I use my hotmail account to harvest spam for use with Mozilla's Bayesian filters. Without Hotmail, my spam folder wouldn't have over 1000 messages in it right now (and I just started a few months ago, when mozilla 1.3a came out)
It's easy to get around Kazaa. I've been doing it at University of Waterloo for a while, even though they have a policy against it, and block all Kazaa ports. Just run Kazaa 2.0 or greater and change the port to 8080 or 80. They noticed me running it on those ports, because they sent me a message telling me to stop. Then you just have to use a firewall, and don't allow any incoming connections on those ports. Kazaa will run fine. Look for Kazaa Lite with K++ extensions and leech away.
Yeah my friends joystick was totalled after playing that game for his entire childhood. Although the joystick became quite loose and made it somewhat easier to play.
What about Track & Field on the Atari? All running events involved moving the joystick back and forth as fast as possible. Good times. My friend was a drummer, and so he was a natural and doing fast rhythmic motions from side to side. Or maybe he just masturbated a lot. I'm not sure, but anyways, he kicked my ass every time at that game.
I'm if they went to court, the source code that was used to compile it would have to be provided. Of course everyone could sign and NDA, to protect what IP the company did produce on their own. Just a guess though, common sense.
Mathematica rules, if you are actually going to purchase some software, Mathematica is a better buy for your money. Mathematica is fully featured, whereas with Matlab I have always found that I end up needing something from the add-on packages. Matlab is far too close to C/C++ type programming, that I actually think it is much more cost-effective to just use Java along with some graphing package avaiable for free (Ptolemy for examle). There are also lots of numerical packages for Java (colt for example). Mathematica is better to buy because there is no real free alternative, and it is very powerful. Another alternative which has been mentioned already is GNU Octave (which is totally free and aims to imitate Matlab). So my point is basically that Matlab doesn't really do much special that can't be done with C/C++ or Java (if you get the right libraries), and for everything else, Mathematica fits the bill. I never use one package only, but I find that Java/Mathematica is the best combination for me to do everything I would ever need to do.
If you've got the much spam already today, you've got problems. Either you're giving out your email address to too many p0rn sites, or you haven't figured out to mask your email in newsgroups. Most spammers get email addresses from newgroup post headres. I used to get at least 20 spams a day, or more. Now I changed my email a few years ago, and used -NOSPAM@domain.net in my email address for newsgroups, and I only get about 3 per day (hardly noticeable). And if I'm not sure of a website's credibility, I give them my hotmail address. (which incidentally, now gets tons of SPAM. most likely due to the fact that I give it out all the time).
Is it tough to go back to Qwerty, once you've mastered Dvorak? I mean, if I go a friend's computer (without Dvorak setting turned on) and start typing, am I going to be able to remember the Qwerty style?
I've been trying out the Mozilla nightly builds which have the Mozilla spam filtering features in them. It works great so far. I can't until it is release-ready. I'm hoping for 1.3, but I think that's little optimistic.
Of course the invisibility thing only works under certain ideal circumstances. Like, the car knows where the observer is, which eliminates the multiple angles problem. And yes, display quality is also paramount.
Just to prevent any full-scale argument over whether or not an invisible car is possible or not, I don't believe it is. However, I just wanted to let lay-people know that one particular aspect, that is, covering a car with pixels containing both sensors and emitting light is already possible, although hugely expensive, so NO, it isn't really possible anyways. But it will be in the next 5-10 year time frame. Just look up "rolltronics" or "roll-to-roll" on Google. But to make a car invisible, yes, it is a huge task. But other more ideal objects could perhaps be made "invisbile". It would make a good research project anyways.
Camoulflage would be an excellent application. Another intersting application is that it could act like a window pane that can be closed electronically. The electronics could be deposited on metal (already been done) which is opaque. Then put sensors and LED's on each side. Turn it on, and it's a pseudo-window. Turn it off and it's a blank sheet of metal. Big waste of energy if you ask me. But put solar cells on it, and some thin-film batteries and you're ready to go. Sure this is a weak application, but often the end application of these types of things is never known until you try some other things first.
Yeah, although there were lucky in some sense that the car was usually always in snow. Actually now that I think about it, this system would work very well as a camoulflage. It would never work to make something invisible from all angles. But it could easily make some look the same colour as it's environment. Good for the military to make some new camoulflage clothes. Wearable electronics are coming eventually.
Re:Invisible Car?!
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think the key is that the object that you want to make invisible has to be thin. Then you avoid the "not working at different angles" problem. So that is one reason that Bond's car was kind of fake.
Since we already thinking along the lines of expensive (or 10 years away technology), it would be easy to have an infrared detector which would detect the prescence of a body. Assuming it's a human body, the software could use that to determine what to display, so that it looks "proper" from the persons' viewpoint.
Another problem I didn't mention in the original post is that there would be so many electrical lines on the circuit that you'd need to use polysilicon to help do some multiplexing, and stuff like that. This technology is decently advanced right now, but to make an invisible Bond car I'd say at least another 5 years.
But the cost will be enormous for 10 years at least. And no one will want it, so demand will be rock-bottom, which means even more expensive...
Patterning directly onto the car's siding would be many, many years away. However depositing it on a plastic foil could be done in a few years and then shaped and glued to the car's surface.
Re:Invisible Car?!
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The invisible car thing would actually work with current technology, only using today's technology it would be far too expensive. For the same reason that large-area solar cells are too expensive. But as soon as large-area electronics becomes a reality, than you'll be able to pattern circuits onto anything. So technically it would be possible to pattern Bond's entire car with pixels. Each pixel would be comprised of a 3-layer RGB light sensor, and a active LCD pixel, or better yet, an orgranic LED. This could all be deposited on a plastic skin (which I think Bond had) or directly onto the siding of the car. The tricky part would be the software. But with some fancy software and some interpolation, it could easily be done. Even the windows of the car could have these sensors on them, and still appear transparent (or tinted, whatever). The tricky part would be the wheels. But you could just put covers over the wheels, so that part was pretty fake.
After stumbling upon this cartoon fan site which I had never heard of, which goes by the name of "Slashdot", I clicked on the link "Bugs" on the left-hand side of the page, hoping to perhaps find some recent news about one of my all-time favourite cartoon characters, Bugs Bunny. I didn't get what I expected, instead I was re-directed to some strange site called SourceForge.net. I assumed it must have been an old link, perhaps left there by the previous nerdy webmasters who were engaged in some sort of open source project... Then when I returned to the cartoon fan site Slashdot, I began to wonder, what was this site really all about anyways? Either way, it will always have a permanent spot in my Bookmark file's "kiddy-stuff" sub-folder.
Slashdot Mirror
I use my hotmail account to harvest spam for use with Mozilla's Bayesian filters. Without Hotmail, my spam folder wouldn't have over 1000 messages in it right now (and I just started a few months ago, when mozilla 1.3a came out)
It's easy to get around Kazaa. I've been doing it at University of Waterloo for a while, even though they have a policy against it, and block all Kazaa ports. Just run Kazaa 2.0 or greater and change the port to 8080 or 80. They noticed me running it on those ports, because they sent me a message telling me to stop. Then you just have to use a firewall, and don't allow any incoming connections on those ports. Kazaa will run fine. Look for Kazaa Lite with K++ extensions and leech away.
Yeah my friends joystick was totalled after playing that game for his entire childhood. Although the joystick became quite loose and made it somewhat easier to play.
Oh yeah! Of course, decathlon!
What about Track & Field on the Atari? All running events involved moving the joystick back and forth as fast as possible. Good times. My friend was a drummer, and so he was a natural and doing fast rhythmic motions from side to side. Or maybe he just masturbated a lot. I'm not sure, but anyways, he kicked my ass every time at that game.
Yes, but to copy it AND sell it? AND not re-distribute the modified code?
I'm if they went to court, the source code that was used to compile it would have to be provided. Of course everyone could sign and NDA, to protect what IP the company did produce on their own. Just a guess though, common sense.
If it's possible to work your entire life as a grocery store cashier, then I'm sure it's possible to do the same in IT.
I thought Al Gore invented the Internet?
"We want to avoid distortions of facial expression," he added.
Mathematica rules, if you are actually going to purchase some software, Mathematica is a better buy for your money. Mathematica is fully featured, whereas with Matlab I have always found that I end up needing something from the add-on packages. Matlab is far too close to C/C++ type programming, that I actually think it is much more cost-effective to just use Java along with some graphing package avaiable for free (Ptolemy for examle). There are also lots of numerical packages for Java (colt for example). Mathematica is better to buy because there is no real free alternative, and it is very powerful. Another alternative which has been mentioned already is GNU Octave (which is totally free and aims to imitate Matlab). So my point is basically that Matlab doesn't really do much special that can't be done with C/C++ or Java (if you get the right libraries), and for everything else, Mathematica fits the bill. I never use one package only, but I find that Java/Mathematica is the best combination for me to do everything I would ever need to do.
If you've got the much spam already today, you've got problems. Either you're giving out your email address to too many p0rn sites, or you haven't figured out to mask your email in newsgroups. Most spammers get email addresses from newgroup post headres. I used to get at least 20 spams a day, or more. Now I changed my email a few years ago, and used -NOSPAM@domain.net in my email address for newsgroups, and I only get about 3 per day (hardly noticeable). And if I'm not sure of a website's credibility, I give them my hotmail address. (which incidentally, now gets tons of SPAM. most likely due to the fact that I give it out all the time).
Wouldn't that be due to your monitor?
I never liked John Dvorak's stupid newspaper articles.
Oh, I get it, because his hands got sweaty and the sweat got into the keyboard. That's a good one.
Is it tough to go back to Qwerty, once you've mastered Dvorak? I mean, if I go a friend's computer (without Dvorak setting turned on) and start typing, am I going to be able to remember the Qwerty style?
Hey Sphere is my favourite too! JP is my second favourite, but Sphere always stood out.
Congo the movie sucked, but the book was decent.
Timeline sucks.
Jurassic Park is definitely the best one that was made into a movie. Andromeda Stain is second best.
I've been trying out the Mozilla nightly builds which have the Mozilla spam filtering features in them. It works great so far. I can't until it is release-ready. I'm hoping for 1.3, but I think that's little optimistic.
You can get 1,000,000 times less energy consumpmtion by lower current or voltage, since power = V*I.
I wasn't sure if you were being funny AND didn't know that...
Just to prevent any full-scale argument over whether or not an invisible car is possible or not, I don't believe it is. However, I just wanted to let lay-people know that one particular aspect, that is, covering a car with pixels containing both sensors and emitting light is already possible, although hugely expensive, so NO, it isn't really possible anyways. But it will be in the next 5-10 year time frame. Just look up "rolltronics" or "roll-to-roll" on Google. But to make a car invisible, yes, it is a huge task. But other more ideal objects could perhaps be made "invisbile". It would make a good research project anyways.
Camoulflage would be an excellent application. Another intersting application is that it could act like a window pane that can be closed electronically. The electronics could be deposited on metal (already been done) which is opaque. Then put sensors and LED's on each side. Turn it on, and it's a pseudo-window. Turn it off and it's a blank sheet of metal. Big waste of energy if you ask me. But put solar cells on it, and some thin-film batteries and you're ready to go. Sure this is a weak application, but often the end application of these types of things is never known until you try some other things first.
Yeah, although there were lucky in some sense that the car was usually always in snow. Actually now that I think about it, this system would work very well as a camoulflage. It would never work to make something invisible from all angles. But it could easily make some look the same colour as it's environment. Good for the military to make some new camoulflage clothes. Wearable electronics are coming eventually.
Since we already thinking along the lines of expensive (or 10 years away technology), it would be easy to have an infrared detector which would detect the prescence of a body. Assuming it's a human body, the software could use that to determine what to display, so that it looks "proper" from the persons' viewpoint.
Another problem I didn't mention in the original post is that there would be so many electrical lines on the circuit that you'd need to use polysilicon to help do some multiplexing, and stuff like that. This technology is decently advanced right now, but to make an invisible Bond car I'd say at least another 5 years.
But the cost will be enormous for 10 years at least. And no one will want it, so demand will be rock-bottom, which means even more expensive...
Patterning directly onto the car's siding would be many, many years away. However depositing it on a plastic foil could be done in a few years and then shaped and glued to the car's surface.
The invisible car thing would actually work with current technology, only using today's technology it would be far too expensive. For the same reason that large-area solar cells are too expensive. But as soon as large-area electronics becomes a reality, than you'll be able to pattern circuits onto anything. So technically it would be possible to pattern Bond's entire car with pixels. Each pixel would be comprised of a 3-layer RGB light sensor, and a active LCD pixel, or better yet, an orgranic LED. This could all be deposited on a plastic skin (which I think Bond had) or directly onto the siding of the car. The tricky part would be the software. But with some fancy software and some interpolation, it could easily be done. Even the windows of the car could have these sensors on them, and still appear transparent (or tinted, whatever). The tricky part would be the wheels. But you could just put covers over the wheels, so that part was pretty fake.
After stumbling upon this cartoon fan site which I had never heard of, which goes by the name of "Slashdot", I clicked on the link "Bugs" on the left-hand side of the page, hoping to perhaps find some recent news about one of my all-time favourite cartoon characters, Bugs Bunny. I didn't get what I expected, instead I was re-directed to some strange site called SourceForge.net. I assumed it must have been an old link, perhaps left there by the previous nerdy webmasters who were engaged in some sort of open source project... Then when I returned to the cartoon fan site Slashdot, I began to wonder, what was this site really all about anyways? Either way, it will always have a permanent spot in my Bookmark file's "kiddy-stuff" sub-folder.