This solution is not perfect, but it is the only one yet devised that doesn't require allowing some third party to either access arbitrary computers and the data on them at will without the user's knowledge or consent, a warrant, or even suspicion of wrongdoing, or to assume complete control over what can and cannot be installed on a computer.
Neither of these is acceptable. The ends don't justify the means.
This. I think that although the choice of head was deliberate, it was never supposed to be obvious: just something the crew could look back at in later years and snicker among themselves, and if someone spilled the beans it could be chalked up to an urban legend.
But two things went wrong. One, the head wasn't quite turned far enough away. Two, some idiot blabbed on the DVD commentaries: the one place where every single person with a copy of the series could easily go to find out about it.
Any state has a legitimate right, and for that matter a legitimate need, to control its own influx of immigrants. What you are suggesting is only trivially different from uncontrolled immigration.
Because for the foreseeable future, no government space program is going to do anything remotely like this. If we're going to go to Mars, business interests are pretty much all we've got.
Some of that depends on the mechanics of the test. They mentioned interactive computer use, which by its nature is going to constrain what can be done with the lab environment to at least some degree. What sorts of things were the students allowed to do toward getting the experiment to work?
Do you suppose they might be able to quarantine the 12-year-old rednecks in the same way? Not to dismiss the extent to which cheaters ruin gaming, but the fratcore are way worse.
Some generations hence, people will tell stories to children where the mean, greedy third little pig is the villain because he did not build houses for the other two little pigs and the wolf.
The thing with this is that RMS didn't invent Linux. He, among others, developed a set of tools that can be run on a number of Unix-like kernels, including Linux, but Linux itself is Linus' baby. The GNU toolset actually predates Linux itself.
A surprising number of Linux systems don't run the GNU toolset at all. When you count Busybox and similar minimalist toolsets (which are GPL-licensed but not maintained by GNU, at this point in time there might even be more Linux/not-GNU devices than there are GNU/Linux devices.
I, for one, would have a much better time taking NoSQL seriously if so many of the arguments for it didn't reduce to -and to truly express this reduction properly I need to put on my best Barbie voice- "The relational model is haaaaard." Some say SQL instead (for example, whoever came up with the NoSQL moniker), but except for a couple of arguments that amount to pure syntax baw it reduces to pretty much the same thing.
NoSQL has its place: there are some things it does really well. The problem is that the things it does best are not the things most of its advocates call for.
It's actually older than Confucius, including the bit about the state getting to define what is and is not "harmonious." Needless to say, it has been popular with the various rulers of China ever since.
Mostly by the fact that the various camps in this conflict do not fit neatly into the simple dichotomy that we in the West -myself included, much of the time- find it all too easy to draw. There is a spectrum, and the various groups fall into various points among it.
I agree with you that people should never be barred from education on account of gender, but note that I used the word never: a word I think you would also be willing to use. That's an extreme term, in the sense that there's no way to go further, and that puts us solidly on an endpoint of the spectrum. This isn't a bad thing, but we need to acknowledge where we are, because it means that we have a question of idealism versus pragmatism to consider.
In a place like Afghanistan, support for our side therefore depends in large part on which groups we are willing to accommodate and which we are not. If we accommodate only those which agree with us in total, we will never get anything done. The pragmatic way takes longer, but it is less likely to be pulled out from under us in one stroke by the likes of the Taliban. If this is worth doing -and I think it is- then it's worth doing in a way that will stand up to the next hundred years of conflict.
I'll give them IE6 and IE7. I'd give an awful lot to not have to support IE8, even. But there really isn't any reason to not support IE9, unless you need WebGL for something. A lot can be said about Microsoft's past shenanigans in the browser space, and none of it is good, but they pretty much cleaned up their act with IE9, and that should be acknowledged and encouraged.
Though I'm still suspicious of their WebGL stance. That sounds, much like the NPAPI plugin thing in the past, more like a simple attempt at lock-in than an actual security concern.
How is this going to work? When an astronomical object is visible to a telescope in South Africa, its not going to be visible to a telescope in Australia.
That's not actually the case: they're close enough geographically that for any given object in the sky, there is a window of time when it will be visible from both regions (day/night doesn't matter, since the telescopes don't use visible light). That object will certainly be in a different part of the sky in each region, but both should still be able to focus on it during the time when it's visible to both.
What this does do is shrink the aforementioned window of time, because the object has to be visible from both spots or the scheme doesn't work. Whether or not this is a really problem depends on what they use the telescope for. Evidently they don't think it will be an unacceptable thing.
My personal gripe with this is more from an engineering perspective than a scientific one (since I don't know enough about the science to judge one country as a particularly better location than another). The design didn't call for the thing to be split, much less between two continents. A cross-continental instrument could be interesting, but if they were going to do that then they should have designed for it. As it stands, I fail to see how this can possibly do anything but harm to the instrument.
You're right that words become tokens, but most people's vocabulary is a lot larger than the number of printable ASCII characters. This is why the scheme stands up to the problem you mention. Even with a bare-bones vocabulary of 800 words, a five-word phrase is stronger than an eight-character string of alphanumerics. Most people's vocabulary is larger than that.
One could argue that the bundling was the "behind-the-scenes shenanigans to inflate their numbers," particularly given common browser bundling practice at the time (also known as not doing it). That argument would be much weaker in today's environment, where everyone bundles a browser, but Microsoft's decision was not made in that environment.
TIOBE makes for an interesting toy measure. But for truly reliable conclusions, particularly those related to the health of our favorite technologies, we must instead ask: does NetCraft confirm it?
Interesting use of Web technologies. But as a practical matter, isn't storing user progress data on the client side a really bad idea from an anti-cheating standpoint? How long until someone releases an editor?
With the autoimmune effects that seem rather likely to come from suppressing a "don't eat me" signal, I wouldn't be surprised if the side effects turned out to be quite similar. That's not to say it's no better than chemo; this stands to be more reliable, and probably faster to recover from too. But the actual course of treatment will probably be about as hellish. Still better than dying of cancer, of course, but not something people would willingly do for any other reason.
Slashdot Mirror
This solution is not perfect, but it is the only one yet devised that doesn't require allowing some third party to either access arbitrary computers and the data on them at will without the user's knowledge or consent, a warrant, or even suspicion of wrongdoing, or to assume complete control over what can and cannot be installed on a computer.
Neither of these is acceptable. The ends don't justify the means.
This. I think that although the choice of head was deliberate, it was never supposed to be obvious: just something the crew could look back at in later years and snicker among themselves, and if someone spilled the beans it could be chalked up to an urban legend.
But two things went wrong. One, the head wasn't quite turned far enough away. Two, some idiot blabbed on the DVD commentaries: the one place where every single person with a copy of the series could easily go to find out about it.
Any state has a legitimate right, and for that matter a legitimate need, to control its own influx of immigrants. What you are suggesting is only trivially different from uncontrolled immigration.
If I'm reading things correctly, you would start with Form I-140, which covers workers of a range of skill sets, including unskilled workers.
Because for the foreseeable future, no government space program is going to do anything remotely like this. If we're going to go to Mars, business interests are pretty much all we've got.
Some of that depends on the mechanics of the test. They mentioned interactive computer use, which by its nature is going to constrain what can be done with the lab environment to at least some degree. What sorts of things were the students allowed to do toward getting the experiment to work?
Do you suppose they might be able to quarantine the 12-year-old rednecks in the same way? Not to dismiss the extent to which cheaters ruin gaming, but the fratcore are way worse.
Some generations hence, people will tell stories to children where the mean, greedy third little pig is the villain because he did not build houses for the other two little pigs and the wolf.
I am quite aware of how many, or how few, fucks are given. I'm just having some fun being pedantic, is all.
The thing with this is that RMS didn't invent Linux. He, among others, developed a set of tools that can be run on a number of Unix-like kernels, including Linux, but Linux itself is Linus' baby. The GNU toolset actually predates Linux itself.
A surprising number of Linux systems don't run the GNU toolset at all. When you count Busybox and similar minimalist toolsets (which are GPL-licensed but not maintained by GNU, at this point in time there might even be more Linux/not-GNU devices than there are GNU/Linux devices.
I, for one, would have a much better time taking NoSQL seriously if so many of the arguments for it didn't reduce to -and to truly express this reduction properly I need to put on my best Barbie voice- "The relational model is haaaaard." Some say SQL instead (for example, whoever came up with the NoSQL moniker), but except for a couple of arguments that amount to pure syntax baw it reduces to pretty much the same thing.
NoSQL has its place: there are some things it does really well. The problem is that the things it does best are not the things most of its advocates call for.
It's actually older than Confucius, including the bit about the state getting to define what is and is not "harmonious." Needless to say, it has been popular with the various rulers of China ever since.
Yeah; I miss the old Google, and I'm glad to see a little of it shining through here. This should be encouraged.
Mostly by the fact that the various camps in this conflict do not fit neatly into the simple dichotomy that we in the West -myself included, much of the time- find it all too easy to draw. There is a spectrum, and the various groups fall into various points among it.
I agree with you that people should never be barred from education on account of gender, but note that I used the word never: a word I think you would also be willing to use. That's an extreme term, in the sense that there's no way to go further, and that puts us solidly on an endpoint of the spectrum. This isn't a bad thing, but we need to acknowledge where we are, because it means that we have a question of idealism versus pragmatism to consider.
In a place like Afghanistan, support for our side therefore depends in large part on which groups we are willing to accommodate and which we are not. If we accommodate only those which agree with us in total, we will never get anything done. The pragmatic way takes longer, but it is less likely to be pulled out from under us in one stroke by the likes of the Taliban. If this is worth doing -and I think it is- then it's worth doing in a way that will stand up to the next hundred years of conflict.
I'll give them IE6 and IE7. I'd give an awful lot to not have to support IE8, even. But there really isn't any reason to not support IE9, unless you need WebGL for something. A lot can be said about Microsoft's past shenanigans in the browser space, and none of it is good, but they pretty much cleaned up their act with IE9, and that should be acknowledged and encouraged.
Though I'm still suspicious of their WebGL stance. That sounds, much like the NPAPI plugin thing in the past, more like a simple attempt at lock-in than an actual security concern.
How is this going to work? When an astronomical object is visible to a telescope in South Africa, its not going to be visible to a telescope in Australia.
That's not actually the case: they're close enough geographically that for any given object in the sky, there is a window of time when it will be visible from both regions (day/night doesn't matter, since the telescopes don't use visible light). That object will certainly be in a different part of the sky in each region, but both should still be able to focus on it during the time when it's visible to both.
What this does do is shrink the aforementioned window of time, because the object has to be visible from both spots or the scheme doesn't work. Whether or not this is a really problem depends on what they use the telescope for. Evidently they don't think it will be an unacceptable thing.
My personal gripe with this is more from an engineering perspective than a scientific one (since I don't know enough about the science to judge one country as a particularly better location than another). The design didn't call for the thing to be split, much less between two continents. A cross-continental instrument could be interesting, but if they were going to do that then they should have designed for it. As it stands, I fail to see how this can possibly do anything but harm to the instrument.
You're right that words become tokens, but most people's vocabulary is a lot larger than the number of printable ASCII characters. This is why the scheme stands up to the problem you mention. Even with a bare-bones vocabulary of 800 words, a five-word phrase is stronger than an eight-character string of alphanumerics. Most people's vocabulary is larger than that.
If we're going to be pedantic, would you prefer "emergent vs. engineered" to "organic vs. artificial"?
One could argue that the bundling was the "behind-the-scenes shenanigans to inflate their numbers," particularly given common browser bundling practice at the time (also known as not doing it). That argument would be much weaker in today's environment, where everyone bundles a browser, but Microsoft's decision was not made in that environment.
TIOBE makes for an interesting toy measure. But for truly reliable conclusions, particularly those related to the health of our favorite technologies, we must instead ask: does NetCraft confirm it?
double useless trivia: the movie had to be renamed for the Middle Eastern market, as "Titanic" sounds like a slang term for "let's have sex"
I don't know; that still sounds like an accurate enough title for the film.
I bet it honestly never occured to the guys who did this thing that someone might use it for creepy stuff.
More likely, I think, is that they don't consider that stuff to be creepy. A depressing number of people just don't.
Why don't English-language fantasy filmmakers use accents from English-speaking regions other than the British Isles? That's easy.
Three words: Jar Jar Binks .
Interesting use of Web technologies. But as a practical matter, isn't storing user progress data on the client side a really bad idea from an anti-cheating standpoint? How long until someone releases an editor?
With the autoimmune effects that seem rather likely to come from suppressing a "don't eat me" signal, I wouldn't be surprised if the side effects turned out to be quite similar. That's not to say it's no better than chemo; this stands to be more reliable, and probably faster to recover from too. But the actual course of treatment will probably be about as hellish. Still better than dying of cancer, of course, but not something people would willingly do for any other reason.