Wikipedia fails for one simple reason; most of the data is without citation and most of the data with citation relies on web links that do not work anymore. The documentation that IS correct has absolutely no attribution and to find out who wrote an article or various portions of it you need to delve into histories or use something like they use to prove that the government is using it for propaganda or companies are removing swathes of information that are disparaging by the IP blocks they're posted from....
Wikipedia's chief failing is lack of citations. Lack of citations and citations with dead links. Dead links and lack of citations. Wikipedia's two failings are lack of citations and citations with dead links...and the documentation that IS correct has absolutely no attribution. Wikipedia's three failings are lack of citations, citations with dead links....
Amongst Wikipedia's failings are such diverse elements as most of the data lacking citations, most of the citations relying on web links that do not work anymore,....
Wasn't this demonstrated about 20 years ago? In that experiment, they showed how a neural network learning to "speak" (i.e. drive a speech synthesizer), would first discover that normal speech has pauses and breaks, then it learned vowels, then consonants. It learned this, if I recall correctly, by comparing (in a backprop sort of way) it's output (a transcription of the sounds that came out of the speech synth) against a human reading the same speech.
And I recall seeing a TV broadcast showing an experiment where infants were incapable of even hearing certain sounds from one language (e.g. an inuit language with subtle throat-clicking sounds) if they were primarily exposed to another language (say French or English). A baby had to be repeatedly exposed to certain sounds before they could perceive them.
Give me a break. This is *Monsanto*! How many times have they done this before in the last 100 years? People on./ often criticize Microsoft for being evil, but they don't even come close to being as demonstrably dangerous and reckless as Monsanto has been. I don't think there's a private organization on the planet that is more dangerous than Monsanto. If it's possibly for a non-human entity to be truly evil and menacing, it's Monsanto. Tobacco companies have nothing on them.
I took a 13 year hiatus between starting my CS degree and finishing it. In that time, the curriculum at my university changed so what once was a 2-part course on programming models and idioms became a 2-part course on learning the intricacies of C++. Courses on compiler design were replaced with courses on writing web applications. Instructors often short-circuited the requisite mathematics -- forget trying to understand the "why"... just learn enough to be productive in a job. When I started my degree, I learned things that spanned many technologies. By the time I finished it, my university simply taught the technology-du-jour.
When I think "Computer Science" I think Knuth and Shannon. It seems that for many others, "Computer Science" means Linux or C# or Balmer.
For example, in testing and quality assurance. It saddens me that few QA departments in the software world use statistical analysis of software and few use the scientific method.
I'm certain that Computer Science is still happening somewhere, but most of what I see in schools and industry is Computer Technology.
In most development shops I've worked for, programmers of Chinese-descent have always made huge contributions. I'd estimate that 25 to 50% of developers (in the places I've worked) have had Chinese names. But there are hardly any Chinese names in this report. That surprised me.
We're nerds. Knowing this kind of arcane shit is the only thing that matters to this shark-jumping, overlord-welcoming group of sociopaths. Welcome to slashdot.
English is very prevalent in modern technical/scientific disciplines due to its articulative flexibility through use of the root/prefix/suffix language construction derived from its Romantic/Latin heritage. Since Latin proper has mostly been replaced in the western world by Romantic language variants and dialects, English has become the language of much normative information in scientific circles. The reason is simple: articulative ability in a commonspeak language.
Nor does anything stop them from directing ongoing snort development to being a "tier B" solution (intentionally degrading the effectiveness or performance of snort) relative to their proprietary "tier A" solutions. Lots of companies do this -- they sell the same product: fully enabled at a premium prices, and partially disabled at a lower price. Many companies manfuacture the generic non-brand products "competing" with their own brands (eg. drug companies). If two products compete with each other, it's a bonus if you own both of them.
It may be a smart business move and the shareholders/owners of Checkpoint(TM) probably expect them to do whatever is necessary to maximize profits.
democracy isn't defined as everyone having a vote about everything. that's the definition of stupidity.
democracy simply means the people rule. I simply proposed one method of more-or-less accomplishing that. And yes it is a representational method. Because the non-represenationtal methods are, as I just mentionde, stupidity.
We already draft our juries (mostly) at random and most people think trial by jury is pretty fair (and democratic).
As for training people to be legislators? Sure why not -- it could only help the system. In fact, when new parliamentarians get elected in Canada, they undergo a quick course in parliamentary procedures and duties.
Ignoring the fact that this is straying way off topic...
What's truly weird is how so many of us delude ourselves into believing that we live in democracies (ie. rule of the people) simply because we hold elections. The main function of an election is not to give the people a voice, but to periodically renew the governmental entity (congress, parliament, legislature, judiciary, whatever). It's a way of cleaning out the old and bringing in the new -- but it's always the same political parties in roughly the same mixture.
Even here in Canada, in one election we wiped the Progressive Conservative party off the electoral map in 1993. But all of the Progressive Conservative policies remained intact (the GST, Free Trade, the public service cuts, low inflation policy, etc. etc). Elected governments rarely contradict or rescind the policies of the previous government. In Canada and the US after a legislative election, generally 80% to 90% of the incumbents win.
Which is good for the people in power. It gives the illusion of listening to the voice of the people but doesn't disrupt the reign held on power by the parties, corporations and unions. Elections are, in fact, essential to ensuring that the powerful maintain a fresh, strong grip on power.
True democracy is not about giving the people a choice: it's about giving the people a voice. If the powers-that-be simply give people a choice, they limit what power the people have and reserve the real power for themselves.
What would a real democracy look like?
Probably the most genuine democracy would draft their legislators at random (like juries are or mandatory military service) from all walks of life and force them to go to Washington or London or Ottawa and do their duty. Namely, if any laws need to be made, make them -- otherwise, don't. This would solve many problems such as the underrepresentation of minorities and women in government. They could even remain anonymous and we could make it a crime to reveal the identity of a legislator.
Other things that would make democracy less illusionary:
* Give the vote to every citizen above the age of zero (obviously until a child was able to claim the right to vote themselves, their parents would vote for them). In most places, there is no IQ pre-requisite to being an elector and children should have the right to be represented by their government. I suspect if kids could vote (or parents voting for them) education and health care would be a higher priority. If teenagers voted, maybe we'd actually get some movement on the environment. I wonder what promises a politician would make when visiting a high-school campus if the kids there could actually vote...
* Make voting continuous -- not just once every 4 years or whatever. Register our votes and give every citizen the right to change their vote whenever they want to. Thus an incumbent could effectively be recalled any time his/her constituents lose confidence in him/her.
But those are wishy-washy measures. As long as we have any form of voting, we dilute any power vested in the people.
They are all the same thing functionally. This was lecture #1 of my 2nd year computer organization class 12 years ago: The capabilities of hardware and software are interchangeable. Functions of an OS or a PL could be built into hardware and hardware functionality (except device control) can be built into the OS or PL.
I wonder why this concept is new and controversial to so many slashdot readers...
IMHO, the most important characteristic about Linux is that it is a durable technology. The basic concepts behind Linux have been extremely successful for over 30 years. Linux runs on virtually every architecture and will, most likely, be the first OS running on future architectures. It's adaptable, evolves well and functions extremely well.
And let's face it: The "desktop computer" is a fad. Does anyone seriously think that we'll be chained to our desktop (or laptop) in 30 years? Of course not. Computers may become ubiquitous in the future, but not the clunky boob-tubes that Dell & MS have been pushing onto the compliant masses. The future of computing is "invisible" (ie. hidden) computers and a retarding desktop interface won't play a role in that future.
I love the work that has been done on X11, KDE and other UI technologies. Very useful work, indeed. But I hope most designers in the Linux realm will not be misguided into striving for the unimportant goal of desktop dominance.
I pray to God that stack-based computers fade from existance, but as long as they are here Linux (and the whole Unix tradition) will play an increasingly significant role. I'm not sure the same can be said for the MS-DOS/Windows tradition which has undergone four massive re-designs in 15 years...
1. There are more ways to exploit C code than looking for buffer overflows. race conditions are a more prevalent and portably exploitable vulnerability of a large body of C code (eg. config file integrity). Following the author's guidelines barely improves the security of any program. If you want to make your code secure, spend a month reading the 1000s of articles online (or at the ACM or IEEE or CERT/CC) about how software is compromised. This is so much crap.
2. This is so not news for so many reasons. Slashdot is becoming so out of touch (yes, isn't it cool knowing some freak shoved a Pentium giga-twat up his ass and replaced his eyeballs with WiFi LCD projectors?) I sometimes get nauseated reading these stupid "news" items.
Slashdot: News for the Herd. Stuff that goes "Baaaaaa"
Twenty years ago, methodologists described the software crisis as the difficulty in building reliable but complex software systems. I truly believe that a lot of the "best practices" established over years have improved our ability to build good software.
But the real software crisis we face today is that most software we use never underwent legitimate requirements analysis. There was a time when large organizations sought out software solutions and paid to have them built. The vast majority of software used today in business, was not build against user requirements. Instead they are built to meet buyer requirements or marketing requirements.
Mass-market software (ie. everything that runs on a Windows PC) isn't built at the request of its user. Instead, companies built software based on what they *think* users want and then close the gap by marketing their pre-built products to us. Users have very little input into how their purchased software will function. Often a software company will spend a disproportionate amount of money adding features that will attract buyers not users.
I mean think about it: The core functionality of word processing software has remained unchanged since the days of Magic Window and StarWriter. There is only a finite amount of functions a word processor can perform.
There is, however, an unlimited number of features a company can add to a product (functional or not) in order to distinguish it from a competitor or previous version.
The vast majority of software is not purchased based on satisfying a clear set of requirements. We buy MS Office because, well... just because.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe there is some truth to the old adage: "Not all conservatives are idiots, but most idiots are conservative..."
I know nothing of the law, but this is almost the stupidest advice I've ever heard.
Here's an audio clip of its learning progression.
And I recall seeing a TV broadcast showing an experiment where infants were incapable of even hearing certain sounds from one language (e.g. an inuit language with subtle throat-clicking sounds) if they were primarily exposed to another language (say French or English). A baby had to be repeatedly exposed to certain sounds before they could perceive them.
In the USA, are corporations entitled to 2nd Amendment rights, too?
Give me a break. This is *Monsanto*! How many times have they done this before in the last 100 years? People on ./ often criticize Microsoft for being evil, but they don't even come close to being as demonstrably dangerous and reckless as Monsanto has been. I don't think there's a private organization on the planet that is more dangerous than Monsanto. If it's possibly for a non-human entity to be truly evil and menacing, it's Monsanto. Tobacco companies have nothing on them.
I agree.
... just learn enough to be productive in a job. When I started my degree, I learned things that spanned many technologies. By the time I finished it, my university simply taught the technology-du-jour.
I took a 13 year hiatus between starting my CS degree and finishing it. In that time, the curriculum at my university changed so what once was a 2-part course on programming models and idioms became a 2-part course on learning the intricacies of C++. Courses on compiler design were replaced with courses on writing web applications. Instructors often short-circuited the requisite mathematics -- forget trying to understand the "why"
When I think "Computer Science" I think Knuth and Shannon. It seems that for many others, "Computer Science" means Linux or C# or Balmer.
For example, in testing and quality assurance. It saddens me that few QA departments in the software world use statistical analysis of software and few use the scientific method.
I'm certain that Computer Science is still happening somewhere, but most of what I see in schools and industry is Computer Technology.
In most development shops I've worked for, programmers of Chinese-descent have always made huge contributions. I'd estimate that 25 to 50% of developers (in the places I've worked) have had Chinese names. But there are hardly any Chinese names in this report. That surprised me.
Actually, real men use: cat > a.out
We're nerds. Knowing this kind of arcane shit is the only thing that matters to this shark-jumping, overlord-welcoming group of sociopaths. Welcome to slashdot.
Seriously. We need the W3C (or at least CmdrTaco) to approve an tag.
Windows 1.0 to XP: Screenshots
Nor does anything stop them from directing ongoing snort development to being a "tier B" solution (intentionally degrading the effectiveness or performance of snort) relative to their proprietary "tier A" solutions. Lots of companies do this -- they sell the same product: fully enabled at a premium prices, and partially disabled at a lower price. Many companies manfuacture the generic non-brand products "competing" with their own brands (eg. drug companies). If two products compete with each other, it's a bonus if you own both of them.
It may be a smart business move and the shareholders/owners of Checkpoint(TM) probably expect them to do whatever is necessary to maximize profits.
Two thumbs down for this move.
1. Trying to fix flaws in technology with more technology.
I'm really glad to hear someone else echo the stupidity of "enumerating badness/default permit" as the author puts it.
Arrr! It's not "piracy" either, matey.
democracy isn't defined as everyone having a vote about everything. that's the definition of stupidity.
democracy simply means the people rule. I simply proposed one method of more-or-less accomplishing that. And yes it is a representational method. Because the non-represenationtal methods are, as I just mentionde, stupidity.
We already draft our juries (mostly) at random and most people think trial by jury is pretty fair (and democratic).
As for training people to be legislators? Sure why not -- it could only help the system. In fact, when new parliamentarians get elected in Canada, they undergo a quick course in parliamentary procedures and duties.
Ignoring the fact that this is straying way off topic...
What's truly weird is how so many of us delude ourselves into believing that we live in democracies (ie. rule of the people) simply because we hold elections. The main function of an election is not to give the people a voice, but to periodically renew the governmental entity (congress, parliament, legislature, judiciary, whatever). It's a way of cleaning out the old and bringing in the new -- but it's always the same political parties in roughly the same mixture.
Even here in Canada, in one election we wiped the Progressive Conservative party off the electoral map in 1993. But all of the Progressive Conservative policies remained intact (the GST, Free Trade, the public service cuts, low inflation policy, etc. etc). Elected governments rarely contradict or rescind the policies of the previous government. In Canada and the US after a legislative election, generally 80% to 90% of the incumbents win.
Which is good for the people in power. It gives the illusion of listening to the voice of the people but doesn't disrupt the reign held on power by the parties, corporations and unions. Elections are, in fact, essential to ensuring that the powerful maintain a fresh, strong grip on power.
True democracy is not about giving the people a choice: it's about giving the people a voice. If the powers-that-be simply give people a choice, they limit what power the people have and reserve the real power for themselves.
What would a real democracy look like?
Probably the most genuine democracy would draft their legislators at random (like juries are or mandatory military service) from all walks of life and force them to go to Washington or London or Ottawa and do their duty. Namely, if any laws need to be made, make them -- otherwise, don't. This would solve many problems such as the underrepresentation of minorities and women in government. They could even remain anonymous and we could make it a crime to reveal the identity of a legislator.
Other things that would make democracy less illusionary:
* Give the vote to every citizen above the age of zero (obviously until a child was able to claim the right to vote themselves, their parents would vote for them). In most places, there is no IQ pre-requisite to being an elector and children should have the right to be represented by their government. I suspect if kids could vote (or parents voting for them) education and health care would be a higher priority. If teenagers voted, maybe we'd actually get some movement on the environment. I wonder what promises a politician would make when visiting a high-school campus if the kids there could actually vote...
* Make voting continuous -- not just once every 4 years or whatever. Register our votes and give every citizen the right to change their vote whenever they want to. Thus an incumbent could effectively be recalled any time his/her constituents lose confidence in him/her.
But those are wishy-washy measures. As long as we have any form of voting, we dilute any power vested in the people.
They are all the same thing functionally. This was lecture #1 of my 2nd year computer organization class 12 years ago: The capabilities of hardware and software are interchangeable. Functions of an OS or a PL could be built into hardware and hardware functionality (except device control) can be built into the OS or PL.
I wonder why this concept is new and controversial to so many slashdot readers...
IMHO, the most important characteristic about Linux is that it is a durable technology. The basic concepts behind Linux have been extremely successful for over 30 years. Linux runs on virtually every architecture and will, most likely, be the first OS running on future architectures. It's adaptable, evolves well and functions extremely well.
And let's face it: The "desktop computer" is a fad. Does anyone seriously think that we'll be chained to our desktop (or laptop) in 30 years? Of course not. Computers may become ubiquitous in the future, but not the clunky boob-tubes that Dell & MS have been pushing onto the compliant masses. The future of computing is "invisible" (ie. hidden) computers and a retarding desktop interface won't play a role in that future.
I love the work that has been done on X11, KDE and other UI technologies. Very useful work, indeed. But I hope most designers in the Linux realm will not be misguided into striving for the unimportant goal of desktop dominance.
I pray to God that stack-based computers fade from existance, but as long as they are here Linux (and the whole Unix tradition) will play an increasingly significant role. I'm not sure the same can be said for the MS-DOS/Windows tradition which has undergone four massive re-designs in 15 years...
1. There are more ways to exploit C code than looking for buffer overflows. race conditions are a more prevalent and portably exploitable vulnerability of a large body of C code (eg. config file integrity). Following the author's guidelines barely improves the security of any program. If you want to make your code secure, spend a month reading the 1000s of articles online (or at the ACM or IEEE or CERT/CC) about how software is compromised. This is so much crap.
2. This is so not news for so many reasons. Slashdot is becoming so out of touch (yes, isn't it cool knowing some freak shoved a Pentium giga-twat up his ass and replaced his eyeballs with WiFi LCD projectors?) I sometimes get nauseated reading these stupid "news" items.
Slashdot: News for the Herd. Stuff that goes "Baaaaaa"
Twenty years ago, methodologists described the software crisis as the difficulty in building reliable but complex software systems. I truly believe that a lot of the "best practices" established over years have improved our ability to build good software.
But the real software crisis we face today is that most software we use never underwent legitimate requirements analysis. There was a time when large organizations sought out software solutions and paid to have them built. The vast majority of software used today in business, was not build against user requirements. Instead they are built to meet buyer requirements or marketing requirements.
Mass-market software (ie. everything that runs on a Windows PC) isn't built at the request of its user. Instead, companies built software based on what they *think* users want and then close the gap by marketing their pre-built products to us. Users have very little input into how their purchased software will function. Often a software company will spend a disproportionate amount of money adding features that will attract buyers not users.
I mean think about it: The core functionality of word processing software has remained unchanged since the days of Magic Window and StarWriter. There is only a finite amount of functions a word processor can perform.
There is, however, an unlimited number of features a company can add to a product (functional or not) in order to distinguish it from a competitor or previous version.
The vast majority of software is not purchased based on satisfying a clear set of requirements. We buy MS Office because, well... just because.
That's the real software crisis.