as someone who used to activly help in un-securing school computers to do what i wanted. i have to agree with the dont bother comment becuase its much more trouble than its worth make and image and push it out over the network that what they did at my school.
I think what you're trying to say is...that you screwed around with school computers during English class?
Furthermore he claims the paper reviewing for SIGGRAPH is not fair and bright and novel papers are summarily rejected because they are either not from a 'hot' field or because the reviewer does not understand the concept and is not willing to spend time understanding it.
In replying to this comment, I know that I'm going to sound like a bitter grad student; but, for some reason, I feel inclined to burn karma and make this statement:
I sympathize with this professor, and the trouble that he has faced. Although I work in the field of computer security (instead of computer graphics), I have seen many novel and ingenious papers rejected from conferences precisely because they are not from the current 'fad' field. Usually, I require large amounts of caffeine (and alcohol) just to make it through the conferences I attend, because they are filled with uninteresting papers written by hack academics attempting to ride the latest trend.
Perhaps it is this experience that has influenced the way in which I do academic reviews for conferences, when I am called upon to do so. I have no patience for papers that have nothing meaningful to say. Whenever I give an 'accept' rating to a paper, it is because I feel that the authors have something genuinely interesting to say. Whenever I give a 'reject' rating to a paper, I do my best to give as many constructive comments as I can -- I try to point out what insightful or meaningful things the author has done, as well as things that are genuine technical flaws and should be addressed. But, the thing I am never scared to do? I have never backed down from stating in a review, blatently, that the author's work seems novel and useful, and that some of the details are way over my head and should be subject to further review.
Given all the (meaningless) talk about reforming the academic review process, I often wonder: how much of the problem described by this professor would be solved if more reviewers had the balls to admit that some of the most novel ideas were over their heads?
Indeed, you are correct that "whom," as opposed to "who," should have been used. However, I believe the term "accusative" does not apply to the distinction between "who" and "whom" in English. I believe the terms that should be used are "subjective" (who) or "objective" (whom).
In modern English, the accusative and dative cases that existed in Old English (and are still used in modern languages such as German) collapsed into a single objective usage. That is, "whom" can be used either as a direct object pronoun, corresponding to an accusative usage in other languages ("Whom did you hit?"); or, it can be used as an indirect object pronoun, corresponding to a dative usage in other languages ("To whom did you give the apple?"). There's a much better explanation here.
If an elevator stops at only two floors, why does it need more than one button?
Because most normal people (ie. non-techies) don't conceptualize a two-floor elevator as a Boolean variable.
And, from an even more practical standpoint: Haven't you ever gotten onto an elevator, then remembered that you forgot to do something? So, you want to get off on the same floor, before the elevator takes you to another floor. Not too easy when the only button in the elevator takes you to another floor.
Though alcohol appears twice this is on purpose, once to get you drunk enough to ask, then a woman to ask, the second to get her drunk enough to agree. Now an automated party system that achieved that... the guys would be millionaires by next Wednesday.
So...you're saying that the party button should automate a call to an escort service?
There were two questions these "researchers" forgot to look into before jumping to their conclusion:
1) What were the numbers looking like about two hours after the kids finished playing their games? Were the effects of playing GTA 3 simply temporary, meaning that playing this game is likely not the cause of kids going on murderous, drug-induced rampages and the like?
2) How do the effects of playing GTA compare with the effects of watching the violence on the evening news? If I'm correct in my assumption, I'd love to see the Fox news-loving, anti-video game lobby try to explain why the numbers are so similar.
And, by the way, how do you measure the effect of playing GTA 3 on condom use during sex, as the abstract claimed they did? I mean, does it go something like: "Now that you've played GTA 3, do you want to f*ck a whore without protection?"
Surveys within Great Britain have shown that more than a half of 9-19 years olds have seen pornography online.
That's because approximately half of 9-19 year olds are male. Add in the fact that even women get penis enlargement emails, and bingo: we're at "more than half."
Phone == communication device. What part of this is unclear?
The problem is, all of these newfangled developers use Java. To them, phone instanceof CommunicationDevice. Damn that ExpensivePointlessGamingThing extends CommunicationDevice class!
Jason Ford
General manager for games and entertainment
Sprint Nextel
"We reject about 30 games a month because so many of them are offering the same gameplay over and over again. Lots of these games just aren't fun, offering wretched controls. Many of them are mediocre at best."
Wow. If this is at all indicative of the behaviours of other publishers, then let me be the first to say...
...that I'm not sure if I would laugh or cry if I got to play the games that they rejected!
I'd hate to see your daughter grow up to be some kind of street vigilante. How did you communicate this to her in a way she could understand (I know I had a hard time understanding souble standards when I was young)?
You raise an interesting question. I recall that, when I was young, I had a similar "bully incident" with a similar outcome: my father telling me to drill the guy in the face. It worked, just as the incident described in the grandparent post.
So, why is it that I'm not a street vigilante right now? Well, I wish I could give you a clear answer on that, since it is such an important question. Really, though, I can only speculate with some disconnected points:
Well, I'm 175 cm tall and 72 kg. Not exactly a scary street vigilante:)
Moreso, though, I think that once I moved out of the idiotic social environment that was junior high school, I matured to this understanding on my own. Having a stable work or school environment, as well as a stable (ie. non-psycho, non-socially-rejected) set of friends at that point changed a lot.
So, to answer the question of what can you communicate to your daughter to make the subtle distinction: I don't know. Nothing specific was ever communicated to me. I think that understanding was, in my case, just the end result of a luxury I had: being exposed to a better environment after junior high. For someone who may not have that same luxury, I wish I knew what to suggest.
Neither. Apparently, you've been asleep since the beginning of the 20th century: Newton is WRONG.
Wow, someone feeling a little snarky this morning? I didn't say that I agreed with the grandparent in my previous post -- I do remember some high school physics. I was just attempting to do some justice to the thread that he started by helping to clarify his point. After all, his post (though scientifically outdated) raised a question that at least deserved a civil discussion.
You're kidding, right? Mass is independent of gravity. That's second-grade knowledge.
I believe you misunderstood the parent of your post. If I understand that post correctly, he's referring to Newton's gravitational law. It states that the gravitational force between Object A and Object B is directly proportional to the product of the two masses.
So, in other words, your parent was asking: If we assume that the distance between two objects remains constant, as does the gravitational constant of the universe, shouldn't there be an increase in the mass of one of the objects to account for the gravitational force increasing?
Or, put more simply: Did the spinning superconductor experience an increase in mass (somehow?), or was it the universal gravitational constant that was (somehow?) affected by the spinning superconductor?
Thank you! You make the internet a fun and wonderful place to be!
Don't let him get to you. I, for one, really appreciate it when someone like you online takes the time to politely point out possible solutions to a problem I'm having, even when what they're suggesting might seem fairly obvious or non-optimum.
I know many times I've had problems caused by something little that I overlooked, and a suggestion just like your original post helped me. Other times, the simple suggestions didn't help, but at least we eliminated them as possible solutions before trying anything more complex.
...to the world of free software. If ever the iTunes format becomes obsolete, someone will just write a conversion algorithm that will convert your entire library to the new format.
And, since I seem to recall that copyright law allows you to convert any digital media you purchase from one format to another, this will be a perfectly legal activity, regardless of how much DRM the software writer has to break through to do it.
In this case, the PSP malware is not self-replicating, and it is something you have to download and install on your own (which claims to let you run your own games on the PSP). Therefore, it is a Trojan rather than a virus. A destructive one, yes, but still just a Trojan.
I think this article makes a very important point, if only indirectly. There are two common ways of looking at the "virus situation" on non-Windows platforms, both of which are wrong.
One line of thought, perpetrated mostly by the Anti-Virus companies, is: "Of course there are viruses for [insert name of system they now have a product for]!" They love to scare people into thinking viruses are everywhere, and can get onto your system no matter how careful you are. Buy our product!
The other line of thought runs along the lines of: I run [OS X | Linux | BSD], therefore I cannot get malicious software on my system!
Unfortunately, too many people forget that anyone with the slightest bit of skill can write malicious software for any system, if they combine a bit of social engineering...
#!/bin/bash
echo Now type your password to install free screensavers!
sudo rm -rf /
That's exactly what this PSP malware is. Don't think of it as some crazy, rampant virus, because it isn't. It's just like the stupid bash script above. But just remember that, if you're going to install something as root, you better trust the source, no matter how secure (or, in the case of the PSP, obscure -- in that not much software is written for it) your OS is.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I'd have to take my laptop outside, were I going to be working naked out there.
No worries -- your birthday will just be the day that the first major patch is released!
I think what you're trying to say is...that you screwed around with school computers during English class?
Since the link given in the story seems to have been hit simultaneously by thousands of drooling gamers, here's the press release from Bioware itself.
In replying to this comment, I know that I'm going to sound like a bitter grad student; but, for some reason, I feel inclined to burn karma and make this statement:
I sympathize with this professor, and the trouble that he has faced. Although I work in the field of computer security (instead of computer graphics), I have seen many novel and ingenious papers rejected from conferences precisely because they are not from the current 'fad' field. Usually, I require large amounts of caffeine (and alcohol) just to make it through the conferences I attend, because they are filled with uninteresting papers written by hack academics attempting to ride the latest trend.
Perhaps it is this experience that has influenced the way in which I do academic reviews for conferences, when I am called upon to do so. I have no patience for papers that have nothing meaningful to say. Whenever I give an 'accept' rating to a paper, it is because I feel that the authors have something genuinely interesting to say. Whenever I give a 'reject' rating to a paper, I do my best to give as many constructive comments as I can -- I try to point out what insightful or meaningful things the author has done, as well as things that are genuine technical flaws and should be addressed. But, the thing I am never scared to do? I have never backed down from stating in a review, blatently, that the author's work seems novel and useful, and that some of the details are way over my head and should be subject to further review.
Given all the (meaningless) talk about reforming the academic review process, I often wonder: how much of the problem described by this professor would be solved if more reviewers had the balls to admit that some of the most novel ideas were over their heads?
Indeed, you are correct that "whom," as opposed to "who," should have been used. However, I believe the term "accusative" does not apply to the distinction between "who" and "whom" in English. I believe the terms that should be used are "subjective" (who) or "objective" (whom).
In modern English, the accusative and dative cases that existed in Old English (and are still used in modern languages such as German) collapsed into a single objective usage. That is, "whom" can be used either as a direct object pronoun, corresponding to an accusative usage in other languages ("Whom did you hit?"); or, it can be used as an indirect object pronoun, corresponding to a dative usage in other languages ("To whom did you give the apple?"). There's a much better explanation here.
I think they meant, "Labs Compete to Built New Nuke-u-ler Bomb."
If an elevator stops at only two floors, why does it need more than one button?
Because most normal people (ie. non-techies) don't conceptualize a two-floor elevator as a Boolean variable.
And, from an even more practical standpoint: Haven't you ever gotten onto an elevator, then remembered that you forgot to do something? So, you want to get off on the same floor, before the elevator takes you to another floor. Not too easy when the only button in the elevator takes you to another floor.
Though alcohol appears twice this is on purpose, once to get you drunk enough to ask, then a woman to ask, the second to get her drunk enough to agree. Now an automated party system that achieved that... the guys would be millionaires by next Wednesday.
So...you're saying that the party button should automate a call to an escort service?
"Wii support Nintendo"
/apologies
Allow me to paraphrase your post:
Apple should make Macs look, behave, and feel exactly like Windows!
Perhaps a little counter-productive, given that one of the reasons many people love Macs after they make the switch is the UI?
...he should have his anal sphincter jerked up around his adam's apple, his scrotum tied (in a proper square knot) behind his ears...
I think I got some spam for a site like this just a few days ago...
There were two questions these "researchers" forgot to look into before jumping to their conclusion:
1) What were the numbers looking like about two hours after the kids finished playing their games? Were the effects of playing GTA 3 simply temporary, meaning that playing this game is likely not the cause of kids going on murderous, drug-induced rampages and the like?
2) How do the effects of playing GTA compare with the effects of watching the violence on the evening news? If I'm correct in my assumption, I'd love to see the Fox news-loving, anti-video game lobby try to explain why the numbers are so similar.
And, by the way, how do you measure the effect of playing GTA 3 on condom use during sex, as the abstract claimed they did? I mean, does it go something like: "Now that you've played GTA 3, do you want to f*ck a whore without protection?"
Surveys within Great Britain have shown that more than a half of 9-19 years olds have seen pornography online.
That's because approximately half of 9-19 year olds are male. Add in the fact that even women get penis enlargement emails, and bingo: we're at "more than half."
Phone == communication device. What part of this is unclear?
The problem is, all of these newfangled developers use Java. To them, phone instanceof CommunicationDevice. Damn that ExpensivePointlessGamingThing extends CommunicationDevice class!
Jason Ford
...that I'm not sure if I would laugh or cry if I got to play the games that they rejected!
General manager for games and entertainment
Sprint Nextel
"We reject about 30 games a month because so many of them are offering the same gameplay over and over again. Lots of these games just aren't fun, offering wretched controls. Many of them are mediocre at best."
Wow. If this is at all indicative of the behaviours of other publishers, then let me be the first to say...
I wouldn't mind seeing a Zelda style, action oriented Final Fantasy game either.
Then perhaps take a look at the Seiken Densetsu series?
Final Fantasy Adventure was the first game in the series. It was later remade as Sword of Mana. The second game in the series is a favourite RPG for many people: Secret of Mana.
I'd hate to see your daughter grow up to be some kind of street vigilante. How did you communicate this to her in a way she could understand (I know I had a hard time understanding souble standards when I was young)?
:)
You raise an interesting question. I recall that, when I was young, I had a similar "bully incident" with a similar outcome: my father telling me to drill the guy in the face. It worked, just as the incident described in the grandparent post.
So, why is it that I'm not a street vigilante right now? Well, I wish I could give you a clear answer on that, since it is such an important question. Really, though, I can only speculate with some disconnected points:
Well, I'm 175 cm tall and 72 kg. Not exactly a scary street vigilante
Moreso, though, I think that once I moved out of the idiotic social environment that was junior high school, I matured to this understanding on my own. Having a stable work or school environment, as well as a stable (ie. non-psycho, non-socially-rejected) set of friends at that point changed a lot.
So, to answer the question of what can you communicate to your daughter to make the subtle distinction: I don't know. Nothing specific was ever communicated to me. I think that understanding was, in my case, just the end result of a luxury I had: being exposed to a better environment after junior high. For someone who may not have that same luxury, I wish I knew what to suggest.
Neither. Apparently, you've been asleep since the beginning of the 20th century: Newton is WRONG.
Wow, someone feeling a little snarky this morning? I didn't say that I agreed with the grandparent in my previous post -- I do remember some high school physics. I was just attempting to do some justice to the thread that he started by helping to clarify his point. After all, his post (though scientifically outdated) raised a question that at least deserved a civil discussion.
You're kidding, right? Mass is independent of gravity. That's second-grade knowledge.
I believe you misunderstood the parent of your post. If I understand that post correctly, he's referring to Newton's gravitational law. It states that the gravitational force between Object A and Object B is directly proportional to the product of the two masses.
So, in other words, your parent was asking: If we assume that the distance between two objects remains constant, as does the gravitational constant of the universe, shouldn't there be an increase in the mass of one of the objects to account for the gravitational force increasing?
Or, put more simply: Did the spinning superconductor experience an increase in mass (somehow?), or was it the universal gravitational constant that was (somehow?) affected by the spinning superconductor?
Thank you! You make the internet a fun and wonderful place to be!
Don't let him get to you. I, for one, really appreciate it when someone like you online takes the time to politely point out possible solutions to a problem I'm having, even when what they're suggesting might seem fairly obvious or non-optimum.
I know many times I've had problems caused by something little that I overlooked, and a suggestion just like your original post helped me. Other times, the simple suggestions didn't help, but at least we eliminated them as possible solutions before trying anything more complex.
...to the world of free software. If ever the iTunes format becomes obsolete, someone will just write a conversion algorithm that will convert your entire library to the new format.
And, since I seem to recall that copyright law allows you to convert any digital media you purchase from one format to another, this will be a perfectly legal activity, regardless of how much DRM the software writer has to break through to do it.
Not sure what that program's supposed to do that's so bad.
Bloody hell, I must have mistyped something in my example program. Let me try running it and see what happe...
[CARRIER LOST]
How is this a Trojan? Your answer:
i ng).
"In computer security technology, a virus is a self-replicating program...", from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Virus.
"In the context of computer software, a Trojan horse is a malicious program that is disguised as legitimate software.", from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(comput
In this case, the PSP malware is not self-replicating, and it is something you have to download and install on your own (which claims to let you run your own games on the PSP). Therefore, it is a Trojan rather than a virus. A destructive one, yes, but still just a Trojan.
One line of thought, perpetrated mostly by the Anti-Virus companies, is: "Of course there are viruses for [insert name of system they now have a product for]!" They love to scare people into thinking viruses are everywhere, and can get onto your system no matter how careful you are. Buy our product!
The other line of thought runs along the lines of: I run [OS X | Linux | BSD], therefore I cannot get malicious software on my system!
Unfortunately, too many people forget that anyone with the slightest bit of skill can write malicious software for any system, if they combine a bit of social engineering... That's exactly what this PSP malware is. Don't think of it as some crazy, rampant virus, because it isn't. It's just like the stupid bash script above. But just remember that, if you're going to install something as root, you better trust the source, no matter how secure (or, in the case of the PSP, obscure -- in that not much software is written for it) your OS is.