Shut up, Berk. We see your point - that a million plus one isn't much more than a million. But it is more.
I won't shut up until you get my actual point, which is that in terms of actual security, enabling MAC filtering is completely useless if you have proper encryption. It isn't one added to a million, it is zero added to a million.
I guess maybe my examples weren't that great, because "tissue paper on top of tank armor" would imply slightly greater protection against anti-tank missiles and thus a very thick-headed person might conclude that covering tanks in tissue isn't completely pointless.
How about instead we compare it to another "second layer" of security I mentioned: Prayer. Is praying your wi-fi won't be hacked even the tiniest amount "more" protection? Because that's basically what you're doing -- praying that the person who can crack your WPA2 encryption can't or won't sniff your authentication packets out of the air. Even though just about every conceivable hypothetical method of breaking WPA2 would require that they do so. Which would essentially mean that if they break your encryption, they've already broken your useless MAC filter. It's completely useless!
If you actually understand this, there is no way you would advocate using a MAC filter on top of WPA2 as "another layer of protection". And that is my point. So you shut up until you get it.
That apes are not an inferior species but instead specialized in one direction and humans in another has been well understood by biologists since at least the 70's...the 1870's.
Oh yeah? Well if apes aren't inferior, then why do we have writing and houses and cars and microprocessors and big office buildings with cubicle farms where we go to work every day and mortgages to pay off, while they just sit around lounging in the sun taking naps and eating fruit?
Operating profit is also a defined accounting term, which uses current costs by definition. Operating profit does not take into account costs before the relevant period. Hence, all those designers, marketers and engineers whose jobs it was to design a winning console which eventually ended up in the shape of the Wii? Yeah, previously incurred costs are by definition not included in an operating profit calculation. So thanks for linking to the site, it just shows how clueless you are.
Yes, obviously.
Nobody is saying "The Wii is sold at an (operating) profit, therefore the Entire Wii Project is profitable, and Nintendo has made a profit off of Wii sales".
No. What "sold at an operating profit" means that if they sold enough Wiis, they could pay off the previously incurred costs of R&D and factory tooling etc. Because selling a Wii pays for making the Wii and then some.
Selling at an operating loss like Sony does (or at least did at launch) means you cannot pay off previously incurred costs, because selling the PS3 does not even pay for making it.
That's the difference, that's what "operating profit" means, and that's what people mean when they say "The Wii is sold at a profit".
And because Nintendo always sells their hardware at an operating profit, they were able to make a net profit off of even relatively unsuccessful projects like the Gamecube and N64. The Virtual Boy, on the other hand, was most likely not a profitable project, but I guarantee you the VB itself was sold at a profit and thus could have been profitable based on hardware sales alone (if anyone had bought the POS).
Dude! If their simulations predict that there are ninjas on this planet, I'm going to demand NASA abandon their stupid Mars or Moon plans and head straight for COROT-7b. And take me with them. Who's with me?
Can you show me a calculation to that effect, which includes costs incurred at the planning stage?
Because my impression is that "profit on raw hardware" as quoted ad nauseum has referred solely to the cost of components as purchased from manufacturers of the consoles.
It's based on "operating profit", which includes the cost of materials/components, and also includes the ongoing expenses of running their factories, paying their employees, etc.
It does not include things like R&D costs, constructing or tooling their factories, and other things that are from the "planning stage".
This means that Nintendo is not "in the black" after selling exactly one Wii, or that the Wii project as a whole is necessarily profitable as of right now today. However what it does mean is that every single Wii they sell pays for the cost to make that Wii, with some money leftover that contributes towards chipping away at those already sunk costs, and that therefore the Wii project as a whole could be profitable for the company based solely on selling a sufficient amount of Wii hardware.
Contrast this with Sony and the PS3. At least initially (I'm sure costs have gone down, though I'm not sure they're sold at a profit yet), every single PS3 they sold put them more in the red. They could never sell enough PS3s to make the PS3 project profitable, because it was sold at an operating loss.
That's the difference, and what people mean by "the Wii is sold at a profit". For Nintendo, every Wii made and sold and every piece of software sold contributes towards paying off the R&D and other fixed costs and making the company profitable. For Sony, every PS3 made and sold only costs them more, and thus they depend on the software sales to pay not only for the fixed costs, but also for the losses from hardware sales.
In short: A company that sells hardware at an operating profit could hypothetically make a net profit if they sell enough hardware. A company that sells hardware at an operating loss can never make a net profit solely by selling hardware. Nintendo is the former.
The parent raises a good point. How do we know the rock comes back down to the surface as a solid? Why doesn't it rain lava?
I'm going to make an educated guess, and say it's in the same way we "know" that it rains any kind of rock at all -- because that's what the simulations said. It says they even varied constraints based on not knowing exactly what the composition of the planet is, but they kept ending up with the same basic result.
So it all comes down to how good the simulation model is. It's possible it's inaccurate in a way that it is right that there is rock-based precipitation, but that it's in liquid form, but I certainly have no idea.
That is correct. it's the only modern console sold at a profit due to the fact it's essentially a faster running gamecube.
Yeah except they also sold the Gamecube at a profit (they have even stated such in official statements like shareholder meetings). They always sell their hardware at a profit. It's the foundation of their business model. It's why despite both the N64 and Gamecube being relatively unsuccessful products, they made tons of money off them. It's why Nintendo is still here today.
Unlike Sony and MS, Nintendo doesn't do anything but sell game consoles and games. They can't use a risky strategy like "sell hardware at a loss, hope you make it up with game sales" because if it fails they fail. They can't subsidize their games with profits from other sectors -- they don't have any.
Really, before MS got involved, it was standard practice to sell hardware at a profit. The "blades/razor" model was basically a myth that MS (and many gamers) believed. But both Sony and Nintendo came out last generation and cleared the air. This time, though, Sony wanted to compete with MS and adopted the same model. Nintendo ignored that, sticking with their traditional conservative business model.
It is nearly impossible to imagine a deluge of pebbles falling from the sky, or turning on the morning forecast to hear reports of "rocking" instead of "raining."
Oh I can imagine it. You see dark clouds roll in, crowding around. In the distance but growing louder, the rapid heavy percussion of the rock shower begins. Then in the cloud at the front, you see a flash of light and a shower of sparks like a pyrotechnic burst. Seconds later, instead of a crash of thunder, you hear the wail of an electric guitar.
And really, was anything I wrote worthy of such a response from you?
Yes. The part where you seriously posited that she's basically a lab rat incapable of experiencing human emotion or intellectual stimulation because she doesn't have a heart beat. The part where you demonstrated ludicrous ignorance by suggesting that the metaphorical "heart" of poetry as a source of emotion is literally talking about the blood-pumping organ. And therefore, she is incapable of feeling any of the feelings described in poetry. The part where you implied that she's better off dead.
Were you able to feel your heart thumping away while bitching me out? That is a sensation she will now be denied.
No because you're just another internet idiot. Your disrespect for another human being and their choice to live is contemptible, but not nearly enough to get my heart pounding.
And so fucking what? Lots of people are denied various sensations because of medical problems. That doesn't make them inhuman. I assume you possess all your organs and faculties, yet I find in your comments less humanity than I would in a full-conversion cyborg.
My ignorance (and fear) are rooted in the fact that I don't know what kind of effects an artificial heart pumping a "continuous" stream of blood may be. Maybe she'll be just fine, maybe she won't be able to experience emotional highs and lows, maybe she won't be able to dream anymore. I don't know the answers to these questions, (and I am sure you do not either).
Really, your fear is based out of ignorance? I never would have guessed. And this is not the first person to ever exist without a heartbeat, so actually I do know. And here's a clue for your ignorant ass: Your heart beats stronger in response to your emotion, not the other way around. Yes having something artificially increase or lower your heart beat can change your perception somewhat, but the absence of that feedback does not erase the emotion itself. There is absolutely no basis for that line of thinking, and this is actually already known. Yes there are "intangibles", no the lack of those "intangibles" does not eliminate the capacity to feel emotion you retard.
But no, your ignorant fear is a good solid basis for deciding someone else should die.
As far as I am concerned, she has had one of her chakras (the main one BTW)replaced by a bilge-pump. Excuse me if I feel like that is an insult to life.
And excuse me if I feel like your attitude that she should die rather than suffer from your hypothetical, ignorant fear is an insult to life, not to mention compassion, understanding, and respect for another person's choice to live.
But no, I don't excuse you. Fuck you and your chakras, ignorant asshole, and please die in a fire. Surely you will understand how that statement is actually about respect for your life, not an insult to it. (idiot)
I agree with you that it is great that this works and progress is being made. However, if it came down to being able to feel my heart beat and die, or being kept alive by an artificial heart...I think I might rather die.
Be my guest. This woman chose differently.
Remember every reference to "your heart", "my heart", "our hearts" in songs? For someone with "no" heart these become meaningless. Yeah let's keep the tumor-infested rat around longer so we can "observe" it. Who cares if the lab rat can't feel anything, be intellectually stimulated, or be able to reach REM sleep. I find no dignity in being, for the sake of being.
So you're positing because she doesn't have a physical heart beat, she is now incapable of feeling human emotions of any kind.
That's the most demeaning, dehumanizing thing I've ever heard someone say. Yes there are almost certainly psychological implications to not having a heartbeat. To say that means "the heart" as a metaphor for human emotion is now meaningless is utterly retarded. Do you have literally no comprehension of what those poems actually mean? Are you seriously positing that the human soul is contained in the organ called the heart, and without it "intellectual stimulation" is impossible?
What on earth put that thought in your vacuous ignorant skull?!
I find no dignity in being, for the sake of being. The real question to ask yourself is if "you" would like to be kept alive by such a device, just so someone else can watch you,(and later profit handsomely from what they learn)? Sorry I wasn't born a lab-rat, and I hope not to die as one.
How dare you suggest that she is now living just to be studied?! How the fuck do you know what she is going to do with the years of life she's now been given? Maybe she'll spend them writing songs and poetry. Maybe she'll fall in love. Maybe she'll roll her eyes at idiots like you and get on with her life.
You disgust me. I hope you die like a rat in a fire. But please fill out your organ donor card first! Real humans like her need them. She may not have a heart, but she still has a soul. You? I'm not so sure.
Cost is not the point. It might be cheaper to bulldoze the building, but it also vastly increases the likelihood of your being caught and prosecuted.
I thought the point was effort. For any meaningful definition of the term, going through your wall (or more likely, your door or window) is far, far, FAR easier than cracking your encryption.
And acting like you've increased the effort to go through your wall because you've added a layer of paint is exactly like thinking MAC filters are an "extra layer" of security.
'Harder' is relative. Significantly harder? No. Somewhat or a little harder? Yes. It is still a layer.
Insignificantly harder? Yes. It's a "layer" as much as the paint on your wall is a "layer" of protection from bulldozers. "Relative" to anything that matters, it's not harder at all. Adding MAC filters on top of WPA2 encryption is like putting tissue paper over a tank's armor -- anyone capable of penetrating the primary layer (which is nobody as far as we know, but hypothetically) would laugh at your "extra layer". Literally laugh at you for thinking that had made you even the tiniest scrap safer.
I also don't see how it's annoying as I very infrequently add devices to my network. I suppose if you put together whitebox notebooks for a living and had to test new wireless clients all the time it would be impractical, but if you only have to make changes a couple times a year for some people visiting, that's really too much?
Any meaningless inconvenience for the sake of security theater is too much. I should be able to add a device to the network simply by entering the password into that device. Adding the extra step of having to go to a machine already authorized, connect to the router, and add the new MAC address because it makes you feel safer is completely pointless. Ergo annoying, impractical, and too much.
Maybe that false sense of security makes you feel better, and thus it's worth it for you. Maybe not being able to bring water with you to the airport makes you feel safer. You're not actually any safer, but if you feel better, that's nice. I'm not going to engage in that meaningless crap unless I have to. I control my own router, ergo I don't have to engage in meaningless crap. It's that simple.
As the average modern American school has nothing to do with educating, and everything to do with babysitting, it would be very dangerous to the comfortable low expectations their students and the student's parent's have.
One of the scariest books I've ever read was Michael Foucault's Discipline and Punish. It's about the development of the French prison system, and how the principles developed to cow prisoners into obedience were later adapted to the educational system. Not in an abstract or tangential sense, but in a direct literal "Hey those ideas sound like they'd work great for our schools!" sense.
Now that was brutal ending for a superhero - he was literally chewed up and spit back out.
But you have to admit it was a fitting end to the story arc that began when Supperman refused to save Bulimiax's adopted daughter, Anna Rexia, after she overused her power trying to starve a whole middle school. Dying, she promised she'd renounce her evil ways if he only gave her a bite of supper! Sure he may have had a point when he said she was lying and would never truly change, but finishing her off with "And you're fat!" was really uncalled for.
Another victim of the "dark anti-hero" trend of the 80s/90s.
Encryption can be broken with less effort than a physical wall. It's also fundamentally naive to propose that one layer of security of any kind is the silver bullet that makes all other layers unnecessary. I use encryption and MAC address lists together because it means that if somebody wants to get in they have to do two things instead of just one.
So you must think this aluminum oxide paint also counts as a physical security mechanism, since then to break down your wall someone would have to go through two layers: The wall, and the tiny layer of paint on it.
Now I haven't checked the prices, but I'm still 100% certain I could rent a bulldozer to go through the wall of your house for a hell of a lot less than it would cost to acquire the computing power to brute-force your password in a reasonable amount of time. I also consider "rent bulldozer, drive through wall" to be a lot less effort than researching, discovering, and then exploiting hypothetical weaknesses in WPA2.
Everybody should already know that wireless network security is about making a harder target than the one down the street.
If your neighbor down the street is using WPA2, and you're using WPA2+MAC filter, and you think that makes you a "harder target", you're kidding yourself.
Seriously. I used a MAC filter when I couldn't get WPA2 working on my linux box and my Wii, and prayed that was good enough (that's two levels of security!). Once I got it working, the MAC filter got turned off because it's nothing but an unnecessary annoyance and there's no way I'm subjecting myself to security theater.
I'm agreeing with the sibling post here. I have a history of sinus problems in my family. I developed huge nasal polyps that literally stuffed all my sinuses and nostrils full. 15 minutes of orthoscopic surgery and the polyps were gone, and my ethmoid sinuses carved out to prevent a recurrence. I used to get sinusitus at about the same rate as you. Now in the 6 years since getting surgery, I've gotten it once. Still have allergy problems and get stuffed up, but OTC generic claratin keeps that under control.
Well as a purely hypothetical exercise to illustrate my point, let's say I saw your "art", and did not find go "WOW!" Would I then be completely correct to say that it isn't just art I don't like or don't approve of or don't think fits my personal subjective measure of sufficient emotional impact... but rather that it isn't art at all? And that, therefore, you are not and have never been an artist?
Or would that just be pretentious douchebaggery on my part?
In reality, I don't have to see your art to know that it's art. It is. I'd have to see it to know if I like it, or if I think it's any good (those not being the same thing), but not to categorize it as any kind of art at all.
I didn't just "take a few courses", it was my major.
And in what course was it, exactly, that you were taught that if something ostensibly claimed to be art is not sufficiently moving, or if it moves you differently than the artist intended, that it isn't art? What professor was it who told you that bad art == not art?
The definitions of art I'm talking about come from not just art majors but professionals. My friend never mentioned being taught that to qualify as art something had to meet a certain quality threshold, and that this was a standard accepted in the art world; he rather explicitly says otherwise. He did however mention cliques of self-important pretentious art students who jumped at the chance to turn their nose up at something and say "That's not art!", presumably on the basis that in their vast education and obvious superiority, they were capable of judging.
Sorry but if you're going to make an appeal to authority, then I'm going to pick from any equivalent or greater authority I choose, and I'm going to pick the one whose definition of "art" isn't inherently based on pretentious elitism.
Or maybe one can pump up the blood pressure cuff and listen for a single -- hopefully loud and distinct -- thunk when blood starts flowing.
You should try to talk the nurse into giving you a turn at listening at the stethoscope next time you get your blood pressure checked. It's kinda cool. The beats are sorta like "boomf!" but in between it's a "whoosh" kinda like water running in a pipe. The high number is when you first hear the "boomf!", and the low number is when you first hear the "whoosh". People with this artificial heart would just have the "whoosh".:)
And how would that be measured (non-invasively)? Blood pressure is read by squeezing off the artery and listening and watching for the various points in the pulse. If there is no pulse, there is no measurement.
Uh yeah there is. How do you think they get the low number in your blood pressure reading?
Here's how it works: They pump up the cuff until it blocks off all blood flow. They slowly lower the pressure until when the heart pumps, the pressure is enough to force it past the cuff and they can hear the pulse (and you can see the needle start to twitch on the pressure gauge). But at this point, the pressure is still enough to block blood flow during the 'off' half of the beat. So they continue lowering the pressure until they can hear that your blood is flowing continuously.
So to measure the blood pressure of someone without a pulse but whose blood is flowing, you do the exact same thing but skip the 'high' measurement. Easy-peasy.
eg "your daddy aint your daddy, but your daddy dont know"
And that has what to do with mitochondrial DNA?
A lot if you're trying to verify nationality which can come from citizenship inherited from the father, but your only reliable source of genetic heritage comes from the mother.
It's. Not. About. British. Racial. Purity. Not all societies are as heterogeneous. This is not a test for "British" ancestry. We're a nation of bastards. Geneticists understand this.
This is a test so that when some dark avised Johnny Foreigner gets scraped off the bottom of a lorry and claims to be a political refugee from Outer Warzoneistan, the border gestapo can test them and say "Funny - you seem to be of Inner Spongistanian ancestry. Want to change your story?"
Ah, I see. It's not about assuming British racial purity, that's silly and ridiculous because geneticists say it is. It's about assuming racial purity of other nations, because that's not silly or ridiculous, even thoughgeneticists say it.
Yes thank you, you made it very easy to understand how stupid this is.
I had a chance to see many of his works when they were building the Van Gogh museum and the paintings did a world tour. Many were indeed breathtaking. On in particular stood out to me -- it was visible way on the other side of the room, opposite the room's entrance, was the limb of a cherry tree in bloom, photorealistically rendered. Up close it was completely abstract; up close you wouldn't ba able to tell what it was a panting of.
And... you know that the emotion you experienced resembled the emotion he was trying to evoke... how? You have, after all, accepted this as a criterion for defining art. Who knows, those paintings might actually not be art at all!
I think the reason most people have a hard time telling what art is and is not is because their only experience with it was in high school art class, taught by a math or English teacher. Of course, these same people would argue quantum theory with a physicist and call the physicist "ignorant".
Yeah, I'll just go tell all the professional artists who disagree with you that they don't agree with your pretentious ego-oriented definition because they're uneducated. LOL.
I think people like you have a hard time telling what art is because you took a couple courses in college, probably surrounded by a bunch of pretentious douches who liked to talk about "true" art, and got a big head that makes you think you are suited to judge what is and isn't art based on whether you like it or not. What professor told you that, anyway? I studied art some in college, and nobody ever told me that once I'd studied enough I could judge whether something was art based on its quality.
I ask again: By your own definition of art, have you ever produced any?
Slashdot Mirror
Shut up, Berk. We see your point - that a million plus one isn't much more than a million. But it is more.
I won't shut up until you get my actual point, which is that in terms of actual security, enabling MAC filtering is completely useless if you have proper encryption. It isn't one added to a million, it is zero added to a million.
I guess maybe my examples weren't that great, because "tissue paper on top of tank armor" would imply slightly greater protection against anti-tank missiles and thus a very thick-headed person might conclude that covering tanks in tissue isn't completely pointless.
How about instead we compare it to another "second layer" of security I mentioned: Prayer. Is praying your wi-fi won't be hacked even the tiniest amount "more" protection? Because that's basically what you're doing -- praying that the person who can crack your WPA2 encryption can't or won't sniff your authentication packets out of the air. Even though just about every conceivable hypothetical method of breaking WPA2 would require that they do so. Which would essentially mean that if they break your encryption, they've already broken your useless MAC filter. It's completely useless!
If you actually understand this, there is no way you would advocate using a MAC filter on top of WPA2 as "another layer of protection". And that is my point. So you shut up until you get it.
That apes are not an inferior species but instead specialized in one direction and humans in another has been well understood by biologists since at least the 70's...the 1870's.
Oh yeah? Well if apes aren't inferior, then why do we have writing and houses and cars and microprocessors and big office buildings with cubicle farms where we go to work every day and mortgages to pay off, while they just sit around lounging in the sun taking naps and eating fruit?
Wait...
Operating profit is also a defined accounting term, which uses current costs by definition. Operating profit does not take into account costs before the relevant period. Hence, all those designers, marketers and engineers whose jobs it was to design a winning console which eventually ended up in the shape of the Wii? Yeah, previously incurred costs are by definition not included in an operating profit calculation. So thanks for linking to the site, it just shows how clueless you are.
Yes, obviously.
Nobody is saying "The Wii is sold at an (operating) profit, therefore the Entire Wii Project is profitable, and Nintendo has made a profit off of Wii sales".
No. What "sold at an operating profit" means that if they sold enough Wiis, they could pay off the previously incurred costs of R&D and factory tooling etc. Because selling a Wii pays for making the Wii and then some.
Selling at an operating loss like Sony does (or at least did at launch) means you cannot pay off previously incurred costs, because selling the PS3 does not even pay for making it.
That's the difference, that's what "operating profit" means, and that's what people mean when they say "The Wii is sold at a profit".
And because Nintendo always sells their hardware at an operating profit, they were able to make a net profit off of even relatively unsuccessful projects like the Gamecube and N64. The Virtual Boy, on the other hand, was most likely not a profitable project, but I guarantee you the VB itself was sold at a profit and thus could have been profitable based on hardware sales alone (if anyone had bought the POS).
Dude! If their simulations predict that there are ninjas on this planet, I'm going to demand NASA abandon their stupid Mars or Moon plans and head straight for COROT-7b. And take me with them. Who's with me?
Can you show me a calculation to that effect, which includes costs incurred at the planning stage?
Because my impression is that "profit on raw hardware" as quoted ad nauseum has referred solely to the cost of components as purchased from manufacturers of the consoles.
It's based on "operating profit", which includes the cost of materials/components, and also includes the ongoing expenses of running their factories, paying their employees, etc.
It does not include things like R&D costs, constructing or tooling their factories, and other things that are from the "planning stage".
This means that Nintendo is not "in the black" after selling exactly one Wii, or that the Wii project as a whole is necessarily profitable as of right now today. However what it does mean is that every single Wii they sell pays for the cost to make that Wii, with some money leftover that contributes towards chipping away at those already sunk costs, and that therefore the Wii project as a whole could be profitable for the company based solely on selling a sufficient amount of Wii hardware.
Contrast this with Sony and the PS3. At least initially (I'm sure costs have gone down, though I'm not sure they're sold at a profit yet), every single PS3 they sold put them more in the red. They could never sell enough PS3s to make the PS3 project profitable, because it was sold at an operating loss.
That's the difference, and what people mean by "the Wii is sold at a profit". For Nintendo, every Wii made and sold and every piece of software sold contributes towards paying off the R&D and other fixed costs and making the company profitable. For Sony, every PS3 made and sold only costs them more, and thus they depend on the software sales to pay not only for the fixed costs, but also for the losses from hardware sales.
In short: A company that sells hardware at an operating profit could hypothetically make a net profit if they sell enough hardware. A company that sells hardware at an operating loss can never make a net profit solely by selling hardware. Nintendo is the former.
Heh, I can imagine Nathan Explosion's voice after he reads the article.
"We have to record our next album there. It's the most brutal planet ever."
And of course they'd inexplicably have an enormous interstellar spaceship shaped like a Viking ship and covered in spikes.
The parent raises a good point. How do we know the rock comes back down to the surface as a solid? Why doesn't it rain lava?
I'm going to make an educated guess, and say it's in the same way we "know" that it rains any kind of rock at all -- because that's what the simulations said. It says they even varied constraints based on not knowing exactly what the composition of the planet is, but they kept ending up with the same basic result.
So it all comes down to how good the simulation model is. It's possible it's inaccurate in a way that it is right that there is rock-based precipitation, but that it's in liquid form, but I certainly have no idea.
That is correct. it's the only modern console sold at a profit due to the fact it's essentially a faster running gamecube.
Yeah except they also sold the Gamecube at a profit (they have even stated such in official statements like shareholder meetings). They always sell their hardware at a profit. It's the foundation of their business model. It's why despite both the N64 and Gamecube being relatively unsuccessful products, they made tons of money off them. It's why Nintendo is still here today.
Unlike Sony and MS, Nintendo doesn't do anything but sell game consoles and games. They can't use a risky strategy like "sell hardware at a loss, hope you make it up with game sales" because if it fails they fail. They can't subsidize their games with profits from other sectors -- they don't have any.
Really, before MS got involved, it was standard practice to sell hardware at a profit. The "blades/razor" model was basically a myth that MS (and many gamers) believed. But both Sony and Nintendo came out last generation and cleared the air. This time, though, Sony wanted to compete with MS and adopted the same model. Nintendo ignored that, sticking with their traditional conservative business model.
It is nearly impossible to imagine a deluge of pebbles falling from the sky, or turning on the morning forecast to hear reports of "rocking" instead of "raining."
Oh I can imagine it. You see dark clouds roll in, crowding around. In the distance but growing louder, the rapid heavy percussion of the rock shower begins. Then in the cloud at the front, you see a flash of light and a shower of sparks like a pyrotechnic burst. Seconds later, instead of a crash of thunder, you hear the wail of an electric guitar.
It is now rocking. Rocking hard core.
This is the awesomest planet ever.
And really, was anything I wrote worthy of such a response from you?
Yes. The part where you seriously posited that she's basically a lab rat incapable of experiencing human emotion or intellectual stimulation because she doesn't have a heart beat. The part where you demonstrated ludicrous ignorance by suggesting that the metaphorical "heart" of poetry as a source of emotion is literally talking about the blood-pumping organ. And therefore, she is incapable of feeling any of the feelings described in poetry. The part where you implied that she's better off dead.
Were you able to feel your heart thumping away while bitching me out? That is a sensation she will now be denied.
No because you're just another internet idiot. Your disrespect for another human being and their choice to live is contemptible, but not nearly enough to get my heart pounding.
And so fucking what? Lots of people are denied various sensations because of medical problems. That doesn't make them inhuman. I assume you possess all your organs and faculties, yet I find in your comments less humanity than I would in a full-conversion cyborg.
My ignorance (and fear) are rooted in the fact that I don't know what kind of effects an artificial heart pumping a "continuous" stream of blood may be. Maybe she'll be just fine, maybe she won't be able to experience emotional highs and lows, maybe she won't be able to dream anymore. I don't know the answers to these questions, (and I am sure you do not either).
Really, your fear is based out of ignorance? I never would have guessed. And this is not the first person to ever exist without a heartbeat, so actually I do know. And here's a clue for your ignorant ass: Your heart beats stronger in response to your emotion, not the other way around. Yes having something artificially increase or lower your heart beat can change your perception somewhat, but the absence of that feedback does not erase the emotion itself. There is absolutely no basis for that line of thinking, and this is actually already known. Yes there are "intangibles", no the lack of those "intangibles" does not eliminate the capacity to feel emotion you retard.
But no, your ignorant fear is a good solid basis for deciding someone else should die.
As far as I am concerned, she has had one of her chakras (the main one BTW)replaced by a bilge-pump. Excuse me if I feel like that is an insult to life.
And excuse me if I feel like your attitude that she should die rather than suffer from your hypothetical, ignorant fear is an insult to life, not to mention compassion, understanding, and respect for another person's choice to live.
But no, I don't excuse you. Fuck you and your chakras, ignorant asshole, and please die in a fire. Surely you will understand how that statement is actually about respect for your life, not an insult to it. (idiot)
I agree with you that it is great that this works and progress is being made. However, if it came down to being able to feel my heart beat and die, or being kept alive by an artificial heart...I think I might rather die.
Be my guest. This woman chose differently.
Remember every reference to "your heart", "my heart", "our hearts" in songs? For someone with "no" heart these become meaningless. Yeah let's keep the tumor-infested rat around longer so we can "observe" it. Who cares if the lab rat can't feel anything, be intellectually stimulated, or be able to reach REM sleep. I find no dignity in being, for the sake of being.
So you're positing because she doesn't have a physical heart beat, she is now incapable of feeling human emotions of any kind.
That's the most demeaning, dehumanizing thing I've ever heard someone say. Yes there are almost certainly psychological implications to not having a heartbeat. To say that means "the heart" as a metaphor for human emotion is now meaningless is utterly retarded. Do you have literally no comprehension of what those poems actually mean? Are you seriously positing that the human soul is contained in the organ called the heart, and without it "intellectual stimulation" is impossible?
What on earth put that thought in your vacuous ignorant skull?!
I find no dignity in being, for the sake of being. The real question to ask yourself is if "you" would like to be kept alive by such a device, just so someone else can watch you,(and later profit handsomely from what they learn)? Sorry I wasn't born a lab-rat, and I hope not to die as one.
How dare you suggest that she is now living just to be studied?! How the fuck do you know what she is going to do with the years of life she's now been given? Maybe she'll spend them writing songs and poetry. Maybe she'll fall in love. Maybe she'll roll her eyes at idiots like you and get on with her life.
You disgust me. I hope you die like a rat in a fire. But please fill out your organ donor card first! Real humans like her need them. She may not have a heart, but she still has a soul. You? I'm not so sure.
Cost is not the point. It might be cheaper to bulldoze the building, but it also vastly increases the likelihood of your being caught and prosecuted.
I thought the point was effort. For any meaningful definition of the term, going through your wall (or more likely, your door or window) is far, far, FAR easier than cracking your encryption.
And acting like you've increased the effort to go through your wall because you've added a layer of paint is exactly like thinking MAC filters are an "extra layer" of security.
'Harder' is relative. Significantly harder? No. Somewhat or a little harder? Yes. It is still a layer.
Insignificantly harder? Yes. It's a "layer" as much as the paint on your wall is a "layer" of protection from bulldozers. "Relative" to anything that matters, it's not harder at all. Adding MAC filters on top of WPA2 encryption is like putting tissue paper over a tank's armor -- anyone capable of penetrating the primary layer (which is nobody as far as we know, but hypothetically) would laugh at your "extra layer". Literally laugh at you for thinking that had made you even the tiniest scrap safer.
I also don't see how it's annoying as I very infrequently add devices to my network. I suppose if you put together whitebox notebooks for a living and had to test new wireless clients all the time it would be impractical, but if you only have to make changes a couple times a year for some people visiting, that's really too much?
Any meaningless inconvenience for the sake of security theater is too much. I should be able to add a device to the network simply by entering the password into that device. Adding the extra step of having to go to a machine already authorized, connect to the router, and add the new MAC address because it makes you feel safer is completely pointless. Ergo annoying, impractical, and too much.
Maybe that false sense of security makes you feel better, and thus it's worth it for you. Maybe not being able to bring water with you to the airport makes you feel safer. You're not actually any safer, but if you feel better, that's nice. I'm not going to engage in that meaningless crap unless I have to. I control my own router, ergo I don't have to engage in meaningless crap. It's that simple.
As the average modern American school has nothing to do with educating, and everything to do with babysitting, it would be very dangerous to the comfortable low expectations their students and the student's parent's have.
One of the scariest books I've ever read was Michael Foucault's Discipline and Punish. It's about the development of the French prison system, and how the principles developed to cow prisoners into obedience were later adapted to the educational system. Not in an abstract or tangential sense, but in a direct literal "Hey those ideas sound like they'd work great for our schools!" sense.
Now that was brutal ending for a superhero - he was literally chewed up and spit back out.
But you have to admit it was a fitting end to the story arc that began when Supperman refused to save Bulimiax's adopted daughter, Anna Rexia, after she overused her power trying to starve a whole middle school. Dying, she promised she'd renounce her evil ways if he only gave her a bite of supper! Sure he may have had a point when he said she was lying and would never truly change, but finishing her off with "And you're fat!" was really uncalled for.
Another victim of the "dark anti-hero" trend of the 80s/90s.
Encryption can be broken with less effort than a physical wall. It's also fundamentally naive to propose that one layer of security of any kind is the silver bullet that makes all other layers unnecessary. I use encryption and MAC address lists together because it means that if somebody wants to get in they have to do two things instead of just one.
So you must think this aluminum oxide paint also counts as a physical security mechanism, since then to break down your wall someone would have to go through two layers: The wall, and the tiny layer of paint on it.
Now I haven't checked the prices, but I'm still 100% certain I could rent a bulldozer to go through the wall of your house for a hell of a lot less than it would cost to acquire the computing power to brute-force your password in a reasonable amount of time. I also consider "rent bulldozer, drive through wall" to be a lot less effort than researching, discovering, and then exploiting hypothetical weaknesses in WPA2.
Everybody should already know that wireless network security is about making a harder target than the one down the street.
If your neighbor down the street is using WPA2, and you're using WPA2+MAC filter, and you think that makes you a "harder target", you're kidding yourself.
Seriously. I used a MAC filter when I couldn't get WPA2 working on my linux box and my Wii, and prayed that was good enough (that's two levels of security!). Once I got it working, the MAC filter got turned off because it's nothing but an unnecessary annoyance and there's no way I'm subjecting myself to security theater.
I'm agreeing with the sibling post here. I have a history of sinus problems in my family. I developed huge nasal polyps that literally stuffed all my sinuses and nostrils full. 15 minutes of orthoscopic surgery and the polyps were gone, and my ethmoid sinuses carved out to prevent a recurrence. I used to get sinusitus at about the same rate as you. Now in the 6 years since getting surgery, I've gotten it once. Still have allergy problems and get stuffed up, but OTC generic claratin keeps that under control.
I like to think I have.
Well as a purely hypothetical exercise to illustrate my point, let's say I saw your "art", and did not find go "WOW!" Would I then be completely correct to say that it isn't just art I don't like or don't approve of or don't think fits my personal subjective measure of sufficient emotional impact... but rather that it isn't art at all? And that, therefore, you are not and have never been an artist?
Or would that just be pretentious douchebaggery on my part?
In reality, I don't have to see your art to know that it's art. It is. I'd have to see it to know if I like it, or if I think it's any good (those not being the same thing), but not to categorize it as any kind of art at all.
I didn't just "take a few courses", it was my major.
And in what course was it, exactly, that you were taught that if something ostensibly claimed to be art is not sufficiently moving, or if it moves you differently than the artist intended, that it isn't art? What professor was it who told you that bad art == not art?
The definitions of art I'm talking about come from not just art majors but professionals. My friend never mentioned being taught that to qualify as art something had to meet a certain quality threshold, and that this was a standard accepted in the art world; he rather explicitly says otherwise. He did however mention cliques of self-important pretentious art students who jumped at the chance to turn their nose up at something and say "That's not art!", presumably on the basis that in their vast education and obvious superiority, they were capable of judging.
Sorry but if you're going to make an appeal to authority, then I'm going to pick from any equivalent or greater authority I choose, and I'm going to pick the one whose definition of "art" isn't inherently based on pretentious elitism.
My brain isn't artificial, but it is unnatural.
Cardiac compression is the thin end of the wedge
CPR: You're doing it wrong! ;)
Or maybe one can pump up the blood pressure cuff and listen for a single -- hopefully loud and distinct -- thunk when blood starts flowing.
You should try to talk the nurse into giving you a turn at listening at the stethoscope next time you get your blood pressure checked. It's kinda cool. The beats are sorta like "boomf!" but in between it's a "whoosh" kinda like water running in a pipe. The high number is when you first hear the "boomf!", and the low number is when you first hear the "whoosh". People with this artificial heart would just have the "whoosh". :)
And how would that be measured (non-invasively)? Blood pressure is read by squeezing off the artery and listening and watching for the various points in the pulse. If there is no pulse, there is no measurement.
Uh yeah there is. How do you think they get the low number in your blood pressure reading?
Here's how it works: They pump up the cuff until it blocks off all blood flow. They slowly lower the pressure until when the heart pumps, the pressure is enough to force it past the cuff and they can hear the pulse (and you can see the needle start to twitch on the pressure gauge). But at this point, the pressure is still enough to block blood flow during the 'off' half of the beat. So they continue lowering the pressure until they can hear that your blood is flowing continuously.
So to measure the blood pressure of someone without a pulse but whose blood is flowing, you do the exact same thing but skip the 'high' measurement. Easy-peasy.
I can think of one organ that reacts visibly to blood pulses. Suck your gut in some time and you may see it too.
What, my toes? I'd have to move my massive genitals out of the way too to see those.
And that has what to do with mitochondrial DNA?
A lot if you're trying to verify nationality which can come from citizenship inherited from the father, but your only reliable source of genetic heritage comes from the mother.
It's. Not. About. British. Racial. Purity. Not all societies are as heterogeneous. This is not a test for "British" ancestry. We're a nation of bastards. Geneticists understand this.
This is a test so that when some dark avised Johnny Foreigner gets scraped off the bottom of a lorry and claims to be a political refugee from Outer Warzoneistan, the border gestapo can test them and say "Funny - you seem to be of Inner Spongistanian ancestry. Want to change your story?"
Ah, I see. It's not about assuming British racial purity, that's silly and ridiculous because geneticists say it is. It's about assuming racial purity of other nations, because that's not silly or ridiculous, even though geneticists say it.
Yes thank you, you made it very easy to understand how stupid this is.
I had a chance to see many of his works when they were building the Van Gogh museum and the paintings did a world tour. Many were indeed breathtaking. On in particular stood out to me -- it was visible way on the other side of the room, opposite the room's entrance, was the limb of a cherry tree in bloom, photorealistically rendered. Up close it was completely abstract; up close you wouldn't ba able to tell what it was a panting of.
And... you know that the emotion you experienced resembled the emotion he was trying to evoke... how? You have, after all, accepted this as a criterion for defining art. Who knows, those paintings might actually not be art at all!
I think the reason most people have a hard time telling what art is and is not is because their only experience with it was in high school art class, taught by a math or English teacher. Of course, these same people would argue quantum theory with a physicist and call the physicist "ignorant".
Yeah, I'll just go tell all the professional artists who disagree with you that they don't agree with your pretentious ego-oriented definition because they're uneducated. LOL.
I think people like you have a hard time telling what art is because you took a couple courses in college, probably surrounded by a bunch of pretentious douches who liked to talk about "true" art, and got a big head that makes you think you are suited to judge what is and isn't art based on whether you like it or not. What professor told you that, anyway? I studied art some in college, and nobody ever told me that once I'd studied enough I could judge whether something was art based on its quality.
I ask again: By your own definition of art, have you ever produced any?