There are things like private/public key encryption you know.
Apparently you need to think about this a bit more. How exactly is Chrome supposed to decrypt a password without storing the secret that allow it to do so on the same machine/account? Even if the password is encrypted with an asymmetric key, the corresponding key must be stored where Chrome can access it to de-crypt the password(s).
Just curious how knowing where your child is will help prevent them from getting into a car crash or breaking a store window for fun? Perhaps you would be able to corroborate there location but really, I think that would only help clear up a very small percentage of cases like that.
In fact I would go further and say that a kid who is smart enough to know what they doing/about to do is wrong/illegal/not allowed will ultimately not take this tracking device with them (or leave it somewhere temporarily, etc etc). You need to trust you kids, and more importantly, they need to trust you. That's how they stay safe.
Your example is missing something important: discrete, visible targets that did not stand their ground, and gentleman that defended himself was a horrible shot: one assailant was grazed by a bullet, the other shot in the butt and hip. Thankfully no one else was hit or injured. So mission accomplished, but hardly in a controlled way that would have ended well in a crowded area.
Perhaps this gentleman had combat and/or tactics training, but this falls into my category of averting a crime of "opportunity" where the shooters were never intending on shooting or shooting back. So good for this guy and doing a good deed, but this is not the same type of scenario as in Denver, and had it been, the gentleman could easily have been dead before getting his gun out. Also remember the shooter in Denver supposedly had body armor on. Running out of cover towards the shooter would have been suicide.
I live is Canada, so I'm certainly not an expert on less restrictive gun laws. I wonder about this however. I would think that even with laws that permit citizens to own and carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), in a situation like in Denver, the ability to carry and shoot (say the type of practice a gun owner would get at a shooting range) would be useless as this is a completely different ballgame from controlled target practice.
My major concern any argument for carrying a weapon is that I do not think that the average gun owner (i.e. one that practices in controlled shooting situations and does not have any situational or combat training) would have been effective in stopping a shooter like this. One can extend this further and ask if even in a one-on-one firefight (which again, is not a scenario that I would imagine a typical gun owner trains for), an average gun owner could not reliably be expected to assess the situation and determine if shooting back would be a good or bad idea.
All in all, I think that while denying the ability for a citizen to arm themselves may be putting the weapons in the wrong hands, putting weapons in the hands of people that are not trained to use them effectively is not the full solution either. Perhaps having different types of weapon permits, one for hunting, another for shooting practice at ranges only, and carry permits that require mandatory combat and tactical training along with re-certification (like in the armed forces or law enforcement) would be a better idea.
Any time I see a response to the tune of "... so and so is free to make a choice about such and such", I also think that there is no such thing as "free to choose" if one does not/can not/will not understand the finer details involved in that choice.
I can only freely choose to not buy this if I understand what does and does not work and how it can/will impact me. Most typical computer purchases are not made with this level of understanding.
In fact, the customer really must always be in control... of the features. As developers, we are good at what, how, when and where. It is however, the "why" that will hang us ever time. And the "why" is driven by and only by the stakeholders of the software being developed (i.e. typically the "client" or "customer"). So they must (imho) ALWAYS have control over the features, and be given input as to how their choice of features impacts the other variables: cost and delivery time (which we are supposed to be the experts in providing them).
I don't think it makes any difference on the development methodology used, but this one golden rule will, must always be obeyed in successful projects: the clients choose the features, the developers provide the estimates and recommendations on implementation and delivery time. Then the client is free to make an informed decision based on what's the most important features for them at the time frame that developers feel is achievable.
They just have to take a walk out the airlock... plenty of death outside. Why bother providing an additional negative focal point (i.e. an "escape plan") when one is readily provided by the environment?
An excellent reason to ask what expectations and metrics will be used in the review process ahead of time. You can't play, let along, win the game unless you know the rules. It's also a nice hint: no rules == time to look for another gig.
While I can not comment on the premise of your reply, I also can't understand how driving at the speed limit (or slower if you wanted) could possibly endanger others on the road... Multiple lane highway? Don't drive slowly in the left-most lane and you'll be fine. Single lane road? The worst that can happen is some asshole speeding up behind you and hitting you from behind (which can happen at any speed you care to drive at unless you happen to be driving at the highest speed of anyone on the road, at which point I would say you ARE endangering everyone else on the road).
This may be true in other parts of the world, but where I live in the province of Quebec, Canada, you CANNOT give yourself/use the title of engineer unless you are part of the Order of Engineers of Quebec. Other place may have similar laws.
Ah yes, what's wrong with the world today: something that is obviously no good causing you grief? Well don't do anything that would cause discomfort! It's only cool to protest if it doesn't inconvenience anyone, if that's ok with you? No? Oh well, then we'll just go on with our lives as usual.
I disagree strongly for thinking that a "major inconvenience" is not warranted when trying to stand up for what you believe in . In a world where we as individuals feel unable to affect change, I applaud individuals with influence using what they can to stand up for what they believe in. I hope the world your actions would precipitate does not come to pass.
Or we could just use a solution that was already thought out pretty well, doesn't require massive infrastructure change, actually addresses the problem (i.e. as end users we have to trust the entire certificate chain, and ultimately the CA).
Ok, so what if the professor cannot guarantee whether or not a student cheated? For example, the methods he seems to be using are looking for the same mistakes, that types of errors, things that would pop up when you recognized the question and just regurgitated the answer rather than approaching the question from your own understanding. What if a student "somewhat" cheated? Their exam looks sort of correct but slightly fishy. And he knows that there is at least some cheating but can only nail down all the "certain" cheaters. So he has a couple of options:
1 - Risk false-positives (i.e. a student that did not cheat yet was unfortunate enough to answer close enough to be suspect) and have some innocent students expelled. 2 - Let some cheating go while punishing other cheating (enforcing the "if you can get away with it, it is alright to cheat"). This punishes students that did not cheat by seeing their peers succeed where they did not deserve it. 3 - Offer a way out for those that cheated to in some way redeem themselves (it is NOT easy to even go in private and admit to cheating; this type of thing while it shouldn't be glorified for these cheats, IS something that is worth learning and will serve later in life), and those that choose not to, get dealt with via the normal cheating rules of the school.
Why the extra chance? Because those that cheated and turn themselves in will STILL most likely fail and those did it without cheating will still get the mark they deserve. Additionally, it will teach any student that knew of the cheating, but that decided not to cheat that they should have had the balls to act BEFORE the test was taken (and it seems that at least one person MAY have known before the exam about the leaked test-bank).
Right, but cross contamination from where? The argument that Earth "cross contaminated" Mars can just as easily be reversed, and as such is not much of a compelling argument. Really, what says that there might be some other source of life which "contaminated" Earth and Mars at that point?
I am an Apple user; so what makes your statement "bad"? In fact, it is just bad for Apple, if they care about that sort of thing. In reality, no company "forces" you to buy their products unless that product is required by consumers and there is only one supplier, neither of which strictly apply in this case. This might be "bad" for hobbyists, but as you phrased it, they will just avoid Apple products like "the plague". And if this does not impact Apple in a detrimental way (read: put them out of business) then I'm OK with that. One might argue that it's not fair to hobbyists that they cannot buy a cheap Mac, but that argument could be made of any high-priced luxury item that people would like. Not having the money to purchase an item does NOT make it unfair. Tying two products together such that they must be bought together at a higher price than is typical of that product domain is NOT unfair as long as there are other options, which there are.
What would be UNFAIR would be Apple charging a high price for their computers, and then saying you MUST buy a copy of OS X and that OS X is the only OS that will be allowed to run on their system (which it is NOT. you may install any OS you wish on their hardware, although I am not aware if they will refund you the cost of OS X, but I believe they consider it part of the machine when they sell you the computer. So at worst they are guilt of doing the same thing that Microsoft does with respect to a "OS-tax").
Yes, with the caveat that it would take a little while before the dosage was known due to development of film. However, what would the psychological effects of being told that you need to wear a badge to detect if the machine just overdosed you? Wouldn't you sort of re-evaluate the need for an x-ray at that point? If it involved the "likelihood" of harm/death to the point that it needed to be independently verified?
There is also another really important bit about car safety; if it absorbs more energy on impact, your chances of survival / reduction of injury goes way up. I think many people that buy huge trucks that feel "solid" don't quite understand that the car being crushed is what saves the pulpy bits inside.
Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.
Predicting the future is a dangerous profession. The only demonstrable, premeditated success at prediction of future events has been in the financial field, and essentially that was betting that things will go bad, and it's just a matter of riding out the "fair weather" (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)). So that being said, the only rational thing to do is to buy insurance, and so far, the best insurance we have is spreading the population out a bit so we're not a single target for whatever the universe decides to throw at us.
I think the issue with the testability of String Theory is as follows:
In a theory, there are generally variables. For example, in General Relativity, there are "constants" (called such because they are measured via experimental science) that emerge from the theory. These "constants" are actually variables in General Relativity (if you were to set them to different values you would have a different "universe"). However the important thing is that "variables" that we had yet to measure which the theory predicted would be certain values (given other variables which we had measured and plugegd into the theory) turned out to be consistent with what General Relativity said they would have to be when we did get to performing experiments to confirm their values (so far).
The problem with String Theory is that there are many variables (not a show stopper) but that they seem to need to be fixed at certain values to arrive at "our universe". One might say General Relativity did the same thing, but no, given a set of variables that we had measured, we got predictions on what the values of the remaining variables in the theory must be. This does not seem to be the case with String Theory where we have not found any good reason to set the variables the way they must be to get our universe's constants out of the theory.
Why is this important? Because String Theory MIGHT be correct (i.e. more accurate than General Relativity) but we have no indication of why the variables in the theory should be set the way they are (i.e. no experiment has been constructed as far as I know that will measure a value in reality and set it to a specific value in the theory). And even if that were to happen, it seems that it is possible to fiddle with the other variables in String Theory to again arrive at the model of our universe. So it seems that we would need to experimentally resolve each variable in String Theory independently which says to me that the theory has no predictive capability.
IANAP, just an enthusiastic amateur who is annoyed at the state of physics.
What if the US had decided to intervene in the genocide in Rwanda? Or the fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Or hadn't done anything in Yugoslavia? If one is responsible for acting and for not acting, then can you ever do the "right" thing? Perhaps things are not so black and white?
Slashdot Mirror
Clear skies, John.
There are things like private/public key encryption you know.
Apparently you need to think about this a bit more. How exactly is Chrome supposed to decrypt a password without storing the secret that allow it to do so on the same machine/account? Even if the password is encrypted with an asymmetric key, the corresponding key must be stored where Chrome can access it to de-crypt the password(s).
Just curious how knowing where your child is will help prevent them from getting into a car crash or breaking a store window for fun? Perhaps you would be able to corroborate there location but really, I think that would only help clear up a very small percentage of cases like that.
In fact I would go further and say that a kid who is smart enough to know what they doing/about to do is wrong/illegal/not allowed will ultimately not take this tracking device with them (or leave it somewhere temporarily, etc etc). You need to trust you kids, and more importantly, they need to trust you. That's how they stay safe.
Your example is missing something important: discrete, visible targets that did not stand their ground, and gentleman that defended himself was a horrible shot: one assailant was grazed by a bullet, the other shot in the butt and hip. Thankfully no one else was hit or injured. So mission accomplished, but hardly in a controlled way that would have ended well in a crowded area.
Perhaps this gentleman had combat and/or tactics training, but this falls into my category of averting a crime of "opportunity" where the shooters were never intending on shooting or shooting back. So good for this guy and doing a good deed, but this is not the same type of scenario as in Denver, and had it been, the gentleman could easily have been dead before getting his gun out. Also remember the shooter in Denver supposedly had body armor on. Running out of cover towards the shooter would have been suicide.
I live is Canada, so I'm certainly not an expert on less restrictive gun laws. I wonder about this however. I would think that even with laws that permit citizens to own and carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), in a situation like in Denver, the ability to carry and shoot (say the type of practice a gun owner would get at a shooting range) would be useless as this is a completely different ballgame from controlled target practice.
My major concern any argument for carrying a weapon is that I do not think that the average gun owner (i.e. one that practices in controlled shooting situations and does not have any situational or combat training) would have been effective in stopping a shooter like this. One can extend this further and ask if even in a one-on-one firefight (which again, is not a scenario that I would imagine a typical gun owner trains for), an average gun owner could not reliably be expected to assess the situation and determine if shooting back would be a good or bad idea.
All in all, I think that while denying the ability for a citizen to arm themselves may be putting the weapons in the wrong hands, putting weapons in the hands of people that are not trained to use them effectively is not the full solution either. Perhaps having different types of weapon permits, one for hunting, another for shooting practice at ranges only, and carry permits that require mandatory combat and tactical training along with re-certification (like in the armed forces or law enforcement) would be a better idea.
I think the implication is that should Microsoft choose to not support x86 devices, then ARM devices may be "all PCs" that can run Windows 8.
Any time I see a response to the tune of "... so and so is free to make a choice about such and such", I also think that there is no such thing as "free to choose" if one does not/can not/will not understand the finer details involved in that choice.
I can only freely choose to not buy this if I understand what does and does not work and how it can/will impact me. Most typical computer purchases are not made with this level of understanding.
In fact, the customer really must always be in control... of the features. As developers, we are good at what, how, when and where. It is however, the "why" that will hang us ever time. And the "why" is driven by and only by the stakeholders of the software being developed (i.e. typically the "client" or "customer"). So they must (imho) ALWAYS have control over the features, and be given input as to how their choice of features impacts the other variables: cost and delivery time (which we are supposed to be the experts in providing them).
I don't think it makes any difference on the development methodology used, but this one golden rule will, must always be obeyed in successful projects: the clients choose the features, the developers provide the estimates and recommendations on implementation and delivery time. Then the client is free to make an informed decision based on what's the most important features for them at the time frame that developers feel is achievable.
They just have to take a walk out the airlock... plenty of death outside. Why bother providing an additional negative focal point (i.e. an "escape plan") when one is readily provided by the environment?
An excellent reason to ask what expectations and metrics will be used in the review process ahead of time. You can't play, let along, win the game unless you know the rules. It's also a nice hint: no rules == time to look for another gig.
While I can not comment on the premise of your reply, I also can't understand how driving at the speed limit (or slower if you wanted) could possibly endanger others on the road... Multiple lane highway? Don't drive slowly in the left-most lane and you'll be fine. Single lane road? The worst that can happen is some asshole speeding up behind you and hitting you from behind (which can happen at any speed you care to drive at unless you happen to be driving at the highest speed of anyone on the road, at which point I would say you ARE endangering everyone else on the road).
This may be true in other parts of the world, but where I live in the province of Quebec, Canada, you CANNOT give yourself/use the title of engineer unless you are part of the Order of Engineers of Quebec. Other place may have similar laws.
Ah yes, what's wrong with the world today: something that is obviously no good causing you grief? Well don't do anything that would cause discomfort! It's only cool to protest if it doesn't inconvenience anyone, if that's ok with you? No? Oh well, then we'll just go on with our lives as usual.
I disagree strongly for thinking that a "major inconvenience" is not warranted when trying to stand up for what you believe in . In a world where we as individuals feel unable to affect change, I applaud individuals with influence using what they can to stand up for what they believe in. I hope the world your actions would precipitate does not come to pass.
Or just shut the water off while you're on vacation.
Or we could just use a solution that was already thought out pretty well, doesn't require massive infrastructure change, actually addresses the problem (i.e. as end users we have to trust the entire certificate chain, and ultimately the CA).
http://www.convergence.io/
And go listen to Moxi's defcon talk about this.
Why the hell does this article quote a literature professor on the topic of the quality of scientific research? How the fuck would he know?
Because, as a professor (who most likely does research himself), he should know what the components of "good research" are?
Ok, so what if the professor cannot guarantee whether or not a student cheated? For example, the methods he seems to be using are looking for the same mistakes, that types of errors, things that would pop up when you recognized the question and just regurgitated the answer rather than approaching the question from your own understanding. What if a student "somewhat" cheated? Their exam looks sort of correct but slightly fishy. And he knows that there is at least some cheating but can only nail down all the "certain" cheaters. So he has a couple of options:
1 - Risk false-positives (i.e. a student that did not cheat yet was unfortunate enough to answer close enough to be suspect) and have some innocent students expelled.
2 - Let some cheating go while punishing other cheating (enforcing the "if you can get away with it, it is alright to cheat"). This punishes students that did not cheat by seeing their peers succeed where they did not deserve it.
3 - Offer a way out for those that cheated to in some way redeem themselves (it is NOT easy to even go in private and admit to cheating; this type of thing while it shouldn't be glorified for these cheats, IS something that is worth learning and will serve later in life), and those that choose not to, get dealt with via the normal cheating rules of the school.
Why the extra chance? Because those that cheated and turn themselves in will STILL most likely fail and those did it without cheating will still get the mark they deserve. Additionally, it will teach any student that knew of the cheating, but that decided not to cheat that they should have had the balls to act BEFORE the test was taken (and it seems that at least one person MAY have known before the exam about the leaked test-bank).
Right, but cross contamination from where? The argument that Earth "cross contaminated" Mars can just as easily be reversed, and as such is not much of a compelling argument. Really, what says that there might be some other source of life which "contaminated" Earth and Mars at that point?
I am an Apple user; so what makes your statement "bad"? In fact, it is just bad for Apple, if they care about that sort of thing. In reality, no company "forces" you to buy their products unless that product is required by consumers and there is only one supplier, neither of which strictly apply in this case. This might be "bad" for hobbyists, but as you phrased it, they will just avoid Apple products like "the plague". And if this does not impact Apple in a detrimental way (read: put them out of business) then I'm OK with that. One might argue that it's not fair to hobbyists that they cannot buy a cheap Mac, but that argument could be made of any high-priced luxury item that people would like. Not having the money to purchase an item does NOT make it unfair. Tying two products together such that they must be bought together at a higher price than is typical of that product domain is NOT unfair as long as there are other options, which there are.
What would be UNFAIR would be Apple charging a high price for their computers, and then saying you MUST buy a copy of OS X and that OS X is the only OS that will be allowed to run on their system (which it is NOT. you may install any OS you wish on their hardware, although I am not aware if they will refund you the cost of OS X, but I believe they consider it part of the machine when they sell you the computer. So at worst they are guilt of doing the same thing that Microsoft does with respect to a "OS-tax").
Yes, with the caveat that it would take a little while before the dosage was known due to development of film. However, what would the psychological effects of being told that you need to wear a badge to detect if the machine just overdosed you? Wouldn't you sort of re-evaluate the need for an x-ray at that point? If it involved the "likelihood" of harm/death to the point that it needed to be independently verified?
Except that the researcher could open himself to a lawsuit by Diebold.
There is also another really important bit about car safety; if it absorbs more energy on impact, your chances of survival / reduction of injury goes way up. I think many people that buy huge trucks that feel "solid" don't quite understand that the car being crushed is what saves the pulpy bits inside.
Dude, unless some meteor comes along and kills us all, we still have *millions* of years to perfect space travel.
Predicting the future is a dangerous profession. The only demonstrable, premeditated success at prediction of future events has been in the financial field, and essentially that was betting that things will go bad, and it's just a matter of riding out the "fair weather" (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)). So that being said, the only rational thing to do is to buy insurance, and so far, the best insurance we have is spreading the population out a bit so we're not a single target for whatever the universe decides to throw at us.
I think the issue with the testability of String Theory is as follows:
In a theory, there are generally variables. For example, in General Relativity, there are "constants" (called such because they are measured via experimental science) that emerge from the theory. These "constants" are actually variables in General Relativity (if you were to set them to different values you would have a different "universe"). However the important thing is that "variables" that we had yet to measure which the theory predicted would be certain values (given other variables which we had measured and plugegd into the theory) turned out to be consistent with what General Relativity said they would have to be when we did get to performing experiments to confirm their values (so far).
The problem with String Theory is that there are many variables (not a show stopper) but that they seem to need to be fixed at certain values to arrive at "our universe". One might say General Relativity did the same thing, but no, given a set of variables that we had measured, we got predictions on what the values of the remaining variables in the theory must be. This does not seem to be the case with String Theory where we have not found any good reason to set the variables the way they must be to get our universe's constants out of the theory.
Why is this important? Because String Theory MIGHT be correct (i.e. more accurate than General Relativity) but we have no indication of why the variables in the theory should be set the way they are (i.e. no experiment has been constructed as far as I know that will measure a value in reality and set it to a specific value in the theory). And even if that were to happen, it seems that it is possible to fiddle with the other variables in String Theory to again arrive at the model of our universe. So it seems that we would need to experimentally resolve each variable in String Theory independently which says to me that the theory has no predictive capability.
IANAP, just an enthusiastic amateur who is annoyed at the state of physics.
What if the US had decided to intervene in the genocide in Rwanda? Or the fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Or hadn't done anything in Yugoslavia? If one is responsible for acting and for not acting, then can you ever do the "right" thing? Perhaps things are not so black and white?