The problem is that one of the points of the body cameras is for citizens to be able to do random inspections to make sure that cops aren't abusing power. As much as we don't want the information abused, we do want citizens able to request and view arbitrary footage. The two desires are at odds with each other, and balancing them will be tricky.
Multiple researchers have tried doing this. The problem is doing it after the fact... who at age 30 can tell you why they *didn't* do something at age 8 or 16? The answers come back mushy, like it just didn't seem interesting or "not my kind of thing". That doesn't get to the question of what about it turned them off. And something must be turning them off (or turning them on to something else) because there are also studies showing girls who do get exposure younger are just as adept at programming as the boys, and continue to be so as they grow up, provided they stick with the field.
a) The TFA has several examples of plaintext data being sent. b) The encrypted packets cannot be analyzed for content, but the time of sending correlates with user activity.
I think the author has presented enough data to show this isn't FUD.
Yes... on laptops. This is something I've observed watching my own customers work with software -- on desktop machines, few things are truly maximized. On laptops, nearly everything is maximized. I think it has to do with screen real estate. The more you have, the less likely you are to want to fill the whole thing with one window.
Making the green button work to maximize is probably the right choice for the smaller devices. If they want a consistent UI across all devices, that's the right call given the prevalence of smaller devices.
It makes the behavior match MS Windows... I doubt Apple considered this a plus, but I work back and forth across both OSes regularly, and that's one of the few kinks that has caught me.
> At least Apple should put a toggle in system preferences so the user can revert the behavior.
Yes, that would be nice. I agree. But that is explicitly what Apple does not do and what they generally consider to be A Bad Idea. Such toggles lead to low-use code paths in the OS, which means they don't get nearly the same amount of testing and they increase the complexity of the underlying software, increasing the risk of bugs in both settings. I've encountered that philosophy in many companies with large scale software -- better to leave out the option and give people something that you know works rather than put in the option and increase your bug risk.
Question: Does anyone know of actual studies done to demonstrate validity of such philosophy? I've heard it described many times, but I don't think I've ever heard any research into it.
One of the ethical questions (and there are multiple here) is with discarding embryos after they are created. Do we have the technology to filter the sperm and eggs before creating the embryos to achieve the same effect? Or do you need the whole genome together to make a good evaluation? Filtering ahead of time would alleviate some of the abortion concerns with such technologies.
I take it this statistician has not read Asimov. By announcing the prediction, you void the prediction. He should have put his program in a certified sarcophagus and then revealed after the show that he had correctly predicted it. Otherwise George R. R. Martin will just use his results as a reason to adjust the script!
The bug is 25 years old at least. Pre-dates the existence of GIT and most other source code control software in use today. I have no idea what SCC would've been used 25 years ago. To give perspective -- this bug predates the WWW by at least a year.
There's likely a lot of data behind the under reporting statistic. I'm not familiar enough with this particular data set, but for other diseases, after the fact, we can find out how many people died and we can survey to find out how many became sick. Once the scare is gone, this data is much easier to collect. The result is that we can back trace to figure out the under reporting originally. Then you can use that figure to make a better estimate the next time.
As I say, I don't know enough about this data set to comment on probable validity of the 2.5 factor, but I'm willing to bet that there is data leading them to use that number and not some other.
You have essentially the same attitude as the banker on ten million a year who doesn't understand why there are people who have to catch the bus to work.
I disagree. My company is an engineering firm that provides tools to other engineering firms. As such, when I visit customers, I am frequently going into engineering workplaces. The number who require suits/formal attire is vanishingly small. So I think that squizzar is correct in his (her?) attitude: no one in a tech role really has to put up with a formal dress code if they do not want to. There are plenty of jobs for engineers, at least in the USA, even in this economy, and an employer who puts a dress code up as a barrier to employment is more likely to find themselves without top-tier talent than the top-tier talent is likely to find themselves without a job. So it really is the employer who needs to change their attitude.
Still wouldn't help (see my previous comment on why the HTML tag doesn't work). Embedded tags can be modified, which means they cannot be trusted to assert the rights usage of an image. I could tag one of your images as CC... that doesn't make it actually CC. You cannot know that an image is CC or any other license unless you talk to the original license holder. What you have to have is a central registry, curated by humans, where someone can upload an image and certify "this is my image" and that database is in trusted hands. It has to be a place where risk mitigation is done by identifying the real world names of the artist and registering their particular images. That's what makes the various image service groups so valuable... without them, the legwork involved in proving origin is huge.
Doesn't work. Just because I tag your image as CC doesn't make it CC. You have to know the origin of an image. That means a ubiquitous search of the Internet to find the original posted source -- possibly through several contortions. That's the problem with using anything other than a curated database of images. It takes some significant leg work to prove who has the right to release a particular Internet image for licensing.
The only thing that a tag does is simplify the search engine front end for who you might possibly contact to see if they can prove they're the copyright owner.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ha... China embedding chips in electric kettles and using the other appliances in the home to pry into home networks on the off chance that you're someone worth hacking.
Beyond that, hacking someone's fridge is a great way to be irksome to someone you don't like -- I've come home to a failed fridge after a week-long trip and it is definitely not pretty.
This app is NOT paying for information. This is paying someone to hold the spot for you until you show up -- allowing those with higher financial status to take advantage of the common resource of parking spaces instead of leaving them open to someone who happens to be in the area looking for a parking space. "I won't leave until I get enough money to make it worth my while to leave" is holding the public resource hostage.
It isn't a problem to link. The problem is *how* you link. If you provide a link on your page that a user can click on to go to Twitter/Facebook/G+ and the URL embeds a pre-written "I'd like to tell you about XYZ..." then it is going to go through just fine. If the page pulls an image from Twitter/Facebook/G+ servers in order to draw that link, thus creating a tracking event for those services, then it is going to be flagged by the tool, and the image might at some point be scrubbed if the tool decides that it is being used to track across websites.
AC: It's not an invocation of "quantum god-head" to state the fact that quantum behaviors are observed in our sensory and perception organs and that we probably need a better conception of quantum mechanics to match some of the computation aspects of human beings.
Dinkypoo: We don't know if there is anything special about the brain and its particular computation structure, but we're making progress on a lot of fronts very rapidly. I think the summary of the long post is that *thus far* nothing about the brain chemistry has stood out as fundamentally unsupportable by silicon and other forms of computation. And even if we have to maintain quantum states to achieve sentient machines, that doesn't mean that we necessarily will have to do it in the same way that the brain chemistry does. I think that's the main thesis of the long post and that it holds, even when considering the observed quantum effects.
It is closer to "you think you can get away with this by following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law." The whole point of the Supreme Court is to interpret the gray areas where the law is imprecise in its attempt to express its attempt.
I think in this case, the intent is really "if the end user goes to a lot of work to record shows, that work justifies them having their own copy of this over the are streamed stuff. If a company wants to help a consumer decrease that work, they can do so by selling devices but not services. If the company tries to provide a service, then the company is involved in the duplication and that's illegal."
I don't know if I agree with that as the basis for copyright law, but based on earlier copyright rulings, that's my perception of how judges (both the Supremes and lower) typically view copyright infringement cases when they hit the gray areas and new tech is involved. It's not a bad way to split hairs. I think in this case, Aereo is likely to be burned because they provide the service of setting up the recording of all the shows (i.e. they tell that farm of antennas what to record instead of the consumer saying what to record). Yeah, I know that's a really technical point, but I'm betting that is a part of the final SCOTUS ruling. I am not a lawyer, just someone watching this case and similar for a long time now.
The administrator wasn't doing the teacher's job by disciplining the kids because the kids did nothing wrong. It was completely correct what they did. But the administrator disagreed. And that kind of disagreement is *exactly* why we have tenure: to protect teachers who actually teach something controversial.
The article does talk about gifts not being taxable. The problem arises when you start giving rewards in exchange for those gifts. If you can run a Kickstarter in which people give you money and you don't give them anything back, then you're fine.
The devices make it obvious this isn't VR
on
The Road To VR
·
· Score: 1
The summary talks about all the devices that you need to complete virtual reality. The fact that you need all those devices should make it clear: this isn't virtual reality, nor even a step toward it. It is immersive gaming, but until you are directly raising/lowering voltage on neurons, you aren't creating a virtual reality. You're just shaping this reality to create an optical illusion. Virtual reality means truly constructing a brand new reality for the mind to perceive, from the direction of gravity to the sensation of having eaten a satisfying meal or having additional (or fewer) arms and legs.
And if they ever do approach the size of larger manufacturers, they probably will choose to build their own dealer network for their own good, rather than because it is legally required of them.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that one of the points of the body cameras is for citizens to be able to do random inspections to make sure that cops aren't abusing power. As much as we don't want the information abused, we do want citizens able to request and view arbitrary footage. The two desires are at odds with each other, and balancing them will be tricky.
Any hack of a bad interface is indistinguishable from the bad interface?
(Original Poe's Law: Any parody of an extremist position is indistinguishable from the extremist position.)
Multiple researchers have tried doing this. The problem is doing it after the fact... who at age 30 can tell you why they *didn't* do something at age 8 or 16? The answers come back mushy, like it just didn't seem interesting or "not my kind of thing". That doesn't get to the question of what about it turned them off. And something must be turning them off (or turning them on to something else) because there are also studies showing girls who do get exposure younger are just as adept at programming as the boys, and continue to be so as they grow up, provided they stick with the field.
Mod parent up!!!
a) The TFA has several examples of plaintext data being sent.
b) The encrypted packets cannot be analyzed for content, but the time of sending correlates with user activity.
I think the author has presented enough data to show this isn't FUD.
>Does anyone even use full-screen apps?
Yes... on laptops. This is something I've observed watching my own customers work with software -- on desktop machines, few things are truly maximized. On laptops, nearly everything is maximized. I think it has to do with screen real estate. The more you have, the less likely you are to want to fill the whole thing with one window.
Making the green button work to maximize is probably the right choice for the smaller devices. If they want a consistent UI across all devices, that's the right call given the prevalence of smaller devices.
It makes the behavior match MS Windows... I doubt Apple considered this a plus, but I work back and forth across both OSes regularly, and that's one of the few kinks that has caught me.
> At least Apple should put a toggle in system preferences so the user can revert the behavior.
Yes, that would be nice. I agree. But that is explicitly what Apple does not do and what they generally consider to be A Bad Idea. Such toggles lead to low-use code paths in the OS, which means they don't get nearly the same amount of testing and they increase the complexity of the underlying software, increasing the risk of bugs in both settings. I've encountered that philosophy in many companies with large scale software -- better to leave out the option and give people something that you know works rather than put in the option and increase your bug risk.
Question: Does anyone know of actual studies done to demonstrate validity of such philosophy? I've heard it described many times, but I don't think I've ever heard any research into it.
One of the ethical questions (and there are multiple here) is with discarding embryos after they are created. Do we have the technology to filter the sperm and eggs before creating the embryos to achieve the same effect? Or do you need the whole genome together to make a good evaluation? Filtering ahead of time would alleviate some of the abortion concerns with such technologies.
I take it this statistician has not read Asimov. By announcing the prediction, you void the prediction. He should have put his program in a certified sarcophagus and then revealed after the show that he had correctly predicted it. Otherwise George R. R. Martin will just use his results as a reason to adjust the script!
Parent is correct. No user input is needed. Just the shell call.
The bug is 25 years old at least. Pre-dates the existence of GIT and most other source code control software in use today. I have no idea what SCC would've been used 25 years ago. To give perspective -- this bug predates the WWW by at least a year.
There's likely a lot of data behind the under reporting statistic. I'm not familiar enough with this particular data set, but for other diseases, after the fact, we can find out how many people died and we can survey to find out how many became sick. Once the scare is gone, this data is much easier to collect. The result is that we can back trace to figure out the under reporting originally. Then you can use that figure to make a better estimate the next time.
As I say, I don't know enough about this data set to comment on probable validity of the 2.5 factor, but I'm willing to bet that there is data leading them to use that number and not some other.
You have essentially the same attitude as the banker on ten million a year who doesn't understand why there are people who have to catch the bus to work.
I disagree. My company is an engineering firm that provides tools to other engineering firms. As such, when I visit customers, I am frequently going into engineering workplaces. The number who require suits/formal attire is vanishingly small. So I think that squizzar is correct in his (her?) attitude: no one in a tech role really has to put up with a formal dress code if they do not want to. There are plenty of jobs for engineers, at least in the USA, even in this economy, and an employer who puts a dress code up as a barrier to employment is more likely to find themselves without top-tier talent than the top-tier talent is likely to find themselves without a job. So it really is the employer who needs to change their attitude.
> That no legal content may be blocked; and
FrankDrebin is right. That's quite a loophole. Make a note of that, everyone, and include objections to it in your e-mails.
Still wouldn't help (see my previous comment on why the HTML tag doesn't work). Embedded tags can be modified, which means they cannot be trusted to assert the rights usage of an image. I could tag one of your images as CC... that doesn't make it actually CC. You cannot know that an image is CC or any other license unless you talk to the original license holder. What you have to have is a central registry, curated by humans, where someone can upload an image and certify "this is my image" and that database is in trusted hands. It has to be a place where risk mitigation is done by identifying the real world names of the artist and registering their particular images. That's what makes the various image service groups so valuable... without them, the legwork involved in proving origin is huge.
Doesn't work. Just because I tag your image as CC doesn't make it CC. You have to know the origin of an image. That means a ubiquitous search of the Internet to find the original posted source -- possibly through several contortions. That's the problem with using anything other than a curated database of images. It takes some significant leg work to prove who has the right to release a particular Internet image for licensing.
The only thing that a tag does is simplify the search engine front end for who you might possibly contact to see if they can prove they're the copyright owner.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ha...
China embedding chips in electric kettles and using the other appliances in the home to pry into home networks on the off chance that you're someone worth hacking.
Beyond that, hacking someone's fridge is a great way to be irksome to someone you don't like -- I've come home to a failed fridge after a week-long trip and it is definitely not pretty.
This app is NOT paying for information. This is paying someone to hold the spot for you until you show up -- allowing those with higher financial status to take advantage of the common resource of parking spaces instead of leaving them open to someone who happens to be in the area looking for a parking space. "I won't leave until I get enough money to make it worth my while to leave" is holding the public resource hostage.
It isn't a problem to link. The problem is *how* you link.
If you provide a link on your page that a user can click on to go to Twitter/Facebook/G+ and the URL embeds a pre-written "I'd like to tell you about XYZ..." then it is going to go through just fine. If the page pulls an image from Twitter/Facebook/G+ servers in order to draw that link, thus creating a tracking event for those services, then it is going to be flagged by the tool, and the image might at some point be scrubbed if the tool decides that it is being used to track across websites.
AC: It's not an invocation of "quantum god-head" to state the fact that quantum behaviors are observed in our sensory and perception organs and that we probably need a better conception of quantum mechanics to match some of the computation aspects of human beings.
Dinkypoo: We don't know if there is anything special about the brain and its particular computation structure, but we're making progress on a lot of fronts very rapidly. I think the summary of the long post is that *thus far* nothing about the brain chemistry has stood out as fundamentally unsupportable by silicon and other forms of computation. And even if we have to maintain quantum states to achieve sentient machines, that doesn't mean that we necessarily will have to do it in the same way that the brain chemistry does. I think that's the main thesis of the long post and that it holds, even when considering the observed quantum effects.
It is closer to "you think you can get away with this by following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law." The whole point of the Supreme Court is to interpret the gray areas where the law is imprecise in its attempt to express its attempt.
I think in this case, the intent is really "if the end user goes to a lot of work to record shows, that work justifies them having their own copy of this over the are streamed stuff. If a company wants to help a consumer decrease that work, they can do so by selling devices but not services. If the company tries to provide a service, then the company is involved in the duplication and that's illegal."
I don't know if I agree with that as the basis for copyright law, but based on earlier copyright rulings, that's my perception of how judges (both the Supremes and lower) typically view copyright infringement cases when they hit the gray areas and new tech is involved. It's not a bad way to split hairs. I think in this case, Aereo is likely to be burned because they provide the service of setting up the recording of all the shows (i.e. they tell that farm of antennas what to record instead of the consumer saying what to record). Yeah, I know that's a really technical point, but I'm betting that is a part of the final SCOTUS ruling. I am not a lawyer, just someone watching this case and similar for a long time now.
The administrator wasn't doing the teacher's job by disciplining the kids because the kids did nothing wrong. It was completely correct what they did. But the administrator disagreed. And that kind of disagreement is *exactly* why we have tenure: to protect teachers who actually teach something controversial.
The article does talk about gifts not being taxable. The problem arises when you start giving rewards in exchange for those gifts. If you can run a Kickstarter in which people give you money and you don't give them anything back, then you're fine.
The summary talks about all the devices that you need to complete virtual reality. The fact that you need all those devices should make it clear: this isn't virtual reality, nor even a step toward it. It is immersive gaming, but until you are directly raising/lowering voltage on neurons, you aren't creating a virtual reality. You're just shaping this reality to create an optical illusion. Virtual reality means truly constructing a brand new reality for the mind to perceive, from the direction of gravity to the sensation of having eaten a satisfying meal or having additional (or fewer) arms and legs.
Sometimes when they modify the Matrix, you get a sense of deja vu.
And if they ever do approach the size of larger manufacturers, they probably will choose to build their own dealer network for their own good, rather than because it is legally required of them.