The point is that the originator of the original study, who complained about his mistreatment at the hands of the Bush Administration, refused to release his data and algorithms for review. This places his earlier behavior in an entirely new light.
It's interesting the difference in terminology between the summary and the actual article...
According to the summary they have "decided to" and "plan on", according to the article they "would like to" and "hope too". That's a fairly significant difference. It's also in line with articles that have previously appeared - they sound much more like the bosses of the space agency and lunar science programs stumping for funding and support than they do like accounts of real programs.
Actual hard evidence to date indicates no reason to believe the Chinese program will continue at other than it's current glacial pace. (Which is kind of an insult to glaciers as it implies glaciers are as immobile as mountains.)
Something seems a little strange here. With 25 test cases, and a binary outcome (either the virus was detected or it was not), the %caught should proceed in even step of 4%. There's some number massaging going on somewhere.
Hmm... the Fight Club Website lists 35 test cases, not 25. It's not clear if there is any overlap between the various test cases. In fact, there's not any discussion of the testing methodology (let alone what precisely was tested) at all. Just "here's our numbers - believe them or infect your own machine and find out for yourself".
Now, while I admire the 'do it yourself' hacker ethos as much as the next guy - this is taking it a bit too far.
I wonder how many other projects will start pulling this -- get the world hooked on your product, and then close the source after you reach a critical mass of commercial users who are likely to pay versus those who would be prone to forking and taking over open development.
I imagine this is the first of many. The advocates of Open Source for years have been pretending that they are on the side of the angels and immune to normal personal and business pressures. They're wrong.
The former may have the rights to it, but never really enforced it. The later has, for most of its modern history, acted more like SCO than a "charitable" organization dedicated to relieving human suffering - Ask a Korean or Vietnam vet their opinion of the Red Cross; prepare to catch an earful, though, because you won't hear much good about them.
No Korean War veterans handy, but the Vietnam vets I know had nothing particular good (or bad) to say against them.
Why in the hell haven't you read the TFA? The ARC and J&J divvied up who can use the Red Cross for what over a hundred years ago - and the ARC is currently violating that agreement.
I've been to demonstrations which have been seriously misreported by mainstream media. I'm thinking of this not so much as a way to get extra eyewitness accounts of big events as as a way of correcting media which parrots government and police press releases.
I've been witness to events which were not only misrepresented by the mainstream media - but which were also misrepresented by the participating parties and their after-the-fact supporters. (I was neither.) Not one of the three accounts (media, participant a, participant b) agreed with each other in the important particulars. (In fact, participant b's version, and that of his supporters, not only diverged from what I saw - but the divergence increased with time, and always in the direction of decreasing his responsibility and increasing his victimhood.)
It's ridiculous to claim that "not mainstream media" == "not biased".
This news story seems to be off-topic from the stated mission of this site.
If they want to change it from "News for Nerds" to "News for Anti-Corporate Bigots" or "News for Politically-Correct Drug Company Haters" then this would be a perfect story. It's even got the half-truths and misleading spin in the summary that seems to appeal to bigots and haters these days.
This isn't really news either...:-) Slashdot has been as political as the Daily Kos for quite a few years now. (Though they've become really blatant only in the last two years or so.) Anything to draw eyeballs and ad dollars.
Except that the emblems of the Red Cross have special status in international law. Their main purpose is to indicate buildings, vehicles and personal which are used solely for treating the injured and may not be attacked.
True. But nowhere in the Geneva Convention is that special protection extended to commercial usage - it only describes the usage of the symbol on buildings, vehicles, and persons.
It seems to me that the US government has a duty to prevent private companies violating the Geneva Conventions, and if the convention is properly implemented in law, there should be a valid legal reason to strike down J&J's trademark.
It seems to me that you should consider what the Convention says, not what you wish it says.
The funny part is - in any other context Slashdot would be screaming about ISP's monitoring their traffic and/or vigilante justice (being susceptible to abuse as it is).
It's cool to share building their PC with your girlfriend/wife/mother/friend/anyone who wouldn't normally build one, giving them a real sense of ownership and achievement with their new PC. But fooling yourself in to believing they need what you think is cool, rather than actually listening to their needs, is a great way to undo a lot of that when they realize they got you something cool rather than built what was right for them.
This self centered evangelical mentality has long been prevalent among geeks, or at least among the slashgeek subset - haven't you seen the endless Ask Slashdots asking about how to browbeat (oops, 'convince') $RELATIVE to convert to Linux (or Macs or Open Office, etc... etc...)?
Or consider this condescending classic of the genre.
For crying out loud, it's a computer case, not a swingset and not furniture... The point of the screw is to hold things in place, not to fix them so fast that they are going to be resistant to coming out.
I was taught that you _ALWAYS_ hand-tighten screws on a computer case, and even then only just to the point that it just stops turning freely, because that way you won't accidentally strip the threads.
It's pretty easy, using a power screwdriver, to tighten things 'just enough' - if you pay attention to what you are doing. Tightening them to the point where they resist coming out (or are coming close to stripping) if the sign of a poor workman, whether the work is assembling PC cases or nuclear submarines. ( Probably whoever taught you was firmly stuck in "damm kids" mode, or didn't trust you with power tools. I suspect the latter from your comments.)
No. Because SL represents what many geeks thought the Internet would end up being back when it (the 'net) first came into the public eye back in the early 90's, a complete and virtually unregulated virtual world. It took Alpha World (and it's eventual failure) to pave the way for Second Life (and There, etc...), and SL will pave the way for the next generation. It bears watching.
It's also an interesting sociological and economic experiment. The enviroment of SL is ever evolving.
It's pretty sad that the slashgeeks can't see that - and that bashing gets moderated up over discussion.
Now, s/Linden dollar/U.S. dollar/ and s/Second Life/U.S./ and the sentence would still be correct. Go ahead, try it. Read it again. Because the U.S. dollar has no commodity backing...
Ahh... Mindless US basing FTKW (For The Karma Whore).
Truth is you also go s/Linden dollar/99% of all RL currencies/ and s/Second Life/99% of all RL countries/, and still be correct.
Keep in mind that regulations and insurance are relatively new concepts in real-life banking. (Yet people take them for granted.) Even so, regulation didn't prevent the S&L crisis.
Re:Maybe there's a silver lining here...
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 1
dunno - maybe this is what we need ~ a botnet big enough to do some real damage could actually catalyze some public awareness. Imagine if they DDoS'd MS, or Amazon, heck, Google?
I can imagine it easily - 99% of the surfers denied acess would simply go "damm internet" and surf elsewhere, or go do something off-net.
So, in short, the book's crap, and just another excuse for right-wingers to justify spreading colonialism the globe over, as some sort of natural gift given to them for being better bred than the mud-people.
The funny part, is that historically colonialism is associated with what today would be the left-wing, and their 'god given' right to bring the mud people into the light of civilization.
Would the better literacy and general education not yield more technology which would result in increased production?
Absolutely. And the fact that Britain was rapidly evolving a more stable goverment and modern economic systems can't have hurt much either. Whereas China, which was used as a source of comparison, was mired in an authoritarian semifuedal system and premodern economy. Equally, China was decidely inward looking, while Britain was decidely outward looking... Etc... etc...
Also, Britain (at the time of the Industrial Revolution) had a rapidly expanding middle class (which is not the same as the middle class of today), who had increasing amounts of education, leisure, and capital to invest.
These and a whole lot of other factors the theory fails to account for.
At first the easy credit is funnelled into investment (because investment is already a habbit of the old savings-based society). Businesses do amazingly well with all of the new capital and a bunch of new products appear on the market.
The implication here that individuals (reinforced in the next paragraph) invest credit into businesses is generally false. It's the businesses themselves that obtain credit and invest as capital historically.
Then, people realize that there's even more credit to be had and start spending it on a few luxuries here and there. Seeing that a few luxuries didn't lead to immediate bankrupcy, people go out and buy more and more things on credit. At some point, the loans come due and since people aren't usually willing to get rid of their stuff they pull their investments out of businesses and use them to pay the loans that have come due. Businesses suffer, wages don't go up and prices don't go down as fast as they should, people go get more loans to support their new spending habbits.
Here we see the fruit of the false premise - because individuals never had their money in businesses to start with.
The remainder of the rant need not be refuted - because it flows from the false premises noted above.
I should however point out that massive outsourcing is a modern phenomena - and thus cannot be part of a 'repeating cycle'. (I.E. another false premise.) The same goes for 'cheap credit drying up' leading to a depression.
In short, the OP is utterly disconnected from reality.
With one major problem - 3rd party candidates can't get elected mostly because everyone knows that 3rd party candidates can't get elected.
That's how the meme goes. After nearly thirty years of observing the political process, I suspect the truth is rather different.
It seems to me that most 3rd party candidates don't get elected because they are either a) loons or, b) so focused on a single issue as to be indistinguishable from the loons. Ralph Nader is a special subcase of "A" - he's been on the fringes so long, he is now filed with the true loons. There's a reason why the two major parties, radicalized as they are, at least make a pretense of conciliation with the middle.
Another error virtually all third parties make is that they pop up like mushrooms right before the election, and vanish right after they lose. This leads to the perception (not entirely incorrect) that they are unstable. Which leads to the biggest and most common error - almost always they run only for the big marbles. This lends itself to the perception that not only are they unstable, but that they are only interested in naked power. (As well as handicapping themselves right out of the starting gate with a lack of name recognition.)
I've said for years that a well organized third party with a coherent strategy and platform (I.E. every the current crop isn't) could come to dominate national politics within twenty years. But politicos and activists are no different than most of the rest of America - they want instant satisfaction now.
We don't need to diddle with anything in the current system to make third parties viable - we need third party politicians with maturity, vision, and leadship skills.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that the originator of the original study, who complained about his mistreatment at the hands of the Bush Administration, refused to release his data and algorithms for review. This places his earlier behavior in an entirely new light.
It's interesting the difference in terminology between the summary and the actual article...
According to the summary they have "decided to" and "plan on", according to the article they "would like to" and "hope too". That's a fairly significant difference. It's also in line with articles that have previously appeared - they sound much more like the bosses of the space agency and lunar science programs stumping for funding and support than they do like accounts of real programs.
Actual hard evidence to date indicates no reason to believe the Chinese program will continue at other than it's current glacial pace. (Which is kind of an insult to glaciers as it implies glaciers are as immobile as mountains.)
Something seems a little strange here. With 25 test cases, and a binary outcome (either the virus was detected or it was not), the %caught should proceed in even step of 4%. There's some number massaging going on somewhere.
Hmm... the Fight Club Website lists 35 test cases, not 25. It's not clear if there is any overlap between the various test cases. In fact, there's not any discussion of the testing methodology (let alone what precisely was tested) at all. Just "here's our numbers - believe them or infect your own machine and find out for yourself".
Now, while I admire the 'do it yourself' hacker ethos as much as the next guy - this is taking it a bit too far.
I imagine this is the first of many. The advocates of Open Source for years have been pretending that they are on the side of the angels and immune to normal personal and business pressures. They're wrong.
No Korean War veterans handy, but the Vietnam vets I know had nothing particular good (or bad) to say against them.
Why in the hell haven't you read the TFA? The ARC and J&J divvied up who can use the Red Cross for what over a hundred years ago - and the ARC is currently violating that agreement.
I've been witness to events which were not only misrepresented by the mainstream media - but which were also misrepresented by the participating parties and their after-the-fact supporters. (I was neither.) Not one of the three accounts (media, participant a, participant b) agreed with each other in the important particulars. (In fact, participant b's version, and that of his supporters, not only diverged from what I saw - but the divergence increased with time, and always in the direction of decreasing his responsibility and increasing his victimhood.)
It's ridiculous to claim that "not mainstream media" == "not biased".
[nods] It's not like participants in a story will ever have a bias of their very own.
This isn't really news either...
True. But nowhere in the Geneva Convention is that special protection extended to commercial usage - it only describes the usage of the symbol on buildings, vehicles, and persons.
It seems to me that you should consider what the Convention says, not what you wish it says.
The funny part is - in any other context Slashdot would be screaming about ISP's monitoring their traffic and/or vigilante justice (being susceptible to abuse as it is).
This self centered evangelical mentality has long been prevalent among geeks, or at least among the slashgeek subset - haven't you seen the endless Ask Slashdots asking about how to browbeat (oops, 'convince') $RELATIVE to convert to Linux (or Macs or Open Office, etc... etc...)?
Or consider this condescending classic of the genre.
It's pretty easy, using a power screwdriver, to tighten things 'just enough' - if you pay attention to what you are doing. Tightening them to the point where they resist coming out (or are coming close to stripping) if the sign of a poor workman, whether the work is assembling PC cases or nuclear submarines. ( Probably whoever taught you was firmly stuck in "damm kids" mode, or didn't trust you with power tools. I suspect the latter from your comments.)
No. Because SL represents what many geeks thought the Internet would end up being back when it (the 'net) first came into the public eye back in the early 90's, a complete and virtually unregulated virtual world. It took Alpha World (and it's eventual failure) to pave the way for Second Life (and There, etc...), and SL will pave the way for the next generation. It bears watching.
It's also an interesting sociological and economic experiment. The enviroment of SL is ever evolving.
It's pretty sad that the slashgeeks can't see that - and that bashing gets moderated up over discussion.
Ahh... Mindless US basing FTKW (For The Karma Whore).
Truth is you also go s/Linden dollar/99% of all RL currencies/ and s/Second Life/99% of all RL countries/, and still be correct.
Keep in mind that regulations and insurance are relatively new concepts in real-life banking. (Yet people take them for granted.) Even so, regulation didn't prevent the S&L crisis.
I can imagine it easily - 99% of the surfers denied acess would simply go "damm internet" and surf elsewhere, or go do something off-net.
The funny part, is that historically colonialism is associated with what today would be the left-wing, and their 'god given' right to bring the mud people into the light of civilization.
Absolutely. And the fact that Britain was rapidly evolving a more stable goverment and modern economic systems can't have hurt much either. Whereas China, which was used as a source of comparison, was mired in an authoritarian semifuedal system and premodern economy. Equally, China was decidely inward looking, while Britain was decidely outward looking... Etc... etc...
Also, Britain (at the time of the Industrial Revolution) had a rapidly expanding middle class (which is not the same as the middle class of today), who had increasing amounts of education, leisure, and capital to invest.
These and a whole lot of other factors the theory fails to account for.
No, Frank was killed by HAL while on a spacewalk to replace the AE-35 unit (for the second time). The header is incorrect.
The implication here that individuals (reinforced in the next paragraph) invest credit into businesses is generally false. It's the businesses themselves that obtain credit and invest as capital historically.
Here we see the fruit of the false premise - because individuals never had their money in businesses to start with.
And the author also seem to be ignorant of the paradox of thrift.
The remainder of the rant need not be refuted - because it flows from the false premises noted above.
I should however point out that massive outsourcing is a modern phenomena - and thus cannot be part of a 'repeating cycle'. (I.E. another false premise.) The same goes for 'cheap credit drying up' leading to a depression.
In short, the OP is utterly disconnected from reality.
It's a nice theory. It's disconnected from reality in too many places to mention. But it's a nice theory.
That's how the meme goes. After nearly thirty years of observing the political process, I suspect the truth is rather different.
It seems to me that most 3rd party candidates don't get elected because they are either a) loons or, b) so focused on a single issue as to be indistinguishable from the loons. Ralph Nader is a special subcase of "A" - he's been on the fringes so long, he is now filed with the true loons. There's a reason why the two major parties, radicalized as they are, at least make a pretense of conciliation with the middle.
Another error virtually all third parties make is that they pop up like mushrooms right before the election, and vanish right after they lose. This leads to the perception (not entirely incorrect) that they are unstable. Which leads to the biggest and most common error - almost always they run only for the big marbles. This lends itself to the perception that not only are they unstable, but that they are only interested in naked power. (As well as handicapping themselves right out of the starting gate with a lack of name recognition.)
I've said for years that a well organized third party with a coherent strategy and platform (I.E. every the current crop isn't) could come to dominate national politics within twenty years. But politicos and activists are no different than most of the rest of America - they want instant satisfaction now.
We don't need to diddle with anything in the current system to make third parties viable - we need third party politicians with maturity, vision, and leadship skills.
Not every video application needs to be able to sustain high framerates.
I suggest you read the book, or watch the movie... Because in both he was exposed to open space. No airtight seal at all.