Posts by C 18 182 publicly visible posts • joined 27 May 2011
>...you will never again have the same inquisitive generation who were brought up trying to break things with an MS-DOS prompt.
This statement is partly true in my opinion. The 'inquisitive generation' will always exist, and while it is true they are no longer trying to break things with an MS-DOS prompt it should be pointed out that they are trying to break things with 'social engineering' which is more prone to abuse and has always been the real entry point for 'malicious / subversive / inquisitive / call it what you will' behaviour.
I guess what we're discussing here are two distinct sets of skills. One is the technical tinkering type and the other is the social manipulation type. The solution, take the brats at an early age and drop them into a locked room with a locking device and tools to crack it open, as well as a link to the outside where somebody can hear and see them. Their choice, try to crack open the lock or plead with the observer to let them out. That will sort out the 'social engineers' from those who don't need the 'social' bit (slightly self-deprecating pun intended).
...is 'non-denigratable'.
Any among you who have not read 'Mindstorms' should do so post haste.
Especially to find out the reasoning behind the following; take two coins of the same denomination, place them edge to edge such that the faces are aligned identically. Then, keeping the edges touching at one point, with one finger holding one of the coins still, use another finger to 'roll' the other coin around the circumference of the other. How many times will the 'rolling' coin turn over on its journey once around the circumference of the static coin? (Guess first, then do it. If you haven't got 'two pennies to rub togther'...well just keep reading the internet...)
Hey, is there room under that hat for two?
I read 'http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/13/03/life-inside-the-aaron-swartz-investigation/273654/'...
'A week before the Secret Service came to the door, my car was rear-ended by a school bus. The car itself was totaled,...'
Hmm, coincidence...?
Well perhaps there is though...
Didn't you see the video of the boy and his atom? So, there we are looking at tiny, tiny things bopping about... And the boys in blue are telling us this is going to have something to do with storage, as if we needed telling that.
And their boffins are going...okay so how many amps do we need for these devices...and one of them says, well how much is an amp these days...like in comparison to these tiny, tiny things we made that terrible prawn flick of...oh, well let's see, an amp is like all those balls in that cool ad with the song by yer man on his guitar...heartbeats?...that's the one, anyway that many fer a second like...ah, could you be a bit more specific?...Eh, we'll have to ask Dan Paul, he says there's no point...NOT EVEN FOR SCIENCE!
Almost two pages of comments and nobody has bothered with grasping the nettle of opportunity to pun the jocular classic, never gets dull, 'waiter! waiter!'.
So, this guy walks into a restaurant...
Anyway, he's had a look at the menu and ordered and everything...
>cut to the chase<
'Waiter! Waiter! There's some soup in my fly!'
Mine's the bluebottle green one with the fly in the zip pocket...
Kermit (great protocol he was too) reminds us that 'time's fun when you're having flies!'
>All it means is that millions of morons watched it.
Does it? Really? I would propose that 'all it means' is that millions of people clicked on it. This would mean that the trend reflects the propensity of sharing and response to sharing.
Watching a video to its conclusion is a different thing altogether...
...didn't even read the article but caught the headline in the corner of my eye and misread it thinking this was about 'Turbo Trousers'...
Will go back and read the article now, but wish it really was about turbo trousers... What ever could they be for...?
PH, 'cos, well, obvious innit...
Okay, I'll bite...
Imagining the rod to be constructed of a non-compressible material in a frictionless universe etc etc...
Both ends of the rod move at the same speed, which is as fast as you can push one end. This must be less than the speed of light.
As for information, well, it's not made of matter... so, excuse the pun, it doesn't matter...
>What he meant, I think,...
I would like to clarify my thinking, and in doing so do not wish to suggest that you are incorrect in your interpretation...
It is not so much that we are obliged but are, I believe, privileged to live in a time (past the Age Of Enlightenment let us not forget) where reason and science have provided us with many opportunities to outlive the many possible fatal instruments of nature which would otherwise bring about the untimely demise of our precious lives.
Perhaps it is an obligation therefore to prolong these lives, but that is one for greater philosophers and dead people to debate.
Belief is a very powerful force. It gave us the iPhone, the pyramids, nuclear power, the Holocaust, the Crusades, 9/11, the eradication of smallpox, American Pop Idols Got Talent Get Me Out Of Here, the Internet, and lots of other terrific (both current and archaic definitions) things that we can experience. Everybody is welcome to believe what they wish, and of course this is exactly what they do. It just so happens that some people believe in reality and others, well... that's why evolution is essentially the epitome of hacking.
The only thing Archimedes and Steve Jobs have in common is the fact that they are both dead, and perhaps both through stubbornness in their thinking habits although in the case of the genius he would no doubt have died by now anyways.
As the article mentioned Archimedes was introduced to his demise by refusing to loose himself from his intense pondering of things more important to him than the mere frivolity of civil order, which he no doubt held in contempt due to it being that imposed by an invading force.
Of course it is highly likely that Steve Jobs may have survived his particular ailment if he didn't refuse the best scientific and medical treatment that was obviously available to him at an earlier stage. Why he would refuse such things is only for him to know, but certainly couldn't seriously be considered reasoned thinking. Certainly it was contemptuous in the least of the efforts of many in the field of medicine.
I believe there is 'prior art' in the domain of 'putting this nonsense to rest'. Wasn't there a judgement reached regarding API's as 'unpatentable' or some such.
Seeing as the 'remote technology' is your hand or some combination of body parts shouldn't gesture control be considered as an API and therefore falls under the same judgement?
We can live in hope I suppose.
Otherwise consider the general sentiment coming from the responses so far agreed to wholeheartedly...
>Appocalyptico?
I could barely contain myself watching this movie...
1) Rainfall filled a pit which enabled those caught in it to float up and escape... oh dear.
2) There is a full moon, followed no more than a few days later by a total eclipse... oh dear, oh dear.
As for the historical inaccuracy, hysterical more like...
If you're going to be a Grammar Pedant please don't embarrass us by littering your corrections with errors.
Now go back and check your work...
This sentence has a number of problems...
>The iPhones' antenna is crap, means that the antenna of all iphones is crap.
:)
I've followed some of the links from here and the only conclusion that makes sense is that the 'offended' / 'injured' party is a troll of the Darwin Awards persuasion.
I'm reluctant to have posted this as it is indirectly feeding said troll. As Oscar Wilde pontificated, 'there's only one thing worse than being talked about and that's not being talked about.'
Paris Hilton because she'd take a forking repo from a big dongle joke and swallow her pride with gusto.
Feminists, the correct button to push is the downvote one.
People with a fully functioning sense of humour... walk on by, nothing to see here.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
