Actually any malware that's "smart" enough to fool Bouncer is left alone while the NSA, FBI, and MPAA are alerted. Black helicopters full of hot women in black latex arrive...
>>Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest? >Just a guess, mind you, but maybe 10% of the Hispanic readership in Arizona? I'd add to this: every passenger on a domestic air flight. I once was told (you know, in grade school) that one of the things that made the USA great was that we had no requirements for ID papers and were allowed unrestricted right of (anonymous) travel. Not any more.
The failure in this handcuff problem is that both the locking mech (a key) and the unlocking mech (a key) are identical. Consider the public/private encryption key system used everywhere for digital communications. What the handcuff industry needs is sort of the inverse: some way that anyone can lock the cuffs but only the intended recipients can unlock them. There may be no solution to this problem, but it would be cool if there were. As a simple example: any officer applies the cuffs, and tags them as "unlockable only by police in user_set_XYZZY" . This at least partitions the universe of eligible unlockers, and perhaps lends itself to having a separate permissions message sent via secure comms channels. (yeah I know this is a pipe dream)
i>You may be referring to AF447. An important distinction in that case was that the automation lost the data required to control the aircraft, so as designed, it disengaged and informed the crew that they were now in control- of an aircraft in severely degraded operational state (direct law) and also in instrument meteorological conditions. Those conditions were what made it so challenging, but just transitioning from passive monitor to active control is not inherently difficult. I seem to recall reading several articles on plane crashes, and the overwhelming forensic consensus was that pilots who've been hands-off (autopilot functioning fine) for an extended period are in fact rather bad at evaluating the current flying conditions. This led to poor decision-making and often directly to the crash. When a computer takes over from a human, assuming the algorithms have been running "in the background" all the time, they should be able to generate a proper response to the situation. Personally, I vote for computers taking over from humans rather than the other way around.
So now you want to raise the age of consent to 25?
Also, just because teenagers decision making process is different than that of a full grown adult doesn't necessarily mean it's worse, even if a grown adult would consider it worse by our criteria. What matters is whether they are happy with their decisions.
Dunno how to break it to you, but there are a lot more issues than just sexual congress here. But since you said it: the problem is that teenagers are far more likely than adults to *expect* to be happy with their decisions, and only afterwards find out they're not.
Next thing you know the US postal service will mandate that eveyone send their mail on postcards so it can be read. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why woudn't you mind anyone reading your messages?/sarcasm.
This was sarcasm, but it brings up a fundamental disastrous event back in the early days of the Internet. Some jackass at the FCC decided that, unlike the US Mail and the telephone, "the Internet" was not a communications system, and thus not subject to the same sort of privacy or access rights. And here we are now, with an Internet that is used more for communication than anything else.
>>13 year olds are impressionable and malleable to outside influences
>So are most people.
Not in the same way. We actually know something about the development of the brain and the frontal lobes thereof. Teens do not exhibit the same sort of ability to execute reasoned judgement that people over about 25yrs of age do.
Mythbusters filled a small pool w/ oobleck and one or two of them ran across it successfully. The big deal here is not so much the metal projectile but the array of monitoring equipment used to analyze the change in structure of the goo.
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with ageism. I'm over 50 (never mind how far, thank you very much), and not even a software jock. I find my understanding of software, GUIs vs. CLI, workarounds, etc. to be far greater than a lot of the IT folk -- and even some software engineers. Meanwhile, funny(?) story: some BOFH ordered Sophos to be installed on all machines (before I joined the company). Mine fouled up in some mysterious way, so I dutifully filed a ticket and chatted with a very nice, and capable, IT support person. He said, among other things, "I hate Sophos. It never works and causes us incredible pain." Guess that message never got back to the top of the chain.
This sounds like the software equivalent of what Tom Clancy named the "Canary trap" in Cardinal of the Kremlin. Back in those prehistoric days, the idea was to distribute seemingly identical copies of (printed) documents, each with a couple different commas tossed in. Once you find an illegal copy somewhere, you look for the tracers and ID the leaker.
Here is another possible idea: LCD screen on windows. Track driver eye position. Create opaque circles exactly positioned on the lines between eyes and sun. Nice thought, but ignores the major problem, i.e. glare. Even when the sun's in your line of sight, most of what messes up vision is the scatter (glare) off other objects such as dirt on the windshield. Stick with polarized sunglasses for now.
By forcing predominantly younger, poorer, healthier people to overpay for health plans far beyond what they need, to subsidize plans for older, wealthier, sicker people News flash for you: "younger...people" will all end up in one of two categories: 1)dead 2)older people (followed by category 1). Quit being as shortsighted as our Wall St. pals and their insistence on quarterly returns, and recognize that we all will need elder health care some day. Unless you volunteer to donate to a certain Green food process.
Hopefully Obamacare will help me to have that Pink Floyd song surgically removed from my head, thanks for that.:) Well, at least you'll be comfortably numb during the procedure.
I don't need an algorithm to tell me Autotune is the one who should be taking credit for the singing today, not the prepubescent pretty face on stage taking dancing lessons who can't sing for shit. I always thought it would be fun to run Autotune in reverse: take a completely synthesized voice (Siri singing Led Zep's greatest hits), let De-Autotune (TM) screw it up, and run the audio equivalent of the Turing Test on the output.
Combine the explosion of cyberwarfare with the advances in organic "inkjet printing" compound creation (e.g. http://www.psmag.com/health/making-medical-miracles-with-inkjet-printers-26770/ ), and you get: Internet Virus Causes Home Printers to Generate Plague / Ebola / Marshmallow Fluff. -- clearly I consider all 3 to be of equal horror --
Sounds off-screen still emanate from the screen. Outside this "viewing window" is a wall not only black but impervious to sound. There's a reason that (in general) action in movies occurs from the left, the right, or occasionally downstage (to the rear). Things which fly into existence from the audience are not easily absorbed into the illusion. There's a minor exception for cases where the camera is pretending to be the eyeballs of a stalker or some such, and it's really pretty campy when that's done.
First of all, the video is only on the screen in front of you. It's like a window (the real thing, not a Redmond POS) into the "world" the movie is presenting. So how in heck would sounds from that world emanate from above or behind you? I find it quite distracting. Second: "natural" sounds like speech, the car driving down a road in the video, or the orchestra performing on stage (in the video) are not all that localized, and don't need to be. We see the image and locate the sound source to match. Putting in 62 sources just lets some audio nerd create a synthetic, moving, sound front that would never occur in nature. Unless you had a very loud bee flying in a tight cirle around your head:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually any malware that's "smart" enough to fool Bouncer is left alone while the NSA, FBI, and MPAA are alerted. Black helicopters full of hot women in black latex arrive...
Oh, I thought you were going to link to this http://xkcd.com/386/ .
But actually I was going to post: "What: real people actually post comments to YouTube?"
When first shown such a window, aren't we all going to say " I see what you did there" ?
"The Psychopath Test" author Jon Ronson pretty much makes the case that there isn't any test.
Moving once every 3 years is not normal, and nothing you do to facilitate that will be considered normal.
Never heard of the Armed Forces, have you?
>>Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest?
>Just a guess, mind you, but maybe 10% of the Hispanic readership in Arizona?
I'd add to this: every passenger on a domestic air flight. I once was told (you know, in grade school) that one of the things that made the USA great was that we had no requirements for ID papers and were allowed unrestricted right of (anonymous) travel. Not any more.
The failure in this handcuff problem is that both the locking mech (a key) and the unlocking mech (a key) are identical. Consider the public/private encryption key system used everywhere for digital communications. What the handcuff industry needs is sort of the inverse: some way that anyone can lock the cuffs but only the intended recipients can unlock them. There may be no solution to this problem, but it would be cool if there were. As a simple example: any officer applies the cuffs, and tags them as "unlockable only by police in user_set_XYZZY" . This at least partitions the universe of eligible unlockers, and perhaps lends itself to having a separate permissions message sent via secure comms channels.
(yeah I know this is a pipe dream)
i>You may be referring to AF447. An important distinction in that case was that the automation lost the data required to control the aircraft, so as designed, it disengaged and informed the crew that they were now in control- of an aircraft in severely degraded operational state (direct law) and also in instrument meteorological conditions. Those conditions were what made it so challenging, but just transitioning from passive monitor to active control is not inherently difficult.
I seem to recall reading several articles on plane crashes, and the overwhelming forensic consensus was that pilots who've been hands-off (autopilot functioning fine) for an extended period are in fact rather bad at evaluating the current flying conditions. This led to poor decision-making and often directly to the crash. When a computer takes over from a human, assuming the algorithms have been running "in the background" all the time, they should be able to generate a proper response to the situation. Personally, I vote for computers taking over from humans rather than the other way around.
So now you want to raise the age of consent to 25?
Also, just because teenagers decision making process is different than that of a full grown adult doesn't necessarily mean it's worse, even if a grown adult would consider it worse by our criteria. What matters is whether they are happy with their decisions.
Dunno how to break it to you, but there are a lot more issues than just sexual congress here. But since you said it: the problem is that teenagers are far more likely than adults to *expect* to be happy with their decisions, and only afterwards find out they're not.
Next thing you know the US postal service will mandate that eveyone send their mail on postcards so it can be read. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why woudn't you mind anyone reading your messages? /sarcasm.
This was sarcasm, but it brings up a fundamental disastrous event back in the early days of the Internet. Some jackass at the FCC decided that, unlike the US Mail and the telephone, "the Internet" was not a communications system, and thus not subject to the same sort of privacy or access rights. And here we are now, with an Internet that is used more for communication than anything else.
>>13 year olds are impressionable and malleable to outside influences
>So are most people.
Not in the same way. We actually know something about the development of the brain and the frontal lobes thereof. Teens do not exhibit the same sort of ability to execute reasoned judgement that people over about 25yrs of age do.
Mythbusters filled a small pool w/ oobleck and one or two of them ran across it successfully.
The big deal here is not so much the metal projectile but the array of monitoring equipment used to analyze the change in structure of the goo.
News sources report a mad rush of hipsters trying to buy a Galaxy Tab before it becomes cool.
You can get concealed safes easily enough. But I've never seen a concealed fire safe.
OK, get a big concealed safe and put the fire safe inside it.
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with ageism. I'm over 50 (never mind how far, thank you very much), and not even a software jock. I find my understanding of software, GUIs vs. CLI, workarounds, etc. to be far greater than a lot of the IT folk -- and even some software engineers. Meanwhile, funny(?) story: some BOFH ordered Sophos to be installed on all machines (before I joined the company). Mine fouled up in some mysterious way, so I dutifully filed a ticket and chatted with a very nice, and capable, IT support person. He said, among other things, "I hate Sophos. It never works and causes us incredible pain." Guess that message never got back to the top of the chain.
This sounds like the software equivalent of what Tom Clancy named the "Canary trap" in Cardinal of the Kremlin. Back in those prehistoric days, the idea was to distribute seemingly identical copies of (printed) documents, each with a couple different commas tossed in. Once you find an illegal copy somewhere, you look for the tracers and ID the leaker.
Here is another possible idea: LCD screen on windows. Track driver eye position. Create opaque circles exactly positioned on the lines between eyes and sun.
Nice thought, but ignores the major problem, i.e. glare. Even when the sun's in your line of sight, most of what messes up vision is the scatter (glare) off other objects such as dirt on the windshield.
Stick with polarized sunglasses for now.
Yes.
By forcing predominantly younger, poorer, healthier people to overpay for health plans far beyond what they need, to subsidize plans for older, wealthier, sicker people
News flash for you: "younger...people" will all end up in one of two categories: 1)dead 2)older people (followed by category 1).
Quit being as shortsighted as our Wall St. pals and their insistence on quarterly returns, and recognize that we all will need elder health care some day. Unless you volunteer to donate to a certain Green food process.
Hopefully Obamacare will help me to have that Pink Floyd song surgically removed from my head, thanks for that. :)
Well, at least you'll be comfortably numb during the procedure.
I don't need an algorithm to tell me Autotune is the one who should be taking credit for the singing today, not the prepubescent pretty face on stage taking dancing lessons who can't sing for shit.
I always thought it would be fun to run Autotune in reverse: take a completely synthesized voice (Siri singing Led Zep's greatest hits), let De-Autotune (TM) screw it up, and run the audio equivalent of the Turing Test on the output.
Combine the explosion of cyberwarfare with the advances in organic "inkjet printing" compound creation (e.g. http://www.psmag.com/health/making-medical-miracles-with-inkjet-printers-26770/ ), and you get: Internet Virus Causes Home Printers to Generate Plague / Ebola / Marshmallow Fluff.
-- clearly I consider all 3 to be of equal horror --
People keep saying this. I haven't gotten my trophy.
Ok, here you go then: just print out the nice pictures and add your name:
http://etrophyawards.com/
Sounds off-screen still emanate from the screen. Outside this "viewing window" is a wall not only black but impervious to sound. There's a reason that (in general) action in movies occurs from the left, the right, or occasionally downstage (to the rear). Things which fly into existence from the audience are not easily absorbed into the illusion. There's a minor exception for cases where the camera is pretending to be the eyeballs of a stalker or some such, and it's really pretty campy when that's done.
First of all, the video is only on the screen in front of you. It's like a window (the real thing, not a Redmond POS) into the "world" the movie is presenting. So how in heck would sounds from that world emanate from above or behind you? I find it quite distracting. :-)
Second: "natural" sounds like speech, the car driving down a road in the video, or the orchestra performing on stage (in the video) are not all that localized, and don't need to be. We see the image and locate the sound source to match. Putting in 62 sources just lets some audio nerd create a synthetic, moving, sound front that would never occur in nature. Unless you had a very loud bee flying in a tight cirle around your head