Ethics gets the short shift at every level of education, at least in America. I've graduated from High School, got an Associates Degree, not once took an ethics class. A little bit of ethics has to seep into classes, though and they hope maybe parents have some clue and just leave it at that. There's really not much of it though.
Two core elements of a sensible security model for me is notifying the user of something he might not want done, and allowing him to turn off superficial alerts so that he can concentrate on the real problems. Now I forget what the feature is called that Microsoft implemented that is supposed to do this sort of thing, but all the reports seem to be saying that it's been flagging superficial stuff like deleting a shortcut from the desktop and I haven't been hearing reports of it catching really serious stuff. Though instead of writing software to detect and notify about the really serious stuff, it seems that Microsoft has done this.
No, it's like Locksmiths petitioning the state not to mandate that only one type of "new secure door" be used going forward, the specs of which will be kept a state secret.
Don't the French have the concept of an idea not being copyrightable, but only implementations? Then there is the issue of the noncopyrightability due to the nature of the underlying materials involved. I forget the term for it, but someone brought it up in an earlier Slashdot discussion.
There are no captchas for registered accounts. There didn't use to be for Anonymous Cowards. It's been so long since I posted as Anonymous Coward, I was unaware that Slashdot had implemented them...
Of course, my account has been around long enough that they may have implemented captchas on new accounts and I still would be unaffected.
Your sig just a moment ago said "404 error: sig not found". Now it says simply "sig not found". I was just now going to suggest changing it to "404 error: sig not found. Additionally, a 404 error was encountered why trying to locate an errordocument".
For the amounts of money Microsoft and Sony were willing to throw at GPU makers and the performance they were expecting to get in return, Microsoft's GPU was more expensive versus profit for the manufacturer. Another way of putting it is that the margins were lower.
Achieving bubble fusion drives you crazy. Unfortunately, it's awful hard to communicate what's necessary to replicate the experiment while crazy, so practically all successful bubble experiments get written off as fraud.
What they're talking about is the failure to extrapolate out using models. It's easy to say that the future will have this or that generalized feature, but hard when you move to greater and greater detail.
Re:Try having sex with a plant.
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
I think anyone can see, that humans and plants arent designed to be matched up.
Oh, so that's why every time a human tries to eat a plant they suffer a fatal immune reaction.
No, it's not. If it's not right, then by one system of logic, humans and animals shouldn't eat plants, humans shouldn't grow plants as food, and plants shouldn't be used as decoration.
He wasn't arguing semantics yet. You were applying a different set of semantics. "Why" very often refers to substrates involved.
Why do we see? One answer to that question is because light bounces off objects and enters our eyes. We can calculate the angles of reflection, but that still doesn't tell us why things have different colors, which can be answered by saying that when electons decay in an orbit, depending on which orbit they started at and what orbit they dropped to. We still don't know why light does what it does in the two slit experiment in the same sense that we've moved from knowing that we see to knowing particulars about it. Our calculations aren't even that good on the atomic level that we can brute force calculate the best solar panel material for example.
"a knowledge" should be "a little bit of knowledge" and that little bit of knowledge at this point consists mainly of making sure that quantum effects don't interfere with the desired result, as opposed to taking advantage of quantum effects to achieve the desired result.
If the book is supposed to be able to do it, then how come you have to just point to a nonspecific book. Got a specific book? Mind explaining why no relevant Wikipedia article simply isn't up to the job. Hey, there are quite a few textbooks making their way to the net. Mind pointing out a relevant chapter? Ooh, Math! What branches of math are relevant for understanding quantum mechanics.
My computer works on actual understood quantum principles that are repeated a billionfold
No, your computer works based on principles a little higher up the scale than quantum principles. And when they do make computers that are based on quantum principles, they'll be able to work without too deep an understanding of what actually goes on at the quantum level, because of a sort of cumulative effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
From the perspective of the population, "Somebody winning the 'jackpot' in a lottery has obscene odds", but from the perspective of time, it happens all the time, so the odds aren't bad. Of course I'm actually talking about two different sets of odds, but then when odds get reported, it's so sloppy that it's not entirely clear which odds are actually being reported. A lot of experiments are like that. Nobody's quite sure what it is they are measuring.
It's not out of line in the way bringing a rocket launcher to a gunfignt might be considered out of line, it's out of line in the way of bringing a very mean looking pellet gun to a gunfight.
He doesn't seem to care. Maybe he's living according to the philosophy, "Let us eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die". Or maybe, "Oh well, if it can't be helped, it can't be helped."
People like it when others confess that they have sinned, on the one hand and on the other, they occasionally like it when somone admits that they are doing something, but then say "It may not be popular, but we were right to do it". It's called having the courage of your convictions.
No, the reason why the manuals of tabletops are filled only with stats is because storytelling doesn't need instruction.
You're just saying that because no one has ever given instruction. And the reason no one has ever given instruction, is a complicated one, having something to do with the fact that storytelling was originally primarily a way of communicating a village's history to the next generation. and to serve that purpose the stories wrote themselves in the actions of the villagers and once you had a certain amount you really didn't need to come up with new ones much.
Slashdot Mirror
Ethics gets the short shift at every level of education, at least in America. I've graduated from High School, got an Associates Degree, not once took an ethics class. A little bit of ethics has to seep into classes, though and they hope maybe parents have some clue and just leave it at that. There's really not much of it though.
But in this case as in many, that responsibility wasn't backed by the authority the engineer needed to properly carry out that responsibility.
Two core elements of a sensible security model for me is notifying the user of something he might not want done, and allowing him to turn off superficial alerts so that he can concentrate on the real problems. Now I forget what the feature is called that Microsoft implemented that is supposed to do this sort of thing, but all the reports seem to be saying that it's been flagging superficial stuff like deleting a shortcut from the desktop and I haven't been hearing reports of it catching really serious stuff. Though instead of writing software to detect and notify about the really serious stuff, it seems that Microsoft has done this.
No, it's like Locksmiths petitioning the state not to mandate that only one type of "new secure door" be used going forward, the specs of which will be kept a state secret.
Don't the French have the concept of an idea not being copyrightable, but only implementations? Then there is the issue of the noncopyrightability due to the nature of the underlying materials involved. I forget the term for it, but someone brought it up in an earlier Slashdot discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_(science)
There are no captchas for registered accounts. There didn't use to be for Anonymous Cowards. It's been so long since I posted as Anonymous Coward, I was unaware that Slashdot had implemented them...
Of course, my account has been around long enough that they may have implemented captchas on new accounts and I still would be unaffected.
How do you figure?
I don't know about you, but I buy my fruit by the pound.
Your sig just a moment ago said "404 error: sig not found". Now it says simply "sig not found". I was just now going to suggest changing it to "404 error: sig not found. Additionally, a 404 error was encountered why trying to locate an errordocument".
For the amounts of money Microsoft and Sony were willing to throw at GPU makers and the performance they were expecting to get in return, Microsoft's GPU was more expensive versus profit for the manufacturer. Another way of putting it is that the margins were lower.
Achieving bubble fusion drives you crazy. Unfortunately, it's awful hard to communicate what's necessary to replicate the experiment while crazy, so practically all successful bubble experiments get written off as fraud.
What they're talking about is the failure to extrapolate out using models. It's easy to say that the future will have this or that generalized feature, but hard when you move to greater and greater detail.
No, it's not. If it's not right, then by one system of logic, humans and animals shouldn't eat plants, humans shouldn't grow plants as food, and plants shouldn't be used as decoration.
How exactly is it in any way obvious?
If there are shortages then that fellow really was right and the PS3 isn't selling at high enough a price.
He wasn't arguing semantics yet. You were applying a different set of semantics. "Why" very often refers to substrates involved.
Why do we see? One answer to that question is because light bounces off objects and enters our eyes. We can calculate the angles of reflection, but that still doesn't tell us why things have different colors, which can be answered by saying that when electons decay in an orbit, depending on which orbit they started at and what orbit they dropped to. We still don't know why light does what it does in the two slit experiment in the same sense that we've moved from knowing that we see to knowing particulars about it. Our calculations aren't even that good on the atomic level that we can brute force calculate the best solar panel material for example.
"a knowledge" should be "a little bit of knowledge" and that little bit of knowledge at this point consists mainly of making sure that quantum effects don't interfere with the desired result, as opposed to taking advantage of quantum effects to achieve the desired result.
No, your computer works based on principles a little higher up the scale than quantum principles. And when they do make computers that are based on quantum principles, they'll be able to work without too deep an understanding of what actually goes on at the quantum level, because of a sort of cumulative effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit
From the perspective of the population, "Somebody winning the 'jackpot' in a lottery has obscene odds", but from the perspective of time, it happens all the time, so the odds aren't bad. Of course I'm actually talking about two different sets of odds, but then when odds get reported, it's so sloppy that it's not entirely clear which odds are actually being reported. A lot of experiments are like that. Nobody's quite sure what it is they are measuring.
It's not out of line in the way bringing a rocket launcher to a gunfignt might be considered out of line, it's out of line in the way of bringing a very mean looking pellet gun to a gunfight.
He doesn't seem to care. Maybe he's living according to the philosophy, "Let us eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die". Or maybe, "Oh well, if it can't be helped, it can't be helped."
People like it when others confess that they have sinned, on the one hand and on the other, they occasionally like it when somone admits that they are doing something, but then say "It may not be popular, but we were right to do it". It's called having the courage of your convictions.