So confounders may mean the study is useless (ie women CEOs more common in high revenue industries), but if it performance gap does exist there are some useful narratives.
For all the groups, women, homosexuals, blacks, etc, it is known that they are under-represented as CEOs and that they experience some level of employment discrimination (or at least disadvantage).
If black or gay CEOs underperform it may be the case that there is a shortage of talent occurring earlier in the corporate ladder. Fixing that requires an earlier intervention, better education policies or better talent development in the organization.
Women CEOs overperforming suggests that the talent is available but it isn't being used. In this case the fix is to simply use more of the talent that's available.
Of course an infographic isn't exactly a publication in Nature. There's a decent shot the data doesn't suggest what they think it suggests.
Who hasn't seen some of these joggers who do it obsessively?
I've seen a bunch of people who look skinny and emaciated from being jogging freaks. At a certain point you look like you're ill -- and quite disturbingly so.
Hell, back when I used to go to the gym there used to be one lady on the treadmill... she stayed on it for hours, and essentially looked terrible to the point it looked like she could probably use some therapy... she looked anorexic.
I find people who do nothing but weight lift obsessively look ridiculous.
The appearance problem you perceive isn't too much running, it's running in absence of strength training. And I'm not sure why she needs therapy if she enjoys it and it isn't causing harm.
That's not healthy, that's obsessive.
Outside of this very preliminary study what's your evidence for that? They only look ill because you're used to a certain distribution of body fat, if they don't have that distribution it strikes you as odd.
Sorry, as long as ad companies occasionally accept ads by malware companies, I'll keep running ad blocking software.
[John]
I'm considering starting a website, I actually think it would be very useful, and I have every intention of making it respect users privacy as much as possible and keeping the advertising as minimal, ethical, and unobtrusive as possible.
It will cost significant money to run, it will cost money every single page view. I'll probably do something like Google Contributor to offer ad-free versions, but I doubt that will be more than an error bar in revenue.
So how do you suggest I actually manage to make my potential website sustainable? Do I simply hope that people like you are a small enough minority that it's profitable?
They accept money for their time taken to go through the process of checking that you're actually compliant with their "acceptable ads policy". They don't actually just allow you to pay money to be put on a list of unblocked stuff. Your ads still have to meet the criteria of "acceptable". Personally, I'm not really that much against it. I don't mind some ads, as long as they are not animated/noisy/misleading/inappropriate/fills-the-entire-screen. Web sites need money to survive, and ads are a decent way for obtaining money. Ad Block probably has to do a fair amount of work to run, and to ensure that advertisers stay compliant. I would rather they charge the advertisers than me for the money they need to operate. If they get enough people using their product, then they basically hold the keys, and can make advertisers behave, and make some money in the process.
So they describe their filter list as a product of voluntary labour. If they're really spending the money on evaluating Google's ads then why don't they mention that? And if it is just volunteer labour then where does the money go?
They accept money for their time taken to go through the process of checking that you're actually compliant with their "acceptable ads policy". They don't actually just allow you to pay money to be put on a list of unblocked stuff. Your ads still have to meet the criteria of "acceptable". Personally, I'm not really that much against it. I don't mind some ads, as long as they are not animated/noisy/misleading/inappropriate/fills-the-entire-screen. Web sites need money to survive, and ads are a decent way for obtaining money. Ad Block probably has to do a fair amount of work to run, and to ensure that advertisers stay compliant. I would rather they charge the advertisers than me for the money they need to operate. If they get enough people using their product, then they basically hold the keys, and can make advertisers behave, and make some money in the process.
"Companies can request their ads to be unblocked as long as they comply with AdBlock's "acceptable ads" policy. Large companies pay a fee for the service."
How is this news? Seriously, how?
A product that purports to block ads accepts money to show you ads.
I'm sure some people have heard of it before but it's most definitely newsworthy.
No, I can't imagine that. In particular, I can't imagine paywalling my own site (or putting ads on it). I remember the days before advertising was big on the web, when content was provided by universities and hobbyists. Comparing the web now with the web then, I suspect that the death of online advertising would harm clickbait sites more than ones with valuable content.
So without advertising or some form of payments say goodbye to Google, Facebook, Twitter, online newspapers, and Slashdot.
I'm not particularly interested in the 'sustainability' of the Internet. Google and a couple of other companies that have more money than the Catholic Church can worry about that. I'm interested in my privacy and peace of mind.
What about the smaller companies who can't afford to pay off AdBlock Plus? I'd prefer Google and those couple other companies to have real competition in the form of small startups who run unintrusive ads.
Just over four months ago, I updated my Debian testing workstation. To keep a long story short, systemd was installed, and my workstation basically got trashed. It no longer booted properly, and none of my attempts to fix it worked. I used a livecd to perform one final backup.
I proceeded to install FreeBSD 10. In hindsight, I wish I had done this years ago. FreeBSD has worked almost perfectly for me.
Long story short.
Using an unstable distro designed for testing you did a update, most likely a major version update from Wheezy to Jessie. Among the many, many changes was systemd. And because you heard a lot about systemd when this particular update failed it was clearly the fault of systemd.
Therefore Debian and systemd are irredeemably broken and you switched operating systems.
Would you have had the same reaction if systemd wasn't in the upgrade? What if there was a bug in some other critical startup process that caused the upgrade to fail? Would you still have switched?
I share the belief that laws should be updated to reflect ridesharing services, but that's not the source of the issue.
A common complaint about the current application of laws is that large corporations willfully and deliberately violate the law because they know the consequences of doing so are so mild. Uber is more startup than Goldman Sachs but they are an even more blatant example of this phenomena. Uber's current strategy is to establish a dominant first-moving position in as many markets as possible, they are doing this by being in open defiance to the law and this grants them a distinct advantage over competitors who respect the law.
The claim that companies shouldn't break the law (even outdated laws) as a business strategy is anything but contrived, it is a foundation of civil society.
The arguments against are that 1) it's illegal, and 2) Uber drivers don't have enough (or the right kind of) insurance.
The first argument seems contrived. Up here in NH the Portsmouth taxi commission decided that Uber is a better solution, then voted to disband. (As the Free State project points out, "where else would this happen?"
Why is the illegality argument contrived? Yes some municipalities have changed their laws to allow it, that doesn't change the fact that they're basing their expansion around a practise of flagrantly violating the law everywhere else.
Everyone I know equates a good diet with being healthy.
A more important aspect is the activity level and physical exercise.
When I was a state champion level gymnast my health was amazing. I had six pack abs at the age of eleven because I worked out and trained 20 hours a week.
During that time I ate mcdonalds every day. I ate fries at school. Milkshakes, candy bars. Any source of calories I could get.
And my health was phenomenal.
Everyone (but women especially for some reason) seems to think that a 'healthy' diet is the answer when what they really need is to work more. I'm not saying healthy eating is bad. But if you don't use your body it will never truly be your tool and always be something your working against rather than working for you.
Use your body or it will atrophy in every way.
You have it backwards.
Exercise is best for fitness, but when it comes to being thin diet is far more important than exercise.
Of course genetics and a youthful metabolism trump all, assuming your recollection is accurate I'm guessing that was the real source of your 6-pack. An older person with less fortunate genes might find themselves diabetic following your advice.
That's not to speak against exercise, it's absolutely awesome, but it doesn't have a lot to do with keeping you thin.
I'd say Netflix since it's only $8, but I don't know where TPB's traffic is coming from. There are a lot of countries that have poor Netflix availability(they have Netflix, but certain movies don't show up).
Even still, I can't blame people for not wanting to buy movies. You spend $9.50 per ticket($19 with your date)($11 for 3D, $22 with date) to see it in theatres, and then they want you to spend $20-25 more to get the DVD or BD. It was one thing that back in the day you'd spend $10 on tickets(or less), and the VHS/DVD would cost $20-30, and I could justify that. I only want to see the movie once, so I'll pay a fraction of the cost of buying it outright to see it in theatres. Now, watching it once in theatres is equivalent to buying the BD with extra features. Fuck everything about that. I stopped justifying doing both(going to theatres and buying the disc) a long time ago, and now I have a hard time justifying either. If I only want to watch it once, I shouldn't have to pay the full price of the discs in stores. And it's absurd to buy a BD, watch it once, and return it, using Wal-Mart as a pseudo-rental outlet.
Sorry for the rant, this got away from me. Point being: I think this is a sign that the movie industry needs to re-evaluate its pricing and how it reaches consumers.
Only a subset of movies show up on Netflix, and they typically take a while to get there.
I would be curious to see the relationship of torrent popularity and availability on Netflix. Do movies and TV shows see a big drop in torrenting when they become available on Netflix?
they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?
Control. I guess I need to state the obvious, that an unarmed population is easier to control than an armed one. Weapons are just another form of power like knowledge or freedom.
Only for the crudest forms of control.
But aside from high profile assassinations an individual with a gun is pretty ineffectual. It does however make it easier for governments to justify all other sorts of restrictions. Police are going to maintain their monopoly on force, police militarization and police brutality are both consequences of police escalating against a heavily armed population.
And if things ever really get bad and you need a revolution the thing that really scares governments isn't an armed rebellion (a military can crush that), it's people protesting in the streets. All your guns will do is save the government the bother of hiring Agent Provocateurs.
'gas physicists', Neil deGrasse Tyson. In a Jan 26th tweet he states, "For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air."
Nonsense, they're just following the most basic of mathmatical formulas:
Money > Ethics
Put another way: Ethics = Brain(Money)
There are rational arguments in favour of the NSA's spying, it's in the Mathematicians' interest to adopt those arguments.
Given the choice between a) giving up a ton of money and feeling morally sound, b) accepting a ton of money and feeling morally compromised, or c) accepting a ton of money and feeling morally sound, most people want to choose c, and since it's a lot easier to change ethics than sources of money the morality is the part that's going to adapt.
Hell, I'm from Alberta, oil sands central. A massive portion of our economy comes from oil. Even though I believe in global warming and my work only has a secondary connection to oil & gas there's still a part of me looking for reasons to justify our continued extraction. I have no doubt Mathematicians are playing with similar rationalizations.
It just goes to prove no one is irreplaceable; not even Jobs.
Not necessarily.
Jobs' brilliance wasn't in his management, it was in his design sense, personal charisma, and knowing when to throw his company behind developing and pushing a new product (OS X, iPod, iTunes, Tablets).
Tim Cook doesn't have the same epic level of charisma but that could change, and he clearly hasn't screwed up the management part, but we've yet to see his signature on the design and product fronts. I think you can call Apple Pay and the iWatch products of the Tim Cook era so their success will be the first real test of whether he can keep the Apple innovation machine turning.
I have yet to have one such buffer overflow bug in my code.
That you know of. Besides, I'm sure you've had many that you've caught during the standard code -> compile -> run -> segfault -> debug cycle, but the more subtle ones are harder to trigger.
It's the most basic rule to check for buffer boundaries that even beginner programmer learns it quickly.
Depending on what the code is doing and what kind of legacy cruft you're dealing with it's not always trivial.
There must be agencies seeding these projects, commercial and open source, with toxic contributors injected there to deliberately contaminate the code with such bugs. The further fact that one never sees responsible persons identified, removed and blacklisted suggests that contamination is top down.
More likely the other devs feel like it's bad form to drag the names of past contributors through the mud in public. Particularly when the reviewers missed the bug as well.
Traditional breeding yields crops with numerous unwanted and unidentified genes while genetic engineering only brings in the targeted genes. Genetic engineering does however allow for the genes to come from extremely dissimilar sources though the designs prefer to avoid such extreme options when they can. As to viruses, all bets are off since we already know that viruses shuffle genes from all kinds of species whenever they damn well want to because they are viruses and don't give a damn. It's amazing how much horizontal gene transfer they are finding in nature. By the way, in case you weren't aware, they've found a lot of dna in humans that they believe was put there by viruses.
I was aware but as the old saying goes: To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.
The same applies to traditional breeding vs GMOs. Genetic modification is a much more powerful tool than the various sources of random mutation. As such we're going to create new classes of risks that we don't understand yet. We don't exactly have the healthiest environment right now and farms aren't sealed labs, before we inject massive numbers of plants with several novel and powerful traits into an ecosystem we need to understand what the effects of those actions are.
Slashdot Mirror
So confounders may mean the study is useless (ie women CEOs more common in high revenue industries), but if it performance gap does exist there are some useful narratives.
For all the groups, women, homosexuals, blacks, etc, it is known that they are under-represented as CEOs and that they experience some level of employment discrimination (or at least disadvantage).
If black or gay CEOs underperform it may be the case that there is a shortage of talent occurring earlier in the corporate ladder. Fixing that requires an earlier intervention, better education policies or better talent development in the organization.
Women CEOs overperforming suggests that the talent is available but it isn't being used. In this case the fix is to simply use more of the talent that's available.
Of course an infographic isn't exactly a publication in Nature. There's a decent shot the data doesn't suggest what they think it suggests.
Who hasn't seen some of these joggers who do it obsessively?
I've seen a bunch of people who look skinny and emaciated from being jogging freaks. At a certain point you look like you're ill -- and quite disturbingly so.
Hell, back when I used to go to the gym there used to be one lady on the treadmill ... she stayed on it for hours, and essentially looked terrible to the point it looked like she could probably use some therapy ... she looked anorexic.
I find people who do nothing but weight lift obsessively look ridiculous.
The appearance problem you perceive isn't too much running, it's running in absence of strength training. And I'm not sure why she needs therapy if she enjoys it and it isn't causing harm.
That's not healthy, that's obsessive.
Outside of this very preliminary study what's your evidence for that? They only look ill because you're used to a certain distribution of body fat, if they don't have that distribution it strikes you as odd.
Should be the headline for about 66%* of media science reporting.
* Results of a vigorous study of glancing at three headlines in my Google News Science section.
Sorry, as long as ad companies occasionally accept ads by malware companies, I'll keep running ad blocking software.
[John]
I'm considering starting a website, I actually think it would be very useful, and I have every intention of making it respect users privacy as much as possible and keeping the advertising as minimal, ethical, and unobtrusive as possible.
It will cost significant money to run, it will cost money every single page view. I'll probably do something like Google Contributor to offer ad-free versions, but I doubt that will be more than an error bar in revenue.
So how do you suggest I actually manage to make my potential website sustainable? Do I simply hope that people like you are a small enough minority that it's profitable?
They accept money for their time taken to go through the process of checking that you're actually compliant with their "acceptable ads policy". They don't actually just allow you to pay money to be put on a list of unblocked stuff. Your ads still have to meet the criteria of "acceptable". Personally, I'm not really that much against it. I don't mind some ads, as long as they are not animated/noisy/misleading/inappropriate/fills-the-entire-screen. Web sites need money to survive, and ads are a decent way for obtaining money. Ad Block probably has to do a fair amount of work to run, and to ensure that advertisers stay compliant. I would rather they charge the advertisers than me for the money they need to operate. If they get enough people using their product, then they basically hold the keys, and can make advertisers behave, and make some money in the process.
They don't seem to agree with your justification, according to them "Adblock Plus is only as good as its filters. The elements Adblock Plus blocks by default are defined in filter lists which are maintained by voluntary contributors. By constantly updating them, this community ensures that Adblock Plus blocks all annoying ads on every website."
So they describe their filter list as a product of voluntary labour. If they're really spending the money on evaluating Google's ads then why don't they mention that? And if it is just volunteer labour then where does the money go?
They accept money for their time taken to go through the process of checking that you're actually compliant with their "acceptable ads policy". They don't actually just allow you to pay money to be put on a list of unblocked stuff. Your ads still have to meet the criteria of "acceptable". Personally, I'm not really that much against it. I don't mind some ads, as long as they are not animated/noisy/misleading/inappropriate/fills-the-entire-screen. Web sites need money to survive, and ads are a decent way for obtaining money. Ad Block probably has to do a fair amount of work to run, and to ensure that advertisers stay compliant. I would rather they charge the advertisers than me for the money they need to operate. If they get enough people using their product, then they basically hold the keys, and can make advertisers behave, and make some money in the process.
If this practice is so fair and just then why don't they mention it? If they're trying to make some money then why do they ask for donations while saying "nobody profits directly from it[ad blocking]".
According to both you and their site misleading ads are unacceptable. How is this undisclosed source of revenue from major advertisers not misleading?
It's extraordinarily well known that they accept unobtrusive ads - go to their web page, and it's literally bullet point #2 under their heading
That's not the issue. The problem is they're only accepting unobtrusive ads (at least from big companies) when they get paid.
That's a very different ethical practice than just white-listing unobtrusive ads.
"Companies can request their ads to be unblocked as long as they comply with AdBlock's "acceptable ads" policy. Large companies pay a fee for the service."
How is this news? Seriously, how?
A product that purports to block ads accepts money to show you ads.
I'm sure some people have heard of it before but it's most definitely newsworthy.
No, I can't imagine that. In particular, I can't imagine paywalling my own site (or putting ads on it). I remember the days before advertising was big on the web, when content was provided by universities and hobbyists. Comparing the web now with the web then, I suspect that the death of online advertising would harm clickbait sites more than ones with valuable content.
So without advertising or some form of payments say goodbye to Google, Facebook, Twitter, online newspapers, and Slashdot.
You don't use any of those sites do you?
I'm not particularly interested in the 'sustainability' of the Internet. Google and a couple of other companies that have more money than the Catholic Church can worry about that. I'm interested in my privacy and peace of mind.
What about the smaller companies who can't afford to pay off AdBlock Plus? I'd prefer Google and those couple other companies to have real competition in the form of small startups who run unintrusive ads.
Just over four months ago, I updated my Debian testing workstation. To keep a long story short, systemd was installed, and my workstation basically got trashed. It no longer booted properly, and none of my attempts to fix it worked. I used a livecd to perform one final backup.
I proceeded to install FreeBSD 10. In hindsight, I wish I had done this years ago. FreeBSD has worked almost perfectly for me.
Long story short.
Using an unstable distro designed for testing you did a update, most likely a major version update from Wheezy to Jessie. Among the many, many changes was systemd. And because you heard a lot about systemd when this particular update failed it was clearly the fault of systemd.
Therefore Debian and systemd are irredeemably broken and you switched operating systems.
Would you have had the same reaction if systemd wasn't in the upgrade? What if there was a bug in some other critical startup process that caused the upgrade to fail? Would you still have switched?
I share the belief that laws should be updated to reflect ridesharing services, but that's not the source of the issue.
A common complaint about the current application of laws is that large corporations willfully and deliberately violate the law because they know the consequences of doing so are so mild. Uber is more startup than Goldman Sachs but they are an even more blatant example of this phenomena. Uber's current strategy is to establish a dominant first-moving position in as many markets as possible, they are doing this by being in open defiance to the law and this grants them a distinct advantage over competitors who respect the law.
The claim that companies shouldn't break the law (even outdated laws) as a business strategy is anything but contrived, it is a foundation of civil society.
The arguments against are that 1) it's illegal, and 2) Uber drivers don't have enough (or the right kind of) insurance.
The first argument seems contrived. Up here in NH the Portsmouth taxi commission decided that Uber is a better solution, then voted to disband. (As the Free State project points out, "where else would this happen?"
Why is the illegality argument contrived? Yes some municipalities have changed their laws to allow it, that doesn't change the fact that they're basing their expansion around a practise of flagrantly violating the law everywhere else.
Everyone I know equates a good diet with being healthy.
A more important aspect is the activity level and physical exercise.
When I was a state champion level gymnast my health was amazing. I had six pack abs at the age of eleven because I worked out and trained 20 hours a week.
During that time I ate mcdonalds every day. I ate fries at school. Milkshakes, candy bars. Any source of calories I could get.
And my health was phenomenal.
Everyone (but women especially for some reason) seems to think that a 'healthy' diet is the answer when what they really need is to work more. I'm not saying healthy eating is bad. But if you don't use your body it will never truly be your tool and always be something your working against rather than working for you.
Use your body or it will atrophy in every way.
You have it backwards.
Exercise is best for fitness, but when it comes to being thin diet is far more important than exercise.
Of course genetics and a youthful metabolism trump all, assuming your recollection is accurate I'm guessing that was the real source of your 6-pack. An older person with less fortunate genes might find themselves diabetic following your advice.
That's not to speak against exercise, it's absolutely awesome, but it doesn't have a lot to do with keeping you thin.
But it's a very popular geeky cartoon!!
Surely that has to count for a PhD in nutrition and a couple review papers published in Nature?
Am I the only having trouble figuring out if this post is satire?
I'd say Netflix since it's only $8, but I don't know where TPB's traffic is coming from. There are a lot of countries that have poor Netflix availability(they have Netflix, but certain movies don't show up).
Even still, I can't blame people for not wanting to buy movies. You spend $9.50 per ticket($19 with your date)($11 for 3D, $22 with date) to see it in theatres, and then they want you to spend $20-25 more to get the DVD or BD. It was one thing that back in the day you'd spend $10 on tickets(or less), and the VHS/DVD would cost $20-30, and I could justify that. I only want to see the movie once, so I'll pay a fraction of the cost of buying it outright to see it in theatres. Now, watching it once in theatres is equivalent to buying the BD with extra features. Fuck everything about that. I stopped justifying doing both(going to theatres and buying the disc) a long time ago, and now I have a hard time justifying either. If I only want to watch it once, I shouldn't have to pay the full price of the discs in stores. And it's absurd to buy a BD, watch it once, and return it, using Wal-Mart as a pseudo-rental outlet.
Sorry for the rant, this got away from me. Point being: I think this is a sign that the movie industry needs to re-evaluate its pricing and how it reaches consumers.
Only a subset of movies show up on Netflix, and they typically take a while to get there.
I would be curious to see the relationship of torrent popularity and availability on Netflix. Do movies and TV shows see a big drop in torrenting when they become available on Netflix?
they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?
Control. I guess I need to state the obvious, that an unarmed population is easier to control than an armed one. Weapons are just another form of power like knowledge or freedom.
Only for the crudest forms of control.
But aside from high profile assassinations an individual with a gun is pretty ineffectual. It does however make it easier for governments to justify all other sorts of restrictions. Police are going to maintain their monopoly on force, police militarization and police brutality are both consequences of police escalating against a heavily armed population.
And if things ever really get bad and you need a revolution the thing that really scares governments isn't an armed rebellion (a military can crush that), it's people protesting in the streets. All your guns will do is save the government the bother of hiring Agent Provocateurs.
'gas physicists', Neil deGrasse Tyson. In a Jan 26th tweet he states, "For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air."
Full article here: http://uproxx.com/sports/2015/...
Celsius or Fahrenheit? I presume Fahrenheit as he's an American tweeting to fellow Americans, but he's also a scientist so maybe Celsius.
125 Fahrenheit would be possible, but implausible.
125 Celsius would be absolutely ridiculous.
"Most X Support Y" is such a lame argument for doing anything.
Most people here would like to kick your ass but that doesn't mean we should.
Most drivers on the freeway would like to speed but that doesn't mean the should.
Most kids support not brushing their teeth but that doesn't mean they should skip it.
Most people would like a double-wopper-hopper burger with extra fries but that doesn't mean they should eat it never mind every day.
Most people supporting something is a lame argument for anything.
Stop rationalizing and get rational.
Most people wanting to speed means most people think getting somewhere faster is a good thing.
Most people wanting a burger means most people think burgers are tasty.
And most people supporting government action on climate change means most people think climate change is a real problem.
So despite your dismissal this poll (if accurate) is important.
It shifts the question from "Is Climate Change a problem?" to "What is the appropriate response to this problem?"
Now you can still argue that "nothing" is the appropriate response to the problem, but you've lost the argument claiming the problem doesn't exist.
Nonsense, they're just following the most basic of mathmatical formulas:
Money > Ethics
Put another way:
Ethics = Brain(Money)
There are rational arguments in favour of the NSA's spying, it's in the Mathematicians' interest to adopt those arguments.
Given the choice between a) giving up a ton of money and feeling morally sound, b) accepting a ton of money and feeling morally compromised, or c) accepting a ton of money and feeling morally sound, most people want to choose c, and since it's a lot easier to change ethics than sources of money the morality is the part that's going to adapt.
Hell, I'm from Alberta, oil sands central. A massive portion of our economy comes from oil. Even though I believe in global warming and my work only has a secondary connection to oil & gas there's still a part of me looking for reasons to justify our continued extraction. I have no doubt Mathematicians are playing with similar rationalizations.
It just goes to prove no one is irreplaceable; not even Jobs.
Not necessarily.
Jobs' brilliance wasn't in his management, it was in his design sense, personal charisma, and knowing when to throw his company behind developing and pushing a new product (OS X, iPod, iTunes, Tablets).
Tim Cook doesn't have the same epic level of charisma but that could change, and he clearly hasn't screwed up the management part, but we've yet to see his signature on the design and product fronts. I think you can call Apple Pay and the iWatch products of the Tim Cook era so their success will be the first real test of whether he can keep the Apple innovation machine turning.
I have yet to have one such buffer overflow bug in my code.
That you know of. Besides, I'm sure you've had many that you've caught during the standard code -> compile -> run -> segfault -> debug cycle, but the more subtle ones are harder to trigger.
It's the most basic rule to check for buffer boundaries that even beginner programmer learns it quickly.
Depending on what the code is doing and what kind of legacy cruft you're dealing with it's not always trivial.
There must be agencies seeding these projects, commercial and open source, with toxic contributors injected there to deliberately contaminate the code with such bugs. The further fact that one never sees responsible persons identified, removed and blacklisted suggests that contamination is top down.
More likely the other devs feel like it's bad form to drag the names of past contributors through the mud in public. Particularly when the reviewers missed the bug as well.
According to your logic, officials should shut the city down if there is even a tiny chance of a snowstorm.
I'm pretty sure it was implied that P(snowstorm) is high enough to make the cost/benefit rational.
Unless of course you think his comment would be better off at 4 times the length, detailing all of the obvious common sense assumptions he made.
Traditional breeding yields crops with numerous unwanted and unidentified genes while genetic engineering only brings in the targeted genes.
Genetic engineering does however allow for the genes to come from extremely dissimilar sources though the designs prefer to avoid such extreme options when they can. As to viruses, all bets are off since we already know that viruses shuffle genes from all kinds of species whenever they damn well want to because they are viruses and don't give a damn. It's amazing how much horizontal gene transfer they are finding in nature.
By the way, in case you weren't aware, they've found a lot of dna in humans that they believe was put there by viruses.
I was aware but as the old saying goes:
To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.
The same applies to traditional breeding vs GMOs. Genetic modification is a much more powerful tool than the various sources of random mutation. As such we're going to create new classes of risks that we don't understand yet. We don't exactly have the healthiest environment right now and farms aren't sealed labs, before we inject massive numbers of plants with several novel and powerful traits into an ecosystem we need to understand what the effects of those actions are.