It's still plagiarism even if it's allowed by the original author.
For example if you were a researcher in some university, and the original author gave you permission to plagiarize and publish his work as yours, it's still plagiarism and it's still wrong, and you should still be punished.
Students get in trouble if they get someone to take their exams for them.
As long as there's misrepresentation going on, even if the original person gave permission for the misrepresentation, it's still a form of deception.
It's pretty simple. The "warning bells should ring" whenever deception is involved.
If the misrepresentation was unintentional then that's different, but then one should not be so careless either especially when creating works in certain fields.
If you have a way to block all spam 100% without too many false positives, I'm sure lots of people would be interested.
As I said, if you have 1 million users, some of their spam is going to get through, and you will end up on some stupid blacklist. And SORBS is a stupid blacklist that doesn't let you remove yourself easily.
Basically you will be permanently be on SORBS blacklist. Even though you cut off SMTP access to zombies etc. Because some spam will get through faster than you get to remove yourself from their stupid blacklist.
But defaults aren't automatically good. Good defaults are good. Bad defaults aren't;).
So what are good defaults for configuration? I think of it as a form of compression.
The most common+safe+useful settings should be the default. The trouble is figuring out the right balance of safety and usability for your product or system.
It's not easy to get right, and that's why a lot of stuff is crappy or just mediocre[1];).
For many things it doesn't have to be just "default vs ADVANCED mode with zillions of settings".
It could be: Small, Regular, Large, Extra Large, Custom/Advanced. With Regular being the default selected option.
See the compression of the decision tree? You don't want most of your users to have to make too many unnecessary decisions. Even if they can make the decisions - it's more work for them and makes things more error prone.
McD doesn't have their staff ask users the details of what they want upfront- they don't ask whether you want ketchup, pickle etc. The sets are listed and there's Regular and Large (and supersize?). Any further customization if possible is on demand.
And they go "Will you have fries with that" even if you already said "No" or "yes" to fries... Hmmm maybe McD isn't such a good example;).
[1] The dev gives up thinking really hard about what the default should be, picks the first somewhat usable one and replies with "WORKSFORME" if users complain.
I dunno about everyone else but when I heard "hormonal imbalance", and Steve Jobs had dropped out of sight, I figured he was in big trouble.
e.g. cancer or AIDS or something else as serious as that.
You don't announce a hormonal imbalance that's not serious that way (he couldn't even appear in public!). Well unless he was changing gender (either voluntarily or involuntarily;) ).
So if you would sell/buy Apple stock just because Jobs is very sick, you should have done it the day they said "hormonal imbalance". But most "investors" won't do that - they'll just wait for someone to start first.
It's just like when Alan Greenspan says "irrational exuberance". He's not going to come out and say "Uh everyone, sell! Sell! Sell!". That would be irresponsible and stupid of him.
You want the sheep to move in a particular direction, but not rush off the cliff together.
I had that problem with Hotmail+SORBS too. Hotmail is so crap I don't know why so many people keep insisting on using it as their primary email. Use it for junk you don't care about (since Hotmail seems to be happy to delete emails after just a short time of disuse).
As for SORBS, I hope they get shutdown permanently. Good riddance.
> And yes, there are idiots who block based on nothing more then SORBS. Ask me how I know.
Hey someone go ask him how he knows... I might ask, but I'm a bit scared - he's built up quite a huge head of steam already...;)
Seriously though, I hate those stupid blacklists too.
They blacklist entire ISPs, and they say "too bad it's the ISP's fault". But really, if an ISP has millions of subscribers, a fair number of them are going to be spam spewing zombies. And often it just takes a few spam messages to get their IPs or range of IPs on the list.
Very often the users will use the ISP's smtp gateway, and so will the zombie program. The ISP is likely to set their outbound spam filters on their gateways to have very low false positives. So some spam will leak out, and their gateway IPs get blacklisted. Whoopee.
If the zombies don't use the smtp gateway and go directly out, it gets the ISP's range of IPs on the list as well. And affects the other users trying to directly send legitimate email out without using the smtp gateways.
If the ISP blocks all outbound SMTP (and forces users to send email through strict filtering gateways), a bunch of people will complain and Slashdot will run negative story on them.
I don't run an ISP, but my ISP's smtp gateways have been blacklisted before. Fortunately I could go to the relevant website and request the ISP IPs to be unblacklisted for them... Doh. I've just checked psbl and their records showed that way back in 24-feb-2009, 10 emails from that gateway went to spam trap addresses. SORBS still has that IP listed, but I guess nobody I care to _resend_ email to is using SORBS.
But if anyone wants to rely solely on blacklists think about this:
The ISP has maybe a million subscribers, yes 10 spamtrapped emails * number of addresses in each "marketing campaign" is a lot of annoyed users, but from the POV of an ISP it could be a few zombies (or even just one) that got through. Then it's welcome to blacklist land, and all of the subscribers will either have their emails blocked or rated down.
What do you want the ISP to do? Stop all spam? That's impossible. Stop relaying emails for subscribers? That's crazy. Not have customers who would ever have spam spewing zombies? Not going to have many customers that way;).
Just stop before they get sick of it? Should be able to notice before they start reading "War and Peace", and way before they clobber you over the head with the book.
I've zero experience in such matters, but I'm sure once she's got off multiple times, you can always take off the condom and either DIY or let her give you a hand (if she hasn't passed out from the experience yet;) ).
OK if she's a hooker charging you a high price and you don't intend to be a repeat customer, then maybe you wouldn't care so much (still I don't think it's very considerate). That said if she charges by the hour, she might just grin and bear it.
Anyway, what do I know... Maybe someday I'll find someone to do some "practicals" with;).
Sure, but having one or two engines fail on a four engined plane is not as serious as having one or two engines fail on a two engined plane.
The FAA still believes 4 engined aircraft are safer than twin engined aircraft, hence their extra requirements for twin engined aircraft to fly long distance routes (ETOPS). Maybe you can go show them why they are wrong.
Your example does not disprove my claim that a four jet is safer than a twin jet. Since a twin jet is likely to also have all engines shut down in your stated scenario.
I'm not sure if a twin jet would have done better, in fact a twin jet might have not made it. In your example, after the 747 restarted a single engine out of 4, it helped to slow the rate of descent, giving time to finally start the other and thus climb and eventually make a safe landing (great flying by the crew).
The way I see it, let's just say the chance of an engine failing = 0.01
And 50% engines = OK , and < 50% = not ok. As per your link, the 747 could climb with two engines (even engines that had volcanic ash blown through them).
With 4 engines, the odds of any one engine failing = 0.04, the odds of any two engines failing = 0.0004, the odds of any three engines failing = 0.000004, the odds of all four failing = 0.00000001 With 4 engines, the odds of < 50% = 0.000004 + 0.00000001 = 0.00000401
With 2 engines, the odds of any one engine failing = 0.02 (yep half), the odds of both engines failing = 0.0001. With 2 engines, the odds of < 50% = 0.0001 which is more than 0.00000401
Help fix my math if it's wrong.
If the design is 75% engines = not ok, then 4 engines is worse. But they don't design planes like that.
A 747 can climb and cruise with 1 dead engine (and lose maybe about 10% range). Lots of 747s lose an engine and keep flying. A BA 747 plane flew from LAX to MAN with just 3 engines (the FAA and press made a lot of noise about that one).
Because what you said was incorrect, and what he said was true.
Even though ubuntu has stuff loaded up, they're not running using 10% of the cpu. Just go do a top and see how much cpu is in use when you're not doing anything.
My ubuntu machine has two vmware virtual machines running on it and they only use about 3-4% of CPU total when not doing much - the machine is 96-97% idle with these running. If I suspend them, the machine would be 99-100% idle.
If using ubuntu and not slackware could cause the 15% difference in speed then something is wrong with the linux scheduler. Or someone in ubuntu has screwed up big time.
> Ever wondered why airliners seem to move from 3 or 4 to 2 engines? Because the failure rate is more or less independent of the size of those engines (similar number of components). I know, it's counter intuitive.And cost and maintenance is involved too...
Previously they needed 4 engines because the engines weren't as powerful and they weren't as reliable. Compare how much thrust the original 747 engines provided with the latest engines.
The thing is modern two engine jets are cheaper to maintain and seem to use less fuel than the 4 engine ones (not sure why they're more fuel efficient, maybe the 4 engine jets are older designs?). As for safety, they now can have planes with two engines where if one fails the plane can still fly safely for about 180 minutes and land, and the individual jet engines are more reliable nowadays. Not sure if 2 engine jets could do that in the 1960s:).
But everything being the same, a four engine design is safer than a two engine design, just more expensive. You can climb with 75% power. Climbing is harder with 50% power:).
Who knows. Maybe he hadn't really decided what he was going to do with it. He might have actually been intending to steal and sell it, but pro thieves will turn off the phone immediately. So if he's really a thief he's clearly an amateur.
So the owner gave the guy a chance to not be a thief, and he got his phone back in working condition, nobody had to bash anybody up, nobody had to deal with the cops (which can often be more unpleasant than dealing with criminals;) ).
Win-win.
As Sun Tzu said: "Leave an escape for a surrounded enemy".
It's funny how so many people think circumcision is so terrible, when kids are showing off tongue studs, rings etc.
At least circumcision has some medical benefits. Whereas tongue studs cause more medical problems.
And if it really does make the penis less sensitive it might not be such a bad thing - since that might make it more likely for the girl to have an orgasm or three first.
What I'm curious about is who first came up with this practice and why. It does seem to have more medical pluses than minuses, esp when considering ancient society with lower levels of tech.
I wonder what would happen if parents wait till their sons get older then tell them, "hey if we ever find out you've been having premarital sex, we're going to circumcise you, y'know like slice a bit off your penis". Would that help cut down on STDs?
The problem as you state, is you can't count on people to be monogamous.
And I don't suppose husbands would be telling their wives to insist on condoms whenever dear wifey feels a bit adulterous...
Anyway, I heard most married people hardly have sex. So maybe it's not monogamy that's preventative, it's marriage (e.g. wedding rings reduce STDs;) ).
If you are recently infected with HIV, it takes a number of days before current tests can detect that. This is called the window period, the minimum is about 12 days.
Apparently you can still infect others during that window period, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_James
Whether Darren got it from Roxx or the other way round, allegedly both had tests done before.
If you want to use logic, monogamy works pretty well in preventing the spread of STDs while still allowing the reproduction of the species.;)
Slashdot Mirror
It's still plagiarism even if it's allowed by the original author.
For example if you were a researcher in some university, and the original author gave you permission to plagiarize and publish his work as yours, it's still plagiarism and it's still wrong, and you should still be punished.
Students get in trouble if they get someone to take their exams for them.
As long as there's misrepresentation going on, even if the original person gave permission for the misrepresentation, it's still a form of deception.
It's pretty simple. The "warning bells should ring" whenever deception is involved.
If the misrepresentation was unintentional then that's different, but then one should not be so careless either especially when creating works in certain fields.
If you have a way to block all spam 100% without too many false positives, I'm sure lots of people would be interested.
As I said, if you have 1 million users, some of their spam is going to get through, and you will end up on some stupid blacklist. And SORBS is a stupid blacklist that doesn't let you remove yourself easily.
Basically you will be permanently be on SORBS blacklist. Even though you cut off SMTP access to zombies etc. Because some spam will get through faster than you get to remove yourself from their stupid blacklist.
See the problem?
But defaults aren't automatically good. Good defaults are good. Bad defaults aren't ;).
;).
;).
So what are good defaults for configuration? I think of it as a form of compression.
The most common+safe+useful settings should be the default. The trouble is figuring out the right balance of safety and usability for your product or system.
It's not easy to get right, and that's why a lot of stuff is crappy or just mediocre[1]
For many things it doesn't have to be just "default vs ADVANCED mode with zillions of settings".
It could be: Small, Regular, Large, Extra Large, Custom/Advanced. With Regular being the default selected option.
See the compression of the decision tree? You don't want most of your users to have to make too many unnecessary decisions. Even if they can make the decisions - it's more work for them and makes things more error prone.
McD doesn't have their staff ask users the details of what they want upfront- they don't ask whether you want ketchup, pickle etc. The sets are listed and there's Regular and Large (and supersize?). Any further customization if possible is on demand.
And they go "Will you have fries with that" even if you already said "No" or "yes" to fries... Hmmm maybe McD isn't such a good example
[1] The dev gives up thinking really hard about what the default should be, picks the first somewhat usable one and replies with "WORKSFORME" if users complain.
Yeah, and investors who would sell just because Jobs is really sick should have sold when they read this line:
:).
"During the past week I have learned that my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought"
What else do you need? Especially after getting that "hormonal imbalance thing" and no public appearance of Jobs.
What do they want? Jobs to tell them "Hey stupid sheep, if you're going to sell, sell NOW!"?
On the bright side, that means there's money to be made
And here's my take on mykdavies' take on the Guardian's take on the New York Times' reporting of the Wall Street Journal's story:
Pffft!
What next? Slashdot's take on Guardian's take? With a dupe for a doubletake?
I have it on "use classic index", but his "friendly url" link still gives that bars and bubble crap problem.
2 hearts?
I dunno about everyone else but when I heard "hormonal imbalance", and Steve Jobs had dropped out of sight, I figured he was in big trouble.
;) ).
e.g. cancer or AIDS or something else as serious as that.
You don't announce a hormonal imbalance that's not serious that way (he couldn't even appear in public!). Well unless he was changing gender (either voluntarily or involuntarily
So if you would sell/buy Apple stock just because Jobs is very sick, you should have done it the day they said "hormonal imbalance". But most "investors" won't do that - they'll just wait for someone to start first.
It's just like when Alan Greenspan says "irrational exuberance". He's not going to come out and say "Uh everyone, sell! Sell! Sell!". That would be irresponsible and stupid of him.
You want the sheep to move in a particular direction, but not rush off the cliff together.
> And if that fails, there's always sex with an unfamiliar woman...
That might result in you needing a liver transplant.
I had that problem with Hotmail+SORBS too. Hotmail is so crap I don't know why so many people keep insisting on using it as their primary email. Use it for junk you don't care about (since Hotmail seems to be happy to delete emails after just a short time of disuse).
As for SORBS, I hope they get shutdown permanently. Good riddance.
> And yes, there are idiots who block based on nothing more then SORBS. Ask me how I know.
;)
;).
Hey someone go ask him how he knows... I might ask, but I'm a bit scared - he's built up quite a huge head of steam already...
Seriously though, I hate those stupid blacklists too.
They blacklist entire ISPs, and they say "too bad it's the ISP's fault". But really, if an ISP has millions of subscribers, a fair number of them are going to be spam spewing zombies. And often it just takes a few spam messages to get their IPs or range of IPs on the list.
Very often the users will use the ISP's smtp gateway, and so will the zombie program. The ISP is likely to set their outbound spam filters on their gateways to have very low false positives. So some spam will leak out, and their gateway IPs get blacklisted. Whoopee.
If the zombies don't use the smtp gateway and go directly out, it gets the ISP's range of IPs on the list as well. And affects the other users trying to directly send legitimate email out without using the smtp gateways.
If the ISP blocks all outbound SMTP (and forces users to send email through strict filtering gateways), a bunch of people will complain and Slashdot will run negative story on them.
I don't run an ISP, but my ISP's smtp gateways have been blacklisted before. Fortunately I could go to the relevant website and request the ISP IPs to be unblacklisted for them... Doh. I've just checked psbl and their records showed that way back in 24-feb-2009, 10 emails from that gateway went to spam trap addresses. SORBS still has that IP listed, but I guess nobody I care to _resend_ email to is using SORBS.
But if anyone wants to rely solely on blacklists think about this:
The ISP has maybe a million subscribers, yes 10 spamtrapped emails * number of addresses in each "marketing campaign" is a lot of annoyed users, but from the POV of an ISP it could be a few zombies (or even just one) that got through. Then it's welcome to blacklist land, and all of the subscribers will either have their emails blocked or rated down.
What do you want the ISP to do? Stop all spam? That's impossible. Stop relaying emails for subscribers? That's crazy. Not have customers who would ever have spam spewing zombies? Not going to have many customers that way
You can also make some videos with stills.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2fNQppJqXw&feature=PlayList&p=F3C868A21F33E198&index=0
(do get the HD videos, they're MUCH better)
I recall the slashdot story saying that many of us can't see the Milky Way at night, but that's not true - we can see it on Youtube.
And we can even see beautiful sunrises from our basements ;).
FWIW those camera sensors and lenses are better then my eyes in terms of quality of picture.
Just stop before they get sick of it? Should be able to notice before they start reading "War and Peace", and way before they clobber you over the head with the book.
;) ).
;).
I've zero experience in such matters, but I'm sure once she's got off multiple times, you can always take off the condom and either DIY or let her give you a hand (if she hasn't passed out from the experience yet
OK if she's a hooker charging you a high price and you don't intend to be a repeat customer, then maybe you wouldn't care so much (still I don't think it's very considerate). That said if she charges by the hour, she might just grin and bear it.
Anyway, what do I know... Maybe someday I'll find someone to do some "practicals" with
Sure, but having one or two engines fail on a four engined plane is not as serious as having one or two engines fail on a two engined plane.
The FAA still believes 4 engined aircraft are safer than twin engined aircraft, hence their extra requirements for twin engined aircraft to fly long distance routes (ETOPS). Maybe you can go show them why they are wrong.
Your example does not disprove my claim that a four jet is safer than a twin jet. Since a twin jet is likely to also have all engines shut down in your stated scenario.
I'm not sure if a twin jet would have done better, in fact a twin jet might have not made it. In your example, after the 747 restarted a single engine out of 4, it helped to slow the rate of descent, giving time to finally start the other and thus climb and eventually make a safe landing (great flying by the crew).
The way I see it, let's just say the chance of an engine failing = 0.01
And 50% engines = OK , and < 50% = not ok. As per your link, the 747 could climb with two engines (even engines that had volcanic ash blown through them).
With 4 engines, the odds of any one engine failing = 0.04, the odds of any two engines failing = 0.0004, the odds of any three engines failing = 0.000004, the odds of all four failing = 0.00000001
With 4 engines, the odds of < 50% = 0.000004 + 0.00000001 = 0.00000401
With 2 engines, the odds of any one engine failing = 0.02 (yep half), the odds of both engines failing = 0.0001.
With 2 engines, the odds of < 50% = 0.0001 which is more than 0.00000401
Help fix my math if it's wrong.
If the design is 75% engines = not ok, then 4 engines is worse. But they don't design planes like that.
A 747 can climb and cruise with 1 dead engine (and lose maybe about 10% range). Lots of 747s lose an engine and keep flying. A BA 747 plane flew from LAX to MAN with just 3 engines (the FAA and press made a lot of noise about that one).
> What is this obsessios with mariage anyway? It screws guys over.
I dunno. A lot of guys seem to do it to get screwed. Then they start complaining after that.
OK you better stay here on slashdot then.
:).
Much safer
Because what you said was incorrect, and what he said was true.
Even though ubuntu has stuff loaded up, they're not running using 10% of the cpu. Just go do a top and see how much cpu is in use when you're not doing anything.
My ubuntu machine has two vmware virtual machines running on it and they only use about 3-4% of CPU total when not doing much - the machine is 96-97% idle with these running. If I suspend them, the machine would be 99-100% idle.
If using ubuntu and not slackware could cause the 15% difference in speed then something is wrong with the linux scheduler. Or someone in ubuntu has screwed up big time.
> Ever wondered why airliners seem to move from 3 or 4 to 2 engines? Because the failure rate is more or less independent of the size of those engines (similar number of components). I know, it's counter intuitive.And cost and maintenance is involved too...
:).
:).
Previously they needed 4 engines because the engines weren't as powerful and they weren't as reliable. Compare how much thrust the original 747 engines provided with the latest engines.
The thing is modern two engine jets are cheaper to maintain and seem to use less fuel than the 4 engine ones (not sure why they're more fuel efficient, maybe the 4 engine jets are older designs?). As for safety, they now can have planes with two engines where if one fails the plane can still fly safely for about 180 minutes and land, and the individual jet engines are more reliable nowadays. Not sure if 2 engine jets could do that in the 1960s
But everything being the same, a four engine design is safer than a two engine design, just more expensive. You can climb with 75% power. Climbing is harder with 50% power
Who knows. Maybe he hadn't really decided what he was going to do with it. He might have actually been intending to steal and sell it, but pro thieves will turn off the phone immediately. So if he's really a thief he's clearly an amateur.
;) ).
So the owner gave the guy a chance to not be a thief, and he got his phone back in working condition, nobody had to bash anybody up, nobody had to deal with the cops (which can often be more unpleasant than dealing with criminals
Win-win.
As Sun Tzu said: "Leave an escape for a surrounded enemy".
Maybe the sensitive men are just a bit too insensitive.
It's funny how so many people think circumcision is so terrible, when kids are showing off tongue studs, rings etc.
At least circumcision has some medical benefits. Whereas tongue studs cause more medical problems.
And if it really does make the penis less sensitive it might not be such a bad thing - since that might make it more likely for the girl to have an orgasm or three first.
What I'm curious about is who first came up with this practice and why. It does seem to have more medical pluses than minuses, esp when considering ancient society with lower levels of tech.
I wonder what would happen if parents wait till their sons get older then tell them, "hey if we ever find out you've been having premarital sex, we're going to circumcise you, y'know like slice a bit off your penis". Would that help cut down on STDs?
It's a fact, monogamy will improve the odds.
;) ).
The problem as you state, is you can't count on people to be monogamous.
And I don't suppose husbands would be telling their wives to insist on condoms whenever dear wifey feels a bit adulterous...
Anyway, I heard most married people hardly have sex. So maybe it's not monogamy that's preventative, it's marriage (e.g. wedding rings reduce STDs
I heard they happen to cost a lot more though...
If you are recently infected with HIV, it takes a number of days before current tests can detect that. This is called the window period, the minimum is about 12 days.
;)
Apparently you can still infect others during that window period, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_James
Whether Darren got it from Roxx or the other way round, allegedly both had tests done before.
If you want to use logic, monogamy works pretty well in preventing the spread of STDs while still allowing the reproduction of the species.
Could it be better experience for the girl then?
After all if you don't "get off" it normally means the erection lasts longer.
I wouldn't know much about such stuff of course, since I'm one of those virgin slashdotters.
FWIW, some places claim to sell something like an artificial foreskin that covers the glans, and after a while it gets more sensitive.