I agree with your surprise, but reviewers often look how an article fits with their own pet theories, or political allegiances. They only try to destroy it contradicts them. And many magazines allow you to propose a list of reviewers. The result is that quite a few articles just slip through.
It's often easier to kill a paper because its methods are sloppy or because not all steps have been thoroughly tested than to actually verify the data and the way it's been processed. The latter can take weeks or months in the case of a complex study, and reviewers have a few hours. So even then nobody looks at the data.
You really are part of the problem, aren't you? You first have this passive aggressive "YOU MUST BACK THIS UP OR ELSE" attitude, and then casually admit that it's true, but it's not Google's fault. And that's ignoring the absolutely non-backed-up statement about iOS.
Are you sure there's nothing Google can do? Are you sure Google doesn't have agreements with phone manufacturers about customizaton? Are you sure Google doesn't own the trademark for Android and can forbid basically anyone of labeling their phone an Android phone? Well, no, you are not. So Google could just as easily have started to force them to provide updates. But no, that would not be in the shareholder's interest.
And you get a +5 informative. Really. The levels of corporate shilling are astonishing.
Windows isn't that bad. Interface is decent, it responds, etc. But a phone just a tool for me. I needed something cheap that wasn't too crappy.
The Moto was free of crapware, BTW, but it had this stupid problem where after every update I had to do a reset and reload all contacts and applications and whatever. I ended up having no applications, because of the hassle. My last problem was trying to install Cyanogen. It just bricked the phone, so I gave the Windows phone a chance.
If I ever need another one (well, more like: when), I'll consider an "AOSP" phone. I have very little knowledge of all the models, though. It's become quite the jungle.
I've got a Windows phone. It does everything I need. No, I'm not being sarcastic, it's true. But it turns out that what I like and need doesn't translate to the rest of the population. Most people, perhaps as much as 99%, could get by with a Chromebook.
But I'm glad people still buy macs, because OSX is a very nice system, and for my music hobby I definitely need all the CPU power and storage space I can get.
I bought a Windows phone (last year) because I don't like Android (bad experiences with Samsung and Moto), and iOS phones are too expensive. And I don't need all those apps. I just want to make a few calls, use internet from time to time, and perhaps look at a map, or send/read a few messages. That's it. Windows is perfectly fine for that, and the phones are competitively priced.
That's not the issue: I thought the article was flimsy in the extreme. They could at least have provided a link to background information like the other reply did (https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9448003&cid=52596993). But instead, there is only a forest of links with vaguely worded accusations and denials.
If someone has to go to the police, it's the sexual abuse victim, not the organization.
Thanks, that's a lot clearer. There's one clear case of sexual abuse, indeed, and while the rest is probably not criminal, it would be more than enough ground for firing him. He seems to be in desperate need of therapy.
That is one lousy article. The name of the guy is the only thing revealed, and that is a journalistic no-no IMO: you don't give the full name unless charges have been proven. By a judge. About the nature of his "misconduct", the article is very vague: it's couched in different terms, but it's never made clear what happened, when, where, in what context and who were the victims. It also focuses on the sexual transgressions, and only gives a fleeting reference to people being "humiliated, intimidated, bullied", without explaining why. I understand there is some sort of political battle that largely includes both sides in parallel, and that is not even hinted at. In short, it's bad journalism.
I'd have to agree it's probably harder to control the processes that grow dementia.
But first, they would have to have a damn good explanation why previous training methods did not improve speed of execution.
> Leave the rest of the grown-ups to do some real work.
Well, the grown-ups in psychology and psychiatry have fucked up quite a bit, haven't they? There's no base for trust in spectacular results. That requires really solid evidence and either replication or a model that explains how it's supposed to work. Neither is provided.
> Gut feeling? That's your standard to rebut ten years of research?
Jesus Christ. I explicitly say it's "gut feeling". I did not write "to my best expert judgement". By the tone of your reply, you feel attacked. If so, ask yourself why.
I worked in a related field, and my gut feeling says no. How much arithmetic can you teach someone in a few hours of training? How much of a foreign language? Almost nothing, and it will be forgotten in a matter of months. So it's very unlikely that a few hours of training is enough to dramatically reduce dementia or whatever mental health problem.
Only from an engineering point of view. But if you don't like people customizing your application by replacing the images and colors, it suddenly makes sense.
Safari's is much faster for Javascript-heavy pages. The only advantage WebP would bring is that Safari could download smaller files, so in principle present the page a bit earlier than with other file formats.
Jill Stein, sorry, Dr. Jill Stein, did an "Ask Me Anything" on reddit some time ago, under the title "I am running for presidency". Which country, she didn't consider necessary to add. That's some delusional thinking, if you ask me.
On the other hand, a bunch of whiny idiots seem to think that changing language and other symbolic depictions is the most important struggle, so they get symbolic shit in return. It won't change a thing in the world, except make the whiny idiots feel better.
> There are a huge range of problems in... sociology and economics to which the rigorous, empirical traditions of physics are making major contributions.
Typical arrogance of the physicist that solves everything by reducing it to a point shape and ignoring higher order terms.
The problems in the softer sciences are not just rigor. Sure, many in those fields have a bad understanding of methods and statistics, but their field is quite different from physics. There is no underlying idea which can be used to base decisive experiments upon. You don't solve that with yet another PDE.
Was going to write the same. MacKeeper is paid malware, plain and simple. I don't know why they'd have security researchers, nor why such a researcher would be interested in such matters.
NASA took great care in safety. They failed often, and it was dangerous, but the attitude was that human life was more important than the mission. This statement seems to go in another direction.
There are always volunteers. That doesn't make it right to use them in order to allow you to cut corners.
The problem is that they were, and still can be, embedded in documents in reputable sources. Consider it a form of social engineering. If you manage to infect one person's Excel document in an organization, chances are that it'll spread quickly throughout the organization, because you've got no reason to distrust the source. And UI has great influence on how people treat warnings.
Tiny in comparison to what, you may ask. Let's add some number for serious crimes in the US, the ones for which people typically get arrested *and* reported in the news papers: murder, rape and robbery. Then the 2002 numbers are 45347 white, 54787 black. In the 2000 census, 75.1% of the US was white, 12.3% black. So black people were 7.5 times more likely to commit such crimes. If reporting influences search result, and I'm sure it does, the result for queries like "black man" vs. "white man" will be influenced, and the first will come out more negative. That's the result of facts plus the high ranking news outlets have for Google searches, in comparison to e.g. stock photos.
Now look at the very specific search term: three black teenagers. Think what documents contain these specific words. There will be a few stock photos with three black teenagers, but not that many. So which results will show up on top? Those of crime reports. What shows up when you search for "three british teenagers"? A picture of three girls who went to Syria, because that made the headlines.
Is society racist? Sure. Is Google racist? Nope. Be careful, because one day people may start ignoring the boy who cries wolf.
> You can only warn but you can't prevent stupid. It's not like the code gets executed right away. You have to PURPOSELY enable it.
Read it again. If you don't get it, here's the gist: a shiny "Enable Content" button does not make people think "Gotta be careful, this might be a virus". Instead, it makes people, who are indeed not very knowledgeable in such matters, think: Doesn't look harmful. I want the content enabled, right? I'll click it to make it go away. That is driven by automatism and sometimes mistakes.
If you still don't see it, please tell other people never to let you take UI decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your surprise, but reviewers often look how an article fits with their own pet theories, or political allegiances. They only try to destroy it contradicts them. And many magazines allow you to propose a list of reviewers. The result is that quite a few articles just slip through.
It's often easier to kill a paper because its methods are sloppy or because not all steps have been thoroughly tested than to actually verify the data and the way it's been processed. The latter can take weeks or months in the case of a complex study, and reviewers have a few hours. So even then nobody looks at the data.
You really are part of the problem, aren't you? You first have this passive aggressive "YOU MUST BACK THIS UP OR ELSE" attitude, and then casually admit that it's true, but it's not Google's fault. And that's ignoring the absolutely non-backed-up statement about iOS.
Are you sure there's nothing Google can do? Are you sure Google doesn't have agreements with phone manufacturers about customizaton? Are you sure Google doesn't own the trademark for Android and can forbid basically anyone of labeling their phone an Android phone? Well, no, you are not. So Google could just as easily have started to force them to provide updates. But no, that would not be in the shareholder's interest.
And you get a +5 informative. Really. The levels of corporate shilling are astonishing.
Windows isn't that bad. Interface is decent, it responds, etc. But a phone just a tool for me. I needed something cheap that wasn't too crappy.
The Moto was free of crapware, BTW, but it had this stupid problem where after every update I had to do a reset and reload all contacts and applications and whatever. I ended up having no applications, because of the hassle. My last problem was trying to install Cyanogen. It just bricked the phone, so I gave the Windows phone a chance.
If I ever need another one (well, more like: when), I'll consider an "AOSP" phone. I have very little knowledge of all the models, though. It's become quite the jungle.
Not sure if sarcastic or not.
If you like that approach, and want it in your shell, I suggest you take a look at awk.
cmd | awk '/regexp/' will do a grep
cmd | awk 'length($0) > 20' will print lines of length over 20
cmd | awk 'NR % 2 == 1' will print odd lines
etc.
The syntax is much more concise than "$_.property -match", yuck.
Of course, it's limited to lines.
> It really does everything I need
I've got a Windows phone. It does everything I need. No, I'm not being sarcastic, it's true. But it turns out that what I like and need doesn't translate to the rest of the population. Most people, perhaps as much as 99%, could get by with a Chromebook.
But I'm glad people still buy macs, because OSX is a very nice system, and for my music hobby I definitely need all the CPU power and storage space I can get.
I bought a Windows phone (last year) because I don't like Android (bad experiences with Samsung and Moto), and iOS phones are too expensive. And I don't need all those apps. I just want to make a few calls, use internet from time to time, and perhaps look at a map, or send/read a few messages. That's it. Windows is perfectly fine for that, and the phones are competitively priced.
I guess there are not many like me.
That's not the issue: I thought the article was flimsy in the extreme. They could at least have provided a link to background information like the other reply did (https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9448003&cid=52596993). But instead, there is only a forest of links with vaguely worded accusations and denials.
If someone has to go to the police, it's the sexual abuse victim, not the organization.
Thanks, that's a lot clearer. There's one clear case of sexual abuse, indeed, and while the rest is probably not criminal, it would be more than enough ground for firing him. He seems to be in desperate need of therapy.
That is one lousy article. The name of the guy is the only thing revealed, and that is a journalistic no-no IMO: you don't give the full name unless charges have been proven. By a judge. About the nature of his "misconduct", the article is very vague: it's couched in different terms, but it's never made clear what happened, when, where, in what context and who were the victims. It also focuses on the sexual transgressions, and only gives a fleeting reference to people being "humiliated, intimidated, bullied", without explaining why. I understand there is some sort of political battle that largely includes both sides in parallel, and that is not even hinted at. In short, it's bad journalism.
> Teaching versus dementia avoidance?
I'd have to agree it's probably harder to control the processes that grow dementia.
But first, they would have to have a damn good explanation why previous training methods did not improve speed of execution.
> Leave the rest of the grown-ups to do some real work.
Well, the grown-ups in psychology and psychiatry have fucked up quite a bit, haven't they? There's no base for trust in spectacular results. That requires really solid evidence and either replication or a model that explains how it's supposed to work. Neither is provided.
> Gut feeling? That's your standard to rebut ten years of research?
Jesus Christ. I explicitly say it's "gut feeling". I did not write "to my best expert judgement". By the tone of your reply, you feel attacked. If so, ask yourself why.
I worked in a related field, and my gut feeling says no. How much arithmetic can you teach someone in a few hours of training? How much of a foreign language? Almost nothing, and it will be forgotten in a matter of months. So it's very unlikely that a few hours of training is enough to dramatically reduce dementia or whatever mental health problem.
> This is dumb. Utterly dumb.
Only from an engineering point of view. But if you don't like people customizing your application by replacing the images and colors, it suddenly makes sense.
I agree 110%, but I am still using it.
Safari's is much faster for Javascript-heavy pages. The only advantage WebP would bring is that Safari could download smaller files, so in principle present the page a bit earlier than with other file formats.
Jill Stein, sorry, Dr. Jill Stein, did an "Ask Me Anything" on reddit some time ago, under the title "I am running for presidency". Which country, she didn't consider necessary to add. That's some delusional thinking, if you ask me.
On the other hand, a bunch of whiny idiots seem to think that changing language and other symbolic depictions is the most important struggle, so they get symbolic shit in return. It won't change a thing in the world, except make the whiny idiots feel better.
Then the problem is that physics can't even explain the observable universe, not that a multiverse magically makes sense.
> There are a huge range of problems in ... sociology and economics to which the rigorous, empirical traditions of physics are making major contributions.
Typical arrogance of the physicist that solves everything by reducing it to a point shape and ignoring higher order terms.
The problems in the softer sciences are not just rigor. Sure, many in those fields have a bad understanding of methods and statistics, but their field is quite different from physics. There is no underlying idea which can be used to base decisive experiments upon. You don't solve that with yet another PDE.
Was going to write the same. MacKeeper is paid malware, plain and simple. I don't know why they'd have security researchers, nor why such a researcher would be interested in such matters.
I hope so too, although I think humanity isn't quite ready for the hyperdrive yet.
NASA took great care in safety. They failed often, and it was dangerous, but the attitude was that human life was more important than the mission. This statement seems to go in another direction.
There are always volunteers. That doesn't make it right to use them in order to allow you to cut corners.
Nice to send people to their death for nothing. Really nice.
The problem is that they were, and still can be, embedded in documents in reputable sources. Consider it a form of social engineering. If you manage to infect one person's Excel document in an organization, chances are that it'll spread quickly throughout the organization, because you've got no reason to distrust the source. And UI has great influence on how people treat warnings.
Tiny in comparison to what, you may ask. Let's add some number for serious crimes in the US, the ones for which people typically get arrested *and* reported in the news papers: murder, rape and robbery. Then the 2002 numbers are 45347 white, 54787 black. In the 2000 census, 75.1% of the US was white, 12.3% black. So black people were 7.5 times more likely to commit such crimes. If reporting influences search result, and I'm sure it does, the result for queries like "black man" vs. "white man" will be influenced, and the first will come out more negative. That's the result of facts plus the high ranking news outlets have for Google searches, in comparison to e.g. stock photos.
Now look at the very specific search term: three black teenagers. Think what documents contain these specific words. There will be a few stock photos with three black teenagers, but not that many. So which results will show up on top? Those of crime reports. What shows up when you search for "three british teenagers"? A picture of three girls who went to Syria, because that made the headlines.
Is society racist? Sure. Is Google racist? Nope. Be careful, because one day people may start ignoring the boy who cries wolf.
> You can only warn but you can't prevent stupid. It's not like the code gets executed right away. You have to PURPOSELY enable it.
Read it again. If you don't get it, here's the gist: a shiny "Enable Content" button does not make people think "Gotta be careful, this might be a virus". Instead, it makes people, who are indeed not very knowledgeable in such matters, think: Doesn't look harmful. I want the content enabled, right? I'll click it to make it go away. That is driven by automatism and sometimes mistakes.
If you still don't see it, please tell other people never to let you take UI decisions.