It'll never be without some dangerous experiments. People didn't sit around for centuries perfecting designs until they came up with the modern, perfectly safe transatlantic ship design, and then migrated in comfort. Nah, they made trips that would be considered suicidal by today's standards, and which often involved a few people dying on the way.
Too unsafe for you? Big deal, there will be hundreds signing up anyway. If they manage to establish a colony it won't matter much that somebody's grand-grand-grandfather went blind at 40 due to the trip, and the experience gained will lead to improvements much faster than just sitting here and trying to think of a perfect solution.
Tell me, would you approve funding for 50 years of research without any tangible results, besides improvements in technology nobody will really use?
That's a secondary problem. If they got big enough, mutations that resulted in a more efficient breathing system would be highly favourable, so they'd just end up developing lungs or something similar eventually. Or die out, of course.
True enough. The words used in the article, "scientifically accurate" is highly over-rated. There is no proof, it's only a THEORY.
So is gravity. Yet you don't expect to start suddenly levitating, do you?
Evolution is well tested by this point, all that's left to argue about is small details
One question I'd like to ask Darwin, if he were still alive, is this: If man evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes? Why didn't all species evolve like man supposedly did?
Because evolution is about adapting to the environment, not the silly scifi idea of there being some "next step" to it. Suppose a group of monkeys make it to the other side of a large river, during an unusual time of severe drought. On one side trees are plentiful, on the other they aren't. Later the river refills, and they can't interbreed anymore. They're going to adapt differently to the conditions on both sides. On one side, jumping from tree to tree will be optimal. On the other, doing well on land will be more important. Over time they'll end up looking quite differently.
Why didn't all species evolve? Same reason. Most species are very well adapted. We don't have man sized cockroaches because cockroaches are extremely well suited to their environment. If they started say, getting much larger, they'd have a hard time hiding. Thus, there's evolutionary pressure against larger cockroaches.
I know it didn't produce anaglyph images. But it's hard to make screenshots of what it really did.
Anyway, my point was that low resolution, 4 color images mostly looking like wireframe, plus one of the first attempts at implementing it all aren't really comparable to the state of the tech today.
And yes, I know 3D separation can be a problem. However that's a problem for movies. This story is about games, and things that are rendered in real time can be made to have any amount of separation you like.
Once that's there, it leaves the other problem: Stereo doesn't account for the head's position. There's tech for that too, but that still needs to evolve from having to wear LEDs on your head to something that works automatically without help.
Personally, I find the modern tech comfortable enough. I've played fast paced 3D games for 5 hours straight without issues, and movies work very well for me as well (so long they're properly made, and not a crappy conversion)
Wow are you out of date. I mean, come on, Virtual Boy? Have you actually seen what it produced? Here. You might as well have used Wolfenstein 3D to discuss the issues of 3D graphics today. As you might notice from looking at the screenshots there have been a few advancements since then. The Virtual Boy was just a product that came up way, way before its time.
What you're speaking of already exists. Go try a 3DS, it works. The remaining issues with 3D are: getting good tech out (which exists, but needs to be used), and using it for a good end instead of "look, stuff is poking out of the screen!".
Eh, it's just the same thing that happens with every new invention.
When they came up with movies, the stuff they filmed was completely pointless by today's standards, and was mostly "Holy crap, it MOVES!". And thus you got such exciting movies as a few seconds of a guy sneezing.
When they came up with color, people started trying to add it to black and white movies, whether it made sense or not. Because, COLOR!
To same thing is happening with 3D right now. Eventually people will figure out that stuff like "Holy crap, it's coming OUT OF THE SCREEN!" is lame, and find something actually interesting to do with it. 3D added retroactively looks horrible, but when well done it actually does look very neat, and Avatar just happens to be a very prominent example.
You know, both things don't conflict with each other.
The hate people have for Sony isn't because they lack intelligent people capable of making a good point. The hate exists because they take that intelligence, and most of the time apply it in the wrong direction.
There usually is, but there's usually a way around it.
It may be controllable by software, so the spy app just keeps it off. Or, it might slowly fade in and out, which may give the possibity of enabling the camera, snapping a picture, and turning it off before the user has the chance to notice anything. Even when the light is perfectly visible quite a few people will take it for a glitch if it blinks once in a while.
If some random guy came up with something insightful to say, why shouldn't it be? Would the same thought be more insightful of it was on Joel on Software, or whoever else is popular these days?
Why is it that everybody seems to concentrate on filtering it?
Since when there is some place in the world where absolutely anything can be hosted with impunity to the point that the only recourse is blocking access to it? And wouldn't blocking it be exactly the wrong thing to do?
Yeah, sometimes pulling off some stunt is satisfying. But in this case it just doesn't seem worth it. Dealing with getting sued, lawyers, paperwork, related hassle, the cost of all that, and the consequences just to pull off a stupid stunt that everybody affected will shortly forget just seems like a horrible tradeoff.
The joke's on him really. The "victims" probably even like it, because now the one who fired him is absolutely sure they made the right decision, and whoever was involved in dragging him to court is probably telling tales of how he taught some uppity nerd a lesson.
He got an insignificant revenge. So the board got to see some huge boobs for maybe 10 seconds before somebody turned the projector off. Big deal, they'll probably forget about it a week later, and it will have no appreciable effect on the business. At most it'll make them reevaluate their IT hiring policies.
In exchange for that, this may well be a carreer ending move. And instead of it being done for some noble cause like exposing rampant corruption, he's done it for one of the stupidest reasons possible.
Who is going to write the script to covert the emails to PDFs?
If they don't have an in-house programmer, a consultant
And remember that the script has to filter out the legally redacted emails and the emails where only a portion of it is redacted. I am sure you are a very smart person who could do it in 15 minutes, but a government office in a town of 30,000 may very well not have an in-house IT person capable of doing this since they outsource the bulk of their IT work. Should they pay a consultant to come in and write that script?
Yes
What incentive do they have to spend their taxpayers' dollars in order to make it easier for CNN to consume the information?
That they are mandated by law to do so. The FOIA exists, and they're supposed to be able to comply with it. If they can't, that's their problem. If they don't have the means to comply with it when requested, it's their problem to figure it out and pay for what's required out of their budget.
Does this ultimately come out of the taxpayer's pocket? Sure. But so do all government services.
Alaska can and is charging CNN the actual cost to create the paper version ("man the printers" as you say) so it is free to them. It is quite likely they would not be able to pass on the cost of an IT consultant to CNN.
So what's getting printed? Just burn that to a CD and hand it out.
There seem to be quite a few interested people, and a non-unsurmountable obstacle like this is only going to get them more interested. This virtually assures a bunch of people are going to go through every email to figure out what is it that they didn't want to get out.
Plus, once people get the idea that there is something to hide, they're going to really dig for every last bit of dirt, and showcase everything that looks suspicious, even if it's in reality just silly and mostly harmless.
The salt is normally stored right in the password file.
What the salt does is making it impossible to precompute hashes, and to notice that two users have the same password. Brute forcing each password individually doesn't get harder though.
The problem is that when a big company loses a password database, it's a big one. Tens of thousands, if not millions of accounts.
And with a database that big, it's trivial to find something. If the attacker has 100K passwords, they don't need to make millions of attempts per hash, they just need to try them for the very few stupidest things, like $username, "password", "12345", "qwerty" and "secret".
Even if the passwords are repeatedly hashed to make brute force hard, all they need to do is to optimize and parallellize enough to test 100 per second, and in a day and half they'll have gone through that database, netting at least a few thousand accounts.
No, they're not the same thing; gesundheit is used to wish good health. That's why, as an atheist, I feel comfortable saying it instead of "bless you". It may be pointless, but it's also considered rude not to respond to someone sneezing.
Except, my post was about that they're all pointless, whether religious or not. I just don't consider the non-religious sayings to have much value and to be something I need to be concerned about.
As for non-believer responses to someone dying, you can with some certainty say that the person will not suffer anymore.
Yes, but the situation here is "my friend's wife accidentally backed over their son playing in the driveway". Supposing that he led a quite happy life until that point, that would be rather inappropiate.
This "otan osa" is just as empty of meaning. There's a big difference between the "sorry" people automatically mumble without even looking when they bump into you in the underground, and a genuine apology.
Premade sentences like "I feel your loss" are IMO made more for the one who says them, than for the ones they're said to. They solve the uncomfortable tension that arises in difficult situations, and let the speaker relax and believe that they did their duty.
I think there's very little value to these things, whether they have or don't any religious connotations. The real value is in providing actual support.
Bruce Scheneir once said "A colleague once told me that the world was full of bad security systems designed by people who read Applied Cryptography". See more on that in the preface to Secrets and Lies
A single book, no matter how good, doesn't make one an expert. Now if you're interested in crypto, by all means get it. I have it and I think it's a good one. But it makes oh so tempting to start coding something without really understanding what are you doing and why. Be careful with that.
Now, despite the excellent intro, I think Secrets and Lies is of more value to normal people than geeks. I think it's a fine book, but to anybody who already is interested in security and crypto topics a very large part of it is going to come off as blindingly obvious. It's a good book to have to lend to non-technical people though.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm definitely not joining.
Then, I'm not on facebook or anything of the sort either.
I'm pretty sure that's Google's exact intention. If you force people to use their real name, tracking them over all the web gets much easier.
If somebody manages to make this work with Second Life, it'll pretty much be there.
After that I think all that be left is to make an immersive interface, instead of sitting in front of a monitor.
It'll never be without some dangerous experiments. People didn't sit around for centuries perfecting designs until they came up with the modern, perfectly safe transatlantic ship design, and then migrated in comfort. Nah, they made trips that would be considered suicidal by today's standards, and which often involved a few people dying on the way.
Too unsafe for you? Big deal, there will be hundreds signing up anyway. If they manage to establish a colony it won't matter much that somebody's grand-grand-grandfather went blind at 40 due to the trip, and the experience gained will lead to improvements much faster than just sitting here and trying to think of a perfect solution.
Tell me, would you approve funding for 50 years of research without any tangible results, besides improvements in technology nobody will really use?
So? Getting by sailing ship to America wasn't all that healthy either.
That's a secondary problem. If they got big enough, mutations that resulted in a more efficient breathing system would be highly favourable, so they'd just end up developing lungs or something similar eventually. Or die out, of course.
So is gravity. Yet you don't expect to start suddenly levitating, do you?
Evolution is well tested by this point, all that's left to argue about is small details
Because evolution is about adapting to the environment, not the silly scifi idea of there being some "next step" to it. Suppose a group of monkeys make it to the other side of a large river, during an unusual time of severe drought. On one side trees are plentiful, on the other they aren't. Later the river refills, and they can't interbreed anymore. They're going to adapt differently to the conditions on both sides. On one side, jumping from tree to tree will be optimal. On the other, doing well on land will be more important. Over time they'll end up looking quite differently.
Why didn't all species evolve? Same reason. Most species are very well adapted. We don't have man sized cockroaches because cockroaches are extremely well suited to their environment. If they started say, getting much larger, they'd have a hard time hiding. Thus, there's evolutionary pressure against larger cockroaches.
Why?
I know it didn't produce anaglyph images. But it's hard to make screenshots of what it really did.
Anyway, my point was that low resolution, 4 color images mostly looking like wireframe, plus one of the first attempts at implementing it all aren't really comparable to the state of the tech today.
And yes, I know 3D separation can be a problem. However that's a problem for movies. This story is about games, and things that are rendered in real time can be made to have any amount of separation you like.
Once that's there, it leaves the other problem: Stereo doesn't account for the head's position. There's tech for that too, but that still needs to evolve from having to wear LEDs on your head to something that works automatically without help.
Personally, I find the modern tech comfortable enough. I've played fast paced 3D games for 5 hours straight without issues, and movies work very well for me as well (so long they're properly made, and not a crappy conversion)
Wow are you out of date. I mean, come on, Virtual Boy? Have you actually seen what it produced? Here. You might as well have used Wolfenstein 3D to discuss the issues of 3D graphics today. As you might notice from looking at the screenshots there have been a few advancements since then. The Virtual Boy was just a product that came up way, way before its time.
What you're speaking of already exists. Go try a 3DS, it works. The remaining issues with 3D are: getting good tech out (which exists, but needs to be used), and using it for a good end instead of "look, stuff is poking out of the screen!".
Eh, it's just the same thing that happens with every new invention.
When they came up with movies, the stuff they filmed was completely pointless by today's standards, and was mostly "Holy crap, it MOVES!". And thus you got such exciting movies as a few seconds of a guy sneezing.
When they came up with color, people started trying to add it to black and white movies, whether it made sense or not. Because, COLOR!
To same thing is happening with 3D right now. Eventually people will figure out that stuff like "Holy crap, it's coming OUT OF THE SCREEN!" is lame, and find something actually interesting to do with it. 3D added retroactively looks horrible, but when well done it actually does look very neat, and Avatar just happens to be a very prominent example.
You know, both things don't conflict with each other.
The hate people have for Sony isn't because they lack intelligent people capable of making a good point. The hate exists because they take that intelligence, and most of the time apply it in the wrong direction.
There usually is, but there's usually a way around it.
It may be controllable by software, so the spy app just keeps it off. Or, it might slowly fade in and out, which may give the possibity of enabling the camera, snapping a picture, and turning it off before the user has the chance to notice anything. Even when the light is perfectly visible quite a few people will take it for a glitch if it blinks once in a while.
Why not?
If some random guy came up with something insightful to say, why shouldn't it be? Would the same thought be more insightful of it was on Joel on Software, or whoever else is popular these days?
Why is it that everybody seems to concentrate on filtering it?
Since when there is some place in the world where absolutely anything can be hosted with impunity to the point that the only recourse is blocking access to it? And wouldn't blocking it be exactly the wrong thing to do?
I still think it's stupid.
Yeah, sometimes pulling off some stunt is satisfying. But in this case it just doesn't seem worth it. Dealing with getting sued, lawyers, paperwork, related hassle, the cost of all that, and the consequences just to pull off a stupid stunt that everybody affected will shortly forget just seems like a horrible tradeoff.
The joke's on him really. The "victims" probably even like it, because now the one who fired him is absolutely sure they made the right decision, and whoever was involved in dragging him to court is probably telling tales of how he taught some uppity nerd a lesson.
No, it's retarded.
He got an insignificant revenge. So the board got to see some huge boobs for maybe 10 seconds before somebody turned the projector off. Big deal, they'll probably forget about it a week later, and it will have no appreciable effect on the business. At most it'll make them reevaluate their IT hiring policies.
In exchange for that, this may well be a carreer ending move. And instead of it being done for some noble cause like exposing rampant corruption, he's done it for one of the stupidest reasons possible.
Why should somebody be forced to adopt when they don't want to? You think that kid would have a happy life?
And why is it that you think that having a defect of some sort ought to force you into cleaning up the mess that the rest of the society doesn't?
If they don't have an in-house programmer, a consultant
Yes
That they are mandated by law to do so. The FOIA exists, and they're supposed to be able to comply with it. If they can't, that's their problem. If they don't have the means to comply with it when requested, it's their problem to figure it out and pay for what's required out of their budget.
Does this ultimately come out of the taxpayer's pocket? Sure. But so do all government services.
So what's getting printed? Just burn that to a CD and hand it out.
Except that if so, it's going to backfire badly.
There seem to be quite a few interested people, and a non-unsurmountable obstacle like this is only going to get them more interested. This virtually assures a bunch of people are going to go through every email to figure out what is it that they didn't want to get out.
Plus, once people get the idea that there is something to hide, they're going to really dig for every last bit of dirt, and showcase everything that looks suspicious, even if it's in reality just silly and mostly harmless.
The salt is normally stored right in the password file.
What the salt does is making it impossible to precompute hashes, and to notice that two users have the same password. Brute forcing each password individually doesn't get harder though.
The problem is that when a big company loses a password database, it's a big one. Tens of thousands, if not millions of accounts.
And with a database that big, it's trivial to find something. If the attacker has 100K passwords, they don't need to make millions of attempts per hash, they just need to try them for the very few stupidest things, like $username, "password", "12345", "qwerty" and "secret".
Even if the passwords are repeatedly hashed to make brute force hard, all they need to do is to optimize and parallellize enough to test 100 per second, and in a day and half they'll have gone through that database, netting at least a few thousand accounts.
Except, my post was about that they're all pointless, whether religious or not. I just don't consider the non-religious sayings to have much value and to be something I need to be concerned about.
Yes, but the situation here is "my friend's wife accidentally backed over their son playing in the driveway". Supposing that he led a quite happy life until that point, that would be rather inappropiate.
This "otan osa" is just as empty of meaning. There's a big difference between the "sorry" people automatically mumble without even looking when they bump into you in the underground, and a genuine apology.
Premade sentences like "I feel your loss" are IMO made more for the one who says them, than for the ones they're said to. They solve the uncomfortable tension that arises in difficult situations, and let the speaker relax and believe that they did their duty.
I think there's very little value to these things, whether they have or don't any religious connotations. The real value is in providing actual support.
Bruce Scheneir once said "A colleague once told me that the world was full of bad security systems designed by people who read Applied Cryptography". See more on that in the preface to Secrets and Lies
A single book, no matter how good, doesn't make one an expert. Now if you're interested in crypto, by all means get it. I have it and I think it's a good one. But it makes oh so tempting to start coding something without really understanding what are you doing and why. Be careful with that.
Now, despite the excellent intro, I think Secrets and Lies is of more value to normal people than geeks. I think it's a fine book, but to anybody who already is interested in security and crypto topics a very large part of it is going to come off as blindingly obvious. It's a good book to have to lend to non-technical people though.