I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not... That's a terrible way to create passwords: the character replacements are easy to guess and the method is so common that they are going to be included in the dictionary.
The point of using dictionary words in pass phrases is to think of them as letters of a password. A password with 8 random letters is much more secure than a random 8 letter word. Similarly 8 random words are much more secure than a random phrase with 8 words.
You're a crazy, freedom-loving (?), right-wing nutjob! I'm glad I live in a country where human life is valued higher than property and where you can't shoot people just because they are committing a crime.
At least in Finland you can make a few copies of any cd you own. You can even check out the cd from a library and make a copy. I can't make a copy for you, though. You're also not allowed to circumvent any effective copy protection to make your copy. Crazy laws...
I'm from Finland, where we don't have English as an official language. I think there is something wrong with Indians who don't speak English, same as with everyone else who doesn't speak it: they are at a great disadvantage in the international job market. I'm not saying it's necessarily their fault, they may not have access to language lessons etc., just that it's a smart move for people from anywhere in the world to learn English.
Re:Wow, that was fast
on
Nokia Sells Qt
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I'm fine with the US requiring whatever information it wants to be able to fly there - every country has the right to police their territory. What I do have a problem with is that the EU just wimps out and gives the information to the US without requiring that the US hand over the same information on the americans flying to Europe. We let them have their cake and eat it too.
The issue here is more of morality: while they didn't actually scam anyone per se, as a direct result of their actions, thousands of legitimate concert-goers had to pay more for their tickets than they should have needed to. In other words, they were sneaky and manipulated all these people into paying them more $.
The underlying problem is that the original ticket price is too low: if they were sold at fair market price, there would be no opportunity for scalping. The reason of course is that the point of concerts is more to promote the sale of cds and such, not so much making money directly. It would not be good pr to only play for the rich.
the only reason someone would describe themselves like in the essay in the article is to appear smart, driven and ambitious; in essence gaming the system. The simpler the indirect measurements are, the harder they are to subvert.
Yes, that's the reason for doing it. What's important is the ability to do it.
The ability to communicate is important, sure, but is writing a fancy, bogus essay about how motivated you are really the best way to measure it?
I think it's important to show the ability to communicate with non-engineers, because in engineering how well we do that is going to be a major factor in our success. I think expecting somebody to show ability to communicate with non-engineers on technical matters would be setting the bar too high.
So writing about technical matters is too hard, so we should have the students write about their feelings and ambitions instead?
That usually takes years -- decades -- of experience post-university!
Obviously you wouldn't expect them to do it as well as a seasoned veteran, but being able to quickly learn about a technical matter and explain it in a clear, concise matter to someone without prior knowledge of the subject is exactly the kind of communication they are be expected to perform during the studies.
With a little help anyone can write 500 words of bullshit like the "great" essay in the article.
No they can't. Believe me, they can't. I have to deal with countless engineers who can't string a coherent sentence together. The essay in the article showed a creative approach to the question. The author will almost certainly be a more effective communicator of engineering (and a better advocate for MIT) than somebody who produces a bland essay.
With alot of help then:) Personally, I found the essay to be the kind of pseudo-creative look-at-me-I'm-talented type of writing that shouldn't be encouraged for an engineering school. I don't blame the writer, she did what was needed to get in and did it quite well.
Subjectivity can be objectively better, but those who major in the sciences and engineering can have difficulty seeing that. The quasi-religious dogma of objectivity has led to countless cases of deterioration in performance (look at the gaming of hospital waiting lists in the UK for example).
Thinking too much like an engineer - you got me. The problem with many subjective measurements is that they can be gamed as well: the only reason someone would describe themselves like in the essay in the article is to appear smart, driven and ambitious; in essence gaming the system. The simpler the indirect measurements are, the harder they are to subvert.
I don't think that just saying they're motivated would have got them far in the MIT essay test. They had to show actual skill in essay writing.
I'm sure they have to show actual skill in essay writing, but is that really the way to measure communication skills in a would-be engineer? I don't think so. The biggest problem from the fairness pov is that these essays can be written with outside help. Maybe have them read an article on an engineering topic on site and summarize the main points. Or have them write a short paper like the ones actually done during the studies.
I'm sure that a post in slashdot isn't going to make them change their policy. Since MIT has now removed the 500 word essay, it seems that it might not be a good way to measure the "drive, ambition, etc.". It seems to me that such an essay helps just as little in determining these important attributes as the xkcd capcha in differentiating humans and computers. With a little help anyone can write 500 words of bullshit like the "great" essay in the article.
I think the most important argument against the use of subjective measurements like these is that they can be used to pervert the selection system.
Here's my sample essay (in 33 words): My dad is the CEO of Big Corp and is willing to donate millions to the university I'll be attending. So you see that I'm a very good candidate for MIT.
I agree that skills other than pure math are important for success in a top engineering school; test for those, but don't put people ahead of others because the say they're motivated.
I'm not familiar with the details of MIT admissions, but I can comment based on the admissions in engineering universities here in Finland.
The basic problems is very similar: our equivalent of the SAT:s (nationally standardized examns at the end of highschool) are bad measurements for selecting students, because most of the would-be engineers score in the top 10% of the country in math and physics. The solution here is to hold separate entrance examns that are common for all the engineering universities. The material is basically the same (high school maths and physics / chemistry), but the difficulty is set higher: most high schools students would get no points on it, only very few can score full points, but it nicely measures the differences between the good and the best. In practice getting 50% right will get you into most programmes, 85-90% into even the most popular / exclusive.
Like Jim_v2000 said:
"An essay is a shitty way to select engineering students and doesn't gauge anything other than their ability to make up 500 words of bullshit. "
A very important part of a selection system is fairness: it's very hard to objectively measure differences in "Drive, ambition, ideals, character, motivation", so it's better to stick to the skills that can be measured and are relevant to the subject.
As with other intellectual property rights, the use of geographical indications is intended to increase the income of rightholders. The preambles to the Regulations cite consumer demand for quality foodstuffs and identify a number of goals for the protection regimes:
the promotion of products with specific characteristics, particularly those coming from less-favoured or rural areas;
the improvement of the income of farmers, in return for a "genuine effort to improve quality";
the retention of population in rural areas;
the provision of clear and succinct information to consumers regarding product origin.
The provision of a recompense for efforts to improve quality and the need for consumer protection are often cited as justifications for trade mark protection in other domains, and geographical indications operate in a similar manner to trade marks.
I think the last one is very important: I want to know whether I'm eating Greek feta or other "white cheese" - very often I'll choose the cheaper, non protected option, but at least as a consumer I'm able to make an informed choice. And alot of these protected products are much more obscure parts of traditional diets, they need special treatement if we want to preserve them in our markets.
So basically... Results matter. Names don't, beyond letting me know what the package contains. And "where" does not count as part of "what".
If you feel like this, you should have no problem with only Champagne region sparkling wines being called Champagne - you can just choose any sparkling wine that you prefer and ignore the name. For those of us who like to make the distinction, it's good to have the power of the EU on our side.
The point is that you ran your tool manually, with the intent of collecting all the data. Why would I or one of my friends run your tool for the benefit of an evil 3rd party?
The problem described in the article is that facebook apps like funny little quizes get way more information than they need. I propose that application developers could opt to use only limited user info and get that fact recognized by Facebook. When facebook asks you to grant the rights, apps that ask for too many rights would be suspect and get less users.
There would be a simple solution: have the apps state what rights they need through the api. Instead of:
"Do you want to give this application the right to your profile?"
Have a question:
"Do you want to give this application the right to the following information:"
- your name
- your profile picture
- list of your friends names
A quiz really doesn't need to know more than that, an photo editing application might need all your photos etc. The api could also let the application developer write a short description of why such info is needed. An application that asks for too many rights would not get as many users - at least the smart users would be protected.
But to be honest the main reason I do it is because it tastes so much better. Carrots actually test of carrot rather than crunchy water taste you get from a standard supermarket carrot.
We get organic veg delivered to our door from a local farm and it last much longer due to shorter pick to delivery time scales. There is also the added bonus of getting a wider variety of veg.
Here is the problem with your argument: you are comparing really fresh organic carrots from the local farm to non-organic ones from the supermarket, which possibly travelled for days before reaching you. Of course they taste better! Why do you think that is? Because they are organic or because they are fresh? I've eaten non-organic tomatos right from the plant, they tasted so much better than store bought ones.
You should keep eating the superior, local carrots. You should not, however, use that as an argument for producing food with less efficient methods like organic farming - the key to better taste is to get the veggies locally.
If you say that drug use leads to crime you are making an argument that I wonder about.
Drug use does lead to violations of laws: drug laws. It forces the user to turn to the black market, where there is no police protection or government enforcement of contracts. So drug users and dealers are more likely to own a gun for protection. Being that a non-trivial percentage of them are felons, possession of that gun puts them in violation of even more laws. And on, and on. Illegal drug use does lead to crime.
You have just formulated one of the main arguments for legalization of drug use: it is the fact that drug use is illegal that causes crime, not the drug use itself. If the users were able to purchase their pot at the local drug store or 7-11, there would be no need to break the gun laws.
The other side is of course that being intoxicated leads to crime, just check any statistics on how many murders were commited while drunk - a legal drug. Still, prohibition of a substance with significant demand leads to a black market, which provides organized crime with a good income. And many people who otherwise would have no dealings with organized criminals do so, because it is the only way to get drugs. The step to harder, more dangerous substances becomes smaller, since pot smokers are already doing something illegal and have the connection to the criminals.
The old asp.net ajax components are still there, but since one of the big benefits of jQuery is that it plays nice with other libraries, you can use either one or both on the same page.
Construct a non-privacy-invading millimeter-wave scanner. Build it in such a way that everything that passes through would get hit with a beam, but not in such a way that that you can see pictures, i.e. much blurrier, more scattered, more regional in nature. Sort out the data through basic math about the composition of the human body. See way more metal than you would expect (regardless of whether it is ferrous), set off red flags. Detect massing of large polymers, set off flags. And so on. Do this with computers, not through people watching a screen. Then, let the computer identify what general vicinity set off red flags with lights on a board with the shape of a human drawn from a couple of angles and ask them to empty the contents of their shirt pockets.
What does the millimeter-wave-scanner have to do with privacy? "Oh-no someone will see me naked"? How is someone seeing the shape of your body any worse than them padding you to feel if there are weapons.
If humans are better at detecting stuff than computers, use humans. Or better yet, combination of both.
There are many severe privacy issues related to flying, but this isn't one of them.
"I believe he did something illegal." is an opinion. "He did something illegal." is a statement of fact.
If you can't tell the difference, you have a problem.
The two statements say exactly the same thing - you are saying he did something illegal. Whether he did or did not do something illegal is not a question of opinion, but a question of fact.
No - but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").
I believe Godwin has illegally used his position and the City of Memphis as a ram to ruin the Constitution of the United States.
No problem with that; it's the author's opinion, not a statement of fact.
Actually, it's a statement of fact disguised as an opinion. Doesn't help. Something like "Godwin is an asshole" would work, as it clearly expresses a personal opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Binary search is O(log n), not O(n log n). Searching unsorted values is O( n ).
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not... That's a terrible way to create passwords: the character replacements are easy to guess and the method is so common that they are going to be included in the dictionary.
The point of using dictionary words in pass phrases is to think of them as letters of a password. A password with 8 random letters is much more secure than a random 8 letter word. Similarly 8 random words are much more secure than a random phrase with 8 words.
That's what the rapists say...
You're a crazy, freedom-loving (?), right-wing nutjob! I'm glad I live in a country where human life is valued higher than property and where you can't shoot people just because they are committing a crime.
At least in Finland you can make a few copies of any cd you own. You can even check out the cd from a library and make a copy. I can't make a copy for you, though. You're also not allowed to circumvent any effective copy protection to make your copy. Crazy laws...
I'm from Finland, where we don't have English as an official language. I think there is something wrong with Indians who don't speak English, same as with everyone else who doesn't speak it: they are at a great disadvantage in the international job market. I'm not saying it's necessarily their fault, they may not have access to language lessons etc., just that it's a smart move for people from anywhere in the world to learn English.
I guess in the spirit of fairness you should also link to the qt blog post detailing this sale: Nokia and Digia working together to grow the Qt community
Yes, or more likely the European country that arrests you would demand that the death penalty is off the table as a condition for your extradition.
You absolutely can run power lines under water. See Estlink, the 350MW cable between Finland and Estonia.
Now we can get some better idea about the actual number of running boxes instead of just download figures.
I'm fine with the US requiring whatever information it wants to be able to fly there - every country has the right to police their territory. What I do have a problem with is that the EU just wimps out and gives the information to the US without requiring that the US hand over the same information on the americans flying to Europe. We let them have their cake and eat it too.
The issue here is more of morality: while they didn't actually scam anyone per se, as a direct result of their actions, thousands of legitimate concert-goers had to pay more for their tickets than they should have needed to. In other words, they were sneaky and manipulated all these people into paying them more $.
The underlying problem is that the original ticket price is too low: if they were sold at fair market price, there would be no opportunity for scalping. The reason of course is that the point of concerts is more to promote the sale of cds and such, not so much making money directly. It would not be good pr to only play for the rich.
the only reason someone would describe themselves like in the essay in the article is to appear smart, driven and ambitious; in essence gaming the system. The simpler the indirect measurements are, the harder they are to subvert.
Yes, that's the reason for doing it. What's important is the ability to do it.
The ability to communicate is important, sure, but is writing a fancy, bogus essay about how motivated you are really the best way to measure it?
I think it's important to show the ability to communicate with non-engineers, because in engineering how well we do that is going to be a major factor in our success. I think expecting somebody to show ability to communicate with non-engineers on technical matters would be setting the bar too high.
So writing about technical matters is too hard, so we should have the students write about their feelings and ambitions instead?
That usually takes years -- decades -- of experience post-university!
Obviously you wouldn't expect them to do it as well as a seasoned veteran, but being able to quickly learn about a technical matter and explain it in a clear, concise matter to someone without prior knowledge of the subject is exactly the kind of communication they are be expected to perform during the studies.
With a little help anyone can write 500 words of bullshit like the "great" essay in the article.
No they can't. Believe me, they can't. I have to deal with countless engineers who can't string a coherent sentence together. The essay in the article showed a creative approach to the question. The author will almost certainly be a more effective communicator of engineering (and a better advocate for MIT) than somebody who produces a bland essay.
With alot of help then :) Personally, I found the essay to be the kind of pseudo-creative look-at-me-I'm-talented type of writing that shouldn't be encouraged for an engineering school. I don't blame the writer, she did what was needed to get in and did it quite well.
Subjectivity can be objectively better, but those who major in the sciences and engineering can have difficulty seeing that. The quasi-religious dogma of objectivity has led to countless cases of deterioration in performance (look at the gaming of hospital waiting lists in the UK for example).
Thinking too much like an engineer - you got me. The problem with many subjective measurements is that they can be gamed as well: the only reason someone would describe themselves like in the essay in the article is to appear smart, driven and ambitious; in essence gaming the system. The simpler the indirect measurements are, the harder they are to subvert.
I don't think that just saying they're motivated would have got them far in the MIT essay test. They had to show actual skill in essay writing.
I'm sure they have to show actual skill in essay writing, but is that really the way to measure communication skills in a would-be engineer? I don't think so. The biggest problem from the fairness pov is that these essays can be written with outside help. Maybe have them read an article on an engineering topic on site and summarize the main points. Or have them write a short paper like the ones actually done during the studies.
I'm sure that a post in slashdot isn't going to make them change their policy. Since MIT has now removed the 500 word essay, it seems that it might not be a good way to measure the "drive, ambition, etc.". It seems to me that such an essay helps just as little in determining these important attributes as the xkcd capcha in differentiating humans and computers. With a little help anyone can write 500 words of bullshit like the "great" essay in the article.
I think the most important argument against the use of subjective measurements like these is that they can be used to pervert the selection system.
Here's my sample essay (in 33 words):
My dad is the CEO of Big Corp and is willing to donate millions to the university I'll be attending. So you see that I'm a very good candidate for MIT.
I agree that skills other than pure math are important for success in a top engineering school; test for those, but don't put people ahead of others because the say they're motivated.
I'm not familiar with the details of MIT admissions, but I can comment based on the admissions in engineering universities here in Finland.
The basic problems is very similar: our equivalent of the SAT:s (nationally standardized examns at the end of highschool) are bad measurements for selecting students, because most of the would-be engineers score in the top 10% of the country in math and physics. The solution here is to hold separate entrance examns that are common for all the engineering universities. The material is basically the same (high school maths and physics / chemistry), but the difficulty is set higher: most high schools students would get no points on it, only very few can score full points, but it nicely measures the differences between the good and the best. In practice getting 50% right will get you into most programmes, 85-90% into even the most popular / exclusive.
Like Jim_v2000 said:
"An essay is a shitty way to select engineering students and doesn't gauge anything other than their ability to make up 500 words of bullshit. "
A very important part of a selection system is fairness: it's very hard to objectively measure differences in "Drive, ambition, ideals, character, motivation", so it's better to stick to the skills that can be measured and are relevant to the subject.
From wikipedia:
I think the last one is very important: I want to know whether I'm eating Greek feta or other "white cheese" - very often I'll choose the cheaper, non protected option, but at least as a consumer I'm able to make an informed choice. And alot of these protected products are much more obscure parts of traditional diets, they need special treatement if we want to preserve them in our markets.
So basically... Results matter. Names don't, beyond letting me know what the package contains. And "where" does not count as part of "what".
If you feel like this, you should have no problem with only Champagne region sparkling wines being called Champagne - you can just choose any sparkling wine that you prefer and ignore the name. For those of us who like to make the distinction, it's good to have the power of the EU on our side.
The point is that you ran your tool manually, with the intent of collecting all the data. Why would I or one of my friends run your tool for the benefit of an evil 3rd party?
The problem described in the article is that facebook apps like funny little quizes get way more information than they need. I propose that application developers could opt to use only limited user info and get that fact recognized by Facebook. When facebook asks you to grant the rights, apps that ask for too many rights would be suspect and get less users.
There would be a simple solution: have the apps state what rights they need through the api. Instead of:
"Do you want to give this application the right to your profile?"
Have a question:
"Do you want to give this application the right to the following information:"
- your name
- your profile picture
- list of your friends names
A quiz really doesn't need to know more than that, an photo editing application might need all your photos etc. The api could also let the application developer write a short description of why such info is needed. An application that asks for too many rights would not get as many users - at least the smart users would be protected.
But to be honest the main reason I do it is because it tastes so much better. Carrots actually test of carrot rather than crunchy water taste you get from a standard supermarket carrot.
We get organic veg delivered to our door from a local farm and it last much longer due to shorter pick to delivery time scales. There is also the added bonus of getting a wider variety of veg.
Here is the problem with your argument: you are comparing really fresh organic carrots from the local farm to non-organic ones from the supermarket, which possibly travelled for days before reaching you. Of course they taste better! Why do you think that is? Because they are organic or because they are fresh? I've eaten non-organic tomatos right from the plant, they tasted so much better than store bought ones.
You should keep eating the superior, local carrots. You should not, however, use that as an argument for producing food with less efficient methods like organic farming - the key to better taste is to get the veggies locally.
If you say that drug use leads to crime you are making an argument that I wonder about.
Drug use does lead to violations of laws: drug laws. It forces the user to turn to the black market, where there is no police protection or government enforcement of contracts. So drug users and dealers are more likely to own a gun for protection. Being that a non-trivial percentage of them are felons, possession of that gun puts them in violation of even more laws. And on, and on. Illegal drug use does lead to crime.
You have just formulated one of the main arguments for legalization of drug use: it is the fact that drug use is illegal that causes crime, not the drug use itself. If the users were able to purchase their pot at the local drug store or 7-11, there would be no need to break the gun laws.
The other side is of course that being intoxicated leads to crime, just check any statistics on how many murders were commited while drunk - a legal drug. Still, prohibition of a substance with significant demand leads to a black market, which provides organized crime with a good income. And many people who otherwise would have no dealings with organized criminals do so, because it is the only way to get drugs. The step to harder, more dangerous substances becomes smaller, since pot smokers are already doing something illegal and have the connection to the criminals.
The old asp.net ajax components are still there, but since one of the big benefits of jQuery is that it plays nice with other libraries, you can use either one or both on the same page.
Construct a non-privacy-invading millimeter-wave scanner. Build it in such a way that everything that passes through would get hit with a beam, but not in such a way that that you can see pictures, i.e. much blurrier, more scattered, more regional in nature. Sort out the data through basic math about the composition of the human body. See way more metal than you would expect (regardless of whether it is ferrous), set off red flags. Detect massing of large polymers, set off flags. And so on. Do this with computers, not through people watching a screen. Then, let the computer identify what general vicinity set off red flags with lights on a board with the shape of a human drawn from a couple of angles and ask them to empty the contents of their shirt pockets.
What does the millimeter-wave-scanner have to do with privacy? "Oh-no someone will see me naked"? How is someone seeing the shape of your body any worse than them padding you to feel if there are weapons.
If humans are better at detecting stuff than computers, use humans. Or better yet, combination of both.
There are many severe privacy issues related to flying, but this isn't one of them.
"I believe he did something illegal." is an opinion. "He did something illegal." is a statement of fact.
If you can't tell the difference, you have a problem.
The two statements say exactly the same thing - you are saying he did something illegal. Whether he did or did not do something illegal is not a question of opinion, but a question of fact.
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php
Can my opinion be defamatory?
No - but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").
Something like this is probably less risky:
No problem with that; it's the author's opinion, not a statement of fact.
Actually, it's a statement of fact disguised as an opinion. Doesn't help. Something like "Godwin is an asshole" would work, as it clearly expresses a personal opinion.