IE loses them money and is still the dominant browser, Open Office just got passed up by Google Docs, and Linux hasn't even captured 10% of the market. Last numbers I saw put Linux + Mac at less than 10% of the total market. The 360 is the console that gets the most love for games with serious graphics.
Overall, yes, Microsoft is declining, but their core windows products have declined by less than 10%. It's a little early to be writing their eulogy.
Japan's population is less than half that of the US. They'd have to average over 2x the number of computer that can pull of an attack than the US, and I highly doubt that's the case.
but using this to help narrow who to watch would be what this should be used for.
I can't disagree more strongly. When the flood the false positives start coming in, they'll quickly start dismissing them. As another poster pointed out, Chicago O'Hare alone has 200,000 people go through it every day; when several thousand of them are flagged as suspicious, you can bet that security will stop caring pretty quickly.
He'll still show signs of stress, though. Just because you think it's right to get into a fight doesn't mean that the adrenaline doesn't start pumping.
The real problem with this is that the number of wrongdoers is small while the pool for false positives is high. If 5% of people have some intent that should be picked up by this, then 4% of all people with ill intent will be picked up. At the rate, then they'd have to have less than a 5% rate of false positives just to reach the point where half the people it says have ill intent actually do. What are the chances that it's going to have a false positive rate less than 5%?
And that's assuming that 1/20 people have some intent that would need to be picked up by this, while the actual rate is almost certainly smaller. Millions of people fly on airplanes every year, yet every year only a handful try something stupid. This is security theater at its finest.
I don't see the answer to that problem being stopping LSB, because having the ability to precompile things for Linux would be a big step towards getting people to develop for it. Why not just have a rival body try to standardize as well? There's no reason that the serious distros couldn't support both, and it would make the whole concept more resilient to outside influence. Worst case scenario, the threat of this happening should help keep the LSB from becoming a corporate pawn.
Amen. Very well said, sir, even though some capitalization would have made it more readable;)
Might I add that many, many people are born with the ambition to use force to dominate the world, and that the only reason the US has been immune to that influence is because the will of the people has been made manifest in the government (at least in that regard - Bush would be skewered and hung if he could go up for re-election). I would also venture a guess that the religious views of the US have had something to do with it.
Lasers still have a tendency to get weaker over a distance. I would imagine that they could get around it in a number of ways:
Use multiple lasers converging on the point you want to hit so that any individual laser is only 20% strength, probably not enough to do serious damage.
Use a lens to make it so that the laser loses coherency relatively quickly after it passes the target.
Choose your targets very carefully so that the laser is either fired at an upward angle or (preferably) a downward angle, thus hitting the earth or going out into the sky rather quickly.
In the end, it's still better to have a more precise weapon that goes a long way then to use the less precise weapons that are more likely to be destructive to things around the target. Bombs have a tendency to go off course, and they use bombs against individuals when it suits the need. Using a laser instead would drastically reduce collateral damage. Also, when used on an UAV, it would be hard to find where the laser was coming from.
Logic is in the eye of the beholder. As a programmer, I can tell you that what one person thinks is logical, another person thinks is a piece of crap. The LSB has something to offer, what's the harm in supporting it?
Even if it is, setting up certificates is a hell of a lot easier than what you proposed. The very best security systems are where good security is easier than bad security. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen very often.
What's the comparison to having the children read to an adult? Can you provide a link to any relevant studies?
From what I've been able to find, the benefit mostly comes from the increased amount of reading outside of the classroom and making them look forward to reading, thus providing positive reinforcement of that behavior. I would expect nearly identical results from a family which implements a reward system for reading.
Your comment makes it sound like you think the program works because the dog's not judgemental, as if a human reading with them will make them feel bad about themselves by pointing out where they're wrong. The problem with that is that the dog's trainer's still there and reading with the kids, and if the child never learns that they're pronouncing the word wrong, they'll make a habit that'll be hard to break (even worse if they generalize their wrong concept to similar words and have to be retaught the rule). Children reading outside the classroom is a good thing, and dogs are a good gimmick and reward to get the children to participate, but saying that it's because the dog isn't judgmental seems like a leap that shouldn't be made.
Consequences seem to have become antiquated these days.
And public schools were one of the first victims of this. If their child isn't marked as perfect in every way, many parents will harass the teachers until they give in, and any teacher who dares discipline their golden child faces the wrath of hell itself. I'm surprised that suspensions wasn't replaced with "verbal hugs", wherein the student is made to feel so loved that they fix whatever's wrong! (without physical contact, of course, because that would get them arrested)
Perhaps, then, the Star Trek vision of the future, where all life forms are similar, could be correct, at least to the extent that they're all DNA and carbon based? Also, wouldn't this push the chances of life evolving on a suitable planet close to 100%?
Perfect to MANY people would be a world in which everyone gets along without a strong government to impede.
I guess that's somewhat my view of communism pulled off properly, where the government is mostly an organizational system that alerts people to need somewhere else. My view of ideal communism is very different from the communism that's been implemented by any governments.
private charities will be enough to help the poor
Not that they're enough to help the poor, but that they're the best way to help the poor. Sure, they'll never be perfect, but they'll be a hell of a lot better than any government program. In addition, the distributed quality of private charities means that there tends to be more oversight, putting the people with the power closer to the people with the need. Who's better able to gauge an individual's need, the local pastor or Congress?
people know how to best manage their own money
They just know a hell of a lot better than congress does. Look at the finances of the nation and I think you'll agree that politicians are bad at managing money; even when Bill Clinton balanced the budget, many programs cost more than they should have. The federal government is simply too big, covers too many people and too large an area to be effective. I can tell you without any doubt at all that private charity, in my state, works for the vast majority of those who are in need, and governmental welfare is used at a rate so much lower than the national average that the administrators are actively recruiting people to these programs. Yet we pay as much into these programs as any other state. Does that seem right to you? That the people who pay for overwhelmingly effective private charities should also pay into the programs that they'll never use?
In the end, there was only one solution. I clamped down. I hated doing it, I really did. But I managed to drive those users out, keep careful controls on the direction of threads, and attract many of our lost users to return.
And now Digg is nearly the perfect website!
But seriously, your post is dead on. Either party, given the opportunity, will take their ideology to a dangerous and stupid extreme. The middle ground is almost always where the proper solution lies.
I tend to think of Democrats as being afraid of things unrelated to defense.
I actually see it somewhat orthogonal to that. In many ways, the democrats are optimists while the republicans are pessimists. Barack Obama wants to sit down and talk to Iran and Russia, because he's just sure that they'll see good sense*. Ronald Reagan doesn't negotiate with Russians, he just intimidates them with his military might.
The same can be said of social policies. If pulled off properly, communism is the ideal economic system. If you think that people can and will take advantage of such idealistic systems whenever they can, then you tend to allow people to control their own destiny a lot more. The right to bear arms is a defense against a failing government; if the government were perfect, there'd be no reason to ever possess a weapon.
*these are obvious caricatures of the politicians. the statements don't capture the nuance of their foreign policies.
Yeah, and the worst part of the analogy is how harmful the two wastes are in comparison to each other. While radioactivity is bad, the waste isn't radioactive enough to be seriously threatening in the short term. CO2, however, is extremely fatal in large doses, and leaks from the ground have been deadly many times before.
Fortunately, if we ever figure it out, people aren't going to get as worked up about CO2 traveling by rail through their state as they would nuclear waste, because CO2 doesn't have the word "nuclear" in it. It also should be easier to store, since oil fields have held natural gas for thousands if not millions of years, making them ideal candidates for sequestering sites.
You're right, oil fields where we know natural gas was successfully stored for millennia will only postpone the problem a few decades. This'll never work long term.
No matter how long you shoot baskets in your driveway, you're not going to be able to dunk on Kevin Garnett
That's mighty presumptuous of you. Kobe said that if I worked at it, I could someday.
The unemployed guy who has 80 hours a week to play WoW isn't rewarded more handsomely because his experience has honed his pointing and clicking skills to a razor's edge, he's rewarded simply because 80 hours > 15 hours.
Like I said, there's a game mechanic involved. However, the unemployed guy who plays 80 hours a week is going to be more or less effective than another guy who plays 80 hours a week depending on his social skills, his math skills, and his understanding of the game. If you can manipulate the auctions well, you can make a lot of gold, which translates directly into better gear. If you're able to work together with a group, you get into better guilds and get better equipment out of it. If you're a good leader and planner, then you are more likely to be able to lead a guild, which brings a lot of benefits with it.
I don't like the game myself. I prefer solitary play that more directly rewards skill; I don't want to have to rely on other people, almost all of whom are worse than me, and I don't want to have to raid every night to get with a group where that's not true. But arguing that rewarding people for playing more is a bad mechanic is dumb, imho. This greatly reduces the learning curve, it makes it so that housewives can compete more directly with the hardcore gamers, and most importantly, it makes all the content more readily available to anyone who wants it badly enough. These are all good and valid things. These are all things that have helped WoW gain the dominance that it has.
Slashdot Mirror
Saturn was more faithful than Zeus in the mythology, it makes sense that it would have had its ring for a while.
IE loses them money and is still the dominant browser, Open Office just got passed up by Google Docs, and Linux hasn't even captured 10% of the market. Last numbers I saw put Linux + Mac at less than 10% of the total market. The 360 is the console that gets the most love for games with serious graphics.
Overall, yes, Microsoft is declining, but their core windows products have declined by less than 10%. It's a little early to be writing their eulogy.
Japan's population is less than half that of the US. They'd have to average over 2x the number of computer that can pull of an attack than the US, and I highly doubt that's the case.
According to many definitions, that nerd is a terrorist, and security would be saving that poor woman from a life of PTSD.
Parents, if you love you're daughters, you'll vote "yes" on pre-crime detection before it's too late.
but using this to help narrow who to watch would be what this should be used for.
I can't disagree more strongly. When the flood the false positives start coming in, they'll quickly start dismissing them. As another poster pointed out, Chicago O'Hare alone has 200,000 people go through it every day; when several thousand of them are flagged as suspicious, you can bet that security will stop caring pretty quickly.
He'll still show signs of stress, though. Just because you think it's right to get into a fight doesn't mean that the adrenaline doesn't start pumping.
The real problem with this is that the number of wrongdoers is small while the pool for false positives is high. If 5% of people have some intent that should be picked up by this, then 4% of all people with ill intent will be picked up. At the rate, then they'd have to have less than a 5% rate of false positives just to reach the point where half the people it says have ill intent actually do. What are the chances that it's going to have a false positive rate less than 5%?
And that's assuming that 1/20 people have some intent that would need to be picked up by this, while the actual rate is almost certainly smaller. Millions of people fly on airplanes every year, yet every year only a handful try something stupid. This is security theater at its finest.
I don't see the answer to that problem being stopping LSB, because having the ability to precompile things for Linux would be a big step towards getting people to develop for it. Why not just have a rival body try to standardize as well? There's no reason that the serious distros couldn't support both, and it would make the whole concept more resilient to outside influence. Worst case scenario, the threat of this happening should help keep the LSB from becoming a corporate pawn.
Amen. Very well said, sir, even though some capitalization would have made it more readable ;)
Might I add that many, many people are born with the ambition to use force to dominate the world, and that the only reason the US has been immune to that influence is because the will of the people has been made manifest in the government (at least in that regard - Bush would be skewered and hung if he could go up for re-election). I would also venture a guess that the religious views of the US have had something to do with it.
In the end, it's still better to have a more precise weapon that goes a long way then to use the less precise weapons that are more likely to be destructive to things around the target. Bombs have a tendency to go off course, and they use bombs against individuals when it suits the need. Using a laser instead would drastically reduce collateral damage. Also, when used on an UAV, it would be hard to find where the laser was coming from.
Logic is in the eye of the beholder. As a programmer, I can tell you that what one person thinks is logical, another person thinks is a piece of crap. The LSB has something to offer, what's the harm in supporting it?
Ask not if LSB supports your Linux - ask if your Linux supports LSB.
Even if it is, setting up certificates is a hell of a lot easier than what you proposed. The very best security systems are where good security is easier than bad security. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen very often.
What's the comparison to having the children read to an adult? Can you provide a link to any relevant studies?
From what I've been able to find, the benefit mostly comes from the increased amount of reading outside of the classroom and making them look forward to reading, thus providing positive reinforcement of that behavior. I would expect nearly identical results from a family which implements a reward system for reading.
Your comment makes it sound like you think the program works because the dog's not judgemental, as if a human reading with them will make them feel bad about themselves by pointing out where they're wrong. The problem with that is that the dog's trainer's still there and reading with the kids, and if the child never learns that they're pronouncing the word wrong, they'll make a habit that'll be hard to break (even worse if they generalize their wrong concept to similar words and have to be retaught the rule). Children reading outside the classroom is a good thing, and dogs are a good gimmick and reward to get the children to participate, but saying that it's because the dog isn't judgmental seems like a leap that shouldn't be made.
Consequences seem to have become antiquated these days.
And public schools were one of the first victims of this. If their child isn't marked as perfect in every way, many parents will harass the teachers until they give in, and any teacher who dares discipline their golden child faces the wrath of hell itself. I'm surprised that suspensions wasn't replaced with "verbal hugs", wherein the student is made to feel so loved that they fix whatever's wrong! (without physical contact, of course, because that would get them arrested)
Unless I'm misreading your comment, you're mistaking observed rate for overall chance.
Perhaps, then, the Star Trek vision of the future, where all life forms are similar, could be correct, at least to the extent that they're all DNA and carbon based? Also, wouldn't this push the chances of life evolving on a suitable planet close to 100%?
Perfect to MANY people would be a world in which everyone gets along without a strong government to impede.
I guess that's somewhat my view of communism pulled off properly, where the government is mostly an organizational system that alerts people to need somewhere else. My view of ideal communism is very different from the communism that's been implemented by any governments.
private charities will be enough to help the poor
Not that they're enough to help the poor, but that they're the best way to help the poor. Sure, they'll never be perfect, but they'll be a hell of a lot better than any government program. In addition, the distributed quality of private charities means that there tends to be more oversight, putting the people with the power closer to the people with the need. Who's better able to gauge an individual's need, the local pastor or Congress?
people know how to best manage their own money
They just know a hell of a lot better than congress does. Look at the finances of the nation and I think you'll agree that politicians are bad at managing money; even when Bill Clinton balanced the budget, many programs cost more than they should have. The federal government is simply too big, covers too many people and too large an area to be effective. I can tell you without any doubt at all that private charity, in my state, works for the vast majority of those who are in need, and governmental welfare is used at a rate so much lower than the national average that the administrators are actively recruiting people to these programs. Yet we pay as much into these programs as any other state. Does that seem right to you? That the people who pay for overwhelmingly effective private charities should also pay into the programs that they'll never use?
In the end, there was only one solution. I clamped down. I hated doing it, I really did. But I managed to drive those users out, keep careful controls on the direction of threads, and attract many of our lost users to return.
And now Digg is nearly the perfect website!
But seriously, your post is dead on. Either party, given the opportunity, will take their ideology to a dangerous and stupid extreme. The middle ground is almost always where the proper solution lies.
I tend to think of Democrats as being afraid of things unrelated to defense.
I actually see it somewhat orthogonal to that. In many ways, the democrats are optimists while the republicans are pessimists. Barack Obama wants to sit down and talk to Iran and Russia, because he's just sure that they'll see good sense*. Ronald Reagan doesn't negotiate with Russians, he just intimidates them with his military might.
The same can be said of social policies. If pulled off properly, communism is the ideal economic system. If you think that people can and will take advantage of such idealistic systems whenever they can, then you tend to allow people to control their own destiny a lot more. The right to bear arms is a defense against a failing government; if the government were perfect, there'd be no reason to ever possess a weapon.
*these are obvious caricatures of the politicians. the statements don't capture the nuance of their foreign policies.
Yeah, and the worst part of the analogy is how harmful the two wastes are in comparison to each other. While radioactivity is bad, the waste isn't radioactive enough to be seriously threatening in the short term. CO2, however, is extremely fatal in large doses, and leaks from the ground have been deadly many times before.
Fortunately, if we ever figure it out, people aren't going to get as worked up about CO2 traveling by rail through their state as they would nuclear waste, because CO2 doesn't have the word "nuclear" in it. It also should be easier to store, since oil fields have held natural gas for thousands if not millions of years, making them ideal candidates for sequestering sites.
You're right, oil fields where we know natural gas was successfully stored for millennia will only postpone the problem a few decades. This'll never work long term.
Anyone else want to mod parent funny?
Yes, I will!
Oh crap.
I wonder how much people would like football if the winning team was rewarded with extra gear that made their victory next season even more likely?
I'm into college football, so between the extra money for bowl games and the prestige-based recruiting, that's sort of what happens.
No matter how long you shoot baskets in your driveway, you're not going to be able to dunk on Kevin Garnett
That's mighty presumptuous of you. Kobe said that if I worked at it, I could someday.
The unemployed guy who has 80 hours a week to play WoW isn't rewarded more handsomely because his experience has honed his pointing and clicking skills to a razor's edge, he's rewarded simply because 80 hours > 15 hours.
Like I said, there's a game mechanic involved. However, the unemployed guy who plays 80 hours a week is going to be more or less effective than another guy who plays 80 hours a week depending on his social skills, his math skills, and his understanding of the game. If you can manipulate the auctions well, you can make a lot of gold, which translates directly into better gear. If you're able to work together with a group, you get into better guilds and get better equipment out of it. If you're a good leader and planner, then you are more likely to be able to lead a guild, which brings a lot of benefits with it.
I don't like the game myself. I prefer solitary play that more directly rewards skill; I don't want to have to rely on other people, almost all of whom are worse than me, and I don't want to have to raid every night to get with a group where that's not true. But arguing that rewarding people for playing more is a bad mechanic is dumb, imho. This greatly reduces the learning curve, it makes it so that housewives can compete more directly with the hardcore gamers, and most importantly, it makes all the content more readily available to anyone who wants it badly enough. These are all good and valid things. These are all things that have helped WoW gain the dominance that it has.
Got Hell2018.com. Check mate.