More than likely, you received a cell phone number that had previously been in use by someone else. Someone who stopped paying their bill (because they had no money), whose service was cut off, and the number thrown back into rotation.
When I first got a cell phone (4 years ago? 5?), I had a similar situation. Every day or so I received calls for the previous owner. Usually they got my voicemail, but on the occasion I answered, I could navigate the automated menu and speak to a human (who was only too happy to speak to someone that might want to pay them). I explained that I was not the person they were looking for (wrong gender, for one), and that it was likely that the previous owner of the phone number had stopped paying the phone bill and I just happened to be next in line for the number. The agencies accepted this without much disagreement, perhaps because they were after the person for the money to pay the phone bill.
A fine equal to the profit... plus the cost of security work to ensure the systems are no longer vulnerable... Begin bad car analogy. If I break into your car, and get caught, do I have to pay for you to have your locks replaced with higher security locks, a higher security car alarm, more durable windows, and whatever else could conceivably prevent your car from being broken into?
Somehow, this guy broke into the system, which evidently wasn't secure enough as it was. The burden of securing the system falls on the owners of the system. Is there evidence of him breaking into the system? It sounds like it, but the article doesn't state what exactly it is. Is there evidence of a trojan or other back door vulnerability that he installed on the system? It doesn't sound like it from the article, but then again, it isn't ruled out.
I can see fining him for security costs if there was evidence that lead them to believe that their system was now more vulnerable directly because of his actions, but if there is no evidence of that, why should he be fined in order to increase their security, which is their responsibility to begin with?
Here's what I found, copied from http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm
The quote shows up on other sources as well on google.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
There are something like 92 pictures on that page. I don't think his personal wiki is going to be able to survive the onslaught of/. readers. May want to corel cache that next time.
What are the ties between Scientology and Landmark? Erhard took Scientology's teachings, adapted them to a different market as Est, and Est lives on through Landmark? Unfortunately, my father has gotten involved with Landmark, and I'm at a loss as to how to convince him it is a horrible idea.
I enjoyed Cloverfield, what I saw of it. The problem I had was that I didn't anticipate it making me motion sick. They really don't give you any clue in the trailers that it's going to be full of a jolty, sudden, quick movement. It seems obvious enough in hindsight, that "Hey, a movie filmed from the point of view of somebody's home video camera *might* just make you motion sick, dummy." On the other hand, I haven't really seen anything with that type of shooting, so I feel like they could have given me a little warning.
A little history: I get simulation sickness from first person shooters. I used to be able to play them with no difficulties, besides maybe a game here and there (I seem to recall Hexen being one of the first to bother me). After a break from gaming, I came back to discover I'd pretty much lost all tolerance for FPSs. It might be possible to build a tolerance back up, I don't know. Being nauseous isn't fun, so I haven't really attempted it. Dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) and meclizine both made me drowsy, so I gave up on it.
I don't get seasickness.
Anyways, my point is, if you get simulation sickness, you may want to skip this one, or bring some dimenhydrinate or meclizine along. I made it maybe 45 minutes or an hour into the movie (run time is 1h 30m) before I had to keep my eyes closed.
It is a genetic mutation that causes the prion to be generated in the first place! The defective genetics cause the defective prion protein to be created, which then causes other healthy prion protein to change into harmful prion protein in a cascade. Ask yourself: Where did the harmful prion come from to begin with?
I know this is wikipedia, and that it doesn't reference its source, but:
Mad cow disease aka Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a type of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease#Infectious_agent
I am aware that you can transmit the prion diseases by consumption of diseased animal, and that the recent scares have been from the feeding of diseased meat back to cattle. My point is that cows may spontaneously develop mad cow disease due to their genetics, that these genetics spawn the first vile prion that ultimately diseases the cow, the cow which then diseases other cattle when used in their feed. The beginning of the disease is the genetics, the rest is epidemic.
My point was that defective cow dna can cause real problems for us. (Cow dna -> defective allele -> mad cow disease -> bad meat -> CJB in humans). I've already read up on it, so if you would like to point out where I am wrong so I can either stand corrected or refute your argument, please do.
Your stomach and small intestine have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the quality of food's DNA. This may or may not be true.
Mad cow disease can be caused by a problem with an allele in the cow's DNA.
There may be a link between eating Mad cow disease tainted meat and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/10/27/nbse527.xml)
So, if a cow's DNA was to become damaged, and we were to replicate that cow on a large scale, and then feed that meat to a large number of people, we could be poisoning the population.
I've never played shadowrun 3rd ed. My gaming group just recently started playing shadowrun 4th edition. We haven't been playing it long enough for me to form an overall opinion on the system, but one thing sticks out at me as problematic: the initiative pass sytem.
For the uninitiated, each round of combat is broken up into 4 initiative passes. By default, a character has only one initiative pass and acts only once per round. However, you can get your reflexes jacked up through cyber implants (something you buy that reduces your ability to use magic) or through magic. These modifications/enhancements give you bonus initiative passes, up to +3 for a maximum of 4 passes. This becomes a problem when half of your party has 3-4 passes and the other half has only 1. For the people with 1 pass, it is as if they act only once every 2 or 3 rounds, which gets kindof boring for them. I don't know whether it is a player issue, and that next time they will know better to purchase these enhancements (I got the spell), or if it is a dm issue, and that the enhancements should be restricted to street samurai and the like, or if it is just a system issue, practically requiring the players to purchase something that should be included if it is so integral to game play.
One more thing that stems from the system is that movement is broken up over the initiative passes. If your movement rate is 8 meters per round, you move 2 meters per initiative pass, which is awesome from a tactical point of view. You can shoot and find cover, and people can shoot you and find cover. Unfortunately it gets cumbersome when you have 7 players, not to mention the npcs that you are fighting. Thats 7 characters * 4 rounds = 28 decisions on where to go, just for the players, in one round. Granted, it might not be such a problem with a smaller group...
As for dnd 4th edition, let me state first: I am not a wizards fan boy. A few months ago I was just about fed up with dnd 3.5. Every month a new book would come out, and there were constantly new classes, feats, prestige classes, and occasionally spells and equipment. These are all great things to have, except when it gets to the point where you have to know the content from 20 or 30 books to make an effective character. Anyways, onto 4.0...
I've read some of the proposed changes for 4.0, and I don't see what there is to be afraid of. They've identified a level range that is fun to play at (something like level 7 to 13?), and they aim to make gameplay in general reflect that level range. I am all for this. In 3.5, level 1 is grueling. The best thing about level 1 is level 2.
Another proposed change is to make all player types battle capable, so that you aren't drawing straws over who has to play the cleric, etc. Once again, fine by me.
With enough false domain names poisoning the squatters and an increase in unprofitable 30 day trial registrations, the registrars may decide to forgo the 30 day trials. The cost of a domain name is not prohibitive, so I can't see this making a huge loss in sales.
Well, there are fines for operating jammers. An even harsher fine may be enough of a deterrent, and perhaps better advertising of the penalties for jamming may deter their use as well. Also, if movie theaters, restaurants, churches, etc, are allowed to use jammers, there may be a drop in the irresponsible use of jammers, as why carry around an $11k fine magnet when all your favorite haunts already do the jamming for you?
The genie is already out of the bottle on jammers. Complaining about jammers being used irresponsibly is moot. They are out there, they are being used. It is damage control time, which means crackdowns on jammer sales, increased deterrents, and/or trying to meet people who jam halfway, as most of us agree on the annoyances of cell phones. Jammers and signs advertising their presence in restaurants/theaters, laws and their enforcement to deter drivers on phones, and free earplugs with your public transit pass are all viable options for mitigating the annoyance of cell phones.
I don't see why jammers have to be such a white and black issue.
I can build a faraday cage around my building, or I can jam cell phone signals. One is prohibitively expensive when compared to the other, yet the net result is the same. Also note, it is not illegal to build a faraday cage around your building. If I can do it with a faraday cage, it is entirely reasonable for me to be able to do it with a jammer.
I'm not saying restriction free use of jammers is a good idea, where any cell phone crusader can go on their own little holy war against drivers, movie goers, diners, church goers, etc. An establishment should have to make public their choice to jam through some sort of easily identifiable sign that is a national standard, their jammer shouldn't flood into adjoining properties or outside the building's physical boundaries (not onto the sidewalk out front, for instance, even if that is within the property line), and establishments without accessible landlines should be prohibited from using jammers. Personal use of jammers should probably be prohibited outright, or at least subject to the same restrictions.
As a side note, the ability to create unlimited perfect copies reduces the value of the original paid for Ferrari - so that person has suffered a loss in resale value I'm not sure I see how downloading a song makes the cd less valuable. I can't resell the song, it has no competition in the market place. The ferari has resell value, the knockoff ferari has resell value, the original cd has resell value, the mp3 does not.
Williams took apart one of the devices and found a sim card, which he put into a cellphone. He found the device was sending location text messages to Shaw's mobile number. He should taken out the sim cards, put them in his phone, and rang up a nice phone bill for the police department.
Supposing this wasn't the first time it has happened, trying to pin a previous mishandling where nukes have gone missing (real or imaginary) on, say, the Clinton presidency, and then "finding" the missing nukes (either by simply finding the imaginary nukes among terrorists [go go president!] or detonating them [oh no, terrorists!]) around election time would be very convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
In one study done in a prison, none of the inmates in the test group developed brain cancer after having their heads exposed to a high voltage.
Was is just me, or does it appear that the water the came out was cleaner than the water be used (before mixing it with the oil)?
I kinda wanted to see him drink the water after he filtered it...
...that will last forever.
Not everyone can afford to have a proper geek burial
More than likely, you received a cell phone number that had previously been in use by someone else. Someone who stopped paying their bill (because they had no money), whose service was cut off, and the number thrown back into rotation.
When I first got a cell phone (4 years ago? 5?), I had a similar situation. Every day or so I received calls for the previous owner. Usually they got my voicemail, but on the occasion I answered, I could navigate the automated menu and speak to a human (who was only too happy to speak to someone that might want to pay them). I explained that I was not the person they were looking for (wrong gender, for one), and that it was likely that the previous owner of the phone number had stopped paying the phone bill and I just happened to be next in line for the number. The agencies accepted this without much disagreement, perhaps because they were after the person for the money to pay the phone bill.
We all know that fat people on Stair Masters will go no where.
Somehow, this guy broke into the system, which evidently wasn't secure enough as it was. The burden of securing the system falls on the owners of the system. Is there evidence of him breaking into the system? It sounds like it, but the article doesn't state what exactly it is. Is there evidence of a trojan or other back door vulnerability that he installed on the system? It doesn't sound like it from the article, but then again, it isn't ruled out.
I can see fining him for security costs if there was evidence that lead them to believe that their system was now more vulnerable directly because of his actions, but if there is no evidence of that, why should he be fined in order to increase their security, which is their responsibility to begin with?
The quote shows up on other sources as well on google. The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
There are something like 92 pictures on that page. I don't think his personal wiki is going to be able to survive the onslaught of /. readers. May want to corel cache that next time.
http://beta.ivancover.com.nyud.net:8090/wiki/index.php/Eee_PC_Internal_Upgrades
Hopefully it gets all of the pictures.
What are the ties between Scientology and Landmark? Erhard took Scientology's teachings, adapted them to a different market as Est, and Est lives on through Landmark? Unfortunately, my father has gotten involved with Landmark, and I'm at a loss as to how to convince him it is a horrible idea.
I enjoyed Cloverfield, what I saw of it. The problem I had was that I didn't anticipate it making me motion sick. They really don't give you any clue in the trailers that it's going to be full of a jolty, sudden, quick movement. It seems obvious enough in hindsight, that "Hey, a movie filmed from the point of view of somebody's home video camera *might* just make you motion sick, dummy." On the other hand, I haven't really seen anything with that type of shooting, so I feel like they could have given me a little warning.
A little history: I get simulation sickness from first person shooters. I used to be able to play them with no difficulties, besides maybe a game here and there (I seem to recall Hexen being one of the first to bother me). After a break from gaming, I came back to discover I'd pretty much lost all tolerance for FPSs. It might be possible to build a tolerance back up, I don't know. Being nauseous isn't fun, so I haven't really attempted it. Dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) and meclizine both made me drowsy, so I gave up on it.
I don't get seasickness.
Anyways, my point is, if you get simulation sickness, you may want to skip this one, or bring some dimenhydrinate or meclizine along. I made it maybe 45 minutes or an hour into the movie (run time is 1h 30m) before I had to keep my eyes closed.
It is a genetic mutation that causes the prion to be generated in the first place! The defective genetics cause the defective prion protein to be created, which then causes other healthy prion protein to change into harmful prion protein in a cascade. Ask yourself: Where did the harmful prion come from to begin with?
I know this is wikipedia, and that it doesn't reference its source, but:
Mad cow disease aka Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a type of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease#Infectious_agent
TSEs aka prion diseases are caused by "[m]utations in the PRNP gene."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmissible_spongiform_encephalopathy#Genetics
I am aware that you can transmit the prion diseases by consumption of diseased animal, and that the recent scares have been from the feeding of diseased meat back to cattle. My point is that cows may spontaneously develop mad cow disease due to their genetics, that these genetics spawn the first vile prion that ultimately diseases the cow, the cow which then diseases other cattle when used in their feed. The beginning of the disease is the genetics, the rest is epidemic.
My point was that defective cow dna can cause real problems for us. (Cow dna -> defective allele -> mad cow disease -> bad meat -> CJB in humans). I've already read up on it, so if you would like to point out where I am wrong so I can either stand corrected or refute your argument, please do.
Mad cow disease can be caused by a problem with an allele in the cow's DNA.
There may be a link between eating Mad cow disease tainted meat and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/10/27/nbse527.xml)
So, if a cow's DNA was to become damaged, and we were to replicate that cow on a large scale, and then feed that meat to a large number of people, we could be poisoning the population.
I've never played shadowrun 3rd ed. My gaming group just recently started playing shadowrun 4th edition. We haven't been playing it long enough for me to form an overall opinion on the system, but one thing sticks out at me as problematic: the initiative pass sytem.
For the uninitiated, each round of combat is broken up into 4 initiative passes. By default, a character has only one initiative pass and acts only once per round. However, you can get your reflexes jacked up through cyber implants (something you buy that reduces your ability to use magic) or through magic. These modifications/enhancements give you bonus initiative passes, up to +3 for a maximum of 4 passes. This becomes a problem when half of your party has 3-4 passes and the other half has only 1. For the people with 1 pass, it is as if they act only once every 2 or 3 rounds, which gets kindof boring for them. I don't know whether it is a player issue, and that next time they will know better to purchase these enhancements (I got the spell), or if it is a dm issue, and that the enhancements should be restricted to street samurai and the like, or if it is just a system issue, practically requiring the players to purchase something that should be included if it is so integral to game play.
One more thing that stems from the system is that movement is broken up over the initiative passes. If your movement rate is 8 meters per round, you move 2 meters per initiative pass, which is awesome from a tactical point of view. You can shoot and find cover, and people can shoot you and find cover. Unfortunately it gets cumbersome when you have 7 players, not to mention the npcs that you are fighting. Thats 7 characters * 4 rounds = 28 decisions on where to go, just for the players, in one round. Granted, it might not be such a problem with a smaller group...
As for dnd 4th edition, let me state first: I am not a wizards fan boy. A few months ago I was just about fed up with dnd 3.5. Every month a new book would come out, and there were constantly new classes, feats, prestige classes, and occasionally spells and equipment. These are all great things to have, except when it gets to the point where you have to know the content from 20 or 30 books to make an effective character. Anyways, onto 4.0...
I've read some of the proposed changes for 4.0, and I don't see what there is to be afraid of. They've identified a level range that is fun to play at (something like level 7 to 13?), and they aim to make gameplay in general reflect that level range. I am all for this. In 3.5, level 1 is grueling. The best thing about level 1 is level 2.
Another proposed change is to make all player types battle capable, so that you aren't drawing straws over who has to play the cleric, etc. Once again, fine by me.
With enough false domain names poisoning the squatters and an increase in unprofitable 30 day trial registrations, the registrars may decide to forgo the 30 day trials. The cost of a domain name is not prohibitive, so I can't see this making a huge loss in sales.
http://www.datamancer.net.nyud.net:8090/
Well, there are fines for operating jammers. An even harsher fine may be enough of a deterrent, and perhaps better advertising of the penalties for jamming may deter their use as well. Also, if movie theaters, restaurants, churches, etc, are allowed to use jammers, there may be a drop in the irresponsible use of jammers, as why carry around an $11k fine magnet when all your favorite haunts already do the jamming for you?
The genie is already out of the bottle on jammers. Complaining about jammers being used irresponsibly is moot. They are out there, they are being used. It is damage control time, which means crackdowns on jammer sales, increased deterrents, and/or trying to meet people who jam halfway, as most of us agree on the annoyances of cell phones. Jammers and signs advertising their presence in restaurants/theaters, laws and their enforcement to deter drivers on phones, and free earplugs with your public transit pass are all viable options for mitigating the annoyance of cell phones.
I don't see why jammers have to be such a white and black issue.
I can build a faraday cage around my building, or I can jam cell phone signals. One is prohibitively expensive when compared to the other, yet the net result is the same. Also note, it is not illegal to build a faraday cage around your building. If I can do it with a faraday cage, it is entirely reasonable for me to be able to do it with a jammer.
I'm not saying restriction free use of jammers is a good idea, where any cell phone crusader can go on their own little holy war against drivers, movie goers, diners, church goers, etc. An establishment should have to make public their choice to jam through some sort of easily identifiable sign that is a national standard, their jammer shouldn't flood into adjoining properties or outside the building's physical boundaries (not onto the sidewalk out front, for instance, even if that is within the property line), and establishments without accessible landlines should be prohibited from using jammers. Personal use of jammers should probably be prohibited outright, or at least subject to the same restrictions.
Can't the manufacturers run instant rebates?
Supposing this wasn't the first time it has happened, trying to pin a previous mishandling where nukes have gone missing (real or imaginary) on, say, the Clinton presidency, and then "finding" the missing nukes (either by simply finding the imaginary nukes among terrorists [go go president!] or detonating them [oh no, terrorists!]) around election time would be very convenient.