On my "live work station", I'll use whatever my "live work station providers" (read "employers") provide. If I'm responsible in my use of it, any mishaps are their problem.
For my home computer, I want something non-intrusive and obviously want more control.
I've just installed ClamWin and the preferences panel was a joy (all being relative;-) I've scheduled a scan of what I want when I want (couldn't do that with AVG).
I don't think as many people will be intimidated by the range of options available - users (generally) these days are more used to that kind of interface thanks to file-sharing and ripping tools. It'd be a shame to see Clam pushed to the margins because of bad publicity.
Unfortunately, ISPs have to obey the law if they want to stay in business.
I'm very concerned about restrictions on the Internet: businesses want it - and so do politicians (well, at least the ones we have been voting in).
So each side can push the cause a little, making it harder for people to stop them. And each can blame the other for something, which distracts from the fact that their interests are aligned most of the time.
It's cheap to force them to get PI licences: how about a license to practise computer repair, or something? At least they'd be trained in that (maybe).
Repair staff are effectively being hired to spy on people: they should be paid, rather than the other way around.
The people gathering the evidence are also capable of planting evidence - and there are a lot of computer repair businesses.
What happens if someone doesn't report something they find (and doesn't blackmail their customer, either?)
Suppose it'd be more useful to use 99.9% human/0.1% non-human - but that includes non-animal, doesn't it. Maybe "99.9% winner/0.1% loser" or "99.9% survivor/0.1% doomed"?;-)
Well, in support of my earlier statement, I'd have to call it a really dumb feature;-)
I see what you mean, tho - hope you understand where I was coming from: if the program is behaving unexpectedly (as opposed to operating as designed but in a context the designers didn't intend), then it's a defect, and a defect that poses a security risk is still a defect.
For the sake of a pithy post, I kept clear of grey areas;-)
The Irish government have been adopting this stance in relation to the Lisbon Treaty: in spite of evidence that they gave assurances to the big boys, they act as if they are merely conduits of their citizens' will, i.e. it's the citizens' fault if there are bad consequences.
The finance minister recently adopted a fatalistic attitude about the construction slump (knock-on effect of credit crunch), saying that it was his bad luck to get the job just as the industry collapsed, and was chided in newspapers.
I'd like to think that the citizens expect their politicians to actually do some work now that times are getting harder. It seems the politicians' priority is security for themselves - which, in these uncertain times, is understandable.
It ties in quite well with something else I heard about the decision-making process: justification/rationalisation is independent of decision-making.
I saw this on a BBC Horizon programme, "How To Make Better Decisions": test subjects were shown pairs of photographs and asked to select one. Once selected, both cards were turned face-down again for a moment. A sleight-of-hand trick then led to the subject being presented with the card they had rejected, whereupon the subject proceeded to explain why they selected a card they had actually rejected. Subjects do this without any realisation of the substitution.
This suggests to me that the brain makes what it thinks is the most likely selection. It's up to our minds to then catch up, if they need to or can be bothered.
Hmmm. Interesting - would you be willing to take someone else's word as to what life is? I mean if someone were to tell us exactly how much we need to live, individually, would we accept that?
Seems to me that the part of us that wants to keep living is exactly that.
BTW I'm in no rush to die myself;-)
If it's consistent, then it becomes part of the equations;-)
C14 measurement, in combination with other dating mechanisms, can used to caclulate C-14 concentration in the atmosphere at the measured date and maybe tell us more about the history of the sample
the shorter the lifespan the greater the ignorance (I'm not claiming causation, but the correlation is impossible to ignore.)
We can look at that correlation from the socio-economic point-of-view (poor people don't get educated and die younger) but it's interesting to look at it from the biological point-of-view:
young people are designed to be ignorant. It's a useful survival trait; it must be, because it has survived.
Young people make up new words in spite of the fact that their parents have a prefectly functioning language (typically;-), young people generally care more about people of comparable age (some can be actively disrutpive with elders so as to gain status in their peer group).
Young people have idealism (something abstract can be more important than a person), energy ("young, enthusiastic workers sought") and, of course hunger. Every generation seems to be designed, biologically, not to inherit from their predecessors but to usurp them.
I can see the younger person's qualities being useful (in terms of extending the lifetime of the species) in difficult circumstances (a young person can justify the displacement of another to themselves with some abstract reason, making it easier for them to be party to it). They could also prove useful in migration or war scenarios.
In our present society, young people are driving the market economy. But not steering;-) They are a major component of the retail market and a lot of advertising is aimed at them but very few have any impact on what goes on in the world.
There is no evidence that the world would be a better place if "young people" were "running" it (whatever that means); in fact, I have my suspicions that this hapened partly because some people remembered this.
The societal renewal that comes with a new generation at least offers the possibility of the weakening of an oppressive regime. I don't want eternal life if I'm going to spend it in some kind of slavery. Mortality also offers society release from bad ideas that were instilled in previous generations.
Of course, mortality makes it harder for mankind to learn from its mistakes;-)
We have a lot of growing-up to do!
In my opinion, it's understandable - but it's still ridiculous. We don't even know what life is and we want more of it.
Well, parts of us do: our organs don't, hence this medical quest...
Most people won't RTFA. That wasn't a list. Picture this: a 6x4 photo of childlike hands on a keyboard, main caption: "GYPO", sub-caption:"Get Your Pants Off".
This stuff is FUD for parents - and some parents love it. It must give them a sense of control, or something...
Presumably, life has been snuffed out on many occasions because of such behaviour.
I wonder what proportion of Earth's life would survive if we lost our moon? Assuming that we're far enough away from the action that a significant increase in physical impacts is unlikely...
I completely agree: there are an infinity pf possibilities out there and if there is not some kind of human intervention, we could be waiting an eternity for a meaningful theory, never mind a verifiable one (million monkeys, etc).
This means that the AI may have to be taught quite a lot about what constiute meaningful relationships, with external feedback (most likely some kind of human intervention - we can't possibly pre-program all meaningful relationships. If we could, we couldn't - Gödel) .
In the minds of some Creationists, science is itself defective because it only deals with natural phenomena. Scientists have managed to survive for a long time among these kinds of people by using the word "phenomena";-)
Slashdot Mirror
On my "live work station", I'll use whatever my "live work station providers" (read "employers") provide. If I'm responsible in my use of it, any mishaps are their problem. ;-) I've scheduled a scan of what I want when I want (couldn't do that with AVG).
For my home computer, I want something non-intrusive and obviously want more control.
I've just installed ClamWin and the preferences panel was a joy (all being relative
I don't think as many people will be intimidated by the range of options available - users (generally) these days are more used to that kind of interface thanks to file-sharing and ripping tools. It'd be a shame to see Clam pushed to the margins because of bad publicity.
Unfortunately, ISPs have to obey the law if they want to stay in business.
I'm very concerned about restrictions on the Internet: businesses want it - and so do politicians (well, at least the ones we have been voting in).
So each side can push the cause a little, making it harder for people to stop them. And each can blame the other for something, which distracts from the fact that their interests are aligned most of the time.
Brought peace?
You had to be there ;-)
It's cheap to force them to get PI licences: how about a license to practise computer repair, or something? At least they'd be trained in that (maybe).
Repair staff are effectively being hired to spy on people: they should be paid, rather than the other way around.
The people gathering the evidence are also capable of planting evidence - and there are a lot of computer repair businesses.
What happens if someone doesn't report something they find (and doesn't blackmail their customer, either?)
I think "what you know" comes into play a bit - but in the "making impressions" field, not "management" ;-)
Priceless, thanks :-)
What's a CIO? The article doesn't even say.
Suppose it'd be more useful to use 99.9% human/0.1% non-human - but that includes non-animal, doesn't it. Maybe "99.9% winner/0.1% loser" or "99.9% survivor/0.1% doomed"? ;-)
Choice Blindness: experiment video from the programme: "How to make better decisions" (great highlights, cheesy article).
Well, in support of my earlier statement, I'd have to call it a really dumb feature ;-)
;-)
I see what you mean, tho - hope you understand where I was coming from: if the program is behaving unexpectedly (as opposed to operating as designed but in a context the designers didn't intend), then it's a defect, and a defect that poses a security risk is still a defect.
For the sake of a pithy post, I kept clear of grey areas
If they weren't, they would be in the program design.
The Irish government have been adopting this stance in relation to the Lisbon Treaty: in spite of evidence that they gave assurances to the big boys, they act as if they are merely conduits of their citizens' will, i.e. it's the citizens' fault if there are bad consequences.
The finance minister recently adopted a fatalistic attitude about the construction slump (knock-on effect of credit crunch), saying that it was his bad luck to get the job just as the industry collapsed, and was chided in newspapers.
I'd like to think that the citizens expect their politicians to actually do some work now that times are getting harder. It seems the politicians' priority is security for themselves - which, in these uncertain times, is understandable.
It ties in quite well with something else I heard about the decision-making process: justification/rationalisation is independent of decision-making.
I saw this on a BBC Horizon programme, "How To Make Better Decisions": test subjects were shown pairs of photographs and asked to select one. Once selected, both cards were turned face-down again for a moment. A sleight-of-hand trick then led to the subject being presented with the card they had rejected, whereupon the subject proceeded to explain why they selected a card they had actually rejected. Subjects do this without any realisation of the substitution.
This suggests to me that the brain makes what it thinks is the most likely selection. It's up to our minds to then catch up, if they need to or can be bothered.
Hmmm. Interesting - would you be willing to take someone else's word as to what life is? I mean if someone were to tell us exactly how much we need to live, individually, would we accept that? ;-)
Seems to me that the part of us that wants to keep living is exactly that.
BTW I'm in no rush to die myself
C14 dating has been consistently error-prone
If it's consistent, then it becomes part of the equations ;-)
C14 measurement, in combination with other dating mechanisms, can used to caclulate C-14 concentration in the atmosphere at the measured date and maybe tell us more about the history of the sample
the shorter the lifespan the greater the ignorance (I'm not claiming causation, but the correlation is impossible to ignore.)
We can look at that correlation from the socio-economic point-of-view (poor people don't get educated and die younger) but it's interesting to look at it from the biological point-of-view: young people are designed to be ignorant. It's a useful survival trait; it must be, because it has survived. ;-), young people generally care more about people of comparable age (some can be actively disrutpive with elders so as to gain status in their peer group).
;-) They are a major component of the retail market and a lot of advertising is aimed at them but very few have any impact on what goes on in the world.
;-)
Young people make up new words in spite of the fact that their parents have a prefectly functioning language (typically
Young people have idealism (something abstract can be more important than a person), energy ("young, enthusiastic workers sought") and, of course hunger. Every generation seems to be designed, biologically, not to inherit from their predecessors but to usurp them.
I can see the younger person's qualities being useful (in terms of extending the lifetime of the species) in difficult circumstances (a young person can justify the displacement of another to themselves with some abstract reason, making it easier for them to be party to it). They could also prove useful in migration or war scenarios.
In our present society, young people are driving the market economy. But not steering
There is no evidence that the world would be a better place if "young people" were "running" it (whatever that means); in fact, I have my suspicions that this hapened partly because some people remembered this.
The societal renewal that comes with a new generation at least offers the possibility of the weakening of an oppressive regime. I don't want eternal life if I'm going to spend it in some kind of slavery. Mortality also offers society release from bad ideas that were instilled in previous generations.
Of course, mortality makes it harder for mankind to learn from its mistakes
We have a lot of growing-up to do!
In my opinion, it's understandable - but it's still ridiculous. We don't even know what life is and we want more of it.
Well, parts of us do: our organs don't, hence this medical quest...
Thanks - now I don't have to :-)
It's a flame :-(
Most people won't RTFA. That wasn't a list. Picture this: a 6x4 photo of childlike hands on a keyboard, main caption: "GYPO", sub-caption:"Get Your Pants Off".
This stuff is FUD for parents - and some parents love it. It must give them a sense of control, or something...
Presumably, life has been snuffed out on many occasions because of such behaviour.
I wonder what proportion of Earth's life would survive if we lost our moon? Assuming that we're far enough away from the action that a significant increase in physical impacts is unlikely...
I completely agree: there are an infinity pf possibilities out there and if there is not some kind of human intervention, we could be waiting an eternity for a meaningful theory, never mind a verifiable one (million monkeys, etc).
This means that the AI may have to be taught quite a lot about what constiute meaningful relationships, with external feedback (most likely some kind of human intervention - we can't possibly pre-program all meaningful relationships. If we could, we couldn't - Gödel) .
What's more, unwelcome plants such as weeds have buds: they're the ones you need to nip in the bud. It prevents them from flowering.