While drawing these arbitrary lines is silly, it is often far sillier to not draw them in the universe we live in.
Making silly arbitrary decisions is a necessary part of life. Life situations aren't that fuzzy except at the quantum level. Even little things like which hand to use, whether to breath in or out. And even if the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct, it's not that fuzzy in each path of the universe.
Say a car is about to hit you, you could jump either left or right to save yourself. The neurons in your brain are going to have to make a decision. Say you jump right, you think all the neurons participating in the decision wanted to go right? I doubt it, some would have wanted to go left. But you cannot satisfy all of them. You can't go both left and right, unless you wait for the car to split you in two.
Back to your question, there is no magical maturity switch. Some people never even become mature. So what? With our current technology we are not able to practically put you 60% in jail and 40% out of jail at the same time, just because you are actually "60% mature".
And it's costly to put in all the shades of gray for the different percentages of "maturity". Some countries do cater for a few categories: juvenile prisons, probation, etc.
So there are very many arbitrary lines in laws: when it's legal to abort a fetus/baby, when does a child become an adult.
There's definitely much silliness that should perhaps be fixed. For example, in many countries you might be legally considered old enough to sign up as a soldier, but not do other "adult things". This to me is silly. If you are going to be old enough to kill others and risk your own life, you should be considered old enough to do the other adult stuff. Otherwise, you shouldn't be considered old enough to be a soldier (unless the country is in such a bad/desperate state that you might as be allowed to be a soldier).
> AV-Comparatives' last testing round ranked Norton as the best product on the market
But do they take into account the false positive track record?
That's a relevant point here. I believe Norton/Symantec have also had similar high-impact false positives.
If Antivirus software "A" detects fewer viruses than Norton but only misses out the rare and old ones (e.g. from the DOS era), has been around for years and had zero high impact false positives, I'd prefer it to Norton even if Norton has the lowest false negative rate (highest detection).
I'd prefer it if O/S bunch made more progress towards better sandboxing[1] technologies.
Currently users and AV software regularly have to figure out whether something is malware or not - this is like solving the halting problem without seeing the source code, and without knowing the complete inputs.
[1] I've made some suggestions, they're not exactly easy to implement but easier than solving the halting problem;).
Heh, I've asked a vendor before how often this sort of thing happens to them (just to see how honest they are and maybe to send a message to whoever is listening).
After all if a hacker/malware causes downtime less often than the vendor's screw-ups, why use the vendor's product? Safer to look for a vendor with a better track record even if they have more false negatives (especially with rare and/or ancient stuff).
There are overheads and performance impacts to using such stuff, in addition to just the price tag (and subscription fees etc). I suspect there's malware out there that's less harmful than running McAfee or Symantec;).
For years the browser and W3 have been focusing on adding "gas pedals", and their idea of brakes was "just make sure none of the hundreds of gas pedals we created are pressed", which is a bit trickier in the real world.
If they had added working "brake pedals" back then, stuff like the MySpace worm might not have happened. And ads and other 3rd party content might be more easily secured.
There are many other bits of the plane that get affected by volcanic ash.
Even the screens can get damaged.
So the plane manufacturer has to ask their engine supplier and other suppliers to help do some tests which hopefully simulate reality enough.
Re:Why can't we do better? Are you fucking kidding
on
Volcano Futures
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure the regulators will let the airlines fly once:
1) The plane and plane engine manufacturers let them know what levels of ash are OK. 2) The weather people say what levels of ash are out there. 3) It is reasonable to believe that 2 < 1 in 99.9% of the flight paths. Or 4) There's extremely little ash out there.
If they allow flights without the above, then they're not doing their jobs properly.
Re:Finall I know what that volcano is called.
on
Volcano Futures
·
· Score: 1
Airlines: We think its safe[1] to fly our planes NOW! ICAO: Really? Let's hear from Boeing and Airbus on what levels of ash are safe for their engines. So over to you Airbus and Boeing. Boeing:... Airbus:... ICAO: Hello? You guys still there? Boeing+Airbus: Uh hold on while we do a few tests...
There's plenty of evidence why the airlines aren't allowed to make that call:).
It's the job of the airlines to push the ICAO to let them fly ASAP. It's the job of the ICAO to not let them fly till they know it is safe enough.
From what I've seen, the pilots and engineers don't think it's that safe. Few pilots want to find out if they're as good and lucky as the ones who did some gliding in Indonesian airspace;).
[1] They may think that the economic impact to them of nobody flying after X weeks could be greater than one or two plane problems/crashes.
Most crooks are stupid, and the smart crooks don't normally work in the IT industry as IT admins- finance and politics might be their true calling;).
So a tech-ignorant (might not be so ignorant in other ways) boss might as well trust an employee willing and knowledgeable enough to come up with such a system to protect BOTH parties.
That said, jetplanes do operate in dusty sandy places (e.g. Middle East). Are the airborne particles significantly different in concentration and behaviour in a jet engine?
I bet it affects different groups of people differently.
For me, the eyestrain issues are more due to movies (3D or 2D) having scenes where some parts of the scene is blurry, and my eyes trying to focus on something that can never be in focus. I had that unpleasant experience when I watched Avatar in both 3D and 2D recently. It's fine as long as I looked at the nonblurry bits of the scene.
I doubt I'll have problems as long as everything is in focus - "far" or "near". No blurring especially artificial blurring (often the motion blur is too much).
1) There are good reasons you have Judges. Spirit of the law, reasonable man, etc and from time to time fairness and justice. 2) Badly written laws can just as easily be written in Python as they can be in some human language. Judges etc are normally far more familiar with the official language of the courts. 3) Legalese is already something like a programming language, and yes the fuzziness often is a feature not a bug, see 1). 4) When did they solve the halting problem?
The reason you have poor regulation isn't because you are using the wrong language. The problem is elsewhere, and if the regulators are the ones who thought of this idea they just providing yet more evidence that they are the problem;).
> There are a number of cultures in the world that consume a diet of meat and milk and cheese that's extremely high in saturated fats... and yet live very long lives
There's a hypothesis going around that the milk is different and has different health effects (if that's true, then perhaps the meat is also different too).
I guess we'll have to wait a few more years to find out:).
It may also be that humans don't do well at mixing the two metabolic modes - carb burning and fat burning, so being on a low carb diet high fat diet is OK, and a moderate carb + low sat fat diet is ok, but a diet with carbs + saturated fat is bad.
So if you're going to eat beef, you might as well be eating beef that tastes good.
On the other hand if you want to have a healthier diet, eat more vegetables and regularly eat oceanic fish (the ones lower down the food chain with less mercury and crap). You can still have a nice steak once in a while.
p.s. if you actually like very lean cuts of beef, then I guess you don't have to worry about the heart disease risk, not so sure about the cancer risk tho.
Maybe the USA should start using up all that geothermal energy before it blows.
As long as they figure out a way to use it without causing it to blow up earlier, but instead blow up much later. Better get those calculations and simulations right:).
If it works, even if it ruins the park in the short term, it'll cause less environmental damage in the long term right? So how would the greenies feel about the entire park becoming a whole bunch of power stations?;).
Slashdot Mirror
Something like this might also help:
http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/external-journal-on-ssd/
While drawing these arbitrary lines is silly, it is often far sillier to not draw them in the universe we live in.
Making silly arbitrary decisions is a necessary part of life. Life situations aren't that fuzzy except at the quantum level. Even little things like which hand to use, whether to breath in or out. And even if the Many Worlds Interpretation is correct, it's not that fuzzy in each path of the universe.
Say a car is about to hit you, you could jump either left or right to save yourself. The neurons in your brain are going to have to make a decision. Say you jump right, you think all the neurons participating in the decision wanted to go right? I doubt it, some would have wanted to go left. But you cannot satisfy all of them. You can't go both left and right, unless you wait for the car to split you in two.
Back to your question, there is no magical maturity switch. Some people never even become mature. So what? With our current technology we are not able to practically put you 60% in jail and 40% out of jail at the same time, just because you are actually "60% mature".
And it's costly to put in all the shades of gray for the different percentages of "maturity". Some countries do cater for a few categories: juvenile prisons, probation, etc.
So there are very many arbitrary lines in laws: when it's legal to abort a fetus/baby, when does a child become an adult.
There's definitely much silliness that should perhaps be fixed. For example, in many countries you might be legally considered old enough to sign up as a soldier, but not do other "adult things". This to me is silly. If you are going to be old enough to kill others and risk your own life, you should be considered old enough to do the other adult stuff. Otherwise, you shouldn't be considered old enough to be a soldier (unless the country is in such a bad/desperate state that you might as be allowed to be a soldier).
Don't underestimate the impact of AV or IPS software going nuts.
Don't forget that AV software costs you ALL the time when it's installed in "real time" scanning mode.
> AV-Comparatives' last testing round ranked Norton as the best product on the market
;).
But do they take into account the false positive track record?
That's a relevant point here. I believe Norton/Symantec have also had similar high-impact false positives.
If Antivirus software "A" detects fewer viruses than Norton but only misses out the rare and old ones (e.g. from the DOS era), has been around for years and had zero high impact false positives, I'd prefer it to Norton even if Norton has the lowest false negative rate (highest detection).
I'd prefer it if O/S bunch made more progress towards better sandboxing[1] technologies.
Currently users and AV software regularly have to figure out whether something is malware or not - this is like solving the halting problem without seeing the source code, and without knowing the complete inputs.
[1] I've made some suggestions, they're not exactly easy to implement but easier than solving the halting problem
Heh, I've asked a vendor before how often this sort of thing happens to them (just to see how honest they are and maybe to send a message to whoever is listening).
;).
After all if a hacker/malware causes downtime less often than the vendor's screw-ups, why use the vendor's product? Safer to look for a vendor with a better track record even if they have more false negatives (especially with rare and/or ancient stuff).
There are overheads and performance impacts to using such stuff, in addition to just the price tag (and subscription fees etc). I suspect there's malware out there that's less harmful than running McAfee or Symantec
That's why he said 6 billion?
Basically they've run out of ideas on how to use those billions of transistors to make things faster or better.
It's either:
1) Another CPU core
2) Yet more cache.
And now GPUs...
Too bad Intel can't make great GPUs.
After many years[1] there finally seems to be some signs of progress being made on features that will help websites make things safer for their users:
http://www.infoq.com/news/2010/01/HTML-5-Sandbox-IFrame
http://people.mozilla.org/~bsterne/content-security-policy/
[1] I actually tried to get people to do something about a similar problem 8 years ago:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002May/0021.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/mozilla-security@mozilla.org/msg01448.html
For years the browser and W3 have been focusing on adding "gas pedals", and their idea of brakes was "just make sure none of the hundreds of gas pedals we created are pressed", which is a bit trickier in the real world.
If they had added working "brake pedals" back then, stuff like the MySpace worm might not have happened. And ads and other 3rd party content might be more easily secured.
There are many other bits of the plane that get affected by volcanic ash.
Even the screens can get damaged.
So the plane manufacturer has to ask their engine supplier and other suppliers to help do some tests which hopefully simulate reality enough.
I'm sure the regulators will let the airlines fly once:
1) The plane and plane engine manufacturers let them know what levels of ash are OK.
2) The weather people say what levels of ash are out there.
3) It is reasonable to believe that 2 < 1 in 99.9% of the flight paths.
Or
4) There's extremely little ash out there.
If they allow flights without the above, then they're not doing their jobs properly.
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_names_in_English_with_counterintuitive_pronunciations
Examples: Cholmondeley, Featherstonehaugh, Marjoribanks
I suppose Enroughty doesn't count :).
That said, I've heard another alleged Icelander pronounce the volcano name differently- she (Becca) pronounces the fjall part.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2257
I think that's unfair. It's more like:
... ...
:).
;).
Airlines: We think its safe[1] to fly our planes NOW!
ICAO: Really? Let's hear from Boeing and Airbus on what levels of ash are safe for their engines. So over to you Airbus and Boeing.
Boeing:
Airbus:
ICAO: Hello? You guys still there?
Boeing+Airbus: Uh hold on while we do a few tests...
There's plenty of evidence why the airlines aren't allowed to make that call
It's the job of the airlines to push the ICAO to let them fly ASAP.
It's the job of the ICAO to not let them fly till they know it is safe enough.
From what I've seen, the pilots and engineers don't think it's that safe. Few pilots want to find out if they're as good and lucky as the ones who did some gliding in Indonesian airspace
[1] They may think that the economic impact to them of nobody flying after X weeks could be greater than one or two plane problems/crashes.
Most crooks are stupid, and the smart crooks don't normally work in the IT industry as IT admins- finance and politics might be their true calling ;).
So a tech-ignorant (might not be so ignorant in other ways) boss might as well trust an employee willing and knowledgeable enough to come up with such a system to protect BOTH parties.
And do it at high efficiency.
That said, jetplanes do operate in dusty sandy places (e.g. Middle East). Are the airborne particles significantly different in concentration and behaviour in a jet engine?
I bet it affects different groups of people differently.
For me, the eyestrain issues are more due to movies (3D or 2D) having scenes where some parts of the scene is blurry, and my eyes trying to focus on something that can never be in focus. I had that unpleasant experience when I watched Avatar in both 3D and 2D recently. It's fine as long as I looked at the nonblurry bits of the scene.
I doubt I'll have problems as long as everything is in focus - "far" or "near". No blurring especially artificial blurring (often the motion blur is too much).
> Hosting a Borderlands server would be trivial on IPv6
:).
Does it really support IPv6? If it doesn't it's not so trivial
Maybe the rules have changed?
See: http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Put it in a jar and it might be by "modern" standards.
1) There are good reasons you have Judges. Spirit of the law, reasonable man, etc and from time to time fairness and justice.
;).
2) Badly written laws can just as easily be written in Python as they can be in some human language. Judges etc are normally far more familiar with the official language of the courts.
3) Legalese is already something like a programming language, and yes the fuzziness often is a feature not a bug, see 1).
4) When did they solve the halting problem?
The reason you have poor regulation isn't because you are using the wrong language. The problem is elsewhere, and if the regulators are the ones who thought of this idea they just providing yet more evidence that they are the problem
> What kind of life would be that, if I can't have beef?
;).
Too long for you I guess
> There are a number of cultures in the world that consume a diet of meat and milk and cheese that's extremely high in saturated fats... and yet live very long lives
There's a hypothesis going around that the milk is different and has different health effects (if that's true, then perhaps the meat is also different too).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11015514
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1168/295/
Counter study: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1170/368/
I guess we'll have to wait a few more years to find out :).
It may also be that humans don't do well at mixing the two metabolic modes - carb burning and fat burning, so being on a low carb diet high fat diet is OK, and a moderate carb + low sat fat diet is ok, but a diet with carbs + saturated fat is bad.
Perhaps you should go tell the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to use fattier cuts of beef for their next study.
They picked lean cuts of red meat for their 1999 study ( http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/12/1331 ).
Maybe you can teach them a thing or two.
Uh, that's almost like promoting junk food that tastes crappier but is a bit healthier for you ;).
Beef isn't the healthiest of foods for humans ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#Health_risks ).
So if you're going to eat beef, you might as well be eating beef that tastes good.
On the other hand if you want to have a healthier diet, eat more vegetables and regularly eat oceanic fish (the ones lower down the food chain with less mercury and crap). You can still have a nice steak once in a while.
p.s. if you actually like very lean cuts of beef, then I guess you don't have to worry about the heart disease risk, not so sure about the cancer risk tho.
Nah just a Ruler who's really dangerous with pencils.
Maybe the USA should start using up all that geothermal energy before it blows.
:).
;).
As long as they figure out a way to use it without causing it to blow up earlier, but instead blow up much later. Better get those calculations and simulations right
If it works, even if it ruins the park in the short term, it'll cause less environmental damage in the long term right? So how would the greenies feel about the entire park becoming a whole bunch of power stations?