That was pretty much my reaction, read premise: "Nothing wrong with Vista", read conclusion: "Completely rewrite Vista". Errm.... read middle. Ahh the premise was wrong... gotcha.
Except the concept of 'molestation by teacher' is just one level above 'molestation by MySpace troll" in the hierarchy of miss-attribution.
If you want to identify 'at risk' children just look for the ones with parents, relatives or family acquaintances. That gives an 80% hit rate in terms of attacker profile.
I was going to claim BS... then I did some quick math... wait a second 15 years ago was 1992 ? That can't be right 15 years ago was 1983... wasn't it. Apparently my brain has wiped the last decade.
Belthize ps: For what it's worth the leading theory is w00t came from the song "whoot, there it is" in 93 which puts your recollection bang on.
Congress was working up a bill that would retrofit all the roads in the US so we're either straight or turned right. The bill was dropped when they discovered the principle designer, MC Escher had pased away and nobody else was capable of drawing them.
If they have 60,000 computers with 'sensitive' data on it then they're borked already.
If they want to encrypt people's laptops/desktops then fine... if they want to prevent personal civilian data from leaking out they're off by a few orders of magnitude on the extent of their distributed storage.
If you know(1) there's some mass somewhere from say a gravitational lens but it doesn't emit radiation the way normal matter (proton, electron, neutron, typical neutrino's) would then it's presumably non-baryonic, ie dark matter(2). http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
On the other hand if you can detect the radiation (in line with expected levels) and it's mass then you know it's baryonic.
The normal baryonic matter in the article's case isn't detectable now due to instrument sensitivity, not due to some abnormality in the material itself. Once the new instruments are built the hope is the matter can be detected. The material itself isn't abnormal, just it's location and density is abnormal.
1) For random definitions of know 2) This is more or less the meaning of dark matter.
Considering the only logical use of this list is to inform the public about *potential* sex offenders (based on prior actions) the obvious thing to do is:
o Create a list of all underage children o Cross reference that list by their {step}father o Add a cross reference to all other family members
o Include their name and addresses so the rest of us can keep an eye on them. o Remove the existing sex-offenders list since it's merely a distraction and we'd be spread to thin watching them *and* the more likely relative.
Belthize ps: I'm in complete agreement with you. The existing list is mental and serves no purpose.
Learning to identify your core competencies so you can leverage your resources in an effort to devlop effective intra-deparmental synergy thus allowing you to devote time to identifying emerging paradigms is what being an MBA is all about.... or so I'm told.
NSF entire budget in FY07 was ~37% of NASA's budget (16B vs 5.9B). Of that 5.9B $215M went to astronomy. ~56% of that $215M went to facilities like NRAO, NAIC, Gemini and NOAO.
NSF has a much better track record than NASA in terms of ROI it's just not as sexy.
While I'd love to see NASA's budget increased I'd prefer to see NSF's increase.
Errrm... that seems to be a link about the wind farm off of Cape Cod... slightly north of Sydney.
In addition it seems to be pointing out that Kennedy (and other Cape Cod residents) are very much of a 'not in my back yard' mentality. The enviro's were saying, you should rethink... a wind farm off of Cape Cod makes good sense.
Presumably you meant to link to something else.
Belthize ps: I remember reading an editorial by Walter Kronkite 5 years or so ago about this project. He was berating himself since he was nominally for clean energy but ultimately just couldn't get past the NIMBY aspect of looking at it from his kitchen window. He ultimately settled for what he felt was a clean view and a dirty conscious... I was always a bit disappointed in him for that (I believe he recanted a bit before he died though).
There seems to be something more going on other than simply whether they were auto-approved.
We use WSUS, most certainly test, approve, release all updates and have for years. Other sites have reported the same. On the other hand some sites have shown that it shows up as optional software.
I see 3 likely possibilities 1) Those sites like ours are simply wrong. Possible but I'm (obviously) inclined to believe this isn't the case. 2) MS released 2 versions, one that auto-approves independent of WSUS settings and one that does not (once they had their "oh shit" moment). 3) WSUS has some flag I'm not aware of that can cause certain packages to 'auto-approve' even if the default auto-approve option is disabled.
Which brings up the inevitable... if you have gawdawful item of unlordly worth and you lose it by say dying in game can you write it off on your taxes.
Yep... same here. I'm on the 'management' side. My lead windows admin kept saying, the next release blah blah blah will be better. I finally said enough, throw it away. We just ended up writing our own scripts for Linux,OS/X and Windows to populate a mySQL db with all the info (name,owner,cpu,mem,age,arch,os,patch level, sofware packages etc). The scripts run by the clock or at boot, dump to files and then the db snarfs them in. Simple and functional.
For helpdesk we just use wreq. I'm one of those management wonks that thinks tools like these should make your job easier not 'be' the bloody job (remedy anyone).
[Any Key]. I've lost track of how many computers I've had to throw away once they reached that inevitable 'Press any key now' point. Much more useful key and it'd be good for the environment.
Yep... it's pretty clear to me that this will never come to pass for that reason and more. Any system that more accurately reflects the voting public's dissatisfaction with elected officials is very unlikely to get approval from those officials.
The only way I could see it ever having a chance (assuming a majority thought it was a good idea in the first place) would be to have one town do it. From there spread to county and state elections. At some point the populous might have some hope of heaving it up to the federal level.
Certainly no incumbent official is going to vote in something that might make him/her look bad unless not voting it in makes them look worse.
I didn't make it entirely clear... and probably poor choice of words.
A mandate to be president.. absolutely. A mandate to press foward their
own personal agenda, definitely or at least very unlikely not.
When they claim 'I've received a mandate from the people to press forward
with my agenda' there's the literal interpretation which, you're correct, they
received. There's also an implied interpretation that the majority actually
provided such a mandate for a specific agenda.
It's this latter that I find fault with.
I've proposed a number of times (elsewhere) a rather simple change to the current popular vote.
In my opinion one of the greatest fundamental problem with the current system is it enables somebody who received 50+ % of the votes to behave as if they've received a 'mandate' from the masses. They go on to behave as if 50% or more of the population actually approves of their position.
In practice a significant (and potentially large) percentage of voters cast their vote not 'for' candidate A but 'against' candidate B. Numerous exit polls showed voters voted for Bush because they didn't like Kerry or voted for Kerry because they didn't like Bush. Many voters (for instance myself) typically feel much more strongly about their dislike for a candidate than they do their attraction to a candidate.
The rather simple solution is to provide, just as now, voters with exactly 1 vote for president (or whatever office is in question). The difference is that vote can be for *or* against a candidate. For votes count as +1 and against votes count as -1.
Assuming for a second the exact same people vote and vote correctly (and I'll address this later) the fundamental outcome in such an election will be exactly the same as the currrent system. Somebody who previously vote for candidate A because they hated B would now simply vote against B. One less vote for each candidate so net zero change.
The significant difference is the final vote results. Instead of candidate A getting 53% and candidate B getting 40% (with the other 7% spread acrosss c,d and e) you might see candidate A get 35% (aggregate for - against) and candidate B get 27% (for - against). It's distinctly possible that candidate C (the green one) might now get 22% since in previous elections people who might be inclined to vote for C voted for B as a vote against A will now actuallly vote for C. Candidate C voters are only competing against voters who prefer A or B not the sum of people that prefer A and hate B.
Now the results more accurately reflect the 'opinion' of the populous. Only 35% (or lower) of the people actually approve of you. I'd love to have seen the last election results end up as Bush 15%, Kerry 14% and (pick random independent) 12%. The end result would be the same but Bush wouldn't be able to claim any mandate. Telling the whole lot (congress, president, city council) hey only about 20% of us think your not a twit is a better reflection of reality.
I'd be relatively suprised if such a system didn't generate higher voter turnout as well. I know numerous people who frequently don't vote because they don't believe in either candiate. They take voting seriously enough that they will only vote in candidates they believe in, as opposed to simply voting for the alternative to the one they hate. I think you'd see many of these voters come out to cast 'against' votes.
When I've proposed this before people worried about confusion in the voting booth. I'm certain people will make mistakes and vote the wrong way. I'm also certain that already occurs. If we expect the populous to be able to operate a cell phone and ATM then I expect they can figure this out. The percentage of ones that can't must be very small.
Slashdot Mirror
That was pretty much my reaction, read premise: "Nothing wrong with Vista", read .... read middle. Ahh the premise ... gotcha.
conclusion: "Completely rewrite Vista". Errm
was wrong
Belthize
Except the concept of 'molestation by teacher' is just one level above 'molestation by MySpace troll" in the hierarchy of miss-attribution.
If you want to identify 'at risk' children just look for the ones with parents, relatives or family acquaintances.
That gives an 80% hit rate in terms of attacker profile.
Belthize
Dang, well you should probably let the artist know they've been getting
it wrong all these years.
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/95-south-whoot-there-it-is-lyrics.html
There were two songs released in '93, one with whoomp and with whoot.
Belthize
ps: I never listened to or cared for either song
It's comments like that which make me think there may be something to this whole interweb thing after all...
Belthize
I was going to claim BS
15 years ago was 1992 ? That can't be right 15 years ago was 1983
Apparently my brain has wiped the last decade.
Belthize
ps: For what it's worth the leading theory is w00t came from the song "whoot, there it is"
in 93 which puts your recollection bang on.
Congress was working up a bill that would retrofit all the roads in the
US so we're either straight or turned right. The bill was dropped when
they discovered the principle designer, MC Escher had pased away and nobody
else was capable of drawing them.
Belthize
If they have 60,000 computers with 'sensitive' data on it then they're borked already.
... if they want to prevent
If they want to encrypt people's laptops/desktops then fine
personal civilian data from leaking out they're off by a few orders of magnitude on the
extent of their distributed storage.
Belthize
I'll probably get this wrong but ...
You don't really know, but you can infer.
If you know(1) there's some mass somewhere from say a gravitational lens but it doesn't emit radiation the way normal matter (proton, electron, neutron, typical neutrino's) would then it's presumably non-baryonic, ie dark matter(2). http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
On the other hand if you can detect the radiation (in line with expected levels) and it's mass then you know it's baryonic.
The normal baryonic matter in the article's case isn't detectable now due to instrument sensitivity,
not due to some abnormality in the material itself. Once the new instruments are built the
hope is the matter can be detected. The material itself isn't abnormal, just it's location and density is
abnormal.
1) For random definitions of know
2) This is more or less the meaning of dark matter.
Dark Matter is matter that's not made up of normal baryonic material. As a matter of fact you can detect it but not enough to matter.
Over and above the missing 'dark matter' there's the matter of the missing regular matter.
It's the missing regular matter that matters in this case.
Belthize
Considering the only logical use of this list is to inform the public about *potential* sex offenders
(based on prior actions) the obvious thing to do is:
o Create a list of all underage children
o Cross reference that list by their {step}father
o Add a cross reference to all other family members
o Include their name and addresses so the rest of us can keep an eye on them.
o Remove the existing sex-offenders list since it's merely a distraction and we'd be spread
to thin watching them *and* the more likely relative.
Belthize
ps: I'm in complete agreement with you. The existing list is mental and serves no purpose.
Learning to identify your core competencies so you can leverage your resources in an effort to devlop effective intra-deparmental synergy
thus allowing you to devote time to identifying emerging paradigms is what being an MBA is all about
Belthize
NSF entire budget in FY07 was ~37% of NASA's budget (16B vs 5.9B). Of that 5.9B
$215M went to astronomy. ~56% of that $215M went to facilities like NRAO, NAIC, Gemini and NOAO.
NSF has a much better track record than NASA in terms of ROI it's just not as sexy.
While I'd love to see NASA's budget increased I'd prefer to see NSF's increase.
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2007/tables.jsp#tables
Belthize
Errrm ... that seems to be a link about the wind farm off of Cape Cod ... slightly north of Sydney.
... a wind farm off of Cape Cod makes good sense.
In addition it seems to be pointing out that Kennedy (and other Cape Cod residents) are very much of a 'not in my back yard' mentality. The enviro's were saying, you should rethink
Presumably you meant to link to something else.
Belthize
ps: I remember reading an editorial by Walter Kronkite 5 years or so ago about this project. He was berating himself since he was nominally for clean energy but ultimately just couldn't get past the NIMBY aspect of looking at it from his kitchen window. He ultimately settled for what he felt was a clean view and a dirty conscious... I was always a bit disappointed in him for that (I believe he recanted a bit before he died though).
There seems to be something more going on other than simply whether they were auto-approved.
We use WSUS, most certainly test, approve, release all updates and have for years. Other
sites have reported the same. On the other hand some sites have shown that it shows up
as optional software.
I see 3 likely possibilities
1) Those sites like ours are simply wrong. Possible but I'm (obviously) inclined to believe this isn't the case.
2) MS released 2 versions, one that auto-approves independent of WSUS settings and one that does not (once they had their "oh shit" moment).
3) WSUS has some flag I'm not aware of that can cause certain packages to 'auto-approve' even if the default auto-approve option is disabled.
Belthize
Which brings up the inevitable
Belthize
Yep ... same here. I'm on the 'management' side. My lead windows admin kept saying, the next release blah blah blah will be better. I finally said enough, throw it away. We just ended up writing our own scripts for Linux,OS/X and Windows to populate a mySQL db with all the info (name,owner,cpu,mem,age,arch,os,patch level, sofware packages etc). The scripts run by the clock or at boot, dump to files and then the db snarfs them in. Simple and functional.
For helpdesk we just use wreq. I'm one of those management wonks that thinks tools like these should make your job easier not 'be' the bloody job (remedy anyone).
Belthize
[Any Key]. I've lost track of how many computers I've had to throw away once
they reached that inevitable 'Press any key now' point. Much more useful key
and it'd be good for the environment.
Belthize
Yep ... it's pretty clear to me that this will never come to pass for that reason and
more. Any system that more accurately reflects the voting public's dissatisfaction
with elected officials is very unlikely to get approval from those officials.
The only way I could see it ever having a chance (assuming a majority thought it
was a good idea in the first place) would be to have one town do it. From there
spread to county and state elections. At some point the populous might have some
hope of heaving it up to the federal level.
Certainly no incumbent official is going to vote in something that might make
him/her look bad unless not voting it in makes them look worse.
I didn't make it entirely clear ... and probably poor choice of words.
A mandate to be president .. absolutely. A mandate to press foward their
own personal agenda, definitely or at least very unlikely not.
When they claim 'I've received a mandate from the people to press forward
with my agenda' there's the literal interpretation which, you're correct, they
received. There's also an implied interpretation that the majority actually
provided such a mandate for a specific agenda.
It's this latter that I find fault with.
I've proposed a number of times (elsewhere) a rather simple change to the current
popular vote.
In my opinion one of the greatest fundamental problem with the current system is
it enables somebody who received 50+ % of the votes to behave as if they've received a
'mandate' from the masses. They go on to behave as if 50% or more of the population
actually approves of their position.
In practice a significant (and potentially large) percentage of voters cast their vote
not 'for' candidate A but 'against' candidate B. Numerous exit polls showed voters
voted for Bush because they didn't like Kerry or voted for Kerry because they didn't
like Bush. Many voters (for instance myself) typically feel much more strongly about
their dislike for a candidate than they do their attraction to a candidate.
The rather simple solution is to provide, just as now, voters with exactly 1 vote for
president (or whatever office is in question). The difference is that vote can be for
*or* against a candidate. For votes count as +1 and against votes count as -1.
Assuming for a second the exact same people vote and vote correctly (and I'll
address this later) the fundamental outcome in such an election will be exactly the
same as the currrent system. Somebody who previously vote for candidate A
because they hated B would now simply vote against B. One less vote for each
candidate so net zero change.
The significant difference is the final vote results. Instead of candidate A getting
53% and candidate B getting 40% (with the other 7% spread acrosss c,d and e) you might
see candidate A get 35% (aggregate for - against) and candidate B get 27% (for - against).
It's distinctly possible that candidate C (the green one) might now get 22% since in
previous elections people who might be inclined to vote for C voted for B as a vote
against A will now actuallly vote for C. Candidate C voters are only competing against
voters who prefer A or B not the sum of people that prefer A and hate B.
Now the results more accurately reflect the 'opinion' of the populous. Only 35%
(or lower) of the people actually approve of you. I'd love to have seen the last election
results end up as Bush 15%, Kerry 14% and (pick random independent) 12%. The
end result would be the same but Bush wouldn't be able to claim any mandate. Telling
the whole lot (congress, president, city council) hey only about 20% of us think your
not a twit is a better reflection of reality.
I'd be relatively suprised if such a system didn't generate higher voter turnout as
well. I know numerous people who frequently don't vote because they don't believe
in either candiate. They take voting seriously enough that they will only vote in candidates
they believe in, as opposed to simply voting for the alternative to the one they hate. I think
you'd see many of these voters come out to cast 'against' votes.
When I've proposed this before people worried about confusion in the voting booth.
I'm certain people will make mistakes and vote the wrong way. I'm also certain that
already occurs. If we expect the populous to be able to operate a cell phone and ATM
then I expect they can figure this out. The percentage of ones that can't must be
very small.
Does anybody know whether death is XP debt or XP loss. I hate
XP loss. I earned those levels so if I die I just want to have to re-earn
the XP.
Also will there be a wispy thing when you corpse run or do we just
get to rez with all our stuff ? What if you're a Hindu ?
Belthize