she actually named her book "Treason", implying that anyone not supporting the Bush administration or any one of the wars our president starts is a traitor and should be killed.
I believe that the title "Treason" refers to a number of people within the U.S. government who were working for the Soviets back during the big communist scare. Many of those accused were proven to be guilty in later years with the release of intercepted Soviet cable traffic.
Your reading of the title was quite a stretch. Did you read the book?
What's the current altitude? Any ETA to the rocket ignition? I'm at work with the only tv down the hall, on a broadcast network that's not covering very well.
Occasionally, while I'm typing, the letters will start to come out as all caps, and I realize that I've accidently hit the caps lock. When this happens, I hit the caps lock key to make the letters go back to normal. If I didn't have a caps lock key, I wouldn't be able to make the switch back to normal typing.
My sole knowledge on the subject came from a book called "The Code Book", if I remember correctly -- an EXCELLENT READ for the layman, by the way. Anyway, I recall reading about two things: a quantum network using polarized photons as bits, and a quantum computer, which somehow embodied the Schroedinger's Cat principle of processing all possibilities at once. The first was secure because it was impossible to eavesdrop without detection, because the simple act of observing the photons would change their state and result in detection. The second enabled super-powerful encryption and decryption, just because of sheer processing power.
If I understood correctly, the two ideas are mostly unrelated in terms of how they provide security, yet they seem to be intermingled in this thread. Did I misunderstand?
The second edition of this book was my first ever look at Linux. Now I run two Linux machines and boot a third to Windows only when I have to (and almost never for my own personal use.) I maintain a few Linux servers and have written a handful of web-apps, for which I've been nicely paid.
My point: I'm no dummy, but I had no knowledge of the subject. I was the target audience, and the book hit the mark and got me started.
I was wondering the same thing. I remember seeing a commercial for a business, and it ended with words to the effect of, "1 mile east of the tire fire." Maybe if we could see the commercial again, we could interpolate.
If, for instance, two of the holes are covered by anything opaque, the five slit shadow reappears, but it, the red laser light, can penetrate anything and behaves as light does, that allows light to pass.
The parent may not have selected the best example of poor subordinate clause construction, but the article does indeed butcher the English language, and commas are indeed overused.
I have yet to find a word processor that I like for serious work that runs on Linux. I'm by no means a "feature cripple," and I do a lot of stuff with a text editor, but sometimes I need more. OO.org, in my opinion, is unbearably clunky and just weird. KWrite is fine for my own stuff, but not if I plan to give it to anyone else (in soft copy, that is.) Abiword or whatever it's called was about the same as KWrite when I used it a few times. I'm currently happy with MSWord for Mac running under Mac-On-Linux on my yellowdog machine. That way I get the refinement of Word without having to bow down to the evil master (or at least, bow down as far as having to actually try to boot a windows machine.)
Am I missing something? Maybe this Corel thing will fill the bill.
(and by the way, O.T., yellowdog linux + simultaneous OS X + ibook = Nirvana.)
I've constructed a simple device that cancels almost all noise from my fan. A common #2 pencil inserted into the fan blades does the trick quite nicely. I've used this system sucessfully on three different computers, and I can tell you that the noise reduction is dramatic. Oddly, all three of them stopped working within minutes due to unrelated problems.
(and most others I've seen on the subject) is a comparison of the vulnerabilities of paper voting and paperless voting. The author points out several possible weaknesses in the electronic system, but would a security expert also be able to find weaknesses in the paper ballot system? I'm guessing yes. I'm not coming down on one side or the other, but I think part of the analysis is missing.
Not only that, but it's his administration that's banned the media from filming or photographing the returning coffins: you might chose to blame Bill Clinton, but he's not the President any more, so quit trying to pass the buck onto him.
I'm not blaming anyone. It was a rule passed during the Clinton administration. George Bush is enforcing that rule, and I have no problem with that. If families want to arrange some sort of press coverage for the return of their dead loved-one, they are free to do so.
Again, I point out that if Bush were to go to a funeral, I guaran-friggin-tee you that he would be accused of grandstanding.
I was in the military until just before Bush was elected, and I have good friends fighting in both of the theaters now. I hold no grudge against Clinton, but I guarantee you that professional soldiers and Marines prefer this administration to the last.
I notice that your major points revolve around cameras and public displays of grieving families. You want to judge the President's level of caring by how much time he spends on camera and how public a spectacle he can make of it. I think that's a bit self-serving.
Slashdot Mirror
The USPTO recently underwent some changes (new computer system, IIRC)
Oh, you mean they have access to Google now? That should help.
she actually named her book "Treason", implying that anyone not supporting the Bush administration or any one of the wars our president starts is a traitor and should be killed.
I believe that the title "Treason" refers to a number of people within the U.S. government who were working for the Soviets back during the big communist scare. Many of those accused were proven to be guilty in later years with the release of intercepted Soviet cable traffic.
Your reading of the title was quite a stretch. Did you read the book?
Broadcast television sucks. NOTHING!
What's the current altitude? Any ETA to the rocket ignition? I'm at work with the only tv down the hall, on a broadcast network that's not covering very well.
So now I'm rollin' through Fallujah with a shotgun.
These people ain't seen a white-skinned man since their grandparents caught one.
Maybe in this case the difference is that DirecTV wasn't set up by The Man. Did you think of that? Huh?
Dammit, your'e talking about me! I have great ideas but I can't finish anything! Get out of my head!
I felt the same as you...maybe I'm as smart as you and maybe not.
But here's the thing that has made my life invaluable. No shit...
FIND AND CHERISH GOOD FRIENDS.
Your talents will take you wherever they take you, but friendship will fill the gaps.
Occasionally, while I'm typing, the letters will start to come out as all caps, and I realize that I've accidently hit the caps lock. When this happens, I hit the caps lock key to make the letters go back to normal. If I didn't have a caps lock key, I wouldn't be able to make the switch back to normal typing.
I have a question about this.
My sole knowledge on the subject came from a book called "The Code Book", if I remember correctly -- an EXCELLENT READ for the layman, by the way. Anyway, I recall reading about two things: a quantum network using polarized photons as bits, and a quantum computer, which somehow embodied the Schroedinger's Cat principle of processing all possibilities at once. The first was secure because it was impossible to eavesdrop without detection, because the simple act of observing the photons would change their state and result in detection. The second enabled super-powerful encryption and decryption, just because of sheer processing power.
If I understood correctly, the two ideas are mostly unrelated in terms of how they provide security, yet they seem to be intermingled in this thread. Did I misunderstand?
I am not understanding your joke my friend.
The second edition of this book was my first ever look at Linux. Now I run two Linux machines and boot a third to Windows only when I have to (and almost never for my own personal use.) I maintain a few Linux servers and have written a handful of web-apps, for which I've been nicely paid.
My point: I'm no dummy, but I had no knowledge of the subject. I was the target audience, and the book hit the mark and got me started.
I was wondering the same thing. I remember seeing a commercial for a business, and it ended with words to the effect of, "1 mile east of the tire fire." Maybe if we could see the commercial again, we could interpolate.
Copyrighted.
It's 'copyright' not 'copywrite'.
Not trying to be an ass...I wouldn't bother if I didn't see the same mistake all the time.
Perhaps you could diagram this sentence for us:
If, for instance, two of the holes are covered by anything opaque, the five slit shadow reappears, but it, the red laser light, can penetrate anything and behaves as light does, that allows light to pass.
The parent may not have selected the best example of poor subordinate clause construction, but the article does indeed butcher the English language, and commas are indeed overused.
And throughout the episode he demonstrates a couple of other (obvious to us) things that these unevolved people are confused about.
Isn't that a violation of the Prime Directive?
Not to start a flamewar, but that sounds like Florida in 2000. "Sure we have a standard. Our standard is the intent of the voter!"
Reminds me more of the "Radical Vertical Impact Simulator" from "Spies Like Us."
I have yet to find a word processor that I like for serious work that runs on Linux. I'm by no means a "feature cripple," and I do a lot of stuff with a text editor, but sometimes I need more. OO.org, in my opinion, is unbearably clunky and just weird. KWrite is fine for my own stuff, but not if I plan to give it to anyone else (in soft copy, that is.) Abiword or whatever it's called was about the same as KWrite when I used it a few times. I'm currently happy with MSWord for Mac running under Mac-On-Linux on my yellowdog machine. That way I get the refinement of Word without having to bow down to the evil master (or at least, bow down as far as having to actually try to boot a windows machine.)
Am I missing something? Maybe this Corel thing will fill the bill.
(and by the way, O.T., yellowdog linux + simultaneous OS X + ibook = Nirvana.)
The 2.7 Mbps is interesting, but I think that qualifies as a burst transmission.
Plus, what's the latency of that network, and is it highly available?
Fromme's 'Escape from Freedom.'
I've waited 15 years to say that.
between this and the good, old-fashioned phone tap? They're just trying to keep up with technology.
I've constructed a simple device that cancels almost all noise from my fan. A common #2 pencil inserted into the fan blades does the trick quite nicely. I've used this system sucessfully on three different computers, and I can tell you that the noise reduction is dramatic. Oddly, all three of them stopped working within minutes due to unrelated problems.
(and most others I've seen on the subject) is a comparison of the vulnerabilities of paper voting and paperless voting. The author points out several possible weaknesses in the electronic system, but would a security expert also be able to find weaknesses in the paper ballot system? I'm guessing yes. I'm not coming down on one side or the other, but I think part of the analysis is missing.
Not only that, but it's his administration that's banned the media from filming or photographing the returning coffins: you might chose to blame Bill Clinton, but he's not the President any more, so quit trying to pass the buck onto him.
I'm not blaming anyone. It was a rule passed during the Clinton administration. George Bush is enforcing that rule, and I have no problem with that. If families want to arrange some sort of press coverage for the return of their dead loved-one, they are free to do so.
Again, I point out that if Bush were to go to a funeral, I guaran-friggin-tee you that he would be accused of grandstanding.
I was in the military until just before Bush was elected, and I have good friends fighting in both of the theaters now. I hold no grudge against Clinton, but I guarantee you that professional soldiers and Marines prefer this administration to the last.
I notice that your major points revolve around cameras and public displays of grieving families. You want to judge the President's level of caring by how much time he spends on camera and how public a spectacle he can make of it. I think that's a bit self-serving.