Which is still a step above the current state of affairs. It relies on somebody being able to gain access to your email address; currently, if that happens, you're screwed anyway.
That sounds like a really good idea; adding a human element to password recovery using already established trust relationships. Of course, slashdot wouldn't be slashdot if we didn't try and skew reader response by painting it as "pestering".
Except the teenager's in a room of infinite bats. If it's not religion, it's philosophy, or nationalism, or self-interest, or fear of change, or any of a hundred other levers that have been demonstrably proved able to manipulate human beings. You can't cure a disease just by treating the symptoms; the root cause must be addressed. And while politics can never be done away with, it can be limited and contained - like the American constitution tried (and failed) to do.
Yada yada yada, science and religion incompatible, religion a heinous evil, science the hope of mankind, etc, etc.
At different periods of time and in different places, religion and science have had different relationships. At the time when the Arabs conquered India and absorbed the Arabic-Hindu numeral system, they were heavily Islamic. Likewise, Alhazen's optics, and Sina's work on medicine were performed while their political system was dominated by Islam.
Likewise, in Europe, much early scientific work was done by clerics (as they were most likely to be literate). Much of their work was predicated on the notion that the world was rational and organised - a philosophy that flowed from their religious belief (that God was a god of order, and thus the universe itself must be ordered). Their investigations were into exploring the order God had created.
Even now, pretty much everywhere apart from the USA, there's little conflict. It's the USA that's birthed both southern baptists and the new atheist movement. Your religion, politics and science have become so intertwined, that there's almost no issue that isn't considered to touch on all three. But everywhere else in the Western world, you don't see these issues: other countries don't have court cases over whether or not to teach evolution; they just teach it.
You're right in that there's a decline in science when secular power is held by people who are threatened by the truth - but that's not necessarily a religion problem. Both religious and secular leaders have opposed scientific conclusions, because it undermined their authority, or ran counter to their own interests (this philosophy implies that I, the king, do not have a divine mandate to rule - suppress it! This science implies that my oil tycoon buddies are screwing up the world - suppress it!). The common element is always political power, not religion. If you're looking for an enemy for science, politics is a much more suitable target than religion.
There's no way I'd be lugging our weekly shop home, and it'll get worse as our family grows.
I used to do the same as you when I lived by myself (shopping for one), and the supermarket was on the way home from the train station - just pick up what I need for dinner after work each day. These days, when it's shopping for three, and it's closer to 30 minutes each way to the nearest supermarket - home delivery is the winner.
Single-issue parties are not unusual; they use the fact that they have no commitment to other policies to engage in political horse-trading in favour of their issue of choice. Everyone in Iceland now knows where to go to get three votes for their policy du jour, and what it's going to cost them.
The reason why lots of cellphones are carrier-locked, is because the carrier subsidizes the purchase and charges less for the phone than the manufacturer does. Your brand new Nokia 6220 will cost Telfort 300 Euries, but you will only pay 49.95 if you sign a 2 year contract.
Yeah, they do that here, too. What I don't get is why that requires SIM-locking. You sign a two-year contract. So if you decide you want to jump ship in the middle of it, you're still required to pay out that contract. In fact, it's in Telfort's best interest if you do - not only do they receive your full payment for however long you had left on your contract, they won't have to provide you any service. There's no need to lock your SIM to force you to use their service; the contract already guarantees you'll pay for that service, whether you use it or not.
This is the problem, the government pisses people off but they aren't the ones that take heat for it, the citizens are.
Then possibly, citizens should take responsibility for their governments. In truth, we're comfortable enough, that we don't really care what our governments are doing in our name to faceless foreigners in some other country. If we truly cared, then there would be protests, riots, and rebellions. But what are our protests about? Not mistreatment of possibly-innocent prisoners, but the fact that there are people wealthier than us. That shows our society's true priorities.
The doom and gloom about Microsoft on here is all wishful thinking. PC Windows is on a decline in the marketplace and has been since the the iPhone/iPad changed the game.
See, the thing is, most people here don't really want Microsoft to fail. Well, maybe a little bit, but that's not the point. They want Windows to fail. Windows is the monopoly OS that's created a de facto closed standard. Windows is the reason (especially with OSX and its BSD roots) that programs and games aren't made with Linux compatibility.
Office? Only care about that insofar as it reinforces the desktop OS monopoly. XBox? Many people here actually like the XBox. Cloud services? Unless you're unfortunate enough to have to work with Windows servers, nobody cares about them either.
What people here want to see is Windows' stranglehold on the desktop OS market go away.
One movie a year isn't that much when you've got a three-year lead-time. It's not necessary to complete each movie individually in a year 2013: Script treatment 2014: Shooting #1, Script treatment #2 2015: Post-production and release #1, Shooting #2, Script treatment #3 2016: Post-production and release #2, Shooting #3, Script treatment #4 And so on. The trick would be hanging on to your actors; you'd probably need to rotate through different producers/directors too.
As Tim of Ctrl-Alt-Del said, they've been pumping out Marvel-universe movies faster than that, and most of them have been pretty darn good. If they mine the better expanded universe fiction, there's no reason to expect they couldn't produce decent movies at a one-per-year rate.
There's not that much difference between the IRA and Al Qaeda. Both self-righteous religious murderers.
Well, you're half right, there's not much difference. But in both cases, their prime motivation is being pissed off at foreign imperialism, not religion. The reason there's a Catholic/Protestant division in the Irish troubles? It's because the British were protestant, and the Irish Catholic. The IRA was trying to kill Britons, its just that Britons and Protestant were synonymous in Catholic Ireland.
It does. You can't take GPL sources and integrate them into a closed source product.
That entirely depends on the degree of integration. In many cases, you can take a GPL project in its entirety, package it with your closed source software, and sell it - as long as you distribute the source code for that GPL project (not necessarily the rest of your codebase) and any modifications you made to it. However, that ability gets incredibly blurred as you get more tightly integrated.
From what I know, the GPL was designed so that once your code was free, it could never be closed again. It wasn't intended to force a large application that uses one tiny GPL library to make its entire source code available. Unfortunately, some GPL-based companies (like MySQL-AB) have interpreted it that way. Even if they're wrong, legally speaking, it'd take a court case to determine it.
Using the GPL opens you up to the possibility of someone challenging your definition of a "derived work". They may by wrong, but they could still drag you through court ($$$ and reputation). Using the BSD opens up no such possibility. Therefore companies prefer using BSD-derived licenses.
So the idea of "cloud computing" is that out there somewhere, a company has a helluva lot of computing resources (processing, disk, network). There's an abstraction layer between the physical hardware and the user, that lets you spin up virtual machines that consume fractions of this capacity. Because the cloud provider operates at such a large scale, it can guarantee that when you want to spin up a new virtual machine, there's the physical capacity there to back it.
But that depends on scale. Ok, so an individual company buys a bunch of hardware, runs some abstraction stuff on top, and starts spinning up virtual machines. How is this different from the what they were doing pre-cloud - that is, running their own cluster of physical machines? Oh sure, you can probably make your physical machines a little bit more flexible by running arbitrary virtual machines on them, but the main benefit of the cloud is that you can utilise the provider's scale to quickly ramp up if needed. The only way you could do that in a private cloud is if you massively over-invest in the physical machines your cloud's running on. What company's going to do that? Why run a "private cloud" over a cluster?
Also, the "zombie machine" argument is pretty hilarious. I'm sure we've all heard of the infamous drywalled server - and that's just an extreme example of a common issue. How many places have you worked were there's random machines running that people are too afraid to turn off because nobody knows what they do anymore? Zombie machines hardly seem to be a cloud-specific issue. At least cloud providers give you an itemized list of every server you're paying for, and you can decomission them with the click of a mouse.
The fact that people accept it for goods and services makes it legitimate in the only way that was meaning. If it's missing your personal stamp of approval...yeah, nobody cares.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess, as long as your friends just send the reply email without noticing that it's addressed to someone else entirely.
Which is still a step above the current state of affairs. It relies on somebody being able to gain access to your email address; currently, if that happens, you're screwed anyway.
That sounds like a really good idea; adding a human element to password recovery using already established trust relationships. Of course, slashdot wouldn't be slashdot if we didn't try and skew reader response by painting it as "pestering".
Except the teenager's in a room of infinite bats. If it's not religion, it's philosophy, or nationalism, or self-interest, or fear of change, or any of a hundred other levers that have been demonstrably proved able to manipulate human beings. You can't cure a disease just by treating the symptoms; the root cause must be addressed. And while politics can never be done away with, it can be limited and contained - like the American constitution tried (and failed) to do.
Yada yada yada, science and religion incompatible, religion a heinous evil, science the hope of mankind, etc, etc.
At different periods of time and in different places, religion and science have had different relationships. At the time when the Arabs conquered India and absorbed the Arabic-Hindu numeral system, they were heavily Islamic. Likewise, Alhazen's optics, and Sina's work on medicine were performed while their political system was dominated by Islam.
Likewise, in Europe, much early scientific work was done by clerics (as they were most likely to be literate). Much of their work was predicated on the notion that the world was rational and organised - a philosophy that flowed from their religious belief (that God was a god of order, and thus the universe itself must be ordered). Their investigations were into exploring the order God had created.
Even now, pretty much everywhere apart from the USA, there's little conflict. It's the USA that's birthed both southern baptists and the new atheist movement. Your religion, politics and science have become so intertwined, that there's almost no issue that isn't considered to touch on all three. But everywhere else in the Western world, you don't see these issues: other countries don't have court cases over whether or not to teach evolution; they just teach it.
You're right in that there's a decline in science when secular power is held by people who are threatened by the truth - but that's not necessarily a religion problem. Both religious and secular leaders have opposed scientific conclusions, because it undermined their authority, or ran counter to their own interests (this philosophy implies that I, the king, do not have a divine mandate to rule - suppress it! This science implies that my oil tycoon buddies are screwing up the world - suppress it!). The common element is always political power, not religion. If you're looking for an enemy for science, politics is a much more suitable target than religion.
There's no way I'd be lugging our weekly shop home, and it'll get worse as our family grows.
I used to do the same as you when I lived by myself (shopping for one), and the supermarket was on the way home from the train station - just pick up what I need for dinner after work each day. These days, when it's shopping for three, and it's closer to 30 minutes each way to the nearest supermarket - home delivery is the winner.
Except they'll die because they don't get enough sunlight to grow. These are cool novelties, not practicalities.
Single-issue parties are not unusual; they use the fact that they have no commitment to other policies to engage in political horse-trading in favour of their issue of choice. Everyone in Iceland now knows where to go to get three votes for their policy du jour, and what it's going to cost them.
Which is fine, because it mirrors the use to which it's being put. People used to display information on websites, now they run applications on them.
The reason why lots of cellphones are carrier-locked, is because the carrier subsidizes the purchase and charges less for the phone than the manufacturer does. Your brand new Nokia 6220 will cost Telfort 300 Euries, but you will only pay 49.95 if you sign a 2 year contract.
Yeah, they do that here, too. What I don't get is why that requires SIM-locking. You sign a two-year contract. So if you decide you want to jump ship in the middle of it, you're still required to pay out that contract. In fact, it's in Telfort's best interest if you do - not only do they receive your full payment for however long you had left on your contract, they won't have to provide you any service. There's no need to lock your SIM to force you to use their service; the contract already guarantees you'll pay for that service, whether you use it or not.
This is the problem, the government pisses people off but they aren't the ones that take heat for it, the citizens are.
Then possibly, citizens should take responsibility for their governments. In truth, we're comfortable enough, that we don't really care what our governments are doing in our name to faceless foreigners in some other country. If we truly cared, then there would be protests, riots, and rebellions. But what are our protests about? Not mistreatment of possibly-innocent prisoners, but the fact that there are people wealthier than us. That shows our society's true priorities.
Otherwise what's really happened is Salem all over again.
Other than, you know, the claims being retracted, and nobody burnt alive.
The doom and gloom about Microsoft on here is all wishful thinking. PC Windows is on a decline in the marketplace and has been since the the iPhone/iPad changed the game.
See, the thing is, most people here don't really want Microsoft to fail. Well, maybe a little bit, but that's not the point. They want Windows to fail. Windows is the monopoly OS that's created a de facto closed standard. Windows is the reason (especially with OSX and its BSD roots) that programs and games aren't made with Linux compatibility.
Office? Only care about that insofar as it reinforces the desktop OS monopoly. XBox? Many people here actually like the XBox. Cloud services? Unless you're unfortunate enough to have to work with Windows servers, nobody cares about them either.
What people here want to see is Windows' stranglehold on the desktop OS market go away.
Just like Down and Out In Beverly Hills, The Story of Menstruation, Pulp Fiction, Pirates of the Caribbean and the Avengers, right?
Well, no. Disney hasn't produced any Star Wars movies, ever, at all, period.
One movie a year isn't that much when you've got a three-year lead-time. It's not necessary to complete each movie individually in a year
2013: Script treatment
2014: Shooting #1, Script treatment #2
2015: Post-production and release #1, Shooting #2, Script treatment #3
2016: Post-production and release #2, Shooting #3, Script treatment #4
And so on. The trick would be hanging on to your actors; you'd probably need to rotate through different producers/directors too.
As Tim of Ctrl-Alt-Del said, they've been pumping out Marvel-universe movies faster than that, and most of them have been pretty darn good. If they mine the better expanded universe fiction, there's no reason to expect they couldn't produce decent movies at a one-per-year rate.
Just checking: are drone strikes, domestic spying, overzealous prosecution, and all the other things we usually rant about, still bad?
Yes, and don't forget to add "a sense of humour" to that list.
There's not that much difference between the IRA and Al Qaeda. Both self-righteous religious murderers.
Well, you're half right, there's not much difference. But in both cases, their prime motivation is being pissed off at foreign imperialism, not religion. The reason there's a Catholic/Protestant division in the Irish troubles? It's because the British were protestant, and the Irish Catholic. The IRA was trying to kill Britons, its just that Britons and Protestant were synonymous in Catholic Ireland.
You also see very little effort to address the gender imbalance in teaching, nursing or human relations (which are all female dominated).
Obviously, he meant "copyright maximalist"
The GPL doesn't exclude closed source projects.
It does. You can't take GPL sources and integrate them into a closed source product.
That entirely depends on the degree of integration. In many cases, you can take a GPL project in its entirety, package it with your closed source software, and sell it - as long as you distribute the source code for that GPL project (not necessarily the rest of your codebase) and any modifications you made to it. However, that ability gets incredibly blurred as you get more tightly integrated.
From what I know, the GPL was designed so that once your code was free, it could never be closed again. It wasn't intended to force a large application that uses one tiny GPL library to make its entire source code available. Unfortunately, some GPL-based companies (like MySQL-AB) have interpreted it that way. Even if they're wrong, legally speaking, it'd take a court case to determine it.
Using the GPL opens you up to the possibility of someone challenging your definition of a "derived work". They may by wrong, but they could still drag you through court ($$$ and reputation). Using the BSD opens up no such possibility. Therefore companies prefer using BSD-derived licenses.
So the idea of "cloud computing" is that out there somewhere, a company has a helluva lot of computing resources (processing, disk, network). There's an abstraction layer between the physical hardware and the user, that lets you spin up virtual machines that consume fractions of this capacity. Because the cloud provider operates at such a large scale, it can guarantee that when you want to spin up a new virtual machine, there's the physical capacity there to back it.
But that depends on scale. Ok, so an individual company buys a bunch of hardware, runs some abstraction stuff on top, and starts spinning up virtual machines. How is this different from the what they were doing pre-cloud - that is, running their own cluster of physical machines? Oh sure, you can probably make your physical machines a little bit more flexible by running arbitrary virtual machines on them, but the main benefit of the cloud is that you can utilise the provider's scale to quickly ramp up if needed. The only way you could do that in a private cloud is if you massively over-invest in the physical machines your cloud's running on. What company's going to do that? Why run a "private cloud" over a cluster?
Also, the "zombie machine" argument is pretty hilarious. I'm sure we've all heard of the infamous drywalled server - and that's just an extreme example of a common issue. How many places have you worked were there's random machines running that people are too afraid to turn off because nobody knows what they do anymore? Zombie machines hardly seem to be a cloud-specific issue. At least cloud providers give you an itemized list of every server you're paying for, and you can decomission them with the click of a mouse.
Well, before being imprisoned he was a trader. If he does any productive work from prison at all, it's probably a net gain for the economy.
A/B testing is the worst idea in UI design
How do you expect to get any measurable metrics on UI usage without A/B testing?
The fact that people accept it for goods and services makes it legitimate in the only way that was meaning. If it's missing your personal stamp of approval...yeah, nobody cares.