And even if you gave No to everything, they still try to convince you.
Even if you answer yes to fewer than zero or even more than 10 of the 10 questions, you are apparently still toxic. Xenu doesn't seem to like validating inputs on his website.
I remember being enamored with the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry as a child. They have changed very little about it in recent years, and it's now an unmitigated crapfest compared to other science oriented museums (Minneapolis, Boston, Seattle, etc.) I have been to recently. Maybe this exhibit won't suck?
Any magnetic card, or just any credit/debit/ATM card?
I'd imagine this is done so that they can record your card number, so that if you do go on to commit a crime, they'd know who you are. Of course, you could also have stolen somebody's card, but it even that's better than nothing.
Actually, the COMMON blocks in question were named. I call them stupid because it seems you have to include them in every subroutine that wants to use them. Also, as I understand it, the order of the variables within the block matters.
COMMON/STUFF/ FOO, BAR... COMMON/STUFF/ BAR, FOO
So BAR references the same memory as FOO now. (Sorry if syntax is wrong, I'm actively trying to forget the language, but you get the gist)
On another note, this package also has a subroutine to test whether the constant 0 really is equal to zero, and whether the constant 1 really is equal to one. There apparently was a bug in some compiler where if you did the wrong thing, you could actually redefine constants!
I spent several weeks last summer trying to make a simple modification to a molecular simulation package. This package is about as old as Fortran itself and the primary (basically only) programmer is not a computer scientist. It was hell. I just barely got to the point where I could add my 20 lines - in six weeks. And I'm not a bad coder.
Along the way, I discovered many horrible things about Fortran-77:
- No dynamic allocation - Mind-bendingly stupid global variable mechanism (COMMON blocks) - Back in the day, identifier names were limited to something like six characters. Tens of thousands of lines of code later, it's anybody's guess as to what a given variable or function does.
I feel terrible for you folks who had to deal with this horrible language back in the day.
The only saving grace is the (very nice) guy who wrote has his office down the hall from me, so I could pester him with questions. Otherwise, I would have been completely sunk.
Actually: I'd hate to be the guy that Google lists as the owner of the contact number. At least one other reverse lookup website returns a business address, not a home address.
There exist ISPs that are friendly to spam. For example, these fuckers seem like they'd be happy to be your spamming ISP. Their hosting prices are pretty high ($350/mo for 5GB transfer), which I'd imagine is because spam-friendly ISPs are rare.
(By the way, judging by a reverse lookup of the contact phone number, it seems like this thing is run by some guy out of his house in the Chicago suburbs. I'd hate to be a spammer and have my home address so easily available...)
Yes, the Mac is more expensive in terms of raw computing power. But, a lot of people consider Mac OS X to be worth a significant premium over Windows XP.
But, most importantly, what tasks can you, as a user, do with a $500 PC that you can't with the $500 Mac?
In that case, how about putting two things in the encrypted archive:
1) A file for which you own the copyright (easy to autogenerate) 2) Another encrypted archive, with some simple password, of the files you really want to share
This way, whoever wants to give you trouble would have to violate the DMCA to get at your file before they could know what file you really meant to share.
If this suggestion doesn't work, interesting things could come of its failure.
1) If copyright owners are allowed to decrypt the archive to see if it contains their file, then this could be turned against them. People could then claim that they were decrypting DMCA-protected works to check if they contained their property.
2) If the encryption method is deemed to be too weak to qualify as real encryption, then that's a shot against stupid protection schemes from big content providers.
I actually enjoyed this blatant advertisement of a game. The theme song is cheesy but catchy and the gameplay is actually fun. (In one of the minigames, you have to stand in for a broken router until the new shiny ass-kicking Cisco router gets there.) The things it teaches about routing and security are oversimplified but are close enough to the truth for the average person.
And I laughed out loud upon learning that the stated objective is to carry an email to its destination - for the benefit of a poor little Indian girl whose father can't work because he burned his hands while at his job at the match factory.
Disclaimer: I'm an MD/PhD student on NIH's MSTP training grant. All the research type stuff I've done in the past few years has been supported in one way or another by NIH.
I don't mind the idea of journals gathering a bunch of articles they like, getting permission from the authors, and selling the collections. For example, if I read an article in Nature, I can be reasonably sure that the article describes high-impact research. That is the value that prestigious journals add.
But what I don't like is the idea of assigning copyright to the journals, such that I can't give out free copies of my own work. The situation as it stands is that NIH socks a lot of money into a scientist's research, the scientist socks a lot of time and effort into it, and the resulting paper is given for free to an entity that charges money for it.
The solution to me is for the journals as well as NIH to be given a license to distribute the article, but requiring the original copyright to remain with the author, whose work it is in the first place. Certainly the scientist has more of a share in the work than the graphic designers and copy editors employed by the journal, and shouldn't have control of his or her work wrested away in order to prop up an outdated model of information dissemination.
If it were an inside job (which I doubt knowing the intellect of most Wal-Mart Workers. Do you want to be the squiggly?)
It's easy enough, then, to be a networking pro and get a job as a Walmart drone by just not putting your qualifications on the application? If one's new coworkers are then as stupid as you imply, running an inside job such as this doesn't sound too difficult.
First, props to MSNBC for continuing to dispel the idea that they are an MS shill.
Second, here's a quote from the article:
For instance, software installs aren't as easy to figure out as on a Windows or Mac computer. You must figure out on your own things like where to store the software and associated programs and how to handle permissions. These are not things most consumers want to do. Installs should be easy to find when completed. That's not always the case for new Linux users.
What is the writer referring to? RPMs know where to install themselves, and what permissions to set. And does SuSE not have a menu system a la the Debian menu, which inserts itself in the various desktop environments?
What's so bad about co-opting iPod's DRM scheme so you can sell music to its users? DRM is evil, remember? I thought we'd agreed on that. Real may suck unmentionable parts of farm animals, but I don't understand the moral objection to their reverse-engineering. What's wrong with with having two music vendors for the iPod? Competition is good, isn't it?
let me upload my voicemails to my computer for archiving
I can do this, if indirectly, with my Sony-Ericsson T610. Call voicemail, tell phone to record conversation, then Bluetooth file transfer the recording over to my box. The file is in some weird GSM-related codec, but Helix Player plays it.
Yes, this is Not Good Enough, but it's better than nothing, if you really need to archive those voicemails.
On the other hand, if you have a white collar job that allows you to sit in a padded adjustible height chair and browse the internet, you are probably already better off than the vast majority of humanity.
Just because someone else's life sucks worse than yours doesn't mean it's wrong to be unhappy with how things are in your own life, and want to change them for the better. If calculated slacking does that, then great.
This "sit down, shut up, and be thankful for what you have" attitude has always bothered me. Improving the circumstances of your existence is self-improvement, and self-improvement is, IMHO, compulsory. It doesn't matter whether you are Bill Gates or some homeless guy on the street. To not try to make the life that you've been given better is a crime.
On the other hand, you shouldn't be an ass while you're doing it. If slacking in your cushy white-collar job means some worthless paperwork won't be done on time, then great. If you are a doctor and you slack, may you rot in hell.
consider the concept processor, Niagra, an 8 core, multi-ghz, 3 instruction per clock, 4 way hyperthreading processor, undoubtedly with vector extensions...who needs a GPU for some shitty 32 bit, AGP-bottlenecked results when the CPU is obviously superior?
So you can use the CPU for things other than rasterizing scenes?
Slashdot Mirror
And even if you gave No to everything, they still try to convince you.
Even if you answer yes to fewer than zero or even more than 10 of the 10 questions, you are apparently still toxic. Xenu doesn't seem to like validating inputs on his website.
I remember being enamored with the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry as a child. They have changed very little about it in recent years, and it's now an unmitigated crapfest compared to other science oriented museums (Minneapolis, Boston, Seattle, etc.) I have been to recently. Maybe this exhibit won't suck?
Any magnetic card, or just any credit/debit/ATM card?
I'd imagine this is done so that they can record your card number, so that if you do go on to commit a crime, they'd know who you are. Of course, you could also have stolen somebody's card, but it even that's better than nothing.
Is anyone trying to run KDE on an x86 processor that doesn't support at least the i586 instruction set? Anyone at all?
So take a screenshot. On Mac OS X: Command-Shift-4, then draw a box around the region you want to save.
Actually, the COMMON blocks in question were named. I call them stupid because it seems you have to include them in every subroutine that wants to use them. Also, as I understand it, the order of the variables within the block matters.
/STUFF/ FOO, BAR ... /STUFF/ BAR, FOO
COMMON
COMMON
So BAR references the same memory as FOO now. (Sorry if syntax is wrong, I'm actively trying to forget the language, but you get the gist)
On another note, this package also has a subroutine to test whether the constant 0 really is equal to zero, and whether the constant 1 really is equal to one. There apparently was a bug in some compiler where if you did the wrong thing, you could actually redefine constants!
I spent several weeks last summer trying to make a simple modification to a molecular simulation package. This package is about as old as Fortran itself and the primary (basically only) programmer is not a computer scientist. It was hell. I just barely got to the point where I could add my 20 lines - in six weeks. And I'm not a bad coder.
Along the way, I discovered many horrible things about Fortran-77:
- No dynamic allocation
- Mind-bendingly stupid global variable mechanism (COMMON blocks)
- Back in the day, identifier names were limited to something like six characters. Tens of thousands of lines of code later, it's anybody's guess as to what a given variable or function does.
I feel terrible for you folks who had to deal with this horrible language back in the day.
The only saving grace is the (very nice) guy who wrote has his office down the hall from me, so I could pester him with questions. Otherwise, I would have been completely sunk.
Hm. Works for me, and brings back painful memories of Windows 3.x. I shuddered as I created a program group and put an item in it...
Actually: I'd hate to be the guy that Google lists as the owner of the contact number. At least one other reverse lookup website returns a business address, not a home address.
There exist ISPs that are friendly to spam. For example, these fuckers seem like they'd be happy to be your spamming ISP. Their hosting prices are pretty high ($350/mo for 5GB transfer), which I'd imagine is because spam-friendly ISPs are rare.
(By the way, judging by a reverse lookup of the contact phone number, it seems like this thing is run by some guy out of his house in the Chicago suburbs. I'd hate to be a spammer and have my home address so easily available...)
The new Mercedes CLS 55 AMG makes me want to crap. The new BMW M6 undoubtedly makes me want to crap everywhere.
This is called diarrhea. I don't think it's the cars that are causing it. Please see your physician.
Yes, the Mac is more expensive in terms of raw computing power. But, a lot of people consider Mac OS X to be worth a significant premium over Windows XP.
But, most importantly, what tasks can you, as a user, do with a $500 PC that you can't with the $500 Mac?
I also am not a lawyer.
In that case, how about putting two things in the encrypted archive:
1) A file for which you own the copyright (easy to autogenerate)
2) Another encrypted archive, with some simple password, of the files you really want to share
This way, whoever wants to give you trouble would have to violate the DMCA to get at your file before they could know what file you really meant to share.
If this suggestion doesn't work, interesting things could come of its failure.
1) If copyright owners are allowed to decrypt the archive to see if it contains their file, then this could be turned against them. People could then claim that they were decrypting DMCA-protected works to check if they contained their property.
2) If the encryption method is deemed to be too weak to qualify as real encryption, then that's a shot against stupid protection schemes from big content providers.
Thoughts?
Where are the error bars? The graphs are meaningless without them.
Ethanol added to gasoline is also made from corn, so it isn't necessary that everything an edible plant can be made into also be edible itself.
Also, hopefully corn discs will contribute to a reduction in farm subsidies by increasing the demand for corn.
I actually enjoyed this blatant advertisement of a game. The theme song is cheesy but catchy and the gameplay is actually fun. (In one of the minigames, you have to stand in for a broken router until the new shiny ass-kicking Cisco router gets there.) The things it teaches about routing and security are oversimplified but are close enough to the truth for the average person.
And I laughed out loud upon learning that the stated objective is to carry an email to its destination - for the benefit of a poor little Indian girl whose father can't work because he burned his hands while at his job at the match factory.
Disclaimer: I'm an MD/PhD student on NIH's MSTP training grant. All the research type stuff I've done in the past few years has been supported in one way or another by NIH.
I don't mind the idea of journals gathering a bunch of articles they like, getting permission from the authors, and selling the collections. For example, if I read an article in Nature, I can be reasonably sure that the article describes high-impact research. That is the value that prestigious journals add.
But what I don't like is the idea of assigning copyright to the journals, such that I can't give out free copies of my own work. The situation as it stands is that NIH socks a lot of money into a scientist's research, the scientist socks a lot of time and effort into it, and the resulting paper is given for free to an entity that charges money for it.
The solution to me is for the journals as well as NIH to be given a license to distribute the article, but requiring the original copyright to remain with the author, whose work it is in the first place. Certainly the scientist has more of a share in the work than the graphic designers and copy editors employed by the journal, and shouldn't have control of his or her work wrested away in order to prop up an outdated model of information dissemination.
But why would you?
For the intellectual challenge.
It's easy enough, then, to be a networking pro and get a job as a Walmart drone by just not putting your qualifications on the application? If one's new coworkers are then as stupid as you imply, running an inside job such as this doesn't sound too difficult.
Second, here's a quote from the article:
What is the writer referring to? RPMs know where to install themselves, and what permissions to set. And does SuSE not have a menu system a la the Debian menu, which inserts itself in the various desktop environments?
What's so bad about co-opting iPod's DRM scheme so you can sell music to its users? DRM is evil, remember? I thought we'd agreed on that. Real may suck unmentionable parts of farm animals, but I don't understand the moral objection to their reverse-engineering. What's wrong with with having two music vendors for the iPod? Competition is good, isn't it?
d008960fa6b395dca1c8362165bb31be
:)
You know you're a complete and utter nerd when you read this post, immediately understand it, and laugh out loud, as I just did
let me upload my voicemails to my computer for archiving
I can do this, if indirectly, with my Sony-Ericsson T610. Call voicemail, tell phone to record conversation, then Bluetooth file transfer the recording over to my box. The file is in some weird GSM-related codec, but Helix Player plays it.
Yes, this is Not Good Enough, but it's better than nothing, if you really need to archive those voicemails.
On the other hand, if you have a white collar job that allows you to sit in a padded adjustible height chair and browse the internet, you are probably already better off than the vast majority of humanity.
Just because someone else's life sucks worse than yours doesn't mean it's wrong to be unhappy with how things are in your own life, and want to change them for the better. If calculated slacking does that, then great.
This "sit down, shut up, and be thankful for what you have" attitude has always bothered me. Improving the circumstances of your existence is self-improvement, and self-improvement is, IMHO, compulsory. It doesn't matter whether you are Bill Gates or some homeless guy on the street. To not try to make the life that you've been given better is a crime.
On the other hand, you shouldn't be an ass while you're doing it. If slacking in your cushy white-collar job means some worthless paperwork won't be done on time, then great. If you are a doctor and you slack, may you rot in hell.
consider the concept processor, Niagra, an 8 core, multi-ghz, 3 instruction per clock, 4 way hyperthreading processor, undoubtedly with vector extensions...who needs a GPU for some shitty 32 bit, AGP-bottlenecked results when the CPU is obviously superior?
So you can use the CPU for things other than rasterizing scenes?