Currently reading "Thus spake Zarathustra" (foolish me, I should have ordered "Also Sprach Zarathustra") in homeopathic doses. Once I am done I am probably going to use the same strategy to read the Bible and the Qur'an. Already got them both, dunno wich one I'll read first. Due to the fast overload in thought created by Nietsche I am also reading the works of Feist for relaxation. Good books, no deep philosophy but just good fantasy reading. He builds not only the people and the world but he also explanes how the rest of the universe works. Most of it seems to be ancient myths (I am sure I have heard of "The two blind gods of the beginning, She who is order and He who is chaos. She weaves a perfect universe devoid of life. He tears at it and from the rips life is created" somewhere before) but as with good fantasy these myths are weaved into a new pattern (and usually the two blind gods are the upper layer, but Nakor has some interresting ideas about how it really works).
I consider myself an above average driver, as do most. I'd even take it further: I'd hand over my driving to an autumatic car in a second if it meant all the other morons would have to do the same. For those addicted to driving: yes, I'd love to force you to take your self-driving to the circuit, where it belongs (once the driverless cars have proven to have less than half the accident rate of humans).
I am not an IT-er, I am an electrical engineer. I am a user.
I wouldn't have any trouble with the policy he is using, assuming everything is done well (IT responds fast if something goes amiss on the "closed" network, file transfers work and have enough bandwith, things like that). Why? 1. Because he offers a way around it. I could use the "open" network if I need to have a break and read/. 2. I prefer my credit card details handled well. He works in a financial institution. This implies the credit card details of millions of people. That is a fat gold nugget for any hacker. I'd accept a lot of hurdles between me and my work to protect those details. I'd hope others (who actually work at a financial institute) to feel the same way. 3...... 4. Profit.
Smart users do exist. They have an idea, figure out how much it'll save, if it's enough to warrant more research time expenditure they'll talk to IT about it (and leave quietly if they are tearing their hair out over some unknown issue). They'll ask for an rough estimate on what it's gonna cost and if asked for more specs they'll gather the specs. They will use this to build a buisiness case and talk to their managers about it. They will keep IT in the loop with at least a CC of this request. They'll stop complaining if it isn't aproved and will assume this has a good reason. However these users are rare.
My brother is an IT professional. I am not. He had a user who needed admin to run some crappy software for a measuring device. The user abused his admin rights and installed Bittorrent tools on the corporate system. As it was detected his system was remote forced wiped and reinstalled (respooled I believe he called it). On checkup he reinstalled the illegal crap. Wipe. The user complained his system was wiped. His manager asked IT why he was respooled. Upon hearing the answer the manager revoked his permission for the user to have admin rights and fired the user. Some users make it impossible for themselves.
There's no way this thing could maintain the energy to fire-off a flash, continuously, nor respond in-time to a received flash, to blind the camera taking the picture
Dunnof it its implemented here (corporate restrictions), but it's very well possible to do. A simple circuit can consist of an LDR, two transisors (in Darlington), some resistors, a POTmeter for adjustment, a fast flashlight (probably led based) and a couple of high energy capacitors to store the charge (charge supplied by batteries). You only have to flash before the shutter closes to overexpose the picture so, assuming there will only be phone camera's, 1/100th of a second after the "trigger" flash should do. 1/1000th should be possible.
assuming the camera taking the picture is even using a flash.
Most parties are quite dark, from a photography perspecive. Most phone cams (the most cams used in this kind of thing) use flash to compensate for the small lens
Then again, how do you know the cooler will even be in the shot with you? You don't, and that's kind of the point.
Earlier in the replies somebody noted it was a 1-beer type of cooler. If I may assume it's in your hand (containing the beer you are drinking) it will probably be in the picture.
Also, I agree with the previous poster who said something like "a good way not to have your photograph taken doing something stupid or embarrassing in public, is to refrain from doing things that are stupid and embarrassing in public
I agree, and so does the writer of the summary:
Now you can go about your usual business of cheating on your spouse, being an idiot around your boss, or drunkenly harassing fellow party-goers without worrying that some wildly irresponsible person will tag you in a photo and posts it online.
Your sarcasm meter is way off if it didn't detect that. I have a $10K repair kit for sale if you need it.
According to the mythbusters glass is quite reflective to most IR frequencies. The hat may be foiled by DSLR's and phones with Carl Zeis lenses. Only one glass lens should do.
Season 2006 episode 16 "Crimes and Myth-Demeanors 2" according to Wikipedia (they were trying to beat an infra-red motion detector. They tested different methods by applying it to Tory and putting him in fron of an IR camera. Someone with a pane of glass walked in between them and they could see a perfect reflection of the cameraman on the IR camera. Very cool)
A carpenter isn't going to use his good circular saw blade to saw through firewood riddled with nails and screws. He'll use one that had years of service and isn't sharp enough anymore.
A Ferrari owner isn't going to bring his good car to a destruction derbie. (besides the non-overlapping target audience:-P )
Some of my friends have DSLR's. They all have a point and shoot camera for parties. My father is an amateur fotographer. He recently bought an E 150 or so ruggedised waterproof point and shoot to take fishing. On longer trips he'll also take the DSLR for scenery foto's but he won't take that when he's going to stand in a river.
Some tools won't get damaged on the "less important" jobs (computers for example). Those you can get the best and use it for all jobs. Some tools may get damaged on rough jobs where an old tool would do. Some jobs require tools with different specs.
You probably "made a deal" wit the guy by going to his website, legally. While he can't use that to hack your computer he can use that to display information. IANAL, hence the "probably".
Only a bit. Noscript hasn't got the fine-grained controlls of Adblock. You can enable a domain in Noscript because you need something from that domain and use Adblock to hide the annoying moving gifs from that same domain. True, it's only required in a few cases (and thus I personally don't bother with AdBlock at all).
The probably just took the power draw of the thing, mutiplied it by 307,584,000 (seconds in 10 years) and saw it was around the theoretical capacity of the highest rated rechargable they could find. This is marketing, they don't know a battery (especially a rechargable one) doesn't last that long.
Dunno about him, but I do. If I am speaking English (I am dutch) I refer to an USB thumbdrive as "An USB stick". I am curious to know: what is wrong about that? "An" --> The rule of thumb for a/an I learned years ago was "a" if the next word starts with a consonant (B, C, D, F, G, H,...) and "an" if the word starts with a vowel. The "U" in USB is a vowel. If that is incorrect I'd like to know. USB --> USB could be said in full, but I'd guess that isn't what you meant for that sounds silly. "Stick" --> I knew "stick" to be a oft-used word for these things. It's as good as any. I have seen it quite often and, due to the fluidic nature of language, that means it's accepted (for it's not a misspelling or a fault in grammar). Please don't think I am trolling, I am curious to know: there is no sarcasm in this.
Some things (like how ice skates work and the way movies are percieved) are found out to be wrong (if you stand still on ice skates you won't melt your way through the ice so the pressure isn't melting the ice. It's a complicated system and I don't know for sure how it works) Somethings are different from different points of view (the primary colors are different in art and science.) Some things are explained in only one way, while they can be done in different ways: a plane usually flies by Bernoulli's principle (the difference in speed causes a difference in pressure) but a plane can fly with another effect (deflection of air downward causes a reaction force upward) and even a third effect (creating a high pressure pocket under the plane, if you consider a wing in ground effect vehicle a plane). Using Bernoulli's principle is the most efficient one at an altitude of above a couple of meters, as in it causes the least drag for the lift it creates. That's why most planes use Bernoulli's principle. But a stunt flier can't just change the form of the wings if he flies upside down, so he must use the second method of staying in the air. The third method has been experimented with by the Russians for a couple of years but when the USSR crashed nobody continued the research. To conclude: what you learned in school wasn't wrong as such. The teachers told you something was true because it was at that time and in the most cases. Exept for the movie stuff: the books that told you "lies" about how they worked weren't updated yet.
One of the problems with any method that imparts something near escape velocity (11,000 km/s) to an object from ground is the air density at ground level. You don't only have to have escape velocity, but also the speed to overcome friction (wich is immense at the beginning). The heat generated by this friction is another problem. On the moon this isn't as much of a problem, since there is no air. While creating a vacuum tube big enough to reach out of the atmosphere is interresting I'd advise a space elevator.
If someone breaks into a nuclear plant they can expect to be shot (assuming the correct signs are in place). Even if they are Greenpeace activist. If that had happened they would have proven the opposite of their point. I am european and while I believe being trigger happy is usually the wrong response but we need to put people's minds at rest. Any decent PR man could defend the incapacitation of Greenpeace activists who were testing the security of a nuclear plant. The kneejerk reaction to someone breaking into a nuclear plant is "A terrorist could have done the same!". And I can't really disagree (diry bombs are easy to make if you have radioactive material). Besides that: I think they should have arrested the Greenpeace activists. It would have been safe and friendly (and they would have had the option to shoot them if they broke the arrest).
Letting them pass because they knew the perpetrators were Greenpeace activists was an inexcusable bad call.
They may have hidden it to prevent users from deleting it. One of the things I'd expect CIQ to collect is data on signal strength combined with location data. This can be used to create a map with signal strengths: helpfull to identify where more antenna's should be placed. If users find out there is a program on their phone that does this the user may want to delete it, so CIQ made it hard to find and hard to delete. But they forgot the Streisand Effect. What they should have done is offer a discount if you let them install the software (there are many people who'll install it for a couple of dollars off from their monthly bill). This would have given them cheap signal strength data, but they may have thought this was to expensive (a couple of dollars over so many customers is a lot of money). They choose to hide it and risk this fallout.
I liked it years ago. They made it easy to search for a function and get a list of windows software that did it. Back then I usually couldn't find who made software that did what I needed done. I coudn't go to the software producer's site, because I didn't know who he was. Now I just google around a bit, search some forums and hope for the best. In my eyes they already screwed up when they allowed sw developers to promote the features of the full (paid) version in the description of the free version without any indication the free version didn't include the feature.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck escapism - real-life, real history, is much more fascinating with the right narrator.
History is just fiction loosly based on events that may or may not have happened.
Think about the quote:
History is written by the winners
(dunno who said it, but it's damn good and the implications are big if you think about it a bit)
Currently reading "Thus spake Zarathustra" (foolish me, I should have ordered "Also Sprach Zarathustra") in homeopathic doses. Once I am done I am probably going to use the same strategy to read the Bible and the Qur'an. Already got them both, dunno wich one I'll read first.
Due to the fast overload in thought created by Nietsche I am also reading the works of Feist for relaxation. Good books, no deep philosophy but just good fantasy reading. He builds not only the people and the world but he also explanes how the rest of the universe works. Most of it seems to be ancient myths (I am sure I have heard of "The two blind gods of the beginning, She who is order and He who is chaos. She weaves a perfect universe devoid of life. He tears at it and from the rips life is created" somewhere before) but as with good fantasy these myths are weaved into a new pattern (and usually the two blind gods are the upper layer, but Nakor has some interresting ideas about how it really works).
I consider myself an above average driver, as do most.
I'd even take it further: I'd hand over my driving to an autumatic car in a second if it meant all the other morons would have to do the same.
For those addicted to driving: yes, I'd love to force you to take your self-driving to the circuit, where it belongs (once the driverless cars have proven to have less than half the accident rate of humans).
I am not an IT-er, I am an electrical engineer. I am a user. /. .....
I wouldn't have any trouble with the policy he is using, assuming everything is done well (IT responds fast if something goes amiss on the "closed" network, file transfers work and have enough bandwith, things like that).
Why?
1. Because he offers a way around it. I could use the "open" network if I need to have a break and read
2. I prefer my credit card details handled well. He works in a financial institution. This implies the credit card details of millions of people. That is a fat gold nugget for any hacker. I'd accept a lot of hurdles between me and my work to protect those details. I'd hope others (who actually work at a financial institute) to feel the same way.
3.
4. Profit.
Smart users do exist. They have an idea, figure out how much it'll save, if it's enough to warrant more research time expenditure they'll talk to IT about it (and leave quietly if they are tearing their hair out over some unknown issue). They'll ask for an rough estimate on what it's gonna cost and if asked for more specs they'll gather the specs. They will use this to build a buisiness case and talk to their managers about it. They will keep IT in the loop with at least a CC of this request. They'll stop complaining if it isn't aproved and will assume this has a good reason.
However these users are rare.
My brother is an IT professional. I am not.
He had a user who needed admin to run some crappy software for a measuring device. The user abused his admin rights and installed Bittorrent tools on the corporate system. As it was detected his system was remote forced wiped and reinstalled (respooled I believe he called it). On checkup he reinstalled the illegal crap. Wipe. The user complained his system was wiped. His manager asked IT why he was respooled. Upon hearing the answer the manager revoked his permission for the user to have admin rights and fired the user.
Some users make it impossible for themselves.
Is that why the oval office has no corners?
That's why you need that in writing.
There's no way this thing could maintain the energy to fire-off a flash, continuously, nor respond in-time to a received flash, to blind the camera taking the picture
Dunnof it its implemented here (corporate restrictions), but it's very well possible to do. A simple circuit can consist of an LDR, two transisors (in Darlington), some resistors, a POTmeter for adjustment, a fast flashlight (probably led based) and a couple of high energy capacitors to store the charge (charge supplied by batteries). You only have to flash before the shutter closes to overexpose the picture so, assuming there will only be phone camera's, 1/100th of a second after the "trigger" flash should do. 1/1000th should be possible.
assuming the camera taking the picture is even using a flash.
Most parties are quite dark, from a photography perspecive. Most phone cams (the most cams used in this kind of thing) use flash to compensate for the small lens
Then again, how do you know the cooler will even be in the shot with you? You don't, and that's kind of the point.
Earlier in the replies somebody noted it was a 1-beer type of cooler. If I may assume it's in your hand (containing the beer you are drinking) it will probably be in the picture.
Also, I agree with the previous poster who said something like "a good way not to have your photograph taken doing something stupid or embarrassing in public, is to refrain from doing things that are stupid and embarrassing in public
I agree, and so does the writer of the summary:
Now you can go about your usual business of cheating on your spouse, being an idiot around your boss, or drunkenly harassing fellow party-goers without worrying that some wildly irresponsible person will tag you in a photo and posts it online.
Your sarcasm meter is way off if it didn't detect that. I have a $10K repair kit for sale if you need it.
According to the mythbusters glass is quite reflective to most IR frequencies. The hat may be foiled by DSLR's and phones with Carl Zeis lenses. Only one glass lens should do.
Season 2006 episode 16 "Crimes and Myth-Demeanors 2" according to Wikipedia (they were trying to beat an infra-red motion detector. They tested different methods by applying it to Tory and putting him in fron of an IR camera. Someone with a pane of glass walked in between them and they could see a perfect reflection of the cameraman on the IR camera. Very cool)
A carpenter isn't going to use his good circular saw blade to saw through firewood riddled with nails and screws. He'll use one that had years of service and isn't sharp enough anymore. :-P )
A Ferrari owner isn't going to bring his good car to a destruction derbie. (besides the non-overlapping target audience
Some of my friends have DSLR's. They all have a point and shoot camera for parties. My father is an amateur fotographer. He recently bought an E 150 or so ruggedised waterproof point and shoot to take fishing. On longer trips he'll also take the DSLR for scenery foto's but he won't take that when he's going to stand in a river.
Some tools won't get damaged on the "less important" jobs (computers for example). Those you can get the best and use it for all jobs. Some tools may get damaged on rough jobs where an old tool would do. Some jobs require tools with different specs.
It sucks being attracted to insane girls.
Being a man isn't so bad in and of itself.
You probably "made a deal" wit the guy by going to his website, legally. While he can't use that to hack your computer he can use that to display information.
IANAL, hence the "probably".
Only a bit. Noscript hasn't got the fine-grained controlls of Adblock. You can enable a domain in Noscript because you need something from that domain and use Adblock to hide the annoying moving gifs from that same domain.
True, it's only required in a few cases (and thus I personally don't bother with AdBlock at all).
Damn man, you found something good in IE6! That's positive thinking!
Thank you all for helping me out. I must have misremembered the rule.
The probably just took the power draw of the thing, mutiplied it by 307,584,000 (seconds in 10 years) and saw it was around the theoretical capacity of the highest rated rechargable they could find.
This is marketing, they don't know a battery (especially a rechargable one) doesn't last that long.
Dunno about him, but I do. If I am speaking English (I am dutch) I refer to an USB thumbdrive as "An USB stick". ...) and "an" if the word starts with a vowel. The "U" in USB is a vowel. If that is incorrect I'd like to know.
I am curious to know: what is wrong about that?
"An" --> The rule of thumb for a/an I learned years ago was "a" if the next word starts with a consonant (B, C, D, F, G, H,
USB --> USB could be said in full, but I'd guess that isn't what you meant for that sounds silly.
"Stick" --> I knew "stick" to be a oft-used word for these things. It's as good as any. I have seen it quite often and, due to the fluidic nature of language, that means it's accepted (for it's not a misspelling or a fault in grammar).
Please don't think I am trolling, I am curious to know: there is no sarcasm in this.
Some things (like how ice skates work and the way movies are percieved) are found out to be wrong (if you stand still on ice skates you won't melt your way through the ice so the pressure isn't melting the ice. It's a complicated system and I don't know for sure how it works)
Somethings are different from different points of view (the primary colors are different in art and science.)
Some things are explained in only one way, while they can be done in different ways: a plane usually flies by Bernoulli's principle (the difference in speed causes a difference in pressure) but a plane can fly with another effect (deflection of air downward causes a reaction force upward) and even a third effect (creating a high pressure pocket under the plane, if you consider a wing in ground effect vehicle a plane).
Using Bernoulli's principle is the most efficient one at an altitude of above a couple of meters, as in it causes the least drag for the lift it creates. That's why most planes use Bernoulli's principle. But a stunt flier can't just change the form of the wings if he flies upside down, so he must use the second method of staying in the air. The third method has been experimented with by the Russians for a couple of years but when the USSR crashed nobody continued the research.
To conclude: what you learned in school wasn't wrong as such. The teachers told you something was true because it was at that time and in the most cases.
Exept for the movie stuff: the books that told you "lies" about how they worked weren't updated yet.
One of the problems with any method that imparts something near escape velocity (11,000 km/s) to an object from ground is the air density at ground level. You don't only have to have escape velocity, but also the speed to overcome friction (wich is immense at the beginning). The heat generated by this friction is another problem.
On the moon this isn't as much of a problem, since there is no air.
While creating a vacuum tube big enough to reach out of the atmosphere is interresting I'd advise a space elevator.
If someone breaks into a nuclear plant they can expect to be shot (assuming the correct signs are in place). Even if they are Greenpeace activist. If that had happened they would have proven the opposite of their point.
I am european and while I believe being trigger happy is usually the wrong response but we need to put people's minds at rest. Any decent PR man could defend the incapacitation of Greenpeace activists who were testing the security of a nuclear plant. The kneejerk reaction to someone breaking into a nuclear plant is "A terrorist could have done the same!". And I can't really disagree (diry bombs are easy to make if you have radioactive material).
Besides that: I think they should have arrested the Greenpeace activists. It would have been safe and friendly (and they would have had the option to shoot them if they broke the arrest).
Letting them pass because they knew the perpetrators were Greenpeace activists was an inexcusable bad call.
They may have hidden it to prevent users from deleting it. One of the things I'd expect CIQ to collect is data on signal strength combined with location data. This can be used to create a map with signal strengths: helpfull to identify where more antenna's should be placed.
If users find out there is a program on their phone that does this the user may want to delete it, so CIQ made it hard to find and hard to delete. But they forgot the Streisand Effect.
What they should have done is offer a discount if you let them install the software (there are many people who'll install it for a couple of dollars off from their monthly bill). This would have given them cheap signal strength data, but they may have thought this was to expensive (a couple of dollars over so many customers is a lot of money). They choose to hide it and risk this fallout.
I liked it years ago. They made it easy to search for a function and get a list of windows software that did it. Back then I usually couldn't find who made software that did what I needed done. I coudn't go to the software producer's site, because I didn't know who he was. Now I just google around a bit, search some forums and hope for the best.
In my eyes they already screwed up when they allowed sw developers to promote the features of the full (paid) version in the description of the free version without any indication the free version didn't include the feature.
"Up to 2 billion or more" is even betterrerdurr.
But the iPhone-toad network interface cable is terribly expensive.