Man, the commercials made that look awesome, and I gave into the hype and got my own light-sensing board with some switches.::yawn::
Long story short, it "stinked," but I found the unadvertised joystick part of it highly fascinated. It had central post that sort of rested in a depresson on the base and it had two buttons, when you pressed them they made a plastic part on the bottom move. Sort of like a choke on a carbruetor, and this movment activated a white part/black part thing that in turn activated on of the sensors (of whichever side you pressed).
Granted I was and will always be excited by odd shinny objects the U-Force in general was a total bust, but I never owned tyson's punch out which seemed to be what the commercials hyped the most so perhaps I missed out on the intended experience.
Ummm... I see you added "Update: forgot to enable comments;P" to it, but I'm still not seeing a reply. For the record, I don't really have anything to say there since I haven't seen past Matrix Release 1.0, but unless there's something wrong with slashcode, comments just aren't being enabled. I just thought you'd like to know something got borked.
Since you've friended me I can't see how even picking one of thoes sub-set based enabling of comments would exclude me.
The government mind-rays will be scrambled by the high-energy power lines.
What makes you think the power lines aren't the real antennas and the higher doses of the mind rays are the real cause of these health issues? Everyone knows electricity flows from the wall though the power of elves.
Most likely he'll want a piece of software which reads 'n' webcams in realtime and pastes them together (solving any refresh, synchronisation, resolution and format problems) and then presents that stream as a new, third aggregated webcam.
You forgot free, by tomorrow, and with as little work from himself as possible.
I plead alignment to the flakes, of the united snakes of a merry cow. And to the Republicans, for which the scam, one nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine of owls.
It's there because Sun makes type 6 keyboards with a PC layout and that's where they put the Esc key. Since they postition has no use in sun land and they didn't want to make another keyboard process so they fill the hole with a blank key.
I have taken a pen to mine and labeled it "Any."
And, as I had made in a previous post on this topic:
My other hypothesis is that this key has a tie-in to solaris and it monitors user gruntle level. As a user begins to lose their gruntles (and become disgruntled) they bash on the keyboard, tripping this key. Once a user reaches a certain level their account should be locked. Unfortunitly all of my sun training and years as admin never demonistrated how to incorporate this with the business plan. *sigh* I guess it's just the any key.
I have a Sun Type 6 (non-usb) keyboard that has the any key right betwen the help and the F1 keys. It's just above Esc.
Mind you it's a completely blank key that I have never found a use for so I wrote 'any' on it (figuring it must be the any key).
My other hypothesis is that this key has a tie-in to solaris and it monitors user gruntle level. As a user begins to lose their gruntles (and become disgruntled) they bash on the keyboard, tripping this key. Once a user reaches a certain level their account should be locked. Unfortunitly all of my sun training and years as admin never demonistrated how to incorporate this with the business plan. *sigh* I guess it's just the any key.
Since you seem to be arguing that spam is popular, I'd suggest you look up what that term means.
I suggest you look up what relative means as popularity is (as I keep saying) entirely relative. If spam was unpopular to everyone it would not exist. If there exists a set of people for which spam is popular it will continue.
If you're going to argue that spam is popular because a few people do it then you aren't worth the time.
Again, you confuse me, you are agreeing with me that a few people do it and seem to enjoy doing it? If you conceed that point I fail to see how you can not judge spam to be popular to that group.
Now, I'm still waiting to hear how your magic technology is going to stop spam. Since you seem to know how to solve that one how about we just stick to that topic and not the apparently contraversial relative popularity of spam.
You also say that if it isn't popular we shouldn't worry about it.
Ahem, where do I say that? I was thinking you had an actual thought about the topic until I hit that line, now I know you're just trolling me. I did mention "Wait, you've got me here, I thought you said earlier it was unpopular, so why should we worry?" in reference to your contradictory statements, if you wish to take what I say out of context then I don't see how I can continue a discussion about things. If on the other hand you were just a little mistaken it sure seems now that you are getting the point that I made earlier. Rape is unpopular to many of society, yet it continues. I sure wish I didn't continue, but I can't fix that. Thus, you can judge from that last statement that rape is unpopular with me. However, as you stated rape continues, does this not logically imply that for some segment of the population rape is something they enjoy? I do not see how you could argue otherwise, it's the nature of the beast. Thus, there exists a population for which rape is popular. Period. This is unfortunite, and as I originally stated we can make rape illegal, but that doesn't make it unpopular. In the same way we can make spam illegal, but it won't make it unpopular.
If there is something very important to someone, even if it is illegal, they may continue doing it. Look at speeding, pot use, and drunk driving; these three things are illegal and are relatively quite popular. The same holds true for rape and spam, however (as I keep saying, and you keep missing) the popularity it entirely relative. Now, since this point seems difficult for you let me spell out something so you don't infer something incorrect: no, I am not saying that all pot heads rape people or all spammers speed. Set theory seems a little lost on you so I just wanted to make that clear.
I'm assuming it's just a symantics difference we are having. You seem to think that if you are not in the set of people who find something popular then it therefore is completely and entirely "unpopular." Popularity is entirely relative. If you think something is wrong, or injust, then you are in the set of people to which it is unpopular, but as a whole that something is not unpopular. It is merely relatively unpopular. It should also be noted that general popularity changes with time. Look at prohibition, for a period of time in the US this concept was relatively largely popular, then it became relatively largely unpopular. For someone who remained in the set for which it is popular to claim that now anti-drinking laws are popular is just poor logic.
Perhaps you need me to say something that we probably are both agreeing on, but have that pesky semantics issue again. With a portion of the population spam is unpopular. This is evident in the fact of the request for anti-spam laws, spam filters, and even just discussion about how it is annoying. I think you may have misunderstood something, the way you posted last makes me think you feel I am in the set that looks at spam as popular. I am not, I dislike spam. But, as I said earlier, just because
I'd just like to add a few things, while the technology is impossible the laws typically don't stop things either, but there is a subtle difference between infinitely improbably and entirely impossible.
Also, I saw you are into MailWasher, great. Good for you. But keep in mind something that works well now does not necessarily work without error tomorrow or next week.
You never clarify to whom it is unpopular, to you? to your grandmother? to your neighborhood pedafile? You then continue:...there are plenty of low-lifes who don't mind forcing their crap on millions of people
So, it seems to me you are implying that it is popular to at least these "low-lifes." Then how can you say it is unpopular?
Laws will never put an end to spam. But they will help to keep it to a managable level.
Wait, you've got me here, I thought you said earlier it was unpopular, so why should we worry?
Personally, I think technology will have a bigger long term effect than laws.
Ok, good, an opinion I can deal with here. It's my experience that we have had laws on the books and been dealing with them for hundreds of years (I'm speaking from a US-centric POV). This new fangled e-mail thing is so recent in the scope of laws it is laughable. To predict that laws will have less of a long term impact than technology I guess is one of those things you didn't clarify, but I read it in regards to society. If that's the case then I don't see your logic one bit. If, on the other hand, you are speaking specifically regarding SPAM and not society as a whole, then I think you are saying that some magic form of technology will entirely subside the flow of junk I get in my inbox. How will this magic technology work? For some reason I feel the answer to that last question will result in a discussion about the halting problem.
So, we should invest our time and effort into magic technology that is theoretically impossible rather than laws?
Thanks for the support, it's always good to know kind people are on the 'net to help. I found the thing I was looking for referred to more directly as The Corpse Flower and that was the name I most identify with it. Never heard of something with the specific "decaying fish" armoa, just the non-descript "flesh." Also of note a Corpse Flower is in bloom in California I beleive, and that made local news.
What's the flower that has that really hudge bud, only opens like every few years, and smells of rotted flesh? If memory serves me it is from the amazon rain forest. Anyone remember the name of that thing?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reminded of the U-Force for NES.
::yawn::
Man, the commercials made that look awesome, and I gave into the hype and got my own light-sensing board with some switches.
Long story short, it "stinked," but I found the unadvertised joystick part of it highly fascinated. It had central post that sort of rested in a depresson on the base and it had two buttons, when you pressed them they made a plastic part on the bottom move. Sort of like a choke on a carbruetor, and this movment activated a white part/black part thing that in turn activated on of the sensors (of whichever side you pressed).
Granted I was and will always be excited by odd shinny objects the U-Force in general was a total bust, but I never owned tyson's punch out which seemed to be what the commercials hyped the most so perhaps I missed out on the intended experience.
I just go to here (https://slashdot.org/~GreyWolf3000/journal/51382) and it just ends with your text and linkage to "list all journal entries."
That's it, end of story, do not pass Go, go not collect $200.
Ummm... I see you added "Update: forgot to enable comments ;P" to it, but I'm still not seeing a reply. For the record, I don't really have anything to say there since I haven't seen past Matrix Release 1.0, but unless there's something wrong with slashcode, comments just aren't being enabled. I just thought you'd like to know something got borked.
Since you've friended me I can't see how even picking one of thoes sub-set based enabling of comments would exclude me.
mostly OT: but FYI, your latest JE doesn't have comments enabled, and it sure looks like you were hoping for a discussion to start.
there is *no* scientific evidence that ... sending your kids to a WiFi enabled school will hurt anyone.
Won't anyone think of the CAT5 industry! Please, think about the CAT5 industry, please!
(This political message brought to you by the Friends of the CAT5 Industry)
Ever study Aeolian vibration in power lines? That makes for an interesting hum.
The government mind-rays will be scrambled by the high-energy power lines.
What makes you think the power lines aren't the real antennas and the higher doses of the mind rays are the real cause of these health issues? Everyone knows electricity flows from the wall though the power of elves.
Most likely he'll want a piece of software which reads 'n' webcams in realtime and pastes them together (solving any refresh, synchronisation, resolution and format problems) and then presents that stream as a new, third aggregated webcam.
You forgot free, by tomorrow, and with as little work from himself as possible.
Nah, go for something like this:
I plead alignment to the flakes, of the united snakes of a merry cow. And to the Republicans, for which the scam, one nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine of owls.
It's there because Sun makes type 6 keyboards with a PC layout and that's where they put the Esc key. Since they postition has no use in sun land and they didn't want to make another keyboard process so they fill the hole with a blank key.
I have taken a pen to mine and labeled it "Any."
And, as I had made in a previous post on this topic:
My other hypothesis is that this key has a tie-in to solaris and it monitors user gruntle level. As a user begins to lose their gruntles (and become disgruntled) they bash on the keyboard, tripping this key. Once a user reaches a certain level their account should be locked. Unfortunitly all of my sun training and years as admin never demonistrated how to incorporate this with the business plan. *sigh* I guess it's just the any key.
I have a Sun Type 6 (non-usb) keyboard that has the any key right betwen the help and the F1 keys. It's just above Esc.
Mind you it's a completely blank key that I have never found a use for so I wrote 'any' on it (figuring it must be the any key).
My other hypothesis is that this key has a tie-in to solaris and it monitors user gruntle level. As a user begins to lose their gruntles (and become disgruntled) they bash on the keyboard, tripping this key. Once a user reaches a certain level their account should be locked. Unfortunitly all of my sun training and years as admin never demonistrated how to incorporate this with the business plan. *sigh* I guess it's just the any key.
PA office supplies of beer and peanuts: Check
We'll leave the light on for you.
the article was probably submitted, and likely was approved, hours before then.
At what time do you suspect it was proof-read and the facts checked? Oh, wait, never mind. I forgot where I was for a second.
Was the typo retained in the headline just to screw up screenreaders?
I've heard the blind refer to "screenreaders" as "sighties" and it always gave me a chuckle.
Yes, the CGNU is supposed to have sound and the sound is what really makes for the most humor.
Ok, so it emerged and worked and all, but how long did that process take? Emerging for me has been slow.
Go here for the first SB question and feel free to continue reading more. I highly recomend the CGNU one for good humor for nubes.
Dear SB, how do you type with boxing gloves on?
sorry, I just saw your signature of "SB" and I had to say something, my appologies if you don't understand what I'm posting about.
Since you seem to be arguing that spam is popular, I'd suggest you look up what that term means.
I suggest you look up what relative means as popularity is (as I keep saying) entirely relative. If spam was unpopular to everyone it would not exist. If there exists a set of people for which spam is popular it will continue.
If you're going to argue that spam is popular because a few people do it then you aren't worth the time.
Again, you confuse me, you are agreeing with me that a few people do it and seem to enjoy doing it? If you conceed that point I fail to see how you can not judge spam to be popular to that group.
Now, I'm still waiting to hear how your magic technology is going to stop spam. Since you seem to know how to solve that one how about we just stick to that topic and not the apparently contraversial relative popularity of spam.
You also say that if it isn't popular we shouldn't worry about it.
Ahem, where do I say that? I was thinking you had an actual thought about the topic until I hit that line, now I know you're just trolling me. I did mention "Wait, you've got me here, I thought you said earlier it was unpopular, so why should we worry?" in reference to your contradictory statements, if you wish to take what I say out of context then I don't see how I can continue a discussion about things. If on the other hand you were just a little mistaken it sure seems now that you are getting the point that I made earlier. Rape is unpopular to many of society, yet it continues. I sure wish I didn't continue, but I can't fix that. Thus, you can judge from that last statement that rape is unpopular with me. However, as you stated rape continues, does this not logically imply that for some segment of the population rape is something they enjoy? I do not see how you could argue otherwise, it's the nature of the beast. Thus, there exists a population for which rape is popular. Period. This is unfortunite, and as I originally stated we can make rape illegal, but that doesn't make it unpopular. In the same way we can make spam illegal, but it won't make it unpopular.
If there is something very important to someone, even if it is illegal, they may continue doing it. Look at speeding, pot use, and drunk driving; these three things are illegal and are relatively quite popular. The same holds true for rape and spam, however (as I keep saying, and you keep missing) the popularity it entirely relative. Now, since this point seems difficult for you let me spell out something so you don't infer something incorrect: no, I am not saying that all pot heads rape people or all spammers speed. Set theory seems a little lost on you so I just wanted to make that clear.
I'm assuming it's just a symantics difference we are having. You seem to think that if you are not in the set of people who find something popular then it therefore is completely and entirely "unpopular." Popularity is entirely relative. If you think something is wrong, or injust, then you are in the set of people to which it is unpopular, but as a whole that something is not unpopular. It is merely relatively unpopular. It should also be noted that general popularity changes with time. Look at prohibition, for a period of time in the US this concept was relatively largely popular, then it became relatively largely unpopular. For someone who remained in the set for which it is popular to claim that now anti-drinking laws are popular is just poor logic.
Perhaps you need me to say something that we probably are both agreeing on, but have that pesky semantics issue again. With a portion of the population spam is unpopular. This is evident in the fact of the request for anti-spam laws, spam filters, and even just discussion about how it is annoying. I think you may have misunderstood something, the way you posted last makes me think you feel I am in the set that looks at spam as popular. I am not, I dislike spam. But, as I said earlier, just because
I'd just like to add a few things, while the technology is impossible the laws typically don't stop things either, but there is a subtle difference between infinitely improbably and entirely impossible.
Also, I saw you are into MailWasher, great. Good for you. But keep in mind something that works well now does not necessarily work without error tomorrow or next week.
You confuse me. Popularity is entirely relative.
...there are plenty of low-lifes who don't mind forcing their crap on millions of people
Spam is already unpopular.
You never clarify to whom it is unpopular, to you? to your grandmother? to your neighborhood pedafile? You then continue:
So, it seems to me you are implying that it is popular to at least these "low-lifes." Then how can you say it is unpopular?
Laws will never put an end to spam. But they will help to keep it to a managable level.
Wait, you've got me here, I thought you said earlier it was unpopular, so why should we worry?
Personally, I think technology will have a bigger long term effect than laws.
Ok, good, an opinion I can deal with here. It's my experience that we have had laws on the books and been dealing with them for hundreds of years (I'm speaking from a US-centric POV). This new fangled e-mail thing is so recent in the scope of laws it is laughable. To predict that laws will have less of a long term impact than technology I guess is one of those things you didn't clarify, but I read it in regards to society. If that's the case then I don't see your logic one bit. If, on the other hand, you are speaking specifically regarding SPAM and not society as a whole, then I think you are saying that some magic form of technology will entirely subside the flow of junk I get in my inbox. How will this magic technology work? For some reason I feel the answer to that last question will result in a discussion about the halting problem.
So, we should invest our time and effort into magic technology that is theoretically impossible rather than laws?
Would laws work?
You can make something illegal, but you can't make it unpopular.
Are you a fan of Group X - Mario Twins?
Thanks for the support, it's always good to know kind people are on the 'net to help. I found the thing I was looking for referred to more directly as The Corpse Flower and that was the name I most identify with it. Never heard of something with the specific "decaying fish" armoa, just the non-descript "flesh." Also of note a Corpse Flower is in bloom in California I beleive, and that made local news.
Thanks for your help.
What's the flower that has that really hudge bud, only opens like every few years, and smells of rotted flesh? If memory serves me it is from the amazon rain forest. Anyone remember the name of that thing?
I know one day the Earth's luck will run out and my buried remains will be thrown all over space
What makes you so sure you won't be eaten by a conqueroring race?