Isn't the whole point of a "Windows-to-go" type system that it should be able to, ya know, go?
I'm serious. Why would Windows To Go want a device to present itself as non-removable? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? I can see that it woudn't want to be removed while in use, but is this device physically locking itself into the drive? If not, what makes it different from any other USB stick?
Setting up a honey trap wouldn't be difficult. It's a cell phone sitting in an FBI office somewhere. They don't give the number out. If the phone rings, the guy on the other end is either a wrong number or an asshole.
Hell, I bet the FBI's regular office phones probably get this kind of shit all the time.
Ah, thanks. My first thought on reading TFS was, "Oh, perhaps I could consider skipping NoScript," and wondering whether I'd miss its Javascript controlling features as well.
But no, enemy #1 is still there, so NoScript stays firmly in place.
Note to advertisers: I do NOT run with AdBlock. Just NoScript. Ads, yes. Singing dancing flashing noisemakers, no. And yeah, I have Javascript blocked, for the same reason. If that means that the site is unusable, then I will find an alternative that pisses me off less.
Is it really a cost, though? According to Mastercard's income statement, they earned $6.71B on revenue of $7.22B. That is, Mastercard is making plenty of money. Visa has similar margins. It sounds like their expenses aren't all that high, even with users like the grandparent post (and me) turning a profit on them by never paying any interest.
With that much cash on the line, in a simple scenario, retailers should be able to push back and play them off one another for a better deal. They could keep the profits themselves, or pass it on to their customers.
The retailers have good reason to want to encourage their customers to use credit cards. Handling cash is time-consuming and error-prone. The credit card companies are doing work for their share of the money (maintaining computers, accepting payments, sending bills, collecting, taking risks on default and fraud) but it sounds as if there's still a lot of room for retailers to push on them to get a service they want at a lower price than the one they're already getting, rather than having to pass a higher price on to the consumer.
It smells like a monopoly power: cheaper competitors should arise, but aren't, due to... what? High barriers to entry? Collusion?
It's marginally clearer if one reads "status" for "statue", and if one uses a comma instead of the nonsensical "of":
Vocational schools and training programs are unpopular because they suffer from a low status, for people from unsuccessful, poor, or peasant backgrounds.
Still not great, but at least it's gone from "gibberish" to "barely comprehensible".
As an actor (and so distantly connected to the entertainment industry), what makes me cranky about this is Hollywood's affinity for known quantities. I like Abrams' work; I'm sure it'll be a fine movie.
But there are hundreds of lesser-known directors who might have done something. What would Kevin Smith have done? Or Alfonso Cuaron, who made the third Harry Potter movie so much more interesting than any of the others? Or somebody I've never heard of?
They're going with a known quantity, and maybe it's the right business decision. It means it probably won't be terrible, and will probably be pretty good. But no matter how good it is, it's still going to be more of Abrams, who we've already got plenty of.
They're going with a known quantity to eliminate the risks. And all you get from safe choices is safe movies. And "safe" is exactly what Star Wars wasn't, at least not the first time, the thing that made it great.
Virginia (and Maryland, the second biggest net recipient) are a little different from other states, in terms of this comparison. A lot of that money isn't state grants or welfare checks or other federal largesse. That's money spent on federal employees and facilities that were located outside DC. The Pentagon, for example, is just over the river in Arlington. These are facilities that need to be kinda close to DC, but don't really need to be right on top of the White House.
The states definitely benefit from it. If the government were to pack up and move, the DC metro area would become a ghost town, and the whole economy would change. But it's not just a subsidy or pork-barrel make-work projects; it's the government actually doing what it does. MD and VA don't get that because of power. It's just geography.
My first thought is to ask whether it's a product of the genetic modifications, or if all plants have some of it. Is the cauliflower mosaic virus used in genetic modification?
If there is indeed unexpected, and potentially dangerous, DNA introduced during the genetic modification process, that's definitely a factor to consider in regulation. But if it's just something you'll find in any (ahem) garden-variety tomato, then it's merely an interesting tidbit of evolution.
Strictly, they're only promising to begin the exploration by 2015. That gives them nearly three years, since it's early in 2013 and they have all of 2014 and 2015.
Even scaled back that far, it's incredibly ambitious. Not quite impossible, but I'd be stunned if they manage to achieve that in the given time frame. They'd have to hit the ground running and have everything on the development side go their way, and be able to make launches synch up with opportunities.
So I wouldn't quite go so far as to call it a scam, but it's certainly wildly optimistic and potential investors should demand to see the real plans rather than the marketing. And be prepared for it to slip by years (and have the funding to cover that). If they haven't got all that, then it's just hype.
If O'Reilly really wanted to honor Swartz' memory, shouldn't they release all of their books for free? Isn't that closer to what he was after?
Releasing just one book, in his name, while still planning to charge everybody for everything else in their catalog, sounds more like a publicity stunt.
I don't understand the point of this article. Holder and Ortiz (or somebody, if they were on scholarship) paid for those college educations. If one of the perks of that payment is lifetime journal access, what on earth does it have to do with this case?
If this was an overzealous prosecution, then it should be investigated, and possibly procedures changed to prevent it in the future. And I certainly agree that journal access has become utterly disproportionate.
But most of what I read about this case is a rush to judgment that makes no more sense than the prosecution is being accused of. And articles like this bolster that impression, jumping to conclusions and engaging in character assassination because we liked one guy and therefore hate the other guys.
Things need to be fixed, but that's best achieved with clarity, not more obfuscation.
The guy who developed the game tinkered with the ratio from the get-go: he put in too few "S" tiles to reduce one obvious tactic (playing a word across another by adding an S to it and making it plural, like taking COP and playing SKATE such that you get the points for both COPS and SKATE).
The corpus is all well and good, but real points are scored on Scrabble strategy. Two-letter words are absolutely crucial in Scrabble, since they let you easily double-count each tile you lay down. If you have APE on the field, and I lay down TIN next to it, I can count not just TIN but also AN, PI, and EN.
This is made even more profitable by the addition of (bogus, at least to me) words like QI and ZA (a way of spelling "chi" as in Chinese medicine and a slang word for "pizza" that they somehow decided was mainstream enough). If you leave me [triple letter score]AT on the field, and I have Q and I, I get to count SIXTY POINTS for that Q (plus the I and the AT). (QAT is also pretty damn bogus.)
You can tweak the words according to the corpus, but all it will do to real Scrabble players is to tweak the game, not fundamentally alter it. It's not really a game of practical vocabulary, and never has been, not if you're planning to score well. It's a game of tactics (generally well understood) and an official dictionary with words that often bear only a dim connection to reality.
A poker site doesn't need to cheat. Their cut is specified. They attract two categories of players:
1. Skilled players who want to take money from suckers.
2. Suckers.
Category 2 comes because they heard that players in category 1 were making a lot of easy money. Category 1 comes because they believe that the site is playing fairly, which is what allows them to take money from the Category 2 players. And they pay the site for the privilege on each pot, knowing that they'll be able to cover it from the money they take from the suckers.
The site may get greedy, and that's a risk the players take, but they'll do better by just continuing to skim each pot. They only run out when the suckers run out, and the world keeps manufacturing more suckers.
I feel like we're having the same kind of pixel-measuring issues as we get with still cameras. There comes a point where adding pixels doesn't improve the picture, but low-cost displays and sensors limit color depth and reproduction.
I know that Sharp has its fancy 4-color screen, but to my knowledge the existing data formats generally don't take full advantage of it. Rather than adding pixels, wouldn't it be better to promote screens with better dynamic range and color depth?
I do see a distinct difference between Blu-Ray and DVD images, but I can't see the advantages in going much further. The full HD looks pretty damn sharp already. But I think we can all still tell the difference between print color range and video color range, and adding pixels won't fix that.
One interaction was enough to get a member to cancel.
That's really interesting; I hadn't realized that. It should be easy for the site to discover toxic users when you see a high correlation between contact with them and departures.
How were such people "culled"? Did you just delete the account, or were they dropped low in the searches so people didn't find them? I wonder if it would have been useful to them to be informed. "Look, the common factor in your failed relationships is you. We think you'd have more success here if you were less of a jerk."
I know they'll never tell you, but it would be amusing as hell to know my "date bacon index".
Slashdot Mirror
Cool! Thanks.
Isn't the whole point of a "Windows-to-go" type system that it should be able to, ya know, go?
I'm serious. Why would Windows To Go want a device to present itself as non-removable? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? I can see that it woudn't want to be removed while in use, but is this device physically locking itself into the drive? If not, what makes it different from any other USB stick?
My new Chromebook boots in about two.
Doesn't do much else, but it does do that.
Setting up a honey trap wouldn't be difficult. It's a cell phone sitting in an FBI office somewhere. They don't give the number out. If the phone rings, the guy on the other end is either a wrong number or an asshole.
Hell, I bet the FBI's regular office phones probably get this kind of shit all the time.
Ah, thanks. My first thought on reading TFS was, "Oh, perhaps I could consider skipping NoScript," and wondering whether I'd miss its Javascript controlling features as well.
But no, enemy #1 is still there, so NoScript stays firmly in place.
Note to advertisers: I do NOT run with AdBlock. Just NoScript. Ads, yes. Singing dancing flashing noisemakers, no. And yeah, I have Javascript blocked, for the same reason. If that means that the site is unusable, then I will find an alternative that pisses me off less.
Is it really a cost, though? According to Mastercard's income statement, they earned $6.71B on revenue of $7.22B. That is, Mastercard is making plenty of money. Visa has similar margins. It sounds like their expenses aren't all that high, even with users like the grandparent post (and me) turning a profit on them by never paying any interest.
With that much cash on the line, in a simple scenario, retailers should be able to push back and play them off one another for a better deal. They could keep the profits themselves, or pass it on to their customers.
The retailers have good reason to want to encourage their customers to use credit cards. Handling cash is time-consuming and error-prone. The credit card companies are doing work for their share of the money (maintaining computers, accepting payments, sending bills, collecting, taking risks on default and fraud) but it sounds as if there's still a lot of room for retailers to push on them to get a service they want at a lower price than the one they're already getting, rather than having to pass a higher price on to the consumer.
It smells like a monopoly power: cheaper competitors should arise, but aren't, due to ... what? High barriers to entry? Collusion?
It's marginally clearer if one reads "status" for "statue", and if one uses a comma instead of the nonsensical "of":
Vocational schools and training programs are unpopular because they suffer from a low status, for people from unsuccessful, poor, or peasant backgrounds.
Still not great, but at least it's gone from "gibberish" to "barely comprehensible".
Interesting. According to this more recent article:
http://www.dailytech.com/UPS+to+Use+40+New+Hydraulic+Hybrid+Vehicles+in+Baltimore+Atlanta+/article27846.htm
it appears to have worked out well enough to expand the experiment.
If you'd asked me, I would have said maybe five years. It's been nine?
Massive kudos to the entire Opportunity team. It's been awesome. But damn, now I feel old.
As an actor (and so distantly connected to the entertainment industry), what makes me cranky about this is Hollywood's affinity for known quantities. I like Abrams' work; I'm sure it'll be a fine movie.
But there are hundreds of lesser-known directors who might have done something. What would Kevin Smith have done? Or Alfonso Cuaron, who made the third Harry Potter movie so much more interesting than any of the others? Or somebody I've never heard of?
They're going with a known quantity, and maybe it's the right business decision. It means it probably won't be terrible, and will probably be pretty good. But no matter how good it is, it's still going to be more of Abrams, who we've already got plenty of.
They're going with a known quantity to eliminate the risks. And all you get from safe choices is safe movies. And "safe" is exactly what Star Wars wasn't, at least not the first time, the thing that made it great.
Virginia (and Maryland, the second biggest net recipient) are a little different from other states, in terms of this comparison. A lot of that money isn't state grants or welfare checks or other federal largesse. That's money spent on federal employees and facilities that were located outside DC. The Pentagon, for example, is just over the river in Arlington. These are facilities that need to be kinda close to DC, but don't really need to be right on top of the White House.
The states definitely benefit from it. If the government were to pack up and move, the DC metro area would become a ghost town, and the whole economy would change. But it's not just a subsidy or pork-barrel make-work projects; it's the government actually doing what it does. MD and VA don't get that because of power. It's just geography.
Thank you.
I did violate the Slashdot code of honor by reading TFA, as well as doing some outside reading, and couldn't figure it out.
My first thought is to ask whether it's a product of the genetic modifications, or if all plants have some of it. Is the cauliflower mosaic virus used in genetic modification?
If there is indeed unexpected, and potentially dangerous, DNA introduced during the genetic modification process, that's definitely a factor to consider in regulation. But if it's just something you'll find in any (ahem) garden-variety tomato, then it's merely an interesting tidbit of evolution.
Strictly, they're only promising to begin the exploration by 2015. That gives them nearly three years, since it's early in 2013 and they have all of 2014 and 2015.
Even scaled back that far, it's incredibly ambitious. Not quite impossible, but I'd be stunned if they manage to achieve that in the given time frame. They'd have to hit the ground running and have everything on the development side go their way, and be able to make launches synch up with opportunities.
So I wouldn't quite go so far as to call it a scam, but it's certainly wildly optimistic and potential investors should demand to see the real plans rather than the marketing. And be prepared for it to slip by years (and have the funding to cover that). If they haven't got all that, then it's just hype.
Thanks for that. That's hilarious.
If O'Reilly really wanted to honor Swartz' memory, shouldn't they release all of their books for free? Isn't that closer to what he was after?
Releasing just one book, in his name, while still planning to charge everybody for everything else in their catalog, sounds more like a publicity stunt.
I don't understand the point of this article. Holder and Ortiz (or somebody, if they were on scholarship) paid for those college educations. If one of the perks of that payment is lifetime journal access, what on earth does it have to do with this case?
If this was an overzealous prosecution, then it should be investigated, and possibly procedures changed to prevent it in the future. And I certainly agree that journal access has become utterly disproportionate.
But most of what I read about this case is a rush to judgment that makes no more sense than the prosecution is being accused of. And articles like this bolster that impression, jumping to conclusions and engaging in character assassination because we liked one guy and therefore hate the other guys.
Things need to be fixed, but that's best achieved with clarity, not more obfuscation.
The guy who developed the game tinkered with the ratio from the get-go: he put in too few "S" tiles to reduce one obvious tactic (playing a word across another by adding an S to it and making it plural, like taking COP and playing SKATE such that you get the points for both COPS and SKATE).
The corpus is all well and good, but real points are scored on Scrabble strategy. Two-letter words are absolutely crucial in Scrabble, since they let you easily double-count each tile you lay down. If you have APE on the field, and I lay down TIN next to it, I can count not just TIN but also AN, PI, and EN.
This is made even more profitable by the addition of (bogus, at least to me) words like QI and ZA (a way of spelling "chi" as in Chinese medicine and a slang word for "pizza" that they somehow decided was mainstream enough). If you leave me [triple letter score]AT on the field, and I have Q and I, I get to count SIXTY POINTS for that Q (plus the I and the AT). (QAT is also pretty damn bogus.)
You can tweak the words according to the corpus, but all it will do to real Scrabble players is to tweak the game, not fundamentally alter it. It's not really a game of practical vocabulary, and never has been, not if you're planning to score well. It's a game of tactics (generally well understood) and an official dictionary with words that often bear only a dim connection to reality.
A poker site doesn't need to cheat. Their cut is specified. They attract two categories of players:
1. Skilled players who want to take money from suckers.
2. Suckers.
Category 2 comes because they heard that players in category 1 were making a lot of easy money. Category 1 comes because they believe that the site is playing fairly, which is what allows them to take money from the Category 2 players. And they pay the site for the privilege on each pot, knowing that they'll be able to cover it from the money they take from the suckers.
The site may get greedy, and that's a risk the players take, but they'll do better by just continuing to skim each pot. They only run out when the suckers run out, and the world keeps manufacturing more suckers.
You may be the luckiest man alive.
I feel like we're having the same kind of pixel-measuring issues as we get with still cameras. There comes a point where adding pixels doesn't improve the picture, but low-cost displays and sensors limit color depth and reproduction.
I know that Sharp has its fancy 4-color screen, but to my knowledge the existing data formats generally don't take full advantage of it. Rather than adding pixels, wouldn't it be better to promote screens with better dynamic range and color depth?
I do see a distinct difference between Blu-Ray and DVD images, but I can't see the advantages in going much further. The full HD looks pretty damn sharp already. But I think we can all still tell the difference between print color range and video color range, and adding pixels won't fix that.
One interaction was enough to get a member to cancel.
That's really interesting; I hadn't realized that. It should be easy for the site to discover toxic users when you see a high correlation between contact with them and departures.
How were such people "culled"? Did you just delete the account, or were they dropped low in the searches so people didn't find them? I wonder if it would have been useful to them to be informed. "Look, the common factor in your failed relationships is you. We think you'd have more success here if you were less of a jerk."
I know they'll never tell you, but it would be amusing as hell to know my "date bacon index".
I had no idea they added bechamel as well. It's amazing you guys can even walk.
Must be all the red wine... or the sex...
It appears that they are using it instead for Fire in the Sky.