You left out a few words there. What you meant to say is "Each time they'd have the engineers look at the problem, and then the managers decided it was really probably OK."
According to their investigation, when reactor parts fail or systems fall out of compliance with the rules, studies are conducted by the industry and government. The studies conclude that existing standards are 'unnecessarily conservative.' Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance.
I hate to come down on the side of Big Industry, but this is exactly how things should go. First of all, of course compliance problems spur studies on whether the standards are too conservative. If there's no difficulty in complying with the standards, why bother to do a study? Secondly, of course standards are going to be loosened over time. When you make the first nuclear reactor, you want to have incredible safeguards, even where they seem conservative, just in case. Then, once you've got fifty years of nuclear power under your belt and you have a more informed idea of what's important and what's not, you revise the standards.
That's not to say that nothing smells fishy here, of course. If these "studies" were performed in a biased and unscientific manner, and/or without enough transparency to determine how much bias affected the outcome, then that in itself is the problem. And when a single standards-loosening turns out to have been unwise, that should properly throw doubt on the conclusions of many related safety studies. But the framing of this story seems to be "science can prove anything". No, just bad science... and the solution is not to stop doing science.
Okay. The density of helium is about one sixth that of air, so one kilo of helium can lift about five kilos of not-helium. They mention lifting 150-ton loads, which would require 30 tons of helium. Worldwide production of helium is about 30 million tons a year. I think it'll be okay.
I can't tell whether you're actually espousing the frequentist interpretation of probability, or are parodying it. My hat is off to you.
Re:Asynchronous and self modifying code.
on
Programming Clojure
·
· Score: 1
You seem to have this weird idea that lambdas == self-modifying code. It's just the opposite -- lambdas are the alternative to self-modifying code. Lambdas represent the ability for code to create other code, without having to modify any existing code. In fact
In Haskell, the more complex function declaration consists of replacing A -> B with A -> Maybe B. (It's similar in ML.) Of course you don't have to do this; the compiler will recognize from the context whether you are allowing a Nothing value or not. The complexity arises only where it must: in situations where a function makes guarantees on its outputs that are not made on its inputs.
Actually, if you were defining a "null" value, you'd make it a Top-type, meaning it would be a subclass of all other types. Otherwise you couldn't set an arbitrary reference to point to null, because null would be insufficiently derived.
The concept of "no null references" would be very limiting in a language without algebraic datatypes. You can think of null references as a sort of teeny limited braindead algebraic data type, actually. I get the feeling that much of the incredulity here stems from the posters not being familiar with languages that support them. If this describes you, check out Haskell and OCaML! They're the sort of languages that make you a better programmer no matter what language you're using.
A one-time oversight? Probably not. Look, domain names are not exactly made of gold. It is entirely possible for an advertiser to create a domain name specifically and solely for the purpose of advertising on a particular ad network. That means no chance for Google to match it to its blacklist -- the site isn't in the blacklist anyway, or anywhere else for that matter. There's no need to SEO a link you're paying to advertise, after all. That's probably why the link doesn't come up in Google: Nobody links to it, nobody talks about it, nobody's SEOed it.
Bottom line: Without a human eyeball checking each submitted ad, and a team of investigators checking each suspicious-ish looking one, this sort of thing is not going to get caught until it's reported. Google isn't going to be our nanny in this regard. Oh well.
Er, yes, I got that. And there's no need for escalation, as the user most likely has pretty good system privileges, not to mention access to all his own documents.
Successful exploitation of the vulnerability requires that users open a maliciously crafted PDF file, thereby allowing attackers to gain access to vulnerable systems and assume the privileges of a user running Acrobat Reader.
The main privileges being the privilege of waiting thirty seconds to view text, followed closely by the privilege of a crashed web browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget "brain-on-a-chip" neural simulation FPGAs... The new hotness is "gut feeling"-based reasoning.
You left out a few words there. What you meant to say is "Each time they'd have the engineers look at the problem, and then the managers decided it was really probably OK."
I hate to come down on the side of Big Industry, but this is exactly how things should go. First of all, of course compliance problems spur studies on whether the standards are too conservative. If there's no difficulty in complying with the standards, why bother to do a study? Secondly, of course standards are going to be loosened over time. When you make the first nuclear reactor, you want to have incredible safeguards, even where they seem conservative, just in case. Then, once you've got fifty years of nuclear power under your belt and you have a more informed idea of what's important and what's not, you revise the standards.
That's not to say that nothing smells fishy here, of course. If these "studies" were performed in a biased and unscientific manner, and/or without enough transparency to determine how much bias affected the outcome, then that in itself is the problem. And when a single standards-loosening turns out to have been unwise, that should properly throw doubt on the conclusions of many related safety studies. But the framing of this story seems to be "science can prove anything". No, just bad science... and the solution is not to stop doing science.
here is the actual press release, which (unlike that article) doesn't skip over what they actually did.
Take that, Street View! Your lies about "streets without mailboxes on them" will not be tolerated!
Okay. The density of helium is about one sixth that of air, so one kilo of helium can lift about five kilos of not-helium. They mention lifting 150-ton loads, which would require 30 tons of helium. Worldwide production of helium is about 30 million tons a year. I think it'll be okay.
I can't tell whether you're actually espousing the frequentist interpretation of probability, or are parodying it. My hat is off to you.
You seem to have this weird idea that lambdas == self-modifying code. It's just the opposite -- lambdas are the alternative to self-modifying code. Lambdas represent the ability for code to create other code, without having to modify any existing code. In fact
Ba-dum-cshhhh.
Fixed that for you.
Heh. Good luck convincing the IRS of that.. they don't allow you to deduct the value of your time for services provided to a charitable organization.
In Haskell, the more complex function declaration consists of replacing A -> B with A -> Maybe B. (It's similar in ML.) Of course you don't have to do this; the compiler will recognize from the context whether you are allowing a Nothing value or not. The complexity arises only where it must: in situations where a function makes guarantees on its outputs that are not made on its inputs.
Actually, if you were defining a "null" value, you'd make it a Top-type, meaning it would be a subclass of all other types. Otherwise you couldn't set an arbitrary reference to point to null, because null would be insufficiently derived.
The concept of "no null references" would be very limiting in a language without algebraic datatypes. You can think of null references as a sort of teeny limited braindead algebraic data type, actually. I get the feeling that much of the incredulity here stems from the posters not being familiar with languages that support them. If this describes you, check out Haskell and OCaML! They're the sort of languages that make you a better programmer no matter what language you're using.
That's what firmware updates are for.
I guess you aren't aware of the true meaning of BFF. I'm sure Kamokazi's friend would gladly die before giving out his Facebook password.
Question 33: You're thinking of deficit, not debt.
Question 6: Read the damn amendment.
I'm a fresh graduate with...no work experience.
In other words, I've never made a mistake ;)
Oh, you've made one mistake all right.
I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Its hardly like the Feds are going to be spying on ordinary citizens.
You're not very old, are you?
A one-time oversight? Probably not. Look, domain names are not exactly made of gold. It is entirely possible for an advertiser to create a domain name specifically and solely for the purpose of advertising on a particular ad network. That means no chance for Google to match it to its blacklist -- the site isn't in the blacklist anyway, or anywhere else for that matter. There's no need to SEO a link you're paying to advertise, after all. That's probably why the link doesn't come up in Google: Nobody links to it, nobody talks about it, nobody's SEOed it.
Bottom line: Without a human eyeball checking each submitted ad, and a team of investigators checking each suspicious-ish looking one, this sort of thing is not going to get caught until it's reported. Google isn't going to be our nanny in this regard. Oh well.
Shit! I'd been patent trolling like this for years, but it was a trade secret... now Halliburton's suing me!
Q: There are too many platforms. What should I do?
A: Make another platform!
Getting paid is, for most developers, a "personal itch" worth scratching.
Er, yes, I got that. And there's no need for escalation, as the user most likely has pretty good system privileges, not to mention access to all his own documents.
'twas a joke, you see.
Successful exploitation of the vulnerability requires that users open a maliciously crafted PDF file, thereby allowing attackers to gain access to vulnerable systems and assume the privileges of a user running Acrobat Reader.
The main privileges being the privilege of waiting thirty seconds to view text, followed closely by the privilege of a crashed web browser.