Notably, the TI-36Pro will solve a derivative given a specific value of X, or an integral given a specific interval, but neither will produce the output formula of a derivative or anti-derivative, and the answers produced aren't always in exact form either.
> Microsoft's lock-in is formats that don't play nice,
Why are we blaming the formats? It's Microsoft that doesn't play nice.
Luckily where I'm attending college, there was a pre-existing expectation that some students will be using Open Office. OO is installed on library and lab computers. Open format handling is already integrated with "Explorer". One instructor had trouble opening an open format essay, I got extra time to hand in a print-out instead.
I've also found that this "Texas Instruments makes people use their calculators" (not that you've said so, but numerous others here have) just doesn't hold true.
I didn't advance very far in math in H.S. so I've been running the gamut from College Algebra to Calculus II. I've used the same TI-83 the whole way, but started supplementing it with lower end calculators along the way, at first the TI-30XS MultiView for the "MathPrint" but now (with the TI-36xPro) for thing like the pi/e/i button and differentials.
Along the way, I've looked many times over to the Casio alternatives and decided to stay away because the instructors said they'll be teaching the needed button-pressing in terms of using a TI model. However, no instructor at any time said I couldn't use a Casio, just that "you'll have to learn to operate it yourself".
If I recall, this was the attitude twenty years ago when I was in High School, as well. I personally doubt the quality of education in a school that requires a specific brand of calculator. I imagine that the instructor is incapable of doing the work without one, and worse, that the instructor would be lost if they had to use another brand of calculator, not cognitively knowing what they're doing with the calculator so much as just parroting "steps".
Maybe there's less to be "geeky" about. And the audience is massive, now. My first Slashdot ID was in the 10,000's. New users are showing up in the seven digits.
Just explain to your niece that the nth root of A is simply A raised to the power of n to the power of negative one! She won't need any calculators after that!
I've been getting along fine using a duo of TI-83 and TI-36XPro . My Calculus instructors were impressed that the combination offers the functionality of a TI-80somethingorother (86?) but about $50 cheaper. Additionally, you end up with two screens and two calculators capable of performing integrals, so it's a good choice for multitaskers as well.
Clarifying points (because I'm a "submit first think later" junkie):
1.) Restoring the Windows 8 installation from the protected partition sectors takes moments on a 3GHz machine. Restoring to factory state takes less than an hour, but fans of Windows XP and Windows 7 may be dismayed to find that the Windows 8 Windows Update process more closely resembles the sensation of the Windows VISTA WINDOWS UPDATE PROCESS , which deserves to be in all caps, because when else was the last time you thought you were going for a coffee break and ended up having the entire department down your neck over "When is this fucking thing going to be done? YOU SAID IT WAS ALMOST DONE!"
2.) I have to admit I've also learned "try installing and running fewer things, it's more disciplined, you'll learn to utilize those apps in new and better ways." But that's because I was running BBS's in the early 90's and using computers since the mid-80's. Not every computer user today understands or can comprehend what it means to utilize some function of an application in a new way that gives it some sort of meta-productivity. Users of "elite" apps like {C0MM0} can relate (so can users of "sane" operating systems), while people who were born after ICQ was already dead simply can not. What it means is that I've accepted that *sniff* I love my life living under the *sob* people's republic of the *boohoo* Microsoft corporate marketing scheme.
3.) Everything these days is getting eerily close to Bill Gates' vision of everybody running dumb terminals while all of their apps and data are stored securely in servers in godawful locations like the bottom of the middle of the ocean or the moon. So Windows 8 just resembles a nasty venereally diseased widow that I just knew somebody was going to try to hook me up with, who I've since been somehow betrothed to and now have to perform my marital duties upon the sake of my own life.
My new laptop came with only windows 8 as an OS option. I was bummed, my last laptop purchased only a few months before allowed me to choose.
There are some good and bad things, but I think the worst thing is the app launch pad. Windows users come from a tradition of expandable menus that reflect an underlying branching directory structure. Taking that away and expecting them to utilize a nebulous blob of apps defines "counter intuitive".
But, I wouldn't go back. For one thing, I broke myself of the anxiety of needing a physical map to my applications' own private holding pens. For another, I enjoy having everything available to me displayed at a glance.
Something else that bothered me at first was how many things appear to be "missing". But they aren't missing, they just haven't been pinned to anything. These days I much prefer hitting the windows key and typing what I'm looking for rather than "navigating" anxiously through a bunch of annoying, expanding "menus" to get to something I'm just going to click one time anyway. And if it's not an app, it's not something I'm using every day.
Why should a shortcut to my firewall be sitting on my desktop or even in a menu tree? When I need it, I'm already cognitively thinking "firewall" anyway, so I've come to enjoy just typing that out and getting my result. The app/component search feature strikes me as a "closer" interface than a menu system. It's how I'd do things if I was using a CL, so of course it strikes me as more efficient.
I was also anxious about installing my first (and so far only) actual Windows 8 Application. There's some kind of dedicated process to the installation involving signing into a Microsoft account. The installation appeared to be, for lack of a better term, "seamless". Of course, Microsoft owns Skype and it's a hugely popular app, so it probably represents the very best of any possible Windows 8 experience.
But I was able to install and quickly start using Skype in minutes. I was never able to accomplish this in any previous version of Skype and I've been using it since it was released for XP.
One more hiccup I confronted was the "gestures" interface. I panicked when I couldn't find any way to get to an app's settings. Where was the menu? I learned that you have mouse-over and hover in the bottom right corner of the screen. A generic menu will slide out and offer options that are universal and options that are specific to your app, including "settings".
I was upset about this until I realized that it had eliminated some actual work while also de-cluttering my work space. I normally don't like the thought of a "gesture" interface and when I heard it was the future of Windows, I groaned. Now I'm actually glad to be using it.
Another great feature is that Windows 8 happily offers itself up to be re-installed or factory restored. I was worried this was due to some instability, and that was correctly apprehended. It is a fairly unstable system. I hope all the kinks get worked out in time.
I think you're exemplifying both what is great and audacious about the first internet generation, as well as what is grossly retarded about the first internet generation.
You acknowledge that the internet is "about" freedom of information, but you fail to realize just how marketed and reified that concept is.
If the money we spend on goods isn't reflecting the apparent throw-away / disposable nature of the item as expressed by their manufacturers' unwillingness to ever touch or see the things again, then perhaps there *is* some fault to be found in the manufacturers. And if the increasingly unserviceable build and now even legal protection that we find in these goods prohibits us from repairing or servicing the goods ourselves, then we know for *certain* that there's some fault to be found in the manufacturers.
I work in a charity secondhand warehouse where all day I have to sort what's saleable from what isn't, and often this involves servicing an item that's 90% saleable into something that can be cleaned up and put on the floor.
The trend I've seen is that later models are built so that they can't be gotten into easily, meanwhile the mechanisms inside the cases are of declining quality.
Plenty of WWI and WWII era power tools, sewing machines, and hand tools are still working perfectly well. I use some huge WWI-era steel shears for cutting mouse cords and TV power cords. The other day I tested a power drill that was manufactured in 1937 and it's a better drill than the pile of Black and Decker and other 1980's behemoth models we have sitting around as possibly repairable (I'm not taking an interest, the pile will end up with the scrap guy who will take the iron and copper out of the motors and chuck the batteries in the battery bin).
Vacuums are the worst offender. Old crazy-looking steel monsters built to match art deco are still running fine and are easily serviced using standardized belts and motors available from anyplace you can buy belts and motors. The steel cases are conducive to re-use. Best of all, you can use steel parts with them without breaking them. If the base on your motor isn't lined up right with the screw posts, you can drill new holes because it's a steel part. We use the vacuum in the warehouse because it's reliable.
Meanwhile, late-model Kirby, Dyson, and other plastic-vacs are made not to be gotten into and in a most annoying fashion. One vacuum had a rug cleaning attachment that needed a cleaning itself. However, the method used to make the head was one-and-done. The superglue they used to put the two halves of the plastic together ensured that if you broke the head open to clean it, you weren't getting it back together again.
Especially when you try to get into a model made in China, you find that every possible corner has been struck off. Numerous toys and tools, upon opening, reveal of philosophy of screw-the-consumer. In this case, Chinese work slaves screw their boss who screws the corporation who screws the retailer who screws the consumer. They all know that, for instance, instead of putting that last Step Number 25 on the instruction sheet into action, the Chinese factory foreman realized that you could shuffle a sort of half-action toy onto the kids who maybe won't notice the missing feature, by MacGuyvering it a little bit on the assembly line. So the little toy monster that's supposed to masticate its jaw wide open and closed in a rhythm instead half-opens its mouth which falls shut again. And so on.
Out of everything we get donated, 85% of it is going to the scrap heap or into the trash. Part of the warehouse expense is $3,000 a week on emptying a quarter-traincar sized trash bin attached to a compactor.
And of that 85% trash, ranging the percentage of trash in the domain of year of manufacture follows an exponential curve. You could say "because old stuff is gone, there's only newer stuff left", but that doesn't hold when you go out on the sales floor and the average age of what we're selling is much older than the average age of what we're throwing away.
So what is reflected is that newer things are shit, and older things are cool enough that customers look to purchase them. Don't get me wrong, we actively try to put everything on the floor that we receive. When we have the knowledgeable manpower, we repair all kinds of things. B
I'm serious! Why did you go on to read the body of this message? Didn't you belieeeve meeeee hmmmmm? Don't you think I should be trusted? Maybe it's YOUR fault.
I'm SO glad for allll those people who learned everything they know about how to make computers work from watching movies and reading articles like these. Yeah, I agree, IT'S FUCKING DUMB.
Gee, what do you expect? It's a transparently value-holding commodity, not a place-holding commodity; I'm just making up theoretical terms, here, but, so to say, its value comes from exchanging it for value's own sake, not through direct representation of something else. Case in point: when was the last time you bought or sold something in terms of bitcoins? Yet there they are, soaking up processor time, gaining value and losing face. Is that what it's all about? "I dedicated my processor to a hell of a lot of number crunching, now that's just gotsta be worth SOMEthing!" -- (???)
You're SO wrong, for starters, what do you MEAN, "Out of Africa"? Don't you mean, "Out of Africa, East Asia, and Australia?" And lastly, what do you mean "mutation"? If it wasn't for selective breeding it wouldn't have taken hold. Where you think you is, Waterworld?
I recall, before they shipped the alpha, that Raspberry Pi was supposed to work from the power supplied by an HDMI cable. Is there some variable to be considered there, as well, or did they abandon that design? I gave up interest pretty early when I was told that I would be considered to receive one of the early models and then never received a follow-up.
*Shrug* You intended to perform for your audience the rite of acknowledgement into the echelon of true believers. So what if you failed to let them know what it took to be really there? You did all humankind a favor by demonstrating, with your performance, that puppetry and cascades of wonder have no match for the actual imposition of securely obtained and restrained measures upon every least facet of throughput.
So, you mayest show that the simplest coward is but a simpleton, but, where were you, when all of us crowed for a simpleton bemoaned, who was yet a well-disciplined ward to clean the paths ahead of all us the rest?
I don't think you really do care -- I know I do, and I can tell, you do not.
Consider where G O D used to stand in for security AND technology, both similar.
Consider if you told tales about security technology.
Consider how effective you'd be while admiring the eventual growth rate and power structure of something like the vatican, the muslim world, and the hindu/buddhist structure, all combined.
Tell me you don't think a little make-believe, a little lying, are effective means of creating a world where nobody is sure what to believe, but people learn methods of "faith" (trust-based security) to defeat the overwhelming tides of the "devil" (the ever-present threat of falsehood, including the epitomy of falsehood -- malware).
TECHNOSHAMANISM is at hand! Embrace it! Lie! Cheat! Steal! Corrupt! Take your spoils, as I will take mine, for from an early time I know we all have earned them, not as they were plucked like teeth from the mouth of a poor young man but as they were the feathers of the phoenix taken from the dwindling fires of an early age almost squashed by hegemony and greed!
Take up the knowledge that obfuscation DOES offer some security, and use it as a springboard to collapse those systems that attempt to squelch your security through incorporate frustration and under-thought malfeasance.
Why have we not shown this world a thing or two, already? Who are we? Always under-paid, under-laid, under-privilege bastard sons of stupid bitches, or are we decent enough company to take under the wings of even the highest eagles?
Break a few more bangles, and urge a few more charms, and I'm sure that the "nerd" culture might even win a few favors where, for now, it stands like a reedy moss in a thicket of water and shit, soaking up detritus and proving for itself nothing but its own respiration.
ONLY if the deterrents in use in your dichotomy are false deterrents.
Consider this: the thieves now throw themselves headlong into security systems believing they might be false; the thieves are caught mid-act by effective, real, actual, working, again: effective security systems; the thieves are fucked (caught).
This might be a possible scenario where broadcasting the existence of the tar-baby or fake intruder countermeasure results in heightened effectiveness of existing effective countermeasures simply because: more people plunge into them based on the probability of those countermeasures being ineffective based on some crazy stunt-kit that copycats actual security.
Do you understand what I'm saying? People are dynamic.
Many thieves look at cameras and actually judge for themselves whether those cameras are the real thing or are fake cameras put up to ward off thieves.
The idiots waltz right through attempted thievery and are caught because, indeed, the cameras were real but the thieves acted as if they might not be. It happens frequently.
Despite what some may say, fake security DOES impede real crime, and obfuscation DOES impede real attempts to decrypt.
I came up with a pretty distinct statement about this concept.
""There's no security in obfuscation" cannot be a positively true statement. Comparatively, there is absolutely *no* security in full disclosure or revelation, whereas in obfuscation there is *enough* security that many people resort to it in an attempt to secure things, typically because it's just *enough* to fool people."
You can read it at my professional (not my funny friendly one) gabe.petrie at facebook.
The job description doesn't "mess" with your "head" because of the content the censor is required to view, nor due to the length of time spent in viewing it, nor in the therapy or lack thereof afterwards.
The reason a person might become unstable while performing the duties of this particular job is because the most horrible things one sees must then be determined not to be viewed by anyone else, and not only are you forced -- by pay and coercion of duty to your signature -- to renounce what you've seen as "wrong", you are then also to be sure to be alone in what you've seen if your job has been done thoroughly for all. Talk about "forever alone". Talk about "twisted".
It has nothing to do with liability or humanism. It's about alienation and idiocy. Anybody who would spend time justifying the existence of a position like this, and to go on furthermore, likening it to some onslaught of meager slings and arrows, and to show how it can all be channeled by some corporate scheme into better good for profitability, is a completely inhuman wretch who has a malformed consciousness that befits only a malformed head, and may something fall from the heavens that will cleave that head thusly right.
It's censorship, you fucking idiot. Quit talking l33t-a$$, corporate hegemony about it, unless you're just aching for the prospect of getting paid to fap to mangled dead babies as our corporate robolords inform us you've been so occupied these long months in our employ.
Slashdot Mirror
Notably, the TI-36Pro will solve a derivative given a specific value of X, or an integral given a specific interval, but neither will produce the output formula of a derivative or anti-derivative, and the answers produced aren't always in exact form either.
> Microsoft's lock-in is formats that don't play nice,
Why are we blaming the formats? It's Microsoft that doesn't play nice.
Luckily where I'm attending college, there was a pre-existing expectation that some students will be using Open Office. OO is installed on library and lab computers. Open format handling is already integrated with "Explorer". One instructor had trouble opening an open format essay, I got extra time to hand in a print-out instead.
I've also found that this "Texas Instruments makes people use their calculators" (not that you've said so, but numerous others here have) just doesn't hold true.
I didn't advance very far in math in H.S. so I've been running the gamut from College Algebra to Calculus II. I've used the same TI-83 the whole way, but started supplementing it with lower end calculators along the way, at first the TI-30XS MultiView for the "MathPrint" but now (with the TI-36xPro) for thing like the pi/e/i button and differentials.
Along the way, I've looked many times over to the Casio alternatives and decided to stay away because the instructors said they'll be teaching the needed button-pressing in terms of using a TI model. However, no instructor at any time said I couldn't use a Casio, just that "you'll have to learn to operate it yourself".
If I recall, this was the attitude twenty years ago when I was in High School, as well. I personally doubt the quality of education in a school that requires a specific brand of calculator. I imagine that the instructor is incapable of doing the work without one, and worse, that the instructor would be lost if they had to use another brand of calculator, not cognitively knowing what they're doing with the calculator so much as just parroting "steps".
Maybe there's less to be "geeky" about. And the audience is massive, now. My first Slashdot ID was in the 10,000's. New users are showing up in the seven digits.
You linked to an article that sides entirely with the concept that the plural of "anecdote" is *not* "data".
Just explain to your niece that the nth root of A is simply A raised to the power of n to the power of negative one! She won't need any calculators after that!
I've been getting along fine using a duo of TI-83 and TI-36XPro . My Calculus instructors were impressed that the combination offers the functionality of a TI-80somethingorother (86?) but about $50 cheaper. Additionally, you end up with two screens and two calculators capable of performing integrals, so it's a good choice for multitaskers as well.
Clarifying points (because I'm a "submit first think later" junkie):
1.) Restoring the Windows 8 installation from the protected partition sectors takes moments on a 3GHz machine. Restoring to factory state takes less than an hour, but fans of Windows XP and Windows 7 may be dismayed to find that the Windows 8 Windows Update process more closely resembles the sensation of the Windows VISTA WINDOWS UPDATE PROCESS , which deserves to be in all caps, because when else was the last time you thought you were going for a coffee break and ended up having the entire department down your neck over "When is this fucking thing going to be done? YOU SAID IT WAS ALMOST DONE!"
2.) I have to admit I've also learned "try installing and running fewer things, it's more disciplined, you'll learn to utilize those apps in new and better ways." But that's because I was running BBS's in the early 90's and using computers since the mid-80's. Not every computer user today understands or can comprehend what it means to utilize some function of an application in a new way that gives it some sort of meta-productivity. Users of "elite" apps like {C0MM0} can relate (so can users of "sane" operating systems), while people who were born after ICQ was already dead simply can not. What it means is that I've accepted that *sniff* I love my life living under the *sob* people's republic of the *boohoo* Microsoft corporate marketing scheme.
3.) Everything these days is getting eerily close to Bill Gates' vision of everybody running dumb terminals while all of their apps and data are stored securely in servers in godawful locations like the bottom of the middle of the ocean or the moon. So Windows 8 just resembles a nasty venereally diseased widow that I just knew somebody was going to try to hook me up with, who I've since been somehow betrothed to and now have to perform my marital duties upon the sake of my own life.
My new laptop came with only windows 8 as an OS option. I was bummed, my last laptop purchased only a few months before allowed me to choose.
There are some good and bad things, but I think the worst thing is the app launch pad. Windows users come from a tradition of expandable menus that reflect an underlying branching directory structure. Taking that away and expecting them to utilize a nebulous blob of apps defines "counter intuitive".
But, I wouldn't go back. For one thing, I broke myself of the anxiety of needing a physical map to my applications' own private holding pens. For another, I enjoy having everything available to me displayed at a glance.
Something else that bothered me at first was how many things appear to be "missing". But they aren't missing, they just haven't been pinned to anything. These days I much prefer hitting the windows key and typing what I'm looking for rather than "navigating" anxiously through a bunch of annoying, expanding "menus" to get to something I'm just going to click one time anyway. And if it's not an app, it's not something I'm using every day.
Why should a shortcut to my firewall be sitting on my desktop or even in a menu tree? When I need it, I'm already cognitively thinking "firewall" anyway, so I've come to enjoy just typing that out and getting my result. The app/component search feature strikes me as a "closer" interface than a menu system. It's how I'd do things if I was using a CL, so of course it strikes me as more efficient.
I was also anxious about installing my first (and so far only) actual Windows 8 Application. There's some kind of dedicated process to the installation involving signing into a Microsoft account. The installation appeared to be, for lack of a better term, "seamless". Of course, Microsoft owns Skype and it's a hugely popular app, so it probably represents the very best of any possible Windows 8 experience.
But I was able to install and quickly start using Skype in minutes. I was never able to accomplish this in any previous version of Skype and I've been using it since it was released for XP.
One more hiccup I confronted was the "gestures" interface. I panicked when I couldn't find any way to get to an app's settings. Where was the menu? I learned that you have mouse-over and hover in the bottom right corner of the screen. A generic menu will slide out and offer options that are universal and options that are specific to your app, including "settings".
I was upset about this until I realized that it had eliminated some actual work while also de-cluttering my work space. I normally don't like the thought of a "gesture" interface and when I heard it was the future of Windows, I groaned. Now I'm actually glad to be using it.
Another great feature is that Windows 8 happily offers itself up to be re-installed or factory restored. I was worried this was due to some instability, and that was correctly apprehended. It is a fairly unstable system. I hope all the kinks get worked out in time.
I think you're exemplifying both what is great and audacious about the first internet generation, as well as what is grossly retarded about the first internet generation.
You acknowledge that the internet is "about" freedom of information, but you fail to realize just how marketed and reified that concept is.
YES! The article has convinced me that I'm STUPIDER for having read the ARTICLE! I bELIEEEEEEVE! *aaahhhh!* *laaaahhhh!*
If the money we spend on goods isn't reflecting the apparent throw-away / disposable nature of the item as expressed by their manufacturers' unwillingness to ever touch or see the things again, then perhaps there *is* some fault to be found in the manufacturers. And if the increasingly unserviceable build and now even legal protection that we find in these goods prohibits us from repairing or servicing the goods ourselves, then we know for *certain* that there's some fault to be found in the manufacturers.
I work in a charity secondhand warehouse where all day I have to sort what's saleable from what isn't, and often this involves servicing an item that's 90% saleable into something that can be cleaned up and put on the floor.
The trend I've seen is that later models are built so that they can't be gotten into easily, meanwhile the mechanisms inside the cases are of declining quality.
Plenty of WWI and WWII era power tools, sewing machines, and hand tools are still working perfectly well. I use some huge WWI-era steel shears for cutting mouse cords and TV power cords. The other day I tested a power drill that was manufactured in 1937 and it's a better drill than the pile of Black and Decker and other 1980's behemoth models we have sitting around as possibly repairable (I'm not taking an interest, the pile will end up with the scrap guy who will take the iron and copper out of the motors and chuck the batteries in the battery bin).
Vacuums are the worst offender. Old crazy-looking steel monsters built to match art deco are still running fine and are easily serviced using standardized belts and motors available from anyplace you can buy belts and motors. The steel cases are conducive to re-use. Best of all, you can use steel parts with them without breaking them. If the base on your motor isn't lined up right with the screw posts, you can drill new holes because it's a steel part. We use the vacuum in the warehouse because it's reliable.
Meanwhile, late-model Kirby, Dyson, and other plastic-vacs are made not to be gotten into and in a most annoying fashion. One vacuum had a rug cleaning attachment that needed a cleaning itself. However, the method used to make the head was one-and-done. The superglue they used to put the two halves of the plastic together ensured that if you broke the head open to clean it, you weren't getting it back together again.
Especially when you try to get into a model made in China, you find that every possible corner has been struck off. Numerous toys and tools, upon opening, reveal of philosophy of screw-the-consumer. In this case, Chinese work slaves screw their boss who screws the corporation who screws the retailer who screws the consumer. They all know that, for instance, instead of putting that last Step Number 25 on the instruction sheet into action, the Chinese factory foreman realized that you could shuffle a sort of half-action toy onto the kids who maybe won't notice the missing feature, by MacGuyvering it a little bit on the assembly line. So the little toy monster that's supposed to masticate its jaw wide open and closed in a rhythm instead half-opens its mouth which falls shut again. And so on.
Out of everything we get donated, 85% of it is going to the scrap heap or into the trash. Part of the warehouse expense is $3,000 a week on emptying a quarter-traincar sized trash bin attached to a compactor.
And of that 85% trash, ranging the percentage of trash in the domain of year of manufacture follows an exponential curve. You could say "because old stuff is gone, there's only newer stuff left", but that doesn't hold when you go out on the sales floor and the average age of what we're selling is much older than the average age of what we're throwing away.
So what is reflected is that newer things are shit, and older things are cool enough that customers look to purchase them. Don't get me wrong, we actively try to put everything on the floor that we receive. When we have the knowledgeable manpower, we repair all kinds of things. B
I'm serious! Why did you go on to read the body of this message? Didn't you belieeeve meeeee hmmmmm? Don't you think I should be trusted? Maybe it's YOUR fault.
I'm SO glad for allll those people who learned everything they know about how to make computers work from watching movies and reading articles like these. Yeah, I agree, IT'S FUCKING DUMB.
radh8 lun1x !!!11!!111!111
Gee, what do you expect? It's a transparently value-holding commodity, not a place-holding commodity; I'm just making up theoretical terms, here, but, so to say, its value comes from exchanging it for value's own sake, not through direct representation of something else. Case in point: when was the last time you bought or sold something in terms of bitcoins? Yet there they are, soaking up processor time, gaining value and losing face. Is that what it's all about? "I dedicated my processor to a hell of a lot of number crunching, now that's just gotsta be worth SOMEthing!" -- (???)
There's a "The" TFA? Like, the master fucking article?
You're SO wrong, for starters, what do you MEAN, "Out of Africa"? Don't you mean, "Out of Africa, East Asia, and Australia?" And lastly, what do you mean "mutation"? If it wasn't for selective breeding it wouldn't have taken hold. Where you think you is, Waterworld?
I recall, before they shipped the alpha, that Raspberry Pi was supposed to work from the power supplied by an HDMI cable. Is there some variable to be considered there, as well, or did they abandon that design? I gave up interest pretty early when I was told that I would be considered to receive one of the early models and then never received a follow-up.
*Shrug* You intended to perform for your audience the rite of acknowledgement into the echelon of true believers. So what if you failed to let them know what it took to be really there? You did all humankind a favor by demonstrating, with your performance, that puppetry and cascades of wonder have no match for the actual imposition of securely obtained and restrained measures upon every least facet of throughput.
So, you mayest show that the simplest coward is but a simpleton, but, where were you, when all of us crowed for a simpleton bemoaned, who was yet a well-disciplined ward to clean the paths ahead of all us the rest?
I don't think you really do care -- I know I do, and I can tell, you do not.
Gladly, so, you make my point. Well met, brother of brethren.
Alroight. final argument:
Consider where G O D used to stand in for security AND technology, both similar.
Consider if you told tales about security technology.
Consider how effective you'd be while admiring the eventual growth rate and power structure of something like the vatican, the muslim world, and the hindu/buddhist structure, all combined.
Tell me you don't think a little make-believe, a little lying, are effective means of creating a world where nobody is sure what to believe, but people learn methods of "faith" (trust-based security) to defeat the overwhelming tides of the "devil" (the ever-present threat of falsehood, including the epitomy of falsehood -- malware).
TECHNOSHAMANISM is at hand! Embrace it! Lie! Cheat! Steal! Corrupt! Take your spoils, as I will take mine, for from an early time I know we all have earned them, not as they were plucked like teeth from the mouth of a poor young man but as they were the feathers of the phoenix taken from the dwindling fires of an early age almost squashed by hegemony and greed!
Take up the knowledge that obfuscation DOES offer some security, and use it as a springboard to collapse those systems that attempt to squelch your security through incorporate frustration and under-thought malfeasance.
Why have we not shown this world a thing or two, already? Who are we? Always under-paid, under-laid, under-privilege bastard sons of stupid bitches, or are we decent enough company to take under the wings of even the highest eagles?
Break a few more bangles, and urge a few more charms, and I'm sure that the "nerd" culture might even win a few favors where, for now, it stands like a reedy moss in a thicket of water and shit, soaking up detritus and proving for itself nothing but its own respiration.
ONLY if the deterrents in use in your dichotomy are false deterrents.
Consider this: the thieves now throw themselves headlong into security systems believing they might be false; the thieves are caught mid-act by effective, real, actual, working, again: effective security systems; the thieves are fucked (caught).
This might be a possible scenario where broadcasting the existence of the tar-baby or fake intruder countermeasure results in heightened effectiveness of existing effective countermeasures simply because: more people plunge into them based on the probability of those countermeasures being ineffective based on some crazy stunt-kit that copycats actual security.
Do you understand what I'm saying? People are dynamic.
Many thieves look at cameras and actually judge for themselves whether those cameras are the real thing or are fake cameras put up to ward off thieves.
The idiots waltz right through attempted thievery and are caught because, indeed, the cameras were real but the thieves acted as if they might not be. It happens frequently.
Despite what some may say, fake security DOES impede real crime, and obfuscation DOES impede real attempts to decrypt.
blah-hah... would mod funny
I came up with a pretty distinct statement about this concept.
""There's no security in obfuscation" cannot be a positively true statement. Comparatively, there is absolutely *no* security in full disclosure or revelation, whereas in obfuscation there is *enough* security that many people resort to it in an attempt to secure things, typically because it's just *enough* to fool people."
You can read it at my professional (not my funny friendly one) gabe.petrie at facebook.
The job description doesn't "mess" with your "head" because of the content the censor is required to view, nor due to the length of time spent in viewing it, nor in the therapy or lack thereof afterwards.
The reason a person might become unstable while performing the duties of this particular job is because the most horrible things one sees must then be determined not to be viewed by anyone else, and not only are you forced -- by pay and coercion of duty to your signature -- to renounce what you've seen as "wrong", you are then also to be sure to be alone in what you've seen if your job has been done thoroughly for all. Talk about "forever alone". Talk about "twisted".
It has nothing to do with liability or humanism. It's about alienation and idiocy. Anybody who would spend time justifying the existence of a position like this, and to go on furthermore, likening it to some onslaught of meager slings and arrows, and to show how it can all be channeled by some corporate scheme into better good for profitability, is a completely inhuman wretch who has a malformed consciousness that befits only a malformed head, and may something fall from the heavens that will cleave that head thusly right.
It's censorship, you fucking idiot. Quit talking l33t-a$$, corporate hegemony about it, unless you're just aching for the prospect of getting paid to fap to mangled dead babies as our corporate robolords inform us you've been so occupied these long months in our employ.