What does it do to the public school system? Who cares? The only question is what does it do to the students. Schools exist for the benefit of the students -- not for the benefit of the school system.
Schools exist for the benefit of society. That's why it's reasonable for society to pay for them.
That cuts to one of the hearts of the issue, are we optimizing for the best people getting the best education, or the getting the best education for the largest group of people we can?
Another aspect of the issue is that what guidance/expectations should society provide for those who don't even measure up to be in that largest group?
So, maybe, there is no need to tax/ban certain fuels and activities, after all? And thus no need for further expansion of governments (to enforce the bans) and merging of sovereign governments into an unelected "world-government" body?
Let's still tax carbon emissions, but in the process get rid of the income tax, and all of its many loopholes. We know for sure that the added carbon in the atmosphere does add pollution, which can be unsightly, and make it more difficult to breath. So since it's a bad thing, lets tax it, and stop taxing good things (like trade and income).
The solution? Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.
But those type of situations are fine; you've got a dedicated device doing a dedicated thing. Usually in those situations having a full OS is over kill and the system should have been built with an embedded OS in the first place. The type of scenarios which are worrying are ones where the computers are peoples internet personal files machines.
Why do people insist on using a web browser to read their mail instead of a proper e-mail client
Because that involves setting up an email client. Most people can't be bothered to do that, and for some strange reason find it annoying when somebody does do it on their behalf.
Maybe. On the other hand, 10 year terms means no movie company ever has to pay the author of a book for making the movie out of a book, or adher to the authors wishes. Just wait the years out.
Is that a bad thing?
On the other hand, 10 year terms means no book author ever has to pay the movie company for making a book out of the movie, or adher[sic] to the companies wishes. Just wait the years out.
The real problem here is that most people view computers as little black boxes that use a lot of elves and magic to keep them working.
There's the problem. We need to inform people that computers are little black boxes that use smoke to keep them working. How do I know? Because every time I've seen the smoke escape from the computer, it stopped working.
It's quite possible that this cannot be brute forced. The only way is to create the back door at the time that the random number generator is created. In the end, that is the _first_ requirement: That an arbitrary attacker, given a complete description of the algorithm, cannot brute force it.
From what I understand the whole point of algorithms like this is that brute force is the only option (without knowing the key). If there was some other mathematical way of determining the key the hackers would use that; so the goal is to create an algorithm where the secret key has to either be known, or brute forced. The only way to find the secret key is to literally try every possible number and hope that the computer stumbles across the right one eventually.
The person who can figure out how we can have all our tech toys and our privacy too will earn a fortune.
Given how the majority of the population is trying to share every piece of information about themselves that they can online, I doubt that would be true. Security/privacy is too inconvenient.
Once a work is in the public domain, anyone can make copies of it, and can make derivative works based on it.
Perhaps that's what we should change about copyright then. Perhaps those who love long copyrights will give up long copyrights in exchange for a way for them to hold onto the rights for derivative works.
I guess this means a US court will bravely stand up to bring Mickey Mouse into the public domain somewhere around 3500 AD.
Wouldn't Disney be able to keep a trademark over Mickey Mouse preventing any new works, but eventually the copyright on Steamboat Willie will expire, allowing any publisher to publish copies of Steamboat Willie?
Isn't the purpose of copyright the rights to copy the original work, and wouldn't the characters be part of trademark? So if book publishers wanted to make new copies of the Sherlock Holmes stories, they now have all rights to do so, but any new works, would still require licensing from the owners of the trademark?
Does this sound corrupt or what? They created the problem and now they have a solution, but at a cost. Sounds like double dipping into the customer's wallet.
So people or companies shouldn't try to fix problems they created?
He can't do it with that dragnet, either. All this NSA dragnet shit was in place for YEARS at the time of the Boston Marathon bombing, and it wasn't worth shit.
But let's say it prevented 100+ Boston Marathon-esque bombings, because the government stopped it before it got too far. Would it be an acceptable risk then?
From what I've seen, people are either apathetic or support it. As it turns out, people in the "land of the free" don't actually care about freedom all that much.
It's because that by and large the status quo has been awesome for so long that we'd rather have continuity than freedom++.
Surely, with all of our experience with what natural events (strong winds / tornados / hurricanes / ice stoems) can do to aerial cables, wtf isn't the city / state mandating that all new utility services are run underground?
That would give residents headaches with all of the construction to do so, and therefore is avoided.
But wouldn't it be more useful to have a course that emphasizes critical thinking about all types of problems rather than focusing on one specific application of critical thinking?
Yes, but sometimes getting your hands dirty helps too.
I remember my first CS class in University. The professors were using a new text book that tried to teach programming without doing much programming. It was very difficult, and they dropped the book for the next semester. A year later I remembered that reading that book always put me to sleep, and I was having trouble sleeping so I picked the book up, and to my surprise it was awesome! I even thought about how it did a great job teaching programming without really being language specific. But I could only see that in hindsight, after having had a couple of months of actually programming and poking around.
For A,B, and D (don't know about C), the words are the same, but the different group have divided them differently. It's not like God said "Here are the ten", people divided them up into 10 later. Maybe they thought that 10 was a nice round number, but since they aren't divided up in the Bible everyone had to figure out how to divided them up themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Users want a) compatibility with all of their existing hardware and software, b) familiar interface, c) reliability, d) security
But the reality is that 'a' is mutually exclusive with 'c' and 'd'.
What does it do to the public school system? Who cares? The only question is what does it do to the students. Schools exist for the benefit of the students -- not for the benefit of the school system.
Schools exist for the benefit of society. That's why it's reasonable for society to pay for them.
That cuts to one of the hearts of the issue, are we optimizing for the best people getting the best education, or the getting the best education for the largest group of people we can?
Another aspect of the issue is that what guidance/expectations should society provide for those who don't even measure up to be in that largest group?
So, maybe, there is no need to tax/ban certain fuels and activities, after all? And thus no need for further expansion of governments (to enforce the bans) and merging of sovereign governments into an unelected "world-government" body?
Let's still tax carbon emissions, but in the process get rid of the income tax, and all of its many loopholes. We know for sure that the added carbon in the atmosphere does add pollution, which can be unsightly, and make it more difficult to breath. So since it's a bad thing, lets tax it, and stop taxing good things (like trade and income).
The solution? Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.
But those type of situations are fine; you've got a dedicated device doing a dedicated thing. Usually in those situations having a full OS is over kill and the system should have been built with an embedded OS in the first place. The type of scenarios which are worrying are ones where the computers are peoples internet personal files machines.
But you only have to do it once! Set it and forget it. And people even "normal" users used to have to do it.
When it comes to effort 0 > 1.
Why do people insist on using a web browser to read their mail instead of a proper e-mail client
Because that involves setting up an email client. Most people can't be bothered to do that, and for some strange reason find it annoying when somebody does do it on their behalf.
The government is just jealous that it's having trouble getting the data. They're big babies, if they can't have it they don't want anyone to have it.
Maybe. On the other hand, 10 year terms means no movie company ever has to pay the author of a book for making the movie out of a book, or adher to the authors wishes. Just wait the years out.
Is that a bad thing?
On the other hand, 10 year terms means no book author ever has to pay the movie company for making a book out of the movie, or adher[sic] to the companies wishes. Just wait the years out.
The real problem here is that most people view computers as little black boxes that use a lot of elves and magic to keep them working.
There's the problem. We need to inform people that computers are little black boxes that use smoke to keep them working. How do I know? Because every time I've seen the smoke escape from the computer, it stopped working.
It's quite possible that this cannot be brute forced. The only way is to create the back door at the time that the random number generator is created. In the end, that is the _first_ requirement: That an arbitrary attacker, given a complete description of the algorithm, cannot brute force it.
From what I understand the whole point of algorithms like this is that brute force is the only option (without knowing the key). If there was some other mathematical way of determining the key the hackers would use that; so the goal is to create an algorithm where the secret key has to either be known, or brute forced. The only way to find the secret key is to literally try every possible number and hope that the computer stumbles across the right one eventually.
The person who can figure out how we can have all our tech toys and our privacy too will earn a fortune.
Given how the majority of the population is trying to share every piece of information about themselves that they can online, I doubt that would be true. Security/privacy is too inconvenient.
Once a work is in the public domain, anyone can make copies of it, and can make derivative works based on it.
Perhaps that's what we should change about copyright then. Perhaps those who love long copyrights will give up long copyrights in exchange for a way for them to hold onto the rights for derivative works.
I guess this means a US court will bravely stand up to bring Mickey Mouse into the public domain somewhere around 3500 AD.
Wouldn't Disney be able to keep a trademark over Mickey Mouse preventing any new works, but eventually the copyright on Steamboat Willie will expire, allowing any publisher to publish copies of Steamboat Willie?
Isn't the purpose of copyright the rights to copy the original work, and wouldn't the characters be part of trademark? So if book publishers wanted to make new copies of the Sherlock Holmes stories, they now have all rights to do so, but any new works, would still require licensing from the owners of the trademark?
Does this sound corrupt or what? They created the problem and now they have a solution, but at a cost. Sounds like double dipping into the customer's wallet.
So people or companies shouldn't try to fix problems they created?
Surely firmware can not be updated/modified without user knowledge, am I wrong?
Click here to view videos of cute kittens!!!!!!
He can't do it with that dragnet, either. All this NSA dragnet shit was in place for YEARS at the time of the Boston Marathon bombing, and it wasn't worth shit.
But let's say it prevented 100+ Boston Marathon-esque bombings, because the government stopped it before it got too far. Would it be an acceptable risk then?
From what I've seen, people are either apathetic or support it. As it turns out, people in the "land of the free" don't actually care about freedom all that much.
It's because that by and large the status quo has been awesome for so long that we'd rather have continuity than freedom++.
But a City has its own different motivation - it needs to Get Stuff Done with people mostly properly trained
LOL
And now it's time to ban commercials featuring unrealistically beautified people.
How else will I find out how people can be unrealistically beautified?
Surely, with all of our experience with what natural events (strong winds / tornados / hurricanes / ice stoems) can do to aerial cables, wtf isn't the city / state mandating that all new utility services are run underground?
That would give residents headaches with all of the construction to do so, and therefore is avoided.
But wouldn't it be more useful to have a course that emphasizes critical thinking about all types of problems rather than focusing on one specific application of critical thinking?
Yes, but sometimes getting your hands dirty helps too.
I remember my first CS class in University. The professors were using a new text book that tried to teach programming without doing much programming. It was very difficult, and they dropped the book for the next semester. A year later I remembered that reading that book always put me to sleep, and I was having trouble sleeping so I picked the book up, and to my surprise it was awesome! I even thought about how it did a great job teaching programming without really being language specific. But I could only see that in hindsight, after having had a couple of months of actually programming and poking around.
There are *four* versions, and they all differ:
For A,B, and D (don't know about C), the words are the same, but the different group have divided them differently. It's not like God said "Here are the ten", people divided them up into 10 later. Maybe they thought that 10 was a nice round number, but since they aren't divided up in the Bible everyone had to figure out how to divided them up themselves.
What security hole is the virus making use of? Is there something and end user should look out for? etc, etc?