Well that's an example of a "feelgood" security measure that is counter productive.
Get rid of the buzzer on the door, get rid of the keycards. Get rid of anything that creates a false sense of security, or an idea that you are somehow within a "trusted" environment.
Well, I have to warn you my ideas are not yet fully baked, but there are several ideas that hint at a creator theory, things I am intrigued with right now.
Think of it as applying transhumanism to creationism. If the universe comes to an end, and none of these things happen, then it is an absolute proof that the theory is false. If "we" manage to create a new universe, then the chance that it has happened before is very good.
Yes, this does just push it back yet another level, "What started this loop of us creating universes?"... but it does address creation of the current universe, going further back than the Big Bang.
If you had read my entire message, you would see that I said I don't think creation conflicts with evolution. Evolution says nothing about the origins of things, only the development of them.
I still don't understand, you say you checkpoint and run forward, what if a UI (or any external input) operation has happened after N but before N+1. In that case, running forward from N to the beginning of checkpoint N+1 would not show the UI interaction or external event happening until the beginning of N+1 checkpoint, when it really happened in the middle.
Unless you also save state also whenever a UI interaction occurs, it's not clear how this would work.
But what's the point of saying you choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in something like that?
It's important you understand this point, which you imply you don't by saying "something like that".
I believe the answer is unknowable in our current state of affairs. That's different from being unsure, I strongly believe the answer is unknowable by present day humans. Ask me again tomorrow. And tomorrow+N. The answer might change based on available data. That's why it's a theory and not dogma.
There are no predictions your hypothesis makes than can be tested
There's no other hypothesis of origin with testable predictions.
There is no evidence that points towards a creator
Physics is based on conservation theories. That energy or matter cannot spring into being from nothing. A theory that proposes the opposite goes against all evidence. Surely a theory that energy and matter did not spring from nothing is stronger than a theory that does claim such.
All it does is create the new essentially identical question, "Well who made the creator".
Which is exactly the same with the Big Bang theory. It offers no explanation of what caused or created the singularity. You have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started. I don't see the Big Bang as incompatible with a creator, for this reason.
You see, when I talk of a creator, I'm not pointing to the Bible or anything of that sort. My creator is falsifiable, experimental data that shows contradiction can be taken into account, and the theory modified accordingly.
they try to make laws based on their belief or force others into it.
Don't let them shape your philosophy. Keep an open mind, even if a big group of the people that believe in a theory are obnoxious facists, that doesn't mean the theory should be dismissed out of hand.
It's like research on genetic correlation with IQ. No rational discussion can happen on that subject because its so polarized, mostly because a large group of people subscribing to such theories are bigoted assholes. That doesn't mean the theories should be dismissed out of hand, but they often are, without any critical examination.
When your platform goes EOL, any new security flaws are something you are going to have to address yourself, which might not even be possible with closed source apps.
Re:What I found interesting.
on
Donald Knuth On NPR
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How can you say there is no evidence of God? Surely the existance of highly organized life could lead a rational person to a theory that something created it.
I'm basically an agnostic too, but it's not a question of believing or not believing for me, I believe the question is unanswerable, in our current situation. I think a creator is plausible. I think there is evidence that could indicate creation. Evolution obviously does also happen, even in the short term, and I don't think any of my beliefs contradict evolutionary processes.
They say the way they accomplish this is running the program in some sort of sandbox and taking checkpoints every so often and then when you step back, it actually runs forward from the closest checkpoint and stops one instruction short.
My question is how UI interactions are handled. If the execution between the checkpoint and current-1 instruction includes a UI interaction, it might be very confusing to the programmer to know what or how many UI interactions need to be carried out to accomplish the backstep.
Well, thanks for the explanation. I'd still call it a "bug" since most of the things I listed could be framed as UI deficiencies. The port blocking for instance could be made a lot less obnoxious if you didn't have to dig in about:config to fix it, etc.
I wouldn't be so sure... the number of critical bugs in the bugzilla for both Firefox and Mozilla reflects the total mismanagement of the projects. New management might be a good thing, and I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to contribute if I didn't have the feeling of total helplessness caused by bugreports ignored for 3-5 years.
A short list: You can't download more than 2-3 files at once in firefox. Trying to download more causes the dialog to come up when another file finishes.
Mozilla/Firefox store your credit card numbers in plaintext if you don't completely turn off autocomplete. (They closed this one WONTFIX)
Browser blocks a ton of ports for "Security reasons" that no other browser does. (I guess plaintext credit card numbers aren't a security problem, but somehow this is??)
And that's just off the top of my head. All these bugs have been around for at least 2-3 years.
It wouldn't let me use Firefox this year, but I do remember using it in some Linux browser in years before.
I did email them and tell them to fix their braindead browser detection code.
The only other concern I have with it is that it saves all your information from year to year. Makes some things incredible convienent, like if you don't change your address or job, it will fill in the old info by default, and also if you have things like capital loss carryover from year to year, it will track that.
The bad side is that if anyone ever hacked turbotax.com they would have complete information on thousands and thousands of people.
Microsoft accomplishes this through technical means, such as always overwriting the boot area making linux unavailable as a boot option, if you install Windows after Linux, thus causing people with both OSs to face a more problematic install.
One of the major differences between SCSI and IDE is that when accessing an IDE drive, your system processor does a fair amount of the work. With SCSI, this work is offloaded to the SCSI controller and the drive, leavinf the system processor free to do other stuff.
You need to update your information. This may have been true in 1993 or something.
As it stands today, you are much better off with a northbrige based ATA/SATA controller than a PCI based SCSI card. With SCSI, you are wasting tons of your PCI bandwidth on something that could be coming straight out of your northbridge.
The only advantage to SCSI currently is latency, and that is quickily becoming irrelevant too with the introduction of NCQ SATA drives and controllers, along with some 10k rpm SATA drives.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's an example of a "feelgood" security measure that is counter productive.
Get rid of the buzzer on the door, get rid of the keycards. Get rid of anything that creates a false sense of security, or an idea that you are somehow within a "trusted" environment.
My God! I just realized that when you stop in a convienence store, they can tell your age and location!
I will boycott all stores until this inethical collection of information is ended!
It's improved object support and exception handling make it easier to sell as a "real language" with management and clients
Ah, finally someone who admits "OO" is just for buzzword compliance.
Wonder why they took a perfectly good language and decided to crud it up with OOP.
Well, I have to warn you my ideas are not yet fully baked, but there are several ideas that hint at a creator theory, things I am intrigued with right now.
Fictional
Semi-scientific
Think of it as applying transhumanism to creationism. If the universe comes to an end, and none of these things happen, then it is an absolute proof that the theory is false. If "we" manage to create a new universe, then the chance that it has happened before is very good.
Yes, this does just push it back yet another level, "What started this loop of us creating universes?"... but it does address creation of the current universe, going further back than the Big Bang.
If you had read my entire message, you would see that I said I don't think creation conflicts with evolution. Evolution says nothing about the origins of things, only the development of them.
What theory is that?
I still don't understand, you say you checkpoint and run forward, what if a UI (or any external input) operation has happened after N but before N+1. In that case, running forward from N to the beginning of checkpoint N+1 would not show the UI interaction or external event happening until the beginning of N+1 checkpoint, when it really happened in the middle.
Unless you also save state also whenever a UI interaction occurs, it's not clear how this would work.
But what's the point of saying you choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in something like that?
It's important you understand this point, which you imply you don't by saying "something like that".
I believe the answer is unknowable in our current state of affairs. That's different from being unsure, I strongly believe the answer is unknowable by present day humans. Ask me again tomorrow. And tomorrow+N. The answer might change based on available data. That's why it's a theory and not dogma.
There are no predictions your hypothesis makes than can be tested
There's no other hypothesis of origin with testable predictions.
There is no evidence that points towards a creator
Physics is based on conservation theories. That energy or matter cannot spring into being from nothing. A theory that proposes the opposite goes against all evidence. Surely a theory that energy and matter did not spring from nothing is stronger than a theory that does claim such.
All it does is create the new essentially identical question, "Well who made the creator".
Which is exactly the same with the Big Bang theory. It offers no explanation of what caused or created the singularity. You have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started. I don't see the Big Bang as incompatible with a creator, for this reason.
You see, when I talk of a creator, I'm not pointing to the Bible or anything of that sort. My creator is falsifiable, experimental data that shows contradiction can be taken into account, and the theory modified accordingly.
they try to make laws based on their belief or force others into it.
Don't let them shape your philosophy. Keep an open mind, even if a big group of the people that believe in a theory are obnoxious facists, that doesn't mean the theory should be dismissed out of hand.
It's like research on genetic correlation with IQ. No rational discussion can happen on that subject because its so polarized, mostly because a large group of people subscribing to such theories are bigoted assholes. That doesn't mean the theories should be dismissed out of hand, but they often are, without any critical examination.
Things like this get in the way of real science.
That is a viable strategy.. sometimes.
When your platform goes EOL, any new security flaws are something you are going to have to address yourself, which might not even be possible with closed source apps.
How can you say there is no evidence of God? Surely the existance of highly organized life could lead a rational person to a theory that something created it.
I'm basically an agnostic too, but it's not a question of believing or not believing for me, I believe the question is unanswerable, in our current situation. I think a creator is plausible. I think there is evidence that could indicate creation. Evolution obviously does also happen, even in the short term, and I don't think any of my beliefs contradict evolutionary processes.
Yeah, it's like all those people that whine about offshoring.
what do you think the Enhancement level is *there* for??
That the option exists at all, and is implemented as the lowest priority highlights the crux of this whole discussion.
User requested enhancements, instead of being the driving force behind projects, are stuffed away in the lowest priority level.
I think your attitude sums things up very well.
They say the way they accomplish this is running the program in some sort of sandbox and taking checkpoints every so often and then when you step back, it actually runs forward from the closest checkpoint and stops one instruction short.
My question is how UI interactions are handled. If the execution between the checkpoint and current-1 instruction includes a UI interaction, it might be very confusing to the programmer to know what or how many UI interactions need to be carried out to accomplish the backstep.
Well, thanks for the explanation. I'd still call it a "bug" since most of the things I listed could be framed as UI deficiencies. The port blocking for instance could be made a lot less obnoxious if you didn't have to dig in about:config to fix it, etc.
I wouldn't be so sure... the number of critical bugs in the bugzilla for both Firefox and Mozilla reflects the total mismanagement of the projects. New management might be a good thing, and I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to contribute if I didn't have the feeling of total helplessness caused by bugreports ignored for 3-5 years.
A short list:
You can't download more than 2-3 files at once in firefox. Trying to download more causes the dialog to come up when another file finishes.
Mozilla/Firefox store your credit card numbers in plaintext if you don't completely turn off autocomplete. (They closed this one WONTFIX)
Browser blocks a ton of ports for "Security reasons" that no other browser does. (I guess plaintext credit card numbers aren't a security problem, but somehow this is??)
And that's just off the top of my head. All these bugs have been around for at least 2-3 years.
Yeah, of course I know how to do it. The point is MS has taken measures to disable competitor's OS, with weak technical justification.
Australia doesn't have a bill of rights. The government can do as it pleases.
It wouldn't let me use Firefox this year, but I do remember using it in some Linux browser in years before.
I did email them and tell them to fix their braindead browser detection code.
The only other concern I have with it is that it saves all your information from year to year. Makes some things incredible convienent, like if you don't change your address or job, it will fill in the old info by default, and also if you have things like capital loss carryover from year to year, it will track that.
The bad side is that if anyone ever hacked turbotax.com they would have complete information on thousands and thousands of people.
WoW gets ever closer to a complete reimplementation of Medievia. I wonder when they will come up with some original.
Microsoft accomplishes this through technical means, such as always overwriting the boot area making linux unavailable as a boot option, if you install Windows after Linux, thus causing people with both OSs to face a more problematic install.
Things like that.
Yeah, in those cases you are buying quantities that affect demand on the level of an entire market.
It's just like buying a ton of a thinly traded penny stock. You could easily cause the price to double or triple.
One of the major differences between SCSI and IDE is that when accessing an IDE drive, your system processor does a fair amount of the work. With SCSI, this work is offloaded to the SCSI controller and the drive, leavinf the system processor free to do other stuff.
You need to update your information. This may have been true in 1993 or something.
As it stands today, you are much better off with a northbrige based ATA/SATA controller than a PCI based SCSI card. With SCSI, you are wasting tons of your PCI bandwidth on something that could be coming straight out of your northbridge.
The only advantage to SCSI currently is latency, and that is quickily becoming irrelevant too with the introduction of NCQ SATA drives and controllers, along with some 10k rpm SATA drives.
Just because it's a dot doesn't mean it's a floating point number. Just replace the dots with dashes if it makes you more comfortable.