They should just ban that.exe image file format. Please don't suggest that - You never know who may take it seriously. One associate in our IT department suggested improving security by banning all e-mail attachments - Solution: Snail-mail CDs nationwide to communicate with customers or collaborate on documents... Of course, that was a little more insightful than the suggestion that we change our user-policy to disallow buffer over-runs...
Basically let's just say there are good reasons why that test can't be demanded in court. But that doesn't mean that they're not regularly used for matters of national security. Some levels of clearance demand that the person holding the position must submit to random polygraph screenings just like many of us are subject to random drug screenings. Of course, this is a hazard to people who may get nervous when randomly selected to be hooked up to a bunch of wires and asked a bunch of questions - Knowing full well that perspiring or getting excited/nervous could cost them their jobs. It's not so much a threat to somebody who's accustomed to lying daily while entrenched in an adversary's secure areas for whom polygraphs are well-practiced and no more stressful than your daily routine.
Hypnosis can be used to remember e.g. a phone number you saw when you were 6 months old and couldn't read yet... According to some sources roughly as reliable as most hypnosis publications, people can pull up memories dating all the way back to conception. The fact that somebody recovers a repressed memory and strongly believes its accuracy doesn't make it true...
You're neglecting the word 'like' in his description. The debate should be "Are 30 clicks like 10 clicks?" I think that it's fair to say that they are - And furthermore, the approximation is appropriate. pcworld.com is an ad-supported site. I don't know about you, but I feel that it's my duty to keep ad-supported sites alive by encouraging advertisers. I always click on two links per page and purchase an item from one of the two vendors (doesn't everybody?) So...
2 ads apiece from intro-slide + 10 gadget slides: 22 clicks Clicks to proceed through gadgets: 10 clicks Total: 32 clicks
Of course, that neglects the clicks it took me to make 11 purchases while browsing the article, but I'd still say that 32 clicks are like 30 clicks and the approximation will help compensate for those readers that steal pcworld's content by reading it without purchasing anything advertised.
...unless you're targetting tiny islands in the Pacific. As a side note, some of the Pacific-island-neighbors really lost out in some of those tests... Testing restrictions were rather lax in the early days.
I mostly agree. Nuclear war would be abysmal and should be avoided at (nearly) any cost. But, your deterrent is only as good as your ability.
If Elbonia possesses a single nuclear weapon strong enough to destroy the entire planet, other countries would assume that they could molest Elbonia quite a bit before pushing them far enough to employ their nuclear 'arsenal'. Even small-scale nuclear attacks may go unresponded.
But, if Elbonia possesses a large selection of tiny nukes that could target arbitrary targets globally with minimal side effects, that would be a reasonable deterrent to keep other nations from harassing Elbonia . Nations would refrain from nuking Elbonia for fear that Elbonia would actually respond in kind.
Basically, you have to be able to convince the world that you *could* use your arsenal and *would* use your arsenal if you had to. It's a disgusting situation, but it's reality for now.
And, the stockpile isn't *just* to have a deterrent. It's mainly for use as a deterrent and, gods-willing, it will never be needed for anything else. But, if we were nuked, it would become a horrible but possibly necessary actual selection of weaponry... If we were to ever set some idiotic policy such as "we would never deploy nuclear weapons for any reason", we would no longer have a deterrent and would be inviting attack.
Well, to be fair, it makes as much sense as having enough weapons to destroy the Earth 56 times. I'm personally of the opinion that way too much $$$ goes into maintaining the size of the stockpile that we have. But, the massive size isn't as ludicrous as it might sound. The point of having too many weapons isn't so that you can wipe out huge regions multiple times - Just the opposite. By having a large range of nuclear capabilities, you can hit small strategic targets or large targets as necessary while minimizing "splash". If all we had was huge city-killers that could kill the earth once, we'd have to kill huge regions just to hit small hardened targets. But, we have city killers and (relatively) small target killers. Of course, just how small we can design them is restricted by international treaty to make sure that we're not tempted to deploy except in dire need.
I work very close to the issue at hand and can testify to seeing major gaps in the "careful screening" that goes into clearing the persons responsible. And it's distressing - Minor security incidents that clearly implicate cleared individuals go largely uninvestigated (petty theft, etc.) But, on a bright note, there's so much redundancy and security-bureaucracy that the security environment for special nuclear material or critical weapons components is actually very good (if rather expensive).
I'm not even holding my breath for "Minority Report" style interface coming to a PC near me anytime soon. Actually, that's perfectly doable. But, apparently your arms tire out really quickly.
Also, if you visit the site I just linked to, check out the third vid - A really novel take on home 3d VR.
Putting coffee inside a cup-computer is almost as bad as the coworker I have that slid a CD into the retractable cup-holder on the front of my case. I still haven't figured out why his CD fit so much better than my cup...
An offensive measure would be more like block traffic to certain sites ahead of time. Blocking traffic is still a defensive strategy. There's a difference between proactive defense and offense.
Look up a bit. There are signs over the aisles. Priceless advice. Whenever I find myself lost and in need of guidance, I look to the heavens and seek a sign. Unfortunately, it only seems to work in grocery stores, mass transit stations, and on the freeway...
I hope that their algorithms could predict the 4 or 5 "wild"- fires in Southern California which are all started mysteriously If there's enough money in it, I can predict a mysterious fire just about anywhere at any time.
Microsoft are doing the right thing(extending XP sales) for the wrong reason(competing with Linux in the cheap laptop market). It's got to be a tough one for marketing. "On the one hand, it'll improve profit margins. On the other hand, it's not evil... Isn't there another way to achieve the same effect?"
70%+ of under-16 are sexually active Off-topic, but I looked at your article and didn't see anything like that... That would be particularly alarming since 50% of under-16's are under 8. In fact, to get to 70%, you would need everyone to be sexually active no later than age 5 (or hit-and miss if some start younger.) The article you linked to was studying 14-19 year olds and did say that ~25% had some kind of STD (including HPV), but I have no idea where you pulled out that other statistic...
WTF? Isnt texting while driving more dangerous than talking??? Perhaps I'm exceptionally gifted but, thanks to my amazing dexterity and ability to multi-task, I believe that I could punch '#1' without taking my eyes off the road...
However for purposes of NetFlix verifying a contestant's algorithm to see how much better or worse it is compared to NetFlix's current algorithm they use a separate, internal data set whose contents are not known to contestants. Of course. External data sets are used for training predictors. Not verifying accuracy... Wasn't that largely the point of TFA?
The netflix challenge is to arrive at a better algorithm with the supplied data. Actually, the rules explicitly allow supplementing the data set and Netflix points out that they explore external data sets as well.
and the usa never will be better than anyone else Bullshit. I don't know what your gauge for "better" is, but if you honestly believe that the USA is not, never has been, nor ever will be "better" than any other country on the planet, you've got a sickly biased view of the world.
and thinking it should be, for any rationale, is stupid I'd like to see the US (as well as the rest of the world) be as good as possible. Since I already consider it "better" than some other nations, I certainly think that it should remain "better" than a lot of the world. We'd have to be really negligent to reach the bottom-of-the-barrel.
you don't make the world a better place by focusing all of your attention on the usa Nope - you just make the USA better, but that does have (mostly) positive global impacts. Actually, I'd like to see the USA start working a lot harder on improving itself rather than focusing so hard on "fixing" other countries.
If you're looking for continuous, commercial free, specialized radio channels with national coverage.... is there really any competition left after this merger? No, in that niche there would be no competition left. But, like I said, that doesn't imply that they don't still have to deal with competition. I like satellite radio, but I don't have it in my car. When I drive cross-country, I typically scan the radio for local stations. Sometimes that sucks (at one point west of Amarillo, there are three choices of where you'd like to tune in to Rush Limbaugh). But, I still don't think that the difference in service between AM/FM and satellite justifies the cost. So, in my case, satellite radio lost out to the competition. If the price comes down or my disposable income goes up, I'll reevaluate. So there's at least one case contradicting your assertion that "They're not in competition with the traditional radio stations...".
There's a tipping point - They'll set their prices as high as they can and spend as little as possible to the point where they're not driving off current subscribers and continue to attract new ones. So, if there are enough cheap-skates like me in their target market, they'll have to keep themselves under control. And, again assuming a ready supply of cheap-skates for whom there's a cut-off price deciding whether or not they'll sign up, two competing satellite providers will hurt both each-other and their customers. Now, if the cheap-skate population is insufficient or if there are enough people willing to pay arbitrary prices for satellite service before going back to AM/FM or CDs/MP3s, then you're correct - They'd be free to run amok and their subscribers would suffer while they reaped huge profits. Let's both hope that's not the case - It's a segment of the portable-audio-entertainment market that I'd like to see flourish.
This is certainly a case of economic Mutually Assured Destruction. We're civilized now - We no longer threaten to blow up our rivals' citizens, we threaten to starve them.
It's pretty much MADD, but this time on an economic level. I'm not sure that Mothers Against Drunk Driving really have a vested interest in this situation... =)
For example, you can get the same signal driving across the country? The service from satellite is different. You're right - The service is different. But, the competition isn't over who'll provide your satellite radio service. It's over who'll entertain your ears. I can drive across the country while listening to continuous content from my mp3 player. Of course the service is different. But, if I'm listening to mp3s, I'm not listening to satellite. The same goes for the, again different, AM/FM service.
XM is not the biggest competitor for Sirius (nor vice versa). CD/MP3 players and AM/FM broadcasts are - and HD radio is marketing aggressively to try to maintain that market segment. The driver for lowering satellite radio prices and improving content is persuading people that it's worthwhile to adopt satellite radio and pay the subscription fees. A market war between two satellite providers would only drive prices up and deteriorate service quality.
Slashdot Mirror
You're neglecting the word 'like' in his description. The debate should be "Are 30 clicks like 10 clicks?" I think that it's fair to say that they are - And furthermore, the approximation is appropriate. pcworld.com is an ad-supported site. I don't know about you, but I feel that it's my duty to keep ad-supported sites alive by encouraging advertisers. I always click on two links per page and purchase an item from one of the two vendors (doesn't everybody?) So...
2 ads apiece from intro-slide + 10 gadget slides: 22 clicks
Clicks to proceed through gadgets: 10 clicks
Total: 32 clicks
Of course, that neglects the clicks it took me to make 11 purchases while browsing the article, but I'd still say that 32 clicks are like 30 clicks and the approximation will help compensate for those readers that steal pcworld's content by reading it without purchasing anything advertised.
...unless you're targetting tiny islands in the Pacific. As a side note, some of the Pacific-island-neighbors really lost out in some of those tests... Testing restrictions were rather lax in the early days.I mostly agree. Nuclear war would be abysmal and should be avoided at (nearly) any cost. But, your deterrent is only as good as your ability.
If Elbonia possesses a single nuclear weapon strong enough to destroy the entire planet, other countries would assume that they could molest Elbonia quite a bit before pushing them far enough to employ their nuclear 'arsenal'. Even small-scale nuclear attacks may go unresponded.
But, if Elbonia possesses a large selection of tiny nukes that could target arbitrary targets globally with minimal side effects, that would be a reasonable deterrent to keep other nations from harassing Elbonia . Nations would refrain from nuking Elbonia for fear that Elbonia would actually respond in kind.
Basically, you have to be able to convince the world that you *could* use your arsenal and *would* use your arsenal if you had to. It's a disgusting situation, but it's reality for now.
And, the stockpile isn't *just* to have a deterrent. It's mainly for use as a deterrent and, gods-willing, it will never be needed for anything else. But, if we were nuked, it would become a horrible but possibly necessary actual selection of weaponry... If we were to ever set some idiotic policy such as "we would never deploy nuclear weapons for any reason", we would no longer have a deterrent and would be inviting attack.
I work very close to the issue at hand and can testify to seeing major gaps in the "careful screening" that goes into clearing the persons responsible. And it's distressing - Minor security incidents that clearly implicate cleared individuals go largely uninvestigated (petty theft, etc.) But, on a bright note, there's so much redundancy and security-bureaucracy that the security environment for special nuclear material or critical weapons components is actually very good (if rather expensive).
Also, if you visit the site I just linked to, check out the third vid - A really novel take on home 3d VR.
Putting coffee inside a cup-computer is almost as bad as the coworker I have that slid a CD into the retractable cup-holder on the front of my case. I still haven't figured out why his CD fit so much better than my cup...
and the usa never will be better than anyone else Bullshit. I don't know what your gauge for "better" is, but if you honestly believe that the USA is not, never has been, nor ever will be "better" than any other country on the planet, you've got a sickly biased view of the world. and thinking it should be, for any rationale, is stupid I'd like to see the US (as well as the rest of the world) be as good as possible. Since I already consider it "better" than some other nations, I certainly think that it should remain "better" than a lot of the world. We'd have to be really negligent to reach the bottom-of-the-barrel. you don't make the world a better place by focusing all of your attention on the usa Nope - you just make the USA better, but that does have (mostly) positive global impacts. Actually, I'd like to see the USA start working a lot harder on improving itself rather than focusing so hard on "fixing" other countries.
There's a tipping point - They'll set their prices as high as they can and spend as little as possible to the point where they're not driving off current subscribers and continue to attract new ones. So, if there are enough cheap-skates like me in their target market, they'll have to keep themselves under control. And, again assuming a ready supply of cheap-skates for whom there's a cut-off price deciding whether or not they'll sign up, two competing satellite providers will hurt both each-other and their customers. Now, if the cheap-skate population is insufficient or if there are enough people willing to pay arbitrary prices for satellite service before going back to AM/FM or CDs/MP3s, then you're correct - They'd be free to run amok and their subscribers would suffer while they reaped huge profits. Let's both hope that's not the case - It's a segment of the portable-audio-entertainment market that I'd like to see flourish.
XM is not the biggest competitor for Sirius (nor vice versa). CD/MP3 players and AM/FM broadcasts are - and HD radio is marketing aggressively to try to maintain that market segment. The driver for lowering satellite radio prices and improving content is persuading people that it's worthwhile to adopt satellite radio and pay the subscription fees. A market war between two satellite providers would only drive prices up and deteriorate service quality.