I couldn't agree more -- well said. Of course, the problem is in deciding which laws would have the intended effect. I personally believe we could get by with a little less free speech in a situation like this, but I wouldn't want to be the one to decide where exactly to draw that line.
No, phishing is also a design problem, here's why:
Web authentication is fundamentally broken. We've known this since forever. The whole idea of typing your credentials into a web page is a poorly thought out idea. Authentication/authorization should be done out-of-band, in a way that cannot be plausibly emulated by the content of a web page.
There's a reason why phishing attacks don't work against your local computer account password. You get an email saying "your computer has been compromised, please go to this website and enter your user name and password" and you immediately know something is wrong, even if you have no idea how any of this works. Why? Because you're never asked to go to a website to do anything related to administering your local computer.
Actually, even without phishing attacks (which took a surprisingly (in retrospect) long time to become common) web authentication would still be horrible design, just from a usability standpoint.
You make it sound like it's some display problem in the email client. It's not. The entire email protocol is broken by design and always has been. The technical solution is easy, but it breaks compatibility with an enormous amount of deployed software. Things have to get pretty bad before people are willing to break that compatibility. Actually, "pretty bad" happened a long time ago, I should have said "horrendously fucked". Err, wait, never mind, It'll never happen.
Even when you explain it to them, most of them are too dumb to understand it.
If you are a programmer, you are part of the problem. The user isn't dumb, s/he just has better things to do than become a Software Engineer just to use what has become an everyday appliance. The problem here is bad design, period. Accept that and maybe we can move on.
I don't know much about modern computer engineering but hell, if you can wake from sleep that fast, you might as well sleep every time there is no schedulable thread.
...Weird to think about your computer sleeping between each key press, or between each network packet. You'd probably want to keep the display powered a little longer though;)
This looks like a good place to post this. I took the data from this economist article and broke it down by red vs. blue state according to this map. This is what I found:
* There were 20 surplus states and 30 deficit states.
* Of the 24 states that voted for Romney, 4 of them had a surplus.
* Of the 26 states that voted for Obama, 16 of them had a surplus.
* Together, the blue states had a net surplus of 2.57 trillion, the red states had a net deficit of 1.50 trillion.
* The average blue state had a surplus of 98.8 billion; the average red state had a deficit of 63.0 billion.
* Four blue states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Minnesota) each had a surplus greater than all the red states with a surplus combined.
No I don't have OCR software, but I figured out Google will do it (it's an option when you import an image to Google Docs.) I'm happy with PNG, if it must be an image, but FFS, why post a table of numbers as an IMAGE?
Wow, thanks for that link. Gotta love the economist.
If you compare the map from that article to a 2012 election map (e.g. this one), there is an unmistakable correlation. Texas is an anomaly.
Of the 20 states that give more than they receive, 16 of them are blue. The first red state is Nebraska at 9th place, but it's surplus (44.3bn) is tiny compared to the big surplus states (e.g. New York with a surplus of 956.2bn). Of the 4 surplus red states, only Texas (surplus of 389.8bn) tops 100bn surplus.
If the country were to split to USA_red, and USA_blue, USA_blue would have a huge tax surplus, while USA_red would be screwed (Texas would be carrying them, in fact.)
If I can figure out a way to OCR the economist data (in PNG format, FFS, why?), I'll post some numbers.
Toward each other or away from each other makes no difference.
From your frame of reference, both light beams are moving 1c. From the frame of reference of either of the light beams, the other beam is moving at 1c.
You are getting 2c because you are switching your frame of reference in the middle of your thought experiment. First you are using yourself as the frame of reference, and measuring 1c for each of the light beams (in opposite directions). Then you are switching your frame of reference to one of the light beams when you add 1c + 1c = 2c.
If you think more choice is always better than less, then you've obviously never looked at it from the perspective of a developer. Fragmentation is exactly the reason I hope I never have to develop desktop software for Linux. Why would you wish such hell on developers for your platform?
...it's much less about what the recipient has done and how can we recognize what he has done, but much much more about how can we use this prize to leverage some political change.
The Nobel committee should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for using the award in this way. After all, isn't using the prize to promote peace more productive than using it merely to congratulate people?
These awards are clearly in large part politically motivated.
Yeah, clearly.... Because there's no way there could be an actual correlation between political views and "the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
I agree with what you said, and I think it's dangerous to go messing with stuff we don't understand, but...
It's also possible that there are relatively simple things that can be done that are just simply an improvement, with no side effects, no trade-offs, and no long term surprises. Why? Because even though, as you say, the body has evolved over a long period of time, natural selection has to work at the level of the genes. At that level, small changes can have many consequences, and usually involve trade-offs. But natural selection doesn't have (easy) access to the kinds of mechanisms being explored here. If there were simple improvements involving magnetism (or whatever) that had no undesirable effects, natural selection might simply never discover them. But that doesn't mean that we can't.
From my perspective, any external process that changes anything in or on my body is invasive...
By this definition there is no such thing as an (effective) noninvasive procedure. Anything meeting this definition of noninvasive would be utterly pointless.
Nope. He made derogatory comments about women specifically, not about people in general; There is an obvious and consequential difference. The word 'bimbo' is misogynous in itself, as is 'bitch'.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't agree more -- well said. Of course, the problem is in deciding which laws would have the intended effect. I personally believe we could get by with a little less free speech in a situation like this, but I wouldn't want to be the one to decide where exactly to draw that line.
Viruses and trojan horses are design problems.
Agreed.
Phishing is not.
No, phishing is also a design problem, here's why:
Web authentication is fundamentally broken. We've known this since forever. The whole idea of typing your credentials into a web page is a poorly thought out idea. Authentication/authorization should be done out-of-band, in a way that cannot be plausibly emulated by the content of a web page.
There's a reason why phishing attacks don't work against your local computer account password. You get an email saying "your computer has been compromised, please go to this website and enter your user name and password" and you immediately know something is wrong, even if you have no idea how any of this works. Why? Because you're never asked to go to a website to do anything related to administering your local computer.
Actually, even without phishing attacks (which took a surprisingly (in retrospect) long time to become common) web authentication would still be horrible design, just from a usability standpoint.
Off topic. We're talking about common decency here, what does the law have to do with it?
You make it sound like it's some display problem in the email client. It's not. The entire email protocol is broken by design and always has been. The technical solution is easy, but it breaks compatibility with an enormous amount of deployed software. Things have to get pretty bad before people are willing to break that compatibility. Actually, "pretty bad" happened a long time ago, I should have said "horrendously fucked". Err, wait, never mind, It'll never happen.
Even when you explain it to them, most of them are too dumb to understand it.
If you are a programmer, you are part of the problem. The user isn't dumb, s/he just has better things to do than become a Software Engineer just to use what has become an everyday appliance. The problem here is bad design, period. Accept that and maybe we can move on.
I want a set of sails made from this. Neatly solves a problem with solar panels on a sailboat: half the time they are in the shadow of a sail.
what if you could boot in nanoseconds?
I don't know much about modern computer engineering but hell, if you can wake from sleep that fast, you might as well sleep every time there is no schedulable thread.
...Weird to think about your computer sleeping between each key press, or between each network packet. You'd probably want to keep the display powered a little longer though ;)
They already thought of that. They're building another army or robots to handle maintenance of these ones.
If you're interested, I did the OCR and posted some numbers later in this thread.
This looks like a good place to post this. I took the data from this economist article and broke it down by red vs. blue state according to this map. This is what I found:
* There were 20 surplus states and 30 deficit states.
* Of the 24 states that voted for Romney, 4 of them had a surplus.
* Of the 26 states that voted for Obama, 16 of them had a surplus.
* Together, the blue states had a net surplus of 2.57 trillion, the red states had a net deficit of 1.50 trillion.
* The average blue state had a surplus of 98.8 billion; the average red state had a deficit of 63.0 billion.
* Four blue states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Minnesota) each had a surplus greater than all the red states with a surplus combined.
No I don't have OCR software, but I figured out Google will do it (it's an option when you import an image to Google Docs.) I'm happy with PNG, if it must be an image, but FFS, why post a table of numbers as an IMAGE?
Wow, thanks for that link. Gotta love the economist.
If you compare the map from that article to a 2012 election map (e.g. this one), there is an unmistakable correlation. Texas is an anomaly.
Of the 20 states that give more than they receive, 16 of them are blue. The first red state is Nebraska at 9th place, but it's surplus (44.3bn) is tiny compared to the big surplus states (e.g. New York with a surplus of 956.2bn). Of the 4 surplus red states, only Texas (surplus of 389.8bn) tops 100bn surplus.
If the country were to split to USA_red, and USA_blue, USA_blue would have a huge tax surplus, while USA_red would be screwed (Texas would be carrying them, in fact.)
If I can figure out a way to OCR the economist data (in PNG format, FFS, why?), I'll post some numbers.
These guys are indifferent to nearly everything.
You can't add velocities like that.
Toward each other or away from each other makes no difference.
From your frame of reference, both light beams are moving 1c. From the frame of reference of either of the light beams, the other beam is moving at 1c.
You are getting 2c because you are switching your frame of reference in the middle of your thought experiment. First you are using yourself as the frame of reference, and measuring 1c for each of the light beams (in opposite directions). Then you are switching your frame of reference to one of the light beams when you add 1c + 1c = 2c.
You can't add velocities like that.
Nothing is excluded by anything, if you can handle or prevent the paradoxes.
What exactly does it mean for something to be excluded by theory, if it doesn't mean that it leads to a contradiction?
If you think more choice is always better than less, then you've obviously never looked at it from the perspective of a developer. Fragmentation is exactly the reason I hope I never have to develop desktop software for Linux. Why would you wish such hell on developers for your platform?
The Nobel committee should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for using the award in this way. After all, isn't using the prize to promote peace more productive than using it merely to congratulate people?
Yeah, clearly.... Because there's no way there could be an actual correlation between political views and "the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
I agree with what you said, and I think it's dangerous to go messing with stuff we don't understand, but... It's also possible that there are relatively simple things that can be done that are just simply an improvement, with no side effects, no trade-offs, and no long term surprises. Why? Because even though, as you say, the body has evolved over a long period of time, natural selection has to work at the level of the genes. At that level, small changes can have many consequences, and usually involve trade-offs. But natural selection doesn't have (easy) access to the kinds of mechanisms being explored here. If there were simple improvements involving magnetism (or whatever) that had no undesirable effects, natural selection might simply never discover them. But that doesn't mean that we can't.
By this definition there is no such thing as an (effective) noninvasive procedure. Anything meeting this definition of noninvasive would be utterly pointless.
Nope. He made derogatory comments about women specifically, not about people in general; There is an obvious and consequential difference. The word 'bimbo' is misogynous in itself, as is 'bitch'.
It seems more likely to me that they would develop immunity to the vaccine than a tendency to avoid humans.
I think you meant ActiveX. ASPX is a server-side technology; I doesn't require browser support.
I'm tempted to say yes. If the dinosaur was previously undiscovered, it wouldn't be unclear to say "scientists discover a new dinosaur."