it's triggered by the spellchecker (roughly speaking, actually a bit more detailed), so it has to be in a text input field, and further the cursor has to be in the string (or something similar).
even replying to an email with quoting won't trigger the bug unless you edit the "File:///" string. a string which i just entered with chrome on an affected mac to no ill effect, btw.
it's an embarrassing bug, but not easily exploitable (though i'm sure someone will find some corner case).
yeah, just the other day i was having trouble debugging my code.
then i remembered that there is a bijection between computer programs and proofs of theorems! i immediately killed my debugger, and went back to the chalkboard to translate the design of my spreadsheet program into a formula of intuitionistic logic. having done so, i simply proved its correctness and used the curry-howard correspondence to elucidate an expression in the lambda-calculus, which i could map trivially to any programming language i desired.
and to think, i might have wasting hours or even days writing code without ever realizing that it is simply a proof for an incredibly long and complex logical formula. that would be crazy!
it should be relatively easy to judge a religion based on its philosophical teachings instead of how any individual follower of those teachings lived up to the standard
yes, in fact it is trivial to do so, but it is not the only ``atheistic way'' to judge a religion (an atheist, it would seem, can judge any religion by any standard except one which assumes the deity actually exists). further, is that the correct way to judge a religion?
and actually you're entirely wrong; religion is not ``just'' a philosophy by any standard; it's a prescriptive moral system and social system, among many other things, particularly a positive claim of the supernatural. an atheist can acknowledge all of these. if a prescriptive moral system fails to prescribe the behavior it claims to, then, yes, it can be criticized for that.
the nigger in the woodpile is the word `legitimate'. in short, the legitimate point of patents is to protect the investment required to produce actual innovations. however, patents are nowadays issued much more broadly than this. just because a patent is issued, does not make it legitimate.
a patent troll is someone who either 1) patents (or acquires the patent for) something already widespread, or uses a submarine patent to accomplish the same, in order to extort $ or chill competition, or 2) patents a routine solution to a relatively trivial and routine subproblem which emerges while accomplishing the original goal, so as to set up landmines for competitors. both of these would be mitigated if the USPTO simply enforced their rules on originality, which they do not, either out of incompetence or ideology.
do they offer cash discounts, or do they surcharge credit?
the former has always been allowed, at least by the major cc companies. it's psychology; they don't want cc users to feel like they are paying "extra," even if the two are formally equivalent.
pedantry. life span can refer to life expectancy, and that is what I meant. the point was just that animals don't have hospitals. if you take away the hospitals, humans fall in line with other animals.
the summary says that the result is valid for species, not individuals. even that is wrong; it's not exactly valid for every species; the result is actually that there is a significant power-law trend across species which is that the mortality rate and birth rate both scale approximately as -0.25*(dry mass) on a log-log scale. however there is also significant variation from the log-log line-of-best-fit; the r^2 is around 0.8, though i don't care enough to read exactly how they designed the study. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/40/15777.full
humans have, of course, cheated death to some extent, so we're outliers, though it is worth noting that prehistoric humans had a max. lifespan of around 40 years...
this is an old result for animal species; the `result' here is that they checked the extrapolated fit for ~700 plant species and validated it in that domain. scientists generally make small extensions or validate previous conjectures; since the public doesn't understand what they're building from, the media has to present the history as the novelty. it's kind of funny, really.
i remember reading a paper (from sante fe institute, of course) ~20 years ago or so which tried to define a `generalized heartbeat' for cities and nation-states to see if the scaling law would extrapolate. of course, the problem is you can define such a thing however you want.
why should i object to it? in case you didn't get it through your skull the first time, i don't care about retailers targeting products to me, and since i don't care about that, i also don't care about how easy or inexpensive it is for them to do so. maybe you should explain to me why i should object, since i am perfectly happy with life as it is.
by the way, i wasn't always like this; several years ago, i was a paranoid freak who refused to give my zip code to anyone and so on. now i'm not; the only difference is that i am much happier now.
would i like less advertising in life? of course i would, much of it is very obnoxious. would i like stronger regulation (voluntary or state-enforced) about accurate information and misleading claims? yes, of course. but as long as advertising is there, i don't see the problem with targeting it to the audience.
the fact that you think it does is evidence that you're bad at gauging said resistance
no, it's at most a correlation, so you should make such statements only in reference to a population (as i did), not an individual, e.g. me. there are other reasons i feel confident in my resistance, but i only have so much time. all i can say is that i strenuously weigh the benefit of any purchase against its cost, and do exhaustive research about every available brand (and non-brand; sometimes i buy from no-name chinese resellers) before buying, but i don't think there's anything i can say that will convince you.
of course i am influenced on some level, as everyone is. that's called life, and that's how it's always been. the only difference is that today we have a lot of choice, rather than having the village tailor, the village blacksmith, &c. i'll take today over yesterday; advertising is just a part of it.
sure, and if life has become such a dystopian surveillance hellscape, i'll either emigrate or start removing the battery from my phone, &c.
and your magical insights into my personal life are truly stunning. i'm impressed. tell me, do you really believe that no one can be accurately confident in their resistance to advertising, or did you use your non-existent information about my life to give me a personal diagnosis?
``premium burgers prepared fresh for you on-demand, from only the finest bio-slurry. our meat is synthesized, interwoven with premium lipids, exercised, and grilled before your eyes without the interference of filthy meatbags. the best burger you've tasted, every time — that's science!"
if tracking were only ever used for advertising, i would not have any problem with it. my concern about tracking is that people with the power to fuck my life over will get a hold of it and use the data irresponsibly. sorry, but i just don't see how "walked down aisle 3 five times on Sunday" can contribute to that.
when i see people who are deathly afraid of advertising, i wonder why. there's an old saying among door-to-door salesmen that you hit the houses with signs reading "no solicitors," exactly because the occupants are easily influenced; after all, that's why they put the sign up.
with two exceptions, i research my purchases meticulously before making them. the exceptions are a limited amount of impulse buys (for example, i know they put the candy bars exactly in that spot to maximize sales, but i don't care; i knew that i'd be buying the damned candy bar before i entered the store) and... actually that's about it. the other exception involves my hobbies, but it's not like i ever go to a fountain pen or book store without a budget anyway. i just let myself enjoy the experience more than other places.
i'm fairly confident that i am mostly resistant to advertising. in fact, i can identify the ubiquitous re-use of phrases and images that are "proven" by marketing psychologists to influence people and it's just mildly nauseating. now maybe this is the dunning-kruger effect, but looking around my home, i don't see much stuff that i regret buying, so i'm either making good decisions or i am completely brainwashed. i suspect the former.
your local scratch-and-dent off-offbrand food store should have something similar, maybe slightly more expensive. they're mostly offal (and completely awful), slurry (=pink slime), and soy filler. one of my dormmates in college subsisted on them for a few months. they smell like burning shit when cooked. i like burgers quite a bit, but i'd rather eat a tub of beans and tofu than even smell one of those thrice-damned things.
i disagree (assuming you're not trolling, which might be a stretch).
math journals are for mathematicians. they don't need apple's magic touch of marketing and "it just works," because it's for their own community. this is the first step; what you're suggesting is years done the line.
now, if academics were trying to replace nature or science or some other technical magazine, then yeah, apple would be someone to seriously consider, but for this project, it would be a total waste for both sides. academia wouldn't get enough bang for the buck, and apple's margins would be shit.
i've tried to find it a few times myself as well... sorry, but it was in a journal i just happened to pick up and read in my college's math lounge one day.:-/
i've published. what happens is, my article proofs get sent to generally unpaid reviewers; i edit; i resubmit; and it gets published completely unchanged. the only work done is adding a table of contents and managing page flow. the former is trivial, and the latter is basically obsolete with electronic journals. even spell-checking would be an overestimate of the work involved. the publishers are pure brokers, plain and simple. the idea that they would even know what "good behavior" is, without their unpaid peer reviewers, is utterly laughable.
unfortunately, your latter criticisms might hold. mathematicians are arrogant sods, and yes, there would probably be need for at least minimal peer review for non-math aspects, such as aesthetic standards. since they don't pay for their journals, i can imagine that they would rather (indirectly) waste a few tens of thousands of dollars than spend two hours a month doing janitorial work. then again, mathematicians have a fanatical streak which can be easily exploited.
anyway, even if this doesn't work, something like it eventually will. the inefficiencies of the current system are just outrageous.
really? apple is almost standard in many applied math departments; i think that counts as "good at math" by slashdot standards. pure math maybe not quite as much, but definitely not rare.
people who are good at math often want a unix, but they don't want to waste work time wrestling with their os, leaving apple as (unfortunately) the only option. those who are doing serious compute projects might have a linux box for heavy or GPU-based number crunching, but that's about it.
and when he did, the author of the then-state-of-the-art proprietary typesetting system launched bitter polemics against TeX to anyone who would listen. his main point was that it wasn't fair that TeX was 1) orders of magnitude better than his software and 2) free, so that he would now lose all of his support contracts. sounds familiar.
the letter was published in the bulletin of the ams (i think), with a rebuttal from Knuth telling him, politely, to go fuck himself.
the fine is in addition to the proper criminal penalty for manslaughter, murder, or whatever is appropriate. arguably, the fine for killing a highway worker should be $0, since they aren't any better than anyone else.
for p2p, the fine is all there is. it's still a fucking ridiculous amount (and it will eventually be found as such), but it's purely a civil matter. well, sort of.
it's not at all clear for how long all of MIT's subnet was blocked.
the indictment merely claims that some servers crashed, fairly meaningless without context, and that their service was "impaired," whatever that means. one suspects that if something substantial had happened, they would be more specific. anyway, it's a far cry from "crippling access for SEVEN THOUSAND institutions."
i can only imagine that MIT's criteria for sysadmins are pretty stringent. if the MIT network people gave half a shit, they could have easily found him and called the cops: look up his IP addresses, associate them to the pool available to the switch, put a patrol there or review security tapes. instead, it took three months until someone "observed" him entering the room in a furtive manner.
i rotate mac addresses to get by an utterly ridiculous intra-network data cap so i can actually get work done. maybe i should get 35 years too? oh no, they would just tell me to knock it off, if they cared, which they don't.
you have a valid point overall, but it's significantly weaker if you look at these things in actual context. in short, crimes serious enough for even the possibility of 35 years in prison shouldn't be so unimportant that the criminal can flagrantly commit the crime for three months.
Slashdot Mirror
it's triggered by the spellchecker (roughly speaking, actually a bit more detailed), so it has to be in a text input field, and further the cursor has to be in the string (or something similar).
even replying to an email with quoting won't trigger the bug unless you edit the "File:///" string. a string which i just entered with chrome on an affected mac to no ill effect, btw.
it's an embarrassing bug, but not easily exploitable (though i'm sure someone will find some corner case).
yeah, just the other day i was having trouble debugging my code.
then i remembered that there is a bijection between computer programs and proofs of theorems! i immediately killed my debugger, and went back to the chalkboard to translate the design of my spreadsheet program into a formula of intuitionistic logic. having done so, i simply proved its correctness and used the curry-howard correspondence to elucidate an expression in the lambda-calculus, which i could map trivially to any programming language i desired.
and to think, i might have wasting hours or even days writing code without ever realizing that it is simply a proof for an incredibly long and complex logical formula. that would be crazy!
by demanding shallow `realism,' you've ensured an overall bias in favor of the gunrunners you're accidentally supporting.
it should be relatively easy to judge a religion based on its philosophical teachings instead of how any individual follower of those teachings lived up to the standard
yes, in fact it is trivial to do so, but it is not the only ``atheistic way'' to judge a religion (an atheist, it would seem, can judge any religion by any standard except one which assumes the deity actually exists). further, is that the correct way to judge a religion?
and actually you're entirely wrong; religion is not ``just'' a philosophy by any standard; it's a prescriptive moral system and social system, among many other things, particularly a positive claim of the supernatural. an atheist can acknowledge all of these. if a prescriptive moral system fails to prescribe the behavior it claims to, then, yes, it can be criticized for that.
the nigger in the woodpile is the word `legitimate'. in short, the legitimate point of patents is to protect the investment required to produce actual innovations. however, patents are nowadays issued much more broadly than this. just because a patent is issued, does not make it legitimate.
a patent troll is someone who either 1) patents (or acquires the patent for) something already widespread, or uses a submarine patent to accomplish the same, in order to extort $ or chill competition, or 2) patents a routine solution to a relatively trivial and routine subproblem which emerges while accomplishing the original goal, so as to set up landmines for competitors. both of these would be mitigated if the USPTO simply enforced their rules on originality, which they do not, either out of incompetence or ideology.
do they offer cash discounts, or do they surcharge credit?
the former has always been allowed, at least by the major cc companies. it's psychology; they don't want cc users to feel like they are paying "extra," even if the two are formally equivalent.
yeah that's what I meant by significant variation.
you're right about the effective sample size... I feel really stupid for missing it.
pedantry. life span can refer to life expectancy, and that is what I meant. the point was just that animals don't have hospitals. if you take away the hospitals, humans fall in line with other animals.
the summary says that the result is valid for species, not individuals. even that is wrong; it's not exactly valid for every species; the result is actually that there is a significant power-law trend across species which is that the mortality rate and birth rate both scale approximately as -0.25*(dry mass) on a log-log scale. however there is also significant variation from the log-log line-of-best-fit; the r^2 is around 0.8, though i don't care enough to read exactly how they designed the study. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/40/15777.full
humans have, of course, cheated death to some extent, so we're outliers, though it is worth noting that prehistoric humans had a max. lifespan of around 40 years...
this is an old result for animal species; the `result' here is that they checked the extrapolated fit for ~700 plant species and validated it in that domain. scientists generally make small extensions or validate previous conjectures; since the public doesn't understand what they're building from, the media has to present the history as the novelty. it's kind of funny, really.
i remember reading a paper (from sante fe institute, of course) ~20 years ago or so which tried to define a `generalized heartbeat' for cities and nation-states to see if the scaling law would extrapolate. of course, the problem is you can define such a thing however you want.
why should i object to it? in case you didn't get it through your skull the first time, i don't care about retailers targeting products to me, and since i don't care about that, i also don't care about how easy or inexpensive it is for them to do so. maybe you should explain to me why i should object, since i am perfectly happy with life as it is.
by the way, i wasn't always like this; several years ago, i was a paranoid freak who refused to give my zip code to anyone and so on. now i'm not; the only difference is that i am much happier now.
would i like less advertising in life? of course i would, much of it is very obnoxious. would i like stronger regulation (voluntary or state-enforced) about accurate information and misleading claims? yes, of course. but as long as advertising is there, i don't see the problem with targeting it to the audience.
the fact that you think it does is evidence that you're bad at gauging said resistance
no, it's at most a correlation, so you should make such statements only in reference to a population (as i did), not an individual, e.g. me. there are other reasons i feel confident in my resistance, but i only have so much time. all i can say is that i strenuously weigh the benefit of any purchase against its cost, and do exhaustive research about every available brand (and non-brand; sometimes i buy from no-name chinese resellers) before buying, but i don't think there's anything i can say that will convince you.
of course i am influenced on some level, as everyone is. that's called life, and that's how it's always been. the only difference is that today we have a lot of choice, rather than having the village tailor, the village blacksmith, &c. i'll take today over yesterday; advertising is just a part of it.
not to mention "ni hao," though i guess korea is kind of like china-lite, in terms of western assimilation.
sure, and if life has become such a dystopian surveillance hellscape, i'll either emigrate or start removing the battery from my phone, &c.
and your magical insights into my personal life are truly stunning. i'm impressed. tell me, do you really believe that no one can be accurately confident in their resistance to advertising, or did you use your non-existent information about my life to give me a personal diagnosis?
``premium burgers prepared fresh for you on-demand, from only the finest bio-slurry. our meat is synthesized, interwoven with premium lipids, exercised, and grilled before your eyes without the interference of filthy meatbags. the best burger you've tasted, every time — that's science!"
if tracking were only ever used for advertising, i would not have any problem with it. my concern about tracking is that people with the power to fuck my life over will get a hold of it and use the data irresponsibly. sorry, but i just don't see how "walked down aisle 3 five times on Sunday" can contribute to that.
when i see people who are deathly afraid of advertising, i wonder why. there's an old saying among door-to-door salesmen that you hit the houses with signs reading "no solicitors," exactly because the occupants are easily influenced; after all, that's why they put the sign up.
with two exceptions, i research my purchases meticulously before making them. the exceptions are a limited amount of impulse buys (for example, i know they put the candy bars exactly in that spot to maximize sales, but i don't care; i knew that i'd be buying the damned candy bar before i entered the store) and... actually that's about it. the other exception involves my hobbies, but it's not like i ever go to a fountain pen or book store without a budget anyway. i just let myself enjoy the experience more than other places.
i'm fairly confident that i am mostly resistant to advertising. in fact, i can identify the ubiquitous re-use of phrases and images that are "proven" by marketing psychologists to influence people and it's just mildly nauseating. now maybe this is the dunning-kruger effect, but looking around my home, i don't see much stuff that i regret buying, so i'm either making good decisions or i am completely brainwashed. i suspect the former.
if it's bad for the store to "profit off of you," what are you doing there in the first place?
take a modern stats class.
your local scratch-and-dent off-offbrand food store should have something similar, maybe slightly more expensive. they're mostly offal (and completely awful), slurry (=pink slime), and soy filler. one of my dormmates in college subsisted on them for a few months. they smell like burning shit when cooked. i like burgers quite a bit, but i'd rather eat a tub of beans and tofu than even smell one of those thrice-damned things.
i disagree (assuming you're not trolling, which might be a stretch).
math journals are for mathematicians. they don't need apple's magic touch of marketing and "it just works," because it's for their own community. this is the first step; what you're suggesting is years done the line.
now, if academics were trying to replace nature or science or some other technical magazine, then yeah, apple would be someone to seriously consider, but for this project, it would be a total waste for both sides. academia wouldn't get enough bang for the buck, and apple's margins would be shit.
i've tried to find it a few times myself as well... sorry, but it was in a journal i just happened to pick up and read in my college's math lounge one day. :-/
i've published. what happens is, my article proofs get sent to generally unpaid reviewers; i edit; i resubmit; and it gets published completely unchanged. the only work done is adding a table of contents and managing page flow. the former is trivial, and the latter is basically obsolete with electronic journals. even spell-checking would be an overestimate of the work involved. the publishers are pure brokers, plain and simple. the idea that they would even know what "good behavior" is, without their unpaid peer reviewers, is utterly laughable.
unfortunately, your latter criticisms might hold. mathematicians are arrogant sods, and yes, there would probably be need for at least minimal peer review for non-math aspects, such as aesthetic standards. since they don't pay for their journals, i can imagine that they would rather (indirectly) waste a few tens of thousands of dollars than spend two hours a month doing janitorial work. then again, mathematicians have a fanatical streak which can be easily exploited.
anyway, even if this doesn't work, something like it eventually will. the inefficiencies of the current system are just outrageous.
really? apple is almost standard in many applied math departments; i think that counts as "good at math" by slashdot standards. pure math maybe not quite as much, but definitely not rare.
people who are good at math often want a unix, but they don't want to waste work time wrestling with their os, leaving apple as (unfortunately) the only option. those who are doing serious compute projects might have a linux box for heavy or GPU-based number crunching, but that's about it.
and when he did, the author of the then-state-of-the-art proprietary typesetting system launched bitter polemics against TeX to anyone who would listen. his main point was that it wasn't fair that TeX was 1) orders of magnitude better than his software and 2) free, so that he would now lose all of his support contracts. sounds familiar.
the letter was published in the bulletin of the ams (i think), with a rebuttal from Knuth telling him, politely, to go fuck himself.
the fine is in addition to the proper criminal penalty for manslaughter, murder, or whatever is appropriate. arguably, the fine for killing a highway worker should be $0, since they aren't any better than anyone else.
for p2p, the fine is all there is. it's still a fucking ridiculous amount (and it will eventually be found as such), but it's purely a civil matter. well, sort of.
would you be in favor of this law if it had been proposed out of pure wisdom and legal consideration?
if not, GTFO. seriously. kill yourself.
if so, why does it matter what prompted it?
Lessig condemned Swartz's action at the time.
it's not at all clear for how long all of MIT's subnet was blocked.
the indictment merely claims that some servers crashed, fairly meaningless without context, and that their service was "impaired," whatever that means. one suspects that if something substantial had happened, they would be more specific. anyway, it's a far cry from "crippling access for SEVEN THOUSAND institutions."
i can only imagine that MIT's criteria for sysadmins are pretty stringent. if the MIT network people gave half a shit, they could have easily found him and called the cops: look up his IP addresses, associate them to the pool available to the switch, put a patrol there or review security tapes. instead, it took three months until someone "observed" him entering the room in a furtive manner.
i rotate mac addresses to get by an utterly ridiculous intra-network data cap so i can actually get work done. maybe i should get 35 years too? oh no, they would just tell me to knock it off, if they cared, which they don't.
you have a valid point overall, but it's significantly weaker if you look at these things in actual context. in short, crimes serious enough for even the possibility of 35 years in prison shouldn't be so unimportant that the criminal can flagrantly commit the crime for three months.