It's not the Internet in particular that every government dreams of controlling. It's citizens. And government can only control criminals. Hence the more crimes they've defined the more control they have.
HP laserjet 4si printer...something similar new would cost me $4-$5k.
Where the hell are you shopping? I just picked up a color, duplex, networked HP Laster jet (2605dn) for under 400 bucks. Retail. Not on the Internet, or at Wally world. And yes it was new in the box.
I dunno, he could be wanting them to queue up.. as in get them to line up and get ready to be operate on a not-yet-seen cue. Either word would work. If only he could have been using MS Word to post, it could have made grammar corrections for him.
Runing./configure or make or make install could cause just as large a problem. Do you read through those scripts before running them?
Yes, I do. I've even got into arguments with a former coworker who insisted that scripts/applications should do nothing without a command switch to make them run. His argument was that you might not know what it was or did. My argument was that you shouldn't just be running things you don't know about, that you should look at the docs or the script.
Wait, you don't read them? Here I've got some software for you to install, trust me.
There could be one in emacs right now, triggered by reading a file into the buffer.
Ok, the onus is on you to demonstrate how a buffer overflow in emacs that occurs via loading a text file into a buffer can trigger the kind of effect reported via Word. Go ahead, I dare you, I triple dog dare yah! It's curious how people like to post "Yeah well it could happen just as easily in Open Source!" and then they don't prove it. Even though they have the source code, which is presumably more than those who exploit MS Office, to examine.
Since Microsoft patched it, it was probably either something that autoran or an overflow.
Or they embedded a regex or other code to look for the exact overflow and drop it instead of eliminating the overflow. Not that they've done anything like that before, right?
One argument is the general pro-diversity argument. Basically it claims that women have a different experiences and perspectives than men, and that having computer scientists with a mix of different backgrounds can better stimulate solutions/creativity/etc than a more homogeneous mix would. Thus balancing out the gender discrepancy in computer science would benefit the field.
A gender is not a "background". Thus the asserted (but not proven) notion that a more diverse background or experience leads to better results in a technical field would not be relevant.
We aren't talking a social science, or politics, or any non-technical notion. CS is about science and technical issues. Programming languages don't change effectiveness because men or women use them. Computers don't know the difference unless told and then only do as they are told regarding that information. If and when computers are sentient and have gender and emotions such that they may be "persuaded" or "comfortable" taking instructions from a gender that is like (or different than) their own, then gender would be a solid advantage or disadvantage. But today, bits are still bits, and algorithms are still not gender-biased.
That said, if there were a gender-based difference in how it is approached, that would certainly qualify as "better at it". If you want to say background can make a difference, I'll agree though I'd insist it be stipulated that the difference can be negative as well as positive.
(It's possible that argument might still work even if women were actually inferior in this respect - there's been some social science suggesting that groups containing a mix of experts and non-experts can often come up with better solution than the subject matter experts alone would. See a book called "The Wisdom of Crowds")
The book sounds interesting, I'll add it to my list, thank you. However, the case you've made here (which may not represent the argument in the book) would be different. It is one thing to say that experts and non-experts can arrive at better conclusions. It's another to say that experts of different abilities have the same effect. Often experts and non-experts arrive at better conclusions in cooperation than experts alone because experts tend to be trained to think the same things or in the same fashion. It is related to less-intellectually entrenched (i.e. younger) scientists making more breakthroughs in new areas.
The other argument is a scarcity argument, i.e. that the field has a shortage of workers in general. Following Amdahl's Law, focusing on the improving particular shortage of women in the field has a much greater maximum benefit than would focusing on the shortage among some other, smaller demographic.
I believe I mentioned the "more is better" argument. However, I'd disagree with the smaller demographic conclusion. It depends on the efficacy of the effort with a given demographic. If you have demographic A with 10000 potential inductees, and demographic B with 5000, A is not necessarily the most desirable. Demographic B may be more easily convinced, they may be more predisposed to accept the proposition. As a result you may get a higher percentage resulting in a higher total from Demographic B.
Again, however, this argument assumes that the additional demographic has more than mere numbers to add. I'm comfortable with the possibility that women or any other demographic may be better at CS than mine. Maybe that's why I can comfortably discuss that hidden aspect. Different cultures will produce different advantages and disadvantages. The sexes are "wired" differently, and are differently physically. There is no escape from that no matter how much the self-righteous may scream otherwise.
If women are better at CS then by all means we should be trying like crazy to get them more involved. But only those who can do it. We shouldn't lower our standards to get that. Unless there is a massive difference such that a bottom-level woman can outproduce/outdiscover
We have this neat invention called science. Maybe you've heard of it? It involves a process where rather than letting emotional arguments and paranoia run our lives we actually do things to determine the real story.
If you have evidence something actually is a danger, that is one thing. But to throw your hands in the air and say "well we just don't know" is another. I could give you my address but I don't know you might be a child molester, a rapist, a con artist, or a murderer, or who knows what, YOU might be dangerous.
Fetuses might be dangerous if allowed to come full term - you could see the next Hitler or Stalin born. But that's no excuse for saying people shouldn't do things that might lead to babies.
I wonder, do we spend more resources developing new chemicals or more studying the effects? I'm not even gonna bother to look it up, the answer is magnitudes more resources toward developing new chemicals.
So your mind is made up you aren't interested in the facts (such as more money being spent getting federal approval on new chemicals than is spent on making them) then? Well that is consistent with the rest of your arguments at least. So I guess you aren't interested in the reality surrounding DDT or any other number of chemicals that were shown to not be the threat reactionaries claimed them to be. I guess you aren't interested in the net good that these substances provide that is far and above the FUD people such as yourself produce, even if it had merit.
What is the difference in these two statements: A) It's easy to say chemicals doing possibly all kinds of other neat stuff with their friends in our bodies when no ones studying the fact. B) It's easy to say chemicals doing possibly all kinds of other nasty stuff with their friends in our bodies when no ones studying the fact.
One word. The argument itself remains unchanged.
Is it too much to ask to play it on the safe side?
Ask or command? Big difference between those two. If you are Ok with having a house that has (for starters): No carpet No paint No wood coverings (varnish, etc.) No Plastic of anykind such as polyester No foods that have have had any kind of pesticide or herbicide used anywhere near them No clothing that may have had "industrial chemicals" used in it's making No clothing that has any kind of fire retardant on it No electronics of any kind
Then feel free to go that route. I'd say go for it, and be quite encouraging! Hope you don't have kids though for they'll have a rough go of it.
But when you want to say that we should stop using these things, and enjoy the threat of force to make others follow a path you don't walk, then I have a problem with it. What you are proposing is that all progress stop for 30+ years while we find human test subjects to get chemicals exposed to them and study these people for a few decades. Not gonna happen. Nor should it.
We don't know that exposure to CFLs will not be shown to have a negative impact on people after 20-30 years of exposure. We don't know that LCDs or plasma screen TVs don't emit some weird frequency of radiation that causes an increase in the risk of cancer if you are using them for long periods of time.
Cumulative and combinatory effects are near-impossible to pin down, even if you spend decades studying them. It gets worse when the small amounts we are talking about individually have shown no ill effects. There is no solid reason or evidence to say that non-toxic combinations are toxic. There is paranoia, sure. But that is hardly convincing, nor evidence.
Consider the practicality of studying the potential effects of say 100 chemicals in any combination. How many combinations is that? Add into that a near-infinite array of possible concentrations and you can begin to get an idea of the magnitude here. Is it worth stopping progress while we do that? Do you realize that each new addition causes an massive rise (don't recall if it's exponential or geometrical at
give a sample of your blood to someone with an analytical lab, and they'll be able to find hundreds, if not thousands, of industrial chemicals.
Actually I have, and the result was not what you claim. They were specifically looking for chemicals so I'm pretty confident it wasn't just an oversight. Have you tried it yourself or is this just more "I read it on the Internet?".
While a lot of what are termed "natural" additives in foods are anything but natural, a lot of industrial chemicals do occur naturally on their own. Citric acid, for example, is used quite heavily in many industries, and is an "industrial chemical".
yes, I suggest readers do look up the details. your "hundreds perhaps thousands" is sheer unadulterated fear mongering. The studies show averages in the few dozen range, and none over 60.
For example:
BRUSSELS, Belgium, October 20, 2004 (ENS) - The blood of ministers from 13 European Union countries is contaminated with dozens of industrial chemicals, including some that were banned decades ago. The officials have an average of 37 industrial chemicals in their blood, according to tests conducted in June and released Tuesday by the international conservation organization WWF.
The chemicals found in the European officials include those used in fire resistant sofas, non-stick pans, grease proof pizza boxes, flexible polyvinyl chloride, fragrances and pesticides.
The results further show that the highest number of chemicals in one person was 54, while the median number of chemicals detected was 41. At least 13 of the same chemicals were found in every single person tested, including chemicals banned in Europe over 20 years ago as well as chemicals in widespread use today such as phthalates and perfluorinated compounds.
Moyers' own "results" were the result of blood and urine tests. A combined total of 84 out of 150 they were looking for. And the details of what they are were not released, other than a few "eye popper" ones such as DDT. See http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html for details. Urine tests reveal chemicals leaving the body and do not necessarily represent a sustained level of toxicity. There are substances the body passes through without using... like corn kernels.;) Thus, the presence of a substance in a urine sample does not mean the substance had any effect on the body.
Many of the "industrial chemicals" listed include things like the paint or wood finish you buy at your local hardware store, or the weed killer you buy from the store. News articles tend to downplay those. Note the distinct lack of details (in teh news articles) beyond the headline grabbers such as DDT. Why is that? DDT gets attention due to the great DDT scare/hoax. But as even the above referenced studies state regarding DDT:
Thus far, there is no conclusive evidence that exposure to DDT and its breakdown products at the levels found in the environment, affects reproduction and development in humans. The possible association between exposure to DDT and various types of cancers in humans has been extensively studied, particularly breast cancer, but no link has yet been established.
This is like other chemicals/substances where you only read/hear about them saying things like "In high concentrations/doses...". Why? because small doses/exposure does not show the dramatic effects. News flash: Dihydrogen oxide in high doses/concentrations
I find this rather depressing. When I worked at Amazon, the only women who were ever hired as programmers were from Asia (most from India). There is some strong cultural force at work here that discourages women from becoming programmers.
There are more possibilities than this one. There may be strong cultural forces to push women into the field in Asia. There may be other things that most women are simply more interested in.
Personally I think the effects here are do in a large part to the Feminzais - the so called women's movement. Note that fields like CS, IT, are not on the list of endeavors pushed by the Feminists for "equality of women". Instead they focus on getting women to be in control of businesses and political organizations. The women of the US have been done a terrible disservice by the Feminists. This is evidenced in the article:
whether applicants seem to have potential to be future leaders..
They lowered the admissions standards and looked for women who could "become leaders". They didn't say they looked for people who could learn and/or excel at it, or people who had the potential for doing good science. She wanted women who could be leaders. Science fields are about science, not about leaders.
FTA:
They also worry that the number of women is dropping in graduate programs and in industry.
Then they should pay attention to other aspects of American life such as the growing return of women staying home to raise children. Sadly, the US Feminist movement considers this to be a bad thing too. Like most politics, it's about control under the guise of good.
Now the Individual Feminists (www.ifeminist.net ) have got it right. Check this out, foom their FAQ:
Lack of identical representation of men and women in all fields may be caused by a number of factors, of which intentional exclusion is only one possibility. Unequal representation might instead indicate that fewer women than men are interested in a given field or that fewer women than men are economically competitive or qualified in a given field. By the same token, there are a number of fields in which men are in the minority. There aren't a lot of male quilters or midwives, for example. Again unequal representation in these fields does not necessarily indicate that someone is trying to prevent men's participation. Given the diversity of professions, hobbies, etc. to choose from, there simply isn't a blanket answer for why women and men do not always participate in equal numbers in all fields.
Not all women are feminists, and the Feminists do not represent the women of America as a whole anymore than kiddies getting busted for infecting systems with viruses and worms, stealing and abusing data, etc. represent the US computer nerds (hackers) as a whole.
We're talking about a 1:2 ratio in a situation where there is no identified genetic reason one gender would dominate over another so much, and that ratio is not consistent in other countries. That leads to reasonably suspect that the reasons are cultural and can be improved. If they can be improved through reasonable attempts to recognize the needs and desires of different groups, there's no good reason not to.
What scientifically analyzed and credible research has shown that the more "equal" the ratio of men to women or women to men in a given endeavor (other than reproduction of course) is quantitatively "better"?
Consider this.
You are arguing that the field of CS would be somehow better off in capability and ability of more women were in it. What is that implying? It implies that women are better at it. You aren't saying we need MORE people in general, but more women. If more women would improve the field itself then the only way they can do that is if they are inherently better at it. More of the same is not a recipe for improvement. Now, women may actually have an inherent advantage to CS over men. But if you believe so I think you should just say so instead of hinting at it as you do here. And then hold yourself up to your asserted standard of scientifically valid and correct studies that show it.
This isn't about making the field of CS better. It is about nannies who want to feel better about themselves.
Did you read the article? It was about changing computer science to be what they think women want.
And guess what, they say it worked! Sounds rather scientific...
Theory:
Women do not enroll in CS because they are not interested in it.
Test method:
Change CS to mean/teach what you believe women want to learn, observe results.
So you change it and get dramatic results that indicate you were right. Conclusive proof it is not, but it's damned good evidence that you may be right.
Our culture is suffering from a sever case of MPD. We claim that diversity - that enjoying and celebrating the differences between different races/nationalities/cultures/sexes - is a good thing, but then are not allowed to even contemplate that there ARE differences. It is shown through many studies over many decades that the brains of men and women are wired differently. Not inherently better or worse, just different. In some cases the differences will give one a bias toward things or an advantage, but it is not universal.
There is nothing wrong with women not wanting to be programmers. People whining about women not being as common in the field as men are pretty much either:
1) Men looking to pick up on women, so they want more around without the effort of looking outside their little realm 2) People looking to absolve themselves for some perceived or actual social crime, or looking to make themselves "look better/compassionate/caring" by "fighting for the little guy"
A prior poster got it spot on. We don't see organizations saying that men are not represented well enough in fields that women dominate, or fields such as fashion design, hairdressing, etc..
It's got nothing to do with "being macho" or "manly'. Seriously, it's amazing that someone would post to slashdot (the grandparent to this post) that programming and CS are "manly sciences". Sure, tell that to the jocks bashing the nerds in high school. Yes, men and women are different. Get over it and quit trying to make us all the same. It is damaging to everyone. The human race are not Borg drones. We are each different with our advantages and disadvantages. This is true between races, cultures, nationalities, and pretty much any other group you can arrive at.
I would have thought that people would have learned by now that it is unfixable.
Oh people know it is not providing good education. They generally don't really want to do what it takes to "fix" it. For the vast majority of parents, the public school system is not about teaching: it's a "free" babysitter. Private schools have shown how to educate children quite well. But the voting public is swayed by emotional arguments made by so-called teachers unions that the changes would be "bad for the children". In areas where there is strong parental involvement with education, teacher's unions are significantly less politically powerful or common.
The truly difficult part about "fixing" a school system is that the people you need to convince to change things went there. It can bes tbe summed up in a line for the movie "Evolution". There is a scene in which the military is trying to convince a judge that the local community college has inadequate facilities. He says they are "A joke". The judge bristles with indignation and says "There weren't a joke when I went there!"
People don't want to admit that they are a product of broken schools. Therefore you have an uphill battle because first reactions are that if the school you wnet to is broken, you are somehow less. So it's always some other state's schools that need fixing, not yours. Compound that with parents in those schools feeling that if they let their kids go to schools they admit are broken, what does that say about them the parents?
These kinds of things (referring to the shootings at VT) happen in a free society. And that's that unless we all want to live in a police state."
And that won't stop it either. These things happen in police states as well. Hell do you ave any idea of what goes on in the police state we call "prison"? Murders are committed in some pretty high security prisons. Drugs are found in them - the kind made on the outside.
Some things you simply can not stop 100%. Some things will happen so long as someone wants them to.
You were able to understand it because most of the words had the key letters the same. Various studies have found that if the first and last letters are correct you can quickly piece the rest together often without noticing it. If there is a center placed consonant that is correct the ability to inherently understand rises. Also if you ar ea fast reader you will catch words that don't fit the above criteria without realizing it. Fast readers tend to look ahead several words and "read" in sets or phrases. When this is done the context is present and your brain fills in the small words that are not as clear.
Sure, because beekeepers are experts in genetic modification and it's effects. Man has been performing genetic modification for at lest a couple thousand years. Anytime "apparent" causes are combined with statements that the subject at hand is more dire than any similar event or possibility that has gone before the likelihood of the claims being false is increased.
If we assume the prevalence is static, say one in a hundred children are born autistic, then the incidence of autism will rise as population rises. The incidence would level off only if population levels off, or there is a drop in prevalence that matches the increase in population.
As far as the incidence in the UK surrounding MMR, last I knew it was still undecided. not that I am saying MMR causes Autism. Quite frankly we don't know what does, and the controversies surrounding it have not helped. For example, the WHO defines Autism in a way that precludes the diagnosing of adults with Autism as being "counted".
For those who don't remember or never took statistics, incidence is the number of occurrences in a given time period. For example saying there were 2.3 million/. posts in 2006 is a statement of incidence. However, this number alone is not that useful. As dorpus sort of pointed out an incidence number can increase due to nothing more than discovery or reporting/recording. When you are talking about the spread of something or an increase in it's chance of occurring, incidence is not what you want to look at, prevalence is.
Prevalence is for example "25 out of 10000 registered slashdotters post at least one", or "35 in 10000 children born have autism". If there is an increase in prevalence, then "better" reporting or diagnosing of autism (incidence) will can not be the sole factor, or possibly not even the major factor. if there is no increase in prevalence than the rise of incidence will level off to that of the prevalence rate.
But even then, playing statistics doesn't really do much to solve how it happens. Hell it may be evolution for all we know. It is also not true that whether there is a rise in autism incidence or prevalence or not is without controversy in the world of epidemiologists. it still is with some areas having shown rises clearly above and beyond reporting and classification changes - while other areas show decreases.
As with other areas of this world's events and phenomena, our little recorded window is tiny. For all we know the actual prevalence of autism among humans may vary naturally over time. As aliens so often say in science fiction "the human rac eis still very young".
Regardless of the merit of the theory (of which I am highly skeptical), it is not scientific. A theory can not be scientific. A theory is essentially an idea. it either precludes scientific work or is the result of it.
That's not to say that they would be in every case, of course, but what direct experience I do have suggests that your concerns are misplaced.
No, it does not. Concerns that people will be involved that do not understand what they are doing or the implications are well founded in pretty much every avenue. We have historical accounts that show that not all dictators are evil, but that does not mean that any concerns about dictatorships are misplaced. We also have evidence that says that not all power "corrupts" (as in millions of parents) but that does not mean that concerns about power aggregation are misplaced.
Indeed in most walks of life most of the time the people are competent/reasonable conscientious, etc. But that does not say that concerns about the general case are misplaced.
Well if you are talking about a ship of "privateers" boarding a ship and taking the CDs, thus preventing them from being sold to paying customers then yes. If not, you are wrong. What you describe is called copyright infringement - sometimes.
you're ripping off all the average Joe's who work at company xyz and whose comensation and jobs are impacted by loss of sales of products
Not really. Most copying of such material in my experience and that of a great many is that those who do so either would not purchase the product anyway (can't afford it or just wont), or purchase it after sampling it by downloading and trying it out.
You can't claim someone who had nothing taken from them is getting ripped off. There is "loss of sales" in every industry. I could argue that by checking a book out of the library, or by borrowing it from a friend YOU would be ripping off "all the average Joe's who work at company xyz and whose comensation(sic) and jobs are impacted by loss of sales of products".
Indeed I could argue that The Record Labels ripped off all those people by killing off the "single". Here is how.
People purchased singles. Why? They liked *that* song. They got a bonus song on "the B side" usually - a sampler if you will. The record companies found that when they put out albums with only one good song on it they stopped putting the songs they figured would be hits on singles. They were under the mistaken notion that people would instead buy the entire album for 7 times as much money. So they had crap songs from the album on the singles which naturally led to a drop in sales. Then they had "justification" for dropping the single sales. Now people were left with the choice of spending significantly more money on a gamble that they would like more than one or two songs. Well, no suprise, people cut down on buying the more expensive albums. Rather than take 2-3 bucks and entice the consumer to spend another 15 or so, they dropped the 2-3 dollar sales. Net result: unhappy consumers and a drop in sales. for all those ordinary Joes you believed yourself to be championing
Every industry experiences loss of sales at some time, and any large industry will find it happening when a "disruptive technology" comes along. There is no doubt that the Internet is one such technology, especially when combined with broadband.
I used to pirate as well - I then got a real engineering job and became aware of the true number of people it takes to crank out a product - from middle managers - engineers - techs - secretaries - all the way down to the guys / gals in shipping.
You mean you joined the corporate world and got out of school. Have you "done the right thing" and purchased all that stuff you downloaded without purchasing?
I've seen what it takes to put out damned good product. I've seen a solid staff of fewer than 5 put out computer games that are as good and sometimes better than the big corporations do. One could argue that the cadre of "support staff" that big corporations use are "pirating" the resources thus preventing those who do the creative and constructive work from getting the pay they are entitled to. "but they aren't stealing anything!" you cry? True, but neither is someone who downloads copyrighted material not in accordance with the copyright licensing. Just because the morality of it may be in question (again a great many download, enjoy, and purchase what they enjoy), that does not make it "piracy" or "stealing". Real pirates kill crew that resist.
Your entire argument hinges on the idea that those who download material such as games, videos, or music actually represents a lost sale. The real world does not support that claim. Not in the slightest. Someone who will not purchase an album they haven't heard and decided is worth the price is not a "sale lost to copyright infringement via download", nor is someone who simply can not afford it (or frankly is underage and can not purchase i
Depends on who's Dick is leaking? The President' Dick? Microsoft's Tester Dick? An Anonymous Dick? The President's allegedly leaking Dick was front page news for weeks.
She must prove to the IRS she didn't make $12K. I don't see the problem,
So you are OK with the government making allegations and the accused has to prove them false?
Well if that's your belief so be it. But when the government crashes down your door and accuses of oh say rape, murder, or treason and you have to prove your innocence instead of them proving your guilt, don't whine about getting screwed.
Fundamentally? A patent is a contract between the government and the patent holder. A fundamental aspect of law is that you can not legally contract for illegal purposes. For example, a contract that included a clause for you to murder someone or steal something is not legal - or at least not that clause. It could be argued that patenting an illegal process would be tantamount to a contract with illegal activity as part and parcel of it.
After all you will either license your patent - which would be a contract for illegal activity if the licensee seeks to do this in a jurisdiction the activity is illegal in - and you might be considered an accomplice. However, if there are legal applications this could provide an "out" and make the patent legally acceptable.
However, whether this process is patentable is questionable IMO on other grounds. Investigators, private and otherwise, have been using such techniques for years. Crackers and Hackers have undoubtedly done this as well directly in the specific field.
It's old news (Wow bet you are suprised!;) ). It isn't the first, and any car that weighs in under 1200 kilos and has 600 HP damned well better pull that kind of time. The Electric Ariel Atom smokes this car. Of course the Ariel Atom pulls sub-3 second 0-60 times (2.8) with a mere 300HP motor. And yes again the key factor is weight: It weighs in at just under half the weight of this car - about 500 kilos. The electric one pulls 3 seconds in the 60 and weighs in at about 700 kilos. The fact that the two variants of the Atom are so close in performance is testament to the impact of the vehicle's weight on the performance of the vehicle more so than power source.
I don't car what your power source is. If you have a car priced at $125,000 with 600HP of power that weighs a mere 1200 kilos you better pull times like this. Otherwise go back to the drawing board. The Corvette Z06 weighs in at a hefty 3100 pounds, has 500 less HP and pulls 0-60 times of 3.2-3.8 with 3.5 being the official result.
Drag racing, especially 0-60 times, is all about power to weight. Source is irrelevant outside of that.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the Internet in particular that every government dreams of controlling. It's citizens. And government can only control criminals. Hence the more crimes they've defined the more control they have.
HP laserjet 4si printer ...something similar new would cost me $4-$5k.
Where the hell are you shopping? I just picked up a color, duplex, networked HP Laster jet (2605dn) for under 400 bucks. Retail. Not on the Internet, or at Wally world. And yes it was new in the box.
I dunno, he could be wanting them to queue up .. as in get them to line up and get ready to be operate on a not-yet-seen cue. Either word would work. If only he could have been using MS Word to post, it could have made grammar corrections for him.
Runing ./configure or make or make install could cause just as large a problem. Do you read through those scripts before running them?
Yes, I do. I've even got into arguments with a former coworker who insisted that scripts/applications should do nothing without a command switch to make them run. His argument was that you might not know what it was or did. My argument was that you shouldn't just be running things you don't know about, that you should look at the docs or the script.
Wait, you don't read them? Here I've got some software for you to install, trust me.
There could be one in emacs right now, triggered by reading a file into the buffer.
Ok, the onus is on you to demonstrate how a buffer overflow in emacs that occurs via loading a text file into a buffer can trigger the kind of effect reported via Word. Go ahead, I dare you, I triple dog dare yah! It's curious how people like to post "Yeah well it could happen just as easily in Open Source!" and then they don't prove it. Even though they have the source code, which is presumably more than those who exploit MS Office, to examine.
Since Microsoft patched it, it was probably either something that autoran or an overflow.
Or they embedded a regex or other code to look for the exact overflow and drop it instead of eliminating the overflow. Not that they've done anything like that before, right?
It's far worse than that. I'd love to repost the information here but it's more efficient to just provide links on America's Debtor Prisons, on The Failing Court System regarding Welfare and Child support. That should get you started.
Your question assumes they are at any time not asleep while approving stories.
One argument is the general pro-diversity argument. Basically it claims that women have a different experiences and perspectives than men, and that having computer scientists with a mix of different backgrounds can better stimulate solutions/creativity/etc than a more homogeneous mix would. Thus balancing out the gender discrepancy in computer science would benefit the field.
A gender is not a "background". Thus the asserted (but not proven) notion that a more diverse background or experience leads to better results in a technical field would not be relevant.
We aren't talking a social science, or politics, or any non-technical notion. CS is about science and technical issues. Programming languages don't change effectiveness because men or women use them. Computers don't know the difference unless told and then only do as they are told regarding that information. If and when computers are sentient and have gender and emotions such that they may be "persuaded" or "comfortable" taking instructions from a gender that is like (or different than) their own, then gender would be a solid advantage or disadvantage. But today, bits are still bits, and algorithms are still not gender-biased.
That said, if there were a gender-based difference in how it is approached, that would certainly qualify as "better at it". If you want to say background can make a difference, I'll agree though I'd insist it be stipulated that the difference can be negative as well as positive.
(It's possible that argument might still work even if women were actually inferior in this respect - there's been some social science suggesting that groups containing a mix of experts and non-experts can often come up with better solution than the subject matter experts alone would. See a book called "The Wisdom of Crowds")
The book sounds interesting, I'll add it to my list, thank you. However, the case you've made here (which may not represent the argument in the book) would be different. It is one thing to say that experts and non-experts can arrive at better conclusions. It's another to say that experts of different abilities have the same effect. Often experts and non-experts arrive at better conclusions in cooperation than experts alone because experts tend to be trained to think the same things or in the same fashion. It is related to less-intellectually entrenched (i.e. younger) scientists making more breakthroughs in new areas.
The other argument is a scarcity argument, i.e. that the field has a shortage of workers in general. Following Amdahl's Law, focusing on the improving particular shortage of women in the field has a much greater maximum benefit than would focusing on the shortage among some other, smaller demographic.
I believe I mentioned the "more is better" argument. However, I'd disagree with the smaller demographic conclusion. It depends on the efficacy of the effort with a given demographic. If you have demographic A with 10000 potential inductees, and demographic B with 5000, A is not necessarily the most desirable. Demographic B may be more easily convinced, they may be more predisposed to accept the proposition. As a result you may get a higher percentage resulting in a higher total from Demographic B.
Again, however, this argument assumes that the additional demographic has more than mere numbers to add. I'm comfortable with the possibility that women or any other demographic may be better at CS than mine. Maybe that's why I can comfortably discuss that hidden aspect. Different cultures will produce different advantages and disadvantages. The sexes are "wired" differently, and are differently physically. There is no escape from that no matter how much the self-righteous may scream otherwise.
If women are better at CS then by all means we should be trying like crazy to get them more involved. But only those who can do it. We shouldn't lower our standards to get that. Unless there is a massive difference such that a bottom-level woman can outproduce/outdiscover
We have this neat invention called science. Maybe you've heard of it? It involves a process where rather than letting emotional arguments and paranoia run our lives we actually do things to determine the real story.
If you have evidence something actually is a danger, that is one thing. But to throw your hands in the air and say "well we just don't know" is another. I could give you my address but I don't know you might be a child molester, a rapist, a con artist, or a murderer, or who knows what, YOU might be dangerous.
Fetuses might be dangerous if allowed to come full term - you could see the next Hitler or Stalin born. But that's no excuse for saying people shouldn't do things that might lead to babies.
I wonder, do we spend more resources developing new chemicals or more studying the effects? I'm not even gonna bother to look it up, the answer is magnitudes more resources toward developing new chemicals.
So your mind is made up you aren't interested in the facts (such as more money being spent getting federal approval on new chemicals than is spent on making them) then? Well that is consistent with the rest of your arguments at least. So I guess you aren't interested in the reality surrounding DDT or any other number of chemicals that were shown to not be the threat reactionaries claimed them to be. I guess you aren't interested in the net good that these substances provide that is far and above the FUD people such as yourself produce, even if it had merit.
What is the difference in these two statements:
A) It's easy to say chemicals doing possibly all kinds of other neat stuff with their friends in our bodies when no ones studying the fact.
B) It's easy to say chemicals doing possibly all kinds of other nasty stuff with their friends in our bodies when no ones studying the fact.
One word. The argument itself remains unchanged.
Is it too much to ask to play it on the safe side?
Ask or command? Big difference between those two. If you are Ok with having a house that has (for starters):
No carpet
No paint
No wood coverings (varnish, etc.)
No Plastic of anykind such as polyester
No foods that have have had any kind of pesticide or herbicide used anywhere near them
No clothing that may have had "industrial chemicals" used in it's making
No clothing that has any kind of fire retardant on it
No electronics of any kind
Then feel free to go that route. I'd say go for it, and be quite encouraging! Hope you don't have kids though for they'll have a rough go of it.
But when you want to say that we should stop using these things, and enjoy the threat of force to make others follow a path you don't walk, then I have a problem with it. What you are proposing is that all progress stop for 30+ years while we find human test subjects to get chemicals exposed to them and study these people for a few decades. Not gonna happen. Nor should it.
We don't know that exposure to CFLs will not be shown to have a negative impact on people after 20-30 years of exposure. We don't know that LCDs or plasma screen TVs don't emit some weird frequency of radiation that causes an increase in the risk of cancer if you are using them for long periods of time.
Cumulative and combinatory effects are near-impossible to pin down, even if you spend decades studying them. It gets worse when the small amounts we are talking about individually have shown no ill effects. There is no solid reason or evidence to say that non-toxic combinations are toxic. There is paranoia, sure. But that is hardly convincing, nor evidence.
Consider the practicality of studying the potential effects of say 100 chemicals in any combination. How many combinations is that? Add into that a near-infinite array of possible concentrations and you can begin to get an idea of the magnitude here. Is it worth stopping progress while we do that? Do you realize that each new addition causes an massive rise (don't recall if it's exponential or geometrical at
Actually I have, and the result was not what you claim. They were specifically looking for chemicals so I'm pretty confident it wasn't just an oversight. Have you tried it yourself or is this just more "I read it on the Internet?".
While a lot of what are termed "natural" additives in foods are anything but natural, a lot of industrial chemicals do occur naturally on their own. Citric acid, for example, is used quite heavily in many industries, and is an "industrial chemical".
yes, I suggest readers do look up the details. your "hundreds perhaps thousands" is sheer unadulterated fear mongering. The studies show averages in the few dozen range, and none over 60.
For example:
-- http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2004/2004-10-20 -10.asp
And:
-- http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/t oxics/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=12622
.html for details. Urine tests reveal chemicals leaving the body and do not necessarily represent a sustained level of toxicity. There are substances the body passes through without using ... like corn kernels. ;) Thus, the presence of a substance in a urine sample does not mean the substance had any effect on the body.
Moyers' own "results" were the result of blood and urine tests. A combined total of 84 out of 150 they were looking for. And the details of what they are were not released, other than a few "eye popper" ones such as DDT. See http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden
Many of the "industrial chemicals" listed include things like the paint or wood finish you buy at your local hardware store, or the weed killer you buy from the store. News articles tend to downplay those. Note the distinct lack of details (in teh news articles) beyond the headline grabbers such as DDT. Why is that? DDT gets attention due to the great DDT scare/hoax. But as even the above referenced studies state regarding DDT:
This is like other chemicals/substances where you only read/hear about them saying things like "In high concentrations/doses...". Why? because small doses/exposure does not show the dramatic effects. News flash: Dihydrogen oxide in high doses/concentrations
There are more possibilities than this one. There may be strong cultural forces to push women into the field in Asia. There may be other things that most women are simply more interested in.
Personally I think the effects here are do in a large part to the Feminzais - the so called women's movement. Note that fields like CS, IT, are not on the list of endeavors pushed by the Feminists for "equality of women". Instead they focus on getting women to be in control of businesses and political organizations. The women of the US have been done a terrible disservice by the Feminists. This is evidenced in the article:
We're talking about a 1:2 ratio in a situation where there is no identified genetic reason one gender would dominate over another so much, and that ratio is not consistent in other countries. That leads to reasonably suspect that the reasons are cultural and can be improved. If they can be improved through reasonable attempts to recognize the needs and desires of different groups, there's no good reason not to.
What scientifically analyzed and credible research has shown that the more "equal" the ratio of men to women or women to men in a given endeavor (other than reproduction of course) is quantitatively "better"?
Consider this.
You are arguing that the field of CS would be somehow better off in capability and ability of more women were in it. What is that implying? It implies that women are better at it. You aren't saying we need MORE people in general, but more women. If more women would improve the field itself then the only way they can do that is if they are inherently better at it. More of the same is not a recipe for improvement. Now, women may actually have an inherent advantage to CS over men. But if you believe so I think you should just say so instead of hinting at it as you do here. And then hold yourself up to your asserted standard of scientifically valid and correct studies that show it.
This isn't about making the field of CS better. It is about nannies who want to feel better about themselves.
Did you read the article? It was about changing computer science to be what they think women want.
...
And guess what, they say it worked! Sounds rather scientific
Theory:
Women do not enroll in CS because they are not interested in it.
Test method:
Change CS to mean/teach what you believe women want to learn, observe results.
So you change it and get dramatic results that indicate you were right. Conclusive proof it is not, but it's damned good evidence that you may be right.
Our culture is suffering from a sever case of MPD. We claim that diversity - that enjoying and celebrating the differences between different races/nationalities/cultures/sexes - is a good thing, but then are not allowed to even contemplate that there ARE differences. It is shown through many studies over many decades that the brains of men and women are wired differently. Not inherently better or worse, just different. In some cases the differences will give one a bias toward things or an advantage, but it is not universal.
There is nothing wrong with women not wanting to be programmers. People whining about women not being as common in the field as men are pretty much either:
1) Men looking to pick up on women, so they want more around without the effort of looking outside their little realm
2) People looking to absolve themselves for some perceived or actual social crime, or looking to make themselves "look better/compassionate/caring" by "fighting for the little guy"
A prior poster got it spot on. We don't see organizations saying that men are not represented well enough in fields that women dominate, or fields such as fashion design, hairdressing, etc..
It's got nothing to do with "being macho" or "manly'. Seriously, it's amazing that someone would post to slashdot (the grandparent to this post) that programming and CS are "manly sciences". Sure, tell that to the jocks bashing the nerds in high school. Yes, men and women are different. Get over it and quit trying to make us all the same. It is damaging to everyone. The human race are not Borg drones. We are each different with our advantages and disadvantages. This is true between races, cultures, nationalities, and pretty much any other group you can arrive at.
I would have thought that people would have learned by now that it is unfixable.
Oh people know it is not providing good education. They generally don't really want to do what it takes to "fix" it. For the vast majority of parents, the public school system is not about teaching: it's a "free" babysitter. Private schools have shown how to educate children quite well. But the voting public is swayed by emotional arguments made by so-called teachers unions that the changes would be "bad for the children". In areas where there is strong parental involvement with education, teacher's unions are significantly less politically powerful or common.
The truly difficult part about "fixing" a school system is that the people you need to convince to change things went there. It can bes tbe summed up in a line for the movie "Evolution". There is a scene in which the military is trying to convince a judge that the local community college has inadequate facilities. He says they are "A joke". The judge bristles with indignation and says "There weren't a joke when I went there!"
People don't want to admit that they are a product of broken schools. Therefore you have an uphill battle because first reactions are that if the school you wnet to is broken, you are somehow less. So it's always some other state's schools that need fixing, not yours. Compound that with parents in those schools feeling that if they let their kids go to schools they admit are broken, what does that say about them the parents?
These kinds of things (referring to the shootings at VT) happen in a free society. And that's that unless we all want to live in a police state."
And that won't stop it either. These things happen in police states as well. Hell do you ave any idea of what goes on in the police state we call "prison"? Murders are committed in some pretty high security prisons. Drugs are found in them - the kind made on the outside.
Some things you simply can not stop 100%. Some things will happen so long as someone wants them to.
Emailing someone to complain about the way that they have handled a problem is considered the proper way to handle things in a democracy
Actually that's called social decency, and has nothing to do with democracy.
You were able to understand it because most of the words had the key letters the same. Various studies have found that if the first and last letters are correct you can quickly piece the rest together often without noticing it. If there is a center placed consonant that is correct the ability to inherently understand rises. Also if you ar ea fast reader you will catch words that don't fit the above criteria without realizing it. Fast readers tend to look ahead several words and "read" in sets or phrases. When this is done the context is present and your brain fills in the small words that are not as clear.
:)
So don't be unnerved, but revel in it.
Sure, because beekeepers are experts in genetic modification and it's effects. Man has been performing genetic modification for at lest a couple thousand years. Anytime "apparent" causes are combined with statements that the subject at hand is more dire than any similar event or possibility that has gone before the likelihood of the claims being false is increased.
I expect more from a Biostatistics PhD Candidate.
/. posts in 2006 is a statement of incidence. However, this number alone is not that useful. As dorpus sort of pointed out an incidence number can increase due to nothing more than discovery or reporting/recording. When you are talking about the spread of something or an increase in it's chance of occurring, incidence is not what you want to look at, prevalence is.
If we assume the prevalence is static, say one in a hundred children are born autistic, then the incidence of autism will rise as population rises. The incidence would level off only if population levels off, or there is a drop in prevalence that matches the increase in population.
As far as the incidence in the UK surrounding MMR, last I knew it was still undecided. not that I am saying MMR causes Autism. Quite frankly we don't know what does, and the controversies surrounding it have not helped. For example, the WHO defines Autism in a way that precludes the diagnosing of adults with Autism as being "counted".
For those who don't remember or never took statistics, incidence is the number of occurrences in a given time period. For example saying there were 2.3 million
Prevalence is for example "25 out of 10000 registered slashdotters post at least one", or "35 in 10000 children born have autism". If there is an increase in prevalence, then "better" reporting or diagnosing of autism (incidence) will can not be the sole factor, or possibly not even the major factor. if there is no increase in prevalence than the rise of incidence will level off to that of the prevalence rate.
But even then, playing statistics doesn't really do much to solve how it happens. Hell it may be evolution for all we know. It is also not true that whether there is a rise in autism incidence or prevalence or not is without controversy in the world of epidemiologists. it still is with some areas having shown rises clearly above and beyond reporting and classification changes - while other areas show decreases.
As with other areas of this world's events and phenomena, our little recorded window is tiny. For all we know the actual prevalence of autism among humans may vary naturally over time. As aliens so often say in science fiction "the human rac eis still very young".
Regardless of the merit of the theory (of which I am highly skeptical), it is not scientific. A theory can not be scientific. A theory is essentially an idea. it either precludes scientific work or is the result of it.
That's not to say that they would be in every case, of course, but what direct experience I do have suggests that your concerns are misplaced.
No, it does not. Concerns that people will be involved that do not understand what they are doing or the implications are well founded in pretty much every avenue. We have historical accounts that show that not all dictators are evil, but that does not mean that any concerns about dictatorships are misplaced. We also have evidence that says that not all power "corrupts" (as in millions of parents) but that does not mean that concerns about power aggregation are misplaced.
Indeed in most walks of life most of the time the people are competent/reasonable conscientious, etc. But that does not say that concerns about the general case are misplaced.
pirating of software or music/videos is WRONG
Well if you are talking about a ship of "privateers" boarding a ship and taking the CDs, thus preventing them from being sold to paying customers then yes. If not, you are wrong. What you describe is called copyright infringement - sometimes.
you're ripping off all the average Joe's who work at company xyz and whose comensation and jobs are impacted by loss of sales of products
Not really. Most copying of such material in my experience and that of a great many is that those who do so either would not purchase the product anyway (can't afford it or just wont), or purchase it after sampling it by downloading and trying it out.
You can't claim someone who had nothing taken from them is getting ripped off. There is "loss of sales" in every industry. I could argue that by checking a book out of the library, or by borrowing it from a friend YOU would be ripping off "all the average Joe's who work at company xyz and whose comensation(sic) and jobs are impacted by loss of sales of products".
Indeed I could argue that The Record Labels ripped off all those people by killing off the "single". Here is how.
People purchased singles. Why? They liked *that* song. They got a bonus song on "the B side" usually - a sampler if you will. The record companies found that when they put out albums with only one good song on it they stopped putting the songs they figured would be hits on singles. They were under the mistaken notion that people would instead buy the entire album for 7 times as much money. So they had crap songs from the album on the singles which naturally led to a drop in sales. Then they had "justification" for dropping the single sales. Now people were left with the choice of spending significantly more money on a gamble that they would like more than one or two songs. Well, no suprise, people cut down on buying the more expensive albums. Rather than take 2-3 bucks and entice the consumer to spend another 15 or so, they dropped the 2-3 dollar sales. Net result: unhappy consumers and a drop in sales. for all those ordinary Joes you believed yourself to be championing
Every industry experiences loss of sales at some time, and any large industry will find it happening when a "disruptive technology" comes along. There is no doubt that the Internet is one such technology, especially when combined with broadband.
I used to pirate as well - I then got a real engineering job and became aware of the true number of people it takes to crank out a product - from middle managers - engineers - techs - secretaries - all the way down to the guys / gals in shipping.
You mean you joined the corporate world and got out of school. Have you "done the right thing" and purchased all that stuff you downloaded without purchasing?
I've seen what it takes to put out damned good product. I've seen a solid staff of fewer than 5 put out computer games that are as good and sometimes better than the big corporations do. One could argue that the cadre of "support staff" that big corporations use are "pirating" the resources thus preventing those who do the creative and constructive work from getting the pay they are entitled to. "but they aren't stealing anything!" you cry? True, but neither is someone who downloads copyrighted material not in accordance with the copyright licensing. Just because the morality of it may be in question (again a great many download, enjoy, and purchase what they enjoy), that does not make it "piracy" or "stealing". Real pirates kill crew that resist.
Your entire argument hinges on the idea that those who download material such as games, videos, or music actually represents a lost sale. The real world does not support that claim. Not in the slightest. Someone who will not purchase an album they haven't heard and decided is worth the price is not a "sale lost to copyright infringement via download", nor is someone who simply can not afford it (or frankly is underage and can not purchase i
Depends on who's Dick is leaking? The President' Dick? Microsoft's Tester Dick? An Anonymous Dick? The President's allegedly leaking Dick was front page news for weeks.
She must prove to the IRS she didn't make $12K. I don't see the problem,
So you are OK with the government making allegations and the accused has to prove them false?
Well if that's your belief so be it. But when the government crashes down your door and accuses of oh say rape, murder, or treason and you have to prove your innocence instead of them proving your guilt, don't whine about getting screwed.
Can you patent an illegal process?
Why not?
Fundamentally? A patent is a contract between the government and the patent holder. A fundamental aspect of law is that you can not legally contract for illegal purposes. For example, a contract that included a clause for you to murder someone or steal something is not legal - or at least not that clause. It could be argued that patenting an illegal process would be tantamount to a contract with illegal activity as part and parcel of it.
After all you will either license your patent - which would be a contract for illegal activity if the licensee seeks to do this in a jurisdiction the activity is illegal in - and you might be considered an accomplice. However, if there are legal applications this could provide an "out" and make the patent legally acceptable.
However, whether this process is patentable is questionable IMO on other grounds. Investigators, private and otherwise, have been using such techniques for years. Crackers and Hackers have undoubtedly done this as well directly in the specific field.
It's old news (Wow bet you are suprised! ;) ). It isn't the first, and any car that weighs in under 1200 kilos and has 600 HP damned well better pull that kind of time. The Electric Ariel Atom smokes this car. Of course the Ariel Atom pulls sub-3 second 0-60 times (2.8) with a mere 300HP motor. And yes again the key factor is weight: It weighs in at just under half the weight of this car - about 500 kilos. The electric one pulls 3 seconds in the 60 and weighs in at about 700 kilos. The fact that the two variants of the Atom are so close in performance is testament to the impact of the vehicle's weight on the performance of the vehicle more so than power source.
I don't car what your power source is. If you have a car priced at $125,000 with 600HP of power that weighs a mere 1200 kilos you better pull times like this. Otherwise go back to the drawing board. The Corvette Z06 weighs in at a hefty 3100 pounds, has 500 less HP and pulls 0-60 times of 3.2-3.8 with 3.5 being the official result.
Drag racing, especially 0-60 times, is all about power to weight. Source is irrelevant outside of that.