Telling people about Bush's plan for insecure IDs and secret torture prisons isn't "Flamebait", unless you're some Bush stormtrooper with an "enemy combatant", an otherwise boring job in a dungeon, and some soldering irons with time to kill.
So what? All the reports came back "DON'T INVADE IRAQ" and "DON'T MESS WITH TERRY SCHIAVO'S ANIMATED CORPSE" and "THE LEVEES WILL BREAK" and "FOLEY IS A CHILD MOLESTER" and...
Our Republican government is visionary. They're not distracted by polls or mere facts from government agencies... Republicans know government doesn't work, and they'll prove it to you every chance they get.
So welcome our Republican overlords, and their shiny new RFID IDs. Why should identity theft be limited to a few thousand wired Americans each day, when Republicans can bring us a Pwnership society?
How is this scenario different from any coding "headshop" agency, including giant consultancies like IBM?
Except that IBM typically sells consultant hours fulltime (or more), across projects for years, so IBM can tell whether you're circumventing them to go work for the customer? And that IBM's customers typically rent different coders from IBM across projects for months or years, so they don't want to screw IBM and lose their supplier? And generally, which consumers of significant consulting resources want to piss off IBM, and its army of lawyers?
The coders I know who are placed by IBM get paid about half of the $1-200K per year their project pays IBM. So I don't think this has anything to do with how RAC is especially "unfair", except maybe they charge their customers too little, then have too little left to pay their coders. And RAC is a lot easier to scam^Wcircumvent than is IBM.
Or it was something else. You can't just infer the scenario you describe was the one. The one I described, collision/dragging interaction with the supernova mass, is just as plausible. The ambiguity is at the center of "what happened?", and there are many mutually exclusive and combinatory possiblities.
"The cluster of thousands of stars dispersed billions of years ago due to a lack of gravitational pull, Looney said"
How does that work? These stars are the gravitational pull, local "depressions" in the spacetime fabric that bend space around them towards themselves. Which is gravitational pull. Which must be overcome by some other force, either other gravitational pull from some other, larger/closer mass(es), or momentum from a kinetic event like a collision. Maybe the exploding supernova knocked them out of the area. Maybe, if it was big enough, its departing mass would have not only knocked the stars away, but pulled them away, overcoming their mutual gravitational attraction through greater departing, but still attractive, mass.
But something did. That's the biggest missing factor in this whole proposed scenario, in Robin Lloyd's Space.com story about it at least, that it needs to hold it together. Theories fall apart because of a lack of gravity, star clusters not so much.
The Bush administration's genius for Homeland Security and planning is replacing our passports with this untrustworthy "wireless scanning" tech starting next year.
What happens when someone changes your passport data without you're knowing, outside the country, and they send you to Guantanamo. Years of of "interviews" on an electric waterboard, while all you've got for the "interview consultants" is "I don't know what happened" - years everyone thinks you got kidnapped by terrorists, because your lawyer never heard from you.
They have no Internet, cellphones, hardly any lights at night. All those "modern" conveniences are important to science and engineering, especially science and engineering culture. Yet N Korea has apparently have nuclear bombs, one of the heights of tech achievement for any society.
Of course Koreans are as natively smart as any people. Maybe smarter: they have to outwit their totalitarian regime to survive. And they invented moveable type at least a half-century before Europe's vaunted Gutenberg. In fact, pigs appear to have begun domestication in the Korean peninsula before anywhere else (except somehow simultaneously directly across the Pacific, in Peru, but that's another story...). N Koreans are smart, but they're extremely poor and ill equipped. Yet they got the bomb.
It's clear that they got the bomb tech from elsewhere. From our "allies", Pakistan. Which sent nuke tech to at least N Korea, Libya and Iran, probably during Reagan/Bush, while the US let them all get away with it. OK, we straightened out Libya (for now - Kadaffy is like a Bugs Bunny villain), but the rest are some of our most dangerous enemies. And though they're cutting off the Internet (except maybe Pakistan) as fast as they can, they're developing these extreme scientific "achievements". Cutting into the only superiority the US has, apart from massive production (dependent on their even more massive oil exports, except from N Korea, which exports nothing but fear).
Maybe we're not so smart, despite our Internet and 24h electric lights.
It would be cool if we could cast rings from a material that was entirely a battery, then enamel it with an insulator, and mount LEDs on the surface, connected thru the insulator to the battery. Maybe two halves, separated by an inside insulator, and bridged by the LED. Maybe with a small airgap in the insulator, so squeezing the ring closed the circuit.
And how about some chips in there, too? A socketed LED, swapped out for a recharger? Swapped out for a photoreceptor for recharging under bright lights (or Sun + magnifying glass)? Dual-use LED/photoreceptor? Frickin' lasers?
Maybe this is how the Green Lantern's alien outfitters came up with the tech: reading Slashdot. Something about that color scheme looks familiar...
On the same line of thinking, but down a different path: what about Diebold releasing sourcecode which can be tampered, so when someone uncovers tampering after the election next month, Diebold can blame "random members of the public", and "leaked private sourcecode", rather than their own insiders hacking around with a purpose? Like leaving open the door to a crimescene, so the fingerprints of the original crook are muddled with others who can take the fall.
It's like the reverse of the old 1980s tactic of robbing computer bank accounts, and spreading the money around to a big pool of unexpecting recipients, including the thief. The thief gets less money, but can't be distinguished in a big pool of suspects they create - too big to bust them all, or probably even investigate them all.
Remember, these voterigger people are the computer branch of the 1980s Iran/Contra scam, which also looted $1.5 TRILLION (in 1980s dollars).
It is also possible that the mystery leaker released something that's not the real code, though the early expert analysis was that it's authentic.
It's also possible that the mystery leaker released something secure, but isn't happy about the "security through obscurity" model, and is hoping to blow it away before it does hide something bad.
What is clear is that the leaker wanted to make a big issue of the problems of secret eVoting sourcecode right before the election.
I applaud them. I just wish they'd released it to the general public, rather than trusting yet another "official expert", like the Baltimore Sun.
The waste of time has been my humoring you as if you had any integrity at all. When you made your original cryptic comment, I could assume that you were hiding behind it the extremely common bigotry that these days is afraid to reveal itself openly, but instead speaks in code. What else could you mean by hate speech prohibitions "usually go a certain way", when common knowledge is that bigots are the target of hate speech? But I gave you that benefit of the doubt repeatedly, while you insisted on childishly evading the question. To keep your meaning secret from me, simply a member of the general readership, while feeling satisfied that you'd sent your coded message to the people who also talk about hate speech prohibitions going "a certain way".
So now I've also offered to meet you in person, showing I have none of the need for anonymity that you projected onto me when chickening out of dealing with me. And you've chickened out of that.
You are a coward. You cannot stand being challenged, even generically, when you throw your bigot bait to your preferred audience. You are wrong about me in many ways revealed in this thread. You are wrong about yourself, too, when you lie about your agenda and your own courage of your own convictions - you have none. And I've been right about you all along.
At least you've spared me the creepy prospect of actually meeting you. You seem like a lost cause, unless you can figure out how to actually meet people who don't buy into your hidden premises and convoluted hiding schemes. I was willing to try, but now I'm glad I won't have to back up my own convictions, because you won't let me.
That's really interesting (and Insightful:), thanks. Maybe you could update the 4x4::Terminology Wikipedia page section. Because its description makes sense in the larger scope now that you clarified, but didn't discuss enough examples to understand the meaning of the two symbols in the combined "WxD" designation.
I never thought that the "4x4" designation for "all wheel drive" cars made any sense, either. It's 1x4, engine to wheels, as opposed to the standard 1x2+2 (1 engine driving both front or both rear wheels). 4x4 makes sense when each wheel has an independent engine, which is pretty rare. Though apparently the AMD designation really refers to "4 cores with 4 GPUs", which is not even the config (GPUs) they're marketing under this buzzword.
But then, they're inserting two "father packages" into a single "motherboard" socket, so they're not really clear on how this goes. They probably don't know how a 4x4 backseat works, under the stars, either.
I tend to agree with your take on voicerec. Except where you say that the cinema IVR works "reasonably well", though it chokes on your Scandinavian accent. Many Americans, for example, can't distinguish most Scandinavian accented English from a "British" accent, especially given the typical Scandinavian English fluency. But we can recognize the words clearly, usually considering it more "proper English" than even our own fairly colloquial dialect. Your IVR system can't even do that, within the narrow "cinema reservations/info phone" dictionary. I wouldn't describe that as "reasonably well", myself.
Though perhaps I just misunderstand your meaning;). Many Scandinavians are as polite as our local sterotypical Canadians, forgiving even machines when they seem to be trying hard:).
After years of frustration, I expect less of our existing machines, because I know how little return even the best voicerec people are getting. But I expect quite a lot from our future machines, because I want them to talk to most people as my proxy. I'm not nearly as polite or forgiving of most people speaking with me as I need my machine proxies to be, or vice versa.
If you could roll them up into a 300g 20"x1" rod, with "VCR" controls along the side and infrared+Bluetooth, that magic wand would inspire more respect and fear than mockery.
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur Clarke
Meet me somewhere, and you can explain it all to me. When will you be in New York City?
Because for hours, you hid behind your "no, you tell me", after you started the provocative talk. And refused to answer the simplest question, "no, what do you mean?" All behind your anonymous keyboard.
I've even explained the simple reasons I make my assumptions, based on the small but telling evidence you gave.
You're such a coward that you assume that I prefer the anonymity - just because you do.
You want to straighten me out, try it for a change. I'm ready to learn that I'm wrong about you. If you give even the tiniest reason why.
Postmodernism reduced to talking about postmodernism: self-reflexive solipsist monadism, a hall of mirrors.
FWIW, Modernism gave way half a century ago. Web 1.0 was already Postmodern. If <IMG SRC="http://images.slashdot.org/topics/topichumor. gif"> isn't Postmodern, then I'm not a series of letters on a computer screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderation -2
50% Flamebait
50% Offtopic
"Shut the fuck up!" is their UserID. And my post wasn't "Flamebait", it's a FLAME. This mod system is a joke.
Shut the fuck up!
What the fuck would you know about real life? I'm your only connection to it.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
Telling people about Bush's plan for insecure IDs and secret torture prisons isn't "Flamebait", unless you're some Bush stormtrooper with an "enemy combatant", an otherwise boring job in a dungeon, and some soldering irons with time to kill.
So what? All the reports came back "DON'T INVADE IRAQ" and "DON'T MESS WITH TERRY SCHIAVO'S ANIMATED CORPSE" and "THE LEVEES WILL BREAK" and "FOLEY IS A CHILD MOLESTER" and...
Our Republican government is visionary. They're not distracted by polls or mere facts from government agencies... Republicans know government doesn't work, and they'll prove it to you every chance they get.
So welcome our Republican overlords, and their shiny new RFID IDs. Why should identity theft be limited to a few thousand wired Americans each day, when Republicans can bring us a Pwnership society?
How is this scenario different from any coding "headshop" agency, including giant consultancies like IBM?
Except that IBM typically sells consultant hours fulltime (or more), across projects for years, so IBM can tell whether you're circumventing them to go work for the customer? And that IBM's customers typically rent different coders from IBM across projects for months or years, so they don't want to screw IBM and lose their supplier? And generally, which consumers of significant consulting resources want to piss off IBM, and its army of lawyers?
The coders I know who are placed by IBM get paid about half of the $1-200K per year their project pays IBM. So I don't think this has anything to do with how RAC is especially "unfair", except maybe they charge their customers too little, then have too little left to pay their coders. And RAC is a lot easier to scam^Wcircumvent than is IBM.
Or it was something else. You can't just infer the scenario you describe was the one. The one I described, collision/dragging interaction with the supernova mass, is just as plausible. The ambiguity is at the center of "what happened?", and there are many mutually exclusive and combinatory possiblities.
"The cluster of thousands of stars dispersed billions of years ago due to a lack of gravitational pull, Looney said"
How does that work? These stars are the gravitational pull, local "depressions" in the spacetime fabric that bend space around them towards themselves. Which is gravitational pull. Which must be overcome by some other force, either other gravitational pull from some other, larger/closer mass(es), or momentum from a kinetic event like a collision. Maybe the exploding supernova knocked them out of the area. Maybe, if it was big enough, its departing mass would have not only knocked the stars away, but pulled them away, overcoming their mutual gravitational attraction through greater departing, but still attractive, mass.
But something did. That's the biggest missing factor in this whole proposed scenario, in Robin Lloyd's Space.com story about it at least, that it needs to hold it together. Theories fall apart because of a lack of gravity, star clusters not so much.
Gee, since embryonic stemcells can cure Parkinson's Disease, but have problems. Doesn't that mean we should do a lot more research?
The Bush administration's genius for Homeland Security and planning is replacing our passports with this untrustworthy "wireless scanning" tech starting next year.
What happens when someone changes your passport data without you're knowing, outside the country, and they send you to Guantanamo. Years of of "interviews" on an electric waterboard, while all you've got for the "interview consultants" is "I don't know what happened" - years everyone thinks you got kidnapped by terrorists, because your lawyer never heard from you.
They have no Internet, cellphones, hardly any lights at night. All those "modern" conveniences are important to science and engineering, especially science and engineering culture. Yet N Korea has apparently have nuclear bombs, one of the heights of tech achievement for any society.
Of course Koreans are as natively smart as any people. Maybe smarter: they have to outwit their totalitarian regime to survive. And they invented moveable type at least a half-century before Europe's vaunted Gutenberg. In fact, pigs appear to have begun domestication in the Korean peninsula before anywhere else (except somehow simultaneously directly across the Pacific, in Peru, but that's another story...). N Koreans are smart, but they're extremely poor and ill equipped. Yet they got the bomb.
It's clear that they got the bomb tech from elsewhere. From our "allies", Pakistan. Which sent nuke tech to at least N Korea, Libya and Iran, probably during Reagan/Bush, while the US let them all get away with it. OK, we straightened out Libya (for now - Kadaffy is like a Bugs Bunny villain), but the rest are some of our most dangerous enemies. And though they're cutting off the Internet (except maybe Pakistan) as fast as they can, they're developing these extreme scientific "achievements". Cutting into the only superiority the US has, apart from massive production (dependent on their even more massive oil exports, except from N Korea, which exports nothing but fear).
Maybe we're not so smart, despite our Internet and 24h electric lights.
It would be cool if we could cast rings from a material that was entirely a battery, then enamel it with an insulator, and mount LEDs on the surface, connected thru the insulator to the battery. Maybe two halves, separated by an inside insulator, and bridged by the LED. Maybe with a small airgap in the insulator, so squeezing the ring closed the circuit.
And how about some chips in there, too? A socketed LED, swapped out for a recharger? Swapped out for a photoreceptor for recharging under bright lights (or Sun + magnifying glass)? Dual-use LED/photoreceptor? Frickin' lasers?
Maybe this is how the Green Lantern's alien outfitters came up with the tech: reading Slashdot. Something about that color scheme looks familiar...
Finally, speech recognition comes of age. This artificial intelligence recognizes 99.9% of incoming speech, and generates appropriate responses.
On the same line of thinking, but down a different path: what about Diebold releasing sourcecode which can be tampered, so when someone uncovers tampering after the election next month, Diebold can blame "random members of the public", and "leaked private sourcecode", rather than their own insiders hacking around with a purpose? Like leaving open the door to a crimescene, so the fingerprints of the original crook are muddled with others who can take the fall.
It's like the reverse of the old 1980s tactic of robbing computer bank accounts, and spreading the money around to a big pool of unexpecting recipients, including the thief. The thief gets less money, but can't be distinguished in a big pool of suspects they create - too big to bust them all, or probably even investigate them all.
Remember, these voterigger people are the computer branch of the 1980s Iran/Contra scam, which also looted $1.5 TRILLION (in 1980s dollars).
It is also possible that the mystery leaker released something that's not the real code, though the early expert analysis was that it's authentic.
It's also possible that the mystery leaker released something secure, but isn't happy about the "security through obscurity" model, and is hoping to blow it away before it does hide something bad.
What is clear is that the leaker wanted to make a big issue of the problems of secret eVoting sourcecode right before the election.
I applaud them. I just wish they'd released it to the general public, rather than trusting yet another "official expert", like the Baltimore Sun.
Oooh, now I really want to demonstrate that to Paris Hilton, rather than she on me.
The waste of time has been my humoring you as if you had any integrity at all. When you made your original cryptic comment, I could assume that you were hiding behind it the extremely common bigotry that these days is afraid to reveal itself openly, but instead speaks in code. What else could you mean by hate speech prohibitions "usually go a certain way", when common knowledge is that bigots are the target of hate speech? But I gave you that benefit of the doubt repeatedly, while you insisted on childishly evading the question. To keep your meaning secret from me, simply a member of the general readership, while feeling satisfied that you'd sent your coded message to the people who also talk about hate speech prohibitions going "a certain way".
So now I've also offered to meet you in person, showing I have none of the need for anonymity that you projected onto me when chickening out of dealing with me. And you've chickened out of that.
You are a coward. You cannot stand being challenged, even generically, when you throw your bigot bait to your preferred audience. You are wrong about me in many ways revealed in this thread. You are wrong about yourself, too, when you lie about your agenda and your own courage of your own convictions - you have none. And I've been right about you all along.
At least you've spared me the creepy prospect of actually meeting you. You seem like a lost cause, unless you can figure out how to actually meet people who don't buy into your hidden premises and convoluted hiding schemes. I was willing to try, but now I'm glad I won't have to back up my own convictions, because you won't let me.
That's really interesting (and Insightful :), thanks. Maybe you could update the 4x4::Terminology Wikipedia page section. Because its description makes sense in the larger scope now that you clarified, but didn't discuss enough examples to understand the meaning of the two symbols in the combined "WxD" designation.
What is "animal style"? Is that better than "the works"?
Would Paris Hilton please demonstrate an "animal style with the works, 4x4 down on the floor" to me?
I never thought that the "4x4" designation for "all wheel drive" cars made any sense, either. It's 1x4, engine to wheels, as opposed to the standard 1x2+2 (1 engine driving both front or both rear wheels). 4x4 makes sense when each wheel has an independent engine, which is pretty rare. Though apparently the AMD designation really refers to "4 cores with 4 GPUs", which is not even the config (GPUs) they're marketing under this buzzword.
But then, they're inserting two "father packages" into a single "motherboard" socket, so they're not really clear on how this goes. They probably don't know how a 4x4 backseat works, under the stars, either.
I tend to agree with your take on voicerec. Except where you say that the cinema IVR works "reasonably well", though it chokes on your Scandinavian accent. Many Americans, for example, can't distinguish most Scandinavian accented English from a "British" accent, especially given the typical Scandinavian English fluency. But we can recognize the words clearly, usually considering it more "proper English" than even our own fairly colloquial dialect. Your IVR system can't even do that, within the narrow "cinema reservations/info phone" dictionary. I wouldn't describe that as "reasonably well", myself.
;). Many Scandinavians are as polite as our local sterotypical Canadians, forgiving even machines when they seem to be trying hard :).
Though perhaps I just misunderstand your meaning
After years of frustration, I expect less of our existing machines, because I know how little return even the best voicerec people are getting. But I expect quite a lot from our future machines, because I want them to talk to most people as my proxy. I'm not nearly as polite or forgiving of most people speaking with me as I need my machine proxies to be, or vice versa.
If you could roll them up into a 300g 20"x1" rod, with "VCR" controls along the side and infrared+Bluetooth, that magic wand would inspire more respect and fear than mockery.
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur Clarke
With two CPU chips with 2 cores each, shouldn't that be called "2X2"?
Hey, with 2 microprocessors, can they still be called "Central Processing Units", when each is "offcenter" to the other?
Meet me somewhere, and you can explain it all to me. When will you be in New York City?
Because for hours, you hid behind your "no, you tell me", after you started the provocative talk. And refused to answer the simplest question, "no, what do you mean?" All behind your anonymous keyboard.
I've even explained the simple reasons I make my assumptions, based on the small but telling evidence you gave.
You're such a coward that you assume that I prefer the anonymity - just because you do.
You want to straighten me out, try it for a change. I'm ready to learn that I'm wrong about you. If you give even the tiniest reason why.
Postmodernism reduced to talking about postmodernism: self-reflexive solipsist monadism, a hall of mirrors.
. gif"> isn't Postmodern, then I'm not a series of letters on a computer screen.
FWIW, Modernism gave way half a century ago. Web 1.0 was already Postmodern. If <IMG SRC="http://images.slashdot.org/topics/topichumor
Merovign (557032) has made you their foe.
http://slashdot.org/~Merovign/
Your only response. What else could you say, bigot coward?