But this is/., so what we really need is a device that detects a LACK of sarcasm. After all, you don't want to spend your whole gadget budget on batteries, do you?
Um, I don't know what you do with your tools, but rust is not a function of time, it's a degradation that is brought on by specific environmental conditions combined with certain inherent properties of the object. Age of a tool does not tell you how much rust it will have, nor does rust tell you how old a tool is.
Is it getting through yet?
Age is CHRONOLOGICAL. You are continuing to define it as pathological. There is a correlation, but they are not interchangable, nor is the correlation predictable for any specific case. Is your posting as an AC just a function of your lack of a clue?
This thing supports serial control? That's like the Holy Grail of DVR-cable box interaction. IR Blasters can be pretty flaky, so much so that I record off of analog cable any chance I get using my ReplayTV's internal tuner.
De Grey is just a zealot who knows the vocabulary of science. Note that his topic is ostensibly biology, geriatrics and the biology of aging to be specific, but he talks about it as a philosophy.
There is no "reversing" or "stopping" of aging. One year from now, we'll all be a year older. If you are healthier than you were the year before, you are STILL A YEAR OLDER. If you are 65 and can run a 4-minute mile, you are NOT 25 or 35, you are simply a 65-year old who is much healthier than the AVERAGE 65-year old.
This is more than semantics. It's how the "anti-aging medicine" industry (note that there is no recognized medical board specialty in "anti-aging" the way there is in neurology, pediatrics, orthopedics, etc.) like the A4M spreads its FUD and makes its Benjamins. People are obsessed with "being younger" instead of being healthier, and they expect some snake oil to make it happen partially because these fallacies are not challenged rigorously enough in public arenas.
But note that this evangelical zeal is about "reversing aging" or "stopping aging", and "aging is a disease". Bzzt! Thanks for playing, but aging is simply a function of time. If this zeal was really about helping older people as a group be healthier than they are now, then they couldn't claim to be revolutionary, because there is plenty of research being done on healthy aging. These jackasses just want to find a way to sell snake oil in the 21st century.
So if China passes a law that makes it unlawful to publish information that reflects badly upon them, then by that logic, the NY Times can not publish anything critical of the Chinese government?
What do you mean "if"?? The PRC just doesn't trust anyone else to do their censoring for them, while the UK is apparently successful at getting others to do it for them. You don't have to be ignorant to be impartial or objective.
Interesting idea, but then you'd eliminate anyone but the Halliburtons, Lockheeds, and in this case maybe the big tech companies who have the assets to front the funds, especially since if this works and they all do their jobs, there is still no payment to all but one of those who designed a perfectly working system.
Instead, I don't see why companies aren't fined (put it in the contract) or sued for everything the government spent on a system that has to be scrapped. Smaller companies would be run out of business, but rightfully so, and even big companies would have put all that work into it for absolutely nothing. Those are both pretty good motivations to get it right. But that probably doesn't happen because, as someone said, there's no one person ultimately responsible for the money, and those government employees who deal directly with the multibillion dollar contractors may hope to get a VERY lucrative job with them eventually, and so stay cozy with them.
If the only issue is that they're charging for the service, they should offer it for free with the purchase of a new DVD and blank media (if any) from them. They could even add it to their online ordering system, so they can rip and burn/recode for you in advance, and you can pick up the new DVD and your copies without having to wait. They'd certainly gain some business that way.
I checked online with my state issuing authority (Maryland, US) for my toll-paying RFID tag, and I was able to request online that they send me 4 (the limit) free "read-prevention bags". This may only be of use to those in the northeastern US, but if any toll collector in your area uses a similar device, you might be able to find a bag easily.
I believe that those anti-static bags that many computer boards come in will block an RFID signal. They certainly look exactly like the bag I was given with my RFID remote toll-paying tag, and putting the tag in the bag supposedly blocks it from being read.
(What, you don't have any old computer parts in their original anti-static bags?!? That's it, no/. for you!;) )
I have never used that solution, but I do employ something similar: 1. Coat the disc with liquid dish soap 2. Rub the soap into the disc 3. Rinse off the disc 4. Dry it with paper towel It usually works.
...except I'd recommend against using paper towels. The best thing I've found for drying/dusting optical disks is an eyeglass-polishing cloth. Many eyeglass/sunglass stores give them away with or sometimes without a purchase. The old cloth kind is tightly woven and usually won't shed, but the newer ones are a fine synthetic weave that will pretty much never shed. I love them for getting dust and little kid fingerprints off our DVDs.
Actually, that's a very important point. Split-second timing is very important in comedy. If it's a tiny bit too soon, obviously it kind of ruins the experience if they talk about things just before they happen, or even as they're still happening, and the commentary is often timed for a lull in the dialog or action, so if it's a bit late it will get "stepped on" by the action or dialog. Still, it shouldn't be that hard to say at the beginning something like "Hey genius, now that you've started the movie already, let's find that chapter-back button and start over, OK? Ready? I don't want to rush you or anything, but three-two-one-boop! And we're back...." to get a fairly accurate (I'm estimating 0.3 sec) sync.
(If Mike is reading this, I hereby put the idea and the text above in the public domain. Just e-mail me so I can geek out about it if you use it.)
Damn, you beat me to it, but I do have a refinement: put foil inside the covers of the passport, so you can only read it when it's open. Then it really only does what it's supposed to, verify the printed contents. If someone's already got your passport open, your chances of hiding anything from them aren't very good anyway.
Well, the problems are only marginally different than those of using a needle, the issues of infection or injury are pretty much the same, but yes, hyposprays or pneumatic injection guns have been around for decades, and the "no needles!" is just spin, as it's used to imply that it's less painful than a needle, when the only difference is that you're just having a column of liquid pierce your skin instead of a column of metal.
So you're saying all backups are illegal, or only if money is involved, or only if done by a third party? I don't know about you, but I pay for my blanks, so the only issue here is the third party doing what you say it should be legal for me to do. I think the previous post was more accurate when it said that the issue may be making a profit by changing other people's content without the content provider's permission.
Excellent point! However, where do we draw the line between value-added service and content? Do content owners get to regulate volume levels or content navigation provided by (for-profit) electronics or software manufacturers? These would seem to also alter the way the content is presented (in a less drastic fashion), yet most if not all of us strongly desire that level of control, and feel entitled to it when we purchase media and the right to use its content.
It is mostly for creative/artistic reasons and preserving the integrity of the film as the creators intended it.
Funny, I thought it was because they saw the VOLUNTARY editing of your own PERSONAL copy of a movie to be a "fair use" of the purchased content that the content creators wanted to restrict in order to generally reign in fair use.
Geez, am I the only one who sees this? The services I read about allowed you to BUY AN ORIGINAL COPY of the movie, and then because you also opted to PAY for their services they would MAKE you an edited copy while sometimes preserving and returning the untouched original. The decision that it's not OK for a service to make a copy to suit a customer's needs in that case is another step towards "licensing" content instead of OWNING it.
(To prevent comments from going off on tangents, I offer this disclaimer: I would not watch or buy an edited movie, I like to watch deleted scenes and all that kind of supplementary material; I support a customer's right to do whatever they want with their copy short of distributing or misrepresenting it. Main source for information the "sanitizing" process: Washington Post article)
I am amazed that you've been modded flamebait, that's poor even by recent slashdot moderation standards. This a perfectly reasonable point of view, even if one doesn't agree with it, but I guess you've had the bad luck of being moderated by an ebay ripoff merchant.
Or by someone who thought the name calling outweighed the value of the point made. A post can be both interesting or insightful and flamebait/troll, as this one so nicely demonstrated.
The presentation of two differing viewpoints without providing any background or factchecking is a serious problem in today's mainstream media, IMNSHO. Lazy reporters and editors tend to provide two polar extremists a venue to spout off in order to provide the illusion of impartiality.
In this case, one arguement was not well articulated and one was not factual. I wouldn't have minded the two if they had had experts analyze the issues raised, but a paid mouthpiece and a content provider were not the best choices.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, come on, diamonds are not even addictive! Marketing cigarettes is easy...
"Hey, kids, here's some free 'coolness sticks'! Everyone cool is using them!"
But why would anyone ever want a diamond? Status symbol, ego...reasons that had to be CREATED from thin air by pure marketing.
But this is /., so what we really need is a device that detects a LACK of sarcasm. After all, you don't want to spend your whole gadget budget on batteries, do you?
I'm more concerned about the "nearly 250 from the Census Bureau containing such personal information as names, incomes and Social Security numbers". I heard a sound bite about it from the Commerce Dept. statement this morning, they said not to worry, the data is, and I quote, "password protected".
Yeah, that's real comforting.
Um, I don't know what you do with your tools, but rust is not a function of time, it's a degradation that is brought on by specific environmental conditions combined with certain inherent properties of the object. Age of a tool does not tell you how much rust it will have, nor does rust tell you how old a tool is.
Is it getting through yet?
Age is CHRONOLOGICAL. You are continuing to define it as pathological. There is a correlation, but they are not interchangable, nor is the correlation predictable for any specific case. Is your posting as an AC just a function of your lack of a clue?
This thing supports serial control? That's like the Holy Grail of DVR-cable box interaction. IR Blasters can be pretty flaky, so much so that I record off of analog cable any chance I get using my ReplayTV's internal tuner.
...or does that "catch" sound like a damn good reason to buy it?
De Grey is just a zealot who knows the vocabulary of science. Note that his topic is ostensibly biology, geriatrics and the biology of aging to be specific, but he talks about it as a philosophy.
There is no "reversing" or "stopping" of aging. One year from now, we'll all be a year older. If you are healthier than you were the year before, you are STILL A YEAR OLDER. If you are 65 and can run a 4-minute mile, you are NOT 25 or 35, you are simply a 65-year old who is much healthier than the AVERAGE 65-year old.
This is more than semantics. It's how the "anti-aging medicine" industry (note that there is no recognized medical board specialty in "anti-aging" the way there is in neurology, pediatrics, orthopedics, etc.) like the A4M spreads its FUD and makes its Benjamins. People are obsessed with "being younger" instead of being healthier, and they expect some snake oil to make it happen partially because these fallacies are not challenged rigorously enough in public arenas.
But note that this evangelical zeal is about "reversing aging" or "stopping aging", and "aging is a disease". Bzzt! Thanks for playing, but aging is simply a function of time. If this zeal was really about helping older people as a group be healthier than they are now, then they couldn't claim to be revolutionary, because there is plenty of research being done on healthy aging. These jackasses just want to find a way to sell snake oil in the 21st century.
What do you mean "if"?? The PRC just doesn't trust anyone else to do their censoring for them, while the UK is apparently successful at getting others to do it for them. You don't have to be ignorant to be impartial or objective.
Interesting idea, but then you'd eliminate anyone but the Halliburtons, Lockheeds, and in this case maybe the big tech companies who have the assets to front the funds, especially since if this works and they all do their jobs, there is still no payment to all but one of those who designed a perfectly working system.
Instead, I don't see why companies aren't fined (put it in the contract) or sued for everything the government spent on a system that has to be scrapped. Smaller companies would be run out of business, but rightfully so, and even big companies would have put all that work into it for absolutely nothing. Those are both pretty good motivations to get it right. But that probably doesn't happen because, as someone said, there's no one person ultimately responsible for the money, and those government employees who deal directly with the multibillion dollar contractors may hope to get a VERY lucrative job with them eventually, and so stay cozy with them.
I went to "https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geo s/com.html", and it had a parked page with a bunch of links about typosquatting.
Gee, if power storage is a problem, I'm surprised they haven't considered solar power!
Hey, wait, the magnifying glass...
Lifeboat Foundation! I have foiled your evil plan at last!
If the only issue is that they're charging for the service, they should offer it for free with the purchase of a new DVD and blank media (if any) from them. They could even add it to their online ordering system, so they can rip and burn/recode for you in advance, and you can pick up the new DVD and your copies without having to wait. They'd certainly gain some business that way.
Yes, but TFA didn't mention smart techies anywhere, just Circuit City employees.
Excellent detective work, thanks!
I checked online with my state issuing authority (Maryland, US) for my toll-paying RFID tag, and I was able to request online that they send me 4 (the limit) free "read-prevention bags". This may only be of use to those in the northeastern US, but if any toll collector in your area uses a similar device, you might be able to find a bag easily.
I believe that those anti-static bags that many computer boards come in will block an RFID signal. They certainly look exactly like the bag I was given with my RFID remote toll-paying tag, and putting the tag in the bag supposedly blocks it from being read.
/. for you! ;) )
(What, you don't have any old computer parts in their original anti-static bags?!? That's it, no
Actually, that's a very important point. Split-second timing is very important in comedy. If it's a tiny bit too soon, obviously it kind of ruins the experience if they talk about things just before they happen, or even as they're still happening, and the commentary is often timed for a lull in the dialog or action, so if it's a bit late it will get "stepped on" by the action or dialog. Still, it shouldn't be that hard to say at the beginning something like "Hey genius, now that you've started the movie already, let's find that chapter-back button and start over, OK? Ready? I don't want to rush you or anything, but three-two-one-boop! And we're back...." to get a fairly accurate (I'm estimating 0.3 sec) sync.
(If Mike is reading this, I hereby put the idea and the text above in the public domain. Just e-mail me so I can geek out about it if you use it.)
Damn, you beat me to it, but I do have a refinement: put foil inside the covers of the passport, so you can only read it when it's open. Then it really only does what it's supposed to, verify the printed contents. If someone's already got your passport open, your chances of hiding anything from them aren't very good anyway.
Well, the problems are only marginally different than those of using a needle, the issues of infection or injury are pretty much the same, but yes, hyposprays or pneumatic injection guns have been around for decades, and the "no needles!" is just spin, as it's used to imply that it's less painful than a needle, when the only difference is that you're just having a column of liquid pierce your skin instead of a column of metal.
So you're saying all backups are illegal, or only if money is involved, or only if done by a third party? I don't know about you, but I pay for my blanks, so the only issue here is the third party doing what you say it should be legal for me to do. I think the previous post was more accurate when it said that the issue may be making a profit by changing other people's content without the content provider's permission.
Excellent point! However, where do we draw the line between value-added service and content? Do content owners get to regulate volume levels or content navigation provided by (for-profit) electronics or software manufacturers? These would seem to also alter the way the content is presented (in a less drastic fashion), yet most if not all of us strongly desire that level of control, and feel entitled to it when we purchase media and the right to use its content.
Funny, I thought it was because they saw the VOLUNTARY editing of your own PERSONAL copy of a movie to be a "fair use" of the purchased content that the content creators wanted to restrict in order to generally reign in fair use.
Geez, am I the only one who sees this? The services I read about allowed you to BUY AN ORIGINAL COPY of the movie, and then because you also opted to PAY for their services they would MAKE you an edited copy while sometimes preserving and returning the untouched original. The decision that it's not OK for a service to make a copy to suit a customer's needs in that case is another step towards "licensing" content instead of OWNING it.
(To prevent comments from going off on tangents, I offer this disclaimer: I would not watch or buy an edited movie, I like to watch deleted scenes and all that kind of supplementary material; I support a customer's right to do whatever they want with their copy short of distributing or misrepresenting it. Main source for information the "sanitizing" process: Washington Post article)
And then they will sue all those with eidetic memory, and saying "Remember the car chase scene..." will be piracy.
Or by someone who thought the name calling outweighed the value of the point made. A post can be both interesting or insightful and flamebait/troll, as this one so nicely demonstrated.
The presentation of two differing viewpoints without providing any background or factchecking is a serious problem in today's mainstream media, IMNSHO. Lazy reporters and editors tend to provide two polar extremists a venue to spout off in order to provide the illusion of impartiality.
In this case, one arguement was not well articulated and one was not factual. I wouldn't have minded the two if they had had experts analyze the issues raised, but a paid mouthpiece and a content provider were not the best choices.