Eventually we looked at it and we saw that in late June his manager had requested certain accounts to be created that would have access to certain routers and switches. And he did create those accounts, and he sent that back in an email with the user IDs and passwords, to which Richard Robinson was also copied. If his big concern was that Richard Robinson was not authorized to be a user, why -- just a week before -- did he copy him on an email that has user IDs and passwords?
Still, we should give his opinions on video games the same weight he would give to someone who writes commentary on movies without ever viewing one: No weight at all.
I had the first book in the Lone Wolf series when I was a kid. I've kept it around for many years, and I just played it last week with my 9 year old nephew.
He had as much fun with it as I did back in the day.
Gay couples frequently have children. They adopt, use sperm donors, use egg donors and surrogates. Not unlike many straight couples.
Straight couples frequently decide not to have children. They often still chose to get married. Many (most?) of the rights that a marriage conveys have nothing to do with children.
I agree that marriage is about building a family. I love my partner, and we've reached the point where the term "boyfriend" doesn't describe what we are to each other. We've become family, even if the family is only two people. I want to formalize that transition the same way my parents did, the same way my brother did.
If it makes you feel any better we both work full time jobs and would probably end up paying increased taxes if we do succeed in getting married.
And everything to do with the terms of service for access to their game servers. Feel free to make any changes you want to the client. But if you break their terms of service they won't let you connect. Sounds fair to me.
Apple sells hand-held computers that can make calls. Nokia isn't even a player in that market. Palm, Google, and Microsoft are.
Not everybody wants a hand-held computer, and Nokia will continue to sell phones to those people. But it's crazy to pretend you are comparing "apples to apples";)
Can't see why you wouldn't pick up ME1 but be interested in ME2 though, care to elaborate on that one?
Yeah, this is what got me. ME2 is very much a continuation of ME1. They are both excellent games.
If you weren't going to enjoy ME1, you're probably not going to enjoy ME2 either.
Re:I actually kind of miss the old combat system
on
Review: Mass Effect 2
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Hah.. the planet scanning. It's almost like they said, "We're going to take all out all the boring, monotonous game mechanics for ME2... and then we'll add one back in!"
He calls the Uncanny Valley "a groundless thought experiment", when it's really a simple description of a phenomenon that I (and presumably many other people) have experienced.
He goes on to say that people aren't frightened by humanoid robots. My experience with the uncanny has never frightened me. It's more of a vague repulsion and an emotional disinterest.
He then goes on to talk about a series of robots that aren't nearly human-like enough to trigger the uncanny valley phenomenon. Honestly the phenomenon seems much more relevant to the computer graphics world than it does to robotics at this moment in time.
I don't disagree that it's hard to keep things private these days, but that doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of moral, legal things that I do every day that I want to keep private. My sex life and medical information are two good examples.
Bentham Open is mostly known for spamming researchers, so far as I can tell. I've received one or two spam solicitations from them myself. As for the 9/11 conspiracy paper, the editor-in-chief of that journal resigned because it was published without her knowledge or approval:
The info isn't encrypted, it's just locked with a password.
Yeah, that's what the story seems to say. But that makes no sense... Why have an AES 256-bit hardware encryption system if you're going to store the data unencrypted? I mean.. it's all just bits as far as the memory chips are concerned.
This is clearly incorrect. Intention can be implied.
For example, if I walk up to you in a bar and say to you, "That smug smile on your face makes me want to break this bottle over your head," I have just threatened you.
You don't even have to express desire: If I walk into your store and I say, "You've got a nice store here, it would be a shame if it burned down," I have just threatened you.
As to the target, depending on how much context you have the person is either identifiable or not. If you know she was just dumped, you know she's talking about her ex. If you don't she could be talking about anyone... a teacher for example. This does not improve the situation.
You can use your brain all day if you want, but until there's very specific data showing causation, you're just daydreaming.
The study that was conducted was an observational study. Such studies are common in medical research, because it would be unethical, for example, to assign half a study group to drink scalding hot tea to see if they develop throat cancer.
Observational studies are not as strong controlled studies, but that certainly doesn't make them useless. They can suggest causality, and often that's the best we're going to get.
Even a controlled study doesn't prove causality. We could give 25 people hot tea, they could all develop throat cancer, and our 25 control people don't. But maybe those people were simple destined to get throat cancer, tea or no tea. We'd be pretty sure that wasn't the case, but the only way to be sure would be to go back in time and not give them the hot tea.
So, my point is this... it's not all or nothing, but a matter of degree. A controlled study suggests causality in a strong way, an observational study suggests causality in a weaker way. I can say for certain that after reading the article, I would not continue drinking scalding hot tea, were that my habit.
"The British Medical Journal study found that drinking black tea at temperatures of 70C or higher increased the risk." [of getting oesophageal (food tube) cancer]
The scientists are clearly claiming a causal relationship, contrary to what you say.
"correlation is not causation." Yeah, no kidding. That doesn't mean we can simple ignore any correlation (as slashdot likes to do).
We use statistics to give us an idea as to how likely the correlation is to be a coincidence.
If the probability of coincidence is found to be small, we use our brains to try to work out causal relationships for the data: Can we think of a mechanism whereby throat cancer might cause a desire for scalding hot tea.. can we think of a mechanism where scalding hot tea might cause throat cancer... is there an outside factor that might be increasing both tea drinking and throat cancer?
We can use your example above. Would you claim that we cannot say that the hot weather caused the increase in ice cream vendors? Or would you claim that such a thing is simply unknowable because correlation is not causation.
Slashdot Mirror
User accounts on routers and switches?
Ah, perhaps you should RTFA! :)
I love the man, and I think he's a great writer.
Still, we should give his opinions on video games the same weight he would give to someone who writes commentary on movies without ever viewing one: No weight at all.
I agree that this is the real thing.
But people already have been making counterfeit unannounced iPhones.. and selling them as the real thing.
People might take you seriously if you stopped creating posts exclaiming, "Your math fails", then writing (300+4*500) = 600000.
I had the first book in the Lone Wolf series when I was a kid. I've kept it around for many years, and I just played it last week with my 9 year old nephew.
He had as much fun with it as I did back in the day.
As a web developer, I'm really glad that every version of IE has been more standards compliant than the last.
It would be nice if the everyone magically installed FireFox or Safari or Chrome, but that doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Our best hope for killing off older versions of IE is newer versions of IE and an automatic upgrade path.
Frankly 8 doesn't seem that bad to me. Most of my code just works with IE 8. I'm really excited about HTML 5 and SVG in IE 9.
Gay couples frequently have children. They adopt, use sperm donors, use egg donors and surrogates. Not unlike many straight couples.
Straight couples frequently decide not to have children. They often still chose to get married. Many (most?) of the rights that a marriage conveys have nothing to do with children.
I agree that marriage is about building a family. I love my partner, and we've reached the point where the term "boyfriend" doesn't describe what we are to each other. We've become family, even if the family is only two people. I want to formalize that transition the same way my parents did, the same way my brother did.
If it makes you feel any better we both work full time jobs and would probably end up paying increased taxes if we do succeed in getting married.
And everything to do with the terms of service for access to their game servers. Feel free to make any changes you want to the client. But if you break their terms of service they won't let you connect. Sounds fair to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
Apple sells hand-held computers that can make calls. Nokia isn't even a player in that market. Palm, Google, and Microsoft are.
Not everybody wants a hand-held computer, and Nokia will continue to sell phones to those people. But it's crazy to pretend you are comparing "apples to apples" ;)
Don't worry!
Google already knows everything about you. Your page has be pre-populated with all your data and pre-linked to all of your friends!
They'll be taking care of your updates too! What could be easier?
Can't see why you wouldn't pick up ME1 but be interested in ME2 though, care to elaborate on that one?
Yeah, this is what got me. ME2 is very much a continuation of ME1. They are both excellent games.
If you weren't going to enjoy ME1, you're probably not going to enjoy ME2 either.
Hah.. the planet scanning. It's almost like they said, "We're going to take all out all the boring, monotonous game mechanics for ME2... and then we'll add one back in!"
I'll get right on it.
Wasn't impressed with the article.
He calls the Uncanny Valley "a groundless thought experiment", when it's really a simple description of a phenomenon that I (and presumably many other people) have experienced.
He goes on to say that people aren't frightened by humanoid robots. My experience with the uncanny has never frightened me. It's more of a vague repulsion and an emotional disinterest.
He then goes on to talk about a series of robots that aren't nearly human-like enough to trigger the uncanny valley phenomenon. Honestly the phenomenon seems much more relevant to the computer graphics world than it does to robotics at this moment in time.
Ah, Eric Schmidt, is that you?
I don't disagree that it's hard to keep things private these days, but that doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of moral, legal things that I do every day that I want to keep private. My sex life and medical information are two good examples.
http://journalology.blogspot.com/2008/08/short-post-about-bentham-open.html
Of course.. this just shows you how deep the conspiracy goes... ;)
I only hope you don't use your nickname on the job.
I'd be a little worried if I was strapped down to an operating table and heard, "The patient is prepped for surgery... bring in the Demon Rabbit."
Yeah, that's what the story seems to say. But that makes no sense... Why have an AES 256-bit hardware encryption system if you're going to store the data unencrypted? I mean.. it's all just bits as far as the memory chips are concerned.
If you're a fan of Michael Bay then it's a positive development. If you're not, then it's pretty much a non-event.
This is clearly incorrect. Intention can be implied.
For example, if I walk up to you in a bar and say to you, "That smug smile on your face makes me want to break this bottle over your head," I have just threatened you.
You don't even have to express desire: If I walk into your store and I say, "You've got a nice store here, it would be a shame if it burned down," I have just threatened you.
As to the target, depending on how much context you have the person is either identifiable or not. If you know she was just dumped, you know she's talking about her ex. If you don't she could be talking about anyone... a teacher for example. This does not improve the situation.
That's a threat.
If you say that to a close friend who can see your face and judge your affect, they would understand that you are not going to follow through.
If you post it up on a web page without any context, people are forced to consider the possibility that you're about to go postal.
The study that was conducted was an observational study. Such studies are common in medical research, because it would be unethical, for example, to assign half a study group to drink scalding hot tea to see if they develop throat cancer.
Observational studies are not as strong controlled studies, but that certainly doesn't make them useless. They can suggest causality, and often that's the best we're going to get.
Even a controlled study doesn't prove causality. We could give 25 people hot tea, they could all develop throat cancer, and our 25 control people don't. But maybe those people were simple destined to get throat cancer, tea or no tea. We'd be pretty sure that wasn't the case, but the only way to be sure would be to go back in time and not give them the hot tea.
So, my point is this... it's not all or nothing, but a matter of degree. A controlled study suggests causality in a strong way, an observational study suggests causality in a weaker way. I can say for certain that after reading the article, I would not continue drinking scalding hot tea, were that my habit.
The bbc article opens with:
"The British Medical Journal study found that drinking black tea at temperatures of 70C or higher increased the risk." [of getting oesophageal (food tube) cancer]
The scientists are clearly claiming a causal relationship, contrary to what you say.
"correlation is not causation." Yeah, no kidding.
That doesn't mean we can simple ignore any correlation (as slashdot likes to do).
We use statistics to give us an idea as to how likely the correlation is to be a coincidence.
If the probability of coincidence is found to be small, we use our brains to try to work out causal relationships for the data: Can we think of a mechanism whereby throat cancer might cause a desire for scalding hot tea.. can we think of a mechanism where scalding hot tea might cause throat cancer... is there an outside factor that might be increasing both tea drinking and throat cancer?
We can use your example above. Would you claim that we cannot say that the hot weather caused the increase in ice cream vendors? Or would you claim that such a thing is simply unknowable because correlation is not causation.