Oh I wish I had some mod points today! +1 funny does not do this justice!
It just wasn't that funny.
Does everyone here have a sense of humor like Ned Flanders? I suppose you also think "darn it" is terribly harsh language?
It would explain the stupid memes that constantly get +5 Funny after being repeated ad nauseum for (literally) years. The latest Austin Powers movie was what, 13 years ago?
Not every venture is a publicly owned business that is legally obligated to increase "shareholder value".
It takes money to pay for a sufficiently persuasive soapbox. That's why a viable business is valuable.
Software is worthless if you don't have the hardware to run it on; Stallman never appreciated the impending doom of closed hardware.
Or... he realized that his own expertise was software and did as much as he possibly could to further software freedom, certainly more than any of us could have obligated him to do, working on his own dream of libre/freedom software by using the information age's infinite ability to distribute free software at nearly zero cost. He then, at some point, had to let someone else worry about the hardware, someone whose particular talents are in that direction, perhaps hoping that the growing free software movement would create a demand for equally free hardware on which to run it.
Unless you really took a look at the complexity of modern systems and expected a single man to radically change ALL of it... no, at some point you have to do what you're good at and encourage other like-minded people to do the same with their own skills.
You completely missed the point of the GP. It's about testing protocols, not the results. The results are totally unreliable and therefore completely uninteresting without some amount of blind-testing.
It's good to know they've tested and worked out a protocol designed to produce unreliable results.
But that isn't the point of this. It's how to verify that your binary doesn't have tampered with source code.
I care about this, too. That's one reason I run a source-based distribution. It's not the only reason. It's not even the main reason. But it's one reason.
Anyone who really needs this kind of assurance was probably also building from source. You can do it once on-site, then make your own binary packages and push those to all of your other machines so it's really not bad. I think a much more insidious threat comes from malicious yet innocent-looking source, like what you find in the Underhanded C Contests.
It doesn't do much good to have a reproducible build of a program when it contains an innocent-looking yet malicious piece of code. Just consider Heartbleed. Whether Heartbleed was intentional or not, it proves that people can run vulnerable code for a very long time before it's found out, and that was a program intended to be secure.
It's better than sending the government out to bully people, police their energy choices, and burden them with higher energy bills that only rich Tesla drivers can afford.
Yeah but doing things your way would mean passing up a hell of a money/power grab. When you rule over carbon-based life forms, the ability to regulate/tax carbon gives you tremendous political opportunities. Having a really good reason for wanting to do this just makes it even harder to do it reasonably, because omg what will the children inherit? If you are against my draconian proposal obviously you hate children!
I care about equal opportunity. I don't give a fuck about equal outcome. When you pretend that those two are the same thing, you stop being intellectually honest.
A tremendous number of cultural changes have happened to women since the '50s and '60s when a lot of computing was actually considered secretarial and therefore "women's work", however right or wrong that may be. To ignore those or pretend they happen in a vacuum and can't have any impact on women in the workforce is ridiculous.
Because its fun to count the number of Penis and Vagina in the work environment and everything should be equal.
Brought to you by SJW Unity, a division of PAVA, Penis and Vagina Accountants
If people have the opportunity to do what they want to do, and are not pressured to do things they don't want to do just to meet some preconceived quota, that's about as equal as it gets.
Feeling excluded is one thing. Telling people what to do is another.
The entire premise behind "I am offended" or "I feel excluded" is that these are not complete thoughts. The complete thought ends with "... therefore I get to dictate what you can say, how you will think, and how you will live, and if you don't comply, all manner of social pressures will come crashing down on your head."
And you can be sure you'll keep hearing about how that 5% is not enough until it's around 50%, but nobody's going to say anything about the women majority in management, project management, testing and UI design.
Personally I don't give a damn what sort of genitals a programmer possesses. I do care about what sort of skill they have.
Is that just too simple? Nothing in there to launch a crusade over? That's the problem, I take it.
"no pesticides"....no way. None to start maybe but, plant pests will get in and they will require pesticides to remove. Might get your first crop or two pest free, but without pesticides or a complete sanitary cleanout between crops, its not going to last.
Won't you be shocked when you look up what "organic farming" means. It has a legal definition and everything.
The problem is that most people do not think about security and thus will not demand that in products. So the market place will not demand such.
Until someone manages to get on TV and show how easy it is to spy on children that way, then you'll see consumers demanding security.
The problem is the consumer doesn't know how easy it is for someone that is not them to access their camera. And you'll see immediate change because it's all about the kids.
What needs to happen is media attention
Or people could do something unusual and inform themselves. They will find a way to do that, if the kids are really so important. If not, it'll be someone else's job, perhaps the legislators' job.
The problem is that most people do not think about security and thus will not demand that in products. So the market place will not demand such.
Thus in the future with IoT, we will soon see a lot of stuff, the current small scale thing is just the beginning.
In the long run I expect there will be laws and liabilities, but that is still a long way off at this point.
Laws will happen. Just as soon as the first death is caused by a hack (or a hack gone wrong). However indirectly. That's what it takes for average people, and thus their representatives, to pay attention and figure out that something actually does matter. Then it will be a CRISIS! and we must do something NOW!
Microsoft has gotten a lot right. Now they are missing some important things like a package manager for installing software and centrally managing updates, and the privacy stuff in 10 is a bit scary, but to say they never do anything successful is idiotic.
I really hope that this is not the end of Windows as a basic, functional, user friendly operating system. It was never a perfect OS, but Windows 7 got many things right. Windows 10 got many, many things wrong.
I sure hope it is the end of Windows as "THE" desktop OS in the minds of so many users. Ideally we'd have at least four or five operating systems in common use with roughly similar market shares and a strong emphasis on cross-platform compatibility for application developers so that jumping ship is as easy as possible. This would also provide a disincentive against all of the phoning-home behavior and other unwanted "features" increasingly common with Windows installations. It would also make malware propagation more difficult because the Windows monoculture just makes it too easy.
MTGOX failure has nothing to do with bitcoin but basic security common sense. Each user should have their own wallet and retain control of it. Putting all bitcoin into a single wallet that you along control clearly show the intent to fraud. The blame lie with the humans, not the technology.
Yes but the technology doesn't protest and it doesn't stand up and defend itself. So the tendency is to blame tech for not being "human-proof" against bad actors, rather than to tackle the much harder problems of how to deal with the reality that in this world there have been and will be bad actors. Perfectly secure tech that can always guard against all bad actors simply doesn't exist - in this case, a simple social engineering attack (convincing people to surrender control that they should never have given up) was all it took. To blame the Bitcoin design for the results of MTGOX is to attempt, yet again, to apply a technical solution to a social problem.
People generally don't blame the bank teller for handing over the money during a stick-up, but banks and bank tellers are something average people understand. What we have is a problem of technical education.
Since you and the rest of the commentators on here understood perfectly the intended meaning, being overly particular regarding the spelling off peek is purely pedantic and arguably pretentious.
Bear in mind, when it comes to things that are easy to do correctly, there is a difference between "everyone makes mistakes once in a while" and "this is your fucking job". An editor who lacks a command of the English language and refuses to perform even basic copy editing is simply incompetent. There is nothing wrong with criticizing incompetence.
I could, in fact, ask you what good you believe you are accomplishing by excusing it. I could also ask why you make an effort to take a discussion about the performance of a job and make it into a personal matter of who is and isn't pretentious. That is, after all, the hallmark of small minds: they wish to make everything personal. It is their favorite and often their first tactic the moment they disagree about something. No, it's not me who needs to justify himself.
Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations, and this may be a peak at the future to come.
So... this may be the top of a mountain at the future to come? What a bunch of wankers. If any one of us were this incompetent at our jobs, we'd be fired. Some "editors" we have here.
I have a BA in philosophy and I took as many courses as I could on science and epistemology. The general concensus in these fields (of course with some disenters) is that you will always be able to ask this question about anything once you reach the scale boundries of our knowledge. When we say "gravity", what we really mean is a collection of rules which we are able to consistently produce accurate predictions from when applied to our observations. We can describe how a waterfall works in terms of gravity, but then when we ask how gravity works we must defer to some other system which then itself we will need to explain in terms of something else etcetera. I once grilled a chemist friend on what he meant when he said "electrons will always try to such and such" and he was stumped. It wasn't fair, because really the questions I was asking were based on a false appreciation of what the human study of natural law is able to be.
Entanglement is a set of circumstances which we observe under certain conditions and believe are related to the point that we can give them a name. So are an apple, rugby, paint thinner and pornography. It is our own need for certainty that makes it difficult for us to accept this limitation of language and meaning.
I appreciate your explanation. On the one hand, it almost sounds hopeless because the rabbit hole is bottomless, but at least we can enjoy increasingly more effective technology along the way. On the other, I can now rephrase my question thusly: "in terms of what other system could we try to explain the observed phenomena that we call entanglement?" Specifically (while I realize it cannot be used to transmit information), how is it faster than light? Is the concept of locality a defensible one?
There is no necessity that reality consists of endless levels. There can be a "rock bottom" of existence that just "is", and cannot be explained.
If it cannot _ever_ be explained, not by any level of understanding and technology, then you're really just using a non-traditional description of theology.
Look up the definition of science some time then post a comment. Hint, science isn't determined by the subject one studies but by the methods one uses.
Rather than making childish snide remarks (welcome to the net, eh?) try to understand what I am actually saying.
Reproducing the results of a scientific experiment using sound methodology is the only way to confirm that those results are valid. If those results cannot be reliably reproduced, then what you have is an idea or a philosophy, not a science.
It's the same reason phrenology was abandoned after being recognized for the pseudoscience it really was. There was no ability to reliably and repeatedly demonstrate its alleged findings. That's exactly what distinguishes science from pseudoscience. The "subject one studies" is immaterial, and I question your honesty for pretending like anyone was claiming otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I wish I had some mod points today! +1 funny does not do this justice!
It just wasn't that funny.
Does everyone here have a sense of humor like Ned Flanders? I suppose you also think "darn it" is terribly harsh language?
It would explain the stupid memes that constantly get +5 Funny after being repeated ad nauseum for (literally) years. The latest Austin Powers movie was what, 13 years ago?
Not every venture is a publicly owned business that is legally obligated to increase "shareholder value".
It takes money to pay for a sufficiently persuasive soapbox. That's why a viable business is valuable.
Software is worthless if you don't have the hardware to run it on; Stallman never appreciated the impending doom of closed hardware.
Or ... he realized that his own expertise was software and did as much as he possibly could to further software freedom, certainly more than any of us could have obligated him to do, working on his own dream of libre/freedom software by using the information age's infinite ability to distribute free software at nearly zero cost. He then, at some point, had to let someone else worry about the hardware, someone whose particular talents are in that direction, perhaps hoping that the growing free software movement would create a demand for equally free hardware on which to run it.
Unless you really took a look at the complexity of modern systems and expected a single man to radically change ALL of it... no, at some point you have to do what you're good at and encourage other like-minded people to do the same with their own skills.
You completely missed the point of the GP. It's about testing protocols, not the results. The results are totally unreliable and therefore completely uninteresting without some amount of blind-testing.
It's good to know they've tested and worked out a protocol designed to produce unreliable results.
/sarcasm
But that isn't the point of this. It's how to verify that your binary doesn't have tampered with source code.
I care about this, too. That's one reason I run a source-based distribution. It's not the only reason. It's not even the main reason. But it's one reason.
Anyone who really needs this kind of assurance was probably also building from source. You can do it once on-site, then make your own binary packages and push those to all of your other machines so it's really not bad. I think a much more insidious threat comes from malicious yet innocent-looking source, like what you find in the Underhanded C Contests.
It doesn't do much good to have a reproducible build of a program when it contains an innocent-looking yet malicious piece of code. Just consider Heartbleed. Whether Heartbleed was intentional or not, it proves that people can run vulnerable code for a very long time before it's found out, and that was a program intended to be secure.
is to not worry about it.
It's better than sending the government out to bully people, police their energy choices, and burden them with higher energy bills that only rich Tesla drivers can afford.
Yeah but doing things your way would mean passing up a hell of a money/power grab. When you rule over carbon-based life forms, the ability to regulate/tax carbon gives you tremendous political opportunities. Having a really good reason for wanting to do this just makes it even harder to do it reasonably, because omg what will the children inherit? If you are against my draconian proposal obviously you hate children!
I really can't wait until this 'mobile' fad is over, and the 'UX designers' find some other fad to chase after.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
The wife and kids needed the closest thing to a status symbol we could afford
Did you ever think of teaching your children the difference between a "need" and a "want"?
I care about equal opportunity. I don't give a fuck about equal outcome. When you pretend that those two are the same thing, you stop being intellectually honest.
A tremendous number of cultural changes have happened to women since the '50s and '60s when a lot of computing was actually considered secretarial and therefore "women's work", however right or wrong that may be. To ignore those or pretend they happen in a vacuum and can't have any impact on women in the workforce is ridiculous.
Because its fun to count the number of Penis and Vagina in the work environment and everything should be equal.
Brought to you by SJW Unity, a division of PAVA, Penis and Vagina Accountants
If people have the opportunity to do what they want to do, and are not pressured to do things they don't want to do just to meet some preconceived quota, that's about as equal as it gets.
Feeling excluded is one thing. Telling people what to do is another.
The entire premise behind "I am offended" or "I feel excluded" is that these are not complete thoughts. The complete thought ends with "... therefore I get to dictate what you can say, how you will think, and how you will live, and if you don't comply, all manner of social pressures will come crashing down on your head."
And you can be sure you'll keep hearing about how that 5% is not enough until it's around 50%, but nobody's going to say anything about the women majority in management, project management, testing and UI design.
Personally I don't give a damn what sort of genitals a programmer possesses. I do care about what sort of skill they have.
Is that just too simple? Nothing in there to launch a crusade over? That's the problem, I take it.
At a minimum, they're probably providing the plants with electrolytes...it's what plants crave.
It's better than water. Everybody knows that's for the toilet.
"no pesticides"....no way. None to start maybe but, plant pests will get in and they will require pesticides to remove. Might get your first crop or two pest free, but without pesticides or a complete sanitary cleanout between crops, its not going to last.
Won't you be shocked when you look up what "organic farming" means. It has a legal definition and everything.
Until someone manages to get on TV and show how easy it is to spy on children that way, then you'll see consumers demanding security.
The problem is the consumer doesn't know how easy it is for someone that is not them to access their camera. And you'll see immediate change because it's all about the kids.
What needs to happen is media attention
Or people could do something unusual and inform themselves. They will find a way to do that, if the kids are really so important. If not, it'll be someone else's job, perhaps the legislators' job.
The problem is that most people do not think about security and thus will not demand that in products. So the market place will not demand such.
Thus in the future with IoT, we will soon see a lot of stuff, the current small scale thing is just the beginning.
In the long run I expect there will be laws and liabilities, but that is still a long way off at this point.
Laws will happen. Just as soon as the first death is caused by a hack (or a hack gone wrong). However indirectly. That's what it takes for average people, and thus their representatives, to pay attention and figure out that something actually does matter. Then it will be a CRISIS! and we must do something NOW!
Microsoft has gotten a lot right. Now they are missing some important things like a package manager for installing software and centrally managing updates, and the privacy stuff in 10 is a bit scary, but to say they never do anything successful is idiotic.
They sell a pretty decent keyboard.
I really hope that this is not the end of Windows as a basic, functional, user friendly operating system. It was never a perfect OS, but Windows 7 got many things right. Windows 10 got many, many things wrong.
I sure hope it is the end of Windows as "THE" desktop OS in the minds of so many users. Ideally we'd have at least four or five operating systems in common use with roughly similar market shares and a strong emphasis on cross-platform compatibility for application developers so that jumping ship is as easy as possible. This would also provide a disincentive against all of the phoning-home behavior and other unwanted "features" increasingly common with Windows installations. It would also make malware propagation more difficult because the Windows monoculture just makes it too easy.
MTGOX failure has nothing to do with bitcoin but basic security common sense. Each user should have their own wallet and retain control of it. Putting all bitcoin into a single wallet that you along control clearly show the intent to fraud. The blame lie with the humans, not the technology.
Yes but the technology doesn't protest and it doesn't stand up and defend itself. So the tendency is to blame tech for not being "human-proof" against bad actors, rather than to tackle the much harder problems of how to deal with the reality that in this world there have been and will be bad actors. Perfectly secure tech that can always guard against all bad actors simply doesn't exist - in this case, a simple social engineering attack (convincing people to surrender control that they should never have given up) was all it took. To blame the Bitcoin design for the results of MTGOX is to attempt, yet again, to apply a technical solution to a social problem.
People generally don't blame the bank teller for handing over the money during a stick-up, but banks and bank tellers are something average people understand. What we have is a problem of technical education.
Since you and the rest of the commentators on here understood perfectly the intended meaning, being overly particular regarding the spelling off peek is purely pedantic and arguably pretentious.
Bear in mind, when it comes to things that are easy to do correctly, there is a difference between "everyone makes mistakes once in a while" and "this is your fucking job". An editor who lacks a command of the English language and refuses to perform even basic copy editing is simply incompetent. There is nothing wrong with criticizing incompetence.
I could, in fact, ask you what good you believe you are accomplishing by excusing it. I could also ask why you make an effort to take a discussion about the performance of a job and make it into a personal matter of who is and isn't pretentious. That is, after all, the hallmark of small minds: they wish to make everything personal. It is their favorite and often their first tactic the moment they disagree about something. No, it's not me who needs to justify himself.
Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations, and this may be a peak at the future to come. ... this may be the top of a mountain at the future to come? What a bunch of wankers. If any one of us were this incompetent at our jobs, we'd be fired. Some "editors" we have here.
So
Great hope isn't it when a constitutional lawyer who gets elected and hands the US government over to corporate interests.
Who else would better know how to make that happen?
Consider that few people could inflict more horrible bodily torture than a skilled physician.
I have a BA in philosophy and I took as many courses as I could on science and epistemology. The general concensus in these fields (of course with some disenters) is that you will always be able to ask this question about anything once you reach the scale boundries of our knowledge. When we say "gravity", what we really mean is a collection of rules which we are able to consistently produce accurate predictions from when applied to our observations. We can describe how a waterfall works in terms of gravity, but then when we ask how gravity works we must defer to some other system which then itself we will need to explain in terms of something else etcetera. I once grilled a chemist friend on what he meant when he said "electrons will always try to such and such" and he was stumped. It wasn't fair, because really the questions I was asking were based on a false appreciation of what the human study of natural law is able to be. Entanglement is a set of circumstances which we observe under certain conditions and believe are related to the point that we can give them a name. So are an apple, rugby, paint thinner and pornography. It is our own need for certainty that makes it difficult for us to accept this limitation of language and meaning.
I appreciate your explanation. On the one hand, it almost sounds hopeless because the rabbit hole is bottomless, but at least we can enjoy increasingly more effective technology along the way. On the other, I can now rephrase my question thusly: "in terms of what other system could we try to explain the observed phenomena that we call entanglement?" Specifically (while I realize it cannot be used to transmit information), how is it faster than light? Is the concept of locality a defensible one?
There is no necessity that reality consists of endless levels. There can be a "rock bottom" of existence that just "is", and cannot be explained.
If it cannot _ever_ be explained, not by any level of understanding and technology, then you're really just using a non-traditional description of theology.
Look up the definition of science some time then post a comment. Hint, science isn't determined by the subject one studies but by the methods one uses.
Rather than making childish snide remarks (welcome to the net, eh?) try to understand what I am actually saying.
Reproducing the results of a scientific experiment using sound methodology is the only way to confirm that those results are valid. If those results cannot be reliably reproduced, then what you have is an idea or a philosophy, not a science.
It's the same reason phrenology was abandoned after being recognized for the pseudoscience it really was. There was no ability to reliably and repeatedly demonstrate its alleged findings. That's exactly what distinguishes science from pseudoscience. The "subject one studies" is immaterial, and I question your honesty for pretending like anyone was claiming otherwise.
Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?!