I don't see any apparent technological difference in the way GPS is used to tell 911 operators your location than a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet tells law enforcement where a criminal is located. Both relay the lat/long of a location to another party without the user doing anything.
Could you explain how it's a "totally different thing"?
Maybe, but there are plenty of GPS-related technologies out there that have been around long before criminal-tracking that the public should be familiar with, including:
* Navigation in automobiles, watercraft, aircraft * Emergency 911 - GPS-enabled cell phones help to locate the origins of 911 calls * Surveying - many modern surveyers find their point of origin using high-accuracy GPS devices
I'm more likely to associate GPS with the chip in my cell phone than the device in a criminal's leg brace.
I found it shocking that she would play a role of a stripper, based on what information I've read in her bio on IMDB:
* Originally turned down the role of Ann August in the film Anywhere But Here (1999) because of the love scene between herself and Corbin Allred which required nudity.
* Turned down the title role in Adrian Lyne's Lolita (1997), due to her feelings about young adult actors/actresses being exposed to sex in films. * Takes pride in the fact that she is a role model for girls and choses roles that are positive so that they will have a positive role model to look up to.
Seems like she's changed her mind on this issue or she feels she's now old enough to no longer be considered a "young adult" actress.
My guess is that they'll inject adverts in to your e-mail when you download it using pop.
I thought they'd do just that too, but I currently use the Forwarding feature that lets you send any mail that comes to your Gmail account to another address. Forwarded gmails come into my inbox ad-free.
If they didn't add adverts when forwarding, I don't see why they'd do it when using POP3.
LM is a password-hashing scheme used in Windows. Read the first paragraph of the linked article:
This article is based primarily on a local default setup of NT5.0 Professional or 2K (Windows 2000), however there maybe additional verified references to XP Professional and Server Editions. Much will apply across the NT range, but not all has been verified.
Hooray for less body movement! Let's give this technology a test drive:
Me: Twitches nose left Computer: Moves cursor left Me: Neat! Blinks Computer: Opens folder Me: Excellent! Hey, who put all this black pepper in my sandwich? Aaaaachoooo! Computer: Reformats hard drive
While it might be a plus, I don't think you even need any sort of technological solution to solve the dupe problem. You just need to make sure editors read the site on a regular basis. If they at least read every article, they'll know exactly what's been posted and what hasn't and can identify each new submission as such.
The best way to avoid dupes is to be familiar with what's already been posted.
They didn't put huge stars in the movies. They put Kevin Smith's friends who all got their start in his movies in them.
Shannen Doherty (Beverly Hills 90210) Janeane Garofalo (SNL, a number of movies before Dogma) Chris Rock (standup) George Carlin (standup) Will Ferrell (SNL, more than a dozen movies) Jon Stewart (Daily Show) Tracy Morgan (SNL) James van der Beek (Dawson's Creek) Jason Biggs (American Pie) Carrie Fisher (Star Wars, etc.) Mark Hamill (Star Wars) Wes Craven (director) Alanis Morissette (singer) Salma Hayek (Desperado, etc.)...and so on and so forth
None of these folks "got their start" in a Kevin Smith movie, yet starred in one or more of them. Come on, dude, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was one big cameofest.
At the end of one of Kevin Smith's movies, it stated that the title of the Clerks sequel would be Clerks 2: Barely Clerkin'. Guess they decided not to stick with that.
I really enjoyed the format and bad acting in the original Clerks ("You ever notice that all the prices end in nine? Damn, that's eerie."). I hope the sequel returns to Smith's roots a bit, instead of being some highly-produced lets-see-how-many-stars-we-can-put-in-this-flick movie like his recent ones.
In C++, friends can touch each other's private parts.
That reminds me of my first Comp Sci class, where the professor taught us the basics of C++. When explaining the nature of private, protected, and public functions, she tried to explain it by saying "you'd let everyone have access to your public members, but you only want your friends messing with your privates." Only after she said it did she realize how perverted it sounded.
This is the same professor who also mispronounced the word "unary" as "urinary". Oops.
Nah, I just thought you were getting gradually more and more agitated in your post. I was waiting for the all caps to break out at any moment.
I share in your disapproval of blackout restrictions for MLB.TV. If it's being broadcast on television, what difference does it make what medium I choose to watch it on?
If I watch a game on FOX (which I can pick up on a TV antenna for FREE) or on my computer (a service which I pay for), I'm going to be seeing the exact same content - INCLUDING the commercials. What does FOX have to lose by having the game rebroadcast over the Internet?
When I hit "Read More" on this article initially, I got "Nothing to see here, move along!"...Can anyone tell me what's up?
It's like a 404 Not Found for an article. It means the story (look at the URL's SID and TID) doesn't exist anymore.
I've seen it about three or four times on articles still in the queue that are viewable to subscribers only. Sometimes, the article is removed before it goes live, in which case you'll get the "Nothing to see here" message when you try to refresh it. Somewhat annoying to see a good article disappear before your very eyes.
Like here's a made-up URL which gives you that error.
Whether or not there's any signal to pick up is another matter entirely...
It is another matter, but Shostak also addressed it in his prediction:
Within a generation, radio emissions from enough stars will be observed and analysed to find the first alien civilisation, Shostak estimates.
So not only doese he think we'll have the capacity to detect the transmissions, he also predicts that the transmissions are just waiting there for us to pick up, based on the Drake Equation.
Buying your own domain is a smart move. As long as you keep paying for the domain, your e-mail address can travel with you, even when you change ISPs.
From personal experience, I've found that only a very small percentage of spam I get comes from using the catch-all address. I get only a few junk e-mails to "webmaster", "postmaster", and other generic usernames. A far greater portion of it is addressed to the "real" e-mail address I use that's been plastered all over the web for years and years.
Judging only from my inbox, it would seem that spammers are more likely to use lists of known e-mail addresses than trying to guess valid usernames for a domain. My advice would be to use the catch-all address and just wait and see if spam becomes a problem. Turning off the catch-all wildcard, if need be, is a very simple operation.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see any apparent technological difference in the way GPS is used to tell 911 operators your location than a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet tells law enforcement where a criminal is located. Both relay the lat/long of a location to another party without the user doing anything.
Could you explain how it's a "totally different thing"?
Maybe, but there are plenty of GPS-related technologies out there that have been around long before criminal-tracking that the public should be familiar with, including:
* Navigation in automobiles, watercraft, aircraft
* Emergency 911 - GPS-enabled cell phones help to locate the origins of 911 calls
* Surveying - many modern surveyers find their point of origin using high-accuracy GPS devices
I'm more likely to associate GPS with the chip in my cell phone than the device in a criminal's leg brace.
Slashdot already covered Hit Song Science two years ago.
Actually, Mr. Fusion didn't show up until Back To The Future II.
Mr. Fusion appeared both at the end of the original (Part I) and at the beginning of Part II.
This sounds just like Mr. Fusion! Definitely more effective if you pour the beer out of the can and then toss in the container.
I like how the title of this document is "What are the odds of dying?" ... as if they weren't 1:1 odds.
My guess is that they'll inject adverts in to your e-mail when you download it using pop.
I thought they'd do just that too, but I currently use the Forwarding feature that lets you send any mail that comes to your Gmail account to another address. Forwarded gmails come into my inbox ad-free.
If they didn't add adverts when forwarding, I don't see why they'd do it when using POP3.
Actually, now I'm not sure you're the Jason Fischer who I sent the invite to... heh ...
Did you get it by reading this?
Phone numbers from members of the opposite sex? You forget this is Slashdot!
Oh, and oddly enough...I'm the guy that sent you your Gmail invite.
Yep. He'd better repost it. Again.
Photoblogging, cell-phone blogging, "moblogging." Any word you call it, it's already been covered on Slashdot:
m l?tid=95 m l?tid=149 m l?tid=137
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/01/08/2034213.sht
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/23/2047233.sht
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/04/30/1619209.sht
Air fare? Taj Mahal? I saved a bundle by just having my heart shipped to India. Got it back in 6 weeks, good as new.
Hooray for less body movement! Let's give this technology a test drive:
Me: Twitches nose left
Computer: Moves cursor left
Me: Neat! Blinks
Computer: Opens folder
Me: Excellent! Hey, who put all this black pepper in my sandwich? Aaaaachoooo!
Computer: Reformats hard drive
Oh, and the Nouse has already been covered on Slashdot. Come on, a simple Slashdot search of "nouse" turns this one up.
While it might be a plus, I don't think you even need any sort of technological solution to solve the dupe problem. You just need to make sure editors read the site on a regular basis. If they at least read every article, they'll know exactly what's been posted and what hasn't and can identify each new submission as such.
The best way to avoid dupes is to be familiar with what's already been posted.
They didn't put huge stars in the movies. They put Kevin Smith's friends who all got their start in his movies in them.
...and so on and so forth
Shannen Doherty (Beverly Hills 90210)
Janeane Garofalo (SNL, a number of movies before Dogma)
Chris Rock (standup)
George Carlin (standup)
Will Ferrell (SNL, more than a dozen movies)
Jon Stewart (Daily Show)
Tracy Morgan (SNL)
James van der Beek (Dawson's Creek)
Jason Biggs (American Pie)
Carrie Fisher (Star Wars, etc.)
Mark Hamill (Star Wars)
Wes Craven (director)
Alanis Morissette (singer)
Salma Hayek (Desperado, etc.)
None of these folks "got their start" in a Kevin Smith movie, yet starred in one or more of them. Come on, dude, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was one big cameofest.
Currently titled "The Passion of the Clerks"
At the end of one of Kevin Smith's movies, it stated that the title of the Clerks sequel would be Clerks 2: Barely Clerkin'. Guess they decided not to stick with that.
I really enjoyed the format and bad acting in the original Clerks ("You ever notice that all the prices end in nine? Damn, that's eerie."). I hope the sequel returns to Smith's roots a bit, instead of being some highly-produced lets-see-how-many-stars-we-can-put-in-this-flick movie like his recent ones.
It's fair to say that most people love PNG images (or at least hate GIFs).
Now that Unisys's patent has expired across the globe, I certainly don't hate GIFs.
In C++, friends can touch each other's private parts.
That reminds me of my first Comp Sci class, where the professor taught us the basics of C++. When explaining the nature of private, protected, and public functions, she tried to explain it by saying "you'd let everyone have access to your public members, but you only want your friends messing with your privates." Only after she said it did she realize how perverted it sounded.
This is the same professor who also mispronounced the word "unary" as "urinary". Oops.
because Slashdotters have no interest in sports whatsoever.
Now everyone thinks I can't even handle HTML.
Nah, I just thought you were getting gradually more and more agitated in your post. I was waiting for the all caps to break out at any moment.
I share in your disapproval of blackout restrictions for MLB.TV. If it's being broadcast on television, what difference does it make what medium I choose to watch it on?
If I watch a game on FOX (which I can pick up on a TV antenna for FREE) or on my computer (a service which I pay for), I'm going to be seeing the exact same content - INCLUDING the commercials. What does FOX have to lose by having the game rebroadcast over the Internet?
When I hit "Read More" on this article initially, I got "Nothing to see here, move along!"...Can anyone tell me what's up?
It's like a 404 Not Found for an article. It means the story (look at the URL's SID and TID) doesn't exist anymore.
I've seen it about three or four times on articles still in the queue that are viewable to subscribers only. Sometimes, the article is removed before it goes live, in which case you'll get the "Nothing to see here" message when you try to refresh it. Somewhat annoying to see a good article disappear before your very eyes.
Like here's a made-up URL which gives you that error.
It is another matter, but Shostak also addressed it in his prediction:
So not only doese he think we'll have the capacity to detect the transmissions, he also predicts that the transmissions are just waiting there for us to pick up, based on the Drake Equation.
Buying your own domain is a smart move. As long as you keep paying for the domain, your e-mail address can travel with you, even when you change ISPs.
From personal experience, I've found that only a very small percentage of spam I get comes from using the catch-all address. I get only a few junk e-mails to "webmaster", "postmaster", and other generic usernames. A far greater portion of it is addressed to the "real" e-mail address I use that's been plastered all over the web for years and years.
Judging only from my inbox, it would seem that spammers are more likely to use lists of known e-mail addresses than trying to guess valid usernames for a domain. My advice would be to use the catch-all address and just wait and see if spam becomes a problem. Turning off the catch-all wildcard, if need be, is a very simple operation.