why would I allow either of those domains to run a script on slashdot.org?
You wouldn't. Slashdot would. This is about the site creator specifying a white list, and not about the visitor being prompted about it.
But if things were perfect, I could enable only for scripts from $SUBDOMAIN.mybank.com, so I don't get hosed by scripts from $HACKERSITE.bankmy.com.
Am I misunderstanding the description of this extension, because to me this sounds exactly like what it does. You enable scripts from domains you specify. Thus, no javascript injections or form hacking will get a page to retrieve foreign scripts without the attacker being able to physically alter the document.
I think you mean "human error" as in "pilot controlling the plane" human error. I was using the term more loosely as in "opposed to not hit by a meteor" human error. I am sure using "design flaw" instead would been more precise, and that is what I meant, but I was trying to emphasize the human element in computers.
To prove my point, if this was a computer error, then see how easy they fix it, and watch this never happen again. A human made an error, and a human will easily correct it. That is nothing like the weather.
Like any other part of the plane, the computer is just another instrument designed and manufactured by people. Blame the programmer, the tester, the lack of analysis. The cause of this accident has nothing to do with computers. They just do what we tell them to. Leave them alone.
This is a great example of picking numbers to tell your story. In this case, its "per thousand viewers." Isn't it the total income that really really matters? 1000 people viewed it, woop woop. TV viewers are in the millions, and Ads run for, what, 9 minutes? Compare that to the 30 some seconds of Ads and n-thousands of viewers, your online TV ad revenue isn't going to save any networks anytime soon.
The exact opposite story could be written if the writer picked different parameters. In the end it just depends who gets paid more to say what. Reality is always an after thought in modern journalism.
btw Tivo might kill TV ads, but ALT+TAB works fine for me, although I'm usually listening more rather than watching. I also wonder if Hulu tells their paying advertisers how the buffer doesn't work as good with ads... The ads stutter pretty often.
So, most of the "thinking" and "unblocking" can be done on the toilet seat or at a coffee shop. If you are in front of your computer and are required to work, or you just need to get stuff done, it's good to get methodical, and shut your blocked brain off for a bit. Like:
i) Comment. Review and explain yourself where you haven't before.
ii) Organize. Look over the names, rearrange your files, clean up some messy lines.
iii) Debug. There is never enough time to test and debug.
iv) List Tasks. Prioritize and serialize your tasks, and plan a coding route. Just follow it.
To focus:
i) Get a big timer. Set it for 15 minutes and just work. Rest for 15 minutes. Then work, adjusting the minutes. You probably will only need one or two cycles to get your head straight, if you really aren't that tired. Else,
ii) Walk around. Be it in circles or around the block. It helps your blood flow. Caffeine before the walk can help too.
iii) Sleep. In a comfortable position. You don't want to wake up still tired.
iv) If the computer screen is what is bothering you, then resort to your pen and paper.
I think most of us do... and that is why I am worried Mozilla isn't looking at the same browser we, the people, do. I mean, without tab mix plus and others, Mozilla's tabs suck hard... and if Mozilla doesn't see that, then they are blind. If they do, then they should standardize or incorporate some of the functionality so many of us have already shown are worthy, before they go about bashing or scrapping the whole concept of "tabs."
For starters, Chrome does a good job of improving on the tab paradigm. Dragging them to rearrange them, pulling them off to create new windows... These are great features because they add to the experience of those who use them, and take away nothing from those who don't. Plus, they are quite intuitive and obvious. I am not saying Chrome is a better browser, but I am saying it has a better set of default tab behaviors than FireFox, or IE for that matter.
Right. Except such explaining and adjusting is precisely what is inconvenient to someone who already learned how to use folders over a long period of time, and isn't very competent with computers.
Labels can work _exactly_ like folders if that's all you want. The main difference is that a message can be in more than one "folder" if you need it to be.
You might be surprised at how hard this sentence is for some people to comprehend.
I agree the interface is lacking, but that is why I can whole heartedly recommend it to all my novice friends and family. It is secure, it is simple, and it does exactly what people who know little about computers want to do - get online and go to a specific web site.
Gmail is also great. Simple, secure, and uncluttered. Create an app icon and add it to the start menu, and you have a very simple email solution. The only problem I have though is their grouping of threads, which is unnecessary. That should be a lab feature if any. And why can't they just add folders? Who cares which is better. Some people just want folders, not labels, and if its so easy to give it to them, denying it is selfish. Just give it up, and give people what they want!
Programming languages are layers that abstract away the computer underneath. Philosophy is about pealing the layers that abstract away our being that lies underneath.
Of course, we know everything about a computer, because we built it. Yet we know nothing about our being, even when we're all trapped in one.
That could be our biggest weakness when the droids turn against us. Computers and machines will always know exactly what they are, while humans will forever be confused.
Humans don't always make the most rational decisions
Logic is a tool, and it is put to use intentionally by someone who knows its value and has the skills to do so. It requires the decision to utilize. It is not a background process. Some people just choose not to think logically or rationally, and their biology supports them 100%. And in many instances, even the smartest among us simply do not have enough time or energy to fully engage in a logical decision.
There is one correct answer only when the information available eliminates all other possibilities. When the information is any less, there are multiple answers, which is the case most of the time. Hence our actions are based on guessing, impulse, and a glimpse of immediate gratification, more often than not.
This paradoxical human behavior
Our behavior is not what is paradoxical, it is just misunderstood. This conclusion is what is paradoxical because we are concluding we are paradoxical, when we actually are not, yet we've somehow rationally and logically managed arrive at that decision!
Considering how similar the concept of IQ is to grades as measures of intelligence, you are basically restating if you are stupid you will be more likely to be on facebook. which is exactly what the NO CORRELATION statement in the original article is trying to refute.
What they really need to do is survey how many of the kids not on facebook get laid. I mean, isn't that all that matters to college kids anyway? I wouldn't be surprised to find out more nerds were on facebook than this study suggests... The stupid nerds. Ouch.
You (or I guess the people at those companies) would be surprised at how many designers can code. Most young designers grew up working with computers. So being able to code is a natural extension of implementing one's vision, especially if that vision involves something computer based like web pages or applications.
The opposite does not hold as true. Coders who aren't interested in art and design hardly have a chance to acquire those skills. It never really crosses their path. The paths they do cross are forced design decisions. Like, if they have to put a button somewhere, they'll put it where they think is best. But at the end of the day, they don't really know much about what they're doing, and they're ability to spew rationalizations to justify themselves doesn't make them any better at it. Though, that being said, great coders are hardly ever beaten by the coding skills of a designer who can code.
Also there is the very important distinction between usability, the user experience and the purely visual experience. Overlooking the user experience can sabotage an entire effort of a commercial project even if the coding and the visuals are of top quality. The experience can be polished to work and feel better, not just work for more people. For example, there is a huge difference between a car that is not broken and a Rolls Royce, and they are not valued the same - not at all. There is this huge perception that usability will yield a quality experience. Often times, this is the opposite. Making something usable, and making something a joy to use, are two completely different problems.
If you are getting hired by what you call yourself, you are either really lucky for getting more than you deserve, or really stupid for working at a place that doesn't know what they're doing.
Pick whatever name you want. Just make sure you have a fancy portfolio you can back before you enter that interview room.
Most of the problems with large coding projects isn't communication. It is organization. And to think more people talking competent English will automatically help organize a large coding project, is missing the target.
Communication isn't an asset, it is a requirement for anyone working with other people. But most people can communicate. Coding on the other hand, is not measurable by the same kind of spectrum for measuring communication. A competent coder can do the job of a 20 person team of average coders in half the time. A competent coder can do things others simply can't. They can also write simple, structurally sound code. Someone with broken English might still be able to communication, but in any commercial project, there is absolutely no room for broken code or broken coders.
If you can find a competent coder that can also manage his own "code monkeys" to accelerate their work, then you have a true gem. Hire that person and pay them half your budget for the entire project. Make them work 70hr weeks until the project is done, and then give them a long vacation twice as long as your sales team reaps the profits.
Equating science to the scientific method is like equating religion to god, there is a connection but only tenuous at best.
The scientific method is the act of science and the act of yielding results. It is what great scientists do, and what the Nobel prize rewards. It is not the category of science, nor the politics that surround it. And it is definitely not the vessel by which science is taught in schools. To a student, given a book and being commanded to memorize and believe in its contents is the same process by which most acquire both science and religion. Hence the indifference, and the inability to categorically distinguish the two. And by systematically engraving truths in books and then those books into minds, people can be easily manipulated into how to think. This is the process by which both religion and science function in modern education. Hence the importance of method based scientific education.
Effectively it is guessing, examining the result, comparing it in fancy statistical ways, then making another guess.
So according to you, this is thinking? Sounds more like computing to me, which would explain why a computer would be so good at it, but if one chooses to personify its behavior, so be it!
1. Most programming resources are in English. To not be able to tap into these resources is a huge disadvantage.
2. English is comparatively more abstract and structural in nature than other languages. It is no coincidence that it is easier to program in English (in terms of naming variables and modeling objects). If functions and variables were in Japanese or Chinese or I suspect even French, we would have a harder time programming.
Most people become bilingual from before they are in a position to choose what to learn.
Yes, the wealthier tier that travels a lot or sends their kids to private boarding schools more will have a higher chance of their child becoming better educated and multi-cultural than a child who is forced to attend the same local public school until college.
But no, better education does not equate to better cognitive and memory skills, but rather implies a broader and more efficient acquisition of knowledge, and a better support group comprised of richer human and intellectual resources.
But sure, someone with better cognitive and memory skills may have an easier time picking up extra languages even when they are older.
The scientific method and faith based systems are different paradigms all together and they do not mix. Both sides are guilty of interpreting the other on their own terms. Religion is about belief. Science is about the scientific method. You cannot talk about religion in terms of the scientific method, and you cannot talk about science in terms of what you believe. Doing so yields nothing. They are highly unrelated, but we react when they're mixed, and their just fun to argue about. But we can live with both, as many of us do, without contradiction. And both have important parts to play in many of our lives.
Your entire reply is religious in nature. If "there is NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE for any of these conditions" then those conditions are faith based, and are not scientifically useful. They are speculative, hypothetical, and inconclusive. They are scientifically fun-to-think-about. Many scientists are probably looking for evidence, but until then, nothing will come from this work.
you must (according to current science) accept that one of the following is true
No. You mustn't believe in anything. You must only prove and disprove. And if something is yet to be proven, then they're just possibilities.
Religion is blindly taught, because there isn't real evidence or causal arithmetic to prove anything. Science on the other hand, when taught properly, doesn't require belief apart from the scientific principles themselves. If a student has the tools to interpret evidence, and is presented with proper evidence, ID and evolution can never be equal because the evidence on one completely outweighs the other. In fact, the more information the better. Nothing and no one needs to be silenced.
Of course, teaching science in a way that allows students to reach their own pragmatically correct conclusions is very difficult, so instead, we resort to scientific bibles - aka textbooks. We then go on to "blindly" insist on whatever written in the books as being fact... all the while criticizing faith based education.
We do not need to believe in evolution. If there is evidence, evolution will always emerge from that evidence regardless of what we believe. It is there. It is not in our head. And that is precisely why science is more reliable. God may not always give you what you want. God requires faith exist. But a bridge will not collapse if built properly on science derived from evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
why would I allow either of those domains to run a script on slashdot.org?
You wouldn't. Slashdot would. This is about the site creator specifying a white list, and not about the visitor being prompted about it.
But if things were perfect, I could enable only for scripts from $SUBDOMAIN.mybank.com, so I don't get hosed by scripts from $HACKERSITE.bankmy.com.
Am I misunderstanding the description of this extension, because to me this sounds exactly like what it does. You enable scripts from domains you specify. Thus, no javascript injections or form hacking will get a page to retrieve foreign scripts without the attacker being able to physically alter the document.
I think you mean "human error" as in "pilot controlling the plane" human error. I was using the term more loosely as in "opposed to not hit by a meteor" human error. I am sure using "design flaw" instead would been more precise, and that is what I meant, but I was trying to emphasize the human element in computers.
To prove my point, if this was a computer error, then see how easy they fix it, and watch this never happen again. A human made an error, and a human will easily correct it. That is nothing like the weather.
If you arbitrarily redefine terms, anything can become anything else...
Meaning and language are not a set of free associations. There is a limit to what you can redefine while still remaining persuasive.
as any act of god can be written off as humans
So bad software is an act of God? Now that would be stretching it. What have we all done to deserve this!!
Like any other part of the plane, the computer is just another instrument designed and manufactured by people. Blame the programmer, the tester, the lack of analysis. The cause of this accident has nothing to do with computers. They just do what we tell them to. Leave them alone.
This is a great example of picking numbers to tell your story. In this case, its "per thousand viewers." Isn't it the total income that really really matters? 1000 people viewed it, woop woop. TV viewers are in the millions, and Ads run for, what, 9 minutes? Compare that to the 30 some seconds of Ads and n-thousands of viewers, your online TV ad revenue isn't going to save any networks anytime soon.
The exact opposite story could be written if the writer picked different parameters. In the end it just depends who gets paid more to say what. Reality is always an after thought in modern journalism.
btw Tivo might kill TV ads, but ALT+TAB works fine for me, although I'm usually listening more rather than watching. I also wonder if Hulu tells their paying advertisers how the buffer doesn't work as good with ads... The ads stutter pretty often.
So, most of the "thinking" and "unblocking" can be done on the toilet seat or at a coffee shop. If you are in front of your computer and are required to work, or you just need to get stuff done, it's good to get methodical, and shut your blocked brain off for a bit. Like:
i) Comment. Review and explain yourself where you haven't before.
ii) Organize. Look over the names, rearrange your files, clean up some messy lines.
iii) Debug. There is never enough time to test and debug.
iv) List Tasks. Prioritize and serialize your tasks, and plan a coding route. Just follow it.
To focus:
i) Get a big timer. Set it for 15 minutes and just work. Rest for 15 minutes. Then work, adjusting the minutes. You probably will only need one or two cycles to get your head straight, if you really aren't that tired. Else,
ii) Walk around. Be it in circles or around the block. It helps your blood flow. Caffeine before the walk can help too.
iii) Sleep. In a comfortable position. You don't want to wake up still tired.
iv) If the computer screen is what is bothering you, then resort to your pen and paper.
Hope this helps some.
I use a number of extensions which help with this
I think most of us do... and that is why I am worried Mozilla isn't looking at the same browser we, the people, do. I mean, without tab mix plus and others, Mozilla's tabs suck hard... and if Mozilla doesn't see that, then they are blind. If they do, then they should standardize or incorporate some of the functionality so many of us have already shown are worthy, before they go about bashing or scrapping the whole concept of "tabs."
For starters, Chrome does a good job of improving on the tab paradigm. Dragging them to rearrange them, pulling them off to create new windows... These are great features because they add to the experience of those who use them, and take away nothing from those who don't. Plus, they are quite intuitive and obvious. I am not saying Chrome is a better browser, but I am saying it has a better set of default tab behaviors than FireFox, or IE for that matter.
Fault tolerance must be less than .00000256% for such a system to be safe. That is a completely unrealistic standard.
One person is enough to compromise secrecy, and just because you can know who that is, doesn't mean you can retrieve what was already stolen.
"teach them how to learn".
go to google.com... class dismissed!
Right. Except such explaining and adjusting is precisely what is inconvenient to someone who already learned how to use folders over a long period of time, and isn't very competent with computers.
Labels can work _exactly_ like folders if that's all you want. The main difference is that a message can be in more than one "folder" if you need it to be.
You might be surprised at how hard this sentence is for some people to comprehend.
I agree the interface is lacking, but that is why I can whole heartedly recommend it to all my novice friends and family. It is secure, it is simple, and it does exactly what people who know little about computers want to do - get online and go to a specific web site.
Gmail is also great. Simple, secure, and uncluttered. Create an app icon and add it to the start menu, and you have a very simple email solution. The only problem I have though is their grouping of threads, which is unnecessary. That should be a lab feature if any. And why can't they just add folders? Who cares which is better. Some people just want folders, not labels, and if its so easy to give it to them, denying it is selfish. Just give it up, and give people what they want!
Programming languages are layers that abstract away the computer underneath. Philosophy is about pealing the layers that abstract away our being that lies underneath.
Of course, we know everything about a computer, because we built it. Yet we know nothing about our being, even when we're all trapped in one.
That could be our biggest weakness when the droids turn against us. Computers and machines will always know exactly what they are, while humans will forever be confused.
Humans don't always make the most rational decisions
Logic is a tool, and it is put to use intentionally by someone who knows its value and has the skills to do so. It requires the decision to utilize. It is not a background process. Some people just choose not to think logically or rationally, and their biology supports them 100%. And in many instances, even the smartest among us simply do not have enough time or energy to fully engage in a logical decision.
There is one correct answer only when the information available eliminates all other possibilities. When the information is any less, there are multiple answers, which is the case most of the time. Hence our actions are based on guessing, impulse, and a glimpse of immediate gratification, more often than not.
This paradoxical human behavior
Our behavior is not what is paradoxical, it is just misunderstood. This conclusion is what is paradoxical because we are concluding we are paradoxical, when we actually are not, yet we've somehow rationally and logically managed arrive at that decision!
Considering how similar the concept of IQ is to grades as measures of intelligence, you are basically restating if you are stupid you will be more likely to be on facebook. which is exactly what the NO CORRELATION statement in the original article is trying to refute.
This just in, smart kids *don't* use facebook!
What they really need to do is survey how many of the kids not on facebook get laid. I mean, isn't that all that matters to college kids anyway? I wouldn't be surprised to find out more nerds were on facebook than this study suggests... The stupid nerds. Ouch.
You (or I guess the people at those companies) would be surprised at how many designers can code. Most young designers grew up working with computers. So being able to code is a natural extension of implementing one's vision, especially if that vision involves something computer based like web pages or applications.
The opposite does not hold as true. Coders who aren't interested in art and design hardly have a chance to acquire those skills. It never really crosses their path. The paths they do cross are forced design decisions. Like, if they have to put a button somewhere, they'll put it where they think is best. But at the end of the day, they don't really know much about what they're doing, and they're ability to spew rationalizations to justify themselves doesn't make them any better at it. Though, that being said, great coders are hardly ever beaten by the coding skills of a designer who can code.
Also there is the very important distinction between usability, the user experience and the purely visual experience. Overlooking the user experience can sabotage an entire effort of a commercial project even if the coding and the visuals are of top quality. The experience can be polished to work and feel better, not just work for more people. For example, there is a huge difference between a car that is not broken and a Rolls Royce, and they are not valued the same - not at all. There is this huge perception that usability will yield a quality experience. Often times, this is the opposite. Making something usable, and making something a joy to use, are two completely different problems.
If you are getting hired by what you call yourself, you are either really lucky for getting more than you deserve, or really stupid for working at a place that doesn't know what they're doing.
Pick whatever name you want. Just make sure you have a fancy portfolio you can back before you enter that interview room.
that communication skills, not coding skills
Most of the problems with large coding projects isn't communication. It is organization. And to think more people talking competent English will automatically help organize a large coding project, is missing the target.
Communication isn't an asset, it is a requirement for anyone working with other people. But most people can communicate. Coding on the other hand, is not measurable by the same kind of spectrum for measuring communication. A competent coder can do the job of a 20 person team of average coders in half the time. A competent coder can do things others simply can't. They can also write simple, structurally sound code. Someone with broken English might still be able to communication, but in any commercial project, there is absolutely no room for broken code or broken coders.
If you can find a competent coder that can also manage his own "code monkeys" to accelerate their work, then you have a true gem. Hire that person and pay them half your budget for the entire project. Make them work 70hr weeks until the project is done, and then give them a long vacation twice as long as your sales team reaps the profits.
Equating science to the scientific method is like equating religion to god, there is a connection but only tenuous at best.
The scientific method is the act of science and the act of yielding results. It is what great scientists do, and what the Nobel prize rewards. It is not the category of science, nor the politics that surround it. And it is definitely not the vessel by which science is taught in schools. To a student, given a book and being commanded to memorize and believe in its contents is the same process by which most acquire both science and religion. Hence the indifference, and the inability to categorically distinguish the two. And by systematically engraving truths in books and then those books into minds, people can be easily manipulated into how to think. This is the process by which both religion and science function in modern education. Hence the importance of method based scientific education.
Effectively it is guessing, examining the result, comparing it in fancy statistical ways, then making another guess.
So according to you, this is thinking? Sounds more like computing to me, which would explain why a computer would be so good at it, but if one chooses to personify its behavior, so be it!
So the robot accomplished 1 experiment by how?
allowing Adam to investigate a thousand experiments a day and still keep track of all the results better than humans can.
Throwing darts... and eventually hitting something.
Woop woop!
That and 2 more great reasons:
1. Most programming resources are in English. To not be able to tap into these resources is a huge disadvantage.
2. English is comparatively more abstract and structural in nature than other languages. It is no coincidence that it is easier to program in English (in terms of naming variables and modeling objects). If functions and variables were in Japanese or Chinese or I suspect even French, we would have a harder time programming.
Most people become bilingual from before they are in a position to choose what to learn.
Yes, the wealthier tier that travels a lot or sends their kids to private boarding schools more will have a higher chance of their child becoming better educated and multi-cultural than a child who is forced to attend the same local public school until college.
But no, better education does not equate to better cognitive and memory skills, but rather implies a broader and more efficient acquisition of knowledge, and a better support group comprised of richer human and intellectual resources.
But sure, someone with better cognitive and memory skills may have an easier time picking up extra languages even when they are older.
The scientific method and faith based systems are different paradigms all together and they do not mix. Both sides are guilty of interpreting the other on their own terms. Religion is about belief. Science is about the scientific method. You cannot talk about religion in terms of the scientific method, and you cannot talk about science in terms of what you believe. Doing so yields nothing. They are highly unrelated, but we react when they're mixed, and their just fun to argue about. But we can live with both, as many of us do, without contradiction. And both have important parts to play in many of our lives.
Your entire reply is religious in nature. If "there is NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE for any of these conditions" then those conditions are faith based, and are not scientifically useful. They are speculative, hypothetical, and inconclusive. They are scientifically fun-to-think-about. Many scientists are probably looking for evidence, but until then, nothing will come from this work.
you must (according to current science) accept that one of the following is true
No. You mustn't believe in anything. You must only prove and disprove. And if something is yet to be proven, then they're just possibilities.
Religion is blindly taught, because there isn't real evidence or causal arithmetic to prove anything. Science on the other hand, when taught properly, doesn't require belief apart from the scientific principles themselves. If a student has the tools to interpret evidence, and is presented with proper evidence, ID and evolution can never be equal because the evidence on one completely outweighs the other. In fact, the more information the better. Nothing and no one needs to be silenced.
Of course, teaching science in a way that allows students to reach their own pragmatically correct conclusions is very difficult, so instead, we resort to scientific bibles - aka textbooks. We then go on to "blindly" insist on whatever written in the books as being fact... all the while criticizing faith based education.
We do not need to believe in evolution. If there is evidence, evolution will always emerge from that evidence regardless of what we believe. It is there. It is not in our head. And that is precisely why science is more reliable. God may not always give you what you want. God requires faith exist. But a bridge will not collapse if built properly on science derived from evidence.