This study of al Qaeda terrorists in particular backs this point up. It may be true that many "fundamentalists" are not so bright, the ones who stay committed enough to become terrorists tend to be pretty bright (and I think this is true of other religious fundamentalisms as well, not just Islamists).
It requires clicking on a link in order to execute. MS has plainly addressed this vulnerability when it was a problem in IE, and their solution is the same for Mozilla.
VAX is dying. Look at the writing on the wall. Netcraft confirms. The number of posts to usenet about VAX is dropping. Yet another crippling bombshell. Red ink! River of blood!!
Plus, the experience you gained using the software means that if you were to get hired to work for a cartoon company, you would probably ask the company to buy that software and pay the full 3 grand, and perhaps even buy more licenses.
The NPOV approach works for most everything, especially subjective topics. For example, instead of a Wikipedia article stating that God does or does not exist, it would rather state that group A has this set of beliefs about God while group B differs in such-and-such details. The existence of the beliefs is factual and can generally be described objectively.
I agree -- but look at the edit war on the Reagan entry, for example. Facts are facts, but questions about which facts are relevant and in what way to focus on those facts are highly subjective.
Certainly, the revision process to get there can be lengthy and contentious. But no practical alternative to the NPOV approach has arisen in Wikipedia, meaning it wins by default.
I wasn't arguing against that approach -- I think it's a huge strength of the Wikipedia. I just don't think it's truly "neutral." But that's not a bad thing. I think the process of deliberation to achieve the NPOV in articles is more important than whether it actually achieves neutrality.
That's actually part of the fun of the Wikipedia. Not that the content should be questioned, but that it is, over and over again, by anyone willing to put the time in to participate. This may degrade the accuracy of the content in some ways, but it also gives the content an eternally organic quality that is perhaps more realistic than traditional encyclopedia. Real vandalism and overt factual error seems to be noticed and removed relatively quickly, and you can always look at the history of an entry if it has been recently vandalized. Questions about point of view tend to be more difficult, but what is amazing is the open and public attempt to negotiate and resolve those questions on the "discussion" page for each entry. Much of the discussion emphasizes the need for a "neutral point of view" -- a perspective most users agree is ultimately unattainable. And those discussions are archived. In a way it is superior to having a peer-reviewed final product that says what the encyclopedia referees decide the truth is -- instead you have an eternally in-process project at discovering the truth in an ongoing manner (and continuing to re-discover it). Of course you can't rely on an entry being accurate at any given time, but if you want to you can look at the history of an entry's revision and discussion to learn more, to read what might have been deleted, discover alternative points of view or pieces of information that were later removed, etc. It's a much more accurate depiction of "knowledge" than a normal (closed) encyclopedia, which pretends that the accumulation of knowledge is a completed project.
Explorapedia Nature: Earth Rotates in Wrong Direction
SUMMARY
When you run Explorapedia and use the Exploratron to look at the Earth spinning, the Earth rotates in the wrong direction.
STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem in the World of Nature and not Explorapedia, version 1.0. Simply spin the Earth in the opposite direction, and then the direction indicated in the Exploratron will be correct.
Interesting thing about those ads is that every last one of the people portrayed whining about piracy has already gotten paid long before the feature comes out and thus long before piracy can even be an issue. They don't wait to see how many people come to the theater before they pay the key grip or the costume designer. So the entire premise of the advertisement is bogus.
is there a similar restriction on bringing cell phones to military bases or "sensitive" areas? It seems a regular cell phone would be more dangerous in this light than the killer coke cans, since, as Coke says in the article, the cans only call Coke and that's it. A cell phone could be programmed to call anywhere and function as a monitoring device, and spies could find your location based on a cell phone even without GPS. Hell, someone could install one of these in a can of 7-Up to really throw them off. But all that presumes the intent to spy.... the article is about preventing the accidental security risk of a Coke contest winner bringing this device to a meeting and accidentally sending the meeting details and private location to Coke. Again, that's fine, but it doesn't say in the article whether they'll prevent normal cell phones from coming in, which would pose the same threat.
He might have licensed Lion's Gate distribution rights, but I think it is wrong to say that he doesn't own the copyright. He wrote it, produced it, directed it; it's his movie. Whether his contract with the distributor includes giving them the right to tell him what he can't do with his own movie is another issue -- but he does own the copyright.
If all 750G are really that important, you should at least back it up on additional hard drives. You can grab a terabyte external for just over $1k, use a sync program to keep your backup updated, and only use the external drive for backups. If you're not constantly writing to that drive it's less likely to fail.
If your data aren't worth a grand to you, then perhaps you should consider deleting some of it.
I think you're right. My pointless speculation is that next gen iPod minis will be remote controls for Airport express enabled networks. Not just AirTunes - though that alone would be kickass - but also all your tiger widgets, DVD player, TiVo, and who knows what other home appliances. I'm not sure I really need to be able to turn on the toaster by fingering my iPod, but it would be a damn cool gimmick nonetheless....
I can't imagine that this makes MS particularly happy, but there's certainly not much they can do about it.
Sure they can; they can compete and innovate.
But that's not the way they do things. More likely, they will start by creating their own compatible implementations of Rendezvous until those are incorporated into the OS, and then they'll start subtly breaking compatibility like they tried with kerberos. They'll probably even advertise the new incompatibilities as a great new addon feature to the protocol....
Slashdot Mirror
Where can I get one? Will you email it to me?
This study of al Qaeda terrorists in particular backs this point up. It may be true that many "fundamentalists" are not so bright, the ones who stay committed enough to become terrorists tend to be pretty bright (and I think this is true of other religious fundamentalisms as well, not just Islamists).
It requires clicking on a link in order to execute. MS has plainly addressed this vulnerability when it was a problem in IE, and their solution is the same for Mozilla.
ah, forget it.
Plus, the experience you gained using the software means that if you were to get hired to work for a cartoon company, you would probably ask the company to buy that software and pay the full 3 grand, and perhaps even buy more licenses.
into the Krypt.
No doubt. You should be using that computer to post to slashdot.
Don't run, unless you're being chased. :P
I agree -- but look at the edit war on the Reagan entry, for example. Facts are facts, but questions about which facts are relevant and in what way to focus on those facts are highly subjective.
Certainly, the revision process to get there can be lengthy and contentious. But no practical alternative to the NPOV approach has arisen in Wikipedia, meaning it wins by default.
I wasn't arguing against that approach -- I think it's a huge strength of the Wikipedia. I just don't think it's truly "neutral." But that's not a bad thing. I think the process of deliberation to achieve the NPOV in articles is more important than whether it actually achieves neutrality.
That's actually part of the fun of the Wikipedia. Not that the content should be questioned, but that it is, over and over again, by anyone willing to put the time in to participate. This may degrade the accuracy of the content in some ways, but it also gives the content an eternally organic quality that is perhaps more realistic than traditional encyclopedia. Real vandalism and overt factual error seems to be noticed and removed relatively quickly, and you can always look at the history of an entry if it has been recently vandalized. Questions about point of view tend to be more difficult, but what is amazing is the open and public attempt to negotiate and resolve those questions on the "discussion" page for each entry. Much of the discussion emphasizes the need for a "neutral point of view" -- a perspective most users agree is ultimately unattainable. And those discussions are archived. In a way it is superior to having a peer-reviewed final product that says what the encyclopedia referees decide the truth is -- instead you have an eternally in-process project at discovering the truth in an ongoing manner (and continuing to re-discover it). Of course you can't rely on an entry being accurate at any given time, but if you want to you can look at the history of an entry's revision and discussion to learn more, to read what might have been deleted, discover alternative points of view or pieces of information that were later removed, etc. It's a much more accurate depiction of "knowledge" than a normal (closed) encyclopedia, which pretends that the accumulation of knowledge is a completed project.
SUMMARY
When you run Explorapedia and use the Exploratron to look at the Earth spinning, the Earth rotates in the wrong direction.
STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem in the World of Nature and not Explorapedia, version 1.0. Simply spin the Earth in the opposite direction, and then the direction indicated in the Exploratron will be correct.
Interesting thing about those ads is that every last one of the people portrayed whining about piracy has already gotten paid long before the feature comes out and thus long before piracy can even be an issue. They don't wait to see how many people come to the theater before they pay the key grip or the costume designer. So the entire premise of the advertisement is bogus.
They make themselves fall asleep by putting Gigli on the DVD player before climbing into bed.
Of course, now that I posted, the mod has been revoked. But send me one anyway!
is there a similar restriction on bringing cell phones to military bases or "sensitive" areas? It seems a regular cell phone would be more dangerous in this light than the killer coke cans, since, as Coke says in the article, the cans only call Coke and that's it. A cell phone could be programmed to call anywhere and function as a monitoring device, and spies could find your location based on a cell phone even without GPS. Hell, someone could install one of these in a can of 7-Up to really throw them off. But all that presumes the intent to spy.... the article is about preventing the accidental security risk of a Coke contest winner bringing this device to a meeting and accidentally sending the meeting details and private location to Coke. Again, that's fine, but it doesn't say in the article whether they'll prevent normal cell phones from coming in, which would pose the same threat.
He might have licensed Lion's Gate distribution rights, but I think it is wrong to say that he doesn't own the copyright. He wrote it, produced it, directed it; it's his movie. Whether his contract with the distributor includes giving them the right to tell him what he can't do with his own movie is another issue -- but he does own the copyright.
54. Puzzle!!!
Finally, games for the Mac!!!
Well, if those guys are involved, you just know it's a hoax.
Yeah, it's getting so you can't even follow around gangsters in your car honking angrily at them without them chasing you back anymore.
it's 2 people; worth .1485 apiece.
Orkut asks for your occupation in their questionnaire. Lawyers are counted as .1485 of a person.
Or use it carelessly, and double your karma!
If your data aren't worth a grand to you, then perhaps you should consider deleting some of it.
I think you're right. My pointless speculation is that next gen iPod minis will be remote controls for Airport express enabled networks. Not just AirTunes - though that alone would be kickass - but also all your tiger widgets, DVD player, TiVo, and who knows what other home appliances. I'm not sure I really need to be able to turn on the toaster by fingering my iPod, but it would be a damn cool gimmick nonetheless....
Sure they can; they can compete and innovate.
But that's not the way they do things. More likely, they will start by creating their own compatible implementations of Rendezvous until those are incorporated into the OS, and then they'll start subtly breaking compatibility like they tried with kerberos. They'll probably even advertise the new incompatibilities as a great new addon feature to the protocol....