A of people rely on antivirus software to clean up messy infections instead of being organised enough to have current backups and known-good images of every machine.
But what about B of people? We can't all be A-listers, you know.
Where did you get that from? Remember that.doc is, potentially, an executable format (a Word macro can make arbitrary win32 API calls), not to mention the many exploits that rely on overflows in parsers of non-executable formats.
So, now here comes the interesting tidbit of pedantry. A.doc file cannot, I repeat cannot, contain a macro.
What can contain macros are.dot files, or document templates. The problem is that.dots are virtually identical to.docs, and if you take a.dot and rename it with a.doc extension it will be indistinguishable from a proper.doc file, thus all these macro viruses spread by parading document templates as simple documents. If Word were just smart enough to recognize that it is opening a document template with the extension of ".doc" and throw up an error/warning message, macro viruses would hardly be a problem.
So how come when i add a macro and hit save, it directly produces a doc that contains a macro? I admit it's been a lot of years since I've done this, but I've never renamed a.dot to.doc or anything like that, yet I've opened up documents to which I've added macros and, lo and behold, the macros were still in there.
Um...he said he was a sophomore CS student...I don't think he has TAs working under him, and it's probably his job to teach implementation while the professor (who is not the one posting to/.) teaches concepts.
Linux is for people who want to hack around and get to the guts of the OS because they're interested in that sort of thing. Everybody else is going to be too distracted by the fact that flash doesn't work properly.
Hmm. People who want to hack around and get to the guts. People who are interested in that sort of thing. You mean like...CS students? You know, the people the whole question is about...
Sadly, this is one big business that was probably creepier when it was just a website run by a couple of college kids, one of whom once said about people's Facebook data, 'People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.' At least now he has investors to sometimes keep him in check, a little bit, maybe.
I'd argue this story is proof that his investors aren't keeping him in check. I don't doubt the fact that he's suppose to be worth billions has done nothing in his own mind but vindicate him and boost his already inflated ego.
Yeah, but he knows he's only worth billions on paper and that could all vanish in an instant the moment the investors get unhappy with him. And honestly, having stuff that you've already posted for "friends" to see be available to apps when you click "authorize" isn't nearly as creepy as having the stuff that no human was ever supposed to see (like your password) potentially being made available by the people running the site to whoever they want to give it to, on a whim. But yeah, you're right, the difference in Zuck's behavior is probably slim if any.
Facebook is no longer just a website run by a couple of college kids. It is a business - a big business - and like any business their number one priority is making as much money as possible.
Sadly, this is one big business that was probably creepier when it was just a website run by a couple of college kids, one of whom once said about people's Facebook data, 'People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.' At least now he has investors to sometimes keep him in check, a little bit, maybe.
No, but it would not debunk statistics as we would need more sets of coin flips to determine if the 8H/2T result were an anomoly or if there were a flaw in the science. That is why this wager is over a 10 year period. Ten sets ten flips.
A 10-year period isn't a larger sample. The sample size is still 1. There is 1 Earth. With multiple sets of flips you can assure the other sets of flips are independent of each other. With the temperature of Earth, you can't assure the next year's change isn't dependent on the prior years change. It would only be a larger sample if there were multiple Earths we were testing independently.
Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.
Because there are literally thousands of confounding factors, and that's just counting ones that are identified. They probably could publish a table saying that if a decade from now the CO2 level is x and nothing else changes, the increase in temperature will be y, but then things will change, like the number of sunspots or the number of farting cows (methane is also a greenhouse gas) or the amount of heat people generate heating their homes or the acreage of plant biomass or goodness knows what else, and their prediction won't apply anymore,
Sorry I assumed if there were thousands of factors involved that were known and more that are unknown, it would be nearly impossible to determine which factors had significant influence and which didn't. Obviously I didn't consider the special deductive powers bestowed on climatologists that merely mortal scientists don't have.
Seriously, dude? How is what I said any different from any other science? Scientists in all fields can make remarkably detailed predictions of outcomes under controlled laboratory conditions, but those predictions break down in the real world when uncontrollable and unanticipated factors confound the outcome. Maybe you missed the "if nothing else changes" part of my sentence?
I'm confused, are you say that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is an effect so minute that it is indistinguishable from random background noise?
They control the climate journals. They tweak or reject critical papers. If they lose control of one journal, they try to discredit it.
Right, because trying to discredit it is the same as destroying it, and the folks who wrote those emails are in complete control of all the relevant journals.
He may simply have found a new job, and lost interest in updating his blog, or he may be paranoid and is hiding himself, by stopping all his online activities.
A blogger lose interest in updating his own blog? Impossible!
Tell me, does the theory of evolution by natural selection allow you to predict how long it will take for speciation to occur again within Homo sapiens?
No, but more importantly it doesn't claim to be able to. AGW claims to be able to predict the future, evolution merely explains the past.
A "scientific theory" that makes no testable predictions is no scientific theory at all. The theory of evolution, specifically, predicts that population characteristics will change over time in response to the environment. Not just that it has happened in the past, but that it will continue to happen whenever there is a population with non-uniform heritable characteristics.
How does the IPCC control every single scientist with expertise in climate?
I'm not suggesting every single one is. Lindzen, Spencer, for example, aren't. What I'm suggesting is that the "gate-keepers" keep skeptics out of the system as far as they can. Obviously fewer scientists write skeptical papers. They are less likely to get funding for that kind of research for starters and if they want their work published (scientists are esteemed by citation), they can't really be seen to be rocking the boat. There are a few notable exceptions, but in general the CRU emails show this to be the case.
If the IPCC has that much power over the scientific community, then the quote you give is alarming. Not that I disagree with using climate policy for redistributive ends, but that should be clearly stated up-front and kept separate from the science. That is, the people who set the policy goals for climate change policy shouldn't be allowed to also have influence over the climate science. I will definitely have to look into this more.
But I still don't feel foolish because I was responding to Archangel Michael's crazy screed, and my criticisms thereof are still just as valid.
Slashdot Mirror
A of people rely on antivirus software to clean up messy infections instead of being organised enough to have current backups and known-good images of every machine.
But what about B of people? We can't all be A-listers, you know.
Where did you get that from? Remember that .doc is, potentially, an executable format (a Word macro can make arbitrary win32 API calls), not to mention the many exploits that rely on overflows in parsers of non-executable formats.
So, now here comes the interesting tidbit of pedantry. A .doc file cannot, I repeat cannot, contain a macro.
Are you sure?
What can contain macros are .dot files, or document templates. The problem is that .dots are virtually identical to .docs, and if you take a .dot and rename it with a .doc extension it will be indistinguishable from a proper .doc file, thus all these macro viruses spread by parading document templates as simple documents. If Word were just smart enough to recognize that it is opening a document template with the extension of ".doc" and throw up an error/warning message, macro viruses would hardly be a problem.
So how come when i add a macro and hit save, it directly produces a doc that contains a macro? I admit it's been a lot of years since I've done this, but I've never renamed a .dot to .doc or anything like that, yet I've opened up documents to which I've added macros and, lo and behold, the macros were still in there.
Pretty sure that was a joke.
Pretty sure the joke was in saying Canada would support Iran, and biryokumaru actually believed Canada was part of OPEC.
*points to user name*
I would have been up for playing games with you guys whenever - you just had to ask!!!
...but it's more fun to force you by electrically controlling your impulses.
Probably living in the 21st century, wherein paramecia aren't considered animals.
since frog muscles will respond to electric jolts after death, do it with a dead frog, so PETA can't complain
Meh, you'll probably give them a reason to complain by how you procure a dead frog. I'm guessing it has to be fairly fresh for that to work.
You know what this reminds me of?
Natalie Portman Hot Grits!
Um...he said he was a sophomore CS student...I don't think he has TAs working under him, and it's probably his job to teach implementation while the professor (who is not the one posting to /.) teaches concepts.
Echo isn't an editor without redirection ;)
Yes, but applying redirection is trivial. ;-)
Linux is for people who want to hack around and get to the guts of the OS because they're interested in that sort of thing. Everybody else is going to be too distracted by the fact that flash doesn't work properly.
Hmm. People who want to hack around and get to the guts. People who are interested in that sort of thing. You mean like...CS students? You know, the people the whole question is about...
Sadly, this is one big business that was probably creepier when it was just a website run by a couple of college kids, one of whom once said about people's Facebook data, 'People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.' At least now he has investors to sometimes keep him in check, a little bit, maybe.
I'd argue this story is proof that his investors aren't keeping him in check. I don't doubt the fact that he's suppose to be worth billions has done nothing in his own mind but vindicate him and boost his already inflated ego.
Yeah, but he knows he's only worth billions on paper and that could all vanish in an instant the moment the investors get unhappy with him. And honestly, having stuff that you've already posted for "friends" to see be available to apps when you click "authorize" isn't nearly as creepy as having the stuff that no human was ever supposed to see (like your password) potentially being made available by the people running the site to whoever they want to give it to, on a whim. But yeah, you're right, the difference in Zuck's behavior is probably slim if any.
I will ask this again: Why didn't MySpace gain from the hate for Facebook here on Slashdot?
Because their software was crap and their site was noisy (in more senses than one).
And you trust FB to honor your choice of options?
Which is the real problem.
Facebook is no longer just a website run by a couple of college kids. It is a business - a big business - and like any business their number one priority is making as much money as possible.
Sadly, this is one big business that was probably creepier when it was just a website run by a couple of college kids, one of whom once said about people's Facebook data, 'People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.' At least now he has investors to sometimes keep him in check, a little bit, maybe.
No, but it would not debunk statistics as we would need more sets of coin flips to determine if the 8H/2T result were an anomoly or if there were a flaw in the science. That is why this wager is over a 10 year period. Ten sets ten flips.
A 10-year period isn't a larger sample. The sample size is still 1. There is 1 Earth. With multiple sets of flips you can assure the other sets of flips are independent of each other. With the temperature of Earth, you can't assure the next year's change isn't dependent on the prior years change. It would only be a larger sample if there were multiple Earths we were testing independently.
Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.
Canada is not a member of OPEC.
The US is not fighting a war in Iraq. The US is fighting an occupation.
Eh? I thought the US was the occupation.
Because there are literally thousands of confounding factors, and that's just counting ones that are identified. They probably could publish a table saying that if a decade from now the CO2 level is x and nothing else changes, the increase in temperature will be y, but then things will change, like the number of sunspots or the number of farting cows (methane is also a greenhouse gas) or the amount of heat people generate heating their homes or the acreage of plant biomass or goodness knows what else, and their prediction won't apply anymore,
Sorry I assumed if there were thousands of factors involved that were known and more that are unknown, it would be nearly impossible to determine which factors had significant influence and which didn't. Obviously I didn't consider the special deductive powers bestowed on climatologists that merely mortal scientists don't have.
Seriously, dude? How is what I said any different from any other science? Scientists in all fields can make remarkably detailed predictions of outcomes under controlled laboratory conditions, but those predictions break down in the real world when uncontrollable and unanticipated factors confound the outcome. Maybe you missed the "if nothing else changes" part of my sentence?
I'm confused, are you say that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is an effect so minute that it is indistinguishable from random background noise?
No. That's not even similar to what I said.
How do they manage to do that?
Have you need read the leaked emails?
Yes.
They control the climate journals. They tweak or reject critical papers. If they lose control of one journal, they try to discredit it.
Right, because trying to discredit it is the same as destroying it, and the folks who wrote those emails are in complete control of all the relevant journals.
C'mon, you know they're a myth. Why do people keep repeating that lame nonsense over and over?
Because it makes a good story. You know, like dragons kidnapping princesses, or the liberal media persecuting Republicans.
He found one of those girlfriends that everybody talks about.
He'll be back. Just wait until she becomes a wife.
He may simply have found a new job, and lost interest in updating his blog, or he may be paranoid and is hiding himself, by stopping all his online activities.
A blogger lose interest in updating his own blog? Impossible!
Tell me, does the theory of evolution by natural selection allow you to predict how long it will take for speciation to occur again within Homo sapiens?
No, but more importantly it doesn't claim to be able to. AGW claims to be able to predict the future, evolution merely explains the past.
A "scientific theory" that makes no testable predictions is no scientific theory at all. The theory of evolution, specifically, predicts that population characteristics will change over time in response to the environment. Not just that it has happened in the past, but that it will continue to happen whenever there is a population with non-uniform heritable characteristics.
That in itself will tell us a lot. If people are only confident that there will be a rise in temper
I am confident the rise in temper has already occurred.
I'm not suggesting every single one is. Lindzen, Spencer, for example, aren't. What I'm suggesting is that the "gate-keepers" keep skeptics out of the system as far as they can. Obviously fewer scientists write skeptical papers. They are less likely to get funding for that kind of research for starters and if they want their work published (scientists are esteemed by citation), they can't really be seen to be rocking the boat. There are a few notable exceptions, but in general the CRU emails show this to be the case.
If the IPCC has that much power over the scientific community, then the quote you give is alarming. Not that I disagree with using climate policy for redistributive ends, but that should be clearly stated up-front and kept separate from the science. That is, the people who set the policy goals for climate change policy shouldn't be allowed to also have influence over the climate science. I will definitely have to look into this more.
But I still don't feel foolish because I was responding to Archangel Michael's crazy screed, and my criticisms thereof are still just as valid.