Seriously, doesn't hollywood have some good movie ideas?
Disney's most successful non-Pixar, non-Miramax movie in the last 20 years was based on a theme park ride. A ride!
Previews for "The Mask 2" feature yet another CGI dancing baby.
They just released yet another gross-out romantic comedy starring Ben Stiller, on the heels of yet another sentimental romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant.
So, yes. Hollywood is out of ideas.
Special psychic advanced review: Both of the movies mentioned in this article will suck.
FACT: 99% of users are not working from a static IP, but from one of a pool of IP addresses provided by their ISP. The information is nearly useless from a law-enforcement perspective.
Why did you go through such labors to claim that you were not saying that it's "phoning home" when you now say you believe that it is?
Ah... I get it. You're trolling. IHBT, IHL. Never mind.
Things that shape human thought are ultimatly more important than things.
It depends on your persective and what values you hold. To many, things which shape human lives are more important that things which shape human thought. Philosophy and spirituality are regarded by many of the same "geeks" you were lauding earlier to be empty exercises of narcissism. Given a choice between curing cancer and finding out whether there are other worlds, many would chose to prevent the deaths of people over advancing our understanding, and it's neither your place or mine to say that they are right or wrong.
Taking out Osama, along with his henchmen, hinders the organization of terror and silences an effective propagandist of hatred. In short, it could ultimately mean saving thousands of human lives. It's worth doing. IMHO, exploration of space is also worth doing, but I suspect that what we will find out there is not ultimate enlightenment to launch the dawn of a New Age, but just rocks and stuff.
You know what? Even without looking at the code, I can also tell you that HP printers will not do your taxes for you, or shovel your driveway. I'm just smart that way. Your comments, which show that you completely missed my point, have become beyond tedious. STFU.
Faith is, by definition, a belief in something where there is insufficient evidence for proof.
Of course, as our old friend Rene once pointed out, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond one's own existance. "Cogito ergo sum." All else is faith.
Finding life would challenge theology, and put some serious stress on the creationists, which in my opinion is a good thing.
What challenge would it present to theology?
Monotheist religion says; God created Earth, Mars, and any life found in either place.
If anything, life on Mars would be a mighty challenge to the belief that life evolved on Earth by pure chance, since the conditions for such an event are believed to be unlikely enough that seeing it happen in two planets within the same star system would be a mind-boggling coincedence, to the point that many would insist that life in our solar system must have been seeded by Some Divine Somebody-Or-Other.
As for your short-term/long-term dogma... Short term stuff impacts the lives of actual people right now. Long term may or may not impact the lives of people who may or may not exist in the future. During the Dark Ages, a lot of what the Greeks and Romans knew was lost (we will never know exactly what the Greek musical scales sounded like, for example.) 500 years from now, everything we have currently learned could just as easilly be lost after the fall of our current civilization.
We've enjoyed the benifits of a lot of long-term stuff the Germans did in WWII (neither the Russian nor US space programs would have gotten as far were it not for the German V2 rocket), but that doesn't mean that the "short term" impact of killing Hitler wasn't one of the most important events of the 20th Century.
The existence of life outside of Earth is as huge a revelation to religion as the debunking of the Earth-centric model of the solar system.
Then it only is a "huge revelation" to religions which hold Earth-centric models to be sacred. Most don't.
The spiritual ramifications are enormous, but not often talked about.
Actually, the spritual ramifications seem to be talked about a lot more than is warranted, as they are rather insignifigant.
If there is life on Mars, then suddenly Darwinism takes a huge leap and Biblical creationism, at least the most common interpretations, takes a step back.
Au contraire. The creationists would simply believe that God created the martians, too. No challenge to creationism can be found in the presense of life off Earth.
Then if there is/was life on Mars, then why not on other planets, which have been found to be far more common than we thought. And if there is life all over the universe, then it isn't too far a leap to say that some of it has evolved into sentient life forms. And now we have to ask if other intelligent, self-aware creatures have a soul. Do they have an afterlife?
If you believe that we do, why would they not? If you believe that we don't, why would they?
Sorry, but life, or lack thereof, on Mars or any other planet we can reach out to has zero impact on the debate. There's much more solid evidence pointing to the "Descent of Man," as Darwin called it, right here on Earth, and those who reject evolution have not been swayed by any of it, so what makes you think finding Martian life is going to re-frame the debate at all?
D'oh! Not only did I name the wrong school, but I spelled it incorrectly. That's what I get for quickly firing off a comment while files are loading at work. Oh well... my points are the same.
What the Prinston study fails to address is that God is not a vending machine. The purpose of prayer is to transform the heart of the petitioner, not to obligate the deity to act accordingly. As an insightful pastor once said, "God always answers prayers, but the answer is not always yes. Sometimes the answer is no, and sometimes the answer is not yet."
As for the question of life elsewhere in the Universe. I subscribe to the notion that if there was other life, and contact was a tangible possibility, odds are that we would have been contacted by now. Maybe there is, but I doubt that we'll ever see it. The universe is really sparse, and c is a constant.
I both comprehended and answered that question already. Perhaps you missed it. I have not disassembled the driver or even glimpsed at the code, but what I did do is RTFA, and found that the post's assumption that the article states there's a "phone home" feature is incorrect. The article makes no such assertion, nor does anybody else who's examined the behavior of these printers. Your statement is just silly.
I merely pointed out that when YOU claimed "There is no "phone home" feature" you're speaking entirely from a position of ignorance.
Actually, you are. For all you know, I work for HP.
You accuse me of having a comprehension problem, but you are clearly not grasping my point. It's perfectly simple: The original post made an entirely unfounded claim that there was a "phone home" feature, based on a mis-reading of some wild "what if" speculation in the article. It's not there, the article isn't even claiming it's there, and that's all I was pointing out to the poster.
What's more, if you actually read the post you were responding to, the author never stated that there was any "phone home" feature.
That's funny, because I could have sworn he said:
it is establishing the principle that it is ok for the government to require programmers to put crime detection / phone home features in their software.
Since it is not requiring any such thing, it is not establishing any such principle. The original post is simply flat-out wrong (and wildly paranoid).
Please give the basis for your statement. Have you disassembled the driver and checked out all the code? If not, you're in the same boat as someone who's claiming there is a "phone home" feature.
No, but unlike you, I did RTFA. Nobody in the article makes such a claim. There's only a "what if this happens in the future?" speculation.
3. Will future versions of this technology, "phone home" to the rulesforuse.org Web site with details about a violation of the currency copying rules? It would be very easy to include an email address, name of the image file, software version number, etc. embedded in a URL to the rulesforuse.org when a violation has been detected.
The problem isn't that this is stopping people from printing images of currency, but that it is establishing the principle that it is ok for the government to require programmers to put crime detection / phone home features in their software.
No, it's not. There is no "phone home" feature triggered by an attempt to copy money on these printers. That was just random speculation by the loonie who submitted this story to Bugtraq.
The "right" being infringed here is very close to speech.
Except that it's not. There isn't even a statement by HP which states they were compelled to insert this blocking feature by the government. Odds are, they put it there themselves so they could tell the feds in all confidence, "nope, you can't use these printers for counterfeiting."
You would consider it a big deal if the government required you to get their approval before publishing an article you had written, wouldn't you?
he only way weightlifting is not an aerobic exercise is if you're doing it wrong. But then you're probably one of those pussies that use less than 300 lbs for bench and deadlift reps.
Um... You do know that "aerobic" means a low-impact cardiovascular workout with light weights or no weights to raise your heart and breath rates, right?
Do these people really think that this is going to have a substantial impact upon the overall fitness level of gamers everywhere? It's not. You want to lose some weight? You stop eating like a fatass and you go outside.
Hey, dumbass! This isn't being sold as a weight loss product. It's an alternative to the boredom of doing bicep curls to build arm strength.
Weight training != aerobic workout.
(However, the more muscle mass you have, the more you benefit from your aerobic exercise, so something like this doesn't hurt if you are doing it in addition to your usual workout.)
Re:To Painful
on
Paranoia
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't worry. You're probably not missing much by not reading this. 20 years in prison for stealing steak and lobster from an office via fraud? Sounds pretty hackneyed to me. They don't even lock up hackers who steal credit card numbers that long.
It isn't a product or service, it's an architecture it's a way of connecting machines together in a way that they can off load some of their processing, or seemlessly access processes (for example a print house to print 5,000 customer notification letters).
So what you are saying is:
Step 1. Connect all computers in an organic load-sharing cluster. Step 2. ????
Step... ah, fuck it, it's too easy.
It isn't a product or service, it's an architecture it's a way of connecting machines together in a way that they can off load some of their processing, or seemlessly access processes (for example a print house to print 5,000 customer notification letters).
Welcome to Earth. You are clearly new here, so I should probably point out that "EVERY ONE" never agrees on anything. We've got people who still insist the world is flat, others who think hip-hop is worth paying money to listen to, and even some real nuts who think Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA. Global consensus just doesn't happen here.
I actually blame Kevin Smith for the "Empire was better" snobbishness that seems to dominate geek circles these days. I honestly never once heard anybody espouse this view prior to Clerks coming out, and after it became a hit, suddenly nerds everywhere consider themselves too good to admit to liking anything about Jedi.
P.S. The Ewok "Yub nub" song was cool, and I don't care who thinks I'm wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Disney's most successful non-Pixar, non-Miramax movie in the last 20 years was based on a theme park ride. A ride!
Previews for "The Mask 2" feature yet another CGI dancing baby.
They just released yet another gross-out romantic comedy starring Ben Stiller, on the heels of yet another sentimental romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant.
So, yes. Hollywood is out of ideas.
Special psychic advanced review: Both of the movies mentioned in this article will suck.
With any luck, so will Osama when our troops have him surrounded.
Why did you go through such labors to claim that you were not saying that it's "phoning home" when you now say you believe that it is?
Ah... I get it. You're trolling. IHBT, IHL. Never mind.
"Frelling" == Old and busted.
"Goram" == New hotness.
Firefly forever be-otch!
(A Firefly vs. Farscape cuss-word-substitute flame war... possibly the only thing nerdier than vi vs. emacs. What fun!)
It depends on your persective and what values you hold. To many, things which shape human lives are more important that things which shape human thought. Philosophy and spirituality are regarded by many of the same "geeks" you were lauding earlier to be empty exercises of narcissism. Given a choice between curing cancer and finding out whether there are other worlds, many would chose to prevent the deaths of people over advancing our understanding, and it's neither your place or mine to say that they are right or wrong.
Taking out Osama, along with his henchmen, hinders the organization of terror and silences an effective propagandist of hatred. In short, it could ultimately mean saving thousands of human lives. It's worth doing. IMHO, exploration of space is also worth doing, but I suspect that what we will find out there is not ultimate enlightenment to launch the dawn of a New Age, but just rocks and stuff.
You know what? Even without looking at the code, I can also tell you that HP printers will not do your taxes for you, or shovel your driveway. I'm just smart that way. Your comments, which show that you completely missed my point, have become beyond tedious. STFU.
Of course, as our old friend Rene once pointed out, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond one's own existance. "Cogito ergo sum." All else is faith.
What challenge would it present to theology?
Monotheist religion says; God created Earth, Mars, and any life found in either place.
If anything, life on Mars would be a mighty challenge to the belief that life evolved on Earth by pure chance, since the conditions for such an event are believed to be unlikely enough that seeing it happen in two planets within the same star system would be a mind-boggling coincedence, to the point that many would insist that life in our solar system must have been seeded by Some Divine Somebody-Or-Other.
As for your short-term/long-term dogma... Short term stuff impacts the lives of actual people right now. Long term may or may not impact the lives of people who may or may not exist in the future. During the Dark Ages, a lot of what the Greeks and Romans knew was lost (we will never know exactly what the Greek musical scales sounded like, for example.) 500 years from now, everything we have currently learned could just as easilly be lost after the fall of our current civilization.
We've enjoyed the benifits of a lot of long-term stuff the Germans did in WWII (neither the Russian nor US space programs would have gotten as far were it not for the German V2 rocket), but that doesn't mean that the "short term" impact of killing Hitler wasn't one of the most important events of the 20th Century.
Then it only is a "huge revelation" to religions which hold Earth-centric models to be sacred. Most don't.
The spiritual ramifications are enormous, but not often talked about.
Actually, the spritual ramifications seem to be talked about a lot more than is warranted, as they are rather insignifigant.
If there is life on Mars, then suddenly Darwinism takes a huge leap and Biblical creationism, at least the most common interpretations, takes a step back.
Au contraire. The creationists would simply believe that God created the martians, too. No challenge to creationism can be found in the presense of life off Earth.
Then if there is/was life on Mars, then why not on other planets, which have been found to be far more common than we thought. And if there is life all over the universe, then it isn't too far a leap to say that some of it has evolved into sentient life forms. And now we have to ask if other intelligent, self-aware creatures have a soul. Do they have an afterlife?
If you believe that we do, why would they not? If you believe that we don't, why would they?
Sorry, but life, or lack thereof, on Mars or any other planet we can reach out to has zero impact on the debate. There's much more solid evidence pointing to the "Descent of Man," as Darwin called it, right here on Earth, and those who reject evolution have not been swayed by any of it, so what makes you think finding Martian life is going to re-frame the debate at all?
D'oh! Not only did I name the wrong school, but I spelled it incorrectly. That's what I get for quickly firing off a comment while files are loading at work. Oh well... my points are the same.
As for the question of life elsewhere in the Universe. I subscribe to the notion that if there was other life, and contact was a tangible possibility, odds are that we would have been contacted by now. Maybe there is, but I doubt that we'll ever see it. The universe is really sparse, and c is a constant.
I both comprehended and answered that question already. Perhaps you missed it. I have not disassembled the driver or even glimpsed at the code, but what I did do is RTFA, and found that the post's assumption that the article states there's a "phone home" feature is incorrect. The article makes no such assertion, nor does anybody else who's examined the behavior of these printers. Your statement is just silly.
Actually, you are. For all you know, I work for HP.
You accuse me of having a comprehension problem, but you are clearly not grasping my point. It's perfectly simple: The original post made an entirely unfounded claim that there was a "phone home" feature, based on a mis-reading of some wild "what if" speculation in the article. It's not there, the article isn't even claiming it's there, and that's all I was pointing out to the poster.
That's funny, because I could have sworn he said:
it is establishing the principle that it is ok for the government to require programmers to put crime detection / phone home features in their software.
Since it is not requiring any such thing, it is not establishing any such principle. The original post is simply flat-out wrong (and wildly paranoid).
No, but unlike you, I did RTFA. Nobody in the article makes such a claim. There's only a "what if this happens in the future?" speculation.
No, it's not. There is no "phone home" feature triggered by an attempt to copy money on these printers. That was just random speculation by the loonie who submitted this story to Bugtraq.
The "right" being infringed here is very close to speech.
Except that it's not. There isn't even a statement by HP which states they were compelled to insert this blocking feature by the government. Odds are, they put it there themselves so they could tell the feds in all confidence, "nope, you can't use these printers for counterfeiting."
You would consider it a big deal if the government required you to get their approval before publishing an article you had written, wouldn't you?
Yes, I would. That's not happening, though.
The phrase prior-restraint comes to mind.
Only to the minds of knee-jerk reactionaries.
As opposed to real Iraqi soldiers, who speak American English with Farsi or Arabic accents.
What a dumbass.
For all the controversy, the stories behind GTA3 and GTA-VC are very entertaining... better than a lot of crime movies I've seen in the last 10 years.
Voyager and Enterprise (as well as all of the next-gen movies) were both so weak, that I don't really care whether the franchise goes on or not.
Um... You do know that "aerobic" means a low-impact cardiovascular workout with light weights or no weights to raise your heart and breath rates, right?
What you are thinking of is "anaerobic."
Hey, dumbass! This isn't being sold as a weight loss product. It's an alternative to the boredom of doing bicep curls to build arm strength.
Weight training != aerobic workout.
(However, the more muscle mass you have, the more you benefit from your aerobic exercise, so something like this doesn't hurt if you are doing it in addition to your usual workout.)
Don't worry. You're probably not missing much by not reading this. 20 years in prison for stealing steak and lobster from an office via fraud? Sounds pretty hackneyed to me. They don't even lock up hackers who steal credit card numbers that long.
So what you are saying is:
Step 1. Connect all computers in an organic load-sharing cluster.
Step 2. ????
Step... ah, fuck it, it's too easy.
It isn't a product or service, it's an architecture it's a way of connecting machines together in a way that they can off load some of their processing, or seemlessly access processes (for example a print house to print 5,000 customer notification letters).
Welcome to Earth. You are clearly new here, so I should probably point out that "EVERY ONE" never agrees on anything. We've got people who still insist the world is flat, others who think hip-hop is worth paying money to listen to, and even some real nuts who think Kobe Bryant is the best player in the NBA. Global consensus just doesn't happen here.
Or the insurance companies. (They do their own crash tests in order to assess risk.)
P.S. The Ewok "Yub nub" song was cool, and I don't care who thinks I'm wrong.