There may be a few willing to try, but I'm sure they're a minority. I just logged in to my 'spam' box to check the domains being used. The vast majority seem to be legitimately registered domains selling 'R0lex R3plicas' or 'V1agra'. A small subset are from 'bankofamerica.com', 'wachovia.com', or 'easternbank.com' presumably from people who feel sufficiently isolated from a US lawsuit. The rest are from gmail or yahoo accounts or domains that I assume don't even exist. I'd be surprised if there were enough spoofed headers 'slandering' legitimate companies for a successful lawsuit.
Agreed - Very rude. I don't actually skip out on tipping, it's just funnier when I lay out the 'system' in full cheap-skate mode. Actually, sticking for a while in one place and tipping reasonably will get you better service than hopping around a lot. Especially if you're sitting there in a nice compact little group of guys all tipping in exchange for comped drinks - 5 guys tipping $1 60% of the time is $3 per 4-minute tray trip. That seems OK to me.
We did pretty much the whole strip and had excellent success with the comped drinks. This was ~4 years ago. Perhaps you just weren't obnoxious enough. 'spun' mentions below that the drinks were mixed rich - I wouldn't know but can testify that the bottled beer wasn't watered.
If our experiences were so much different regarding the odds of receiving free beer, perhaps there's more skill involved with coming out ahead at the slot machines than I previously thought. My buddies and I are apparently naturals.
There is only one way to make money gambling: Make sure you are "the house". In the long run, only the house wins.
Actually, I cleaned up last time I was in Vegas. My buddies did too - We developed a 'system'.
1) Fill your pocket with nickels. 2) Find a nickel-slot, sit down, and drop a nickel in. 3) Wait for the cocktail-girl to walk by and spin the slot. 4) Tell the girl, "Why yes, I would enjoy a Heineken on the house." 5) Accept your beer and walk off to find another nickel-slot. (Alternatively sit at the same one, but that will require tipping if you want regular service.)
Maybe you get your nickel back and maybe you don't. Who cares? It's a full night of nickel-Heineken. A buck goes a LONG way.
So, is this a matter of the "poor players" who deserve better, even though they don't really deserve anything better than to lose all their money, which they did?
... The players chose to throw their money away, while the business shouldn't exist in the first place.
I think you've confused poker with roulette. Someone who is much better at poker than the people he's playing with will come out ahead in the long term, assuming that nobody's cheating. If everyone at the table is equally good/bad, the house rake will slowly drain their $$, but hopefully they all have a good time and possibly improve their game. Again, assuming that nobody's cheating - In that case their $$ will be quickly drained and the game will probably be frustrating to all involved.
Poker, although it involves some element of chance, is a game of skill - Much different than roulette/craps/slots/etc. What's with the poker-hate?
I'm going to assume (hopefully safely) that you're not actually agreeing with the MPAA claim and just posting the $18B number to be funny (it worked). Otherwise, let me be the millionth person to cry out, "1 Download != 1 Lost sale".
My favorite part of that press release:
"RealNetworks' RealDVD should be called StealDVD," explained Greg Goeckner, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
given that as explained above the KGB dont exist, i think I can.
That's right. We don't. Just keep believing that and everything will be fine.
Actually, we're just biding our time waiting for the US and China to go to blows. Then we thaw out Lenin, reunite the Soviet Union, and the world is our kotlety!
That's probably why TFS questions "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" being left out.
Curiosly, though, TFA does say (on page 3 of 5):
I chose to limit myself to one fictional error message in this list, but I could go on: If I ever produce a sequel to this story, I guarantee you that "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" will be on it.
Perhaps Technologizer got tired of clicking through TFA before reaching #5.
Non-renewable? Hogwash. We already have the technology to create He. It's just that it takes a lot of energy and we have to do it 1 atom at a time. Of course, that's probably only on a par with trying to recover it from the atmosphere...
The image/sound quality associated with one's definition of "watchable" is inversely proportional to the product of their frugality and their desperation to watch the show. Any 12 year old with semi-scrambled "adult" stations coming in via cable will tell you that.
Some people will tolerate a crappy picture and incomprehensible audio rather than pay for subscription service - Those people have now switched from poor video/audio to no video/audio and are upset.
So you can connect to your fridge and see if your milk has gone off from outside your home?
No problem. Just forward port 6969 (the standard port for FAP or Fridge Access Protocol) to the 192.168.1.x internal IP assigned to your fridge. Then you can FAP anywhere you have Internet access.
In any case, we now know Saturn's rings were there a good couple of years before the republican candidate, at least.
Actually, I'd be surprised if McCain had ever even visited Saturn. Although I wondered often during the primary races if a couple of the candidates had extraterrestrial origins.
Is that 0.09581 almost 1% or 9.5% of our internet-hopping population?
Neither - nothing more meaningful than "attacks per Internet user in the country". I thought that was an interesting scalar, but I'm not sure that it's useful expressed as a percentage (or perhaps not useful at all, but interesting to me). If each attack was from a unique "user", that would imply one attack on these monitored targets from each of 9.5% of the US Internet-enabled population - But that doesn't seem to be the case. So the actual percentage of "users" that attacked this target is certainly much lower, although we don't have enough information to guess how much.
But this phone is so much cheaper than the iPhone! $179 in the US, but they're literally giving them away in the UK! According to this, they're FREE (as long as you pay £40+/month "T-mobile tariffs"). Sure, $74/month may seem a little steep, but isn't it worth it to get a FREE phone?
(No idea what the voice plan will cost in US - TFA just gives rates for the data plans on top of the 2-year contracted voice plan.)
Actually, just while I have the numbers pulled up, here are the number of "attacks" from each country mentioned in TFS scaled by the number of Internet users in the country. Since I'm inferring that these are total attacks and not unique IPs, I guess that these numbers are "attacks per Internet user".
0.09581 US 0.03043 China 0.00958 Poland 0.00812 Taiwan 0.00489 Canada 0.00466 South Korea 0.00392 Brazil 0.00210 Germany 0.00151 Japan
And certainly there are a ton more computers in the U.S. than in China, although that will certainly change within the next decade or so.
Actually, China has ~253 million Internet users. The US has only ~215 million. It could just be that your numbers are dated - They're increasing that number about 8x as fast as we are. Look for yourself: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
AS LONG AS it is 100% perfect at correctly identifying the other 99 innocent people as innocent people.
78-80% success rate doesn't sound so good if it means that I have a 20-22% chance of getting a full body cavity search every time I get within 500 feet of the police.
It's not quite that dramatic... Sure being singled out is a nuisance, a delay, and mostly worthless. But setting off a red flag does not imply a "full body cavity search", typically just an annoying delay. I've been flagged several times for setting off sniffers or swipes. Everyone gets really excited and the security managers get called in to fiddle with the machines. Then eventually they get around to me and ask me if I know any way that I could have been exposed to explosives. Typically it's some RDX composition (C-4 or similar) and I'll give them some plausible story about how I may have been exposed - The truth is that I typically don't know where the exposure occurred since I'm around so many varieties of explosive so often. They ask some questions, I give them some answers, and they send me on my way. If testing positive for C-4 doesn't inspire a "full body cavity search", I doubt that an elevated pulse rate would either.
Disclaimer: I am white, which may work in my favor, but I do fit most stereotypes for white domestic terrorists (at least superficially).
Sheesh! I've never seen a bunch of geeks so opposed to developing an immature technology before! Perhaps a toning down of the pessimism would be in order, and perhaps we may see some improvements in our understanding of human behaviour, and the programs built to understand it.
It's not that they oppose the development of the technology. It's that they're fed up with privacy invasions and random harassment and see this device as a means of propagating both. Even if this thing threw up 50% correct red-flags, you'd see objections.
Besides, Big Brother paranoia plays very well here - Especially when it's accurate.
Particularly, a religious fanatic will be in a state of peace and righteousness-filled euphoria because he is finally "fulfilling his destiny" in life and just hours away from being rewarded by his God for being a faithful "Holy Warrior".
I've got to disagree there. I don't want to praise the machine - This thing is nuts. And I agree that, just before detonation, a fanatic may experience a sense of euphoric peace. But, when going through security, it's a toss up between beautiful martyrdom and failure resulting in a good long stretch in Guantanamo Bay being questioned unmercifully by the infidels. A good lot of training may help them deal with that stress. And their faith may provide them with confidence that their gods wouldn't allow them to fail. But until you actually get through security, there's got to be a lot of stress to deal with - Probably even more than when they actually push the button / flip the switch / light their shoe laces.
I assure you that I have no grudge against the NIF, although I admit that my 2 posts today could have easily been misinterpreted as complaints. I consider it fascinating research worth funding. The price I mentioned ($9.5B + $5B + $8B) tag was meant to extrapolate out what could reasonably be milked out of a $9.5B Space Elevator proposal, not the NIF. In my other post, I mention the ~$4B NIF tag (although I also accurately point out that it's at 4x its original budget and ~50% behind schedule) - That post was mainly to illustrate to the poster complaining about a $36M laser-weapon project with no funding for fusion research that we are in fact looking at fusion.
Projecting R&D is very difficult, especially with projects high-risk like the NIF or the Space Elevator. I thought that the NIF had been rebaselined several times - In fact I thought it was nearly year-to-year for a while there. But, I'll accept your assertion that it only happened once and stand corrected.
I work with the DoE a lot and, from my experience, Sandia is actually much worse about under-bidding than LLNL, but all three labs have a poor track record. But, now that money is a little more scarce and customers are less forgiving of failures, they're all improving markedly.
Slashdot Mirror
There may be a few willing to try, but I'm sure they're a minority. I just logged in to my 'spam' box to check the domains being used. The vast majority seem to be legitimately registered domains selling 'R0lex R3plicas' or 'V1agra'. A small subset are from 'bankofamerica.com', 'wachovia.com', or 'easternbank.com' presumably from people who feel sufficiently isolated from a US lawsuit. The rest are from gmail or yahoo accounts or domains that I assume don't even exist. I'd be surprised if there were enough spoofed headers 'slandering' legitimate companies for a successful lawsuit.
Agreed - Very rude. I don't actually skip out on tipping, it's just funnier when I lay out the 'system' in full cheap-skate mode. Actually, sticking for a while in one place and tipping reasonably will get you better service than hopping around a lot. Especially if you're sitting there in a nice compact little group of guys all tipping in exchange for comped drinks - 5 guys tipping $1 60% of the time is $3 per 4-minute tray trip. That seems OK to me.
We did pretty much the whole strip and had excellent success with the comped drinks. This was ~4 years ago. Perhaps you just weren't obnoxious enough. 'spun' mentions below that the drinks were mixed rich - I wouldn't know but can testify that the bottled beer wasn't watered.
If our experiences were so much different regarding the odds of receiving free beer, perhaps there's more skill involved with coming out ahead at the slot machines than I previously thought. My buddies and I are apparently naturals.
There is only one way to make money gambling: Make sure you are "the house". In the long run, only the house wins.
Actually, I cleaned up last time I was in Vegas. My buddies did too - We developed a 'system'.
1) Fill your pocket with nickels.
2) Find a nickel-slot, sit down, and drop a nickel in.
3) Wait for the cocktail-girl to walk by and spin the slot.
4) Tell the girl, "Why yes, I would enjoy a Heineken on the house."
5) Accept your beer and walk off to find another nickel-slot. (Alternatively sit at the same one, but that will require tipping if you want regular service.)
Maybe you get your nickel back and maybe you don't. Who cares? It's a full night of nickel-Heineken. A buck goes a LONG way.
So, is this a matter of the "poor players" who deserve better, even though they don't really deserve anything better than to lose all their money, which they did?
The players chose to throw their money away, while the business shouldn't exist in the first place.
I think you've confused poker with roulette. Someone who is much better at poker than the people he's playing with will come out ahead in the long term, assuming that nobody's cheating. If everyone at the table is equally good/bad, the house rake will slowly drain their $$, but hopefully they all have a good time and possibly improve their game. Again, assuming that nobody's cheating - In that case their $$ will be quickly drained and the game will probably be frustrating to all involved.
Poker, although it involves some element of chance, is a game of skill - Much different than roulette/craps/slots/etc. What's with the poker-hate?
I'm going to assume (hopefully safely) that you're not actually agreeing with the MPAA claim and just posting the $18B number to be funny (it worked). Otherwise, let me be the millionth person to cry out, "1 Download != 1 Lost sale".
My favorite part of that press release:
"RealNetworks' RealDVD should be called StealDVD," explained Greg Goeckner,
Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA).
StealDVD. Huh huh...
given that as explained above the KGB dont exist, i think I can.
That's right. We don't. Just keep believing that and everything will be fine.
Actually, we're just biding our time waiting for the US and China to go to blows. Then we thaw out Lenin, reunite the Soviet Union, and the world is our kotlety!
MWUAHAHAHA!
That's probably why TFS questions "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" being left out.
Curiosly, though, TFA does say (on page 3 of 5):
I chose to limit myself to one fictional error message in this list, but I could go on: If I ever produce a sequel to this story, I guarantee you that "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" will be on it.
Perhaps Technologizer got tired of clicking through TFA before reaching #5.
I've never run into the FailWhale, because I've never tried Twitter. Although I'm confused by TFA's comment:
If you can explain what the image has to do with a Web 2.0 service buckling under extreme traffic, please let me know.
8 little birds trying to carry a whale they have tethered seems like a perfectly appropriate image to accompany a server strain error IMO.
Usually people as enthusiastic about needing to FAP as you seem to be don't mind the option of "nonstandard ports". But, to each his own.
Non-renewable? Hogwash. We already have the technology to create He. It's just that it takes a lot of energy and we have to do it 1 atom at a time. Of course, that's probably only on a par with trying to recover it from the atmosphere...
The image/sound quality associated with one's definition of "watchable" is inversely proportional to the product of their frugality and their desperation to watch the show. Any 12 year old with semi-scrambled "adult" stations coming in via cable will tell you that.
Some people will tolerate a crappy picture and incomprehensible audio rather than pay for subscription service - Those people have now switched from poor video/audio to no video/audio and are upset.
At least that's my guess.
Doesn't matter - the IPv4 shortage is a myth.
DeBeers actually has plenty, but they're being hoarded away in vaults in Antwerp to keep the price artificially high.
So you can connect to your fridge and see if your milk has gone off from outside your home?
No problem. Just forward port 6969 (the standard port for FAP or Fridge Access Protocol) to the 192.168.1.x internal IP assigned to your fridge. Then you can FAP anywhere you have Internet access.
In any case, we now know Saturn's rings were there a good couple of years before the republican candidate, at least.
Actually, I'd be surprised if McCain had ever even visited Saturn. Although I wondered often during the primary races if a couple of the candidates had extraterrestrial origins.
Is that 0.09581 almost 1% or 9.5% of our internet-hopping population?
Neither - nothing more meaningful than "attacks per Internet user in the country". I thought that was an interesting scalar, but I'm not sure that it's useful expressed as a percentage (or perhaps not useful at all, but interesting to me). If each attack was from a unique "user", that would imply one attack on these monitored targets from each of 9.5% of the US Internet-enabled population - But that doesn't seem to be the case. So the actual percentage of "users" that attacked this target is certainly much lower, although we don't have enough information to guess how much.
But this phone is so much cheaper than the iPhone! $179 in the US, but they're literally giving them away in the UK! According to this, they're FREE (as long as you pay £40+/month "T-mobile tariffs"). Sure, $74/month may seem a little steep, but isn't it worth it to get a FREE phone?
(No idea what the voice plan will cost in US - TFA just gives rates for the data plans on top of the 2-year contracted voice plan.)
Gods? Islam (implied in discussion) worships the same god as Christianity. One god.
Islam? Nobody said anything about Islam, just religious fanatic terrorists.
You're obviously profiling. Profiling is wrong.
=P
Actually, just while I have the numbers pulled up, here are the number of "attacks" from each country mentioned in TFS scaled by the number of Internet users in the country. Since I'm inferring that these are total attacks and not unique IPs, I guess that these numbers are "attacks per Internet user".
0.09581 US
0.03043 China
0.00958 Poland
0.00812 Taiwan
0.00489 Canada
0.00466 South Korea
0.00392 Brazil
0.00210 Germany
0.00151 Japan
And certainly there are a ton more computers in the U.S. than in China, although that will certainly change within the next decade or so.
Actually, China has ~253 million Internet users. The US has only ~215 million. It could just be that your numbers are dated - They're increasing that number about 8x as fast as we are. Look for yourself: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Yup. The end of TFA was the painful (albeit obvious) part:
Kacperski said Monday he was looking for a new service provider, but that he had no idea how long it will take him to get back online.
"I've got to basically start all over," he said.
Ugh. And the sad part is that, while he's scrambling to rebuild his "business", other people will be scrambling to fill in the void.
AS LONG AS it is 100% perfect at correctly identifying the other 99 innocent people as innocent people.
78-80% success rate doesn't sound so good if it means that I have a 20-22% chance of getting a full body cavity search every time I get within 500 feet of the police.
It's not quite that dramatic... Sure being singled out is a nuisance, a delay, and mostly worthless. But setting off a red flag does not imply a "full body cavity search", typically just an annoying delay. I've been flagged several times for setting off sniffers or swipes. Everyone gets really excited and the security managers get called in to fiddle with the machines. Then eventually they get around to me and ask me if I know any way that I could have been exposed to explosives. Typically it's some RDX composition (C-4 or similar) and I'll give them some plausible story about how I may have been exposed - The truth is that I typically don't know where the exposure occurred since I'm around so many varieties of explosive so often. They ask some questions, I give them some answers, and they send me on my way. If testing positive for C-4 doesn't inspire a "full body cavity search", I doubt that an elevated pulse rate would either.
Disclaimer: I am white, which may work in my favor, but I do fit most stereotypes for white domestic terrorists (at least superficially).
Sheesh! I've never seen a bunch of geeks so opposed to developing an immature technology before! Perhaps a toning down of the pessimism would be in order, and perhaps we may see some improvements in our understanding of human behaviour, and the programs built to understand it.
It's not that they oppose the development of the technology. It's that they're fed up with privacy invasions and random harassment and see this device as a means of propagating both. Even if this thing threw up 50% correct red-flags, you'd see objections.
Besides, Big Brother paranoia plays very well here - Especially when it's accurate.
Particularly, a religious fanatic will be in a state of peace and righteousness-filled euphoria because he is finally "fulfilling his destiny" in life and just hours away from being rewarded by his God for being a faithful "Holy Warrior".
I've got to disagree there. I don't want to praise the machine - This thing is nuts. And I agree that, just before detonation, a fanatic may experience a sense of euphoric peace. But, when going through security, it's a toss up between beautiful martyrdom and failure resulting in a good long stretch in Guantanamo Bay being questioned unmercifully by the infidels. A good lot of training may help them deal with that stress. And their faith may provide them with confidence that their gods wouldn't allow them to fail. But until you actually get through security, there's got to be a lot of stress to deal with - Probably even more than when they actually push the button / flip the switch / light their shoe laces.
I assure you that I have no grudge against the NIF, although I admit that my 2 posts today could have easily been misinterpreted as complaints. I consider it fascinating research worth funding. The price I mentioned ($9.5B + $5B + $8B) tag was meant to extrapolate out what could reasonably be milked out of a $9.5B Space Elevator proposal, not the NIF. In my other post, I mention the ~$4B NIF tag (although I also accurately point out that it's at 4x its original budget and ~50% behind schedule) - That post was mainly to illustrate to the poster complaining about a $36M laser-weapon project with no funding for fusion research that we are in fact looking at fusion.
Projecting R&D is very difficult, especially with projects high-risk like the NIF or the Space Elevator. I thought that the NIF had been rebaselined several times - In fact I thought it was nearly year-to-year for a while there. But, I'll accept your assertion that it only happened once and stand corrected.
I work with the DoE a lot and, from my experience, Sandia is actually much worse about under-bidding than LLNL, but all three labs have a poor track record. But, now that money is a little more scarce and customers are less forgiving of failures, they're all improving markedly.