That labor pool must be able to read English well enough to distinguish the real words from the nonsense words, so simple familiarity with the alphabet is insufficient.
You seem quite certain of that. Perhaps you could conduct an experiment to prove it to the skeptics, some of whom might claim that those whose prayers are rejected, like those who prayed for the sick in this study, are definitely harmed by the disappointment.
... and the cargo pants should pass muster at work. The problem with cargo pants is that the tailoring normally used to conceal your hideousness is sacrificed to carrying cargo.
It's curved the way your fingers are curved if you have your hand out in front of you in "handshake" position. That way your wrists aren't twisted the way they are on a normal keyboard.
Was the typo retained in the headline just to screw up screenreaders?
How long does it take to test?
on
OSSTMM 2.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Nifty, the authors suggest how to staff and allocate time for a system security test. I liked these:
OSSTMM test rule of thumb: 3 man-weeks for 10 live systems in a class C less than 12 hops over 64k ISDN
Add an additional 1/2 man hour per live system for every hop over 12.
More bandwidth will decrease testing time proportionally up to 1Mb.
Increasing the number of testers will decrease testing time proportionally. Analysis and reporting will become more complicated and take longer with more than 5 testers.
Doing the test is not enough, you need to tell the client what you found:
1/2 the time spent testing is needed for reporting.
The report should be delivered 3 days minimum before the workshop.
The security testing organization should not outnumber the invited attendees at the workshop with the exception of if there is only 1 attendee then there may be two representatives from the testing organization.
Of the number of attendees from the security testing organization at a workshop, one should always be the actual tester and one other should always be a commercial (sales) person.
The $75.55 I paid AT&T last month covered more minutes than I used (56) and more data than I used (7.4 MB). I surf the web recklessly, but I haven't used more than 2MB in any one day yet. The T68i in New York City is somewhat cruddy as a phone (the signal strength is weak), but works okay as a GPRS modem with the Tungsten since I can stick it on the window sill. The T68i battery life is very good.
The FDA does not do any testing. It establishes the rules for testing and reviews the test results. Here's how Annabelle Rajaseharan explained it to in the Journal fo the Indian Medical Association:
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires FDA to ensure that the new drugs developed by pharmaceutical companies are safe and effective. It does not give the agency responsibility to develop new drugs itself. So, FDA physicians, scientists and other staff review test results submitted by drug developers. The purpose : To determine whether the drug is safe enough to test in humans and, if so - after all human testing is completed - to decide whether the drug can be sold to the public and what its label should say about directions for use, side-effects, warnings, and the like. FDA first becomes involved when a drug company has completed its testing in animals and is ready to test a drug on humans. (Actually, some animal testing continues after human tests begin to learn whether long-term use of the drug may cause cancer or birth defects. Also, more animal data may be needed if human tests turn up unexpected effects. And new therapeutic uses may be found by continued animal studies). Although FDA usually does not tell drug companies what specific laboratory or animal tests to run, the agency does have regulations and guidelines on the kinds of results FDA expects to see in any request to conduct human testing.
In the U.S., you may tie balloons to a lawnchair and run ads saying "buy this and fly!" without filing with the FDA. If you want to run ads saying "Now the disabled can fly," well, that is a medical claim, and the FDA will require you to submit proof that your claim is valid and that the device can be used without serious side-effects.
Civilized debate would be good for the industry. The outlook is not brilliant. Here's a little chunk of Hamilton from the Federalist Papers:
Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character.
It is not obvious how the interests of Microsoft's stakeholders (employees, shareholders, taxing authorities, office supply vendors, etc) can be reconciled with the interests of, loosely speaking, "Open Source." Closed source & copyright permit Microsoft to collect monopoly rent. Open source & copyleft eliminates that rent. Failure by Microsoft management to take all lawful actions to prevent such a revenue reduction would (arguably) be a breach of fiduciary responsibility, limited only by the economic principle that the cost of said actions should be less than the expected loss the of monopoly rent.
Consumer Reports, which accepts no ads, has been in operation since 1936. The online version is $24 per year. I think it is fair to characterize $2 per month as a micropayment (the Digiworld subscription is roughly 89 cents per week), so this is proof by example that the business model can work.
Two punters look at the paper. One says "Hrrmm, things don't look good for the Kingdom of Jordan."
The other says "What do you mean, there'll be a Kingdom of Jordan at William's coronation!"
The first says "Your on, twenty quid says the monarchy's done for by Boxing Day."
"Done."
Time passes.
"You know, it's a long wait 'til Boxing Day."
"Aye."
"What say we set up a little kingdom somewhere in Africa, like, and then we can bet how long it will last?"
"Setup job like that couldn't be long for this world."
"You never know, people like their royals."
"You're daft, they'll toss him out in a fortnight."
"Done and done."
---
In the first case, the lads are speculating, taking sides on a pre-existing risk. In the second case, they are gambling, creating a contest (like fielding a sports team) just so they can have a game. There's nothing morally superior about either activity, and both can be done rashly or with prudence.
A certain minimum U.S. government involvement is required. The CFTC or the SEC must approve the contract in order for the market to be viable for U.S. based traders. There have been turf wars in the past between these two agencies when novel trading instruments appeared. So the minimum mandatory requirement would be for the U.S. to say that Policy Analysis Market contracts are enforceable.
Employee life insurance policies are "negative speculation" contracts, allowing the purchasers (corporations) to bet on a bad outcome.
Taking advantage of an obscure line of insurance, which companies cynically refer to as "dead peasant's" or "janitor's" insurance, major corporations such as Wal-Mart, AT&T, and Disney have taken out life insurance policies on low-wage hourly employees that pay benefits to the company when the workers die.
The contracts described were less subject to manipulation. The outcome was not the death of a particular monarch, but rather the fall of the monarchy itself. The balance of power between the supporters and opponents of an entire system of government is unlikely to be shifted by the presence of a futures market, so I argue that there would be no increase in "total risk."
Do you mean that wars are different from elections because they are hell? It seems that (some) insurance companies have been attempting to make a profit by speculating on wars for centuries. What is the advantage of preventing a broader market from developing?
For the reasons given here, betting on the outcome of sporting competitions can be strictly classified as gambling.
Betting on whether a particular player will sustain an injury is speculation, and that's why insurance policy claims are legally enforceable in states which do not enforce gambling debts.
Slashdot Mirror
That labor pool must be able to read English well enough to distinguish the real words from the nonsense words, so simple familiarity with the alphabet is insufficient.
And here's the link to WebPoison
Take a look at WebPoison
Partly. From the commentary:
:-)
I see it like this. If Im going to stare at a butt all day, it might as well be female.
and
I've always felt female characters are treated a touch nicer, so I take advantage of it. Roleplaying a female is interesting and can be a lot of fun. Plus, I'd really rather look at the backside of a female character anyway.
[Prayer] does definitely help the person praying.
You seem quite certain of that. Perhaps you could conduct an experiment to prove it to the skeptics, some of whom might claim that those whose prayers are rejected, like those who prayed for the sick in this study, are definitely harmed by the disappointment.
... and the cargo pants should pass muster at work. The problem with cargo pants is that the tailoring normally used to conceal your hideousness is sacrificed to carrying cargo.
It's curved the way your fingers are curved if you have your hand out in front of you in "handshake" position. That way your wrists aren't twisted the way they are on a normal keyboard.
www.wwwcomcom.com is pretty cool. I found it on a postcard at CBGB.
Why would a principled company hire someone who has demonstrated that s/he puts loyalty to the paycheck ahead of principle?
Thanks for fixing the typo.
Was the typo retained in the headline just to screw up screenreaders?
The $75.55 I paid AT&T last month covered more minutes than I used (56) and more data than I used (7.4 MB). I surf the web recklessly, but I haven't used more than 2MB in any one day yet. The T68i in New York City is somewhat cruddy as a phone (the signal strength is weak), but works okay as a GPRS modem with the Tungsten since I can stick it on the window sill. The T68i battery life is very good.
In the U.S., you may tie balloons to a lawnchair and run ads saying "buy this and fly!" without filing with the FDA. If you want to run ads saying "Now the disabled can fly," well, that is a medical claim, and the FDA will require you to submit proof that your claim is valid and that the device can be used without serious side-effects.
It is not obvious how the interests of Microsoft's stakeholders (employees, shareholders, taxing authorities, office supply vendors, etc) can be reconciled with the interests of, loosely speaking, "Open Source." Closed source & copyright permit Microsoft to collect monopoly rent. Open source & copyleft eliminates that rent. Failure by Microsoft management to take all lawful actions to prevent such a revenue reduction would (arguably) be a breach of fiduciary responsibility, limited only by the economic principle that the cost of said actions should be less than the expected loss the of monopoly rent.
Seeing one might make it obvious. Here's a picture. Note the screen size.
It's "always on." Mail is delivered to the handheld automatically, instead of check-retrieve. See the website for the list of benefits.
Your next lexicographical
assignment is apparent. Nice work on VisiCalc.
So it appears to meet all your stated requirements for a micropayment system. Perhaps you have an axe to grind?
Yes, mainstream periodicals also offer refunds for the unused portion of a subscription, but
Consumer Reports, which accepts no ads, has been in operation since 1936. The online version is $24 per year. I think it is fair to characterize $2 per month as a micropayment (the Digiworld subscription is roughly 89 cents per week), so this is proof by example that the business model can work.
Here's a dark-humoured way of looking at it.
Two punters look at the paper. One says "Hrrmm, things don't look good for the Kingdom of Jordan."
The other says "What do you mean, there'll be a Kingdom of Jordan at William's coronation!"
The first says "Your on, twenty quid says the monarchy's done for by Boxing Day."
"Done."
Time passes.
"You know, it's a long wait 'til Boxing Day."
"Aye."
"What say we set up a little kingdom somewhere in Africa, like, and then we can bet how long it will last?"
"Setup job like that couldn't be long for this world."
"You never know, people like their royals."
"You're daft, they'll toss him out in a fortnight."
"Done and done."
---
In the first case, the lads are speculating, taking sides on a pre-existing risk. In the second case, they are gambling, creating a contest (like fielding a sports team) just so they can have a game. There's nothing morally superior about either activity, and both can be done rashly or with prudence.
Employee life insurance policies are "negative speculation" contracts, allowing the purchasers (corporations) to bet on a bad outcome.
The contracts described were less subject to manipulation. The outcome was not the death of a particular monarch, but rather the fall of the monarchy itself. The balance of power between the supporters and opponents of an entire system of government is unlikely to be shifted by the presence of a futures market, so I argue that there would be no increase in "total risk."
Do you mean that wars are different from elections because they are hell? It seems that (some) insurance companies have been attempting to make a profit by speculating on wars for centuries. What is the advantage of preventing a broader market from developing?
For the reasons given here, betting on the outcome of sporting competitions can be strictly classified as gambling.
Betting on whether a particular player will sustain an injury is speculation, and that's why insurance policy claims are legally enforceable in states which do not enforce gambling debts.