There is the difficulty of keeping the spoilers out of search engines, using JavaScript to reveal the spoilers in a way that is universally compatible with all media
I thought javascript always broke accessibility for visually impaired users. Is that fixed now, or by "all media" did you mean all media that you use?
2: Since the reason their beer had antibiotics was due to a lucky coincidence of having soil laced with the antibiotic, did they really know about antibiotics or did they just think they had "magic beer" that cured illnesses.
Perhaps you didn't understand the bit in the summary that referred to empirical knowledge and use of antibiotics?
Secondly, to finish answering your question, I'm referring to the fact that one of the side-effects of the Internet (i.e. the ability to connect to everyone) means that someone over in Yugoslavia can hear my music now without the need of a record label or anything else.
And the RIAA will try to claim a fee from them for downloading it.
My first secondary school had coed shower and changing rooms. Sadly, they timetabled the boys and girls to use them at separate times and enforced it strictly.
I think you'll find that the US government, like all elected governments, get that very well indeed. It's the ones who get it best and play on it most unscrupulously that get elected. It's probably true of unelected governments, too: it's the ones who get it best and play on it most unscrupulously that don't get assassinated.
I have found it to be incredibly useful for collaborating on documents like project quotes or planning. We have actually been using it pretty steadily to guide a couple of WWW projects.
That's what I used it for. I don't think it was as good as Google Docs for the job.
Yes, I think that's the point. Wave didn't seem to do anything that we couldn't do better with other tools (and I have used it a fair bit for real, as part of a standardisation process). That doesn't mean that it was a daft thing to do, it was worth trying, it just didn't come off. Wasn't there a batsman in some sport who, when somebody commented on how many balls he swung for and missed, replied that he missed all the ones he didn't swing for?
The world is not that black and white. Firstly it looks as if the claim is that the machine failed to prevent the deaths, not caused the deaths. It's an important difference. Secondly there's the question of what other systems were in place, what was the intended role of this system in preventing such occurences, and what weight was placed on this role.
To take an analogy, imagine somebody drowns in a public swimming pool. The lifeguard fails to save them, and all the other swimmers fail to save them. The lifeguard is clearly "mission critical", and we will whant to know what went wrong. But what about all the other swimmers? On your logic, it seems they "had a hand in" failing to save him and so were "mission critical". Do you believe that everybody should be required to hold a lifesaving certificate before being allowed to enter a pool?
They are at risk of a serious incident whatever they run on: zero risk is unattainable. Their moral (and likely legal) responsibility is to assess that risk and ensure that it is adequately managed and is at a tolerable level. A lot depends on how easy it is to tell when something has gone wrong and what recovery is available if it does go wrong. Without knowing the system, seeing that risk assessment, knowing what failure modes are significant, knowing how significant they are and knowing what is done about them, you have know way at all of knowing whether the risk is "unacceptable" or not.
I've worked on a few safety critical aviation systems (it's my job), and in the ones I've worked on the users of them don't have physical access to the computers. They're typically designed to boot straight into the dedicated custom application software, with no access to the OS. The people who do have access to the computers have to be licensed to do so, and none of them is going to go putting anything unauthorised into the USB port because there's simply no point -- these are dedicated machines with dedicated IO devices that would make for a terrible user expericnce. That, and they'd get fired.
So how did trojans end up on this computer? Well, as far as I can see it was not classed as a safety critical computer, and was almost certainly isolated from the networks that the safety critical ones use. Once you get the risk of a catasrophe down to a certain level then any further protection systems, although they are nice to have, you can be more relaxed about.
The relevant rules for safety management of aviation ground systems that the Spanish are subject to are freely available on the internet.
Yes, the language changes. Inasmuch as people can change the language, people can resist it changing. I resist the language changing primarily when the change makes the language less precise. Other changes tend not to trouble me.
Language naturally tends to preserve precision that matters to the users of the language, introduce new distinctions that matter to the language users, and lose distinctions that don't matter to language users. The distinction between "less" and "fewer" (and yes, I do know the supposed distinction) only seems to matter to people who want to show off that they know the distinction, which isn't a very strong basis for keeping a distinction in a language.
In any case, I don't believe the formal definitions of the words have yet changed so you are incorrect. Read a dictionary for usage and compare "less" and "fewer" and become less ignorant.
I love becoming less ignorant, and reading a dictionary might indeed help me with that, although one of the first things I learned on my English Language degree was the difference between descriptive and prescriptive sources. Anyway, I think it's you who have something to learn in the case of "less" and "fewer":
"less, a. (n.), adv., and conj. ...
c. A smaller number of; fewer.
(Oxford English Dictionary)
The earliest cited reference for that usage is from King Alfred in c.888 CE ("Swa mid læs worda swa mid ma, swæer we hit ereccan maon"), so it's had plenty of time to make its way into the dictionary.
You realise that the Daily Mail is hardly an unbiased source? And note how "A million march to US Capitol" in the headline becomes "tens of thousands" in the text.
Because it used to be the case that it should be "fewer", not "less", and some people don't realise that language changes and are trying to keep it as it was 50 years ago.
The SEC needs to fund itself solely through the fines they collect, that will get them working. And fining punitive amounts instead of symbolic ones.
Yes, and that will have them going after students and grannies who have never traded a security in their life, making unsupported threats in the hope that they'll give up without a fight. It's not as if we haven't seen that business model before. You could have been describing the RIAA.
Then could you be more precise about what you mean by "undetectable", what the problem is with "undetectable" theorems, and in what sense is P a theorem?
Slashdot Mirror
There is the difficulty of keeping the spoilers out of search engines, using JavaScript to reveal the spoilers in a way that is universally compatible with all media
I thought javascript always broke accessibility for visually impaired users. Is that fixed now, or by "all media" did you mean all media that you use?
2: Since the reason their beer had antibiotics was due to a lucky coincidence of having soil laced with the antibiotic, did they really know about antibiotics or did they just think they had "magic beer" that cured illnesses.
Perhaps you didn't understand the bit in the summary that referred to empirical knowledge and use of antibiotics?
There once was a seller of toner
Who said to a purchasing moaner
"If you like it or not
This lock-in we've got
Will give all the lawyers a boner."
Secondly, to finish answering your question, I'm referring to the fact that one of the side-effects of the Internet (i.e. the ability to connect to everyone) means that someone over in Yugoslavia can hear my music now without the need of a record label or anything else.
And the RIAA will try to claim a fee from them for downloading it.
My first secondary school had coed shower and changing rooms. Sadly, they timetabled the boys and girls to use them at separate times and enforced it strictly.
Even we on Earth are already emitting more electromagnetic radiation than the sun
[citation needed]
I think you'll find that the US government, like all elected governments, get that very well indeed. It's the ones who get it best and play on it most unscrupulously that get elected. It's probably true of unelected governments, too: it's the ones who get it best and play on it most unscrupulously that don't get assassinated.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Google Docs seems to do what Wave does but better, but it will depend on exactly how you're using it.
I have found it to be incredibly useful for collaborating on documents like project quotes or planning. We have actually been using it pretty steadily to guide a couple of WWW projects.
That's what I used it for. I don't think it was as good as Google Docs for the job.
Sometimes projects swing and miss
Yes, I think that's the point. Wave didn't seem to do anything that we couldn't do better with other tools (and I have used it a fair bit for real, as part of a standardisation process). That doesn't mean that it was a daft thing to do, it was worth trying, it just didn't come off. Wasn't there a batsman in some sport who, when somebody commented on how many balls he swung for and missed, replied that he missed all the ones he didn't swing for?
The world is not that black and white. Firstly it looks as if the claim is that the machine failed to prevent the deaths, not caused the deaths. It's an important difference. Secondly there's the question of what other systems were in place, what was the intended role of this system in preventing such occurences, and what weight was placed on this role.
To take an analogy, imagine somebody drowns in a public swimming pool. The lifeguard fails to save them, and all the other swimmers fail to save them. The lifeguard is clearly "mission critical", and we will whant to know what went wrong. But what about all the other swimmers? On your logic, it seems they "had a hand in" failing to save him and so were "mission critical". Do you believe that everybody should be required to hold a lifesaving certificate before being allowed to enter a pool?
As such, it is basically an IT system with response requirements in minutes
More likely hours or days.
They are at risk of a serious incident whatever they run on: zero risk is unattainable. Their moral (and likely legal) responsibility is to assess that risk and ensure that it is adequately managed and is at a tolerable level. A lot depends on how easy it is to tell when something has gone wrong and what recovery is available if it does go wrong. Without knowing the system, seeing that risk assessment, knowing what failure modes are significant, knowing how significant they are and knowing what is done about them, you have know way at all of knowing whether the risk is "unacceptable" or not.
I've worked on a few safety critical aviation systems (it's my job), and in the ones I've worked on the users of them don't have physical access to the computers. They're typically designed to boot straight into the dedicated custom application software, with no access to the OS. The people who do have access to the computers have to be licensed to do so, and none of them is going to go putting anything unauthorised into the USB port because there's simply no point -- these are dedicated machines with dedicated IO devices that would make for a terrible user expericnce. That, and they'd get fired.
So how did trojans end up on this computer? Well, as far as I can see it was not classed as a safety critical computer, and was almost certainly isolated from the networks that the safety critical ones use. Once you get the risk of a catasrophe down to a certain level then any further protection systems, although they are nice to have, you can be more relaxed about.
The relevant rules for safety management of aviation ground systems that the Spanish are subject to are freely available on the internet.
I use KeePass, and it's entertaining to see how many sites force me to use a less secure password than the KeePass default settings generates.
Nice idea, until you find your computer has been hijacked and is acting as a torrent provider for classic MGM musicals.
And the Family von Trapp!
Or maybe he's jealous of how much sex Mikael Blomkvist gets.
Yes, the language changes. Inasmuch as people can change the language, people can resist it changing. I resist the language changing primarily when the change makes the language less precise. Other changes tend not to trouble me.
Language naturally tends to preserve precision that matters to the users of the language, introduce new distinctions that matter to the language users, and lose distinctions that don't matter to language users. The distinction between "less" and "fewer" (and yes, I do know the supposed distinction) only seems to matter to people who want to show off that they know the distinction, which isn't a very strong basis for keeping a distinction in a language.
In any case, I don't believe the formal definitions of the words have yet changed so you are incorrect. Read a dictionary for usage and compare "less" and "fewer" and become less ignorant.
I love becoming less ignorant, and reading a dictionary might indeed help me with that, although one of the first things I learned on my English Language degree was the difference between descriptive and prescriptive sources. Anyway, I think it's you who have something to learn in the case of "less" and "fewer":
"less, a. (n.), adv., and conj.
...
c. A smaller number of; fewer.
(Oxford English Dictionary)
The earliest cited reference for that usage is from King Alfred in c.888 CE ("Swa mid læs worda swa mid ma, swæer we hit ereccan maon"), so it's had plenty of time to make its way into the dictionary.
1 - choose a popular mod to an existing game. 2 - hire the devs 3 - release standalone Steam version 4 - PROFIT!
5 - ???
Well, that step has to be in there somewhere.
You realise that the Daily Mail is hardly an unbiased source? And note how "A million march to US Capitol" in the headline becomes "tens of thousands" in the text.
Because it used to be the case that it should be "fewer", not "less", and some people don't realise that language changes and are trying to keep it as it was 50 years ago.
The SEC needs to fund itself solely through the fines they collect, that will get them working. And fining punitive amounts instead of symbolic ones.
Yes, and that will have them going after students and grannies who have never traded a security in their life, making unsupported threats in the hope that they'll give up without a fight. It's not as if we haven't seen that business model before. You could have been describing the RIAA.
Anybody starting to wonder whether the mi'splaced apo'strophes everywhere are actually a form of 'stegangraphy?
Then could you be more precise about what you mean by "undetectable", what the problem is with "undetectable" theorems, and in what sense is P a theorem?