There are a few words that, when misspelled, can be distracting. My "inner voice" is jarred out of its regular flow as I try to determine whether it's a typo or an intentional use.
Lose/Loose is one of the worst. One can lose a war. But one can also loose war upon someone. The meanings are very different, and I lose sight of someone's original point when I have to step back and study their spelling.
It's not a big deal - it's half a second out of my day. But I don't mind seeing it corrected.
The thing is, I've never met an atheist who propose to actively believe in the non-existence of God. Not one. They all accept that many conceptions of God are possible, but consider them extremely unlikely - on par with unicorns or leprechauns. They are all agnostic, and atheist.
Now, I can accept that there are masses who believe that an "atheist" is a person who actively believes in the non-existence of God, I also recognize that most atheists do not believe that.
You're in a forum populated with many atheists who believe one thing, and taking shots at atheists who believe something completely different. To use your example, it's like coming to a discussion on programming. Someone says "I've been hacking away at a windows program for years", and you reply with "hacking is wrong, and you should be in jail."
He knows what he meant, you know what he meant, and you're intentionally misinterpreting him to attack a strawman.
I was going to say the same thing, but then I happened on your well-written, on-topic, informative message. You've certainly improved the dialogue with this comment.
I think I speak for everyone when I say that you'll be sorely missed.
Absolutely, and it should (and probably will) be run very differently in the future.
I just wanted to point out that the idea that windows and the internet have two very different risk profiles, and it's ludicrous to dismiss efforts to improve internet security because "people have windows"
Would you feel so secure with your windows if anyone from anywhere in the world could break them? If they could break yours and thousands of others automatically with the same amount of effort? If it would take a team of experts months of effort to track down a single perpetrator - assuming he screwed up along the way?
Or would you accept that there's an inherent danger when an attacker has physical access to your windows, but try to make remote/anonymous window-breaking as difficult as possible?
My analogy may seem stretched, but I'm just working with what I was given.
"Give me this many money-tokens, or I will use the guns", combined with a limited supply of money-tokens? Sounds like it's got enforced worth after all.
The US dollar has neither though. It has no intrinsic value (it's not a commodity), it's not tied to anything with an intrinsic value (not commodity-backed).
"Guns" (law) ensure that the dollar is accepted everywhere, but that doesn't ensure that it has any "worth", since prices can be set to anything (if it costs $100M for a single apple, does the dollar have value?)
I'm not sure that was ever a realistic expectation for browsers though. They need to juggle so many standards that some are bound to be at different states of development within a major version.
Would you have developed a website on Netscape 4.7 and claim it was "Netscape 4 compatible"?
How does version number affect this at all? If AwesomeBrowser 1.0 is out, how can you state that your website will work with AwesomeBrowser 1.1? Or 1.0.0.0.0.1, for that matter?
A version is just a number. As usual, it's the changes behind that number that you should be worried about.
I actually lost two USB ports on two separate computers (desktop and laptop) after an external hard drive broke. At least the laptop was nice enough to tell me there was "excessive voltage detected" as the port was taking its last breath.
Pulled over in the car he's driving and asked for a driver's license? Maybe not the same thing.
Also, generally they're not pulling people over for "having a reasonable suspicion that they don't have a drivers license". They're pulled over for breaking the law.
I'd say the main difference is in which parts came from each grandparent. You inherit one of each chromosome from both mom and dad, but the chromosome is a random(ish) combination of their parents. The recombination of DNA doesn't occur until the sperm/egg are created.
It was inevitable but don't fool yourself in to thinking it is a good thing.
Taken on its own, it's not a good thing, but I'm really hoping good things come of it.
Computer/network security is not an impossibility. LulzSec isn't cracking network security through social engineering or any other non-technical means. They're getting in through configuration issues and software bugs. This is what has to change.
If the world continues to treat security as it always has, the next hack won't take down Eve Online, it will take down the power grid, or cause half the cars on the road to disable the airbags and lose the brakes.
Yeah - let's put a blindfold on and ignore all of the security problems. It's a good thing that being ignorant that your credit card is stolen is exactly the same as being safe.
The fact that these attacks are so high-profile is a good thing. A great thing, even. For the past two decades, security has been ignored from the smallest ISP to the federal gov't. It's about time there were some high-profile (and relatively low-impact) attacks to bring attention to just how badly security is being managed.
Computer security needs a top-to-bottom rethink, and the only way we're going to get the cultural momentum required to get that done is through attacks like these.
Just be glad it's happening now, and not in 10 years, when most homes and cars will be networked.
Unfortunately, the primary source for the article was a scientist. When they asked him about it during the interview, the motherfucker just lied, and make me all pissed.
Isn't that still effectively digital? At the lowest level, all "digital" technology is implemented with analog components that produce 1's and 0's reliably enough. In your example, we've found a more efficient analog way of producing the digital signal, but the signal is still digital.
Electrical signals are analog too, but in order to do useful calculations with them, we strip out most of the analog data, and interpret it as a simple 1 or 0. Analog computers would require vastly different mathematics underpinning the logic. I can see it happening, but not within the time period presented in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but I've been at this for a few minutes and seriously can't figure it out. Can you explain the joke?
There are a few words that, when misspelled, can be distracting. My "inner voice" is jarred out of its regular flow as I try to determine whether it's a typo or an intentional use.
Lose/Loose is one of the worst. One can lose a war. But one can also loose war upon someone. The meanings are very different, and I lose sight of someone's original point when I have to step back and study their spelling.
It's not a big deal - it's half a second out of my day. But I don't mind seeing it corrected.
When dealing with a bad idea that might be taken personally, I've stopped even calling it a "bad idea" or making any disparaging remarks.
I've found it's far more effective to ask for clarification on some point that I know is flawed.
A: Well, what happens when a user does X?
B: Obviously it will continue as normal, thus deleting all of their....ooooohhhhhhh
Or
A: When a user does X, this seems to imply that we delete all of their files and then punch their mothers. Is this correct?
B: Hmmm...
"Is this correct" is one of the most useful phrases when trying to show how something is, in fact, incorrect.
If you find a error in a textbook, would that cause you to loose all trust in its whole content?
I stopped reading your post after this - I lost all trust in its whole content.
The thing is, I've never met an atheist who propose to actively believe in the non-existence of God. Not one. They all accept that many conceptions of God are possible, but consider them extremely unlikely - on par with unicorns or leprechauns. They are all agnostic, and atheist.
Now, I can accept that there are masses who believe that an "atheist" is a person who actively believes in the non-existence of God, I also recognize that most atheists do not believe that.
You're in a forum populated with many atheists who believe one thing, and taking shots at atheists who believe something completely different. To use your example, it's like coming to a discussion on programming. Someone says "I've been hacking away at a windows program for years", and you reply with "hacking is wrong, and you should be in jail."
He knows what he meant, you know what he meant, and you're intentionally misinterpreting him to attack a strawman.
I was going to say the same thing, but then I happened on your well-written, on-topic, informative message. You've certainly improved the dialogue with this comment.
I think I speak for everyone when I say that you'll be sorely missed.
If it's that much of a concern, why not change the copyright length to max(50, artist.lifetime)?
I wish I had mod points for you. 99% of AGW skeptics come across as talking point machines with no real knowledge.
What we need are people willing to examine the fundamental axioms of AGW (tree rings and ice cores, for instance) in order to improve the science.
And we need people pointing out legitimate flaws in current theories without being dicks about it, or pretending that flaws mean more than they do.
So my hat's off to you, sir. The world needs more people like you.
Absolutely, and it should (and probably will) be run very differently in the future.
I just wanted to point out that the idea that windows and the internet have two very different risk profiles, and it's ludicrous to dismiss efforts to improve internet security because "people have windows"
Would you feel so secure with your windows if anyone from anywhere in the world could break them? If they could break yours and thousands of others automatically with the same amount of effort? If it would take a team of experts months of effort to track down a single perpetrator - assuming he screwed up along the way?
Or would you accept that there's an inherent danger when an attacker has physical access to your windows, but try to make remote/anonymous window-breaking as difficult as possible?
My analogy may seem stretched, but I'm just working with what I was given.
Huh - hadn't thought of that.
"Give me this many money-tokens, or I will use the guns", combined with a limited supply of money-tokens? Sounds like it's got enforced worth after all.
I concede.
The US dollar has neither though. It has no intrinsic value (it's not a commodity), it's not tied to anything with an intrinsic value (not commodity-backed).
"Guns" (law) ensure that the dollar is accepted everywhere, but that doesn't ensure that it has any "worth", since prices can be set to anything (if it costs $100M for a single apple, does the dollar have value?)
Would you rather that science with "racist" results never be published?
The real characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is basically that it's fiat currency without anyone actually guaranteeing its worth.
How is this any different from, say, US Dollars? How does an organization go about "guaranteeing its worth"?
I'm not sure that was ever a realistic expectation for browsers though. They need to juggle so many standards that some are bound to be at different states of development within a major version.
Would you have developed a website on Netscape 4.7 and claim it was "Netscape 4 compatible"?
How does version number affect this at all? If AwesomeBrowser 1.0 is out, how can you state that your website will work with AwesomeBrowser 1.1? Or 1.0.0.0.0.1, for that matter?
A version is just a number. As usual, it's the changes behind that number that you should be worried about.
They are already talking about the possibilities for therapy and behavior modification by optically stimulating specific brain circuits.
They can talk about it all they want, but until they invent a transparent skull, I'm not sure I see many practical applications.
It's about the same with private TV. You, watching it, aren't their customer. You're their product.
Just a nitpick here. You're both. If you were simply a product, TV would be as free as Facebook.
I actually lost two USB ports on two separate computers (desktop and laptop) after an external hard drive broke. At least the laptop was nice enough to tell me there was "excessive voltage detected" as the port was taking its last breath.
Pulled over in the car he's driving and asked for a driver's license? Maybe not the same thing.
Also, generally they're not pulling people over for "having a reasonable suspicion that they don't have a drivers license". They're pulled over for breaking the law.
Yes and no.
I'd say the main difference is in which parts came from each grandparent. You inherit one of each chromosome from both mom and dad, but the chromosome is a random(ish) combination of their parents. The recombination of DNA doesn't occur until the sperm/egg are created.
It was inevitable but don't fool yourself in to thinking it is a good thing.
Taken on its own, it's not a good thing, but I'm really hoping good things come of it.
Computer/network security is not an impossibility. LulzSec isn't cracking network security through social engineering or any other non-technical means. They're getting in through configuration issues and software bugs. This is what has to change.
If the world continues to treat security as it always has, the next hack won't take down Eve Online, it will take down the power grid, or cause half the cars on the road to disable the airbags and lose the brakes.
Yeah - let's put a blindfold on and ignore all of the security problems. It's a good thing that being ignorant that your credit card is stolen is exactly the same as being safe.
The fact that these attacks are so high-profile is a good thing. A great thing, even. For the past two decades, security has been ignored from the smallest ISP to the federal gov't. It's about time there were some high-profile (and relatively low-impact) attacks to bring attention to just how badly security is being managed.
Computer security needs a top-to-bottom rethink, and the only way we're going to get the cultural momentum required to get that done is through attacks like these.
Just be glad it's happening now, and not in 10 years, when most homes and cars will be networked.
Unfortunately, the primary source for the article was a scientist. When they asked him about it during the interview, the motherfucker just lied, and make me all pissed.
Isn't that still effectively digital? At the lowest level, all "digital" technology is implemented with analog components that produce 1's and 0's reliably enough. In your example, we've found a more efficient analog way of producing the digital signal, but the signal is still digital.
Electrical signals are analog too, but in order to do useful calculations with them, we strip out most of the analog data, and interpret it as a simple 1 or 0. Analog computers would require vastly different mathematics underpinning the logic. I can see it happening, but not within the time period presented in the article.