Re: was he a mad linguist?
"cunning linguist?" - Which is a ripped off quote from a James Bond movie (Moneypenny yanking Bond's chain with a double meaning pun).
57 posts • joined 16 May 2007
"cunning linguist?" - Which is a ripped off quote from a James Bond movie (Moneypenny yanking Bond's chain with a double meaning pun).
I see you remember Clint Eastwood in Firefox (or Joe90 in the Joe90 Pilot Episode) <g>.
snowweb asked "Why the microwave backlink to the truck, when it's connected to the truck by a cable anyway and100M is short enough for a CAT6 cable?"
If you reread the story, you will note that the balloon is not tethered to the truck. The truck is somewhere up to 5Km away from where the balloon is located. Thus there is no wired connection between the truck and the balloon.
"The vehicle's distance calculator should include ambient temperature in calculating the range. Therefore *I wonder* if that 1/3 drop in charge was actually a 1/3 drop in computed range.
When he charged the battery, the ambient temperature was much higher than overnight. Thus any recomputation would yield lower distance estimates. In addition, as the temperature drops, all batteries lose some of their charge. On cold days (after a cold night) it is harder to start your car. If you look at your charging meter you would notice that after starting the car while the baattery is recharged.
You have to understand what the meaning of the "Miles to Empty" reading. It is based on an assumption that you will be driving non-stop at a designated speed. If you go some other speed (like getting caught in a rush hour backup where you are going 15MPH) the initial estimate will over state how far you actually can go. The estimate gets recomputed in real time based on the distance you have traveled as well as your average speed.
I fail to see how the use of Hopper differs from a normal DVR or VHS recording. In all these cases the TOTAL show is recorded and when viewed the commercial is (can be) skipped past. If Hopper did not record the Ads, then FOX might have a case but it DOES record the Ads. All the payment for Ads buys is the right to present them to the viewer NOT the insuring that the viewer will actually watch the Ad.
Even the way the Electoral College (EC) is held is flawed. Each state gets 2 EC votes plus 1 vote for each Member of the House of Representatives it has (IOW: The same formula as is used to represent its Congressional Representation - 2 Senators and X House Seats). The problem is that instead of giving the 2 Statewide EC votes to whoever wins the Statewide Popular Vote (like is done for the Senate) and giving 1 EC vote to the winner of each House Election District (Like the House is elected), ALL of the state's ECs go to in a Winner Gets All manner based on the state-wide popular vote. Thus the results in the election districts are ignored and only the popular vote in the state counts. This means that it is possible to lose most of the Election Districts (close race) and still win all the ECs due to getting lots of votes in some of the EDs.
"I'd be interested to see what happens if Facebook is found to have acted in contempt of an Australian court."
That should be Contempt For a court that is attempting to issue an overbroard ban on the Facebook pages. If the request (ie: Censorship Order) were to block display (and prevent addition comments) by users with Australian IP Addresses then IMO there would be some plausible justification to impose this ban. I am not living in Australia and am not a potential juror so a total block on the messages (thus preventing me from seeing them or commenting) is going too far. Preventing potential jurors from seeing the messages is one thing, preventing anyone from seeing them is another.
"Sites with most copyright removal notices sink to bottom"
Which means that the more items you have, the more likely you are to get shoved to the bottom of the queue just because of the number of notices. If I have 10M items and get 10K notices (a 0.1% hit ratio) (which are immediately responded to upon receipt BTW) I am more likely to get penalized than a site with only 9K worth of notices and 100K items (a 9% hit ratio). This algorithm needs to be adjusted to take hit ratio into consideration. The more items you have to be disputed the more disputes you will have simply due to the number of targets even if the percentage of items in dispute is much lower.
Why is are the logs on the DNS machines not being reviewed and the connecting machines being reverse-DNS'ed so as to ID the domain owner. A warning message to the role accounts as well as the Whois listed Tech Contact Role with a heads-up would seem to be a good idea to me.
Back in 1996 I ran into this type of dumb security checker when flying. I was returning from a science fiction convention that was held over Labor Day along with some friends. We had traveled from the convention hotel to the airport via a bus and our luggage was stored in lockers under the bus. At the airport we were asked if at anytime after we had packed our bags they were out of our control (a usual question that was being asked at that time) and my friend answered the question literally by saying that they had been stored in the bus lockers for the trip but that was not a problem since Greg Morris had died the prior week. This was a reference to his Mission Impossible role of Barney Collier where he would be hidden in car trunks (and other places) and fool with stored luggage/etc. and that the actor had just died on August 27, 1996. The agent wanted to pull his bags for inspection until it was explained that it was a dumb question in the first place and that it ignored the normal times when bags were not under the control of the passenger (they were thinking in terms of the bags being left unattended or being left for a period of time out of the view of the passenger) . The fact that a MI/Barney Collier swap could be done if the bus had been altered to allow access to the lockers was more than they could comprehend.
Then there was the incident (I do not remember if it was the same trip) when another friend was arrested when he tried to pick up his bags at the end of the trip due to the bags having been x-ray'ed after being checked and the x-ray having spotted the replica guns in the bags that he had bought at the convention. At that time bags were allowed to be checked and locked and thus they needed to wait for arrival to search them.
I wonder why this was my FIRST though after seeing the video and the mention of the Blue Smoke <grin>. My ideas was the fabricators watched too many MI episodes in their youth.
While the low 64 bits (the Host Address) of an IPv6 IPN is by default the nodes MAC address, this not a requirement. The Host Address can be a random number that is generated by the computer so as to prevent it from being tracked (it is a form of NAT). Thus all that would be exposed is your Network Number (IPv6/48) just like now with a NAT'ed IPv4/32 WAN address.
I am a Doctor Who fan and until my Cable Company added BBCA (and the US broadcasts of the series were no longer embargoed for from 6 months to over a year by whoever had the US rights - SciFi and now BBCA) I watched the show in real time via Bit Torrent and then bought the DVDs once they finally got released. I also watched the companion Doctor Who Confidential (ie: The "Making Of" show about that week's episode) the same way (no longer since the BBC has canceled the show). While the DVDs have the Confidential episodes as extra material, they are trimmed down to 15 minutes from their BBC3 versions of 45 minutes. I think this applies not only to the US Region 1 DVDs but also the UK Region 2 DVDs. Thus the only way to see the show is to pirate it (although the iPlayer versions might be uncut). I wonder why they supply the trimmed as opposed to full length versions.
Interestingly a certified letter that is refused (and thus returned to the sender) and presented unopened to the court has more legal standing than one that was actually delivered and signed for. In the refused case there is proof of what was attempted to be sent while in the latter case all there is proof of is that a certified letter was sent NOT its content. IOW: Sending blank paper has just as much standing as sending the actual letter so far as claiming what was sent. If/When the case goes to trial then the recipient can present what was in the envelope so blank paper is better than an innocuous letter since that latter can be proof of a fraudulent claim that the sender's copy was the same as what was in the envelope.
A certified letter (and Green Return Receipt Card) is proof to the sender that the letter was delivered and accepted. Since there is no proof of the content of the letter in the case of acceptance, there is just an assumption by the court of the contents not proof of its contents.
"the point made by "xlq" is also a hot topic in statistical circles. One aspect of it is the Birthday paradox: if you have a large enough population, coincidences will happen."."
The "Large Population" is 23 people by the way. Once you have 23 people the odds of two having the same birthday is over 50%.
Note that it is not a coincidence but a statistical requirement. A coincidence would involve matching birthdays with a designated person not matching everyone's birthday against that of everyone-else's. As you have more matches the probability goes up of having a match. Once you have a person 23 they have an over 50% chance of matching the birthday of one of persons 1-22 (none of whom share a birthday).
As to DNA being unique to a person, try telling that to Karen Keegan and Lydia Fairchild (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Fairchild) who got into legal and medical problems since as Chimeras (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29) they each have two separate sets of DNA (depending on which organ the DNA sample was taken from).
For details see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFC1149>.
By requiring that the customer opt-out from the forced arbitration requirement, Sony is taking an out where they can say "What Letter?". The only way that you can show that you attempted to contact them via SnailMail is to send the letter Certified (or Registered) with a Return Receipt Request. Ordinary mail is too easy to deny having received. BTW: If such a letter delivery is rejected by the addressee, so long as the returned envelope is left sealed it is legal service and delivery. In fact the returned sealed envelope is even better than one that was signed for since it eliminates the claim that there was no enclosure or it was blank paper (not relevant in this case but only in the general case).
As noted US Phone numbers are NPA-EXC-NNNN. EXC is exchange which is of the from XYY where X=2-9 and Y is 0-9 (the first Y was originally 2-9 to avoid being confused with the NPA Area Codes. NPA (The area code) is of the form of XYZ where X=2-9, Y=0-8, and Z is 0-9. Y was originally 0 or 1 but was extended to allow 2-8. 9 is reserved for when they run out of area codes at which time XYZ will become X9YZ. Once a designated Permissive dialing period is over (during with you can dial the area code as 3 digits (XYZ) or 4 (X9YZ - the 9 acting as a flag that this is a 4 digit area code) additional 4 digit area codes will use 2-8 in the second position. BTW: The restriction on 9 prevented the issuance to New York City of area code 692 (ie: NYC).
NYC is one of the few areas where 10/11-Digit dialing is required due to the use of Overlay Area Codes (the assigning of the more than one area code to the same geographic area). The 1 can be omitted if you are dialing a number with the same area code as you have but can be used even in this case.
In most cases when an area code runs out of numbers there is an area code split where part of the area code gets to keep its old while the rest gets a new area code. Who gets to keep their old area code is based on who makes the best case for not being inconvenienced (or pays the most money under the table to the agency in charge of deciding who keeps the area code). The idea of just going the overlay route by mapping the new area code over the area covered by the old one is not allowed (except in NYC), as is the "inconvenience everyone" method of assigning 2 area codes and retiring the old one to be reissued later when the pool is almost all assigned.
Since the number of replies to that article is so long I did not want to add my misconception to it (since I would have to read all of them to see if someone had already added it). Mine is base on an old Science Fiction novel I read years ago (and which I have somewhere in my collection since I recently purchased a used copy to add to my collection since I wanted to use it in an article as well as reread it). The name of the novel was "The Man Whose Name Would Not Fit". The plot was about a computer database being developed and implemented which had an assumption that a person's last name could not be longer than some limit (lets say 25 letters - forget the actual limit). The system allowed for hyphenated names (the author was British so took care of that case) but failed to accept a 26 character hyphenated last name. The story told of the outcome for this person and the problems that it caused.
"On Friday, investigators with Scotland Yard received an extension giving them three more days to detain the 18-year-old they say was the figure known as Topiary. The extension cast doubt on speculation the unidentified man was a fall guy who was framed to take the heat off the real culprit."
Just because they have been given permission to detain the supposed "Topiary" for another 3 days, that does not change the question of if he was framed or not. If the Police were tricked into arresting him, this extension can be an effort on their part to avoid more egg on their face by not admitting their error yet. I am not saying that he is not guilty but only that keeping him detained might have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence but only with avoiding admitting their belief in his being who they claim to be as a guilty party. Due to the claims that he was framed, they have a good reason to make it seem that he is guilty even if they know they were tricked.
Apple has a patent on a system where an Infra-Red signal will turn off the camera on iPhones to prevent them from recording anything that a movie theater or concert promoter does not want filmed. It can also be used by the Police to prevent recording of them beating up peaceful protesters or innocent motorists who are the "wrong" color.
One thing that I do not note being mentioned in the article is doing an Erase Free Space (ie: Overwriting the blocks that are not shown in the Directory as containing files). Will that target the physical blocks that contain the old data? How about writing one large file (until there is no more Free Space) with the random data that normally gets written for a secure erase. Since I am ONLY writing to Free Space when I write the large file I should hit a new physical block each time (unlike the erase free space which MIGHT map the same physical block more than once as the backing for the logical blocks while not affecting other physical blocks).
What you are missing is that this was a Final Jeopardy Question. Thus the need to supply SOME answer. The fact that Watson KNEW the answer was wrong (and would have not triggered a Buzz in the standard rounds) was signaled by two things with the answer. First was the string of ?s after the Toronto. Second was the low bid (in the $900s) for the answer.
"The key thing about it is that Watson had to do all this within the time that Ken and Brad had to hear the question and press the button."
Almost. They saw the question as it was displayed and was being read out. Thus they had the same amount of time to come up with the answer as Watson. Watson was able to beat them to the buzz if 2 things occurred. First that it came up with an answer that ranked at least 90% on the "probably right" scale. Second that it took over a set amount of time for the question to be read (Watson had a built in delay before it was allowed to attempt to buzz-in if it had a 90% answer). If you were watching, you would see that it was not the first to buzz if the displayed ranking on the bottom of the screen did not have a 90% answer OR if the question was short (and thus was finished before the delay was over).
Anyone who just saw the movie (or read the book) has a very slanted view of Colossus and its actions. The have to read the 2 sequels The Fall of Colossus (1974) and Colossus and the Crab (1977) you would know that Earth is under attack by Mars and Colossus took over to defend Earth (as was its job).
If you read the books (as opposed to just watching the movies) you would know that HAL's behavior was due to a bad set of mission orders not due to any error on his/its part. The mission orders made completion of the mission priority number 1. The orders were to continue the mission no matter what happened (ie: The cold sleeping scientists and the two crew were expendable and not vital to the mission). Also the crew was not briefed on the real mission and was only to be told upon arrival. Thus there was a conflict between HAL's following the mission orders and the need to supply accurate information to the crew. Add to this that no HAL series computer had ever been powered off once activated (so the concept of being able to be reactivated after being powered off) and the question of if they would (not just could) power him up upon arrival lead directly to his attempts to kill the crew and actually killing the scientists. This was made explicate in (I think 2010 although that sequence might have been the 2001). There was another HAL on Earth running a parallel mission and the cause was found by analyzing its actions.
I seem to remember this issue coming up a few weeks ago and it being determined that it was the handset phoning home to tell the cell company what usage it had had in the past day. IOW: It collected the billing data and bust transmitted it once a day. This explanation would seem to fit the situation where after the phone was disconnected for a period of time, the next transmission was a large file (ie: Multiple days of [non]-usage).
I know that the offer was supposed to be that if one person paid the standard price of £24.50, then their companion would get their meal for £9.80. The way the ad was worded was that two people would pay not the normal £49 for the two meals but £9.80 each (ie: £19.60) which is, as stated, a 60% savings (from £49). Thus on the face of it there was nothing incorrect with the wording of the offer since the real offer would only be a 30% saving. YES it was not the correct offer but the details as stated were 100% accurate (ie: The savings as stated matched the supposed price as stated).
For those who are still using 3.5.x as opposed to 3.6.x, 3.5.14 with the same fixes was released at the same time.
Also, not only can it take 2 year for a trial to be held, you can be imprisoned while the government delays charging you or does not even bother to actually schedule the trial (even if there will be that 2 year wait to hold the trial). It is much easier to skip the trial and go direct to the enforcement of the sentence.
If IPv6 connections were available, there would be no problem since there would only be one stream per node and the steam would be shared by all the nodes all the way back to the servers. With the current IPv4 (multicast or not) connections, even when multiple users are on the same node they each have their own separate session/stream to the servers thus increasing the load.
Steve Foster posted
"An NNTP server is pretty much fire and forget. It'll be mouldering in a broom closet somewhere, out of sight. Apart from a bit of juice and a few KB of bandwidth, what cost is there to rise?"
I doubt that a "Few KB of Bandwidth" is enough to support a NNTP Server (I think the full feed is in the Tens or Hundreds of GB/day). In computing the cost, you are also ignoring the cost for storing the articles (unless you have a short retention period). The amount of data being archived keeps growing (for the same retention period). There is also the question of how full a selection of topics you want to keep.
You are misreading what the statement means. It says that only 2 of the Tier 1 providers have a larger network. IOW: If you had a list of Tier 1 providers ordered by size and added Google to that list, it would appear in the list between the 2nd and 3rd largest network.
Check with your registrar again. Mine allows me to alter the details of all the domains in my account by just doing one update. I can also check a box next to the names of those I want to change in sync and it will update only those. I am surprised that your registrar's interface does not offer this time saving capability.
"Motta said the Feds simply want to keep powers they already have - since 1986 phone companies have been obliged to keep records of who makes calls, who they call, when they call and how long the call lasts. It's just that now, the Feds want to explicity include web activity as well. He said the FBI did not want to store the actual content of calls or emails."
The phone records that are being referred to are needed to bill for the use of the Telephone system (and thus the Feds are just asking for information that the Telco is creating for its own operation anyway). For a land line, there is tracking of out-of-area (ie: Long Distance) calls and possibly local calls (or there used to be when there was message-units/measured-service). With Cell Phones, EVERY Call is logged and reported on your monthly bill since you are charged for use.
In the case of the Internet sessions, there is no need for any records of USAGE/CONNECTIONS, only what IPN has been assigned (by a DHCP Server) to the customer's Modem (and when the IPN was assigned so it is know who address x.x.x.x was on such-and-such a Date and Time). Even if there is a cap on usage, all that is monitored is an aggregate amount of usage (ie: You downloaded/uploaded so much data) not a list of each session.
If you look at the situation with AT&T and MS, you will find that the agreement between the two has MS indemnifying AT&T for any suit growing out of AT&T's use of the MS product (this is a standard license clause - The user if sued will be reimbursed and/or defended by the supplier of the software). Thus MS is actually the one being sued with AT&T being used as a surrogate (who TIVO selected to try to avoid going after the actual claimed infringer - ie: MS).
If I want/need Java6 support on Leopard (10.5) I am supplied with only 64Bit support. With Snow Leopard (10.6) the Java6 Supplied supports both 64bit and 32Bits. Why no 32Bit support with 10.5 (since they obviously have the code since 10.6 has it)?
Claiming that there is no backdoor has no validity. Does anyone think that if there were an NSA Backdoor that MS would acknowledge its existence? The existence or nonexistence of a backdoor would always trigger a "there is no backdoor" claim. Note: I am not saying what my opinion on its existence is, but pointing out the fact that its existence would be denied even if it did exist.
For those who are still at 3.0.x (who have not upgraded to 3.5 yet for reasons such as needed plug-ins not being issued for 3.5 yet) 3.0.15 was issued at the same time as 3.5.4 was. I have not compared the two fix lists but I think that at least some are on both lists due to being newly discovered exploits.
I think the use is for allowing URLs to connect to the Web and for jumping to anchors in the file (ie: Click here to scroll to somewhere in the file).
One of the banks I deal with has as part of its logon procedure the need to supply a one-time-key issued by a display device so that only I (or at least someone in physical possession of the device) can log in. The only way that this can be improved is if the device were USB Connected and was automatically interrogated every time any payment was scheduled/made. Thus would require that a Trojan Infection work in real time since exposure of the UserID/Password for later use would not work.
Just to note, when you install MacOS 10.6.0 your Flash PlugIn is AUTOMATICALLY replaced with a downlevel copy of the file EVEN IF you had the correct current version. Thus you get this warning. The just released MacOS 10.6.1 upgrade corrects the problem by installing the correct version of the PlugIn. This problem is only 50% Apple's Fault since after the time 10.6.0 went "Golden Master" and the DVDs were being pressed, Adobe issued the newer Version (so it was not able to be on the DVD). The part that Apple is IMO responsible for is the installer's failure to do a sanity/version check and bypass the PlugIn install if it found a newer version already installed.
If Comcast thinks this hijacking is a service to the customer then it should be an OPT-IN service not an OPT-OUT one. IOW: If I want to have them do this "correction" for me, I should be required to turn the feature ON not have it forced on me until/unless I turn it OFF.
I have test driven 3.5 and like it better than my 3.0 BUT I use Plug-Ins/Add-Ons that their creators have not yet released 3.5 version compatible versions of yet (or at least ones that show up when 3.5 starts up and issues its "Not 3.5 Compatible" warning message only to offer to look for 3.5 versions and not find one). One I was able to fix with a copy on the creator's web site (there is a 3.0-3.5 version that I installed that has not for some reason made it to the "Official" site yet). Most, if they exist, seem to require me to track down the creator's site to see if they have 3.5 copies yet (hopefully compatible with 3.0 so I can install now and not get into a version situation where I must force reinstall a plug-in when I switch back and forth).
Eddie Johnson Posted Friday 27th March 2009 13:09 GMT
I need to know what to do to my 22.214.171.124 installs that they aren't going to update. It's probably already set that way but it would be nice to know. And no, I can't just upgrade to 3.x, 2.0 is in use on several of my NT machines where Firefox 3 isn't supported.
The answer is to wait until April 1 when 126.96.36.199 with the fix will get released per this posting (which was the 2nd in this thread):
Rick Stockton Posted Friday 27th March 2009 00:34 GMT
Long before you ever posted this article... It's already in this morning's "nightly" builds on all platforms, and they've fixed Firefox 2 as well as FF 3.0 and all the Development versions.
The alert says the Trojan is the full install package with another package file (iWorkServices.pkg) added. To fix the installer, all that is needed is to ALT-CLICK the installer, select "Show Package Contents", scroll CONTENTS->PACKAGES, move iWorkServices.pkg to the trash, and close. you should now have a safe defanged installer.
I wish this capability to edit routes were available on my Garmon GPS. There are areas along my routes that I travel where the directions take me out of my way and I'd love to have the routing in that area changed so it tells me to use MY choice of routing.
If each Tarball has one hour of DHCP info, you first scan the one which covers the hour of the alleged offense (looking for an assign or unassign record). If an assign is before the reported time (with no unassign before that time) or the unassign is after the time, you have your user. If the IPN does not list the IPN, you scan the prior hour for an assign and the next hour for an unassign. I would assume that a 2 or 3 hour span would contain either an assign or unassign for that IPN.
As to proof of what file is being shared, the monitoring organization should legally be required to download a FULL copy of the file as proof of its contents. All IPNs listed during that capture are thus proven to be downloading (and since P2P requires uploading) and serving the file. Since the monitoring organization supposedly has permission to download the file, they are not subject to any claim of illegality DURING the download period but a claim of entrapment can be made if they were the one who created the initial .torrent file on the server OR if they do not shut down their connection once they have the full down load and shift into 100% Seeding mode (Seeding while download is OK since there is no way to prevent distribution of already downloaded pieces while you complete the download).