posts to days old
of topics
with text


Paul (11 Mar 2005 18:43): "There are evil people in the world who are willing to kill innocent life."   -- George W. Bush
Paul (5 Apr 2005 7:05): Stop the illegal immigrants!
m (5 Apr 2005 11:32): One guy interviewed called them "Mexican-Americans" before correcting himself to just "illegals".
NPR points out that there are 30,000 non-citizen immigrants serving in the military - with the incentive of immediate citizenship elegibility for anyone with a green card. woo.
Paul (11 Apr 2005 17:44): Is anyone else here freaked out by tasers? Unlike most weapons, they cause way more pain than injury. It appears people (police especially) use them whenever minor injury might be justifiable, with no concern for severe pain. As being tased is probably more painful than being killed, I can't see how it's not torture. Why aren't folks troubled?
Grant (11 Apr 2005 18:40): Actually, I had no idea that they were that painful.
I mean, I haven't been tased... er... tasered... (elecrically rifled? Heh.) before, so...
I'm going to coat my body in rubber, or something.
It's either that or stop trying to resist The Man, I guess.
m (11 Apr 2005 21:16): Aren't folks concerned, though? Weren't tasers just big news?
Really, my sample set consists entirely of npr programs, so I have no idea if they were recently big news on anything except npr. Or The Daily Show. But that's fake news.
Grant (13 Apr 2005 7:33): Why don't you shut up? Because I think it's quite obvious who here doesn't know what is big news, okay? That person is me.
Paul (13 Apr 2005 19:06): My co-worker says any police taser use results in an investigation, just like gun use etc. But I still fear the evaluation of proper use will be based only on injury with no regard for severe pain. As for coating oneself with rubber, one report said the barbs can have trouble piercing very thick clothing.
Grant (13 Apr 2005 23:12): Actually, I just wanted an excuse to start wearing my skin-tight latex body-suit.
So, uh, I'm gonna do that.
m (14 Apr 2005 15:09): doh.
Grant (15 Apr 2005 20:34): The best part of that is absolutely the 'related story' at the bottom:
"Legal Action Unlikely to Deter File-Sharing"
Just, you know, sayin'.
m (29 Apr 2005 14:49): Portland, Oregon just became the first city to pull out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
sam (3 May 2005 14:27): get on the floor!
m (7 May 2005 10:29): shake it?
Grant (10 May 2005 0:34): Yay Mystikal.
It's Mystikal, isn't it?
m (12 May 2005 20:28): mpaa gives mad greetz to napster, but throws huge fuxorz out to everyone else (I do mean everyone) in the form of a "we're always watching you" message -- check it at an old bittorent site shut down by lawsuit (or the equivalently strong threat thereof). Could they thumb their noses any harder? They mention this and a couple of others in their self congradulatory and impossibly optimistic May 12 press release (pdf)
m (12 May 2005 20:45): Those supporting freedom from oppressive rule don't post straight losses. They pull down a bone here and there. In this case, a pretty sizeable one. "Restored the rights of libraries and consumers" is a bit of a stretch, but I certainly wouldn't have expected a favorable ruling. This (the DC Ciruit court of appeals) is the same court (well, I don't actually know if the judges on it are the same, but they _are_ lifetime appointees) which disqualified the judge who ordered microsoft's break-up back in 2001.
Grant (12 May 2005 21:16): You know, Mike -
You can click...
But you can't hide.
Grant (12 May 2005 22:15): You want to know what's really dangerous? Being sick, and not getting any sleep.
On the plus side, I'll finish reading Crime and Punishment today, probably, but at what cost? What cost, indeed.
Paul (13 May 2005 7:12): If your 75-foot retaining wall "had developed a prominent bulge in the past month or so, and had moved," you would:
    a) evacuate the area.
    b) add supports immediately.
    c) "schedule" "work" "to begin on the wall during the next few weeks."
Correct Answer
Grant (16 May 2005 7:54):
Paul (18 May 2005 10:41): How many entities can all have "freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack"? At most one, right?
(18 May 2005 21:31): And that should be the US, right? Right?
(18 May 2005 21:31): And that should be the US, right? Right?
Grant (22 Jun 2005 17:41): <A href="">What the FUCK? Seriously, what have we learned here?
Secession is starting to look pretty good, eh?
Grant (22 Jun 2005 17:42): And of course, in my hot-blooded fury I lost the ability to create HTML tags.
Here's the link, no need to copy-paste.
G (22 Jun 2005 18:47): Just some clarification - no, it doesn't look like it will go through. Despite having passed in the 'House (for like the seventh time, or something), it will probably fall 1 or 2 votes short in the senate (as it needs 2/3 approval). Even if it passed the senate, then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

So why do they keep fucking passing this shit, when it is fucking doomed to fail? It's a waste of time, but far more damning would be the motivation. If it's all but guaranteed to get shot down (again), then they must just be doing it so they can fucking strut in front of their bullet-headed, closed-minded, right-wingèd supporters.

I don't respect the people who support this cause, and I find just as sickening those who would see this cause for what it is, yet still attempt to exploit it for their personal gain rather than attempt to do the right thing, educate their constituency, or something. My liberal blood boils!
G (22 Jun 2005 21:26): This one's for you, Paul!!


The fourth type of people who challenge our ideals are the Communists, and they are by far the most dangerous. We will presently examine, step by step, the way in which Communism denies all that we stand for, and is out to destroy it.

But first let us dispose of the plausible argument that by opposing Communism we are indulging in party politics. It is true that in a country like Great Britain the Communists put up candidates for Parliament and in our free system are allowed to do so. But it must be obvious, from what has happened in Russia and in the countries dominated by her, that once the Communist party becomes powerful enough they destroy all parliamentary institutions as known to democracy, and refuse to allow any party but their own. The same would happen here if the Communists gain control.

Whatever may be the idealistic theories of Communism, we can see how it works in Russia and the countries dominated by Russia. It may well be argued that the Russian system has ceased to be Communism as Marx understood it, but that system is called Communism today, and it is that system which is being imposed by the Cominform wherever it has the power to do so.

Let us not forget also, that wherever Communists gain control, the Scout and Guide Movements are suppressed. The Communists themselves realise that Scouting and Guiding cannot be reconciled with Communist beliefs. In Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and other countries our brothers and sisters are forbidden to carry on their Scouting and Guiding, and are terribly punished if they are caught continuing to do so. That alone should make our members sure they can have nothing to do with Communism.

Moreover, until Communism has gained control it has followed a policy of infiltration into youth movements, and we should be on our guard.

from this pamphlet thingy
(22 Jun 2005 21:44): hey, hey, hey!!
What happened to my blink tag?!
m (23 Jun 2005 0:15): I'm glad that it's taken this long to notice that we have no blink tag. This speaks well of all posters, with the possible exception of Grant. But as a blink-users-anon member, we should remind out to Grant that even casual, limited use quickly leads back to days of not getting out of bed, blinking himself into a stupor. Abstention is the only option you've left yourself, old friend.

But more on-topically, you may remember Senator Orrin Hatch from such films as Down With Civil Liberties and I Still Hate Civil Liberties. We're still waiting on an imdb entry.
m (23 Jun 2005 0:22): Jesus Christ! no we're not.
He co-stars with Mary Bono in Download This, which was initially titled "People That Have A Lot But Still Want More!" but was changed for title-length vs DVD-spindle-area related reasons.
G (23 Jun 2005 0:36): Oh, yeah? Well, the truth about the BLINK tag goes farther than you'd think...

The truth is that several versions ago (no matter what browser you're using (Unless it's Safari (which never supported it))), BLINK support was removed from your browser.

Thus, I knew that the blink tag would not yield blinking text; Instead, what I had to check was whether or not the tag itself would be displayed! Ugh.

On the other hand: An Epitaph for <BLINK>
Don't you guys miss the days when the web was more personal? More... unprofessional? A day when the 'links' page on every corporate website was little more than the links that the webmaster him(her)self had found useful or amusing? A day when there was room in HTML for a joke?
Grant (21 Jul 2005 19:33): Tasers?
Eat your heart out!
Grant (21 Jul 2005 23:06): The Logic of Suicide Terrorism.
(21 Jul 2005 23:12):
Paul (12 Aug 2005 10:32): So we're trying to figure how to better share this neighbor's net connection (since wireless interference is bad). One option is 150ft of cat-5, but is that dangerous due to ground differences? Is there a workaround?
m (12 Aug 2005 18:16): some kind of wireless repeater?
m (12 Aug 2005 18:20): actually, I don't think you can run 150 ft of cat5 without a repeater.
I stand corrected - wiki gives it 100m (and something called Category 5e 350m).
m (12 Aug 2005 18:32): So I think that the full cable standards are somewhere here, but all I was able to find was a cryptic pdf of someone's ancient presentation. And off-site links that I thought were going to lead me to pdfs of published standards, but which look oddly like they want money from me.
I like the way that the ietf does things way more.
DK (12 Aug 2005 22:17): Honestly, I'll second Mike's recommendation of using an actual cable. My experiences with wireless have all been horrible, and generally lead to me wanting to find an axe. And that's without the joy of poorly regulated and interference rich wireless frequencies.

The other thing that would be really neat to do (but probably too expensive) would be to set up your place with ethernet over power lines. I think Fujitsu-Siemens has been demoing some stuff along those lines in VA.

Paul (13 Aug 2005 18:46): Right, I fully expect the cat-5 plan to "work". But I'm afraid of burning out the network card or being shot...
m (14 Aug 2005 10:26): I'd like to point out that my suggestion was not to use cat-5, but to use a wireless repeater. Shit, I even made links!
m (27 Aug 2005 16:07): Eugene Volokh has an article comparing kinds of crime-facilitating speech that looks good and all kinds of relevant to current first amendment controversy.
G (28 Aug 2005 10:48): I've only gotten to page 24, but it seems totally well-thought-out and reasonable, really. Now let's see what the lobbyists have to say about it!
m (5 Oct 2005 19:20): so we're gonna be totally fucked by this bird flu. My favorite part is when, towards the end of the article I'm thinking "man, it's a good thing I'm not an infant or an old guy, avian flu sounds like it could get pretty serious" and the article goes on to add that the 1918 pandemic hammered on hale and healthy young men like me. shit!
G (6 Oct 2005 20:39): Yeah, it sure sounds like it, huh? We're all fucked, sirs.
Japan's gonna quarantine itself off, and I'll be put in a camp.

Off topic: Ah, memories.
G (7 Oct 2005 1:59): If you thought that was bad - LOOK OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
m (18 Oct 2005 21:04): Friendster just warned me: "Continue only if you really are friends with Grant!" and, i'll admit, it gave me pause. I mean, this is how you get herpes, right? Friendstering guys that you're not actually friends with? Friendster, you've betrayed me. you and all of those red sores on my dick. and I guess grant.
m (18 Oct 2005 21:05): fortunately, friendster also advises me: "ATTRACT WOMAN anytime, anywhere without rejection... free tips>." But really, what woman are they referring to?
G (19 Oct 2005 0:34): When I tried to friendster up with Garfield, it said that I had to verify my proximity to it by either providing it's email address, or putting in it's complete first and last name. The last name is High School. Uh. Why is that 'security' measure turned on?
m (19 Oct 2005 16:54): popular searches in my Friendster network (whatever the fuck that is): emo tattos
tattos. yes. that's right. tattos that are emo. tatto? huh?
G (24 Oct 2005 19:26): Misspelling your words is pretty 'emo,' I've heard. Let's go meta, and say that it's very elmo.
Also in the not-so-neo-logism arena: 'screamo' is the worst name for anything, ever.
m (25 Oct 2005 8:46): Bad news.
Better news.
If the government is going to start wiretapping all of our electronic communications, and I suppose I don't mean "start", shouldn't we all be using PGP/GPG? And, like, I don't mean "shouldn't we be using GPG once we start participating in illegal activity" but "shouldn't we be using GPG to protect our civil liberties from further violation, regardless of the legality of the content encrypted".
It's apparently not too difficult throw on top of even a gmail account. But the linked method involves using a seperate email client. What we (the universe) need(s) is an intense plugin.
Grant (25 Oct 2005 15:04): That's why we need Phoenix Wright on the case.
He's, quite simply, a genius.
m (25 Oct 2005 19:24): dynamically generated flash content? Is that allowed?
Paul (26 Oct 2005 8:29): Dynamic flash content: Definitely yes, for example, Leepfrog's instant messenger comes to your browser as a .swf

Freedoms: I intend to find out more about Freenet and its kin, and perhaps you should too.
G (26 Oct 2005 17:52): Do you guys all read Fafblog, yet? Is it okay if I just keep on linking to it every couple weeks? I mean, it's kind of in there with
G (26 Oct 2005 17:52): Do you guys all read Fafblog, yet? Is it okay if I just keep on linking to it every couple weeks? I mean, it's kind of in there with McSweeney's...

Uh, because I'm worried that you all might be IN DANGER of missing some AWFULLY GOOD CONTENT. Whew, back on topic!
G (26 Oct 2005 17:53): By the way, posting something with an un-ended quote is still pretty dangerous, too, evidently.
Paul (26 Oct 2005 18:44): I think the current <!-- '" --> solution takes care of the danger to other posts. You can't really protect people from their own posts... Maybe fafblog can protect people from their own posts?
m (7 Nov 2005 19:56): so I was just thinking "hey, the word 'fiendster' is a lot like 'friendster' so, you know, maybe there's some kind of spooky spoof like thing there" only you know how when you guess at web addresses, usually something bad happens? something bad involving popup windows and enormous black cocks?
m (9 Nov 2005 20:58): Some spam really beats around the bush with what it's trying to market. Take "Re: Statement # 539067Y" which tells me I'm preapproved for a low fixed-rate $400,000 credit-is-in-no-way-a-factor loan, or "Re: Adorinda Melton Blow your life" offering low prices on Xanax, Levitra, Viagra and even Valium!
Sometimes, though, one cuts right to the chase: "Want to find a fuck-friend?" from Leo Mendoza. I'm too afraid to click on that one and see what it says.
G (10 Nov 2005 13:44): The only thing worse than adding insult to injury is adding urine to it.
G (13 Nov 2005 16:37): Woot!

Looks like there's some zombie PC's on the ol' school network. My guess is it's one of das 98 boxen. Frown.
m (13 Nov 2005 18:18): unpleasant!
G (13 Nov 2005 19:20): Also, how about that text? I am always wondering about the current state of text in operating systems. I'm using Safari, so all the standard system text is rendered like the text in that last screenshot. How does it compare to text on the windows side? Can anybody post a picture of some text from their web browser or something?

I just assume that text hasn't gotten any better in Linux, but if it has, please amaze me.
m (13 Nov 2005 20:54): They look pretty comparable to me. Actually, at first yours looked terrible, but then I realized that firefox was shrinking it to, like, 98% dimensions by just cutting out a few rows and columns of pixels. That's gangsta.
m (13 Nov 2005 20:59): oh -- and I'm on XP-SP2 running this fella: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 Firefox/1.0.3", viewing the page in the Western (ISO-8859-1) character encoding. That seems like it should include everything that might affect font rendering. Short of the truetype file that i'm using, I suppose.
wait -- firefox 1.0.3? I thought I was on like 1.0.7 or something.
and what's that I see about NT in the firefox-about window? does XP run on the NT kernel?
G (14 Nov 2005 1:34): Jesus Christ, with all due respect you're living in the stone age. What the fuck is that supposed to be, retro? It looks like you're reading text on the NES.
Here, gaze upon The Future. It's like reading on the Neo Geo! When it works! It also makes all of your text sound more arrogant, which, quite frankly, I consider to be a bonus. Hmph!
m (14 Nov 2005 3:31): jesus christ. I get what I deserve for engaging a mac zealot in conversation about aesthetic. Yours is pretty.
I am embarassed to have admitted that I'm running XP, though. I'll be switching back to full time linux soon, I swear.
G (14 Nov 2005 13:46): Yeah, well, does this make you feel any better, then?

Also, I wasn't kidding about text displaying bugs. Luckily, they only show up when you're editing text, though. Who needs to do that?
Grant (7 Dec 2005 22:31): Corporations as lunatics.
Paul (8 Dec 2005 14:55): Interesting how the Economist opportunistically turns everything into defense of capitalism: "The film is right on---corporations are psychotic---but they're actually great because they're better than Nazis!"
Then again, the Economist is a (psychotic) corporation.
Grant (8 Dec 2005 17:56): It reminds me of the first time I heard about this - it was a really great comic in The Stranger about a strange, alternate world, in which Good People did Bad Things. It was really funny - I should ask Reed about it, I think it was in News of the Times, or something. Basically, it was the same idea.

Once upon a time, there was a city in which murder was legal!
Still, most people were nice, and didn't murder.
"Even though it would be legal to murder you, I am a nice person, so I choose not to."
However, one company hired gangs of thugs to shoot people in alleys to take their money.
People were outraged! They asked the CEO to justify this horrible behavior.
The CEO explained that while he agreed it wasn't nice, and *he himself* would never behave that way, he had a *fiscal responsibility* to the share-holders to maximize profit, and this was the way to do so. Thus, it would be *immoral* for him *not* to hire murdering goon squads.
And that's the end of the story.
m (9 Dec 2005 13:41): I finally, after reading this, understand the loophole by which it's okay to be cruel, inhuman and degrading to some people overseas but not (to anyone at all) here in the states.
Paul (9 Dec 2005 15:11): Does anyone suggest if corporations "could" act non-pathologically? Like, maybe if their workers had internalized that "companies exist to serve society," and this was the basis of performance reviews, etc...
Paul (16 Dec 2005 16:58): Whatever we had against NYTimes, today it's starting to redeem itself, with incredibly good timing to help stall the "patriot" act.
Still the picture isn't too rosy: "since you ignore the laws anyway," says the senate to bush, "we won't let you write them!"
m (23 Dec 2005 11:52): "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
Paul (3 Jan 2006 15:27): shovels = treason
m (3 Jan 2006 22:31): shovels = bullseye!
m (9 Jan 2006 17:48): Successes.
Paul (10 Jan 2006 14:47): buh
m (11 Jan 2006 16:18): need somewhere to invest your money?
m (11 Jan 2006 16:54): also: here we have a fund which is anti-pörnography (unclear whether umlaut is intended to convey sin), and anti-non-married-lifestyles. I don't know what this means. Might be anti-gay-people, or it might just be anti-single-people. Either option is a little scary.
m (12 Jan 2006 14:09): wait -- what the fuck? I was about to post these guys as socially responsible, since they come up all positive on everything except animal testing (in which they're a restricted-positive), only when I look at their top holdings there's wal-mart! But they get a P (for positive) in labor relations. Buh? They've also got BP in there under energy. Shit, man. I'm going to just fire all of my dollar bills out of a cannon in the middle of the atlantic. That seems like the most SRI thing I could do.
m (12 Jan 2006 14:47): So here's the (now dubious) summary I've been using. New Alternatives is the only fund that exes all the five bad things and Ps all the good ones. Their story checks, too -- as far as I can tell, their investment moves are motivated by all the right reasons. None of this Wal-mart / BP topping the charts bullshit.
Others that seem good are the Calvert funds, but I haven't been able to tell how good they are. Like, they don't seem to have wal-mart and bp on their lists, but the first up on this one is a pharmaceutical giant with some kind of responsible, community-oriented behavior. Next on down the line is an insurance conglomerate that's harder to peg. Some web-script tried to make their site my default home-page, but you can hardly blame them for that, right? Fuck. They're not the little guy, though. I don't know. Little guys are tremendous risks, right?
m (12 Jan 2006 14:59): So I was in the middle of writing something scathing against a bunch of these seemingly good-guys because they've nothing but big evil companies in their portfolios. I was having a little trouble, though, convincing myself that they're actually evil (though they're certainly big). You see, the big guys which in my mind were out there doing nothing but trampling regulation, the little guy and all that is good in the world, have been turning out to be nicer than I had thought (admittedly, not such a hard task). Like, I thought pepsico was as evil as they come, but when pressed (as I was) to identify what it was that was so bad about them, I couldn't. They just seem to be not-actively-very-good. And Johnson & Johnson? Nice guys!
Except wait a minute, I had both of those last ones down for red flags (as you can see, now retracted) in several portfolios which, on further inspection, look exactly motherfucking identical. Huh?!
Grant (12 Jan 2006 17:39): Sounds like you've decided to invest some money. Had a windfall, there? I'm really interested in what you're pulling up, though. Even though my current job isn't exactly long-term, I've started being able to save money. When I'm not going to Vietnam, anyways. And if it's just sitting in a bank account, well, that's not ideal, is it? So, keep posting what you find.

And as for Pepsi, have a look. Noooo!
Grant (12 Jan 2006 18:01): Cat and Girl Do Good.
m (13 Jan 2006 10:39): wow. I know you've linked them before, but somehow I missed out. Cat and girl are phenomenally good. Actually, maybe I didn't miss it before, but just sort of forgot. Well, shit. I'll say it again: delightful.
Paul (13 Jan 2006 16:29): Upon finding crap like your Walmart scenario, and Microsoft too, I soon thought "small cap" SRIs might be better, such as the Calvert New Vision Small Cap fund (only drawbacks are major one: fees, and they require you to have a broker/advisor). If you want something a bit more radical (other than giving your money away), Calvert Foundation offers "Community Investment Notes". But I also still have most of my money (read: not much money) in the bank...
Paul (20 Jan 2006 18:04): While I don't have very warm feelings towards ELF actions, it is sickeningly wrong to see Bush administration officials gloating over catching "domestic terrorists". Who is really a terrorist: One who destroys expensive property in a questionable effort to "protect the earth", or one who destroys thousands of civilians in a questionable effort to "protect America"? At least I agree the earth is in need of more protection...
Paul (22 Jan 2006 18:29): Today's query: Am I prudish and odd?
Today's anecdote: Seven people are waiting for the train, and it's dark and cold with low visibility, and finally the train is zooming up, and holy shit some clown is on his cell phone dancing on and off the track taking no notice of the train 50 yards away. "Sir! The train is approaching!" I warn loudly and alarmedly, walking up to him, "Sir! The train is right there! Sir! Get off the track!" He does not acknowledge me, but does leave the track, making way for the train which fortunately has slowed for our stop. The other five people pretend to pay no attention. I feel sheepish as we all board the train.
Grant (22 Jan 2006 18:54): You should never feel ill-at-ease for having tried to help another person or do the right thing.
m (23 Jan 2006 12:50): I'm with grant on this one. Dancing on and off the track = sir, watch out!
Not that you're not odd, just to be clear.
Paul (12 Feb 2006 18:14): look out!
DK (14 Feb 2006 16:49): Paul, do you ever bother responding to IMs at all?

Paul (15 Feb 2006 5:47): Sorry, I frequently miss them, and my IM client ("pork") doesn't help (eg by showing me around when I'm away)...
(15 Feb 2006 15:14): Ah, I see. You have a current email I can use?

Grant (15 Feb 2006 15:50): Please post all of your personal correspondence to Mancalablog.
Step 3: Profit!
R (24 Feb 2006 3:40): Conveyance of meaning in English can be tricky, e.g.:
"I cannot recommend this applicant too highly."
"You will be lucky if you can get this student to work for you."
"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America." - G. W. Bush

No confirmation of this quote found elsewhere, but Josh Marshall is serious business.
Paul (24 Feb 2006 14:02): Who is "R"? Is this linkspam? strange...
Grant (26 Feb 2006 7:13): I can think of at least one person it could be.
Grant (26 Feb 2006 7:14): Also, linkspam to talkingpoints? Unlikely.
Paul (27 Feb 2006 4:10): Aha, now I think of an "R", in which case, welcome, R!
DK (2 Mar 2006 0:52): R = rusty?
R = robin?
R = Rasputin (back from the dead as a zombie)?
R = someone I didn't think of?
m (2 Mar 2006 5:19): Royal Tenenbaum
Grant (2 Mar 2006 8:53): Rollicking good show, chap!
Really it's just me, Grant.
Rachel's replicant (Good name for a band!)
Paul (15 Mar 2006 5:07): Warrantless wiretaps? Pleading guilty and glad? Feingold says: Censure. ...anyone agree?
Grant (16 Mar 2006 7:29): And don't think you long-hairs are safe, neither.
R (21 Apr 2006 13:39): Ghost ride the whip ... extreme.
(22 Apr 2006 8:13): Be thankful that America's trusty intelligence officers are protecting the world from people talking about torture. Talking about torture is often sickening and can be obnoxious to children and people with ethics. In fact, we'd better not say how these chatterboxes should be punished!
Grant (15 May 2006 18:03): I like the last definition given for Ghost Ride.

"Ghost ride is when you drive so low they cant see you driving"

Awesome, yo! That shit is tight!!!
(11 Jul 2006 19:18):
Grant (12 Jul 2006 9:38):
Paul (3 Dec 2006 11:12): Is your online banking security getting weirded like mine? I'm not convinced these complexities amount to better security.
Grant (3 Dec 2006 15:36): There was, just recently, a change made to WaMu's login stuff, too.
If I recall correctly, though, it was just a bunch of personal questions for use in confirming one's identify. I don't know what this whole "type your password on a second screen" thing is about. Where do they think hackers are getting their account info from? It seems like they've already got a trick in their book that will thwart this - a keylogger. My guess is most account info comes from compromised machines to begin with.
Paul (4 Dec 2006 18:14): Indeed. Did you read the part where in some circumstances you have to click-type an answer on an onscreen keyboard? I guess a KVM logger would be harder to implement than a key-logger just because of the massive quantities of video data, but it seems like a losing battle once a machine's already compromised...
grant (4 Dec 2006 21:19): No, I didn't read it all. But that's just the thing.
I recently read an article linked to from Boing Boing, or Slashdot, or something, where they were talking about click-entry for secure data, and how people were already getting around it. This had to have been about five or six months ago. I think they were talking about how it would actually store a small picture of the area around the cursor when a click was made at some websites, or possibly just harvested the data from the form before it was sent.
Anyway, yeah - good idea, but no indication that it really worked.
I guess a defender wouldn't say that the technique is perfect, though - just that it removes some of the low-hanging fruit. I don't really know what to say to that, though. My initial impression is that this will quickly become more inconvenient for the customers than the criminals, but maybe my opinion would be different if I had been defrauded.
m (25 Dec 2006 23:12): You fellas read xkcd? It's nerdy in all the right ways...
G (30 Dec 2006 9:11): Yes, I do, actually! You want nerdy? I subscribe to its RSS feed.
I actually only have three in there for teh funny - XKCD, Penny Arcade, and Cat and Girl.
Well, and Fafblog, but they don't post anymore. : (
Paul (1 Jan 2007 4:32): Say, I was just thinking of this very space-filling curve and here it is. In college this was shown to be a continuous surjective function sending [0,1] onto [0,1]x[0,1].
m (1 Jan 2007 11:26): sometimes called a Peano curve. A few weeks ago we were talking about this, as well; why it happens to be continuous, while our other silly attempts at trying to construct space filling curves all failed to be.
m (5 Jan 2007 6:30): So Ban Ki-Moon, new UN Secretary-General, not so anti-death-penalty, the way Kofi was.
Paul (7 Jan 2007 18:08): I now see Randall Munroe is only 22, and already has started and ended a job at NASA, as well as becoming mildly famous on the interblag... Crazy!
m (8 Jan 2007 4:11): danger indeed.
m (8 Jan 2007 5:10): Fuck undo in vim. Just fuck that shit. Do they not maintain any kind of undo branch structure? Because it's easy like pie to type u, then insert a character, and then realize that undo just undid your entire goddamn last paragraph.
m (8 Jan 2007 5:16): Hm. vim 7.0 seems to support branching undo.
m (9 Jan 2007 5:59): "A U.S. airstrike hit targets in southern Somalia where Islamic militants were believed to be sheltering suspects in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies, Somali officials and witnesses said Tuesday. Many people were reported killed."

Why do I see a headline like this where "believed to be" and "suspects" appear alongside "many people reported killed"? Is this always how it works?
G (9 Jan 2007 7:21): Late to the party, but I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth."
Paul (9 Jan 2007 16:43): Huh. I've never had that happen with vim undo. Maybe it's just a matter of time, though. What seems to happen to me is Caps-Lock makes me type "U" (single-step undo) several times, which then all have to be undone with "u".
G (14 Jan 2007 21:55): Common knowledge, I'm sure, but the Doomsday Clock will be getting a nudge towards midnight.
G (1 Feb 2007 23:04): From this article.

"...taking aim at a court system with a suspiciously high 99 percent conviction rate."
"Suo's film also comes at a time when Japan is trying to reform its court system, planning to introduce jury trials for criminal cases in 2009. Under the present system, a panel of judges render verdicts and sentences."
m (6 Feb 2007 2:18): James Inhofe, Senator from Oklahoma, hates the weather channel! Also the White House may have been munging all of the federal weather data. Look for the nice Inhofe-Boxer exchange at the end of that second one.
And, you know, cry about being lied to. Pussy.
m (6 Feb 2007 2:19): mungeing? How the fuck do you conjugate that?
G (6 Feb 2007 6:22): Got it right the first time.
Well, that's my vote, in any case.
G (6 Feb 2007 6:40): Hilarious. Yes, the Weather Channel keeps us all quaking in fear.
Paul (6 Feb 2007 16:33): I second "munging" for phonics (g palatalizes before any front vowel) and by analogy with "lunging".
m (26 Mar 2007 8:21): "My National Security Letter"
Paul (26 Mar 2007 17:26): Wow, I didn't know there were that many. I guess 140,000+ people didn't grow up in the same headstrong-revolutionary ethos I grew up in...
Like, especially since I have no spouse and kids, if I got a ridiculous NSL I'd be extremely tempted to figure out as much as I could within a small network of allies and lawyers, then blog the hell out of it until they tracked down my wifi signal and locked me up. It seems like a couple dozen people doing exactly that would make a big enough splash that it couldn't be ignored anymore.
G (22 Apr 2007 23:27): Gwah:
"More than 50 percent said that anyone who gets AIDS deserves it, especially if he or she is a homosexual, bisexual or prostitute. More than 80 percent believe that HIV/AIDS was created by the government to destroy the black race."
(23 Apr 2007 19:33): It'd be pretty funny if it really was, though, huh? Ha ha.
G (2 Jun 2007 9:07): Man, the exchange rate for yen -> dollars is total crap.
It's like I got a retroactive 10% pay cut for the last three years.
G (2 Jun 2007 22:00): And the dollar's not even doing very well!
It's a good time to be getting paid in pounds, I guess.
m (2 Jun 2007 23:53): of flesh
G (3 Jun 2007 4:05): Word.
m (3 Jun 2007 15:19): so you moving back to the states? seattle?
G (3 Jun 2007 17:28): Yes.
I'll be back by July 25.
m (4 Jun 2007 2:56): party like it's 199 Anno Domini?
G (4 Jun 2007 17:57): "Party like it's Showa 63!" just doesn't have the same ring.
G (6 Jun 2007 12:56): FCC's policy is "arbitrary."
G (13 Jun 2007 23:46): Watch out for the gay bomb!!!!
m (14 Jun 2007 18:32): sex bomb!
R (17 Jun 2007 9:17): Tom Jones works for the army!
m (30 Aug 2007 5:27): Court Order? Mr T declares "that's jibba-jabba"!
G (30 Aug 2007 22:38): I searched for the text 'jibba' on that page, but it didn't return anything.
Paul (31 Aug 2007 16:03): Try searching for "those who are alleged to have assisted our nation". Way to go, AT&[help-the-5th-amendment-is-hiding-behind-this-ampersand]&T! (Thereby bringing the conversation back to AT&T.)
Paul (1 Sep 2007 13:36): m says he doesn't understand my rant. Jibba-jabba made a Freudian slip: Why would you use the word allege with something good like assisted our nation? You would only word it that way if assisted our nation is a euphemism for tapped all phone and internet usage worldwide.
Paul (5 Sep 2007 3:19): Poorly-mixed metaphor/simile #46: "Like a fish out of water, he is gasping for his last breath of political air." (link)
m (19 Sep 2007 10:50): Habeas Corpus is outdated, anyway.
m (19 Oct 2007 10:01): my landlord: a jerk.
m (20 Oct 2007 20:17): Mancala
population: me
G (20 Oct 2007 23:15): Pretty much.
Paul (21 Oct 2007 10:42): I'm here...sometimes
m (21 Oct 2007 19:55): Paul Krugman is pretty cute. Danger!
G (24 Nov 2007 14:03): No probable cause necessary to track people with their cell-phones?
Paul (11 Dec 2007 3:22): Art = Danger
Paul (15 Feb 2008 3:24): Yes! Pelosi shows some spine. I bet Bush continues spying illegally anyway, but best not to condone it.
m (15 Feb 2008 8:45): "But they said any new targets would have to go through the more burdensome standards in place before last August, which would require that they establish probable cause that an international target is connected to a terrorist group."
m (15 Feb 2008 8:46): Intelligence officials also told reporters Thursday that they were worried that telecommunications companies would be less willing to cooperate in future [questionably legal] wiretapping unless they were given immunity [from legal repercussions to their behavior].

wait, that's the only way to read that, besides s/questionably legal/illegal/
Paul (16 Feb 2008 7:20): Yes, you read it right. People are already suing the telecoms for illegal spying, and the bill Pelosi stopped would have granted immunity.

Hm. Did the authoriation now lapse? There's no news on it now.
G (18 Feb 2008 8:35): From TPM:
Be afraid. Be very afraid.

The Protect America Act expired Friday night.

So here we sit like ducks. The terrorists are poised to attack.

And the telecoms are unprotected by retroactive immunity.
G (18 Feb 2008 8:51): Also - "Harvard Web site hacked, database on file-sharing site"
m (20 Feb 2008 13:21): This McCain quote [TPM] from 2006 is pretty glorious.
m (30 Jun 2008 18:23): It's sprouting up here, too. A fungus!
R (25 Jul 2008 17:46): My Experience at Indy Mac: Fraud, Corruption, Criminality
"... there was an unsolicited appraisal report waiting for me on my desk. A piece of land next to an airport had recently been purchased for $24,375,000 and was almost immediately appraised for more than $65 million based on the owner’s plans to build an airport parking lot. This was three months after September 11th, 2001 and average parking lot occupancy at this airport had declined from 73% to about the low fifties. The appraisal lacked a sales comparison approach and its feasibility analysis was based on pre-September 11th data. The feasibility analysis was done by the same consultant who caused the city of Los Angeles to lose millions on the parking garage at Hollywood and Highland. The appraisal was done by an unapproved appraiser who had previously caused my previous employer, Home Savings, to set up a $17 million loan loss reserve on a hotel he appraised for $450 million and the loan defaulted within a year."
G (10 Sep 2008 15:42): Matt Damon is nervous about Palin
G (11 Sep 2008 13:12): From the faf:
"Well we sure learned our lesson," says me standin in the middle a the smoke an the rubble an the burnin burnin cities, "and that's to never blow up someone else's country again."
"Unless there's a real good reason," says Giblets, "like self-defense or preemptive self-defense or defense from self-defense or revenge."
"Oh well a course there's self-defense," says me. "I mean just cause we wanna stop blowin up other countries doesn't mean we gotta stop blowin up other countries when they blow up our country, or try to blow up our country, or maybe tried to blow up our country, or mighta been friends with somebody that coulda maybe tried to blow up our country."
G (17 Oct 2008 17:25): Airport security check.
m (18 Oct 2008 9:54): well done, brochure-man.
m (20 Oct 2008 12:50): Pirate Czar! Nice essay -- nothing we don't already know (namely: you can't fight downloaders), but nice for its comparison to forming a committee-written strategic plan in the face of an alien invasion. You don't understand it, you've probably already lost by the time you've got your document written, and, for that matter, combat probably isn't even the right way to go.
m (5 Nov 2008 12:17): Oh shit!
m (7 Nov 2008 21:36): Well, shit. Biden. Unfortunate.
m (9 Nov 2008 21:02): Wait, is Bush just going to pardon Ted Stevens? Fuck!
G (16 Nov 2008 10:01): Rainbows.
m (12 Feb 2009 13:35): doh
m (13 Feb 2009 1:10): Sierpinski Valentine. Awesome.
m (13 Feb 2009 1:14): Almost filled in that "Blank Name" box. Is that visible to you regular-browser folks?
<span style="display:none;"> Probably not.
m (11 Jun 2009 9:06): Obama getting it for giving big-deal ambassadorships to big-deal donors.
g (12 Jun 2009 10:44): I thunk i have shingles
G (12 Jun 2009 10:46): since i know you will all be wikipedia'ing that...
R (12 Jun 2009 12:48): "A 2008 study revealed that people with close relatives who have had shingles are themselves twice as likely to develop it themselves."
Goddamnit, G. Stop that.
(Not a) Dr.'s Recommendation: Stop Stressin'. Also, famciclovir?
Dermatomic area is kinda neat though.
Lastly, very sorry to hear that.
G (12 Jun 2009 16:09): Acyclovir's what I gots. Generic version, I'm guessing? 5 times a day. Whee.
Looks like my herpes zoster are in my thoracic 5 region, or thereabouts.
Just in case you wanted to know.
G (29 Jun 2009 2:58): mothefufkckng bulsshit. god damn it jesus chraist. I JSTU wANNT WACTCH SOME FUCKIGN PUPPIeS AND MOTHERFUCKINSG BULSSHIT YOUTUBE WONT SLEt ME YOU SCFUDSJLKD
G (29 Jun 2009 3:03): Now what!?
I am forced to just post every single youtube video with puppies or street fighters to mancala, that's what.
m (29 Jun 2009 16:20): convenience youtube links.
m (29 Jun 2009 16:25): also: You're my best friend 大好きな
G (30 Jun 2009 0:25): I'll just leave this here.
Paul (16 Aug 2009 18:03): is poverty a crime?...alas I've seen this often
Paul (26 Dec 2009 7:36): They say Abdulmutallab had explosive powder taped to his leg. I think the solution is clear: people with legs should not be allowed on planes. The sluggish TSA should have figured that out years ago.
Paul (27 Dec 2009 7:40): TSA goes for "unpredictable" inspections instead. Practical applications of game theory! Probably better than my "no legs" suggestion.
Paul (1 Jan 2010 19:27): God Fail
m (2 Jan 2010 0:18): Security Theater!
Paul (2 Jan 2010 10:10): One thing people don't seem to be saying, though: Abdulmutallab had problems with slow-detonating explosives. If he had instant-detonating explosives the plane would be gone. The reason he didn't have instant-detonating explosives is because his planners went to great lengths (syringe? underwear?) to evade existing security checks. To me that means the existing security checks didn't "work" but they did "help".
m (9 Jan 2010 9:38): who's spamming mancala now, bitches!!
!!!!! (12 Jan 2010 15:29): !!!!!
Paul (14 May 2010 5:02): I hoped the NYTimes learned their lesson after quoting nameless (and therefore unaccountable) senior government officials on WMD in Iraq. Here they go again: "American officials say an arrest may not be possible. 'If we need to stop dangerous terrorists who hide in remote parts of the world, inaccessible to U.S. troops, law enforcement, or any central government,' said the counterterrorism official, 'what do you do --- cover your ears and wait for a truly devastating explosion in Times Square?'"
What the fuck, NYT? Innuendo about "waiting for the terrorists to attack us" is so last decade.
G (14 May 2010 9:35): They quoted them there -- so that we would not have to quote them here!
R (14 May 2010 12:16): Paul. 9/11 changed everything. "Terrorists" hiding beyond the grasp of U.S. troops, law enforcement, or government, can cause devastating explosions in Times Square via psychic powers or something. How would YOU stop alla these explosions? Maybe other places, too? It's not clear what they can do, it IS clear we need to trust our nameless, faceless, government. We elected him/her/it after all. I think.
R (14 May 2010 12:17): Also: terrorists outside of any U.S. enforcement powers could probably destroy an oil rig. Who is going to defend our oil rigs out in the ocean, if not robot murder drones in Pakistan?
Bizarro NYT (14 May 2010 12:23): "Pakistani officials say arrests may not be possible. 'If we need to stop dangerous american murder robots, controlled by contractors who hide in remote parts of the world, inaccessible to Geneva conventions, or law enforcement,' said the counterterrorism official, 'what do you do --- cover your ears and wait for a truly devastating explosion in Peshawar?'"
m (22 Jun 2011 9:50): Problem!
Dex, did I ask you this question the other day - whether or not we still get some kind of key exchange and an encrypted channel to the router when we have an unsecured wireless network? I was asking someone. Anyway, that seems like top priority for password-free wifi!
R (22 Jun 2011 12:17): Oh man, open wireless networks are completely open, as you'd expect. One very good reason to do any important business with SSL encryption.
m (22 Jun 2011 12:37): Are private wireless networks any better among those sharing the connection? Like, if I've got a WEP key or a WPA password or a WPA-2 whatever, can others with the router password see what I'm doing? And what about hotspots, like at the airport (or starbucks?), that don't have a wifi password at all but make you log on through a web interface?

Also: "sidejack" feels really cyberpunk. But I expect it to mean something like "plugs into my hip".
R (22 Jun 2011 12:48): Did you miss the lulz when etherpeg was released, back in the day?
m (22 Jun 2011 15:40): Looks about on par with this Firesheep.
Paul (23 Jun 2011 5:43): Any link-level encryption has to happen at the link level, meaning that open networks requiring web-login are still "open" to sniffing. You could even sniff and then masquerade as someone you just sniffed, skipping the web-login part. I know how to do this in theory---just spoof their IP and mac address---but not how to really set up the software to do it.

As for WPA2 etc, I only know what I read from EFF which says: "Under WPA2 all the users on the network can calculate each others' session keys and eavesdrop on each other." In this case, I don't know how even theoretically, only that it is supposed to be possible.
m (23 Jun 2011 9:11): Oh! You know, I'd never read past the first paragraph of that, but it's just what they're asking for: a protocol that supports an open network with encryption on the link layer.
z (23 Jun 2011 9:20): Well, a web login like at the airport isn't really encryption, it's just a one-time gatekeeper to allow your MAC onto the network. Afterwards the connection is just as open (my understanding).

But we're also talking about two different things. One is data security, the other is access security. Being able to sniff/spoof at one layer doesn't break data security in layers above, if those are encrypted. It just allows you to control access to that layer and below. That's not all that interesting because on that account, a wireless network can always be hacked, worst case, at the physical layer with a software radio, because radio waves, you know, are open to all.

The idea is to have persistent end-to-end encryption at some level of the network stack that you care to protect private data. End-to-end means there are "secrets" at "endpoints" not shared with anybody along the way in any form, like private keys.

The best is of course physical layer security at the very bottom. There are such schemes that take advantage of EM randomness like channel fading and interference, etc. and are secure on account of the laws of physics, but of course no routers do this. It's also not that practical and not necessary. SSL at the app level (highest level) does the trick to protect your most important data.
z (23 Jun 2011 12:11): Paul, wrt WPA2 cracking in the article, they are talking about PSK (pre-shared key) WPA2 where every user already knows this key, exactly the scenario that m mentioned earlier. The fact that you can crack this is obvious: it isn't true authentication with public-key crypto, the relevant handshake info are in the open save for the key. Hence PSK WPA2 is called "personal mode" i.e. all users who know the key should be friendly.
m (12 Sep 2011 9:24): Everywhere and Forever War
m (30 Sep 2011 14:01): No mention of the Occupy Wall Street protests? Are we some kind of establishment-serving media institution?
m (5 Oct 2011 14:35): Sounds like Occupy Seattle down in Westlake is getting busted up.
Paul (5 Oct 2011 20:28): The Italian Wikipedia is on strike. For real, just try to go to any page on it.
Paul (6 Oct 2011 16:27):
m (6 Oct 2011 17:23): I want a synopsis. Not going to read the minutes. How was it?
(6 Oct 2011 20:20): tl;dr
m (4 Nov 2011 15:08): Danger! Danger!
Paul (7 Nov 2011 5:34): "Pilots of small aircraft have expressed concerns that drones cannot practice the see-and-avoid rule that keeps aircraft from colliding in mid-air." I'd say we're still a ways off from doing to ourselves what we're doing to Afghanistan.
m (9 Dec 2011 14:36): is down (command line utility dict doesn't even work!) and the main page links here.
Paul (31 Dec 2011 7:42): Oh no! Mancala is empty
G (2 Jan 2012 4:57): I preferred to think of it as zero full.
m (2 Jan 2012 20:56): Grant I was twenty minutes late when I tried to buy tickets and they were all gone!
R (2 Jan 2012 22:53): I actually got tickets, but apparently I am going without most of y'all. :(
G (4 Jan 2012 12:21): M, it is very funny (ha) that you should say that, because a different friend of mine was 20 seconds late with the same result. ;_;

That being said, going with no ticket is a very real option. I don't think I've seen anybody who showed up for the wait list not get in.
G (5 Jan 2012 8:07): I suppose that's an even better reason to hang out?
Paul (22 Jan 2012 8:42): mancalablog is getting ready for SOPA/PIPA by slowly draining away any remaining content.
Also, replace "mancalablog" with "my brain", "the internetz" and "the world".
m (23 Jan 2012 13:19): Cory Doctorow is always saying clever stuff.
This rule of thumb serves regulators well, by and large, but it is rendered null and void by the general-purpose computer and the general-purpose network -- the PC and the Internet. Because if you think of computer software as a feature, that is a computer with spreadsheets running on it has a spreadsheet feature, and one that's running World of Warcraft has an MMORPG feature, then this heuristic leads you to think that you could reasonably say, "make me a computer that doesn't run spreadsheets", and that it would be no more of an attack on computing than "make me a car without a hands-free phone" is an attack on cars. And if you think of protocols and sites as features of the network, then saying "fix the Internet so that it doesn't run BitTorrent", or "fix the Internet so that no longer resolves", then it sounds a lot like "change the sound of busy signals", or "take that pizzeria on the corner off the phone network", and not like an attack on the fundamental principles of internetworking.
m (16 Apr 2012 8:38): What a great idea!
Paul (15 Jun 2012 3:55): Am I the only person who thinks it's a good idea for Nik Wallenda to use a safety harness? It seems so.
m (15 Jun 2012 8:25): clearly someone at abc agrees with you...
Paul (26 Oct 2012 21:06): Wiki article on Bad Pharma... Wiki is like reader's digest now..
m (12 Nov 2012 17:18): Fairy Wrens vs Cuckoos - the last paragraph makes the whole situation seem pretty dire. Everyone dies. Mom starts a new brood.

Maybe cuckoo chicks are just jerks.
m (3 Jan 2013 10:59): Forbidden Spheres! Like, forbidding spherical things!
But the money quote is only tangentially related (from a dude's lawyer):

If something is secret, and something else touches it, it too becomes secret. Secrecy becomes a disease. Everything around the secret issue becomes secret, so the trial became a secret, so I became a secret.
Paul (25 Feb 2013 16:28): So I'm working with a Google account where the calendar entries keep disappearing. I searched online to find out why it might be happening, and there are a bunch of people complaining about it, with no apparent understanding of why or solution to prevent it.

Is there a reason Google doesn't have a support forum with actual answers (a la stackexchange)? All the forums are just complain-a-thons without any resolution.
G (27 Feb 2013 0:40): Cynical answer: Because you are not paying them money, so why should they care. I hear that if you're an advertiser, they get right back to you.
m (27 Feb 2013 16:36): I think what Grant is suggesting is that you keep a .calendar file in your home directory (man 1 calendar)
m (10 Apr 2013 18:29): wait, is this the reason USPS has been considering killing Saturday delivery? Jesus christ...
Paul (10 Apr 2013 21:17): Hm. As I understand it, in a world where total production vastly outpaces total survival needs, all economic crises are "manufactured". The manufacturing of the postal crisis is especially obvious, however.
Paul (25 Oct 2013 14:13): OMG!!: "Jeffrey D. Zients, President Obama's troubleshooter for the marketplace, said that investigators had found bugs in the software that powers the site." Bugs! In the software!! Putting bugs in software should be considered an act of treason.
m (30 Dec 2013 18:04): Clever! The latest from Der Spiegel says that the NSA intercepts Windows crash reports to look for an exploit in the bug that caused the crash.
m (19 Feb 2015 9:56): The evening news on Rossiya 1 starts off with Ukraine. The anchors of the three networks are a clan of attractive, dead-eyed men and women. They speak in the same unshakable "out of my mouth comes unimpeachable manly truth" tone that Putin uses in his public addresses, sometimes mixing in a dollop of chilly sarcasm. Their patter has a hypnotic staccato quality, like a machine gun going off at regular intervals, often making it hard to remember that they are moving their mouths or inhaling and exhaling oxygen.
R (23 Feb 2015 14:16): Glenn Greenwald, Lauren Poitras, and Edward Snowden AMA
R (1 Dec 2015 5:04): Computers Without ECC Memory Are Crap - No Exceptions

Maybe I should get one of those cheap-o Lenovo TS140s.
m (1 Dec 2015 15:40): So cheap!
R (3 Dec 2015 1:28): Occasionally down to less than $300 w/ the Xeon, which is ridiculous. 500GB HD and 4GB of RAM, sure. Also a non-standard PS connection with a 280W power supply. Not a ton of drive bays or slots. Reportedly quiet though. The larger TS440 is basically the same, but a larger case and 450W PS I think? If'n you want to stuff many drives in there, run a NAS box or something.

Also can run OS X seems like. Nobody there has tried sleep, but uh, aside from that.
m (14 May 2016 23:02): Watch out, Paul!
Paul (21 May 2016 11:21): Oh no!
Paul (13 Jun 2016 11:12): Finally, a good explanation of what's wrong with the trolley problem with some discussion of self driving cars.
m (13 Jun 2016 13:52): well, I agree that the trolley problem is dumb!
Paul (3 Sep 2016 13:38): A two-year old offers a creative solution to the trolley problem
Paul (23 Oct 2016 20:41): reddit comment explaining why the world is out of control by analogy with a runaway stagecoach
m (8 Nov 2016 21:41): Danger!
G (9 Nov 2016 7:48): Yeah, now he tells us!
m (9 Nov 2016 12:33): Yeah, realizing before 9pm that we were fucked might have helped (though ideally maybe other people could have figured it out too).

But it's too late for that now. Now we're gonna need to dust ourselves off and figure out what the fuck we're going to do about it.
m (10 Nov 2016 11:19): Besides the obvious: wailing in despair, rending our hair, curling up in a ball to await the sweet embrace of death
R (25 Dec 2016 13:26): [OnePlus lays off most of Dev team, exploring monetization options]( - if you're running the OS that came.woth your phone, disabling updates might be recommended, or switching to CyanogenMod.
m (25 Dec 2016 15:32): Oneplus != Cyanogen != Cyanogen mod. It's all quite confusing, tbh.

CyanogenMod is an open Android OS based on the Google's (open) Android source (though with some monetary support from Cyanogen the company?). Cyanogen makes CyanogenOS and does (did!) confusing work with phone conpanies to set them up with custom COS builds for their phones. OP makes phones and their own Android flavor based on cyanogenmod, though they partnered with Cyanogen to put CyanogenOS on their first phone, the OPO.
m (25 Dec 2016 15:39): So it's Cyanogen that's shuttering their Seattle office, trying to sell the brand, generally going down the toilet. OP is in good shape selling their phones (I've got an OP2 but don't like their OS and want to put cm on here). And CM is in weird limbo and maybe shutting down? Cyanogen has stopped funding their infrastructure, but I don't know if there are any implications beyond that. Maybe trademark issues in the future when the brand gets sold.
R (29 Dec 2016 5:38): Good, I kinda hoped you'd moved on to a new phone since the last time I knew what phone you had, but I wasn't sure, and if you were still on the OPO, it sounded pretty dire. Also, formatting links on mobile is super painful, which you already knew, which everyone already knew. But jeez.
R (29 Dec 2016 5:41): Yeah, CyanogenMod is now LineageOS, and there was some brief drama about getting everything rehosted after CM's further split from Cyanogen, Inc. Bluh. Pretty happy to be on a Nexus 6, not that that's perfect either. 'Sucks least' continues to be the theme of 'making choices about computers and software'.
m (29 Dec 2016 7:31):!
m (29 Dec 2016 7:33): Yeah! Saw that about Lineage. Can't wait to give it a try. I've always been happier with cyanogenmod than with anything else for my phone. (yeah, mobile in particular is just an abundance of bad choices)
m (4 Mar 2017 19:17): Alarming!
Many Russian and American analysts now refer to the current state of U.S.-Russia relations as a kind of new Cold War; Hill gave the current state of affairs an even more alarming tag. "I think we are in a hot war with Russia, not a cold war," she said. "But we have to be careful about the analogy. It's a more complex world. There is no set-piece confrontation. This is no holds barred. The Cold War was a more disciplined competition, aside from the near blowups in Berlin and Cuba, where we walked back from the brink. The Kremlin now is willing to jump over the abyss. They want to play for the asymmetry. They see themselves in a period of hot kinetic war. Also, this is not just two-way superpower. There is China, the rising powers. I almost see it as like the great power competition from the time before the Second World War."
m (4 Mar 2017 19:18): Though, hm, less credible:
Hill also said that the Russians, partly because they "have" Edward Snowden, in Moscow, possess "a good idea of what the U.S. is capable of knowing. They got all of his information. You can be damn well sure that [Snowden's] information is theirs."
R (18 Apr 14:58): "IIRC this isn't the only place where node hopes for the best by using a double for 64-bit integer values."
Paul (2 Jun 21:35): Jon Ronson - How One Tweet Can Ruin Your Life
Paul (15 Jun 4:45): The gaslighting about Bernie in the New York Times is intense, suggesting incorrectly that he encouraged extremist violence.

If you're looking for which politician encouraged violence, check which politician encouraged chants of "Lock her up!" and said "if she gets the pick of her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I dunno." To my knowledge, Bernie hasn't said anything remotely comparable.