Slashdot Mirror

The best game that I've played lately is Counter Strike Surfing. Same old modified Quake 2 engine, same old sprites, textures, and models, entirely new game. Get Counter Strike classic off Steam and give it a try... the learning curve is steep but it's worth the climb. Begs for a dedicated game to be coded.

When I first read this I thought it was a joke, but maybe this is what you are looking for:
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Friends

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Duct-Tape-Wallet

Scary, but could happen. I have IMed people from across a room before -- or a house.

Mom: Call your brother for dinner:
Me(IM): Dinnertime
Bro(IM): OK
Mom: Were you going to get your brother?
Me: Already did.
*bro walks in*

Another story, I don't know if it was real -- guy chatting hot and heavy with someone, they phone each other, then she says "Look outside..." His wife, sitting in the car with her laptop and her cell phone.

Other frightening possibilities -- I'm used to working with a manpage ready. So, Laptop+Manual...

Ok, enough. Let's apply our creativity to things that won't remove us from the gene pool.

This is insanity. From what I can tell, they basically want to hook everyone going through up to a smaller polygraph machine.

Hasn't anyone got it yet that the polygraph test is fatally flawed?

It's flawed in finding people who are guilty because they can easily cheat the test by knowing how it's administered. Basically, certain questions (the "control" questions) establish a baseline for lying, which everyone will generally have the same answer to, but will feel uncomfortable answering, like, "have you ever cheated on a test?" or "have you ever lied to your spouse?" If one responds more to the "relevant" questions (the ones related to that which they're actually investigating) more than one responds to the control questions, one will fail, so the key is to artificially increase your reaction (blood pressure, etc) to the control questions.

It's also flawed for people who are innocent because false positives are easy to come by. If you're nervous while doing the test, regardless of what they tell you, you can easily be more nervous about the easily recognizable "relevant" questions, making you appear to be lying and fail the test. Per the article, 8% of people going through this system caused a false positive, falsely identifying them as being suspicious. What if this wasn't strictly a test? Do you really think that in a busy customs port an officer is going to trust someone who's failed a lie detector? At that point, the best they can hope for is to be sent back; further investigation and possible detention are certainly not out of the question.

The thing I dislike about relying on these sorts of tests is that they're nowhere near objective, and so if one fails, they'll always require additional investigation afterward anyway, and if one passes, one could have just gotten away with smuggling or worse without anyone asking questions. It's simply not right. Customs officers should be the ones asking questions, not a flawed machine and methodology.

Hair gel? WTF, mate? I dont use crazy oily products on my head. Here is a wikiHow on cleaning CDs: http://www.wikihow.com/Fix-a-Scratched-CD

Coincidentally there's a recent "How To" on how to fix a scratched CD
at http://www.wikihow.com/Fix-a-Scratched-CD
The nearly last ditch effort is to use vaseline (a lot like hair gel).
However, it's not a long lasting solution. Just long enough to burn a new CD.

Today's "How To" of the Day

Ok, so according to this article it didn't work.

Now before i get modded into oblivion here's some stuff to back upo my statement

http://www.wikihow.com/Repair-a-CD-Using-Toothpast e

Once again, the ways to fix cd's depends on the type of scratch you are dealing with. (toothpaste to polish out scratches to floor wax to fill deep scratches)

I've seen several discussions about how wikipedia works and in general I think it does work very well. There is one issue that I've come across recently that illistrates one of the flaws where a site IMO was improperly blacklisted. In this case, one user was trying to promote a site that he was an admin for on wikipedia. Unfortunatly due to his actions, the site (not the user) was blacklisted. It happens to be a site that has been featured on Slashdot several times:

Crunching the Math On iTunes - http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/28/ 0616225
A Look at Bootstrapping - http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/1 1/07/0351215
The Math Behind the Hybrid Hype - http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/ 14/0623227
More iTunes Math - http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/1 1/1822246
Leaving Early May Cost You Time - http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/2 3/2045250

It's a great site and I hate to see it banned from wikipedia. I brought this to the attention of wikihow about a week ago in their forum - http://www.wikihow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1296 wikiHow uses the same software and the same blacklist but it looks like they have removed the site in question from their blacklist. Anyone have any suggestions to get this site restored?

Personally, I think that we should flood the world with [they really need a better name than 'the $100 Laptop']. On a side note, perhaps someone could write a wikiHow on subsistence farming.

500 pounds of Flour, 500 pounds of water, 100 pounds of salt, and about a gallon of kerosene.

In home recipes they use vegetable oil instead. It comes out about the same but is edible instead of just non-toxic.