One CRT isn't going to cut it. Get a second LCD mounted up on the wall. That much space, you likely want to watch more than one thing at a time and a switch box is frustrating.
Technically, one CRT may actually be enough.
For a while (before getting a LCD monitor a few months ago), I was working on two PCs with a dual input CRT. One touch of a front panel button toggled views easily. Great investment at the time (21" and cost $80 as "refurbished" at a show 3 years ago).
The two problems I had:
forgetting which PC is being monitored - very infrequent after adjusting to the experience.
CRTs are massive - my reason for adopting LCD.
In the context of this topic, you'd use the secondary input to access some reference material and run even less risk of confusing the two sessions.
As for other tools, certain medical equipment is great for general electronics work. For example, I've got a bunch of surgical clamps that solve the problem of needing an extra hand to hold a loose wire in place when both of my own hands are occupied with the soldering tools.
I just don't get why they don't know when to stop.
Sometimes it's pressure from accomplices and not strictly greed, like when someone gives you "an offer you can't refuse". The best defense to that is to never associate yourself with such characters in any way.
Typically, greed is the initial motivation. Then when the scam is proven to be working, that motivation is replaced by fear.
Look, most of the reason for the success of this species is that people are exceptionally good at copying things. If some new idea works better, adopt it and be rewarded.
Other organisms are very restricted to relying on physical traits such that adapting to a new or rapidly changing environment may be impossible within a lifetime. Humans have the tremendous ability to think abstractly, which makes adapting more probable. But it's hard to reinvent tools or concepts each generation, so the ability to copy becomes very important.
I welcome these "clones" in that there tend to be slight variations on a successful theme with, every once in a while, an outstanding work being created. If we couldn't have these clones, the "concept album" would have started and ended with Sgt Pepper and we might never have had Dark Side of the Moon.
Also, using the previous example, I'd never be confused between the Beatles and Pink Floyd, but someone unfamiliar with the classic rock spectrum may see the latter as a clone of the former due to the many general similarities.
I'm assuming that you don't like the general theme of the "blockbuster" set of clones, in which case all of that set are unappealing. There are other themes with their own set of clones that I bet you enjoy.
As for some elements in the entertainment industry: they haven't adapted well to the current environment and it's showing. The unfortunate thing is that they've figured out how to make the government adapt to them. The control they exert in that scene does negatively affect those interested in providing alternatives.
... this sort of situation is quite common at some jobs. It just (sadly) too routine and mundane to get widely reported.
If an event is commonplace, then there is no particular reason to report on that event. Now if there is something to that event that makes it unique, then it has the added characteristic of being newsworthy. You wouldn't expect a news article that some random guy is breathing, but you would expect some interest if that guy was pronounced dead and spent the night stored in a morgue.
Generally speaking, the headlines will tell you what aspects of a society are not common.
Instead of screwing around with the authentication protocols, approach the problem by restricting its use.
Including a significant delay in any authentication system seriously reduces the effectiveness of bruteforce attacks. The delay is only noticed once by regular users and although it might be a headache for those that forget their passwords, an attacker would have to be very patient.
Another approach is to limit the number of login attempts per connection.
Your example may require its users to remember multiple 'passwords' (what constitutes a "valid email address" in your writeup?) and may also inadvertantly cause problems (questions like "what time/day is it?" have formatting issues and answers may vary due to geography or local environment).
These extra questions require known correct responses, and perhaps database management (that "valid email address" type of question again). More overhead than is necessary IMO since the more complicated the result, the more likely errors will be introduced each step of the way.
That is, unless the point was just to make the users jump through hoops - but I'm guessing that wasn't the intended goal.:)
At least be happy that your reply gets read and understood. I reply to such emails in the same way, but a couple of friends of mine just keep forwarding the same damned thing over and over: How many times can they delete JDBMGR.EXE from their computer?
It sucks when you know the spammer and can't really do anything about it. But honestly, my situation isn't so bad anymore with currently ~3 per year while a decade ago was ~3 per week.
The GTA3 example you gave doesn't require any cheats/hacks/mods or whatever. Flying the plane is difficult, but I've gotten very many minutes of continuous flight without entering a cheat code.
The ghost town is actually the "movie set" used for the introduction (the bank robbery scene) so every time you start a game, that ghost town is actually utilized. In other words, that area wasn't technically cut.
The huge gains media companies can reap from modern distribution would substantially lessen and offset the losses from piracy.
Ah, but they lose a huge amount of obscurity.
IMO, there's one big reason to shun a more open (and accountable) model: internal politics.
Audits within media companies are notorious for exposing that their own artists are routinely & systematically being ripped off. The beauty of this scam is: how can an audit REALLY illustrate the actual lost revenue in this moderately dynamic system?
All a company has to do is tell their artists that someone else took their money and the anger is safely focused outside the arrangement.
Textbook example of emotional manipulation. No other incentive is more important to a party in control.
The music industry has a long history of dishonoring contracts with their artists. We're arguing about the terrible damage caused by the bank customer who steals the pens, while the bank manager is quietly embezzling away.
I remember this feature from a recent Forbes article on/. (here's the actual link)
At least this time they have some of the text within view (to the right of the image) so that the user knows that there's extra stuff being missed. Check out the slideshow/article from the above linked thread to see what I mean - you could easily miss the entire description for each item.
A potentially nice feature being routinely misapplied. At least we can learn from their mistake.
I was attempting it on the WinME I'm currently using with no success. Before trying to strain my eyes, I figured that an internet search is in order...
I disagree and I'm decent at both. Visually coordinating a target with a single action is common between the use of either tool, mouse or non-automatic gun.
In this case, the more important issue is that the individual in question has the ability to quickly distinguish the targets from the rest of the environment while also correctly interpreting that environment to find future targets.
Both tools also have the identical limitation that once you perform the action with the sensitive trigger, you are committed to it. Whether you pulled the trigger when aiming at your foot or you clicked the 'Okay' button to format your harddrive, you can't take that action back.
In certain situations (ie. prone position using a barrel support with static targets), the two tools are exactly alike - point and click.
you can generally get a mine to blow up in only one or two moves, five tops.
AFAIK, the first selection in each game is never game-ending. That is, you never select a mine on the first move.
I stopped playing years ago when I could finish Expert in slightly under 99 seconds. Out of curiosity, I just found this site where they note:
"The current World Record for Expert level, as certified by Minesweepers.org, is 67.342, set by Sacman555 of Providence, Rhode Island, United States on 29-Jan-2005."
Good God! However, I bet the military may be very interested in someone with such a quick (and accurate) trigger finger.
The full paragraph from the article is: "Trilobites weren't the only animals to stumble across this invention. Biologists believe that eyes could have evolved independently on many occasions, though genetic evidence suggests one ancestor for all eyes. But either way, trilobites were the first.
I'd say that the genetic evidence being referenced is unsuitable. That is, unless the definition of eye in this paragraph of the article is much less strict than that used by the previous paragraph.
Article: A true eye needs something extra - a lens that can focus light to form an image. This excludes pin-hole eyes (no lens). Both types focus light and form images.
Article:... though genetic evidence suggests one ancestor for all eyes. That's assuming that Nautilus eyes are not eyes at all - which is quite a stretch.
Falsifiable? Perhaps I'm using an inaccurate definition but I don't think that's the word you meant to use. Please explain.
If you understand the scientific method you would not believe in evolution, you would understand the hyposthesis and be critical of the data. Umm... what?
As for the topic on whole, evolution does not explain the beginning of life which is a serious problem from my perspective. Since evolution is a process, then there must have been that same process prior to the appearance of what we recognize as living things. Until you show me the same conclusive proof that something else can eventually become a living being, evolution is incomplete.
Evolution is a theory, as is creationism. Of the two, evolution does a much better job of explaining and predicting experiences. For that reason, it is used in scientific circles - not because it is "correct".
Your original question was: And what would you "teach" about creationism? What hands on exercise could you do to illustrate it's hypothesis?, which I believe I answered - it may not be what you wanted to read, but it explains how it would be taught.
I assume from your phrasing and examples that you'd prefer that people only use one scientifically accepted explanation for such apparantly open/shut cases. How would you propose that atomic physics be taught? Not the sub-atomic material - just electrons and nuclei. Explain how an electron is either a particle or a wave. Answering "It depends" exposes that a topic that is so widely studied and tested is still incomplete. Admittedly, the theories and formulas involved do an excellent job of describing observations, and I'll use them until a better way is devised.
Finally, with so much that humans have never experienced, how can you be so confident in one way of describing a subject so broad? The advocates of Newtonian physics were unquestionably correct - that is until they realized that they weren't 200 years later. Oops.
And what would you "teach" about creationism? What hands on exercise could you do to illustrate it's hypothesis?
So, how's that different from evolution?
In a simplified way, we have two theories as to what causes life to exist. I will focus on the two extremes and show where both are lacking.
Creationists hold the belief that living things are born by divine intervention in that some other non-living entity specifically designed them. (The more extreme idea is that each and every individual living thing was specifically designed - this has bigger problems wrt fate/freewill but that's another topic).
Observation: During a person's lifetime, you don't see animals of one type becoming another (like dogs to cats). Also, dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats so it's easy to conclude that this situation has always been this way.
Problem: a starting point has to exist for creationists by definition. But, there is no tangible evidence to either prove/disprove this.
Evolutionists hold the belief that living things adapt to their environments over the course of generations.
Observation: Correlations exist everywhere, like the birds Darwin studied. It is easy to see that these birds are related in that they have only minor physical differences, yet they are definitely distinct animals.
Problem: noticable adaptations are believed to occur over MANY generations and it would be rare for an average person to observe this during their lifetime. Also, correlation does not prove causality.
Further problem: evolution implies that every living thing ever should trace back to a starting point, somewhere. And from what? Science demands that the results need to be reproducible and to date, no one has been able to create life from loose material. The starting point had to evolve from something, right?
Essentially, both perspectives use observational data to justify their theory while neither has any real proof.
Lastly, although it probably means nothing here (and should be obvious by the above text) - I believe in both creationism and evolutionism together.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, one CRT may actually be enough.
For a while (before getting a LCD monitor a few months ago), I was working on two PCs with a dual input CRT. One touch of a front panel button toggled views easily. Great investment at the time (21" and cost $80 as "refurbished" at a show 3 years ago).
The two problems I had:
In the context of this topic, you'd use the secondary input to access some reference material and run even less risk of confusing the two sessions.
As for other tools, certain medical equipment is great for general electronics work. For example, I've got a bunch of surgical clamps that solve the problem of needing an extra hand to hold a loose wire in place when both of my own hands are occupied with the soldering tools.
I just don't get why they don't know when to stop.
Sometimes it's pressure from accomplices and not strictly greed, like when someone gives you "an offer you can't refuse". The best defense to that is to never associate yourself with such characters in any way.
Typically, greed is the initial motivation. Then when the scam is proven to be working, that motivation is replaced by fear.
Look, most of the reason for the success of this species is that people are exceptionally good at copying things. If some new idea works better, adopt it and be rewarded.
Other organisms are very restricted to relying on physical traits such that adapting to a new or rapidly changing environment may be impossible within a lifetime. Humans have the tremendous ability to think abstractly, which makes adapting more probable. But it's hard to reinvent tools or concepts each generation, so the ability to copy becomes very important.
I welcome these "clones" in that there tend to be slight variations on a successful theme with, every once in a while, an outstanding work being created. If we couldn't have these clones, the "concept album" would have started and ended with Sgt Pepper and we might never have had Dark Side of the Moon.
Also, using the previous example, I'd never be confused between the Beatles and Pink Floyd, but someone unfamiliar with the classic rock spectrum may see the latter as a clone of the former due to the many general similarities.
I'm assuming that you don't like the general theme of the "blockbuster" set of clones, in which case all of that set are unappealing. There are other themes with their own set of clones that I bet you enjoy.
As for some elements in the entertainment industry: they haven't adapted well to the current environment and it's showing. The unfortunate thing is that they've figured out how to make the government adapt to them. The control they exert in that scene does negatively affect those interested in providing alternatives.
In FireFox version 1.0.2 (what's currently in front of me):
Tools > Options > Privacy > Cookies > "Keep Cookies:" > "Until I close FireFox"
All of those steps are available through mouse clicks. It's not obscure and you don't need to edit a strange variable within a configuration file.
Of course, you'd need to close the browser every so often for this to be helpful.
... this sort of situation is quite common at some jobs. It just (sadly) too routine and mundane to get widely reported.
If an event is commonplace, then there is no particular reason to report on that event. Now if there is something to that event that makes it unique, then it has the added characteristic of being newsworthy. You wouldn't expect a news article that some random guy is breathing, but you would expect some interest if that guy was pronounced dead and spent the night stored in a morgue.
Generally speaking, the headlines will tell you what aspects of a society are not common.
IMO, the set will not be complete without a Greg Kasavin rookie card.
Instead of screwing around with the authentication protocols, approach the problem by restricting its use.
:)
Including a significant delay in any authentication system seriously reduces the effectiveness of bruteforce attacks. The delay is only noticed once by regular users and although it might be a headache for those that forget their passwords, an attacker would have to be very patient.
Another approach is to limit the number of login attempts per connection.
Your example may require its users to remember multiple 'passwords' (what constitutes a "valid email address" in your writeup?) and may also inadvertantly cause problems (questions like "what time/day is it?" have formatting issues and answers may vary due to geography or local environment).
These extra questions require known correct responses, and perhaps database management (that "valid email address" type of question again). More overhead than is necessary IMO since the more complicated the result, the more likely errors will be introduced each step of the way.
That is, unless the point was just to make the users jump through hoops - but I'm guessing that wasn't the intended goal.
At least be happy that your reply gets read and understood. I reply to such emails in the same way, but a couple of friends of mine just keep forwarding the same damned thing over and over: How many times can they delete JDBMGR.EXE from their computer?
It sucks when you know the spammer and can't really do anything about it. But honestly, my situation isn't so bad anymore with currently ~3 per year while a decade ago was ~3 per week.
The GTA3 example you gave doesn't require any cheats/hacks/mods or whatever. Flying the plane is difficult, but I've gotten very many minutes of continuous flight without entering a cheat code.
The ghost town is actually the "movie set" used for the introduction (the bank robbery scene) so every time you start a game, that ghost town is actually utilized. In other words, that area wasn't technically cut.
I didn't RTA, but just to answer the question in summary:
... and keep the debate from turning into a friendly-fire flame-fest nightmare between bigots on both sides of the line?
Keep the discussion focused on complaining about a third OS with each side comparing how their OS works better.
Also, when have the editors stopped noting that NewsForge is owned by OSTG in the summary. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention lately.
For routers themselves, I write the password on the surface of the router itself with my handy alcohol pen. That pretty much solves that problem.
:)
I pretty much think that that solvent's a problem.
How Long From Wake-Up to Email
I Have X Email Addresses
Myself:
1-2 hours (time from bed to office)
5-8 email accounts (between school/work/personal/temporary)
I know that I don't have an email addiction. Now a generalized internet addiction, that's a slightly different story.
The huge gains media companies can reap from modern distribution would substantially lessen and offset the losses from piracy.
Ah, but they lose a huge amount of obscurity.
IMO, there's one big reason to shun a more open (and accountable) model: internal politics.
Audits within media companies are notorious for exposing that their own artists are routinely & systematically being ripped off. The beauty of this scam is: how can an audit REALLY illustrate the actual lost revenue in this moderately dynamic system?
All a company has to do is tell their artists that someone else took their money and the anger is safely focused outside the arrangement.
Textbook example of emotional manipulation. No other incentive is more important to a party in control.
The music industry has a long history of dishonoring contracts with their artists. We're arguing about the terrible damage caused by the bank customer who steals the pens, while the bank manager is quietly embezzling away.
It's a powergrab, in every direction.
This is OT and IANAL, but...
informing the court that you "take the fifth" is unadvisable for any case involving alcohol.
I remember this feature from a recent Forbes article on /. (here's the actual link)
At least this time they have some of the text within view (to the right of the image) so that the user knows that there's extra stuff being missed. Check out the slideshow/article from the above linked thread to see what I mean - you could easily miss the entire description for each item.
A potentially nice feature being routinely misapplied. At least we can learn from their mistake.
Note: I'm viewing at 1024x768.
I was attempting it on the WinME I'm currently using with no success. Before trying to strain my eyes, I figured that an internet search is in order...
Apparently, I'm not alone here.
Those with 95/98/ME can't use this cheat.
I disagree and I'm decent at both. Visually coordinating a target with a single action is common between the use of either tool, mouse or non-automatic gun.
In this case, the more important issue is that the individual in question has the ability to quickly distinguish the targets from the rest of the environment while also correctly interpreting that environment to find future targets.
Both tools also have the identical limitation that once you perform the action with the sensitive trigger, you are committed to it. Whether you pulled the trigger when aiming at your foot or you clicked the 'Okay' button to format your harddrive, you can't take that action back.
In certain situations (ie. prone position using a barrel support with static targets), the two tools are exactly alike - point and click.
AFAIK, the first selection in each game is never game-ending. That is, you never select a mine on the first move.
I stopped playing years ago when I could finish Expert in slightly under 99 seconds. Out of curiosity, I just found this site where they note:
Good God! However, I bet the military may be very interested in someone with such a quick (and accurate) trigger finger.
If they're doing it on cable tv, why not use MSNBC? Wasn't that the point of the ownership? Or did they just forget that they have a cable asset?
To the grandparent post, that PA link is relevant.
To the topic in general, this one is more relevant. The news post too.
Anyway, this is nothing new. I remember playing TMNT2 with all the Pizza Hut ads 15 years ago.
The full paragraph from the article is: "Trilobites weren't the only animals to stumble across this invention. Biologists believe that eyes could have evolved independently on many occasions, though genetic evidence suggests one ancestor for all eyes. But either way, trilobites were the first.
I'd say that the genetic evidence being referenced is unsuitable. That is, unless the definition of eye in this paragraph of the article is much less strict than that used by the previous paragraph.
Article: A true eye needs something extra - a lens that can focus light to form an image.
... though genetic evidence suggests one ancestor for all eyes.
This excludes pin-hole eyes (no lens). Both types focus light and form images.
Article:
That's assuming that Nautilus eyes are not eyes at all - which is quite a stretch.
Falsifiable? Perhaps I'm using an inaccurate definition but I don't think that's the word you meant to use. Please explain.
... what?
If you understand the scientific method you would not believe in evolution, you would understand the hyposthesis and be critical of the data.
Umm
As for the topic on whole, evolution does not explain the beginning of life which is a serious problem from my perspective. Since evolution is a process, then there must have been that same process prior to the appearance of what we recognize as living things. Until you show me the same conclusive proof that something else can eventually become a living being, evolution is incomplete.
Evolution is a theory, as is creationism. Of the two, evolution does a much better job of explaining and predicting experiences. For that reason, it is used in scientific circles - not because it is "correct".
Your original question was: And what would you "teach" about creationism? What hands on exercise could you do to illustrate it's hypothesis?, which I believe I answered - it may not be what you wanted to read, but it explains how it would be taught.
I assume from your phrasing and examples that you'd prefer that people only use one scientifically accepted explanation for such apparantly open/shut cases. How would you propose that atomic physics be taught? Not the sub-atomic material - just electrons and nuclei. Explain how an electron is either a particle or a wave. Answering "It depends" exposes that a topic that is so widely studied and tested is still incomplete. Admittedly, the theories and formulas involved do an excellent job of describing observations, and I'll use them until a better way is devised.
Finally, with so much that humans have never experienced, how can you be so confident in one way of describing a subject so broad?
The advocates of Newtonian physics were unquestionably correct - that is until they realized that they weren't 200 years later. Oops.
So, how's that different from evolution?
In a simplified way, we have two theories as to what causes life to exist. I will focus on the two extremes and show where both are lacking.
Creationists hold the belief that living things are born by divine intervention in that some other non-living entity specifically designed them. (The more extreme idea is that each and every individual living thing was specifically designed - this has bigger problems wrt fate/freewill but that's another topic).
Evolutionists hold the belief that living things adapt to their environments over the course of generations.
Essentially, both perspectives use observational data to justify their theory while neither has any real proof.
Lastly, although it probably means nothing here (and should be obvious by the above text) - I believe in both creationism and evolutionism together.
If a resolution is to be passed, these five members must all agree to it otherwise it doesn't happen.
FYI, the Soviet Union (which held a veto power) did not want UN military intervention in Korea (Summer 1950), but did not veto it.
A great example of how one vote (and using that vote) makes a world of difference.