Windows Defender is the political candidate of the anti-virus world. It's the worst, except for all the alternatives.
Although from your comment I think you're implying that there exists an Anti-virus solution which doesn't suck? Normally this kind of thing would be reserved for an April 1st kind of post, but we're actually only a couple of days from being the furthest possible time from April first. Are you aiming for the April Fools equivalent of Christmas in July?
The encumberment of knowledge only becomes an issue when combined with assumptions. Not knowing how something works is okay, knowing how something works is great, *thinking you know* how something works can have really dire consequences.
It leads to classic overlooking. We're at work in the process of commissioning a large compressor at the moment. I have nothing to do with the project I just happen to stick my head in to hear an arguement about the control system saying that the substation is "not ready". They've been pouring over code for hours trying to see what's wrong.
Me: Are the cables to the substation connected? Them: Of course. We connected them and tested them last week. It was all working last week. There's no point looking there. You're not helping, please go away and leave us be.
An hour later, an appology. Someone had disconnected the cables. A classic case where knowledge (cables were connected) turned into assumption (that cables are still connected).
The thing about Poettering is apparently that he has not acquired any experience in all these years and still only qualifies as an amateur.
On account of the fact that he is both paid for his work and continues to do it your insult remains self-defeating. Common pick something more appropriate.
Great thing about words like "could" they imply possibilities. It is possible, just not proven here. If you want to look at the actual conclusions of the study then read the sentences as they are written in english, and look for those that deal with the conclusions from the data rather than possible explainations.
You can start with the sentence before: "A higher frequency of organic food consumption was associated with a reduced risk of cancer" That is the only part that deals in absolutes.
Or you could read the study itself without resorting to soundbytes for a more detailed explaination of the assumptions they made before writing that text. Like this one: "One possible explanation for the negative association observed herein between organic food frequency and cancer risk is that the prohibition of synthetic pesticides in organic farming leads to a lower frequency or an absence of contamination in organic foods compared with conventional foods46,47 and results in significant reductions in pesticide levels in urine.48 In 2015, based on experimental and population studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer49 recognized the carcinogenicity of certain pesticides (malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic for humans [group 2A], and tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as possibly carcinogenic for humans [group 2B]). While there is a growing body of evidence supporting a role of occupational exposure to pesticides for various health outcomes and specifically for cancer development,4,50,51 there have been few large-scale studies conducted in the general population, for whom diet is the main source of pesticide exposure.52"
There along with 8 additional studies for you to read which they referenced as part of their "could" statement.
Sorry but horseshit. The wording of the conclusion is the only one reachable given the boundaries of the experiment.
"reduction" is a loaded word
Words aren't "loaded" words have written meanings. If you think the word is loaded then it's likely you are applying your own biases to it while reading. I suggest you don't do that while reading scientific publications.
It also talks about risk, which is incorrect. The study studied incidence of cancer which is not by itself the same thing.
Risk is a frequency and a consequence. The study studied the incidence over a given time period which was a reduction in frequency which by extension is a reduction in risk.
in a conclusion is also a red-flag judgemental adjective that has no place in a real paper's conclusion.
Fortunately it wasn't in the paper's conclusion. It was in the list of the main claim. If you want to read the conclusion they present some numbers for you including your confidence interval. But you're more interested in sound bytes so you can make your "junk science" claim rather than actually looking at people's work, so you get simpler words you can complain about.
We all know that whether the car decides to hit a jaywalker or not will depend on several variables:
No. It will depend on one variable: Was the car able to stop in time before hitting the jaywalker without losing control or swerving. That is the only road rule in play and a great liability defence.
Why? There are always two parties involved in an accident, and one of them is typically not at fault. Why should taking the sane and safe action of lettting a computer drive cause them to be punished if they aren't at fault?
I have a better answer: It's the way the road rules work. Guidance for emergencies are clear. In an emergency attempt to stop as fast as possible. Don't swerve, don't leave the lane (specfically because attempting a steering maneuver while in an emergency condition is likely to result in loss of control).
Humans think they know better. The reality is that emergencies happen, and said humans wrap themselves around a powerpole, or cause a multi-lane pile-up.
They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds.
No, they'll respond in the only way they should, the way the rules are written: Perform an emergency stop without losing control or swerving out of the lane.
My logical but completely wrong mind jumped to the conclusion that driving the car forward removed gas from the tank, so driving in reverse should fill it.
How wrong can you be? If you were driving a nice electric car and instead changed some of the directions: Driving a car up a hill removed charge from the battery, so driving the car down the hill should replace it.
Your brain came to a great conclusion given the limited information it possessed. I'm always fascinated by the things children say. Reminds me of a joke: Q: How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator? A: Open the fridge door and put the elephant in.
They had cars, drove them, but none of them knew anything about the mechanism under the hood.
And yet they all came to class. That I think is kind of the GP's point, you don't NEED to know HOW something works in order to use it. You just need to know how to use it.
The specifics of the internal combustion engine are completely irrelevant beyond the pedals, steering wheel, and limits set and expressed to the driver via the instrument cluster. I don't need to know how or what is happening in the engine beyond pulling over when the check engine, oil, or temperature lights come on, and even that could be simplified.
"I don't think the man knows what to do about their flat tyre - the girl has just said to him that he'll have to ask someone."
The only thing he needs to do is not drive on it and have a working mobile phone. People's dependence on knowledge is entirely moderated by their personal situation. If you don't have a mobile phone, or don't have roadside assistance then being able to change that tire becomes part of the operation of the car. Otherwise it is not.
Actually to push that to the extreme: When I travel for work I am *not allowed* to change the tire. Policy is to not attempt to do any work yourself due to increased risks of injury and to call a designated 3rd party for assistance.
But you proved the person's point quite well: He had a flat, didn't have a clue, and none the less got to where he needed to go. In this case it was due to the kindness of strangers but ultimately the point remains, changing a tire was not required knowledge for driving the car.
This brought to you by the same brain that thought it would be a good idea to build a mechanised Jurassic Park called Palmersaurus. It was a curious oddity, but just so you know the park was so bad even the mechanised dinosaurs committed suicide: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
Only Clive Palmer could build a resort with mechatronic dinosaurs so horrible that the dinosaurs themselves commit suicide:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/fire-guts-jeff-the-dinosaur-at-clive-palmer-resort/6276188
Why? Is there some specific IBM behavior you object to? If so, please explain it here.
This is IBM we're talking about. Why would you need to be specific? The result would be environmentally unfriendly. The amount of power consumed by my computer during the time I spend listing specific objectional behaviour from IBM could solve global warming. That and even if I didn't have a job I would need to sleep at some point too.
There's not enough hours in the day to complain about IBM.
In what way? Show me your evidence that systemd has in any way affected RHEL's marketshare that didn't drive it to a competitor that also uses systemd.
The way I see it, the only people who actually think he fucked up RHEL are ACs and about 10 vocal slashdot users.
make it look like people are about to rip their skins off and expose their lizard forms near the edges of the screen. Just not worth it in the current form.
That depens on what you're into.:-)
I see a bigger problem with it though. It's a boring formula. There's very little there which isn't: 1. Girl have one sided conversation with the camera. 2. Guy sitting POV getting blowjob + sex. 3. Guy lying POV getting blowjob + sex. 4. Splooge.
There are technical limitations with regards to not moving the camera, but just because it's 3D and you can look around, doesn't mean you should automatically be restricted to a series of 100% identical POV scenarios.
Or at least that's how a friend described it to me.
Do you have multiple personalities or are you speaking on behalf of your family members because you only have one Slashdot account?
A shitton of people (myself included) don't give a cow's excrement about touch. It doesn't even rank on things I think VR ever needs. Better graphics, reduced latency and the ability to compensate for different people's heads would be far higher on the list.
why not save 2+ months of licensing by waiting for the new school yea run February?
Why slowly adopt and roll things out over the quiet period for testing when you can just throw everything at your users in one go and hope for the best? Nothing good comes from your suggestion. The 2 month additional license cost here is money well spent. February is chaotic enough without new hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows Defender is the political candidate of the anti-virus world. It's the worst, except for all the alternatives.
Although from your comment I think you're implying that there exists an Anti-virus solution which doesn't suck? Normally this kind of thing would be reserved for an April 1st kind of post, but we're actually only a couple of days from being the furthest possible time from April first. Are you aiming for the April Fools equivalent of Christmas in July?
If the "modest proposal" is accepted, would you still call lettting[sic] a computer drive a sane and safe action ?
Compared to a human? Yes.
without giving them an option to disembark ?
Now here's an idea: High speed ejector seats followed by code that causes the car to explode on the spot. Everyone lives.
The encumberment of knowledge only becomes an issue when combined with assumptions. Not knowing how something works is okay, knowing how something works is great, *thinking you know* how something works can have really dire consequences.
It leads to classic overlooking. We're at work in the process of commissioning a large compressor at the moment. I have nothing to do with the project I just happen to stick my head in to hear an arguement about the control system saying that the substation is "not ready". They've been pouring over code for hours trying to see what's wrong.
Me: Are the cables to the substation connected?
Them: Of course. We connected them and tested them last week. It was all working last week. There's no point looking there. You're not helping, please go away and leave us be.
An hour later, an appology. Someone had disconnected the cables. A classic case where knowledge (cables were connected) turned into assumption (that cables are still connected).
The thing about Poettering is apparently that he has not acquired any experience in all these years and still only qualifies as an amateur.
On account of the fact that he is both paid for his work and continues to do it your insult remains self-defeating. Common pick something more appropriate.
Indeed it could be.
Great thing about words like "could" they imply possibilities. It is possible, just not proven here. If you want to look at the actual conclusions of the study then read the sentences as they are written in english, and look for those that deal with the conclusions from the data rather than possible explainations.
You can start with the sentence before: "A higher frequency of organic food consumption was associated with a reduced risk of cancer" That is the only part that deals in absolutes.
Or you could read the study itself without resorting to soundbytes for a more detailed explaination of the assumptions they made before writing that text. Like this one:
"One possible explanation for the negative association observed herein between organic food frequency and cancer risk is that the prohibition of synthetic pesticides in organic farming leads to a lower frequency or an absence of contamination in organic foods compared with conventional foods46,47 and results in significant reductions in pesticide levels in urine.48 In 2015, based on experimental and population studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer49 recognized the carcinogenicity of certain pesticides (malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic for humans [group 2A], and tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as possibly carcinogenic for humans [group 2B]). While there is a growing body of evidence supporting a role of occupational exposure to pesticides for various health outcomes and specifically for cancer development,4,50,51 there have been few large-scale studies conducted in the general population, for whom diet is the main source of pesticide exposure.52"
There along with 8 additional studies for you to read which they referenced as part of their "could" statement.
Junk science. The wording of the conclusion
Sorry but horseshit. The wording of the conclusion is the only one reachable given the boundaries of the experiment.
"reduction" is a loaded word
Words aren't "loaded" words have written meanings. If you think the word is loaded then it's likely you are applying your own biases to it while reading. I suggest you don't do that while reading scientific publications.
It also talks about risk, which is incorrect. The study studied incidence of cancer which is not by itself the same thing.
Risk is a frequency and a consequence. The study studied the incidence over a given time period which was a reduction in frequency which by extension is a reduction in risk.
in a conclusion is also a red-flag judgemental adjective that has no place in a real paper's conclusion.
Fortunately it wasn't in the paper's conclusion. It was in the list of the main claim. If you want to read the conclusion they present some numbers for you including your confidence interval. But you're more interested in sound bytes so you can make your "junk science" claim rather than actually looking at people's work, so you get simpler words you can complain about.
We all know that whether the car decides to hit a jaywalker or not will depend on several variables:
No. It will depend on one variable: Was the car able to stop in time before hitting the jaywalker without losing control or swerving. That is the only road rule in play and a great liability defence.
Why? There are always two parties involved in an accident, and one of them is typically not at fault. Why should taking the sane and safe action of lettting a computer drive cause them to be punished if they aren't at fault?
then you deserve to get hit by that car, the end.
Yes. I suppose this is the end of anyone thinking you're a human being worth anything.
I hope a human with empathy and compassion is present when you make a mistake.
Oh and fuck you.
Because that is not how computers work.
I have a better answer: It's the way the road rules work. Guidance for emergencies are clear. In an emergency attempt to stop as fast as possible. Don't swerve, don't leave the lane (specfically because attempting a steering maneuver while in an emergency condition is likely to result in loss of control).
Humans think they know better. The reality is that emergencies happen, and said humans wrap themselves around a powerpole, or cause a multi-lane pile-up.
They'll compute the odds of an accident for all options and select the one with the lowest odds.
No, they'll respond in the only way they should, the way the rules are written: Perform an emergency stop without losing control or swerving out of the lane.
My logical but completely wrong mind jumped to the conclusion that driving the car forward removed gas from the tank, so driving in reverse should fill it.
How wrong can you be? If you were driving a nice electric car and instead changed some of the directions:
Driving a car up a hill removed charge from the battery, so driving the car down the hill should replace it.
Your brain came to a great conclusion given the limited information it possessed. I'm always fascinated by the things children say. Reminds me of a joke:
Q: How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?
A: Open the fridge door and put the elephant in.
If you're playin minecraft on it then you're missing the point the GP was making.
They had cars, drove them, but none of them knew anything about the mechanism under the hood.
And yet they all came to class. That I think is kind of the GP's point, you don't NEED to know HOW something works in order to use it. You just need to know how to use it.
The specifics of the internal combustion engine are completely irrelevant beyond the pedals, steering wheel, and limits set and expressed to the driver via the instrument cluster. I don't need to know how or what is happening in the engine beyond pulling over when the check engine, oil, or temperature lights come on, and even that could be simplified.
"I don't think the man knows what to do about their flat tyre - the girl has just said to him that he'll have to ask someone."
The only thing he needs to do is not drive on it and have a working mobile phone. People's dependence on knowledge is entirely moderated by their personal situation. If you don't have a mobile phone, or don't have roadside assistance then being able to change that tire becomes part of the operation of the car. Otherwise it is not.
Actually to push that to the extreme: When I travel for work I am *not allowed* to change the tire. Policy is to not attempt to do any work yourself due to increased risks of injury and to call a designated 3rd party for assistance.
But you proved the person's point quite well: He had a flat, didn't have a clue, and none the less got to where he needed to go. In this case it was due to the kindness of strangers but ultimately the point remains, changing a tire was not required knowledge for driving the car.
If Gab is free to conduct their service how they wish without government intervention, so is PayPal and Stripe
What has providing a platform for speech got to do with providing a payment processor? One of them has specific laws and regulations governing them.
This brought to you by the same brain that thought it would be a good idea to build a mechanised Jurassic Park called Palmersaurus. It was a curious oddity, but just so you know the park was so bad even the mechanised dinosaurs committed suicide: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20...
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
No far worse. This is real. Even worse than this being real is that the person who came up with the idea: Clive Palmer is real too.
Again with link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/20...
Only Clive Palmer could build a resort with mechatronic dinosaurs so horrible that the dinosaurs themselves commit suicide:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/fire-guts-jeff-the-dinosaur-at-clive-palmer-resort/6276188
Why? Is there some specific IBM behavior you object to? If so, please explain it here.
This is IBM we're talking about. Why would you need to be specific? The result would be environmentally unfriendly. The amount of power consumed by my computer during the time I spend listing specific objectional behaviour from IBM could solve global warming. That and even if I didn't have a job I would need to sleep at some point too.
There's not enough hours in the day to complain about IBM.
Lennart already fucked up RHEL
In what way? Show me your evidence that systemd has in any way affected RHEL's marketshare that didn't drive it to a competitor that also uses systemd.
The way I see it, the only people who actually think he fucked up RHEL are ACs and about 10 vocal slashdot users.
make it look like people are about to rip their skins off and expose their lizard forms near the edges of the screen. Just not worth it in the current form.
That depens on what you're into. :-)
I see a bigger problem with it though. It's a boring formula. There's very little there which isn't:
1. Girl have one sided conversation with the camera.
2. Guy sitting POV getting blowjob + sex.
3. Guy lying POV getting blowjob + sex.
4. Splooge.
There are technical limitations with regards to not moving the camera, but just because it's 3D and you can look around, doesn't mean you should automatically be restricted to a series of 100% identical POV scenarios.
Or at least that's how a friend described it to me.
Here is what we want with VR/ Full sensory VR
Do you have multiple personalities or are you speaking on behalf of your family members because you only have one Slashdot account?
A shitton of people (myself included) don't give a cow's excrement about touch. It doesn't even rank on things I think VR ever needs. Better graphics, reduced latency and the ability to compensate for different people's heads would be far higher on the list.
why not save 2+ months of licensing by waiting for the new school yea run February?
Why slowly adopt and roll things out over the quiet period for testing when you can just throw everything at your users in one go and hope for the best? Nothing good comes from your suggestion. The 2 month additional license cost here is money well spent. February is chaotic enough without new hardware.
Presumably they care, also care to expand on why they are being screwed?