Completely true. For example, the Ibex has much better support for various hardware, and comes with the software and drivers to suit. By default, beryl etc. is enabled for many graphics cards. Gnome's network manager is there too, to support the GSM connections, etc. etc.
Apart from the fact the LTS releases mean you get security updates for years for certain older versions, there are a host of flavours explicitly aimed at low-end hardware, such as xubuntu.
Speaking from a potential third world (Australia), I'd just like to point out the other bane of civilisation: corruption. All the laptops and quick-setting concrete in the world is no good by itself. You need a government that's willing to give its population what's needed, rather than doing what's in the politicians' self-interest.
Also, if there's one thing that's not lacking in developing countries, it's cheap labour. Giving people jobs would seem to me a higher priority than buying advanced robotics from overseas.
Nonetheless, it's still a sexy technology. Maybe they can use something like this to build our moon-bases with: less gravity to cause cave-ins, and no need for that pesky oxygen.
Cardenas remains in custody for allegedly resisting arrest during the scuffle and for a felony warrant for receiving stolen goods, according to Bratton.
Receiving stolen goods doesn't sound to me like requiring this much force, but I agree you need to understand the context more than the video allows. As the original new item I watched pointed out, when you have someone kneeing your windpipe and you're crying out 'I can't breathe', of course you're going to struggle to remove the knee.
Also according to the new item, this guy had no priors or gang association, etc.
I like the idea of being able to give organisations revokable pointers to my details. As long as the organisation which kept the details was transparent and accountable, I'd be fairly happy about using it. Get credit card companies to use it to reduce fraud (somehow) and maybe you've even found a way to finance it: greater online security might encourage more online purchases...
The biggest flaw in the proposed scheme (if I understand it correctly) is that the reference you give each organisation is the same. Even if you can restrict access to personal information, companies can share information and put together your profile, just like a cookie only worse.
Wouldn't a better idea to use a secret key system, and each organisation can generate a request for your details which, if approved, gets signed by your secret key and returned to them. They never get your ID, so they can't profile you more than you want to be profiled. If you like, you can "delete your cookies" every 12 months.
Ideally all correspondence would also go through a level of indirection, meaning they'd never have ANY of your personal details - they'd be given a unique email alias, and a meta-address for snail mail that the postal service would recognise and treat correctly.
Did you even bother to read the summary, let alone TFA?
It uses web browser to edit documents, with nice AJAX controls and server-side document management. You can import/export in word/rtf/openoffice/etc formats. Most importantly, online collaboration is easy and works.
Last week I was introducing my fellow students to wikis. Suddenly I'm thinking it was a waste of time. Just as long as writely stays free for basic use when out of beta, as they claim it will.
[quote] When fights break out among our kids, we punish both parties equally. While the aggressor gets punished for "taking things to the next level", the victim is punished for allowing it to happen to him/her. They can develop means to encourage aggressors to leave them the !@## alone, and they do. [/quote]
What do you think this is teaching them? "Even if I do the right thing I'll be punished". You must be a true anarchist - you don't want your children to respect the law, their parents, or the rest of the community - only to fear them. They see the only way to be "good" is to take everything into their own hands. And if they are hurt, they dare not cry, or seek your understanding, because you will punish them for it.
Sure, we all need to learn to act responsibly, but a lot of people act they way they do because of their environment. If they have violent or emotionally dysfunctional parents, odds are they'll inherit those traits. Same at school of course.
Standing up to a bully and not being afraid is good. Telling them the only way to settle it is by taking it into their own hands is wrong in so many ways. Vigilante justice is no justice.
Judgement of good and evil is based on morals. You can say some things are good or evil, but that's just your view, based on your beliefs.
When you say "X is evil", it's a very black and white statement, which almost never fits reality. In the case of rape, there are lots of actions which could be defined as rape: - haxing sex with someone without their explicit consent - having sex with someone who isn't in a responsible state (e.g. drunk) - having sex with someone who you've caused to not be in a responsible state (e.g. slip GHB in their drink) - emotionally manipulate someone into allowing you to have sex with them even though they don't want to - pay someone for sex when it isn't legal - etc. etc.
this is just off the top of my head, and I'm no lawyer. We all do things occassionally which hurt other people, some of us more often than others, and some of us more consciously than others. You can also help others to hurt people, either explicitly, through inaction, or providing an environment conducive to hurtful behaviour. (e.g. sell GHB).
What I'm getting at is this: rape is bad, and we should do what we can to stop it happening. To just call it 'evil' ignores the shades of grey.
Having said that, I agree that calling it barbaric might not be the best word. Rape is an example of our primal nature overcoming our social/civil tendencies, though of course it's a lot more complex than that.
Moreover, a lot of people tend to throw around the terms 'good' and 'evil' quite lightly.
Do you seriously think a child's upbringing is solely in the hands of the parents? Even a parent with the best of intentions is not capable of ensuring their children are in a stimulating, challenging yet nurturing environment. Every time you walk out the door, turn on the TV or open a newspaper you're exposed to advertising, trying to make you change your behaviour. Sure, we all think WE have the will-power to see through the smoke and mirrors, but it's that level of ego which helps the ads be so pervasive and effective.
Games are not made to make us better people, or even to make us happy (MMORPGs anyone?). They're made to sell copies, and perhaps ideologies (america's army, etc.) The designers do not care at all what effect the game will have on you, your children, or anyone else. If they can make a game contentious and generate more publicity (=sales), they'll jump at the chance.
Some people forget that we're supposed to live in a SOCIETY, which means interacting with others. I don't like the idea of a nanny state, but I don't like the idea of having games which include "wandering around brutally killing and raping anything".
The more we're exposed to something, the more familiar it becomes. It doesn't mean we'll all become serial rapists overnight, but it does we see rape as less barbaric than it is.
... except that pipes don't load-balance, don't have time-to-live, can't have fluids flowing smoothly in both directions at once..
we won't even try to bring NAT, ip6 or self-organising WANs into it.
Though whatever you think of his lack of sense, at least he tried to explain himself. When the senators DON'T provide rationales for their voting patterns we should be more worried.
The first unintended discovery (can any true discovery truly be intentional?) that came to mind was that of jaunting, named after its creator.
My description would pale in comparison to the original, so I won't try. Suffice to say, read this book, be amazed, then look when it was written and be doubly amazed.
... they would make this extension work with a configurable URL target.
After all, if everything is encrypted when sent to google, google isn't able to manipulate the data in any way; it's just a sequence of 0s and 1s.
So why not let you save it to your website (in a private folder), ftp site, etc. ? Sure, they can offer to HTTP-RPC it to their own server if you like, but why force you to store your data there?
I for one am a bit suss about them having more of my data, particularly when they claim they can't read it.
Agreed. This article doesn't appear to say anything insightful. The biggest problem is only alluded to, and that's the monoculture one: if everyone uses SSH to supply encryption/authentication services, a single bug could allow an SSH-worm to achieve critical mass.
There is plenty we don't know and many breakthroughs left in the universe, but I think it's human arrogance to think we're capable of omnipotence.
Sure, carbon nanotubes are neat, and gave us the impression we could build stronger structures and materials than previously. But why does their existance mean we're sure to find something equally strong AND able to withstand being a space elevator cable?
Don't get me wrong - saying 'never' is unwise, but it's almost as bad to assume humanity will be capable of everything one day.
Just in case you didn't RTFA, the phone displays a hash on the display. As long as you read this one to whoever you're talking to, you more-or-less foil a man-in-the-middle attack.
I'm more worried about the proprietry algorithm for the encryption, and how it's implemented. Any conspiracy theorists will still think there's a back door for the government (or swiss secret service?) to listen in.
Anyone with anything really important to say would use GPG on an MP3 and maybe a lashing of stenography on top.
You're forgetting about distribution costs, packaging costs, 'shrinkage' (theft) costs plus all the administrative overhead of moving boxes of DVDs around the world.
Sure, I agree pirates aren't going to start paying for what they can - and do - get for free. But I bet that the cost of physically selling DVDs is about 30% of their retail price. The other 70% might be royalties and WB profit.
So WB could sell a $15 DVD for around $10 without even decreasing their profit margin. Even bandwidth costs wouldn't be much, given they want to use bittorrent.
The biggest drawback I can see from WB's perspective is once you have people BT'ing their movies legitimately, they then get impatient with waiting for the DVD release date and get the 'bad quality rips' instead.
True, the other drives are ~$100 more expensive. If all you got was a 30% speed increase, I'd agree with you.
But these drives are not just faster, they're also higher capacity. An ipod holds more than these low-end drives, and anyone who wants their laptop to be their MP3 player will happily spend $100 extra for ~80Gb more space.
Yep, some people will buy the cheapest thing without looking at what they're missing out on. But it wouldn't be hard to market a lappy as "NEXT GENERATION: MASSIVE 100GB DISK DRIVE". But what would I know, I'm not in marketing.
Sorry, but the control group should consist of matched samples from the population of everyone who doesn't have brain tumours. You could use socio-economic status, geographical location, age, weight, IQ etc to match the controls to the cases, but NOT whether they have cancer. (You could also have unmatched controls too, though you have to calculate the odds ratio a bit differently.)
I too have suspicions about the quality of the meta-study too (whether post-hoc analysis is being done, etc.) but I think the selection of the controls is not the problem. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_control:
A number of Control subjects (or controls) are then chosen who do not exhibit the outcome or effect under investigation - there may be one or more per case subject. These controls should match the cases as closely as possible with respect to the non-risk variables; this allows the proposed non-risk variables to be ignored in the analysis.
I don't know why it's not linked to any any of the articles, but here's the scientific paper. If we're going to critique it, we might as well do it right:
Sounds similar to Skype. If your firewall allows incoming connections you act as a relay for those who don't. Combine this with a dodgy ISP which charges you for your uploads (http://bigpond.com.au/) and newbies are in a world of pain.
Applications like this would be great if they were opt-in: if you had to say how much upload bandwidth you were willing the application to use, fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely true. For example, the Ibex has much better support for various hardware, and comes with the software and drivers to suit. By default, beryl etc. is enabled for many graphics cards. Gnome's network manager is there too, to support the GSM connections, etc. etc.
Apart from the fact the LTS releases mean you get security updates for years for certain older versions, there are a host of flavours explicitly aimed at low-end hardware, such as xubuntu.
Not only is this manmade, but the company doing the exploration is closely related to the Indonesian president.
This story is also months old. The geyser formed around last August and they tried concrete around October.
Speaking from a potential third world (Australia), I'd just like to point out the other bane of civilisation: corruption. All the laptops and quick-setting concrete in the world is no good by itself. You need a government that's willing to give its population what's needed, rather than doing what's in the politicians' self-interest.
Also, if there's one thing that's not lacking in developing countries, it's cheap labour. Giving people jobs would seem to me a higher priority than buying advanced robotics from overseas.
Nonetheless, it's still a sexy technology. Maybe they can use something like this to build our moon-bases with: less gravity to cause cave-ins, and no need for that pesky oxygen.
Receiving stolen goods doesn't sound to me like requiring this much force, but I agree you need to understand the context more than the video allows. As the original new item I watched pointed out, when you have someone kneeing your windpipe and you're crying out 'I can't breathe', of course you're going to struggle to remove the knee.
Also according to the new item, this guy had no priors or gang association, etc.
I'm afraid all this wit is over my head.
(If only I could mod my own comments down....)
Never mind the fact that, unlike the North Pole, the South Pole is on land!
I like the idea of being able to give organisations revokable pointers to my details. As long as the organisation which kept the details was transparent and accountable, I'd be fairly happy about using it. Get credit card companies to use it to reduce fraud (somehow) and maybe you've even found a way to finance it: greater online security might encourage more online purchases...
The biggest flaw in the proposed scheme (if I understand it correctly) is that the reference you give each organisation is the same. Even if you can restrict access to personal information, companies can share information and put together your profile, just like a cookie only worse.
Wouldn't a better idea to use a secret key system, and each organisation can generate a request for your details which, if approved, gets signed by your secret key and returned to them. They never get your ID, so they can't profile you more than you want to be profiled. If you like, you can "delete your cookies" every 12 months.
Ideally all correspondence would also go through a level of indirection, meaning they'd never have ANY of your personal details - they'd be given a unique email alias, and a meta-address for snail mail that the postal service would recognise and treat correctly.
Did you even bother to read the summary, let alone TFA?
It uses web browser to edit documents, with nice AJAX controls and server-side document management. You can import/export in word/rtf/openoffice/etc formats. Most importantly, online collaboration is easy and works.
Last week I was introducing my fellow students to wikis. Suddenly I'm thinking it was a waste of time. Just as long as writely stays free for basic use when out of beta, as they claim it will.
[quote]
When fights break out among our kids, we punish both parties equally. While the aggressor gets punished for "taking things to the next level", the victim is punished for allowing it to happen to him/her. They can develop means to encourage aggressors to leave them the !@## alone, and they do.
[/quote]
What do you think this is teaching them? "Even if I do the right thing I'll be punished". You must be a true anarchist - you don't want your children to respect the law, their parents, or the rest of the community - only to fear them. They see the only way to be "good" is to take everything into their own hands. And if they are hurt, they dare not cry, or seek your understanding, because you will punish them for it.
Sure, we all need to learn to act responsibly, but a lot of people act they way they do because of their environment. If they have violent or emotionally dysfunctional parents, odds are they'll inherit those traits. Same at school of course.
Standing up to a bully and not being afraid is good. Telling them the only way to settle it is by taking it into their own hands is wrong in so many ways. Vigilante justice is no justice.
Judgement of good and evil is based on morals. You can say some things are good or evil, but that's just your view, based on your beliefs.
When you say "X is evil", it's a very black and white statement, which almost never fits reality. In the case of rape, there are lots of actions which could be defined as rape:
- haxing sex with someone without their explicit consent
- having sex with someone who isn't in a responsible state (e.g. drunk)
- having sex with someone who you've caused to not be in a responsible state (e.g. slip GHB in their drink)
- emotionally manipulate someone into allowing you to have sex with them even though they don't want to
- pay someone for sex when it isn't legal
- etc. etc.
this is just off the top of my head, and I'm no lawyer. We all do things occassionally which hurt other people, some of us more often than others, and some of us more consciously than others. You can also help others to hurt people, either explicitly, through inaction, or providing an environment conducive to hurtful behaviour. (e.g. sell GHB).
What I'm getting at is this: rape is bad, and we should do what we can to stop it happening. To just call it 'evil' ignores the shades of grey.
Having said that, I agree that calling it barbaric might not be the best word. Rape is an example of our primal nature overcoming our social/civil tendencies, though of course it's a lot more complex than that.
Moreover, a lot of people tend to throw around the terms 'good' and 'evil' quite lightly.
Do you seriously think a child's upbringing is solely in the hands of the parents? Even a parent with the best of intentions is not capable of ensuring their children are in a stimulating, challenging yet nurturing environment. Every time you walk out the door, turn on the TV or open a newspaper you're exposed to advertising, trying to make you change your behaviour. Sure, we all think WE have the will-power to see through the smoke and mirrors, but it's that level of ego which helps the ads be so pervasive and effective.
Games are not made to make us better people, or even to make us happy (MMORPGs anyone?). They're made to sell copies, and perhaps ideologies (america's army, etc.) The designers do not care at all what effect the game will have on you, your children, or anyone else. If they can make a game contentious and generate more publicity (=sales), they'll jump at the chance.
Some people forget that we're supposed to live in a SOCIETY, which means interacting with others. I don't like the idea of a nanny state, but I don't like the idea of having games which include "wandering around brutally killing and raping anything".
The more we're exposed to something, the more familiar it becomes. It doesn't mean we'll all become serial rapists overnight, but it does we see rape as less barbaric than it is.
... except that pipes don't load-balance, don't have time-to-live, can't have fluids flowing smoothly in both directions at once..
we won't even try to bring NAT, ip6 or self-organising WANs into it.
Though whatever you think of his lack of sense, at least he tried to explain himself. When the senators DON'T provide rationales for their voting patterns we should be more worried.
The first unintended discovery (can any true discovery truly be intentional?) that came to mind was that of jaunting, named after its creator.
My description would pale in comparison to the original, so I won't try. Suffice to say, read this book, be amazed, then look when it was written and be doubly amazed.
... they would make this extension work with a configurable URL target.
After all, if everything is encrypted when sent to google, google isn't able to manipulate the data in any way; it's just a sequence of 0s and 1s.
So why not let you save it to your website (in a private folder), ftp site, etc. ? Sure, they can offer to HTTP-RPC it to their own server if you like, but why force you to store your data there?
I for one am a bit suss about them having more of my data, particularly when they claim they can't read it.
Agreed. This article doesn't appear to say anything insightful. The biggest problem is only alluded to, and that's the monoculture one: if everyone uses SSH to supply encryption/authentication services, a single bug could allow an SSH-worm to achieve critical mass.
There is plenty we don't know and many breakthroughs left in the universe, but I think it's human arrogance to think we're capable of omnipotence.
Sure, carbon nanotubes are neat, and gave us the impression we could build stronger structures and materials than previously. But why does their existance mean we're sure to find something equally strong AND able to withstand being a space elevator cable?
Don't get me wrong - saying 'never' is unwise, but it's almost as bad to assume humanity will be capable of everything one day.
Just in case you didn't RTFA, the phone displays a hash on the display. As long as you read this one to whoever you're talking to, you more-or-less foil a man-in-the-middle attack.
I'm more worried about the proprietry algorithm for the encryption, and how it's implemented. Any conspiracy theorists will still think there's a back door for the government (or swiss secret service?) to listen in.
Anyone with anything really important to say would use GPG on an MP3 and maybe a lashing of stenography on top.
The author doesn't even know the Japanese have their own alphabet (3 actually). This guy reminds me of the characters in extras
You're forgetting about distribution costs, packaging costs, 'shrinkage' (theft) costs plus all the administrative overhead of moving boxes of DVDs around the world.
Sure, I agree pirates aren't going to start paying for what they can - and do - get for free. But I bet that the cost of physically selling DVDs is about 30% of their retail price. The other 70% might be royalties and WB profit.
So WB could sell a $15 DVD for around $10 without even decreasing their profit margin. Even bandwidth costs wouldn't be much, given they want to use bittorrent.
The biggest drawback I can see from WB's perspective is once you have people BT'ing their movies legitimately, they then get impatient with waiting for the DVD release date and get the 'bad quality rips' instead.
True, the other drives are ~$100 more expensive. If all you got was a 30% speed increase, I'd agree with you.
But these drives are not just faster, they're also higher capacity. An ipod holds more than these low-end drives, and anyone who wants their laptop to be their MP3 player will happily spend $100 extra for ~80Gb more space.
Yep, some people will buy the cheapest thing without looking at what they're missing out on. But it wouldn't be hard to market a lappy as "NEXT GENERATION: MASSIVE 100GB DISK DRIVE". But what would I know, I'm not in marketing.
sorry, Bs are passé.
I too have suspicions about the quality of the meta-study too (whether post-hoc analysis is being done, etc.) but I think the selection of the controls is not the problem.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_control:
I don't know why it's not linked to any any of the articles, but here's the scientific paper. If we're going to critique it, we might as well do it right:
H ardell_Article.pdf
http://www.arbetslivsinstitutet.se/pdf/060331Mild
ah, it does come with a space invaders clone though: http://digg.com/software/Open_Office_Easter_Egg
Sounds similar to Skype. If your firewall allows incoming connections you act as a relay for those who don't. Combine this with a dodgy ISP which charges you for your uploads (http://bigpond.com.au/) and newbies are in a world of pain.
Applications like this would be great if they were opt-in: if you had to say how much upload bandwidth you were willing the application to use, fine.