How about a resistive gloop as seen in the Otherland series of books (or alternatively some non-moving gloves) that you put your hands into. The thing would support your hands (so that if you relaxed your hands, they wouldn't move), but would respond to small changes in various pressure sensors.
I'll leave the implementation of this up to a future person.
Another thing to do would be to transpose the sickle cell gene to the X chromosome, so that there is only ever one "bad" version active. One of the two copies in females would be inactivated as per normal, while the males would only have one copy.
Of course, then there's the problem of only having one copy of the gene working (rather than the two that would be present in the autosomal case), so you'd probably need another "good" variant attached nearby on the X chromosome.
I didn't have to hunt far to find those, and I knew I'd find them even before looking, having seen a few posts from C&L in the past. Maybe McCain's old friend Putin, the president of Germany, tipped them off about that site.
I'm keen on comma (or more often in my case whitespace) separated files. They've been the most scalable in the work that I'm doing, analysing 300,000+ genotypes of 400+ people. The largest file I have is over 4GB, which is *way* beyond what I would expect most garden variety "data storage" applications to handle.
For most of my analysis, I use Perl, and optimise my files for line-by-line processing and the Linux pipeline (this makes parallelisation easy). For things that are more complex and require matrix manipulation, I use R.
It might be easier, but it won't give near as fine-grained control as this method would provide. I'm not convinced about that. The brain has an amazing ability to adapt to new functional changes, for example, rerouting neuronal cell connections and growing more cells after damage. These changes happen at the brain, but they can influence information transfer to nerves all over the body. If you admit that it is possible to learn how to type words [with a low error rate] with your toes, then it shouldn't be much of a stretch to realise that the brain is able to adapt to — and get progressively finer control of — attachments to the peripheral nervous system.
Okay, I live in a somewhat crazy country (New Zealand) in which we have this deal where both parties pay an ISP for Internet services. The consumer of the product (e.g. people who view videos) pays their ISP for internet traffic (something like $b + $x per hour + $y per gigabyte, billed or prepaid at some interval, where b, x, y may be zero). The providers of the product (e.g. people who host videos on their server) are themselves consumers of Internet services, so also pay their ISP for internet traffic. It seems to generally be the case that each party pays for both upstream and downstream traffic.
The idea of this approach seems to be that the money given to the ISP goes towards paying other higher-level providers for traffic, and upgrading the network where/when necessary. If the ISP doesn't think they have enough money to support traffic, they should either bump up consumer prices, or alter their accounting system. Both consumers and providers of products are already paying the ISP for the traffic and infrastructure maintenance.
Huh? You're checking a single counter to see if it overflows, nothing too taxing about that. The effort comes when the overflow happens, but it's really not much more effort Here's the logic: [0) Clear all counterincremented flags] 1) Increment counter(1) by 1 (mod some number like 256, 65536, etc) 2) if counter(1) = 0, it must have overflowed, so increment counter(2) by 1 (and set counterincremented(1) flag) 3) if counter(2) = 0, it must have overflowed, so increment counter(3) by 1 (and set counterincremented(2) flag)... n) if counter(n-1) = 0, it must have overflowed, so increment counter(n) by 1 (and set counterincremented(n) flag)
Of course there's a bit of trickery needed as you approach the target number: Start: 0) Set step = n After the increment loop: 1) if counter(step) has incremented, 2) if counter(step) is equal to target(step), 3a) if counter(step) > 0, decrement counter(step) by 1 3b) if counter(step) = 0, we've reached the target number
kcalc tells me that I'd need 5 bytes to store 4.5 billion, so you could have 5 1-byte counters (and have overflow happen more often), or 3 2-byte counters, and so on.
The ideal situation is to reverse engineer a free driver. I'd think that the ideal situation is to engineer a free driver, designing to specification, with help from the manufacturer.
I prefer thinking about evolution as an observation, rather than a theory. Namely, "a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." [1]. The theory (or one of a number of theories that depends on this observation) is natural selection, not evolution.
Another example of such a comparison is acceleration, "the rate of change of velocity with respect to time."[2]. A Theory that depends on the observation of acceleration is gravity.
From what this looks like (given the "old code" comments, and timing of the release of exploit code), I'd say that someone realised that their pet root exploit was being patched in the current kernel (2.6.24.1), and wanted to have a final go at increasing the impact of the exploit before it was snubbed out. I find it hard to believe that, coincidentally, they just happened to post this exploit on milw0rm the day after the change appeared in the kernel.
Poor form, but I guess it has at least made a few more people aware of the severity of the issue.
There is an xscreensaver hack that is a pacman game with various level styles. I suspect that the monsters in that are a bit more random in their movement. However, the monsters move slower than pacman, and the pacman currently seems rather stupid, running towards monsters, and just collecting air when there's still plenty of pills to pick up. It would be nice to work on the AI in that, then I'd get a more interesting screensaver to watch.
No, the human eye doesn't have a resolution limit, anymore than 35mm film has 'resolution'. Wikipedia tells me that the resolution limit of the eye is about 1-1.5 minutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Acuity (well, about 1.2 minute of arc per line pair). That's about 200-300dpi at 1 foot: 1 / (tan (2*pi/(360 * (60/1.2))) * 12) = approx. 238.7324
That's the resolving power at 1 foot, for a good eye, in the main area of focus... resolving power drops off as you go outside that area of focus. If you're looking at a screen at 1 foot with more than ~200dpi, it's unlikely you'll notice the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a resistive gloop as seen in the Otherland series of books (or alternatively some non-moving gloves) that you put your hands into. The thing would support your hands (so that if you relaxed your hands, they wouldn't move), but would respond to small changes in various pressure sensors.
I'll leave the implementation of this up to a future person.
How about: creative procurement.
It reminds me of the days when people said, "I didn't destroy it, I creatively modified it."
Right. So how long before these simpler devices get into digital cameras? It would certainly help to increase the signal to noise ratio.
I wonder how these things would perform in direct sunlight. You're getting a few more than a couple of photons at once in that case....
All this talk about human assisted robots reminds me of a game I played back in my youth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Must_Fall:_2097
Another thing to do would be to transpose the sickle cell gene to the X chromosome, so that there is only ever one "bad" version active. One of the two copies in females would be inactivated as per normal, while the males would only have one copy.
Of course, then there's the problem of only having one copy of the gene working (rather than the two that would be present in the autosomal case), so you'd probably need another "good" variant attached nearby on the X chromosome.
Crooks and Liars? Really?
I mean, look at a few carefully cherry-picked blog posts from there:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/would-mccain-want-cheney-in-his-cabinet-hell-yeah/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/12/john-mccain-wont-let-the-war-stop-him-from-golfing/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/new-moveonorg-ad-featuring-john-cusack-take-the-bushmccain-pop-quiz/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/mccain-showcases-his-foreign-policy-expertise/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/11/mccains-evangelical-problem/
I didn't have to hunt far to find those, and I knew I'd find them even before looking, having seen a few posts from C&L in the past. Maybe McCain's old friend Putin, the president of Germany, tipped them off about that site.
There's also this one, which actually appeared on a few billboards in New Zealand:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0310/S00003.htm
I'm keen on comma (or more often in my case whitespace) separated files. They've been the most scalable in the work that I'm doing, analysing 300,000+ genotypes of 400+ people. The largest file I have is over 4GB, which is *way* beyond what I would expect most garden variety "data storage" applications to handle.
For most of my analysis, I use Perl, and optimise my files for line-by-line processing and the Linux pipeline (this makes parallelisation easy). For things that are more complex and require matrix manipulation, I use R.
Er, cane toad. Dealt with creepy crawlies that liked living within cane (i.e. sugar cane).
Okay, I live in a somewhat crazy country (New Zealand) in which we have this deal where both parties pay an ISP for Internet services. The consumer of the product (e.g. people who view videos) pays their ISP for internet traffic (something like $b + $x per hour + $y per gigabyte, billed or prepaid at some interval, where b, x, y may be zero). The providers of the product (e.g. people who host videos on their server) are themselves consumers of Internet services, so also pay their ISP for internet traffic. It seems to generally be the case that each party pays for both upstream and downstream traffic.
The idea of this approach seems to be that the money given to the ISP goes towards paying other higher-level providers for traffic, and upgrading the network where/when necessary. If the ISP doesn't think they have enough money to support traffic, they should either bump up consumer prices, or alter their accounting system. Both consumers and providers of products are already paying the ISP for the traffic and infrastructure maintenance.
The article mentioned google as a case in point. I believe that is probably within the realms of a "sufficiently large company".
Huh? You're checking a single counter to see if it overflows, nothing too taxing about that. The effort comes when the overflow happens, but it's really not much more effort ...
Here's the logic:
[0) Clear all counterincremented flags]
1) Increment counter(1) by 1 (mod some number like 256, 65536, etc)
2) if counter(1) = 0, it must have overflowed, so increment counter(2) by 1 (and set counterincremented(1) flag)
3) if counter(2) = 0, it must have overflowed, so increment counter(3) by 1 (and set counterincremented(2) flag)
n) if counter(n-1) = 0, it must have overflowed, so increment counter(n) by 1 (and set counterincremented(n) flag)
Of course there's a bit of trickery needed as you approach the target number:
Start:
0) Set step = n
After the increment loop:
1) if counter(step) has incremented,
2) if counter(step) is equal to target(step),
3a) if counter(step) > 0, decrement counter(step) by 1
3b) if counter(step) = 0, we've reached the target number
kcalc tells me that I'd need 5 bytes to store 4.5 billion, so you could have 5 1-byte counters (and have overflow happen more often), or 3 2-byte counters, and so on.
Er, he mentioned in his other discussions on mail filtering better ways to do it (i.e. those not on the "shame" list):
http://acme.com/mail_filtering/background_frameset.html
Why would the audio visual industry care about anti-botnet software?
Just FWIW, Gillette have already manufactured 5 blade razors.
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/14/gillettes-5blade-raz.html
Er, isn't this just polymorphism?
Meh, just chuck some magnets in it on a slight diagonal slant down the side of the device.
I prefer thinking about evolution as an observation, rather than a theory. Namely, "a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." [1]. The theory (or one of a number of theories that depends on this observation) is natural selection, not evolution.
Another example of such a comparison is acceleration, "the rate of change of velocity with respect to time."[2]. A Theory that depends on the observation of acceleration is gravity.
From what this looks like (given the "old code" comments, and timing of the release of exploit code), I'd say that someone realised that their pet root exploit was being patched in the current kernel (2.6.24.1), and wanted to have a final go at increasing the impact of the exploit before it was snubbed out. I find it hard to believe that, coincidentally, they just happened to post this exploit on milw0rm the day after the change appeared in the kernel.
Poor form, but I guess it has at least made a few more people aware of the severity of the issue.
gawk; chat; look; nice; date; wine; grep; touch; play; unzip; strip; touch; expand; screen; finger; screen; latex; tangle; mount; fsck; more; yes; yes; yes; yes; screen; yes; yes; yes; more; yes; yes; umount; sleep
There is an xscreensaver hack that is a pacman game with various level styles. I suspect that the monsters in that are a bit more random in their movement. However, the monsters move slower than pacman, and the pacman currently seems rather stupid, running towards monsters, and just collecting air when there's still plenty of pills to pick up. It would be nice to work on the AI in that, then I'd get a more interesting screensaver to watch.
1 / (tan (2*pi/(360 * (60/1.2))) * 12) = approx. 238.7324
That's the resolving power at 1 foot, for a good eye, in the main area of focus... resolving power drops off as you go outside that area of focus. If you're looking at a screen at 1 foot with more than ~200dpi, it's unlikely you'll notice the difference.