This person needs to learn more about security and a different way to go about handling their passwords.
This is much like thinking that Donald Knuth needs to learn more about algorithms.
Consider that a point is being made that you're not getting, because "this person" is not a moron, and generally talks about security as it is actually practiced instead of how it would be practiced if everybody were an expert and made good security a priority. Since people in general will not make security a priority, you have to talk about how people actually behave and how to craft security that will take actual behavior into account.
"The Aperture Science Center would like to remind you that Android Hell is a real place, and you will be sent there at the first sign of disobedience."
Except that he doesn't believe that Federal individual protections apply to states. I don't expect much help from him against anybody *but* the federal government.
The/. party line is that because of arcane intellectual property issues unique to their industry, we're supposed to hate Amazon and love Google. But on matters like this where the rubber truly hits the road for setting society-wide precedent, it's not Google who's avoiding being evil.
But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about.
As usual, Douglas Adams nailed it:
Philosopher 1: We'll go on strike!
Philosopher 2: That's right, you'll have a national philosopher's strike on your hands!
Deep Thought: Who will THAT inconvenience?
Philosopher 2: Never you mind who it will inconvenience, you box of black legging binary bits. It'll hurt, buster, it'll hurt!
- would check tire air pressure more than once a year
This is one there's a technological fix for and it's not new. My 5-year-old Nissan has continual tire pressure monitors and yells at me when they go out of their acceptable band.
Yeah, that's dead on. As I posted elsewhere in this topic, the big problem is that people expect results from a level of activity that's really insufficient.
A few hours of aerobic exercise a week just made me cranky and frustrated, and eventually discouraged. Seven hours, on the other hand, (with the same couple of hours of weights and 1400 Calorie diet that I was doing earlier), got me losing weight steadily - to the tune of about 60 pounds over 6 months. Exercise does work, it's just that the level required is much higher than what people expect it to be.
I credit The Biggest Loser with setting a reasonable expectation of the effort required - this is not something you can just casually do haphazardly, it's a real commitment.
With all due respect, running 5-10 miles a week is not a lot of exercise. That's what, about 2 hours? Even the pathetic FDA guidelines say nearly that as a bare minimum.
For many people it takes a lot more to really lose weight - for me, after years of failing to lose weight with a few hours of exercise a week it was only when I committed to at least 7 hours a week (and another 2 weight training) that I started to lose weight, in addition to controlling my caloric and glycemic intake. That was 60 pounds ago - it was the hardest damned thing I've ever done - including start a successful company - but it was worth it.
The truth is that a lot of exercise will help you lose weight. The big lie is that smaller amounts always will - it sets incorrect expectations, and people wanting to lose weight give up after concluding that what seems like a decent amount, but is really a light regimen. is useless.
The federal government was willing to sacrifice many thousands of lives in WW2 to keep secret of the Enigma decryption.
If you're talking about Coventry, that was Churchill's UK government, and that claim has been debunked by Peter Calvocoressi's (he was a cryptanalyst for the RAF during the war) book, Top Secret Ultra. The Enigma Wikipedia article talks about it.
I offer the only parallel I can think of, (a free, global system, originally developed by - and for - the military), namely GPS.
The US military, at that. But be careful - note that the US military funds, maintains, and retains control of the GPS network and in theory could shut it off or reduce its resolution any time they like. It was actually Ronald Reagan, beloved throughout the world, who opened the system up.
Over time that's less and less likely because of the number of civilian systems inside the US that depend upon GPS, but if someone is the kind of person who wrings their hands over ICANN control of DNS, they're probably not going to be happy with the US military controlling the GPS.
As for the Roe v Wade issue, I'm not a fan of him on that point. But, and it's a big BUT, his belief (as I understand it) is that should be a personal / community, or state issue, and not federal.
Which really means, people screwed by MLB's DRM will get a coupon for $.28 off of their next $10 coke at a baseball game and the attorneys filing the suit will get $25 million.
Fair enough, and I apologize - it's hard to discern tone on a site with people so innumerate that they indignantly caution that mining on the moon might affect tides on the Earth.
I was trained as a mathematician, not a physicist, so my aesthetic sense tends to militate against introducing complexity without good reason.
Believe you me, I fully understand and identify with that - I think everybody prefer smooth, well behaved functions. It's a very valid question, though, to ask whether the Universe insists upon elegant mathematics or whether it's only humans that do in our attempt to understand the Universe. So far our elegant math has been pretty successful, but we really don't have an underlying reason to believe that elegance is physically more descriptive than inelegance. So it really doesn't serve us well to reject a model just because the math isn't pretty, IMO, even though our brains really want to.
One of my favorite jokes on this point is, "nature abhors a second order differential equation."
But as you implied earlier, there's also no reason to think that MOND isn't more descriptive than non-MOND but that more elegant equations won't shake out later - just as though some a little less bright than Einstein had instead said, "well, there's a correction function for things going at least 50% of C," and then someone later came up with the more elegant Lorentz transform (OK, I know Einstein's theory grew fully dressed in battle armor from the side of his head, but you see what I mean).
I'm not totally thrilled by MOND, and am not a proponent - but Dark Matter bugs the hell out of me too, and I think we're well advised to not shut out any of the competing theories (haven't even talked about scalar/tensor field interactions in this thread) until the data get a whole lot better. Having people with no training in physics sneering at a currently active field just really irks me.
It's no more Ptolemaic than positing that there's more mass in the Universe that we are not capable of seeing than that which we are - you have to either add mass to the observed universe or add corrections to the equations. And that's the rub, both are really outlandish ways of dealing with observations that don't match our theories. Both should be pursued until we can come up with some predictions that do fit data.
MOND is an area of current active research, with papers published in the standard reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Sneering at it is very premature, unless you're more interested in Cargo Cult science.
I never advocated tossing GR out the window, it's way too successful and I have way too much investment in the math to reject it (as they say, nature abhors a second order differential equation, right?).
Don't be silly. MOND doesn't cover the regime of gravitational time dilation- and is in fact not at odds with GR. MOND and GR cover different regimes, MOND concerns itself with gravitational/inertial interactions at very small accelerations (of less than about 10^-10 m/s^2, ignoring the Hubble constant correction term).
The point is that we have a fundamental choice between believing that there's more mass that we can't detect by EM in the Universe than that which we can detect, or that we're missing a big piece of how gravity (or, if you prefer, inertia) works, or (of course) "something else." And the jury is absolutely still out.
While the physics community certainly favors the dark matter model right now, most will say that the door isn't shut on MOND yet. Dismissing anybody who mentions it as a crank is not reasonable and it's dishonest to try to put a Mr. Physics Authority Figure face on doing so - MOND papers are still published in indiscriminate rags like the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics and tenure-holding proponents are seen in polite company that would shun cold fusion researchers.
I have no idea how many physics undergrads "really" know GR and QM - I suspect that most probably haven't gotten past the wave equation formulation or even heard of quantum field theory, and might or might not have had to sling a few tensors around in an elective - most probably don't do graduate computational cosmology work, either (even if it was back when having time on a Cray meant something). There's more money in commercial software, though.
I dunno... it really strikes me a lot like a number of the software standard alliances that Sun and the other Unix vendors tried to put together or participate in over the years. They always full apart because nobody's interests aligned in any lasting way and everybody had a bad case of NIH ("Not Invented Here").
I'm not saying none have worked, but I am asking honestly - how many technology projects with even half as many partners have actually succeeded in producing a stable platform? It seems to me that the truly successful open source projects have always been independent of any corporate interests - Linux succeeded in making a standard Unix-like platform where years of Dec / Sun / IBM / HP alliances failed and the business interests that have been successful with Linux have done so by learning to support efforts where there was already community leadership instead of trying to dictate a direction to the platform. Netscape did okay, I guess, but that wasn't a big business alliance and hasn't exactly been an exemplar of efficient platform production.
I'm just not seeing that this is a big deal, except that everybody thought that something much more exciting was actually going to happen.
No, it isn't. The problem is that the data favor neither one model nor the other at this time - we don't have the whole picture and we know it. GR is clearly not sufficient to model gravity, it and QM can not be made to play well together.
He might be a crackpot, but the idea isn't. Google on MOND.
What's easier to believe - that there's a ton of missing mass out there as "Dark Matter" - something that we have no direct evidence for - or that gravity works differently on large scales than a smoothe 1/r^2 at all distances - and works exactly in the way that we observe? Remember that every time that we've had a strong classical theory replaced by something else, it's been at the extremes of our observation - the very fast for special relativity (which reduces to newtonian motion at lower speeds) and the very small for quantum mechanics. We know we're not getting something right on the large scale, and we know that our picture of gravity is incomplete, as we don't have a good quantum gravitational model.
I don't know, honestly - but it's clear that there's something we don't understand and I think that our human-scale intuition is not well suited for figuring out what explanation is more likely, just as QM and SR aren't very intuitive. Right now, we've got competing models but neither is very satisfactory without more data.
Considering that Google's CEO sits on Apple's Board of Directors, that would be Apple's way. Not to mention the fact that he himself has an iPhone (in fact, had it before the general public did) and was on stage at the iPhone announcement, hinting that Apple and Google had much bigger plans to cooperate in the future.
Not all such plans pan out of course, but it's not an insane thing to expect.
Your grades in college can make a huge difference in the rest of your career - failing out of school versus, say, getting into a good graduate program. This can amount to a payoff of potentially millions of dollars over the perpetrator's life.
Naturally this is just one of many possible scenarios, but it's certainly one that's very possible. For people in that situation, if the punishment is not sever then the risk-benefit is clear - risk a slap on the wrist? Sure, why not? Why not pay someone to do it for you, or if instead you have the skills take that level of money if the risk is not that great?
If I end up being some little Americanized BBC, churning out limited series for DVD, and the people who employ me want to keep handing over 20 or 30 million dollars for me to do that, then I'll be perfectly content.
Gotta respect a man who makes the best out his reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider that a point is being made that you're not getting, because "this person" is not a moron, and generally talks about security as it is actually practiced instead of how it would be practiced if everybody were an expert and made good security a priority. Since people in general will not make security a priority, you have to talk about how people actually behave and how to craft security that will take actual behavior into account.
"The Aperture Science Center would like to remind you that Android Hell is a real place, and you will be sent there at the first sign of disobedience."
I bet they'll be replaced with candidates for the Administration's new "Faith-based engineering and science" program.
In my area, Toys R Us is the best place to go for sold-out consoles and games. Gamers don't usually think to check there.
Why would final irrefutable proof of the non-existence of God (cf. Douglas Adams) help the Republicans?
You need to learn more about the annexation of Hawaii. It was done at the barrel of US guns, quite literally.
Except that he doesn't believe that Federal individual protections apply to states. I don't expect much help from him against anybody *but* the federal government.
Indeed.
/. party line is that because of arcane intellectual property issues unique to their industry, we're supposed to hate Amazon and love Google. But on matters like this where the rubber truly hits the road for setting society-wide precedent, it's not Google who's avoiding being evil.
The
Yeah, that's dead on. As I posted elsewhere in this topic, the big problem is that people expect results from a level of activity that's really insufficient.
A few hours of aerobic exercise a week just made me cranky and frustrated, and eventually discouraged. Seven hours, on the other hand, (with the same couple of hours of weights and 1400 Calorie diet that I was doing earlier), got me losing weight steadily - to the tune of about 60 pounds over 6 months. Exercise does work, it's just that the level required is much higher than what people expect it to be.
I credit The Biggest Loser with setting a reasonable expectation of the effort required - this is not something you can just casually do haphazardly, it's a real commitment.
With all due respect, running 5-10 miles a week is not a lot of exercise. That's what, about 2 hours? Even the pathetic FDA guidelines say nearly that as a bare minimum.
For many people it takes a lot more to really lose weight - for me, after years of failing to lose weight with a few hours of exercise a week it was only when I committed to at least 7 hours a week (and another 2 weight training) that I started to lose weight, in addition to controlling my caloric and glycemic intake. That was 60 pounds ago - it was the hardest damned thing I've ever done - including start a successful company - but it was worth it.
The truth is that a lot of exercise will help you lose weight. The big lie is that smaller amounts always will - it sets incorrect expectations, and people wanting to lose weight give up after concluding that what seems like a decent amount, but is really a light regimen. is useless.
The US military, at that. But be careful - note that the US military funds, maintains, and retains control of the GPS network and in theory could shut it off or reduce its resolution any time they like. It was actually Ronald Reagan, beloved throughout the world, who opened the system up.
Over time that's less and less likely because of the number of civilian systems inside the US that depend upon GPS, but if someone is the kind of person who wrings their hands over ICANN control of DNS, they're probably not going to be happy with the US military controlling the GPS.
For Ron Paul, regulating abortion isn't a federal power when the majority wish to permit abortion, except when the votes can be mustered to oppose it.
Yeah, I smell a class action suit too.
Which really means, people screwed by MLB's DRM will get a coupon for $.28 off of their next $10 coke at a baseball game and the attorneys filing the suit will get $25 million.
One of my favorite jokes on this point is, "nature abhors a second order differential equation."
But as you implied earlier, there's also no reason to think that MOND isn't more descriptive than non-MOND but that more elegant equations won't shake out later - just as though some a little less bright than Einstein had instead said, "well, there's a correction function for things going at least 50% of C," and then someone later came up with the more elegant Lorentz transform (OK, I know Einstein's theory grew fully dressed in battle armor from the side of his head, but you see what I mean).
I'm not totally thrilled by MOND, and am not a proponent - but Dark Matter bugs the hell out of me too, and I think we're well advised to not shut out any of the competing theories (haven't even talked about scalar/tensor field interactions in this thread) until the data get a whole lot better. Having people with no training in physics sneering at a currently active field just really irks me.
It's no more Ptolemaic than positing that there's more mass in the Universe that we are not capable of seeing than that which we are - you have to either add mass to the observed universe or add corrections to the equations. And that's the rub, both are really outlandish ways of dealing with observations that don't match our theories. Both should be pursued until we can come up with some predictions that do fit data.
MOND is an area of current active research, with papers published in the standard reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Sneering at it is very premature, unless you're more interested in Cargo Cult science.
I never advocated tossing GR out the window, it's way too successful and I have way too much investment in the math to reject it (as they say, nature abhors a second order differential equation, right?).
Don't be silly. MOND doesn't cover the regime of gravitational time dilation- and is in fact not at odds with GR. MOND and GR cover different regimes, MOND concerns itself with gravitational/inertial interactions at very small accelerations (of less than about 10^-10 m/s^2, ignoring the Hubble constant correction term).
The point is that we have a fundamental choice between believing that there's more mass that we can't detect by EM in the Universe than that which we can detect, or that we're missing a big piece of how gravity (or, if you prefer, inertia) works, or (of course) "something else." And the jury is absolutely still out.
While the physics community certainly favors the dark matter model right now, most will say that the door isn't shut on MOND yet. Dismissing anybody who mentions it as a crank is not reasonable and it's dishonest to try to put a Mr. Physics Authority Figure face on doing so - MOND papers are still published in indiscriminate rags like the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics and tenure-holding proponents are seen in polite company that would shun cold fusion researchers.
I have no idea how many physics undergrads "really" know GR and QM - I suspect that most probably haven't gotten past the wave equation formulation or even heard of quantum field theory, and might or might not have had to sling a few tensors around in an elective - most probably don't do graduate computational cosmology work, either (even if it was back when having time on a Cray meant something). There's more money in commercial software, though.
I dunno... it really strikes me a lot like a number of the software standard alliances that Sun and the other Unix vendors tried to put together or participate in over the years. They always full apart because nobody's interests aligned in any lasting way and everybody had a bad case of NIH ("Not Invented Here").
I'm not saying none have worked, but I am asking honestly - how many technology projects with even half as many partners have actually succeeded in producing a stable platform? It seems to me that the truly successful open source projects have always been independent of any corporate interests - Linux succeeded in making a standard Unix-like platform where years of Dec / Sun / IBM / HP alliances failed and the business interests that have been successful with Linux have done so by learning to support efforts where there was already community leadership instead of trying to dictate a direction to the platform. Netscape did okay, I guess, but that wasn't a big business alliance and hasn't exactly been an exemplar of efficient platform production.
I'm just not seeing that this is a big deal, except that everybody thought that something much more exciting was actually going to happen.
No, it isn't. The problem is that the data favor neither one model nor the other at this time - we don't have the whole picture and we know it. GR is clearly not sufficient to model gravity, it and QM can not be made to play well together.
By the way, did I mention my physics degree?
He might be a crackpot, but the idea isn't. Google on MOND.
What's easier to believe - that there's a ton of missing mass out there as "Dark Matter" - something that we have no direct evidence for - or that gravity works differently on large scales than a smoothe 1/r^2 at all distances - and works exactly in the way that we observe? Remember that every time that we've had a strong classical theory replaced by something else, it's been at the extremes of our observation - the very fast for special relativity (which reduces to newtonian motion at lower speeds) and the very small for quantum mechanics. We know we're not getting something right on the large scale, and we know that our picture of gravity is incomplete, as we don't have a good quantum gravitational model.
I don't know, honestly - but it's clear that there's something we don't understand and I think that our human-scale intuition is not well suited for figuring out what explanation is more likely, just as QM and SR aren't very intuitive. Right now, we've got competing models but neither is very satisfactory without more data.
Considering that Google's CEO sits on Apple's Board of Directors, that would be Apple's way. Not to mention the fact that he himself has an iPhone (in fact, had it before the general public did) and was on stage at the iPhone announcement, hinting that Apple and Google had much bigger plans to cooperate in the future.
Not all such plans pan out of course, but it's not an insane thing to expect.
Your grades in college can make a huge difference in the rest of your career - failing out of school versus, say, getting into a good graduate program. This can amount to a payoff of potentially millions of dollars over the perpetrator's life.
Naturally this is just one of many possible scenarios, but it's certainly one that's very possible. For people in that situation, if the punishment is not sever then the risk-benefit is clear - risk a slap on the wrist? Sure, why not? Why not pay someone to do it for you, or if instead you have the skills take that level of money if the risk is not that great?
What Minear actually said was: Gotta respect a man who makes the best out his reality.