It would be cool if thinkgeek or someone made cds that were 120mm wide, but they only used the 1st 80mm, like mini cds, and they had 20mm ninja star spikes or something. That may you could store your top secret ninja plans and kill pirates at the SAME TIME!
Yeah, just don't use them in a 52x CD reader or the CD will fracture and the spikes will fly off and take off everybody's kneecaps.
...unless that was the plan all along. Touché/.ninja, touché.
My goals where of course shot down when I did research into how the limitations(thing to work really have to me microscopic) Clearly not anymore. Your dreams can become reality! People do eat mirrors right?
If this was actually in the wild, or exploited, that'll be big How do you know it wasn't? This isn't the kind of thing where if it's being exploited people would know it. If the wrong person discovered this first then obviously they wouldn't be running around telling people that they'd found a security hole which they were currently exploiting for their own personal profit.
I'd be interested to know if this information is covered by the DPA for UK residents. Does search data count as personal information if the data is linked to an IP address rather than directly linked to my identity?
If it is then presumably I should be able to make a request under the DPA (without a court order) and they would be required by law to provide me with all information they have pertaining to me for a nominal fee within a certain time-period (I forget exactly how long).
Clearly IANAL and I don't know nearly enough about the DPA or international law to know if this applies. Any actual lawyers about there who can clear this up?
I never said headphones were more annoying than cell phones. All I said was the idea that something being annoying was enough reason to prevent airlines allowing it didn't make sense given headphones and reclining seats. Yeah, people on cellphones can be annoying, maybe more annoying than the other examples I gave. But it's not like allowing cellphones on a plane immediately gives those people free reign to be as loud as they want. Just as other passengers and air steward(esse)s can politely tell a parent that their rampaging kid needs to STFU because other people are trying to sleep, the same is true of phone users. Yes, it's wise to avoid confrontation on a plane, but this "if we let phones on planes then all cellphone users will shout too loud and nobody can stop them!!!!11!!1" is crap.
You must be one of those ignorant, I'll-get-outraged-and-reply-before-I-even-read-the -post/. users if you think for one second that what I said had anything to do with supporting the use of cell phones on planes. Please try again.
Re:Imminent death of Internet predicted, film at 1
on
IPv6 Tested in Space
·
· Score: 1
"A solution in search of a problem"? I'm sorry, are you disputing the fact that there are a limited number of IPv4 that is far too low for the practical number of systems that will require them in the near future? Are you really that clueless?
Or are you just one of the other idiots I mentioned in my post who thinks that it's too far in the future to be worth worrying about? Yeah, let's wait 10 or 20 years until the last possible moment then rush about to fix the much much larger number of peices of software and hardware that will need it. You're a genius.
I agree with the reclining seats but how on earth is music via headphones annoying? I travel a lot and have never managed to hear the music of the person sitting next to me over the roar of the engines. I would imagine that by the time they have it loud enough to be heard in the seat next to them over the engine noise their eardrums will be history. - Depends on the headphones I guess. I've never had headphones be a real problem for me personally (although somehow I always get stuck behind the reclining guy) but I have been able to faintly hear the headphones of people sitting in front and behind me before. I imagine if those people had been next to me it'd be pretty damn annoying.
What we need is someone to show them that China is leading the way in IPv6 uptake and that in 10 or 20 years when IPv4 is expended they'll take it in their stride while the West is struggling with network infrastructure failing all around us. We'll be at the mercy of communism. Sorry, I mean COMMUNISM!
This sounds like a job for Al Gore. "An Inconvenient IP Truth" anyone?
So because you think each of those are equally capable of being annoying you think it's ok to essentially double the amount of annoyance by allowing cell phone use on planes, by your own definition of the annoyance?/sigh - No, I never said I supported phones on planes. I simply said it doesn't stand to reason that annoyance is the driving factor behind preventing phone use because they've already crossed that line with other conveniences.
Chuck them overboard?! Could we make them walk the plank aswell?
Seriously, if that was really the reason then you'd have to ask why planes have reclining seats and music via headphones. Each of those is equally capable of being annoying.
TFA's "they don't want testing because testing costs money" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. Just because planes could be allowed to tested for phone usage doesn't mean planes would have to allow phones to be used. It would be up to the plane manufacturers to decide to have their plane designed and tested for that "feature" and then up to the airlines if they wanted to pay the inevitable extra cost for such a plane, and then of course pass that on in extra cost to the passengers.
Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6?
on
IPv6 Tested in Space
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Besides, who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize? Just wrench the class A address assignments away from the current assignees (not a single one of them needs a class A block) and reallocate them reasonably. Apple does not need a class A block, Merck doesn't, HP doesn't, GE doesn't, IBM doesn't, MIT doesn't. Halliburton doesn't, and the DoD certainly does not need multiple/8 assignments. Besides, isn't the DoD largely on IPv6 now? Reallocate the IPv4 space reasonably, force organizations such as Apple, HP, IBM, Merck, and Halliburton justify their IP allocation request like I had to for my puny/27 block, and then there will be plenty of space for all. - And who wants to deal with dotted quads when a single digit is even easier to memorise. Except that wouldn't be much good when the 11th person comes along and asks for an IP address would it? Same with IPv4. We will run out of IPv4 addresses. Maybe not today, tomorrow or even next year, but short of the annihilation of civilisation as we know it it will happen sooner or later. It doesn't matter if we liberate x hundred million unused addresses, that will only delay the inevitable by a few years or maybe a decade at most.
The real PITA then, is trying to get people to do something about this problem before it really becomes a problem. People keep commenting on the slow transition to IPv6 as if it's a failure of the protocol. No, as you implied, it's a failure of the software developers who aren't implementing it, the hardware manufacturers who aren't supporting it, and the ISPs who aren't providing it. Instead of trying to free up more IPv4 address space we should be letting it become a scarce resource to force the guilty parties to make the necessary updates so that nobody's caught short on that fateful day when we well and truly are out of IPv4 addresses. We should be taking every step possible to limit the amount of software and hardware from being deployed that we already know will be useless a couple of decades from now, instead it seems like so many people are quite happy to take their sweet time with it until alarm bells start ringing.
You'd think with things like the Y2k bug and numerous other situations which exposed the fallacies of the "it'll do for now, we'll deal with that later" ideology that the computing industry would be all too happy to see that the IP address situation was spotted well ahead of time and would be embracing the ability to future-proof their software and IT infrastructures. Instead it seems like we're going to have another case of fingers-in-their-ears-"la-la we're not listening - oh shit! we're out of IP addresses!" situation with a mad dash to half-assed implementations and slap-dash patches.
You're wrong. The "collective observations of thousands of admins" is in fact little more than assumptions and anecdotes perpetuated by people such as yourself.
Do a significant proportion of porn sites have malware? Probably.
Is there a greater risk of getting infected by malware when surfing for porn than doing "wholesome" surfing? Perhaps.
Is a malware infection reason enough to presume that they got it from browsing porn and/or piracy-related sites? Not in the slightest in my experience. If you've got differing experiences that prove me wrong, by all means collate your data and present your findings because I and I'm sure many other people working in admin or IT roles would love some hard numbers on the nature of malware sources online. Until then I'll have to assume the "observations of thousands of admins" you speak of are in fact nothing more than your own pre-conceptions.
Well it wouldn't be any different from existing text searches would it? Any kind of disciplinary action taken against an employee would need to be backed up with hard evidence. No company in the world would be dumb enough to try and take action without manually verifying it. And if they don't and you happen to be that employee just be glad: your ship has come in and it's manned by lawyers working on a no-win-no-fee basis.
You're missing the point. Nobody's claiming the ability to sense things that humans cannot is new, the idea is to provide that data to a human in a way which is more intuitive. Looking through a heat sensitive camera and being able to see in the thermal radiation as if with your own eyes are two entirely different experiences I would imagine. Maybe it's not the greatest leap in the world, but it's the first step towards integrating new experiences into the brain, with the ultimate long-term goal being to add entirely new senses. Imagine being able to just "know" which direction you're facing in, or to just "know" that an object you're looking at is 135m away and that the wind was blowing at 16kph.
It also brings up a partial answer: Not using consumer-oriented optical discs.
A more complete anwer to your question: Yes, it is worth it. Existing peices of history may have "survived" thousands of years, however I'm not aware of anything that has survived that time completely intact. And despite all the modern preservative techniques at our disposal we still cannot completely prevent the degradation of physical artifacts. Digitised content on the other hand can be copied infinitely and perfectly preserved indefinitely with the proper techniques and the relevant care taken. Of course those proper techniques require something more sophisticated than a DVD writer, but I don't think anyone seriously thought otherwise did they?
Well no, of course nothing in any existing game (or anything existing period I guess) is close to true artificial intelligence in the larger sense of the term. For the context of gaming I think it's fair to say everyone knows we're talking about creating the illusion of intelligence within the bounds of gameplay.
It is a good article on the pros and cons of DVD-R vs DVD+R in general, however I'm not too happy with the way the author recommends one particular brand over others like that without any hard data to back it up. It's quite possible it's absolutely true and they really are a superior brand of discs, but without presenting any numbers to support his assertion it will remain nohing more than one person's opinion.
You really want your 3- and 6-year olds to inherit the spam-ridden porn-fest we have today? That's just mean. Think of the children! I'm with you on the spam part, but I'll defend this porn-fest til the day I die!
There are many reasons why using a swap file is more practical than adding more RAM. For one thing there are inherent limitations on many systems - whether it's a limit on RAM size, a limit to the number of physical slots available, or simply a situation where the rarity of needing additional memory space doesn't justify the cost of adding extra DIMMs. Whatever the reason, "swap files are for memory leaks" is rubbish.
I can't imagine that anyone who is "with it" enough to be on the internet would feel like taking such a survey. - Yeah. Unfortunately not everyone can be as cool as us here on/.
So that politicians can look like they're doing something about this grave new threat to everyone's safety.
Seriously, aside from the fact that driving carelessly is already against the law, exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" have their been? I'm guessing it's a miniscule number caused by either flukes or by people who drive so stupidly that they would have had an accident whatever they were doing.
Do we really need a law to prevent, what, a dozen or so at the most accidents a year? Would those dozen or so people who cause those accident really not send text messages while driving because of it? The exact same argument could be used to say that there shouldn't be a law specifically against drunk driving. After all, if they drive dangerously they'll get arrested for that right? Except it's never that simple. It's not up to people to decide whether they're safe to do something while driving because they'll very often make the wrong option - the one that's convenient for them even if it's unsafe for others (and ultimately them too). You'll instantly start getting "I can't believe they pulled me over after just 15 pints, I don't think I was unsafe to drive". Right now you'll get "I can't believe they pulled me over while I was texting someone, I looked up at the road every 10 seconds or so". People are idiots, and whether you want to believe it or not they'll take incredibly stupid risks rather than be inconvenienced. If it was just their safety at stake I'd be all for letting them Darwin themselves into oblivion. But it's not.
Incidentally, I live in the UK. Using a mobile phone at all (except with hands-free kits) is illegal while driving.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, just don't use them in a 52x CD reader or the CD will fracture and the spikes will fly off and take off everybody's kneecaps.
...unless that was the plan all along. Touché /.ninja, touché.
I'd be interested to know if this information is covered by the DPA for UK residents. Does search data count as personal information if the data is linked to an IP address rather than directly linked to my identity?
If it is then presumably I should be able to make a request under the DPA (without a court order) and they would be required by law to provide me with all information they have pertaining to me for a nominal fee within a certain time-period (I forget exactly how long).
Clearly IANAL and I don't know nearly enough about the DPA or international law to know if this applies. Any actual lawyers about there who can clear this up?
I never said headphones were more annoying than cell phones. All I said was the idea that something being annoying was enough reason to prevent airlines allowing it didn't make sense given headphones and reclining seats. Yeah, people on cellphones can be annoying, maybe more annoying than the other examples I gave. But it's not like allowing cellphones on a plane immediately gives those people free reign to be as loud as they want. Just as other passengers and air steward(esse)s can politely tell a parent that their rampaging kid needs to STFU because other people are trying to sleep, the same is true of phone users. Yes, it's wise to avoid confrontation on a plane, but this "if we let phones on planes then all cellphone users will shout too loud and nobody can stop them!!!!11!!1" is crap.
You must be one of those ignorant, I'll-get-outraged-and-reply-before-I-even-read-the -post /. users if you think for one second that what I said had anything to do with supporting the use of cell phones on planes. Please try again.
"A solution in search of a problem"? I'm sorry, are you disputing the fact that there are a limited number of IPv4 that is far too low for the practical number of systems that will require them in the near future? Are you really that clueless?
Or are you just one of the other idiots I mentioned in my post who thinks that it's too far in the future to be worth worrying about? Yeah, let's wait 10 or 20 years until the last possible moment then rush about to fix the much much larger number of peices of software and hardware that will need it. You're a genius.
Indeed.
What we need is someone to show them that China is leading the way in IPv6 uptake and that in 10 or 20 years when IPv4 is expended they'll take it in their stride while the West is struggling with network infrastructure failing all around us. We'll be at the mercy of communism. Sorry, I mean COMMUNISM!
This sounds like a job for Al Gore. "An Inconvenient IP Truth" anyone?
Chuck them overboard?! Could we make them walk the plank aswell?
Seriously, if that was really the reason then you'd have to ask why planes have reclining seats and music via headphones. Each of those is equally capable of being annoying.
TFA's "they don't want testing because testing costs money" argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. Just because planes could be allowed to tested for phone usage doesn't mean planes would have to allow phones to be used. It would be up to the plane manufacturers to decide to have their plane designed and tested for that "feature" and then up to the airlines if they wanted to pay the inevitable extra cost for such a plane, and then of course pass that on in extra cost to the passengers.
The real PITA then, is trying to get people to do something about this problem before it really becomes a problem. People keep commenting on the slow transition to IPv6 as if it's a failure of the protocol. No, as you implied, it's a failure of the software developers who aren't implementing it, the hardware manufacturers who aren't supporting it, and the ISPs who aren't providing it. Instead of trying to free up more IPv4 address space we should be letting it become a scarce resource to force the guilty parties to make the necessary updates so that nobody's caught short on that fateful day when we well and truly are out of IPv4 addresses. We should be taking every step possible to limit the amount of software and hardware from being deployed that we already know will be useless a couple of decades from now, instead it seems like so many people are quite happy to take their sweet time with it until alarm bells start ringing.
You'd think with things like the Y2k bug and numerous other situations which exposed the fallacies of the "it'll do for now, we'll deal with that later" ideology that the computing industry would be all too happy to see that the IP address situation was spotted well ahead of time and would be embracing the ability to future-proof their software and IT infrastructures. Instead it seems like we're going to have another case of fingers-in-their-ears-"la-la we're not listening - oh shit! we're out of IP addresses!" situation with a mad dash to half-assed implementations and slap-dash patches.
You're wrong. The "collective observations of thousands of admins" is in fact little more than assumptions and anecdotes perpetuated by people such as yourself.
Do a significant proportion of porn sites have malware? Probably.
Is there a greater risk of getting infected by malware when surfing for porn than doing "wholesome" surfing? Perhaps.
Is a malware infection reason enough to presume that they got it from browsing porn and/or piracy-related sites? Not in the slightest in my experience. If you've got differing experiences that prove me wrong, by all means collate your data and present your findings because I and I'm sure many other people working in admin or IT roles would love some hard numbers on the nature of malware sources online. Until then I'll have to assume the "observations of thousands of admins" you speak of are in fact nothing more than your own pre-conceptions.
Well it wouldn't be any different from existing text searches would it? Any kind of disciplinary action taken against an employee would need to be backed up with hard evidence. No company in the world would be dumb enough to try and take action without manually verifying it. And if they don't and you happen to be that employee just be glad: your ship has come in and it's manned by lawyers working on a no-win-no-fee basis.
You're missing the point. Nobody's claiming the ability to sense things that humans cannot is new, the idea is to provide that data to a human in a way which is more intuitive. Looking through a heat sensitive camera and being able to see in the thermal radiation as if with your own eyes are two entirely different experiences I would imagine. Maybe it's not the greatest leap in the world, but it's the first step towards integrating new experiences into the brain, with the ultimate long-term goal being to add entirely new senses. Imagine being able to just "know" which direction you're facing in, or to just "know" that an object you're looking at is 135m away and that the wind was blowing at 16kph.
The means to answer that has been available for years.
It also brings up a partial answer: Not using consumer-oriented optical discs.
A more complete anwer to your question: Yes, it is worth it. Existing peices of history may have "survived" thousands of years, however I'm not aware of anything that has survived that time completely intact. And despite all the modern preservative techniques at our disposal we still cannot completely prevent the degradation of physical artifacts. Digitised content on the other hand can be copied infinitely and perfectly preserved indefinitely with the proper techniques and the relevant care taken. Of course those proper techniques require something more sophisticated than a DVD writer, but I don't think anyone seriously thought otherwise did they?
Well no, of course nothing in any existing game (or anything existing period I guess) is close to true artificial intelligence in the larger sense of the term. For the context of gaming I think it's fair to say everyone knows we're talking about creating the illusion of intelligence within the bounds of gameplay.
It is a good article on the pros and cons of DVD-R vs DVD+R in general, however I'm not too happy with the way the author recommends one particular brand over others like that without any hard data to back it up. It's quite possible it's absolutely true and they really are a superior brand of discs, but without presenting any numbers to support his assertion it will remain nohing more than one person's opinion.
This is practically a word-for-word dupe of a /. posting from December 11th 2006
There are many reasons why using a swap file is more practical than adding more RAM. For one thing there are inherent limitations on many systems - whether it's a limit on RAM size, a limit to the number of physical slots available, or simply a situation where the rarity of needing additional memory space doesn't justify the cost of adding extra DIMMs. Whatever the reason, "swap files are for memory leaks" is rubbish.
Monopoly? Maybe you might remember that "Internet" thing from a few years back. I think that might still be around too. Maybe that's an option.
Seriously, aside from the fact that driving carelessly is already against the law, exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" have their been? I'm guessing it's a miniscule number caused by either flukes or by people who drive so stupidly that they would have had an accident whatever they were doing.
Do we really need a law to prevent, what, a dozen or so at the most accidents a year? Would those dozen or so people who cause those accident really not send text messages while driving because of it? The exact same argument could be used to say that there shouldn't be a law specifically against drunk driving. After all, if they drive dangerously they'll get arrested for that right? Except it's never that simple. It's not up to people to decide whether they're safe to do something while driving because they'll very often make the wrong option - the one that's convenient for them even if it's unsafe for others (and ultimately them too). You'll instantly start getting "I can't believe they pulled me over after just 15 pints, I don't think I was unsafe to drive". Right now you'll get "I can't believe they pulled me over while I was texting someone, I looked up at the road every 10 seconds or so". People are idiots, and whether you want to believe it or not they'll take incredibly stupid risks rather than be inconvenienced. If it was just their safety at stake I'd be all for letting them Darwin themselves into oblivion. But it's not.
Incidentally, I live in the UK. Using a mobile phone at all (except with hands-free kits) is illegal while driving.