Sometimes. I've dried out a water-damaged book that was personally valuable to me, and it came out halfway decent. Perfect, no, but still quite readable.
I'd have to unlearn so many habits with eBooks. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to stop gripping my books in my teeth when I'm running out of hands, but I'd have to break myself of my habit of using a bad book to kill flies with. If I'm reading a book I dislike and a fly lands nearby, I'll whack it with the book. Oddly I reflexively won't do this if I'm enjoying the book. So all it'll take is one bad book and one fly and there goes the eBook reader. And if anyone sees me do it, there goes any attempt to live without having something insanely stupid to try live down.
build myself a heckuva bomb in the garage of 1313 Mockingbird Ln (an abandoned house - not my address - Ha - Catch me now!)
Yeah, well wait until you're sitting there building it and a guy who looks like Frankenstein's Monster shows up and throws a tantrum. You'll run away so fast it looks like a recording of you was sped up!
This nice young politician, Harold Saxon, explained to me why it was so important. Said if any terrorists did something horrible, like a UN scientific adviser or a member of a secret government organization went rogue, we could track them and get them before they did something bad.
Nice fellow, that Saxon. I'd vote for him. It's not like he'd use all that power for anything evil, would he?
I can understand how "unimpressive" videos like that can be
I had to watch it with the audio off (long story). That final segment was quite impressive - impressively creepy, what with the fast cuts between:
the robot bulging strangely on one side like something wanted to get out,
the robot moving jerkily, and
the computer screen with the flashing diagram.
It really seemed like it was going to make a lunge for someone's throat or explode into a cybernetic Lovecraftian horror. My mind was playing a horror-themed soundtrack with someone screaming "Oh, God! What have I done??"
For referencing that TV show I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I remember watching the first episode, in which Alex first gets her powers. First time she uses the morph trick, she leaves her clothing behind and has to hide behind some handy-dandy boxes. Say what you will, a teenage boy remembers when he learns another way for a girl to get out of her clothes. Unfortunately, the improbable-accident-with-illegal-chemicals route doesn't work half as well as a decent wine.
(Not an industry shill, just a pragmatist posting anonymously to avoid harassment from anti-DHMO zealots).
You'd better post anonymously. Crazies like you just love it when people can get DHMO without any sort of oversight. You want them to think they can't live without it! It's bloody dangerous! That crap gets in your lungs and you DIE!
That will make carbon monoxide in your body when the gas is readily available. Carbon monoxide might be beneficial but why not make a pill that makes nitrous oxide in your blood so the dentist doesn't have to pull out the mask.
Because metabolism isn't as simple as "insert chemical X, get chemical Y". It's more like "insert chemical X, get chemicals Y and Z, with Z concentrated in the liver and heart and Y going all over the place, except when it hits the kidneys it turns into chemical Q".
Note: I am not a chemist, or biologist, or taxidermist.
I predict another one of those DAMNED bosons will come back in time and break another handful of magnets again.
Damn causality-breaking bosons, s'not right!
Sew wee send somewon too the fewcher two stop the first mate frum sending the boson bak.
(Sorry, best joke I can muster on little sleep. Also covers my sleep-deprived spelling errors!)
Also, the physics/astronomy community benefits greatly from the success of LHC, and the worldwide scientific community as a whole also benefits. Now, who benefits from the wars?
Security expert wants a more secure system. Freedom experts want a free system. Unsurprisingly these two views clash - because they are designing things for different use cases.
Security and freedom are not diametrically opposed. The only freedom the lock on my door prohibits is the freedom of crooks and weirdos to mess with my stuff.
On the other hand, the only security de-anonymizing the Internet provides is the security that people unwilling to break the law won't break it. Assuming only the government will have access to the unfiltered user info*, what will happen is this: Regular law-abiding people will continue to be law-abiding people, crooks will steal "Internet identities" and use them to do bad things just like they steal real-world identities and use them to do bad things now, and people who have reason to fear their government will have MORE reason to fear their government. So on the whole you wind up with good guys still being good guys, bad guys still being bad guys, and the powerful being more powerful. This is no improvement.
(* There's a thought - who will have access to all the nice personally identifiable information? If your IP address is bound irrevocably to you then there needs to be a central database that translates IP into name/address. Who has access to this database? Who maintains it? Who fixes errors?)
Eliminate anonymity, and then sell products that mostly, but far from perfectly, protect against abuses of that information.
One of the other technicians where I work recently used a computer with Kaspersky on it. I watched their scanner merrily let spyware through while actively stopping some of the techniques and programs we use to get rid of spyware. Delete an infected registry key? "Kaspersky has stopped a change to your registry!" Unregister a spyware-installed DLL? "Kaspersky has stopped a change to your critical system files!"
In light of this, I suggest changing "sell products that mostly, but far from perfectly, protect against abuses of that information" that to "sell products that appear to, but don't, protect against abuses of that information".
That's not two factor, it's one factor. It's something you know, in two parts. A key fob introduces something you have.
A big problem with what you described is that 40 images to choose from is like adding one more character to your password, allowing lowercase, numbers, and 4 other punctuation marks only.
It doesn't add much to security at all, in other words.
Less than that. If the other 39 images are a stock set of images, then someone just needs to try two different accounts once each to find the odd men out. (The second account wouldn't even have an "Image check failed" warning on it.) If they're from a randomized collection of X images, then depending on X, one just needs to try twice (big X) or three times (small X) to whittle down options. Less if one starts with an already-compromised account to get a feel for the possibilities.
And I assume "your" image is chosen by you from their collection? Else most people will have 39 pictures of flowers and colorful frogs and such, and one of a bunch of drunk guys waving at the camera.
And of course, a MITM or even mildly sophisticated phishing attack makes this security trivial. In their program's database, next to 'John Smith's Username: "JSmith23" Password: "MollY4"' is an entry for 'Clicked on this image:'
[1. General] Me: I hate g**** flavored cough medicine.
Seriously what is wrong with grapes?
I once visited a message board in which people were talking about Corpus ******i, Texas. And then, of course, there's the classic Fark filter annoyance where "I wish it were true" becomes "I wishiat were true".
I want to know what horny bastard decided that everything shaped like a stick had to be phallic.
A moralizer, obviously. Only someone who insists they are pure and want to free the world from sin sees corruption in innocence. Less "Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one." and more "Those who see monsters are monsters themselves, looking for justification."
When the blogoverseonetsphere was young I once read a rant on sexism in gaming ads. Started off strong (I mean, how hard is it to find a gaming ad with an objectified female?) but devolved once it got into the phallic imagery. A guy about to throw a dynamite stick was "holding a phallic object" (damn, that Nobel was a kinky bastard). A guy holding a joystick was "gripping it as though it were his penis". To which I responded something like "Okay, first off a joystick is a handle attached to a base; it can only look like that and you can only hold it like that. Second, how do you know how he grips his penis?"
What is the teabagging thing too? I'm a man, they're young boys. What the hell are they doing to me after a frag? They're the quick ones to shout fag and gay. The mind boggles.
Standard doublethink. "Fag" and "gay" are insults with no meaning, just like "retarded" doesn't mean "This is the 1940s and I declare you have a severe learning disability."
Teabagging, though, I just don't understand. The dominance and humilation aspect I get, that's standard enough for juveniles, it's the chosen gesture I don't get. I guess someone cycled through all the standard FPS motions and found the crouch motion incredibly lewd and hilarious. As hackerdom has smart cow problems, I guess gaming memes have a stupid cow problem.
Though if it makes it any easier to tolerate, the alternative is that there's a lot of self-loathing homosexuals out there. I suppose this is possible - every time I see something about a "Hazing gone wrong!" it involves someone anally violating someone. So either the news media has deliberately fostered the connection, or we've reached the point as a society where having your girlfriend do anything to your ass is incredibly gay, but wanting to sodomize your guy friends with a broomstick is just boys being boys.
Slashdot Mirror
- Durability - Both are ruined by water,
Sometimes. I've dried out a water-damaged book that was personally valuable to me, and it came out halfway decent. Perfect, no, but still quite readable.
I'd have to unlearn so many habits with eBooks. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to stop gripping my books in my teeth when I'm running out of hands, but I'd have to break myself of my habit of using a bad book to kill flies with. If I'm reading a book I dislike and a fly lands nearby, I'll whack it with the book. Oddly I reflexively won't do this if I'm enjoying the book. So all it'll take is one bad book and one fly and there goes the eBook reader. And if anyone sees me do it, there goes any attempt to live without having something insanely stupid to try live down.
build myself a heckuva bomb in the garage of 1313 Mockingbird Ln (an abandoned house - not my address - Ha - Catch me now!)
Yeah, well wait until you're sitting there building it and a guy who looks like Frankenstein's Monster shows up and throws a tantrum. You'll run away so fast it looks like a recording of you was sped up!
(free MS software to endingeering students)
None of whom have a minor in English apparently. d:
Maybe they're Walt Disney Imagineers who decided to go into eschatology.
Nice fellow, that Saxon. I'd vote for him. It's not like he'd use all that power for anything evil, would he?
(Grateful for the +1 funny.)
(The +1 informative confuses and frightens me.)
Another robot that would empty that bin into another larger bin? And a larger robot to empty that one into a even larger bin?
We can't just keep building larger and larger robots and bins. We would run out of space pretty soon. Then where would we be?
With larger and larger cleaning robots? Simple. We get Mel Brooks and Rick Moranis to pilot the biggest one and steal air from other planets.
I can understand how "unimpressive" videos like that can be
I had to watch it with the audio off (long story). That final segment was quite impressive - impressively creepy, what with the fast cuts between:
the robot bulging strangely on one side like something wanted to get out,
the robot moving jerkily, and
the computer screen with the flashing diagram.
It really seemed like it was going to make a lunge for someone's throat or explode into a cybernetic Lovecraftian horror. My mind was playing a horror-themed soundtrack with someone screaming "Oh, God! What have I done??"
For referencing that TV show I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I remember watching the first episode, in which Alex first gets her powers. First time she uses the morph trick, she leaves her clothing behind and has to hide behind some handy-dandy boxes. Say what you will, a teenage boy remembers when he learns another way for a girl to get out of her clothes. Unfortunately, the improbable-accident-with-illegal-chemicals route doesn't work half as well as a decent wine.
(Not an industry shill, just a pragmatist posting anonymously to avoid harassment from anti-DHMO zealots).
You'd better post anonymously. Crazies like you just love it when people can get DHMO without any sort of oversight. You want them to think they can't live without it! It's bloody dangerous! That crap gets in your lungs and you DIE!
That will make carbon monoxide in your body when the gas is readily available. Carbon monoxide might be beneficial but why not make a pill that makes nitrous oxide in your blood so the dentist doesn't have to pull out the mask.
Because metabolism isn't as simple as "insert chemical X, get chemical Y". It's more like "insert chemical X, get chemicals Y and Z, with Z concentrated in the liver and heart and Y going all over the place, except when it hits the kidneys it turns into chemical Q".
Note: I am not a chemist, or biologist, or taxidermist.
I predict another one of those DAMNED bosons will come back in time and break another handful of magnets again. Damn causality-breaking bosons, s'not right!
Sew wee send somewon too the fewcher two stop the first mate frum sending the boson bak.
(Sorry, best joke I can muster on little sleep. Also covers my sleep-deprived spelling errors!)
Also, the physics/astronomy community benefits greatly from the success of LHC, and the worldwide scientific community as a whole also benefits. Now, who benefits from the wars?
Defense contractors.
Security expert wants a more secure system. Freedom experts want a free system. Unsurprisingly these two views clash - because they are designing things for different use cases.
Security and freedom are not diametrically opposed. The only freedom the lock on my door prohibits is the freedom of crooks and weirdos to mess with my stuff.
On the other hand, the only security de-anonymizing the Internet provides is the security that people unwilling to break the law won't break it. Assuming only the government will have access to the unfiltered user info*, what will happen is this: Regular law-abiding people will continue to be law-abiding people, crooks will steal "Internet identities" and use them to do bad things just like they steal real-world identities and use them to do bad things now, and people who have reason to fear their government will have MORE reason to fear their government. So on the whole you wind up with good guys still being good guys, bad guys still being bad guys, and the powerful being more powerful. This is no improvement.
(* There's a thought - who will have access to all the nice personally identifiable information? If your IP address is bound irrevocably to you then there needs to be a central database that translates IP into name/address. Who has access to this database? Who maintains it? Who fixes errors?)
Eliminate anonymity, and then sell products that mostly, but far from perfectly, protect against abuses of that information.
One of the other technicians where I work recently used a computer with Kaspersky on it. I watched their scanner merrily let spyware through while actively stopping some of the techniques and programs we use to get rid of spyware. Delete an infected registry key? "Kaspersky has stopped a change to your registry!" Unregister a spyware-installed DLL? "Kaspersky has stopped a change to your critical system files!"
In light of this, I suggest changing "sell products that mostly, but far from perfectly, protect against abuses of that information" that to "sell products that appear to, but don't, protect against abuses of that information".
That'd be a horrible pirate copy. The video would go black every few seconds.
It would also be more prone to "male gaze" than even normal movie standards.
In case you're reading, your .sig is missing a 't' in the second function.
[John]
Further proof that even if computers attain perfection, people will always find a way to screw things up. And then blame it on the computer.
If Windows 7 is just Windows Vista SP2, then what is Windows Vista SP2?
SPPhi.
Really? Sexism? So now 52% of us [Slashdotters] are women? Oh, wo/man, the world just turned upside down didn't it?
AWESOME! Heyyyyyy ladies! I'm single!!!!!
(Looks.) WTF? The numbers just dropped back to normal again!
That's not two factor, it's one factor. It's something you know, in two parts. A key fob introduces something you have.
A big problem with what you described is that 40 images to choose from is like adding one more character to your password, allowing lowercase, numbers, and 4 other punctuation marks only.
It doesn't add much to security at all, in other words.
Less than that. If the other 39 images are a stock set of images, then someone just needs to try two different accounts once each to find the odd men out. (The second account wouldn't even have an "Image check failed" warning on it.) If they're from a randomized collection of X images, then depending on X, one just needs to try twice (big X) or three times (small X) to whittle down options. Less if one starts with an already-compromised account to get a feel for the possibilities.
And I assume "your" image is chosen by you from their collection? Else most people will have 39 pictures of flowers and colorful frogs and such, and one of a bunch of drunk guys waving at the camera.
And of course, a MITM or even mildly sophisticated phishing attack makes this security trivial. In their program's database, next to 'John Smith's Username: "JSmith23" Password: "MollY4"' is an entry for 'Clicked on this image:'
(Warning: TvTropes.org is a huge timesuck.)
Alas, this warning reaches me one day too late, and now I'm a zombie from getting half the sleep I should've last night.
So the reply to "Think of the children!" cry should be "Think about actual parenting your child instead ruining things for everyone else."
"Think of the children!" is only half the phrase. The other half is "So I don't have to."
[1. General] Me: I hate g**** flavored cough medicine. Seriously what is wrong with grapes?
I once visited a message board in which people were talking about Corpus ******i, Texas. And then, of course, there's the classic Fark filter annoyance where "I wish it were true" becomes "I wishiat were true".
I want to know what horny bastard decided that everything shaped like a stick had to be phallic.
A moralizer, obviously. Only someone who insists they are pure and want to free the world from sin sees corruption in innocence. Less "Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one." and more "Those who see monsters are monsters themselves, looking for justification."
When the blogoverseonetsphere was young I once read a rant on sexism in gaming ads. Started off strong (I mean, how hard is it to find a gaming ad with an objectified female?) but devolved once it got into the phallic imagery. A guy about to throw a dynamite stick was "holding a phallic object" (damn, that Nobel was a kinky bastard). A guy holding a joystick was "gripping it as though it were his penis". To which I responded something like "Okay, first off a joystick is a handle attached to a base; it can only look like that and you can only hold it like that. Second, how do you know how he grips his penis?"
What is the teabagging thing too? I'm a man, they're young boys. What the hell are they doing to me after a frag? They're the quick ones to shout fag and gay. The mind boggles.
Standard doublethink. "Fag" and "gay" are insults with no meaning, just like "retarded" doesn't mean "This is the 1940s and I declare you have a severe learning disability."
Teabagging, though, I just don't understand. The dominance and humilation aspect I get, that's standard enough for juveniles, it's the chosen gesture I don't get. I guess someone cycled through all the standard FPS motions and found the crouch motion incredibly lewd and hilarious. As hackerdom has smart cow problems, I guess gaming memes have a stupid cow problem.
Though if it makes it any easier to tolerate, the alternative is that there's a lot of self-loathing homosexuals out there. I suppose this is possible - every time I see something about a "Hazing gone wrong!" it involves someone anally violating someone. So either the news media has deliberately fostered the connection, or we've reached the point as a society where having your girlfriend do anything to your ass is incredibly gay, but wanting to sodomize your guy friends with a broomstick is just boys being boys.
Maybe it does work but the universe doesn't branch - so it REALLY IS the end of the ENTIRE universe.
Nonsense. I'm posting from another universe right now and everyth