Ah yes. Here's a good spot for it, right inside the microwave. It will have a view of the kitchen and breakfast nook/homework area. There. Perfect. TEST CONNECTION. Yep, works great. Darn, coffee's cold, I'll just warm it up here..... dumdee dum.... beep beep beep START..*!l&f#9n&hH?.... carrier lost...
Why stop at one? I know a lot of programmers with multiple human language skills. My own experience is that over 36 years of computer programming, I need to learn (actually look forward to learning) a new programming language every 3-5 years or so, just to stay in the same timezone as the leading edge. IMHO, this kind of conditioning keeps the brain paths responsible for the "learn new language" task pliable and more attuned to learning new human languages. Granted, computer languages are not the same as human languages, and involved different requirements (listening and pronunciation for example), but they "feel" similar. Note that I haven't tried any Chinese dialects. When my non-programmer friends (over age 25) describe the process of learning to speak a new language, they use words like "horrible", and "impossible", and I'm sitting there thinking "gee, it's not that hard...". I just wish I had more incentive to use that knowledge on a day-to-day basis.
(NOTE... this is all IMH & totally uneducated O...)
Text (foreground) of yellow + green (about 550nm) at maximum intensity. A background color from the opposite of the color wheel and of a low intensity, high saturation, which means dark redish violet.
The reasoning behind the suggestion:
A Greenish-yellow text color activates both the L (yellow perceptive) and M (green perceptive) cones. By tickling two sets of cones, you are getting twice the stimulus, and benefiting from the higher resolution of the color-perceptive cones, assuming you want your eyes to detect the text instead of the background. The cones are not as sensitive to lower light levels, hence the higher intensity of the text. The background color was chosen to provide a maximum contrast to the text, and not activate the L & M cones. The easier you make it on your eyes, the less pre-processing your brain will have to do on the text, saving it's horsepower for other tasks, like watching ga5-53x pr0n.
Experiment:
Try to read blue, green, and yellow lettering at night. You'll find that the blue is difficult to read, the green is better, and the yellow is the easiest.
I can't prove it, but King George's brain has been in orbit for the last 6-8 years. It's a bit under the minimum weight requirements, but it's still there.
Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf...
"plans to introduce a resolution that he says will help ensure protection for all House computers and information systems". That's the scary part. Our elected officials are, on their best day, utterly clueless about any technology more advanced than an AR15. The kind of legislation they might enact to protect their own computers boggles the imagination.
Toss a handful into the Directed Sound Weapons being sent to China. A dose of the little buggers in routers headed to the Friendly Peoples Republic of Helpful Direct Email Marketers could help cut down on the size of my college-educated penis with it's own collection of faux watches.
... While imaging machines are far too big and complex to be used in workplaces to monitor the brain activity of people engaged in important tasks...
Not necessary. I can verify that our upper management will, when given the opportunity, make entirely the worng decision nine times out of ten. If an opportunity is not present, they'll keep attritting smart, capable people (not that there were a lot around here to begin with) until they create an opportunity. It's called "default mode management".
Now if you'll excuse, our C in C wants another cheeseburger pizza.
Caution - these breasts are the property of the United States Army. Unauthorized access is forbidden. Remove kevlar plating before inspection. Do not step here. Do not used depleted uranium munitions in these weapons.
My employer has explicitly reserved the right to monitor all emails and all web access. All computers have LanDesk suite (PDF), which inventories and reports on all software installed on a pc, and allows remote admins to monitor and control a pc. Of course they also install anti-virus software, and have extremely restrictive firewall settings, and a web-page net-nanny to let you know when you've clicked on an innocent-looking Google link to a prohibited site, like this one (insecure.org - home of NMAP).
They're trying to protect the company assets from unauthorized, illegal, or inappropriate use, and thereby keep the company out of court.
Technology may help ward off attacks, or (if it's really good) help to identify the responsible parties, but it takes a more personal, hands-on encounter to deter future attacks, and dissuade technologists from contributing to cyberattacks. Computers are just computers - people are where it's at, and the personal involvement component is the interesting part of the job. It's also the ticklish part because it needs to happen in a foreign country. Organizations with a developed cyber-terrorist workforce won't like having their black-hats infringed.
Just in case you thought you could extemporaneously prepare a really good pot of improbability:
Tea -- Preparation of liquor for use in sensory tests
The method consists in extracting of soluble substances in dried tea leaf, containing in a porcelain or earthenware pot, by means of freshly boiling water, pouring of the liquor into a white porcelain or earthenware bowl, examination of the organoleptic properties of the infused leaf, and of the liquor with or without milk or both. Cracking organoleptics, Gromit.
Don't leave anything small & valuable laying around. Turn the laptop off and take it home or lock it up. Same with USB drives. Stuff like mouse, kbd, printers, KVM and hubs/switches/routers are safe. Think "resale dollars / danger points". Big stuff has more danger points because it's harder to sneak out.
[off-topic point] -- How are you connecting from home, i.e. are you using a company machine or your own? Don't use your own personal equipment to connect to the company network. Being a slash-dotter you're probably smart enough to keep a system virus-free, but there's always that rare zero-day exploit that could slip into the company via your machine - points off for you. Or someone else connecting from home who is less careful could introduce malware into the company network. After that is cleaned up, which will cost a lot of time and money, management will want the IT/Security dept to perform a binary colonoscopy on every personal PC ever connected to the network, and for HR to institute a policy stating: "connecting a non-company computer to the company network is grounds for termination". NOTE: A similiar policy is in place where I work.
If the FCC was using the trusty, as in "trust our machine or we'll drive our lawyers up your yinhang", Sequoia voting machine then there's no wonder the auction was a disaster.
All those spiders out there, following links. How will they tell the difference between a human and automation? And don't forget this is the FBI - they just heard about this "Internet bag of pipes" thing a couple years ago and thought someone was talking about bongs.
How many groups and how many people are writing viruses, trojans, etc to gain control over a PC and use it in a botnet? Twenty? Sixty? A hundred? Let's say a thousand smart programmers are busy working as virus code monkeys. How many technically savvy people are the "victims" of a botnet, either directly (getting infected) or indirectly, as a recipient of UCE? More than a thousand? More than a hundred thousand? How many really smart programmers, engineers, scientists, whatever working together would it take to disable the botnets and the people behind them? Don't give me any poodlepoo about network anonymity - If we can detect a single friggin photon bouncing off a satellite, we can find out where packets originate. I propose that the resources are there, we just lack the yarbles to organize and take action. Reminds me of the Churchill speech that goes like: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few".
If only the system, or another, could stimulate areas of the brain to induce the perception of an image. Feed in the mathematical model of a dog, and the person sees, or thinks they see, a dog. In essence, allow the blind to see. Combined with a camera and image recognition algorithms, and that blind person could see their surroundings in real time. And the model doesn't have to be accurate, so long as it is consistent. I'll bet the brain would do plenty of interpreting - if the impulses for a dog were there, and the subject was told "this is a dog", they would associate that imagery with "dog".
Of course, technology like that opens up the way for abuse -- if the subject is induced to see a face or talking head which they believe is their deity, while being simultaneously subjected to sound-inducing microwaves (or this ootoob video), that person thinks they see and hear God, as it were. And the voice says "I want you to build me, an ark" or "I want you to kill so-and-so" or "Your boyfriend needs a lot more sex"....
Ok, we'll pretend it's the hydrazine for the sake of the media. But what if it isn't (hypothetically speaking). What if it's something else? The computer, sensors, or optics? Wouldn't survive re-entry. Suppose..... It's the Autonomous Self-destruct Mechanism built into the nuclear power source. Designed to initiate a reactor overload in the event the satellite ever becomes "compromised", it is not controllable once the craft leaves the launch pad. Since the possibility of an uncontrolled re-entry was never foreseen, it is unknown what conditions may occur during such an event which will cause the ASM to activate. If the satellite comes down on land, the tungsten-lead-titanium cased reactor will surely survive, but of course that will lead to embarrassment and many questions being asked of agencies and people who prefer to remain out of the spotlit. In addition, the ASM just may initiate, causing a debacle with heavy political and economic consequences, along with some civilian numbers. Hypothetically.
I propose that Congress change to a "line-item" voting scheme.
Reasons:
It would provide a level of transparency into the voting patterns, hence the beliefs or opinions, of Congresspersons.
It would lead to the curtailment of "pork", since everyone would be able to see which Senator(s) voted for another's "special project".
It would require elected officials to read, or at least know about, any item on which they vote, which would lead to...
Reduction in the number of laws passed, since (I would think) more study time would be required prior to a hand-wavey "yea" or "nay". Would any Congressperson actually vote on an item about which he or she knew absolutely nothing? Possibly, but that could come back to haunt them.
(IMHO)It would have a powerful "focusing" effect on the habits of Congress.... no longer able to slip personal or corporate privileges into bills as "payoff" for big campaign contributors, and have it accepted by their compatriots, Congresspersons would be stuck paying more attention to necessary legislation.
Drawbacks:
Campaigns would become more difficult. Since a big contribution would no longer be a guarantee of a "reach-around" legislative favor, the big corporate money would probably diminish. There are no doubt wealthy individual contributors with a sense of responsibility, but not enough. Campaigns would either have to be funded directly by the public from, for example, a shared fund, or could only be undertaken by the very wealthy. That might generally be considered a bad idea, since they are already too far separated -- physically, economically, educationally, and culturally -- from the electorate majority.
Having set it down, I can see more thought is required....
What are we doing? Nothing. Nope. Nothing going on here. Move along. But I do have a request from the folks down in Monitoring Division: Please stop sneezing. It really shakes up the cameras. And for pete's sake, ask your girl friend to shave that thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Will all the probing activity (about 15 Kbps according to DDWRT) count against the total? Are we talking TCP or IP packets or ethernet frames?
Hmmm. Sounds like the "Jobs Effect" (i.e. Steve Jobs' ability to warp reality).
Ah yes. Here's a good spot for it, right inside the microwave. It will have a view of the kitchen and breakfast nook/homework area. There. Perfect. TEST CONNECTION. Yep, works great. Darn, coffee's cold, I'll just warm it up here ..... dumdee dum .... beep beep beep START ..*!l&f#9n&hH?.... carrier lost ...
Why stop at one? I know a lot of programmers with multiple human language skills. My own experience is that over 36 years of computer programming, I need to learn (actually look forward to learning) a new programming language every 3-5 years or so, just to stay in the same timezone as the leading edge. IMHO, this kind of conditioning keeps the brain paths responsible for the "learn new language" task pliable and more attuned to learning new human languages. Granted, computer languages are not the same as human languages, and involved different requirements (listening and pronunciation for example), but they "feel" similar. Note that I haven't tried any Chinese dialects. When my non-programmer friends (over age 25) describe the process of learning to speak a new language, they use words like "horrible", and "impossible", and I'm sitting there thinking "gee, it's not that hard...". I just wish I had more incentive to use that knowledge on a day-to-day basis.
Text (foreground) of yellow + green (about 550nm) at maximum intensity. A background color from the opposite of the color wheel and of a low intensity, high saturation, which means dark redish violet.
The reasoning behind the suggestion:
A Greenish-yellow text color activates both the L (yellow perceptive) and M (green perceptive) cones. By tickling two sets of cones, you are getting twice the stimulus, and benefiting from the higher resolution of the color-perceptive cones, assuming you want your eyes to detect the text instead of the background. The cones are not as sensitive to lower light levels, hence the higher intensity of the text. The background color was chosen to provide a maximum contrast to the text, and not activate the L & M cones. The easier you make it on your eyes, the less pre-processing your brain will have to do on the text, saving it's horsepower for other tasks, like watching ga5-53x pr0n.
Experiment:
Try to read blue, green, and yellow lettering at night. You'll find that the blue is difficult to read, the green is better, and the yellow is the easiest.
I can't prove it, but King George's brain has been in orbit for the last 6-8 years. It's a bit under the minimum weight requirements, but it's still there.
Toss a handful into the Directed Sound Weapons being sent to China. A dose of the little buggers in routers headed to the Friendly Peoples Republic of Helpful Direct Email Marketers could help cut down on the size of my college-educated penis with it's own collection of faux watches.
What did they eat before they got Dell-burgers?
One opinion on the place of porn in Islam - it doesn't have one.
Not necessary. I can verify that our upper management will, when given the opportunity, make entirely the worng decision nine times out of ten. If an opportunity is not present, they'll keep attritting smart, capable people (not that there were a lot around here to begin with) until they create an opportunity. It's called "default mode management".
Now if you'll excuse, our C in C wants another cheeseburger pizza.
My employer has explicitly reserved the right to monitor all emails and all web access. All computers have LanDesk suite (PDF), which inventories and reports on all software installed on a pc, and allows remote admins to monitor and control a pc. Of course they also install anti-virus software, and have extremely restrictive firewall settings, and a web-page net-nanny to let you know when you've clicked on an innocent-looking Google link to a prohibited site, like this one (insecure.org - home of NMAP).
They're trying to protect the company assets from unauthorized, illegal, or inappropriate use, and thereby keep the company out of court.
Technology may help ward off attacks, or (if it's really good) help to identify the responsible parties, but it takes a more personal, hands-on encounter to deter future attacks, and dissuade technologists from contributing to cyberattacks. Computers are just computers - people are where it's at, and the personal involvement component is the interesting part of the job. It's also the ticklish part because it needs to happen in a foreign country. Organizations with a developed cyber-terrorist workforce won't like having their black-hats infringed.
The method consists in extracting of soluble substances in dried tea leaf, containing in a porcelain or earthenware pot, by means of freshly boiling water, pouring of the liquor into a white porcelain or earthenware bowl, examination of the organoleptic properties of the infused leaf, and of the liquor with or without milk or both. Cracking organoleptics, Gromit.
[off-topic point] -- How are you connecting from home, i.e. are you using a company machine or your own? Don't use your own personal equipment to connect to the company network. Being a slash-dotter you're probably smart enough to keep a system virus-free, but there's always that rare zero-day exploit that could slip into the company via your machine - points off for you. Or someone else connecting from home who is less careful could introduce malware into the company network. After that is cleaned up, which will cost a lot of time and money, management will want the IT/Security dept to perform a binary colonoscopy on every personal PC ever connected to the network, and for HR to institute a policy stating: "connecting a non-company computer to the company network is grounds for termination". NOTE: A similiar policy is in place where I work.
If the FCC was using the trusty, as in "trust our machine or we'll drive our lawyers up your yinhang", Sequoia voting machine then there's no wonder the auction was a disaster.
All those spiders out there, following links. How will they tell the difference between a human and automation? And don't forget this is the FBI - they just heard about this "Internet bag of pipes" thing a couple years ago and thought someone was talking about bongs.
How many groups and how many people are writing viruses, trojans, etc to gain control over a PC and use it in a botnet? Twenty? Sixty? A hundred? Let's say a thousand smart programmers are busy working as virus code monkeys. How many technically savvy people are the "victims" of a botnet, either directly (getting infected) or indirectly, as a recipient of UCE? More than a thousand? More than a hundred thousand? How many really smart programmers, engineers, scientists, whatever working together would it take to disable the botnets and the people behind them? Don't give me any poodlepoo about network anonymity - If we can detect a single friggin photon bouncing off a satellite, we can find out where packets originate. I propose that the resources are there, we just lack the yarbles to organize and take action. Reminds me of the Churchill speech that goes like: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few".
If only the system, or another, could stimulate areas of the brain to induce the perception of an image. Feed in the mathematical model of a dog, and the person sees, or thinks they see, a dog. In essence, allow the blind to see. Combined with a camera and image recognition algorithms, and that blind person could see their surroundings in real time. And the model doesn't have to be accurate, so long as it is consistent. I'll bet the brain would do plenty of interpreting - if the impulses for a dog were there, and the subject was told "this is a dog", they would associate that imagery with "dog".
Of course, technology like that opens up the way for abuse -- if the subject is induced to see a face or talking head which they believe is their deity, while being simultaneously subjected to sound-inducing microwaves (or this ootoob video), that person thinks they see and hear God, as it were. And the voice says "I want you to build me, an ark" or "I want you to kill so-and-so" or "Your boyfriend needs a lot more sex"....
http://slashdot.org/~mnemotronic/journal/
Call me a luddite, but I really don't like flash.
Ok, we'll pretend it's the hydrazine for the sake of the media. But what if it isn't (hypothetically speaking). What if it's something else? The computer, sensors, or optics? Wouldn't survive re-entry. Suppose ..... It's the Autonomous Self-destruct Mechanism built into the nuclear power source. Designed to initiate a reactor overload in the event the satellite ever becomes "compromised", it is not controllable once the craft leaves the launch pad. Since the possibility of an uncontrolled re-entry was never foreseen, it is unknown what conditions may occur during such an event which will cause the ASM to activate. If the satellite comes down on land, the tungsten-lead-titanium cased reactor will surely survive, but of course that will lead to embarrassment and many questions being asked of agencies and people who prefer to remain out of the spotlit. In addition, the ASM just may initiate, causing a debacle with heavy political and economic consequences, along with some civilian numbers. Hypothetically.
Reasons:
- It would provide a level of transparency into the voting patterns, hence the beliefs or opinions, of Congresspersons.
- It would lead to the curtailment of "pork", since everyone would be able to see which Senator(s) voted for another's "special project".
- It would require elected officials to read, or at least know about, any item on which they vote, which would lead to
...
- Reduction in the number of laws passed, since (I would think) more study time would be required prior to a hand-wavey "yea" or "nay". Would any Congressperson actually vote on an item about which he or she knew absolutely nothing? Possibly, but that could come back to haunt them.
- (IMHO)It would have a powerful "focusing" effect on the habits of Congress
.... no longer able to slip personal or corporate privileges into bills as "payoff" for big campaign contributors, and have it accepted by their compatriots, Congresspersons would be stuck paying more attention to necessary legislation.
Drawbacks:- Campaigns would become more difficult. Since a big contribution would no longer be a guarantee of a "reach-around" legislative favor, the big corporate money would probably diminish. There are no doubt wealthy individual contributors with a sense of responsibility, but not enough. Campaigns would either have to be funded directly by the public from, for example, a shared fund, or could only be undertaken by the very wealthy. That might generally be considered a bad idea, since they are already too far separated -- physically, economically, educationally, and culturally -- from the electorate majority.
Having set it down, I can see more thought is required....1025 F Street N.W. , Tenth Floor , Washington, D.C. 20004
Long -77.02604 Lat 38.89790
Form: NRO-10977/A
From: Nasal Reconnaissance Office
What are we doing? Nothing. Nope. Nothing going on here. Move along. But I do have a request from the folks down in Monitoring Division: Please stop sneezing. It really shakes up the cameras. And for pete's sake, ask your girl friend to shave that thing.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Government