Don't you think it is easier to hack a computer from a windowed based tool where you see the menus and all, than from an austere text based prompt?
Only to the extent that GUIs are easier to use in general. They are not inherently more hackable than text prompts: text may give you a little extra obscurity, but that's not something that should be relied on in a security context.
The guy was known to be proselytizing at work, going so far as to apparently hand out DVDs on the matter. That sort of thing is verboten in almost any workplace out there, for good reasons that have nothing to do with the content of the message.
That said, cue the morons who think that his beliefs alone should have gotten him fired, based on the ridiculous idea that because he doesn't follow a specific epistemology concerning matters unrelated to his chosen field, he does not think.
The point of democracy isn't to pick the best leaders. The mechanisms of democracy basically prevent that, because you cannot predict the next leader far enough in advance to provide that person with much training. You doom yourself to an endless cycle of rookies: talented rookies on occasion, but forever rookies all the same.
The point of democracy is to limit the damage bad leaders can do. Rare indeed is the democracy that can go even fifty years without picking at least one leader who, if he were a king, would drive the country into the ground. And yet, most democracies survive such leaders, or even short strings of such leaders. That's powerful stuff, and it's the reason democracy has become so popular: not for its performance, but for its robustness.
All the digital douchery in the world won't change the fact that your ears are not made of robot.
Neither, however, does all the analog sweetness in the world change the fact that your ears are not made of god. "Digital douchery" for things like this does not have to be perfect, as long as it can outstrip the limitations of human hearing.
As others point out, it's as good as the source, but only as good as the source. A FLAC file encoded from the original CD track will indeed be 100% CD quality. If you instead encode it from, say, a 96kbps MP3, then it can only be as good as the MP3 was.
There is currently no governing body that is sufficiently dedicated to freedom of expression to be even remotely worthy of governing and/or regulating the Internet. The US government comes closer than most, leading to a relatively non-intolerable situation as compared to most other situations. Sealand might do better, but that's not really a practical solution, and I can't particularly think of anyone else. Certainly not the UN, which not only lacks any procedure to exclude known foxes from duties that include guarding the henhouse, but appears to tout this fact as a feature, not a bug.
Wallaby is interesting, but it works with FLA, not SWF: the authoring format, not the distribution format. That's great for works that are still updated and maintained, but there's a lot of orphan content out there that will also need to be played.
This, pretty much. The OS is set to, by default, spread FUD about apps not coming from the App Store. Being the default, it's as good as there being no other option, because users don't know enough to tell the difference.
Doctors have researched this quite a bit, and there arent fools that they dont know that there are many variables. Researchers may end up coming with crappy material on Lancet and NEJM, but this has been a big issue and has been studied a lot on both sides of the atlantic.
Which is why I'm asking if a study like the one I describe has been done. It might have been; I don't know.
Autism and Vaccinations have no relationship.
I agree, and I think I may not have been clear enough on my purpose; for this, I apologize. I'm looking into a different angle of attack, one which I believe has implications that have not yet been addressed.
A lot of parents become antivaxers when their first child turns up with symptoms of autism not long after being vaccinated. As such, the rate of autism among the children of antivaxers is naturally going to be higher than in the general population: it's not so much a self-fulfilling prophecy as much that it works retroactively: the antivax hoax self-selects for high rates in general. What I want to do is compare the rate of autism among the unvaccinated children of antivaxers to that of their own vaccinated siblings. In general, my hypothesis is that rates among the former will not be any lower than among the latter: in other worse, that going antivax does nothing at all to protect kids from autism.
If you actually want to know my real "hidden agenda," however, my more specific hypothesis is that rates among the unvaccinated children will actually be higher than among their vaccinated siblings: that going antivax causes changes parental styles and behaviors, and that these changes put children at risk. In other words, that not only is antivax not correct, but that it's actually harmful on its own terms, not just in the broader sense. This depends to some degree on some theories of autism that are no longer as popular as they once were, but if it turned out to be correct then it would stand to strengthen the argument against antivax even further.
I'm not so sure about that. The problem with this behavior is that it creates a sizable market of very, very stupid parents who have trouble finding reputable doctors willing to care for their children. Please don't make me explain the varied and sundry ways a market like that could be prayed upon; one might be able to argue that parents in that situation would deserve what they get, but their children certainly don't.
Has any study yet been done on autism rates in the unvaccinated children of antivaxers?
Note that by "antivaxer" I mean those concerned about long-discredited hoaxes that claimed vaccines might have certain side effects which we now know they do not. There are other groups who don't vaccinate for other reasons, like the Amish, and some of them do indeed show lower autism rates. But AFAIK, in all known cases of such groups, there are far too many other variables in play to simply infer that these low rates are due to lack of vaccinations: they lead lives so different from the "typical" American public that any number of factors could be contributing, and that needs to be accounted for.
You're never going to be able to make cheating as hard as it is on non-open tests as it is on open tests. That's an inherent problem in allowing access to outside information, particularly when you're dealing with worldwide communications.
What you can do is minimize the impact of cheating by working with the test itself: in particular, by setting a time limit based on its length. The idea here is to make it so that someone who constantly looks up outside information is highly likely to run out of time to finish the test. There's a delicate balance to be struck here, because you've said that some amount of going outside for information is not only to be expected but completely appropriate. But at the same time, you expect at least some knowledge to be "in-brain" (for lack of a better term), and so by using in-brain knowledge when it's there, a passing student will be able to finish the test quickly enough to beat the time limit. The trick is calibrating things, and I'm afraid I don't know a good solution for that.
Being a generalist isn't about knowing lots of languages: it's about knowing a lot of different ways of doing things. As long as you restrict yourself to the paradigms of C and C++/Java, you won't be able to do that. Bite the bullet and learn the JS way of doing things, and while you're at it, pick up things like Scheme and Haskell. Heck; even AWK could be interesting for this exercise.
Every new way you learn of doing things and approaching problems will make you a better programmer in all of the languages you know. That incudes C and C++/Java, and it also includes JS/HTML/CSS. It's also what being a generalist is really all about.
It seems to me as though this is less about BusyBox per se, and more about enabling companies to steal code from other GPL'd projects without having to worry about the threat of the BusyBox folks calling them out on their wrongdoing.
Forgive me if I can't think of any word other than "scum" at the moment.
Re:Still no Flash in mobile ...
on
Firefox 10 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Flash is a plugin. Bug the people who make it -Adobe, not Mozilla- if you want to use it on mobile devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you think it is easier to hack a computer from a windowed based tool where you see the menus and all, than from an austere text based prompt?
Only to the extent that GUIs are easier to use in general. They are not inherently more hackable than text prompts: text may give you a little extra obscurity, but that's not something that should be relied on in a security context.
And don't forget the lava lamps.
Please, won't someone think of the lava lamps?
The guy was known to be proselytizing at work, going so far as to apparently hand out DVDs on the matter. That sort of thing is verboten in almost any workplace out there, for good reasons that have nothing to do with the content of the message.
That said, cue the morons who think that his beliefs alone should have gotten him fired, based on the ridiculous idea that because he doesn't follow a specific epistemology concerning matters unrelated to his chosen field, he does not think.
Makes me wish that when I bought Apple back in September 2001, I'd done so from somebody other than oneshare.com.
(Yes, I did buy, but yes, only one share. I have two shares now because of the split, but I wish I had more).
The point of democracy isn't to pick the best leaders. The mechanisms of democracy basically prevent that, because you cannot predict the next leader far enough in advance to provide that person with much training. You doom yourself to an endless cycle of rookies: talented rookies on occasion, but forever rookies all the same.
The point of democracy is to limit the damage bad leaders can do. Rare indeed is the democracy that can go even fifty years without picking at least one leader who, if he were a king, would drive the country into the ground. And yet, most democracies survive such leaders, or even short strings of such leaders. That's powerful stuff, and it's the reason democracy has become so popular: not for its performance, but for its robustness.
I don't understand your quoting convention. What's with the bold/capitalized text?
There's a Nobel prize waiting for the person who invents a way to use this over the Internet. Possibly the Nobel Peace Prize itself.
Quoth the grandparent, "FLAC is 100% CD quality," with no qualifiers. That's a claim to magic, since FLAC's actual quality depends on the source.
All the digital douchery in the world won't change the fact that your ears are not made of robot.
Neither, however, does all the analog sweetness in the world change the fact that your ears are not made of god. "Digital douchery" for things like this does not have to be perfect, as long as it can outstrip the limitations of human hearing.
As others point out, it's as good as the source, but only as good as the source. A FLAC file encoded from the original CD track will indeed be 100% CD quality. If you instead encode it from, say, a 96kbps MP3, then it can only be as good as the MP3 was.
FLAC is very good. It is, however, not magic.
They really should see if they can go further, though. If they could boost the pack's cell count by just 13%, its power level would be over 9*is shot*
There is currently no governing body that is sufficiently dedicated to freedom of expression to be even remotely worthy of governing and/or regulating the Internet. The US government comes closer than most, leading to a relatively non-intolerable situation as compared to most other situations. Sealand might do better, but that's not really a practical solution, and I can't particularly think of anyone else. Certainly not the UN, which not only lacks any procedure to exclude known foxes from duties that include guarding the henhouse, but appears to tout this fact as a feature, not a bug.
Wallaby is interesting, but it works with FLA, not SWF: the authoring format, not the distribution format. That's great for works that are still updated and maintained, but there's a lot of orphan content out there that will also need to be played.
Isn't this basically what xcompmgr and cairo-compmgr (despite their current apparently abandoned state) use?
This, pretty much. The OS is set to, by default, spread FUD about apps not coming from the App Store. Being the default, it's as good as there being no other option, because users don't know enough to tell the difference.
Yeah, yeah; I know about the typo. That's what I get for not using the Preview button.
Doctors have researched this quite a bit, and there arent fools that they dont know that there are many variables. Researchers may end up coming with crappy material on Lancet and NEJM, but this has been a big issue and has been studied a lot on both sides of the atlantic.
Which is why I'm asking if a study like the one I describe has been done. It might have been; I don't know.
Autism and Vaccinations have no relationship.
I agree, and I think I may not have been clear enough on my purpose; for this, I apologize. I'm looking into a different angle of attack, one which I believe has implications that have not yet been addressed.
A lot of parents become antivaxers when their first child turns up with symptoms of autism not long after being vaccinated. As such, the rate of autism among the children of antivaxers is naturally going to be higher than in the general population: it's not so much a self-fulfilling prophecy as much that it works retroactively: the antivax hoax self-selects for high rates in general. What I want to do is compare the rate of autism among the unvaccinated children of antivaxers to that of their own vaccinated siblings. In general, my hypothesis is that rates among the former will not be any lower than among the latter: in other worse, that going antivax does nothing at all to protect kids from autism.
If you actually want to know my real "hidden agenda," however, my more specific hypothesis is that rates among the unvaccinated children will actually be higher than among their vaccinated siblings: that going antivax causes changes parental styles and behaviors, and that these changes put children at risk. In other words, that not only is antivax not correct, but that it's actually harmful on its own terms, not just in the broader sense. This depends to some degree on some theories of autism that are no longer as popular as they once were, but if it turned out to be correct then it would stand to strengthen the argument against antivax even further.
I'm not so sure about that. The problem with this behavior is that it creates a sizable market of very, very stupid parents who have trouble finding reputable doctors willing to care for their children. Please don't make me explain the varied and sundry ways a market like that could be prayed upon; one might be able to argue that parents in that situation would deserve what they get, but their children certainly don't.
Has any study yet been done on autism rates in the unvaccinated children of antivaxers?
Note that by "antivaxer" I mean those concerned about long-discredited hoaxes that claimed vaccines might have certain side effects which we now know they do not. There are other groups who don't vaccinate for other reasons, like the Amish, and some of them do indeed show lower autism rates. But AFAIK, in all known cases of such groups, there are far too many other variables in play to simply infer that these low rates are due to lack of vaccinations: they lead lives so different from the "typical" American public that any number of factors could be contributing, and that needs to be accounted for.
You're never going to be able to make cheating as hard as it is on non-open tests as it is on open tests. That's an inherent problem in allowing access to outside information, particularly when you're dealing with worldwide communications.
What you can do is minimize the impact of cheating by working with the test itself: in particular, by setting a time limit based on its length. The idea here is to make it so that someone who constantly looks up outside information is highly likely to run out of time to finish the test. There's a delicate balance to be struck here, because you've said that some amount of going outside for information is not only to be expected but completely appropriate. But at the same time, you expect at least some knowledge to be "in-brain" (for lack of a better term), and so by using in-brain knowledge when it's there, a passing student will be able to finish the test quickly enough to beat the time limit. The trick is calibrating things, and I'm afraid I don't know a good solution for that.
Being a generalist isn't about knowing lots of languages: it's about knowing a lot of different ways of doing things. As long as you restrict yourself to the paradigms of C and C++/Java, you won't be able to do that. Bite the bullet and learn the JS way of doing things, and while you're at it, pick up things like Scheme and Haskell. Heck; even AWK could be interesting for this exercise.
Every new way you learn of doing things and approaching problems will make you a better programmer in all of the languages you know. That incudes C and C++/Java, and it also includes JS/HTML/CSS. It's also what being a generalist is really all about.
Yeah, this. Sorry, RIAA, but foundering business models do not justify witch hunts.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Sticks and stones. But am I wrong?
It seems to me as though this is less about BusyBox per se, and more about enabling companies to steal code from other GPL'd projects without having to worry about the threat of the BusyBox folks calling them out on their wrongdoing.
Forgive me if I can't think of any word other than "scum" at the moment.
Flash is a plugin. Bug the people who make it -Adobe, not Mozilla- if you want to use it on mobile devices.