I picked up on this right after it was mentioned on/. the first time. I went out and bought a scale even!
I started out at 270 pounds. Within 2 months, I was at 250, and have since been bouncing around between 245 and 255. Of course, I've also stopped planning out my meals too, which might explain why I've leveled out at this weight.
According to a recent body-fat test, I would be at about 210 with 10% fat, which is my goal now. Hopefully by -next- X-mas, I can be there!
The tools are great, although I had to fiddle with the spreadsheets to get them to work with Office 2000. Maybe I'll buy a Palm so I can use the new tools.
The answer to the question completely depends on what you want out of the service.
Do you want ease of use? Loads of features? Low cost? Integration with financial planning software (Money 2000, Quicken 2000)? High security?
Do you just want to pay bills? Track investments? Track monthly expenses? Manage multiple foreign accounts?
I pay about $10/month for my online banking/real world banking services, plus another $100/year for my brokerage/investment services with the same institution. I can find similar services elsewhere for less (and even for free), but I'm not willing to give up the features I get with my current service.
Just a quick reference for Canadians:
CanadaTrust EasyWeb: Probably the best online baking service in Canada. Loads of features, easy to use. Scotia Online: Probably the most secure online banking service anywhere. Doesn't rely on SSL for session security. Presidents Choice Financial: Easily the least expensive... they give you free stuff for using their service.
True, if you can decode it to listen to it, you can re-record it in any format you want.
But with a good watermarking/encryption scheme, they can make it a royal pain in that ass, if not impossible, to -create- an audio-DVD that will play on a standard home DVD-audio player.
Sure, the average/. reader will just build their own DVD-audio player out of a pile of old 386's and one of those whizzy 140-Gig CDs, but the average joe won't be able to just rip an Audio-DVD.
Unless, of course, they (the DVD-audio producers) do something stupid (from a security point of view) like release software that will let people create their own Audio-DVDs on their computers. Then the whole watermarking/encryption scheme was a waste of time and money. Just take the Audio-DVD, decode it to play it, capture the digital audio output, pipe it into the DVD-Audio recorder, and slap it back onto a recordable DVD. Then you need only worry about the watermark, and the DVD-audio recording software detecting it, instead of the encryption -and- the watermark. And as soon as someone rolls their own DVD-audio recording software, it will be easy to ignore that watermark...
In fact, I get my TV signal at home over a MMDS link today. It's been available for about 3 months here in Ottawa, and it is sweet. They are planning to roll out high-speed internet access early in 2000.
But I think the Cisco technology differs in that it allows you to not require a line-of-sight to the transmitter. I have a 15ft pole on the top of my house with a directional antena on it so I can receive the signal. Lots of places (downtown, wrong side of an apartment building, etc.) can't get the service since they are not line-of-sight right now. This tech from Cisco would fix that.
(Sorry for the double-post... I hit the wrong "reply" button the first time around...)
Disclaimer: I work for Entrust Technologies, and I deal with these sorts of problems every day.
For any decently secure system, you need at least two factor authentication. Pick two of something you have (smart card), something you are (biometric) and something you know (password).
Simple password authentication over a network like this is just not secure enough for things like medical records. Ideally, you would want to never send the password over the network, encrypted or not, since even with the password encrypted using SSL, you are still vulnerable to a "man-in-the-middle" attack.
The question states that "two factor authentication would probably delay the project a couple of years". This simply is not true anymore. Small plug here, but with something like Entrust/Secure Control, you can take your current system that is using only a username/password combo for access, and easily (in a few months) modify it to use two-factor authentication.
Not only does this give you better security for restricting access to the data, it can also provide a mechanism to encrypt that data in the back-end systems if you so choose. It also gives you non-repudiation, so you always know who it was that accessed that data.
Of course, you can achieve the same results using other products from other companies. Or you can do it using freely available systems if you have more time than money. The point is that adding two-factor authentication simply does not add two years to a project.
I'll assume that you have a working SSL/web-based system using username/password working right now. In order to convert this system to a basic two-factor authentication scheme, you need a couple of parts:
- Client-side software that will take the two-factors, and allow access to a user certificate. This cert is then sent to the server. (you can get products that will tie in directly to Netscape or IE and do this, so there is a very small 'learning curve' for this, but you do have to deploy client-side software and support it, so there is a cost associated with it.)
- Server side software that will take the certificate, verify if, check it against a CRL, and authenticate that user.
- Server side software that will take the users identity, as authenticated by the certificate, and allow them access to the back-end systems. This can be done with a database that ties the users Distinguished Name (DN) in the certificate to a username/password combo stored in a secure database, or by a more complex access system.
Of course, I can't really get into all of the details here, but for something as important as patient information, I would hate to see something as vulnerable as simple username/password authentication being used.
Perhaps the best way to force the issue of using better security is to involve the lawyers... if you implement and deploy a system which has known vulnerabilities, and someone's private information gets out, say hello to the lawsuits.
Oh yeah, opinions expressed are my own. I don't speak for my company. I am not a lawyer. Etc etc etc.
Disclaimer: I work for Entrust Technologies, and we deal with these sorts of problems every day.
For any decently secure system, you need at least two factor authentication. Pick two of something you have (smart card), something you are (biometric) and something you know (password).
Simple password authentication over a network like this is just not secure enough for things like medical records. Ideally, you would want to never send the password over the network, encrypted or not, since even with the password encrypted using SSL, you are still vulnerable to a "man-in-the-middle" attack.
You state that "two factor authentication would probably delay the project a couple of years". This simply is not true anymore. Small plug here, but with something like Entrust/Secure Control, you can take your current system that is using only a username/password combo for access, and easily (in a few months) modify it to use two-factor authentication.
Not only does this give you better security for restricting access to the data, it can also provide a mechanism to encrypt that data in the back-end systems if you so choose. It also gives you non-repudiation, so you always know who it was that accessed that data.
Of course, you can achieve the same results using other products from other companies. Or you can do it using freely available systems if you have more time than money. The point is that adding two-factor authentication simply does not add two years to a project.
I'll assume that you have a working SSL/web-based system using username/password working right now. In order to convert this system to a basic two-factor authentication scheme, you need a couple of parts:
- Client-side software that will take the two-factors, and allow access to a user certificate. This cert is then sent to the server. (you can get products that will tie in directly to Netscape or IE and do this, so there is a very tiny 'learning curve' for this, but you do have to deploy client-side software and support it, so there is a cost associated with it.)
- Server side software that will take the certificate, verify if, check it against a CRL, and authenticate that user.
- Server side software that will take the users identity, as authenticated by the certificate, and allow them access to the back-end systems. This can be done with a database that ties the users Distinguished Name (DN) in the certificate to a username/password combo stored in a secure database, or by a more complex access system.
Of course, I can't really get into all of the details here, but for something as important as patient information, I would hate to see something as vulnerable as simple username/password authentication being used.
Perhaps the best way to force the issue of using better security is to involve the lawyers... if you implement and deploy a system which has known vulnerabilities, and someone's private information gets out, say hello to the lawsuits.
Oh yeah, opinions expressed are my own. I don't speak for my company. I am not a lawyer. Etc etc etc.
This problem falls into two areas: do-it-all remotes that are shiny, easy-to-use, and cost a lot of money, and do-it-all remotes that are a bit clunky, are not very shiny, and don't cost much.
There is lot's to look at in the former category. I'll skip this.
There is not much to look at in the later category, but there is at least one. Head to Radio Shack. Yes, Radio Shack. Once there, ask for their top of the line programmable IR remote. It costs about $50 CDN, so I'm guessing about $30 US.
It does just about everything that every other remote can do with just a set of buttons. It doesn't have a jog-shuttle, so don't expect that, and it's only IR, so it won't control your RF devices. But other than that, it does it all. And if it doesn't have the functionality built in, it can learn the codes from your othe devices. It even does macros, so you can hit one button to turn everything on, or just a few things, etc.
The instruction book is about the size of a cheap paperback novel, and there is a 1-800 number you can call to get info on the more advanced features that they couldn't cram into the book.
The down-side is that the design of this remote is just about as bad as any Sony remote you've ever used. It's just a matrix of identical buttons.
That said, I don't own one anymore. I had it for a few says, but the design of it just sucks. It's really hard to memorize the location of all 50+ buttons on this thing, and they are all identical, so there are no shape cues. Plus it won't control my X10 devices, so I had to keep 2 remotes out anyhow.
Oh, there is definately prior art. I was working at BNR (Bell Northern Research, now Nortel Networks) in 1993 on a co-op work term when I 'invented' this technique. The system I was extracting data from used a 2-digit date. But there were none of these systems in existance before 1976, so I assigned '00' through '70' for the 21st century, and '71' through '99' for the 20th century.
Since this patent seems to have been submitted in 1996, the work I did predates their work by 3 years.
And I'm sure there are other examples of this. Hmmm, too bad I didn't patent this idea, I could be rich! Rich I say! Mwuhahahahaha!
Could someone post a link to some of these high-tech, fancy schmancy European appliances? I mean, I have a washer, dryer, stove, oven, dishwasher, fridge, and they all do their job just fine. Why are the European ones better? What am I missing out on? Could I be saving 25l of water every week? Oooohhhhhh!
Seriously though, does anyone have a pointer to some of this stuff?
Sure, growing a complete human heart might be 15-20 years in the future, but all of the basics are there now. Recently on the evening news there was a story about trying to grow a human heart, and they showed the framework that all of the blood vessels were growing upon. Sure enough, every tiny little nerve, artery, and vein was in this insanely complex framework. Of course, that only grows one part of the heart, the trick is to grow all parts of the heart.
There has already been at least one human patient who had a thumb grown for him, after losing his in an accident.
Of course, it might make more sense in the future to just grow headless/limbless clones of ourselves to harvest the organs from...
The article, and the policy it links to, states that these cards are also used to track meal purchases in the school cafeteria. Since it is so trivial to read, and hence create these barcodes, it would be easy to charge your lunch to someone elses account.
Now if every student in the school changed their barcode to that of the principal, or another staff member, I'll bet the principal would look to change the system fast. Either that, or they would just expell every student in the school...
Hmmm, I submitted almost this exact same story 2 days ago. Interesting...
Anyhow, in addition to these two hardware based players (which also provide nifty features like cheat codes, and 'mod-card' capabilities (so they can play the CD-Rs), there is/was a software-only based player called PSXAmp. Here's an article in German about it.
Unfortunately, the web page that it is supposed to live on no longer seems to exist.
It's a neat idea. Even better would be to burn the MP3 software onto the same CD as the MP3s, so there is no need to switch CDs. The PSX might not have the horsepower to do this, though.
However, the Dreamcast actually has the entire OS on the same CD as the game you want to play, and it has plenty of power, so it might be possible to build a decent software-only MP3 player for the Dreamcast. Now I wonder how much a development kit for that platform is...
Help! My kids are being oppressed!
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 2
Exhibit A: A stick Exhibit B: A dead horse
Mr. Katz, is it not true that you have been beating exhibit B with exhibit A for far too long?
Also, the Powerbook and iMac have the light for the Caps Lock button INSIDE the caps lock button. So if you want to see if it's on, you don't look on the other side of the keyboard.
The keyboard on my NeXTstation doesn't even have a CAPS-LOCK key. Instead, there is a little green light inside the shift-key. If you hit, errrr, command-shift I think, the light turns on, and you are in CAPS-LOCK mode. Command-shift again gets you out of CAPS-LOCK mode.
Unfortunately, that keyboard has the big reverse-L shaped Enter key, and the ~ and | keys are wwwaaaayyy over on the NUM-pad, which makes UNIX command-line a pain in the wrist.
The good news is that "The Blair Witch Project" advances the campaign of techno-savvy, creative, young and poorly-funded filmmakers against a corporatized film system that embraces technology but smothers originality.
And the bad news is that the ad campagin for this movie is a whole lot better than the movie itself. I don't think there was a single person in the theatre that was scared by this flick.
I found it hard to be concered about three dolts who can't even follow a stream to get out of the woods.
Don't be daft. They would give him a real jacket, as a real jacket was using in the commercial. They give him a model of a jet because a model of a jet was used in the commercial. Nowhere did they ever state that it was a real, working Harrier jet. All Pepsi had to do was offer him the model, and he can then turn down the offer. If a car company offers you a scale model of their car, you can turn them down too. It's not like there is a legally binding contract from watching the commercial.
If the guy is going to be an annoying idiot and demand the jet from the commercial for $700,000, they should give him what he wants.
When this lawsuit first came up, some friends and I discused what Pepsi should have done rather than fight this out in court: give him the jet.
No, not a real Harrier Jump Jet, but the model of a Harrier Jump Jet that was used in the filming of the commercial. You think they used a -real- Harrier? Not likely. At most, it was a $30,000 scale model built for the commercial.
Pepsi should have offered to give him that model for his $700,000. No lawsuit, as he is getting exactly what was in the commercial for 7 million points.
Sounds like a make-shift water rocket to me! I love water rockets, but it pretty hard to find good ones anymore. Someone must have passed a law limiting the range, so most of the new ones suck. Either that, or they are just trying to save some money by using crappy parts.
Of course, firing one of these things while in a crowd is always fun. That sucker comes screaming back down to Earth pretty fast!
Of course, for real fun, build yourself a water rocket using liquid notrogen. The original page at SGI is gone (which described using a water-cooler bottle for the rocket body!), but here is a good replacement that can get you started.
If you really want to hit the -local- theatre in the pocketbook, but don't want to hurt the makers of the film, then go see the movie, but DON'T buy any concessions! No popcorn, no pop, no twizzlers.
Most theatres hardly make a cent on the ticket sales, but make a killing on the popcorn. Let's see, $.25 worth of popcorn, butter, and packaging for $4.00? Even with employees making about $6/hour, they are making huge profits from this stuff. The $1 or so they get from the ticket sale to a movie barely pays for the film copy, let alone the cost of the building, etc.
OK, so they want to build a structure 22 miles long, carrying thousands of large solar collectors. It will be in geosynchronous orbit, so it should be in the shadow of the Earth for at least part of the day.
So my question is, why not just build it in the middle of a desert here on Earth? It would probably cost an order of magnitude less than putting it in space.
Oh, wait, this idea is sponsored by NASA, so of course it has to be in space.
If only it were that easy. I play Ultimate 2-3 times a week (damn, that's a LOT of running and sweating), softball once a week, walk the dog, ride my bike, and generally stay very active. I only hit the gym in the winter since I don't do a lot of sports other than snowboarding then.
Yet here I am, 6'2" tall and 270 pounds. I'm freaking huge! And it's definately not all muscle:-)
I've never been able to find a diet that will give me the energy I need to stay active, yet allow me to lose any amount of weight. I had luck with a bodybuilding diet years ago (CyberTrim I think it was called), but it just left me to tired all the time to enjoy the 30 pounds that I lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily there is a cached copy at Google. Doesn't say anything about playing MP3s, though.
. com/shoppingatnet/apdigdvdplay.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:st13.yahoo
I picked up on this right after it was mentioned on /. the first time. I went out and bought a scale even!
I started out at 270 pounds. Within 2 months, I was at 250, and have since been bouncing around between 245 and 255. Of course, I've also stopped planning out my meals too, which might explain why I've leveled out at this weight.
According to a recent body-fat test, I would be at about 210 with 10% fat, which is my goal now. Hopefully by -next- X-mas, I can be there!
The tools are great, although I had to fiddle with the spreadsheets to get them to work with Office 2000. Maybe I'll buy a Palm so I can use the new tools.
The answer to the question completely depends on what you want out of the service.
Do you want ease of use? Loads of features? Low cost? Integration with financial planning software (Money 2000, Quicken 2000)? High security?
Do you just want to pay bills? Track investments? Track monthly expenses? Manage multiple foreign accounts?
I pay about $10/month for my online banking/real world banking services, plus another $100/year for my brokerage/investment services with the same institution. I can find similar services elsewhere for less (and even for free), but I'm not willing to give up the features I get with my current service.
Just a quick reference for Canadians:
CanadaTrust EasyWeb: Probably the best online baking service in Canada. Loads of features, easy to use.
Scotia Online: Probably the most secure online banking service anywhere. Doesn't rely on SSL for session security.
Presidents Choice Financial: Easily the least expensive... they give you free stuff for using their service.
True, if you can decode it to listen to it, you can re-record it in any format you want.
/. reader will just build their own DVD-audio player out of a pile of old 386's and one of those whizzy 140-Gig CDs, but the average joe won't be able to just rip an Audio-DVD.
But with a good watermarking/encryption scheme, they can make it a royal pain in that ass, if not impossible, to -create- an audio-DVD that will play on a standard home DVD-audio player.
Sure, the average
Unless, of course, they (the DVD-audio producers) do something stupid (from a security point of view) like release software that will let people create their own Audio-DVDs on their computers. Then the whole watermarking/encryption scheme was a waste of time and money. Just take the Audio-DVD, decode it to play it, capture the digital audio output, pipe it into the DVD-Audio recorder, and slap it back onto a recordable DVD. Then you need only worry about the watermark, and the DVD-audio recording software detecting it, instead of the encryption -and- the watermark. And as soon as someone rolls their own DVD-audio recording software, it will be easy to ignore that watermark...
In fact, I get my TV signal at home over a MMDS link today. It's been available for about 3 months here in Ottawa, and it is sweet. They are planning to roll out high-speed internet access early in 2000.
But I think the Cisco technology differs in that it allows you to not require a line-of-sight to the transmitter. I have a 15ft pole on the top of my house with a directional antena on it so I can receive the signal. Lots of places (downtown, wrong side of an apartment building, etc.) can't get the service since they are not line-of-sight right now. This tech from Cisco would fix that.
The challenge/response portion could be something like a WatchWord calculator/token.
This alone offers 2-factor authentication (something you have, something you know).
If this is what they are using, then the system does sound like it is a two-factor authentication.
- username/password (something you know)
- digital cert (something you have)
- challenge/response (something you have and something you know)
Then again, the challenge/response might require a thumbprint instead of a PIN, then it really would be 3-factor authentication.
(Sorry for the double-post... I hit the wrong "reply" button the first time around...)
Disclaimer: I work for Entrust Technologies, and I deal with these sorts of problems every day.
For any decently secure system, you need at least two factor authentication. Pick two of something you have (smart card), something you are (biometric) and something you know (password).
Simple password authentication over a network like this is just not secure enough for things like medical records. Ideally, you would want to never send the password over the network, encrypted or not, since even with the password encrypted using SSL, you are still vulnerable to a "man-in-the-middle" attack.
The question states that "two factor authentication would probably delay the project a couple of years". This simply is not true anymore. Small plug here, but with something like Entrust/Secure Control, you can take your current system that is using only a username/password combo for access, and easily (in a few months) modify it to use two-factor authentication.
Not only does this give you better security for restricting access to the data, it can also provide a mechanism to encrypt that data in the back-end systems if you so choose. It also gives you non-repudiation, so you always know who it was that accessed that data.
Of course, you can achieve the same results using other products from other companies. Or you can do it using freely available systems if you have more time than money. The point is that adding two-factor authentication simply does not add two years to a project.
I'll assume that you have a working SSL/web-based system using username/password working right now. In order to convert this system to a basic two-factor authentication scheme, you need a couple of parts:
- Client-side software that will take the two-factors, and allow access to a user certificate. This cert is then sent to the server. (you can get products that will tie in directly to Netscape or IE and do this, so there is a very small 'learning curve' for this, but you do have to deploy client-side software and support it, so there is a cost associated with it.)
- Server side software that will take the certificate, verify if, check it against a CRL, and authenticate that user.
- Server side software that will take the users identity, as authenticated by the certificate, and allow them access to the back-end systems. This can be done with a database that ties the users Distinguished Name (DN) in the certificate to a username/password combo stored in a secure database, or by a more complex access system.
Of course, I can't really get into all of the details here, but for something as important as patient information, I would hate to see something as vulnerable as simple username/password authentication being used.
Perhaps the best way to force the issue of using better security is to involve the lawyers... if you implement and deploy a system which has known vulnerabilities, and someone's private information gets out, say hello to the lawsuits.
Oh yeah, opinions expressed are my own. I don't speak for my company. I am not a lawyer. Etc etc etc.
Disclaimer: I work for Entrust Technologies, and we deal with these sorts of problems every day.
For any decently secure system, you need at least two factor authentication. Pick two of something you have (smart card), something you are (biometric) and something you know (password).
Simple password authentication over a network like this is just not secure enough for things like medical records. Ideally, you would want to never send the password over the network, encrypted or not, since even with the password encrypted using SSL, you are still vulnerable to a "man-in-the-middle" attack.
You state that "two factor authentication would probably delay the project a couple of years". This simply is not true anymore. Small plug here, but with something like Entrust/Secure Control, you can take your current system that is using only a username/password combo for access, and easily (in a few months) modify it to use two-factor authentication.
Not only does this give you better security for restricting access to the data, it can also provide a mechanism to encrypt that data in the back-end systems if you so choose. It also gives you non-repudiation, so you always know who it was that accessed that data.
Of course, you can achieve the same results using other products from other companies. Or you can do it using freely available systems if you have more time than money. The point is that adding two-factor authentication simply does not add two years to a project.
I'll assume that you have a working SSL/web-based system using username/password working right now. In order to convert this system to a basic two-factor authentication scheme, you need a couple of parts:
- Client-side software that will take the two-factors, and allow access to a user certificate. This cert is then sent to the server. (you can get products that will tie in directly to Netscape or IE and do this, so there is a very tiny 'learning curve' for this, but you do have to deploy client-side software and support it, so there is a cost associated with it.)
- Server side software that will take the certificate, verify if, check it against a CRL, and authenticate that user.
- Server side software that will take the users identity, as authenticated by the certificate, and allow them access to the back-end systems. This can be done with a database that ties the users Distinguished Name (DN) in the certificate to a username/password combo stored in a secure database, or by a more complex access system.
Of course, I can't really get into all of the details here, but for something as important as patient information, I would hate to see something as vulnerable as simple username/password authentication being used.
Perhaps the best way to force the issue of using better security is to involve the lawyers... if you implement and deploy a system which has known vulnerabilities, and someone's private information gets out, say hello to the lawsuits.
Oh yeah, opinions expressed are my own. I don't speak for my company. I am not a lawyer. Etc etc etc.
This problem falls into two areas: do-it-all remotes that are shiny, easy-to-use, and cost a lot of money, and do-it-all remotes that are a bit clunky, are not very shiny, and don't cost much.
There is lot's to look at in the former category. I'll skip this.
There is not much to look at in the later category, but there is at least one. Head to Radio Shack. Yes, Radio Shack. Once there, ask for their top of the line programmable IR remote. It costs about $50 CDN, so I'm guessing about $30 US.
It does just about everything that every other remote can do with just a set of buttons. It doesn't have a jog-shuttle, so don't expect that, and it's only IR, so it won't control your RF devices. But other than that, it does it all. And if it doesn't have the functionality built in, it can learn the codes from your othe devices. It even does macros, so you can hit one button to turn everything on, or just a few things, etc.
The instruction book is about the size of a cheap paperback novel, and there is a 1-800 number you can call to get info on the more advanced features that they couldn't cram into the book.
The down-side is that the design of this remote is just about as bad as any Sony remote you've ever used. It's just a matrix of identical buttons.
That said, I don't own one anymore. I had it for a few says, but the design of it just sucks. It's really hard to memorize the location of all 50+ buttons on this thing, and they are all identical, so there are no shape cues. Plus it won't control my X10 devices, so I had to keep 2 remotes out anyhow.
It's worth checking out.
What really concerns me is that a grade 7 student actually got a 100 for that story. It doesn't deserve anything more than a 65.
Oh, there is definately prior art. I was working at BNR (Bell Northern Research, now Nortel Networks) in 1993 on a co-op work term when I 'invented' this technique. The system I was extracting data from used a 2-digit date. But there were none of these systems in existance before 1976, so I assigned '00' through '70' for the 21st century, and '71' through '99' for the 20th century.
Since this patent seems to have been submitted in 1996, the work I did predates their work by 3 years.
And I'm sure there are other examples of this. Hmmm, too bad I didn't patent this idea, I could be rich! Rich I say! Mwuhahahahaha!
Hey! What's wrong with bug collections and Nintendo?
Could someone post a link to some of these high-tech, fancy schmancy European appliances? I mean, I have a washer, dryer, stove, oven, dishwasher, fridge, and they all do their job just fine. Why are the European ones better? What am I missing out on? Could I be saving 25l of water every week? Oooohhhhhh!
Seriously though, does anyone have a pointer to some of this stuff?
Actually, this should let us build amazingly complex parts. The key is in producing the proper framework for the organ to grow upon.
There is a somewhat informative article in Scientific American that discusses the current state of tissue engineeing.
Sure, growing a complete human heart might be 15-20 years in the future, but all of the basics are there now. Recently on the evening news there was a story about trying to grow a human heart, and they showed the framework that all of the blood vessels were growing upon. Sure enough, every tiny little nerve, artery, and vein was in this insanely complex framework. Of course, that only grows one part of the heart, the trick is to grow all parts of the heart.
There has already been at least one human patient who had a thumb grown for him, after losing his in an accident.
Of course, it might make more sense in the future to just grow headless/limbless clones of ourselves to harvest the organs from...
The article, and the policy it links to, states that these cards are also used to track meal purchases in the school cafeteria. Since it is so trivial to read, and hence create these barcodes, it would be easy to charge your lunch to someone elses account.
Now if every student in the school changed their barcode to that of the principal, or another staff member, I'll bet the principal would look to change the system fast. Either that, or they would just expell every student in the school...
Hmmm, I submitted almost this exact same story 2 days ago. Interesting...
Anyhow, in addition to these two hardware based players (which also provide nifty features like cheat codes, and 'mod-card' capabilities (so they can play the CD-Rs), there is/was a software-only based player called PSXAmp. Here's an article in German about it.
Unfortunately, the web page that it is supposed to live on no longer seems to exist.
It's a neat idea. Even better would be to burn the MP3 software onto the same CD as the MP3s, so there is no need to switch CDs. The PSX might not have the horsepower to do this, though.
However, the Dreamcast actually has the entire OS on the same CD as the game you want to play, and it has plenty of power, so it might be possible to build a decent software-only MP3 player for the Dreamcast. Now I wonder how much a development kit for that platform is...
Exhibit A: A stick
Exhibit B: A dead horse
Mr. Katz, is it not true that you have been beating exhibit B with exhibit A for far too long?
Also, the Powerbook and iMac have the light for the Caps Lock button INSIDE the caps lock button. So if you want to see if it's on, you don't look on the other side of the keyboard.
The keyboard on my NeXTstation doesn't even have a CAPS-LOCK key. Instead, there is a little green light inside the shift-key. If you hit, errrr, command-shift I think, the light turns on, and you are in CAPS-LOCK mode. Command-shift again gets you out of CAPS-LOCK mode.
Unfortunately, that keyboard has the big reverse-L shaped Enter key, and the ~ and | keys are wwwaaaayyy over on the NUM-pad, which makes UNIX command-line a pain in the wrist.
The good news is that "The Blair Witch Project" advances the campaign of techno-savvy, creative, young and poorly-funded filmmakers against a corporatized film system that embraces technology but smothers originality.
And the bad news is that the ad campagin for this movie is a whole lot better than the movie itself. I don't think there was a single person in the theatre that was scared by this flick.
I found it hard to be concered about three dolts who can't even follow a stream to get out of the woods.
Don't be daft. They would give him a real jacket, as a real jacket was using in the commercial. They give him a model of a jet because a model of a jet was used in the commercial. Nowhere did they ever state that it was a real, working Harrier jet. All Pepsi had to do was offer him the model, and he can then turn down the offer. If a car company offers you a scale model of their car, you can turn them down too. It's not like there is a legally binding contract from watching the commercial.
If the guy is going to be an annoying idiot and demand the jet from the commercial for $700,000, they should give him what he wants.
When this lawsuit first came up, some friends and I discused what Pepsi should have done rather than fight this out in court: give him the jet.
No, not a real Harrier Jump Jet, but the model of a Harrier Jump Jet that was used in the filming of the commercial. You think they used a -real- Harrier? Not likely. At most, it was a $30,000 scale model built for the commercial.
Pepsi should have offered to give him that model for his $700,000. No lawsuit, as he is getting exactly what was in the commercial for 7 million points.
Sounds like a make-shift water rocket to me! I love water rockets, but it pretty hard to find good ones anymore. Someone must have passed a law limiting the range, so most of the new ones suck. Either that, or they are just trying to save some money by using crappy parts.
Of course, firing one of these things while in a crowd is always fun. That sucker comes screaming back down to Earth pretty fast!
Of course, for real fun, build yourself a water rocket using liquid notrogen. The original page at SGI is gone (which described using a water-cooler bottle for the rocket body!), but here is a good replacement that can get you started.
If you really want to hit the -local- theatre in the pocketbook, but don't want to hurt the makers of the film, then go see the movie, but DON'T buy any concessions! No popcorn, no pop, no twizzlers.
Most theatres hardly make a cent on the ticket sales, but make a killing on the popcorn. Let's see, $.25 worth of popcorn, butter, and packaging for $4.00? Even with employees making about $6/hour, they are making huge profits from this stuff. The $1 or so they get from the ticket sale to a movie barely pays for the film copy, let alone the cost of the building, etc.
OK, so they want to build a structure 22 miles long, carrying thousands of large solar collectors. It will be in geosynchronous orbit, so it should be in the shadow of the Earth for at least part of the day.
So my question is, why not just build it in the middle of a desert here on Earth? It would probably cost an order of magnitude less than putting it in space.
Oh, wait, this idea is sponsored by NASA, so of course it has to be in space.
If only it were that easy. I play Ultimate 2-3 times a week (damn, that's a LOT of running and sweating), softball once a week, walk the dog, ride my bike, and generally stay very active. I only hit the gym in the winter since I don't do a lot of sports other than snowboarding then.
:-)
Yet here I am, 6'2" tall and 270 pounds. I'm freaking huge! And it's definately not all muscle
I've never been able to find a diet that will give me the energy I need to stay active, yet allow me to lose any amount of weight. I had luck with a bodybuilding diet years ago (CyberTrim I think it was called), but it just left me to tired all the time to enjoy the 30 pounds that I lost.