"Cold Turkey" is one of the least effective methods for quitting smoking with one of the higest recidivism rates. Your father is a statistical anomaly.
"In an American Lung Association survey this September, seven smokers in 10 said they hoped to quit and had tried repeatedly to give up tobacco. But the high recidivism rate has to do with the tactics employed, according to Alfred Munzer, an ALA physician. "Most people quit through the least effective way," he says: They go "cold turkey," a method that yields a mere 5 percent success rate." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0903/is_11_ 16/ai_53272502
Yeah, I mean look had badly the left has screwed things up in the past 7 years...I can't wait for the right-wing religious conservatives to be in power again!
Spinal Tap are the pioneers of overclocking. Their infamous "Amp Hack" allowed them to go to 11.
They also wrote one of the very first version of the Unix kernels, and developed TCP/IP in between gigs. Linus Torvalds was once quoted as saying "If it weren't for Spinal Tap's work in the field, I would have never been inspired to develop Linux." The entire concept for broadband internet access - Spinal Tap. Cisco Corporation was started by the proceeds of an early Spinal Tap show. Nigel Tufnel of Spinal Tap doodled the first design for the Cray Supercomputer on the back of a napkin at a diner while on tour. David St. Hubbins is also credited for inventing SATA drives because "I just didn't like the sound of the IDE drives".
"mod me down. but what the hell does this have to do with technology?! why is it even on/."
Obviously you have never heard of their imfamous "Amp Hack" that allowed them to go to 11. Duh. Pioneer overclockers and you wonder what is has to do with technology??
Do you hear that sound?? That's the sound of all the dead drummers from the Tap spinning in their graves after you made that comment.
Actually, if you mean Metallica is a parody of what a band should be, you may be on to something... Ever since Cliff died they have seriously sucked IMNSHO.
No. It would depend on the volume you are distributing. But if it were say, a bad batch of chips and made people sick or die, then the person offering the chips would be at least partly liable.
To put the shoe on the other foot, do you think anyone should be able to prepare and sell/give away food without having to follow any sort of health and safety laws? How long do you think before people started dropping like flies?
Yep, good old Reagan supplying Iran with illegal arms to make a political game of freeing the hostages. What a great man, proving that by Iran taking hostages, we will bend over backwards to give them whatever they want by negotiating with terrorists. Got to love revisionist history. I'll bet you blame the way Bush trashed the economy on Clinton somehow too! (all good neo-cons can trace every problem in the world back to Clinton in 3 steps or less)
P.S. shouldn't your alias be "Archie B" as in Bunker?
"You can send anything you want anonymously through the US Postal System, why should the Internet be any different?"
Well, not completly anonymous. They can track the zipcode it was sent from. And I am willing to bet if you mail illegal or threatening things (at least from an urban area) they could track it down even further.
The biggest difference is that every single piece of standard mail sent costs you 39 cents . Once you have access to the internet, you can send billions of messages with no additional cost. So if someone want to be an annoying crackpot through the USPS, they will need to be a millionaire. On the internet any jackass can annoy millions of people for very little cost. (As we all know firsthand) So in short, you are paying for the privilege to be more anonymous by using postal mail. (Yes, I know this is Slashdot and all goods/services/information should be free, blah blah Open Source etc.)
I know the example you gave was far fetched, but why would the whistleblower need to email?? Why couldn't he just print it out in a private location, then use the good old anonymous USPS?? That would leave much less of a trail than electronically. Also note that I am not saying there should be ZERO open Wifi access points, just that EVERY Wifi doesn't need to be set up like that.
I second that. I had Qwest DSL for about 5 years in 2 different locations. First was okay because I was literally about 500 feet from a switching station. DSL went out twice in 2 1/2 years - once due to a storm, once for unknown reasons. Moved to second location and was too far away from switching station to get anything but the bare minimum speeds. About a year and a half into service at new location, one day DSL stopped working. Called Qwest who said they had a disconnect request for my DSL. Kind of strange seeing I never requested it to be shut off. Had to wait 2 weeks for "installer" to "connect me" again. What a load of crap. About 6 months later after a few more minor (less than a few hours) outages, I switched to a cable connection and never looked back. Haven't had a single outage save for a glich in my cable modem which a reset fixed. Wish I still had Time Warner, but the sold out to Comcast. I never knew how good I had it with TWC until Comcast came along. Let's just say that my speeds are less than Comcastic, and now I am paying about $10 more a month for my internet/cable bill....
Consider yourself luck you don't have Comcast. I had TWC until last December when Comcast bought them out. 2 months later, after getting a letter stating all the service would remain the same and prices wouldn't change, they jacked the prices on everything up. Now my Bittorrent downloads top out at around 100 mb/sit with the average being around 45-50. At least with TWC's ($5 a month cheaper) service I would consistently hit the 300-400 range. Gee thanks Comcast for charging me more for less bandwidth! At the time I thought Time Warner wasn't all that great, now I would be very happy to have them back...
Agreed. If you sign up for an ISP, you are in effect "registering". But if you have access, and then give others access by giving them the encryption keys, or adding their systems to the allow list, you are accomplishing the same thing, only less recklessly. None of the people you give access to need to "register" with anyone but you. Just think, if some idiot comes along and uses your connection for something stupid and gets it shut down (or starts hogging all the bandwidth unfairly), all those other people you were providing access for are shut down also. I am by no means trying to take away access from anybody, I am only suggesting that it be implemented wisely and not half-assed. If we lived in a utopian society where everyone was courteous and responsible, wide open unrestriced access would be ideal. Unfortunately we live in the real world where people constantly mess up other people's Good Things (TM). We need to take a realistic approcah over an idealistic one.
Exactly. If people aren't setting up their Wifi responsibly and not allowing unrestricted access, sooner or later the government will step in and try to regulate. Do we really want it to come to that? I would much rather that the people be a tad more responsible so laws do not need to be forced down our throats. I can see some circumstances that would warrant the use of unrestriced access. But there are far too many out there already than need to be.
"The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Seven other states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions."
What you are forgetting is those laws were proposed by the people, and than voted on democratically by the people. If that is what the people of those states want, and use a democratic process to get there, what is wrong with that? Are you saying people in Europe know what is better for Texas than the people living there?? If enough people in the states you mentioned shared your view, they could democratically remove or change the law. I know, letting people say what they want and decide amongst themselves what laws they want may seem a little crazy to Europeans, but not to Americans.
Oh, right I forgot this is Slashdot. I should have made the comparison to a car that you kept unlocked and with the keys in it. How silly of me to not use a car analogy. Thanks for the correction!
P.S. My phone line has an up-front cost and no charge for extra usage. Bizzare. Maybe I should get a different one so it will fit your view better?
It's called a comparison
I'll spell it out for you, in case you were being serious.
I compared having a phone outside your house that everyone can use unrestricted to having an open, unrestricted Wifi access point. I know, comparing two communication mediums that are very similar is a little hard to follow, but I'm sure if you really put your mind to it, you can figure it out...
Ok, I read your post too fast and did miss the part about reasonable argument being made that they were looking for something listed on the warrant.
It just seems like any competent lawyer could poke holes in a broad search warrant - the more specific the warrant the tighter the case. I'm sure there are certain judges that cops favor who will allow a broader range in the warrant, but if the judge who is hearing the case thinks differently they might run into trouble. I'm guessing that most warrants are thrown together quickly so they can catch whatever activity or people they suspect are in a location before circumstances change.
On that note if a judge issues a search warrant, is he excluded from hearing the case? Conflict of interest or some such thing?
Slashdot Mirror
I think they are in between the puppet show and the Good Old Blues Brothers Boys Band from Chicago.
I always pictured him selling chapeaus in a haberdashery myself...
"Cold Turkey" is one of the least effective methods for quitting smoking with one of the higest recidivism rates. Your father is a statistical anomaly.
_ 16/ai_53272502
"In an American Lung Association survey this September, seven smokers in 10 said they hoped to quit and had tried repeatedly to give up tobacco. But the high recidivism rate has to do with the tactics employed, according to Alfred Munzer, an ALA physician. "Most people quit through the least effective way," he says: They go "cold turkey," a method that yields a mere 5 percent success rate."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0903/is_11
It is also a killer song by John Lennon.
No, cash drives the policies, not egos. It is coincidental that people with large amounts of cash also have large egos.
Yeah, I mean look had badly the left has screwed things up in the past 7 years...I can't wait for the right-wing religious conservatives to be in power again!
"Some things are just better left unexplained."
Spinal Tap are the pioneers of overclocking. Their infamous "Amp Hack" allowed them to go to 11.
They also wrote one of the very first version of the Unix kernels, and developed TCP/IP in between gigs. Linus Torvalds was once quoted as saying "If it weren't for Spinal Tap's work in the field, I would have never been inspired to develop Linux." The entire concept for broadband internet access - Spinal Tap. Cisco Corporation was started by the proceeds of an early Spinal Tap show. Nigel Tufnel of Spinal Tap doodled the first design for the Cray Supercomputer on the back of a napkin at a diner while on tour. David St. Hubbins is also credited for inventing SATA drives because "I just didn't like the sound of the IDE drives".
There, that enough for you, or shall I continue?
"mod me down. but what the hell does this have to do with technology?! why is it even on /."
Obviously you have never heard of their imfamous "Amp Hack" that allowed them to go to 11. Duh. Pioneer overclockers and you wonder what is has to do with technology??
Do you hear that sound?? That's the sound of all the dead drummers from the Tap spinning in their graves after you made that comment.
Actually, if you mean Metallica is a parody of what a band should be, you may be on to something... Ever since Cliff died they have seriously sucked IMNSHO.
This is the first post ever desrving a six I have ever seen on Slashdot!!
Actually, I think the rock and roll lifestyle is a less well done parody of Spinal Tap.
Wow, after all this time my sig is finally relevant!!
No. It would depend on the volume you are distributing. But if it were say, a bad batch of chips and made people sick or die, then the person offering the chips would be at least partly liable.
To put the shoe on the other foot, do you think anyone should be able to prepare and sell/give away food without having to follow any sort of health and safety laws? How long do you think before people started dropping like flies?
They are still better than the comic books Ford released, the coloring books Quayle put out, or the pop-up books GW had ghost written for him...
Yep, good old Reagan supplying Iran with illegal arms to make a political game of freeing the hostages. What a great man, proving that by Iran taking hostages, we will bend over backwards to give them whatever they want by negotiating with terrorists. Got to love revisionist history. I'll bet you blame the way Bush trashed the economy on Clinton somehow too! (all good neo-cons can trace every problem in the world back to Clinton in 3 steps or less)
P.S. shouldn't your alias be "Archie B" as in Bunker?
"You can send anything you want anonymously through the US Postal System, why should the Internet be any different?"
Well, not completly anonymous. They can track the zipcode it was sent from. And I am willing to bet if you mail illegal or threatening things (at least from an urban area) they could track it down even further.
The biggest difference is that every single piece of standard mail sent costs you 39 cents . Once you have access to the internet, you can send billions of messages with no additional cost. So if someone want to be an annoying crackpot through the USPS, they will need to be a millionaire. On the internet any jackass can annoy millions of people for very little cost. (As we all know firsthand) So in short, you are paying for the privilege to be more anonymous by using postal mail. (Yes, I know this is Slashdot and all goods/services/information should be free, blah blah Open Source etc.)
I know the example you gave was far fetched, but why would the whistleblower need to email?? Why couldn't he just print it out in a private location, then use the good old anonymous USPS?? That would leave much less of a trail than electronically. Also note that I am not saying there should be ZERO open Wifi access points, just that EVERY Wifi doesn't need to be set up like that.
I second that. I had Qwest DSL for about 5 years in 2 different locations. First was okay because I was literally about 500 feet from a switching station. DSL went out twice in 2 1/2 years - once due to a storm, once for unknown reasons. Moved to second location and was too far away from switching station to get anything but the bare minimum speeds. About a year and a half into service at new location, one day DSL stopped working. Called Qwest who said they had a disconnect request for my DSL. Kind of strange seeing I never requested it to be shut off. Had to wait 2 weeks for "installer" to "connect me" again. What a load of crap. About 6 months later after a few more minor (less than a few hours) outages, I switched to a cable connection and never looked back. Haven't had a single outage save for a glich in my cable modem which a reset fixed. Wish I still had Time Warner, but the sold out to Comcast. I never knew how good I had it with TWC until Comcast came along. Let's just say that my speeds are less than Comcastic, and now I am paying about $10 more a month for my internet/cable bill....
Yeah, and I still drive my '88 Camaro. If only I had been around to buy the '08 Camaro - I could still be driving it today!
Consider yourself luck you don't have Comcast. I had TWC until last December when Comcast bought them out. 2 months later, after getting a letter stating all the service would remain the same and prices wouldn't change, they jacked the prices on everything up. Now my Bittorrent downloads top out at around 100 mb/sit with the average being around 45-50. At least with TWC's ($5 a month cheaper) service I would consistently hit the 300-400 range. Gee thanks Comcast for charging me more for less bandwidth! At the time I thought Time Warner wasn't all that great, now I would be very happy to have them back...
Agreed. If you sign up for an ISP, you are in effect "registering". But if you have access, and then give others access by giving them the encryption keys, or adding their systems to the allow list, you are accomplishing the same thing, only less recklessly. None of the people you give access to need to "register" with anyone but you. Just think, if some idiot comes along and uses your connection for something stupid and gets it shut down (or starts hogging all the bandwidth unfairly), all those other people you were providing access for are shut down also. I am by no means trying to take away access from anybody, I am only suggesting that it be implemented wisely and not half-assed. If we lived in a utopian society where everyone was courteous and responsible, wide open unrestriced access would be ideal. Unfortunately we live in the real world where people constantly mess up other people's Good Things (TM). We need to take a realistic approcah over an idealistic one.
Exactly. If people aren't setting up their Wifi responsibly and not allowing unrestricted access, sooner or later the government will step in and try to regulate. Do we really want it to come to that? I would much rather that the people be a tad more responsible so laws do not need to be forced down our throats. I can see some circumstances that would warrant the use of unrestriced access. But there are far too many out there already than need to be.
"The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
This form of religious intolerance is not limited to Texas. Seven other states (AR, MA, MD, NC, PA, SC and TN) all have similar exclusionary language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions."
What you are forgetting is those laws were proposed by the people, and than voted on democratically by the people. If that is what the people of those states want, and use a democratic process to get there, what is wrong with that? Are you saying people in Europe know what is better for Texas than the people living there?? If enough people in the states you mentioned shared your view, they could democratically remove or change the law. I know, letting people say what they want and decide amongst themselves what laws they want may seem a little crazy to Europeans, but not to Americans.
Oh, right I forgot this is Slashdot. I should have made the comparison to a car that you kept unlocked and with the keys in it. How silly of me to not use a car analogy. Thanks for the correction!
P.S. My phone line has an up-front cost and no charge for extra usage. Bizzare. Maybe I should get a different one so it will fit your view better?
It's called a comparison
I'll spell it out for you, in case you were being serious.
I compared having a phone outside your house that everyone can use unrestricted to having an open, unrestricted Wifi access point. I know, comparing two communication mediums that are very similar is a little hard to follow, but I'm sure if you really put your mind to it, you can figure it out...
Ok, I read your post too fast and did miss the part about reasonable argument being made that they were looking for something listed on the warrant.
It just seems like any competent lawyer could poke holes in a broad search warrant - the more specific the warrant the tighter the case. I'm sure there are certain judges that cops favor who will allow a broader range in the warrant, but if the judge who is hearing the case thinks differently they might run into trouble. I'm guessing that most warrants are thrown together quickly so they can catch whatever activity or people they suspect are in a location before circumstances change.
On that note if a judge issues a search warrant, is he excluded from hearing the case? Conflict of interest or some such thing?