I'm having trouble seeing what's so exciting about explaining unconsciousness. Explaining consciousness would be exciting. I realize understanding what makes a person unconscious might help to understand what makes a person conscious. But not in this case. If they're just saying the presence of these inhibitors makes a person unconscious, then we're no closer to understanding consciousness. Because you can't just make an unconscious object become conscious by taking away these inhibitors. And you have no insight into bringing consciousness to something that never had it, regardless of whether these inhibitors were present. Maybe it could somehow help find a treatment for comas or something. Maybe those people are overloaded with these inhibitors. I don't know.
I haven't read the article and don't care to. But I'd like to note, my guy wanted to avoid the iPad and was all for Android. He tried some Viewsonic tablet. He had problems with the screen quality and the pressure-sensitive screen instead of a capacitive screen. And other general problems. Then he tried an Archos 70. He had problems with the sound and viewing angles, and some weird overheating issue. Then he got a Motorola Xoom. The memory card slot has an I-O-U on it, promising it will work one day even though the package says it has a memory card slot now. He also said it was slow to respond and had a dark screen. Finally he got an iPad. While it's not perfect, he's finally happy. All the while, his Android phone is flaking out.
So maybe the article is bad. But it is possible Apple has the best tablet, at least for some people, even if they're biased in favor of Android.
Perhaps the police need a "dirty old man" to lend credibility to the "innocent pubescent girl". I mean, not so much like two characters talking in a role playing game. More like when somebody invites you to a seminar for a money-making scheme and hires a bunch of people to sit in the crowd and act really interested in the product so you'll think maybe you should be interested too.
The worst part for me would be when I'm trying to click on an mp3 or video and because the mouse moves over the wrong part of the screen, some fucking box pops up from addthis.com, asking if I want to like this on Facebook or something. A box that doesn't go away when I move the mouse away from it. Like you just have to click on it and let them know you saw it, just to get it to go away. Although I do like being connected to the internet all of the time, I don't want my whole computer acting like websites do.
Does the strength of the encryption significantly affect the user's experience with passwords and encrypted files? I mean, if 256-bit encryption is better than 128-bit encryption, why isn't everybody using 32678-bit encryption or maybe megabit encryption?
Android is secured by default by disallowing the use of Unknown Sources. If you attempt to enable Unknown Sources for applications it will warn you about risking security. In addition you must know what you're doing to install the Unknown Source APK by either: using 'adb install', or downloading the APK to your SD card and use a file manager application to install it.
So yes, Android is just as secure as iOS by default.
By your logic, Windows is also as secure as iOS by default.
So how does that work if you never actually changed your web browser settings to accept cookies, but it accepts them anyway by default? Almost everybody's browser accepts cookies and almost nobody knows what they are. And the only browser settings anybody ever change are their homepage and bookmarks.
I figured they are not determining Facebook's value based on how much income the company has. Rather, I think they're basing the value on how many people are paying attention to Facebook, and how much information Facebook can gain from those people.
There are two good things mentioned in the Slashdot summary. One is the project's money has to be separate from other government funds. That means if they create an internet tax, that money has to be used to provide the wireless and can't be used for some project only the government officers want to do.
The other good thing is it says they can't offer a service below the actual cost of providing the service. That means they can provide the service at the exact cost of providing the service.
For short cable runs, any old HDMI cable will do. When you get into the 50-100 ft lengths, the cable quality absolutely matters.
HDMI signals may be digital, so there's none of the subjective analog concerns, but it's also a real-time signal, which makes it susceptible to even small delays in transmission across the cable. This isn't a concern in a sub-20 ft cable, but becomes noticeable in the cheap longer cables.
So why is Best Buy charging these prices for cables under 7 feet?
If you were a girl, you could make your own website about it and not get in trouble. But I don't think he should get away with he did because other people got away with it. I think the tragedy is other people got away with it.
They could just make the site work without cookies. If the user's browser has cookies disabled, that's an "opt-out". If the browser has cookies enabled, that's an "opt-in". That works especially well since all of the top browsers let people have separate cookie settings for each website.
My brother's Android phone didn't have any video output ports. With something like this, he could use the microSD slot to connect it to the television's VGA port.
I hope I'm wrong, but I hear serious Nintendo fans vastly overestimating the hardware capabilities of the successor to the Wii. They're hoping for hardware that will rival next gen offerings from Sony and Microsoft despite the fact that Nintendo has shown it doesn't want to compete in that high-end console space anymore. I hope I'm wrong though. With all Nintendo's success in the last generation perhaps they can come out with a Wii successor that has beefy hardware.
All they have to do is catch up to the PS3 and XBox 360. 1080p at 60 frames per second will be fine. If their competitors go up to 120 frames per second, is anybody going to care? The game systems have reached the limit of current HD television.
They'd probably do better to make the controllers better, and that's an area in which the XBox and PS3 have only recently caught up to what Nintendo did when the Wii was released.
My bet is they would like the FBI to use less resources for "think of the children" so there would be more resources available to go after people who upload and download music. The summary does say the Department of Justice is behind this.
I did report the license plate to be stolen. It ended up on a different car type of, but both cars were the same size and color. I have no idea if the police care.
The cameras are a problem for people who aren't doing anything wrong. Somebody stole one of my license plates and put it on the back of another car. That car was caught by a camera and a ticket was mailed to the owner of the license plate (me). Then I could either pay $100 for the ticket or lose a day of pay, which is more than $100. I chose to go to court and declare my innocence. The officer never showed up and the case was dismissed, but I still lost my day's pay.
Since the tickets don't result in negative marks on driving records, one is compelled to pay the money regardless of whether she is guilty or innocent. It just costs less. Truly they could just mail random tickets to people and achieve the same effect. Even if you don't own a car, it costs less to say you did it and pay the ticket, rather than to go to court.
What happens if that Wi-Fi password is breakable? Then when the "pedobear" does her work, you have a judge who says it must have been you because you're the only one who has the password.
I don't know how the law works but this guy seems to have been cleared of charges and had no password.
I don't know which side is right. All I know is I personally don't run my router without a password. I don't trust the legal system to adequately enforce the "innocent until proven guilty" part of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm having trouble seeing what's so exciting about explaining unconsciousness. Explaining consciousness would be exciting. I realize understanding what makes a person unconscious might help to understand what makes a person conscious. But not in this case. If they're just saying the presence of these inhibitors makes a person unconscious, then we're no closer to understanding consciousness. Because you can't just make an unconscious object become conscious by taking away these inhibitors. And you have no insight into bringing consciousness to something that never had it, regardless of whether these inhibitors were present. Maybe it could somehow help find a treatment for comas or something. Maybe those people are overloaded with these inhibitors. I don't know.
I haven't read the article and don't care to. But I'd like to note, my guy wanted to avoid the iPad and was all for Android. He tried some Viewsonic tablet. He had problems with the screen quality and the pressure-sensitive screen instead of a capacitive screen. And other general problems. Then he tried an Archos 70. He had problems with the sound and viewing angles, and some weird overheating issue. Then he got a Motorola Xoom. The memory card slot has an I-O-U on it, promising it will work one day even though the package says it has a memory card slot now. He also said it was slow to respond and had a dark screen. Finally he got an iPad. While it's not perfect, he's finally happy. All the while, his Android phone is flaking out.
So maybe the article is bad. But it is possible Apple has the best tablet, at least for some people, even if they're biased in favor of Android.
Perhaps the police need a "dirty old man" to lend credibility to the "innocent pubescent girl". I mean, not so much like two characters talking in a role playing game. More like when somebody invites you to a seminar for a money-making scheme and hires a bunch of people to sit in the crowd and act really interested in the product so you'll think maybe you should be interested too.
Perhaps they're trading in smaller amounts, and as long as the last deal goes well, both parties are willing to do the next deal.
The worst part for me would be when I'm trying to click on an mp3 or video and because the mouse moves over the wrong part of the screen, some fucking box pops up from addthis.com, asking if I want to like this on Facebook or something. A box that doesn't go away when I move the mouse away from it. Like you just have to click on it and let them know you saw it, just to get it to go away. Although I do like being connected to the internet all of the time, I don't want my whole computer acting like websites do.
Does the strength of the encryption significantly affect the user's experience with passwords and encrypted files? I mean, if 256-bit encryption is better than 128-bit encryption, why isn't everybody using 32678-bit encryption or maybe megabit encryption?
For me, the best part would be no more people on the news saying "google it".
Android is secured by default by disallowing the use of Unknown Sources. If you attempt to enable Unknown Sources for applications it will warn you about risking security. In addition you must know what you're doing to install the Unknown Source APK by either: using 'adb install', or downloading the APK to your SD card and use a file manager application to install it. So yes, Android is just as secure as iOS by default.
By your logic, Windows is also as secure as iOS by default.
They're not so bad. All they did was arrest a "lone wolf" terrorist under the authority of Thailand's patriot act. Thailand is safe now.
So how does that work if you never actually changed your web browser settings to accept cookies, but it accepts them anyway by default? Almost everybody's browser accepts cookies and almost nobody knows what they are. And the only browser settings anybody ever change are their homepage and bookmarks.
Let's get rid of all typing! Just click on pretty pictures for everything! No one actually needs a keyboard.
That sounds like Opera's Speed Dial... It's good. But it would suck if there were no URL bar.
I figured they are not determining Facebook's value based on how much income the company has. Rather, I think they're basing the value on how many people are paying attention to Facebook, and how much information Facebook can gain from those people.
There are two good things mentioned in the Slashdot summary. One is the project's money has to be separate from other government funds. That means if they create an internet tax, that money has to be used to provide the wireless and can't be used for some project only the government officers want to do.
The other good thing is it says they can't offer a service below the actual cost of providing the service. That means they can provide the service at the exact cost of providing the service.
Perhaps they realized most of their developers were doing something like this, and that's when they decided these guys only need one monitor...
For short cable runs, any old HDMI cable will do. When you get into the 50-100 ft lengths, the cable quality absolutely matters.
HDMI signals may be digital, so there's none of the subjective analog concerns, but it's also a real-time signal, which makes it susceptible to even small delays in transmission across the cable. This isn't a concern in a sub-20 ft cable, but becomes noticeable in the cheap longer cables.
So why is Best Buy charging these prices for cables under 7 feet?
If you were a girl, you could make your own website about it and not get in trouble. But I don't think he should get away with he did because other people got away with it. I think the tragedy is other people got away with it.
They could just make the site work without cookies. If the user's browser has cookies disabled, that's an "opt-out". If the browser has cookies enabled, that's an "opt-in". That works especially well since all of the top browsers let people have separate cookie settings for each website.
My brother's Android phone didn't have any video output ports. With something like this, he could use the microSD slot to connect it to the television's VGA port.
I hope I'm wrong, but I hear serious Nintendo fans vastly overestimating the hardware capabilities of the successor to the Wii. They're hoping for hardware that will rival next gen offerings from Sony and Microsoft despite the fact that Nintendo has shown it doesn't want to compete in that high-end console space anymore. I hope I'm wrong though. With all Nintendo's success in the last generation perhaps they can come out with a Wii successor that has beefy hardware.
All they have to do is catch up to the PS3 and XBox 360. 1080p at 60 frames per second will be fine. If their competitors go up to 120 frames per second, is anybody going to care? The game systems have reached the limit of current HD television.
They'd probably do better to make the controllers better, and that's an area in which the XBox and PS3 have only recently caught up to what Nintendo did when the Wii was released.
My bet is they would like the FBI to use less resources for "think of the children" so there would be more resources available to go after people who upload and download music. The summary does say the Department of Justice is behind this.
I did report the license plate to be stolen. It ended up on a different car type of, but both cars were the same size and color. I have no idea if the police care.
I would have thought putting everything one place was the opposite of what "cloud computing" is about.
The cameras are a problem for people who aren't doing anything wrong. Somebody stole one of my license plates and put it on the back of another car. That car was caught by a camera and a ticket was mailed to the owner of the license plate (me). Then I could either pay $100 for the ticket or lose a day of pay, which is more than $100. I chose to go to court and declare my innocence. The officer never showed up and the case was dismissed, but I still lost my day's pay.
Since the tickets don't result in negative marks on driving records, one is compelled to pay the money regardless of whether she is guilty or innocent. It just costs less. Truly they could just mail random tickets to people and achieve the same effect. Even if you don't own a car, it costs less to say you did it and pay the ticket, rather than to go to court.
What happens if that Wi-Fi password is breakable? Then when the "pedobear" does her work, you have a judge who says it must have been you because you're the only one who has the password.
I don't know how the law works but this guy seems to have been cleared of charges and had no password.
I don't know which side is right. All I know is I personally don't run my router without a password. I don't trust the legal system to adequately enforce the "innocent until proven guilty" part of the law.
So you sabotaged your employer with a logic bomb to promote Firefox and older versions of Windows?