I did something a little similar to that for submitting print jobs to the lab's shared hard-copy terminal.... worked well until a couple of days later the computer dept manager was frantically searching around for whomever was running that job that had the mini-mainframe computer crabbing across the floor of the computer room....
(it was moving the heads of the 14-inch disk drive back and forth very rhythmically)
I agree with you. Most people don't even know what microcode is or what it does or why it would be useful to be able to manipulate it. Heck, most CPU's these days don't even give you access to the microcode level anymore anyway.
Are you referring to _machine code_, utilizing the processor's published low-level programming instructions and interface, or _microcode_ used in the firmware to implement the machine code?
And if you invent it and charge for it, you owe me a bunch o bucks...
Create a security camera system that uploads camera data to a public internet site at all times. Then if someone breaks into your house and steals your equipment, the photos are already uploaded. Further have the site spread the photos around to other sites so its harder to take them down. Watch the watchers. Make it HARD for them to act in secrecy.
Well that's not quite so bad as one of three boys dragged through the courts and public opinion for more than a year over a false rape charge-- and one in which the prosecutor was found to be complicit I might add.
Well, *NOW* its GUARANTEED to follow them around the Net.
Who cares about some chicks in bras? These days that's tame. You can get more exposure from the sears catalog-- wait, do they still put out a sears catalog???
But NOW that the prosecutor has made such a stupid mess out of the whole thing it will be certain to be there for life-- and beyond.
Nah, he got that right too-- they just haven't gotten around to declaring 2010 to be 1984 so they can save some bucks by not having to buy new calendars.
"The school described the strip-search as 'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction."
So what's her sex got to do with it? Are they implying that they would have performed a more invasive search if it had been a male?
How is this any different than an encyclopedia telling someone that the Mona Lisa is housed in the Louvre in Paris who then goes to try and steal it? Should encyclopedias be banned too?
>> The poor guy couldn't even make bail and had spent almost a year in jail waiting for his trial to come up.
Too bad he didn't swindle people out of billions of dollars. Then he would have been able to spend that year in a luxury penthouse with an ankle bracelet.
Yes, but look at the examples where potentially exonerating evidence comes to light after the fact (after the conviction) but the courts refuse or fail to act due to some technicality or other. There was a guy put to death here not too long ago that was convicted on the basis of seven "witnesses" who all later recanted their testimonies and said they had been coerced by the police or told they would stand trial if they didn't "finger somebody".
Admittedly this is straying away from the original topic of jurors utilizing the Internet, but I think its in the right vein since when it comes down to it, there's somebody's life or freedom on the line-- in a criminal proceeding of course, else its just their money, which in some ways could be just as bad.
This can cut both ways. Yes a juror can look up stuff on the Internet and find out things that the judge has not ruled admissible. But on the other hands, judges aren't infallible even if they're honest, sometimes they make mistakes, don't understand things well enough themselves to make a truly informed assessment of potential facts, or in the worst scenarios are lazy, biased or even crooked. So being able to look something up on the Internet could as potentially reveal exculpatory information. Supposedly the legal system is there to "find the truth" but that's really not the case. Its there to find the most probable truth, or in some cases the most convenient truth. And often times nobody really cares what actually happened or who's going to jail. Look at how many cases have been overturned due to DNA evidence. How many innocent people have sat in jail for years and years because the judge or jury or "legal system" in general has refused to review all the evidence, or when new evidence comes to light, review a past conviction. Its darned inconvenient when guilty people turn out later to not be guilty and some prosecutor or judge has to account for the situation. Easier to just stonewall and let the innocent rot.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Have you ever wondered why procedural spagetti code is hard to read?
Oh, I just thought it was because of the meatball.
TABLETS !?!?! You had Tablets !?!??!!
Sheesh, in my day, we used a sharp stick and drew figures in the mud.
We were doing binary before the zero was even invented.
All we had were ones, no zeros.
I did something a little similar to that for submitting print jobs to the lab's shared hard-copy terminal.... worked well until a couple of days later the computer dept manager was frantically searching around for whomever was running that job that had the mini-mainframe computer crabbing across the floor of the computer room....
(it was moving the heads of the 14-inch disk drive back and forth very rhythmically)
>> How about that total absence of respect back in the days where programmers were seen as interchangeable faceless drones
Don't worry, its still absent.
Didn't Jacquard invent multi-threaded code???
TEXT !?!?! You had TEXT !?!?!?! Sheesh, all we had were blinking lights and toggle switches...
I remember when the hot new feature was "address auto-advance"...
I agree with you. Most people don't even know what microcode is or what it does or why it would be useful to be able to manipulate it. Heck, most CPU's these days don't even give you access to the microcode level anymore anyway.
Are you referring to _machine code_, utilizing the processor's published low-level programming instructions and interface, or _microcode_ used in the firmware to implement the machine code?
"What do the "gay" monkeys do?"
Tubesteak.
As long as scammers can put up sites where humans solve captchas for porn, I think using captchas as a protection mechanism is pretty much busted.
And if you invent it and charge for it, you owe me a bunch o bucks...
Create a security camera system that uploads camera data to a public internet site at all times. Then if someone breaks into your house and steals your equipment, the photos are already uploaded. Further have the site spread the photos around to other sites so its harder to take them down. Watch the watchers. Make it HARD for them to act in secrecy.
Nah, its cool. Wait until they find out what a "dollar" is in my dictionary.
Actually combining the ACLU and the NRA would make a whole lot of sense.
If people don't go along with the ACLU's assertions they'll just go NRA on their asses!
Well that's not quite so bad as one of three boys dragged through the courts and public opinion for more than a year over a false rape charge-- and one in which the prosecutor was found to be complicit I might add.
Well, *NOW* its GUARANTEED to follow them around the Net.
Who cares about some chicks in bras? These days that's tame. You can get more exposure from the sears catalog-- wait, do they still put out a sears catalog???
But NOW that the prosecutor has made such a stupid mess out of the whole thing it will be certain to be there for life-- and beyond.
Damn straight. If the good lord meant for people to run around naked, they'd have been BORN that way!
What !?!? Have these politicos not read Heinlein's seminal tome "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" ??
Are they not aware the folly of pissing off someone towering high overhead in orbit with large objects to toss?
(Or in this case the contents of their toilets)
I say: To heck with all the politicians! Let them eat (urinal) cake!
Nah, he got that right too-- they just haven't gotten around to declaring 2010 to be 1984 so they can save some bucks by not having to buy new calendars.
"The school described the strip-search as 'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction."
So what's her sex got to do with it? Are they implying that they would have performed a more invasive search if it had been a male?
How is this any different than an encyclopedia telling someone that the Mona Lisa is housed in the Louvre in Paris who then goes to try and steal it? Should encyclopedias be banned too?
>> The poor guy couldn't even make bail and had spent almost a year in jail waiting for his trial to come up.
Too bad he didn't swindle people out of billions of dollars. Then he would have been able to spend that year in a luxury penthouse with an ankle bracelet.
American justice, the best money can buy.
Yes, but look at the examples where potentially exonerating evidence comes to light after the fact (after the conviction) but the courts refuse or fail to act due to some technicality or other. There was a guy put to death here not too long ago that was convicted on the basis of seven "witnesses" who all later recanted their testimonies and said they had been coerced by the police or told they would stand trial if they didn't "finger somebody".
Admittedly this is straying away from the original topic of jurors utilizing the Internet, but I think its in the right vein since when it comes down to it, there's somebody's life or freedom on the line-- in a criminal proceeding of course, else its just their money, which in some ways could be just as bad.
This can cut both ways. Yes a juror can look up stuff on the Internet and find out things that the judge has not ruled admissible. But on the other hands, judges aren't infallible even if they're honest, sometimes they make mistakes, don't understand things well enough themselves to make a truly informed assessment of potential facts, or in the worst scenarios are lazy, biased or even crooked. So being able to look something up on the Internet could as potentially reveal exculpatory information. Supposedly the legal system is there to "find the truth" but that's really not the case. Its there to find the most probable truth, or in some cases the most convenient truth. And often times nobody really cares what actually happened or who's going to jail. Look at how many cases have been overturned due to DNA evidence. How many innocent people have sat in jail for years and years because the judge or jury or "legal system" in general has refused to review all the evidence, or when new evidence comes to light, review a past conviction. Its darned inconvenient when guilty people turn out later to not be guilty and some prosecutor or judge has to account for the situation. Easier to just stonewall and let the innocent rot.
So does anybody believe they don't already do that here in the U.S.A?
Well that's stupid, he used his HANDS to throw the rocks.
Now he'll have MORE time to throw rocks since he won't be thinking so much about fucking the chimpettes....