Google Voice: Please state what it is that you would like to search for.
MAN (whispering):.....porn
GV: I'm sorry, I did not understand you. Please state your search item again.
MAN (whispering):...porn
GV: I'm sorry, I did not understand you. Please state your search item again.
MAN (whispering): porn
GV: I'm sorry, I did not understand you. Please state your search item again.
MAN (shouting): PORN! I want to search for PORN you stupid ass computer!
(stares from every person in the vicinity)
Better yet:
Google Voice: Please state what it is that you would like to search for.
MAN (whispering):.....porn
GV: (also whispering) I'm sorry, I'm not sure I heard you. Did you say "porn"?
MAN (whispering): Yes.
GV: (pushing the speakers to their limit): OH, YOU WANT TO SEARCH FOR PORN, AHA!
(stares from every person in the vicinity)
With Debian, I found that I spent too much time trying to get my video card working, managing packages, and searching for modern packages on 3rd party websites.
Actually, Ubuntu didn't do much better when I tried it. Why can't the Linux distros just recognize my hardware?! buhuu..:-( It seems like there is always some hardware component for me that doesn't work out of the box. And if it's the network card, it's difficult to fix. I would gladly burn a whole pile of discs full of drivers before installation, if that's what it takes, to be sure the installation process would set everything up for me.
Re:Googlemobiles!
on
Google's DNA
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
From parent's sig:
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
"it's" = "it is" & "its" = possessive => "it's flapping its wings" = "it is flapping possessive wings"
FYI: The Minick story is about as tainted as any current discussion of Bush.
Not defending either, mind you. I usually like Wiki too. At this point, the Mitnick story is nothing but a 2600 PR stunt from the 90's, which is sad, becuase it really was a fascinating legal case, and a wonderful precursor to the PATRIOT ACT.
I don't get it. What's your point? Give us the _real_ story, then!
You mean like in the movies, where they can digitally enhance and existing photo, and gain super sharp detail that didn't exist in the original? Purleeeeeeees.
Oh come on. Just because information in an image isn't easily captured by the eye it doesn't mean it's non-existant.
it would be funny to see if the picture could be enhanced to see his outlook inbox to see the senders and subjects
Indeed. Ok, so we would have to figure out by which method the image is scaled down from original size. (Why don't they supply a high res version btw?!) Unless we can, we could try all possibilities. Then, after reading in on the scaling algorithm, whe invert it, as far as that is possible. Inverting the convolution or whatever it may be (again, out of the air). Mabye too much information is already lost however. It's interesting, though, how you can actually make out the lengths of the subject lines from this low res version by just looking at it. That gives mabye some hope. Anyway, decloaking rasterised or smoothed image parts (such as people's faces) is always an exciting subject.:-)
That's a man who really lives on the cheap, though. Far more than most western people, it seems. He's kind of known for that. And is not very much into modern things like mobile phones.
Probably, filtering out stories who's headline ends with a question mark would augment the overall quality of the Slashdot content and, especially, the headlines.
No, that is how you build confidence, by continuously attempting to falsify the axiom, and failing. "But will it really add up to...? Oh it does"
I didn't intend to make a difference between "faith" and "confidence". Now if I tell you I didn't, mabye it's easier to understand me. Repeatedly failing to find a flaw, exactly. Heh, reminds me of a song I read about on the Internet once.
As it is, mathematics is not a belief system. It is a science.
The more I have thought about it, the more they look similar too me. In mathematics, I have been made to believe the wildest things, but not without a reason. Yeah, kinda similar.
(Yay, I got to post one more comment. Wonder if it will continue...)
However, to say that we place "faith" in the axioms is a fallacy. We accept the axioms to be true, but do not do so blindly. In fact, it takes some time to convince a child that two plus two really will equal four, and it requires much effort. The axioms of mathematics are proved to use, albiet in a manner outside of the mathematical framework.
Yes, yes, that's what I meant! Isn't that how you build faith? (Oh, I _think_ "faith" is the right word, at least.) We believe in the axioms because we haven't failed us before, even though we haven't yet seen if they worked the _next_ time.
religious prosyletists seek out those who are neglected, vunerable, fearful and in search of some kind of solace. They groom them with tales of a happy afterlife and that praying can help them get what they want.
The point is that if it all comes down to a matter of belief the King of the Potato People is just as likely as any other God. So if we lock up people who pray to root vegtables we need to lock up Christians too.
So, if you didn't know wheter 2+2=4, 2+2=3 or both were true, you would lock anyone up who claimed to have the answer on the matter? Just because _you_ had no proof?
As for proving 2 + 2 = 4. Hold up 2 finger on one hand, now do the same on the other, count the total number of fingers being held up.
Sorry, but as for a proof, you wouldn't get away with that. And also, possibly a bit off topic.. Any strict mathematical proof is based on the assumption that the axioms we use are correct. We choose to put our faith in those because they seem to work. We tried and they held. We tasted and they were good. Without trying or tasting we wouldn't know.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Voice: Please state what it is that you would like to search for.
MAN (whispering):
GV: (also whispering) I'm sorry, I'm not sure I heard you. Did you say "porn"?
MAN (whispering): Yes.
GV: (pushing the speakers to their limit): OH, YOU WANT TO SEARCH FOR PORN, AHA!
(stares from every person in the vicinity)
Do no evil, huh?
Sorry for being offtopic and troll and everything. I just had to say it.
"Smalandia"? Is that Latin? I mean, it sounds like "Scania", for "Skåne", you know.
Probably, filtering out stories who's headline ends with a question mark would augment the overall quality of the Slashdot content and, especially, the headlines.
(Yay, I got to post one more comment. Wonder if it will continue...)
(I'm afraid my comment quota is running out.)