The problem with many of the restrictions placed on software to "prevent cheating" can result in limitations in use for those of us who don't cheat, don't game online, and wouldn't bother anyone by messing around with files.
A case in point was Sierra's ProPilot -- one of the few challenges to Microsoft's domination of the Flight Simulator market that came out a few years ago. Many people liked it, and, as sim pilots tend to do, they wanted to paint their own planes, design their own scenery, and the like.
Now Sierra claimed they wanted to release an set of tools to help you do this. But no -- other of Sierra's software at the time (specifically one of the Tribes, I believe, which at the time they were positioning towards heavy online usage) used the same encrypted archive format to store many of its runtime and configuration file. So despiute the fact that the flight-sim software developers wanted to release a nice set of (de/en)-archiving tools to all allow these user editing, Sierra was extremely relunctant about this because the same tools would allow users of their other games to cheat.
I always thought that the purpose of awards ceremony was to honor those who did a good job, not to pretend to be a suspense movie. Publicizing the awards does not ruin the awards show -- unless the awards show is incredibly badly done. The awards show has its own benefits -- you typically get to see the work up for consideration, you get to see the artist him/herself, you get to hear their gratitude. Some people also like to see how the stars dress up. All of these things are completely separate from whether a list of winners are available.
Didn't any of you lot play infocom games? Making the manual interesting to read, useful during gameplay, and fun enough that you'd enjoy them independent of playing the game, was part of the enjoyment!
Even the same game walkthroughs were funny and unique.
As much as we hear about our rights being taken away, I'm optimistic about the direction that this particular situation is moving. The CDA was declared unconsitutional, COPA is being challenged as unconstitutional due to its vagueness, and now CIPA is going down the same path.
Yeps, now that Clinton is out of the way, we're finally starting to undo all of the harm he caused.
Imagine how things might have gone instead, had if Tipper Gore had made it to the white house. *shiver*
Why is it so hard to accept that in a public place (where there are alot of people who want to be protected from negative stuff) that filtering could be a good thing, if applied correctly and intelligently.
Because you're making a pre-existing assumption that there is "negative stuff". Why is it not just a valid assumption that children are human beings too, and that they can handle what they are exposed to without needing to be overly coddled? Why are naked people necessarily bad? Why aren't restrictions on content for minors just a form of age description?
Providing any sort of filter for content, even a voluntary filter, in and of itself implies that there is something wrong with the material such that the filter is even proposed. The existence of a voluntary control itself makes a value judgement about the content itself.
There's now laws in the US to try to prevent, and in most cases punish dumb, useless lawsuits. Where's a similar provision for dumb, useless laws that are blatantly in violation of the constitution?
Well, in respect to the lawmakers, it's called "the vote". Try it sometime!
In respect to laws themselves... I think all laws on the books should have an expiration date. This would force all laws to be periodically reviewed to ensure that they are both relevant and appropriate, and help clean out the system on all those "outdated" laws on sodomy, shopping on sunday, and the like. Plus, since it takes time to review laws, the amount of laws would be smaller and thus stronger.
Given cake and a knife only, what is the best way to cut a cake between three people so that no person can complain about receiving an unfairly small portion? And what is the minimun number of cuts necessary? Zero cuts!
The first person eats the whole cake herself, without cutting it.
The other two people can't complain about overly small portions, because they didn't get portions! They can complain that they didn't get any, but they can't complain that the poritions they got were overly small.
1) Two cubes like they have at the bank. How to represent every day of the month using these two cubes? That's just semantic, isn't it? "I do delare, that this first cube represents every day of the month, and that this second cube doth represent every day of every other month."
2) Room has 3 lights and 3 switches on the outside. You may not peek inside the room, only enter it and exit it. What is the minimum number of times you must enter the room to determine which switch controls which light. We don't have any information that these are necessarily standard binary switches, each corresponding to a distinct light in the room. It might be necessary to try every (spacial and temporal) combination and permutation to figure out what is going on.
3) How can you build a domed roof on a building with squared walls? You find a builder in the yellow pages, and tell him to build a domed roof?
With a hammer, nails, and wood?
As long as the dome is somewhat sturdy and the diameters is between the width of the square and the diagonal of the square, the roof will just sit on top of the square just fine.
What I don't see is what vague riddly questions like these have to do with job stills or job ability.
Propose a task _relevant_ to the job in question ("There's an earthquake and the telepohone goes out...what do you do about..?") if you want to see reasoning skills. The important details to notice are not usually the answer given, but what iformation is deemed necessary to solve the problem and what questions the intervie asks in the process of solving the problem.
When will we learn that the biggest threat to our liberty is not the government, but corporations?
When will we realize that, while seemingly coming from different sides, anti-globalisationists and libertarians are really afraid of the same thing: unrestrained power.
The difference is that the anti-capitalists don't trust corporations, while libertarians don't trust governments/politicians.
Haven't they forgotten the more obvious use, which is to make people think that they are getting an email from microsoft.com/amazon.com/someothermerchant.com wh ich they could reply to, check the headers, etc., without noticing the difference?
don't get it... Why would they charge you 75 cents when they could give it to you for free? You need some sort of small barrier to entry, as proof of interest. There are free newspapers -- but there are also people who will just pick 'em up to wrap things in. You want to target the people who will actually be reading the paper -- so charging a nominal fee can eliminate those who don't have a genunie interest in reading the paper (and adds) and who are just picking it up for the _physical_ paper.
Part of the fee also goes to the newsagent -- if only the money raised through advertising went to the paper, there'd be no incentive for the agent to stock and sell the papers. Plus the receipts for the sales allow the tracking of trends and numbers of readers, which is hard to do with the free "pick up one out of the box" newspapers, cause I know quite a few people who pick up a new copy opf the same issue outside a restaurant to browse whenever they're waiting to be seated.
How about "it's only with your donations that we have enough money to pay the BBC for rights to show their programme, 'telletubbies'"? I think they're making an honest claim.
There are people out there who watch infomercials all the way through. They will watch the home shopping network all day long.
I used to be one of those people.
Watching these things are incredible entertainment -- the "hair replacement" that looks like spray paint? Watching QVC hosts blather on about products they have no clue about, making utterly incoherent claims? It's much more interesting than watching a stupid episode of friends or seinfeld, i'll tell you that.
While Joe Sixpack (to whom I am superior) might like watching his Budweiser ads, I feel that television advertising has absolutely no effect on me. This is probably because advertisers cater to the common American Joe, not to superior Slashdot readers such as yours truly
There's different kind of ads.
Most of us, I would think, don't respond terribly to well to the "hey, someone's burping into the phone. oh, he drinks bud. ha ha." or "the name of our insurance company sure sounds a lot like 'gecko'" type of ad.
But there's other types of advertising -- the "we have a new product you might be interested in." Or, "turket meat is on sale this week at tesco's". Would you not be interested to know that a band you like has a new album out? Don't you sometimes plan your cooking for the week around the special deals at the supermarket?
Some advertisers do cater to the average joe american, but there's quite a few companies that just want you to know about the availability and benefits of their product, and hope that what they are selling catches your insterest.
Nope, there is a new MS-SQL mini server that runs on workstations. Installs a blank sa password and get this no admin tools are installed. So this means many people are running MS-SQL and don't even know it
If they don't even know they're running it, it's pretty much guaranteed that they haven't set up any databases or stored any data inside it, so they don't really have anything to lose if they do get broken into.
> In the UK a 12 means that a kid under 12 cannot go in whether accompanied by an adult or not. So it does matter.
Is this legistlated? I could just see the problems in the US...whether pregant mothers could see a movie or not would come down to a court decision as to when a fetus becomes a child.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever hear of calligraphy? Its a process of hiding data into pictures, and lots of it.
Calligraphy? I thought it involved writing fancy-shmancy letters with a special pen or brush.
Do you mean, perhaps, "steganography"?
no, that sounds more like a "trojan horse" to me. where's the replication?
One guy could be capturing That 70's Show, while the next guy is capturing Enterprise, all at near-broadcast quality!
I'm not sure that "quality" is really an appropriate term to describe That 70's Show.
The problem with many of the restrictions placed on software to "prevent cheating" can result in limitations in use for those of us who don't cheat, don't game online, and wouldn't bother anyone by messing around with files.
A case in point was Sierra's ProPilot -- one of the few challenges to Microsoft's domination of the Flight Simulator market that came out a few years ago. Many people liked it, and, as sim pilots tend to do, they wanted to paint their own planes, design their own scenery, and the like.
Now Sierra claimed they wanted to release an set of tools to help you do this. But no -- other of Sierra's software at the time (specifically one of the Tribes, I believe, which at the time they were positioning towards heavy online usage) used the same encrypted archive format to store many of its runtime and configuration file. So despiute the fact that the flight-sim software developers wanted to release a nice set of (de/en)-archiving tools to all allow these user editing, Sierra was extremely relunctant about this because the same tools would allow users of their other games to cheat.
I always thought that the purpose of awards ceremony was to honor those who did a good job, not to pretend to be a suspense movie. Publicizing the awards does not ruin the awards show -- unless the awards show is incredibly badly done. The awards show has its own benefits -- you typically get to see the work up for consideration, you get to see the artist him/herself, you get to hear their gratitude. Some people also like to see how the stars dress up. All of these things are completely separate from whether a list of winners are available.
Didn't any of you lot play infocom games? Making the manual interesting to read, useful during gameplay, and fun enough that you'd enjoy them independent of playing the game, was part of the enjoyment!
Even the same game walkthroughs were funny and unique.
As much as we hear about our rights being taken away, I'm optimistic about the direction that this particular situation is moving. The CDA was declared unconsitutional, COPA is being challenged as unconstitutional due to its vagueness, and now CIPA is going down the same path.
Yeps, now that Clinton is out of the way, we're finally starting to undo all of the harm he caused.
Imagine how things might have gone instead, had if Tipper Gore had made it to the white house. *shiver*
Why is it so hard to accept that in a public place (where there are alot of people who want to be protected from negative stuff) that filtering could be a good thing, if applied correctly and intelligently.
Because you're making a pre-existing assumption that there is "negative stuff". Why is it not just a valid assumption that children are human beings too, and that they can handle what they are exposed to without needing to be overly coddled? Why are naked people necessarily bad? Why aren't restrictions on content for minors just a form of age description?
Providing any sort of filter for content, even a voluntary filter, in and of itself implies that there is something wrong with the material such that the filter is even proposed. The existence of a voluntary control itself makes a value judgement about the content itself.
There's now laws in the US to try to prevent, and in most cases punish dumb, useless lawsuits. Where's a similar provision for dumb, useless laws that are blatantly in violation of the constitution?
Well, in respect to the lawmakers, it's called "the vote". Try it sometime!
In respect to laws themselves... I think all laws on the books should have an expiration date. This would force all laws to be periodically reviewed to ensure that they are both relevant and appropriate, and help clean out the system on all those "outdated" laws on sodomy, shopping on sunday, and the like. Plus, since it takes time to review laws, the amount of laws would be smaller and thus stronger.
Given cake and a knife only, what is the best way to cut a cake between three people so that no person can complain about receiving an unfairly small portion? And what is the minimun number of cuts necessary?
Zero cuts!
The first person eats the whole cake herself, without cutting it.
The other two people can't complain about overly small portions, because they didn't get portions! They can complain that they didn't get any, but they can't complain that the poritions they got were overly small.
1) Two cubes like they have at the bank. How to represent every day of the month using these two cubes?
That's just semantic, isn't it? "I do delare, that this first cube represents every day of the month, and that this second cube doth represent every day of every other month."
2) Room has 3 lights and 3 switches on the outside. You may not peek inside the room, only enter it and exit it. What is the minimum number of times you must enter the room to determine which switch controls which light.
We don't have any information that these are necessarily standard binary switches, each corresponding to a distinct light in the room. It might be necessary to try every (spacial and temporal) combination and permutation to figure out what is going on.
3) How can you build a domed roof on a building with squared walls?
You find a builder in the yellow pages, and tell him to build a domed roof?
With a hammer, nails, and wood?
As long as the dome is somewhat sturdy and the diameters is between the width of the square and the diagonal of the square, the roof will just sit on top of the square just fine.
What I don't see is what vague riddly questions like these have to do with job stills or job ability.
Propose a task _relevant_ to the job in question ("There's an earthquake and the telepohone goes out...what do you do about..?") if you want to see reasoning skills. The important details to notice are not usually the answer given, but what iformation is deemed necessary to solve the problem and what questions the intervie asks in the process of solving the problem.
When will we learn that the biggest threat to our liberty is not the government, but corporations?
When will we realize that, while seemingly coming from different sides, anti-globalisationists and libertarians are really afraid of the same thing: unrestrained power.
The difference is that the anti-capitalists don't trust corporations, while libertarians don't trust governments/politicians.
So, which really corrupts -- money, or power?
click here - Afghanistan data half price.
I suppose those maps are a bit out-of-date now, aren't they
Haven't they forgotten the more obvious use, which is to make people think that they are getting an email from microsoft.com/amazon.com/someothermerchant.com
w
then again, check out the back (or middle) of a rough guide, or a fodors, or time out travel book, or...
don't get it... Why would they charge you 75 cents when they could give it to you for free? You need some sort of small barrier to entry, as proof of interest. There are free newspapers -- but there are also people who will just pick 'em up to wrap things in. You want to target the people who will actually be reading the paper -- so charging a nominal fee can eliminate those who don't have a genunie interest in reading the paper (and adds) and who are just picking it up for the _physical_ paper.
Part of the fee also goes to the newsagent -- if only the money raised through advertising went to the paper, there'd be no incentive for the agent to stock and sell the papers. Plus the receipts for the sales allow the tracking of trends and numbers of readers, which is hard to do with the free "pick up one out of the box" newspapers, cause I know quite a few people who pick up a new copy opf the same issue outside a restaurant to browse whenever they're waiting to be seated.
is it possible for there to be any kind of media without advertising?
Sure, it's called books. Been a long damn time since one regularly saw sheefs of ads bound into the middle of a paperback (tho there was a time...)
"Praise for the Joe Author's previous book, 'My First Sellout', also published by BigPublishingCo:"
"'It's even more exciting than OurOtherAuthor!' --editor from MajorNewspaper, owned by BigPublishingCo:"
Be sure to check out "Chicken Soup for the Sellout Soul" by Joe Author, coming out in hardcover this fall.
How about "it's only with your donations that we have enough money to pay the BBC for rights to show their programme, 'telletubbies'"? I think they're making an honest claim.
Watching these things are incredible entertainment -- the "hair replacement" that looks like spray paint? Watching QVC hosts blather on about products they have no clue about, making utterly incoherent claims? It's much more interesting than watching a stupid episode of friends or seinfeld, i'll tell you that.
Most of us, I would think, don't respond terribly to well to the "hey, someone's burping into the phone. oh, he drinks bud. ha ha." or "the name of our insurance company sure sounds a lot like 'gecko'" type of ad.
But there's other types of advertising -- the "we have a new product you might be interested in." Or, "turket meat is on sale this week at tesco's". Would you not be interested to know that a band you like has a new album out? Don't you sometimes plan your cooking for the week around the special deals at the supermarket?
Some advertisers do cater to the average joe american, but there's quite a few companies that just want you to know about the availability and benefits of their product, and hope that what they are selling catches your insterest.
The music industry knew people were recording their music, and got extra "recording taxes" attached to the price of black media/tapes/etc.
If they don't even know they're running it, it's pretty much guaranteed that they haven't set up any databases or stored any data inside it, so they don't really have anything to lose if they do get broken into.
> Or put in a room and made to listen to the Cilion Dion CD over and over untill there brain shuts down in self defense.
isn't this _exactly_ what the iMac does?
They used a keyword-based censor....the "head" was okay, but they objected to the "butt".
> In the UK a 12 means that a kid under 12 cannot go in whether accompanied by an adult or not. So it does matter.
Is this legistlated? I could just see the problems in the US...whether pregant mothers could see a movie or not would come down to a court decision as to when a fetus becomes a child.