Down side: Badge numbers are now 500 digits long and weigh 30 pounds.
Or they could just include a set of bar codes on the back, and you could use an app on your phone to scan and authenticate them. Still easy to duplicate but harder than printing out some photochop based on a freeze frame of NCIS.
You never made burgers or chips in Home Ec? You never made a spice rack or a dustpan in Manual Arts? You never wrote a version of Tetris or Space Invaders (or Pacman) when you were learning to program?
We're monkeys. We learn by copying what others have done. When we fully understand what's already been done, we add our own little bit and then someone else copies us.
Shades of the recent Prius acceleration problem, anyone? I think someone with a bunch of dust in their GPU fan got some random crashes and overheating when they ran their first modern game in a coupla years, and blamed that game. Then a whole bunch more people realised their shitty old rigs couldn't run SC2 without overheating either, and made some shit up in the hope of a class action lawsuit.:P
Are most games framerate-capped? Wouldn't all games, at all times, be rendering as quickly as possible, operating to the graphics card's full potential?
IWAGD (I was a game developer) and yes, you're absolutely right. Most games render as fast as the system can handle; not doing so would be retarded unless the machine you're running on is way over-spec for the game, or the game animation is frame-based (a la old bitmap side scrollers, for instance) and as such, can't animate faster than the pre-stored animation frames.
Actually I thought the GPP was making an artful meta-analogy. "TFA is wrong about graphics cards the way I'm wrong about cars."
The only way that TFA's "rendering simple scenes fast" could possibly be true is if modern graphics cards have some component that does something brief but power-hungry, once a frame, that is adequately heat-sunk for normal operation but which causes overheating at high frame rates. That said, TFA seems more to be pointing the finger at old, poorly assembled machines which have thermal issues *anyway* and are probably being pushed hard for the first time in years.
Actually, I think the inverse is far more dangerous. So many of the cases in CSI-type shows rely on something stupidly flaky like their magic spray that makes blood glow under UV light... but (as wonderfully pointed out in one episode of Bones) that stuff also reacts to a list of 5-10 other very common substances. Or when they find DNA from the accused on an item of the victim's clothing and announce that they've proved who the killer was, even though the victim and the accused were in regular contact beforehand and there were any number of contamination opportunities.
The biggest risk, I think, is some machine spitting out a "98% Guilty" verdict and the jury going purely by that because, well, machines are always right... right?
You could even use it to frame someone. Leave them in the interrogation room for a while with a bunch of photos, and chances are they'll look through the photos. Then show them a series of *different* photos while they're hooked up to the machine, containing one photo from the first set, and it'll trigger a response.
No, the breakthrough is that instead of identifying an atypical reaction to stimuli via perspiration, heart beat / breathing changes, iris reaction etc. they're identifying it directly in brain waves. Presumably it's harder to learn to control these specific types of brain waves (especially if you don't have the right equipment to measure them in the first place) than to learn to control physical reactions.
I haven't seen tildes used in that way, but the tongue-poking-out smiley (:P ) is a widely recognized indicator of joking / sillyness, which indicates sarcasm when used with an otherwise serious sounding sentence.
And if you can't figure out when someone is being sarcastic in plaintext, the problem is DEFINITELY with you and not them.:P
(Yes, that was sarcasm. It's often impossible to tell whether a comment is sarcastic or serious, especially between strangers on the internet. Duh.)
The Seinfeld episode that delved into the handshake protocol gave me the best advice I could need when it comes to a good handshake. Reach in, grab firmly, give one pump and two shakes, let go.
But whatever you do, don't be one of those goddamn 'early squeezers'. Sure, a firm handshake gives the impression of strength and personal power, but it's cheating to clamp down and squish their fingers together the moment you reach their second knuckle joint. I used to work with a guy who did that and if I wasn't paying attention, I'd get my fingers mashed together well before there was even any palm contact. It's like the sucker-punch of handshakes.
Then you must not be doing it well. If it's taking a long time to please her then you just aren't doing it right.
If its hot, passionate, and she feels properly taken then you won't have to make any special efforts and hold out. She'll finish as fast or faster than you will.
I think this very much depends on the woman in question. I'm lucky that my wife has a similar sex drive to me and takes roughly the same time as I do, we both get there fairly fast and afterward we both feel thoroughly satisfied.:)
Then again, for whatever reason, some women just take longer to come (or sometimes literally can't come at all no matter how long you last). I'm sure that this at least partly explains the huge disparity between women who want it just as much as men, and women who really don't enjoy sex and only ever do it to please their partner. I bet if some proportion of men could never actually come, they'd be uninterested in sex too...
Actually, they just say the screen would "just turn blue". It sounds more to me like they're talking about a monitor screen losing signal; often blue is the default colour meaning "hi, I'm a screen, and I'm working, but I'm not getting any video signal."
Of course graphic designers are going to get angry.
I read it as "only one winner gets laid" which made me think of the following analogy: It's like that girl who goes around accepting drinks from all the guys at the bar, but only goes home with one of them. Sadly, that's still a popular business model.
Anything larger than a Destroyer can run nuclear, opening the potential to be free of re-supply concerns for both ammunition and fuel.
And, if you think of it, free of resupply concerns for water (use nuclear power for desalination) and potentially even food (erm... you can fish?:P ) for long haul 'occupy this territory' style deployments.
I think this discussion is more about the long term usefulness of this strategy. What are you going to do against the next generation of lasers that are 10e6 more powerful.
Be surprised that there are still warships with 1/20th of the peak power output of the entire United States? And that they're burning that much energy to blow up a missile that could probably be made for $1000?
But completely useless against low tech diver and C4.
Even more pertinently, it's completely useless against a diver with some C4 who's blowing the hull out of some cruise liner full of rich fat people. Destroyers, aircraft carriers, submarines - they're all great for fighting another country, but we're rapidly reaching the point where no country could practically declare war on another without economically crippling itself.
The future of warfare is between governments and small, mobile rebel groups. Terrorists, guerrillas, freedom fighters, depending on your ideology. There's no point sending an aircraft carrier against an anonymous guy in a hotel room. A couple of police officers will do... IF you know where to send them.
You know that goes for the missile targeting the ship as well right? Radar doesn't magically work better for the attacker than for the defender. Granted the ship is an easier target being bigger and slower but missile can and have missed ships before.
And therein lies the major problem with this laser. It took several seconds to blow up a drone, which presumably isn't optically shielded (ie. shiny). How many self-respecting missiles will take more than a second or two to hit their target after entering visual range? Not to mention that the faster the missile travels, the greater the atmospheric cooling.
[...] and I'll bet you stop and think the next time WMP wants you to install a codec to view / play some media file. It might be a legitimate request - but if it's not, your machine will belong to someone else if you click that OK button.
And this is where the whole "click OK to continue" approach falls down flat. I don't know who signed Adobe's SSL certificate. I might not even spot the difference between "Unity3D" and "Unity30" if I'm skim reading through the page. The basic fact is that if you ever install *anything* you're taking a leap of faith that what you're actually installing is what you think you're installing. So many times while running Windows, I had to give authorization to install codecs, drivers etc. and found myself thinking "well fuck, I don't KNOW if I trust this source or not, but it's a divx codec and I want to watch this video." I have no realistic way of knowing whether it's a got a Greek (it's not a fucking Trojan, it's a Greek, gah!) stuffed inside it.
Slashdot Mirror
Down side: Badge numbers are now 500 digits long and weigh 30 pounds.
Or they could just include a set of bar codes on the back, and you could use an app on your phone to scan and authenticate them. Still easy to duplicate but harder than printing out some photochop based on a freeze frame of NCIS.
You never made burgers or chips in Home Ec? You never made a spice rack or a dustpan in Manual Arts? You never wrote a version of Tetris or Space Invaders (or Pacman) when you were learning to program?
We're monkeys. We learn by copying what others have done. When we fully understand what's already been done, we add our own little bit and then someone else copies us.
Shades of the recent Prius acceleration problem, anyone? I think someone with a bunch of dust in their GPU fan got some random crashes and overheating when they ran their first modern game in a coupla years, and blamed that game. Then a whole bunch more people realised their shitty old rigs couldn't run SC2 without overheating either, and made some shit up in the hope of a class action lawsuit. :P
Are most games framerate-capped? Wouldn't all games, at all times, be rendering as quickly as possible, operating to the graphics card's full potential?
IWAGD (I was a game developer) and yes, you're absolutely right. Most games render as fast as the system can handle; not doing so would be retarded unless the machine you're running on is way over-spec for the game, or the game animation is frame-based (a la old bitmap side scrollers, for instance) and as such, can't animate faster than the pre-stored animation frames.
Actually I thought the GPP was making an artful meta-analogy. "TFA is wrong about graphics cards the way I'm wrong about cars."
The only way that TFA's "rendering simple scenes fast" could possibly be true is if modern graphics cards have some component that does something brief but power-hungry, once a frame, that is adequately heat-sunk for normal operation but which causes overheating at high frame rates. That said, TFA seems more to be pointing the finger at old, poorly assembled machines which have thermal issues *anyway* and are probably being pushed hard for the first time in years.
Actually, I think the inverse is far more dangerous. So many of the cases in CSI-type shows rely on something stupidly flaky like their magic spray that makes blood glow under UV light... but (as wonderfully pointed out in one episode of Bones) that stuff also reacts to a list of 5-10 other very common substances. Or when they find DNA from the accused on an item of the victim's clothing and announce that they've proved who the killer was, even though the victim and the accused were in regular contact beforehand and there were any number of contamination opportunities.
The biggest risk, I think, is some machine spitting out a "98% Guilty" verdict and the jury going purely by that because, well, machines are always right... right?
You filthy, curdling, minge-ridden vat of turpitude!
Wait what...
Your "Jewish masters" have some plot to bring Muslims to YOUR country (whichever that is)?
What, that you're stressed while you're being friggin' interrogated? Yeah they'll know something's up alright.
You could even use it to frame someone. Leave them in the interrogation room for a while with a bunch of photos, and chances are they'll look through the photos. Then show them a series of *different* photos while they're hooked up to the machine, containing one photo from the first set, and it'll trigger a response.
No, the breakthrough is that instead of identifying an atypical reaction to stimuli via perspiration, heart beat / breathing changes, iris reaction etc. they're identifying it directly in brain waves. Presumably it's harder to learn to control these specific types of brain waves (especially if you don't have the right equipment to measure them in the first place) than to learn to control physical reactions.
I haven't seen tildes used in that way, but the tongue-poking-out smiley ( :P ) is a widely recognized indicator of joking / sillyness, which indicates sarcasm when used with an otherwise serious sounding sentence.
:P
And if you can't figure out when someone is being sarcastic in plaintext, the problem is DEFINITELY with you and not them.
(Yes, that was sarcasm. It's often impossible to tell whether a comment is sarcastic or serious, especially between strangers on the internet. Duh.)
what is this i dont even
The Seinfeld episode that delved into the handshake protocol gave me the best advice I could need when it comes to a good handshake. Reach in, grab firmly, give one pump and two shakes, let go.
But whatever you do, don't be one of those goddamn 'early squeezers'. Sure, a firm handshake gives the impression of strength and personal power, but it's cheating to clamp down and squish their fingers together the moment you reach their second knuckle joint. I used to work with a guy who did that and if I wasn't paying attention, I'd get my fingers mashed together well before there was even any palm contact. It's like the sucker-punch of handshakes.
Then you must not be doing it well. If it's taking a long time to please her then you just aren't doing it right.
If its hot, passionate, and she feels properly taken then you won't have to make any special efforts and hold out. She'll finish as fast or faster than you will.
I think this very much depends on the woman in question. I'm lucky that my wife has a similar sex drive to me and takes roughly the same time as I do, we both get there fairly fast and afterward we both feel thoroughly satisfied. :)
Then again, for whatever reason, some women just take longer to come (or sometimes literally can't come at all no matter how long you last). I'm sure that this at least partly explains the huge disparity between women who want it just as much as men, and women who really don't enjoy sex and only ever do it to please their partner. I bet if some proportion of men could never actually come, they'd be uninterested in sex too...
Actually, they just say the screen would "just turn blue". It sounds more to me like they're talking about a monitor screen losing signal; often blue is the default colour meaning "hi, I'm a screen, and I'm working, but I'm not getting any video signal."
but only one winner gets paid
Of course graphic designers are going to get angry.
I read it as "only one winner gets laid" which made me think of the following analogy: It's like that girl who goes around accepting drinks from all the guys at the bar, but only goes home with one of them. Sadly, that's still a popular business model.
Zalgo?
Anything larger than a Destroyer can run nuclear, opening the potential to be free of re-supply concerns for both ammunition and fuel.
And, if you think of it, free of resupply concerns for water (use nuclear power for desalination) and potentially even food (erm... you can fish? :P ) for long haul 'occupy this territory' style deployments.
I think this discussion is more about the long term usefulness of this strategy. What are you going to do against the next generation of lasers that are 10e6 more powerful.
Be surprised that there are still warships with 1/20th of the peak power output of the entire United States? And that they're burning that much energy to blow up a missile that could probably be made for $1000?
But completely useless against low tech diver and C4.
Even more pertinently, it's completely useless against a diver with some C4 who's blowing the hull out of some cruise liner full of rich fat people. Destroyers, aircraft carriers, submarines - they're all great for fighting another country, but we're rapidly reaching the point where no country could practically declare war on another without economically crippling itself.
The future of warfare is between governments and small, mobile rebel groups. Terrorists, guerrillas, freedom fighters, depending on your ideology. There's no point sending an aircraft carrier against an anonymous guy in a hotel room. A couple of police officers will do... IF you know where to send them.
In short, who is my next Arthur C. Clarke?
I like Peter F. Hamilton but he's a little further in the future. I can't wait for my neural nanonics though...
You know that goes for the missile targeting the ship as well right? Radar doesn't magically work better for the attacker than for the defender. Granted the ship is an easier target being bigger and slower but missile can and have missed ships before.
And therein lies the major problem with this laser. It took several seconds to blow up a drone, which presumably isn't optically shielded (ie. shiny). How many self-respecting missiles will take more than a second or two to hit their target after entering visual range? Not to mention that the faster the missile travels, the greater the atmospheric cooling.
[...] and I'll bet you stop and think the next time WMP wants you to install a codec to view / play some media file. It might be a legitimate request - but if it's not, your machine will belong to someone else if you click that OK button.
And this is where the whole "click OK to continue" approach falls down flat. I don't know who signed Adobe's SSL certificate. I might not even spot the difference between "Unity3D" and "Unity30" if I'm skim reading through the page. The basic fact is that if you ever install *anything* you're taking a leap of faith that what you're actually installing is what you think you're installing. So many times while running Windows, I had to give authorization to install codecs, drivers etc. and found myself thinking "well fuck, I don't KNOW if I trust this source or not, but it's a divx codec and I want to watch this video." I have no realistic way of knowing whether it's a got a Greek (it's not a fucking Trojan, it's a Greek, gah!) stuffed inside it.
See, your analogy breaks down because it relies on a fat, ugly girl having had sex enough to catch 17 diseases.
It only takes once if the guy (or other girl OH HO SEE WHAT I DID THERE) is blueberry-waffle enough.