Some aftermarket vendor should start making replacement side doors that are equipped with big (150mm?), slow intake fans for cases. With an easily-replaceable/washable filter. Or is that a dumb idea?
over here in Canada, but watched the free promotional period. It was certainly different from the typical stuff on mainstream tech shows.
We have digital cable (CAN$30/mo) in Montreal, and I originally subscribed to TechTV. I dropped it after finding out that most programming was repetitive. This is not a complaint about TechTV, rather it had to do with promos shown that would not be broadcast here due to CRTC regulations.
Today, my employer lost 25 USD, since an article I wrote disappeared when Word crashed and I had to re-write it for one half hour. It seems the defaut Word behaviour
Don't you think relying on a program's autosave function is a bit careless? I save documents early and often.
Entering "back care" in quotation marks got me the answer in 25 seconds, much less than either of the "offline" sources. If they're going to have an accurate test, at least make sure the person performing it knows how to use a search engine.
And further up in the article they actually mentioned using quotation marks for exact phrase searches with Google.
This reminds me, has anyone here used Google Answers, and if so what was the result? I'm assuming that their researchers use resources other than the internet.
COmpanies that pay-per-click use sophisticated analysis to work out what is a script (and happily withhold payment if they think one is being used)...
Google's AdSense appears to do this. In my case, a week before the cheque was sent, the amount was higher than what was finally delivered. I'm assuming that account analysis is done just prior to the payment calculation in order to weed out clickage from seemingly oblious fraudsters.
That was with Slide Rules and stuff, no serious computers then, and no helicopters, I think. Why is it hard today?
Because real engineering (not what Slashdot readers consider to be engineering) is all about being reasonable; I.E. not focusing on precision to the nth decimal point.
Beleive it or not, it is still possible to build very complicated things (except computers themselves) without the aid of computers.
However, this takes highly-skilled professionals working as a team, and they work together towards a common goal and put aside political bullshit and personality conflicts. It's pretty amazing to see in action, and dammit computers are not necessary for this to happen.
They have been doing bizarre mid-air catches for decades
My failing memory is trying to tell me about a spy extraction technique I once saw on some TV show (History? Discovery?). I Googl...oops, searched but couldn't find a reference.
Two high (25'?) poles would be set up with a cable between them, and the secret agent would don a harness and attach the harness via another cable to the "highwire". Along would come a low-flying (under the enemy radar) plane with a tailhook and essentially spring the person away.
Now, assuming that I didn't just imagine seeing this technique or misremembered that it actually "happened" in a Bond movie or spy novel, the poor shmoe on the ground would have to have been wearing some kind of head brace, otherwise his neck would be snapped.
Re:Think of the costs associated...
on
Koalas Gone Wild
·
· Score: 1
hauling of 20000 dead koalas
Nah, just leave the carcasses there and let the velociroos eat 'em.
There was a Koala bear that decided he was tired of the boring life in Australia, and decided he would go to NYC.
On his first day there, he picked up a lady of the evening.
When he was finished he stood up and went for the door. The hooker said, "excuse me but aren't you forgetting something?", and he replied, "I don't 'think so".
The hooker grabs a dictionary and looks up the word
'hooker' and shows it to him. 'Hooker = A lady who has sex for money.'
"Really", he said, and proceeded to look up 'Koala Bear' in the
dictionary to show her:
'Koala: An Australian marsupial that eats bushes, shoots, and leaves.'
The most obvious use for this vehicle is to run over those snotty people using Segways
I was riding the bus the other day and we were stopped at a red light. Being close to the front, I was gazing mindlessly out the front window when I saw a head go whizzing by.
At the time, I'm thinking, "there's no way a ped could have crossed the street that fast", and, sure enough, I look right and it's some fat (likely a UNIX admin), long-haired guy riding a Ginger.
Thank God the dork police stopped him and gave him a ticket for running over all those puppies on the sidewalk.
I've seen a few of them here in Montreal, especially during F1 season.
Apparently it's a road rocket, but given the low seating position and view that the rider/driver (as compared to a bike) has you'd have to be extra super careful when piloting it. Very cool, though, it never fails to attract more attention than the usual Ferraris and Bugattis.
Girlfriend 2.0 is not nearly as complicated nor as annoying as Wife 3.0;-) Not to mention the extra money and resources it eats up with no apparent benefit...
Are you referring to Wife 3.0 as being an upgrade from Girlfriend 2.0, or is this a different piece of software completely?
As you allude, either way you're screwed, metaphorically speaking only.
Slashdot Mirror
small vs. large fans
Some aftermarket vendor should start making replacement side doors that are equipped with big (150mm?), slow intake fans for cases. With an easily-replaceable/washable filter. Or is that a dumb idea?
find Wi-Fi convenient when I want to get out of the house and work in the local coffee house or pub.
Remember, no pints before 10AM.
The only two to trust are AdAware and Spybot.
AdAware seems to be updated a lot more often than Spybot. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not.
over here in Canada, but watched the free promotional period. It was certainly different from the typical stuff on mainstream tech shows.
We have digital cable (CAN$30/mo) in Montreal, and I originally subscribed to TechTV. I dropped it after finding out that most programming was repetitive. This is not a complaint about TechTV, rather it had to do with promos shown that would not be broadcast here due to CRTC regulations.
CmdrTaco isn't the most powerful man in technology journalism?
Malda may be many things, but he did create (with peon help, of course) something that is actually useful even with a few hundred thousand users.
Sorry for the suckupitude. In order to balance the above: Rob, you suck!
Too bad PBS doesn't make those available online.
In other countries (Canada, France, etc.) you have to wait perhaps 3 months or more for medical service.
Where did you get this information? How do you define "medical service"?
Boy, I bet Cringely is pissed.
Today, my employer lost 25 USD, since an article I wrote disappeared when Word crashed and I had to re-write it for one half hour. It seems the defaut Word behaviour
Don't you think relying on a program's autosave function is a bit careless? I save documents early and often.
Crap, I wanted to mod parent funny but it was already at the max.
Entering "back care" in quotation marks got me the answer in 25 seconds, much less than either of the "offline" sources. If they're going to have an accurate test, at least make sure the person performing it knows how to use a search engine.
And further up in the article they actually mentioned using quotation marks for exact phrase searches with Google.
This reminds me, has anyone here used Google Answers, and if so what was the result? I'm assuming that their researchers use resources other than the internet.
Try "androgynous". "Eunuch" is the word you were trying to spell.
COmpanies that pay-per-click use sophisticated analysis to work out what is a script (and happily withhold payment if they think one is being used)...
Google's AdSense appears to do this. In my case, a week before the cheque was sent, the amount was higher than what was finally delivered. I'm assuming that account analysis is done just prior to the payment calculation in order to weed out clickage from seemingly oblious fraudsters.
This got rejected as a Slashdot story submission:
Wally Wallington moves huge objects alone.
See also Ancient Construction.
That was with Slide Rules and stuff, no serious computers then, and no helicopters, I think. Why is it hard today?
Because real engineering (not what Slashdot readers consider to be engineering) is all about being reasonable; I.E. not focusing on precision to the nth decimal point.
Beleive it or not, it is still possible to build very complicated things (except computers themselves) without the aid of computers.
However, this takes highly-skilled professionals working as a team, and they work together towards a common goal and put aside political bullshit and personality conflicts. It's pretty amazing to see in action, and dammit computers are not necessary for this to happen.
They have been doing bizarre mid-air catches for decades
My failing memory is trying to tell me about a spy extraction technique I once saw on some TV show (History? Discovery?). I Googl...oops, searched but couldn't find a reference.
Two high (25'?) poles would be set up with a cable between them, and the secret agent would don a harness and attach the harness via another cable to the "highwire". Along would come a low-flying (under the enemy radar) plane with a tailhook and essentially spring the person away.
Now, assuming that I didn't just imagine seeing this technique or misremembered that it actually "happened" in a Bond movie or spy novel, the poor shmoe on the ground would have to have been wearing some kind of head brace, otherwise his neck would be snapped.
hauling of 20000 dead koalas
Nah, just leave the carcasses there and let the velociroos eat 'em.
There was a Koala bear that decided he was tired of the boring life in Australia, and decided he would go to NYC.
On his first day there, he picked up a lady of the evening.
When he was finished he stood up and went for the door. The hooker said, "excuse me but aren't you forgetting something?", and he replied, "I don't 'think so".
The hooker grabs a dictionary and looks up the word 'hooker' and shows it to him. 'Hooker = A lady who has sex for money.'
"Really", he said, and proceeded to look up 'Koala Bear' in the dictionary to show her:
'Koala: An Australian marsupial that eats bushes, shoots, and leaves.'
Thomas' sig says:
re: stupidity, why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Because then the advice, "Do not look at laser with remaining eye" wouldn't be nearly as funny.
It takes a strange confluence of countless events to produce significant technical advances.
James Burke.
I just watched Corddry's in depth interview with [spammer name withheld] and it is absolutely hilarious.
The most obvious use for this vehicle is to run over those snotty people using Segways
I was riding the bus the other day and we were stopped at a red light. Being close to the front, I was gazing mindlessly out the front window when I saw a head go whizzing by.
At the time, I'm thinking, "there's no way a ped could have crossed the street that fast", and, sure enough, I look right and it's some fat (likely a UNIX admin), long-haired guy riding a Ginger.
Thank God the dork police stopped him and gave him a ticket for running over all those puppies on the sidewalk.
This is kind of off the subject, but it's a three-wheeler also.
T-Rex.
I've seen a few of them here in Montreal, especially during F1 season.
Apparently it's a road rocket, but given the low seating position and view that the rider/driver (as compared to a bike) has you'd have to be extra super careful when piloting it. Very cool, though, it never fails to attract more attention than the usual Ferraris and Bugattis.
Girlfriend 2.0 is not nearly as complicated nor as annoying as Wife 3.0 ;-) Not to mention the extra money and resources it eats up with no apparent benefit...
Are you referring to Wife 3.0 as being an upgrade from Girlfriend 2.0, or is this a different piece of software completely?
As you allude, either way you're screwed, metaphorically speaking only.