College level should be 100% free to citizens in the USA, there is no reason at all to have to charge for classes up to associates, and it should be inexpensive to get to bachelors and beyond.
We can't have that, it'd be like Europe. I mean, that's practically Communism! What would be next, free healthcare?
When a reporter asked the tiny brain how it felt, it replied "Kiiiiiillll meeeee".
No, it said "And so, in my State of the --- my State of the Union --- or state -- my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years -- 4,000 hours over the nextâ"the rest of your life --of service to America. That's what I asked -- 4,000 hours".
This is a big deal. I submit articles to these publishers, and this is outrageous. The idea that I would give email addresses to editors that came back to me in order to review my own papers not only never occurred to me, it seems like it would require a researcher with absolutely no ethics or morals whatsoever.
It depends on the journal. I review for a number of CS journals, and none of them would ever allow this, there's a predefined pool of vetted reviewers who get sent papers, the submitters have no control over who reviews them, or even know who the reviewers are, it's all anonymous and blinded. Conversely, I've reviewed for an MIS journal where the submitters suggest the reviewers (which included charming notes like "please don't send them to X, Y, or Z, because they've given us bad reviews in the past"). It was a really strange process, there was an endless amount of reviewing and re-reviewing and re-re-reviewing, I think more time was spent in the reviewing process than in writing the paper, for papers where you could tell from half a beers' worth of analysis that they should never get published. It may have just been my science bias that saw this as a strange way to do things, and in some sense a certain amount of snobbery, "it's an MIS paper, who cares if the review process is broken...".
Your game might have a limited memory footprint, but my entropy analysis algorithms do not.
... which is obviously completely representative of the workload that Joe Sixpack is running on his home PC.
(I'm running genetic algorithms that require 16-20TB of VM, but I don't make any decisions based on that because it's not like any workload that J.Random public would be running. From doing the usual helping out with family and neighbours PCs, most of them would get by fine with 2GB, and maybe an 800MHz CPU if you have hibernate enabled so the boot time isn't so long).
My personal favorite F-35 issue is that the F-35B model can't fly in areas where it might be struck by lightning, because that could cause the fuel tanks to explode.
Well, lets hope the opponent doesn't start an offensive during a thunderstorm:)
That's what helped Caesar conquer Britain, he figured out that by only fighting at teatime and on weekends, he could easily defeat the English (the cad!).
... to be fair the US seem to have great success with their drones.
And that's the point that's being missed in this discussion, the fact that the US hasn't really gone up against anyone in head-to-head air combat since the Vietnam War, and even then it was 1950s-vintage MIG 21s and the issue was training and tactics rather than aircraft quality. So the last time it went head-to-head was sixty-five years ago in Korea with the very first generation of jet fighters (P-80 vs MIG 15), alongside a range of WWII leftovers. OTOH the US has been flying drone missions more or less nonstop for years, and the demand is such that there's a dire shortage of people qualified and willing to fly them.
So in terms of front-line combat aircraft, the needs could probably be met by a wing of Sopwith Camels (along with bombers/ground attack aircraft, but that's not air-to-air combat), since it's the drones that are doing all the work. What does it matter if the F69 3/4 is theoretically outperformed by the Mongolian YAK 88 if it's never going to be used for anything more than July 4 flybys
No, it is a pretty accurate summary of what is happening.
It's actually subject to some misinterpretation. What the OP seemed to be saying was that an experiment consists of running a trial ("I want to determine car colours, the first car I see is red, experiment concluded") and taking a conclusion from that. Obviously any subsequent "experiment" can prove the first one wrong, which is why an experiment should be about falsifying the null hypothesis. If performed correctly (which is why I used the term "controlled experiment"), you only need to do it once (although confirmation always helps).
The problem is that the state of medical experimentation, at least in the US (which is where I'm aware of the state, it could be as bad elsewhere) is pretty dire, people faking disorders in order to be part of the trial (since you're paid for it), people taking part in multiple trials at the same time (with unknown interactions, again for the money), testing being done on homeless people and whatnot with all manner of undiagnosed problems and who in any case aren't representative of the general population (again, for the money), and so on. So the biggest thing to address isn't lack of confirmation, it's that the experiments are often so badly run that they're worthless.
(Another problem, and in this case an ethical one as much as an experimental-methodology one, is the use of populations in third-world countries as non-voluntary guinea pigs in medical trials).
It appears the medical research field has forgotten this basic tenet of science: A result has to be proven by a second independent study before you can take it seriously. Instead, they would do one study, get the results they wanted, and then declare success.
Uhh... that's not even wrong. It's either something that started out OK and has been edited down into nonsense, or it shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how controlled experiments work that, well, it's not even wrong.
The Fugitive Slave Act made it against the law to help escaped slaves. The Reich Citizenship Law made Jews non-people with no rights. For both of those laws (and many others), people resisted, even though in some cases they risked death in doing so. If what your government is doing is morally wrong, saying that you were just following orders and had no choice isn't good enough...
For an equally revealing read, after you've read the above on Assange (and I'll throw in Suelette Dreyfus' excellent "Underground", which talks about his early years), read Robert Hare's "Without Conscience" and see how much of Assange you can find in the book.
Over ten percent of their vulnerabilities are reported by outsiders. That's a justification. That makes the 90% that's crap worthwhile.
OSVDB reports 3,700 vulns in Oracle products. If that's 10% of the total (the rest are Oracle-internal) as Davidson claims that means Oracle products have around 40,000 security vulns in them.
Someone earlier mentioned that Oracle products are the security equivalent of Swiss cheese, but with 40,000 vulns it's more like chicken wire, or maybe a small keep out sign in the corner.
However, there's a second category of people (and she's write that bug bounty programs have somewhat encouraged them) that are the security equivalent of script kiddies - they downloaded a "sploits!" kit off the the internet (in this case, often a combination of a decomplier and static analyzer). They don't really understand how the kit works or what it does, but ZOMG I ran it against your code and it found issues! Your software is insecure!
Yup, and that is something I can sympathise with her for. We've run into exactly this in the past, the conversation went something like:
Zomg your servers have [whatever that day's OpenSSL security vuln was]! Our servers don't use OpenSSL, it's a false positive. But our consluttants' scanner is reporting an OpenSSL vuln! Fix it! We don't use OpenSSL, it's a FP. Fix it! Fix it! Fix it! There's nothing to fix, it's a FP. We can't accept you as a business partner until our consluttants' scan shows no vulns. OK, which scanner are you using...
We resolved the problem by finding a way to crash their scanner (I think it was using OpenSSL to do the scan), so when it scanned our servers it'd die and not report the FP any more.
Just installed it and I'm quite surprised, it looks just like Firefox 39 (and 38, and 37, and... whatever version where they intro'd that stupid Chrome-clone theme with curved tabs and whatnot). So whatever pointless shit they've added this time, it's not visible in the UI.
(Having said that, I'm running Classic Theme Restorer and a bunch of other addons to undo all the crap they've stuck in there, so maybe it's shielding me from whatever they've screwed up this time).
They will simply require that women riding in Uber be escorted by a male family member.
Or enter into mut'ah marriages for the duration of the journey. So the woman gets into the Uber, enters into a mut'ah marriage, the dowry paid is the amount of the Uber fare, and when she exits the marriage is dissolved.
Having said that, I'm not sure if wahhabism allows mut'ah marriages...
Furthermore, most of the drivers are foreign nationals, so the much of their income is repatriated to their home countries rather than circulating in the Saudi economy. From an economic/business perspective, this is insane.
So rich Saudis, busy following a particular ideological mania, are sending money they have plenty of to much poorer countries where it's desperately needed? Sounds like a win/win situation to me.
Slashdot Mirror
College level should be 100% free to citizens in the USA, there is no reason at all to have to charge for classes up to associates, and it should be inexpensive to get to bachelors and beyond.
We can't have that, it'd be like Europe. I mean, that's practically Communism! What would be next, free healthcare?
When a reporter asked the tiny brain how it felt, it replied "Kiiiiiillll meeeee".
No, it said "And so, in my State of the --- my State of the Union --- or state -- my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years -- 4,000 hours over the nextâ"the rest of your life --of service to America. That's what I asked -- 4,000 hours".
This is a big deal. I submit articles to these publishers, and this is outrageous. The idea that I would give email addresses to editors that came back to me in order to review my own papers not only never occurred to me, it seems like it would require a researcher with absolutely no ethics or morals whatsoever.
It depends on the journal. I review for a number of CS journals, and none of them would ever allow this, there's a predefined pool of vetted reviewers who get sent papers, the submitters have no control over who reviews them, or even know who the reviewers are, it's all anonymous and blinded. Conversely, I've reviewed for an MIS journal where the submitters suggest the reviewers (which included charming notes like "please don't send them to X, Y, or Z, because they've given us bad reviews in the past"). It was a really strange process, there was an endless amount of reviewing and re-reviewing and re-re-reviewing, I think more time was spent in the reviewing process than in writing the paper, for papers where you could tell from half a beers' worth of analysis that they should never get published. It may have just been my science bias that saw this as a strange way to do things, and in some sense a certain amount of snobbery, "it's an MIS paper, who cares if the review process is broken...".
I don't think you know what "infinite" means.
Of course I do, I've seen it. It's blue (from the outside).
Your game might have a limited memory footprint, but my entropy analysis algorithms do not.
... which is obviously completely representative of the workload that Joe Sixpack is running on his home PC.
(I'm running genetic algorithms that require 16-20TB of VM, but I don't make any decisions based on that because it's not like any workload that J.Random public would be running. From doing the usual helping out with family and neighbours PCs, most of them would get by fine with 2GB, and maybe an 800MHz CPU if you have hibernate enabled so the boot time isn't so long).
They supported there wifi chips on Linux, they're graphics drivers were free, and then hell broke loose.
I can see that already in your post, it's playing havoc with your grammar. God think I'm not poesting on in Intel....ahh, dammit!
I don't even worry about privacy issues because I turned that stuff off.
You mean you think you turned that stuff off. I guess you haven't been reading Win10 forums (and /. and other places) in the last few days...
My personal favorite F-35 issue is that the F-35B model can't fly in areas where it might be struck by lightning, because that could cause the fuel tanks to explode.
Well, lets hope the opponent doesn't start an offensive during a thunderstorm :)
That's what helped Caesar conquer Britain, he figured out that by only fighting at teatime and on weekends, he could easily defeat the English (the cad!).
... to be fair the US seem to have great success with their drones.
And that's the point that's being missed in this discussion, the fact that the US hasn't really gone up against anyone in head-to-head air combat since the Vietnam War, and even then it was 1950s-vintage MIG 21s and the issue was training and tactics rather than aircraft quality. So the last time it went head-to-head was sixty-five years ago in Korea with the very first generation of jet fighters (P-80 vs MIG 15), alongside a range of WWII leftovers. OTOH the US has been flying drone missions more or less nonstop for years, and the demand is such that there's a dire shortage of people qualified and willing to fly them.
So in terms of front-line combat aircraft, the needs could probably be met by a wing of Sopwith Camels (along with bombers/ground attack aircraft, but that's not air-to-air combat), since it's the drones that are doing all the work. What does it matter if the F69 3/4 is theoretically outperformed by the Mongolian YAK 88 if it's never going to be used for anything more than July 4 flybys
WOW! Such savings! - Much cheaper!
So cheaper! Much savings!
(FTFY).
No, it is a pretty accurate summary of what is happening.
It's actually subject to some misinterpretation. What the OP seemed to be saying was that an experiment consists of running a trial ("I want to determine car colours, the first car I see is red, experiment concluded") and taking a conclusion from that. Obviously any subsequent "experiment" can prove the first one wrong, which is why an experiment should be about falsifying the null hypothesis. If performed correctly (which is why I used the term "controlled experiment"), you only need to do it once (although confirmation always helps).
The problem is that the state of medical experimentation, at least in the US (which is where I'm aware of the state, it could be as bad elsewhere) is pretty dire, people faking disorders in order to be part of the trial (since you're paid for it), people taking part in multiple trials at the same time (with unknown interactions, again for the money), testing being done on homeless people and whatnot with all manner of undiagnosed problems and who in any case aren't representative of the general population (again, for the money), and so on. So the biggest thing to address isn't lack of confirmation, it's that the experiments are often so badly run that they're worthless.
(Another problem, and in this case an ethical one as much as an experimental-methodology one, is the use of populations in third-world countries as non-voluntary guinea pigs in medical trials).
It appears the medical research field has forgotten this basic tenet of science: A result has to be proven by a second independent study before you can take it seriously. Instead, they would do one study, get the results they wanted, and then declare success.
Uhh... that's not even wrong. It's either something that started out OK and has been edited down into nonsense, or it shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of how controlled experiments work that, well, it's not even wrong.
it was against the law to refuse the access
The Fugitive Slave Act made it against the law to help escaped slaves. The Reich Citizenship Law made Jews non-people with no rights. For both of those laws (and many others), people resisted, even though in some cases they risked death in doing so. If what your government is doing is morally wrong, saying that you were just following orders and had no choice isn't good enough...
It's a... very revealing read, to put it mildly.
For an equally revealing read, after you've read the above on Assange (and I'll throw in Suelette Dreyfus' excellent "Underground", which talks about his early years), read Robert Hare's "Without Conscience" and see how much of Assange you can find in the book.
Maybe he means .... the Ribbon.
It installs the LibreOffice on its laptop or it gets the Ribbon again.
Damn you, OpenSSH devs! Damn you all to heck!!!
Is heck the place people go who don't believe in gosh?
I patched 'none' encryption into openssh many years ago
We assume the fruit basket and flowers arrived OK?
Love,
The NSA.
Over ten percent of their vulnerabilities are reported by outsiders. That's a justification. That makes the 90% that's crap worthwhile.
OSVDB reports 3,700 vulns in Oracle products. If that's 10% of the total (the rest are Oracle-internal) as Davidson claims that means Oracle products have around 40,000 security vulns in them.
Someone earlier mentioned that Oracle products are the security equivalent of Swiss cheese, but with 40,000 vulns it's more like chicken wire, or maybe a small keep out sign in the corner.
However, there's a second category of people (and she's write that bug bounty programs have somewhat encouraged them) that are the security equivalent of script kiddies - they downloaded a "sploits!" kit off the the internet (in this case, often a combination of a decomplier and static analyzer). They don't really understand how the kit works or what it does, but ZOMG I ran it against your code and it found issues! Your software is insecure!
Yup, and that is something I can sympathise with her for. We've run into exactly this in the past, the conversation went something like:
Zomg your servers have [whatever that day's OpenSSL security vuln was]!
Our servers don't use OpenSSL, it's a false positive.
But our consluttants' scanner is reporting an OpenSSL vuln! Fix it!
We don't use OpenSSL, it's a FP.
Fix it! Fix it! Fix it!
There's nothing to fix, it's a FP.
We can't accept you as a business partner until our consluttants' scan shows no vulns.
OK, which scanner are you using...
We resolved the problem by finding a way to crash their scanner (I think it was using OpenSSL to do the scan), so when it scanned our servers it'd die and not report the FP any more.
So basically Oracle is interested in license revenue [rather] than security?
Well, uhh, yeah, of course. Why are you even asking that question?
The message along the lines of "report the bug and we send in the lawyers",
Thus my favourite tweet about this:
It stops the reverse engineering or else it gets the EULA again.
Brilliant.
Just installed it and I'm quite surprised, it looks just like Firefox 39 (and 38, and 37, and... whatever version where they intro'd that stupid Chrome-clone theme with curved tabs and whatnot). So whatever pointless shit they've added this time, it's not visible in the UI.
(Having said that, I'm running Classic Theme Restorer and a bunch of other addons to undo all the crap they've stuck in there, so maybe it's shielding me from whatever they've screwed up this time).
The bug (CVE-2015-3825), discovered by IBMâ(TM)s X-Force Application Security Research Team in the OpenSSLX509Certificate
I wonder what sort of security analysis they used, I guess something like grep -r openssl * -lt 1 || echo "Security vuln found!" would do it.
They will simply require that women riding in Uber be escorted by a male family member.
Or enter into mut'ah marriages for the duration of the journey. So the woman gets into the Uber, enters into a mut'ah marriage, the dowry paid is the amount of the Uber fare, and when she exits the marriage is dissolved.
Having said that, I'm not sure if wahhabism allows mut'ah marriages...
Furthermore, most of the drivers are foreign nationals, so the much of their income is repatriated to their home countries rather than circulating in the Saudi economy. From an economic/business perspective, this is insane.
So rich Saudis, busy following a particular ideological mania, are sending money they have plenty of to much poorer countries where it's desperately needed? Sounds like a win/win situation to me.