Sure. Geiger counters are obvious of course, but they only detect ionizing radiation. When I was at the Exploratorium I used to carry a tiny fluorescent bulb, which would glow in the strong RF fields created by some exhibits
Not sure what the LOD is, though it must not be that high...actually the railing around the exhibit shown on the linked page was mandated by OSHA (apparently it is normal for them to carry EMF detectors during inspections).
Structured programming theorem. Just so no one reading this gets the idea that goto is in fact more flexible, though it might seem that way at first glance.
You know, there is an actual character for the standard mathematical "not equals" sign. "=/=" is OK, but at least to me the visual similarity to the standard symbol is not obvious.
No, I was born free but then some assholes with burning crosses, or misappropriated South Asian good luck charms, or who wear red robes and worship sadism* started beating the shit out of everyone. Fortunately, some badass Lockeian philosophers established this new nation with the idea of eventually suppressing that kind of evil. Fast forward a couple hundred years and boom, many of those ideas are actually fully or partially implemented.
I think it should read, "Syrian Government Uses Instant Messaging File Transfers to Push Malware to Activists."
Nothing about the attack couldn't have been done over AIM, or ICQ, or MSN, or IRC, or Jabber, because all of those protocols provide a means for exchanging files with other users.
Good advice. I was going to post something similar but you beat me to it.
What's so great about OTR? It doesn't just provide end-to-end encryption, but uses a model which supplies plausible deniability and perfect forward secrecy. That means that after an encrypted conversation is over, there is no way of associating it with you, and that if your keys are compromised past messages cannot then be decrypted.
1. Deep conviction of truth without evidence. Atheists in general have so such conviction. Atheism is the absence of belief, not an alternative belief. 0 points.
2. Unshakable faith. Most atheists and certainly most atheist scholars argue against dogmatism and in favor of evidence-based belief and decision making. 0 points.
3. Mystery as such is inherently good. I'm going to skip this one; ascribing it to atheists seems "not even wrong." 0 points.
4. Intolerant behavior toward rival faiths. Atheists may be intolerant of religious people, true, but profession of atheism has been a killing offence in many places for thousands of years. Atheists also do not claim that people who disagree with them deserve and will suffer an eternity of pain. Let's say, half a point.
5. Particular convictions are likely to resemble those of one's parents. Probably true of people in general, however atheists are also much more likely to have different beliefs than do their parents. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and a full point.
6. If beliefs differ from the parents, a singular charismatic individual may be responsible. I think it's much more common for people to become atheists due to internal reflection and external observations, than it is for them to become religious. However, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. fall into the category of "charismatic individuals". 1 point.
7. Internal feelings may be similar to romantic love. I don't think anyone is really experiencing the passion of the nothing that way, and their are no wives of the nothing (i.e. atheist nuns) either. 0 points.
So of the 7 "symptoms" Dawkins describes, just 2.5 of them can be fairly ascribed to atheists.
For professional athletes I think that you're absolutely right, but at the highscool and college level there is certainly a lot of social pressure.
From what I've read, the distinctions between free, enslaved and incarcerated gladiators were also argued in Rome. Here is one interesting essay I found that discusses the opinions of people such as Pliny and Cicero on the matter. In contrast to today, though, they thought it was worse for free men to be gladiators than slaves.
Some people might find it unethical to watch a sport or other event if they have factual knowledge that the participants' health is being compromised for entertainment.
The obvious parallel is to ancient gladiatorial contests: some Roman intellectuals opposed the games, though most did not.
Yes, believe it or not, football can be fun. But parents, coaches, fans, the industry often take a game of physical contest and turn it into something ugly, with violence, social standing and money as its end. People should be able to choose to play football, but there is something wrong with the sport when players are targeted for hits because their concussion history makes it likely they will be permanently disabled.
“He’s had a lot of concussions,” Giants wide receiver Devin Thomas told the Newark Star Ledger. “We were just like, ‘We gotta put a hit on that guy.’” Thomas went on to praise safety Tyler Sash for landing the dizzying hit. “Sash did a great job hitting [Williams] early, and he looked kind of dazed when he got up. I feel like that made a difference, and he coughed it up.”
The implementation is certainly subject to copyright, that's not in dispute. At that level, Android used 9 lines of a trivial range checking function, which Josh Bloch had copied to work around some namespace issue. That code has since been eliminated.
Oracle's assertion now is that the API specification is also subject to copyright. Historically, programmers and the courts have held that this is not the case, because the declarations are really just factual descriptions about the implementation. Thus the statement that an API is an "idea;" an example (used often in this case) would be the max() function which returns the greater of two operands. Clearly a "max" function is just an idea (not copyrightable). Oracle is saying that the API spec. goes beyond this, including the "sequence, structure and organization" of all the packages as well as the documentation.
tl;dr: the answers to your questions (from a legal standpoint) aren't clear, we'll have to see what the jury, Judge Alsup and probably an appeals court have to say. From a technological standpoint I think the opinion of most actual programmers is well known.
Slashdot Mirror
That good security requires groping children is a fallacy. Fly El Al and find out.
Sure. Geiger counters are obvious of course, but they only detect ionizing radiation. When I was at the Exploratorium I used to carry a tiny fluorescent bulb, which would glow in the strong RF fields created by some exhibits
Not sure what the LOD is, though it must not be that high...actually the railing around the exhibit shown on the linked page was mandated by OSHA (apparently it is normal for them to carry EMF detectors during inspections).
Structured programming theorem. Just so no one reading this gets the idea that goto is in fact more flexible, though it might seem that way at first glance.
"~=" is also found in MATLAB.
You know, there is an actual character for the standard mathematical "not equals" sign. "=/=" is OK, but at least to me the visual similarity to the standard symbol is not obvious.
"Doscrimination" - hatred of users of MS DOS.
Sorry, too tempting.
But, we had airport security before we had a TSA.
No, I was born free but then some assholes with burning crosses, or misappropriated South Asian good luck charms, or who wear red robes and worship sadism* started beating the shit out of everyone. Fortunately, some badass Lockeian philosophers established this new nation with the idea of eventually suppressing that kind of evil. Fast forward a couple hundred years and boom, many of those ideas are actually fully or partially implemented.
* and who nobody expects...
I was like, what the hell does that symbol mean?! Then, I figured it out.
It means, "!=". Could have been worse - at least it wasn't "~=".
I think it should read, "Syrian Government Uses Instant Messaging File Transfers to Push Malware to Activists."
Nothing about the attack couldn't have been done over AIM, or ICQ, or MSN, or IRC, or Jabber, because all of those protocols provide a means for exchanging files with other users.
Install pidgin and off the record like this
Good advice. I was going to post something similar but you beat me to it.
What's so great about OTR? It doesn't just provide end-to-end encryption, but uses a model which supplies plausible deniability and perfect forward secrecy. That means that after an encrypted conversation is over, there is no way of associating it with you, and that if your keys are compromised past messages cannot then be decrypted.
How so? Let's look at them one-by-one.
1. Deep conviction of truth without evidence. Atheists in general have so such conviction. Atheism is the absence of belief, not an alternative belief. 0 points.
2. Unshakable faith. Most atheists and certainly most atheist scholars argue against dogmatism and in favor of evidence-based belief and decision making. 0 points.
3. Mystery as such is inherently good. I'm going to skip this one; ascribing it to atheists seems "not even wrong." 0 points.
4. Intolerant behavior toward rival faiths. Atheists may be intolerant of religious people, true, but profession of atheism has been a killing offence in many places for thousands of years. Atheists also do not claim that people who disagree with them deserve and will suffer an eternity of pain. Let's say, half a point.
5. Particular convictions are likely to resemble those of one's parents. Probably true of people in general, however atheists are also much more likely to have different beliefs than do their parents. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and a full point.
6. If beliefs differ from the parents, a singular charismatic individual may be responsible. I think it's much more common for people to become atheists due to internal reflection and external observations, than it is for them to become religious. However, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. fall into the category of "charismatic individuals". 1 point.
7. Internal feelings may be similar to romantic love. I don't think anyone is really experiencing the passion of the nothing that way, and their are no wives of the nothing (i.e. atheist nuns) either. 0 points.
So of the 7 "symptoms" Dawkins describes, just 2.5 of them can be fairly ascribed to atheists.
It's got to be, the one has abstinence only sex-ed and the other has certified documentation of being disease-free.
I only need it when I surf porn sites and there
Clearly you haven't read the next article.
For professional athletes I think that you're absolutely right, but at the highscool and college level there is certainly a lot of social pressure.
From what I've read, the distinctions between free, enslaved and incarcerated gladiators were also argued in Rome. Here is one interesting essay I found that discusses the opinions of people such as Pliny and Cicero on the matter. In contrast to today, though, they thought it was worse for free men to be gladiators than slaves.
Some people might find it unethical to watch a sport or other event if they have factual knowledge that the participants' health is being compromised for entertainment.
The obvious parallel is to ancient gladiatorial contests: some Roman intellectuals opposed the games, though most did not.
I'm not sure that's possible, if the helmet is to be used for multiple impacts.
Bicycle, motorcycle, and those flight helmets fighter pilots wear are all single-use.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, no highschooler's parents, peers, teachers or coaches are at all involved in what they choose to do.
It's fun
Yes, believe it or not, football can be fun. But parents, coaches, fans, the industry often take a game of physical contest and turn it into something ugly, with violence, social standing and money as its end. People should be able to choose to play football, but there is something wrong with the sport when players are targeted for hits because their concussion history makes it likely they will be permanently disabled.
“He’s had a lot of concussions,” Giants wide receiver Devin Thomas told the Newark Star Ledger. “We were just like, ‘We gotta put a hit on that guy.’” Thomas went on to praise safety Tyler Sash for landing the dizzying hit. “Sash did a great job hitting [Williams] early, and he looked kind of dazed when he got up. I feel like that made a difference, and he coughed it up.”
[1]
Some of them
Important words. I played a lot of Dungeons and Dragons with high school football players.
Apple doesn't get a cut from Newegg if I use an iPad to buy components. What's the difference?
The implementation is certainly subject to copyright, that's not in dispute. At that level, Android used 9 lines of a trivial range checking function, which Josh Bloch had copied to work around some namespace issue. That code has since been eliminated.
Oracle's assertion now is that the API specification is also subject to copyright. Historically, programmers and the courts have held that this is not the case, because the declarations are really just factual descriptions about the implementation. Thus the statement that an API is an "idea;" an example (used often in this case) would be the max() function which returns the greater of two operands. Clearly a "max" function is just an idea (not copyrightable). Oracle is saying that the API spec. goes beyond this, including the "sequence, structure and organization" of all the packages as well as the documentation.
tl;dr: the answers to your questions (from a legal standpoint) aren't clear, we'll have to see what the jury, Judge Alsup and probably an appeals court have to say. From a technological standpoint I think the opinion of most actual programmers is well known.
On pense que quelqu'un ne comprende pas la difference entre les infinitifs et les conjugations.
Apparently, you could watch it, but in most of the US recording the act would be illegal.
(You can check the validity of this analogy for yourself).
Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that code has flowed both ways with regard to Java and Android as well (specifically, timsort).