I don't understand why they're trying to shape it after a dragonfly- There are more efficient ways of getting around the air than flapping wings. I mean, yeah, I get that it would be cool to have one that actually looked like a dragonfly for spying and such, but for getting into dangerous or hard to reach places it shouldn't be designed this way.
Yeah, the millions of species of insect and bird have got a lot to learn from us land lubbers. I mean, hovering in one position is a piece of cake for our mechanical devices, so much so that we can get a flight to anywhere we want and we don't need a runway. Oh, wait, we can't unless we use a helicopter, which is slow in the horizontal plane and noisy and fuel hungry. Living things manipulate the air in much more elegant and finely controlled ways than anything man has produced. We mainly just force our way through it.
I can't find the word autonomous anywhere in TFA and it's not surprising, considering that it's radio controlled. They "may" make it capable of self guidance in future, but at the moment it's not autonomous. Nice long word though Roland ! Maybe you meant eponymous ?
"but democracies claims that they exist to protect the general population" Yeah "protect" like in the phrase "protection racket". Besides which, democracy is not designed to "protect" the general population - it is designed to allow governance that is representative of the majority's wishes. No "protection" or safety inherent in that. The police aren't there for your safety, they are there to catch criminals. The military aren't there for your safety, they are there to protect the government from outside aggressors. This repeated tagging of government activities as "for your safety" is a load of bollox, and leads to interception of your communications, categorisation of certain groups of people as undesirable, and a virtually unlimited line of credit from your pocket.
Don't think much of yourself, do you ? If I was working on designing and building a network, and I had it all up and running perfectly, should I destroy it because my boss tells me he has a better way ? What if I was a db admin who had already implemented a whole organisations internet requirements using (my|postgre)sql when a retarded buzzword compliant boss decided I should use access instead ? Should I delete everything and re-implement using access, or should I keep what I've done and start again separately with the access, so that when it all falls to shit I haven't lost anything ? It's hard to implement two network designs concurrently, so it becomes one or the other. Why suffer the complete waste of time involved by starting again for the sake of a damn fool manager ? Better to hold out for as long as you can, so that there is a chance of getting the correct solution adopted. If they want to sack you for NOT doing something detrimental to the system, then that's their own stupid fault. If you do it their way and get fired anyway (because their way doesn't work), what have you gained ? This guy wasn't holding anybody to ransom, making extortionate demands of his employers, or killing fluffy kittens. All he has done is refuse to give the keys to someone else's Ferrari (which he is ultimately responsible for) to a 14 year old crackhead joyrider. This seems to me to highlight the difference between good employees and time wasters. A good employee will always have the interests of the employer at heart, and will assume ownership of problems using those interests as a basis for operation. A time waster turns up every day, does their "job" to the letter, no more, but frequently less. They don't care about the end product or the delivery of such. They just do the hours and take the money. I know which camp I fall into, as I am used to being an employer and an employee. If I give someone a job, I would prefer they did it intelligently to achieve the best result as outlined in the requirements, not just do what I tell them, because if I have to tell you what is required for every little nuance, then I may as well have done the job myself. Would you really just hand over the keys to a system that you spent years building, to someone who outranks you but has no idea of the power contained in having access to those keys ? For all you know they might leave the passwords on a post-it note on their monitor. Final point - the civilian sector is NOT the army. You don't HAVE to comply with idiots above you, grow a pair and stand up for what's right. If you ARE right, then nothing too bad will happen. If you bend over for anybody with a title then you might get a title in the future, but at the cost of having any respect, self or otherwise. While it is only a movie, Crimson Tide demonstrates the principle quite well.
Why can't we have a system based on our own public keys ? You could upload your public key to whatever site you wanted, without needing to transmit a password at all, ever. Your password stays on your machine, and never gets shared over a network. This would eliminate needing multiple passwords for multiple sites. It works well for SSH, which I think is a tad more secure than having username/password pairs being sent to a myriad of different sites. Also, a public key based system, would allow you to be anyone you wanted on any site, as long as your public key could be validated against your private key. Kind of like a validated session cookie, you could visit a site and instantly be logged in as the user you specified originally. My password for my SSH private key is a fairly long sentence, but I only have to enter it once per local login session ( I use the SSH agent). If the sites I visit were to make use of that, then I would never need another username-password pair again. Of course this idea is not new and the principle can be found in many flavours of password storing agent software, but they all use their own standards, and they all transmit the stored password, rather than just sending a 1 or a 0.
Note I do not propose that the browser handles the verification, but that it hands off to the OS for verification, then takes the OS's response and transmits that to the web site concerned. Said website can then use a session cookie to track state as usual.
I stopped reading when you said "Many parts of the Bible are literal truth and we often have archeological evidence to back them up (See the Towns built by Solomon for example - archeologists on those digs actually use the book of Kings to know WHERE to dig for WHAT part), many parts are not." If I write a sci-fi book using the city of London as a location, but populate it with godzilla and flying cars, what relevance does London actually existing have to the rest of the story's veracity ?
Unless the whole document is true, then none of it can be relied upon to be an accurate representation of what went on at the time.
I am not a believer. However, considering that the main tenet of both Islam and Christianity is faith, then I would have to side with Islam as the more correct in its approach. Islam allows no idols, no images, no reliance on the physical. It is all based on faith that the teachings written down by Mohammed were those given to him by God. Mohammed was an ordinary man chosen to relay those teachings to the wider world. Christianity on the other hand, relies on Jesus Christ actually having existed, and not only that but he was the son of God, ie. divine himself. We see crucifixes, paintings, stained glass windows, jewellery and many other artifices designed to implant the images of christ in our minds. Not to mention the numerous "magic tricks" that Jesus had to perform to get a following in the first place. Where has the "faith" gone ? Surely if you believe, you don't need all that physical stuff. The idea is what is important, not the slavish dedication to a person, who has been made more important by elevation to divine status. Hirohito was a "god", did that make his actions (or those of his followers) divine ? It seems to me that Christianity has focused on merchandising rather than the movie, and has ended up being a mixture of many lies and misconceptions (most of which were deliberately designed to give more control to whichever party was spreading them), whereas the Quran is the same text as it always was. If it was given by God, who are we to translate / explain / re-interpret / redefine it ?
One thing I don't quite understand about Islam, is the split between Sunni and Shias. The Shias believe the family of Mohammed rule the Islamic world. That seems to me to be entirely at odds with Islam, but without knowing what the Sunni stance is on this matter it is hard to (intellectually) prefer one side over the other. The Shias also actively re-interpret the Quran and are the source of the cult of martyrdom, so I would have to go with the Sunnis as being more faithful to the intent of the Quran.
Judean Peoples Front ? Fuck off ! We're the Peoples Front of Judea ! Fucking Splitters !
Unattended charging ? Do you leave your phone charging on the sidewalk too ? Easy access to a large current at the roadside - what could possibly go wrong.
There is a write up on the register that suggests that while this may be Kaminskys attack, there is a possibility that it is another separate vulnerability.
However, the road is long and he who lives in the mind can easily go batters on the mind numbing crawl that is the highway.
Tell it like it is. I just quit driving for a living 2 weeks ago. You get a fair bit of abuse on the road, and after a while it gets very difficult to externalise it. So I was going mad, bit by bit. Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em. So the best thing for all concerned is to stop doing it. Currently trying to "re-invent" my old IT skills, but I'm a long way back. Better than driving though. It may be better in the states, at least on long runs.
You seem to be making the same mistake as most of the other posters. Just because you get rid of the mouse doesn't mean that you have to use different technology at the computer side of things. You can still have a pointer, so you still get single pixel accuracy, still get to select text accurately, and use very little energy. Why not (for example) get rid of the mouse itself and use your fingers. No, not touching the screen, just your fingers. Tap your index finger twice for double click, rub one finger against your thumb for scrolling, hold two fingers together for dragging etc etc. There are a few ways to implement this, the least useful being a glove as that might generate commands while typing, but against the desk you could use an electrostatic pad which is engaged by proximity, or if you're trying to keep it free of companion equipment you could maybe turn it on and off by a simpler gesture (clench fist, give it the bird WHY). The signal to the PC could be radio based, transmitted from a bracelet that is tuned to the electrical signals coming from your muscles. Why worry about thinking about moving the pointer, when you already think about it anyway, just at a very subconcious level. Take advantage of that low level thought, and use the signals it has generated to do useful work. Evolution, not revolution. There are already prosthetic devices that work off of signals from muscles, and their main handicap (sorry) is that they must move a mechanical device. Using such signals for a purely electrical control device should be easy.
You don't need to edit it at all. Quote the original as it is, then begin your answer restating the question correctly. That way, you are making the errors obvious to the poster of the question. They might then realise their mistakes. If you just change it without mention, then you're doing their work for them, why should they bother. And if you ignore it completely, you are accepting it and if no one gets alerted to their mistakes, why should they change them ?
eg. kavya asks 'How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?' Firstly, how is a baby formed ? A baby is formed from an egg and..... Secondly, How does a girl become pregnant ? A girl becomes pregnant by the act of ********** (don't want to give the game away ! this is/. after all. I have a small side rant about the use of the word "get". Too many people of a certain age (ie under 25) use get when they mean have. In a bar they say "can I get a beer ?" when they should say "can I have a beer ?" I'm always tempted to answer "I don't know, can you ?" Don't ask questions that only you know the answer to.
Firstly, you'd better hope that somebody is seeding the stuff you want to watch. Also, is it really necessary to have an encrypted link to the streaming instructions ?
How does a spam filter "decline" ? I could understand its efficiency declining or its effectiveness declining, but the filter itself ? Time to find an English translation I think. No matter, the summary and the actual article are talking about 2 different things anyway.
And while all you mods are reaching for the troll option, just bear in mind that if no-one publicly questions the inappropriate use of language, then it is seen as acceptable and copied by others, until there are no rules being followed at all. Let me know how that works out for you. I care because I learned English, and to ignore blatant and sometimes deliberate mistakes is to do a disservice to future speakers. Is it fair for someone who is not a native English speaker to learn English, only to find that when they make a mistake it is ignored, causing them to think they got it right ? And then later on they are taken to task over a misuse of the language which nobody ever corrected them on. Everybody has the right to make mistakes, that's how we learn. But in denying the possibility of correction, you are denying the act of learning itself. And that is pretty self centred IMHO.
The Register had this yesterday, but with a different slant on the proceedings. In summary, this is not about the songs but the performers themselves.See here, here and here
Yeah coz we all know that in this century, do not ever expect any body to actually think on any subject. You must supply an easy to digest baby mush of information so as not to cause the viewer too much inconvenience. I mean you only have to google the words measure & yard once in your entire existence, but nope, either you get it your way or you bitch. FFS, if you don't know by now that 1 metre is approximately 1 yard or 3 feet, then you don't get out much. And if that is too inaccurate for your purposes, maybe you should consider that this a make news submission, not a scientific paper submitted for the rarefied review of the pre-teens reading slash dot these days.
Much of Apple's success is due to the fact that they have what is IMNHO by far the best consumer OS on the planet.
What's that, In My Not Honest Opinion, or Is My Naked Hairy Orifice showing ? They are the only company that insists on a hardware tie-in. How's that doing, market share wise ?
Insightful - bollocks !
1)The "one" danger ? I seem to remember more than 1 dead shuttle.
2)"The o-ring connected the booster to the liquid fuel tank" - Wrong - See AC below.
3)"The o-ring has already been addressed" - Handwaving about an invalid point does not make it go away.
4)"I fail to see how solid fuel rockets are inherently more dangerous than liquid fuel ones." - not surprising as you fail to see things in any kind of clarity at all.
5)Oh here we go - " solid fuel rockets can't stop" - You just said there was nothing "inherently" more dangerous about solid fuel rockets - well there's one (quite major) thing. Not to mention that when you get into space, it's quite useful to have some, you know, FUEL, to maneuver with ! You do realise that the shuttle uses BOTH types of propulsion simultaneously ? Mods - eat my shorts.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean I get my NeptuneCam ?
What kind of bandwidth have they got ?
citation needed
Better yet, links to the various documents.
I don't understand why they're trying to shape it after a dragonfly- There are more efficient ways of getting around the air than flapping wings. I mean, yeah, I get that it would be cool to have one that actually looked like a dragonfly for spying and such, but for getting into dangerous or hard to reach places it shouldn't be designed this way.
Yeah, the millions of species of insect and bird have got a lot to learn from us land lubbers. I mean, hovering in one position is a piece of cake for our mechanical devices, so much so that we can get a flight to anywhere we want and we don't need a runway. Oh, wait, we can't unless we use a helicopter, which is slow in the horizontal plane and noisy and fuel hungry.
Living things manipulate the air in much more elegant and finely controlled ways than anything man has produced. We mainly just force our way through it.
I can't find the word autonomous anywhere in TFA and it's not surprising, considering that it's radio controlled. They "may" make it capable of self guidance in future, but at the moment it's not autonomous.
Nice long word though Roland ! Maybe you meant eponymous ?
"but democracies claims that they exist to protect the general population"
Yeah "protect" like in the phrase "protection racket".
Besides which, democracy is not designed to "protect" the general population - it is designed to allow governance that is representative of the majority's wishes. No "protection" or safety inherent in that. The police aren't there for your safety, they are there to catch criminals. The military aren't there for your safety, they are there to protect the government from outside aggressors.
This repeated tagging of government activities as "for your safety" is a load of bollox, and leads to interception of your communications, categorisation of certain groups of people as undesirable, and a virtually unlimited line of credit from your pocket.
Don't think much of yourself, do you ?
If I was working on designing and building a network, and I had it all up and running perfectly, should I destroy it because my boss tells me he has a better way ? What if I was a db admin who had already implemented a whole organisations internet requirements using (my|postgre)sql when a retarded buzzword compliant boss decided I should use access instead ? Should I delete everything and re-implement using access, or should I keep what I've done and start again separately with the access, so that when it all falls to shit I haven't lost anything ?
It's hard to implement two network designs concurrently, so it becomes one or the other. Why suffer the complete waste of time involved by starting again for the sake of a damn fool manager ? Better to hold out for as long as you can, so that there is a chance of getting the correct solution adopted. If they want to sack you for NOT doing something detrimental to the system, then that's their own stupid fault. If you do it their way and get fired anyway (because their way doesn't work), what have you gained ?
This guy wasn't holding anybody to ransom, making extortionate demands of his employers, or killing fluffy kittens. All he has done is refuse to give the keys to someone else's Ferrari (which he is ultimately responsible for) to a 14 year old crackhead joyrider.
This seems to me to highlight the difference between good employees and time wasters. A good employee will always have the interests of the employer at heart, and will assume ownership of problems using those interests as a basis for operation. A time waster turns up every day, does their "job" to the letter, no more, but frequently less. They don't care about the end product or the delivery of such. They just do the hours and take the money.
I know which camp I fall into, as I am used to being an employer and an employee. If I give someone a job, I would prefer they did it intelligently to achieve the best result as outlined in the requirements, not just do what I tell them, because if I have to tell you what is required for every little nuance, then I may as well have done the job myself.
Would you really just hand over the keys to a system that you spent years building, to someone who outranks you but has no idea of the power contained in having access to those keys ? For all you know they might leave the passwords on a post-it note on their monitor.
Final point - the civilian sector is NOT the army. You don't HAVE to comply with idiots above you, grow a pair and stand up for what's right. If you ARE right, then nothing too bad will happen. If you bend over for anybody with a title then you might get a title in the future, but at the cost of having any respect, self or otherwise. While it is only a movie, Crimson Tide demonstrates the principle quite well.
Why can't we have a system based on our own public keys ? You could upload your public key to whatever site you wanted, without needing to transmit a password at all, ever.
Your password stays on your machine, and never gets shared over a network. This would eliminate needing multiple passwords for multiple sites. It works well for SSH, which I think is a tad more secure than having username/password pairs being sent to a myriad of different sites.
Also, a public key based system, would allow you to be anyone you wanted on any site, as long as your public key could be validated against your private key.
Kind of like a validated session cookie, you could visit a site and instantly be logged in as the user you specified originally. My password for my SSH private key is a fairly long sentence, but I only have to enter it once per local login session ( I use the SSH agent). If the sites I visit were to make use of that, then I would never need another username-password pair again.
Of course this idea is not new and the principle can be found in many flavours of password storing agent software, but they all use their own standards, and they all transmit the stored password, rather than just sending a 1 or a 0.
Note I do not propose that the browser handles the verification, but that it hands off to the OS for verification, then takes the OS's response and transmits that to the web site concerned. Said website can then use a session cookie to track state as usual.
I stopped reading when you said
"Many parts of the Bible are literal truth and we often have archeological evidence to back them up (See the Towns built by Solomon for example - archeologists on those digs actually use the book of Kings to know WHERE to dig for WHAT part), many parts are not."
If I write a sci-fi book using the city of London as a location, but populate it with godzilla and flying cars, what relevance does London actually existing have to the rest of the story's veracity ?
Unless the whole document is true, then none of it can be relied upon to be an accurate representation of what went on at the time.
I am not a believer. However, considering that the main tenet of both Islam and Christianity is faith, then I would have to side with Islam as the more correct in its approach.
Islam allows no idols, no images, no reliance on the physical. It is all based on faith that the teachings written down by Mohammed were those given to him by God. Mohammed was an ordinary man chosen to relay those teachings to the wider world.
Christianity on the other hand, relies on Jesus Christ actually having existed, and not only that but he was the son of God, ie. divine himself. We see crucifixes, paintings, stained glass windows, jewellery and many other artifices designed to implant the images of christ in our minds. Not to mention the numerous "magic tricks" that Jesus had to perform to get a following in the first place. Where has the "faith" gone ?
Surely if you believe, you don't need all that physical stuff. The idea is what is important, not the slavish dedication to a person, who has been made more important by elevation to divine status. Hirohito was a "god", did that make his actions (or those of his followers) divine ?
It seems to me that Christianity has focused on merchandising rather than the movie, and has ended up being a mixture of many lies and misconceptions (most of which were deliberately designed to give more control to whichever party was spreading them), whereas the Quran is the same text as it always was. If it was given by God, who are we to translate / explain / re-interpret / redefine it ?
One thing I don't quite understand about Islam, is the split between Sunni and Shias. The Shias believe the family of Mohammed rule the Islamic world. That seems to me to be entirely at odds with Islam, but without knowing what the Sunni stance is on this matter it is hard to (intellectually) prefer one side over the other. The Shias also actively re-interpret the Quran and are the source of the cult of martyrdom, so I would have to go with the Sunnis as being more faithful to the intent of the Quran.
Judean Peoples Front ?
Fuck off ! We're the Peoples Front of Judea !
Fucking Splitters !
Unattended charging ?
Do you leave your phone charging on the sidewalk too ? Easy access to a large current at the roadside - what could possibly go wrong.
There is a write up on the register that suggests that while this may be Kaminskys attack, there is a possibility that it is another separate vulnerability.
However, the road is long and he who lives in the mind can easily go batters on the mind numbing crawl that is the highway.
Tell it like it is.
I just quit driving for a living 2 weeks ago. You get a fair bit of abuse on the road, and after a while it gets very difficult to externalise it. So I was going mad, bit by bit. Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em. So the best thing for all concerned is to stop doing it.
Currently trying to "re-invent" my old IT skills, but I'm a long way back. Better than driving though. It may be better in the states, at least on long runs.
Yeah, probably. But it doesn't have any thing to do with cows stomachs.
You seem to be making the same mistake as most of the other posters. Just because you get rid of the mouse doesn't mean that you have to use different technology at the computer side of things. You can still have a pointer, so you still get single pixel accuracy, still get to select text accurately, and use very little energy.
Why not (for example) get rid of the mouse itself and use your fingers. No, not touching the screen, just your fingers. Tap your index finger twice for double click, rub one finger against your thumb for scrolling, hold two fingers together for dragging etc etc.
There are a few ways to implement this, the least useful being a glove as that might generate commands while typing, but against the desk you could use an electrostatic pad which is engaged by proximity, or if you're trying to keep it free of companion equipment you could maybe turn it on and off by a simpler gesture (clench fist, give it the bird WHY). The signal to the PC could be radio based, transmitted from a bracelet that is tuned to the electrical signals coming from your muscles.
Why worry about thinking about moving the pointer, when you already think about it anyway, just at a very subconcious level. Take advantage of that low level thought, and use the signals it has generated to do useful work.
Evolution, not revolution. There are already prosthetic devices that work off of signals from muscles, and their main handicap (sorry) is that they must move a mechanical device. Using such signals for a purely electrical control device should be easy.
You don't need to edit it at all. Quote the original as it is, then begin your answer restating the question correctly. That way, you are making the errors obvious to the poster of the question. They might then realise their mistakes.
..... /. after all.
If you just change it without mention, then you're doing their work for them, why should they bother. And if you ignore it completely, you are accepting it and if no one gets alerted to their mistakes, why should they change them ?
eg.
kavya asks 'How is babby formed? How girl get pragnent?'
Firstly, how is a baby formed ? A baby is formed from an egg and
Secondly, How does a girl become pregnant ? A girl becomes pregnant by the act of ********** (don't want to give the game away ! this is
I have a small side rant about the use of the word "get". Too many people of a certain age (ie under 25) use get when they mean have. In a bar they say "can I get a beer ?" when they should say "can I have a beer ?"
I'm always tempted to answer "I don't know, can you ?" Don't ask questions that only you know the answer to.
Firstly, you'd better hope that somebody is seeding the stuff you want to watch.
Also, is it really necessary to have an encrypted link to the streaming instructions ?
Well xvid streams fine in an avi container. Drag this link to your media player. Works fine using xine on FC4 and vlc on xp.
BDSM tendencies ?
I could understand its efficiency declining or its effectiveness declining, but the filter itself ?
Time to find an English translation I think.
No matter, the summary and the actual article are talking about 2 different things anyway.
And while all you mods are reaching for the troll option, just bear in mind that if no-one publicly questions the inappropriate use of language, then it is seen as acceptable and copied by others, until there are no rules being followed at all. Let me know how that works out for you.
I care because I learned English, and to ignore blatant and sometimes deliberate mistakes is to do a disservice to future speakers. Is it fair for someone who is not a native English speaker to learn English, only to find that when they make a mistake it is ignored, causing them to think they got it right ? And then later on they are taken to task over a misuse of the language which nobody ever corrected them on.
Everybody has the right to make mistakes, that's how we learn. But in denying the possibility of correction, you are denying the act of learning itself.
And that is pretty self centred IMHO.
The Register had this yesterday, but with a different slant on the proceedings.
In summary, this is not about the songs but the performers themselves.See here, here and here
Yeah coz we all know that in this century, do not ever expect any body to actually think on any subject. You must supply an easy to digest baby mush of information so as not to cause the viewer too much inconvenience.
I mean you only have to google the words measure & yard once in your entire existence, but nope, either you get it your way or you bitch.
FFS, if you don't know by now that 1 metre is approximately 1 yard or 3 feet, then you don't get out much. And if that is too inaccurate for your purposes, maybe you should consider that this a make news submission, not a scientific paper submitted for the rarefied review of the pre-teens reading slash dot these days.
What, the guy who thinks "forth" means "fourth" ?
Surely, that should read -
evil()
?
It is after all, an inbuilt function of Javascript.
What's that, In My Not Honest Opinion, or Is My Naked Hairy Orifice showing ?
They are the only company that insists on a hardware tie-in.
How's that doing, market share wise ?
Insightful - bollocks !
1)The "one" danger ? I seem to remember more than 1 dead shuttle.
2)"The o-ring connected the booster to the liquid fuel tank" - Wrong - See AC below.
3)"The o-ring has already been addressed" - Handwaving about an invalid point does not make it go away.
4)"I fail to see how solid fuel rockets are inherently more dangerous than liquid fuel ones." - not surprising as you fail to see things in any kind of clarity at all.
5)Oh here we go - " solid fuel rockets can't stop" - You just said there was nothing "inherently" more dangerous about solid fuel rockets - well there's one (quite major) thing. Not to mention that when you get into space, it's quite useful to have some, you know, FUEL, to maneuver with !
You do realise that the shuttle uses BOTH types of propulsion simultaneously ?
Mods - eat my shorts.