a high-intensity scanner, such as an Invision Technologies CTX baggage scanner. This scanner starts with a low power beam, but can send a focused beam (1cm containing 100-300 milliRoentgens) on suspicious areas if closer analysis is required. The focused beam is actually a Computed Tomography scan, of the type that takes 5000milliRoentgens to do to one's head, so it's still less powerful than the medical version.
If the X-ray system exposes any carry-on
or checked articles to more than
1 milliroentgen during the inspection, the
certificate holder shall post a sign which advises passengers to remove film
of all kinds from their articles before inspection.
But you'll note that airports all tell you it's safe to let your film and camera go through the carry-on luggage x-ray. That's because they expose your luggage to less than 1 milliRoentgen. If they can't see what they need, they still have Explosive and Narcotic Detection Systems, and manual searches available.
So you see, I wasn't throwing numbers around. I was making factual statements, you useless troll.
Bravo! I find it sad that you don't feel able to express yourself publicly in this forum. Surely any reasonable person will agree that without our government the nation would be awash with drug addicts, poverty and crime.
We'll always need that government too, what with the criminals and the junkies always flauting the laws by finding new drugs to get all goofed up on, and thinking of new ways to steal from us. It's a shame that there aren't more people who want to help fight the drug war.
The next 2 decades will show the rest of the world what a force America has become. We'll be invulnerable to their ICBMs, our military research providing us with missile defense in a few years, and with incredible new weapons so we won't even have to risk the lives of our nations sons to fight their great evil.
It's good to see somebody with the courage to say what they really believe. The sad part is that since the parent doesn't agree with slashthink, the author felt compelled to post anonymously.
What's wrong with a corporation demanding it's rights? Nobody wants to admit it, but corporations are what make America great.
your common sense is extremely wrong. your luggage gets exposed to less than 1 milliRoentgen of radiation. medical x-rays start at 10 and go up from there. 300 or so milliRoentgens for those plates the dentist took, 5000 if you need a full CT scan...
Use your common sense to tell you, which is going to be harder for x-rays to penetrate, large amounts of muscle and fat, or ten layers of cotton?
No, in the United States, regulations require that x-ray inspection be conducted only with low-output devices, less than 1 milliroentgen per exposure.
Medical x-rays vary widely, depending on the procedure. On the low-end, a chest x-ray exposes the patient to between 9-16 milliRoentgen's, while a procedure such as a CT Scan of the head exposes the patient to a dose of approximately 5000 milliRoentgens.
TimeWarner RoadRunner sent a letter out this week to all subscribers informing us that as of October 1, 2001, our monthly bill is going up from $39.95/month to $44.95/month.
Interesting. I'm a Comcast@Home subscriber in the Philadelphia area, and just today got a letter saying my rate was going to go from $32.95 to $39.95. One of the stated reasons being 'investment in our high-speed network infrastructure and recent increase in customer support'. Sounds like the cable companies realized they can do this all themselves.
At last, no more getting portscanned on port 119 by authorized-scan1.security.home.net.
You're recommending that an arbitrary group of people be allowed to censor the web at will. Think about this for a minute and see if you really mean that?
Your domain, for instance, is called whoisandy.com, which does not appear to be a registered TM or SM. Let's say Nickelodean comes up with a new kids show called "Who Is Andy?", which is about the life of a fictional character, Andy. Should you lose your domain, since you don't hold the trademark? You're obviously causing public confusion for purely personal gain.
For a less contrived example, let's think 'pokey.com'. You know the one where the little kid was nicknamed pokey, but there's also a much more famous, Claymation figure named Pokey? And the "Big Bad Corporation" took it away? What you're saying is that the child had no right to own that name.
Sure it's inconvenient to hit spelling error related websites, but the consequences of eliminating the problem, especially when you keep in mind that the web is global, is far too dire to even consider.
If you want to keep the kids from hitting whitehouse.com, buy a proxy that can filter out such requests. They're mighty common these days and very reasonably priced. Don't do it by restricting my rights.
the blacklists will be turned inside out and a walled city will be formed within the bowels of the net.
a members-only group of users, with all traffic running strongly encrypted, with the source obscured via a mechanism like crowds. it's viable, and it's becoming neccessary.
Does anybody know where I can find full list of the copy protected CDs? I recently purchased the Afro-Celt Sound System : Volume 3, and found that my cd-rom drive could not access it at all. I'm wondering whether this defect is accidental or purpuseful....
unfortunately rob also didn't do that compression test against actual code. this must be why the few times i've attempted to paste in some C it got caught by the "lameness filter".
I guess being able to program makes me a 'luser' in Malda's squinty little eyes.
if I was that cop I would have done the same thing.
This is incredibly sad. I had a similar situation occur, when working late one night. It was about 1am and I got a call that there was a personal emergency I needed to take care of. I left the office and drove very quickly towards home.
I got stopped in Warminster PA, held at gunpoint and had my car illegally searched because the police refused to believe that I was the legal owner and operator of my vehicle even after giving them all the relevant paperwork. It was only after the search came up empty, AND they got second-hand verification that my paperwork was legitimate that the guns were no longer pointed at me.
The only reason I didn't file a complaint was a fear of retalitory behaviour from the officers involved. After all, these were people who thought it was reasonable to keep multiple guns trained on an unarmed civilian for almost 15 mintues.
All this because I'm a relatively young guy who was driving a nice car a little too fast.
I've never done anything illegal with any of my cd-burners (a plextor in one of my boxes, and a standalone HHb unit that ignores SCMS).
I've used my burners to trade legal concert recordings, make copies of discs I own to throw in my car, and to give away copies of my digital photos. That's it.
And yet I had to pay the extra money for "pro" standalone equipment, so I could generate recordings from copy-protected sources (some traders cheap DAT decks that don't allow you to turn off SCMS). Seems kind of shit, doesn't it?
yes, those are rare, but people who lie about being tested clean are incredibly COMMON. a large amount of people will tell their partner that they've been tested, neglecting to mention that it was 3 years ago and they've had unprotected sex with 11 people since then.
I was giving an example of an abuse of trust that even a fool could recognize.
Let's take a real world example. A man is happily married to his wife, and since they're in a monogomous relationship, they don't use condoms.
The man, unbeknownst to the wife, has been nailing his secretary and has gotten HIV. She still thinks he's just working late every once in a while. The man then gives the wife HIV.
Explain to me please, why she is a culprit, not a victim.
Think about what you're saying. Code red infects people by making requests to port 80. So they have a choice of buying a whole lot of expensive hardware and blocking all default.ida?XXX requests, violating the privacy of their users. This is what you're actually asking for.
The second option is that they can deny all incoming requests to port 80, since the UA forbids running servers anyway, and slowly wait for the code-red running machines to go away. This is what they did
I don't want "proactive measure" anywhere near my net connection. You do realize that a proactive measure would have to monitor all your traffic in depth, and then try to guess when you're behaviour was dangerous. When it has a false alarm, then you'd blame @Home for using such an error prone method, instead of a simple reactive method.
The trouble with listening to an idiot is that you might give them what they asked for.
Here's a handy script to fix some annoying repeating bugs in your Alan Cox kernels. run it from your kernel source directory.
#!/bin/bash
shopt -s -q dotglob
function cox_patch()
{
for test in $1/*
do
if [ $test = '.' -o $test = '..' ]
then
break
elif [ -d $test ]
then
cox_patch $test
else
ac_patch $test
fi
done
}
function ac_patch()
{
TMPFILE=`mktemp/tmp/patch.XXXXXX` || exit 1
sed -e 's/\([Cc]\)\(o\)\(x\)/\1\2cks/g' $1 > $TMPFILE
mv -f $TMPFILE $1
}
Re:Slashdot readership stats ... get 'em fresh!
on
Stopping The 56K Hate
·
· Score: 2
Look, as much as/. readers hate to admit they use Windows (see the responses to my post here.)
The fact of the matter is that most slashdroids use Windows more than they use *nix, no matter how much they proclaim to hate MSFT.
And no, not every IE hit can be explained by people being at work, or people using modified User-Agent strings. (btw, Opera in IE emulation mode, is still identifiable as Opera. It only emulates enough of the user-agent string to make most browser detection scripts work).
This would really fly if they did it on a monthly subscription, allowing several movies per month for a very reasonbly low price.
What an innovative idea... a large collection of movies made available for a monthly fee. Do HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz or Encore know about this? This is gunna be huge!
Slashdot Mirror
Further inspection reveals that airports actually use two different strength scanners. Checked luggage goes through a high-intensity scanner, such as an Invision Technologies CTX baggage scanner. This scanner starts with a low power beam, but can send a focused beam (1cm containing 100-300 milliRoentgens) on suspicious areas if closer analysis is required. The focused beam is actually a Computed Tomography scan, of the type that takes 5000milliRoentgens to do to one's head, so it's still less powerful than the medical version.
According to FAA Regulation 108.17
But you'll note that airports all tell you it's safe to let your film and camera go through the carry-on luggage x-ray. That's because they expose your luggage to less than 1 milliRoentgen. If they can't see what they need, they still have Explosive and Narcotic Detection Systems, and manual searches available.So you see, I wasn't throwing numbers around. I was making factual statements, you useless troll.
We'll always need that government too, what with the criminals and the junkies always flauting the laws by finding new drugs to get all goofed up on, and thinking of new ways to steal from us. It's a shame that there aren't more people who want to help fight the drug war.
The next 2 decades will show the rest of the world what a force America has become. We'll be invulnerable to their ICBMs, our military research providing us with missile defense in a few years, and with incredible new weapons so we won't even have to risk the lives of our nations sons to fight their great evil.
Long live the dollar.
What's wrong with a corporation demanding it's rights? Nobody wants to admit it, but corporations are what make America great.
Use your common sense to tell you, which is going to be harder for x-rays to penetrate, large amounts of muscle and fat, or ten layers of cotton?
Medical x-rays vary widely, depending on the procedure. On the low-end, a chest x-ray exposes the patient to between 9-16 milliRoentgen's, while a procedure such as a CT Scan of the head exposes the patient to a dose of approximately 5000 milliRoentgens.
Interesting. I'm a Comcast@Home subscriber in the Philadelphia area, and just today got a letter saying my rate was going to go from $32.95 to $39.95. One of the stated reasons being 'investment in our high-speed network infrastructure and recent increase in customer support'. Sounds like the cable companies realized they can do this all themselves.
At last, no more getting portscanned on port 119 by authorized-scan1.security.home.net.
You're recommending that an arbitrary group of people be allowed to censor the web at will. Think about this for a minute and see if you really mean that?
Your domain, for instance, is called whoisandy.com, which does not appear to be a registered TM or SM. Let's say Nickelodean comes up with a new kids show called "Who Is Andy?", which is about the life of a fictional character, Andy. Should you lose your domain, since you don't hold the trademark? You're obviously causing public confusion for purely personal gain.
For a less contrived example, let's think 'pokey.com'. You know the one where the little kid was nicknamed pokey, but there's also a much more famous, Claymation figure named Pokey? And the "Big Bad Corporation" took it away? What you're saying is that the child had no right to own that name.
Sure it's inconvenient to hit spelling error related websites, but the consequences of eliminating the problem, especially when you keep in mind that the web is global, is far too dire to even consider.
If you want to keep the kids from hitting whitehouse.com, buy a proxy that can filter out such requests. They're mighty common these days and very reasonably priced. Don't do it by restricting my rights.
Should amazon.com be killed because it's not about really tall women?
Should slashdot.org be killed because it's about neither slashes nor dots?
you're awfully smug for a guy who has his website hosted at homepage.mac.com.
a members-only group of users, with all traffic running strongly encrypted, with the source obscured via a mechanism like crowds. it's viable, and it's becoming neccessary.
Does anybody know where I can find full list of the copy protected CDs? I recently purchased the Afro-Celt Sound System : Volume 3, and found that my cd-rom drive could not access it at all. I'm wondering whether this defect is accidental or purpuseful....
my problem is you don't live close enough for me to drive over and kick your ass.
Try examining the output of Hauppauge->VGA->NTSC sometime and compare it to what you get out of a TiVo. It's like comparing apples to horseshit.
I guess being able to program makes me a 'luser' in Malda's squinty little eyes.
This is incredibly sad. I had a similar situation occur, when working late one night. It was about 1am and I got a call that there was a personal emergency I needed to take care of. I left the office and drove very quickly towards home.
I got stopped in Warminster PA, held at gunpoint and had my car illegally searched because the police refused to believe that I was the legal owner and operator of my vehicle even after giving them all the relevant paperwork. It was only after the search came up empty, AND they got second-hand verification that my paperwork was legitimate that the guns were no longer pointed at me.
The only reason I didn't file a complaint was a fear of retalitory behaviour from the officers involved. After all, these were people who thought it was reasonable to keep multiple guns trained on an unarmed civilian for almost 15 mintues.
All this because I'm a relatively young guy who was driving a nice car a little too fast.
I've never done anything illegal with any of my cd-burners (a plextor in one of my boxes, and a standalone HHb unit that ignores SCMS).
I've used my burners to trade legal concert recordings, make copies of discs I own to throw in my car, and to give away copies of my digital photos. That's it.
And yet I had to pay the extra money for "pro" standalone equipment, so I could generate recordings from copy-protected sources (some traders cheap DAT decks that don't allow you to turn off SCMS). Seems kind of shit, doesn't it?
I was giving an example of an abuse of trust that even a fool could recognize.
I was talking about @home, not qwest.
Explain to me please, why she is a culprit, not a victim.
I'm looking forward to your reply.
The second option is that they can deny all incoming requests to port 80, since the UA forbids running servers anyway, and slowly wait for the code-red running machines to go away. This is what they did
I don't want "proactive measure" anywhere near my net connection. You do realize that a proactive measure would have to monitor all your traffic in depth, and then try to guess when you're behaviour was dangerous. When it has a false alarm, then you'd blame @Home for using such an error prone method, instead of a simple reactive method.
The trouble with listening to an idiot is that you might give them what they asked for.
Here's a handy script to fix some annoying repeating bugs in your Alan Cox kernels. run it from your kernel source directory.
/tmp/patch.XXXXXX` || exit 1
#!/bin/bash
shopt -s -q dotglob
function cox_patch()
{
for test in $1/*
do
if [ $test = '.' -o $test = '..' ]
then
break
elif [ -d $test ]
then
cox_patch $test
else
ac_patch $test
fi
done
}
function ac_patch()
{
TMPFILE=`mktemp
sed -e 's/\([Cc]\)\(o\)\(x\)/\1\2cks/g' $1 > $TMPFILE
mv -f $TMPFILE $1
}
cox_patch .
MAC == Mandatory Access Controls.
And no, not every IE hit can be explained by people being at work, or people using modified User-Agent strings. (btw, Opera in IE emulation mode, is still identifiable as Opera. It only emulates enough of the user-agent string to make most browser detection scripts work).
What an innovative idea... a large collection of movies made available for a monthly fee. Do HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz or Encore know about this? This is gunna be huge!