, but some car company pulled all their fingerprint-activated models from circulation after thieves in asia started cutting off hands in order to steal the cars. it's a very real problem.
If this is "real", how about giving some more details. Or did you hear about it from a friend of a friend who heard it on the radio...
Actually, we kind of do. This technology has been used on animals for years.
Only on animals that have a typical lifespan of 10 years though.
Humans have had implants of various kinds for longer -- pacemakers, boob jobs, etc. Plastic surgeons implant all kinds of stuff, and much deeper than a tiny RFID chip that can be implanted just below the skin. How the body reacts to various materials is very well studied. The chip can be coated with just about any non-conductive inert material.
My reservation is that if someone wants to steal your identity, they can slice you up to get it, which will be a rather more risky proposition. But preferable to the severed hands and eyeballs we see in various spy movies for spoofing biometric IDs though.
By AMA i am assuming you mean the American Medical Assosiaction (not everyone is an American you know).
I'm not an American; but the story is about Americans' health so the context seems obvious.
AMA and they try to restrict the supply of medical services to their benefit. But they do it by pushing for stricter regulation
What would you expect them to say? They spend millions lobbying for their members' benefit, resulting in the dysfunctional, wasteful, but very profitable, system the USA has now.
There's a big hole here; there seem to be very few applications that provide this kind of thing, I suspect because it's Really Hard. It doesn't mean I don't still want one, though... any suggestions?
I'm not really sure what you're trying to do. Perhaps you want an outlining tool? MSWord does have a mode to do that, but it's famously buggy and unstable. I suspect that some coding environments might have a lot of the structure, but not the typographic features. There were some tools back in the DOS era that I sometimes came across that did this. That's one of the costs of the MS Office monoculture: since about 1995 it's become weird and geeky to use anything except MS Word; and any other surviving word processing apps seem to have their main focus as mimicking every feature of Word.
One of my authors long ago used to use an outliner called Framework, it's still around but I haven't used the current version. I'm concerned with editing and layout rather than creating new text. DTP apps tend to be either linear (code based) or visual (pasteboard metaphor). You generally have to transition to just thinking about layout towards the end of the process. I still use Ventura, a code-based layout app that allows fairly easy revision even at late stages of layout, though it's now moribund under its owners Corel.
It's even worse though, because Word 2003 is set up to automatically define a new style every time you manually apply direct formatting to a paragraph. If you look in the styles list for these templates, there are literally hundreds of styles defined there, all with meaningless names.
MS has just so totally fucked up its implementation of styles. I do DTP, and get files from all kinds of people. Not a single one in the last 10 years has been set up using styles in any sensible way. I always have to spend at least an hour trying to rationalise the styles of headings, lists, extracts, and, shudder, tables, before I can get to work on the text. You're right, it was much simpler and easier to produce good documents in Word 5.
but for knocking out quick documents word processors are far easier (even doing things the laborious way this guy suggests)
Actually, it's not laborious. What he's doing, though he doesn't explain it, is building a style sheet. (Or perhaps "document template" as I think Word calls it now.) Once you've done that, you just tag a paragraph with the appropriate style (one click) and you're done. Most paragraphs keep the default ("Normal" usually) style. Word, and I assume OOo, come with a large gallery of prebuilt styles, though it's not hard to roll your own, as he does. Sadly Word has dumbed down the use of styles so much that they change capriciously, trying to anticipate what you want, and usually getting it wrong, but confusing the application of local formatting (i.e., of text selected by the cursor) with that applying to all paragraphs with the same style. Older incarnations, as in Word 5 for example, took a little RTFM, but then were quite stable and easy to use.
All good DTP apps use the style model, as of course does CSS HTML. But if you look at any HTML produced by an MS product, you see an entangled mess betraying the convoluted hash that is Word formatting -- endless FONT codes, layering on and cancelling each other, for instance.
No thanks. I never said I was an expert on the USSR air force in the 1960s. My question was regarding the statement "Soviet bombers coming to the US via Cuba". I interpreted this to mean bombers based in Cuba carrying strategic weapons, to bomb targets in the US; which seemed unlikely to me for several reasons. However, from the clarifications it appears this actually refers to anti-submarine bombers (though they're the same basic aricraft as strategic bombers). So this is about control of sealanes in the Caribbean and Atlantic. So it certainly was a concern, but not of a nuclear strike which is what I le think of when you just say "bombers". As for "via" and "based", the difference is that it's going to take a much longer time for a strike to come "via" Cuba. I was thinking of nukes again, and a second strike on Miami the day after the SAC has dropped its bombs on Moscow doesn't sound like it would really be a priority mission. Maybe all this seems obvious to you, but not everyone is a scholar of Cold War military shadow-boxing.
Be real -- no matter how personalized an email gets, I'm still going to know it's not from somebody I know,
They win if they can fool your filters, so you have to read it to decide whether it's real. However, more sophisticated personalised mail could make very dangerous phishing attacks. Eg, an email from your mother "Dear, I've forgotten my banking password....". It may not fool you, but like any spam, they only need a few scores out of millions to make it pay.
According to TFA, they were talking about the origin of the emails; as in where the mail server was, but it seems obvious that most of these were outsourced by American spammers. Most of the products being advertised are definitely American.
It was mentioned earlier that Soviet bombers were occasionally intercepted
Yes, and I mentioned these were not, as far asd I can determine, STRATEGIC bombers, but anti-submarine bombers. Still, the US would want to track and eliminate them in wartime.
I was impressed by Firewall actually (despite being a medicore movie) that it actually used cisco ACLs
And perhaps you've noticed the "self-defending Cisco routers" on 24? Put it down to product placement, any intersection with technical plausibility is accidental.
I always thought it was hilarious that Colossus could understand human speech without any problem, and answer with teletype printer. But to give him a voice took a crash program of geeks led by Forbin. Of course, making an intelligible text-to-speech program is trivial compared to one for understanding speech, but because we think that, say, dogs can understand some speech, and only humans can speak, that speaking is much harder.
In the 50's both sides built fleets of thousands of intercontinental range nuclear bombers
I know. I asked if any were based in Cuba. From your link, the Tu-95 was based there from 1970. But it's described as anti-submarine, not a strategic bomber. I thought that after the Cuban missile crisis that the USSR undertook, tacitly, not to base any strategic weapons there.
I love the show 24, but when I watch it, I have to shut my computer nerd brain off.
What part of your brain do you leave on? Nothing much makes sense on that show. Politics (every presidential subplot)... geography (try working out how fast they'd have to travel in the stated times)... physics (bombs)... biology (instantaneous healing of wounds; viruses with magical properties)... statistics (innumnerable unlikely coincidences). Not to forget mountain lions But it's got pace. And torture. Actually I enjoyed Nikita from the same producers more, though it strained credulity at every point. Section One did however have the coolest computer interfaces I've ever seen. (If you were a Nikita fan you'll notice the set of CTU, as well as not a few actors, seeming very familiar.)
See the 1974 Coppola movie The Conversation. Gene Hackman as the wiretapper spends days filtering and enhancing a tape to slowly reveal the subject of a conversation; a Watergate era conspiracy. Been 20 years since I've seen it so I can't recall how plausible the tech was. You might say the role Hackman played in the much sillier, but fun, Enemy of the State was a sequel.
the possiblity of Soviet bombers coming to the US via Cuba
Missiles, yes of course, briefly. Bombers? Were there ever any? I'm pretty sure no strategic weapons were based in Cuba after October 1962. Do you have any sources stating otherwise?
Rather had all the proof he needed which was written in MS Word back in the 70's.
Whether it was someone trying to sex up their story, or conceivably a Karl Rowe inspired double-cross, that managed to somehow make the facts that were in that fake document seem false. It's basically the "inadmissible evidence" ploy, get the cops to obtain evidence in an illegal way and it poisons the case regardless of the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this "real" enough for you?
That sounds real. But all the details are different from the version you started with:
Fingertip, not hand, cut off
No mention of car being withdrawn from sale.
One case cited only.
Fingertip, not hand, cut off
No mention of car being withdrawn from sale.
One case cited only.
If this is "real", how about giving some more details. Or did you hear about it from a friend of a friend who heard it on the radio ...
Only on animals that have a typical lifespan of 10 years though.
Humans have had implants of various kinds for longer -- pacemakers, boob jobs, etc. Plastic surgeons implant all kinds of stuff, and much deeper than a tiny RFID chip that can be implanted just below the skin. How the body reacts to various materials is very well studied. The chip can be coated with just about any non-conductive inert material.
My reservation is that if someone wants to steal your identity, they can slice you up to get it, which will be a rather more risky proposition. But preferable to the severed hands and eyeballs we see in various spy movies for spoofing biometric IDs though.
I'm not an American; but the story is about Americans' health so the context seems obvious.
AMA and they try to restrict the supply of medical services to their benefit. But they do it by pushing for stricter regulation
What would you expect them to say? They spend millions lobbying for their members' benefit, resulting in the dysfunctional, wasteful, but very profitable, system the USA has now.
AMA.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to do. Perhaps you want an outlining tool? MSWord does have a mode to do that, but it's famously buggy and unstable. I suspect that some coding environments might have a lot of the structure, but not the typographic features. There were some tools back in the DOS era that I sometimes came across that did this. That's one of the costs of the MS Office monoculture: since about 1995 it's become weird and geeky to use anything except MS Word; and any other surviving word processing apps seem to have their main focus as mimicking every feature of Word.
One of my authors long ago used to use an outliner called Framework, it's still around but I haven't used the current version. I'm concerned with editing and layout rather than creating new text. DTP apps tend to be either linear (code based) or visual (pasteboard metaphor). You generally have to transition to just thinking about layout towards the end of the process. I still use Ventura, a code-based layout app that allows fairly easy revision even at late stages of layout, though it's now moribund under its owners Corel.
Maybe this and other articles here might help.
MS has just so totally fucked up its implementation of styles. I do DTP, and get files from all kinds of people. Not a single one in the last 10 years has been set up using styles in any sensible way. I always have to spend at least an hour trying to rationalise the styles of headings, lists, extracts, and, shudder, tables, before I can get to work on the text. You're right, it was much simpler and easier to produce good documents in Word 5.
Actually, it's not laborious. What he's doing, though he doesn't explain it, is building a style sheet. (Or perhaps "document template" as I think Word calls it now.) Once you've done that, you just tag a paragraph with the appropriate style (one click) and you're done. Most paragraphs keep the default ("Normal" usually) style. Word, and I assume OOo, come with a large gallery of prebuilt styles, though it's not hard to roll your own, as he does. Sadly Word has dumbed down the use of styles so much that they change capriciously, trying to anticipate what you want, and usually getting it wrong, but confusing the application of local formatting (i.e., of text selected by the cursor) with that applying to all paragraphs with the same style. Older incarnations, as in Word 5 for example, took a little RTFM, but then were quite stable and easy to use.
All good DTP apps use the style model, as of course does CSS HTML. But if you look at any HTML produced by an MS product, you see an entangled mess betraying the convoluted hash that is Word formatting -- endless FONT codes, layering on and cancelling each other, for instance.
No thanks. I never said I was an expert on the USSR air force in the 1960s. My question was regarding the statement "Soviet bombers coming to the US via Cuba". I interpreted this to mean bombers based in Cuba carrying strategic weapons, to bomb targets in the US; which seemed unlikely to me for several reasons. However, from the clarifications it appears this actually refers to anti-submarine bombers (though they're the same basic aricraft as strategic bombers). So this is about control of sealanes in the Caribbean and Atlantic. So it certainly was a concern, but not of a nuclear strike which is what I le think of when you just say "bombers". As for "via" and "based", the difference is that it's going to take a much longer time for a strike to come "via" Cuba. I was thinking of nukes again, and a second strike on Miami the day after the SAC has dropped its bombs on Moscow doesn't sound like it would really be a priority mission. Maybe all this seems obvious to you, but not everyone is a scholar of Cold War military shadow-boxing.
They win if they can fool your filters, so you have to read it to decide whether it's real. However, more sophisticated personalised mail could make very dangerous phishing attacks. Eg, an email from your mother "Dear, I've forgotten my banking password....". It may not fool you, but like any spam, they only need a few scores out of millions to make it pay.
According to TFA, they were talking about the origin of the emails; as in where the mail server was, but it seems obvious that most of these were outsourced by American spammers. Most of the products being advertised are definitely American.
Just because a company doesn't want you to do something doesn't make it illegal. What LAW is being broken?
Yes, and I mentioned these were not, as far asd I can determine, STRATEGIC bombers, but anti-submarine bombers. Still, the US would want to track and eliminate them in wartime.
It would be rather a detour to go to the USA from Russia via Cuba. Why would they do that? Did they even have the fuel capacity to make such a trip?
And perhaps you've noticed the "self-defending Cisco routers" on 24? Put it down to product placement, any intersection with technical plausibility is accidental.
Not just visitors. Any terrorists captured are paraded through the open-plan office, with highly classified information visible on all sides.
I always thought it was hilarious that Colossus could understand human speech without any problem, and answer with teletype printer. But to give him a voice took a crash program of geeks led by Forbin. Of course, making an intelligible text-to-speech program is trivial compared to one for understanding speech, but because we think that, say, dogs can understand some speech, and only humans can speak, that speaking is much harder.
I know. I asked if any were based in Cuba. From your link, the Tu-95 was based there from 1970. But it's described as anti-submarine, not a strategic bomber. I thought that after the Cuban missile crisis that the USSR undertook, tacitly, not to base any strategic weapons there.
"Murder One"; 23 episodes for one murder trial.
What part of your brain do you leave on? Nothing much makes sense on that show. Politics (every presidential subplot)... geography (try working out how fast they'd have to travel in the stated times)... physics (bombs) ... biology (instantaneous healing of wounds; viruses with magical properties)... statistics (innumnerable unlikely coincidences). Not to forget mountain lions But it's got pace. And torture. Actually I enjoyed Nikita from the same producers more, though it strained credulity at every point. Section One did however have the coolest computer interfaces I've ever seen. (If you were a Nikita fan you'll notice the set of CTU, as well as not a few actors, seeming very familiar.)
See the 1974 Coppola movie The Conversation. Gene Hackman as the wiretapper spends days filtering and enhancing a tape to slowly reveal the subject of a conversation; a Watergate era conspiracy. Been 20 years since I've seen it so I can't recall how plausible the tech was. You might say the role Hackman played in the much sillier, but fun, Enemy of the State was a sequel.
Consider for a monent how it strikes those of us who aren't American. Basically, it's like Team America: World Police, but not funny.
Missiles, yes of course, briefly. Bombers? Were there ever any? I'm pretty sure no strategic weapons were based in Cuba after October 1962. Do you have any sources stating otherwise?
Whether it was someone trying to sex up their story, or conceivably a Karl Rowe inspired double-cross, that managed to somehow make the facts that were in that fake document seem false. It's basically the "inadmissible evidence" ploy, get the cops to obtain evidence in an illegal way and it poisons the case regardless of the facts.