You have to specifically DO something to test your claim and NOT do other things for control for it to be an experiment.
But in that case the word "experiment" has been defined so narrowly it's no longer the sole validator of scientific theory. For example, General Relativity predicted that light would be affected by Sun's gravitational field, which was later observed during a solar eclipse, which is a naturally occurring event.
Experimentation has never been "the sole validator of scientific theory". Simple observation has been and always will be the primary tool we use to learn shit. If you want to rely only on strictly formal validation, then you're going to have to design and conduct an actual experiment to test gravitational lensing.
Google's approach seems to involve throwing money at lots of high-risk projects. Most flop, horribly. But when they go achieve success, they come up with something like gmail that can potentially be successful enough to offset all the money wasted on failures. High risk, high reward.
They didn't come up with gmail. They bought it. They bought maps, too. They bought voice, too. They bought the vast majority of shit you associate with them. And in the vast majority of cases, they paid way, way, too much.
If I was an investor I'd be pissed. If I was a stock holder, I'd be riding the gravy train. Note that investors and stock holders are often very different things.
None of those are experiments. Experiments test hypothesis. You have to specifically DO something to test your claim and NOT do other things for control for it to be an experiment.
You know a company with money's a little like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how it got and danged if it knows how to use it.
Google's been pissing away cash on monorail projects ever since the IPO. Why is it news that they've dropped yet another one? Why do the fanboys and investards feel the need to alert the world every time Google, Apple, or Tesla fart?
That, and Elon Musk are the two most masturbatory topics on Slashdot these days.
From what I've seen though, there are a lot of slashdotters who have a deep-seated need to bitch about something.
Must be 75 percent of the posts are crying about "'Nuthre rsby pie rtickle!"
There are options for us:
1. Don't read the article. This works surprisingly well for people not in the Fox news self-validation mode. The title usually let's us know what the subject is.
2. Submit your own stories. You people who know what people really want to read should be able to submit articles that people really want to read
The problem is that we do submit our own stories and they're ignored in favor of stupid shit like this. Slashdot's firehose and comment moderation are placebos. Dice is in full control. It was their top priority.
Think of a mall: if you are the owner you can't make each store increase their security. You are probably working on convincing them to and potentially making progress but in the, mean time having a honeypot gives you a heads up about who to watch more closely or what types of attacks people are attempting. It's all about gathering intelligence and honeypot on your network can give you a local perspective.
Also some things we can't harden. They are million dollar instruments not designed to be hardoned. We can't tell the business to go out of business as its too risky. We have to present the risk and potential plans of reducing that risk and let the business decide. If they want to continue an option could be setting up a local perimeter and having honey pots that report to security to reduce the chances of compromise and to better detect compromise.
No. It's like running a lumber yard and instead of putting fire alarms, smoke detectors, etc. in all of your buildings and monitoring them, you have a big unprotected building full of sawdust and small bits of wood next to your other buildings. Then you put a fire alarm on it so you know when there's a fire. It's fucking retarded.
No thanks. The "Internet of Things" isn't happening, your shitty video isn't getting played, and some shitty product isn't getting my attention. And for future reference, all thigns on the internet are things - the internet is already an internet of things.
In fact, everything is a thing, and no thing is nothing. So please go Fuck Yourselves as a Service on the Cloud you rode in on, you worthless marketing fucks.
Always fucking expand the first instance of your acronym in your summary. Always.
Many of have absolutely nothing to do with Enterprise resource planning in our day-to-day lives. A lot of us don't care about a strategic business unit. Most slashdotters are in the field of making software, not babbling almost-but-not-quite-meaningless business jargon about software.
Thank you. I was confused because I didn't know what ERP and SBU meant, but thanks to your post I now know that they're just 2 more completely useless terms bandied about by PHBs.
What if the ultimate goal of the design concept was not stream from a PC, but stream over the internet from a datacenter using many Tesla or other high-end nVidia GPU's in a datacenter? Think about it... the client hardware becomes thin (most importantly less expensive) and the heavy lifting is done on the server-side in the cloud. By the way, now the costs for hardware are passed onto the game publisher rather than the end-user. Transitioning from a end-user component designer to a complete game system solution provider may be very viable for nVidia's future. Gaming is where nVidia is strong, why doesn't this make sense to develop the IP for future markets and opportunities? After all, if Google or other large companies force a faster better stronger Internet fabric...we may actually see end to end latencies drop low enough and bandwidth to be high enough to do this well. Sounds like a smart plan to me.
Welcome to 3 years ago with OnLive and Gaikai. The compression and latency make it a fucking terrible experience.
Not that I disagree with part #2 (that penalties are needed), but a law without penalties isn't necessarily completely useless. Right now, if I went to court to protest the treatment I'm getting, I'd get nowhere because the behavior is legal. At least making it illegal may give people some legs to stand on.
If this is even an increment in the right direction, it might not be enough, but it's more than we've been getting.
The behavior isn't legal at all, it's completely unconstitutional.
Well, you wouldn't necessarily use 20 GPIOs on a router... but, then, this isn't a router, just a dev board based on a SoC commonly used in routers, running on a software stack also commonly used in routers.
This isn't a duck. It just walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
What the value of the shares you bought going up doesn't count as a return anymore?
It only counts as profit if you sell before the bubble bursts. If Amazon remains unprofitable, investment firms will decide to dump the stock one day, cashing out and killing the value of the stock. Even if individuals hear about the stock dropping 10 seconds after it starts, it's too late. They'll be fucked.
The first 6 months of 2014 has seen a 100% increase in vulnerabilities compared to the previous 6 months.
Neither TFS nor TFA say that. It uses the following numbers for IE.
Year - National Vulnerability Database - Exploit-DB 2013 - 130 - 11 H1-2014 - 133 - 3
They already mentioned that the timeframe of interest in the first line of the summary was 6 months.
Of 2014. They're comparing it to all of 2013.
The amount 133 is ~twice as big as 65.
Where are you getting 65? It's not mentioned anywhere in the report. Here's the report. CTRL+F 65.
The amount has increased by more than 100%.
No, the rate has. The amount in 2014 thus far is a little more than the amount in all of 2013. You can look up all the CVEs for IE and repeat their research and specifically divide 2013 up into 1st half and 2nd half if you want to compare totals and make that claim regarding totals.
They want to say the number of vulnerabilities increased in a certain period, then they have to compare that to another period of the same length.
Not true. You can work out the average speed of a car over 10 miles and do a straight comparison with compare another car over 20 miles. There is no difference here. It's simply a rate. You don't need a common divisor.
If you have 10 vulnerabilities from January 1st through June 30th of 2014 and you have 10 vulnerabilities from January first through December 31st of 2013, that does not mean the number of vulnerabilities has increased by 100%. The number of vulnerabilities per time has, but the number has not. Both numbers are 10. 10 is 0% more than 10.
They're making a prediction on the total number of vulnerabilities based on the rate of vulnerabilities. That's fine, and it's pretty safe to assume it will end up being fairly accurate. But you cannot say the total number of vulnerabilities has increased 100% unless you're directly comparing total numbers and not rates. The rate of vulnerabilities is 100% higher, vulnerabilities in 2014 are on track to be 100% higher, and possibly the number of vulnerabilities in the first half of 2014 IS 100% higher than the number of vulnerabilities in the first half of 2013, or second half, or last 3 days, or whatever you want to compare against.
They're comparing rates and extrapolating predicted totals and then making a factual claim regarding the totals for 2014. That's simply wrong. 2014's totals are not yet known, we simply have a lower bound. Compare rates and make your claim based on the rates, or compare 6 months in 2014 to 6 months in 2013. Which 6 months is up to you - you could choose the first half, the second half, the even months, the odd months, the months with the most vulnerabilities, the months with the least vulnerabilities, etc.
It's simple: You can't say an amount has increased by X when you're comparing rates. If they want to say the number of vulnerabilities increased in a certain period, then they have to compare that to another period of the same length.
The DoE should be focused on shit that works. They should not be spending a dime on any "green" bullshit since it's destined to fail, nor should they be wasting any resources on any climate change "research" (politicking).
Get back to actual science. I don't yet have a fusion reactor in my home. What the fuck am I paying you clowns for?
The number of vulnerabilities per time is not the same as the number of vulnerabilities. You can't say the number of vulnerabilities has increased 100% by using two measurements of vulnerabilities / time and then normalizing both with respect to time. That gets you a normalized number of vulnerabilities per time, not a normalized number of vulnerabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Assange seemed (at least in the Manning case) to advocate a "publish it all and damn the consequences" approach
He advocated the correct approach.
larger is often a breeding advantage.
We got a chubby chaser over here.
But in that case the word "experiment" has been defined so narrowly it's no longer the sole validator of scientific theory. For example, General Relativity predicted that light would be affected by Sun's gravitational field, which was later observed during a solar eclipse, which is a naturally occurring event.
Experimentation has never been "the sole validator of scientific theory". Simple observation has been and always will be the primary tool we use to learn shit. If you want to rely only on strictly formal validation, then you're going to have to design and conduct an actual experiment to test gravitational lensing.
Google's approach seems to involve throwing money at lots of high-risk projects. Most flop, horribly. But when they go achieve success, they come up with something like gmail that can potentially be successful enough to offset all the money wasted on failures. High risk, high reward.
They didn't come up with gmail.
They bought it.
They bought maps, too.
They bought voice, too.
They bought the vast majority of shit you associate with them. And in the vast majority of cases, they paid way, way, too much.
If I was an investor I'd be pissed. If I was a stock holder, I'd be riding the gravy train. Note that investors and stock holders are often very different things.
History is useful.
None of those are experiments. Experiments test hypothesis. You have to specifically DO something to test your claim and NOT do other things for control for it to be an experiment.
You know a company with money's a little like the mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows how it got and danged if it knows how to use it.
Google's been pissing away cash on monorail projects ever since the IPO. Why is it news that they've dropped yet another one? Why do the fanboys and investards feel the need to alert the world every time Google, Apple, or Tesla fart?
That, and Elon Musk are the two most masturbatory topics on Slashdot these days.
From what I've seen though, there are a lot of slashdotters who have a deep-seated need to bitch about something.
Must be 75 percent of the posts are crying about "'Nuthre rsby pie rtickle!"
There are options for us:
1. Don't read the article. This works surprisingly well for people not in the Fox news self-validation mode. The title usually let's us know what the subject is.
2. Submit your own stories. You people who know what people really want to read should be able to submit articles that people really want to read
The problem is that we do submit our own stories and they're ignored in favor of stupid shit like this.
Slashdot's firehose and comment moderation are placebos. Dice is in full control. It was their top priority.
Think of a mall: if you are the owner you can't make each store increase their security. You are probably working on convincing them to and potentially making progress but in the, mean time having a honeypot gives you a heads up about who to watch more closely or what types of attacks people are attempting. It's all about gathering intelligence and honeypot on your network can give you a local perspective.
Also some things we can't harden. They are million dollar instruments not designed to be hardoned. We can't tell the business to go out of business as its too risky. We have to present the risk and potential plans of reducing that risk and let the business decide. If they want to continue an option could be setting up a local perimeter and having honey pots that report to security to reduce the chances of compromise and to better detect compromise.
No.
It's like running a lumber yard and instead of putting fire alarms, smoke detectors, etc. in all of your buildings and monitoring them, you have a big unprotected building full of sawdust and small bits of wood next to your other buildings. Then you put a fire alarm on it so you know when there's a fire. It's fucking retarded.
Because Apple.
Circumventing the restrictions in iOS is as easy as 1.
1: Buy a better phone.
No thanks. The "Internet of Things" isn't happening, your shitty video isn't getting played, and some shitty product isn't getting my attention.
And for future reference, all thigns on the internet are things - the internet is already an internet of things.
In fact, everything is a thing, and no thing is nothing. So please go Fuck Yourselves as a Service on the Cloud you rode in on, you worthless marketing fucks.
Always fucking expand the first instance of your acronym in your summary. Always.
Many of have absolutely nothing to do with Enterprise resource planning in our day-to-day lives. A lot of us don't care about a strategic business unit. Most slashdotters are in the field of making software, not babbling almost-but-not-quite-meaningless business jargon about software.
Thank you. I was confused because I didn't know what ERP and SBU meant, but thanks to your post I now know that they're just 2 more completely useless terms bandied about by PHBs.
What if the ultimate goal of the design concept was not stream from a PC, but stream over the internet from a datacenter using many Tesla or other high-end nVidia GPU's in a datacenter? Think about it... the client hardware becomes thin (most importantly less expensive) and the heavy lifting is done on the server-side in the cloud. By the way, now the costs for hardware are passed onto the game publisher rather than the end-user. Transitioning from a end-user component designer to a complete game system solution provider may be very viable for nVidia's future. Gaming is where nVidia is strong, why doesn't this make sense to develop the IP for future markets and opportunities? After all, if Google or other large companies force a faster better stronger Internet fabric...we may actually see end to end latencies drop low enough and bandwidth to be high enough to do this well. Sounds like a smart plan to me.
Welcome to 3 years ago with OnLive and Gaikai.
The compression and latency make it a fucking terrible experience.
Not that I disagree with part #2 (that penalties are needed), but a law without penalties isn't necessarily completely useless. Right now, if I went to court to protest the treatment I'm getting, I'd get nowhere because the behavior is legal. At least making it illegal may give people some legs to stand on.
If this is even an increment in the right direction, it might not be enough, but it's more than we've been getting.
The behavior isn't legal at all, it's completely unconstitutional.
You know you have cancer when the mosquitos stop biting you.
That just means you have a penis. Mosquitoes love bitches.
Well, you wouldn't necessarily use 20 GPIOs on a router... but, then, this isn't a router, just a dev board based on a SoC commonly used in routers, running on a software stack also commonly used in routers.
This isn't a duck. It just walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
What the value of the shares you bought going up doesn't count as a return anymore?
It only counts as profit if you sell before the bubble bursts.
If Amazon remains unprofitable, investment firms will decide to dump the stock one day, cashing out and killing the value of the stock.
Even if individuals hear about the stock dropping 10 seconds after it starts, it's too late. They'll be fucked.
The first 6 months of 2014 has seen a 100% increase in vulnerabilities compared to the previous 6 months.
Neither TFS nor TFA say that. It uses the following numbers for IE.
Year - National Vulnerability Database - Exploit-DB
2013 - 130 - 11
H1-2014 - 133 - 3
They already mentioned that the timeframe of interest in the first line of the summary was 6 months.
Of 2014. They're comparing it to all of 2013.
The amount 133 is ~twice as big as 65.
Where are you getting 65? It's not mentioned anywhere in the report. Here's the report. CTRL+F 65.
The amount has increased by more than 100%.
No, the rate has. The amount in 2014 thus far is a little more than the amount in all of 2013. You can look up all the CVEs for IE and repeat their research and specifically divide 2013 up into 1st half and 2nd half if you want to compare totals and make that claim regarding totals.
They want to say the number of vulnerabilities increased in a certain period, then they have to compare that to another period of the same length.
Not true. You can work out the average speed of a car over 10 miles and do a straight comparison with compare another car over 20 miles. There is no difference here. It's simply a rate. You don't need a common divisor.
If you have 10 vulnerabilities from January 1st through June 30th of 2014 and you have 10 vulnerabilities from January first through December 31st of 2013, that does not mean the number of vulnerabilities has increased by 100%.
The number of vulnerabilities per time has, but the number has not. Both numbers are 10. 10 is 0% more than 10.
They're making a prediction on the total number of vulnerabilities based on the rate of vulnerabilities. That's fine, and it's pretty safe to assume it will end up being fairly accurate. But you cannot say the total number of vulnerabilities has increased 100% unless you're directly comparing total numbers and not rates. The rate of vulnerabilities is 100% higher, vulnerabilities in 2014 are on track to be 100% higher, and possibly the number of vulnerabilities in the first half of 2014 IS 100% higher than the number of vulnerabilities in the first half of 2013, or second half, or last 3 days, or whatever you want to compare against.
They're comparing rates and extrapolating predicted totals and then making a factual claim regarding the totals for 2014. That's simply wrong. 2014's totals are not yet known, we simply have a lower bound. Compare rates and make your claim based on the rates, or compare 6 months in 2014 to 6 months in 2013. Which 6 months is up to you - you could choose the first half, the second half, the even months, the odd months, the months with the most vulnerabilities, the months with the least vulnerabilities, etc.
It's simple: You can't say an amount has increased by X when you're comparing rates.
If they want to say the number of vulnerabilities increased in a certain period, then they have to compare that to another period of the same length.
As someone living in California, I can't wait until the Sideways bunch are forced to grow their grapes in a different fucking state.
If anything happens to anyone connected to the US government on August 10th, you're in for a lot of torture.
The DoE should be focused on shit that works. They should not be spending a dime on any "green" bullshit since it's destined to fail, nor should they be wasting any resources on any climate change "research" (politicking).
Get back to actual science. I don't yet have a fusion reactor in my home. What the fuck am I paying you clowns for?
The number of vulnerabilities per time is not the same as the number of vulnerabilities.
You can't say the number of vulnerabilities has increased 100% by using two measurements of vulnerabilities / time and then normalizing both with respect to time. That gets you a normalized number of vulnerabilities per time, not a normalized number of vulnerabilities.