Okay, let's get a few things straight here. No offense, but you are 18. You haven't been in the "job market", and I hope to god you've been doing well in school. I imagine you've gotten great grades.
You obviously didn't look at the screen shots.
I bet his grades weren't too good, especially not in spelling & grammar.
According to one conversion, 60 MPG is 3.9 L/100km. This assumes that the MPG was quoted in US gallons and not imperial gallons. Otherwise, 4.7 L/100km (slightly more believable).
No, it's indeed 3.9l/100km... 4.7l/100km wouldn't be anywhere near revolutionary, my girlfriend's 1997 Suzuki Swift already achieves that under *real* conditions and not some supposed-to-be-meaningful mix -- while being a "real" car as opposed to the Smart.
Even my 1.9l Golf IV TDI (okok, Diesel against Otto engine is a bit unfair, I admit) usually gets below 5l/100km, although I'm not known for my very economic driving style.
If you want to go for really low consumption check out Volkswagen Lupo; their "best" (in terms of consumption) model comes down to 2.9l/100km. Diesel engine again, though.
I've seen that kind of encoding with more and more websites who rather pass some weird string to a wrapper script as opposed to human readable information.
What I was wondering is the type of encoding is used here. To my understanding it's not base64 (since that would include the slash) but probably something similarly known which I overlooked so far?
But the most noticeable change -- and perhaps one some "Star Wars" diehards will have a tough time stomaching -- is Hayden Christensen (who plays young Anakin in the prequel trilogy) now appearing in the scene where the "force ghosts" of Anakin, Obi Wan, and Yoda smile at Luke.
Isn't that illogical? If they put in young Anakin to the row of "force ghosts", shouldn't Obi Wan's ghost then be replaced by Ewan McGregor? Not that I wanna see that...
Once more I get the feeling that Mr. Lucas is just a CGI addict and so f*cking proud of what can be done (so it has to be done)... It was already obvious with his first row of "reworks". There was nothing wrong with editing out the "force field glow" (resulting from Vaseline or whatever they put on the lens to make the wheels disappear) below the antigrav glider. It was ok to re-edit Tie fighter scenes where you could spot the double imaging in the original. And, yes, the city of clouds underwent a major improvement.
Hell, it was even ok to put in the mis-rendered Jabba as it was planned to be there in the original. Plus, I won't complain about adding some "life" here.
What I do object, though, are the truly unnecessary modifications such as little robots teasing big robots in Mos Eisley, making Han shoot second (what kind of bounty hunter would miss at table distance!?), or that galaxy-wide party instead of the original Ewok party. (Not that I like Ewoks anyway, he should have stuck with the original idea of the Wookie planet.) Also the re-rendering of those singers was way overdone: where the original looked too much like puppetry, the redone version was just annoying because of exaggeration.
Now doing another "mordification" by adding Hayden I wanna slap his face Christensen into the line of force ghosts once again falls into the field of "look what I can do".
I guess it's time to bring out our own version of StarWars by ripping the new DVD set and the old LD version and cutting together the versions as they should be.
The most prevalent form of the Matthew text is Greek (the most widely understood written language in the region). The Greek word used in the Matthew text is transliterated "peripateo" - to walk. The Greek word for "swim" is transliterated "kolympo" - to bathe or swim.
You are, of course, perfectly aware that Matthew is by no means an original source but just the guy who first took the time to wrote down those Aramaeic telltales he's been hearing so often.
The bible is full of translation errors; the most well known is probably the one with the camel that goes through the eye of a needle.
Other stuff was placed in deliberately to substantiate the leading role of the "professional church": the stuff about "you're Petrus, the rock I will build my church upon" is pure hogwash and actually completely against the original Christian ideas which did not include any sort of professional church organization. In fact, that was one of the really novel things about early Christianity that professional priests (like Rabbis) and especially no "super leader" (which is nowadays referred to as "the pope") are not only not needed but even unwanted.
Or you can call Earth, Terra (making us Terrans, w00t!), Terra's moon, Luna, and Terra's star Sol.
This is just translating it into Latin... (So much for your "w00t".)
It doesn't change a bit whether you call our moon Moon, Luna, or Mond. Moon, as in "a moon"/"ein Mond", has become a synonyme for (natural) satellite in probably all current languages. Same goes for Sun, Sol, or Sonne, and "a sun"/"eine Sonne".
Would even work in Latin: Sol is our sun, sol is a sun.
They'll need one heck of a firewall around the US, so we can't just go to European sites for their images of our territory.
Being European myself I hate so say that, but: Be sure that the USA will "kindly ask" the European government to adopt a similar law -- which, of course, will then be adopted.
You got DMCA. We got something similar.
You have software patents. We're in the process of adopting them.
You got the "war against terror". We send you the entire passenger data as requested, even though its against our data protection laws. (And lately, I've seen signs on the campus telling that the area is "camera protected". Excuse me, but cameras don't protect. They monitor. They control. They keep under surveillance. But they do not protect. And yes, it's not restricted to our campus. Cameras are popping up everywhere.)
We wanted to launch Galileo to be independent of GPS. The USA had serious issues with that, so Europe negotiated a compromise.
So I guess you will have to buy the images on the Russian or Asian market...
If the mainframe went down, or even if one of our applications went offline, all hell broke loose and users went mad. They expected very high uptime.
Not to mention the fact that until Microsoft "servers" it was common understanding that a server just would not crash. The only reasons to shut it down was to upgrade or repair. That was especially true for big mainframes which took an awful long time to boot. With a boot process lasting 10-15 minutes you just want to have that machine up and running.
I find Microsoft's attitude to security infuriating. They seem to now be selling security as a bonus in a "look at how seriously we are taking it" when it should have been a gimme all along.
I personally hate the "It's not a bug, it's a feature." kind of attitude they even show today.
Everyone bashes Microsoft because of their fallible software.
Let's think about this for a moment: ALL SOFTWARE IS INSECURE. Microsoft is just the biggest player, so they are targeted the most often. There have been 'proof-of-concept' viruses written for Linux, Macintosh, even cellphones via BlueTooth.
Yes, there are proof of concepts. But... Microsoft is the company who made it the norm that either applications or the entire computer crashed.
Think about it that way: Before the golden age of MS Windows and MS Office people complained about infrequent crashes and buggy software and they were bloody right doing so.
Since Microsoft, everyone is chanting the mantra "it's all about software complexity".
Before Microsoft people joked about so-called banana-ware, meaning a product which ripened at the customer.
Since Microsoft this is the norm with almost all vendors. And who can blame them? A single "yeah, we are thinking about coming up with something similar" from Microsoft will effectively kill the market for any smaller competitor.
Compare Microsoft to automobile makers. When they started, they were unsafe. So they added a 'fix' like seatbelts. Then they added crumple zones, an enhancement to make them safe. Airbags, side impact curtains, rear-sensors for backing up, and so on, and so on.
Make fair comparisons. Microsoft wasn't among the first companies to enter the market of multi-tasking capable graphical user interfaces. In fact, almost any other major player of those times had something faster, better, and less crash prone out.
To pick up your car example: When other companies were already selling something like a Chevy Corvette, Microsoft entered the market with a Ford Model T, even worse, a faulty one -- and special glasses which made it look like a Corvette and plenty of promises.
Remember Windows 95? It took them at least until W2K to come up with a product with lived up to the promises they made for Win95. Besides, they didn't earn themselves a reputation for being ultra fast with bug fixes, even mission critical ones.
6) It is cosmetic surgery. Money and risk is better saved for surgery you need. I think this is the best reason not to get laser eye surgery but each person has to evaluate it for themselves, just do so with facts and not rumor.
Excuse me? It is *not* cosmetic surgery. After all, if you wear glasses or contact lenses, you're doing it to correct "malfunctioning" body parts.
For example, I had an eye surgery done in 2000. No lens correction but strabism (cross-eyedness), i.e. they cut the steering muscles off my left eyeball, shortened it on one side, stretched it on the other and sewed them back to the proper place.
It was still possible to correct using glasses for the sake of having very small (like 1 inch in diameter) but already think (~0.5 inch) ones. Not wearing them gave me double vision. That part is fixed now, but I still suffer from heavy astigmatism and will target this with another eye surgery when they have long term studies about the effects of the various surgery methods. So far I'll not further mess around with my eyes (the strabism part was scary enough...), though.
Maybe you're not wearing glasses or have only mild far/nearsightedness w/o any astigmatism, so all you need the glasses for is maybe reading, computer work, and driving. But there are others (like me) who need to put on glasses for "true" vision -- and this, frankly, sucks.
Getting rid of that "viewing prosthesis" is far beyond cosmetic surgery...
Assume we have that 16km long fiber and solved the problem, that the fiber won't curl up around earth.
We lift up some cargo to the remote point, let it rotate until it faces the desired destination -- and then cut off the fiber and let the cargo flow accelerated by earth rotation. Might be interesting for probes where travel time is not a real issue.
And if we do it with lot/heavy enough stuff, then we even get longer days as a side effect:)
The only way it could be "hacked" is if you found a way to extract the shared key from the hardware dvd player or the shared key for a specific player was leaked mpaa. That could happen, but it's not to likely.
Oh, sure. Never ever did any vital information leave a company which built their business model on a very algorithm, or from the company which created the security model for them.
You might not be aware of this, but one reason for certain pay TV stations being hacked as easily as it was (and I'm not talking about analog "encryption") was that sufficient information leaked.
And as stated elsewhere: There's still the analog output. Sure, they might put have in some watermarking. They most likely did. But I frankly doubt that there is something like *robust* watermarking for audio and video without significantly impair the signal quality, thus causing noticeable artefacts. (If there is, I'd love to see a pointer to scientifical papers, cause I'm quite interested in such methods myself.)
They patented application buttons on PDA's (and similar devices) that performs different functions depending on how long the buttons are pressed, and how many times it's clicked within a specific amount of time.
Assuming that a digital wristwratch falls under the term "similar device", my 1981's RICOH wristwatch offered a similar mechanism with one of its 4 buttons. You pressed the upper left button shortly (i.e. less than 3 seconds) and you entered the stop watch mode. You pressed the very same button more than 3 seconds and you entered the setup mode.
I'm not sure _I_ would trust a registrar to decide if the name I'm registering is good enough or not.
True. Neither would I. But they could enforce proper identification, for instance. When I open a bank account they want all kinds of ID proof.
All I need for registering a domain is some "good" credit card. That and a "signed" (meaning that I either send a scan or photo of the signed document) contract was all it needed the last time I was registering a domain. And next time I register a domain with that very registrar all I need to do is clicking on "ok". And that one's even considered serious...
To prove if someone is guilty of spamming, I only need to check my inbox and spam folder... So for me that whois-based filter would work. On a larger scale, this could also be implemented into services like Spamhaus RBL.
The problem is that the worst these people are setting themselves up outside of US jurisdiction, so that FTC and company just can't get to them.
I've been updating my mail server's PCRE rules so that certain mails don't even hit the spamfilter.
What I've noticed is that a fair amount of spam mails still feature.com addresses, and to an increasing amount.biz and.info (I'm already thinking of banning all incoming email which contains a link of any sort to.biz and.info sites...)
What I also noticed is, that the domain names get weirder and weirder. So after all, I also see a responsibility on the domain registrar's site. If someone is registering domains like amsnbxtr.com, amsnbzxw.com, mnevbdsx.com, msnbsczx.com, wiggle6767tabs.us, or coolness6579meds.us it doesn't take much brains to guess the future use and sane registrars would probably deny requests if a bunch of nonsensical domain registrations comes in -- especially after they found spam pointing to the last batch of domain registrations.
So the registration comes from fishy registrars, fine. Then just block all addresses which are registered through one of these registrars... The above examples, for instance, point to just two distinct registrars.
Next generation spam filtering might just mean parsing the incoming mail for the occurrence of links, checking those domains against whois and the whois result against a badlist of known fishy registrars.
It's crude. It's unelegant. But it surely ruins the business of both, the spammer and the greedy registrars who just care for registration fees.
But of course it doesn't happen because everyone would have to dump all of their current kit, right down to the loudspeakers, and everything would have to be redesigned from ground up with encrypted digital links. It'd cost them millions to set up, and they would lose customers in the process.
And it would be futile, too. Because there is no such thing as a "digital loudspeaker". At the very end you have that stupid device which produces airwaves -- and to do so it uses electric signals which can easily be measured, sampled, and re-processed into the (now unencrypted) digital domain.
All this without breaking any sort of encryption, thus no bright spark needed but just a set of operational amplifiers to make the signals compatible with your soundcard's MIC IN jack.
Actually, China also postponed the moon mission because they now want to built their very own space station after the US just replied "no" to China's question if they could participate in the ISS project.
And I always thought the "I" in ISS stood for "international".
May I ask in what way those 10 years of development "have consistently innovated"?
What else than "incremental patches" does Microsoft deliver, especially in the days where there is no week with new IE and OE exploits being announced and eventually (after months) being fixed?
The reason why "Windows is still the desktop OS of choice" is just because it comes preinstalled with any vanilla PC you can buy out there. Because it will run the games people copy from their friends. Because it runs Microsoft Office.
If Microsoft released Office for Linux I'm more than sure that numerous offices will switch to Linux and if it's just to escape the virus race which cost them plenty of time, money, and nerves.
What Linux needs is a MS-DOS 6 style help command. When you type help it pops up a nice ncurses screen of all the different commands available on linux systems, briefly what they do and a link that can take them to a simplified, easy to read page of advanced things to do with the command.
Erm... So what exactly is a "command" by your definition? With DOS it was easy: everything which was embedded in command.com (thus the necessity to always carry an extra format.exe)
On a Unix system, however, there's just directories, executables, and arbitrary data files (yes, yes, and special files to be found in/dev and/proc). You would expect a certain set of commands available to find your way through the file system, but already the shell comes in a gazillion of flavors.
So I don't think Joe User would benefit from such an ncurses thingy which blasts tons of commands into his face...
Well, all these restrictions are after all just software.
However, nothing is keeping you from hacking together your own homebrew solution based on e.g. open source. After all, we're not talking about breaking a copy protection here but rather parsing and interpreting an open protocol...
Slashdot Mirror
I bet his grades weren't too good, especially not in spelling & grammar.
(drumroll)
Qonqueror.
Thank you. You're a wonderful audience.
Even my 1.9l Golf IV TDI (okok, Diesel against Otto engine is a bit unfair, I admit) usually gets below 5l/100km, although I'm not known for my very economic driving style.
If you want to go for really low consumption check out Volkswagen Lupo; their "best" (in terms of consumption) model comes down to 2.9l/100km. Diesel engine again, though.
What I was wondering is the type of encoding is used here. To my understanding it's not base64 (since that would include the slash) but probably something similarly known which I overlooked so far?
Once more I get the feeling that Mr. Lucas is just a CGI addict and so f*cking proud of what can be done (so it has to be done)... It was already obvious with his first row of "reworks". There was nothing wrong with editing out the "force field glow" (resulting from Vaseline or whatever they put on the lens to make the wheels disappear) below the antigrav glider. It was ok to re-edit Tie fighter scenes where you could spot the double imaging in the original. And, yes, the city of clouds underwent a major improvement.
Hell, it was even ok to put in the mis-rendered Jabba as it was planned to be there in the original. Plus, I won't complain about adding some "life" here.
What I do object, though, are the truly unnecessary modifications such as little robots teasing big robots in Mos Eisley, making Han shoot second (what kind of bounty hunter would miss at table distance!?), or that galaxy-wide party instead of the original Ewok party. (Not that I like Ewoks anyway, he should have stuck with the original idea of the Wookie planet.) Also the re-rendering of those singers was way overdone: where the original looked too much like puppetry, the redone version was just annoying because of exaggeration.
Now doing another "mordification" by adding Hayden I wanna slap his face Christensen into the line of force ghosts once again falls into the field of "look what I can do".
I guess it's time to bring out our own version of StarWars by ripping the new DVD set and the old LD version and cutting together the versions as they should be.
If you disintegrate, do it properly down to subatomic levels to make sure they won't even be able to detect some minimal raise in rare elements.
"We're arrest you for murder, Mr Smith, the raised rare elements level in your kitchen accounts for 7 people."
The bible is full of translation errors; the most well known is probably the one with the camel that goes through the eye of a needle.
Other stuff was placed in deliberately to substantiate the leading role of the "professional church": the stuff about "you're Petrus, the rock I will build my church upon" is pure hogwash and actually completely against the original Christian ideas which did not include any sort of professional church organization. In fact, that was one of the really novel things about early Christianity that professional priests (like Rabbis) and especially no "super leader" (which is nowadays referred to as "the pope") are not only not needed but even unwanted.
It doesn't change a bit whether you call our moon Moon, Luna, or Mond. Moon, as in "a moon"/"ein Mond", has become a synonyme for (natural) satellite in probably all current languages. Same goes for Sun, Sol, or Sonne, and "a sun"/"eine Sonne".
Would even work in Latin: Sol is our sun, sol is a sun.
You got DMCA. We got something similar.
You have software patents. We're in the process of adopting them.
You got the "war against terror". We send you the entire passenger data as requested, even though its against our data protection laws. (And lately, I've seen signs on the campus telling that the area is "camera protected". Excuse me, but cameras don't protect. They monitor. They control. They keep under surveillance. But they do not protect. And yes, it's not restricted to our campus. Cameras are popping up everywhere.)
We wanted to launch Galileo to be independent of GPS. The USA had serious issues with that, so Europe negotiated a compromise.
So I guess you will have to buy the images on the Russian or Asian market...
Think about it that way: Before the golden age of MS Windows and MS Office people complained about infrequent crashes and buggy software and they were bloody right doing so.
Since Microsoft, everyone is chanting the mantra "it's all about software complexity".
Before Microsoft people joked about so-called banana-ware, meaning a product which ripened at the customer.
Make fair comparisons. Microsoft wasn't among the first companies to enter the market of multi-tasking capable graphical user interfaces. In fact, almost any other major player of those times had something faster, better, and less crash prone out.Since Microsoft this is the norm with almost all vendors. And who can blame them? A single "yeah, we are thinking about coming up with something similar" from Microsoft will effectively kill the market for any smaller competitor.
To pick up your car example: When other companies were already selling something like a Chevy Corvette, Microsoft entered the market with a Ford Model T, even worse, a faulty one -- and special glasses which made it look like a Corvette and plenty of promises.
Remember Windows 95? It took them at least until W2K to come up with a product with lived up to the promises they made for Win95. Besides, they didn't earn themselves a reputation for being ultra fast with bug fixes, even mission critical ones.
That is the reason why people bash Microsoft.
For example, I had an eye surgery done in 2000. No lens correction but strabism (cross-eyedness), i.e. they cut the steering muscles off my left eyeball, shortened it on one side, stretched it on the other and sewed them back to the proper place.
It was still possible to correct using glasses for the sake of having very small (like 1 inch in diameter) but already think (~0.5 inch) ones. Not wearing them gave me double vision. That part is fixed now, but I still suffer from heavy astigmatism and will target this with another eye surgery when they have long term studies about the effects of the various surgery methods. So far I'll not further mess around with my eyes (the strabism part was scary enough...), though.
Maybe you're not wearing glasses or have only mild far/nearsightedness w/o any astigmatism, so all you need the glasses for is maybe reading, computer work, and driving. But there are others (like me) who need to put on glasses for "true" vision -- and this, frankly, sucks.
Getting rid of that "viewing prosthesis" is far beyond cosmetic surgery...
Got me there. Originally, I saw the German version and never caught it on pay TV during my US times.
But apart from that, how the heck are those 3 shells used?
Assume we have that 16km long fiber and solved the problem, that the fiber won't curl up around earth.
We lift up some cargo to the remote point, let it rotate until it faces the desired destination -- and then cut off the fiber and let the cargo flow accelerated by earth rotation. Might be interesting for probes where travel time is not a real issue.
And if we do it with lot/heavy enough stuff, then we even get longer days as a side effect :)
</sci-fi mode>
You might not be aware of this, but one reason for certain pay TV stations being hacked as easily as it was (and I'm not talking about analog "encryption") was that sufficient information leaked.
And as stated elsewhere: There's still the analog output. Sure, they might put have in some watermarking. They most likely did. But I frankly doubt that there is something like *robust* watermarking for audio and video without significantly impair the signal quality, thus causing noticeable artefacts. (If there is, I'd love to see a pointer to scientifical papers, cause I'm quite interested in such methods myself.)
All I need for registering a domain is some "good" credit card. That and a "signed" (meaning that I either send a scan or photo of the signed document) contract was all it needed the last time I was registering a domain. And next time I register a domain with that very registrar all I need to do is clicking on "ok". And that one's even considered serious...
To prove if someone is guilty of spamming, I only need to check my inbox and spam folder... So for me that whois-based filter would work. On a larger scale, this could also be implemented into services like Spamhaus RBL.
What I've noticed is that a fair amount of spam mails still feature .com addresses, and to an increasing amount .biz and .info (I'm already thinking of banning all incoming email which contains a link of any sort to .biz and .info sites...)
What I also noticed is, that the domain names get weirder and weirder. So after all, I also see a responsibility on the domain registrar's site. If someone is registering domains like amsnbxtr.com, amsnbzxw.com, mnevbdsx.com, msnbsczx.com, wiggle6767tabs.us, or coolness6579meds.us it doesn't take much brains to guess the future use and sane registrars would probably deny requests if a bunch of nonsensical domain registrations comes in -- especially after they found spam pointing to the last batch of domain registrations.
So the registration comes from fishy registrars, fine. Then just block all addresses which are registered through one of these registrars... The above examples, for instance, point to just two distinct registrars.
Next generation spam filtering might just mean parsing the incoming mail for the occurrence of links, checking those domains against whois and the whois result against a badlist of known fishy registrars.
It's crude. It's unelegant. But it surely ruins the business of both, the spammer and the greedy registrars who just care for registration fees.
All this without breaking any sort of encryption, thus no bright spark needed but just a set of operational amplifiers to make the signals compatible with your soundcard's MIC IN jack.
And I always thought the "I" in ISS stood for "international".
It isn't.
It's a macro-assembler.
What else than "incremental patches" does Microsoft deliver, especially in the days where there is no week with new IE and OE exploits being announced and eventually (after months) being fixed?
The reason why "Windows is still the desktop OS of choice" is just because it comes preinstalled with any vanilla PC you can buy out there. Because it will run the games people copy from their friends. Because it runs Microsoft Office.
If Microsoft released Office for Linux I'm more than sure that numerous offices will switch to Linux and if it's just to escape the virus race which cost them plenty of time, money, and nerves.
On a Unix system, however, there's just directories, executables, and arbitrary data files (yes, yes, and special files to be found in /dev and /proc). You would expect a certain set of commands available to find your way through the file system, but already the shell comes in a gazillion of flavors.
So I don't think Joe User would benefit from such an ncurses thingy which blasts tons of commands into his face...
But maybe there's an ncurses version of xman?
However, nothing is keeping you from hacking together your own homebrew solution based on e.g. open source. After all, we're not talking about breaking a copy protection here but rather parsing and interpreting an open protocol...