This doesn't mean that the DS is actively transmitting its signal (that is, in fact, incredibly unlikely). All it means is that the signal is transmitted to the display in a format somewhat compatible with American television, which isn't particularly surprising. Also, since all electrical currents "broadcast" rf, it's not particularly surprising that this can be picked up in certain cases.
For more information on this phenomenon, google "Van Eck phreaking."
Now, actually using these signals in a general, reliable way that would be acceptable to most consumers would be quite a long shot.
Once upon a time in Cupertino, some believe, around the year two double-aught six, head priest of the Apple, Steve Jobs, was walking down the road, contemplating whatever it is that a man of Steve Jobs' infinite power contemplates - which is another way of saying "who knows?" - when a PortalPlayer employee appeared, traveling in the opposite direction. As the CEO and the employee crossed paths, Steve Jobs, in a practically unfathomable display of generosity, gave the employee the slightest of nods. The nod was not returned. Now was it the intention of the employee to insult Steve Jobs? Or did he just fail to see the generous social gesture? The motives of the employee remain unknown. What is known, are the consequences. The next morning Steve Jobs appeared at the PortalPlayer headquarters and demanded of their CEO that he offer Steve Jobs his neck to repay the insult. The CEO at first tried to console Steve Jobs, only to find Steve Jobs was inconsolable. So began the massacre of the PortalPlayer headquarters and all sixty of the employees inside at the fists of the Apple. And so began the legend of Steve Jobs' five-point-palm-exploding-heart technique.
"You assume that platform specific subsets are wildly different from each other and have no or little correlation."
I'm not assuming anything. You're the one assuming they aren't wildly different from eath other. While probably correct, this is exactly the claim the OP was making, so you're begging the question. I re-read the linked article, and still couldn't find any evidence to support this specific claim, and I don't think the difference between PC and console gamers qualifies. Perhaps the actual data of the study is available somewhere in finer detail?
My point in replying was not that you were wrong, but that your rudeness to your first reply was unjustified because you did, in fact, fail to support your argument with relevant data.
Hard as it is to say this, since I agree with your point, you're not making a safe assumption. The age of the average gamer doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the average age of a certian subset of gamers. It would be great to debunk the OP with some solid facts, but you haven't presented any.
Funny that you mention the ability to think logically. There's an entire branch of logic, called inductive reasoning, dedicated to this very thing. I suggest you study it.
No-one with a PC wants that level of security. No-one wants their PC to be run like a maximum security prison.
No, you don't want a PC with that level of security. That's all fine and good, and a majority of PC users probably feel the same way, but don't assume everyone's needs are the same as yours.
Funny...the majority of Mac users I know (myself included) are converts from Linux, or at least use Macs alongside Linux. I don't understand what you mean by "minimal set of software options," since nearly every application I ever used on Linux can be made to work on the Mac quite easily.
Logical comparison?
Windows: able to run Windows applications natively. Linux: able to run most UNIXish applications natively. Mac OS X: able to run most UNIXish applications natively, able to run Mac OS X applications natively.
That's why the first thing I do on a new OS X system is to set timestamps_timeout to 0 in sudoers. It eliminates this grace period, requiring a password prompt for every Admin action. With this change, I think running as Admin can be pretty safe.
I could be overlooking some other security flaws, though...
The interesting thing is, I know I've read that quote (or something similar) as part of a larger work, but I've never read Snow Crash. Based on what some other responders have said, I guess it's something he reuses.
Do you not like Blade Runner? I think it's quite good (especially the director's cut without the narration), but I'm interested in hearing why you don't consider it a good film adaptation of PKD's work.
Good points throughout, but one nitpick. You seem to imply that Eisenhower was a Democrat, but he was a Republican. It could just be ambiguous wording, however.
I have the new SP, and you modify the brightness by pressing the dedicated brightness button in the middle of the face, just like the old SP. Are you perhaps thinking of the Micro?
The onus is on the skeptic to prove that Mohammed, whatever people thought of him, wasn't a prophet of some sort.
The onus is on the skeptic to prove that Zeus, whatever people thought of him, wasn't a god of some sort.
The onus is on the skeptic to prove that Spock, whatever people thought of him, wasn't an alien of some sort.
Are you prepared to outline proof of all these things? Are you prepared to outline proof of the thousands of other mythical figures people have believed in over time? By your own reasoning, the onus is on you, after all.
Alternatively, how about we use the practice rational people have been using for ages, which is that extraordinary claims (such as "jesus was a miracle worker of some sort") require extraordinary evidence.
If, on the other hand, you're attempting to submit the bible as such evidence, may I ask how you know it's credible? If you say you have faith, then fine, I can respect that and I can respect your beliefs. But don't expect me to have the same faith.
In my not so humble opinion, you don't know what you are talking about. Go read some of the links in that site, and you'll see that Steve Gibson is one of the many "security experts" that have no clue but gives dangerous and very wrong "solutions".
In my ever-so-humble opinion you completely missed the point of the parent. The reputation, sanity, motives, and anything else dealing with the person making the claim has nothing to do with the validity of the claim itself.
In this particular instance, there is at least some apparent merit to the idea that this was an intentional backdoor, and that merit would be there regardless of who points it out.
If you want to discredit the idea that this is an intentional backdoor (of which I am far from convinced), then you should attack the argument directly, not the man making it.
I understand that software commoditization force you to give it away for free, but since you'd have to do that, why write it in the first place?
Because you need it? Because the cost savings associated with using computers to do many tasks outweigh the cost of development? Because you can make gobs and gobs of money customizing and supporting software that you've given away for free? Because it's good publicity? Because you're a hardware vendor, and your hardware is useless without good software? Because by giving something away for free you can undermine a competitor? Because you just like writing software?
And if you don't believe me, you could ask one of the many successful companies who routinely put a lot of money into developing free software. RedHat, IBM, Apple, Sun, Novell...
It's incorrect to assume that free software can only come from an economic incentive, but it's also wrong to assume that such economic incentives don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't mean that the DS is actively transmitting its signal (that is, in fact, incredibly unlikely). All it means is that the signal is transmitted to the display in a format somewhat compatible with American television, which isn't particularly surprising. Also, since all electrical currents "broadcast" rf, it's not particularly surprising that this can be picked up in certain cases.
For more information on this phenomenon, google "Van Eck phreaking."
Now, actually using these signals in a general, reliable way that would be acceptable to most consumers would be quite a long shot.
They have a parent or guardian sign on their behalf.
You're right, of course. But I chose to disregard reality in order to make a comment I liked more.
I never understood why she couldn't hold out for just one more season, but I don't really care either. Ezri is the superior Dax.
Once upon a time in Cupertino, some believe, around the year two double-aught six, head priest of the Apple, Steve Jobs, was walking down the road, contemplating whatever it is that a man of Steve Jobs' infinite power contemplates - which is another way of saying "who knows?" - when a PortalPlayer employee appeared, traveling in the opposite direction. As the CEO and the employee crossed paths, Steve Jobs, in a practically unfathomable display of generosity, gave the employee the slightest of nods. The nod was not returned. Now was it the intention of the employee to insult Steve Jobs? Or did he just fail to see the generous social gesture? The motives of the employee remain unknown. What is known, are the consequences. The next morning Steve Jobs appeared at the PortalPlayer headquarters and demanded of their CEO that he offer Steve Jobs his neck to repay the insult. The CEO at first tried to console Steve Jobs, only to find Steve Jobs was inconsolable. So began the massacre of the PortalPlayer headquarters and all sixty of the employees inside at the fists of the Apple. And so began the legend of Steve Jobs' five-point-palm-exploding-heart technique.
Farrell
Terry, is that you? What's wrong, are you still bitter that they killed off your character after season 6?
"(the part of my cash in Gates' coffins)"
Unless you're implying that Gates is some sort of monetary necrophiliac, I believe the word you're looking for is coffers.
Thou doth protest too much.
:)
That should be "Thou dost protest too much." Dost is second person, doth is third person.
Not that it matters. I just couldn't resist the urge to be a medieval grammar nazi
"You assume that platform specific subsets are wildly different from each other and have no or little correlation."
I'm not assuming anything. You're the one assuming they aren't wildly different from eath other. While probably correct, this is exactly the claim the OP was making, so you're begging the question. I re-read the linked article, and still couldn't find any evidence to support this specific claim, and I don't think the difference between PC and console gamers qualifies. Perhaps the actual data of the study is available somewhere in finer detail?
My point in replying was not that you were wrong, but that your rudeness to your first reply was unjustified because you did, in fact, fail to support your argument with relevant data.
Hard as it is to say this, since I agree with your point, you're not making a safe assumption. The age of the average gamer doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the average age of a certian subset of gamers. It would be great to debunk the OP with some solid facts, but you haven't presented any.
Funny that you mention the ability to think logically. There's an entire branch of logic, called inductive reasoning, dedicated to this very thing. I suggest you study it.
Just because you're not capable of love doesn't mean nobody is.
No-one with a PC wants that level of security. No-one wants their PC to be run like a maximum security prison.
No, you don't want a PC with that level of security. That's all fine and good, and a majority of PC users probably feel the same way, but don't assume everyone's needs are the same as yours.
That's still wrong. It's "In Wired South Korea, only old people will buy robot insurance."
I don't even know why the scientists make them.
Funny...the majority of Mac users I know (myself included) are converts from Linux, or at least use Macs alongside Linux. I don't understand what you mean by "minimal set of software options," since nearly every application I ever used on Linux can be made to work on the Mac quite easily.
Logical comparison?
Windows: able to run Windows applications natively.
Linux: able to run most UNIXish applications natively.
Mac OS X: able to run most UNIXish applications natively, able to run Mac OS X applications natively.
How's that?
So you're saying we should kill the president?
That's why the first thing I do on a new OS X system is to set timestamps_timeout to 0 in sudoers. It eliminates this grace period, requiring a password prompt for every Admin action. With this change, I think running as Admin can be pretty safe.
I could be overlooking some other security flaws, though...
The interesting thing is, I know I've read that quote (or something similar) as part of a larger work, but I've never read Snow Crash. Based on what some other responders have said, I guess it's something he reuses.
One more reason to read Snow Crash, I suppose.
Actually, I believe that quote is from "The Diamond Age; or A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer." Still excellent, though.
Do you not like Blade Runner? I think it's quite good (especially the director's cut without the narration), but I'm interested in hearing why you don't consider it a good film adaptation of PKD's work.
Good points throughout, but one nitpick. You seem to imply that Eisenhower was a Democrat, but he was a Republican. It could just be ambiguous wording, however.
I have the new SP, and you modify the brightness by pressing the dedicated brightness button in the middle of the face, just like the old SP. Are you perhaps thinking of the Micro?
The onus is on the skeptic to prove that Mohammed, whatever people thought of him, wasn't a prophet of some sort.
The onus is on the skeptic to prove that Zeus, whatever people thought of him, wasn't a god of some sort.
The onus is on the skeptic to prove that Spock, whatever people thought of him, wasn't an alien of some sort.
Are you prepared to outline proof of all these things? Are you prepared to outline proof of the thousands of other mythical figures people have believed in over time? By your own reasoning, the onus is on you, after all.
Alternatively, how about we use the practice rational people have been using for ages, which is that extraordinary claims (such as "jesus was a miracle worker of some sort") require extraordinary evidence.
If, on the other hand, you're attempting to submit the bible as such evidence, may I ask how you know it's credible? If you say you have faith, then fine, I can respect that and I can respect your beliefs. But don't expect me to have the same faith.
ABC, don't forget, cancelled 'Sports Night' and 'The Job'.
"I finally get Aaron Sorkin's Sports Night! It's a comedy that's too good to be funny!"
UNIX is an interface, not an implementation.
And of OS X isn't UNIX, Linux certainly isn't.
In my not so humble opinion, you don't know what you are talking about. Go read some of the links in that site, and you'll see that Steve Gibson is one of the many "security experts" that have no clue but gives dangerous and very wrong "solutions".
In my ever-so-humble opinion you completely missed the point of the parent. The reputation, sanity, motives, and anything else dealing with the person making the claim has nothing to do with the validity of the claim itself.
In this particular instance, there is at least some apparent merit to the idea that this was an intentional backdoor, and that merit would be there regardless of who points it out.
If you want to discredit the idea that this is an intentional backdoor (of which I am far from convinced), then you should attack the argument directly, not the man making it.
I understand that software commoditization force you to give it away for free, but since you'd have to do that, why write it in the first place?
Because you need it? Because the cost savings associated with using computers to do many tasks outweigh the cost of development? Because you can make gobs and gobs of money customizing and supporting software that you've given away for free? Because it's good publicity? Because you're a hardware vendor, and your hardware is useless without good software? Because by giving something away for free you can undermine a competitor? Because you just like writing software?
And if you don't believe me, you could ask one of the many successful companies who routinely put a lot of money into developing free software. RedHat, IBM, Apple, Sun, Novell...
It's incorrect to assume that free software can only come from an economic incentive, but it's also wrong to assume that such economic incentives don't exist.