Hmm... speakers generally work via electromagnet. Every headphone/telephone/etc. has one of these in it. This means that if you talk on the phone or use an audio headset, you're submitting part of your head to an altered magnetic field (and not in a controlled way like is done here). Same goes for working around high voltages, especially near transformers (not the robots).
for computers that deliberately offer a server to the public.
Do what you want to do with network topology, instead. If your computer offers a web server, why is it listening for anything other than HTTP requests on its public-facing interface?
If its not listening for anything other than HTTP requests on its public-facing interface, what does the firewall do?
It keeps your interface from being bombarded with useless data that fouls up the interface-facing network. This is or isn't a problem, depending on your deployment and configuration.
I remember, around 1994, being introduced to the World Wide Web and saying "well this is silly; it doesn't do anything you couldn't do easier with Gopher or FTP/Archie...."
Then again, that was before Web Browsers became operating systems; Mosaic and Lynx were where it was at. Come to think of it, that was the same year I installed SLiRP so I could use something more than a terminal session to connect to the internet from home.... using Eudora in "Internet Mode" was MUCH nicer than using it as a dial-up client that didn't sync perfectly with elm.
Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.
Texting won't work... Vodafone has been ordered to stop all cellular communications as well. I think that might upset a few people; I guess they figure 911 won't be too useful tonight anyway, as the biggest emergencies will be fairly obvious, and there won't be enough people to respond to anything else.
Sony now owns KonicaMinolta, which means they now produce decent digital cameras and camcorders. That said, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji and JVC sell stuff of equal or better quality without the hardware lock-in.
To play DM's advocate: An RPG would be a great cover for recruitment and prisoner communication; the DM could hand out assignments under the guise of the game, and be the point of contact for passing messages around. Player stats could easily be used to delineate prison hierarchy, and assigning fixed roles to prisoners in-game could be used for assigning similar roles in prison life (although what your priest/healer/etc is going to do, I have no clue -- work in the infirmary?).
Not saying that it's ever been used this way, but it *could* -- even though cell phones would be a lot easier.
True that, but even while streaming Pandora everywhere I go and using it as a wifi tether device occasionally I still only use about 2GB/Month, yet I am forced to pay an extra $10/month fee per line for "4g unlimited" usage, which 4g is not even available in my area.
I'd honestly rather pay less and have a 5gb cap on 3g.
I thought forcing users to pay for line items that weren't available to them was illegal? It's small claims court unless you get a class action, but it's still not legal. They've broken their contract with you.
So... an ISP would follow your QoS priorities in their routing tables. Since they don't want to guarantee *any* bandwidth to non-business customers, all businesses get a mixture of #1 #2 and #3 depending on their contract, and home users get #2 and #3. The ISP continues to oversubscribe their peering routes, effectively using up all bandwidth with #1 and #2 packets (as was shown recently with Comcast).
The end users, having attempted to use #3 for P2P and found that all it does is stop their torrents from torrenting, set all their torrents to #1.
Now, if ISPs changed things so that they *charged* at 3 different rates for those 3 different packet types, things might improve a bit. Of course, they'd have to stop the oversubscribing with this model, and actually guarantee #1 packets to home users.
Something along the lines of "#3 packets come free with your account but fly stand-by, #1 packets cost X and sit in business class, #2 packets cost X - Y and sit in economy class" should do the trick. With the flat-fee over-subscription model, this is never going to fly.
Have you looked at a road map of Canada recently? Over half the country is inaccessible via mobile, only hotspots are available for wifi, and dial-up requires a land-line.
If you're traveling between Fort MacMurray and Dawson Creek, you're going to need another option. Same goes for almost everywhere around Hudson's Bay. In the north, many people still use satellite phones, and communities are connected to the internet via traditional satellite internet. This will be MUCH better.
Added to this, Sculley was also type-A, and even in good economic times was not able to do what Jobs did both before and after. And Amelio... well, he was no type-A, and it showed.
I generally think of Steve Jobs as being to computers as Walt Disney was to Family entertainment... and yes, you can take that many different ways.
It seems to me the answer is pretty obvious; all we need to do is bring back interleaving, with alternate bracketed frames for alternating lines. Ramp FPS up to 60, and you should get something approximating HDR video on current technology displays.
I think those of us who once identified as "apple geeks" have all moved on or are very close to moving on. It seems Apple doesn't care, they've got a much larger (and more annoying) market now. Of course, this could well blow up in their faces -- anything that popular will eventually be something no-one will want to be seen with, and when the day comes apple may regret that they spent the last few years alienating the people who were once apple geeks. And the funny thing is, for many of us OS X was the "gateway *nix".:-P
But yeah, I bought my first Mac in '87 and my last in '09. Can't imagine I'm the only one.
I bought my first Mac in '88 and my last in '09. However, I'm still a Mac geek; I still like to hack at the m68k instruction set in MACSBUG. I still use Macs because so far, they still do what I want when I want to... but I don't mess around with modern Macs much; I save that for Linux and BSD.
Oh, and my "gateway Inix" was a toss-up between A/UX and M68k Linux -- I started using both around the same time.
Anyway, us Mac geeks are still around; we've just diversified.
I thought the guy was at least going to be running Mini vMac on his iPad; THAT would have added to the neatness factor for me. Head inside a Mac Plus that appears to be running "normally"....
There is an outside chance that enlightened self-interest on the part of various leaders will bring about court reforms instead, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
For some reason, when I read "court reforms" I interpreted that s "courthouses built out of non-flammable materials".
This made me chuckle... after all, Angry Birds is nothing but a novel clone itself. Trajectory games have been around since vector graphics were considered cutting edge.
I see a pattern here where these big cat corps think thay can just pick up ideas from little devs and shoulder it out.
What is your take on free clones of UNIX, distributed under such names as FreeBSD, Fedora, and Ubuntu?
That they are straw men?
And further that UNIX and BSD are one and the same, having been developed by a mixed bag of little devs and corporate tech, and it required a really messy legal fight with the *defense* sponsored by the government and UC Berkeley to get AT&T to lay off?
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. The pattern that those with more expensive lawyers and a war chest can take advantage of the little guys is time honoured, and isn't going anywhere any time soon.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Baby was the testbed for EDSAC -- you could think of it as "EDSAC Lite". but it WAS a computer in its own right, so let's keep shaming the submitter and editors;)
You'll be happy to know that the DMCA exempts the Library of Congress then:) I believe portions have also been clarified such that archivers are not only allowed to store ditigal backups, but they can reverse the DRM if they can prove that it is for archival purposes.
Of course, you'll probably also be happy to know that the DMCA doesn't mean a thing in most of the world, and that somewhere like Belarus will likely be the "digital Iona" of the future....
Plus, you have no way of knowing it was HIS computer. Maybe he has a library card. Maybe he spends time at a friend's place. Maybe he has a computer that he shares with family, but wants to be able to mess around with Linux while someone else is using the computer?
You could also mod your PS3 such that you have a cable coming out of it making your "internal" HD external. Then you can put any size drive on it that you want.
It would be easy to detect the use of a pirate game for online play, at least for new games -- require some hash of the executable be sent ot the game server.
...except that if people are cracking the game security to begin with, they can easily push a fake hash to the game server. Same goes for a combo hash of the executable and the blu ray serial number -- it can easily be faked.
The only thing that allows them to detect pirated gameplay is that they have some information which remains secret that is required for gameplay -- and that information they were depending on is no longer secret.
When the people you hate (republicans) and the people you love (Democrats) seem to be of like mind on something like this, is it time to consider that you are on the fringes and just a bit nuts?
Personally I'd rather consider that politicians are on the fringes and just a bit nuts. Unfortunately, they also have the power.
This all depends on the intent of the readers who were used as test subjects in this study. If they were told "read this text as fast as you can and tell me what it says," the scientists would end up with the results mentioned. If they were told "memorize this text" I'm pretty sure the results would be different.
After all, when speed reading for instant comprehension, I use a completely different reading technique than I do for memorizing content.
I think if you tested people from 200 years ago, there wouldn't be as much of a difference -- people tended to only read things that were of importance to them. But today, we are trained from an early age in being able to sift through large amounts of irrelevant text to find the information we're looking for. Better presentation allows us to sift through the irrelevant text faster; we don't want to remember it. We tend to spend the time scanning the text for a recognizable narrative. If we're then told to recall what that irrelevant text was, we won't have much of a clue, beyond the general structure.
If we make the presentation more difficult, our brain cannot slip into this "scan and sift" mode as often, as we keep missing key words and phrases, having to go back and re-read the content in "comprehension" mode in order to fit it together. So it stands that if we're reading the text in comprehension mode, we'll comprehend more of it.
If you study reading patterns, you will find that some people learn only one method of reading (not two or more) which significantly impacts their ability to learn in different environments. For example, someone who can only do "comprehensive" reading will fail most tests that require skimming large amounts of text in a limited amount of time and responding with the appropriate answers provided. However, give them the same content with unlimited reading time, then wait two weeks to administer the test portion, and you'll find that they are the only ones who pass the test -- and could indeed pass a more difficult test on the same content. Someone who can only do "speed" reading will have the opposite problems. Most of us can do both to some degree; the skill of switching context between the two methods appropriately is a third variable however; people will usually tend towards one method or the other depending on what they're intending to absorb from the presented material. Hence, the Scientist's test has to take this intent into consideration (and I see no indication that it has).
Conclusion: I don't think these scientists tested exactly what they think they tested; time to go back and fine-tune the test and analyze the conditions within which the test was administered to the subjects.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... speakers generally work via electromagnet. Every headphone/telephone/etc. has one of these in it. This means that if you talk on the phone or use an audio headset, you're submitting part of your head to an altered magnetic field (and not in a controlled way like is done here). Same goes for working around high voltages, especially near transformers (not the robots).
Just saying.
One word: flux (the magnetic kind, not flux capacitors).
for computers that deliberately offer a server to the public.
Do what you want to do with network topology, instead. If your computer offers a web server, why is it listening for anything other than HTTP requests on its public-facing interface?
If its not listening for anything other than HTTP requests on its public-facing interface, what does the firewall do?
It keeps your interface from being bombarded with useless data that fouls up the interface-facing network. This is or isn't a problem, depending on your deployment and configuration.
I remember, around 1994, being introduced to the World Wide Web and saying "well this is silly; it doesn't do anything you couldn't do easier with Gopher or FTP/Archie...."
Then again, that was before Web Browsers became operating systems; Mosaic and Lynx were where it was at.
Come to think of it, that was the same year I installed SLiRP so I could use something more than a terminal session to connect to the internet from home.... using Eudora in "Internet Mode" was MUCH nicer than using it as a dial-up client that didn't sync perfectly with elm.
Been to Egypt recently? I hope someone marks you insightful.
Seems like this is the moment the HAM radio folks always shine. I don't know what kind of following they've got in Egypt but I imagine it'd be pretty useful. That and texting.
Texting won't work... Vodafone has been ordered to stop all cellular communications as well. I think that might upset a few people; I guess they figure 911 won't be too useful tonight anyway, as the biggest emergencies will be fairly obvious, and there won't be enough people to respond to anything else.
I'm sure the government could argue that this was terrorists engaging in chemical warfare....
Sony now owns KonicaMinolta, which means they now produce decent digital cameras and camcorders. That said, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji and JVC sell stuff of equal or better quality without the hardware lock-in.
To play DM's advocate:
An RPG would be a great cover for recruitment and prisoner communication; the DM could hand out assignments under the guise of the game, and be the point of contact for passing messages around. Player stats could easily be used to delineate prison hierarchy, and assigning fixed roles to prisoners in-game could be used for assigning similar roles in prison life (although what your priest/healer/etc is going to do, I have no clue -- work in the infirmary?).
Not saying that it's ever been used this way, but it *could* -- even though cell phones would be a lot easier.
True that, but even while streaming Pandora everywhere I go and using it as a wifi tether device occasionally I still only use about 2GB/Month, yet I am forced to pay an extra $10/month fee per line for "4g unlimited" usage, which 4g is not even available in my area.
I'd honestly rather pay less and have a 5gb cap on 3g.
I thought forcing users to pay for line items that weren't available to them was illegal? It's small claims court unless you get a class action, but it's still not legal. They've broken their contract with you.
So... an ISP would follow your QoS priorities in their routing tables.
Since they don't want to guarantee *any* bandwidth to non-business customers, all businesses get a mixture of #1 #2 and #3 depending on their contract, and home users get #2 and #3.
The ISP continues to oversubscribe their peering routes, effectively using up all bandwidth with #1 and #2 packets (as was shown recently with Comcast).
The end users, having attempted to use #3 for P2P and found that all it does is stop their torrents from torrenting, set all their torrents to #1.
Now, if ISPs changed things so that they *charged* at 3 different rates for those 3 different packet types, things might improve a bit. Of course, they'd have to stop the oversubscribing with this model, and actually guarantee #1 packets to home users.
Something along the lines of "#3 packets come free with your account but fly stand-by, #1 packets cost X and sit in business class, #2 packets cost X - Y and sit in economy class" should do the trick. With the flat-fee over-subscription model, this is never going to fly.
Have you looked at a road map of Canada recently? Over half the country is inaccessible via mobile, only hotspots are available for wifi, and dial-up requires a land-line.
If you're traveling between Fort MacMurray and Dawson Creek, you're going to need another option. Same goes for almost everywhere around Hudson's Bay. In the north, many people still use satellite phones, and communities are connected to the internet via traditional satellite internet. This will be MUCH better.
Added to this, Sculley was also type-A, and even in good economic times was not able to do what Jobs did both before and after. And Amelio... well, he was no type-A, and it showed.
I generally think of Steve Jobs as being to computers as Walt Disney was to Family entertainment... and yes, you can take that many different ways.
It seems to me the answer is pretty obvious; all we need to do is bring back interleaving, with alternate bracketed frames for alternating lines. Ramp FPS up to 60, and you should get something approximating HDR video on current technology displays.
I think those of us who once identified as "apple geeks" have all moved on or are very close to moving on. It seems Apple doesn't care, they've got a much larger (and more annoying) market now. Of course, this could well blow up in their faces -- anything that popular will eventually be something no-one will want to be seen with, and when the day comes apple may regret that they spent the last few years alienating the people who were once apple geeks. And the funny thing is, for many of us OS X was the "gateway *nix". :-P
But yeah, I bought my first Mac in '87 and my last in '09. Can't imagine I'm the only one.
I bought my first Mac in '88 and my last in '09. However, I'm still a Mac geek; I still like to hack at the m68k instruction set in MACSBUG.
I still use Macs because so far, they still do what I want when I want to... but I don't mess around with modern Macs much; I save that for Linux and BSD.
Oh, and my "gateway Inix" was a toss-up between A/UX and M68k Linux -- I started using both around the same time.
Anyway, us Mac geeks are still around; we've just diversified.
I thought the guy was at least going to be running Mini vMac on his iPad; THAT would have added to the neatness factor for me. Head inside a Mac Plus that appears to be running "normally"....
There is an outside chance that enlightened self-interest on the part of various leaders will bring about court reforms instead, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
For some reason, when I read "court reforms" I interpreted that s "courthouses built out of non-flammable materials".
How many Angry Birds clones are there?
This made me chuckle... after all, Angry Birds is nothing but a novel clone itself. Trajectory games have been around since vector graphics were considered cutting edge.
I see a pattern here where these big cat corps think thay can just pick up ideas from little devs and shoulder it out.
What is your take on free clones of UNIX, distributed under such names as FreeBSD, Fedora, and Ubuntu?
That they are straw men?
And further that UNIX and BSD are one and the same, having been developed by a mixed bag of little devs and corporate tech, and it required a really messy legal fight with the *defense* sponsored by the government and UC Berkeley to get AT&T to lay off?
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. The pattern that those with more expensive lawyers and a war chest can take advantage of the little guys is time honoured, and isn't going anywhere any time soon.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Baby was the testbed for EDSAC -- you could think of it as "EDSAC Lite". but it WAS a computer in its own right, so let's keep shaming the submitter and editors ;)
You'll be happy to know that the DMCA exempts the Library of Congress then :) I believe portions have also been clarified such that archivers are not only allowed to store ditigal backups, but they can reverse the DRM if they can prove that it is for archival purposes.
Of course, you'll probably also be happy to know that the DMCA doesn't mean a thing in most of the world, and that somewhere like Belarus will likely be the "digital Iona" of the future....
Plus, you have no way of knowing it was HIS computer. Maybe he has a library card. Maybe he spends time at a friend's place. Maybe he has a computer that he shares with family, but wants to be able to mess around with Linux while someone else is using the computer?
You could also mod your PS3 such that you have a cable coming out of it making your "internal" HD external. Then you can put any size drive on it that you want.
It would be easy to detect the use of a pirate game for online play, at least for new games -- require some hash of the executable be sent ot the game server.
...except that if people are cracking the game security to begin with, they can easily push a fake hash to the game server. Same goes for a combo hash of the executable and the blu ray serial number -- it can easily be faked.
The only thing that allows them to detect pirated gameplay is that they have some information which remains secret that is required for gameplay -- and that information they were depending on is no longer secret.
When the people you hate (republicans) and the people you love (Democrats) seem to be of like mind on something like this, is it time to consider that you are on the fringes and just a bit nuts?
Personally I'd rather consider that politicians are on the fringes and just a bit nuts. Unfortunately, they also have the power.
This all depends on the intent of the readers who were used as test subjects in this study. If they were told "read this text as fast as you can and tell me what it says," the scientists would end up with the results mentioned. If they were told "memorize this text" I'm pretty sure the results would be different.
After all, when speed reading for instant comprehension, I use a completely different reading technique than I do for memorizing content.
I think if you tested people from 200 years ago, there wouldn't be as much of a difference -- people tended to only read things that were of importance to them. But today, we are trained from an early age in being able to sift through large amounts of irrelevant text to find the information we're looking for. Better presentation allows us to sift through the irrelevant text faster; we don't want to remember it. We tend to spend the time scanning the text for a recognizable narrative. If we're then told to recall what that irrelevant text was, we won't have much of a clue, beyond the general structure.
If we make the presentation more difficult, our brain cannot slip into this "scan and sift" mode as often, as we keep missing key words and phrases, having to go back and re-read the content in "comprehension" mode in order to fit it together. So it stands that if we're reading the text in comprehension mode, we'll comprehend more of it.
If you study reading patterns, you will find that some people learn only one method of reading (not two or more) which significantly impacts their ability to learn in different environments.
For example, someone who can only do "comprehensive" reading will fail most tests that require skimming large amounts of text in a limited amount of time and responding with the appropriate answers provided. However, give them the same content with unlimited reading time, then wait two weeks to administer the test portion, and you'll find that they are the only ones who pass the test -- and could indeed pass a more difficult test on the same content. Someone who can only do "speed" reading will have the opposite problems. Most of us can do both to some degree; the skill of switching context between the two methods appropriately is a third variable however; people will usually tend towards one method or the other depending on what they're intending to absorb from the presented material. Hence, the Scientist's test has to take this intent into consideration (and I see no indication that it has).
Conclusion: I don't think these scientists tested exactly what they think they tested; time to go back and fine-tune the test and analyze the conditions within which the test was administered to the subjects.