Complete nonsense! If you wish to draw an analogy, convince me that a Prosecuting attorney can not grasp a legal point that a defense attorney addresses. Claiming that you have to know a specialty knowledge to hold an educated stand or opinion on a subject is propositional fallacy at best, outright lie at worst.
I'll avoid the troll because you would lose that debate in a fair platform but alas, Slashdot is not such a platform... I will however address your insinuation that we know enough to be superior to nature. Science today is run by profits, not by philosophical standards. Ethics and Morality are not being questioned, only the outcome which yields the best profits receives funding and publication.
Long time anti-GMO scientist Bill Nye is a great example, who after spending a month with Monsanto suddenly says "Hey, it's all great stuff and no harm can ever be caused by a GMO!". Buffoons believe this shit, but anyone with a half a wit and understanding of currency should be able to see through the ruse. Even though there are plenty of scientific studies that don't yield positive results for anyone except for giant seed companies money somehow changes the "science".
Oh, I know.. hybrids must be exactly the same thing as splicing fungus genes into corn right? Further, every GMO food is exactly the same so if we question one we question them all, or contrarily if we claim one is safe they must all be safe right? Hopefully I preempted the normal bullshit covering up any scientific dialogue on the subject, but lets see if you grasp the point I was making.
After reading not less than 30 studies in the last 20 years regarding how vitamins are healthy, then useless, then healthy, then harmful, then healthy again (you get the point) it should become obvious that we don't know nearly as much about genetics as some people wish to believe. And remember, fats are bad and will cause premature death, but you need them too so they are good and you die without them, and they are carcinogens but needed to fight cancer too (another long series of science, just in case you are lost).
Claiming that "humans can do it better" is simply a delusion which ignores human nature. Yeah, the worst fucks you can imagine end up rich and funding "science" for their own benefit. If do not realize this, you had best start brushing up on history.
Today's fad is to try and come up with the "perfect" human. Always happy, 200 IQ, and the personality of a turnip as to not be offensive to anyone at any time. Of course they must be orange skinned, no hair, and no gender features (I hope you saw the South Park episode) because if anything visible marked one of them as "different" the project would be a failure. Perfect is quoted, because this perfection is severely subjective and the person who's ideal you are going to meet probably does not match your own.
As you point out, there is no way to know what these apparently unused genes do until we start making modifications. These are pretty dangerous times we live in for many reasons. People believing they are smarter than billions of years of evolution gives me no assurance that these people have a clue, let alone care about modifying people.
Yup yup, I wrote something contrary to my original post quite unintentionally. Memory is always faster than Disk, unless you write shit tests that behave abnormally to make a bogus claim.
Not to Karma whore, but I already see two problems with their testing by reading their code samples. Lets see who else finds them. The simple answer is no, disk is not slower than memory. The long answer is yes, programmers can make it look that way.
'll have to dig through their testing and methods, but this seems pretty fishy given the summary.
Seek/Read/Write time of a disk is always slower than memory. No exceptions to the rule exist given current commodity hardware. Bus length to a disk is also much longer than to memory. Again, there are no exceptions given commodity hardware.
Won't be the first time someone reported that the laws of physics don't exist for something, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Maybe someone with free mornings in the US can break it down better than the summary.
Client Server technology has always had a problem where the client must trust the server. Adobe could have done better with Flash, but compromised security for flexibility. Exactly what every Bank I know of has done, and insurance company, and government agency, and department store, etc.. etc... etc...
If you are worried, don't download content you don't trust. It's not an absolute fix, because malicious files could still be uploaded to Facebook and Youtube. That said, I doubt your world will end when you don't watch the latest meme or crazy Russian's video. Plenty of other things to do for entertainment, most in my opinion are healthier than sitting on your ass watching videos.
I don't see this as a big deal. If you are ignorant to the dangers of the Internet today, you are intentionally ignorant. Too much information is available for you to read on the "do's and dont's" of content and usage. Sorry, but the world will never be the safe place certain people fantasize about. Human nature will prevent this from happening, ever!
Sending an image is communicating. Sending a specific type of image is using that method of communication. Without failed logic can you prove my statement wrong regarding communication? Call me a skeptic, but you already failed at basic logic so I believe the answer is "NO".
Taxi apps are a method of communications. ALL methods of communication can be used for bad things as easy as they can be used for good things. Blaming a "taxi" application is idiotic, because the same claim could be made of Facebook, Twitter, email, cell phones, or even a goddamn piece of paper and pen if that is the only method of communication handy.
People collude and plot. This is not some brand new revelation, it goes back thousands of years in historical writing. Read Homer, Plato, Aristotle, all of the diaries from the dark ages. More recently, watch just about any reality TV show which is always full of people plotting and scheming. Someone is always a victim, and someone always benefits. Losing your life savings on paper may be deemed "not as bad" as an assault, but the long reaching impact is worse in my opinion.
We can't teach history, and we can't talk about reality. We half to talk about invented dramas which have no bearing on reality except to maintain the status quo.
It's really too bad that people refuse to look at why people get paid big bucks to argue and publish these positions. Remember, Gamergate was an issue about sexism, not about corrupt journalists colluding to influence public opinion. (hint: One of those things is reality, the other is an invented scenario)
You consider the local police something other than a third party? This has been done with bullying as well as suicide, and Facebook admits that they do so. No, I'm not going to do all of the work for you. I provided enough information for you to find the facts. It does appear that you are content to sit in denial however.
You have to read the next link and follow the trail. Yes, they do. In fact there was a report on a few news stations a short time back where Facebook was showing off it's capabilities to do so Internationally and openly admitted to having people dedicated to the task of monitoring posts and reporting people to Government agencies. The focus of that news report was on bullying, so there is no limitation of just "suicide" risks.
I wish more companies had this stance, but alas.. When I worked for a DOD contractor we were warned monthly not to post personal information on Facebook, MySpace, Linked, or anywhere else that a person could track you. Not only do you not know how they will use what you post, you also put yourself and your family at risk by becoming easy to find.
Medical people can bet targeted for all sorts of nasty things, from drugs to free treatments. Defense obviously had state secrets to worry about. Any company has a similar potential risk.
Broken to a point where I'll question your sanity if you defend it. Facebook is not a Government agency, and is not a Public service. They are completely unaccountable for their actions, and completely unregulated. Facebook is a private company that makes money off of exploiting people, both with and without their knowledge. As such, you can not compare someone posting something to Facebook to pulling a fire alarm or dialing 911. They are not the same thing on any level.
The real argument here is whether or not Facebook should be monitoring individual posts to the point of being able to call 911 on a person. What we are provided in TFA is a single post to Facebook, not a history of suicidal tendencies. Meaning, if this is everything Facebook could call 911 on you if you posted a cat meme with text about suicide as easy as they called on this guy. As long as someone else said "he might be suicidal!" after reading your meme (maybe).
Though I doubt he/it will, I sure hope this results in a lawsuit and that Facebook loses.
Sure, some of his artificial "Friends" bear responsibility since they reported him. A real friend would have called, or come to visit to see if they could intervene it they thought for a second he was serious. That said, Facebook has no business reporting people based on what gets posted. They do not have context, especially in this case, to know why someone posted something. Sure, if you are dumb enough to use Facebook they do have right to read everything you write. I read the EULA and don't use their service at all (in fairness I don't use Twitter either). Having my text for marketing purposes is not nearly the same things as reporting it to a Government agency for what ever purposes they see fit. If they are reporting this to police here, what do they report elsewhere? Do they report anticommunist posts in China to the Chinese government, as long as they can cash in?
First "no": I would agree if you had said that the no competes are unprotected by the US Constitution, but they are illegal. Illegal by both the Sherman Act and Racketeering laws.
"so what": Not relevant to the discussion, you are confusing two types of agreements (intentionally?). One where Company owners agree mostly in back rooms not to produce products the other makes. The second, is an employee contract which has no bearing on the former.
The last part is not only a "no", but also not relevant to the discussion in TFA. Employee contract != Apple agreeing to never develop a Database and only using Oracle products, while Oracle agrees not to develop iPods, phones, etc.., etc...
No compete != No poaching. No poaching matches your last statement about career stifling, no competes means that companies won't try to produce products that someone else produces. I'm not claiming they are not both issues to discuss, I'm pointing out that you can't mix the two conversations like you did and have a rational discussion.
On one hand, the no-competes are stifle innovation and harm consumers. This is not unconstitutional as some have said, but it is a problem with anti monopoly laws. Further, the garbage patent laws allowing "ideas" to be owned makes it unfortunately easy to perform.
No poaching on the other hand does stifle careers of people working for companies. Good players can't grow into new better if they are currently stagnant by changing employers which these agreements block.
In both cases the benefactor is the company execs (board, owners, etc..), not consumers or employees. In fact the latter two are harmed by these agreements.
TFA's claim is simply deluded and ignores history. No competes are monopoly protection, and a racketeering. To see how this really works, look at who makes money in the DB market space today vs. 15-20 years ago. The only reason consumers have seen benefit from Oracle is by competition from Open Source DBs. Until MySQL (now Maria) and Postgres came along Oracle owned their customers. Products were poor, development was slow, and only big money people could play. Today, it's a different story because of competition which had to come from Open Source products. There are a couple other Silicon Valley companies that could have played in the SQL space but didn't due to these no-competes. You can find out who these are by simply following executives over time and see the other companies they started.
The Wunderkind gets all the "sexy" jobs of performing audits, vulnerability assessments and penetration tests.
Well no, this is not really true. Younger IT Security people are doing a lot of other things. Trying to sneak in doors behind people, drop flash drives to see who plugs them in, copy/paste HTML code to make fake phishing campaigns too. To the horror of many, they find that they have to write reports on their findings and actually communicate with people. They have to make recommendations, and be absolutely sure of their facts with documentation, documentation, and even more documentation.
The media is focusing on what is maybe 10% of an IT security person's job. This reality chases many people from this line of work.
But I have to add that all of the hype is plain old wrong if you want to be a career IT security specialist. Hacking, or actually performing a penetration test, is a very small portion of the job. Seems like all of the hype around coding currently to try and flood the market with people thinking they can "hack" to reduce wages may be happening here. I don't know if that's true or not, but seems reasonable given the treatment of "coders" lately.
I was also confused at the "people over 40 can't find jobs" stuff, because after I hit 40 my desirability went way up. Maturity, especially in IT security, is a well sought after trait.
WTF is with at douche bag SJW in every goddamn post recently? Your rant will not work here pal, we are better educated than you! Come out of hiding and debate, I triple dog dare you!
Being a good parent you restrict access to the toy(s) and here is the conversation at school with the school supplied Barbie. "I hate mommy and daddy, they are so mean to me. They won't get me a talking Barbie and banned me from using it at my friends houses too! *sob*" Barbie: "Really, should I report them and get you new parents?"
Anyone who has raised a child knows that kids say some pretty mean things growing up. It's part of growing up, and covered in every book I read on psychology for raising kids. This is a plain old horrible idea on just about every level.
Slashdot Mirror
Complete nonsense! If you wish to draw an analogy, convince me that a Prosecuting attorney can not grasp a legal point that a defense attorney addresses. Claiming that you have to know a specialty knowledge to hold an educated stand or opinion on a subject is propositional fallacy at best, outright lie at worst.
I'll avoid the troll because you would lose that debate in a fair platform but alas, Slashdot is not such a platform... I will however address your insinuation that we know enough to be superior to nature. Science today is run by profits, not by philosophical standards. Ethics and Morality are not being questioned, only the outcome which yields the best profits receives funding and publication.
Long time anti-GMO scientist Bill Nye is a great example, who after spending a month with Monsanto suddenly says "Hey, it's all great stuff and no harm can ever be caused by a GMO!". Buffoons believe this shit, but anyone with a half a wit and understanding of currency should be able to see through the ruse. Even though there are plenty of scientific studies that don't yield positive results for anyone except for giant seed companies money somehow changes the "science".
Oh, I know.. hybrids must be exactly the same thing as splicing fungus genes into corn right? Further, every GMO food is exactly the same so if we question one we question them all, or contrarily if we claim one is safe they must all be safe right? Hopefully I preempted the normal bullshit covering up any scientific dialogue on the subject, but lets see if you grasp the point I was making.
After reading not less than 30 studies in the last 20 years regarding how vitamins are healthy, then useless, then healthy, then harmful, then healthy again (you get the point) it should become obvious that we don't know nearly as much about genetics as some people wish to believe. And remember, fats are bad and will cause premature death, but you need them too so they are good and you die without them, and they are carcinogens but needed to fight cancer too (another long series of science, just in case you are lost).
Claiming that "humans can do it better" is simply a delusion which ignores human nature. Yeah, the worst fucks you can imagine end up rich and funding "science" for their own benefit. If do not realize this, you had best start brushing up on history.
Today's fad is to try and come up with the "perfect" human. Always happy, 200 IQ, and the personality of a turnip as to not be offensive to anyone at any time. Of course they must be orange skinned, no hair, and no gender features (I hope you saw the South Park episode) because if anything visible marked one of them as "different" the project would be a failure. Perfect is quoted, because this perfection is severely subjective and the person who's ideal you are going to meet probably does not match your own.
As you point out, there is no way to know what these apparently unused genes do until we start making modifications. These are pretty dangerous times we live in for many reasons. People believing they are smarter than billions of years of evolution gives me no assurance that these people have a clue, let alone care about modifying people.
No, it was the subsequent post that skipped QA.
Also, they are from a biology department, what do you expect?
Self sterilization and removal from the gene pool?
you asked....
probably a snark tag needed...
Yup yup, I wrote something contrary to my original post quite unintentionally. Memory is always faster than Disk, unless you write shit tests that behave abnormally to make a bogus claim.
Bah, I wrote the wrong thing...
The simple answer is no, disk is not faster than memory.
read their code, you will see the problems.
Not to Karma whore, but I already see two problems with their testing by reading their code samples. Lets see who else finds them. The simple answer is no, disk is not slower than memory. The long answer is yes, programmers can make it look that way.
'll have to dig through their testing and methods, but this seems pretty fishy given the summary.
Seek/Read/Write time of a disk is always slower than memory. No exceptions to the rule exist given current commodity hardware. Bus length to a disk is also much longer than to memory. Again, there are no exceptions given commodity hardware.
Won't be the first time someone reported that the laws of physics don't exist for something, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Maybe someone with free mornings in the US can break it down better than the summary.
Client Server technology has always had a problem where the client must trust the server. Adobe could have done better with Flash, but compromised security for flexibility. Exactly what every Bank I know of has done, and insurance company, and government agency, and department store, etc.. etc... etc...
If you are worried, don't download content you don't trust. It's not an absolute fix, because malicious files could still be uploaded to Facebook and Youtube. That said, I doubt your world will end when you don't watch the latest meme or crazy Russian's video. Plenty of other things to do for entertainment, most in my opinion are healthier than sitting on your ass watching videos.
I don't see this as a big deal. If you are ignorant to the dangers of the Internet today, you are intentionally ignorant. Too much information is available for you to read on the "do's and dont's" of content and usage. Sorry, but the world will never be the safe place certain people fantasize about. Human nature will prevent this from happening, ever!
Sending an image is communicating. Sending a specific type of image is using that method of communication. Without failed logic can you prove my statement wrong regarding communication? Call me a skeptic, but you already failed at basic logic so I believe the answer is "NO".
Taxi apps are a method of communications. ALL methods of communication can be used for bad things as easy as they can be used for good things. Blaming a "taxi" application is idiotic, because the same claim could be made of Facebook, Twitter, email, cell phones, or even a goddamn piece of paper and pen if that is the only method of communication handy.
People collude and plot. This is not some brand new revelation, it goes back thousands of years in historical writing. Read Homer, Plato, Aristotle, all of the diaries from the dark ages. More recently, watch just about any reality TV show which is always full of people plotting and scheming. Someone is always a victim, and someone always benefits. Losing your life savings on paper may be deemed "not as bad" as an assault, but the long reaching impact is worse in my opinion.
We can't teach history, and we can't talk about reality. We half to talk about invented dramas which have no bearing on reality except to maintain the status quo.
It's really too bad that people refuse to look at why people get paid big bucks to argue and publish these positions. Remember, Gamergate was an issue about sexism, not about corrupt journalists colluding to influence public opinion. (hint: One of those things is reality, the other is an invented scenario)
You consider the local police something other than a third party? This has been done with bullying as well as suicide, and Facebook admits that they do so. No, I'm not going to do all of the work for you. I provided enough information for you to find the facts. It does appear that you are content to sit in denial however.
You have to read the next link and follow the trail. Yes, they do. In fact there was a report on a few news stations a short time back where Facebook was showing off it's capabilities to do so Internationally and openly admitted to having people dedicated to the task of monitoring posts and reporting people to Government agencies. The focus of that news report was on bullying, so there is no limitation of just "suicide" risks.
I wish more companies had this stance, but alas.. When I worked for a DOD contractor we were warned monthly not to post personal information on Facebook, MySpace, Linked, or anywhere else that a person could track you. Not only do you not know how they will use what you post, you also put yourself and your family at risk by becoming easy to find.
Medical people can bet targeted for all sorts of nasty things, from drugs to free treatments. Defense obviously had state secrets to worry about. Any company has a similar potential risk.
Broken to a point where I'll question your sanity if you defend it. Facebook is not a Government agency, and is not a Public service. They are completely unaccountable for their actions, and completely unregulated. Facebook is a private company that makes money off of exploiting people, both with and without their knowledge. As such, you can not compare someone posting something to Facebook to pulling a fire alarm or dialing 911. They are not the same thing on any level.
The real argument here is whether or not Facebook should be monitoring individual posts to the point of being able to call 911 on a person. What we are provided in TFA is a single post to Facebook, not a history of suicidal tendencies. Meaning, if this is everything Facebook could call 911 on you if you posted a cat meme with text about suicide as easy as they called on this guy. As long as someone else said "he might be suicidal!" after reading your meme (maybe).
Though I doubt he/it will, I sure hope this results in a lawsuit and that Facebook loses.
Sure, some of his artificial "Friends" bear responsibility since they reported him. A real friend would have called, or come to visit to see if they could intervene it they thought for a second he was serious. That said, Facebook has no business reporting people based on what gets posted. They do not have context, especially in this case, to know why someone posted something. Sure, if you are dumb enough to use Facebook they do have right to read everything you write. I read the EULA and don't use their service at all (in fairness I don't use Twitter either). Having my text for marketing purposes is not nearly the same things as reporting it to a Government agency for what ever purposes they see fit. If they are reporting this to police here, what do they report elsewhere? Do they report anticommunist posts in China to the Chinese government, as long as they can cash in?
First "no": I would agree if you had said that the no competes are unprotected by the US Constitution, but they are illegal. Illegal by both the Sherman Act and Racketeering laws.
"so what": Not relevant to the discussion, you are confusing two types of agreements (intentionally?). One where Company owners agree mostly in back rooms not to produce products the other makes. The second, is an employee contract which has no bearing on the former.
The last part is not only a "no", but also not relevant to the discussion in TFA. Employee contract != Apple agreeing to never develop a Database and only using Oracle products, while Oracle agrees not to develop iPods, phones, etc.., etc...
Libertarian != Liberal. Libertarian would be concerned with common law, not contracts and unions which are predominantly the turf of Liberals.
No compete != No poaching. No poaching matches your last statement about career stifling, no competes means that companies won't try to produce products that someone else produces. I'm not claiming they are not both issues to discuss, I'm pointing out that you can't mix the two conversations like you did and have a rational discussion.
On one hand, the no-competes are stifle innovation and harm consumers. This is not unconstitutional as some have said, but it is a problem with anti monopoly laws. Further, the garbage patent laws allowing "ideas" to be owned makes it unfortunately easy to perform.
No poaching on the other hand does stifle careers of people working for companies. Good players can't grow into new better if they are currently stagnant by changing employers which these agreements block.
In both cases the benefactor is the company execs (board, owners, etc..), not consumers or employees. In fact the latter two are harmed by these agreements.
TFA's claim is simply deluded and ignores history. No competes are monopoly protection, and a racketeering. To see how this really works, look at who makes money in the DB market space today vs. 15-20 years ago. The only reason consumers have seen benefit from Oracle is by competition from Open Source DBs. Until MySQL (now Maria) and Postgres came along Oracle owned their customers. Products were poor, development was slow, and only big money people could play. Today, it's a different story because of competition which had to come from Open Source products. There are a couple other Silicon Valley companies that could have played in the SQL space but didn't due to these no-competes. You can find out who these are by simply following executives over time and see the other companies they started.
The Wunderkind gets all the "sexy" jobs of performing audits, vulnerability assessments and penetration tests.
Well no, this is not really true. Younger IT Security people are doing a lot of other things. Trying to sneak in doors behind people, drop flash drives to see who plugs them in, copy/paste HTML code to make fake phishing campaigns too. To the horror of many, they find that they have to write reports on their findings and actually communicate with people. They have to make recommendations, and be absolutely sure of their facts with documentation, documentation, and even more documentation.
The media is focusing on what is maybe 10% of an IT security person's job. This reality chases many people from this line of work.
But I have to add that all of the hype is plain old wrong if you want to be a career IT security specialist. Hacking, or actually performing a penetration test, is a very small portion of the job. Seems like all of the hype around coding currently to try and flood the market with people thinking they can "hack" to reduce wages may be happening here. I don't know if that's true or not, but seems reasonable given the treatment of "coders" lately.
I was also confused at the "people over 40 can't find jobs" stuff, because after I hit 40 my desirability went way up. Maturity, especially in IT security, is a well sought after trait.
WTF is with at douche bag SJW in every goddamn post recently? Your rant will not work here pal, we are better educated than you! Come out of hiding and debate, I triple dog dare you!
Block taboolya.com and ooyala.com, problem solved. If you don't run NoScript by now, shame on you.
Being a good parent you restrict access to the toy(s) and here is the conversation at school with the school supplied Barbie. "I hate mommy and daddy, they are so mean to me. They won't get me a talking Barbie and banned me from using it at my friends houses too! *sob*" Barbie: "Really, should I report them and get you new parents?"
Anyone who has raised a child knows that kids say some pretty mean things growing up. It's part of growing up, and covered in every book I read on psychology for raising kids. This is a plain old horrible idea on just about every level.