The design as given requires a ISA slot because of the type A/D converter card they selected. If you do not have an ISA slot available, I am sure a PCI based, or even a USB based analog to digital converter can be found. It would probably be a good idea to change the A/D, as the one used has a 100khz refresh rate. I am sure that there are cards out there that refresh at a much quicker rate, thereby allowing improvements in other areas of the design. Just be aware that the software would have to be modified because of the different card, but that should not be a difficult matter for anyone attempting this project.
But it was prevented by legal trickery of the supreme court.
That statement just shows how ignorant of the facts you are. I addressed this issue a few weeks ago here on Slashdot.
Allow me to reiterate, The Supreme Court did not use legal trickery. The Florida Supreme Court issued a decision that was highly partisan in nature in that the decision ignored the US Constitution's 'Equal Protection Clauses.' The Equal Protection Clause was violated in that the Florida Suppreme Court authorized a recounted that was 'limited' to a few very highly Democratic counties. Bush's lawyers was arguing for a full statewide recount.
A statewide recount would not have violated the US Constitution. The Democratic party would have none of that since a statewide recount would have included those areas that are prone to vote Republican, and possibily increase Bush's lead.
By the time the the US Supreme Court was able to hear the case two issues had become apparent. The first issue dealt with the US Constitutional question of Equal Protection. The second decision, dealt with overturning the Florida State law that required elections to be certified by a certain date, thereby limiting the amount of time to be given recounts. On both counts the Democrats lost. The US Supreme Court ordered a full statewide recount. The Supreme court further ordered that they would not intervene in Florida State Law requiring election certification by a set date as that law did not violate the US Constitution.
Most Liberals have taken issue with those decisions. My impression is this, Liberals need to get over it. There was no trickery, no 'stealing the election', etc etc that you hear Democrats and others with a 'Liberal Agenda' constantly moaning and groaning about. The decisions were made on solid legal principles that the founders of this country established. What angers Democrats and Liberals is that the Supreme Court was not "activist" in the decision. Liberals appear to "like" only those that will use their judgeships to advance the liberal cause. This is why so many of Bush's Federal Judge appointees are prevented by the Liberal Democrats from taking their rightful place on the bench.
I honestly cant wait for Bush's second term. There WILL be more Republicans in the House of Representatives. Bush's second term will be a watershed event upon the American Judicial system in that we will again see a judiciary that upholds the law insteads of making law.
file for copyright on papers from First Grade, cicra 1968, where I was practicing how to print. I will specifically file for copyright on papers where I used the letters S, C and O.
I hate America and Americans, too.
Yay anybody but the Wright brothers, on this the centennial of aviation!
And that attitude is just why quite a few Americans do not give a crap what the rest of the world thinks. But then...what do you expect from a coward...anonymous or otherwise.
Personally I am fed up with the stupid idea that the United States should kiss the ass of every other nation in the world. Too many times has the nations of this planet, including the United Nations, turned to the United States for help, only to give the big "FUCK YOU' when the United States needs assistance. It is time for the United States to pull out of the UN, and to evict the UN from its borders. It is time for the United States to stop providing all types of foriegn aid, including humanitarian aid. Let the "United Nations" pick up the slack. Maybe then the peoples of the world will realize how much the United States means to their existance.
I want to make one thing clear, I do not think the people, or government, of the United States are perfect. However, I do not think the United States deserves the bum rap that those repressive, socialist elements would like one to believe.
That is suprising. I have had my T-Mobile service since they were PowerTel. I live in Atlanta but visit family in the sticks of South Jersey. Everytime I'm there I have fairly good service. The only problem I have found up there is letting the phone automatically select the network. It seems that the signals are so weak that the phones can not lock when in automatic mode. I have no problems once I switch the network selection setting from automatic to manual. Try that. It might work up in your area of Philly.
You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. End users can not be billed for "Licensing" IP because SCO has not proven its IP infringment case against IBM at this time. Once the IBM case is settled depending upon the outcome SCO MIGHT be able to start collecting licensing fees. Until then an end user has NO reason to pay SCO one red cent. In case you missed it, which I think you have, SCO is wanting to sue end users BEFORE they have a clear cut right to the IP. As long as the IBM case is pending, SCO does not have clear cut right to that IP. Lets see SCO try explaining to a judge that it is suing an end user for licensing fees to IP technology where the ownership right are still currently being argued in court...you will see a case thrown out pretty quick. With prejudice no less.
Let me use an analogy. Suppose you are a tenant living in a house owned by someone else. You are able to live there rent free. I decide to by the house from the owner. While waiting for closing, i.e. before I take full ownership of the house, I send you a letter informing you that a certain amount of rent is due immediately. Would you pay??? Could I sue you for not paying. According to your arguments defending SCO...you should pay me, and I could sue you if you do not.
As long as the IP rights are in question, which is what the IBM case will answer, SCO can not legally ask for payment. SCO is on even shakier ground trying to sue before they have the IP matter settled. If you think otherwise you are naive as hell. Maybe you are one of those that, according to P.T. Barnum, are born every minute.
Yes you can SUE for unproven gain, which is what SCO is engaged with IBM, but I was not talking about suing. I was talking about SCO claiming licensing fees from corporations and threatening lawsuits over non payment of those fees BEFORE the IP violation case has been heard, let alone settled. IANAL...but I do not believe it is legal for one to CHARGE people licensing fees on the ASSUMED basis of winning unproven or pending legal claims. That is unlawful gain.
Basically, by threatening to sue end user corporations over use of a version of Linux that contains unproven IP violations, SCO is engaging in extortion. By legal definition extortion is "the claiming and taking, as a fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due." Since the IP violation claims have NOT been proven at this time, it is PREMATURE for SCO to claim ANY licensing fees. That fits the legal definitiion of extortion. Any funds raised through this extortion is can be considered unlawful gain.
Now as for Darl. Fact one..it should be obvious that he KNOWS the IP case is unproven, since the case has not been heard yet. Fact two...He knows that SCO ( previously known as Caldera ) had released the disputed IP in the Caldera distribution of Linux. While my understanding of IP law is limited, I do know that a company must be able to prove they exercised due diligence in PROTECTING their IP. Fact three...by releasing that Linux distribution, along with the source code, SCO, as Caldera, did not exercise due diligence in protecting their IP. Fact four...The Caldera Linux was distributed under the GPL, the very same GPL that Darl is trying to say is illegitimate. Under my understanding of copyright law, since the source code was made available to the public under the GPL, if the GPL is invalidated, then that code goes into the Public Domain, which will further cripple the IP case. SCO's case against IBM for IP violation is very weak, and Darl knows it. Fact six...in spite of this knowledge, Darl, as SCO's CEO, is pursuing licensing fees from end users. Quod erat faciendum -- extortion, and by extension unlawful gains.
You bring up that term "good faith." It is obvious you are very naive when it comes to the legal system. The legal system does not recognize "good faith." Whether one honestly believes one is right, or has the right, to do something makes no difference. It is the "letter of the law" that counts. Just look at Dr. Kevorkian, he thought he was right. Yet he is sitting in jail, guilty of murder. De facto, Darl can not claim "good faith" becasue he IS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT MAKING THE DECISIONS.
As I see it SCO is actively, and knowingly, engaged in corporate extortion. Since Darl is the CEO of SCO, and actively calling the shots, he is a responsible party.
I can only hope that a states attorney general will decide to look into this matter.
Fraud - A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
If I understand the SCO situation correctly, SCO is trying to "recover revenue from an IP violation", when in fact the Intellectual Property(IP) violation has yet to be established as having actually occured. The lawsuit against IBM is an attempt on SCO's part to establish that an IP violation has occured, particularly in terms of transferring IP from AIX to Linux.
IANAL...but...since at this date an IP violation has not been proven in a court of law, any claims that SCO makes demanding compensation for xyz "IP violation" could be considered fraudulent. This is because SCO does not have a clear and indisputable right to the IP contained in Linux. One of the reasons SCO does not have a clear right to the IP is that SCO distributed a version of Linux that contained the very code SCO is now saying infringes upon their IP rights. I feel this one fact puts SCO at extreme risk of losing their rights to the IP in question.
By claiming compensation for 'IP licensing' of Linux technology the SCO executives are putting themselves in a very bad position. While I can understand anyone being optimistic about the outcome of impending court hearings, I cannot believe that anyone would act as if those hearings have already resulted in a decision. This is exactly how SCO is acting when they make their demands upon end users for compensation. This is not a matter of "good faith"...it is a matter of legal ownership. At the present time legal ownership/rights are in question. BTW, you are naive if you believe that 'good faith' matters in a court of law.
The SCO executives are gambling that SCO will prevail over IBM. If they prevail, the IP licensing compensation will be a moot point. However, when they lose, as most expect them to, they will faced with the fact that not only do they not have legal ownership...but they did not have ownership for some time Since IP ownership/rights are in question, it would have been prudent on SCO's part to refrain from making compensation demands until the ownership/rights have been resolved. Again IANAL, but trying to sell something that you are not certain you own, would be attempting to secure an 'unlawful gain'. Therefore, SCO is currently conducting itself in a fraudulent manner.
why dont ya just get over it!!! Or how about actually finding out what really went on. And dont say the US Supreme Court threw the election, because they did no such thing. If anything the Florida Supreme Court screwed up. Let me explain.
The US Constitution has this weird idea that no one is better than anyone else, aka Equal Protection. This idea extends to election law, in that no ones vote counts more than anyone elses.
Now when the Gore realized how close the election was, his buddies in the Democratic party wanted to count just areas that vote heavily Democratic. The Repuplicans requested that the entire state be counted. First the Democrats got a judge in theses areas to approve a recount. Then the Republicans got a higher court to over turn that decision. Next, Gore's buddies appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which is predominantly Democratic, which OK'd the limited recount. The Republican Party appealed to the US Supreme Court, stating that a limited recount violated equal protection.
Now when the case was heard by the U.S Supreme court, they heard the Bush lawyers arguing for a state wide recount, while the Gore lawyers argued a) against a statewide recount and b)extenting the deadline for certifying election results ( defined by Florida law to be due by the 13th of December )
The US Supreme Court's decision therefore two parts. The U.S Supreme court agreed by a 7-2 vote that a limited recount violated the U.S Constitution. The Supreme Court decide by a 5-4 vote that it would not overturn the Florida law establishing a deadline for certification of election results, since that law did not violate the US Constitution in any way. This decision came down on a Thursday and the election results had to be certified on the following Monday. There simply was not enough time to do a recount.
Like I said Gore and his buddies and the Florida Supreme Court kissed the pooch on this one. If they would have been behind a state wide recount things might have turned out different. But what do you expect from a bunch of ninnys...
If you have instilled a sense of decency into your children porn and child stalkers are the least of your worries.
What should be taken as a serious threat is how you kids see the computer. My step daughter and I had a serious disagreement about what she could and could not do with HER computer on MY network. She felt she could download any thing ( Kazaa, Napster etc...) her little heart desired. She did not care about the consequences to MY other computers. It ended up that "her" computer was removed from the network until I could get software that would prevent her computer from being exploited by the idiots on the internet, or from inadvertantly damaging my computers.
There are several things that can be done to permit teens from doing harm to their computer, and other computers on a network. The first is to install a GOOD firewall, one that does not assume everyone is running as an administrator.
The next step is to reduce the level of priveledges to your teens log in name. Giving them a "Guest" level will prevent a lot of mischief from occuring. For example, adding or changing what programs can access the internet cannot be done except as an administrator. This prevents the RIAA from sueing you because your daughter's KAZAA program is serving up Kid Rock or EMINEM to the world.
I cannot stress enough the importance of obtaining a good anti-virus program. Get one that scans incoming e-mail.
Next is to get a program that protects your machines against spyware. I have found that SpywareBlaster, a freeware program by Wilder Security, is pretty good at preventing spyware from being loaded. A program like Ad-Aware is still needed to remove spyware if a computer gets infected.
You also need a program to "clean" the internet cache, history and cookies. Do NOT EVER REVEAL this software even exists. Cleaning is just a pretense. Use the software to "check up" on your teens surfing activities. If they are going to inappropriate sites, just use the firewall to block those sites. If you ever feel the urge to talk to your kids about these sites..DONT. Teens do not like the idea of their parents checking up on them. Just let them think the site disappeared off the net.
The final piece of the puzzle is obtaining software that will allow you to log onto their system remotely. This will allow you opportunity to update the antivirus, the antispyware, the firewall settings, etc without having to physically be on your teens system. Again, it is best if your teen does not know this software exists. Resist the urge to use this software to py on your teen. This software is just to make your job as administrator easier.
The final item to be done is to edit the desktop icons and menu selections for your teens account. Make sure that your teen has not inadvertently been given access to any of the software described above. They do not need to be able to tinker with any settings.
Once these steps have been completed the computer is fairly safe from the destructive elements of the internet, provided you keep up with the software updates.
those stupid chain letters tht friends and family members are forever forwarding to you. You know the kind...sent to so many of your friends for "good luck" or some such shit. I dont know why people forward that crap.
I am a software engineer, and spend quite a bit of time on the Internet working, doing research and such. While the idea of imposing fines on computer users seems to be a step in the right direction, I believe that the methods proposed could become needlessly onerous on the end user.
First of all, the levying of fines and disconnection from the Internet results in the end users being treated as CRIMINALS. From the description of the "detailed workings" of this plan, the end user has no way to "argue" innocence. The ISP is able to disconnect an end user from the network, without prior notification, or due process. In the U.S. this may have Constitutional ramifications. There are no appeals. What will keep ISP employees from misusing the system to get even with some end user? Is the end user without recourse in this event? Is the ISP without liablity?
Just stating in a contract that a user "maybe" disconnected is not notification that a problem exists. ISPs MUST actively involve their customers in policing the network. If the customer refuses to make the requested updates, then and ONLY THEN is disconnection from the network permissible. My ISP, Newnan Utilities , follows this model.
Secondly, someone must be held accountable for "false positives." Making an unsubstantiated accusation and disconnecting a business from the net, brings monetary damage upon that business. Like SPAM, some URLs are spoofed, either intentionally or accidentally through misconfiguration. I had this very problem some years ago. My ISP misconfigured a cable modem for a new install. When I would log on to the network, I would get an error indicating my assigned IP was already in use. The problem was resolved by my ISP in a few days. However, under your "plan" if the other guy was broadcasting virii or worms or whatever, I would get blamed for it and be penalized. I would have no appeal. I would be judged guilty without a trial even though it was not my fault. This would be a false positive, and the end user MUST have the ability to seek restitution for any losses that result.
Third, someone could be held responsible for an attack just because they were on vacation. I get this from the following, "Those responsible for permitting attacks to continue are only penalized after a "reasonable" amount of time." For example, many people like to check their e-mail just before going off on vacation. These are average people, have virus scanners, and update Windows occasionally. When they checked their e-mail they got infected. They go off on vacation for 2 weeks or more. They hear about XYZ worm that exploits Windows. When they return from vacation, they try to do the right thing. They log on, get a worm removal program from their virus scanning supplier, they get the Windows update, and they think they are safe. But wait, the next day their ISP has disconnected them from the network. Why??? The first time they used the computer after being infected, it was identified as"permitting the attacks to continue." Further more they are penalized immediately because "penalties occur only for attacks which come after such updates could have been reasonably installed," and the worm removal program they were downloading is made available on the second day of the attack, the first day of their vacation. Basically, what is a reasonable amount of time? With the scenario described, the people involved were being reasonable. But ISPs, stating this plan, would say a reasonable amount of time had elapsed and they were guilty. Supremely unfair.
Clearly end users MUST have a means to defend themselves against unjust accusations and penalties. But how? Install a log on every computer? Again, the end user gets screwed. It has been my experience that most end users do not know squat about computers. I know people that can barely use their e-mail. Asking them to locate something in a log fil
"Protons are pretty heavy particles. What would be the energy of such explosion to accelerate protons to such limits? Sounds like the parent is right: it may mean only we would have 2 large neutron stars (a neutron star and a anti-neutron star) colliding and annihilating here."
It seems like several assuptions are being made that should not be made:
Mass of material ejected -- no where in the article was any estimates made about the amount of material shed in the magnetar's flare. The mass material ejected has a direct bearing on the amount of energy required to accellerate said mass.
Intensity of onslaught-- the article does not indicate the strength of the x-ray wavefront was other than it was strong enough to ionized the upper atmosphere. Neither was the intensity of the proton wavefont indicated, which could lead to material ejected estimates. Knowing the amount of energy and mass that arrived here would allow us to calculate the energy output required.
Tightness of beam -- the article did not mention any estimates on how tight the beam of radiation was. Depending upon the nature of the flare, the wavefront of the radiation could cover half the magnetar's sky or only a small fraction. The tighter the beam the less energy required.
The magnetic fields that caused this flare are stronger than any we have observed in the solar system. Even the puny magnetic fields humans can produce are able to accelerate protons to speeds near that of light. If I recall correctly we are currently building a particle accelerator capable of accelerating gold nuclei, not just protons, to near speed of light. Why do you think a natural magnetic field, that is millions of times stronger than what we can produce, can not do the same thing?
The idea that massive amounts of matter need be anniliated to produce the observed result is just nuts.
"The energy of a radition source is decreasing with the cubic of the distance as everybody here surely knows."
I was taught that about something like that called the inverse SQUARE law.
Dont you just love it when those trying to find fault fall into a great big ole pile of hoseshit of their own screw up.
EOE law prohibits rejecting an applicant on the basis of race, nationality of family origin, religious beliefs, gender, and sexual orientation.
I dont believe that rejecting applicants based upon where they used to work is covered by EOE law. There is a sound basis for that reasoning. The hiring process, in part, is based upon the reputation of one's previous employers. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Based upon your experience virtually all work done by XYZ company is shoddy and displays incompetence. Would you seriously consider employing someone who worked for XYZ in the past?
2. Based upon your experience, XYZ company is claiming intellectual properties it does appear not own. XYZ has filed legal action against, or has been counter sued by, those companies incorporating said IP into their products. Additionally XYZ is also extorting licensing fees from end users of the various products by threatening legal action against those making use of those products BEFORE it has been deterimined by a court that IP infringement has actually occured. Further more XYZ refuses to publicly indicate what exactly what IP is being infringed. Would you hire a programmer/developer/architect who worked for XYZ company, implementing IP legitimately owned by XYZ? Would you risk exposing your company to XYZ claiming IP rights to your product?
I dont know about you...but I would not be willing to take the risk in either case.
is 'Mathematics for the Millions -- How to Master the Magic of Numbers' by Lancelot Hogben. ISBN 0-393-30035-8.
If you are looking for a book that explains why the various matematical properties and axioms are what they are, only a text for a graduate degree course would explain that stuff. However if you are looking for a "why'd they do that" then this book is for you.
Originally written in 1937 this is an awesome book. I found this book a godsend while I was in college. It is basically a history of mathematics. By giving a historical perspective, most of those mathematical "WHY" questions get answered because you can see how the mathematics evolved step by step.
It covers the basics: how numbers developed and why, how geometry developed and was used, how trigonmetry sprang from geometry, how spherical geometry/astronomy came from applying trig to navigation problems, how improvements in technology linked motion to geometrical figures that could be described by algebra, and how problems in describing motion lead to the developement of calculus. Throw in statistics being developed to try to predict games of chance for good measure.
The material is layed out with quite a bit of detail and has plenty of examples and diagrams. With this book under your belt, much of the reading suggested by others will be far more understandable.
After a few years of programming, I moved *up* to assembly language on a 1 Mhz 6502 with 64K of RAM.
These young whippersnappers...
I moved up to programming on a 500kHz 4004 with 5 kb of RAM ( 1 kb code segment and 4 kb data segment ) with a grand total of 45 assembly instructions.
Prior to that I had been programming on Greek abax, the same device that Archimedes was working with when he was killed by a Roman soldier.
I know I am picking nits here, but the actual flight status of a vehicle determines the difference between a mission and a training exercise. By all accounts the AS-204 ( Apollo 1 ) fire occured during a mock launch, i.e. a training exercise. The launch vehicle was not fueled, therefore it was not capable of carrying out an actual mission. The AS-204 fire must be considered a TRAINING accident and not a 'mission.'
While the loss of Ed White, Virgil Grissom and Roger Chaffee was a tragedy, the fact that training for space flight is dangerous was underscored. Over the years several astronauts, including Elliot See and Clifton Williams Jr, have lost their lives in training accidents, mostly from crashes involving high performance T-38 trainer jets. Their sacrifice should be remembered as much as those who died "while the clock is running."
What constitutes a terrorist attack and what is 'legitimate' guerrilla warfare?
Damn, if you have to even ask that question you are dumber than a box of rocks.
Guerilla warfare -- involves attacks by small but organized groups against a usually larger/better trained/better equiped opponent's military and/or military industrial complex. Anything that degrades the enemy military's ability to fight are valid targets. Targets of purely civilian nature are avoided as much as possible. By this definition ambushing military patrols, disrupting supply lines, committing sabotage at military bases, and weapons factorys are all valid methods of fighting. Blowing up the bank that cashs the enlisted man's pay check would not be an acceptable target because it does not directly influence the military's ability to fight. The French underground of World War II engaged in guerilla warfare.
Terrorism -- involves attacks by small but organized groups against a usually larger/better trained/better equiped opponent's military and civilian populations. By this definition any target under any circumstances is an acceptable target.
Now lets look at this in terms of what happened on 9/11. The Pentagon is a valid military target under any circumstances. A true guerilla fighter would have avoided involving a plane load of passengers in his fight. A terrorist relishes involving as many civilians in the fight as possible.
If you dont like the 9/11 reference, lets look at what has been happening in Israel for the last 60 years or so. I want to make one thing clear, I AM NOT JEWISH. I was brought up Protestant. My opinion is not shaded one way or the other in this issue. The Palestinians attack Israelis at all levels, military, public service ( police, fire, and ambulance services ), and civilians. The Palestinians call themselves guerilla fighters, or freedom fighters, but because they do not limit themselves to military targets they are terrorists. Nothing more.
Sloppy, Sloppy! Especially if you are working on a client/server or n-tier application.
Every Database has a 'users' table which is used to control who is loggin in. The applications I have designed also had a second 'users' table which contained application specific data about the user. One of the columns in this table is 'access level', which were usually integers 0-10. 0 was the lowest level and 10 was GODHOOD. Regular application administrators could be given a access value some where in between.
During the log on process, query the application users table to get the 'access level'. Code in the application is executed based upon this access level. Yes, this is more work but if you are going to do it...might as well do it right. This method has several advantages:
1. No user names/passwords are hard coded into the application. 2. Passwords can changed periodically. 3. The application can literally be totally different depending upon the access level. 4. The back door is removable. Simply change the access level for that user.
"If he uses a nuke, Bagdad will be a smoking hole in the ground and the whole world will be queuing up to take potshots at him"
If Hussein got a nuke, why would he use it on Bagdad? Kinda stupid if you ask me.
This is what I see him doing. He has a nuke, wants to use it. Makes arrangements to have it shipped somewhere. Any large shipping port is fine. He has someone loyal to him go along with it, in its container to activate the bomb when they arrive at the destination. Bomb goes off...scratch one city...maybe New York City, Baltimore, or Los Angles. Maybe Southhampton, Brest, or any other major coastal city in the world. The point is this..a nuke has gone off, and no one...I mean no one, except for Saddam, knows for sure who set it off. I hope you dont think the guy who activated the bomb can tell who did it. Do you REALLY think Saddam would let the guy who activated the bomb actually live to tell about it?
So tell me now... why would Bagdad be a smoking hole in the ground?
Slashdot Mirror
The design as given requires a ISA slot because of the type A/D converter card they selected. If you do not have an ISA slot available, I am sure a PCI based, or even a USB based analog to digital converter can be found. It would probably be a good idea to change the A/D, as the one used has a 100khz refresh rate. I am sure that there are cards out there that refresh at a much quicker rate, thereby allowing improvements in other areas of the design. Just be aware that the software would have to be modified because of the different card, but that should not be a difficult matter for anyone attempting this project.
But it was prevented by legal trickery of the supreme court.
That statement just shows how ignorant of the facts you are. I addressed this issue a few weeks ago here on Slashdot.
Allow me to reiterate, The Supreme Court did not use legal trickery. The Florida Supreme Court issued a decision that was highly partisan in nature in that the decision ignored the US Constitution's 'Equal Protection Clauses.' The Equal Protection Clause was violated in that the Florida Suppreme Court authorized a recounted that was 'limited' to a few very highly Democratic counties. Bush's lawyers was arguing for a full statewide recount. A statewide recount would not have violated the US Constitution. The Democratic party would have none of that since a statewide recount would have included those areas that are prone to vote Republican, and possibily increase Bush's lead.
By the time the the US Supreme Court was able to hear the case two issues had become apparent. The first issue dealt with the US Constitutional question of Equal Protection. The second decision, dealt with overturning the Florida State law that required elections to be certified by a certain date, thereby limiting the amount of time to be given recounts. On both counts the Democrats lost. The US Supreme Court ordered a full statewide recount. The Supreme court further ordered that they would not intervene in Florida State Law requiring election certification by a set date as that law did not violate the US Constitution.
Most Liberals have taken issue with those decisions. My impression is this, Liberals need to get over it. There was no trickery, no 'stealing the election', etc etc that you hear Democrats and others with a 'Liberal Agenda' constantly moaning and groaning about. The decisions were made on solid legal principles that the founders of this country established. What angers Democrats and Liberals is that the Supreme Court was not "activist" in the decision. Liberals appear to "like" only those that will use their judgeships to advance the liberal cause. This is why so many of Bush's Federal Judge appointees are prevented by the Liberal Democrats from taking their rightful place on the bench.
I honestly cant wait for Bush's second term. There WILL be more Republicans in the House of Representatives. Bush's second term will be a watershed event upon the American Judicial system in that we will again see a judiciary that upholds the law insteads of making law.
file for copyright on papers from First Grade, cicra 1968, where I was practicing how to print. I will specifically file for copyright on papers where I used the letters S, C and O.
I can sue for infringement, cant I???
From Visual Studio 6.0
#define EPERM 1
#define ENOENT 2
#define ESRCH 3
#define EINTR 4
#define EIO 5
#define ENXIO 6
#define E2BIG 7
So whats the big deal??? The code is NOT, REPEAT NOT UNIX IP. 'C' compiler IP yes...UNIX NO!
I hate America and Americans, too. Yay anybody but the Wright brothers, on this the centennial of aviation!
And that attitude is just why quite a few Americans do not give a crap what the rest of the world thinks. But then...what do you expect from a coward...anonymous or otherwise.
Personally I am fed up with the stupid idea that the United States should kiss the ass of every other nation in the world. Too many times has the nations of this planet, including the United Nations, turned to the United States for help, only to give the big "FUCK YOU' when the United States needs assistance. It is time for the United States to pull out of the UN, and to evict the UN from its borders. It is time for the United States to stop providing all types of foriegn aid, including humanitarian aid. Let the "United Nations" pick up the slack. Maybe then the peoples of the world will realize how much the United States means to their existance.
I want to make one thing clear, I do not think the people, or government, of the United States are perfect. However, I do not think the United States deserves the bum rap that those repressive, socialist elements would like one to believe.
That is suprising. I have had my T-Mobile service since they were PowerTel. I live in Atlanta but visit family in the sticks of South Jersey. Everytime I'm there I have fairly good service. The only problem I have found up there is letting the phone automatically select the network. It seems that the signals are so weak that the phones can not lock when in automatic mode. I have no problems once I switch the network selection setting from automatic to manual. Try that. It might work up in your area of Philly.
You keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. End users can not be billed for "Licensing" IP because SCO has not proven its IP infringment case against IBM at this time. Once the IBM case is settled depending upon the outcome SCO MIGHT be able to start collecting licensing fees. Until then an end user has NO reason to pay SCO one red cent. In case you missed it, which I think you have, SCO is wanting to sue end users BEFORE they have a clear cut right to the IP. As long as the IBM case is pending, SCO does not have clear cut right to that IP. Lets see SCO try explaining to a judge that it is suing an end user for licensing fees to IP technology where the ownership right are still currently being argued in court...you will see a case thrown out pretty quick. With prejudice no less.
Let me use an analogy. Suppose you are a tenant living in a house owned by someone else. You are able to live there rent free. I decide to by the house from the owner. While waiting for closing, i.e. before I take full ownership of the house, I send you a letter informing you that a certain amount of rent is due immediately. Would you pay??? Could I sue you for not paying. According to your arguments defending SCO...you should pay me, and I could sue you if you do not.
As long as the IP rights are in question, which is what the IBM case will answer, SCO can not legally ask for payment. SCO is on even shakier ground trying to sue before they have the IP matter settled. If you think otherwise you are naive as hell. Maybe you are one of those that, according to P.T. Barnum, are born every minute.
Yes you can SUE for unproven gain, which is what SCO is engaged with IBM, but I was not talking about suing. I was talking about SCO claiming licensing fees from corporations and threatening lawsuits over non payment of those fees BEFORE the IP violation case has been heard, let alone settled. IANAL...but I do not believe it is legal for one to CHARGE people licensing fees on the ASSUMED basis of winning unproven or pending legal claims. That is unlawful gain.
Basically, by threatening to sue end user corporations over use of a version of Linux that contains unproven IP violations, SCO is engaging in extortion. By legal definition extortion is "the claiming and taking, as a fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due." Since the IP violation claims have NOT been proven at this time, it is PREMATURE for SCO to claim ANY licensing fees. That fits the legal definitiion of extortion. Any funds raised through this extortion is can be considered unlawful gain.
Now as for Darl. Fact one..it should be obvious that he KNOWS the IP case is unproven, since the case has not been heard yet. Fact two...He knows that SCO ( previously known as Caldera ) had released the disputed IP in the Caldera distribution of Linux. While my understanding of IP law is limited, I do know that a company must be able to prove they exercised due diligence in PROTECTING their IP. Fact three...by releasing that Linux distribution, along with the source code, SCO, as Caldera, did not exercise due diligence in protecting their IP. Fact four...The Caldera Linux was distributed under the GPL, the very same GPL that Darl is trying to say is illegitimate. Under my understanding of copyright law, since the source code was made available to the public under the GPL, if the GPL is invalidated, then that code goes into the Public Domain, which will further cripple the IP case. SCO's case against IBM for IP violation is very weak, and Darl knows it. Fact six...in spite of this knowledge, Darl, as SCO's CEO, is pursuing licensing fees from end users. Quod erat faciendum -- extortion, and by extension unlawful gains.
You bring up that term "good faith." It is obvious you are very naive when it comes to the legal system. The legal system does not recognize "good faith." Whether one honestly believes one is right, or has the right, to do something makes no difference. It is the "letter of the law" that counts. Just look at Dr. Kevorkian, he thought he was right. Yet he is sitting in jail, guilty of murder. De facto, Darl can not claim "good faith" becasue he IS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT MAKING THE DECISIONS.
As I see it SCO is actively, and knowingly, engaged in corporate extortion. Since Darl is the CEO of SCO, and actively calling the shots, he is a responsible party.
I can only hope that a states attorney general will decide to look into this matter.
"ethics charges"
Maybe thats why SCO is doing the stupid stuff they are doing instead of being prudent and taking things one step at a time.
Demanding compensation from end users for IP imbedded in an OS before ownership of that IP has been determined is stuuuuuuuupiiiiiid.
Hell even Forest Gump is smarter than that.
Fraud - A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
If I understand the SCO situation correctly, SCO is trying to "recover revenue from an IP violation", when in fact the Intellectual Property(IP) violation has yet to be established as having actually occured. The lawsuit against IBM is an attempt on SCO's part to establish that an IP violation has occured, particularly in terms of transferring IP from AIX to Linux.
IANAL...but...since at this date an IP violation has not been proven in a court of law, any claims that SCO makes demanding compensation for xyz "IP violation" could be considered fraudulent. This is because SCO does not have a clear and indisputable right to the IP contained in Linux. One of the reasons SCO does not have a clear right to the IP is that SCO distributed a version of Linux that contained the very code SCO is now saying infringes upon their IP rights. I feel this one fact puts SCO at extreme risk of losing their rights to the IP in question.
By claiming compensation for 'IP licensing' of Linux technology the SCO executives are putting themselves in a very bad position. While I can understand anyone being optimistic about the outcome of impending court hearings, I cannot believe that anyone would act as if those hearings have already resulted in a decision. This is exactly how SCO is acting when they make their demands upon end users for compensation. This is not a matter of "good faith"...it is a matter of legal ownership. At the present time legal ownership/rights are in question. BTW, you are naive if you believe that 'good faith' matters in a court of law.
The SCO executives are gambling that SCO will prevail over IBM. If they prevail, the IP licensing compensation will be a moot point. However, when they lose, as most expect them to, they will faced with the fact that not only do they not have legal ownership...but they did not have ownership for some time Since IP ownership/rights are in question, it would have been prudent on SCO's part to refrain from making compensation demands until the ownership/rights have been resolved. Again IANAL, but trying to sell something that you are not certain you own, would be attempting to secure an 'unlawful gain'. Therefore, SCO is currently conducting itself in a fraudulent manner.
why dont ya just get over it!!! Or how about actually finding out what really went on. And dont say the US Supreme Court threw the election, because they did no such thing. If anything the Florida Supreme Court screwed up. Let me explain.
The US Constitution has this weird idea that no one is better than anyone else, aka Equal Protection. This idea extends to election law, in that no ones vote counts more than anyone elses.
Now when the Gore realized how close the election was, his buddies in the Democratic party wanted to count just areas that vote heavily Democratic. The Repuplicans requested that the entire state be counted. First the Democrats got a judge in theses areas to approve a recount. Then the Republicans got a higher court to over turn that decision. Next, Gore's buddies appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which is predominantly Democratic, which OK'd the limited recount. The Republican Party appealed to the US Supreme Court, stating that a limited recount violated equal protection.
Now when the case was heard by the U.S Supreme court, they heard the Bush lawyers arguing for a state wide recount, while the Gore lawyers argued a) against a statewide recount and b)extenting the deadline for certifying election results ( defined by Florida law to be due by the 13th of December )
The US Supreme Court's decision therefore two parts. The U.S Supreme court agreed by a 7-2 vote that a limited recount violated the U.S Constitution. The Supreme Court decide by a 5-4 vote that it would not overturn the Florida law establishing a deadline for certification of election results, since that law did not violate the US Constitution in any way. This decision came down on a Thursday and the election results had to be certified on the following Monday. There simply was not enough time to do a recount.
Like I said Gore and his buddies and the Florida Supreme Court kissed the pooch on this one. If they would have been behind a state wide recount things might have turned out different. But what do you expect from a bunch of ninnys...
How about taking the Worlds Smallest Politica QuizIf you can pay for it with a credit card they will try their damnedest...
If you have instilled a sense of decency into your children porn and child stalkers are the least of your worries.
What should be taken as a serious threat is how you kids see the computer. My step daughter and I had a serious disagreement about what she could and could not do with HER computer on MY network. She felt she could download any thing ( Kazaa, Napster etc...) her little heart desired. She did not care about the consequences to MY other computers. It ended up that "her" computer was removed from the network until I could get software that would prevent her computer from being exploited by the idiots on the internet, or from inadvertantly damaging my computers.
There are several things that can be done to permit teens from doing harm to their computer, and other computers on a network. The first is to install a GOOD firewall, one that does not assume everyone is running as an administrator.
The next step is to reduce the level of priveledges to your teens log in name. Giving them a "Guest" level will prevent a lot of mischief from occuring. For example, adding or changing what programs can access the internet cannot be done except as an administrator. This prevents the RIAA from sueing you because your daughter's KAZAA program is serving up Kid Rock or EMINEM to the world.
I cannot stress enough the importance of obtaining a good anti-virus program. Get one that scans incoming e-mail.
Next is to get a program that protects your machines against spyware. I have found that SpywareBlaster, a freeware program by Wilder Security, is pretty good at preventing spyware from being loaded. A program like Ad-Aware is still needed to remove spyware if a computer gets infected.
You also need a program to "clean" the internet cache, history and cookies. Do NOT EVER REVEAL this software even exists. Cleaning is just a pretense. Use the software to "check up" on your teens surfing activities. If they are going to inappropriate sites, just use the firewall to block those sites. If you ever feel the urge to talk to your kids about these sites..DONT. Teens do not like the idea of their parents checking up on them. Just let them think the site disappeared off the net.
The final piece of the puzzle is obtaining software that will allow you to log onto their system remotely. This will allow you opportunity to update the antivirus, the antispyware, the firewall settings, etc without having to physically be on your teens system. Again, it is best if your teen does not know this software exists. Resist the urge to use this software to py on your teen. This software is just to make your job as administrator easier.
The final item to be done is to edit the desktop icons and menu selections for your teens account. Make sure that your teen has not inadvertently been given access to any of the software described above. They do not need to be able to tinker with any settings.
Once these steps have been completed the computer is fairly safe from the destructive elements of the internet, provided you keep up with the software updates.
those stupid chain letters tht friends and family members are forever forwarding to you. You know the kind...sent to so many of your friends for "good luck" or some such shit. I dont know why people forward that crap.
The only fusion I was worried about in high school involved a blonde with C cups.
I am a software engineer, and spend quite a bit of time on the Internet working, doing research and such. While the idea of imposing fines on computer users seems to be a step in the right direction, I believe that the methods proposed could become needlessly onerous on the end user.
First of all, the levying of fines and disconnection from the Internet results in the end users being treated as CRIMINALS. From the description of the "detailed workings" of this plan, the end user has no way to "argue" innocence. The ISP is able to disconnect an end user from the network, without prior notification, or due process. In the U.S. this may have Constitutional ramifications. There are no appeals. What will keep ISP employees from misusing the system to get even with some end user? Is the end user without recourse in this event? Is the ISP without liablity?
Just stating in a contract that a user "maybe" disconnected is not notification that a problem exists. ISPs MUST actively involve their customers in policing the network. If the customer refuses to make the requested updates, then and ONLY THEN is disconnection from the network permissible. My ISP, Newnan Utilities , follows this model.
Secondly, someone must be held accountable for "false positives." Making an unsubstantiated accusation and disconnecting a business from the net, brings monetary damage upon that business. Like SPAM, some URLs are spoofed, either intentionally or accidentally through misconfiguration. I had this very problem some years ago. My ISP misconfigured a cable modem for a new install. When I would log on to the network, I would get an error indicating my assigned IP was already in use. The problem was resolved by my ISP in a few days. However, under your "plan" if the other guy was broadcasting virii or worms or whatever, I would get blamed for it and be penalized. I would have no appeal. I would be judged guilty without a trial even though it was not my fault. This would be a false positive, and the end user MUST have the ability to seek restitution for any losses that result.
Third, someone could be held responsible for an attack just because they were on vacation. I get this from the following, "Those responsible for permitting attacks to continue are only penalized after a "reasonable" amount of time." For example, many people like to check their e-mail just before going off on vacation. These are average people, have virus scanners, and update Windows occasionally. When they checked their e-mail they got infected. They go off on vacation for 2 weeks or more. They hear about XYZ worm that exploits Windows. When they return from vacation, they try to do the right thing. They log on, get a worm removal program from their virus scanning supplier, they get the Windows update, and they think they are safe. But wait, the next day their ISP has disconnected them from the network. Why??? The first time they used the computer after being infected, it was identified as"permitting the attacks to continue." Further more they are penalized immediately because "penalties occur only for attacks which come after such updates could have been reasonably installed," and the worm removal program they were downloading is made available on the second day of the attack, the first day of their vacation. Basically, what is a reasonable amount of time? With the scenario described, the people involved were being reasonable. But ISPs, stating this plan, would say a reasonable amount of time had elapsed and they were guilty. Supremely unfair.
Clearly end users MUST have a means to defend themselves against unjust accusations and penalties. But how? Install a log on every computer? Again, the end user gets screwed. It has been my experience that most end users do not know squat about computers. I know people that can barely use their e-mail. Asking them to locate something in a log fil
"Protons are pretty heavy particles. What would be the energy of such explosion to accelerate protons to such limits? Sounds like the parent is right: it may mean only we would have 2 large neutron stars (a neutron star and a anti-neutron star) colliding and annihilating here."
It seems like several assuptions are being made that should not be made:
Mass of material ejected -- no where in the article was any estimates made about the amount of material shed in the magnetar's flare. The mass material ejected has a direct bearing on the amount of energy required to accellerate said mass.
Intensity of onslaught-- the article does not indicate the strength of the x-ray wavefront was other than it was strong enough to ionized the upper atmosphere. Neither was the intensity of the proton wavefont indicated, which could lead to material ejected estimates. Knowing the amount of energy and mass that arrived here would allow us to calculate the energy output required.
Tightness of beam -- the article did not mention any estimates on how tight the beam of radiation was. Depending upon the nature of the flare, the wavefront of the radiation could cover half the magnetar's sky or only a small fraction. The tighter the beam the less energy required.
The magnetic fields that caused this flare are stronger than any we have observed in the solar system. Even the puny magnetic fields humans can produce are able to accelerate protons to speeds near that of light. If I recall correctly we are currently building a particle accelerator capable of accelerating gold nuclei, not just protons, to near speed of light. Why do you think a natural magnetic field, that is millions of times stronger than what we can produce, can not do the same thing?
The idea that massive amounts of matter need be anniliated to produce the observed result is just nuts.
"The energy of a radition source is decreasing with the cubic of the distance as everybody here surely knows." I was taught that about something like that called the inverse SQUARE law. Dont you just love it when those trying to find fault fall into a great big ole pile of hoseshit of their own screw up.
EOE law prohibits rejecting an applicant on the basis of race, nationality of family origin, religious beliefs, gender, and sexual orientation.
I dont believe that rejecting applicants based upon where they used to work is covered by EOE law. There is a sound basis for that reasoning. The hiring process, in part, is based upon the reputation of one's previous employers. Here are a couple of examples:
1. Based upon your experience virtually all work done by XYZ company is shoddy and displays incompetence. Would you seriously consider employing someone who worked for XYZ in the past?
2. Based upon your experience, XYZ company is claiming intellectual properties it does appear not own. XYZ has filed legal action against, or has been counter sued by, those companies incorporating said IP into their products. Additionally XYZ is also extorting licensing fees from end users of the various products by threatening legal action against those making use of those products BEFORE it has been deterimined by a court that IP infringement has actually occured. Further more XYZ refuses to publicly indicate what exactly what IP is being infringed. Would you hire a programmer/developer/architect who worked for XYZ company, implementing IP legitimately owned by XYZ? Would you risk exposing your company to XYZ claiming IP rights to your product?
I dont know about you...but I would not be willing to take the risk in either case.
is 'Mathematics for the Millions -- How to Master the Magic of Numbers' by Lancelot Hogben. ISBN 0-393-30035-8.
If you are looking for a book that explains why the various matematical properties and axioms are what they are, only a text for a graduate degree course would explain that stuff. However if you are looking for a "why'd they do that" then this book is for you.
Originally written in 1937 this is an awesome book. I found this book a godsend while I was in college. It is basically a history of mathematics. By giving a historical perspective, most of those mathematical "WHY" questions get answered because you can see how the mathematics evolved step by step.
It covers the basics: how numbers developed and why, how geometry developed and was used, how trigonmetry sprang from geometry, how spherical geometry/astronomy came from applying trig to navigation problems, how improvements in technology linked motion to geometrical figures that could be described by algebra, and how problems in describing motion lead to the developement of calculus. Throw in statistics being developed to try to predict games of chance for good measure.
The material is layed out with quite a bit of detail and has plenty of examples and diagrams.
With this book under your belt, much of the reading suggested by others will be far more understandable.
After a few years of programming, I moved *up* to assembly language on a 1 Mhz 6502 with 64K of RAM.
These young whippersnappers...
I moved up to programming on a 500kHz 4004 with 5 kb of RAM ( 1 kb code segment and 4 kb data segment ) with a grand total of 45 assembly instructions.
Prior to that I had been programming on Greek abax, the same device that Archimedes was working with when he was killed by a Roman soldier.
I know I am picking nits here, but the actual flight status of a vehicle determines the difference between a mission and a training exercise. By all accounts the AS-204 ( Apollo 1 ) fire occured during a mock launch, i.e. a training exercise. The launch vehicle was not fueled, therefore it was not capable of carrying out an actual mission. The AS-204 fire must be considered a TRAINING accident and not a 'mission.' While the loss of Ed White, Virgil Grissom and Roger Chaffee was a tragedy, the fact that training for space flight is dangerous was underscored. Over the years several astronauts, including Elliot See and Clifton Williams Jr, have lost their lives in training accidents, mostly from crashes involving high performance T-38 trainer jets. Their sacrifice should be remembered as much as those who died "while the clock is running."
What constitutes a terrorist attack and what is 'legitimate' guerrilla warfare?
Damn, if you have to even ask that question you are dumber than a box of rocks.
Guerilla warfare -- involves attacks by small but organized groups against a usually larger/better trained/better equiped opponent's military and/or military industrial complex. Anything that degrades the enemy military's ability to fight are valid targets. Targets of purely civilian nature are avoided as much as possible. By this definition ambushing military patrols, disrupting supply lines, committing sabotage at military bases, and weapons factorys are all valid methods of fighting. Blowing up the bank that cashs the enlisted man's pay check would not be an acceptable target because it does not directly influence the military's ability to fight. The French underground of World War II engaged in guerilla warfare.
Terrorism -- involves attacks by small but organized groups against a usually larger/better trained/better equiped opponent's military and civilian populations. By this definition any target under any circumstances is an acceptable target.
Now lets look at this in terms of what happened on 9/11. The Pentagon is a valid military target under any circumstances. A true guerilla fighter would have avoided involving a plane load of passengers in his fight. A terrorist relishes involving as many civilians in the fight as possible.
If you dont like the 9/11 reference, lets look at what has been happening in Israel for the last 60 years or so. I want to make one thing clear, I AM NOT JEWISH. I was brought up Protestant. My opinion is not shaded one way or the other in this issue. The Palestinians attack Israelis at all levels, military, public service ( police, fire, and ambulance services ), and civilians. The Palestinians call themselves guerilla fighters, or freedom fighters, but because they do not limit themselves to military targets they are terrorists. Nothing more.
Sloppy, Sloppy! Especially if you are working on a client/server or n-tier application.
Every Database has a 'users' table which is used to control who is loggin in. The applications I have designed also had a second 'users' table which contained application specific data about the user. One of the columns in this table is 'access level', which were usually integers 0-10. 0 was the lowest level and 10 was GODHOOD. Regular application administrators could be given a access value some where in between.
During the log on process, query the application users table to get the 'access level'. Code in the application is executed based upon this access level. Yes, this is more work but if you are going to do it...might as well do it right. This method has several advantages:
1. No user names/passwords are hard coded into the application.
2. Passwords can changed periodically.
3. The application can literally be totally different depending upon the access level.
4. The back door is removable. Simply change the access level for that user.
Any one have any better ideas???
"If he uses a nuke, Bagdad will be a smoking hole in the ground and the whole world will be queuing up to take potshots at him"
If Hussein got a nuke, why would he use it on Bagdad? Kinda stupid if you ask me.
This is what I see him doing. He has a nuke, wants to use it. Makes arrangements to have it shipped somewhere. Any large shipping port is fine. He has someone loyal to him go along with it, in its container to activate the bomb when they arrive at the destination. Bomb goes off...scratch one city...maybe New York City, Baltimore, or Los Angles. Maybe Southhampton, Brest, or any other major coastal city in the world. The point is this..a nuke has gone off, and no one...I mean no one, except for Saddam, knows for sure who set it off. I hope you dont think the guy who activated the bomb can tell who did it. Do you REALLY think Saddam would let the guy who activated the bomb actually live to tell about it?
So tell me now... why would Bagdad be a smoking hole in the ground?