Thanks for the link. My impression of is that it's a poor-man's SPF which has the advantage of using existing technologies that do not require the sender to have switched over to SPF yet.
I definitely agree with you on the "for scoring, not for outright blocking" comment. This idea would be much more useful if it was integrated into existing packages. For example if you could use these checks in spam assassin as another weighing factor, or if was integrated as a module in existing mail servers, rather than a proxy. In general it would be more useful as one more tool in a package, where the administrator can decide what to do with mail when it fails instead of being locked down to challenge-response, like it appears to be now.
The mouse dates back 50 years The steering wheel dates back 1000s of years, yet we still use it because it is an effective interface.
the keyboard's even older than that, and it's designed to slow down users! No it wasn't - that's a myth. Besides the best text entry devices which are designed to be as efficient as possible, such as Dvorak (use it myself) and chording, are only incrementally better than QWERTY - not the revolutionary jump you are looking for.
For example, where are dual cursors? Dead on the research table where they belong. They never provided any significant improvement in performance, and even slowed users down due to having to stop and think about what they were doing - even after spending a significant time learning the system.
Why can Stephen Hawkings write speeches, scientific texts and do tons of complex things with a single thumb clic? You can too - on a cell phone. They are smart ways to make the most of limited input capabilities; however, they are incredibly slow compared to the keyboard and mouse, and no one would choose to use one unless it was the only option available.
With the keyboard and mouse, the bottleneck is between us and it. The idle time prooves it. Yet, much of the idle time is due to user thinking, not slow user input - you don't notice yourself being slow, because you are preoccupied, but you do notice when the computer slows you down even slightly. Honestly, ever since I learned to to touch-type, I have been able to type as fast as I can think, and there isn't really any reason for me to want to input text faster. Once I get a wacom tablet, I'll likely be able to say the same about the 2d/3d graphics work (err play) that I do.
Most of the instances where I notice the computer slowing me down - making me do more work then I ought to - is due to poor design and integration of the software, not the keyboard and mouse. For example, I had to start up and entirely separate program just to spell-check this post.
Where are the standards for new interface developpement? I don't know - why haven't you come up with one?
Indeed I would wonder it fits the legal definition of a copyright license at all. That demand that you agree to not do something that you previously had the right to do, in exchange for what BitMover is giving you, falls into the realm of contract law not copyright law. Now, except for a few caveats, EULAs have been found in court to be legally binding contracts, so I'm not saying that this "license" in unenforceable.
I would expect that the judges would come to the same conclusion with this, as with EULAs. It is known that you need to have a license to modify the code, so it is your responsibility to secure the license before doing so. If you claim to accept this "license", then you have implicitly agreed to the demands in it - you have accepted the contract. If you claim that it is an invalid license, then you have no right to modify or redistribute it, since you have not been given a license to do so.
You may however, be able to use this software without waiving you right to whine about BitMover. While you are legally required to have a copyright license to modify or distribute the software, if software has been legally distributed to you, you do not need a "license" to use it, just like you don't need a license to read a book, or watch a movie privately. The reason that EULAs are enforceable is that you (1) had a reasonable expectation of EULAs in shrink-wrapped software before buying it, and the EULA is displayed before you install the software. However, EULAs are not common in the open source world, and nowhere in the current download/build/install process is the EULA displayed. Those three points together may make (true) ignorance of the license a valid defense if it came down to it. Of course, BitMaker could be easily fix this by displaying the license during the build process, and the first time each user runs the software.
That aside, this is really a EULA (a contract in disguise), not a pure copyright license, and would definitely not be accepted by OSI of FSF.
Obligatory: This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.
What do you do now if you forget the password to your computer now? Do the same thing.
If it is a local account, get a new keycard made, log in as admin(or root), and assign that keycard to the account. If you lost the admin keycard, you are in the same shape as if you forgot the admin password - you have to reinstall the OS or boot off some other media and use a utility to change the password file/registry.
If it is a non-local account (like Kerberos/LDAP/AD etc), then talk to your IT department and they will have to make you a new keycard and assign it to your account just as if you lost your password.
For those who don't know, in two-factor authentication the two factors are "something you have", and "something you know" - usually a smartcard/token/key and a pin/password/passphrase.
After browsing apple-history.com, I see you are right - the built-in drives don't have buttons. Ah, these are the drives I was thinking of - it is the second one down. I was confusing the drives on the IIgs with the mac. Sorry.
Try pushing that button while the computer is in the middle of writing to the disk. Then, after reformatting the disk and checking if floppy drive still works, you may have some idea.
It's not like it has to be an either-or decision. Look at the CDROM drive on any modern PC. The eject button is not a physical hardware eject, but a electronic pushbutton that first checks with the operating system to see if it is safe to eject the drive. That is both user-friendly, and user-proof. The floppy drives were like this on many of the Macs for years and I cannot figure out why they stopped doing it lately.
It gets just plain rediculus when you have multiple tray-loading CD/DVD drives. The only way to open the tray to load a disk is to go to the menu-bar, click the eject menu, and then select the drive you want to eject. You can't tell me this is easier to learn or perform than pressing a button next to the drive you want to eject. The only possible explaination that I can think of, is that this is another one of the cases where Jobs made a decision based on what looked slick rather than what was easiest to use - won't want those ugly buttons fouling up the zenness that is the G5 case.
Well, yeah. They are essentially a union and unions by nature are anti-competetive. Their purpose for existance is create solidarity among the workforce so that they are not competing against one another. They can use this force for good such as coping with imbalences in the market - thousands upon thousands of immigrants who could not speak english, and all competing for the tiny number of jobs they were actually capable of doing. But they can also use the force to strong-arm the market however they want, and most of the time now-a-days, the create more imbalance than they fix.
Actually, they didn't make a decision to cut or keep any particular distros, contrary to how the summary makes it sound. The
actual email is worth reading.
The way I understood it was that each architecture would continue to be included in unstable, but when time came to release stable, the architectures that were not up to snuff would not be included in stable. In other words, they are not going to hold off on releasing stable for the architectures that are ready just because some other, less actively devloped ones are not. This seems fair. If someone wants their favorite architecture to be included in the next stable release then they can volenteer to get it up to stable quality, or commit themselves to maintaining it (security patches) after it is released. Otherwise they can just keep using the unstable. This is better than forcing everyone to use unstable, by holding debian back from releasing stable on a timely basis.
The second set of requirements (for SCC) also make sense. If you have less than 50 users, or cannot support the infrastructure needed make mirrors, there is no reason that all the ftpmasters should have to mirror a full branch of code for you - it is overkill. Those 50 people can get together set up their own apt-get repository for their binary packages.
There are several things that I did not like about this plan however, like the non-merit-based requirement, of requiring a machine to be purchasable new. If there are people that are willing to do the work, who cares if the machine is in production or not.
I also don't like the fact that there is no official option for the less active arch's to make stable releases uncoupled from the main stable timescale. Suppose that a minor arch, has enough support to do a stable release every 3 years compared to the x86's 18 month cycle. Choosing to target every other stable release won't work because while there is twice as much time between releases the bottleneck is the time between feature freeze and release, and that will still be determined by the x86 team's (faster) schedule. Furthermore, all the stable releases for all the architectures really should have the same package versions. This will save effort supporting the releases in the future (security patches etc), and keep user confusion down to a minimum. One possible solution would be if they kept the requirements listed, but did not require them to be met at the same time as the x86 branch - let the architectures enter stable when they are ready, with a time limit of say 2 or 3 release cycles of the x86 branch.
In general, requiring all the architectures to walk in lockstep is a real problem that debian needs to fix, but they should do so in a manner that allows the less active architectures to continue to have stable releases at their own pace, while not holding back the x86 line.
No kidding. Even if you are not doing colorization, the boundry detection algorithm he is using kicks ass over the "magic wand" tools in both photoshop and gimp. Perhaps it is the fact that it is doing several "magic wands" at once and boundries are determined by what matches the best, rather than just "does this match good enough".
To elaborate on what Kraemahz said, the method used in this procedure (and in most cases) does not change the DNA of existing cells while in the body. It just inserts cells with different DNA, that then reproduce. If you inserted bone marrow cells, then the only cells with the different DNA will be more bone marrow cells, and since bone marrow cells take no place in reproduction, the DNA will not be passed on to offspring.
The way it words is that a small number of cells are extracted, and DNA is inserted into those cells using a virus. Viruses are just nature's DNA inserting machines, which usually insert DNA that contains instructions to replicate themselves (which the host cell carries out to it's demise), but in this case just inserts the payload DNA of the the scientists choice. From what I understand, this DNA is not spliced into the existing DNA strand, but rather is just "loose" in the cell. The bio-mechanics of the cell make no differentiation between it and the original strand, so both sets of instructions are carried out simultaneously. This modified cell is the one that is inserted into the patient.
Now if one was to introduce the carrier virus directly into the body, it could inject DNA into all sorts of cells in the body, possibly including the reproductive cells. In addition to being far more controversial, it is also less focused and controllable, and (unless there is a way to make replicating viruses that do not destroy the host cell) would require alot of viri, so in general it is not done.
Interesting. When it was rummored that the Revolution would have WiFi, I assumed that the Revolution itself would be device that the DS used to connect to the online service.
Since the DS multiplayer games/apps that exist don't use IP packets, they need some sort of gateway that intercepts the 802.11 packets, tunnels them over the internet to another gateway, which rebroadcasts them to the DS's in the general vicinity. The other issue is how to find people to play with online. If the Revolution were to act as the gateway, then the software / user interface for that could be implemented on the Revolution itself, and thus every game with LAN multiplayer support would automagically gain internet multiplayer support.
But from the sound of the article, the Revolution will be using WiFi to connect to the internet itself. I suppose it could both intercept the DS packets, and broadcast internet communication to the WiFi Hub, but that seems wastefull and unlikely.
Nintendo could sell a seperate device that was capable of intercepting and tunneling it's proprietary wireless protocol over IP and both the Revolution and the DS will this device. But then you still wouldn't have a way select who you want to connect to for existing multiplayer games like picto chat. Only new games specifically written for online multiplayer, as opposed to LAN multiplayer would be able to use the device. And if you are going to have that restriction I wouldn't be supprised if the third device is just a normal WAP, and all online-multiplayer games, just use IP packets and communicate directly with the Nintendo server.
Except for the 15 odd percent that are addicted. I went to a tech college and there were all sort of MUD, MMORPG, and FPS gamers. For most of them it was a perfectly healthy recreation / break from studies. Then there were the few that ended up failing out of college because the couldn't pull themselves away from the computer.
Gaming addiction is not made up, and while some people may hype it, these scientists aren't among them. Their methods are good, and their definition(s) of addiction fall very much in line with other forms of addiction. And the number they found is about right from what I've seen personally. If anything, they have done the MMORPG group a favor by showing that 85-90% of gamers are not addicted and many are well balanced individuals.
I think this is actually handy. Google is simply altering the title "with the keywords you searched for".
No they are not. Look at the cache of any other site for any other search. There are no search keywords added to the title - the original title of the cached page is displayed as is.
Furthermore, the linked example only has the keywords "traffic" and "estimate", yet the title has "traffic estimator, traffic estimates, traffic tool, estimate traffic".
They are definately doing something more than prepending the search terms to the title.
This rant is directed at the moderators not the parent. I realise that most people on this site do not understand quantum mechanics, and that is fine - I don't expect everyone to be an expert in everything. I am even willing to overlook the jock-like "ignorace is cool" toned jokes. However, the fact that ignorance is constantly moderated Insightful on slashdot is really getting on my nerves.
A post like this that simply states that the poster doesn't understand the story, or posts that ask questions about the story are not insightful. They often do have a place in the conversation. And if many people have the same questions, or misunderstanding, it is good for them for them to be moderated up, so others can see the question (and hopefully some good responces). But moderate it Interesting or Underated, not Insightful!
Even for my own posts, I think that most of the Insightful moderation I have recieved should have been Interesting or Informative. Or maybe we should give up and just change the Insightful mod to "Hell Yeah" since that is how everyone seems to use it.
... free cell phone minutes. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to stop paying their cellphone bill after their head has been lopped off. On the bright side you get a free phone upgrade every month, complete with a shiny new head, and friendly new people calling and asking where sussie is!
This is not a free license, or indeed a copyright license at all. Licenses can only grant the users rights which they did not already have. They cannot require service in exchange for the license - that requires a contract. Suggest modifying license to request a beer, not demand one. </anal>:)
Yeah this would definately not be usefull for an invisibility cloak, but I wonder if one could use the principle to create transparent molecules of materials that are not normally transparent, and then combine these molecules into new alloys.
Me thinks this reporter simply watched the wrong star trek:)
I'm trying to envision what kind of braniac could pass differential equations, real analysis, mathematical statistics, computing theory, operating system pragmatics or computer organization by examination.
He was talking from the persective of a businessman, and for those types of students (MBA going into management, marketing, etc) everything he said is spot on. I definately agree with you, that much of what he said does not apply (or applies to a lesser extent) for engineers.
But I don't think Mr. North has figured out what it is you really get out of college... the college graduate has demonstrated to an employer that they are not a complete flake.
Your points there are exactly the same ones he was making - that college is a basically an expensive vetting system, where the student (or his parents, or the state) pays for a screening service, not an education. His argument is that those work ethic skills could be learned far more effectively in an apprentiship + correspondance classes than spending tens of thousands of dollars getting an MBA at a traditional university.
Why stop there... if my identity is stolen through the theft of their ideas;
The fact that this (very real) failure by PayMaxx to protect thier customer's privacy escalated into the potential for identity theft is the fault of the government not PayMaxx. This is because the use of social security numbers as an authenticator is fundamentally flawed and insecure.
Every authentication system needs at least one identifier and one secret. The former is public information while the latter, obviously, must remain private. However, when the US government and other institutions use SSNs as a way to authenticate who you are, they are attempting to use a single piece of information as both the identifier and the secret. Since it is impossible for something to public and private at once, this is bound for failure.
For years, the "solution" to this problem has been to avoid giving-out your SSN unless at all necisarry. While this is a very good idea for privacy reasons, it is worthless advice for protecting your security. Imagine your computer admin telling you that you should "only" give out your password when necissary. And that meant writing it on every government, healthcare, banking, and educational form you fill out. Then imagine that admin expecting your account to be secure. If an computer admin instituted a policy like that he would be fired, and yet that is the policy we are using to secure our very identities!
The government needs to step up and institute a new secure way to authenticate people, as well as begin a campain to inform the public that SSN are not suitable for authentication, by any organization. We cannot expect to have any security of identity if everyone in the country autenticates our identity using a fundementally flawed manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the link. My impression of is that it's a poor-man's SPF which has the advantage of using existing technologies that do not require the sender to have switched over to SPF yet.
I definitely agree with you on the "for scoring, not for outright blocking" comment. This idea would be much more useful if it was integrated into existing packages. For example if you could use these checks in spam assassin as another weighing factor, or if was integrated as a module in existing mail servers, rather than a proxy. In general it would be more useful as one more tool in a package, where the administrator can decide what to do with mail when it fails instead of being locked down to challenge-response, like it appears to be now.
I was thinking ship wheels, but I those probably weren't being used until the 1700's - so not quite thousands of years, more like hundreds.
The mouse dates back 50 years
The steering wheel dates back 1000s of years, yet we still use it because it is an effective interface.
the keyboard's even older than that, and it's designed to slow down users!
No it wasn't - that's a myth. Besides the best text entry devices which are designed to be as efficient as possible, such as Dvorak (use it myself) and chording, are only incrementally better than QWERTY - not the revolutionary jump you are looking for.
For example, where are dual cursors?
Dead on the research table where they belong. They never provided any significant improvement in performance, and even slowed users down due to having to stop and think about what they were doing - even after spending a significant time learning the system.
Why can Stephen Hawkings write speeches, scientific texts and do tons of complex things with a single thumb clic?
You can too - on a cell phone. They are smart ways to make the most of limited input capabilities; however, they are incredibly slow compared to the keyboard and mouse, and no one would choose to use one unless it was the only option available.
With the keyboard and mouse, the bottleneck is between us and it. The idle time prooves it.
Yet, much of the idle time is due to user thinking, not slow user input - you don't notice yourself being slow, because you are preoccupied, but you do notice when the computer slows you down even slightly. Honestly, ever since I learned to to touch-type, I have been able to type as fast as I can think, and there isn't really any reason for me to want to input text faster. Once I get a wacom tablet, I'll likely be able to say the same about the 2d/3d graphics work (err play) that I do.
Most of the instances where I notice the computer slowing me down - making me do more work then I ought to - is due to poor design and integration of the software, not the keyboard and mouse. For example, I had to start up and entirely separate program just to spell-check this post.
Where are the standards for new interface developpement?
I don't know - why haven't you come up with one?
Indeed I would wonder it fits the legal definition of a copyright license at all. That demand that you agree to not do something that you previously had the right to do, in exchange for what BitMover is giving you, falls into the realm of contract law not copyright law. Now, except for a few caveats, EULAs have been found in court to be legally binding contracts, so I'm not saying that this "license" in unenforceable.
I would expect that the judges would come to the same conclusion with this, as with EULAs. It is known that you need to have a license to modify the code, so it is your responsibility to secure the license before doing so. If you claim to accept this "license", then you have implicitly agreed to the demands in it - you have accepted the contract. If you claim that it is an invalid license, then you have no right to modify or redistribute it, since you have not been given a license to do so.
You may however, be able to use this software without waiving you right to whine about BitMover. While you are legally required to have a copyright license to modify or distribute the software, if software has been legally distributed to you, you do not need a "license" to use it, just like you don't need a license to read a book, or watch a movie privately. The reason that EULAs are enforceable is that you (1) had a reasonable expectation of EULAs in shrink-wrapped software before buying it, and the EULA is displayed before you install the software. However, EULAs are not common in the open source world, and nowhere in the current download/build/install process is the EULA displayed. Those three points together may make (true) ignorance of the license a valid defense if it came down to it. Of course, BitMaker could be easily fix this by displaying the license during the build process, and the first time each user runs the software.
That aside, this is really a EULA (a contract in disguise), not a pure copyright license, and would definitely not be accepted by OSI of FSF.
Obligatory: This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.
What do you do now if you forget the password to your computer now? Do the same thing.
If it is a local account, get a new keycard made, log in as admin(or root), and assign that keycard to the account. If you lost the admin keycard, you are in the same shape as if you forgot the admin password - you have to reinstall the OS or boot off some other media and use a utility to change the password file/registry.
If it is a non-local account (like Kerberos/LDAP/AD etc), then talk to your IT department and they will have to make you a new keycard and assign it to your account just as if you lost your password.
For those who don't know, in two-factor authentication the two factors are "something you have", and "something you know" - usually a smartcard/token/key and a pin/password/passphrase.
After browsing apple-history.com, I see you are right - the built-in drives don't have buttons. Ah, these are the drives I was thinking of - it is the second one down. I was confusing the drives on the IIgs with the mac. Sorry.
Try pushing that button while the computer is in the middle of writing to the disk. Then, after reformatting the disk and checking if floppy drive still works, you may have some idea.
It's not like it has to be an either-or decision. Look at the CDROM drive on any modern PC. The eject button is not a physical hardware eject, but a electronic pushbutton that first checks with the operating system to see if it is safe to eject the drive. That is both user-friendly, and user-proof. The floppy drives were like this on many of the Macs for years and I cannot figure out why they stopped doing it lately.
It gets just plain rediculus when you have multiple tray-loading CD/DVD drives. The only way to open the tray to load a disk is to go to the menu-bar, click the eject menu, and then select the drive you want to eject. You can't tell me this is easier to learn or perform than pressing a button next to the drive you want to eject. The only possible explaination that I can think of, is that this is another one of the cases where Jobs made a decision based on what looked slick rather than what was easiest to use - won't want those ugly buttons fouling up the zenness that is the G5 case.
The parent post is identical to a post in the original story linked from Boing Boing.
Same person or copy-paste karma-whore? - You decide.
Well, yeah. They are essentially a union and unions by nature are anti-competetive. Their purpose for existance is create solidarity among the workforce so that they are not competing against one another. They can use this force for good such as coping with imbalences in the market - thousands upon thousands of immigrants who could not speak english, and all competing for the tiny number of jobs they were actually capable of doing. But they can also use the force to strong-arm the market however they want, and most of the time now-a-days, the create more imbalance than they fix.
The way I understood it was that each architecture would continue to be included in unstable, but when time came to release stable, the architectures that were not up to snuff would not be included in stable. In other words, they are not going to hold off on releasing stable for the architectures that are ready just because some other, less actively devloped ones are not. This seems fair. If someone wants their favorite architecture to be included in the next stable release then they can volenteer to get it up to stable quality, or commit themselves to maintaining it (security patches) after it is released. Otherwise they can just keep using the unstable. This is better than forcing everyone to use unstable, by holding debian back from releasing stable on a timely basis.
The second set of requirements (for SCC) also make sense. If you have less than 50 users, or cannot support the infrastructure needed make mirrors, there is no reason that all the ftpmasters should have to mirror a full branch of code for you - it is overkill. Those 50 people can get together set up their own apt-get repository for their binary packages.
There are several things that I did not like about this plan however, like the non-merit-based requirement, of requiring a machine to be purchasable new. If there are people that are willing to do the work, who cares if the machine is in production or not.
I also don't like the fact that there is no official option for the less active arch's to make stable releases uncoupled from the main stable timescale. Suppose that a minor arch, has enough support to do a stable release every 3 years compared to the x86's 18 month cycle. Choosing to target every other stable release won't work because while there is twice as much time between releases the bottleneck is the time between feature freeze and release, and that will still be determined by the x86 team's (faster) schedule. Furthermore, all the stable releases for all the architectures really should have the same package versions. This will save effort supporting the releases in the future (security patches etc), and keep user confusion down to a minimum. One possible solution would be if they kept the requirements listed, but did not require them to be met at the same time as the x86 branch - let the architectures enter stable when they are ready, with a time limit of say 2 or 3 release cycles of the x86 branch.
In general, requiring all the architectures to walk in lockstep is a real problem that debian needs to fix, but they should do so in a manner that allows the less active architectures to continue to have stable releases at their own pace, while not holding back the x86 line.
No kidding. Even if you are not doing colorization, the boundry detection algorithm he is using kicks ass over the "magic wand" tools in both photoshop and gimp. Perhaps it is the fact that it is doing several "magic wands" at once and boundries are determined by what matches the best, rather than just "does this match good enough".
Those who ignore the future
are doomed to prepeat it
Thanks for the friendly corrections.
To elaborate on what Kraemahz said, the method used in this procedure (and in most cases) does not change the DNA of existing cells while in the body. It just inserts cells with different DNA, that then reproduce. If you inserted bone marrow cells, then the only cells with the different DNA will be more bone marrow cells, and since bone marrow cells take no place in reproduction, the DNA will not be passed on to offspring.
The way it words is that a small number of cells are extracted, and DNA is inserted into those cells using a virus. Viruses are just nature's DNA inserting machines, which usually insert DNA that contains instructions to replicate themselves (which the host cell carries out to it's demise), but in this case just inserts the payload DNA of the the scientists choice. From what I understand, this DNA is not spliced into the existing DNA strand, but rather is just "loose" in the cell. The bio-mechanics of the cell make no differentiation between it and the original strand, so both sets of instructions are carried out simultaneously. This modified cell is the one that is inserted into the patient.
Now if one was to introduce the carrier virus directly into the body, it could inject DNA into all sorts of cells in the body, possibly including the reproductive cells. In addition to being far more controversial, it is also less focused and controllable, and (unless there is a way to make replicating viruses that do not destroy the host cell) would require alot of viri, so in general it is not done.
Interesting. When it was rummored that the Revolution would have WiFi, I assumed that the Revolution itself would be device that the DS used to connect to the online service.
Since the DS multiplayer games/apps that exist don't use IP packets, they need some sort of gateway that intercepts the 802.11 packets, tunnels them over the internet to another gateway, which rebroadcasts them to the DS's in the general vicinity. The other issue is how to find people to play with online. If the Revolution were to act as the gateway, then the software / user interface for that could be implemented on the Revolution itself, and thus every game with LAN multiplayer support would automagically gain internet multiplayer support.
But from the sound of the article, the Revolution will be using WiFi to connect to the internet itself. I suppose it could both intercept the DS packets, and broadcast internet communication to the WiFi Hub, but that seems wastefull and unlikely.
Nintendo could sell a seperate device that was capable of intercepting and tunneling it's proprietary wireless protocol over IP and both the Revolution and the DS will this device. But then you still wouldn't have a way select who you want to connect to for existing multiplayer games like picto chat. Only new games specifically written for online multiplayer, as opposed to LAN multiplayer would be able to use the device. And if you are going to have that restriction I wouldn't be supprised if the third device is just a normal WAP, and all online-multiplayer games, just use IP packets and communicate directly with the Nintendo server.
because the MMORPGers don't have a problem.
Except for the 15 odd percent that are addicted. I went to a tech college and there were all sort of MUD, MMORPG, and FPS gamers. For most of them it was a perfectly healthy recreation / break from studies. Then there were the few that ended up failing out of college because the couldn't pull themselves away from the computer.
Gaming addiction is not made up, and while some people may hype it, these scientists aren't among them. Their methods are good, and their definition(s) of addiction fall very much in line with other forms of addiction. And the number they found is about right from what I've seen personally. If anything, they have done the MMORPG group a favor by showing that 85-90% of gamers are not addicted and many are well balanced individuals.
I think this is actually handy. Google is simply altering the title "with the keywords you searched for".
No they are not. Look at the cache of any other site for any other search. There are no search keywords added to the title - the original title of the cached page is displayed as is.
Furthermore, the linked example only has the keywords "traffic" and "estimate", yet the title has "traffic estimator, traffic estimates, traffic tool, estimate traffic".
They are definately doing something more than prepending the search terms to the title.
This rant is directed at the moderators not the parent. I realise that most people on this site do not understand quantum mechanics, and that is fine - I don't expect everyone to be an expert in everything. I am even willing to overlook the jock-like "ignorace is cool" toned jokes. However, the fact that ignorance is constantly moderated Insightful on slashdot is really getting on my nerves.
A post like this that simply states that the poster doesn't understand the story, or posts that ask questions about the story are not insightful. They often do have a place in the conversation. And if many people have the same questions, or misunderstanding, it is good for them for them to be moderated up, so others can see the question (and hopefully some good responces). But moderate it Interesting or Underated, not Insightful!
Even for my own posts, I think that most of the Insightful moderation I have recieved should have been Interesting or Informative. Or maybe we should give up and just change the Insightful mod to "Hell Yeah" since that is how everyone seems to use it.
... free cell phone minutes.
Unfortunately, people have a tendency to stop paying their cellphone bill after their head has been lopped off. On the bright side you get a free phone upgrade every month, complete with a shiny new head, and friendly new people calling and asking where sussie is!
This is not a free license, or indeed a copyright license at all. Licenses can only grant the users rights which they did not already have. They cannot require service in exchange for the license - that requires a contract. Suggest modifying license to request a beer, not demand one.
</anal>
to have a Most Excellent Adventure through knighthood. Does this mean he call himself Bill H Gates, Esquire now? Party on Dude!
sorry, so so sorry
Yeah this would definately not be usefull for an invisibility cloak, but I wonder if one could use the principle to create transparent molecules of materials that are not normally transparent, and then combine these molecules into new alloys.
:)
Me thinks this reporter simply watched the wrong star trek
I'm trying to envision what kind of braniac could pass differential equations, real analysis, mathematical statistics, computing theory, operating system pragmatics or computer organization by examination.
... the college graduate has demonstrated to an employer that they are not a complete flake.
He was talking from the persective of a businessman, and for those types of students (MBA going into management, marketing, etc) everything he said is spot on. I definately agree with you, that much of what he said does not apply (or applies to a lesser extent) for engineers.
But I don't think Mr. North has figured out what it is you really get out of college
Your points there are exactly the same ones he was making - that college is a basically an expensive vetting system, where the student (or his parents, or the state) pays for a screening service, not an education. His argument is that those work ethic skills could be learned far more effectively in an apprentiship + correspondance classes than spending tens of thousands of dollars getting an MBA at a traditional university.
Why stop there... if my identity is stolen through the theft of their ideas;
The fact that this (very real) failure by PayMaxx to protect thier customer's privacy escalated into the potential for identity theft is the fault of the government not PayMaxx. This is because the use of social security numbers as an authenticator is fundamentally flawed and insecure.
Every authentication system needs at least one identifier and one secret. The former is public information while the latter, obviously, must remain private. However, when the US government and other institutions use SSNs as a way to authenticate who you are, they are attempting to use a single piece of information as both the identifier and the secret. Since it is impossible for something to public and private at once, this is bound for failure.
For years, the "solution" to this problem has been to avoid giving-out your SSN unless at all necisarry. While this is a very good idea for privacy reasons, it is worthless advice for protecting your security. Imagine your computer admin telling you that you should "only" give out your password when necissary. And that meant writing it on every government, healthcare, banking, and educational form you fill out. Then imagine that admin expecting your account to be secure. If an computer admin instituted a policy like that he would be fired, and yet that is the policy we are using to secure our very identities!
The government needs to step up and institute a new secure way to authenticate people, as well as begin a campain to inform the public that SSN are not suitable for authentication, by any organization. We cannot expect to have any security of identity if everyone in the country autenticates our identity using a fundementally flawed manner.