Apparently, a guy called Mark Zuckerberg is already investing in practical uses for this network in both sick and healthy people. Think about the possibilities! You no longer have to update your FaceBook status manually, your body will do it for you! Taking a leak... drinking beer... looking at girl... getting aroused... Together with the levels of blood sugar, testosterone,... Everything will be posted automatically without you even having to lift a finger. And you'll even receive relevant ads to enhance your experience even more. In time, more and more data will be posted automatically, always with the option of opting out of course.
Then why aren't P2P downloading apps using that trick? Or maybe they are using it but it simply doesn't work? If you search for pretty much anything on those networks, for example "Virgin Madonna" just to say something, you'll get several dozen hits like "Virgin Madonna.mp3", "Virgin Madonna (High Quality)", "Virgin Madonna (Full version)", etc..., all just containing spam and viruses instead of the dissertation on medieval paintings of the virgin madonna that anyone using that search phrase is obviously looking for.
But what if they added a motion sensor so that they can switch the pixel on and off while the user is moving his eye, depending on the direction he's looking at? Would they be able to create a shape like that? (A bit like the clock with a single row of LED's swinging back and forth to display time). Of course you'd have to keep moving your eye continuously to see the shape...
There was a challenge not long ago for anyone to recover any data whatsoever from a harddisk that had been overwritten just once with zeros (which should be considerably easier than one that was overwritten with random data). I don't remember what the prize was, but it was a considerable amount of money and would have been priceless publicity for any data recovery company that could pull it off. Nobody claimed the prize, and when asked, they all said it was impossible. Of course that won't keep them from selling software and even hardware to overwrite hard disks in special astrological patterns zillions of times. "Hey, if people want to pay for that, sure, we'll put their mind at ease! But can we actually perform this magic recovery trick that we're trying to scare people of? Err... no"
I do understand the way you feel, and it is a valid objection, but just for argument's sake, imagine you see a beggar in the street, and you know he's homeless and hungry, and you want to help by giving him some money, but there's a big Maffia thug (obviously well fed, with a fancy car parked across the street) standing next to him and declaring that for every dollar you give to the bum, you have to give 20 dollars to the thug. Would you still give the money to the bum? Or would you walk away? Of course the beggar might say "but the thug is protecting me, he got me this spot, without him I wouldn't be able to beg here!". Still, I don't think many people would help the bum.
Now of course I do understand that this is the only way for many artists to get a living, and by not buying their music we are denying them their little bit of income, but that justification gets weaker and weaker the more you here about abuse by the labels. The thugs are even snatching the pennies away whenever the bums aren't looking. And they are denying them the right to do anything without them, treating them like slaves. And why should I pay for a ringtone, for example? In that case, the artist isn't getting anything whatsoever, thanks to some lawsuit the greedy labels won! This sort of bull shit takes away 90% of the motivation from people who might turn from piracy to decent buying.
Yes, there's still a little bit of a feeling left of "doing the decent thing", and "supporting the artists", but not as much as there could be if the labels were honest.
Would a long time pirate want to legalize his music collection by paying $1000 to the artists once he got well off financially? Maybe, seriously. Would he pay $10 to the artists and $990 to the labels? After reading one of many articles about the labels ripping off the artists? No way.
Except they are the ones who are getting the lion's share of the price. The actual artist gets a few pennies if anything (in the case of the songs in question, nothing at all). I'm not saying I have any illegally copied music, but if I did, and there was some way for me to pay a dollar per song to the actual artists, I would do it in a heartbeat. But pay the big labels who are violating copyright themselves? Why would I feel morally obliged to do that?
I just tried to change my Steam password after reading this article. First I got a window "busy", then a second window "Steam cannot process your request at this time, try again later". Wonderful.
I don't get it either. If you submit an app for doing something specific to all the user's files, you submit the app with the sandbox allowing access to all files and Apple approves it because the app obviously needs that access. If you submit a breakout game and request access to all the user's files, Apple will disallow it because that access is obviously not needed. That's all there is to it. If all apps implement sandboxing, it will become a lot more difficult to write exploits. Adobe Reader? Can read files designated by the user, can save files at locations designated by the user, can print, and that's about it. Specially crafted pdf file that takes control of Adobe Reader? It can read files designated by the user, save files at locations etc...
Put a cryptic note into an envelope that is to be stored with your will. The note will lead your family members to a statue or monument in a big city, which will have a clue to some other location, then another, etc... Only the people you chose will ever be able to complete it.
I'm not bitching, I never said I don't like the job, quite the contrary. And I do indeed get paid more than enough (although that's definitely not the case for all airline pilots). I was just explaining that the vast majority of landings are made manually and not automatically like you were saying, even putting my time into explaining why. If there's one thing I don't like, it's people pretending to know more about flying than pilots do. You actually told a pilot that he was lying about being an airline pilot, do you realize how stupid that made you appear to even the most casual reader? We don't tell you how burgers are flipped, so you shouldn't tell pilots how airplanes are flown.
As for airports in the middle of population zones, maybe you should check who was there first. People buy houses near airports because they are cheaper and then start complaining about the noise. Most major airports used to be in the middle of a wide open area before people flocked towards them to live there. But nevertheless, we do our best to minimize the noise as much as possible. Even though some of the noise abatement regulations actually cause us to make more noise.
O, and if you know how to "fix" our windshields so we are not blinded by lasers but can still see everything else outside, or how to prevent scratches from appearing on a windshield going through dust at 200 mph, by all means let us know. You probably have a very strong opinion about that too, I'm sure.
Don't be ridiculous. Systems often break down (lots of different equipment failures can disable autoland), and you can't even use it in very windy conditions. In those cases, would you prefer to have a pilot who lands the plane every day, or one that almost never does? And even with autoland, we're always relieved to actually be able to see the runway. It's the single most important backup to a system that just relies on some electrical signals from the ground.
What countries would that be? Under European JAR regulations, we only need to do a few per year and they can be done in the simulator. There used to be a time where we had to do, if I remember correctly, one every six months or so in the actual airplane. One per month seems a bit excessive, though. O, and if a pilot has not fulfilled the currency requirements for autoland, he/she does not lose his flight certification but just cannot perform autolands in low visibility conditions. That means not being able to fly somewhere when the visibility is too low, and possibly having to divert in case of unexpected fog.
Don't pretend to know anything about airline flying, because you obviously don't. It's quite the opposite, actually: we (yes, I'm an airline pilot) only use autoland in very bad visibility conditions, or when required to keep our currency. You actually need to make a few autolands per year to stay current, but these can normally be performed in the simulator nowadays so it's not an issue anymore.
Almost all landings are manual. The last autoland I did (apart from the simulator) must have been about a year ago. Most of the time, we do use the ILS (which is just a guidance towards the runway, it's what people call "the instruments") but we do it manually while looking out the window as well. And we quite often make completely visual approaches too, although that's being allowed less and less due to noise abatement regulations (they prefer all planes to fly the same, well defined trajectory and only annoy the same people all the time).
Some companies ban visual approaches completely (except under special circumstances), but I don't know of any companies that use autoland all the time. It would be a bad idea anyway: in very windy conditions, the autoland cannot cope and its use is prohibited. Or sometimes there's a technical malfunction. In those cases, the plane can only be landed by a pilot. Would you then prefer a pilot who lands the aircraft every day, or one that only lands the plane a few times a year to keep his currency?
There's also this widespread misunderstanding that autoland makes things easier for the pilots. Believe me, it's actually more work than a normal landing with all the checklists and verifications we have to do, and the constant monitoring of a system that lacks common sense and might suddenly do weird things due to some system bug. Yes, that does happen occasionally.
Some people say it would be impossible for something to spin in an otherwise empty space. Even centrifugal forces would somehow depend on the other matter in the universe, and would disappear if the universe were empty. It's called Mach's principle. I personally don't buy that theory, but quite a few well known physicists do.
And how much CO2 did those people breathe out while pedaling? And how much extra did they have to eat afterwards? Where did that food come from? Etc...
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that was a sexually transmitted disease among abominable snowmen.
Apparently, a guy called Mark Zuckerberg is already investing in practical uses for this network in both sick and healthy people. Think about the possibilities! You no longer have to update your FaceBook status manually, your body will do it for you! Taking a leak... drinking beer... looking at girl... getting aroused... Together with the levels of blood sugar, testosterone,... Everything will be posted automatically without you even having to lift a finger. And you'll even receive relevant ads to enhance your experience even more. In time, more and more data will be posted automatically, always with the option of opting out of course.
Then why aren't P2P downloading apps using that trick? Or maybe they are using it but it simply doesn't work? If you search for pretty much anything on those networks, for example "Virgin Madonna" just to say something, you'll get several dozen hits like "Virgin Madonna.mp3", "Virgin Madonna (High Quality)", "Virgin Madonna (Full version)", etc..., all just containing spam and viruses instead of the dissertation on medieval paintings of the virgin madonna that anyone using that search phrase is obviously looking for.
But what if they added a motion sensor so that they can switch the pixel on and off while the user is moving his eye, depending on the direction he's looking at? Would they be able to create a shape like that? (A bit like the clock with a single row of LED's swinging back and forth to display time). Of course you'd have to keep moving your eye continuously to see the shape...
OK, I stand corrected.
There was a challenge not long ago for anyone to recover any data whatsoever from a harddisk that had been overwritten just once with zeros (which should be considerably easier than one that was overwritten with random data). I don't remember what the prize was, but it was a considerable amount of money and would have been priceless publicity for any data recovery company that could pull it off. Nobody claimed the prize, and when asked, they all said it was impossible. Of course that won't keep them from selling software and even hardware to overwrite hard disks in special astrological patterns zillions of times. "Hey, if people want to pay for that, sure, we'll put their mind at ease! But can we actually perform this magic recovery trick that we're trying to scare people of? Err... no"
No, he said "on a tshirt"
I do understand the way you feel, and it is a valid objection, but just for argument's sake, imagine you see a beggar in the street, and you know he's homeless and hungry, and you want to help by giving him some money, but there's a big Maffia thug (obviously well fed, with a fancy car parked across the street) standing next to him and declaring that for every dollar you give to the bum, you have to give 20 dollars to the thug. Would you still give the money to the bum? Or would you walk away? Of course the beggar might say "but the thug is protecting me, he got me this spot, without him I wouldn't be able to beg here!". Still, I don't think many people would help the bum.
Now of course I do understand that this is the only way for many artists to get a living, and by not buying their music we are denying them their little bit of income, but that justification gets weaker and weaker the more you here about abuse by the labels. The thugs are even snatching the pennies away whenever the bums aren't looking. And they are denying them the right to do anything without them, treating them like slaves. And why should I pay for a ringtone, for example? In that case, the artist isn't getting anything whatsoever, thanks to some lawsuit the greedy labels won! This sort of bull shit takes away 90% of the motivation from people who might turn from piracy to decent buying.
Yes, there's still a little bit of a feeling left of "doing the decent thing", and "supporting the artists", but not as much as there could be if the labels were honest.
Would a long time pirate want to legalize his music collection by paying $1000 to the artists once he got well off financially? Maybe, seriously. Would he pay $10 to the artists and $990 to the labels? After reading one of many articles about the labels ripping off the artists? No way.
Except they are the ones who are getting the lion's share of the price. The actual artist gets a few pennies if anything (in the case of the songs in question, nothing at all). I'm not saying I have any illegally copied music, but if I did, and there was some way for me to pay a dollar per song to the actual artists, I would do it in a heartbeat. But pay the big labels who are violating copyright themselves? Why would I feel morally obliged to do that?
A Greek professor who can't even pronounce Greek letters correctly? No wonder they're bankrupt!
Yet we have to feel guilty about pirating music because... why exactly?
Yet another example of hidden inflation, they really should include copyright settlements in the CPI.
I just tried to change my Steam password after reading this article. First I got a window "busy", then a second window "Steam cannot process your request at this time, try again later". Wonderful.
And the funny thing is that I would never have watched the video if there hadn't been a story on slashdot about it being censored.
I don't get it either. If you submit an app for doing something specific to all the user's files, you submit the app with the sandbox allowing access to all files and Apple approves it because the app obviously needs that access. If you submit a breakout game and request access to all the user's files, Apple will disallow it because that access is obviously not needed. That's all there is to it. If all apps implement sandboxing, it will become a lot more difficult to write exploits. Adobe Reader? Can read files designated by the user, can save files at locations designated by the user, can print, and that's about it. Specially crafted pdf file that takes control of Adobe Reader? It can read files designated by the user, save files at locations etc...
This is a good thing.
Put a cryptic note into an envelope that is to be stored with your will. The note will lead your family members to a statue or monument in a big city, which will have a clue to some other location, then another, etc... Only the people you chose will ever be able to complete it.
I'm not bitching, I never said I don't like the job, quite the contrary. And I do indeed get paid more than enough (although that's definitely not the case for all airline pilots). I was just explaining that the vast majority of landings are made manually and not automatically like you were saying, even putting my time into explaining why. If there's one thing I don't like, it's people pretending to know more about flying than pilots do. You actually told a pilot that he was lying about being an airline pilot, do you realize how stupid that made you appear to even the most casual reader? We don't tell you how burgers are flipped, so you shouldn't tell pilots how airplanes are flown.
As for airports in the middle of population zones, maybe you should check who was there first. People buy houses near airports because they are cheaper and then start complaining about the noise. Most major airports used to be in the middle of a wide open area before people flocked towards them to live there. But nevertheless, we do our best to minimize the noise as much as possible. Even though some of the noise abatement regulations actually cause us to make more noise.
O, and if you know how to "fix" our windshields so we are not blinded by lasers but can still see everything else outside, or how to prevent scratches from appearing on a windshield going through dust at 200 mph, by all means let us know. You probably have a very strong opinion about that too, I'm sure.
Don't be ridiculous. Systems often break down (lots of different equipment failures can disable autoland), and you can't even use it in very windy conditions. In those cases, would you prefer to have a pilot who lands the plane every day, or one that almost never does? And even with autoland, we're always relieved to actually be able to see the runway. It's the single most important backup to a system that just relies on some electrical signals from the ground.
What countries would that be? Under European JAR regulations, we only need to do a few per year and they can be done in the simulator. There used to be a time where we had to do, if I remember correctly, one every six months or so in the actual airplane. One per month seems a bit excessive, though. O, and if a pilot has not fulfilled the currency requirements for autoland, he/she does not lose his flight certification but just cannot perform autolands in low visibility conditions. That means not being able to fly somewhere when the visibility is too low, and possibly having to divert in case of unexpected fog.
Don't pretend to know anything about airline flying, because you obviously don't. It's quite the opposite, actually: we (yes, I'm an airline pilot) only use autoland in very bad visibility conditions, or when required to keep our currency. You actually need to make a few autolands per year to stay current, but these can normally be performed in the simulator nowadays so it's not an issue anymore.
Almost all landings are manual. The last autoland I did (apart from the simulator) must have been about a year ago. Most of the time, we do use the ILS (which is just a guidance towards the runway, it's what people call "the instruments") but we do it manually while looking out the window as well. And we quite often make completely visual approaches too, although that's being allowed less and less due to noise abatement regulations (they prefer all planes to fly the same, well defined trajectory and only annoy the same people all the time).
Some companies ban visual approaches completely (except under special circumstances), but I don't know of any companies that use autoland all the time. It would be a bad idea anyway: in very windy conditions, the autoland cannot cope and its use is prohibited. Or sometimes there's a technical malfunction. In those cases, the plane can only be landed by a pilot. Would you then prefer a pilot who lands the aircraft every day, or one that only lands the plane a few times a year to keep his currency?
There's also this widespread misunderstanding that autoland makes things easier for the pilots. Believe me, it's actually more work than a normal landing with all the checklists and verifications we have to do, and the constant monitoring of a system that lacks common sense and might suddenly do weird things due to some system bug. Yes, that does happen occasionally.
Yes, and as if blinding you wasn't enough, they give you a speeding ticket as well. Very fucked up people, indeed.
You did not specify that. You asked for porn stars over 40 that still work ;-)
Here's a link. It even lists porn stars over 50.
Some people say it would be impossible for something to spin in an otherwise empty space. Even centrifugal forces would somehow depend on the other matter in the universe, and would disappear if the universe were empty. It's called Mach's principle. I personally don't buy that theory, but quite a few well known physicists do.
And how much CO2 did those people breathe out while pedaling? And how much extra did they have to eat afterwards? Where did that food come from? Etc...