To innovate means to make something new happen. It doesn't have to be radically new, just something that wasn't available before. In the real world, most innovations are pretty humble, but humble doesn't imply not useful.
Do you ever look at Crapware 7.0 and think they just added some 3D arrows for absolutely no reason? Now look at TFA and the reactions here, this is *precisely* why the marketers demand idiotic features.
If you've actually set up Oracle on a system, you quickly realize that a. it's hugely complicated but b. it's a solved problem so c. why am I going through all this pain when Oracle has done this already? Of course, they have, calling it OEL just makes it easy to explain to the boss.
And for anyone trying to maintain an Oracle system, this is a big deal. It is not an understatement that for the typical business, their Oracle database more or less *is* the business. You want something that's going to work, with no nonsense, and you want to keep it up to date.
I remember talking to one person here on Slashdot who recommended that I read the Turner Diaries (which is often sold at gun shows to gun enthusiasts) in order to understand the gun culture in America.
No, that'd be a skinhead trying to explain the skinhead culture. I'm going to guess you're European, and since you've got a much bigger neo-Nazi problem than the states, I'm surprised you needed a book to understand it.
It's one thing to be Libertarian about gun ownership...
... and people like you are going to call anyone who is a Nazi. Fuck you.
Let's keep in mind that she in a field that is absolutely dominated by fakes and scams. Looking at the list of offenders, though, she is clearly going after companies that are claiming that she endorsed her product. Her actual pattern of legal action makes perfect sense, it's just that the wording on the page is overly broad. But that's probably a necessary level of intimidation given the folks she's dealing with.
So it seems like she knows the legal side of her business, whether the science is up to scratch is another matter entirely...
What if a few popular distros simply had, turned on by default, a low priority process that wrote random data to free blocks?
Then you've got a perfectly legitimate excuse for a drive full of random data. You really can't beat, "it's a security measure enabled by default on Debian," as excuses go.
Well of course you would want to *have* a cousin Jim who is willing to say he had given you a spare hard drive. Or replace "cousin Jim" with "friend Steve" or whoever. It's not *that* hard.
And you're going to rehearse the stories together? Now you're conspiring, so you've added another charge. And there are more points of failure, as all your stories have to match, which they won't.
They've already done brain-scans on people with political affinities. Those who are right-wing show under-developed regions dealing with emotion, those on the left-wing show similar defects in other areas of the brain.
I've seen some half-baked studies making similar claims that, curiously, always echo popular stereotypes. This stuff really isn't any better science than the hoary old studies measuring skull sizes of African-Americans. The biggest problem with any of them is determining what someone's orientation really is. Most people, nominally left or right, have poorly constructed views on a mess of issues, a tribal identity, and a fair amount of political paranoia. They are generally all over the map, and often don't realize their beliefs are contradictory. Honest to god partisans, who have independently developed their views and ideology, are a pretty small percentage of the population, mostly because there's so little economic benefit to doing so.
I'd like to say politicians have no brain, but politicians fit into the same category as CEOs and CEOs are well-established as schizophrenic sociopaths and politicians will likely therefore exhibit brain damage accordingly.
I'm calling bullshit on this. People need to believe in the devil, and in a secular society they substitute powerful figures for it. Politicians and CEOs and such ride the wave, for the most part, and have little actual control over anything outside a narrow domain. In other words, bad things happen because people, generally, are bad, not because there is some unaccountable elite scheming behind the scenes.
I find few powerful figures whose controversial actions aren't (eventually) explainable by a. them having superior knowledge of their domain than I have or b. them being poor leaders and surrounded by yes-men. B is a big one, never underestimate the Peter Principle.
All political persuasions, by definition, operate on the theory that ideology comes before consequences, so all political persuasions can be considered neurological diseases.
Nope, American conservatism operates on precisely the opposite theory. As Buckley put it, "don't immanentize the eschaton", meaning, don't try to bring about the end times or a utopia. The whole notion is that you can't have a perfect world, you don't even consider a perfect world in what you're trying to achieve. You have to work with what you've got, and you have to realize that their lives and dreams are valuable in and of themselves, and temper any changes you might try to achieve with the realization that your ends are not necessarily any greater than what they have now. The more thoroughly conservative a person is, the more consequences are everything, the ideology is nothing.
Libertarians, Tea Party loonies and other fanatics are worsening the situation by devolution.
Progressivism has always, in all of its incarnations, had reasons for why the right-thinking adherents to the movement were smarter, wiser, better human beings, and why people who disagreed were mentally defective, overwhelmed by hate, or even subhuman. The most depressing development lately is that as more women are taking leadership positions in the conservative movement, we now have liberals deriding them as insane or sexually damaged. Modern American progressivism started with women's suffrage, and has now come full circle to attack them in the most vicious, misogynistic ways.
See, the funny thing is in America our president can insult the police and its all fine and dandy. Just saying.
The federal government is a separate entity from the state and local governments and, in certain ways, is superior to them. For example, the FBI can override the jurisdiction of local cops, particularly if a crime happens across state lines. For those reasons, yes, the President can criticize or even insult police.
But it wasn't all fine and dandy. Obama is a politician and took a lot of heat for, basically, opening his big mouth when he shouldn't have. That's been a recurring criticism of Obama: that he talks about stuff when there's no good reason for him to, and wastes his political capital.
I already about my experiences with the above groups, but racism, historically and currently, is squarely a phenomenon of the gun control movement. As this black guy with a gun explains:
[after] the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed “Black Codes.” They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites.... most States turned to “facially neutral” business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia ‘s official university law review called for a “prohibitive taxon the privilege” of selling handguns as a way of disarming “the son of Ham,” whose “cowardly practice of ‘toting’ guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime. Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.”...
That article has a pretty solid timeline of racist gun control, going all the way up to 1995.
3. They may think that only people here legally should have guns, but that is a perfectly defensible position. I have NEVER, EVER seen ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of someone saying that guns are bad for illegal Mexicans, but fine for other illegals.
How do you feel about legal Mexicans having guns?
Having worked with Mexican guys in the Army who carried loaded weapons on a daily basis, I really don't have a problem with it. I know of at least one Mexican immigrant who was a MOH recipient, since I read his autobiography.
Or legal Muslim Somalians and Yemenites?
Can't say about Yemenites, but having worked with Somalis in the Army, etc, etc.
Or people arrested and convicted for non-violent charges?
Again, I've worked with guys who have non-violent charges on their records.
The problem is that you're trying to hide traffic in web traffic.
Most media on the unencrypted web is available to everyone. So if Eve sees http://foo.com/hamster.jpg delivered to you, she can request a copy herself and check for binary differences. If you know that a person is hiding data in that sort of traffic, all you need to know is that *something* is hidden, and then you can use conventional surveillance. There's no need to fully defeat the steganography.
To a computer, a user using Haystack appears to be engaging in normal, unencrypted web browsing, which raises far fewer suspicions than many encrypted connections. Authorities can block Haystack only by completely disabling access to the internet, which gives Haystack greater availability in crises, during which the authorities may be perfectly willing to block all obviously-encrypted traffic.
It also means that you absolutely can not reveal the source code. The software is, fundamentally, steganography.
Most people are familiar with strong encryption, and they understand that genuine encryption algorithms are all published and open. They are considered strong because even when the algorithm is known, they are unbreakable so long as the key is secret.
But steganography is fundamentally harder than encryption. While strong steganography may be possible, I don't think anyone has achieved that. Generally, a steganographic algorithm is really just a hiding place for your data, and once you reveal the code behind the algorithm, you've revealed the hiding place.
You're assuming that the developers who implemented the hardware acceleration support were doing so instead of fixing those bugs, which is a big and likely incorrect assumption.
Agreed.
It's a tired straw man argument.
Unfortunately, that's not what a strawman argument is.
He said a "tired strawman argument," which is one where the straw man is feeling rather listless and can't come up with anything better than a false dichotomy.
Besides the ACID test is about how well a browser handles the testing of esoteric, completely fucked up, marginally correct coding.
In other words, it tests edge cases. I thought it was common knowledge that in a suite of regression tests, those were the most important tests.
Why? Well, have you ever tried to do cross-DBMS SQL? Sure, a table's a table, an int is an int, but it's when you get to the esoteric features and edge cases that it becomes a nightmare.
My point was simply that just because you can revolve a thing around a point you can't infer that the point is the center. That's all.
But forget relativity. You could observe that since all the galaxies are moving away from us, we must be at the center. That's wrong for the same reason.
In the rest frame of the Earth the entire universe revolves around it.
You can revolve a circle around any point in it or even outside it, but its center is the point such that any line drawn through that point divides the circle into two equal halves.
Why use a word processor, even Open Office or whatever, for ANYTHING? Text is much more reliable in plain text form. Formatting can be added in much better ways, independent of the content. Especially in legal cases, why thrust your textual data to such fragile, unreliable, locked in systems??
How can I spend hours obsessing over fonts, colors and trying to get my pie charts and org graphs to display nicely with such a thing?
Pardon me, I need to send an email to the entire organization because someone left a file open on their machine that I need to work on. What an idiot!
Slashdot Mirror
A certain percentage of its trip is attributable to your item.
It really is amazing how many people on this thread can't grasp this concept.
To innovate means to make something new happen. It doesn't have to be radically new, just something that wasn't available before. In the real world, most innovations are pretty humble, but humble doesn't imply not useful.
Do you ever look at Crapware 7.0 and think they just added some 3D arrows for absolutely no reason? Now look at TFA and the reactions here, this is *precisely* why the marketers demand idiotic features.
If you've actually set up Oracle on a system, you quickly realize that a. it's hugely complicated but b. it's a solved problem so c. why am I going through all this pain when Oracle has done this already? Of course, they have, calling it OEL just makes it easy to explain to the boss.
And for anyone trying to maintain an Oracle system, this is a big deal. It is not an understatement that for the typical business, their Oracle database more or less *is* the business. You want something that's going to work, with no nonsense, and you want to keep it up to date.
I remember talking to one person here on Slashdot who recommended that I read the Turner Diaries (which is often sold at gun shows to gun enthusiasts) in order to understand the gun culture in America.
No, that'd be a skinhead trying to explain the skinhead culture. I'm going to guess you're European, and since you've got a much bigger neo-Nazi problem than the states, I'm surprised you needed a book to understand it.
It's one thing to be Libertarian about gun ownership...
... and people like you are going to call anyone who is a Nazi. Fuck you.
Let's keep in mind that she in a field that is absolutely dominated by fakes and scams. Looking at the list of offenders, though, she is clearly going after companies that are claiming that she endorsed her product. Her actual pattern of legal action makes perfect sense, it's just that the wording on the page is overly broad. But that's probably a necessary level of intimidation given the folks she's dealing with.
So it seems like she knows the legal side of her business, whether the science is up to scratch is another matter entirely...
What if a few popular distros simply had, turned on by default, a low priority process that wrote random data to free blocks?
Then you've got a perfectly legitimate excuse for a drive full of random data. You really can't beat, "it's a security measure enabled by default on Debian," as excuses go.
Well of course you would want to *have* a cousin Jim who is willing to say he had given you a spare hard drive. Or replace "cousin Jim" with "friend Steve" or whoever. It's not *that* hard.
And you're going to rehearse the stories together? Now you're conspiring, so you've added another charge. And there are more points of failure, as all your stories have to match, which they won't.
Which, in Australia, is known as "New Zealand."
The dog was quoted as saying "bark!" and the man said "ow!"
They've already done brain-scans on people with political affinities. Those who are right-wing show under-developed regions dealing with emotion, those on the left-wing show similar defects in other areas of the brain.
I've seen some half-baked studies making similar claims that, curiously, always echo popular stereotypes. This stuff really isn't any better science than the hoary old studies measuring skull sizes of African-Americans. The biggest problem with any of them is determining what someone's orientation really is. Most people, nominally left or right, have poorly constructed views on a mess of issues, a tribal identity, and a fair amount of political paranoia. They are generally all over the map, and often don't realize their beliefs are contradictory. Honest to god partisans, who have independently developed their views and ideology, are a pretty small percentage of the population, mostly because there's so little economic benefit to doing so.
I'd like to say politicians have no brain, but politicians fit into the same category as CEOs and CEOs are well-established as schizophrenic sociopaths and politicians will likely therefore exhibit brain damage accordingly.
I'm calling bullshit on this. People need to believe in the devil, and in a secular society they substitute powerful figures for it. Politicians and CEOs and such ride the wave, for the most part, and have little actual control over anything outside a narrow domain. In other words, bad things happen because people, generally, are bad, not because there is some unaccountable elite scheming behind the scenes.
I find few powerful figures whose controversial actions aren't (eventually) explainable by a. them having superior knowledge of their domain than I have or b. them being poor leaders and surrounded by yes-men. B is a big one, never underestimate the Peter Principle.
All political persuasions, by definition, operate on the theory that ideology comes before consequences, so all political persuasions can be considered neurological diseases.
Nope, American conservatism operates on precisely the opposite theory. As Buckley put it, "don't immanentize the eschaton", meaning, don't try to bring about the end times or a utopia. The whole notion is that you can't have a perfect world, you don't even consider a perfect world in what you're trying to achieve. You have to work with what you've got, and you have to realize that their lives and dreams are valuable in and of themselves, and temper any changes you might try to achieve with the realization that your ends are not necessarily any greater than what they have now. The more thoroughly conservative a person is, the more consequences are everything, the ideology is nothing.
Libertarians, Tea Party loonies and other fanatics are worsening the situation by devolution.
Progressivism has always, in all of its incarnations, had reasons for why the right-thinking adherents to the movement were smarter, wiser, better human beings, and why people who disagreed were mentally defective, overwhelmed by hate, or even subhuman. The most depressing development lately is that as more women are taking leadership positions in the conservative movement, we now have liberals deriding them as insane or sexually damaged. Modern American progressivism started with women's suffrage, and has now come full circle to attack them in the most vicious, misogynistic ways.
See, the funny thing is in America our president can insult the police and its all fine and dandy. Just saying.
The federal government is a separate entity from the state and local governments and, in certain ways, is superior to them. For example, the FBI can override the jurisdiction of local cops, particularly if a crime happens across state lines. For those reasons, yes, the President can criticize or even insult police.
But it wasn't all fine and dandy. Obama is a politician and took a lot of heat for, basically, opening his big mouth when he shouldn't have. That's been a recurring criticism of Obama: that he talks about stuff when there's no good reason for him to, and wastes his political capital.
I already about my experiences with the above groups, but racism, historically and currently, is squarely a phenomenon of the gun control movement. As this black guy with a gun explains:
[after] the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed “Black Codes.” They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. ... most States turned to “facially neutral” business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia ‘s official university law review called for a “prohibitive taxon the privilege” of selling handguns as a way of disarming “the son of Ham,” whose “cowardly practice of ‘toting’ guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime. Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.” ...
That article has a pretty solid timeline of racist gun control, going all the way up to 1995.
How do you feel about legal Mexicans having guns?
Having worked with Mexican guys in the Army who carried loaded weapons on a daily basis, I really don't have a problem with it. I know of at least one Mexican immigrant who was a MOH recipient, since I read his autobiography.
Or legal Muslim Somalians and Yemenites?
Can't say about Yemenites, but having worked with Somalis in the Army, etc, etc.
Or people arrested and convicted for non-violent charges?
Again, I've worked with guys who have non-violent charges on their records.
That the pot calling the kettle black if ever I've heard it!
Thank God. I don't know what we would have done if you hadn't shown up, Captain Obvious.
It may well be physically in France, I wouldn't call it French per se.
So this isn't really French Fusion, then? Kind of like, you can't call it Champagne if it's from California?
Lord_of_the_nerf likes Schick Razors and Warm Baths
You might have better luck with Dovo.
Somewhat strong steganographic picture decoder:
The problem is that you're trying to hide traffic in web traffic.
Most media on the unencrypted web is available to everyone. So if Eve sees http://foo.com/hamster.jpg delivered to you, she can request a copy herself and check for binary differences. If you know that a person is hiding data in that sort of traffic, all you need to know is that *something* is hidden, and then you can use conventional surveillance. There's no need to fully defeat the steganography.
To a computer, a user using Haystack appears to be engaging in normal, unencrypted web browsing, which raises far fewer suspicions than many encrypted connections. Authorities can block Haystack only by completely disabling access to the internet, which gives Haystack greater availability in crises, during which the authorities may be perfectly willing to block all obviously-encrypted traffic.
It also means that you absolutely can not reveal the source code. The software is, fundamentally, steganography.
Most people are familiar with strong encryption, and they understand that genuine encryption algorithms are all published and open. They are considered strong because even when the algorithm is known, they are unbreakable so long as the key is secret.
But steganography is fundamentally harder than encryption. While strong steganography may be possible, I don't think anyone has achieved that. Generally, a steganographic algorithm is really just a hiding place for your data, and once you reveal the code behind the algorithm, you've revealed the hiding place.
You're assuming that the developers who implemented the hardware acceleration support were doing so instead of fixing those bugs, which is a big and likely incorrect assumption.
Agreed.
It's a tired straw man argument.
Unfortunately, that's not what a strawman argument is.
He said a "tired strawman argument," which is one where the straw man is feeling rather listless and can't come up with anything better than a false dichotomy.
Besides the ACID test is about how well a browser handles the testing of esoteric, completely fucked up, marginally correct coding.
In other words, it tests edge cases. I thought it was common knowledge that in a suite of regression tests, those were the most important tests.
Why? Well, have you ever tried to do cross-DBMS SQL? Sure, a table's a table, an int is an int, but it's when you get to the esoteric features and edge cases that it becomes a nightmare.
My point was simply that just because you can revolve a thing around a point you can't infer that the point is the center. That's all.
But forget relativity. You could observe that since all the galaxies are moving away from us, we must be at the center. That's wrong for the same reason.
In the rest frame of the Earth the entire universe revolves around it.
You can revolve a circle around any point in it or even outside it, but its center is the point such that any line drawn through that point divides the circle into two equal halves.
Why use a word processor, even Open Office or whatever, for ANYTHING? Text is much more reliable in plain text form. Formatting can be added in much better ways, independent of the content. Especially in legal cases, why thrust your textual data to such fragile, unreliable, locked in systems??
How can I spend hours obsessing over fonts, colors and trying to get my pie charts and org graphs to display nicely with such a thing?
Pardon me, I need to send an email to the entire organization because someone left a file open on their machine that I need to work on. What an idiot!
Never heard of audio books, I take it.
I wonder if forcing every single human being to read George Orwell's 1984 would prevent this sort of thing from happening.
First, you'd have to set up a network of government book reading camps...
The investigations are just hypothetical and in the future!
But, really, what's wrong with a database of Swedish police shoes?