Considering that Hungarians actually refer to their country as "Magyarorszag," not "Hungary," I'd say it doesn't really fucking matter how you spell it, since it isn't even the actual name of their country.
And it still doesn't equate to not knowing what's going on in the world -- it just means somebody doesn't know how to spell. Duh.
The warrant says they're looking for "internal IP addresses" associated with the machines at Valve. Uh.... what the hell? If it's a private network, the chances of those IPs being the same as the IPs on some other private network are approximately... 100%.
This is like saying, "The murder victim's last name was Smith, and this guy has a reference to a Mr. Smith in his Rolodex. He must be guilty."
Sure, what the fuck ever. This is trivially defensible in court.
You could look at it another way, too. It could potentially make Mr. Rowe look extremely bad, because he created the site originally with the sole intent of making an offer to Microsoft -- in essence, he set out to profit from Microsoft's trademark.
Now, I'm sure that's not what really happened, but I think it would have been better if Rowe had not made an explicit offer. It could potentially be used against him later. Far better to simply do nothing, I think (except of course to call a lawyer, although I know that's somewhat difficult for a 17-year-old to afford).
It is working in my city for more than half a century so i guess it does work.
Unless your city is a hundred miles in diameter, then it hardly qualifies as "long distance" transmission underground:-) Of course people run wires underground in cities, so they don't have to look at power lines hanging everywhere. It doesn't work as a solution for transmitting power hundreds of miles, however.
A coaxial shield can't stop a coaxial magnetic field, unless it's made of something highly ferromagnetic, which would be impractical since it would corrode.
Large currents can't be efficiently sent over long distances underground. The ground contains moisture, and acts as both a giant capacitor plate, and a giant inductor.
When alternating current passes through a power line, it creates an alternating magnetic field which is concentric with the power line. This field induces AC currents to flow in any nearby conductor. If the cable is buried inside a conductor, such as moist earth, the amount of energy sapped from the cable becomes extremely large.
So basically, they don't bury powerlines underground because it doesn't work.
Long messages mean long waits, or more money. If I'm on a moderately expensive connection like a "$5 for fifteen minutes" wireless connection, while each individual long message isn't that big of a deal, but the combined effect can be.
In that case then, wouldn't you prefer the newest information to be at the TOP, so that once you've read and understood it you can cancel the rest of the transmission (which you only need if you've forgotten the context)? Putting the latest info at the bottom forces you to download a bunch of context that you might not even need.
What the hell are you talking about? That's like "giving birth, for the most part." It's fucking impossible. The judge tells you to do something, and you have two choices: do it, or go to jail.
If you find it that difficult to reconstruct a conversation when the only transformation that's been applied to it is "Reverse order of people's replies," then I think the mental exercise would do you good.
If it strains you to read a top-posted email, I hate to think how you handle a REAL problem...
Saying "top posting is bad" is like saying "EMACS is better than vi." A matter of opinion ONLY.
Bottom-posting is more useful to outsiders to the discussion, since they can follow the temporal flow of response and reply. However, top-posting is more convenient for those enagaging in the discussion, since they presumably already know who's saying what, and therefore it's better to have the most up-to-date information at the TOP. They can scroll down to get context if necessary.
Please, don't turn top-posting into yet ANOTHER religious issue... We don't need more of them.
The point of all of this is that Yellow 5 and ADHD may or may not be related, who cares. What does seem to be the case though is that a Yellow 5 allergy can manifest with the same symptoms as ADHD or Anxiety Disorder.
Maybe the Yellow 5 doesn't mimic ADHD itself, but greatly exarcerbates the symptoms of ADHD individuals? That is to say, maybe you do have ADHD, but it's mild unless promoted by Yellow 5?
It can't be the case that Yellow 5 definitively causes ADHD-like symptoms, because plenty of people are unaffected by it. Maybe knowing that this specific chemical might be a trigger could give scientists a new direction to look in to understand the mechanism behind ADHD.
I find myself constantly rewriting any code that I have complete control over. Code I write for my employer evolves continuously, but personal code for my own enjoyment is constantly getting axed and redone.
Having done this for years, I think I'm starting to figure out why I do it, and perhaps someday I'll be able to stop myself from doing it, so that I can actually release something:-)
I think the need to rewrite is more emotional than intellectual. As I work on an existing codebase, I notice the little bumps and warts on it, the little "tweaks and fixes" which make it work, and I find them ugly. For some reason, I place the highest aesthetic value on code that was written in one big, flowing session, where the entire structure was understood from the beginning, and the entire thing looks like it was born fully-formed from some supernatural source.
In an ever futile attempt to realize this goal, I constantly chuck out perfectly good code and redo it from scratch. I do this because I seek the emotional experience of those few times when I really do sit down and blast out something that's beautiful, elegant, and functional. Even if, practically, it's no better than before.
Open source programming is often described as scratching an itch. It should be immediately apparent why this correlates to extensive rewriting of code. Some problems are simply enjoyable to solve. The necessary thinking feels good. Just as we watch a good movie again and again even though we've got the plot memorized, some programmers want to rewrite the same functionality repeatedly because it just feels good.
To hell with practical considerations, like whether or not that's "bad" for the codebase. I program for pleasure.
He shoves the money in his apron, and reaches (usually with the same hand) for your food.
Let me guess, next, you'll proceed to eat that food, with the same hands you were just using to hold the $10 bill you gave to the vendor. Your fucking point?
Oh come off it. "Faith" indicates a hope or belief in something without concrete evidence to support it. Being religious requires faith, but the converse isn't true.
If we always required ourselves to have concrete evidence to support whatever we're about to do, we'd never do anything. Ambition always requires some degree of faith.
And even if the term "Spirit" really was religious in nature, what would it matter? Did religion and science suddenly become opposites while I was sleeping? Sagan wrote a story where a key plot point was the friction between science and religion, but some people seem to take that story far too seriously.
Well what are you standing around talking for? Hook us up!
I'd love to -- in fact, I've even got my own website registered for it -- neuralnw.com -- but development has stalled recently, and you'll find no trace of the program on the website. The filter, or at least a rudimentary version of it, is available if you know where to look for it. We published a paper at USENIX back in June covering this program. Since then, I haven't done much development, because frankly, there are better ways to spend my time than reading spam and trying to devise methods to filter it out.
However, comments such as yours are very encouraging. With enough positive encouragement I might be persuaded to take up the development once again:-) The code base hasn't changed since last February, but I do regularly re-train my filter.
One day, when it becomes automated and easier to use, I will release it as a serious product. I've got too much other shit on my plate right now, though.
The problem with this technique for foiling spam filters is that Bayesian filters only examine words which occur in the dictionary of commonly used words. A Bayesian filter is individually trained on your personal mail. If the "red herring" words in the spam don't occur in your personal dictionary, they will be ignored by the filter and have no impact on its decision.
For example, take the word "Byzantine." This is a very non-spammish word. However, if you've never received a legitimate email containing the word "Byzantine," your Bayesian filter will not have it in its dictionary, and the word will be ineffective in "tricking" the filter. The red herring words only have an impact if they are relevent to your actual mail sample. Since everybody's email communication is different (some of us are programmers, some of us are literature majors, etc.), this is a real sledgehammer approach to defeating the filters -- and it's extremely ineffective.
This technique just proves that spammers don't understand the theoretical underpinnings of current Bayesian anti-spam methods. Otherwise, they'd be using much more common words as red herrings, instead of these extremely rare, and therefore insignificant, words.
I personally use a spam filter of my own design which is based on information-theoretic and neural network techniques. It kicks the shit out of spam, even the messages that include these stupid red herring words. The spammers once again prove that they are morons, incapable of understanding how anti-spam technology actually works.
LEDs have the advantage of extremely fast action. You can pulse them tens of thousands of times per second, which is impossible with incandescent or flourescent lamps.
LEDs are already much more efficient than other lights, but couldn't we make them even more efficient by taking advantage of the human visual system? Pulse the lights at 1000 hertz with a 50% duty cycle, and I doubt any human eye could ever tell the difference. And, you'd save half the power.
Some people are able to perceive 60 hertz flicker, but 1000 hertz? Could this work?
just outlaw tinfoil under the DMCA.. problem solved
But since what we commonly refer to as "tin foil" is actually made of aluminum, you'd have a pretty good argument in court that the material you were using isn't what they banned:-)
Slashdot Mirror
And it still doesn't equate to not knowing what's going on in the world -- it just means somebody doesn't know how to spell. Duh.
This is like saying, "The murder victim's last name was Smith, and this guy has a reference to a Mr. Smith in his Rolodex. He must be guilty."
Sure, what the fuck ever. This is trivially defensible in court.
Isn't it the governing rule of everything? "That which survives, survives." Pretty tautological, don't you think?
Now, I'm sure that's not what really happened, but I think it would have been better if Rowe had not made an explicit offer. It could potentially be used against him later. Far better to simply do nothing, I think (except of course to call a lawyer, although I know that's somewhat difficult for a 17-year-old to afford).
Unless your city is a hundred miles in diameter, then it hardly qualifies as "long distance" transmission underground :-) Of course people run wires underground in cities, so they don't have to look at power lines hanging everywhere. It doesn't work as a solution for transmitting power hundreds of miles, however.
A coaxial shield can't stop a coaxial magnetic field, unless it's made of something highly ferromagnetic, which would be impractical since it would corrode.
When alternating current passes through a power line, it creates an alternating magnetic field which is concentric with the power line. This field induces AC currents to flow in any nearby conductor. If the cable is buried inside a conductor, such as moist earth, the amount of energy sapped from the cable becomes extremely large.
So basically, they don't bury powerlines underground because it doesn't work.
In that case then, wouldn't you prefer the newest information to be at the TOP, so that once you've read and understood it you can cancel the rest of the transmission (which you only need if you've forgotten the context)? Putting the latest info at the bottom forces you to download a bunch of context that you might not even need.
What the hell are you talking about? That's like "giving birth, for the most part." It's fucking impossible. The judge tells you to do something, and you have two choices: do it, or go to jail.
If it strains you to read a top-posted email, I hate to think how you handle a REAL problem...
Bottom-posting is more useful to outsiders to the discussion, since they can follow the temporal flow of response and reply. However, top-posting is more convenient for those enagaging in the discussion, since they presumably already know who's saying what, and therefore it's better to have the most up-to-date information at the TOP. They can scroll down to get context if necessary.
Please, don't turn top-posting into yet ANOTHER religious issue... We don't need more of them.
Maybe the Yellow 5 doesn't mimic ADHD itself, but greatly exarcerbates the symptoms of ADHD individuals? That is to say, maybe you do have ADHD, but it's mild unless promoted by Yellow 5?
It can't be the case that Yellow 5 definitively causes ADHD-like symptoms, because plenty of people are unaffected by it. Maybe knowing that this specific chemical might be a trigger could give scientists a new direction to look in to understand the mechanism behind ADHD.
Having done this for years, I think I'm starting to figure out why I do it, and perhaps someday I'll be able to stop myself from doing it, so that I can actually release something :-)
I think the need to rewrite is more emotional than intellectual. As I work on an existing codebase, I notice the little bumps and warts on it, the little "tweaks and fixes" which make it work, and I find them ugly. For some reason, I place the highest aesthetic value on code that was written in one big, flowing session, where the entire structure was understood from the beginning, and the entire thing looks like it was born fully-formed from some supernatural source.
In an ever futile attempt to realize this goal, I constantly chuck out perfectly good code and redo it from scratch. I do this because I seek the emotional experience of those few times when I really do sit down and blast out something that's beautiful, elegant, and functional. Even if, practically, it's no better than before.
Open source programming is often described as scratching an itch. It should be immediately apparent why this correlates to extensive rewriting of code. Some problems are simply enjoyable to solve. The necessary thinking feels good. Just as we watch a good movie again and again even though we've got the plot memorized, some programmers want to rewrite the same functionality repeatedly because it just feels good.
To hell with practical considerations, like whether or not that's "bad" for the codebase. I program for pleasure.
Why are we able to send spacecraft to Mars when we don't fully understand gravity?
Why are we able to build quantum computers when we really have no understanding of the actual nature of quantum particles?
Etc etc...
Let me guess, next, you'll proceed to eat that food, with the same hands you were just using to hold the $10 bill you gave to the vendor. Your fucking point?
If we always required ourselves to have concrete evidence to support whatever we're about to do, we'd never do anything. Ambition always requires some degree of faith.
And even if the term "Spirit" really was religious in nature, what would it matter? Did religion and science suddenly become opposites while I was sleeping? Sagan wrote a story where a key plot point was the friction between science and religion, but some people seem to take that story far too seriously.
"Hey look! The sun's coming out, it's starting to warm up! Why, it's so nice out I think I'll take off my jacket!"
Not if SCO succeeds in convincing a judge that they have rights over anything which even remotely looks like UNIX...
I'd love to -- in fact, I've even got my own website registered for it -- neuralnw.com -- but development has stalled recently, and you'll find no trace of the program on the website. The filter, or at least a rudimentary version of it, is available if you know where to look for it. We published a paper at USENIX back in June covering this program. Since then, I haven't done much development, because frankly, there are better ways to spend my time than reading spam and trying to devise methods to filter it out.
However, comments such as yours are very encouraging. With enough positive encouragement I might be persuaded to take up the development once again :-) The code base hasn't changed since last February, but I do regularly re-train my filter.
One day, when it becomes automated and easier to use, I will release it as a serious product. I've got too much other shit on my plate right now, though.
Thanks for your interest.
For example, take the word "Byzantine." This is a very non-spammish word. However, if you've never received a legitimate email containing the word "Byzantine," your Bayesian filter will not have it in its dictionary, and the word will be ineffective in "tricking" the filter. The red herring words only have an impact if they are relevent to your actual mail sample. Since everybody's email communication is different (some of us are programmers, some of us are literature majors, etc.), this is a real sledgehammer approach to defeating the filters -- and it's extremely ineffective.
This technique just proves that spammers don't understand the theoretical underpinnings of current Bayesian anti-spam methods. Otherwise, they'd be using much more common words as red herrings, instead of these extremely rare, and therefore insignificant, words.
I personally use a spam filter of my own design which is based on information-theoretic and neural network techniques. It kicks the shit out of spam, even the messages that include these stupid red herring words. The spammers once again prove that they are morons, incapable of understanding how anti-spam technology actually works.
Too bad it's just your sig.
Would they never? Do we know that for sure?
What you've just said scares the crap out of me.
Tell me again, which bus do I take from Seattle to Honolulu?
We can't even go everywhere in our own freaking country without getting on a plane, smartass.
With the resolution this panel has, your "quadrants" wouldn't have much more resolution than VGA Mode 13h ;-)
LEDs are already much more efficient than other lights, but couldn't we make them even more efficient by taking advantage of the human visual system? Pulse the lights at 1000 hertz with a 50% duty cycle, and I doubt any human eye could ever tell the difference. And, you'd save half the power.
Some people are able to perceive 60 hertz flicker, but 1000 hertz? Could this work?
But since what we commonly refer to as "tin foil" is actually made of aluminum, you'd have a pretty good argument in court that the material you were using isn't what they banned :-)