And Hondas have way, way better uptime than Windows.
I meant that to be funny, but now that I think about it, it's kind of an interesting point. Cars have wear items like belts and seals. And yet they're often WAY more reliable than Microsoft's software, in terms of how long they can run without a problem.
I too cringe at spending $63 million on a school while other schools fall appart. But two things distinguish the MS school: (1) its super-expensive equipment, and (2) other areas of innovation such as starting classes at 9:15 because studies show students do better.
Especially with no-child-left-behind, we have a school monoculture, and we know that in general those schools suck. So despite (1), I see a lot of value in experimenting with areas of innovation that are largely cost-indepenent, such as start/end times. Because if MS has enough prestige to get &63 million out of the Philly school system, then maybe MS also has enough prestige for other schools to copy the cost-neutral good ideas (like school start time) that are showcased in this particular school.
why are you concerned if they come to class or not?
I can think of a few possible reasons that might go through instructors' minds:
It would be very difficult and/or painful to try to fully test students on every detail you'd like them to know after taking a course. So having them there in person adds two ways to build the instructor's confidence in the student's knowledge:
Knowing that the student is physically present and maybe even listening to the lecture/discussion makes it a little more likely that the student learns that day's course material than if the student simply played frisbee on the quad.
Especially in smaller classes, the instructor can gauge the student's level of knowledge based on how he handles class discussions.
In some classes it can be valuable to have input from many students during a class discussion. This is sometimes true in technical courses, but perhaps more often true for hippie touchy feely liberal arts courses where no one is wrong and diversity is valued.
Though my thoughts are with his lovely wife and two children, one of which is to young to remember him
Being a parent definitely heightened my sympathy regarding death, of children or their parents.
The thing about being a parent is that I'm not super concerned about my own mortality. But the thought of my kids growing up without understanding and benefitting from the enormous amount of love I have for them breaks my heart.
It's wierd (and wonderful) the way being a parent changes one's perspective. You discover a capacity for love greater than what you've ever known. I'm sad for Steve's kids that they're robbed of such a parent. And I'm sad for Steve that the kids he (presumably) cares for so much go though this.
Death sucks. It would be nice if there was a way to avoid it...
It is also important to note that Danese Cooper's employment with SUN ended in March of 2005 (http://blogs.sun.com/DaneseCooper/). This means that any statements made by her are not officially representative of SUN.
Is your point that we should trust "official" statements by a corporation more than we should trust the statements of a former employee? If so, I don't see why we should accept that.
If you believe NSA spying, bill of rights violating, presidential singing statement congress undermining Bush is a "strict constructionist," you are an utterly naive fool.
I would be a fool if I were to think that somehow Bush's actions were consistent with his formalized beliefs. I don't give him that much credit.
Remember George "the constitutional is just a godamn piece of paper" Bush
Actually, that's the odd (and frustrating) thing. As a strict constructionist, his political philosophy takes the Constitution much more seriously than 90% of the liberals with whom I'm spoken. But then, he goes and craps on the unwritten but palpable spirit behind the Constitution, which suggests he has the spirit of an autocrat.
Actually, I believe you're on track. The technical definition I was taught is simply based on numbers. It may have taken on other connoitations of wackiness over time, however.
So you want to restrict yourself (and others?) to what is morally acceptable?
Regarding restricting myself, heck yes. Don't you want to avoid doing things that pointlessly hurt other people? If you're so self-centered as to not care about hurting other people, then I don't think we have enough common ground for this discussion to be fruitful. And if I know that some situations tempt me to be a real a**hole, then yes, I try to restrict myself to not be in those situations.
Regarding restricting other persons' activities: Most persons have the creative freedom to refrain from inventing things that they think will hurt the people they care about. I was asking whether or not a programmer, contemplating whether or not to create such a browser, should consider the possibility that making it will hurt some persons he loves. I was not raising the question about whether or not outside parties should act to prevent that programmer from creating such a browser.
sheesh, you OSS Zealots always want someone to share their code.
I didn't state a categorical mandate for all software to be open-source. I stated two downsides, in this particular application and in this particular domain, to the software being closed source. I didn't run around saying, "OMG - the code wants to be free!"
Why must he share the code?
I tried to be clear about the reason in my post.
The argument is this:
We know from experience that source code in general tends to have security vulnerabilities.
We also know that fully covering your tracks is like security: just mostly getting it right isn't very helpful, because a knowledgeable hacker/investigator will exploit any known weakness.
The open source community has in general shown a more aggressive attitude towards finding and fixing vulnerabilities than have closed-source teams. This may have something to do with the relative size of the two programming groups, or that the users of the software are more personally motivated to find and fix vulnerabilities than are the vendor's paid programmers.
Therefore: in many cases an application can be more trusted to be secure if it's open source.
I realize there are sometimes good reasons to support anonymous browsing, like for whistleblowers, etc. But I wonder if the costs outweigh the benefits?
I keep on seeing these stats about huge numbers of married guys who feel addicted to porn. That is, they know it's causing them relationship problems, but they feel they can't stop. And hiding their browsing history is a major modus operandi for them to continue their behavior.
Yes, I realize there's a possibility that these guys would find some other venue even if they didn't have browsers that hide history. And yes, we certainly have a RIGHT to not be denied tools just because some people can't handle them. (E.g. alcohol, gambling, WoW.) I'm not asking whether or not we have a right to build such tools - I'm asking whether or not building such tools is the most excellent way to conduct ourselves.
1) It's closed source. So even if we assume good intentions on the authors' part, not many people have had a chance to scruitinize the code for weaknesses. The recent flap about how "wiped" mobile phones can still have their databases recovered is an example of this issue actually happening.
2) It sounds like it only keeps the local computer clean of history. Which I guess is good if you don't want your boyfriend to find out you like the whole Furbie sex scene. But when you're later divorcing him because he won't put on a chipmunk suit, and his attorney subpoenas Yahoo to get records of your search history, you're not protected. I think to be protected from THIS sort of thing the browser ought to default to using an anonymizer proxy.
Slow down, cowboy. I misstated my post a little: I agree that they're already a big player in embedded graphics. What I meant to say is that they're trying to gain ground in mid-level and possibly high-end graphics, where they definitely don't have products.
Why do I say this? Because of articles like these:
I wonder how much this research relates to Intel's renewed desire to become a graphics player.
If they're having trouble, for staffing or other reasons, producing good GPU designs, then it would be pretty clever of them to revolutionize the industry AND capitalize on their CPU strengths in a single move. More power to them, I say. (More power = about 120 watts, I'm guessing.)
One nice thing is that we can always create an alternate DNS-like service if we get too pissed off at ICANN. Not that it would be easy, but we're not entirely held hostage.
We could do any of the following:
A) Create a parallel infrastructure that uses DNS still, but that has an alternate set of servers.
B) Do something similar to what TinyUrl does: Hang our own infrastrucutre off of the current one. For instance, we register just one name such as z.com, then all names in the replacement service end in ".z.com"
C) In the most extreme case, we add new name resolution APIs to the popular operating systems, permitting us to go with a name resolution system that has a significantly different structure than DNS does.
I'm a pretty big fan of corporeal punishment by the government, with appropriate moderation and for appropriate crimes. It's immediate, and only really messed-up people like it.
I'm thinking that for this kid, probably a caning would be appropriate.
And no, I do NOT consider it cruel and unusual punishment. All punishment is intended to cause mental suffering - why should arriving at that ends through physical means be considered any more off limits than arriving at it through prison, community service, etc?
First of all, you're unnecessarily limited in thinking that killing humans is a "fundie" issue. Most non-materialists have a problem with it.
Second, you should distinguish between the set of issues that Dr. Evil, I mean, Karl, use to whip up support, and the set of issues that religious / non-materialist persons care about. For example, Christian's care[d] about killing humans before, while, and after the Republicans use it to get people to go vote.
Not doing evil things is a religious (or as you say, "fundies") / non-materialist issue. Getting people to vote Republican is a Karl Rove issue. If you think they're the same, you're exactly the kind of chump that Karl tries to manipulate to the voting booth.
You generally can't prove a physical theory, because you're not sure that the theory will hold in the future or under circumstances you didn't measure.
A better headline would be, "Dark Matter once again not disproven.":)
Slashdot Mirror
And Hondas have way, way better uptime than Windows.
I meant that to be funny, but now that I think about it, it's kind of an interesting point. Cars have wear items like belts and seals. And yet they're often WAY more reliable than Microsoft's software, in terms of how long they can run without a problem.
I too cringe at spending $63 million on a school while other schools fall appart. But two things distinguish the MS school: (1) its super-expensive equipment, and (2) other areas of innovation such as starting classes at 9:15 because studies show students do better.
Especially with no-child-left-behind, we have a school monoculture, and we know that in general those schools suck. So despite (1), I see a lot of value in experimenting with areas of innovation that are largely cost-indepenent, such as start/end times. Because if MS has enough prestige to get &63 million out of the Philly school system, then maybe MS also has enough prestige for other schools to copy the cost-neutral good ideas (like school start time) that are showcased in this particular school.
Unfortunately, the school won't be able to open until late January of 2007. ;)
Being a parent definitely heightened my sympathy regarding death, of children or their parents.
The thing about being a parent is that I'm not super concerned about my own mortality. But the thought of my kids growing up without understanding and benefitting from the enormous amount of love I have for them breaks my heart.
It's wierd (and wonderful) the way being a parent changes one's perspective. You discover a capacity for love greater than what you've ever known. I'm sad for Steve's kids that they're robbed of such a parent. And I'm sad for Steve that the kids he (presumably) cares for so much go though this.
Death sucks. It would be nice if there was a way to avoid it...Actually, I believe you're on track. The technical definition I was taught is simply based on numbers. It may have taken on other connoitations of wackiness over time, however.
Regarding restricting myself, heck yes. Don't you want to avoid doing things that pointlessly hurt other people? If you're so self-centered as to not care about hurting other people, then I don't think we have enough common ground for this discussion to be fruitful. And if I know that some situations tempt me to be a real a**hole, then yes, I try to restrict myself to not be in those situations.
Regarding restricting other persons' activities: Most persons have the creative freedom to refrain from inventing things that they think will hurt the people they care about. I was asking whether or not a programmer, contemplating whether or not to create such a browser, should consider the possibility that making it will hurt some persons he loves. I was not raising the question about whether or not outside parties should act to prevent that programmer from creating such a browser.
I tried to be clear about the reason in my post. The argument is this:
I realize there are sometimes good reasons to support anonymous browsing, like for whistleblowers, etc. But I wonder if the costs outweigh the benefits?
I keep on seeing these stats about huge numbers of married guys who feel addicted to porn. That is, they know it's causing them relationship problems, but they feel they can't stop. And hiding their browsing history is a major modus operandi for them to continue their behavior.
Yes, I realize there's a possibility that these guys would find some other venue even if they didn't have browsers that hide history. And yes, we certainly have a RIGHT to not be denied tools just because some people can't handle them. (E.g. alcohol, gambling, WoW.) I'm not asking whether or not we have a right to build such tools - I'm asking whether or not building such tools is the most excellent way to conduct ourselves.
1) It's closed source. So even if we assume good intentions on the authors' part, not many people have had a chance to scruitinize the code for weaknesses. The recent flap about how "wiped" mobile phones can still have their databases recovered is an example of this issue actually happening.
2) It sounds like it only keeps the local computer clean of history. Which I guess is good if you don't want your boyfriend to find out you like the whole Furbie sex scene. But when you're later divorcing him because he won't put on a chipmunk suit, and his attorney subpoenas Yahoo to get records of your search history, you're not protected. I think to be protected from THIS sort of thing the browser ought to default to using an anonymizer proxy.
Slow down, cowboy. I misstated my post a little: I agree that they're already a big player in embedded graphics. What I meant to say is that they're trying to gain ground in mid-level and possibly high-end graphics, where they definitely don't have products.
Why do I say this? Because of articles like these:
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/10564
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33 836
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33 720
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32 268
I'm so excited, after seeing how the original George Lucas improved the original StarWars and ET by waving the magical CG wand at them!
"going after a fly with a bazooka" + raytracing in the same game? Hell, I'D BUY IT!!! :)
I wonder how much this research relates to Intel's renewed desire to become a graphics player.
If they're having trouble, for staffing or other reasons, producing good GPU designs, then it would be pretty clever of them to revolutionize the industry AND capitalize on their CPU strengths in a single move. More power to them, I say. (More power = about 120 watts, I'm guessing.)
One nice thing is that we can always create an alternate DNS-like service if we get too pissed off at ICANN. Not that it would be easy, but we're not entirely held hostage.
We could do any of the following:
A) Create a parallel infrastructure that uses DNS still, but that has an alternate set of servers.
B) Do something similar to what TinyUrl does: Hang our own infrastrucutre off of the current one. For instance, we register just one name such as z.com, then all names in the replacement service end in ".z.com"
C) In the most extreme case, we add new name resolution APIs to the popular operating systems, permitting us to go with a name resolution system that has a significantly different structure than DNS does.
I'm a pretty big fan of corporeal punishment by the government, with appropriate moderation and for appropriate crimes. It's immediate, and only really messed-up people like it. I'm thinking that for this kid, probably a caning would be appropriate. And no, I do NOT consider it cruel and unusual punishment. All punishment is intended to cause mental suffering - why should arriving at that ends through physical means be considered any more off limits than arriving at it through prison, community service, etc?
My bad. I should have said the taking of innocent life so that others can live longer. My original word choice was a bad one.
First of all, you're unnecessarily limited in thinking that killing humans is a "fundie" issue. Most non-materialists have a problem with it.
Second, you should distinguish between the set of issues that Dr. Evil, I mean, Karl, use to whip up support, and the set of issues that religious / non-materialist persons care about. For example, Christian's care[d] about killing humans before, while, and after the Republicans use it to get people to go vote.
Not doing evil things is a religious (or as you say, "fundies") / non-materialist issue. Getting people to vote Republican is a Karl Rove issue. If you think they're the same, you're exactly the kind of chump that Karl tries to manipulate to the voting booth.
You generally can't prove a physical theory, because you're not sure that the theory will hold in the future or under circumstances you didn't measure.
:)
A better headline would be, "Dark Matter once again not disproven."
It beats the hell out of OpenAIX. On acount of being somewhat more... existant.