Not to mention that a huge number of cows are fed corn, which is a food that eventually causes liver failure -- by the time the cow is slaughtered, it was basically going to die anyway. But hey, the FDA says that the quality of beef is determined by marbling, and corn gives way more marbling than grass (the cow's natural food, which we don't exactly lack), and it lets us grow and subsidize a shitload of corn, so who cares about the cows?
They'll have to use evidence and facts instead of her own statements, which doesn't appear to make things too difficult for them.
While I agree, personally, if I was asked "Did you see any pictures of naked children," I would answer in the negative, not take the fifth. How complex can the ramifications of making that statement possibly be?
If it turns out my statement was false, and they charged me with giving false testimony... Well, I think that would sort of be the least of my problems at that point.
Going into particular detail is obviously something to avoid, but what can go wrong by saying "I did not do it?" What am I missing?
I always thought it was a terrible design to require installation of hardware-specific drivers for a remote printer.
Uh, you don't have to. On Windows, when you print a document to a remote printer, it is converted locally to EMF format (a beefed up version of WMF) and transmitted to the remote print server, where the EMF is spooled just as if it was a local job, picked up by the print processor, passed through the driver, and sent to the printer. No driver need be installed locally.
If you WANT, you can have the driver run locally by setting the spool format to RAW -- it will then render and print to PDL on the client system, and is direct spooled on the server. But why would you do that? Who wants to install remote print drivers locally?
Indeed. Accurate error messages are something that Microsoft never quite achieved, and Apple never even tried. "It does not work, please have a look at our website www.fuckandall.com for possible causes" - I hate that!
Well, duh. You can either A) Provide a meaningful error message that helps the user solve the problem, or B) Provide a link to a web site that, ultimately, contains the information needed to solve the problem, but in the meantime you get to serve up 50 or so advertising impressions. I wonder which method the corporations will choose... the one that makes money or the one that doesn't?
Except that isn't what they're doing. FTFAS: The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has decided to start using IBM predictive analytics software to help them determine which of the 85,000 kids who enter their system each year poses the biggest future threat.
We're talking about using algorithms to make certain predictions about the possible future behavior of people who have already been convicted of crimes. Only when these predictions are used to manage the lives of ex-cons after they are released, does this become a problem.
If a decision was being made whether to put me in minimum security or some kind of boot camp, and I had the choice between an emotional human and a computer making that decision, would I take the computer over the human? YES. The computer actually has a chance in hell of considering the facts in the correct proportions.
C: Ban those things that are probably going to get you fucking sued by some oversensitive tight-ass. Maybe if people stopped doing THAT, other people wouldn't have to act like THIS?
Define "wiping the system." There are BIOS level rootkits out in the wild. Wiping the machine properly may involve re-flashing the BIOS. And who's to say that even some lower-level rootkit doesn't exist (reprogrammed CPU microcode? a virus hiding on a Firewire device?) Honestly, I'd just take the motherboard and dump the damn thing in the trash.
Once you're really rooted, you lose. Don't let it happen in the first place.
And I'm totally with Microsoft on this one. Rootkits are absolutely unpredictable. A Windows system with a rootkit on it can't even be said to be Windows anymore.
How did this get rated 5? You haven't spent much time around married people, have you?
If a minor disagreement on finances means the marriage is fucked up, then we're all fucked up. And as for the comment about sleeping on the couch, that's pretty standard hyperbole among married men.
So you like giving the government an interest free loan? You do realize you could be getting interest (albeit small) on the money which could then be used to pay for that expensive gadget.
More likely, the money would have been blown in small increments on trivial things before it even had a chance to earn interest. There are better ways to lock your money away from yourself than by giving it to the feds for 12 months, but right now with interest rates being what they are, it doesn't make much difference.
Comparing LD-50s is nonsensical. The LD-50 is not a measure of relative toxicity. It is a metric of the substance whose purpose is to give you an idea how much of a given substance will be lethal to half the test subjects.
For one thing, a molecule of caffeine doesn't have the same mass as a molecule of nicotine. Suppose I took nicotine and substituted a few of its less important hydrogen atoms with bromine. Now the molecule is much more massive than before, which causes the LD-50 to go up dramatically (because each molecule has about the same toxicity as before, but the molecules weigh more). So would you then claim that I have made nicotine less toxic?
Just because you identified yourself as Poopybear4556 doesn't eliminate your liability.
If society forms opinions of individuals based on pseudonymous commentary by people named "Poopybear4556" then society has a serious problem. I'd argue that anonymous (or pseudonymous) speech is far less damaging than identifiable speech, precisely because we don't know who's saying it and whether they are credible or not.
If I called you in the middle of the night, identified myself as DorkFace08, and told you your momma was so fat, would you pay any attention to me? Then what the hell do you care about what "Poopybear4556" has to say?
The intent here is to make it more difficult for insiders to surreptitiously export data without going through proper security controls. This kind of argument always puzzles me. It's like you're saying that because there is no perfect security, we should therefore do nothing.
In a locked-down environment, a user with physical access to a machine may still have difficulty exporting large gobs of data. Transfer over the network may be difficult, and certainly is monitored. Data can be printed out, but this requires a printer, and a way to smuggle paper out of the facility without suspicion. A cell phone with a camera could be used to photograph a computer screen, but this is very low-bandwidth, and certainly looks strange to anyone happening to observe. A USB stick is easily hidden, easily plugged and unplugged, and can have a very large capacity. It's an important vector of attack.
Even without malicious intent, a user might decide for some reason that transferring data via USB stick is more convenient than another method. They may have good intentions, but the data still leaks onto the USB stick and you lose control over it. Just because something could be defeated doesn't make it worthwhile. And software which monitors connected machines for insertion/removal of media is not exactly hard to design. It doesn't cost you a billion dollars.
A lady was ticketed for failure to yield right of way when she hit another car. She had a yield sign, the other car had a stop sign so the lady contested the ticket. The other car had already proceeded into the intersection when the lady moved past the yield sign and hit the other car.
Sounds about right to me. Whether you have the right of way or not, it's idiotic to collide with another vehicle when you didn't have to.
(Same goes for pedestrians -- just because you had the right of way doesn't make you any less dead if you get struck)
Yeah, HoneyComb, SnowFlakes, Hexagonnaly symmetric Invertebrates (i.e. 6 Legged SeaStars), and Six-Sided Crystals (Rubies, sapphires, emeralds, etc) are all very rare in nature.
Yes, they are. At any random moment, survey your surroundings -- how many naturally occurring hexagons do you see?
Just because we can list examples of natural hexagonal objects, and even though these objects sometimes exist in localized areas in large numbers, doesn't change the fact that they are extremely rare. Most things at a macroscopic scale are NOT shaped like hexagons. (I specify "macroscopic" because at smaller scales, where the discreteness of matter begins to dominate, it's not at all unexpected that polygons and polyhedra will arise)
Well, if you consider it from an atomic scale, it's a substantial force. On a proton, a force of this magnitude would produce an acceleration of about 10,000 G's. For the obligatory car analogy, a car of mass 700 kg which experienced the same acceleration would be subjected to about 72 meganewtons (in imperial units, that's 16 million pounds of force).
At the relevant length scales, these forces are not particularly small. It's still amazing that we can measure them at all, however.
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
When non-combatants are killed, it is because of a lack of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. This is "indiscriminate." When a person is killed who posed no threat to the people doing the killing, it is "unprovoked." These are both statements of FACT, which can easily be confirmed by viewing the video. The wording is a summary, not an opinion.
You've probably done it, too: change something at random and see if that fixes the problem.
I wouldn't quite put it that way. You can change something at random and see if that causes your output to be what you expect, but that's not the same thing as fixing the problem. The only way to fix a problem is to actually understand what it is. The program must be correct for all inputs, not just the ones you are testing. Since you can't test everything (usually), you need to prove (or at least provide strong evidence) that the program is correct, not just prove that it's correct on a particular input.
The Heisenberg uncertainty relation shows that a particle in any state may be observed to have a nonzero velocity.
The act of observation perturbs the state -- otherwise there could be no observation. Whether the electron moves or not when not observed is really a matter of your personal interpretation of quantum mechanics. One could argue that whether it moves or not is not even a physical question.
More accurately, the classical velocity of the electrons, if you calculate it from Newtonian principles, approaches (or even exceeds) the speed of light. Nevertheless, the electron does not "move" when in a bound state, from a quantum perspective.
It's interesting that even when a less accurate physical theory is technically wrong, it may still have some predictive value.
They'll continue selling the traditional version. Uh, what are they saying here? That you need to own two copies of the game if you want to play by two different sets of rules? Have we lost our minds today?
You're positing that if HIPAA was removed, industry would take all that wasted compliance money and spend it on security. I postulate that they'd instead take all that wasted compliance money and spend it on Ferraris.
I'm positing that HIPAA is not a very effective way of forcing companies to secure sensitive data. Clearly, the industry needs some kind of legal motivation for doing so. HIPAA is not it.
Slashdot Mirror
That was kind of my point. If I'm not lying, then how is perjury a problem? And if I AM lying, then I've committed a crime worse than perjury anyway.
Not to mention that a huge number of cows are fed corn, which is a food that eventually causes liver failure -- by the time the cow is slaughtered, it was basically going to die anyway. But hey, the FDA says that the quality of beef is determined by marbling, and corn gives way more marbling than grass (the cow's natural food, which we don't exactly lack), and it lets us grow and subsidize a shitload of corn, so who cares about the cows?
They'll have to use evidence and facts instead of her own statements, which doesn't appear to make things too difficult for them.
While I agree, personally, if I was asked "Did you see any pictures of naked children," I would answer in the negative, not take the fifth. How complex can the ramifications of making that statement possibly be?
If it turns out my statement was false, and they charged me with giving false testimony... Well, I think that would sort of be the least of my problems at that point.
Going into particular detail is obviously something to avoid, but what can go wrong by saying "I did not do it?" What am I missing?
I always thought it was a terrible design to require installation of hardware-specific drivers for a remote printer.
Uh, you don't have to. On Windows, when you print a document to a remote printer, it is converted locally to EMF format (a beefed up version of WMF) and transmitted to the remote print server, where the EMF is spooled just as if it was a local job, picked up by the print processor, passed through the driver, and sent to the printer. No driver need be installed locally.
If you WANT, you can have the driver run locally by setting the spool format to RAW -- it will then render and print to PDL on the client system, and is direct spooled on the server. But why would you do that? Who wants to install remote print drivers locally?
Indeed. Accurate error messages are something that Microsoft never quite achieved, and Apple never even tried. "It does not work, please have a look at our website www.fuckandall.com for possible causes" - I hate that!
Well, duh. You can either A) Provide a meaningful error message that helps the user solve the problem, or B) Provide a link to a web site that, ultimately, contains the information needed to solve the problem, but in the meantime you get to serve up 50 or so advertising impressions. I wonder which method the corporations will choose... the one that makes money or the one that doesn't?
Except that isn't what they're doing. FTFAS: The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has decided to start using IBM predictive analytics software to help them determine which of the 85,000 kids who enter their system each year poses the biggest future threat.
We're talking about using algorithms to make certain predictions about the possible future behavior of people who have already been convicted of crimes. Only when these predictions are used to manage the lives of ex-cons after they are released, does this become a problem.
If a decision was being made whether to put me in minimum security or some kind of boot camp, and I had the choice between an emotional human and a computer making that decision, would I take the computer over the human? YES. The computer actually has a chance in hell of considering the facts in the correct proportions.
Ban all that offends.
Ban all that might hurt.
You forgot:
C: Ban those things that are probably going to get you fucking sued by some oversensitive tight-ass. Maybe if people stopped doing THAT, other people wouldn't have to act like THIS?
Define "wiping the system." There are BIOS level rootkits out in the wild. Wiping the machine properly may involve re-flashing the BIOS. And who's to say that even some lower-level rootkit doesn't exist (reprogrammed CPU microcode? a virus hiding on a Firewire device?) Honestly, I'd just take the motherboard and dump the damn thing in the trash.
Once you're really rooted, you lose. Don't let it happen in the first place.
And I'm totally with Microsoft on this one. Rootkits are absolutely unpredictable. A Windows system with a rootkit on it can't even be said to be Windows anymore.
How did this get rated 5? You haven't spent much time around married people, have you?
If a minor disagreement on finances means the marriage is fucked up, then we're all fucked up. And as for the comment about sleeping on the couch, that's pretty standard hyperbole among married men.
So you like giving the government an interest free loan? You do realize you could be getting interest (albeit small) on the money which could then be used to pay for that expensive gadget.
More likely, the money would have been blown in small increments on trivial things before it even had a chance to earn interest. There are better ways to lock your money away from yourself than by giving it to the feds for 12 months, but right now with interest rates being what they are, it doesn't make much difference.
Comparing LD-50s is nonsensical. The LD-50 is not a measure of relative toxicity. It is a metric of the substance whose purpose is to give you an idea how much of a given substance will be lethal to half the test subjects.
For one thing, a molecule of caffeine doesn't have the same mass as a molecule of nicotine. Suppose I took nicotine and substituted a few of its less important hydrogen atoms with bromine. Now the molecule is much more massive than before, which causes the LD-50 to go up dramatically (because each molecule has about the same toxicity as before, but the molecules weigh more). So would you then claim that I have made nicotine less toxic?
Quit spouting bullshit.
Just because you identified yourself as Poopybear4556 doesn't eliminate your liability.
If society forms opinions of individuals based on pseudonymous commentary by people named "Poopybear4556" then society has a serious problem. I'd argue that anonymous (or pseudonymous) speech is far less damaging than identifiable speech, precisely because we don't know who's saying it and whether they are credible or not.
If I called you in the middle of the night, identified myself as DorkFace08, and told you your momma was so fat, would you pay any attention to me? Then what the hell do you care about what "Poopybear4556" has to say?
The intent here is to make it more difficult for insiders to surreptitiously export data without going through proper security controls. This kind of argument always puzzles me. It's like you're saying that because there is no perfect security, we should therefore do nothing.
In a locked-down environment, a user with physical access to a machine may still have difficulty exporting large gobs of data. Transfer over the network may be difficult, and certainly is monitored. Data can be printed out, but this requires a printer, and a way to smuggle paper out of the facility without suspicion. A cell phone with a camera could be used to photograph a computer screen, but this is very low-bandwidth, and certainly looks strange to anyone happening to observe. A USB stick is easily hidden, easily plugged and unplugged, and can have a very large capacity. It's an important vector of attack.
Even without malicious intent, a user might decide for some reason that transferring data via USB stick is more convenient than another method. They may have good intentions, but the data still leaks onto the USB stick and you lose control over it. Just because something could be defeated doesn't make it worthwhile. And software which monitors connected machines for insertion/removal of media is not exactly hard to design. It doesn't cost you a billion dollars.
A lady was ticketed for failure to yield right of way when she hit another car. She had a yield sign, the other car had a stop sign so the lady contested the ticket. The other car had already proceeded into the intersection when the lady moved past the yield sign and hit the other car.
Sounds about right to me. Whether you have the right of way or not, it's idiotic to collide with another vehicle when you didn't have to.
(Same goes for pedestrians -- just because you had the right of way doesn't make you any less dead if you get struck)
Yeah, HoneyComb, SnowFlakes, Hexagonnaly symmetric Invertebrates (i.e. 6 Legged SeaStars), and Six-Sided Crystals (Rubies, sapphires, emeralds, etc) are all very rare in nature.
Yes, they are. At any random moment, survey your surroundings -- how many naturally occurring hexagons do you see?
Just because we can list examples of natural hexagonal objects, and even though these objects sometimes exist in localized areas in large numbers, doesn't change the fact that they are extremely rare. Most things at a macroscopic scale are NOT shaped like hexagons. (I specify "macroscopic" because at smaller scales, where the discreteness of matter begins to dominate, it's not at all unexpected that polygons and polyhedra will arise)
In laymans terms, what does this actually mean?
Well, if you consider it from an atomic scale, it's a substantial force. On a proton, a force of this magnitude would produce an acceleration of about 10,000 G's. For the obligatory car analogy, a car of mass 700 kg which experienced the same acceleration would be subjected to about 72 meganewtons (in imperial units, that's 16 million pounds of force).
At the relevant length scales, these forces are not particularly small. It's still amazing that we can measure them at all, however.
When non-combatants are killed, it is because of a lack of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. This is "indiscriminate." When a person is killed who posed no threat to the people doing the killing, it is "unprovoked." These are both statements of FACT, which can easily be confirmed by viewing the video. The wording is a summary, not an opinion.
Perhaps I'm feeling overly misanthropic today. But let's drop the false dichotomy, shall we? I don't wish anybody dead.
I meant the article, not the people involved. "Family in middle America has fucked up issues." Why is this interesting?
You've probably done it, too: change something at random and see if that fixes the problem.
I wouldn't quite put it that way. You can change something at random and see if that causes your output to be what you expect, but that's not the same thing as fixing the problem. The only way to fix a problem is to actually understand what it is. The program must be correct for all inputs, not just the ones you are testing. Since you can't test everything (usually), you need to prove (or at least provide strong evidence) that the program is correct, not just prove that it's correct on a particular input.
A no contact order against your mom? How exactly is that supposed to work?
Either the kid's worthless, or the mom is, or both. In any case, who gives a crap about this trash?
The Heisenberg uncertainty relation shows that a particle in any state may be observed to have a nonzero velocity.
The act of observation perturbs the state -- otherwise there could be no observation. Whether the electron moves or not when not observed is really a matter of your personal interpretation of quantum mechanics. One could argue that whether it moves or not is not even a physical question.
More accurately, the classical velocity of the electrons, if you calculate it from Newtonian principles, approaches (or even exceeds) the speed of light. Nevertheless, the electron does not "move" when in a bound state, from a quantum perspective.
It's interesting that even when a less accurate physical theory is technically wrong, it may still have some predictive value.
They'll continue selling the traditional version. Uh, what are they saying here? That you need to own two copies of the game if you want to play by two different sets of rules? Have we lost our minds today?
You're positing that if HIPAA was removed, industry would take all that wasted compliance money and spend it on security. I postulate that they'd instead take all that wasted compliance money and spend it on Ferraris.
I'm positing that HIPAA is not a very effective way of forcing companies to secure sensitive data. Clearly, the industry needs some kind of legal motivation for doing so. HIPAA is not it.