My approach is similar to yours, except I smile politely and show him my receipt. He usually looks at the receipt, smiles back, and wishes me a happy day. Total time spent standing still: about 10 seconds. Maybe I'm just a sucker that way.
Sometimes you can tell the difference. On my commute home every day there is a one-lane offramp with a stop light at the top, and it gets backed up a half mile or so. As I approach the final merge point, most drivers who are still trying to get in have arrived at full cruising speed...an obvious attempt to "cut in line." I will ride the bumper of the car in front of me like I was on his trailer hitch to keep these jerks out. Other times, usually much further back, drivers are trying to get in late but have obviously made a good faith effort...I let these in when able.
And that reminds me of a major gripe I have. In some places, usually where there is an offramp and an onramp that share a lane for a tenth of a mile or so (ie, they cross,) if there is standing traffic in the travel lanes I will encounter some drivers who won't let me merge from the onramp. I mean, where the hell am I supposed to go? It's not like I'm trying to cheat anyone out of their spot or anything! My lane disappears into your lane...what do you want me to do? Idiots. I can only imagine that these people have very small worlds, and take it as some sort of defeat that a car was able to get in front of them.
Also, I suspect the poster was expecting a number of different opinions with brief explanations, which he could peruse before making his choice from among those offered. That is far from nonsensical.
This comment may only apply to a small subset of readers here, but allow me to make the point that as frustratingly obvious as it may be to the numerically literate that "99 cents" is not the same as ".99 cents," so too is it frustratingly obvious to the , erm, literally literate that "cents" is not the same as "cent's." Those of you who are comfortable with numbers but not with grammar: this thread is what it feels like to have to wade through the commas and apostrophes that get thrown around by those who were under the bleachers when their proper usage was being taught.
My friend's dad went into a store when he was a teenager, and there were cookies on the counter with a sign that said, "2 for a nickle, 3 for a dime." He said, "Don't you mean 1 for a nickle, 3 for a dime?" The clerk said, "No, it's just like the sign says, 2 for a nickle."
So my friend's dad said, "Well, I did want 3 cookies, but I've changed my mind. Just give me 2 please," and he handed over a dime, for which he got two cookies and a nickle in change.
Then he handed the nickle back and said, "Can I get another 2 cookies please?"
The clerk apparently stared at that nickle for quite some time.
That's like stealing something from the office snack box to prove that the honor system doesn't work. The point is that, in the aggregate, most entries will be made and corrected by people who want to get it right. When used as a broad-brush resource, it seems to work pretty well. It just needs to be understood for what it is: a community-maintained, honor-system-based store of information.
We could facilitate your little system of checks and balances by changing the standard markings to read, "Declassify upon original authority declassification request...or if any cleared person feels that he should compromise the information contained herein."
Actually, I think they got it right. The point is the ability of the human brain to recognize patterns at a glance. For example, I can look at a thousand different ways to represent the face of a celebrity, and hit a 'yes' or 'no' button almost instantaneously to identify matches. These images would include crisp color photographs, blurry black and whites, caricatures, sketches, silhouettes, etc...maybe even ASCII. Currently the human brain can do this much faster and more reliably than a computer. The article writers chose to call this "processing power" while the submitter chose to call it "visual recognition." Both are fair descriptions.
I recently gave up on tweaking filters for myself and a few dozen people whose accounts I administer. I wrote a little script that asks for confirmation from the sender...if the sender confirms, they are added to a whitelist and will go straight through after that. I can also add addresses manually to the whitelist, and will soon be able to have wildcard (domain-wide) approved addresses. I've gotten exactly two spam in 6 weeks...both were confirmed by either a person or an autoresponder. Five years ago I never would have wanted such a blunt system...nowadays it's just the ticket.
I will paraphrase a story I heard around the campfire in the Boy Scouts:
An old man sat sipping iced tea on a bench in front of the little drug store in a small town. After a while a young man pulled up in his car and got out, and stopped to chat with the old man before going into the store. The younger man said he had just moved to town, and he was curious about how this new town would compare. "I hope it's like the place I just left. The people were friendly, and everyone looked out for each other."
"I've got good news," the old man said, "You will find that this town is just the same as the one you left!"
After a while another young man came along, and stopped to chat with the old man. He too was curious about what this town was like. "I hope it's better than the place I just left. The people were petty and self-centered, and everyone was out for himself."
I've got bad news," the old man said, "You will find that this town is just the same as the one you left!"
I've been using Cinepaint to adjust levels and curves in my scanned-from-negative photos. Then I move to Gimp to do other stuff...including cropping, which, inexplicably, requires pixel math in Cinepaint.
it isn't how smart you are or how hard you work but who you know...
So this guy was successful in this venture because he knew...his friends? Because he had connections to...his family? And they were able to "pour" $1000 into his business? Starting with friends and family as your first customers hardly fits the "who you know" concept.
Tell you what...try getting a business off the ground with $1000 and an idea that isn't clever. Post your results to Slashdot. Good luck.
A cookie sends information FROM the server TO the client, not the other way around. Even when the server retrieves the cookie, it is only retrieving information that the server itself placed in the cookie. Oh, and a web server can only read cookies left by that same server. So please tell me how Bush/wiretaps/warrants fits into this issue at all.
P.S. My computer currently contains 15 cookies from Slashdot. How many are on yours?
I think it's a real stretch to call persistant cookies invasive. Allowing such an exchange is usually the default behavior on both the client and server side. Do you think storing a cookie on a client machine (if allowed by the settings on that machine) is more invasive than reading a caller's phone number off caller ID? Can you tell me a scenario in which these cookies could be abused?
Cookies are the same as wiretapping? I don't think so. Nor can I conceive of a scenario in which the NSA would be able to "snoop" on me by adding a cookie to the pile already residing on my machine.
I think the prohibition against government sites dropping cookies is more akin to forbidding government offices from reading caller ID from incoming calls. This cookie business may sound ominous to people who don't know any better, but in fact it's just a very common implementation of standard web serving technology. Just like caller ID, while it technically may involve "privacy" issues, it's a common technology that is used all the time and is frequently enabled by default on both the client and server side.
"A system or method of bringing a computer to its knees after an authorized user attempts to execute factory-installed software. Following lock-up, the user is presented with a blue screen which may contain meaningless technical jargon.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with an animated hour glass.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that won't move.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that moves but won't click.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that moves and clicks on buttons that don't respond."
could someone explain the "Reunite Gondwondaland!" at the bottom of the Slashdot page to me? Googling the phrase yields nothing but drug spam posted to blogs.
I'm glad someone is finally ready to hear what I have been saying all along This study is a sham It was "conducted" under U.S. DOD contract by Rand, IBM, NEC, and a consortium of labs owned by the Chinese govt but the real purpose was to just generate reports that would attempt to fool people into thinking that aluminum hats don't work to stop the waves generated by brain transmitters and eavesdropping recorders/repeaters hoping that the smarter of those would switch to tinfoil or lead hats but I looked for 10 seconds and saw right away that the data was faulty and now you the Slashdot community can see with me through your own study and through my warning that it's all a big lie to make people go to tin or as I said lead neither of which work nearly as well as aluminum so please help me get the word out I contacted the FBI, CIA, DIA, NASA, NSA, FDA, FCC, and DOA and they all ignored me except for NASA which took me into the office of the director who drugged me and had his doctors plant another device behind my ear.
Slashdot Mirror
My approach is similar to yours, except I smile politely and show him my receipt. He usually looks at the receipt, smiles back, and wishes me a happy day. Total time spent standing still: about 10 seconds. Maybe I'm just a sucker that way.
Sometimes you can tell the difference. On my commute home every day there is a one-lane offramp with a stop light at the top, and it gets backed up a half mile or so. As I approach the final merge point, most drivers who are still trying to get in have arrived at full cruising speed...an obvious attempt to "cut in line." I will ride the bumper of the car in front of me like I was on his trailer hitch to keep these jerks out. Other times, usually much further back, drivers are trying to get in late but have obviously made a good faith effort...I let these in when able.
And that reminds me of a major gripe I have. In some places, usually where there is an offramp and an onramp that share a lane for a tenth of a mile or so (ie, they cross,) if there is standing traffic in the travel lanes I will encounter some drivers who won't let me merge from the onramp. I mean, where the hell am I supposed to go? It's not like I'm trying to cheat anyone out of their spot or anything! My lane disappears into your lane...what do you want me to do? Idiots. I can only imagine that these people have very small worlds, and take it as some sort of defeat that a car was able to get in front of them.
Administrate?
Also, I suspect the poster was expecting a number of different opinions with brief explanations, which he could peruse before making his choice from among those offered. That is far from nonsensical.
This comment may only apply to a small subset of readers here, but allow me to make the point that as frustratingly obvious as it may be to the numerically literate that "99 cents" is not the same as ".99 cents," so too is it frustratingly obvious to the , erm, literally literate that "cents" is not the same as "cent's." Those of you who are comfortable with numbers but not with grammar: this thread is what it feels like to have to wade through the commas and apostrophes that get thrown around by those who were under the bleachers when their proper usage was being taught.
My friend's dad went into a store when he was a teenager, and there were cookies on the counter with a sign that said, "2 for a nickle, 3 for a dime." He said, "Don't you mean 1 for a nickle, 3 for a dime?" The clerk said, "No, it's just like the sign says, 2 for a nickle."
So my friend's dad said, "Well, I did want 3 cookies, but I've changed my mind. Just give me 2 please," and he handed over a dime, for which he got two cookies and a nickle in change.
Then he handed the nickle back and said, "Can I get another 2 cookies please?"
The clerk apparently stared at that nickle for quite some time.
$40/month divided by 3 GB is 0.0013 cents per kilobyte.
So you think 13 dollars per kilobyte is a good rate? That's insane...you're getting ripped off.
That's like stealing something from the office snack box to prove that the honor system doesn't work. The point is that, in the aggregate, most entries will be made and corrected by people who want to get it right. When used as a broad-brush resource, it seems to work pretty well. It just needs to be understood for what it is: a community-maintained, honor-system-based store of information.
We could facilitate your little system of checks and balances by changing the standard markings to read, "Declassify upon original authority declassification request...or if any cleared person feels that he should compromise the information contained herein."
As a matter of fact, I read recently about a system that would have random live surfers solve the captchas, in exchange for a few minutes of porn.
Actually, I think they got it right. The point is the ability of the human brain to recognize patterns at a glance. For example, I can look at a thousand different ways to represent the face of a celebrity, and hit a 'yes' or 'no' button almost instantaneously to identify matches. These images would include crisp color photographs, blurry black and whites, caricatures, sketches, silhouettes, etc...maybe even ASCII. Currently the human brain can do this much faster and more reliably than a computer. The article writers chose to call this "processing power" while the submitter chose to call it "visual recognition." Both are fair descriptions.
I recently gave up on tweaking filters for myself and a few dozen people whose accounts I administer. I wrote a little script that asks for confirmation from the sender...if the sender confirms, they are added to a whitelist and will go straight through after that. I can also add addresses manually to the whitelist, and will soon be able to have wildcard (domain-wide) approved addresses. I've gotten exactly two spam in 6 weeks...both were confirmed by either a person or an autoresponder. Five years ago I never would have wanted such a blunt system...nowadays it's just the ticket.
I will paraphrase a story I heard around the campfire in the Boy Scouts:
An old man sat sipping iced tea on a bench in front of the little drug store in a small town. After a while a young man pulled up in his car and got out, and stopped to chat with the old man before going into the store. The younger man said he had just moved to town, and he was curious about how this new town would compare. "I hope it's like the place I just left. The people were friendly, and everyone looked out for each other."
"I've got good news," the old man said, "You will find that this town is just the same as the one you left!"
After a while another young man came along, and stopped to chat with the old man. He too was curious about what this town was like. "I hope it's better than the place I just left. The people were petty and self-centered, and everyone was out for himself."
I've got bad news," the old man said, "You will find that this town is just the same as the one you left!"
Well, seeing your post without mod points and without response makes me feel better about some of my unnoticed contributions.
Well, the recruiters may have an iron fist, but things supposedly loosen up after you're in.
I've been using Cinepaint to adjust levels and curves in my scanned-from-negative photos. Then I move to Gimp to do other stuff...including cropping, which, inexplicably, requires pixel math in Cinepaint.
it isn't how smart you are or how hard you work but who you know...
So this guy was successful in this venture because he knew...his friends? Because he had connections to...his family? And they were able to "pour" $1000 into his business? Starting with friends and family as your first customers hardly fits the "who you know" concept.
Tell you what...try getting a business off the ground with $1000 and an idea that isn't clever. Post your results to Slashdot. Good luck.
I was hoping to see a splash screen that said, "Now Featuring 16-bit Color!"
A cookie sends information FROM the server TO the client, not the other way around. Even when the server retrieves the cookie, it is only retrieving information that the server itself placed in the cookie. Oh, and a web server can only read cookies left by that same server. So please tell me how Bush/wiretaps/warrants fits into this issue at all.
P.S. My computer currently contains 15 cookies from Slashdot. How many are on yours?
I think it's a real stretch to call persistant cookies invasive. Allowing such an exchange is usually the default behavior on both the client and server side. Do you think storing a cookie on a client machine (if allowed by the settings on that machine) is more invasive than reading a caller's phone number off caller ID? Can you tell me a scenario in which these cookies could be abused?
Cookies are the same as wiretapping? I don't think so. Nor can I conceive of a scenario in which the NSA would be able to "snoop" on me by adding a cookie to the pile already residing on my machine.
I think the prohibition against government sites dropping cookies is more akin to forbidding government offices from reading caller ID from incoming calls. This cookie business may sound ominous to people who don't know any better, but in fact it's just a very common implementation of standard web serving technology. Just like caller ID, while it technically may involve "privacy" issues, it's a common technology that is used all the time and is frequently enabled by default on both the client and server side.
I hear that NSA mail servers have also been decoding headers on all email received, including from the general public!
"A system or method of bringing a computer to its knees after an authorized user attempts to execute factory-installed software. Following lock-up, the user is presented with a blue screen which may contain meaningless technical jargon.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with an animated hour glass.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that won't move.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that moves but won't click.
This patent includes a system in which, following lock-up, the user is presented with a mouse pointer that moves and clicks on buttons that don't respond."
Thanks...but any idea why Googling the mispelled phrase gets all the drug spam?
could someone explain the "Reunite Gondwondaland!" at the bottom of the Slashdot page to me? Googling the phrase yields nothing but drug spam posted to blogs.
I feel so ignorant.
I'm glad someone is finally ready to hear what I have been saying all along This study is a sham It was "conducted" under U.S. DOD contract by Rand, IBM, NEC, and a consortium of labs owned by the Chinese govt but the real purpose was to just generate reports that would attempt to fool people into thinking that aluminum hats don't work to stop the waves generated by brain transmitters and eavesdropping recorders/repeaters hoping that the smarter of those would switch to tinfoil or lead hats but I looked for 10 seconds and saw right away that the data was faulty and now you the Slashdot community can see with me through your own study and through my warning that it's all a big lie to make people go to tin or as I said lead neither of which work nearly as well as aluminum so please help me get the word out I contacted the FBI, CIA, DIA, NASA, NSA, FDA, FCC, and DOA and they all ignored me except for NASA which took me into the office of the director who drugged me and had his doctors plant another device behind my ear.