Ivins wasn't the guy. The FBI claims he mailed the letters before 5pm on the day before the letters were postmarked. Any court would throw out their case based upon this one fact for even one letter, but multiple letters means there is almost no chance that he mailed them before 5pm. So the FBIs story is flat wrong.
Of course he could still have done it, but he'd need an accomplice. It's very hard for the FBI to invent such an accomplice since Ivins doesn't fit the right wing nut profile and Irvins financial records don't indicate a paid accomplice.
To me, it seems that he is just the guy who was fragile and cracked. So the FBI decided to blame him. I think the only way we'll know who did it is if his wife sues the FBI and wins. It seems the FBI just wants to quite investigating the case.
Bruce Ivans wasn't the anthrax mailer. He wasn't even a right wing nut job. He was just who the FBI got the "crack". FBI agents aren't that bright, they just assume anyone who cracks is guilty.
Anyway, read the FBIs story about how he mailed the letters. They claim he drove to Princeton, mailed the letters, and returned to work. He was seen at work that same day at 5pm. However, this story blatantly contradicts the fact that the letters were post marked the following day! How can he have mailed them well before 5pm but have the letters postmarked the following day?
In fact they have given no evidence pointing to Bruce Ivins except for the fact that he committed suicide. Btw, the FBI is also classifying the letter blaming that egyptian guy as a mere coincidence, despite the fact that this letter was mailed first. I'm not sure if the FBI knows who the anthrax mailer was, but it's crystal clear that they don't want to know who blamed the egyptian guy.
See this is why you want deliberative democracy. In practice this means replace the presidential veto with a large "jury trial", say 100 jurors (a large jury eliminates the need for jury selection). Congress critters would vote not just "yey" or "ney" but also for an "advocate". Any advocate receiving at least 5% or 10% from either the house or senate would have the right to argue in the trial. Mr. President could also name an advocate. In the trial, the advocates would try to convince randomly selected ordinary people that the law was good or bad, or to drop specific provisions, like pork. Advocates could also parade around expert witnesses, expose the biases of other witnesses, etc.
Such a system is really the only way to bring more science into government because people can not be expected to know much. Such a system is also the best way to control government spending.
No, you could allow LAN play but not internet play. Or better yet, allow, per license, 2.5 online player connected by LAN to play together online. So 1 license means you & a friend and 2 licenses means you two plus three friends. But your friends can't play by themselves online without getting their own license. Nor can you all sit at your own homes & play together, you must use the LAN. So eventually everyone will fork over the cash to be able to play on their own and/or at home.
But biofuels are solving this problem by pricing poor people and NGOs out of the market, thus forcing the market to grow by increasing agriculture in those countries
A god indie game offers significant enjoyment for free but requires a paid license to access new maps, levels, quests, etc. Ideally you should also let others make maps, levels, etc. themselves, but offer convenient centralized distribution yourself. You must let people access their friends maps quickly, say by providing a private url for them to share, but then you capitalize on their maps by distributing them with your own.
The point is you want people to remain intrigued both as players and creators. So your games continually changes outdating the pirates versions. And more importantly your pay version is much more convenient than pirated versions.
You can always automate killing different sorts of mobs, but you simply can't automate climbing the ladder in Warcraft or Starcraft.
But sure how about you only ever gain the experience for any particular monster type the first 3 time you kill it (and only if it's nearly your level or higher). So again most xp is gained by pvp.
Alternatively most table top RPGs don't depend on radical advancement like DnD. Why not follow them?
I see only two basic game functions : problem solving and competition. MMORPGs are 100% about competition, never problem solving. Indeed problem solving simply doesn't make sense in a normal MMORPG context.
Now competition has about two forms : social (status) and skill (pvp). So you basically want a 100% pvp game. I obviously exaggerate here, second life has non-pvp skill essential for social success.
I feel we're best off improving the compromise between "realism" (ala WoW) and pvp balance (ala Battel.net's ladder). Imagine a pure pvp game with little money & economy and an experience points system that penalized you for excessive repetition. Say for example your gain drops off rapidly if your opponents level is lower and defeating opponents of lower level "typecasts" you, say forcing your later progressing into merely more powerful versions of the same things you could do at their level. So while others players are throwing solid ice walls you are stuck throwing fire walls that do more damage but don't stop anyone down. Or your area of effect healing is significantly less powerful while your single target heals are slightly better. etc.
Another approach is simply add real problem solving components by supporting bots in-game.
You are correct, gender & race ratios among elected officials are far more important than any other such ratios.
So-called "computer science" isn't a "hard" science. Here we are really discussing biology & chemestry vs. math & physics. So well honestly congress created much of this problem :
Some hard science disciplines like biology & chemistry have just crap loads of money because they are immediately useful. Women are very successful in those fields.
Otoh, math & physics are not nearly so well funded. In consequence, math & physics people must spend many years floating from university to university as postdocs. If you are a woman, that kills your chance to find a permanent job before having kids.
Let's take an abysmally funded subject like dance. A dancer may have real financial difficulties but she can still control what city she lives in. A mathematician has little control over this without abandoning research and choosing a small crappy more teaching oriented university. You don't think that influences girls career choices?
Democrats never spent that much. Reagan created the deficit. Bush repeated that performance.
In general, the programs pushed by democrats are far far less expensive because they are usually smaller and more direct, i.e. involve a larger corporate contractor.
He did vote to remove that part of the FISA bill. My question is : Why did the other democrats agree not to remove that part of the FISA bill? It's still best to vote for Obama over McCain on this issue, after all McCain loved the FISA bill, but obviously Obama has still lost a lot of credibility here.
Otoh, there may be other reasons to vote for McCain : It normally goes without saying that Democrats will spend less than Republicans, well the Republicans are firmly the party of free money give aways ever since Reagan. Such matters are however less clear with this war dominates federal spending, i.e. Obama probably can't use Clinton's pay-as-you-go trick on war funding. I doubt McCain would save money, but he's obviously more fiscally conservative than the vast majority of Republicans.
Of course, if Obama had the balls to use Clinton's pay-as-you-go trick on war funding, we'd see congress & the military jump into shape right quick. How many pet projects does one of these emergency funding measures kill?
I see two routes : - add SSL support to all applications. - develop a "dynamic" version of IPsec
As I understand it, IPsec means your computer will use unencrypted connections except when accessing an IP address in some range covered by IPsec. So one wishs to configure IPsec dynamically, but this isn't so easy since the connections must be established quickly, both to encrypted & unencrypted machines.
So my suggestion forget about a complete solution. Instead focus on increasing the quantity of encrypted traffic. - convince companies handling private information, like facebook, to support both SSL and IPSec, thus increasing the SSL traffic on the internet. - Move all p2p apps to SSL. - Add dynamic updating of IPsec ranges from some open registry.
Sure, a some people will turn to the greens, and a few to McCain, but mostly he hasn't lost votes per se. What he has lost is voter's "interest", i.e. campaign volunteers and contributors.
I'll still vote for him, but I deleted his application from my facebook.:P
People rarely work more than 6 hours per day. 5 days * 6 hours = 30 hours. 35 hours is a more realistic compromise because people will have some downtime at work.
But don't use the French system either. Don't let people save the time or move it. Ask people to work 7 hours per day but give them 6 hours of work per day.
Your spouting a bunch of bullshit trying to make up for no defensible position.
GPL people have specific political ends they seek to achieve along side their projects. If you want to use their stuff outside the GPL, then you better pay them.
The BSD people I know are good programmers in high level jobs who want one thing : the ability to appropriate any code they wish for their professional purposes. In general, they are good programmers who could write it themselves, and they do give the world BSD project, but ultimately their logic is that they'd rather "steal" for internal projects because the "stolen" code is more well tested.
If you share the GPLs political goals, great use the GPL and advocate. If you think people might want to license your code, great just use the GPL. But don't try to tell people they shouldn't push GPL political goals. Their reasons are at or more noble than yours.
In the end, GPL advocates would be happy with changes to patent and copyright law that made their license obsolete, including limiting copyright terms, requiring disclosure of source for copyright, etc.
Universities are forced to switch editions eventually because the used ones run out. Nice departments attempt to keep using the old ones for as long as possible.
Academics are paid by their university. They publish for prestige and promotion. Specifically :
- Core textbooks are written by academics who are no longer active in research but still must publish for promotions. Such people make money on their book, but they don't really deserve it, as they help the scummy company by changing it all the time.
- Advanced textbooks are written by academics who are less active in research, but have opinions about their favorite subject. Yes, they deserve to be paid, but they get very little anyway. Again their primary reward is promotion.
- Research level textbooks are written by serious researchers. They receive virtually nothing from book sales, but they get quite a bit of prestige and promotion.
1) Any real job in the U.S. has health care provided by the employer.
2) American's do not need to pay for education directly; however, British actually must pay for high (prep) school directly because (a) the government ones are soo f*ck'n dangerous and (b) you've no shot at Oxford or Cambridge otherwise.
Btw, American's "pay" for education by county property taxes. So you must live near where house prices are high relative to the number of people. You need not actually pay those high house prices yourself, but you must usually make some sacrifices. Or maybe there is some bussing program your child can use if they are gifted or the right race.
What you mean is Americans must pay $30,000 per year for their university. What your missing here is that the drop after Oxbridge is quite rapid in Britain. More good universities means less need for prep school. Btw University is free in some U.S. states, like Georgia.
In fact, the real extra cost in the U.S. are (1) no universal health care hurts small business owners who must choose to provide it, and (2) retirement costs are high. Neither applies if your a European working in the U.S. So just come over, make way more money, send your kids to a better university if you have the money or live in the right place, or send them back home to Europe if you don't, and move back to Europe for a better retirement.
You wont get a girlfriend through violence per se, in-fact no really does mean no. But you may impress her through verbal & physical aggressiveness & persistence. In other words, once she starts giving small yeses, your chances of later yeses have increased.
Slashdot Mirror
Ivins wasn't the guy. The FBI claims he mailed the letters before 5pm on the day before the letters were postmarked. Any court would throw out their case based upon this one fact for even one letter, but multiple letters means there is almost no chance that he mailed them before 5pm. So the FBIs story is flat wrong.
Of course he could still have done it, but he'd need an accomplice. It's very hard for the FBI to invent such an accomplice since Ivins doesn't fit the right wing nut profile and Irvins financial records don't indicate a paid accomplice.
To me, it seems that he is just the guy who was fragile and cracked. So the FBI decided to blame him. I think the only way we'll know who did it is if his wife sues the FBI and wins. It seems the FBI just wants to quite investigating the case.
Bruce Ivans wasn't the anthrax mailer. He wasn't even a right wing nut job. He was just who the FBI got the "crack". FBI agents aren't that bright, they just assume anyone who cracks is guilty.
Anyway, read the FBIs story about how he mailed the letters. They claim he drove to Princeton, mailed the letters, and returned to work. He was seen at work that same day at 5pm. However, this story blatantly contradicts the fact that the letters were post marked the following day! How can he have mailed them well before 5pm but have the letters postmarked the following day?
In fact they have given no evidence pointing to Bruce Ivins except for the fact that he committed suicide. Btw, the FBI is also classifying the letter blaming that egyptian guy as a mere coincidence, despite the fact that this letter was mailed first. I'm not sure if the FBI knows who the anthrax mailer was, but it's crystal clear that they don't want to know who blamed the egyptian guy.
See this is why you want deliberative democracy. In practice this means replace the presidential veto with a large "jury trial", say 100 jurors (a large jury eliminates the need for jury selection). Congress critters would vote not just "yey" or "ney" but also for an "advocate". Any advocate receiving at least 5% or 10% from either the house or senate would have the right to argue in the trial. Mr. President could also name an advocate. In the trial, the advocates would try to convince randomly selected ordinary people that the law was good or bad, or to drop specific provisions, like pork. Advocates could also parade around expert witnesses, expose the biases of other witnesses, etc.
Such a system is really the only way to bring more science into government because people can not be expected to know much. Such a system is also the best way to control government spending.
No, you could allow LAN play but not internet play. Or better yet, allow, per license, 2.5 online player connected by LAN to play together online. So 1 license means you & a friend and 2 licenses means you two plus three friends. But your friends can't play by themselves online without getting their own license. Nor can you all sit at your own homes & play together, you must use the LAN. So eventually everyone will fork over the cash to be able to play on their own and/or at home.
But biofuels are solving this problem by pricing poor people and NGOs out of the market, thus forcing the market to grow by increasing agriculture in those countries
Amen on #2. If you can get people to play the lan version and then pay for more of the single player then that has to be your best bet.
A god indie game offers significant enjoyment for free but requires a paid license to access new maps, levels, quests, etc. Ideally you should also let others make maps, levels, etc. themselves, but offer convenient centralized distribution yourself. You must let people access their friends maps quickly, say by providing a private url for them to share, but then you capitalize on their maps by distributing them with your own.
The point is you want people to remain intrigued both as players and creators. So your games continually changes outdating the pirates versions. And more importantly your pay version is much more convenient than pirated versions.
You can always automate killing different sorts of mobs, but you simply can't automate climbing the ladder in Warcraft or Starcraft.
But sure how about you only ever gain the experience for any particular monster type the first 3 time you kill it (and only if it's nearly your level or higher). So again most xp is gained by pvp.
Alternatively most table top RPGs don't depend on radical advancement like DnD. Why not follow them?
so. not. what. the. inter. state. commerce. clause. was. written. for.
If this survives the courts, I'm going to sue some crying baby's parents.
I see only two basic game functions : problem solving and competition. MMORPGs are 100% about competition, never problem solving. Indeed problem solving simply doesn't make sense in a normal MMORPG context.
Now competition has about two forms : social (status) and skill (pvp). So you basically want a 100% pvp game. I obviously exaggerate here, second life has non-pvp skill essential for social success.
I feel we're best off improving the compromise between "realism" (ala WoW) and pvp balance (ala Battel.net's ladder). Imagine a pure pvp game with little money & economy and an experience points system that penalized you for excessive repetition. Say for example your gain drops off rapidly if your opponents level is lower and defeating opponents of lower level "typecasts" you, say forcing your later progressing into merely more powerful versions of the same things you could do at their level. So while others players are throwing solid ice walls you are stuck throwing fire walls that do more damage but don't stop anyone down. Or your area of effect healing is significantly less powerful while your single target heals are slightly better. etc.
Another approach is simply add real problem solving components by supporting bots in-game.
Yes, but you'd be pretty foolish to be using a non-GSM network. :P
You are correct, gender & race ratios among elected officials are far more important than any other such ratios.
So-called "computer science" isn't a "hard" science. Here we are really discussing biology & chemestry vs. math & physics. So well honestly congress created much of this problem :
Some hard science disciplines like biology & chemistry have just crap loads of money because they are immediately useful. Women are very successful in those fields.
Otoh, math & physics are not nearly so well funded. In consequence, math & physics people must spend many years floating from university to university as postdocs. If you are a woman, that kills your chance to find a permanent job before having kids.
Let's take an abysmally funded subject like dance. A dancer may have real financial difficulties but she can still control what city she lives in. A mathematician has little control over this without abandoning research and choosing a small crappy more teaching oriented university. You don't think that influences girls career choices?
Democrats never spent that much. Reagan created the deficit. Bush repeated that performance.
In general, the programs pushed by democrats are far far less expensive because they are usually smaller and more direct, i.e. involve a larger corporate contractor.
He did vote to remove that part of the FISA bill. My question is : Why did the other democrats agree not to remove that part of the FISA bill? It's still best to vote for Obama over McCain on this issue, after all McCain loved the FISA bill, but obviously Obama has still lost a lot of credibility here.
Otoh, there may be other reasons to vote for McCain : It normally goes without saying that Democrats will spend less than Republicans, well the Republicans are firmly the party of free money give aways ever since Reagan. Such matters are however less clear with this war dominates federal spending, i.e. Obama probably can't use Clinton's pay-as-you-go trick on war funding. I doubt McCain would save money, but he's obviously more fiscally conservative than the vast majority of Republicans.
Of course, if Obama had the balls to use Clinton's pay-as-you-go trick on war funding, we'd see congress & the military jump into shape right quick. How many pet projects does one of these emergency funding measures kill?
I see two routes :
- add SSL support to all applications.
- develop a "dynamic" version of IPsec
As I understand it, IPsec means your computer will use unencrypted connections except when accessing an IP address in some range covered by IPsec. So one wishs to configure IPsec dynamically, but this isn't so easy since the connections must be established quickly, both to encrypted & unencrypted machines.
So my suggestion forget about a complete solution. Instead focus on increasing the quantity of encrypted traffic.
- convince companies handling private information, like facebook, to support both SSL and IPSec, thus increasing the SSL traffic on the internet.
- Move all p2p apps to SSL.
- Add dynamic updating of IPsec ranges from some open registry.
Sure, a some people will turn to the greens, and a few to McCain, but mostly he hasn't lost votes per se. What he has lost is voter's "interest", i.e. campaign volunteers and contributors.
I'll still vote for him, but I deleted his application from my facebook. :P
People rarely work more than 6 hours per day. 5 days * 6 hours = 30 hours. 35 hours is a more realistic compromise because people will have some downtime at work.
But don't use the French system either. Don't let people save the time or move it. Ask people to work 7 hours per day but give them 6 hours of work per day.
Don't buy a new car! Instead buy a used car with good millage.
Your spouting a bunch of bullshit trying to make up for no defensible position.
GPL people have specific political ends they seek to achieve along side their projects. If you want to use their stuff outside the GPL, then you better pay them.
The BSD people I know are good programmers in high level jobs who want one thing : the ability to appropriate any code they wish for their professional purposes. In general, they are good programmers who could write it themselves, and they do give the world BSD project, but ultimately their logic is that they'd rather "steal" for internal projects because the "stolen" code is more well tested.
If you share the GPLs political goals, great use the GPL and advocate. If you think people might want to license your code, great just use the GPL. But don't try to tell people they shouldn't push GPL political goals. Their reasons are at or more noble than yours.
In the end, GPL advocates would be happy with changes to patent and copyright law that made their license obsolete, including limiting copyright terms, requiring disclosure of source for copyright, etc.
Universities are forced to switch editions eventually because the used ones run out. Nice departments attempt to keep using the old ones for as long as possible.
Academics are paid by their university. They publish for prestige and promotion. Specifically :
- Core textbooks are written by academics who are no longer active in research but still must publish for promotions. Such people make money on their book, but they don't really deserve it, as they help the scummy company by changing it all the time.
- Advanced textbooks are written by academics who are less active in research, but have opinions about their favorite subject. Yes, they deserve to be paid, but they get very little anyway. Again their primary reward is promotion.
- Research level textbooks are written by serious researchers. They receive virtually nothing from book sales, but they get quite a bit of prestige and promotion.
Bullshit, your professors don't release new editions, your talking about the text book publisher.
I agree! Obama doesn't need a black running mate. Powell chose to be a Bushy. etc. McCain sure.
Buzz! Wrong!
1) Any real job in the U.S. has health care provided by the employer.
2) American's do not need to pay for education directly; however, British actually must pay for high (prep) school directly because (a) the government ones are soo f*ck'n dangerous and (b) you've no shot at Oxford or Cambridge otherwise.
Btw, American's "pay" for education by county property taxes. So you must live near where house prices are high relative to the number of people. You need not actually pay those high house prices yourself, but you must usually make some sacrifices. Or maybe there is some bussing program your child can use if they are gifted or the right race.
What you mean is Americans must pay $30,000 per year for their university. What your missing here is that the drop after Oxbridge is quite rapid in Britain. More good universities means less need for prep school. Btw University is free in some U.S. states, like Georgia.
In fact, the real extra cost in the U.S. are (1) no universal health care hurts small business owners who must choose to provide it, and (2) retirement costs are high. Neither applies if your a European working in the U.S. So just come over, make way more money, send your kids to a better university if you have the money or live in the right place, or send them back home to Europe if you don't, and move back to Europe for a better retirement.
You wont get a girlfriend through violence per se, in-fact no really does mean no. But you may impress her through verbal & physical aggressiveness & persistence. In other words, once she starts giving small yeses, your chances of later yeses have increased.