Clearly progress is being impeded by a lack of STEM talent! (sarcasm) If we had an infinite supply of laborers, we could have an infinite supply of technology solutions for teens to send dick pics amongst themselves on their cell phones digitally. Instead, the STEM labor market supply shortage is limiting us to only having hundreds of equally inane startups launched each year.
As long as I keep seeing such a huge portion of our "technology innovation" resources going into ideas to accelerate the coddling of the male 20-25 demographic, I can't be convinced we need more STEM workers imported to support the unmet demands of companies claiming they can't make a buck because programmers are too expensive for them to launch their world-changing idea.
I agree and am against LOUD. I am not talking about LOUD. I am talking about subjectively *pleasant* sound. They are different. They may be present together, but it is not required. Do not misconstrue my words to support LOUD. I explicitly stated against that!
You know, I subscribed to US-CERT alerts to get notified about this kind of thing, but thank goodness I also browse Slashdot from time to time. The US-CERT alert for this critical patch probably won't arrive for another couple days or so.
I agree. Acoustic aesthetics are important and worthwhile of engineering attention.
Quiet (or as quiet as possible) is one aesthetic that may be desirable. For other people (or perhaps cars), a good rumble (as long as it not excessively load and obnoxious) is equally a desirable aesthetic. It's not so different, as you note, than choice of paint job.
For a company to put attention into this aspect of the user experience is a positive thing.
There was just a podcast on this very topic, namely the lack of attention that many companies put into the aural experience of their products and how very important that experience is to consumers. http://99percentinvisible.org/...
Here is an excerpt:
'Car companies also consider sound in the design of their product. A Ford Mustang, for instance, will intentionally not sound the same as a Ford Taurus, even if their engines are similar.
In 2008, Ford decided to put out a remake of a Mustang that appeared in the 1968 film, Bullitt. The car sounded like this: [video].
Ford wanted to make the 2008 Bullitt sound akin to the 1968 Bullitt. They were trying, essentially, to make a new car sound old.
This proved especially challenging, because cars made in 1968 were built completely differently; the 1968 Bullitt had a carburetor, for instance, and the new model had a fuel injection system. Plus, the Mustang in the movie was enhanced with sounds recorded from a race car—and it’s actually illegal in most places to drive around in a car as loud as the car from the movie would be if it were real.
With all those factors in mind, Ford identified the key characteristics of the Mustang sounds in the movie. They then figured out how to reverse-engineer those notes as best as they could by tweaking the shapes of the tubes in the car’s exhaust system.
Brands that don’t pay attention to sound may get punished by consumers.'
Except the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act actually ENFORCES the TOS's. I did a little more reading and found some interesting facts about the Illinois cyberbullying law...
First of all, note that there is already a process to obtain Facebook (or other) social media messages: a warrant. No need to ask students for passwords.
Second, since the TOS of Facebook prohibits users from sharing their passwords with unauthorized persons, DISCLOSING the password is a violation of the TOS and thus runs afoul of the CFAA.
So, to comply with the state law, a student would have to break a federal law. That's some catch-22!
I assumed you were joking, but actually that seems to be the case, except that the STUDENT would be guilty of violating the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act!? Ha ha. Must break a federal law to comply with a state one. Some catch-22!
'Crockford suggested that there's a good chance the Illinois law, or schools' implementation of it, is unconstitutional. She said that if cyberbullying is bad enough, there are already mechanisms to obtain Facebook messages—law enforcement can obtain a search warrant with a specific criminal complaint, for instance. Finally, the law may be in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—Facebook and other social media companies prohibit their users from sharing passwords with unauthorized people, she said.'
I assumed you were joking, but actually that seems to be the case:
'Crockford suggested that there's a good chance the Illinois law, or schools' implementation of it, is unconstitutional. She said that if cyberbullying is bad enough, there are already mechanisms to obtain Facebook messages—law enforcement can obtain a search warrant with a specific criminal complaint, for instance. Finally, the law may be in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—Facebook and other social media companies prohibit their users from sharing passwords with unauthorized people, she said.'
Of course suspension/expulsion would be the logical go-to punishments. But from the article, sounds like they are planning to go a more hard-nosed route:
'Leigh Lewis, superintendent of the Triad district, told me that if a student refuses to cooperate, the district could presumably press criminal charges.
“If we're investigating any discipline having to do with social media, then we have the right to ask for those passwords,” she said.
"I would imagine that turning it over to the police would certainly be one way to go. If they didn't turn over the password, we would call our district attorneys because they would be in violation of the law," she added. "That would only be in some cases—we'd certainly look at the facts and see what we're dealing with before we make the decision."'
Absolutely. Companies should be forced to write their software for any single person that might want it on their hardware. Not only Blackberry, but also Nokia, and since I have an original Palm device, Apple should be forced to write all their apps for me too. And support them. And make sure they are bug free. They must expend the resources to build teams for this, and of course, it should be free to me. Oh, and I also have a a Radio Shack pocket computer from the '80s, and so everyone should have to write apps for that too. Otherwise, I am being oppressed.
Hmmm. Turns out it is difficult to censor free speech *legally* in countries that have laws establishing freedom of speech, press, privacy, etc. Imagine that! Those pesky liberties!!!
When employers were reported to be increasingly asking job candidates for their passwords, Facebook responded that this was a violation of their terms of service. I wonder if the same applies here?
Of course, there is also always the question of what if you refuse or claim to have "forgotten" it?;-) What are the recourses? Lock you up in solitary until you comply?
p>I hope you see why even applying the polymer precursors to the moist environment of your groin would not cause your brain to swell. Perhaps you could be concerned it might increase your risk of dry skin and diaper rash! Oh the horror.
Ooops, I meant to say: "Perhaps you could be concerned the *polymer in diapers* might increase your risk of dry skin and diaper rash! Oh the horror." I wasn't referring to the precursors used in this discovery in that sentence. I still wouldn't put those on my skin for no good reason!
I hope people also notice the "brain cells" has nothing to do with this news. It just so happened the researchers were studying brain cells when they developed this technique to blow up cells. It could work equally well on any cell from bamboo stalks to chicken sperm.
I don't have a problem with a general attitude of being cautious with chemicals. I do as well. In addition to your list, there are also countless examples of feared things that were ultimately and definitively found NOT to be dangerous at all. One must use *both* prudent caution and reasonable cynicism in evaluating risks.
What one cannot do is read a headline which is talking about a procedure used to prepare a microscope slide in a lab and jump to the conclusion that there is a danger to wearing diapers containing some material that happens to be formed in the process. Water is also used in the procedure. Should I be afraid of touching water?
CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND: The scientist did not apply the polymer to cells. They intentionally created the polymer INSIDE the cells.
Silica gel (you know, the stuff in every pair of shoes that comes in a packet labeled do not eat) has a common property to the polymer described here: it absorbs water. Should I be worried that holding silica gel will make my brain swell? I hope you don't think so, because I don't have the inclination to dispel all the chemical fallacies that would be involved in that fear.
Did you read the article I linked to? Let me reiterate the key components of the process the scientists describe that are not compatible with a misleading and fear-mongering headline: 1) This discovery has nothing to do with research on health risks. It was a process developed in a context of intending to find a way to expand tissue samples in a laboratory for microscopic examination. 2) The scientists apply polymer PRECURSORS to tissue samples. The POLYMER is not applied. (Already, completely different chemicals being talked about.) I would say in prudence: don't apply the polymer precursors to a wet area of your body like your mouth.;-) 3) As the polymer forms it chops up the cell. In a living cell, it is now dead at this point, not "swollen." 4) The precursors are applied directly to the cells they want to examine. The precursors beginning forming polymer, which is not membrane permeable and therefore would not be able to migrate from your groin to your brain. 5) THEN water is added so the polymer will absorb it and expand uniformly in all directions and "stretch out" the structures for microscopic examination.
I hope you see why even applying the polymer precursors to the moist environment of your groin would not cause your brain to swell. Perhaps you could be concerned it might increase your risk of dry skin and diaper rash! Oh the horror.
Very misleading for people to conclude from this headline that diapers somehow pose a risk of "brain swelling" for babies! I found a New York Times article about the process the researchers used. It requires a sequence of steps that begins with a tissue sample. The scientists "infuse" the tissue with the chemical **building blocks** of the polymer (not the polymer), making sure they evenly permeate the sample. The polymer forms inside the tissue (destructively chopping it up in the process at the chemical level), and then they add water causing the polymer to swell. The polymer itself does not ever cross the cell barrier, and it can't. That is why they inject the chemical building blocks. This is not something that can happen by touching or ingesting the polymer itself. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...
I was too stoopid to learn to use the toilet, so I wore diapers for a much long time. This kemicals must be what made me growed up to be so intellygent.
Exactly. This is a debate, but no one has tested it in court yet. And honestly, who is likely to be the first person to spend thousands of dollars on a court action to recover a couple hundred bucks for a bricked device. Hopefully, we will eventually see a noble litigator or a class action suit that takes this up and prevents manufacturers from employing KNOX-like functionality.
Previously, one could have said that Cuba's tech revolution was stifled *pending* the lifting of sanctions, but now that that obstacle has been removed, the author means to say the revolution is now impending!
Slashdot Mirror
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Nice. =)
Yeah, he got that one backwards. The GOP is the party of unfettered, unregulated, financial market excesses.
Once I'm a millionaire, can I drink coffee again? =)
Clearly progress is being impeded by a lack of STEM talent! (sarcasm) If we had an infinite supply of laborers, we could have an infinite supply of technology solutions for teens to send dick pics amongst themselves on their cell phones digitally. Instead, the STEM labor market supply shortage is limiting us to only having hundreds of equally inane startups launched each year.
As long as I keep seeing such a huge portion of our "technology innovation" resources going into ideas to accelerate the coddling of the male 20-25 demographic, I can't be convinced we need more STEM workers imported to support the unmet demands of companies claiming they can't make a buck because programmers are too expensive for them to launch their world-changing idea.
I agree and am against LOUD. I am not talking about LOUD. I am talking about subjectively *pleasant* sound. They are different. They may be present together, but it is not required. Do not misconstrue my words to support LOUD. I explicitly stated against that!
I said as long as it is not excessively loud! Pleasant sound quality is not the same as loud volume!
You know, I subscribed to US-CERT alerts to get notified about this kind of thing, but thank goodness I also browse Slashdot from time to time.
The US-CERT alert for this critical patch probably won't arrive for another couple days or so.
I agree. Acoustic aesthetics are important and worthwhile of engineering attention.
Quiet (or as quiet as possible) is one aesthetic that may be desirable. For other people (or perhaps cars), a good rumble (as long as it not excessively load and obnoxious) is equally a desirable aesthetic. It's not so different, as you note, than choice of paint job.
For a company to put attention into this aspect of the user experience is a positive thing.
There was just a podcast on this very topic, namely the lack of attention that many companies put into the aural experience of their products and how very important that experience is to consumers. http://99percentinvisible.org/...
Here is an excerpt:
'Car companies also consider sound in the design of their product. A Ford Mustang, for instance, will intentionally not sound the same as a Ford Taurus, even if their engines are similar.
In 2008, Ford decided to put out a remake of a Mustang that appeared in the 1968 film, Bullitt. The car sounded like this: [video].
Ford wanted to make the 2008 Bullitt sound akin to the 1968 Bullitt. They were trying, essentially, to make a new car sound old.
This proved especially challenging, because cars made in 1968 were built completely differently; the 1968 Bullitt had a carburetor, for instance, and the new model had a fuel injection system. Plus, the Mustang in the movie was enhanced with sounds recorded from a race car—and it’s actually illegal in most places to drive around in a car as loud as the car from the movie would be if it were real.
With all those factors in mind, Ford identified the key characteristics of the Mustang sounds in the movie. They then figured out how to reverse-engineer those notes as best as they could by tweaking the shapes of the tubes in the car’s exhaust system.
Brands that don’t pay attention to sound may get punished by consumers.'
Except the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act actually ENFORCES the TOS's. I did a little more reading and found some interesting facts about the Illinois cyberbullying law...
First of all, note that there is already a process to obtain Facebook (or other) social media messages: a warrant. No need to ask students for passwords.
Second, since the TOS of Facebook prohibits users from sharing their passwords with unauthorized persons, DISCLOSING the password is a violation of the TOS and thus runs afoul of the CFAA.
So, to comply with the state law, a student would have to break a federal law. That's some catch-22!
I assumed you were joking, but actually that seems to be the case, except that the STUDENT would be guilty of violating the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act!? Ha ha. Must break a federal law to comply with a state one. Some catch-22!
'Crockford suggested that there's a good chance the Illinois law, or schools' implementation of it, is unconstitutional. She said that if cyberbullying is bad enough, there are already mechanisms to obtain Facebook messages—law enforcement can obtain a search warrant with a specific criminal complaint, for instance. Finally, the law may be in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—Facebook and other social media companies prohibit their users from sharing passwords with unauthorized people, she said.'
I assumed you were joking, but actually that seems to be the case:
'Crockford suggested that there's a good chance the Illinois law, or schools' implementation of it, is unconstitutional. She said that if cyberbullying is bad enough, there are already mechanisms to obtain Facebook messages—law enforcement can obtain a search warrant with a specific criminal complaint, for instance. Finally, the law may be in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—Facebook and other social media companies prohibit their users from sharing passwords with unauthorized people, she said.'
Of course suspension/expulsion would be the logical go-to punishments. But from the article, sounds like they are planning to go a more hard-nosed route:
'Leigh Lewis, superintendent of the Triad district, told me that if a student refuses to cooperate, the district could presumably press criminal charges.
“If we're investigating any discipline having to do with social media, then we have the right to ask for those passwords,” she said.
"I would imagine that turning it over to the police would certainly be one way to go. If they didn't turn over the password, we would call our district attorneys because they would be in violation of the law," she added. "That would only be in some cases—we'd certainly look at the facts and see what we're dealing with before we make the decision."'
The lack of Minesweeper for Mac was what always kept me on Windows all these years. ;-)
Absolutely. Companies should be forced to write their software for any single person that might want it on their hardware. Not only Blackberry, but also Nokia, and since I have an original Palm device, Apple should be forced to write all their apps for me too. And support them. And make sure they are bug free. They must expend the resources to build teams for this, and of course, it should be free to me. Oh, and I also have a a Radio Shack pocket computer from the '80s, and so everyone should have to write apps for that too. Otherwise, I am being oppressed.
Hmmm. Turns out it is difficult to censor free speech *legally* in countries that have laws establishing freedom of speech, press, privacy, etc.
Imagine that!
Those pesky liberties!!!
For the JRE, you can get it directly via a valid SSL download here:
https://www.java.com/en/downlo...
For the JDK, I will try your method.
Thanks for the tip about the checksum!
When employers were reported to be increasingly asking job candidates for their passwords, Facebook responded that this was a violation of their terms of service. I wonder if the same applies here?
Of course, there is also always the question of what if you refuse or claim to have "forgotten" it? ;-)
What are the recourses? Lock you up in solitary until you comply?
p>I hope you see why even applying the polymer precursors to the moist environment of your groin would not cause your brain to swell. Perhaps you could be concerned it might increase your risk of dry skin and diaper rash! Oh the horror.
Ooops, I meant to say: "Perhaps you could be concerned the *polymer in diapers* might increase your risk of dry skin and diaper rash! Oh the horror." I wasn't referring to the precursors used in this discovery in that sentence. I still wouldn't put those on my skin for no good reason!
I hope people also notice the "brain cells" has nothing to do with this news. It just so happened the researchers were studying brain cells when they developed this technique to blow up cells. It could work equally well on any cell from bamboo stalks to chicken sperm.
I don't have a problem with a general attitude of being cautious with chemicals. I do as well. In addition to your list, there are also countless examples of feared things that were ultimately and definitively found NOT to be dangerous at all. One must use *both* prudent caution and reasonable cynicism in evaluating risks.
What one cannot do is read a headline which is talking about a procedure used to prepare a microscope slide in a lab and jump to the conclusion that there is a danger to wearing diapers containing some material that happens to be formed in the process. Water is also used in the procedure. Should I be afraid of touching water?
CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND: The scientist did not apply the polymer to cells. They intentionally created the polymer INSIDE the cells.
Silica gel (you know, the stuff in every pair of shoes that comes in a packet labeled do not eat) has a common property to the polymer described here: it absorbs water. Should I be worried that holding silica gel will make my brain swell? I hope you don't think so, because I don't have the inclination to dispel all the chemical fallacies that would be involved in that fear.
Did you read the article I linked to? Let me reiterate the key components of the process the scientists describe that are not compatible with a misleading and fear-mongering headline: ;-)
1) This discovery has nothing to do with research on health risks. It was a process developed in a context of intending to find a way to expand tissue samples in a laboratory for microscopic examination.
2) The scientists apply polymer PRECURSORS to tissue samples. The POLYMER is not applied. (Already, completely different chemicals being talked about.) I would say in prudence: don't apply the polymer precursors to a wet area of your body like your mouth.
3) As the polymer forms it chops up the cell. In a living cell, it is now dead at this point, not "swollen."
4) The precursors are applied directly to the cells they want to examine. The precursors beginning forming polymer, which is not membrane permeable and therefore would not be able to migrate from your groin to your brain.
5) THEN water is added so the polymer will absorb it and expand uniformly in all directions and "stretch out" the structures for microscopic examination.
I hope you see why even applying the polymer precursors to the moist environment of your groin would not cause your brain to swell. Perhaps you could be concerned it might increase your risk of dry skin and diaper rash! Oh the horror.
Very misleading for people to conclude from this headline that diapers somehow pose a risk of "brain swelling" for babies! I found a New York Times article about the process the researchers used. It requires a sequence of steps that begins with a tissue sample. The scientists "infuse" the tissue with the chemical **building blocks** of the polymer (not the polymer), making sure they evenly permeate the sample. The polymer forms inside the tissue (destructively chopping it up in the process at the chemical level), and then they add water causing the polymer to swell. The polymer itself does not ever cross the cell barrier, and it can't. That is why they inject the chemical building blocks. This is not something that can happen by touching or ingesting the polymer itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...
Bigger brain cells -> bigger brain -> bigger smarts. So everyone should obviously PUT the diapers on their babies!
I was too stoopid to learn to use the toilet, so I wore diapers for a much long time. This kemicals must be what made me growed up to be so intellygent.
Exactly. This is a debate, but no one has tested it in court yet. And honestly, who is likely to be the first person to spend thousands of dollars on a court action to recover a couple hundred bucks for a bricked device. Hopefully, we will eventually see a noble litigator or a class action suit that takes this up and prevents manufacturers from employing KNOX-like functionality.
Previously, one could have said that Cuba's tech revolution was stifled *pending* the lifting of sanctions, but now that that obstacle has been removed, the author means to say the revolution is now impending!
Two letters; big difference.