I hope your monitor is not really a foot from your head.
In the spirit of anecdotal evidence, in my dorm room at college my monitor was very literally one foot from my head, because that's where my desk was. If I shifted a certain way, I could theoretically hit my monitor with my head in my sleep.
I had it on powersave, but sometimes it would spontaneously activate during the night (from an IM or something), and I'd be awakened by the "thwrummm" sound of it degaussing.
My particular situation doesn't serve very well as evidence, but I imagine that the cramped size of dorm rooms means that I'm not the only one who has been in that type of environment.
I'm not sure if that's such a good idea... how many showers a week does the stereotypical D&D player take again?
What comes to mind is the comic book guy, acrid odor of stale breakfast burrito spillings wafting off of his pit-stained shirt. Sends chills down my goddamn spine.
What would it do that anyone would pay $300 for one?
Well, I vaguely remember scientific studies indicating that human memory of scent is much stronger than any other sense, and with better retention. Theoretically, given enough resolution (enough "different" smells), you could odorize threads of messages to be the same, so that when reading new messages on the same topic, the previous content comes to mind more rapidly and accurately.
Chance of this actually being a practical feature? Slim-to-nonesville, population: None.
Consider all the crap that gets passed due ot it being attached to neccesary budget bills.
That's a valid concern, but you're focusing on the symptom, not the disease. Attaching unrelated riders to bills is its own problem that should be dealt with accordingly. There's no reason to twist the valid parts of the legal process to accommodate that flaw.
If the law against murder got sunsetted because some congressperson wanted to attach a rider for increased tollbooth maintenance funding, I think we'd see the legislation drafting process undergo some much-needed reform very quickly.
Sunset provisions, are a good idea, but I see no reason to exempt quote-unquote "basic issues" such as murder or theft. It's not like, when the law against murder is up for renewal, there are going to be a lot of people saying "hey, I don't think there's nearly enough murder going on these days". On the other hand, allowing an exemption clause would just open the gates for lawmakers to describe their pet projects as "basic issues".
"Oh, restricting black people from voting is a basic issue, there's no reason to review that at any point in the future."
We just don't know what laws we currently have that are going to be deemed acceptable in the future, so why presume that we do in certain situations?
Also, I wouldn't worry about adding work for congresspeople; either they'll hate the extra work and be discouraged from making needless legislation, or they'll like it because they can reasonably give themselves higher salaries and larger staffs, and we'll still get sunset provisions. It's win-win.
Are you planning to carry around multiple pre-inflated balloons in your car all the time? Because it strikes me that inflating a balloon with your breath, then using the balloon on the interlock, is still essentially equivalent to breathing in the interlock for yourself.
$1000 per found flaw could have the ill effect of people introducing flaws into the system to cash in later. So, you may answer, Microsoft makes flaws found in your own code ineligible, which could have two consequences. One, people collude to introduce flaws and profit off of each other. Two, flaws are missed because it's hard to read other people's code.
Managing coders and making them write stable, secure code is not an Easy Problem, and there's no quick solution to it. If you find a way to manage a closed source software project (not every project can be open source, sorry guys) that is a bit more effective than "throw money at it", and can result in a successful business model, then do it and you'll be a billionaire.
I mean, holy crap, it's too damn simple to see the bug. What kindof idiots do they have working at MS?
Well let me ask you this... look at this brick wall. Now tell me which one of the bricks is actually a rusty piece of metal that just looks like a brick.
It's pretty simple to see this bug now that we're looking right at it. And it obviously was not too hard to find when specifically looking for index-checking bugs. But it's even easier to let something like this slip when you're a tired microserf adding code at 4am trying to meet a deadline. And with the limited resources at Microsoft (huge as it is), that have to be divided into all the different parts of all the different software projects, it's really a hard sell to convince someone to look through all the gazillions of lines of code that have "Just Worked" in the past.
It's easy to judge, but since we really don't know the environment in which this particular bug was introduced, I think we should cut the original programmer a little slack. (not completely, though. Some culpability is appropriate seeing as Microsoft took our money and should be somewhat responsible for the damages caused by the vulnerability of their faulty products)
That is, except for the fact that they could theoretically just go on making the same mistakes again, closing off the source and doing everything apparently possible to ensure that security warnings go unheeded.
I'll admit, though, that the publicity that will result from the many, many new viruses and exploits in the coming months will probably light a fire under Microsoft's behind to pay more than lip service to revamping their security practices.
And to clarify, this means DO NOT LOOK AT THE CODE. A court can say that anyone who has seen the code has let it influence their future works, even if that influence was unintentional.
That was phrased kind of trollishly, but it's an important concern.
The important distinction between my idea and slashdot is that the people meta-moderating a review would only be the students of the reviewed instructor.
The most significant failing of the metamoderation system on Slashdot is related to the fact that the metamoderators don't or can't verify the accuracy of a moderation. A link to goatse disguised as a mirror of the article could well be moderated "informative", and a metamoderator would not necessarily bother to check that the link actually was informative.
However, in the hypothetical situation I presented, all metamoderators would be able to directly attest to the accuracy of the "moderation" (the review). Therefore, the only major failing of the described system would be people consciously describing inaccurate reviews as accurate, and these people would (hopefully) be statistically insignificant.
Well then, the responsibility lies with the reader to look at the information for what it really is: a collection of opinions without full context, rather than a factual, discrete rating of the instructor.
It would actually be pretty neat if we could standardize the instructor review systems in a manner similar to amazon's book reviews... when you're rating the professor, you could submit a verbal review (anonymously, of course). Later, the students of that professor could read the reviews, and meta-moderate them by indicating how relevant and/or accurate each review was. The reviews presented publicly would then present real contextual information, as well as being accountable.
You could just teach them the error of their over-litigious ways by giving them the "rights" to the next thing you "create" after some cheap mexican food and seven cups of coffee.
Unfortunately, it's no longer accessible from the main site, but you remind me of the Onion article "Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television" (link).
Just thought that might be an interesting reference for those who are annoyed by you and other people like you who belittle the chosen entertainment forms of others.
Yes, patents are evil, but mostly only when they are enforced, otherwise it's more of a "Hey, look what we thought of".
God, tell IBM to get a damn blog instead, and they can toot their own horn there. Patents are supposed to be about the enforcement of patent protections, followed by release to the public for everybody's gain. If you're registering patents just to show off, you're abusing the system.
Slashdot Mirror
In the spirit of anecdotal evidence, in my dorm room at college my monitor was very literally one foot from my head, because that's where my desk was. If I shifted a certain way, I could theoretically hit my monitor with my head in my sleep.
I had it on powersave, but sometimes it would spontaneously activate during the night (from an IM or something), and I'd be awakened by the "thwrummm" sound of it degaussing.
My particular situation doesn't serve very well as evidence, but I imagine that the cramped size of dorm rooms means that I'm not the only one who has been in that type of environment.
Warning: Drug Dome (tm) configuration is for ADVANCED USERS ONLY. Hallucinogenic drugs, incorrectly configured, may cause kernel panic.
Oh, and don't sue us, please. Drugs're'bad, mkay?
What comes to mind is the comic book guy, acrid odor of stale breakfast burrito spillings wafting off of his pit-stained shirt. Sends chills down my goddamn spine.
Well, I vaguely remember scientific studies indicating that human memory of scent is much stronger than any other sense, and with better retention. Theoretically, given enough resolution (enough "different" smells), you could odorize threads of messages to be the same, so that when reading new messages on the same topic, the previous content comes to mind more rapidly and accurately.
Chance of this actually being a practical feature? Slim-to-nonesville, population: None.
That's a valid concern, but you're focusing on the symptom, not the disease. Attaching unrelated riders to bills is its own problem that should be dealt with accordingly. There's no reason to twist the valid parts of the legal process to accommodate that flaw.
If the law against murder got sunsetted because some congressperson wanted to attach a rider for increased tollbooth maintenance funding, I think we'd see the legislation drafting process undergo some much-needed reform very quickly.
"Oh, restricting black people from voting is a basic issue, there's no reason to review that at any point in the future."
We just don't know what laws we currently have that are going to be deemed acceptable in the future, so why presume that we do in certain situations?
Also, I wouldn't worry about adding work for congresspeople; either they'll hate the extra work and be discouraged from making needless legislation, or they'll like it because they can reasonably give themselves higher salaries and larger staffs, and we'll still get sunset provisions. It's win-win.
Are you planning to carry around multiple pre-inflated balloons in your car all the time? Because it strikes me that inflating a balloon with your breath, then using the balloon on the interlock, is still essentially equivalent to breathing in the interlock for yourself.
...that remarkably, a full five-sixths of the content consisted of different versions of the Google logo.
Hey, at least he's keeping it within the species.
Just kidding, I'm sure superrats aren't compatible with their unenhanced counterparts. :)
That is, if you're able to call it at all.
Managing coders and making them write stable, secure code is not an Easy Problem, and there's no quick solution to it. If you find a way to manage a closed source software project (not every project can be open source, sorry guys) that is a bit more effective than "throw money at it", and can result in a successful business model, then do it and you'll be a billionaire.
Well let me ask you this... look at this brick wall. Now tell me which one of the bricks is actually a rusty piece of metal that just looks like a brick.
It's pretty simple to see this bug now that we're looking right at it. And it obviously was not too hard to find when specifically looking for index-checking bugs. But it's even easier to let something like this slip when you're a tired microserf adding code at 4am trying to meet a deadline. And with the limited resources at Microsoft (huge as it is), that have to be divided into all the different parts of all the different software projects, it's really a hard sell to convince someone to look through all the gazillions of lines of code that have "Just Worked" in the past.
It's easy to judge, but since we really don't know the environment in which this particular bug was introduced, I think we should cut the original programmer a little slack. (not completely, though. Some culpability is appropriate seeing as Microsoft took our money and should be somewhat responsible for the damages caused by the vulnerability of their faulty products)
I'll admit, though, that the publicity that will result from the many, many new viruses and exploits in the coming months will probably light a fire under Microsoft's behind to pay more than lip service to revamping their security practices.
And the "Painfullest-sounding Term Ever Invented" award goes to...
And to clarify, this means DO NOT LOOK AT THE CODE. A court can say that anyone who has seen the code has let it influence their future works, even if that influence was unintentional.
Why not? We already monitor their breeding habits (Paris Hilton, Pam Anderson, etc.) It's purely for scientific purposes, I assure you.
The most significant failing of the metamoderation system on Slashdot is related to the fact that the metamoderators don't or can't verify the accuracy of a moderation. A link to goatse disguised as a mirror of the article could well be moderated "informative", and a metamoderator would not necessarily bother to check that the link actually was informative.
However, in the hypothetical situation I presented, all metamoderators would be able to directly attest to the accuracy of the "moderation" (the review). Therefore, the only major failing of the described system would be people consciously describing inaccurate reviews as accurate, and these people would (hopefully) be statistically insignificant.
Well then, the responsibility lies with the reader to look at the information for what it really is: a collection of opinions without full context, rather than a factual, discrete rating of the instructor.
It would actually be pretty neat if we could standardize the instructor review systems in a manner similar to amazon's book reviews... when you're rating the professor, you could submit a verbal review (anonymously, of course). Later, the students of that professor could read the reviews, and meta-moderate them by indicating how relevant and/or accurate each review was. The reviews presented publicly would then present real contextual information, as well as being accountable.
You could just teach them the error of their over-litigious ways by giving them the "rights" to the next thing you "create" after some cheap mexican food and seven cups of coffee.
What, do you work for Geico?
Oh, if only...
corrupt: no ! important;
idiotic: no ! important;
}
Just thought that might be an interesting reference for those who are annoyed by you and other people like you who belittle the chosen entertainment forms of others.
So what, you're saying the Xbox is going to be repriced at $250? I don't think Microsoft is that stupid. :)
God, tell IBM to get a damn blog instead, and they can toot their own horn there. Patents are supposed to be about the enforcement of patent protections, followed by release to the public for everybody's gain. If you're registering patents just to show off, you're abusing the system.
And, to sum it all up, "re: w@Rg8... I != crook."