Well, over a typical 30 year mortgage at 50 miles each way per workday, you'll be driving about 624,000 miles so you're already a good chunk of the way there. Add in to that the additional wear and tear on your vehicles, the probability of gas prices rising further, the likely need to have two vehicles instead of one at least at some point, and this ceases to sound very good to me.
And at the end of a 30 year mortgage, you have a house. Worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
At the end of 30 years of driving 624,000 miles, you have... nothing.
The two are still not comparable; one is an asset and the other is a liability. The amount of money you pay into your mortgage is really not lost, it's just moved into the house (not 100% of it, due to interest and market rates, but most of it). Money you pay into your commute bill is just burned. It's still much cheaper, in the long run, to live close to work.
This whole "laws are only about control" bullshit meme is used way too often, I have no idea what people got hit with to get such idiotic ideas. We don't live in a world of Nietzschean supermen, people don't behave on their own and to allow reasonably safe coexistence with that many humans around it's simply necessary to make laws.
Hear, hear! Freedom and personal choice are far too messy for the likes of these unwashed masses. It's about time someone brought about a totalitarian regime to regulate and enforce community standards of fairness, safety, health and happiness! People are simply incapable of making any sound decisions on their own: other people have to do it for them.
Making up your own answers like the ones you suggest might seem fine, but just you wait until someone at the bank challenges you on the phone with to confirm your answer to "what's your favorite sport?" and you have to answer "Moorcock".
Sounds fun to me. I'm changing all my bank security answers to "your security sucks."
What you're missing is the culture of control at Microsoft. The attitude of management in the company is that they know what is best for the industry. They were forged in the theories of Vertical Integration and the power of Intellectual Property. The concepts of a long tail, a peer-collaboration approach, or an open relinquishing of control and trust in the market are not things that have ever occurred to anyone at that company.
All the Microsoft employees I know corroborate this attitude. And I know quite a few, since I live in Seattle. (Even if they disagree with the concepts, they agree that it is the dominant modus operandi for management.)
Note that these are attitudes that are very common in companies, especially big ones that dominate their respective industries.
The attitude is, "Whatever you can do, we can do better. Our way."
The problem was not that he was the only one with access, although that is an issue in small IT departments. No, the problem was that he had enough access to change all the other administrators' passwords. Lots of people had access to the systems, and there were probably procedures in place to name a successor in the event that Childs was fired or hit by a bus. Instead, Childs changed everyone else's password and locked them out.
The only way to protect against that type of an attack is to make the Administrator-level access much more fine-grained. One admin should not be able to change other admins' passwords. In practice, that might take the form of a global login server (with appropriate backups) that is not under the control of the admins, or maybe a good SELinux-style setup. The idea is to never have a "global root" role, but instead break it down into "config root" (for admins) and "access root" (for people who administer user accounts and such).
This is obviously much harder in smaller setups who might not have the personnel to split things up that way.
He is citing unpublished data that directly contradict a decades-long body of studies performed all over the world.
My guess is that in the very rare event that he makes his raw data for these conclusions public, real researchers who don't depend on fearmongering to get in the papers will quickly find errors in his methodology.
If he doesn't make his raw data available, then it's not repeatable science, and he can be safely ignored.
Well I actually did RTFA, and it's just some nutjob who wants to get his name in the papers.
Some gems:
Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now - especially when it comes to children.
A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies - including some Herberman cites - with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies."
Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.
Still, Herberman cites a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer."
"Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use," he wrote in his memo.
Joshua E. Muscat of Penn State University, who has studied cancer and cell phones in other research projects partly funded by the cell phone industry, said there are at least a dozen studies that have found no cancer-cell phone link. He said a Swedish study cited by Herberman as support for his warning was biased and flawed.
"We certainly don't know of any mechanism by which radiofrequency exposure would cause a cancerous effect in cells. We just don't know this might possibly occur," Muscat said.
Joe Farren, a spokesman for the CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group for the wireless industry, said the group believes there is a risk of misinforming the public if science isn't used as the ultimate guide on the issue.
"When you look at the overwhelming majority of studies that have been peer reviewed and published in scientific journals around the world, you'll find no relationship between wireless usage and adverse health affects," Farren said.
"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.
Re:separated images available?
on
Mars In 3D
·
· Score: 1
And if you read though the Apollo transcripts, there are some really bizarre comments that only make sense if you take them in the setting of discovering alien ruins or debris on the moon.
How convenient that you can simply state that as fact without any sources to back it up.
The transcripts are public domain material. Go ahead, give me page numbers.
Last I read there was some supporting evidence for this position. In fact, IIRC, the official position is that while vaccinations may cause other health risks, any associated side effects effect a much small population than an unvaccinated population. Simple fact is, there isn't enough information to disprove such positions. And, like cell phones, some studies do indicate their use may have negative side effects.
Now then, I'm not saying he's right. What I am saying, your statement seems to imply he's crazy for taking such a position while in reality, you taking such a position seems to imply the same about you. It's probably best to simply accept, while unlikely, it's still possible. The jury is still out.
Just some food for thought.
The jury is not still out, and you must have last read about it in 1998, before that study was retracted and corrected. Larger studies since have found zero link between MMR vaccinations and autism. Here's what the CDC has to say on the matter.
So yes, continuing to espouse such theories when they have been consistently shown to be false and relying on irrational fear instead of a discussion of facts can be considered crazy. By all means keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
See, let's start with little Johnny that watches lots of porn. Hard-core stuff. Ends up getting out of high school thinking that (a) wimmen like surprises, like rape, and (b) wimmen don't like him. Yes, (b) is a logical corallary to (a) but we won't go there. How did little Johnny get so twisted? Simple: nobody ever paid any attention to him and let him go off and figure stuff out for himself, like relating to other people.
Little Johnny has a choice about how to treat women in his adult life. His parenting or lack thereof have little to no bearing on this choice. He cannot blame his criminal actions on his childhood as you are so quick to do.
Your culture of victimhood, dismissal of personal responsibility, and totalitarian proposals make me sick.
I also remember reading a story once about a guy who makes giant works of art, using Legos like pixels. I believe they said that if you want to buy like 10,000 blue bricks, you can get bulk prices straight from Lego.
Yes, there are several professional artists who make that type of art (called a mosaic) out of Lego bricks. They also usually make sculptures.
In the US we have a concept called bundling where two products are sold together; it could be as simple as bundling a product and its warrantee (which is considered a separate product). Bundling is not illegal unless it's used in a monopolistic and anti-competitive manner, and in that case it's called tying.
Except that's not what happened. The government said, "Pretty please, would you wiretap these people for us? Don't worry about FISA, we'll take care of it later."
The correct answer for large corporations with brilliant, well paid legal teams should have been, "This doesn't seem like an emergency situation where retroactive warrants are allowed. We're going to need to see a FISA order to wire tap these people who are talking to American Citizens."
If all the companies did that and not just Qwest, we wouldn't have this problem. The government won't get very far punishing an entire industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, over a typical 30 year mortgage at 50 miles each way per workday, you'll be driving about 624,000 miles so you're already a good chunk of the way there. Add in to that the additional wear and tear on your vehicles, the probability of gas prices rising further, the likely need to have two vehicles instead of one at least at some point, and this ceases to sound very good to me.
And at the end of a 30 year mortgage, you have a house. Worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
At the end of 30 years of driving 624,000 miles, you have... nothing.
The two are still not comparable; one is an asset and the other is a liability. The amount of money you pay into your mortgage is really not lost, it's just moved into the house (not 100% of it, due to interest and market rates, but most of it). Money you pay into your commute bill is just burned. It's still much cheaper, in the long run, to live close to work.
Why is a PBX getting hacked news for nerds? It used to happen all the freaking time.
I think you mean "...all the phreaking time."
This whole "laws are only about control" bullshit meme is used way too often, I have no idea what people got hit with to get such idiotic ideas. We don't live in a world of Nietzschean supermen, people don't behave on their own and to allow reasonably safe coexistence with that many humans around it's simply necessary to make laws.
Hear, hear! Freedom and personal choice are far too messy for the likes of these unwashed masses. It's about time someone brought about a totalitarian regime to regulate and enforce community standards of fairness, safety, health and happiness! People are simply incapable of making any sound decisions on their own: other people have to do it for them.
It's for your own good, you know.
Making up your own answers like the ones you suggest might seem fine, but just you wait until someone at the bank challenges you on the phone with to confirm your answer to "what's your favorite sport?" and you have to answer "Moorcock".
Sounds fun to me. I'm changing all my bank security answers to "your security sucks."
Would you notice if a fly farted on you?
It depends. What's he been eating?
The video shows the 3D artist using Blender, a free and open source 3D modeling and animation program.
I smell evil afoot.
Maybe you need to wash your afeet.
What you're missing is the culture of control at Microsoft. The attitude of management in the company is that they know what is best for the industry. They were forged in the theories of Vertical Integration and the power of Intellectual Property. The concepts of a long tail, a peer-collaboration approach, or an open relinquishing of control and trust in the market are not things that have ever occurred to anyone at that company.
All the Microsoft employees I know corroborate this attitude. And I know quite a few, since I live in Seattle. (Even if they disagree with the concepts, they agree that it is the dominant modus operandi for management.)
Note that these are attitudes that are very common in companies, especially big ones that dominate their respective industries.
The attitude is, "Whatever you can do, we can do better. Our way."
The problem was not that he was the only one with access, although that is an issue in small IT departments. No, the problem was that he had enough access to change all the other administrators' passwords. Lots of people had access to the systems, and there were probably procedures in place to name a successor in the event that Childs was fired or hit by a bus. Instead, Childs changed everyone else's password and locked them out.
The only way to protect against that type of an attack is to make the Administrator-level access much more fine-grained. One admin should not be able to change other admins' passwords. In practice, that might take the form of a global login server (with appropriate backups) that is not under the control of the admins, or maybe a good SELinux-style setup. The idea is to never have a "global root" role, but instead break it down into "config root" (for admins) and "access root" (for people who administer user accounts and such).
This is obviously much harder in smaller setups who might not have the personnel to split things up that way.
* and accuracy.
What about the companies the government won't let die?
*cough* airlines *cough*
He is citing unpublished data that directly contradict a decades-long body of studies performed all over the world.
My guess is that in the very rare event that he makes his raw data for these conclusions public, real researchers who don't depend on fearmongering to get in the papers will quickly find errors in his methodology.
If he doesn't make his raw data available, then it's not repeatable science, and he can be safely ignored.
Well I actually did RTFA, and it's just some nutjob who wants to get his name in the papers.
Some gems:
Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now - especially when it comes to children.
A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies - including some Herberman cites - with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies."
Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.
Still, Herberman cites a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer."
"Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use," he wrote in his memo.
Joshua E. Muscat of Penn State University, who has studied cancer and cell phones in other research projects partly funded by the cell phone industry, said there are at least a dozen studies that have found no cancer-cell phone link. He said a Swedish study cited by Herberman as support for his warning was biased and flawed.
"We certainly don't know of any mechanism by which radiofrequency exposure would cause a cancerous effect in cells. We just don't know this might possibly occur," Muscat said.
Joe Farren, a spokesman for the CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group for the wireless industry, said the group believes there is a risk of misinforming the public if science isn't used as the ultimate guide on the issue.
"When you look at the overwhelming majority of studies that have been peer reviewed and published in scientific journals around the world, you'll find no relationship between wireless usage and adverse health affects," Farren said.
"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.
You can find the raw images from the Surface Stereo Imager here:
http://www1.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/raw/SSI/ssi_topgallery_collection_archive_1.html
This is the SSI itself:
http://www1.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/spacecraft/ssi.html
Personally, my preferred method of 3D viewing is the oldskool Stereoscope.
And if you read though the Apollo transcripts, there are some really bizarre comments that only make sense if you take them in the setting of discovering alien ruins or debris on the moon.
How convenient that you can simply state that as fact without any sources to back it up.
The transcripts are public domain material. Go ahead, give me page numbers.
He is in a position to know the truth about aliens because he's actually been to space.
Just like I am in a position to know the truth about Bigfoot because I went to Canada that one time.
Last I read there was some supporting evidence for this position. In fact, IIRC, the official position is that while vaccinations may cause other health risks, any associated side effects effect a much small population than an unvaccinated population. Simple fact is, there isn't enough information to disprove such positions. And, like cell phones, some studies do indicate their use may have negative side effects.
Now then, I'm not saying he's right. What I am saying, your statement seems to imply he's crazy for taking such a position while in reality, you taking such a position seems to imply the same about you. It's probably best to simply accept, while unlikely, it's still possible. The jury is still out.
Just some food for thought.
The jury is not still out, and you must have last read about it in 1998, before that study was retracted and corrected. Larger studies since have found zero link between MMR vaccinations and autism. Here's what the CDC has to say on the matter.
Also, study after study has found no statistical link between cell phone use and cancer. Additionally, the output of a typical cell phone is about 100 milliwatts; this is so small as to be insignificant.
So yes, continuing to espouse such theories when they have been consistently shown to be false and relying on irrational fear instead of a discussion of facts can be considered crazy. By all means keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Most prophecy in the Bible is written so that it isn't obvious exactly when or how it will be fulfilled, until it has been fulfilled.
How convenient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
See, let's start with little Johnny that watches lots of porn. Hard-core stuff. Ends up getting out of high school thinking that (a) wimmen like surprises, like rape, and (b) wimmen don't like him. Yes, (b) is a logical corallary to (a) but we won't go there. How did little Johnny get so twisted? Simple: nobody ever paid any attention to him and let him go off and figure stuff out for himself, like relating to other people.
Little Johnny has a choice about how to treat women in his adult life. His parenting or lack thereof have little to no bearing on this choice. He cannot blame his criminal actions on his childhood as you are so quick to do.
Your culture of victimhood, dismissal of personal responsibility, and totalitarian proposals make me sick.
I also remember reading a story once about a guy who makes giant works of art, using Legos like pixels. I believe they said that if you want to buy like 10,000 blue bricks, you can get bulk prices straight from Lego.
Yes, there are several professional artists who make that type of art (called a mosaic) out of Lego bricks. They also usually make sculptures.
Two of my favorites are Nathan Sawaya and Sean Kenney, but there are others.
Being competitor-focused is Microsoft's core business. They've done this since day one.
In the US we have a concept called bundling where two products are sold together; it could be as simple as bundling a product and its warrantee (which is considered a separate product). Bundling is not illegal unless it's used in a monopolistic and anti-competitive manner, and in that case it's called tying.
Oh man I hope the combination of those three words involves a trebuchet.
The government orders them to hand over records.
Except that's not what happened. The government said, "Pretty please, would you wiretap these people for us? Don't worry about FISA, we'll take care of it later."
The correct answer for large corporations with brilliant, well paid legal teams should have been, "This doesn't seem like an emergency situation where retroactive warrants are allowed. We're going to need to see a FISA order to wire tap these people who are talking to American Citizens."
If all the companies did that and not just Qwest, we wouldn't have this problem. The government won't get very far punishing an entire industry.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C36.txt
Sections 1805(a), 1805(f), and 1809(a) seem pretty clear to me, and I'm not even a brilliant, well paid legal team.
Further reading on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve