"who actually uses PHP in cgi mode rather than as an Apache module?"
Precisely - I've never heard of anyone doing it that way. And that veekun article has certainly made me think that the billions of PHP based sites that have never had a problem will soon realise their folly! Mwahaetc.
Oil tanker analogy: the US oil tanker has just two settings everybody votes on, "left a bit" and "right a bit". The votes are tallied every 8 hours, and the sea is full of icebergs. The crew have mostly settled on one side and spend more time in holy wars than they do on iceberg-lookout-duty.
The British oil tanker has a bonus "straight on-ish" setting. They can also make tea properly. Other than that, it's pretty much identical.
The sad thing is that the consumer anger is what caused it - this whole thing is due to a complaint.
I used to work for a UK bookshop who had a very forward looking view on things - if it wasn't illegal, they'd sell it if there was demand. We had complaints from the local university's Jewish Society about the fact that we sold Mein Kampf, which is not only legal but on several reading lists. The response was a more tactful version of "would you like us to make a big pile and burn them?"
There's plenty of reason to "hide" distasteful material, we had one customer who would regularly order books which most people would find politically/historically unpleasant (and are illegal in Germany), and we would order them in - they wouldn't be on the shelves though. A sensible response from B&N would have been to remove the magazines from the shelf and replace them with a sign saying "due to customer complaints about the content of this month's Linux Format it has been removed from the shelves, please ask a member of staff if you require a copy", and then sit back and watch the sales soar.
B&N are free to stock or not stock whatever they want, whether or not anyone else thinks it's a good idea. Stop using "freedom of speech" as a synonym for "do what I say".
It's a court order rather than the ISPs in this case (hence BT dragging their feet on the implementation), this is just extra hassle for them, they wouldn't be doing it if they hadn't been told to by the courts.
The US is very proud of being a democracy, the people are ultimately responsible for their leaders actions. I can understand your frustration, especially as the UK is in a similar position (realistically, whoever you vote in it's going to be one of the same group of ne'er-do-wells), but the American people have to take the rap for the actions of those they vote in.
Your best bet is to read a high-school level introduction. Concisely, there are three types of radiation from radioactive atoms, alpha, beta and gamma. Alpha is a He nucleus, two protons and two neutrons - it can do a huge amount of damage to living cells, but is easily stopped by, eg, a sheet of paper. Beta is a high speed electron, less damaging but will penetrate clothing etc. Gamma is nasty - it can travel through a reasonable thickness of lead and still do harm.
If we look at the Uranium example, it gives off alpha, so you'd probably be quite safe with it on the other side of the room. Handling it, on the other hand, is an easy way to accidentally ingest some, which would probably be more harmful because it's then inside the body (this goes for any ionizing radiation source). When you see people being showered off after radiation exposure it doesn't stop any harm thats already been done, just reduces the chances that they are still in contact with a source.
This all ignores the fact that Uranium decays into several other isotopes which give off their own idiosyncratic radiation in turn, and a bunch of other things.
Precisely - "low-level" at Sellafield in the UK used to mean "lower than the background level", and people still got hysterical about it. We need to stop with the wooly-language descriptions and simply use the established units, or units-above-background where applicable. Is low level gamma worse than high level alpha? Is holding a piece of uranium for 5 minutes more or less dangerous than sleeping 10ft away from it for a week? People have no idea, including most of the media, we need to throw out the "levels" model and actually educate people so they can understand the risks properly.
Statistically somebody has to be at the top of the pile. Market traders work on the same fallacy, that the top few percent of traders must be geniuses when it's mostly just the ones who got lucky from a huge pool. Derren Brown once demonstrated this by making somebody win 10 horse racing bets in a row (he just started with a big enough base of people that every outcome was covered)
Indeed. Whatever happened to the "design your own landscape/mission" idea that was so popular in the 80s and 90s? Hell, imagine Battlefield Whatever on a Worms 3D style random fractal landscape.
I wasn't aware of that particular one, but it seems to suggest a good to very good improvement for just over half of the cancers studied, and little to no change on a minority (compared with the 70s), so yes, that's fairly remarkable work in my book. Maybe we should fund them more and deal with the remainder, seems to be the lesson.
Cancer survival rates are astounding compared with just twenty years ago. Chemo and radiotherapy can be highly effective in many cases. I'd call that "pretty good" at least.
Most of us are "gullible idiots" when it comes to medicine, and I'm including doctors in that. We all rely on a huge bank of knowledge built up over decades/centuries - if you go to a doctor with some odd symptoms there's every chance s/he will have no idea what it is, but with the aid of some tests and textbooks they can work out what it is and how to treat it.
The point is there's a knowledge base out there that is truly remarkable at healing people, so when somebody recommends that you avoid using it they better have a damn good backup for their claims.
"Nutritionists" fall into two categories in the UK. The first is perfectly sensible, people who advocate a balanced diet to promote all-round health, this is a good and proper thing. The second is those who claim that real medical solutions to real disorders are unnecessary and can be substituted with a change in diet, for example eating algae as it "produces oxygen in the bloodstream". This is clearly nonsense, and is akin to a mechanic telling people they can disconnect their brakes as long as they're using a particular fuel additive.
Yes, there needs to be some personal responsibility, but as a society we've generally tried to protect the gullible from those who prey on them - if you get drunk and then get mugged you could argue that drinking was a factor, but it doesn't make the mugger innocent.
That's not a problem, and something we should all be doing. However, when you start offering advice to others concerning medical conditions the situation changes. In the UK there are umpteen people advising that, for example, cancer can be treated with high doses of vitamin C. Gullible people read these things and pass on visiting a doctor because they've found a "natural" solution. The kicker is that it isn't a solution, and people have died as a result. Giving medical advice isn't something "just anyone" should be allowed to do, it can be akin to shouting fire in a theatre.
The trick isn't to bring an asteroid to the surface of the planet, it's to bring it to orbit. A few tonnes of iron isn't worth a huge amount, a few tonnes of iron in orbit is worth a fortune, around $20k a kilo even if the raw material itself is virtually worthless on the surface of the planet.
Like when the Serbians tracked F117s by using commercial radio stations? Nothing is more likely to throw you a curveball than underestimating an opponent - that's exactly what happened on 9/11, everyone presumed they weren't capable of building a bomb big enough to take down a skyscraper....
Is it? I realise there's probably a whole bunch of official secrets (or the US equivalent), but I was under the impression that US government work was in the public domain by default and can't be copyrighted/patented?
One of the connotations "script kiddie" carries is of a certain naiveté. In many cases people will download a ready-made script (hence the term) to, for example, scan for a security hole in an out-dated Wordpress installation, I see them the whole time in my server logs.
You're correct though, doing it from behind your home router is generally a dumb thing to do because it's so traceable. The easy alternative is to go through anonymous proxy servers which don't log the traffic (and they do have legitimate uses, both morally and legally). Or, as you point out, find a different physical network, although this is still traceable in many ways if you're suspected of nefarious japes.
Depends on your definition of "computer savvy" - as we get more layers of UI people will generally have less and less of an idea what's going on, just look at how many people equate "windows" and "computer". People will hopefully become more resistant to social engineering approaches like phishing, but the use of a computer is almost coincidental, these types of scams have been going on since the telegraph system and probably before. Gullible people will always fall for something.
Slashdot Mirror
"who actually uses PHP in cgi mode rather than as an Apache module?"
Precisely - I've never heard of anyone doing it that way. And that veekun article has certainly made me think that the billions of PHP based sites that have never had a problem will soon realise their folly! Mwahaetc.
If enough of you voted for the same person, you'd have a third-party president. FTFY :)
Oil tanker analogy: the US oil tanker has just two settings everybody votes on, "left a bit" and "right a bit". The votes are tallied every 8 hours, and the sea is full of icebergs. The crew have mostly settled on one side and spend more time in holy wars than they do on iceberg-lookout-duty.
The British oil tanker has a bonus "straight on-ish" setting. They can also make tea properly. Other than that, it's pretty much identical.
Donkeys are common there, especially in the mountainous regions.
The second theory is easy to test by learning arabic, pharsi, or whichever language it happens to be in.
The sad thing is that the consumer anger is what caused it - this whole thing is due to a complaint.
I used to work for a UK bookshop who had a very forward looking view on things - if it wasn't illegal, they'd sell it if there was demand. We had complaints from the local university's Jewish Society about the fact that we sold Mein Kampf, which is not only legal but on several reading lists. The response was a more tactful version of "would you like us to make a big pile and burn them?"
There's plenty of reason to "hide" distasteful material, we had one customer who would regularly order books which most people would find politically/historically unpleasant (and are illegal in Germany), and we would order them in - they wouldn't be on the shelves though. A sensible response from B&N would have been to remove the magazines from the shelf and replace them with a sign saying "due to customer complaints about the content of this month's Linux Format it has been removed from the shelves, please ask a member of staff if you require a copy", and then sit back and watch the sales soar.
B&N are free to stock or not stock whatever they want, whether or not anyone else thinks it's a good idea. Stop using "freedom of speech" as a synonym for "do what I say".
It's a court order rather than the ISPs in this case (hence BT dragging their feet on the implementation), this is just extra hassle for them, they wouldn't be doing it if they hadn't been told to by the courts.
The US is very proud of being a democracy, the people are ultimately responsible for their leaders actions. I can understand your frustration, especially as the UK is in a similar position (realistically, whoever you vote in it's going to be one of the same group of ne'er-do-wells), but the American people have to take the rap for the actions of those they vote in.
Your best bet is to read a high-school level introduction. Concisely, there are three types of radiation from radioactive atoms, alpha, beta and gamma. Alpha is a He nucleus, two protons and two neutrons - it can do a huge amount of damage to living cells, but is easily stopped by, eg, a sheet of paper. Beta is a high speed electron, less damaging but will penetrate clothing etc. Gamma is nasty - it can travel through a reasonable thickness of lead and still do harm.
If we look at the Uranium example, it gives off alpha, so you'd probably be quite safe with it on the other side of the room. Handling it, on the other hand, is an easy way to accidentally ingest some, which would probably be more harmful because it's then inside the body (this goes for any ionizing radiation source). When you see people being showered off after radiation exposure it doesn't stop any harm thats already been done, just reduces the chances that they are still in contact with a source.
This all ignores the fact that Uranium decays into several other isotopes which give off their own idiosyncratic radiation in turn, and a bunch of other things.
Precisely - "low-level" at Sellafield in the UK used to mean "lower than the background level", and people still got hysterical about it. We need to stop with the wooly-language descriptions and simply use the established units, or units-above-background where applicable. Is low level gamma worse than high level alpha? Is holding a piece of uranium for 5 minutes more or less dangerous than sleeping 10ft away from it for a week? People have no idea, including most of the media, we need to throw out the "levels" model and actually educate people so they can understand the risks properly.
Statistically somebody has to be at the top of the pile. Market traders work on the same fallacy, that the top few percent of traders must be geniuses when it's mostly just the ones who got lucky from a huge pool. Derren Brown once demonstrated this by making somebody win 10 horse racing bets in a row (he just started with a big enough base of people that every outcome was covered)
Indeed. Whatever happened to the "design your own landscape/mission" idea that was so popular in the 80s and 90s? Hell, imagine Battlefield Whatever on a Worms 3D style random fractal landscape.
Minecraft managed the first two and had a respectable shot at the third and fourth. And was half the price of normal games where I am.
I wasn't aware of that particular one, but it seems to suggest a good to very good improvement for just over half of the cancers studied, and little to no change on a minority (compared with the 70s), so yes, that's fairly remarkable work in my book. Maybe we should fund them more and deal with the remainder, seems to be the lesson.
Didn't I tell you to quit making up animals?
Cancer survival rates are astounding compared with just twenty years ago. Chemo and radiotherapy can be highly effective in many cases. I'd call that "pretty good" at least.
Most of us are "gullible idiots" when it comes to medicine, and I'm including doctors in that. We all rely on a huge bank of knowledge built up over decades/centuries - if you go to a doctor with some odd symptoms there's every chance s/he will have no idea what it is, but with the aid of some tests and textbooks they can work out what it is and how to treat it.
The point is there's a knowledge base out there that is truly remarkable at healing people, so when somebody recommends that you avoid using it they better have a damn good backup for their claims.
"Nutritionists" fall into two categories in the UK. The first is perfectly sensible, people who advocate a balanced diet to promote all-round health, this is a good and proper thing. The second is those who claim that real medical solutions to real disorders are unnecessary and can be substituted with a change in diet, for example eating algae as it "produces oxygen in the bloodstream". This is clearly nonsense, and is akin to a mechanic telling people they can disconnect their brakes as long as they're using a particular fuel additive.
Yes, there needs to be some personal responsibility, but as a society we've generally tried to protect the gullible from those who prey on them - if you get drunk and then get mugged you could argue that drinking was a factor, but it doesn't make the mugger innocent.
That's not a problem, and something we should all be doing. However, when you start offering advice to others concerning medical conditions the situation changes. In the UK there are umpteen people advising that, for example, cancer can be treated with high doses of vitamin C. Gullible people read these things and pass on visiting a doctor because they've found a "natural" solution. The kicker is that it isn't a solution, and people have died as a result. Giving medical advice isn't something "just anyone" should be allowed to do, it can be akin to shouting fire in a theatre.
The trick isn't to bring an asteroid to the surface of the planet, it's to bring it to orbit. A few tonnes of iron isn't worth a huge amount, a few tonnes of iron in orbit is worth a fortune, around $20k a kilo even if the raw material itself is virtually worthless on the surface of the planet.
+1 Demonic.
So the IP on US military equipment is held by corporations and not the military? Wow, sensible.
Like when the Serbians tracked F117s by using commercial radio stations? Nothing is more likely to throw you a curveball than underestimating an opponent - that's exactly what happened on 9/11, everyone presumed they weren't capable of building a bomb big enough to take down a skyscraper....
Is it? I realise there's probably a whole bunch of official secrets (or the US equivalent), but I was under the impression that US government work was in the public domain by default and can't be copyrighted/patented?
One of the connotations "script kiddie" carries is of a certain naiveté. In many cases people will download a ready-made script (hence the term) to, for example, scan for a security hole in an out-dated Wordpress installation, I see them the whole time in my server logs.
You're correct though, doing it from behind your home router is generally a dumb thing to do because it's so traceable. The easy alternative is to go through anonymous proxy servers which don't log the traffic (and they do have legitimate uses, both morally and legally). Or, as you point out, find a different physical network, although this is still traceable in many ways if you're suspected of nefarious japes.
Depends on your definition of "computer savvy" - as we get more layers of UI people will generally have less and less of an idea what's going on, just look at how many people equate "windows" and "computer". People will hopefully become more resistant to social engineering approaches like phishing, but the use of a computer is almost coincidental, these types of scams have been going on since the telegraph system and probably before. Gullible people will always fall for something.