By that methodology your only limiting factor on the number of folds is the length of the material. If your paper were 1km long, you could get nearly 100,000 folds spaced 1cm apart. Of course, it is only nearly 100,000 because of the one or two mm lost in each fold.
The important issue addressed by the MythBusters was "how many times could you fold, in half, a piece of paper." They folded the paper end over end, reducing the footprint of the paper by half each time. Each fold made the paper twice as thick therefore reducing its pliability and eventually resulting in a wad of paper that is unfoldable.
I don't know about the KRZR, but the RAZR V3m required a driver install on XP, charged after the driver was automatically installed in Vista, and charged out of the box on Ubuntu 8.04 (kernel module included in destro?).
It has a port shaped like a USB mini, but gets its power from a non-standard pin.
To be fair, the search pointed to here returns a couple thousand hits on the google groups.
Re:invented by shampoo is all over the net
on
Slashdot's Disagree Mail
·
· Score: 2, Informative
AC said:
-- If you search on "invented by shampoo" you will find he did not limit his spam-love to slashdot.
Google said:
-- Results 1 - 8 of 8 for "invented by shampoo"
One is already in the field, the other will be coming in 2009.
SWORDS apparently isn't autonomous at all, so maybe it doesn't count (depends on your definition of "robot"). Gladiator is. Of course, neither will fire unless instructed to do so (a Marine pushes the big red button).
But that still breaks law one and is the only exception to law two.
Personally, I don't think the three laws will ever be widely accepted. Robots are seen as tools, and tools are expected to do as commanded, not say "no, that violates the first law."
Then again, maybe you won't be physically human by 3rd quarter 2009?
There's a story about an interesting gadget. I read TFA, and another article on the same gadget. I posted what I found most interesting, the price, and a link to the other article I read earlier in the day.
The links point to another article and another blog post, both about the same gadget. The prices I quoted are the prices listed on the article I linked to. How is that off topic?
Interesting gadgets, but the PC Authority page says they will be $399 for the one reviewed in TFA and $599 for the one that will play Blu-Ray backups. I don't think I'll be interested in that market anytime soon.
No, what would be really great would be a browser with Flash. Yes, ad-block is great, but most modern OSes (and mobile ones if you hack them enough) have a hosts file that can be configured to block ads. But without Flash you take a way a good portion of the web.
No, what would be unfortunately necessary would be a browser with Flash. Yes, ad-block is great and I want it too, but am not sure about it downloading updates for filters. Without Flash you take away an evil portion of the web.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering (X) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck (X) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (X) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Slashdot Mirror
By that methodology your only limiting factor on the number of folds is the length of the material. If your paper were 1km long, you could get nearly 100,000 folds spaced 1cm apart. Of course, it is only nearly 100,000 because of the one or two mm lost in each fold.
The important issue addressed by the MythBusters was "how many times could you fold, in half, a piece of paper." They folded the paper end over end, reducing the footprint of the paper by half each time. Each fold made the paper twice as thick therefore reducing its pliability and eventually resulting in a wad of paper that is unfoldable.
- Summer Glau
by the way... I could kill you with my brain
I don't know about the KRZR, but the RAZR V3m required a driver install on XP, charged after the driver was automatically installed in Vista, and charged out of the box on Ubuntu 8.04 (kernel module included in destro?).
It has a port shaped like a USB mini, but gets its power from a non-standard pin.
Wow, a low uid making a first post comment. Was the account hacked?
This is slashdot.
There are trolls.
Same as it ever was.
What sort of "nasty substances" do you think are "involved" in, say, lithium iron phosphate cells?
um... lithium for one?
Are you suggesting that apostrophes migrate?
lots of PHBs are going to insist on something stupid and thousands of cheap clueless programmers are going to do it
Pity the ones that have clue enough to know what they're doing, but for some reason or other have to anyway.
5) Banana Bomb
6) Super Sheep
7) Holy Hand-Grenade
They went all bibelty over it. I look out and all I see is more space.
Actually youve probably eaten more spiders than spiders have eaten you.
so far
H ow c a n the people k n ow s o little about ho w S t arbucks j oined the CIA, the Ma f ia, and the K nights Templar to take out JFK?
But JFK shot first...
infidel!
Let A = "All dogs are mammals."
Let B = "Golden Retriever is a dog."
Let C = "Golden Retriever is a mammal."
If A is true and B is true, then C is true.
Or would you rather phrase that as:
If true is A and true is B, then true is C.
What was that about dyslexia? Which English speaking, left-to-right reading culture are you from where the second is preferred?
Great... you made me crash Wikipedia.
I thought there was more than enough advertisement on YouTube as it was already.
But not in our dreams! Nosiree!
To be fair, the search pointed to here returns a couple thousand hits on the google groups.
AC said:
-- If you search on "invented by shampoo" you will find he did not limit his spam-love to slashdot.
Google said:
-- Results 1 - 8 of 8 for "invented by shampoo"
Not exactly "all over"
How many trolls can dance on the head of a pixel?
so if you slashdot their site do you win?
ah... found it on SourceForge
That's not what it says (somebody fixed a typo in the summary?).
in certain circumstances, doubling the number of algorithms looking for hidden data can increase the capacity of the steganographic channel
More people looking for hidden data makes it possible to hide more data. I find that counter-intuitive.
SWORDS, and Gladiator.
One is already in the field, the other will be coming in 2009.
SWORDS apparently isn't autonomous at all, so maybe it doesn't count (depends on your definition of "robot"). Gladiator is. Of course, neither will fire unless instructed to do so (a Marine pushes the big red button).
But that still breaks law one and is the only exception to law two.
Personally, I don't think the three laws will ever be widely accepted. Robots are seen as tools, and tools are expected to do as commanded, not say "no, that violates the first law."
Then again, maybe you won't be physically human by 3rd quarter 2009?
LaCie's had 2TB models out for a while now. Why is 1.5TB important?
http://www.lacie.com/ca/products/product.htm?pid=11111
That is not a single 2TB drive. It's two 1TB drives in one enclosure.
With that enclosure, and two of these drives in it, you would have 3TB.
Off topic? Really?
There's a story about an interesting gadget.
I read TFA, and another article on the same gadget.
I posted what I found most interesting, the price, and a link to the other article I read earlier in the day.
The links point to another article and another blog post, both about the same gadget.
The prices I quoted are the prices listed on the article I linked to.
How is that off topic?
Seriously, WTF?
I saw this here earlier today.
Interesting gadgets, but the PC Authority page says they will be $399 for the one reviewed in TFA and $599 for the one that will play Blu-Ray backups. I don't think I'll be interested in that market anytime soon.
No, what would be really great would be a browser with Flash. Yes, ad-block is great, but most modern OSes (and mobile ones if you hack them enough) have a hosts file that can be configured to block ads. But without Flash you take a way a good portion of the web.
No, what would be unfortunately necessary would be a browser with Flash. Yes, ad-block is great and I want it too, but am not sure about it downloading updates for filters. Without Flash you take away an evil portion of the web.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(X) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
(X) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
You accidentally... the internet? The whole thing?!
1. Enforces the theory that it only takes one idiot to ...
2.
3. the whole internet
I think this meme must be dead