Congress moved to protect children's online privacy with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, or Coppa, which took effect in April 2000. The act was designed, in part, to protect young children from marketing efforts. But privacy advocates argue that it doesn't go far enough and note that it doesn't prohibit the kind of data collection N2H2 is doing. The act, which applies to children younger than 13, prohibits the collection of personal information that can be used to identify someone.
Does intent really matter? I'm sure it wasn't Stephen King's intent to have a kid in my high school (~1990) bring one of his horror stories to life by holding his class hostage with a shotgun.
Child pornography is disgusting to most of us. I'm sure you don't believe that any "normal" person will become aroused from watching virtual child porn, just as no "normal" person will decide to rape someone because they saw it in a movie.
No form of visual imagery should be illegal other than preventing the sale/viewing of it to minors. That's my take on it anyway.
Assuming this is a way to let us fly, I wonder if it works off of magnetic fields. The article says, The invention will also likely require meeting with city planners, regulators, legislators, large commercial companies and university presidents about how cities, companies and campuses can be retro-fitted for Ginger. It also talks about how this will be much cleaner than what's used today (gasoline).
If that's true, maybe there's something that needs to be buried in the ground to produce a strong magnetic field. Then, if the IT could produce a field to repell itself from that field, you could bover, no? I can't imagine there's much friction once your hovering so thrust would be minimal. Maybe not?
It would be nice if we could get a nice graphical background and have the bootup information still shown on the screen... maybe condensed with a small font to take up only a quarter of the screen.
Or even to have the option to press Escape to toggle between looking at bootup information and the graphical bootup screen.
I turn off my computer (*gasp*) every couple of days (*double-gasp*) and I can't remember the last time I ran into a problem at boot up. A little eye candy would be nice.
Here's what I don't get. From the article: But Congress, unlike many state legislatures, does not operate under a constitutional requirement that a bill's subject matter and title be the same.
Note that the quote says "many state legislatures" not "all state legislatures". If this is a "constitutional requirement" why are Congress and some states allowed to ignore it?
It would seem to me that if the bill's subject matter and title are not the same, then that would constitute fraud.
It's too bad they didn't sue Amazon.com first to kill that patent before being blown out of the water themselves when they sue someone like Prodigy. Oh, well. Maybe the next company with a frivolous lawsuit will do a better job.
By the way, how does a company "discover" that it has a patent for something?
Mr. VP: "Johnson, what is that sticking out of your ass?"
Johnson: "I don't know sir, let me check..."
*pop*
Johnson: "Why, it looks like a patent for hyperlinks."
Mr VP: "Hmmm, do you think we can still collect royalties even though one of our engineers pulled this patent out of his ass?"
In reference to CmdrTaco's comment about credit card spam. Credit bureaus publish lists of people who have "good credit". Many credit card companies seem to use that list as their own personal mailing list, which is why some people get so many applications.
If you go to the web page of Equifax (I believe they are the largest national credit bureau) you will find this number:
1-888-567-8688
to call to "Opt-Out". The direct link to the number is on
this page.
If you call this number and give them your information, you will be removed from the list of four credit bureaus (which I believe are Experian, Equifax, Novus and Trans Union).
It's a somewhat of an annoying process because it's all automated (at no point do you talk to a real person). Also, they mailed me a form to fill out and send back. But, I don't think I received more than 2 credit card applications in the last 3-4 months, whereas I was getting at least 3-4 a week before.
American Express offers "Private Payments" free with all(?) their credit cards. If you log into their website (using SSL) you can get a unique credit card number that is linked to your card account. The unique number is only valid for one transaction and if not used, expires after 30 days. You can use these numbers for online transactions or anywhere that accepts numbers over the phone. It's not recommended for things such as recurring payments, obviously.
If someone has already gained access to your computer, and they can read the web page (and hence the new number) that gets displayed, you're still out of luck. But if nothing else, this seems to be a step in the right direction. Does anyone think that this is pointless?
Actually, if companies weren't so careless about how they handle on-line transactions (like storing credit card numbers on a webserver with a domain name like CreditCards.com) we wouldn't need Private Payments either.
P.S.
I'm not affiliated with American Express, I just thought it was a good idea
1)"To me, that doesn't make sense," said Loretta Lynch, president of the California Public Utilities Commission. "We are far from running out of [phone] numbers.
"Lynch said she was surprised by the possible nationwide phone number mandate because the FCC has been giving state officials more power to enact conservation measures.
"It is diametrically opposed to everything the FCC has granted to California in the last 15 months," Lynch said. "It would severely impede California's ability to aggressively conserve phone numbers and area codes."
2)At least one member of the five-member FCC thinks the 10-digit dialing proposal goes too far and suggests that other members may not be in favor of such a sweeping proposal.
-----
Any legitimate reason other than "I don't like it"?
Again, from the article:
A 1998 study done for Illinois phone regulators found that of the 1.5 billion possible phone numbers created from the existing 193 area codes nationwide, about half a billion were not being used. The surplus is enough to eliminate more than 60 area codes.
I personally don't care how many digits they put in a phone number. The population is getting larger and with the popularity of cell phones and second phone lines for internet access (most people don't have cable modems or DSL) we're bound to run out of numbers sooner than later.
What annoys me is that they plan on switching "to 12 digits well within the next decade." Just when we get to the point where we have everything updated (from the phone companies equipment to business cards), we get to start all over again. They should go directly to 12 digits if it's necessary.
I was wondering how subscription software, like this, will effect a companies "IT" staff?
I'm not a manager (I'm playing devils advocate), but I can see how something like this may be seen as a cost saver for companies. Why? If subscriptions upgrades (or software packages themselves) are available online and Windows does all of the installation/upgrading, won't all the "bean counters" start weighing the cost of subscriptions vs. the cost of maintaining an IT department? Won't they also see this as a way to lower the total up front cost?
Sure, you'll still need people to maintain the network itself, but they will no longer need people to maintain software. When they eliminate employees, they not only eliminate salaries but also the cost of benefits (medical, dental, 401k match) and over-head. I don't know how much time is spent maintaining software but even if its minimal you have to believe that their looking at the cost savings.
I'm not saying this is a good idea and I can't see how this will ever catch on for home use, but it may appeal to some businesses. So, I was wondering whether anyone thought this would effect their employment?
I don't know how "reliable" this is but I did find this picture and blurb about the remains of Tutankhamen. I realize we wasn't buried in one of the pyramids at Gizeh but it could definately be used as a point of reference in time.
Also, I believe that pigments (on pottery) and some of the "debris" (like rotted wood and food) found in the tombs is organic based and can be carbon-dated.
I think you're right about the pyramids at Gizeh being empty.
Yes there is, but are those smaller pyramides as accurately aligned? And are their dates consistent with the model?
From the Nature article the "...error in orientation produces a remarkably straight line... Two pyramids, Khafre and Ashure, do not fall near the straight line, but even this can be explained by assuming that the measurement was made when the two key stars were the other way up in the sky, reversing the deviation."
I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that since they say "all but two" that they did actually check this against all of the pyramids in Egypt, excluding pyramids that were not completed or those were this measurement can't be made (i.e. covered mostly by sand). I would guess that since this is such a heated topic that the misalignment from true north of each pyramid is already known and therefore easy to correlate to any data they have gathered.
Yes they had, but very roughly 1000 years earlier beta Ursae Minoris (Kochab) and eta Ursae Majoris (Alkaid) had simultaneous transits too. And earlier still there were other simultaneous transits of bright star pairs. The only reason for choosing the Kochab-Mizar alignment seems to be because it fits the orthodox date.
Yes, that's true. Maybe I'm wrong but I have a hard time believing that with ancient records, both in Egypt and other civilations, and from radio-carbon dating of materials inside the pyramid (including the remains of the pharoahs), that Egytologists can't date the pyramids to within 1000 years. To me it would seem that the Kochab-Mizar alignment is the closest to the time when the pyramids are believed to have been built. And, since the data lines up very well, it is reasonable to believe that this is the method they used to find true north, especially considering the accuracy in which they were able to do so.
I say that if you hypothesize that the pyramids were built in, say 3500 BC instead, using this very same method of finding north, but using the simultaneous transits of Kochab-Alkaid instead, then this very same pattern of misalignment would appear if the construction dates were offset from each other by the same amount of time.
That's true. But again, that's only if they can't date the pyramids to within a 1000 year time frame.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't test this theory to other alignments to see if the data fits. I think the theory focuses on this alignment because it is generally accepted that the orthodox date of the pyramids is fairly accurate. Or at least accurate enough to rule out alignments that occurred much earilier.
Also, I'm not saying that this is definetly the way that the Egyptians found true north. But it does seem to be a good theory.
For question 1c), There are more than the 3 pyramids in Ghaza to verify the error in alignment.
For the rest of question 1), in the Nature article is says "...the earth's axis is not fixed; it precesses so that the north celestial pole moves in a small circle on the sky with a 26,000-year period. When the Egyptians were constructing their tombs, there was no visible pole star within two degrees of true north, yet they were able to achieve an accuracy of just three arc minutes (one twentieth of a degree)." I highly doubt this would be achieved by chance or human error.
Then it continues. "By running computer simulations of the night sky back to the time of the Egyptian kingdoms, she has also identified the stars that were most probably used -- z-Ursae Majoris and g-Ursae Minoris -- one each from the constellations of The Great and The Little Bear, which had simultaneous transits in 2467 BC."
And then, "Because of the precession of the Earth's axis, these two stars would have simultaneous transits only for a year or so. One would therefore expect errors in alignments to increase with time away from 2467 BC. This is exactly what is seen -- plotting the estimated construction date of the pyramids against their error in orientation produces a remarkably straight line, with those built before 2467 BC pointing slightly east and those built afterwards pointing slightly west."
For question 2), the answer is not necessarily. Because some of the pyramids are slightly east of true north and some are slightly west, and because the star(s) closest to true north vary with a 26,000 year period, I don't think there would be many other instances (in the time frame that the pyramids were built) that this could have happened. If all of the pyramids were built earlier than 2467 BC they would all be off slightly to the east and if they were all built after 2467 BC, they'd all be off to the west.
For question 3, I don't believe the Egyptians knew that they weren't exactly at true north. And it's not so much that they would have been less accurate at any other period of time, it's that there would have been more pyramids to either the east or west of true north depending on when they started building them. The first pyramid built that is slightly to the west of true north tells you the first pyramid build after 2467 BC. And by measuring the error, it should tell you when the pyramid was built, since they know how long it would have taken the two starts to be off from true north by that amount.
The Reuters article says, "Their building expertise is beyond doubt, but Spence said her findings show they were poor astronomers."
The technical explanation of the theory, to me, is a bit misleading in that it includes information that the Egyptians did not understand. The information is included to explain the deviation of the pyramids from true north over time. It does not mean the the Egyptians were aware of this deviation (otherwise they would have corrected for it).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this area of Egypt is very flat so they wouldn't have been able to use a point on a mountain range (for example) as a point of reference. Therefore, they theorize, that they used these two stars as their point of reference because they believed they were fixed in the sky.
I know that at least one town in NJ that uses computers in the voting booth. Everything is done via touch screen. There are boxes next to each candidates name. If you touch the box, an "X" is placed in the box. If you touch it again, the "X" goes away. The results are saved to tape (and printed out), which are later sent to the state via phone line when the polls close. If the machine goes down while your voting (which I don't think has ever happened), you let someone know and you go to a different machine. Since your first attempt was not complete, it's not counted.
My point is electronic ballots do work, even for senior citizens (which NJ has a lot of). Then again maybe it only works in NJ because people are use to video poker/slots at Atlantic City:)
Writing the results to tape may not be the best choice of media but look at where using paper has gotten us.
While there was little speculation of a down turn while things were great for all of the dot-coms, now there seems to be too much speculation as to how "bad" things will get. All of this guessing isn't something that should be reported as news. We saw this problem during the presidential election when people decided not to vote because news stations had already "predicted" (many times inaccurately) the winner of that state.
It may be that the tech industry is still strong and that the NASDAQ is "down" because the price of dot-coms has been corrected. But if the media tells people a recession is on the way and people believe it, they'll sell stock for fear of what's to come (even if what's to come should only have been a market correction) and we might find ourselves in a recession anyway.
But unless you believe the economy will never recover, a recession might bring about low stock prices which will be a nice investment for the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
Congress moved to protect children's online privacy with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, or Coppa, which took effect in April 2000. The act was designed, in part, to protect young children from marketing efforts. But privacy advocates argue that it doesn't go far enough and note that it doesn't prohibit the kind of data collection N2H2 is doing. The act, which applies to children younger than 13, prohibits the collection of personal information that can be used to identify someone.
Didn't we read about this before?
Does intent really matter? I'm sure it wasn't Stephen King's intent to have a kid in my high school (~1990) bring one of his horror stories to life by holding his class hostage with a shotgun.
Child pornography is disgusting to most of us. I'm sure you don't believe that any "normal" person will become aroused from watching virtual child porn, just as no "normal" person will decide to rape someone because they saw it in a movie.
No form of visual imagery should be illegal other than preventing the sale/viewing of it to minors. That's my take on it anyway.
Assuming this is a way to let us fly, I wonder if it works off of magnetic fields. The article says, The invention will also likely require meeting with city planners, regulators, legislators, large commercial companies and university presidents about how cities, companies and campuses can be retro-fitted for Ginger. It also talks about how this will be much cleaner than what's used today (gasoline).
If that's true, maybe there's something that needs to be buried in the ground to produce a strong magnetic field. Then, if the IT could produce a field to repell itself from that field, you could bover, no? I can't imagine there's much friction once your hovering so thrust would be minimal. Maybe not?
Or even to have the option to press Escape to toggle between looking at bootup information and the graphical bootup screen.
I turn off my computer (*gasp*) every couple of days (*double-gasp*) and I can't remember the last time I ran into a problem at boot up. A little eye candy would be nice.
Ahh... that makes sense. Thanks
Note that the quote says "many state legislatures" not "all state legislatures". If this is a "constitutional requirement" why are Congress and some states allowed to ignore it?
It would seem to me that if the bill's subject matter and title are not the same, then that would constitute fraud.
Doesn't Amazon's 1-Click Shopping Patent use this "hyperlink technology"?
It's too bad they didn't sue Amazon.com first to kill that patent before being blown out of the water themselves when they sue someone like Prodigy. Oh, well. Maybe the next company with a frivolous lawsuit will do a better job.
By the way, how does a company "discover" that it has a patent for something?
Mr. VP: "Johnson, what is that sticking out of your ass?"
Johnson: "I don't know sir, let me check..."
*pop*
Johnson: "Why, it looks like a patent for hyperlinks."
Mr VP: "Hmmm, do you think we can still collect royalties even though one of our engineers pulled this patent out of his ass?"
In reference to CmdrTaco's comment about credit card spam. Credit bureaus publish lists of people who have "good credit". Many credit card companies seem to use that list as their own personal mailing list, which is why some people get so many applications.
If you go to the web page of Equifax (I believe they are the largest national credit bureau) you will find this number: 1-888-567-8688 to call to "Opt-Out". The direct link to the number is on this page.
If you call this number and give them your information, you will be removed from the list of four credit bureaus (which I believe are Experian, Equifax, Novus and Trans Union).
It's a somewhat of an annoying process because it's all automated (at no point do you talk to a real person). Also, they mailed me a form to fill out and send back. But, I don't think I received more than 2 credit card applications in the last 3-4 months, whereas I was getting at least 3-4 a week before.
American Express offers "Private Payments" free with all(?) their credit cards. If you log into their website (using SSL) you can get a unique credit card number that is linked to your card account. The unique number is only valid for one transaction and if not used, expires after 30 days. You can use these numbers for online transactions or anywhere that accepts numbers over the phone. It's not recommended for things such as recurring payments, obviously.
If someone has already gained access to your computer, and they can read the web page (and hence the new number) that gets displayed, you're still out of luck. But if nothing else, this seems to be a step in the right direction. Does anyone think that this is pointless?
Actually, if companies weren't so careless about how they handle on-line transactions (like storing credit card numbers on a webserver with a domain name like CreditCards.com) we wouldn't need Private Payments either.
P.S.I'm not affiliated with American Express, I just thought it was a good idea
So who was making the fuss?
Directly from the article:
1)"To me, that doesn't make sense," said Loretta Lynch, president of the California Public Utilities Commission. "We are far from running out of [phone] numbers.
"Lynch said she was surprised by the possible nationwide phone number mandate because the FCC has been giving state officials more power to enact conservation measures.
"It is diametrically opposed to everything the FCC has granted to California in the last 15 months," Lynch said. "It would severely impede California's ability to aggressively conserve phone numbers and area codes."
2)At least one member of the five-member FCC thinks the 10-digit dialing proposal goes too far and suggests that other members may not be in favor of such a sweeping proposal.
-----Any legitimate reason other than "I don't like it"?
Again, from the article:
A 1998 study done for Illinois phone regulators found that of the 1.5 billion possible phone numbers created from the existing 193 area codes nationwide, about half a billion were not being used. The surplus is enough to eliminate more than 60 area codes.
I personally don't care how many digits they put in a phone number. The population is getting larger and with the popularity of cell phones and second phone lines for internet access (most people don't have cable modems or DSL) we're bound to run out of numbers sooner than later.
What annoys me is that they plan on switching "to 12 digits well within the next decade." Just when we get to the point where we have everything updated (from the phone companies equipment to business cards), we get to start all over again. They should go directly to 12 digits if it's necessary.
I was wondering how subscription software, like this, will effect a companies "IT" staff?
I'm not a manager (I'm playing devils advocate), but I can see how something like this may be seen as a cost saver for companies. Why? If subscriptions upgrades (or software packages themselves) are available online and Windows does all of the installation/upgrading, won't all the "bean counters" start weighing the cost of subscriptions vs. the cost of maintaining an IT department? Won't they also see this as a way to lower the total up front cost?
Sure, you'll still need people to maintain the network itself, but they will no longer need people to maintain software. When they eliminate employees, they not only eliminate salaries but also the cost of benefits (medical, dental, 401k match) and over-head. I don't know how much time is spent maintaining software but even if its minimal you have to believe that their looking at the cost savings.
I'm not saying this is a good idea and I can't see how this will ever catch on for home use, but it may appeal to some businesses. So, I was wondering whether anyone thought this would effect their employment?
Nothing wrong with Devil's Advocate :)
I don't know how "reliable" this is but I did find this picture and blurb about the remains of Tutankhamen. I realize we wasn't buried in one of the pyramids at Gizeh but it could definately be used as a point of reference in time.
Also, I believe that pigments (on pottery) and some of the "debris" (like rotted wood and food) found in the tombs is organic based and can be carbon-dated.
I think you're right about the pyramids at Gizeh being empty.
Yes there is, but are those smaller pyramides as accurately aligned? And are their dates consistent with the model?
From the Nature article the "...error in orientation produces a remarkably straight line... Two pyramids, Khafre and Ashure, do not fall near the straight line, but even this can be explained by assuming that the measurement was made when the two key stars were the other way up in the sky, reversing the deviation."
I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that since they say "all but two" that they did actually check this against all of the pyramids in Egypt, excluding pyramids that were not completed or those were this measurement can't be made (i.e. covered mostly by sand). I would guess that since this is such a heated topic that the misalignment from true north of each pyramid is already known and therefore easy to correlate to any data they have gathered.Yes they had, but very roughly 1000 years earlier beta Ursae Minoris (Kochab) and eta Ursae Majoris (Alkaid) had simultaneous transits too. And earlier still there were other simultaneous transits of bright star pairs. The only reason for choosing the Kochab-Mizar alignment seems to be because it fits the orthodox date.
Yes, that's true. Maybe I'm wrong but I have a hard time believing that with ancient records, both in Egypt and other civilations, and from radio-carbon dating of materials inside the pyramid (including the remains of the pharoahs), that Egytologists can't date the pyramids to within 1000 years. To me it would seem that the Kochab-Mizar alignment is the closest to the time when the pyramids are believed to have been built. And, since the data lines up very well, it is reasonable to believe that this is the method they used to find true north, especially considering the accuracy in which they were able to do so.
I say that if you hypothesize that the pyramids were built in, say 3500 BC instead, using this very same method of finding north, but using the simultaneous transits of Kochab-Alkaid instead, then this very same pattern of misalignment would appear if the construction dates were offset from each other by the same amount of time.
That's true. But again, that's only if they can't date the pyramids to within a 1000 year time frame.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't test this theory to other alignments to see if the data fits. I think the theory focuses on this alignment because it is generally accepted that the orthodox date of the pyramids is fairly accurate. Or at least accurate enough to rule out alignments that occurred much earilier.
Also, I'm not saying that this is definetly the way that the Egyptians found true north. But it does seem to be a good theory.
For the rest of question 1), in the Nature article is says "...the earth's axis is not fixed; it precesses so that the north celestial pole moves in a small circle on the sky with a 26,000-year period. When the Egyptians were constructing their tombs, there was no visible pole star within two degrees of true north, yet they were able to achieve an accuracy of just three arc minutes (one twentieth of a degree)." I highly doubt this would be achieved by chance or human error.
Then it continues. "By running computer simulations of the night sky back to the time of the Egyptian kingdoms, she has also identified the stars that were most probably used -- z-Ursae Majoris and g-Ursae Minoris -- one each from the constellations of The Great and The Little Bear, which had simultaneous transits in 2467 BC."
And then, "Because of the precession of the Earth's axis, these two stars would have simultaneous transits only for a year or so. One would therefore expect errors in alignments to increase with time away from 2467 BC. This is exactly what is seen -- plotting the estimated construction date of the pyramids against their error in orientation produces a remarkably straight line, with those built before 2467 BC pointing slightly east and those built afterwards pointing slightly west."
For question 2), the answer is not necessarily. Because some of the pyramids are slightly east of true north and some are slightly west, and because the star(s) closest to true north vary with a 26,000 year period, I don't think there would be many other instances (in the time frame that the pyramids were built) that this could have happened. If all of the pyramids were built earlier than 2467 BC they would all be off slightly to the east and if they were all built after 2467 BC, they'd all be off to the west.
For question 3, I don't believe the Egyptians knew that they weren't exactly at true north. And it's not so much that they would have been less accurate at any other period of time, it's that there would have been more pyramids to either the east or west of true north depending on when they started building them. The first pyramid built that is slightly to the west of true north tells you the first pyramid build after 2467 BC. And by measuring the error, it should tell you when the pyramid was built, since they know how long it would have taken the two starts to be off from true north by that amount.
The Reuters article says, "Their building expertise is beyond doubt, but Spence said her findings show they were poor astronomers."
The technical explanation of the theory, to me, is a bit misleading in that it includes information that the Egyptians did not understand. The information is included to explain the deviation of the pyramids from true north over time. It does not mean the the Egyptians were aware of this deviation (otherwise they would have corrected for it).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this area of Egypt is very flat so they wouldn't have been able to use a point on a mountain range (for example) as a point of reference. Therefore, they theorize, that they used these two stars as their point of reference because they believed they were fixed in the sky.
I know that at least one town in NJ that uses computers in the voting booth. Everything is done via touch screen. There are boxes next to each candidates name. If you touch the box, an "X" is placed in the box. If you touch it again, the "X" goes away. The results are saved to tape (and printed out), which are later sent to the state via phone line when the polls close. If the machine goes down while your voting (which I don't think has ever happened), you let someone know and you go to a different machine. Since your first attempt was not complete, it's not counted.
:)
My point is electronic ballots do work, even for senior citizens (which NJ has a lot of). Then again maybe it only works in NJ because people are use to video poker/slots at Atlantic City
Writing the results to tape may not be the best choice of media but look at where using paper has gotten us.
It may be that the tech industry is still strong and that the NASDAQ is "down" because the price of dot-coms has been corrected. But if the media tells people a recession is on the way and people believe it, they'll sell stock for fear of what's to come (even if what's to come should only have been a market correction) and we might find ourselves in a recession anyway.
But unless you believe the economy will never recover, a recession might bring about low stock prices which will be a nice investment for the long term.