cellocgw writes: Over the last few months, I've got multiple calls (on each of the numbers listed below), all with identical pitches selling the same home security system. These calls come thru despite my being on the "national do not call" list. I took a look at the FTC complaint page, but so far as I can tell it'd take me 4 pages' worth of form to report each number. What to do? 206.225.6674 206.397.1819 215.383.3414 240.318.1485 240.318.1522 248.996.6219 253.236.2409 267.888.2494 307.316.7479 314.336.8509 314.666.8293 314.666.8369 336.937.7107 347.774.2743 360.633.9455 404.793.8108 417.800.2478 424.220.6074 458.201.2160 480.999.5637 541.981.4121 614.516.2800 630.701.3442 701.248.1334 702.576.4480 720.315.7922 773.897.5660 805.957.2052 913.279.5360 914.219.9800 951.200.2916
cellocgw writes: The explosion in file and memory capacity has led to a plethora of prefixes used for byte size: giga, pata, exa, and so on. Perhaps it's just time to add a "base unit" to the current bit, byte, and word appellations. Perhaps we could define a "Book" (abbreviation: Bk) as one gigabyte, and thus greatly simplify memory-naming requirements.
cellocgw writes: "A statistician over at Fellows Statistics did some analysis to see what factors were most strongly correlated with disparities between popular vote (per state) and the ratio of Democrats/Republicans elected to the House of Representatives. No surprise that the party in control of redistricting ends up on top; or that in recent times, computer-aided Gerrymandering has helped the Republicans maximize the disparity between popular vote and elected seats."
cellocgw writes: "Everyone with a slashdot number under 10^8 knows that the "Score: 3(Funny)" probably has a dozen "informative" and "Troll" and "redundant" moderations that aren't visible. How about we plot an arachnid chart, displaying the current number of every possible rating category? That would provide an awful lot more info in a reasonable space, and there would not need to be a max score limit."
cellocgw writes: "This morning I went to a few of the many websites which feature the Quran (Koran). I loaded a bunch of webpages and downloaded a pdf copy of the book, then deleted the pdf as well as my browser cache. Does this count as destruction of a holy book? If not, where is the line drawn, seeing as destruction of mass-produced paperbacks apparently is a bad thing to do?"