And they are all harder to find than writing your first '10 print "hello"' one you calculator/C64 Going from not having a clue about programming to writing your first simple line in any language is by far the hardest and most important step when it comes to programming. The rest is breeze compared to that.
I think the rest is harder--not for any of us since we know how to do it, but for someone learning to program, debugging is incredibly frustrating and a huge barrier to entry.
Even that's much easier, primarily because (1) stackoverflow and (2) there are MUCH better IDEs than there used to be.
Still, kids may get frustrated more easily. Being a programmer takes a certain amount of being stubborn in the face of unparseable errors.
Several are useful (saving time or complexity), but mostly in very limited spaces. Google's is useful when you don't want or have the free hands for typing a query into your phone. Echo is useful for playing background music. Even Kinect's can be useful for commands on a TV. If you want a fully functioning assistant, hire one; AI isn't there yet.
Honestly, how can someone be said to be ready for college if they haven't even bothered to take the standard test? What is so amazing about them? Obviously not their work ethic or intelligence... or they would have taken the test.
Um. No. Admissions decisions at anyplace that's any good are very individualized. Whether you take a standardized test is whether you jumped through a hoop and has little to do with work ethic aside from "Can I pay a fee or request a waiver and sit in one place for a few hours". You're also presupposing they measure intelligence well and that only people without intelligence will not take them. If you never took a standardized test but already had journal articles accepted in multiple fields, or they think you are going to win a nobel prize, or you are composing world-class pieces of music, or if you were raised in a country where people don't take the SATs ordinarily but you have major accomplishments at the national or world level, they're going to consider you.
In college, Pass/Fail grading or Pass/No Record grading is actually better for the majority of the student body, but worse for maybe the top third of the class.
In terms of applying for college, not having a testing policy is smart because it lets you admit people who may not have done a test but who are amazing. If you don't have the testing you will need to have done better at other things. This actually makes it harder to game the system, not easier. Optimizing on test-taking ability is easy if you have a good mind for it or if you have good discipline, but doesn't necessarily make you the best candidate.
With their record, does anyone actually Call the police anymore for real calls anymore?
Seems like when people call for service, they're calling to be murdered...
Yes. All the time. You are falling victim to selection bias. There are maybe 240 million 911 calls a year and maybe 2000 people killed by police. That gives you less than a one in a hundred thousand chance of having someone die as a result of a police call, although obviously the chance is a LOT higher on stupid fake calls like this that are designed to prompt a police raid.
There are lots of situations where for most people it is pretty unambiguous that you should call the police: car accidents, home intrusion, restraining order violation, significant theft, unexplained firearm discharge (depending on the community), break-in or attempted break-ins, serious physical attacks, arson, burglary, robbery, etc...
Why are companies allowed to prevent their employees from going to the court? Corporate law trumps state law?
Contract law is what we are talking about and companies are forcing employees to sign forced arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. State law is typically mute on the subject so because it isn't prohibited it is permitted.
No. The problem is that Federal Law has been written by Congress to allow companies to keep claims out of court, because court is expensive and public--and to avoid subjecting claims to the whims of a jury. So almost all well-drafted consumer contracts can't be meaningfully contested in court because they usually contain arbitration clauses. Sometimes you can get out of the arbitration clauses, but usually you can't because the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law.
Not really. While the existence is a threat on the level of governments and corporate espionage, it's the ubiquity that is the direct threat to the average person. Manufactured video evidence is still relatively rare. This will make it more widespread and harder to detect while making legitimate evidence less reliable.
For those of you who don't pay attention to space matters, de-orbiting satellites is important because of something called the Kessler Syndrome. In effect, too much traffic up there would make it very difficult to get into space for thousands of years. This is also part of why the Chinese anti-satellite weapon test a while back was a big deal.
We try to track everything, especially everything above a certain size, so we can prevent collissions.
The corporate world is playing hard ball, and the open source world wants to string daisy chains.
Community can be great but isn't enough to make sure our code is used the way we want. Making a choice about what license we are going to use isn't the end of our copyright decision-making. If we want our licenses to be effective, we need to plan for enforcement, for inheritance, and for who will "own" the copyright in our code even if we want our code to be free.
Suppose you are asked to come up with rules saying what publishers can and can't do. Should that be based on a vote of the people (risking suppression of political or religious dissent) or based on detailed critiques of the different options available to you and their consequences? Should your standards for IT security be based on a vote of your customers?
Public comment is sometimes incredibly useful and important, but it's not magic and it's not majority-wins. It's about having a group of experts with domain knowledge making policy. You can still ask Congress to change the law to override them.
Of course there's a problem with the distributed incentive to comment on the consumer side. If you don't have money riding on a regulation, you're not going to invest in comment. But if you want a comment to be meaningful, you need to either dive deep enough to make your comment be really good, or you have to hire (or get together with others to hire) someone to help you do that diving. A good lawyer can help you do that. The declaratory ruling, report, and order is a couple of hundred pages long--unless you are going to pay a professional to dig through it or spend a lot of time on it, the chance of critiquing it in a meaningful way that will make someone think about or modify their position is extremely low.
On the legal side, powers of attorney made while a person is competent help a little. (Otherwise you wind up having to go to court to have the person declared incompetent, which is possible but can be a lot of unnecessary drama when you're already dealing with a terrible situation. There is also the risk that the judge appoints the wrong relative or that you waste a lot of money fighting about it if you have to go to court.)
Advance health directives can also be helpful. They can speak only to end-of-life care or can be drafted with information about your specific wishes in case of Alzheimer's.
No it doesn't. When someone dies, unless their wills says otherwise, any copyrights go to their estate. It is up to their heirs what happens after that.
Generally this is true, although there are some other ways they can be transferred (e.g. they may be transferring the copyright via a community property agreement, living trust, buy-sell agreement, marital property agreement, or other instrument upon their death). The important thing is to make sure your estate planning attorney knows that you have contributed to open source projects and knows what you want to happen to your copyrights when they draw up your documents. Part of that should also be leaving good instructions for your executor in terms of how they should reach out to project co-maintainers.
Making plans in advance means someone down the road may have the ability to issue your software under a more permissive license or to enforce the GPL, for example. This applies also if you become disabled--ideally you should have some kind of instruction regarding open source projects with your power of attorney. (If you want help in Seattle or want me to find someone in your neck of the woods who does this, let me know and I can either help out or ask around, as appropriate.)
All wrapped in the most boring book you'll never read.
You have obviously never read Moby Dick.
There are three problems with using the Silmarillion.
First, the lack of dialogue. It's a rich world, but you'd need a great writer to write all of the language. Hollywood is almost never successful at that if they know in advance that they want a real hit. Without more dialogue from the book to lean on, it is highly unlikely that they will do it well.
Second, the imagination. Much of the power of the book comes from things your imagination can conjure from the written word but that would be very difficult to do well on film. Making the audience hear the music of Illuvitar in the opening moments, for example, and the warring by the great enemy within the themes of the music.
Third, the built-in audience. The Silmarillion is simply not a popular property. It is beloved, but not popular, and even the average con-goer who really likes Tolkien has never read it.
One of the nice things Outlook Premium lets you do was host email at a vanity domain, but with Hotmail/Outlook.com levels of reliability and therefore a lower cost. Doing the same thing with Exchange Online is much more money, and works well for those who don't want Office 365.
Exchange online: $4/user/month Outlook Premium: $4/user/month
They may have changed it, and they may not advertise it, but in the past I haven't had trouble setting up exchange online with business domains.
I thought for trials by jury, THAT's what the defense lawyers looked for in a jurist. If they had a college degree or knew Schrodinger had a cat, they were OUT. If they knew what channels and when Jerry Springer was on, they were the next in line.... Anything, just as long as they could be convinced by feelings and not look at those annoying pesky facts.
People have different strategies, and everyone thinks theirs is best. One basic rule is each side wants to get rid of the other side's foreperson. So if you think someone is going to both sway the rest of the jury and side with the other side, you want them out.
Education is sometimes good and sometimes bad, in terms of jurors. I knew a guy who sat on a jury trial for murder, and everyone with a science background voted guilty because the evidence showed the defendant had murdered his wife. (IIRC the scientific evidence that was observed happened to exactly line up with what it would be if he had murdered his wife and incinerated her body). So clearly one of the lawyers in that case wants the people with a science background.
Also, it feels wrong to say "Schrodinger had a cat." Too deterministic.:)
Seems like the lawyers are looking for deep pockets.
Of course the lawyers are looking for deep pockets. Their clients are out hundreds of millions of dollars. The question is the extent to which NewEgg was responsible for that. If they weren't responsible or if they were, the case should settle quickly. Hopefully it's pretty clear.
We don't know if they were responsible because all we have now is a Slashdot summary of an article describing a complaint that accuses NewEgg of something and our own personal experiences with NewEgg. (Which are generally positive.) Drawing conclusions from it would be like making decisions based on Betazoid intuition.
Then feel free to "translate" it for Simple Wikipedia
This.
There's nothing wrong with providing a more detailed explanation for any phenomenon on regular wikipedia, but they shouldn't be dumbed down. Learning any new field seriously often begins with reading a few dozen articles (whether academic papers or even wikipedia) and starting to learn how the jargony parts interact, and usually you don't understand what the concepts all mean at the beginning. Personally I don't think anyone should be able to graduate college without having done this in a field or two.
Maybe they need to make simple a more obvious option on technical pages, but that doesn't mean you have to dumb down the core knowledge.
Social justice warriors change the world for the better by fighting oppression and inequality.
I think this is how social justice warriors see themselves.
The rest of us mostly see them as tilting at windmills for their own gratification and/or local social standing.
It's surprisingly easy to see them that way from the outside. But the person you hear about tends to be the one with the loudest voice, not the typical one, much less the one you should take as representative of what the movement aspires to. There are lots of people who dedicate their lives to making the world better because they like helping people. While there are some noisemakers who do it for social standing (among SJWs just like in pretty much every other population), there are also lots of great people just working hard to help people in pain.
It sounds like they moved it from the default install to something that is accessible via apps >> apps & Features, and that that affected an already installed O/S.
Yes, there's a lot of "We hate [thing X MSFT did] because we hate microsoft!" out there. It's childish but common.
The bottom line is they can choose what they have in the default install, and they'll do that for reasons that don't have a whole lot to do with outrage articles from the technical press and on slashdot or reddit. Sure, they want to support features the community likes, but they also have things that are old projects nobody in the company really owns anymore that don't drive revenue, for example.
And they will also sometimes replace functionality. Maybe they have a replacement player in the winds that will somehow support AR/VR as well and they're focusing on that.
There are lots of reasons they might do this. Best to determine the reasons before piling on the outrage.
Suppose the parent universe is one in which computational complexity for any given problem is a constant? Or even where this particular problem can be solved via an operation that is infinitely replicable at zero or near-zero cost? Or even at a non-constant cost? Or perhaps the parent universe is one in which the speed of computation increases with complexity. We don't know the math of the parent universe. We don't even know if the math of the parent universe is consistent with itself.
This study make it less likely we are in a simulation within a similar universe, but the idea that an outer universe is like an inner universe is a bit self-important and might seem in a thousand years like the old idea that the sun rotates around the earth.
Still, we should not assume that we are in a simulation just because it's an easy explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
And they are all harder to find than writing your first '10 print "hello"' one you calculator/C64
Going from not having a clue about programming to writing your first simple line in any language is by far the hardest and most important step when it comes to programming.
The rest is breeze compared to that.
I think the rest is harder--not for any of us since we know how to do it, but for someone learning to program, debugging is incredibly frustrating and a huge barrier to entry.
Even that's much easier, primarily because (1) stackoverflow and (2) there are MUCH better IDEs than there used to be.
Still, kids may get frustrated more easily. Being a programmer takes a certain amount of being stubborn in the face of unparseable errors.
Maybe it would be easier to tell us what didn't get hacked...
Several are useful (saving time or complexity), but mostly in very limited spaces. Google's is useful when you don't want or have the free hands for typing a query into your phone. Echo is useful for playing background music. Even Kinect's can be useful for commands on a TV. If you want a fully functioning assistant, hire one; AI isn't there yet.
Honestly, how can someone be said to be ready for college if they haven't even bothered to take the standard test? What is so amazing about them? Obviously not their work ethic or intelligence... or they would have taken the test.
Um. No. Admissions decisions at anyplace that's any good are very individualized. Whether you take a standardized test is whether you jumped through a hoop and has little to do with work ethic aside from "Can I pay a fee or request a waiver and sit in one place for a few hours". You're also presupposing they measure intelligence well and that only people without intelligence will not take them. If you never took a standardized test but already had journal articles accepted in multiple fields, or they think you are going to win a nobel prize, or you are composing world-class pieces of music, or if you were raised in a country where people don't take the SATs ordinarily but you have major accomplishments at the national or world level, they're going to consider you.
In college, Pass/Fail grading or Pass/No Record grading is actually better for the majority of the student body, but worse for maybe the top third of the class.
In terms of applying for college, not having a testing policy is smart because it lets you admit people who may not have done a test but who are amazing. If you don't have the testing you will need to have done better at other things. This actually makes it harder to game the system, not easier. Optimizing on test-taking ability is easy if you have a good mind for it or if you have good discipline, but doesn't necessarily make you the best candidate.
With their record, does anyone actually Call the police anymore for real calls anymore?
Seems like when people call for service, they're calling to be murdered...
Yes. All the time. You are falling victim to selection bias. There are maybe 240 million 911 calls a year and maybe 2000 people killed by police. That gives you less than a one in a hundred thousand chance of having someone die as a result of a police call, although obviously the chance is a LOT higher on stupid fake calls like this that are designed to prompt a police raid.
There are lots of situations where for most people it is pretty unambiguous that you should call the police: car accidents, home intrusion, restraining order violation, significant theft, unexplained firearm discharge (depending on the community), break-in or attempted break-ins, serious physical attacks, arson, burglary, robbery, etc...
Why are companies allowed to prevent their employees from going to the court? Corporate law trumps state law?
Contract law is what we are talking about and companies are forcing employees to sign forced arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. State law is typically mute on the subject so because it isn't prohibited it is permitted.
No. The problem is that Federal Law has been written by Congress to allow companies to keep claims out of court, because court is expensive and public--and to avoid subjecting claims to the whims of a jury. So almost all well-drafted consumer contracts can't be meaningfully contested in court because they usually contain arbitration clauses. Sometimes you can get out of the arbitration clauses, but usually you can't because the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law.
>imblying this doesn't already exist.
Not really. While the existence is a threat on the level of governments and corporate espionage, it's the ubiquity that is the direct threat to the average person. Manufactured video evidence is still relatively rare. This will make it more widespread and harder to detect while making legitimate evidence less reliable.
For those of you who don't pay attention to space matters, de-orbiting satellites is important because of something called the Kessler Syndrome. In effect, too much traffic up there would make it very difficult to get into space for thousands of years. This is also part of why the Chinese anti-satellite weapon test a while back was a big deal.
We try to track everything, especially everything above a certain size, so we can prevent collissions.
There's slightly more than a stub on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The corporate world is playing hard ball, and the open source world wants to string daisy chains.
Community can be great but isn't enough to make sure our code is used the way we want. Making a choice about what license we are going to use isn't the end of our copyright decision-making. If we want our licenses to be effective, we need to plan for enforcement, for inheritance, and for who will "own" the copyright in our code even if we want our code to be free.
Because billions of devices with always-on cameras is good. In case someone doesn't respect your privacy and peeks over your shoulder.
Suppose you are asked to come up with rules saying what publishers can and can't do. Should that be based on a vote of the people (risking suppression of political or religious dissent) or based on detailed critiques of the different options available to you and their consequences? Should your standards for IT security be based on a vote of your customers?
Public comment is sometimes incredibly useful and important, but it's not magic and it's not majority-wins. It's about having a group of experts with domain knowledge making policy. You can still ask Congress to change the law to override them.
Of course there's a problem with the distributed incentive to comment on the consumer side. If you don't have money riding on a regulation, you're not going to invest in comment. But if you want a comment to be meaningful, you need to either dive deep enough to make your comment be really good, or you have to hire (or get together with others to hire) someone to help you do that diving. A good lawyer can help you do that. The declaratory ruling, report, and order is a couple of hundred pages long--unless you are going to pay a professional to dig through it or spend a lot of time on it, the chance of critiquing it in a meaningful way that will make someone think about or modify their position is extremely low.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
On the legal side, powers of attorney made while a person is competent help a little. (Otherwise you wind up having to go to court to have the person declared incompetent, which is possible but can be a lot of unnecessary drama when you're already dealing with a terrible situation. There is also the risk that the judge appoints the wrong relative or that you waste a lot of money fighting about it if you have to go to court.)
Advance health directives can also be helpful. They can speak only to end-of-life care or can be drafted with information about your specific wishes in case of Alzheimer's.
No it doesn't. When someone dies, unless their wills says otherwise, any copyrights go to their estate. It is up to their heirs what happens after that.
Generally this is true, although there are some other ways they can be transferred (e.g. they may be transferring the copyright via a community property agreement, living trust, buy-sell agreement, marital property agreement, or other instrument upon their death). The important thing is to make sure your estate planning attorney knows that you have contributed to open source projects and knows what you want to happen to your copyrights when they draw up your documents. Part of that should also be leaving good instructions for your executor in terms of how they should reach out to project co-maintainers.
Making plans in advance means someone down the road may have the ability to issue your software under a more permissive license or to enforce the GPL, for example. This applies also if you become disabled--ideally you should have some kind of instruction regarding open source projects with your power of attorney. (If you want help in Seattle or want me to find someone in your neck of the woods who does this, let me know and I can either help out or ask around, as appropriate.)
I'm not sure The Orville counts as Trek though.
The Orville Counts as Trek the same way that Hudson's Adventure Island counts as "Mario Goes on Vacation."
You change the names, but fundamentally you're making Star Trek.
All wrapped in the most boring book you'll never read.
You have obviously never read Moby Dick.
There are three problems with using the Silmarillion.
First, the lack of dialogue. It's a rich world, but you'd need a great writer to write all of the language. Hollywood is almost never successful at that if they know in advance that they want a real hit. Without more dialogue from the book to lean on, it is highly unlikely that they will do it well.
Second, the imagination. Much of the power of the book comes from things your imagination can conjure from the written word but that would be very difficult to do well on film. Making the audience hear the music of Illuvitar in the opening moments, for example, and the warring by the great enemy within the themes of the music.
Third, the built-in audience. The Silmarillion is simply not a popular property. It is beloved, but not popular, and even the average con-goer who really likes Tolkien has never read it.
One of the nice things Outlook Premium lets you do was host email at a vanity domain, but with Hotmail/Outlook.com levels of reliability and therefore a lower cost. Doing the same thing with Exchange Online is much more money, and works well for those who don't want Office 365.
Exchange online: $4/user/month
Outlook Premium: $4/user/month
They may have changed it, and they may not advertise it, but in the past I haven't had trouble setting up exchange online with business domains.
SQL Injection Attacks? What year is this, 2005?
I thought for trials by jury, THAT's what the defense lawyers looked for in a jurist. If they had a college degree or knew Schrodinger had a cat, they were OUT. If they knew what channels and when Jerry Springer was on, they were the next in line.... Anything, just as long as they could be convinced by feelings and not look at those annoying pesky facts.
People have different strategies, and everyone thinks theirs is best. One basic rule is each side wants to get rid of the other side's foreperson. So if you think someone is going to both sway the rest of the jury and side with the other side, you want them out.
Education is sometimes good and sometimes bad, in terms of jurors. I knew a guy who sat on a jury trial for murder, and everyone with a science background voted guilty because the evidence showed the defendant had murdered his wife. (IIRC the scientific evidence that was observed happened to exactly line up with what it would be if he had murdered his wife and incinerated her body). So clearly one of the lawyers in that case wants the people with a science background.
Also, it feels wrong to say "Schrodinger had a cat." Too deterministic. :)
Seems like the lawyers are looking for deep pockets.
Of course the lawyers are looking for deep pockets. Their clients are out hundreds of millions of dollars. The question is the extent to which NewEgg was responsible for that. If they weren't responsible or if they were, the case should settle quickly. Hopefully it's pretty clear.
We don't know if they were responsible because all we have now is a Slashdot summary of an article describing a complaint that accuses NewEgg of something and our own personal experiences with NewEgg. (Which are generally positive.) Drawing conclusions from it would be like making decisions based on Betazoid intuition.
Then feel free to "translate" it for Simple Wikipedia
This.
There's nothing wrong with providing a more detailed explanation for any phenomenon on regular wikipedia, but they shouldn't be dumbed down. Learning any new field seriously often begins with reading a few dozen articles (whether academic papers or even wikipedia) and starting to learn how the jargony parts interact, and usually you don't understand what the concepts all mean at the beginning. Personally I don't think anyone should be able to graduate college without having done this in a field or two.
Maybe they need to make simple a more obvious option on technical pages, but that doesn't mean you have to dumb down the core knowledge.
Social justice warriors change the world for the better by fighting oppression and inequality.
I think this is how social justice warriors see themselves.
The rest of us mostly see them as tilting at windmills for their own gratification and/or local social standing.
It's surprisingly easy to see them that way from the outside. But the person you hear about tends to be the one with the loudest voice, not the typical one, much less the one you should take as representative of what the movement aspires to. There are lots of people who dedicate their lives to making the world better because they like helping people. While there are some noisemakers who do it for social standing (among SJWs just like in pretty much every other population), there are also lots of great people just working hard to help people in pain.
It sounds like they moved it from the default install to something that is accessible via apps >> apps & Features, and that that affected an already installed O/S.
Yes, there's a lot of "We hate [thing X MSFT did] because we hate microsoft!" out there. It's childish but common.
The bottom line is they can choose what they have in the default install, and they'll do that for reasons that don't have a whole lot to do with outrage articles from the technical press and on slashdot or reddit. Sure, they want to support features the community likes, but they also have things that are old projects nobody in the company really owns anymore that don't drive revenue, for example.
And they will also sometimes replace functionality. Maybe they have a replacement player in the winds that will somehow support AR/VR as well and they're focusing on that.
There are lots of reasons they might do this. Best to determine the reasons before piling on the outrage.
Suppose the parent universe is one in which computational complexity for any given problem is a constant? Or even where this particular problem can be solved via an operation that is infinitely replicable at zero or near-zero cost? Or even at a non-constant cost? Or perhaps the parent universe is one in which the speed of computation increases with complexity. We don't know the math of the parent universe. We don't even know if the math of the parent universe is consistent with itself.
This study make it less likely we are in a simulation within a similar universe, but the idea that an outer universe is like an inner universe is a bit self-important and might seem in a thousand years like the old idea that the sun rotates around the earth.
Still, we should not assume that we are in a simulation just because it's an easy explanation.