As far as point two is concerned, it would make sense, if these findings hold true, that only the pyramids had this technology when one considers why the pyramids were built in the first place. Since the Egyptian Kings were considered gods, they were given the best of everything. Why not make their final resting place of the best materials using the best construction methods?
It wouldn't make sense to use such processes for the lowly commoner but it would make sense to use this process for a god's structure.
Is it really that difficult for you to give credit where credit is due, Zonk? Not only did you take the exact same title as my journal entry, you put the submission down to an anonymous reader. Throw in that you kept the exact same first line I used and your bias shows through.
Seriously Zonk, if you're never going to accept stories from me while you're on duty, at least have the guts to email me and tell me. It will save us both time and effort. This nonsense is just childish.
I then disconnected the network cable from the copier/printer and attached my laptop. As soon as my laptop booted up, DHCP provided a network address and I was on the internal network.
At my previous job, DHCP was not used for printers. In fact, you could not plug into any port and get a connection. Everything was locked down by MAC address and every printer was given a specific IP address. Even the pc ports were locked by MAC address.
Sadly, my current place of employment does not follow this rule. Anyone could do what the article talks about except that our security guard is pretty good about calling someone if a technician shows up and says they have to do something. If that happens, I am usually the one who goes down and finds out what's going on. Since I work in IT, I would know if what the person is saying is true or not.
At one point, realising that most of the usability issues were attributable to Gnome, which had taken three months to configure, staff ripped out Gnome and replaced it with KDE. The new interface was up and running within a week.
I don't (yet) run Linux but have fiddled with a Slack 10 and Debian installation but the above comment can't be good for the folks developing Gnome.
Can someone with a bit more insight explain why one would work better in the above scenario since, presumbably, both do the same thing?
Put a tag on the outside of your baggage with your name, home address, and home and work phone numbers. The airlines provide free stick-on tags. Most carriers also have "privacy tags" which conceal this information from passersby.
Put the same information inside each bag, and add an address and telephone number where you can be reached at your destination city.
If you do a search for 'luggage airline put destination' in Google, you will see the same information is posted to airline sites, sites for seniors, etc.
annual losses of one billion US dollars for the world's airlines in missing and mishandled baggage.
One thing that passengers can do to limit lost/misplaced/mishandled luggage is to put a sheet with your itinerary in with your checked luggage. Include your name, home address, home phone number, cell number (if you have a cell), your flight number (both out and back) your departure and destination airports, times, where you are staying, and their phone number.
Going on the presumption that the person rooting through your luggage is doing so because it has been mishandled and not because of some bogus random check to see if you're a terrorist in waiting, your luggage should get to you within a short time. Should being the optimum word.
I've never had any luggage mislaid but then I haven't flown since 9/11 and hadn't done that much to begin with. Regardless, I would take a window seat and watch as they loaded the luggage. When I saw my bag, I would jokingly say, "Ok, my stuff's on board. We can leave now."
Glad to hear that you've finally seen the light. As a fellow GOPer (registered as such but not necessarily in political agreement) I have long not voted the party line but rather for the person. I even worked for Perot when he ran which I'm sure put me on some GOP hitlist.:)
As far as Bush and Cheney are concerned, there are numerous blogs, articles and whatnot out there which describe how people like Dennis Feith and other hawks are manipulating things to make the U.S. the sole power in the world. Not just superpower, militarily, but power as in "We'll tell you what to do" power.
Certainly some of these writings are from conspiracy wackos but others are written by seasoned journalists who document and provide evidence for everything they write. In fact, this article from Asia Times Online, discusses Bush's willingness to ignore both the Study Group recommendations and his avoidance of talking with Syria and Iran.
Let me put it this way. When I first heard Bush say that Iraq had wmds I knew he was lying. I knew Iraq didn't have all these tons of weapons lying around nor have the capacity to produce any such weapons on a moments notice.
Which begs the question: if I knew there were no weapons there, how could this administration not have known there were no weapons there? Further, even when the UN inspectors were doing their inspections (contrary to what some people have said never took place), the U.S. was giving them specific sites to inspect because we "know that he [Saddam] has them" yet not one facility ever produced any evidence that banned weapons were there. That should have sent red flags up all over the place so either Bush ignored these warnings and was determined to "stay the course" or he had already made up his mind to invade Iraq before this whole thing started and the case for wmds was simply a front.
What is really disturbing is that by January or February of 2007, more american lives will have been lost in Iraq than were killed on September 11th. Put another way, Bush, by his actions, will have killed more americans than did Bin Laden. You do remember Bin Laden, don't you? The guy Bush has called irrelevant.
I will make this prediction. Before Bush leaves office, the vast majority of troops will have been pulled from Iraq so Bush will be able to (again) declare, "Mission Accomplished". It will then be left for the incoming president to figure out a way to extract the remaining troops, under fire no less, and not make it look like a retreat. Thus, the onus of failure will not taint Bush's record for posterity, regardless of the facts.
Yup, you're absolutely correct. As soon as I read what you wrote, the episode where the Ferengi had taken over the Enterprise and Riker had to explain how to manipulate the engines came to mind. That's the one where Picard and others had been regressed to an early childhood.
The other episode that comes to mind is the one with the Binars. Data is sitting at one of the seats trying to decipher the code and near the end of the show it is Picard and Riker who sit at the chairs and together, figure out how the code works.
Anyone who has ever watched Star Trek:TNG knows that the two people at the helm, the ones doing the work, sit in a reclined position while those giving the orders sit in an upright position. Behind them are those that have to stand all day because they didn't have enough room to put in extra seats on the new, improved and larger, Enterprise compared to the original ship.
*checks his pockets* Sorry, don't seem to have a phone on me. Oh that's right, now I remember, I DON'T HAVE A CELL PHONE MORON!
Why is it that people assume everyone has every worthless gadget out there? I know it's hard to believe but there are those of us who don't have a cell phone, don't need a cell phone and don't want a cell phone.
Just like there are those of us who don't have that insecure Flash product installed on our computers, don't need to have Flash installed and don't want to have Flash installed.
Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for our negative savings rate.
How hard is it for someone to look at the sticker to see where a product is made and not buy it if it's made in China? Yes, I'm well aware that 94.872% of all products sold in this country are made in China but that does not change the fact that not buying a product made in that country would do several things:
1) It would deprive the Chinese government of currency to continue their polices 2) It would deprive the workers of payment for the goods they produced, thus, hopefully, leading to them making demands on their government 3) It would cause stores to change their purchasing policies because they would know that products made in China wouldn't sell 4) It would help to reduce our trade deficit
As far as what is crap, how about all the little tchotchkes that people buy when they go on vacation? Things like shot glasses with name of the place they stayed in, all those stuffed Ty dolls that were so big years ago but which now are only good for filling landfills or for burning in furnaces and other related items.
I'm not talking about things like clothes, specialty foods and whatnot, those are necessity items since they allow us to live comfortably. But a chocolate fountain, no matter how cool it looks the one time you use it, isn't necessary.
I realize that my definition of crap is different than your definition of crap but people need to take a look at what they're buying and ask themselves, "Do I need this?" and "How often will I use it?"
Those two questions would go along way towards stopping the purchasing of crap.
I find it somewhat unlikely that the problems of the world are going to be solved by buying less stuff, infact the immediate economic impact would be highly damaging if 'we stop buying stuff we don't need'.
Because the problems of the world are being solved by continuing to buy products from countries which have huge human rights abuses, suppression of free speech and religion and all the other related matters, right?
Not buying products that we don't need from these countries would have an immediate economic impact because these countries would have massive unemployment which would probably cause the people to demand changes.
High savings can be just as damaging to the economy as high borrowings
Except that there is no savings in this country. Currently, we have a negative savings rate. This means that the current economic resilience is being sustained by people buying crap they don't need and not having a reserve in case something happens (job loss, serious medical condition, etc).
The OP is correct. We buy tons of crap we don't need. Go to any flea market or yard sale and look at what is being offered. I've said for years that the only reason the economy keeps going is because of all the useless crap that people buy.
What I meant was, when things like the Germany incident happen, various groups jump and down screaming, "It's the video games! Ban them!". However, when someone like Andrea Yates goes and kills their kids because God told them to do so, no one jumps up and down screaming, "It's the bible! Ban it!"
Instead, what happens is the person is sent for a mental evaluation and is usually, but not always, declared mentally unstable.
Characterize that with the Columbine incident and you'll hear that they were misguided people who were swayed to action by playing violent video games.
when things like this happen, video games are blamed but when someone claims they killed/attacked someone because God told them to do it, the bible isn't blamed?
And then I realized, it's from 6 days ago when I posted the exact same story in my journal. On top of which I had also checked it off to be a possible story and the editors of course rejected it.
Slashdot, where the news is stale, the editors don't edit and geeks still can't get a girlfriend.
Some credit was given to the internet for high voter turnout in this month's elections... how is that bad thing?
It's a bad thing because it means that merely relying on a party's base to come out and vote isn't enough. In the most recent election, the Republicans had a higher number of their people turn out than did the Democrats.
However, the large independent vote is what turned the tide. Independent voters turned out in higher numbers than in previous midterm elections and voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.
So yes, high voter turnout is a bad. But only if you're one of the two major parties because it screws with your polling numbers. Witness Karl Rove's pronouncement that the entire media world was wrong when it was saying there would be a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate because he, Karl Rove, was looking at 68 polls a week and he had "THE" math to show that Republicans would hold onto both houses. Partial transcript
But what about the communications structure that lets terrorists communicate over a wide area?
Israel couldn't knock out Hezbollah's tv station during the 34 day conflict nor could they disrupt the communications between Nasrallah and the troops in the field. For a good read on how Hezbollah defeated Israel, please see this journal entry which links to a three-part article from Asia Times Online.
I'm not trying to karma whore so please don't give me mod points. I'm just pointing out articles which answer the posters question.
In my case, since I work for the Commonwealth, everything is negotiated. The Commonwealth negotiates with the various medical insurers for whatever the best rate they can get.
What's interesting is that I do know what the prices for the services were and what the doctor was paid because my dental provider provided that info on my billing statement.
Regardless, insurance as a whole sucks. It's essentially legalized organized crime. You can't drive a car in most states without insurance and people like me who never use it are just pissing money away. The same with medial insurance. The vast majority of people will never use it but will continue to be robbed blind by paying the premiums.
Which is the wrong way to look at it. Either you're paying the premiums to cover you for medical expenses, regardless of what that expense might be, or you're throwing money down the hole in the off chance that someday, somehow, you'll get hit crossing the street.
I don't like paying for something and not getting anything in return. I especially don't like it when the taxpayers, already burdened with a high tax load, are paying for something and not getting anything in return.
Either the medical insurance industry is going to cover you when you pay premiums or they're not. This half-assed way of covering you onetime but not another is pathetic. Considering I don't use the medical insurance, the amount the company has garnered from the taxpayers was more than enough to cover this one time deal multiple times over.
You have things backwards. The purpose of a company selling healthcare is not to actually pay for services, but rather to drain the coffers of those who pay them.
For example, my employer (the people of the Commonwealth actually), pays for the majority of my medical insurance with a small amount being deducted from my pay. I had to have wisdom teeth pulled earlier this year.
My dental insurance would pay for the novacaine but not the nitrous oxide. Nor would they pay for me to be put comletely under. Over to my medical the oral surgeon went.
Sure, the medical insurance would pay for it, but only if the teeth were impacted. Which they weren't. Silly me, I thought this was the 21st century where the comfort of the patient to be involved rather than the 5th century where you are given as much ale as you can drink then a clonk on the head before surgery.
Alas, for the thousands of dollars the taxpayers pay to cover me, I ended up paying for almost the entire operation. The only thing that my dental covered was the doctor's fee and the initial x-rays. At a reduced rate to the doctor no less.
What I paid out of my own pocket was more than what the medical insurance paid for and I can't even deduct it from my taxes.
So all that money the taxpayers pay for me to be covered went straight to the insurance company's pockets. The proverbial black hole.
Medical insurance, unless you have some severe, traumatic injury, is a worthless investment. You're better off investing what you would pay in premiums to a company in a good mutual fund and use the money when/if you need it.
I suggest programmers introduce one that is clearly visible or change the color of the location bar background when such a site is hit.
The clearly visible one would be better since there are people who are completely color-blind (i.e. see things only in shades of gray) or who are color-blind to certain colors.
A combination of what you suggest would be the most effective way of getting someones attention since it would be color-independent. Have the address bar flash between two different colored backgrounds which could be readily discerned to those who are color-blind yet understood by everyone else. How about red and yellow. They would show up to color-blind folks as dark gray and light gray.
Or, have an actual warning message appear and overwrite the page with a message about the page not being a real page and do you want to continue, then showing the real page if someone says yes, they want to proceed.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as point two is concerned, it would make sense, if these findings hold true, that only the pyramids had this technology when one considers why the pyramids were built in the first place. Since the Egyptian Kings were considered gods, they were given the best of everything. Why not make their final resting place of the best materials using the best construction methods?
It wouldn't make sense to use such processes for the lowly commoner but it would make sense to use this process for a god's structure.
Seriously Zonk, if you're never going to accept stories from me while you're on duty, at least have the guts to email me and tell me. It will save us both time and effort. This nonsense is just childish.
At my previous job, DHCP was not used for printers. In fact, you could not plug into any port and get a connection. Everything was locked down by MAC address and every printer was given a specific IP address. Even the pc ports were locked by MAC address.
Sadly, my current place of employment does not follow this rule. Anyone could do what the article talks about except that our security guard is pretty good about calling someone if a technician shows up and says they have to do something. If that happens, I am usually the one who goes down and finds out what's going on. Since I work in IT, I would know if what the person is saying is true or not.
I don't (yet) run Linux but have fiddled with a Slack 10 and Debian installation but the above comment can't be good for the folks developing Gnome.
Can someone with a bit more insight explain why one would work better in the above scenario since, presumbably, both do the same thing?
Put a tag on the outside of your baggage with your name, home address, and home and work phone numbers. The airlines provide free stick-on tags. Most carriers also have "privacy tags" which conceal this information from passersby.
Put the same information inside each bag, and add an address and telephone number where you can be reached at your destination city.
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/publications/bagtip s.htm
If you do a search for 'luggage airline put destination' in Google, you will see the same information is posted to airline sites, sites for seniors, etc.
Okie, point taken. Bush has already surpassed the number of americans killed on 9/11.
I guess I just took the casualty figures for that day and forgot that there were many non-americans who also lost their lives.
Thanks for pointing that out and reminding me.
One thing that passengers can do to limit lost/misplaced/mishandled luggage is to put a sheet with your itinerary in with your checked luggage. Include your name, home address, home phone number, cell number (if you have a cell), your flight number (both out and back) your departure and destination airports, times, where you are staying, and their phone number.
Going on the presumption that the person rooting through your luggage is doing so because it has been mishandled and not because of some bogus random check to see if you're a terrorist in waiting, your luggage should get to you within a short time. Should being the optimum word.
I've never had any luggage mislaid but then I haven't flown since 9/11 and hadn't done that much to begin with. Regardless, I would take a window seat and watch as they loaded the luggage. When I saw my bag, I would jokingly say, "Ok, my stuff's on board. We can leave now."
As far as Bush and Cheney are concerned, there are numerous blogs, articles and whatnot out there which describe how people like Dennis Feith and other hawks are manipulating things to make the U.S. the sole power in the world. Not just superpower, militarily, but power as in "We'll tell you what to do" power.
Certainly some of these writings are from conspiracy wackos but others are written by seasoned journalists who document and provide evidence for everything they write. In fact, this article from Asia Times Online, discusses Bush's willingness to ignore both the Study Group recommendations and his avoidance of talking with Syria and Iran.
Let me put it this way. When I first heard Bush say that Iraq had wmds I knew he was lying. I knew Iraq didn't have all these tons of weapons lying around nor have the capacity to produce any such weapons on a moments notice.
Which begs the question: if I knew there were no weapons there, how could this administration not have known there were no weapons there? Further, even when the UN inspectors were doing their inspections (contrary to what some people have said never took place), the U.S. was giving them specific sites to inspect because we "know that he [Saddam] has them" yet not one facility ever produced any evidence that banned weapons were there. That should have sent red flags up all over the place so either Bush ignored these warnings and was determined to "stay the course" or he had already made up his mind to invade Iraq before this whole thing started and the case for wmds was simply a front.
What is really disturbing is that by January or February of 2007, more american lives will have been lost in Iraq than were killed on September 11th. Put another way, Bush, by his actions, will have killed more americans than did Bin Laden. You do remember Bin Laden, don't you? The guy Bush has called irrelevant.
I will make this prediction. Before Bush leaves office, the vast majority of troops will have been pulled from Iraq so Bush will be able to (again) declare, "Mission Accomplished". It will then be left for the incoming president to figure out a way to extract the remaining troops, under fire no less, and not make it look like a retreat. Thus, the onus of failure will not taint Bush's record for posterity, regardless of the facts.
Not that it really matters since Bush is already planning to ignore what the study group says. He'll just continue to "Stay the course".
Yup, you're absolutely correct. As soon as I read what you wrote, the episode where the Ferengi had taken over the Enterprise and Riker had to explain how to manipulate the engines came to mind. That's the one where Picard and others had been regressed to an early childhood.
The other episode that comes to mind is the one with the Binars. Data is sitting at one of the seats trying to decipher the code and near the end of the show it is Picard and Riker who sit at the chairs and together, figure out how the code works.
Anyone who has ever watched Star Trek:TNG knows that the two people at the helm, the ones doing the work, sit in a reclined position while those giving the orders sit in an upright position. Behind them are those that have to stand all day because they didn't have enough room to put in extra seats on the new, improved and larger, Enterprise compared to the original ship.
*checks his pockets* Sorry, don't seem to have a phone on me. Oh that's right, now I remember, I DON'T HAVE A CELL PHONE MORON!
Why is it that people assume everyone has every worthless gadget out there? I know it's hard to believe but there are those of us who don't have a cell phone, don't need a cell phone and don't want a cell phone.
Just like there are those of us who don't have that insecure Flash product installed on our computers, don't need to have Flash installed and don't want to have Flash installed.
Technology is great and all but this nonsense that people should always have the latest and greatest crap is one of the leading causes for our negative savings rate.
How hard is it for someone to look at the sticker to see where a product is made and not buy it if it's made in China? Yes, I'm well aware that 94.872% of all products sold in this country are made in China but that does not change the fact that not buying a product made in that country would do several things:
1) It would deprive the Chinese government of currency to continue their polices
2) It would deprive the workers of payment for the goods they produced, thus, hopefully, leading to them making demands on their government
3) It would cause stores to change their purchasing policies because they would know that products made in China wouldn't sell
4) It would help to reduce our trade deficit
As far as what is crap, how about all the little tchotchkes that people buy when they go on vacation? Things like shot glasses with name of the place they stayed in, all those stuffed Ty dolls that were so big years ago but which now are only good for filling landfills or for burning in furnaces and other related items.
I'm not talking about things like clothes, specialty foods and whatnot, those are necessity items since they allow us to live comfortably. But a chocolate fountain, no matter how cool it looks the one time you use it, isn't necessary.
I realize that my definition of crap is different than your definition of crap but people need to take a look at what they're buying and ask themselves, "Do I need this?" and "How often will I use it?"
Those two questions would go along way towards stopping the purchasing of crap.
Because the problems of the world are being solved by continuing to buy products from countries which have huge human rights abuses, suppression of free speech and religion and all the other related matters, right?
Not buying products that we don't need from these countries would have an immediate economic impact because these countries would have massive unemployment which would probably cause the people to demand changes.
High savings can be just as damaging to the economy as high borrowings
Except that there is no savings in this country. Currently, we have a negative savings rate. This means that the current economic resilience is being sustained by people buying crap they don't need and not having a reserve in case something happens (job loss, serious medical condition, etc).
The OP is correct. We buy tons of crap we don't need. Go to any flea market or yard sale and look at what is being offered. I've said for years that the only reason the economy keeps going is because of all the useless crap that people buy.
What I meant was, when things like the Germany incident happen, various groups jump and down screaming, "It's the video games! Ban them!". However, when someone like Andrea Yates goes and kills their kids because God told them to do so, no one jumps up and down screaming, "It's the bible! Ban it!"
Instead, what happens is the person is sent for a mental evaluation and is usually, but not always, declared mentally unstable.
Characterize that with the Columbine incident and you'll hear that they were misguided people who were swayed to action by playing violent video games.
when things like this happen, video games are blamed but when someone claims they killed/attacked someone because God told them to do it, the bible isn't blamed?
We don't need no stinkin reduced version!
I'm sure our employers wouldn't mind if we took a look at the full version.
*psst* *psst* *psst* *mumble* *mumble* *mumble*
The whole thing? Really?
My boss has told me to take the full version of my personal desk stuff home now.
Wait a second. He wants those of us in IT to act like Paris Hilton?
I'm so confused!
Slashdot, where the news is stale, the editors don't edit and geeks still can't get a girlfriend.
It's a bad thing because it means that merely relying on a party's base to come out and vote isn't enough. In the most recent election, the Republicans had a higher number of their people turn out than did the Democrats.
However, the large independent vote is what turned the tide. Independent voters turned out in higher numbers than in previous midterm elections and voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.
So yes, high voter turnout is a bad. But only if you're one of the two major parties because it screws with your polling numbers. Witness Karl Rove's pronouncement that the entire media world was wrong when it was saying there would be a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate because he, Karl Rove, was looking at 68 polls a week and he had "THE" math to show that Republicans would hold onto both houses. Partial transcript
Israel couldn't knock out Hezbollah's tv station during the 34 day conflict nor could they disrupt the communications between Nasrallah and the troops in the field. For a good read on how Hezbollah defeated Israel, please see this journal entry which links to a three-part article from Asia Times Online.
I'm not trying to karma whore so please don't give me mod points. I'm just pointing out articles which answer the posters question.
In my case, since I work for the Commonwealth, everything is negotiated. The Commonwealth negotiates with the various medical insurers for whatever the best rate they can get.
What's interesting is that I do know what the prices for the services were and what the doctor was paid because my dental provider provided that info on my billing statement.
Regardless, insurance as a whole sucks. It's essentially legalized organized crime. You can't drive a car in most states without insurance and people like me who never use it are just pissing money away. The same with medial insurance. The vast majority of people will never use it but will continue to be robbed blind by paying the premiums.
Which is the wrong way to look at it. Either you're paying the premiums to cover you for medical expenses, regardless of what that expense might be, or you're throwing money down the hole in the off chance that someday, somehow, you'll get hit crossing the street.
I don't like paying for something and not getting anything in return. I especially don't like it when the taxpayers, already burdened with a high tax load, are paying for something and not getting anything in return.
Either the medical insurance industry is going to cover you when you pay premiums or they're not. This half-assed way of covering you onetime but not another is pathetic. Considering I don't use the medical insurance, the amount the company has garnered from the taxpayers was more than enough to cover this one time deal multiple times over.
You have things backwards. The purpose of a company selling healthcare is not to actually pay for services, but rather to drain the coffers of those who pay them.
For example, my employer (the people of the Commonwealth actually), pays for the majority of my medical insurance with a small amount being deducted from my pay. I had to have wisdom teeth pulled earlier this year.
My dental insurance would pay for the novacaine but not the nitrous oxide. Nor would they pay for me to be put comletely under. Over to my medical the oral surgeon went.
Sure, the medical insurance would pay for it, but only if the teeth were impacted. Which they weren't. Silly me, I thought this was the 21st century where the comfort of the patient to be involved rather than the 5th century where you are given as much ale as you can drink then a clonk on the head before surgery.
Alas, for the thousands of dollars the taxpayers pay to cover me, I ended up paying for almost the entire operation. The only thing that my dental covered was the doctor's fee and the initial x-rays. At a reduced rate to the doctor no less.
What I paid out of my own pocket was more than what the medical insurance paid for and I can't even deduct it from my taxes.
So all that money the taxpayers pay for me to be covered went straight to the insurance company's pockets. The proverbial black hole.
Medical insurance, unless you have some severe, traumatic injury, is a worthless investment. You're better off investing what you would pay in premiums to a company in a good mutual fund and use the money when/if you need it.
The clearly visible one would be better since there are people who are completely color-blind (i.e. see things only in shades of gray) or who are color-blind to certain colors.
A combination of what you suggest would be the most effective way of getting someones attention since it would be color-independent. Have the address bar flash between two different colored backgrounds which could be readily discerned to those who are color-blind yet understood by everyone else. How about red and yellow. They would show up to color-blind folks as dark gray and light gray.
Or, have an actual warning message appear and overwrite the page with a message about the page not being a real page and do you want to continue, then showing the real page if someone says yes, they want to proceed.