Whether you know it or not, in the US you're being tracked. The US has the most vigorous consumer detail tracking system in the world, so all these citizens walking around, draped in the stars and stripes proclaiming their privacy from the highest hills are actually some of the citizens with the least amount of privacy in the world.
I'd have to agree with you on this, if not with your tone. The U.S. citizens who believe their privacy rights are perfectly protected are naive and have been misled. That's why privacy advocates exist, fighting to get companies out of citizens' every day details.
If it's a private camera, then I'm on private property (and the owner has every right to know you're there, whether you like it or not).
Yes, they do, but they also have an obligation to inform you that you are, in fact, under surveillance.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I'm from Britain, and all the cameras aren't there because football hooliganism. The ones at the football stadiums are, but the ones miles away from the nearest football stadium are there to look after the people. I'm fine with that.
I'm not trying to say they're all there because of hooliganism. I'm just saying that's how they started. Once people got comfortable and used to the idea, it was easier to put cameras in more locations.
As for children's information being available on the net - why are you letting your children on the net unsupervised in the first place? You seem to be combining a whole load of ideas into one. First, we have laws which don't allow children to post their info on websites. Then we have the security of the server which hosts the information (which isn't there - see part 1). AND THEN you have the fact that children shouldn't use the net on their own. I think you're just being sensationalist.
Maybe I am being sensationalist on this issue. I agree that my children should be surfing the net in a supervised manner. In fact, I plan to supervise that manner myself. I don't like how parents expect companies to perform this supervising for them. I don't exactly plan to inspect all my children's library books before allowing them to read them, but if I do notice them reading something disturbing I would ask them about it. I would not ask the librarian to stop stocking books I found offensive unless it was on grounds of proven libel.
And as for not giving blood/breath samples when asked to by the police is a clear indication you have something to hide. If you're innocent, just give the bloody sample and stop being so childish.
Those are potentially two unrelated cases. If a policeman pulled me over on the road and asked for a breath sample because he suspected I was driving impaired, I would happily give it to him. He had been observing my driving, and either according to his trained observation or due to profiling, he felt he needed to check it out.
On the other hand, if I happen to fit a certain profile for a crime which is committed and am asked to give a blood sample when I haven't been questioned (or I'm encouraged to give a blood sample to smooth things over, not have to worry about the paperwork or lawyers or all that) or there isn't enough proof, I will refuse. Just as you need a warrant to search my home, you should need a warrant to perform genetic sampling on my blood.
I most especially do not want to donate my blood for a gene bank so that in the off-chance I commit a crime in the future, I'll be easily identified. From what I'm aware, in the U.S., fingerprinting is performed upon U.S. citizens when a suspect is brought into the station for questioning related to charges, or charged or so on. Also, if you wish to immigrate to the U.S., you must provide your fingerprints. They do not go door to door and ask everyone for their prints nor do they have doctors submit prints, blood, and urine samples to some official database.
Don't get me wrong. If they have already brought me in for questioning and I have my lawyer present, and I do not have an alibi, and especially if I had suspiciously corresponding cuts (assuming this was recent), I would not be surprised if I would have to give my blood. I just think they should have enough evidence to convince a judge to allow them to draw my blood first.
If I'm innocent, why should I have to prove it? I'm not being childish, here, but rather standing up for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."
It is a tough line to tread, as I have friends who work in security and am quite aware that the mantra there is, "anybody could be a criminal." We, as a society, need to determine where to draw the line.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Judging by the way you've written your reply, you're not too happy with people knowing what you do - opportunist theif? Paedophile? It sounds like you have something to hide.
It is a common misconception that just because somebody wants privacy, that they have something to hide which is very likely criminal. Why do we always assume the worst of the people around us?
I believe that anybody who wants privacy should have access to it. I believe we should have the power to control what information about us is released. Do you enjoy the fact that spam pretends to be opt-out instead of being truly opt-in? Do you enjoy the fact that the personal information you fill out on a sweepstakes card is used by the company running the sweepstakes and their affiliates for marketing purposes?
Are you proud that because of genetic testing, if somebody within a broad ethnic/gender/age group of possible perps, who has't been investigated in any other fashion, against whom there is not enough evidence (often none at all) to bring them in for questioning, refuses to donate a sample, they are automatically considered guilty? This is in countries which claim an innocent until proven guilty approach to law.
Sometimes people do have things to hide. That doesn't make them criminals.
Maybe I'm applying for jobs or just testing the waters, and I don't want my employer to know since I haven't given them my two weeks notice yet. I wouldn't want my company to know that, and it is standard practice. Of course, I wouldn't try to then do this job research while at work using company resources.
Maybe several years ago I was fighting with a terrible case of depression and posted on message boards about it. Should my potential or actual employers be able to discriminate against me because of this history if it has been cleared up and does not affect my current job performance?
Maybe I (or my significant other) needed to have an abortion and some militant pro-life group had hidden cameras taking pictures of me (or us) entering the clinic, tracked us down, and murdered us.
Maybe you've been writing in your online journal or blog. Maybe somebody reading your writings decides they think you sound crazy. You could have mentioned having sympathy for all the geeks in high school who are now under heightened suspicion for commiting violent acts at school due to a few terrible but recent incidents. Heck, let's take it a little further. What if you're underage, your parents read this, and sign you into a mental home for it?
What if your children are surfing the net and participating in various chats or game sites or what have you. What if their names, ages, e-mail addresses, snail mail addresses are collected in spam databases geared at children. What if a pedophile gets his hands on that list? How would you feel about your privacy then? It doesn't have to be that bad, though. What if your child says something terribly rude or makes a social gaffe, possibly repeating some comment you made about your boss, and you lose your job because of it?
Do you have curtains over your window? Do you undress in a lit, curtainless room at night? If somebody took your picture without your knowledge while you were doing this, do you believe it would be their right? That they could do what they wished with these pictures? In Quebec we have laws against personally identifiable pictures being taken (and most especially published) without the subject's knowledge and consent. The common attitude is, "if the window is open, you don't care about your privacy, and that's okay." I think that's probably the root of the issue. I want the right to have those curtains. If I buy curtains, I don't want everybody around me asking what I'm trying to hide, or assuming I'm a pedophile, or even making jokes about it.
The way laws are being passed, currently, it is up to us to guard our own privacy. Everytime we allow ourselves to be tracked, we lose one more piece of privacy, and we can't get it back. In Britain, there are cameras everywhere. Why? The ostensible reason when they started was football hooliganism. Then they got pictures of kids beating and killing a toddler, even though these pictures did not help at all during the criminal investigation. They were found afterwards and published. Anybody speaking out against the video surveillance there is ostracized as a baby killer.
You'll notice I haven't mentioned anything that would use remote surveillance devices in your home, which is either the government at work or somebody spying illegally on you.
It's not always the government we need to protect our privacy from. It's not always people who mean you harm. Just think about it a bit.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Except for the fact that the HTML MS Office tools generate is huge and bloated, that's a semi-okay idea (a more okay idea would be some sort of SGML or, if you must, XML). For Word documents, you get 2-4 pages of stylesheets. And if you have a few Word line drawings in there, they won't look right at all in HTML.
If you have objects in your documents (pictures, graphs, etc.), then when Office churns them into HTML, it makes a subdirectory for all the files. If you have several sheets in an Excell spreadsheet, it also slaps the whole thing inside Javascript.
In my opinion, it's unneccessary bloat to ask everyone to do their MS Office work in HTML format. Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Not exactly, Paul is supposed to be a boy who has been trained in the Bene Gesserit way as well as the Mentat way since before he could talk. He is no longer a boy, but a human who has faced the gom jabbar and lived.
No, he is not a teenager, especially a young or snotty one.
(Can we tell who read the book recently?)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Thankfully, Bell Sympatico lets you install your own if you ask for it. Basically, when they mentioned the $80 installation fee, I asked a few questions. Since I had already had the poor boy running to his manager from questions before, he said, 'Well, it's basically installing the card in your computer and the external modem. I think you can do that on your own'. Right. We nixed that in a hurry.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I think it's more likely that too many girls are still surrounded by the "Math is hard" Barbie doll and the "Oh, you're just going to college to get your 'MRS' degree" attitude to think seriously about studying computers or engineering.
Heh. When I told my mother's boss (she's a Civil Eng., I don't know what he is) that I was going to major in Electrical Engineering, he looked at me and said, "But electricity can be very dangerous. There's the positive and the negative."
Mostly when I tell people my major, they ask me how many women there are, whether I think they're being drawn away from the tech industry, and why. My case is simple: my parents were both engineers; they've always encouraged my scholastic pursuits be they musical, literary, or mathematical; and I decided to go for the one of my interests with the highests likelihood of insuring me a good job.
And it worked. I haven't even graduated yet, but I'm working for a tech company that wants me when I graduate two years from now. They don't care whether or not it will be in the same position I'm filling now. They want me because I'm intelligent, tech savvy, and can get along with all the elements it takes to make up a tech company. Not only that, but I'm happy working for them.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Wasn't that how the whole ruckus with the last DoE employee allegedly releasing sensitive material happened? Didn't he allegedly transfer said material in his laptop? IMHO (and IANAL) I don't see why the DoE would allow employees to even bring a laptop into work. I know you're not handling sensitive information, but from what I've seen, they're very low on tolerance and high on suspicion there.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
The image has to be involved. It's a heraldic blazon of some sort. Now we just need somebody who knows their heraldic terms to tell us how to describe that blazon and we can go from there.
Anyone? Know their heraldic terms? How about alt.heraldry (IIRC)?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Back in the Fall when/. posted the story about the script, OSC was fielding a bunch of comments and he talked about this, too.
Yes, there was the homosexual connotation, but there was also something else. The aliens in Starship Troopers the movie were called "buggers", too, so they didn't want to duplicate.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Especially since all the/.'ers are visiting it now and using the engine, all you have to do is hit reload to see a different random page. Hey, nothing good's on TV and I'm not quite ready to go to sleep. I wonder if this will always be a good soporific.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
you'll probably admit that life pretty much began in and about africa/fertile crescent. thusly - YES! we are all indeed African-American (or black as i like to say) in heritage.
Erm. I will assume you meant humanity. First off, the Fertile Crescent is one place they trace the beginning of civilization to. IANAAnthropologist/Archeologist but I believe the people in the Fertile Crescent originated in Africa.
You're also missing another big hub of human development and civilization: China. They account for a large part of Asia's population as well as North and South America's first peoples.
Sorry, we're not all black in heritage. Just the Caucasians and Semites among us. And there's an exception to that. The Turks are included in the Caucasian category, but are Altaic in origin. That aside, I'd be curious to see whether any European ancestry would show up in my bloodlines at all.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
And the way they used "oui" to imply he spoke French as well? Not well done. I mean, it could at least have been a "ouai".
If they wanted to impersonate a Quebecor, they could've just asked some members here who would have gladly taught them how to swear in French, and then, when worked up, worked them in. You can usually tell whether the person swearing is from France or Quebec by this simple rule. If they're using holy words like chalice, tabernacle and so on, they're from Quebec. Anything else, and they're either from non-Quebec Canada or France. I'm not too sure exactly how the rest of the French world swears, just Canada and France.
And about the snowday... I already mentioned that I don't remember there being enough snow for a snowday that day. But, then again, I'm not affected by them, so I'm waiting for feedback on that.
I feel pretty sorry for the kid, though. In the Gazette(Montreal paper) they mentioned how some of his classmates said he said (check out the hearsay chain) he has to be uber careful... he can't even snark to the teachers or he'll be out on his ear. Damn, how an arrest sucks.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Depends on the porn. We have an active censorship, and certain types of porn are not allowed past them. Sorry, don't remember which ones. Just remember, we don't have a first ammendment. Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't remember there being an awful lot of snow the day of those DDoS's. Am I wrong? Was there enough for some of the schools to have called snow days? I mean, sure, going to University, I'm not affected by the snow days as much, so a parent or high schooler would be best able to answer that.
I'm really impressed, though, that the U.S. media have refrained from using the kid's name or his father's. I mean, technically, since they're not Canadian Media, they're not bound by the Juvenile Non-Disclosure edict. It's kinda nice to see them being respectful.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Nahh... they're not seceding from Quebec until Quebec secedes from Canada. It's called partitionism. And actually, only parts of Montreal have adopted partitionists policies.
I guess it's supposed to make Quebec scared that the rich anglos are gonna leave them and not support their economy. Nope, wait, that already happened. Well... whatever:)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I really don't know of any clause where I went to school and I never had to sign anything.
Actually, I would be surprised if the Uni's drew students attention to their intellectual property laws by being so blatant as to have you sign them. By matriculating to a Uni, you agree to follow all their rules and regulations handed to you in a nice big thick book of legalese, often at orientation (ie, after you've registered).
At my Uni, the normal intellectual rules are: if it was created for school/using school equipment, the school owns half. However, the big exception is software. At my Uni, they're trying to push through a change in Intellectual Property w.r.t. software that would mean that if it's related to your major (any programming at all if you're in ECE or CS), the school owns all rights. Of course, since the board of governors are not responding to requests for information, I'm not sure whether it's because it's tabled for later or because they're trying to do it quickly and quietly.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
In fact, the influence of surrounding matter would certainly be a good explanation for why the known universe is "lumpy".
Erm, I don't know about you, but I find Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle a much better explanation for why the known universe is lumpy. If it had been totally smooth while in the singularity, we'd have known the positions and velocities of everything! As it is, there were irregularities in the singularity which are also expressed as lumpiness now.
Another theory for why the Universe is lumpy is that there could be different parts of the Universe, some lumpy, some smooth, some curly, some I don't know what. But lumpy is what we needed to get where we are, so the Universe is lumpy so we can observe that it's lumpy.
Ahh, circular reasoning at its best.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
a lot of people like to believe that black holes are common, but if matter tended to group together that much you'd expect larger stars to be more common than smaller stars.
Hmm... I just read an article in yesterday's paper about Chandra discovering a whole new swath of black holes. Here's the Yahoo bit. They're all under News Stories and notice how they're all in the last three days. Yahoo links.
That's really neat that this/. article is about September news from Chandra when Chandra just made news again this week.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Energy from the Big Bang has dissipated so much that infrared is the only thing left of it.
No, the universe was expanding at such a rate at the Big Bang that the light getting to us from then has been red-shifted down to the microwave zone. It is not dissipation, it is red-shifting.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
If it's radiation left over from the big bang, then didn't it radiate in all directions from the center of the universe at the time of the big bang? If this is the case, then how come it's still here? I mean shouldn't it exist as the surface of a sphere making up the expanding boundary" of the universe?
I hope this helps. The universe is expanding in all directions with respect to all points. What I mean is: 1- the Universe looks pretty much the same no matter where you look and, 2- the Universe looks pretty much the same no matter where you look from. These two observations, also known as Keppler's laws, mean that there is no detectable center of expansion. The cosmic background radiation (CBR) looks like it's coming from everywhere, and somebody else somewhere else would think some of it came from us.
So, in three dimensions, the Universe has no boundary. The fact that you're imagining it as a sphere means you're confused. One of the Keppler models does imply a spherical Universe... but in 4 dimensions. Just in case you're curious, the other two Keppler models imply a saddle-shaped and a disk-shaped universe (in space time). Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Well, now that everybody's realized how... erm... lacking in intelligence he is, his lead has evaporated in several of his 'sure-fire' states (New Hampshire and Iowa spring to mind).
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you know it or not, in the US you're being tracked. The US has the most vigorous consumer detail tracking system in the world, so all these citizens walking around, draped in the stars and stripes proclaiming their privacy from the highest hills are actually some of the citizens with the least amount of privacy in the world.
I'd have to agree with you on this, if not with your tone. The U.S. citizens who believe their privacy rights are perfectly protected are naive and have been misled. That's why privacy advocates exist, fighting to get companies out of citizens' every day details.
If it's a private camera, then I'm on private property (and the owner has every right to know you're there, whether you like it or not).
Yes, they do, but they also have an obligation to inform you that you are, in fact, under surveillance.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I'm from Britain, and all the cameras aren't there because football hooliganism. The ones at the football stadiums are, but the ones miles away from the nearest football stadium are there to look after the people. I'm fine with that.
I'm not trying to say they're all there because of hooliganism. I'm just saying that's how they started. Once people got comfortable and used to the idea, it was easier to put cameras in more locations.
As for children's information being available on the net - why are you letting your children on the net unsupervised in the first place? You seem to be combining a whole load of ideas into one. First, we have laws which don't allow children to post their info on websites. Then we have the security of the server which hosts the information (which isn't there - see part 1). AND THEN you have the fact that children shouldn't use the net on their own. I think you're just being sensationalist.
Maybe I am being sensationalist on this issue. I agree that my children should be surfing the net in a supervised manner. In fact, I plan to supervise that manner myself. I don't like how parents expect companies to perform this supervising for them. I don't exactly plan to inspect all my children's library books before allowing them to read them, but if I do notice them reading something disturbing I would ask them about it. I would not ask the librarian to stop stocking books I found offensive unless it was on grounds of proven libel.
And as for not giving blood/breath samples when asked to by the police is a clear indication you have something to hide. If you're innocent, just give the bloody sample and stop being so childish.
Those are potentially two unrelated cases. If a policeman pulled me over on the road and asked for a breath sample because he suspected I was driving impaired, I would happily give it to him. He had been observing my driving, and either according to his trained observation or due to profiling, he felt he needed to check it out.
On the other hand, if I happen to fit a certain profile for a crime which is committed and am asked to give a blood sample when I haven't been questioned (or I'm encouraged to give a blood sample to smooth things over, not have to worry about the paperwork or lawyers or all that) or there isn't enough proof, I will refuse. Just as you need a warrant to search my home, you should need a warrant to perform genetic sampling on my blood.
I most especially do not want to donate my blood for a gene bank so that in the off-chance I commit a crime in the future, I'll be easily identified. From what I'm aware, in the U.S., fingerprinting is performed upon U.S. citizens when a suspect is brought into the station for questioning related to charges, or charged or so on. Also, if you wish to immigrate to the U.S., you must provide your fingerprints. They do not go door to door and ask everyone for their prints nor do they have doctors submit prints, blood, and urine samples to some official database.
Don't get me wrong. If they have already brought me in for questioning and I have my lawyer present, and I do not have an alibi, and especially if I had suspiciously corresponding cuts (assuming this was recent), I would not be surprised if I would have to give my blood. I just think they should have enough evidence to convince a judge to allow them to draw my blood first.
If I'm innocent, why should I have to prove it? I'm not being childish, here, but rather standing up for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."
It is a tough line to tread, as I have friends who work in security and am quite aware that the mantra there is, "anybody could be a criminal." We, as a society, need to determine where to draw the line.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Judging by the way you've written your reply, you're not too happy with people knowing what you do - opportunist theif? Paedophile? It sounds like you have something to hide.
It is a common misconception that just because somebody wants privacy, that they have something to hide which is very likely criminal. Why do we always assume the worst of the people around us?
I believe that anybody who wants privacy should have access to it. I believe we should have the power to control what information about us is released. Do you enjoy the fact that spam pretends to be opt-out instead of being truly opt-in? Do you enjoy the fact that the personal information you fill out on a sweepstakes card is used by the company running the sweepstakes and their affiliates for marketing purposes?
Are you proud that because of genetic testing, if somebody within a broad ethnic/gender/age group of possible perps, who has't been investigated in any other fashion, against whom there is not enough evidence (often none at all) to bring them in for questioning, refuses to donate a sample, they are automatically considered guilty? This is in countries which claim an innocent until proven guilty approach to law.
Sometimes people do have things to hide. That doesn't make them criminals.
Maybe I'm applying for jobs or just testing the waters, and I don't want my employer to know since I haven't given them my two weeks notice yet. I wouldn't want my company to know that, and it is standard practice. Of course, I wouldn't try to then do this job research while at work using company resources.
Maybe several years ago I was fighting with a terrible case of depression and posted on message boards about it. Should my potential or actual employers be able to discriminate against me because of this history if it has been cleared up and does not affect my current job performance?
Maybe I (or my significant other) needed to have an abortion and some militant pro-life group had hidden cameras taking pictures of me (or us) entering the clinic, tracked us down, and murdered us.
Maybe you've been writing in your online journal or blog. Maybe somebody reading your writings decides they think you sound crazy. You could have mentioned having sympathy for all the geeks in high school who are now under heightened suspicion for commiting violent acts at school due to a few terrible but recent incidents. Heck, let's take it a little further. What if you're underage, your parents read this, and sign you into a mental home for it?
What if your children are surfing the net and participating in various chats or game sites or what have you. What if their names, ages, e-mail addresses, snail mail addresses are collected in spam databases geared at children. What if a pedophile gets his hands on that list? How would you feel about your privacy then? It doesn't have to be that bad, though. What if your child says something terribly rude or makes a social gaffe, possibly repeating some comment you made about your boss, and you lose your job because of it?
Do you have curtains over your window? Do you undress in a lit, curtainless room at night? If somebody took your picture without your knowledge while you were doing this, do you believe it would be their right? That they could do what they wished with these pictures? In Quebec we have laws against personally identifiable pictures being taken (and most especially published) without the subject's knowledge and consent. The common attitude is, "if the window is open, you don't care about your privacy, and that's okay." I think that's probably the root of the issue. I want the right to have those curtains. If I buy curtains, I don't want everybody around me asking what I'm trying to hide, or assuming I'm a pedophile, or even making jokes about it.
The way laws are being passed, currently, it is up to us to guard our own privacy. Everytime we allow ourselves to be tracked, we lose one more piece of privacy, and we can't get it back. In Britain, there are cameras everywhere. Why? The ostensible reason when they started was football hooliganism. Then they got pictures of kids beating and killing a toddler, even though these pictures did not help at all during the criminal investigation. They were found afterwards and published. Anybody speaking out against the video surveillance there is ostracized as a baby killer.
You'll notice I haven't mentioned anything that would use remote surveillance devices in your home, which is either the government at work or somebody spying illegally on you.
It's not always the government we need to protect our privacy from. It's not always people who mean you harm. Just think about it a bit.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Why not use HTML?
Except for the fact that the HTML MS Office tools generate is huge and bloated, that's a semi-okay idea (a more okay idea would be some sort of SGML or, if you must, XML). For Word documents, you get 2-4 pages of stylesheets. And if you have a few Word line drawings in there, they won't look right at all in HTML.
If you have objects in your documents (pictures, graphs, etc.), then when Office churns them into HTML, it makes a subdirectory for all the files. If you have several sheets in an Excell spreadsheet, it also slaps the whole thing inside Javascript.
In my opinion, it's unneccessary bloat to ask everyone to do their MS Office work in HTML format.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Not exactly, Paul is supposed to be a boy who has been trained in the Bene Gesserit way as well as the Mentat way since before he could talk. He is no longer a boy, but a human who has faced the gom jabbar and lived.
No, he is not a teenager, especially a young or snotty one.
(Can we tell who read the book recently?)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Thankfully, Bell Sympatico lets you install your own if you ask for it. Basically, when they mentioned the $80 installation fee, I asked a few questions. Since I had already had the poor boy running to his manager from questions before, he said, 'Well, it's basically installing the card in your computer and the external modem. I think you can do that on your own'. Right. We nixed that in a hurry.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I think it's more likely that too many girls are still surrounded by the "Math is hard" Barbie doll and the "Oh, you're just going to college to get your 'MRS' degree" attitude to think seriously about studying computers or engineering.
Heh. When I told my mother's boss (she's a Civil Eng., I don't know what he is) that I was going to major in Electrical Engineering, he looked at me and said, "But electricity can be very dangerous. There's the positive and the negative."
Mostly when I tell people my major, they ask me how many women there are, whether I think they're being drawn away from the tech industry, and why. My case is simple: my parents were both engineers; they've always encouraged my scholastic pursuits be they musical, literary, or mathematical; and I decided to go for the one of my interests with the highests likelihood of insuring me a good job.
And it worked. I haven't even graduated yet, but I'm working for a tech company that wants me when I graduate two years from now. They don't care whether or not it will be in the same position I'm filling now. They want me because I'm intelligent, tech savvy, and can get along with all the elements it takes to make up a tech company. Not only that, but I'm happy working for them.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Wasn't that how the whole ruckus with the last DoE employee allegedly releasing sensitive material happened? Didn't he allegedly transfer said material in his laptop?
IMHO (and IANAL) I don't see why the DoE would allow employees to even bring a laptop into work. I know you're not handling sensitive information, but from what I've seen, they're very low on tolerance and high on suspicion there.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
The image has to be involved. It's a heraldic blazon of some sort. Now we just need somebody who knows their heraldic terms to tell us how to describe that blazon and we can go from there.
Anyone? Know their heraldic terms? How about alt.heraldry (IIRC)?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Back in the Fall when /. posted the story about the script, OSC was fielding a bunch of comments and he talked about this, too.
Yes, there was the homosexual connotation, but there was also something else. The aliens in Starship Troopers the movie were called "buggers", too, so they didn't want to duplicate.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Especially since all the /.'ers are visiting it now and using the engine, all you have to do is hit reload to see a different random page. Hey, nothing good's on TV and I'm not quite ready to go to sleep. I wonder if this will always be a good soporific.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I've heard that if you were born in the U.S.A. or Canada after a certain year (1978?) your name is automatically entered in the Mormon databases.
Is that true? Inquiring minds want to know.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
you'll probably admit that life pretty much began in and about africa/fertile crescent. thusly - YES! we are all indeed African-American (or black as i like to say) in heritage.
Erm. I will assume you meant humanity. First off, the Fertile Crescent is one place they trace the beginning of civilization to. IANAAnthropologist/Archeologist but I believe the people in the Fertile Crescent originated in Africa.
You're also missing another big hub of human development and civilization: China. They account for a large part of Asia's population as well as North and South America's first peoples.
Sorry, we're not all black in heritage. Just the Caucasians and Semites among us. And there's an exception to that. The Turks are included in the Caucasian category, but are Altaic in origin. That aside, I'd be curious to see whether any European ancestry would show up in my bloodlines at all.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Well, people who've been around for a while will recognize this rant. I've seen it verbatim several times before *shrug*
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Thanks for the clarification... I wasn't aware of that BC case.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
And the way they used "oui" to imply he spoke French as well? Not well done. I mean, it could at least have been a "ouai".
If they wanted to impersonate a Quebecor, they could've just asked some members here who would have gladly taught them how to swear in French, and then, when worked up, worked them in. You can usually tell whether the person swearing is from France or Quebec by this simple rule. If they're using holy words like chalice, tabernacle and so on, they're from Quebec. Anything else, and they're either from non-Quebec Canada or France. I'm not too sure exactly how the rest of the French world swears, just Canada and France.
And about the snowday... I already mentioned that I don't remember there being enough snow for a snowday that day. But, then again, I'm not affected by them, so I'm waiting for feedback on that.
I feel pretty sorry for the kid, though. In the Gazette(Montreal paper) they mentioned how some of his classmates said he said (check out the hearsay chain) he has to be uber careful... he can't even snark to the teachers or he'll be out on his ear. Damn, how an arrest sucks.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Depends on the porn. We have an active censorship, and certain types of porn are not allowed past them. Sorry, don't remember which ones. Just remember, we don't have a first ammendment.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't remember there being an awful lot of snow the day of those DDoS's. Am I wrong? Was there enough for some of the schools to have called snow days? I mean, sure, going to University, I'm not affected by the snow days as much, so a parent or high schooler would be best able to answer that.
I'm really impressed, though, that the U.S. media have refrained from using the kid's name or his father's. I mean, technically, since they're not Canadian Media, they're not bound by the Juvenile Non-Disclosure edict. It's kinda nice to see them being respectful.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Nahh... they're not seceding from Quebec until Quebec secedes from Canada. It's called partitionism. And actually, only parts of Montreal have adopted partitionists policies.
:)
I guess it's supposed to make Quebec scared that the rich anglos are gonna leave them and not support their economy. Nope, wait, that already happened. Well... whatever
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I really don't know of any clause where I went to school and I never had to sign anything.
Actually, I would be surprised if the Uni's drew students attention to their intellectual property laws by being so blatant as to have you sign them. By matriculating to a Uni, you agree to follow all their rules and regulations handed to you in a nice big thick book of legalese, often at orientation (ie, after you've registered).
McGill University's Intellectual Property Rules.
At my Uni, the normal intellectual rules are: if it was created for school/using school equipment, the school owns half. However, the big exception is software. At my Uni, they're trying to push through a change in Intellectual Property w.r.t. software that would mean that if it's related to your major (any programming at all if you're in ECE or CS), the school owns all rights. Of course, since the board of governors are not responding to requests for information, I'm not sure whether it's because it's tabled for later or because they're trying to do it quickly and quietly.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
In fact, the influence of surrounding matter would certainly be a good explanation for why the known universe is "lumpy".
Erm, I don't know about you, but I find Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle a much better explanation for why the known universe is lumpy. If it had been totally smooth while in the singularity, we'd have known the positions and velocities of everything! As it is, there were irregularities in the singularity which are also expressed as lumpiness now.
Another theory for why the Universe is lumpy is that there could be different parts of the Universe, some lumpy, some smooth, some curly, some I don't know what. But lumpy is what we needed to get where we are, so the Universe is lumpy so we can observe that it's lumpy.
Ahh, circular reasoning at its best.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
a lot of people like to believe that black holes are common, but if matter tended to group together that much you'd expect larger stars to be more common than smaller stars.
/. article is about September news from Chandra when Chandra just made news again this week.
Hmm... I just read an article in yesterday's paper about Chandra discovering a whole new swath of black holes. Here's the Yahoo bit. They're all under News Stories and notice how they're all in the last three days. Yahoo links.
That's really neat that this
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Energy from the Big Bang has dissipated so much that infrared is the only thing left of it.
No, the universe was expanding at such a rate at the Big Bang that the light getting to us from then has been red-shifted down to the microwave zone. It is not dissipation, it is red-shifting.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
If it's radiation left over from the big bang, then didn't it radiate in all directions from the center of the universe at the time of the big bang?
If this is the case, then how come it's still here?
I mean shouldn't it exist as the surface of a sphere making up the expanding boundary" of the universe?
I hope this helps. The universe is expanding in all directions with respect to all points. What I mean is:
1- the Universe looks pretty much the same no matter where you look and,
2- the Universe looks pretty much the same no matter where you look from.
These two observations, also known as Keppler's laws, mean that there is no detectable center of expansion. The cosmic background radiation (CBR) looks like it's coming from everywhere, and somebody else somewhere else would think some of it came from us.
So, in three dimensions, the Universe has no boundary. The fact that you're imagining it as a sphere means you're confused. One of the Keppler models does imply a spherical Universe... but in 4 dimensions. Just in case you're curious, the other two Keppler models imply a saddle-shaped and a disk-shaped universe (in space time).
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Well, now that everybody's realized how... erm... lacking in intelligence he is, his lead has evaporated in several of his 'sure-fire' states (New Hampshire and Iowa spring to mind).
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...