Sorry, I'm not that familiar with internet bureacracy, but what exactly is so suspicious about that whois record? For the record, the address and zip code appear to be valid, as does the area code.
Consider the worst case scenario... say, the U.S. can't afford a (non-military) space program because we're too busy fighting a war with everyone else on the damn planet. If NASA decided to shut down the station indefinitely -- after one more shuttle flight to turn off the lights -- for how long could the station reasonably be mothballed? A year? Ten years? Fifty?
Apparently not. I think you're confused about what "lead-in" means.
When "Farscape" followed "The Invisible Man", its ratings were 44% better than its lead-in. That means that a lot of people switched to Sci-Fi just to see "Farscape", even though they weren't interested in "The Invisible Man".
Conversely, this past summer, "Farscape" did 29% worse than its lead-in. That means that at least 29% of the people watching the previous program (probably much more) actually turned off Sci-Fi when "Farscape" came on. Inertia is usually one of the biggest factors in TV viewing preferences, so the fact that so many people not only weren't interested in "Farscape," but actively avoided watching it, is not a good sign.
You're right about it still being cancelled, of course.
Because for $199 you can't recharge it or connect it to your PC
The $199 model does of course include an AC adapter and USB sync cable, though I admit it's hard to figure that out from Dell's info. (Check here and here.) All that's missing is the drop-in USB cradle.
He does relate, however, in A Brief History of Time, that at first people had trouble understanding "his voice", so that when he would speak or answer questions at lectures, he would have an interpreter who was more familiar with his voice repeat what he just said.
FWIW, I believe he was referring to his natural voice, which he struggled with for some time before finally giving up and switching to the synthesizer.
The storage capacity we have now is adaquate for at least another few years. I don't know anyone that uses more than 60 gigs, and they are few and far between.
I have about 200 CDs on my HD right now, losslessly compressed into 43 GB. Many folks have two or three times as much music.
However, more importantly, I also have... oh... let's say 1300 GB worth of DVDs on the shelf. When I can fit all of those on my notebook's HD, along with room for future growth, then I won't need more space. (Of course, by the time that happens, we'll probably have switched to HD-DVDs...)
Just because brute-force is an inelegant method of breaking encryption doesn't mean it isn't valid.
True. However, brute force is only a valid technique for breaking a single message, which is what happened here. The headline says "Weak Elliptic Curve Cryptography Broken", which is false.
Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code?
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And the company that manufactures the most widely used ones is owned a major Republican supporter. There is at least one shareholder who is an actual politician. They've started suing news outlets publishing this information, though.
I guess that's why you aren't offering any evidence of your claim, huh?
I'm no... what... aeronautical engineer? Astronomer? Whatever the relevant profession would be, I'm not it.
However, I know that space probes are all about conserving resources. Fuel to steer, energy to run the components, the ability to withstand a certain amount of mechanical wear before falling apart, etc. I'm sure that Cassini's controllers haven't been watching a live feed of (mostly) empty space since launch; these are, in fact, the first pictures from Cassini, simply because it's the first time it was worth it to power up the camera.
How the fuck did that thing work? No one has been able to tell me to this day
It had a little camera in it that looked at the screen and determined what object it was pointed at.
It's just that simple.
Okay, it so happens that I just came back from a seminar on computer vision, so I know that a certain contingent of Slashdot's audience may be... uncomfortable with that explanation.:-) Relax. I left out one important trick: When you pull the trigger on the gun, the screen very briefly changes to a much simpler image -- probably just a white box on a black background. That way, all the gun really has to do is detect white light. If you think about it, that also explains why Zapper games never had many targets on the screen at the same time. (Although they did sometimes have more than one... I'm not sure how they did that. Perhaps they used more than one frame.)
While I agree it's never good to make "wildly opinionated and unsupported comments", I don't think that's the case here.
Yes, it is true that, over the past 2000 years, many bad things have been done in the name of Catholicism, as well as in the name of Judaism, Islam, the white race, the black race, America, communism, and countless other reference points around which groups have formed.
However, I believe that when the grandparent poster said "wildly opinionate and unsupported comments," he was referring to the claim that the Vatican would hide the records of such past sins. That claim was provided entirely without evidence, unless we're to believe that "that's just the sort of thing that those Catholics would do." To the extent that the original poster was implying that, I am rightly offended.
Don't forget WMA9 Lossless. (Some sources call this "WMA9 Professional," but I think they're mistaken.) I just finished ripping my entire CD collection in that format, but I'd sure like to have an alternative way to get it back out again, just in case Microsoft gets Arthur Andersen-ed or something.
Or, strangely enough, a somewhat less old, first-generation DVD player (circa 1997.) Apparently the type of laser used to read DVDs is close enough to the CD spec to read true CDs, but not CD-Rs, which are much harder to pick up. 2nd-generation DVD players solved that problem by including a second laser; I presume that's still what's done in modern DVD players, unless they've come up with something better.
Breaking up a movie to insert commercial breaks is mildly irritating. On-screen "bugs" are somewhat more intrusive. On-screen "bugs" that pop up to advertise another program are worse. On-screen ads that include a bell or other sound effect are worse still. However, on-screen ads that take up the entire screen and deliberately try to distract you from the film have got to be over the line.
That's what TNT started doing a few years ago. In particular, I remember one ad for an awards show of some sort, in which a "spotlights" would suddenly wave across the screen, then converge on the ad at the bottom. My interest in TNT had been declining ever since they fired Joe Bob, but those new ads were the last straw -- I changed the channel, and I haven't look back since.
Anyway, although I was surprised that TNT would make such a concerted effort to drive away viewers, I was even more suprised that the filmmakers would let them. A movie with those graphics superimposed clearly constitutes a derivative work, not just a performance of the original. Even a relatively flexible director wouldn't stand for that.
Of course, it's up to the copyright holder, which, in TNT's case, is almost always AOL. (In fact, AOL seems to hold most copyrights, period.) The more TV stations are able to run content that they own, the more freedom they have to do this sort of thing. It's just another consequence of the media oligopoly.
White LEDs are interesting for other reasons, but as far as display technology goes, people seem pretty satisfied with the "white" displayed on RGB CRTs and LCDs. Why would an OLED panel be any different?
If patents only lasted for 10-20 years and then became public domain. Widgets and sprockets could be produced by anyone, crushing monopolies and allowing new technologies to be created from the combining of previously uncombinable ideas.
Not an issue unless there are other exploits. Reading email should be safe.
2) It executes programs/activex objects embedded in HTML
Not with the default security settings. I'm not even sure the current version will do that with any settings.
3) It renders e-mail in HTML format instead of text only
True, this is a problem, but it's a privacy issue, not a security issue. Opening an HTML email is as safe as visiting a strange website, which few people would have a problem with.
4) It hides file extentions and mime types
Not in my experience.
5) It allows attachments to display their own icons so as to impersonate a different file type
Not in my experience. I've always suspected that might be possible, though. Can you prove it?
Yikes! Make that, I can guarantee that you will never be infected by an email-borne "virus" (trojan). As far as true viruses and worms go, you're on your own.
So they don't give out any real information (like "Using Outlook will inevitably cause you to get infected. Switch to something else"). They even seem to have helped the trend of calling any malware a "virus" because of this.
You have a good point, but your FUD is no better than what the AV companies are promoting.
What the AV authorities really should be saying is simply:
A) Keep all your software patched (MS or not), and
B) Do not run a program if you're not sure you can trust it; if you can't handle that, just don't open any attachments that you're not expecting.
If you follow these two rules, and there are no undiscovered exploits, I can guarantee that you will never be infected.
Note that users can follow these simple rules without disrupting their usual email habits. On the other hand, if you tell people to "Stop using Outlook, "Never open attachments (even jpegs?)," or "Don't read email from anyone you don't know," they will probably just ignore you, and they'll be just as vulnerable as before.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if 'funDNA protocols' just ignores anything input, and outputs random letters - how is the buyer going to confirm or deny it?
For that matter, I don't feel like doing the math right now, but I'd bet that any particular sequence of 16 BPs has an excellent chance of appearing somewhere in your DNA.
Now when the voting day is done, big packets of data are sent to a central computer that verifies all the data and only counts votes that check out, then creates a list of votes that didn't check out and why.
Perhaps version 2.0 will even print out a list of everyone who voted for the wrong candidate, so that they can be notified, and given the opportunity to change their votes.
On second thought, maybe you should review the concept of a "secret ballot".
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I'm not that familiar with internet bureacracy, but what exactly is so suspicious about that whois record? For the record, the address and zip code appear to be valid, as does the area code.
Consider the worst case scenario... say, the U.S. can't afford a (non-military) space program because we're too busy fighting a war with everyone else on the damn planet. If NASA decided to shut down the station indefinitely -- after one more shuttle flight to turn off the lights -- for how long could the station reasonably be mothballed? A year? Ten years? Fifty?
When "Farscape" followed "The Invisible Man", its ratings were 44% better than its lead-in. That means that a lot of people switched to Sci-Fi just to see "Farscape", even though they weren't interested in "The Invisible Man".
Conversely, this past summer, "Farscape" did 29% worse than its lead-in. That means that at least 29% of the people watching the previous program (probably much more) actually turned off Sci-Fi when "Farscape" came on. Inertia is usually one of the biggest factors in TV viewing preferences, so the fact that so many people not only weren't interested in "Farscape," but actively avoided watching it, is not a good sign.
You're right about it still being cancelled, of course.
However, more importantly, I also have... oh... let's say 1300 GB worth of DVDs on the shelf. When I can fit all of those on my notebook's HD, along with room for future growth, then I won't need more space. (Of course, by the time that happens, we'll probably have switched to HD-DVDs...)
I'm no... what... aeronautical engineer? Astronomer? Whatever the relevant profession would be, I'm not it.
However, I know that space probes are all about conserving resources. Fuel to steer, energy to run the components, the ability to withstand a certain amount of mechanical wear before falling apart, etc. I'm sure that Cassini's controllers haven't been watching a live feed of (mostly) empty space since launch; these are, in fact, the first pictures from Cassini, simply because it's the first time it was worth it to power up the camera.
It's just that simple.
Okay, it so happens that I just came back from a seminar on computer vision, so I know that a certain contingent of Slashdot's audience may be... uncomfortable with that explanation.
However, I believe that when the grandparent poster said "wildly opinionate and unsupported comments," he was referring to the claim that the Vatican would hide the records of such past sins. That claim was provided entirely without evidence, unless we're to believe that "that's just the sort of thing that those Catholics would do." To the extent that the original poster was implying that, I am rightly offended.
Don't forget WMA9 Lossless. (Some sources call this "WMA9 Professional," but I think they're mistaken.) I just finished ripping my entire CD collection in that format, but I'd sure like to have an alternative way to get it back out again, just in case Microsoft gets Arthur Andersen-ed or something.
Breaking up a movie to insert commercial breaks is mildly irritating. On-screen "bugs" are somewhat more intrusive. On-screen "bugs" that pop up to advertise another program are worse. On-screen ads that include a bell or other sound effect are worse still. However, on-screen ads that take up the entire screen and deliberately try to distract you from the film have got to be over the line.
That's what TNT started doing a few years ago. In particular, I remember one ad for an awards show of some sort, in which a "spotlights" would suddenly wave across the screen, then converge on the ad at the bottom. My interest in TNT had been declining ever since they fired Joe Bob, but those new ads were the last straw -- I changed the channel, and I haven't look back since.
Anyway, although I was surprised that TNT would make such a concerted effort to drive away viewers, I was even more suprised that the filmmakers would let them. A movie with those graphics superimposed clearly constitutes a derivative work, not just a performance of the original. Even a relatively flexible director wouldn't stand for that.
Of course, it's up to the copyright holder, which, in TNT's case, is almost always AOL. (In fact, AOL seems to hold most copyrights, period.) The more TV stations are able to run content that they own, the more freedom they have to do this sort of thing. It's just another consequence of the media oligopoly.
White LEDs are interesting for other reasons, but as far as display technology goes, people seem pretty satisfied with the "white" displayed on RGB CRTs and LCDs. Why would an OLED panel be any different?
(Do moderators even bother to read the comments anymore, or do they just mod stuff up at random?)
What the AV authorities really should be saying is simply:
A) Keep all your software patched (MS or not), and
B) Do not run a program if you're not sure you can trust it; if you can't handle that, just don't open any attachments that you're not expecting.
If you follow these two rules, and there are no undiscovered exploits, I can guarantee that you will never be infected.
Note that users can follow these simple rules without disrupting their usual email habits. On the other hand, if you tell people to "Stop using Outlook, "Never open attachments (even jpegs?)," or "Don't read email from anyone you don't know," they will probably just ignore you, and they'll be just as vulnerable as before.
On second thought, maybe you should review the concept of a "secret ballot".
(Disclaimer: This is not intended to be anti-Microsoft FUD. Everybody has bugs, and this one was patched in 1998. I just found it amusing.)