I've never heard of key lifecycle management and I don't know enough to pick the good hits from a google search, could you please drop a couple of good newbie links so I could get started? Or mention some books. That would be most helpful.
Old key(s) compromised, use new key(s). Make sure everyone knows to trust new key(s).
The improved file transfer dialog, task manager, and the glorious return of the "Go Up One Directory" button in Windows Explorer are more than worth the price of admission ($30 or $40). The huge improvement to boot and shutdown times, as well as general performance improvements are icing on the cake.
Unfortunately, Metro is a turd hidden deep inside that cake. But I fully intent to install a start menu replacement (there are 4 or 5 available already) and set my machine to automatically login and go to the desktop, as it should.
IE 10 is like the ice cream on the side. I'll rarely touch it myself, but IE 10, like IE 9 before it, is good, and I won't have to warn people not to eat it like I did with IE 6, 7, and to a lesser extent, 8.
Windows 8 is very good. Metro is shitty. You can experience Windows 8 without Metro if you want to.
Yes, I do, but since his complaint was over H.264 he was clearly referring to the video side of Flash. Maybe actually read all of a post before trying to do a 'gotcha!' response?
His post was about Flash and Steve Jobs's mission to kill it. He pointed to video as one reason that that mission is absurd. You responded to that one reason instead of the overarching theme of the post, and when I pointed it out you still didn't see it. Hows that for a "gotcha!"?
They're hoping to establish their certification as important, trustworthy, etc. It sounds nice on paper but when you get down to it it's still for-pay research seeking a previously determined outcome, and another in the long line of ultimately pointless certifications/accreditations.
If they're successful, then anyone at a public institution who wants to be published will strive for that certification, and will demand essentially double the grant money. Universities will pay for it because they're mired in academic bullshit such as this. Private research institutions would simply fund their own, smaller study to verify or publish without a replicating the results, as usual, and tell the researcher that they should be glad they got the initial grant to study the effects of touching genitals with different temperature probes in the first place. (And no, that's not a made up example.)
Why rewrite GCC in inferior C++? Why not "fix" GCC in C? Quotation marks because it wasn't broken to begin with (those terrible error messages must be a design decision at this point).
Anymore, everyone's child is a special snow flake who's failures aren't his or her fault, but rather society's and their own designer mental illness ( ADD, ADHD, autism ).
That's just what we need; to arm these arm chair shrinks with more reasons why their special little one is fucked up, and get them amped up on the latest "Make Normal" drug.
But if you tell parents "Ma'am, you kid's just a fuck up, and it's probably your fault." then won't give you money.
My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.
It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).
Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.
Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.
At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last writes. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.
It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.
The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.
It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.
I'm not angry at all. The fact is that a massive number of genetic mutations in a population within a few generations from something like ionizing radiation or some other agent does not lead to greater fitness, but almost inevitably to lesser fitness; deleterious morphological changes (ie. malformed wings, eyes, internal organs) and increase in various cancers. Insects get an edge, in general, because fast breeding and lots of offspring can counterbalance such effects, and eventually, you will see some population that can return to some level of fitness, but that doesn't mean that dangerous doses of ionizing radiation is somehow potentially healthy, just because you get some potential survivors, any more than firing into a chicken coop with a shotgun and still having some chickens manage to survive means shotguns are potentially good for chicken survival. It's an absurd position.
We're not talking about the generally intermittent nature of natural genetic changes that occur under normal conditions. We're talking about populations being blasted with radiation of sufficient strength to cause massive morphological changes within a generation or two. Evolution isn't some superhero comic book, and there are levels of radiation that make any population much less fit to related populations outside the environment that caused this.
Until you show that the changes are hurting the mutated butterflies's ability to survive and reproduce you can't say the changes are "damage". Plain and simple. it doesn't matter how the mutation happened or how fast.
Unless you believe evolution to be massively inefficient in the long run, you cannot seriously believe that many random changes over a very short span in any given organism will not include detrimental ones. Your stance is nonsense.
Evolution IS massively inefficient in the long run. It's random noise that sometimes makes a better picture than the previous picture which was selected for over hundreds of millions of years. The longer it goes on, the more inefficient evolution becomes. If you build up a finely-tuned, massively complex genetic base and then randomly fuck shit up, the odds are astronomically against you. If the environment changes, the larger, older code base means it takes much longer to adapt.
Evolution is the selection against inferior (in the current environment) variations in genetics. Said genetic variations are due to random mutation. Random mutation is far more likely to have negative effects than positive effects. It takes selection pressure to weed out those negative effects. If evolution were efficient changes would be directed even without said pressure.
I absolutely believe that many random changes over a short time span will likely include detrimental ones. However, you cannot say that that is the case without evidence, and just as humans weren't evidence of damaged primate genes, mutated butterflies aren't evidence of damaged butterfly genes until they're unable to survive and reproduce as well as the non-mutated butterflies.
Oh, I see, so this is some sort of semantics pissing match you want to win. Call it what you like, but the odds are far greater that we're going to be dealing with very few beneficial mutations, and more than likely a good many bad ones, but hey, if it somehow makes you feel like you've won a debate, then so be it. In fact, I recommend you go and get some substantial dosage of radiation right now. After all, you can't call it damage until your dick falls off.
It sounds like you're mad and you want the butterflies to die off so you can use it as evidence to stir up FUD about radiation. The butterflies have mutated, but are still able to breed and be successful butterflies. This isn't damage, it's change. Damage is, by definition, change that is detrimental. If you want to argue about anything it helps to know the definitions of the things you're arguing about. If you consider that to be a "semantics pissing match", then I can offer you no help.
Wrong. For all you know they could be beneficial changes. Until you know that the changes are detrimental you can't call them "damage" anymore than you can call all of evolution "damage".
They looked at the data THEN decided they didn't like certain data points. That's not Winsorization, that's bullshit. You're dumb, and dumbshit slashdot modded you +5 because you included a wikipedia link.
Furthermore, Winsorization itself is bullshit. ALL data is valid unless you have an actual reason to discount it (known to be an inaccurate measurement, etc.). The desire to make data fit a preconceived model is what drives people to discount data, and discounting data results in shittier models.
You have no way of knowing what Google actually does with your information. Thus you have no way of knowing if they're tracking you. Thus a whitelist/blacklist is impossible.
Either you're retarded, or you're the one who's not reading.
I love it.... "Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012." Of course, if you randomly take out data points you don't like, you're going to get the result you're looking for. Not to mention that their entire post focuses on the fact that not all states all linearly increased in temperatures, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of how temperatures are come about.
FWIW, a graph tends to be of more value if you evaluate and potentially take out outlier points. If you are looking for trends. Also, some toss lowest and highest as well.
Just saying.
-AI
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL The only reason to throw out data is if you have specific reason to believe it is faulty. If it doesn't fit a pattern you like, to fucking bad.
There is no way to "not even connect to a tracker's web site" because websites who would ignore DNT would be the same websites who don't provide / lie about their privacy policy.
Of course there is; it's called a blacklist. Knowledgeable people or organizations can identify trackers, and publish up to date lists. Some of us are already doing this, using the h***s file (I hope I don't wake up any trolls), but it's not easy for the average user. The browser should have a built in blacklisting facility and especially a mechanism for easy or, better, automatic updating of the blacklist. The user should get a default list (maybe updateable via Windows or Apple update or similar mechanisms), but he should also be able to choose a trusted organization (like the EFF) and subscribe to updated lists of trackers.
With this design, when some web page includes a link pointing to a web bug in the tracker's domain, my browser will just ignore it. With Google's design, the browser will go grab the bug, and ask the (unknown, untrusted, and probably not in the EU, so not covered by their laws) tracker to be kind and lose money on this transaction. I really don't think it'll work.
Whitelisting/blacklisting? LOL
Who has root access to every web server in the world to see if they're tracking visitors or not? Remember, tracking is not limited to cookies. Who decides which forms of tracking are tracking and which are "tracking"? Who decides which sites are tracking you and which are not? Who maintains the list? Who pays for it?
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Good. The do-not-track project as designed by Mozilla and Google is worthless, and I'm reasonably sure it's intentionally broken. It's just trusting the web site to agree to your browser's plea to please not track it; there is no enforcement mechanism, and no way to even know your request is honored or not. A proper design would not even connect to a tracker's web site.
Of course, Google has a major conflict of interest in this - tracking people is what makes them the big money; that's why I suspect Mozilla and Google came up with this "design", pretending to care about privacy while aware that many users aren't knowledgeable or caring enough to set the DNT flag, and also on the fact that when push comes to shove they can just ignore the "don't track" request. Microsoft is pretty much calling their bluff there.
Any entity operating within the EU will face heavy fines for not respecting DNT.
There is no way to "not even connect to a tracker's web site" because websites who would ignore DNT would be the same websites who don't provide / lie about their privacy policy.
Short of disconnecting from the internet, DNT + fines out the ass for anyone caught ignoring it is the only workable solution.
Slashdot Mirror
California cheese is better.
I've never heard of key lifecycle management and I don't know enough to pick the good hits from a google search, could you please drop a couple of good newbie links so I could get started? Or mention some books. That would be most helpful.
Old key(s) compromised, use new key(s).
Make sure everyone knows to trust new key(s).
Power users are not going to forgo the mouse and keyboard for non-mobile use until brain-to-computer interfaces are created.
Tell that to mac users with the magic pad.
Mac users already have the product to ego interface hardwired.
Nope, the old Kindle's have a rudimentary web browser you can enable in one of the settings menus. Works fine on 3G.
Fuck you Timothy. There HAS to be a better way to express Linux's unoptimized performance on new hardware.
How about a better way to express Apple's custom, closed, undocumented, and quirky hardware and firmware?
The improved file transfer dialog, task manager, and the glorious return of the "Go Up One Directory" button in Windows Explorer are more than worth the price of admission ($30 or $40). The huge improvement to boot and shutdown times, as well as general performance improvements are icing on the cake.
Unfortunately, Metro is a turd hidden deep inside that cake. But I fully intent to install a start menu replacement (there are 4 or 5 available already) and set my machine to automatically login and go to the desktop, as it should.
IE 10 is like the ice cream on the side. I'll rarely touch it myself, but IE 10, like IE 9 before it, is good, and I won't have to warn people not to eat it like I did with IE 6, 7, and to a lesser extent, 8.
Windows 8 is very good. Metro is shitty. You can experience Windows 8 without Metro if you want to.
Yes, I do, but since his complaint was over H.264 he was clearly referring to the video side of Flash. Maybe actually read all of a post before trying to do a 'gotcha!' response?
His post was about Flash and Steve Jobs's mission to kill it. He pointed to video as one reason that that mission is absurd. You responded to that one reason instead of the overarching theme of the post, and when I pointed it out you still didn't see it. Hows that for a "gotcha!"?
They're hoping to establish their certification as important, trustworthy, etc. It sounds nice on paper but when you get down to it it's still for-pay research seeking a previously determined outcome, and another in the long line of ultimately pointless certifications/accreditations.
If they're successful, then anyone at a public institution who wants to be published will strive for that certification, and will demand essentially double the grant money.
Universities will pay for it because they're mired in academic bullshit such as this. Private research institutions would simply fund their own, smaller study to verify or publish without a replicating the results, as usual, and tell the researcher that they should be glad they got the initial grant to study the effects of touching genitals with different temperature probes in the first place. (And no, that's not a made up example.)
You do realize that Flash is far more than videos, right? Hell Flash videos are often far more than videos - they're often actual animations.
Why rewrite GCC in inferior C++?
Why not "fix" GCC in C? Quotation marks because it wasn't broken to begin with (those terrible error messages must be a design decision at this point).
Anymore, everyone's child is a special snow flake who's failures aren't his or her fault, but rather society's and their own designer mental illness ( ADD, ADHD, autism ).
That's just what we need; to arm these arm chair shrinks with more reasons why their special little one is fucked up, and get them amped up on the latest "Make Normal" drug.
But if you tell parents "Ma'am, you kid's just a fuck up, and it's probably your fault." then won't give you money.
My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.
It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).
Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.
Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.
At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last writes. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.
It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.
The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.
It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.
Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.
I'm not angry at all. The fact is that a massive number of genetic mutations in a population within a few generations from something like ionizing radiation or some other agent does not lead to greater fitness, but almost inevitably to lesser fitness; deleterious morphological changes (ie. malformed wings, eyes, internal organs) and increase in various cancers. Insects get an edge, in general, because fast breeding and lots of offspring can counterbalance such effects, and eventually, you will see some population that can return to some level of fitness, but that doesn't mean that dangerous doses of ionizing radiation is somehow potentially healthy, just because you get some potential survivors, any more than firing into a chicken coop with a shotgun and still having some chickens manage to survive means shotguns are potentially good for chicken survival. It's an absurd position.
We're not talking about the generally intermittent nature of natural genetic changes that occur under normal conditions. We're talking about populations being blasted with radiation of sufficient strength to cause massive morphological changes within a generation or two. Evolution isn't some superhero comic book, and there are levels of radiation that make any population much less fit to related populations outside the environment that caused this.
Until you show that the changes are hurting the mutated butterflies's ability to survive and reproduce you can't say the changes are "damage". Plain and simple. it doesn't matter how the mutation happened or how fast.
Unless you believe evolution to be massively inefficient in the long run, you cannot seriously believe that many random changes over a very short span in any given organism will not include detrimental ones. Your stance is nonsense.
Evolution IS massively inefficient in the long run. It's random noise that sometimes makes a better picture than the previous picture which was selected for over hundreds of millions of years. The longer it goes on, the more inefficient evolution becomes. If you build up a finely-tuned, massively complex genetic base and then randomly fuck shit up, the odds are astronomically against you. If the environment changes, the larger, older code base means it takes much longer to adapt.
Evolution is the selection against inferior (in the current environment) variations in genetics. Said genetic variations are due to random mutation.
Random mutation is far more likely to have negative effects than positive effects. It takes selection pressure to weed out those negative effects. If evolution were efficient changes would be directed even without said pressure.
I absolutely believe that many random changes over a short time span will likely include detrimental ones.
However, you cannot say that that is the case without evidence, and just as humans weren't evidence of damaged primate genes, mutated butterflies aren't evidence of damaged butterfly genes until they're unable to survive and reproduce as well as the non-mutated butterflies.
Oh, I see, so this is some sort of semantics pissing match you want to win. Call it what you like, but the odds are far greater that we're going to be dealing with very few beneficial mutations, and more than likely a good many bad ones, but hey, if it somehow makes you feel like you've won a debate, then so be it. In fact, I recommend you go and get some substantial dosage of radiation right now. After all, you can't call it damage until your dick falls off.
It sounds like you're mad and you want the butterflies to die off so you can use it as evidence to stir up FUD about radiation.
The butterflies have mutated, but are still able to breed and be successful butterflies. This isn't damage, it's change. Damage is, by definition, change that is detrimental. If you want to argue about anything it helps to know the definitions of the things you're arguing about. If you consider that to be a "semantics pissing match", then I can offer you no help.
Wrong. For all you know they could be beneficial changes. Until you know that the changes are detrimental you can't call them "damage" anymore than you can call all of evolution "damage".
It's not damage until it proves to be detrimental. It seems to me that they're reproducing in the wild just fine.
They looked at the data THEN decided they didn't like certain data points. That's not Winsorization, that's bullshit.
You're dumb, and dumbshit slashdot modded you +5 because you included a wikipedia link.
Furthermore, Winsorization itself is bullshit. ALL data is valid unless you have an actual reason to discount it (known to be an inaccurate measurement, etc.). The desire to make data fit a preconceived model is what drives people to discount data, and discounting data results in shittier models.
You have no way of knowing what Google actually does with your information.
Thus you have no way of knowing if they're tracking you.
Thus a whitelist/blacklist is impossible.
Either you're retarded, or you're the one who's not reading.
I love it.... "Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012." Of course, if you randomly take out data points you don't like, you're going to get the result you're looking for. Not to mention that their entire post focuses on the fact that not all states all linearly increased in temperatures, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of how temperatures are come about.
FWIW, a graph tends to be of more value if you evaluate and potentially take out outlier points.
If you are looking for trends. Also, some toss lowest and highest as well.
Just saying.
-AI
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
The only reason to throw out data is if you have specific reason to believe it is faulty.
If it doesn't fit a pattern you like, to fucking bad.
There is no way to "not even connect to a tracker's web site" because websites who would ignore DNT would be the same websites who don't provide / lie about their privacy policy.
Of course there is; it's called a blacklist. Knowledgeable people or organizations can identify trackers, and publish up to date lists. Some of us are already doing this, using the h***s file (I hope I don't wake up any trolls), but it's not easy for the average user. The browser should have a built in blacklisting facility and especially a mechanism for easy or, better, automatic updating of the blacklist. The user should get a default list (maybe updateable via Windows or Apple update or similar mechanisms), but he should also be able to choose a trusted organization (like the EFF) and subscribe to updated lists of trackers.
With this design, when some web page includes a link pointing to a web bug in the tracker's domain, my browser will just ignore it. With Google's design, the browser will go grab the bug, and ask the (unknown, untrusted, and probably not in the EU, so not covered by their laws) tracker to be kind and lose money on this transaction. I really don't think it'll work.
Whitelisting/blacklisting? LOL
Who has root access to every web server in the world to see if they're tracking visitors or not? Remember, tracking is not limited to cookies.
Who decides which forms of tracking are tracking and which are "tracking"?
Who decides which sites are tracking you and which are not?
Who maintains the list?
Who pays for it?
No one gives a shit
Slashdot is the pits
Why are you such a tool?
Fuck your ugly face
You fucking sold this place
And now you
think you're cool?
One last question now
Can you tell me how
To profit
off of fools?
Is it astrotruf?
Paid-off trolls and smurfs?
UI that
ignores the rules?
I've got hate and spite
For this shitty site
Slashdot sucks
AC RULES!
Why can't these browsers themselves stop the tracking? I am sure the most elementary browsers are able to do this
Because the browser doesn't control the server you're connecting to.
Tracking isn't limited to cookies.
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Good. The do-not-track project as designed by Mozilla and Google is worthless, and I'm reasonably sure it's intentionally broken. It's just trusting the web site to agree to your browser's plea to please not track it; there is no enforcement mechanism, and no way to even know your request is honored or not. A proper design would not even connect to a tracker's web site.
Of course, Google has a major conflict of interest in this - tracking people is what makes them the big money; that's why I suspect Mozilla and Google came up with this "design", pretending to care about privacy while aware that many users aren't knowledgeable or caring enough to set the DNT flag, and also on the fact that when push comes to shove they can just ignore the "don't track" request. Microsoft is pretty much calling their bluff there.
Any entity operating within the EU will face heavy fines for not respecting DNT.
There is no way to "not even connect to a tracker's web site" because websites who would ignore DNT would be the same websites who don't provide / lie about their privacy policy.
Short of disconnecting from the internet, DNT + fines out the ass for anyone caught ignoring it is the only workable solution.
Let's call a spade a spade.
Companies aren't funding this shit to look for top talent, they're funding this shit to look for efficient monkey slaves.