I did think of that, but I still say passwords need to be treated like credit card numbers, and that includes allowing for the possibility that they are stolen. If it's possible that, just by knowing your password, a crook can liquidate your assets with no recourse for you, then a password is inadequate security no matter how often you have them changed or how complicated they are. Or alternatively, people need to be insured against that sort of thing happening.
I think it is reasonable to ask people to write passwords down, so long as they treat them on the same level as their credit card number-- e.g. keep them in a wallet. After all, we carry our credit card numbers around with us all the time, in written form, right there on the card. When we have to charge something online, we pull out the card and type in the 16-digit number: few people have their number memorized I imagine. Passwords can work the same way. There's a risk of theft, of course, but the consequences are probably minor compared to having one's credit card stolen.
Or, since docking pay sounds hard to arrange, try public shaming. "The following morons got pwned this week." Put it in the break room at first, threaten to post it in the lobby next time.
but most people don't know (and don't want to know) how to protect themselves.
And furthermore, viruses don't just hurt the people whose computers they infect; infected computers are used for illegal activities of spam or just to infect other people. It becomes a matter of "public health", like requiring kids to get their vaccinations--it's not just for their benefit, it's to prevent epidemics as well.
Just think of bad movie sequels as being ridiculously expensive, overexposed fanfiction.
Re:"process not complete"? I'll stick with POP
on
Offline Gmail Launched
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This algorithm is what intrigues me about this, because I DON'T want a full copy of my mailbox on my laptop. I've saved all sorts of crap there that I'd probably delete if I had the time to go through it, and while it doesn't bother me sitting on Google's servers, it would take up room on my antiquated hard drive. If this program can maintain a set of my most recent email, it sounds good to me.
If companies can't hold corporations, who gets to own the copyright of a blockbuster movie, particularly one where there are several writers? The writer? The director? The actors?
For that matter, think smaller: consider a band of four people: who gets the copyright for their recordings?
There are certain circumstances where group ownership of a copyright is the natural thing to do.
I've seen professors who don't let students keep their tests, which I think is reasonable: writing new exam questions every year is difficult (IAAP-- I'm "lucky" that I'm an adjunct who teaches at a different school every year, so I can carry old questions over from other schools, but should I get a full-time position somewhere my work is going to get a lot harder around exam time), while reusing questions allows you to "beta-test" them. That's fine.
It's absurd to collect class notes, though. Ignoring the legal aspects of authorship, what is the teacher saying that is so secret that it can't be found in a standard economics textbook? I'd love it if notes from my class were disseminated, because it would give future students one more reference they could turn to when something isn't clear. (Ultimately, I'd hand out a copy of my own notes at the beginning of the semester and spend the rest of the time asking and answering questions and clarifying them, instead of wasting time giving definitions.)
Cheating technology has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years, however, and teachers who can't keep up with it all, particularly teachers who aren't computer-savvy to begin with, are likely to feel overwhelmed. In such circumstances, it is natural for a few of these teachers to start panicking, try some extreme measure to curb cheating, and not consider the ramifications. They need to be talked down, but only another teacher (or principal or dean or whatever) is going to be able to do it.
It's possible that he tried to give his story to the major networks, but they wouldn't run it. (I have no idea if this is true, but I'm just throwing out the possibility.)
If conservation of energy still applies in some fashion, then the car wouldn't immediately disappear at one point in time and reappear in the other: it would have to travel along a worldline (that is, it would travel through all intermediate points in time). As it travels, it is reasonably to suppose that it is susceptible to outside forces-- for example, gravity; therefore, the car would stay on Earth for the same reason you stay on Earth. However, if the car can be affected by outside forces, then the car would be likely to run into all sorts of other things as it travels through time-- a collision would be inevitable unless time travel were done in a remote area of the world. One would then have to suppose that part of Doc's invention involves making the car ephemeral (and invisible) as it travels, without negating gravity. One way that might work would be for the car to travel through "hyperspace"; if so, it's possible that the force of gravity extends into hyperspace while the electromagnetic force does not, in which case the car would remain on the surface of the Earth but collisions would not occur.
By possessing mental filters, you are STEALING valuable programming from the networks!!! We will be sending a neurosurgeon to your home shortly, right after we deal with the people who memorize copyrighted songs....
You are implicitly taking sides on the question I posed: does such pornography satisfy those urges or heighten them? You are suggesting that rape-fantasy porn will encourage people to go out and rape. That's probably the majority position in this country, but I'd argue that this is not a given.
I also suspect that you are conflating people who have fantasies and people who act them out. The first group is much larger than the second. The number of people who enjoy violent movies (fantasizing about violence) is much larger than the number of people who actually enjoy being violent. I suspect (with no evidence other than a gut feeling) that there is similarly a substantial population of people in the world who do feel some sexual attraction towards children or animals or the dead or rape or whatever, but who control their urges successfully and live normal lives-- we only hear about the ones who don't, after all. They aren't evil people; they have the right to exist, and the right to enjoy themselves, if they can, in a way that doesn't harm others.
The big question is: does pornography heighten sexual urges (like an addiction), or satisfy them? If the former, then virtual child pornography might incite a pedophile into seeking out real child pornography or even lead them into child molestation. If the latter, then virtual child pornography can prevent them from taking more drastic action. Someone really needs to do some research and find the answer to this question before we make laws about cartoon child pornography. It's fairly likely that the answer to the question varies from person to person (just as some people can drink casually while others become alcoholics), in which case it would be nice to have some sort of test to see what kind of person any particular pedophile is, for their own benefit.
No one is responsible for whom or what they're sexually attracted to, and that includes pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestiality fans, etc; they are responsible for controlling those urges when they are inappropriate. That said, people with socially unacceptable fetishes should be treated with sympathy and provided the support they need to control and channel their sexual energy. Painting them as Satanspawn only isolates them, forcing them to find their own ways to cope. If there's a way for people to satisfy their urges without exploiting other people, than that is to everyone's benefit. We should all be lauding the rise of virtual pornography, not condemning it.
This leads to the obvious question: when are they (or somebody) going to rewrite the extension to point to Gutenberg and other legal sources (e.g. authors and bands who put their works up for free on the Internet, or have released them under CC licenses)?
Test-tube babies are the same species as us; a Neanderthal would not be. There would need to be ground rules laid down, and only governments can guarantee that the Neanderthal's rights will be protected.
No, you have read too much crappy sci fi.
I can never hope to achieve the heights of taste that you so clearly exhibit.
If I understand cloning correctly, we would do it by taking a homo sapiens (fertilized?) egg and replace the DNA inside with Neanderthal DNA. That seems like a more drastic form of gene sculpting (i.e. designing an embryo so that it is a specific sex, has a specific hair color, etc); and worse, it's done in the name of experimentation, where the result may be disastrous for the resulting person. I'm not sure where I stand on that, but I know there is going to be strong public disapproval (even beyond the usual "it ain't natural" objections).
Then there is the question of how the resulting child is raised: does s/he have all the rights of a human being? I would want that question addressed by government BEFORE the child is born, so that we don't have to have the court battle while the child is alive (and maybe sitting in a cage somewhere-- yes I've read a lot of scifi.:)
Obligatory: The Ugly Little Boy by Isaac Asimov (of course)
Let's put it this way: Jobs can hate DRM, but hate going out of business (or not being successful) more. Just like someone might hate paying taxes, but hate going to jail (or breaking the law, for you moral types) even more. (Or someone might hate using Windows at work, but hates being unemployed more.)
If the teacher is making the students memorize the postulates and theorems, then that's pointless (particularly if they have to memorize them by number or something...BRR). But the process of deduction from a set of postulates and theorems is wildly different from anything else students do in pre-college mathematics (even in calculus), and is a core feature in mathematics. If the proofs are trivial, it's only because this is their first taste of deduction.
Her school experience with math is probably limited to figuring (arithmetic, algebra, calculus), which is nothing like what real mathematicians do (geometrical proofs are closer-- if geometry was her favorite math class then she is fonder of "real mathematics" than figuring, a good sign). Similarly, a career in the sciences is hard to extrapolate from a typical high school science course. In both cases, she has probably yet to see the creative side of science and math, which is where all the fun is. I'm a bit too tired to think of concrete demonstrations for her, but I might say to her, "Look, you have a talent, and life is smoother if you're working in a field in which you have talent. Of course, if you don't actually like the field then talent won't help, but try it and keep an open mind." You might try arranging a meeting with a research scientist, mathematician, or engineer. (There are also high school level competitions which could be fun, although they do look geeky.)
Of course, if she doesn't like it, she doesn't like it-- but I hear a lot about the subtle pressures which keep the male-female ratios in physics and engineering high, and so I wonder if her reluctance is due to personal taste or peer pressure (or maybe even some teacher one time told her she was bad at math, and it stuck with her regardless of current successes).
Slashdot Mirror
I did think of that, but I still say passwords need to be treated like credit card numbers, and that includes allowing for the possibility that they are stolen. If it's possible that, just by knowing your password, a crook can liquidate your assets with no recourse for you, then a password is inadequate security no matter how often you have them changed or how complicated they are. Or alternatively, people need to be insured against that sort of thing happening.
I think it is reasonable to ask people to write passwords down, so long as they treat them on the same level as their credit card number-- e.g. keep them in a wallet. After all, we carry our credit card numbers around with us all the time, in written form, right there on the card. When we have to charge something online, we pull out the card and type in the 16-digit number: few people have their number memorized I imagine. Passwords can work the same way. There's a risk of theft, of course, but the consequences are probably minor compared to having one's credit card stolen.
Heck, you can probably even find Bradbury's "Dandelion Wine" or Asimov's "I. Asimov" in the science fiction section of some bookstores. :)
Or, since docking pay sounds hard to arrange, try public shaming. "The following morons got pwned this week." Put it in the break room at first, threaten to post it in the lobby next time.
but most people don't know (and don't want to know) how to protect themselves.
And furthermore, viruses don't just hurt the people whose computers they infect; infected computers are used for illegal activities of spam or just to infect other people. It becomes a matter of "public health", like requiring kids to get their vaccinations--it's not just for their benefit, it's to prevent epidemics as well.
Just think of bad movie sequels as being ridiculously expensive, overexposed fanfiction.
This algorithm is what intrigues me about this, because I DON'T want a full copy of my mailbox on my laptop. I've saved all sorts of crap there that I'd probably delete if I had the time to go through it, and while it doesn't bother me sitting on Google's servers, it would take up room on my antiquated hard drive. If this program can maintain a set of my most recent email, it sounds good to me.
If companies can't hold corporations, who gets to own the copyright of a blockbuster movie, particularly one where there are several writers? The writer? The director? The actors?
For that matter, think smaller: consider a band of four people: who gets the copyright for their recordings?
There are certain circumstances where group ownership of a copyright is the natural thing to do.
I've seen professors who don't let students keep their tests, which I think is reasonable: writing new exam questions every year is difficult (IAAP-- I'm "lucky" that I'm an adjunct who teaches at a different school every year, so I can carry old questions over from other schools, but should I get a full-time position somewhere my work is going to get a lot harder around exam time), while reusing questions allows you to "beta-test" them. That's fine.
It's absurd to collect class notes, though. Ignoring the legal aspects of authorship, what is the teacher saying that is so secret that it can't be found in a standard economics textbook? I'd love it if notes from my class were disseminated, because it would give future students one more reference they could turn to when something isn't clear. (Ultimately, I'd hand out a copy of my own notes at the beginning of the semester and spend the rest of the time asking and answering questions and clarifying them, instead of wasting time giving definitions.)
Cheating technology has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years, however, and teachers who can't keep up with it all, particularly teachers who aren't computer-savvy to begin with, are likely to feel overwhelmed. In such circumstances, it is natural for a few of these teachers to start panicking, try some extreme measure to curb cheating, and not consider the ramifications. They need to be talked down, but only another teacher (or principal or dean or whatever) is going to be able to do it.
In the case of the Bush administration, that has often appeared to be true. Sensationalism is fine, but not when it rocks the boat.
It's possible that he tried to give his story to the major networks, but they wouldn't run it. (I have no idea if this is true, but I'm just throwing out the possibility.)
If conservation of energy still applies in some fashion, then the car wouldn't immediately disappear at one point in time and reappear in the other: it would have to travel along a worldline (that is, it would travel through all intermediate points in time). As it travels, it is reasonably to suppose that it is susceptible to outside forces-- for example, gravity; therefore, the car would stay on Earth for the same reason you stay on Earth. However, if the car can be affected by outside forces, then the car would be likely to run into all sorts of other things as it travels through time-- a collision would be inevitable unless time travel were done in a remote area of the world. One would then have to suppose that part of Doc's invention involves making the car ephemeral (and invisible) as it travels, without negating gravity. One way that might work would be for the car to travel through "hyperspace"; if so, it's possible that the force of gravity extends into hyperspace while the electromagnetic force does not, in which case the car would remain on the surface of the Earth but collisions would not occur.
How's that? :)
By possessing mental filters, you are STEALING valuable programming from the networks!!! We will be sending a neurosurgeon to your home shortly, right after we deal with the people who memorize copyrighted songs....
You are implicitly taking sides on the question I posed: does such pornography satisfy those urges or heighten them? You are suggesting that rape-fantasy porn will encourage people to go out and rape. That's probably the majority position in this country, but I'd argue that this is not a given.
I also suspect that you are conflating people who have fantasies and people who act them out. The first group is much larger than the second. The number of people who enjoy violent movies (fantasizing about violence) is much larger than the number of people who actually enjoy being violent. I suspect (with no evidence other than a gut feeling) that there is similarly a substantial population of people in the world who do feel some sexual attraction towards children or animals or the dead or rape or whatever, but who control their urges successfully and live normal lives-- we only hear about the ones who don't, after all. They aren't evil people; they have the right to exist, and the right to enjoy themselves, if they can, in a way that doesn't harm others.
The big question is: does pornography heighten sexual urges (like an addiction), or satisfy them? If the former, then virtual child pornography might incite a pedophile into seeking out real child pornography or even lead them into child molestation. If the latter, then virtual child pornography can prevent them from taking more drastic action. Someone really needs to do some research and find the answer to this question before we make laws about cartoon child pornography. It's fairly likely that the answer to the question varies from person to person (just as some people can drink casually while others become alcoholics), in which case it would be nice to have some sort of test to see what kind of person any particular pedophile is, for their own benefit.
No one is responsible for whom or what they're sexually attracted to, and that includes pedophiles, necrophiliacs, bestiality fans, etc; they are responsible for controlling those urges when they are inappropriate. That said, people with socially unacceptable fetishes should be treated with sympathy and provided the support they need to control and channel their sexual energy. Painting them as Satanspawn only isolates them, forcing them to find their own ways to cope. If there's a way for people to satisfy their urges without exploiting other people, than that is to everyone's benefit. We should all be lauding the rise of virtual pornography, not condemning it.
This leads to the obvious question: when are they (or somebody) going to rewrite the extension to point to Gutenberg and other legal sources (e.g. authors and bands who put their works up for free on the Internet, or have released them under CC licenses)?
Just curious: Safari has memory leak issues-- are those separate from or due to Webkit?
The Dijkstra wiki link said he owned a Mac for email and web browsing. How can they expect us to read the links if they aren't going to themselves.
No doubt the submitter is a Un*x partisan: "he didn't own a REAL computer, just a Mac" sort of thing. :)
Test-tube babies are the same species as us; a Neanderthal would not be. There would need to be ground rules laid down, and only governments can guarantee that the Neanderthal's rights will be protected.
No, you have read too much crappy sci fi.
I can never hope to achieve the heights of taste that you so clearly exhibit.
If I understand cloning correctly, we would do it by taking a homo sapiens (fertilized?) egg and replace the DNA inside with Neanderthal DNA. That seems like a more drastic form of gene sculpting (i.e. designing an embryo so that it is a specific sex, has a specific hair color, etc); and worse, it's done in the name of experimentation, where the result may be disastrous for the resulting person. I'm not sure where I stand on that, but I know there is going to be strong public disapproval (even beyond the usual "it ain't natural" objections).
Then there is the question of how the resulting child is raised: does s/he have all the rights of a human being? I would want that question addressed by government BEFORE the child is born, so that we don't have to have the court battle while the child is alive (and maybe sitting in a cage somewhere-- yes I've read a lot of scifi. :)
Obligatory: The Ugly Little Boy by Isaac Asimov (of course)
Let's put it this way: Jobs can hate DRM, but hate going out of business (or not being successful) more. Just like someone might hate paying taxes, but hate going to jail (or breaking the law, for you moral types) even more. (Or someone might hate using Windows at work, but hates being unemployed more.)
If the teacher is making the students memorize the postulates and theorems, then that's pointless (particularly if they have to memorize them by number or something...BRR). But the process of deduction from a set of postulates and theorems is wildly different from anything else students do in pre-college mathematics (even in calculus), and is a core feature in mathematics. If the proofs are trivial, it's only because this is their first taste of deduction.
It's a matter of opinion, of course.
Her school experience with math is probably limited to figuring (arithmetic, algebra, calculus), which is nothing like what real mathematicians do (geometrical proofs are closer-- if geometry was her favorite math class then she is fonder of "real mathematics" than figuring, a good sign). Similarly, a career in the sciences is hard to extrapolate from a typical high school science course. In both cases, she has probably yet to see the creative side of science and math, which is where all the fun is. I'm a bit too tired to think of concrete demonstrations for her, but I might say to her, "Look, you have a talent, and life is smoother if you're working in a field in which you have talent. Of course, if you don't actually like the field then talent won't help, but try it and keep an open mind." You might try arranging a meeting with a research scientist, mathematician, or engineer. (There are also high school level competitions which could be fun, although they do look geeky.)
Of course, if she doesn't like it, she doesn't like it-- but I hear a lot about the subtle pressures which keep the male-female ratios in physics and engineering high, and so I wonder if her reluctance is due to personal taste or peer pressure (or maybe even some teacher one time told her she was bad at math, and it stuck with her regardless of current successes).
I don't know; they seem to be equivalent. My bash man page only lists $((...)) for arithmetical expansion, so maybe $[...] is the legacy version?
$[ ] does (integer) math in bash. So "echo $[4+1]" returns 5.
The outer [] in bash is the same as the "test" command (see "help test" for details).