How can anyone with any appreciation for coding -- or, for that matter, aesthetics in general, at all -- go near MySpace? Maybe it's the same way an architect might to to a corner pub or a local coffee house. They go for the socializing, not for the great architecture.
There is no such thing as an intentional rolling brownout.
A brownout is usually caused by a short or a transformer melting down which results in an under-voltage leading to a blackout. A brownout is when you still have electricity but it's not at the required voltage or power level.
I think they mean rolling blackouts. Can you really rule out government incompetence as a cause for rolling brownouts?
"Boss, we can't just drop the voltages on the computer equipment. We should have scheduled power-outs so everyone knows when the system will be down. We can say it's for maintenance."
"No, I don't want the system to be down. Just drop the power a little."
Yeah really. Or maybe we should we have RMS do a half-hour rambling infomercial on the legal details of the GPL? That would help people understand the GPL better.
Unless the FBI plans on making this into law, their wanting to do whatever has no legal effect. Oh great, now we've got the FBI making laws. Whatever happened to the constitution?
unreported contacts with foreign nationals Jees, I better stay out of the math department at OSU! Just walking into the TA's offices might get you on a list...
Franken's research team were poly-sci majors?. The.sci extension can be added to any field of study. Can it? I guess you could, but is it actually done?
What I meant was, they were political science majors. I would think they would be as good as an engineer, or any other student at Harvard, could look up information, determine its validity ( i.e. Max Cleland's limbs were blown off by a grenade that fell off a fellow soldier's flack jacket, rather than a combat injury induced by enemies ), and make a proper citation.
while you do not believe that goverment knows best, you do believe that government has super-human powers of secrecy, competency and planning I agree that the government is made of regular human beings that are as bad at planning and secrecy as the rest of us are. But, like the museum curators say, it's easier to destroy than to create, and it's easier to create than to maintain.
In a society, we build institutions, whether they are physical buildings, or groups such as governments and schools, or cultural practices such as visiting the doctor and learning to read. Those instituitions must be built -- but it's easier *not* to build them in the first place. Once they are created, it's easy to let them decay and disappear by failing to maintain them. So you don't have to have any successful plan to destroy institutions; they will automatically destroy themselves so long as you do nothing to maintain them.
So what if the technique for gaining and maintaining power is simply to create chaos, and in the institutional vacuum left behind, advance *your* solutions and institutions? In other words, it's hard to pull off an organized, secret plot. But it's much easier to destroy things, either though negligence and non-maintenance, or out-and-out attacks and removal of funding.
So if you think the wealthy elite of the world is trying to stamp the middle class down into peasants/slaves/serfs again, they really don't have to execute any perfectly co-ordinated secret plan. All they have to do is make sure that the institutions that protest the middle class fail, and when those institutions do fail, the only ones left standing are those that serve the interests of the wealthy elite. In other words, Ordo Ab Chao.
Just because it looks cheap doesn't mean it really saves you money. Yes, but cheaper is better still holds sway in corporate culture. Corporations will try to fix the problem with low-wage 'temp' employees with more low-wage temp employees, all the while reducing their costs and creating more short-term game. The companies that hire better, more expensive workers and charge more for better services will lose contracts to companies offering slightly cheaper services. In the 10-20 years that it takes for corporate culture to wake up, smell the coffee, and invest in the American worker, will mean 10-20 years of lost wages and job changes for the average worker.
Either that, or the machinations of corporations will collapse the American middle class and make them as cheap a worker as those from China or India, before they ever decide to pay workers *more*.
If you're even considering applying for graduate school in the next five years, I would take the extra year and improve your grades in the upper level classes. In graduate school, they are more interested in your grades in upper level classes, and your GRE test scores. Because basically, you will be doing the same old shit in graduate school that you would be doing in the upper level classes; in a lot of places, you might be a TA in classes! So for graduate school, they want to see that you are a good student. However, if you plan to work for a decade or more, and then go to graduate school, your grades in your bachelor program will matter less ( but they will still matter more than in the job hunt)
If you are just going work the rest of your life, you don't have to worry as much about grades. They are the first hurdle you have to clear in the job hunt, but the people who will be looking at them won't really care. It's either job recruiters, who might have a GPA threshold under which they will not consider you, or managers from the company, who didn't particular care for their classes when they were in school. They might view academia as an impractical ivory tower. High scores, like magna cum laude, might indicate to them that you are kind of idealist, better cut out for grad school or research, perhaps not willing to put up with compromise and other pragmatics of corporate life, or won't find corporate work interesting enough for your superior intellect. I've never worked a corporate job, just heard horror stories from friends about BS in the corporate world out-weighing academic BS.
It really depends on how 'bad' your grades are. If your GPA is under 3.0, I would consider raising them. Since you seem like you are more interested in a job than academics, you might start the job hunt, and then go back to grad school if the job is unsatisfying. But in order to get into a decent grad program, you should have at least a 3.0, and good GRE scores -- so don't burn the GPA bridge just yet. You might also go ahead and take the GREs now, while the information is fresh in your mind, and you are still in test taking mode. That would give you a better idea about how well grad school applications will go if the job market doesn't pan out.
Well, he can't really apply for decent jobs without the college degree (unless you're applying ahead of graduation, and you get the offer you're looking for -- I don't know how likely that is in his area, but it is worth his while to apply before graduation). Once he has that, his bachelor's degree grades are set in stone. So it seems that he does have to make the choice to either take an extra year in school or start the job hunt.
The deep question is this: Was seriously provoking Bin Laden a wise thing to do? In retrospect (20/20 again), I feel it may have been a bad idea. Terrorists feed off of being the victim, that is how they get their recruits. Well, then, would you say that acceding to Bin Laden's demands, such as pulling US troops out of Saudi Arabia and shutting down our bases there, would have been a good idea? Bin Laden raised charges against us and called for Jihad -- he put the ball in our court and it was up to us to respond. We either had to give into his demands, and deal with the political fallout in the US and the larger implications for our strategic positions around the world. That might have made us look weak and willing to give into terrorist demands. That wouldn't have earned Clinton any brownie points in US military and intelligence circles. Or, we could have responded with an all-out effort, which the US population probably would not have supported. Or we could have continued the status quo of intelligence and small-scale counter terrorism ops in the world, which is what we seem to have done.
Although we might have gotten away with giving into Bin Laden. The US public generally was not, and is not, aware of our bases in Saudi Arabia. We could have shut them down and sold the US population some cover story; they wouldn't have cared or really even been aware of such an action. That might have diverted Bin Laden's focus away from the US, and to other 'enemies of Islam' in the middle east.
Although if we did give into Bin Laden's demands, and they still continued to attack, Clinton would have been blamed for appeasing terrorists, allowing them to grow stronger, making us seem weak in their eyes, and bolstering their confidence to launch an attack and get more concessions.
I don't think you can wage an all-out war against terrorist groups. I mean, you can destroy a small, weak government such as the Taliban, which was openly supporting terrorists, but to launch an all-out war against 'terrorism' -- well, our actions in Iraq seemed to have recruited more terrorists, and turned public opinion in the world against the US. I don't think Hussein was really a threat to the US homeland. He may have been a threat to our interests in the middle east, but launching an all out war against him, as opposed to political, diplomatic, and covert-ops to protect our interests, is the worse option in my eyes. I mean, the guy was in his early seventies. He wasn't going to be around forever. But now our military and national guard seems to be exhausted and tied up for at least a decade.
I think fighting dispersed, decentralized, unofficial terrorism using allies, police operations, and covert ops, is a more effective way of handling the problem. We can never eradicate terrorism, but the war in Iraq seems to have really stretched us out to thin. All out war works against other nations/governments that have declared war on us and have mobilized their entire economy to fight against us. Now we have mobilized a large portion of our military to handle the clusterfuck in Iraq. Most of the violence there is internal fighting between groups, and insurgents fighting spefically against the US occupation, not the kind of terrorists that would then launch attacks against the US ( although there is a small percentage of serious Al Qaida fighting in Iraq who would try to bring the fight to us, but I'm not sure if they really have the capabilities to do so.) I'm uncertain of our abilities to respond to a new threat outside of Iraq.
This is supposed to be a positive thing? Well, if you're comparing Limbaugh to Franken's citations in their books like the parent was, I would say, yeah, having a research team at a university is a plus in Franken's column.
I'd trust students from a well-known engineering school before I'd place trust in MBA-seeking business wannabees. You know what the great thing about citations are? You don't have to trust the people who do them. You can research them and call someone on it when they got it wrong. That's why we have citations in the first place.
You are aware that Harvard University is much greater than its' business college, aren't you? That there is a Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences? And that Franken's research team were poly-sci majors?
Hell, I'd bet $5 that not more than a dozen Congressmen/Senators have even read the constitution (We know the President hasn't read it), but they outlawed internet gambling, and I have no desire to go to jail. I'd like to take you up on your wager.
Since most of our representatives are lawyers, I would bet that they spent a lot of time going into the constitution in detail during the course of their law education.
Not that that has any bearing on their performance as representatives, though.
I think it's because slashdotters with mod points are a sparse group, and it takes a few days for them to disperse their mod points over the articles. Those who feel strongly about a side of the argument probably unload their modpoints right away in controversial postings, but the modding of the broader slashdot community takes a while to pan out.
Clinton pursued and convicted Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the first WTC bombing. Note that he didn't prevent the attack, he reacted to an attack that had already happened. My point was that Clinton got Yousef behind bars. Where is Bin Laden, the guy who attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people? The guy who threw our economy into a recession? in the 2004 campaign said he didn't know where Bin Laden was, and didn't spend that much time thinking about it.
Personally, that's all I would expect of a government, but people seem to think 9/11 was easily preventable. Sandy Berger told Condeleeza Rice that the main focus of her administration would be counter-terrorism. Bush's counter-terrorism taskforce met *not once* before the 9/11 attacks. Ashcroft was warned not to take commercial flights in the summer of 2001. Bush got a presidential briefing that said Bin Laden determined to strike in US, and he went on vacation for a month, doing absolutely nothing about it -- not telling someone, not passing a buck -- just plain *ignored* it.
No one could have imagined using planes as missiles? Why,
In fact, the US military was running war games where terrorist hijacked planes and were using them as missiles, on the very morning of Sept. 11th, 2001!
I don't know, with all these warnings about Bin Laden and war games and threats of commercial flights being hijacked, maybe they could have had a few fighter jets ready to scramble in case a plane went off of its course for 1 hour and 40 minutes?
In that case, the original WTC attack should have been preventable as well. The original WTC happened on Feb 26th, 1993. Clinton had been in office for two months. If we should blame any president for not stopping the attack, it would be George HW Bush.
A lot of good that did. Do you think that made us safer? It's claimed that the target in Sudan was a chemical weapons lab. If it was destroyed, wouldn't that mean less chemical weapons in the hands of terrorist?
ou either do enough to stop it completely, or you leave it alone. Of course, at the time there was no way of knowing how far they might take it, and congress wouldn't have let Clinton go on a major offensive against Bin Laden anyway. Hindsight is 20/20. That's a good point. Clinton didn't have the political capital to launch an all-out war against terrorism. The American public didn't perceive the threat on that scale. However, I disagree that Clinton should have done absolutely nothing, as you claim, because he couldn't do *everything*. How do you think the military and intelligence community would have felt if they saw all this activity going on, and Clinton never gave the orders to do anything about it? Clinton did foil the millennium bombing plot. You think he should have let that happen because he couldn't start an all-out war against Bin Laden? Meanwhile, Bush did in fact do absolutely nothing, and 9/11 happened.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think it's too much to ask that Bush would have given some attention or activity about radical Islamic terrorism before 9/11.
Al Franken is not a credible source for content. You wouldn't accept a quote from Rush Limbaugh. The 911 Commission's Report is a better source and it was critical of both administrations. Al Franken's book was researched by a team of students at Harvard. He cites his sources. You can trust him inasmuch as you can check his sources. Not so sure about Limbaugh.
Oh wait! I look at what wikipedia has to say about the factual innacuracies in _Lies..._:
Franken wrote that former U.S. Senator Max Cleland (D-GA), while serving in the U.S. Army, "...left three of his limbs in Vietnam. A VC grenade blew them off."
In fact, it was not a Viet Cong grenade; instead the grenade had fallen from a fellow American soldier's flak jacket during a non-combat mission and accidentally detonated. Woah, that really blow his credibility!</scarcasm>
The inaccuracy was corrected in the book's paperback edition. Oh, nevermind.
You may disagree with a lot that Bush has done in office, but to say he has done nothing is wrong. He did nothing, *absolutely* nothing, about Middle East terrorists, Jihadists, or Islamic fundamentalists before 9/11. What was the Bush administration doing during their first several months in office? Trying to build a missile defense shield and back out the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia. Clinton pursued and convicted Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the first WTC bombing. Yousef is now in a maximum security prison. ( Where is Bin Laden now? Probably hiding out in Pakistan, our military dictatorship friends in the middle east). Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan while the Republican congress was investigating things like his Christmas card mailing list and his travel agent's activities. CNN said at the time that
U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden.
American officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies. So he was attacking Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida.
At the time I wondered if this was wag the dog, to distract the American people from his troubles with the congress. Now I understand that the Republicans are more interested in using our terrorist enemies as a political tool, to win elections and gain power, rather than actually protecting us against them.
Unless that type of life is unlike what we know as life, and arose in the energy the star was throwing off, perhaps feeding off of it, like green plants feed off energy our star throws off.
So...If you jump in, time slows down for you compared to the "outside"? Basically, yes. What happens is that as you approach the infinite mass of the singularity, the light is also affect by gravity, and it slows down. Since light is the yardstick by which we measure speed, it looks like you and everything else slows down as you approach infinite mass. When you get to the singularity, light comes to a complete stop, so there is no speed. Again, IANAP.
So...You instantly hop into the "end of the universe"? ... I *guess* you could say so. It's maybe more like a local end. It depends on how you define end of the universe.
So...Nothing reaches the center as long as anyone on the "outside" can watch? Well, it's all a matter of observer position. As Einstein demonstrated to us, it's all relative to the speed of the observer.
Where does the radiation come from? Did anything ever reach the center? Things rotating around the singularity get torn up before they disappear, and that produces radiation, some of which can escape.
Is a black hole a portal to what comes beyond (or after) the universe? I don't know. I would guess it's more like a portal to nowhere.
Does a black hole indicate that there will be an end to it? End to what? The black hole or the universe itself?
Does a black hole indicate that there will never be an end to it? Again, I'm not sure what you're asking.
If the whole universe gets sucked in, will we notice? (guess not, cause if time itself slows down so do we) I think you're right, but I think the balance of gravity in the universe on the whole would prevent that.
Will the universe end when all matter has been sucked in? Not sure.
What are the forces near a black hole if you take into account the devaluation of the second? Not sure, it might. Ask a physicist. But I'm tempted to say it doesn't, because it's all relative. OTOH, I think there are some phenomena that depend on the current 'specs' of the laws of nature, so when you do approach infinite mass, the specs change, so then new particles form, and other particles disappear, or can't exist under current conditions.
So if matter is condensed to the point where gravity is stonger than electromagnetic force, for example, atoms with nucleuses can't form, because they are smushed together by gravity more than they they are repelled by electromagnetic force. So it's a hypercondensed soup of matter rather than atoms. This change of the state of matter, I think, is what happens in the shredding of matter when it gets close to the singularity. The big bang happened after a singularity, and immediately afterwards was hypercondensed energy, because the universe was so dense, electromagnetic force couldn't overcome gravity to separate out the energies into atoms. So a black hole kind of acts like the beginning of the universe, the closer to singularity you get.
Again, IANAP, so it might be leading you astray. It's weird stuff, kind of abstract and hard to wrap your brain around.
As a fellow Ohioan, I am glad to hear that you are working on my side!
Perhaps, for the legislator's benefit, you could put together a document that demonstrates the difference between brute-force and phishing. Something like this might work well both on print-out and in power-point:
<H1>Brute-force Attack</H1>
Welcome to Online Banking! Please enter your username password:
From: criminal_in_in_diguise@russia.net
To: buckeye_joe@internet.com
Subject: Online Banking Password Maintenance
Message: Hello! This is your bank. We've recently done some maintenance and upgrades to our online banking website. However, we've accidentally deleted your password. Please send us your password as soon as possible, in order for us to assure the outstanding customer service you've come to expect from us!
In the US constitution, citizens have the right to face their accusers in court. If the judge had allowed the trial to proceed without the Does being identified, those actual persons accused would essentially have been on trial without their knowledge, until they learned that they in fact were one of the Does in the case.
Finally, a story in the media where the little guy gets the protections that the constitution specifies! Thank $_deity.
In an article a few weeks ago about physics, a poster asked what force moved then other end of a pole when you tug on the end close to you. Several repliers responded that is it was basically waves moving at the speed of sound that pushed or pulled the object along.
So in the case of objects moving faster than the speed of sound, what force keeps them together? Aren't they being pulled along faster than the waves moving in the object can pull its component atoms with it?
IIRC, this was one of the original concerns about faster-than-sound flight -- that the whole craft would disintegrate, because you would be outpacing the waves that keep the molecules of the object together.
Slashdot Mirror
A brownout is usually caused by a short or a transformer melting down which results in an under-voltage leading to a blackout. A brownout is when you still have electricity but it's not at the required voltage or power level.
I think they mean rolling blackouts. Can you really rule out government incompetence as a cause for rolling brownouts?
"Boss, we can't just drop the voltages on the computer equipment. We should have scheduled power-outs so everyone knows when the system will be down. We can say it's for maintenance."
"No, I don't want the system to be down. Just drop the power a little."
Yeah really. Or maybe we should we have RMS do a half-hour rambling infomercial on the legal details of the GPL? That would help people understand the GPL better.
What I meant was, they were political science majors. I would think they would be as good as an engineer, or any other student at Harvard, could look up information, determine its validity ( i.e. Max Cleland's limbs were blown off by a grenade that fell off a fellow soldier's flack jacket, rather than a combat injury induced by enemies ), and make a proper citation.
In a society, we build institutions, whether they are physical buildings, or groups such as governments and schools, or cultural practices such as visiting the doctor and learning to read. Those instituitions must be built -- but it's easier *not* to build them in the first place. Once they are created, it's easy to let them decay and disappear by failing to maintain them. So you don't have to have any successful plan to destroy institutions; they will automatically destroy themselves so long as you do nothing to maintain them.
So what if the technique for gaining and maintaining power is simply to create chaos, and in the institutional vacuum left behind, advance *your* solutions and institutions? In other words, it's hard to pull off an organized, secret plot. But it's much easier to destroy things, either though negligence and non-maintenance, or out-and-out attacks and removal of funding.
So if you think the wealthy elite of the world is trying to stamp the middle class down into peasants/slaves/serfs again, they really don't have to execute any perfectly co-ordinated secret plan. All they have to do is make sure that the institutions that protest the middle class fail, and when those institutions do fail, the only ones left standing are those that serve the interests of the wealthy elite. In other words, Ordo Ab Chao.
How's that for a conspiracy theory?
Either that, or the machinations of corporations will collapse the American middle class and make them as cheap a worker as those from China or India, before they ever decide to pay workers *more*.
If you're even considering applying for graduate school in the next five years, I would take the extra year and improve your grades in the upper level classes. In graduate school, they are more interested in your grades in upper level classes, and your GRE test scores. Because basically, you will be doing the same old shit in graduate school that you would be doing in the upper level classes; in a lot of places, you might be a TA in classes! So for graduate school, they want to see that you are a good student. However, if you plan to work for a decade or more, and then go to graduate school, your grades in your bachelor program will matter less ( but they will still matter more than in the job hunt)
If you are just going work the rest of your life, you don't have to worry as much about grades. They are the first hurdle you have to clear in the job hunt, but the people who will be looking at them won't really care. It's either job recruiters, who might have a GPA threshold under which they will not consider you, or managers from the company, who didn't particular care for their classes when they were in school. They might view academia as an impractical ivory tower. High scores, like magna cum laude, might indicate to them that you are kind of idealist, better cut out for grad school or research, perhaps not willing to put up with compromise and other pragmatics of corporate life, or won't find corporate work interesting enough for your superior intellect. I've never worked a corporate job, just heard horror stories from friends about BS in the corporate world out-weighing academic BS.
It really depends on how 'bad' your grades are. If your GPA is under 3.0, I would consider raising them. Since you seem like you are more interested in a job than academics, you might start the job hunt, and then go back to grad school if the job is unsatisfying. But in order to get into a decent grad program, you should have at least a 3.0, and good GRE scores -- so don't burn the GPA bridge just yet. You might also go ahead and take the GREs now, while the information is fresh in your mind, and you are still in test taking mode. That would give you a better idea about how well grad school applications will go if the job market doesn't pan out.
Well, he can't really apply for decent jobs without the college degree (unless you're applying ahead of graduation, and you get the offer you're looking for -- I don't know how likely that is in his area, but it is worth his while to apply before graduation). Once he has that, his bachelor's degree grades are set in stone. So it seems that he does have to make the choice to either take an extra year in school or start the job hunt.
Although we might have gotten away with giving into Bin Laden. The US public generally was not, and is not, aware of our bases in Saudi Arabia. We could have shut them down and sold the US population some cover story; they wouldn't have cared or really even been aware of such an action. That might have diverted Bin Laden's focus away from the US, and to other 'enemies of Islam' in the middle east.
Although if we did give into Bin Laden's demands, and they still continued to attack, Clinton would have been blamed for appeasing terrorists, allowing them to grow stronger, making us seem weak in their eyes, and bolstering their confidence to launch an attack and get more concessions.
I don't think you can wage an all-out war against terrorist groups. I mean, you can destroy a small, weak government such as the Taliban, which was openly supporting terrorists, but to launch an all-out war against 'terrorism' -- well, our actions in Iraq seemed to have recruited more terrorists, and turned public opinion in the world against the US. I don't think Hussein was really a threat to the US homeland. He may have been a threat to our interests in the middle east, but launching an all out war against him, as opposed to political, diplomatic, and covert-ops to protect our interests, is the worse option in my eyes. I mean, the guy was in his early seventies. He wasn't going to be around forever. But now our military and national guard seems to be exhausted and tied up for at least a decade.
I think fighting dispersed, decentralized, unofficial terrorism using allies, police operations, and covert ops, is a more effective way of handling the problem. We can never eradicate terrorism, but the war in Iraq seems to have really stretched us out to thin. All out war works against other nations/governments that have declared war on us and have mobilized their entire economy to fight against us. Now we have mobilized a large portion of our military to handle the clusterfuck in Iraq. Most of the violence there is internal fighting between groups, and insurgents fighting spefically against the US occupation, not the kind of terrorists that would then launch attacks against the US ( although there is a small percentage of serious Al Qaida fighting in Iraq who would try to bring the fight to us, but I'm not sure if they really have the capabilities to do so.) I'm uncertain of our abilities to respond to a new threat outside of Iraq.
You are aware that Harvard University is much greater than its' business college, aren't you? That there is a Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences? And that Franken's research team were poly-sci majors?
Up to what year are they going to release documents? Surely they aren't current to release information about recent or ongoing 'skeletons'.
Since most of our representatives are lawyers, I would bet that they spent a lot of time going into the constitution in detail during the course of their law education.
Not that that has any bearing on their performance as representatives, though.
I think it's because slashdotters with mod points are a sparse group, and it takes a few days for them to disperse their mod points over the articles. Those who feel strongly about a side of the argument probably unload their modpoints right away in controversial postings, but the modding of the broader slashdot community takes a while to pan out.
No one could have imagined using planes as missiles? Why,
In fact, the US military was running war games where terrorist hijacked planes and were using them as missiles, on the very morning of Sept. 11th, 2001!
I don't know, with all these warnings about Bin Laden and war games and threats of commercial flights being hijacked, maybe they could have had a few fighter jets ready to scramble in case a plane went off of its course for 1 hour and 40 minutes? In that case, the original WTC attack should have been preventable as well. The original WTC happened on Feb 26th, 1993. Clinton had been in office for two months. If we should blame any president for not stopping the attack, it would be George HW Bush. A lot of good that did. Do you think that made us safer? It's claimed that the target in Sudan was a chemical weapons lab. If it was destroyed, wouldn't that mean less chemical weapons in the hands of terrorist? ou either do enough to stop it completely, or you leave it alone. Of course, at the time there was no way of knowing how far they might take it, and congress wouldn't have let Clinton go on a major offensive against Bin Laden anyway. Hindsight is 20/20. That's a good point. Clinton didn't have the political capital to launch an all-out war against terrorism. The American public didn't perceive the threat on that scale. However, I disagree that Clinton should have done absolutely nothing, as you claim, because he couldn't do *everything*. How do you think the military and intelligence community would have felt if they saw all this activity going on, and Clinton never gave the orders to do anything about it? Clinton did foil the millennium bombing plot. You think he should have let that happen because he couldn't start an all-out war against Bin Laden? Meanwhile, Bush did in fact do absolutely nothing, and 9/11 happened.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think it's too much to ask that Bush would have given some attention or activity about radical Islamic terrorism before 9/11.
Oh wait! I look at what wikipedia has to say about the factual innacuracies in _Lies..._: Franken wrote that former U.S. Senator Max Cleland (D-GA), while serving in the U.S. Army, "...left three of his limbs in Vietnam. A VC grenade blew them off."
In fact, it was not a Viet Cong grenade; instead the grenade had fallen from a fellow American soldier's flak jacket during a non-combat mission and accidentally detonated. Woah, that really blow his credibility!</scarcasm> The inaccuracy was corrected in the book's paperback edition. Oh, nevermind. You may disagree with a lot that Bush has done in office, but to say he has done nothing is wrong. He did nothing, *absolutely* nothing, about Middle East terrorists, Jihadists, or Islamic fundamentalists before 9/11. What was the Bush administration doing during their first several months in office? Trying to build a missile defense shield and back out the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia. Clinton pursued and convicted Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the first WTC bombing. Yousef is now in a maximum security prison. ( Where is Bin Laden now? Probably hiding out in Pakistan, our military dictatorship friends in the middle east). Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against terrorist training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan while the Republican congress was investigating things like his Christmas card mailing list and his travel agent's activities. CNN said at the time that U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden.
American officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies. So he was attacking Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida.
At the time I wondered if this was wag the dog, to distract the American people from his troubles with the congress. Now I understand that the Republicans are more interested in using our terrorist enemies as a political tool, to win elections and gain power, rather than actually protecting us against them.
Hey, energy beings don't have brains ;)
Unless that type of life is unlike what we know as life, and arose in the energy the star was throwing off, perhaps feeding off of it, like green plants feed off energy our star throws off.
So if matter is condensed to the point where gravity is stonger than electromagnetic force, for example, atoms with nucleuses can't form, because they are smushed together by gravity more than they they are repelled by electromagnetic force. So it's a hypercondensed soup of matter rather than atoms. This change of the state of matter, I think, is what happens in the shredding of matter when it gets close to the singularity. The big bang happened after a singularity, and immediately afterwards was hypercondensed energy, because the universe was so dense, electromagnetic force couldn't overcome gravity to separate out the energies into atoms. So a black hole kind of acts like the beginning of the universe, the closer to singularity you get.
Again, IANAP, so it might be leading you astray. It's weird stuff, kind of abstract and hard to wrap your brain around.
I don't think they store them; not for the lengths of time that cosmic radiation would be an issue.
Film is a perishable good. They manufacture it and ship it. It's not worth putting in a lead warehouse to defend it from cosmic radiation.
As a fellow Ohioan, I am glad to hear that you are working on my side!
Perhaps, for the legislator's benefit, you could put together a document that demonstrates the difference between brute-force and phishing. Something like this might work well both on print-out and in power-point:
<H1>Brute-force Attack</H1>
Welcome to Online Banking! Please enter your username password:
Username: buckeye_joe@internet.com
Password: ******
Wrong password! Please try again.
Password: ******
Wrong password! Please try again.
Password: ******
Wrong password! Please try again.
Password: ******
Password accepted! Your balance is $125.00.
<H1>Phising Attack</H1>
From: criminal_in_in_diguise@russia.net
To: buckeye_joe@internet.com
Subject: Online Banking Password Maintenance
Message:
Hello! This is your bank. We've recently done some maintenance and upgrades to our online banking website. However, we've accidentally deleted your password. Please send us your password as soon as possible, in order for us to assure the outstanding customer service you've come to expect from us!
In the US constitution, citizens have the right to face their accusers in court. If the judge had allowed the trial to proceed without the Does being identified, those actual persons accused would essentially have been on trial without their knowledge, until they learned that they in fact were one of the Does in the case.
Finally, a story in the media where the little guy gets the protections that the constitution specifies! Thank $_deity.
In an article a few weeks ago about physics, a poster asked what force moved then other end of a pole when you tug on the end close to you. Several repliers responded that is it was basically waves moving at the speed of sound that pushed or pulled the object along.
So in the case of objects moving faster than the speed of sound, what force keeps them together? Aren't they being pulled along faster than the waves moving in the object can pull its component atoms with it?
IIRC, this was one of the original concerns about faster-than-sound flight -- that the whole craft would disintegrate, because you would be outpacing the waves that keep the molecules of the object together.
How come this link to Aurora has [abovetopsecret.com] appended automatically to it by slashcode, but parent's doesn't?
Forgive me if my link does have the appendage; it didn't in preview.