Technically, it is obvious that the the "real" distribution of IQ scores in not Gaussian, if only because in a Gaussian distribution both tails should continue on to infinity, which is untrue for IQ scores (in both directions).
Actually, 50% of the people have below-average intelligence (assuming a Gaussian distribution), which is a far cry from a "vast majority". It's just that here on/. the average intelligence is above that of the general population (yea, I know), so we tend to look down on all the "others". Using background color to black-out sensitive material may seem stupid to us on/., but it is understandable that someone who doesn't know much about computers will think it is secure, esp. since the final PDF file is uneditable. The question is why someone with, obviously, minimal computer skills is given such an important task?
Fukushima is the Library of Congress of nuclear meltdowns. Just as 9/11 is the LoC of terror attacks. People love relative terms; nobody understands a 10^9 becquerel of radiation.
The senior technology consultant at web safety firm Sophos said: “It’s a staggeringly stupid thing to do. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of computing would know how to read it. I can only assume they gave it to a junior member of staff to deal with.
On the contrary, a junior member probably would have had some computer know-how. They probably gave it to some old-timer who knows nothing about computers (apologies to all/. {1,2,3} UIDs; I am talking about mere mortals, and I will be sure to get off your lawn) and he just thought that if he changes the background, the words will remain blacked-out forever.
Oh, and BTW, what's with the last sentence?
Two weeks ago two officers were shot – one fatally – on HMS Astute, when it was docked in Southampton. Sailor Ryan Donovan, 23, has been charged with murder.
I don't see how it is related to the article, except in regards of it talking about one of Britain's submarines. Talk about tangentiality.
3
On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Googles representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification. See Attachments 1-5 to this motion. We immediately contacted counsel for Google, shared this information and advised counsel that we would bring this to the Courts attention. According to the GSA, Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government. See Attachment 3. To be clear, in the view of GSA, the agency that certified Googles Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government. Attachment 3
I personally understand this as saying that the DOJ noticed that Google does not have FISMA certification (and indeed is close to calling them lairs). However, upon contacting Google, it found that GA Premier does have certification, while GA for Government does not. These are the facts. My personal interpretation? Google had FISMA certification for Premier and since GA for Government is a restricted version of Premier, thought/hoped it can be presented as having the same certification, while in reality it is pending. Whether this was an honest mistake, a bit of truth-bending or outright lying is left to the reader's discretion.
I know that in my army training there was a difference between a "regular" illegal order and a superior order (which is what is meant when we talk about the Nuremburg defense). A "regular" illegal order is something which, while illegal, does not cause irreversible harm to others. A superior order is meant in context of an order that can cause such harm; it carries a "moral red flag" (as we called it) with it. A soldier who is given a "regular" illegal order (e.g. steal a song) should inform his commander that it is illegal, but if his commander informs him that he should still do it, since it is imperative for the good of the mission (e.g. gather important counterintelligence), than the soldier is covered, and the full responsibility is on the commander. If the issue comes to court, the commander has to justify why the breaking of the law was imperative in order to complete the mission. A superior order, OTOH, is something that is clearly illegal from a moral standpoint, and a soldier has no choice but to refuse the order.
Now, I don't know what Albert Gonzalez's mission was, but I think his defense should stand up in court, given his story is true*.
* Assuming all I said regarding the army is relevant to the Secret Service.
OTOH, let's say she would have worked for, say, Nestle. What then? People would have complained that someone with no experience in the field is becoming the "EU Copyright Chief". So we have to choose someone with experience in the field. That person would probably have some opinion on the matter. So if they choose someone with the same opinions as the/. crowd, its fine; if he/she is against the/. ideas, he/she's bad. Now, I agree that you can always take someone who is an expert on copyright, but was not working for the industry, but: a) You could always "accuse" him of having no hands-on experience with copyright, only academic knowledge, and b) You could always dig some paper he wrote 10 years ago where he said something for/against a particular issue, a position someone would disapprove of.
Bottom-line: No matter who we choose, someone, somewhere will find something to complain about.
As a counter-example, look at Palm. It has a user base of "fanboys"/"cult-followers" (me included) that will buy whatever is produced by the Palm brand, but no matter how good a product Palm produced (and WebOS is, arguably, one of the best mobile OSes out there, if not the best), they couldn't leverage it to make people buy lots of WebOS devices. What's the difference? I don't know, but I am sure that cult-like followers aren't enough.
Re: April fools. I am now announcing that for the next 24h I will not believe any story not originating from Fox News. Since all the major (i.e. serious) papers print fake/prank stories today, I guess it's Fox's time to pull the major prank - print out a real, accurate, fact-filled news item, for once.
I have to wonder if Bunsen didn't patent the burner because of ideology or did he just screw up. There are countless examples of people not patenting stuff due to sheer naivete. Now we have 2 options: 1) Research the story*, get the details and see what his opinions about the subject were. OR 2) Forget facts, the guy is a open-source god!
I would admit that the Wikipedia article says that "On a point of principle, he never took out a patent.". However, there is no citation there, and if anyone can find a better source, I'll be glad to lay my sarcasm aside.
* Yes, I understand that I, also, did not research the issue before writing my post, but I am at my parents' house and they wish me to join them for breakfast. No time:)
I'm sorry, but you are using facts to win over an argument. I urge you to stop it immediately, or we will have to use drastic measures to stop you. Please consider using alternate tools such as blind faith, empty rhetorics or just plain old FUD.
And GM makes US$ 38 Billion in profit, so? As someone else said, although both Apple and Google are tech companies, they are mostly in different fields. Apple is mainly a hardware company and Google is a software one. They only place where they directly complete is in the mobile area, and there you cannot say that Google is playing catch up.
And also, real bird also depend on constant intervention of the software, i.e brain. Usually when birds lose their heads, they stop flying. Or so I've heard.
the software is at a pre-alpha quality state, meaning that some libraries need to be improved in order to boost performance and features
WTF? I thought pre-alpha meant "buggy as hell, try it if you really want to see something cool,but don't count on it working for more than a few minutes." Since when did it mean "some libraries need to be improved in order to boost performance and features"? I thought that stage is beta/pre-release.
Slashdot Mirror
...or with no toilets whatsoever!
Technically, it is obvious that the the "real" distribution of IQ scores in not Gaussian, if only because in a Gaussian distribution both tails should continue on to infinity, which is untrue for IQ scores (in both directions).
Actually, 50% of the people have below-average intelligence (assuming a Gaussian distribution), which is a far cry from a "vast majority". It's just that here on /. the average intelligence is above that of the general population (yea, I know), so we tend to look down on all the "others". /., but it is understandable that someone who doesn't know much about computers will think it is secure, esp. since the final PDF file is uneditable. The question is why someone with, obviously, minimal computer skills is given such an important task?
Using background color to black-out sensitive material may seem stupid to us on
Fukushima is the Library of Congress of nuclear meltdowns. Just as 9/11 is the LoC of terror attacks. People love relative terms; nobody understands a 10^9 becquerel of radiation.
From the article:
The senior technology consultant at web safety firm Sophos said: “It’s a staggeringly stupid thing to do. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of computing would know how to read it. I can only assume they gave it to a junior member of staff to deal with.
On the contrary, a junior member probably would have had some computer know-how. They probably gave it to some old-timer who knows nothing about computers (apologies to all /. {1,2,3} UIDs; I am talking about mere mortals, and I will be sure to get off your lawn) and he just thought that if he changes the background, the words will remain blacked-out forever.
Oh, and BTW, what's with the last sentence?
Two weeks ago two officers were shot – one fatally – on HMS Astute, when it was docked in Southampton. Sailor Ryan Donovan, 23, has been charged with murder.
I don't see how it is related to the article, except in regards of it talking about one of Britain's submarines. Talk about tangentiality.
Damn, I nearly choked on my breakfast. Thanks for the laugh. Where, oh where are my mod points?
The full footnote (Page 13, footnote 3) says:
3
On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Googles representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification. See Attachments 1-5 to this motion. We immediately contacted counsel for Google, shared this information and advised counsel that we would bring this to the Courts attention. According to the GSA, Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government. See Attachment 3. To be clear, in the view of GSA, the agency that certified Googles Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government. Attachment 3
I personally understand this as saying that the DOJ noticed that Google does not have FISMA certification (and indeed is close to calling them lairs). However, upon contacting Google, it found that GA Premier does have certification, while GA for Government does not.
These are the facts. My personal interpretation? Google had FISMA certification for Premier and since GA for Government is a restricted version of Premier, thought/hoped it can be presented as having the same certification, while in reality it is pending. Whether this was an honest mistake, a bit of truth-bending or outright lying is left to the reader's discretion.
I know that in my army training there was a difference between a "regular" illegal order and a superior order (which is what is meant when we talk about the Nuremburg defense).
A "regular" illegal order is something which, while illegal, does not cause irreversible harm to others. A superior order is meant in context of an order that can cause such harm; it carries a "moral red flag" (as we called it) with it.
A soldier who is given a "regular" illegal order (e.g. steal a song) should inform his commander that it is illegal, but if his commander informs him that he should still do it, since it is imperative for the good of the mission (e.g. gather important counterintelligence), than the soldier is covered, and the full responsibility is on the commander. If the issue comes to court, the commander has to justify why the breaking of the law was imperative in order to complete the mission. A superior order, OTOH, is something that is clearly illegal from a moral standpoint, and a soldier has no choice but to refuse the order.
Now, I don't know what Albert Gonzalez's mission was, but I think his defense should stand up in court, given his story is true*.
* Assuming all I said regarding the army is relevant to the Secret Service.
And lcampagn would still have beaten you by 4 minutes. Sorry.
OTOH, let's say she would have worked for, say, Nestle. What then? People would have complained that someone with no experience in the field is becoming the "EU Copyright Chief". So we have to choose someone with experience in the field. That person would probably have some opinion on the matter. So if they choose someone with the same opinions as the /. crowd, its fine; if he/she is against the /. ideas, he/she's bad.
Now, I agree that you can always take someone who is an expert on copyright, but was not working for the industry, but: a) You could always "accuse" him of having no hands-on experience with copyright, only academic knowledge, and b) You could always dig some paper he wrote 10 years ago where he said something for/against a particular issue, a position someone would disapprove of.
Bottom-line: No matter who we choose, someone, somewhere will find something to complain about.
As a counter-example, look at Palm. It has a user base of "fanboys"/"cult-followers" (me included) that will buy whatever is produced by the Palm brand, but no matter how good a product Palm produced (and WebOS is, arguably, one of the best mobile OSes out there, if not the best), they couldn't leverage it to make people buy lots of WebOS devices. What's the difference? I don't know, but I am sure that cult-like followers aren't enough.
You meant coincidentally, right? Not ironically.
Re: April fools.
I am now announcing that for the next 24h I will not believe any story not originating from Fox News. Since all the major (i.e. serious) papers print fake/prank stories today, I guess it's Fox's time to pull the major prank - print out a real, accurate, fact-filled news item, for once.
I have to wonder if Bunsen didn't patent the burner because of ideology or did he just screw up. There are countless examples of people not patenting stuff due to sheer naivete. Now we have 2 options:
1) Research the story*, get the details and see what his opinions about the subject were. OR
2) Forget facts, the guy is a open-source god!
I would admit that the Wikipedia article says that "On a point of principle, he never took out a patent.". However, there is no citation there, and if anyone can find a better source, I'll be glad to lay my sarcasm aside.
* Yes, I understand that I, also, did not research the issue before writing my post, but I am at my parents' house and they wish me to join them for breakfast. No time :)
Now, if they made the robot penguin-shaped, that would be something!
All sumo wrestlers eat rice, ergo rice makes you fat!
Sorry, gotta go. I got a science paper to write.
I'm sorry, but you are using facts to win over an argument. I urge you to stop it immediately, or we will have to use drastic measures to stop you.
Please consider using alternate tools such as blind faith, empty rhetorics or just plain old FUD.
Thank you for your cooperation.
And I have to agree with that sentiment.
And GM makes US$ 38 Billion in profit, so? As someone else said, although both Apple and Google are tech companies, they are mostly in different fields. Apple is mainly a hardware company and Google is a software one. They only place where they directly complete is in the mobile area, and there you cannot say that Google is playing catch up.
And also, real bird also depend on constant intervention of the software, i.e brain. Usually when birds lose their heads, they stop flying. Or so I've heard.
Sorry, meant to mod funny, and clicked overrated. Damn Parkinson!
And worse, suppose it wasn't an active shooter, but a passive one?
WTF is an "active shooter"? Anyone? Please???
so my yet-to-be-written (or thought-about) program can be called almost-released-to-testing? Be ready for the coolest app from me soon!
Nice and all, but:
the software is at a pre-alpha quality state, meaning that some libraries need to be improved in order to boost performance and features
WTF? I thought pre-alpha meant "buggy as hell, try it if you really want to see something cool,but don't count on it working for more than a few minutes." Since when did it mean "some libraries need to be improved in order to boost performance and features"? I thought that stage is beta/pre-release.
That's why they say the software is pre-Alpha. In the final product you won't have errors like this.