The author of dcraw explicitly states on his front page:
This is not a new problem. Phase One, Sony, Foveon, and Canon all apply some form of encryption to their raw files. Dcraw decodes them all -- you can easily find decryption code by searching for the ^ operator.
Actually, as someone who worked in insurance, theres a bit of truth in both arguments.
Men submit fewer claims than women, on average. However, male claims tend to be more expensive and to involve damage to third parties.
Womens claims tend to be less expensive than men's, and involve more damage to property (lamp posts etc).
The distinguishing factor is that men tend to drive greater distances than women, so if you express both male and female accidents in terms of cost/mile/person ON AVERAGE, its only slightly more expensive to be male.
Bear in mind, thats not the case in the 20-25 year old range, where male accident figures greatly outweigh womens.
Even if (as you say) SUVs represent 5% of 25% of 50% its something that you could very very easily do without by buying smaller cars.
Hell, its like saying "The UK represents 5% of the population of Europe, which is 10% of the population of the world. They dont recycle, so I wont" (figures made up).
Lets do what we can, and not use "but they're not" as an excuse.
So the doctors put him in intensive care because he was fit as a fiddle? The President is right. We need to seriously overhaul health care in this country.
He was in intensive care to provide the right environment for him. He was not ill, he was not bleeding internally, he was not mentally or physically disabled. There is no other baby that, at that stage of development, is able to survive outside the mother without help. Why arent those babies unhealthy too?
You are relating health to physical environment. One may be the cause of the other, but they are NOT the same thing. Come on this is extremely basic deductive reasoning: cause, effect?
being drowned would result in a sudden and dramatic change in your health, yes
Thankyou! My lack of health is caused by the environment. Theres hope for you yet.
And we're back to memory again. I can't remember what happened during my car wreck. Is it true or untrue -- is it or is it not "the fact," as you're so fond of saying --that I was sentient during that time? For that matter, I was asleep from about midnight last night to about six this morning; I have no memory of that time at all. Was I sentient during that time?
Oh my god, we're back again. Are people who are unconscious or asleep sentient? No. HOWEVER. It is possible to wake someone from sleep back to sentience. It is possible to treat someone in a car accident and regain sentience. A foetus has no sentience - it cannot regain what it does not have.
A change to the murder laws making it lawful to kill somebody who's sleeping would be...um...unpopular at best, I think.
I didnt advocate killing someone who was sleeping, for the reasons above. You can twist my argument as much as you like, however.
Isn't that a little ethically dicey, basing a life-or-death decision on a criterion that you yourself admit is untestable? At that point, aren't you just making shit up as you go along?
Oh dear. I have stated that 1) from an a priori position it is unlikely that foetuses have sentience and 2) that despite many many years of medical science and psychological studies of extremely young foetuses NO evidence has been found to prove its existence.
This makes it extremely unlikely that foetuses have sentience. As I stated in my comment (and you chose to ignore) the burden of proof is with those who assert that there IS sentience in young foetuses.
Um. I don't understand. I haven't the slightest interest in debating the existence of God with you. Is this your twist on the "Chewbacca defense?"
No, its an example of a similar situation.
By that method, we can determine rigorously and with great confidence that people younger than about two, people with brain damage that prevents them from using language, people with organic brain diseases that obliterate the faculties, people suffering from the afflictions of advanced age, and anybody asleep is not sentient.
This leads us to the indisputable conclusion that it's entirely okay to kill any of those people at any time for any reason at all.
Your conclusion is far from indisputable.
1) We can still relate to people who can't speak.
2) We can still relate to people who have lost the ability to use their faculties.
3) People asleep can be woken up. This is extremely important.
4) Old people may, indeed, be loosing sentience. I dont believe thats a necessary or sufficient reason to kill them, but I have no problem with assisted suicide in such cases.
Behold Patient X.... Explain to me, please, the qualitative difference, if any, between a baby in the womb and Patient X.
Well, I'll answer the most obvious "if any" argument.
Huh? I'm asking you a question to demonstrate that the baby wasn't healthy, as you (bafflingly) continue to assert that he was. Did he require medical treatment, or did the doctors send him home?
Yes, he was in intensive care for over a month. However, you are still linking incorrectly linking this as being unhealthy. At the time of his "birth", the foetus is designed to operate within a womb. Take that away, and yes, it will die. It doesnt mean that its unhealthy, merely that its unable to survive in its environment. Concider, if I am pushed into a vat of acid, the reason I die is not due to lack of health, its because I'm in an environment I'm not able to cope with.
You can be as healthy as you want and still die when transported into a hostile environment. The fact that the environment was hostile to him is entirely normal and completely unrelated to health!
Oh, so the test is memory?
Thats the kind of straw man fallacy I'm talking about. The test is not simply memory (although the ability to learn, and therefore the need to remember, is important). The fact is right now I know I am sentient. I remember what it was like to be 9, and know I was sentient. I know that I can't remember being a baby, and therefore can't assert that I was sentient.
Well, if you want to use this mythical criterion of "sentience" as your deciding factor, then somebody has to prove it, don't they? You can't do it. Nobody else can do it. So how can you continue to argue that it's a meaningful notion?
Given that you say we can't prove it either way, your assertion requires an assumption that sentience exists in a foetus. Thus, occams razor states that your position is likely to be false.
Note that I dont say that it proves it false. I can't prove that foetuses don't have sentience - its philosophically impossible to prove a negative existential proposition.
However, it is possible to prove that they DO. So I will stick with occams razor, that it is likely they do not, until you can prove that they do.
Same with the existence of God - it takes too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that he exists but I cannot prove that he does not. So, come one someone, prove it!
Ball's in your court.
Why can't we define it as being "able to qualify for a boat loan?" Why is your definition better than mine?
Its not. Foetuses cant get boat loans...
Yes, I made that definition up. Why not? On a more important note, why not answer my point instead of quibbling over semantics?
I can program a robot to move towards a food supply (electricity). Is it sentient? Fertilized ova have a genetically programmed need to embed themselves in the uterine wall. Is that sentient?
Adult humans may see a chip shop and decide not to go in (however hungry they are) by an assertion of will. The ability to override a desire or need is very important.
Each and every individual cell in our bodies reacts in a predictable manner to external stimuli. The exhibit no ability to override this basic programming. Yet taken as a whole (a human being made up of many many millions of these cells) we have the ability to override our desires.
Human beings in prison have killed themselves by not eating while on hunger stike. Foetuses have no such ability. Nor do the liver cells of one of those inmates.
However you characterise this ability, it is something that we have and foetuses do not. So to treat them the same is nonsense.
Surely the flaw here is obvious even to the most unobservant among us?
I'm unobservant - whats the flaw?
To be born premature is, by definition, to be unhealthy
Wrong. When he was born he was simply early. He was perfectly healthy for a child at that stage of development. Current medical thinking is that premature birth is nothing to do with the child at all, but may be triggered by the mother's immune system. So if either of them were unhealthy, its more likely the mother was.
Tell me, did this newborn require treatment of any kind?
And while I'm at it I'll throw in a straw man for you - so you know what its like answering yours:p
Are you saying that this child shouldn't have been treated?
Prove it.
I dont have to prove it. I remember being a nine-year-old and I was sentient by any "useful working definition". I don't remember what it was like being a foetus, however. Perhaps this is because, as a foetus, I wasn't sentient?
The burden of proof is with yourself. If you can demonstrate conclusively that a foetus is sentient, I'll rethink my position.
Lets make it easy for you, lets define sentience as being capable of experiencing an emotion which is capable of overriding some natural instinct.
Did you miss the word "healthy" or did you just choose to ignore it? By definition, a baby that is born at 28 weeks is not healthy.
The only things I'm ignoring are your childish insults.
If you know that the baby was unhealthy, I suggest that you and your ego contribute to medical science by telling the world what was unhealthy about the baby? Its turned into a productive (if a little lazy) 21 year old. It was not unhealthy in any way (he is fitter than I am now), it was just premature.
Hell, by your logic, a nine-year-old is just a really, really big group of cells with the potential to become a person
With the important distinction that a 9 year old has achieved sentience, a group of cells has not.
A healthy embryo left in the womb and not subjected to trauma will, in all cases, develop into an adult human being.
This is wrong. Its simply not true.
Extremely premature births are (sometimes) not caused by any medically detectable trauma (certainly nothing that could have been avoided by the mother). And yet these foetuses are perfectly viable - a friend of mine was born at 28 weeks and he almost died. 50 years ago, he would have.
Think of it like this, whats the chance that, while learning to ride its bike our fictional child gets run over by a car and doesnt make it to adulthood?
An embryo is merely a group of cells with the potential to become a baby. A child is a being with the potential to become an adult. Many factors can prevent this transition from happening, and in this case they do not become the other. A child killed in a road accident will NEVER become an adult. An aborted foetus will NEVER become a baby.
In the case of an embryo, to get to being a baby requires an enormous amount of help. Take away the mother, and it will die. However, if you take an adult, and take away its mother, it will not die. Thus our transition also increases our survivability - the survivability of an embryo is extremely low.
I'm intrested to know something, in the previous post you mention that "an embryo is a baby". Why do you not go further and state that "an embryo is an adult"?
You're just a bit confused, I think. Nothing to be ashamed of. There's so much disinformation flying around out there it's a miracle anybody has his head screwed on straight any more.
An embryo is a type of baby. During a particular stage in the baby's development, we refer to it by the term "embryo." There is no distinction between a baby and an embryo, because one is a specific type of the other. Understand now?
An embryo is no more a baby than a child is an adult. Each has the potential to become the other, situations willing.
Left to its own devices, it will develop into an adult human being with a driver's license and credit cards and a video club membership.
No, left to "its own devices" an embryo will die. Thats part of the point of the classification of stages of development. It won't survive without its mother. Often, when a woman has a late period after unprotected sex, its because her body has "automatically" aborted a genetically unviable fertilized egg.
So before you crow too loud, you may want to arrest woman-kind for their murder of "babies".
I was concidering writing a concidered response to your post, but I doubt that it would advance the understanding on either side and would probably just turn into a flame war.
That said, with your attitude to users, I sense the BOFH in you:p
Again, you're pushing a product instead of solving a problem. Please describe how VB is used for custom development that cannot be matched by other tools. Bonus points if you've figured out you can't name lock-in with MS products any further
He's not pushing a product at all, merely pointing out that a great many applications are written in VBA and that this isnt supported on Linux. Its not an advocacy thing, merely pointing out that its not simple to convert all those programs over to Linux!
Fire them. If you have to go to the Start button as a major part of getting your work done, your system for doing business is screwed up beyond whatever kind of OS you run. And I'm not sure I even understand your text FUD. How about you describe specific use cases instead of trying to sound ominous while telling your tale of woe?
Thats allmost a troll, but I'll bite. Have you ever worked in the IT industry? With real computer users?
As part of instructions from the powers that be, we recently upgraded 10 machines in one of the downstairs offices to XP (from 2000). The number of calls that we got because the start button looked different was amazing! Its a familiarity thing. If something looks different, then there's no guarantee that its going to work in the same way.
Firing them is not an option - many of these people are great people who are very good at their jobs! Just because they use a computer only when they must, does that really mean they should loose their jobs??
Yes, but its a fair point, no? I don't have numbers to hand, but I'd imagine that if you looked at the security exploits in the Firefox source code over time, more are being found now than before due to the greater interest in the software?
The design of a software product will not save you - coders are human beings and they make mistakes. Thats true of OSS and MS coders.
However, it is certainly true that spyware/adware/malware authors can currently spend 99% of their time looking for exploits in IE. Thats due to its prominence (Its still the leader in usage terms and you know it) and its vulnerability.
But suppose that IE died tomorrow and Firefox replaced it. Now all the spyware/adware/malware kiddies spend 99% of their time looking at Firefox. Do they find as many bugs? Probably not. But do they find them? Yep!
Clean room programming doesnt work, XP was invented to get round this. A particular design won't save you from bugs, it will only assist you in solving them when they're found.
Now THIS is where OSS should have a major advantage - the speed of response to major vulnerabilities in code. However, given the number of security vulnerabilities we've seen Mozilla.org sit on in recent months, they need to get their act together.
To say that a design is different and will save you from youself is wrong.
Re:I find this quote more interesting
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
If I had mod points I'd give you Informative for that post. BSD style licenses (inc Apache) doesnt seem to do any harm to the community!
XOR is incredibly secure if the key length is equal to the plaintexttext length. At that point you have a one time pad system which IS unbreakable.
The problem then is distributing the key to the recipient.
Have you looked at where those "expensive luxuries" are manufactured?
In the UK we don't even make our own lightbulbs any more for gods sake; manufacturing is dead.
What will happen is that, as more and more money pours in, the exchange rate will even out and it won't be as tempting to outsource due to the overhead it imposes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a new problem. Phase One, Sony, Foveon, and Canon all apply some form of encryption to their raw files. Dcraw decodes them all -- you can easily find decryption code by searching for the ^ operator.
Actually, as someone who worked in insurance, theres a bit of truth in both arguments.
Men submit fewer claims than women, on average. However, male claims tend to be more expensive and to involve damage to third parties.
Womens claims tend to be less expensive than men's, and involve more damage to property (lamp posts etc).
The distinguishing factor is that men tend to drive greater distances than women, so if you express both male and female accidents in terms of cost/mile/person ON AVERAGE, its only slightly more expensive to be male.
Bear in mind, thats not the case in the 20-25 year old range, where male accident figures greatly outweigh womens.
Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Nutrition
Excretion
Reproduction
Growth
What happened to the tenet of doing what we can?
Even if (as you say) SUVs represent 5% of 25% of 50% its something that you could very very easily do without by buying smaller cars.
Hell, its like saying "The UK represents 5% of the population of Europe, which is 10% of the population of the world. They dont recycle, so I wont" (figures made up).
Lets do what we can, and not use "but they're not" as an excuse.
I have allready stated that I will not answer your further comments.
Its is clear that neither truth nor knowledge can be obtained by continuing this discussion.
He was in intensive care to provide the right environment for him. He was not ill, he was not bleeding internally, he was not mentally or physically disabled. There is no other baby that, at that stage of development, is able to survive outside the mother without help. Why arent those babies unhealthy too?
You are relating health to physical environment. One may be the cause of the other, but they are NOT the same thing. Come on this is extremely basic deductive reasoning: cause, effect?
Thankyou! My lack of health is caused by the environment. Theres hope for you yet.
Oh my god, we're back again. Are people who are unconscious or asleep sentient? No. HOWEVER. It is possible to wake someone from sleep back to sentience. It is possible to treat someone in a car accident and regain sentience. A foetus has no sentience - it cannot regain what it does not have.
I didnt advocate killing someone who was sleeping, for the reasons above. You can twist my argument as much as you like, however.
Oh dear. I have stated that 1) from an a priori position it is unlikely that foetuses have sentience and 2) that despite many many years of medical science and psychological studies of extremely young foetuses NO evidence has been found to prove its existence.
This makes it extremely unlikely that foetuses have sentience. As I stated in my comment (and you chose to ignore) the burden of proof is with those who assert that there IS sentience in young foetuses.
No, its an example of a similar situation.
Your conclusion is far from indisputable.
1) We can still relate to people who can't speak. 2) We can still relate to people who have lost the ability to use their faculties. 3) People asleep can be woken up. This is extremely important. 4) Old people may, indeed, be loosing sentience. I dont believe thats a necessary or sufficient reason to kill them, but I have no problem with assisted suicide in such cases.
Well, I'll answer the most obvious "if any" argument.
You can be as healthy as you want and still die when transported into a hostile environment. The fact that the environment was hostile to him is entirely normal and completely unrelated to health! Thats the kind of straw man fallacy I'm talking about. The test is not simply memory (although the ability to learn, and therefore the need to remember, is important). The fact is right now I know I am sentient. I remember what it was like to be 9, and know I was sentient. I know that I can't remember being a baby, and therefore can't assert that I was sentient.
Given that you say we can't prove it either way, your assertion requires an assumption that sentience exists in a foetus. Thus, occams razor states that your position is likely to be false.
Note that I dont say that it proves it false. I can't prove that foetuses don't have sentience - its philosophically impossible to prove a negative existential proposition.
However, it is possible to prove that they DO. So I will stick with occams razor, that it is likely they do not, until you can prove that they do.
Same with the existence of God - it takes too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that he exists but I cannot prove that he does not. So, come one someone, prove it!
Ball's in your court. Its not. Foetuses cant get boat loans...
Yes, I made that definition up. Why not? On a more important note, why not answer my point instead of quibbling over semantics?
I can program a robot to move towards a food supply (electricity). Is it sentient? Fertilized ova have a genetically programmed need to embed themselves in the uterine wall. Is that sentient? Adult humans may see a chip shop and decide not to go in (however hungry they are) by an assertion of will. The ability to override a desire or need is very important.
Each and every individual cell in our bodies reacts in a predictable manner to external stimuli. The exhibit no ability to override this basic programming. Yet taken as a whole (a human being made up of many many millions of these cells) we have the ability to override our desires.
Human beings in prison have killed themselves by not eating while on hunger stike. Foetuses have no such ability. Nor do the liver cells of one of those inmates.
However you characterise this ability, it is something that we have and foetuses do not. So to treat them the same is nonsense.
Why do you not see that?
Are you saying that this child shouldn't have been treated? I dont have to prove it. I remember being a nine-year-old and I was sentient by any "useful working definition". I don't remember what it was like being a foetus, however. Perhaps this is because, as a foetus, I wasn't sentient?
The burden of proof is with yourself. If you can demonstrate conclusively that a foetus is sentient, I'll rethink my position.
Lets make it easy for you, lets define sentience as being capable of experiencing an emotion which is capable of overriding some natural instinct.
If you know that the baby was unhealthy, I suggest that you and your ego contribute to medical science by telling the world what was unhealthy about the baby? Its turned into a productive (if a little lazy) 21 year old. It was not unhealthy in any way (he is fitter than I am now), it was just premature. With the important distinction that a 9 year old has achieved sentience, a group of cells has not.
I dunno man, Its taken me 10 years so far to read that book. I still havent got very far...
Extremely premature births are (sometimes) not caused by any medically detectable trauma (certainly nothing that could have been avoided by the mother). And yet these foetuses are perfectly viable - a friend of mine was born at 28 weeks and he almost died. 50 years ago, he would have.
Think of it like this, whats the chance that, while learning to ride its bike our fictional child gets run over by a car and doesnt make it to adulthood?
An embryo is merely a group of cells with the potential to become a baby. A child is a being with the potential to become an adult. Many factors can prevent this transition from happening, and in this case they do not become the other. A child killed in a road accident will NEVER become an adult. An aborted foetus will NEVER become a baby.
In the case of an embryo, to get to being a baby requires an enormous amount of help. Take away the mother, and it will die. However, if you take an adult, and take away its mother, it will not die. Thus our transition also increases our survivability - the survivability of an embryo is extremely low.
I'm intrested to know something, in the previous post you mention that "an embryo is a baby". Why do you not go further and state that "an embryo is an adult"?
You're just a bit confused, I think. Nothing to be ashamed of. There's so much disinformation flying around out there it's a miracle anybody has his head screwed on straight any more.
An embryo is no more a baby than a child is an adult. Each has the potential to become the other, situations willing.
No, left to "its own devices" an embryo will die. Thats part of the point of the classification of stages of development. It won't survive without its mother. Often, when a woman has a late period after unprotected sex, its because her body has "automatically" aborted a genetically unviable fertilized egg.
So before you crow too loud, you may want to arrest woman-kind for their murder of "babies".
That said, with your attitude to users, I sense the BOFH in you :p
He's not pushing a product at all, merely pointing out that a great many applications are written in VBA and that this isnt supported on Linux. Its not an advocacy thing, merely pointing out that its not simple to convert all those programs over to Linux!
Fire them. If you have to go to the Start button as a major part of getting your work done, your system for doing business is screwed up beyond whatever kind of OS you run. And I'm not sure I even understand your text FUD. How about you describe specific use cases instead of trying to sound ominous while telling your tale of woe?
Thats allmost a troll, but I'll bite. Have you ever worked in the IT industry? With real computer users?
As part of instructions from the powers that be, we recently upgraded 10 machines in one of the downstairs offices to XP (from 2000). The number of calls that we got because the start button looked different was amazing! Its a familiarity thing. If something looks different, then there's no guarantee that its going to work in the same way.
Firing them is not an option - many of these people are great people who are very good at their jobs! Just because they use a computer only when they must, does that really mean they should loose their jobs??
Yes, but its a fair point, no? I don't have numbers to hand, but I'd imagine that if you looked at the security exploits in the Firefox source code over time, more are being found now than before due to the greater interest in the software? The design of a software product will not save you - coders are human beings and they make mistakes. Thats true of OSS and MS coders. However, it is certainly true that spyware/adware/malware authors can currently spend 99% of their time looking for exploits in IE. Thats due to its prominence (Its still the leader in usage terms and you know it) and its vulnerability. But suppose that IE died tomorrow and Firefox replaced it. Now all the spyware/adware/malware kiddies spend 99% of their time looking at Firefox. Do they find as many bugs? Probably not. But do they find them? Yep! Clean room programming doesnt work, XP was invented to get round this. A particular design won't save you from bugs, it will only assist you in solving them when they're found. Now THIS is where OSS should have a major advantage - the speed of response to major vulnerabilities in code. However, given the number of security vulnerabilities we've seen Mozilla.org sit on in recent months, they need to get their act together. To say that a design is different and will save you from youself is wrong.
If I had mod points I'd give you Informative for that post. BSD style licenses (inc Apache) doesnt seem to do any harm to the community!
www.rsnapshot.org offers a tool which automates this with a nice conf file.
Agreed! I'm curious...
Yeah, and the suits were ugly too.
XOR is incredibly secure if the key length is equal to the plaintexttext length. At that point you have a one time pad system which IS unbreakable. The problem then is distributing the key to the recipient.
That is an absolutely FANTASTIC idea!
In the UK we don't even make our own lightbulbs any more for gods sake; manufacturing is dead.
What will happen is that, as more and more money pours in, the exchange rate will even out and it won't be as tempting to outsource due to the overhead it imposes.
This is why it is used in small devices like mobile phones etc.