I flipped through a few pages (at amazon; it was already/.ed by the time I visited the link). Those star maps are ok. But for my money, by far the best guides to stargazing are the two books H.A. Rey wrote about it: The Stars: A New Way to See Them and Find the Constellations. I've never seen anyone else who actually makes stargazing as accessible they way he did -- his renderings of the consetllations actually make sense, unlike almost all the others I've seen. The books are for true beginners but The Stars also provides plenty of information to geek out on once you've figured out what you're doing. I read these as a kid 'til my copies were tattered and have never found anything better.
(Most of you know Rey by his much more famous works: he and his wife wrote the Curious George books.)
Uh huh.... and what is your take going to be Lockyer? Oh, just a small percentage you say, but a small percentage of an obscenely large number of dollars is still lots of dollars, right? Will you be buying a new Bentley with your share? Or will it be a party in your Escalade?
This is just silly. The attorney general doesn't profit personally from lawsuits brought by the state. He's a salaried government employee, with no "perks" (other than reelection) for winning big awards. If "he" wins -- and surely it won't happen before his term ends in four months, as these suits, if successful, take years -- the state will get the money.
I'm a huge fan of target funds. A target fund is a fund that's "targeted" for a particular year: e.g., the "target 2035" fund is what you'd use if you intend/want to retire in 2035. In the early years, the fund invests mostly in higher-risk, higher-yield stock market opportunities, but as you get closer to the target date, the fund moves to more conservative investments automatically for you.
I think they're ideal for people like me who don't have the time, skill or patience to keep careful, constant track of investments; who would like to invest relatively safely, but not too conservatively, with minimal effort; and who want to feel confident knowing that their investment is being reallocated more or less as it should be as you grow older without having to sweat the details. (One article I read called them the good option for people who want to put their investments "on autopilot.")
We use them for retirement (targeted 30 yrs from now) and to save for our kids' college educations (targeted for when each turns 18). We went with Vanguard for both (Vanguard Target Retirement fund, Vanguard age-based fund) because Vanguard is big and reliable and, when I was doing the research, had the lowest fees; but a lot of the big investment houses have them now, so you can check around. This recent Money article likes the ones from Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price.
The only knocks I've heard against target funds are that they sometimes (1) charge higher than necessary fees and (2) have overly conservative strategies. But the fees issue is fading as they gain in popularity and are competing for investment dollars, and it doesn't take much shopping to find pretty low fees -- e.g., Vanguard's fees top out at.21, which is pretty damn cheap; and if you want to be more aggressive than the funds that match your age, you can just invest in a "younger" target fund -- e.g., if you want to retire in 2030, invest in a "target 2040" fund.
... if Wiki simply had two spaces on the page, one for the entry and one where the subject of the entry (or a proxy) could defend him/her/itself? I don't have any brilliant UI ideas for making it fair (i.e., who gets the top part of the page, entry or the rebuttal?), but at least there'd be balance in multiple viewpoints instead of having these wars over control of the pages.
Gizmodo ran this story a few weeks ago. Still seems like the best take on the situation...
FRIDAY, MAR 26 2004 In-Flight WiFi Suddenly Safe
Boeing has developed a special system that protects airplane avionics from interference from passengers' WiFI devices using a special 'money shield.' By offering airline passengers its unlimited internet access 'Connexion' at rates between $9.95 and $29.95, Boeing is able to generate a 'Profit/Safety Phase Array,' suspending the effects of any previously claimed dangers from in-flight WiFI use by harnessing proven economic principle. The service is scheduled to start on Lufthansa flights at the end of April.
Disclaimer: I'm only a law student, not yet a lawyer. But from the standards set forth in this opinion, it looks as though you could, in fact, go ahead and use mcdonalds.com for whatever you wanted, as long as you weren't harming them commercially. In other jurisdictions you might even be allowed to go further; according to that Northland Insurance case the judge cited, other courts might apply a "balance of harms" test (i.e., balance your freedom of speech against the probable or actual harm to your "victim"). Here's what that court said:
After an insurance coverage dispute between plaintiff insurance company and defendant former insured, defendant registered two internet sites in order to showcase his complaints against plaintiff and to allow others to air their complaints. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, unfair business practices, and a claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of harms weighed in favor of an injunction. Plaintiff failed to establish a substantial probability of success on the merits; plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of confusion regarding the trademark infringement claims, and defendant's actions did not indicate a commercial intent sufficient to satisfy infringement, dilution, or anticybersquatting requisites. The public interest favored the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction...
Re:"Hanging chads"&"intent" recounts look like fra
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
... So which should it be? Assume the errors are fairly distributed and discard the manual recount, or assume the election is too close for that and recount them ALL?
I agree that the obvious answer is to do a hand count in all of the counties where the punch-card system was used. This would eliminate the bias of only recounting selected counties, while also getting the real result of the election. Only 26 of Florida's 67 counties use punch cards. (I don't know whether the aggregate of those 26 counties leans D or R, but based on Jim Baker's refusal even to consider hand counting as a legitimate means of recount -- despite the overwhelming empirical evidence -- I could take an educated guess...)
inaccuracies Re:Myth of 19,000 lost Gore votes.
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Just to set the record straight: many voters reported that they were not given replacement punch cards after erring on the first one, despite protests. In fact, poll workers in many precincts across the state (including Palm Beach precincts) were specifically told not to help voters at all, because it would slow down voting on a day of heavy turnout. Florida law states that voters should be given at least two chances to replace ballots on which mistakes are made, but clearly this didn't happen.
Also, it's worth noting that in the "sample hand recount" of four precincts conducted by Palm Beach yesterday, by far the largest number of double-punched ballots were punched in holes 4 and 5 -- namely, the Buchanan and Gore holes.
Clearly, a lot of things went wrong on Tuesday --almost all of which could have been avoided with a technologically superior balloting system. I think it's pretty obvious to most reasonable observers that a lot of people who tried to vote for Al Gore ended up having their votes either not counted, or counted for Buchanan; the issues of whether their complaints are legitimate or not, and if so, what to do about it, are obviously matters of law, but what we can say is that clearly, it's time for an upgrade.
P.S. I should also note that there's precedent for an election being overturned because of the inaccuracies of punch-card voting. In 1998 Massachusetts outlawed the use of punch card balloting because in 1996, a primary result was overturned when they went back and manually counted the "hanging chad" cards that hadn't been counted by the machine vote. (The vote count there, by the way, went from -250 to +100. Check the recent AP Wires for the full story.)
tcp-int is nice if you're faxing in the areas they cover, but their coverage is spotty. I've been using Faxaway for all my faxing; their rates are fairly reasonable ($.10/minute, and a 2-page fax is typically 1 minute), and zero fax hassle (no fax machine, no fax line, no modem sharing) since like tcp-int, you just e-mail your documents to get them faxed.
Actually I'm not hassling with fax machines for receiving, either, since I got a free fax number from eFax.com. The faxaway/efax combination has been downright convenient, not to mention cheap. My understanding is that efax now offers fax send capabilities as well, but I haven't checked out the details.
Slashdot Mirror
(Most of you know Rey by his much more famous works: he and his wife wrote the Curious George books.)
I'm a huge fan of target funds. A target fund is a fund that's "targeted" for a particular year: e.g., the "target 2035" fund is what you'd use if you intend/want to retire in 2035. In the early years, the fund invests mostly in higher-risk, higher-yield stock market opportunities, but as you get closer to the target date, the fund moves to more conservative investments automatically for you.
.21, which is pretty damn cheap; and if you want to be more aggressive than the funds that match your age, you can just invest in a "younger" target fund -- e.g., if you want to retire in 2030, invest in a "target 2040" fund.
I think they're ideal for people like me who don't have the time, skill or patience to keep careful, constant track of investments; who would like to invest relatively safely, but not too conservatively, with minimal effort; and who want to feel confident knowing that their investment is being reallocated more or less as it should be as you grow older without having to sweat the details. (One article I read called them the good option for people who want to put their investments "on autopilot.")
We use them for retirement (targeted 30 yrs from now) and to save for our kids' college educations (targeted for when each turns 18). We went with Vanguard for both (Vanguard Target Retirement fund, Vanguard age-based fund) because Vanguard is big and reliable and, when I was doing the research, had the lowest fees; but a lot of the big investment houses have them now, so you can check around. This recent Money article likes the ones from Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price.
The only knocks I've heard against target funds are that they sometimes (1) charge higher than necessary fees and (2) have overly conservative strategies. But the fees issue is fading as they gain in popularity and are competing for investment dollars, and it doesn't take much shopping to find pretty low fees -- e.g., Vanguard's fees top out at
Just my $0.02.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
... if Wiki simply had two spaces on the page, one for the entry and one where the subject of the entry (or a proxy) could defend him/her/itself? I don't have any brilliant UI ideas for making it fair (i.e., who gets the top part of the page, entry or the rebuttal?), but at least there'd be balance in multiple viewpoints instead of having these wars over control of the pages.
Gizmodo ran this story a few weeks ago. Still seems like the best take on the situation ...
FRIDAY, MAR 26 2004
In-Flight WiFi Suddenly Safe
Boeing has developed a special system that protects airplane avionics from interference from passengers' WiFI devices using a special 'money shield.' By offering airline passengers its unlimited internet access 'Connexion' at rates between $9.95 and $29.95, Boeing is able to generate a 'Profit/Safety Phase Array,' suspending the effects of any previously claimed dangers from in-flight WiFI use by harnessing proven economic principle. The service is scheduled to start on Lufthansa flights at the end of April.
I agree that the obvious answer is to do a hand count in all of the counties where the punch-card system was used. This would eliminate the bias of only recounting selected counties, while also getting the real result of the election. Only 26 of Florida's 67 counties use punch cards. (I don't know whether the aggregate of those 26 counties leans D or R, but based on Jim Baker's refusal even to consider hand counting as a legitimate means of recount -- despite the overwhelming empirical evidence -- I could take an educated guess ...)
Also, it's worth noting that in the "sample hand recount" of four precincts conducted by Palm Beach yesterday, by far the largest number of double-punched ballots were punched in holes 4 and 5 -- namely, the Buchanan and Gore holes.
Clearly, a lot of things went wrong on Tuesday --almost all of which could have been avoided with a technologically superior balloting system. I think it's pretty obvious to most reasonable observers that a lot of people who tried to vote for Al Gore ended up having their votes either not counted, or counted for Buchanan; the issues of whether their complaints are legitimate or not, and if so, what to do about it, are obviously matters of law, but what we can say is that clearly, it's time for an upgrade.
P.S. I should also note that there's precedent for an election being overturned because of the inaccuracies of punch-card voting. In 1998 Massachusetts outlawed the use of punch card balloting because in 1996, a primary result was overturned when they went back and manually counted the "hanging chad" cards that hadn't been counted by the machine vote. (The vote count there, by the way, went from -250 to +100. Check the recent AP Wires for the full story.)
tcp-int is nice if you're faxing in the areas they cover, but their coverage is spotty. I've been using Faxaway for all my faxing; their rates are fairly reasonable ($.10/minute, and a 2-page fax is typically 1 minute), and zero fax hassle (no fax machine, no fax line, no modem sharing) since like tcp-int, you just e-mail your documents to get them faxed.
Actually I'm not hassling with fax machines for receiving, either, since I got a free fax number from eFax.com. The faxaway/efax combination has been downright convenient, not to mention cheap. My understanding is that efax now offers fax send capabilities as well, but I haven't checked out the details.