A lot of windows software (not MS software specifically) have fixit instructions on their web page to take care of problems - a lot of these are lists of things I wouldn't want my mom trying without my standing over her shoulder. "Start by downloading and opening this registry editing tool...."
Symantec is god of this phenomena, and tried to give the MAC community a "uninstaller" for their antivirus software (don't even get me started) that was something like 119 terminal commands to type. (no, I am not kidding, lots of kill and rm -rf) It didn't remove it all either, but ignoring that, they finally released an uninstaller tool which was a bash script that just did what they told you to type. There's a serious mentality issue that has to be overcome and that "fix it" button is a step in the right direction.
It's one thing to tell someone how to fix the problem, (and in a way that the user may be completely incapable of doing on their own) and quite another to give them a one click solution.
Though you can't avoid that fostering the opposite issue, users willing to click any button that promises to "fix" things for them. Windows AV 2009 anyone? In the end the only real fix is education.
was gonna say hey that's kinda neat if they were in high school, (or BONUS for gradeschool I suppose) but college?
Ham radio operators have been doing this sort of thing for years, and the ISS is known to converse with ham radio operators frequently. I would hope that if radio and electronics is your thing, by the time you get to college, you can accomplish this. Why is this so amazing?
Won't the FCC be all over this? I don't think the $10 coupons will save them from that. This is a tad more severe than say, a 7/10 of a second "wardrobe malfunction"...
Russia had ICBMs long before they could accurately target them. A city is a really small target to hit on a global scale. Also they're called Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles for a reason. All the guidance is done during launch, and the warheads are mainly ballistic after that. Anything's more difficult to aim when you have to do all your adjustments at launch. Tiny margins of error are vastly magnified in flight. (of course modern MIRVs are different but this is Iran we're talking about)
Could Iran hit Isreal? Probably. Could it hit Palestine? Maybe. Could it hit Chicago? NO.
We've seen this thread before more than once but I'll say it again. The whole idea of theme naming servers adds to confusion. The last thing you want the servers to do is have similar names, making it impossible to associate them distinctly with their function.
Name them with unique two syllable names. Names like Mustang, Concrete, Pinecone, Pluto, and Magnet. Avoid using names that could be mistaken by the uninformed as places. ("Where's that budget proposal? Did you check Chicago?") Use of semi-abstract themes such as star trek or famous groups of people adds to the confusion for those that don't "get it" because they will remember the theme not the noun and that will not help them.
Picking a naming convention that works well for you but will work very badly for a significant group of others is a bad idea. Last place I worked for insisted on naming all their servers after STTNG ships. Not being a big trekkie, whenever I thought of a server all that came to my mind was trek. Now would that be Defiant, Enterprise, or Reliant? (or one of the other 10) Not good. Now if just the mailserver was named after a trek ship, that I could associate with trek and remember it easily.
Harriot went on to produce more maps from 1610 to 1613,... By 1613 he had created two maps of the whole moon, with many identifiable features such as lunar craters that crucially are depicted in their correct relative positions.
Last I checked, the moon is tidally locked with the earth, meaning its orbit about equals its rotation and so we always see the same hemisphere of the moon, even from other places on the earth.
So if this guy made the first map of the "whole moon" he must have also invented space travel or received a drawing from Mars. I'm sure what they meant to say was "full map of the moon as visible from earth", but lets keep the detail level reasonable.
The far side of the Moon was not seen in its entirety until 1959, when photographs were transmitted from the Soviet spacecraft Luna 3.
When the new unibodies started shipping, I was about due to upgrade my macbook pro. I gave the Apple store a call and bought a "last chance matte" 15" mbp. I know a lot of other people that did the exact same thing. It was on sale too. Double bonus.
The glossy screens seem to have more vivid color, and darker blacks, but I use my laptop outdoors and in high light levels. If you use your computer in low to dim light, the glossy screen looks fabulous. But outdoors or bright light, the glare will drive you crazy.
I helped someone with their new 24" imac recently, it was in the dining room just inside their deck and patio with the pool. Big patio doors flooded light in combined with light reflected from the pool. The iMac was on the table there, facing the window. It was completely unusable, all I could see on the iMac was the fence in the back yard. We had to close the blinds after I got tired of trying to turn it to get away from the glare.
You don't always have that option when you're on the road, sometimes there's only one convenient place to set down and pull out the laptop. If you can't read the screen, that's a big deal.
I haven't seen a new matte 17 yet. I'm interested to know how they are pulling that off. The unibodies do something very new with laptop displays... the difference between matte and glossy screen has so far been a change in the clear film on the surface of the display, which is either a diffused finish or a gloss. The gloss almost gives it a look of water or being wet. The new unibody macs however add a plate of glass on the front the same as the new iMacs have, and use a glossy film on the LCD. The reason they can put that matte finish on the older uncovered LCD is that the image is right on the surface of the LCD where the matte is. If you try to put that matte on the very front like on the glass, there will be a gap between the matte and the image, and that would blur it. So I don't know how they're going to pull it off unless they intend to put a matte LCD panel inside the glass cover and leave the shiny class cover on, which won't end up helping much.
Was just wondering about this myself... cells are big factories that carry out specialized tasks on a large scale, and contain a copy of the DNA for the entire body. (short of RBC's) Bacteria only need to contain one small set of mechanics for their own life, they're not performing a function for the body and so can be much smaller. All bacteria do is eat and divide.
You've got a box of BBs, and I've got a box the same size, of bowling balls. Of course you have "more" of them. Same box though.
The summary needs to clarify between quantity and volume/mass.
Somehow reminds me of the famous comment, "over 45% of students scored below average on this test!" no, really? learn your maths.
Although congress decides where it's spent, and the people elect the senators, it doesn't necessarily mean your vote matters a lot in the decision. The current legislative process is so hopelessly bogged down that most spending bills get rubber stamped. Who has time to read through several 800 page bills a week looking for one or two lines of pork in fine print, or do research on the 50 different contractors that are being awarded the contracts? You can't really blame them directly.
I suppose the only two solutions to this problem are (1) to get more senators per state, or (2) to require senators to have a staff of 20 each, whose sole job is to review new bills and provide "cliff notes" for the senators, that catch all the little gotchas that have been hidden.
The problem is the process itself is fundamentally flawed. It was developed for a country in 1776, not 2009, and it didn't scale well enough. Back then, bills were 10 pages long and discussed single issues. Today, to get anything voted on, considering all the things that crop up as bills, they have to wrap 20 different things into one giant bloated bill, each issue of which itself is incredibly more complicated than an entire bill was in 1800. The system itself needs to be redesigned. It'll be interesting to see is Obama will attempt this. But that's what we need.
I also think part of it is the senators and their pork. Despite the modern times, they're still looking out for their individual state, and try to work in their own pork at any opportunity. So to pass an important bill, committees have to stuff in pork for important senators to get their vote, because they're being greedy. Bills that are very popular with the public get really stuffed to the gills because who wants their opponent's political ad next year to say you voted against it? We've seen several cases where a bill that seemed like common sense was having a really hard time making it through the house or senate, and if you read into it, it's because it was so incredibly porked that a lot of senators were doing the right thing, saying "no, that's completely unreasonable". If you follow those threads, they sample the senators before the actual vote, and will slowly trim out the pork until they think it will pass. Or it fails, gets thrown back to committee, where more pork negotiations take place. It seems that very little discussion takes place regarding the actual core issue of the bill. That seems to be how a lot of bills go nowadays. Gives democracy a bad name.
Several times now we've seen those "emergency spending bills" cross over into the next year because they are so incredibly over-porked. "you can't possibly say no to the bill that pays the government for next year? PORK PORK PORK!" But a few times they've held their ground and that's what we get. Absolutely disgusting.
I have a politically incorrect comment to make also. On Monster's home page there's a "learn more" video that has a static title picture of the guy that's responsible for your being unemployed in the first place.
the person that stole the data emailed the users instead:
Monster.com let me steal your personal information, not once but twice, knew about it, and didn't feel like letting you know, so I thought I would instead.
Click this link to send an email to monster.com to let them know what you think about their security and their policy for handling of breaches.
- The Haxors
BONUS! If you click on the javascript form (can't link directly to it) on their main page up top right that says Help and Security, there's two interesting bullet points lower right:
- Protect yourself against online fraud - Contact us
Those two really shouldn't be so close together on the same page?
Are you saying that we can both check, but there's nothing useful to be done with that information?
Yes. The transmission of information would be for one of you to know either (A) the color of your marble, or (B) the color of the other person's marble, without having looked at your marble.
Just because one of you can LOOK at your marble, and know the color of BOTH marbles, does not imply the movement of information. The one that looked at his marble still has to get on the phone and call the other and say "hey my marble is RED!" for the other guy to know anything. Requiring communication to avoid communication is pointless.
Additionally and somewhat related, before you looked at your marble, you already knew there was a red and black marble. When you looked at your marble, you spent an observation to gain information. You only gained one piece of information, not two, because it was already known that if your marble was red theirs was black etc. The second piece of information was already known. It wasn't know to be red or black, it was known to be opposite. So to discover the identity of one is to discover the identity of both. Also, by spending that observation you didn't gain information for the person with the other marble, unless they too spend an observation by listening to you tell them what color your marble was.
Although the state of one atom, once measured, will affect the other atom instantaneously, there's no possibility for FTL communication.
The one part of that conclusion I don't get (and I've seen it several times to this point in the thread) is this: Why can't it relay binary information? If I entangle them, separate them, then either DO or DO NOT measure the first, and then measure the second, won't that tell me if the first one was measured or not?
Hmmm thinking on this I have to ask for clarification on the purpose of the measuring. I was assuming when you say you measure it, it's an on/off kind of thing. Is it more correct to say that in my above scenario, the way to tell if the second measurement produces information, is to compare it to the measurement of the first? That makes more sense as to why it's a pointless exercise. Because after taking the second measurement, the measurement itself is not enough, you have to compare it with the first measurement? Which requires communication which you are trying to avoid?
you have both a black and red marble and you send one around the world, well when one guy checks and sees that his marble is red, the other guy instantly knows that his marble is black.
More to the point, the other guy can find out his marble is black, but only if you communicate to him that your marble was red. Thus information was transferred, but you have to communicate by other means to make it meaningful, which defeats the purpose. It's like sending someone an encrypted message over an insecure channel. Great until you realize you now have to send him the key over the same channel. Sure it's encrypted, but the means of making it useful renders it ineffective.
I have to set up gmail accounts periodically for users here and it takes me some fighting every time to make the account. The "wheelchair" icon makes it read it to you, and the idea of course is in case you are having problems with the picture you can listen to it. But it's like trying to make out what your friend is saying to you from the other end of a dance floor. I have yet to figure out what they're saying by the recording.
And if you miss the captcha too many times, it stops letting your IP address try for awhile. Woooonderful.
Bush's people were VERY busy making sure nothing that wasn't supposed to be there would be hanging around for the Obama people to come across.
I bet Cheney himself had a staff of twelve running shredders continuously for the last week...
But there's always something that gets missed. If even a quarter of the rumors and accusations that have flooded around over the last few years are true, I'm sure a few skeletons will be discovered in the darker closets of the white house in the next 4-10 months.
I find the very act of spending your last minutes anywhere trying to do a thorough job of "burying the evidence" etc to be a cowardly, shameless act. For the office of the presidency, it takes it to an all new low. I would personally like to see some new legislation put in place that would put some teeth into the Presidential Records Act that would make such "last minute cleanup" in the white house unarguably illegal.
The office of the President of the United States should be 100% transparent. That person is our representative to the world, and there is simply no excuse for this behavior.
The system was designed to be open by default... not secure. Security was ALWAYS an afterthought.
I don't think I'd say it was an afterthought, that implies they believed it was important to address, once discovered late.
The closer reality seems to be that they acknowledged the issue and determined it made a better feature than vulnerability.
Like the windows autorun on media insert that's making Downadup so successful as of lately. Amazing they STILL haven't axed that. This isn't a case of them being late with a fix, this is a case of them refusing to fix it.
That's because the digital signal simply breaks when static is encountered, as opposed to analog which degrades gracefully.
Not entirely true. Digital type signals in general do tend to terminate 100% when you get interference. But I've got 20 or so digital TV stations "in range" of my house, which is in a bowl in the topography, so most of them are marginal. I frequently get glitching in my signal on some stations, where the video will freeze for a second and then resume, or I get this weird digital artifacting that glitches all over the screen (and sometimes travels around on the screen) and slowly clears itself up over the next couple seconds. Losing the signal 100% is annoying when it happens, but even what I get I'd rather have a little snow drift through the picture instead of the glitching I get.
That being said, digital signals have the ability to do automatic error correction if the interference isn't too severe. So signals that are below perfect can still be displayed perfectly. Analog TV lacks that option.
Digital stations are not currently transmitting at maximum power either, and already transmit on a higher frequency. When the power gets cranked up at analog- cutoff-day, the higher frequency combined with the higher power (for digital, bringing it up to par with current analog) will mean that everyone's digital signals will improve, and will be universally superior to their analog counterparts of past.
but if someone suspected what you are asserting, then they'd easily use materials with high heat resistance. So I'm just asking about this pressure thing you brought up twice.
Yes you actually caught my point better than most. I wasn't really at all concerned about the magma with relation to its temperature. But imagine what a say, 10ft wide ball of magma (iron I suppose if we're grabbing from the core?) from the center of the earth would do when taken instantly to sea level? I can only guess wildly how large its diameter would almost instantly become. It'd create an an incredible explosion, driven by the mass of iron rather than gas, making it all the more powerful. Almost nuclear.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of windows software (not MS software specifically) have fixit instructions on their web page to take care of problems - a lot of these are lists of things I wouldn't want my mom trying without my standing over her shoulder. "Start by downloading and opening this registry editing tool...."
Symantec is god of this phenomena, and tried to give the MAC community a "uninstaller" for their antivirus software (don't even get me started) that was something like 119 terminal commands to type. (no, I am not kidding, lots of kill and rm -rf) It didn't remove it all either, but ignoring that, they finally released an uninstaller tool which was a bash script that just did what they told you to type. There's a serious mentality issue that has to be overcome and that "fix it" button is a step in the right direction.
It's one thing to tell someone how to fix the problem, (and in a way that the user may be completely incapable of doing on their own) and quite another to give them a one click solution.
Though you can't avoid that fostering the opposite issue, users willing to click any button that promises to "fix" things for them. Windows AV 2009 anyone? In the end the only real fix is education.
was gonna say hey that's kinda neat if they were in high school, (or BONUS for gradeschool I suppose) but college?
Ham radio operators have been doing this sort of thing for years, and the ISS is known to converse with ham radio operators frequently. I would hope that if radio and electronics is your thing, by the time you get to college, you can accomplish this. Why is this so amazing?
Are those three points OR, or AND? I assume AND.
also, 3) exist only to be offensive I don't think the wardrobe malfunction incident would have met this criteria? Didn't they get fined?
Won't the FCC be all over this? I don't think the $10 coupons will save them from that. This is a tad more severe than say, a 7/10 of a second "wardrobe malfunction"...
Primarily to keep track of nuclear waste
And this can't be done with say, Excel?
One couple I contacted switched to formula after their child's birth . ... how they were breast-feeding their child before birth?
.
Russia had ICBMs long before they could accurately target them. A city is a really small target to hit on a global scale. Also they're called Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles for a reason. All the guidance is done during launch, and the warheads are mainly ballistic after that. Anything's more difficult to aim when you have to do all your adjustments at launch. Tiny margins of error are vastly magnified in flight. (of course modern MIRVs are different but this is Iran we're talking about)
Could Iran hit Isreal? Probably. Could it hit Palestine? Maybe. Could it hit Chicago? NO.
We've seen this thread before more than once but I'll say it again. The whole idea of theme naming servers adds to confusion. The last thing you want the servers to do is have similar names, making it impossible to associate them distinctly with their function.
Name them with unique two syllable names. Names like Mustang, Concrete, Pinecone, Pluto, and Magnet. Avoid using names that could be mistaken by the uninformed as places. ("Where's that budget proposal? Did you check Chicago?") Use of semi-abstract themes such as star trek or famous groups of people adds to the confusion for those that don't "get it" because they will remember the theme not the noun and that will not help them.
Picking a naming convention that works well for you but will work very badly for a significant group of others is a bad idea. Last place I worked for insisted on naming all their servers after STTNG ships. Not being a big trekkie, whenever I thought of a server all that came to my mind was trek. Now would that be Defiant, Enterprise, or Reliant? (or one of the other 10) Not good. Now if just the mailserver was named after a trek ship, that I could associate with trek and remember it easily.
Harriot went on to produce more maps from 1610 to 1613, ... By 1613 he had created two maps of the whole moon, with many identifiable features such as lunar craters that crucially are depicted in their correct relative positions.
Last I checked, the moon is tidally locked with the earth, meaning its orbit about equals its rotation and so we always see the same hemisphere of the moon, even from other places on the earth.
So if this guy made the first map of the "whole moon" he must have also invented space travel or received a drawing from Mars. I'm sure what they meant to say was "full map of the moon as visible from earth", but lets keep the detail level reasonable.
The far side of the Moon was not seen in its entirety until 1959, when photographs were transmitted from the Soviet spacecraft Luna 3.
ya, that.
WHY?
When the new unibodies started shipping, I was about due to upgrade my macbook pro. I gave the Apple store a call and bought a "last chance matte" 15" mbp. I know a lot of other people that did the exact same thing. It was on sale too. Double bonus.
The glossy screens seem to have more vivid color, and darker blacks, but I use my laptop outdoors and in high light levels. If you use your computer in low to dim light, the glossy screen looks fabulous. But outdoors or bright light, the glare will drive you crazy.
I helped someone with their new 24" imac recently, it was in the dining room just inside their deck and patio with the pool. Big patio doors flooded light in combined with light reflected from the pool. The iMac was on the table there, facing the window. It was completely unusable, all I could see on the iMac was the fence in the back yard. We had to close the blinds after I got tired of trying to turn it to get away from the glare.
You don't always have that option when you're on the road, sometimes there's only one convenient place to set down and pull out the laptop. If you can't read the screen, that's a big deal.
I haven't seen a new matte 17 yet. I'm interested to know how they are pulling that off. The unibodies do something very new with laptop displays... the difference between matte and glossy screen has so far been a change in the clear film on the surface of the display, which is either a diffused finish or a gloss. The gloss almost gives it a look of water or being wet. The new unibody macs however add a plate of glass on the front the same as the new iMacs have, and use a glossy film on the LCD. The reason they can put that matte finish on the older uncovered LCD is that the image is right on the surface of the LCD where the matte is. If you try to put that matte on the very front like on the glass, there will be a gap between the matte and the image, and that would blur it. So I don't know how they're going to pull it off unless they intend to put a matte LCD panel inside the glass cover and leave the shiny class cover on, which won't end up helping much.
Was just wondering about this myself... cells are big factories that carry out specialized tasks on a large scale, and contain a copy of the DNA for the entire body. (short of RBC's) Bacteria only need to contain one small set of mechanics for their own life, they're not performing a function for the body and so can be much smaller. All bacteria do is eat and divide.
You've got a box of BBs, and I've got a box the same size, of bowling balls. Of course you have "more" of them. Same box though.
The summary needs to clarify between quantity and volume/mass.
Somehow reminds me of the famous comment, "over 45% of students scored below average on this test!" no, really? learn your maths.
Although congress decides where it's spent, and the people elect the senators, it doesn't necessarily mean your vote matters a lot in the decision. The current legislative process is so hopelessly bogged down that most spending bills get rubber stamped. Who has time to read through several 800 page bills a week looking for one or two lines of pork in fine print, or do research on the 50 different contractors that are being awarded the contracts? You can't really blame them directly.
I suppose the only two solutions to this problem are (1) to get more senators per state, or (2) to require senators to have a staff of 20 each, whose sole job is to review new bills and provide "cliff notes" for the senators, that catch all the little gotchas that have been hidden.
The problem is the process itself is fundamentally flawed. It was developed for a country in 1776, not 2009, and it didn't scale well enough. Back then, bills were 10 pages long and discussed single issues. Today, to get anything voted on, considering all the things that crop up as bills, they have to wrap 20 different things into one giant bloated bill, each issue of which itself is incredibly more complicated than an entire bill was in 1800. The system itself needs to be redesigned. It'll be interesting to see is Obama will attempt this. But that's what we need.
I also think part of it is the senators and their pork. Despite the modern times, they're still looking out for their individual state, and try to work in their own pork at any opportunity. So to pass an important bill, committees have to stuff in pork for important senators to get their vote, because they're being greedy. Bills that are very popular with the public get really stuffed to the gills because who wants their opponent's political ad next year to say you voted against it? We've seen several cases where a bill that seemed like common sense was having a really hard time making it through the house or senate, and if you read into it, it's because it was so incredibly porked that a lot of senators were doing the right thing, saying "no, that's completely unreasonable". If you follow those threads, they sample the senators before the actual vote, and will slowly trim out the pork until they think it will pass. Or it fails, gets thrown back to committee, where more pork negotiations take place. It seems that very little discussion takes place regarding the actual core issue of the bill. That seems to be how a lot of bills go nowadays. Gives democracy a bad name.
Several times now we've seen those "emergency spending bills" cross over into the next year because they are so incredibly over-porked. "you can't possibly say no to the bill that pays the government for next year? PORK PORK PORK!" But a few times they've held their ground and that's what we get. Absolutely disgusting.
I have a politically incorrect comment to make also. On Monster's home page there's a "learn more" video that has a static title picture of the guy that's responsible for your being unemployed in the first place.
the person that stole the data emailed the users instead:
Monster.com let me steal your personal information, not once but twice, knew about it, and didn't feel like letting you know, so I thought I would instead.
Click this link to send an email to monster.com to let them know what you think about their security and their policy for handling of breaches.
- The Haxors
BONUS! If you click on the javascript form (can't link directly to it) on their main page up top right that says Help and Security, there's two interesting bullet points lower right:
- Protect yourself against online fraud
- Contact us
Those two really shouldn't be so close together on the same page?
Are you saying that we can both check, but there's nothing useful to be done with that information?
Yes. The transmission of information would be for one of you to know either (A) the color of your marble, or (B) the color of the other person's marble, without having looked at your marble.
Just because one of you can LOOK at your marble, and know the color of BOTH marbles, does not imply the movement of information. The one that looked at his marble still has to get on the phone and call the other and say "hey my marble is RED!" for the other guy to know anything. Requiring communication to avoid communication is pointless.
Additionally and somewhat related, before you looked at your marble, you already knew there was a red and black marble. When you looked at your marble, you spent an observation to gain information. You only gained one piece of information, not two, because it was already known that if your marble was red theirs was black etc. The second piece of information was already known. It wasn't know to be red or black, it was known to be opposite. So to discover the identity of one is to discover the identity of both. Also, by spending that observation you didn't gain information for the person with the other marble, unless they too spend an observation by listening to you tell them what color your marble was.
I was just thinking the whole idea of making the DNC list available is kinda counter-productive unless you have some serious teeth behind it.
I wonder if anyone has considered a "do not spam" email registry? That'd go over just about as well.
Although the state of one atom, once measured, will affect the other atom instantaneously, there's no possibility for FTL communication.
The one part of that conclusion I don't get (and I've seen it several times to this point in the thread) is this: Why can't it relay binary information? If I entangle them, separate them, then either DO or DO NOT measure the first, and then measure the second, won't that tell me if the first one was measured or not?
Hmmm thinking on this I have to ask for clarification on the purpose of the measuring. I was assuming when you say you measure it, it's an on/off kind of thing. Is it more correct to say that in my above scenario, the way to tell if the second measurement produces information, is to compare it to the measurement of the first? That makes more sense as to why it's a pointless exercise. Because after taking the second measurement, the measurement itself is not enough, you have to compare it with the first measurement? Which requires communication which you are trying to avoid?
you have both a black and red marble and you send one around the world, well when one guy checks and sees that his marble is red, the other guy instantly knows that his marble is black.
More to the point, the other guy can find out his marble is black, but only if you communicate to him that your marble was red. Thus information was transferred, but you have to communicate by other means to make it meaningful, which defeats the purpose. It's like sending someone an encrypted message over an insecure channel. Great until you realize you now have to send him the key over the same channel. Sure it's encrypted, but the means of making it useful renders it ineffective.
MPF. that's the most entertaining one-liner I've read in days...
hate it. hate it hate it hate it.
I have to set up gmail accounts periodically for users here and it takes me some fighting every time to make the account. The "wheelchair" icon makes it read it to you, and the idea of course is in case you are having problems with the picture you can listen to it. But it's like trying to make out what your friend is saying to you from the other end of a dance floor. I have yet to figure out what they're saying by the recording.
And if you miss the captcha too many times, it stops letting your IP address try for awhile. Woooonderful.
Bush's people were VERY busy making sure nothing that wasn't supposed to be there would be hanging around for the Obama people to come across.
I bet Cheney himself had a staff of twelve running shredders continuously for the last week...
But there's always something that gets missed. If even a quarter of the rumors and accusations that have flooded around over the last few years are true, I'm sure a few skeletons will be discovered in the darker closets of the white house in the next 4-10 months.
I find the very act of spending your last minutes anywhere trying to do a thorough job of "burying the evidence" etc to be a cowardly, shameless act. For the office of the presidency, it takes it to an all new low. I would personally like to see some new legislation put in place that would put some teeth into the Presidential Records Act that would make such "last minute cleanup" in the white house unarguably illegal.
The office of the President of the United States should be 100% transparent. That person is our representative to the world, and there is simply no excuse for this behavior.
The system was designed to be open by default... not secure. Security was ALWAYS an afterthought.
I don't think I'd say it was an afterthought, that implies they believed it was important to address, once discovered late.
The closer reality seems to be that they acknowledged the issue and determined it made a better feature than vulnerability.
Like the windows autorun on media insert that's making Downadup so successful as of lately. Amazing they STILL haven't axed that. This isn't a case of them being late with a fix, this is a case of them refusing to fix it.
That's because the digital signal simply breaks when static is encountered, as opposed to analog which degrades gracefully.
Not entirely true. Digital type signals in general do tend to terminate 100% when you get interference. But I've got 20 or so digital TV stations "in range" of my house, which is in a bowl in the topography, so most of them are marginal. I frequently get glitching in my signal on some stations, where the video will freeze for a second and then resume, or I get this weird digital artifacting that glitches all over the screen (and sometimes travels around on the screen) and slowly clears itself up over the next couple seconds. Losing the signal 100% is annoying when it happens, but even what I get I'd rather have a little snow drift through the picture instead of the glitching I get.
That being said, digital signals have the ability to do automatic error correction if the interference isn't too severe. So signals that are below perfect can still be displayed perfectly. Analog TV lacks that option.
Digital stations are not currently transmitting at maximum power either, and already transmit on a higher frequency. When the power gets cranked up at analog- cutoff-day, the higher frequency combined with the higher power (for digital, bringing it up to par with current analog) will mean that everyone's digital signals will improve, and will be universally superior to their analog counterparts of past.
but if someone suspected what you are asserting, then they'd easily use materials with high heat resistance. So I'm just asking about this pressure thing you brought up twice.
Yes you actually caught my point better than most. I wasn't really at all concerned about the magma with relation to its temperature. But imagine what a say, 10ft wide ball of magma (iron I suppose if we're grabbing from the core?) from the center of the earth would do when taken instantly to sea level? I can only guess wildly how large its diameter would almost instantly become. It'd create an an incredible explosion, driven by the mass of iron rather than gas, making it all the more powerful. Almost nuclear.