That's easy, there's revision history on each page. In particular, this excerpt was added to that page on 12:40, 6 Sep 2004, and nobody has had a legitimate (non-vandalizing) criticism of it in the two months that it's been up there, and has stuck around through 31 revisions and countless other readers. If you have any additional constructive information to post on the topic, please go ahead and add that.
Egyptians were writing on papyrus starting around 3500BC. Before that, hieroglyphs and cuneiform (used by several different cultures) were in use. Certainly there was less writing going on the further back you go, but it's not as if there writing barely existed and then suddenly there was a huge increase around 650 BC.
Wikipedia's pages on various religious topics have little tidbits like this sprinkled all over (one, two, three).
Several professors of archeology claim that many stories in the Old Testament, including important chronicles about Moses, Solomon, and others, were actually made up for the first time by scribes hired by King Josiah (7th century BCE) in order to rationalize monotheistic belief in Yahweh. Evidently, the neighboring countries that kept many written records, such as Egypt, Persia, etc., have no writings about the stories of the Bible or its main characters before 650 BCE. Such claims are detailed in "Who Were the Early Israelites?" by William G. Dever, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI (2003). Another such book by Neil A. Silberman and colleagues is "The Bible Unearthed," Simon and Schuster, New York (2001).
Each search result on both engines are very very similar:
top line: a link to the site, underlined and in blue. While this is the normal default for links, MSN's search is a slightly different shade of blue, so they clearly intended to use the same color of blue.
middle section: an excerpt from the page, one or two lines long, black text
bottom line: the URL of the link itself, in green. At the end of this line, there's a "Cached" link in a muted color (google's is a lighter shade of blue than the top line, MSN's is light grey)
Okay, Yahoo, Altavista, and AllTheWeb also use the blue-black-green color scheme as well, but the MSN search results still seem to be the most similar to google.
"Mach" is specifically intentionally referenced to the speed of sound. IAMAAE (aviation engineer), but most obviously, sonic booms always appear as soon as the aircraft goes as fast as the speed of sound, and this speed changes depending on the temperature and makeup of the medium that the object is travelling in. I presume there are other aerodynamic properties correlated with the Mach number as well (for instance, see references to the "Mach cone").
Having a 50%/50% split in popularity among browsers will reduce attacks simply because exploiters get less benefit and have to do more work. If we can get that to 25%/25%/25%/25%, then exploiters will move on to some more attractive target, and simultaneously, each of the four browsers will focus much more on standards compliance.
I agree wholeheartedly. Either the FCC should leave internet traffic as a whole untaxed, or it should tax internet traffic as a whole. Taxing one specific kind of data is insane... Categorizations of internet traffic change on almost a month-to-month basis and are too fluid to be regulated.
At LEAST mention how it differs from other network protocol analyzers out there... especially if there's a super-popular one that people may be more familiar with (Ethereal). IMHO, the critical difference is that it allows sniffing of switched networks.
Do they want to be able to wiretap ALL voice communications on the 'net? Including short teleconferences, audio streams, and the Push-To-Talk connection to my parent's house? Because there are a lot grey fuzzy areas between these.
The funny thing is, the FCC could increase taxes and regulation of internet services more generally, if they really want. They chose not to do this. Instead, they're choosing to single out one category of internet service that is poorly defined and certain to be redefined as time goes on.
On the other hand, we all have too much information...
The FBI and CIA collectively knew there was a terrorist cell in the US planning to attack the world trade centers, but wasn't able to put the pieces together.
It's generally agreed a major issue that the intelligence community is dealing with is that they have way more information than they can fully analyze. Some even claim that the above sentance is automatically scanned by the CIA/FBI, automatically determined if it's "terrorist chatter", and automatically sent to analysts if a computer determines it needs to be.
On the smaller scale, there's a ton of news out there, and every citizen seems to find less and less time to do the things they want to commit to any one thing, news included.
So when 20 Random Joes and Janes on the internet see a forged document, and each has the expertise to make a tiny criticism of it, we still don't really know anything. It takes other layers to start collecting the information into one coherent mass that makes it obvious that the Rather documents were forged.
One common criticism of US news is that it is very selective. There are a number of major humanitarian crises in the world that the US public basically never hears about, and they instead get to focus on the latest celebrity court case. It's not that there aren't news outlets somewhere in the world covering the various problems out there, it's that we don't know to focus our attentions on it. A broader and more democratic network provides viewers with more choices as to what they can focus their attention on.
There was a lot of evidence before election day that electronic voting machines were designed in a very insecure manner. So insecure in fact, that their audit logs are easily tampered with. We're only hearing about the ones that were tampered with SO much that the results were beyond credibility and are immediately obviously wrong. Possibly over time more solid evidence of their ability to be hacked will come to light, but until then, any reports of this are being deemed too sensationalist by people outside the computer security field.
This piece discusses some of the reasons for the decrease in influence of the Middle East starting in the 18th century, one of them being the shift of world trade from the Mediterranean Sea out to the oceans, but also the unwillingness to be involved in the Industrial Revolution, and several other internal issues.
I'm not terribly knowledgable about the internals of windows, but my impression was that there were many areas where the security of the admin account was put in a lot of risk from core networking services having to be run in root, or something like that? I just got the impression that Microsoft didn't want to do the extra work to ensure that "root" was kept secure, because it didn't benefit their bottom line until recently.
I saw a good summary of this on TV the other day... The Middle East has been relatively wealthy at other times in the past as well (eg. especially Istanbul, being placed in the center of trade across the continents). The biggest difference from a religious-extremist standpoint though, is that generation of wealth used to involve a large amount of the population... That is, the leaders had to be mindful of the citizen's happiness, or risk their position of power. Now, with money generated from oil, non-democratic leaders basically don't have to worry about how happy the citizens are, and can leave them poor and starving while they themselves are the primary beneficiaries of the oil. Certainly many in the middle east aren't evil, but this situation at least gives tyrants more comfort whereas normally they'd have to work harder to stay in power. Then the implication was that the ill-will that the poor population feels is sometimes transformed into hatred for the west, rather than directed towards the exploitative leaders.
Sun could certainly release Java under a license that either explicitely forbids commercial use without a separate license negotiated with Sun, or under a license that MS would be very unlikely to want to use (eg. GPL might be a good example).
If you disagree with the policy decisions that the monopoly that controls roads makes, you can quite literally vote against the organization(s) who made those policy decisions.
If you disagree with the policy decisions that the near-monopoly that controls movies, you have only one choice: "vote" with your wallet. It's probably even less effective, because you only have one ideology that you can vote for or against, rather than voting between two competing ideologies, but if you want to do something other than simply bitch about it on slashdot, clearly it's about the only choice you have.
Is it possible that we're in the Middle East because 1) We have multiple reasons to be there (eg. Islamofascism AND oil), and 2) we may not be there to steal oil outright, but to simply prevent a re-occurance of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.
In other words, we *are* still reliant on foreign oil, and we should spend time considering possible solutions.
After the 2000 election, most people realize that the US election system is set up to provide only two viable choices. Much as you might not like it, your vote DOES count, and your vote for a third party DOES favor one of the two viable parties. It's expected by political analysts that in this year's elections, support for third parties will be at an all-time low, because most people have come to grips with reality, after having witnessed the 2000 election.
It's probably true that many people want a third viable choice. However, wishing we had three viable parties won't make it so. You either need to work with the system to make the change (eg. vote democrat or republican), leave the system (eg. move to a european country with many viable parties), or put much more pressure from outside the system (no idea what this would be, but something non-violent would be good), something stronger than throwing your vote to the opposite of the two candidates that you would otherwise have voted for.
You learn something new every day. Wikipedia lists 21 Model Organisms, Arabidopsis included among them. Can anyone explain more? Is there great insight into biology for complete newbies here, or is this just a mundane necessity of getting work done?
It's a bit odd, but in this case, the easiest way to confirm they're in the same family is to compare screen resolutions. So far, all Symbian UIQ phones (the p800 and p900 are the other two that are in the same family) have a 208x320 pixel touchscreen.
The A1000 is the follow-on to the A925 and the A920, all of which run the Symbian OS, not Linux... Sorry, I don't have the list of linux phones right this instant...
Slashdot Mirror
That's easy, there's revision history on each page. In particular, this excerpt was added to that page on 12:40, 6 Sep 2004, and nobody has had a legitimate (non-vandalizing) criticism of it in the two months that it's been up there, and has stuck around through 31 revisions and countless other readers. If you have any additional constructive information to post on the topic, please go ahead and add that.
Egyptians were writing on papyrus starting around 3500BC. Before that, hieroglyphs and cuneiform (used by several different cultures) were in use. Certainly there was less writing going on the further back you go, but it's not as if there writing barely existed and then suddenly there was a huge increase around 650 BC.
Each search result on both engines are very very similar:
Okay, Yahoo, Altavista, and AllTheWeb also use the blue-black-green color scheme as well, but the MSN search results still seem to be the most similar to google.
"Mach" is specifically intentionally referenced to the speed of sound. IAMAAE (aviation engineer), but most obviously, sonic booms always appear as soon as the aircraft goes as fast as the speed of sound, and this speed changes depending on the temperature and makeup of the medium that the object is travelling in. I presume there are other aerodynamic properties correlated with the Mach number as well (for instance, see references to the "Mach cone").
Or if you're a hetero male like me, you can simply ogle Lady Liberty.
Having a 50%/50% split in popularity among browsers will reduce attacks simply because exploiters get less benefit and have to do more work. If we can get that to 25%/25%/25%/25%, then exploiters will move on to some more attractive target, and simultaneously, each of the four browsers will focus much more on standards compliance.
I agree wholeheartedly. Either the FCC should leave internet traffic as a whole untaxed, or it should tax internet traffic as a whole. Taxing one specific kind of data is insane... Categorizations of internet traffic change on almost a month-to-month basis and are too fluid to be regulated.
At LEAST mention how it differs from other network protocol analyzers out there... especially if there's a super-popular one that people may be more familiar with (Ethereal). IMHO, the critical difference is that it allows sniffing of switched networks.
The funny thing is, the FCC could increase taxes and regulation of internet services more generally, if they really want. They chose not to do this. Instead, they're choosing to single out one category of internet service that is poorly defined and certain to be redefined as time goes on.
- The FBI and CIA collectively knew there was a terrorist cell in the US planning to attack the world trade centers, but wasn't able to put the pieces together.
- It's generally agreed a major issue that the intelligence community is dealing with is that they have way more information than they can fully analyze. Some even claim that the above sentance is automatically scanned by the CIA/FBI, automatically determined if it's "terrorist chatter", and automatically sent to analysts if a computer determines it needs to be.
- On the smaller scale, there's a ton of news out there, and every citizen seems to find less and less time to do the things they want to commit to any one thing, news included.
So when 20 Random Joes and Janes on the internet see a forged document, and each has the expertise to make a tiny criticism of it, we still don't really know anything. It takes other layers to start collecting the information into one coherent mass that makes it obvious that the Rather documents were forged.One common criticism of US news is that it is very selective. There are a number of major humanitarian crises in the world that the US public basically never hears about, and they instead get to focus on the latest celebrity court case. It's not that there aren't news outlets somewhere in the world covering the various problems out there, it's that we don't know to focus our attentions on it. A broader and more democratic network provides viewers with more choices as to what they can focus their attention on.
There was a lot of evidence before election day that electronic voting machines were designed in a very insecure manner. So insecure in fact, that their audit logs are easily tampered with. We're only hearing about the ones that were tampered with SO much that the results were beyond credibility and are immediately obviously wrong. Possibly over time more solid evidence of their ability to be hacked will come to light, but until then, any reports of this are being deemed too sensationalist by people outside the computer security field.
This piece discusses some of the reasons for the decrease in influence of the Middle East starting in the 18th century, one of them being the shift of world trade from the Mediterranean Sea out to the oceans, but also the unwillingness to be involved in the Industrial Revolution, and several other internal issues.
I'm not terribly knowledgable about the internals of windows, but my impression was that there were many areas where the security of the admin account was put in a lot of risk from core networking services having to be run in root, or something like that? I just got the impression that Microsoft didn't want to do the extra work to ensure that "root" was kept secure, because it didn't benefit their bottom line until recently.
I saw a good summary of this on TV the other day... The Middle East has been relatively wealthy at other times in the past as well (eg. especially Istanbul, being placed in the center of trade across the continents). The biggest difference from a religious-extremist standpoint though, is that generation of wealth used to involve a large amount of the population... That is, the leaders had to be mindful of the citizen's happiness, or risk their position of power. Now, with money generated from oil, non-democratic leaders basically don't have to worry about how happy the citizens are, and can leave them poor and starving while they themselves are the primary beneficiaries of the oil. Certainly many in the middle east aren't evil, but this situation at least gives tyrants more comfort whereas normally they'd have to work harder to stay in power. Then the implication was that the ill-will that the poor population feels is sometimes transformed into hatred for the west, rather than directed towards the exploitative leaders.
Curiously enough, the middle east was a place of relatively high tolerance and prosperity during the time of the European "Dark Ages". Though with most of Islam's, Christianity's, and Jadaism's religious cities in the mid-east, it does seem destined to be a place of conflict.
Sun could certainly release Java under a license that either explicitely forbids commercial use without a separate license negotiated with Sun, or under a license that MS would be very unlikely to want to use (eg. GPL might be a good example).
If you disagree with the policy decisions that the near-monopoly that controls movies, you have only one choice: "vote" with your wallet. It's probably even less effective, because you only have one ideology that you can vote for or against, rather than voting between two competing ideologies, but if you want to do something other than simply bitch about it on slashdot, clearly it's about the only choice you have.
In other words, we *are* still reliant on foreign oil, and we should spend time considering possible solutions.
It's probably true that many people want a third viable choice. However, wishing we had three viable parties won't make it so. You either need to work with the system to make the change (eg. vote democrat or republican), leave the system (eg. move to a european country with many viable parties), or put much more pressure from outside the system (no idea what this would be, but something non-violent would be good), something stronger than throwing your vote to the opposite of the two candidates that you would otherwise have voted for.
You learn something new every day. Wikipedia lists 21 Model Organisms, Arabidopsis included among them. Can anyone explain more? Is there great insight into biology for complete newbies here, or is this just a mundane necessity of getting work done?
Ahhh, good stuff (could only find a .wav.zip, no mp3, sorries...).
It's a bit odd, but in this case, the easiest way to confirm they're in the same family is to compare screen resolutions. So far, all Symbian UIQ phones (the p800 and p900 are the other two that are in the same family) have a 208x320 pixel touchscreen.
The A1000 is the follow-on to the A925 and the A920, all of which run the Symbian OS, not Linux... Sorry, I don't have the list of linux phones right this instant...