The lead says that "enterprise customers" want outbound opened up by default.
The rest of the story justifies the decision based on allowing individuals access to the outside world without having to figure out outbound firewall config.
Ny guess: they screwed up the user interface and cross-coupled certain permissions so that the most common configuration requires entering the more advanced configuration panes, rather than the selection of a cartoon icon on the basic configuration pane.
That is exactly the sort of math that Democracy was invented to counteract.
Unfortunately, all it did was turn the government over to politicians; who are the same-old graft-taking fixers while in office, and everyone's friend on the campaign trail.
They put a lavalier (wireless microphone) on Lucas and followed him around for a day-in-the-life thing, and at one point he pulled out his wallet and opened it.
So they sampled that, air-balled it once, and patented it.
if you're stuck on someone you can't have so bad that you'll willingly (if not happily) pay $500 for you and a friend (you have to bring a friend or there will be nobody to see how enraptured you are) then that's not your idol's fault
it's yours
spend 20% of that on an hour of a shrink's time and realize that these people don't know who you are and don't really care if you're there or not
Unless their compiler can predict the future, multiple cores will always have synchronization issues that keep them from approaching twice the performance of one core.
Ah yes, the "control freak" response, also used by the "robots are taking over our jobs" people.
Ah yes, the "politician" response, also used by the "what could possibly go wrong?" crowd.
BTW, there are no safety standards for military aircraft as there are for civilian ones; anything goes when you're building a fighter jet. Which is why it's okay to build one that can't be flown by something with a 300-ms control loop like a human being.
I wasn't decrying robotics. I was just putting it in stark relief so the cyber-heads could perk up.
But someday soon the law will change to demand that all vehicles on the road shall be controlled by a centralized traffic system. Travel anywhere will be slow and predictable; at least within stochastic norms. And yet the standard for performance will probably be that it will not increase the number of fatalities overall...
Admins and editors don't need to be harsh in the slightest. The fact that you think that's necessary indicates that the system itself doesn't work to discourage noise and the people operating it have to make up their own method for disciplining noisemakers. Which of course leads to a total lack of consistency, which is the hallmark of bad leadership.
An admin's emotions are unimportant to the process. But in my expereince admins' feelings are raw from dealing with trolls, and easily hurt, and many admins and editors take anything other than kow-towing as a challenge from a troll.
Plus, admins constantly forget the cardinal rule of adminship: they don't have any special rights, even though they have a special power. But they're almost to a man completely headstrong about being special and right. And the means to get them to see that they're wrong are onerous.
Further, the system is ridiculously politicized. It's too difficult to become an admin and far too difficult to lose adminship. The result is a power-clique that protects its malefactors and victimizes the general public. A tin badge is not a degree in dispute resoltion; and certainly not one in jurisprudence.
I've been in there three different times, worked for days or weeks without issue - including putting in my fair share of rv's -, and ended up leaving each time because of these petty dictators. And Wales doesn't care that he's created a broken system. He points to the article count and click rate and waits for the cameras to roll.
It's not the vandalism that's the problem. Those are easily fixed. It's the culture of snow-blindness that the vandalism causes among the admin caste that's the problem. They start to see everything as vandalism. Which drives away people who can actually add value but don't want to have to stop every two days to get into a five-day argument with a block-happy admin.
The result is that erroneous information remains, and valuable information is omitted. Which inserts noise and errors into the system that aren't easily detected by those who remain. Who are, in general, spending all their time fending off vandalism and even if they knew the truth wouldn't have a chance to detect and correct the broken articles.
When Wikipedia was put up against the Brittanica, Wikipedia had 4 errors to Brittanica's 3, on average, in scientific articles. Doesn't look like much? Don't think of it as just "one extra error". Extrapolated across the entire database, it's over 4 million errors. And that's just the facts that can be checked. It doesn't even have visibility into the substantive ommissions, illogical constructs, and bad writing. It's at the very least a 33% higher noise level. In a book that is being edited 24/7/365 by hundreds of thousands of people.
Frankly, the amount of money and effort being spent to get a worse result is rather saddening.
As for "the encyclopedia is just a place to start to research," that's a pure canard. People take encyclopedias as gospel. They may be wrong to do it, but they do it, and it's wrong to underserve them by accepting a broken encyclopedia.
>>Calling wikipedia an "encyclopedia" is like calling a plate full of turds a gourmet meal.
>It doesn't matter; it's intended to be an encyclopedia.
Remind me not to accept if you invite me for dinner.
Frankly, the wikipedia is a mess. Owing to its haphazard supervisory structure, it is not possible for it ever to be accurate to a degree that anyone should trust its contents, and from this/. story it's pretty clear that its supervisory structure is actually decaying.
It's no *programming* contest at all. It's much more like an algorithm-solving+text formatting race. They don't test your REAL programming skills - your ability to create your own programming libraries, the organization of your source code, the maintainability, etc.
You're right. Real programmers rarely bother with formatting...
(No, I'm not kidding...I make my money testing their stuff -- don't knock test programming, it's some of the purest computer hacking there is -- and I make about half of it because their mistakes are due to pure sloppiness.)
I usually stay on one program for 8-12 weeks, working out every other day (the other days I'm on my bicycle; I don't do legs in the gym).
When gaining I do HST, starting at 50-60% of my 20RM and each session going down one rep and up one increment until I'm at 5-7 reps doing my RM for that count (the rep maxes are determined from the strength training done up until I start the gaining cycle).
Then I flip and start cutting, doing strength training. I do 8 exercises (two angles each chest and back; shoulder; shrugs; curls; tricep presses), 2 sets each, one set 15-20 reps and one set 5-8 reps. If I only do 12 or 3 reps, that's okay, I go for 2 more next time. When I hit 20 or 8, I increment the weight next time. It's a more refined version of the 5-12 system that I believe hits both type I and type II fibers without neglecting either.
Towards the end of a 12-week strength/cutting phase, I start to "miss" my goals more often, going down to maybe 50% hits some workouts (it's one of the things that motivates me to switch to bulking again). But then bulking makes it easier to pick up the strength again. The whole point of adding muscle I guess.
This worked several times, but then I got sidetracked. I need to get back on the horse. I'm only working out once a week now, and that includes riding. I'm holding my shape, but the covering is soft, and I'm getting weaker. The effects of constant exercise are definitely temporary.
the more you exercise, the less you feel like you need to stretch or get massaged
using your muscles stretches and massages them
much back pain is impacted muscular tissue that you'd think could be helped with deep-muscle massage
some is strained muscular tissue that needs stretching and strengthening
working that tissue the way it's designed to work opens up the channels for blood and lymph and makes the fibers more supple
no more pain
oh, and one more benefit: after the first few workouts, you'll probably stop getting post-exercise soreness as well; in fact, you'll be tempted to think you're not progressing because of it; that's when you start increasing reps (from 5 reps to 12 or more in 2-rep increments per session) and weight (add an increment when you hit 12 or more reps and go back to 5 reps), and improving your strength; you still won't feel sore, but you'll know from the numbers that you put up that you're getting something out of it
used to be a competitive athlete and computer nerd
became a full-time geek (prided myself on all-nighters and spending my ridiculous pay on expensive meals) and ballooned up; couldn't walk up a single flight of stairs without huffing and pulling the handrail at the top
lost the weight (over 80 lbs eventually), got back into my sport, struggled mightily to train (est. 20% of former capability), got pretty good (80% or more maybe)
burned out on training, took a couple of months off, got back in, found it hard (60% level), don't have the same impetus to get back to where i was in the fall...
anyone can be both geeky and buff.
let me repeat that: anyone.
give up your computer for a couple of hours a day to dress, work out, and shower; and learn what nutrition is: balance your protein, carbohydrate, and fat intake, keep a 500-calorie deficit until you hit your goal weight, avoid sugary-fatty foods (dessert is a reward, not a mandate), use a multivitamin so you don't obsess about new-age health claims, and ignore fad diets like low-carb or no-fat
it's easy to allow the alpha waves and the instant feedback of your keyboard addiction to keep you in your seat, but once you make that break a part of your lifestyle, it tends to stick
and hell...slashdot has plenty of volume...it doesn't need four more "me too" posts from you per day
That's what we have here. It's not ordinary sugar, it's a selected type of monosaccharide for each kind of target to be detected.
And what they don't say is that it's probable that there are many "toxins" for which no such marker exists. And that it's probable for one marker to react to more than one dissolved substance, possibly leading to false positives.
It's a cute trick, though, making the gold stay with the sugar in a solution. It'd be interesting to see how often it dissolves off before detecting anything, or how long it takes for it to dissolve off afterward.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're starting to get paranoid.
/. angry.
M$ does not exist to make
That is one confused story.
The lead says that "enterprise customers" want outbound opened up by default.
The rest of the story justifies the decision based on allowing individuals access to the outside world without having to figure out outbound firewall config.
Ny guess: they screwed up the user interface and cross-coupled certain permissions so that the most common configuration requires entering the more advanced configuration panes, rather than the selection of a cartoon icon on the basic configuration pane.
And they're blaming everyone but themselves.
But when you're as old as Mozart is now, he'll still be very much alive, and you'll just be dead.
Actually, time is no force at all. It's the in-dependent variable.
Plate tectonics, asteroidal collisions, and solar-powered weather are causing the "change" you observe through paleontology.
And what is it in relation to the width of a human hair?
My kindergartener can do that.
Write a frivolous lawsuit, I mean.
That is exactly the sort of math that Democracy was invented to counteract.
Unfortunately, all it did was turn the government over to politicians; who are the same-old graft-taking fixers while in office, and everyone's friend on the campaign trail.
Time for a reset, and some evolution.
They put a lavalier (wireless microphone) on Lucas and followed him around for a day-in-the-life thing, and at one point he pulled out his wallet and opened it.
So they sampled that, air-balled it once, and patented it.
if you're stuck on someone you can't have so bad that you'll willingly (if not happily) pay $500 for you and a friend (you have to bring a friend or there will be nobody to see how enraptured you are) then that's not your idol's fault
it's yours
spend 20% of that on an hour of a shrink's time and realize that these people don't know who you are and don't really care if you're there or not
Unless their compiler can predict the future, multiple cores will always have synchronization issues that keep them from approaching twice the performance of one core.
Ah yes, the "control freak" response, also used by the "robots are taking over our jobs" people.
Ah yes, the "politician" response, also used by the "what could possibly go wrong?" crowd.
BTW, there are no safety standards for military aircraft as there are for civilian ones; anything goes when you're building a fighter jet. Which is why it's okay to build one that can't be flown by something with a 300-ms control loop like a human being.
I wasn't decrying robotics. I was just putting it in stark relief so the cyber-heads could perk up.
But someday soon the law will change to demand that all vehicles on the road shall be controlled by a centralized traffic system. Travel anywhere will be slow and predictable; at least within stochastic norms. And yet the standard for performance will probably be that it will not increase the number of fatalities overall...
Is it no longer possible to cut a node off from Internet access?
Whatever happened to the IDP?
Don't anyone mistake this for what it is: a robot that overrides your control inputs.
See, you're fitting the archetype.
Admins and editors don't need to be harsh in the slightest. The fact that you think that's necessary indicates that the system itself doesn't work to discourage noise and the people operating it have to make up their own method for disciplining noisemakers. Which of course leads to a total lack of consistency, which is the hallmark of bad leadership.
An admin's emotions are unimportant to the process. But in my expereince admins' feelings are raw from dealing with trolls, and easily hurt, and many admins and editors take anything other than kow-towing as a challenge from a troll.
Plus, admins constantly forget the cardinal rule of adminship: they don't have any special rights, even though they have a special power. But they're almost to a man completely headstrong about being special and right. And the means to get them to see that they're wrong are onerous.
Further, the system is ridiculously politicized. It's too difficult to become an admin and far too difficult to lose adminship. The result is a power-clique that protects its malefactors and victimizes the general public. A tin badge is not a degree in dispute resoltion; and certainly not one in jurisprudence.
I've been in there three different times, worked for days or weeks without issue - including putting in my fair share of rv's -, and ended up leaving each time because of these petty dictators. And Wales doesn't care that he's created a broken system. He points to the article count and click rate and waits for the cameras to roll.
It's not the vandalism that's the problem. Those are easily fixed. It's the culture of snow-blindness that the vandalism causes among the admin caste that's the problem. They start to see everything as vandalism. Which drives away people who can actually add value but don't want to have to stop every two days to get into a five-day argument with a block-happy admin.
The result is that erroneous information remains, and valuable information is omitted. Which inserts noise and errors into the system that aren't easily detected by those who remain. Who are, in general, spending all their time fending off vandalism and even if they knew the truth wouldn't have a chance to detect and correct the broken articles.
When Wikipedia was put up against the Brittanica, Wikipedia had 4 errors to Brittanica's 3, on average, in scientific articles. Doesn't look like much? Don't think of it as just "one extra error". Extrapolated across the entire database, it's over 4 million errors. And that's just the facts that can be checked. It doesn't even have visibility into the substantive ommissions, illogical constructs, and bad writing. It's at the very least a 33% higher noise level. In a book that is being edited 24/7/365 by hundreds of thousands of people.
Frankly, the amount of money and effort being spent to get a worse result is rather saddening.
As for "the encyclopedia is just a place to start to research," that's a pure canard. People take encyclopedias as gospel. They may be wrong to do it, but they do it, and it's wrong to underserve them by accepting a broken encyclopedia.
>>Calling wikipedia an "encyclopedia" is like calling a plate full of turds a gourmet meal.
/. story it's pretty clear that its supervisory structure is actually decaying.
>It doesn't matter; it's intended to be an encyclopedia.
Remind me not to accept if you invite me for dinner.
Frankly, the wikipedia is a mess. Owing to its haphazard supervisory structure, it is not possible for it ever to be accurate to a degree that anyone should trust its contents, and from this
It's dead already. Prompting this new slogan:
/. of one"
"A
It's no *programming* contest at all. It's much more like an algorithm-solving+text formatting race. They don't test your REAL programming skills - your ability to create your own programming libraries, the organization of your source code, the maintainability, etc.
You're right. Real programmers rarely bother with formatting...
(No, I'm not kidding...I make my money testing their stuff -- don't knock test programming, it's some of the purest computer hacking there is -- and I make about half of it because their mistakes are due to pure sloppiness.)
How hard can it be to understand evolution?
Time + slow variation + selective extinction = sophistication.
Beats the hell out of
Undetectable magician + ineffable motives = sophistication.
It's not the device, it's the communicating.
you can't afford the settlement on that one
I usually stay on one program for 8-12 weeks, working out every other day (the other days I'm on my bicycle; I don't do legs in the gym).
When gaining I do HST, starting at 50-60% of my 20RM and each session going down one rep and up one increment until I'm at 5-7 reps doing my RM for that count (the rep maxes are determined from the strength training done up until I start the gaining cycle).
Then I flip and start cutting, doing strength training. I do 8 exercises (two angles each chest and back; shoulder; shrugs; curls; tricep presses), 2 sets each, one set 15-20 reps and one set 5-8 reps. If I only do 12 or 3 reps, that's okay, I go for 2 more next time. When I hit 20 or 8, I increment the weight next time. It's a more refined version of the 5-12 system that I believe hits both type I and type II fibers without neglecting either.
Towards the end of a 12-week strength/cutting phase, I start to "miss" my goals more often, going down to maybe 50% hits some workouts (it's one of the things that motivates me to switch to bulking again). But then bulking makes it easier to pick up the strength again. The whole point of adding muscle I guess.
This worked several times, but then I got sidetracked. I need to get back on the horse. I'm only working out once a week now, and that includes riding. I'm holding my shape, but the covering is soft, and I'm getting weaker. The effects of constant exercise are definitely temporary.
here's the irony:
the more you exercise, the less you feel like you need to stretch or get massaged
using your muscles stretches and massages them
much back pain is impacted muscular tissue that you'd think could be helped with deep-muscle massage
some is strained muscular tissue that needs stretching and strengthening
working that tissue the way it's designed to work opens up the channels for blood and lymph and makes the fibers more supple
no more pain
oh, and one more benefit: after the first few workouts, you'll probably stop getting post-exercise soreness as well; in fact, you'll be tempted to think you're not progressing because of it; that's when you start increasing reps (from 5 reps to 12 or more in 2-rep increments per session) and weight (add an increment when you hit 12 or more reps and go back to 5 reps), and improving your strength; you still won't feel sore, but you'll know from the numbers that you put up that you're getting something out of it
used to be a competitive athlete and computer nerd
became a full-time geek (prided myself on all-nighters and spending my ridiculous pay on expensive meals) and ballooned up; couldn't walk up a single flight of stairs without huffing and pulling the handrail at the top
lost the weight (over 80 lbs eventually), got back into my sport, struggled mightily to train (est. 20% of former capability), got pretty good (80% or more maybe)
burned out on training, took a couple of months off, got back in, found it hard (60% level), don't have the same impetus to get back to where i was in the fall...
anyone can be both geeky and buff.
let me repeat that: anyone.
give up your computer for a couple of hours a day to dress, work out, and shower; and learn what nutrition is: balance your protein, carbohydrate, and fat intake, keep a 500-calorie deficit until you hit your goal weight, avoid sugary-fatty foods (dessert is a reward, not a mandate), use a multivitamin so you don't obsess about new-age health claims, and ignore fad diets like low-carb or no-fat
it's easy to allow the alpha waves and the instant feedback of your keyboard addiction to keep you in your seat, but once you make that break a part of your lifestyle, it tends to stick
and hell...slashdot has plenty of volume...it doesn't need four more "me too" posts from you per day
That's what we have here. It's not ordinary sugar, it's a selected type of monosaccharide for each kind of target to be detected.
And what they don't say is that it's probable that there are many "toxins" for which no such marker exists. And that it's probable for one marker to react to more than one dissolved substance, possibly leading to false positives.
It's a cute trick, though, making the gold stay with the sugar in a solution. It'd be interesting to see how often it dissolves off before detecting anything, or how long it takes for it to dissolve off afterward.