I don't get it, why do people pick on Dubya for pluralizing the word? There was more than one Internet at the time he made that quote, was there not? Last time I checked, you didn't need to have three of something before you could use the plural form.
I recall, back in late 1993 or maybe early 94, somewhere around there, being infuriated by this guy I'd never heard of before. Some jerk named Al Gore was on national television beaking off about the "Information Superhighway" that was out there.
"SHUT UP!!!" I screamed at the TV. "Everybody's going to want in, just shut up oh please please stop talking!!"
So it seems to me that I'm already doing as much work as I would have to do using this software, but the whitelisting I'm doing in Thunderbird is already 100% effective at filling my inbox with email I care to see. Anything suspect goes to a suspect folder (after my ISP has already had a go with their spam filters, certain ones don't even reach Thunderbird) so I can double-check if there's something important I'm watching for from an as yet unknown address. It's kind of a pain, but it works. I can't see a benefit from switching to FairUCE.
Same thing as I pointed out above. Those moves only go about half-way to the solution, you have to get A to the TOP-right. On the very link you give, the goal corner is marked in black, have another look.
At what point does making an amazingly fat paycheck stop a person from wanting more?
Money calls to itself, the more you have, the more you *need*. Particularly if it appears to be coming from an easy source, the urge is to milk it as completely as possible, for tomorrow may bring ruin for those that didn't hoard as much of it. Those of us that aren't rich, that don't have access to ways of making big lumps of money with a handshake and a smile, have still experienced this feeling in video games, haven't we? I know I have, in MMO's. Having several million credits is great, but it is not as good as having twice as much as that, and then that's not quite enough either.
Ride the gravy train till it breaks, then look for another, that's the rule. Never mind that you have enough money for yourself and your desendants for the next three generations, that isn't enough. I'm not supporting it at all, I hate that mindset, but there it is.
I'm really not sure what you mean, it does get *bloody* hot here. Not for very long, but quite long enough thank you. Then it gets really bloody cold, for much longer, and I don't care for that much either. Come to think of it, why am I living here again?
You missed one fact: Lawyer jokes are fun. Even more fun than ethnic jokes, because someone doesn't choose their ethnicity, but they do choose to slith^H^H^H^H^H go to law school.
Looks more like a rather poor attempt at damage control to me. To confess awareness of core problems, but only to offer such confession after having their name dragged through the mud? Yeah, that's really looking out for the 'team' isn't it? If nobody had beaked off about it, this supposedly 'known issue' would have remained obscured, I think that is screamingly obvious from the double-talk in the memo.
I live in Edmonton, Alberta, and it can already get plenty hot here in the summer. The electrical supply to my apartment is meagre, and I can't combine certain kitchen tasks without blowing the breaker, so no air-conditioning for me. 2 years ago I was building myself a new P4 system, on what happened to be the very hottest day of the year. It ran flaky as hell that first day, running hot, and I wasn't able to get Windows installed properly until the evening. That truly sucked, and I really don't want more of it.
Who could've missed the astronomers saying the planet was about to be eaten by a giant space worm?
That's not what I heard. My commanding officer swore blind that the planet was going to be eaten by a giant mutant star-goat. That's all it took to get me on the B Ark.
I wonder if someone wanted to hit someone at one of these locations, and planned ahead, what could be done with two or more coordinated shooters? Let's say two. A guy and a buddy go out at night and take positions 180 degrees apart, both hiding somewhere the camera cannot see, if that's possible. One guy shoots, and then the other guy shoots. Maybe a third accomplice is standing innocently in the open where he can watch what the cameras do as his buddies run away. What does the camera array do? Does it go to the first shot and stay there for a bit, or does it divert to the second shot before getting a look at the first? With that information you can plan to have two guys (or more, maybe the cameras can split their decisions to have one look one way and another camera follow the second shot, bring enough guys you should be able to offer confusion), one can see the target, and is possibly exposed to the camera if it turns to his position, and the other isn't in a position to shoot at anything useful, he's just bait, hidden from the camera. Which one will shoot first, and the timing involved depends on how the cameras work. Conceivably you could contrive to give the actual killer time to get out of camera view. I doubt it's meant to stop anything but random violence, my scenario is more for assassination, but I thought it was interesting.
But robots aren't harming humans. Humans are harming humans (and doing other more useful jobs like disposing of dangerous crap) by remote control, using a tool specialized for the job. This is not what Asimov had in mind.
Re:Wait, a vaccine?
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The only question is how well it'll work given the propensity for mutation that HIV has shown so far?
I may have misunderstood the process mentioned in the article, but it seems that they immunize you with cells from your own body. It's not a forumla your doctor will take down from his shelf and shoot you with. They take some of your blood, kill the HIV in it, load those dead cells into some of your own immune cells, and give that back to you. This wakes up the team somehow, if I've read it right. I don't think mutation from wide-spread use of this vaccine is possible, if it is so highly personal in administration.
I think that an investigation would prove an unwilling zombie to be innocent. If they can't find a money trail or anything for you, and no supporting evidence other than the existance of trojans on your machine, they must conclude you got hijacked. Someone just being clever in running a compromised machine on purpose to pretend to be a victim is going to slip up elsewhere, their life-situation may easily give them away. An investigation can show that you have stuff in your house you shouldn't be able to afford on your declared income, for example. When they start asking questions about that stuff, you're in trouble.
brand the persons that get these bots / infections as clueless lusers who get their comeuppance
But they are to an extent. They are using a tool with the insistance that they should not have to learn how to use it properly. This kind of rationale doesn't work in very many places, why should it apply to computers? Everything is learned, granted a lot of things are simpler than computers to use, but you still have to put effort into learning how to take care of your things.
You need to learn to check the oil in your car, and if you don't want to do that then you can make sure you're paying to have it checked regularly, or your third option would be to just drive the car until one day black smoke starts pouring out of the hood and you swear at the auto manufacturer for not giving you a car that 'just works'.
Years ago I read it out loud, to a girlfriend who was into fantasy but had never picked up Tolkien. I took it upon myself to make sure she was introduced properly. It took us almost exactly a month, reading every day for hours each day after work. Very satisfying experience for both of us. She went and got her own copy the day after we finished so she could read it again herself, and did so twice more in succession at that time. The experience really 'took'. The slower pace of reading aloud, combined with doing character voices and such, made it the most enjoyable reading of that story I'd ever done, before or since. I would be reaching the end of a chapter, and be hoping she'd want to let me go on, and on the other side she would be hoping I could keep going, at least one more chapter tonight please? I highly recommend this activity, if you have a listener that can stay patiently listening.
I can read in my head very quickly, but usually prefer not to. Unless I'm trying to study something, that I will fly through. For me it's not just about retaining what happened, that's easy, but savoring an experience takes more time. It is not enough for me to remember later that such and such happened in the story. To me it feels like reading fast just leaves me with access to memories of stored information. Taking the time to fully savor what is happening, pacing one's progress through a scene closer to the real-time of the characters, leaves me with memories of an experience that I actually lived through.
Actually, that's probably true. It is difficult to be a good liar if you have a poor memory. You will get caught contradicting yourself a month later, by people with better memories than you. Creativity and logic play a huge role in lying as well. That, and I don't recall people generally accusing lawyers of being stupid.
I think there's always a bit of extra work, even if you're good at it. Being very well-prepared ahead of testing, or being actually delusional about the truth as the liar knows it, would be all that would negate the differences. If the lying is being done on the spot, even by an accomplished liar they still have to check for consistancy with past lies, and record themselves lying so they can remember their answer later on if asked again. If you're telling the truth you simply speak your mind, and don't worry about later, if asked again you'll just speak your mind again, no problem.
My family would have to pay me to show up for thanksgiving or christmas or what have you. Actually, scratch that, they don't have enough money to make it bearable.
Since Windows 95, and still today in Windows XP, removing a CD or floppy from the drive before Windows is finished with it will result in the system hanging at best, and BSOD at worst.
Huh? You aren't by chance referring to the screen (which does happen to be blue) that is merely informing you that the disk is still needed, but that you can also hit escape to assert your will? Ejecting a CD when an app hasn't been expecting me to do so has never resulted in anything more than a sudden increase in performance, when the system has been struggling insanely to read a bad section of the disc and I've become bored with waiting for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it, why do people pick on Dubya for pluralizing the word? There was more than one Internet at the time he made that quote, was there not? Last time I checked, you didn't need to have three of something before you could use the plural form.
I recall, back in late 1993 or maybe early 94, somewhere around there, being infuriated by this guy I'd never heard of before. Some jerk named Al Gore was on national television beaking off about the "Information Superhighway" that was out there.
"SHUT UP!!!" I screamed at the TV. "Everybody's going to want in, just shut up oh please please stop talking!!"
Give him credit for that, at the very least.
I thought this problem was already somebody's job, why haven't they asked him about it?
Our Man In Black
So it seems to me that I'm already doing as much work as I would have to do using this software, but the whitelisting I'm doing in Thunderbird is already 100% effective at filling my inbox with email I care to see. Anything suspect goes to a suspect folder (after my ISP has already had a go with their spam filters, certain ones don't even reach Thunderbird) so I can double-check if there's something important I'm watching for from an as yet unknown address. It's kind of a pain, but it works. I can't see a benefit from switching to FairUCE.
Same thing as I pointed out above. Those moves only go about half-way to the solution, you have to get A to the TOP-right. On the very link you give, the goal corner is marked in black, have another look.
That gets you to the bottom-right, not the top-right as the solution demands. You only got about halfway there.
At what point does making an amazingly fat paycheck stop a person from wanting more?
Money calls to itself, the more you have, the more you *need*. Particularly if it appears to be coming from an easy source, the urge is to milk it as completely as possible, for tomorrow may bring ruin for those that didn't hoard as much of it. Those of us that aren't rich, that don't have access to ways of making big lumps of money with a handshake and a smile, have still experienced this feeling in video games, haven't we? I know I have, in MMO's. Having several million credits is great, but it is not as good as having twice as much as that, and then that's not quite enough either.
Ride the gravy train till it breaks, then look for another, that's the rule. Never mind that you have enough money for yourself and your desendants for the next three generations, that isn't enough. I'm not supporting it at all, I hate that mindset, but there it is.
I'm really not sure what you mean, it does get *bloody* hot here. Not for very long, but quite long enough thank you. Then it gets really bloody cold, for much longer, and I don't care for that much either. Come to think of it, why am I living here again?
I doubt you'd make your money back. :)
You missed one fact: Lawyer jokes are fun. Even more fun than ethnic jokes, because someone doesn't choose their ethnicity, but they do choose to slith^H^H^H^H^H go to law school.
Looks more like a rather poor attempt at damage control to me. To confess awareness of core problems, but only to offer such confession after having their name dragged through the mud? Yeah, that's really looking out for the 'team' isn't it? If nobody had beaked off about it, this supposedly 'known issue' would have remained obscured, I think that is screamingly obvious from the double-talk in the memo.
I live in Edmonton, Alberta, and it can already get plenty hot here in the summer. The electrical supply to my apartment is meagre, and I can't combine certain kitchen tasks without blowing the breaker, so no air-conditioning for me. 2 years ago I was building myself a new P4 system, on what happened to be the very hottest day of the year. It ran flaky as hell that first day, running hot, and I wasn't able to get Windows installed properly until the evening. That truly sucked, and I really don't want more of it.
Who could've missed the astronomers saying the planet was about to be eaten by a giant space worm?
That's not what I heard. My commanding officer swore blind that the planet was going to be eaten by a giant mutant star-goat. That's all it took to get me on the B Ark.
I wonder if someone wanted to hit someone at one of these locations, and planned ahead, what could be done with two or more coordinated shooters? Let's say two. A guy and a buddy go out at night and take positions 180 degrees apart, both hiding somewhere the camera cannot see, if that's possible. One guy shoots, and then the other guy shoots. Maybe a third accomplice is standing innocently in the open where he can watch what the cameras do as his buddies run away. What does the camera array do? Does it go to the first shot and stay there for a bit, or does it divert to the second shot before getting a look at the first? With that information you can plan to have two guys (or more, maybe the cameras can split their decisions to have one look one way and another camera follow the second shot, bring enough guys you should be able to offer confusion), one can see the target, and is possibly exposed to the camera if it turns to his position, and the other isn't in a position to shoot at anything useful, he's just bait, hidden from the camera. Which one will shoot first, and the timing involved depends on how the cameras work. Conceivably you could contrive to give the actual killer time to get out of camera view. I doubt it's meant to stop anything but random violence, my scenario is more for assassination, but I thought it was interesting.
But robots aren't harming humans. Humans are harming humans (and doing other more useful jobs like disposing of dangerous crap) by remote control, using a tool specialized for the job. This is not what Asimov had in mind.
The only question is how well it'll work given the propensity for mutation that HIV has shown so far?
I may have misunderstood the process mentioned in the article, but it seems that they immunize you with cells from your own body. It's not a forumla your doctor will take down from his shelf and shoot you with. They take some of your blood, kill the HIV in it, load those dead cells into some of your own immune cells, and give that back to you. This wakes up the team somehow, if I've read it right. I don't think mutation from wide-spread use of this vaccine is possible, if it is so highly personal in administration.
Name me 2 things wrong with getting high besides its illegal.
*hack* *cough* *splutter* I would *wheeze* *hack* but I can't remember.
I think that an investigation would prove an unwilling zombie to be innocent. If they can't find a money trail or anything for you, and no supporting evidence other than the existance of trojans on your machine, they must conclude you got hijacked. Someone just being clever in running a compromised machine on purpose to pretend to be a victim is going to slip up elsewhere, their life-situation may easily give them away. An investigation can show that you have stuff in your house you shouldn't be able to afford on your declared income, for example. When they start asking questions about that stuff, you're in trouble.
brand the persons that get these bots / infections as clueless lusers who get their comeuppance
But they are to an extent. They are using a tool with the insistance that they should not have to learn how to use it properly. This kind of rationale doesn't work in very many places, why should it apply to computers? Everything is learned, granted a lot of things are simpler than computers to use, but you still have to put effort into learning how to take care of your things.
You need to learn to check the oil in your car, and if you don't want to do that then you can make sure you're paying to have it checked regularly, or your third option would be to just drive the car until one day black smoke starts pouring out of the hood and you swear at the auto manufacturer for not giving you a car that 'just works'.
it was because theaters don't like long ass movies
:)
Asses don't like long movies in the theatre either.
Years ago I read it out loud, to a girlfriend who was into fantasy but had never picked up Tolkien. I took it upon myself to make sure she was introduced properly. It took us almost exactly a month, reading every day for hours each day after work. Very satisfying experience for both of us. She went and got her own copy the day after we finished so she could read it again herself, and did so twice more in succession at that time. The experience really 'took'. The slower pace of reading aloud, combined with doing character voices and such, made it the most enjoyable reading of that story I'd ever done, before or since. I would be reaching the end of a chapter, and be hoping she'd want to let me go on, and on the other side she would be hoping I could keep going, at least one more chapter tonight please? I highly recommend this activity, if you have a listener that can stay patiently listening.
I can read in my head very quickly, but usually prefer not to. Unless I'm trying to study something, that I will fly through. For me it's not just about retaining what happened, that's easy, but savoring an experience takes more time. It is not enough for me to remember later that such and such happened in the story. To me it feels like reading fast just leaves me with access to memories of stored information. Taking the time to fully savor what is happening, pacing one's progress through a scene closer to the real-time of the characters, leaves me with memories of an experience that I actually lived through.
Actually, that's probably true. It is difficult to be a good liar if you have a poor memory. You will get caught contradicting yourself a month later, by people with better memories than you. Creativity and logic play a huge role in lying as well. That, and I don't recall people generally accusing lawyers of being stupid.
I think there's always a bit of extra work, even if you're good at it. Being very well-prepared ahead of testing, or being actually delusional about the truth as the liar knows it, would be all that would negate the differences. If the lying is being done on the spot, even by an accomplished liar they still have to check for consistancy with past lies, and record themselves lying so they can remember their answer later on if asked again. If you're telling the truth you simply speak your mind, and don't worry about later, if asked again you'll just speak your mind again, no problem.
My family would have to pay me to show up for thanksgiving or christmas or what have you. Actually, scratch that, they don't have enough money to make it bearable.
Since Windows 95, and still today in Windows XP, removing a CD or floppy from the drive before Windows is finished with it will result in the system hanging at best, and BSOD at worst.
Huh? You aren't by chance referring to the screen (which does happen to be blue) that is merely informing you that the disk is still needed, but that you can also hit escape to assert your will? Ejecting a CD when an app hasn't been expecting me to do so has never resulted in anything more than a sudden increase in performance, when the system has been struggling insanely to read a bad section of the disc and I've become bored with waiting for it.