And after the filesystem is done with your 1TB drive, see how much space you have left -then-.
I honestly don't care much whether I'm getting 1,000,000,000,0000 bytes, or 1,099,511,627,776 bytes. Either number is "big enough that I won't be filling this thing up anytime soon". If I fear that I might, heck, I'll plunk down for a 1.5TB drive instead.. both are cheaper than my first 60MB HDD.
oh, silly me. I guess that would be the "Add a Keyword for this Search..." option.. I'd already forgotten about that. Although it technically doesn't add it as an option in the drop-down, but only through a keyword prefix in the address bar (probably why I'd already forgotten)./nokarma
That's -very- nifty - thanks for the heads-up - but to loop it back to this discussion... is it intuitive? e.g. if you hadn't heard of it, or happened to spot it while e.g. copying/pasting into any field (as apparently it adds this for -any- text form field.. which makes it very powerful, though nonsensical for many fields), would you have expected that to be the way you -could- add a search engine?
My post was more expanded, actually, counting any reasonable interaction... for this, it would have been.. 1. go to website 2. right-click on search field 3. choose Create Search... 4. enter a keyword 5. click OK
or 5. click "Details >>" 6. Check the "Use as default search engine" 7. Click OK
Again, though, that's an awesome feature. Must head on over to FF Add-ons to see if there's an FF version of this.
Well it wasn't intended as a tech support manual. I daresay if you ask *some* people to right-click a button, they'll move the cursor on the right-hand side of the button and click it using the left mouse button. Also.. the left mouse button is the on that is usually on the top, and not on the left -side- of the mouse (as some mice have buttons there). We can keep this up all day - I'm sure you got the post just fine:)
"While you agonizingly make your point, the reality is that FF & Chrome users DON"T WANT TO USE BING." I used Bing as an example - I could have said AltaVista, or Baidu (hi China), or The Pirate Bay for all I care. Just because Google is, by a huuuuuuuuuuuge margin, the most popular Search engine, and is the default search engine for all of the other major browsers (none, other than Google, of which are owned by any company that also happen to make a search engine), doesn't take away that the procedures in other browsers can also be a little... daunting, at times (if not just completely impossible). If you're saying "well nobody wants to use any other search engine anyway, and those who do - well it's okay for them to suffer the pains"... right-o then;)
I'm not sure why it should take five steps to change your search engine to the most popular engine on the market.
Eh. See my list below for how -other- browsers have this implemented and you might wonder how MS managed to get it down to just 5 steps. The answer: http://www.opensearch.org/Home ( Note: FF and Chrome are also OpenSearch engine descriptions compatible, so if you happen to be browsing a search engine's site that offers an OpenSearch engine description file, you should be able to simply click it and have the search engine added in no time. )
Is it really not possible for Google to exist in a pre-loaded list (or be downloaded automatically) and just be available as a dropdown?
I counter with.. "Is it really not possible for Bing/Yahoo/Altavista for all I care to exist in a pre-loaded list (or be downloaded automatically) and just be available as a dropdown?"..for all the other browsers.
I do agree that IE8 -should- come with Google as an option in the drop-down pre-installed; but given that on first-run of IE8 you already get asked what you want your default search engine to be and are easily led to all the major search engines.. I don't find it that much of an issue.
no one considers the possibility of killing someone before texting while driving
Maybe - just maybe - enough media attention and (sadly) a few high profile cases will change that.
You should consider the possibility of killing someone while driving, period. The moment you realize that (but don't let it turn to paranoia and make you hesitant to get behind the wheel at all), you start wondering if you -really- need to be looking at that map on the seemingly empty stretch of road in front of you... whether you -really- need to answer that call right now in busy traffic... whether you -really- need to reach under the passenger seat for that bottle of water that got away from you; and so forth, and so on.
That said.. I don't think most of these should carry the same penalty as when DUI; being on the phone may be arguable, but they all rather fall under the idea that you're just not paying (enough) attention to the road. When you're DUI (be that alcohol or drugs, OTC, prescription or otherwise as applicable), you're intoxicated - completely different state of mind often resulting in sluggishness. Being on the phone may have you distracted and less likely to notice something -to- react to, but I don't think I've seen any studies that claim that your reaction time itself is decreased once you -do- notice something to react to.
Here's the procedures for the major browsers as I find them 'intuitively'; e.g. I'll double-click an item expecting a dialog of options to come up.. in lieu of that, or in the case of fields, I right-click the thing expecting a fly-out of options.
There might be shorter routes, but in that case they weren't very intuitive -to me-.
I had to cheat for FireFox's Address bar, doing a google search, to find out that setting was hidden in about:config.
===== IE8 As above, but please note that it's the dropdown -next to- the search box, on the right of the magnifying glass. =====
For the remaining exercises, let's try adding Bing to the others (for demonstration purposes - though I guess if you like Bing...), making it the default, and then removing it again.
===== FireFox 3.5 (3.5.1) - 'Default' Search: Google ----- Adding Bing ----- 1. Click on the drop-down arrow on the left hand side of the search field 2. Select "Manage Search Engines..." 3. Click on the "Get more search engines..." option
You will now be presented with the FireFox add-ons website. None of the top-listed options are the major search engines, and bing is nowhere to be found in page 1, so... 4. enter "Bing" in the search field 5. change the "within" dropdown to "Search Tools" 6. click the big green Search btton 7. the first result should be the official, Microsoft bing! team-supplied, search engine. Click on the Download Now button 8. click on Accept [the license] and Install (if you want, read the license first.. It's Ms-PL)
A "Add Search Engine" dialog will now pop up 9. Click the Add button. ( You can check the "Start using it right away" option if you want, but that won't make it the default. )
----- Making Bing the default (while adding: n/a; from scratch only) ----- FireFox doesn't really have a 'default search'. It will simply use whatever you have selected last in the search field. One could argue, however, that any junk entered into the address bar, which leads to a search engine (guess which?), is akin to a default search engine. So to that point... 1. Enter "about:config" in the address bar. 1.5. If you haven't previous ignored the "This might void your warranty!" (what warranty would that be, Mozilla? Tongue-in cheek humor, eh?) warning, click the "I'll be careful, I promise!" button. 2. Double-click on the entry "keyword.URL" (scroll down, use filter, not counting that as a 'step') 3. Enter the string: "http://www.bing.com/search?q="
(For arbitrary engines, you'll have to figure out which part of the address is the keyword bit and make sure that's the last item, etc.) 4. Click the OK button
----- Removing Bing ----- 1. Click on the drop-down arrow on the left hand side of the search field 2. Select "Manage Search Engines..." 3. Select the Bing item 4. Click on the Remove button 5. Click OK =====
===== Google Chrome 2 (2.0.172.43) - Default Search: Google ( XD ) ----- Adding Bing ----- 1. Right-click on the address/search bar 2. Choose "Edit Search Engines..." from the context menu 3. Click the Add button 4. Enter as Name: "Bing" 5. Enter as URL: "http://www.bing.com/search?q=%s"
(For arbitrary engines, you'll have to figure out which part of the address is the keyword bit and make sure to place a "%s" in the place where the keyword would occur.) 6. Click the OK button 7. Click the Close button
----- Making Bing the default - from having added it ----- ( do not follow step 7 above ) 7. Click the "Make Default" button. 8. Click the Close button.
----- Making Bing the default - from scratch ----- 1. Right-click on the address/search bar 2. Choose "Edit Search Engines..." from the context menu 3. Select "Bing" 4. Click the "Make Default" button. 5. Click the Close button.
So.. what's the going rate for a callcenter in... well, what's the cheapest place nowadays?
Paying somebody to call a bunch of numbers, regurgitate a preconceived message, then transfer to the appropriate office if the called person takes the bait... can't be all -that- expensive* and circumvents the 'pre-recorded' bit of a 'robocall', right?
If -only- that bit is what is ruled against, then an automated dialer can still at least only transfer those who answer the phone to the poor sod with the aforementioned job, too.
Surely a loophole can't be that big?
* more expensive than a completely automated dealie, of course, but the above is, I presume, the way they did this -before- such technology was available..
I think they may be complaining more about the DUI ones than the speed trap ones. I'm sure it depends on locale, though.
They post them in NL as well - mostly - and there's services on radio and on the web where you can get the locations that are spotted by other drivers, load them onto your TomTom, etc. etc. the cops don't really care much as it means that people -will- slow down in those areas... which would have been the general point anyway (not to make more moneys; if they wanted that, I can point them to 4 intersections in the area where they could ticket several thousand bicyclists at E90 (~$120) each day. That'll add up a heck of a lot quicker than the hand full of people that get ticketed speeding.
I reckon it's a bit of a test, really. If you get ticketed speeding - hooray, you failed the "Are you smart enough to check for speed traps?"-test. ( The alternative - not speeding in the first place - is impossible to discuss on/.;) )
But DUI... do you really need some drunktard (yeah, I don't care if you think you can drive like Schumacher at the peak of his career when you've downed 8 beers, nor does the law - quit whining, pay the fine, and work to get the law changed if you feel so strongly about the injustice of a fixed blood alcohol level as the guideline) getting a notification saying "DUI test in 5km" and change from the highway through a residential area, etc. just so they can evade it? ( Cue the "That's why they shouldn't DUI test at all - it just invokes such dangerous behavior!" responses.. *sigh* )
no wind resistance, no variations in flooring, no vibrations to speak of other than from the bike itself (which should be nil for that ridiculously expensive bike) and its rider, etc.
Ask anybody skeelering / inline skating / rollerskating. It's all fine and dandy on a dedicated track, easypeasy.. now go do it out on the open road, through a park, etc. and revel in the agglomeration of pain that used to be your calves.
--
on wind resistance and its other effects, I always liked the Bugatti Veyron team's notes (only through Jeremy Clarkson, I'm afraid):
The extra speed [30km/h over 370km/h] had to come from changing small things on the body. They started by fitting smaller door mirrors, which upped the top speed a bit but at too high a price. It turned out that the bigger ones had been keeping the nose of the car on the ground. Without them the stability was gone.
In other words, the door mirrors were generating downforce. That gives you an idea of how much of a bastard the air can be at this speed.
http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ - WallStats: Death and Taxes...it doesn't get into the nitty gritty of, say, a congresscritter getting moneys - but it goes into fairly reasonable detail.
There are plenty of examples in real life now where it is easier to create something from anew than to repair it. Easier/cheaper.
Let's take an extreme example... an 'I' beam used in construction. We can stamp those out by the hundreds, easy-peasy. But the moment an x-ray detects a crack in one, do we repair it? Heck no - it's way more difficult, and expensive, to repair that than it is to simply make a new 'I' beam.
Perhaps a medical example is in order... see that story on the front page a bit further down about growing a tooth in a rat? Everybody who has heard of construction of a new tooth from scratch that is identical to a grown tooth, raise your hand. No? Nobody? Yet a completely new tooth was grown by scientists already.
Just because mankind would have the ability to grow entirely new bodies (much like you could grow a clone, I daresay), doesn't mean you should assume they could just fix any existing bodies' ailments.
Buddy, I can park your car so there is only two inches between the guy in front and the guy behind and do it without tapping either bumper. It takes a while
'a while' is a bit of an understatement, presuming you actually want to park close to the curb as well. Something to do with diagonals of a rectangle (let's simplify a car as being a rectangle for the purposes here) being longer than the long side of said rectangle, your car not pivoting at the center point (unless you have a real fancy car with back and front steering) and curbs either being rather high, or having other crap (such as poles) in the way so you can't really 'cheat' by going half-way over the curb to fit the spot. You'll have to back-and-forth several times, spending quite a bit of time, with at the end - as per your example - only having 4" space to move back and forth in. But perhaps you were exaggerating.
if I even think I can fit, fuck it, I'm going in!
Just don't complain if the person(s) of the cars you parked inbetween so nice and snugly aren't as talented or patient as you are, and decide that nudging your car out of the way in order for them to be able to get out of their parking spot is more than acceptable.
Moreover.. even if you do find your picture posted, the moment you ask that somebody remove it, you are likely to incite the Streisand Effect; and even 'the Slashdot crowd' will point and laugh at you and help disseminate the picture you asked somebody to take down.
If netbooks are any indication - I'd say it'd be a while for a large chunk of the computer users.. unless you only use your computer for the tasks it is well-suited to (e-mail, webpages, text processing, a spreadsheet, etc.). Some of the slower netbooks are barely capable of playing back YouTube content in high quality / HD playback mode, however; nevermind cellphones.
'a while' could be as little as 10 years, though, if trends continue. ( I'd say '5', but the difference between current notebooks and mine, which is ~5 years old, is not -that- big. Evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. )
Damn near the same situation, though, although I'd say the MTA stands less of a chance in this case (raw data) than in that case (if one could argue that the map design, layout, coloring, etc. makes it enough of a unique piece to be able to claim copyright... how -did- that case end anyway?)
true, but keep in mind that these camera operators tend to keep the shuttle in the center of view pretty well - a computer would be even better at this simply because it doesn't suffer as much from influences like hands shaking, and a much more solid platform than a (relatively) flimsy tripod./nokarma
you can always track a missile optically, or via infra red, or.. etc.
as for 'pointed in the right direction fast enough'... see Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems for some seriously-fast-aiming systems. As long as you can track the missile itself*, you can aim something at it. Lasers come with an advantage over the above systems... the laser tends to travel in a fairly straight line, bullets.. not so much. Even with atmospheric distortions, you should get much better aim with a laser than with bullets.
* As for tracking a missile - keep in mind that this system is intended to be used from some distance. Tracking a missile going 'thousands of miles per hour' just means having to rotate the system (fractions) of degrees. Think of regular ol' human camera operators tracking the space shuttle, which goes much faster than a typical missile, and having no problems doing so. It becomes easier the further away it is, in fact. (well, easiest is when it's still sitting on the launch pad, but you get the idea.)
Didn't RMS claim somewhere that the way he browses the web is sending an e-mail to some machine, which then grabs the content, and e-mails it back to him?
Miles per Newton (or whatever we can equate all fuels to)? (i have no idea)
The SI unit you might be looking for is Joule. Every form of energy can be brought back to Joule - be that electrical energy or chemical (potential) energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
...why do these stories about hybrids, fully-electrics, etc. always elicit responses like "but it freezes here, which kills performance" and "but I drive 200 miles every day, will it be able to do that? No."
I don't hear anybody ranting on the Mini for not being able to support a soccer (hockey?) mom with her 3 kids+entourage+equipment. I don't hear anybody complaining that a Ford Excursion is crap up in northern Alaska because the tires keep sinking into the thawing dirt roads. Who last complained about a Scuderia Spider (open top car) because they lived in Seattle and, well, dur?
Not every single car is going to fill your specific needs and desires; thank goodness, then, that there is a wide range to choose from.. and with the Volt and other initiatives, those whose desires include having a non-gasoline car to drive short distances regularly in non-extreme (4 months of freezing is extreme enough, tyvm) weather will be having that choice available to them, just as you have had the choice between a myriad of cars that will happily run with little performance loss at 30F and the heater blasting at full.
You can machine-cut diamonds quite excellently, however*.. depending on how much you want to spend on the machine, it'll come out either quite good, or excellent.
Keep in mind that professional lapidarians also cut using machines.. they don't sit there with a little diamond-gritted tool polishing away for hours on end, holding the diamond between their bare fingers.
The only 'problems' come from size, shape, and any potential natural faults along which the material may be likely to splice while working it, and thus deciding whether you want to cut a smaller stone at an angle not likely to cause this splice, or pre-splice it so that you can cut two even smaller stones from the same material, etc.
For -those-, you still need a guy to sit down, orient the rough, pre-shape it, find any internal flaws, etc. before mounting it in the prongs / on the dopping of the machine.
But just because it's relatively easy, doesn't mean you'll get bigger returns from it. You can roughly rank the diamonds, in terms of perceived value (see other posts about the value of diamonds), by checking how much of its development from a rock in the ground to the finished product was 'natural'.. the more machines were used to make it / cut it / etc., the less its perceived value.
Personally I don't care for diamonds except as accent stones; smaller stones that sparkle and have much more birefringence than the larger stones which cost many, may times more. Any good clarity colored gemstone, even if fairly poorly cut (specialty cuts such as heart shaped internal reflections aside), has intrinsically greater value. But that's the poor gemstone lobby and strong diamond industry for ya.
* now, peeling onions. That's an open problem that hasn't been satisfactorily solved - leading to tons of onions being shipped from e.g. Holland to Poland for manual peeling and, often, ringing (chopping they can do with a machine alright) before being shipped right back. Invent a machine that can peel onions, and you'll be temporarily rich (and will have put hundreds of workers out of a job - but that's the price you pay for progress, right?;\ )
"that decision wouldn't stop you from downloading your own browsers and installing them at your own choice" Nor does IE being on there by default on most current systems.
I thought the idea was to give consumers a more glaringly obvious choice of browser? I realize it's by the letter of the EU's complaints directed towards Microsoft specifically, but I can't help but feel this decision to only have a ballot if IE is the default is a bit odd.
computer manufacturers are free to install any browser and set any browser to be the default when building Windows-based PCs [...] If IE is the default browser, the user will be presented with a list of other leading browsers
So if Dell were to decide that Google Chrome should be the default browser, then you will never see that the ballot list. They wouldn't get to see 'how good Opera is' at all.
Somewhat off-topic, but I guess related all the same...
Nobody should use MD5 for authentication and whatnot... and even as a 'checksum' of sorts you have to be careful (i.e. make sure that the source of the MD5 text/file isn't the very same source as the file it was generated for, as a compromised file probably means the MD5 string would be equally compromised).
But I'm curious.. are any of the attacks capable of injecting new data that.. 1. doesn't affect filesize - the wiki mentions that successful attacks can prepend and append, but presuming you'd include the file size with the MD5 string, that would be another parameter to check 2. actually does something.. be it useful or nefarious, rather than just crash the app or insert gibberish in a text document, etc.
e.g. if I took the declaration of independence as a.txt file, are there any attacks that could subtly, or non-subtly, change the wording without increasing or decreasing the size of the file, and still match an original MD5?
--
On-topic: cool; but not particularly new? Most everybody knows that GPUs are great at taking in a tiny bit of data, crunching it, and spitting a result back out. Kudos for actually writing optimized code for the given platform (in this case an AMD/ATi GPU), but it's still the same number crunching instead of an improved method.. correct?
Slashdot Mirror
And after the filesystem is done with your 1TB drive, see how much space you have left -then-.
I honestly don't care much whether I'm getting
1,000,000,000,0000 bytes, or
1,099,511,627,776 bytes.
Either number is "big enough that I won't be filling this thing up anytime soon". If I fear that I might, heck, I'll plunk down for a 1.5TB drive instead.. both are cheaper than my first 60MB HDD.
oh, silly me. I guess that would be the "Add a Keyword for this Search..." option.. I'd already forgotten about that. Although it technically doesn't add it as an option in the drop-down, but only through a keyword prefix in the address bar (probably why I'd already forgotten). /nokarma
Just tested - yep, works in 9 as well.
That's -very- nifty - thanks for the heads-up - but to loop it back to this discussion... is it intuitive?
e.g. if you hadn't heard of it, or happened to spot it while e.g. copying/pasting into any field (as apparently it adds this for -any- text form field.. which makes it very powerful, though nonsensical for many fields), would you have expected that to be the way you -could- add a search engine?
My post was more expanded, actually, counting any reasonable interaction... for this, it would have been..
1. go to website
2. right-click on search field
3. choose Create Search...
4. enter a keyword
5. click OK
or
5. click "Details >>"
6. Check the "Use as default search engine"
7. Click OK
Again, though, that's an awesome feature. Must head on over to FF Add-ons to see if there's an FF version of this.
Well it wasn't intended as a tech support manual. I daresay if you ask *some* people to right-click a button, they'll move the cursor on the right-hand side of the button and click it using the left mouse button. :)
Also.. the left mouse button is the on that is usually on the top, and not on the left -side- of the mouse (as some mice have buttons there).
We can keep this up all day - I'm sure you got the post just fine
"While you agonizingly make your point, the reality is that FF & Chrome users DON"T WANT TO USE BING." ;)
I used Bing as an example - I could have said AltaVista, or Baidu (hi China), or The Pirate Bay for all I care.
Just because Google is, by a huuuuuuuuuuuge margin, the most popular Search engine, and is the default search engine for all of the other major browsers (none, other than Google, of which are owned by any company that also happen to make a search engine), doesn't take away that the procedures in other browsers can also be a little... daunting, at times (if not just completely impossible).
If you're saying "well nobody wants to use any other search engine anyway, and those who do - well it's okay for them to suffer the pains"... right-o then
Eh. See my list below for how -other- browsers have this implemented and you might wonder how MS managed to get it down to just 5 steps.
The answer: http://www.opensearch.org/Home
( Note: FF and Chrome are also OpenSearch engine descriptions compatible, so if you happen to be browsing a search engine's site that offers an OpenSearch engine description file, you should be able to simply click it and have the search engine added in no time. )
I counter with.. ..for all the other browsers.
"Is it really not possible for Bing/Yahoo/Altavista for all I care to exist in a pre-loaded list (or be downloaded automatically) and just be available as a dropdown?"
I do agree that IE8 -should- come with Google as an option in the drop-down pre-installed; but given that on first-run of IE8 you already get asked what you want your default search engine to be and are easily led to all the major search engines.. I don't find it that much of an issue.
Maybe - just maybe - enough media attention and (sadly) a few high profile cases will change that.
You should consider the possibility of killing someone while driving, period. The moment you realize that (but don't let it turn to paranoia and make you hesitant to get behind the wheel at all), you start wondering if you -really- need to be looking at that map on the seemingly empty stretch of road in front of you... whether you -really- need to answer that call right now in busy traffic... whether you -really- need to reach under the passenger seat for that bottle of water that got away from you; and so forth, and so on.
That said.. I don't think most of these should carry the same penalty as when DUI; being on the phone may be arguable, but they all rather fall under the idea that you're just not paying (enough) attention to the road. When you're DUI (be that alcohol or drugs, OTC, prescription or otherwise as applicable), you're intoxicated - completely different state of mind often resulting in sluggishness. Being on the phone may have you distracted and less likely to notice something -to- react to, but I don't think I've seen any studies that claim that your reaction time itself is decreased once you -do- notice something to react to.
Here's the procedures for the major browsers as I find them 'intuitively'; e.g. I'll double-click an item expecting a dialog of options to come up.. in lieu of that, or in the case of fields, I right-click the thing expecting a fly-out of options.
There might be shorter routes, but in that case they weren't very intuitive -to me-.
I had to cheat for FireFox's Address bar, doing a google search, to find out that setting was hidden in about:config .
=====
IE8
As above, but please note that it's the dropdown -next to- the search box, on the right of the magnifying glass.
=====
For the remaining exercises, let's try adding Bing to the others (for demonstration purposes - though I guess if you like Bing...), making it the default, and then removing it again.
=====
FireFox 3.5 (3.5.1) - 'Default' Search: Google
-----
Adding Bing
-----
1. Click on the drop-down arrow on the left hand side of the search field
2. Select "Manage Search Engines..."
3. Click on the "Get more search engines..." option
You will now be presented with the FireFox add-ons website. None of the top-listed options are the major search engines, and bing is nowhere to be found in page 1, so...
4. enter "Bing" in the search field
5. change the "within" dropdown to "Search Tools"
6. click the big green Search btton
7. the first result should be the official, Microsoft bing! team-supplied, search engine. Click on the Download Now button
8. click on Accept [the license] and Install (if you want, read the license first.. It's Ms-PL)
A "Add Search Engine" dialog will now pop up
9. Click the Add button. ( You can check the "Start using it right away" option if you want, but that won't make it the default. )
-----
Making Bing the default (while adding: n/a; from scratch only)
-----
FireFox doesn't really have a 'default search'. It will simply use whatever you have selected last in the search field.
One could argue, however, that any junk entered into the address bar, which leads to a search engine (guess which?), is akin to a default search engine. So to that point...
1. Enter "about:config" in the address bar.
1.5. If you haven't previous ignored the "This might void your warranty!" (what warranty would that be, Mozilla? Tongue-in cheek humor, eh?) warning, click the "I'll be careful, I promise!" button.
2. Double-click on the entry "keyword.URL" (scroll down, use filter, not counting that as a 'step')
3. Enter the string: "http://www.bing.com/search?q="
(For arbitrary engines, you'll have to figure out which part of the address is the keyword bit and make sure that's the last item, etc.)
4. Click the OK button
-----
Removing Bing
-----
1. Click on the drop-down arrow on the left hand side of the search field
2. Select "Manage Search Engines..."
3. Select the Bing item
4. Click on the Remove button
5. Click OK
=====
=====
Google Chrome 2 (2.0.172.43) - Default Search: Google ( XD )
-----
Adding Bing
-----
1. Right-click on the address/search bar
2. Choose "Edit Search Engines..." from the context menu
3. Click the Add button
4. Enter as Name: "Bing"
5. Enter as URL: "http://www.bing.com/search?q=%s"
(For arbitrary engines, you'll have to figure out which part of the address is the keyword bit and make sure to place a "%s" in the place where the keyword would occur.)
6. Click the OK button
7. Click the Close button
-----
Making Bing the default - from having added it
-----
( do not follow step 7 above )
7. Click the "Make Default" button.
8. Click the Close button.
-----
Making Bing the default - from scratch
-----
1. Right-click on the address/search bar
2. Choose "Edit Search Engines..." from the context menu
3. Select "Bing"
4. Click the "Make Default" button.
5. Click the Close button.
-----
Removing Bing
-----
1. Right-clic
So.. what's the going rate for a callcenter in... well, what's the cheapest place nowadays?
Paying somebody to call a bunch of numbers, regurgitate a preconceived message, then transfer to the appropriate office if the called person takes the bait... can't be all -that- expensive* and circumvents the 'pre-recorded' bit of a 'robocall', right?
If -only- that bit is what is ruled against, then an automated dialer can still at least only transfer those who answer the phone to the poor sod with the aforementioned job, too.
Surely a loophole can't be that big?
* more expensive than a completely automated dealie, of course, but the above is, I presume, the way they did this -before- such technology was available..
I think they may be complaining more about the DUI ones than the speed trap ones. I'm sure it depends on locale, though.
They post them in NL as well - mostly - and there's services on radio and on the web where you can get the locations that are spotted by other drivers, load them onto your TomTom, etc. etc. the cops don't really care much as it means that people -will- slow down in those areas... which would have been the general point anyway (not to make more moneys; if they wanted that, I can point them to 4 intersections in the area where they could ticket several thousand bicyclists at E90 (~$120) each day. That'll add up a heck of a lot quicker than the hand full of people that get ticketed speeding.
I reckon it's a bit of a test, really. If you get ticketed speeding - hooray, you failed the "Are you smart enough to check for speed traps?"-test. ( The alternative - not speeding in the first place - is impossible to discuss on /. ;) )
But DUI... do you really need some drunktard (yeah, I don't care if you think you can drive like Schumacher at the peak of his career when you've downed 8 beers, nor does the law - quit whining, pay the fine, and work to get the law changed if you feel so strongly about the injustice of a fixed blood alcohol level as the guideline) getting a notification saying "DUI test in 5km" and change from the highway through a residential area, etc. just so they can evade it?
( Cue the "That's why they shouldn't DUI test at all - it just invokes such dangerous behavior!" responses.. *sigh* )
no wind resistance, no variations in flooring, no vibrations to speak of other than from the bike itself (which should be nil for that ridiculously expensive bike) and its rider, etc.
Ask anybody skeelering / inline skating / rollerskating. It's all fine and dandy on a dedicated track, easypeasy.. now go do it out on the open road, through a park, etc. and revel in the agglomeration of pain that used to be your calves.
--
on wind resistance and its other effects, I always liked the Bugatti Veyron team's notes (only through Jeremy Clarkson, I'm afraid):
Try this...
http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ - WallStats: Death and Taxes ...it doesn't get into the nitty gritty of, say, a congresscritter getting moneys - but it goes into fairly reasonable detail.
Why is that strange?
There are plenty of examples in real life now where it is easier to create something from anew than to repair it. Easier/cheaper.
Let's take an extreme example... an 'I' beam used in construction. We can stamp those out by the hundreds, easy-peasy. But the moment an x-ray detects a crack in one, do we repair it? Heck no - it's way more difficult, and expensive, to repair that than it is to simply make a new 'I' beam.
Perhaps a medical example is in order... see that story on the front page a bit further down about growing a tooth in a rat? Everybody who has heard of construction of a new tooth from scratch that is identical to a grown tooth, raise your hand. No? Nobody? Yet a completely new tooth was grown by scientists already.
Just because mankind would have the ability to grow entirely new bodies (much like you could grow a clone, I daresay), doesn't mean you should assume they could just fix any existing bodies' ailments.
'a while' is a bit of an understatement, presuming you actually want to park close to the curb as well. Something to do with diagonals of a rectangle (let's simplify a car as being a rectangle for the purposes here) being longer than the long side of said rectangle, your car not pivoting at the center point (unless you have a real fancy car with back and front steering) and curbs either being rather high, or having other crap (such as poles) in the way so you can't really 'cheat' by going half-way over the curb to fit the spot. You'll have to back-and-forth several times, spending quite a bit of time, with at the end - as per your example - only having 4" space to move back and forth in.
But perhaps you were exaggerating.
Just don't complain if the person(s) of the cars you parked inbetween so nice and snugly aren't as talented or patient as you are, and decide that nudging your car out of the way in order for them to be able to get out of their parking spot is more than acceptable.
Moreover.. even if you do find your picture posted, the moment you ask that somebody remove it, you are likely to incite the Streisand Effect; and even 'the Slashdot crowd' will point and laugh at you and help disseminate the picture you asked somebody to take down.
If netbooks are any indication - I'd say it'd be a while for a large chunk of the computer users.. unless you only use your computer for the tasks it is well-suited to (e-mail, webpages, text processing, a spreadsheet, etc.). Some of the slower netbooks are barely capable of playing back YouTube content in high quality / HD playback mode, however; nevermind cellphones.
'a while' could be as little as 10 years, though, if trends continue.
( I'd say '5', but the difference between current notebooks and mine, which is ~5 years old, is not -that- big. Evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. )
I thought this was old news... ...but I guess that was maps, and this is schedules?
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/01/089229
Damn near the same situation, though, although I'd say the MTA stands less of a chance in this case (raw data) than in that case (if one could argue that the map design, layout, coloring, etc. makes it enough of a unique piece to be able to claim copyright... how -did- that case end anyway?)
true, but keep in mind that these camera operators tend to keep the shuttle in the center of view pretty well - a computer would be even better at this simply because it doesn't suffer as much from influences like hands shaking, and a much more solid platform than a (relatively) flimsy tripod. /nokarma
you can always track a missile optically, or via infra red, or.. etc.
as for 'pointed in the right direction fast enough'... see Phalanx and Goalkeeper systems for some seriously-fast-aiming systems. As long as you can track the missile itself*, you can aim something at it. Lasers come with an advantage over the above systems... the laser tends to travel in a fairly straight line, bullets.. not so much. Even with atmospheric distortions, you should get much better aim with a laser than with bullets.
* As for tracking a missile - keep in mind that this system is intended to be used from some distance. Tracking a missile going 'thousands of miles per hour' just means having to rotate the system (fractions) of degrees. Think of regular ol' human camera operators tracking the space shuttle, which goes much faster than a typical missile, and having no problems doing so. It becomes easier the further away it is, in fact. (well, easiest is when it's still sitting on the launch pad, but you get the idea.)
Didn't RMS claim somewhere that the way he browses the web is sending an e-mail to some machine, which then grabs the content, and e-mails it back to him?
The SI unit you might be looking for is Joule. Every form of energy can be brought back to Joule - be that electrical energy or chemical (potential) energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
...why do these stories about hybrids, fully-electrics, etc. always elicit responses like "but it freezes here, which kills performance" and "but I drive 200 miles every day, will it be able to do that? No."
I don't hear anybody ranting on the Mini for not being able to support a soccer (hockey?) mom with her 3 kids+entourage+equipment.
I don't hear anybody complaining that a Ford Excursion is crap up in northern Alaska because the tires keep sinking into the thawing dirt roads.
Who last complained about a Scuderia Spider (open top car) because they lived in Seattle and, well, dur?
Not every single car is going to fill your specific needs and desires; thank goodness, then, that there is a wide range to choose from.. and with the Volt and other initiatives, those whose desires include having a non-gasoline car to drive short distances regularly in non-extreme (4 months of freezing is extreme enough, tyvm) weather will be having that choice available to them, just as you have had the choice between a myriad of cars that will happily run with little performance loss at 30F and the heater blasting at full.
You can machine-cut diamonds quite excellently, however*.. depending on how much you want to spend on the machine, it'll come out either quite good, or excellent.
Keep in mind that professional lapidarians also cut using machines.. they don't sit there with a little diamond-gritted tool polishing away for hours on end, holding the diamond between their bare fingers.
The only 'problems' come from size, shape, and any potential natural faults along which the material may be likely to splice while working it, and thus deciding whether you want to cut a smaller stone at an angle not likely to cause this splice, or pre-splice it so that you can cut two even smaller stones from the same material, etc.
For -those-, you still need a guy to sit down, orient the rough, pre-shape it, find any internal flaws, etc. before mounting it in the prongs / on the dopping of the machine.
But just because it's relatively easy, doesn't mean you'll get bigger returns from it. You can roughly rank the diamonds, in terms of perceived value (see other posts about the value of diamonds), by checking how much of its development from a rock in the ground to the finished product was 'natural'.. the more machines were used to make it / cut it / etc., the less its perceived value.
Personally I don't care for diamonds except as accent stones; smaller stones that sparkle and have much more birefringence than the larger stones which cost many, may times more. Any good clarity colored gemstone, even if fairly poorly cut (specialty cuts such as heart shaped internal reflections aside), has intrinsically greater value. But that's the poor gemstone lobby and strong diamond industry for ya.
* now, peeling onions. That's an open problem that hasn't been satisfactorily solved - leading to tons of onions being shipped from e.g. Holland to Poland for manual peeling and, often, ringing (chopping they can do with a machine alright) before being shipped right back. Invent a machine that can peel onions, and you'll be temporarily rich (and will have put hundreds of workers out of a job - but that's the price you pay for progress, right? ;\ )
"that decision wouldn't stop you from downloading your own browsers and installing them at your own choice"
Nor does IE being on there by default on most current systems.
I thought the idea was to give consumers a more glaringly obvious choice of browser? I realize it's by the letter of the EU's complaints directed towards Microsoft specifically, but I can't help but feel this decision to only have a ballot if IE is the default is a bit odd.
So if Dell were to decide that Google Chrome should be the default browser, then you will never see that the ballot list. They wouldn't get to see 'how good Opera is' at all.
Somewhat off-topic, but I guess related all the same...
Nobody should use MD5 for authentication and whatnot... and even as a 'checksum' of sorts you have to be careful (i.e. make sure that the source of the MD5 text/file isn't the very same source as the file it was generated for, as a compromised file probably means the MD5 string would be equally compromised).
But I'm curious.. are any of the attacks capable of injecting new data that..
1. doesn't affect filesize - the wiki mentions that successful attacks can prepend and append, but presuming you'd include the file size with the MD5 string, that would be another parameter to check
2. actually does something.. be it useful or nefarious, rather than just crash the app or insert gibberish in a text document, etc.
e.g. if I took the declaration of independence as a .txt file, are there any attacks that could subtly, or non-subtly, change the wording without increasing or decreasing the size of the file, and still match an original MD5?
--
On-topic: cool; but not particularly new? Most everybody knows that GPUs are great at taking in a tiny bit of data, crunching it, and spitting a result back out. Kudos for actually writing optimized code for the given platform (in this case an AMD/ATi GPU), but it's still the same number crunching instead of an improved method.. correct?