The FBI can bring a lot of pressure to bear and were highly motivated to solve this case. I wouldn't be surprised if his children were obliquely threatened with some sort of negative consequence should he not cooperate.
That was indeed the case. The threat to his children was not seeing their father when in prison. That's why he agreed to cooperate. [src]
I disagree. For me, there are three important points to discuss programming languages:
1. Syntax
2. Access
3. Community
ad 1) We know all about and can analyse the syntax. Fine. All the discussion happens here. ad 2) But what does the finest Haskell help me if I can't access a CD, Bluetooth or a XMPP server, and whether it makes a difference where I want to run the code (web server, mobile phone, mainframe, laptop). In principle, all languages are Turing-complete and equivalent, and I can write wrappers between languages, but as long as I can't *practically* do all the things I need, I'm stuck. The available libraries/access methods draw a picture of what is possible. Here C due to its age, Java with it's tendency to make package that are reusable and Python are among the best (from my experience). As an aside,.NET lacks here, and massively because there is no spirit to make libraries available to others for free causing a non-availability of free libraries. ad 3) A language is also dominated by its users. This is most noticable with PHP. The background of users dominates what a language should do. Also, this determines the amount of help and easy-to-access documentation. Which again makes a language popular or not.
One individual is not capable of addressing (2). Also, whether a language is picked up by the masses (3), or whether you can build and hold this community, is not a rational, predictable process. When designing a language, you don't have full control over success.
When comparing two languages, don't just look at (1), also look at (2) and (3).
And apparently when Google acquired the company Aardvark they also swung the wrecking ball at the lone developer of the Aardvark extension for Firefox. So in the process of acquiring a lame duck and trying to protect its trademark Google also destroyed one of the best extensions for Firefox.
Thanks, Google.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. If the acquired companies product doesn't work out, what happens to it? It won't be produced anymore, but the company still holds the IP rights. So effectively, this line of innovation is killed. Appearantly, Siri -- before acquisition -- was supposed to be for all devices in everyday life (even cars, houses), but with Apple holding their hand on it, it won't come to the consumer.
All experimental attempts to create the Higgs Boson have failed. It's time we gave up on this rabbit hole and tried to focus on more important physics.
Consistently failing to find what your theories predict. Is it good or is it whack?
You should say: Consistantly finding theories to be false, never knowing things to be true. If that is all science can do... is it good or is it whack?
Well if your "reasoning, depth perception and peripheral vision" are impaired at.06 BAC [src], things arguably relevant to driving, it makes sense to put the limit somewhere around.05 BAC. Then if you double the risk of accidents at 0.05 BAC, and triple it at 0.1 BAC, with 0 BAC as a control... what more argument do you need to put it the DUI levels where they are now? [src]
DUI is not exactly a new phenomenon that doesn't have enough studies yet.
You used the word contact, and I mean "next to it" in the sense that they are not in contact (gravitational pull only). But I think we just need to try it on some test asteroid -- e.g. to bring it into an orbit around the earth.
Society has now successfully established that reaction_time(drunken-driver) leads to more accidents (especially troublesome because you are not just injuring yourself with your stupidity, but other, innocent people are killed).
The logical conclusion is that the danger of smartphones is large and people are not aware of it (unlike with drinking or phoning). While we are also now kindof aware that calling while driving is a bad idea, those two don't have a real stigma yet (like NZ ads "If you drink and drive --- you're a bloody idiot").
"incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people"
Not sure why it took "research" to understand this. I thought everyone knew this.
The idea of the effect they showed was that this:
- Competent workers estimate e.g. effort for a project more correct, and conservatively. They understand difficulties and feel less sure about difficult projects. They are more competent in evaluating the work of others, and understand what they don't understand about a project.
- Incompetent (less experienced) workers underestimate the effort for a project and feel sure of their abilities to achieve it (more than they should). They are less good in evaluating others, and don't see any areas where they don't have the expertise to make judgements.
Combining the two, incompentent or simple untrained workers (e.g. secretaries) will not delegate problematic areas to experts. The chain of judgement/delegation ends at incompetent people. here is the previous research
There is a danger in governments that "small" officials think they can solve issues without consulting experts because of this effect, and a half-assed solution is the result.
Of course it is difficult to judge for an outsider whether a politician will be a good leader and can work well once elected into a certain position. But that's why we vote for parties and directions, and not for individual people.
Touching/Landing on asteroids is difficult because they have very complicated structures and rotations. The best way to deflect an asteroid is not by nukes or what you suggest, but by spraying it white (solar radiation pressure) or parking a mass (e.g. 1t) with a ion drive next to it.
A true darknet would not depend on traditiona DNS (root servers). I can't immediately tell from their FAQ if their methods are entirely independent of DNS.
Why does it matter? The point of private encryption is that you can hide what you transmit between A and B through a untrusted network, and be assured of the integrity of the transmission. FWIW, the FAQ entry does say they use a DHT, namely bittorrents, although they can also somehow take advantage of dynamic DNS.
Java interfaces are essentially a fancy form of documentation.
They are also a contract (although I admit not the fanciest).
Re:advantages of multiple inheritance
on
PHP 5.4 Released
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Multiple inheritance is supported in some form or another in just about every OO language in existence. It's just that most prefer to restrict multiply-inherited traits to methods and call them "interfaces" instead of "base classes." IMO, that's entirely unnecessary. If I want an "interface" in C++, then I write a pure abstract class without any member variables and use it the same way I'd use an interface in Java. If I want true multiple inheritance in Java, I'm just out of luck. MI can be used in some very nasty ways, but if you tried to remove each and every feature that a programmer could possibly misuse from a language you'd pretty quickly find yourself with an insanely verbose toy language that no experienced developer would ever want to touch.
I disagree: Taking away options in the language can make the outcome better. For instance, you *have* to strongly type in Java, and you *have* to put everything in classes. Surely its safe to say that Java tends to be more modular by default. If you take away the update operator, you end up in the wonderful world of side-effect-free programming, that the compiler also can take advantage of.
I have yet to see an example where MI is the best solution in a real e.g. Java program.
... having php adopt a bad idea from Java and making it worse? Wouldn't we be better off actually having static typing instead?
Yes, a class is a terrible concept that must be abolished at once!
What are you criticizing exactly?
Re:advantages of multiple inheritance
on
PHP 5.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Also, you can emulate a goto easily:
cmd1; start:
cmd2;
a = cmd3;
if ( a == 0) { goto start; }
cmd4;
becomes
cmd1;
while(1) {
cmd2;
a = cmd3;
if (a == 0) continue;
break;
}
cmd4;
Re:advantages of multiple inheritance
on
PHP 5.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I thought I would need it about 3 times in projects, but never ended up using it because there is always a way around it (delegation as last resort). That tells me that it really never is a requirement for a programming language, and even programming classes were never able to come up with a useful demo example other than the car/boat story. However, inheriting/implementing multiple interfaces with one class *is* useful, and you do it all the time e.g. in Java. Perhaps this is meant here?
I think in MSI the installation procedure is in the executable, while rpm/deb are tarballs, but you can (optionally) configure a hook to have a script called when copying is done. In other words, on windows, the MSI package is in control, while on linux, the package manager is in control.
I do support the use of private security guards to wander around in places where all that is needed is a biped capable of moving while wearing a uniform. There are many places that don't need police patrols. However, I am very much opposed to going any further than that into real police activities. Investigating crimes is something that only real trained and authorised police officers should be doing. These proposals do include that.
What are they allowed to do? Can they step in and have rights of cops? Are they allowed to touch you if you don't touch them? Can they be videotaped? Or do they just basically have citizens rights, and that's enough for their work?
For most people I personally talked with about licenses, the reason is "if there is a fork of my software, I want to be able to use it", with being able to incorporate improvements into their version as close second.
There is no license that guarantees that code changes will come back to you. They only guarantee that code will reach those who buy/download the fork. Unless you go for RPL, which is GPL-incompatible. That code comes back to you in GPL is an emerging effect.
Copyright is not merely theft. As a form of censorship, it's a crime against humanity.
Copyright is a tradeoff between creators of content and users, that society has decided on as a useful concept. Such a statement can only come from someone who doesn't create and wants to use everything for free. Supporting GPL and opposing copyright doesn't go together.
There are package managers for Windows, taking the idea from linux package managers. They all suck... probably because it is difficult to create complex software for Windows that also looks good and is easy to use, then make it easy to install. Another trouble is that windows software doesn't come in compressed archives that you can copy somewhere -- MSI is more complicated. And don't get me started on uninstalling.
Definitely a good idea to - first make Windows look like Linux (using Open Source software like Libre/Open Office, etc.) - then make Linux look like Windows (similar layout/style on the screen, programs available where they were, etc.) - then later introduce people to the new possibilities. We should learn from the massive Linux transitions e.g. in governments -- some have success/failure stories, and some give "lessons learned" summaries.
One of the reasons Windows is popular in companies is that people have it at home and are used to it.
So here's an idea: Use a distribution that you can recommend your people to also use at home.
Your choices are fine, why not lend people 3 DVDs and let them try out -- if they have trouble with the first, they can switch without hassle. No need to nail it down to one.
Slashdot Mirror
The FBI can bring a lot of pressure to bear and were highly motivated to solve this case. I wouldn't be surprised if his children were obliquely threatened with some sort of negative consequence should he not cooperate.
That was indeed the case. The threat to his children was not seeing their father when in prison. That's why he agreed to cooperate. [src]
The lesson for us to learn --- never have kids.
I disagree. For me, there are three important points to discuss programming languages:
1. Syntax
2. Access
3. Community
ad 1) We know all about and can analyse the syntax. Fine. All the discussion happens here. .NET lacks here, and massively because there is no spirit to make libraries available to others for free causing a non-availability of free libraries.
ad 2) But what does the finest Haskell help me if I can't access a CD, Bluetooth or a XMPP server, and whether it makes a difference where I want to run the code (web server, mobile phone, mainframe, laptop). In principle, all languages are Turing-complete and equivalent, and I can write wrappers between languages, but as long as I can't *practically* do all the things I need, I'm stuck. The available libraries/access methods draw a picture of what is possible. Here C due to its age, Java with it's tendency to make package that are reusable and Python are among the best (from my experience). As an aside,
ad 3) A language is also dominated by its users. This is most noticable with PHP. The background of users dominates what a language should do. Also, this determines the amount of help and easy-to-access documentation. Which again makes a language popular or not.
One individual is not capable of addressing (2). Also, whether a language is picked up by the masses (3), or whether you can build and hold this community, is not a rational, predictable process. When designing a language, you don't have full control over success.
When comparing two languages, don't just look at (1), also look at (2) and (3).
And apparently when Google acquired the company Aardvark they also swung the wrecking ball at the lone developer of the Aardvark extension for Firefox. So in the process of acquiring a lame duck and trying to protect its trademark Google also destroyed one of the best extensions for Firefox.
Thanks, Google.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. If the acquired companies product doesn't work out, what happens to it? It won't be produced anymore, but the company still holds the IP rights. So effectively, this line of innovation is killed. Appearantly, Siri -- before acquisition -- was supposed to be for all devices in everyday life (even cars, houses), but with Apple holding their hand on it, it won't come to the consumer.
I prefer this one http://abstrusegoose.com/118 .......... http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/H/Higgs.asp
The particle accelerator is not aimed for the Higgs Boson only, that's only the start.
All experimental attempts to create the Higgs Boson have failed. It's time we gave up on this rabbit hole and tried to focus on more important physics.
Consistently failing to find what your theories predict. Is it good or is it whack?
You should say: Consistantly finding theories to be false, never knowing things to be true. If that is all science can do ... is it good or is it whack?
Don't worry, it's a method of the population.
Well if your "reasoning, depth perception and peripheral vision" are impaired at .06 BAC [src], things arguably relevant to driving, it makes sense to put the limit somewhere around .05 BAC. ... what more argument do you need to put it the DUI levels where they are now? [src]
Then if you double the risk of accidents at 0.05 BAC, and triple it at 0.1 BAC, with 0 BAC as a control
DUI is not exactly a new phenomenon that doesn't have enough studies yet.
You used the word contact, and I mean "next to it" in the sense that they are not in contact (gravitational pull only). But I think we just need to try it on some test asteroid -- e.g. to bring it into an orbit around the earth.
I think it just says
reaction_time(smartphone-user) > reaction_time(drunken-driver)
Society has now successfully established that reaction_time(drunken-driver) leads to more accidents (especially troublesome because you are not just injuring yourself with your stupidity, but other, innocent people are killed).
The logical conclusion is that the danger of smartphones is large and people are not aware of it (unlike with drinking or phoning). While we are also now kindof aware that calling while driving is a bad idea, those two don't have a real stigma yet (like NZ ads "If you drink and drive --- you're a bloody idiot").
"incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people"
Not sure why it took "research" to understand this. I thought everyone knew this.
The idea of the effect they showed was that this:
- Competent workers estimate e.g. effort for a project more correct, and conservatively. They understand difficulties and feel less sure about difficult projects. They are more competent in evaluating the work of others, and understand what they don't understand about a project.
- Incompetent (less experienced) workers underestimate the effort for a project and feel sure of their abilities to achieve it (more than they should). They are less good in evaluating others, and don't see any areas where they don't have the expertise to make judgements.
Combining the two, incompentent or simple untrained workers (e.g. secretaries) will not delegate problematic areas to experts. The chain of judgement/delegation ends at incompetent people. here is the previous research
There is a danger in governments that "small" officials think they can solve issues without consulting experts because of this effect, and a half-assed solution is the result.
Of course it is difficult to judge for an outsider whether a politician will be a good leader and can work well once elected into a certain position. But that's why we vote for parties and directions, and not for individual people.
Touching/Landing on asteroids is difficult because they have very complicated structures and rotations. The best way to deflect an asteroid is not by nukes or what you suggest, but by spraying it white (solar radiation pressure) or parking a mass (e.g. 1t) with a ion drive next to it.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-deflect-asteroid.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid-impact_avoidance#Collision_avoidance_strategies
A true darknet would not depend on traditiona DNS (root servers). I can't immediately tell from their FAQ if their methods are entirely independent of DNS.
Why does it matter? The point of private encryption is that you can hide what you transmit between A and B through a untrusted network, and be assured of the integrity of the transmission.
FWIW, the FAQ entry does say they use a DHT, namely bittorrents, although they can also somehow take advantage of dynamic DNS.
Java interfaces are essentially a fancy form of documentation.
They are also a contract (although I admit not the fanciest).
Multiple inheritance is supported in some form or another in just about every OO language in existence. It's just that most prefer to restrict multiply-inherited traits to methods and call them "interfaces" instead of "base classes." IMO, that's entirely unnecessary. If I want an "interface" in C++, then I write a pure abstract class without any member variables and use it the same way I'd use an interface in Java. If I want true multiple inheritance in Java, I'm just out of luck. MI can be used in some very nasty ways, but if you tried to remove each and every feature that a programmer could possibly misuse from a language you'd pretty quickly find yourself with an insanely verbose toy language that no experienced developer would ever want to touch.
I disagree: Taking away options in the language can make the outcome better. For instance, you *have* to strongly type in Java, and you *have* to put everything in classes. Surely its safe to say that Java tends to be more modular by default.
If you take away the update operator, you end up in the wonderful world of side-effect-free programming, that the compiler also can take advantage of.
I have yet to see an example where MI is the best solution in a real e.g. Java program.
Yes, a class is a terrible concept that must be abolished at once!
What are you criticizing exactly?
Also, you can emulate a goto easily:
cmd1;
start:
cmd2;
a = cmd3;
if ( a == 0) { goto start; }
cmd4;
becomes
cmd1;
while(1) {
cmd2;
a = cmd3;
if (a == 0) continue;
break;
}
cmd4;
I thought I would need it about 3 times in projects, but never ended up using it because there is always a way around it (delegation as last resort). That tells me that it really never is a requirement for a programming language, and even programming classes were never able to come up with a useful demo example other than the car/boat story.
However, inheriting/implementing multiple interfaces with one class *is* useful, and you do it all the time e.g. in Java. Perhaps this is meant here?
?????
No I am not saying that. In fact I was wondering if those private security guards are harder to hold accountable as public servants than cops.
I think in MSI the installation procedure is in the executable, while rpm/deb are tarballs, but you can (optionally) configure a hook to have a script called when copying is done.
In other words, on windows, the MSI package is in control, while on linux, the package manager is in control.
I do support the use of private security guards to wander around in places where all that is needed is a biped capable of moving while wearing a uniform. There are many places that don't need police patrols. However, I am very much opposed to going any further than that into real police activities. Investigating crimes is something that only real trained and authorised police officers should be doing. These proposals do include that.
What are they allowed to do? Can they step in and have rights of cops? Are they allowed to touch you if you don't touch them? Can they be videotaped?
Or do they just basically have citizens rights, and that's enough for their work?
For most people I personally talked with about licenses, the reason is "if there is a fork of my software, I want to be able to use it", with being able to incorporate improvements into their version as close second.
There is no license that guarantees that code changes will come back to you. They only guarantee that code will reach those who buy/download the fork. Unless you go for RPL, which is GPL-incompatible. That code comes back to you in GPL is an emerging effect.
Copyright is a tradeoff between creators of content and users, that society has decided on as a useful concept. Such a statement can only come from someone who doesn't create and wants to use everything for free. Supporting GPL and opposing copyright doesn't go together.
There are package managers for Windows, taking the idea from linux package managers. They all suck ... probably because it is difficult to create complex software for Windows that also looks good and is easy to use, then make it easy to install.
Another trouble is that windows software doesn't come in compressed archives that you can copy somewhere -- MSI is more complicated. And don't get me started on uninstalling.
Yes, here is a particularly interesting one (don't get distracted by the filename)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/if-you-pull-out-your.ars
Definitely a good idea to
- first make Windows look like Linux (using Open Source software like Libre/Open Office, etc.)
- then make Linux look like Windows (similar layout/style on the screen, programs available where they were, etc.)
- then later introduce people to the new possibilities. We should learn from the massive Linux transitions e.g. in governments -- some have success/failure stories, and some give "lessons learned" summaries.
One of the reasons Windows is popular in companies is that people have it at home and are used to it.
So here's an idea: Use a distribution that you can recommend your people to also use at home.
Your choices are fine, why not lend people 3 DVDs and let them try out -- if they have trouble with the first, they can switch without hassle. No need to nail it down to one.