It's the combined effect of his 1989 allowed bandwith and the 1988 Miss June that his posts of 1991 are only now beginning to bleed through. At the current rate, provided he's ceased posting since then, he's expected to catch up by 2083. Every new post will bump the date.
(exterior, just inside the gates of Hell) (wide shot over frozen hellscape) (voice over: Sir David Attenborough) In the early days of 2006 Hell started a spontaneous, rapid cooling process, reaching freezing temperature in the early spring, and being completely frozen over by the end of April. Soon, having tried for 45 years with little success, Finland finally won the 2006 Eurovision song contest.
The events remain yet to be explained, but some have drawn connections to a popular saying: "Hell will freeze over before Finland wins the Eurovision song contest."
The extinction of all "snowball in Hell" jokes in the spring of 2006 has also been blamed on these events.
A data point: I drive a 1999 German-built Ford Focus station wagon that has a 1.8 liter four-cylinder turbo diesel engine, 165000 miles (265000 km) on it. I keep track of fuel consumption every time I fill the tank. I'm the only driver of the car. I typically get about 39 mpg (6 l/100 km) in the city and 52 mpg (4.5 l/100 km) on the highway. A very typical number is 47 mpg (5 l/100 km). The mpg numbers have been calculated using US gallons. This without any special technique other than anticipating traffic lights and other stops.
If the internet has taught us anything it's that the Infinite Monkeys Corollary is more important than the Infinite Monkeys Theorem. The corollary reminds us that it doesn't matter whether the monkeys turn out Hamlet, because you'll need to read through an infinity of worthless crap before you find it.
Which leads to the conclusion that you get the damn thing sooner by writing it yourself than by sorting out an infinity of worthless crap.
In Finland bags cost money, so the customer picks up the appropriate number of bags and pays for them along with other purchases, or brings their own. So no "paper or plastic" question. I imagine this may be the case in many other countries as well.
If you have a card that's only one thing (debit or credit), then they can tell. If you have a combination credit/debit card (like I do), then the machine asks the cashier to make a choice. Then again, outside of Finland my combination card works as a credit card, so no choice.
On a more serious note, I wouldn't wonder if the situation with Iran and Iraq plus some other up-and-coming nations with nuclear capability resulted (directly or indirectly) in another cold war (Cold War II?) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War for comparison.
Not being American or xenophobic, I'll have to take stupid:)
Sorry about the nitpicking. I know you meant kilometers per hour, kph being a relatively common misspelling. Thank you for using an internationally understandable unit. I understand it's logical to extend miles per hour = mph to kilometers per hour = kph. Only it depends on the reader making the connection, which many people outside the USA and UK will not. Everybody else abbreviates kilometers per hour the standard way, km/h.
The main thing people like about dials is that it is analogue, so very easy to read. Albeit less accurate, but who cares whether you're going 104, 105 or 106 kph. The position of the needle on a dial is what you are after.
You have a dial that displays keystrokes per hour? Cool.
When setting up a GSM network (including any of the successor protocols), SMS comes practically free. (Set up one server somewhere to act as a SMS center, and that's pretty much it.) The bandwidth is already there. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_message_service for all the gory details.
This is exactly why people should watch carefully what the EU does. Don't let them do stupid things just because some lobbyist thinks it's a good idea.
Sure. And when you take that document and run it against a bunch of previously known elements you have a good chance of knowing that A: the person presenting it is the same person who received the document from an issuing authority. And B: if that person pops a flag up from the computer or is listed on some watch list or somehow barred from entry, they can be denied entry into the US or taken into custody until something is sorted out and whatever mistake is made/seen. I'm not sure the idea is as much involved with making sure person X is actually person X as much as it is that Person X acording to these papers boarded this flight and we have reasons to believe that the same person who got the papers is the same person pretending to be person X.
(...)
You can verify that the person claiming to be Person X on a flight entering the states is in fact the same person who got the passport and VISAs for Person X. And when you get this information before the flight takes off headed for the US, you can run it against a database for threats and perhaps charges against them so you are somewhat better prepared to react once the plane lands.
Biometrics are often touted as a certain solution to the problem of verifying whether Person X is really Person X or somebody else in disguise. The point I'd like to raise is that this may not be the real problem, making biometrics a moot solution. Are you sure the entire system is waterproof? That there is no way one could get two genuine passports under different identities, with valid biometric data? If not, we can end up with a situation where one passport proves that country 1 knows the person as X, and another passport proves that country 2 knows the person as Y, etc. If Person X is a threat, maybe Person Y has a clean slate and is given a warm welcome?
In the end, all you know is the person is probably using their own passport. So you catch those who are known to be threats plust those who travel on stolen, borrowed, or counterfeit passports. Stolen passports can be reported as it is, counterfeit passports can be recognized, although having an encrypted chip on the passport makes it somewhat more difficult to counterfeit.
My main criticism is against the attitude that the more we know about each individual person, the more effectively we can mitigate any threat that they might present. This attitude is like keeping pink elephants away by individually examining each person and object in the room, listing all the things it is, and if "pink elephant" doesn't come up, being satisfied it isn't a threat. I take the view that the more we know about the source of the threats, the more effectively we can mitigate them. That source is not the hordes of individual airline travelers, nor is it the entire half-billion population of the EU, nor the 300 million people of the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
Please mod parent insightful.
Sincerely,
Juhana Siren
Oulu, "Hell's Freezer City", Finland
And forgot to press OK a second time?
It's the combined effect of his 1989 allowed bandwith and the 1988 Miss June that his posts of 1991 are only now beginning to bleed through. At the current rate, provided he's ceased posting since then, he's expected to catch up by 2083. Every new post will bump the date.
You know, there are other methods for that.
In our yard the lawn sure has added up to a bunch of inches.
Time to get the mower.
So snowballs DID have a chance in Hell!
(exterior, just inside the gates of Hell)
(wide shot over frozen hellscape)
(voice over: Sir David Attenborough)
In the early days of 2006 Hell started a spontaneous, rapid cooling process, reaching freezing temperature in the early spring, and being completely frozen over by the end of April. Soon, having tried for 45 years with little success, Finland finally won the 2006 Eurovision song contest.
The events remain yet to be explained, but some have drawn connections to a popular saying: "Hell will freeze over before Finland wins the Eurovision song contest."
The extinction of all "snowball in Hell" jokes in the spring of 2006 has also been blamed on these events.
A data point: I drive a 1999 German-built Ford Focus station wagon that has a 1.8 liter four-cylinder turbo diesel engine, 165000 miles (265000 km) on it. I keep track of fuel consumption every time I fill the tank. I'm the only driver of the car. I typically get about 39 mpg (6 l/100 km) in the city and 52 mpg (4.5 l/100 km) on the highway. A very typical number is 47 mpg (5 l/100 km). The mpg numbers have been calculated using US gallons. This without any special technique other than anticipating traffic lights and other stops.
So, in other words...
What we have here is an infinite number of eyes sorting through an infinity of worthless crap being written by an infinite number of monkeys.
Welcome to Web 2.0...
If the internet has taught us anything it's that the Infinite Monkeys Corollary is more important than the Infinite Monkeys Theorem. The corollary reminds us that it doesn't matter whether the monkeys turn out Hamlet, because you'll need to read through an infinity of worthless crap before you find it.
Which leads to the conclusion that you get the damn thing sooner by writing it yourself than by sorting out an infinity of worthless crap.
In Finland bags cost money, so the customer picks up the appropriate number of bags and pays for them along with other purchases, or brings their own. So no "paper or plastic" question. I imagine this may be the case in many other countries as well.
What if the store had a loyalty card that they would be required to present if they wanted my custom?
If you have a card that's only one thing (debit or credit), then they can tell. If you have a combination credit/debit card (like I do), then the machine asks the cashier to make a choice. Then again, outside of Finland my combination card works as a credit card, so no choice.
NaNoTuBeS!
Funny, that :)
On a more serious note, I wouldn't wonder if the situation with Iran and Iraq plus some other up-and-coming nations with nuclear capability resulted (directly or indirectly) in another cold war (Cold War II?) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War for comparison.
Not being American or xenophobic, I'll have to take stupid :)
Sorry about the nitpicking. I know you meant kilometers per hour, kph being a relatively common misspelling. Thank you for using an internationally understandable unit. I understand it's logical to extend miles per hour = mph to kilometers per hour = kph. Only it depends on the reader making the connection, which many people outside the USA and UK will not. Everybody else abbreviates kilometers per hour the standard way, km/h.
The main thing people like about dials is that it is analogue, so very easy to read. Albeit less accurate, but who cares whether you're going 104, 105 or 106 kph. The position of the needle on a dial is what you are after.
You have a dial that displays keystrokes per hour? Cool.
I wonder how many mistook manet for monet or vice versa... The misspelling of Gauguin and Delacroix also kind of illustrates your point.
I have seen the future and it's Das Touchscreen.
When setting up a GSM network (including any of the successor protocols), SMS comes practically free. (Set up one server somewhere to act as a SMS center, and that's pretty much it.) The bandwidth is already there. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_message_service for all the gory details.
Over here it costs money to send SMS and I've never had any problems with SMS spam...
This is exactly why people should watch carefully what the EU does. Don't let them do stupid things just because some lobbyist thinks it's a good idea.
It still boils down to an informed patient making their own decision.
Yes, and how many patients are that informed?
I mean, look at post-WWII East Germany ... they eventually had half the population spying on the other half.
Maybe the goal these days is to have each half spy the other half?
Sure. And when you take that document and run it against a bunch of previously known elements you have a good chance of knowing that A: the person presenting it is the same person who received the document from an issuing authority. And B: if that person pops a flag up from the computer or is listed on some watch list or somehow barred from entry, they can be denied entry into the US or taken into custody until something is sorted out and whatever mistake is made/seen. I'm not sure the idea is as much involved with making sure person X is actually person X as much as it is that Person X acording to these papers boarded this flight and we have reasons to believe that the same person who got the papers is the same person pretending to be person X.
(...)
You can verify that the person claiming to be Person X on a flight entering the states is in fact the same person who got the passport and VISAs for Person X. And when you get this information before the flight takes off headed for the US, you can run it against a database for threats and perhaps charges against them so you are somewhat better prepared to react once the plane lands.
Biometrics are often touted as a certain solution to the problem of verifying whether Person X is really Person X or somebody else in disguise. The point I'd like to raise is that this may not be the real problem, making biometrics a moot solution. Are you sure the entire system is waterproof? That there is no way one could get two genuine passports under different identities, with valid biometric data? If not, we can end up with a situation where one passport proves that country 1 knows the person as X, and another passport proves that country 2 knows the person as Y, etc. If Person X is a threat, maybe Person Y has a clean slate and is given a warm welcome?
In the end, all you know is the person is probably using their own passport. So you catch those who are known to be threats plust those who travel on stolen, borrowed, or counterfeit passports. Stolen passports can be reported as it is, counterfeit passports can be recognized, although having an encrypted chip on the passport makes it somewhat more difficult to counterfeit.
My main criticism is against the attitude that the more we know about each individual person, the more effectively we can mitigate any threat that they might present. This attitude is like keeping pink elephants away by individually examining each person and object in the room, listing all the things it is, and if "pink elephant" doesn't come up, being satisfied it isn't a threat. I take the view that the more we know about the source of the threats, the more effectively we can mitigate them. That source is not the hordes of individual airline travelers, nor is it the entire half-billion population of the EU, nor the 300 million people of the USA.
I sent email about this to the European Data Protection Supervisor ( http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/lang/en/pid/1 ), since this is within their mission. The address is edps@edps.europa.eu