Great! According to the article the messages can last up to three minutes. So now you are telling me that I'm going to get stuck behind this jackass of a self-important Lexus driver at a traffic light for three minutes while they listen to a very important message from a Nigerian Prince requesting assistance?
Correction (or emphasis perhaps, since you did mention it), as I had a pair of glasses as well, they worked IF the game used the Z buffer 'correctly'. However many games did wacky stuff with their UI's and the Z buffer, making it do all sorts of wacky stuff.
I think I remember one game had set the "base" of the UI to be at the bottom, while all the interactive parts were at the top, so while it looked correctly without the glasses you had an UI that looked as if it were sunk well below the 'game window' and the dials and gauges are such were floating in the air. What's more, they weren't just floating above the spots they would have had on the base, but offset.
Another game, for some reason, had every other element at a different level, meaning while (again) the UI looked normal without the glasses, it looked like something Escher and Dali would have co-created while on LSD.
You still do not get around the point that unless his OpenID provider is setup to silently authorize you every time you login in using it, you have to hack it each time you authorize yourself. Granted, the last time I remember logging into Slashdot was over a year ago, but the issue is still the same.
The "Magic URL" tells the consumer who to talk to to get the promise that you are RMS, it doesn't in itself promise that you are RMS. Your attack vector breaks the moment RMS 'fixes' his authentication by either switching providers or just changing account info on it.
Hi, my name is Kandi, and hopefully the commerical you just saw interested you in jumpstarting your new career as a professional terrorist. It's easy, and in six months you'll be walking down the isle of airlines causing bomb scares left and right.
Free markets are unicorns of the economic world. If you can ever find a real one (as opposed to a pony with a horn superglued to their forehead) then according to the wonderful fairy tales told about them, you should be set for life.
The problem is, even should such a beast exist, it will quickly devolve into the pony with a faux horn.
The true translation of Laissez-faire should really be: "Only let the people running the market make the regulations, and only the ones that benefit them." As opposed to "Don't let there be any regulations." Because that is ultimately what any true free market devolves into, a caldron of protectionism laws enacted to ensure that no one can ever take power from the 'ruling' party in the market. And the only way to change the rules, is to change the rulers.
I've not read a more ignorant, mis-informed, and downright stupid account of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, than yours.
It did not end because the free market got tired of losing money. It ended because the Federal Government came in (in the form of the Supreme Court) and smacked them upside the head. Said:"Idiots, we already told you to stop that, do it. Now!"
There had been two previous cases where someone did the exact same thing as Rosa Parks and the legal decision had been in their favor.
What the 'free' market did was attempt to use the civic governments to crack down on the boycott. They tried to force insurance companys to drop the policies of the folk carpooling. They attempted to fine the taxi drivers who were charging fares the same amount as the normal bus fare. They then firebombed two people's houses (including MLK's) and four black churches. They physically attacked the boycotters.
Not ONCE did they say "Oh dear, we are losing money, we should stop this crazy thing and act like human beings"
Who decided to 'pull the plane over' and kick them of? The pilot.
Who pays the pilot? The airline.
Who decided, once they were cleared by the FBI, that they couldn't get back on that plane? The airline.
Who decided, once they couldn't get on that flight, that they couldn't get on any AirTran flight? The airline.
Do I give a fuck about the other passengers or what they may or may not have started? No. The world is full of clueless twits. The difference between them and the airline's clueless twits is that they weren't the ones exerting their authority in the matter to make things worse.
So let me get this straight, you get on a plane and share your opinion that you'd rather not sit next to the engine, because it's not a safe spot in an accident, and you expect to be taken off of the flight, reported to the FBI, and embarrassed by being refused to be allowed back on or to take another flight later on despite the fact that you've been screened a second time and cleared by the FBI.
That, according to you, is a level headed response? An appropriate response?
Are you one of those folk who complain that rape victims had it coming, they should have known not to do whatever it was that caused them to catch the rapist's eye?
You must not be Christian. After all, aren't we all sinners in the eyes of the Lord? Google, being formed of many many people, must therefore be full of sin. Sin is evil. If Google is full of sin, then it must be full of evil.
I have a wired mouse and keyboard and I would love to upgrade to wireless.
However, since most of the 'acceptable' mice and keyboards I've found either have no wireless counterpart or their wireless version has custom battery packs instead of a spot for rechargable AA's. So I'm still wired.
Wireless means I no longer get frustrated by having a long FPS session interupted by the mouse wire getting caught on something and I'm suddenly trying to jerk it loose instead of aiming.
Wireless means I'm that much closer to having a computer desk that doesn't look like Chthulu and a mutated octopus have crawled behind it and are attempting to swap spit.
Wireless means that I can actually move the keyboard and the mouse around based on where it would be convienent and comfortable to place them as oppose to "where their wires aren't in the way".
There are plenty of reasons to go wireless, I'm just not interested in doing it in a way that ensures that I have to take a step down in quality or that I have to keep buying new equipment every year to replace the ones with dead batteries.
laser is optical (they use infrared LEDs instead visible light ones)
bluetrack is optical (they use a blue light LED and 'better quality optics')
The only benefits to bluetrack are that they use a custom CMOS chip instead of off the shelf items and use (supposidly) better optics. They also claim that the blue LED allows a better contrast image for their sensors, likening it to the blue lights used by CSI teams. But that sound more like market talk than actual reality.
And to add to your suggestion, people looking for Freespace who missed it the first time it came around should look at Grand Old Games (at work, sorry can't link to it) a group that legally repackage old games to be playable on newer computers. Think Steam for antiqueware. They have both 1&2 of the Freespace series among other great classics.
Not only did everything I ordered from Amazon get there on time. But when the things my folks ordered for me got returned as undeliverable because the moron of a substitute postman covering their route didn't feel like getting out of his toy car during a rain storm and didn't think to just hold them at the post office; Amazon not only reshipped a new order with a 24 hour turn around and bumped it up to 1st day delivery via UPS, all for free. (Man that's a run on sentence from hell.)
The Supreme Court of today is not the same one as the one in 2002. And there have been plenty of instances where one group said no, and a later group said yes. There are two new folk and two people who left. Both of these things has skewed the way the court looks at things in a vastly different way that the 2002 one did.
I'm hoping the same as you, but I don't think this is going to be a quite the slam dunk as you seem to think it will be.
You are missing the point here. The agreement in question is not a non-compete signed by the employee. It is a non-solicit signed by another company you work with. Doesn't matter what/if the employee has signed. RIM is specifically barred from offering employment.
A non-compete is a very very hard thing to enforce. A non-solicit is a very very easy thing to enforce. You aren't preventing the employee from accepting a job, you are preventing the other company from ever offering it.
Case law upholding a non-solicit? (I.e. you can't hire our employees or our ex-employees?) Damn, those are dime a dozen. I'm not about to tell you how many the company I work for have enforced against our clients and against employees leaving to work for our clients.
That's about ubiquitous enough that you should be able to Google it.
Start with a small set to see the logic if you need to.
Say just (2, 3, and 5). All prime numbers.
Now the product of 2, 3, and 5 is 30. Add 1 to this and you get 31.
31 is not divisable by 2. The closest you can get to 31 in mulitples of two is 30 (which is 3 times 5 times... you guessed it 2.) and you have 1 left over.
31 is not divisable by 3. It's the same as 2. The closest you get is 30 (2 times 5 times... 3!) and you have 1 left over.
The same goes for 5. Because you are adding 1 to the product of all three, you can't divide into the result cleanly.
This is going to be the same for any group of prime numbers you pick. By adding 1 to their product, the result can't be broken down cleanly as a product of those numbers. You'll always be 1 away (because you actually took their product and added 1).
Now the definition of a prime number is a number that can only be cleanly divided by two numbers. Itself and 1. Every other number has more possible divisors. As a result of this, every number out there is either a prime, because you can't divide something into it, or a product of primes.
31 therefore is either a prime number itself, or it can be broken down into a product of prime numbers.
But we've shown that the prime numbers in our list can't be the primes that do that, since none of them can divide into our result cleanly.
That means, by default, our group of numbers can't contain all the prime numbers. Either they are missing our result (and btw, 31 is a prime) or they are missing the prime factors of our result. And since this works for any group of prime numbers you can put together, effectively you've just proven that the actual set of prime numbers itself is infinite.
The oldest known proof for the statement that there are infinitely many prime numbers is given by the Greek mathematician Euclid in his Elements (Book IX, Proposition 20). Euclid states the result as "there are more than any given [finite] number of primes", and his proof is essentially the following:
Consider any finite set of primes. Multiply all of them together and add 1 (see Euclid number). The resulting number is not divisible by any of the primes in the finite set we considered, because dividing by any of these would give a remainder of 1. Because all non-prime numbers can be decomposed into a product of underlying primes, then either this resultant number is prime itself, or there is a prime number or prime numbers which the resultant number could be decomposed into but are not in the original finite set of primes. Either way, there is at least one more prime that was not in the finite set we started with. This argument applies no matter what finite set we began with. So there are more primes than any given finite number.
Slashdot Mirror
Great! According to the article the messages can last up to three minutes. So now you are telling me that I'm going to get stuck behind this jackass of a self-important Lexus driver at a traffic light for three minutes while they listen to a very important message from a Nigerian Prince requesting assistance?
Correction (or emphasis perhaps, since you did mention it), as I had a pair of glasses as well, they worked IF the game used the Z buffer 'correctly'. However many games did wacky stuff with their UI's and the Z buffer, making it do all sorts of wacky stuff.
I think I remember one game had set the "base" of the UI to be at the bottom, while all the interactive parts were at the top, so while it looked correctly without the glasses you had an UI that looked as if it were sunk well below the 'game window' and the dials and gauges are such were floating in the air. What's more, they weren't just floating above the spots they would have had on the base, but offset.
Another game, for some reason, had every other element at a different level, meaning while (again) the UI looked normal without the glasses, it looked like something Escher and Dali would have co-created while on LSD.
You still do not get around the point that unless his OpenID provider is setup to silently authorize you every time you login in using it, you have to hack it each time you authorize yourself. Granted, the last time I remember logging into Slashdot was over a year ago, but the issue is still the same.
The "Magic URL" tells the consumer who to talk to to get the promise that you are RMS, it doesn't in itself promise that you are RMS. Your attack vector breaks the moment RMS 'fixes' his authentication by either switching providers or just changing account info on it.
Hi, my name is Kandi, and hopefully the commerical you just saw interested you in jumpstarting your new career as a professional terrorist. It's easy, and in six months you'll be walking down the isle of airlines causing bomb scares left and right.
Call now, operators are standing by.
Free markets are unicorns of the economic world. If you can ever find a real one (as opposed to a pony with a horn superglued to their forehead) then according to the wonderful fairy tales told about them, you should be set for life.
The problem is, even should such a beast exist, it will quickly devolve into the pony with a faux horn.
The true translation of Laissez-faire should really be: "Only let the people running the market make the regulations, and only the ones that benefit them." As opposed to "Don't let there be any regulations." Because that is ultimately what any true free market devolves into, a caldron of protectionism laws enacted to ensure that no one can ever take power from the 'ruling' party in the market. And the only way to change the rules, is to change the rulers.
I've not read a more ignorant, mis-informed, and downright stupid account of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, than yours.
It did not end because the free market got tired of losing money. It ended because the Federal Government came in (in the form of the Supreme Court) and smacked them upside the head. Said:"Idiots, we already told you to stop that, do it. Now!"
There had been two previous cases where someone did the exact same thing as Rosa Parks and the legal decision had been in their favor.
What the 'free' market did was attempt to use the civic governments to crack down on the boycott. They tried to force insurance companys to drop the policies of the folk carpooling. They attempted to fine the taxi drivers who were charging fares the same amount as the normal bus fare. They then firebombed two people's houses (including MLK's) and four black churches. They physically attacked the boycotters.
Not ONCE did they say "Oh dear, we are losing money, we should stop this crazy thing and act like human beings"
Who decided to 'pull the plane over' and kick them of? The pilot.
Who pays the pilot? The airline.
Who decided, once they were cleared by the FBI, that they couldn't get back on that plane? The airline.
Who decided, once they couldn't get on that flight, that they couldn't get on any AirTran flight? The airline.
Do I give a fuck about the other passengers or what they may or may not have started? No. The world is full of clueless twits. The difference between them and the airline's clueless twits is that they weren't the ones exerting their authority in the matter to make things worse.
So let me get this straight, you get on a plane and share your opinion that you'd rather not sit next to the engine, because it's not a safe spot in an accident, and you expect to be taken off of the flight, reported to the FBI, and embarrassed by being refused to be allowed back on or to take another flight later on despite the fact that you've been screened a second time and cleared by the FBI.
That, according to you, is a level headed response? An appropriate response?
Are you one of those folk who complain that rape victims had it coming, they should have known not to do whatever it was that caused them to catch the rapist's eye?
You must not be Christian. After all, aren't we all sinners in the eyes of the Lord? Google, being formed of many many people, must therefore be full of sin. Sin is evil. If Google is full of sin, then it must be full of evil.
Therefore, Google is evil.
And so am I... ;)
Ice? ICE! This is ex-Ice...
Sir, turn in your geek badge at the door. We will mail your belongings later.
I have a wired mouse and keyboard and I would love to upgrade to wireless.
However, since most of the 'acceptable' mice and keyboards I've found either have no wireless counterpart or their wireless version has custom battery packs instead of a spot for rechargable AA's. So I'm still wired.
Wireless means I no longer get frustrated by having a long FPS session interupted by the mouse wire getting caught on something and I'm suddenly trying to jerk it loose instead of aiming.
Wireless means I'm that much closer to having a computer desk that doesn't look like Chthulu and a mutated octopus have crawled behind it and are attempting to swap spit.
Wireless means that I can actually move the keyboard and the mouse around based on where it would be convienent and comfortable to place them as oppose to "where their wires aren't in the way".
There are plenty of reasons to go wireless, I'm just not interested in doing it in a way that ensures that I have to take a step down in quality or that I have to keep buying new equipment every year to replace the ones with dead batteries.
And of the two, which do you think "gaming mice" are targeted for?
And of the two, which do you think actually worry enough about their gaming that they'd put down hard cash for a "gaming mouse"?
Are you sensing a trend?
It would be worthless even with that.
The only benefits to bluetrack are that they use a custom CMOS chip instead of off the shelf items and use (supposidly) better optics. They also claim that the blue LED allows a better contrast image for their sensors, likening it to the blue lights used by CSI teams. But that sound more like market talk than actual reality.
Why do they name the drivers? And why Alan Cox? Is it one of those easter eggs where naming your file a certain way does something?
Which is why they are now trying to make the PS3 into the "everything machine".
Give a man a match, provide him light for a second.
Set a man on fire, provide him light for the rest of his life.
And for gods sake, networked co-op play!
And to add to your suggestion, people looking for Freespace who missed it the first time it came around should look at Grand Old Games (at work, sorry can't link to it) a group that legally repackage old games to be playable on newer computers. Think Steam for antiqueware. They have both 1&2 of the Freespace series among other great classics.
Don't know if the X-Wing saga is there, sorry.
Not only did everything I ordered from Amazon get there on time. But when the things my folks ordered for me got returned as undeliverable because the moron of a substitute postman covering their route didn't feel like getting out of his toy car during a rain storm and didn't think to just hold them at the post office; Amazon not only reshipped a new order with a 24 hour turn around and bumped it up to 1st day delivery via UPS, all for free. (Man that's a run on sentence from hell.)
The Supreme Court of today is not the same one as the one in 2002. And there have been plenty of instances where one group said no, and a later group said yes. There are two new folk and two people who left. Both of these things has skewed the way the court looks at things in a vastly different way that the 2002 one did.
I'm hoping the same as you, but I don't think this is going to be a quite the slam dunk as you seem to think it will be.
You are missing the point here. The agreement in question is not a non-compete signed by the employee. It is a non-solicit signed by another company you work with. Doesn't matter what/if the employee has signed. RIM is specifically barred from offering employment.
A non-compete is a very very hard thing to enforce. A non-solicit is a very very easy thing to enforce. You aren't preventing the employee from accepting a job, you are preventing the other company from ever offering it.
Case law upholding a non-solicit? (I.e. you can't hire our employees or our ex-employees?) Damn, those are dime a dozen. I'm not about to tell you how many the company I work for have enforced against our clients and against employees leaving to work for our clients.
That's about ubiquitous enough that you should be able to Google it.
Start with a small set to see the logic if you need to.
Say just (2, 3, and 5). All prime numbers.
Now the product of 2, 3, and 5 is 30. Add 1 to this and you get 31.
31 is not divisable by 2. The closest you can get to 31 in mulitples of two is 30 (which is 3 times 5 times... you guessed it 2.) and you have 1 left over.
31 is not divisable by 3. It's the same as 2. The closest you get is 30 (2 times 5 times... 3!) and you have 1 left over.
The same goes for 5. Because you are adding 1 to the product of all three, you can't divide into the result cleanly.
This is going to be the same for any group of prime numbers you pick. By adding 1 to their product, the result can't be broken down cleanly as a product of those numbers. You'll always be 1 away (because you actually took their product and added 1).
Now the definition of a prime number is a number that can only be cleanly divided by two numbers. Itself and 1. Every other number has more possible divisors. As a result of this, every number out there is either a prime, because you can't divide something into it, or a product of primes.
31 therefore is either a prime number itself, or it can be broken down into a product of prime numbers.
But we've shown that the prime numbers in our list can't be the primes that do that, since none of them can divide into our result cleanly.
That means, by default, our group of numbers can't contain all the prime numbers. Either they are missing our result (and btw, 31 is a prime) or they are missing the prime factors of our result. And since this works for any group of prime numbers you can put together, effectively you've just proven that the actual set of prime numbers itself is infinite.
More to the point, wouldn't you like to know why they released it at 2:44pm instead of 2:45pm?
What do they know that we don't?
Who is lurking in the shadows outside your window?
Was that thump just a wild varmit messing around outside, or...
BOOOO!
There are infinitely many prime numbers.