Keep in mind Google Voice and Video won't work with 64-bit Pale Moon. Learned this from experience; spent a considerable while trying to figure out why it wouldn't work before I pinpointed that as the problem. I keep a portable 32-bit install handy just for making voice calls in Gmail.
Then it's irrelevant to what's being suggested, or at least how I interpreted it. What he's suggesting is that, if it comes down to an option where someone's going to get hurt regardless, the vehicle should opt to protect the driver. Obviously, in other situations, it should do both when that option is available.
Maybe that's the best solution, really. Is it the vehicle manufacturer's job to play moral philosopher? They're just trying to sell a useful product, and the most useful behavior in that regard is to do whatever benefits the owner the most. Of course, if your ex-wife is trying to run you down with your car, it may not be able to detect that...
It was Bjarne himself who said that there are two kinds of programming languages: those everyone complains about, and those that nobody uses.
I'm sure that was said more or less as a joke, but it rubs me the wrong way. The basic suggestion here is that no language that reaches sufficient usage is going to be without its problems. That's fair, but I'm reading from it an implication that the criticism is purely due to its popularity, and that's not fair. There are a lot of problems with C++; some are fixable, some are too inherent in the design to be fixed. A lot of what could be fixed has been, and that's fantastic, but there's still plenty of room for legitimate criticism that has nothing to do with hating what's popular.
Regarding languages that "nobody uses," that doesn't necessarily say anything about their quality; some things just don't take off for whatever confluence of reasons. It remains to be seen whether D specifically will or will not, but from what I understand, it is very well-designed and avoids a lot of the design issues present in C++. That's really cool if true and I'm looking forward to seeing if those claims hold up.
When I'm working on any project of significance (which isn't often anymore), I tend to write in C, so what you said is about as far off-base as you can get.
I don't know why you're fanboying about a language like C++ (or any language, for that matter; being a fanboy is stupid, and that is what you're doing), but I was just airing my thoughts on the topic, which is what TFS asked for. If you can't possibly comprehend why someone would deign to suggest your glorious C++ is anything but the result of angels crying tears of code, here's one perspective on some of its issues; it's certainly not the only one of its kind (but it's more in-depth and better-written than anything I'd come up with in a comment on/.).
I can't stand C++, but they are doing a good job of making it considerably less horrible with every iteration. If they keep it up, the end result will be a well-polished and beautiful turd that is, nonetheless, still a turd. I don't think it's salvageable; if we want something good that serves the same role as C++, it will need to be something completely new with similar goals. D sounds interesting, but I don't really know much about it other than it sounds neat.
The problem is that some tools are worse than others. Yes, an artisan craftsman can make a good house with a carp and some thumbtacks, but that doesn't mean those are good tools. C++ is not a good language, nor are any of the languages he mentioned, and they just make things all-around worse for everyone involved.
I don't think so. New ones *will* stop being found, or at least the rate of finding will slow down, especially if they're being patched. The effort required to find such exploits will also go up, which will also raise the price on the black market. Past a certain point, blackhats will likely just focus their efforts elsewhere.
One of the problems I've heard for people who get them in late (heck, it's a problem for me and I have no hearing problems whatsoever) is that you can't really shut it off. That's constant stimulus that you have that you never had before, and that can lead to serious sleep problems.
The funny thing is, this seems like it has an easy enough solution: just research a way to let people turn them off at will. Maybe it's not that easy, though.
The most accomplished spy I know of was Garbo, a double-agent who successfully convinced Nazi Germany that D-Day was just a diversion, among many other things. His story is fascinating.
For the purposes of this argument, there are two types of games: story/character-driven games, and gameplay-driven games. For gameplay-driven games, it really doesn't matter. The player character is not the important part of the game and whatever color he happens to be really isn't any sort of commentary, it's just arbitrary. So yeah, for that, go ahead and make a character creator and let people have choices. I don't really think the "sexuality" choices would really have much of an affect on appearance, though, so forgive me if I think that one can be left out.
For story/character-driven games... it depends. Above all else, you shouldn't shoehorn "diversity" in for the sake of diversity. When you're trying to tell a story, there are other things that are much more important. You want your story to make sense, you want it to fit, you want your characters to be believable and meaningful, and you want to create an experience that the player cares about. Sometimes, one or more of those goals are mutually exclusive with diversity. This is especially true with realistic fiction stories; it's just a fact of life that many interesting settings didn't really have a lot of diversity.
Now, for something more fantastical, like something set in the future or some kind of fantasy, there's more room for that kind of thing, but even then, you're not going to put a character in solely for the sake of "diversity." The statement you're making with that is that race is meaningful, that it's something that we need to "balance" in games. I would say that's racist in itself. The whole idea is supposed to be that it *doesn't* matter. So, to that end, I would say: bring your vision out. Make the characters you want to make, and don't worry about what all these neo-progressives tell you to write about. There are more important things you should be focusing on than what color skin your characters wear.
Listen, I'm all for advancing technology and taking risks, but this particular application has the potential to do very real harm to the test subjects. It's one thing if the researchers put themselves at risk, but putting others at risk because of our own ignorance is unacceptable. I would suggest we do such experiments on animal brains until we have a more thorough understanding of whether or not they'll have serious consequences for human brains.
GP didn't say it reached critical mass, merely that there are a lot of things happening right now. Valve is making a major push toward getting developers to do things on Linux. I think that has yet to finish playing out; the pieces are still moving.
Are they using SSL, or are they using TLS? Which version of either are they using? Most modern browsers support TLS 1.1 and 1.2, but I can imagine Google falling back to 1.0 or even SSL for compatibility with fossils.
As much as I personally love Google Talk, it's about as dead as you can get. Most links have been redirected to Hangouts, and those that aren't, you have to access manually. If anyone cares, here's the only working link that I'm aware of for Google Talk: http://www.google.com/talk/ind...
I see this get tossed around a lot and, somehow, it ended up +4 insightful this time. Why do you seem to think that we should only work on one single problem at a time? Should we put all medical research on hold to stop wars? Should we give up on finding new forms of efficient energy because people are fighting each other? The fact that people are "killing each other" (different people, by the way; the author's not really involved with that and probably isn't a specialist in that field, so his ideas wouldn't be helpful there) does not mean that we can't work on improving ourselves in other ways while continuing to work on that particular problem. The solutions and the pursuit of them are not mutually exclusive.
I don't see how the rest of your post lends itself to support the supposition that "I don't understand statistics." Rather, it seems to support the supposition that "I don't understand the problem of how statistics is misused in the medical field." I'm willing to concede either (I'm not a statistician, I only have a cursory background in statistics to begin with), but if you saw something blatantly wrong with what I wrote, I'd be interested in knowing what it was.
As for not knowing about the problem of the misuse of statistics in the medical field, that's true. I wasn't aware it was a problem at all, and the post I was responding to seemed like he was just generalizing based on a misunderstanding of basic statistics and how it's applied to research. Considering the context of the comment (it's in re a story about anti-vaccination folk, people who are notorious for misunderstanding basic science and using that misunderstanding to condemn a large body of what is basically well-established fact), I felt it was appropriate to assume that my understanding of his comment was correct. But it seems that wasn't the case, and if so, I was in error; I apologize.
They aren't capable of precise theories so instead they disprove that treatment and control groups are exactly the same.
That's basic statistical science. You can't "prove" a hypothesis using statistical methodology, you can only say to some degree of certainty if you reject the null hypothesis (that there is no relation between x and y) or if you fail to reject the null hypothesis (meaning there might be a relation between x and y). This allows us to draw very specific conclusions, such as "we can say with a high degree of certainty that this drug does not have a statistically significant effect on its users" or "there is a statistically significant improvement with patients who took this drug, which supports our hypothesis that the drug helps these patients." The key point here is that we can't prove a theory, but we can support it with empirical evidence, which, with enough testing, can lead us to reasonably conclude that the theory is most likely true. This isn't much different than how the scientific method works in other fields: you make observations, you hypothesize, you test, and you draw conclusions about your tests. You never say "this hypothesis was proven by our experimental results," you say "our experimental results show evidence to support our hypothesis."
Your failure to understand what statistics does and does not allow people to do does not make it useless, nor does it make medical research "shoddy." It just makes you an ignorant fool who thinks his very non-expert opinion on a topic is worthwhile. I'll quote Asimov: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
Slashdot Mirror
Keep in mind Google Voice and Video won't work with 64-bit Pale Moon. Learned this from experience; spent a considerable while trying to figure out why it wouldn't work before I pinpointed that as the problem. I keep a portable 32-bit install handy just for making voice calls in Gmail.
In the US, at least, there are a lot of weird laws on the books that are unenforced and largely forgotten.
Then it's irrelevant to what's being suggested, or at least how I interpreted it. What he's suggesting is that, if it comes down to an option where someone's going to get hurt regardless, the vehicle should opt to protect the driver. Obviously, in other situations, it should do both when that option is available.
Maybe that's the best solution, really. Is it the vehicle manufacturer's job to play moral philosopher? They're just trying to sell a useful product, and the most useful behavior in that regard is to do whatever benefits the owner the most. Of course, if your ex-wife is trying to run you down with your car, it may not be able to detect that...
I'm sure that was said more or less as a joke, but it rubs me the wrong way. The basic suggestion here is that no language that reaches sufficient usage is going to be without its problems. That's fair, but I'm reading from it an implication that the criticism is purely due to its popularity, and that's not fair. There are a lot of problems with C++; some are fixable, some are too inherent in the design to be fixed. A lot of what could be fixed has been, and that's fantastic, but there's still plenty of room for legitimate criticism that has nothing to do with hating what's popular.
Regarding languages that "nobody uses," that doesn't necessarily say anything about their quality; some things just don't take off for whatever confluence of reasons. It remains to be seen whether D specifically will or will not, but from what I understand, it is very well-designed and avoids a lot of the design issues present in C++. That's really cool if true and I'm looking forward to seeing if those claims hold up.
On the other hand, the people behind it seem to be pretty active and passionate about it, which is a good sign.
When I'm working on any project of significance (which isn't often anymore), I tend to write in C, so what you said is about as far off-base as you can get.
/.).
I don't know why you're fanboying about a language like C++ (or any language, for that matter; being a fanboy is stupid, and that is what you're doing), but I was just airing my thoughts on the topic, which is what TFS asked for. If you can't possibly comprehend why someone would deign to suggest your glorious C++ is anything but the result of angels crying tears of code, here's one perspective on some of its issues; it's certainly not the only one of its kind (but it's more in-depth and better-written than anything I'd come up with in a comment on
I can't stand C++, but they are doing a good job of making it considerably less horrible with every iteration. If they keep it up, the end result will be a well-polished and beautiful turd that is, nonetheless, still a turd. I don't think it's salvageable; if we want something good that serves the same role as C++, it will need to be something completely new with similar goals. D sounds interesting, but I don't really know much about it other than it sounds neat.
The problem is that some tools are worse than others. Yes, an artisan craftsman can make a good house with a carp and some thumbtacks, but that doesn't mean those are good tools. C++ is not a good language, nor are any of the languages he mentioned, and they just make things all-around worse for everyone involved.
And another reminder...
Then explain why he's wrong rather than posting a bunch of ad hominem garbage.
I don't think so. New ones *will* stop being found, or at least the rate of finding will slow down, especially if they're being patched. The effort required to find such exploits will also go up, which will also raise the price on the black market. Past a certain point, blackhats will likely just focus their efforts elsewhere.
One of the problems I've heard for people who get them in late (heck, it's a problem for me and I have no hearing problems whatsoever) is that you can't really shut it off. That's constant stimulus that you have that you never had before, and that can lead to serious sleep problems.
The funny thing is, this seems like it has an easy enough solution: just research a way to let people turn them off at will. Maybe it's not that easy, though.
The most accomplished spy I know of was Garbo, a double-agent who successfully convinced Nazi Germany that D-Day was just a diversion, among many other things. His story is fascinating.
Yeah, I think I would have bought a new console, too. Not a Microsoft one, though.
For the purposes of this argument, there are two types of games: story/character-driven games, and gameplay-driven games. For gameplay-driven games, it really doesn't matter. The player character is not the important part of the game and whatever color he happens to be really isn't any sort of commentary, it's just arbitrary. So yeah, for that, go ahead and make a character creator and let people have choices. I don't really think the "sexuality" choices would really have much of an affect on appearance, though, so forgive me if I think that one can be left out.
For story/character-driven games... it depends. Above all else, you shouldn't shoehorn "diversity" in for the sake of diversity. When you're trying to tell a story, there are other things that are much more important. You want your story to make sense, you want it to fit, you want your characters to be believable and meaningful, and you want to create an experience that the player cares about. Sometimes, one or more of those goals are mutually exclusive with diversity. This is especially true with realistic fiction stories; it's just a fact of life that many interesting settings didn't really have a lot of diversity.
Now, for something more fantastical, like something set in the future or some kind of fantasy, there's more room for that kind of thing, but even then, you're not going to put a character in solely for the sake of "diversity." The statement you're making with that is that race is meaningful, that it's something that we need to "balance" in games. I would say that's racist in itself. The whole idea is supposed to be that it *doesn't* matter. So, to that end, I would say: bring your vision out. Make the characters you want to make, and don't worry about what all these neo-progressives tell you to write about. There are more important things you should be focusing on than what color skin your characters wear.
Listen, I'm all for advancing technology and taking risks, but this particular application has the potential to do very real harm to the test subjects. It's one thing if the researchers put themselves at risk, but putting others at risk because of our own ignorance is unacceptable. I would suggest we do such experiments on animal brains until we have a more thorough understanding of whether or not they'll have serious consequences for human brains.
GP didn't say it reached critical mass, merely that there are a lot of things happening right now. Valve is making a major push toward getting developers to do things on Linux. I think that has yet to finish playing out; the pieces are still moving.
Are they using SSL, or are they using TLS? Which version of either are they using? Most modern browsers support TLS 1.1 and 1.2, but I can imagine Google falling back to 1.0 or even SSL for compatibility with fossils.
As much as I personally love Google Talk, it's about as dead as you can get. Most links have been redirected to Hangouts, and those that aren't, you have to access manually. If anyone cares, here's the only working link that I'm aware of for Google Talk: http://www.google.com/talk/ind...
I see this get tossed around a lot and, somehow, it ended up +4 insightful this time. Why do you seem to think that we should only work on one single problem at a time? Should we put all medical research on hold to stop wars? Should we give up on finding new forms of efficient energy because people are fighting each other? The fact that people are "killing each other" (different people, by the way; the author's not really involved with that and probably isn't a specialist in that field, so his ideas wouldn't be helpful there) does not mean that we can't work on improving ourselves in other ways while continuing to work on that particular problem. The solutions and the pursuit of them are not mutually exclusive.
Considering the UK's absurdly overbearing libel laws, I find your suggestion (even with source) hard to believe.
I don't see how the rest of your post lends itself to support the supposition that "I don't understand statistics." Rather, it seems to support the supposition that "I don't understand the problem of how statistics is misused in the medical field." I'm willing to concede either (I'm not a statistician, I only have a cursory background in statistics to begin with), but if you saw something blatantly wrong with what I wrote, I'd be interested in knowing what it was.
As for not knowing about the problem of the misuse of statistics in the medical field, that's true. I wasn't aware it was a problem at all, and the post I was responding to seemed like he was just generalizing based on a misunderstanding of basic statistics and how it's applied to research. Considering the context of the comment (it's in re a story about anti-vaccination folk, people who are notorious for misunderstanding basic science and using that misunderstanding to condemn a large body of what is basically well-established fact), I felt it was appropriate to assume that my understanding of his comment was correct. But it seems that wasn't the case, and if so, I was in error; I apologize.
I don't think forcing the children of stupid parents out of education (public schooling and libraries) is the solution to this problem.
That's basic statistical science. You can't "prove" a hypothesis using statistical methodology, you can only say to some degree of certainty if you reject the null hypothesis (that there is no relation between x and y) or if you fail to reject the null hypothesis (meaning there might be a relation between x and y). This allows us to draw very specific conclusions, such as "we can say with a high degree of certainty that this drug does not have a statistically significant effect on its users" or "there is a statistically significant improvement with patients who took this drug, which supports our hypothesis that the drug helps these patients." The key point here is that we can't prove a theory, but we can support it with empirical evidence, which, with enough testing, can lead us to reasonably conclude that the theory is most likely true. This isn't much different than how the scientific method works in other fields: you make observations, you hypothesize, you test, and you draw conclusions about your tests. You never say "this hypothesis was proven by our experimental results," you say "our experimental results show evidence to support our hypothesis."
Your failure to understand what statistics does and does not allow people to do does not make it useless, nor does it make medical research "shoddy." It just makes you an ignorant fool who thinks his very non-expert opinion on a topic is worthwhile. I'll quote Asimov: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
I think that was exactly the problem he was referring to.