Which would seem to suggest that trust is important
Well, he goes on to say that trust is still irrational, and to insist that it is not trust that makes a marriage successful. Since a big part of his work is about motivation, he's very careful to word things such that people don't feel like they "ought to" trust. In fact, trying to make a spouse feel like they "ought to" trust and that something is wrong with them if they do not is a common tactic for spouses in an affair who do not want to be discovered.
Unrelated. In this case we're not talking about the application of tools, we're talking about trust - which is widely considered to the THE most important factor in any healthy relationship. So lets try this on for size:
"If you feel you can't trust the person you've chosen to be your life partner, your relationship already has serious issues"
"Widely considered" is an interesting standard of expertise to use about relationships, since the vast majority of relationships and marriages fail. In fact the vast majority of people who get counseling report that it didn't help them.
Dr. Willard Harley is the author of His Needs, Her Needs, one of the few relationship books that was indicated by a study to actually be successful, and he has actually applied statistics and science to measure the success of his approach to marital counseling. His approach is successful in saving relationships and restoring the feeling of romantic love (or creating it if it did not previously exist).
Harley stands outside of mainstream advice on a number of issues, but as I just said, mainstream advice hasn't been demonstrated to be particularly helpful. Dr. Harley's opinion on trust is that you should not trust each other in a relationship but that instead you should invite each other to check up on each other to whatever extent you choose. In his words, snoop until snooping is boring because you've snooped enough that you know you won't find anything. When you get to that point, you'll feel trust, rather than forcing yourself to feel it irrationally (i.e., without evidence, or in contrast to what the evidence actually says).
I took a graduate neural networks class in 2002 and did my implementation in Perl using PDL. The professor desperately pushed matlab on everybody but left us free to choose our own implementation language, and I chose Perl. I felt I understood neural networks pretty well at the end of the project. Twelve years on all I remember are the basic concepts at a high level.
any CGI script that at any point invokes a shell or invokes a program that invokes a shell (e.g. using the system call), irrespective of the actual shell command
But it's been well known for more than ten years that you ought not to call system or execute external programs from a CGI program. That's just a bad idea. This exploit is one proof as to why.
How do we tag misuses of the expression "begging the question" in the article summary? I tagged this story as "notbeggingthequestion," but if there's another tag out there people are using, I'd like to be aware of it.
Notice that the guy who said it is an advertising guy. That's his whole worldview. That's the way he thinks it is and the way he thinks it should be. Meanwhile for the rest of us, we have lots of alternatives. Paid sites, community-supported sites, ad-blocked sites, sites run by people who love what they are running a site about.
Basically this is a little advertiser wanting us to support clubbing a big advertiser, Google. He'd like us to get mad at his competition. What he wouldn't like is for us to start noticing just how much what he is advocating is in his self-interest.
I recommend we all switch to ad-block and screw them all. If some sites die or have to switch funding models, works great for me.
You don't have to be "cynical" to expect the government to act in the government's own best interest. The idea that one piece of government will keep another piece in check rather than colluding together to expand power is an unrealistic pipe dream. Honestly we've had over two hundred years of real world experimental evidence demonstrating that checks and balances DON'T WORK. They never did, and never will. The only realistic check on government power is secession.
The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world.
What does that have to do with it? Even if it were a mere convenience or luxury, the point of government is to secure the right to liberty. That includes the liberty to enjoy some things that some people might regard as a luxury (a subjective judgment if I ever heard one), so long as I am not doing so at the expense of somebody else's right to life, liberty, or property.
There are a whole host of reasons why what you are saying is impossible. First off, no matter how much CPU power you accumulated, you wouldn't be able to rival the hashes per second being put out by the custom hardware. If you rooted and botnetted every CPU on earth you would still only be a fraction of the hashes per second of the Bitcoin network. CPUs for Bitcoin mining were obsoleted by GPUs long ago, and both CPUs and GPUs are now way-obsoleted by ASIC.
Also, even if you were able to control a majority of the hash power on the Bitcoin network, you would still not be able to spend somebody else's Bitcoin. To do that you would have to crack the private key for the account containing the Bitcoin. Doing that is a totally different math problem from what Bitcoin mining hardware is doing, and there are a lot of visuals out there illustrating that it would likely take longer than the projected life of the universe to crack these keys using currently available methods. If you had a majority of hashpower on the network, you could alter the blockchain, which is the ledger showing in what order transactions occurred. This would allow you to double-spend your own Bitcoin and cheat somebody, but would not allow you to spend somebody else's.
With the debacle of Mt. GoX, Bitcoin's future was looking a little murky
Not to anyone who actually follows Bitcoin. MtGox was old news in 2013, a year before it actually failed. Bit coin's success was never based on MtGox - it was the other way around. And the failure of a fraudulent company in the Bitcoin space made Bitcoin stronger, not weaker.
Tired of hearing this illogical assertion repeated.
I suspect that in the last year since the Snowden revelations a lot more eyes have suddenly gotten focused on these packages. People are going to be looking for real security and wanting to make sure there are no secret backdoors, intentional or otherwise, in the code they depend on.
I bought my first Windows 8 machine in January, not by choice. The new app system confused me to death, and still does. I had no idea what the name for it was until your post. I will be forever grateful to you for providing the name "metro app" so that I can google what in the world this is and learn what I can do about it.
I tolerate Windows 8 about as well as its two predecessors. The first thing I do on a new Windows machine is install Firefox and Cygwin, and since I spend most of my time in those two environments I usually don't care very much what OS I am on. With Windows 8 the one exception has been the new metro-ized Windows Media Player, which I had to promptly replace with VLC player.
The printed documentation that came with my Windows 8 box was useless about all this new stuff. It seemed to think the first thing I would want to know was how to find something called "Windows charms." Frankly that sounded awfully girly to me so I wasn't much interested, but they seemed so proud of it I went to check it out. I wasn't much impressed, and I'm not sure why they thought that should be question #1 on the cards they printed and stuffed in the box.
If you are inclined to let your religious bias overrule observed evidence then you should avoid scientific work on principle
Yet this study doesn't seem to support that. It would be interesting to see a similar study done that draws a distinction based on the exact reason for rejecting the theory of evolution.
I've been saying for years that not accepting the theory of evolution doesn't mean a person can't perform scientific work. Now there's some scientific evidence to back it up. I wonder if people will be scientific about this now and drop the idea that those who do not accept the theory of evolution are somehow hindering scientific progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Which would seem to suggest that trust is important
Well, he goes on to say that trust is still irrational, and to insist that it is not trust that makes a marriage successful. Since a big part of his work is about motivation, he's very careful to word things such that people don't feel like they "ought to" trust. In fact, trying to make a spouse feel like they "ought to" trust and that something is wrong with them if they do not is a common tactic for spouses in an affair who do not want to be discovered.
Unrelated. In this case we're not talking about the application of tools, we're talking about trust - which is widely considered to the THE most important factor in any healthy relationship. So lets try this on for size: "If you feel you can't trust the person you've chosen to be your life partner, your relationship already has serious issues"
"Widely considered" is an interesting standard of expertise to use about relationships, since the vast majority of relationships and marriages fail. In fact the vast majority of people who get counseling report that it didn't help them.
Dr. Willard Harley is the author of His Needs, Her Needs, one of the few relationship books that was indicated by a study to actually be successful, and he has actually applied statistics and science to measure the success of his approach to marital counseling. His approach is successful in saving relationships and restoring the feeling of romantic love (or creating it if it did not previously exist).
Harley stands outside of mainstream advice on a number of issues, but as I just said, mainstream advice hasn't been demonstrated to be particularly helpful. Dr. Harley's opinion on trust is that you should not trust each other in a relationship but that instead you should invite each other to check up on each other to whatever extent you choose. In his words, snoop until snooping is boring because you've snooped enough that you know you won't find anything. When you get to that point, you'll feel trust, rather than forcing yourself to feel it irrationally (i.e., without evidence, or in contrast to what the evidence actually says).
I took a graduate neural networks class in 2002 and did my implementation in Perl using PDL. The professor desperately pushed matlab on everybody but left us free to choose our own implementation language, and I chose Perl. I felt I understood neural networks pretty well at the end of the project. Twelve years on all I remember are the basic concepts at a high level.
any CGI script that at any point invokes a shell or invokes a program that invokes a shell (e.g. using the system call), irrespective of the actual shell command
But it's been well known for more than ten years that you ought not to call system or execute external programs from a CGI program. That's just a bad idea. This exploit is one proof as to why.
As soon as money changes hands it is no longer a "private arrangement".
Congratulations; you've just given the religious right all the authority they need to regulate abortion out of existence.
How do we tag misuses of the expression "begging the question" in the article summary? I tagged this story as "notbeggingthequestion," but if there's another tag out there people are using, I'd like to be aware of it.
Notice that the guy who said it is an advertising guy. That's his whole worldview. That's the way he thinks it is and the way he thinks it should be. Meanwhile for the rest of us, we have lots of alternatives. Paid sites, community-supported sites, ad-blocked sites, sites run by people who love what they are running a site about.
Basically this is a little advertiser wanting us to support clubbing a big advertiser, Google. He'd like us to get mad at his competition. What he wouldn't like is for us to start noticing just how much what he is advocating is in his self-interest.
I recommend we all switch to ad-block and screw them all. If some sites die or have to switch funding models, works great for me.
You don't have to be "cynical" to expect the government to act in the government's own best interest. The idea that one piece of government will keep another piece in check rather than colluding together to expand power is an unrealistic pipe dream. Honestly we've had over two hundred years of real world experimental evidence demonstrating that checks and balances DON'T WORK. They never did, and never will. The only realistic check on government power is secession.
They never want me. They find out I won't enforce the law as written if I find it to be immoral, and that's that.
Hopefully eventually they will be unable to find enough jurors who don't feel like me in the jury pool! But I guess I'm feeling over-optimistic today.
Because one of the government's justifications in the past has been that it's not really that much of a hardship
True. And I used to buy that. :( I hardly ever fly, and I used to actually think I should have a say in what other people do in life.
judges tend to try to avoid flat out saying "my predecessors and colleagues were idiots and their rulings were bullshit."
Sounds like a job for a jury! :)
Mod up to 6!
The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world.
What does that have to do with it? Even if it were a mere convenience or luxury, the point of government is to secure the right to liberty. That includes the liberty to enjoy some things that some people might regard as a luxury (a subjective judgment if I ever heard one), so long as I am not doing so at the expense of somebody else's right to life, liberty, or property.
It's their land, their parking spots
No, it isn't. Everything they have was acquired through theft and coercion.
"People have the freedom to do as they want." Your opinion will change when you grow up.
I'm 36 and my opinion on this has been stable for 8 years. Hopefully you will engage in less name calling when you grow up.
This leads to less efficient use of space due to lingering, which is what the city wants to avoid.
Actually it leads to more efficient use of space through price rationing.
which is what the city wants to avoid
Who cares what the city government wants to avoid? They have no more right to enforce their will than any of the rest of us.
But we will not abide businesses that hold hostage on-street public parking spots for their own private profit
On the other hand, it's okay when we do it!
There are a whole host of reasons why what you are saying is impossible. First off, no matter how much CPU power you accumulated, you wouldn't be able to rival the hashes per second being put out by the custom hardware. If you rooted and botnetted every CPU on earth you would still only be a fraction of the hashes per second of the Bitcoin network. CPUs for Bitcoin mining were obsoleted by GPUs long ago, and both CPUs and GPUs are now way-obsoleted by ASIC.
Also, even if you were able to control a majority of the hash power on the Bitcoin network, you would still not be able to spend somebody else's Bitcoin. To do that you would have to crack the private key for the account containing the Bitcoin. Doing that is a totally different math problem from what Bitcoin mining hardware is doing, and there are a lot of visuals out there illustrating that it would likely take longer than the projected life of the universe to crack these keys using currently available methods. If you had a majority of hashpower on the network, you could alter the blockchain, which is the ledger showing in what order transactions occurred. This would allow you to double-spend your own Bitcoin and cheat somebody, but would not allow you to spend somebody else's.
Bitcoin stories shouldn't mention MtGox any more than dollar stories should mention Enron.
With the debacle of Mt. GoX, Bitcoin's future was looking a little murky
Not to anyone who actually follows Bitcoin. MtGox was old news in 2013, a year before it actually failed. Bit coin's success was never based on MtGox - it was the other way around. And the failure of a fraudulent company in the Bitcoin space made Bitcoin stronger, not weaker.
Tired of hearing this illogical assertion repeated.
That would be the definition of best-ever Congress, then.
I suspect that in the last year since the Snowden revelations a lot more eyes have suddenly gotten focused on these packages. People are going to be looking for real security and wanting to make sure there are no secret backdoors, intentional or otherwise, in the code they depend on.
I bought my first Windows 8 machine in January, not by choice. The new app system confused me to death, and still does. I had no idea what the name for it was until your post. I will be forever grateful to you for providing the name "metro app" so that I can google what in the world this is and learn what I can do about it.
I tolerate Windows 8 about as well as its two predecessors. The first thing I do on a new Windows machine is install Firefox and Cygwin, and since I spend most of my time in those two environments I usually don't care very much what OS I am on. With Windows 8 the one exception has been the new metro-ized Windows Media Player, which I had to promptly replace with VLC player.
The printed documentation that came with my Windows 8 box was useless about all this new stuff. It seemed to think the first thing I would want to know was how to find something called "Windows charms." Frankly that sounded awfully girly to me so I wasn't much interested, but they seemed so proud of it I went to check it out. I wasn't much impressed, and I'm not sure why they thought that should be question #1 on the cards they printed and stuffed in the box.
Many thanks for just those two words!
If you are inclined to let your religious bias overrule observed evidence then you should avoid scientific work on principle
Yet this study doesn't seem to support that. It would be interesting to see a similar study done that draws a distinction based on the exact reason for rejecting the theory of evolution.
I've been saying for years that not accepting the theory of evolution doesn't mean a person can't perform scientific work. Now there's some scientific evidence to back it up. I wonder if people will be scientific about this now and drop the idea that those who do not accept the theory of evolution are somehow hindering scientific progress.
I read the entire article and still don't know what Amazon wants. Apparently they just like to be mean, according to the author.