It would be nice if a car like this actually existed. Too bad they don't mention that minor detail anywhere in the article.
Did anyone else notice that there are no real photos of this car? Any pics I could find were all just nice computer-generated renderings. My advice: don't place your order for this car just yet.
What the shit are you talking about? Did you just walk out of two years ago?
New LCD panels have pixel response times that are too fast for the human eye to pick up any blurring. Hell, even the models available over a year ago had response times fast enough to play FPSs without blurring being a factor.
The Viewsonic LCD panel I'm using as I write this can play Battlefield 1942 just fine. It's about a year old now.
Wake up and smell the advancing technology, buddy.
I agree with the parent 100%. Battefield 1942 is quite possibly the most fun multiplayer game of all time (IMHO). It breaks the FPS mold by bringing a "capture and defend" style of play, with a ton of different vehicles thrown into the mix. In other words, it's not just about having a frag fest. Tactical and strategic use of vehicles and weapons are key in this game.
I've been playing now for well over a year and have become quite accomplished. I'm almost always in the top three at the end of any round. And I've achieved this without ever cheating. In fact, there's only been about two servers that I've ever joined where I suspected that other players were cheating. So I figure since I never cheat and I always do well, there must not be many cheaters, otherwise I'd be getting my ass kicked.
Compare this with my experiences with Quake 3 which were so bad from cheaters that I stopped playing it altogether after probably only 3 months.
Who in their right mind would actually grin when mentioning commercials? He should be frowning about that!
Increasing the definition of the same crappy music interspersed among lame-ass DJs and commercials doesn't add any value for the listener.
Sirius Satellite Radio, on the other hand, comes commercial free on all music channels. Forget about XM Radio, they expect you to actually pay for the privilege of listening to commercials. And though they play fewer commercials now than terrestrial radio stations do, there's nothing that says they can't increase the amount of commercials they air. That and the fact that Clear Channel owns a large share of XM Radio means that Sirius is the only new alternative that provides anything of real value to radio listeners.
Watching the Matrix made me think that the machines that enslave us would be very ugly.
I never considered that they would actually be cute. I guess it makes sense though. We're much less likely to be on the defensive when we're surrounded by a bunch of cute cuddly robots with great big smily anime-like eyes.
Are you implying that it would be necessary for the accused to PROVE his innocence by proving that his/her computer had been hijacked by a third party?
I would think that the prosecution would be responsible for proving that the computer in question had NOT been hijacked.
And that's really the heart of the issue. I think MS's point is that they are not to blame for these problems. They happen to be a bigger target than Linux, so of course more viruses aim at them. Why are they a popular target? Because their software is running everywhere. If roles were reversed, and Linux was running on 99% of all PCs, then Linux would be the bigger target.
The truth of the matter is that Cisco is not the only network equipment maker out there. And there's a good chance that a lot of routing code that IS out there is shared by several different vendors' equipment. How could makers of non-Cisco equipment test their equipment to ensure that it doesn't suffer the same flaw without any specific details and without an exploit? How could customers who own non-Cisco equipment be sure that their networks are safe?
So, by your logic, then apparently this guy asking the question must be the only Slashdot reader who lives in St. Lucia. Just because YOU are completely ignorant to anything non-U.S. centric doesn't mean everyone else on Slashdot is too.
Besides, doesn't he have a point here? Isn't it a bit ridiculous for ANY country to levy fees against its citizens to use ALL spectrum, even "family-band", CB, Wi-Fi, etc?
Since the 4th Amendment is also a huge burden on law enforcement which requires much administrative overhead, why don't we just get rid of that additional burden, too, while we're at it?
This talk of IDE versus SCSI being the same, but packaged differently is total bullshit.
You probably think it's true that IDE drives and SCSI drives frequently have the same components because you only own IDE drives.
How many 10,000 RPM IDE drives have you seen on the market?
Re:Hello ignorance!
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I've been using an LCD panel for everything, including gaming, for a little over a year now. At first, the "ghosting" from the slow diodes is a bit annoying when playing certain games, particularly FPS games and the like.
However, it's nothing you can't get used to, and in some games it is hardly noticeable at all. It's certainly no disadvantage to the player -- at our most recent LAN party I was kickin' a** in Unreal Tournament on my LCD panel. Everyone else had CRTs.
There are lots of pluses that you get with an LCD panel, such as: virtually non-existent refresh flicker, clarity and crispness, light weight (a huge plus if you need to tote your monitor to your LAN parties), small footprint, no glare, and less eyestrain.
I'd never give up all those benefits just because of the small amount of ghosting that I get.
This technology can prevent the average person from seeing what's on an employee's screen.
How does this "technology" find itself in a science magazine? When I was 10 years old I noticed that I could take the polarzing filter off of my school calculator's LCD screen, and make the numbers displayed invisible, unless viewed through the filter. As far as I know, most LCDs (like the ones on digital watches, etc.) can only be viewed if the polarizing filter is in place. This is not new technology. This is greedy people trying to sell something many people already have -- most just don't know they already have it. (Try it! Take apart any cheap digital watch or calculator -- it will have a polartization filter in front of the LCD that without which the numbers will be invisible!)
While the technology does seem a bit silly in its inception, and beating this security measure is a moderately difficult at best, what security guard or bank personnel is not going to notice the strange looking individual with 3-D glasses on and a terrible case of tilting-head looking over the shoulder of a CSR or teller.
The absolutely most ill-conceived approach to security is any kind of system that merely provides a layer of obfuscation. Why? Because it creates a false sense of security. This is mere obfuscation and nothing more. If I walk in to your bank wearing my driving sunglasses will the security guards have me arrested? Probably not. I wouldn't stand out at all -- yet my completely normal sunglasses would crack this so-called "technology". This is not secure. Secure means that NO ONE has the technological nor financial means to break the security system -- not even governments.
Anyone can buy polarizing sunglasses very cheaply these days. I've seen pairs at the grocery store for about $12. Hell, you can even buy a polarzing filter for your camera for around $25. Anyone can view and take photographs of the information displayed on these screens with off-the-shelf products. I bet your bank's owners would be pretty damn upset if the new security system you recommended, and they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on, was foiled by a 10-year old with a $12 pair of glasses.
Explain how this might express a Libertarian point-of-view. In my opinion, the Libertarian party would be the most vehemently opposed to such a policy. Based on their extreme conservative nature, and history of being against unneccessary government intervention, how do you find they would be "for" a policy that undermines the long-standing "innocent until proven guilty" mantra?
Surely you must have meant "left-wing Liberal comment". There's a world of difference.
Wow. I didn't expect us to get into a costs-of-X-versus-Y type discussion, but hey, let's run with it.
Imagine that the random R factor is -3 degrees. Is there still a need to implement Kyoto since we now meet our Kyoto target of only +2 degrees? The point I'm trying to make is that no one knows what R will be.
Add to that the false assumption that each degree of increase in temperature is bad. How do we know that 100 years from now, there isn't going to be a significant drop in global temperature, like say, 10 degrees. Such a change might occur if the ocean current "conveyor belts" were to become disrupted (as has been theorized was the cause of at least some ice ages in the past). What would the cost be then? It would be: the cost of implenting Kyoto, Y, plus the cost of the "natural" drop in temperature Z, plus the additional cost of the actual affect that Kyoto had, W. Now what is the original cost, X? It's zero! In fact, it's better than zero -- it's negative. X is now a "good" thing, i.e. it reduced the overall cost.
A human-added 5 degree increase in global temperature might be a good thing in such a case, no? Perhaps thousands of different species might be spared extinction by such a course of events.
The fact is, no one really knows what the future holds as far as global climate goes. Whatever changes are down the road are almost certainly beyond our control. Not only that, but due to the inherent uncertainty of future global climate conditions, any minor changes that we might incur -- even intentionally -- may take us down the opposite path that we actually would have liked to have gone.
Furthermore, "actual" scientists agree that global warming would likely be catastrphoic. BUT, "actual" scientists also agree that the requisite data for knowing whether or not human activities have had any measuarable impact on global climate is simply not available.
Any temperature fluctuations that we humans may cause (even if we tried to do so intentionally) pale in comparison to dramatic climate changes that have occurred in the (relatively recent) past and that are certain to occur again in the future.
I too was skeptical for these same reasons. Since then, however, I've looked at the patch, compared it to the affected source, and there is definitely a "one-off" bug here. How easy it would be to exploit -- I can't tell, but it looks like it would be fairly difficult.
Nevertheless I'm a bit disappointed that CERT doesn't have any information about this.
I'm VERY disappointed that the OpenSSH website has no information about this.
Although, not all students will get positions on research staff, and it usually doesn't pay all that great... research staff positions are available at most universities.
Plus, (at the risk of getting flamed) most commercial software companies will give more credence to someone with a research background than to someone who worked on the latest Open Source project.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy grammar Batman! I learned this in the second grade. They are having to teach these simple concepts in University?
F*** me.
It would be nice if a car like this actually existed. Too bad they don't mention that minor detail anywhere in the article.
Did anyone else notice that there are no real photos of this car? Any pics I could find were all just nice computer-generated renderings. My advice: don't place your order for this car just yet.
What the shit are you talking about? Did you just walk out of two years ago?
New LCD panels have pixel response times that are too fast for the human eye to pick up any blurring. Hell, even the models available over a year ago had response times fast enough to play FPSs without blurring being a factor.
The Viewsonic LCD panel I'm using as I write this can play Battlefield 1942 just fine. It's about a year old now.
Wake up and smell the advancing technology, buddy.
I agree with the parent 100%. Battefield 1942 is quite possibly the most fun multiplayer game of all time (IMHO). It breaks the FPS mold by bringing a "capture and defend" style of play, with a ton of different vehicles thrown into the mix. In other words, it's not just about having a frag fest. Tactical and strategic use of vehicles and weapons are key in this game.
I've been playing now for well over a year and have become quite accomplished. I'm almost always in the top three at the end of any round. And I've achieved this without ever cheating. In fact, there's only been about two servers that I've ever joined where I suspected that other players were cheating. So I figure since I never cheat and I always do well, there must not be many cheaters, otherwise I'd be getting my ass kicked.
Compare this with my experiences with Quake 3 which were so bad from cheaters that I stopped playing it altogether after probably only 3 months.
Who in their right mind would actually grin when mentioning commercials? He should be frowning about that!
Increasing the definition of the same crappy music interspersed among lame-ass DJs and commercials doesn't add any value for the listener.
Sirius Satellite Radio, on the other hand, comes commercial free on all music channels. Forget about XM Radio, they expect you to actually pay for the privilege of listening to commercials. And though they play fewer commercials now than terrestrial radio stations do, there's nothing that says they can't increase the amount of commercials they air. That and the fact that Clear Channel owns a large share of XM Radio means that Sirius is the only new alternative that provides anything of real value to radio listeners.
Watching the Matrix made me think that the machines that enslave us would be very ugly.
I never considered that they would actually be cute. I guess it makes sense though. We're much less likely to be on the defensive when we're surrounded by a bunch of cute cuddly robots with great big smily anime-like eyes.
Ah. Right. The image must have errors because Mozilla said so. Mozilla couldn't possibly have any bugs :P
Try IE. It works.
Are you implying that it would be necessary for the accused to PROVE his innocence by proving that his/her computer had been hijacked by a third party?
I would think that the prosecution would be responsible for proving that the computer in question had NOT been hijacked.
And that's really the heart of the issue. I think MS's point is that they are not to blame for these problems. They happen to be a bigger target than Linux, so of course more viruses aim at them. Why are they a popular target? Because their software is running everywhere. If roles were reversed, and Linux was running on 99% of all PCs, then Linux would be the bigger target.
The truth of the matter is that Cisco is not the only network equipment maker out there. And there's a good chance that a lot of routing code that IS out there is shared by several different vendors' equipment. How could makers of non-Cisco equipment test their equipment to ensure that it doesn't suffer the same flaw without any specific details and without an exploit? How could customers who own non-Cisco equipment be sure that their networks are safe?
So, by your logic, then apparently this guy asking the question must be the only Slashdot reader who lives in St. Lucia. Just because YOU are completely ignorant to anything non-U.S. centric doesn't mean everyone else on Slashdot is too.
Besides, doesn't he have a point here? Isn't it a bit ridiculous for ANY country to levy fees against its citizens to use ALL spectrum, even "family-band", CB, Wi-Fi, etc?
Since the 4th Amendment is also a huge burden on law enforcement which requires much administrative overhead, why don't we just get rid of that additional burden, too, while we're at it?
This talk of IDE versus SCSI being the same, but packaged differently is total bullshit.
You probably think it's true that IDE drives and SCSI drives frequently have the same components because you only own IDE drives.
How many 10,000 RPM IDE drives have you seen on the market?
I've been using an LCD panel for everything, including gaming, for a little over a year now. At first, the "ghosting" from the slow diodes is a bit annoying when playing certain games, particularly FPS games and the like.
However, it's nothing you can't get used to, and in some games it is hardly noticeable at all. It's certainly no disadvantage to the player -- at our most recent LAN party I was kickin' a** in Unreal Tournament on my LCD panel. Everyone else had CRTs.
There are lots of pluses that you get with an LCD panel, such as: virtually non-existent refresh flicker, clarity and crispness, light weight (a huge plus if you need to tote your monitor to your LAN parties), small footprint, no glare, and less eyestrain.
I'd never give up all those benefits just because of the small amount of ghosting that I get.
How does this "technology" find itself in a science magazine? When I was 10 years old I noticed that I could take the polarzing filter off of my school calculator's LCD screen, and make the numbers displayed invisible, unless viewed through the filter. As far as I know, most LCDs (like the ones on digital watches, etc.) can only be viewed if the polarizing filter is in place. This is not new technology. This is greedy people trying to sell something many people already have -- most just don't know they already have it. (Try it! Take apart any cheap digital watch or calculator -- it will have a polartization filter in front of the LCD that without which the numbers will be invisible!)
The absolutely most ill-conceived approach to security is any kind of system that merely provides a layer of obfuscation. Why? Because it creates a false sense of security. This is mere obfuscation and nothing more. If I walk in to your bank wearing my driving sunglasses will the security guards have me arrested? Probably not. I wouldn't stand out at all -- yet my completely normal sunglasses would crack this so-called "technology". This is not secure. Secure means that NO ONE has the technological nor financial means to break the security system -- not even governments.
Anyone can buy polarizing sunglasses very cheaply these days. I've seen pairs at the grocery store for about $12. Hell, you can even buy a polarzing filter for your camera for around $25. Anyone can view and take photographs of the information displayed on these screens with off-the-shelf products. I bet your bank's owners would be pretty damn upset if the new security system you recommended, and they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on, was foiled by a 10-year old with a $12 pair of glasses.
F-16? U.S. Navy? Good luck, since the Navy doesn't fly F-16s.
Exactly. My "left-wing Liberal comment" was merely in response to the original post's subject: "Right Wing Libertarian Comment".
Explain how this might express a Libertarian point-of-view. In my opinion, the Libertarian party would be the most vehemently opposed to such a policy. Based on their extreme conservative nature, and history of being against unneccessary government intervention, how do you find they would be "for" a policy that undermines the long-standing "innocent until proven guilty" mantra?
Surely you must have meant "left-wing Liberal comment". There's a world of difference.
Wouldn't we also be mad if we overreacted and did a lot of self-inflicted pain over something the eventually turned out to be nothing?
The point I'm trying to make is that we need to be reasonable, look at the facts, and make educated decisions, not knee-jerk reactions.
Hey, I'm not even the one who made the assertion. The guy I replied to did. Ask him for the cite.
Wow. I didn't expect us to get into a costs-of-X-versus-Y type discussion, but hey, let's run with it.
Imagine that the random R factor is -3 degrees. Is there still a need to implement Kyoto since we now meet our Kyoto target of only +2 degrees? The point I'm trying to make is that no one knows what R will be.
Add to that the false assumption that each degree of increase in temperature is bad. How do we know that 100 years from now, there isn't going to be a significant drop in global temperature, like say, 10 degrees. Such a change might occur if the ocean current "conveyor belts" were to become disrupted (as has been theorized was the cause of at least some ice ages in the past). What would the cost be then? It would be: the cost of implenting Kyoto, Y, plus the cost of the "natural" drop in temperature Z, plus the additional cost of the actual affect that Kyoto had, W. Now what is the original cost, X? It's zero! In fact, it's better than zero -- it's negative. X is now a "good" thing, i.e. it reduced the overall cost.
A human-added 5 degree increase in global temperature might be a good thing in such a case, no? Perhaps thousands of different species might be spared extinction by such a course of events.
The fact is, no one really knows what the future holds as far as global climate goes. Whatever changes are down the road are almost certainly beyond our control. Not only that, but due to the inherent uncertainty of future global climate conditions, any minor changes that we might incur -- even intentionally -- may take us down the opposite path that we actually would have liked to have gone.
Furthermore, "actual" scientists agree that global warming would likely be catastrphoic. BUT, "actual" scientists also agree that the requisite data for knowing whether or not human activities have had any measuarable impact on global climate is simply not available.
Any temperature fluctuations that we humans may cause (even if we tried to do so intentionally) pale in comparison to dramatic climate changes that have occurred in the (relatively recent) past and that are certain to occur again in the future.
I too was skeptical for these same reasons. Since then, however, I've looked at the patch, compared it to the affected source, and there is definitely a "one-off" bug here. How easy it would be to exploit -- I can't tell, but it looks like it would be fairly difficult.
Nevertheless I'm a bit disappointed that CERT doesn't have any information about this.
I'm VERY disappointed that the OpenSSH website has no information about this.
Maybe it's because Jack Valenti gives great blowjobs?
Although, not all students will get positions on research staff, and it usually doesn't pay all that great... research staff positions are available at most universities.
Plus, (at the risk of getting flamed) most commercial software companies will give more credence to someone with a research background than to someone who worked on the latest Open Source project.