"...illegally keeping people in the armed forces past their retirement date..."
Actually, U.S. Code 10.E.II.1209.12305 was enacted by Congress just after the end of the Draft after the Vietnam War...
Recruits today get this little tidbit in their contract:
"In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
In light of this, damned good we aren't in a 'declared' war. The 90 days a 'Stop Loss' order allows would look good.
But alas, Stop Loss is not the sole domain of Republican Presidents. President Clinton imposed it on some service members at the beginning of the Bosnian Campaign, and during the Kosovo air campaign... Hard to beleive such a kind, compassionate, and peace-loving President would do such a thing. Um, not so much really. Our military is usually running with a minimum of trained personnel, and if something comes up, Stop Loss gives the President a way to keep them a little longer to resolve a situation. Another use of Stop Loss is to retain members of a deployed unit together, rather than have a few members leave. The harm is probably more that the replacements might not be so combat-worthy, or trained as well, or just 'fit in' so well.
AFAIK, Stop Loss is usually used for a 90-day extension, though there are exceptions. And while about 12,000 or so members might be serving under Stop Loss orders right now, with about 50,000 total having been subject to those orders in the past few years, that's not a large percentage of service members.
Mind you, I can't imagine the trouble this causes some soldiers and their families. And while I support our efforts in Iraq, I wish we had a larger regular military and used Reservists much less.
But Stop Loss is NOT illegal. And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held it isn't illegal nor unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit. Not your Conservative bastion, even today.
You might want to read the law. If allows for other conditions where Stop Loss could be invoked. Then write your Congresspeople and tell them to rescind the law. If you believe. As is so often the case, that's where the trouble really is.
There was a time when a campus of 20,000 students was run with paper, filing cabinets, and secretaries. And lots of work-study students.
No, I wouldn't want to go back, but not because it was impossible.
Besides that, though, what about an online database, created by students, is more authoritative on who is enrolled than the Admissions Office? Oh. At least in Facebook, you can pretty much expect whoever let it out that they take a course is ok with sharing that info.
Where did the "Person broke up with So and So" come from? Is Facebook creating that message, figuring out that 'in' one day and 'out' the next means 'broke up'?
I think your complaint is that Facebook is putting two and two together (an unfortunate irony there) and cluing people in on something they would have to look specifically for otherwise.
Of course, one of the purposes you and others use Facebook for is to find out something fairly easily that would otherwise take some effort. Like who takes the same classes you do, or goes to the same school that you do.
I get it. The offense is not what they do, but what they did it with. It's OK to share that you take ENG101 in your 5th semester. It's not ok to say that you broke up for the 5th time this year. Or whatever.
Interesting. They should know better than to spew the info you find uncomfortable.
That's gonna take a lot more logic than 'here today, gone tomorrow = broke up'.
Just as an aside, how would you feel if one of your Facebook friends spread the word? Just as violated?
If you would cut them out of your group, then I'm sure you'll be restricting every shred of info you post on Facebook to a 'need-to-know' group of friends.
Your point that there is "no way for the viewer" to know implies an anonymous and somewhat disinterested 'viewer'. I suspect that your complaint is the opposite, that the 'viewers' you don't want to see the 'broke up' are far from anonymous and disinterested. If facebook lets anyone see that 'broke up' tag, then you've gotten your warning. Leave Facebook NOW. Or hire a lawyer and sue them for violating their own ELUA and Privacy Policy. Which I bet a tall decaf latte they didn't.
Much as I want to take your side, and I really do, this is a logical and predictable event. Facebook is 'enhancing your life'. Unfortunately, no one is accusing them of making anything up. THAT would be a defense.
Yeah. Posting your stuff out there means people can know you, sometimes in ways you'd rather they didn't. Don't like it? Quit Facebook. And make your own site.
And while you're downmodding me, remember; I didn't do this to you.
Ben Franklin is quoted as saying "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead". How true.
Don't want them public? Dont' post relationship info on facebook.
Sheesh. People will read ANYTHING you post.
Don't criticize something you don't understand. Especially other people.
And WHAT privacy does Facebook afford? Apprently that which many do not avail themselves of, what with posting info. If you read the EULA, it says:
"All content on the Web site, including but not limited to design, text, graphics, other files, and their selection and arrangement (the "Content"), are the proprietary property of the Company or its licensors. All rights reserved."
and
"By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing."
and
"You may remove your Member Content from the Web site at any time. If you choose to remove your Member Content, the license granted above will automatically expire."
and
"You are solely responsible for your interactions with other Facebook Members. We reserve the right, but have no obligation, to monitor disputes between you and other Members."
and
"The Company is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of the Web site or Member of the Service."
Then the fun begins. In their Privacy Policy:
"Facebook follows two core principles:
1. You should have control over your personal information. Facebook helps you share information with your friends and people around you. You choose what information you put in your profile, including contact and personal information, pictures, interests and groups you join. And you control with whom you share that information through the privacy settings on the My Privacy page.
2. You should have access to the information others want to share. There is an increasing amount of information available out there, and you may want to know what relates to you, your friends, and people around you. We want to help you easily get that information."
Yeah, you should have privacy, but Facebook reserves the right to "use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information" as they see fit, stated in their EULA. I think that means they can in fact publish most anything you provide as 'content'. Personal information should be bound by the Privacy Policy, but sheesh, what ISN'T 'personal'? What you listened to this morning in your shower? The fact that you took a shower? The fact that you're not deaf? Such a slippery slope...
and
"If you post personally identifiable information in areas of the site accessible to other users, you should be aware that such information can be read, collected, or used by other users of these forums, and could be used improperly to send you unsolicited messages."
Darn. and,
"Profile information you submit to Facebook will be available to users of Facebook who belong to at least one of the networks you allow to access the information through your privacy settings (e.g., school, geography, friends of friends). Your name, school name, and profile picture thumbnail will be available in search results across the Facebook network unless you alter your privacy settings. This is primarily so your friends at other schools can find you and send a friend request. People who see your name in searches, however, will not be able to access your profile information unless they have a relationship to you (friend, friend of friend, member of your school's network, etc.) that allows such access based on your privacy settings."
There was, of course, that little adventure in Afghanistan... Not just expelling the Taliban, but also tracking Osama who was assumed to ACTUALLY BE IN AFGHANISTAN AT THE TIME.
And I'm the one who doesn't know their history?
You people are too easy.
rick
"allies of Regan bribed the Iranians to keep them just a little longer "
Pleaase. That's ludicrous. And citing Iranian sources for any such crap is of course playing games.
It's amusing, except that people actually believe that crap. No doubt George actually got into an SR-71 and snuck into Paris to meet with the Iranians.
Carter didn't inherit the Iranian hostage fiasco from anyone. And his efforts were unfotunate. Having diminished our military ability to the point that we couldn't manage a rescue attempt without abject failure, Carter left us with not only a damaged economy, but damaged military and failed Middle East policy.
Had Clinton taken ANY action in 8 years to answer Saddam's obvious disregard for international law, if not opinion, would W have had the 'opportunity' to enforce the U.N. sanctions that most nations voted for, but did not have the stomach to actually enforce?
And perhaps Clinton could be accused of being distracted from foreign affairs, having become preoccupied with his own?
Paint with both hands, gang, or just be reduced to partisan whining.
rick
The Future OS isn't an OS, really...
on
A New Kind of OS
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It's a Hypervisor.
Your applications provide (or are provided with) enough OS foundation to function in the limited virtual machine they live in.
The Hypervisor manages the hardware, inter-application communication, networking for each, and of course picking up the trash and keeping everything polite.
Apps only see the shared resources the Hypervisor permits.
But most important, two features:
- Each app gets the OS features it needs. My word processor may not need the same things the database needs, nor the e-mail app, nor the music player. So the OS for each app is lighter and nimbler.
- Each app is restricted in how it interacts with other apps. No more OLE, DDE, much less opportunity for the backdoor/under the hood shenanigans we call worms, viruses, trojans, and 'badware' (ick, stupid name).
I saw an article describing this and promptly lost any way to find the FRAKKING ARTICLE! Did anyone else, and where the heck is it? I thought it was *here*, on/.
Grrrrr....
But I love the idea. It ain't really new, but it's clever.
"if you were to change just one vote in every precinct of the country you could reverse the outcome of a recent presidential election"
I'm not much for statistics, or mathematical analysis, but I think that statement is either patently in error, or completely specious.
Think about it.
- We elect our Presidents state-by-state, via the Electoral College. So changing the outcome of the election is done on a state level.
- The premise of your comment, and the study it is allegedly based on, seems to claim that changing one vote in each precinct would change the outcome statewide. In other words, that the precinct votes would change enough to change the precinct outcomes as well... So, the premise seems to be that enough precincts had a margin of victory of ONE vote that changing that one vote changes the state outcome, and therefore the national outcome.
if we elected our President via a National popular vote, maybe. But with states electing?
Hooey. Plain and simple crap.
Common sense alone settles this. If anywheres near 10% of precincts nationwide had ballot counts with a margin of victory of ONE vote, we would be overwhelmed by the recounts. I don't remember any reports of thousands of such recounts.
Try. Try and prove this 'one vote' premise can be true in reality. As a concept, it's a warning to us to get elections right. As an attempt at truth, it fails.
According to my calculations, you died about 7.4 years ago, from inadequate nutrition. You just couldn't get enough calories in between using vi and backing up to see the gallery so you could pick the *next* Cindy Margolis pic.
"In a world where people slave away for the sole profit of a board of directors and merciless shareholders"
Um, I work for a large, and very recognizable corporation, and I don't slave away for the sole profit of the board of directors nor merciless shareholders, or even an overpaid criminal CEO.
I get paid. And after my expenses are paid, I have a modest profit to show for my efforts. So do all of my coworkers, worldwide.
And most corporations function the same way.
would an open-source corporation function differently in this area?
But I can imagine an open-source consultancy. Common knowledge base, share the work, blah blah blah. Same formula lots of Big-Eights used. Served them well.
How would an open-source corporation handle compensation, In an open source way.
I've seen this for maybe 3 years. Right after Bayesian filtering came out for Spamassassin.
Maybe longer.
I'm seeing spam that uses relatively coherent passages from literature of some sort as a way to deliver an image that is usually a pitch for some stock, lottery, or bank scam.
Wasn't my design. And I didn;t get to stay long enough to see the staff accounts moved off the student server... But my successor tells me the kids are just as mischevous. He's had to password the BIOS to prevent their changing boot order and running either Knoppix off drive keys or BartPE... Litle gomers.
My predecessor taught computer lab, and used the Pacal set to teach some of the more industrious kids some cool NetWare hacks, including a great user logger. Unfortunately, that version didn't make signing much of a priority, so when I upgrded them from 3 to 4, the kids flipped out. They were used to snooping on packets and doing subs, password captures, and the like. They got serious and had me going, stealing the principal's password every other day and such. Finally, I got ZenWorks to manage group policies and expose them instantly. Purple background meant you were a bad, bad user.
Teaching kids networking is cool. Teaching them to snoop isn't. But ya can't really stop them, nor stop the creativity and sense of discovery. Just have to manage it.
All three of the banned kids weent so far as to get Guidance to let them research colleges on the *staff* machines. Guidance was my biggest problem in staff.
Those were the days. No hanging on/. for word of the latest crack. Just hang on the Eastern Bloc sites looking for the next script or trojan password stealer, and how to detect it. Don't even bother to count on a/v. No, I really don't miss it.
I've been a system admin at several schools, and advised many admins at many grade levels. Like all security challenges, my adversaries (students MOSTLY) need only succeed in one way. I need to protect against ALL threats.
In one high school, I ended up scripting ACLs that prevented write access for student accounts unless they were scheduled for lab time. No writing outside of their lab hours. Not easy. And a way to script ad hoc access for unscheduled time. Then a filter to debt writing the Pascal net libs they used to write password loggers and such. Someone thought it would be cool to teach network programming to sophmores. Great. We had to filter those and other known bad stuff, lest students gain control of the grading, scheduling, and payroll systems.
I, for one, knew how they did it. How to allow useful access while denying dangerous behavior was a tightrope.
In that system, we banned 3 kids out of 1200 or so. They would not stop.
it,s a challenge to outwit those who are motivated. They choose to spend their time attacking my defenses. I have many other duties.
There is no harder environment to secure than a high school.
I'm 52, and still hear flybacks and other oscillators.
Flat-panels don't use a flyback the same way analog sets do, but they have switching power supplies that are the equivalent.
But I usually only hear only those sets with loose cores, or defective transformers. It's very rare anyone hears a properly functioning analog flyback, though I guess some do.
For the trivia buffs, NTSC (American sets mostly) use 15,734Hz for the interval, It was 15,750Hz until color came along. and it's documented as such in many references. PAL (Britain, Germnany, and others) use 15,625Hz, and SECAM (Used by the French just to piss us off, and others for mostly the same reason) also uses 15,625Hz.
TV history is fascinating. Then again, I might be a geek's geek.
Was the first set of patches called a Service Release?
Because I distinctly remember getting the first Win95 patches just about a month after I installed. And after that, it would not survive more than a few days' uptime.
I did indeed run it without reboot for 28 days. Until the first patches. My system was a 386-DX40, Asus motherboard I think, 1M RAM, Paradise VGA card, and a USR Courier 28.8 modem, external. A Win95 upgrade from WfW3.11 with Trumpet Winsock. I also had a Novell 3.1 server at home, and thinnet.
Another month later, I bought a book titled 'Internet CD' I think. The enclosed CD (Duh) had a Slackware distro, kernel 0.9-something. I upgraded my primary machine to a P-90, took the 386 and installed Slackware on it. Couldn't get the modem running on it, so I ran NetWare Connect on the server, which got me a dial-on-demand router and I had effortless Internet access via 28.8 to my ISP (who had a buncha Multitechs and a 56K sync line to *his* ISP). Woot. I thought I was the shits. AOL without a phone line!
Then I discovered IRC. Many more wasted hours. And many more since.
Other than that, there is not much info left out there.
I think the Mach 10 was an 80186 with RAM and such on an 8-bit ISA card, probably an 8MHz or 12MHz part. The Mach 20 was a 80286, and cooler. Probably a 16MHz part. I think the Mach 10 would take 1.5MB RAM, as a heaping shovelful of 16- or 22-pin DRAM. The Mach 20 similar. Both had an InPort for Bus Mouse. I guess the Mach 20 could be had with or without the RAM expansion, and with or without an updated FDC to run 3.5" drives. I had an XT-Turbo at 8MHz that already handled 3.5" drives. Woot...
Just a quick look, but it seems about the only thing there with less info on it out there is Modern Jazz.
It was called a Mach board. Mine had 512K ram on it and I upgraded it to 1.5M total. With 512K it had to swap the cursor to dusk when I moved the mouse. Which also came in the box. A Bus Mouse.
Slashdot Mirror
"...illegally keeping people in the armed forces past their retirement date..."
Actually, U.S. Code 10.E.II.1209.12305 was enacted by Congress just after the end of the Draft after the Vietnam War...
Recruits today get this little tidbit in their contract:
"In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States."
In light of this, damned good we aren't in a 'declared' war. The 90 days a 'Stop Loss' order allows would look good.
But alas, Stop Loss is not the sole domain of Republican Presidents. President Clinton imposed it on some service members at the beginning of the Bosnian Campaign, and during the Kosovo air campaign... Hard to beleive such a kind, compassionate, and peace-loving President would do such a thing. Um, not so much really. Our military is usually running with a minimum of trained personnel, and if something comes up, Stop Loss gives the President a way to keep them a little longer to resolve a situation. Another use of Stop Loss is to retain members of a deployed unit together, rather than have a few members leave. The harm is probably more that the replacements might not be so combat-worthy, or trained as well, or just 'fit in' so well.
AFAIK, Stop Loss is usually used for a 90-day extension, though there are exceptions. And while about 12,000 or so members might be serving under Stop Loss orders right now, with about 50,000 total having been subject to those orders in the past few years, that's not a large percentage of service members.
Mind you, I can't imagine the trouble this causes some soldiers and their families. And while I support our efforts in Iraq, I wish we had a larger regular military and used Reservists much less.
But Stop Loss is NOT illegal. And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held it isn't illegal nor unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit. Not your Conservative bastion, even today.
You might want to read the law. If allows for other conditions where Stop Loss could be invoked. Then write your Congresspeople and tell them to rescind the law. If you believe. As is so often the case, that's where the trouble really is.
rick
There was a time when a campus of 20,000 students was run with paper, filing cabinets, and secretaries. And lots of work-study students.
No, I wouldn't want to go back, but not because it was impossible.
Besides that, though, what about an online database, created by students, is more authoritative on who is enrolled than the Admissions Office? Oh. At least in Facebook, you can pretty much expect whoever let it out that they take a course is ok with sharing that info.
And I'm still a little lost on the distinction.
rick
Where did the "Person broke up with So and So" come from? Is Facebook creating that message, figuring out that 'in' one day and 'out' the next means 'broke up'?
I think your complaint is that Facebook is putting two and two together (an unfortunate irony there) and cluing people in on something they would have to look specifically for otherwise.
Of course, one of the purposes you and others use Facebook for is to find out something fairly easily that would otherwise take some effort. Like who takes the same classes you do, or goes to the same school that you do.
I get it. The offense is not what they do, but what they did it with. It's OK to share that you take ENG101 in your 5th semester. It's not ok to say that you broke up for the 5th time this year. Or whatever.
Interesting. They should know better than to spew the info you find uncomfortable.
That's gonna take a lot more logic than 'here today, gone tomorrow = broke up'.
Just as an aside, how would you feel if one of your Facebook friends spread the word? Just as violated?
If you would cut them out of your group, then I'm sure you'll be restricting every shred of info you post on Facebook to a 'need-to-know' group of friends.
Your point that there is "no way for the viewer" to know implies an anonymous and somewhat disinterested 'viewer'. I suspect that your complaint is the opposite, that the 'viewers' you don't want to see the 'broke up' are far from anonymous and disinterested. If facebook lets anyone see that 'broke up' tag, then you've gotten your warning. Leave Facebook NOW. Or hire a lawyer and sue them for violating their own ELUA and Privacy Policy. Which I bet a tall decaf latte they didn't.
Much as I want to take your side, and I really do, this is a logical and predictable event. Facebook is 'enhancing your life'. Unfortunately, no one is accusing them of making anything up. THAT would be a defense.
Yeah. Posting your stuff out there means people can know you, sometimes in ways you'd rather they didn't. Don't like it? Quit Facebook. And make your own site.
And while you're downmodding me, remember; I didn't do this to you.
Ben Franklin is quoted as saying "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead". How true.
rick
Don't want them public? Dont' post relationship info on facebook.
Sheesh. People will read ANYTHING you post.
Don't criticize something you don't understand. Especially other people.
And WHAT privacy does Facebook afford? Apprently that which many do not avail themselves of, what with posting info. If you read the EULA, it says:
"All content on the Web site, including but not limited to design, text, graphics, other files, and their selection and arrangement (the "Content"), are the proprietary property of the Company or its licensors. All rights reserved."
and
"By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing."
and
"You may remove your Member Content from the Web site at any time. If you choose to remove your Member Content, the license granted above will automatically expire."
and
"You are solely responsible for your interactions with other Facebook Members. We reserve the right, but have no obligation, to monitor disputes between you and other Members."
and
"The Company is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of the Web site or Member of the Service."
Then the fun begins. In their Privacy Policy:
"Facebook follows two core principles:
1. You should have control over your personal information.
Facebook helps you share information with your friends and people around you. You choose what information you put in your profile, including contact and personal information, pictures, interests and groups you join. And you control with whom you share that information through the privacy settings on the My Privacy page.
2. You should have access to the information others want to share.
There is an increasing amount of information available out there, and you may want to know what relates to you, your friends, and people around you. We want to help you easily get that information."
Yeah, you should have privacy, but Facebook reserves the right to "use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information" as they see fit, stated in their EULA. I think that means they can in fact publish most anything you provide as 'content'. Personal information should be bound by the Privacy Policy, but sheesh, what ISN'T 'personal'? What you listened to this morning in your shower? The fact that you took a shower? The fact that you're not deaf? Such a slippery slope...
and
"If you post personally identifiable information in areas of the site accessible to other users, you should be aware that such information can be read, collected, or used by other users of these forums, and could be used improperly to send you unsolicited messages."
Darn. and,
"Profile information you submit to Facebook will be available to users of Facebook who belong to at least one of the networks you allow to access the information through your privacy settings (e.g., school, geography, friends of friends). Your name, school name, and profile picture thumbnail will be available in search results across the Facebook network unless you alter your privacy settings. This is primarily so your friends at other schools can find you and send a friend request. People who see your name in searches, however, will not be able to access your profile information unless they have a relationship to you (friend, friend of friend, member of your school's network, etc.) that allows such access based on your privacy settings."
Sounds li
Couldn't have said it better myself...
"Then again, in the words of one intelligent facebooker user, "There's a difference between 'publicly available' and 'publicly announced.'" "
That IS funny. Facebook users wanting privacy.
I wonder how the commentator came to the conclusion *this* facebook user is 'intelligent'.
Bahahaha..
You can't make this stuff up.
rick
That's one ugly mutha......
There was, of course, that little adventure in Afghanistan... Not just expelling the Taliban, but also tracking Osama who was assumed to ACTUALLY BE IN AFGHANISTAN AT THE TIME. And I'm the one who doesn't know their history? You people are too easy. rick
You wrote, in part,
"allies of Regan bribed the Iranians to keep them just a little longer "
Pleaase. That's ludicrous. And citing Iranian sources for any such crap is of course playing games.
It's amusing, except that people actually believe that crap. No doubt George actually got into an SR-71 and snuck into Paris to meet with the Iranians.
pfft. fiction.
rick
rick
Carter didn't inherit the Iranian hostage fiasco from anyone. And his efforts were unfotunate. Having diminished our military ability to the point that we couldn't manage a rescue attempt without abject failure, Carter left us with not only a damaged economy, but damaged military and failed Middle East policy.
Had Clinton taken ANY action in 8 years to answer Saddam's obvious disregard for international law, if not opinion, would W have had the 'opportunity' to enforce the U.N. sanctions that most nations voted for, but did not have the stomach to actually enforce?
And perhaps Clinton could be accused of being distracted from foreign affairs, having become preoccupied with his own?
Paint with both hands, gang, or just be reduced to partisan whining.
rick
It's a Hypervisor.
/.
Your applications provide (or are provided with) enough OS foundation to function in the limited virtual machine they live in.
The Hypervisor manages the hardware, inter-application communication, networking for each, and of course picking up the trash and keeping everything polite.
Apps only see the shared resources the Hypervisor permits.
But most important, two features:
- Each app gets the OS features it needs. My word processor may not need the same things the database needs, nor the e-mail app, nor the music player. So the OS for each app is lighter and nimbler.
- Each app is restricted in how it interacts with other apps. No more OLE, DDE, much less opportunity for the backdoor/under the hood shenanigans we call worms, viruses, trojans, and 'badware' (ick, stupid name).
I saw an article describing this and promptly lost any way to find the FRAKKING ARTICLE! Did anyone else, and where the heck is it? I thought it was *here*, on
Grrrrr....
But I love the idea. It ain't really new, but it's clever.
rick
...welcome the exit of our former overlords.
And don't let the Galactic Portal hit you in the butt.
rick
Check out Wright-Line. http://www.wrightline.com/
c tID=35&ProductCategoryID=13&SubCategoryID=0
Something in the Optimedia line should be a winner: http://www.wrightline.com/productDetail.asp?Produ
Their stuff is tough, flexible, and if all else fails they can build you the fixtures you want/need.
Disclaimer: I do NOT work for, nor have ANY relationship with Wright-Line, save having been a satisfied customer in the past.
YMMV.
rick
You wrote, in part,
"if you were to change just one vote in every precinct of the country you could reverse the outcome of a recent presidential election"
I'm not much for statistics, or mathematical analysis, but I think that statement is either patently in error, or completely specious.
Think about it.
- We elect our Presidents state-by-state, via the Electoral College. So changing the outcome of the election is done on a state level.
- The premise of your comment, and the study it is allegedly based on, seems to claim that changing one vote in each precinct would change the outcome statewide. In other words, that the precinct votes would change enough to change the precinct outcomes as well... So, the premise seems to be that enough precincts had a margin of victory of ONE vote that changing that one vote changes the state outcome, and therefore the national outcome.
if we elected our President via a National popular vote, maybe. But with states electing?
Hooey. Plain and simple crap.
Common sense alone settles this. If anywheres near 10% of precincts nationwide had ballot counts with a margin of victory of ONE vote, we would be overwhelmed by the recounts. I don't remember any reports of thousands of such recounts.
Try. Try and prove this 'one vote' premise can be true in reality. As a concept, it's a warning to us to get elections right. As an attempt at truth, it fails.
We got enough problems without making them up.
rick
According to my calculations, you died about 7.4 years ago, from inadequate nutrition. You just couldn't get enough calories in between using vi and backing up to see the gallery so you could pick the *next* Cindy Margolis pic.
RIP, my friend, RIP.
rick
...to see another Saturn launch.
Hell yeah.
rick
..TFA makes this assertion:
"In a world where people slave away for the sole profit of a board of directors and merciless shareholders"
Um, I work for a large, and very recognizable corporation, and I don't slave away for the sole profit of the board of directors nor merciless shareholders, or even an overpaid criminal CEO.
I get paid. And after my expenses are paid, I have a modest profit to show for my efforts. So do all of my coworkers, worldwide.
And most corporations function the same way.
would an open-source corporation function differently in this area?
But I can imagine an open-source consultancy. Common knowledge base, share the work, blah blah blah. Same formula lots of Big-Eights used. Served them well.
How would an open-source corporation handle compensation, In an open source way.
?
rick
I've seen this for maybe 3 years. Right after Bayesian filtering came out for Spamassassin.
Maybe longer.
I'm seeing spam that uses relatively coherent passages from literature of some sort as a way to deliver an image that is usually a pitch for some stock, lottery, or bank scam.
Rick
Wasn't my design. And I didn;t get to stay long enough to see the staff accounts moved off the student server... But my successor tells me the kids are just as mischevous. He's had to password the BIOS to prevent their changing boot order and running either Knoppix off drive keys or BartPE... Litle gomers.
/. for word of the latest crack. Just hang on the Eastern Bloc sites looking for the next script or trojan password stealer, and how to detect it. Don't even bother to count on a/v. No, I really don't miss it.
My predecessor taught computer lab, and used the Pacal set to teach some of the more industrious kids some cool NetWare hacks, including a great user logger. Unfortunately, that version didn't make signing much of a priority, so when I upgrded them from 3 to 4, the kids flipped out. They were used to snooping on packets and doing subs, password captures, and the like. They got serious and had me going, stealing the principal's password every other day and such. Finally, I got ZenWorks to manage group policies and expose them instantly. Purple background meant you were a bad, bad user.
Teaching kids networking is cool. Teaching them to snoop isn't. But ya can't really stop them, nor stop the creativity and sense of discovery. Just have to manage it.
All three of the banned kids weent so far as to get Guidance to let them research colleges on the *staff* machines. Guidance was my biggest problem in staff.
Those were the days. No hanging on
rick
I've been a system admin at several schools, and advised many admins at many grade levels. Like all security challenges, my adversaries (students MOSTLY) need only succeed in one way. I need to protect against ALL threats.
In one high school, I ended up scripting ACLs that prevented write access for student accounts unless they were scheduled for lab time. No writing outside of their lab hours. Not easy. And a way to script ad hoc access for unscheduled time. Then a filter to debt writing the Pascal net libs they used to write password loggers and such. Someone thought it would be cool to teach network programming to sophmores. Great. We had to filter those and other known bad stuff, lest students gain control of the grading, scheduling, and payroll systems.
I, for one, knew how they did it. How to allow useful access while denying dangerous behavior was a tightrope.
In that system, we banned 3 kids out of 1200 or so. They would not stop.
it,s a challenge to outwit those who are motivated. They choose to spend their time attacking my defenses. I have many other duties.
There is no harder environment to secure than a high school.
I'm 52, and still hear flybacks and other oscillators.
Flat-panels don't use a flyback the same way analog sets do, but they have switching power supplies that are the equivalent.
But I usually only hear only those sets with loose cores, or defective transformers. It's very rare anyone hears a properly functioning analog flyback, though I guess some do.
For the trivia buffs, NTSC (American sets mostly) use 15,734Hz for the interval, It was 15,750Hz until color came along. and it's documented as such in many references. PAL (Britain, Germnany, and others) use 15,625Hz, and SECAM (Used by the French just to piss us off, and others for mostly the same reason) also uses 15,625Hz.
TV history is fascinating. Then again, I might be a geek's geek.
rick
Was the first set of patches called a Service Release?
Because I distinctly remember getting the first Win95 patches just about a month after I installed. And after that, it would not survive more than a few days' uptime.
I did indeed run it without reboot for 28 days. Until the first patches. My system was a 386-DX40, Asus motherboard I think, 1M RAM, Paradise VGA card, and a USR Courier 28.8 modem, external. A Win95 upgrade from WfW3.11 with Trumpet Winsock. I also had a Novell 3.1 server at home, and thinnet.
Another month later, I bought a book titled 'Internet CD' I think. The enclosed CD (Duh) had a Slackware distro, kernel 0.9-something. I upgraded my primary machine to a P-90, took the 386 and installed Slackware on it. Couldn't get the modem running on it, so I ran NetWare Connect on the server, which got me a dial-on-demand router and I had effortless Internet access via 28.8 to my ISP (who had a buncha Multitechs and a 56K sync line to *his* ISP). Woot. I thought I was the shits. AOL without a phone line!
Then I discovered IRC. Many more wasted hours. And many more since.
rick
Took me a good 15 minutes to find http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0 DE2DB143FF932A3575AC0A961948260
1 997w3x.pdf
c ts
And some enigmatic stuff here: http://www.gaby.de/ftp/pub/win3x/archive/softlib/
And a cryptic reference to the Mach 10 and 20 here: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeobsoleteprodu
Other than that, there is not much info left out there.
I think the Mach 10 was an 80186 with RAM and such on an 8-bit ISA card, probably an 8MHz or 12MHz part. The Mach 20 was a 80286, and cooler. Probably a 16MHz part. I think the Mach 10 would take 1.5MB RAM, as a heaping shovelful of 16- or 22-pin DRAM. The Mach 20 similar. Both had an InPort for Bus Mouse. I guess the Mach 20 could be had with or without the RAM expansion, and with or without an updated FDC to run 3.5" drives. I had an XT-Turbo at 8MHz that already handled 3.5" drives. Woot...
Just a quick look, but it seems about the only thing there with less info on it out there is Modern Jazz.
rick
Yeah. 3.1 was the first release. Had to be current with Windows 3.1, and of course OS/2 was at 2.1, so the number was important.
I wonder. What was 3.0? My hair hurts.
rick
It was called a Mach board. Mine had 512K ram on it and I upgraded it to 1.5M total. With 512K it had to swap the cursor to dusk when I moved the mouse. Which also came in the box. A Bus Mouse.
Look it up.
Rick