I think your criticism is valid, but the fact that there are so many fewer female pull requests makes what you suggest hard. Comparing percentages is a way to get past the fact that the two samples are of different sizes. Of course it doesn't seem that a sample was used here; more like a census (count every single one).
I think the OP is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Its a clever way of pointing out that there may be a confounding variable here. He drove the point home by coming up with a potential confounding variable that was sure to elicit an emotional reaction. The downside is that if you don't get the point straightaway you may come away understanding the post to be quite different than it's intent.
These agreements don't prevent testifying under oath. Just hold a hearing and subpoena them and they can speak freely without fear of triggering the agreements.
She paid a private organization to secure her server. And everybody knows that private industry is better at everything than government. I think this just goes to show that the government should privatize email! Why are they criticizing Hillary for adopting one of their sacred policies?
What he probably means by nobody competent is that nobody who has that role is competent. Somebody who has a marketing degree who works in accounting might complain about the marketing spend saying "we have nobody competent." Of course this person may or may not be competent to do marketing, but they work in accounting. I think you are being a language lawyer.
DHS has such a poor reputation, are you really sure it can be damaged further. They probably have a statement on their web site that you are required to go through a metal detector before trying to hack into their personnel records, unless you are over 70 years old. And they thought that would keep the data safe!
I can't speak for countries outside of the US, but in the US, you can't pay people less than minimum wage. They can't work for stock options or anything else. Habitat for humanity is different since they are a 501(c)(3) charity. You can't work for free for a for-profit enterprise.
The reality is that these would produce a huge measure of safety. Deep snow isn't really that dangerous for driving. You just have to go slowly. But there's little risk of a complete loss of friction leading to a dramatic accident. Once you plow the roads, whatever amount of precipitation that is left will melt during the day and then freeze again at night. This leads to the so called black ice that has been blamed for countless accidents. If the panels also had a heating element built into them, that could be run at night (using some of the generated electricity) to increase safety.
This is because we put the snowplows all the way down to the road surface. They kind of scrape across it as the trucks drive. With this type of surface you could leave the plow a few centimeters above the surface and then use the energy generated by the panels to heat the pavement and thaw the rest.
There are a lot of posts talking about what an incognito mode should do. Normally we refer to it as 'porn mode' here on/. which does seem to be the intended use case. There's a lot of reverse-engineered information out there about what these modes actually do. In reality, it's insane to trust any closed-source browser with this type of task. If you really care about this feature, you'll want to use an open-source browser where the source code can be audited to determine exactly what it was *intended* to do. (New security issues pop up all the time WRT things not behaving as intended, but that's a separate issue). And the behavior should be documented so you can decide if it meets your need.
Newer Win32 apps (Those that can compile with VS2010 or so or later) can be automatically rebuild for Windows RT. Sure there's a recompilation step but this has less to do with Win32 and more to do with Windows RT runs on ARM so binaries have to be recompiled. It's older Win32 apps that are a problem because recompiling them isn't trivial.
I haven' t used Windows RT but I would venture that it is good enough for many users. The reason people can't run it is that there aren't a lot of Windows-RT apps and it can't run older Win32 apps. However if you are building apps in C#.Net, they can just run on Windows RT. My prediction is that a few years from now our phones will store most of our data and we will use phone docking stations. Only software developers will even want desktop PCs. If you have a tablet it will just mirror the phone display at higher resolution to make it easier to work. There's really no reason to have multiple devices each of which stores their own data and try to synchronize it around.
I see your point and I even mentioned that I would prefer to see this (and most everything else) be opt-in. That being said, I'm also sympathetic to the providers here. Most people reading this are capable of setting up their own network and managing it to their needs. However, the vast majority of customers aren't able to do this and will end up with poorly implemented, insecure setups if they do it themselves. And when something doesn't work, their going to call the ISP support who has to ask them to check that the computer is plugged in.
There is nothing here preventing you from increasing the security of your network. You could add your own wireless access point in addition to the one provided by the ISP and use that SSID. This is something that provides a huge benefit to the vast majority of customers so I can see them wanting to roll it out aggressively.
I would certainly opt in to this. As far as security, all of my important data goes over VPN. Assuming that your setup is more secure may actually be a fallacy. Even if, day one, it is more secure, you're now in the business of maintaining that security. That's a lot of overhead to swallow. When everybody has the same setup, the effort is amortized. It does mean that a security defect will be wide-spread. But again if you have any important data, the security features of your AP should be only a small part of your strategy.
I really thin that most of the negativity here is the fact that this is opt-out and, in general, most of us here hate opt-out.
The ISPs are good enough at network management that they can limit your bandwidth when connecting to other APs. When you buy a tier of service whether via Fiber, DSL, et cetera, you get the exact same physical connection regardless of tier. I know we talk about "fatter pipes" but the telcos run the same exact strand of fiber to your house regardless of the bandwidth you purchase. And your equipment is capable of higher speeds. They just limit you based on what you pay. So you could have the lowest tier service and waiting for your downloads for a week while somebody else could connect to your AP and get blistering speeds since they have authenticated as a higher tier customer.
But it's not uncompensated access. The principle of these systems is reciprocal. Company XYZ adds a second-channel to the WiFi access points and all of their customers can use them. So if you are across town and need to access the Internet, you can just connect. The compensation is in the form of you getting to use the other APs. Now we could argue that it should be opt-in, but it's not uncompensated. In fact, I'm surprised they don't make it op-in as most people would do so with glee.
It is the worst possible way unless, of course, you are in insurance company. The device will fairly report that you are 5-10 over and your rates will adjust accordingly. I think that your argument is that you are an exceptionally good driver (everybody thinks they are) and that the system will be unfair in that it will give you a worse risk score than less competent drivers who happen to obey the speed limit.
On the surface, there is some merit to this argument. However, as an insurer, speed is probably the thing you care about most. Slow moving vehicles don't cause death and dismemberment. I'd rather insure somebody who has a parking lot accident once a year than somebody who regularly speeds but has never had an accident. The payout from the former won't be much more than their premiums. For the latter, I'm going to end up paying the policy maximum.
We always have heated debates on/. about speed limits, but the fact is that the easiest thing you can do to reduce injuries and death is to simply make everybody slow down. If we had better public transit, we could consider a 40mph national speed limit and require all cars to be retrofitted with governors.
I know I'll get modded to oblivion by the people who think they have a God given right to speed. The way we get around right now is inefficient and dangerous and any progress we can make should be welcome.
And the driving differently part is what motivates the discount. You use the device, you have less accidents. The insurance company pays out less money. They pass on part of the savings. Everybody wins financially. In terms of things like privacy and civil rights, that's a much different discussion. At some point, this will be mandatory but that will coincide with the time frame of self-driving cars to the whole thing may be moot.
Already the roadways are getting safer. We have adaptive cruise control, lane departure systems and, most importantly, things like airbags that minimize human damage in the case of an accident. Sheet metal is cheap compared to organs. In the US (and I think most of the world), cars only have to meet the safety requirements in place at time of manufacture. There are still cars from the 1980s and 1990s on the road (mostly Corollas and Camrys that were great cars at the time) with no air bags or only two front air bags. As those eventually age out of the fleet, injury costs will keep dropping.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your criticism is valid, but the fact that there are so many fewer female pull requests makes what you suggest hard. Comparing percentages is a way to get past the fact that the two samples are of different sizes. Of course it doesn't seem that a sample was used here; more like a census (count every single one).
I think the OP is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Its a clever way of pointing out that there may be a confounding variable here. He drove the point home by coming up with a potential confounding variable that was sure to elicit an emotional reaction. The downside is that if you don't get the point straightaway you may come away understanding the post to be quite different than it's intent.
No Ethernet. Less storage then a desktop. Lame.
Too bad I can't mod you up.
These agreements don't prevent testifying under oath. Just hold a hearing and subpoena them and they can speak freely without fear of triggering the agreements.
You can get 1TB SSD by combining some smaller SSDs and the numbers would be the same.
The biggest enemy of good is not bad, but perfect!
She paid a private organization to secure her server. And everybody knows that private industry is better at everything than government. I think this just goes to show that the government should privatize email! Why are they criticizing Hillary for adopting one of their sacred policies?
What he probably means by nobody competent is that nobody who has that role is competent. Somebody who has a marketing degree who works in accounting might complain about the marketing spend saying "we have nobody competent." Of course this person may or may not be competent to do marketing, but they work in accounting. I think you are being a language lawyer.
DHS has such a poor reputation, are you really sure it can be damaged further. They probably have a statement on their web site that you are required to go through a metal detector before trying to hack into their personnel records, unless you are over 70 years old. And they thought that would keep the data safe!
No wireless. Less range than a Suburban. Lame.
I can't speak for countries outside of the US, but in the US, you can't pay people less than minimum wage. They can't work for stock options or anything else. Habitat for humanity is different since they are a 501(c)(3) charity. You can't work for free for a for-profit enterprise.
The reality is that these would produce a huge measure of safety. Deep snow isn't really that dangerous for driving. You just have to go slowly. But there's little risk of a complete loss of friction leading to a dramatic accident. Once you plow the roads, whatever amount of precipitation that is left will melt during the day and then freeze again at night. This leads to the so called black ice that has been blamed for countless accidents. If the panels also had a heating element built into them, that could be run at night (using some of the generated electricity) to increase safety.
This is because we put the snowplows all the way down to the road surface. They kind of scrape across it as the trucks drive. With this type of surface you could leave the plow a few centimeters above the surface and then use the energy generated by the panels to heat the pavement and thaw the rest.
There are a lot of posts talking about what an incognito mode should do. Normally we refer to it as 'porn mode' here on /. which does seem to be the intended use case. There's a lot of reverse-engineered information out there about what these modes actually do. In reality, it's insane to trust any closed-source browser with this type of task. If you really care about this feature, you'll want to use an open-source browser where the source code can be audited to determine exactly what it was *intended* to do. (New security issues pop up all the time WRT things not behaving as intended, but that's a separate issue). And the behavior should be documented so you can decide if it meets your need.
Newer Win32 apps (Those that can compile with VS2010 or so or later) can be automatically rebuild for Windows RT. Sure there's a recompilation step but this has less to do with Win32 and more to do with Windows RT runs on ARM so binaries have to be recompiled. It's older Win32 apps that are a problem because recompiling them isn't trivial.
I haven' t used Windows RT but I would venture that it is good enough for many users. The reason people can't run it is that there aren't a lot of Windows-RT apps and it can't run older Win32 apps. However if you are building apps in C#.Net, they can just run on Windows RT. My prediction is that a few years from now our phones will store most of our data and we will use phone docking stations. Only software developers will even want desktop PCs. If you have a tablet it will just mirror the phone display at higher resolution to make it easier to work. There's really no reason to have multiple devices each of which stores their own data and try to synchronize it around.
I see your point and I even mentioned that I would prefer to see this (and most everything else) be opt-in. That being said, I'm also sympathetic to the providers here. Most people reading this are capable of setting up their own network and managing it to their needs. However, the vast majority of customers aren't able to do this and will end up with poorly implemented, insecure setups if they do it themselves. And when something doesn't work, their going to call the ISP support who has to ask them to check that the computer is plugged in. There is nothing here preventing you from increasing the security of your network. You could add your own wireless access point in addition to the one provided by the ISP and use that SSID. This is something that provides a huge benefit to the vast majority of customers so I can see them wanting to roll it out aggressively. I would certainly opt in to this. As far as security, all of my important data goes over VPN. Assuming that your setup is more secure may actually be a fallacy. Even if, day one, it is more secure, you're now in the business of maintaining that security. That's a lot of overhead to swallow. When everybody has the same setup, the effort is amortized. It does mean that a security defect will be wide-spread. But again if you have any important data, the security features of your AP should be only a small part of your strategy. I really thin that most of the negativity here is the fact that this is opt-out and, in general, most of us here hate opt-out.
The ISPs are good enough at network management that they can limit your bandwidth when connecting to other APs. When you buy a tier of service whether via Fiber, DSL, et cetera, you get the exact same physical connection regardless of tier. I know we talk about "fatter pipes" but the telcos run the same exact strand of fiber to your house regardless of the bandwidth you purchase. And your equipment is capable of higher speeds. They just limit you based on what you pay. So you could have the lowest tier service and waiting for your downloads for a week while somebody else could connect to your AP and get blistering speeds since they have authenticated as a higher tier customer.
Those who opt-in will be allowed to use all of the APs that are part of the service. Those who don't can pay for 3G/4G when they're not at home.
But it's not uncompensated access. The principle of these systems is reciprocal. Company XYZ adds a second-channel to the WiFi access points and all of their customers can use them. So if you are across town and need to access the Internet, you can just connect. The compensation is in the form of you getting to use the other APs. Now we could argue that it should be opt-in, but it's not uncompensated. In fact, I'm surprised they don't make it op-in as most people would do so with glee.
It is the worst possible way unless, of course, you are in insurance company. The device will fairly report that you are 5-10 over and your rates will adjust accordingly. I think that your argument is that you are an exceptionally good driver (everybody thinks they are) and that the system will be unfair in that it will give you a worse risk score than less competent drivers who happen to obey the speed limit. On the surface, there is some merit to this argument. However, as an insurer, speed is probably the thing you care about most. Slow moving vehicles don't cause death and dismemberment. I'd rather insure somebody who has a parking lot accident once a year than somebody who regularly speeds but has never had an accident. The payout from the former won't be much more than their premiums. For the latter, I'm going to end up paying the policy maximum. We always have heated debates on /. about speed limits, but the fact is that the easiest thing you can do to reduce injuries and death is to simply make everybody slow down. If we had better public transit, we could consider a 40mph national speed limit and require all cars to be retrofitted with governors.
I know I'll get modded to oblivion by the people who think they have a God given right to speed. The way we get around right now is inefficient and dangerous and any progress we can make should be welcome.
And the driving differently part is what motivates the discount. You use the device, you have less accidents. The insurance company pays out less money. They pass on part of the savings. Everybody wins financially. In terms of things like privacy and civil rights, that's a much different discussion. At some point, this will be mandatory but that will coincide with the time frame of self-driving cars to the whole thing may be moot.
The other half was people trying to turn things into methamphetamine!
Already the roadways are getting safer. We have adaptive cruise control, lane departure systems and, most importantly, things like airbags that minimize human damage in the case of an accident. Sheet metal is cheap compared to organs. In the US (and I think most of the world), cars only have to meet the safety requirements in place at time of manufacture. There are still cars from the 1980s and 1990s on the road (mostly Corollas and Camrys that were great cars at the time) with no air bags or only two front air bags. As those eventually age out of the fleet, injury costs will keep dropping.