In 1982 or thereabouts, my parents bought a Sony Trinitron television and liked it so much that the following year they bought a second, smaller Trinitron. The smaller one was serviced once early on (still under warranty) and saw regular use until it died about 6 months ago. I'm not saying all their products are rock-solid, I know they're not, but a television that lasts 25+ years and still looks better than plenty of newer standard-def screens, is no small accomplishment.
It would be great to see this applied to historical events and other game domains, too -- like trying to beat Amundsen to the South Pole, using best-known weather data.
This is horrible, this idea.
The possibilities are interesting, but the most exciting idea you can think of is a game where you spend 3+ months riding behind sled dogs across the Antarctic tundra? Sounds like Penn & Teller's Desert Bus.
I mean, don't get me wrong, Roald Amundsen was an interesting guy with a great story, but that doesn't mean it would make a good videogame.
Effluent actually is the correct word, the double meaning is just a delightful coincidence. From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: effluent
Function: noun
Date: 1859
: something that flows out: as a: an outflowing branch of a main stream or lake b: waste material (as smoke, liquid industrial refuse, or sewage) discharged into the environment especially when serving as a pollutant
It makes sense, you see, although modding a funny post as "funny" may be more accurate, modding a funny post as "insightful" instead is definitely more funny, so it's a much more appropriate moderation. You see, the moderator is making a joke about the joke. I believe this is called "metamoderation" -- if you have an account you may have noticed Slashdot encouraging you to metamoderate from time to time.
How can IBM be this stupid? You can't cool a stack of chips with water, they'll just get soggy. I know it's hard to be patient, but if your chips are too hot to eat, you're better off just waiting for them to cool down.
Advances in computer-generated graphics and photomanipulation have probably made it easier to argue that photographic eveidence has been doctored, but there are still a plenty of obstacles towards successfully using that defense. Firstly, photographs are not usually the sole piece of evidence in a case nor are they usually the strongest. Even before photoshop and such, pictures could be altered, faked, or presented misleadingly, so they are already rarely considered solid proof on their own, but more often just corroborating evidence. Secondly, just because it's possible that a picture was manipulated doesn't mean that it's plausible. For example, if you were caught speeding by a traffic camera, I doubt you would be successful in refuting the ticket by arguing that the photo was manipulated -- it's possible that the picture was altered, but in most cases it would be extremely unlikely for somebody with both extraoardinary access to the traffic camera and flawless photo-manipulation skills to choose to specifically target you. The severity of the crime also play a role in whether the defense is plausible. A picture alone may be enough to convict you of speeding, but it definitely won't be enough to convict you of murder.
In addition, I know several camera companies make digital cameras which are capable of signing and/or encrypting pictures when they are taken so that they hold up stronger as evidence (although surely they're not fool-proof).
As far as videos (surveillance or otherwise), the same obstacles still exist, but furthermore, they're harder to argue against because, they're more likely to contain details which are far more difficult to fake. Realistically photoshopping somebody into an incriminating still picture is one thing, but realistically repeatedly and consistently manipulating them across many frames of video is quite a bit more difficult. So if the main piece of evidence is a short, blurry piece of surveillance footage and you have somebody with a motive to manipulate it, you may be successful in arguing that it was altered. If, on the other hand, the incriminating video is 16 hours of HD home movies of the suspects talking about their crimes, filmed within their bedroom and containing frequent camera moves and clear shots of their faces throughout then you would you'd have a lot more trouble arguing that it was altered. That is, unless you have a person with a strong motive to frame the suspects who also happens to be a god-like master of 3D modelling/animation and oodles of time on his hands.
That poster quoted median household income which and many households have more than one person working. What you ought to look at is personal income. The numbers in that article are pretax, so if we assume, say 15% of that is going to federal or local taxes, you would have to be earning a little bit over $28K/year in order to cover the price of a $2000 Macbook Pro with one month's pay. By the numbers in that article, that would mean >47% of individuals in the US would not be able to do that -- about half. I said "more than half" because I was using slightly older numbers, which is my mistake, but it's still pretty close and probably even closer if you take into account state sales taxes and such.
True, but I'm talking practicalities here. For whatever reason, probably a good two thirds majority of scientists are heterosexual men, so it's only fair that the main goal should be finding beautiful, three-breasted, venusian astro-nymphs. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know gay scientists and lady scientists need space-lovin' too, but we've got to stay focused.
Ancient Martian life? Why bother? All they'd do is show you pictures of their grand kids and talk about how great Mars used to be. What they should be doing is looking for some young, sexy, teenage martians. For that matter, why are they looking on Mars anyways? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.
Has it really been so long since the original Star Trek aired that scientists have forgotten that the primary goal of space exploration is to find hot alien women to have sex with? I'm willing to forgive science for failing to deliver on its promises of flying cars and personal jetpacks, but if I don't have harem of hot alien babes soon, then I am going to be FUCKING PISSED.
I shudder to think how many lives could have been saved if only they had spent less time on chinese fire drills and more time on chinese earthquake drills.
Have you not bought a television or monitor in the past three decades? Screen area is almost always described the length of the diagonal. It's a little confusing when comparing screens of different aspect ratios, but it's way more succinct to talk about your "42 inch" screen than your "902 square inch" screen, or even your "40 inch by 22.5 inch" screen.
You're exactly right. This article is obviously little more than a regurgitated press release for MicroBilt. The reality is that this law is intended for big companies and companies doing big money deals and they're the only ones that are going to have to worry about it. Microbilt is just trying to get some more customers by making it sound like a broader law than it is and given that it's been written up as an article and been posted to Slashdot, I'd say they've done a pretty good job.
I tried to think of counter-examples to your point and I had trouble, but in the process I stumbled across an even better idea. The first thing I thought of was cages at the zoo. To some extent, this example shows your point because the barriers at zoos are designed much more to keep animals in than spectators out. However, despite being designed to keep animals in, they are just as successful at keeping people out. Why is this? Partly it's because zoos make it difficult for people to get inside cages, but mostly it's because inside the cages are dangerous animals. At this point, inspiration struck: if dangerous tigers can keep people out of a cage at the zoo, couldn't they also be used to protect a computer network? Of course they could! Who would risk hacking a network if it meant getting eaten alive by tigers?
As far as a practical implementation, I imagine that behind the network's regular firewall, one would just place a container of tigers (a "Tigerbox") that way. The firewall will work as a general security measure, but if a hacker were to break through into the network, he would be immediately eviscerated by tigers. I suppose that in theory, one could even get rid of the firewall entirely, like you suggest, and protect the network entirely with tigers. I'm not sure how practical this would be, due to the increased number of tigers required. However, it might be feasible in a few years once tigerboxes are more popular and the market begins to flood with cheap commodity tigers.
Who said the poster isn't a lesbian woman, talking about her girlfriend?
Sure, I know you're thinking "this is Slashdot, it's full of virgin nerd males, why would there be any lesbians posting on here"? Well sir, I believe that's just the sort of close-minded thinking that keeps hot lesbians off of Slashdot. To think, if it weren't for intolerant bigots like yourself Slashdot would surely be awash with not just lesbians, but promiscuous heterosexual women and even adventurous bisexual female couples looking for a third. You sir, should be ashamed of yourself.
"Superman, a prominent member of the Super Friends group has written a letter that strongly supports The Legion of Doom, arguing that if it fails, the forces of good will suffer. 'As head of the Super Friends, I want to promote truth, justice and the American way, none of which is accomplished by the anti-evil position' Superman wrote. 'The bottom line is that the Super Friends, among others, will lose if The Legion of Doom loses... Evil prevailing is going to benefit the Super Friends as much as anyone else.'"
I ran it through Babel Fish a couple times, see if this helps:
... RK leases in such has way I EDGE finds out what he' S smokin to ' and GET ME some OF that. I mean, whah??? Does yew OOOXML is garbage, and emergency open At standard given the really big implementation of holes, and emergency apparently implemented * anywhere * (NOR, some might wire-drawer, implement*able *), why is it in anyone' S interest your cut it passed? Aside from Microsoft S, OF race. Confused,
Unlike a highway which has a left hand lane for overtaking, the Internet is like a series of tubes through which data packets are propelled at relatively the same speed.
So what you're saying is the Internet is not something that you just dump something on, it's not a big truck? Well that explains why I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday.
Citation needed is just a way of saying you're too lazy to look it up, and you're hoping the guy who posted is too lazy to look it up too--so you think you win be default.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1982 or thereabouts, my parents bought a Sony Trinitron television and liked it so much that the following year they bought a second, smaller Trinitron. The smaller one was serviced once early on (still under warranty) and saw regular use until it died about 6 months ago. I'm not saying all their products are rock-solid, I know they're not, but a television that lasts 25+ years and still looks better than plenty of newer standard-def screens, is no small accomplishment.
The possibilities are interesting, but the most exciting idea you can think of is a game where you spend 3+ months riding behind sled dogs across the Antarctic tundra? Sounds like Penn & Teller's Desert Bus.
I mean, don't get me wrong, Roald Amundsen was an interesting guy with a great story, but that doesn't mean it would make a good videogame.
It makes sense, you see, although modding a funny post as "funny" may be more accurate, modding a funny post as "insightful" instead is definitely more funny, so it's a much more appropriate moderation. You see, the moderator is making a joke about the joke. I believe this is called "metamoderation" -- if you have an account you may have noticed Slashdot encouraging you to metamoderate from time to time.
How can IBM be this stupid? You can't cool a stack of chips with water, they'll just get soggy. I know it's hard to be patient, but if your chips are too hot to eat, you're better off just waiting for them to cool down.
Advances in computer-generated graphics and photomanipulation have probably made it easier to argue that photographic eveidence has been doctored, but there are still a plenty of obstacles towards successfully using that defense. Firstly, photographs are not usually the sole piece of evidence in a case nor are they usually the strongest. Even before photoshop and such, pictures could be altered, faked, or presented misleadingly, so they are already rarely considered solid proof on their own, but more often just corroborating evidence. Secondly, just because it's possible that a picture was manipulated doesn't mean that it's plausible. For example, if you were caught speeding by a traffic camera, I doubt you would be successful in refuting the ticket by arguing that the photo was manipulated -- it's possible that the picture was altered, but in most cases it would be extremely unlikely for somebody with both extraoardinary access to the traffic camera and flawless photo-manipulation skills to choose to specifically target you. The severity of the crime also play a role in whether the defense is plausible. A picture alone may be enough to convict you of speeding, but it definitely won't be enough to convict you of murder.
In addition, I know several camera companies make digital cameras which are capable of signing and/or encrypting pictures when they are taken so that they hold up stronger as evidence (although surely they're not fool-proof).
As far as videos (surveillance or otherwise), the same obstacles still exist, but furthermore, they're harder to argue against because, they're more likely to contain details which are far more difficult to fake. Realistically photoshopping somebody into an incriminating still picture is one thing, but realistically repeatedly and consistently manipulating them across many frames of video is quite a bit more difficult. So if the main piece of evidence is a short, blurry piece of surveillance footage and you have somebody with a motive to manipulate it, you may be successful in arguing that it was altered. If, on the other hand, the incriminating video is 16 hours of HD home movies of the suspects talking about their crimes, filmed within their bedroom and containing frequent camera moves and clear shots of their faces throughout then you would you'd have a lot more trouble arguing that it was altered. That is, unless you have a person with a strong motive to frame the suspects who also happens to be a god-like master of 3D modelling/animation and oodles of time on his hands.
That poster quoted median household income which and many households have more than one person working. What you ought to look at is personal income. The numbers in that article are pretax, so if we assume, say 15% of that is going to federal or local taxes, you would have to be earning a little bit over $28K/year in order to cover the price of a $2000 Macbook Pro with one month's pay. By the numbers in that article, that would mean >47% of individuals in the US would not be able to do that -- about half. I said "more than half" because I was using slightly older numbers, which is my mistake, but it's still pretty close and probably even closer if you take into account state sales taxes and such.
The cheapest MacBook Pro you can get is two grand, which is, in fact, more than a month's income for more than half of the US population.
True, but I'm talking practicalities here. For whatever reason, probably a good two thirds majority of scientists are heterosexual men, so it's only fair that the main goal should be finding beautiful, three-breasted, venusian astro-nymphs. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know gay scientists and lady scientists need space-lovin' too, but we've got to stay focused.
Ancient Martian life? Why bother? All they'd do is show you pictures of their grand kids and talk about how great Mars used to be. What they should be doing is looking for some young, sexy, teenage martians. For that matter, why are they looking on Mars anyways? Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.
Has it really been so long since the original Star Trek aired that scientists have forgotten that the primary goal of space exploration is to find hot alien women to have sex with? I'm willing to forgive science for failing to deliver on its promises of flying cars and personal jetpacks, but if I don't have harem of hot alien babes soon, then I am going to be FUCKING PISSED.
I shudder to think how many lives could have been saved if only they had spent less time on chinese fire drills and more time on chinese earthquake drills.
The obvious remedy to this would be to make the lights of the blimp read "Ice Cube's a pimp".
Have you not bought a television or monitor in the past three decades? Screen area is almost always described the length of the diagonal. It's a little confusing when comparing screens of different aspect ratios, but it's way more succinct to talk about your "42 inch" screen than your "902 square inch" screen, or even your "40 inch by 22.5 inch" screen.
You mean Jumbonium.
Mod parent down (Score: -1, Misremembering Fictional Elements from a Sci-Fi Cartoon Series).
Don't forget hearts, stars, rainbows, clovers, blue moons, red balloons and pots of gold.
Actually, you know what, go ask your mother.
You're exactly right. This article is obviously little more than a regurgitated press release for MicroBilt. The reality is that this law is intended for big companies and companies doing big money deals and they're the only ones that are going to have to worry about it. Microbilt is just trying to get some more customers by making it sound like a broader law than it is and given that it's been written up as an article and been posted to Slashdot, I'd say they've done a pretty good job.
I tried to think of counter-examples to your point and I had trouble, but in the process I stumbled across an even better idea. The first thing I thought of was cages at the zoo. To some extent, this example shows your point because the barriers at zoos are designed much more to keep animals in than spectators out. However, despite being designed to keep animals in, they are just as successful at keeping people out. Why is this? Partly it's because zoos make it difficult for people to get inside cages, but mostly it's because inside the cages are dangerous animals. At this point, inspiration struck: if dangerous tigers can keep people out of a cage at the zoo, couldn't they also be used to protect a computer network? Of course they could! Who would risk hacking a network if it meant getting eaten alive by tigers?
As far as a practical implementation, I imagine that behind the network's regular firewall, one would just place a container of tigers (a "Tigerbox") that way. The firewall will work as a general security measure, but if a hacker were to break through into the network, he would be immediately eviscerated by tigers. I suppose that in theory, one could even get rid of the firewall entirely, like you suggest, and protect the network entirely with tigers. I'm not sure how practical this would be, due to the increased number of tigers required. However, it might be feasible in a few years once tigerboxes are more popular and the market begins to flood with cheap commodity tigers.
Who said the poster isn't a lesbian woman, talking about her girlfriend?
Sure, I know you're thinking "this is Slashdot, it's full of virgin nerd males, why would there be any lesbians posting on here"? Well sir, I believe that's just the sort of close-minded thinking that keeps hot lesbians off of Slashdot. To think, if it weren't for intolerant bigots like yourself Slashdot would surely be awash with not just lesbians, but promiscuous heterosexual women and even adventurous bisexual female couples looking for a third. You sir, should be ashamed of yourself.
"Superman, a prominent member of the Super Friends group has written a letter that strongly supports The Legion of Doom, arguing that if it fails, the forces of good will suffer. 'As head of the Super Friends, I want to promote truth, justice and the American way, none of which is accomplished by the anti-evil position' Superman wrote. 'The bottom line is that the Super Friends, among others, will lose if The Legion of Doom loses... Evil prevailing is going to benefit the Super Friends as much as anyone else.'"