Unless I'm mistaken, when you press your arms against the door frame (or have them held in above the floor, as in the second example), after a period of time your body, specifically your proprioception sense, adjusts to this new position and it considers it the new "neutral" position. When your arms are released, it gets confused.
This is analogous to tricks on other senses, like if you stare at a reverse-colour image for a while, then look at a white surface, you'll see a ghost of the image in true-colour. It's also similar to how if there's a scent or sound in a room, you eventually become accustomed to it and don't notice it. You may even notice the absence of it if you leave the room. Same thing goes for your sense of touch and wearing clothes, jewellery, etc.
Pretty much, yeah. I think this whole "people have five senses" thing is silly. We really have nine: sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, heat, pain, balance, and body awareness (or proprioception, my favourite).
Proprioception is my favourite because of all the fun tricks you can play on it. If you close your eyes and I were to move your arm to some position, this is the sense that you use when you tell me what that position is. Also, there's the well-known trick where you stand in a doorway and press your arms against the side for a minute or so, then your arms feel "light" for a while. That works because you confuse this sense.
There's a similar one where you lie face-down on the ground, and someone lifts your arms off the ground and hold them there for a minute or so. When they release your arms, it feels like your arms go through the ground. It's a bizarre feeling.
Or what about a university residence network? I'm on one now, and there are a lot of computers here with open shares. Some have passwordless shares exposing their whole hard drive (I have no idea why). This worm could wreak havok on students here, deleting assignments or the like.
This is not a troll, and is not intended to be inflammatory. I want to hear responses from proponents of Intelligent Design with responses.
It occurred to me while my girlfriend was explaining cell biology to me once that the complexity of lifeforms, which ID proponents claim is "irreducible", and therefore evidence of an intelligent designer, is actually an argument against Intelligent Design. What follows is my semi-formal "proof" of this:
Premise 1: Mankind is of primary importance in the design of the Universe. This follows from Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If mankind were not greatly important to God, He would not have created man in His image.
Premise 2: Animal biology on a small scale, particularly the mechanisms for DNA replication, cellular respiration, and mitosis, are highly complex. This should be self-evident by simple research on the topic.
Premise 3: Whenever possible, any designer would pick a simple solution over an equivalent, more complex, solution. This is the basis for the KISS principle, or the oft-misused Occam's Razor.
Premise 4: God exists, created the Universe and everything in it and is both omniscient and omnipotent.
Together, Premises 3 and 4 imply that God would use the simplest possible solution to any given problem. Furthermore, since Genesis says that God created Adam and Eve, whom all of mankind descend from, this implies that God would have made Adam and Eve in the simplest form possible such that they are in His image.
However, as stated in Premise 4, God is omniscient. By definition, His power includes control over the rules governing the Universe. Thus, because of Premise 3, He would therefore alter those laws in order to make the design of mankind simple.
We now arrive at the contradiction. As reasoned above, the design of mankind must be simple. However, this is in contradiction with Premise 2. I conclude from this that one or more of the stated premises are incorrect. I
US Code, Title 42, Chapter 20, Subchapter 1, Section 1971:
(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.
Remember those Star Trek episodes (TNG onward) where someone's trying to get off the ship or hide or something, and they leave their communicator on the ground, or in their quarters.
Funny how people say Star Trek's technology is becoming reality, when really, it's limitations are too.
1. Hear about ailing server 2. Post story about said ailing server on/., including a link to the site. 3. ??? 4. Whatever you're expecting here, it ain't profit.
Maybe I'll get modded +50 insightful if I say that God actually has twelve penises and practices fellatio on storm gutters.
Thanks for giving me the most awful mental picture ever.
So now that SHA-1 has been rendered largely useless for any security application, what is the current "recommended" cryptographic hash algorithm? One of the SHA-2 variants (SHA-256, for example)?
How's that going? I was one of the rejected applicants, so I'm curious how the acceptees are doing. I was expecting more news on code.google.com about it.
And what do we use to "prove" logic? Use simpler logic.
All logic is based on simpler rules. Breaking it down like this, eventually you arrive at basic axioms, which are the definition of the system. They do not need to be proven, because they are self-evident.
It works the same in mathematics, so prehaps this is a better example. If you tried to "prove" a rule of mathematics is correct, you would break it down until you get down to the fundamental rules of algebra and arithmetic.
Then, for example, ask yourself, how do I prove that 1+1=2? The answer is that you don't need to (it is possible, I've heard, but for most purposes, this is considered a simple consequence of the definition of addition), because it is self-evident.
If the same method could be used to "prove" Intelligent Design, then this debate could be ended once and for all.
A few months back, I wrote a web service wrapper around a Zebra 2844 thermal printer, which sends commands (in ELP2, a printer command language that Zebra printers use) to the printer through the parallel port.
Yes, it involves using the Win32 API to open a stream to the LPT1: device, which is less than ideal, but it does not involve any unmanaged code.
Wrap that in a library, and it's as good as managed.
My boss has one of those Microsoft keyboards with the fingerprint scanner. It does not work for Windows logins, only for things like passwords on webpages.
I've used Dvorak as my primary keyboard layout for about a year and a half now (I'm typing in it now, in fact). Switching took a while -- about 2 weeks for my Dvorak speed to pass my QWERTY speed, but I'm never going back now.
However, I can't use it all the time. At work, I type in QWERTY about part the time. Switching back and forth for me is no problem. After a few keystrokes of thinking where each key is, I'm back up to my old QWERTY speed (which is slower than my Dvorak speed). Dvorak is more "natural" to me, and the QWERTY->Dvorak switch is much easier than the other way around.
I've noticed that if I think about which keys I'm typing, I tend to mess up the layouts, but if I don't think about it at all, I have no problem. I can't explain it any more than that.
The worst part about switching back and forth is the punctuation. A friend of mine that also made the switch commented to me on this, so it's obviously not just me. Maybe this is because punctuation is silent, and is learned a different way than other keys?
For most typing, this isn't a problem. The odd time I'll typo a period as a V or an E, but that's that's few and far between. Programming I can now only really do in Dvorak, because of how common punctuation is. However, I rarely do programming on any computer that I cannot switch to Dvorak, and so I just always use Dvorak for that.
That's true, but just think about how many of IBM's new Cell processor are going to be shipped. In the next 12 months or so, how do you think the number of desktop Intel and AMD processors individually will compare to the number of XBox, Playstation and GameCube processors?
By no means will video game processors overtake desktop processors, but they still represent a significant percentage of the market that cannot be ignored.
I noticed that too. What about IBM's new Cell processor? For that matter, what about ARM and Motorola's PPC chips running Apple machines?
That should more accurately be, there are currently only two main players in the x86-class CPU market. To leave that out is a big "all the world is an x86" assumption.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless I'm mistaken, when you press your arms against the door frame (or have them held in above the floor, as in the second example), after a period of time your body, specifically your proprioception sense, adjusts to this new position and it considers it the new "neutral" position. When your arms are released, it gets confused.
This is analogous to tricks on other senses, like if you stare at a reverse-colour image for a while, then look at a white surface, you'll see a ghost of the image in true-colour. It's also similar to how if there's a scent or sound in a room, you eventually become accustomed to it and don't notice it. You may even notice the absence of it if you leave the room. Same thing goes for your sense of touch and wearing clothes, jewellery, etc.
Pretty much, yeah. I think this whole "people have five senses" thing is silly. We really have nine: sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, heat, pain, balance, and body awareness (or proprioception, my favourite).
Proprioception is my favourite because of all the fun tricks you can play on it. If you close your eyes and I were to move your arm to some position, this is the sense that you use when you tell me what that position is. Also, there's the well-known trick where you stand in a doorway and press your arms against the side for a minute or so, then your arms feel "light" for a while. That works because you confuse this sense.
There's a similar one where you lie face-down on the ground, and someone lifts your arms off the ground and hold them there for a minute or so. When they release your arms, it feels like your arms go through the ground. It's a bizarre feeling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
Or what about a university residence network? I'm on one now, and there are a lot of computers here with open shares. Some have passwordless shares exposing their whole hard drive (I have no idea why). This worm could wreak havok on students here, deleting assignments or the like.
It occurred to me while my girlfriend was explaining cell biology to me once that the complexity of lifeforms, which ID proponents claim is "irreducible", and therefore evidence of an intelligent designer, is actually an argument against Intelligent Design. What follows is my semi-formal "proof" of this:
Source: http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco
Ah, yes, those pesky laws.
(I can't believe nobody's said this already...)
Remember those Star Trek episodes (TNG onward) where someone's trying to get off the ship or hide or something, and they leave their communicator on the ground, or in their quarters.
Funny how people say Star Trek's technology is becoming reality, when really, it's limitations are too.
Yeah, but saying that doesn't get you a +5 Funny :)
1. Hear about ailing server /., including a link to the site.
2. Post story about said ailing server on
3. ???
4. Whatever you're expecting here, it ain't profit.
Maybe I'll get modded +50 insightful if I say that God actually has twelve penises and practices fellatio on storm gutters.
Thanks for giving me the most awful mental picture ever.
Actually, I think the "closed doors" are more that the individual SOC coders had more to worry about than keeping a web site up to date.
Yes, more status updates would be nice, but really, give it time, folks.
So now that SHA-1 has been rendered largely useless for any security application, what is the current "recommended" cryptographic hash algorithm? One of the SHA-2 variants (SHA-256, for example)?
How's that going? I was one of the rejected applicants, so I'm curious how the acceptees are doing. I was expecting more news on code.google.com about it.
Any interesting stories you want to share?
Here's a table showing the frequency allocations in the United States. Other countries have very similar allocations.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html
"I beg to differ", says the 20-year old ham.
Nice troll, but I happen to personally know 7 or 8 hams under the age of 21. It is not dead.
Use Wine, you illiterate clod.
Unfortunately, it's obsolete in 2.6 kernels
And what do we use to "prove" logic?
Use simpler logic.
All logic is based on simpler rules. Breaking it down like this, eventually you arrive at basic axioms, which are the definition of the system. They do not need to be proven, because they are self-evident.
It works the same in mathematics, so prehaps this is a better example. If you tried to "prove" a rule of mathematics is correct, you would break it down until you get down to the fundamental rules of algebra and arithmetic.
Then, for example, ask yourself, how do I prove that 1+1=2? The answer is that you don't need to (it is possible, I've heard, but for most purposes, this is considered a simple consequence of the definition of addition), because it is self-evident.
If the same method could be used to "prove" Intelligent Design, then this debate could be ended once and for all.
Bull.
A few months back, I wrote a web service wrapper around a Zebra 2844 thermal printer, which sends commands (in ELP2, a printer command language that Zebra printers use) to the printer through the parallel port.
Yes, it involves using the Win32 API to open a stream to the LPT1: device, which is less than ideal, but it does not involve any unmanaged code.
Wrap that in a library, and it's as good as managed.
My boss has one of those Microsoft keyboards with the fingerprint scanner. It does not work for Windows logins, only for things like passwords on webpages.
I've used Dvorak as my primary keyboard layout for about a year and a half now (I'm typing in it now, in fact). Switching took a while -- about 2 weeks for my Dvorak speed to pass my QWERTY speed, but I'm never going back now.
However, I can't use it all the time. At work, I type in QWERTY about part the time. Switching back and forth for me is no problem. After a few keystrokes of thinking where each key is, I'm back up to my old QWERTY speed (which is slower than my Dvorak speed). Dvorak is more "natural" to me, and the QWERTY->Dvorak switch is much easier than the other way around.
I've noticed that if I think about which keys I'm typing, I tend to mess up the layouts, but if I don't think about it at all, I have no problem. I can't explain it any more than that.
The worst part about switching back and forth is the punctuation. A friend of mine that also made the switch commented to me on this, so it's obviously not just me. Maybe this is because punctuation is silent, and is learned a different way than other keys?
For most typing, this isn't a problem. The odd time I'll typo a period as a V or an E, but that's that's few and far between. Programming I can now only really do in Dvorak, because of how common punctuation is. However, I rarely do programming on any computer that I cannot switch to Dvorak, and so I just always use Dvorak for that.
I do recommend switching to Dvorak.
That's true, but just think about how many of IBM's new Cell processor are going to be shipped. In the next 12 months or so, how do you think the number of desktop Intel and AMD processors individually will compare to the number of XBox, Playstation and GameCube processors?
By no means will video game processors overtake desktop processors, but they still represent a significant percentage of the market that cannot be ignored.
I noticed that too. What about IBM's new Cell processor? For that matter, what about ARM and Motorola's PPC chips running Apple machines?
That should more accurately be, there are currently only two main players in the x86-class CPU market. To leave that out is a big "all the world is an x86" assumption.
Wrong again. It came from Brian Phish, a con man who stole credit card numbers in the 1980s. Or at least, that's the most likely theory.
There's no reason why a virus writer couldn't embed an implementation of RSA or AES in a virus... Drop-in implementations are out there.
Y'know, when most people say they hit their computer, they don't mean Mafia-style...