Hackers have some of the most advanced social skills in society.
Lol. Sure. I would say that they have advance skills of affecting society, but the term 'social skills' has a widely accepted connotation for which your use of the word does not apply.
I think he's right. Many hackers have great social skills - a lot of the best hacks are social engineering as much at technical hacks. But a lot of the most infamous mass murderers also had excellent social skills. Just because some guy is a charismatic smooth talker doesn't mean he isn't also a sociopath.
And I agree that the environment of the conference contributes to their harassing actions - not by making it more the victim's fault, but by providing an atmosphere where these borderline sociopathic people feel like their actions are condoned, or at least ignored.
Did you really just claim that more of the women at DEFCON were likely prostitutes than hackers? Unless you have some evidence for this beyond reading things on the Interwebs and watching Swordfish too many times, that's an absurdly sexist thing to say. Just wow. Red card for you.
What I really love about this whole thread is how so many of the posters assume that women at a security conference for hackers would have any INTEREST in being "groupies". This isn't Hackers, Angelina Jolie does not find you attractive, so holy crap get over yourselves.
They are real jobs, they are just FAR from "high level execs". Middle management, at best. And they are mostly marketing positions, which while important for the company, are much more about personality and general experience than any Facebook-specific knowledge they may have built up. Doubt Facebook will have much trouble replacing them.
If we are comparing record Julys, then there aren't many data points, and maybe it is OK to toss a low temperature.
Records are almost by definition outliers, so tossing them out defeats the whole point.
And as I said, if it's a possible measurement anomaly, that's one thing. But no reason to talk in generalities here, it was a simple *temperature* measurement where no one is contesting the data point or measurement technique, just whether it should be ignored since it was "not normal".
I could see tossing the outliers if you think they are *recording* anomolies. Tossing accurate measurements because they don't fit the nice linear graph you want to draw is just bad science.
Taking out *valid* outliers doesn't give a graph "more value" to those wanting to understand the meaning behind the data, just to those wanting to use the data to justify their preconceived conclusions...
Oh, and I didn't even point out that your other "facts" are wrong, as well.
Trivially looking up statistics shows Morton Grove had a population increase, not decline, over that period, and their crime rate is so low (it's a very upscale community) that "a 15% increase" would likely be statistically insignificant even if it were true. And Morton Grove repealed the ban in 2008. Want to see the *actual* statistics, not your made up ones?
Violent crime index in 2010 Morton Grove: 32.7 U.S. Average: 222.7
Violent crime index in 2009 Morton Grove: 39.2 U.S. Average: 238.0
Violent crime index in 2008 Morton Grove: 32.3 U.S. Average: 252.4
Violent crime index in 2007 Morton Grove: 18.5 U.S. Average: 259.7
Violent crime index in 2006 Morton Grove: 25.7 U.S. Average: 264.1
Violent crime index in 2005 Morton Grove: 23.2 U.S. Average: 258.9
So it went UP after the repeal - which is ALSO not very significant based on the variation year to year and the fact that it's very low compared to the national average already.
And for your other "fact" - Kennesaw isn't even in Illinois, it's in Georgia.
Funny thing about all this is that I am not even anti-gun ownership, anyway (though I am in favor of more regulation). My original point was that it's absurd how much the government can become a nanny state about a "toy' meant for adults that has not been shown to cause a single actual death, while staying far away from other areas that cause many child deaths per year. It's "safety theater" because no one cares to stand up for the toy manufacturer.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The founding fathers weren't trying to ensure the people would be set up to overthrow the government, they wanted citizens to be armed because the US did not *have* a standing army at that time. Independence was won largely through the militia, and they wanted to preserve the freedom they just won. Of course there are other interpretations, but that one is as good as any and better than some...
The US now has a massive professional military and an extensive National Guard. Despite what you might think "Red Dawn" is not a realistic movie.
Why do we always have to come back to uninformed people who, instead of actually finding real statistic and numbers, simply make an emotional decision on what's "right" and ignore the facts.
Really. YOU JUST DID EXACTLY THAT.
UK has extremely strict gun laws. More per capita gun crime. Switzerland also has strict gun laws. Meaning that every citizen MUST own a gun, and keep it at their home. Nearly no crime.
They are banned by FOPA, but those manufactured before 1986 were grandfathered. It is illegal for a private citizen to own any automatic weapon manufactured and registered after that date, or convert a semi-automatic weapon to automatic.
So the 180 kids who were killed by someone misusing their parent's gun was due to drugs and the gun was illegally obtained? I'm sure you have a citation for that...
The point was that's 180 more kids than have actually died eating these magnets, so why in hell is one protected and not the other?
And if you sort the table in the article you mentioned by the key statistic, "homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population", the US is #1 of all Western, non-3rd world countries. Comparing against a country with a civil war, roving bands of pirates, or where the government is the one doing the shooting is kind of pointless.
But anyway, automatic weapons were successfully banned in the US with no Constitutional override. Why not ban semi-automatic weapons as well? The founding fathers had to load their metal balls one at a time, which did a pretty good job of preventing mass murders and random crime-related homicides (you miss, and you lose).
The 3 year old boy who ate a bunch of them isn't a dumb ass - as you say, the parent is. The 12 year old girl who tried to use them as a tongue stud and accidentally swallowed them... well, that one's not so clear...
From the articles I have read "at least a dozen children" have swallowed them, and I haven't found a single confirmed case of a death.
Compare that to over 7000 gun related homicides in the US in ONE year, including approximately 300 children. And ANOTHER 180 or so were killed unintentionally (many of those self-inflicted).
So yeah, why are we outlawing magnets while letting any moron buy bullets? If the CPSC can ban a toy *meant for adults* and sue the manufacturer, would would be the legal difference in banning ammunition and suing those manufacturers? If this suit is successful it would seem like the manufacturer can be held liable for any dangerous product, regardless of their warnings...
Even if your (or the previous similar comment's, or the original poster's) interpretation made sense - which it doesn't - what amazes me is how perfect an example these posts are of the usual bullshit arguments against climate change.
You can't question the facts, so you question the grammar of the person stating the facts. I believe that's called an "ad hominem"...
Bare bones how? Users can upgrade ALL THE WAY FROM XP to Windows 8 Pro for $40. That's a $40 upgrade from an OS released in 2001 (around the same time as OSX 10.0, in fact).
When I tried to get a Macbook with OSX 10.3 upgraded to 10.6, the "genius" at the Apple store actually said "oh, we don't support that, but you may be able to find an old version of 10.4 on the Internet, and then we can sell you the 10.5 and 10.6 upgrades". How nice of them.
One problem with that: it doesn't happen. Some people took Monsanto to court over it a while back. they couldn't produce any evidence that what you describe actually happens, and the suit was dismissed. They do sue farmers who knowingly save and replant transgenic seed that they developed, yes, but that's a far cry from suing over unintentional cross pollination as is so often claimed.
It shouldn't matter if growing new crops was intentional or unintentional. If a farmer's crops are contaminated with the Roundup-ready gene through pollination and they intentionally save the seeds, who cares? It's like your neighbor's champion pedigree dog climbing your fence and screwing your dog and then trying to sue you for realizing the puppies may be valuable.
That's not even a new case, Monsanto has already sued farmers whose crops were "infected" with their Roundup-resistant gene via natural cross pollination...
Duh. And when you have the "Hershey squirts" there isn't actually molten chocolate coming out of your ass. It's just a common figure of speech, big deal.
And actually, norovirus (as a previous poster pointed out) is the most common cause, *not* bacteria. And it's contagious enough that you don't have to ingest food to get it, touching objects/surfaces an infected person has touched, etc, will spread it just fine.
People definitely like to call things "food poisoning" whenever they have a violent stomach flu after eating something they wondered about in the first place.
About a year ago I had a horrible, coming-out-of-both-ends "food poisoning type" incident I was ready to blame on a local restaurant I ate at that day. It turned out my co-worker had it 2 days earlier, and my girlfriend got it 2 days later. Became pretty clear about the incubation time and the fact it wasn't food poisoning at *all*...
Slashdot Mirror
My girlfriend has cracked hers twice, and she doesn't know the first thing about hacking. A 3' fall onto the sidewalk works almost every time.
Hackers have some of the most advanced social skills in society.
Lol. Sure. I would say that they have advance skills of affecting society, but the term 'social skills' has a widely accepted connotation for which your use of the word does not apply.
I think he's right. Many hackers have great social skills - a lot of the best hacks are social engineering as much at technical hacks. But a lot of the most infamous mass murderers also had excellent social skills. Just because some guy is a charismatic smooth talker doesn't mean he isn't also a sociopath.
And I agree that the environment of the conference contributes to their harassing actions - not by making it more the victim's fault, but by providing an atmosphere where these borderline sociopathic people feel like their actions are condoned, or at least ignored.
Did you really just claim that more of the women at DEFCON were likely prostitutes than hackers? Unless you have some evidence for this beyond reading things on the Interwebs and watching Swordfish too many times, that's an absurdly sexist thing to say. Just wow. Red card for you.
What I really love about this whole thread is how so many of the posters assume that women at a security conference for hackers would have any INTEREST in being "groupies". This isn't Hackers, Angelina Jolie does not find you attractive, so holy crap get over yourselves.
They are real jobs, they are just FAR from "high level execs". Middle management, at best. And they are mostly marketing positions, which while important for the company, are much more about personality and general experience than any Facebook-specific knowledge they may have built up. Doubt Facebook will have much trouble replacing them.
If we are comparing record Julys, then there aren't many data points, and maybe it is OK to toss a low temperature.
Records are almost by definition outliers, so tossing them out defeats the whole point.
And as I said, if it's a possible measurement anomaly, that's one thing. But no reason to talk in generalities here, it was a simple *temperature* measurement where no one is contesting the data point or measurement technique, just whether it should be ignored since it was "not normal".
Incidental temperatures fucking are a coincidence.
I'm pretty sure if you ever see incidental temperatures fucking it's a very deliberate act.
I could see tossing the outliers if you think they are *recording* anomolies. Tossing accurate measurements because they don't fit the nice linear graph you want to draw is just bad science.
Taking out *valid* outliers doesn't give a graph "more value" to those wanting to understand the meaning behind the data, just to those wanting to use the data to justify their preconceived conclusions...
I'm just waiting for Jenny McCarthy to start complaining about how the other 66 million chickens will develop autism.
Actually, PETA is perfectly fine with killing animals, just so long as they are not used for any useful purpose afterwards.
Oh, and I didn't even point out that your other "facts" are wrong, as well.
Trivially looking up statistics shows Morton Grove had a population increase, not decline, over that period, and their crime rate is so low (it's a very upscale community) that "a 15% increase" would likely be statistically insignificant even if it were true. And Morton Grove repealed the ban in 2008. Want to see the *actual* statistics, not your made up ones?
Violent crime index in 2010
Morton Grove: 32.7
U.S. Average: 222.7
Violent crime index in 2009
Morton Grove: 39.2
U.S. Average: 238.0
Violent crime index in 2008
Morton Grove: 32.3
U.S. Average: 252.4
Violent crime index in 2007
Morton Grove: 18.5
U.S. Average: 259.7
Violent crime index in 2006
Morton Grove: 25.7
U.S. Average: 264.1
Violent crime index in 2005
Morton Grove: 23.2
U.S. Average: 258.9
So it went UP after the repeal - which is ALSO not very significant based on the variation year to year and the fact that it's very low compared to the national average already.
And for your other "fact" - Kennesaw isn't even in Illinois, it's in Georgia.
Funny thing about all this is that I am not even anti-gun ownership, anyway (though I am in favor of more regulation). My original point was that it's absurd how much the government can become a nanny state about a "toy' meant for adults that has not been shown to cause a single actual death, while staying far away from other areas that cause many child deaths per year. It's "safety theater" because no one cares to stand up for the toy manufacturer.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The founding fathers weren't trying to ensure the people would be set up to overthrow the government, they wanted citizens to be armed because the US did not *have* a standing army at that time. Independence was won largely through the militia, and they wanted to preserve the freedom they just won. Of course there are other interpretations, but that one is as good as any and better than some...
The US now has a massive professional military and an extensive National Guard. Despite what you might think "Red Dawn" is not a realistic movie.
Why do we always have to come back to uninformed people who, instead of actually finding real statistic and numbers, simply make an emotional decision on what's "right" and ignore the facts.
Really. YOU JUST DID EXACTLY THAT.
UK has extremely strict gun laws. More per capita gun crime. Switzerland also has strict gun laws. Meaning that every citizen MUST own a gun, and keep it at their home. Nearly no crime.
Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 citizens:
US: 2.97
Switzerland: 0.56
England: 0.12
I always wondered why among European countries Switzerland's firearm homicide was so disproportionately high... you answered that for me, thanks.
They are banned by FOPA, but those manufactured before 1986 were grandfathered. It is illegal for a private citizen to own any automatic weapon manufactured and registered after that date, or convert a semi-automatic weapon to automatic.
So the 180 kids who were killed by someone misusing their parent's gun was due to drugs and the gun was illegally obtained? I'm sure you have a citation for that...
The point was that's 180 more kids than have actually died eating these magnets, so why in hell is one protected and not the other?
And if you sort the table in the article you mentioned by the key statistic, "homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population", the US is #1 of all Western, non-3rd world countries. Comparing against a country with a civil war, roving bands of pirates, or where the government is the one doing the shooting is kind of pointless.
But anyway, automatic weapons were successfully banned in the US with no Constitutional override. Why not ban semi-automatic weapons as well? The founding fathers had to load their metal balls one at a time, which did a pretty good job of preventing mass murders and random crime-related homicides (you miss, and you lose).
Rock dulls nail, condom covers rock, nail breaks condom!
The 3 year old boy who ate a bunch of them isn't a dumb ass - as you say, the parent is. The 12 year old girl who tried to use them as a tongue stud and accidentally swallowed them... well, that one's not so clear...
From the articles I have read "at least a dozen children" have swallowed them, and I haven't found a single confirmed case of a death.
Compare that to over 7000 gun related homicides in the US in ONE year, including approximately 300 children. And ANOTHER 180 or so were killed unintentionally (many of those self-inflicted).
So yeah, why are we outlawing magnets while letting any moron buy bullets? If the CPSC can ban a toy *meant for adults* and sue the manufacturer, would would be the legal difference in banning ammunition and suing those manufacturers? If this suit is successful it would seem like the manufacturer can be held liable for any dangerous product, regardless of their warnings...
Even if your (or the previous similar comment's, or the original poster's) interpretation made sense - which it doesn't - what amazes me is how perfect an example these posts are of the usual bullshit arguments against climate change.
You can't question the facts, so you question the grammar of the person stating the facts. I believe that's called an "ad hominem"...
and unpacking them both of which hardware acceleration will not help with at all ...?
Sure it will. Decoding JPEGs does a lot of DCTs that can be done with SIMD operations on the CPU and/or offloaded and parallalized on a GPU.
Bare bones how? Users can upgrade ALL THE WAY FROM XP to Windows 8 Pro for $40. That's a $40 upgrade from an OS released in 2001 (around the same time as OSX 10.0, in fact).
When I tried to get a Macbook with OSX 10.3 upgraded to 10.6, the "genius" at the Apple store actually said "oh, we don't support that, but you may be able to find an old version of 10.4 on the Internet, and then we can sell you the 10.5 and 10.6 upgrades". How nice of them.
brings a handful of iOS features to Macs, including the notes and reminders apps.
They added a notepad. Wow.
It adds a few other things, like Twitter integration
I'm sure *everyone* was waiting for this one, it's hard to find a way to post to Twitter these days.
Apple's Game Center
aka, poor man's Live, or another way to push more game and DLC purchases.
iMessage services
A proprietary IM client that only works with iOS devices, amazing stuff!
There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed.
Preventing stupid people from clicking on Malware. Another revolutionary advancement.
I guess at least it's only $20. Sounds reasonable until you hear Windows 8 will only be $40. Apple marketeers are Gods...
One problem with that: it doesn't happen. Some people took Monsanto to court over it a while back. they couldn't produce any evidence that what you describe actually happens, and the suit was dismissed. They do sue farmers who knowingly save and replant transgenic seed that they developed, yes, but that's a far cry from suing over unintentional cross pollination as is so often claimed.
It shouldn't matter if growing new crops was intentional or unintentional. If a farmer's crops are contaminated with the Roundup-ready gene through pollination and they intentionally save the seeds, who cares? It's like your neighbor's champion pedigree dog climbing your fence and screwing your dog and then trying to sue you for realizing the puppies may be valuable.
That's not even a new case, Monsanto has already sued farmers whose crops were "infected" with their Roundup-resistant gene via natural cross pollination...
Duh. And when you have the "Hershey squirts" there isn't actually molten chocolate coming out of your ass. It's just a common figure of speech, big deal.
And actually, norovirus (as a previous poster pointed out) is the most common cause, *not* bacteria. And it's contagious enough that you don't have to ingest food to get it, touching objects/surfaces an infected person has touched, etc, will spread it just fine.
People definitely like to call things "food poisoning" whenever they have a violent stomach flu after eating something they wondered about in the first place.
About a year ago I had a horrible, coming-out-of-both-ends "food poisoning type" incident I was ready to blame on a local restaurant I ate at that day. It turned out my co-worker had it 2 days earlier, and my girlfriend got it 2 days later. Became pretty clear about the incubation time and the fact it wasn't food poisoning at *all*...