Bragging to an "Access Hollywood" Reporter, on an "Access Hollywood" bus, right before shooting an "Access Hollywood" walk-in. Then, the recording was kept for 11 years.
I'll agree that he never intended those comments be published, but saying it was "accidentally recorded on a [...] microphone that he wasn't aware of" is a bit of a stretch.
A better answer to your question is that I haven't found any features of Windows 10 that would warrant my updating from Windows 7.
Another answer would be that I haven't found any features of Windows 10 that would warrant NOT updating. All the pissing and moaning is about default settings - ie. settings you can change. You do not have to use a Microsoft account, it's a free upgrade, and you can set your security and privacy settings back to your paranoid 'do-not-share' custom settings.
Microsoft are giving this out for free, and there ARE features that might not be worth the upgrade, but are worth having. If you're on Windows 8, it's nice to have a start menu back. If you're on Windows 7, it's really nice to have all the admin options at the convenience of [win]-x or a right click on the 'start menu'.
Seriously, Windows 10 is more than 8 months old. If your apps don't work on Windows 10, stick it to the app developer. I hope they don't take 8 months to fix security bugs too.
Yes, I would recommend upgrading to Windows 10. You won't notice any 'killer apps', but you sure-as-hell notice the lack of functionality when you sit in front of a Windows 7 PC after using Windows 10 for a couple of months.
Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not.' - John F. Kennedy
I think the real blame lies y'know, with the people who actually used this as a vehicle to cheat on their spouses. Blaming this leak for the fallout is like blaming your spouse's friend who rats you out for cheating on them.
This statement is like saying "Yeah, I know revenge porn is bad, but the real blame lies y'know, with the girl who sent nude pictures in the first place. It was only a matter of time before someone re-published it"
Three things need to be remembered before you support this hack because the cheaters deserved it: 1. Ashley Madison was its self a scam. People who used the site were already being punished. Shutting down the site is actually GOOD for cheaters, because they will now know to turn to a more legitimate dating site in future. 2. Just because someone signed up to the site doesn't mean they were actually going to cheat on their spouse. It's like a list of people who've ever walked into a brothel. When push comes to shove, many people think better of their bad decisions on their own - not everybody who walks into a brothel ends up sleeping with a hooker. 2. Collateral damage - It's not just the individual listed in the leak who suffers. 2a) Plenty of public figures (doctors, lawyers, teachers, politicians) are women. They will now have to deal with their reputation that they're married to a "cheater", because public opinion doesn't understand point 1. (Imagine how a high school teacher is going to feel when some kid puts his hand up in class and says "Is your husband xxxxx? I just found his details on the Ashley Madison data dump. Do you let him spank you?") 2b) When parents divorce, their children go through hell. If cheating can dealt with privately, forgiven by the victim and the cheater changes his ways, that's a better outcome for the whole family than the alternative. Thanks to this hack, there is no longer an option for victims of cheating to deal with their husband's bad behaviour privately. This increases the chances of a worse outcome for the children.
Now, before you mod me down for my opening statement, I do understand there is a MASSIVE difference between revenge porn and this hack; but both have come about because of a breach of trust from the counterparty.
I do think it's reasonable to compare the feelings experienced by the people listed in this data dump with those experienced by women who find themselves on a revenge porn site. That is online bullying plain and simple. It is easy, and emotionally satisfying to blame the people who signed up and were silly enough to use their real name, but it is extremely unhelpful, and the whole "two wrongs might make a right" argument doesn't hold much water when you counter in the fact that Ashley Madison was ALREADY taking cheaters for everything they were worth.
However, it is an important lesson that needs to be re-iterated to Internet users daily: Information wants to be free. Access controls are temporary, content is permanent. Once you have posted something online (or sent something via MMS) you have no control over what happens to it. It cannot be deleted, It cannot be revoked, One of two things happens to online information: It will either rot into obscurity, or become public. You have no privacy online. That horse has bolted.
The responsibility rests with you: Accept the reality that privacy online is nothing more than an illusion and protect yourself by treating everything you post, publish or send as PUBLIC.
I think you might have been alluding to this, but everything you just mentioned either IS being done by Tesla, or is on the near-term roadmap for Tesla. For a video of how a battery swap would work, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The alerts of which you speak were a recent Tesla software upgrade.
As for Tesla's plans for how battery swap would work, see Elon Himself talking about it here:
So, to the GP's questions: 1) 400 miles out of one battery, no, but I only get 200 miles out of a tank in my car - and the Telsa does 265 miles from a full charge, so lets go out there on a limb and call it equivalent. 2) Yes, 2.5 minute swap-over, not 5.
I did the exam 3 years ago, and I completely agree with the breadth of the information you're talking about. Also, I agree with you about the Cisco training manuals.
However, I used the trainsignal videos, which would be less than 4.5 days of video in total, and it covered everything you need to know to do the course. I have significant experience with Cisco CLI so the simulators were a breeze.
I also found the test didn't cover the content to the n'th degree. All questions were of foundation knowledge in the subjects covered by the training materials. ie. If you read the materials once, then went and did the test, you stand a great chance of getting a pass score.
It did not ask obscure questions, and most multiple choice answers were obviously wrong (ie. no giving the OSPF timer as a potential incorrect answer for "what is the RIP timer default value") None of the incorrect answers in the subnetting multiple choice were common mistakes by transposing a single bit - if you make a simple mistake in your binary maths, the answer you calculated was not an option.
I think the Cisco course content is vast and difficult, the test, however is as easy as it possibly could be for that content.
I'd never touched frame relay, ospf or VTP but trainsignal covered more than enough, and stressed the test's common questions.
If you ignore Cisco's boring-as-hell books and subscribe to the CBTNuggets or TrainSignal/PluralSight training then spend a few hours testing yourself with the testking practice tests, it's very reasonable that someone with previous linux or networking experience could cram and pass the CCNA in a week.
I'm going to have to take your word for it, because I did mine 3 years ago. I haven't bothered renewing it because I'm not looking for work.
At the time, I was really surprised about how easy the questions on the exam were. The reading material and topic covered were vast, but the exam wasn't asking tricky questions. If you studied all the topics, you only needed to understand them all to be able to do well in the test. (Not like the Microsoft tests that ask obscure trivia and provide four realistic options for your selection)
However, looking at the topics covered, it looks like what the CCNA qualification was 8 years ago is now the ICND1, or CCENT qualification.
This doesn't seem to cover much more than networking fundamentals that IT people really should know.
Either way, you don't have to buy routers and switches. Download a copy of GNS3 and get your hands on some Cisco IOS images. That's how I got experience with the Frame Relay stuff that was in the CCNA exam I did.
Understanding netmasks and broadcast addresses is worthy of a certification? Really? Are there really people who work in IT who don't understand the basic concepts of networking? Isn't this taught in the first year of college? I mean we're not in 1980 anymore!
Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe - but the first year of college is about booze and women - P's get Degrees!
It is worth certification because it is such a fundamental component of the job of an IT person now that the Internet is ubiquitous, and because such a horrifying number of IT people don't have any understanding of switching, routing and subnetting is.
There is a reason CCNA qualifications are so widely sought - it teaches the fundamentals of networking that every IT professional should know.
The CCIE isn't a certification you just go and get!
Maybe you can just sit down and study pass the CCIE qualification exam, but the CCIE Lab is an 8 hour puzzle that only the most proficient Cisco engineers can pass.
If you're a CCIE and you just woke up one day and said "I'm going to go and get my CCIE qualification" and thought the CCIE Lab was a straightforward (not easy, but you know, not has hard as getting a postgraduate degree) affair, feel free to let me know in reply!
Were you thinking of the CCNA? In which case, yeah. I'd recommend you study and just get that qualification. It teaches you the fundamentals that every IT professional should know.
But telling someone with no Cisco training to "Go and get a CCIE" is like telling a year 12 student to "Go and get a PhD".
Yeah, except that this "scam" works. A Nigerian 419 scam ceases to be a scam if you get paid by the Nigerian.
The patent office is denying the patent because it seems to violate the laws of physics. The scientists who tested the thing agree that it seems to violate the laws of physics, but that it does, in fact, work.
To put it another way, here we have someone who has circumnavigated the earth and is trying to get intellectual property protection over the map that he's just made which features a round world. But the various patent offices are denying this protection because they know the world is flat.
Forgive me for not accepting the US Patent Office as the definitive authority on the limits of nuclear physics when we suddenly have a team of scientists saying “These values place the [device provided by the man who keeps ranting and raving about cold fusion] beyond any other known conventional source of energy.”
It appears this charlatan with his impossible device may cause us to redefine what is possible.
Are you saying here that 1) You don't punch both ends with the proper wiring (straight through) (you also seem to think it doesn't matter) and 2) that you are seriously suggesting wiring wallports to RJ-45 ends as opposed to a proper patch panel?
1) No, he's saying wire all the ends into the 568-b standard colors that will be clearly marked on the RJ45 wallports, and follow the 568-b pinout on wikipedia for the RJ45 plug ends. 2) Yeah, I read that too... I've always done the 'patch panel' end using standard wall-ports and a 6-gang wall plate. It fits in much better in a home environment than a 1RU patch panel. But he is suggesting not doing sockets at the far end, just getting one of those wall plates with a big hole and terminating them as plugs to go straight into a switch/router. I wouldn't do it that way, but if it's in a cupboard out of the way, it is the simplest and cheapest option.
What you do in a domestic environment is different from commercial.
Sounds like a pretty lame excuse for Slashdot to publicise the day that the country with the biggest, most sophisticated, most expensive army in the world was finally able to track down and assassinate the man who evaded them for _NINE YEARS_.
The man who effectively declared war on the USA by murdering 1/50th the amount of 'innocent' civilians as the USA did in Japan 66 years prior.
While I agree with the article's headline/conclusion - They aren't innocent of playing games themselves:
Take their sentence: "meeting online nudged the divorce rate from 7.67% down to 5.96%, and barely budged happiness from 5.48 to 5.64 on a 7-point scale"... Isn't that intentionally misleading? Sure, 0.16 points doesn't sound like much... but it's on a seven point scale. If we change that to a 3 point scale it's only 0.06 points! Amazingly small!... but wait, if I change that to a 900,000 point scale, well, then that's a whole 20,571 points difference. HUGE NUMBERS!
But I think they missed a really important point - SPSS (one of the very popular data analysis packages) offers you a huge range of correlation tests, and you are _supposed_ to choose to best match the data. Each has their own assumptions, and will only provide the correct 'p' value if the data matches those assumptions.
For example, Many of the tests require that the data follow a bell-shaped curve, and you are supposed to first test your data to ensure that it is normally distributed before using any of the correlation tests that assume normally distributed data. If you don't, you risk over-stating the correlation.
If you have data from a likert scale, you should treat it as ordinal (ranked) data, not numerical (ie. the difference between "Totally Disagree" and "somewhat disagree" should not be assumed to be the same as the difference between "somewhat disagree" and " totally agree") - however, if you aren't getting to the magic p0.5 treating it as ordinal data, you can usually get it over the line by treating it as numerical data and running a different correlation test.
Lecturers are measured on how many papers they publish, most peer reviewers don't know the subtle differences between these tests, so as long as they see 'SPSS said p0.5' and they don't disagree with any of the content of your paper, yay, you get published.
Finally, many of the tests have a minimum sample size that should ever be analysed. If you only have a study of 300 people, there's a whole range of popular correlation tests that you are not supposed to use. But you do, because SPSS makes it easy, because it gets better results, because you forgot what the minimum size was and can't be arsed looking it up (if it's a real problem the reviewers will point it out).
(Evidence to support these statements can be found in the "Survey Researcher's SPSS Cookbook" by Mark Manning and Don Munro. Obviously, it doesn't go into how you can choose an incorrect test to 'hack the p value', to prove that I recommend you download a copy of SPSS and take a short-term position as a lecturer's assistant)
This battle was lost years ago when this volunteer organisation gave control of their domain to Nagios Enterprises to avoid trademark issues.
So they've been able to continue in their priviliaged position paying Nagios Enterprises SFA for theses years, until finally some mid-level bureaucrat decided that the money they were getting ($0) from nagios-plugins.org community group doesn't outweigh the brand-risk that they pose, and they brought the website back inhouse.
Wow, I would never have seen that coming!!
Sounds to me like Nagios Enterprises is readying its self for sale.
This is the open source business model. Cisco have been at it for years. Get used to it.
Also, what is this "plans to accept" BS. There are heaps of online retailers who take bitcoin, and if they were serious they would have just used someone like coinjar.io to do the merchant service for them and convert it back to USD on the fly.
Slashdot - stuff that matters.... It will be news when Overstock.com ACCEPT bitcoin, not when they do nothing more than release a press release that they PLAN TO ACCEPT bitcoin some day in the future.
Thanks Slashdot for your thinly veiled Christmas advertising. Anyone wanna buy some Viagra?
This whole article is interesting, but so not news.
I'm surprised that Microsoft is spending *any* time trying to fix this issue, given that the whole windows update process will be replaced in 4 months with the following:
Slashdot Mirror
Bragging to an "Access Hollywood" Reporter, on an "Access Hollywood" bus, right before shooting an "Access Hollywood" walk-in.
Then, the recording was kept for 11 years.
I'll agree that he never intended those comments be published, but saying it was "accidentally recorded on a [...] microphone that he wasn't aware of" is a bit of a stretch.
Trump has never said anything so stupid [...]
Err... have you been watching the same campaign as the rest of us have?
Linux is way more stable than windows on my laptop, for any purpose.
Yeah, my iPad is way more stable than windows too.
But I still use Windows on my Laptop, because iOS, just like Linux, is totally useless for doing any real work.
https://pics.onsizzle.com/yes-...
A better answer to your question is that I haven't found any features of Windows 10 that would warrant my updating from Windows 7.
Another answer would be that I haven't found any features of Windows 10 that would warrant NOT updating. All the pissing and moaning is about default settings - ie. settings you can change. You do not have to use a Microsoft account, it's a free upgrade, and you can set your security and privacy settings back to your paranoid 'do-not-share' custom settings.
Microsoft are giving this out for free, and there ARE features that might not be worth the upgrade, but are worth having. If you're on Windows 8, it's nice to have a start menu back. If you're on Windows 7, it's really nice to have all the admin options at the convenience of [win]-x or a right click on the 'start menu'.
Seriously, Windows 10 is more than 8 months old. If your apps don't work on Windows 10, stick it to the app developer. I hope they don't take 8 months to fix security bugs too.
Yes, I would recommend upgrading to Windows 10. You won't notice any 'killer apps', but you sure-as-hell notice the lack of functionality when you sit in front of a Windows 7 PC after using Windows 10 for a couple of months.
Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not.' - John F. Kennedy
Agreed!
If you're going to do that, you may aswell buy a Banana Pi R1. (Just google it)
Inbuilt wifi, 2x Gig E interfaces, ARM7 processor.
What are you trying to say? That the used car dealer was dishonest?
Wow. What is the world coming to.
Because Land Rovers cost a LOT more.
If only I had mod points: +1 Funny.
Unless you were being serious? ... yah, not so much.
British cars might be "simple and solid" but "reliable and easy to work on"
I think the real blame lies y'know, with the people who actually used this as a vehicle to cheat on their spouses. Blaming this leak for the fallout is like blaming your spouse's friend who rats you out for cheating on them.
This statement is like saying "Yeah, I know revenge porn is bad, but the real blame lies y'know, with the girl who sent nude pictures in the first place. It was only a matter of time before someone re-published it"
Three things need to be remembered before you support this hack because the cheaters deserved it:
1. Ashley Madison was its self a scam. People who used the site were already being punished. Shutting down the site is actually GOOD for cheaters, because they will now know to turn to a more legitimate dating site in future.
2. Just because someone signed up to the site doesn't mean they were actually going to cheat on their spouse. It's like a list of people who've ever walked into a brothel. When push comes to shove, many people think better of their bad decisions on their own - not everybody who walks into a brothel ends up sleeping with a hooker.
2. Collateral damage - It's not just the individual listed in the leak who suffers.
2a) Plenty of public figures (doctors, lawyers, teachers, politicians) are women. They will now have to deal with their reputation that they're married to a "cheater", because public opinion doesn't understand point 1. (Imagine how a high school teacher is going to feel when some kid puts his hand up in class and says "Is your husband xxxxx? I just found his details on the Ashley Madison data dump. Do you let him spank you?")
2b) When parents divorce, their children go through hell. If cheating can dealt with privately, forgiven by the victim and the cheater changes his ways, that's a better outcome for the whole family than the alternative. Thanks to this hack, there is no longer an option for victims of cheating to deal with their husband's bad behaviour privately. This increases the chances of a worse outcome for the children.
Now, before you mod me down for my opening statement, I do understand there is a MASSIVE difference between revenge porn and this hack; but both have come about because of a breach of trust from the counterparty.
I do think it's reasonable to compare the feelings experienced by the people listed in this data dump with those experienced by women who find themselves on a revenge porn site. That is online bullying plain and simple. It is easy, and emotionally satisfying to blame the people who signed up and were silly enough to use their real name, but it is extremely unhelpful, and the whole "two wrongs might make a right" argument doesn't hold much water when you counter in the fact that Ashley Madison was ALREADY taking cheaters for everything they were worth.
However, it is an important lesson that needs to be re-iterated to Internet users daily: Information wants to be free. Access controls are temporary, content is permanent. Once you have posted something online (or sent something via MMS) you have no control over what happens to it. It cannot be deleted, It cannot be revoked, One of two things happens to online information: It will either rot into obscurity, or become public. You have no privacy online. That horse has bolted.
The responsibility rests with you: Accept the reality that privacy online is nothing more than an illusion and protect yourself by treating everything you post, publish or send as PUBLIC.
I think you might have been alluding to this, but everything you just mentioned either IS being done by Tesla, or is on the near-term roadmap for Tesla. For a video of how a battery swap would work, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The alerts of which you speak were a recent Tesla software upgrade.
As for Tesla's plans for how battery swap would work, see Elon Himself talking about it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So, to the GP's questions: 1) 400 miles out of one battery, no, but I only get 200 miles out of a tank in my car - and the Telsa does 265 miles from a full charge, so lets go out there on a limb and call it equivalent. 2) Yes, 2.5 minute swap-over, not 5.
Someone had wind, so they called off the launch.
Shame. Looks like Elon should've avoided beans last night.
I did the exam 3 years ago, and I completely agree with the breadth of the information you're talking about. Also, I agree with you about the Cisco training manuals.
However, I used the trainsignal videos, which would be less than 4.5 days of video in total, and it covered everything you need to know to do the course. I have significant experience with Cisco CLI so the simulators were a breeze.
I also found the test didn't cover the content to the n'th degree. All questions were of foundation knowledge in the subjects covered by the training materials. ie. If you read the materials once, then went and did the test, you stand a great chance of getting a pass score.
It did not ask obscure questions, and most multiple choice answers were obviously wrong (ie. no giving the OSPF timer as a potential incorrect answer for "what is the RIP timer default value") None of the incorrect answers in the subnetting multiple choice were common mistakes by transposing a single bit - if you make a simple mistake in your binary maths, the answer you calculated was not an option.
I think the Cisco course content is vast and difficult, the test, however is as easy as it possibly could be for that content.
I'd never touched frame relay, ospf or VTP but trainsignal covered more than enough, and stressed the test's common questions.
If you ignore Cisco's boring-as-hell books and subscribe to the CBTNuggets or TrainSignal/PluralSight training then spend a few hours testing yourself with the testking practice tests, it's very reasonable that someone with previous linux or networking experience could cram and pass the CCNA in a week.
I'm going to have to take your word for it, because I did mine 3 years ago. I haven't bothered renewing it because I'm not looking for work.
At the time, I was really surprised about how easy the questions on the exam were. The reading material and topic covered were vast, but the exam wasn't asking tricky questions. If you studied all the topics, you only needed to understand them all to be able to do well in the test. (Not like the Microsoft tests that ask obscure trivia and provide four realistic options for your selection)
However, looking at the topics covered, it looks like what the CCNA qualification was 8 years ago is now the ICND1, or CCENT qualification.
This doesn't seem to cover much more than networking fundamentals that IT people really should know.
Either way, you don't have to buy routers and switches. Download a copy of GNS3 and get your hands on some Cisco IOS images. That's how I got experience with the Frame Relay stuff that was in the CCNA exam I did.
Understanding netmasks and broadcast addresses is worthy of a certification? Really? Are there really people who work in IT who don't understand the basic concepts of networking? Isn't this taught in the first year of college? I mean we're not in 1980 anymore!
Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe - but the first year of college is about booze and women - P's get Degrees!
It is worth certification because it is such a fundamental component of the job of an IT person now that the Internet is ubiquitous, and because such a horrifying number of IT people don't have any understanding of switching, routing and subnetting is.
There is a reason CCNA qualifications are so widely sought - it teaches the fundamentals of networking that every IT professional should know.
The CCIE isn't a certification you just go and get!
Maybe you can just sit down and study pass the CCIE qualification exam, but the CCIE Lab is an 8 hour puzzle that only the most proficient Cisco engineers can pass.
If you're a CCIE and you just woke up one day and said "I'm going to go and get my CCIE qualification" and thought the CCIE Lab was a straightforward (not easy, but you know, not has hard as getting a postgraduate degree) affair, feel free to let me know in reply!
Were you thinking of the CCNA? In which case, yeah. I'd recommend you study and just get that qualification. It teaches you the fundamentals that every IT professional should know.
But telling someone with no Cisco training to "Go and get a CCIE" is like telling a year 12 student to "Go and get a PhD".
Yeah, except that this "scam" works. A Nigerian 419 scam ceases to be a scam if you get paid by the Nigerian.
The patent office is denying the patent because it seems to violate the laws of physics.
The scientists who tested the thing agree that it seems to violate the laws of physics, but that it does, in fact, work.
To put it another way, here we have someone who has circumnavigated the earth and is trying to get intellectual property protection over the map that he's just made which features a round world.
But the various patent offices are denying this protection because they know the world is flat.
Forgive me for not accepting the US Patent Office as the definitive authority on the limits of nuclear physics when we suddenly have a team of scientists saying “These values place the [device provided by the man who keeps ranting and raving about cold fusion] beyond any other known conventional source of energy.”
It appears this charlatan with his impossible device may cause us to redefine what is possible.
Are you saying here that 1) You don't punch both ends with the proper wiring (straight through) (you also seem to think it doesn't matter) and 2) that you are seriously suggesting wiring wallports to RJ-45 ends as opposed to a proper patch panel?
1) No, he's saying wire all the ends into the 568-b standard colors that will be clearly marked on the RJ45 wallports, and follow the 568-b pinout on wikipedia for the RJ45 plug ends.
2) Yeah, I read that too... I've always done the 'patch panel' end using standard wall-ports and a 6-gang wall plate. It fits in much better in a home environment than a 1RU patch panel. But he is suggesting not doing sockets at the far end, just getting one of those wall plates with a big hole and terminating them as plugs to go straight into a switch/router. I wouldn't do it that way, but if it's in a cupboard out of the way, it is the simplest and cheapest option.
What you do in a domestic environment is different from commercial.
https://www.ted.com/talks/dona...
Basically the same technology used in aluminum smelter, with liquid salt for the battery...
Does anyone know if this ever got off the ground?
Sounds like a pretty lame excuse for Slashdot to publicise the day that the country with the biggest, most sophisticated, most expensive army in the world was finally able to track down and assassinate the man who evaded them for _NINE YEARS_.
The man who effectively declared war on the USA by murdering 1/50th the amount of 'innocent' civilians as the USA did in Japan 66 years prior.
Far more important than being "cool", the Tesla has 362HP of power avaliable, giving it a 0-60 time of 4.2 seconds.
The electric motor means you are never in the wrong gear - it's raw power when you need it.
The Nissan Leaf boasts 110HP, which will rocket your leaf to 60mph in about 10 seconds.
So, yeah, "the nissan leaf will take on the telsa model s" in the same way the toyota prius takes on the ford mustang.
While I agree with the article's headline/conclusion - They aren't innocent of playing games themselves:
Take their sentence: "meeting online nudged the divorce rate from 7.67% down to 5.96%, and barely budged happiness from 5.48 to 5.64 on a 7-point scale" ... Isn't that intentionally misleading? Sure, 0.16 points doesn't sound like much... but it's on a seven point scale. If we change that to a 3 point scale it's only 0.06 points! Amazingly small! ... but wait, if I change that to a 900,000 point scale, well, then that's a whole 20,571 points difference. HUGE NUMBERS!
But I think they missed a really important point - SPSS (one of the very popular data analysis packages) offers you a huge range of correlation tests, and you are _supposed_ to choose to best match the data. Each has their own assumptions, and will only provide the correct 'p' value if the data matches those assumptions.
For example, Many of the tests require that the data follow a bell-shaped curve, and you are supposed to first test your data to ensure that it is normally distributed before using any of the correlation tests that assume normally distributed data. If you don't, you risk over-stating the correlation.
If you have data from a likert scale, you should treat it as ordinal (ranked) data, not numerical (ie. the difference between "Totally Disagree" and "somewhat disagree" should not be assumed to be the same as the difference between "somewhat disagree" and " totally agree") - however, if you aren't getting to the magic p0.5 treating it as ordinal data, you can usually get it over the line by treating it as numerical data and running a different correlation test.
Lecturers are measured on how many papers they publish, most peer reviewers don't know the subtle differences between these tests, so as long as they see 'SPSS said p0.5' and they don't disagree with any of the content of your paper, yay, you get published.
Finally, many of the tests have a minimum sample size that should ever be analysed. If you only have a study of 300 people, there's a whole range of popular correlation tests that you are not supposed to use. But you do, because SPSS makes it easy, because it gets better results, because you forgot what the minimum size was and can't be arsed looking it up (if it's a real problem the reviewers will point it out).
(Evidence to support these statements can be found in the "Survey Researcher's SPSS Cookbook" by Mark Manning and Don Munro. Obviously, it doesn't go into how you can choose an incorrect test to 'hack the p value', to prove that I recommend you download a copy of SPSS and take a short-term position as a lecturer's assistant)
This battle was lost years ago when this volunteer organisation gave control of their domain to Nagios Enterprises to avoid trademark issues.
So they've been able to continue in their priviliaged position paying Nagios Enterprises SFA for theses years, until finally some mid-level bureaucrat decided that the money they were getting ($0) from nagios-plugins.org community group doesn't outweigh the brand-risk that they pose, and they brought the website back inhouse.
Wow, I would never have seen that coming!!
Sounds to me like Nagios Enterprises is readying its self for sale.
This is the open source business model. Cisco have been at it for years. Get used to it.
Yeah, and that would hold weight if you weren't using their trademark all over your site.
Seems to me this is just an occupational hazard of using somebody else's name for your site.
Parent should be modded up.
Also, what is this "plans to accept" BS. There are heaps of online retailers who take bitcoin, and if they were serious they would have just used someone like coinjar.io to do the merchant service for them and convert it back to USD on the fly.
Slashdot - stuff that matters.... It will be news when Overstock.com ACCEPT bitcoin, not when they do nothing more than release a press release that they PLAN TO ACCEPT bitcoin some day in the future.
Thanks Slashdot for your thinly veiled Christmas advertising. Anyone wanna buy some Viagra?
This whole article is interesting, but so not news.
I'm surprised that Microsoft is spending *any* time trying to fix this issue, given that the whole windows update process will be replaced in 4 months with the following:
if( operatingSystemVersion 6)
return(-1);
else
return(do_updates());