Interestingly though, the needed rate of technical development and cost in real dollars of mounting a sailing expedition in the Age of Exploration was similar to that of the shuttle program
There's this new technological innovation which is pretty complicated but it's apparently some sort of "switched network." Some miscreant abused this innovation to set up an appointment with a drug dealer!
America's children are at risk! Why hasn't Congress acted!!?? Write your representative TODAY!
actually, I don't. I know Xing was somehow "responsible" for making it easy to crack DeCSS, but whatever happened to Xing. I mean, who the *^#@ ever heard of Xing in the first place?
Actually, I heard of Xing, plenty of cheap CD-ROMs came with their software bundle back in the Clinton years... so I guess a better question is: Who the *^%@ ever heard of any real repercussions fron the DeCSS incident making their way back to Xing?
Still, it's something we should talk about. I mean, "assert compliance against an uncooperative subject" could mean a lot of things.
Of course law enforcement has an obligation, but people have rights too. (Under the self-same law.) It's a two way street.
Sigh. I thought I would have something worthwhile to say, but really I'm just tired. Read my response to the other guy, if you're interested. Your food is too rational for this troll.
(note that one of the officers stated that he had been tasered before, and knew she was overreacting).
Well, there's an unbiased source. The officer who commited violence says it probably wasn't so painful after all. Go figure.
Have you ever even heard of the choke hold? Watts? Do I live in the same country as you?
A fire drill is not a fire, and a police officer, being tasered by other cops in a training exercise, is not the same as what happened here.
You know and I know that a statistical sample of size 1 has an uncertainty of 1. And you dare mention the straw man?
Did you even play GTA 3: Vice City? Ambulance mission? (Or vigilante.) Listen to the police chatter. "I gave them a little beating. Nothing too serious."
Have you heard the name Rodney King? "Gorillas in the mist?"
I'm not really talking about this specific instance, with a sample size of 1 and a random error of 100%, but about something much larger, and much more important.
I agree that the should be grateful (and is lucky) she didn't suffer more violence (or death), but that doesn't justify the violence she was subjected to.
How hard would it have been for the cops to let that woman vent for ten minutes and finally calm down enough to behave?
A black woman pulled over by two white cops has many valid and legitimate reasons to fear for her safety. The cops did nothing to allay those fears; instead they chose to reinforce their authority with physical pain.
I'm not saying it's worth making a federal case over, and with Gonzales as Attorney General surely that won't happen.
My point is this: Take a step back. When law enforcement brings a combative response to a hostile situation, well, that's exactly what happened at Waco. Do you condone burning children to death in an attempt to serve a warrant? (See also: MOVE fire, Philadelphia, 1985.)
You will have a much more satisfying result if you put a spark to the butane gas from the lighter and use the ensuant flame to ignite and inhale a bowl of, well, let's just call it a "not-so-common health-neutral substance."
Good points. To me it's most clearly understood as a matter of economics. Proponents of tough drug laws benefit economically from said laws.
Not to focus on just one story, but met a man who was thrown into "drug rehab" for six months. His transgression was smoking pot in middle school. At the rehab, he wasn't allowed any caffiene or sugary foods, but they were allowed cigarettes.
Turns out that if you peeled back the layers of the onion, the drug rehab center was owned by a tobacco company. His six months in "rehab" served a dual purpose -- it not only got him off of pot, it got him addicted to cigarettes, a vice he still hasn't shaken.
Porno for pyros, if you will, only in reverse -- cigarettes are far more harmful and addictive than cannabis.
Is it lost on the proponents of the War on Drugs that, were it not for the War on Drugs, buying that dimebag wouldn't fund terrorists?
Social and Economic conservatives tout their mythological Free Market, and how the Free Market is beneficial for the consumer. Bbut when it comes to the War on Drugs, they've created the most lopsided market, and one that operates at such incedibly inflated prices, precisely because of their attempts to restrict it.
Marijuana, which can grow practically anywhere, sells for $2000 a POUND? That number should be more like $2 a pound. That extra $1998, the price the market has settled upon due to the artificial constraints, simply funds the mechanisms which make a highly sought-after yet illegal product ubiquitously available.
And I'm not going to do the math, but I'm willing to bet the Feds spend on the order of $1998 per pound to try to "interdict" marijuana in the first place. Not to mention the economic loss of throwing people in jail, clogging up the courts. Though, they've been able to mask those costs by building private prisons -- all those 20 year jail sentences for possesion create jobs. And anything that creates jobs can't possibly be bad! (I'm not a big believer in "lost economic activity" since it's all based on "coulda, shoulda, woulda" but surely it does have an economic impact when we have one million of our citizens incarcerated for violating drug laws.)
Marijuana, which left to the free market would cost $2 a pound, ends up costing something more like $4000 a pound, in direct and indirect costs.
And somehow this makes sense, to bequeath millions of taxpayer money, to create a comlete social apparatus, with its own courts and police, dedicated to illegalizing a hardy plant. A weed which has negligible health consequences compared to tobacco and nicotine (not to mention pharmaceuticals), and has never been shown to kill the user -- unlike alcohol, tobacco, ephedrine, Celebrex, Dextromethorphan, just to name a few.
What does it matter if the source is legal or illegal?
Which of these activities do you think generates the most revenue for "terrorists?"
1. Revenue coming directy or indirectly from oil sales. 2. Revenue coming directly or indirectly from illegal drug sales 3. Revenue coming directly or indirectly from DVD sales.
Now, just maybe, if you feel that the "liberal elite" in the media want the terrorists to win, since they don't always "watch what they say, watch what they do" like patriotic Americans are supposed to, you just might have an argument that (legal) DVD sales fund terrorism. Let's send Bill Maher to Pakistan for some extreme rendition.
But if your argument is that the terrorist revenue from black market DVDs sold on street corners is even close to equal the revenue from illegal drug sales, then you're high. On illegal drugs. Which means YOU are the terrorist!
And that's not even considering the legal activity which funds terrorism, like the trillions of dollars the US pays the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for oil, which the Kingdom in turn gives to Osama bin Laden's construction company... to build among other things American military bases like the Khobar Towers... which Al-Qaeda blew up.
Ah, it sure feels great to read such glowing praise. I am teh r33tn3ss! I sure showed that CS professor who gave me a D! See, I knew the the SlashDot community would fully appreciate the Machiavellian subtlety of my devious, malicious code.
The analysis of the pseudo-random number generator found that the worm would not generate addresses for about 10 percent of the Internet and would generate the same address twice for another 10 percent of possible Internet addresses. The researchers used their analysis of the generator to plot the orbits -- the sequences of numbers each worm would create -- and found a single address from which copies of the worm propagated but which did not fall on any orbit.
This makes it sound like the originating IP was one of those ten percent.
Maybe it was a very subtle way to attempt to mask the originating IP? Sure it will block a few others, but you'll still hit 90%. It might block enough so that it seems like a programming flaw, but it's actually a deliberate flaw to hide the point of origin?
Though, this hypothesis is definitely getting into the realm of Spy vs. Spy if you ask me.
Sorta like how in the US today, judges are selected by the President, approved or disapproved by the Senate, not a general plebiscite, and the position normally lasts the judge's whole life.
Don't forget the white phosphorus! They added that because it still burns underwater -- so the gooks couldn't just jump in a rice paddy to put out the flames.
Slashdot Mirror
You left out the two classic examples, Therac-25 and the Patriot Missile.
Interestingly though, the needed rate of technical development and cost in real dollars of mounting a sailing expedition in the Age of Exploration was similar to that of the shuttle program
Can you provide a source or explanation for this?
There's this new technological innovation which is pretty complicated but it's apparently some sort of "switched network." Some miscreant abused this innovation to set up an appointment with a drug dealer!
America's children are at risk! Why hasn't Congress acted!!?? Write your representative TODAY!
A college campus is where four students were killed by the National Guard in 1970.
Pardon my snarkiness, but I the Constitution guarantees the right to peacefully assemble.
But how do you do that?
Have kids, and teach them what you know.
It's never been the majority that rules, at least not in the past few thousand years of European civilization.
"Maybe we have a chance" -- NSF terrorist (Deus Ex)
hello there blind friend, I just thought I should let you know that the word you are looking for is exceptions, not acceptions.
that's e-x-ceptions, not a-c-ceptions.
They sound a lot alike, but for whatever reason they are two different words.
Apologies if you meant "ex" and you ended up with "ac" due to the technological hurdles in your path.
cheerio!
actually, I don't. I know Xing was somehow "responsible" for making it easy to crack DeCSS, but whatever happened to Xing. I mean, who the *^#@ ever heard of Xing in the first place?
Actually, I heard of Xing, plenty of cheap CD-ROMs came with their software bundle back in the Clinton years... so I guess a better question is: Who the *^%@ ever heard of any real repercussions fron the DeCSS incident making their way back to Xing?
The view from 30,000 feet is usually pretty relevant. Don't miss the forest for the trees.
that doesn't really tell us anything we don't know. its darpa. its weird. film at ii?
I'm not sure if my data was stolen, can someone please check?
Douglas Whitmark
2020 La Puerta Apt. 102
Albuquerque, NM 87122
SSN: 281-79-3326
(PS: I made all that stuff up. Sorry to any/all Douglas Whitmark's out there. That's where my random number generator landed.)
I agree with everything you said.
Still, it's something we should talk about. I mean, "assert compliance against an uncooperative subject" could mean a lot of things.
Of course law enforcement has an obligation, but people have rights too. (Under the self-same law.) It's a two way street.
Sigh. I thought I would have something worthwhile to say, but really I'm just tired. Read my response to the other guy, if you're interested. Your food is too rational for this troll.
(note that one of the officers stated that he had been tasered before, and knew she was overreacting).
Well, there's an unbiased source. The officer who commited violence says it probably wasn't so painful after all. Go figure.
Have you ever even heard of the choke hold? Watts? Do I live in the same country as you?
A fire drill is not a fire, and a police officer, being tasered by other cops in a training exercise, is not the same as what happened here.
You know and I know that a statistical sample of size 1 has an uncertainty of 1. And you dare mention the straw man?
Did you even play GTA 3: Vice City? Ambulance mission? (Or vigilante.) Listen to the police chatter. "I gave them a little beating. Nothing too serious."
Have you heard the name Rodney King? "Gorillas in the mist?"
I'm not really talking about this specific instance, with a sample size of 1 and a random error of 100%, but about something much larger, and much more important.
I agree that the should be grateful (and is lucky) she didn't suffer more violence (or death), but that doesn't justify the violence she was subjected to.
How hard would it have been for the cops to let that woman vent for ten minutes and finally calm down enough to behave?
A black woman pulled over by two white cops has many valid and legitimate reasons to fear for her safety. The cops did nothing to allay those fears; instead they chose to reinforce their authority with physical pain.
I'm not saying it's worth making a federal case over, and with Gonzales as Attorney General surely that won't happen.
My point is this: Take a step back. When law enforcement brings a combative response to a hostile situation, well, that's exactly what happened at Waco. Do you condone burning children to death in an attempt to serve a warrant? (See also: MOVE fire, Philadelphia, 1985.)
You will have a much more satisfying result if you put a spark to the butane gas from the lighter and use the ensuant flame to ignite and inhale a bowl of, well, let's just call it a "not-so-common health-neutral substance."
If there's one thing traffic court judges despise more than bad drivers, it's a smart ass.
Good points. To me it's most clearly understood as a matter of economics. Proponents of tough drug laws benefit economically from said laws.
Not to focus on just one story, but met a man who was thrown into "drug rehab" for six months. His transgression was smoking pot in middle school. At the rehab, he wasn't allowed any caffiene or sugary foods, but they were allowed cigarettes.
Turns out that if you peeled back the layers of the onion, the drug rehab center was owned by a tobacco company. His six months in "rehab" served a dual purpose -- it not only got him off of pot, it got him addicted to cigarettes, a vice he still hasn't shaken.
Porno for pyros, if you will, only in reverse -- cigarettes are far more harmful and addictive than cannabis.
Is it lost on the proponents of the War on Drugs that, were it not for the War on Drugs, buying that dimebag wouldn't fund terrorists?
g h
Social and Economic conservatives tout their mythological Free Market, and how the Free Market is beneficial for the consumer. Bbut when it comes to the War on Drugs, they've created the most lopsided market, and one that operates at such incedibly inflated prices, precisely because of their attempts to restrict it.
Marijuana, which can grow practically anywhere, sells for $2000 a POUND? That number should be more like $2 a pound. That extra $1998, the price the market has settled upon due to the artificial constraints, simply funds the mechanisms which make a highly sought-after yet illegal product ubiquitously available.
And I'm not going to do the math, but I'm willing to bet the Feds spend on the order of $1998 per pound to try to "interdict" marijuana in the first place. Not to mention the economic loss of throwing people in jail, clogging up the courts. Though, they've been able to mask those costs by building private prisons -- all those 20 year jail sentences for possesion create jobs. And anything that creates jobs can't possibly be bad! (I'm not a big believer in "lost economic activity" since it's all based on "coulda, shoulda, woulda" but surely it does have an economic impact when we have one million of our citizens incarcerated for violating drug laws.)
Marijuana, which left to the free market would cost $2 a pound, ends up costing something more like $4000 a pound, in direct and indirect costs.
And somehow this makes sense, to bequeath millions of taxpayer money, to create a comlete social apparatus, with its own courts and police, dedicated to illegalizing a hardy plant. A weed which has negligible health consequences compared to tobacco and nicotine (not to mention pharmaceuticals), and has never been shown to kill the user -- unlike alcohol, tobacco, ephedrine, Celebrex, Dextromethorphan, just to name a few.
All this because Nixon was paranoid that hippies would get high, and think about things:
http://www.google.com/search?q=nixon+tapes+get+hi
What does it matter if the source is legal or illegal?
Which of these activities do you think generates the most revenue for "terrorists?"
1. Revenue coming directy or indirectly from oil sales.
2. Revenue coming directly or indirectly from illegal drug sales
3. Revenue coming directly or indirectly from DVD sales.
Now, just maybe, if you feel that the "liberal elite" in the media want the terrorists to win, since they don't always "watch what they say, watch what they do" like patriotic Americans are supposed to, you just might have an argument that (legal) DVD sales fund terrorism. Let's send Bill Maher to Pakistan for some extreme rendition.
But if your argument is that the terrorist revenue from black market DVDs sold on street corners is even close to equal the revenue from illegal drug sales, then you're high. On illegal drugs. Which means YOU are the terrorist!
And that's not even considering the legal activity which funds terrorism, like the trillions of dollars the US pays the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for oil, which the Kingdom in turn gives to Osama bin Laden's construction company... to build among other things American military bases like the Khobar Towers... which Al-Qaeda blew up.
Ah, it sure feels great to read such glowing praise. I am teh r33tn3ss! I sure showed that CS professor who gave me a D! See, I knew the the SlashDot community would fully appreciate the Machiavellian subtlety of my devious, malicious code.
Wait... oops!
From the article:
The analysis of the pseudo-random number generator found that the worm would not generate addresses for about 10 percent of the Internet and would generate the same address twice for another 10 percent of possible Internet addresses. The researchers used their analysis of the generator to plot the orbits -- the sequences of numbers each worm would create -- and found a single address from which copies of the worm propagated but which did not fall on any orbit.
This makes it sound like the originating IP was one of those ten percent.
Maybe it was a very subtle way to attempt to mask the originating IP? Sure it will block a few others, but you'll still hit 90%. It might block enough so that it seems like a programming flaw, but it's actually a deliberate flaw to hide the point of origin?
Though, this hypothesis is definitely getting into the realm of Spy vs. Spy if you ask me.
Sorta like how in the US today, judges are selected by the President, approved or disapproved by the Senate, not a general plebiscite, and the position normally lasts the judge's whole life.
Please provide a link to a recent statement by Saddam where he claims to posses WMD.
Don't forget the white phosphorus! They added that because it still burns underwater -- so the gooks couldn't just jump in a rice paddy to put out the flames.