Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quickie Twister

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the i-am-the-red-worm dept.

Start this one off with a creative hack: tim.kerby sent in just that: using a tortilla as a bread board when your local radio shack is out. Future creative hacks may involve i4u's link to camborg which tracks wearable cameras. Ant found cats and robots. You can practice by playing Kitty Lick 3, an FPS you play as a feline (thanks bjorky) But If cats aren't your pet of choice, how about pigs? Rookie sent in linkage to a story about a one in first class that you'll swear is fiction (but it isn't). radiator sent in a hilarious parody: first aid for a dying dot com. Some auctions worth noting: drDugan sent a picture autographed by Linus being sold on eBay (and donated to charity). Dirty Yanni noted that Metallica/Napster parody t-shirts are for sale on eBay. And the last auction (but not on eBay) is Spock's original ears from the original trek. Oh, and how about t-shirts mocking the MS breakin & source code theft? CArnesen noted that Anime Expo 2001 has been scheduled for this summer. I'm seriously considering going. Mothy notes that famed Rubber Chicken vendor Archie McPhee is now selling the Linux Voodoo Penguin (however the ad features a "Sysadmin" wearing a tie! Have to much free time? Ant does! He sent us a reflex tester (I've managed a .24) but thats nothing compared to Am I Hot or Not which is fun for hours on end if you're the type that amuses easily. And finally, tshell noted that that now that there is a complete O'Reily ate my balls site, the Internet is now complete. You can all go home now.

28 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Pig! by Sawbones · · Score: 2

    I've never been more proud to live in seattle :)

    Now, time to track down all of those promised millions once pigs have flown...

    --

    Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
    1. Re:Pig! by llywrch · · Score: 2

      > I've never been more proud to live in seattle :)

      Why? Because a pig flew first class to your city?

      Hmmf! Let's drop the pig into the d00m parody, & fly a cat first class. Yeah! Not only will the players get k-rad k3wl special effects, a high score means you get BACON!!!

      (On an unrelated note, I only drank 3 Full Sail Stouts tonight before posting this. I guess my campaign to become the Homer Simpson of /. is d00med to failure.)

      Geoff

      --
      I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
  2. Other Photos by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 5

    A lot of people are bidding on the Linus autograph linked in the article, but the seller has 4 other photos which as of right now have significantly lower bids ($31 to $60 vs. $255), you can see the list here.

  3. Tortilla. by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    Predrilled PCB != Breadboard.

    And his clock thing was not about 'resonant frequency of tortilla' but about induced capacitance form the tortilla; i'm sure it conducts somewhat.

    1. Re:Tortilla. by DoomHaven · · Score: 2

      I would doubt very much that tortillas conduct electricity. Induced capacitance, yes, of course; but not conduct electricity. To conduct electricity, you need either free-flowing electrons or ions - the base constituents of a tortilla has neither.

      My worries here would be heat retention and environmental conditions. Quick, what is the ignition temperature of an tortilla? (European or American? hahahaha). Will prolonged exposure to 5 volts ignite the tortilla? How long would a tortilla last in a very moist environment before failure? Since he is using the tortilla for outdoor usage, what precautions did he take to keep the tortilla safe from rain and from hungry creatures?

      --
      "Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
    2. Re:Tortilla. by Mignon · · Score: 2
      Did you happen to notice the date on that page?

      Indeed I did, and I laughed all the way through the article. I also couldn't help notice the resemblance to the "potato-powered web server" from a few months ago. It got me wondering, though, of the possibilities for a rice and beans-powered circuit. What's got a higher energy density - rice and beans or a potato? My first vote would go to rice and beans, but if you throw a little cabbage in with the potato - look out! It must act like a catalyst, causing the potato to release more energy than by itself.

  4. I Got 0.11 But I Cheated. by istartedi · · Score: 2

    If you don't believe me just visit here: http://www.vrml3d.com/temp/TIME.gif

    The secret? Don't actually try to react. Just try to judge a typical time for the delay, and play the odds. Sooner or later you'll hit really close. I would be surprised if we didn't see a 0.1 within the hour.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:I Got 0.11 But I Cheated. by istartedi · · Score: 2

      I meant I would be surprised if we didn't see 0.01 within the hour, assuming the resolution of their timer is sufficient.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:I Got 0.11 But I Cheated. by istartedi · · Score: 2

      For real, or did you pull out MSPaint and do a little font fiddling?

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:I Got 0.11 But I Cheated. by ucblockhead · · Score: 2

      Uh....if I hadn't looked at the Javascript (and more), I wouldn't have been able to get that result....

      Jesus, I said I fucking cheated, what'd you expect?

      --
      The cake is a pie
    4. Re:I Got 0.11 But I Cheated. by ucblockhead · · Score: 2

      Define "for real"... I edited the Javascript and ran it off of my hard drive, pasting the original URL into the address bar to make it look like I was hitting the original site.

      MSPaint would have been too damn much work!

      --
      The cake is a pie
  5. infrared critter detection by Booker · · Score: 4
    Infrared LEDs & gutted quickcams can be great for night shots of critters (like the robot/cat thing).

    I had raccoons coming in through my cat door, and wreaking havoc with the cat food and water. SO... I took the IR filter off the webcam, hooked it up to some motion detection software, and got some cool pics.

    Of course, that didn't solve the problem... but first, you have to know your enemy! :)

    ---

    1. Re:infrared critter detection by ucblockhead · · Score: 3

      You wanna have fun? Don't just hook up a camera, hook up a hose, too!

      (And that will probably solve the problem.)

      --
      The cake is a pie
  6. Nothing Flat (was Re:I Got 0.11 But I Cheated.) by istartedi · · Score: 2

    OK, that played through way too quickly. I got nothing flat: http://www.vrml3d.com/temp/time0.gif

    In a reflex test like this, where the consequences of failure are zero, there is nothing to discouraging people from gambling using my statistical cheat.

    Now, if this were NHRA drag racing, I would be disqualified on almost every race, so my cheat wouldn't work. If you really want to measure someone's reflexes, you need to take a lot of samples and run some statistics. There must be a fairly good body of research on this, and I bet the math to account for guess-based cheating is non-trivial. Anybody out there experienced in the field of reaction time measurements?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  7. Hot or not? by ucblockhead · · Score: 3

    Hey, that site's so old it has already been parodied.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  8. Oh, Please... by ewhac · · Score: 3

    The reflex testing page is written in JavaScript. Gimme a break. JavaScript is a slow, interpreted language found inside slow, bloated Web browsers. The measurements this program offers are highly suspect.

    Let's work it out:

    • JavaScript thunks out to OS to get current time, converts to internal format and stores it,
    • JavaScript thunks out to Web browser (which thunks out to the OS) to repaint the current page with a new background color (this takes a long time),
    • User clicks mouse, mouse driver generates a signal,
    • OS captures signal and builds an event packet,
    • Windowing system further interprets event packet, assigns target window/pane/button, sends to application,
    • Web browser receives event, where it rattles around for a while figuring out what to do with it,
    • Web browser calls back into the OS to render the button in the depressed state,
    • Web browser invokes JavaScript function handling that button,
    • JavaScript thunks back out to the OS again to get the current time,
    • Calculates the "delay" and presents the results.

    Question: Which bit of this sequence involves high-performance, low-latency software components? If you said the mouse driver, and OS and windowing system event dispatchers, you're right. Everything else is dog-slow.

    I wouldn't trust this thing to be accurate to finer than 80 milliseconds or so.

    Schwab

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  9. Trapping cats... by mwalker · · Score: 5

    For a computer engineer it did not take long to think of a solution involving a robot.

    For a computer scientist, it did not take long to figure out that you trap cats by putting a big pile of catnip on the floor, watching them eat it, and then carrying them outside, stoned out of their mind.

    the robot is cool too, i guess. (:

    --

    --
    What happens when you outlaw guns
  10. But its cool by acomj · · Score: 2

    I used to try to start and stop my digital watch's stopwatch in minimum time.. 0.11 was my record.

    weeee

    /Aram

    1. Re:But its cool by Goonie · · Score: 2
      I thought I was the only geek who found this amusing . . . but I think I beat you with 0.10. Must be all those years of piano lessons.

      Of course, I think we've got think is a case of *far* too much time on our hands if you pardon the appalling pun :)

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  11. I only get .22 after a few tries... by antdude · · Score: 2

    No wonder I suck in games :).

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  12. You can trace the picture's origin by TBHiX · · Score: 2

    Found a way to trace the pics. Click "Page Info". The link to the pic is the second or third-last one listed. Open it in a new window. Usually, chopping off the last bit of the link's URL will get you to the page hosting the pic.

    My point? After following a few of the ones that looked.... professionally hot, shall we say, it seems that a large number of them are indeed links to professional pages. Not all of them, mind you. Just a large majority of them.

    All I know is, even if I wanted to risk my self-esteem, I'd never post anywhere where someone might be able to find my website.

    -TBHiX-

  13. Get faster times by DeadSea · · Score: 2

    You can easily cut your response time down by holding the second button half way down until the color changes and then letting the button up. I got .16 in just a couple tries. The button event is registered on mouseup.

  14. Re:I got .06 and I know the secret... by istartedi · · Score: 2

    I hacked in an "average" output, and sent it to the author. If his mailbox doesn't get slashdotted, maybe he'll put out a 1.01 version.

    Having the average there doesn't totally resolve the issue of cheating, but it makes it a bit more fair to compare results. So far, my average is about 0.34 out of 6 or 7 tries. Hmmm... I guess if he wanted to, he could make it add a 1 second penalty every time you cheated.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  15. Re:It's just for fun. by ewhac · · Score: 2

    i hope this isn't taken as a flame.

    Oh, heavens no.

    I have nothing against interpreted languages per se. I cut my teeth on BASIC about 25 years ago, and I think they're great for lots of stuff.

    But the accuracy of the result is massively dependent on the implementation and performance of the JavaScript interpreter, the Web browser, the OS, and the machine itself. As an example, I'm writing this message on my 166MHz Pentium laptop, in Netscape 4.73 running Debian Linux 2.2 (potato). Realistically, it'll take a couple hundred milliseconds for the browser/JavaScript to react at all to my mouse clicks, just because the software layers through which the measurements are being performed are so darned thick. So the scores people are posting are highly dependent on their system configuration.

    Schwab

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  16. Re:Pig! Hehe... by Soko · · Score: 2

    You must be a swine of the profiteering type, a - *Ahem!* - Capitalist Pig. Just like the rest of them in first class.

    LOL.

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  17. Re:reflex speed by atrowe · · Score: 3

    I've found that my score on the reflex test is directly proportional to the number of beers I've had.

    --

    -atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.

  18. Cheating the Reflex Tester by pen · · Score: 2
    I'm not sure if this would be called cheating, but you can get significantly better scores on the Reflex Texter by holding down the Stop button and then letting go when the color changes. This way, you have to make only one motion, which takes less time. This may not work with some browsers though.

    --
    Can you even play MP3s on that thing?

  19. Internet poll "U Syndrome" by dmorin · · Score: 2
    The problem with stuff like the hot/not poll is that the majority of people on the net only know how to offer polarized opinions. Give people a rating system of 1-10 and the majority will vote either 1,2,3 or 8,9,10. Unlike the expected bell curve, you instead get a U. Sure enough, any chick in a bikini rates a 9.8 while face shots of nice average girls usually rack up a 1.3.

    There's evidence of this in Amazon and IMDB ratings, which is probably one of the reasons Amazon has started rating the raters so that you get to have some idea of whose opinion is actually worth listening to. I'm sure it's also part of the reason that you only get a 1-5 rating on Amazon, so that the effect is not as noticeable.

    --
    www.HearMySoulSpeak.com