No one doubts that the Mojave Desert is in fact a desert, you don't have to post a link to Wikipedia. Your model says that a certain latitude is a desert, but obviously that fails because Los Angeles is not a desert, San Diego is not a desert (although close), the Laguna mountains are certainly not a desert; most of India and Southeast Asia is not a desert. You can't go based on the model, you have to go based on the data, and look at individual places if you want to know if they'll be a desert or not. Most of California is not a desert, especially the farm land.
Is that the metric that keeps IPv6 adaption capped?
I asked the owner of an ISP how he was going to deal with IPv6. His answer was, "Buy a lot of expensive hardware." That is the metric that keeps IPv6 adoption capped: people don't want to pay for new hardware.
Security isn't something that can happen as an afterthought. It can't be bolted on. You need to train your programmers to have the security mindset from the very beginning, and router companies haven't done that.
without NAT as a first but relatively porous line of defense against random packets coming in from the open Internet, it's necessary to be much more deliberate about which types of packets to accept and which to reject.
What? If you want the same 'security' as NAT, can't you just set the firewall to reject all incoming connections?
You can also turn that around and say that you can have people who care but if there's no money to support the program (ie. the free food, shelters for homeless kids (what country is this again!?!?!?!), etc that the program cannot succeed.
No, it just adds an extra step for people who care (and raises the barrier somewhat). See The Freedom Writer's Diaries for example, or Stand and Deliver.
No, psychological therapy is something where the individual therapist matters even more, because therapists are teaching the patient to become like they are (though inadvertently).
A lot of people have asked, "how was Hitler so good at propaganda?" The answer is, he wasn't......he just tapped into things people were already thinking. Poor Mahler had a tough time of it, and even Mendelssohn, because they were jews.
No, the council of Nicene Creed happened in the first place because it wasn't simple. It was a creed because people disagreed on the topic, had a fight, and the winning side got to choose the creed.
But a child (anyone under 18 now) coming in with even unwashed clothes, or hunger? That's an issue that gets referred to social services pretty damn quick. I'm not saying they can act immediately, but we have a range of neglect laws and getting taken into care can happen pretty damn quick if the parents obviously aren't around, can't cope or don't give a shit.
That sort of support exists in America, too. In this situation, it's not really clear what was going on, why that wasn't happening already, the article doesn't go into enough detail.
So...federal breakfast+lunch+dinner+afterschool+foodstamps+welfare = fail? Can we just invest in what she's doing then and cut back on all the other social programs that are not addressing poverty?
Most likely, no.
With programs like these, often it is a single person who cares that makes a huge difference. In the foster-child program, for example, the people who are hired by the government to handle cases are the difference between a horrible program and an excellent program.
You can try throwing money at the problem, but unless people care, it's not going to make a huge difference.
It's a wonderful lesson of arsecovering because even the most obviously established of standards can change.
That's true, but I still feel perfectly comfortable using 0 as NULL.
Things that are more likely to change need more attention given to make them flexible.
That's a really good characterization of Anonymous. Although anyone can be Anonymous, there are still certain types of people who join, and there are still subgroups within anonymous.
One of my earliest memories as a professional programmer was telling another, more experienced coworker, "Don't use 0 instead of NULL! There will be problems if it changes in the future!"
He just smiled and said, "It won't."
From that I learned to recognize things that won't likely change in the future, in contrast to things that will.
Here are my answers (which you may purchase for the small price of sending properly formatted electrons to the Slashdot server):
This fact raises the obvious question: why the hell didn't the Western powers stop him earlier?
Because they were tired of war, and really didn't want to fight anymore. People who favored stopping Hitler were accused of being "warmongers." I can't particularly blame people for not wanting war after the carnage of WW1.
Why did they try to appease a man who so clearly stated his intentions? Were they, England and France, complete morons?
I think they underestimated the strength of Germany. They thought something like, "We just beat them down, they are weaker than us, and too weak to stand against the allied powers. Let them take weaker countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia." The misjudgement of the strength of Germany can be most clearly seen in the Maginot Line.
IMHO, the book is probably only interesting to historians
There is still a Nazi movement in Germany. When I was in school, there were people who liked to read it, although I wasn't sure why. Probably as a symbol of rebellion or something, I was never sure if they liked to read it or just carry it around with them.
Slashdot Mirror
No one doubts that the Mojave Desert is in fact a desert, you don't have to post a link to Wikipedia. Your model says that a certain latitude is a desert, but obviously that fails because Los Angeles is not a desert, San Diego is not a desert (although close), the Laguna mountains are certainly not a desert; most of India and Southeast Asia is not a desert. You can't go based on the model, you have to go based on the data, and look at individual places if you want to know if they'll be a desert or not. Most of California is not a desert, especially the farm land.
Is that the metric that keeps IPv6 adaption capped?
I asked the owner of an ISP how he was going to deal with IPv6. His answer was, "Buy a lot of expensive hardware." That is the metric that keeps IPv6 adoption capped: people don't want to pay for new hardware.
Are there consumer routers that will provide security for home users using IPv6 that they can just plug in and leave with default configuration?
Home routers should be assumed to be vulnerable in any configuration. If I were going to attack someone's house, the router is the first place I would start. There are a lot of vulnerabilities in routers.
Security isn't something that can happen as an afterthought. It can't be bolted on. You need to train your programmers to have the security mindset from the very beginning, and router companies haven't done that.
without NAT as a first but relatively porous line of defense against random packets coming in from the open Internet, it's necessary to be much more deliberate about which types of packets to accept and which to reject.
What? If you want the same 'security' as NAT, can't you just set the firewall to reject all incoming connections?
You can also turn that around and say that you can have people who care but if there's no money to support the program (ie. the free food, shelters for homeless kids (what country is this again!?!?!?!), etc that the program cannot succeed.
No, it just adds an extra step for people who care (and raises the barrier somewhat). See The Freedom Writer's Diaries for example, or Stand and Deliver.
No, psychological therapy is something where the individual therapist matters even more, because therapists are teaching the patient to become like they are (though inadvertently).
A lot of people have asked, "how was Hitler so good at propaganda?" The answer is, he wasn't......he just tapped into things people were already thinking. Poor Mahler had a tough time of it, and even Mendelssohn, because they were jews.
No, the council of Nicene Creed happened in the first place because it wasn't simple. It was a creed because people disagreed on the topic, had a fight, and the winning side got to choose the creed.
If you want to know if California is a desert, it's better to just look at California. You know, look at actual data instead of a generalized model.
But a child (anyone under 18 now) coming in with even unwashed clothes, or hunger? That's an issue that gets referred to social services pretty damn quick. I'm not saying they can act immediately, but we have a range of neglect laws and getting taken into care can happen pretty damn quick if the parents obviously aren't around, can't cope or don't give a shit.
That sort of support exists in America, too. In this situation, it's not really clear what was going on, why that wasn't happening already, the article doesn't go into enough detail.
...........I have no comment on that -_-
You might as well have asked for a flying pogo-stick.
Now that you mention it, I would like one of those....
So...federal breakfast+lunch+dinner+afterschool+foodstamps+welfare = fail? Can we just invest in what she's doing then and cut back on all the other social programs that are not addressing poverty?
Most likely, no.
With programs like these, often it is a single person who cares that makes a huge difference. In the foster-child program, for example, the people who are hired by the government to handle cases are the difference between a horrible program and an excellent program.
You can try throwing money at the problem, but unless people care, it's not going to make a huge difference.
that one pretty much takes the cake... and then drop-kicks that motherfucker. Some people can believe anything if it makes them feel better.
Yup. Instead, he should have set it to whip or chop IMO
As a hack, it's nothing interesting. Anyone can build one of these, in basically any language.
The article is interesting because it shows the trends that are going on in the malware world. Used to be malware was all C or assembly.
The screenshots in the article are worth a look too. All commercialized and everything. Reminds me of the book McMafia.
There are so many other things on my reading list higher than that, I'm not sure I'll ever make it to reading it.
It was a strategic mistake to use Apache Harmony code in the first place, but I suspect it was done to avoid stricter OpenJDK licensing.
Yes. A lot of Google's Android partners don't like the GPL.
It's a wonderful lesson of arsecovering because even the most obviously established of standards can change.
That's true, but I still feel perfectly comfortable using 0 as NULL.
Things that are more likely to change need more attention given to make them flexible.
That's a really good characterization of Anonymous. Although anyone can be Anonymous, there are still certain types of people who join, and there are still subgroups within anonymous.
all divisions of Christianity believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
You should hang out with more Unitarians, they have all kinds of beliefs. But here is a discussion of the resurrection of Christ was being a symbol, not actual. I once met a man who believed that Christ was an alien (based on the idea that Christ was able to overcome sexual temptation).
One of my earliest memories as a professional programmer was telling another, more experienced coworker, "Don't use 0 instead of NULL! There will be problems if it changes in the future!"
He just smiled and said, "It won't."
From that I learned to recognize things that won't likely change in the future, in contrast to things that will.
I've never had problems with it. Every time I've disputed a charge, it's been refunded to me within a few months.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, another option he has is to reverse the charge with the credit card company.
This fact raises the obvious question: why the hell didn't the Western powers stop him earlier?
Because they were tired of war, and really didn't want to fight anymore. People who favored stopping Hitler were accused of being "warmongers." I can't particularly blame people for not wanting war after the carnage of WW1.
Why did they try to appease a man who so clearly stated his intentions? Were they, England and France, complete morons?
I think they underestimated the strength of Germany. They thought something like, "We just beat them down, they are weaker than us, and too weak to stand against the allied powers. Let them take weaker countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia." The misjudgement of the strength of Germany can be most clearly seen in the Maginot Line.
IMHO, the book is probably only interesting to historians
There is still a Nazi movement in Germany. When I was in school, there were people who liked to read it, although I wasn't sure why. Probably as a symbol of rebellion or something, I was never sure if they liked to read it or just carry it around with them.