This whole trend of implying that people are being antisocial because they communicate at all without arranging a tête-à-tête is getting pretty old
I didn't imply that at all. I think that in this particular circumstance, face to face is better than IM. There are certain specific advantages.
You took that statement and leapt to the conclusion that I think all IM is pointless, when I provided absolutely no evidence to back such an assumption.
That's far too common these days. For example, my dislike of abortion has gotten me labeled anything from "Republican" to "Fundamentalist" when in fact I voted for John Kerry. Don't take a single statement or piece of evidence and use it to build a mental model. That sort of thinking is what leads to people killing each other.
90% still use email, but have "greater enthusiasm" for IM? Somehow I don't get the conclusion that email is for old people from that.
I believe the intended meaning is that they have a greater enthusiasm for IM than older people have for IM. Not that they have more enthusiasm for IM over email. Poorly worded. And yes, the conclusion still doesn't follow.
You know... i think you are right... being a 17 teen year old... i really should try and approach my social life in a professional manner... i should hire a secretary as well to keep my schedule intact... and when im trying to cram for my next calculus test... and im having some trouble with a problem... i should send my friend, who at that same moment is cramming for the same test and is most likely doing the same problem, an email so that when he is done cramming (which chances are would be after the test...) he can take his time to answer my email... because its so much more professional...
Or you could, you know... Study together. There's this cool new messaging protocol called a PIECE OF PAPER, you should check it out. It even allows both of you to write down your calculus equations and you can SEE them, in real time!
The problem is that if you have a person sending you occasional messages when you are off line, when you log in, you get a ton of messages.
How is that any different than email? If somebody sends you 50 emails during the night, then when you wake up, you have... 50 emails.
Do you think the nature of IM encourages people to send more numerous and less informational messages, as opposed to batching all their thoughts up into only a few larger messages?
As an adult, I have a serious job which requires concentrating for long periods without interruption.
Do you have an attention deficit or something? Life is nothing but a constant stream of interruptions. You filter it out. If the beeping of an IM window compels you to break away from what you're doing, there's something wrong with you.
Voice conversation are also a much more efficient form of communication, just measure in WPM. Most people can speak a lot faster than they can type.
Measuring communication efficiency in WPM? Claude Shannon must be turning in his grave.
Email lets you decide when to do your communicating, making work more efficient. IM interrupts and makes for inefficiency.
I disagree. When I receive an IM, the computer goes "Beeep." When I receive an email, the computer goes "Beeep." What is the difference between these two circumstances? Nothing forces me to read the email right away, and nothing forces me to read the IM right away. It has a scroll bar, doesn't it?
The distinction is purely in your mind. Allowing IM to distract you is a sign of bad habits, not a flaw in IM.
There are many teenagers out there who actually do something with their time and I don't appreciate being insulted.
Lucky thing you haven't been insulted, then.
There are quite a few people on and off my buddy list that really bug me when they try to talk. They have absolutely no reason whatsoever to talk to me other than the fact that they are bored.
Are these people close friends? If not, why are they on your buddy list? If so, you shouldn't take offense that they just want to chat. Without a little bit of bullshit every once in a while, we all turn into basement dwelling stiffs.
Teenagers still haven't nailed down how to quickly and efficiently grow relationships so they take an inordinate amount of time chit-chatting.
Do you think the grown ups have it figured out any better than you do? Naah... We're just less afraid, and more tolerant, of social error. Kids often think "I am saying the right thing, doing the right thing, wearing the right thing, in order for this person to like me?" Adults just jump in, committing all the same fuckups, but without worrying so much about it. That's the only difference.
OK! We have a 90 Hz signal with an EIRP of 200dBm. put this up to your eyeball, can you still see with that eye?
At 90 hz, that wave has a wavelength of over 2000 miles. I don't care WHAT the intensity is -- that isn't going to interact with a human body.
The point is, is that light (and color) are just one small part of the electromagnetic spectrum and that it would be logical to conclude that any part of the EM spectrum 'could' damage your eye's given the right circumstances.
It's not logical to conclude that whatsoever. Learn how waves work.
I don't know about you, but after trying this experiment a couple of times, I found that I could tell when my phone was about to ring, because I felt a very slight stinging sensation near the front of my eyes a few seconds beforehand.
Another cool trick. Hold your cell phone directly next to a CRT monitor (an LCD won't work). Have somebody call you.
Don't they understand that a policy of full disclosure will win respect with security professionals? All software and protocols have flaws, and those in the industry understand that. What matters is how those flaws are disclosed and handled.
In contrast, attempting to hide problems and punishing those who reveal details only loses more trust, because a company that does it once has surely done it a hundred times, and we must now be concerned with potentially hundreds of other, undisclosed flaws without even so much as a thrown bone to help work around the problems.
Can't they see that they are doing exactly the OPPOSITE of what they should be doing?
Alot of people i come in contact with only use IM. They never check their e-mail. never check voicemail. You have to reach them at THAT time they are available, otherwise they just won't get back to you.
Maybe you shouldn't expect to be able to contact them whenever and wherever you want.
I love the look of shock that comes over some people's faces when my cell phone rings, I look at the number and press "END." Just because I have a phone with me at all times doesn't mean I have to pick it up. "Oh my God, have you ever hung up on ME like that?" "Why yes, several times."
This constant state of connection with other people is actually a dehumanizing force, IMHO. All humans require solitude from time to time (even the most gregarious of us do), and without that, I think we are literally driving ourselves crazy.
I commend those brave enough to ignore their mailboxes!
The adults and older people should be happy that teens are using IM's. Because..:
They aren't calling long distance on the phone or using too many cell phones minutes to talk to their friends.
AND In many cases they aren't tying up a phone line (if they have broadband).
At least with the phone it's easy to monitor the conversation -- just LISTEN.
Sorry, Grandma, but you don't have a case, although the state may have a case against you for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor...
A bunch of people are saying this. Are you STUPID? If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?" Because it's exactly the same circumstance.
"I thought my little grandson would only be partaking in the wholesome activities of running over dogs, raping prostitutes, murdering police officers, and slinging crack cocaine to street whores. But instead his precious little mind has been corrupted by THE EVILS OF CONSENSUAL SEX!"
Fuck you, grandma. You are, plain and simply, an idiot.
Q: Why is it that people think a technology didn't exist until they come in contact with it???
Why should a reasonable person postulate the existence of things for which there is no evidence? Yeah, people who don't know about something are by some measure "surprised" when they encounter it. Point?
So if a small portion of people are already aware of a fact, you shouldn't tell the rest of us about it? What the hell sort of thinking is that? If the story hadn't been posted, a whole bunch of people would CONTINUE to be ignorant. Are you saying that's better?
So I thought, well, it might take some time to boil that water they mentioned, but it's a fire hazard as well? That doesn't sound like it's quite as cool as they were implying earlier
Well, yeah. Energy is energy. The reason the IR is filtered is because it doesn't add anything useful; you can't see it. Whereas visible light not only heats, but allows you to see as well. So the IR portion of the light is cut out, which cools the light while leaving its useful properties (the fact that it is visible) intact.
Yes, obviously light is energy, and energy will heat things up. It's still safer than a fiber that is carrying both visible *and* infrared radiation. Not that it's even possible -- I don't know of a high-density substance that can transmit both.
They're trying to let everyone else know what companies are doing behind their little white walls to lock you down.
Oh drop the bullshit. The corporations don't care. If there is a market for printers that lack counterfeit-protection, then some company somewhere will make them. If legislation is passed saying that companies must put such-and-such technology in their printers, then obviously they must do so.
The printer manufacturers are not taking part in some conspiracy to "lock you down." Jesus. They are trying to make money. What does HP care if somebody is making counterfeit bills? They only care because of government pressure.
So complain about the government "locking you down," but leave the printer manufacturers out of it.
In my experience homebrew is cheaper then store bought. IIRC, my first two batches of beer (made from kits and malt extract) paid for the initial outlay for the equipment includeing cheap plastic bottles. Beer kits easily taste better then commercial beer, and some microbrews. The only thing it costs is the time.
I'm baffled. I just added up the costs of doing a batch of beer (with the prices I usually pay for ingredients) and it does come out cheaper. Yet whenever I go to the homebrew store I invariably spend upwards of $60. I wonder what the hell I spend it all on...
There are other recurring costs besides ingredients, like sanitizer (StarSan is kind of pricey), Irish moss (if you use that), brewery wash, the inevitably broken hydrometer, etc etc...
And I'm still amortizing my all grain equipment costs;-)
The most glaring error is they don't specify the type of yeast. Is this an Ale or a Lager?
It's almost certainly not a lager. For one thing, the specified fermentation temperature is too high for a lager. It could be a steam beer, but the recipe doesn't look like a steam beer. The guarana adjunct would be unheard of in a lager. This has to be an ale. As for the strain to use, that's up to you. I'd go with a clean ale yeast to avoid a clash between fruity esters and guarana (which would probably be gross).
The recipe calls for armoma hops and bitter hops. The only difference between the two is the length of the boil. Bitter hops are boiled on the order of 30 minutes, Aroma hops are boiled on the order of 5 minutes. But no boil times are specified at all.
In the brewing world, unless otherwise specified, bittering hops go in for 60 minutes, flavor hops for 10-15 minutes, and aroma hops either directly before or concurrently with flameout. There's not much variation on this. The time isn't specified because "bittering" and "aroma" are specification enough.
The massive 85 liter batch size isn't terribly usefull either. Most homebrewers do 5-6 gallon batches.
85 liters is about 22 gallons. A large batch which would require special equipment, but nothing completely out of reach of a homebrewer. I've heard of beer being brewed in a 70 gallon water heater tank.
Having said all this, though, this recipe doesn't look very good, and I doubt that the creators are skillful brewers.
can a person under the legal drinking age purchase these ingrediants without anyone asking for ID?
Yes. But some LHBS (homebrew store) proprietors might turn you away.
I know that malt can be used for other things (although I doubt lager malt has other uses)
Malt itself is not used for much of anything except making beer and malt extract. Malt extract, on the other hand, is widely used for sweetening purposes, baking, making malt milkshakes, etc.
hops have properties that stop bacterial reaction (although I have never heard of their use for anything else)
Pretty much all uses of hops center on their aroma. The smell of fresh hops is other worldly.
Yeast, of course, is used for bread.
You would definitely NOT want to ferment beer with bread yeast, nor would you want to make bread with ale/lager yeast! Unless you like such oddities as bubblegum flavored bread.
At any rate... If you are thinking of brewing your own beer because you aren't old enough to buy it, I should warn you that this hobby is expensive. The cost of ingredients to brew your own beer is approximately the same as the cost of a good microbrew beer (upwards of $9 a six-pack in many places). Any attempts to cut corners to save cost will only result in a substance that resembles a cross between industrial waste and raw sewage.
Basically, I would recommend sticking to the time-honored method of underage alcohol appropriation: paying a bum a few bucks to buy you a case beer.
Yeah, it's pretty trivial with a one-time pad, but I was thinking of a more "standard," keyphrase based system. OTP keys are large enough that they must be written down/recorded on disk somewhere. So the critical key might be found despite your efforts to conceal it. But keyphrases are short enough to memorize, so that there is no physical trace of their existence.
We need a dual-key cryptosystem which allows the user to encrypt multiple messages, using multiple keys, and output the result as a single encrypted block.
Then, if somebody demands/coerces the key from you, you can simply provide one of the alternate keys, which decrypts the cipertext to reveal an innocuous message.
Obviously the system would have to be designed such that it would be impossible to detect how many messages are simultaneously encoded, and no way to determine any one key using knowledge of any of the other keys. But it might be mathematically possible.
Uhh, because the POTS line has an easily-determinable physical address. The phone company tends to know where their own lines go, right? But with VoIP, the user could theoretically be anywhere in the world, and so they have to provide the address specifically for 911 purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't imply that at all. I think that in this particular circumstance, face to face is better than IM. There are certain specific advantages.
You took that statement and leapt to the conclusion that I think all IM is pointless, when I provided absolutely no evidence to back such an assumption.
That's far too common these days. For example, my dislike of abortion has gotten me labeled anything from "Republican" to "Fundamentalist" when in fact I voted for John Kerry. Don't take a single statement or piece of evidence and use it to build a mental model. That sort of thinking is what leads to people killing each other.
I believe the intended meaning is that they have a greater enthusiasm for IM than older people have for IM. Not that they have more enthusiasm for IM over email. Poorly worded. And yes, the conclusion still doesn't follow.
Or you could, you know... Study together. There's this cool new messaging protocol called a PIECE OF PAPER, you should check it out. It even allows both of you to write down your calculus equations and you can SEE them, in real time!
How is that any different than email? If somebody sends you 50 emails during the night, then when you wake up, you have... 50 emails.
Do you think the nature of IM encourages people to send more numerous and less informational messages, as opposed to batching all their thoughts up into only a few larger messages?
Do you have an attention deficit or something? Life is nothing but a constant stream of interruptions. You filter it out. If the beeping of an IM window compels you to break away from what you're doing, there's something wrong with you.
Voice conversation are also a much more efficient form of communication, just measure in WPM. Most people can speak a lot faster than they can type.
Measuring communication efficiency in WPM? Claude Shannon must be turning in his grave.
I disagree. When I receive an IM, the computer goes "Beeep." When I receive an email, the computer goes "Beeep." What is the difference between these two circumstances? Nothing forces me to read the email right away, and nothing forces me to read the IM right away. It has a scroll bar, doesn't it?
The distinction is purely in your mind. Allowing IM to distract you is a sign of bad habits, not a flaw in IM.
Lucky thing you haven't been insulted, then.
There are quite a few people on and off my buddy list that really bug me when they try to talk. They have absolutely no reason whatsoever to talk to me other than the fact that they are bored.
Are these people close friends? If not, why are they on your buddy list? If so, you shouldn't take offense that they just want to chat. Without a little bit of bullshit every once in a while, we all turn into basement dwelling stiffs.
Teenagers still haven't nailed down how to quickly and efficiently grow relationships so they take an inordinate amount of time chit-chatting.
Do you think the grown ups have it figured out any better than you do? Naah... We're just less afraid, and more tolerant, of social error. Kids often think "I am saying the right thing, doing the right thing, wearing the right thing, in order for this person to like me?" Adults just jump in, committing all the same fuckups, but without worrying so much about it. That's the only difference.
It gets executed when you press ENTER, not when you click the button.
At 90 hz, that wave has a wavelength of over 2000 miles. I don't care WHAT the intensity is -- that isn't going to interact with a human body.
The point is, is that light (and color) are just one small part of the electromagnetic spectrum and that it would be logical to conclude that any part of the EM spectrum 'could' damage your eye's given the right circumstances.
It's not logical to conclude that whatsoever. Learn how waves work.
Another cool trick. Hold your cell phone directly next to a CRT monitor (an LCD won't work). Have somebody call you.
In contrast, attempting to hide problems and punishing those who reveal details only loses more trust, because a company that does it once has surely done it a hundred times, and we must now be concerned with potentially hundreds of other, undisclosed flaws without even so much as a thrown bone to help work around the problems.
Can't they see that they are doing exactly the OPPOSITE of what they should be doing?
Maybe you shouldn't expect to be able to contact them whenever and wherever you want.
I love the look of shock that comes over some people's faces when my cell phone rings, I look at the number and press "END." Just because I have a phone with me at all times doesn't mean I have to pick it up. "Oh my God, have you ever hung up on ME like that?" "Why yes, several times."
This constant state of connection with other people is actually a dehumanizing force, IMHO. All humans require solitude from time to time (even the most gregarious of us do), and without that, I think we are literally driving ourselves crazy.
I commend those brave enough to ignore their mailboxes!
At least with the phone it's easy to monitor the conversation -- just LISTEN.
Naah, I'll pass on that offer.
A bunch of people are saying this. Are you STUPID? If a parent attends an R-rated movie with their child, are they "contributing to deliquency?" Because it's exactly the same circumstance.
Fuck you, grandma. You are, plain and simply, an idiot.
Why should a reasonable person postulate the existence of things for which there is no evidence? Yeah, people who don't know about something are by some measure "surprised" when they encounter it. Point?
So if a small portion of people are already aware of a fact, you shouldn't tell the rest of us about it? What the hell sort of thinking is that? If the story hadn't been posted, a whole bunch of people would CONTINUE to be ignorant. Are you saying that's better?
Well, yeah. Energy is energy. The reason the IR is filtered is because it doesn't add anything useful; you can't see it. Whereas visible light not only heats, but allows you to see as well. So the IR portion of the light is cut out, which cools the light while leaving its useful properties (the fact that it is visible) intact.
Yes, obviously light is energy, and energy will heat things up. It's still safer than a fiber that is carrying both visible *and* infrared radiation. Not that it's even possible -- I don't know of a high-density substance that can transmit both.
Oh drop the bullshit. The corporations don't care. If there is a market for printers that lack counterfeit-protection, then some company somewhere will make them. If legislation is passed saying that companies must put such-and-such technology in their printers, then obviously they must do so.
The printer manufacturers are not taking part in some conspiracy to "lock you down." Jesus. They are trying to make money. What does HP care if somebody is making counterfeit bills? They only care because of government pressure.
So complain about the government "locking you down," but leave the printer manufacturers out of it.
I'm baffled. I just added up the costs of doing a batch of beer (with the prices I usually pay for ingredients) and it does come out cheaper. Yet whenever I go to the homebrew store I invariably spend upwards of $60. I wonder what the hell I spend it all on...
There are other recurring costs besides ingredients, like sanitizer (StarSan is kind of pricey), Irish moss (if you use that), brewery wash, the inevitably broken hydrometer, etc etc...
And I'm still amortizing my all grain equipment costs ;-)
It's almost certainly not a lager. For one thing, the specified fermentation temperature is too high for a lager. It could be a steam beer, but the recipe doesn't look like a steam beer. The guarana adjunct would be unheard of in a lager. This has to be an ale. As for the strain to use, that's up to you. I'd go with a clean ale yeast to avoid a clash between fruity esters and guarana (which would probably be gross).
The recipe calls for armoma hops and bitter hops. The only difference between the two is the length of the boil. Bitter hops are boiled on the order of 30 minutes, Aroma hops are boiled on the order of 5 minutes. But no boil times are specified at all.
In the brewing world, unless otherwise specified, bittering hops go in for 60 minutes, flavor hops for 10-15 minutes, and aroma hops either directly before or concurrently with flameout. There's not much variation on this. The time isn't specified because "bittering" and "aroma" are specification enough.
The massive 85 liter batch size isn't terribly usefull either. Most homebrewers do 5-6 gallon batches.
85 liters is about 22 gallons. A large batch which would require special equipment, but nothing completely out of reach of a homebrewer. I've heard of beer being brewed in a 70 gallon water heater tank.
Having said all this, though, this recipe doesn't look very good, and I doubt that the creators are skillful brewers.
Yes. But some LHBS (homebrew store) proprietors might turn you away.
I know that malt can be used for other things (although I doubt lager malt has other uses)
Malt itself is not used for much of anything except making beer and malt extract. Malt extract, on the other hand, is widely used for sweetening purposes, baking, making malt milkshakes, etc.
hops have properties that stop bacterial reaction (although I have never heard of their use for anything else)
Pretty much all uses of hops center on their aroma. The smell of fresh hops is other worldly.
Yeast, of course, is used for bread.
You would definitely NOT want to ferment beer with bread yeast, nor would you want to make bread with ale/lager yeast! Unless you like such oddities as bubblegum flavored bread.
At any rate... If you are thinking of brewing your own beer because you aren't old enough to buy it, I should warn you that this hobby is expensive. The cost of ingredients to brew your own beer is approximately the same as the cost of a good microbrew beer (upwards of $9 a six-pack in many places). Any attempts to cut corners to save cost will only result in a substance that resembles a cross between industrial waste and raw sewage.
Basically, I would recommend sticking to the time-honored method of underage alcohol appropriation: paying a bum a few bucks to buy you a case beer.
Yeah, it's pretty trivial with a one-time pad, but I was thinking of a more "standard," keyphrase based system. OTP keys are large enough that they must be written down/recorded on disk somewhere. So the critical key might be found despite your efforts to conceal it. But keyphrases are short enough to memorize, so that there is no physical trace of their existence.
Then, if somebody demands/coerces the key from you, you can simply provide one of the alternate keys, which decrypts the cipertext to reveal an innocuous message.
Obviously the system would have to be designed such that it would be impossible to detect how many messages are simultaneously encoded, and no way to determine any one key using knowledge of any of the other keys. But it might be mathematically possible.
Has any work been done on this?
Uhh, because the POTS line has an easily-determinable physical address. The phone company tends to know where their own lines go, right? But with VoIP, the user could theoretically be anywhere in the world, and so they have to provide the address specifically for 911 purposes.