At Defcon last year they had these really neat laptop backpacks with hard outer shells. It looked like they'd protect well against a nasty fall. I can't find the product now; anyone know what I'm talking about, and where to get one cheap?
Larry Paprocki, executive director for Stonegate, issued warnings to neighbors after more than six residents told him they thought their Wi-Fi signals were tampered with.
According to the Scottsdale police report, the Stonegate resident who granted access to a suspect in August noticed a charge to an online store on his American Express card.
I saw an EVIL HACKER using his computer on the corner, and then someone stole my credit card number!
It will be amusing or depressing to see how a prosecutor (and a judge) handle these complaints.
Actually, I did go through all of Kerry's points from his web [site] in another post.
You haven't linked to the aforementioned post. I'm pretty incompetent with the Internet; for some reason I can't seem to find it in the history listed at your user page. Did you only mentally review the Kerry campaign's platform?
I shouldn't have to hold somebody's hand and explain in detail why [the campaign's promises] are meaningless and the difference between a point that has substance and one that does not. To the first: your condescension drips from the screen. You are not obliged (at present) to make or abstain from any decisions about whose hand you choose to hold and when. However, your blatant disregard for, say, a nine-page white paper summarizing an economic plan which is pretty specific, is troubling. Likewise, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the promise to "fully fund [the] No Child Left Behind Act, adding an average of about $10 billion per year". Would you prefer we "take the pain, stay the course", as Rod Paige (US Secretary of Education) advises the millions of students in failing schools do? (These are students whose schools are being cut off from all federal funds in the theory that this will somehow reduce failure rates.)
To your second issue, regarding the difference between a vague idea and a solid plan: The only post of yours I've seen that addresses the current administration's policies and future plans states
Actually, Bush has been flexible on strategy and tactics, but has been firm on his goal; which is to rid us of the threat of terrorism.
March 2002: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
Gosh - that sounds firm. And let's not forget that there is still no link between Iraq and al'Qaeda, nor were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; Bush picked the nation for, at best, altruistic motives of liberation that don't seem to have been very well-coordinated. (I mustn't forget Poland here; they are a notable exception and gain a gold star, even if their leader says they were misled.)
So if Bush is so firm, why have his policies ignored Saudi Arabia, which was the home to 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001 attackers? Why has he accepted the tentative "oh, we stopped the terrorist!" cries of Saudi leaders while the independent princes of the region continue to funnel millions of dollars into terrorism - far greater a bounty than Hussein ever could have offered? (This line of questioning even gives you the supposition that he funded al'Qaeda at all.) Saudi Arabia is guilty of at least as great religious and political oppression as Iraq; why haven't we liberated them? Is it really necessary, in waging a war on terror, to maintain the USA PATRIOT Act? Can a libertarian state support such an infringement? Or is our state one of expedience? For a conservative to support such egregious encroachments on liberty is frightening. For a pragmatist, who just wants "a solid policy so I know what not to do", a slightly fascist state is fully tolerable - but I worry about anyone who will tolerate such encroachment lightly.
Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm
Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete.
I've seen this sentiment stated in almost exactly this way probably hundreds of times, and I'm not sure I understand it. Inevitably, the author never presents evidence of said "nebulous lists". He ignores the fairly clear formualtion of policies on the campaign platform page for the candidate. Further: By definition, this argument must ignore any presented evidence of clearly formulated policy (because it's too complex). It is, besides, impossible to present an intelligent alternative because someone will raise the ad hominem issue of the other candidate appearing unintelligent; then the issues are lost in the partisan discussion. (This is an incredible clever move on Mr. Bush's part; he's pulled it off with much more panache than ex-President Ford).
The issue will be continually distorted by these ad hominem attacks - "he really is that stupid!" - "flip-flopper!" - "liar!" - which ignore the first question we sought to answer, that of policy.
==
As to the issue of "the same information, the same decision, etc. etc." - really? Was John Kerry also privy to the intelligence this article discusses, about the useless tubes? I honestly don't know; I'd love to find out. Even so - even if Bush's favorite phrase out of that whole debate a few nights ago ("same information, same conclusion!" - my favorite is still the "he forgot Poland" classic) - then it's at the very least a vote against Ashcroft.
The offender's possessions have been thoroughly and destructively searched. After much laborious effort the stolen code has been found, dusted off, and returned unharmed to its rightful owner.
Victory for twentieth-century law enforcement techniques!
Database Stats Total Models: 23521 Total Creators: 1898 Last Search: Model Name: penis Total Searches to Date: 147243
(google cache from two days ago: 146388)
1) I've read several intelligent theses that the current US President is not incompetent, but that he puts forth great effort to lead his enemies to think he is. Every time an ad hominem attack is raised against the President instead of a cogent criticism of his policy or the disparities between his promised and delivered campaign, he wins; he makes "those left-wing liberal haters" lose credibility and power.
A similar assertion is made by linguist Geoffrey Nunberg in his most recent book:
"Bush went to Andover and Yale, and you can be sure he heard the term 'nuclear' at the dinner table in Kennebunkport," he says. "His brothers don't talk like this. His father doesn't. He's chosen to talk like this."
Nunberg surmises that Bush is trying to shed his patrician heritage and proffer himself as a populist, a strategy that worked well against the legendary stiffness of Al Gore in the 2000 election.
2) President Bush is most likely trying to do what he thinks is good and right for America. However, conservatism by nature is afraid of change, and Bush is on most fronts a conservative. The President looks at trends in society and sees them as worrying hallmarks of a civilization in decline.
His actions to ban marriage between homosexuals, to reduce oversight on large corporations, to wage a war on Iraq (instead of, say, Saudi Arabia, which still produces millions of dollars annually in support for terrorism and was the home of 15 of the 19 hijackers of 11 September 2001), all these actions are likely made honestly and with the intention of preserving what he sees as a decadent, depraved society.
Consequently, that fundamental clash of values - the one that arises in the distinctions between Ashcroft&Homeland Security vs. unfettered civil liberties, Social Security security vs. trickle-down tax cuts, No Child Left Behind vs. effective teaching - this disparity could cause anyone on either side of the issue to view the other as hopelessly out of touch with morality ("evil") or reality ("incompetent").
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. A basic understanding of statistics indicates that you can have 95% confidence in your results with as small a sample as about 1,000 people. 50,000 is just hedging the bet by increasing the sample fiftyfold; the confidence interval there is likely even larger.
However, it's very likely with the 51%/49% results here that, due to the margin of error, there isn't a detectable majority of either broadband or dialup users. The statistics for qualitative questions like "what kind of Internet do you use" are a little fuzzy (i.e. way beyond what I learned in my AP=basic-college-intro-101-level Stats), but the principle is the same.
I would absoutely trust that -about- 49% and 51% of Internet users surveyed use dialup and broadband, respectively, but I'm not sure that there's a detectable majority.
It seems that SP2 for Windows XP isn't as secure as Microsoft touts it to be
In other news: Pope renounces Judaism, admits he is devout Catholic Bear community overwhelmingly rejects $25m latrine levy CmdrTaco reveals longstanding heterosexual relationship
Cummings always capitalized his name. It's a common mistake to call the fellow "e e" when he wanted to be "E. E. Cummings".
This is typically a trivial distinction, but when you consider the beautiful things the guy did (bringing a modern face and a literally modern typeface to old poetic themes), it seems important to pay his stylistic choices their due respect.
baffled by the drop in unemployment concurrent with a drop in jobs
Unemployent numbers measure (the number of people who have jobs) / (the number of people who have jobs + the number of people who are actively unemployed). But "actively unemployed" means "looked for a job in the past [n] weeks", and "have a job" means "worked at all in the past [n] weeks, never mind part time or full".
This is why stay-at-home mothers don't contribute to US unemployment figures; it's also why the Bush campaign can say 'look! unemployment figures are down!' while the Kerry campaign can say 'look! more people are out of a job than ever!' and both are technically accurate. (The Republican stance is to assume "discouraged workers" didn't want to have a job; if they really did, they would've looked for one, so obviously they're all just lazy and shouldn't count.)
It's kind of like what happened to satiric "The Pet Goat" reviews - most of them are gone now, deleted into oblivion.
Happily, the classic "The Story About Ping" review is still available, though I'm not sure whether the Amazon reviewer plagiarized from the/. story or vice versa. (There was some question as to whether the submitter was really the author of the Amazon review.)
Does this type of research really tell us anything?
Sort of. What it tells us is how necessary it is for researchers to cite certain papers for the points they're studying to be understood.
What this research obliquely demonstrates is the obliteration phenomenon - that certain works in physics (though we can only speculate which) are so well-known that it's unnecessary to cite them.
Eugene Garfield's paper on the subject, where he coined the term, is available here (because of the nature of the PDF, Google can't OCR it - sorry).
has anyone noticed the number of *awful* things sponsored by Sen. Orin Hatch?
Orrin Hatch is from Utah.
If that doesn't make it abundantly clear: the Church of Latter Day Saints is incredibly, -incredibly- socially conservative on all but a few points. Outside of Salt Lake City, the entire state is a Mormon stronghold; and the LDS church is trying to take over Salt Lake.
Dig around in the Salt Lake Tribune for details; look at the current cover story on the "theater student who refused to curse in class", or look up the hubbub over the -one- strip club in Salt Lake that has been repeatedly threatened because of local laws about its proximity to a "religious establishment" (iirc, a bar).
If that doesn't settle it for you, look in the bottom right corner of this snippet I scanned out of the SLtrib. Classic!
Slashdot Mirror
At Defcon last year they had these really neat laptop backpacks with hard outer shells. It looked like they'd protect well against a nasty fall. I can't find the product now; anyone know what I'm talking about, and where to get one cheap?
Thanks!
Holy crap I suck at links - so much for a technical education here :/
If I were you, I wouldn't be proud of being Bobby Fischer.
You mean the RIAA.
Motion Picture Association of America = bastards because of DeCSS
Recording Industry Assn. of America = bastards because of suing low-income preteen girls
(So far the MPAA has intelligently and refreshingly avoided any of these suits - we'll see whether it keeps up that way. Go go Jack Valenti go!)
Larry Paprocki, executive director for Stonegate, issued warnings to neighbors after more than six residents told him they thought their Wi-Fi signals were tampered with.
According to the Scottsdale police report, the Stonegate resident who granted access to a suspect in August noticed a charge to an online store on his American Express card.
I saw an EVIL HACKER using his computer on the corner, and then someone stole my credit card number!
It will be amusing or depressing to see how a prosecutor (and a judge) handle these complaints.
Wait for Gloom Doom3 instead. How super exciting! Gloom! Gloom! Hatchie kill! (Yes, it came first. Freaky, huh?)
You haven't linked to the aforementioned post. I'm pretty incompetent with the Internet; for some reason I can't seem to find it in the history listed at your user page. Did you only mentally review the Kerry campaign's platform?
I shouldn't have to hold somebody's hand and explain in detail why [the campaign's promises] are meaningless and the difference between a point that has substance and one that does not.
To the first: your condescension drips from the screen. You are not obliged (at present) to make or abstain from any decisions about whose hand you choose to hold and when. However, your blatant disregard for, say, a nine-page white paper summarizing an economic plan which is pretty specific, is troubling. Likewise, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the promise to "fully fund [the] No Child Left Behind Act, adding an average of about $10 billion per year". Would you prefer we "take the pain, stay the course", as Rod Paige (US Secretary of Education) advises the millions of students in failing schools do? (These are students whose schools are being cut off from all federal funds in the theory that this will somehow reduce failure rates.)
To your second issue, regarding the difference between a vague idea and a solid plan:
The only post of yours I've seen that addresses the current administration's policies and future plans states
March 2002:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
Gosh - that sounds firm. And let's not forget that there is still no link between Iraq and al'Qaeda, nor were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; Bush picked the nation for, at best, altruistic motives of liberation that don't seem to have been very well-coordinated. (I mustn't forget Poland here; they are a notable exception and gain a gold star, even if their leader says they were misled.)
So if Bush is so firm, why have his policies ignored Saudi Arabia, which was the home to 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001 attackers? Why has he accepted the tentative "oh, we stopped the terrorist!" cries of Saudi leaders while the independent princes of the region continue to funnel millions of dollars into terrorism - far greater a bounty than Hussein ever could have offered? (This line of questioning even gives you the supposition that he funded al'Qaeda at all.) Saudi Arabia is guilty of at least as great religious and political oppression as Iraq; why haven't we liberated them?
Is it really necessary, in waging a war on terror, to maintain the USA PATRIOT Act? Can a libertarian state support such an infringement? Or is our state one of expedience? For a conservative to support such egregious encroachments on liberty is frightening. For a pragmatist, who just wants "a solid policy so I know what not to do", a slightly fascist state is fully tolerable - but I worry about anyone who will tolerate such encroachment lightly.
Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm
Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete.
I've seen this sentiment stated in almost exactly this way probably hundreds of times, and I'm not sure I understand it. Inevitably, the author never presents evidence of said "nebulous lists". He ignores the fairly clear formualtion of policies on the campaign platform page for the candidate.
Further:
By definition, this argument must ignore any presented evidence of clearly formulated policy (because it's too complex). It is, besides, impossible to present an intelligent alternative because someone will raise the ad hominem issue of the other candidate appearing unintelligent; then the issues are lost in the partisan discussion. (This is an incredible clever move on Mr. Bush's part; he's pulled it off with much more panache than ex-President Ford).
The issue will be continually distorted by these ad hominem attacks - "he really is that stupid!" - "flip-flopper!" - "liar!" - which ignore the first question we sought to answer, that of policy.
==
As to the issue of "the same information, the same decision, etc. etc." - really? Was John Kerry also privy to the intelligence this article discusses, about the useless tubes? I honestly don't know; I'd love to find out.
Even so - even if Bush's favorite phrase out of that whole debate a few nights ago ("same information, same conclusion!" - my favorite is still the "he forgot Poland" classic) - then it's at the very least a vote against Ashcroft.
What do you mean? Of course it was code theft.
The offender's possessions have been thoroughly and destructively searched. After much laborious effort the stolen code has been found, dusted off, and returned unharmed to its rightful owner.
Victory for twentieth-century law enforcement techniques!
... built a GUI on DOS and called it Windows and that sucked.
Yeah! In fact, it sucked so much that now nobody uses Windows!
You know you've been Slashdotted when.
Database Stats
Total Models: 23521
Total Creators: 1898
Last Search: Model Name: penis
Total Searches to Date: 147243
(google cache from two days ago: 146388)
1) I've read several intelligent theses that the current US President is not incompetent, but that he puts forth great effort to lead his enemies to think he is. Every time an ad hominem attack is raised against the President instead of a cogent criticism of his policy or the disparities between his promised and delivered campaign, he wins; he makes "those left-wing liberal haters" lose credibility and power.
A similar assertion is made by linguist Geoffrey Nunberg in his most recent book:
"Bush went to Andover and Yale, and you can be sure he heard the term 'nuclear' at the dinner table in Kennebunkport," he says. "His brothers don't talk like this. His father doesn't. He's chosen to talk like this."
Nunberg surmises that Bush is trying to shed his patrician heritage and proffer himself as a populist, a strategy that worked well against the legendary stiffness of Al Gore in the 2000 election.
2) President Bush is most likely trying to do what he thinks is good and right for America. However, conservatism by nature is afraid of change, and Bush is on most fronts a conservative. The President looks at trends in society and sees them as worrying hallmarks of a civilization in decline.
His actions to ban marriage between homosexuals, to reduce oversight on large corporations, to wage a war on Iraq (instead of, say, Saudi Arabia, which still produces millions of dollars annually in support for terrorism and was the home of 15 of the 19 hijackers of 11 September 2001), all these actions are likely made honestly and with the intention of preserving what he sees as a decadent, depraved society.
Consequently, that fundamental clash of values - the one that arises in the distinctions between Ashcroft&Homeland Security vs. unfettered civil liberties, Social Security security vs. trickle-down tax cuts, No Child Left Behind vs. effective teaching - this disparity could cause anyone on either side of the issue to view the other as hopelessly out of touch with morality ("evil") or reality ("incompetent").
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. A basic understanding of statistics indicates that you can have 95% confidence in your results with as small a sample as about 1,000 people. 50,000 is just hedging the bet by increasing the sample fiftyfold; the confidence interval there is likely even larger.
However, it's very likely with the 51%/49% results here that, due to the margin of error, there isn't a detectable majority of either broadband or dialup users. The statistics for qualitative questions like "what kind of Internet do you use" are a little fuzzy (i.e. way beyond what I learned in my AP=basic-college-intro-101-level Stats), but the principle is the same.
I would absoutely trust that -about- 49% and 51% of Internet users surveyed use dialup and broadband, respectively, but I'm not sure that there's a detectable majority.
It seems that SP2 for Windows XP isn't as secure as Microsoft touts it to be
In other news:
Pope renounces Judaism, admits he is devout Catholic
Bear community overwhelmingly rejects $25m latrine levy
CmdrTaco reveals longstanding heterosexual relationship
On this weighty and important issue I most humbly submit my agreement. Pilots should be armed.
How would they fly without arms?
Not sure, but here's a reference and here's some more information from the same source that looks to be useful.
This column from 2000 contains further information but I'm not sure how accurate it is in more recent, more tightened-bodice security years.
You're right - Gnutella is stealing. I'll give back everything I stole right now.
Thanks!
-convert
Cummings always capitalized his name. It's a common mistake to call the fellow "e e" when he wanted to be "E. E. Cummings". This is typically a trivial distinction, but when you consider the beautiful things the guy did (bringing a modern face and a literally modern typeface to old poetic themes), it seems important to pay his stylistic choices their due respect.
Look on the bright side - pointandclick Slashdot vandals / trolls will avoid the article and simply trash the discussion page for a little while.
baffled by the drop in unemployment concurrent with a drop in jobs
Unemployent numbers measure (the number of people who have jobs) / (the number of people who have jobs + the number of people who are actively unemployed). But "actively unemployed" means "looked for a job in the past [n] weeks", and "have a job" means "worked at all in the past [n] weeks, never mind part time or full".
This is why stay-at-home mothers don't contribute to US unemployment figures; it's also why the Bush campaign can say 'look! unemployment figures are down!' while the Kerry campaign can say 'look! more people are out of a job than ever!' and both are technically accurate. (The Republican stance is to assume "discouraged workers" didn't want to have a job; if they really did, they would've looked for one, so obviously they're all just lazy and shouldn't count.)
It's kind of like what happened to satiric "The Pet Goat" reviews - most of them are gone now, deleted into oblivion.
/. story or vice versa. (There was some question as to whether the submitter was really the author of the Amazon review.)
Happily, the classic "The Story About Ping" review is still available, though I'm not sure whether the Amazon reviewer plagiarized from the
Does this type of research really tell us anything?
Sort of. What it tells us is how necessary it is for researchers to cite certain papers for the points they're studying to be understood.
What this research obliquely demonstrates is the obliteration phenomenon - that certain works in physics (though we can only speculate which) are so well-known that it's unnecessary to cite them.
Eugene Garfield's paper on the subject, where he coined the term, is available here (because of the nature of the PDF, Google can't OCR it - sorry).
According to the linked article:
o untryid=US&addtohistory=&searchtab=address&searcht ype=address&address=1941+W+PASSYUNK+AVE&city=&stat e=&zipcode=19145-3620&search=++Search++
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&c
or
http://tinyurl.com/58zlc
This is the page you're looking for. /. article on the subject.
This is the original
has anyone noticed the number of *awful* things sponsored by Sen. Orin Hatch?
Orrin Hatch is from Utah.
If that doesn't make it abundantly clear: the Church of Latter Day Saints is incredibly, -incredibly- socially conservative on all but a few points. Outside of Salt Lake City, the entire state is a Mormon stronghold; and the LDS church is trying to take over Salt Lake.
Dig around in the Salt Lake Tribune for details; look at the current cover story on the "theater student who refused to curse in class", or look up the hubbub over the -one- strip club in Salt Lake that has been repeatedly threatened because of local laws about its proximity to a "religious establishment" (iirc, a bar).
If that doesn't settle it for you, look in the bottom right corner of this snippet I scanned out of the SLtrib. Classic!