I have one strongish password which I modify in a systematic and easy to remember way based on the website name. For example (and this isn't exactly what I do, obviously), say my core password is ghs78kja: on slashdot I would use as a password/DOTghs78kjaSLASH* on the New Scientist's site I would use/SCIENTISTghs78kjaNEW*.
While I understand the appeal of such a system (and tried it briefly years ago), it seems somewhat bizarre to me if you actually want any security. Yes, it will stop some random hacker who obtained a password list from site X from automatically logging into site Y by just applying the old list.
But if a hacker actually gives a crap about what he's doing and actually wants to get into your accounts, a system like this is well-known enough that he could guess your passwords to other sites once he knows one of them.
Obviously you said this isn't what you use exactly, but to really make it reasonably secure, you'd need to have a much more sophisticated method of generating password modifications for each site (e.g., disguising the name or manipulating it in a non-obvious way, performing some non-obvious modification on your "core" password based on the site name, etc.). And once you go down that road to generate something non-obvious, then you need to recreate those steps of generation every time you try to remember a password... which could be tedious and annoying unless you design it well.
Anyhow, for accounts you really don't care about, something like this sounds fine. But GP was talking about strong passwords, which should probably be more individualized for accounts you really want to keep secure.
These passwords are all unique, long, very easy to remember, and use all the character classes.
Yeah, except I'm sure they break half of the password policies at various sites anyway. That's the primary reason I started using a password manager -- even if I used a system like yours, I'd still have to remember all the random constraints on passwords for a various sites.
For example, some sites have length maximums that could be anywhere from 8 characters up. Some sites will accept a longer string when you try to login, but they won't warn you that your password must be shorter, so you keep typing in your 20-character phrase and get rejected because your password is actually the first 12 characters or whatever. And then you have sites that don't accept special characters, or sites that require special characters (but only from a certain list), or sites that don't allow you to begin your password with a number or a special character or whatever, or sites that don't accept strings of more than X letters in a row (yes, those exist, and you have to mix up the letters with numbers or special characters).... or whatever other random constraint applies.
With a password manager, I can have 30-character passwords or whatever on all the sites that accept them. If they use special characters, I can randomly generate a password with them. If they don't, I can specify a random alphanumeric password. Or whatever. And if the maximum length is 12 characters, I can specify that too without artificially limiting the length of my passwords on other sites or having to remember "Oh yeah, that site only allows a short password and it won't warn me if I try to enter my long one..." etc.
I'm not saying password managers are the best option for everything. But for remembering random website passwords, they can work pretty well.
Cease and desist. I have patented the software innovation of copyrighting a joke.
No, you cease and desist. I have copyrighted a joke about patenting the copyrighting of jokes, so your post is infringing already.
I've also patented the software innovation of posting internet discussions about patenting copyrights of jokes, so if you plan to respond here, please mail a license fee to me first. Thanks!
YMMV but personally I hate parallel parking with my no assist, no camera, no proximity sensor car. I hate trying to predict through the mirrors how far I got left until I bump into someone, mostly I'm overcautious meaning it takes me way too many cycles of back and forth.
Get a friend who actually knows how to parallel park. Have them stand outside your car while you do it on a quiet street. Have them motion to tell you how much room you have and can continue to back up. Pay attention to your mirrors and what things look like. Repeat 10 times. Now you know where your car ends and won't have to "back up until you hit something" again. Problem solved.
Do this exercise with a few different cars types with different types of rear ends (sedan, hatchback, pickup, etc.), and pretty soon you'll be able to estimate your car length pretty well with mirrors in just about any car you drive. I know this is harder to learn for some people, but all it takes is a little practice and a second person to guide you a bit while you practice.
Mayor promises to eat better: less beans, more fibre.
While beans do have significant flatulence causing aspects in their oligosaccharides and cell wall cements, most things that contain significant amounts of fiber have potential for causing flatulence. So if the goal is to reduce "gaseous emissions," a high-fiber diet is unlikely to help
Tipping that balance away from the "helping the patient" side seems a little perilous to me.
Agreed. The problem comes when we take "helping the patient" to be synonymous with "keeping the patient alive at all costs, no matter how pain, suffering, or disruption in quality of life may occur." Medical practitioners often make that equation, but it's not always true. Sometimes what's best for the patient is to listen to their needs... and sometimes prolonging life no matter what (and sometimes only gaining an extra few weeks or months, often with great suffering) is NOT "helping the patient" overall.
If your surgeons are aggressive in treatment, you'll have some people dying a bit sooner than they would have otherwise (the failures), but you'll also have people surviving who wouldn't have otherwise (the successes).
While this is true, it overlooks a few significant things, like the fact that those last few weeks can often be very meaningful for the family and the patient... time to "say goodbye" and perhaps do some final things with family and friends. A surgeon who "oversells" a risky treatment or doesn't properly weigh the decisions with the patient and family may deprive them of some really important time. It may be "just a few weeks or months," but that is often precious time to lose. And studies have shown that doctor authority carries great weight with people, so they'll likely go along even with a risky procedure if the doctor presents it in a positive light.
Also, your two outcomes (patient dies or patient recovers) are not the only possible ones. Others include: patient experiences severe complications and continues living but in severe pain or disabled, patient goes into a coma or non-responsive state, drawing out the grieving process for families and shouldering them with difficult decisions, patient gains a short time but quality of life is degraded a bit in those last few weeks or months, not allowing the patient to do what he/she wanted to at the end of life... etc
Our medical establishment is very focused on prolonging life at all costs these days. But length of life is not always what's best for the patient overall.
They'd rather have cutesy flicks and swishes, so that only those "on the inside" know the magic gestures, and can feel superior to the unwashed masses who don't have iPhones.
And there you have it: Apple knew it could make more profit by having the "cool" device that people "in the know" can use, which they can charge more for, rather than a more discoverable classic UI.
Also, I suspect a lot of these choices have to do with patents and such. You may not be able to patent a button that says "archive," but you make an archive function activated with an obscure weird-looking icon with a bunch of random shapes on a button, or by activating "archive" with a three-finger swipe and swish, and now you have something that could "catch on" among the cool devices, which means everyone else has to pay licensing fees if the want to use it in their UI.
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars.
Nowhere near true in all cases. Many drivers own their own cars and/or operate independently. I believe in NYC, for example, something like 1/4 or more of taxis are owner operated. They actually have a certain number of medallions set aside which can only be used by independent operators.
And in cases where the cars are owned by the company, the driver generally leases the cab. By your logic, if someone uses a leased vehicle for "ride-sharing," does that make the car dealership (which still owns the vehicle) a "taxi company"?
Bottom line: Ownership of cars does NOT differentiate standard taxis from the Uber situation.
I'm telling you, if you scratch the surface of someone who claims to be completely unaffected by advertising, you're going to find someone who's making a lot more subconscious purchasing decisions than you would expect.
Well, I never claimed to be "completely unaffected by advertising." But I'd say the reality is that people who make some effort to avoid the onslaught of ads probably actually do encounter fewer ads... which means they are likely to be less influenced than the average person.
Anyhow, maybe you're right, but I simply rarely buy name brand items, except where no cheaper off-brand or generic item is available (for items where quality is not a major issue) or where the generic items are demonstrably worse when I've tried them. Where item variety is enough that different brands tend to actually be really different, I try a variety of things and choose what I like best.
For major purchases, I do significant research and try to find unbiased sources. (Admittedly, that's sometimes difficult.) A rejection from Consumer Reports or an expert source or something like that would override any brand recognition for me.
And, where I really want quality for a major purchase, and it's possible to get something crafted and durable, I'll do that. I've commissioned and purchased furniture from carpenters and woodworkers I know personally, made from real wood (and I've sometimes built it myself). I have ordered handmade cookware made to my specs that will last for at least a few generations.
Some of us really don't want to participate in the general consumer economy. Some of us simply don't buy random crap just because "everyone has one these days" or because X "is the newest, coolest gadget." Some months ago, I spent some time with relatives who tend to have the TV on all day -- I sat down around the TV for hours over several days and made a point of watching the ads because I rarely see them (and I'm kind of curious when I do see them to see what sort of weirdness has become popular). Over the course of probably 8-10 hours of TV watching, I didn't see an ad for a single item I actually own or currently purchase (or am interested in purchasing)... well, except for my garbage bags (which, well, I've tried generics, and they don't seem as good) and the car I own, but it's hard to find "off-brand" cars.
So, sure -- ads probably do influence me. But I find it hard to see a strong influence when I look around my house and have a hard time finding major brand-name items.
"I don't pay any attention to advertising at all unless I am proactively seeking a product in a store"
That's just the thing. You think you aren't, but you are, you're just not aware of it at a conscious level.
While this is true, one still needs to actually encounter ads to be influenced by them. I think many people on Slashdot who "don't pay any attention to advertising at all" aren't just people who say they don't watch commercials or look at the flashing ads on the side of a website -- they actually don't watch broadcast TV at all and run ad blockers that filter out 99% of ads.
I really have little clue what the "popular brands" are for most items, because I simply don't see much advertising at all.... not that I "see it but don't look at it" but I actually, literally do NOT see it because those ads are never within viewing range of me. For example, I have no clue what movies are playing in theaters now -- and I haven't really had a clue for the past decade or more since I stopped watching all broadcast TV. I'm not going to be "subconsciously" influenced to go see some popular movie when I don't ever see an ad for it and thus don't even know it exists. I only know about movies when I periodically decide to see what's playing and go to a site specifically devoted to current movie reviews.
So, "subconscious suggestion" isn't really as effective for at least some of the extremists on Slashdot. And even if it is, my general policy when looking for a purchase is to either go for a generic cheaper brand (if quality is basically equal for such products) or to look more closely at brands I haven't heard of before, because I recognize there is generally more variety (and variance in quality) in product classes to be seen outside the dominant corporate overlords.
I recognize that most people aren't like me. But that doesn't mean that your argument magically applies to people who don't even come in contact with most ads... and who are deliberately contrarian in purchasing. (My general opinion of modern corporate culture is that advertising often rewards products which satisfy the lowest common denominator, rather than the best quality products. The more familiar a brand sounds to me, the more suspicious I am that it's overpriced for its quality. That doesn't mean I reject it outright, but I'll often try out the generic or unknown product before settling on the brand.)
Radio, TV, and most websites would not exist but for it, and it is a meritocracy as well - if the advertized product sucks, or the ad sucks, the advertiser loses their money with no reward. The opposite holds as well - a good product and a good ad can be very beneficial to customers and the advertiser.
It depends on your definition of "meritocracy." To me, a meritocracy is when the best things rise to the top. To you, a meritocracy is when the "lowest common denominator" products rise to the top.
For example, I don't think a lot of TV ads exist for fine dining restaurants, artisan craft foods and beverages, or other high quality items. Instead, ads are saturated with wars between McDonalds and Burger King, between Budweiser and Coors, and between Cheetos and Fritos (and Doritos... and...).
You really want to claim that advertising promotes a "meritocracy" where the best products rise to the top and "can be very beneficial to customers"? No -- advertising generally rewards the companies who can make the most profits by manufacturing the product with the least (but still barely acceptable) quality for most people.
I fail to see how that's really that beneficial for consumers -- unless you see the success of McDonalds and Budweiser as symbols of the triumph of a meritocracy. It just ends up promoting giant corporations that know how to either (1) maximize profits by catering to the lowest popular denominator or (2) trick people into buying a product they didn't even want or need with a stupid ad (see infomercials, or their 30-second cousins "for the low price of $19.95").
(P.S. I'm not at all saying that ads can't sometimes be beneficial for items with better quality early on in the stages of a product -- sure they can. But the vast majority of advertising is not about that.)
I don't watch broadcast television, I don't read billboards, I completely ignore banners and side-column ads
Modern marketing techniques are designed for people like you. They're specifically made for people who don't pay attention to ads.
How exactly do the advertisers manage to design ads that will get through to GP who "doesn't watch broadcast television"? If GP doesn't see as many ads, he'll be less influenced by them, no?
I, like GP, don't tend to even notice ads off to the side. It's like my eyes are almost "allergic" to them. And your contention that they affect me significantly just doesn't seem to be borne out by how I actually purchase products. Do some of them have SOME subliminal effect? I'm sure. But nowhere near your wacko conspiracy theorist level of hysteria.
Then how the fuck would you know about the "industry's kowtowing to political correctness" causing them to divest themselves of sexy women in ads? Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Well, given that you produced a link that easily showed GP was WRONG, it's pretty clear that GP is probably ignorant because, well... he doesn't pay attention to ads and therefore he doesn't even know what the current trends are in advertising.
"Lying" implies intent to deceive. GP was simply mistaken... because he doesn't notice enough ads to even know what's going on in them. He speculated, on the basis of his knowledge of PC behavior -- but, as you point out, his speculation was wrong.
You'd be better off accepting the effect that advertising is having on you, being aware of it, and actively subverting it. Adbusters is a good place to start. Otherwise, you'll still be reaching for the brand name and not knowing why.
It's weird -- I don't even know the brand names for most products. Seriously. I don't. If I've never bought a product before, I have to go and research to even find out what the brand names ARE. Because I don't pay attention to ads.
Sure, when I was a kid, and I watched broadcast TV, I saw lots of ads. I still remember many of those jingles, and I know those brands -- because I watched those ads. Today, I have no clue what movies are playing in theaters. I have no clue what brand names exist for product classes I haven't bought before. I have no idea what most popular beers or cars or whatever even look like... unless I've specifically researched them before a car purchase or whatever. And even if I did see an ad, I'm usually LESS likely to buy something heavily advertised, since I like to support variety and unusual product choices -- as long as they are quality -- rather than shelling out money to the "default" corporate overlord in a particular sector.
So, I think your rant is demonstrably false at least for some people. Again, I'm sure there are SOME minor unconscious effects for some ads that are flashing off to the side on a website or something... but since I use ad blockers, I never see most of them (just like I don't see commercials since I don't watch broadcast TV). And if I probably see only maybe 1 or 2% of the ads that most people see, I'm pretty certain that the advertisers aren't somehow magically able to affect me as much as they affect most people....
And no one really uses that piano arrangement (my guess), so almost none of the enforcement should ever have been valid.
But the problem is that U.S. court precedent has mostly considered the idea that melody is the primary determinant of copyright. For better or for worse, that's generally the standard. Now, whether this particular arrangement is the earliest to contain proper notice and copyright registration, as well as a properly filed renewal (as was required during that period)... well these are all interesting questions.
The claim to copyright today is completely bogus. But the specific piano arrangement is legally irrelevant for the copyright claim, only the melody and proper copyright for any fixed publication of that melody.
Scarcity is a limiting factor, but human greed is even more of a limiting factor. We will never reach anything resembling a utopian society where everyone's basic needs are met, regardless of the means, because of human nature, not because of available resources.
Well, "human nature" is somewhat malleable by social constructs. So I wouldn't say "never." But there are significant roadblocks.
For example, John Maynard Keynes predicted that only workaholics would be working over 15 hours per week by 2030. We don't really seem to be on that path, despite the fact that worker productivity has basically quadrupled in the U.S. since 1950. (I know some people are going to argue over how accurate this claim is -- but the exact numbers don't matter so much. It's undisputed among economists that worker productivity has gone up significantly over the past 75 years.)
We could all be working 10 hours per week and living with a similar economic standard of living to 1950. Personally, I'd be fine with that, though I know many people wouldn't.
Or we could be less contentious and go back the productivity of 1975 or so... and basically keep our current standard of living for middle classes, but just pay rich people less. Alas, we've chosen greed over spare time.
Seems to be this is more related with the gender distribution in each major more than anything else.
Engineering and sciences have a high percentage of males vs females. Therefore is logical to think that any woman in that field has a lot of possible partners to choose from.
That's probably part of it. But I also think it probably has to do with "ways of thinking." A person who chooses engineering as a major often tends to "think a little differently" from one who chooses math and physics, for example -- some people are more oriented toward "practical" solutions, while others are more interested in abstractions and "theory." (Obviously these are broad stereotypes, but they do have some basis as generalizations for many people.)
Even more extreme divides in "ways of thinking" come about when you start comparing things like religious studies to engineering or whatever. The people who are attracted to these majors have very different outlooks on the world. It's NOT surprising at all that they'd look for a spouse with a similar worldview.
Relationships are also about communication. We often hear jokes on Slashdot about the problems "nerds" have communicating with others, so again it's unsurprising that people who "talk the same language" will be attracted to each other.
So, I really take issue with the conclusion here, as TFS says:
The blog concludes that your choice of major may unwittingly decide your choice of spouse, and depending on how well that field is paid, your economic future.
No, no, NO. Your choice of major won't "unwittingly" decide your spouse -- your choice of major is partly determined by who you are, how you think, how you communicate, and what your interests are. People who have very particular ways of thinking (particularly ones that lead them to cross stereotypical gender boundaries, like female engineers or male nurses) will probably find it harder to find compatible spouses among the more "generic" general population.
Or, to put it another way, if you're already predisposed toward majoring in something like religious studies, simply choosing to be an engineering major isn't going to stop you from thinking deeply about religious issues. And you'll probably continue to want a spouse who is at least somewhat interested in thinking about those issues too (engineer or not). The causality here isn't only the major -- it's the reason why people choose their majors in the first place.
Just like you can Google a fact to end an argument
Obviously the author has never been in an argument on/.
Also, there's the implicit assumption that all arguments can be resolved by "facts." In the real world, facts require interpretation and context. If you want to resolve a question like "Was person X at location Y at time Z?" then the facts needed to come to an answer usually have a relatively straightforward interpretation.
But questions like "Did person X cause Y?" or "Is person X responsible/culpable for issue Y?" are not often resolvable by appeals to facts. Both sides can provide their "facts," but who wins the argument often is a matter of interpretation.
And that's often where the "fact" problem comes in -- similar to arguments on Slashdot, it's often easy for someone to produce a battery of "facts" to support an argument. But if that person is biased and trying to win an argument, he/she may deliberately choose facts in a selective manner... which may significantly distort the truth.
Being able to verify "facts" is only a small part of determining "truth" in most circumstances. If most arguments could easily be resolved simply by collecting facts, we'd have no need for a judicial system, for example -- we could just have a simple legal "scoresheet," tally up the "facts," and then we know the "truth" which can determine guilt or culpability or whatever.
In the real world, "lying" is a much more complex behavior than simply stating demonstrably false facts -- it involves deliberate omissions of relevant facts or additions of irrelevant facts which can lead to misleading conclusions. Technology does much less to mitigate those latter concerns: in fact, with the proliferation of more and more data, it can make it harder to sift through what is actually relevant and irrelevant to answer a particular question.
The exec's didn't do it, the corporation did, and we can't send corporations to jail, cause if we did that they'd want other rights too
I know this is sarcasm, but I don't understand how this stuff gets modded up as "insightful."
Being an employee or member of a corporation in no way absolves an individual of CRIMINAL responsibility. Many corporate employees and executives have gone to jail over the years when they have committed criminal acts in the name of a corporation. In fact, being part of a corporation often opens up people to "conspiracy" charges, even if they aren't individually culpable, so being a corporate executive actually can open more avenues to prosecution.
Of course the reality is that executives are less likely to be convicted of serious crimes -- but that's because they're often rich and can afford better lawyers, not because they are legally less responsible for criminal action.
In any case, this was NOT a criminal action, so your misleading statement is completely irrelevant. This was a civil lawsuit, and this woman probably received significantly more in monetary damages than she would have if an individual had harassed her... so once again, it seems the corporation actually opens up a greater avenue for legal culpability than for an individual.
I doubt that, I used to smoke, I could easily have lit a cigarette with my eyes closed.
Could you also have done it when you were 117 years old? I suspect she may have had other issues by then (e.g. unsteady hands, imprecise coordination) that may have complicated it. Anyhow, this is what her doctor said, which was reported in many media articles. So choose whether to believe it or not... not that it matters that much.
From a pure, selfless ethics point of view, the question is: Will humanity be better off if I go into work today or not?
Except your "pure, selfless ethics" sounds a bit too much like egotistical BS in places.
If I am sick and stay home, there's an increased chance of:
* A patient of a co-worker getting inferior care because my co-worker was covering for you
Every doctor is not "God's gift to humanity." Unless you are in the top 5% or whatever of physicians -- and most doctors obviously aren't -- this is egotistical nonsense. If you're really worried that your colleagues do crappy work, get a better job.
* A patient of a co-worker getting inferior care because my co-worker was tired because he covered for me in an earlier shift
This is a pervasive staffing issue in medicine. Except in times of war or unexpected epidemics (or if you're a true specialist with an emergency situation), there is no reason this crap should be a concern. If it is, it points to how broken the medical system is... train more doctors. Hire more doctors. Given how people's lives depend on medical care, doctors and hospitals that are understaffed are the ones who are operating under pervasively "unethical" conditions... there's nothing "selfless" about this.
* Others perceiving me as "not pulling my weight" and "wimping out," which may impact my future career, which may negatively impact the future of the patients I would have had but won't have.
Oh, good lord. Yes, those poor future patients who will never have the good fortune to experience the great glory of your magnificence. Again, unless you truly are one of the best doctors in your generation (and changes are that you AREN'T) this is a preposterous argument.
If this is the kind of egomaniacal insanity that passes for "selfless ethics" in medicine, doctors really need to get a clue about their own limitations and abilities. I know quite a few doctors, and I've rarely met one who would be justified in this sort of thinking.
Listening to an NPR piece on residency some months back sounded really pathetic. The pervasive attitude was that it made you a better doc, and since everyone else went through it then I have to too. Someone needs to get through that the emperor has no clothes and this is just stupid.
This is certainly true. Although they don't like to admit it, the medical field is full of a lot of "lore" that has never really been tested scientifically to produce better results. From the residency hazing to the whole "white-coat ceremony" weirdness, becoming a doctor still has some of the odd trappings of entering into a medieval cult or something.
The problem is that deviating from past tradition is seen as inherently risky for people who deal with "life and death," so whether it's changing training routines or questioning some standard clinical practice, it's really hard to change things... which is one of the reasons for the rise in so-called "evidence-based medicine" in recent decades. I know we all want to believe that medicine is scientifically rigorous, but there are often severe obstacles to achieving scientific rigor once a practice has caught on in the medical profession -- because refusing the "standard treatment" might be unethical, even if that treatment was adopted after uncontrolled non-randomized tests that had statistically questionable success.
I have great respect for doctors, who generally work hard and care greatly about their patients. But the profession and practice is severely broken and weighed down with bizarre (even mystical) baggage about how better doctors come from weird crap... like the hazing and long hours.
Not always. Jeanne Calment was once asked what the secret of her long life was and she said that she thought that cutting down her smoking at the age of 96 had a lot to do with it.
Uh, I know you were trying to be funny -- but the very article you linked explains that she stopped smoking at age 117. Wikipedia doesn't say why, but I recall reading an article years ago which said it was because she had gone blind and was unable to light her own cigarettes -- and was too vain to ask others to do it for her.
This class is a ME for Non ME's. Everything in this project/class is what is the core of what ME is. Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer, Sensors, Controls, Materials, etc. I'm guessing the reason there are no ME's in it is because they are taking the real ME classes.
Also, no offense to Harvard, but Harvard is NOT generally known for its engineering programs. Just in the past couple of years, Harvard has started to try to make a shift there, but generally Harvard was a place to go for liberal arts, econ, and hard sciences. There's a much better engineering school "down the road" in Cambridge that's much better known for engineering. (And that school -- MIT -- is known to make fun of Harvard all of the time for its lack of engineering skills.)
I'm not saying these Harvard kids aren't smart -- I'm sure they are. But you're looking at a heat transfer kind of class intended for engineering students who actually wouldn't take a better heat transfer class... at a school that traditionally has downplayed engineering. (Harvard historically disliked "practical" training in college -- that was professional schools, not an undergrad liberal arts degree.)
Re:I lost interest when I saw brisket
on
When Nerds Do BBQ
·
· Score: 1
Guilty as charged... Still... brisket?
Wow. Just wow. Brisket is one of the most flavorful and delicious cuts of meat. It's cheap because it requires a lot of prep, not because it's not "good." That's pretty typical for meat -- the stuff you can just throw on a grill and cook in 5 minutes: that's expensive. The stuff that's also ridiculously flavorful and beefy but which takes at least 12 hours of careful cooking (usually because it's tough and has lots of connective tissue, not because it doesn't have great flavor)... well, that's cheap, because rich people are lazy, I guess.
I love a high-quality ribeye. But if you give me a good-quality smoker and sufficient time, I'd choose brisket over any steak any day. If you haven't had slow-smoked brisket that made you cry because it was so awesome, you have no business commenting on this article.
Slashdot Mirror
I have one strongish password which I modify in a systematic and easy to remember way based on the website name. For example (and this isn't exactly what I do, obviously), say my core password is ghs78kja: on slashdot I would use as a password /DOTghs78kjaSLASH* on the New Scientist's site I would use /SCIENTISTghs78kjaNEW*.
While I understand the appeal of such a system (and tried it briefly years ago), it seems somewhat bizarre to me if you actually want any security. Yes, it will stop some random hacker who obtained a password list from site X from automatically logging into site Y by just applying the old list.
But if a hacker actually gives a crap about what he's doing and actually wants to get into your accounts, a system like this is well-known enough that he could guess your passwords to other sites once he knows one of them.
Obviously you said this isn't what you use exactly, but to really make it reasonably secure, you'd need to have a much more sophisticated method of generating password modifications for each site (e.g., disguising the name or manipulating it in a non-obvious way, performing some non-obvious modification on your "core" password based on the site name, etc.). And once you go down that road to generate something non-obvious, then you need to recreate those steps of generation every time you try to remember a password... which could be tedious and annoying unless you design it well.
Anyhow, for accounts you really don't care about, something like this sounds fine. But GP was talking about strong passwords, which should probably be more individualized for accounts you really want to keep secure.
These passwords are all unique, long, very easy to remember, and use all the character classes.
Yeah, except I'm sure they break half of the password policies at various sites anyway. That's the primary reason I started using a password manager -- even if I used a system like yours, I'd still have to remember all the random constraints on passwords for a various sites.
For example, some sites have length maximums that could be anywhere from 8 characters up. Some sites will accept a longer string when you try to login, but they won't warn you that your password must be shorter, so you keep typing in your 20-character phrase and get rejected because your password is actually the first 12 characters or whatever. And then you have sites that don't accept special characters, or sites that require special characters (but only from a certain list), or sites that don't allow you to begin your password with a number or a special character or whatever, or sites that don't accept strings of more than X letters in a row (yes, those exist, and you have to mix up the letters with numbers or special characters).... or whatever other random constraint applies.
With a password manager, I can have 30-character passwords or whatever on all the sites that accept them. If they use special characters, I can randomly generate a password with them. If they don't, I can specify a random alphanumeric password. Or whatever. And if the maximum length is 12 characters, I can specify that too without artificially limiting the length of my passwords on other sites or having to remember "Oh yeah, that site only allows a short password and it won't warn me if I try to enter my long one..." etc.
I'm not saying password managers are the best option for everything. But for remembering random website passwords, they can work pretty well.
Cease and desist. I have patented the software innovation of copyrighting a joke.
No, you cease and desist. I have copyrighted a joke about patenting the copyrighting of jokes, so your post is infringing already.
I've also patented the software innovation of posting internet discussions about patenting copyrights of jokes, so if you plan to respond here, please mail a license fee to me first. Thanks!
YMMV but personally I hate parallel parking with my no assist, no camera, no proximity sensor car. I hate trying to predict through the mirrors how far I got left until I bump into someone, mostly I'm overcautious meaning it takes me way too many cycles of back and forth.
Get a friend who actually knows how to parallel park. Have them stand outside your car while you do it on a quiet street. Have them motion to tell you how much room you have and can continue to back up. Pay attention to your mirrors and what things look like. Repeat 10 times. Now you know where your car ends and won't have to "back up until you hit something" again. Problem solved.
Do this exercise with a few different cars types with different types of rear ends (sedan, hatchback, pickup, etc.), and pretty soon you'll be able to estimate your car length pretty well with mirrors in just about any car you drive. I know this is harder to learn for some people, but all it takes is a little practice and a second person to guide you a bit while you practice.
Mayor promises to eat better: less beans, more fibre.
While beans do have significant flatulence causing aspects in their oligosaccharides and cell wall cements, most things that contain significant amounts of fiber have potential for causing flatulence. So if the goal is to reduce "gaseous emissions," a high-fiber diet is unlikely to help
Tipping that balance away from the "helping the patient" side seems a little perilous to me.
Agreed. The problem comes when we take "helping the patient" to be synonymous with "keeping the patient alive at all costs, no matter how pain, suffering, or disruption in quality of life may occur." Medical practitioners often make that equation, but it's not always true. Sometimes what's best for the patient is to listen to their needs... and sometimes prolonging life no matter what (and sometimes only gaining an extra few weeks or months, often with great suffering) is NOT "helping the patient" overall.
If your surgeons are aggressive in treatment, you'll have some people dying a bit sooner than they would have otherwise (the failures), but you'll also have people surviving who wouldn't have otherwise (the successes).
While this is true, it overlooks a few significant things, like the fact that those last few weeks can often be very meaningful for the family and the patient... time to "say goodbye" and perhaps do some final things with family and friends. A surgeon who "oversells" a risky treatment or doesn't properly weigh the decisions with the patient and family may deprive them of some really important time. It may be "just a few weeks or months," but that is often precious time to lose. And studies have shown that doctor authority carries great weight with people, so they'll likely go along even with a risky procedure if the doctor presents it in a positive light.
Also, your two outcomes (patient dies or patient recovers) are not the only possible ones. Others include: patient experiences severe complications and continues living but in severe pain or disabled, patient goes into a coma or non-responsive state, drawing out the grieving process for families and shouldering them with difficult decisions, patient gains a short time but quality of life is degraded a bit in those last few weeks or months, not allowing the patient to do what he/she wanted to at the end of life... etc
Our medical establishment is very focused on prolonging life at all costs these days. But length of life is not always what's best for the patient overall.
They'd rather have cutesy flicks and swishes, so that only those "on the inside" know the magic gestures, and can feel superior to the unwashed masses who don't have iPhones.
And there you have it: Apple knew it could make more profit by having the "cool" device that people "in the know" can use, which they can charge more for, rather than a more discoverable classic UI.
Also, I suspect a lot of these choices have to do with patents and such. You may not be able to patent a button that says "archive," but you make an archive function activated with an obscure weird-looking icon with a bunch of random shapes on a button, or by activating "archive" with a three-finger swipe and swish, and now you have something that could "catch on" among the cool devices, which means everyone else has to pay licensing fees if the want to use it in their UI.
Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars.
Nowhere near true in all cases. Many drivers own their own cars and/or operate independently. I believe in NYC, for example, something like 1/4 or more of taxis are owner operated. They actually have a certain number of medallions set aside which can only be used by independent operators.
And in cases where the cars are owned by the company, the driver generally leases the cab. By your logic, if someone uses a leased vehicle for "ride-sharing," does that make the car dealership (which still owns the vehicle) a "taxi company"?
Bottom line: Ownership of cars does NOT differentiate standard taxis from the Uber situation.
I'm telling you, if you scratch the surface of someone who claims to be completely unaffected by advertising, you're going to find someone who's making a lot more subconscious purchasing decisions than you would expect.
Well, I never claimed to be "completely unaffected by advertising." But I'd say the reality is that people who make some effort to avoid the onslaught of ads probably actually do encounter fewer ads... which means they are likely to be less influenced than the average person.
Anyhow, maybe you're right, but I simply rarely buy name brand items, except where no cheaper off-brand or generic item is available (for items where quality is not a major issue) or where the generic items are demonstrably worse when I've tried them. Where item variety is enough that different brands tend to actually be really different, I try a variety of things and choose what I like best.
For major purchases, I do significant research and try to find unbiased sources. (Admittedly, that's sometimes difficult.) A rejection from Consumer Reports or an expert source or something like that would override any brand recognition for me.
And, where I really want quality for a major purchase, and it's possible to get something crafted and durable, I'll do that. I've commissioned and purchased furniture from carpenters and woodworkers I know personally, made from real wood (and I've sometimes built it myself). I have ordered handmade cookware made to my specs that will last for at least a few generations.
Some of us really don't want to participate in the general consumer economy. Some of us simply don't buy random crap just because "everyone has one these days" or because X "is the newest, coolest gadget." Some months ago, I spent some time with relatives who tend to have the TV on all day -- I sat down around the TV for hours over several days and made a point of watching the ads because I rarely see them (and I'm kind of curious when I do see them to see what sort of weirdness has become popular). Over the course of probably 8-10 hours of TV watching, I didn't see an ad for a single item I actually own or currently purchase (or am interested in purchasing)... well, except for my garbage bags (which, well, I've tried generics, and they don't seem as good) and the car I own, but it's hard to find "off-brand" cars.
So, sure -- ads probably do influence me. But I find it hard to see a strong influence when I look around my house and have a hard time finding major brand-name items.
"I don't pay any attention to advertising at all unless I am proactively seeking a product in a store"
That's just the thing. You think you aren't, but you are, you're just not aware of it at a conscious level.
While this is true, one still needs to actually encounter ads to be influenced by them. I think many people on Slashdot who "don't pay any attention to advertising at all" aren't just people who say they don't watch commercials or look at the flashing ads on the side of a website -- they actually don't watch broadcast TV at all and run ad blockers that filter out 99% of ads.
I really have little clue what the "popular brands" are for most items, because I simply don't see much advertising at all.... not that I "see it but don't look at it" but I actually, literally do NOT see it because those ads are never within viewing range of me. For example, I have no clue what movies are playing in theaters now -- and I haven't really had a clue for the past decade or more since I stopped watching all broadcast TV. I'm not going to be "subconsciously" influenced to go see some popular movie when I don't ever see an ad for it and thus don't even know it exists. I only know about movies when I periodically decide to see what's playing and go to a site specifically devoted to current movie reviews.
So, "subconscious suggestion" isn't really as effective for at least some of the extremists on Slashdot. And even if it is, my general policy when looking for a purchase is to either go for a generic cheaper brand (if quality is basically equal for such products) or to look more closely at brands I haven't heard of before, because I recognize there is generally more variety (and variance in quality) in product classes to be seen outside the dominant corporate overlords.
I recognize that most people aren't like me. But that doesn't mean that your argument magically applies to people who don't even come in contact with most ads... and who are deliberately contrarian in purchasing. (My general opinion of modern corporate culture is that advertising often rewards products which satisfy the lowest common denominator, rather than the best quality products. The more familiar a brand sounds to me, the more suspicious I am that it's overpriced for its quality. That doesn't mean I reject it outright, but I'll often try out the generic or unknown product before settling on the brand.)
Radio, TV, and most websites would not exist but for it, and it is a meritocracy as well - if the advertized product sucks, or the ad sucks, the advertiser loses their money with no reward. The opposite holds as well - a good product and a good ad can be very beneficial to customers and the advertiser.
It depends on your definition of "meritocracy." To me, a meritocracy is when the best things rise to the top. To you, a meritocracy is when the "lowest common denominator" products rise to the top.
For example, I don't think a lot of TV ads exist for fine dining restaurants, artisan craft foods and beverages, or other high quality items. Instead, ads are saturated with wars between McDonalds and Burger King, between Budweiser and Coors, and between Cheetos and Fritos (and Doritos... and...).
You really want to claim that advertising promotes a "meritocracy" where the best products rise to the top and "can be very beneficial to customers"? No -- advertising generally rewards the companies who can make the most profits by manufacturing the product with the least (but still barely acceptable) quality for most people .
I fail to see how that's really that beneficial for consumers -- unless you see the success of McDonalds and Budweiser as symbols of the triumph of a meritocracy. It just ends up promoting giant corporations that know how to either (1) maximize profits by catering to the lowest popular denominator or (2) trick people into buying a product they didn't even want or need with a stupid ad (see infomercials, or their 30-second cousins "for the low price of $19.95").
(P.S. I'm not at all saying that ads can't sometimes be beneficial for items with better quality early on in the stages of a product -- sure they can. But the vast majority of advertising is not about that.)
I don't watch broadcast television, I don't read billboards, I completely ignore banners and side-column ads
Modern marketing techniques are designed for people like you. They're specifically made for people who don't pay attention to ads.
How exactly do the advertisers manage to design ads that will get through to GP who "doesn't watch broadcast television"? If GP doesn't see as many ads, he'll be less influenced by them, no?
I, like GP, don't tend to even notice ads off to the side. It's like my eyes are almost "allergic" to them. And your contention that they affect me significantly just doesn't seem to be borne out by how I actually purchase products. Do some of them have SOME subliminal effect? I'm sure. But nowhere near your wacko conspiracy theorist level of hysteria.
Then how the fuck would you know about the "industry's kowtowing to political correctness" causing them to divest themselves of sexy women in ads? Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Well, given that you produced a link that easily showed GP was WRONG, it's pretty clear that GP is probably ignorant because, well... he doesn't pay attention to ads and therefore he doesn't even know what the current trends are in advertising.
"Lying" implies intent to deceive. GP was simply mistaken... because he doesn't notice enough ads to even know what's going on in them. He speculated, on the basis of his knowledge of PC behavior -- but, as you point out, his speculation was wrong.
You'd be better off accepting the effect that advertising is having on you, being aware of it, and actively subverting it. Adbusters is a good place to start. Otherwise, you'll still be reaching for the brand name and not knowing why.
It's weird -- I don't even know the brand names for most products. Seriously. I don't. If I've never bought a product before, I have to go and research to even find out what the brand names ARE. Because I don't pay attention to ads.
Sure, when I was a kid, and I watched broadcast TV, I saw lots of ads. I still remember many of those jingles, and I know those brands -- because I watched those ads. Today, I have no clue what movies are playing in theaters. I have no clue what brand names exist for product classes I haven't bought before. I have no idea what most popular beers or cars or whatever even look like... unless I've specifically researched them before a car purchase or whatever. And even if I did see an ad, I'm usually LESS likely to buy something heavily advertised, since I like to support variety and unusual product choices -- as long as they are quality -- rather than shelling out money to the "default" corporate overlord in a particular sector.
So, I think your rant is demonstrably false at least for some people. Again, I'm sure there are SOME minor unconscious effects for some ads that are flashing off to the side on a website or something... but since I use ad blockers, I never see most of them (just like I don't see commercials since I don't watch broadcast TV). And if I probably see only maybe 1 or 2% of the ads that most people see, I'm pretty certain that the advertisers aren't somehow magically able to affect me as much as they affect most people....
And no one really uses that piano arrangement (my guess), so almost none of the enforcement should ever have been valid.
But the problem is that U.S. court precedent has mostly considered the idea that melody is the primary determinant of copyright. For better or for worse, that's generally the standard. Now, whether this particular arrangement is the earliest to contain proper notice and copyright registration, as well as a properly filed renewal (as was required during that period)... well these are all interesting questions.
The claim to copyright today is completely bogus. But the specific piano arrangement is legally irrelevant for the copyright claim, only the melody and proper copyright for any fixed publication of that melody.
Scarcity is a limiting factor, but human greed is even more of a limiting factor. We will never reach anything resembling a utopian society where everyone's basic needs are met, regardless of the means, because of human nature, not because of available resources.
Well, "human nature" is somewhat malleable by social constructs. So I wouldn't say "never." But there are significant roadblocks.
For example, John Maynard Keynes predicted that only workaholics would be working over 15 hours per week by 2030. We don't really seem to be on that path, despite the fact that worker productivity has basically quadrupled in the U.S. since 1950. (I know some people are going to argue over how accurate this claim is -- but the exact numbers don't matter so much. It's undisputed among economists that worker productivity has gone up significantly over the past 75 years.)
We could all be working 10 hours per week and living with a similar economic standard of living to 1950. Personally, I'd be fine with that, though I know many people wouldn't.
Or we could be less contentious and go back the productivity of 1975 or so... and basically keep our current standard of living for middle classes, but just pay rich people less. Alas, we've chosen greed over spare time.
Seems to be this is more related with the gender distribution in each major more than anything else.
Engineering and sciences have a high percentage of males vs females. Therefore is logical to think that any woman in that field has a lot of possible partners to choose from.
That's probably part of it. But I also think it probably has to do with "ways of thinking." A person who chooses engineering as a major often tends to "think a little differently" from one who chooses math and physics, for example -- some people are more oriented toward "practical" solutions, while others are more interested in abstractions and "theory." (Obviously these are broad stereotypes, but they do have some basis as generalizations for many people.)
Even more extreme divides in "ways of thinking" come about when you start comparing things like religious studies to engineering or whatever. The people who are attracted to these majors have very different outlooks on the world. It's NOT surprising at all that they'd look for a spouse with a similar worldview.
Relationships are also about communication. We often hear jokes on Slashdot about the problems "nerds" have communicating with others, so again it's unsurprising that people who "talk the same language" will be attracted to each other.
So, I really take issue with the conclusion here, as TFS says:
The blog concludes that your choice of major may unwittingly decide your choice of spouse, and depending on how well that field is paid, your economic future.
No, no, NO. Your choice of major won't "unwittingly" decide your spouse -- your choice of major is partly determined by who you are, how you think, how you communicate, and what your interests are. People who have very particular ways of thinking (particularly ones that lead them to cross stereotypical gender boundaries, like female engineers or male nurses) will probably find it harder to find compatible spouses among the more "generic" general population.
Or, to put it another way, if you're already predisposed toward majoring in something like religious studies, simply choosing to be an engineering major isn't going to stop you from thinking deeply about religious issues. And you'll probably continue to want a spouse who is at least somewhat interested in thinking about those issues too (engineer or not). The causality here isn't only the major -- it's the reason why people choose their majors in the first place.
Just like you can Google a fact to end an argument
Obviously the author has never been in an argument on /.
Also, there's the implicit assumption that all arguments can be resolved by "facts." In the real world, facts require interpretation and context. If you want to resolve a question like "Was person X at location Y at time Z?" then the facts needed to come to an answer usually have a relatively straightforward interpretation.
But questions like "Did person X cause Y?" or "Is person X responsible/culpable for issue Y?" are not often resolvable by appeals to facts. Both sides can provide their "facts," but who wins the argument often is a matter of interpretation.
And that's often where the "fact" problem comes in -- similar to arguments on Slashdot, it's often easy for someone to produce a battery of "facts" to support an argument. But if that person is biased and trying to win an argument, he/she may deliberately choose facts in a selective manner... which may significantly distort the truth.
Being able to verify "facts" is only a small part of determining "truth" in most circumstances. If most arguments could easily be resolved simply by collecting facts, we'd have no need for a judicial system, for example -- we could just have a simple legal "scoresheet," tally up the "facts," and then we know the "truth" which can determine guilt or culpability or whatever.
In the real world, "lying" is a much more complex behavior than simply stating demonstrably false facts -- it involves deliberate omissions of relevant facts or additions of irrelevant facts which can lead to misleading conclusions. Technology does much less to mitigate those latter concerns: in fact, with the proliferation of more and more data, it can make it harder to sift through what is actually relevant and irrelevant to answer a particular question.
The exec's didn't do it, the corporation did, and we can't send corporations to jail, cause if we did that they'd want other rights too
I know this is sarcasm, but I don't understand how this stuff gets modded up as "insightful."
Being an employee or member of a corporation in no way absolves an individual of CRIMINAL responsibility. Many corporate employees and executives have gone to jail over the years when they have committed criminal acts in the name of a corporation. In fact, being part of a corporation often opens up people to "conspiracy" charges, even if they aren't individually culpable, so being a corporate executive actually can open more avenues to prosecution.
Of course the reality is that executives are less likely to be convicted of serious crimes -- but that's because they're often rich and can afford better lawyers, not because they are legally less responsible for criminal action.
In any case, this was NOT a criminal action, so your misleading statement is completely irrelevant. This was a civil lawsuit, and this woman probably received significantly more in monetary damages than she would have if an individual had harassed her... so once again, it seems the corporation actually opens up a greater avenue for legal culpability than for an individual.
I doubt that, I used to smoke, I could easily have lit a cigarette with my eyes closed.
Could you also have done it when you were 117 years old? I suspect she may have had other issues by then (e.g. unsteady hands, imprecise coordination) that may have complicated it. Anyhow, this is what her doctor said, which was reported in many media articles. So choose whether to believe it or not... not that it matters that much.
From a pure, selfless ethics point of view, the question is: Will humanity be better off if I go into work today or not?
Except your "pure, selfless ethics" sounds a bit too much like egotistical BS in places.
If I am sick and stay home, there's an increased chance of:
* A patient of a co-worker getting inferior care because my co-worker was covering for you
Every doctor is not "God's gift to humanity." Unless you are in the top 5% or whatever of physicians -- and most doctors obviously aren't -- this is egotistical nonsense. If you're really worried that your colleagues do crappy work, get a better job.
* A patient of a co-worker getting inferior care because my co-worker was tired because he covered for me in an earlier shift
This is a pervasive staffing issue in medicine. Except in times of war or unexpected epidemics (or if you're a true specialist with an emergency situation), there is no reason this crap should be a concern. If it is, it points to how broken the medical system is... train more doctors. Hire more doctors. Given how people's lives depend on medical care, doctors and hospitals that are understaffed are the ones who are operating under pervasively "unethical" conditions... there's nothing "selfless" about this.
* Others perceiving me as "not pulling my weight" and "wimping out," which may impact my future career, which may negatively impact the future of the patients I would have had but won't have.
Oh, good lord. Yes, those poor future patients who will never have the good fortune to experience the great glory of your magnificence. Again, unless you truly are one of the best doctors in your generation (and changes are that you AREN'T) this is a preposterous argument.
If this is the kind of egomaniacal insanity that passes for "selfless ethics" in medicine, doctors really need to get a clue about their own limitations and abilities. I know quite a few doctors, and I've rarely met one who would be justified in this sort of thinking.
Listening to an NPR piece on residency some months back sounded really pathetic. The pervasive attitude was that it made you a better doc, and since everyone else went through it then I have to too. Someone needs to get through that the emperor has no clothes and this is just stupid.
This is certainly true. Although they don't like to admit it, the medical field is full of a lot of "lore" that has never really been tested scientifically to produce better results. From the residency hazing to the whole "white-coat ceremony" weirdness, becoming a doctor still has some of the odd trappings of entering into a medieval cult or something.
The problem is that deviating from past tradition is seen as inherently risky for people who deal with "life and death," so whether it's changing training routines or questioning some standard clinical practice, it's really hard to change things... which is one of the reasons for the rise in so-called "evidence-based medicine" in recent decades. I know we all want to believe that medicine is scientifically rigorous, but there are often severe obstacles to achieving scientific rigor once a practice has caught on in the medical profession -- because refusing the "standard treatment" might be unethical, even if that treatment was adopted after uncontrolled non-randomized tests that had statistically questionable success.
I have great respect for doctors, who generally work hard and care greatly about their patients. But the profession and practice is severely broken and weighed down with bizarre (even mystical) baggage about how better doctors come from weird crap... like the hazing and long hours.
Not always. Jeanne Calment was once asked what the secret of her long life was and she said that she thought that cutting down her smoking at the age of 96 had a lot to do with it.
Uh, I know you were trying to be funny -- but the very article you linked explains that she stopped smoking at age 117. Wikipedia doesn't say why, but I recall reading an article years ago which said it was because she had gone blind and was unable to light her own cigarettes -- and was too vain to ask others to do it for her.
Screwed up the link to the PDF -- better link to abstract here, where you can get PDF.
Here
This class is a ME for Non ME's. Everything in this project/class is what is the core of what ME is. Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer, Sensors, Controls, Materials, etc. I'm guessing the reason there are no ME's in it is because they are taking the real ME classes.
Also, no offense to Harvard, but Harvard is NOT generally known for its engineering programs. Just in the past couple of years, Harvard has started to try to make a shift there, but generally Harvard was a place to go for liberal arts, econ, and hard sciences. There's a much better engineering school "down the road" in Cambridge that's much better known for engineering. (And that school -- MIT -- is known to make fun of Harvard all of the time for its lack of engineering skills.)
I'm not saying these Harvard kids aren't smart -- I'm sure they are. But you're looking at a heat transfer kind of class intended for engineering students who actually wouldn't take a better heat transfer class... at a school that traditionally has downplayed engineering. (Harvard historically disliked "practical" training in college -- that was professional schools, not an undergrad liberal arts degree.)
Guilty as charged... Still... brisket?
Wow. Just wow. Brisket is one of the most flavorful and delicious cuts of meat. It's cheap because it requires a lot of prep, not because it's not "good." That's pretty typical for meat -- the stuff you can just throw on a grill and cook in 5 minutes: that's expensive. The stuff that's also ridiculously flavorful and beefy but which takes at least 12 hours of careful cooking (usually because it's tough and has lots of connective tissue, not because it doesn't have great flavor)... well, that's cheap, because rich people are lazy, I guess.
I love a high-quality ribeye. But if you give me a good-quality smoker and sufficient time, I'd choose brisket over any steak any day. If you haven't had slow-smoked brisket that made you cry because it was so awesome, you have no business commenting on this article.