You're an adult. Take responsibility. You are responsible for everything you run on your computer. Period. You shouldn't run it if you don't understand every single line of code on it. If someone supplied you with bad software sue them, but you really should know the basics of software engineering before you run a program.
hmm....how does that work?
Or we can try that with medicine:...You shouldn't get any treatment unless you understand it. If that requires graduate biochemistry, so be it. (There is no "somewhat" understand. It's like being a 'little bit' pregnant).
But let's go back to the mortgage agreement: there's more to them than what's in the contract. There are all kinds of laws affecting execution of mortgages. Industry practices. Laws on Federal/State/Local level affecting how those loans may be serviced/sold/enforced. But hey! Don't sign it if you don't understand all that!
Or how about this: You shouldn't post asinine comments unless you've thought through to the real world implications.
Posting non-anonymously because I don't care how I get moderated.
Oh you 'tire', do you? Well thank you, King Lear, for that bit of input. When you're done playing with yourself as you think about Ayn Rand, maybe you can get back to the real world? You actually tried to apply social Darwinism to a museum...how's that "let's monetize everything, including our history" thing going for ya?
Also: did you miss the whole "distribution of wealth" bit? Let me break it down for you: top %5 of wealth-holders possess roughly 60% of all wealth in the country. This is 2004 figures, so with the economic unpleasantness it's probably shifted a few points, so may be closer to 65% now. (top 10% hold 70+% of all wealth). So, your solution is that private citizens (and here, that would be the 90%-95% of the people NOT in the top bracket) would compete with the top 5-10%'s purchasing ability (specifically their disposable wealth) to subsidize museums and other public institutions to preserve our history. Do you have an analytical problem or an arithmetic problem?
I don't have to do either. I believe the FCC should not be censoring the airwaves, because their mandate is to ensure, for example, that radio stations do not interfere with each other. But does it arguably fall into their purview - yes it does. Also - the FCC should obviously not have 'free reign' over content of communication. Should it have authority over the structure of communication - again, yes. To use Comcast's example: it is properly prohibiting violations of net neutrality as per it's "communication" statute. If it decided to get involved with censoring chat messages on Comcast's network, that would be regulating "content", which I believe to be wrong. Could they make a case for it though - yes. And again, properly so.
Basically, I would like their authority over providing regulated structure formalized - ensuring that communication can be fairly competitive, etc.. But they need to get out of the censorship business.
I take your point - what passes for content on the Intertubes can hardly be defined as "communication", nevertheless, which part of the "communication" confused you?
Besides the obvious (wasting time, too much info being shared with future employers), their privacy and data policies have gotten worse and worse. Once you sign up with them, they own everything you do. Or at least so they believe. From his writing, this researches was quite open and tried to be as forthcoming as possible. If they had concerns over anonymity, I suspect he would have been happy to discuss the exact data-scrubbing procedure to make sure it's on the level. But instead, these turds reach for the lawyers.
So it's fine for search engines to cache this data. It's fine for marketing firms to use it to pester even more people. But the moment the researchers get in on it - oh noes, gotta stop that shit from happening.
With any spare time, I'd sit down, recreate the damn dataset and post it to every torrent site in the world. Let's Streisand these jerks!
I'm not sure whether this will go to offtopic or flaimbait, but 'weaning' usually involves breasts. Your suggestion does not merely put one in mind of the old anecdote of trying to milk a bull, but also presents a rather disturbing, though not entirely inaccurate picture of Washington. Perhaps Moore was right when he did a segment on US politicians needing a pimp...
If you are being so very logical and intellectual about the whole thing, we would, in principle, need to discuss the definition of 'despotism'. That said, your claimed example of an instance where a disparity in warmaking capability does not lead to despotism is the US vs. Native American Indians.
The wars between the US and Native Americans actually predate the US. As per wikipedia article on the issue, the wars lasted between 1775ish all the way to 1918 (admittedly, in 1918, it was a very small engagement). Figure about 125 years of war. More precisely, an almost unbroken string of defeats for the Indians, the associated forced relocation, disease, famine, depopulation, destruction of culture, etc.. Women got the right to vote in 1920 (19th Amendment). Native Americans, to whom this land effectively "belongs", what with them being here first and all, were generously granted voting rights in 1924 by the Indian Citizenship Act.
You may point out the obvious - that 'merely' 6 years after the last military engagement Indians achieved legal parity with their conquerors, and hence the arrangement was not "despotic". If you are capable of making this claim with a straight face...well, I certainly can not.
RTFA. I know that's a sin, but seriously, do. You'll discover you are wrong.
The microcontroller loads the program as written in ascii on an SD card. It also can write the initial data onto the tape. After that, the computation is, indeed, performed by the "machine". Hence the optical reader for the characters on the tape.
So you're in the community? Ok. You have a Fields medal? Clay prize? Critical breakthrough? New field of study? No? In that case, you need to STFU about what he should and should not do. And that papers are coauthored doesn't mean one guy's not doing all the work and the other gets his name on it just because. Tell me that doesn't happen:)
weren't people wondering where 90% of the Universe's mass went? So they started into 'dark matter' and other voodoo stuff. Now that there's been a, what, 10-fold increase in galaxies, and I assume galaxies are a bit heavy (hey, I'm not against fat galaxies, they're just massively gifted), does that answer the 'mass of the Universe' question, or is there more stuff missing still?
Oh, well, since they get little sympathy from you, I guess we should let the CIA just waterboard them to death.
Seriously, though:
1) Is a non-sequitur. If it were true, by Modus Tollens, if we did not have a problem with US's checks and balances, therefore wikileaks would not be useful. You do know they leak stuff other than US government shenanigans? That they leaks stuff about everybody else's governments too? That they leak about corporations that have a financial incentives to lie to the public? How's the checks and balances thing working out for Monsanto? How about Enron?
2) Again: it's not just about US government, or just US laws. Also: how do you know that supporting an organization that's above the law is NOT the solution? People supported the American revolution - pretty sure it placed itself above the (British) law. Or should we have stayed and talked it out with our mate George? Also: what happens when trying to change the bad laws fail? Most governments notoriously do not want their laws to be easily changeable. Funny thing, that.
3) They exhibited poor judgement. Ok, first of all: [citation needed]. Second: assuming you can produce them, what's the standard for 'not in the public interest'. As far as I can tell, there's a small handful of things that it's not in the 'public interest' to reveal:
* exact details and specs for military hardware that is only available to the US - once you start trading it to Israel, France and god knows who else, the 'secrecy', she's gone * exact details of presidential security (pictures of secret service don't count). * exact details of intelligence operations, including identities of active spies.... oh wait, turns out you don't need wikileaks for that.... Had to be done, boys and girls. Had to be done.
Basically, out of your 3 points, 2 are completely baseless, and the third is conditionally unfounded. You see to hold this opinion genuinely, so not a troll. Still,
I think you have an unrealistic assessment of the nature of such incidents. You are assuming a sane criminal who will prefer a broken leg to a broken neck. You are assuming a perfectly controlled (as in not at all affected by adrenaline) father whose children and wife are in the house with a stranger who is stealing something, may be armed, or may simply want to kill the man, rape the women, shoot the children and THEN steal the stuff. Or any of dozens of other really bad things that could go wrong.
The invader's right to life may trump my right of possession. But if I break his legs and the bastard turns around and sues me in civil court (as can easily happen in sunny NY (may its laws be damned to hell)), then I'd say there is no justice. Things can go wrong. And I would rather the example father worry more about stopping the invader than getting sued by the surviving SOB afterward.
Koenig's "Ruminations" are beautiful! So glad you included it!
Definitely second that list. I would add Alexandrescu's "C++ coding standards" (I'm an Andrei fanboy), and Sutter's "Exceptional C++: 47" and "Exceptional C++: 40 new".
For the very beginning of C++, I like Lippman's "Essential C++", and, when you're feeling up to it, Lippman's "C++ Primer". If you want to know how C++ works under the hood, read "Inside C++ Object Model", also by Lippman (it's heavy lifting, and not needed for just using the language).
There are some other nice books around this topic, but I think these two lists complete the 'core'.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me try:
You're an adult. Take responsibility. You are responsible for everything you run on your computer. Period. You shouldn't run it if you don't understand every single line of code on it. If someone supplied you with bad software sue them, but you really should know the basics of software engineering before you run a program.
hmm....how does that work?
Or we can try that with medicine: ...You shouldn't get any treatment unless you understand it. If that requires graduate biochemistry, so be it. (There is no "somewhat" understand. It's like being a 'little bit' pregnant).
But let's go back to the mortgage agreement: there's more to them than what's in the contract. There are all kinds of laws affecting execution of mortgages. Industry practices. Laws on Federal/State/Local level affecting how those loans may be serviced/sold/enforced. But hey! Don't sign it if you don't understand all that!
Or how about this: You shouldn't post asinine comments unless you've thought through to the real world implications.
Posting non-anonymously because I don't care how I get moderated.
Yes, I'm so glad all those wealth-holders are paying their taxes!
A big shout-out from IBM to all our hill-climbing friends.
As do I. And many belong in jail for the way they did not. Not all. But many.
Maybe, those 95% of people should work harder and smarter, if they want more of the wealth?
Ok, now you're officially a troll.
Oh you 'tire', do you? Well thank you, King Lear, for that bit of input. When you're done playing with yourself as you think about Ayn Rand, maybe you can get back to the real world? You actually tried to apply social Darwinism to a museum...how's that "let's monetize everything, including our history" thing going for ya?
Also: did you miss the whole "distribution of wealth" bit? Let me break it down for you: top %5 of wealth-holders possess roughly 60% of all wealth in the country. This is 2004 figures, so with the economic unpleasantness it's probably shifted a few points, so may be closer to 65% now. (top 10% hold 70+% of all wealth). So, your solution is that private citizens (and here, that would be the 90%-95% of the people NOT in the top bracket) would compete with the top 5-10%'s purchasing ability (specifically their disposable wealth) to subsidize museums and other public institutions to preserve our history. Do you have an analytical problem or an arithmetic problem?
It is a less-than-perfect world. :)
aka complex systems have unforeseen negative interactions.
I don't have to do either. I believe the FCC should not be censoring the airwaves, because their mandate is to ensure, for example, that radio stations do not interfere with each other. But does it arguably fall into their purview - yes it does. Also - the FCC should obviously not have 'free reign' over content of communication. Should it have authority over the structure of communication - again, yes.
To use Comcast's example: it is properly prohibiting violations of net neutrality as per it's "communication" statute. If it decided to get involved with censoring chat messages on Comcast's network, that would be regulating "content", which I believe to be wrong. Could they make a case for it though - yes. And again, properly so.
Basically, I would like their authority over providing regulated structure formalized - ensuring that communication can be fairly competitive, etc.. But they need to get out of the censorship business.
FCC - Federal Communications Commission
I take your point - what passes for content on the Intertubes can hardly be defined as "communication", nevertheless, which part of the "communication" confused you?
Besides the obvious (wasting time, too much info being shared with future employers), their privacy and data policies have gotten worse and worse. Once you sign up with them, they own everything you do. Or at least so they believe. From his writing, this researches was quite open and tried to be as forthcoming as possible. If they had concerns over anonymity, I suspect he would have been happy to discuss the exact data-scrubbing procedure to make sure it's on the level. But instead, these turds reach for the lawyers.
So it's fine for search engines to cache this data. It's fine for marketing firms to use it to pester even more people. But the moment the researchers get in on it - oh noes, gotta stop that shit from happening.
With any spare time, I'd sit down, recreate the damn dataset and post it to every torrent site in the world. Let's Streisand these jerks!
"osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
Anata no seikan wa omoshiroi to omoimasu, soshite nyuusureta o koudoku shitai. :)
+5 Painfully True
I'm not sure whether this will go to offtopic or flaimbait, but 'weaning' usually involves breasts. Your suggestion does not merely put one in mind of the old anecdote of trying to milk a bull, but also presents a rather disturbing, though not entirely inaccurate picture of Washington. Perhaps Moore was right when he did a segment on US politicians needing a pimp...
If you are being so very logical and intellectual about the whole thing, we would, in principle, need to discuss the definition of 'despotism'. That said, your claimed example of an instance where a disparity in warmaking capability does not lead to despotism is the US vs. Native American Indians.
The wars between the US and Native Americans actually predate the US. As per wikipedia article on the issue, the wars lasted between 1775ish all the way to 1918 (admittedly, in 1918, it was a very small engagement). Figure about 125 years of war. More precisely, an almost unbroken string of defeats for the Indians, the associated forced relocation, disease, famine, depopulation, destruction of culture, etc.. Women got the right to vote in 1920 (19th Amendment). Native Americans, to whom this land effectively "belongs", what with them being here first and all, were generously granted voting rights in 1924 by the Indian Citizenship Act.
You may point out the obvious - that 'merely' 6 years after the last military engagement Indians achieved legal parity with their conquerors, and hence the arrangement was not "despotic". If you are capable of making this claim with a straight face...well, I certainly can not.
RTFA. I know that's a sin, but seriously, do. You'll discover you are wrong.
The microcontroller loads the program as written in ascii on an SD card. It also can write the initial data onto the tape. After that, the computation is, indeed, performed by the "machine". Hence the optical reader for the characters on the tape.
And we are free to consider you the asshole that you are.
Love "teh freedom" :)
If we're all...
So you're in the community? Ok. You have a Fields medal? Clay prize? Critical breakthrough? New field of study? No? In that case, you need to STFU about what he should and should not do. And that papers are coauthored doesn't mean one guy's not doing all the work and the other gets his name on it just because. Tell me that doesn't happen :)
And you do. Enlighten us, oh great one.
And after that you can go back to playing with your transformers
Not "alleged" behavior. Yau's behavior is well documented, to the point of being published. There's no "alleged".
There's only his reaction to the mathematical community's lack of response to Yau's publication of what amounts to intellectual plagiarism.
weren't people wondering where 90% of the Universe's mass went? So they started into 'dark matter' and other voodoo stuff. Now that there's been a, what, 10-fold increase in galaxies, and I assume galaxies are a bit heavy (hey, I'm not against fat galaxies, they're just massively gifted), does that answer the 'mass of the Universe' question, or is there more stuff missing still?
Oh, well, since they get little sympathy from you, I guess we should let the CIA just waterboard them to death.
Seriously, though:
1) Is a non-sequitur. If it were true, by Modus Tollens, if we did not have a problem with US's checks and balances, therefore wikileaks would not be useful. You do know they leak stuff other than US government shenanigans? That they leaks stuff about everybody else's governments too? That they leak about corporations that have a financial incentives to lie to the public? How's the checks and balances thing working out for Monsanto? How about Enron?
2) Again: it's not just about US government, or just US laws. Also: how do you know that supporting an organization that's above the law is NOT the solution? People supported the American revolution - pretty sure it placed itself above the (British) law. Or should we have stayed and talked it out with our mate George? Also: what happens when trying to change the bad laws fail? Most governments notoriously do not want their laws to be easily changeable. Funny thing, that.
3) They exhibited poor judgement. Ok, first of all: [citation needed].
Second: assuming you can produce them, what's the standard for 'not in the public interest'. As far as I can tell, there's a small handful of things that it's not in the 'public interest' to reveal:
* exact details and specs for military hardware that is only available to the US - once you start trading it to Israel, France and god knows who else, the 'secrecy', she's gone
* exact details of presidential security (pictures of secret service don't count).
* exact details of intelligence operations, including identities of active spies.... oh wait, turns out you don't need wikileaks for that.... Had to be done, boys and girls. Had to be done.
Basically, out of your 3 points, 2 are completely baseless, and the third is conditionally unfounded. You see to hold this opinion genuinely, so not a troll. Still,
FAIL.
I think you have an unrealistic assessment of the nature of such incidents. You are assuming a sane criminal who will prefer a broken leg to a broken neck. You are assuming a perfectly controlled (as in not at all affected by adrenaline) father whose children and wife are in the house with a stranger who is stealing something, may be armed, or may simply want to kill the man, rape the women, shoot the children and THEN steal the stuff. Or any of dozens of other really bad things that could go wrong.
The invader's right to life may trump my right of possession. But if I break his legs and the bastard turns around and sues me in civil court (as can easily happen in sunny NY (may its laws be damned to hell)), then I'd say there is no justice. Things can go wrong. And I would rather the example father worry more about stopping the invader than getting sued by the surviving SOB afterward.
Troll
..get off of my cloud!
Koenig's "Ruminations" are beautiful! So glad you included it!
Definitely second that list. I would add Alexandrescu's "C++ coding standards" (I'm an Andrei fanboy), and Sutter's "Exceptional C++: 47" and "Exceptional C++: 40 new".
For the very beginning of C++, I like Lippman's "Essential C++", and, when you're feeling up to it, Lippman's "C++ Primer". If you want to know how C++ works under the hood, read "Inside C++ Object Model", also by Lippman (it's heavy lifting, and not needed for just using the language).
There are some other nice books around this topic, but I think these two lists complete the 'core'.