Does this mean you store text in non-song form in a different location than text in song-form?
Since that looks like a binary decision: how much melody is required for the sudden switch from the one storage location to the other?
Who said the brain is binary? Computers are binary, brains are analog. There's a lot more going on then on and off switches.
I wonder if you could prepare yourself for Alzheimers by writing and learning songs about all your important memories
I wonder if you could prepare yourself for Alzheimers by writing and learning songs about all your important memories
That reminds me of what the north American Indians had done. I would imagine there are songs of ancient time passed along due to this type of memory being the most protected.
Makes you wonder if there is something to the notion of singing angel references in the bible and why people sing in churches.
I have always found it so fascinating at how prevalent music is in our culture and profound an impact music has made on our history and makes up "who we are". Just about every kid in America is defined by a band or song or type of music. Just about every era is depicted by a musical theme.
It is almost completely correlated of advancements in music relate to advancements in technology.
Interesting.
I think these guys missed the mark by a long shot.
People aren't just "searching" any more. People have "apps", "portals", they have go-to places to get things. Google isn't where you go any more. People know what websites they want to use or they use the iPad or iPhone apps to find things. I believe it's the "app" revolution that changed the dynamics. People go to wikipedia to research stuff, open one of their apps to find a recipe for dinner or ask siri what to get for lunch.
Any machine being used for purposes outside of the intent of the owner should be shut down. Owners should be notified and given time to respond, but if they are unaware of the additional traffic their computer is spewing then they should be shut down until corrected.
Unfortunatly service providers probably don't care, they would probably rather have the $29.99/mo customer rather then shutting them down until it's fixed.
A super nerd explains why super wifi isn't wifi. General population doesn't give a fuck, as wifi means "wireless internet" to them.
General population then bitches when their Super "WiFi" doesn't interoperate with any of their existing WiFi equipment and in fact can't even be used directly in their laptop at present. From the article:-
For now, at least, you can't move a white-space device around. You can't put a white-space radio into a phone or laptop because each white-space device must check its location against a database to determine which TV channels and wireless microphones are being used in the device's area, so they can avoid those channels. [..] It will be a way for wireless Internet providers, especially in rural areas, to zap their network over to a main router in a home, which will then redistribute it to devices over Ethernet or standard Wi-Fi connections.
So you're right that they probably wouldn't care about the technical issues, and nor would they ever likely care if any difference was totally transparent (and thus irrelevant) to the man on the street. But it's not, and that's why "Super WiFi" is a crap and misleading name, even for Joe Public.
Ya whatever. We have constantly been living within different wifi standards such as 802.11a/b/n/whatever. Non techies understand the differences, but joe blow just listens to whatever the bestbuy guy at the store says. Bestbuy guy hands him a router and a card or whatever and pats him on the head and moves along to the counter. Same thing with 3G compatibility for iPads or what have you. People understand that not all 3G is compatible. People don't even know what 4g is yet. But it's all just marketing crap and at the end of the day people ask the techies what to do and hopefully they tell the consumers to get the correct stuff.
Having developed many projects, I personally can attest that I don't get anything productive done until everybody is asleep or if I decide to tune everybody out. It seems like there are too many real and "potential" distractions that my mind is chewing on instead of coming up with solutions to problems.
I have found it helpful to come together as a group once I have had plenty of time to think about what I want to do, along with the others having that same opportunity. That way we can have a discussion about ideas that have been thought through instead of just winging it.
I guess this will eliminate employees "upgrading" their company crackberries by dropping them in the toilet.
Yah, that could make for a problem buying used phones on ebay.... you'd never know why someone is selling a "perfectly good and working phone" for a discount.
Maybe coat all your batteries independently and the device without the battery in
My friend knows these guys and had his iPhone done. I didn't believe it, but it's legit.
The reason is that the price is setup to pay for the "movie going experience", paying for the theater. But the reality is that a film that was less expensive to make should cost less to see it. That would be a good idea for the industry to embrace to combat feeling like they need to have a huge block buster, huge budget film to make any traction.
Security for a web app is about understanding that people will be breaking your system and hacking your system, so the goal is to reduce what will be able to be hacked, control the fallout at each stage, control the separation of duties between the web developers, database admins, and says admins with root, and alerting when anything happens on a system.
Security is only as good as your ability to make it work without any one person trusting the other. The system has to be built on lack of trust of any one person in the system. You have to assume that some new-hire is going to a potential problem.
Social engineering or internal crime rings are way worse of a problem for "secure sites" then a hole in some java code.
But with that said, the way you make a secure site starts with a multi-tiered approach having web front ends, an application tier, and a backend database.
Separation of the web front ends, which you assume will be hacked. You remove any and all potential vulnerabilities, services, processes running unnecessarily, compilers, and anything else not necessary to run your web application. Put in place a high alerting system triggered whenever anything changes on a system and potentially rebuilds the servers upon reboot at the most extreme end of things. Have the network rules setup to only allow the single application port from the web servers to the application servers. Don't allow any other traffic.
Next the application layer has a similar lock down removing anything and everything not required to run your app. Only allow the network traffic for the specific ports for the database from the application server.
On the database server maintain adoquite backups and lockdown proceedures for all data.
With all that said, your application needs to go through a security review with several people making sure you're not doing stupid stuff such as: making system calls leveraging variables supplied by end users, make sure to verify every one of the users inputs scrubbing any potential SQL injection, and make sure to double and triple check any time input is leveraged by the user along with a system call, database call, and of opening files or pipes or anything of the sort. The use input is where the hacking takes place.
Anyway, that's how it's done by the big boys. Good luck.
Tim Porter may be a nice guy and all, but if it was Google with all those so-called bogus/lax patents he'd be up there talking about how the patent system is fine and the problem really is more that the enforcement process depends on endless litigation and how the determination of infringement needs to be more streamlined.
He's a lawyer, his job is to be an advocate/mouthpiece for his employer's interests.
They (and most companies) play both sides of the fence. At the same time as saying how bad patents are for impinging on their products, they are buying as many companies with far-reaching patents as they can get their hands on -- "Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio", Larry Page.
You omitted the last half of that quote: "which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies." What he was saying was that Google's new patents will increase competition by helping to prevent MS and Apple from shutting Android down, and I think his point is indisputable: Allowing MS and Apple to kill Android would reduce competition, so preserving android increases competition.
I truly don't think Google plays both sides of this fence; everything I've ever seen from Google's leadership decries the patent mess as a problem, and explains Google's own focus on acquiring and growing patents as a necessary evil. AFAIK (and I have paid attention), Google has never asserted any patents against anyone, except defensively.
I think Google really would prefer to change patent law and get rid of all these crap software patents -- or even all software patents, period. I think this is as much reflection of Google's arrogance as Google's altruism -- Google believes that given a level field they can beat the competition in any area they focus on. But I think there is actually a large dose of "good for society" thinking as well. You have to remember that fully half of Google's employees and nearly all of Google's management are software engineers, and the vast majority of software engineers think that software patents are bad for innovation, and software engineers love cool new technology. Google's engineers are no different all the way up to and including Sergey and Larry.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but all of the above is based on public information plus my perception of general attitudes within the company.)
Um, no duh! Of course Google would prefer to get rid of all patents. If you look at their business model it's all about 'ad revenue'. What do they care what software or hardware you run their ads on? The more software and hardware that hits their ads instead of other people's ads, the better.
So if they abolished all apple's patents (and everyone else for that matter) and people could make the best mobile device for free and not pay homage to any license (ie. java, or other), then there would exist more, cheaper mobile devices running android, and thus, hitting their ads.
So Google has nothing to loose and everything to gain if the patent system were dissolved over night.
I don't think it's fair that it is just assumed that people will choose to do bad behind closed doors. I think the problem is the reward system is off balance. If a game truly implemented a true eco system of consequences and rewards for doing good vs evil you would see a different picture.
I, for example, played the game "Black & White" and your kingdom would morph to how you portrayed yourself. I actually was good "all the time" while I played that game. I slowly learned that the rewards for being good the whole time was limiting vs what could happen when you were evil. I only tried being evil once the reward for being good seemed to stop the gameplay.
If a game fully implemented repercussions for hitting civilians or doing evil, people would choose to do good. But when there are either no repercussions or just pure "cool eye candy" for killing people without consequence, people are really just looking to explore the dynamics of the game, they're not trying to do evil. So ultimately it comes down to the game designers making evil actions more appealing than doing good. That's the paradigm that would need to shift
Just think, if you killed a civilian in a mission you had to sit out a round or two in multi-player
With "counter-strike", people choose (or get selected) to be on either the terrorists or counter-terrorist groups... same thing with most all multi-player games. In a way the "counter terrorists" are the good guys, and the terrorists are the bad guys... The bad guys kill the good guys here. Why not put civilians in the terrain and in the city? If a terrorist killed a civilian they would leave a blood trail behind or have to hide the body, or someone would scream and they would be easier to find, etc... There would be real repercussions for doing this. And if a 'counter-terrorist' killed a civilian by mistake or because it was a hostage or something, he would need to sit out for like 2 minutes or something before being allowed back in....
So the long and the short of it is, it's impossible to base people's decisions to do good vs evil with the games designed today. There is ONLY reward for doing anything the game lets you do. And people like to push limits to things to see what the developers created. Once they get their hands slapped for doing it, they probably won't do it again -- and if they do, they will have to work extra hard to undo the damage they had done.
Why would anyone need a framerate faster then the refresh rate of the display refresh rate you're using?
I've never understood why anyone would push a graphics card faster then the refresh rate of the display you're using. Why not just cap it off at the max refresh rate, and let the card take more time in rendering each frame.....
It seems as though there should be some sort of "dynamic rendering" option. You want the framerate to match the refresh rate of the monitor, so why can't the rendering engine decide what to spend more or less time on?
For instance, there are the core objects and lights and maps that make up the main scene, then from there there's particle engines, reflections, additional shading, etc. If the card has the capability to do 500 fps, I'd rather it focus on making a REALLY AMAZING 90Hz or 120Hz (or whatever my refresh rate is)....
And the flip side is true as well. If I'm playing a game, I'd rather it keep up with the monitor refresh rate rather then paint a pretty picture. It doesn't make sense for it to a beautiful scene while I'm getting whomped on.
The rendering engine for video games should dynamically choose what to render based on what your computer is capable of. All special effects and anti-aliasing and everythiing should be turned on when it starts up
My thoughts exactly. Apparently with how we got modded I'm guessing slashdotters don't share the same opinion.
I really do think this is the right move. Being on the Internet is a privilege not a right. It's like driving on the autoban. If your machine is crippled, get over in the slow lane and stay there or you will get hurt; if your machine is healthy and strong open up the pipes and let 'er rip. Most people with a droned computer won't know any difference if their being filtered and throttled. Who cares??? It fixes the rest of the world and they dont even know the difference. And if they do figure it out, even better cause they can fix their problem and have their service fully restored.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
