One can only hope that the global warming deniers all have their primary residences on the coast. I'll confess to a bit of scheudenfreude when I heard that Trent Lott's beachfront home was destroyed by Katrina. I suspect that the only way these folks ever learn is when it affects them personally. It's shameful that whole countries are going to be sunk during their learning curve.
You can't disprove a theory through experimentation either. All theories have (often unstated) auxilliary assumptions. So when a theory predicts that under conditions X, doing Y will result in Z, an experiment that attempts to replicate X and then do Y may fail to result in Z due to failure to replicate X sufficiently well rather than because the theory was wrong. Experimental sciences are therefore reduced to a "preponderance of evidence" standard and it is equally meaningless (or meaningful) to say either that an experiment has proven or disproven a theory.
A lot of climate science is really, really slipshod stuff rigged up to support foregone ideological conclusion.
And you are qualified enough to make that judgement, how, exactly? Could you please cite some specific examples of peer reviewed literature that demonstrate your point and explain why you think they are slipshod stuff? Otherwise, you are just engaging in a logical fallacy known as wishful thinking.
Even some of the smartest folks can be fooled by UFOs. At one point during the Manhatten Project at Los Alamos, Oppenheimer and some of his collegues saw a UFO. They called a nearby Army Air Force base which dispatched some planes to check it out. The planes reported that had seen it, but were unable to get close to it. Finally, Oppenheimer's HR chief, an astronomer by training, told Oppie that it was probably futile to try and shoot down the planet Venus.
I was watching a program on UFOs on NatGeo the other night. They interviewed a senior scientist from the SETI project who saw a UFO one night while flying w/ her SO in a small private plane. She said they watched it for awhile thinking the whole time that it was not possible for them, of all people, to be having such an experience. Finally, some clouds that they hadn't realized were there parted and they saw that they had been looking at the moon the whole time.
If you are going to be commenting on licenses, it may be a good idea that you actually read them.
Um, I was asking a question about something that puzzled me, not commenting on a license. If you are going to reply to other's comments, it may be a good idea that you first read the comment to which you are replying.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
And yet Linus has added:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
The GPL allows me to redistribute the kernel under v3, but Linus seems to be trying to prohibit redistribution using the any later version clause if I am reading his words correctly.
And before the wiretapping laws they had just such a right- such evidence was used in Al Capone's case for instance.
Why aren't emails considered papers and thus subject to the 4th Amendment? Who defines papers, effects, etc. Congress? The Courts? Or We The People?
Amendment IV -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And whatever became of
Amendment IX -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Has it ever been used for anything useful or is it just a cute decoration hanging on the Bill of Rights?
If AT&T wanted to put these boxes on private property, they're required to make an agreement with the property owner to do it.
That may be a necessary but not sufficient condition in many jurisdictions. Many local districts have zoning laws that restrict the rights of property owners to put "nuisances" on their property.
But even these examples support your proposition: certification leads to focused study and higher pay.
Or it could be that certification is just a legal means for professional societies to restrict competition. Many things that lawyers do, for example, are pretty mundane. Do we really need bar exams for folks performing such tasks or is the bar exam simply a means of increasing the pay of lawyers by restricting their supply?
Yes, in four short years. Computer languages, for one example, can be introduced and be taking on new tasks quite rapidly. I'm sure many other technical fields have similar rates of progress. What the employer wants to know is "Does this graduate know the language de jour?" What the student needs to know is "How can I easily master new languages?"
I don't much care how they fulfill their functions of providing physical recreational opportunities for students, or allowing them to safely explore their budding sexuality in the dormroom late at night.
This statement alone is a pretty good proof that technologists should be taught something besides technology in their university coursework. In your case classical rhetoric. At no point has anyone who is arguing with your ideas ever made the case that colleges are about letting students explore their budding sexuality.
Balls. I've seen the budgets. At a large private research university tuition covers maybe 20-30% of the cost to run the show. In a public university it's just noise, enough to pay the gardeners, maybe.
Balls yourself. You clearly have little idea of who pays for university budgets. At most Midwestern Big Ten schools, student fees represent about 60% of the budget. UMich, for example, brought in $725 million during 2005-2006 from tuition (59% of the general budget), while the State of Michigan appropriated $315 million (26%). Only $165 million (14%) came from "Indirect Cost Recovery" (i.e. skimming the research grants).
Uh...there is something of more long-term importance to the student than their ability to land (and prosper in) a high-paying, high-status job? Like what? Satisfaction with their overall role in life and society, pleasure in prosperous, well-adjusted grandchildren, finding and marrying their soul-mate?
You quite like the logical fallacies, don't you? To repeat myself:
Providing students with marketable technical knowledge is only one function of a university. Remember, the tech knowledge that a student graduates with is likely to become obsolete very soon (assuming the faculty is doing its job of fundamental research). Teaching students how to be life-long self-learners is going to much more important to both their long-term success and the long-term success of their employers.
Before all of you who are still students gasp in horror, remember the long-term advantages this would provide: first, you know in detail exactly what you need to know as a senior to leave when you come in as a freshman.
I would hope that in a scientific/technical field that enough new knowledge was being developed that the faculty, let alone the freshman themselves, could not possibly know what those those freshman would need to know by the time they were seniors.
That's the kind of gold-plated guarantee of competence that makes employers feel all warm and fuzzy about you when you turn up for your job interview looking appallingly young, like you started shaving yesterday.
Did you have any evidence that most employers of your graduates would have noticed your guarantee or even cared?
Third, and most importantly, it would give a way for employers to feed back to we faculty what they did and did not want their employees to know.
You are absolutely right here that feedback from employers is important. But providing students with marketable technical knowledge is only one function of a university. Remember, the tech knowledge that a student graduates with is likely to become obsolete very soon (assuming the faculty is doing its job of fundamental research). Teaching students how to be life-long self-learners is going to much more important to both their long-term success and the long-term success of their employers. Your test does nothing to measure how well you are achieving that goal.
Finally, you would do well to remember that students themselves pay a large (and growing) share of their education costs. The students are your customers, and on that basis, you should be more focused on the long-term needs of those students than the short-term needs of their first employers.
You've missed the point. DTDs don't allow for many of the common restrictions people want to place on their data values. Schemas are a poor and incomplete attempt to solve this problem.
Re:Relax NG - constraining based on attribute valu
on
Tim Bray Says RELAX
·
· Score: 1
I've learned entire Turing-complete programming languages in less time than it took me to get to even moderate competence with Schema
What do you expect? Schemas were a Microsoft initiative IIRC.
No, It was in Boston. The original XML spec was a 20 page booklet. One tidbit: This was at the height of the browser wars and MS was all gung-ho for XML while Netscape wanted nothing to do with it. Many of the SGML gurus were quietly rooting for MS for just that reason.
My wife had a stroke 6 mo. after we were married. She was 22 at the time, so people should not assume that strokes only happen to old folks. One of the effects was that she had trouble manipulating the fingers on her left hand. I set her up with an old game console that her brother had. Having to manipulate a joy stick seemed to help her recovery quite a bit.
For SQL, the underlying network protocol is usually irrelevent. Swapping one JDBC/Perl/C lib for a given RDBMS vs another is usually trivial. But that problem is overrated since I have yet to see any of the Fortune 100 firms I've worked for actually decide to drop Oracle for DB2 or verse visa.
Stop thinking of LDAP as a wire protocol. Think of it as a DBMS view. LDAP provides one small slice of corporate data. I want to be able to trivially integrate that slice with other corporate data for which the LDAP interface may be too inefficient or incomplete.
A user datastore is just one small part of many applications. While LDAP is quite useful for accessing the user (and other similar) info, often that user info becomes even more useful when it can be directly and easily tied to other data. SQL statements that bypass the LDAP protocol entirely are one example of a well documented interface that has a well documented standard syntax. For some purposes, you want to access the data through an LDAP interface (e.g. authentication) while for others (e.g. report generation) the SQL interface may be superior. One user datastore with multiple interfaces for multiple purposes can be better than demanding that all accesses to that datastore go through a single interface that may not have anticipated all possible application requirements.
If you don't understand why a unified backend datastore of user info with multiple interfaces for accessing it is useful, please refrain from commenting on it.
I spent 6 months working in NYC during Clinton's first term. He regularly showed up and the drill seemed to be that the Secret Service and local cops would shut down the highways POTUS was travelling for about 15 minutes ahead and behind him. More recently, I worked at an airline at the Cincinnati airport and saw the same pattern with Bush's convoy on several occasions. I got out of the airport one day minutes before they closed the access road and feeling pleased with myself, looked at the gas gage. Doh! The delay before they allowed the public back on the interstate was about 15 minutes. Bush has been to Columbus where I now reside several times recently and most of us barely notice. It is a tolerable nuisance. The do not shut down all the major highways in a city the size of Nashville. The Secret Service joke that "they are going to go make some Democrats" just before they tool on up the local interstate is aimed at impatient fools like yourself.
I do hope the joke changes to "make some Republicans" in 2008.
Slashdot Mirror
The Classmate includes Trusted Platform Module 1.2. Is this Intel's version of Treacherous Computing?
If a program is going to follow interface standards, then it's quite bad if Ctrl+S is not the save key, for example.
If a program is going to follow interface standards, c-x c-s is used for saving a buffer. c-s does a search.
One can only hope that the global warming deniers all have their primary residences on the coast. I'll confess to a bit of scheudenfreude when I heard that Trent Lott's beachfront home was destroyed by Katrina. I suspect that the only way these folks ever learn is when it affects them personally. It's shameful that whole countries are going to be sunk during their learning curve.
You can't disprove a theory through experimentation either. All theories have (often unstated) auxilliary assumptions. So when a theory predicts that under conditions X, doing Y will result in Z, an experiment that attempts to replicate X and then do Y may fail to result in Z due to failure to replicate X sufficiently well rather than because the theory was wrong. Experimental sciences are therefore reduced to a "preponderance of evidence" standard and it is equally meaningless (or meaningful) to say either that an experiment has proven or disproven a theory.
A lot of climate science is really, really slipshod stuff rigged up to support foregone ideological conclusion.
And you are qualified enough to make that judgement, how, exactly? Could you please cite some specific examples of peer reviewed literature that demonstrate your point and explain why you think they are slipshod stuff? Otherwise, you are just engaging in a logical fallacy known as wishful thinking.
Even some of the smartest folks can be fooled by UFOs. At one point during the Manhatten Project at Los Alamos, Oppenheimer and some of his collegues saw a UFO. They called a nearby Army Air Force base which dispatched some planes to check it out. The planes reported that had seen it, but were unable to get close to it. Finally, Oppenheimer's HR chief, an astronomer by training, told Oppie that it was probably futile to try and shoot down the planet Venus.
I was watching a program on UFOs on NatGeo the other night. They interviewed a senior scientist from the SETI project who saw a UFO one night while flying w/ her SO in a small private plane. She said they watched it for awhile thinking the whole time that it was not possible for them, of all people, to be having such an experience. Finally, some clouds that they hadn't realized were there parted and they saw that they had been looking at the moon the whole time.
If you are going to be commenting on licenses, it may be a good idea that you actually read them.
Um, I was asking a question about something that puzzled me, not commenting on a license. If you are going to reply to other's comments, it may be a good idea that you first read the comment to which you are replying.
Except that if the team wants to continue to use the GPL, the FSF doesn't allow modification of the wording of the GPL license...
How did Linus get away with modifying the GPL? The GPL states that:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
And yet Linus has added:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
The GPL allows me to redistribute the kernel under v3, but Linus seems to be trying to prohibit redistribution using the any later version clause if I am reading his words correctly.
And before the wiretapping laws they had just such a right- such evidence was used in Al Capone's case for instance.
Why aren't emails considered papers and thus subject to the 4th Amendment? Who defines papers, effects, etc. Congress? The Courts? Or We The People?
Amendment IV -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And whatever became of
Amendment IX -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Has it ever been used for anything useful or is it just a cute decoration hanging on the Bill of Rights?
If AT&T wanted to put these boxes on private property, they're required to make an agreement with the property owner to do it.
That may be a necessary but not sufficient condition in many jurisdictions. Many local districts have zoning laws that restrict the rights of property owners to put "nuisances" on their property.
Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull wrote an op-ed in the Financial Times in favor of an extension.
Best responce was a letter that the FT published that basically said:
Hey Ian, You want to make more money? THEN WRITE SOME NEW SONGS!
Honestly, these songwriters, even the great ones, are thick as a brick sometimes.
The end result is that Cleveland lost a LOT of federal funding and it all went to Columbus.
On behalf of Columbus, let me say Thank You!
But even these examples support your proposition: certification leads to focused study and higher pay.
Or it could be that certification is just a legal means for professional societies to restrict competition. Many things that lawyers do, for example, are pretty mundane. Do we really need bar exams for folks performing such tasks or is the bar exam simply a means of increasing the pay of lawyers by restricting their supply?
It is not who you know that counts. It is who you know that knows what you know that counts.
Goodness, in four short years?
Yes, in four short years. Computer languages, for one example, can be introduced and be taking on new tasks quite rapidly. I'm sure many other technical fields have similar rates of progress. What the employer wants to know is "Does this graduate know the language de jour?" What the student needs to know is "How can I easily master new languages?"
I don't much care how they fulfill their functions of providing physical recreational opportunities for students, or allowing them to safely explore their budding sexuality in the dormroom late at night.
This statement alone is a pretty good proof that technologists should be taught something besides technology in their university coursework. In your case classical rhetoric. At no point has anyone who is arguing with your ideas ever made the case that colleges are about letting students explore their budding sexuality.
Balls. I've seen the budgets. At a large private research university tuition covers maybe 20-30% of the cost to run the show. In a public university it's just noise, enough to pay the gardeners, maybe.
Balls yourself. You clearly have little idea of who pays for university budgets. At most Midwestern Big Ten schools, student fees represent about 60% of the budget. UMich, for example, brought in $725 million during 2005-2006 from tuition (59% of the general budget), while the State of Michigan appropriated $315 million (26%). Only $165 million (14%) came from "Indirect Cost Recovery" (i.e. skimming the research grants).
Uh...there is something of more long-term importance to the student than their ability to land (and prosper in) a high-paying, high-status job? Like what? Satisfaction with their overall role in life and society, pleasure in prosperous, well-adjusted grandchildren, finding and marrying their soul-mate?
You quite like the logical fallacies, don't you? To repeat myself:
Providing students with marketable technical knowledge is only one function of a university. Remember, the tech knowledge that a student graduates with is likely to become obsolete very soon (assuming the faculty is doing its job of fundamental research). Teaching students how to be life-long self-learners is going to much more important to both their long-term success and the long-term success of their employers.
Before all of you who are still students gasp in horror, remember the long-term advantages this would provide: first, you know in detail exactly what you need to know as a senior to leave when you come in as a freshman.
I would hope that in a scientific/technical field that enough new knowledge was being developed that the faculty, let alone the freshman themselves, could not possibly know what those those freshman would need to know by the time they were seniors.
That's the kind of gold-plated guarantee of competence that makes employers feel all warm and fuzzy about you when you turn up for your job interview looking appallingly young, like you started shaving yesterday.
Did you have any evidence that most employers of your graduates would have noticed your guarantee or even cared?
Third, and most importantly, it would give a way for employers to feed back to we faculty what they did and did not want their employees to know.
You are absolutely right here that feedback from employers is important. But providing students with marketable technical knowledge is only one function of a university. Remember, the tech knowledge that a student graduates with is likely to become obsolete very soon (assuming the faculty is doing its job of fundamental research). Teaching students how to be life-long self-learners is going to much more important to both their long-term success and the long-term success of their employers. Your test does nothing to measure how well you are achieving that goal.
Finally, you would do well to remember that students themselves pay a large (and growing) share of their education costs. The students are your customers, and on that basis, you should be more focused on the long-term needs of those students than the short-term needs of their first employers.
You've missed the point. DTDs don't allow for many of the common restrictions people want to place on their data values. Schemas are a poor and incomplete attempt to solve this problem.
I've learned entire Turing-complete programming languages in less time than it took me to get to even moderate competence with Schema
What do you expect? Schemas were a Microsoft initiative IIRC.
Was that at some hotel in Swindon, UK?
No, It was in Boston. The original XML spec was a 20 page booklet. One tidbit: This was at the height of the browser wars and MS was all gung-ho for XML while Netscape wanted nothing to do with it. Many of the SGML gurus were quietly rooting for MS for just that reason.
My wife had a stroke 6 mo. after we were married. She was 22 at the time, so people should not assume that strokes only happen to old folks. One of the effects was that she had trouble manipulating the fingers on her left hand. I set her up with an old game console that her brother had. Having to manipulate a joy stick seemed to help her recovery quite a bit.
For SQL, the underlying network protocol is usually irrelevent. Swapping one JDBC/Perl/C lib for a given RDBMS vs another is usually trivial. But that problem is overrated since I have yet to see any of the Fortune 100 firms I've worked for actually decide to drop Oracle for DB2 or verse visa.
Stop thinking of LDAP as a wire protocol. Think of it as a DBMS view. LDAP provides one small slice of corporate data. I want to be able to trivially integrate that slice with other corporate data for which the LDAP interface may be too inefficient or incomplete.
Please understand requirements before replying.
A user datastore is just one small part of many applications. While LDAP is quite useful for accessing the user (and other similar) info, often that user info becomes even more useful when it can be directly and easily tied to other data. SQL statements that bypass the LDAP protocol entirely are one example of a well documented interface that has a well documented standard syntax. For some purposes, you want to access the data through an LDAP interface (e.g. authentication) while for others (e.g. report generation) the SQL interface may be superior. One user datastore with multiple interfaces for multiple purposes can be better than demanding that all accesses to that datastore go through a single interface that may not have anticipated all possible application requirements.
If you don't understand why a unified backend datastore of user info with multiple interfaces for accessing it is useful, please refrain from commenting on it.
Er, no. Please re-read the 1st 30 or so pages of Von Neumann - Morgenstern Theory of games And Economic Behavior.
I spent 6 months working in NYC during Clinton's first term. He regularly showed up and the drill seemed to be that the Secret Service and local cops would shut down the highways POTUS was travelling for about 15 minutes ahead and behind him. More recently, I worked at an airline at the Cincinnati airport and saw the same pattern with Bush's convoy on several occasions. I got out of the airport one day minutes before they closed the access road and feeling pleased with myself, looked at the gas gage. Doh! The delay before they allowed the public back on the interstate was about 15 minutes. Bush has been to Columbus where I now reside several times recently and most of us barely notice. It is a tolerable nuisance. The do not shut down all the major highways in a city the size of Nashville. The Secret Service joke that "they are going to go make some Democrats" just before they tool on up the local interstate is aimed at impatient fools like yourself.
I do hope the joke changes to "make some Republicans" in 2008.