Formula for a super-villian: someone that decides to kill himself and take as many innocent people as he can with him, but can't seem to settle on a specific time for the suicide part.
TFA summary says:...Google's...filing...certainly could have been better timed. Isn't the timing of the filing perfectly appropriate? The only way it could have been timed better is if they'd filed it before they had to do layoffs, etc...but it probably wouldn't have prevented them, and that doesn't make now a bad time to file it, exactly.
You guys should read the strobist thread on it. I'm in a bunch of photo-geek forums and the comments have been really entertaining...
"His shoulder is cut off. It doesn't flow!"
"The loop lighting is too subtle."
"Why'd they use an octabox???"
"Couldn't afford a hair light what with the economy and all, eh?"
"Taken with the new Canon 5D-MkII...nice!"
"Who did the color charting? Skin tone is way orange!"
I thought they were hard on my photos when I post 'em...
I don't understand how it makes sense to arbitrarily place limits on the form of wikipedia content. Maybe I don't understand how a particular type of content could be used, but that's my problem. I wouldn't want to deprive the entire world of potentially valuable information because I'm ignorant about something. (And who knows, maybe I can remedy that ignorance by checking out the relevant wikipedia movie on it.)
I think if you run a system that a good number of people depend upon, and a breach in security could cause important problems, then you have a serious obligation to institute a good security policy. If you don't, it's negligence and should be treated as such.
Are unethical hackers responsible for their actions? Sure, just as responsible as a business that takes on the trust of its users willingly.
The ONLY accurate statement you can make is that all facts were once theories.
Nuh uh.
Facts can be suggested by hypotheses, but they do not become facts until they fit the following definition: a fact is an empirically evident observation that is repeatable and reproducible.
A theory is a model based on facts, restricted to a well-defined problem domain, that generates testable predictions.
A theory is a model, a model that exists only in our understanding. The only way in which this model is tied to the real world, outside of human consciousness, is by its foundation on facts...so fact and theory are distinct by definition. Read this for more.
Yea, if you're in school, the last thing you should be worried about is IP. Fact is, if you have one great idea that turns out to be valuable, whether it gets stolen or not, that's not really that wonderful an accomplishment. You should be focused on having lots of good ideas, keeping in mind that you'll probably have a thousand bad ones for every good one.
You should be learning how to think and be creative.
RAID 0 on a two-disk system isn't much of a mirror.
You don't know how right you are—RAID-0 isn't a mirror at all. RAID-1 is a mirror, RAID-0 is a stripe set.
More like an image reflected from the wrapper on a stick of gum. No mention of keeping a mirror on another system.
What does this mean? Isn't a "mirror on another system" a backup? (Unless you mean real-time, like a replication service type thingy...)
They suspect a former employee, but how is it possible that a former employee gained access to their system? An utter lack of security, most likely.
Yea, I love that explanation for their problem: It's not that our backup was insufficient...it's that several components of our operation were teetering on the edge all at the same time...security, backup...it was all a complete mess! Nice damage control.
At some point you have to take the system out of the basement and put it in a storefront.
What does this mean? Why would you put your IT systems in a storefront?
And to those who would blog--get to know your host.
That's what I do--I end up closing most of the tabs though because even after you write and preview all your comments, you can't go through and click submit on them one after the other. You get the "hold up cowboy" message if you do that..
There's a difference between spending money and losing it. If you go out in the street with $50 and get robbed, you lost it. If you spend it on a terrible meal, then you might assess the cost-benefit to be that you traded $50 for a meal only worth $20 (lost $30). If you had a decent meal worth $50, you lost nothing. If you had a great meal that would've been worth $75 to you, you gained $25 in utility. In all of these meal examples, you're putting a number on utility, though.
In terms of hard assets, if you trade your $50 for a trinket that you could buy new somewhere else for $10, you lost $40. If you buy a brand new Bentley for the $50, and you could immediately turn around and sell it for $355,550, you gained $355,500. Good job! If your new Bentley gets jacked just after you buy it, you netted a $50 loss that day. Still economically the same as getting your $50 robbed directly, but this would feel much, much worse because of the brief moment you were flyin' high with that pimpin' Bentley.
In addition, it loses value over time. So if he bought a zune for $50 dollars and it comes broken breaks right away, $50 lost(assuming for some reason it cannot be returned or exchanged). But if it works for 2 years and he expected about the same amount of usage, then nothing lost. His $50 was put into use.
WARNING! Car analogy: WARNING!
I buy a car for $1000 (so not a good car, shut up it is a car analogy). I use the car for a year and sell it for less than the original value, say I get $750. Did I lose $250 dollars or use $250 to have a working car for a year?
You should've leased that car. For $250/month, you could've had a much sweeter ride. (Sure, you'd have defaulted after that one month...but what a month!)
Yea, what's with that? I remember/. used to be a site for techies, by techies--which means it actually used to work. Now I preview a comment and half the time I don't have the time to finish the edit-post cycle to get it posted.
...is tantamount to the belief that, inside every cell, there exists a mechanism that prevents mutations which would give rise to offspring if that offspring could not produce fertile progeny with not just its parents' generation, but its grandparents', great-grandparents', etc,....
That is not a belief, but a scientific, experimentally established FACT. Here are some introductory paragraphs of the transcript a microbiologist's oral presentation. Experiment shows that evolutionary mutations have distinct limits. The name of the article is: "What can evolution really do?"
Excuse me, but you have asserted here that there is a mechanism inside cells that prevent mutations based on a human-invented taxonomic boundary...that it is "scientific, experimentally established FACT," and then linked a paper that has nothing to do with your assertion. Even if I were to accept that paper, there is nothing in it that supports the notion that cells have the ability to respect human definitions of anything.
I find this statement of yours to be quite ridiculous. What possible argument can you make that any cell has the capacity to even understand our way of categorizing organisms, much less respond to it somehow?
I don't have the time to debunk every bit of nonsense in the paper you linked, but one example of the quality of this paper's content is the author's reliance on Michael Behe.
Michael Behe is a senior fellow and advocate for the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is a "research" organization dedicated to the advancement of creationism, founded by a very smart group of people that originally sought to make their point by advancing arguments against evolution that they themselves knew at the time to be flawed in subtle ways. Why would they do this? Why, indeed.
Behe is known for his love affair with irreducible complexity, which was taken apart piece by piece in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District...and which this paper you've linked also relies heavily upon. From the paper: Many of these activities would be considered irreducibly complex. Most of you are familiar with this term, with the bacterial flagella being the poster child for an irreducibly complex structure. Apparently this paper was either written before the Dover trial or the author isn't aware of the proceedings in that case...the exact example of irreducible complexity that was debunked with Behe on the stand was none other than the bacterial flagellum!
I have to close here by saying one thing. I read the paper you linked in full and I myself could easily write a far more convincing debunking of evolution and evolution theory than Dr. Seelke. That's because I've read all the creationist nonsense anyone has offered up, and probably a good good bit of it relies of flaws in reasoning and misinterpretations of real science far more subtle than Seelke does in this document. By comparison to some of the arguments I've worked my way through (Behe's being among the best in terms of insidiousness), this doc you've linked is bush league.
If you are personally convinced of anything by this paper you provided and things like it, then the only conclusion I can reasonably come to is that you are complicit in your own deception.
What about an animated pr0n based on the The Curious Case of Benjamin Button?
The character depicted would be 60+ years old by the time he appeared underage.
See people, this is the problem with attempting to flout freedom of expression. When it comes to real kids, I'm with ya. When it comes to make-believe...who's to say what's ok to make-believe?
Evolution theory does not require that a new species be introduced in a single generation. The theory contends that small genetic changes from one generation to the next accumulate over time, eventually giving rise to a new species. At every point, organisms from any given generation could produce fertile progeny with members of several previous and several subsequent generations. But, if genetic lines are allowed to diverge enough, at some point the accumulation of genetic differences would provide infertile offspring or no offspring at all.
If, on the other hand, this creationist argument is correct and evolution theory is flawed, this would suggest that different species should not be able to breed at all. If two separate species since the beginning of time could never produce fertile progeny, it would be very surprising if there were an example of two species that could produce hybrid offspring of any kind regardless of that offspring's ability to reproduce. Unfortunately for the creationist, this argument offers no explanation for the existence of the mule or the many other sterile cross-species hybrids.
Addressing the micro- vs. macro-evolution argument as a whole is easily done. The taxonomic categorization of organisms is a construct defined by people. It is not reasonable to presume without evidence that there exists some cellular mechanism that prevents genetic mutations with regard for human-created taxonomies. Once one admits that evolution occurs within a species, it naturally follows that mutations could conceivably accumulate to any degree without regard for species or any other invented taxonomic boundary.
Conversely, discounting macro-evolution while accepting micro-evolution is tantamount to the belief that, inside every cell, there exists a mechanism that prevents mutations which would give rise to offspring if that offspring could not produce fertile progeny with not just its parents' generation, but its grandparents', great-grandparents', etc, all the way back to the beginning of life itself. There is no logic or scientific research that supports such a conclusion.
The premise of this article is perfectly reasonable. As an example, I once worked with a bad developer that wrote an infinite recursion. When management asked me to debug the issue, I gave them the same advice as in the OP: Why pay me when you can just throw cheap hardware at it?
Yea, if they'd only listened to me, I'm sure that code would've eventually hit bottom and returned successfully. Instead they stupidly paid me for an hour or so worth of work to track it down and fix it. Idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Formula for a super-villian: someone that decides to kill himself and take as many innocent people as he can with him, but can't seem to settle on a specific time for the suicide part.
I once heard someone say: Man, this sucks and blows at the same time, but not in the way that cancels each other out. :-)
TFA summary says: ...Google's...filing...certainly could have been better timed. Isn't the timing of the filing perfectly appropriate? The only way it could have been timed better is if they'd filed it before they had to do layoffs, etc...but it probably wouldn't have prevented them, and that doesn't make now a bad time to file it, exactly.
Poor use of words in TFA summary, methinks.
I read about a law enforcement organization that tried to do exactly what you're suggesting. They got taken for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So, let me get this straight...we are now expecting that for evidence to be useful in a public trial, the public has to understand how it works?
Hmm. This throws my whole plan for installing a fascist puppet government under the bus. Right under the bus, I tell you!
You guys should read the strobist thread on it. I'm in a bunch of photo-geek forums and the comments have been really entertaining...
"His shoulder is cut off. It doesn't flow!"
"The loop lighting is too subtle."
"Why'd they use an octabox???"
"Couldn't afford a hair light what with the economy and all, eh?"
"Taken with the new Canon 5D-MkII...nice!"
"Who did the color charting? Skin tone is way orange!"
I thought they were hard on my photos when I post 'em...
I don't understand how it makes sense to arbitrarily place limits on the form of wikipedia content. Maybe I don't understand how a particular type of content could be used, but that's my problem. I wouldn't want to deprive the entire world of potentially valuable information because I'm ignorant about something. (And who knows, maybe I can remedy that ignorance by checking out the relevant wikipedia movie on it.)
...and let me guess: you typed your entire post by simply closing your eyes and mentally tuning into the hum of the electrical equipment around you.
I think if you run a system that a good number of people depend upon, and a breach in security could cause important problems, then you have a serious obligation to institute a good security policy. If you don't, it's negligence and should be treated as such.
Are unethical hackers responsible for their actions? Sure, just as responsible as a business that takes on the trust of its users willingly.
The ONLY accurate statement you can make is that all facts were once theories.
Nuh uh.
Facts can be suggested by hypotheses, but they do not become facts until they fit the following definition: a fact is an empirically evident observation that is repeatable and reproducible.
A theory is a model based on facts, restricted to a well-defined problem domain, that generates testable predictions.
A theory is a model, a model that exists only in our understanding. The only way in which this model is tied to the real world, outside of human consciousness, is by its foundation on facts...so fact and theory are distinct by definition. Read this for more.
Yea, if you're in school, the last thing you should be worried about is IP. Fact is, if you have one great idea that turns out to be valuable, whether it gets stolen or not, that's not really that wonderful an accomplishment. You should be focused on having lots of good ideas, keeping in mind that you'll probably have a thousand bad ones for every good one.
You should be learning how to think and be creative.
RAID 0 on a two-disk system isn't much of a mirror.
You don't know how right you are—RAID-0 isn't a mirror at all. RAID-1 is a mirror, RAID-0 is a stripe set.
More like an image reflected from the wrapper on a stick of gum. No mention of keeping a mirror on another system.
What does this mean? Isn't a "mirror on another system" a backup? (Unless you mean real-time, like a replication service type thingy...)
They suspect a former employee, but how is it possible that a former employee gained access to their system? An utter lack of security, most likely.
Yea, I love that explanation for their problem: It's not that our backup was insufficient...it's that several components of our operation were teetering on the edge all at the same time...security, backup...it was all a complete mess! Nice damage control.
At some point you have to take the system out of the basement and put it in a storefront.
What does this mean? Why would you put your IT systems in a storefront?
And to those who would blog--get to know your host.
Huh?
Journalspace CTO: We don't need an expensive off-site backup solution b/c we mirror all of our data real-time. It's genius!
-entire database gets overwritten-
Journalspace CTO: Ohhhhhh...now I get it.
That's what I do--I end up closing most of the tabs though because even after you write and preview all your comments, you can't go through and click submit on them one after the other. You get the "hold up cowboy" message if you do that..
ur doin it rong.
There's a difference between spending money and losing it. If you go out in the street with $50 and get robbed, you lost it. If you spend it on a terrible meal, then you might assess the cost-benefit to be that you traded $50 for a meal only worth $20 (lost $30). If you had a decent meal worth $50, you lost nothing. If you had a great meal that would've been worth $75 to you, you gained $25 in utility. In all of these meal examples, you're putting a number on utility, though.
In terms of hard assets, if you trade your $50 for a trinket that you could buy new somewhere else for $10, you lost $40. If you buy a brand new Bentley for the $50, and you could immediately turn around and sell it for $355,550, you gained $355,500. Good job! If your new Bentley gets jacked just after you buy it, you netted a $50 loss that day. Still economically the same as getting your $50 robbed directly, but this would feel much, much worse because of the brief moment you were flyin' high with that pimpin' Bentley.
In addition, it loses value over time. So if he bought a zune for $50 dollars and it comes broken breaks right away, $50 lost(assuming for some reason it cannot be returned or exchanged). But if it works for 2 years and he expected about the same amount of usage, then nothing lost. His $50 was put into use.
WARNING! Car analogy: WARNING! I buy a car for $1000 (so not a good car, shut up it is a car analogy). I use the car for a year and sell it for less than the original value, say I get $750. Did I lose $250 dollars or use $250 to have a working car for a year?
You should've leased that car. For $250/month, you could've had a much sweeter ride. (Sure, you'd have defaulted after that one month...but what a month!)
Perhaps the Zune folks implemented the MS policy on planned obsolescence a bit too zealously. Hey guys: it's a subtle art!
Yea, what's with that? I remember /. used to be a site for techies, by techies--which means it actually used to work. Now I preview a comment and half the time I don't have the time to finish the edit-post cycle to get it posted.
Excuse me, but you have asserted here that there is a mechanism inside cells that prevent mutations based on a human-invented taxonomic boundary...that it is "scientific, experimentally established FACT," and then linked a paper that has nothing to do with your assertion. Even if I were to accept that paper, there is nothing in it that supports the notion that cells have the ability to respect human definitions of anything.
I find this statement of yours to be quite ridiculous. What possible argument can you make that any cell has the capacity to even understand our way of categorizing organisms, much less respond to it somehow?
I don't have the time to debunk every bit of nonsense in the paper you linked, but one example of the quality of this paper's content is the author's reliance on Michael Behe.
Michael Behe is a senior fellow and advocate for the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is a "research" organization dedicated to the advancement of creationism, founded by a very smart group of people that originally sought to make their point by advancing arguments against evolution that they themselves knew at the time to be flawed in subtle ways. Why would they do this? Why, indeed.
Behe is known for his love affair with irreducible complexity, which was taken apart piece by piece in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District...and which this paper you've linked also relies heavily upon. From the paper: Many of these activities would be considered irreducibly complex. Most of you are familiar with this term, with the bacterial flagella being the poster child for an irreducibly complex structure. Apparently this paper was either written before the Dover trial or the author isn't aware of the proceedings in that case...the exact example of irreducible complexity that was debunked with Behe on the stand was none other than the bacterial flagellum!
I have to close here by saying one thing. I read the paper you linked in full and I myself could easily write a far more convincing debunking of evolution and evolution theory than Dr. Seelke. That's because I've read all the creationist nonsense anyone has offered up, and probably a good good bit of it relies of flaws in reasoning and misinterpretations of real science far more subtle than Seelke does in this document. By comparison to some of the arguments I've worked my way through (Behe's being among the best in terms of insidiousness), this doc you've linked is bush league.
If you are personally convinced of anything by this paper you provided and things like it, then the only conclusion I can reasonably come to is that you are complicit in your own deception.
What about an animated pr0n based on the The Curious Case of Benjamin Button?
The character depicted would be 60+ years old by the time he appeared underage.
See people, this is the problem with attempting to flout freedom of expression. When it comes to real kids, I'm with ya. When it comes to make-believe...who's to say what's ok to make-believe?
Evolution theory does not require that a new species be introduced in a single generation. The theory contends that small genetic changes from one generation to the next accumulate over time, eventually giving rise to a new species. At every point, organisms from any given generation could produce fertile progeny with members of several previous and several subsequent generations. But, if genetic lines are allowed to diverge enough, at some point the accumulation of genetic differences would provide infertile offspring or no offspring at all.
If, on the other hand, this creationist argument is correct and evolution theory is flawed, this would suggest that different species should not be able to breed at all. If two separate species since the beginning of time could never produce fertile progeny, it would be very surprising if there were an example of two species that could produce hybrid offspring of any kind regardless of that offspring's ability to reproduce. Unfortunately for the creationist, this argument offers no explanation for the existence of the mule or the many other sterile cross-species hybrids.
Addressing the micro- vs. macro-evolution argument as a whole is easily done. The taxonomic categorization of organisms is a construct defined by people. It is not reasonable to presume without evidence that there exists some cellular mechanism that prevents genetic mutations with regard for human-created taxonomies. Once one admits that evolution occurs within a species, it naturally follows that mutations could conceivably accumulate to any degree without regard for species or any other invented taxonomic boundary.
Conversely, discounting macro-evolution while accepting micro-evolution is tantamount to the belief that, inside every cell, there exists a mechanism that prevents mutations which would give rise to offspring if that offspring could not produce fertile progeny with not just its parents' generation, but its grandparents', great-grandparents', etc, all the way back to the beginning of life itself. There is no logic or scientific research that supports such a conclusion.
My advice is to go with the simplest user interface of all, the linux command prompt (you'll have to imagine the cursor blinking):
% _
oh no.
if only there was some way to use technology to get around p2p blocking... -sigh-
The premise of this article is perfectly reasonable. As an example, I once worked with a bad developer that wrote an infinite recursion. When management asked me to debug the issue, I gave them the same advice as in the OP: Why pay me when you can just throw cheap hardware at it?
Yea, if they'd only listened to me, I'm sure that code would've eventually hit bottom and returned successfully. Instead they stupidly paid me for an hour or so worth of work to track it down and fix it. Idiots.