#3. "Third, the additional bugs that external hackers find are commonly found by examining the patches we apply to our software."
I had to post that verbatim. They're releasing new bugs in their patches.
No, they are fixing old bugs. Old but unknown bugs, which now become known to hackers, who can go and abuse the vulnerabilities wherever they didn't get patched yet. It's pretty old news, really.
Do you know anyone with Raleigh-Durham experience? What's the area like, how annoying is the 4-hour drive to the ocean, what kind of fields are represented..
There is no need to make excuses. If they can't handle it they don't need to be talking to you.
With the converse case, when I can't reach someone immediately I know they are either busy, or genuinely don't like me in which case I know how to take the hint. How complicated is that?
imagine having access to a minds eye that you can both share when connected together,
You know, telepathic communication seems like such a great evolutionary advantage that I'm surprised no major organism can do it. In particular, how come RF communication didn't evolve?
Growing up I spent some time in my grandma's village of about 20 houses. Of course those guys knew each other, what else were they going to do? It occured to me that they were like coworkers in this weird, geographically-induced corporation. Their work days were out in the fields, then they came home to the families.
And think about how many people you know at work-- they just don't happen to live next door.
If the subject matter requires access to the academic literature just to comprehend what it actually is, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
Why not? Especially if that literature is also in Wikipedia. Imagine one day when the human race is extinct, some alien race lands and finds a Wikipedia archive. Even if some article is dense like you suggest, the aliens will be able to read up the background and understand the idea. If the article is not there because it was deleted, our visitors lose.
The fact that Wikipedia is incomplete at some point in time is just a product of its ever-changing nature. The way to make it complete is to add more content, not delete it. And like they said, it doesn't use paper, so why worry about resources?
However, I would prefer nothing (no article at all)
I mostly agree with you on the readability issues earlier in the thread. The example of that group theory article is a good one; even though it is a very narrow topic, a good writer should still include some introduction and motivation describing why that subject is important, what the implications are, and so on. That way, if the technical part is too complex to read without some background, a casual reader can make an informed decision whether to go spend the time reading that background or not.
If I tag an article as using overly {{technical}} language, and editors remove that tag saying "the subject is complex, users can just click on wikilinks to learn what all the terms mean, google it, we can't be bothered to explain it in comprehensible terms", something is wrong. When an article reaches that point, it has ceased being encyclopedic and has become something else.
I don't think it's a problem as long as the encyclopaedia contains all the prerequisite information needed to understand the article. Specialized articles are useful; in my case I found good use of a lot of the wireless communications articles. The problem I ran into that you might be referring to is that many times the "technical" language is not explained either in the article or elsewhere in Wikipedia. That is the point where it just becomes mumbling.
But keeping articles out of Wikipedia because they are too specialized seems contrary to the ideal of an encyclopaedia, which is, indeed, to be all-encompassing.
As for not following what the constituents what, examples are rampant. This post is an excellent troll, as it starts out sounding reasonable and casts doubt on a situation that is completely obvious.
Wow. Appeal to widespread belief, ad hominem, and ad ignorantiam all in the same paragraph. Try again in the same sentence for a triple-combo bonus!
I think these guys should do a study on the effect of monitor size on creativity, so I can show it to my boss. Were it that the relationship was superlinear! One can dream...
It would be neat to have a "train" system, which would work similar to parties in MMORPGs. You could:
1. advertise yourself as interested in leading a train, along with a route plan 2. ask to join a discovered train whose route suits you
The train would be driven by the leader, and the rest would follow at precisely controlled distances. People could leave/join, local control would take care of exact following, etc.
A non-networked version of the system would be nice too, to "attach" yourself at a couple of feet behind a big semi, in order to save gas.
It seems like a farfetched idea, but technically it's feasible and I think people would become interested if the bugs were ironed out.
There are some fancy a/g adapters which can do channel bonding, I think up to 2 channels at a time. That would let you stomp on 2/3 of the spectrum in the case of g. I'm not sure if any adapter out there can bond 3 channels.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they are fixing old bugs. Old but unknown bugs, which now become known to hackers, who can go and abuse the vulnerabilities wherever they didn't get patched yet. It's pretty old news, really.
Even layers of electrical tape don't fully block the output from most LEDS.
Ultimate solution: pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
I bet Massachusetts legislators are behind this!
Maybe so, but my question still stands. Look at eyes-- such awesome sensors with amazing optics, and present across so many species. Why not RF?
Do you know anyone with Raleigh-Durham experience? What's the area like, how annoying is the 4-hour drive to the ocean, what kind of fields are represented..
There is no need to make excuses. If they can't handle it they don't need to be talking to you.
With the converse case, when I can't reach someone immediately I know they are either busy, or genuinely don't like me in which case I know how to take the hint. How complicated is that?
imagine having access to a minds eye that you can both share when connected together,
You know, telepathic communication seems like such a great evolutionary advantage that I'm surprised no major organism can do it. In particular, how come RF communication didn't evolve?
except borg fetishists would want
Damn you! Now I have images of Jeri Ryan in my head. There goes the next hour of work!
Growing up I spent some time in my grandma's village of about 20 houses. Of course those guys knew each other, what else were they going to do? It occured to me that they were like coworkers in this weird, geographically-induced corporation. Their work days were out in the fields, then they came home to the families.
And think about how many people you know at work-- they just don't happen to live next door.
Doesn't work too well for research systems. Even the /etc/hosts trick gets in the way in some cases, like kernel code or dynamic addresses.
:)
Granted I'm not the mainstream user but I can still miss my IPv4 when it falls out of use
Now there's something to do if you had a million dollars.
If the subject matter requires access to the academic literature just to comprehend what it actually is, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
;)
Why not? Especially if that literature is also in Wikipedia. Imagine one day when the human race is extinct, some alien race lands and finds a Wikipedia archive. Even if some article is dense like you suggest, the aliens will be able to read up the background and understand the idea. If the article is not there because it was deleted, our visitors lose.
The fact that Wikipedia is incomplete at some point in time is just a product of its ever-changing nature. The way to make it complete is to add more content, not delete it. And like they said, it doesn't use paper, so why worry about resources?
However, I would prefer nothing (no article at all)
You could always not read the article
I mostly agree with you on the readability issues earlier in the thread. The example of that group theory article is a good one; even though it is a very narrow topic, a good writer should still include some introduction and motivation describing why that subject is important, what the implications are, and so on. That way, if the technical part is too complex to read without some background, a casual reader can make an informed decision whether to go spend the time reading that background or not.
If I tag an article as using overly {{technical}} language, and editors remove that tag saying "the subject is complex, users can just click on wikilinks to learn what all the terms mean, google it, we can't be bothered to explain it in comprehensible terms", something is wrong. When an article reaches that point, it has ceased being encyclopedic and has become something else.
I don't think it's a problem as long as the encyclopaedia contains all the prerequisite information needed to understand the article. Specialized articles are useful; in my case I found good use of a lot of the wireless communications articles. The problem I ran into that you might be referring to is that many times the "technical" language is not explained either in the article or elsewhere in Wikipedia. That is the point where it just becomes mumbling.
But keeping articles out of Wikipedia because they are too specialized seems contrary to the ideal of an encyclopaedia, which is, indeed, to be all-encompassing.
Could use the robot to extend a conveyor belt, to avoid idling the pipeline. Depends on the distance I guess.
No, it's Internet for a well groomed MAN ;)
To play devil's advocate, none of these features will make any difference to me, and they will make IP addresses so much harder to type.
Here is the happy ending:
ESR kissing
About the women part, here's how Eric Raymond works the ladies:
ESR busting a move
As for not following what the constituents what, examples are rampant. This post is an excellent troll, as it starts out sounding reasonable and casts doubt on a situation that is completely obvious.
Wow. Appeal to widespread belief, ad hominem, and ad ignorantiam all in the same paragraph. Try again in the same sentence for a triple-combo bonus!
an ATI marketing spokesman said, from the stage, that ATI knows it has a problem with open source and is committed to fixing it.
:)
There goes the good old problem solving by marketing. Wait until their developers hear about this
Hey, that's kind of how TV show seasons work!
I think these guys should do a study on the effect of monitor size on creativity, so I can show it to my boss. Were it that the relationship was superlinear! One can dream...
It would be neat to have a "train" system, which would work similar to parties in MMORPGs. You could:
1. advertise yourself as interested in leading a train, along with a route plan
2. ask to join a discovered train whose route suits you
The train would be driven by the leader, and the rest would follow at precisely controlled distances. People could leave/join, local control would take care of exact following, etc.
A non-networked version of the system would be nice too, to "attach" yourself at a couple of feet behind a big semi, in order to save gas.
It seems like a farfetched idea, but technically it's feasible and I think people would become interested if the bugs were ironed out.
There are some fancy a/g adapters which can do channel bonding, I think up to 2 channels at a time. That would let you stomp on 2/3 of the spectrum in the case of g. I'm not sure if any adapter out there can bond 3 channels.
Forget about washing hands, what if one of the technicians rubbed one out to immortalize his genetic heritage?