Scott Adams is sort of awful in a lot of respects. Most obviously, he's the brand of Men's Rights Activist that is only really worried about fighting feminism and preserving the status quo. You'll also remember his sockpuppet account(s?) that he made to prop himself up anonymously, because real people didn't defend him enough for his tastes. Less convincingly as an argument (but relevant), he has defended obviously-racist stuff by claiming it wasn't racist at all.
So, yeah, I have been consciously avoiding Dilbert stuff for a while, even though I really used to enjoy the comic.
P.S: Because he likes to say that his inflammatory stuff is "satire" and that we "don't get the joke," I feel like it's worth pointing out that satire indistinguishable from awful extremists is not really a good joke, Poe's Law be damned. There's really got to be an element of criticism in there to count.
my genetic test showed that I am sensitive to warfarin. That's something I never knew before. If I ever get into a situation where that drug is used, having informed the doctor of this potential problem just might have saved my life. There is no possibility that this information could result in any harm, because if the doctor gives a lower than normal dose and it's not effective, he can simply give more.
Weird that you think there can be no ill-effects from under-prescribing something intended to save your life. Unless you're gunning for a stroke/heart attack, that is.
Also the working poor - 47% pay no _income_ tax, but more than half of those people do pay payroll taxes, and even many those who don't (after deductions) still work.
From TFS: "The research work has been spun into an application that could continuously authenticate users (PDF), rather than just relying on passwords, and could lock accounts if another person jumped on the computer."
So, not for initial authentication, but if you forgot to lock your computer.
Looks like you're right. A few links deep found this: "Today, at the CBM education summit in New York, we announced a partnership with Wolfram Research to bundle a free copy of Mathematica and the Wolfram Language into future Raspbian images."
You're right, there can be a large amount of difference even between co-infecting strains. However, there's quite a lot of potential variant sites - you can sort of think of it as a large multi-dimensional problem, which thousands of axes in which you can see variation. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
You can use some pretty simple formulas to estimate what the "infecting" strain looked like for any given person, as well (even if there are multiple separate infecting strains, possibly occurring at distinct times).*
While this approach won't be perfect (there _will_ be both false negatives and false positives), it's a fairly straight-forward application of available information. I am very worried about some law enforcement agency maintaining a database of HIV users, and running a blind search for any new infected patients. If they restrain themselves to only testing reasonable suspects (as additional evidence), this may be okay.
The AIDS-panic never really went away for a lot of people - I'm afraid that improper application of these modeling tools could easily bring it back.
Or, instead of attempting grammar pedantry, we can realize that he's saying there is no case in which this approach has a probable outcome of success. That is, all cases are likely to fail - this approach always likely to fail, no matter the situation.
Whether you agree with this assessment is another issue.
this is the list of packages it will never update, instead of just integrating changes properly with the packagaes in the ubuntu archive they instead suppress doing (security) updates at all for them.
i would say forcefully keeping a vulnerable kernel browser or xorg in place instead of allowing the provided security updates to be installer makes it a vulnerable system, yes
Yes, that is how encryption works. But if your key is large enough, the time & energy to brute force it will take much longer than your lifespan. As an example I just googled, brute-forcing AES-128 at 10 Petaflops would take 10 quintillion years (10^18). http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1279619
The _real_ concern is that the NSA knows of weaknesses in these encryption schemes, and doesn't have to brute force it.
"Instead, we need to figure out why people give proportionally less"
Seems to me it's probably because poor people can better empathize with what it's like to not have enough, and they likely remember how much they appreciated it the last time somebody helped them out.
You don't see any difference between "Shit, we left some of our internal DB data accessible" and "I love downloadin things from this P2P network, huh I wonder what peer-to-peer means..." ?
Besides, this is a different legal question. It's not "are the cops breaking the law against hacking," it's "are the cops violating the 4th amendment?"
Well, if you share something on a P2P network, you intend for people to download it. If you accidentally reveal a list of other people's sensitive information (because you're bad at the web), you arguably didn't intend to make that data publicly available.
Not meaning to side against weev or anything here, just pointing out a meaningful difference between the two.
Yes, if you spend more money you can get more performance. The whole point of the APU is that you can spend less on a single piece of silicon than you would for "a better CPU and a decent graphics card."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you are all 8 years older now. Age tends to make toys a little less exciting.
Just in: SteamOS requires a Steam account. More at 11.
Drat, yours was way better than mine. Wish I could transfer those modpoints over. :/
http://xkcd.com/793/
Because the Ubuntu Edge needed $32M to get funded, and this needed 25 000 €.
Scott Adams is sort of awful in a lot of respects. Most obviously, he's the brand of Men's Rights Activist that is only really worried about fighting feminism and preserving the status quo. You'll also remember his sockpuppet account(s?) that he made to prop himself up anonymously, because real people didn't defend him enough for his tastes. Less convincingly as an argument (but relevant), he has defended obviously-racist stuff by claiming it wasn't racist at all.
So, yeah, I have been consciously avoiding Dilbert stuff for a while, even though I really used to enjoy the comic.
P.S: Because he likes to say that his inflammatory stuff is "satire" and that we "don't get the joke," I feel like it's worth pointing out that satire indistinguishable from awful extremists is not really a good joke, Poe's Law be damned. There's really got to be an element of criticism in there to count.
Well, you see, he's black: http://www.nuttynewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Norman-Gurley.png
Therefore, he's obviously all caught up in drugs, and the police have done a fine service by removing this violent criminal from society.
my genetic test showed that I am sensitive to warfarin. That's something I never knew before. If I ever get into a situation where that drug is used, having informed the doctor of this potential problem just might have saved my life. There is no possibility that this information could result in any harm, because if the doctor gives a lower than normal dose and it's not effective, he can simply give more.
Weird that you think there can be no ill-effects from under-prescribing something intended to save your life. Unless you're gunning for a stroke/heart attack, that is.
Also the working poor - 47% pay no _income_ tax, but more than half of those people do pay payroll taxes, and even many those who don't (after deductions) still work.
They also pay sales tax, property tax, etc etc.
If they already know your password...
From TFS: "The research work has been spun into an application that could continuously authenticate users (PDF), rather than just relying on passwords, and could lock accounts if another person jumped on the computer."
So, not for initial authentication, but if you forgot to lock your computer.
Looks like you're right. A few links deep found this: "Today, at the CBM education summit in New York, we announced a partnership with Wolfram Research to bundle a free copy of Mathematica and the Wolfram Language into future Raspbian images."
They can share some, all, or none of the sites. I really did a bad job explaining that. :X
Shit. I meant B and C, thanks for catching that!
You're right, there can be a large amount of difference even between co-infecting strains. However, there's quite a lot of potential variant sites - you can sort of think of it as a large multi-dimensional problem, which thousands of axes in which you can see variation. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
You can use some pretty simple formulas to estimate what the "infecting" strain looked like for any given person, as well (even if there are multiple separate infecting strains, possibly occurring at distinct times).*
While this approach won't be perfect (there _will_ be both false negatives and false positives), it's a fairly straight-forward application of available information. I am very worried about some law enforcement agency maintaining a database of HIV users, and running a blind search for any new infected patients. If they restrain themselves to only testing reasonable suspects (as additional evidence), this may be okay.
The AIDS-panic never really went away for a lot of people - I'm afraid that improper application of these modeling tools could easily bring it back.
*Full disclosure, I co-authored a paper on some preliminary work for this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716075
Because poor people definitely have $200 laying around with which to start a tax dodge in the Cayman Islands.
Or, instead of attempting grammar pedantry, we can realize that he's saying there is no case in which this approach has a probable outcome of success. That is, all cases are likely to fail - this approach always likely to fail, no matter the situation.
Whether you agree with this assessment is another issue.
How many people install the adware apps, though? I'd wager that the proportion of _downloads_ of adware is significantly less than 1.2%.
TFS makes it sounds like it's a long article about how Linux Mint is insecure.
Here's the entirety of his commentary:
Yes, that is how encryption works. But if your key is large enough, the time & energy to brute force it will take much longer than your lifespan. As an example I just googled, brute-forcing AES-128 at 10 Petaflops would take 10 quintillion years (10^18). http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1279619
The _real_ concern is that the NSA knows of weaknesses in these encryption schemes, and doesn't have to brute force it.
I like to picture him as Benny Hasselhoff, David's slightly deranged uncle who keeps somehow finding out about and showing up at family holidays.
"Instead, we need to figure out why people give proportionally less"
Seems to me it's probably because poor people can better empathize with what it's like to not have enough, and they likely remember how much they appreciated it the last time somebody helped them out.
Yeah, I thought about that. I don't really care about my slashdot login. :)
You don't see any difference between "Shit, we left some of our internal DB data accessible" and "I love downloadin things from this P2P network, huh I wonder what peer-to-peer means..." ?
Besides, this is a different legal question. It's not "are the cops breaking the law against hacking," it's "are the cops violating the 4th amendment?"
Well, if you share something on a P2P network, you intend for people to download it.
If you accidentally reveal a list of other people's sensitive information (because you're bad at the web), you arguably didn't intend to make that data publicly available.
Not meaning to side against weev or anything here, just pointing out a meaningful difference between the two.
Yes, if you spend more money you can get more performance. The whole point of the APU is that you can spend less on a single piece of silicon than you would for "a better CPU and a decent graphics card."