No. A predisposition for religion doesn't mean a predisposition to a certain religion.
If someone invents an "evolution religion", it will certainly include the demand of having many children (because having many children means to be evolutionary successful, and that's what god wants). And then it will be just as successful.
Yeah, they have nothing better to do that finding who call a number in France.
Yeah, because it's so hard to get that list with modern technology. Most probably a single SQL command for each of the few phone switches handling international calls.
The riots are not more urgent, nor are the medias, the economy, and likely organizing the escape of Mubarack. Nor is more urgent to have a new governement...
If Mubarak survives the riots, he has then all time of the world to go after them. If there's a successful revolution, it won't matter any more anyway.
However, I doubt it would be hard for the government of Egypt to block this single number. Probably they wouldn't even hesitate to block all phone connections to France if they considered it necessary.
You can use Emacs or vi without learning its macro language. Especially if all you need is syntax highlighting and regex search/replace. However I cannot think of a reason why it should be bad if you can start make from the editor.
If you are not indenting your code correctly you are still making it hard to read the code.
With {} (or begin end or...) my computer can indent it for me. And re-indent it with few key presses if I move it to a place where another indentation is needed. If the indentation is the scoping, the computer cannot do that for me.
Translation to view shapes is easy for you because you view.
For a non-viewing species a view shape would probably be just as obvious as for us is the four-dimensional concept of a flat torus dividing a 3-sphere in two halves. That is, you can manage to get some understanding, but it is not obvious at all.
You cannot use quantum teleportation to send information FTL (nor in any sense instantaneously) unless you already have a way to send information FTL. You always need a classical signal from the sender to the receiver. Without that classical signal, all you get at the other end is noise. So unless you manage to send that classical signal FTL, you cannot communicate FTL using quantum teleportation.
That assumes that the aliens have a visual system, and that this visual system is similar enough to ours that bitmaps make sense to them. Yes, they most probably would be able to decode a bitmap after understanding how it works. But we cannot expect them to have an intuitive understanding of the concept of bitmaps. And especially we cannot expect them to get the idea that some data we've sent them contains a bitmap if they never thought even about the possibility of bitmaps.
Indeed, give them 3 data streams. 2 of them are normal recordings of what we receive from space, while the third is such a recording with the message mixed in (as it would be received, i.e. low intensity, and probably partially unrecognisable due to other signals). The first task would be to find out which of these recordings contain the message (and even then there would be a distinct advantage, in that he would at least know that there's a message hidden in it, and moreover, that the message was created by someone who thinks like a human). The second task would then be to decode the message (or the part which still is recognisable).
I agree SSH is better than telnet and there is very little reason not to use it but I'm going to play devils advocate anyway.
There have been significant SSH specific remote expliot vulnerabilities in the past. Telnet has less moving parts - less to go wrong, less to attack.
Lets not forget SSH is only "secure" if you "assume" the initial leap of faith has not been compromised. If your connecting to a host for the first time via ssh or via telnet the only difference from a security perspective is the one you have incorrectly painted in your own mind.
No. If you connect to a host for the first time with telnet, your password goes through the network in clear, so all an attacker needs to get the password is a network sniffer. If you connect to a host for the first time with ssh, your password goes through the network encrypted, thus the only way for the attacker to get it is a man-in-the-middle attack. The latter is clearly more difficult (you have to alter something in the network, instead of just listen).
You are right that when connecting for the first time, SSH doesn't protect you from a man-in-the-middle attack (unless you already know the SSH key fingerprint of the connected-to host and take the effort to manually check it before accepting the key). But that doesn't imply that on first connect, SSH had no security advantage over telnet. Just having the password (and the traffic!) encrypted is a big security advantage.
The admins are not the hackers (exceptions surely exist). It's more like: "Oh, yes, it would have been a good idea to close the door of the safe. Too bad the thieves found out it was open..."
And in reality, people can't read. Yes, that makes sense.
Again, his comment did not, I repeat: did not in any way refer to downloading (legal or illegal), despite the fact that the word "torrent" appeared in it. The word "torrent" appeared in it only as a new (not very good) way to disable Google Instant.
The comment expressed dislike of Google Instant, and remarked that you now can get rid of it by simply starting your search with "torrent" or "arrrr" (I guess the latter isn't a good search term anyway if you are seeking for illegal downloads; but then, maybe there's a convention to use "arrrr" in the file names of infringing files...)
The question, of course, is what the evidence of cheating is. If it's only patterns typical for cheating bots then it might be a false trigger: The strengths of computers and the strengths of some autistic people both include things like fast calculation, good counting skills, and caring about single details. E.g. it's easy for a bot to trigger a certain response every time if something specific appears on the screen; a non-autistic human will probably miss quite a few of them appearing, and quite possibly react somewhat different each time. However I can imagine that an autistic player would be just as good as a bot in noting that it appears (concentration on details), and would not be unlikely to give the same response each time.
On the other hand, there might be clear signatures of cheating beyond such pattern analysis, e.g. if he exploited a bug in the game server.
I'm not sure you can consider Xbox Live "open to the public". After all, it's not available to non-Xbox owners, and if I'm not mistaken, you pay to play (subscription).
Given that criterion, anything said on cable TV shouldn't be considered "open to the public" either. After all, it's not available to non-TV owners, and if I'm not mistaken, you pay to watch (subscription).
Ya, but wont IE9 render all HTML5 on the GPU? Finally, I wont have to wait so damned long for my CPU to idle and the page render. Err, at least I hope that solves the problem anyways.
Just a crazy idea: What about allowing users to take some control over the comment threading using a simple scripting language (let's call it Slashscript). For example, a script to customize the comments section could then look like this:
on comment { // highlight new posts
if (new && score >= 0)
highlight;
if (moderating)
{ // when moderating, expand all comments
expand;
}
else if (toplevel)
{ // show all toplevel posts, but only expand for score > 1 and own posts
if (score > 1 || poster == me)
expand;
else
collapse;
}
else// !toplevel
{
if (poster == me || parent.poster == me)
expand;// show all own posts and direct replies to own posts
else if (score < 0 && (parent.collapsed || parent.hidden))
hide;// hide -1 replies on collapsed or hidden parents
else if (score < 3)
collapse;
else
expand;
} }
Oh, and I just notice that indentation in ecode tags seems to be broken (it eats whitespace in the begining of some lines). Moreover it doesn't seem to use a fixed width font for that any more.
Slashdot Mirror
I 'sugge'st to put apo'strophe's in front of all 's. It make's a more intere'sting read. :-)
Just use a TLD of invalid for that, like example.invalid.
No. A predisposition for religion doesn't mean a predisposition to a certain religion.
If someone invents an "evolution religion", it will certainly include the demand of having many children (because having many children means to be evolutionary successful, and that's what god wants). And then it will be just as successful.
Because my parents had sex. Simple, isn't it?
That's IMHO up to now the worst bug discovered.
The Google Slashbox layout is broken:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7817/slashdotgooglebox.png
Yeah, they have nothing better to do that finding who call a number in France.
Yeah, because it's so hard to get that list with modern technology. Most probably a single SQL command for each of the few phone switches handling international calls.
The riots are not more urgent, nor are the medias, the economy, and likely organizing the escape of Mubarack. Nor is more urgent to have a new governement...
If Mubarak survives the riots, he has then all time of the world to go after them. If there's a successful revolution, it won't matter any more anyway.
However, I doubt it would be hard for the government of Egypt to block this single number. Probably they wouldn't even hesitate to block all phone connections to France if they considered it necessary.
You can use Emacs or vi without learning its macro language. Especially if all you need is syntax highlighting and regex search/replace.
However I cannot think of a reason why it should be bad if you can start make from the editor.
With {} (or begin end or ...) my computer can indent it for me. And re-indent it with few key presses if I move it to a place where another indentation is needed. If the indentation is the scoping, the computer cannot do that for me.
Translation to view shapes is easy for you because you view.
For a non-viewing species a view shape would probably be just as obvious as for us is the four-dimensional concept of a flat torus dividing a 3-sphere in two halves. That is, you can manage to get some understanding, but it is not obvious at all.
You cannot use quantum teleportation to send information FTL (nor in any sense instantaneously) unless you already have a way to send information FTL. You always need a classical signal from the sender to the receiver. Without that classical signal, all you get at the other end is noise. So unless you manage to send that classical signal FTL, you cannot communicate FTL using quantum teleportation.
That assumes that the aliens have a visual system, and that this visual system is similar enough to ours that bitmaps make sense to them. Yes, they most probably would be able to decode a bitmap after understanding how it works. But we cannot expect them to have an intuitive understanding of the concept of bitmaps. And especially we cannot expect them to get the idea that some data we've sent them contains a bitmap if they never thought even about the possibility of bitmaps.
Indeed, give them 3 data streams. 2 of them are normal recordings of what we receive from space, while the third is such a recording with the message mixed in (as it would be received, i.e. low intensity, and probably partially unrecognisable due to other signals). The first task would be to find out which of these recordings contain the message (and even then there would be a distinct advantage, in that he would at least know that there's a message hidden in it, and moreover, that the message was created by someone who thinks like a human). The second task would then be to decode the message (or the part which still is recognisable).
I agree SSH is better than telnet and there is very little reason not to use it but I'm going to play devils advocate anyway.
There have been significant SSH specific remote expliot vulnerabilities in the past. Telnet has less moving parts - less to go wrong, less to attack.
Lets not forget SSH is only "secure" if you "assume" the initial leap of faith has not been compromised. If your connecting to a host for the first time via ssh or via telnet the only difference from a security perspective is the one you have incorrectly painted in your own mind.
No. If you connect to a host for the first time with telnet, your password goes through the network in clear, so all an attacker needs to get the password is a network sniffer. If you connect to a host for the first time with ssh, your password goes through the network encrypted, thus the only way for the attacker to get it is a man-in-the-middle attack. The latter is clearly more difficult (you have to alter something in the network, instead of just listen).
You are right that when connecting for the first time, SSH doesn't protect you from a man-in-the-middle attack (unless you already know the SSH key fingerprint of the connected-to host and take the effort to manually check it before accepting the key). But that doesn't imply that on first connect, SSH had no security advantage over telnet. Just having the password (and the traffic!) encrypted is a big security advantage.
The admins are not the hackers (exceptions surely exist). It's more like: "Oh, yes, it would have been a good idea to close the door of the safe. Too bad the thieves found out it was open ..."
After a rash of ASCII Goatse posts, Slashdot administrators also want to discourage ASCII art.*
* Or $encoding art.
That's what the lameness filter is for (you even mention it in your changed subject line!)
Note that ASCII art won't be blocked by the Unicode whitelist anyway.
And in reality, people can't read. Yes, that makes sense.
Again, his comment did not, I repeat: did not in any way refer to downloading (legal or illegal), despite the fact that the word "torrent" appeared in it. The word "torrent" appeared in it only as a new (not very good) way to disable Google Instant.
The comment expressed dislike of Google Instant, and remarked that you now can get rid of it by simply starting your search with "torrent" or "arrrr" (I guess the latter isn't a good search term anyway if you are seeking for illegal downloads; but then, maybe there's a convention to use "arrrr" in the file names of infringing files ...)
Why not simply buy what you are downloading?
Can you fail more in reading comprehension?
Or do you believe that everyone who dislikes Google Instant must also do copyright-infringing downloads?
The question, of course, is what the evidence of cheating is. If it's only patterns typical for cheating bots then it might be a false trigger: The strengths of computers and the strengths of some autistic people both include things like fast calculation, good counting skills, and caring about single details. E.g. it's easy for a bot to trigger a certain response every time if something specific appears on the screen; a non-autistic human will probably miss quite a few of them appearing, and quite possibly react somewhat different each time. However I can imagine that an autistic player would be just as good as a bot in noting that it appears (concentration on details), and would not be unlikely to give the same response each time.
On the other hand, there might be clear signatures of cheating beyond such pattern analysis, e.g. if he exploited a bug in the game server.
Given that criterion, anything said on cable TV shouldn't be considered "open to the public" either. After all, it's not available to non-TV owners, and if I'm not mistaken, you pay to watch (subscription).
And Gates' company is also known to frequently cheat ...
Ya, but wont IE9 render all HTML5 on the GPU? Finally, I wont have to wait so damned long for my CPU to idle and the page render. Err, at least I hope that solves the problem anyways.
I don't think it runs the JavaScript on the GPU.
Thanks for that info. I could stop the CPU usage by typing in the FF location bar:
Just a crazy idea: What about allowing users to take some control over the comment threading using a simple scripting language (let's call it Slashscript). For example, a script to customize the comments section could then look like this:
Oh, and I just notice that indentation in ecode tags seems to be broken (it eats whitespace in the begining of some lines). Moreover it doesn't seem to use a fixed width font for that any more.