Where did I say he works on medical equipment? It seems very important to you to establish that I am doing *something* wrong. Why is that?
Wow you're defensive, but in case you don't remember writing this, here you go:
I'd really like there to be some sort of disincentive for him being high as a kite (or recovering) whilst he is working on medical equipment that may be keeping someone alive.
OK let me rephrase, based on that. If you're concerned, contact his employer. If his drug use kills someone, you're just as responsible. If your quote "whilst he is working on medical equipment" was hypothtical, you did not make that clear, and it is entirely irrelevant to your point. If it is relevant, in any way, he must have a job "working on medical equipment". Yes, king of assumption I am, as long as you're including irrelevant information to bend your argument to make sense. So either he works on medical equipment or you're just making stupid stuff up because of some defensive need to be right. Not sure, only one of us is in a position to know that.
It is annoying to be subject to tickets from the authorities, but I am paying for my lack of patience
You are paying? If so then you broke traffic rules that are in place to prevent overconfident drivers from causing accidents. When I come to a stop light, I expect the guy behind me to stop, there's no forethought or planning involved. When I have the green light I expect that someone else won't sideswipe me because they think they can judge the red-green gap for that intersection. I could spend hours making up any number of scenarios where you could (as I said before, the word "could") cause an accident by doing something unexpected, but you'd say that you didn't mention that scenario and I'm making something up to bolster my argument. Cars move quickly, and there is a limit to other peoples' reaction time, even if you are infinitely responsive.
If "paying" was hypothetical then, again, you're distracting from your argument. If you don't get caught, ever, and have never "paid" either in traffic court, fines, jail time, accidents, or any other way, you're not really breaking
the laws I regularly break
. At least not as much as you think you are. Or you're in an area where your superior skills are irrelevant due to lack of traffic.
Someone said they won't work for a company that drug tests. You posted an anecdote in support for drug testing regarding your friend and medical equipment. Surely everyone is for drug testing when people are working on medical equipment, right?
It may be that you hold this position purely because you do not want to be inconvenienced by rules which are designed to protect everyone else from the weak or those with poor insight.
I'm not going to interpret that one in any way, but you use your own "talents" and your lack of desire to overturn the laws that crimp your style to suggest that people who are against drug testing are against it because they want to use drugs, not because of any sort of privacy concern or principle. Drug testing is a wide net to protect the population from the small subset of people who think they can handle their drugs but can't. "You may be someone who is not heavily affected by whatever you are taking. Maybe it is that you just can't tell. Anecdotal would be that you extrapolate your perception that you can handle it into *everyone* can handle it." So you are saying that there are people who can't properly judge the effect of drugs on themse
"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that misinformed people, particularly political partisans, rarely changed their minds when exposed to corrected facts in news stories. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."
you might set up a minimal web host that simply returns a 404. Not IIS, but one of the very simple personal web servers that won't have security problems. Listen on a socket and write a 404 HPPT header. This way the request doesn't time out.
I want an eReder, but with the glossy finish I can't tell the difference between the eInk and a black and white LCD. Except the eInk is a lot slower. Glossy bad, for many reasons, and I can't thnk of a reason to have it glossy
It's not acedemic if we can show the poster some sort of very simple wiki-like CMS that people with 6 decades of back issues might volunteer to enter/edit information. If everyone were organized, 100 people could enter the data in a weekend. Allowing time to edit and refine keywords, without copying the actual content, would add some time. And the backend database could end up more valuable than the original.
Scraping the data isn't possible, getting the data looks unlikely. So you recreate it. Have people claim an issue, and enter the data. People with few issues will claim the ones they have so people with more comprehensive coverage can focus on what no one else has. Bonus is, if no one else is interested, no one bothers to enter what they know, so the project self-immolates.
If you do get the original data, I'll volunteer to either disassemble the exe or RE the data format or preferably both. Just for the fun of it. Contact me at the/. nick over in the google mail system.
Offer to let them host a redirect if they want - interstitial advert page with a 'we have moved', and offer to redirect to that page if they are not the referrer for a certain timeframe. They get some advert money, you get the data, I have something to entertain myself with.
Gimme just the DOS program at elast, I'll get you the format.
Your doctor needs a medical transcriptionist, which would raise costs, and have the staff open the patients' charts before you are called back. If you have a complaint, this person is providing a service and you are free to share your concerns or find a new doctor. I'd share my concerns because it will benefit all of the doc's patients in addition to yourself.
Blaming technology for its incompetent users requires you to distinguish which is the cause of the problems. A child services applciation that automatically closes abuse cases after inactivity, requiring users to falsify records in order to keep them open, and makes support payment processing impossible is a failure of technology (UK govt vs. EDS). Your doctor dicking around is a failure of training, and a failure of you to complain.
Traffic rules also let other drivers know what to expect. Your aggressive driving could cause someone else to brake reflexively, getting rear-ended in the process. Your lack of patience is dangerous. I'm not going to waste time finding references because you will probably conclude that you aren't one of those people, but when people think they are good drivers it's usually because they are good at other things and haven't caused an accident yet. You are probably no better than most, and your arrogance, statistically speaking, puts you at higher risk of having a fatal accident when you do something other people don't expect.
As to your friend, the employer should fire someone who is not reliable. That should be the disincentive, not drug testing.
Further, if you are watching him work on equipment that keeps people alive, while he's high, you are an accomplice to any problems he causes. You accept responsibility for letting that person die. Elsewhere you suggest that people with hangovers should not be working on this equipment, to sidestep the argument that drug testing won't solve the problem of unreliable or "messed up" workers. The employer is responsible for monitoring its employees, and drug testing catches only a small percentage of the unreliable workers, which makes it fairly pointless.
Knowing him has made me more in favor of the employers right to test for drugs (as part of the employment contract).
Why go the indirect route? Open-door on the guy, or drop a note in a manager's or executive's box or under their door and get him fired. If you have a problem with it, do something about it. Don't advocate infringing other peoples' right to privacy for something temporary they do off the clock which solves only a small part of the problem just because you're too much of a pussy to do the right thing.
while you can make an argument that you are technically correct, "upwards of $10,000" is pretty misleading, "less than $5000" would be a better figure.
Trailrunner7 writes "Despite all of the hand-wringing and moral posturing about the public sale of security vulnerabilities, it turns out that not many people are buying or selling vulns, and the ones who are aren't making much money at it. A new survey of security researchers who sell vulnerabilities either publicly or in private, directed sales found that the vast majority of the flaws sell for less than $5,000. Almost none of them sell for much more than $10,000. At those prices, there's little chance that this is going to turn into the chaotic Wild West marketplace that some people predicted. It's a small, mostly controlled market that isn't making anyone rich."
If you're implying that the egg came first, you're wrong, but not for the reason you might suspect. The question is not about evolution of eggs or chickens, and pre-dates evolutionary theory. Originally it was probably a metaphysical question, how do you have a chicken that lays eggs without either a chicken or an egg? It never was about timetables, it was about where do things come from if they don't exist?
"If there has been a first man he must have been born without father or mother -- which is repugnant to nature. For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg."
With the your understanding, we can declare eggs the winner. But it still does not quell the anti-evolutionary forces which ask ok fine, which came first the dinosaur or the egg? The question can be rephrased for today's audience as: how do codependent traits arise? How can something irreducibly complex as the human visual system come from nothing?
We know the answers to those questions, roughly speaking, just as we knew the answer to this one. But we didn't have a concrete explanation of just how that happened.
In addition, the questino of chicken-egg primacy has always implied hard-shelled eggs, at least to my understanding. So reptiles and extinct species would not count. Hard shells came from the same place chickens did, at the same time, is the implication. Finding the protein means we have an explanation that hard shells are independent of an actual chicken. Many reptile species probably contain the ability to create this protein, but it is supressed or under-developed. Finding that would be the best way to put to rest anti-scientific rhetoric. The hard-shell egg probably came both before and after chickens, and we have just the one species left that has both chickenness and hard eggs.
An updated version of the question is asked and addressed here, along the lines of your thought, but this is merely grafting modern terminology onto an ancient question and making it a concrete, rather than abstract question: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.html
I blame the artists, for making such lopsided deals that they roughly break even after the first record and own none of their music. Having made millions for the recording studio they signed with and the studio using that for RIAA membership is a side effect that would go away if not for musicians with stars in their eyes. Keep the music local and keep the live music scene going people, stay away from bad recording deals.
Please understand a bit more before spouting this. A capitalist country with a consumer-based economy requires business protection. What's good for the company is often good for the people. Yes there are some areas in which businesses have benefitted at the expense of the individual, but there are many cases that go the opposite way. You just don't hear people complaining about them.
To digress a bit, it's like when you learn a word for the first time, and suddenly hear it everywhere. You think it's coincidence, but it's really just that you are paying more attention to it. So someone gives you an anti-consumer example, and then you're looking for it everywhere. That's what individuals complain about, and if you talk to enough individuals, that will be all you hear. A company that pays low wages is controlling costs, and is often preventing those jobs from being lost completely as they are sent overseas. It is a balance in which the individual decides whether to work for a company, and the company tries to woo the employees while not giving so much that the cost of the good or service is overpriced.
It is a difficult balance, and without business we have neither jobs nor products. So we must concede some points to them.
Before someone starts on about corporate pay and lobbyists and all that, remember that the "invisible hand of the market" takes a long time to act, and it is currently swinging in the direction of shareholders having input on pay packages (so they can determine whether profits go to a single guy who makes few decisions on his own or to dividends). And more importantly, if you owned a business, wouldn't you want to have some discretion as to what to do with your money? Subject to the whims of the market of course. We need business and business needs us, and if you don't like a business stop buying and educate your friends and neighbors.
I had a co-worker say that her daughter was caught in one of the mid-range RIAA lawsuits. I discussed some options found here, she decided to just settle. Hearing that decision, I asked her what her daughter was listening to these days (it was summer break). "All legal, paid for CDs, no downloading" she replied. By whom, I inquired, and some of the most radio-popular names spilled out. I told her, you know you're just giving more money to RIAA member companies, the same ones that just got thousands of dollars from you without going through the court system. She then told her daughter that her entertainment budget would be severely curtailed next school year and would have to make decisions about buying music in an informed manner. She was enabling anti-consumer tactics against herself, and had no idea. Ignorance, my point is, is more anti-consumer than any law or ruling or regulation could ever be, and we do it to ourselves.
I wish they would go straight to $3 million films. Cut out the overpaid actors, there's a great start. There are plenty of talented actors who would fill the headliners' shoes completely, and possibly better. The only reason they get so much money is because the name draws people into theaters.
look what happens then. $25 million payday to star in a medicre movie, and the star agrees to do it, and their box office value starts dropping. They are using my ticket price to hire someone I know so I evaluate the movie on its stars instead of its plot. Then audiences enjoy the movie based on its writing or cinematography, or hate it for those reasons plus the actors' poor delivery.
I loved Cruise in Tropic Thunder until I realized it was him. I can still enjoy the movie but it makes me feel uncomfortable because I've seen so many of his overacted crapfests. I loved Vanilla Sky despite him, mostly because the story was stolen (Obre los ojos) and slightly updated. There are people I will see in any movie because they only select good scripts and good directors/producers to work with, and the result is good. The actor does the filtering for me.
Box office name recognition is the worst thing to happen to movies ever. I'm not just talking about actors, I'm talking about expensive licensing deals too. Pay a bunch of money, make a Batman movie, and it doesn't matter how terrible it is you're a millionaire. Video game movies, novel-based movies, anything with a well-known name. Name recognition is crap.
Get a good script, good actors, and actually spend money promoting it like they do the big blockbusters. That's how you get people in the seats. Stop spending money on name recognition and the costs go down and audiences will return to movie-going. A $3 million movie with a $3 million advertising budget needs to sell maybe a million tickets to break even.
Actors and licensees don't need to be set up for life on one movie. If acting is your job, you can live on $500k per year. That will cover plane tickets and expensive clothes. Do 2 movies per year and, minus taxes and expenses, you'll have a very comfortable life *working*, not spending my ticket money on hookers and blow and mansions for MTV's Cribs.
Let's have the $3 million movie movie, I'm all for it.
When "science" talks about things as if it knows what's going on, it doesn't pretend that it knows what's going on. It talks, as you said your self "as if it knows what's going on." That is, that this is our current understanding. Science evolves, and we talk about it as we know it, instead of talking about it as the latest studies which have been peer reviewed and replicated and not retracted seem to indicate that we might have a valid theory about it - because that's all implied.
The problem people have with science is that grade school teaches science two ways. Either you get the "this is science, shut up and memorize" class, or you get the "we have no idea how any of this works, we just bang stuff around and try to describe what we think is happening" class. The former seems to produce journalists and slashdot editors.
One week, chocolate is good for you, the next it's bad, then it's good again. This seems like science is wrong, until you realize that it's rarely the same cause. "Chocolate is bad" because it has fat. It's good says the next headline, because it has phenyl ethylamine and aromatherapeutic mood elevation. It's bad because it comes packaged with sugar, it raises good cholesterol, it's a sstimulant, and on and on. This is just poor reporting and omission. If people were honest, they would say we have found one more positive or negative quality of chocolate in addition to the current list which includes..... Or because people can require different nutritional requirements, we can be neutral and say we have found an additional property of chocolate. Keep in mind, however, that the scientific report which underpins the sensationalistic headlines probably uses words like "may" and "is thought to" and "possibly". If we talk like this all the time we'd never get anything done, so we don't.
So journalism, and school, and people versed in the art, say things as if they are facts, as a matter of shorthand. It is a shame that more people fail to understand this, and it leads to headlines like "Black Hole Emits..." No it didn't, and gp's explanation uses our current understanding to explain why. 30 years from now, that explanation will seem coarse and uninformed, but it will likely be no more incorrect than referring to a (net) positively charged collection of quarks as a proton.
1) You can't just add "-wise" to any word an make a new word out of it 2) If you're going to try to mimic TPB's insulting reply style, subconsciously as it may be, please remember to suggest self-sodomization with a baton.
I'm sure you mean to say that for every discrete interval n we can only report the value accurately +/- (n/2)
In this case n being 12/4 = 3 months, I can tell you when you change your oil with 1.5 month accuracy.
Also, for the car analogy, you would have to not make any excuses for missing your oil change, including weekends, sickness, or your oil change place being closed at midnight. I will accept +/- 1 hour.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The search for a meaningful match makes you use different tactics from simple codebreaking. You have to actually understand the subject, what's relevant, and what isn't. Recognizing it as an md5 is the first part, then assume it's not any more obfuscated than that is the second.
Going to an md5 dictionary to find the content might give interesting results, but I think this was found quite easily using likely data to calculate an md5 match. Probably took less than 5 tries for the first attempt, then you can use google thereafter.
Also, I bet you feel silly now that all the other comments have been posted. We found something meaningful, and some people had a good time doing it.
It's the same mode, Ionian. The example plays them in the same key - the Kookaburra melody starts on the 5th, the flute on the third. The flute part would effectively be a harmony to the Kookaburra melody.
As much a part of Aussie culture as it is, I'm surprised it isn't recognized as the homage it probably is, conscious or not. Every jazz player ever has been guilty of lifting something at some point in their life, and that's when you have shifting rhythm or different modes to fit what you're playing, and often it's more notes than this. Everyone just nods and winks when that happens.
I'd love to find a transcript of the proceedings, but then I'd probably just save it for a later which never comes. There has to be at least one person at some point who exclaims "you people are so retarded I think you gave me HIV".
It's specific to versioned windows, you have to update the address of USER32.ValidateHwnd, and it probably does not work with ASLR type protection. But it worked with XP. <code>
#include "stdafx.h"
int ReadOtherProcess (HWND hwnd, void *address, void *buf, unsigned len) { unsigned long pid; HANDLE process;
FARPROC GetValidateHwnd(void) { // Since ValidateHwnd() is not an export, we have to hard-code some stuff here static FARPROC ret = NULL;
if (ret == NULL) { HMODULE user32 = GetModuleHandle("user32.dll"); if (user32) { // TranslateMessageEx and DefWindowProcA are on either side of ValidateHwnd() FARPROC tmex = GetProcAddress (user32, "TranslateMessageEx"); FARPROC dwpa = GetProcAddress (user32, "DefWindowProcA");
// W2k SP4 ver 5.0.2195.7017// (380,688 bytes) if (tmex == (FARPROC) 0x77E14000 && dwpa == (FARPROC) 0x77E14754) ret = (FARPROC) 0x77E14301; } }
if (ret == NULL) { // TODO: crib the address from other procs (see XREF for calls from ProcName+4) // most proces which take HWND as first param use a mov ECX and call ValidateHwnd // mov ECX will always be the same opcodes, call will be E8 + offset to ValidateHwnd // GetProcAddress, make sure *ADDR = 0x04244c8b, next byte is E8, // and add the next offset to ADDR /* .text:77E14754 public DefWindowProcA .text:77E14754 mov ecx, [esp+hWnd] .text:77E14758 call ValidateHwnd
"What do you mean won't let me? I just put in in the computer and something comes up and it does it automatically or something, I don't know."
You can try to scare them, but telling them they can't do something they definitely can do is not the way. They will actually call you a liar. iTunes actually posted a method of moving DRM encumbered files: Burn to disk and re-rip unencumbered. So the average person thinks you're paranoid and an idiot.
To help with point 1, people confuse this because they are trying to do the right thing. This is the simplest explanation I've found and it's the first google hit for "is a group singular or plural":
When the group is being considered as a whole, it can be treated as a single entity: "the group was ready to go on stage." But when the individuality of its members is being emphasized, "group" is plural: "the group were in disagreement about where to go for dinner."
After being so careful, I screwed up the bold part. The analysis chooses one child and asks "what if this child meets the criteria" followed by "what if this is child does not meet the criteria." In doing so, a third possibility is "What if both children qualify," which is neglected. That brings the answer back to 1/2.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't a good sign, my friend.
Still no apology to Tavis Ormandy. Even though they basically admitted he was right.
Wow you're defensive, but in case you don't remember writing this, here you go:
OK let me rephrase, based on that. If you're concerned, contact his employer. If his drug use kills someone, you're just as responsible. If your quote "whilst he is working on medical equipment" was hypothtical, you did not make that clear, and it is entirely irrelevant to your point. If it is relevant, in any way, he must have a job "working on medical equipment". Yes, king of assumption I am, as long as you're including irrelevant information to bend your argument to make sense. So either he works on medical equipment or you're just making stupid stuff up because of some defensive need to be right. Not sure, only one of us is in a position to know that.
You are paying? If so then you broke traffic rules that are in place to prevent overconfident drivers from causing accidents. When I come to a stop light, I expect the guy behind me to stop, there's no forethought or planning involved. When I have the green light I expect that someone else won't sideswipe me because they think they can judge the red-green gap for that intersection. I could spend hours making up any number of scenarios where you could (as I said before, the word "could") cause an accident by doing something unexpected, but you'd say that you didn't mention that scenario and I'm making something up to bolster my argument. Cars move quickly, and there is a limit to other peoples' reaction time, even if you are infinitely responsive.
If "paying" was hypothetical then, again, you're distracting from your argument. If you don't get caught, ever, and have never "paid" either in traffic court, fines, jail time, accidents, or any other way, you're not really breaking
. At least not as much as you think you are. Or you're in an area where your superior skills are irrelevant due to lack of traffic.
Let's go back to your original post here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1722902&cid=32936784
Someone said they won't work for a company that drug tests. You posted an anecdote in support for drug testing regarding your friend and medical equipment. Surely everyone is for drug testing when people are working on medical equipment, right?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1722902&cid=32937262
I'm not going to interpret that one in any way, but you use your own "talents" and your lack of desire to overturn the laws that crimp your style to suggest that people who are against drug testing are against it because they want to use drugs, not because of any sort of privacy concern or principle. Drug testing is a wide net to protect the population from the small subset of people who think they can handle their drugs but can't. "You may be someone who is not heavily affected by whatever you are taking. Maybe it is that you just can't tell. Anecdotal would be that you extrapolate your perception that you can handle it into *everyone* can handle it." So you are saying that there are people who can't properly judge the effect of drugs on themse
"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that misinformed people, particularly political partisans, rarely changed their minds when exposed to corrected facts in news stories. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?camp=misc:on:share:article
you might set up a minimal web host that simply returns a 404. Not IIS, but one of the very simple personal web servers that won't have security problems. Listen on a socket and write a 404 HPPT header. This way the request doesn't time out.
I want an eReder, but with the glossy finish I can't tell the difference between the eInk and a black and white LCD. Except the eInk is a lot slower. Glossy bad, for many reasons, and I can't thnk of a reason to have it glossy
It's not acedemic if we can show the poster some sort of very simple wiki-like CMS that people with 6 decades of back issues might volunteer to enter/edit information. If everyone were organized, 100 people could enter the data in a weekend. Allowing time to edit and refine keywords, without copying the actual content, would add some time. And the backend database could end up more valuable than the original.
Scraping the data isn't possible, getting the data looks unlikely. So you recreate it. Have people claim an issue, and enter the data. People with few issues will claim the ones they have so people with more comprehensive coverage can focus on what no one else has. Bonus is, if no one else is interested, no one bothers to enter what they know, so the project self-immolates.
If you do get the original data, I'll volunteer to either disassemble the exe or RE the data format or preferably both. Just for the fun of it. Contact me at the /. nick over in the google mail system.
Offer to let them host a redirect if they want - interstitial advert page with a 'we have moved', and offer to redirect to that page if they are not the referrer for a certain timeframe. They get some advert money, you get the data, I have something to entertain myself with.
Gimme just the DOS program at elast, I'll get you the format.
Your doctor needs a medical transcriptionist, which would raise costs, and have the staff open the patients' charts before you are called back. If you have a complaint, this person is providing a service and you are free to share your concerns or find a new doctor. I'd share my concerns because it will benefit all of the doc's patients in addition to yourself.
Blaming technology for its incompetent users requires you to distinguish which is the cause of the problems. A child services applciation that automatically closes abuse cases after inactivity, requiring users to falsify records in order to keep them open, and makes support payment processing impossible is a failure of technology (UK govt vs. EDS). Your doctor dicking around is a failure of training, and a failure of you to complain.
http://www.google.com/search?q=crack+down+on+diploma+mills
Lots of state and federal movement to do exactly the opposite of what you're saying - too many to list, so read up a bit.
Traffic rules also let other drivers know what to expect. Your aggressive driving could cause someone else to brake reflexively, getting rear-ended in the process. Your lack of patience is dangerous. I'm not going to waste time finding references because you will probably conclude that you aren't one of those people, but when people think they are good drivers it's usually because they are good at other things and haven't caused an accident yet. You are probably no better than most, and your arrogance, statistically speaking, puts you at higher risk of having a fatal accident when you do something other people don't expect.
As to your friend, the employer should fire someone who is not reliable. That should be the disincentive, not drug testing.
Further, if you are watching him work on equipment that keeps people alive, while he's high, you are an accomplice to any problems he causes. You accept responsibility for letting that person die. Elsewhere you suggest that people with hangovers should not be working on this equipment, to sidestep the argument that drug testing won't solve the problem of unreliable or "messed up" workers. The employer is responsible for monitoring its employees, and drug testing catches only a small percentage of the unreliable workers, which makes it fairly pointless.
Why go the indirect route? Open-door on the guy, or drop a note in a manager's or executive's box or under their door and get him fired. If you have a problem with it, do something about it. Don't advocate infringing other peoples' right to privacy for something temporary they do off the clock which solves only a small part of the problem just because you're too much of a pussy to do the right thing.
while you can make an argument that you are technically correct, "upwards of $10,000" is pretty misleading, "less than $5000" would be a better figure.
If you're implying that the egg came first, you're wrong, but not for the reason you might suspect. The question is not about evolution of eggs or chickens, and pre-dates evolutionary theory. Originally it was probably a metaphysical question, how do you have a chicken that lays eggs without either a chicken or an egg? It never was about timetables, it was about where do things come from if they don't exist?
Aristotle, (Isis Unveiled I, 428.)
http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/ancientlandmarks/PlatoAndAristotle.html
With the your understanding, we can declare eggs the winner. But it still does not quell the anti-evolutionary forces which ask ok fine, which came first the dinosaur or the egg? The question can be rephrased for today's audience as: how do codependent traits arise? How can something irreducibly complex as the human visual system come from nothing?
We know the answers to those questions, roughly speaking, just as we knew the answer to this one. But we didn't have a concrete explanation of just how that happened.
In addition, the questino of chicken-egg primacy has always implied hard-shelled eggs, at least to my understanding. So reptiles and extinct species would not count. Hard shells came from the same place chickens did, at the same time, is the implication. Finding the protein means we have an explanation that hard shells are independent of an actual chicken. Many reptile species probably contain the ability to create this protein, but it is supressed or under-developed. Finding that would be the best way to put to rest anti-scientific rhetoric. The hard-shell egg probably came both before and after chickens, and we have just the one species left that has both chickenness and hard eggs.
An updated version of the question is asked and addressed here, along the lines of your thought, but this is merely grafting modern terminology onto an ancient question and making it a concrete, rather than abstract question:
http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue5_2/04_garner.html
I blame the artists, for making such lopsided deals that they roughly break even after the first record and own none of their music. Having made millions for the recording studio they signed with and the studio using that for RIAA membership is a side effect that would go away if not for musicians with stars in their eyes. Keep the music local and keep the live music scene going people, stay away from bad recording deals.
Please understand a bit more before spouting this. A capitalist country with a consumer-based economy requires business protection. What's good for the company is often good for the people. Yes there are some areas in which businesses have benefitted at the expense of the individual, but there are many cases that go the opposite way. You just don't hear people complaining about them.
To digress a bit, it's like when you learn a word for the first time, and suddenly hear it everywhere. You think it's coincidence, but it's really just that you are paying more attention to it. So someone gives you an anti-consumer example, and then you're looking for it everywhere. That's what individuals complain about, and if you talk to enough individuals, that will be all you hear. A company that pays low wages is controlling costs, and is often preventing those jobs from being lost completely as they are sent overseas. It is a balance in which the individual decides whether to work for a company, and the company tries to woo the employees while not giving so much that the cost of the good or service is overpriced.
It is a difficult balance, and without business we have neither jobs nor products. So we must concede some points to them.
Before someone starts on about corporate pay and lobbyists and all that, remember that the "invisible hand of the market" takes a long time to act, and it is currently swinging in the direction of shareholders having input on pay packages (so they can determine whether profits go to a single guy who makes few decisions on his own or to dividends). And more importantly, if you owned a business, wouldn't you want to have some discretion as to what to do with your money? Subject to the whims of the market of course. We need business and business needs us, and if you don't like a business stop buying and educate your friends and neighbors.
I had a co-worker say that her daughter was caught in one of the mid-range RIAA lawsuits. I discussed some options found here, she decided to just settle. Hearing that decision, I asked her what her daughter was listening to these days (it was summer break). "All legal, paid for CDs, no downloading" she replied. By whom, I inquired, and some of the most radio-popular names spilled out. I told her, you know you're just giving more money to RIAA member companies, the same ones that just got thousands of dollars from you without going through the court system. She then told her daughter that her entertainment budget would be severely curtailed next school year and would have to make decisions about buying music in an informed manner. She was enabling anti-consumer tactics against herself, and had no idea. Ignorance, my point is, is more anti-consumer than any law or ruling or regulation could ever be, and we do it to ourselves.
I wish they would go straight to $3 million films. Cut out the overpaid actors, there's a great start. There are plenty of talented actors who would fill the headliners' shoes completely, and possibly better. The only reason they get so much money is because the name draws people into theaters.
look what happens then. $25 million payday to star in a medicre movie, and the star agrees to do it, and their box office value starts dropping. They are using my ticket price to hire someone I know so I evaluate the movie on its stars instead of its plot. Then audiences enjoy the movie based on its writing or cinematography, or hate it for those reasons plus the actors' poor delivery.
I loved Cruise in Tropic Thunder until I realized it was him. I can still enjoy the movie but it makes me feel uncomfortable because I've seen so many of his overacted crapfests. I loved Vanilla Sky despite him, mostly because the story was stolen (Obre los ojos) and slightly updated. There are people I will see in any movie because they only select good scripts and good directors/producers to work with, and the result is good. The actor does the filtering for me.
Box office name recognition is the worst thing to happen to movies ever. I'm not just talking about actors, I'm talking about expensive licensing deals too. Pay a bunch of money, make a Batman movie, and it doesn't matter how terrible it is you're a millionaire. Video game movies, novel-based movies, anything with a well-known name. Name recognition is crap.
Get a good script, good actors, and actually spend money promoting it like they do the big blockbusters. That's how you get people in the seats. Stop spending money on name recognition and the costs go down and audiences will return to movie-going. A $3 million movie with a $3 million advertising budget needs to sell maybe a million tickets to break even.
Actors and licensees don't need to be set up for life on one movie. If acting is your job, you can live on $500k per year. That will cover plane tickets and expensive clothes. Do 2 movies per year and, minus taxes and expenses, you'll have a very comfortable life *working*, not spending my ticket money on hookers and blow and mansions for MTV's Cribs.
Let's have the $3 million movie movie, I'm all for it.
When "science" talks about things as if it knows what's going on, it doesn't pretend that it knows what's going on. It talks, as you said your self "as if it knows what's going on." That is, that this is our current understanding. Science evolves, and we talk about it as we know it, instead of talking about it as the latest studies which have been peer reviewed and replicated and not retracted seem to indicate that we might have a valid theory about it - because that's all implied.
The problem people have with science is that grade school teaches science two ways. Either you get the "this is science, shut up and memorize" class, or you get the "we have no idea how any of this works, we just bang stuff around and try to describe what we think is happening" class. The former seems to produce journalists and slashdot editors.
One week, chocolate is good for you, the next it's bad, then it's good again. This seems like science is wrong, until you realize that it's rarely the same cause. "Chocolate is bad" because it has fat. It's good says the next headline, because it has phenyl ethylamine and aromatherapeutic mood elevation. It's bad because it comes packaged with sugar, it raises good cholesterol, it's a sstimulant, and on and on. This is just poor reporting and omission. If people were honest, they would say we have found one more positive or negative quality of chocolate in addition to the current list which includes..... Or because people can require different nutritional requirements, we can be neutral and say we have found an additional property of chocolate. Keep in mind, however, that the scientific report which underpins the sensationalistic headlines probably uses words like "may" and "is thought to" and "possibly". If we talk like this all the time we'd never get anything done, so we don't.
So journalism, and school, and people versed in the art, say things as if they are facts, as a matter of shorthand. It is a shame that more people fail to understand this, and it leads to headlines like "Black Hole Emits..." No it didn't, and gp's explanation uses our current understanding to explain why. 30 years from now, that explanation will seem coarse and uninformed, but it will likely be no more incorrect than referring to a (net) positively charged collection of quarks as a proton.
1) You can't just add "-wise" to any word an make a new word out of it
2) If you're going to try to mimic TPB's insulting reply style, subconsciously as it may be, please remember to suggest self-sodomization with a baton.
Otherwise, good post would read again. B+
I'm sure you mean to say that for every discrete interval n we can only report the value accurately +/- (n/2)
In this case n being 12/4 = 3 months, I can tell you when you change your oil with 1.5 month accuracy.
Also, for the car analogy, you would have to not make any excuses for missing your oil change, including weekends, sickness, or your oil change place being closed at midnight. I will accept +/- 1 hour.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The search for a meaningful match makes you use different tactics from simple codebreaking. You have to actually understand the subject, what's relevant, and what isn't. Recognizing it as an md5 is the first part, then assume it's not any more obfuscated than that is the second.
Going to an md5 dictionary to find the content might give interesting results, but I think this was found quite easily using likely data to calculate an md5 match. Probably took less than 5 tries for the first attempt, then you can use google thereafter.
Also, I bet you feel silly now that all the other comments have been posted. We found something meaningful, and some people had a good time doing it.
It's the same mode, Ionian. The example plays them in the same key - the Kookaburra melody starts on the 5th, the flute on the third. The flute part would effectively be a harmony to the Kookaburra melody.
As much a part of Aussie culture as it is, I'm surprised it isn't recognized as the homage it probably is, conscious or not. Every jazz player ever has been guilty of lifting something at some point in their life, and that's when you have shifting rhythm or different modes to fit what you're playing, and often it's more notes than this. Everyone just nods and winks when that happens.
I'd love to find a transcript of the proceedings, but then I'd probably just save it for a later which never comes. There has to be at least one person at some point who exclaims "you people are so retarded I think you gave me HIV".
It's specific to versioned windows, you have to update the address of USER32.ValidateHwnd, and it probably does not work with ASLR type protection. But it worked with XP.
// Since ValidateHwnd() is not an export, we have to hard-code some stuff here
// TranslateMessageEx and DefWindowProcA are on either side of ValidateHwnd()
// W2k SP4 ver 5.0.2195.7017 // (380,688 bytes)
// TODO: crib the address from other procs (see XREF for calls from ProcName+4)
// most proces which take HWND as first param use a mov ECX and call ValidateHwnd
// mov ECX will always be the same opcodes, call will be E8 + offset to ValidateHwnd
// GetProcAddress, make sure *ADDR = 0x04244c8b, next byte is E8,
// and add the next offset to ADDR
<code>
#include "stdafx.h"
int ReadOtherProcess (HWND hwnd, void *address, void *buf, unsigned len)
{
unsigned long pid;
HANDLE process;
GetWindowThreadProcessId ( hwnd, &pid );
process = OpenProcess (PROCESS_VM_OPERATION|PROCESS_VM_READ|
PROCESS_VM_WRITE|PROCESS_QUERY_INFORMATION, FALSE, pid);
DWORD dwread;
ReadProcessMemory ( process, address, buf, len, &dwread);
CloseHandle(process);
return dwread;
}
int WriteOtherProcess (HWND hwnd, void *address, void *buf, unsigned len)
{
unsigned long pid;
HANDLE process;
GetWindowThreadProcessId ( hwnd, &pid );
process = OpenProcess (PROCESS_VM_OPERATION|PROCESS_VM_READ|
PROCESS_VM_WRITE|PROCESS_QUERY_INFORMATION, FALSE, pid);
DWORD dwread;
WriteProcessMemory ( process, address, buf, len, &dwread);
CloseHandle(process);
return dwread;
}
FARPROC GetValidateHwnd(void)
{
static FARPROC ret = NULL;
if (ret == NULL)
{
HMODULE user32 = GetModuleHandle("user32.dll");
if (user32)
{
FARPROC tmex = GetProcAddress (user32, "TranslateMessageEx");
FARPROC dwpa = GetProcAddress (user32, "DefWindowProcA");
if (tmex == (FARPROC) 0x77E14000 && dwpa == (FARPROC) 0x77E14754)
ret = (FARPROC) 0x77E14301;
}
}
if (ret == NULL)
{
/*
.text:77E14754 public DefWindowProcA
.text:77E14754 mov ecx, [esp+hWnd]
.text:77E14758 call ValidateHwnd
.text:77E15ABC ; BOOL __stdcall UpdateWindow(HWND hWnd)
.text:77E15ABC mov ecx, [esp+hWnd]
.text:77E15AC0 call ValidateHwnd
.text:77E15B7A ; BOOL __stdcall GetClientRect(HWND hWnd,LPRECT lpRect)
.text:77E15B7A mov
"What do you mean won't let me? I just put in in the computer and something comes up and it does it automatically or something, I don't know."
You can try to scare them, but telling them they can't do something they definitely can do is not the way. They will actually call you a liar. iTunes actually posted a method of moving DRM encumbered files: Burn to disk and re-rip unencumbered. So the average person thinks you're paranoid and an idiot.
To help with point 1, people confuse this because they are trying to do the right thing. This is the simplest explanation I've found and it's the first google hit for "is a group singular or plural":
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/group.html
After being so careful, I screwed up the bold part. The analysis chooses one child and asks "what if this child meets the criteria" followed by "what if this is child does not meet the criteria." In doing so, a third possibility is "What if both children qualify," which is neglected. That brings the answer back to 1/2.