In fact, she was convicted of claiming to be innocent of insider trading.
She was innocent of insider trading - at least the charges were dropped - but that didn't give her the right to claim it. You see, by denying it, she was revealing information that affected the price of her company's stock, and she didn't go through the right channels to do it, which is a crime.
Er, no, actually. What's your point? I have confused Austria and Australia in the past, but not since I was about 6.
My point is that "affect" and "effect" sound similar but have different meanings, although etymologically they are related. Similarly, "Austria" and "Australia" sound the same and have the same etymology (they both mean "South-ia"), but are in fact two different countries in different hemispheres.
If you say that Austria thrashed the USA at cricket today, you haven't made a "grammatical error", you've made a factual error. The headline of this article is a factual error. Pioneer 10 and 11 were effected by NASA, whatever they may have been affected by since.
To quote from the journal article which I was modded "offtopic" for referring to:
Affect and effect are two different verbs, with related but quite different meanings.
Affect is the more common. To affect something is to alter it, usually but not always in a harmful way.
Effect is less common. To effect something is to cause it to happen. I noticed people starting to use this more commonly about eight years ago. Soon afterwards, people started to use the verb "to effect" instead of the verb "to affect", unaware of the difference in meaning. The difference is so strong that these people often end up saying the opposite of what they mean.
The key issue here is that the verb "to effect" is meaningful and useful, and we are rapidly losing it through ignorant misuse.
One can advocate a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to language, but that isn't the same as defending actual errors in widely-understood words. Saying "effect" when you mean "affect" isn't like saying "ain't" when you mean "isn't", it's like saying "Austria" when you mean "Australia".
SPEWS is SPEWS. If you want to be part of the War On Spammers, and don't mind losing some of your legitimate incoming email in the process, use SPEWS. If you just want to receive less spam, use a less aggressive blocking list provider (if you trust any), or use content-based filtering.
You could say that SPEWS is primarily an attacking weapon to hurt spammers, rather than a defensive weapon to protect its users from incoming spam (although it does that as well, of course).
Whining about SPEWS is pointless. Complaining to its users might be more sensible, in case they are under the mistaken impression that the service exists to directly benefit its users, rather than to indirectly benefit all email users by hurting spammers.
Leaving aside the other sillinesses, people were well aware at that time that the earth was spherical. Accurate estimates of its size had also been made.
The point is not that solid-state will not get bigger and cheaper (it will), but that disk is getting bigger and cheaper faster.
So sure, you could replace your current 80Gb disk drive with 80Gb of solid state, but where are you going to store your 50Gb 3D movies in 1000x1000x1000 resolution? They're going to be on disk, and you'll have to deal with the increasing size:bandwidth and size:access-speed ratios. After all, I can buy a smartmedia card with the capacity of my first hard drive for about what I used to pay for a box of floppies, but I still use a hard disk.
Secondly, as others have pointed out, just as the article describes future disk behaving more like tape, future solid-state memory may behave more like disk. Where is it now? chips can pump out sequential data at close to 1 gigabit, but jumping about in memory is much slower (any expert got figures?).
And in fact it was named after the British decency campaigner Mary Whitehouse, not in any way relevant to the US Govt.
And since Whitehouse is a company, and the White House isn't (although there has been some discussion of that recently), whitehouse.com is much better pointing to the magazine
I'm not a DNS expert, but couldn't Verisign work round this, by delegating x.com (where x is any unregistered domain) to a different nameserver (of their own), which would then return A records pointing to their advert server?
Of course, they would need to customize their DNS software to do that, as opposed to just adding a line to a config file.
That site also talks about a netfilter solution, but don't give much detail. Does their tar.bz provide firewall rules to clean up DNS replies as they come in?
The target market for CDs and DVDs is "people who don't care
what it costs."
If DVD buyers cared how much they spent, they wouldn't buy new releases.
In fact, the average DVD buyer has money in his pocket burning a hole
in it, and doesn't much care how much he gets for the money. CDs and DVDs are
just the default "soaking up" of spare money.
Of course, many of us have different attitutes, and we're the ones complaining, but the prices are set in the market by the actions of the hole-in-the-pocket brigade.
If you cared about value for money, why would you buy one of this year's DVD
releases when films from a few years ago are half the price? Have you really
got every film you'd like to see from the 1990s? Have you so little
self control that you can't say "Oh, that looks an interesting movie, I'll see
it in a few years when the price drops"
Waiting for a special offer on a CD or DVD is as automatic for me as waiting
for the paperback edition of a book. I saw quite a good film last night that
I got on DVD for GBP6.99 -- less than half the price of most new releases.
I can't see any reason why it would have been worth an extra GBP10 to see it
two years sooner, unless I couldn't think of anything else to spend the money
on.
The film? You've probably heard of it, it was called "The Matrix".
You're still assuming that if the scanner "recognizes" a email as containing Sobig, it really does contain Sobig. The Risks Digest contains a number of past incidents where legitimate email is bounced because a virus scanner has incorrectly identified it as containing a particular virus. If scanners start dropping instead of bouncing mail, that problem becomes worse.
That's not to say they must carry on regardless, the situation really has become intolerable. But it is worth recognizing that the bounce behaviour is there for a good reason, even if that reason is no longer good enough.
OK, it did cross my mind there might be something like that. I guess I should have looked it up. If you want to know if something is true, it's easier to claim it isn't and wait for contradiction than to do a bit of research.:-)
Since you've volunteered to be my tame US Constitution expert:->, how are conflicting laws resolved? Is it simply that the later one overrules the earlier? In this case, a budget passed by Congress that says "DoD has $5Bn to spend on developing missile defense" might overrule a previous treaty that says "the signatories will not develop missile defense" (note: I'm simplifying the ABM issue somewhat).
Regarding "true international law", the problem is that different countries have different systems of government, and many people in many countries like the system of government they have. Never mind the US, you'd have problems persuading the people of almost any vaguely democratic country that they would be better off surrendering sovereignty to a "World Court". For the forseeable future, such an institution can only have authority delegated (revocably) to it by national institutions, not supremacy over them.
I'm as annoyed by this as anybody. I've received hundreds of "rejects", far more than actual copies of the virus.
But people seem to be forgetting one thing: anti-virus software has false positives
If anti-virus software eats infected emails without bouncing them, then it will eat some real emails without bouncing them either. This is very bad, as the sender doesn't know his email hasn't been received.
I don't know the solution. The assumption that once you send an email it will get to its destination is eroding anyway, due to over-zealous anti-spam systems operated by people who think that setting them to reject all emails is a good way of making a point. DSN is becoming more widespread, though God knows what problems that might cause for us if it becomes the norm.
Gaining power over other countries, particularly countries in important areas like the middle east, is something that pretty much any government of any country sees as a good thing. For example, it's an explicit aim of the EU.
The only question is the cost. Bush was on record as believing that the cost was too high. It was a campaign position of his that America was better off keeping its troops home, attending to its own economy and staying out of trouble spots. The NAC people were SOL.
For some mysterious reason, about two years ago, he changed his mind. Something, I can't imagine what, triggered him to think "Hmmm, those people who said that America's security depended on projecting military power around the world, maybe they had a point after all."
Now I'm not saying that the NAC are right. There are other ways of attempting to protect a country. There are problems with being an imperial power rather than a purely economic one. But I don't see much that's secret or hidden about the motives behind recent US foreign policy. Even when the articles quoted talk about the Oil situation, they say that US policy is based around the US strategic need for access to oil supplies, rather than a desire to make profits for oil companies, which is in my eyes a defence of the policy, but which something I have occasionally doubted.
I take it all, well some of it, back. I've read some of the articles and they are indeed hilarious.
The ABM Treaty alone is a crucial factor in national security; letting Bush get away with facilitating its demise will destroy the balance of powers carefully crafted in our Constitution. - is it really their position that a treaty supercedes US law, and an act of Congress is needed to repudiate it? Has any previous government in US history been challenged in a US court for breaking a treaty? That comes straight out of the old right-wing paranoids' one-world-government book.
Since [1971], the world's supply of oil has been traded in U.S. fiat dollars, making the dollar the dominant world reserve currency. Talk about "post hoc ergo propter hoc"! one of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. That is one of the most ludicrous claims I have ever heard. It has so little bearing on reality that it's hard to decide where to begin attacking it.
Well, either the site has been shut down by GWB and his evil henchmen, or else it's been slashdotted, and it's difficult for me to make authoritative statements about stories I haven't read. I've always felt that vague statements should be obviously vague, and I seem to have succeeded here...
Stories 2,6,12,17,25 are familiar to/. readers. I'm guessing you could write the stories from/. posts. This leads me to believe that the writers are in some kind of contact with reality.
Stories 1,7,8,10,20,21,22,24 I could probably roughly fill in the basic facts, which I consider likely to be true. The tone of the headlines suggest certain attitudes, which I do not necessarily share. I would count a few of those as "true - and a good thing too!".
The remainder, either I can't guess what the details are, or it's obvious from the headline what the story is, but I have no information to judge it on. If some are true and some are false we're going to end up in the 75% region. (If I said 76.3% I wouldn't be sufficiently vague:-))
Bullets are designed to kill or injure. DU does it better! And for longer, too.
And, as an added bonus, they spread toxic dust around the area where they're used, so you can kill people long after you've gone home
After the side effects of DU were revealed following their use in Yugoslavia, we were told we wouldn't be using it any more...
Yes, this site has a strong left bias. But glancing at the list (can't get to the site yet), maybe 75% of the "stories" are probably basically true. You tend not to get people saying "I don't have much of a political point of view, but here are a bunch of important stories that haven't got much mainstream attention." Another commenter pointed at Accuracy In Media, which regularly performs the same valuable function from a different political viewpoint. I rate it at the same kind of 75% accurate as the project censored list. Well worth a look.
Hmmm... which shows more "cluefullness": sending someone a message because you (inaccurately) believe they have a virus, or sending someone a message even though you realise they probably don't?
In my opinion, the first shows forgivable ignorance, the second unforgivable stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
She was innocent of insider trading - at least the charges were dropped - but that didn't give her the right to claim it. You see, by denying it, she was revealing information that affected the price of her company's stock, and she didn't go through the right channels to do it, which is a crime.
Other than that, you're pretty much correct. Existing Gentoo users who will be getting new machines will be interested, I suppose...
That's "affect".
My point is that "affect" and "effect" sound similar but have different meanings, although etymologically they are related. Similarly, "Austria" and "Australia" sound the same and have the same etymology (they both mean "South-ia"), but are in fact two different countries in different hemispheres.
If you say that Austria thrashed the USA at cricket today, you haven't made a "grammatical error", you've made a factual error. The headline of this article is a factual error. Pioneer 10 and 11 were effected by NASA, whatever they may have been affected by since.
Affect and effect are two different verbs, with related but quite different meanings.
Affect is the more common. To affect something is to alter it, usually but not always in a harmful way.
Effect is less common. To effect something is to cause it to happen. I noticed people starting to use this more commonly about eight years ago. Soon afterwards, people started to use the verb "to effect" instead of the verb "to affect", unaware of the difference in meaning. The difference is so strong that these people often end up saying the opposite of what they mean.
here is a good reference.
Oh, and see my journal for more ranting on the subject (it looks recent, but it's actually 1 or 2 years old).
The key issue here is that the verb "to effect" is meaningful and useful, and we are rapidly losing it through ignorant misuse. One can advocate a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to language, but that isn't the same as defending actual errors in widely-understood words. Saying "effect" when you mean "affect" isn't like saying "ain't" when you mean "isn't", it's like saying "Austria" when you mean "Australia".
You could say that SPEWS is primarily an attacking weapon to hurt spammers, rather than a defensive weapon to protect its users from incoming spam (although it does that as well, of course).
Whining about SPEWS is pointless. Complaining to its users might be more sensible, in case they are under the mistaken impression that the service exists to directly benefit its users, rather than to indirectly benefit all email users by hurting spammers.
But note that in this and similar cases, it is uploading that the miscreant is being sued over.
Or do you mean affect?
Leaving aside the other sillinesses, people were well aware at that time that the earth was spherical. Accurate estimates of its size had also been made.
see http://www.grecoreport.com/eratosthenes.htm
So sure, you could replace your current 80Gb disk drive with 80Gb of solid state, but where are you going to store your 50Gb 3D movies in 1000x1000x1000 resolution? They're going to be on disk, and you'll have to deal with the increasing size:bandwidth and size:access-speed ratios. After all, I can buy a smartmedia card with the capacity of my first hard drive for about what I used to pay for a box of floppies, but I still use a hard disk.
Secondly, as others have pointed out, just as the article describes future disk behaving more like tape, future solid-state memory may behave more like disk. Where is it now? chips can pump out sequential data at close to 1 gigabit, but jumping about in memory is much slower (any expert got figures?).
And since Whitehouse is a company, and the White House isn't (although there has been some discussion of that recently), whitehouse.com is much better pointing to the magazine
Of course, they would need to customize their DNS software to do that, as opposed to just adding a line to a config file.
That site also talks about a netfilter solution, but don't give much detail. Does their tar.bz provide firewall rules to clean up DNS replies as they come in?
I think you meant to type "You are correct. If the powerful still got their wealth from growing cotton, ..."
The target market for CDs and DVDs is "people who don't care what it costs."
If DVD buyers cared how much they spent, they wouldn't buy new releases. In fact, the average DVD buyer has money in his pocket burning a hole in it, and doesn't much care how much he gets for the money. CDs and DVDs are just the default "soaking up" of spare money.
Of course, many of us have different attitutes, and we're the ones complaining, but the prices are set in the market by the actions of the hole-in-the-pocket brigade.
If you cared about value for money, why would you buy one of this year's DVD releases when films from a few years ago are half the price? Have you really got every film you'd like to see from the 1990s? Have you so little self control that you can't say "Oh, that looks an interesting movie, I'll see it in a few years when the price drops"
Waiting for a special offer on a CD or DVD is as automatic for me as waiting for the paperback edition of a book. I saw quite a good film last night that I got on DVD for GBP6.99 -- less than half the price of most new releases. I can't see any reason why it would have been worth an extra GBP10 to see it two years sooner, unless I couldn't think of anything else to spend the money on.
The film? You've probably heard of it, it was called "The Matrix".
You're still assuming that if the scanner "recognizes" a email as containing Sobig, it really does contain Sobig. The Risks Digest contains a number of past incidents where legitimate email is bounced because a virus scanner has incorrectly identified it as containing a particular virus. If scanners start dropping instead of bouncing mail, that problem becomes worse.
That's not to say they must carry on regardless, the situation really has become intolerable. But it is worth recognizing that the bounce behaviour is there for a good reason, even if that reason is no longer good enough.
OK, it did cross my mind there might be something like that. I guess I should have looked it up. If you want to know if something is true, it's easier to claim it isn't and wait for contradiction than to do a bit of research. :-)
Since you've volunteered to be my tame US Constitution expert :->, how are conflicting laws resolved? Is it simply that the later one overrules the earlier? In this case, a budget passed by Congress that says "DoD has $5Bn to spend on developing missile defense" might overrule a previous treaty that says "the signatories will not develop missile defense" (note: I'm simplifying the ABM issue somewhat).
Regarding "true international law", the problem is that different countries have different systems of government, and many people in many countries like the system of government they have. Never mind the US, you'd have problems persuading the people of almost any vaguely democratic country that they would be better off surrendering sovereignty to a "World Court". For the forseeable future, such an institution can only have authority delegated (revocably) to it by national institutions, not supremacy over them.
I'm as annoyed by this as anybody. I've received hundreds of "rejects", far more than actual copies of the virus.
But people seem to be forgetting one thing: anti-virus software has false positives
If anti-virus software eats infected emails without bouncing them, then it will eat some real emails without bouncing them either. This is very bad, as the sender doesn't know his email hasn't been received.
I don't know the solution. The assumption that once you send an email it will get to its destination is eroding anyway, due to over-zealous anti-spam systems operated by people who think that setting them to reject all emails is a good way of making a point. DSN is becoming more widespread, though God knows what problems that might cause for us if it becomes the norm.
Gaining power over other countries, particularly countries in important areas like the middle east, is something that pretty much any government of any country sees as a good thing. For example, it's an explicit aim of the EU.
The only question is the cost. Bush was on record as believing that the cost was too high. It was a campaign position of his that America was better off keeping its troops home, attending to its own economy and staying out of trouble spots. The NAC people were SOL.
For some mysterious reason, about two years ago, he changed his mind. Something, I can't imagine what, triggered him to think "Hmmm, those people who said that America's security depended on projecting military power around the world, maybe they had a point after all."
Now I'm not saying that the NAC are right. There are other ways of attempting to protect a country. There are problems with being an imperial power rather than a purely economic one. But I don't see much that's secret or hidden about the motives behind recent US foreign policy. Even when the articles quoted talk about the Oil situation, they say that US policy is based around the US strategic need for access to oil supplies, rather than a desire to make profits for oil companies, which is in my eyes a defence of the policy, but which something I have occasionally doubted.
I take it all, well some of it, back. I've read some of the articles and they are indeed hilarious.
The ABM Treaty alone is a crucial factor in national security; letting Bush get away with facilitating its demise will destroy the balance of powers carefully crafted in our Constitution. - is it really their position that a treaty supercedes US law, and an act of Congress is needed to repudiate it? Has any previous government in US history been challenged in a US court for breaking a treaty? That comes straight out of the old right-wing paranoids' one-world-government book.
Since [1971], the world's supply of oil has been traded in U.S. fiat dollars, making the dollar the dominant world reserve currency. Talk about "post hoc ergo propter hoc"! one of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. That is one of the most ludicrous claims I have ever heard. It has so little bearing on reality that it's hard to decide where to begin attacking it.
Well, either the site has been shut down by GWB and his evil henchmen, or else it's been slashdotted, and it's difficult for me to make authoritative statements about stories I haven't read. I've always felt that vague statements should be obviously vague, and I seem to have succeeded here...
Stories 2,6,12,17,25 are familiar to /. readers. I'm guessing you could write the stories from /. posts. This leads me to believe that the writers are in some kind of contact with reality.
Stories 1,7,8,10,20,21,22,24 I could probably roughly fill in the basic facts, which I consider likely to be true. The tone of the headlines suggest certain attitudes, which I do not necessarily share. I would count a few of those as "true - and a good thing too!".
The remainder, either I can't guess what the details are, or it's obvious from the headline what the story is, but I have no information to judge it on. If some are true and some are false we're going to end up in the 75% region. (If I said 76.3% I wouldn't be sufficiently vague:-))
And, as an added bonus, they spread toxic dust around the area where they're used, so you can kill people long after you've gone home
After the side effects of DU were revealed following their use in Yugoslavia, we were told we wouldn't be using it any more...
Yes, this site has a strong left bias. But glancing at the list (can't get to the site yet), maybe 75% of the "stories" are probably basically true. You tend not to get people saying "I don't have much of a political point of view, but here are a bunch of important stories that haven't got much mainstream attention." Another commenter pointed at Accuracy In Media, which regularly performs the same valuable function from a different political viewpoint. I rate it at the same kind of 75% accurate as the project censored list. Well worth a look.
Hmmm... which shows more "cluefullness": sending someone a message because you (inaccurately) believe they have a virus, or sending someone a message even though you realise they probably don't?
In my opinion, the first shows forgivable ignorance, the second unforgivable stupidity.