Of course, the driver who is the main focus of the article may have suicidal tendencies in how he drafts 18 wheelers
Drafting is for weenies. I use a grappling hook.
Re:They always forget the two less chromosomes
on
The Human Mutation
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I love how these articles about Human vs Great Ape DNA always ignore the fact that Humans have 46 chromosome and Great Apes have 48.
This is generally not mentioned because this is not actually an issue. The two chromosomes are not missing, they are simply merged. The same genetic material is there, it's just that four of them got linked together into two longer chromosomes somewhere in our ancestral path.
Supporters of creationism frequently clamor about two going missing, but geneticists can pinpoint exactly where the two pairs of chromosomes bonded, and show the correspondence between the two species in the unbonded and bonded chromosomes. If anything, this is spectacular support for evolution, since evolution predicts that the chromosomes would have to still be there with such a recent evolution, and they in fact are.
In my country it's mandatory to carry a (real, state issued) ID wherever you go.
It strikes me that this is the real problem, rather than a problem over who issues ID cards. It would be preferable if a bill creating national ID cards specified that it is not mandatory to carry them, nor even mandatory to have them.
I wrote it as a way to tell people that if they don't like something their government does, and they don't think they have a snowball's chance in hell of changing it, they can still make a difference in their lives by finding a better package deal from another government.
If you leave all of the nations that have problems you can't fix, you will very quickly get tired of swimming.
In a perfect world with a perfect OS it would be robust enough to handle all user errors.
It would need a weapon-based defense mechanism so that it can kill you if you repeatedly attempt to unplug it.
I jest, of course, but there is a key philosophical point behind the jest. An ideal operating system excels at doing what you tell it to with little effort, and does NOT assume that it is smarter than you. When you try to make an operating system idiot proof, you are basically assuming that the operating system knows what it should do better than the user does.
Something still doesn't make sense in this cluster of partnerships.
Microsoft said it would offer corporate customers a chance to license its Windows operating system as part of a package that includes maintenance and support for Novell's Suse Linux platform.
This strikes me as a strange statement. This is like offering a chance to lease a Ford with every Honda maintenance.
I get that Dell might see patent immunity as an advantage, but if Microsoft gives patent immunity to everyone, then this contradicts the proposed strategy of using patents as a weapon. Giving patent immunity to Novell was simply an empty gesture, of course. But if cards fall right Dell could actually become a substantial distributer of preinstalled Linux systems. With too many of these deals, patents can no longer be used against Linux, contradicting a plan Microsoft had stated a desire for for some time.
While patent immunity for Linux installations is a good result, I'm not primed to expect good results from Microsoft after a history of them not acting in such a manner. So I am still left wondering what is going on behind the scenes here.
A situation like this may force a more serious, mainstream debate if the networks were to dig their heels in. I think the problem with DRM, IP and copyright is the fact is that there has not been a situation like this that the public as a whole can really understand. So here's to hoping we take one step back to take two steps forward.
There's a trivial compromise to be had here. Give a network exclusive rights to the debate for 24-48 hours, to give them incentive to air it, and then release it with a creative commons license. It's already old news by then anyway, and the networks will never air an old debate. So then it can become public property.
Sorry, but you're an idiot. Tell you what, get a job somewhere that has an Internet Acceptable Use Policy that forbids looking at porn from your work computer and also backs that up by using a blocklist/proxy. Find a proxy server out there that isn't blocked from work, then use it to surf porn on your office PC. When you get caught and they go to discipline you tell them your theory above and see if it helps.
In such a hypothetical situation, the company could accuse me of inappropriate use of resources, or even have me charged with sexual harassment if the action were creating an uncomfortable work environment for others. But if they tried to press charges for hacking into their computer systems, they would be laughed out of court. Therefore it is not a security violation, and what I said was correct, whether I am an idiot or not.
if the system doesn't make a serious effort to block sites they can lose their government funding for Internet access. Do you think it's OK to let a few kids break the rules and get to blocked sites when it may mean the entire school (or district) losing Internet access?
I'm well aware that the source of the problem is the government rules which mandate the restriction of content. That doesn't make it right, but it does, denotatively speaking, make it censorship rather than a security violation.
Would you care to explain to me exactly what education purpose being able to access sites like MySpace from school accomplish?
It's somewhere in between the educational value of recess and being on the Yearbook staff, and like these traditional elements of school, is largely about learning to communicate and interact socially. Just because you and I don't enjoy it, that does not make it less educational than comparable aspects of our school experiences. Not everything you have to learn is calculus.
(We had kids caught using proxies to look at porn sites -- in the computer lab during typing class no less.)
So when caught, punish them the same as kids used to be punished if caught looking at a Playboy during class. That is hardly a new problem.
While I don't have kids part of my tax dollars help pay for the school system's computers and Internet access. I do not want those computers being used during school hours for non-educational purposes.
Your tax dollars are being spent on filtering software and labor to maintain this filtering. It's probably cheaper to not filter, so don't pull the money card. If availability of computers is the issue, restrict access time as appropriate.
Users can create customized animations that can be very detailed and last a long time, and their environment is a working physics simulation. You can use that physics to harass others
If you play Calvinball, it's not a crime when Calvin wins.
As the article mentions, 'logging off' isn't always an answer, especially if you're doing business on SL.
I have a crazy idea... Why not let SL set its own rules for punishments and consequences inside of SL? If players (and they are players) want the ability to undo damage caused by others, then that could be integrated into the game. If not, don't try to base your livelihood on your status in an unpredictable game.
Where did you get information that they didn't commit a security violation? The clearly bypassed a censorship policy, however nowhere in the "article" did they mention anything about how they got around these things, other than the vague "use of a proxy".
It's very simple. The only thing the article accuses them of doing (and by article I am using it in the same context that you yourself did) is the use of proxies. As the use of proxies is sufficient to bypass most filters (which websense is), and as the use of proxies often requires nothing more than a functioning web browser, there is nothing about using a proxy which implies any security violation.
And I, despite feeling alone in the belief, still support the principle of presuming innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
I cannot possibly close every last security hole in the over 600 computers I am ultimately responsible for.
Viruses infest systems because of security holes. Students do not access proxies because of security holes, students access proxies because of information censorship which they disapprove of. The proxies are external information portals, and are not under your control. They simply route information from one place to another, providing a different means of accessing information. Therefore an attempt to block access to proxies is NOT a security issue and is ONLY a censorship issue.
We need to be more judicious in the language we use to discuss these issues so that it is more clear what we're really talking about.
In relation to this article, students should not be punished as if they committed a security violation, because they did not. They at worst violated a censorship policy by viewing information that violates school policy.
Today, for maybe $6, I can go to Burger King and get a Whopper, fries (King Size) and a Coke (King Size).
If you want a burger, make a burger at home using the cheese of your choice and fresh bread from a bakery, and it will be tastier and healthier for you. And drink it with a glass of milk, juice, or water, and lay off the diet soda. (Your ancestors weren't drinking all the obesity-causing aspartame and preservatives in diet sodas either.)
You can eat just about any KIND of food in reasonable quantities (twinkies are not a kind of food), but you can't eat the poor quality foods that are present in most fast food restaurants or pre-packaged TV dinners. If you want a TV dinner, it has to be of much better composition than what you will find in a Walmart freezer, and it's going to cost you a little more than tofu injected with toxic flavoring agents.
I don't buy the argument that obesity is caused primarily by the availability of food. People living on farms have often had plenty of food, even if they didn't have much money for other things, and they were very rarely obese. The catch is, they had farm food, not factory food. So eat farm food.
Wouldn't it make sense for Google to run an 'Optimised for Google(tm)' optimisation service? The more sites that Google can spider properly, the more useful it is.
Not if they want to maintain an impression of impartiality in their searches, which I believe is more valuable than the fees they could collect from commercial clients looking to optimize results.
Say what you will about the campus' network security and policies, but the bottom line is that he agreed to abide by the campus network's terms of service and then flouted them
Does a one year suspension from an entire university strike you as an appropriate punishment for violating the network terms of service in a non-harmful way?
Speaking of grease, someone recently gave me a bag of Nestle Chunks. I expected them to taste like regular chocolate chips... egads, they don't taste like much of anything, except grease!
That's what you get for eating something called "chunks"...
No, Bush has one defence, in that he never broke the law.
I suppose that depends on how much you value little things like the Constitution. And I suppose that also depends on whether or not you'd like to pretend the War Crimes Act was never passed.
Slashdot Mirror
Drafting is for weenies. I use a grappling hook.
This is generally not mentioned because this is not actually an issue. The two chromosomes are not missing, they are simply merged. The same genetic material is there, it's just that four of them got linked together into two longer chromosomes somewhere in our ancestral path.
Supporters of creationism frequently clamor about two going missing, but geneticists can pinpoint exactly where the two pairs of chromosomes bonded, and show the correspondence between the two species in the unbonded and bonded chromosomes. If anything, this is spectacular support for evolution, since evolution predicts that the chromosomes would have to still be there with such a recent evolution, and they in fact are.
It strikes me that this is the real problem, rather than a problem over who issues ID cards. It would be preferable if a bill creating national ID cards specified that it is not mandatory to carry them, nor even mandatory to have them.
If you leave all of the nations that have problems you can't fix, you will very quickly get tired of swimming.
...Seriously. What kind of idiot would go to all the trouble to implant an espionage device in a coin and then make it look like a flamboyant flower?
It would need a weapon-based defense mechanism so that it can kill you if you repeatedly attempt to unplug it.
I jest, of course, but there is a key philosophical point behind the jest. An ideal operating system excels at doing what you tell it to with little effort, and does NOT assume that it is smarter than you. When you try to make an operating system idiot proof, you are basically assuming that the operating system knows what it should do better than the user does.
This strikes me as a strange statement. This is like offering a chance to lease a Ford with every Honda maintenance.
I get that Dell might see patent immunity as an advantage, but if Microsoft gives patent immunity to everyone, then this contradicts the proposed strategy of using patents as a weapon. Giving patent immunity to Novell was simply an empty gesture, of course. But if cards fall right Dell could actually become a substantial distributer of preinstalled Linux systems. With too many of these deals, patents can no longer be used against Linux, contradicting a plan Microsoft had stated a desire for for some time.
While patent immunity for Linux installations is a good result, I'm not primed to expect good results from Microsoft after a history of them not acting in such a manner. So I am still left wondering what is going on behind the scenes here.
"He was fired for vandalizing the drapes."
The problem is that it's very easy to find an excuse, and often hard to objectively prove someone's true intentions.
Right, because the one thing we've all been craving is 394 million dpi displays. :-P
There's a trivial compromise to be had here. Give a network exclusive rights to the debate for 24-48 hours, to give them incentive to air it, and then release it with a creative commons license. It's already old news by then anyway, and the networks will never air an old debate. So then it can become public property.
In such a hypothetical situation, the company could accuse me of inappropriate use of resources, or even have me charged with sexual harassment if the action were creating an uncomfortable work environment for others. But if they tried to press charges for hacking into their computer systems, they would be laughed out of court. Therefore it is not a security violation, and what I said was correct, whether I am an idiot or not.
I'm well aware that the source of the problem is the government rules which mandate the restriction of content. That doesn't make it right, but it does, denotatively speaking, make it censorship rather than a security violation.
Yes. I think you don't know what the word means.
It's somewhere in between the educational value of recess and being on the Yearbook staff, and like these traditional elements of school, is largely about learning to communicate and interact socially. Just because you and I don't enjoy it, that does not make it less educational than comparable aspects of our school experiences. Not everything you have to learn is calculus.
So when caught, punish them the same as kids used to be punished if caught looking at a Playboy during class. That is hardly a new problem.
Your tax dollars are being spent on filtering software and labor to maintain this filtering. It's probably cheaper to not filter, so don't pull the money card. If availability of computers is the issue, restrict access time as appropriate.
If you play Calvinball, it's not a crime when Calvin wins.
I have a crazy idea... Why not let SL set its own rules for punishments and consequences inside of SL? If players (and they are players) want the ability to undo damage caused by others, then that could be integrated into the game. If not, don't try to base your livelihood on your status in an unpredictable game.
It's very simple. The only thing the article accuses them of doing (and by article I am using it in the same context that you yourself did) is the use of proxies. As the use of proxies is sufficient to bypass most filters (which websense is), and as the use of proxies often requires nothing more than a functioning web browser, there is nothing about using a proxy which implies any security violation.
And I, despite feeling alone in the belief, still support the principle of presuming innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Viruses infest systems because of security holes. Students do not access proxies because of security holes, students access proxies because of information censorship which they disapprove of. The proxies are external information portals, and are not under your control. They simply route information from one place to another, providing a different means of accessing information. Therefore an attempt to block access to proxies is NOT a security issue and is ONLY a censorship issue.
We need to be more judicious in the language we use to discuss these issues so that it is more clear what we're really talking about.
In relation to this article, students should not be punished as if they committed a security violation, because they did not. They at worst violated a censorship policy by viewing information that violates school policy.
Now we know why Dell doesn't have this problem. :)
Don't hold your breath...
And if you do, don't stop.
If you want a burger, make a burger at home using the cheese of your choice and fresh bread from a bakery, and it will be tastier and healthier for you. And drink it with a glass of milk, juice, or water, and lay off the diet soda. (Your ancestors weren't drinking all the obesity-causing aspartame and preservatives in diet sodas either.)
You can eat just about any KIND of food in reasonable quantities (twinkies are not a kind of food), but you can't eat the poor quality foods that are present in most fast food restaurants or pre-packaged TV dinners. If you want a TV dinner, it has to be of much better composition than what you will find in a Walmart freezer, and it's going to cost you a little more than tofu injected with toxic flavoring agents.
I don't buy the argument that obesity is caused primarily by the availability of food. People living on farms have often had plenty of food, even if they didn't have much money for other things, and they were very rarely obese. The catch is, they had farm food, not factory food. So eat farm food.
Thanks for proving a key point:
Thwaite
Thawte
Not if they want to maintain an impression of impartiality in their searches, which I believe is more valuable than the fees they could collect from commercial clients looking to optimize results.
What's wrong with a little public brainstorming? I don't know what business you work in where the IT guys come pre-programmed with all the answers.
Does a one year suspension from an entire university strike you as an appropriate punishment for violating the network terms of service in a non-harmful way?
Tip: Do not show up for court wearing your iPod.
That's what you get for eating something called "chunks"...
Your staff doesn't send email. They send internets.
I suppose that depends on how much you value little things like the Constitution. And I suppose that also depends on whether or not you'd like to pretend the War Crimes Act was never passed.
But hey, those are just little things, right?