IANAS and maybe I misunderstand, but I think it more likely you are intentionally being obtuse here.
A scientic paper is a report on work done. The work is not at issue here, the paper is.
A scientist certainly expands upon existing work, but he doesn't expand upon existing papers like a programmer does. Scientists don't take a paper, edit a few words, insert a paragraph, delete a paragraph, rotate a figure, and call it a new article.
When someone appropriates Mickey Mouse for their own cartoon, they get in trouble for using Mickey, who is trademarked or registered or something. Scientists don't trademark their figures.
Wikipedia gets its high PageRank from the millions of external sites linking to it that do not link to each other. It could easily get nil points from its internal links and still appear top of every search result.
o rly? citation needed pls.
Otherwise it's two yabobs yammering at each other.
"All it would take is one false positive or false negative before no one would trust it again."
would you be able to tell me which of the currently used security products are trusted, due to never throwing a false positive or negative?
Irrelevant. They aren't automated. People are allowed to make mistakes and presumably learn from them; it takes many repeated mistakes to become unreliable.
An automated system doesn't have that luxury. When there is no one to accept blame and make corrections, people won't trust it.
California is currently doing its best to prove to the world that state legislatures are even more incompetent at coming up with a rational budget than the federal government.
Not even close. The federal deficit is far larger percentagewise than the California budget hole. California is forbidden to have deficit budgets, unlike the feds; the feds have been running deficits for so long that people are used to them -- thank you, GWB!
If someone says something is not possible, it takes only one counter example to falsify it. It has nothing to do with the counter example being anecdotal, only on whether it is true.
Your claim to the contrary only shows what a weak grasp on proof you have. You ought to brush up on the meaning of "scientific", particularly the part about falsifiability.
No, fool. The side effects of drug use are detrimental to the user most of the time, and seldom to others. But when drugs are made illegal, the price skyrockets and now the drug users have to steal to buy the drugs they used to get with regular paychecks. I have seen common estimates that drugs cost 100 times what they would if unregulated.
Illegal drugs also require more cops and prisons which all cost a lot of money, simultaneously turning taxpayers into prisoners, a nice double whammy on the economy. Then there is all the corruption that goes with it.
Yes, fool, most of the current problems with drugs stem entirely from the laws themselves, not the drugs.
Think what would happen if drugs were unregulated:
All those wars funded by drug income would vanish almost overnight.
500,000 prisoners would become taxpayers again.
Hundreds of thousands of cops and prison guards would have to find real employment.
Crimes to make money for drugs would disappear.
And on the negative side, some people would die from cheap drugs. But I bet more people die now from shoddy quality for which there is no recourse, whereas with drugs unregulated, they could be sued for bad quality.
Anyone who supports the War on Some Drugs is an ignoramus with his head buried in the sand.
Of course guns are dangerous. So is water. I prefer to not bow to the gods of obviousness. Anyone who wants to misconstrue my words to their own liking will do so regardless of how many adjectives I employ.
Shall we ban them, then? Oh, wait, I forgot, several cities in the US have made it a misdemeanor to explode a nuclear weapon within the city limits. OK, problem solved, on to the next one.
Guns aren't known as equalizers for no reason. I would rather have everybody equally able to inflict harm rather than "might makes right".
All you gun grabbers -- did you know that doctors' bad handwriting kills more people every year than gun accidents? Did you know that most gun murders are gang wars caused by the War On Some Drugs? There are more deaths in the US from car accidents (45,520) than guns (30,694) in 2005.
I bought a nice gun safe from Hall's in Auburn CA (unabashed plug because it is such a nice safe) because they don't have holes for power cords and claim to keep the interior at 140F for an hour, whereas most safes only claim to keep the interior to 350. Solder flows at 360 or so.... I keep backup hard drives in there. The 350F safes are only good for papers and other non-electronic items.
Slashdot Mirror
SDRTFA! (Someone didn't...)
You want SDNRTFA so as to not be confused with Someone did ...
How many times can we roll the dice before our luck runs out?
Every single time. After that, there won't be any more dice to roll, or anyone to roll them if they did exist.
If we had some dice, we could roll them, if we existed.
IANAS and maybe I misunderstand, but I think it more likely you are intentionally being obtuse here.
A scientic paper is a report on work done. The work is not at issue here, the paper is.
A scientist certainly expands upon existing work, but he doesn't expand upon existing papers like a programmer does. Scientists don't take a paper, edit a few words, insert a paragraph, delete a paragraph, rotate a figure, and call it a new article.
When someone appropriates Mickey Mouse for their own cartoon, they get in trouble for using Mickey, who is trademarked or registered or something. Scientists don't trademark their figures.
Hell, I'm too lazy to even read your posts.
Wikipedia gets its high PageRank from the millions of external sites linking to it that do not link to each other. It could easily get nil points from its internal links and still appear top of every search result.
o rly? citation needed pls.
Otherwise it's two yabobs yammering at each other.
Yah, that'll work well.
MACs can be configured at will.
CPU ID#, now that's a new one. Still, it takes software to report it, so it too can be forged.
What exactly are you proposing anywho? I wonder if you have any clues about "miltary installations" other than what Hollywood tells you.
"All it would take is one false positive or false negative before no one would trust it again."
would you be able to tell me which of the currently used security products are trusted, due to never throwing a false positive or negative?
Irrelevant. They aren't automated. People are allowed to make mistakes and presumably learn from them; it takes many repeated mistakes to become unreliable.
An automated system doesn't have that luxury. When there is no one to accept blame and make corrections, people won't trust it.
I thought there was a deal in the works for google to host wikipedia and solve the storage problem once and for all.
I know the wikinauts hate the idea of google text ads, control freak purists that they be. But wasn't the google offer independent of ads?
And youtube may withdraw them or restrict their audience at any time.
Who watches the watchers?
Any system like this would be a premium cracker target. All it would take is one false positive or false negative before no one would trust it again.
Six months later, some other researcher would make a new proposal for a p2p system to guard the broken p2p system.
California is currently doing its best to prove to the world that state legislatures are even more incompetent at coming up with a rational budget than the federal government.
Not even close. The federal deficit is far larger percentagewise than the California budget hole. California is forbidden to have deficit budgets, unlike the feds; the feds have been running deficits for so long that people are used to them -- thank you, GWB!
If someone says something is not possible, it takes only one counter example to falsify it. It has nothing to do with the counter example being anecdotal, only on whether it is true.
Your claim to the contrary only shows what a weak grasp on proof you have. You ought to brush up on the meaning of "scientific", particularly the part about falsifiability.
No, his anecdotal evidence (unless it is just a pack of lies) falsifies the scientist's report that they have no personalities.
This is not a tale of two conflicting stories, it is a falsifiable claim which has been falsified.
The plural of data is not anecdote.
Don't call me Shirley!
No, fool. The side effects of drug use are detrimental to the user most of the time, and seldom to others. But when drugs are made illegal, the price skyrockets and now the drug users have to steal to buy the drugs they used to get with regular paychecks. I have seen common estimates that drugs cost 100 times what they would if unregulated.
Illegal drugs also require more cops and prisons which all cost a lot of money, simultaneously turning taxpayers into prisoners, a nice double whammy on the economy. Then there is all the corruption that goes with it.
Yes, fool, most of the current problems with drugs stem entirely from the laws themselves, not the drugs.
Think what would happen if drugs were unregulated:
All those wars funded by drug income would vanish almost overnight.
500,000 prisoners would become taxpayers again.
Hundreds of thousands of cops and prison guards would have to find real employment.
Crimes to make money for drugs would disappear.
And on the negative side, some people would die from cheap drugs. But I bet more people die now from shoddy quality for which there is no recourse, whereas with drugs unregulated, they could be sued for bad quality.
Anyone who supports the War on Some Drugs is an ignoramus with his head buried in the sand.
I know people who aren't even conceived yet. I meet millions of them every day.
Of course guns are dangerous. So is water. I prefer to not bow to the gods of obviousness. Anyone who wants to misconstrue my words to their own liking will do so regardless of how many adjectives I employ.
Its almost like trying to start a new politcal party called the Mazi party.
Can we have politically incorrect Maziballs then?
Shall we ban them, then? Oh, wait, I forgot, several cities in the US have made it a misdemeanor to explode a nuclear weapon within the city limits. OK, problem solved, on to the next one.
Guns aren't known as equalizers for no reason. I would rather have everybody equally able to inflict harm rather than "might makes right".
All you gun grabbers -- did you know that doctors' bad handwriting kills more people every year than gun accidents? Did you know that most gun murders are gang wars caused by the War On Some Drugs? There are more deaths in the US from car accidents (45,520) than guns (30,694) in 2005.
Go here to find out for yourself.
So much for guns being dangerous. What is your next argument?
TFA says he flew over a deep deep gorge.
Why did you go to all the trouble of finding that in wikipedia when you could have RTFA much more quickly?
You are ignorant.
1. It's not a tippy econobox.
2. It doesn't have a few hundred pounds of battery weight.
3. Having never driven one, you have even less reason than usual to comment on it.
Enjoy your ignorance.
The point is to notify all your email and other net contacts.
Very true.
I bought a nice gun safe from Hall's in Auburn CA (unabashed plug because it is such a nice safe) because they don't have holes for power cords and claim to keep the interior at 140F for an hour, whereas most safes only claim to keep the interior to 350. Solder flows at 360 or so .... I keep backup hard drives in there. The 350F safes are only good for papers and other non-electronic items.