I've done a few tests with various units (Comcast DVR, Tivo, Myth box) and found there is about a 150W difference between home-brew and embedded..150kW * 24 hr * 365 days * $.15 kWh / 12 mo = $16.425 / mo
Firstly, I don't know how you can say that, considering "home brewed" systems vary.
Second, according to http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html , "The average cost of residential electricity was 9.86/kWh in the U.S. in March 2006." The 3 highest rates rates were "12 in California, 14.314 in New York, and 16.734 in Hawaii." So, your "$.15 kWh" figure is potentially WAY off.
3rd, You'd still be wrong- PCs have Power Saving features built into them. A simple Suspend or Hibernate can make the power requirement drop to near zero. This would affect the monthly power requirement in unpredictable ways- a single person who sleeps 8 hrs a day, and works 8 hrs a day could have their TVPC (heh, I made that up. Sounds friendlier than 'HTPC') essentially powered off for 16 hours a day. Or thay could actually power it off (unless a recording session is planned). A busy family with kids might have the TVPC up and running playing/recording kids shows all day long, and recording shows for the adults (plural) all evening/night.
I can whip up a 'screenshot' showing an IP at RIAA headquarters looking at kiddy porn on a few hours. It's absolutely crazy that a printout of an alledged screenshot can stand as evidence on Court.
I'd shoot him under the table, rob his corpse, and rape his wife.
You seem to have no sense of proportion. If someone cheats IN A GAME, then it is fair to cheat back IN THE GAME. Killing, robbing and raping are all OUTSIDE THE GAME, and would NOT be fair.
He's cheating, so the rules don't count for him.
He's cheating IN THE GAME, so the rules don't count for him IN THE GAME.
So... where do you draw the line? Which of the following would result in you gunning someone down? Why/Why not?
None. The first 2 are not crimes, the 3rd (littering) is minor and deserving of nothing more than a lecture. The child is the responsibility of the parents. The 'tard is, well, 'tarded. As for the noisy neighbor, I'd TALK to him, ASK him to turn it down. If he didn't, I think a brick thru the window would get the point across.
YOU seem to be the only one talking about "gunning someone down" for non-crimes or minor infractions.
the law determines what's okay, and what's not okay,/i>
No. The Law determines what is Legal and Illegal. The difference is crucial.
Nowhere (that I know of) in the laws of the US does it say that people who break the laws are now fair game for anyone who wants to do anything for them.
So? I'm not talking about what the LAW says.
If, instead of the rule of law, we embraced your system of justice, it would be totally cool to blow away criminals: murderers, rapists, robbers, jay walkers, shoplifters, whatever.
So? There'd be a LOT fewer "murderers, rapists, robbers,... shoplifters, whatever". (Jay walking is a victimless crime.)
The RIAA wouldn't have to sue you for downloading music: they could just send a team of hitmen to blow up your house.
Um, two points: 1) downloading is also a victimless crime. 2) have a sense of proportion.
Because that is the limit of our interactions. If I meet someone on the street, and they cordially say 'hello', then I say 'hello' right back. The next time I see them is a NEW situation. If they curse at me that second time, I curse right back. Third time, the smile at me, I smile back.
If somebody robs you, don't just shoot him--find out where he lives, and rob him right back!
Aren't there several quite popular movies with that as the plot??
After all, he's a criminal, so he doesn't deserve the protection of laws.
Not WHILE while they are comitting the crime. THEY choose to NOT live under the Law. THEY choose to give up the Law.
Nor does the law give you the right...
You seem to be stuck on the whole 'legal/illegal' thing. I'm speaking of the 'Right/Wrong' (or 'moral/immoral') thing. While laws and morals often coincide, they also diverge sometimes.
If my opponent cheats at cards, I can either play by the rules or cheat back. Playing by the rules makes me lose. Cheating back either levels the playing field, or guarantees me the win, depending how well I cheat back. I find it Morally Right to do so, and deny the cheater of his ill gotten gains.
My point is that there are laws against you taking the law into your own hands, and that those laws are there for a reason.
And as I have said, if THEY don't follow the law (when dealing with me, there is no logical reason *I* should have to follow the law (when dealing with them).
A game isn't fair if only one side follows the rules. Neither is Society.
The rule saying that you can't kill other people is applied to you, not to them
No, it is 'applied' to *US*. Rules regulate interactions. I can interact with someone in certain ways (saying hello) , but not in others (stealing their TV). Since THEY have choosen to not follow the rules when interacting with me, then there is no logical reason I must follow the rules when interacting with them.
Please note, we ALREADY DO THIS: A criminal (who choses to not follow the rules of civilized society) is thrown in jail, thereby removing some of their Rights and privleges that they would ordinarily be allowed in Society.
Also, most societies also have strict rules about the "right to a fair trial"
Trials are to determine guilt or innocence. If there is no doubt, there is no need for a trial.
If you see someone walking away from your house with a television in their arms that looks like yours, and you shoot and kill them, then you have literally become judge, jury, and executioner.
Yeah. So??
There is a (small) chance that the situation was not exactly what it seemed, and that no crime was being committed on their part... so... whoops!
So, I might not shoot them under those exact circumstances. If I found them IN my house, I probably WOULD shoot them. If I found my TV missing, and a fresh set of tracks in the snow leading directly to them, I probably would shoot them. Every situation is different, and judgement is needed.
It mentions foreign travelers inbound to the US, not US citizens outbound elsewhere. US Citizens travelling abroad (or internally, or etc) are obviously not affected by this.
YEah... because the government never expands it's powers, including groups later that were'nt included before....
And they have the perfect excuse- 9/11. "Well, you know, we already track furriners... but the 9/11 turrists had USA identification, so we need to expand this to Everyone in the USA...."
if you shoot somebody to protect property, as opposed to protecting another person, or your own life, then you've essentially just killed someone for the sake of that piece of property
No- I've killed someone for the sake of Society.
You see, Society has Rules. These Rules are necessary to the operation of Society. One of these Rules is that you cannot take that which does not belong to you. Another is that you cannot kill other people.
It's not fair to ignore the Rules in your own actions, then hide behind them when others act againt you. Therefore, If you choose to break the Rules, it's only fair that you are no longer protected by them, either. Therefore, it's okay for people to kill criminals.
Yeah. 'Gray' is where you get all your stuff back just a few years after it was confiscated. Some is missing, some broken, and the rest obsolete. This is not the worst case, it IS the middle ground. The extremes are:
White: Cops knock on your door, and say there was child porn coming from your IP. You point out you have an open AP, and turn over what logs you have. The cops leave, never to bother you again.
Black: You get arrested, your stuff taken, and charges filed. The prosecutor drags your name thru the mud in the press, ruining your life. You lose your job. You lose your kids. You get told that (since those in charge are 'idiots'), you have a better chance of getting out of prison early if you plead guilty. You plead, and get tossed in jail with a big guy named Bubba.
Besides, it's not mistaking things as being illegal, it's mistaking who is the person performing the illegal act.
Not always. Remember the case of the man who was sitting in the coffee shop parking lot, using the WiFi? Got arrested, even though the WiFi was free. The cop went and looked thru the law until he found something he could charge the guy with. Are you seriously suggesting the guy should never use wifi again, just to avoid this situation in the future?
All you can eat, up to a maximum of 50 pounds of salad.'. That's what ISPs are doing as far as I can tell.
Um, No.
ISPs who offer "unlimited" service and them cap you if you use 'too much' outright REFUSE to set a limit on how much is too much. It's more like "All you can eat, up to whatever we think is reasonable (but we won't tell you what that is)."
Well, it's real hard to argue Biblical things when you don't even know what it states. There was only one forbidden tree, not two.
Genesis 2, verse 9:
9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
and, lest you thinkthey are the same tree, GOD himself ('itself'?) refers to them seperately:
Genesis 3, 22-25:
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
You didn't do research,
Back at ya.
they have studied evolutionary teachings and have come up with scientific answers as to why evolution doesn't fully answer how the universe came into existence
"Evolution" has nothing to do with "how the universe came into existence".
""See ID" Some customers write "See ID" or "Ask for ID" in the signature panel, thinking that this is a deterrent against fraud or forgery; that is, if their signature is not on the card, a fraudster will not be able to forge it. In reality, criminals don't take the time to practice signatures: they use cards as quickly as possible after a theft and prior to the accounts being blocked. They are actually counting on you not to look at the back of the card and compare signatures--they may even have access to counterfeit identification with a signature in their own handwriting. "See ID" or "Ask for ID" is not a valid substitute for a signature. The customer must sign the card in your presence, as stated above."
MasterCard's Merchant agreement says: If the card is not signed, the card acceptor must:
obtain an authorization from the issuer, and
ask the cardholder to provide identification (but not record the cardholder identification information), and
require the cardholder to sign the card. The card acceptor must not complete the transaction if the cardholder refuses to sign the card.
Writing "ASK For I.D." or "See I.D." or "CID" is NOT a signature. A signature matches the person's name: The signature would not match if the signature panel were signed "Jan H. Hanley" and the sales receipt "Bob Hanley" or "F. Hanley." The signature would be acceptable if signed "Jan H. Hanley," "J. H. Hanley" or "Jan Hanley." The signature would be acceptable if a title such as Mr., Mrs., or Dr. is missing or is included.
VISA says the same thing: Some customers write "See ID" or "Ask for ID" in the signature panel, thinking that this is a deterrent against fraud or forgery; that is, if their signature is not on the card, a fraudster will not be able to forge it. In reality, criminals don't take the time to practice signatures: they use cards as quickly as possible after a theft and prior to the accounts being blocked. They are actually counting on you not to look at the back of the card and compare signatures--they may even have access to counterfeit identification with a signature in their own handwriting. "See ID" or "Ask for ID" is not a valid substitute for a signature. The customer must sign the card in your presence, as stated above.
he attained "maggie's drawers" twice before getting his "MARKSMANSHIP" medal. Ask a military man, like myself, what maggie's drawers and marksmanship (e.g. NOT sharpshooter)are.
"a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target"
From wikipedia: "Although, in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot". [9]" (Emphasis mine)
Footnote 9 links to the Warren Report, page 191, where it states "...tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualification as a "sharpshooter".... In May of 1959, on another range...scored 191, one point over minimum for ranking as a "marksman."" (Emphasis mine)
It goes on to say "We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the rifle.... the rifle he was firing might not have been as good...."
the rifle the sheriff is holding up at the press conference is CLEARLY a GERMAN-made MAUSER.
1) What sheriff? What press conference? Details, people, details.
Wiki sez: "A 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.[27] The recovery was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV.[28] This footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was later verified by photographic analysis commissioned by the HSCA that the rifle filmed was the same one later identified as the assassination weapon." Footnote 28 links to http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
If it's the fact that someone who knows the pattern can guess your passwords, DUH. That's why you 'mix it up' a little like I said. And use these only for 'low security' purposes.
During season 1-2, I came up with the following idea:
'Humanoid Cylons' are really human. They've just been... tweaked. - genetically enhanced (accounts for increased strength, etc) - cloned (only 12 versions because of limited starting genetic material, or something) - brainwashed (into thinking they are 'machines') - and they have nanites in them (accounts for rapid healing, 'fiberoptic forearms' (the nanites built an ad hoc interface when they sensed the cable), and the fact they can be 'reborn' (nanites store memories somehow, which get placed inthe brain of a newly awakened clone) (or, the nanites 'transmit' the memories/experiences somehow...)
As for the whole 'resurection' thing, I wrote that off to brainwashing (people will tend to be more... fanatical... when they think they cannot die), with some effect of the transplanted memories by the nanites.
Of course, one of the next episodes showed Boomer and 6 resurecting, and blew my theory to hell....
Even if my real name WERE "Fred Klein", you'd be missing my middle initial, assuming I was stupid enough to use the simplist version of the above, which I am not.
Bob A. Jones wants to have passwords for Slashdot, amazon.com and newegg.com.
bajp4sddc = Bob A Jones Password 4[for] SlashDot Dot Com bajp4adc = Bob A Jones Password 4[for] Amazon Dot Com
or
bajp2nedc = Bob A Jones Password 2[to] NewEgg Dot Com
In other words, use the persons initials, a number, and the initials of the site. Not super secure as-is, but it can be mixed up a little. Bob could use his first name instead of his initials, or his nickname (Rob), or his kid's initials, or the last letter of his names ('finals'?), or whatever. The number can be 2(password TO the site) or 4(password FOR the site), or '42' (If your name is Adams), 69 (if you're a horndog) or even dynamic- it could be the number of characters in the site's main url. Whatever: the whole point is to have the same PATTERN to the passwords, so the person can memorize the pattern, and always be able to figure out his/her password.
Slashdot Mirror
I've done a few tests with various units (Comcast DVR, Tivo, Myth box) and found there is about a 150W difference between home-brew and embedded. .150kW * 24 hr * 365 days * $.15 kWh / 12 mo = $16.425 / mo
Firstly, I don't know how you can say that, considering "home brewed" systems vary.
Second, according to http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html , "The average cost of residential electricity was 9.86/kWh in the U.S. in March 2006." The 3 highest rates rates were "12 in California, 14.314 in New York, and 16.734 in Hawaii." So, your "$.15 kWh" figure is potentially WAY off.
3rd, You'd still be wrong- PCs have Power Saving features built into them. A simple Suspend or Hibernate can make the power requirement drop to near zero. This would affect the monthly power requirement in unpredictable ways- a single person who sleeps 8 hrs a day, and works 8 hrs a day could have their TVPC (heh, I made that up. Sounds friendlier than 'HTPC') essentially powered off for 16 hours a day. Or thay could actually power it off (unless a recording session is planned). A busy family with kids might have the TVPC up and running playing/recording kids shows all day long, and recording shows for the adults (plural) all evening/night.
And YOU missed:
Photoshop.
I can whip up a 'screenshot' showing an IP at RIAA headquarters looking at kiddy porn on a few hours. It's absolutely crazy that a printout of an alledged screenshot can stand as evidence on Court.
What's the deal with everyone saying "DSL is slow" these days? ...Speakeasy offers 6.0/768 DSL.
I'm on Cable, and getting 20758/3442 right now.
Compared to that, 6000/768 IS slow.
Or you can just know the definition of 'compromise'.
I'd shoot him under the table, rob his corpse, and rape his wife.
You seem to have no sense of proportion. If someone cheats IN A GAME, then it is fair to cheat back IN THE GAME. Killing, robbing and raping are all OUTSIDE THE GAME, and would NOT be fair.
He's cheating, so the rules don't count for him.
He's cheating IN THE GAME, so the rules don't count for him IN THE GAME.
Sheesh.
So... where do you draw the line? Which of the following would result in you gunning someone down? Why/Why not?
None. The first 2 are not crimes, the 3rd (littering) is minor and deserving of nothing more than a lecture. The child is the responsibility of the parents. The 'tard is, well, 'tarded. As for the noisy neighbor, I'd TALK to him, ASK him to turn it down. If he didn't, I think a brick thru the window would get the point across.
YOU seem to be the only one talking about "gunning someone down" for non-crimes or minor infractions.
Get help.
the law determines what's okay, and what's not okay,/i>
... shoplifters, whatever". (Jay walking is a victimless crime.)
No. The Law determines what is Legal and Illegal. The difference is crucial.
Nowhere (that I know of) in the laws of the US does it say that people who break the laws are now fair game for anyone who wants to do anything for them.
So? I'm not talking about what the LAW says.
If, instead of the rule of law, we embraced your system of justice, it would be totally cool to blow away criminals: murderers, rapists, robbers, jay walkers, shoplifters, whatever.
So? There'd be a LOT fewer "murderers, rapists, robbers,
The RIAA wouldn't have to sue you for downloading music: they could just send a team of hitmen to blow up your house.
Um, two points:
1) downloading is also a victimless crime.
2) have a sense of proportion.
Oh, come on, why stop there?
Because that is the limit of our interactions. If I meet someone on the street, and they cordially say 'hello', then I say 'hello' right back. The next time I see them is a NEW situation. If they curse at me that second time, I curse right back. Third time, the smile at me, I smile back.
If somebody robs you, don't just shoot him--find out where he lives, and rob him right back!
Aren't there several quite popular movies with that as the plot??
After all, he's a criminal, so he doesn't deserve the protection of laws.
Not WHILE while they are comitting the crime. THEY choose to NOT live under the Law. THEY choose to give up the Law.
Nor does the law give you the right...
You seem to be stuck on the whole 'legal/illegal' thing. I'm speaking of the 'Right/Wrong' (or 'moral/immoral') thing. While laws and morals often coincide, they also diverge sometimes.
If my opponent cheats at cards, I can either play by the rules or cheat back. Playing by the rules makes me lose. Cheating back either levels the playing field, or guarantees me the win, depending how well I cheat back. I find it Morally Right to do so, and deny the cheater of his ill gotten gains.
You, evidently, would just sit there and lose.
My point is that there are laws against you taking the law into your own hands, and that those laws are there for a reason.
And as I have said, if THEY don't follow the law (when dealing with me, there is no logical reason *I* should have to follow the law (when dealing with them).
A game isn't fair if only one side follows the rules. Neither is Society.
The rule saying that you can't kill other people is applied to you, not to them
No, it is 'applied' to *US*. Rules regulate interactions. I can interact with someone in certain ways (saying hello) , but not in others (stealing their TV). Since THEY have choosen to not follow the rules when interacting with me, then there is no logical reason I must follow the rules when interacting with them.
Please note, we ALREADY DO THIS: A criminal (who choses to not follow the rules of civilized society) is thrown in jail, thereby removing some of their Rights and privleges that they would ordinarily be allowed in Society.
Also, most societies also have strict rules about the "right to a fair trial"
Trials are to determine guilt or innocence. If there is no doubt, there is no need for a trial.
If you see someone walking away from your house with a television in their arms that looks like yours, and you shoot and kill them, then you have literally become judge, jury, and executioner.
Yeah. So??
There is a (small) chance that the situation was not exactly what it seemed, and that no crime was being committed on their part... so... whoops!
So, I might not shoot them under those exact circumstances. If I found them IN my house, I probably WOULD shoot them. If I found my TV missing, and a fresh set of tracks in the snow leading directly to them, I probably would shoot them. Every situation is different, and judgement is needed.
What was your point again?
It mentions foreign travelers inbound to the US, not US citizens outbound elsewhere. US Citizens travelling abroad (or internally, or etc) are obviously not affected by this.
YEah... because the government never expands it's powers, including groups later that were'nt included before....
And they have the perfect excuse- 9/11. "Well, you know, we already track furriners... but the 9/11 turrists had USA identification, so we need to expand this to Everyone in the USA...."
if you shoot somebody to protect property, as opposed to protecting another person, or your own life, then you've essentially just killed someone for the sake of that piece of property
No- I've killed someone for the sake of Society.
You see, Society has Rules. These Rules are necessary to the operation of Society. One of these Rules is that you cannot take that which does not belong to you. Another is that you cannot kill other people.
It's not fair to ignore the Rules in your own actions, then hide behind them when others act againt you. Therefore, If you choose to break the Rules, it's only fair that you are no longer protected by them, either. Therefore, it's okay for people to kill criminals.
Simple.
there are gray areas
Yeah. 'Gray' is where you get all your stuff back just a few years after it was confiscated. Some is missing, some broken, and the rest obsolete. This is not the worst case, it IS the middle ground. The extremes are:
White: Cops knock on your door, and say there was child porn coming from your IP. You point out you have an open AP, and turn over what logs you have. The cops leave, never to bother you again.
Black: You get arrested, your stuff taken, and charges filed. The prosecutor drags your name thru the mud in the press, ruining your life. You lose your job. You lose your kids. You get told that (since those in charge are 'idiots'), you have a better chance of getting out of prison early if you plead guilty. You plead, and get tossed in jail with a big guy named Bubba.
Besides, it's not mistaking things as being illegal, it's mistaking who is the person performing the illegal act.
Not always. Remember the case of the man who was sitting in the coffee shop parking lot, using the WiFi? Got arrested, even though the WiFi was free. The cop went and looked thru the law until he found something he could charge the guy with. Are you seriously suggesting the guy should never use wifi again, just to avoid this situation in the future?
I don't want to be one of the cases where my connection is abused and my life is turned upside down because of the ignorance of those in charge.
So you have 2 choices-
1) Never do ANYTHING that those 'idiots in charge' might EVER mistake for illegal.
2) Get rid of the idiots and get SMART people in charge. (Or at least technology-wise people)
How about just putting a 'time-out' for sucessive posts/sign-ups from the same IP? Or ban the same IP from making two logins?
All you can eat, up to a maximum of 50 pounds of salad.'.
That's what ISPs are doing as far as I can tell.
Um, No.
ISPs who offer "unlimited" service and them cap you if you use 'too much' outright REFUSE to set a limit on how much is too much. It's more like "All you can eat, up to whatever we think is reasonable (but we won't tell you what that is)."
Genesis 2, verse 9:
and, lest you thinkthey are the same tree, GOD himself ('itself'?) refers to them seperately:
Genesis 3, 22-25:
You didn't do research,
Back at ya.
they have studied evolutionary teachings and have come up with scientific answers as to why evolution doesn't fully answer how the universe came into existence
"Evolution" has nothing to do with "how the universe came into existence".
it makes me wonder how they'd hold up to the softball sized hail that regularly crops up in colorado.
How do office buildings with a lot of glass windows "hold up"?
How do people's house windows "hold up"?
"Years ago"?
f or_visa_merchants.pdf?it=r|/merchants/new_acceptan ce/merchant_responsibility.html|Rules%20for%20Visa %20Merchants
Just downloaded seconds ago from VISA.com:
""See ID" Some customers write "See ID" or "Ask for ID" in the signature panel, thinking
that this is a deterrent against fraud or forgery; that is, if their signature is not
on the card, a fraudster will not be able to forge it. In reality, criminals don't take
the time to practice signatures: they use cards as quickly as possible after a
theft and prior to the accounts being blocked. They are actually counting on you
not to look at the back of the card and compare signatures--they may even have
access to counterfeit identification with a signature in their own handwriting.
"See ID" or "Ask for ID" is not a valid substitute for a signature. The customer
must sign the card in your presence, as stated above."
Check it out yourself: http://www.usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_
You should not accept those cards.
MasterCard's Merchant agreement says:
If the card is not signed, the card acceptor must:
obtain an authorization from the issuer, and
ask the cardholder to provide identification (but not record the cardholder
identification information), and
require the cardholder to sign the card.
The card acceptor must not complete the transaction if the cardholder refuses
to sign the card.
Writing "ASK For I.D." or "See I.D." or "CID" is NOT a signature. A signature matches the person's name:
The signature would not match if the signature panel were
signed "Jan H. Hanley" and the sales receipt "Bob Hanley" or "F. Hanley." The
signature would be acceptable if signed "Jan H. Hanley," "J. H. Hanley" or "Jan
Hanley." The signature would be acceptable if a title such as Mr., Mrs., or Dr.
is missing or is included.
VISA says the same thing:
Some customers write "See ID" or "Ask for ID" in the signature panel, thinking
that this is a deterrent against fraud or forgery; that is, if their signature is not
on the card, a fraudster will not be able to forge it. In reality, criminals don't take
the time to practice signatures: they use cards as quickly as possible after a
theft and prior to the accounts being blocked. They are actually counting on you
not to look at the back of the card and compare signatures--they may even have
access to counterfeit identification with a signature in their own handwriting.
"See ID" or "Ask for ID" is not a valid substitute for a signature. The customer
must sign the card in your presence, as stated above.
he attained "maggie's drawers" twice before getting his "MARKSMANSHIP" medal. Ask a military man, like myself, what maggie's drawers and marksmanship (e.g. NOT sharpshooter)are.
...scored 191, one point over minimum for ranking as a "marksman."" (Emphasis mine)
"a red flag that is waved from the rifle pits to indicate a complete miss of the target"
From wikipedia: "Although, in May 1959, he qualified as a marksman (a lower classification than that of sharpshooter). Military experts, after examining his records, characterized his firearms proficiency as "above average" and was, when compared to American civilian males of his age, "an excellent shot". [9]" (Emphasis mine)
Footnote 9 links to the Warren Report, page 191, where it states "...tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualification as a "sharpshooter".... In May of 1959, on another range
It goes on to say "We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the rifle.... the rifle he was firing might not have been as good...."
the rifle the sheriff is holding up at the press conference is CLEARLY a GERMAN-made MAUSER.
1) What sheriff? What press conference? Details, people, details.
Wiki sez: "A 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.[27] The recovery was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV.[28] This footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was later verified by photographic analysis commissioned by the HSCA that the rifle filmed was the same one later identified as the assassination weapon."
Footnote 28 links to http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
*Woooosh*
Did I miss a joke, or a point?
If it's the fact that someone who knows the pattern can guess your passwords, DUH. That's why you 'mix it up' a little like I said. And use these only for 'low security' purposes.
During season 1-2, I came up with the following idea:
'Humanoid Cylons' are really human. They've just been... tweaked.
- genetically enhanced (accounts for increased strength, etc)
- cloned (only 12 versions because of limited starting genetic material, or something)
- brainwashed (into thinking they are 'machines')
- and they have nanites in them (accounts for rapid healing, 'fiberoptic forearms' (the nanites built an ad hoc interface when they sensed the cable), and the fact they can be 'reborn' (nanites store memories somehow, which get placed inthe brain of a newly awakened clone) (or, the nanites 'transmit' the memories/experiences somehow...)
As for the whole 'resurection' thing, I wrote that off to brainwashing (people will tend to be more... fanatical... when they think they cannot die), with some effect of the transplanted memories by the nanites.
Of course, one of the next episodes showed Boomer and 6 resurecting, and blew my theory to hell....
Um, no.
Even if my real name WERE "Fred Klein", you'd be missing my middle initial, assuming I was stupid enough to use the simplist version of the above, which I am not.
Or use a password Pattern:
Bob A. Jones wants to have passwords for Slashdot, amazon.com and newegg.com.
bajp4sddc = Bob A Jones Password 4[for] SlashDot Dot Com
bajp4adc = Bob A Jones Password 4[for] Amazon Dot Com
or
bajp2nedc = Bob A Jones Password 2[to] NewEgg Dot Com
In other words, use the persons initials, a number, and the initials of the site. Not super secure as-is, but it can be mixed up a little. Bob could use his first name instead of his initials, or his nickname (Rob), or his kid's initials, or the last letter of his names ('finals'?), or whatever.
The number can be 2(password TO the site) or 4(password FOR the site), or '42' (If your name is Adams), 69 (if you're a horndog) or even dynamic- it could be the number of characters in the site's main url.
Whatever: the whole point is to have the same PATTERN to the passwords, so the person can memorize the pattern, and always be able to figure out his/her password.