You might guess that, but I'm afraid you'd be wrong. As I understand it, google pagerank is in no way affected by how many people click a link from search results (though that might be an interesting addtition to the pagerank system, especially if the user could tag links as 'good' or 'bad', but this seems pretty open to abuse by bot clicks). Rather, pagerank is simply this:
The rank of a document is given by the rank of those documents which link to it.
So, if you want to make Bill show up higher in the results from searches for "to be or not to be", clicking links wont help. Creating links will. And getting higher pageranks for your pages which contain the links helps more. Which means you need lots and lots of links (and not just from one site, preferably from many, highly-rated sites) and/or links from highly-ranked pages, to have any effect.
Or I suppose we could just bribe the pigeons and save time. But what do the pigeons want?:)
If you reach into the freezer without really looking, thinking that you are grabbing a freezer-pop, and get an 8 month old leg of lamb instead, are you going to shrug and eat the lamb anyway?
Of course not. I'd put it back and try more carefully to get what I want. I, what's the word I'm looking for, . . . wait for it . . . refine my search:)
Regarding your comments above about google inaccuracy: I searched for +"to be or not to be" and consider the first page of 10 hits to definitely be 100% "correct". In fact, all of the 104,00 results that I checked (about 50, hehe) are 100% correct in that the sites on the list, or the sites linking to the sites on the list, contain the phrase "to be or not to be". Check the '2bee or nottoobee' link in google's cache and where you normally see the search term highlight colors, you'll see
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: to be or not to be
Just because you wanted "Shakespeare" doesn't mean that "Shakespeare" is any more correct as an "answer" to "to be or not to be". If it were more popular (on the web), I'm confident that it would be higher on the list. That is, whether we like it or not, on the current www there are exactly 3 things more relevant to that famous phrase than Shakespeare, and they are, in order: barium enemas, beOS, and a kids' grammar game starring a bee. Or, more acurately and revealingly: an article about barium enemas titled "To BE or Not to BE?", an article about BeOS titled "TO Be OR NOT TO be?", and a kids' grammar game starring a bee called "2Bee or Nottoobee" which is linked to by sites containing the phrase "to be or not to be" in or near those links.
Lucky for us that ol' Bill is still in the top 10 at all, I'd say.
167 posts and no mention of ht://dig? It's a great open source search engine, and I've been using it daily (well, cron really uses it now, not me) to spider about 100 sites on my intranet, which has servers all over the world.
While not currently designed for massive whole-web spidering (it's aimed at single websites or intranets), ht://dig is a great starting point (and a lot further along than the Nutch 'nascent effort' mentioned in the story). Some database optimization to ht://dig seems easier than starting over with Nutch. Plus, the name 'Nutch' sucks.
Next, they tell you, "listen buddy, you look just like one of Osama's boys, so when we put you before a jury of your *peers*, they'll have no problem locking you away for the rest of your life being gang raped by muslim-hating white supremicists"...
Man, "life" is a very large interpretation of "more than 20 years". I would think that would be more like 20-40 at most, but what do I know. I only read the article:
Houze said Hawash had faced more than 20 years in prison if convicted on all three counts.
What do you do given a choice like that?
Yeah, that's a tough one, since it clearly sucks to be him now (and then) any way you slice it. But, I know one thing I definitely don't do, and that's confess to a crime I didn't do and take 7 the hard way for it. No way. 1-2 years, maybe. 3 is pushing hard. 5+ might as well be 20, I'm fighting.
I can't wait to meta-moderate this train wreck. Parent is flamebait but grandparent is Insightful?! Not for long if I can help it. Sometimes it saddens me to see such generaly-intelligent people struggling so hard to hide from painful reality. Sometimes. Not now though. Now you're just making me sick.
Then A. Coward below spews this nonsense in defense of grandparent:
Secret warrant -- he doesn't get told what he's just been arrested for.
Secret evidence -- it won't be made public, so no one will ever be able to contradict it.
How the hell do you know he wasn't told what he was arrested for? In any case, he is admittedly guilty, and so I'm pretty sure he had an idea of what he was being arrested for even if they didn't tell him.
And, had he not confessed to the charges, he could have forced the evidence to be made public at trial. But he didn't, because he's guilty (who the hell cops for 7 years instead of risking 20-ish? That's not a bargain -- that's just mercy on the part of the prosecutor/judge). What, he confesses, but they should go to all the trouble to put the case together and put on a mock trial to prove the likes of you that his confession is valid?
Bah, to hell with all you who can't admit you were wrong on this one. It's over. Get over it.
Because the Taliban are in that boat, so is anyone who wants to help the Taliban?
Of course! Are not the friends of our enemies also our enemies?
I don't see that argument making much sense.
We disagree. Fortunately, the current and probably next administration happens to agree with me. Whew.
I have seen no facts on the ground that Mike was any threat to civilians here at home.
If you were a Jew in Poland, in 1942, and you knew a guy who was providing intelligence, food, or even moral support to the Germans -- would you have just assumed that, though he admittedly supports the Nazis (both idealogically and physcally, or even either one), since the guy wasn't actively killing Jews in Poland (yet), you should neither report him nor take steps to impeds him, or that the gummint should go easy on him if he is repored? Should he be somehow differentiated from the Nazis on the front lines or the ones pumping gas in to the ovens?
Until I do, I am going to presume that even if he really is guilty of what he has plead to (and no reason to de facto assume otherwise, suspicions aside), he was not what I'd consider a terrorist. A traitor perhaps, but that is indeed a different kettle of fish
IMHO, as I explained in my first post, there is no need to draw the distinction between traitor in terrorist, especially when it comes to Islamic fundamentalists, and extra-especially while a war is going on.
And you have knowledge that this was Mike Hamwash's goal? Sounds to me like his goal was defense of the Taliban, same as Lindh's.
Replieth the clueful article-reader, quoting the fine article:
"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.
So because he wanted to provide mercenary military aid on the field of battle, suddenly he is equivalent to people who kill civilians because they want to make a statement? Going to a war zone to defend those you think are right is the same thing as planting a bomb in your home town/state/country (where it may kill your own family members)?
I see your point but I honestly think that in this case (fundamentalist muslims/taliban/etc.) they truly are one in the same -- by their own admission in fact. See, these groups (taliban et al.) unabashedly promote and support all means to accomplish thier goals ("proper" war or terrorism -- war zone or your home town/state/country).
That means the guy that thinks it is right to go to a war zone (where, BTW, attacking and defending merge into one, so your spinny use of "to defend" and "to provide mercenary military aid" was kinda annoying), by definition of the religious authorities from whence he gets his definition of "what is right", also thinks it is right to plant "a bomb in your home town/state/country (where it may kill your own family members)".
I mean, c'mon. They don't even try to hide the fact that there is nothing taboo, no "below-the-belt" restrictions, no Geneva Convention. It's all about what some charismatic (and rich) nut claims that Allah wants. I don't propose we sink to that level, but we certainly would be stupid and naieve to ignore the fact that there are no "honorable" jihadists out there. If they're looking to help Taliban, and we can get a hold of them, we should decide what to do with them under the assumption that they may do 911-ish things given the chance.
This guy was, IMHO, acting treasonously and he got caught. They held him without any fanfare for 5 weeks because there were others to nab in his ring and they wanted to minimize the public knowledge of what was going on. The 5 weeks still sounds long to me, but it sure does seem a whole lot less sinister than the comments on the first story on this guy here on/.
And rather short on details (such as what is the nature of the assigned tasks used in the test? Copying a file? Formatting a drive? Partitioning a drive?) Also, they had 60 users "aged 25 to 55 with computer skills but no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP" work on KDS, and "20 users with the same qualifications who performed the exact same tasks on Windows XP."
Eh? Why not have them all do it on each? Or even out the groups a bit more?
Anyway, a short, vaguely interesting pro-Linux article. So I'll just be happy, but this could have been much cooler with bigger samples, better planning, and more detailed reporting of the results.
Re:A new method for assessing performance
on
Smart Kindergarten
·
· Score: 1
Illegal where? As in, what country/state/province/town/village? I've never heard of such (and have heard of definitely contrary examples in the US). This is not a troll (TINAT); I'm really curious. A reference or link to a citation would be cool too.
But I think I've read it a few times before already . . .
Here's a complete repost of the text in case it gets slashdotted. Hmm, guess I should post as AC, but wtf. Just don't mod this up.
Warning: Lost connection to MySQL server during query in/home/misskim/public_html/linmagau.org/pnadodb/dri vers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 170
Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Lost connection to MySQL server during query in/home/misskim/public_html/linmagau.org/pnadodb/dri vers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 170>
mysql://misskim:@localhost/misskim failed to connectLost connection to MySQL server during query
Hmm, guess I should post as AC, but wtf. Just don't mod this up.:)
OP: How is this a win? That someon jumped through all the hoops that Microsoft put up to keep they're strong hold? Sounds more like proof that they're plan works.
> dildatron: Just wanted to point out that you used the wrong "they're". "They're" is a contraction for "They are". The correct use would be "their" which implies ownership. (Amazingly, this got a net +1: 40% Insightful 30% Overrated 20% Offtopic)!
> > Stalemate: that was bothering me too, but I didn't want to be the one acting like a grammar nazi and looking like a jerk!:) (posted at 2, using a +1 Karma Bonus)
> > > AC: Why not? Since when has literacy become a lost art?
Well, I guess when people started being so afraid of the anti-grammar-nazi nazis on/. that they need to post as AC to say anything positive about literacy.
Thank you for asking. IMHO, the anti-grammar-nazi nazis on/. are out of control. Even when grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are so bad as to alllow for more than one likely interpretation of a post, simple and non-flaming questioning as to the actual intent will get you modded down early and often.
Please, consider allowing grammar correction posts using the same etiquette as is used for article text reposts: post as AC to fix/question grammar or to mirror a slashdotted webpage/article texts. Then, of course, we'll need mods to cooperate and mod up the AC grammar fixes to (1) make sure people understand the original poster's intent, (2) prevent grammar-nazi karma whoring and (3) nip in the bud the long, annoying threads about how ironic it is that the grammar-corrector made a mistake also, and the intricacies of archaic English usages and origins.
Yawn, OK, whatever, if it were 67% it wouldn't hurt my point at all. But, it's not, it's more, from your own source (NIH):
Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)
Got that? Your reference says new AIDS/HIV infections in men are 85% from gay sex (65%) and/or IV drug use (25%).
I think you're misunderstanding the NIH stats, but it doesn't matter. Even with your interpretation, most people with AIDS (new or old cases, your choice) also have gay sex and/or use IV drugs. That's the insensitive claim for which I was taken to task. It has been demonstrated to be true now twice, with stats from two different sources that were both provded by the people arguing against me. I'm sorry that it's hard to accept that, but it's true. Please stop trying to force reality to come into line with your ideas of what you want it to be.
I can see your point for drug users, since they aren't born drug users, though I certainly disagree they should be banned from recieving organs. However, your banning of gay men from the program is ridiculous. Under your system, a man who is born gay should:
A) Choose to remain celibate their entire life, so that in the event that they need an organ, they can be saved
B) Live normally, and hope they never need an organ, because gay people don't deserve those organs, because they engage in high-risk behaviors.
Don't 'cha love that game? Low risk, but infinite stakes.
You forgot option C): start your own organ exchange club for people with AIDS or high-risk lifestyles and those who don't mind the idea of thier new liver possibly coming with some free bonus HIV. I'm guessing you really don't love that game -- since it's called Being Accountable For Your Own Decisions. It's not at all popular these days.
And, this line:
because gay people don't deserve those organs, because they engage in high-risk behaviors.
. . . needs to go right back in your ass where it came from. No one said being gay makes anyone less-deserving of life-saving, via transplant or otherwise. It DOES however, make an organ donated by a gay man or an IV drug-user worth somewhat less, in trade, than a organ from someone who isn't as likely to have a hard-to-detect infectious fatal disease. And this is exactly the point, since the original story was about an organ donor club that affords priority for donors (as opposed to common programs where your having agreed to be a donor or not doesn't affect the length of the line you wait if you need a transplant). This cute little straw man makes it clear that yo want me to be a homophobe who is against gays in general, but I'm not, and this is totally ruining your attempted argument.
Whether or not one is born gay (and I happen to think so) or becomes gay is irrelevant. Same for IV drug use. Gay sex and IV drug use are strongly correlated with AIDS. Causality is also pretty certain. But, I'm not trying to pick on gays and drug users here -- if people with red hair had a possible (but not completely detectable) virus in their livers that could kill me slowly and painfully if I were to accept a transplant from a red-head, I wouldn't want red-heads in my organ club either. At least not as possible liver donors. Sorry, but them's the breaks -- we're talking about survival, not how to hide pieces of the ugly reality that makes it harder to justify every possible lifestyle and make everyone feel accepted, special, and loved.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure my view is not far from what really happens in the donor club
I'm sorry, were we talking about sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world where organ transplants are pure fantasy and I failed to notice? You have my apologies. See, more than 20.8 million of those cases you cite are down there where the men think condoms are evil, raping virgins cures AIDS, and any kind of vaginal lubrication whatsoever spoils the wonderful dry sex feel. Almost as good for tearing tissue as anal sex. Or a needle.
Oh and, no, you're right, I did not cite sources. I thought my casual remark reflected pretty general knowledge. But I can, and I will. (And, ironically, you cited one for me. See below.)
Only 860,000 AIDS cases (adults and children) were in the US in 1997 when the world total was about 31 million (it's 42 million in your reference), feel free to scale up if you like, but the point remains that AIDS populations in the 3rd world are vastly different than in industrialized nations. BTW, those international numbers seem suspect, especially since they don't give any info on how this "estimation" takes place in places where you can't even get AIDS drugs in without them being stolen and sold at a profit in Europe. Note that there are many pages on who.org and who.int that do explain the estimation procedure for the US, such as the one I mentioned, but the point is we're not talking about world AIDS, we're talking about AIDS in places where organs are transplanted with some reasonable level of frequency, so we'll use your own referenced site, but a different table on the page to see what we can learn about how people get AIDS. OK?
CATEGORY MEN WOMEN TOTAL*
Men who have sex with men 368,971 - 368,971
Injecting Drug Use 145,750 55,576 201,326
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293 - 51,293
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 5,000 292 5,292
Heterosexual contact 32,735 57,396 90,131 (riight)
Recipient of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue 5,057 3,914 8,971
Risk not reported or identified 57,220 23,870 81,091
(Hilariously, the * is marked on TOTAL with this note below the table: Includes 3 persons whose sex is inknown. (sic) Inknown? That crazy W.H.O.!)
Now, let's take what we learned from the table above, which comes from your own referenced source page, and get back to the thing that really irritated you: my claim that most people get HIV/AIDS from gay sex or IV drug use. Now, keep in mind that we only have the sufferers's words to go on, and I'm guessing some people with AIDS/HIV will lie about how they might have caught it either way for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure that more lie by saying they had no gay sex or IV drug use than the other way around, but let's ignore that and accept the word of the sufferers at face value.
So, we'll include the women too (to your advantage, since they can't have gay sex with men), and see that of the nice 800k sample size there, the WHO chart above, your reference now, tells us that 77% of the AIDS/HIV cases are from admitted gay male sex0rs and/or IV drug users. I'm so sorry for assuming AIDS was mostly associated with these behaviors. Why, it's only 77%.
Moreover, IMHO you can throw in the 10% where "no risk was reported" and get it up to a cool 87% without any serious fight from anyone. I'd also bet some fraction of the 2% claiming medical (transfusion or hemo disorder) and the 11% calling straight-sex only are being less-than-honest to save the family some misery, but let's leave them alone. According to your W.H.O. source, 77-87% of everyone with AIDS reported that they had gay male sex, used IV drugs, or both, or refused to comment.
Finally, because I want to be done with you and cease this
Cite your sources or fuck off; we all know HIV/AIDS is primarily a gay / IV drug user problem -- manufacturing bogus stats and/or wishful thinking isn't going to change that. Note, I said primarily, not exclusively, so relax and try to back up your highly-suspect claims before you go off again.
Hell, breast cancer isn't limited to women, some men get it too, but you don't hear anyone whining about how terrible it is that we all "assume all breast cancer victims are women", nor should you. Because, for all practical purposes breast cancer is a problem for women. Similarly, AIDS/HIV is a problem for people who share needles and participate in the sorts of sex that result in tissue tearing and blood exchange. There, you can connect the dots yourself -- better?
I am in receipt of your letter from Friday July 25, @07:01PM and, though I am not a mod in this case (I couldn't post a reply here if I were), I am, however, a meta-mod, and I agree with your complaint. So, I have used my mad m2 skillz to un-do the erroneous flamebait moderation that was unduly perpetrated on your post.
Unfortunately, until slashdot inmplements the annoying, but at least honest, "-1: your post makes me consider an uncomfortable reality and therefore makes me nervous enough to mod it down", this sort of thing is sure to continue. I will help when I can.
Who cares about homosexuals / IV drug users in this case anyway? They should neither donate organs nor receive them. Obvious-fucking-ly. Jeebus, does everything have to revolve around the exception? The OP has a good idea, and this contrived monkey-wrench is just plain silly.
I guess this will be modded down because, well, it's not politically correct or sensitive. But it would take considerably more effort (and be much more potentially enlightening to those like me who sincerely don't know why we should care) to argue why this idea should be in any way hampered by the exceedingly minor exception of HIV-infected donors/recipients. Please, help me understand.
Why did you post this as AC? I accidentally noticed it, and it happens to be interesting (unlike most AC posts). I'm not trying to say the difference in feel is not there. I am, however, objecting a bit to the use of the term plush to describe anything related to a bike's feel. It sort of reminds me of some frog asshole describing a wine's bouquet as naughty. Even if it is right, it's, well, wrong.
Anyway, by chro-mo I assume you mean chromium-molybdenum alloy. Right? And, you can tell the difference by going from smooth to rough terrain? Hmm, I can't. I am not trying to dispute that you can, just puzzled as to why I can't. I"m usually pretty sensitive.
You're the second poster who has used the adjective plush to describe the feel of a steel bike frame ride. I don't get this. Can you explain how a bike's ride can be plush without, say, ensconcing the rider in a velvet recliner or somthing? I've never seen a bike with a velvet recliner attached (though I'd very much like to).
I've ridden steel, aluminum, and titanium frame bikes, and would not describe any of those experiences as plush. Nor could I even really differentiate them much, other than by their weight (and cost, of course). And I do ride hard, in various terrain, sometimes fast, sometimes touring, never plush. Where and how should I ride to be able to notice plushness or the lack thereof?
According to this site, all of these statements are false:
Aluminum frames have a harsh ride
Titanium frames are soft and whippy
Steel frames go soft with age, but they have a nicer ride quality
England's Queen Elizabeth is a kingpin of the international drug trade
Of course, we know the last one is really true, but the point on bike frames is that the material does not affect the strength and stiffness as much as the quality of the tubing used. I think the same applies to bamboo, BTW, since accroding to this (and to a lesser degree this), properly selected bamboo tubes can be as stong or stronger than steel titanium, aluminum, and even carbon fiber. And that's not just tensile strength as the article mentions, but shear, yeild, and modulus as well.
Perhaps the other posters weren't clear enough -- you can change widget size too. See Display Properties -> Appearance (where you can set Font Size to Normal, Large, or Extra Large) then click the Advanced button. From there you can independently set the size, color, and font (as each applies, of course) of: 3D objects, Active Tittle Bar, 3D Window Border, Application Background, Caption Buttons, Desktop, Icon, Icon Spacing (Horizontal), Icon Spacing (Vertical), Inactive Title Bar, Inactive Window Border, Menu, Message Box, Palette Title, Scrollbar, Selected Items, ToolTip, and Window. The interface is kind of annoying in that you have to select each of these from a drop-down one after the other, then change, then apply to see the differences. But it works. And I've never seen anything like this kind of control in CDE, KDE, or Gnome.
These options, along with the Display Properties -> Settings -> Advanced -> General -> DPI Settings -> Custom Settings mentioned by the awesome FP can be combined to make the windows (XP at least) display and scale any way you want it to.
I know of these somewhat-hidden options only because I was recently trying to get my XP-based HTPC to be usable for more than playing movies and music using a presentation remote and a 27" TV 12' away. It worked out perfectly -- I can browse the web, configure the OS, whatever, and everything looks fine, is scaled right, and is rather huge.
The only thing I could ask for that I don't (yet) have a way to do is to make the desktop (a virtual desktop) be huge, like 1600x1200, but only display 1/4 of it at a time (800x600) and be able to scroll around it so I can have a big browser window open covering the whole desktop area, and be able to read everything in each quadrant by scrolling around. I dowenloded a few virtual desktop managers, but the ones I found could be used to make mutiple desktops, but not one big one (i.e., I could not open a browser window and make it cover the whole area of the virtual desktop and scroll around it, I could only open browsers on each of the panes of the virtual dekstop, which is not what I want). Anyone know of a freeware tool that can do this?
Slashdot Mirror
You might guess that, but I'm afraid you'd be wrong. As I understand it, google pagerank is in no way affected by how many people click a link from search results (though that might be an interesting addtition to the pagerank system, especially if the user could tag links as 'good' or 'bad', but this seems pretty open to abuse by bot clicks). Rather, pagerank is simply this:
:)
The rank of a document is given by the rank of those documents which link to it.
So, if you want to make Bill show up higher in the results from searches for "to be or not to be", clicking links wont help. Creating links will. And getting higher pageranks for your pages which contain the links helps more. Which means you need lots and lots of links (and not just from one site, preferably from many, highly-rated sites) and/or links from highly-ranked pages, to have any effect.
Or I suppose we could just bribe the pigeons and save time. But what do the pigeons want?
And more people, probably many more, would know the algorithm well enough to study the manipulations and contribute modifications to nullify them.
What they seem to be doing is offering an alternative in the area of Enterprise search.
Oh, you mean like what ht://dig has been doing since 1995?
If you reach into the freezer without really looking, thinking that you are grabbing a freezer-pop, and get an 8 month old leg of lamb instead, are you going to shrug and eat the lamb anyway?
:)
Of course not. I'd put it back and try more carefully to get what I want. I, what's the word I'm looking for, . . . wait for it . . . refine my search
Regarding your comments above about google inaccuracy: I searched for +"to be or not to be" and consider the first page of 10 hits to definitely be 100% "correct". In fact, all of the 104,00 results that I checked (about 50, hehe) are 100% correct in that the sites on the list, or the sites linking to the sites on the list, contain the phrase "to be or not to be". Check the '2bee or nottoobee' link in google's cache and where you normally see the search term highlight colors, you'll see
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: to be or not to be
Just because you wanted "Shakespeare" doesn't mean that "Shakespeare" is any more correct as an "answer" to "to be or not to be". If it were more popular (on the web), I'm confident that it would be higher on the list. That is, whether we like it or not, on the current www there are exactly 3 things more relevant to that famous phrase than Shakespeare, and they are, in order: barium enemas, beOS, and a kids' grammar game starring a bee. Or, more acurately and revealingly: an article about barium enemas titled "To BE or Not to BE?", an article about BeOS titled "TO Be OR NOT TO be?", and a kids' grammar game starring a bee called "2Bee or Nottoobee" which is linked to by sites containing the phrase "to be or not to be" in or near those links.
Lucky for us that ol' Bill is still in the top 10 at all, I'd say.
167 posts and no mention of ht://dig? It's a great open source search engine, and I've been using it daily (well, cron really uses it now, not me) to spider about 100 sites on my intranet, which has servers all over the world.
While not currently designed for massive whole-web spidering (it's aimed at single websites or intranets), ht://dig is a great starting point (and a lot further along than the Nutch 'nascent effort' mentioned in the story). Some database optimization to ht://dig seems easier than starting over with Nutch. Plus, the name 'Nutch' sucks.
Man, "life" is a very large interpretation of "more than 20 years". I would think that would be more like 20-40 at most, but what do I know. I only read the article:
What do you do given a choice like that?
Yeah, that's a tough one, since it clearly sucks to be him now (and then) any way you slice it. But, I know one thing I definitely don't do, and that's confess to a crime I didn't do and take 7 the hard way for it. No way. 1-2 years, maybe. 3 is pushing hard. 5+ might as well be 20, I'm fighting.
I can't wait to meta-moderate this train wreck. Parent is flamebait but grandparent is Insightful?! Not for long if I can help it. Sometimes it saddens me to see such generaly-intelligent people struggling so hard to hide from painful reality. Sometimes. Not now though. Now you're just making me sick.
Then A. Coward below spews this nonsense in defense of grandparent:
Secret warrant -- he doesn't get told what he's just been arrested for.
Secret evidence -- it won't be made public, so no one will ever be able to contradict it.
How the hell do you know he wasn't told what he was arrested for? In any case, he is admittedly guilty, and so I'm pretty sure he had an idea of what he was being arrested for even if they didn't tell him.
And, had he not confessed to the charges, he could have forced the evidence to be made public at trial. But he didn't, because he's guilty (who the hell cops for 7 years instead of risking 20-ish? That's not a bargain -- that's just mercy on the part of the prosecutor/judge). What, he confesses, but they should go to all the trouble to put the case together and put on a mock trial to prove the likes of you that his confession is valid?
Bah, to hell with all you who can't admit you were wrong on this one. It's over. Get over it.
Because the Taliban are in that boat, so is anyone who wants to help the Taliban?
Of course! Are not the friends of our enemies also our enemies?
I don't see that argument making much sense.
We disagree. Fortunately, the current and probably next administration happens to agree with me. Whew.
I have seen no facts on the ground that Mike was any threat to civilians here at home.
If you were a Jew in Poland, in 1942, and you knew a guy who was providing intelligence, food, or even moral support to the Germans -- would you have just assumed that, though he admittedly supports the Nazis (both idealogically and physcally, or even either one), since the guy wasn't actively killing Jews in Poland (yet), you should neither report him nor take steps to impeds him, or that the gummint should go easy on him if he is repored? Should he be somehow differentiated from the Nazis on the front lines or the ones pumping gas in to the ovens?
Until I do, I am going to presume that even if he really is guilty of what he has plead to (and no reason to de facto assume otherwise, suspicions aside), he was not what I'd consider a terrorist. A traitor perhaps, but that is indeed a different kettle of fish
IMHO, as I explained in my first post, there is no need to draw the distinction between traitor in terrorist, especially when it comes to Islamic fundamentalists, and extra-especially while a war is going on.
Replieth the clueful article-reader, quoting the fine article:
So because he wanted to provide mercenary military aid on the field of battle, suddenly he is equivalent to people who kill civilians because they want to make a statement? Going to a war zone to defend those you think are right is the same thing as planting a bomb in your home town/state/country (where it may kill your own family members)?
/.
I see your point but I honestly think that in this case (fundamentalist muslims/taliban/etc.) they truly are one in the same -- by their own admission in fact. See, these groups (taliban et al.) unabashedly promote and support all means to accomplish thier goals ("proper" war or terrorism -- war zone or your home town/state/country).
That means the guy that thinks it is right to go to a war zone (where, BTW, attacking and defending merge into one, so your spinny use of "to defend" and "to provide mercenary military aid" was kinda annoying), by definition of the religious authorities from whence he gets his definition of "what is right", also thinks it is right to plant "a bomb in your home town/state/country (where it may kill your own family members)".
I mean, c'mon. They don't even try to hide the fact that there is nothing taboo, no "below-the-belt" restrictions, no Geneva Convention. It's all about what some charismatic (and rich) nut claims that Allah wants. I don't propose we sink to that level, but we certainly would be stupid and naieve to ignore the fact that there are no "honorable" jihadists out there. If they're looking to help Taliban, and we can get a hold of them, we should decide what to do with them under the assumption that they may do 911-ish things given the chance.
This guy was, IMHO, acting treasonously and he got caught. They held him without any fanfare for 5 weeks because there were others to nab in his ring and they wanted to minimize the public knowledge of what was going on. The 5 weeks still sounds long to me, but it sure does seem a whole lot less sinister than the comments on the first story on this guy here on
And rather short on details (such as what is the nature of the assigned tasks used in the test? Copying a file? Formatting a drive? Partitioning a drive?) Also, they had 60 users "aged 25 to 55 with computer skills but no prior experience with Linux or Windows XP" work on KDS, and "20 users with the same qualifications who performed the exact same tasks on Windows XP."
Eh? Why not have them all do it on each? Or even out the groups a bit more?
Anyway, a short, vaguely interesting pro-Linux article. So I'll just be happy, but this could have been much cooler with bigger samples, better planning, and more detailed reporting of the results.
Illegal where? As in, what country/state/province/town/village? I've never heard of such (and have heard of definitely contrary examples in the US). This is not a troll (TINAT); I'm really curious. A reference or link to a citation would be cool too.
WTF is wrong with you asshole? MODS! Before you mod this down, note that parent copied this earlier post verbatim. Now go use your points wisely.
But I think I've read it a few times before already . . .
/home/misskim/public_html/linmagau.org/pnadodb/dri vers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 170
/home/misskim/public_html/linmagau.org/pnadodb/dri vers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 170>
:)
Here's a complete repost of the text in case it gets slashdotted. Hmm, guess I should post as AC, but wtf. Just don't mod this up.
Warning: Lost connection to MySQL server during query in
Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Lost connection to MySQL server during query in
mysql://misskim:@localhost/misskim failed to connectLost connection to MySQL server during query
Hmm, guess I should post as AC, but wtf. Just don't mod this up.
OP: How is this a win? That someon jumped through all the hoops that Microsoft put up to keep they're strong hold? Sounds more like proof that they're plan works.
:) (posted at 2, using a +1 Karma Bonus)
/. that they need to post as AC to say anything positive about literacy.
/. are out of control. Even when grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are so bad as to alllow for more than one likely interpretation of a post, simple and non-flaming questioning as to the actual intent will get you modded down early and often.
> dildatron: Just wanted to point out that you used the wrong "they're". "They're" is a contraction for "They are". The correct use would be "their" which implies ownership. (Amazingly, this got a net +1: 40% Insightful 30% Overrated 20% Offtopic)!
> > Stalemate: that was bothering me too, but I didn't want to be the one acting like a grammar nazi and looking like a jerk!
> > > AC: Why not? Since when has literacy become a lost art?
Well, I guess when people started being so afraid of the anti-grammar-nazi nazis on
Thank you for asking. IMHO, the anti-grammar-nazi nazis on
Please, consider allowing grammar correction posts using the same etiquette as is used for article text reposts: post as AC to fix/question grammar or to mirror a slashdotted webpage/article texts. Then, of course, we'll need mods to cooperate and mod up the AC grammar fixes to (1) make sure people understand the original poster's intent, (2) prevent grammar-nazi karma whoring and (3) nip in the bud the long, annoying threads about how ironic it is that the grammar-corrector made a mistake also, and the intricacies of archaic English usages and origins.
Whatta ya say?
Yawn, OK, whatever, if it were 67% it wouldn't hurt my point at all. But, it's not, it's more, from your own source (NIH):
Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)
Got that? Your reference says new AIDS/HIV infections in men are 85% from gay sex (65%) and/or IV drug use (25%).
I think you're misunderstanding the NIH stats, but it doesn't matter. Even with your interpretation, most people with AIDS (new or old cases, your choice) also have gay sex and/or use IV drugs. That's the insensitive claim for which I was taken to task. It has been demonstrated to be true now twice, with stats from two different sources that were both provded by the people arguing against me. I'm sorry that it's hard to accept that, but it's true. Please stop trying to force reality to come into line with your ideas of what you want it to be.
I can see your point for drug users, since they aren't born drug users, though I certainly disagree they should be banned from recieving organs. However, your banning of gay men from the program is ridiculous. Under your system, a man who is born gay should: A) Choose to remain celibate their entire life, so that in the event that they need an organ, they can be saved B) Live normally, and hope they never need an organ, because gay people don't deserve those organs, because they engage in high-risk behaviors.
Don't 'cha love that game? Low risk, but infinite stakes.
You forgot option C): start your own organ exchange club for people with AIDS or high-risk lifestyles and those who don't mind the idea of thier new liver possibly coming with some free bonus HIV. I'm guessing you really don't love that game -- since it's called Being Accountable For Your Own Decisions. It's not at all popular these days.
And, this line:
because gay people don't deserve those organs, because they engage in high-risk behaviors.
. . . needs to go right back in your ass where it came from. No one said being gay makes anyone less-deserving of life-saving, via transplant or otherwise. It DOES however, make an organ donated by a gay man or an IV drug-user worth somewhat less, in trade, than a organ from someone who isn't as likely to have a hard-to-detect infectious fatal disease. And this is exactly the point, since the original story was about an organ donor club that affords priority for donors (as opposed to common programs where your having agreed to be a donor or not doesn't affect the length of the line you wait if you need a transplant). This cute little straw man makes it clear that yo want me to be a homophobe who is against gays in general, but I'm not, and this is totally ruining your attempted argument.
Whether or not one is born gay (and I happen to think so) or becomes gay is irrelevant. Same for IV drug use. Gay sex and IV drug use are strongly correlated with AIDS. Causality is also pretty certain. But, I'm not trying to pick on gays and drug users here -- if people with red hair had a possible (but not completely detectable) virus in their livers that could kill me slowly and painfully if I were to accept a transplant from a red-head, I wouldn't want red-heads in my organ club either. At least not as possible liver donors. Sorry, but them's the breaks -- we're talking about survival, not how to hide pieces of the ugly reality that makes it harder to justify every possible lifestyle and make everyone feel accepted, special, and loved.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure my view is not far from what really happens in the donor club
I'm sorry, were we talking about sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world where organ transplants are pure fantasy and I failed to notice? You have my apologies. See, more than 20.8 million of those cases you cite are down there where the men think condoms are evil, raping virgins cures AIDS, and any kind of vaginal lubrication whatsoever spoils the wonderful dry sex feel. Almost as good for tearing tissue as anal sex. Or a needle.
Oh and, no, you're right, I did not cite sources. I thought my casual remark reflected pretty general knowledge. But I can, and I will. (And, ironically, you cited one for me. See below.)
Only 860,000 AIDS cases (adults and children) were in the US in 1997 when the world total was about 31 million (it's 42 million in your reference), feel free to scale up if you like, but the point remains that AIDS populations in the 3rd world are vastly different than in industrialized nations. BTW, those international numbers seem suspect, especially since they don't give any info on how this "estimation" takes place in places where you can't even get AIDS drugs in without them being stolen and sold at a profit in Europe. Note that there are many pages on who.org and who.int that do explain the estimation procedure for the US, such as the one I mentioned, but the point is we're not talking about world AIDS, we're talking about AIDS in places where organs are transplanted with some reasonable level of frequency, so we'll use your own referenced site, but a different table on the page to see what we can learn about how people get AIDS. OK?
CATEGORY MEN WOMEN TOTAL*
Men who have sex with men 368,971 - 368,971
Injecting Drug Use 145,750 55,576 201,326
Men who have sex with men and inject drugs 51,293 - 51,293
Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 5,000 292 5,292
Heterosexual contact 32,735 57,396 90,131 (riight)
Recipient of blood transfusion, blood components, or tissue 5,057 3,914 8,971
Risk not reported or identified 57,220 23,870 81,091
(Hilariously, the * is marked on TOTAL with this note below the table: Includes 3 persons whose sex is inknown. (sic) Inknown? That crazy W.H.O.!)
Now, let's take what we learned from the table above, which comes from your own referenced source page, and get back to the thing that really irritated you: my claim that most people get HIV/AIDS from gay sex or IV drug use. Now, keep in mind that we only have the sufferers's words to go on, and I'm guessing some people with AIDS/HIV will lie about how they might have caught it either way for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure that more lie by saying they had no gay sex or IV drug use than the other way around, but let's ignore that and accept the word of the sufferers at face value.
So, we'll include the women too (to your advantage, since they can't have gay sex with men), and see that of the nice 800k sample size there, the WHO chart above, your reference now, tells us that 77% of the AIDS/HIV cases are from admitted gay male sex0rs and/or IV drug users. I'm so sorry for assuming AIDS was mostly associated with these behaviors. Why, it's only 77%.
Moreover, IMHO you can throw in the 10% where "no risk was reported" and get it up to a cool 87% without any serious fight from anyone. I'd also bet some fraction of the 2% claiming medical (transfusion or hemo disorder) and the 11% calling straight-sex only are being less-than-honest to save the family some misery, but let's leave them alone. According to your W.H.O. source, 77-87% of everyone with AIDS reported that they had gay male sex, used IV drugs, or both, or refused to comment.
Finally, because I want to be done with you and cease this
Hello? News-flash: I didn't conflate "HIV infected" and "homosexual", nature did. Take it up with her. You're barking up the wrong tree.
BTW, acknowledging something that others wish were not true, but is, is not bigotry. It's honesty. Try it, it's refreshing.
Cite your sources or fuck off; we all know HIV/AIDS is primarily a gay / IV drug user problem -- manufacturing bogus stats and/or wishful thinking isn't going to change that. Note, I said primarily, not exclusively, so relax and try to back up your highly-suspect claims before you go off again.
Hell, breast cancer isn't limited to women, some men get it too, but you don't hear anyone whining about how terrible it is that we all "assume all breast cancer victims are women", nor should you. Because, for all practical purposes breast cancer is a problem for women. Similarly, AIDS/HIV is a problem for people who share needles and participate in the sorts of sex that result in tissue tearing and blood exchange. There, you can connect the dots yourself -- better?
Dear Nagatzhul,
I am in receipt of your letter from Friday July 25, @07:01PM and, though I am not a mod in this case (I couldn't post a reply here if I were), I am, however, a meta-mod, and I agree with your complaint. So, I have used my mad m2 skillz to un-do the erroneous flamebait moderation that was unduly perpetrated on your post.
Unfortunately, until slashdot inmplements the annoying, but at least honest, "-1: your post makes me consider an uncomfortable reality and therefore makes me nervous enough to mod it down", this sort of thing is sure to continue. I will help when I can.
Sincerely,
M2
Who cares about homosexuals / IV drug users in this case anyway? They should neither donate organs nor receive them. Obvious-fucking-ly. Jeebus, does everything have to revolve around the exception? The OP has a good idea, and this contrived monkey-wrench is just plain silly.
I guess this will be modded down because, well, it's not politically correct or sensitive. But it would take considerably more effort (and be much more potentially enlightening to those like me who sincerely don't know why we should care) to argue why this idea should be in any way hampered by the exceedingly minor exception of HIV-infected donors/recipients. Please, help me understand.
You might be an interesting person if you weren't such a prick.
Why did you post this as AC? I accidentally noticed it, and it happens to be interesting (unlike most AC posts). I'm not trying to say the difference in feel is not there. I am, however, objecting a bit to the use of the term plush to describe anything related to a bike's feel. It sort of reminds me of some frog asshole describing a wine's bouquet as naughty. Even if it is right, it's, well, wrong.
Anyway, by chro-mo I assume you mean chromium-molybdenum alloy. Right? And, you can tell the difference by going from smooth to rough terrain? Hmm, I can't. I am not trying to dispute that you can, just puzzled as to why I can't. I"m usually pretty sensitive.
I've ridden steel, aluminum, and titanium frame bikes, and would not describe any of those experiences as plush. Nor could I even really differentiate them much, other than by their weight (and cost, of course). And I do ride hard, in various terrain, sometimes fast, sometimes touring, never plush. Where and how should I ride to be able to notice plushness or the lack thereof?
According to this site, all of these statements are false:
- Aluminum frames have a harsh ride
- Titanium frames are soft and whippy
- Steel frames go soft with age, but they have a nicer ride quality
- England's Queen Elizabeth is a kingpin of the international drug trade
Of course, we know the last one is really true, but the point on bike frames is that the material does not affect the strength and stiffness as much as the quality of the tubing used. I think the same applies to bamboo, BTW, since accroding to this (and to a lesser degree this), properly selected bamboo tubes can be as stong or stronger than steel titanium, aluminum, and even carbon fiber. And that's not just tensile strength as the article mentions, but shear, yeild, and modulus as well.Pretty amazing stuff, that bamboo. Did you know that it can grow more than 2.5 inches per day? How about 8 inches per day!?
Perhaps the other posters weren't clear enough -- you can change widget size too. See Display Properties -> Appearance (where you can set Font Size to Normal, Large, or Extra Large) then click the Advanced button. From there you can independently set the size, color, and font (as each applies, of course) of: 3D objects, Active Tittle Bar, 3D Window Border, Application Background, Caption Buttons, Desktop, Icon, Icon Spacing (Horizontal), Icon Spacing (Vertical), Inactive Title Bar, Inactive Window Border, Menu, Message Box, Palette Title, Scrollbar, Selected Items, ToolTip, and Window. The interface is kind of annoying in that you have to select each of these from a drop-down one after the other, then change, then apply to see the differences. But it works. And I've never seen anything like this kind of control in CDE, KDE, or Gnome.
These options, along with the Display Properties -> Settings -> Advanced -> General -> DPI Settings -> Custom Settings mentioned by the awesome FP can be combined to make the windows (XP at least) display and scale any way you want it to.
I know of these somewhat-hidden options only because I was recently trying to get my XP-based HTPC to be usable for more than playing movies and music using a presentation remote and a 27" TV 12' away. It worked out perfectly -- I can browse the web, configure the OS, whatever, and everything looks fine, is scaled right, and is rather huge.
The only thing I could ask for that I don't (yet) have a way to do is to make the desktop (a virtual desktop) be huge, like 1600x1200, but only display 1/4 of it at a time (800x600) and be able to scroll around it so I can have a big browser window open covering the whole desktop area, and be able to read everything in each quadrant by scrolling around. I dowenloded a few virtual desktop managers, but the ones I found could be used to make mutiple desktops, but not one big one (i.e., I could not open a browser window and make it cover the whole area of the virtual desktop and scroll around it, I could only open browsers on each of the panes of the virtual dekstop, which is not what I want). Anyone know of a freeware tool that can do this?