They intend to attract more CS students by eliminating the need for programming skills? I have heard time and time again from recruiters that more and more CS graduates are completely incapable of programming, so why exacerbate the problem by graduating even more students who are unable to perform adequately?
CS is more than just programming, but a CS student incapable of programming is about as useful as a physicist who cannot do math. To suggest that the standards of a program should be relaxed to achieve parity between the genders is ridiculous. What are we to do in other fields, where the number of women exceeds that of men? In the field of education, are we supposed to graduate students who don't know how to teach? Are art majors supposed to leave school without learning any technique?
I own both a MacBook and a PC running Vista. On the Mac, I didn't care for Expose and the built-in task switcher is ridiculous as it doesn't allow switching between windows, only applications. On Vista, I initially liked the Flip 3D feature but have instead started using the My Expose program to replicate the Expose feature which I loathed so much on the Mac.
It's weird, but I still don't like using Expose on my Mac but love it on my PC. It feels more useful on the PC for some reason.
If we follow your flawed logic to its conclusion, you're arguing that an open source project should be immune from criticism because it's charity. Do you think that open source contributors should not be accountable for major security screw ups?
Firefox may be free. However, its developers are just as accountable for their mistakes as Microsoft should be for its own. Firefox gained the market share that it has because of a reputation for security. When the dev staff screw up so badly, it does a lot to erode their reputation. Though I may not contribute to the project, I have a right as an end user to expect a relatively secure product. The occasional, obscure buffer overflow exploit is excusable. A massive flaw in conception, design, and execution is certainly not.
I think that you've misunderstood not only my initial post but also the fundamental philosophy behind the open source movement. If every developer thought as you did, no end users would bother to use your goods. Judging from your haughty demeanor, I suspect you consider this a good thing.
It is absolutely shocking that such a serious bug would be discovered in Firefox. This is why I was reluctant to upgrade to 2.0 when it first came out. Sadly, I bit the bullet and upgraded anyways.
Unfortunately, the dev team has shown its fallibility in one of the most idiotic ways possible. If they resolve the problem quickly, they may be absolved of their negligence. Otherwise, it will be difficult to continue advocating for Firefox as vocally as I have in the past.
The MPAA is a private entity. They're under no obligation to divulge any information. If they were a government entity, you could file a Freedom of Information Act request that the information be provided, assuming it weren't classified. After waiting a little while, the government would mail you a copy of the records you requested.
Of course, the MPAA is private so none of that applies. They can be as evil and manipulative as they want, and the only way we'll ever know is if a highly-placed member of the MPAA blows the whistle. That's not going to happen, though...
First, the Nyquist limit is inapplicable. It is not a valid tool for fitting a periodic relation to data.
Second, the PDO is completely irrelevant when one is discussing increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic. In the Atlantic, only one periodic effect is widely observed, and that is the North Atlantic oscillation. The NAO, as the name might suggest, does not have an effect on hurricanes in the South, its period is not the same as the possible periodic hurricane effect, and it changed phase in the 80s making it exceedingly unlikely that the two events are actually related in any meaningful way. Even the Antarctic Cirumpolar wave is most likely irrelevant, as it has a period of four years and directly effects only the South Atlantic. There may very well be another effect in the Atlantic, but three cycles is most certainly not enough to definitively say. Climatologists accept the PDO because it has been observed in data going back to 1661. Until sufficient evidence is provided for this Atlantic effect, we must not presume that it exists. It may simply be coincidence.
We must balance the desire to pursue useless science with the necessity of technical growth for mankind. Are metallic meteor deposits worth our consideration if it means neglecting the very real possibility of colonizing another planet or moon? In what way does the analysis of meteor fragments benefit our species as a whole? Does that benefit exceed the potential benefit of a colonization effort? I think you'll find that the two are orders of magnitude different in their benefit to mankind.
The particle in question is not information. It may inform those who have instruments available to detect the particle, but the actual generation of information takes place when the particle is perceived by a sentient being. It is the act of viewing, measuring, or thinking which brings information into being. Even though the particle may continue to exist long after the scientist who observed it has died, the information gleaned from that particle will inevitably decay unless preserved. Decay is the ultimate fate of information, not freedom.
I can't stand Joss Wheedon's other work. But firefly was a superb work of innovative space fiction. The fact that it doesn't have a particle of the week, or that it doesn't have ridiculous aliens with rubber prosthetics doesn't mean that it's bad.
Then again, this is coming from someone who actually liked B5... I think we all can agree that this invalidates your viewpoint.
Unfortunately, your assertion that science fiction must depict a technological utopia is disheartening. You are definitely a core-worlder/first-worlder. You've never seen the technological inadequacies in the fringes of the third-world, and so you think that high technology must suffuse the world.
As for the characters, we were really being given a small glimpse into their nature. Had the series continued, Joss would have fleshed out their character quite readily. It's a much more realistic method for depicting a rich and multifaceted character. This is in stark contrast to the unoriginal caricature characters from B5, which need less than 5 minutes of screen time to fully reveal their entire raison d'etre.
Of your novels, there seems to be a certain chronology. You've written novels set far in the past, like the Baroque cycle; in the present, such as Cryptonomicon; those set a decade or so into the future, like Snow Crash; and a novel set roughly half a century from now, with the Diamond Age.
Do you plan to fill in the gaps? Will we see how the formation of a data haven specifically leads to the abolition of the government as we know it, or are these novels not meant to reference each other?
I used to believe that 30 FPS myth. On my last gaming rig, I never exceeded 30 FPS. I didn't know what I was missing. Now that I upgraded, I can get 60 FPS easily on those older games (though the newer ones will probably still trouble my system, as I'm unwilling to piss away so much cash in pursuit of the perfect PC). The difference is crystal clear.
Funny that Apple's competitors can break this alleged hardware-cost barrier. It's not the cost of hardware which is an impediment to making iPods widely available--it's snobbery, pure and simple. If every Tom, Dick, and Harry had an iPod, then the Black Beret Apple Brigade wouldn't be nearly as hip as they otherwise would.
By consistently fixing the prices of their product above the market supported price, Apple ensures that the only people who will buy their product are the sufficiently affluent. If you want corroborating evidence, look no further than the recently announced plans by BMW to unite the iPod with their cars. Apple products are intended strictly for a niche market of consumers with large amounts of disposable income.
Taipei 101 is still taller than both of them, sirrah. It is the tallest from ground to spire, the tallest from ground to roof, and the tallest from ground to highest floor.
Also, the spires on these buildings are decorative in nature. The antennas on the Sears tower are not. If a spire adds to the overall design of the building, then I think it is fair to include its height. I think we should still distinguish between usable height and decorative height. The latter characteristic should probably be decided on a case by case basis by a group of architects.
It's not even slightly stupid to develop a competing system when the current one is in the hands of another superpower, whom you may not wish to play nice with. In times of peace, the increased number of sattelites will only increase the accuracy of positioning receivers. In times of war, the secondary system will offer redundancy in case the US decides to pull the switch. Even friendly nations are wary about developing defensive and offensive weaponry that relies so heavily upon GPS, because those weapons are then heavily dependent upon the US.
There was only one senator who voted against the USA PATRIOT Act: Russ Feingold, a wonderful man from my home state, Wisconsin. As far as I am concerned, he is the only current senator who deserves re-election.
I am not concerned that a nuclear reactor will meltdown, nor am I concerned that one will burp, nor am I even concerned by the inevitable thermal pollution caused by a nuclear reactor. My only major concern is the waste that a fission reactor produces, and the fact that such waste will persist for many millions of years. Not a single civilization has lasted for more than a single millennium without significant strife. It's hubris to assume that we can generate such an absurd volume of waste and guarantee that it will remain sealed and concealed in the coming eons.
Of course the immediate benefits are very great, but nuclear energy is not a solution to our problems, it merely delays that time when we will eventually be forced to solve the problem.
It irritates me when people make claims like this. Though Franklin was responsible for producing the image which Watson used, there is no evidence that she had realized the helical nature of DNA. She deserves credit for producing the vital image, but not for discovering that DNA is helical. Nothing she wrote before or after suggests otherwise. Furthermore, it is in fact very likely that, had she not died in 1958, she would have been awarded the Nobel prize along with Watson and Crick.
Even if you are unwilling to recognize this fact, I hope you will not unkowingly sully the name of Crick. Watson was responsible for accquiring the unreleased image of the B form of DNA. Whether or not Watson obtained this image without Franklin's permission, Cricks was unaware. If you must demonize anyone, it should be Watson. Everything he has said in the ensuing years has shown just how pompous and deceitful he is.
But no matter how detestable Watson may be, he and Cricks were the first ones to correctly determine that DNA was helical in shape. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Our way of life, sir? Your way of life may involve sacrificing the ideals of this nation for temporary safety, but mine does not. I would sooner die than see this nation become a police state, and nothing short of that will succeed in preventing violence 100 per cent of the time. If the artificers of this nation had intended for security to come before freedom, then they would not have imposed any restrictions on the courts.
So we shall soon expect to see the less affluent citizens of this nation prohibited from travelling by airplane? There is simply no way in which the algorithm they use to determine risk could be flawless, and in such a matter, even one false-positive is too much. I always heard jurists refer to the slippery slope, and I had to wonder whether it was true. In the last five years og litigation, there have been an inconceivable number of unconstitutional or unjust laws proposed, and an even more amazing number of them have been passed. We shall finally see whether the slippery slope exists. I sincerely hope that we can return even a small measure of the freedom that this republic is supposed to represent, but I fear that it shall continue only to get worse.
I fear that things will degenerate so greatly, that nothing short of armed insurrection will return it to the path of its founders' intent. I fear that day, because if force becomes necessary, then it is already too late.
You are mistaken. The parent requested examples of occassions when Microsoft has actually pursued an incident of patent infringement by means of litigation, not claims that they would pursue them. There is a world of difference. It's entirely acceptable for any corporation to publicly declare that they would pursue patent infringement in court, because otherwise they would be opening themselves up to shareholder lawsuits. They have a covenant with shareholders to earn money, and not piss it away by allowing their competition to infringe on their patents.
Though it is possible that the Stinger contains an IFOF-based override, it is most certainly implausible. As has been previously mentioned, the missile has no active sensor suites. It relies on its passive infrared sensors. If you aren't pointing it at a viable target, then it won't be able to lock on to anything. In order for the missile to perform as you suggest, the missile would need to continually check for an IFOF signal and then somehow determine whether the signal is coming from the craft that is being targetted. The missile, having deduced the nature of its target, would then need to deviate course and detonate at a safe distance from the target.
Aside from technical issues, we have learned that the military has been flying at high altitude to avoid the possibility of a Stinger attack. If these missiles could differentiate friend and foe, then there would be no need for concern. Though I will entertain your speculation, you don't offer any evidence to support your conclusion. I'll stick with the most likely situation, as dictated by Occam.
Slashdot Mirror
They intend to attract more CS students by eliminating the need for programming skills? I have heard time and time again from recruiters that more and more CS graduates are completely incapable of programming, so why exacerbate the problem by graduating even more students who are unable to perform adequately?
CS is more than just programming, but a CS student incapable of programming is about as useful as a physicist who cannot do math. To suggest that the standards of a program should be relaxed to achieve parity between the genders is ridiculous. What are we to do in other fields, where the number of women exceeds that of men? In the field of education, are we supposed to graduate students who don't know how to teach? Are art majors supposed to leave school without learning any technique?
I own both a MacBook and a PC running Vista. On the Mac, I didn't care for Expose and the built-in task switcher is ridiculous as it doesn't allow switching between windows, only applications. On Vista, I initially liked the Flip 3D feature but have instead started using the My Expose program to replicate the Expose feature which I loathed so much on the Mac.
It's weird, but I still don't like using Expose on my Mac but love it on my PC. It feels more useful on the PC for some reason.
If we follow your flawed logic to its conclusion, you're arguing that an open source project should be immune from criticism because it's charity. Do you think that open source contributors should not be accountable for major security screw ups?
Firefox may be free. However, its developers are just as accountable for their mistakes as Microsoft should be for its own. Firefox gained the market share that it has because of a reputation for security. When the dev staff screw up so badly, it does a lot to erode their reputation. Though I may not contribute to the project, I have a right as an end user to expect a relatively secure product. The occasional, obscure buffer overflow exploit is excusable. A massive flaw in conception, design, and execution is certainly not.
I think that you've misunderstood not only my initial post but also the fundamental philosophy behind the open source movement. If every developer thought as you did, no end users would bother to use your goods. Judging from your haughty demeanor, I suspect you consider this a good thing.
I tried it with both IE6 and IE7 and can confirm that on both of the computers I tried, the proof-of-concept page failed.
I tested IE6 and IE7 and the proof of concept page failed to work in both browsers. Neither browser passes the stored browser on to Google.
Have you personally tested this and found either browser to be vulnerable?
It is absolutely shocking that such a serious bug would be discovered in Firefox. This is why I was reluctant to upgrade to 2.0 when it first came out. Sadly, I bit the bullet and upgraded anyways.
Unfortunately, the dev team has shown its fallibility in one of the most idiotic ways possible. If they resolve the problem quickly, they may be absolved of their negligence. Otherwise, it will be difficult to continue advocating for Firefox as vocally as I have in the past.
The MPAA is a private entity. They're under no obligation to divulge any information. If they were a government entity, you could file a Freedom of Information Act request that the information be provided, assuming it weren't classified. After waiting a little while, the government would mail you a copy of the records you requested.
Of course, the MPAA is private so none of that applies. They can be as evil and manipulative as they want, and the only way we'll ever know is if a highly-placed member of the MPAA blows the whistle. That's not going to happen, though...
First, the Nyquist limit is inapplicable. It is not a valid tool for fitting a periodic relation to data.
Second, the PDO is completely irrelevant when one is discussing increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic. In the Atlantic, only one periodic effect is widely observed, and that is the North Atlantic oscillation. The NAO, as the name might suggest, does not have an effect on hurricanes in the South, its period is not the same as the possible periodic hurricane effect, and it changed phase in the 80s making it exceedingly unlikely that the two events are actually related in any meaningful way. Even the Antarctic Cirumpolar wave is most likely irrelevant, as it has a period of four years and directly effects only the South Atlantic. There may very well be another effect in the Atlantic, but three cycles is most certainly not enough to definitively say. Climatologists accept the PDO because it has been observed in data going back to 1661. Until sufficient evidence is provided for this Atlantic effect, we must not presume that it exists. It may simply be coincidence.
Thank god that you don't run the world, then...
We must balance the desire to pursue useless science with the necessity of technical growth for mankind. Are metallic meteor deposits worth our consideration if it means neglecting the very real possibility of colonizing another planet or moon? In what way does the analysis of meteor fragments benefit our species as a whole? Does that benefit exceed the potential benefit of a colonization effort? I think you'll find that the two are orders of magnitude different in their benefit to mankind.
The particle in question is not information. It may inform those who have instruments available to detect the particle, but the actual generation of information takes place when the particle is perceived by a sentient being. It is the act of viewing, measuring, or thinking which brings information into being. Even though the particle may continue to exist long after the scientist who observed it has died, the information gleaned from that particle will inevitably decay unless preserved. Decay is the ultimate fate of information, not freedom.
I can't stand Joss Wheedon's other work. But firefly was a superb work of innovative space fiction. The fact that it doesn't have a particle of the week, or that it doesn't have ridiculous aliens with rubber prosthetics doesn't mean that it's bad.
Then again, this is coming from someone who actually liked B5... I think we all can agree that this invalidates your viewpoint.
Unfortunately, your assertion that science fiction must depict a technological utopia is disheartening. You are definitely a core-worlder/first-worlder. You've never seen the technological inadequacies in the fringes of the third-world, and so you think that high technology must suffuse the world.
As for the characters, we were really being given a small glimpse into their nature. Had the series continued, Joss would have fleshed out their character quite readily. It's a much more realistic method for depicting a rich and multifaceted character. This is in stark contrast to the unoriginal caricature characters from B5, which need less than 5 minutes of screen time to fully reveal their entire raison d'etre.
That did not work for me. Upon disabling IDN, I went back and tried the link again. It was still spoofed.
Of your novels, there seems to be a certain chronology. You've written novels set far in the past, like the Baroque cycle; in the present, such as Cryptonomicon; those set a decade or so into the future, like Snow Crash; and a novel set roughly half a century from now, with the Diamond Age.
Do you plan to fill in the gaps? Will we see how the formation of a data haven specifically leads to the abolition of the government as we know it, or are these novels not meant to reference each other?
I used to believe that 30 FPS myth. On my last gaming rig, I never exceeded 30 FPS. I didn't know what I was missing. Now that I upgraded, I can get 60 FPS easily on those older games (though the newer ones will probably still trouble my system, as I'm unwilling to piss away so much cash in pursuit of the perfect PC). The difference is crystal clear.
Funny that Apple's competitors can break this alleged hardware-cost barrier. It's not the cost of hardware which is an impediment to making iPods widely available--it's snobbery, pure and simple. If every Tom, Dick, and Harry had an iPod, then the Black Beret Apple Brigade wouldn't be nearly as hip as they otherwise would.
By consistently fixing the prices of their product above the market supported price, Apple ensures that the only people who will buy their product are the sufficiently affluent. If you want corroborating evidence, look no further than the recently announced plans by BMW to unite the iPod with their cars. Apple products are intended strictly for a niche market of consumers with large amounts of disposable income.
Taipei 101 is still taller than both of them, sirrah. It is the tallest from ground to spire, the tallest from ground to roof, and the tallest from ground to highest floor.
Also, the spires on these buildings are decorative in nature. The antennas on the Sears tower are not. If a spire adds to the overall design of the building, then I think it is fair to include its height. I think we should still distinguish between usable height and decorative height. The latter characteristic should probably be decided on a case by case basis by a group of architects.
It's not even slightly stupid to develop a competing system when the current one is in the hands of another superpower, whom you may not wish to play nice with. In times of peace, the increased number of sattelites will only increase the accuracy of positioning receivers. In times of war, the secondary system will offer redundancy in case the US decides to pull the switch. Even friendly nations are wary about developing defensive and offensive weaponry that relies so heavily upon GPS, because those weapons are then heavily dependent upon the US.
There was only one senator who voted against the USA PATRIOT Act: Russ Feingold, a wonderful man from my home state, Wisconsin. As far as I am concerned, he is the only current senator who deserves re-election.
I am not concerned that a nuclear reactor will meltdown, nor am I concerned that one will burp, nor am I even concerned by the inevitable thermal pollution caused by a nuclear reactor. My only major concern is the waste that a fission reactor produces, and the fact that such waste will persist for many millions of years. Not a single civilization has lasted for more than a single millennium without significant strife. It's hubris to assume that we can generate such an absurd volume of waste and guarantee that it will remain sealed and concealed in the coming eons.
Of course the immediate benefits are very great, but nuclear energy is not a solution to our problems, it merely delays that time when we will eventually be forced to solve the problem.
It irritates me when people make claims like this. Though Franklin was responsible for producing the image which Watson used, there is no evidence that she had realized the helical nature of DNA. She deserves credit for producing the vital image, but not for discovering that DNA is helical. Nothing she wrote before or after suggests otherwise. Furthermore, it is in fact very likely that, had she not died in 1958, she would have been awarded the Nobel prize along with Watson and Crick.
Even if you are unwilling to recognize this fact, I hope you will not unkowingly sully the name of Crick. Watson was responsible for accquiring the unreleased image of the B form of DNA. Whether or not Watson obtained this image without Franklin's permission, Cricks was unaware. If you must demonize anyone, it should be Watson. Everything he has said in the ensuing years has shown just how pompous and deceitful he is.
But no matter how detestable Watson may be, he and Cricks were the first ones to correctly determine that DNA was helical in shape. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Our way of life, sir? Your way of life may involve sacrificing the ideals of this nation for temporary safety, but mine does not. I would sooner die than see this nation become a police state, and nothing short of that will succeed in preventing violence 100 per cent of the time. If the artificers of this nation had intended for security to come before freedom, then they would not have imposed any restrictions on the courts.
So we shall soon expect to see the less affluent citizens of this nation prohibited from travelling by airplane? There is simply no way in which the algorithm they use to determine risk could be flawless, and in such a matter, even one false-positive is too much. I always heard jurists refer to the slippery slope, and I had to wonder whether it was true. In the last five years og litigation, there have been an inconceivable number of unconstitutional or unjust laws proposed, and an even more amazing number of them have been passed. We shall finally see whether the slippery slope exists. I sincerely hope that we can return even a small measure of the freedom that this republic is supposed to represent, but I fear that it shall continue only to get worse.
I fear that things will degenerate so greatly, that nothing short of armed insurrection will return it to the path of its founders' intent. I fear that day, because if force becomes necessary, then it is already too late.
You are mistaken. The parent requested examples of occassions when Microsoft has actually pursued an incident of patent infringement by means of litigation, not claims that they would pursue them. There is a world of difference. It's entirely acceptable for any corporation to publicly declare that they would pursue patent infringement in court, because otherwise they would be opening themselves up to shareholder lawsuits. They have a covenant with shareholders to earn money, and not piss it away by allowing their competition to infringe on their patents.
Though it is possible that the Stinger contains an IFOF-based override, it is most certainly implausible. As has been previously mentioned, the missile has no active sensor suites. It relies on its passive infrared sensors. If you aren't pointing it at a viable target, then it won't be able to lock on to anything. In order for the missile to perform as you suggest, the missile would need to continually check for an IFOF signal and then somehow determine whether the signal is coming from the craft that is being targetted. The missile, having deduced the nature of its target, would then need to deviate course and detonate at a safe distance from the target.
Aside from technical issues, we have learned that the military has been flying at high altitude to avoid the possibility of a Stinger attack. If these missiles could differentiate friend and foe, then there would be no need for concern. Though I will entertain your speculation, you don't offer any evidence to support your conclusion. I'll stick with the most likely situation, as dictated by Occam.