You know, I wouldn't have any problem with establishments not admitting black people; the same thing would happen. In cosmopolitan areas, the establishment would go out of business as people began to avoid it. In redneck areas, blacks still aren't allowed to patronise the establishment, it's just their kept out by the abuses of the other patrons rather than the policy of the storeowner.
Of course, there's also a qualitative difference. You don't need to do anything special to make your store "black-friendly". You don't need to spend money on ramps, elevators, etc. Whereas for disabled access, it imposes a financial burden on behalf of the operator.
it doesn't cost much more to build it in from the start
If you're building from the start, that is. If you've already got a huge, existing website, then it can be quite the PITA
Not to mention that without any legally-defined standards, you can just be sued by someone with a disability you haven't considered. What if your site's navigation is too complex for a person with mental retardation to use? What if a double-amputee is trying to use your site with no arms? What if someone is dyslexic, and can't read your sites content?
I'm all for accessible content, and sites I develop are generally fairly good in that regard. But I still don't want to be sued because someone with Parkinson's couldn't click the right button.
Yes, and those in the developing world give up that necessity every day. Americans can afford to visit family an airplane ride away on a regular basis.
Most people in the developing world don't have families that are an airplane ride away. It's only in countries like America that families can afford to spread out over five hundred kilometres.
However, that is a sacrifice that millions of immigrants make every year.
Most immigrants who come over to America are working for the purpose of bringing their family over to join them, so they can settle down and live a secure life in America. Read what the OP is saying, if you can actually distill any facts from his overblown purple prose. He's saying that living in one place is a luxury, that people should be willing to relocate at a moment's notice anywhere in the world to follow their work, and anyone who doesn't is rich and lazy. Basically he's going on an anti-materialism rant (your home owns you) under the pretext of globalisation. Wait till he grows up a little and actually has some of the material he now comdemns and you'll hear a different song.
So friends and family are "luxuries of a highly refined caste which are ill-afforded the majority of the human popluation"?
I don't know where you're cut-and-pasting your rhetoric from, but you really should stop. It's annoying, doesn't help your point, and makes you sound like an imbecile.
Actually, DVDs do contain DRM - CSS, region encoding, and that content-locking unfeature that prevents the user from skipping legal notices and advertising. Moreover, DVDs and iTunes both have the number one feature that I look for whenever I'm thinking of buying DRM-enumbered media - it's been cracked. The only time I buy DRM stuff is when I know I can easily get around the DRM if need be.
It certainly is difficult to make a useful system, but the outliers are just part of the problem, and pointing out that outliers exist doesn't provide evidence either way.
The question is whether the outliers compose 2% of the system's subjects, or 30%. My point was that if you're relying on movement patterns to make the categorization, anything that affects movement will increase the systems inaccuracy, and there are lots of things that make someone's movements deviate from the norm - injury, sore legs, carrying a heavy bag, holding another person's hand, personal idiosyncracy, and, if the system becomes widespread, deliberate attempts to confuse it. What I'm questioning isn't if the system is perfect, it's whether the system would be sufficiently accurate to be useful in a real-world context.
Is there a system that does this in the real world? Because I would be interested in how it compensates for, say, people in bulky clothing, exceptionally short people, exceptionally tall people, people with some sort of movement-impairing injury (crutches, arm in a sling, limp). There are so many variables that affect the way people move, that I imagine it would be very difficult to make a reasonably accurate system that could cope with the variations of so many people. That's not to say it would be impossible, but are there any such systems in production?
How long will it be until these systems start to look at the ethnicity/gender/age of people and use that to gauge threat level?
Quite a while, I'd imagine. I've never heard of any system that has the capacity to determine that information from a video clip. Even facial recognition systems, which are comparing a face to a given set of possibles, are quite flakey. A recognition system that is supposed to derive general data from low-quality, non-direct-facing security footage, especially data that humans can't reliably identify, is years off. I'd guess it would require some form of true AI. How exactly do you determine how old a person is from film? Count the wrinkles and divide by 10? Many of these things are subjective, unconscious assessments, not the sort able to be easily made by a computer system.
The items which would normally be included in a normal encyclopedia get a decent number of eyes, enough to correct glaring errors/vandalism
Popular phenomena and current events get an exceptionally large number of eyes, resulting in a more comprehensive article than you'd find in a normal encyclopedia, though subject to the occasional temporary vanadlism
Small cult subjects that wouldn't normally find their way into an encylopedia get few eyes, enough to provide information, but often not NPOV or entirely correct
I think that's a net win for Wikipedia really. Despite their inaccuracy being "Wikipedia's greatest hinderance", you'll probably find more about Procul Harum from Wikipedia than you would from Encyclopedia Britannica.
But what did they want done? Terrorism is sort of like a hostage situation: meet my demands, or I'll continue my activities. Withdraw your troops, or we'll keep attacking the US. Close abortion clinics, or we'll keep bombing. Get out of Ireland, or we'll kill you. The goal is political, the actual killing a means to an end. In the case of the Unabomber, he made no demands initially - he just sent out the bombs. He demanded his manifesto be published (according to Wikipedia) in 1995, 17 years after he started bombing. It seems fairly clear that destruction was his goal (which is supported by his manifesto), not just a means to an end. The same for McVeigh. He wanted revenge; his objective was to kill people, he didn't have a political goal that he was using the threat of violence to achieve, he was killing because he wanted people dead.
Terrorists can be negotiated with, and caved-in to. It may be a bad idea, but it can be done. If the US pulled out all resources from the Middle East, I'd expect groups attacks from groups like al-Quaeda to be reduced; they've achieved their goal. Likewise, the English pulling out from Ireland would likely have reduced attacks from the IRS. But what can you do stop someone who just wants to kill people?
I'm with you on the IRA and abortion-bombers (haven't heard of the Shining Path), but I don't think you can class Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber as terrorists. Of course, it depends on your definition of terrorist. To my understanding, "terrorist" means some person or some group trying to achieve political ends through inspiring terror, which usually included unexpected, unprovoked attacks against civilians.
The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh weren't terrorists, anymore than, say, the Columbine boys. They were mass-murderers, they were psycho, but, as far as I know, none of them had a political agenda they were trying to push - like, say, the removal of the US presence in the Middle East, outlawing of abortion or Irish independance from England.
That is different from how you seem to use the word; you seem to be going on the definition of "killed a lot of innocent people". Both are bad, but they are both different. The difference is important, because it gives you ways of getting into the mind of the perpetrators, and helping you guess what they plan to do and how they plan to do it. Stopping a crazy whackjob is hard, because they're unpredictable. A terrorist organisation whose stated purpose is US withdrawal from the Middle East is easier to predict, however, if not easier to stop. You can assume they're going to target US citizens (or allies). If they are geographically based, then you can assume most members will have been to that geographical region recently. You can tell that certain actions (more troops moving into Iraq, say) are likely to result in increased terrorist activity.
Ah, you're RIGHT! You mean like white Baptists from Mississippi! We must bar them at once from boarding an airplane!
Wait, did that just sound silly? I bet it did! Why? Because it's a hideously bigoted statement, but it's bigoted against those who are more like the picture of "us"
No, it sounded stupid because no white Baptists from Mississippi have been flying aeroplanes into buildings lately. If you were going to restrict, say, the distribution of addresses of local abortion clinics, then maybe you'd have a good reason to profile for white Mississipian Christians rather than young male Muslims.
From that article, it seems you need to push a button in the install software, then a button the physical router, and the router will send your computer the decryption keys. The most secure way I can think of it doing this is that both the router and the software have a standard key built into them at the manufacturing stage, and that they use this default key to encrypt the signal that transmits the real key. That's fairly secure, as only someone who is listening at the same moment, and knows the default key, could intercept the true key. I imagine that if the routers ship with such a default key, sooner or later the key will become known, meaning people who know to use it will be able to intercept the key transmission if they're in the right place at the right time.
Not as secure as entering in your keys manually, but a damn sight more secure than not having any encryption enabled, I guess. Of course, most of this is just speculation on my part, but if anyone knows a more secure way of exchanging keys in this scenario, feel free to chime in.
Not quite; the manufacturer would then need to provide the encryption keys written down somewhere, and the consumer would have to configure their computer to use those keys. Security will *always* require a bit more effort on the part of the users. Unfortunately, people in general still aren't confident enough with computers to handle configuring some simple stuff like wireless encryption keys. If a company did this, you can bet they'd have an upswing in irate customers complaining the product didn't work, simply because the node was locking the customer's own computer out because they hadn't given it the keys. I'm sure if it didn't otherwise cause problems, most companies would do as you suggest - it would be of benefit to them, after all, having a reputably secure product - but it seems they've decided that having to deal with idiots costs more than the benefit of having a secure-by-default access point. Having dealt with a fair number of idiots myself, I can't really blame them.
Re:why did it kill him?
on
Steve Irwin Dead
·
· Score: 5, Informative
From what they've said on the TV here, it sounds like they were filming the stingray. Cameraman to the front, and Irwin over the top; the ray felt cornered and trapped, and reacted defensively.
So what you're saying is when you say democracy, you don't really mean democracy. Democracy literally means "rule by the people". It's frequently held up as the ultimate form of government for free people. The more people assosciate the tern "democracy" with representative democracy, the more they become blinded to the fact that what they have isn't really democracy.
Nope. The Cathedral and the Bazaar talks about the source of contributions. This is talking about project management. Ubuntu can still receive code from anyone who wants to write some; that's the Bazaar model. The project management decides which code, of all received, they want to use. If someone disagrees with the project management of Ubuntu, they can fork it, and manage it in the way they say fit. It's all still Bazaar.
Actually, that's representative democracy; true democracy would have no elections. Rather, every law would be voted on by everyone before it was enacted. That's the way it was in ancient Greece. Of course, there's a large difference between an ancient Greek city-state, where only male landowners can vote, and a continent-spanning nation with general suffrage - true democracy would result in chaos in most modern nations, especially with the number of laws we currently have (although I think that a lot of that is an outgrowth of having professional lawmakers). But still, the American system of representative democracy should not be used interchangeably with democracy; they are very different beasts.
Last time I checked on that, the plugin for Apache was still heavily under development and not recommended for production use. Not sure if its changed since then
ASP.NET is a significant change from ASP - they're in two completely different classes. I develop in PHP, Java and ASP.NET, and in tems purely of language, ASP.NET is the way to go, in my opinion. Of course, the problem with ASP.NET is that you really have to run it in a Windows/ISS environment, which has headaches all of its own. If ever there's a time when ASP.NET is well supported for production under apache, I'd use it for anything remotely complex.
No, because after I took one you would only have 1,999 DVDs and I would have 1. If I made a copy of one of your DVDs, you would have 2,000 DVDs, and I would have 1. I understand what you're saying, but you're wrong. One is theft, one is copyright infringement. They are both illegal, but they are both different. The only people trying to push you're definition are the *AAs, who are trying to equate them because people know stealing is wrong, but are more ambivalent about copyright infringement.
If you take their property without permission it is stealing, therefore copyright theft is theft, it's as simple as that.
But you don't take their property. You duplicate it. When you steal something, you have it, and the victim no longer does. When you infringe someone's copyright, you have a copy of it, and so do they.
Casual users won't see changes made by anons, so why exactly will their changes be there? Why bother? Editors will still see them, fine, but people like me are usual users but casual editors, they won't have the basic motivation for improving an article - their work won't be available for the public immediately.
Sure they will. When an anon makes a change, the entry will be flagged as recently changed, and editors with the appropriate permission can mark it off and send it on to the public face of the site. This is really just a change in workflow. It used to be Anyone -> Everyone, now it's Anyone -> Registered Users -> Everyone. You still have the Anyone -> Everyone relationship, which I consider to be the most important aspect of Wikipedia. It's just you have an intermediate entity approving the changes.
I agree; Final Fantasy 8 was damned easy. Once I'd been through the game once, and knew what material was required, I could make three of my character's ultimate weapons on the first disc. Buy a load of tents, convert them to Curagas, and junction them to HP, keep your characters in the yellow and you can perform a Limit Break as often as you like for the better half of half the game.
I quite enjoyed Final Fantasy 8. The characters were interesting, the graphics were gorgeous, and the plot was novel, as it was really more of a romance story than a fantasy one. The things that annoyed me the most were the game mechanics. The junctioning system was broken, as it discouraged you from ever casting spells. It also allowed you to get ridiculously overpowered early in the game, as did the weapon construction system. The other thing that annoyed me is that I setup Rinoah as healer, and she spend half the game getting kidnapped/possessed by sorceresses.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I wouldn't have any problem with establishments not admitting black people; the same thing would happen. In cosmopolitan areas, the establishment would go out of business as people began to avoid it. In redneck areas, blacks still aren't allowed to patronise the establishment, it's just their kept out by the abuses of the other patrons rather than the policy of the storeowner.
Of course, there's also a qualitative difference. You don't need to do anything special to make your store "black-friendly". You don't need to spend money on ramps, elevators, etc. Whereas for disabled access, it imposes a financial burden on behalf of the operator.
it doesn't cost much more to build it in from the start
If you're building from the start, that is. If you've already got a huge, existing website, then it can be quite the PITA
Not to mention that without any legally-defined standards, you can just be sued by someone with a disability you haven't considered. What if your site's navigation is too complex for a person with mental retardation to use? What if a double-amputee is trying to use your site with no arms? What if someone is dyslexic, and can't read your sites content?
I'm all for accessible content, and sites I develop are generally fairly good in that regard. But I still don't want to be sued because someone with Parkinson's couldn't click the right button.
Yes, and those in the developing world give up that necessity every day. Americans can afford to visit family an airplane ride away on a regular basis.
Most people in the developing world don't have families that are an airplane ride away. It's only in countries like America that families can afford to spread out over five hundred kilometres. However, that is a sacrifice that millions of immigrants make every year.
Most immigrants who come over to America are working for the purpose of bringing their family over to join them, so they can settle down and live a secure life in America. Read what the OP is saying, if you can actually distill any facts from his overblown purple prose. He's saying that living in one place is a luxury, that people should be willing to relocate at a moment's notice anywhere in the world to follow their work, and anyone who doesn't is rich and lazy. Basically he's going on an anti-materialism rant (your home owns you) under the pretext of globalisation. Wait till he grows up a little and actually has some of the material he now comdemns and you'll hear a different song.
So friends and family are "luxuries of a highly refined caste which are ill-afforded the majority of the human popluation"?
I don't know where you're cut-and-pasting your rhetoric from, but you really should stop. It's annoying, doesn't help your point, and makes you sound like an imbecile.
Actually, DVDs do contain DRM - CSS, region encoding, and that content-locking unfeature that prevents the user from skipping legal notices and advertising. Moreover, DVDs and iTunes both have the number one feature that I look for whenever I'm thinking of buying DRM-enumbered media - it's been cracked. The only time I buy DRM stuff is when I know I can easily get around the DRM if need be.
It certainly is difficult to make a useful system, but the outliers are just part of the problem, and pointing out that outliers exist doesn't provide evidence either way.
The question is whether the outliers compose 2% of the system's subjects, or 30%. My point was that if you're relying on movement patterns to make the categorization, anything that affects movement will increase the systems inaccuracy, and there are lots of things that make someone's movements deviate from the norm - injury, sore legs, carrying a heavy bag, holding another person's hand, personal idiosyncracy, and, if the system becomes widespread, deliberate attempts to confuse it. What I'm questioning isn't if the system is perfect, it's whether the system would be sufficiently accurate to be useful in a real-world context.
Is there a system that does this in the real world? Because I would be interested in how it compensates for, say, people in bulky clothing, exceptionally short people, exceptionally tall people, people with some sort of movement-impairing injury (crutches, arm in a sling, limp). There are so many variables that affect the way people move, that I imagine it would be very difficult to make a reasonably accurate system that could cope with the variations of so many people. That's not to say it would be impossible, but are there any such systems in production?
How long will it be until these systems start to look at the ethnicity/gender/age of people and use that to gauge threat level?
Quite a while, I'd imagine. I've never heard of any system that has the capacity to determine that information from a video clip. Even facial recognition systems, which are comparing a face to a given set of possibles, are quite flakey. A recognition system that is supposed to derive general data from low-quality, non-direct-facing security footage, especially data that humans can't reliably identify, is years off. I'd guess it would require some form of true AI. How exactly do you determine how old a person is from film? Count the wrinkles and divide by 10? Many of these things are subjective, unconscious assessments, not the sort able to be easily made by a computer system.
- The items which would normally be included in a normal encyclopedia get a decent number of eyes, enough to correct glaring errors/vandalism
- Popular phenomena and current events get an exceptionally large number of eyes, resulting in a more comprehensive article than you'd find in a normal encyclopedia, though subject to the occasional temporary vanadlism
- Small cult subjects that wouldn't normally find their way into an encylopedia get few eyes, enough to provide information, but often not NPOV or entirely correct
I think that's a net win for Wikipedia really. Despite their inaccuracy being "Wikipedia's greatest hinderance", you'll probably find more about Procul Harum from Wikipedia than you would from Encyclopedia Britannica.But what did they want done? Terrorism is sort of like a hostage situation: meet my demands, or I'll continue my activities. Withdraw your troops, or we'll keep attacking the US. Close abortion clinics, or we'll keep bombing. Get out of Ireland, or we'll kill you. The goal is political, the actual killing a means to an end. In the case of the Unabomber, he made no demands initially - he just sent out the bombs. He demanded his manifesto be published (according to Wikipedia) in 1995, 17 years after he started bombing. It seems fairly clear that destruction was his goal (which is supported by his manifesto), not just a means to an end. The same for McVeigh. He wanted revenge; his objective was to kill people, he didn't have a political goal that he was using the threat of violence to achieve, he was killing because he wanted people dead.
Terrorists can be negotiated with, and caved-in to. It may be a bad idea, but it can be done. If the US pulled out all resources from the Middle East, I'd expect groups attacks from groups like al-Quaeda to be reduced; they've achieved their goal. Likewise, the English pulling out from Ireland would likely have reduced attacks from the IRS. But what can you do stop someone who just wants to kill people?
I'm with you on the IRA and abortion-bombers (haven't heard of the Shining Path), but I don't think you can class Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber as terrorists. Of course, it depends on your definition of terrorist. To my understanding, "terrorist" means some person or some group trying to achieve political ends through inspiring terror, which usually included unexpected, unprovoked attacks against civilians.
The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh weren't terrorists, anymore than, say, the Columbine boys. They were mass-murderers, they were psycho, but, as far as I know, none of them had a political agenda they were trying to push - like, say, the removal of the US presence in the Middle East, outlawing of abortion or Irish independance from England.
That is different from how you seem to use the word; you seem to be going on the definition of "killed a lot of innocent people". Both are bad, but they are both different. The difference is important, because it gives you ways of getting into the mind of the perpetrators, and helping you guess what they plan to do and how they plan to do it. Stopping a crazy whackjob is hard, because they're unpredictable. A terrorist organisation whose stated purpose is US withdrawal from the Middle East is easier to predict, however, if not easier to stop. You can assume they're going to target US citizens (or allies). If they are geographically based, then you can assume most members will have been to that geographical region recently. You can tell that certain actions (more troops moving into Iraq, say) are likely to result in increased terrorist activity.
Ah, you're RIGHT! You mean like white Baptists from Mississippi! We must bar them at once from boarding an airplane!
Wait, did that just sound silly? I bet it did! Why? Because it's a hideously bigoted statement, but it's bigoted against those who are more like the picture of "us"
No, it sounded stupid because no white Baptists from Mississippi have been flying aeroplanes into buildings lately. If you were going to restrict, say, the distribution of addresses of local abortion clinics, then maybe you'd have a good reason to profile for white Mississipian Christians rather than young male Muslims.
From that article, it seems you need to push a button in the install software, then a button the physical router, and the router will send your computer the decryption keys. The most secure way I can think of it doing this is that both the router and the software have a standard key built into them at the manufacturing stage, and that they use this default key to encrypt the signal that transmits the real key. That's fairly secure, as only someone who is listening at the same moment, and knows the default key, could intercept the true key. I imagine that if the routers ship with such a default key, sooner or later the key will become known, meaning people who know to use it will be able to intercept the key transmission if they're in the right place at the right time.
Not as secure as entering in your keys manually, but a damn sight more secure than not having any encryption enabled, I guess. Of course, most of this is just speculation on my part, but if anyone knows a more secure way of exchanging keys in this scenario, feel free to chime in.
Not quite; the manufacturer would then need to provide the encryption keys written down somewhere, and the consumer would have to configure their computer to use those keys. Security will *always* require a bit more effort on the part of the users. Unfortunately, people in general still aren't confident enough with computers to handle configuring some simple stuff like wireless encryption keys. If a company did this, you can bet they'd have an upswing in irate customers complaining the product didn't work, simply because the node was locking the customer's own computer out because they hadn't given it the keys. I'm sure if it didn't otherwise cause problems, most companies would do as you suggest - it would be of benefit to them, after all, having a reputably secure product - but it seems they've decided that having to deal with idiots costs more than the benefit of having a secure-by-default access point. Having dealt with a fair number of idiots myself, I can't really blame them.
From what they've said on the TV here, it sounds like they were filming the stingray. Cameraman to the front, and Irwin over the top; the ray felt cornered and trapped, and reacted defensively.
So what you're saying is when you say democracy, you don't really mean democracy. Democracy literally means "rule by the people". It's frequently held up as the ultimate form of government for free people. The more people assosciate the tern "democracy" with representative democracy, the more they become blinded to the fact that what they have isn't really democracy.
Nope. The Cathedral and the Bazaar talks about the source of contributions. This is talking about project management. Ubuntu can still receive code from anyone who wants to write some; that's the Bazaar model. The project management decides which code, of all received, they want to use. If someone disagrees with the project management of Ubuntu, they can fork it, and manage it in the way they say fit. It's all still Bazaar.
Actually, that's representative democracy; true democracy would have no elections. Rather, every law would be voted on by everyone before it was enacted. That's the way it was in ancient Greece. Of course, there's a large difference between an ancient Greek city-state, where only male landowners can vote, and a continent-spanning nation with general suffrage - true democracy would result in chaos in most modern nations, especially with the number of laws we currently have (although I think that a lot of that is an outgrowth of having professional lawmakers). But still, the American system of representative democracy should not be used interchangeably with democracy; they are very different beasts.
Last time I checked on that, the plugin for Apache was still heavily under development and not recommended for production use. Not sure if its changed since then
ASP.NET is a significant change from ASP - they're in two completely different classes. I develop in PHP, Java and ASP.NET, and in tems purely of language, ASP.NET is the way to go, in my opinion. Of course, the problem with ASP.NET is that you really have to run it in a Windows/ISS environment, which has headaches all of its own. If ever there's a time when ASP.NET is well supported for production under apache, I'd use it for anything remotely complex.
No, because after I took one you would only have 1,999 DVDs and I would have 1. If I made a copy of one of your DVDs, you would have 2,000 DVDs, and I would have 1. I understand what you're saying, but you're wrong. One is theft, one is copyright infringement. They are both illegal, but they are both different. The only people trying to push you're definition are the *AAs, who are trying to equate them because people know stealing is wrong, but are more ambivalent about copyright infringement.
If you take their property without permission it is stealing, therefore copyright theft is theft, it's as simple as that.
But you don't take their property. You duplicate it. When you steal something, you have it, and the victim no longer does. When you infringe someone's copyright, you have a copy of it, and so do they.
Casual users won't see changes made by anons, so why exactly will their changes be there? Why bother? Editors will still see them, fine, but people like me are usual users but casual editors, they won't have the basic motivation for improving an article - their work won't be available for the public immediately.
Sure they will. When an anon makes a change, the entry will be flagged as recently changed, and editors with the appropriate permission can mark it off and send it on to the public face of the site. This is really just a change in workflow. It used to be Anyone -> Everyone, now it's Anyone -> Registered Users -> Everyone. You still have the Anyone -> Everyone relationship, which I consider to be the most important aspect of Wikipedia. It's just you have an intermediate entity approving the changes.
Yep. Stars in outer space. That be crazy talk!
I agree; Final Fantasy 8 was damned easy. Once I'd been through the game once, and knew what material was required, I could make three of my character's ultimate weapons on the first disc. Buy a load of tents, convert them to Curagas, and junction them to HP, keep your characters in the yellow and you can perform a Limit Break as often as you like for the better half of half the game.
I quite enjoyed Final Fantasy 8. The characters were interesting, the graphics were gorgeous, and the plot was novel, as it was really more of a romance story than a fantasy one. The things that annoyed me the most were the game mechanics. The junctioning system was broken, as it discouraged you from ever casting spells. It also allowed you to get ridiculously overpowered early in the game, as did the weapon construction system. The other thing that annoyed me is that I setup Rinoah as healer, and she spend half the game getting kidnapped/possessed by sorceresses.