This already doesn't work with the Do Not Call registry. I have telemarketers claim that they get "one free call" to every number. So they call EVERY known number for customer A. Then they get a new client, customer B. They change the business name under which they are calling and start at the beginning of their list. They NEVER STOP CALLING damnit. When you go to the FTC site to register a complaint, right there on the form they ask "Have you asked them not to call back?", rather implying that the feds will take no action unless they have called repeatedly using the same business name.
Now you figure it makes sense to make it easier for the crooks to do this "one free call" with cell phones? Save yourself some grief and throw your cell phone in the trash if this goes through.
If I had mod points you would get one.
Macs are now and always have been safer simply because a PC exploit reaches so many more machines that it gives a better return on the hacking effort than doing an equivalent exploit on a Mac.
I see that many of you have expressed doubts methods and parameters of the experiments. The journal name gives you a clue to the problem. i.e. "Psychological Science".
To summarize the article that you seemed not to have read, Shannon is cited as writing the seminal paper to which you refer, and in it created an existence proof for error correction codes. He did not, in his paper, actually go so far as to create an ECC. According to TFA, Shannon is credited with creating the entire field of information theory. Not a bad accomplishment.
Hamming was noted as actually creating ECCs and laying the foundation stone for coding theory. It's probably why they named the codes after him, hmm? Many codes more suited to today's computational needs have been developed since, but someone had to be first.
Repeating your point, regardless of typography, does not make it any more valid. Just because your supposed point was dismissed does not mean it was missed to begin with. If you say something often enough, it does not make it true.
Soroc Technologies was an early intelligent (well, ok, dumb) terminal company, started back in 1981. Well, they were smart enough to put the cursor where you wanted and do a few other tricks. Anyway, the name came from a night of drinking beer and trying to think up a new company name. They were drinking Coors at the time, and decided that an anagram of Coors would fit the bill. The company still exists, see www.soroc.com, and check out the company logo. Yes, it is the top of the beer can.
This was related to me one night over dinner by the company founder.
Actually I taught my cat to fetch a dumbbell. Now granted, the dumbbell was the spool from a 35mm roll of film (this was a long time ago, pre-handycam era so sorry, no video), but she would fetch it just the same. I would toss it from the living room into the kitchen where she would run sliding all over the place as it bounced off chair legs. When she caught it she would bring it back and drop it in my shoe and await the next round.
A friend of mine taught cats to do tricks for movies and television, so it is really a bit silly to assume that cats can't learn tricks.
Re:854,000 people currently holding a TS clearance
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
Well, I can assure you that it did not include everyone who was stationed at Utapao. I worked aircraft avionics and certainly saw the "secret recon gear" nearly every day, as did all of the Thai workers, food vendors, house girls, trash collectors, etc. And they certainly did not hold top secret clearances. I had the quite standard secret clearance as did almost everyone who worked on aircraft, and I seriously doubt that all those Thai workers had those clearances either. Certainly the townsfolk working off base did not have any clearances, yet those folks used paper bags made out of recycled secret tech manuals! If you wanted to spy all you had to do was buy something in town and read the bag. You could have found out all about the inner workings of the B52s of the day.
I spent most of my military time in SAC, never needed a top secret clearance though I knew some who did, crypto, etc., even though I worked on nuke loaded aircraft.
Nothing personal, but if you got this much wrong, it makes we wonder about your other assertions.
You rely on computers because dogs cannot detect cancer with sufficient reliability to count on them, day after day, year after year, and their cancer detection accuracy is not all that high to begin with for deep cancers. I taught one to detect breast cancer and I can tell you it is not easy and the accuracy was poor for all of the dogs in the study. The amazing part is that it could be done at all.
Yes, I'm sure I'm a traffic engineer. I'm also sure that I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not sure that you do, either.
Ok, one good snarky comment deserves another. However, what caught my eye was your appearant surprise that "once all the merging was done" the traffic moved considerably faster. My point is that, in a condtion of bumper to bumper traffic, once two lanes of equal speed merge into one, the traffic speed in the remaining lane has no alternative but to double. If you disagree please be specific as to how this would be possible (outside of removing cars from the road). Perhaps there is some intriguing aspect of traffic flow theory that would allow some alternative outcome?
I think the speedup you experienced was not due to what you think it was. If you have 2 lanes of traffic merging to one, and each lane is moving at ten miles per hour and the cars are essentially bumper to bumper, then when the cars have merged to one lane it will be physically impossible for them to continue to move at 10 miles per hour unless they are stacked 2 layers deep. It should be easy to see that the cars must then be traveling at 20 miles per hour, plus some more to account for the added following distance at the new higher speed. This situation is physics, not psychology, and more of an illustration of the Venturi effect. Are you sure you are a traffic engineer?
As an example, the Canon EOS-1D Mark II (or for that matter any EOS-1D series camera) is not compatible with SD memory cards larger than 2GB (as of January 2006). Whether this will or can be addressed in a future firmware update is difficult to say but for the meantime, we would suggest you check with your camera manufacturer before you purchase a 4GB SD card or higher. CF cards up to 8GB work without problems in the Canon EOS-1D Mark II, but due to the scarcity of these cards at the time of this review, weve focused on 4GB CF cards.
Not quite. My Canon EOS-1D Mark II has the current firmware, which is from October 2005. I bought a pqi 4GB SD card Hi-Speed 150 card and lo, the camera would not format the thing. Before I took it back to the store I popped it into the PC and formatted it there. Put it back in the camera and it has been working fine ever since. Perhaps they should have picked a different example.
Slashdot Mirror
This already doesn't work with the Do Not Call registry. I have telemarketers claim that they get "one free call" to every number. So they call EVERY known number for customer A. Then they get a new client, customer B. They change the business name under which they are calling and start at the beginning of their list. They NEVER STOP CALLING damnit. When you go to the FTC site to register a complaint, right there on the form they ask "Have you asked them not to call back?", rather implying that the feds will take no action unless they have called repeatedly using the same business name. Now you figure it makes sense to make it easier for the crooks to do this "one free call" with cell phones? Save yourself some grief and throw your cell phone in the trash if this goes through.
It looks ok on mine, perhaps you could be more specific.
If I had mod points you would get one. Macs are now and always have been safer simply because a PC exploit reaches so many more machines that it gives a better return on the hacking effort than doing an equivalent exploit on a Mac.
Nuff said.
To summarize the article that you seemed not to have read, Shannon is cited as writing the seminal paper to which you refer, and in it created an existence proof for error correction codes. He did not, in his paper, actually go so far as to create an ECC. According to TFA, Shannon is credited with creating the entire field of information theory. Not a bad accomplishment. Hamming was noted as actually creating ECCs and laying the foundation stone for coding theory. It's probably why they named the codes after him, hmm? Many codes more suited to today's computational needs have been developed since, but someone had to be first.
I don't know is on second.
For very small values of "Steampunk".
Ok, that really did make me laugh.
Good grief man, you are a /. reader and haven't upgraded your comp since your PPC? I sense some missing geek cred here.
Repeating your point, regardless of typography, does not make it any more valid. Just because your supposed point was dismissed does not mean it was missed to begin with. If you say something often enough, it does not make it true.
Again, as you have failed to comprehend: It is, if the program interpreting it says it is.
Cool, proof via bold type. You sir, are an idiot!
QED
Soroc Technologies was an early intelligent (well, ok, dumb) terminal company, started back in 1981. Well, they were smart enough to put the cursor where you wanted and do a few other tricks. Anyway, the name came from a night of drinking beer and trying to think up a new company name. They were drinking Coors at the time, and decided that an anagram of Coors would fit the bill. The company still exists, see www.soroc.com, and check out the company logo. Yes, it is the top of the beer can.
This was related to me one night over dinner by the company founder.
Actually I taught my cat to fetch a dumbbell. Now granted, the dumbbell was the spool from a 35mm roll of film (this was a long time ago, pre-handycam era so sorry, no video), but she would fetch it just the same. I would toss it from the living room into the kitchen where she would run sliding all over the place as it bounced off chair legs. When she caught it she would bring it back and drop it in my shoe and await the next round.
A friend of mine taught cats to do tricks for movies and television, so it is really a bit silly to assume that cats can't learn tricks.
Well, I can assure you that it did not include everyone who was stationed at Utapao. I worked aircraft avionics and certainly saw the "secret recon gear" nearly every day, as did all of the Thai workers, food vendors, house girls, trash collectors, etc. And they certainly did not hold top secret clearances. I had the quite standard secret clearance as did almost everyone who worked on aircraft, and I seriously doubt that all those Thai workers had those clearances either. Certainly the townsfolk working off base did not have any clearances, yet those folks used paper bags made out of recycled secret tech manuals! If you wanted to spy all you had to do was buy something in town and read the bag. You could have found out all about the inner workings of the B52s of the day. I spent most of my military time in SAC, never needed a top secret clearance though I knew some who did, crypto, etc., even though I worked on nuke loaded aircraft.
Nothing personal, but if you got this much wrong, it makes we wonder about your other assertions.
Come on, noone is suggesting ... Noone gets to appeal ...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Any savvy user should already know all these things no matter what platform they use.
The existence of the "Genius Bar" indicates that savvy users are in short supply.
stories so far-fetched no one would ever believe them in real life...
Oh come now, this last part is one of the main rules of writing sitcoms. Break it and folks will think you are writing a funny documentary.
You rely on computers because dogs cannot detect cancer with sufficient reliability to count on them, day after day, year after year, and their cancer detection accuracy is not all that high to begin with for deep cancers. I taught one to detect breast cancer and I can tell you it is not easy and the accuracy was poor for all of the dogs in the study. The amazing part is that it could be done at all.
If I had mod points today you would get +1 Funny
But he will offer you some money instead.
Monty puts a $30,000 car behind one of three doors. You pick a door. Monty reveal a goat behind a different door. You have a choice.
A. Stick with your original door.
B. Take a check for $12,000.
Go on, make a rational decision.
The alternative is to tag it as magic.
Ok, one good snarky comment deserves another. However, what caught my eye was your appearant surprise that "once all the merging was done" the traffic moved considerably faster. My point is that, in a condtion of bumper to bumper traffic, once two lanes of equal speed merge into one, the traffic speed in the remaining lane has no alternative but to double. If you disagree please be specific as to how this would be possible (outside of removing cars from the road). Perhaps there is some intriguing aspect of traffic flow theory that would allow some alternative outcome?
I think the speedup you experienced was not due to what you think it was. If you have 2 lanes of traffic merging to one, and each lane is moving at ten miles per hour and the cars are essentially bumper to bumper, then when the cars have merged to one lane it will be physically impossible for them to continue to move at 10 miles per hour unless they are stacked 2 layers deep. It should be easy to see that the cars must then be traveling at 20 miles per hour, plus some more to account for the added following distance at the new higher speed. This situation is physics, not psychology, and more of an illustration of the Venturi effect. Are you sure you are a traffic engineer?
The extra "o" is for emphasis. The more "o"s, the loster it is. Glad I could clear that up for ya.
Not quite. My Canon EOS-1D Mark II has the current firmware, which is from October 2005. I bought a pqi 4GB SD card Hi-Speed 150 card and lo, the camera would not format the thing. Before I took it back to the store I popped it into the PC and formatted it there. Put it back in the camera and it has been working fine ever since. Perhaps they should have picked a different example.
It should now be called The Big Boing!