No, it just bit her.

I used to complain about it because I didn't want to be in the driver's seat all the time. I wanted women to approach me as often as I approached them. That's still what I'd want out of dating.

I've never understood why some men want control all of the time. Give it a rest every now and then.

"Angry wankery" or not, my point was that the story wasn't primarily about sports, and that discussions of legal technicalities would fit under the banner "News For Nerds" just fine. Stupid discussion is still discussion, it just isn't reasonable debate.

Because it's primarily a story about modernizing FCC regulations, not primarily a story about sports themselves. I doubt that a sports site would be as interested in the legal aspects of the change; they'd be more interested in the practical effects (i.e. that they get to watch more sports). Discussing legal ramifications of a regulatory change seems pretty nerdy to me.

Well, there are plenty of football fans (and sports fans, in general) that will pay $$$ to watch a single game, and many more that like watching it on TV enough to schedule their lives around when the football game will be shown. Myself, I'll watch a game every now and then, and I have a general idea of how well the teams that other people in my family root for are doing.

As for whether fans would follow their games onto cable, in the cases that they don't already have cable or satellite, I'm sure that's a question of statistics. Some percentage will follow the sport to cable, some percentage will do more illegal online streaming, some percentage will just google the score after the game, some percentage will just stop watching. "Football fans" are different people, so they'll react differently.

True. In cases where mass shipment isn't also feasible, the economy of scale hits a bottleneck.

I think you're missing the point. Mirix was trying to say that injection molding will always be cheaper, for mass production ($5 being roughly the cost of a mass-produced, injection-molded chair). 3D printing will never match the per-unit price of mass-producing items, but it *will* (and has already started to) make the production of small-run items and prototypes much, much cheaper.

If the key (the pad) is perfectly random, then there won't be any pattern. If the key was something like the first chapter of Moby Dick, and it's known that the key is an English-language text, and something is known about the contents, then you've got some patterns to work with, and it might be possible to retrieve the plaintext (and the key, simultaneously).

If the key is perfectly random, the plaintext won't be retrievable from the ciphertext, since for any candidate plaintext that you could construct, there would be a corresponding and equally-likely key paired with it. Trial and error can't decrypt a message encrypted via random one time pad.

ComputerWorld seems to be the source of the "1000-fold increase" quote. Then again, they also state that 512GB is "more than half a terabyte", so they're at least consistently inaccurate.

As for the temperature, the Fahrenheit scale is used on SanDisk's product page for the new card. Presumably, that's because Sandisk is an American company, and that page is marketing to a non-scientific audience. In the U.S., that means Fahrenheit would be used.

That's true, in the theoretical sense. Algorithms can be described in English or in mathematical notation. Runtime complexity of an algorithm can be calculated by hand. Most often, we want a way to also evaluate those algorithms, to take measurements on their behavior, and to understand them more intuitively. Computers are useful for that, but only if there's have a way to give them instructions. It follows that a student must be taught the rudiments of programming to have an automated method to explore the properties of algorithms.

This is analogous to the use of scientific instruments in astronomy. Everything can be done by hand (technically), but tools make things quicker and easier. They act as force multipliers to make more things practical to do in a shorter amount of time. For astronomy, that means that the astronomer doesn't need to be a million times closer to the thing they're observing in order to see it clearly. For computer science, it means that I don't need to evaluate a billion algorithmic steps by hand.

I don't care what you smoke or don't, or where you get it. That's not the point. Neither are the spelling mistakes. The point is that obscuring your communication unclear on a communication platform is counterproductive.

I find many of the things that people choose to *do* in a free society distasteful. That doesn't mean that I want to restrict rights or impose my will on others. I'd actually rather avoid that as often as possible. It's not my place to tell someone else what to do or think, if they're not actually hurting me. My reaction is purely emotional, and I don't like for my emotions to dictate my actions.

I don't expect respect from people that don't know me, but for something to be called a "dick move", it actually has to be an action. But go ahead and keep making the assumption that what I say on the Internet maps in a straightforward way to my actions in life. Seems to be par for the course.

That's OK. Some clever person will have already figured it out for me. I don't know if they strip HDCP-protection from video and capture the stream, read it out of memory while decoding, decrypt DVR video files or what, but I've no video that I've ever looked for was actually protected by restrictive streaming requirements.

If the executives of a production company feel assurance that their stream can't be ripped in one way or another, then they're living in a fool's paradise.

Putting all of your text in the comment box would make your text more legible, and less like a word salad. Although with words like "Mecial" tossed into the mix, it makes you look like a customer of the companies you're talking about.

There are other scenarios where an SMS or MMS may be better. During a home invasion, when you don't want to expose your hiding place by speaking. In a situation where it would be useful to send a picture. In a location with weak signal, where a text transmission may get through even when you can't connect for a voice call. And then, you've got the cultural issues. A lot of people (especially the younger ones) barely use speech calls on their phones, any more, and a text may be the first thing that comes to mind when trying to get help.

A cell phone is a flexible device. I don't see a problem with enabling its use in whatever way we can, when it comes to helping someone in an emergency situation.