Skin cells were taken from each of the monkeys. Into these cells, the researchers inserted a gene that makes human nerve growth factor, an essential chemical found in the brain. The modified cells were then injected into the forebrain of four of the monkeys. Four others, acting as controls, got injections of skin cells without the NGF gene. Once in the brain, the modified cells began making NGF. --
What web site would that be? I haven't authored, administered, hosted, or written for any website at all (not counting things like slashdot). There's nothing out there that can be described as my website or one of my websites. I've even done an Altavista search for my name and verified that there are no racist sites published by a namesake of mine. Please name the site you're referring to. --
People can see how others moderated before moderating. This is good in that people don't waste their points on something that's already +5, but it's also bad in that their opinions have been tainted by the time they read the comment and decide whether and how to moderate.
Although nobody likes to believe it about themselves, we probably all agree that there are a lot of other people who are timid about voicing an unpopular opinion and that there are also many who don't form their opinions independently, but by looking around to see what everybody else thinks.
I think the Karma system probably strengthens such tendencies.
If previous moderation were obscured from moderators, I think we'd get better, more honest, moderation. Perhaps it would be a good idea to obscure the other potential prejudice builder as well: the poster's identity, including whether or not he/she is an AC.
I guess I'm more sensitive than I thought because that attack really hurt me. Your comment was very validating and I thank you for it, though no doubt you meant to stand up for your values, rather than me. --
A friend and I were talking about software descramblers one day and wondered why writers of such programs felt a need to "crack the code". It seemed much easier to us to just align the first non-black pixel of each scan line. Could it be that easy? To stop us wondering, I tried it with a modified xzoom. As I pretty much expected, it works as long as there isn't a black area on the left of the screen. Plus, it's as slow as xzoom, so not much fun to watch.
It should be possible to run a more advanced heuristic than leftmost-nonblack-pixel to get better results. There are only three positions to choose from for each scanline. --
Nah, it's for the Marine Corps. They wanna pick out the kids who have been desensitised the most from exposure to violent games and are known to have great reflexes. The kids who aim for the head, shoot once, and move right along to the next one. No point in wasting their valuable talents on their classmates. They're needed in the Corps!
I thought this would make a good joke but then I realised it wasn't the least bit funny. --
By all means put up a page right now with some of your ideas and perhaps a comment section. I've often thought about the possibility of a group decision tool of some sort. Get me interested and I may contribute something. --
I was thinking about the first reason only. Reason 2 hadn't occurred to me (believe it or not, the women I know do not scream "sexual harassment!" at the drop of a hat (or bra)).
While I can certainly understand the management's fear of sexual harassment suits, let's ignore that for the moment and concentrate on the misuse of company time and resources. Again, I must ask: why single out pornography? Jokes, slashdot, warez, mp3's and a host of other material are not fundamentally different from pornography in any way that I'd consider relevant. Can you rightly consider ten minutes wasted on porn to be worse than ten minutes wasted on "tech support callers from hell"? I say you can't.
Your employers seem generous and reasonable people, but for them to want to decide what is and isn't ok for you to view based on their opinions rather diminishes the quality of their character in my eyes. --
I can understand HR being upset about eployees wasting company time. What I can't quite grasp is why they care whether it's wasted on porn or on, say, poetry. --
Faster, faster, faster 'till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death. If you know the origin of this quote (please say it's not that sci-fi novel) emai
This is unbelievabe! Just five minutes ago I read this on rec.bicycle.misc:
Makes me think of my favorite quote from Hunter Thompson -- "Faster, ever faster, until the thrill of speed blots out the fear of death..." --
We still need C, we still need string handling, and since every system has it's own way of authenticating users, it seems there is little to be done at all.
Well, I haven't dealt with authentication myself, but if I had to, I'd begin by taking a close look at PAM rather than rolling my own. --
"Multiple Document Interface" -- you know, where the app has one master window and all its document windows are stuck inside that window. It's widely regarded as a bad idea and annoys the hell out of some people. --
Because the reported reason for not opening up the source is that with access to the source, morons would create bogus clients that pretend to be crunching keys at an enormous rate just for the thrill of seeing their handle at the top of the stats. I don't doubt that for a second. What I DO doubt is the contrapositive, that if the source is kept closed, the re won't be any hacked clients. And I have good reason to. Remember that Russian guy?
What d.net obscurity-apologists are saying is that this problem can't be solved openly, and THAT is an insult to open source. If you believe them, you'd better run out and buy a proprietary encryption package because pgp isn't safely closed like the d.net client.
I don't understand how so many of the people who champion for open source and see the benefits in all other areas can turn around and root for security through obscurity just because it's d.net. --
Everyone who runs the d.net client on their machine should understand the implications. The d.net client doesn't claim to be an installation program and then secretly transmit information to d.net servers without the user's consent. If it did that, then slashdot readers would be duly outraged.
BTW: 1) d.net client source is still closed. d.net is an insult to the Open Source community and we should have nothing to do with it. 2) I think running something like this on a laptop is dumb -- save your battery instead. --
Did you read the post you responded to? I mean all of it? It is several lines long; you may have decided to skip some of it. Or maybe you just don't know what watermarking is. --
Well, hi there coward. You and I have something in common. We both think we're responding to stupid crackheads.
Unless you're going to send different datastreams for every single key out there
Well, that's precisely what Signal 11 is talking about! Each buyer gets a different stream with a different watermark. There's nothing stupid about that. It just takes a bit of processing power. --
Perhaps the audio quality of bladeenc's output has improved greatly since I last used it but assuming it hasn't, I gotta tell you, it's crap at anything under 192kbps compared to other encoders at the same bitrate. Bladeenc is/was intended for the high-bitrate crowd (who are probably not the same people that are using the storage-starved portable players).
Disclaimer: Audio quality is subjective. Perhaps bladeenc at 128kbps is fine for some people. --
Slashdot Mirror
Skin cells were taken from each of the monkeys. Into these cells, the researchers inserted a gene that makes human nerve growth factor, an essential chemical found in the brain. The modified cells were then injected into the forebrain of four of the monkeys. Four others, acting as controls, got injections of skin cells without the NGF gene. Once in the brain, the modified cells began making NGF.
--
What web site would that be? I haven't authored, administered, hosted, or written for any website at all (not counting things like slashdot). There's nothing out there that can be described as my website or one of my websites. I've even done an Altavista search for my name and verified that there are no racist sites published by a namesake of mine. Please name the site you're referring to.
--
Although nobody likes to believe it about themselves, we probably all agree that there are a lot of other people who are timid about voicing an unpopular opinion and that there are also many who don't form their opinions independently, but by looking around to see what everybody else thinks.
I think the Karma system probably strengthens such tendencies.
If previous moderation were obscured from moderators, I think we'd get better, more honest, moderation. Perhaps it would be a good idea to obscure the other potential prejudice builder as well: the poster's identity, including whether or not he/she is an AC.
What do you think?
--
I guess I'm more sensitive than I thought because that attack really hurt me. Your comment was very validating and I thank you for it, though no doubt you meant to stand up for your values, rather than me.
--
I'm not racist.
--
Bloody good speech, I say.
--
It should be possible to run a more advanced heuristic than leftmost-nonblack-pixel to get better results. There are only three positions to choose from for each scanline.
--
I thought this would make a good joke but then I realised it wasn't the least bit funny.
--
You might as well just put a couple of filing cabinets in that metal room (well, almost).
--
I have a Sidewinder Precision Pro. It doesn't feel shoddy to me.
--
By all means put up a page right now with some of your ideas and perhaps a comment section. I've often thought about the possibility of a group decision tool of some sort. Get me interested and I may contribute something.
--
I feel you're giving way too much consideration to these people. The worst thing you can do about a troll is get caught in it.
--
While I can certainly understand the management's fear of sexual harassment suits, let's ignore that for the moment and concentrate on the misuse of company time and resources. Again, I must ask: why single out pornography? Jokes, slashdot, warez, mp3's and a host of other material are not fundamentally different from pornography in any way that I'd consider relevant. Can you rightly consider ten minutes wasted on porn to be worse than ten minutes wasted on "tech support callers from hell"? I say you can't.
Your employers seem generous and reasonable people, but for them to want to decide what is and isn't ok for you to view based on their opinions rather diminishes the quality of their character in my eyes.
--
French law damn well better protect your mail, since you're not allowed to do it yourself (encryption is banned).
--
I can understand HR being upset about eployees wasting company time. What I can't quite grasp is why they care whether it's wasted on porn or on, say, poetry.
--
This is unbelievabe! Just five minutes ago I read this on rec.bicycle.misc:
Makes me think of my favorite quote from Hunter Thompson -- "Faster, ever faster, until the thrill of speed blots out the fear of death..."
--
Actually, I think he said bug fixes were the least relevant reason to release a new version. Even worse than how you remembered it.
--
--
"Multiple Document Interface" -- you know, where the app has one master window and all its document windows are stuck inside that window. It's widely regarded as a bad idea and annoys the hell out of some people.
--
I fail to see the irony.
--
What d.net obscurity-apologists are saying is that this problem can't be solved openly, and THAT is an insult to open source. If you believe them, you'd better run out and buy a proprietary encryption package because pgp isn't safely closed like the d.net client.
I don't understand how so many of the people who champion for open source and see the benefits in all other areas can turn around and root for security through obscurity just because it's d.net.
--
BTW: 1) d.net client source is still closed. d.net is an insult to the Open Source community and we should have nothing to do with it. 2) I think running something like this on a laptop is dumb -- save your battery instead.
--
Did you read the post you responded to? I mean all of it? It is several lines long; you may have decided to skip some of it. Or maybe you just don't know what watermarking is.
--
Unless you're going to send different datastreams for every single key out there
Well, that's precisely what Signal 11 is talking about! Each buyer gets a different stream with a different watermark. There's nothing stupid about that. It just takes a bit of processing power.
--
Disclaimer: Audio quality is subjective. Perhaps bladeenc at 128kbps is fine for some people.
--