I saw a commercial for this just yesterday. I'm inclined to be skeptical of anything from The Sharper Image, but there may be some value to this. I've noticed when I get really hot on a bike ride, a small amount of cool water on the back of my neck does wonders for my whole body.
But that thing looks [i]really[/i] uncomfortable to wear, I have to say. Even in the commercial, which was no doubt shot to make the device look as good as possible, it looks annoying, not to say dorky. (Okay, dorky.) I think I'll pass.
I work for a nonprofit with about 100,000 Internet-connected members. Here's the scenario that worries me:
Me: Hello, how may I help you?
Member: I'm having a lot of trouble accessing your Web site through my ISP, BigTelecom, Inc. What gives?
Me: Let me check into it.
[later]
BigTelecom: Hello, how may I help you?
Me: Hi, our members who are your customers are experiencing problems contacting our Web site, and the problem seems to occur at the border to your network.
BigTelecom: May I have your customer number, please?
Me: Uh, I'm not your customer, our members are.
BigTelecom: Sir, without a customer number we can't guarantee connectivity to your site. It's only $300 per month. Would you like me to transfer you to our sales department?
Me: Yeah, $300/month times the number of ISPs our members use, which is essentially all of them! Nuts!
If the telecom companies get what they want, that's the exact scenario I'll be dealing with.
It's not necessarily a good thing, although this is RHEL 3, which has many security fixes backported into the 2.4.21 kernel. (The 2.6 series is not necessarily inherently more secure.) Plus, the system in question doesn't have untrusted local users, which means that local privilege-escalation vulnerabilities, among the most common kernel-based security flaws, are not a concern.
But really, the point was not to show best practices, it was to show that such a system is reliable, no matter what the Microsoft marketing grunts may say. (For that matter, it has been reliable despite not having its kernel upgraded recently!)
There's nothing inherently wrong with a press release. Sure, they only give one side of the story. If you want a more balanced analysis, find a publication that attempts to provide that. Slashdot is not such a publication, has never been, and has never purported to be. Slashdot is little more than a community blog (although it predates the term), with all of the one-sided postings and comments that implies.
Slashdot doesn't practice "journalism." If you want that, look elsewhere.
It should be pointed out, though, that the./ item begins with "Red Hat has announced..." That makes it pretty clear what the bias of the report is going to be.
so does this mean those old email jokes that "took a picture of you magically through your monitor" might actually end up showing an ugly nerd instead of a monkey?
If the apparent order of the universe necessitates a creator, then what created the creator since presumably the creator would be of an even higher level of order? If the creator doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need a creator?
The only way the airport can have a case is if the Wi-fi signal interferes with a licensed service.
Which, funnily enough, is exactly what they are claiming:
Last month, a Massport attorney warned the airline that its antenna "presents an unacceptable potential risk" to Logan's safety and security systems, including its keycard access system and state police communications.
That's technically absurd, of course, which is probably why they trotted out a lawyer to say it. An engineer wouldn't be able to tell such an outrageous lie with a straight face.
So when a smart athiest concludes that acting morally isn't in his best interests, nothing restrains him from acting according to his self-serving desires.
That's hardly limited to atheists. Believers simply rationalize that God's purpose is aligned with their own. For example, pious white inhabitants of the slave states before the Civil War supported slavery and believed it was ordained by God. (And after Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws were enacted by whites -- churchgoers and others alike.) Pious inhabitants above the Mason-Dixon line tended to frown on slavery. Was that because the northern believers were more religious? Hardly. It was because the North didn't reap the economic benefits from slavery that the South did and thus could afford to take a more detached view.
That's one example; the examples of such hypocrisy by the religious abound. Now, you might argue that such acts show they weren't real believers in the first place, but I'd argue that the nonbelievers you mention didn't really believe in morality, either. That doesn't mean either that no believers are consistent in their morality nor that no nonbelievers are.
In short, by both theory and experience, I see no reason to think that believers are more moral than nonbelievers.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't like snakes. Who knew?
It's a cookbook!
Jesus, that sounds just like Dvorak/Cringely! Get thee to a psychiatrist!
But that thing looks [i]really[/i] uncomfortable to wear, I have to say. Even in the commercial, which was no doubt shot to make the device look as good as possible, it looks annoying, not to say dorky. (Okay, dorky.) I think I'll pass.
I call 69.
You're not looking for an Apple, you're looking for a Smith & Wesson.
Me: Hello, how may I help you?
Member: I'm having a lot of trouble accessing your Web site through my ISP, BigTelecom, Inc. What gives?
Me: Let me check into it.
[later]
BigTelecom: Hello, how may I help you?
Me: Hi, our members who are your customers are experiencing problems contacting our Web site, and the problem seems to occur at the border to your network.
BigTelecom: May I have your customer number, please?
Me: Uh, I'm not your customer, our members are.
BigTelecom: Sir, without a customer number we can't guarantee connectivity to your site. It's only $300 per month. Would you like me to transfer you to our sales department?
Me: Yeah, $300/month times the number of ISPs our members use, which is essentially all of them! Nuts!
If the telecom companies get what they want, that's the exact scenario I'll be dealing with.
Your desk isn't tilted, the gravity in your office is.
It's not necessarily a good thing, although this is RHEL 3, which has many security fixes backported into the 2.4.21 kernel. (The 2.6 series is not necessarily inherently more secure.) Plus, the system in question doesn't have untrusted local users, which means that local privilege-escalation vulnerabilities, among the most common kernel-based security flaws, are not a concern.
But really, the point was not to show best practices, it was to show that such a system is reliable, no matter what the Microsoft marketing grunts may say. (For that matter, it has been reliable despite not having its kernel upgraded recently!)
$ uname -s -r
/sbin/ifconfig ...
Linux 2.4.21-27.0.2.ELsmp
$ uptime
14:04:05 up 400 days, 7:36, 2 users, load average: 1.89, 2.10, 1.86
$
eth0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1187551728 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2669545924 errors:7 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:7
The differences are:
1) The IRS is collecting information openly, with the acquiescence, albeit grudging, of the American people.
2) The IRS' use of the collected information is constrained by law, and they follow those rules.
3) The IRS' activity is monitored by Congress, which can and does call IRS officials to account for the actions of the agency.
Get it now?
Capturing masterminds doesn't seem to be the present government's long suit.
Heck, that's been done.
...assuming, that is, they aren't the same person. Has anyone ever seen the two of them together?
Just replace "car" with "computer":
t s/jeddk2/final/ee498h.htm
http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/Sp96/projec
There's nothing inherently wrong with a press release. Sure, they only give one side of the story. If you want a more balanced analysis, find a publication that attempts to provide that. Slashdot is not such a publication, has never been, and has never purported to be. Slashdot is little more than a community blog (although it predates the term), with all of the one-sided postings and comments that implies.
./ item begins with "Red Hat has announced..." That makes it pretty clear what the bias of the report is going to be.
Slashdot doesn't practice "journalism." If you want that, look elsewhere.
It should be pointed out, though, that the
In your case, no, the picture will be the same.
Not true. Angie and Natalie would get free Jello.
What you fail to understand is that it's turtles all the way down!
It is Massachusetts without us.
Which, funnily enough, is exactly what they are claiming:
That's technically absurd, of course, which is probably why they trotted out a lawyer to say it. An engineer wouldn't be able to tell such an outrageous lie with a straight face.That's hardly limited to atheists. Believers simply rationalize that God's purpose is aligned with their own. For example, pious white inhabitants of the slave states before the Civil War supported slavery and believed it was ordained by God. (And after Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws were enacted by whites -- churchgoers and others alike.) Pious inhabitants above the Mason-Dixon line tended to frown on slavery. Was that because the northern believers were more religious? Hardly. It was because the North didn't reap the economic benefits from slavery that the South did and thus could afford to take a more detached view.
That's one example; the examples of such hypocrisy by the religious abound. Now, you might argue that such acts show they weren't real believers in the first place, but I'd argue that the nonbelievers you mention didn't really believe in morality, either. That doesn't mean either that no believers are consistent in their morality nor that no nonbelievers are.
In short, by both theory and experience, I see no reason to think that believers are more moral than nonbelievers.
Maybe that's why he dropped her off a cliff.
Wait, you're saying that Canada isn't part of the US? Who knew!
Scalia was cherry-picking precedents that supported his particlar point of view and ignoring ones that didn't.