Well, in that case you probably learned programming at school.
For those of us who had computers at home before schools offered courses on programming them (and back then, computers came with a BASIC interpreter that started directly on switching them on), there was not much of instruction first. You basically got your knowledge from manuals (back then, the computers still did come with printed manuals which deserved that name), from printed magazines, and most of all from experimenting and from writing programs.
Sad that folks are always looking for someone to sue.
That's a very wrong conclusion. I do think suing should be reserved for important issues. But I also do think that silently breaking security is an important issue. Note the part about silently. It's not an issue if the phone is unencrypted and I know it. It's an issue if I can reasonably believe that it is encrypted, but in reality it isn't. If I know it's insecure, I'll not do any sensitive things on it (like phone banking).
Well, the first question would of course be: Who's property are the routers provided by Verizon? Verizon's or the customer's? If they are Verizon's, they certainly have the right to access them. They are basically a part of their network which happens to be located in your home. OTOH if they are yours, they shouldn't mess with them.
A simple check could be: If you cancel the contract, do you have to return the router?
Another thing I don't want to hear from a doctor is: "Oh, there is a proven and very reliable cure for it, but it's quite old and using it would not be modern enough, therefore I'll give you that more modern treatment, which has only a fifty-fifty success rate, but it's all modern."
I don't want the newest cure, I want the best cure. I don't care if the best cure was found thousands of years ago by the old Greek, or last year by a top researcher.
And likewise, I don't want to be taught the newest way, but the best way. If the best way to teach a certain subject is to use the blackboard, then for god's sake, use it!
I am not sure I understand the above text. If it is the SIM card disabling the setting, why is this then labeled a deliberate choice by the cell phone makers?
Why can SIM cards disable the warning? Well, clearly because the cell phone allows the SIM card to disable the warning.
If the GSM spec does specify the warning should be there, does that mean the manufacturers are violating their GSM license when they disable that warning? Or could they be sued for false marketing because the phone you bought does not follow the GSM spec despite being called a GSM phone?
In short: Could they be (successfully) sued for it?
and if the device lights up to say that you recognize Bob, then I know you just lied to me.
No. You have an indication that he lied. Maybe his brother knows Bob, and he has seen him once with his brother but didn't know who he was. Then he was 100% right when he said that he didn't know Bob, but he nevertheless recognized the person on the picture, although he didn't recognize him as Bob, but as the person his brother was talking to. Or maybe he was earlier shown a photo of Bob by another policeman who forgot to tell you about that detail, and he recognized the photo as the same one the policeman had showed him a week ago. Or maybe Bob looks quite similar to John, and he momentarily mis-identified the man on the picture as John, maybe not even long enough for this recognition to get into his consciousness, but long enough for his brain to cause the characteristic pattern of recognizing.
In the dystopian future, everyone will get electrodes permanently implanted. Officially in order to early detect brain illnesses. Or maybe people will have them implanted voluntarily as universal computer control interface.
Let's say this "machine" is 100% accurate of people who want to do harm. Would it not be fair to use it in practice ?
No. The relevant quantity is not the probability of the machine saying "terrorist" if the tested person is a terrorist. The relevant quantity is the probability of the tested person being terrorist if the machine says "terrorist". Or more exactly, the difference between that probability and the probability of that person being terrorist before the machine was applied.
Of course that's not useless. False positives in the selected set are okay as long as the true positives are all in the selected set as well -- letting go of a terrorist is bad. Once the event has been resolved, the false positives should be exonerated quite quickly.
OK, then I've got the ultimate terrorist detector for you. You just point it at a person and press a button, and if the detector finds that person to be a terrorist, a red LED will light up, otherwise a green LED will light up. The device is easy to built: All you need is a button, a green LED, a red LED, a battery and a case with a form that you can meaningfully point at someone. Connect the battery, button and red LED so that the LED lights up whenever you press the button. Put all that and the green LED into the case (make sure the button and LEDs are accessible from outside). Make sure that you do not connect the green LED.
I guarantee that this device, if built correctly, will have no false negatives (i.e. the green LED will never light up for a terrorist). It will have false positives (the red LED lighting up for non-terrorists), but as you said, you can sort them out later.
One interesting observation about the contributions on language bindings: Obviously volunteers are mostly into scripting languages (Python, Perl), while each compiled language is dominated by a single company (C++ by Openismus, Java by Operation dynamics, and C# by Novell).
Example: J.S. Bach didn't hide from the newly invented piano and cry "Ach, mein Gott, give me mein harpsichord and save me from the barbarian pianoforte". No, Bach took the piano and made it his bitch. Ditto for Telemann and the keyed flute.
This is not about replacing a harpsichord with a piano, but about replacing it with a pianola.
Well, at the time the programmers get replaced, all business positions are already replaced by machines anyway. And the machines are capable of grasping the full logic of their various processes. The only humans which will be needed are the shareholders to receive the money.
And no, don't hope for Asimov's three laws. The laws which will actually be programmed in are:
1. No robot may harm the profit of a shareholder or by inaction allow the profit of a shareholder to be harmed..
2. A robot has to follow the orders of the shareholders, unless it would violate rule 1.
3. A robot must protect itself, unless it would violate rule 1 or 2.
If you are going to quote the full parent in one block anyway, why are you not just using the "Quote Parent" button? It's both easier and less error prone.
Of course the simplest solution would still be for the school to have, say, 100 calculators owned by the school, exclusively to be used in tests. People don't bring their own calculator, they use the school-supplied one. It would be a one-time investment (calculators tend to work for very extended times).
Another solution would be to only allow calculators without permanent storage. Who needs graphing calculators anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in that case you probably learned programming at school.
For those of us who had computers at home before schools offered courses on programming them (and back then, computers came with a BASIC interpreter that started directly on switching them on), there was not much of instruction first. You basically got your knowledge from manuals (back then, the computers still did come with printed manuals which deserved that name), from printed magazines, and most of all from experimenting and from writing programs.
Well, in that case it's probably best to think it use no resources at all. Because 10 times nothing is still nothing.
That's a very wrong conclusion. I do think suing should be reserved for important issues. But I also do think that silently breaking security is an important issue. Note the part about silently. It's not an issue if the phone is unencrypted and I know it. It's an issue if I can reasonably believe that it is encrypted, but in reality it isn't. If I know it's insecure, I'll not do any sensitive things on it (like phone banking).
I do not care about the typical consumer. I care about the criminal who might get my phone banking credentials.
I guess his Slashdot password is "12345".
Well, the first question would of course be: Who's property are the routers provided by Verizon? Verizon's or the customer's? If they are Verizon's, they certainly have the right to access them. They are basically a part of their network which happens to be located in your home. OTOH if they are yours, they shouldn't mess with them.
A simple check could be: If you cancel the contract, do you have to return the router?
Another thing I don't want to hear from a doctor is: "Oh, there is a proven and very reliable cure for it, but it's quite old and using it would not be modern enough, therefore I'll give you that more modern treatment, which has only a fifty-fifty success rate, but it's all modern."
I don't want the newest cure, I want the best cure. I don't care if the best cure was found thousands of years ago by the old Greek, or last year by a top researcher.
And likewise, I don't want to be taught the newest way, but the best way. If the best way to teach a certain subject is to use the blackboard, then for god's sake, use it!
Why can SIM cards disable the warning? Well, clearly because the cell phone allows the SIM card to disable the warning.
If the GSM spec does specify the warning should be there, does that mean the manufacturers are violating their GSM license when they disable that warning? Or could they be sued for false marketing because the phone you bought does not follow the GSM spec despite being called a GSM phone?
In short: Could they be (successfully) sued for it?
LCDs do suck at reading, although admittedly less so than CRTs.
I don't think so. Even with high resolution, the iPad display will still use more power. And it will still be harder to read in sunshine.
You misunderstood. "FUCK YOU" was the name of their latest 3D driver. :-)
No. You have an indication that he lied. Maybe his brother knows Bob, and he has seen him once with his brother but didn't know who he was. Then he was 100% right when he said that he didn't know Bob, but he nevertheless recognized the person on the picture, although he didn't recognize him as Bob, but as the person his brother was talking to. Or maybe he was earlier shown a photo of Bob by another policeman who forgot to tell you about that detail, and he recognized the photo as the same one the policeman had showed him a week ago. Or maybe Bob looks quite similar to John, and he momentarily mis-identified the man on the picture as John, maybe not even long enough for this recognition to get into his consciousness, but long enough for his brain to cause the characteristic pattern of recognizing.
In the dystopian future, everyone will get electrodes permanently implanted. Officially in order to early detect brain illnesses. Or maybe people will have them implanted voluntarily as universal computer control interface.
No. The relevant quantity is not the probability of the machine saying "terrorist" if the tested person is a terrorist. The relevant quantity is the probability of the tested person being terrorist if the machine says "terrorist". Or more exactly, the difference between that probability and the probability of that person being terrorist before the machine was applied.
Of course that's not useless. False positives in the selected set are okay as long as the true positives are all in the selected set as well -- letting go of a terrorist is bad. Once the event has been resolved, the false positives should be exonerated quite quickly.
OK, then I've got the ultimate terrorist detector for you. You just point it at a person and press a button, and if the detector finds that person to be a terrorist, a red LED will light up, otherwise a green LED will light up. The device is easy to built: All you need is a button, a green LED, a red LED, a battery and a case with a form that you can meaningfully point at someone. Connect the battery, button and red LED so that the LED lights up whenever you press the button. Put all that and the green LED into the case (make sure the button and LEDs are accessible from outside). Make sure that you do not connect the green LED.
I guarantee that this device, if built correctly, will have no false negatives (i.e. the green LED will never light up for a terrorist). It will have false positives (the red LED lighting up for non-terrorists), but as you said, you can sort them out later.
Room 101 was always torture.
One interesting observation about the contributions on language bindings: Obviously volunteers are mostly into scripting languages (Python, Perl), while each compiled language is dominated by a single company (C++ by Openismus, Java by Operation dynamics, and C# by Novell).
This is not about replacing a harpsichord with a piano, but about replacing it with a pianola.
What about Starlight express? It has the light already in the title, while there's no mention of music there! :-)
Well, at the time the programmers get replaced, all business positions are already replaced by machines anyway. And the machines are capable of grasping the full logic of their various processes. The only humans which will be needed are the shareholders to receive the money.
And no, don't hope for Asimov's three laws. The laws which will actually be programmed in are:
1. No robot may harm the profit of a shareholder or by inaction allow the profit of a shareholder to be harmed..
2. A robot has to follow the orders of the shareholders, unless it would violate rule 1.
3. A robot must protect itself, unless it would violate rule 1 or 2.
And once again I fail at using quote tags.
If you are going to quote the full parent in one block anyway, why are you not just using the "Quote Parent" button? It's both easier and less error prone.
Of course the simplest solution would still be for the school to have, say, 100 calculators owned by the school, exclusively to be used in tests. People don't bring their own calculator, they use the school-supplied one. It would be a one-time investment (calculators tend to work for very extended times).
Another solution would be to only allow calculators without permanent storage. Who needs graphing calculators anyway?
That something can easily be identified. It's written right in the original post: open that in Excel.
About -12 dB