I then compare that chance against the chance of a disastrous side-effect from the vaccine. It is almost certainly going to be significantly less probable that the child will get the disease than that he will have a disastrous side-effect.
Yup, and that calculus becomes less effective ever time someone makes it, like the villager who wants to "cheat" the commons by sneaking in one more cow than he's allowed to. You end up needing to perform a differential or difference equation to do the risk assessment, and that is about the level of mathematics where human instinct and intuition stop working very well, in general.
And, as I keep pointing out whenever I hear this "bundling is great when Apple does it" argument: the whole point is I don't want half of the crap that a mac makes me pay for, anyways.
...something Windows and, for the most part, Mac users can't rely on.
Yes, if you have a single desktop (because in your mind it's still 1992 or something), GIMP is a horrible interface. If you have an actual windowing system, it's a whole lot better than some MDI monstrosity.
Remember: the multi-document interface was developed to make up for the window management capabilities Windows and Mac lacked. If your leg is broken, a crutch can be a key to mobility; that doesn't mean the crutch itself is a good.
If your packets are so damn "personal", why are you routing them unencrypted through your employer's network?
Want to keep him from reading your gmail? There's a reason https was invented.
But they tend to have a point.
They are right, ultimately, that the transport level is the "correct" level for security. WEP and WPA are both, ultimately, kind of pointless in that a determined attacker will be able to compromise them. It's just that WPA prevents a large class of casual attacks that WEP doesn't.
In theory, yes, someone concerned about secure network traffic will secure that traffic at the transport level -- the problem is that if you don't control both sides of the transaction, transport-layer security is often not available (eg, https://slashdot.org/ redirects to http://slashdot.org/
But that doesn't mean Red Hat could take something I received under GPLv2 and am distributing under GPLv2 and force me to distribute under GPLv3. The "or later" is just a convenience which means that if we both like GPLv3 we can upgrade the license; it doesn't take away my rights under GPLv2
There's clearly stuff he's not coming clean about, but for all I know it could be running drugs for the Russian mob, which would be a reason not to tell the cops about the car, and to check on it, and to scrub it and remove the passenger seat.
Seriously, I used to buy that argument until I stopped wasting time with major-studio movies and major-label music. I haven't looked back. If that whole alleged "industry" were to disappear tomorrow I wouldn't miss it for a second, and I'd probably have an even wider array of independent local (and non-local) filmmakers and musicians to enjoy.
What's the big bad scary secret these middlemen-industries don't want you to know? They aren't necessary.
They aren't really that scared you're going to copy Pirates of the Carribean. I mean, sure, they would rather you not. But that's not what's keeping them up at night. What is scaring them is that without locked-down video and music playing hardware devices, anybody can make music or a movie and anybody can watch and listen to them. They've built their fortunes by standing in between artists and people who want art. And the technology just doesn't leave much of a place for them anymore.
I've got to side with Osu-Neko above. The Web was much easier to use 10-12 years ago. Then marketing people got this burr up their ass about being able to control page layout like they could in print or video. It was beyond idiotic. You can't. You can try, and you can spend millions trying and end up eating the "extra" profit you imagine you'll make from a site that looks like a magazine or tv show, but ultimately you'll fail.
This has had the unintended (I assume) consequence of limiting Web page rendering to large standalone browser applications running on personal computers, when it is not intended to be limited to that. The reason nobody uses phones, or ttys, or clocks, or blah blah blah to read web pages is that these same marketing "geniuses" have been breaking the whole point of HTML in order to render exactly the way they want something to look on one particular type of standalone browser software on a personal computer.
In fairness, I like CSS: it's a good idea in principle. I haven't used a font tag or a table for element placement in years. But I also know what HTML is and what it's for: it's a way for me to present text (I stress text) along with some suggestions (I stress suggestions) as to how the client might best render them. I still do almost all placement by textual order (if I do placement by CSS, the order still has to be sensible). The only comments I get are, "wow, this site loads really fast".
...assume you don't have RAID
Or, more to the point, they assume that if you do have RAID you don't want an "easy" installer. That does suck, though, and hopefully you can file a bug report about it.
Then again, installing Windows on a RAID device can be a real pain, too. RAID is not easy...
The real crippling weakness of Windows is that, ironically, it's window manager is really really bad. Yes, I know there are tweaks and add-ons that render it as capable as something like metacity or gnustep (to give two basic examples), but it's still so stuck-in-1995 that I think it's not worth salvaging.
Why are you switching between applications, for instance, rather than between desktop contexts? Shouldn't your desktop manager allow you to switch between virtual desktops? Or (God forbid), rotate a semitransparent cube to the face that has the appropriate set of applications on it with a mouse gesture (people ooh and ah when I show them Beryl's wobbly effect, but the real reason it's useful is that cube)? Why should all your windows be in one visual space?
I do believe Firefox is being distributed that way, and it seems to work for them. From their site, you download one.tar.gz file, extract it anywhere on your system, and bingo. The package includes all the binary libraries that it requires, and I've never seen dependency problems arising from it.
Negative! Not only does firefox have unincluded requirements, it has obsolete unincluded requirements, specifically, libpangoxft which has been deprecated for like 3 minor versions of Gnome now. The latest Gnome versions offer compat libs for pangoxft for just this situation, but you have to bring pango, atk, and IDL if you want mozilla to run (to say nothing of X11).
Well, it depends on the scenario; we use Ocaml and LISP and you better believe there's a lot of recursion because that's what the compilers optimize for.
Academics just love recursion because it maps neatly to mathematical induction and hence makes algorithm correctness more easily provable.
Yeah, so do working programmers who like to be able to prove things about their own code...
From what I can tell, "Linux configuration" just means that the "Dell Utility Partition" is marked bootable and the rest of the primary hard drive is set to ID 0x83, which is pointless since you're going to partition a swap device anyways (if you're not a moron).
Come on, seriously: a portable device establishing system authentication policy after system boot? If the whole thing talks to something like LDAP, fine (but whose directory? and under what circumstances?), but then there's no need for the device except as a drive. If it doesn't talk to something like LDAP it's essentially by definition insecure.
Mac fanboy says: "UNIX could have implemented it but didn't bother"
UNIX user says: "UNIX could have implemented but didn't because it's a stupid idea."
So where does it end, who does not have an upstream connection that needs to be paid for?
Essentially, anyone who plugs straight into an IXP like MAE-East, PAIX, or EIX. That is to say, divisions of Verizon, AT&T, Switch & Data, etc (I stress that it's just divisions within those, not the companies as a whole; Verizon residential DSL still needs an upstream to get to the IPX, and that upstream may or may not be Verizon). At that point, you're practically (even if not nominally) peering with the rest, and you have to work out peering agreements with all the others. That's where this charge needs to be negotiated and borne (and has been, for 3 decades now or so).
he Greeks already knew the world was round, at least some had deduced that the solar system was centered on the sun, and there was a basic understanding that the planets were closer than the stars, but that they were all a gigantic distance away.
I don't see why you call that a "possibility", since the Greeks were perfectly aware the Earth was round (they even knew its size), a few had speculated that it moved around the sun, and several suggested that the "fixed" stars were not in fact fixed.
This is a completely off-topic question, but I've been wondering it for a while. Why is our telephone answering protocol like this?
Receiving station picks up: "This is $RECIPIENT"
Calling station responds: "Hi $RECIPIENT, this is $SENDER, calling for $TARGET"
I seem to recall Bell's suggested protocol was:
Receiving station picks up: "Ahoy" (or some non-identifying equivalent of ACK)
Sending station: "This is $SENDER, calling for $TARGET"
That makes more sense to me. Shouldn't the initiating station identify itself first? When people simply answer their own phones without a defined protocol, they tend to just say "hello" (or some equivalent of "ahoy", ACK, or whatever -- a verbal acknowledgment that the connection is established) and wait for the calling station to identify itself. But business phone calls all seem to go the other way. Is it just to limit confusion in the case of misdials?
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, and that calculus becomes less effective ever time someone makes it, like the villager who wants to "cheat" the commons by sneaking in one more cow than he's allowed to. You end up needing to perform a differential or difference equation to do the risk assessment, and that is about the level of mathematics where human instinct and intuition stop working very well, in general.
If TFA is right, the $399 includes Leopard.
And, as I keep pointing out whenever I hear this "bundling is great when Apple does it" argument: the whole point is I don't want half of the crap that a mac makes me pay for, anyways.
You have a main window with the primary menus, inside which your other windows live.
Mac is similar, although the main window is the entire desktop.
Then it's your application programmers that need to think about HI questions.
ie, the undergrads I see to day are fully aware that wiki is 85% BS. They've also gone on to assume most other sources are 85% BS.
...something Windows and, for the most part, Mac users can't rely on.
Yes, if you have a single desktop (because in your mind it's still 1992 or something), GIMP is a horrible interface. If you have an actual windowing system, it's a whole lot better than some MDI monstrosity.
Remember: the multi-document interface was developed to make up for the window management capabilities Windows and Mac lacked. If your leg is broken, a crutch can be a key to mobility; that doesn't mean the crutch itself is a good.
If your packets are so damn "personal", why are you routing them unencrypted through your employer's network? Want to keep him from reading your gmail? There's a reason https was invented.
Or at least admins have. If you send data over someone's network, from a trust calculus standpoint you should assume he or she reads it.
Wow, if only there were secure, free, and easy to install encryption suites that worked with many popular email clients!
But they tend to have a point. They are right, ultimately, that the transport level is the "correct" level for security. WEP and WPA are both, ultimately, kind of pointless in that a determined attacker will be able to compromise them. It's just that WPA prevents a large class of casual attacks that WEP doesn't. In theory, yes, someone concerned about secure network traffic will secure that traffic at the transport level -- the problem is that if you don't control both sides of the transaction, transport-layer security is often not available (eg, https://slashdot.org/ redirects to http://slashdot.org/
The shellcode is all that's x86 specific; if you want to h4x0rz a different architecture you'll need to write your own shellcode.
But that doesn't mean Red Hat could take something I received under GPLv2 and am distributing under GPLv2 and force me to distribute under GPLv3. The "or later" is just a convenience which means that if we both like GPLv3 we can upgrade the license; it doesn't take away my rights under GPLv2
There's clearly stuff he's not coming clean about, but for all I know it could be running drugs for the Russian mob, which would be a reason not to tell the cops about the car, and to check on it, and to scrub it and remove the passenger seat.
Seriously, I used to buy that argument until I stopped wasting time with major-studio movies and major-label music. I haven't looked back. If that whole alleged "industry" were to disappear tomorrow I wouldn't miss it for a second, and I'd probably have an even wider array of independent local (and non-local) filmmakers and musicians to enjoy.
What's the big bad scary secret these middlemen-industries don't want you to know? They aren't necessary.
They aren't really that scared you're going to copy Pirates of the Carribean. I mean, sure, they would rather you not. But that's not what's keeping them up at night. What is scaring them is that without locked-down video and music playing hardware devices, anybody can make music or a movie and anybody can watch and listen to them. They've built their fortunes by standing in between artists and people who want art. And the technology just doesn't leave much of a place for them anymore.
I've got to side with Osu-Neko above. The Web was much easier to use 10-12 years ago. Then marketing people got this burr up their ass about being able to control page layout like they could in print or video. It was beyond idiotic. You can't. You can try, and you can spend millions trying and end up eating the "extra" profit you imagine you'll make from a site that looks like a magazine or tv show, but ultimately you'll fail.
This has had the unintended (I assume) consequence of limiting Web page rendering to large standalone browser applications running on personal computers, when it is not intended to be limited to that. The reason nobody uses phones, or ttys, or clocks, or blah blah blah to read web pages is that these same marketing "geniuses" have been breaking the whole point of HTML in order to render exactly the way they want something to look on one particular type of standalone browser software on a personal computer.
In fairness, I like CSS: it's a good idea in principle. I haven't used a font tag or a table for element placement in years. But I also know what HTML is and what it's for: it's a way for me to present text (I stress text) along with some suggestions (I stress suggestions) as to how the client might best render them. I still do almost all placement by textual order (if I do placement by CSS, the order still has to be sensible). The only comments I get are, "wow, this site loads really fast".
...assume you don't have RAID Or, more to the point, they assume that if you do have RAID you don't want an "easy" installer. That does suck, though, and hopefully you can file a bug report about it. Then again, installing Windows on a RAID device can be a real pain, too. RAID is not easy...
The real crippling weakness of Windows is that, ironically, it's window manager is really really bad. Yes, I know there are tweaks and add-ons that render it as capable as something like metacity or gnustep (to give two basic examples), but it's still so stuck-in-1995 that I think it's not worth salvaging.
Why are you switching between applications, for instance, rather than between desktop contexts? Shouldn't your desktop manager allow you to switch between virtual desktops? Or (God forbid), rotate a semitransparent cube to the face that has the appropriate set of applications on it with a mouse gesture (people ooh and ah when I show them Beryl's wobbly effect, but the real reason it's useful is that cube)? Why should all your windows be in one visual space?
Negative! Not only does firefox have unincluded requirements, it has obsolete unincluded requirements, specifically, libpangoxft which has been deprecated for like 3 minor versions of Gnome now. The latest Gnome versions offer compat libs for pangoxft for just this situation, but you have to bring pango, atk, and IDL if you want mozilla to run (to say nothing of X11).
But his point still stands about loading it in the first place. Last I checked, NTFS still fragments, and read() can still block
Well, it depends on the scenario; we use Ocaml and LISP and you better believe there's a lot of recursion because that's what the compilers optimize for.
Yeah, so do working programmers who like to be able to prove things about their own code...
From what I can tell, "Linux configuration" just means that the "Dell Utility Partition" is marked bootable and the rest of the primary hard drive is set to ID 0x83, which is pointless since you're going to partition a swap device anyways (if you're not a moron).
The risk is what's being touted as the "feature".
Come on, seriously: a portable device establishing system authentication policy after system boot? If the whole thing talks to something like LDAP, fine (but whose directory? and under what circumstances?), but then there's no need for the device except as a drive. If it doesn't talk to something like LDAP it's essentially by definition insecure.
It's yet another case of
Mac fanboy says: "UNIX could have implemented it but didn't bother"
UNIX user says: "UNIX could have implemented but didn't because it's a stupid idea."
I don't see why you call that a "possibility", since the Greeks were perfectly aware the Earth was round (they even knew its size), a few had speculated that it moved around the sun, and several suggested that the "fixed" stars were not in fact fixed.
This is a completely off-topic question, but I've been wondering it for a while. Why is our telephone answering protocol like this?
I seem to recall Bell's suggested protocol was:
That makes more sense to me. Shouldn't the initiating station identify itself first? When people simply answer their own phones without a defined protocol, they tend to just say "hello" (or some equivalent of "ahoy", ACK, or whatever -- a verbal acknowledgment that the connection is established) and wait for the calling station to identify itself. But business phone calls all seem to go the other way. Is it just to limit confusion in the case of misdials?