It takes about 60 seconds to teach somebody to secure their wireless router. The only remotely time consuming part is getting them to believe that it's actually a smart idea.
I think you've got those backwards.
OK, listen, if you leave this unlocked then anyone who finds it can download anything. They can download child porn, illegal movies, terrorist documents, whatever, and it's all linked to you.
Well that sounds bad, better lock it up.
Right. OK, so the first thing you do is open your browser and go to one nine two dot one six...
Wait, what's a browser?
Just double-click on the blue "E".
Got it. OK, I type in one nine two...
Wait, not in the Bing search bar, you type it into the address field.
But even serious hardcore shark experts like Van Sommeran can relish in the bold absurdity of a laser-equipped shark: “Everything tilts toward this being a disadvantage for the shark. Its laser might blind a pilot and piss off the FAA. Or North Korea might counter-attack it,” he said.
Microsoft grossly overestimated the cardinality of the intersection between the set of programming nerds and the set of music nerds.
I think you might be underestimating it. It turns out that the creative minds that enjoy programming also enjoy other creative things. I almost went to music school, actually. I wouldn't consider myself a "music nerd" even though I play guitar occasionally, but I certainly know what a C sharp is.
I talk about bands being sued for playing cover songs, and you send a link about ASCAP suing a bar over its jukebox. A bar and a jukebox is not a band. I do see a few examples of ASCAP suing bars for allowing bands to play "unlicensed" covers, but I don't see anyone suing the actual bands.
Also, apparently there's an all-female cover band called Lez Zeppelin.
It's not illegal for a band to cover a song, that is allowed under fair use. It may be illegal for the band to try and profit from that though, but again, I can't find instances of a band being sued over it.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines is an adage that states, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
Let's try that out with some current CNN headlines.
Gergen: Bin Laden death overplayed? "No." Cafferty: Do you fear another Bush? "No." How will the BCS be replaced? "No". Self-defense or murder? "No." Women: What's driving your vote? "No." UPDATE: Where in the world... ? "No." Is al Qaeda on its last legs? "Yes."
Get this geezer a copy of vlc and some Matroskas stat.
Given the fact that this is in the New York Times, what do you think the chances are that some savvy NY geeks will try to hook this guy up with a better system? They could spend only a few hundred or couple thousand of their own pooled bucks and get this guy a system to really crank it out. Set him up with an autoloader so it can burn while he sleeps, and a friendly GUI to pick what to burn. A small group of geeks pooling their resources and donating a little of their time could have a huge impact on a lot of deployed soldiers. And it would be nice to let this guy know that he's got friends other than the soldiers he's sending these to. You just need to do it without generating any publicity.
Steam is a glorified, locked down package manager.
Steam has 40+ million "active" accounts. How embarrassing would it be if the glorified, locked-down package manager had more unique/desktop users than any other package manager?
Possibly, for certain values of "open-source" and "non-commercial". The client is open-source, at least, but I doubt a purist would consider the platform open-source and non-commercial.
I haven't RTFA, but I'm pretty sure that Valve doesn't have plans to require that everyone using Linux also has Steam installed. So you can just stick with your open-source non-commercial DRM-free game platform. You have one of those, right?
Wikipedia also claims that conficker peaked at 7 million, and that Microsoft detected 1.7 million with their own tools. A UPI article in the references claims that most estimates were between 8 and 12 million, with one estimate at 15.
I can't find much for Nimda, other than that it took about 22 minutes to become the largest infection at that time, and Code Red looks like it never hit more than 400,000 machines. The ILOVEYOU virus is claimed to have hit 10% of internet-connected machines, one estimate (from a dead link cited in wiki) claimed 50 million infections. That was in 2000 though, so I'm not sure what percentage of computers were online, but that may be the largest infection by percent to date.
So on this page (you know, the article), down in the table labeled "Greyscales and Computer monitor power consumption", where it clearly shows the LCD using 40W on a white screen and 35.5W on a black screen, you're saying that's not true, correct? Is their data wrong, is their LCD monitor faulty, or is everyone claiming that brightness has zero effect on an LCD power draw mistaken?
I'm having a real hard time figuring out why all these (smart?) people on Slashdot are claiming that brightness has no effect on power consumption in an LCD when we have hard data that very clearly and obviously shows that this is not the case. Are people just jumping in to comment on their profound knowledge of backlights without bothering to even glance at the data that they're commenting about? Don't get me wrong, a theoretical knowledge of how LCD monitors work is great, but we have an article here with very specific data which shows a very specific conclusion to a question that has been discussed about for a while. Why is everyone just ignoring the data now?
The question has been answered - yes, brightness has a fairly significant effect on CRTs, up to 25%. And yes, it also has an effect on LCDs, but only by about 10% (and the LCD is already using about half the power of the CRT anyway). So yeah, LCDs are more efficient than CRTs, and brightness does in fact effect power consumption in both CRT and LCD monitors. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
What about the power change with the LCD, even though it's less of a change than with the CRT? Is that relevant? Is the takeaway of this article something to do with the popularity of CRTs or something to do with the relationship between brightness and power draw in CRTs and LCDs?
It's a zip archive of XML files with a different extension. Is it the zip format or the XML format that you have a problem with? It's not even a weird zip format, 7zip can open any docx or xlsx file and show you the folders and XML files that it contains. You can even rename it to a.zip file and even Windows XP will show it correctly with the default zip handling in explorer.
Where's the monopoly included in all of that? It almost sounds like they're using well-defined formats to aid with compatibility. LibreOffice has zero problems reading or writing docx files.
Unless the screen is OLED, the answer to "does dark sites save power?" is a flat out NO.
How you do figure, where's your data? Their data clearly shows that a CRT displaying all white uses 85W, and the same monitor displaying all black uses 63W, which sounds to me like it's using 25% less power to display the black screen. For an LCD the difference is only about 10%. The grayscale comparisons clearly show a relationship between darkness and power draw.
How's this food for thought: There are plenty in the scientific community that not only believe in God, but also think this kind of crap is the stupidest thing they've ever heard?
Just out of curiosity, why aren't those people making their voices heard?
That response is relative to each person, so it can't be objectively tested.
Leave people out of it. You can test the chemical composition with a gas chromatograph and, if you know what chemicals elicit a "sweet" response from people (which we do), then you can determine which of the two would be found "sweeter" without even smelling it.
The fact is that it is testable, you can determine the composition of it in an objective way and you can use that to say how "normal" people, or a certain person who maybe has a taste disorder or whatever, will perceive it. You can do all of that, objectively, without ever smelling it yourself. The fact that some people may have a disorder that causes them to taste differently doesn't change the fact that you can analyze and determine how a certain smell or taste will be perceived given its chemical composition.
The response to his questions was pretty telling also. The official agreed with the science, that 3 of the answers were testable, but he said that students who learned about mineral hardness couldn't be expected to realize that applied to other materials, and that students couldn't be expected to realize that you can use a chromatograph (or anything else) to test the qualities of a smell.
The obvious solution is to choose other properties that are actually non-testable instead of list testable properties and assume the students won't know, but they refused to change those responses.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes about 60 seconds to teach somebody to secure their wireless router. The only remotely time consuming part is getting them to believe that it's actually a smart idea.
I think you've got those backwards.
OK, listen, if you leave this unlocked then anyone who finds it can download anything. They can download child porn, illegal movies, terrorist documents, whatever, and it's all linked to you.
Well that sounds bad, better lock it up.
Right. OK, so the first thing you do is open your browser and go to one nine two dot one six ...
Wait, what's a browser?
Just double-click on the blue "E".
Got it. OK, I type in one nine two ...
Wait, not in the Bing search bar, you type it into the address field.
What's the address field?
We're about to spend $1 billion dollars to expand the Vikings stadium from 65,000 to 65,500. I'd call that brain damaged.
If they're already that close, they should really try to make capacity 65,536. They can be the first 16-bit stadium!
I like this quote:
But even serious hardcore shark experts like Van Sommeran can relish in the bold absurdity of a laser-equipped shark: “Everything tilts toward this being a disadvantage for the shark. Its laser might blind a pilot and piss off the FAA. Or North Korea might counter-attack it,” he said.
Microsoft grossly overestimated the cardinality of the intersection between the set of programming nerds and the set of music nerds.
I think you might be underestimating it. It turns out that the creative minds that enjoy programming also enjoy other creative things. I almost went to music school, actually. I wouldn't consider myself a "music nerd" even though I play guitar occasionally, but I certainly know what a C sharp is.
I talk about bands being sued for playing cover songs, and you send a link about ASCAP suing a bar over its jukebox. A bar and a jukebox is not a band. I do see a few examples of ASCAP suing bars for allowing bands to play "unlicensed" covers, but I don't see anyone suing the actual bands.
Also, apparently there's an all-female cover band called Lez Zeppelin.
It's not illegal for a band to cover a song, that is allowed under fair use. It may be illegal for the band to try and profit from that though, but again, I can't find instances of a band being sued over it.
How do you figure? I've never seen nor heard of any band getting sued for performing a cover of any song.
Well done, sir.
Damn, I stopped too soon.
What is male menopause? "Nooooo!"
Is it time for a new joint? "No.. actually yeah, if you've got one."
Betteridge's Law of Headlines is an adage that states, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
Let's try that out with some current CNN headlines.
Gergen: Bin Laden death overplayed? "No." ... ? "No."
Cafferty: Do you fear another Bush? "No."
How will the BCS be replaced? "No".
Self-defense or murder? "No."
Women: What's driving your vote? "No."
UPDATE: Where in the world
Is al Qaeda on its last legs? "Yes."
Get this geezer a copy of vlc and some Matroskas stat.
Given the fact that this is in the New York Times, what do you think the chances are that some savvy NY geeks will try to hook this guy up with a better system? They could spend only a few hundred or couple thousand of their own pooled bucks and get this guy a system to really crank it out. Set him up with an autoloader so it can burn while he sleeps, and a friendly GUI to pick what to burn. A small group of geeks pooling their resources and donating a little of their time could have a huge impact on a lot of deployed soldiers. And it would be nice to let this guy know that he's got friends other than the soldiers he's sending these to. You just need to do it without generating any publicity.
Get to it!
Steam is a glorified, locked down package manager.
Steam has 40+ million "active" accounts. How embarrassing would it be if the glorified, locked-down package manager had more unique/desktop users than any other package manager?
Possibly, for certain values of "open-source" and "non-commercial". The client is open-source, at least, but I doubt a purist would consider the platform open-source and non-commercial.
I haven't RTFA, but I'm pretty sure that Valve doesn't have plans to require that everyone using Linux also has Steam installed. So you can just stick with your open-source non-commercial DRM-free game platform. You have one of those, right?
If you knew you had only 12 hours to live, what would you do?
Brew a pot of tea.
After that, perhaps call and tell people how I really felt about them.
But perhaps I'd make myself a good heart and liver pie instead.
Is there any limit to British ambition?
Wikipedia also claims that conficker peaked at 7 million, and that Microsoft detected 1.7 million with their own tools. A UPI article in the references claims that most estimates were between 8 and 12 million, with one estimate at 15.
I can't find much for Nimda, other than that it took about 22 minutes to become the largest infection at that time, and Code Red looks like it never hit more than 400,000 machines. The ILOVEYOU virus is claimed to have hit 10% of internet-connected machines, one estimate (from a dead link cited in wiki) claimed 50 million infections. That was in 2000 though, so I'm not sure what percentage of computers were online, but that may be the largest infection by percent to date.
Just to clarify, we're moving the goalposts from Word/Writer to Visio, correct?
This is ONLY true for CRT screens.
So on this page (you know, the article), down in the table labeled "Greyscales and Computer monitor power consumption", where it clearly shows the LCD using 40W on a white screen and 35.5W on a black screen, you're saying that's not true, correct? Is their data wrong, is their LCD monitor faulty, or is everyone claiming that brightness has zero effect on an LCD power draw mistaken?
I'm having a real hard time figuring out why all these (smart?) people on Slashdot are claiming that brightness has no effect on power consumption in an LCD when we have hard data that very clearly and obviously shows that this is not the case. Are people just jumping in to comment on their profound knowledge of backlights without bothering to even glance at the data that they're commenting about? Don't get me wrong, a theoretical knowledge of how LCD monitors work is great, but we have an article here with very specific data which shows a very specific conclusion to a question that has been discussed about for a while. Why is everyone just ignoring the data now?
The question has been answered - yes, brightness has a fairly significant effect on CRTs, up to 25%. And yes, it also has an effect on LCDs, but only by about 10% (and the LCD is already using about half the power of the CRT anyway). So yeah, LCDs are more efficient than CRTs, and brightness does in fact effect power consumption in both CRT and LCD monitors. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
What about the power change with the LCD, even though it's less of a change than with the CRT? Is that relevant? Is the takeaway of this article something to do with the popularity of CRTs or something to do with the relationship between brightness and power draw in CRTs and LCDs?
In the file format.
It's a zip archive of XML files with a different extension. Is it the zip format or the XML format that you have a problem with? It's not even a weird zip format, 7zip can open any docx or xlsx file and show you the folders and XML files that it contains. You can even rename it to a .zip file and even Windows XP will show it correctly with the default zip handling in explorer.
Where's the monopoly included in all of that? It almost sounds like they're using well-defined formats to aid with compatibility. LibreOffice has zero problems reading or writing docx files.
Unless the screen is OLED, the answer to "does dark sites save power?" is a flat out NO.
How you do figure, where's your data? Their data clearly shows that a CRT displaying all white uses 85W, and the same monitor displaying all black uses 63W, which sounds to me like it's using 25% less power to display the black screen. For an LCD the difference is only about 10%. The grayscale comparisons clearly show a relationship between darkness and power draw.
The paper said that both girls and boys were roughly the same, averaging at sending about 110 messages per day.
Sure, but why would the rational religious people not care that the irrational religious people are speaking for them?
How's this food for thought: There are plenty in the scientific community that not only believe in God, but also think this kind of crap is the stupidest thing they've ever heard?
Just out of curiosity, why aren't those people making their voices heard?
That response is relative to each person, so it can't be objectively tested.
Leave people out of it. You can test the chemical composition with a gas chromatograph and, if you know what chemicals elicit a "sweet" response from people (which we do), then you can determine which of the two would be found "sweeter" without even smelling it.
The fact is that it is testable, you can determine the composition of it in an objective way and you can use that to say how "normal" people, or a certain person who maybe has a taste disorder or whatever, will perceive it. You can do all of that, objectively, without ever smelling it yourself. The fact that some people may have a disorder that causes them to taste differently doesn't change the fact that you can analyze and determine how a certain smell or taste will be perceived given its chemical composition.
The response to his questions was pretty telling also. The official agreed with the science, that 3 of the answers were testable, but he said that students who learned about mineral hardness couldn't be expected to realize that applied to other materials, and that students couldn't be expected to realize that you can use a chromatograph (or anything else) to test the qualities of a smell.
The obvious solution is to choose other properties that are actually non-testable instead of list testable properties and assume the students won't know, but they refused to change those responses.