Many posts on this story seem to relate one thing: Those that "prepared" for a possible Y2K "disaster" were "out of their minds" (or something similar, but maybe more nicely worded).
I am one of those seemingly few people who "stocked up" (though not to the extent that some did - I prepared for a week living, for two people, with the idea that if things were more dire than that, all hell would break loose). I bought food, prepared water, and had other supplies. I also updated all my machines to handle any Y2K issues, and I had alternate sources of power.
Then nothing happened.
Believe me - I realized that this was a very likely outcome when I started to plan my remediation efforts (about a year and a half ago). I decided to wait and see how things went as we approached the end of the year, to see if people were hoarding food, as well as the general "feelings" of the populace (what they thought, etc). In the end, I didn't buy food until the beginning of December, and only an extra weeks worth at that.
How this makes me "crazy" is anybody's guess. It is exactly like Windows users calling Linux users crazy, because the Linux users are in the minority.
I looked at the situation, weighed my options, and decided that the best course of action was to have a few supplies and such - prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. If things turned out ugly, I would have been OK (for a little while). If things didn't, then I have a little extra food to eat - stuff I would eat anyhow. How is this crazy?
What if instead of Y2K, it had been a snowstorm, or an earthquake, or a tornado - would I have been crazy to prepare against that possibility? It wasn't any of these things, but rather something that was man-made. However, how does this make it a less-likely "disaster"?
I am not an embedded system expert - those systems were my greatest worry. I couldn't care less if my billing statement was wrong, or my credit card didn't work. But systems which incorporate time sensitive chips made me worry - and I felt that I should invest against the possibility of these systems failing (I read multiple reports, on and offline, that those "in charge" of the systems didn't know for sure if there would be problems or not - I chose to be pessimistic in light of these claims!).
In the end - nothing happened. I haven't lost sleep over this, only a little money, on food and supplies I am going to use anyhow. The little money I withdrew from the bank I will spend (or redeposit), so that doesn't matter, either. I feel real sorry that there are A LOT of people out there who choose to IGNORE issues, rather than prepare for problems (sorta like those who live in Oklahoma in trailer parks and don't stock up on food and water, then complain when a tornado hits)...
Does the Y2K "effects" fall on a bell curve, or something else?
If it falls on a bell curve, then why are we not asking why nothing happened (which is just as improbable on a bell curve as "things went to hell")?
I haven't seen any discussion on this. I have only been able to surmise that it doesn't fall on a bell curve, because it was a known thing (and not a random event), or because programming and preparation was actively done to avert anything.
I mean, the SEC required companies to give Y2K preparedness statements monthly (or quarterly) in 1999 - but arcording to Yardini (or was it Yourdon? - whoever the securities specialist was - not the Y2K doomsayer), no major company was prepared! So why didn't anything happen?
Can anyone answer this for me? It has bugged me all year. I wonder if things did fall apart, and a lot of CYA was covertly done - of course, we didn't hear about that, or anything - so that is probably just paranoia...
I have to say that I have had nothing but good experiences with Ebay and the sellers. I have a few rules about who to buy from - they have to very few negatives, the fewer the better, and the farther back "in time", the better. They have to have a positive rating above 10 (and I read those that are low, to determine if they are a new seller, and had bought 10 things, or if all ten things are sells - which if all are positive, is a good thing). If they have 200 positives, and have had 10 negative comments in the past 30 days, it is a no-sell for me.
Out of over 40 transactions, I have only had one go bad on me, and that was when I was selling - someone didn't send me the money after repeated contacts, so he didn't get the item, and I relisted the item - and it sold, and this time, I got the money, the buyer got the item - and everyone was happy.
My most recent experience has involved a VGA->TV converter that didn't work after I bought it. I have since contacted the seller, and he has said he will refund my money - we are still working things out, but I expect this transaction to go good as well.
There are obvious scams out there - some you have to watch for, and others are fun (I actually tried, knowing what I might find, to buy the Projection TV converter - I got a lens, and instructions - and they suck! - but I had a laugh - I got what I expected, and the seller got his money - so I did get sold something, and it wasn't a true "scam").
I think Ebay goes too far with this, though - I don't have a problem with a seller using Ebay as advertising, as long as they really sell a product (I do hate those sellers who put up Ebay ads with a price of 1 cent or something - all to get you to come to their site, only). I have gone to some seller's sites, and actually found it cheaper to buy from their own site, than from the auction (just because it is fixed price).
Online auctions are wacky things - sorta like real life f2f auctions, but in other ways strange...
I have always said one thing about my stockpiling and worrying:
People may laugh at me come the rollover, how I prepared for the worse and hoped for the best - but now, it seems, the best is coming, and my stockpiling may have been for naught.
But the one thing I know, is that if hard times had hit, I would have been prepared. It is never a bad thing to prepare and plan for a possible disaster - especially one where you have a large time frame of warning.
It is better to be prepared, and for nothing to happen, than for something to happen, and not be prepared.
I know it's a little early for me to be saying anything, considering the "magic" time hasn't passed me by (here in Phoenix, Arizona, USA) - but from what I am seeing here on/. and from CNN, etc - this has me at one time both disappointed and relieved.
I mean, when I first started seriously thinking about this problem, I got pretty worked up over it (depression, etc - went through the whole multiple stage thing). Not anything too serious, I just got my butt to work and started planning.
So now I am here with about a week's worth of supplies (hey, I figured if the crap fell, a week, while not being enough, was probably all I would need), dry food, water, fuel for cooking, two 12V solar panels to power/charge my laptop running Linux (and having set it up to be a coder's mini-station - full complement of C, C++, and Perl development tools), along with walkie-talkies, battery powered radio and TV, flashlights, candles, matches, a couple of crossbows (no reg needed, and bolts are easy to make in a pinch) - and bug-out bags for me and my GF.
I am disappointed by the likelyhood that I will not be using this for it's intended purpose, however, at least I didn't buy anything that couldn't be used as normal food and such later. So it won't go to waste (only the water will - it was tap, sterilized with a few drops of bleach, so it smells bad and tastes worse).
I guess one thing I am happy about is that, providing everything continues to go smoothly, there won't be a backlash against "the programmers" - it would be nice if we were celebrated as national heroes or such, but more than likely, in our 2-second sound bite world, everything will just fade off, and we will kick back in our cubes and offices, continuing to do our work as we always have. Hopefully, this will mean the end of talk of having us all get licensed to be programmers (I consider coding an art and a science - but I feel is should only be an art).
I do have a PDR (in the smaller, "novel" sized book form - at the Mexican pharmacy I go to they have a PDR that is several LARGE volumes - don't know where one would get that, let alone where one would put it!) - I will have to look into the site you speak of. I have also seen similar drug info on the web site of the Mayo Clinic - it was pretty helpful.
Today I came across a perl based medical query/expert system (on one of the script archive sites). I can't remember if it was free or pay (for a license), but it sounded interesting. It would just be nice if you could go to a site, type in a list of your symptoms, then have it spit out a "treatment", along with a list of possible drugs and possible interactions with anything you are currently taking...
Actually, I have NEVER been in an accident where I was the driver (not to say I haven't had close calls, most of the time because of the other idiot, or that I am incapable of having an accident).
I would have to look at the car, read up and study a Chilton book on the vehicle (providing it was available), and look at the construction. Seeing if the construction was suitable, and looking up information on accidents involving the vehicle, I could then make my decision on how safe the vehicle was in order to decide whether to purchase one or not.
But this isn't really the issue - a closer example would be that I had to go through a gov't agency (ie, get permission) in order to buy a vehicle from a dealer. One could argue that I need a license - but in reality, you don't need a license to PURCHASE a vehicle, you only need one to drive it off the lot (or around town). However, in the case of prescription drugs, you need to see a doctor to get permission in order to buy a drug...
Regarding word-of-mouth - we put our lives in the hands of word-of-mouth every day, regulation doesn't change that. All the regulation in the world won't guarantee that a bridge will stand, but word-of-mouth says that it is ok, so we use it. However, the smart ones only use it after looking at it CAREFULLY to see that it IS safe...
I also don't have a problem with the government testing something and publishing results - or any other company doing so. The problem I have is making those results unavailable to the people. Too often the information is either obscurred, buried or simply made unavailable (unless, of course, you have a medical license, and a ton of money to cough up) to the general population. Thus, the only way to test a product is to try it - and the only way to be safe is to avoid the first (and maybe even the second) version until it is proven that it is safe.
Besides - I never suggested that we use "test people" instead of alternatives. I was merely stating that if others wanted to be on the cutting/bleeding/hemmoraging edge, well... There is a reason they call it that...
Ask me which I feel safer with - a rusted 57 Chevy pickup, or a brand new 2000 S-10? Guess which I would pick first (of course, I would make sure I wore my seatbelt in both, and wouldn't rely on any airbag, etc to save me - but the bulk of the 57 would help)?
I can't do it all myself - I am an ADULT. I can recognize what I CAN DO, and WHAT IS BEYOND ME. Checking to see if the house will fall in? I can probably do that, to a point. Cancer treatment - haven't been there, but I think that is beyond me, and should be left to a doctor. Automobile/appliance safety? Autos may be difficult, but it can be pretty easy to spot an unsafe one, to a point (would I do my own crash testing? No, but even I could see the Sidekick had too high of CG). Appliances would be the same way (as long as "they" keep putting screws on the damn things so I can open them up and check!). I also always try to check my food - or I grow my own.
You see, I am willing to do quite a lot for myself, but I know when something is outside of my realm of knowledge or experience. At that point I will seek further advice, be it from a doctor or a mechanic. Even then, I will always ask around - to see if someone knows someone who has had an experience related to mine (this is called word-of-mouth - you generally will know if something is safe or whatnot via it long before you try it - unless you happen to try it first - which is why I tend to avoid version 1.0 products in the first place - let others be the beta testers, IHNSHO)...
You make good points - points 2 and 3, especially.
The problem I hate dealing with when I "self-medicate" is figuring out drug interactions and side effects. The problem is that I know the information exists in electronic form, but isn't accessible to ME.
Pharmacies use drug interaction databases to figure out if there will be a problem with two prescriptions - why can't I get access to this software/database? Why can't I get a system to tell me possible side effects of a drug or combo's of drugs? After all, we are merely talking a large expert system here - why is this data denied to citizens who have the knowledge, will and machinery to use it?
Your third point on public health is a good one - esp related to antibiotics. For a long while Tetracycline and Erithromycin (sp?) were two long acting and highly prescribed wide ranging antibiotics, but recently, they are being prescribed less and less (to keep things from building resistance). They now prescribe other drugs (with even weirder sounding names). I try to keep a list of the "new" drugs, and when I travel to Mexico, I try to get these. Why isn't there a database or something with a list of drugs like this - one year Tetracycline, the next - something else. At least then, I can be better informed!
A web site like this (drug interactions/side effects/current antibiotics) would be of great use (maybe even add an expert system on the back end for diagnosis?)...
I don't know who you are, but you speak the truth!
I cannot tell you the number of times I have gone to a doctor, waited for hours in the waiting room, only to be told I needed this antibiotic or that, here's a scrip. I can generally tell when I have an infection - something that needs an antibiotic. When I am unsure, and I can't diagnose myself, then I use a few home med books (a couple of reader digest things, and a PDR) and the internet to try to come up with a diagnosis. If I am STILL unsure, then I go to the doctor (one time, I had a problem where I got a sharp pulsing pain in my head - aleve did nothing - I went to the doctor, and found out it was probably allergy related - some allergy meds later, I was fine - this is something I didn't know, now I do). But if I think I have a clue, then I choose to medicate myself - I will NOT blame someone else if I screw up and die (because I will read about side effects and drug interactions in my PDR, and online).
It all comes down to responsibility. I feel as an ADULT, I can be responsible for myself. I feel that others should be responsible to themselves as well - and if they fuck up, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, these elitists think that they should try to control me (fuck 'em, I get my pills in Mexico!).
What if, after downloading the source, the user had to snail mail for the compiler? This compiler would only be a binary only distribution, and the information obtained from the address/name would be used as a way of creating a checksum that would be added to the compiler, so that every time the compiler was used to compile Quake (or any other source), the checksum would be added into the Quake executable.
Quake could still be compiled by non-signing compilers (like gcc), but only the signed versions of the Quake client would be allowed to participate on the servers. Those caught cheating would be banned (via the signature). The only way to get another signature would be to supply a different address to get another executable of the compiler (base the signature just off the address, name, city, state (don't use apartment number, or zip) so that the user would have to move or have cooperation of his neighbors to get a new compiler).
I don't think this would eliminate the problem, but it might help (there would maybe have to be a way for the users to authenticate the servers as well - maybe via a similar mechanism?)...
With large parts of the internet being very homogeneous (at the machine code/executable layer), and at the same time on a larger scale, being homogeneous at the transport protocol level, do you think that in the future that we will see the emergence of something more than viruses (I want to call them meta-viruses, but I don't think that would be the right term)?
I am thinking of something akin (in a biological sense) of a cross between a virus and a bacterium - something that could reproduce and mutate (perhaps via asexual and sexual means), in such a way that it would be near impossible for virus scanning software to keep up with...
I would think it would work - the concern I have is that "they" might see the encrypted "garbage" and wonder what it is, then one of the "darkside" hackers at your work (you know, the ones that have their noses so far up their bosses ass you can't see their eyes anymore) would notice it is ROT13'd and unROT it (actually, they would just see the code in the HTML and run the page), sending the results to the boss. I would just want to pick something a little stronger.
What you could try is to get yourself a virtual web hosting site - set up a CGI proxy server on this site (hey, make it free for others to use - or, let people subscribe to it, add banner ads - make some money?) that would route the page through it and encrypt the output, to be decrypted by a custom Java program or browser at the end. This way, there would be a complete encrypted channel between the client and the "host" box (the box creating the encrypted pages). Maybe you could work your "home" box into the equation somewhere - all you need to be able to do is create some kind of server that runs on a strange port, and get it to a box the runs on a different port, so you can see it at work (does your work use FTP or telnet? Run your client on those ports...)
Your idea as it stands sounds good if all you want is some "static" updates from favorite places, not places you would actively browse and need "instant" updates (/. is a good example if you don't participate too much).
This is all speculation - I haven't had a good chance to think about it much, but it would be a great exercise to try!
Your mirroring idea (with the "encryption" portion - though I would make it a little stronger) sounds like a good idea - what might be better would be another proxy server running on your home box (or some other box), and then some Java code (or a custom coded browser) performing the decryption "on-the-fly" running on the machine at work.
One other thing you might try (and I don't know how this will go over, but you better bet I will try it if it comes to it):
Companies like to use the "defense" in court (and on documents you have to sign), that the machines you are allowed to use are their machines, and all data that resides on those machines is therefore their data, and they should have access to it. What happens if you bring in your _own_ machine? They no longer own the machine, therefore they cannot claim the right to put anything on _your_ machine, nor search that machine for "bad" data. They may still have claim to company data - but store your own data on something removable and encrypted, and it should be ok...
I don't know if this is an optimum solution, but here goes...
I don't think we need search engines, but rather "search sites" - in many ways they would work like a search engine, however, they would lack the one property of a search engine that clearly cannot keep up with the web - the spider.
The solution to the problem: Rather than having a spider go out and crawl the web to build the database, those sites wishing to be represented in the database should submit their site to the database. How would this work? Well...
1. The site would submit their URL or "root" directory (in the case of personal sites) to the database for inclusion.
2. Each site would only be allowed one URL/directory in the database. At that root level, would be the "index.html" page that should have its own search engine or links to the various parts of the site. It should have META tag info for the search site to use to generate descriptions for the page. Maybe this might be controlled with a "free" membership type thing, so that owners could change info about the submission.
3. The site owner would have to categorize the entry himself - in other words, it would be the responsibility of the site owner to properly locate the link in its proper hierarchical context in the search database.
4. Each link would be given ratings points - which users (maybe registered as members as well?) can use to "moderate" the site - so that sites that are in the proper spot and present good information get moderated up (to appear higher in the search results), while those in the wrong area, or those that have bad content (purposefully misplaced adult sites, commercial sites that have no good content) would get moderated down.
5. Those sites with a consistent moderation rating less than 0 would, after a period of 30 days, be deleted from the database (maybe with an email to the site owner, so that he is warned).
6. Searching could be done via a normal keyword interface or a hierarchical "click-n-choose®" interface (like Yahoo uses). Results and ordering on either method result from moderation points each sites have (so that top sites filter to the top).
7. Use of a natural language interface for the searching would make searching optimal, but depending on available technology, may or may not be needed.
I am sure I missed a few things here - please add on to the idea if you can. I think such a site could be run like/. is right now - with users/moderators and posters (of sites). I think such a thing could work - and would allow for a more complete indexing of the web (and allow sites that wish to be anonymous to stay somewhat anonymous), while giving a high QOS (due to the moderation - so you won't see a bunch of crap adverts, wrong info, or dead links).
Well, you are right in saying I am wrong, but there is a lot of info at this link:
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index_e.htm
Check under history, then click on one of the pics to get a timeline - from what I was able to see, it seems the the Daimler/Benz/Chrysler thing is an ongoing type partnership or something, mainly revolving around Daimler/Benz and Daimler/Chrysler - with tenuous links between Chrysler and Benz...
Cars aren't my thing - methinks I should quit posting on the subject...
WTF?! - You are running Linux and you only have one box? Hell, go to a garage sale and buy some cheapo 386 as a backup to telnet in! You can NEVER have too many machines! Bask in their glow!
You are correct in stating that the names are that of the company founders.
However, even this is kinda funny. Daimler used to be with a guy named Benz, and created some of the first "automobiles" (actually, they looked like funky tricycles with carriage bodies, but that is what they had to work with). I believe the company was called Daimler-Benz.
Benz left, and joined with Mercedes - well, the rest is history.
I believe Daimler continued doing small auto stuff (maybe custom cars?), then joined with Chrysler later...
So, there is some kind of tie between and American car company and a German one (of course, there is the whole Ford/Nazi Germany relation, but that doesn't bear discussing here)...
I am not disputing you on this (because you say you have seen a picture, and I haven't), but I have to wonder about this guy, personally.
From my experience, when the toilet paper is out, and I want to look around, I do one of two things:
1. I turn my head, then my torso - but not my ass - around to see behind me. 2. Otherwise, I would stand slightly up, to turn a bit more, if needed.
The last bit I would have to question is this:
Sit on a toilet and make sure your johnson is limp. Let it dangle into the toilet, if you want. Now turn your whole body to the side (just like the man said he did). Does it come close to the side of the bowl (and hence, lid)?
Now, perhaps this man was very well endowed, or maybe he was slightly hard, but I wonder how it could slide under the lid (and I wonder why, if he does this, does he not feel the cold plastic first and move it - the last part of my body I want to touch a public toilet bowl is my dick!)? Somehow, while I believe based on available info that this man got injured, I think that:
a. Something really wacked out was going on in that stall or, b. He injured himself in another way (wife goes down on him and bends it wrong?)...
According to various papers presented at the following website (it should be noted that these papers are the digital transcriptions of original documents):
http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/
I am in error (imagine that!). It should be noted that the engine did have some form of looping capability, as well as an implementation of microcode for the mill (via something Babbage called the 'barrel' - which, I believe (based on other information I have read about other calculating engines), was simply some kind of cylindrical piece of metal with movable stubby projections (like that in a music box), used to effect other parts of the engine based on the codes given by the instruction cards)!
In addition, his son went on to complete the mill portion of the Analytical Engine, starting prior to his fathers death, and completing the mill years later. During various expositions demonstrating the engine, it was ran through its paces to calculate multiples of PI out to 44 iterations (though it must be noted that the value given for PI was incorrect, in addition to the machine, due to various mechanical malfunctions (bugs?), miscalculating successive iterations at the 8th, 9th, 11th and 42nd (?) positions, thereby throwing successive calculation off).
Damn, the more I learn about this engine, the more I am amazed.
I know one girl who isn't the least bit bothered by listening to FM stereo in her car with only one working speaker.
My GF enjoyed listening to her AM radio through one speaker (and that speaker had a rotted surround, so it buzzed) - and no matter how many times I offered to fix it (via a new radio and speakers), she declined, and then insisted that if all she had was a cheap transistor radio from the shack, that would work for her!
Just this morning I got an email from MP3.COM (music picks of the week or whatever).
One of the artists struck me as being special - way better than what I normally find on MP3.COM, and easily up there with the labels. After downloading and listening to the songs that were on MP3.COM, I went to her web site and purchased her CD.
Hey, they could simply embed all of the electronics in black epoxy - but this hasn't stopped people from RE either. Those in serious RE have been known to delicately take the top off of IC's, using grinding and sanding tools, to peer inside, using with electron microscopes or other tools.
And don't say an EM is outside the range of the dedicated, garage-based hacker - why, here in Phoenix (and I would imagine in other large cities), places exist which sell old EMs as scrap metal for pennies (or less!) on the dollar (I once saw a large industrial robot arm sitting outside behind one of the places I frequent - I asked one of the guy's what it was going for - "$200.00" he replied!) - most are in usable condition (just gotta get a power supply and vaccumn pump - but hey, they sell those, too). Heck, many of those places sell most of the stuff to start your own chip fab, if you want...
So, even if they do the most bizzare stuff - there will be those few who are willing to go the extra mile to get what should rightfully be theirs - knowledge of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out this - I am sure there is more out there, but has this been tested in court (it appears it might have been):
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
Please - read this over, and let us know...
...most people deserve neither.
Many posts on this story seem to relate one thing: Those that "prepared" for a possible Y2K "disaster" were "out of their minds" (or something similar, but maybe more nicely worded).
I am one of those seemingly few people who "stocked up" (though not to the extent that some did - I prepared for a week living, for two people, with the idea that if things were more dire than that, all hell would break loose). I bought food, prepared water, and had other supplies. I also updated all my machines to handle any Y2K issues, and I had alternate sources of power.
Then nothing happened.
Believe me - I realized that this was a very likely outcome when I started to plan my remediation efforts (about a year and a half ago). I decided to wait and see how things went as we approached the end of the year, to see if people were hoarding food, as well as the general "feelings" of the populace (what they thought, etc). In the end, I didn't buy food until the beginning of December, and only an extra weeks worth at that.
How this makes me "crazy" is anybody's guess. It is exactly like Windows users calling Linux users crazy, because the Linux users are in the minority.
I looked at the situation, weighed my options, and decided that the best course of action was to have a few supplies and such - prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. If things turned out ugly, I would have been OK (for a little while). If things didn't, then I have a little extra food to eat - stuff I would eat anyhow. How is this crazy?
What if instead of Y2K, it had been a snowstorm, or an earthquake, or a tornado - would I have been crazy to prepare against that possibility? It wasn't any of these things, but rather something that was man-made. However, how does this make it a less-likely "disaster"?
I am not an embedded system expert - those systems were my greatest worry. I couldn't care less if my billing statement was wrong, or my credit card didn't work. But systems which incorporate time sensitive chips made me worry - and I felt that I should invest against the possibility of these systems failing (I read multiple reports, on and offline, that those "in charge" of the systems didn't know for sure if there would be problems or not - I chose to be pessimistic in light of these claims!).
In the end - nothing happened. I haven't lost sleep over this, only a little money, on food and supplies I am going to use anyhow. The little money I withdrew from the bank I will spend (or redeposit), so that doesn't matter, either. I feel real sorry that there are A LOT of people out there who choose to IGNORE issues, rather than prepare for problems (sorta like those who live in Oklahoma in trailer parks and don't stock up on food and water, then complain when a tornado hits)...
Does the Y2K "effects" fall on a bell curve, or something else?
If it falls on a bell curve, then why are we not asking why nothing happened (which is just as improbable on a bell curve as "things went to hell")?
I haven't seen any discussion on this. I have only been able to surmise that it doesn't fall on a bell curve, because it was a known thing (and not a random event), or because programming and preparation was actively done to avert anything.
I mean, the SEC required companies to give Y2K preparedness statements monthly (or quarterly) in 1999 - but arcording to Yardini (or was it Yourdon? - whoever the securities specialist was - not the Y2K doomsayer), no major company was prepared! So why didn't anything happen?
Can anyone answer this for me? It has bugged me all year. I wonder if things did fall apart, and a lot of CYA was covertly done - of course, we didn't hear about that, or anything - so that is probably just paranoia...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
I have to say that I have had nothing but good experiences with Ebay and the sellers. I have a few rules about who to buy from - they have to very few negatives, the fewer the better, and the farther back "in time", the better. They have to have a positive rating above 10 (and I read those that are low, to determine if they are a new seller, and had bought 10 things, or if all ten things are sells - which if all are positive, is a good thing). If they have 200 positives, and have had 10 negative comments in the past 30 days, it is a no-sell for me.
Out of over 40 transactions, I have only had one go bad on me, and that was when I was selling - someone didn't send me the money after repeated contacts, so he didn't get the item, and I relisted the item - and it sold, and this time, I got the money, the buyer got the item - and everyone was happy.
My most recent experience has involved a VGA->TV converter that didn't work after I bought it. I have since contacted the seller, and he has said he will refund my money - we are still working things out, but I expect this transaction to go good as well.
There are obvious scams out there - some you have to watch for, and others are fun (I actually tried, knowing what I might find, to buy the Projection TV converter - I got a lens, and instructions - and they suck! - but I had a laugh - I got what I expected, and the seller got his money - so I did get sold something, and it wasn't a true "scam").
I think Ebay goes too far with this, though - I don't have a problem with a seller using Ebay as advertising, as long as they really sell a product (I do hate those sellers who put up Ebay ads with a price of 1 cent or something - all to get you to come to their site, only). I have gone to some seller's sites, and actually found it cheaper to buy from their own site, than from the auction (just because it is fixed price).
Online auctions are wacky things - sorta like real life f2f auctions, but in other ways strange...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
I have always said one thing about my stockpiling and worrying:
People may laugh at me come the rollover, how I prepared for the worse and hoped for the best - but now, it seems, the best is coming, and my stockpiling may have been for naught.
But the one thing I know, is that if hard times had hit, I would have been prepared. It is never a bad thing to prepare and plan for a possible disaster - especially one where you have a large time frame of warning.
It is better to be prepared, and for nothing to happen, than for something to happen, and not be prepared.
I know it's a little early for me to be saying anything, considering the "magic" time hasn't passed me by (here in Phoenix, Arizona, USA) - but from what I am seeing here on /. and from CNN, etc - this has me at one time both disappointed and relieved.
I mean, when I first started seriously thinking about this problem, I got pretty worked up over it (depression, etc - went through the whole multiple stage thing). Not anything too serious, I just got my butt to work and started planning.
So now I am here with about a week's worth of supplies (hey, I figured if the crap fell, a week, while not being enough, was probably all I would need), dry food, water, fuel for cooking, two 12V solar panels to power/charge my laptop running Linux (and having set it up to be a coder's mini-station - full complement of C, C++, and Perl development tools), along with walkie-talkies, battery powered radio and TV, flashlights, candles, matches, a couple of crossbows (no reg needed, and bolts are easy to make in a pinch) - and bug-out bags for me and my GF.
I am disappointed by the likelyhood that I will not be using this for it's intended purpose, however, at least I didn't buy anything that couldn't be used as normal food and such later. So it won't go to waste (only the water will - it was tap, sterilized with a few drops of bleach, so it smells bad and tastes worse).
I guess one thing I am happy about is that, providing everything continues to go smoothly, there won't be a backlash against "the programmers" - it would be nice if we were celebrated as national heroes or such, but more than likely, in our 2-second sound bite world, everything will just fade off, and we will kick back in our cubes and offices, continuing to do our work as we always have. Hopefully, this will mean the end of talk of having us all get licensed to be programmers (I consider coding an art and a science - but I feel is should only be an art).
Now, where to put all of this canned food...
I do have a PDR (in the smaller, "novel" sized book form - at the Mexican pharmacy I go to they have a PDR that is several LARGE volumes - don't know where one would get that, let alone where one would put it!) - I will have to look into the site you speak of. I have also seen similar drug info on the web site of the Mayo Clinic - it was pretty helpful.
Today I came across a perl based medical query/expert system (on one of the script archive sites). I can't remember if it was free or pay (for a license), but it sounded interesting. It would just be nice if you could go to a site, type in a list of your symptoms, then have it spit out a "treatment", along with a list of possible drugs and possible interactions with anything you are currently taking...
Actually, I have NEVER been in an accident where I was the driver (not to say I haven't had close calls, most of the time because of the other idiot, or that I am incapable of having an accident).
I would have to look at the car, read up and study a Chilton book on the vehicle (providing it was available), and look at the construction. Seeing if the construction was suitable, and looking up information on accidents involving the vehicle, I could then make my decision on how safe the vehicle was in order to decide whether to purchase one or not.
But this isn't really the issue - a closer example would be that I had to go through a gov't agency (ie, get permission) in order to buy a vehicle from a dealer. One could argue that I need a license - but in reality, you don't need a license to PURCHASE a vehicle, you only need one to drive it off the lot (or around town). However, in the case of prescription drugs, you need to see a doctor to get permission in order to buy a drug...
Regarding word-of-mouth - we put our lives in the hands of word-of-mouth every day, regulation doesn't change that. All the regulation in the world won't guarantee that a bridge will stand, but word-of-mouth says that it is ok, so we use it. However, the smart ones only use it after looking at it CAREFULLY to see that it IS safe...
I also don't have a problem with the government testing something and publishing results - or any other company doing so. The problem I have is making those results unavailable to the people. Too often the information is either obscurred, buried or simply made unavailable (unless, of course, you have a medical license, and a ton of money to cough up) to the general population. Thus, the only way to test a product is to try it - and the only way to be safe is to avoid the first (and maybe even the second) version until it is proven that it is safe.
Besides - I never suggested that we use "test people" instead of alternatives. I was merely stating that if others wanted to be on the cutting/bleeding/hemmoraging edge, well... There is a reason they call it that...
Ask me which I feel safer with - a rusted 57 Chevy pickup, or a brand new 2000 S-10? Guess which I would pick first (of course, I would make sure I wore my seatbelt in both, and wouldn't rely on any airbag, etc to save me - but the bulk of the 57 would help)?
I can't do it all myself - I am an ADULT. I can recognize what I CAN DO, and WHAT IS BEYOND ME. Checking to see if the house will fall in? I can probably do that, to a point. Cancer treatment - haven't been there, but I think that is beyond me, and should be left to a doctor. Automobile/appliance safety? Autos may be difficult, but it can be pretty easy to spot an unsafe one, to a point (would I do my own crash testing? No, but even I could see the Sidekick had too high of CG). Appliances would be the same way (as long as "they" keep putting screws on the damn things so I can open them up and check!). I also always try to check my food - or I grow my own.
You see, I am willing to do quite a lot for myself, but I know when something is outside of my realm of knowledge or experience. At that point I will seek further advice, be it from a doctor or a mechanic. Even then, I will always ask around - to see if someone knows someone who has had an experience related to mine (this is called word-of-mouth - you generally will know if something is safe or whatnot via it long before you try it - unless you happen to try it first - which is why I tend to avoid version 1.0 products in the first place - let others be the beta testers, IHNSHO)...
You make good points - points 2 and 3, especially.
The problem I hate dealing with when I "self-medicate" is figuring out drug interactions and side effects. The problem is that I know the information exists in electronic form, but isn't accessible to ME.
Pharmacies use drug interaction databases to figure out if there will be a problem with two prescriptions - why can't I get access to this software/database? Why can't I get a system to tell me possible side effects of a drug or combo's of drugs? After all, we are merely talking a large expert system here - why is this data denied to citizens who have the knowledge, will and machinery to use it?
Your third point on public health is a good one - esp related to antibiotics. For a long while Tetracycline and Erithromycin (sp?) were two long acting and highly prescribed wide ranging antibiotics, but recently, they are being prescribed less and less (to keep things from building resistance). They now prescribe other drugs (with even weirder sounding names). I try to keep a list of the "new" drugs, and when I travel to Mexico, I try to get these. Why isn't there a database or something with a list of drugs like this - one year Tetracycline, the next - something else. At least then, I can be better informed!
A web site like this (drug interactions/side effects/current antibiotics) would be of great use (maybe even add an expert system on the back end for diagnosis?)...
I don't know who you are, but you speak the truth!
I cannot tell you the number of times I have gone to a doctor, waited for hours in the waiting room, only to be told I needed this antibiotic or that, here's a scrip. I can generally tell when I have an infection - something that needs an antibiotic. When I am unsure, and I can't diagnose myself, then I use a few home med books (a couple of reader digest things, and a PDR) and the internet to try to come up with a diagnosis. If I am STILL unsure, then I go to the doctor (one time, I had a problem where I got a sharp pulsing pain in my head - aleve did nothing - I went to the doctor, and found out it was probably allergy related - some allergy meds later, I was fine - this is something I didn't know, now I do). But if I think I have a clue, then I choose to medicate myself - I will NOT blame someone else if I screw up and die (because I will read about side effects and drug interactions in my PDR, and online).
It all comes down to responsibility. I feel as an ADULT, I can be responsible for myself. I feel that others should be responsible to themselves as well - and if they fuck up, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, these elitists think that they should try to control me (fuck 'em, I get my pills in Mexico!).
You are right - it is time to thin the herd.
What if, after downloading the source, the user had to snail mail for the compiler? This compiler would only be a binary only distribution, and the information obtained from the address/name would be used as a way of creating a checksum that would be added to the compiler, so that every time the compiler was used to compile Quake (or any other source), the checksum would be added into the Quake executable.
Quake could still be compiled by non-signing compilers (like gcc), but only the signed versions of the Quake client would be allowed to participate on the servers. Those caught cheating would be banned (via the signature). The only way to get another signature would be to supply a different address to get another executable of the compiler (base the signature just off the address, name, city, state (don't use apartment number, or zip) so that the user would have to move or have cooperation of his neighbors to get a new compiler).
I don't think this would eliminate the problem, but it might help (there would maybe have to be a way for the users to authenticate the servers as well - maybe via a similar mechanism?)...
With large parts of the internet being very homogeneous (at the machine code/executable layer), and at the same time on a larger scale, being homogeneous at the transport protocol level, do you think that in the future that we will see the emergence of something more than viruses (I want to call them meta-viruses, but I don't think that would be the right term)?
I am thinking of something akin (in a biological sense) of a cross between a virus and a bacterium - something that could reproduce and mutate (perhaps via asexual and sexual means), in such a way that it would be near impossible for virus scanning software to keep up with...
I would think it would work - the concern I have is that "they" might see the encrypted "garbage" and wonder what it is, then one of the "darkside" hackers at your work (you know, the ones that have their noses so far up their bosses ass you can't see their eyes anymore) would notice it is ROT13'd and unROT it (actually, they would just see the code in the HTML and run the page), sending the results to the boss. I would just want to pick something a little stronger.
What you could try is to get yourself a virtual web hosting site - set up a CGI proxy server on this site (hey, make it free for others to use - or, let people subscribe to it, add banner ads - make some money?) that would route the page through it and encrypt the output, to be decrypted by a custom Java program or browser at the end. This way, there would be a complete encrypted channel between the client and the "host" box (the box creating the encrypted pages). Maybe you could work your "home" box into the equation somewhere - all you need to be able to do is create some kind of server that runs on a strange port, and get it to a box the runs on a different port, so you can see it at work (does your work use FTP or telnet? Run your client on those ports...)
Your idea as it stands sounds good if all you want is some "static" updates from favorite places, not places you would actively browse and need "instant" updates (/. is a good example if you don't participate too much).
This is all speculation - I haven't had a good chance to think about it much, but it would be a great exercise to try!
Your mirroring idea (with the "encryption" portion - though I would make it a little stronger) sounds like a good idea - what might be better would be another proxy server running on your home box (or some other box), and then some Java code (or a custom coded browser) performing the decryption "on-the-fly" running on the machine at work.
One other thing you might try (and I don't know how this will go over, but you better bet I will try it if it comes to it):
Companies like to use the "defense" in court (and on documents you have to sign), that the machines you are allowed to use are their machines, and all data that resides on those machines is therefore their data, and they should have access to it. What happens if you bring in your _own_ machine? They no longer own the machine, therefore they cannot claim the right to put anything on _your_ machine, nor search that machine for "bad" data. They may still have claim to company data - but store your own data on something removable and encrypted, and it should be ok...
Anybody know if this would work?
I don't know if this is an optimum solution, but here goes...
/. is right now - with users/moderators and posters (of sites). I think such a thing could work - and would allow for a more complete indexing of the web (and allow sites that wish to be anonymous to stay somewhat anonymous), while giving a high QOS (due to the moderation - so you won't see a bunch of crap adverts, wrong info, or dead links).
I don't think we need search engines, but rather "search sites" - in many ways they would work like a search engine, however, they would lack the one property of a search engine that clearly cannot keep up with the web - the spider.
The solution to the problem: Rather than having a spider go out and crawl the web to build the database, those sites wishing to be represented in the database should submit their site to the database. How would this work? Well...
1. The site would submit their URL or "root" directory (in the case of personal sites) to the database for inclusion.
2. Each site would only be allowed one URL/directory in the database. At that root level, would be the "index.html" page that should have its own search engine or links to the various parts of the site. It should have META tag info for the search site to use to generate descriptions for the page. Maybe this might be controlled with a "free" membership type thing, so that owners could change info about the submission.
3. The site owner would have to categorize the entry himself - in other words, it would be the responsibility of the site owner to properly locate the link in its proper hierarchical context in the search database.
4. Each link would be given ratings points - which users (maybe registered as members as well?) can use to "moderate" the site - so that sites that are in the proper spot and present good information get moderated up (to appear higher in the search results), while those in the wrong area, or those that have bad content (purposefully misplaced adult sites, commercial sites that have no good content) would get moderated down.
5. Those sites with a consistent moderation rating less than 0 would, after a period of 30 days, be deleted from the database (maybe with an email to the site owner, so that he is warned).
6. Searching could be done via a normal keyword interface or a hierarchical "click-n-choose®" interface (like Yahoo uses). Results and ordering on either method result from moderation points each sites have (so that top sites filter to the top).
7. Use of a natural language interface for the searching would make searching optimal, but depending on available technology, may or may not be needed.
I am sure I missed a few things here - please add on to the idea if you can. I think such a site could be run like
Does this sound reasonable?
Well, you are right in saying I am wrong, but there is a lot of info at this link:
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index_e.htm
Check under history, then click on one of the pics to get a timeline - from what I was able to see, it seems the the Daimler/Benz/Chrysler thing is an ongoing type partnership or something, mainly revolving around Daimler/Benz and Daimler/Chrysler - with tenuous links between Chrysler and Benz...
Cars aren't my thing - methinks I should quit posting on the subject...
I know this'll be moderated down!
WTF?! - You are running Linux and you only have one box? Hell, go to a garage sale and buy some cheapo 386 as a backup to telnet in! You can NEVER have too many machines! Bask in their glow!
You are correct in stating that the names are that of the company founders.
However, even this is kinda funny. Daimler used to be with a guy named Benz, and created some of the first "automobiles" (actually, they looked like funky tricycles with carriage bodies, but that is what they had to work with). I believe the company was called Daimler-Benz.
Benz left, and joined with Mercedes - well, the rest is history.
I believe Daimler continued doing small auto stuff (maybe custom cars?), then joined with Chrysler later...
So, there is some kind of tie between and American car company and a German one (of course, there is the whole Ford/Nazi Germany relation, but that doesn't bear discussing here)...
I am not disputing you on this (because you say you have seen a picture, and I haven't), but I have to wonder about this guy, personally.
From my experience, when the toilet paper is out, and I want to look around, I do one of two things:
1. I turn my head, then my torso - but not my ass - around to see behind me.
2. Otherwise, I would stand slightly up, to turn a bit more, if needed.
The last bit I would have to question is this:
Sit on a toilet and make sure your johnson is limp. Let it dangle into the toilet, if you want. Now turn your whole body to the side (just like the man said he did). Does it come close to the side of the bowl (and hence, lid)?
Now, perhaps this man was very well endowed, or maybe he was slightly hard, but I wonder how it could slide under the lid (and I wonder why, if he does this, does he not feel the cold plastic first and move it - the last part of my body I want to touch a public toilet bowl is my dick!)? Somehow, while I believe based on available info that this man got injured, I think that:
a. Something really wacked out was going on in that stall or,
b. He injured himself in another way (wife goes down on him and bends it wrong?)...
This whole thing is just too wierd...
According to various papers presented at the following website (it should be noted that these papers are the digital transcriptions of original documents):
http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/
I am in error (imagine that!). It should be noted that the engine did have some form of looping capability, as well as an implementation of microcode for the mill (via something Babbage called the 'barrel' - which, I believe (based on other information I have read about other calculating engines), was simply some kind of cylindrical piece of metal with movable stubby projections (like that in a music box), used to effect other parts of the engine based on the codes given by the instruction cards)!
In addition, his son went on to complete the mill portion of the Analytical Engine, starting prior to his fathers death, and completing the mill years later. During various expositions demonstrating the engine, it was ran through its paces to calculate multiples of PI out to 44 iterations (though it must be noted that the value given for PI was incorrect, in addition to the machine, due to various mechanical malfunctions (bugs?), miscalculating successive iterations at the 8th, 9th, 11th and 42nd (?) positions, thereby throwing successive calculation off).
Damn, the more I learn about this engine, the more I am amazed.
I know one girl who isn't the least bit bothered by listening to FM stereo in her car with only one working speaker.
My GF enjoyed listening to her AM radio through one speaker (and that speaker had a rotted surround, so it buzzed) - and no matter how many times I offered to fix it (via a new radio and speakers), she declined, and then insisted that if all she had was a cheap transistor radio from the shack, that would work for her!
ROTFL!
Just this morning I got an email from MP3.COM (music picks of the week or whatever).
One of the artists struck me as being special - way better than what I normally find on MP3.COM, and easily up there with the labels. After downloading and listening to the songs that were on MP3.COM, I went to her web site and purchased her CD.
is possible.
Hey, they could simply embed all of the electronics in black epoxy - but this hasn't stopped people from RE either. Those in serious RE have been known to delicately take the top off of IC's, using grinding and sanding tools, to peer inside, using with electron microscopes or other tools.
And don't say an EM is outside the range of the dedicated, garage-based hacker - why, here in Phoenix (and I would imagine in other large cities), places exist which sell old EMs as scrap metal for pennies (or less!) on the dollar (I once saw a large industrial robot arm sitting outside behind one of the places I frequent - I asked one of the guy's what it was going for - "$200.00" he replied!) - most are in usable condition (just gotta get a power supply and vaccumn pump - but hey, they sell those, too). Heck, many of those places sell most of the stuff to start your own chip fab, if you want...
So, even if they do the most bizzare stuff - there will be those few who are willing to go the extra mile to get what should rightfully be theirs - knowledge of the system.
The f0ckers can't stop those souls...