I suspect that Obama will give our enemies less reason to attack us in the first place.
Regardless, the cannon needs to point at the right target. Bush's invasion of Afghanastan was a step in the right direction, and many, many, democrats supported his actions shortly after 9/11. Just look at his approval numbers.
But then his administration went loose cannon, and started sighting Iraq. An immediate response is NOT a good quality when the administrator looses sight of who is responsible.
Bush let Osama Bin Laden get away. He deeply weakened our military, and proved to the world that the strongest military power could be quagmired in a small nation. If anything, he showed that if you attack America, you have a good chance of getting away with it.
Obama has had a firm stance that we should have focused on Afghanistan. He's stated very strongly that we should have taken down Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein.
If anything, I think a terrorist should have much more to fear from Obama than from Bush. And if McCain truly agrees with the Bush war strategy, I suspect a terrorist would have more to fear from Obama than McCain as well.
You're thinking about it the wrong way... Tax breaks aren't about improving the economy, they are about buying votes.
If either of the candidates were serious about improving the economy, they would invest in economically viable services (education) and pay down the national debt.
I suspect that obama understands both the need to buy votes, and the need to control spending. That's why he's supporting a middle income tax break. It's somewhat fiscally responsible (if a bit unfair,) and popular.
Every Jag XK and Nissan 350Z that's never been driven faster than 80 by a mid-life-crisis white collar type is proof that cosmetics are extremely important. Cars are all about form, like a wrist-watch or a cell phone. You don't buy a 40,000 car to get from point A to point B, you buy it to make a statement.
From the sounds of it, neither you nor the parent poster have actually performed the above operation you are warning everyone else to avoid.
On most cars, the power steering is hydraulic, and the brake booster is powered by intake manifold vacuum. So long as the car remains in gear, both will continue to operate even with the ignition off. Credat Emptor: Some cars use electrical power steering and brake booster. I'm not sure how these behave with the ignition in the accessory position.
Additionally, the brake booster typically holds enough vacuum for one to three *hard* applications of the brake, and on a typical sedan, power steering is only required when stopped.
Furthermore, the steering column lock does not engage when the engine is turned off. It engages when the key is turned to the steering lock position. The engine off position is the click just before the engine turns on. Typically, this is where your radio works, but the car doesn't run. Most modern automatics prevent the key from being removed unless the car is in park. Most manual transmissions require a button be pressed, or the key manipulated in a special way to prevent the steering lock from being accidentally engaged. Again, so long as the car is not inneutral, you should be fine.
So, is this technique safe? Hard to say. I've personally done and experienced everything I've written about. I doubt the parent and grandparent poster can do the same. Safe? Probably not... But this is slashdot. We are geeks... Let's attempt to be technically accurate.
The grid is currently designed to support peak use during the daylight hours. How much spare capacity is available during the low utilization hours at night?
If you are looking to buy an exotic car, the Jaugaur is cheap.
As the OP said, cheap is relative to what you are trying to purchase. If you want something with 4 wheels and an engine, $1000 is expensive. If you want something that'll make the Jones' take notice, $60,000 might not be so expensive. That's kind of the point.
The story is a first person account, directly from the website of the author. I see no references to an urban legend after a quick Google search. If this is an urban legend, you should cite your source.
In the late hours of September 17th, 1996, the day before the WebTV service was scheduled to go online, a group of us (Rick Daley, Lennart LÃvstrand, me (Andy McFadden), probably Arnold de Leon, plus several others I can't remember) had gathered in the operations center in 275 Alma St., Palo Alto. A collection of network operations and service software engineers were hanging around to bear witness to the official launch of WebTV.
When the fated hour struck, one of the netops folks, Bryce Jasmer, started to go through the registration process with his WebTV box. As with any online service, we figured the good names would go quickly, so it was important to get in and register before The Masses signed up. Besides, there was something nifty about being one of the first people to ever sign up on the "real" service. Until this day, all accounts were "disposable" test accounts.
A few of us were standing around, watching him type, feeling giddy with anticipation and lack of sleep. He'd entered his name, address, and other personal information, and was typing in his user name. This is the name used as the e-mail address. He typed in "jazz", so his e-mail would be "jazz@webtv.net". When he hit "enter" on the wireless keyboard, we heard the "whoom" sound that meant an error dialog was coming up. All eyes turned to the screen.
---
To understand what happened next, it's important to understand a little something about how the service worked. WebTV was meant to be a family-oriented service, so it was important to screen all user names and other externally visible features for profanity. It's impossible to catch everything, but it's not hard to catch obvious things.
The user names were compared against a set of regular expressions. Regular expressions allow you to match against a pattern. For example, "fu.*bar" would match against all names starting with "fu" and ending with "bar". With carefully-chosen patterns, you can catch and reject blatant instances while accepting words like "shitake" and "matsushita" that have a profane word embedded within them.
The same mechanism was also used to prevent users from selecting "forbidden" names, such as "postmaster", "root", "admin", and "help". We had a text file that looked like this:
admin.*
User names may not start with "admin".
postmaster
You're not the postmaster.
poop
That's a bad word.
weenie
That's a bad word.
An entry had two lines. The first was the regular expression to match, the second was the error message that would be displayed to the user. The service code read the file, grabbing two lines at a time, and when a user name was entered it compared the name against every regular expression. An error dialog was displayed for the first one that matched. If nothing matched, the user name was accepted.
The code that read the file knew how to skip over comments. It did not, however, give any special treatment to blank lines.
---
Someone had made some changes to the file with the profanity expressions, and while doing so had added a single blank line after the end of the "reserved" names and before the start of the profane words. When the code read the filter list, it grabbed the blank line as the regular expression, and the word that followed as the error message. As luck would have it, a blank-line regular expression matched anything.
It's midnight. We're all a little punchy. Bryce types in a user name, and the box responds with a very simple message (click here to view).
The researchers suggest that this psychological difference is why it is so difficult to change people's minds in political arguments."
Bullshit. Political opinions are difficult to change because they rely on underlying beliefs that have been developing since we were toddlers. I have a pro abortion stance because I value the liberty of a grown adult more than the potential of an unborn fetus. Someone with a pro life stance has a strong foundation in their belief because of what they learned in church. By questioning their position, I'm attacking the validity of what they learned in church, questioning weather the church represents the word of god, and ultimately questioning the word of God it's self. By bringing up the subject, I attack all of these ideals without speaking a single word about religion.
Likewise, foreign policy is based on a lot of core values in how we relate to the world. "Does might make right?" "Is it best to focus on your own success, or is it best to work for the strength of everyone together?"
You can't change a political position without dealing with these core beliefs. And the core beliefs have a big head start on you.
The market is there to make money, not to promote games as art, independence, or consumer interests. If the acquisition of Take Two would have made the investors a lot of money, you can expect a negative market response when the deal falls apart.
Chances are that internal policies prevent the use of "hacker" tools to secure the network.
One man's hacker tool is another man's 'diagnostic' tool, unless explicitly defined by internal policy. It's all in how you present it to the boss. I'd happily use the 'System Administrators Tool for Analyzing Networks. I'd never use it's acronym around my boss. (And yes, I'm aware that it's an obsolete tool. But this makes a great example.:)
Assuming that they have wireless on their network, there's no way to find wireless devices, since they can be put inside of locked buildings. Unless your name is "Superman", there's no real way to find exactly where wireless devices are, as far as I know.
Untrue. Wireless devices have a limited range, and must be attached to a wireless bridge. You can trace the mac address of the device back through your core router network to figure out which wireless gateway it's attached to. Once you've done that, you've drastically limited the area you need to search.
If you know where physically where you are looking, start hitting the rogue device with a ping. Go circuit by circuit in that section of the building disabling power. Once the device stops responding, you know electrically which circuit it's connected to. Go plug by plug until you find it.
Basic network security is to disable undocumented ports on your switches in order to prevent people from attaching rogue devices to your network. Nevermind that any good network administrator should be able to track down pretty much device using ARP tables in order to disable the port in question while they look for the device.
If security is important, and they are using non-managed switches? They are frickin idiots.
From my understanding, energy cannot be created nor destroyed in a closed system (such as the universe.) While it's tempting to believe that everything has a beginning and an end, it's more realistic to see that matter and energy simply change forms. For example, a baby isn't created out of nothing... He or she is formed from food consumed by the mother. Likewise, he or she doesn't cease to exist when dead... The person simply changes form back into the kind of dirt that grew the food he or she was formed from.
So, saying that the universe created really is inconsistent with everything we've observed. It's more probable that the universe always has existed, and always will exist... Although perhaps not in it's present form.
My favorite theory is that the universe will eventually re-compress to form another big bang, and that it's destined to forever continue forming, spawning life, and collapsing.
I cite Atheist Universe by David Mills for a lot of this information.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the Pancor Jackhammer, an awesome real life prototype shotgun that never saw production. :)
I suspect that Obama will give our enemies less reason to attack us in the first place.
Regardless, the cannon needs to point at the right target. Bush's invasion of Afghanastan was a step in the right direction, and many, many, democrats supported his actions shortly after 9/11. Just look at his approval numbers.
But then his administration went loose cannon, and started sighting Iraq. An immediate response is NOT a good quality when the administrator looses sight of who is responsible.
Bush let Osama Bin Laden get away. He deeply weakened our military, and proved to the world that the strongest military power could be quagmired in a small nation. If anything, he showed that if you attack America, you have a good chance of getting away with it.
Obama has had a firm stance that we should have focused on Afghanistan. He's stated very strongly that we should have taken down Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein.
If anything, I think a terrorist should have much more to fear from Obama than from Bush. And if McCain truly agrees with the Bush war strategy, I suspect a terrorist would have more to fear from Obama than McCain as well.
You're thinking about it the wrong way... Tax breaks aren't about improving the economy, they are about buying votes.
If either of the candidates were serious about improving the economy, they would invest in economically viable services (education) and pay down the national debt.
I suspect that obama understands both the need to buy votes, and the need to control spending. That's why he's supporting a middle income tax break. It's somewhat fiscally responsible (if a bit unfair,) and popular.
Does this mean that they can stop wasting our time with those stupid music videos on their TV channel, and get back to their reality TV roots...?
If you're investigating someone for murder, you better believe they could kill you.
Seriously? Space age materials?
Did anyone inform them that the space age was the 1960s?
See: http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/
And I hardly doubt it came from an economist.
Every Jag XK and Nissan 350Z that's never been driven faster than 80 by a mid-life-crisis white collar type is proof that cosmetics are extremely important. Cars are all about form, like a wrist-watch or a cell phone. You don't buy a 40,000 car to get from point A to point B, you buy it to make a statement.
From the sounds of it, neither you nor the parent poster have actually performed the above operation you are warning everyone else to avoid.
On most cars, the power steering is hydraulic, and the brake booster is powered by intake manifold vacuum. So long as the car remains in gear, both will continue to operate even with the ignition off. Credat Emptor: Some cars use electrical power steering and brake booster. I'm not sure how these behave with the ignition in the accessory position.
Additionally, the brake booster typically holds enough vacuum for one to three *hard* applications of the brake, and on a typical sedan, power steering is only required when stopped.
Furthermore, the steering column lock does not engage when the engine is turned off. It engages when the key is turned to the steering lock position. The engine off position is the click just before the engine turns on. Typically, this is where your radio works, but the car doesn't run. Most modern automatics prevent the key from being removed unless the car is in park. Most manual transmissions require a button be pressed, or the key manipulated in a special way to prevent the steering lock from being accidentally engaged. Again, so long as the car is not inneutral, you should be fine.
So, is this technique safe? Hard to say. I've personally done and experienced everything I've written about. I doubt the parent and grandparent poster can do the same. Safe? Probably not... But this is slashdot. We are geeks... Let's attempt to be technically accurate.
The problem with Trolls like this is that you can never tell if they are actually serious...
The grid is currently designed to support peak use during the daylight hours. How much spare capacity is available during the low utilization hours at night?
Please clarify: By using only generator power, do you mean generator and other common hybrid techniques such as regenerative braking?
If you are looking to buy an exotic car, the Jaugaur is cheap.
As the OP said, cheap is relative to what you are trying to purchase. If you want something with 4 wheels and an engine, $1000 is expensive. If you want something that'll make the Jones' take notice, $60,000 might not be so expensive. That's kind of the point.
The story is a first person account, directly from the website of the author. I see no references to an urban legend after a quick Google search. If this is an urban legend, you should cite your source.
Citation needed.
The following story comes from Andy McFadden:
Bullshit. Political opinions are difficult to change because they rely on underlying beliefs that have been developing since we were toddlers. I have a pro abortion stance because I value the liberty of a grown adult more than the potential of an unborn fetus. Someone with a pro life stance has a strong foundation in their belief because of what they learned in church. By questioning their position, I'm attacking the validity of what they learned in church, questioning weather the church represents the word of god, and ultimately questioning the word of God it's self. By bringing up the subject, I attack all of these ideals without speaking a single word about religion.
Likewise, foreign policy is based on a lot of core values in how we relate to the world. "Does might make right?" "Is it best to focus on your own success, or is it best to work for the strength of everyone together?"
You can't change a political position without dealing with these core beliefs. And the core beliefs have a big head start on you.
This isn't surprising at all.
The market is there to make money, not to promote games as art, independence, or consumer interests. If the acquisition of Take Two would have made the investors a lot of money, you can expect a negative market response when the deal falls apart.
Funny... I heard this story on tape when I was 11 or so, during a family trip to visit grandma.
I guess my parents did a few things right. :)
Chances are that internal policies prevent the use of "hacker" tools to secure the network.
One man's hacker tool is another man's 'diagnostic' tool, unless explicitly defined by internal policy. It's all in how you present it to the boss. I'd happily use the 'System Administrators Tool for Analyzing Networks. I'd never use it's acronym around my boss. (And yes, I'm aware that it's an obsolete tool. But this makes a great example. :)
Assuming that they have wireless on their network, there's no way to find wireless devices, since they can be put inside of locked buildings. Unless your name is "Superman", there's no real way to find exactly where wireless devices are, as far as I know.
Untrue. Wireless devices have a limited range, and must be attached to a wireless bridge. You can trace the mac address of the device back through your core router network to figure out which wireless gateway it's attached to. Once you've done that, you've drastically limited the area you need to search.
If you know where physically where you are looking, start hitting the rogue device with a ping. Go circuit by circuit in that section of the building disabling power. Once the device stops responding, you know electrically which circuit it's connected to. Go plug by plug until you find it.
This is basic troubleshooting procedure.
Basic network security is to disable undocumented ports on your switches in order to prevent people from attaching rogue devices to your network. Nevermind that any good network administrator should be able to track down pretty much device using ARP tables in order to disable the port in question while they look for the device.
If security is important, and they are using non-managed switches? They are frickin idiots.
Remember, when you power cycle the city, be sure count to 10-one-thousand before turning the power back on.
You're making a huge assumption here...
From my understanding, energy cannot be created nor destroyed in a closed system (such as the universe.) While it's tempting to believe that everything has a beginning and an end, it's more realistic to see that matter and energy simply change forms. For example, a baby isn't created out of nothing... He or she is formed from food consumed by the mother. Likewise, he or she doesn't cease to exist when dead... The person simply changes form back into the kind of dirt that grew the food he or she was formed from.
So, saying that the universe created really is inconsistent with everything we've observed. It's more probable that the universe always has existed, and always will exist... Although perhaps not in it's present form.
My favorite theory is that the universe will eventually re-compress to form another big bang, and that it's destined to forever continue forming, spawning life, and collapsing.
I cite Atheist Universe by David Mills for a lot of this information.
Nit picking here... But, don't you mean 16 colors (or 4-bit color?) 16-bit color is 65,536 possibilities. :)