Well... Not as such, anyway. The "mod" is re-enabling stuff that was left in the game but just sorta edited out.
That is, they originally programmed the Hot Coffee stuff in there in the first place, then added code later to cause it to skip that bit. The "mod" just makes it not skip that bit.
How do we know this? Because there are codes for the PS2 version (using a Game Shark or whatever the equivalent is) to do the same basic thing: re-enable these hidden mini-games.
This isn't stuff added by the hack, it's stuff re-enabled by the hack.
Despite what TFA says, Tivo has had this for ages, it's not new. What the article is talking about is "enhanced showcases", and it's where you can see a "Press Thumbs Up For More" icon during an advertisement.
Pressing thumbs up pauses the material and takes you to a special showcase where they can have an extended video segment or pages of text or, yes, a "Please send me more info" screen where you can have them send more info.
Chevy did a big promotion a while back using this, and most of the Chevy commercials you saw on the screen took you to this showcase. There was a video of various cars doing speedway tests or something, and selecting the more info thing got them to mail you a packet of material. You could even request to have a dealer call you, which I did not try.
Some of the showcase material is quite cool, other times it's not as cool. Regardless, you don't have to see the ad to see the material, these extended showcases are shown on the normal "Showcases" screen as well. There's usually one or two available at any given time.
Just as we don't accept the argument that bittorrent is illegal merely because it can be used for illegal activity, or is in fact mostly used for illegal activity, we should not also label DRM bad just because it can be used for bad purposes.
You're missing the point. DRM isn't bad because bad people try to use it to do bad things. DRM is bad because it doesn't work.
It never will work. It's absolutely impossible to make it work. It's a wasted effort. It's a bad idea. It's a dumb idea. It ignores fundamental facts about reality.
That's the problem. That's why DRM is bad.
It is extremely important that we continue to build a hardware infrastructure capable of enforcing rigid DRM. This enables me to do things like, for example, prepare a confidential document, send it to someone, and have it NOT be copyable.
What you suggest is IMPOSSIBLE. Hardware or no hardware. Imagine a system so locked down that what you suggest would work. So the guy whips out a digital camera, takes pictures of the screen, combines those pictures into a document, runs it through an OCR, and voila, he has his copy. Okay, it's not an exact copy, but it's a copy nevertheless.
If you can see it, hear it, watch it... then you can copy it. You cannot separate the act of experiencing content from the ability to copy the content. All recording devices are designed specifically to convert content you experience into content that you can copy. That's the whole point of "recording".
The world doesn't need DRM, the world needs a really good trust mechanism. That is, if you don't want somebody to copy a document, then you have to trust that they won't do it. If you find out that they did in fact copy it, then you can revoke that trust and thus they won't be able to get your content anymore (at least, not from you).
And I mean really, if you don't trust somebody to not copy a document, why in the hell would you give them that document? That's just idiocy, don't you think?
A lot of cable companies are doing VOD over their digital services nowadays. Dunno if it's over IP (I kinda doubt it), but it works passably well. I have VOD on my digital box at home and it's quite nice. Only thing I dislike is that the fast forward and rewind and such all has a delay in operation, presumably since it's going to the other side and telling the server to stop streaming or to FF/RW and such. If I paid the extra for the DVR they offer, it does save it to the hard drive and that sort of thing is then instantaneous. Although I imagine it auto deletes the content after a while (I have not tried it fully).
BUT HOW CAN THIS BE TRUE? 75 channels that go to everyone takes the same bandwidth as 75 independent streams, right? Got more than 75 subscribers on a loop then the bandwidth demands INCREASE, right.
They control the hardware, they control the routers, they control the network. It's multicast, baby!
Essentially, they send a multicast feed of all 75 channels to a bunch of router/head end units. Each one of these is servicing some small area, like all the people on your segment of the cable. When you connect to get a channel, the router thing which is getting all of them just starts feeding that one to you. So it needs less bandwidth at the point between you and that router, but the same bandwidth between the router and them feeding all the channels. Think of it like a branching tree. They send the data to the routers, which throws it away if it doesn't need it or passes it along to each customer if they are watching it.
Obviously, that's a somewhat simplified explanation. Point being that it never has to go above 75 channels on the line. Not all traffic over the internet has to be from one system to one and only one other; not when you control every level of the network itself like the cable company does.
The obvious unspoken piece is that raw analog bandwidth and compressed digital bandwidth are like comparing Space Shuttles and Yugos.
True in a sense. They'd get a reduction in size just by transmitting everything digitally instead of "analogly" to begin with. Analog is a bandwidth hog most of the time. This is also why several cable companies have said that they will stop supporting non-digital cable "real soon now", thus pissing off a lot of subscribers who haven't switched. The cable company wants to dump analog in favor of full digital, because they can fit 5-10 digital channels in the space taken by 1 analog channel. More channels = more abilities to sell those extra channels. Those 80 analog channels are sitting right on the space that 400-800 extra digital ones could be stuck into.
Katayama acknowledged that sound would be an issue. He said directional speakers were one possibility in the future but earphones would be the most likely option at present.
It's a chemical reaction. The Sodium combines with Water and sucks up all the oxygen (and half of the hydrogen). What you end up with is a mix of lye (sodium hydroxide) and whatever else is in the silica gel they have. If they have a way to extract the lye from the gel, then the gel could be reused in the next sodium-gel mix, and the lye could be reused as well (lye is hella useful in all sorts of industries).
The real problem here is where you get the sodium from. Usually you get it by melting salt down and using electrolysis to separate out the chlorine. Not particularly green, because that power comes from somewhere, and the chlorine is a big pollutant, so you have to store it or use it for something.
UMR has won three times now, I think. Before that, they always did pretty well. The solar car team is a reasonably big deal at Rolla, what with there being little else to do in that hellhole of a town. I should know, I was there for 5 years.:P
And if they lose, well, they always have St. Pats in which to drown their sorrows.:)
While I have no idea how much these retail for, I'm sure that the price is inflated more by the "oh shiny" factor than production or development costs.
Yeah, pretty much. A 4 pack sells for about $6. I found these in a grocery store a couple months back and picked up a 4 pack for the "oooh shiny" factor. The coffee was only so-so, of course, but it did deliver as promised. Coffee got properly hot.
I too was struck by the weight and heft of the thing. I felt that it's be useful for camping trips because, if necessary, you could beat a puma to death with the damn thing. Way, way overbuilt. Very solid feel to it.
I have not purchased them again, and likely will not except for possible camping purposes. The real question, for me, is where would one need this sort of device? At home, you have a microwave if you need to heat up a plastic tube of premade coffee, so the self-heating is redundant. Most workplaces have coffee makers for the employees which tend to be always full. In the car on the way to work, you could stop by a coffee house or fast foodery or something. It would be handy for being out in the wild, far from power and easily obtained coffee, but how often does that occur? People who go camping usually only go maybe once a year, and usually they are in RVs nowadays, with power and coffee making devices.
It's basically a product without a large market.
If the thing held soup, now, you'd have something. Lots of office worker types would likely keep several in their desks. Because while many offices have microwaves, and microwavable soups already exist, not having to get up to have some soup has an odd attraction to it.
I have another theory as well, and that's that Type B people started really getting their learn on at a much younger age than Type A people. That it's in the major changes which take place during the initial formation of synaptic patterns in the brain, within the first year or two of the child's life, which determine this sort of thing.
But that's just a theory, I have no real evidence other than anecdotal. Except that everybody I know who falls into Type B (damned few) learned to read well before age 5, whereas those Type A people learned after age 5 and were still struggling with it up into the 10-11 year old range.
I've also been in several elementary school classes and observed this sort of thing. Remember that kid in 3rd or 4th grade? The nerdy one who, during the reading time/class/instruction, could read along out loud at a clip that nobody else in the class matched? Maybe you were that kid, I don't know. But there's always at least one or two in every class I've seen. That's the Type B kid. You can tell that he's the bored one when anybody else is reading, because he reads 3 or 4 times faster than everybody else. That kid was reading probably before he was 2 or 3 YO, which is why he is so much faster. Reading came easy to him, he grasped the pattern of the system quickly and didn't have to learn the language one word at a time until he got it. Most of the rest of the class is Type A.
But that's just my own theory, and its not rigorously backed up or even thought out, really.
If somebody is sending you an unsolicited invitation for a job, then yes, you are above a profiency test. They invited you. Their goal should be to get you to take the job they are offering you.
There's a difference between you asking them for a job and them asking you if you want a job.
I see his point, in a way. It really depends on your definition of "learn". Type B people don't generally consider the word "learn" to be equal to "rote memorization", sort of thing.
I would argue that Type A people are learning the instructions and not the system. Memorization is learning, to a minor degree. You can't learn things without remembering them.
People ain't up to the task of using a computer. Most people are frightened, they have no idea what's going on... they merely repeat cryptic memorized sequence of actions to do everyday tasks but they are just not "getting it". Sad news: this is unavoidable, a gap is going to widen between people.
After dealing with this sort of problem for years, my conclusion is that there are two types of people in the world: a) Those who need instructions and learn new things by learning those instructions, and b) Those who don't need instructions and learn new things by grasping the underlying behavior behind the system.
That's basically the difference. Most people aren't stupid, but a lot of them fall in the type A category above. These people have trouble with computers. They also have trouble trying to, say, fix a car. They cook by reading a receipe and following those instructions, possibly introducing minor variations on that theme. This basic underlying behavior applies to all facets of everything they do. They're not incapable of learning, but they need some form of step by step to learn it from.
But a type B person figures out how the thing works and then works his way up to how to do specific things. A lot of auto mechanics fall into this category. All "hacker" types do as well. A large number of your better chefs do too. They grasp the basic principles behind whatever it is they do, and then simply figure out the specifics each time, based on their knowledge of those principles.
The speed limit is there for a reason - it's a safe speed to drive.
Nope. The speed limit laws were originally enacted as a way to save energy, during the war. Since then they've gone through ups and downs, of course. But speed limits are usually not based primarily on safety factors.
In some cases, sure. The yellow sign telling to to slow down to 20 MPH for the hairpin turn ahead is definitely based on safety, but the white 45 MPH sign on the long straight road in the middle of nowhere is probably not.
Of course, I am sure there will be ways to crack it...Don't take me too seriously though, I have a tin foil cap embedded in my skull.;-)
Take that tin foil out of your skull and wrap it around the GPS antenna instead. Voila, cracked.
I mean, the thing has to be able to cope with signal loss. The only sensible and safe way for it to operate is to not do anything when it doesn't know where it is. So cut off the signal, and it doesn't work anymore. Wrapping it in tin foil is a good way to go there, because it doesn't leave any marks. Take off the tin foil, and it's happy again.:)
You can change how you talk, you can't change the colour of your skin. The two aren't similar at all!
The two are absolutely similar. They both judge a person on irrelevancies. The color of a person's skin says nothing about his intelligence, and neither does a person's speech patterns. Basing your assessment of intelligence on either one of those factors is just flawed.
Whether you can change how you talk or not is irrelevant. How you talk doesn't matter with respect to what it is that you are saying. And it has no bearing on intelligence, education, or anything else, really. It's mostly defined by geographic region in which a person grew up, in fact. Do you think people from one area are smarter than people from another? That's an equally stupid bias, really.
What the submitter mentions and what a lot of people miss is that speaking incorrectly tends to make a person seem less intelligent. Using "should of" is more or less understandable if you are used to English colloquialisms and such, but it makes the person sound less intelligent to those who are educated.
Which is, of course, why I use such colloquialisms. I find that it weeds out the people who are only able to perceive the surface and unable to perceive the substance beneath.
If someone thinks the way I speak makes me seem less intelligent, and that affects their opinion about me, well, then, I'm not interested in their opinion anyway. What they think doesn't matter to me, because they are perceiving form instead of content. I don't care about form. Fuck form.
People who are biased in this respect are basically identical to racists, in my opinion. A racist perceives an unimportant difference, such as the color of someone's skin, and bases their judgements of the person on that. The "educated" person who has trouble with use of poor grammar is equally biased, as they're perceiving the form in which the content is delivered instead of the content itself.
If you prefer another example, my mother places a lot of her character judgement values on what kind of shoes a man is wearing, and continually berates me for wearing sneakers everywhere. Is her somewhat silly bias any more ridiculous than yours?
Perhaps it's time to shrug off your biases and revise your opinions, if you are capable of doing so.
"Should of" and "ain't" are colloquialisms that have been around for a good while themselves, and if they were to become an official part of the language they would have likely done so by now. The reason they have not is because they are known to be blatantly grammatically incorrect and are avoided by anyone using proper English.
"Ain't" is in every english dictionary in the world. Like it or not, it is an "offical" part of the language, depending on how you perceive "official". Contrary to the popular phrase, ain't *is* a word.:P
"Should of" is simply a phonetic misspelling of "should've", which is certainly official.
We're just trying to goad people into realizing that the rules are there for a reason, and considering our community is supposedly known for being intelligent, we ought to use those rules correctly.
See, this is where you are really wrong. These "rules" are not there for any reason. The language has evolved somewhat haphazardly at best, and these rules are simply a reflection of its current state.
Furthermore, the inherent bias in judging intelligence based on form instead of content is what we should really rebel against, considering that frequently, some of the deepest insights you will encounter will come from some of the most intelligent people you will ever know, and these are not "educated" men by any stretch of the imagination. Rejecting a person, or an idea, or whatever, simply because it's expressed poorly by the current standards of freakin' grammar is more than a little foolhardy, don't you think?
What, people can't tell where a sound is coming from?
Most cell phone ringers are somewhat high pitched, so that the sound can be heard over ambient noise without increasing the volume excessively. Humans are better at hearing higher frequencies than lower ones, they're perceptually louder to us.
However, because humans are better at hearing those higher frequencies, they have less ability to perceive directionality of the source of those sounds. The way a human tells the source of a sound is the relative difference in the sound in each ear, coupled with how that difference changes as the head changes position. High pitched sounds are heard better and thus the relative difference between ears is much less, making the source harder to find.
Cut it in half and solder wires between the areas where you cut the traces. I've seen it done to fit a mobo into a case smaller (in all dimensions) than the board would fit into uncut. It worked. I wouldn't want to try it myself, but it's possible to do it as long as you pick where you cut carefully.
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
In the very near future, you'll see companies begin to develop and push P2P as a way for people to publish/distribute their own content. The whole podcasting thing is what will make this happen. And with people starting to push into the video realm (Systm, etc) , this will become the defense of the next P2P battle.
Think about it: Somebody creates a client that can grab RSS, publish RSS, share content via BitTorrent/DHT, get content via same, play video/audio/everything under the sun, and integrates into MythTV just for good measure.
The primary, stated, purpose of such a thing is to let people download the free content online and watch it on their spiffy PVR box.
The actual primary use would be to download TV shows and movies and such from other users of the software, using the BitTorrent capabilities inherent in the software (although video-blog type RSS feeds would be in second or third place).
Converting real cash into fake cash gives the fake cash a real value and thus makes it into real cash.
In other words, if I buy a Gbuck and send it to a friend and they convert it back to whatever it is worth in cash, how is this any different than what paypal does, realistically?
If they create their own currency and decide not to tie it in a fixed way to another currency, then that's interesting, but doesn't change the fact that it's still them accepting one currency for a temporary period of time.
It also introduces the problem of fluctations of the new currency. People buy Gbucks, wait for them to be worth more real bucks, then cash out. Google is now out a ton of real cash. This is done with real cash all the time, but making it easy to convert between currencies will make this simpler. Only way to combat this that I can see is for google to implement a conversion fee to stabilize the fluctuations, which will discourage the currency from taking off in the first place.
I switched off of hotmail to gmail quite a while back, and frankly, I don't miss it. Every once in a while I log in to my old hotmail account to see if anything other than spam is in there. Nope.
Still have yet to get one mismarked spam in my gmail account though.
I can't think of a single reason to use a JBOD setup when you could just as easily use RAID 0.
If you don't need redundancy, great, fine, you can be redundant elsewhere. I'm down with that. But RAID 0 is so easy to implement as opposed to a JBOD setup and works so much better that there's essentially no reason to ever use JBOD except pure laziness.
I mean, with either one, if you lose a drive, you lose the array, but at least with RAID 0 you get the benefits of striping in both read and write operations, basically doubling your throughput speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... Not as such, anyway. The "mod" is re-enabling stuff that was left in the game but just sorta edited out.
That is, they originally programmed the Hot Coffee stuff in there in the first place, then added code later to cause it to skip that bit. The "mod" just makes it not skip that bit.
How do we know this? Because there are codes for the PS2 version (using a Game Shark or whatever the equivalent is) to do the same basic thing: re-enable these hidden mini-games.
This isn't stuff added by the hack, it's stuff re-enabled by the hack.
Despite what TFA says, Tivo has had this for ages, it's not new. What the article is talking about is "enhanced showcases", and it's where you can see a "Press Thumbs Up For More" icon during an advertisement.
Pressing thumbs up pauses the material and takes you to a special showcase where they can have an extended video segment or pages of text or, yes, a "Please send me more info" screen where you can have them send more info.
Chevy did a big promotion a while back using this, and most of the Chevy commercials you saw on the screen took you to this showcase. There was a video of various cars doing speedway tests or something, and selecting the more info thing got them to mail you a packet of material. You could even request to have a dealer call you, which I did not try.
Some of the showcase material is quite cool, other times it's not as cool. Regardless, you don't have to see the ad to see the material, these extended showcases are shown on the normal "Showcases" screen as well. There's usually one or two available at any given time.
Just as we don't accept the argument that bittorrent is illegal merely because it can be used for illegal activity, or is in fact mostly used for illegal activity, we should not also label DRM bad just because it can be used for bad purposes.
You're missing the point. DRM isn't bad because bad people try to use it to do bad things. DRM is bad because it doesn't work.
It never will work.
It's absolutely impossible to make it work.
It's a wasted effort.
It's a bad idea.
It's a dumb idea.
It ignores fundamental facts about reality.
That's the problem. That's why DRM is bad.
It is extremely important that we continue to build a hardware infrastructure capable of enforcing rigid DRM. This enables me to do things like, for example, prepare a confidential document, send it to someone, and have it NOT be copyable.
What you suggest is IMPOSSIBLE. Hardware or no hardware. Imagine a system so locked down that what you suggest would work. So the guy whips out a digital camera, takes pictures of the screen, combines those pictures into a document, runs it through an OCR, and voila, he has his copy. Okay, it's not an exact copy, but it's a copy nevertheless.
If you can see it, hear it, watch it... then you can copy it. You cannot separate the act of experiencing content from the ability to copy the content. All recording devices are designed specifically to convert content you experience into content that you can copy. That's the whole point of "recording".
The world doesn't need DRM, the world needs a really good trust mechanism. That is, if you don't want somebody to copy a document, then you have to trust that they won't do it. If you find out that they did in fact copy it, then you can revoke that trust and thus they won't be able to get your content anymore (at least, not from you).
And I mean really, if you don't trust somebody to not copy a document, why in the hell would you give them that document? That's just idiocy, don't you think?
A lot of cable companies are doing VOD over their digital services nowadays. Dunno if it's over IP (I kinda doubt it), but it works passably well. I have VOD on my digital box at home and it's quite nice. Only thing I dislike is that the fast forward and rewind and such all has a delay in operation, presumably since it's going to the other side and telling the server to stop streaming or to FF/RW and such. If I paid the extra for the DVR they offer, it does save it to the hard drive and that sort of thing is then instantaneous. Although I imagine it auto deletes the content after a while (I have not tried it fully).
BUT HOW CAN THIS BE TRUE? 75 channels that go to everyone takes the same bandwidth as 75 independent streams, right? Got more than 75 subscribers on a loop then the bandwidth demands INCREASE, right.
They control the hardware, they control the routers, they control the network. It's multicast, baby!
Essentially, they send a multicast feed of all 75 channels to a bunch of router/head end units. Each one of these is servicing some small area, like all the people on your segment of the cable. When you connect to get a channel, the router thing which is getting all of them just starts feeding that one to you. So it needs less bandwidth at the point between you and that router, but the same bandwidth between the router and them feeding all the channels. Think of it like a branching tree. They send the data to the routers, which throws it away if it doesn't need it or passes it along to each customer if they are watching it.
Obviously, that's a somewhat simplified explanation. Point being that it never has to go above 75 channels on the line. Not all traffic over the internet has to be from one system to one and only one other; not when you control every level of the network itself like the cable company does.
The obvious unspoken piece is that raw analog bandwidth and compressed digital bandwidth are like comparing Space Shuttles and Yugos.
True in a sense. They'd get a reduction in size just by transmitting everything digitally instead of "analogly" to begin with. Analog is a bandwidth hog most of the time. This is also why several cable companies have said that they will stop supporting non-digital cable "real soon now", thus pissing off a lot of subscribers who haven't switched. The cable company wants to dump analog in favor of full digital, because they can fit 5-10 digital channels in the space taken by 1 analog channel. More channels = more abilities to sell those extra channels. Those 80 analog channels are sitting right on the space that 400-800 extra digital ones could be stuck into.
From TFA:
Katayama acknowledged that sound would be an issue. He said directional speakers were one possibility in the future but earphones would be the most likely option at present.
It's a chemical reaction. The Sodium combines with Water and sucks up all the oxygen (and half of the hydrogen). What you end up with is a mix of lye (sodium hydroxide) and whatever else is in the silica gel they have. If they have a way to extract the lye from the gel, then the gel could be reused in the next sodium-gel mix, and the lye could be reused as well (lye is hella useful in all sorts of industries).
The real problem here is where you get the sodium from. Usually you get it by melting salt down and using electrolysis to separate out the chlorine. Not particularly green, because that power comes from somewhere, and the chlorine is a big pollutant, so you have to store it or use it for something.
UMR has won three times now, I think. Before that, they always did pretty well. The solar car team is a reasonably big deal at Rolla, what with there being little else to do in that hellhole of a town. I should know, I was there for 5 years. :P
:)
And if they lose, well, they always have St. Pats in which to drown their sorrows.
While I have no idea how much these retail for, I'm sure that the price is inflated more by the "oh shiny" factor than production or development costs.
Yeah, pretty much. A 4 pack sells for about $6. I found these in a grocery store a couple months back and picked up a 4 pack for the "oooh shiny" factor. The coffee was only so-so, of course, but it did deliver as promised. Coffee got properly hot.
I too was struck by the weight and heft of the thing. I felt that it's be useful for camping trips because, if necessary, you could beat a puma to death with the damn thing. Way, way overbuilt. Very solid feel to it.
I have not purchased them again, and likely will not except for possible camping purposes. The real question, for me, is where would one need this sort of device? At home, you have a microwave if you need to heat up a plastic tube of premade coffee, so the self-heating is redundant. Most workplaces have coffee makers for the employees which tend to be always full. In the car on the way to work, you could stop by a coffee house or fast foodery or something. It would be handy for being out in the wild, far from power and easily obtained coffee, but how often does that occur? People who go camping usually only go maybe once a year, and usually they are in RVs nowadays, with power and coffee making devices.
It's basically a product without a large market.
If the thing held soup, now, you'd have something. Lots of office worker types would likely keep several in their desks. Because while many offices have microwaves, and microwavable soups already exist, not having to get up to have some soup has an odd attraction to it.
Different strokes for different folks.
I have another theory as well, and that's that Type B people started really getting their learn on at a much younger age than Type A people. That it's in the major changes which take place during the initial formation of synaptic patterns in the brain, within the first year or two of the child's life, which determine this sort of thing.
But that's just a theory, I have no real evidence other than anecdotal. Except that everybody I know who falls into Type B (damned few) learned to read well before age 5, whereas those Type A people learned after age 5 and were still struggling with it up into the 10-11 year old range.
I've also been in several elementary school classes and observed this sort of thing. Remember that kid in 3rd or 4th grade? The nerdy one who, during the reading time/class/instruction, could read along out loud at a clip that nobody else in the class matched? Maybe you were that kid, I don't know. But there's always at least one or two in every class I've seen. That's the Type B kid. You can tell that he's the bored one when anybody else is reading, because he reads 3 or 4 times faster than everybody else. That kid was reading probably before he was 2 or 3 YO, which is why he is so much faster. Reading came easy to him, he grasped the pattern of the system quickly and didn't have to learn the language one word at a time until he got it. Most of the rest of the class is Type A.
But that's just my own theory, and its not rigorously backed up or even thought out, really.
If somebody is sending you an unsolicited invitation for a job, then yes, you are above a profiency test. They invited you. Their goal should be to get you to take the job they are offering you.
There's a difference between you asking them for a job and them asking you if you want a job.
I see his point, in a way. It really depends on your definition of "learn". Type B people don't generally consider the word "learn" to be equal to "rote memorization", sort of thing.
I would argue that Type A people are learning the instructions and not the system. Memorization is learning, to a minor degree. You can't learn things without remembering them.
People ain't up to the task of using a computer. Most people are frightened, they have no idea what's going on... they merely repeat cryptic memorized sequence of actions to do everyday tasks but they are just not "getting it". Sad news: this is unavoidable, a gap is going to widen between people.
After dealing with this sort of problem for years, my conclusion is that there are two types of people in the world:
a) Those who need instructions and learn new things by learning those instructions, and
b) Those who don't need instructions and learn new things by grasping the underlying behavior behind the system.
That's basically the difference. Most people aren't stupid, but a lot of them fall in the type A category above. These people have trouble with computers. They also have trouble trying to, say, fix a car. They cook by reading a receipe and following those instructions, possibly introducing minor variations on that theme. This basic underlying behavior applies to all facets of everything they do. They're not incapable of learning, but they need some form of step by step to learn it from.
But a type B person figures out how the thing works and then works his way up to how to do specific things. A lot of auto mechanics fall into this category. All "hacker" types do as well. A large number of your better chefs do too. They grasp the basic principles behind whatever it is they do, and then simply figure out the specifics each time, based on their knowledge of those principles.
That's my opinion, anyway.
1,6, and 10 can be used at the same time without stepping on each other
You mean 1, 6, and 11. Channels 6 and 10 technically step on each other.
Although you can also use 1, 5, 8, and 11 together, without interference getting high enough to cause any noticable delays.
The speed limit is there for a reason - it's a safe speed to drive.
Nope. The speed limit laws were originally enacted as a way to save energy, during the war. Since then they've gone through ups and downs, of course. But speed limits are usually not based primarily on safety factors.
In some cases, sure. The yellow sign telling to to slow down to 20 MPH for the hairpin turn ahead is definitely based on safety, but the white 45 MPH sign on the long straight road in the middle of nowhere is probably not.
Of course, I am sure there will be ways to crack it...Don't take me too seriously though, I have a tin foil cap embedded in my skull. ;-)
:)
Take that tin foil out of your skull and wrap it around the GPS antenna instead. Voila, cracked.
I mean, the thing has to be able to cope with signal loss. The only sensible and safe way for it to operate is to not do anything when it doesn't know where it is. So cut off the signal, and it doesn't work anymore. Wrapping it in tin foil is a good way to go there, because it doesn't leave any marks. Take off the tin foil, and it's happy again.
You can change how you talk, you can't change the colour of your skin. The two aren't similar at all!
The two are absolutely similar. They both judge a person on irrelevancies. The color of a person's skin says nothing about his intelligence, and neither does a person's speech patterns. Basing your assessment of intelligence on either one of those factors is just flawed.
Whether you can change how you talk or not is irrelevant. How you talk doesn't matter with respect to what it is that you are saying. And it has no bearing on intelligence, education, or anything else, really. It's mostly defined by geographic region in which a person grew up, in fact. Do you think people from one area are smarter than people from another? That's an equally stupid bias, really.
Which would you regard as more intelligent?
I would regard both of them as probably more intelligent than yourself, since they might not make value judgements based on irrelevancies.
How a person says a thing has no bearing whatsoever on what he is saying.
What the submitter mentions and what a lot of people miss is that speaking incorrectly tends to make a person seem less intelligent. Using "should of" is more or less understandable if you are used to English colloquialisms and such, but it makes the person sound less intelligent to those who are educated.
:P
Which is, of course, why I use such colloquialisms. I find that it weeds out the people who are only able to perceive the surface and unable to perceive the substance beneath.
If someone thinks the way I speak makes me seem less intelligent, and that affects their opinion about me, well, then, I'm not interested in their opinion anyway. What they think doesn't matter to me, because they are perceiving form instead of content. I don't care about form. Fuck form.
People who are biased in this respect are basically identical to racists, in my opinion. A racist perceives an unimportant difference, such as the color of someone's skin, and bases their judgements of the person on that. The "educated" person who has trouble with use of poor grammar is equally biased, as they're perceiving the form in which the content is delivered instead of the content itself.
If you prefer another example, my mother places a lot of her character judgement values on what kind of shoes a man is wearing, and continually berates me for wearing sneakers everywhere. Is her somewhat silly bias any more ridiculous than yours?
Perhaps it's time to shrug off your biases and revise your opinions, if you are capable of doing so.
"Should of" and "ain't" are colloquialisms that have been around for a good while themselves, and if they were to become an official part of the language they would have likely done so by now. The reason they have not is because they are known to be blatantly grammatically incorrect and are avoided by anyone using proper English.
"Ain't" is in every english dictionary in the world. Like it or not, it is an "offical" part of the language, depending on how you perceive "official". Contrary to the popular phrase, ain't *is* a word.
"Should of" is simply a phonetic misspelling of "should've", which is certainly official.
We're just trying to goad people into realizing that the rules are there for a reason, and considering our community is supposedly known for being intelligent, we ought to use those rules correctly.
See, this is where you are really wrong. These "rules" are not there for any reason. The language has evolved somewhat haphazardly at best, and these rules are simply a reflection of its current state.
Furthermore, the inherent bias in judging intelligence based on form instead of content is what we should really rebel against, considering that frequently, some of the deepest insights you will encounter will come from some of the most intelligent people you will ever know, and these are not "educated" men by any stretch of the imagination. Rejecting a person, or an idea, or whatever, simply because it's expressed poorly by the current standards of freakin' grammar is more than a little foolhardy, don't you think?
What, people can't tell where a sound is coming from?
Most cell phone ringers are somewhat high pitched, so that the sound can be heard over ambient noise without increasing the volume excessively. Humans are better at hearing higher frequencies than lower ones, they're perceptually louder to us.
However, because humans are better at hearing those higher frequencies, they have less ability to perceive directionality of the source of those sounds. The way a human tells the source of a sound is the relative difference in the sound in each ear, coupled with how that difference changes as the head changes position. High pitched sounds are heard better and thus the relative difference between ears is much less, making the source harder to find.
Cut it in half and solder wires between the areas where you cut the traces. I've seen it done to fit a mobo into a case smaller (in all dimensions) than the board would fit into uncut. It worked. I wouldn't want to try it myself, but it's possible to do it as long as you pick where you cut carefully.
Exactly correct. It's a pretty limited decision, specific to Grokster's business model. The next P2P company that comes along just has to do a better job of advertising their product for the purpose of exchanging legally exchangeable files.
:)
In the very near future, you'll see companies begin to develop and push P2P as a way for people to publish/distribute their own content. The whole podcasting thing is what will make this happen. And with people starting to push into the video realm (Systm, etc) , this will become the defense of the next P2P battle.
Think about it: Somebody creates a client that can grab RSS, publish RSS, share content via BitTorrent/DHT, get content via same, play video/audio/everything under the sun, and integrates into MythTV just for good measure.
The primary, stated, purpose of such a thing is to let people download the free content online and watch it on their spiffy PVR box.
The actual primary use would be to download TV shows and movies and such from other users of the software, using the BitTorrent capabilities inherent in the software (although video-blog type RSS feeds would be in second or third place).
In any case, the revolution will be podcasted.
Converting real cash into fake cash gives the fake cash a real value and thus makes it into real cash.
In other words, if I buy a Gbuck and send it to a friend and they convert it back to whatever it is worth in cash, how is this any different than what paypal does, realistically?
If they create their own currency and decide not to tie it in a fixed way to another currency, then that's interesting, but doesn't change the fact that it's still them accepting one currency for a temporary period of time.
It also introduces the problem of fluctations of the new currency. People buy Gbucks, wait for them to be worth more real bucks, then cash out. Google is now out a ton of real cash. This is done with real cash all the time, but making it easy to convert between currencies will make this simpler. Only way to combat this that I can see is for google to implement a conversion fee to stabilize the fluctuations, which will discourage the currency from taking off in the first place.
I switched off of hotmail to gmail quite a while back, and frankly, I don't miss it. Every once in a while I log in to my old hotmail account to see if anything other than spam is in there. Nope.
Still have yet to get one mismarked spam in my gmail account though.
I can't think of a single reason to use a JBOD setup when you could just as easily use RAID 0.
If you don't need redundancy, great, fine, you can be redundant elsewhere. I'm down with that. But RAID 0 is so easy to implement as opposed to a JBOD setup and works so much better that there's essentially no reason to ever use JBOD except pure laziness.
I mean, with either one, if you lose a drive, you lose the array, but at least with RAID 0 you get the benefits of striping in both read and write operations, basically doubling your throughput speed.