Sotomayor defends her nunchuck ban. I hope Michelangelo doesn’t get wind of this. http://bit.ly/7q0N6 (Yes, I mean the Ninja Turtle.)
Farhad Manjoo's page on the Internet
Bittman calls this “possibly” the best pea soup recipe. I disagree. It is the best. Make it tonight. http://bit.ly/vvE0k
If you’re near the Ferry Building in SF, @dcpatterson is giving out free lunch at the new Cane Rosso.
Researchers at the University of Sussex played back different kinds of cat cries to human subjects, some of whom didn’t own cats. They found that a particular kind of cat meow—” a purr mixed with a high-pitched cry,” as LiveScience describes it—was very difficult for people to ignore:
They found that humans, even if they had never had a cat themselves, judged the purrs recorded while cats were actively seeking food - the purrs with an embedded, high-pitched cry - as more urgent and less pleasant than those made in other contexts.
When the team re-synthesised the recorded purrs to remove the embedded cry, leaving all else unchanged, the human subjects’ urgency ratings for those calls decreased significantly.
McComb said she thinks this cry occurs at a low level in cats’ normal purring, “but we think that cats learn to dramatically exaggerate it when it proves effective in generating a response from humans.” In fact, not all cats use this form of purring at all, she said, noting that it seems to most often develop in cats that have a one-on-one relationship with their owners rather than those living in large households, where their purrs might be overlooked.
Down with Verdana! My story on Typekit and terrible Web typography. http://bit.ly/U53kR
My awesome Restoration Hardware decorative American Flag and Declaration of Independence cushions got delivered today. http://bit.ly/7bXjS
Thanks for the links, @bryanmason and @veen — and thanks for chatting with me!
I’ve raised the hackles of a lot of Linux fans with my five reasons why the Google OS is doomed. http://bit.ly/LZVkc
RT @LordOfTheTweet: “Soylent Green is manufactured in a facility that processes eggs, wheat and tree nuts.” #1stdraftmovielines
SlateV on how to save newspapers: Buy One Anyway! For the price of a cup of coffee, you can help feed a reporter! http://bit.ly/3wHUhv
I can’t get enough of the Vitamin String Quartet’s version of Sweet Child O Mine. http://bit.ly/IP8fn
I can’t get enough of the Vitamin String Quartet’s version of Sweet Child O Mine. Better link: http://bit.ly/zz7rq (Thanks to Kevin on FB)
Should you buy a dot-whatever domain name? No, I say — URLS aren’t very important anymore. http://bit.ly/xPE30
Is your Twitter avatar still green? Did you change it back? How did you make that decision?
From the WaPo:
The researchers at Carnegie Mellon set out to see if they could discover people’s numbers by first exploiting what is publicly known about how the numbers are derived.
The Social Security number’s first three digits — called the “area number” — is issued according to the Zip code of the mailing address provided in the application form. The fourth and fifth digits — known as the “group number” — transition slowly, and often remain constant over several years for a given region. The last four digits are assigned sequentially.
As a result, SSNs assigned in the same state to applicants born on consecutive days are likely to contain the same first four or five digits, particularly in states with smaller populations and rates of birth.
As it happens, the researchers said, if you’re trying to discover a living person’s SSN, the best place to start is with a list of dead people — particularly deceased people who were born around the time and place of your subject. The so-called “Death Master File,” is a publicly available file which lists SSNs, names, dates of birth and death, and the states of all individuals who have applied for a number and whose deaths have been reported to the Social Security Administration.
CMU researchers Acquisti and Ph.D student Ralph Gross theorized that they could use the Death Master File along with publicly available birth information to predict narrow ranges of values wherein individual SSNs were likely to fall. The two tested their hunch using the Death Master File of people who died between 1972 and 2003, and found that on the first try they could correctly guess the first five digits of the SSN for 44 percent of deceased people who were born after 1988, and for 7 percent of those born between 1973 and 1988.
Acquisti and Gross found that it was far easier to predict SSNs for people born after 1988, when the Social Security Administration began an effort to ensure that U.S. newborns obtained their SSNs shortly after birth.
They were able to identify all nine digits for 8.5 percent of people born after 1988 in fewer than 1,000 attempts. For people born recently in smaller states, researchers sometimes needed just 10 or fewer attempts to predict all nine digits.