Assuming the company has a testing process in place for new software, why not just take a particular version, test it (same as you would in any commercial software) and "freeze" that version in your company's Definitive Software Library. It actually reduces the cost of testing, because the software will continue to be available for however long it's useful and you don't have to test every single ^%&^ing revision that some half-@r$3d supplier plonks out every other month.
Your boss's "anyone can update the binary" is immediately nullified -- your tested version can't be externally changed. If there's a branded source rebuild it's obvious when anyone installs an unauthorised version.
I think he's saying that he once heard someone tell a joke about child abuse (from that site) to someone who had been abused as a child. Are you terminally thick?
Well, people on motorbikes statistically break the speed limit more
If every motorcycle ever driven since the dawn of time was breaking the speed limit every single time it was actually in motion there would still be more cars breaking the speed limit "statistically".
No, there would be more. Different thing. Statistics are all relative, and we haven't established a frame of reference, so neither of us is right. But you still manage to be wrong, for claiming I'm wrong.
and motorbikes have a history of association with gangs,
I love this one. A few simple answers:
1. Yes.
2. Undeserved and media generated.
3. This is relevant to the thread why?
Politicians play up to the hype. The media says "motocycle bad!", the politician makes stringent laws. It is relevant to the thread because you asked why the rules are stricter for bikes than cars. Because of both statistics and reputation, and possibly more so reputation.
and a motorbike can cause as much damage to a pedestrian as a car.
So can a 747-700 plummeting from the sky but how is that relevant?
Because you were suggesting that a bike was safer because, and I quote: "you are the only one that will probably get hurt if you go down". Well no -- if you hit a pedestrian you are certainly not the only one that will get hurt.
Or is your argument that "both a car and a motorcycle can kill a pedestrian so that is why a motorcycle needs a safety training course and a car does not"
No, I certainly think that drivers need to be properly trained, and I am aware that some countries and states fail to do so. The fact that they allow underqualified car drivers on the road is certainly lamentable, but to start "dumbing down" the motorbike test to the same level would be moronic.
Well, people on motorbikes statistically break the speed limit more, and motorbikes have a history of association with gangs, and a motorbike can cause as much damage to a pedestrian as a car. You can only get so dead.
How is talking on a phone (hands free) different than talking with a passenger?
The psychoboffins tell us that when sitting beside you, the passenger can see the approaching corner and shuts up a bit. Even if he doesn't see what you're seeing, he'll see that you're concentrating more heavily and leave you alone. These same psychoboffins tell us that the person on the other end of the phone can see neither you nor the road, hence do not shut up.
"Yeah, but I'll tell them to wait a moment," I hear you reply. Well at this point the psychoboffinry departs from the bleeding obvious and tells us something new: in the absence of visual contact, we are very reluctant to tell people to wait a minute. Essentially, if we have to ask, then really they should already know from our subtle signals, so our brains believe that the other party has already refused the negotiation for silence. This puts us in the submissive/inferior position, and makes asking for a moment an agressive action. The end result is that not only do we (in general) not ask for a minute, but our stress levels are increased by the experience and our attention and driving skills drop. Phone calls are very bad for drivers.
Nobody needs to mod you flamebait. The volume-limiter debate has been done to death. The powers-that-be were suitably educated and now realise that the widely-varying efficiency difference between headphones makes any electronic limiter useless. A limit that would stop you killing your hearing on a mid-range pair would make the music inaudible on a â1 pair, and would still allow you to kill your hearing with a set of â100 isolating earbuds. Not to mention the existence of portable passive speakers, combined headphone/line-in and other such fun.
It won't happen. It can't happen. The manufacturers won't let it.
I'm guessing you never played with Legos in your childhood years.
And neither did you. It's Lego, dagnabbit: it's not countable. There is no such thing as "a Lego", it's just "Lego", like there's no such thing as "a butter".
I wonder why "beautification" software wouldn't include skin smoothing.
You don't even need to RTFA -- the summary says it all.
The trick, however, is that the resultant pictures are still recognizable as the original person.
Remove characteristic features and the person becomes unrecognisable. If recognisability wasn't important, you'd be just as well off asking why the software doesn't just replace any face with a picture of Natalie Portman. An optimally beautiful face every time....
Yup indeedy. Whisky "ages" by leeching oils from the wood it's casked in.
Also, making a blend taste like a single malt is a ridiculous claim. It's akin to claiming a device can turn fruit-punch into pineapple juice. Where do the other flavours go?
Yes, it reminds us that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a partisan issue but the brainchild of some senior CIA nutjobs. Have you ever watched/read The Tailor of Panama? The central idea is about an agent who'll accept any old duff intelligence if it helps him further his agenda. Now if you know Iraq is bad, you're happy with anything that furthers the case for invasion, whether it be true or false. The spooks wrote the gameplan and waited for a coach to come in that was willing to call the play.
You cannot deny that a foetus is a living organism, so abortion is by definition killing.
Actually I can quite easily. It's a potentially living organism, but while still a fetus it's just a worthless parasite, part of its host body and incapable of existing without said host.
Are you saying that mistletoe is not a living organism? Tapeworm? Ringworm? Threadworm? Measles? Staphylococcus? Escherichia Coli? All these things are parasites and incapable of living if separated from a host, but they are still accepted by science as living organisms.
It's closer to a tumor than a living organism.
In what sense? Genetically it is approximately 50% different from the mother, whereas cancerous cells have near-identical DNA to the host.
It's none of anybody's business if a woman chooses to scrape that gook out of her except hers.
It's not the woman herself that does it, so it does become someone else's business -- the doctor's. Some doctors will refuse to do it -- on moral grounds -- and will pass the patient on to someone else. Notice that this is not some "religious loon" trying to deny the woman her choice -- it is an individual who has come to the moral decision that he/she cannot carry this out. He/she won't force the woman to reconsider, but the woman can't force him/her to reconsider either.
Nice try, but you really are stretching the boundaries to try and frame it as a moral issue.
No, I'm sorry, but there is nothing in our behaviour that is not a moral issue. It may be that our decision is that something is morally acceptable: "moral issues" are not all about things that are morally inacceptable after all. Even building an extension to your house is a moral issue. Is it fair to the neighbours? Is it bad for the environment?
Hell, even eating maize (corn) is a moral issue now.
Apart from the surface, the sea has a pretty stable 2 degree (Celsius) temperature, thanks to the inversion point of water. (Ice floats, but ice always forms on the surface -- it doesn't form at the bottom then float up. Water below 2 degrees is less dense than water above 2, so there's this funky convection thing going on that stops the bottom of the sea freezing.
As for pressure, we're talking about very very deep down in the sea, where a human would be pancakified very very quickly.
In these conditions, CO2 will liquify, if the volume is too great for the surrounding water to dissolve.
I kill cows so that I can eat them (or at least someone else kills them so that I can eat them). I believe that this is morally justifiable, but plenty of people don't and so turn veggie.
I kill mice with little sprung traps so that they don't urinate in my food. I believe that this is morally justifiable, but plenty of people don't and buy non-lethal traps instead.
You cannot deny that a foetus is a living organism, so abortion is by definition killing. Some people will believe that killing such an organism is morally justifiable, and others won't.
...Unless he is a liberal. If he thinks there were no WMD, there were no WMD. Nevermind the possibility they were shipped to Syria or Iran hours before the invasion.
Ah yes. Give my neighbours (who hate me) a gun with which to shoot me. Yes... that's exactly the sort of reasoning that made Saddam Hussein one of the most long-reigning dictators of our time.
Yes, but this requires being able to objectively evaluate the relative merits of the proof and disproof. Which the article says we don't actually do. Theory becomes received wisdom becomes dogma, and then even the hardest evidence won't convince.
This is what happened to Galilleo. It wasn't that God said the Sun goes round the Earth, it was that the scientific establishment said the Sun goes round the Earth. It just so happens that the head of the scientific establishment was also the head of the Catholic church.
As predicted the model of cognitive dissonance presented in the article, the Pope, when faced with solid mathematical evidence against his settled view, found himself incapable of reconciling the conflicting data. The easy response was to shove Galilleo in jail.
I would argue that in the absence of absolute knowledge, it is rational to go with the most likely solution.
Most of current science appears logical, therefore it is rational to accept it as the most likely (hence useful) theory.
What annoys me is that the fundamentalists use this "science is never exact" as a stick to beat science with rather as an acceptance of the natural limits of science.
When I try to demonstrate the limits of science, I then get scientifically illiterate atheists telling me I'm mad and that science is "truth" and that I don't understand what "truth" is. It's amazing the number of people who genuinely believe that science has disproved the existence of any supernatural deity/deities.
As a scientist this really p!sses me off, because it's the source of a lot of cognitive dissonance. "Science looks right." + "Science says God doesn't exist." + "God exists." = "Science isn't right." When we put about the (fallacious) notion that science has disproved the existence of god/God/gods then we are actively driving people away from science and encouraging ignorance.
The end result is that religious folk tend to be dogmatic about their beliefs
RTFA.
The end result is not about religious people. The end result is about people.
But the article says that there's no point in me telling you this as your belief that religious people are intellectually inferior will only be reinforced by any argument I use to try and convince you otherwise.
Back to these turtles. The recovery of the sub-species or varitype or race or whatever you want to call it, [...] But by using the word "species" there, you making it confusing to discuss some very interesting questions.
We don't know yet whether the product of this cross-breeding program will produce genetically viable offspring with other members of the parent breed. The most you can say is that we don't know if these are separate species. How quickly can genetic recombination produce incompatible species? An unprovement to out understanding of that question could be an interesting byproduct of this project....
Slashdot Mirror
This is the internet: no goaties, just goatses.
I was going to suggest something similar.
Assuming the company has a testing process in place for new software, why not just take a particular version, test it (same as you would in any commercial software) and "freeze" that version in your company's Definitive Software Library. It actually reduces the cost of testing, because the software will continue to be available for however long it's useful and you don't have to test every single ^%&^ing revision that some half-@r$3d supplier plonks out every other month.
Your boss's "anyone can update the binary" is immediately nullified -- your tested version can't be externally changed. If there's a branded source rebuild it's obvious when anyone installs an unauthorised version.
HAL.
I think he's saying that he once heard someone tell a joke about child abuse (from that site) to someone who had been abused as a child. Are you terminally thick?
TheArchive.archive.archive.archive.archive(); Let's do it with objects!
Well, people on motorbikes statistically break the speed limit more
If every motorcycle ever driven since the dawn of time was breaking the speed limit every single time it was actually in motion there would still be more cars breaking the speed limit "statistically".
No, there would be more. Different thing. Statistics are all relative, and we haven't established a frame of reference, so neither of us is right. But you still manage to be wrong, for claiming I'm wrong.
and motorbikes have a history of association with gangs,
I love this one. A few simple answers: 1. Yes. 2. Undeserved and media generated. 3. This is relevant to the thread why?
Politicians play up to the hype. The media says "motocycle bad!", the politician makes stringent laws. It is relevant to the thread because you asked why the rules are stricter for bikes than cars. Because of both statistics and reputation, and possibly more so reputation.
and a motorbike can cause as much damage to a pedestrian as a car.
So can a 747-700 plummeting from the sky but how is that relevant?
Because you were suggesting that a bike was safer because, and I quote: "you are the only one that will probably get hurt if you go down". Well no -- if you hit a pedestrian you are certainly not the only one that will get hurt.
Or is your argument that "both a car and a motorcycle can kill a pedestrian so that is why a motorcycle needs a safety training course and a car does not"
No, I certainly think that drivers need to be properly trained, and I am aware that some countries and states fail to do so. The fact that they allow underqualified car drivers on the road is certainly lamentable, but to start "dumbing down" the motorbike test to the same level would be moronic.
HAL.
Well, people on motorbikes statistically break the speed limit more, and motorbikes have a history of association with gangs, and a motorbike can cause as much damage to a pedestrian as a car. You can only get so dead.
How is talking on a phone (hands free) different than talking with a passenger?
The psychoboffins tell us that when sitting beside you, the passenger can see the approaching corner and shuts up a bit. Even if he doesn't see what you're seeing, he'll see that you're concentrating more heavily and leave you alone. These same psychoboffins tell us that the person on the other end of the phone can see neither you nor the road, hence do not shut up.
"Yeah, but I'll tell them to wait a moment," I hear you reply. Well at this point the psychoboffinry departs from the bleeding obvious and tells us something new: in the absence of visual contact, we are very reluctant to tell people to wait a minute. Essentially, if we have to ask, then really they should already know from our subtle signals, so our brains believe that the other party has already refused the negotiation for silence. This puts us in the submissive/inferior position, and makes asking for a moment an agressive action. The end result is that not only do we (in general) not ask for a minute, but our stress levels are increased by the experience and our attention and driving skills drop. Phone calls are very bad for drivers.
HAL.
Nobody needs to mod you flamebait. The volume-limiter debate has been done to death. The powers-that-be were suitably educated and now realise that the widely-varying efficiency difference between headphones makes any electronic limiter useless. A limit that would stop you killing your hearing on a mid-range pair would make the music inaudible on a â1 pair, and would still allow you to kill your hearing with a set of â100 isolating earbuds. Not to mention the existence of portable passive speakers, combined headphone/line-in and other such fun.
It won't happen. It can't happen. The manufacturers won't let it.
HAL.
OI! What's this "redundant" malarkey? Off-topic maybe, but no-one else had said it!!!!!
I'm guessing you never played with Legos in your childhood years.
And neither did you. It's Lego, dagnabbit: it's not countable. There is no such thing as "a Lego", it's just "Lego", like there's no such thing as "a butter".
HAL.
I wonder why "beautification" software wouldn't include skin smoothing.
You don't even need to RTFA -- the summary says it all.
The trick, however, is that the resultant pictures are still recognizable as the original person.
Remove characteristic features and the person becomes unrecognisable. If recognisability wasn't important, you'd be just as well off asking why the software doesn't just replace any face with a picture of Natalie Portman. An optimally beautiful face every time....
HAL.
Yup indeedy. Whisky "ages" by leeching oils from the wood it's casked in.
Also, making a blend taste like a single malt is a ridiculous claim. It's akin to claiming a device can turn fruit-punch into pineapple juice. Where do the other flavours go?
HAL.
Yes, it reminds us that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a partisan issue but the brainchild of some senior CIA nutjobs. Have you ever watched/read The Tailor of Panama? The central idea is about an agent who'll accept any old duff intelligence if it helps him further his agenda. Now if you know Iraq is bad, you're happy with anything that furthers the case for invasion, whether it be true or false. The spooks wrote the gameplan and waited for a coach to come in that was willing to call the play.
HAL.
You cannot deny that a foetus is a living organism, so abortion is by definition killing.
Actually I can quite easily. It's a potentially living organism, but while still a fetus it's just a worthless parasite, part of its host body and incapable of existing without said host.
Are you saying that mistletoe is not a living organism? Tapeworm? Ringworm? Threadworm? Measles? Staphylococcus? Escherichia Coli? All these things are parasites and incapable of living if separated from a host, but they are still accepted by science as living organisms.
It's closer to a tumor than a living organism.
In what sense? Genetically it is approximately 50% different from the mother, whereas cancerous cells have near-identical DNA to the host.
It's none of anybody's business if a woman chooses to scrape that gook out of her except hers.
It's not the woman herself that does it, so it does become someone else's business -- the doctor's. Some doctors will refuse to do it -- on moral grounds -- and will pass the patient on to someone else. Notice that this is not some "religious loon" trying to deny the woman her choice -- it is an individual who has come to the moral decision that he/she cannot carry this out. He/she won't force the woman to reconsider, but the woman can't force him/her to reconsider either.
Nice try, but you really are stretching the boundaries to try and frame it as a moral issue.
No, I'm sorry, but there is nothing in our behaviour that is not a moral issue. It may be that our decision is that something is morally acceptable: "moral issues" are not all about things that are morally inacceptable after all. Even building an extension to your house is a moral issue. Is it fair to the neighbours? Is it bad for the environment?
Hell, even eating maize (corn) is a moral issue now.
HAL.
The increase in CO2 levels has increased crop yields up to 30% (depending on the specific crop and local climate).
And how did this unnamed study account for the improvements in fertilisers, automation and biotechnology?
HAL.
Apart from the surface, the sea has a pretty stable 2 degree (Celsius) temperature, thanks to the inversion point of water. (Ice floats, but ice always forms on the surface -- it doesn't form at the bottom then float up. Water below 2 degrees is less dense than water above 2, so there's this funky convection thing going on that stops the bottom of the sea freezing.
As for pressure, we're talking about very very deep down in the sea, where a human would be pancakified very very quickly.
In these conditions, CO2 will liquify, if the volume is too great for the surrounding water to dissolve.
HAL.
I kill cows so that I can eat them (or at least someone else kills them so that I can eat them). I believe that this is morally justifiable, but plenty of people don't and so turn veggie.
I kill mice with little sprung traps so that they don't urinate in my food. I believe that this is morally justifiable, but plenty of people don't and buy non-lethal traps instead.
You cannot deny that a foetus is a living organism, so abortion is by definition killing. Some people will believe that killing such an organism is morally justifiable, and others won't.
Sounds like a moral issue to me.
HAL.
...Unless he is a liberal. If he thinks there were no WMD, there were no WMD. Nevermind the possibility they were shipped to Syria or Iran hours before the invasion.
Ah yes. Give my neighbours (who hate me) a gun with which to shoot me. Yes... that's exactly the sort of reasoning that made Saddam Hussein one of the most long-reigning dictators of our time.
HAL.
Let's not equate homosexuality with abortion. They are morally very different beasts.
HAL.
Yes, but this requires being able to objectively evaluate the relative merits of the proof and disproof. Which the article says we don't actually do. Theory becomes received wisdom becomes dogma, and then even the hardest evidence won't convince.
This is what happened to Galilleo. It wasn't that God said the Sun goes round the Earth, it was that the scientific establishment said the Sun goes round the Earth. It just so happens that the head of the scientific establishment was also the head of the Catholic church.
As predicted the model of cognitive dissonance presented in the article, the Pope, when faced with solid mathematical evidence against his settled view, found himself incapable of reconciling the conflicting data. The easy response was to shove Galilleo in jail.
HAL.
I would argue that in the absence of absolute knowledge, it is rational to go with the most likely solution.
Most of current science appears logical, therefore it is rational to accept it as the most likely (hence useful) theory.
What annoys me is that the fundamentalists use this "science is never exact" as a stick to beat science with rather as an acceptance of the natural limits of science.
When I try to demonstrate the limits of science, I then get scientifically illiterate atheists telling me I'm mad and that science is "truth" and that I don't understand what "truth" is. It's amazing the number of people who genuinely believe that science has disproved the existence of any supernatural deity/deities.
As a scientist this really p!sses me off, because it's the source of a lot of cognitive dissonance. "Science looks right." + "Science says God doesn't exist." + "God exists." = "Science isn't right." When we put about the (fallacious) notion that science has disproved the existence of god/God/gods then we are actively driving people away from science and encouraging ignorance.
HAL.
The end result is that religious folk tend to be dogmatic about their beliefs
RTFA.
The end result is not about religious people. The end result is about people.
But the article says that there's no point in me telling you this as your belief that religious people are intellectually inferior will only be reinforced by any argument I use to try and convince you otherwise.
HAL.
One might say the same about capitalism.
Short selling a legitimate market force? Methinks not.
Was it a response to your post? No. So is it me that needs to learn to read? Take your time before climbing up onto that high horse of yours.
HAL.
Back to these turtles. The recovery of the sub-species or varitype or race or whatever you want to call it, [...] But by using the word "species" there, you making it confusing to discuss some very interesting questions.
We don't know yet whether the product of this cross-breeding program will produce genetically viable offspring with other members of the parent breed. The most you can say is that we don't know if these are separate species. How quickly can genetic recombination produce incompatible species? An unprovement to out understanding of that question could be an interesting byproduct of this project....
HAL.