So you wish to turn one of the most common reasons for calling IT support, forgot my password, into a felony? I guess we'll bump littering will get you the chair.
Meanwhile, I encrypt random thing and email it to you attached to a spam. BAM! You're a felon. Get a concussion, BAM you're a felon. Cop fat fingers your phone and corrupts the data so it won't decrypt even with the password, BAM you're a fellon. Cops lose/destroy the index card with the password on it when they toss your home, BAM you're a felon.
As for your examples, only not feeding your children is a felony and then, only if you repeatedly don't feed them when you were able to. Losing your license isn't even a misdemeanor as long as you don't drive until you get a replacement.
Do you really want 9 year olds to become felons when they lose their secret decoder ring?
You seem to not understand the whole damned debate. Judges already have the ability to order you to open a safe, hand over papers or decrypt a message if you are able. They cannot order you to hand over proof of alien life for example if you don't already posses it.
That has been the case for centuries now. The debate is over very hard to break encryption. Some law enforcement is pressing to mandate that all encryption can be decrypted without the owner's cooperation. In other words, they either want a ban on strong encryption (imagine banning deadbolts and reinforced doors) or they want a master key (obvious analogy). They generally present their argument as if personal documents they cannot read are a new thing.
But if you say I was dabbling in the occult and wrote that while in a trance and I don't know what it says, they can't do anything about it. Just like with cryptography.
You're asking for the impossible. Either the encryption can hold the police out or it will also let the crooks in. If every door had to have a single master key held by the police, how long do you suppose it would be before criminals obtained a copy of that one very powerful key?
Sometimes, void is the right answer though. Even if you don't call it void, it tends to exist. In some languages, it might be a pointer to class Object, for example. It would be the type returned by new and accepted by del.
No, they would learn a valuable lesson and keep on going being more careful to be reasonable next time. The most likely replacement would be another company which would likewise learn that being reasonable is profitable.
Bzzt! Dishonest. Usually the argument goes that in theory, you can
spend a lot of time speeding up a microkernel to the point where the
speed difference is megligible, and then the other so-called
"advantages" of microkernels will make up for the rest.
The even more dishonest answer is that you can optimize your
microkernel so that it is faster than some other (productized)
monolithic kernel.
Dishonest: it assumes that nothing can be done on the monolithic
kernel. That's like saying "if I ate steroids for 15 years, I would
be stronger than my neigbour who doesn't eat steroids, so I must be
stronger".
In fact, all of the arguments about microkernels in the '90s, even L4, were that if we work hard enough, they can be almost as fast as a monokernel. Those context switches are a real killer and a monokernel needs a lot less of them.
Of course, the funny thing is, the more you argue that the kernel is doing it wrong, the more you are arguing that systemd is doing it wrong.
On modern hardware, context switching is much less costly than it was on a '386. It may be time to revisit microkernels now. Systemd would still be wrong.
So her saying she believes firmly in the good vaccines have done, her personal recommendation for vaccination, thge fact that she giuvbes vaccinations, and her decrying that the FDA has so soiled it's reputation that even when it's right the anti-vaxxers won't believe it, she is pandering to the anti-vaxxers?
What would it take to NOT be pandering to the anti-vaxers by those standards, a superhero costume, a pneumatic injector in both hands and a picture of a syringe on her chest?
There was nothing brain damaged about it. I'm guessing you forgot it was running on a 100MHz (That's MEGA hertz) 80386 at the time and microkernels were running dog slow.
You're also forgetting that unlike init, the kernel is the one part of the system that can drag down the performance of everything on the machine if it isn't fast and efficient.
It depends on what you're doing. A number of people here think you can take a 'safe' language and implement a complete OS in it. For the userspace, perhaps, but what of the kernel? There, you have to deal with the hardware. Allocating memory includes dealing with the page tables. You can have your safe bounds checked buffer but if the device wants to DMA right past the end of the buffer, it will. The compiler has no way to check for that. It's to the point that in some cases, C is too high level and you have to resort to assembly language for some functions.
The really good senior programmers aren't interested in jumping through your hoops and doing your circle the shape that doesn't belong tests. A good 30 minute sitdown with one of your proven programmers will do a better job than those tests anyway. Consider, some at least see right through the test and discern that if the test is a simple matter of cut/paste from google, then the test is actually a can you use google test. Do they REALLY want to work somewhere where their coworkers are cut/pasting from stack overflow all day?
A better test might be to provide the code and ask what's wrong or right about it.
TRhat's what it has become about in the U.S. because our government has to date shirked it's responsibility to regulate the market as recommended by Smith.
I'm not talking about research, I'm talking about public health and mandatory for school vaccinations. Surely you're not claiming that children are being involved in a secret research project starting at 15 months of age?!?
Considering that the vaccine hasn't been available for 20 years yet, there aren't a lot of health care workers whose immunity derives from the vaccine yet unless you count candy stripers and even there, it's not 100% of them since the vaccine wasn't mandatory when it came out.
I agree that learning how the immune system forgets would be extremely valuable, but that isn't anywhere near on-topic here and certainly doesn't count as a justification for the Varicella vaccine for school children.
It may be that data derived from tracking vaccine performance would be helpful, but the value is likely limited WRT autoimmune since in the latter, the immune system will be constantly stimulated.
The data point on breakthrough cases is more an observation that having chicken pox is 100% effective at immunization (with the exception of immune compromise where vaccines don't work either).
Understood that the range is still not proven. I do note that the original single injection schedule was updated to 15 months then at 6 years. Nobody has yet gone 20 years between boosters since it hasn't been approved that long. We'll find out in a few years I guess.
We seem to be putting out a lot of effort and people's money for a fairly small benefit (if, indeed there is any in final analysis).
Just another data point, we have seen breakthrough cases of chicken pox in otherwise healthy vaccine recipients, but I'm not aware of any in those immunized by having the disease, even with it's reduced prevalence.
However, vaccines are not 100% effective. If everyone in my neighborhood gets the vaccine, we're basically safe. Anyone who by chance does get it will tend to have a mild form and so others will have little exposure and will most likely be protected by their vaccine.
OTOH, if I alone got my shots, the whole neighborhood will probably end up with more severe cases of the disease and I'll be under constant exposure. If my vaccine is anything less than 100%, I'll get it.
Actually, looking it up my memory is correct. Immunity from actually having chickenpox is acknowledged to last much longer than from the vaccine, and will be lifelong in most cases, particularly if you are occasionally re-exposed to chickenpox (for example, by being around a child that has it). The duration for the vaccine is thought to be about 20 years.
A quick check confirms that the Varicella vaccine is a live, weak virus one
I'm pretty sure I could get the study proposal through the ethics board, there's nothing unethical here and it's an important enough question. I just doubt anybody will consent to being deliberately given a virus that inserts itself into their genome, just to see if their immune system still will recognize the virus and produce antibodies to it.
Based on the two quotes above, I'd say they were already given a virus that inserts itself into their genome albeit a weakened one. It would be their parents who consented (without really being informed). As for the thus far unasked question, can the vaccine strain cause shingles later in life and how does the risk differ from the wild strain, we have no way of knowing yet.
As for the flu, yes it probably would be more effective for people around the most vulnerable to get the shot. I think that so far, a more generalized flu vaccine has eluded us, thus the annual shots.
I take it you're part of McCarthy's army then? Simply disagreeing with me isn't worthy of the crazy label. Disagreeing with well settled science based on the word of a discredited fraud in the face of overwhelming evidence gets that label.
I don't seem to remember sneaking up behind you and giving you (or anyone else) a vaccination. When was it you say that happened?
Slashdot Mirror
So you wish to turn one of the most common reasons for calling IT support, forgot my password, into a felony? I guess we'll bump littering will get you the chair.
Meanwhile, I encrypt random thing and email it to you attached to a spam. BAM! You're a felon. Get a concussion, BAM you're a felon. Cop fat fingers your phone and corrupts the data so it won't decrypt even with the password, BAM you're a fellon. Cops lose/destroy the index card with the password on it when they toss your home, BAM you're a felon.
As for your examples, only not feeding your children is a felony and then, only if you repeatedly don't feed them when you were able to. Losing your license isn't even a misdemeanor as long as you don't drive until you get a replacement.
Do you really want 9 year olds to become felons when they lose their secret decoder ring?
I don't have it anymore.
You seem to not understand the whole damned debate. Judges already have the ability to order you to open a safe, hand over papers or decrypt a message if you are able. They cannot order you to hand over proof of alien life for example if you don't already posses it.
That has been the case for centuries now. The debate is over very hard to break encryption. Some law enforcement is pressing to mandate that all encryption can be decrypted without the owner's cooperation. In other words, they either want a ban on strong encryption (imagine banning deadbolts and reinforced doors) or they want a master key (obvious analogy). They generally present their argument as if personal documents they cannot read are a new thing.
But if you say I was dabbling in the occult and wrote that while in a trance and I don't know what it says, they can't do anything about it. Just like with cryptography.
In other words, there's nothing new here.
That exists now, so problem solved, right?
You're asking for the impossible. Either the encryption can hold the police out or it will also let the crooks in. If every door had to have a single master key held by the police, how long do you suppose it would be before criminals obtained a copy of that one very powerful key?
Sometimes, void is the right answer though. Even if you don't call it void, it tends to exist. In some languages, it might be a pointer to class Object, for example. It would be the type returned by new and accepted by del.
Not abusing it will be down to the programmer.
No, they would learn a valuable lesson and keep on going being more careful to be reasonable next time. The most likely replacement would be another company which would likewise learn that being reasonable is profitable.
Keep in mind, market exclusivity is not a right.
Let's see what Linus said in 1999:
- Microkernels are as fast or faster.
Bzzt! Dishonest. Usually the argument goes that in theory, you can spend a lot of time speeding up a microkernel to the point where the speed difference is megligible, and then the other so-called "advantages" of microkernels will make up for the rest.
The even more dishonest answer is that you can optimize your microkernel so that it is faster than some other (productized) monolithic kernel.
Dishonest: it assumes that nothing can be done on the monolithic kernel. That's like saying "if I ate steroids for 15 years, I would be stronger than my neigbour who doesn't eat steroids, so I must be stronger".
In fact, all of the arguments about microkernels in the '90s, even L4, were that if we work hard enough, they can be almost as fast as a monokernel. Those context switches are a real killer and a monokernel needs a lot less of them.
Of course, the funny thing is, the more you argue that the kernel is doing it wrong, the more you are arguing that systemd is doing it wrong.
On modern hardware, context switching is much less costly than it was on a '386. It may be time to revisit microkernels now. Systemd would still be wrong.
Sorry, no. It was a significant issue then and remained so for years after, at least on PCs.
So her saying she believes firmly in the good vaccines have done, her personal recommendation for vaccination, thge fact that she giuvbes vaccinations, and her decrying that the FDA has so soiled it's reputation that even when it's right the anti-vaxxers won't believe it, she is pandering to the anti-vaxxers?
What would it take to NOT be pandering to the anti-vaxers by those standards, a superhero costume, a pneumatic injector in both hands and a picture of a syringe on her chest?
There was nothing brain damaged about it. I'm guessing you forgot it was running on a 100MHz (That's MEGA hertz) 80386 at the time and microkernels were running dog slow.
You're also forgetting that unlike init, the kernel is the one part of the system that can drag down the performance of everything on the machine if it isn't fast and efficient.
It depends on what you're doing. A number of people here think you can take a 'safe' language and implement a complete OS in it. For the userspace, perhaps, but what of the kernel? There, you have to deal with the hardware. Allocating memory includes dealing with the page tables. You can have your safe bounds checked buffer but if the device wants to DMA right past the end of the buffer, it will. The compiler has no way to check for that. It's to the point that in some cases, C is too high level and you have to resort to assembly language for some functions.
The really good senior programmers aren't interested in jumping through your hoops and doing your circle the shape that doesn't belong tests. A good 30 minute sitdown with one of your proven programmers will do a better job than those tests anyway. Consider, some at least see right through the test and discern that if the test is a simple matter of cut/paste from google, then the test is actually a can you use google test. Do they REALLY want to work somewhere where their coworkers are cut/pasting from stack overflow all day?
A better test might be to provide the code and ask what's wrong or right about it.
In other words, the problem is that ownership has been TAKEN from you.
It's worse. Accordint to TFA, it's because there is an assert on an unsanitized input value. No good could ever come from that.
Worse, it may be a re-run being shown for the first time by that particular broadcaster.
Because if they do too much of that, they WILL be replaced and then the gravy train comes to a stop.
I guess the DoD is more responsible than Medicare.
TRhat's what it has become about in the U.S. because our government has to date shirked it's responsibility to regulate the market as recommended by Smith.
They're supposed to make a profit, not a killing.
I'm not talking about research, I'm talking about public health and mandatory for school vaccinations. Surely you're not claiming that children are being involved in a secret research project starting at 15 months of age?!?
Considering that the vaccine hasn't been available for 20 years yet, there aren't a lot of health care workers whose immunity derives from the vaccine yet unless you count candy stripers and even there, it's not 100% of them since the vaccine wasn't mandatory when it came out.
I agree that learning how the immune system forgets would be extremely valuable, but that isn't anywhere near on-topic here and certainly doesn't count as a justification for the Varicella vaccine for school children.
It may be that data derived from tracking vaccine performance would be helpful, but the value is likely limited WRT autoimmune since in the latter, the immune system will be constantly stimulated.
The data point on breakthrough cases is more an observation that having chicken pox is 100% effective at immunization (with the exception of immune compromise where vaccines don't work either).
Understood that the range is still not proven. I do note that the original single injection schedule was updated to 15 months then at 6 years. Nobody has yet gone 20 years between boosters since it hasn't been approved that long. We'll find out in a few years I guess.
We seem to be putting out a lot of effort and people's money for a fairly small benefit (if, indeed there is any in final analysis).
Just another data point, we have seen breakthrough cases of chicken pox in otherwise healthy vaccine recipients, but I'm not aware of any in those immunized by having the disease, even with it's reduced prevalence.
That is mostly true.
However, vaccines are not 100% effective. If everyone in my neighborhood gets the vaccine, we're basically safe. Anyone who by chance does get it will tend to have a mild form and so others will have little exposure and will most likely be protected by their vaccine.
OTOH, if I alone got my shots, the whole neighborhood will probably end up with more severe cases of the disease and I'll be under constant exposure. If my vaccine is anything less than 100%, I'll get it.
That in a nutshell is herd immunity.
Actually, looking it up my memory is correct. Immunity from actually having chickenpox is acknowledged to last much longer than from the vaccine, and will be lifelong in most cases, particularly if you are occasionally re-exposed to chickenpox (for example, by being around a child that has it). The duration for the vaccine is thought to be about 20 years.
A quick check confirms that the Varicella vaccine is a live, weak virus one
I'm pretty sure I could get the study proposal through the ethics board, there's nothing unethical here and it's an important enough question. I just doubt anybody will consent to being deliberately given a virus that inserts itself into their genome, just to see if their immune system still will recognize the virus and produce antibodies to it.
Based on the two quotes above, I'd say they were already given a virus that inserts itself into their genome albeit a weakened one. It would be their parents who consented (without really being informed). As for the thus far unasked question, can the vaccine strain cause shingles later in life and how does the risk differ from the wild strain, we have no way of knowing yet.
As for the flu, yes it probably would be more effective for people around the most vulnerable to get the shot. I think that so far, a more generalized flu vaccine has eluded us, thus the annual shots.
I take it you're part of McCarthy's army then? Simply disagreeing with me isn't worthy of the crazy label. Disagreeing with well settled science based on the word of a discredited fraud in the face of overwhelming evidence gets that label.
I don't seem to remember sneaking up behind you and giving you (or anyone else) a vaccination. When was it you say that happened?
Agreed. It wasn't worth the hype, but they did flog the hell out of those shots.