I always hated that they taught "Geometry" when I was in school. It was just a bunch of memorization of formulas and no understanding of why. By dumbing it down, they prevented both my interest and ability to properly grasp it. Once I took calculus though, and learned how to derive all said formulas. everything just kind of "clicked" into place. Instead of having to memorize 100 different formula, I really only needed to remember how to find the area of a triangle and a semi-circle, and everything else I could derive from that using derivatives/integrals and logic.
Sure, by dumbing it down I got to spend half a year (or was it a whole year? I can't remember anymore...) completely missing the point. Maybe for some people who couldn't grasp calculus, this would give them at least the foundation such that they would know that there wasa formula somewhere they could look up or remember to calculate area, volume, etc. but I personally felt cheated and that I wasted a whole semester for obsolete knowledge.
If I was designing the curriculum, I would have just taught Calculus. Those who could grasp it then could derive and understand "why" behind all the formulas. and those who couldn't could just memorize the formulas. That way my comprehension would get me ahead versus a classmate who couldn't understand, yet we both would end the semester with the ability to use the concepts whichever way worked best for us.
I think in general this is the best way for entries on a site like wikipedia to go about things. Show the "why", explain it, and finish with a bold "summary" (The final derived formula). That way both dude and I would understand the concept, dude could quickly reference the final formula (the extent of his ability/interest), and I could delve further into the "why".
This is maybe a difficult balance to find on some topics, like electroweak interaction, but there's no reason for 99% of things that the articles can't give both the "whaT" (simple) and "why/how" (advanced) in the same article. If the advanced is too much for you, ignore it.
I'd imagine bots generally use the API. I think the question is about whether to revoke the API or flag primary-users of it, but reporters don't know what an API is so they just say "bots". Sure, you COULD post JSON every time you wanna post a tweet... but you're not seeing ads anyway in that case so you're not a "useful" person to the company.
I thought the purpose of simple.wikipedia.org was to be accessible to those who do not fully grasp the English language, like children and students-of-English. Guess I just put too much faith in their self-proclaimed purpose right in the middle of the front page.
Why would 90% of people in this world need to know what electroweak interaction is beyond the introductory paragraph? Why would 99.999%? I mean really, what isn't covered by the introductory paragraph for those who are "just curious" and don't want to put a lot of effort into understanding that concept, which at a deep level relies on understanding 12 other concepts, each with 12 of their own on down the line...
Sorry, but those 90% of people can just STOP READING after the summary. If an article is missing a summary, there's a wikipedia "?" tag which will flag the article as needing one.
It's not like I was walking down the street one day and some facet of the electroweak interaction made me suddenly respect some group I was biased against prior. There's no piece of code that I'm going to write more efficiently because someone converted all the calculus into averaged-algebra.
This is just people complaining for complaining's sake, and thinking they should be able to pick up everything like they do the remote control and master it in one second, and if they couldn't do that IT WAS SOMEONE ELSES FAULT! Those folks should read some articles on mental issues and see if they can self-identify better there.
You can petition a moderator, post your reasons on the "Talk" page. The pet-holder may get overruled, may get banned, the page may get locked, or MAYBE your edits just weren't as good as you thought they were. You only lose if you don't try.
Unfortunately for references they're dependent on 2nd-reporters of information. I do find that most reference links are dead, or they reference a book that nobody's heard of that's also out of print and probably nobody verified that it actually says anything like that on page WHATEVER.
Maybe if you can do better, you should hit that "Edit" button and do so! Or you can continue to bitch that other's should work the way you want them to, for free. I don't think the latter will get you far.
If I remember my history correctly, Bill Gates actually stole IBM Dos and rebranded it, because IBM wouldn't protect its assets in any way as they were "trade secrets."
But I believe he may be referring to microsoft's very partial and selective (and frequently broken) POSIX/CAPI implementation, such that they could support compiled code and advertise some sort of not-rewrite-everything-from-scratch migration path away from UNIX, back in the day.
Prisons are for-profit. Also, if you didn't already know, you might be surprised to learn how much cheaper-than-china production happens in them (in the USA).
Surely the definition of stupidity is when you keep on doing the same thing and expect different results?
No, that's the definition of trying again. Stop repeating this fallacy. If you play basketball, and you miss a basket once, you get the ball back and shoot it, are you stupid because you are hoping for better results this time? Of course not!
(I wonder how often they send an actual decryption key after payment...and how often the acceptance of payment is the last you hear of them.)
If you're referring to ransomware, the vast vast vast majority is just a scripted turn-key system. Set it and forget it. If word got out you didn't decrypt, nobody would pay, and nobody is looking at the data that got encrypted, that would leave a trail back to the culprit. So it's almost 100% of the time you pay, you get the key, and so long as you don't do whatever got you automatically infected in the first place again, you won't be re-infected. Just business.
There's a few more things that go into fingerprinting. Unless she was using different VMs on different computers the algorithm I sold years ago to one of those evil advertising corporations would correlate.
IP isn't as unique as you'd think. I've seem colleges have ONE public IP for all outbound data across campus, including all dorms. Start adding in other information your browser gives away like extensions and versions, user agent, screen resolution, mouse sensitivity, etc etc and you can narrow down to a single machine. If you have additional data like facebook does (every single page that includes a facebook button or comment section is used to profile you), you can even discern beyond machine to user-of-said-machine.
Slashdot Mirror
what the fuck is that?
Technically, if you take a bus with friends from the USA down to a Tijuana bar, are yall getting drunk with aliens?
The Dark Web is the internet that doesn't travel over fibre, thus the data is poorly lit.
Based on how TOR works, I would think the DDOS would be hurting the entire dark web (by flooding the nodes) in addition to a single server..
What's with all the links to products on Amazon today? Are they paying shills on slashdot now?
Not dead, but his unwillingness to try heroin^H^H^H^H^H^H^H The Game ended up saving the crew. Just Say No to Wesley Crusher!
I always hated that they taught "Geometry" when I was in school. It was just a bunch of memorization of formulas and no understanding of why. By dumbing it down, they prevented both my interest and ability to properly grasp it. Once I took calculus though, and learned how to derive all said formulas. everything just kind of "clicked" into place. Instead of having to memorize 100 different formula, I really only needed to remember how to find the area of a triangle and a semi-circle, and everything else I could derive from that using derivatives/integrals and logic.
Sure, by dumbing it down I got to spend half a year (or was it a whole year? I can't remember anymore...) completely missing the point. Maybe for some people who couldn't grasp calculus, this would give them at least the foundation such that they would know that there wasa formula somewhere they could look up or remember to calculate area, volume, etc. but I personally felt cheated and that I wasted a whole semester for obsolete knowledge.
If I was designing the curriculum, I would have just taught Calculus. Those who could grasp it then could derive and understand "why" behind all the formulas. and those who couldn't could just memorize the formulas. That way my comprehension would get me ahead versus a classmate who couldn't understand, yet we both would end the semester with the ability to use the concepts whichever way worked best for us.
I think in general this is the best way for entries on a site like wikipedia to go about things. Show the "why", explain it, and finish with a bold "summary" (The final derived formula). That way both dude and I would understand the concept, dude could quickly reference the final formula (the extent of his ability/interest), and I could delve further into the "why".
This is maybe a difficult balance to find on some topics, like electroweak interaction, but there's no reason for 99% of things that the articles can't give both the "whaT" (simple) and "why/how" (advanced) in the same article. If the advanced is too much for you, ignore it.
I meant, and totally guessing, but there's probably some sort of REST API which is accessible, whereas standard form-and-POST are used for the web.
Haha you got it! Even though slashdot ate my
Yeah but.. if the video isn't visible and you're looking at comments, it won't switch on you to the next video. That's something right?
I'd imagine bots generally use the API. I think the question is about whether to revoke the API or flag primary-users of it, but reporters don't know what an API is so they just say "bots". Sure, you COULD post JSON every time you wanna post a tweet... but you're not seeing ads anyway in that case so you're not a "useful" person to the company.
And what makes you think I'm a bot? How do you feel about ?
Can you repeat your point... maybe using some sort of car... or football analogy?
I thought the purpose of simple.wikipedia.org was to be accessible to those who do not fully grasp the English language, like children and students-of-English. Guess I just put too much faith in their self-proclaimed purpose right in the middle of the front page.
Why would 90% of people in this world need to know what electroweak interaction is beyond the introductory paragraph? Why would 99.999%? I mean really, what isn't covered by the introductory paragraph for those who are "just curious" and don't want to put a lot of effort into understanding that concept, which at a deep level relies on understanding 12 other concepts, each with 12 of their own on down the line...
Sorry, but those 90% of people can just STOP READING after the summary. If an article is missing a summary, there's a wikipedia "?" tag which will flag the article as needing one.
It's not like I was walking down the street one day and some facet of the electroweak interaction made me suddenly respect some group I was biased against prior. There's no piece of code that I'm going to write more efficiently because someone converted all the calculus into averaged-algebra.
This is just people complaining for complaining's sake, and thinking they should be able to pick up everything like they do the remote control and master it in one second, and if they couldn't do that IT WAS SOMEONE ELSES FAULT! Those folks should read some articles on mental issues and see if they can self-identify better there.
You can petition a moderator, post your reasons on the "Talk" page. The pet-holder may get overruled, may get banned, the page may get locked, or MAYBE your edits just weren't as good as you thought they were. You only lose if you don't try.
whoooooosh
Unfortunately for references they're dependent on 2nd-reporters of information. I do find that most reference links are dead, or they reference a book that nobody's heard of that's also out of print and probably nobody verified that it actually says anything like that on page WHATEVER.
Sorry, I don't have any solutions that are legal.
Maybe if you can do better, you should hit that "Edit" button and do so! Or you can continue to bitch that other's should work the way you want them to, for free. I don't think the latter will get you far.
If I remember my history correctly, Bill Gates actually stole IBM Dos and rebranded it, because IBM wouldn't protect its assets in any way as they were "trade secrets."
But I believe he may be referring to microsoft's very partial and selective (and frequently broken) POSIX/CAPI implementation, such that they could support compiled code and advertise some sort of not-rewrite-everything-from-scratch migration path away from UNIX, back in the day.
No way, didn't you read the GPL? There's no express or implied warranty of any kind, and the code is not certified as fit for any purpose!
Prisons are for-profit. Also, if you didn't already know, you might be surprised to learn how much cheaper-than-china production happens in them (in the USA).
Surely the definition of stupidity is when you keep on doing the same thing and expect different results?
No, that's the definition of trying again. Stop repeating this fallacy. If you play basketball, and you miss a basket once, you get the ball back and shoot it, are you stupid because you are hoping for better results this time? Of course not!
(I wonder how often they send an actual decryption key after payment...and how often the acceptance of payment is the last you hear of them.)
If you're referring to ransomware, the vast vast vast majority is just a scripted turn-key system. Set it and forget it. If word got out you didn't decrypt, nobody would pay, and nobody is looking at the data that got encrypted, that would leave a trail back to the culprit. So it's almost 100% of the time you pay, you get the key, and so long as you don't do whatever got you automatically infected in the first place again, you won't be re-infected. Just business.
There's a few more things that go into fingerprinting. Unless she was using different VMs on different computers the algorithm I sold years ago to one of those evil advertising corporations would correlate.
IP isn't as unique as you'd think. I've seem colleges have ONE public IP for all outbound data across campus, including all dorms. Start adding in other information your browser gives away like extensions and versions, user agent, screen resolution, mouse sensitivity, etc etc and you can narrow down to a single machine. If you have additional data like facebook does (every single page that includes a facebook button or comment section is used to profile you), you can even discern beyond machine to user-of-said-machine.