Interestingly enough, in France it is the _public_ schools that are much much better. You make a kid repeat a class often enough, he will eventually learn. I lost one year this way, and a friend of mine lost five years, but we both got it eventually. In France, one in four students have repeated at least once.
Is this really necessary anymore? How many people DON'T know about bugmenot? Hell, there is even a firefox extension to plop it straight into your browser!
I know about it. I have FireFox. I have the bugmenot extension. And it still doesn't work for me.
I tried it with seven different logins. Who knows? May be the NYT webmaster is smart enough to limit the number of IPs for each login. In any case, I don't feel like contributing one more registration to bugmenot, I have better things to do with my time. Here is a link to Google News where it has the same identical story published on NYT and syndicated to 42 other different newspapers. Why couldn't the submitter use a link to one of those other newspapers instead, I guess I'll never know.
Really? I guess you're a newbie. FireFox used to be FireBird back in February. Mozilla just changed its name and still many people haven't even upgraded yet.
You may be interested in Activewords
It lets you create keywords and share them as well, but unlike local names, it lets you type them anywhere (meaning, your browser doesn't even need to be open, you can type them in Word, on your desktop, really anywhere)
Check out the demo I linked to, Activewords is such a nice little app, you might not believe all the nice things I have to say about it.
Open IE, goto the Tools menu, select Internet Options, click the Advanced Tab, scroll to "Search from the Address Bar", and under "When searching" select "Just go to the most likely site".
I did exactly as you instructed. I found the options already checked as described (meaning the fourth option was already checked by default). And yet when I typed "slashdot", it still took me to the search results page on search.msn.com.
I am not kidding. Try it for yourself. I have IE 6.0.2900 on XP with all the latest patches. Please moderators, check this out yourself before moderating.
Hell, you should be modded redundant. Of COURSE google will sell keywords.
If that happens, the people who installed this toolbar will install another toolbar from another search engine. This is not like buying a Windows machine where the search page is there by default. The people who first switched to Google will be the first ones to switch away from Google.
Not if you're in firefbird. I typed "visa" and I automatically got visa.com without going through the search page.
I assume it's completely based on the popularity of the link. The more people link to it, the more likely people are actually trying to search for that page.
It's not an "Internet Explorer only" thing. Mozilla FireBird has this by default.
I type "slashdot" and I automatically get slashdot.org. I type "slasdot" and I still automatically get slashdot.org. And that's going through google, not my history (assuming my history is cleared).
(due to about 75% of the population NOT having insurance, but, that's another story.)
Speaking of which.
If we issued "driving only" drivers licenses to our illegal alien population and if we required every automobile on public roads to have valid insurance stickers (bar-coded and issued every three months), I'm sure that would take care of that problem really quick.
Aside the obvious benefits of having everyone insured. It would cut down on car chases, because the cars could be located and towed when they're parked. It would cut down on accidents where the perpetrators flee the scene. And it would cut down on the number of deaths, because the people who are not allowed to drive won't be able to drive in the first place.
I pay $301 every six month (limited liability). One car, two drivers. One male. One female. We're both over 25 years old, so we don't get penalized on our age, plus our driving record is clean.
For those who don't know, limited liability is the absolute minimum insurance you can get in California (it doesn't cover a lot of things).
...script kiddies are the least dangerous threat posed to you anyway
What danger? It's only chess. Noone is going to get killed over this. If someone cheats, I avoid playing them (if I detect it). If only a few people cheat for every thousand games I play, it doesn't really alter the enjoyment I get from those games.
"Security through obscurity" is not necessarily bad, in this case "security through obscurity" is good enough. It's online chess for pete's sake, there is no guarantee that the person I'm playing isn't using his buddies or a computer program for additional help. Online chess is inherently insecure.
This is reminiscent of Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden's first massacre was at a school too except he had our full support at the time because he was "fighing" commies.
FOX is neither liberal, nor conservative. FOX is in it for the money, the money they get from mega advertisers. That's why it seems there is a disjuncture between their political agendas, it's because the corporations they promote may be amoral but they will still root for themselves (if nothing else).
"Example: We hear a great deal about how the Bin Laden family was evacuated in the days following September 11. We know they weren't interviewed by the FBI (this is true). We know planes around the country were grounded (this is also true). We know the Bin Laden family was in the air and on its way out of the country while a lot of other planes were on the ground (also true). We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion."
Please get your facts straight. You might be a liberal, but you've been relying way too much on corporate-publications like the Newsweek. Here is the real scoop on the flight of the Saudis after 9/11.
How Many Mistakes Can Newsweek's Michael Isikoff Make?
by Craig Unger
How many mistakes can Michael Isikoff make? In his zealous campaign to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11, Newsweek's star investigative reporter has already made at least seven errors, distortions and selective omissions of crucial information.
Let's take them one by one.
1) In his first Newsweek piece attacking the movie, "Under the Hot Lights," which appeared in theJune 28 issue of the magazine, Isikoff asserts that I claim "that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI." Isikoff proceeds to attack me for that claim. Unfortunately for him, I never made it. Isikoff's assertion is a complete fabrication.
2) The same article also erroneously reports that the Saudi evacuation "flights didn't begin untilSept. 14--after airspace reopened." As House of Bush, House of Saud notes, however, the first flight actually took place a day earlier, on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. Isikoff knew this. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight-- Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez-- and told him how to get in touch with them. Earlier, Jean Heller, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, took the time to follow up on my reporting. She called Grossi, and in her subsequent article wrote, "Grossi did say that Unger's account of his participation in the flight is accurate."
Rather than try to refute or corroborate my reporting, however, Isikoff omitted it entirely. The facts interfered with his argument.
It is worth noting that Jean Heller was also able to obtain verification of the September 13 flight from other sources as well. Heller reports that the flight from Tampa, Florida to Lexington, Kentucky, has finally been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport--even though the White House, the FBI and the FBI repeatedly denied that any such flights took place.
3) A week after "Under theHot Lights" appeared, Newsweek apologized for fabrication number one in its print edition of the magazine. But the error remains uncorrected online where it continues to be desseminated by other media.
Worse, in its "apology," Newsweek amplified the distortion it made the previous week. This time, the magazine admits that the September 13 flight did take place. But the editors again omit crucial information in order to suggest that the flight is a red herring, asserting that the flight "took off late on Sept. 13 after restrictions on flying had already been lifted," Newsweek says.
In fact, some restrictions had been lifted--but not all. Commercial aviation slowly resumed on September 13, but at 10:57 am that day, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Notice to Airmen stating that private aviation was still banned. Three planes violated that order and were forced down by American military aircraft that day. (See House of Bush, House of Saud, p. 9) Yet the Saudis were allowed to fly on the ten passenger Learjet. Far from being irrelevant, the Tampa to Lexington flight is vital because it required permission from the highest levels of our government. Once again, all this information is in the book, and Isi
Why? If any of them air huge falsehoods, the OTHER news organizations jump all over it....more blood in the water...gotta feed that shark...gotta keep moving. So both "sides" walk a fine line...but their still both part of the same swimming shark out there.
Not if the truth they tell may endanger the advertising dollars from big advertisers.
We weren't talking about cops, we were talking about PIs, Bail Bondsmen and the like. People who aren't law enforcement but still have a legitimate reason to mask their caller ID info.
Legitimate use? Phone id spoofing is a form of id theft. There is no legitimate use for id theft.
If a Bail bondsmen really needs to get someone on the phone, he can always block his id or go down the street and use a public phone with a different id. If he wants to pretend he's calling from the phone of the target's mother, that's id theft and he shouldn't be allowed to do that.
A few years ago, I basically did the same experiment, but in my case all the entries were corrected within a few minutes or a few seconds of being inserted.
The differences, there were a couple. Obviously, I didn't conduct the same identical experiment, but I did try to look like a legitimate contributor.
The main difference I believe is that I made those changes in high traffic areas. It stands to reason, that the accuracy of wiki content will be directly proportional to the number of eyeballs looking at it. And obviously, if you introduce mistakes in an area that noone looks at (or that noone cares about), chances are -- it won't be corrected right away.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough, in France it is the _public_ schools that are much much better. You make a kid repeat a class often enough, he will eventually learn. I lost one year this way, and a friend of mine lost five years, but we both got it eventually. In France, one in four students have repeated at least once.
Mod the parent up, this is good stuff. You should probably post it on the Yahoo and Fool investment boards as well.
Not to mention, Community Colleges, in the US, are a joke. He probably included those in the 49% as well.
I know about it. I have FireFox. I have the bugmenot extension. And it still doesn't work for me.
I tried it with seven different logins. Who knows? May be the NYT webmaster is smart enough to limit the number of IPs for each login. In any case, I don't feel like contributing one more registration to bugmenot, I have better things to do with my time. Here is a link to Google News where it has the same identical story published on NYT and syndicated to 42 other different newspapers. Why couldn't the submitter use a link to one of those other newspapers instead, I guess I'll never know.
You'd think kids smart enough to do something like this would be smart enough to get caught before their 18th birthdays.
Really? I guess you're a newbie. FireFox used to be FireBird back in February. Mozilla just changed its name and still many people haven't even upgraded yet.
Yep, this is actually true, I just tested it. It's too bad that the ie keyword search doesn't work as advertised thought.
Check out the demo I linked to, Activewords is such a nice little app, you might not believe all the nice things I have to say about it.
No, FireFox has one that actually works.
Please give us at least two examples of those "featureS" and let us know why they're important. Personally, I can't even think of one myself.
I did exactly as you instructed. I found the options already checked as described (meaning the fourth option was already checked by default). And yet when I typed "slashdot", it still took me to the search results page on search.msn.com.
I am not kidding. Try it for yourself. I have IE 6.0.2900 on XP with all the latest patches. Please moderators, check this out yourself before moderating.
If that happens, the people who installed this toolbar will install another toolbar from another search engine. This is not like buying a Windows machine where the search page is there by default. The people who first switched to Google will be the first ones to switch away from Google.
I assume it's completely based on the popularity of the link. The more people link to it, the more likely people are actually trying to search for that page.
It's not an "Internet Explorer only" thing. Mozilla FireBird has this by default.
I type "slashdot" and I automatically get slashdot.org. I type "slasdot" and I still automatically get slashdot.org. And that's going through google, not my history (assuming my history is cleared).
Speaking of which.
If we issued "driving only" drivers licenses to our illegal alien population and if we required every automobile on public roads to have valid insurance stickers (bar-coded and issued every three months), I'm sure that would take care of that problem really quick.
Aside the obvious benefits of having everyone insured. It would cut down on car chases, because the cars could be located and towed when they're parked. It would cut down on accidents where the perpetrators flee the scene. And it would cut down on the number of deaths, because the people who are not allowed to drive won't be able to drive in the first place.
I pay $301 every six month (limited liability). One car, two drivers. One male. One female. We're both over 25 years old, so we don't get penalized on our age, plus our driving record is clean.
For those who don't know, limited liability is the absolute minimum insurance you can get in California (it doesn't cover a lot of things).
What danger? It's only chess. Noone is going to get killed over this. If someone cheats, I avoid playing them (if I detect it). If only a few people cheat for every thousand games I play, it doesn't really alter the enjoyment I get from those games.
"Security through obscurity" is not necessarily bad, in this case "security through obscurity" is good enough. It's online chess for pete's sake, there is no guarantee that the person I'm playing isn't using his buddies or a computer program for additional help. Online chess is inherently insecure.
This is reminiscent of Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden's first massacre was at a school too except he had our full support at the time because he was "fighing" commies.
FOX is neither liberal, nor conservative. FOX is in it for the money, the money they get from mega advertisers. That's why it seems there is a disjuncture between their political agendas, it's because the corporations they promote may be amoral but they will still root for themselves (if nothing else).
Obviously, but unfortunately Hollywood-style movies and 10-second soundbites on the networks are what is going to decide this election in the end.
They already have. 44 Chechyans have already disappeared for every 1000.
Please get your facts straight. You might be a liberal, but you've been relying way too much on corporate-publications like the Newsweek. Here is the real scoop on the flight of the Saudis after 9/11.
How Many Mistakes Can Newsweek's Michael Isikoff Make?
by Craig Unger
How many mistakes can Michael Isikoff make? In his zealous campaign to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11, Newsweek's star investigative reporter has already made at least seven errors, distortions and selective omissions of crucial information.
Let's take them one by one.
1) In his first Newsweek piece attacking the movie, "Under the Hot Lights," which appeared in theJune 28 issue of the magazine, Isikoff asserts that I claim "that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI." Isikoff proceeds to attack me for that claim. Unfortunately for him, I never made it. Isikoff's assertion is a complete fabrication.
2) The same article also erroneously reports that the Saudi evacuation "flights didn't begin untilSept. 14--after airspace reopened." As House of Bush, House of Saud notes, however, the first flight actually took place a day earlier, on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. Isikoff knew this. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight-- Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez-- and told him how to get in touch with them. Earlier, Jean Heller, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, took the time to follow up on my reporting. She called Grossi, and in her subsequent article wrote, "Grossi did say that Unger's account of his participation in the flight is accurate."
Rather than try to refute or corroborate my reporting, however, Isikoff omitted it entirely. The facts interfered with his argument.
It is worth noting that Jean Heller was also able to obtain verification of the September 13 flight from other sources as well. Heller reports that the flight from Tampa, Florida to Lexington, Kentucky, has finally been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport--even though the White House, the FBI and the FBI repeatedly denied that any such flights took place.
3) A week after "Under theHot Lights" appeared, Newsweek apologized for fabrication number one in its print edition of the magazine. But the error remains uncorrected online where it continues to be desseminated by other media.
Worse, in its "apology," Newsweek amplified the distortion it made the previous week. This time, the magazine admits that the September 13 flight did take place. But the editors again omit crucial information in order to suggest that the flight is a red herring, asserting that the flight "took off late on Sept. 13 after restrictions on flying had already been lifted," Newsweek says.
In fact, some restrictions had been lifted--but not all. Commercial aviation slowly resumed on September 13, but at 10:57 am that day, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Notice to Airmen stating that private aviation was still banned. Three planes violated that order and were forced down by American military aircraft that day. (See House of Bush, House of Saud, p. 9) Yet the Saudis were allowed to fly on the ten passenger Learjet. Far from being irrelevant, the Tampa to Lexington flight is vital because it required permission from the highest levels of our government. Once again, all this information is in the book, and Isi
Not if the truth they tell may endanger the advertising dollars from big advertisers.
Legitimate use? Phone id spoofing is a form of id theft. There is no legitimate use for id theft.
If a Bail bondsmen really needs to get someone on the phone, he can always block his id or go down the street and use a public phone with a different id. If he wants to pretend he's calling from the phone of the target's mother, that's id theft and he shouldn't be allowed to do that.
The differences, there were a couple. Obviously, I didn't conduct the same identical experiment, but I did try to look like a legitimate contributor. The main difference I believe is that I made those changes in high traffic areas. It stands to reason, that the accuracy of wiki content will be directly proportional to the number of eyeballs looking at it. And obviously, if you introduce mistakes in an area that noone looks at (or that noone cares about), chances are -- it won't be corrected right away.