Yes, exactly. Three proofs of concept vs. thousands, maybe millions, of vulnerabilities in the wild.
The author claims, "While it is nothing special compared to Windows based Malware it does prove a point -- Apple Computers are just as susceptible to Malware as Windows based ones." Oh, bullshit. The fact that this particular security vulnerability exists does not mean that OS X is just as much a wide-open target as Windows is.
In the "Classic" MacOS days, there was a fair amount of Mac malware -- never as much as in the PC world, of course, but plenty of it running around. Since OS X became the standard, this hasn't happened. The "vulnerability through popularity" argument just doesn't hold up to this fact.
But assembly-line robots don't have human operators running them all the time; that's the whole point. A machine which operates only with constant human input isn't a robot by any reasonable definition. Sure, robots only "do what they're told," but they do it after someone tells them to, and they keep doing it, rather than requiring real-time human control. To put it in/. terms: a web spider is a robot, a web browser isn't.
But if you go to a good school, such as the University of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc., they all have very competitive Business Schools.
I've had the "pleasure" of tutoring business school students at one of the schools you name (Minnesota). The b-school may be good by b-school standards, but that's like saying your shit is unusually sweet-smelling by shit standards. Business school is school for people who want a degree but are afraid of thinking.
If you think your accounting degree was harder to get than a CS degree, then (at least) one of these is true:
(i) You went to a school with a really bad "diploma mill" CS program, and the CS courses you took for your minor reflected this.
(ii) As a CS minor, you avoided the hard CS classes, the stuff that CS majors have to learn that sets computer scientists apart from code monkeys.
Seriously. Accounting isn't a bullshit non-degree like most business degrees -- good accountants have to be reasonably smart people, and they have real skills -- but it doesn't require anywhere near the level of intellectual effort that a good CS degree does.
The hostility of many modern Republicans toward Lincoln (the first Republican President!) and the Union side in the Civil War generally is fascinating, in much the same way as watching microscopic images of multiplying tumor cells is fascinating. It really explains a lot about modern conservative ideology to see how its roots trace back to the old plantation: scratch a conservative, find a crypto-Confederate.
Anyone who can't explain something in plain English doesn't understand it themselves.
English is a very good language for describing a lot of things; but math is also a language, and sometimes (in the sciences, often) it's a much better one for describing certain things. You can often write the mathematical terms out rather than using symbols, of course, but honestly, when you're dealing with inherently mathematical subjects such as physics, that's as close as you can come without losing a lot of information -- not to mention, it's clunky and verbose and doesn't really add to anyone's understanding.
Many scientists do come up with such metaphors for their work. There are two related problems with this, though: first, the metaphors just aren't that good -- most of the time it's simply impossible to give an accurate description of the problem without the math -- and second, non-scientists will refuse to put the effort into understanding the math, take the metaphor, and think they understand the whole thing. Especially when you're talking about physics, but really in most scientific fields, it is not possible to understand what scientists are talking about if you can't deal with equations and insist on putting everything in terms of gods' necklaces and the like.
If you were to show the Patriot Act to someone from a previous generation - WWII, perhaps - they would be shocked that we had to pass a special law just to do the simple things the Patriot law does. They would have assumed we were doing those things at a bare minimum. And if you told them the Patriot Act was in response to a terrorist act that killed 3000 people, they would consider you derelict in your duty to protect the homeland for doing so little.
GMAFB. We conducted WW1, WW2, and the Cold War with less intrusion on individual rights than we're seeing in the "War on Terror," and we were opposing enemies who had the capacity to kill a hell of a lot more than 3000 people at a time.
300 was a pretty good comic book and movie, but it was lousy history. If you read up on the real Greco-Persian wars (of which Thermopylae was only a small part, altough certainly a pivotal one) you'll see that Miller changed a lot of what happened -- in some cases understandably, for the sake of dramatic pacing, but in other cases for no apparent reason.
I personally dislike the patent system (patents last too long, have too many and are too restrictive) but the, "They just put a spring and a board together! Why anybody could have thought of that mouse trap thing," argument is wearing a little thin.
As long as companies keep filing patents to which that argument applies, people will keep making it.
"I personally dislike murder (it's too messy, happens too often, and is usually painful) but the 'Killing people is wrong' argument is wearing a little thin."
The idea of someone being "good" with HTML is hilariously outdated. There are any number of wysiwyg editors that take care of all the annoying html for you.
The idea that you can rely on any WYSIWYG editor to output good HTML -- or indeed, that there is any such thing as a truly WYSIWYG HTML editor -- is hilariously naive.
- The current model of the universe's origin is essentially correct. What if we're the ones living in a "post-cosmology universe," and the evidence for what really happened has faded so much that we can't detect it?
- Currently observable stars, background radiation, etc., are all we or anyone else will ever be able to observe. Almost surely, we'll come up with better technology to observe the stuff we already know to look for; quite possibly, we'll discover entirely new things (different forms of radiation, etc.) to use in forming a more complete picture. The same goes for our hypothetical observers in the far future.
- Human perception is as good as it gets. Anything living 100 billon years from now will be so different from us that it may perceive the world around it in completely different ways, and will accordingly have different technology for astronomy and everything else.
The basis of 'Intelligent Design' is that humans were essentially fully formed at their creation
No, that's not what ID says; you're thinking of young-earth creationism. ID'ers accept that evolution happened, but stipulate that certain complex structures could not have arisen through the processes of mutation and natural selection; the designer (by which, of course, they always mean God, even if they don't admit it) had to give things a little nudge in the right direction from time to time.
All creationism is bunk, but if you're going to criticize specific flavors of it, it's a good idea to know what you're criticizing; otherwise it weakens your argument and makes it easier to dismiss.
What you're talking about is standard deviation, not standard error. SE = SD/sqrt(n), and given that in this case SD = 15 (by definition of IQ) and n = 241310, we have a standard error approaching 0.
It's a little more complicated than that, of course, since the "n" here has to be applied to each group separately; for the sake of argument, let's assume the sample was equally divided between first-, second-, and third-borns, that means about 80000 in each group, which means the SE is about 0.053. This is plenty to detect the kind of differences they're talking about.
Sorry, I guess you'd be in a better position than I am to know the particulars of the case.;) I made a snap assumption that UMN had given in to the RIAA demands and that it was individual students fighting this battle, as was the case at OSU and Boston. If that's not the case... well, good for UMN!
Slashdot Mirror
I have nothing to add to the above, but I just want to say, thank you. That is one of the most useful posts I've ever seen on /.
Yes, exactly. Three proofs of concept vs. thousands, maybe millions, of vulnerabilities in the wild.
The author claims, "While it is nothing special compared to Windows based Malware it does prove a point -- Apple Computers are just as susceptible to Malware as Windows based ones." Oh, bullshit. The fact that this particular security vulnerability exists does not mean that OS X is just as much a wide-open target as Windows is.
In the "Classic" MacOS days, there was a fair amount of Mac malware -- never as much as in the PC world, of course, but plenty of it running around. Since OS X became the standard, this hasn't happened. The "vulnerability through popularity" argument just doesn't hold up to this fact.
But assembly-line robots don't have human operators running them all the time; that's the whole point. A machine which operates only with constant human input isn't a robot by any reasonable definition. Sure, robots only "do what they're told," but they do it after someone tells them to, and they keep doing it, rather than requiring real-time human control. To put it in /. terms: a web spider is a robot, a web browser isn't.
if algorithms make your heart beat faster, then go for cs.
if the thought of calculus makes you wince, go for IT.
If the thought of calculus makes you wince, do the world a favor and stay the hell out of anything having to do with computers.
But if you go to a good school, such as the University of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc., they all have very competitive Business Schools.
I've had the "pleasure" of tutoring business school students at one of the schools you name (Minnesota). The b-school may be good by b-school standards, but that's like saying your shit is unusually sweet-smelling by shit standards. Business school is school for people who want a degree but are afraid of thinking.
If you think your accounting degree was harder to get than a CS degree, then (at least) one of these is true:
(i) You went to a school with a really bad "diploma mill" CS program, and the CS courses you took for your minor reflected this.
(ii) As a CS minor, you avoided the hard CS classes, the stuff that CS majors have to learn that sets computer scientists apart from code monkeys.
Seriously. Accounting isn't a bullshit non-degree like most business degrees -- good accountants have to be reasonably smart people, and they have real skills -- but it doesn't require anywhere near the level of intellectual effort that a good CS degree does.
But somehow you don't see Republicans claiming the "Kerry Camp" tried to get it silenced. I wonder why that is...
Maybe because the Republicans were too busy slandering Kerry's heroic war record?
The hostility of many modern Republicans toward Lincoln (the first Republican President!) and the Union side in the Civil War generally is fascinating, in much the same way as watching microscopic images of multiplying tumor cells is fascinating. It really explains a lot about modern conservative ideology to see how its roots trace back to the old plantation: scratch a conservative, find a crypto-Confederate.
Anyone who can't explain something in plain English doesn't understand it themselves.
English is a very good language for describing a lot of things; but math is also a language, and sometimes (in the sciences, often) it's a much better one for describing certain things. You can often write the mathematical terms out rather than using symbols, of course, but honestly, when you're dealing with inherently mathematical subjects such as physics, that's as close as you can come without losing a lot of information -- not to mention, it's clunky and verbose and doesn't really add to anyone's understanding.
Many scientists do come up with such metaphors for their work. There are two related problems with this, though: first, the metaphors just aren't that good -- most of the time it's simply impossible to give an accurate description of the problem without the math -- and second, non-scientists will refuse to put the effort into understanding the math, take the metaphor, and think they understand the whole thing. Especially when you're talking about physics, but really in most scientific fields, it is not possible to understand what scientists are talking about if you can't deal with equations and insist on putting everything in terms of gods' necklaces and the like.
If you were to show the Patriot Act to someone from a previous generation - WWII, perhaps - they would be shocked that we had to pass a special law just to do the simple things the Patriot law does. They would have assumed we were doing those things at a bare minimum. And if you told them the Patriot Act was in response to a terrorist act that killed 3000 people, they would consider you derelict in your duty to protect the homeland for doing so little.
GMAFB. We conducted WW1, WW2, and the Cold War with less intrusion on individual rights than we're seeing in the "War on Terror," and we were opposing enemies who had the capacity to kill a hell of a lot more than 3000 people at a time.
Your faith in the Party is noted and appreciated, tovarisch.
Every single US citizen is affected by the actions of the US government, and therefore, has standing to sue.
Oops. Apparently I should have RTFP'd before replying. ;)
still a good historical recreation
300 was a pretty good comic book and movie, but it was lousy history. If you read up on the real Greco-Persian wars (of which Thermopylae was only a small part, altough certainly a pivotal one) you'll see that Miller changed a lot of what happened -- in some cases understandably, for the sake of dramatic pacing, but in other cases for no apparent reason.
I personally dislike the patent system (patents last too long, have too many and are too restrictive) but the, "They just put a spring and a board together! Why anybody could have thought of that mouse trap thing," argument is wearing a little thin.
As long as companies keep filing patents to which that argument applies, people will keep making it.
"I personally dislike murder (it's too messy, happens too often, and is usually painful) but the 'Killing people is wrong' argument is wearing a little thin."
The idea of someone being "good" with HTML is hilariously outdated. There are any number of wysiwyg editors that take care of all the annoying html for you.
The idea that you can rely on any WYSIWYG editor to output good HTML -- or indeed, that there is any such thing as a truly WYSIWYG HTML editor -- is hilariously naive.
- The current model of the universe's origin is essentially correct. What if we're the ones living in a "post-cosmology universe," and the evidence for what really happened has faded so much that we can't detect it?
- Currently observable stars, background radiation, etc., are all we or anyone else will ever be able to observe. Almost surely, we'll come up with better technology to observe the stuff we already know to look for; quite possibly, we'll discover entirely new things (different forms of radiation, etc.) to use in forming a more complete picture. The same goes for our hypothetical observers in the far future.
- Human perception is as good as it gets. Anything living 100 billon years from now will be so different from us that it may perceive the world around it in completely different ways, and will accordingly have different technology for astronomy and everything else.
When people have trouble reconciling cold-hard facts with their beliefs, they usually end up going with cold-hard facts most of the time.
If this were true, there would be no such thing as religion.
Sicko should have to be fair and balanced the way that "Fox News" is "Fair and Balanced"
Sicko is fair and balanced the way that "Fox News" is "Fair and Balanced" -- except that Moore doesn't make false claims of fairness or balance.
The basis of 'Intelligent Design' is that humans were essentially fully formed at their creation
No, that's not what ID says; you're thinking of young-earth creationism. ID'ers accept that evolution happened, but stipulate that certain complex structures could not have arisen through the processes of mutation and natural selection; the designer (by which, of course, they always mean God, even if they don't admit it) had to give things a little nudge in the right direction from time to time.
All creationism is bunk, but if you're going to criticize specific flavors of it, it's a good idea to know what you're criticizing; otherwise it weakens your argument and makes it easier to dismiss.
The constitution makes no mention of copyright law, nor should it.
You have just proven yourself to be so ignorant about this topic that you have no right to have an opinion on it.
*snort*
;)
I'm an only child; read into that what you will.
What you're talking about is standard deviation, not standard error. SE = SD/sqrt(n), and given that in this case SD = 15 (by definition of IQ) and n = 241310, we have a standard error approaching 0.
It's a little more complicated than that, of course, since the "n" here has to be applied to each group separately; for the sake of argument, let's assume the sample was equally divided between first-, second-, and third-borns, that means about 80000 in each group, which means the SE is about 0.053. This is plenty to detect the kind of differences they're talking about.
Sorry, I guess you'd be in a better position than I am to know the particulars of the case. ;) I made a snap assumption that UMN had given in to the RIAA demands and that it was individual students fighting this battle, as was the case at OSU and Boston. If that's not the case ... well, good for UMN!