I mean, can I sue a site for forcing me to use an easy password, which then gets hacked?
Probably only if the government forced you to use the website. For anything else, it probably wouldn't stick because you could have always not used the website.
some sites deliberately stop their users from being as secure as possible, for no really justifiable reason.
Perhaps the website has had issues with some sort of script, or bad actor, who just pastes password guesses into the field. Then the site admin found that blocking pastes blocked the software which was trying to attack them.
Remember that systems like Watson are not programmed
I wonder what the programmers who worked on Watson think about that? A system like Watson isn't creating anything new though, Watson is doing pattern matching and natural language synthesis. Watson is basically saying "Given the words in your question, here is the probable answer, and here is where I got that information". A lot of programming is "Do something new."
Given that this program is exposing them to STEM courses, I don't see how this is forcing them into STEM fields. You won't be able to find a single course in school that everyone is interested in. So given that your complaint is that 'not everyone is interested in STEM' as the reason to not teach Science Technology Engineering or Math subjects in school, if you apply that to any subject, there wouldn't be any subjects teachable in school.
Also, people who like the STE of STEM, tend to not end up in public education (Math being the possible exception), schools are filled with adults with no interest in STE (but I admit the interest in M can vary wildly). So having some extra encouragement for STE might help make the amount of STEM taught in school to match the interest in STEM that the students have.
Instead, the point is that there exists a systematic, cultural, and longstanding bias against encouraging and fostering scientific and mathematical proficiency in female students,
Given that I can't recall any encouraging or fostering of myself for my chosen field of employment, I can't muster up anything beyond apathy for those who complain about the lack of fostering for going into one field or another.
First things first: We have to make sure that no banker ever loses so much as a Euro, no matter how bad the investment. That's primary in this deal.
Do you mean individual people who happen to be employed at banks, or the banks themselves? Because yes, society at large has an issue with the banks losing large amounts of money. Why? Because is the money in the banks is societies money. Where did the bank get the money to lend to Greece? From you. So if the Greece defaults on their debts, and then banks don't get repaid, it's your money that went away and will no longer be able to pull out of the bank. If there's no money to pull out of the bank, there's no money to pull out of the bank.
According to this article, having too many people of a specific skin color in an area causes crime.
Actually, according to the article, it's claiming that by having too many rich people causes crime. The idea being that having someone move it and get a well paying job that must have only come from making someone else unemployed. So now there are a bunch of unemployed homeless people, and all of the housing has gone to over paid people. So home breakins has increased because now there's actually something worth stealing in houses.
After the recent Supreme Court decision you can tell Fox News knows it's happening somewhere. They just need someone to tell them about it, and they'll fly in the troops to 'report' on it.
King County has always been super white. The article didn't say that King County was the whitest in the nation, but the whitest of the 20 most populous counties in the nation. I wouldn't be surprised if its always held that title.
If the cloud provider created an encryption that even they couldn't work with they wouldn't have clients. For starters, search wouldn't work. Secondly, the average Joe would expect the cloud solution to be like someone holding something for him in a safe. Should he lose the key for the safe, he would still expect a way to prove his identity and have the owner of the safe open it for him on his behalf.
So your best bet is to go with a solution whose privacy policy states that they won't datamine your data for commercial purposes.
Will carpool lanes give way to "autodriver" lanes as a carrot to get people to use the system, or because they are ultimately more efficient than carpooling itself in relieving traffic?
I suspect that carpool lanes will still exist as an incentive for multiple commuter to pile into the same car. If every morning I whip out my phone and hit the "I need a pickup in 15 min" button, and an options pops up to pay less to carpool, I'll probably hit that, and end up in a car with a few people from my neighborhood. We'll all probably be ignoring each other, but that's okay. Then I might get inconvenienced a little bit as one or two people get dropped off at their work before mine. As long as the pick up and drop offs are in same neighborhood, I think it'll be worth it for most people to have an automated system commute for them like that.
The thing is, the 'boring stuff' can be made fun - with a lot of creative work by a human teacher.
Technology can't do that.
Think about the actions you do when having fun with technology. If it wasn't a game, smashing the same four buttons over and over would not be fun. But the technology has made it fun. Once someone figures out how to make teaching a certain principle fun, technology can replicate that solution the world over, instead of being bottled up in a single classroom.
Well if you had highschool chemistry you would know that chewing medical pills is bad for you because it increases the absorption and surface area of the medication.
Most everyone had highschool chemistry, and that's not the reason why they know that chewing medical pills is bad. They know it's bad because at one point some authority figure would have told them not to, and the instructions on the bottle would say to do otherwise.
Even cooking is chemistry, and a lot of that fancy-pants "molecular gastronomy" (what, other food doesn't have molecules?) stuff is applicable to more mundane foods.
True, but how many cooks do you know are also good at chemistry. I suspect that the majority of cooks, who prepare the foods you eat, if they were any good at chemistry would not be cooks, because they'd be doing something else. While some really advanced chefs will make use of things they learned in chemistry, the vast majority do not. So the schools could stop teaching chemistry, leave it for college and those who want to be chemists, and the skills of the cooks out there will not change.
But given how new programming is, and how pervasive computers are, if everyone had a little bit more understanding of programming, it could have a huge impact on society.
Using a programming language successfully means using math concepts that elementary school students usually haven't been introduced to yet and requires strict formatting control, something they're still working on in elementary school with their primary language. Assigning values to an abstract variable is first introduced in algebra, and order of operations arrives late in grade school and weeks are spent on its mastery.
Many students really struggle with the concept of variables in math for years. And after all that they think of post-arithmetic math as something that is useless because they will never use/apply it in anyway. But if a year was spent on programming - tell the kids that they get a year free of math - in between arithmetic and algebra, when it comes time to teach algebra, the kids will already get a lot of the concepts that they struggle with now, and will be able to see how to make use of it. They will probably take what they learn in algebra and *gasp* apply it to what they've been programming.
I truly believe they have misnamed the subject in question, and couldn't possibly be talking about CS, but perhaps skills, incidentally related, often attributed to CS incorrectly.
I agree that there should be a division between computer science and software engineering, but given that most Universities don't make that split, we can't expect the politicians to do so either. As ideal as teaching the science of computing without computers is, only a very select few can wrap their minds around that. I know for myself that it took a few iterations of learning the concept in the class room, tinkering around with a program, and begin dazed and confused in class again before I really started to get it. Without the tinkering step, I don't think I ever would have.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, can I sue a site for forcing me to use an easy password, which then gets hacked?
Probably only if the government forced you to use the website. For anything else, it probably wouldn't stick because you could have always not used the website.
some sites deliberately stop their users from being as secure as possible, for no really justifiable reason.
Perhaps the website has had issues with some sort of script, or bad actor, who just pastes password guesses into the field. Then the site admin found that blocking pastes blocked the software which was trying to attack them.
Yeah but they're fundamental sciences that describe the universe we live in
Computation Science is a fundamental science which describes the universe we live in.
Remember that systems like Watson are not programmed
I wonder what the programmers who worked on Watson think about that? A system like Watson isn't creating anything new though, Watson is doing pattern matching and natural language synthesis. Watson is basically saying "Given the words in your question, here is the probable answer, and here is where I got that information". A lot of programming is "Do something new."
Coding is likely to be obsolete in a few years - replaced by deep learning systems
Do you have an example of any deep learning system that even begins to approach being able to code?
Given that this program is exposing them to STEM courses, I don't see how this is forcing them into STEM fields. You won't be able to find a single course in school that everyone is interested in. So given that your complaint is that 'not everyone is interested in STEM' as the reason to not teach Science Technology Engineering or Math subjects in school, if you apply that to any subject, there wouldn't be any subjects teachable in school.
Also, people who like the STE of STEM, tend to not end up in public education (Math being the possible exception), schools are filled with adults with no interest in STE (but I admit the interest in M can vary wildly). So having some extra encouragement for STE might help make the amount of STEM taught in school to match the interest in STEM that the students have.
Consumers will only care until Google offers a free service in exchange for their privacy. Then they'll happily not care.
Yeah who wants to bet this can be activated remotely....
You wish so badly for this be true.
Instead, the point is that there exists a systematic, cultural, and longstanding bias against encouraging and fostering scientific and mathematical proficiency in female students,
Given that I can't recall any encouraging or fostering of myself for my chosen field of employment, I can't muster up anything beyond apathy for those who complain about the lack of fostering for going into one field or another.
The users. They can vote with their wallets, and refuse to use Microsoft software if they don't like it.
And they've been voting for Chromebooks which automatically update without giving the user a choice. So, Microsoft has to respond in like.
First things first: We have to make sure that no banker ever loses so much as a Euro, no matter how bad the investment. That's primary in this deal.
Do you mean individual people who happen to be employed at banks, or the banks themselves? Because yes, society at large has an issue with the banks losing large amounts of money. Why? Because is the money in the banks is societies money. Where did the bank get the money to lend to Greece? From you. So if the Greece defaults on their debts, and then banks don't get repaid, it's your money that went away and will no longer be able to pull out of the bank. If there's no money to pull out of the bank, there's no money to pull out of the bank.
According to this article, having too many people of a specific skin color in an area causes crime.
Actually, according to the article, it's claiming that by having too many rich people causes crime. The idea being that having someone move it and get a well paying job that must have only come from making someone else unemployed. So now there are a bunch of unemployed homeless people, and all of the housing has gone to over paid people. So home breakins has increased because now there's actually something worth stealing in houses.
You mean bigots are getting beat up?
After the recent Supreme Court decision you can tell Fox News knows it's happening somewhere. They just need someone to tell them about it, and they'll fly in the troops to 'report' on it.
King County has always been super white. The article didn't say that King County was the whitest in the nation, but the whitest of the 20 most populous counties in the nation. I wouldn't be surprised if its always held that title.
October 21st is getting closer.
If the cloud provider created an encryption that even they couldn't work with they wouldn't have clients. For starters, search wouldn't work. Secondly, the average Joe would expect the cloud solution to be like someone holding something for him in a safe. Should he lose the key for the safe, he would still expect a way to prove his identity and have the owner of the safe open it for him on his behalf.
So your best bet is to go with a solution whose privacy policy states that they won't datamine your data for commercial purposes.
... to outlaw social engineering.
But then only criminals will have social engineering. How is a law abiding citizen supposed to protect themselves?
Will carpool lanes give way to "autodriver" lanes as a carrot to get people to use the system, or because they are ultimately more efficient than carpooling itself in relieving traffic?
I suspect that carpool lanes will still exist as an incentive for multiple commuter to pile into the same car. If every morning I whip out my phone and hit the "I need a pickup in 15 min" button, and an options pops up to pay less to carpool, I'll probably hit that, and end up in a car with a few people from my neighborhood. We'll all probably be ignoring each other, but that's okay. Then I might get inconvenienced a little bit as one or two people get dropped off at their work before mine. As long as the pick up and drop offs are in same neighborhood, I think it'll be worth it for most people to have an automated system commute for them like that.
When Google made Android, they used an incompatible version of Java
That's always been Google mantra: embrace, extend, extinguish.
The thing is, the 'boring stuff' can be made fun - with a lot of creative work by a human teacher. Technology can't do that.
Think about the actions you do when having fun with technology. If it wasn't a game, smashing the same four buttons over and over would not be fun. But the technology has made it fun. Once someone figures out how to make teaching a certain principle fun, technology can replicate that solution the world over, instead of being bottled up in a single classroom.
Going with the free email from your ISP means that you lose your email address if/when you switch to another ISP.
That wasn't my experience. Once they started putting ads in the web client, they were more than happy to keep hosting an email address for you.
Well if you had highschool chemistry you would know that chewing medical pills is bad for you because it increases the absorption and surface area of the medication.
Most everyone had highschool chemistry, and that's not the reason why they know that chewing medical pills is bad. They know it's bad because at one point some authority figure would have told them not to, and the instructions on the bottle would say to do otherwise.
Even cooking is chemistry, and a lot of that fancy-pants "molecular gastronomy" (what, other food doesn't have molecules?) stuff is applicable to more mundane foods.
True, but how many cooks do you know are also good at chemistry. I suspect that the majority of cooks, who prepare the foods you eat, if they were any good at chemistry would not be cooks, because they'd be doing something else. While some really advanced chefs will make use of things they learned in chemistry, the vast majority do not. So the schools could stop teaching chemistry, leave it for college and those who want to be chemists, and the skills of the cooks out there will not change.
But given how new programming is, and how pervasive computers are, if everyone had a little bit more understanding of programming, it could have a huge impact on society.
Using a programming language successfully means using math concepts that elementary school students usually haven't been introduced to yet and requires strict formatting control, something they're still working on in elementary school with their primary language. Assigning values to an abstract variable is first introduced in algebra, and order of operations arrives late in grade school and weeks are spent on its mastery.
Many students really struggle with the concept of variables in math for years. And after all that they think of post-arithmetic math as something that is useless because they will never use/apply it in anyway. But if a year was spent on programming - tell the kids that they get a year free of math - in between arithmetic and algebra, when it comes time to teach algebra, the kids will already get a lot of the concepts that they struggle with now, and will be able to see how to make use of it. They will probably take what they learn in algebra and *gasp* apply it to what they've been programming.
I truly believe they have misnamed the subject in question, and couldn't possibly be talking about CS, but perhaps skills, incidentally related, often attributed to CS incorrectly.
I agree that there should be a division between computer science and software engineering, but given that most Universities don't make that split, we can't expect the politicians to do so either. As ideal as teaching the science of computing without computers is, only a very select few can wrap their minds around that. I know for myself that it took a few iterations of learning the concept in the class room, tinkering around with a program, and begin dazed and confused in class again before I really started to get it. Without the tinkering step, I don't think I ever would have.