While the ad-hominen attack against the parent meta-review's author was on target, and the increase in the level of abstraction was intriguing (though not entirely original), this meta-review was too short to be informative.
Not so. There is no such thing as dual citizenship in the US unless you are a minor. To become a US citizen (or upon reaching your majority), you must renounce any other citizenship. So either the scientists in question are US citizens and ONLY US citizens, or they are liars for saying they gave up other citzenship when they didn't. If the facts of the article are correct, then you are impugning the integrity of these men - not something to do lightly.
BTW, the citizenship of Nobel prize winners matters quite a bit. It is a propaganda coup for the government of the winner.
You're kidding, right? Or maybe you don't deal with Word and IE as much as I do...anyway, what you describe is, like many of Office's features, really nifty until it breaks. Once it breaks it's nearly impossible to fix. Recently I've had to deal with numerous systems suddenly unable to open links to Word documents inside of Internet Explorer. What changed? Don't know; I'm not the only guy who works here (there's about 300 others). What's the fix? Wipe the hard drive and reload? Seems rather drastic. Reload Word? It's part of Office, and reloading it has no effect. Reload IE? Can't. It's part of the OS.
I've got no real gripe against adding features to the OS, but if you do so, it must be impossible for users to modify those features.
Nuff said.
Re:Best example of how to speak about Security
on
Beyond Fear
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You provide the perfect example of a flawed extension of an analogy. Main battle tanks are designed to protect the occupants against enemy fire, not ramming. If a vehicle with the same mass as an Abrams were designed to protect against collision with more massive objects, it would be safer even if everyone drove them.
Security works like that. You take something that works in one environment (Abrams on the battlefield getting shot at) and put it in a different environment, one it wasn't designed for (on the highway inevitably getting rammed) and it will fail in unexpected and unpredicatable ways (who knew that periscope, so essential for driving while being shot at, could detach and fatally injure the driver when the tank hits a brick wall doing 70 mph?)
Perhaps you do not recall the software package whose vendors were sued for practicing law without a license because the software was a collection of boilerplate contracts and legal forms. The AMA will ensure that using these databases constitutes practicing medicine and will go after non-MDs who use them commercially.
I suggest we amend the 1st amendment: Access to information shall not be abridged.
You don't need pi, a transcendental number that requires calculus-level mathematics to construct. All you need are the integers. Convert LOTR to an integer, then count until you reach it. Presto! You've rediscovered LOTR! Simple enough for a child to understand.
this is discrimination Absolutely. And when the Department of Defense picks Boeing over Honeywell, that's discrimination. And when the electorate chooses Reagan over Carter, that's discrimination. And when Congress offers tax credits to parents, that's discrimination.
And when you decide you want Mexican instead of Italian for lunch, that's discrimination. When you choose Gatorade over Budweiser, that's discrimination. When you decide to use Linux instead of Windows, that's discrimination.
To discriminate means to choose.
If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly.
When you say, every year, there is a 6% chance of equipment failure resulting in loss of life, and then, 17 years later, it actually does, did you, in fact, predict it?
Managers want certainty. Engineers want reality. Reality does not provide certainty, so the engineers won't provide certainty. The only way to obtain the illusion of certainty (which is what ALL human beings want, IMHO) is for the managers to denigrate and ignore the engineers.
Mod the parent UP! This is the most interesting comment I've read in the entire discussion, and it's completely non-obvious (until you read it, of course, then it's a head-slapper).
This book seemed amazingly futuristic when I first read it. The notion of online communities divided up into interest groups seemed like a really cool idea. Several years later I discovered usenet...
MS has a very consistant standard for UI Really? When I right-click on something, nothing happens (Pre-1995 Windows). Single-clicking opens something (Post-IE4 Windows). Keyboard shortcuts vary with the application and are subject to the whim of the application developer; CTRL-N is a new email in Outlook, but a new database in Lotus Notes.
MS's devkits include standard icon sets Icons are also subject to the whims of the developer. In the 90s, I could always tell when a new version of Visual Basic had been released, because Windows shareware would have new and inexplicable icons.
Microsoft's user interface is not consistent over time. It is not consistent between applications, except those from the same vendor (and even then it's questionable). What seems like consistency and logic in the UI is really a huge installed base and a decade of acclimatization.
This is not intended as a bash on MS; the same would be true if Macs were 90% prevalent, or if Gnome were. It is, however, intended as a bash on those who think the MS UI is the Correct Way (tm) to do things, rather than the conventional way to do things.
...that the next worm explosion heals the recent Microsoft Security Bulletin. That will be a welcome change, coming on the heels of the last big Microsoft worm.
Empires are conquered from without. Every empire that has ever fallen has done so because of an external invader. Corporatism HAS no external invaders. Chew on that.
still a violation of the era's martial codes Yet Germany declared war on no country except the United States. The only country they declared war on was the only country they couldn't invade. EVERY attack made by the Germans was a war crime; EVERY attack was made without provocation and without declaration of war. Apart from the initial communication problem (where the attack took place shortly before the formal declaration of war), the Japanese behaved honorably, if stupidly.
Don't forget about Star Wars...the Rebellion that everyone loves was merely a tool of the emperor. By creating a crisis, he precipitated his own powerbase.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know when the next war will be, but it will be fought against corporations.
While the ad-hominen attack against the parent meta-review's author was on target, and the increase in the level of abstraction was intriguing (though not entirely original), this meta-review was too short to be informative.
Ummm....why would you have SOURCE CODE on the machines you're using to test BINARIES?
Not so. There is no such thing as dual citizenship in the US unless you are a minor. To become a US citizen (or upon reaching your majority), you must renounce any other citizenship. So either the scientists in question are US citizens and ONLY US citizens, or they are liars for saying they gave up other citzenship when they didn't. If the facts of the article are correct, then you are impugning the integrity of these men - not something to do lightly.
BTW, the citizenship of Nobel prize winners matters quite a bit. It is a propaganda coup for the government of the winner.
That's a 300-person IT department. The company employs 3000 at my site and I don't know how many world-wide.
Most insightful comment in the thread.
See, now you've made it worse. Not only has he broken the DMCA, he's provided the information to FOREIGN POWERS!
You're kidding, right? Or maybe you don't deal with Word and IE as much as I do...anyway, what you describe is, like many of Office's features, really nifty until it breaks. Once it breaks it's nearly impossible to fix. Recently I've had to deal with numerous systems suddenly unable to open links to Word documents inside of Internet Explorer. What changed? Don't know; I'm not the only guy who works here (there's about 300 others). What's the fix? Wipe the hard drive and reload? Seems rather drastic. Reload Word? It's part of Office, and reloading it has no effect. Reload IE? Can't. It's part of the OS.
I've got no real gripe against adding features to the OS, but if you do so, it must be impossible for users to modify those features.
Nuff said.
You provide the perfect example of a flawed extension of an analogy. Main battle tanks are designed to protect the occupants against enemy fire, not ramming. If a vehicle with the same mass as an Abrams were designed to protect against collision with more massive objects, it would be safer even if everyone drove them.
Security works like that. You take something that works in one environment (Abrams on the battlefield getting shot at) and put it in a different environment, one it wasn't designed for (on the highway inevitably getting rammed) and it will fail in unexpected and unpredicatable ways (who knew that periscope, so essential for driving while being shot at, could detach and fatally injure the driver when the tank hits a brick wall doing 70 mph?)
Perhaps you do not recall the software package whose vendors were sued for practicing law without a license because the software was a collection of boilerplate contracts and legal forms. The AMA will ensure that using these databases constitutes practicing medicine and will go after non-MDs who use them commercially.
I suggest we amend the 1st amendment:
Access to information shall not be abridged.
You don't need pi, a transcendental number that requires calculus-level mathematics to construct. All you need are the integers. Convert LOTR to an integer, then count until you reach it. Presto! You've rediscovered LOTR! Simple enough for a child to understand.
this is discrimination
Absolutely. And when the Department of Defense picks Boeing over Honeywell, that's discrimination. And when the electorate chooses Reagan over Carter, that's discrimination. And when Congress offers tax credits to parents, that's discrimination.
And when you decide you want Mexican instead of Italian for lunch, that's discrimination. When you choose Gatorade over Budweiser, that's discrimination. When you decide to use Linux instead of Windows, that's discrimination.
To discriminate means to choose.
If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly.
Dude, you forgot about the hot grits!
Alas, I must yield to prior art while protesting that, yes, it was that obvious.
Nevertheless, I was insufferable today.
When you say, every year, there is a 6% chance of equipment failure resulting in loss of life, and then, 17 years later, it actually does, did you, in fact, predict it?
Managers want certainty. Engineers want reality. Reality does not provide certainty, so the engineers won't provide certainty. The only way to obtain the illusion of certainty (which is what ALL human beings want, IMHO) is for the managers to denigrate and ignore the engineers.
Mod the parent UP! This is the most interesting comment I've read in the entire discussion, and it's completely non-obvious (until you read it, of course, then it's a head-slapper).
Exactly what I said here.
Seriously. Look here.
I will be insufferable for the rest of the day.
This book seemed amazingly futuristic when I first read it. The notion of online communities divided up into interest groups seemed like a really cool idea. Several years later I discovered usenet...
MS has a very consistant standard for UI
Really? When I right-click on something, nothing happens (Pre-1995 Windows). Single-clicking opens something (Post-IE4 Windows). Keyboard shortcuts vary with the application and are subject to the whim of the application developer; CTRL-N is a new email in Outlook, but a new database in Lotus Notes.
MS's devkits include standard icon sets
Icons are also subject to the whims of the developer. In the 90s, I could always tell when a new version of Visual Basic had been released, because Windows shareware would have new and inexplicable icons.
Microsoft's user interface is not consistent over time. It is not consistent between applications, except those from the same vendor (and even then it's questionable). What seems like consistency and logic in the UI is really a huge installed base and a decade of acclimatization.
This is not intended as a bash on MS; the same would be true if Macs were 90% prevalent, or if Gnome were. It is, however, intended as a bash on those who think the MS UI is the Correct Way (tm) to do things, rather than the conventional way to do things.
...that the next worm explosion heals the recent Microsoft Security Bulletin. That will be a welcome change, coming on the heels of the last big Microsoft worm.
Empires are conquered from without. Every empire that has ever fallen has done so because of an external invader. Corporatism HAS no external invaders. Chew on that.
still a violation of the era's martial codes
Yet Germany declared war on no country except the United States. The only country they declared war on was the only country they couldn't invade. EVERY attack made by the Germans was a war crime; EVERY attack was made without provocation and without declaration of war.
Apart from the initial communication problem (where the attack took place shortly before the formal declaration of war), the Japanese behaved honorably, if stupidly.
Don't forget about Star Wars...the Rebellion that everyone loves was merely a tool of the emperor. By creating a crisis, he precipitated his own powerbase.
I can think of no reason for you to defend child pornography unless you are a consumer of it.
I'm turning you in.
No, I'm not kidding.