You could stand to do a little reading about card counting, since you don't seem to quite get it.
Card counting a 6 deck shoe is more difficult then a single deck, and the odds are not as good in the long run but it is possible with some mental discipline playing perfectly to eek out a small statistical advantage over time.
It's not that they win that they are banned, but that they clog up the tables with their minimum bets while counting (they need to take up the entire table
Not true at all. Card counters do not need to take up "the whole table". They need only to see the cards that have been dealt. It's just as easy for a card counter to sit at a crowded table.
Casinos are not going to kick somebody out for making the minimum bet. It's very common for most players to bet the minimum of the table. It's only when their bets start to widely fluctuate that they arouse suspicion .
Before you start making wildly incorrect assumptions, there are a few texts you should pick up. To start, I always recommend the book that started it all, Beat the Dealer by Edward Thorpe. Granted, it's somewhat outdated (the casinos are pretty wise to his methods) but it's an incredible and highly entertaining introduction to the subject. If hard mathamatics is more your speed, then Peter Griffin's Theory of Blackjack is pretty comprhensive look into the mechanics behind the math going on (though it's pretty complex, and lost me for good portions).
That's a fallacious analogy. If you want to use chairs, this is closer to what I'm talking about:
Me: I've discovered a fantastic new chair that could very well be the most comfortable and ergonomically designed desk chair to date.
You: That's impossible. My Herman Miller Aeron chair is the best designed office chair in existence. Nothing can exceed it.
Me: I don't know. I've tried both and this feels a lot better.
You: (opening desk drawer and pulling out Aeron brochure) Look, it says right here "The most comfortable and ergonomical chair in the world". Does your chair have a brochure that says that?
distance themselves from the poor sap proposing such sacrilege
No, you're not the only one. When I talk to "scientists" (I'm not one either), and even hint that Einstein's theory might be wrong, it's as if I've shouted out a stream of profanities at church.
Slowly, but ever so surely, the scientific community is throwing out objectivity and clinging to tradition. In a round about way, scientists are becoming the new priests; just as a man of the cloth devotes years of study to the divine and carries a significantly greater knowledge and understanding of the mystical over the lay person, the scientist too follows a rigorous course of study and understands the physical world in a far more advanced way.
The objective is the same: "The search for the truth". But the key difference is that scientists are supposed to be objective in that search. I'm disappointed when I ask a particularly religious person a tough question, and she uses the "I know it's true because it's in the bible" response. I'm just as disappointed when I ask a scientist an equally tough question and get an "I know it's true because it was published in the journal of XYZ"
From an objective perspective, the scientist can typically be more confident in the validity of something published in a journal of note because it is assumed conclusions were reached using the scientific method and stood up to rigorous peer review. But these days, you will never see anything published that contradicts the core beliefs of the scientific community.
A scientist today who stumbles upon a discovery that, among other things, disproves the theory of relativity, and who can make a compelling case to justify further expenditure of money and resources to bring his hypothesis to fruition, has no chance whatsoever of receiving funding. In fact, if he chose to continue this work and be outspoken about it it's likely he'd lose is position if he worked at a university or think-tank. He would be an outcast and a pariah in the academic world, even though all of his conclusions have been reached through objective reasoning via the scientific method.
This kind of closed mindedness in the academic world is eerily similar to the world some time ago when the Church prohibited any science or reasoning which suggested the fallibility of the Church's core beliefs. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
I'm not saying Einstein was wrong. As a laymen myself, I couldn't come close to understanding the nuances of his theory so it would virtually impossible for me to comment on its validity. I'm simply saying that it's folly for the scientific community to not even consider alternatives. (And no, I'm not saying that a religious perspective should be considered; religion has no place in science)
Am I to take this as a statment that the Internet could be more then just the http protocol for the web?
One could only dream of the exotic applications:
o The ability to use some sort of "terminal" application and access remote *nix based computers using text o The use of some otherwise abandoned ports to quicky and effiectly distrubte and pull files from o A simpler form of transfering files from a server using some sort of "file transfer protocol" o The ability to talk in real time to others using text or with webcams on a chat specific server, identified as a sort of "Internet Relay Chat", or some sort of instantanious "messenger" service o Again using obscure ports, being able to play gaves in a massive virtual universe in real time with other "hackers" who have figured out to use the Internet for more then just "the web".
I'm sure there are more. Who knows what crazy ideas people with computers will come with next? Heck, the next thing you know people will eschew the web altogether and their primary Internet connection will use VOIP ss a telephone replacement.
(calling the Internet "The web" is a lot like calling a sedan "The map in the glove box".)
This is one of those posts that's going to end up sounding like a troll, but that's not my intent.
When you get deep down to it, what's the purpose of really high speed Internet? The bulk of the features for the public in the Internet can be experienced with low-speed (dialup) Text for information, forum discussions for local issues, or simple things like access to online shopping are all pretty low bandwidth intensive services.
The types of things that actually require high bandwidth for the average citizen are either commercial (companies offering a large amount of content where high speed is needed, like movie previews and the like) or questionable (such as music and movie downloads).
In other words, it's difficult to make the case that broadband Internet is a necessary part of the nation's infrastructure, since every aspect of the Internet that's in the public interest can be handled quite well with dialup.
This is for the home user, of course. Corporate needs might be higher (like being able to send large spreadsheets over the Internet, or lossless video conferencing to meet the needs of business meetings). But for your average Joe sitting at home broadband is a luxury item, not a necessity. As such, it's difficult to justify large (publicly funded) outlays for improving high speed Internet for the masses.
Of course, it's a luxury I'm willing to pay for, because I'm impatient and like having information come to me that much faster. But I'd rather it is me who pays for it, not some poor working slob whose only experience with the Internet is helping his daughter download a text file from her school explaining her homework for the week, which he could accomplish just as easily with dialup.
This is, of course, an opinion. Don't take it any further then that.
This is all cool, but you know what would be really neat? If you had some device that you wore on your wrist that told you the time. More advanced applications could include the date.
When I worked as a PM for special system upgrades in public facilities, E911 was all the rage. The problem is that for E911 to work, not only must your system be able to handle it, the 911 dispatcher must be able to handle it.
More often then not, 1. The local dispatcher has the capibilities to use E911, but their systems don't have your specifics, so it's moot 2. The local dispatcher has the capibilities to use E911, but the humans there haven't been trained how to use it, so it's moot 3. The local dispatcher doesn't have any ability to use E911. While your phone or phone system is set up for it, they can't take advantage of, so it's moot.
Ultimatly, E911 could be something really cool (and helpful), but from what I saw, it's more of a marketing buzzword then anything else.
What if I'm a bad guy pretending to be the good guy pretending to be the bad guy?
In other words, I'm really a phisher opperating under the guise of one of these people trying to "help" others.
On every successful "catch" for something like, say, bank information or ssn, I have a script automatically check the victims bank account balance or credit score. If they're low, I automatically send them a "gotcha!" letter saying "look at what you just gave to me? It's a good thing I'm a responsible citizen and let you know!"
If the values are high, I sell them at a premium to other criminals (who will come to know that *my* information always contaians the personal information of someone with means).
If I ever get caught, I simply can point to the large number of emails I sent off warning people. "Hey, that some other guy robbed them blind isn't my fault; just because I deal with people who are prone to fall for this stuff doesn't mean I exploit them. Heck, I help them, and here's all my (doctored) logs to proove it. Don't believe me? Go interview the countless number of people I saved!
In the end, the profit wouldn't be huge, but it'd sure add another layer of safety to the fraud.
You're right. I don't know if it's old age or senility creeping in or what, but I could have sworn I had heard that McDonald's owned the trademark to 'hamburger'. A quick check online shows that I was very, very wrong. I typically don't disseminate such blatantly incorrect information, and am a little concerned that my memory would mislead me like that.
In any event, I'm sorry for saying something so grossly wrong, and thanks for correcting me without being a jerk (so many Slashdot users would immediately resort to name calling in these situations).
I've yet to see a Hardee's out here (California), but we do have Carl's Jr, which I believe is the same thing (They both share the identical smailing star logo, and their webpages are virtually identical in style and format). I think it's like the Best Food's/Hellmann's situation. It's the same company, they sell the same products, but in the East they call it Hellmann's and in the West they call it Best Food's. When I lived back East, I remember being taken aback a little with Hellmann's; they even use the exact same jingles in the TV commercials I've seen (Bring out your Best Foods/Hillmans and bring out your best)
A quick glance at the Carl's Jr online menu doesn't reference a "Thick Burger", but their "Six Dollar Burger" fits your description pretty closely. My guess is it's the same thing, just with a different name.
Personally, I don't eat out at fast food restaurants (maybe about oncce every 2-3 months) , and when I do go out, typically it will be to Wienerschnitzel. Boy do I ever love their chilli cheese dogs. Almost all of their restaurant are in the American West, with single location in Baton Rouge and Illinois. An additional curiosity is their location Guam airport.
I'm underweight, to the point where doctors have told me that it's approaching being unhealthy (6'1", 150 lbs) The upshot to this is that I never have to count calories or look at the fat content in foods.
The olympics are supposed to be not-for-profit. I've been sitting here trying to think of an orginization, for-profit or otherwise that's worse then the Olympics, and am comming up blank.
Even the RIAA (the orginization we all love to hate) isn't as bad. If IOC members ran the RIAA, they'd file injunctinos against financial institutions for using "CD" as an acronym for certificates of deposit.
As I said elsewhere on this discussion, the only single group I can point at as being worse is the Church of Scientology. When being measured in things like lack of ethics and greed, and you end up somewhere between the RIAA and the CoS, that doesn't say a good thing.
LiveLinux CD's have been doing exactly that for years.
Yeah, but this goes one step further. A bootable Linux distro on a disc, or bootable CD with an OS and custom utilities are fine, but once the disc has been burned you can't make any changes. With this process, you can make changes to the core features of the OS at any time. Even something simple like changing the home page on the browser cannot be done on a disc, and forget about bookmarks or cache, unless you reburn it with the new settings. But burning a new CD-R every time you use a computer kind of defetes the purpose.
Large enough USB stick will hold the OS too.
If you read the article, it suggests that moving from portable hard drives to USB memory sticks is the expected next logical step.
I've been on servers running on an iPod. Doesn't work out too well though, the HD gets too hot and burns up.
Why in heaven's name would you use an iPod for anything other then storing music and pictures? Once again, I don't think the article was suggesting that you use an iPod. It simply uses the iPod as an example of how versitle this process is.
The truth is, sponsors paid for advertising seen by people watching the Olympics. This broadening definition is troubling but hardly new to much of North America.
Yeah, but the way the IOC has gone WAY overboard with protecting anything remotely connected with the olympics is reaching the point where the television audiences are going to start getting so annoyed they simply won't watch the olympics.
I started doing this almost a decade ago; the way they present the olympics, combined with the insane rules and policies governing every tiny aspect of the games is just too much. Any magic or 'special' qualities the olympics once had have been killed by the rampant commercialization, the strict authoritarian control, and the excessive corruption of the IOC. I don't have the hard figures in front of me, but I'd guess that for the price of just one luxury weekend vacation for the top IOC members (first class flights and hotels, all for a few hours in a conference room to discuss how they can make a few extra dollars) they could send all the atheletes from a small country to compete in the games.
The olympics are suppsoed to be non-profit, yet I can't seem to think of a for-profit company that's as rutheless and greedy as the IOC. As it stands, in terms of propesnity to file lawsuits and guarding their image, the olympics are second only to the Church of Scientology. Which is telling.
As a side note, I can remember hearing a long time ago that there's a sort of unoffical agreement between the major fast food chains that allows them to mention competitors in their advertisments as long as they're not overtly negitive.
I don't know if this is true (since I can't vouch for the credibility of the person who told me this), but it makes sense.
I do know that the word "hamburger" is trademarked by McDonalds, which is why you'll never see something called a "hamburger" on the menu of any place other then McDonalds. It'll be a "burger", or a "Whopper" or something.
The funny part is, the only thing on McDonald's lineup of food that's actually called a "hamburger" (which, if you look closely you'll see the trademark symbol after the word on their menus) is the ultra-cheap generic burger which has nothing but a tiny disc of meat-like substance, a spattering of choped onions, a pickle and some mayonase. The choice that's slightly more edible isn't called a hambuger, it's called a "Big Mac".
Of course, none of this changes the fact that pretty much all fast food tastes horrible and is full of lard. My own non-trademarked "Moke-burgers" (1/3 lb *real* meat patty cooked on a grill, melted swiss, fresh thick tomatoe slices, onions, bacon, a generous helping of avacados, lettuce, catsup and mayo...) man, that's a good ham^h^h^hburger.
"I booted Linux on my Atari 2600" "I booted Linux on a battery powered home pregnancy kit" "I finally got linux to boot on my Electronic Battleship game" "My Sony clock radio now has duel boot for BSD and Linux" "I booted linux on my Speak-n-Spell, but I can't seem to get it to reconize the voice producing hardware" "I got Linux to run on my Lite-Brite, though the refresh rates under X are really, really slow" "My dog's brain has been replaced by a Palm V runnig Linux" "My Casio watch runs windows applications under WINE" or simply "It's taking forever for my pet rock to compile the kernal"
I doubt any of those would be believable, though I'm willing to bet there are a few people out there who might try some of them.
Customers who believe they have been attacked should contact their local FBI office or post their complaint on the Internet Fraud Complaint Center Web site.
Ummm...
"Hello, FBI? Yeah, hi. This is Pat. Listen, I've noticed my computer has been running a little slow lately. Yeah, more so then usual... Well, I heard about this new worm virus on the news... Yeah, I know I should run a virus scanner... Yes, I'm aware that the FBI does not troubleshoot and provide support for PCs... No, I don't expect you to launch a huge investigation because I suspect I *might* have been infected... Of course I'm aware that even if I was infected, there's really nothing the FBI can do about my particular case. . . . What do you mean 'Why am I calling you'?? Microsoft said I should!!"
No doubt. The way the Olympics have been run in recent memory is sad. They guard anything that has to do with the olympics so closely, any spirit of friendly compitition has been lost.
I remember a few years ago, atheletes weren't able to keep and publish an online journal about their experiences, so fans could get an unspoiled perspective of what the atheletes saw. That's bordering on insane.
To make matters worse, television coverage of the games is miserable. In an hour of coverage, you'll get 15 minutes of commericals, 25 minutes of sappy "human interest" stories (This is young Nadia's first olympic games *cue heart strings music* she had to face a lot of challenges to get here, because just two years before the games, her belowed cat Mittens died from old age), 10 minutes of "what you'll see later on" and mindless chatter of the comentators ("You know, Bob, the sun that comes out over Athens during the day is the exact same sun that shines over America." "No, I didn't know that. That's so fascinating, especially since America is so far away", and a whopping 10 minutes of actual coverage of atheletic compitition.
I'm not kidding.
Essentially, the commericalism of the games have robbed it of its soul, and America's TV coverage has made it unwatchable. And forget about trying to enjoy the opening ceremonies; the commentators must be paid by the word, because they don't know when the shut up.
After going over the comments, it seems that most of the people miss the point. It's easily understandable why, because the Slashdot headline is somewhat misleading.
This is not a "gee wiz, somebody got Knoppix to run on an iPod and encrypt the files on the drive". That would be kind of pointless. What makes this newsworthy is that they have developed a way to put an OS, applications, and datafiles all together on one portable device. This way, you can take everything in your computer (including the OS and its configuration), or as they put it the "soul" of your machine, and run it on another machine independent of whatever OS is installed on it.
While currently you can store your own data files on a flash drive and access them on another PC (so as long as that PC has the software needed to read those files), you're still limited to the OS and configuration of that temporary host. With this, the temporary host doesn't even have to have an OS installed on it; it's all run from the portable device.
No. A USB memory stick, as it's used today, is really only practicle for storing datafiles. This goes beyond the datafiles and puts the OS and the applications on the portable drive, so when you go to a different computer you're not just reading your saved files from the portable device, you're actually only using the machine's hardware and running your own personal copy and configuraton of the OS.
So, theoretically, you should see the exact same programs and your OS should act the exact same way regardless of what you run it on. Unlike a laptop, where your OS and data is stored and configured to run specifically (and only on) that hunk of hardware, this (should) run anywhere; your PC at work, the one at home, the one at someone elses house etc. And regardless of what OS those machines have running natively, this circumvents the installed OS and runs its own.
It's not going to happen until microwave vandors release the technical specs of their units, so Linux drivers for the various microwave perhephals (like, for example, the clock) can be written.
Once we know the specific details of how the different parts of the microwave oven talk to each other, I'm sure we'll see linux ported to the device.
Just remember, until they get the bugs worked out there's always a chance of a problem. I won't install it on my microwave until Ovenix goes gold, because if something fails, the last thing I want is to have to telnet into my microwave just to triggle a clean shutdown.
The point isn't that you can now use your ipod to run an OS, the point is developers have come up with a truly portable remote envrionment. The OS, software and data files are all stored on a portable hard drive (eventually, a flash drive) that's compleatly independant from the hardware envrionment.
So, you can take your OS as you like it configured, with all of your programs and all of your saved files, pull it out of your pocket and run it on any hardware envrionment, even something like an Ipod.
And believe me, "registration" ain't gonna happen; good luck even STARTING on that mess.
I get this image of a black windowless van driving around war driving (but they'll call it something else, like "freedom driving") looking for unregistered APs. I'll get a knock on my door and be met by a pale man in a black suit and hat, flanked on either side with armed helmeted shock troops demanding to know why I haven't registered my AP yet. If I answer anything other then a very plausable "I did, but the government must not have recorded it yet", I'll disappear. Forever.
When the RIAA first started to make a rucus about p2p, many noted that "People have been copying and sharing music with their friends for years on cassette tape. In the end, it proved to have little effect on the music industry's bottom line. How is this different?"
The RIAA responded by claiming p2p is different; it makes the copy and distribution of songs so easy, and can be offered to so many people that, unlike dubbing a cassette tape, it can do real damage to the music industry.
Now we get news that the bulk of music trading is done physically instead of over the internet; people are ripping and burning copies of CDs they own. The inference from the RIAA is that this process is damaging to the music industry. Presumably, they are going to use this information to justify the inclusion of restrictive DRM on their recordings and mandating that hardware manufacturers include DRM in their devices.
They seem to forget the fact that making a copy of an owned CD is, for all practical purposes, virtually identical to dubbing a cassette tape. Most people's equipment still restricts someone to making one copy at a time and requires the physical purchase and handling of blank media. If anything, the technology is more restrictive because of price. At the end of the 80s, you could pick up a "boom box" with duel cassette and a "high speed" dubbing feature for as low as $35, while copying CDs still require a fully functioning computer with a CD-R burner (which, even at the lower end is going to set you back $350). In addition, CD-Rs are not nearly as durable as cassette tapes, at least in the short run (you can't just throw a CD-R on the dashboard of your car like you could with a cheap cassette tape; it will scratch and become unplayable).
It's frustrating, because it seems the RIAA is making a lot of noise about mp3s killing the music industry and hurting the livelihood of artists when it's just not true. Historically, whenever any media industry fights a new technology and loses (audio cassette tapes, VCRs), we learn that the damages they claimed never came to pass. As a consumer (who happens to enjoy music quite a bit), it seems obvious that the RIAA's objections to home computer technology for copying and archiving music is pointless.
The more cynical side of me thinks that all of this is a case of self denial; that the RIAA is simply unwilling to admit that their declining sales are the result of consumer reaction to the flaws in the way their industry conducts business (i.e., signing and promoting identical sounding unoriginal and uninspiring bands because they have lost the ability to recognize and promote talent or setting CD prices higher then the market is willing to pay). They use file sharing and music copying as a scapegoat to draw attention away from their real problems.
What they fail to understand is that all they're managing to do with all this noise is piss off their customers. If DRM becomes a reality (and it probably will), I fear it will stand as the final nail in the music industry's coffin. A consumer today might purchase a CD and make multiple (legal) copies. One or two copies for archival, a copy for a friend, and might have the CD's tracks ripped to the mp3 format to be burned on a number of 'mix tape' discs for in the car or transferred to their mp3 player. The RIAA cannot reasonably expect consumers to react favorably if that freedom and flexibility is stifled by the restrictions of DRM. In other words, how do they honestly expect the average person to plunk down $18 for a recording that they can't do with as they please? If they're trying to get people to buy their music instead of obtaining it illegally, making the purchased product more inconvenient then it already is isn't going to help.
What process do you use in the game to give it its addictive properties? Do you modify the screen refresh rate to simulate a "flashing light frequency" which induces a soothing and mildly euphoric reaction in the brain? Or is there something in the way the characters and scenery are modeled which puts the user into a highly suggestive state, leaving them susceptible to subliminal messages in the audio that say "keep playing; your outside life and responsibilities are insignificant compared to the welfare of your half elf wizard" over and over again?
I'd be very curious to know which process works best.
Pat Highgate -Assistant new-media producer, Republican Party of California
Slashdot Mirror
You could stand to do a little reading about card counting, since you don't seem to quite get it.
Card counting a 6 deck shoe is more difficult then a single deck, and the odds are not as good in the long run but it is possible with some mental discipline playing perfectly to eek out a small statistical advantage over time.
It's not that they win that they are banned, but that they clog up the tables with their minimum bets while counting (they need to take up the entire table
Not true at all. Card counters do not need to take up "the whole table". They need only to see the cards that have been dealt. It's just as easy for a card counter to sit at a crowded table.
Casinos are not going to kick somebody out for making the minimum bet. It's very common for most players to bet the minimum of the table. It's only when their bets start to widely fluctuate that they arouse suspicion .
Before you start making wildly incorrect assumptions, there are a few texts you should pick up. To start, I always recommend the book that started it all, Beat the Dealer by Edward Thorpe. Granted, it's somewhat outdated (the casinos are pretty wise to his methods) but it's an incredible and highly entertaining introduction to the subject. If hard mathamatics is more your speed, then Peter Griffin's Theory of Blackjack is pretty comprhensive look into the mechanics behind the math going on (though it's pretty complex, and lost me for good portions).
That's a fallacious analogy. If you want to use chairs, this is closer to what I'm talking about:
Me: I've discovered a fantastic new chair that could very well be the most comfortable and ergonomically designed desk chair to date.
You: That's impossible. My Herman Miller Aeron chair is the best designed office chair in existence. Nothing can exceed it.
Me: I don't know. I've tried both and this feels a lot better.
You: (opening desk drawer and pulling out Aeron brochure) Look, it says right here "The most comfortable and ergonomical chair in the world". Does your chair have a brochure that says that?
Me: Well, no... but I really think that...
You: I didn't think so. Stop wasting my time.
distance themselves from the poor sap proposing such sacrilege
No, you're not the only one. When I talk to "scientists" (I'm not one either), and even hint that Einstein's theory might be wrong, it's as if I've shouted out a stream of profanities at church.
Slowly, but ever so surely, the scientific community is throwing out objectivity and clinging to tradition. In a round about way, scientists are becoming the new priests; just as a man of the cloth devotes years of study to the divine and carries a significantly greater knowledge and understanding of the mystical over the lay person, the scientist too follows a rigorous course of study and understands the physical world in a far more advanced way.
The objective is the same: "The search for the truth". But the key difference is that scientists are supposed to be objective in that search. I'm disappointed when I ask a particularly religious person a tough question, and she uses the "I know it's true because it's in the bible" response. I'm just as disappointed when I ask a scientist an equally tough question and get an "I know it's true because it was published in the journal of XYZ"
From an objective perspective, the scientist can typically be more confident in the validity of something published in a journal of note because it is assumed conclusions were reached using the scientific method and stood up to rigorous peer review. But these days, you will never see anything published that contradicts the core beliefs of the scientific community.
A scientist today who stumbles upon a discovery that, among other things, disproves the theory of relativity, and who can make a compelling case to justify further expenditure of money and resources to bring his hypothesis to fruition, has no chance whatsoever of receiving funding. In fact, if he chose to continue this work and be outspoken about it it's likely he'd lose is position if he worked at a university or think-tank. He would be an outcast and a pariah in the academic world, even though all of his conclusions have been reached through objective reasoning via the scientific method.
This kind of closed mindedness in the academic world is eerily similar to the world some time ago when the Church prohibited any science or reasoning which suggested the fallibility of the Church's core beliefs. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
I'm not saying Einstein was wrong. As a laymen myself, I couldn't come close to understanding the nuances of his theory so it would virtually impossible for me to comment on its validity. I'm simply saying that it's folly for the scientific community to not even consider alternatives. (And no, I'm not saying that a religious perspective should be considered; religion has no place in science)
My reply:
Your stupid!
My sig:
My stupid?
My stupid what? My stupid your sig?
Or did you mean 'you're stupid'?
Just trying to figure out what you're getting at.
(Your stupid grammer might suggest to some that you're stupid, but I digress).
Am I to take this as a statment that the Internet could be more then just the http protocol for the web?
One could only dream of the exotic applications:
o The ability to use some sort of "terminal" application and access remote *nix based computers using text
o The use of some otherwise abandoned ports to quicky and effiectly distrubte and pull files from
o A simpler form of transfering files from a server using some sort of "file transfer protocol"
o The ability to talk in real time to others using text or with webcams on a chat specific server, identified as a sort of "Internet Relay Chat", or some sort of instantanious "messenger" service
o Again using obscure ports, being able to play gaves in a massive virtual universe in real time with other "hackers" who have figured out to use the Internet for more then just "the web".
I'm sure there are more. Who knows what crazy ideas people with computers will come with next? Heck, the next thing you know people will eschew the web altogether and their primary Internet connection will use VOIP ss a telephone replacement.
(calling the Internet "The web" is a lot like calling a sedan "The map in the glove box".)
This is one of those posts that's going to end up sounding like a troll, but that's not my intent.
When you get deep down to it, what's the purpose of really high speed Internet? The bulk of the features for the public in the Internet can be experienced with low-speed (dialup) Text for information, forum discussions for local issues, or simple things like access to online shopping are all pretty low bandwidth intensive services.
The types of things that actually require high bandwidth for the average citizen are either commercial (companies offering a large amount of content where high speed is needed, like movie previews and the like) or questionable (such as music and movie downloads).
In other words, it's difficult to make the case that broadband Internet is a necessary part of the nation's infrastructure, since every aspect of the Internet that's in the public interest can be handled quite well with dialup.
This is for the home user, of course. Corporate needs might be higher (like being able to send large spreadsheets over the Internet, or lossless video conferencing to meet the needs of business meetings). But for your average Joe sitting at home broadband is a luxury item, not a necessity. As such, it's difficult to justify large (publicly funded) outlays for improving high speed Internet for the masses.
Of course, it's a luxury I'm willing to pay for, because I'm impatient and like having information come to me that much faster. But I'd rather it is me who pays for it, not some poor working slob whose only experience with the Internet is helping his daughter download a text file from her school explaining her homework for the week, which he could accomplish just as easily with dialup.
This is, of course, an opinion. Don't take it any further then that.
This is all cool, but you know what would be really neat? If you had some device that you wore on your wrist that told you the time. More advanced applications could include the date.
Now, something like that... I'd pay for.
When I worked as a PM for special system upgrades in public facilities, E911 was all the rage. The problem is that for E911 to work, not only must your system be able to handle it, the 911 dispatcher must be able to handle it.
More often then not,
1. The local dispatcher has the capibilities to use E911, but their systems don't have your specifics, so it's moot
2. The local dispatcher has the capibilities to use E911, but the humans there haven't been trained how to use it, so it's moot
3. The local dispatcher doesn't have any ability to use E911. While your phone or phone system is set up for it, they can't take advantage of, so it's moot.
Ultimatly, E911 could be something really cool (and helpful), but from what I saw, it's more of a marketing buzzword then anything else.
What if I'm a bad guy pretending to be the good guy pretending to be the bad guy?
In other words, I'm really a phisher opperating under the guise of one of these people trying to "help" others.
On every successful "catch" for something like, say, bank information or ssn, I have a script automatically check the victims bank account balance or credit score. If they're low, I automatically send them a "gotcha!" letter saying "look at what you just gave to me? It's a good thing I'm a responsible citizen and let you know!"
If the values are high, I sell them at a premium to other criminals (who will come to know that *my* information always contaians the personal information of someone with means).
If I ever get caught, I simply can point to the large number of emails I sent off warning people. "Hey, that some other guy robbed them blind isn't my fault; just because I deal with people who are prone to fall for this stuff doesn't mean I exploit them. Heck, I help them, and here's all my (doctored) logs to proove it. Don't believe me? Go interview the countless number of people I saved!
In the end, the profit wouldn't be huge, but it'd sure add another layer of safety to the fraud.
You're right. I don't know if it's old age or senility creeping in or what, but I could have sworn I had heard that McDonald's owned the trademark to 'hamburger'. A quick check online shows that I was very, very wrong. I typically don't disseminate such blatantly incorrect information, and am a little concerned that my memory would mislead me like that.
In any event, I'm sorry for saying something so grossly wrong, and thanks for correcting me without being a jerk (so many Slashdot users would immediately resort to name calling in these situations).
I've yet to see a Hardee's out here (California), but we do have Carl's Jr, which I believe is the same thing (They both share the identical smailing star logo, and their webpages are virtually identical in style and format). I think it's like the Best Food's/Hellmann's situation. It's the same company, they sell the same products, but in the East they call it Hellmann's and in the West they call it Best Food's. When I lived back East, I remember being taken aback a little with Hellmann's; they even use the exact same jingles in the TV commercials I've seen (Bring out your Best Foods/Hillmans and bring out your best)
A quick glance at the Carl's Jr online menu doesn't reference a "Thick Burger", but their "Six Dollar Burger" fits your description pretty closely. My guess is it's the same thing, just with a different name.
Personally, I don't eat out at fast food restaurants (maybe about oncce every 2-3 months) , and when I do go out, typically it will be to Wienerschnitzel. Boy do I ever love their chilli cheese dogs. Almost all of their restaurant are in the American West, with single location in Baton Rouge and Illinois. An additional curiosity is their location Guam airport.
I'm underweight, to the point where doctors have told me that it's approaching being unhealthy (6'1", 150 lbs) The upshot to this is that I never have to count calories or look at the fat content in foods.
The olympics are supposed to be not-for-profit. I've been sitting here trying to think of an orginization, for-profit or otherwise that's worse then the Olympics, and am comming up blank.
Even the RIAA (the orginization we all love to hate) isn't as bad. If IOC members ran the RIAA, they'd file injunctinos against financial institutions for using "CD" as an acronym for certificates of deposit.
As I said elsewhere on this discussion, the only single group I can point at as being worse is the Church of Scientology. When being measured in things like lack of ethics and greed, and you end up somewhere between the RIAA and the CoS, that doesn't say a good thing.
LiveLinux CD's have been doing exactly that for years.
Yeah, but this goes one step further. A bootable Linux distro on a disc, or bootable CD with an OS and custom utilities are fine, but once the disc has been burned you can't make any changes. With this process, you can make changes to the core features of the OS at any time. Even something simple like changing the home page on the browser cannot be done on a disc, and forget about bookmarks or cache, unless you reburn it with the new settings. But burning a new CD-R every time you use a computer kind of defetes the purpose.
Large enough USB stick will hold the OS too.
If you read the article, it suggests that moving from portable hard drives to USB memory sticks is the expected next logical step.
I've been on servers running on an iPod. Doesn't work out too well though, the HD gets too hot and burns up.
Why in heaven's name would you use an iPod for anything other then storing music and pictures? Once again, I don't think the article was suggesting that you use an iPod. It simply uses the iPod as an example of how versitle this process is.
The truth is, sponsors paid for advertising seen by people watching the Olympics. This broadening definition is troubling but hardly new to much of North America.
Yeah, but the way the IOC has gone WAY overboard with protecting anything remotely connected with the olympics is reaching the point where the television audiences are going to start getting so annoyed they simply won't watch the olympics.
I started doing this almost a decade ago; the way they present the olympics, combined with the insane rules and policies governing every tiny aspect of the games is just too much. Any magic or 'special' qualities the olympics once had have been killed by the rampant commercialization, the strict authoritarian control, and the excessive corruption of the IOC. I don't have the hard figures in front of me, but I'd guess that for the price of just one luxury weekend vacation for the top IOC members (first class flights and hotels, all for a few hours in a conference room to discuss how they can make a few extra dollars) they could send all the atheletes from a small country to compete in the games.
The olympics are suppsoed to be non-profit, yet I can't seem to think of a for-profit company that's as rutheless and greedy as the IOC. As it stands, in terms of propesnity to file lawsuits and guarding their image, the olympics are second only to the Church of Scientology. Which is telling.
As a side note, I can remember hearing a long time ago that there's a sort of unoffical agreement between the major fast food chains that allows them to mention competitors in their advertisments as long as they're not overtly negitive.
I don't know if this is true (since I can't vouch for the credibility of the person who told me this), but it makes sense.
I do know that the word "hamburger" is trademarked by McDonalds, which is why you'll never see something called a "hamburger" on the menu of any place other then McDonalds. It'll be a "burger", or a "Whopper" or something.
The funny part is, the only thing on McDonald's lineup of food that's actually called a "hamburger" (which, if you look closely you'll see the trademark symbol after the word on their menus) is the ultra-cheap generic burger which has nothing but a tiny disc of meat-like substance, a spattering of choped onions, a pickle and some mayonase. The choice that's slightly more edible isn't called a hambuger, it's called a "Big Mac".
Of course, none of this changes the fact that pretty much all fast food tastes horrible and is full of lard. My own non-trademarked "Moke-burgers" (1/3 lb *real* meat patty cooked on a grill, melted swiss, fresh thick tomatoe slices, onions, bacon, a generous helping of avacados, lettuce, catsup and mayo...) man, that's a good ham^h^h^hburger.
Can anyone suggest an article in the format
"Booting Linux on a _______"
that would not be vaguely believable?
"I booted Linux on my Atari 2600"
"I booted Linux on a battery powered home pregnancy kit"
"I finally got linux to boot on my Electronic Battleship game"
"My Sony clock radio now has duel boot for BSD and Linux"
"I booted linux on my Speak-n-Spell, but I can't seem to get it to reconize the voice producing hardware"
"I got Linux to run on my Lite-Brite, though the refresh rates under X are really, really slow"
"My dog's brain has been replaced by a Palm V runnig Linux"
"My Casio watch runs windows applications under WINE"
or simply "It's taking forever for my pet rock to compile the kernal"
I doubt any of those would be believable, though I'm willing to bet there are a few people out there who might try some of them.
From Microsoft's info page:
Customers who believe they have been attacked should contact their local FBI office or post their complaint on the Internet Fraud Complaint Center Web site.
Ummm...
"Hello, FBI? Yeah, hi. This is Pat. Listen, I've noticed my computer has been running a little slow lately. Yeah, more so then usual... Well, I heard about this new worm virus on the news... Yeah, I know I should run a virus scanner... Yes, I'm aware that the FBI does not troubleshoot and provide support for PCs... No, I don't expect you to launch a huge investigation because I suspect I *might* have been infected... Of course I'm aware that even if I was infected, there's really nothing the FBI can do about my particular case. . . . What do you mean 'Why am I calling you'?? Microsoft said I should!!"
No doubt. The way the Olympics have been run in recent memory is sad. They guard anything that has to do with the olympics so closely, any spirit of friendly compitition has been lost.
I remember a few years ago, atheletes weren't able to keep and publish an online journal about their experiences, so fans could get an unspoiled perspective of what the atheletes saw. That's bordering on insane.
To make matters worse, television coverage of the games is miserable. In an hour of coverage, you'll get 15 minutes of commericals, 25 minutes of sappy "human interest" stories (This is young Nadia's first olympic games *cue heart strings music* she had to face a lot of challenges to get here, because just two years before the games, her belowed cat Mittens died from old age), 10 minutes of "what you'll see later on" and mindless chatter of the comentators ("You know, Bob, the sun that comes out over Athens during the day is the exact same sun that shines over America." "No, I didn't know that. That's so fascinating, especially since America is so far away", and a whopping 10 minutes of actual coverage of atheletic compitition.
I'm not kidding.
Essentially, the commericalism of the games have robbed it of its soul, and America's TV coverage has made it unwatchable. And forget about trying to enjoy the opening ceremonies; the commentators must be paid by the word, because they don't know when the shut up.
After going over the comments, it seems that most of the people miss the point. It's easily understandable why, because the Slashdot headline is somewhat misleading.
This is not a "gee wiz, somebody got Knoppix to run on an iPod and encrypt the files on the drive". That would be kind of pointless. What makes this newsworthy is that they have developed a way to put an OS, applications, and datafiles all together on one portable device. This way, you can take everything in your computer (including the OS and its configuration), or as they put it the "soul" of your machine, and run it on another machine independent of whatever OS is installed on it.
While currently you can store your own data files on a flash drive and access them on another PC (so as long as that PC has the software needed to read those files), you're still limited to the OS and configuration of that temporary host. With this, the temporary host doesn't even have to have an OS installed on it; it's all run from the portable device.
No. A USB memory stick, as it's used today, is really only practicle for storing datafiles. This goes beyond the datafiles and puts the OS and the applications on the portable drive, so when you go to a different computer you're not just reading your saved files from the portable device, you're actually only using the machine's hardware and running your own personal copy and configuraton of the OS.
So, theoretically, you should see the exact same programs and your OS should act the exact same way regardless of what you run it on. Unlike a laptop, where your OS and data is stored and configured to run specifically (and only on) that hunk of hardware, this (should) run anywhere; your PC at work, the one at home, the one at someone elses house etc. And regardless of what OS those machines have running natively, this circumvents the installed OS and runs its own.
Which, you know, is kinda cool.
It's not going to happen until microwave vandors release the technical specs of their units, so Linux drivers for the various microwave perhephals (like, for example, the clock) can be written.
Once we know the specific details of how the different parts of the microwave oven talk to each other, I'm sure we'll see linux ported to the device.
Just remember, until they get the bugs worked out there's always a chance of a problem. I won't install it on my microwave until Ovenix goes gold, because if something fails, the last thing I want is to have to telnet into my microwave just to triggle a clean shutdown.
Seriously, what's the point?
The point isn't that you can now use your ipod to run an OS, the point is developers have come up with a truly portable remote envrionment. The OS, software and data files are all stored on a portable hard drive (eventually, a flash drive) that's compleatly independant from the hardware envrionment.
So, you can take your OS as you like it configured, with all of your programs and all of your saved files, pull it out of your pocket and run it on any hardware envrionment, even something like an Ipod.
If we were to allow a top level .xxx domain, there might be pornography on the Internet! Keep the Internet safe from pornography and ban the .xxx!
And believe me, "registration" ain't gonna happen; good luck even STARTING on that mess.
I get this image of a black windowless van driving around war driving (but they'll call it something else, like "freedom driving") looking for unregistered APs. I'll get a knock on my door and be met by a pale man in a black suit and hat, flanked on either side with armed helmeted shock troops demanding to know why I haven't registered my AP yet. If I answer anything other then a very plausable "I did, but the government must not have recorded it yet", I'll disappear. Forever.
When the RIAA first started to make a rucus about p2p, many noted that "People have been copying and sharing music with their friends for years on cassette tape. In the end, it proved to have little effect on the music industry's bottom line. How is this different?"
The RIAA responded by claiming p2p is different; it makes the copy and distribution of songs so easy, and can be offered to so many people that, unlike dubbing a cassette tape, it can do real damage to the music industry.
Now we get news that the bulk of music trading is done physically instead of over the internet; people are ripping and burning copies of CDs they own. The inference from the RIAA is that this process is damaging to the music industry. Presumably, they are going to use this information to justify the inclusion of restrictive DRM on their recordings and mandating that hardware manufacturers include DRM in their devices.
They seem to forget the fact that making a copy of an owned CD is, for all practical purposes, virtually identical to dubbing a cassette tape. Most people's equipment still restricts someone to making one copy at a time and requires the physical purchase and handling of blank media. If anything, the technology is more restrictive because of price. At the end of the 80s, you could pick up a "boom box" with duel cassette and a "high speed" dubbing feature for as low as $35, while copying CDs still require a fully functioning computer with a CD-R burner (which, even at the lower end is going to set you back $350). In addition, CD-Rs are not nearly as durable as cassette tapes, at least in the short run (you can't just throw a CD-R on the dashboard of your car like you could with a cheap cassette tape; it will scratch and become unplayable).
It's frustrating, because it seems the RIAA is making a lot of noise about mp3s killing the music industry and hurting the livelihood of artists when it's just not true. Historically, whenever any media industry fights a new technology and loses (audio cassette tapes, VCRs), we learn that the damages they claimed never came to pass. As a consumer (who happens to enjoy music quite a bit), it seems obvious that the RIAA's objections to home computer technology for copying and archiving music is pointless.
The more cynical side of me thinks that all of this is a case of self denial; that the RIAA is simply unwilling to admit that their declining sales are the result of consumer reaction to the flaws in the way their industry conducts business (i.e., signing and promoting identical sounding unoriginal and uninspiring bands because they have lost the ability to recognize and promote talent or setting CD prices higher then the market is willing to pay). They use file sharing and music copying as a scapegoat to draw attention away from their real problems.
What they fail to understand is that all they're managing to do with all this noise is piss off their customers. If DRM becomes a reality (and it probably will), I fear it will stand as the final nail in the music industry's coffin. A consumer today might purchase a CD and make multiple (legal) copies. One or two copies for archival, a copy for a friend, and might have the CD's tracks ripped to the mp3 format to be burned on a number of 'mix tape' discs for in the car or transferred to their mp3 player. The RIAA cannot reasonably expect consumers to react favorably if that freedom and flexibility is stifled by the restrictions of DRM. In other words, how do they honestly expect the average person to plunk down $18 for a recording that they can't do with as they please? If they're trying to get people to buy their music instead of obtaining it illegally, making the purchased product more inconvenient then it already is isn't going to help.
World of Warcraft Team:
What process do you use in the game to give it its addictive properties? Do you modify the screen refresh rate to simulate a "flashing light frequency" which induces a soothing and mildly euphoric reaction in the brain? Or is there something in the way the characters and scenery are modeled which puts the user into a highly suggestive state, leaving them susceptible to subliminal messages in the audio that say "keep playing; your outside life and responsibilities are insignificant compared to the welfare of your half elf wizard" over and over again?
I'd be very curious to know which process works best.
Pat Highgate
-Assistant new-media producer, Republican Party of California