Why do coutnries pay into this foundation that invests primarily in American funds and stocks?
Er, the countries are (or were) contributing to the "The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria", not the Gates Foundation.
And buying already existing shares in a company does not give the company a "huge cash injection".
Perhaps the Gates Foundation is worthy of some criticism but if you do want to be taken seriously and not be called "full of bullshit" you should, well, not be full of bullshit!
Not only did the committee find no increase in cases linked to emissions, but it also found similar numbers of leukaemia cases in proximity to sites that had been considered for nuclear power plants, but where building did not take place.
Nuclear power is so dangerous it's effects are leaking in from parallel universes where those power plants did end up being built there!
At school level I think there are two things that science should cover:
1) The scientific method.
2) A solid grounding in science's current understanding of the world.
Pragmatically I think we have to accept that at school level a lot of (2) will be taught as generally accepted without much time devoted to "alternate" views as there is so much basic science to cover. Certainly it should be backed up with experimentation where possible. Climate change probably isn't a good candidate for that due to the complexity involved but lack of school level experimental support alone isn't enough to disqualify it (nuclear fission also doesn't offer much opportunity for class time experimentation!).
Use and acquision are two different thing. Bundling is about acquisition, not use.
Microsoft did force you to acquire Internet Explorer when getting Windows. You are in no way forced to acquire Google+ with Google Search.
IMO they are doing it wrong. To stay dominant in search - and let's face it that is where you go when your friends fail you - they should embrace the social Internet as a whole, not try to wall it into their own little piconet.
This seems to me to be a misunderstanding. Google will index anything they can get their hands on. They aren't indexing Twitter because Twitter told them not to. They can't index parts of Facebook that are relevant to me (ie stuff that I can see because my friends have told Facebook to share it with their friends) because they don't have access to that information (and Facebook have no real right to give it to them).
The only way Google can get their hands on non-public data shared between friends is if they are the provider those friends have chosen broker that information.
There is a difference between integration and bundling. Bundling is combining the acquisition of one product with another.
Google don't spring a Google+ account on you when you do a search. Using Google+ doesn't push using Google for web searches on you. A user has to opt to use either and the integration between the two in question here only happens if the user further opts for it.
It is stupid (even more so than usual) to use a car analogy as a car was designed.
It seems to be that there are two main problems with "Irreducible Complexity".
Firstly it seems difficult to prove irreducibility, ie to prove the organism isn't viable in a simpler form under all conditions.
Secondly it assumes all evolution involves increased complexity. An irreducibly complex organism could have evolved from a more complex organism that itself evolved "up" from organisms that weren't irreducible. A reasonable analogy here might be an archway. Man made archways are designed and constructed. An ignoramus might conclude therefore that natural arches must me a sign of intelligent design. Of course we know that natural arches weren't built up, they were etched away from something bigger.
Science is about the ability to test a claim. You cannot test the claim that God did it, therefore it is irrelevant to science and as such irrelevant to my life
It seems to me that this pre-supposes a particular type of God and/or particular limitations on science.
I think if God did (and even more clearly if it continues to) interact with the world then science should certainly (though the necessary tools may not currently exist) be able to address particular questions about God relating to that interaction.
I do not see any fundamental reason why science should not be able to address anything that happens in reality and as such God would only be unaddressable if it took no real action.
What's wrong with the idea that NYT, etc. pays journalists and then should get money from the people that read their stuff?
I don't think the OP is suggesting there is anything "wrong" with it as an idea.
However I do think it's worth noting that it in practice it's a model that has become more difficult as distribution has become easier. The capability to print and distribute paper, access to airwaves or cable went a long way to supporting that model.
As distribution continues to become increasingly easy and the only thing supporting it is legal power (and social mores) I think it certainly makes sense to consider other models that support quality journalism if you think journalism is valuable.
To have an exploitable buffer overflow, a programmer has to make a major mistake in the most fundamental area of programming
And that never happens, especially to people who implement their own stack rather than using one written by experienced coders in front of a lot of eyeballs!
Obviously there are questions of scale here. If you have the resources (eg you are Google) then there can certainly be advantages (in many areas as well as security) to having your own stack. However if you are just a guy with an idea then you might have to make a pragmatic decision now and worry about some of the issues that come from that external dependancy later otherwise you'll get too bogged down to get a product out of the door.
Major Perl vulnerabilities still crop up on a regular basis - on average, one or two a year. When was the last time you heard of a major vulnerability in the C programming language?
Are you being funny? Perl is written in C and the (unspecified) "Major Perl vulnerabilities" are probably due to the lack of protection offered by C against developer mistakes.
Of course one could assume that it is only other developers that make such mistakes and by writing it yourself from scratch you would avoid them. You would most probably be wrong though.
The submitter showed no prior knowledge of exploits, so it seemed reasonable to provide him with a simple introduction to the kinds of exploits he may encounter and how they can be prevented.
Sure, but then you suggested that he needed to look no further.
Additionally the page you linked to only sought to address some application level coding related issues. It didn't even mention other aspects that should be considered (OS configuration, Network Infrastructure, segmentation and other additional layers of defence such as WAF usage etc, etc, etc).
That's not good evidence for your position that the question "continually needs to be asked
On the contrary, the page specifically warns against using the "top 10" as anything other than a starting point for the uninitiated. As it notes, "Don't stop at 10".
Pretty bad advice. Unfortunately this is an area where you will continually need to keep asking the question. While there are certainly basics that should be covered there are also subtleties and interactions and new exploits in software you will depend on.
Unfortunately an almost meaningless assertion these days due to people seeking to establish "controversy" as a tactic in achieving some other goal.
not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal.
How so? It's pointless to make such a statement without saying why. Merely offering other products seems entirely unproblematic under established competition law. For example it seems to me there' no evidence of tying, anyone is free to choose which of Google's products they do or do not use. Similarly Google seems to steer well clear of other behaviours that could be problematic under competition law Google seems to steer well clear.
Simply saying "anti-competitive and therefore illegal" is at best lazy or ignorant, at worst shows contempt for real discussion and betrays desire to foster "controversy" for some other aim.
If there's something you think Google is doing that (even possibly) runs contra to the law then please state what it is and what aspect of the law it runs afoul of.
Perhaps you're confused by "300% of" as opposed to "increased 300%"? - it's a 200% increase, or 300% of the original value.
Percentages are stupid measurements to use when 100% doesn't relate to some fundamental whole of which you are indicating a ratio of.
I can't imagine what could lead someone to write:
but their applications have a high degree of tie-in
Can you explain this? As far as I can see you can use Google apps form pretty much any vaguely modern browser. I can install Google software on my iPhone (in fact it comes with Google Maps).
It seems to me that Google has the opposite approach than tie in. It's not so much "you must use our stuff" as "you can use whichever bits of our stuff you want from anyone elses stuff".
It would be interesting to know if this were true, not as a percentage of the market but in terms of total volume (number of users, number of searches done using Firefox, ie something actually somewhat relevant to how Google derives revenue).
People seem to focus a lot on market share but I think it's a largely irrelevant metric for doing anything other than cheerleading. After all, you can apparently run a viable business based on a single digit browser market share. Given the astonishingly large number of people using the web this shouldn't be surprising but people seem to look at the percentages and forget the volume.
300 million sounds like a lot of money (because it is!) but it would seem to be less than a dollar per Firefox user per year. Would Google expect to derive more than a dollars worth of revenue per user over a year on average? It doesn't sound like a fundamentally unreasonable proposition (and Google should have the metrics to know, it would not be much of a gamble for them).
Slashdot Mirror
Er, the countries are (or were) contributing to the "The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria", not the Gates Foundation.
And buying already existing shares in a company does not give the company a "huge cash injection".
Perhaps the Gates Foundation is worthy of some criticism but if you do want to be taken seriously and not be called "full of bullshit" you should, well, not be full of bullshit!
Nuclear power is so dangerous it's effects are leaking in from parallel universes where those power plants did end up being built there!
Oh come on, it's completely transparent!
At school level I think there are two things that science should cover:
1) The scientific method.
2) A solid grounding in science's current understanding of the world.
Pragmatically I think we have to accept that at school level a lot of (2) will be taught as generally accepted without much time devoted to "alternate" views as there is so much basic science to cover. Certainly it should be backed up with experimentation where possible. Climate change probably isn't a good candidate for that due to the complexity involved but lack of school level experimental support alone isn't enough to disqualify it (nuclear fission also doesn't offer much opportunity for class time experimentation!).
He's pretty sloppy with the ACKs though.
Perhaps that should be the TSA's new Slogan, "Killing Americans so the terrorists don't have to".
Use and acquision are two different thing. Bundling is about acquisition, not use. Microsoft did force you to acquire Internet Explorer when getting Windows. You are in no way forced to acquire Google+ with Google Search.
This seems to me to be a misunderstanding. Google will index anything they can get their hands on. They aren't indexing Twitter because Twitter told them not to. They can't index parts of Facebook that are relevant to me (ie stuff that I can see because my friends have told Facebook to share it with their friends) because they don't have access to that information (and Facebook have no real right to give it to them).
The only way Google can get their hands on non-public data shared between friends is if they are the provider those friends have chosen broker that information.
There is a difference between integration and bundling. Bundling is combining the acquisition of one product with another. Google don't spring a Google+ account on you when you do a search. Using Google+ doesn't push using Google for web searches on you. A user has to opt to use either and the integration between the two in question here only happens if the user further opts for it.
It is stupid (even more so than usual) to use a car analogy as a car was designed.
It seems to be that there are two main problems with "Irreducible Complexity".
Firstly it seems difficult to prove irreducibility, ie to prove the organism isn't viable in a simpler form under all conditions.
Secondly it assumes all evolution involves increased complexity. An irreducibly complex organism could have evolved from a more complex organism that itself evolved "up" from organisms that weren't irreducible. A reasonable analogy here might be an archway. Man made archways are designed and constructed. An ignoramus might conclude therefore that natural arches must me a sign of intelligent design. Of course we know that natural arches weren't built up, they were etched away from something bigger.
It seems odd that there aren't some brain-computer interfaces that would allow better performance than that.
It seems to me that this pre-supposes a particular type of God and/or particular limitations on science.
I think if God did (and even more clearly if it continues to) interact with the world then science should certainly (though the necessary tools may not currently exist) be able to address particular questions about God relating to that interaction.
I do not see any fundamental reason why science should not be able to address anything that happens in reality and as such God would only be unaddressable if it took no real action.
And of course the "content providers" such as News Corp/Ltd don't seem averse to making liberal use of other people's content either.
If only Slashdot had thought to patent taking a reasonably well written article and having someone badly paraphrase it.
I don't think the OP is suggesting there is anything "wrong" with it as an idea.
However I do think it's worth noting that it in practice it's a model that has become more difficult as distribution has become easier. The capability to print and distribute paper, access to airwaves or cable went a long way to supporting that model.
As distribution continues to become increasingly easy and the only thing supporting it is legal power (and social mores) I think it certainly makes sense to consider other models that support quality journalism if you think journalism is valuable.
The same could be said of a Ferrari.
Ferrari do offer fire extinguishers though.
And that never happens, especially to people who implement their own stack rather than using one written by experienced coders in front of a lot of eyeballs!
Obviously there are questions of scale here. If you have the resources (eg you are Google) then there can certainly be advantages (in many areas as well as security) to having your own stack. However if you are just a guy with an idea then you might have to make a pragmatic decision now and worry about some of the issues that come from that external dependancy later otherwise you'll get too bogged down to get a product out of the door.
Are you being funny? Perl is written in C and the (unspecified) "Major Perl vulnerabilities" are probably due to the lack of protection offered by C against developer mistakes.
Of course one could assume that it is only other developers that make such mistakes and by writing it yourself from scratch you would avoid them. You would most probably be wrong though.
Sure, but then you suggested that he needed to look no further. Additionally the page you linked to only sought to address some application level coding related issues. It didn't even mention other aspects that should be considered (OS configuration, Network Infrastructure, segmentation and other additional layers of defence such as WAF usage etc, etc, etc).
On the contrary, the page specifically warns against using the "top 10" as anything other than a starting point for the uninitiated. As it notes, "Don't stop at 10".
Pretty bad advice. Unfortunately this is an area where you will continually need to keep asking the question. While there are certainly basics that should be covered there are also subtleties and interactions and new exploits in software you will depend on.
The OWASP top 10 is a pretty good starting point.
Unfortunately an almost meaningless assertion these days due to people seeking to establish "controversy" as a tactic in achieving some other goal.
How so? It's pointless to make such a statement without saying why. Merely offering other products seems entirely unproblematic under established competition law. For example it seems to me there' no evidence of tying, anyone is free to choose which of Google's products they do or do not use. Similarly Google seems to steer well clear of other behaviours that could be problematic under competition law Google seems to steer well clear.
Simply saying "anti-competitive and therefore illegal" is at best lazy or ignorant, at worst shows contempt for real discussion and betrays desire to foster "controversy" for some other aim.
If there's something you think Google is doing that (even possibly) runs contra to the law then please state what it is and what aspect of the law it runs afoul of.
Samsung, Apple?
Percentages are stupid measurements to use when 100% doesn't relate to some fundamental whole of which you are indicating a ratio of. I can't imagine what could lead someone to write:
rather then
other than disregard for the reader.
Can you explain this? As far as I can see you can use Google apps form pretty much any vaguely modern browser. I can install Google software on my iPhone (in fact it comes with Google Maps).
It seems to me that Google has the opposite approach than tie in. It's not so much "you must use our stuff" as "you can use whichever bits of our stuff you want from anyone elses stuff".
They could be competitors. Clearly they aren't when they are cooperating to deliver users to Google.
It would be interesting to know if this were true, not as a percentage of the market but in terms of total volume (number of users, number of searches done using Firefox, ie something actually somewhat relevant to how Google derives revenue).
People seem to focus a lot on market share but I think it's a largely irrelevant metric for doing anything other than cheerleading. After all, you can apparently run a viable business based on a single digit browser market share. Given the astonishingly large number of people using the web this shouldn't be surprising but people seem to look at the percentages and forget the volume.
300 million sounds like a lot of money (because it is!) but it would seem to be less than a dollar per Firefox user per year. Would Google expect to derive more than a dollars worth of revenue per user over a year on average? It doesn't sound like a fundamentally unreasonable proposition (and Google should have the metrics to know, it would not be much of a gamble for them).