I'll bet you a nickle that it's just a bootable usb device with a batch file that copies the registry, logs, user profile, + a few other things onto the drive for later perusal.
Really, if they were serious about pwnzoring your machine they'd just take it from you. It's not like they have to 'hack' your machine. They're the police. They own your machine by... picking it up and taking it. OWNED!
This is more of a "We've got probable cause to serch the premisis... and plug this doojie into your computer." An old machine that can't boot USB and has Autorun turned off probably defeats it, because this isn't for serious investigations.
Indeed, cyanobacteria are quite a nuisance in aquarium maintenance. They are difficult to get rid of b/c not so many things like to eat stuff with cyanide in it.
Releasing it into the wild sounds like a terrible idea.
Man, ethanol is a red fucking herring. It's a terrible idea.
How much farmland will the US need to go ethanol? How much will the world need?
That's IN ADDITION to the amount already in use to make our food.
The environment can't support that much farming. It won't work. Ethanol is basically the same as solar, but less efficient. It will take too much land.
Hawking is a theoretical physicist. His opinion on the subject is worth no more than mine, in fact possibly less, since I have probably done more biochemistry than he has.... Now a couple of reasons why Hawking may be totally wrong.
=D Amusingly, neither reason has anything to do with biochemistry.
If Uwe Boll did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
(With apologies to Voltaire)
Not that anyone should see his movies, but I think it entirely appropriate that he make them. The man is a walking reminder not to take the entertainment industry seriously.
Does anyone else feel like consoles are going this way as well? With the online systems matching up folks the economic pressures seem to push makers to selling an additional console + game. Several times on Xbox I have anticipated getting all my peeps together to have a big gaming session only to find that the game only supports half as many people in net play as it does for a single box. Phantom Dust: 2 players / screen, or in net play 1 player / screen. Other games as well. Bummer.
I would submit that what was actually illustrated for you is that most people are rubbish. From your example alone the status of the Art itself remains unresolved.
Indeed, it would make much more sense to have a whale / porpoise chimera. We can call it a Whorpois. Then we can have them at sea world, and people could pay $1,000 an hour to swim with them. Then, in the future when politicians get 'Spitzered' they can claim "No, that money went to pay for my visits to sea world. I spent it on a high-priced whorpis." Ahhh, water-sports! Wait, that brings me back to 'Spitzered'...
I remember not loving Syndicate Wars nearly as much as I did Syndicate. I don't quite remember why though. I'd buy another Syndicate game almost instantly.
I remember American Revolt. I remember lots and lots of rocket launchers, but that's about it...
And if you think I'm going to telecommute into your job to do your IT work for you we're going to have to talk about this kibble you've been feeding me.
Hold on a minute... you get energy from fission. You get energy from fusion. Damn, I'm confused.
There is one element, and it is the least energy state. I think it's lead, but I might be mis-remembering. Anyway, elements heavier than this mystery element break apart to release energy. Elements lighter fuse together to release energy. Fission (breaking) is heavy stuff like Uranium, Fusion (combining) is light stuff like Hydrogen.
However, PLANTS convert energy to matter.
I don't wanna go raining on your parade, but I think plants use energy to convert water and carbon dioxide into longer carbon-chains, with little bits of other stuff thrown in. I don't think they do any direct energy -> matter conversion.
I think you've got it wrong. It will always be appropriate for one to react when a trusted, important information source distributes incorrect information about you.
The realization that people need to make is that the internet should not be considered a trusted information source. Err, wait - places like facebook can't be trusted. Places like NY Times or CNN can. Or at least they can be trusted as much as one might trust US Media. Then there is Wikipedia, which maybe you can trust and maybe not. It's not hard to see that non-technical people wouldn't have a nuanced understanding of information validity on the internet.... going somewhat offtopic...
I think an interesting mod to our language (if such a thing were possible) would be to institute a set of tenses or conjugations or somesuch for every statement. They would indicate - 'I have verified that this is true' 'A trusted source believes this is true' 'This is logically true or likely' 'I am skeptical of this information' 'This information is of unknown quality'
Perhaps this group of indications would need to be somewhat different than what I suggest here, but I think that attaching a rough "and here's how sure I am" to every statement of fact would have an interesting and productive effect on both communication and thought.
At the very least, the abstract notion that we should aspire to understand what lies beneath our current level of knowledge and how it affects the quality of [work output] is fundamental to good practice.
I become amused, thinking of how executives and administrators would react to this concept.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet this is even less of a deal than that.
I'll bet you a nickle that it's just a bootable usb device with a batch file that copies the registry, logs, user profile, + a few other things onto the drive for later perusal.
Really, if they were serious about pwnzoring your machine they'd just take it from you. It's not like they have to 'hack' your machine. They're the police. They own your machine by... picking it up and taking it. OWNED!
This is more of a "We've got probable cause to serch the premisis... and plug this doojie into your computer." An old machine that can't boot USB and has Autorun turned off probably defeats it, because this isn't for serious investigations.
The problem being that all of the energy incident on the earth does something.
That energy makes plants, or heats something up. If we extract that energy for our own use then we leave something else without that energy.
Who will lose out? Tough to say.
"Spot on" would be a one-to-one, in-order correlation between what you said and what they did.
Indeed, cyanobacteria are quite a nuisance in aquarium maintenance. They are difficult to get rid of b/c not so many things like to eat stuff with cyanide in it.
Releasing it into the wild sounds like a terrible idea.
Man, ethanol is a red fucking herring. It's a terrible idea. How much farmland will the US need to go ethanol? How much will the world need? That's IN ADDITION to the amount already in use to make our food. The environment can't support that much farming. It won't work. Ethanol is basically the same as solar, but less efficient. It will take too much land.
I find myself thinking the same thing about steam, but everyone seems to love valve.
No, I got your point and I agree with it. It's your argument that I got a chuckle from.
1) You start out by pointing out that Hawking is not particularly qualified to discus the probability that there is intelligent life on other planets.
2) Then you suggest that you may be more qualified than Hawking because of your work in biochem.
3) You offer corrections to Hawkings points that are based on not-biochemistry.
4) You close with some biochem talk, which is basically in agreement with Hawking (life may be common).
Hawking is a theoretical physicist. His opinion on the subject is worth no more than mine, in fact possibly less, since I have probably done more biochemistry than he has. ...
Now a couple of reasons why Hawking may be totally wrong.
=D Amusingly, neither reason has anything to do with biochemistry.
If Uwe Boll did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
(With apologies to Voltaire)
Not that anyone should see his movies, but I think it entirely appropriate that he make them.
The man is a walking reminder not to take the entertainment industry seriously.
I was thinking "technicallyimpossible"
Wait - what? What the hell is "an oragutan task"?
oh. Interesting mental image though.
NetBook Air Jordan? The kids'll love it!
If you can't build a holographic projector inside a teacup with $50 worth of parts, get out of the way for somebody who can.
The cool and smart part would be the holographic projector, not the teacup.
Concept work, generally, is good. This concept work, specifically, I don't think is so good.
You're looking at it sideways.
Not until just now! I had never considered XP as an ascii face.
Perhaps next we can have Windows DX
Does anyone else feel like consoles are going this way as well? With the online systems matching up folks the economic pressures seem to push makers to selling an additional console + game. Several times on Xbox I have anticipated getting all my peeps together to have a big gaming session only to find that the game only supports half as many people in net play as it does for a single box. Phantom Dust: 2 players / screen, or in net play 1 player / screen. Other games as well. Bummer.
Art, modern art anyways - is a load of rubbish.
I would submit that what was actually illustrated for you is that most people are rubbish. From your example alone the status of the Art itself remains unresolved.
Cows and wales? What's next?
Indeed, it would make much more sense to have a whale / porpoise chimera. We can call it a Whorpois. Then we can have them at sea world, and people could pay $1,000 an hour to swim with them. Then, in the future when politicians get 'Spitzered' they can claim "No, that money went to pay for my visits to sea world. I spent it on a high-priced whorpis." Ahhh, water-sports! Wait, that brings me back to 'Spitzered'...
I remember not loving Syndicate Wars nearly as much as I did Syndicate. I don't quite remember why though. I'd buy another Syndicate game almost instantly.
I remember American Revolt. I remember lots and lots of rocket launchers, but that's about it...
Ah, syndicate. Populous too.
And if you think I'm going to telecommute into your job to do your IT work for you we're going to have to talk about this kibble you've been feeding me.
- Your Dog
"What's the Excel formula for getting laid?"
Integral of e to the x equals function of u sub n.
Hold on a minute... you get energy from fission. You get energy from fusion. Damn, I'm confused.
There is one element, and it is the least energy state. I think it's lead, but I might be mis-remembering. Anyway, elements heavier than this mystery element break apart to release energy. Elements lighter fuse together to release energy. Fission (breaking) is heavy stuff like Uranium, Fusion (combining) is light stuff like Hydrogen.
However, PLANTS convert energy to matter.
I don't wanna go raining on your parade, but I think plants use energy to convert water and carbon dioxide into longer carbon-chains, with little bits of other stuff thrown in. I don't think they do any direct energy -> matter conversion.
Q: How many IBM engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Just one. But it takes a team of PhDs to measure the forces involved.
I think you've got it wrong. It will always be appropriate for one to react when a trusted, important information source distributes incorrect information about you.
... going somewhat offtopic ...
The realization that people need to make is that the internet should not be considered a trusted information source. Err, wait - places like facebook can't be trusted. Places like NY Times or CNN can. Or at least they can be trusted as much as one might trust US Media. Then there is Wikipedia, which maybe you can trust and maybe not. It's not hard to see that non-technical people wouldn't have a nuanced understanding of information validity on the internet.
I think an interesting mod to our language (if such a thing were possible) would be to institute a set of tenses or conjugations or somesuch for every statement. They would indicate -
'I have verified that this is true'
'A trusted source believes this is true'
'This is logically true or likely'
'I am skeptical of this information'
'This information is of unknown quality'
Perhaps this group of indications would need to be somewhat different than what I suggest here, but I think that attaching a rough "and here's how sure I am" to every statement of fact would have an interesting and productive effect on both communication and thought.
Outright lies would continue of course.
sketchup?
smustard?
At the very least, the abstract notion that we should aspire to understand what lies beneath our current level of knowledge and how it affects the quality of [work output] is fundamental to good practice.
I become amused, thinking of how executives and administrators would react to this concept.