Firefox and Chrome have very similar UIs, Any difference is minor. They have very similar performance from user perspective, and are both much better than IE.
I choose to use Firefox as my main browser, mainly because Google have enough control of the internet they don't need to own the browser too.
absolute power corrupts absolutely
If Google wanted not to be evil (I know that's no longer one of their stated goals), then they wouldn't try to have their sticky fingers in everything.
That is quite the opposite to what I have seen, most problems I see, appear that the person who wrote it doesn't know what a function is, the same piece of code is repeated 5 or six times. Inevitably as changes occur all the versions don't get maintained which leads to bugs.
Like anything, you have to take the rule with a grain of salt, like any rule. It is not always possible to not repeat yourself, so if you are going to break the rule then you should have a good reason for it.
Repeating yourself, can also be unclear to someone reading your code, since they have to examine both parts and work out the differences, if there are any.
I have spent many hours comparing 2 sections of code line by line only to find out it varies by one parameter.
The revelation that if you do something really stupid, its going to be slower than if you don't, not isn't exactly a new revelation is it? They could have stuck solving the traveling salesman problem in memory before writing to disk to, but that too would not have yielded any new revelations.
Big O notation has been around in Computer Science since 1976, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#cite_note-knuth-11) this is hardly new research.
They tested concatenating 1 byte, 10 byte and 1000 byte strings in memory and disk.
In java each time you append a string you allocate an new piece of memory and copy the old string into it. When you append do it on disk it will allocate the data in blocks. The the proper way of doing this type of operation in to use a StringBuffer or StringBuilder.
The string concatenation method is order n^2 where with pre -allocation and just appending it is order n. The whole thing about order is k*n^2 will always get slower than j*n, for a big enough value of n, no matter how much bigger j is than k.
So what they are saying is don't do really stupid stuff in memory or it could be slower than doing not so stupid stuff on disk. No shit.
Oh yes then they wrote the string out to disk in the memory test as well, effectively doing the same operation as disk only method. Just to be on the safe side so your operation in memory must be slower.
Either these "researchers" are stupid or just want to make the headlines.
"The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account" -- check
Your experience of sex must be very different from mine. A very important part to me is that the woman enjoys it too.
The other parts well, are very general.
"The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes"
Arguably you do pretty much everything for your own purposes, even making someone else happy. You do it because you experience pleasure from there happiness.
"The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type..."
If someone you want to have sex with refuses, what are you supposed to do? Not have sex ever again because no other man/woman will do? If you get no longer want to have sex with someone clearly they are not interchangeable since the old person will not do.
The only logical conclusion to this, only a very small number of people. If you are part of the 1% and think you are safe, then think again. Once you eliminate 99% guess what? The remaining 1% will split into rich and poor, its all relative. The middle class live like kings compared to what they did 200 years ago. The new 1% will start to become the ruling class, why would they need the poorer 99% when robots can do all the work? Its not like the 1% make money of the sweat of there bough anyway, they make it by taking their cut from the work of others. Rinse and repeat until no one is left. After all the richest person, doesn't need anyone to do the work since AI can do it all.
Or we all could realize, that we have enough, we don't need to endlessly increase our the amount of stuff we have. We now have enough resources for everyone to have a comfortable life. Our economic goal needs to change focus, from this endless drive to produce more so we can consume more, why? Statistics show that even the richest are better off when society is more equal. We have the capability to do this, the question is do we have the will power?
Write systems allow you to bypass them safely, like automatically spawn a VM to run the code in.
If you think about it, the question is a stupid one. Do you wish look at naked women? Warning there is a chance that something bad may happen to your computer.
The answer is clearly yes, they probably knew that before they started looking. People will risk a real virus that can kill them to have sex they not going to say no the risk of a computer virus.
Porn aside, every piece of software I install, is dangerous. Large companies can, and have installed thing that I would consider viruses on computers. Just because the software is signed doesn't mean anything apart from maker of the software was willing to pay the fee to get it signed. If only ran actually trusted, I would have to write every piece of software myself, effectively making my computer useless.
What we need is a virtual condom, (Ok back to the porn) effectively allowing us to run the software, and be safe doing it.
They maybe not voting of the facts now, but imagine making everyone vote, even the ones that can't even be bothered voting now.
My opinion you is they should be advertising, you don't know don't vote. Not the current attitude of its your democratic duty to vote. It is your democratic duty to make an INFORMED vote, if you can't be bothered being informed you should not vote.
Making everyone vote would only increase the uninformed vote.
also biometrics don't really lend themselves to encryption, since they slightly change each time so your encryption key changes each time.
You could possibly hash that key an in a way that it doesn't change but then storing the encryption key on the device kind of defeats the purpose of encryption.
Also if any body scanned your fingerprint/DNA whatever all you encryption is now compromised.
Would you really be willing to log into a web site with your fingerprint, even your bank, if doing so would immediately grant them access to every other thing you logged into.
Really? Isn't that a bit melodramatic? Trying to kill someone for advocating education for girls is not even the slightest bit more sexist? (Malala Yousafzai)
Same crime same percentage of spending money lost. how is this not equal?
Also you are in a fantasy world if you think that the current system gives rich and poor an equal level of protection. The poor, or even the average person cannot afford the same lawyers as rich people.
I don't think that would happen, firstly because the rich very rarely get the raw end of the deal, the would hire lawyers if there was even the slightest evidence they where being targeted. It might end up costing the department more in legal fees than they would make, it is not worth fighting a $150 ticket in court but a $56,000 is a different matter.
Second the fines would not go directly go to the officer issuing the ticket, and as long as you don't incentivize them based on value of tickets issued, why would any body issuing the tickets care.
No 15k/hr over the limit would result in you losing 6 days (assuming spending money per day is total income after tax/number of days in year) income for that year.
So worst case scenario you only earn't money in that year you would only lose 2% of your total income. Solution work more than 1 year of your life.
If you happened to win the lottery that year well Ok you may loose 2% of your lottery winnings, how would you cope?
I don't think I have ever seen actual proof that there is even loss of expected return. Just random speculation because someone downloads a movie for free they would automatically have purchased it at the higher price. It maybe seen as advertising and actually increase sales.
This article is saying copyright infringement is counterfeiting which unless the copyright infringers are pretending that their movies are the genuine article and the proceeds/ or the creators have given there permission for you view it, then the movie is not a counterfeit.
Counterfeiting is fraud because you are fooling the purchaser into believing they are purchasing something that they are not really purchasing.
But why not call it counterfeiting, you call it piracy and equate it to a bunch people stealing and killing on the seas, it is probably closer the that than real piracy. Or stealing when nothing is actually physically taken.
Hell why not equate it to murder and make the penalties the same there. You are effectively killing the poor soles that would otherwise have had jobs in the movie industry, because they cannot afford to feed themselves.
No, a certain level of risk is acceptable, If we stopped driving altogether then that too, would decrease accidents. But in life we accept a level or risk, you can't make anything 100% safe.
If the logic any saved lives justifies, any law then you should ban drinking altogether, I am sure drinking increases your chances of hurting/killing someone, through violence.
This is the same logic they use to justify anti-terrorist laws, some people died because terrorism, it doesn't matter that your chances of dieing from wearing slippers is higher, the government needs to violate your privacy in order to protect you, because 1 life saved is worth it.
People die, it is sad, but it is part of life, and I believe an important part. If we constantly live in fear of dieing then we will never really live.
I agree there that there are so many bad stereotypes, but stereotype do have a basis in reality (but perhaps self fulling though). We as humans make snap judgement based on looks all the time. They are called first impressions, they are generally fairly accurate and they natural, we need them to function, It is just not feasible to investigate everyone we meet thoroughly. There is nothing we can do about that, but realize they are there and try and compensate. The study even shows we do this, when time pressures where removed the people became less racist, showing people do try and compensate for there first automatic response.
Your examples of cosmetic changes are not good ones though. There are also hair curlers, tanning salons, Plastic surgery does a lot of thing not just make us whiter. The whole beauty industry is set up to make everyone feel that we are not good enough.
Anything that charges a percentage is bad, fair scheme should be paid for work done, not charge rent on other peoples work.
What if Microsoft said pay us 5% of your gross income goes to us because you use our operating system, compare that to developing your own in-house you are making as saving. What about banks changing a percentage of every transaction made (they do in some cases but it is unfair), well set up your own banking system see how much that costs. If everybody that provided you a service charged you a percentage of your gross profit, (set up your own electricity supply, roads,...) you would soon be paying more than you are getting.
My definition of fair takes into account: investment, risk, skill, work. The problem with paying someone a percentage is of your profit is it as no relationship to the work the creator put into the initial product.
You have to put fuel in it, (they do), you have to maintain it (they do), you have to have someone watching the night vision footage. (they do). You still need someone to go and apprehend the immigrants once they are spotted.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox and Chrome have very similar UIs, Any difference is minor. They have very similar performance from user perspective, and are both much better than IE.
I choose to use Firefox as my main browser, mainly because Google have enough control of the internet they don't need to own the browser too.
absolute power corrupts absolutely
If Google wanted not to be evil (I know that's no longer one of their stated goals), then they wouldn't try to have their sticky fingers in everything.
That is quite the opposite to what I have seen, most problems I see, appear that the person who wrote it doesn't know what a function is, the same piece of code is repeated 5 or six times. Inevitably as changes occur all the versions don't get maintained which leads to bugs.
Like anything, you have to take the rule with a grain of salt, like any rule. It is not always possible to not repeat yourself, so if you are going to break the rule then you should have a good reason for it.
Repeating yourself, can also be unclear to someone reading your code, since they have to examine both parts and work out the differences, if there are any.
I have spent many hours comparing 2 sections of code line by line only to find out it varies by one parameter.
The revelation that if you do something really stupid, its going to be slower than if you don't, not isn't exactly a new revelation is it? They could have stuck solving the traveling salesman problem in memory before writing to disk to, but that too would not have yielded any new revelations.
Big O notation has been around in Computer Science since 1976, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation#cite_note-knuth-11) this is hardly new research.
They basically they didn't test the same thing,
They tested concatenating 1 byte, 10 byte and 1000 byte strings in memory and disk.
In java each time you append a string you allocate an new piece of memory and copy the old string into it. When you append do it on disk it will allocate the data in blocks. The the proper way of doing this type of operation in to use a StringBuffer or StringBuilder.
The string concatenation method is order n^2 where with pre -allocation and just appending it is order n. The whole thing about order is k*n^2 will always get slower than j*n, for a big enough value of n, no matter how much bigger j is than k.
So what they are saying is don't do really stupid stuff in memory or it could be slower than doing not so stupid stuff on disk. No shit.
Oh yes then they wrote the string out to disk in the memory test as well, effectively doing the same operation as disk only method. Just to be on the safe side so your operation in memory must be slower.
Either these "researchers" are stupid or just want to make the headlines.
"The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account" -- check
Your experience of sex must be very different from mine. A very important part to me is that the woman enjoys it too.
The other parts well, are very general.
"The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes"
Arguably you do pretty much everything for your own purposes, even making someone else happy. You do it because you experience pleasure from there happiness.
"The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type..."
If someone you want to have sex with refuses, what are you supposed to do? Not have sex ever again because no other man/woman will do? If you get no longer want to have sex with someone clearly they are not interchangeable since the old person will not do.
The only logical conclusion to this, only a very small number of people. If you are part of the 1% and think you are safe, then think again. Once you eliminate 99% guess what? The remaining 1% will split into rich and poor, its all relative. The middle class live like kings compared to what they did 200 years ago. The new 1% will start to become the ruling class, why would they need the poorer 99% when robots can do all the work? Its not like the 1% make money of the sweat of there bough anyway, they make it by taking their cut from the work of others. Rinse and repeat until no one is left. After all the richest person, doesn't need anyone to do the work since AI can do it all.
Or we all could realize, that we have enough, we don't need to endlessly increase our the amount of stuff we have. We now have enough resources for everyone to have a comfortable life. Our economic goal needs to change focus, from this endless drive to produce more so we can consume more, why? Statistics show that even the richest are better off when society is more equal. We have the capability to do this, the question is do we have the will power?
Write systems allow you to bypass them safely, like automatically spawn a VM to run the code in.
If you think about it, the question is a stupid one. Do you wish look at naked women? Warning there is a chance that something bad may happen to your computer.
The answer is clearly yes, they probably knew that before they started looking. People will risk a real virus that can kill them to have sex they not going to say no the risk of a computer virus.
Porn aside, every piece of software I install, is dangerous. Large companies can, and have installed thing that I would consider viruses on computers. Just because the software is signed doesn't mean anything apart from maker of the software was willing to pay the fee to get it signed. If only ran actually trusted, I would have to write every piece of software myself, effectively making my computer useless.
What we need is a virtual condom, (Ok back to the porn) effectively allowing us to run the software, and be safe doing it.
They maybe not voting of the facts now, but imagine making everyone vote, even the ones that can't even be bothered voting now.
My opinion you is they should be advertising, you don't know don't vote. Not the current attitude of its your democratic duty to vote. It is your democratic duty to make an INFORMED vote, if you can't be bothered being informed you should not vote.
Making everyone vote would only increase the uninformed vote.
also biometrics don't really lend themselves to encryption, since they slightly change each time so your encryption key changes each time.
You could possibly hash that key an in a way that it doesn't change but then storing the encryption key on the device kind of defeats the purpose of encryption.
Also if any body scanned your fingerprint/DNA whatever all you encryption is now compromised.
Would you really be willing to log into a web site with your fingerprint, even your bank, if doing so would immediately grant them access to every other thing you logged into.
One would presume NOT since the summary states:
the ideal scenario here would be for you to simply look at or touch a new device running Windows 10 and to be immediately signed in
Men are told they can't get into child care, ok not because they, stupid but because they are not capable of controlling themselves.
Ever heard the sayings:
Men can't multitask?
Men don't ask for directions?
what about this article that described how women better at certain tasks:
http://www.livescience.com/470...
or this one https://www.americanexpress.co...
I have never thought women where less smart than men, in fact I was of the opinion that the where smarter.
Men are often portrayed in media as beer swilling, sex crazed, idiots that can't be pried away from watching sports.
To reference the Simpsons, which was mentioned in the last thread, rank the family in order of intelligence.
My guess would be:
Lisa, Marge, Maggie, Bart, Homer.
Really? Isn't that a bit melodramatic? Trying to kill someone for advocating education for girls is not even the slightest bit more sexist? (Malala Yousafzai)
Same crime same percentage of spending money lost. how is this not equal?
Also you are in a fantasy world if you think that the current system gives rich and poor an equal level of protection. The poor, or even the average person cannot afford the same lawyers as rich people.
I don't think that would happen, firstly because the rich very rarely get the raw end of the deal, the would hire lawyers if there was even the slightest evidence they where being targeted. It might end up costing the department more in legal fees than they would make, it is not worth fighting a $150 ticket in court but a $56,000 is a different matter.
Second the fines would not go directly go to the officer issuing the ticket, and as long as you don't incentivize them based on value of tickets issued, why would any body issuing the tickets care.
No 15k/hr over the limit would result in you losing 6 days (assuming spending money per day is total income after tax/number of days in year) income for that year.
So worst case scenario you only earn't money in that year you would only lose 2% of your total income. Solution work more than 1 year of your life.
If you happened to win the lottery that year well Ok you may loose 2% of your lottery winnings, how would you cope?
I don't think I have ever seen actual proof that there is even loss of expected return. Just random speculation because someone downloads a movie for free they would automatically have purchased it at the higher price. It maybe seen as advertising and actually increase sales.
A song worth $1, yea right why to put the value that is paid to the artist per download of that song
from http://business.time.com/2013/...
But the company estimates that the average song generates between $0.006 and $0.0084
This article is saying copyright infringement is counterfeiting which unless the copyright infringers are pretending that their movies are the genuine article and the proceeds/ or the creators have given there permission for you view it, then the movie is not a counterfeit.
Counterfeiting is fraud because you are fooling the purchaser into believing they are purchasing something that they are not really purchasing.
But why not call it counterfeiting, you call it piracy and equate it to a bunch people stealing and killing on the seas, it is probably closer the that than real piracy. Or stealing when nothing is actually physically taken.
Hell why not equate it to murder and make the penalties the same there. You are effectively killing the poor soles that would otherwise have had jobs in the movie industry, because they cannot afford to feed themselves.
No, a certain level of risk is acceptable, If we stopped driving altogether then that too, would decrease accidents. But in life we accept a level or risk, you can't make anything 100% safe.
If the logic any saved lives justifies, any law then you should ban drinking altogether, I am sure drinking increases your chances of hurting/killing someone, through violence.
This is the same logic they use to justify anti-terrorist laws, some people died because terrorism, it doesn't matter that your chances of dieing from wearing slippers is higher, the government needs to violate your privacy in order to protect you, because 1 life saved is worth it.
People die, it is sad, but it is part of life, and I believe an important part. If we constantly live in fear of dieing then we will never really live.
I agree there that there are so many bad stereotypes, but stereotype do have a basis in reality (but perhaps self fulling though). We as humans make snap judgement based on looks all the time. They are called first impressions, they are generally fairly accurate and they natural, we need them to function, It is just not feasible to investigate everyone we meet thoroughly. There is nothing we can do about that, but realize they are there and try and compensate. The study even shows we do this, when time pressures where removed the people became less racist, showing people do try and compensate for there first automatic response.
Your examples of cosmetic changes are not good ones though. There are also hair curlers, tanning salons, Plastic surgery does a lot of thing not just make us whiter. The whole beauty industry is set up to make everyone feel that we are not good enough.
I see nothing wrong with it, as long as it is not pretending to be an official power rangers movie. People base stories on other stories all the time.
And that is not fair either, it should reflect the marginal cost to them of providing you with the service not a percentage of your gross profit.
The point is its not fair not that no one does it, and if everyone did it it would be unfeasible.
Anything that charges a percentage is bad, fair scheme should be paid for work done, not charge rent on other peoples work.
What if Microsoft said pay us 5% of your gross income goes to us because you use our operating system, compare that to developing your own in-house you are making as saving. What about banks changing a percentage of every transaction made (they do in some cases but it is unfair), well set up your own banking system see how much that costs. If everybody that provided you a service charged you a percentage of your gross profit, (set up your own electricity supply, roads, ...) you would soon be paying more than you are getting.
My definition of fair takes into account: investment, risk, skill, work. The problem with paying someone a percentage is of your profit is it as no relationship to the work the creator put into the initial product.
Also from here http://community.seattletimes....
it appears that one of the types are Hermes 450 drones, and from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... they cost 2 Million dollars.
You have to put fuel in it, (they do), you have to maintain it (they do), you have to have someone watching the night vision footage. (they do). You still need someone to go and apprehend the immigrants once they are spotted.