It would seem more logical to just sum up the known figures, and present them along with information about what areas they cover, making it clear they are minimum values. I'm pretty sure those totals would ring the alarm bells just as effectively for those who actually care about it.
All moral codes are complicated, for the most part because of their vagueness.
The difficulty with Christianity does not stem from any inherent complexity, but rather from the incomplete transmission of the source material, as well as the linguistics etc.
Some Christians may believe it is impossible to follow it unaided, but I would say that (baring a life as a monk or somesuch) it is the otherway around.
As for the Christian idea of salvation, what it depends on is rather vague, as well. I have my own view in that regard, tending toward Gnosticism, but there is great variability among those who are placed (or place themselves) under the heading "Christian". I doubt even 10% of them have given any real thought to their faith; YMMV.
Yeah. With a bit of luck, they might actually feel good about it too, rather than being like "awww, dad!". Give them as much responsibility as they can handle, help them become able to handle more, and be there to catch them / help them back up when they fall.
Just isolating them from the harsh realities around them will give them a severe shock at some point in time. And the absence of rites of passage (e.g. your "ready to watch the sheep" example) has frequently been cited as a near inexhaustible source of trouble.
Kids become adolescents earlier in life than before, and become adults later in life than before. If you're 20-something now, pop up an old TV-series like "Bewitched", and see if their age-development ratio is the same as your own. Then ask yourself why (not)?
You could just randomize it upon installation of the DLL.
Sure, it reduces the likelyhood of correctly guessing the address to the square root or so of the full approach, but it is still a viable solution, security-wise. Perfect tradeoff.
Protecting individual installations is the task of the security people, and either way Windows is not suited to a no-compromises security scenario. Greatly decreasing the bulk vulnerability of the OS without significantly decreasing individual performance seems like the right way to go for them.
Randomizing per-installation ensures that there will be little or no risk of widespread use of these vulnerabilities, although it does less to protect a single site.
Pity I didn't patent it back when I first thought of it.:P
I take it you forked over for the IA64, then? They got virtually everything, except the crosscompilers, right this time. Considering how long they've had to hack up the x86, it is forgivable that the IA64 still has a few things to sort out.
Until people start actually using the segmentation and privilege ring facilities on the x86 processors, this will still be circumventable. I think that the segmentation stuff et al is as silly as most other people who have done stuff with the x86, but there actually is some rationale behind it.
The real problem with segmentation et al, is that Unix doesn't map reasonably well to it, and there's this whole "lowest common denominator" thing (frequently labeled "portability", which is arguably a good thing in most cases).
As it is, as long as you can take over the running context, you can still scan for the code you are looking for, which will work until they start doing polymorphic code in the kernel. Which will work until someone (I assume only the real black hats will have the fortitude for this) writes up a code analyzer that will detect if the code does what you want it to. At that point, you'll need heartbeating and/or better CPU-level protection facilities.
If you want to be safe, limit your segment so that the program *cannot* access anything it isn't supposed to, set different page tables, use gates for control transfer, etc.
Indeed, many so-called religious people have a desperate need to "settle" the matter to themselves, for their views to be "right", and to have absolute confidence in their faith.
Personally, I favor Kierkegaards take, that true religious belief necessitates doubt. In the absence of doubt, you have a very different kind of faith, one that is incompatible with the basic tenets of many mainstream religions in their original form. This is most certainly the case with Christianity, for instance. You can have blind faith in what a particular church is telling you, but it isn't the kind of "enlightened", self-examining faith that this stuff was originally about.
Heck, if they're going to use the bible as an argument, then let's just buy into their paradigm for a moment, and illustrate the point "from within": the bible states Jesus himself experienced doubt several times, and if you take the source as reliable, he was God's own son; if you further buy into the popular churches' assertions that he was consubstantiate (equivalent) to God, what does that say about the religious importance of having enough doubt to examine yourself and your faith, and make the necessary improvements rather than becoming a dogmatist fanatic?
I lack the kind of evidence you cite for the existence of America, never having been there myself, and never having participated in any attempt to falsify the hypotheses surrounding its existence.
However, I do believe that America exists, and that it is approximately due west from me.
Would you consider me unintelligent for not scientifically testing everything I believe in? Because I get a hell of a lot more useful work done by making some assumptions like that. If I want to sort a dataset, I just paste in a quicksort, or something like that. To try to challenge the validity of that sorting algorithm as a choice in a given case, unless I know of a reason not to, is a waste of my time. Others have spent years on the subject of algorithm analysis, and I choose to have *faith* in their conclusions, and I choose to treat the results as facts.
Personally, I would consider the latter to be the intelligent choice.
For that matter, if it improves his life in any way to believe in Kibo or whatnot, will you consider him unintelligent for choosing to believe? I'd say he clearly demonstrates intelligence in making a choice that presumably improves his quality of life, making it clear that he isn't about to go bible-bashing us, making it clear that he knows that it is impossible to test his faith, and also by not holding specific beliefs on the "hows" of it that would be incompatible with the available evidence.
Whether faith in a specific religion is intelligent depends on the content of said faith, and on the nature and situation of the person espousing this faith, as well as what philosophical schools (e.g. moral schools, etc.) you choose as a basis for your discourse.
Evolution is not proven. It has simply been satisfactorily (sp?) demonstrated. Which is quite enough until someone can cast doubt on it with evidence to the contrary, or until something else comes up which can be comparatively tested to determine what is the most accurate model.
Proving something is, as I recall, technically impossible. You can just keep adding to the list of conforming observations, and assume that it's correct because there aren't any credible contradictory observations. Over time, your confidence grows.
But, yes, many people confuse the theory about the hows of evolution (a fairly well-tested theory that describe the mechanism) with the theory that it happened (a very well-tested theory that states that it has happened, based on fossil records, etc.).
And many people confuse Intelligent Design with a theory, where in fact it is a belief which does not have any place in the realm of science due to the absence of falsifiable hypothesis. That said, one could claim String Theory falls under the same heading, but there is at least some indication that it eventuall *will* come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, and in the mean time it brings something to the table: better math for some previously untractable problems.
Unless we encounter some alien civilization that says "yeah, we remember you guys. you were the 3rd grade science project of xz'hrgqlff over there.", or some godlike being descends upon the earth to grace us with the patience to submit to scientific testing, there will never be any falsifiable tests for Intelligent Design. And even those would only apply to life on earth, not life in general; plus, the question of turtles all the way down will remain.
Your ID has two more digits than his, so I'd say you're the new kid:)
I just recently signed up, but I've read Slashdot back when it was something other than a way to make me feel good by reading how silly the rest of the so-called "tech" or "geek" crowd is nowadays. I miss it.
This may well be the case. But it's not the case HP is arguing, unfortunately for them. The HP line of reasoning will not get them anywhere, but they could've had a shot at it if they had gone with the "sorry, but we'd have to charge more for non-windows" line of reasoning.
You are aware that some people use the metal, not plastic, rounds for softguns, right? And that it's not entirely unpopular to increase the spring load or air pressure?
I know people have shot things to shreds with modified guns and/or metal balls.
Used properly, a softgun is fairly safe, but some people don't realize they can be dangerous at point blank range. Especially with metal rounds.
I think it's less of an issue with people thinking Americans are generally stupid, than thinking people are generally stupid but Americans get away with blaming others.
It is rather odd, wouldn't you say, that a country that has had a history of thinking communism worse than atrocitous dictators would implement one of the core problems so effectively in their own justice system?
You might want to have a look at the Stella Awards. Stuff like the most recent "winner", who bought a mobile home, put on the cruise control and left the wheel to go make food. Obviously, she crashed. She successfully sued and was awarded a ridiculous amount of money and a new mobile home for her stupidity. If it had happened anywhere else, she would have lost her driver's licence, been at the very least fined for the reckless endangerment of others in traffic, and possibly been subjected to a psychiatric evaluation to see if she could be turned loose on society once more or not.
So, it's not so much that the rest of us think Americans are stupid, as we think that American culture (or at least their courtroom culture) encourages and rewards stupidity, while taking away any element of personal responsibility.:P
Why? Because my parents made sure I knew to respect sharp edges and open flames.
Time for parents to grow up and take some responsibility. If your kid isn't mature enough, or responsible enough, to play with a toy, then that toy is in no way something you should let your kid play with.
Note that I'm not talking about the hammock or stuff like that here, 'cause that isn't really all that intuitive to some.
My SO grew up with a kid whose parents were high level ski-shooters, and she played with firearms from a very young age. They knew how to handle one, and made sure she knew to do so too before she was allowed to play with them. Parental supervision of play with potentially dangerous toys is essential until you *know* they have proper respect for the dangers involved.
She also grew up with another kid who never got any dangerous toys, who nonetheless managed to injure himself and others repeatedly through irresponsible behaviour.
It's not the toys. It's the parents who don't spend time with their kids and take responsibility for the safety of the kids, and kids who are too irresponsible to be safe to themselves and their surroundings regardless of what you do.
I think you may, in part, have reversed cause and effect here.
And, I think the point of the GP is that these toys were sold elsewhere too, yet in many cases the injury statistics differed significantly between the two sides of the ocean. I would also point out that reactions to these injuries differed as well: elsewhere, it is often an accepted part of life that some kids will have accidents growing up and blaming the mfg's for it is just silly. The worst of these toys are generally safer than the kid would be playing with in the absence of any toys.
Ask your oldest relative how many injuries they sustained during play. Compare. Comprehend.
Others have lobbied pretty hard for a lot of this stuff too, but with limited success, and thanks to the PirateBay noise, the tide may soon start to turn. I think the EU is more susceptible, although I'm hardly pleased with my own gov't either.
You do realize that these patents are invalid in many places, right? Here in Norway, for instance, there is nothing to prevent me from making an XSLT to translate between the "de facto" implementation by MS (not just the exact spec, but what actually works with Office), and an actual open standard, and back again. This is how they provide unencumbered crypto in many projects, etc.
Of course you can implement the undocumented stuff.
ReactOS, for example, is reimplementing XP using a "clean-room" reverse engineering approach, and from the screenshots, they run games like Unreal Turnament already.
The missionary schools etc setting up shop in these areas could get connectivity, and it'd be feasible to distribute books via the mesh network thingy (I read that as a P2P-style network). Worst case, the people who drop by with other supplies could bring ebooks, email, etc. with them, and these could diffuse from machine to machine, or be loaded in the schools.
Let the schools teach them how to read, type and use these things well enough to use the electronic help, as well as whatever other stuff they insist on teaching them, and provide them with enough material to learn on their own.
I'm pretty sure if this stuff gets rolled out, and some means of distribution or connectivity gets set up, you'd see the Open Source community rising to the challenge of building an online community that makes the ebooks they really need and presumably taking requests. Starting with stuff like family planning, disease management, hygiene, medicine, construction, irrigation, farming, etc., and following up with less basic stuff later on, you can get a decent education for the kids that have these.
Let's say a handful of kids in a community have this. Soon, they'll be able to help their local community deal with their day-to-day problems, although I guess you might have a problem with the adults not listening to them, but that generation appears to be dying off anyway. When they have grown up a bit, chances are they'll think up ingenious ways to use this tech to get online feeds and organize stuff on a larger scale. A bit further along, the ones that are still with us can get development work, become community doctors, or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
It would seem more logical to just sum up the known figures, and present them along with information about what areas they cover, making it clear they are minimum values. I'm pretty sure those totals would ring the alarm bells just as effectively for those who actually care about it.
All moral codes are complicated, for the most part because of their vagueness.
The difficulty with Christianity does not stem from any inherent complexity, but rather from the incomplete transmission of the source material, as well as the linguistics etc.
Some Christians may believe it is impossible to follow it unaided, but I would say that (baring a life as a monk or somesuch) it is the otherway around.
As for the Christian idea of salvation, what it depends on is rather vague, as well. I have my own view in that regard, tending toward Gnosticism, but there is great variability among those who are placed (or place themselves) under the heading "Christian". I doubt even 10% of them have given any real thought to their faith; YMMV.
It's available on DVD, so I'm not sure "lost to history" is accurate.
That said, you can probably find another series from that time which deals with a comparable age interval.
Yeah. With a bit of luck, they might actually feel good about it too, rather than being like "awww, dad!". Give them as much responsibility as they can handle, help them become able to handle more, and be there to catch them / help them back up when they fall.
Just isolating them from the harsh realities around them will give them a severe shock at some point in time. And the absence of rites of passage (e.g. your "ready to watch the sheep" example) has frequently been cited as a near inexhaustible source of trouble.
Kids become adolescents earlier in life than before, and become adults later in life than before. If you're 20-something now, pop up an old TV-series like "Bewitched", and see if their age-development ratio is the same as your own. Then ask yourself why (not)?
You could just randomize it upon installation of the DLL.
:P
Sure, it reduces the likelyhood of correctly guessing the address to the square root or so of the full approach, but it is still a viable solution, security-wise. Perfect tradeoff.
Protecting individual installations is the task of the security people, and either way Windows is not suited to a no-compromises security scenario. Greatly decreasing the bulk vulnerability of the OS without significantly decreasing individual performance seems like the right way to go for them.
Randomizing per-installation ensures that there will be little or no risk of widespread use of these vulnerabilities, although it does less to protect a single site.
Pity I didn't patent it back when I first thought of it.
Software without bugs happens. Regularly.
Specifications without bugs is a rare beast.
Have a look at companies like Lockheed-Martin.
Prevention.
Detection.
Response.
I take it you forked over for the IA64, then? They got virtually everything, except the crosscompilers, right this time. Considering how long they've had to hack up the x86, it is forgivable that the IA64 still has a few things to sort out.
Until people start actually using the segmentation and privilege ring facilities on the x86 processors, this will still be circumventable. I think that the segmentation stuff et al is as silly as most other people who have done stuff with the x86, but there actually is some rationale behind it.
The real problem with segmentation et al, is that Unix doesn't map reasonably well to it, and there's this whole "lowest common denominator" thing (frequently labeled "portability", which is arguably a good thing in most cases).
As it is, as long as you can take over the running context, you can still scan for the code you are looking for, which will work until they start doing polymorphic code in the kernel. Which will work until someone (I assume only the real black hats will have the fortitude for this) writes up a code analyzer that will detect if the code does what you want it to. At that point, you'll need heartbeating and/or better CPU-level protection facilities.
If you want to be safe, limit your segment so that the program *cannot* access anything it isn't supposed to, set different page tables, use gates for control transfer, etc.
Yup. Jesus, for instance. Maybe they should take his example. :)
Indeed, many so-called religious people have a desperate need to "settle" the matter to themselves, for their views to be "right", and to have absolute confidence in their faith.
Personally, I favor Kierkegaards take, that true religious belief necessitates doubt. In the absence of doubt, you have a very different kind of faith, one that is incompatible with the basic tenets of many mainstream religions in their original form. This is most certainly the case with Christianity, for instance. You can have blind faith in what a particular church is telling you, but it isn't the kind of "enlightened", self-examining faith that this stuff was originally about.
Heck, if they're going to use the bible as an argument, then let's just buy into their paradigm for a moment, and illustrate the point "from within": the bible states Jesus himself experienced doubt several times, and if you take the source as reliable, he was God's own son; if you further buy into the popular churches' assertions that he was consubstantiate (equivalent) to God, what does that say about the religious importance of having enough doubt to examine yourself and your faith, and make the necessary improvements rather than becoming a dogmatist fanatic?
I lack the kind of evidence you cite for the existence of America, never having been there myself, and never having participated in any attempt to falsify the hypotheses surrounding its existence.
However, I do believe that America exists, and that it is approximately due west from me.
Would you consider me unintelligent for not scientifically testing everything I believe in? Because I get a hell of a lot more useful work done by making some assumptions like that. If I want to sort a dataset, I just paste in a quicksort, or something like that. To try to challenge the validity of that sorting algorithm as a choice in a given case, unless I know of a reason not to, is a waste of my time. Others have spent years on the subject of algorithm analysis, and I choose to have *faith* in their conclusions, and I choose to treat the results as facts.
Personally, I would consider the latter to be the intelligent choice.
For that matter, if it improves his life in any way to believe in Kibo or whatnot, will you consider him unintelligent for choosing to believe? I'd say he clearly demonstrates intelligence in making a choice that presumably improves his quality of life, making it clear that he isn't about to go bible-bashing us, making it clear that he knows that it is impossible to test his faith, and also by not holding specific beliefs on the "hows" of it that would be incompatible with the available evidence.
Whether faith in a specific religion is intelligent depends on the content of said faith, and on the nature and situation of the person espousing this faith, as well as what philosophical schools (e.g. moral schools, etc.) you choose as a basis for your discourse.
Evolution is not proven. It has simply been satisfactorily (sp?) demonstrated. Which is quite enough until someone can cast doubt on it with evidence to the contrary, or until something else comes up which can be comparatively tested to determine what is the most accurate model.
Proving something is, as I recall, technically impossible. You can just keep adding to the list of conforming observations, and assume that it's correct because there aren't any credible contradictory observations. Over time, your confidence grows.
But, yes, many people confuse the theory about the hows of evolution (a fairly well-tested theory that describe the mechanism) with the theory that it happened (a very well-tested theory that states that it has happened, based on fossil records, etc.).
And many people confuse Intelligent Design with a theory, where in fact it is a belief which does not have any place in the realm of science due to the absence of falsifiable hypothesis. That said, one could claim String Theory falls under the same heading, but there is at least some indication that it eventuall *will* come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, and in the mean time it brings something to the table: better math for some previously untractable problems.
Unless we encounter some alien civilization that says "yeah, we remember you guys. you were the 3rd grade science project of xz'hrgqlff over there.", or some godlike being descends upon the earth to grace us with the patience to submit to scientific testing, there will never be any falsifiable tests for Intelligent Design. And even those would only apply to life on earth, not life in general; plus, the question of turtles all the way down will remain.
Your ID has two more digits than his, so I'd say you're the new kid :)
I just recently signed up, but I've read Slashdot back when it was something other than a way to make me feel good by reading how silly the rest of the so-called "tech" or "geek" crowd is nowadays. I miss it.
This may well be the case. But it's not the case HP is arguing, unfortunately for them. The HP line of reasoning will not get them anywhere, but they could've had a shot at it if they had gone with the "sorry, but we'd have to charge more for non-windows" line of reasoning.
You are aware that some people use the metal, not plastic, rounds for softguns, right? And that it's not entirely unpopular to increase the spring load or air pressure?
I know people have shot things to shreds with modified guns and/or metal balls.
Used properly, a softgun is fairly safe, but some people don't realize they can be dangerous at point blank range. Especially with metal rounds.
I think it's less of an issue with people thinking Americans are generally stupid, than thinking people are generally stupid but Americans get away with blaming others.
:P
It is rather odd, wouldn't you say, that a country that has had a history of thinking communism worse than atrocitous dictators would implement one of the core problems so effectively in their own justice system?
You might want to have a look at the Stella Awards. Stuff like the most recent "winner", who bought a mobile home, put on the cruise control and left the wheel to go make food. Obviously, she crashed. She successfully sued and was awarded a ridiculous amount of money and a new mobile home for her stupidity. If it had happened anywhere else, she would have lost her driver's licence, been at the very least fined for the reckless endangerment of others in traffic, and possibly been subjected to a psychiatric evaluation to see if she could be turned loose on society once more or not.
So, it's not so much that the rest of us think Americans are stupid, as we think that American culture (or at least their courtroom culture) encourages and rewards stupidity, while taking away any element of personal responsibility.
I've had both, and never had any accidents.
Why? Because my parents made sure I knew to respect sharp edges and open flames.
Time for parents to grow up and take some responsibility. If your kid isn't mature enough, or responsible enough, to play with a toy, then that toy is in no way something you should let your kid play with.
Note that I'm not talking about the hammock or stuff like that here, 'cause that isn't really all that intuitive to some.
My SO grew up with a kid whose parents were high level ski-shooters, and she played with firearms from a very young age. They knew how to handle one, and made sure she knew to do so too before she was allowed to play with them. Parental supervision of play with potentially dangerous toys is essential until you *know* they have proper respect for the dangers involved.
She also grew up with another kid who never got any dangerous toys, who nonetheless managed to injure himself and others repeatedly through irresponsible behaviour.
It's not the toys. It's the parents who don't spend time with their kids and take responsibility for the safety of the kids, and kids who are too irresponsible to be safe to themselves and their surroundings regardless of what you do.
Seeing as though a majority of the candidates were from Mattel, he might have a thorn in their sides. Maybe his kid got bitten/chewed on or something.
That's why children are treated like children.
I think you may, in part, have reversed cause and effect here.
And, I think the point of the GP is that these toys were sold elsewhere too, yet in many cases the injury statistics differed significantly between the two sides of the ocean. I would also point out that reactions to these injuries differed as well: elsewhere, it is often an accepted part of life that some kids will have accidents growing up and blaming the mfg's for it is just silly. The worst of these toys are generally safer than the kid would be playing with in the absence of any toys.
Ask your oldest relative how many injuries they sustained during play. Compare. Comprehend.
Presumably, the majority of what they are getting slammed with originates with said botnets. XP phone home? ;)
Others have lobbied pretty hard for a lot of this stuff too, but with limited success, and thanks to the PirateBay noise, the tide may soon start to turn. I think the EU is more susceptible, although I'm hardly pleased with my own gov't either.
You do realize that these patents are invalid in many places, right? Here in Norway, for instance, there is nothing to prevent me from making an XSLT to translate between the "de facto" implementation by MS (not just the exact spec, but what actually works with Office), and an actual open standard, and back again. This is how they provide unencumbered crypto in many projects, etc.
Of course you can implement the undocumented stuff.
ReactOS, for example, is reimplementing XP using a "clean-room" reverse engineering approach, and from the screenshots, they run games like Unreal Turnament already.
The missionary schools etc setting up shop in these areas could get connectivity, and it'd be feasible to distribute books via the mesh network thingy (I read that as a P2P-style network). Worst case, the people who drop by with other supplies could bring ebooks, email, etc. with them, and these could diffuse from machine to machine, or be loaded in the schools.
Let the schools teach them how to read, type and use these things well enough to use the electronic help, as well as whatever other stuff they insist on teaching them, and provide them with enough material to learn on their own.
I'm pretty sure if this stuff gets rolled out, and some means of distribution or connectivity gets set up, you'd see the Open Source community rising to the challenge of building an online community that makes the ebooks they really need and presumably taking requests. Starting with stuff like family planning, disease management, hygiene, medicine, construction, irrigation, farming, etc., and following up with less basic stuff later on, you can get a decent education for the kids that have these.
Let's say a handful of kids in a community have this. Soon, they'll be able to help their local community deal with their day-to-day problems, although I guess you might have a problem with the adults not listening to them, but that generation appears to be dying off anyway. When they have grown up a bit, chances are they'll think up ingenious ways to use this tech to get online feeds and organize stuff on a larger scale. A bit further along, the ones that are still with us can get development work, become community doctors, or whatever.