Yes, the Hatch essentially turned the regulations upside down; Previously, you could only use ingredients that had been proven safe. Afterward, you could use any ingredient you wanted...until it was proven dangerous.
Since I have no mod points today to give you, I'll just say "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" is indeed an *excellent* film that presents a refreshingly non-hysterical look at doping and supplements in athletics.
The board is really absurdly packed with political heavyweights though, to the point where it tips over from looking like "impressive board" to weird and kind of suspicious. I mean one of their directors is Henry Kissinger. Not just someone with the same name, either, the Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's Secretary of State who is now 91 years old.
No kidding! When I was reading a recent article, Theranos sound almost too good to be true, but when I read who was on the board, warning bells went off. What the hell do a bunch of political and military people know about medicine??? Here is a link to the Board of Directors. Click on the name of each to get a page about their background: http://www.bloomberg.com/resea...
I had a personal friend who has a PhD in Engineering who worked for an US govt agency with a 3-letter abbreviation. He got so fed up with the idiocy of periodically put put on a polygraph, that he quit. It seems every time it happened, they would come up with yet another bogus accusation, and try their damnedest to get a confession.
If Barbie can get one, then maybe there is hope...
on
Barbie Gets a Brain
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Rather like apples and oysters, these two. Both do CAS but in very different ways. It seems like test parameters could easily be skewed to give one an advantage. Also, the A-10 has the home team advantage because of more mature tactics/doctrine. In any event, it seems silly to choose one over the other as they have such different roles.
Then again, the USAF is looking for any excuse to kill the A-10. Sadly, the A-10 is dying because it bridges the Air Force and Army and neither side wants to pay for it; each claims it belongs in the other's bailiwick. The Warthog is too good a plane to lose to infighting; they should just bring back the Army Air Corps and be done with it.
"On 4 November 1952, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed between United States Air Force Secretary Thomas K. Finletter and United States Army Secretary Frank Pace that removed the weight restrictions on helicopters that the U.S. Army could use. It also widened the range of tasks the Army's helicopters could be used for. However, it also created an arbitrary 5,000 pounds weight restriction that limits the Army's ability to fly fixed-wing aircraft. As a result, the U.S. Army today is dependent upon the U.S. Air Force to purchase and man fixed-wing ground-attack aircraft to fulfill close air support missions."
I've had Comcast and native IPv6 since the fall of 2012, (about 6 months after they brought it up on Memorial Day). I have had no trouble with it, and about a year ago they began issuing/60 prefix delegations. An interesting thing is that since they bumped up my speed to "50Mps" (download), their speedtest website consistently shows ~41Mbps for IPv4, and ~59Mbps for IPv6. I have no idea why. Back when I was getting 20Mbps downloads, there was no significant difference.
They were available in 37" & 42" under the model numbers LVM-37W# & LVM-42W#, where # was the version number. They were 1080 LCD units, with *no* tuner. They had all the usual analog inputs, plus (2) DVI inputs and an HDMI input. I'm still using the 37" I bought years ago, wishing I'd opted for the 42".
Basically, don't talk to the police without a lawyer present. Period. I mean, I'm not going to stonewall a cop that pulls me over for a broken taillight, but if the line of questioning goes any further than what's immediately relevant to said taillight, that's when I shut up. And you can guarantee that I will be videotaping the entire encounter! Cops are under no obligation to tell you the truth about anything; it's up to you to know what your rights are in a given situation and assert them.
...to be able to have an entry in my contacts named "Spam", add the number of a telemarketer, block it, and never hear from them again. Caveat: Each time I add a number to "Spam", I must unblock, then block it. Apparently, the blocking action operates only on the numbers that are in the contact entry at the time the block is applied.
I'd like to hear him explain his regret in a little more detail. Was it morally wrong? Was it against civil ethics? Was it anti-democratic? Was it illegal? Or was it that they got caught?
Also, "is regrettable" is basically the passive tense. Does he regret it? Does he thing that the congressional oversight committees are morally culpable for not having stopped it?
Additionally, what they are doing is interfering with the operation of your own network. I think of it a little bit like a denial of service attack. You're running your network just fine and the hotel is actively launching an attack to prevent it from functioning. It seems like they could detect your network, locate you, and ask you to turn it off or leave. Actively interfering with its proper operation...I'm not so sure.
Not "little bit"; It *is* an active attack that forges packets to de-authenticate your client.
I just noticed something: While I have "Install OXS X updates" set to off, there is another checkbox for "Install system data files and security updates" which was checked. That must be why it installed automatically. But the fact the App Store updates does not show it installed it still lame.
Is that what that is?! I just saw a pop-up telling me an OS X update applied when I returned to my desk. Curious, I checked the updates and didn't seen anything new installed today. I figured it was some malware clickbait popup that came and went from inactivity on my end.
Same thing happened to me. I have the App Store setting configured to *download*, but *not* install automatically. It installed anyway. I verified it by checking the version of the ntpd binary. And the App Store update tab does *not* show it was installed.
So I went to another Mac, booted it, and immediately brought up App Store updates. It showed the update, and I selected it for installation. On that Mac it now *does* show the update is installed.
I have a 2009 Macbook running Yosemite. Note this machine was not available with SSD at the time it was sold. A year ago I decided to put an SSD in it, and being aware of the TRIM issue, I made a point to buy a secondhand *Apple* SSD from a Macbook Pro. Neither Mavericks nor Yosemite will enable TRIM on this machine.
So apparently, not only will OS X not enable TRIM on a non-Apple SSD, but the machine *must* be a model for which there was an SSD option at purchase.
Google "250-XXXXXXXA asa cisco starttls" and you'll find this is almost certainly an ASA preventing TLS as configured on the device. Since it doesn't want TLS traffic, the config is to just mangle the packets. Well known effect, been around for years (5+). The FW admin needs to correctly deploy fixup, allow TLS or simply not inspect esmtp. Simple fix, documented in Cisco doc 118550, among many other places.
You beat me to it. That's the first thing that popped into my head, too. This (for some inexplicable reason known only to Cisco) is the *default* behavior of ASA and PIX firewalls, so really it probably just means that someone that didn't know what they were doing threw a firewall in the mix somewhere. It's an easy fix, but requires messing with policy-maps, which inexperienced admins often find confusing.
Groan. At a former job we were having mysterious DNS problems. I finally discovered an ASA was the problem. The boneheaded thing was defaulting to dropping any DNS packet with the EDNS0 option enabled. EDNS0 had been around for *five* years, and we were running the latest firmware. If a fw vendor can't be bothered to keep up with the protocol standards, they shouldn't be interfering with the application layer.
I remember using ie4 on a sun Solaris box a long time ago. I was thrilled, because it was light years ahead of mosaic and Netscape.
Now? I don't care how good it is. I will never use it again. Microsoft's long established contempt for its users, laws, and even international standards bodies have guaranteed that I will never put anything even resembling trust in them ever again.
Yes, I remember downloading it and running it briefly just for giggles. There is a sort of complicated story behind it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
There used to be a chart with a nice breakdown of how much the average cable subscriber's bill goes to each of the content providers. ESPN was by far the biggest chunk, Disney/ABC took a good portion, etc. I'd love to see a recent breakdown if anyone has one.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the Hatch essentially turned the regulations upside down;
Previously, you could only use ingredients that had been proven safe.
Afterward, you could use any ingredient you wanted...until it was proven dangerous.
Since I have no mod points today to give you, I'll just say "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" is indeed an *excellent* film that presents a refreshingly non-hysterical look at doping and supplements in athletics.
He tried Theranos blood analysis and is not impressed.
http://www.mondaynote.com/2015...
The board is really absurdly packed with political heavyweights though, to the point where it tips over from looking like "impressive board" to weird and kind of suspicious. I mean one of their directors is Henry Kissinger. Not just someone with the same name, either, the Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's Secretary of State who is now 91 years old.
No kidding! When I was reading a recent article, Theranos sound almost too good to be true, but when I read who was on the board, warning bells went off. What the hell do a bunch of political and military people know about medicine???
Here is a link to the Board of Directors. Click on the name of each to get a page about their background: http://www.bloomberg.com/resea...
According to this article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Penn & Teller "Bullshit!"
http://www.220.ro/emisiuni-tv/...
"60 Minutes"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I had a personal friend who has a PhD in Engineering who worked for an US govt agency with a 3-letter abbreviation. He got so fed up with the idiocy of periodically put put on a polygraph, that he quit. It seems every time it happened, they would come up with yet another bogus accusation, and try their damnedest to get a confession.
...for the 2016 GOP candidates.
I'm thinking Charlie Sheen. Together, they've probably done more drugs than half the country combined. It'd certainly be entertaining!
I also immediately thought of Charlie Sheen...and Ted Nugent. ;-)
Rather like apples and oysters, these two. Both do CAS but in very different ways. It seems like test parameters could easily be skewed to give one an advantage. Also, the A-10 has the home team advantage because of more mature tactics/doctrine. In any event, it seems silly to choose one over the other as they have such different roles.
Then again, the USAF is looking for any excuse to kill the A-10. Sadly, the A-10 is dying because it bridges the Air Force and Army and neither side wants to pay for it; each claims it belongs in the other's bailiwick. The Warthog is too good a plane to lose to infighting; they should just bring back the Army Air Corps and be done with it.
"On 4 November 1952, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed between United States Air Force Secretary Thomas K. Finletter and United States Army Secretary Frank Pace that removed the weight restrictions on helicopters that the U.S. Army could use. It also widened the range of tasks the Army's helicopters could be used for. However, it also created an arbitrary 5,000 pounds weight restriction that limits the Army's ability to fly fixed-wing aircraft. As a result, the U.S. Army today is dependent upon the U.S. Air Force to purchase and man fixed-wing ground-attack aircraft to fulfill close air support missions."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
...then I'll be impressed.
Idiots who get wounded or killed, testing a bulletproof vest.
I've had Comcast and native IPv6 since the fall of 2012, (about 6 months after they brought it up on Memorial Day). I have had no trouble with it, and about a year ago they began issuing /60 prefix delegations. An interesting thing is that since they bumped up my speed to "50Mps" (download), their speedtest website consistently shows ~41Mbps for IPv4, and ~59Mbps for IPv6. I have no idea why. Back when I was getting 20Mbps downloads, there was no significant difference.
"You can't take something *off* the Internet; That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool!"
They were available in 37" & 42" under the model numbers LVM-37W# & LVM-42W#, where # was the version number.
They were 1080 LCD units, with *no* tuner.
They had all the usual analog inputs, plus (2) DVI inputs and an HDMI input.
I'm still using the 37" I bought years ago, wishing I'd opted for the 42".
Basically, don't talk to the police without a lawyer present. Period. I mean, I'm not going to stonewall a cop that pulls me over for a broken taillight, but if the line of questioning goes any further than what's immediately relevant to said taillight, that's when I shut up. And you can guarantee that I will be videotaping the entire encounter! Cops are under no obligation to tell you the truth about anything; it's up to you to know what your rights are in a given situation and assert them.
Absolutely true, and here is an excellent 50 minute video with a law professor explaining why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
...to be able to have an entry in my contacts named "Spam", add the number of a telemarketer, block it, and never hear from them again.
Caveat: Each time I add a number to "Spam", I must unblock, then block it. Apparently, the blocking action operates only on the numbers that are in the contact entry at the time the block is applied.
I'd like to hear him explain his regret in a little more detail. Was it morally wrong? Was it against civil ethics? Was it anti-democratic? Was it illegal? Or was it that they got caught?
Also, "is regrettable" is basically the passive tense. Does he regret it? Does he thing that the congressional oversight committees are morally culpable for not having stopped it?
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Additionally, what they are doing is interfering with the operation of your own network. I think of it a little bit like a denial of service attack. You're running your network just fine and the hotel is actively launching an attack to prevent it from functioning. It seems like they could detect your network, locate you, and ask you to turn it off or leave. Actively interfering with its proper operation...I'm not so sure.
Not "little bit"; It *is* an active attack that forges packets to de-authenticate your client.
I just noticed something: While I have "Install OXS X updates" set to off, there is another checkbox for "Install system data files and security updates" which was checked. That must be why it installed automatically. But the fact the App Store updates does not show it installed it still lame.
Is that what that is?! I just saw a pop-up telling me an OS X update applied when I returned to my desk. Curious, I checked the updates and didn't seen anything new installed today. I figured it was some malware clickbait popup that came and went from inactivity on my end.
Same thing happened to me.
I have the App Store setting configured to *download*, but *not* install automatically.
It installed anyway.
I verified it by checking the version of the ntpd binary.
And the App Store update tab does *not* show it was installed.
So I went to another Mac, booted it, and immediately brought up App Store updates.
It showed the update, and I selected it for installation.
On that Mac it now *does* show the update is installed.
This is broken behavior.
I have a 2009 Macbook running Yosemite. Note this machine was not available with SSD at the time it was sold. A year ago I decided to put an SSD in it, and being aware of the TRIM issue, I made a point to buy a secondhand *Apple* SSD from a Macbook Pro. Neither Mavericks nor Yosemite will enable TRIM on this machine.
So apparently, not only will OS X not enable TRIM on a non-Apple SSD, but the machine *must* be a model for which there was an SSD option at purchase.
Google "250-XXXXXXXA asa cisco starttls" and you'll find this is almost certainly an ASA preventing TLS as configured on the device. Since it doesn't want TLS traffic, the config is to just mangle the packets. Well known effect, been around for years (5+). The FW admin needs to correctly deploy fixup, allow TLS or simply not inspect esmtp. Simple fix, documented in Cisco doc 118550, among many other places.
You beat me to it. That's the first thing that popped into my head, too. This (for some inexplicable reason known only to Cisco) is the *default* behavior of ASA and PIX firewalls, so really it probably just means that someone that didn't know what they were doing threw a firewall in the mix somewhere. It's an easy fix, but requires messing with policy-maps, which inexperienced admins often find confusing.
Groan.
At a former job we were having mysterious DNS problems.
I finally discovered an ASA was the problem.
The boneheaded thing was defaulting to dropping any DNS packet with the EDNS0 option enabled.
EDNS0 had been around for *five* years, and we were running the latest firmware.
If a fw vendor can't be bothered to keep up with the protocol standards, they shouldn't be interfering with the application layer.
I remember using ie4 on a sun Solaris box a long time ago. I was thrilled, because it was light years ahead of mosaic and Netscape.
Now? I don't care how good it is. I will never use it again. Microsoft's long established contempt for its users, laws, and even international standards bodies have guaranteed that I will never put anything even resembling trust in them ever again.
Yes, I remember downloading it and running it briefly just for giggles.
There is a sort of complicated story behind it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
There used to be a chart with a nice breakdown of how much the average cable subscriber's bill goes to each of the content providers. ESPN was by far the biggest chunk, Disney/ABC took a good portion, etc. I'd love to see a recent breakdown if anyone has one.
Here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...
(This is a cycling computer.)
Good: It showed all the street detail, *plus* it showed the offroad trails not shown by the Garmin maps.
Bad: The navigation functionality no longer worked.