Remember the old days, when OMNI magazine was about science? Then it started turning into a persistent hawker of crackpottery. Even the fiction lost its edge and got lugubriously spooky.
And the Sci-Fi channel. About sci-fi, before it became All Vampires, All the Time. It's pulled back a bit, maybe.
To me, this story, along with this one. are the tip of the Slashdot woo-woo iceberg.
It's the nature of business. Those who are not evil are not going to hold power forever, and are naturally less adept at taking it. Eventually, those wishing to own Google's revenue stream will take it from those wishing to own Google's goodwill. And then Google will be just another business, mining human nature for crumbs of irrational economic decisionmaking.
Worse, the correlation suggests the causation post-facto. Nobody even guesses there will be a correlation until there's an effect. And if there's no effect, nobody discounts the box's output.
>they had signs when leaving the casino that said it was illeagle to take chips out of the casino. So if you were really tring to defraud them they could allways fall back on that. I know they don't enforce this because several casinos accept their competitors chips.
Correct. It's a legal strategem, designed to give them the authority to deny you the right to cash in large numbers of possibly counterfeit chips that you didn't buy at the casino immediately before approaching the cage.
And yes, if you disable one of Wynn's RFID-equipped chips, it won't show up as a valid ID anymore and will be rejected as counterfeit.
Which is the entire point of the system.
Whether you then say "I didn't know that it was counterfeit" and accept their indifferent shrug, or go "neener-neener I was just testing you noobs!" and get your face beat in, is entirely up to you.
I was going to make a crass joke like "leaking pictures from Revenge of the Sith is like issuing a Tsunami warning" but, you know, a couple of hundred thousand people died here, so I think it's better I don't.
Compounding this folly was the post in which I confessed to a middle school crush on a girl I hadn't seen since graduating high school. Well, guess who calls me up a few weeks later after getting the idea to plug her friends' screen names into livejournal? Yeah.
You do know that every executable is a file, right?
And every link on the Internet is the networked equivalent of a file, right?
The idea is that you should have been able to run things simply by clicking on them; the way you do on your desktop; only they're not on your desktop, they're on a server in.ru or somewhere like that.
It was supposed to be a convenience.
You know, like a yard without a fence. Or an unlocked door. Or a gun without a trigger lock. Or going into the woods without wearing a 200-pound "bear suit". Or on-the-cuff credit.
But of course, someone always justifies taking advantage of a convenience to inure a little more of the Earth's riches to their own control.
So now we have to do work to create "security", because nothing natural has ever been secure.
You know, I'm beginning to think these computer things aren't all that secure.
(p.s. I put a router between my computer and my cable modem, and I don't click on executable links unless they're from a trusted source and confirmed as having been sent deliberately; I have never--not ever--had a virus or a break-in on this subnet.)
I did see Photoshop Elements, among all the other nearly-$100 photo utilities, but I don't recall anything about it being a real photo editor.
The name sounds more like it's full of clip-art, and the box copy probably left me thinking it had some sort of file organizer. I thought it was a dinky add-on to Photoshop.
I surely didn't see "layers" or "channels" or anything telling me I could do something like fill in and feather washed-out areas or adjust color balance (the two biggest threats in digital photography).
Slashdot Mirror
India and China now own the Internet industry. We're still dabbling in it, having invented it, but it's clearly theirs to advance, at this stage.
This is a $1 Trillion investment of American capital, all the goodwill and intellectual authority of which has been ceded to a foreign nation.
The only other thing that could take a $Trillion out of an economy is a war.
So it's very like India and China defeated us in a war without having to risk anything themselves.
The people at the top of the corporate system in our country surrendered our economy willingly to the enemy, in return for a slice of the profits.
Which, as I read history and the law, makes them traitors.
Remember the old days, when OMNI magazine was about science? Then it started turning into a persistent hawker of crackpottery. Even the fiction lost its edge and got lugubriously spooky.
And the Sci-Fi channel. About sci-fi, before it became All Vampires, All the Time. It's pulled back a bit, maybe.
To me, this story, along with this one. are the tip of the Slashdot woo-woo iceberg.
But hey. Anything for click-through, huh?
Google will turn evil.
It's the nature of business. Those who are not evil are not going to hold power forever, and are naturally less adept at taking it. Eventually, those wishing to own Google's revenue stream will take it from those wishing to own Google's goodwill. And then Google will be just another business, mining human nature for crumbs of irrational economic decisionmaking.
Classic case of weak correlation.
Worse, the correlation suggests the causation post-facto. Nobody even guesses there will be a correlation until there's an effect. And if there's no effect, nobody discounts the box's output.
Sad. Innumerate. Stupid.
Give me ten programmers and I'll put Oracle out of business.
Because AdSense makes pages look like shit, and Wikipedia is about knowledge, not shit.
>What surprises me is that hotels haven't put RFID tags in their towels and charged you when you steal them!
Because they already stole from you when they charged you $139 a night to get them dirty.
>they had signs when leaving the casino that said it was illeagle to take chips out of the casino. So if you were really tring to defraud them they could allways fall back on that. I know they don't enforce this because several casinos accept their competitors chips.
Correct. It's a legal strategem, designed to give them the authority to deny you the right to cash in large numbers of possibly counterfeit chips that you didn't buy at the casino immediately before approaching the cage.
And yes, if you disable one of Wynn's RFID-equipped chips, it won't show up as a valid ID anymore and will be rejected as counterfeit.
Which is the entire point of the system.
Whether you then say "I didn't know that it was counterfeit" and accept their indifferent shrug, or go "neener-neener I was just testing you noobs!" and get your face beat in, is entirely up to you.
Like, Magellan, d00d?
Vasco de fricken' GAMA!
The Phoenecians?
EVER HEARD OF THOSE GUYS, GATES?
Shit. Why didn't we throw his fucking Altair out the fucking window when we had his head in the toilet?
There should be a law against "Driving while Not Me", because everyone else on the road is a menace.
Microsoft has been dominant, but hasn't been a monopoly in anything, not even PC-platform OSes, for nearly two decades.
Liberal == individual rights.
Conservative == property rights.
Whatever either of these groups says in support of the other's goal for the law is lip service to lubricate political persuasion.
Most Internet radio that makes money on its ads SUCKS. But still pays for its bandwidth.
I don't want to listen to suck.
So if you think that you're good enough that you should add another channel to the thousands available, go for it, and make it pay for itself.
If it doesn't, that's a clue that it SUCKS SO BAD that you really shouldn't bother.
(btw, the walrus was paul; dig it)
It's the ban on gay Marriage.
(Anyone who says CNN is the "liberal media" never watched it during the Clinton administration.)
I wish they'd arrest the guys who lied to start a Terror --er, "Shock and Awe" campaign in Baghdad in March of 2003.
They really messed up the Middle East with that one.
I was going to make a crass joke like "leaking pictures from Revenge of the Sith is like issuing a Tsunami warning" but, you know, a couple of hundred thousand people died here, so I think it's better I don't.
> You're reading this on slashdot and expect there to be an AND??
Hey. I like schadenfreude as much as the next guy.
Compounding this folly was the post in which I confessed to a middle school crush on a girl I hadn't seen since graduating high school. Well, guess who calls me up a few weeks later after getting the idea to plug her friends' screen names into livejournal? Yeah.
and??
You do know that every executable is a file, right?
.ru or somewhere like that.
And every link on the Internet is the networked equivalent of a file, right?
The idea is that you should have been able to run things simply by clicking on them; the way you do on your desktop; only they're not on your desktop, they're on a server in
It was supposed to be a convenience.
You know, like a yard without a fence. Or an unlocked door. Or a gun without a trigger lock. Or going into the woods without wearing a 200-pound "bear suit". Or on-the-cuff credit.
But of course, someone always justifies taking advantage of a convenience to inure a little more of the Earth's riches to their own control.
So now we have to do work to create "security", because nothing natural has ever been secure.
You know, I'm beginning to think these computer things aren't all that secure.
(p.s. I put a router between my computer and my cable modem, and I don't click on executable links unless they're from a trusted source and confirmed as having been sent deliberately; I have never--not ever--had a virus or a break-in on this subnet.)
Memory management systems have been available for decades that prevent execution from data space or writing to code space.
What has AMD actually done that's new and valuable?
sla.shdo.tted
If entire subnets are banned, does it work?
Sounds more like a Lord of the Flies situation.
Which is how all ad hoc governments turn out.
Is "Photoshop CS" a euphemism for "Photoshop?"
Looked more like a "studio" package. I just want Photoshop. I don't need a framework. (cf. I just want Word; I don't need a whole Office suite.)
I really hate when they make you buy $400 in garage to steal border thickness from your $200 utility.
I did see Photoshop Elements, among all the other nearly-$100 photo utilities, but I don't recall anything about it being a real photo editor.
The name sounds more like it's full of clip-art, and the box copy probably left me thinking it had some sort of file organizer. I thought it was a dinky add-on to Photoshop.
I surely didn't see "layers" or "channels" or anything telling me I could do something like fill in and feather washed-out areas or adjust color balance (the two biggest threats in digital photography).