Well, some of us did get a little confused when they talked about Woolworth's selling apples, so I could easily see people thinking "get off my lawn" about the skateboard thing, too.
Indeed, shareholders are pushing for a number of governance changes to tie executive bonuses more to long-term growth. Of course, IBM's board predictably recommends against all of those shareholder proposals, but I got my IBM electronic proxy today and voted for them. I also voted against the board members that sit on the executive compensation and resources committee because they are likely the source of the change in reporting. I urge other stockholders to do the same to send a message to IBM that shareholders want MORE transparency, not less.
Re:Sounds rather disappointing, really
on
Hollow Spy Coins
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No, in the U.S. you may do anything you want to a coin as long as it is not with fraudulent intent, e.g. bleaching a $1 bill and reprinting it to look like a $100 bill, etc.
The Detroit Symphony is dead? I'll have to tell my aunt about that. I had no idea she and her husband died, nor my uncle in D.C., nor my great uncle in Pittsburgh, nor....
I said artists, not composers. And even then, there are still people writing music in a classical style even to this day. Most would argue that contemporary neoclassical music should be considered in the same light as classical music. It clearly doesn't fall neatly into any of the other genres.
And at the same time, I have never heard classical recording artists complain that their labels are making individual movements available to their listeners. Heck, they're happy that they *have* listeners. Ecstatic, really, in this day and age. And I don't see composers whining about it, either. Lord knows, if somebody wants to do part of a piece I wrote, if it is divided into movements, more power to them. If I wanted it performed as a single work, I wouldn't have divided it up into chunks.
Heck, some of the most popular classical pieces of all time are small extractions from larger classical works---the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah, Ode to Joy from Beethoven's 9th, Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral from Lohengrin, Nessun Dorma from Turandot... the list is almost endless. Although the whole of Messiah is frequently performed, the Hallelujah Chorus is performed far more frequently because it is more manageable---more performable. Lohengrin and Turandot are seldom performed in their entirety, but those excerpts are popular band and solo vocal literature, respectively; I've personally played those excerpts several times in various ensembles over the past few years.
It has always been this way; large works endure in large part because they contain smaller works that are sufficient to stand on their own. By claiming this so-called "artistic integrity", bands like Pink Floyd are effectively saying that they don't care if their works are remembered. So be it. I've forgotten you already.
The longer something is "covered up", the less likely it is that there is any truth in the conspiracy theory. Once all the people potentially involved are dead, there's nobody left to confess on his/her death bed, and the odds are good that somebody will if a story is true, so I think the real-world upper bound is about 40-50 years.
My speculation would be more along the lines of "If I leak the entire no-fly list to the press anonymously, I'll be a hero, particularly once the public sees who is on it."
And that, my friends, is why I won't set foot through one of those damn full body scanners. There's somebody out there thinking, "If I create an anonymous video called 'Air Travelers Gone Wild', I'll be infamous." One cell phone camera is all it takes. Information, once placed in government hands, is as good as public knowledge---if not immediately, then eventually.
Exaclty I'd like to see the poster try to keep adding people to a game project. I've seen so many abortions from the game industry lately it's disturbing.
You could, to some degree, if you divide the work up correctly. You probably can't have more than a small number of people working on the game engine or deciding on the story line, but you can massively parallelize the people designing models, skins, etc., letting them pop items from the queue of object requests coming from the people writing the story line.
By those standards, the federal government basically doesn't do projects. Mostly, the feds just create agencies to distribute funds and regulate things. Pretty much everything the federal government does that qualifies as a "project" involves giving money to the state earmarked for a specific task. Even things like the NEA (.gov, not.org), DARPA, etc. involve giving money out to somebody else to do the project.
I'm actually thinking I should patent no-click. It's the iPod "shuffle" feature applied to an online store. When you visit the site, it chooses a random product, purchases it, and ships it to you. Take that, Amazon! I'd like to see you design a store that requires fewer clicks than that!
Hey, stop surfing around and reading/. and start taking notes!
The problem is that there are different types of learners. Some people learn visually, some aurally. Having some portion of the lecture notes on overhead slides helps the visual learners, but it isn't equivalent to being able to have precise notes that you can read, and people just can't take notes as rapidly by hand.
By taking away computers in the classroom, you unfairly bias grades towards the aural learners to a rather significant degree, so they'll just come up with other coping mechanisms like bringing camcorders, audio recorders, spy pens with camcorders built in, etc. so that they can record things, copy down copious notes, then read them later to study. This doesn't help those students. It merely means that they have to endure the lecture twice, once in person, once while copying it down.
This also means that a lot of those students will band together and have one person record it, so your class attendance will likely drop. Reduced attendance, in turn, discourages the discourse that is critical to higher levels of learning.
If processors were serious about making the learning environment better, they would give the students lecture notes and allow the students to read along if desired while they lecture, then take those notes with them as a study aid. When you do that, ta-da! No more distracted students desperately trying to take notes in class. Suddenly the students interact with you, and proper learning can take place.
Then, if students are still using laptops in class, it's either minimally to note things that the student thinks are important and/or note clarifications from in-class discussion or they're playing games/browsing the net. Either way, at that point, banning computers would be okay, though not particularly necessary.
As for the argument that requiring students to take notes by hand forces them to be selective about what they take notes on, and thus makes them better at filtering, to a large degree, that ability is dictated by biology. Some people (auditory learners) are wired for being able to quickly interpret things through their ears and separate the wheat from the chaff. Others (the visual learners who need the notes in the first place) are not. Maybe this ability can be taught to some degree, but it's more likely that you'll just get all the visual learners taking shorthand classes or using voice recorders, and unless you're training stenographers, you're really no better of than you would be just giving them a copy of the lecture notes in the first place.
Quiet, darkened room? What college was this, again? Most colleges these days use real video projectors that don't require substantially dimming the lights.
Roads in most states. Now in the long term, they fall apart because they fail to budget for required long-term maintenance, but when they first pave the things, most of the time, they're well built.:-)
Well, it'd have to be local apps that can interoperate with others of the same class (so all parties don't need to purchase the same software) and a free service that runs a synchronisation server (otherwise you've got the extra overhead of running and maintaining that yourself).
Well, in the context of someone sharing docs with his wife, I would hope that they have the same software.
Besides, assuming that these web apps eventually become for-pay services (as most of them almost certainly will), the same argument could be made about both people needing to pay to subscribe to the same online editor service. The only reason web apps have an advantage in that space now is that they are free, and there's no reason to believe that this state is permanent.
As to the security "hole", it's not really. It's a possible security problem, as you need to trust your provider, but it's not a "hole" in the way that security vulnerabilities are a hole.
Actually, a hole (or at least a serious deficiency) exists because none of these sites take precautions to prevent credential reuse, none of them use two-factor auth, none of them use on-screen keyboards with random button order, etc. There are plenty of things you could do as a web app provider that would make things significantly more secure, but AFAIK, none of them take any of those steps beyond using https, which is trivially worked around using MITM, a proxy daemon that forges site certs, and a bogus CA record in the browser... or a key logger... or....
Further, a second hole exists because there is no way for the client-server communication to be secured reliably.
With a real application, the client has the ability to include a site key and refuse to communicate with a spoofed site. Short of someone hacking that specific application (either by modifying the copy on the user's hard drive or by dangerously unreliable modification of the in-memory app down at the kernel or loader level), such an app cannot easily fall victim to a MITM attack. Browsers can and thus are frequently attacked in this way. And because browsers are a juicier target, they are much more likely to be attacked than a single-purpose app. And because the app can store data in an encrypted fashion in the user's keychain in a fashion that should prevent other apps from getting it, the password isn't being entered regularly, making key logging less useful, too.
By contrast, web apps don't have access to the SSL keys used in communication, and thus have no way to protect themselves. Further, because the code itself is sent across the wire in addition to the data, it can be trivially altered by a proxy in a nearly undetectable fashion even if it did perform such a test.
Having local apps synchronize to a server has the same hole - whether the app is browser-based or not doesn't really matter.
Not really. The number of people who carry apps on a USB thumb drive and run them on other people's machines is vanishingly small in the real world. The number of people who walk into an Internet cafe and log into Google Docs, by contrast, is not. Thus, even if the hole is theoretically there in both cases, the exposure is not at all similar.
I believe that most desktops *can be* secure, depending on the operator. I believe that a substantial percentage of computers in Internet cafes are *not* secure and are infected with all sorts of nasties. Are the people who would use such systems the same sorts of people who don't bother running antivirus software and click randomly on links and install random software? Hard to say, but my guess would be no. I suspect that a lot of people are willing to log into a webmail service from a random computer even if they wouldn't think about doing the sorts of things that get computers infected. So my suspicion is that web apps promote bad security practices that otherwise would not occur. That is just a gut feeling, though; more study is needed on the subject.
A second possibility is that you extract bone marrow stem cells, determine which cells aren't infected (as I'd expect odds are good that not all of them would be), culture those stem cells in a lab, then simultaneously kill off all the T cells and the bone marrow, then reintroduce the healthy stem cells in large quantities (possibly even getting some of those stem cells to differentiate into T cells in the test tube, too).
The big question in my mind is whether there's a way to determine which bone marrow stem cells aren't infected without destroying the cells.
Depends on how risky you consider anesthesia. That's about the riskiest aspect of donating marrow, followed closely by the risk of local infection.... As for the process, they basically stick a needle into your pelvic bone and draw out some marrow.
The biggest disadvantage to web apps is file management. I don't know where my files are stored, or which computers have access to them. I don't have backups of old versions. I lose everything if the provider's hard drive crashes and they don't keep proper backups. Users hate worrying about those things, so they just put their hands over their ears and shout "LALALALALALALALA" at the tops of their lungs, which works well enough until it comes crashing down around them like a house of cards. Which it does (e.g. Danger, JournalSpace, Ma.gnolia, Digital Railroad, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
All the more reason to be surprised that they were selling apples. :-D
Well, some of us did get a little confused when they talked about Woolworth's selling apples, so I could easily see people thinking "get off my lawn" about the skateboard thing, too.
Obligatory Family Guy clip.
Indeed, shareholders are pushing for a number of governance changes to tie executive bonuses more to long-term growth. Of course, IBM's board predictably recommends against all of those shareholder proposals, but I got my IBM electronic proxy today and voted for them. I also voted against the board members that sit on the executive compensation and resources committee because they are likely the source of the change in reporting. I urge other stockholders to do the same to send a message to IBM that shareholders want MORE transparency, not less.
No, in the U.S. you may do anything you want to a coin as long as it is not with fraudulent intent, e.g. bleaching a $1 bill and reprinting it to look like a $100 bill, etc.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/coins/portraits.shtml#q13
Really? I thought that the only time a politician wasn't lying was when his/her mouth was full.
Whoosh.
The Detroit Symphony is dead? I'll have to tell my aunt about that. I had no idea she and her husband died, nor my uncle in D.C., nor my great uncle in Pittsburgh, nor....
I said artists, not composers. And even then, there are still people writing music in a classical style even to this day. Most would argue that contemporary neoclassical music should be considered in the same light as classical music. It clearly doesn't fall neatly into any of the other genres.
In the words of Representative Ortiz, let them bake cake.
And at the same time, I have never heard classical recording artists complain that their labels are making individual movements available to their listeners. Heck, they're happy that they *have* listeners. Ecstatic, really, in this day and age. And I don't see composers whining about it, either. Lord knows, if somebody wants to do part of a piece I wrote, if it is divided into movements, more power to them. If I wanted it performed as a single work, I wouldn't have divided it up into chunks.
Heck, some of the most popular classical pieces of all time are small extractions from larger classical works---the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah, Ode to Joy from Beethoven's 9th, Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral from Lohengrin, Nessun Dorma from Turandot... the list is almost endless. Although the whole of Messiah is frequently performed, the Hallelujah Chorus is performed far more frequently because it is more manageable---more performable. Lohengrin and Turandot are seldom performed in their entirety, but those excerpts are popular band and solo vocal literature, respectively; I've personally played those excerpts several times in various ensembles over the past few years.
It has always been this way; large works endure in large part because they contain smaller works that are sufficient to stand on their own. By claiming this so-called "artistic integrity", bands like Pink Floyd are effectively saying that they don't care if their works are remembered. So be it. I've forgotten you already.
The longer something is "covered up", the less likely it is that there is any truth in the conspiracy theory. Once all the people potentially involved are dead, there's nobody left to confess on his/her death bed, and the odds are good that somebody will if a story is true, so I think the real-world upper bound is about 40-50 years.
My speculation would be more along the lines of "If I leak the entire no-fly list to the press anonymously, I'll be a hero, particularly once the public sees who is on it."
And that, my friends, is why I won't set foot through one of those damn full body scanners. There's somebody out there thinking, "If I create an anonymous video called 'Air Travelers Gone Wild', I'll be infamous." One cell phone camera is all it takes. Information, once placed in government hands, is as good as public knowledge---if not immediately, then eventually.
You could, to some degree, if you divide the work up correctly. You probably can't have more than a small number of people working on the game engine or deciding on the story line, but you can massively parallelize the people designing models, skins, etc., letting them pop items from the queue of object requests coming from the people writing the story line.
By those standards, the federal government basically doesn't do projects. Mostly, the feds just create agencies to distribute funds and regulate things. Pretty much everything the federal government does that qualifies as a "project" involves giving money to the state earmarked for a specific task. Even things like the NEA (.gov, not .org), DARPA, etc. involve giving money out to somebody else to do the project.
D'oh!
Erm... professors....
I guess it's only a matter of time before they're replaced by processors, but it hasn't happened yet.
I'm actually thinking I should patent no-click. It's the iPod "shuffle" feature applied to an online store. When you visit the site, it chooses a random product, purchases it, and ships it to you. Take that, Amazon! I'd like to see you design a store that requires fewer clicks than that!
The problem is that there are different types of learners. Some people learn visually, some aurally. Having some portion of the lecture notes on overhead slides helps the visual learners, but it isn't equivalent to being able to have precise notes that you can read, and people just can't take notes as rapidly by hand.
By taking away computers in the classroom, you unfairly bias grades towards the aural learners to a rather significant degree, so they'll just come up with other coping mechanisms like bringing camcorders, audio recorders, spy pens with camcorders built in, etc. so that they can record things, copy down copious notes, then read them later to study. This doesn't help those students. It merely means that they have to endure the lecture twice, once in person, once while copying it down.
This also means that a lot of those students will band together and have one person record it, so your class attendance will likely drop. Reduced attendance, in turn, discourages the discourse that is critical to higher levels of learning.
If processors were serious about making the learning environment better, they would give the students lecture notes and allow the students to read along if desired while they lecture, then take those notes with them as a study aid. When you do that, ta-da! No more distracted students desperately trying to take notes in class. Suddenly the students interact with you, and proper learning can take place.
Then, if students are still using laptops in class, it's either minimally to note things that the student thinks are important and/or note clarifications from in-class discussion or they're playing games/browsing the net. Either way, at that point, banning computers would be okay, though not particularly necessary.
As for the argument that requiring students to take notes by hand forces them to be selective about what they take notes on, and thus makes them better at filtering, to a large degree, that ability is dictated by biology. Some people (auditory learners) are wired for being able to quickly interpret things through their ears and separate the wheat from the chaff. Others (the visual learners who need the notes in the first place) are not. Maybe this ability can be taught to some degree, but it's more likely that you'll just get all the visual learners taking shorthand classes or using voice recorders, and unless you're training stenographers, you're really no better of than you would be just giving them a copy of the lecture notes in the first place.
Quiet, darkened room? What college was this, again? Most colleges these days use real video projectors that don't require substantially dimming the lights.
Roads in most states. Now in the long term, they fall apart because they fail to budget for required long-term maintenance, but when they first pave the things, most of the time, they're well built. :-)
Well, in the context of someone sharing docs with his wife, I would hope that they have the same software.
Besides, assuming that these web apps eventually become for-pay services (as most of them almost certainly will), the same argument could be made about both people needing to pay to subscribe to the same online editor service. The only reason web apps have an advantage in that space now is that they are free, and there's no reason to believe that this state is permanent.
Actually, a hole (or at least a serious deficiency) exists because none of these sites take precautions to prevent credential reuse, none of them use two-factor auth, none of them use on-screen keyboards with random button order, etc. There are plenty of things you could do as a web app provider that would make things significantly more secure, but AFAIK, none of them take any of those steps beyond using https, which is trivially worked around using MITM, a proxy daemon that forges site certs, and a bogus CA record in the browser... or a key logger... or....
Further, a second hole exists because there is no way for the client-server communication to be secured reliably.
With a real application, the client has the ability to include a site key and refuse to communicate with a spoofed site. Short of someone hacking that specific application (either by modifying the copy on the user's hard drive or by dangerously unreliable modification of the in-memory app down at the kernel or loader level), such an app cannot easily fall victim to a MITM attack. Browsers can and thus are frequently attacked in this way. And because browsers are a juicier target, they are much more likely to be attacked than a single-purpose app. And because the app can store data in an encrypted fashion in the user's keychain in a fashion that should prevent other apps from getting it, the password isn't being entered regularly, making key logging less useful, too.
By contrast, web apps don't have access to the SSL keys used in communication, and thus have no way to protect themselves. Further, because the code itself is sent across the wire in addition to the data, it can be trivially altered by a proxy in a nearly undetectable fashion even if it did perform such a test.
Not really. The number of people who carry apps on a USB thumb drive and run them on other people's machines is vanishingly small in the real world. The number of people who walk into an Internet cafe and log into Google Docs, by contrast, is not. Thus, even if the hole is theoretically there in both cases, the exposure is not at all similar.
I believe that most desktops *can be* secure, depending on the operator. I believe that a substantial percentage of computers in Internet cafes are *not* secure and are infected with all sorts of nasties. Are the people who would use such systems the same sorts of people who don't bother running antivirus software and click randomly on links and install random software? Hard to say, but my guess would be no. I suspect that a lot of people are willing to log into a webmail service from a random computer even if they wouldn't think about doing the sorts of things that get computers infected. So my suspicion is that web apps promote bad security practices that otherwise would not occur. That is just a gut feeling, though; more study is needed on the subject.
A second possibility is that you extract bone marrow stem cells, determine which cells aren't infected (as I'd expect odds are good that not all of them would be), culture those stem cells in a lab, then simultaneously kill off all the T cells and the bone marrow, then reintroduce the healthy stem cells in large quantities (possibly even getting some of those stem cells to differentiate into T cells in the test tube, too).
The big question in my mind is whether there's a way to determine which bone marrow stem cells aren't infected without destroying the cells.
Depends on how risky you consider anesthesia. That's about the riskiest aspect of donating marrow, followed closely by the risk of local infection.... As for the process, they basically stick a needle into your pelvic bone and draw out some marrow.
http://www.marrow.org/DONOR/When_You_re_Asked_to_Donate_fo/Donation_FAQs/index.html#process
Ask and it shall be given unto you. Partially, anyway.
FTFY.