The Consumer Electronics Show has ended their relationship with the review site c|net as a result of said site's elimination of a new product from award consideration. The product was removed from consideration on orders from c|net's corporate overlords at CBS (one of the "Big 3" American broadcasting corporations) either because CBS is currently involved in litigation over said product or, for the more cynical/realistic, because said product threatens CBS's bottom lime.
To summarize the explanation of the summary, c|net has lost whatever appearance of journalistic integrity they had left (which was already not much) by demonstrating exactly why broadcast corporations shouldn't own news publishers.
A good router can provide a guest SSID that is isolated from your home network, some of them even let you limit bandwidth and blacklist/whitelist sites. I am not sure exactly how strong the wall between the two is but the feature is pretty common these days.
If I have a guest over and that person kicks a whole through the neighbor's fence I'm automatically liable simply because he was standing on my property when he did so? I don't think that's how it works. You might find yourself in some kind of trouble depending on the exact situation, but to try to boil it down to "You will be liable" is overly simplistic to the point of being a straw man.
QoS gives packets different priority based on the type of data and net neutrality allows for that. What net neutrality doesn't allow for is differing priority based on the server; specifically, it doesn't allow you to treat packets from your servers preferentially and it doesn't allow you to blackmail other service providers for faster speeds. As for providing a guest with a slower connection than yourself, that is no different than an ISP giving different bandwidth speeds depending on your service level and has nothing to do with QoS or net neutrality.
The idea was that you would go into Vine, Vine would search your facebook profile for friends of yours who were also using Vine and add them to Vine's friend list for you. That is providing real functionality. Now you have to manually search for and enter each of your friends one by one. So no, they aren't just jumping on the bandwagon, they are using the information from the Facebook API in a way that is so incredibly obvious that the fact that it is blocked makes you wonder what the hell the API was supposed to be fore in the first place.
Going forward, Mozilla will essentially be blocking all plugins except the very latest version of Flash. The company won't say why it is exempting Adobe's plugin, but it's most likely because users expect their videos to play automatically (and advertisers expect their ads to load automatically).
Emphasis mine.
FFS, you're bolding and ranting like that's the word from Mozilla when what you are quoting is uninformed speculation from the author of the article (though it very well may be true). I suspect the average user being confronted with what is, to them, an error message when they go to youtube.com (or any number of other flash reliant sites) might have some bearing in the decision.
That might be what the embargo dates back to but at present the embargo is continued because a politician who argues against it is guaranteed to lose Florida for his party in the next election.
By that logic writing "for transport to the moon" on my paypal transaction would be proof that I have been. A memo on a paypal transaction is not proof of anything at all in any jurisdiction.
Speaking of picking nits, isn't using javascript's random function to generate the key kind of nit picky also? First and foremost, they do gather entropy from user interaction (mouse movements and key presses). Ok, in theory if a user uses the minimum path, keyboard only navigation you could possibly, maybe figure things out. Except even thing, generating the key is a one time thing. Unless you're literally on the run from the NSA when you sign up for the service I just don't see it as that big of deal (in which case, personally I'd be using truecrypt to encrypt everything before I sent it to the cloud anyway).
It's good that people are reproducing studies. Undergrads and post-grads should reproduce results as part of their training, and successful attempts should be published
Dang, you were doing so well too. How about we publish both the successes and the failures, rather than just the successes. Just publishing the successes is how we get stuff like the 11% reproducibility rates you talked about earlier. So a footnote in the original paper: "this procedure was replicated by 23 teams, those results supported the results of this paper in only 3 cases."
And if the judge disagrees with the terms of the plea bargain and wants a harsher sentence, the defendant is given the chance to change their plea to not guilty. Otherwise no one would take a plea bargain, ever.
It is possible that the chess equivalent of a lower-league football player could find incredible reserves of concentration and mental clarity for the first time in his career. It is equally possible that he could have solicited help in some imaginative form-
It's possible to have an outlier game but it's very, very unlikely in an activity like chess. A lot of the research into how grand masters learn and play shows that there is an amazing amount of (sub-conscious) memorization taking place. For example, show a grand master a board from a tournament for a split second and they will be able to recreate it from memory without a problem. Show them a board of equal complexity that was randomly generated (i.e. not a position that would ever occur in a real game) and they perform barely any better than an average person. The idea that someone would have a massive, temporary jump in playing ability is pretty farfetched. Especially when the math shows that he was playing at a level rarely, if ever, seen in human players before or since.
Or maybe it's about getting your ideas out to a wider audience? Even on Slashdot it's evident that most people don't have the foggiest clue what a nuclear thermal rocket is or how it works, there are lots of people saying that launching one would destroy ecosystems or be politically nonviable. Never mind that spacecraft with nuclear reactors (not as large of power perhaps) have been launched before and a nuclear thermal rocket doesn't release any significant amount of radioactivity. So yeah, you're not going to convince congress and the white house to fund your 50 billion dollar scheme, but you might get a couple thousand people to google "NERVA rocket engine".
You mean an electrolysis tank and a power source? Ok, granted there's some engineering to do there but considering the kinds of engineering that would go into building a spacecraft, it's a pretty trivial amount.
Just a caveat, there are times when "this code just doesn't feel right" rather than "this code doesn't conform to standards X and Y" does have merit. There might not be anything obviously wrong it with it, but sometimes it just doesn't scan right in your mind. Usually this is because you know there is a better solution, but you just can't see it. If this is taken, by all parties, as an opportunity for discussion rather than a witch hunt, it can result is much cleaner code and provide lessons learned going forward. One key to making sure that it is perceived that way is to offer your own code up for the same discussion; we've all written code that we know isn't all it could be. Saying "this works, but I don't like how it works. Any ideas?" in your own code review can go a long way towards having a team that works together.
Sometimes I don't even like my own code if I'm coming back to it a year later. It's just the nature of the game. What looks 'good' and 'right' to you changes based on what you know about coding, what problems you've encountered, what you know about the project, what you know about the budget, etc, etc.
Why do you want your media collection on an SSD? So long as the disk is fast enough to stream what you need it to stream you should be fine, at least until SSDs are cheaper than spinning disks. Personally, I have a (very) small SSD in my laptop and a spinning drive plugged into my wireless router that anyone on the network can use. Data goes on the NAS, software goes on the SSD. Even an 80gb SSD is large enough (though only just barely) as long as you don't play games like WoW with 16gb installs.
Let's say I own a mall. I install RFID readers at all the entrances and exits. When someone is caught shoplifting security reads their student ID (without their knowledge) and puts it in my system so that security is called whenever they enter the premises. That's a bit creepy no? Now imagine security is a bit less scrupulous, and they see a hot girl come through the doors, they look at the scanner and see #124785678 just entered, add that to the system so they can follow her around whenever she goes shopping.
And besides all that, there's a lot of differences between "but they could just have a teacher follow you around" and "they can track everyone in the school". A) No, they couldn't have someone watch you all the time. B) Students would be aware of the constant monitoring vs never knowing when they are or aren't being watched C) An RFID system is more easily fooled and abused so the effort is wasted. Friends carrying a friend's ID so they can skip, enemies stealing an ID so they can frame them up for something, etc.
The most important one is B though. A system where people are constantly being followed and monitored by other poeple, no matter how much money and effort are invested, merely make privacy difficult to come by. A system that is constantly tracking and monitoring every student makes privacy impossible.
The badges work at all times, the look-up table that correlates the badge number to a person is internal to the school.
But, the same person will always have the same number. Imagine I work at the mall and have access to all the scanners in the mall (probably not a realistic situation granted) and I see a hot girl come in that I would like to stalk. I can, with a bit of effort figure out the ID on her card and set up alerts for whenever she enters the building. More likely, imagine someone is accused of shoplifting, same situation. They can read the card and they can see who they are scanning, there's no need for the school's DB.
In any event, the repeated numbers *666* should not be part of the string, just so the petty number of the beast argument can be tossed.
Many interpretations of revelations don't specify 666 as the one and only number that should be avoided. Many interpretations don't have a 'number' at all, but rather a mark of some kind. The defining factor is usually that it is required to buy or sell goods or to go about your daily business without being harassed.
Except that paradigm shifts aren't about how much the results change, they're about how much the model changes. Relativity decouples time, equates energy and mass, and provides a theoretical mechanism for gravitation. It changed the way scientists thought about the unanswered problems in physics. You could no longer put forth serious theories about those unanswered questions using the assumptions of Newtonian physics without being laughed out of the room. And all the old theories had to be revisited and verified against the new assumptions of relativity.
And hopefully, someday, hopefully, the same thing will happen to relativity when they unite relativity with quantum mechanics. See, that's the other part. People hear paradigm shift and they think it's has to be something that comes out of no where, like it's not a paradigm shift if it's been being researched for 20 years and finally the evidence bears it out. It still can be a shift if it replaces the basic assumptions of the theories that it is replacing.
Slashdot Mirror
The Consumer Electronics Show has ended their relationship with the review site c|net as a result of said site's elimination of a new product from award consideration. The product was removed from consideration on orders from c|net's corporate overlords at CBS (one of the "Big 3" American broadcasting corporations) either because CBS is currently involved in litigation over said product or, for the more cynical/realistic, because said product threatens CBS's bottom lime.
To summarize the explanation of the summary, c|net has lost whatever appearance of journalistic integrity they had left (which was already not much) by demonstrating exactly why broadcast corporations shouldn't own news publishers.
A good router can provide a guest SSID that is isolated from your home network, some of them even let you limit bandwidth and blacklist/whitelist sites. I am not sure exactly how strong the wall between the two is but the feature is pretty common these days.
If I have a guest over and that person kicks a whole through the neighbor's fence I'm automatically liable simply because he was standing on my property when he did so? I don't think that's how it works. You might find yourself in some kind of trouble depending on the exact situation, but to try to boil it down to "You will be liable" is overly simplistic to the point of being a straw man.
QoS gives packets different priority based on the type of data and net neutrality allows for that. What net neutrality doesn't allow for is differing priority based on the server; specifically, it doesn't allow you to treat packets from your servers preferentially and it doesn't allow you to blackmail other service providers for faster speeds. As for providing a guest with a slower connection than yourself, that is no different than an ISP giving different bandwidth speeds depending on your service level and has nothing to do with QoS or net neutrality.
The idea was that you would go into Vine, Vine would search your facebook profile for friends of yours who were also using Vine and add them to Vine's friend list for you. That is providing real functionality. Now you have to manually search for and enter each of your friends one by one. So no, they aren't just jumping on the bandwagon, they are using the information from the Facebook API in a way that is so incredibly obvious that the fact that it is blocked makes you wonder what the hell the API was supposed to be fore in the first place.
Going forward, Mozilla will essentially be blocking all plugins except the very latest version of Flash. The company won't say why it is exempting Adobe's plugin, but it's most likely because users expect their videos to play automatically (and advertisers expect their ads to load automatically).
Emphasis mine.
FFS, you're bolding and ranting like that's the word from Mozilla when what you are quoting is uninformed speculation from the author of the article (though it very well may be true). I suspect the average user being confronted with what is, to them, an error message when they go to youtube.com (or any number of other flash reliant sites) might have some bearing in the decision.
Maybe use their whatever-it's-an-option encryption as added layer and call it a day.
I thought I remember reading that encrypting an encrypted file can actually make it less secure than either encryption step alone.
That might be what the embargo dates back to but at present the embargo is continued because a politician who argues against it is guaranteed to lose Florida for his party in the next election.
By that logic writing "for transport to the moon" on my paypal transaction would be proof that I have been. A memo on a paypal transaction is not proof of anything at all in any jurisdiction.
They're all people who are famous primarily for screwing other people people and having lots of evidence go public. ;)
Speaking of picking nits, isn't using javascript's random function to generate the key kind of nit picky also? First and foremost, they do gather entropy from user interaction (mouse movements and key presses). Ok, in theory if a user uses the minimum path, keyboard only navigation you could possibly, maybe figure things out. Except even thing, generating the key is a one time thing. Unless you're literally on the run from the NSA when you sign up for the service I just don't see it as that big of deal (in which case, personally I'd be using truecrypt to encrypt everything before I sent it to the cloud anyway).
It's good that people are reproducing studies. Undergrads and post-grads should reproduce results as part of their training, and successful attempts should be published
Dang, you were doing so well too. How about we publish both the successes and the failures, rather than just the successes. Just publishing the successes is how we get stuff like the 11% reproducibility rates you talked about earlier. So a footnote in the original paper: "this procedure was replicated by 23 teams, those results supported the results of this paper in only 3 cases."
Iowa has a marijuana tax stamp. Selling marijuana without the stamp nets you a fine but that doesn't mean that selling marijuana with it is legal.
And if the judge disagrees with the terms of the plea bargain and wants a harsher sentence, the defendant is given the chance to change their plea to not guilty. Otherwise no one would take a plea bargain, ever.
You're comparing burning old growth forests that take decades or centuries to grow to burning grasses that can grow 10 ft tall in a single season?
It is possible that the chess equivalent of a lower-league football player could find incredible reserves of concentration and mental clarity for the first time in his career. It is equally possible that he could have solicited help in some imaginative form-
It's possible to have an outlier game but it's very, very unlikely in an activity like chess. A lot of the research into how grand masters learn and play shows that there is an amazing amount of (sub-conscious) memorization taking place. For example, show a grand master a board from a tournament for a split second and they will be able to recreate it from memory without a problem. Show them a board of equal complexity that was randomly generated (i.e. not a position that would ever occur in a real game) and they perform barely any better than an average person. The idea that someone would have a massive, temporary jump in playing ability is pretty farfetched. Especially when the math shows that he was playing at a level rarely, if ever, seen in human players before or since.
Or maybe it's about getting your ideas out to a wider audience? Even on Slashdot it's evident that most people don't have the foggiest clue what a nuclear thermal rocket is or how it works, there are lots of people saying that launching one would destroy ecosystems or be politically nonviable. Never mind that spacecraft with nuclear reactors (not as large of power perhaps) have been launched before and a nuclear thermal rocket doesn't release any significant amount of radioactivity. So yeah, you're not going to convince congress and the white house to fund your 50 billion dollar scheme, but you might get a couple thousand people to google "NERVA rocket engine".
a whole bunch of magical technology to do so?
You mean an electrolysis tank and a power source? Ok, granted there's some engineering to do there but considering the kinds of engineering that would go into building a spacecraft, it's a pretty trivial amount.
Just a caveat, there are times when "this code just doesn't feel right" rather than "this code doesn't conform to standards X and Y" does have merit. There might not be anything obviously wrong it with it, but sometimes it just doesn't scan right in your mind. Usually this is because you know there is a better solution, but you just can't see it. If this is taken, by all parties, as an opportunity for discussion rather than a witch hunt, it can result is much cleaner code and provide lessons learned going forward. One key to making sure that it is perceived that way is to offer your own code up for the same discussion; we've all written code that we know isn't all it could be. Saying "this works, but I don't like how it works. Any ideas?" in your own code review can go a long way towards having a team that works together.
Sometimes I don't even like my own code if I'm coming back to it a year later. It's just the nature of the game. What looks 'good' and 'right' to you changes based on what you know about coding, what problems you've encountered, what you know about the project, what you know about the budget, etc, etc.
Why do you want your media collection on an SSD? So long as the disk is fast enough to stream what you need it to stream you should be fine, at least until SSDs are cheaper than spinning disks. Personally, I have a (very) small SSD in my laptop and a spinning drive plugged into my wireless router that anyone on the network can use. Data goes on the NAS, software goes on the SSD. Even an 80gb SSD is large enough (though only just barely) as long as you don't play games like WoW with 16gb installs.
Supposedly the evidence was deleted from the camera while in police custody.
Fixed that for ya.
Let's say I own a mall. I install RFID readers at all the entrances and exits. When someone is caught shoplifting security reads their student ID (without their knowledge) and puts it in my system so that security is called whenever they enter the premises. That's a bit creepy no? Now imagine security is a bit less scrupulous, and they see a hot girl come through the doors, they look at the scanner and see #124785678 just entered, add that to the system so they can follow her around whenever she goes shopping.
And besides all that, there's a lot of differences between "but they could just have a teacher follow you around" and "they can track everyone in the school". A) No, they couldn't have someone watch you all the time. B) Students would be aware of the constant monitoring vs never knowing when they are or aren't being watched C) An RFID system is more easily fooled and abused so the effort is wasted. Friends carrying a friend's ID so they can skip, enemies stealing an ID so they can frame them up for something, etc.
The most important one is B though. A system where people are constantly being followed and monitored by other poeple, no matter how much money and effort are invested, merely make privacy difficult to come by. A system that is constantly tracking and monitoring every student makes privacy impossible.
The badges work at all times, the look-up table that correlates the badge number to a person is internal to the school.
But, the same person will always have the same number. Imagine I work at the mall and have access to all the scanners in the mall (probably not a realistic situation granted) and I see a hot girl come in that I would like to stalk. I can, with a bit of effort figure out the ID on her card and set up alerts for whenever she enters the building. More likely, imagine someone is accused of shoplifting, same situation. They can read the card and they can see who they are scanning, there's no need for the school's DB.
In any event, the repeated numbers *666* should not be part of the string, just so the petty number of the beast argument can be tossed.
Many interpretations of revelations don't specify 666 as the one and only number that should be avoided. Many interpretations don't have a 'number' at all, but rather a mark of some kind. The defining factor is usually that it is required to buy or sell goods or to go about your daily business without being harassed.
Except that paradigm shifts aren't about how much the results change, they're about how much the model changes. Relativity decouples time, equates energy and mass, and provides a theoretical mechanism for gravitation. It changed the way scientists thought about the unanswered problems in physics. You could no longer put forth serious theories about those unanswered questions using the assumptions of Newtonian physics without being laughed out of the room. And all the old theories had to be revisited and verified against the new assumptions of relativity.
And hopefully, someday, hopefully, the same thing will happen to relativity when they unite relativity with quantum mechanics. See, that's the other part. People hear paradigm shift and they think it's has to be something that comes out of no where, like it's not a paradigm shift if it's been being researched for 20 years and finally the evidence bears it out. It still can be a shift if it replaces the basic assumptions of the theories that it is replacing.