Hear hear! I also learned on a Selectric. I miss the amphitheatre/stepped key rows, the demi-conical keys, and the serious business and damn near indestructible double shot keys. I can find mechanical keyboards with the right key shapes and if I lay out serious money, can even get the double-shot keys made out of that serious, almost indestructible plastic that Ma Bell and IBM used for their products. What seems to be impossible is finding a keyboard with all of these features *and* the slight curve of amphitheatre key rows rather than the stepped style.

I have given serious thought to making my own keyboard essentially from scratch, sourcing keys and switches online and then building my own curved "plank" to mount them on, and soldering my own logic board.

My dream keyboard would have the following features:
1) curved "amphitheatre" key rows
2) double shot ABS demi-conical keycaps with transparent symbols. (appear black except when lit from below)
3) Illuminated keys that are not only switch-able, but dim-able as well. (I plan on PWM and tricolour LEDs so I can chose my own custom colour and intensity)
4) relatively quiet mechanical switches, possibly MX Cherry reds
5) Ctrl, Alt, Meta and Windows keys as well as a double row of Function keys. (I got my computing start using terminals and I miss some of the dedicated keys those keyboards would have) with status lights for each
6) rubberized shaped buttons for the keys commonly found on "media keyboards" (calculator, email, favourites, rev, fwd, play, vol+, vol-)
7) horizontal bar Enter and Backspace keys
8) USB port on the right side for occasional thumb drive uses
9) wireless, with one of those RF charging mats built into the desk to power it, on-board batteries to run it when I remove it from the pad

I have the skills needed to make the board itself, it's the logic board inside I'd need help on. As far as I know, it should be fairly easy to set up some sort of an IC that can map the roughly 150 actual key switches and output the appropriate actual keyboard signals. From there, it should be trivial to tack on the 27.8 MHz transmitter that sends to the USB receiver. I don't have much need to program macros and those few I use can be handled in software on the computer.

Of course, all of us here are familiar with the Drake equation, something this article certainly applies to.

But I wonder, has anyone made a serious attempt at coming up with real numbers for the various variables to see what the final number was? Every attempt I've seen thus far at solving the equation either uses very loose figures or doesn't enumerate the variables at all.

What I'd like to see is someone take the most rigorous numbers we can come up with, narrowing the estimated ranges as best as we can with current knowledge and then combine that with the stellar distributions we already have mapped. The idea being come up with our very best guess at the number of systems which harbour life (preferably intelligent life) and how big of a sphere of space would we have to explore before we are mathematically probable likely to encounter/discover alien life. I've seen the Seager Equation, which inherently implies the number of possible life bearing planets within a certain radius sphere {our detection range for biosignature gases} but still doesn't try to plug in the best numbers we can come up with.

There is the Texas U calculator, for anyone who has estimated values for the variables at Drake Calculator But I don't have the data to plug into it, nor do I have the skill needed to evaluate the usefulness of numbers I can search for on my own.

Given the way many broadband ISPs oversubscribe their services, I consider weasel words like "up to X speeds" in the fine print while all the headlines and banner texts say "Now surf at X*" or "Fastest Internet in Y county!*" with all those asterisk footnotes to be a form of corporate buggery.

An amusing quote I read once:

English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar. - Paraphrase of a quote by James Davis Nicoll

Except that Canadian Rangers do not use modern small unit tactics. They do not conduct what you'd think of as a military patrol, more like a border security and game warden patrol. The primary purpose of their rifles is self defence against wildlife or obtaining food while on patrol, not engaging a human enemy. This is also behind the rationale for the .303 cartridge rather than the more modern .308, 300 winmag and other rounds I've seen suggested. Canadian Rangers don't need long range accuracy, they need medium range stopping power using only the military ball rounds approved by international conventions. (the Hague Convention if memory serves correctly)

The conditions and primary mission of the Canadian Rangers also drives the choice of bolt action vs a semi-automatic. Compared to more modern firearms, the Lee-Enfield is built with fairly loose tolerances, so the barrel and action can expand and contract in response to the heat of firing and the extreme cold often found in the Arctic without failing. (when shooting an attacking polar bear at less than 200m, making sure the weapon works is far more important than obtaining sub-MOA accuracy.) The weapon also has to be easily field-stripped even when wearing gloves. Being a Commonwealth country, we still have lots and lots of WW1 issue rifles, making their use very cost effective. The only reason the Canadian Forces wants to replace it is because nobody has made parts for them in decades, so things like firing pins and trigger springs are becoming scarce.

replying to undue mistaken moderation

The problem is; as I understand it, is that Microsoft (as well as Apple and Google) have such huge cash reserves that they could afford to operate in the red for YEARS if the board of directors thought it was useful to do so. If Microsoft decided to get really serious about cloud computing and the potential for trusted computing and DRM, they could afford to take really dramatic steps to drive the market in that direction. We've seen the success of Steam and other mandatory connection, micro-transaction business models. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Microsoft board wants to drive individual/consumer desktop use in that direction. I seem to recall that RIAA and MPAA slipped Microsoft a bunch of cash to support development of trusted computing. If MS rolls trusted computing and trustworthy computers into a cloud oriented scheme, I'm sure there is more money to be had from that direction.

[tinfoilhat] Then there is the fact that cloud oriented computing has some rather severe concerns about data integrity, privacy and so on. I'm sure the spooks would LOVE to have everyone store their data and run cloud applications or at least cloud "certified secure" applications where they can stick their digital fingers in. [/tinfoilhat]

You may be right about some people finding Sheldon's outing as autistic to be insulting. But for what it's worth, I wouldn't. I AM autistic (Aspergers) as is my two sons and the elder son of my best friend. Both my friends son and I find ourselves identifying with Sheldon because certain facets of his personality and interpersonal relationship skills resonate with us. There have been numerous times when Sheldon has said something virtually word for word that my friends son or I have actually said previously. For both him and I, it is a relief to see someone portraying an autistic individual that isn't "disabled".

What separates Sheldon from folks like my friends son and myself I think is humility. We know we're different. We may share Sheldons iron clad assumption of rightness on the emotional reaction level, but intellectually we know we're different and that we have to make constant efforts to adapt to the world instead of expecting the world to adapt to us. We've had to come to recognize, accept and even to some extent celebrate neuro-diversity in a way that Sheldon doesn't seem capable of doing. We don't have Sheldons towering intellect, but we are smart. Thus; we can be wrong, life has given us lessons in humility that Sheldon hasn't had and we have learned from them.

For what it's worth, I *have* heard the term used that way. In fact it's the only usage I've ever heard. I had vaguely known there was some other historical use, but like cretin , imbecile and moron, it's become a common derogatory word.

I suspect that it is a regional thing. English speaking nations all have their unique slang terms after all. And many English speaking countries are also large enough to have regional differences within them. I'm not likely to ever call a person a drongo, wombat, poof (Australian), berk, bint, chav or pikey (British) or wigger, jagoff, ratchet or ho (American)

Despite being Canadian, I'd never call someone "b'y" (Newfoundland), skookum or siwash (British Columbia)

Click here for the easiest way to enhance your revenue!

The one weird trick basement dwelling slashdotters don't want you to know!

What happened exactly?

ICANN posted two letters regarding Brandon Gray today. One is the suspension notice, while the other is a detailed breach notice which explains it all.

Essentially Brandon Gray got finally caught out by a couple of clauses in the 2013 registrar contract with ICANN (RAA):

Brandon Gray’s resellers subjecting Registered Name Holders to false advertising, deceptive practices, or deceptive notices, pursuant to Section 3.12.7 of the RAA and Section 3 of Domain Name Registrants’ Rights of the Registrants’ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification (“RBRS”).

ICANN would also like to know how they managed to mine whois data to send out all the letters to registrants without falling foul of the section 3.3.5 of the RAA, which states:

3.3.5 In providing query-based public access to registration data as required by Subsections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, Registrar shall not impose terms and conditions on use of the data provided, except as permitted by any Specification or Policy established by ICANN. Unless and until ICANN establishes a different Consensus Policy, Registrar shall permit use of data it provides in response to queries for any lawful purposes except to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, postal mail, facsimile or other means of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient’s own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of any Registry Operator or ICANN-Accredited registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations.

For the rest of the article, including images of the actual letters, follow the link in the summary.

uhm,....sort of

What you're thinking of is the result of the Key West Agreement which basically says the Army can have air assets with a reconnaissance or medical evacuation role. If they have a need for a fixed wing aircraft, blimp, helicopter or whatever within those roles, they can have them. Combat aviation machines remain the purview of the Air Force, so the A-10 tank buster and the AC-130 gunship whose primary mission is a ground support role are NOT Army assets, but Air Force. In practical terms, this has limited the Army to "low and slow" unarmed fixed wing recon platforms and helos for medivac duties. However, after the Viet Nam War, the Army was able to expand on those roles and start using smaller turboprop and light jet fixed wing craft for cargo transport and armed helicopters such as the Apache.

The Navy (and Marines) was able to keep its own combat aircraft for several reasons. My own summary of those reasons are a) Navy often operates too far away from Airforce bases for the usual type of cross-service support and b) The navy had done an excellent job of proving in the recently ended WWII of how effective carrier based aircraft are. A capability the Navy was not going to give up without a serious fight...

*It is generally accepted in military circles that special/covert operations units are exempt from the agreement, but because of the nature and scope of their missions, they are usually limited to choppers and transport craft anyway.

The first two invasive species that I can think of, off the top of my head are kudzu and zebra mussels.

Kudzu : AKA "the devils ivy" and "the vine that ate The South" I used to work in the landscaping business and have actually sold this stuff as an indoor decorative plant. I'm pretty sure that people taking it home and putting it in their yard instead is why we're seeing it up in Canada now. Out of curiosity, I've actually tasted kudzu leaves and it's not something I'd ever want in a salad or stewed greens. (but other people enjoy the taste of say grape leaves, so that doesn't completely rule it out.) There are apparently uses for the starch derived from the roots, but I have no experience with that. The damned stuff grows faster than goats can eat it, which is saying a lot. It grows so fast that in ideal conditions you can SEE it growing, you'd almost swear it was capable of following you. I think the best use isn't as food, but as biomass stock. The problem with using it as biomass is that it exhausts the soil pretty quickly.

zebra mussels. As far as I know, in the areas infested by them, the mussels are not edible because of the various nasty things they filter out of the water and sequester in their tissues. I don't think ANY Great Lakes shellfish would be edible for that reason. It used to be you couldn't eat any fish caught in the Great Lakes, especially the lower lakes, because of industrial nasties like mercury and dioxin accumulation. I seem to recall that white fleshed fish species are safe now, as an occasional menu item only. Filter feeders from the Great Lakes, especially if eaten regularly like we'd have to do to keep them under control, is probably still a Bad Idea (TM Animaniacs)

Overall; my concern is that deciding to eat the invasive species is tantamount to an admission of defeat. It's certainly a step towards learning to simply accept that they are part of the local food chain. I am not an ecology and conservation expert by any means, but I think with at least some of the invasive species we may still have a shot at eradicating them if necessary. (if Monsanto or Dupont manage to come up with a kudzu specific herbicide that degrades elegantly/cleanly they'll make a mint down in the southern US)

Linus Torvalds appears to be endorsing this course, which is created by the Linux Foundation. He has a brief into clip on the course page, but in the section for course staff it only lists Jerry Cooperstein Phd who is also the Training Program Director for the Linux Foundation.

To me this seems like Linus approves of, even endorses this course, but that it is being taught by Dr. Cooperstein. I'll readily concede that the technical value of the course probably isn't hurt by this, but anyone looking to take this course for the chance to interact in any way with Mr. Torvalds is probably going to be disappointed.

God@Multiverse:~/$ cd /Universe_Aleph001/Milky_way/Sol/Earth

God@Multiverse:~ /Universe_Aleph001/Milky_way/Sol/Earth$ make postbigbang

God@Multiverse:~ /Universe_Aleph001/Milky_way/Sol/Earth$ you need to be root to perform this command

God@Multiverse:~ /Universe_Aleph001/Milky_way/Sol/Earth$ sudo make postbigbang

God@Multiverse:~ /Universe_Aleph001/Milky_way/Sol/Earth# warning: overriding recipe for target 'postbigbang'