It's interesting that a human could receive image data and be unable to remember what it means, but receive touch data and be able to remember its meaning.
You misunderstand autism. This has nothing to do with memory. Autistic people do not have the facial expression recognition algorithms that most humans have. So someone has implemented such an algorithm on a computer, and then the computer tells the autistic person what the expression means.
If this interaction is correct, then a big high five to the geniuses that found the vibration communication channel into autistic minds. Of course if this is not the case, how will a vibrator help?
The problem was no how to communicate with autistic minds. The vibration is irrelevant. This would work fine with a light, a sound, or a big glowing sign that says "shut up dummy, you are boring them to death!" The point is that the input is unambiguous. Unfortunately, facial expressions are very ambiguous.
It comes from the fact that politicians in southern border states tend to favor things like amnesty for illegal immigrants, while continuing to hold-up legal immigration from the north. They seek to gain a whole lot if constituents if they can fast-track illegal immigrants into becoming citizens.
This could result in a big semantic argument over the meaning of "emulated" much like similar discussions about WINE. (I even found a FAQ that says WINE stands for "WINdows Emulator" when it stands for the exact opposite: "Wine is Not an Emulator")
DOS is not emulated in modern Windows. There are DOS emulators such as DOSBox which is much better at running pre-Pentium DOS apps than Windows is. Really, today, the Windows "command prompt" is really just a modern command-shell. It runs DOS apps by swapping to virtual 86 "real mode" and providing a DOS-compatible API that maps to modern functions as much as is possible. But there are limitations to what it can safely and securely permit.
Perhaps you meant that Microsoft has not made a major tecnhology shift in over 5 years. But that would merely support the point the original poster was trying to make.
simple concept (watch videos at higher resolution)
It's even simpler than that, because DVDs today can already do higher resolutions. There's nothing in the DVD spec that limits you to 480 lines.
The only complexity is storage capacity. But with the improved compression of MPEG-4 over MPEG-2, you could probably fit 1280x720 (or maybe 1920x1080 in some cases) video onto the same DVD media we use today. Many DVD players today already can play MPEG-4 disks (WMV, AVI, MP4, etc.) so it won't be a big expense for the manufacturers.
So someone should just take MPEG-4, spec-out some new resolutions, and call it DVD-Ultra or something cool sounding. This might even happen as a de-facto standard before Blu-Ray or HD-DVD come-out, because there's no new technology or additional expense required.
This keeps coming up because nobody on the internet botherws with self-governance. Yet it is those same people who complain every time a politician proopses something like this. There is already a standard content-rating system that allows sites to rate themselves. Internet Explorer has supported filtering based on that at least as far back as IE 4.0. It's too bad that Mozilla does not, especially because it is becoming popular amongs the Mom & Pops who are trying to avoid spyware.
Censorship of the internet is inevitable, and it is going to be a pain since every government is going to have a different set of rules. If everybody just stuck the RSAC or ICRA tags on their pages then we would have a strong argument about why this isn't necessary. Or at least, we could make the laws uniformly require that sites use the standard, rather than enforcing their own regulation. It would put the power back in the hands of the parents.
That's a great analogy, but there is one crucial difference between X11 and Javascript: X11 was designed in an academic environment, while JavaScript + AJAX evolved in a de-facto way alongside HTML.
You could write Widgets to run on AJAX just like you could on X11, but it will be really tough since AJAX is not a standard, and it wasn't intended for that purpose. It's just not a solid basis. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it won't be pretty. I'm not sure that such a widget library will ever be truly reliable given the willingness we've seen of browser manufacturers *coughMicrosoftcough* to blatently disregard standards.
This is very important question! The answer lies in the difference between Copyright and Contract.
A Copyright is a license that applies to a work and allows the copyright holder to dictate the circumstances upon which a work may be copied. Examples of copyrights are the GPL, LGPL, Creative Commons, and the good old "All rights reserved" which is the default. A copyright can ONLY state conditions regarding copying. It cannot state anything about reverse-engineering, reselling, writing reviews of the product, disclosing benchmarks, etc.
A Contract is a license that applies to anything at all and allows the two parties to agree to anything at all, but requires legally-binding proof that both parties agree (such as a signature, witnesses, etc). Examples of contracts are employment contracts, purchase orders, etc. A contract can state anything. In the case of software, a contract could state that the user cannot reverse-engineer it, publish benchmarks about it, write revews, etc.
Granting of rights:
Suppose I write some software, copyright it, and I give you a copy. You can do anything you want with it EXCEPT copy it.
A copyright grants rights to the consumer. My copyright could say that "The author grants you the right to make infinite copies" or "The author grants you the right to make copies so long as you include the source code" or "The author grants you the right to make copies so long as you don't reverse-engineer it." In neither case did copyright place any restrictions upon you. You can still reverse-engineer the software if you want! You just can't copy it if you do.
A contract removes rights from the signer. If I make you sign a contract, that contract could say that "The author denies you the right to reverse-engineer this software." In this case the contract took away a right you already had. You can't reverse-engineer the software at all.
Your original question - why is this good news?
How is this different from a shrinkwrap license? But those are bad, and the CC license is good, and they share the same ambush-applicability feature.
Yes, the CC license is good because copyrights are good, because they grant rights to the users of the work. You buy the product from the store without knowing about the copyright. So you must assume you cannot copy the product at all in any way because that is the default rights you have. But you open the package and are ambushed with the good news that it is GPL so you CAN copy it so long as you give out the source code along with it. Yaaaay!
But shrink-wrap licenses are bad because you buy the product from the store without knowing about the license. So you assume that you can reverse-engineer the application and write a benchmark on it. But you open the package are are ambushed with the bad news that you CANNOT benchmark it or reverse-engineer it. Booo!
Mod down this alarmist. Records are subpoenaed all the time in criminal cases. There's nothing special about this case whatsoever. This shouldn't even be on Slashdot since this happens every single day.
I've maintained before that Google retains far too much information to make the use of Gmail anything less than a full-blown privacy nightmare.
Google doesn't claim that your email will remain private against government subpoenaes! Why does that make it a privacy nightmare? Hint: If you don't want it to be evidence against you, don't store it unencrypted on private company email servers. On a related note, don't write it down and lock it in a drawer, don't hide it under the mattress, and don't put it in a safe deposit box under your name. None of these things are safe from a subpoena.
And before you start, please don't object that the person affected is a defendant in a criminal proceeding, because that's quite beside the point.
Actually, that is the entire point. I would agree with you if this were Google being pressured or requested to give the information. But this was done with the proper documentation from a judge in a court of law. The fact that you hand wave it away and blame Google is quite beside the point.
The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!!
I've seen companies that have syadmins spend who their time monitoring employees and sacking the ones who use gmail from work, post to Slashdot, or other non-authorized activities under the guise efficiency and security. But it is really an excuse: it was cheaper to hire several semi-technical wannabes to monitor employee activities than to pay one good sysadmin to properly secure the network.
Most of the employees only have a computer on their desk to send email and use Microsoft Office. Those people don't need to be administrative users.
Where's the text of this bill? The Washington Post article skips on some crucial details:
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who.."
So it isn't a new law, it only adds to the existing penalties? I'm not sure what that really means because:
"... anyone who intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.
Notice that they drop the quotes after a few words and start paraphrasing. So what does the law really make it illegal to disclose? Also, the thing about reporters is strange. They quote a politician as saying:
"It in no way applies to reporters..."
That doesn't sound like they have a line in there that says "This law does not apply to reporters." It sounds like he means that the law applies to internal government officials like CIA, FBI, etc. That would make this completely different.
This article might be reactionary, but there's not enough information to tell. I'll wait until the actual text is available before making a judgement.
Ooh, I have a non-troll answer to this one! It is a valid question.
Slashdot seems to consist of people who are equally interested in new technology, but also smart enough to be concerned about its effects. RFID could be very beneficial. And it could be very oppressing. While most Slashdotters probably don't believe that the number 666 will literally mean anything, or that it really matters which hand it will be or who the antichrist is. But they do heed the warning that it implies. The fact that it is a Christian mythology doesn't make it any different than if it was in a modern dystopian novel like 1984. Whatever sort of fiction it is, it was forward thinking and applicable now. And so, people will be interested.
Now, back to your regularly-scheduled trollish Christian-bashing replies.
Today, game consoles compete on graphics capbility. I find that kinda funny since most people I know can't tell the difference between 640x480 and 1440x1080, can't distinguish a progressive image from an interlaced one, aren't bothered by aliasing, think 24fps isn't choppy, and can play Mario cart in 1/4th of the screen just fine. I bet the console manufacturers could support 480p, wide screen, and then upscale to everything else. Just keep it above 24fps. The gamers wouldn't notice or care.
Personally, I'm more interested in new controls and new game play innovation.
Maybe the consoles are really made just to impress the reviewers?
This is th kind of stuff that makes my blood burn, and I start re-reading 1984 again. But as with most big mess-ups in life, this requires the combined stupidity of multiple people.
First: This guy "Handler" from SANS should know full well that port scanning is not a crime. But he goes out of his way to make it look like one.
It's high time that the principles of academic freedom stop providing shields for felonious conduct or eventually the people and the government will take it away all together.
Except that research isn't illegal. And even if this weren't academic, this still wouldn't be illegal.
Student is to perform a remote security evaluation of one or more computer systems. The evaluation should be conducted over the Internet, using tools available in the public domain.
You got it. This is verbatim. Professor Packetslinger wants the students to conduct illegal activity involving port scanning and vulnerability scanning
Good thing you quoted him verbatim, because he didn't even come near anything illegal. His own blog refutes his own point! Then, he goes on to misquote the guy!
The student must provide a written report which has the following sections: Executive summary, description of tools and techniques used, dates and times of investigations [AKA break ins, our words], examples of data collected, evaluation data, overall evaluation of the system(s) including vulnerabilities.
"OUR WORDS" -- yeah, I guess he thinks that this is just enough to stop the libel suit. Jeeez!
Second: The university did the worst thing possible. They made it look like the assignment was illegal, while neither condoning the assignment nor disallowing it. If they mistakenly told the professor to stop that assignment then I would say it was an over-reaction and they could correct that. If they ok'd it with the professor then they would be good guys. Instead they just whipped-out the 10 foot poll which makes them even more guilty than Mr. Handler.
Third: Our elected officials. The issue of the legality of port scans should not even be in question if they even had the slightest clue as to what it was. But instead lawyers and judges can't agree on this point.
I just ask for any one group involved to have some common sense. Slashdotters should start emailing SANS in support of this professor.
The article links to another article, Why Johnny can't program, which is really good. That article has a good concept: That what we call "programming" is actually a hierarchy with shades of gray. C++ is programming. But is writing an Excel macro programming? How about programming a VCR? What if I write requirements and then code-gen a class hierarchy or a database schema? Programming is more than just writing code.
But the ZDNet article has the highest hype per paragraph ratio of anything I've read for a while. Web 2.0? Is that the buzzword replace Internet2? "Programming collaboratively?" And of course, AJAX & web services will make everyone a programmer. Some editor just linked a bunch of articles on similar subjects, threw in enough buzzwords, and jumped to a conclusion. Yes, everyone is now a programmer. "Sure grandma, I can set the clock on your microwave for you. I'll be right over."
I work for a place that got fed-up with Dell as a supplier. So they switched to IBM. IBM charged about twice as much for the same systems. But they gave various kickbacks so long as we only bought IBM hardware. Those kickbacks involved joint marketing, discounts on future purchases, and I don't know what else. The problem was that the IBM computers were terrible. And when all of the techies complained, the company did the analysis and determined that the kickbacks weren't worth it, even if the hardware didn't suck.
So we switched back to Dell. No exclusivity agreements. No joint marketing. No "discounts."
The lesson is this: This wasn't IBMs fault. It wasn't Dell's fault. It was our company for signing the agreements. We are now free (as in speech) and it is working out much better.
I want to know who actually manufactures the parts. Years ago, the Compudyne store brand monitors were Korean Design Systems (KDS). Today, CompUSA sells Norwood Micro parts. Who actually makes those? Does anyone know of the Circuit City or Best Buy store brands, and who makes them?
Take a look at this origami puppet. The linked image shows it with a face, but when I grew up, you would write the numbers or letters on each face (like 1, 2, 3, and 4). You can put four fingers into it. Then you can open the "mouth" horizontally or vertically. You would tell someone to pick a number. Then you would count 1 (open horiz), 2, (open vert), 3 (open horiz), 4 (open vert). Once you open it, 4 more faces appear. Maybe they have 4 colors. The person picks a color. Then, you unfold whichever face has that color written on it. Then, a fortune is written on that fold.
There are lots of variations. I know it is still a common schoolyard thing for American pre-teens. The joke is only funny if you picture someone going through the motions as you read the post.
I checked with the Ministry of Truth and apparently this information is incorrect. These documents have always been classified. And we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Everyone is posting how Radio Shack has "lost it's roots" and has become a consumer electronics place for cell phones and stuff. Well duh! Electronics just aren't geeky anymore, they are practical. I won't fault Radio Shack for appealing to the masses.
Radio Shack's problem is that they don't even do the mainstream stuff well. Even my mom goes to the geeky local electronics store rather than Radio Shack because she says the people there are much more helpful.
Just last week I had a salesperson at Radio Shack sell me the wrong cables (I knew full well what I needed, but the saleswoman jumped in my face and got the cable for me and I paid before I even looked). I went back not even 5 minutes later and they wanted a $10 restocking fee on an $8 cable! Then they actually didn't have what I needed (a common RCA cable extender. They weren't sure if they were out of stock or if they didn't carry it). Fed-up, I called the local store and they had the right cable for less money.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem was no how to communicate with autistic minds. The vibration is irrelevant. This would work fine with a light, a sound, or a big glowing sign that says "shut up dummy, you are boring them to death!" The point is that the input is unambiguous. Unfortunately, facial expressions are very ambiguous.
There is proof.
It comes from the fact that politicians in southern border states tend to favor things like amnesty for illegal immigrants, while continuing to hold-up legal immigration from the north. They seek to gain a whole lot if constituents if they can fast-track illegal immigrants into becoming citizens.
This could result in a big semantic argument over the meaning of "emulated" much like similar discussions about WINE. (I even found a FAQ that says WINE stands for "WINdows Emulator" when it stands for the exact opposite: "Wine is Not an Emulator")
DOS is not emulated in modern Windows. There are DOS emulators such as DOSBox which is much better at running pre-Pentium DOS apps than Windows is. Really, today, the Windows "command prompt" is really just a modern command-shell. It runs DOS apps by swapping to virtual 86 "real mode" and providing a DOS-compatible API that maps to modern functions as much as is possible. But there are limitations to what it can safely and securely permit.
It's easy to ignore that "fact" since it isn't true at all.
Windows 2000 (1999)
Windows XP (2001)
Windows Server 2003 (2003)
Windows Advanced Server
Windows XP x64 (2005)
Windows Server 2003 x64 (2005)
Source
Perhaps you meant that Microsoft has not made a major tecnhology shift in over 5 years. But that would merely support the point the original poster was trying to make.
The only complexity is storage capacity. But with the improved compression of MPEG-4 over MPEG-2, you could probably fit 1280x720 (or maybe 1920x1080 in some cases) video onto the same DVD media we use today. Many DVD players today already can play MPEG-4 disks (WMV, AVI, MP4, etc.) so it won't be a big expense for the manufacturers.
So someone should just take MPEG-4, spec-out some new resolutions, and call it DVD-Ultra or something cool sounding. This might even happen as a de-facto standard before Blu-Ray or HD-DVD come-out, because there's no new technology or additional expense required.
This keeps coming up because nobody on the internet botherws with self-governance. Yet it is those same people who complain every time a politician proopses something like this. There is already a standard content-rating system that allows sites to rate themselves. Internet Explorer has supported filtering based on that at least as far back as IE 4.0. It's too bad that Mozilla does not, especially because it is becoming popular amongs the Mom & Pops who are trying to avoid spyware.
Censorship of the internet is inevitable, and it is going to be a pain since every government is going to have a different set of rules. If everybody just stuck the RSAC or ICRA tags on their pages then we would have a strong argument about why this isn't necessary. Or at least, we could make the laws uniformly require that sites use the standard, rather than enforcing their own regulation. It would put the power back in the hands of the parents.
That's a great analogy, but there is one crucial difference between X11 and Javascript: X11 was designed in an academic environment, while JavaScript + AJAX evolved in a de-facto way alongside HTML.
You could write Widgets to run on AJAX just like you could on X11, but it will be really tough since AJAX is not a standard, and it wasn't intended for that purpose. It's just not a solid basis. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it won't be pretty. I'm not sure that such a widget library will ever be truly reliable given the willingness we've seen of browser manufacturers *coughMicrosoftcough* to blatently disregard standards.
CSS rocks. Now, if only the most popular but unreliable web browser out there supported it!
IANAL.
A Copyright is a license that applies to a work and allows the copyright holder to dictate the circumstances upon which a work may be copied. Examples of copyrights are the GPL, LGPL, Creative Commons, and the good old "All rights reserved" which is the default. A copyright can ONLY state conditions regarding copying. It cannot state anything about reverse-engineering, reselling, writing reviews of the product, disclosing benchmarks, etc.
A Contract is a license that applies to anything at all and allows the two parties to agree to anything at all, but requires legally-binding proof that both parties agree (such as a signature, witnesses, etc). Examples of contracts are employment contracts, purchase orders, etc. A contract can state anything. In the case of software, a contract could state that the user cannot reverse-engineer it, publish benchmarks about it, write revews, etc.
Granting of rights:
Suppose I write some software, copyright it, and I give you a copy. You can do anything you want with it EXCEPT copy it.
A copyright grants rights to the consumer. My copyright could say that "The author grants you the right to make infinite copies" or "The author grants you the right to make copies so long as you include the source code" or "The author grants you the right to make copies so long as you don't reverse-engineer it." In neither case did copyright place any restrictions upon you. You can still reverse-engineer the software if you want! You just can't copy it if you do.
A contract removes rights from the signer. If I make you sign a contract, that contract could say that "The author denies you the right to reverse-engineer this software." In this case the contract took away a right you already had. You can't reverse-engineer the software at all.
Your original question - why is this good news? Yes, the CC license is good because copyrights are good, because they grant rights to the users of the work. You buy the product from the store without knowing about the copyright. So you must assume you cannot copy the product at all in any way because that is the default rights you have. But you open the package and are ambushed with the good news that it is GPL so you CAN copy it so long as you give out the source code along with it. Yaaaay!
But shrink-wrap licenses are bad because you buy the product from the store without knowing about the license. So you assume that you can reverse-engineer the application and write a benchmark on it. But you open the package are are ambushed with the bad news that you CANNOT benchmark it or reverse-engineer it. Booo!
The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!!
I've seen companies that have syadmins spend who their time monitoring employees and sacking the ones who use gmail from work, post to Slashdot, or other non-authorized activities under the guise efficiency and security. But it is really an excuse: it was cheaper to hire several semi-technical wannabes to monitor employee activities than to pay one good sysadmin to properly secure the network.
Most of the employees only have a computer on their desk to send email and use Microsoft Office. Those people don't need to be administrative users.
This article might be reactionary, but there's not enough information to tell. I'll wait until the actual text is available before making a judgement.
Ooh, I have a non-troll answer to this one! It is a valid question.
Slashdot seems to consist of people who are equally interested in new technology, but also smart enough to be concerned about its effects. RFID could be very beneficial. And it could be very oppressing. While most Slashdotters probably don't believe that the number 666 will literally mean anything, or that it really matters which hand it will be or who the antichrist is. But they do heed the warning that it implies. The fact that it is a Christian mythology doesn't make it any different than if it was in a modern dystopian novel like 1984. Whatever sort of fiction it is, it was forward thinking and applicable now. And so, people will be interested.
Now, back to your regularly-scheduled trollish Christian-bashing replies.
Today, game consoles compete on graphics capbility. I find that kinda funny since most people I know can't tell the difference between 640x480 and 1440x1080, can't distinguish a progressive image from an interlaced one, aren't bothered by aliasing, think 24fps isn't choppy, and can play Mario cart in 1/4th of the screen just fine. I bet the console manufacturers could support 480p, wide screen, and then upscale to everything else. Just keep it above 24fps. The gamers wouldn't notice or care.
Personally, I'm more interested in new controls and new game play innovation.
Maybe the consoles are really made just to impress the reviewers?
War is the great equalizer. What the world should fear is that some big country might go to war rather than lose control.
First: This guy "Handler" from SANS should know full well that port scanning is not a crime. But he goes out of his way to make it look like one.
Except that research isn't illegal. And even if this weren't academic, this still wouldn't be illegal. Good thing you quoted him verbatim, because he didn't even come near anything illegal. His own blog refutes his own point! Then, he goes on to misquote the guy! "OUR WORDS" -- yeah, I guess he thinks that this is just enough to stop the libel suit. Jeeez!Second: The university did the worst thing possible. They made it look like the assignment was illegal, while neither condoning the assignment nor disallowing it. If they mistakenly told the professor to stop that assignment then I would say it was an over-reaction and they could correct that. If they ok'd it with the professor then they would be good guys. Instead they just whipped-out the 10 foot poll which makes them even more guilty than Mr. Handler.
Third: Our elected officials. The issue of the legality of port scans should not even be in question if they even had the slightest clue as to what it was. But instead lawyers and judges can't agree on this point. I just ask for any one group involved to have some common sense. Slashdotters should start emailing SANS in support of this professor.
Also, due to recent budget constraints, the craft will be controlled by an Altair.
The article links to another article, Why Johnny can't program, which is really good. That article has a good concept: That what we call "programming" is actually a hierarchy with shades of gray. C++ is programming. But is writing an Excel macro programming? How about programming a VCR? What if I write requirements and then code-gen a class hierarchy or a database schema? Programming is more than just writing code.
But the ZDNet article has the highest hype per paragraph ratio of anything I've read for a while. Web 2.0? Is that the buzzword replace Internet2? "Programming collaboratively?" And of course, AJAX & web services will make everyone a programmer. Some editor just linked a bunch of articles on similar subjects, threw in enough buzzwords, and jumped to a conclusion. Yes, everyone is now a programmer. "Sure grandma, I can set the clock on your microwave for you. I'll be right over."
Blame your company.
I work for a place that got fed-up with Dell as a supplier. So they switched to IBM. IBM charged about twice as much for the same systems. But they gave various kickbacks so long as we only bought IBM hardware. Those kickbacks involved joint marketing, discounts on future purchases, and I don't know what else. The problem was that the IBM computers were terrible. And when all of the techies complained, the company did the analysis and determined that the kickbacks weren't worth it, even if the hardware didn't suck.
So we switched back to Dell. No exclusivity agreements. No joint marketing. No "discounts."
The lesson is this: This wasn't IBMs fault. It wasn't Dell's fault. It was our company for signing the agreements. We are now free (as in speech) and it is working out much better.
I want to know who actually manufactures the parts. Years ago, the Compudyne store brand monitors were Korean Design Systems (KDS). Today, CompUSA sells Norwood Micro parts. Who actually makes those? Does anyone know of the Circuit City or Best Buy store brands, and who makes them?
Take a look at this origami puppet.
The linked image shows it with a face, but when I grew up, you would write the numbers or letters on each face (like 1, 2, 3, and 4). You can put four fingers into it. Then you can open the "mouth" horizontally or vertically. You would tell someone to pick a number. Then you would count 1 (open horiz), 2, (open vert), 3 (open horiz), 4 (open vert). Once you open it, 4 more faces appear. Maybe they have 4 colors. The person picks a color. Then, you unfold whichever face has that color written on it. Then, a fortune is written on that fold.
There are lots of variations. I know it is still a common schoolyard thing for American pre-teens. The joke is only funny if you picture someone going through the motions as you read the post.
The computer will be called CryptNet and will be used to calculate The Seed
I checked with the Ministry of Truth and apparently this information is incorrect. These documents have always been classified. And we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Everyone is posting how Radio Shack has "lost it's roots" and has become a consumer electronics place for cell phones and stuff. Well duh! Electronics just aren't geeky anymore, they are practical. I won't fault Radio Shack for appealing to the masses.
Radio Shack's problem is that they don't even do the mainstream stuff well. Even my mom goes to the geeky local electronics store rather than Radio Shack because she says the people there are much more helpful.
Just last week I had a salesperson at Radio Shack sell me the wrong cables (I knew full well what I needed, but the saleswoman jumped in my face and got the cable for me and I paid before I even looked). I went back not even 5 minutes later and they wanted a $10 restocking fee on an $8 cable! Then they actually didn't have what I needed (a common RCA cable extender. They weren't sure if they were out of stock or if they didn't carry it). Fed-up, I called the local store and they had the right cable for less money.
If you are in Baltimore, Baynesville Electronics is awesome
I then called my local shop and they had the item, the right one, for less money. And just as a test they told me how to properly use an ammeter.