His basic logic is that the bank knew about the risks one could endure while banking online and yet allowed their customers to engage in it anyways. But what if I withdraw a large sum of money from an ATM and later get mugged? Surely the bank knew the risks of carrying that much cash in one's wallet, and yet they allowed me to withdraw it anyways.
He also claims that the fact that a large sum of money being withdrawn in Eastern Europe should have raised red flags. Remind me never to travel to Eastern Europe if accessing my bank accounts there is going to require days of bureaucratic paperwork.
People find ways to avoid arrests, does that mean the police for is useless? People find ways around murder convictions, does that mean the DA's office is useless? People find ways to screw investors, does that mean the SEC is useless?
I think your standards are too high if you think anything under a 100% success rate is a failure.
Oh please. We already restrict the sale of many products based on age. Porn, beer, firearms, etc. Yes, kids do find ways around each of these restrictions, but that doesn't mean they are useless.
Apples and oranges. Linux (like Windows) is an operating system..NET is a software platform.
No one is complaining that operating systems (like Linux or Windows) are written in languages such as C or C++ because an operating system written in Java or C# is not feasible.
Most of what this story isn't that kids "don't understand" the first ammendment, they just feel, to quote the article, "goes 'too far' in the rights it guarantees". Thinking that newspapers shouldn't be allowed to publish anything they want is not the same as thinking they can't publish anything they want. And the illegalization of flag burning and Internet censorship are not radical beliefs, but rather things that have been attempted.
You may disagree with these attitudes, but guess what protects them? Yep, you guessed it. The First Amendment.
Are you incapable of grasping the concept of linear time? My comment was a response to the original post who made the claim that Macs are made to be used by his stereotypical characterization of grandmothers.
Christ, I knew Mac users were for the most part dense, but you take the cake.
Eventually I got a new mouse, after the origional one died (a couple of years after I first got the machine). I have also upgraded the speakers, RAM, hard drive, and the CD-Rom, among other things. Does that mean I would have been happy buying a computer with crappy speakers, very little RAM, a tiny hard drive, and an inferior CD-Rom because eventually I would have ended up upgrading them? No, actually, I expected the machine that I first got to last some time before it needed anything replaced.
BTW, it was the ggp that said Macs were for grandmothers, not me. It would be nice if you were to RTFT next time. And I really don't see what "aesthetic beauty" has to do with the number of buttons on a mouse, which in case you didn't notice was what this entire story was about. Learning to RTFA (or even just the headline) would be nice as well.
Yes, yes, yes, lets all justify a crappy UI because of incompetent old people stereotypes.
But, by that logic, consider the story of the old lady who thought her CD-Rom was really a drink holder. Does that mean CD-Roms should be removed from computers? What about Homer Simpson, who struggled to find the "Any Key"? Should computer manufacturers add a button labeled "Any Key"? Do you see the problems that occur when you try to design a machine so that no one, no matter how stupid, can use it?
Besides, if Apple really wanted to make computers that are usable by both normal users and grandmothers, they would offer this thing called "options". You know, allow users to buy computers with one, two, or three buttons, depending on which they prefer. Grandma could get the one button mouse, the rest of us who prefer being able to carry out basic tasks using only one input device could get the 2+ button mice.
And with regard to buying a new mouse with more buttons to replace the standard issue, maybe this hasn't occured to you, but most of us whining about one button mice don't own our own Macs. Our interactions with one button mice are not with our own machines but with machines we encounter in our daily life. For instance back in school, our math lab contained only Macs. Were we supposed to go to class with an extra mouse in our backpacks just in case we encountered a computer designed more for grandmother stereotypes than for college students?
Well for starters you are sending the message to any hacker who spends all day in front of his computer that he will get off easy should he do something bad. Yes I know this was a more serious case than someone spending a lot of time in front of his computer, this guy was afraid to leave his house. And yes I know 18 months isn't getting off scot-free even though it is much less than the 3 year maximum sentence. But this is how it will be interpreted. Don't believe me, allow me to quote the reporting of a certain website popular with the hacker community:
...The lightweight sentence was due, said the judge, to the parents' neglect. Quoting the judge: 'It's not a healthy thing to lock yourself in a room and create your own reality.' Which means most slashdotters basically have a get out of jail free card.
This guy wrote a virus that caused serious damage. If he got off with the minimum sentence, the judge has in effect legitimized the "The Internet made me do it" defense.
Funny thing about this is not only are they claiming DVORAK is superior to QWERTY (the common urban legend), but they are actually claiming it is a standard. Last I checked, being a standard requires having more than one or two gullible users.
"Given the inherent difficulty of assessing the numbers and the very real possibility that the actual number could be much higher just as easily as it could be much lower"
Which is exactly why I'm not using those numbers.
"You seem to be treating it as a very reliable, close approximation of the total, when you can't know that. "
And you all are not treating this 100,000 number with too much certainity?
I didn't even mention any other count in this particular thread, how the hell am I treating anything as a "very reliable, close approximation"?
"I doubt robots can make the kinds of determinations that are needed as effectively as human beings, though, at least at the present time."
I think you have been watching too many science fiction movies. These things are not early versions of Roy Batty chasing his prey through an abandoned apartment complex, they are remote controlled robots controlled by a marine half a mile away.
"I think it'd be better if fewer people had died, period."
So you admit that using robotic drones in place of marines, a technology which saves lives, is clearly a good thing, contrary to what the origional poster said? Thats all I needed to hear.
"It may indeed be that the total number is under 18,000, but I wouldn't assert that just yet as confidently as you do."
Excuse me? My "confident assertion" was claiming the number was "closer to between 15 and 17 thousand" in response to someone stating the civilian total was 100,000+ not including Falluja (now that I think about it, I don't know why he was not willing to include Falluja in there as it was included in the study, nor do I know why he thought that number only included civies as the study sure didn't).
"Have you even looked at their site? 17k is still a conservative estimate. The range is because sometimes a range was reported. Many or most deaths go unreported by news organisations in war. Do you dispute this?"
Fine, put it at 20-25 thousand. Or better yet, lets double their number. Lets assume for every body we find, another disappears, never to be seen again. On the order of 30,000, still not 100,000.
"
The count was only of civilian deaths anyway, and you were talking about total deaths. Do you dispute this?"
Origionally, yes. However, the AC I was responding to specifically said civilian deaths, not total.
"That was not their claim. Their claim was "more than 100,000"."
The claim was a statistical estimate with a huge margin of error.
"The bell-curve I was talking about is the statistical distribution of probable Iraqi deaths from the deaths investigated by the researchers."
Yes, I know how statistics work. However, its irrelevant what the statistical probability that any given number corresponds to Iraqi war deaths. All that matters is the one actual data point which, based on the statistics in the paper, has a 95% chance of being between 8 and 200 thousand. That is not a reasonable range. All it tells us is that it is hard to estimate war casualties by using such a small random sample (which just happens to include Falluja).
Furthermore we have actual verified data that places the number closer to 17000. We also have a number of other sources (including some hostile to the war in Iraq) that don't place their estimates much higher.
"That's a logical fallacy and assumes that the sources are of equal value."
It wasn't a logical argument, it was a warning. If someone told you that since it has been raining all week you might want to bring an umbrella, would you accuse them of making a logical fallacy?
"The Lancet paper is the only scientific study"
No, it was a statistical study with a margin of error large enough to make the results meaningless. The others were actual body counts.
"The "Iraq body count" site only counts verified deaths by news organisations. They say themselves that their estimates are conservative."
Ok, so lets go with the high number, 17,000. Still far fewer than 100,000.
"Published in one of the world's most respected journalists, heavily peer-reviewed, and "refuted" by a journalist with absolutely no idea about statistics."
The published and peer-reviewed claim (8-200 thousand) was not the number that was refuted.
"It's a bell curve. 100,000 is rather more likely than either extreme. "
No, it (the number of civilians killed in Iraq) is one data point. One data point cannot be a bell curve. It is just virtually impossible to estimate using the methods used by the researchers. Hence why they ended up with such a huge range. Thus the statistic is rather meaningless, and I'll stick with the verified body counts.
Generally speaking, if someone goes MIA, nearly 150 years later I think it is safe to assume he won't be found and did indeed die. And getting wounded back then was a much more serious situation than it is today with our medical technology. But if you really want to count total casualties in the US, adding in the 10,000 US soldiers injured in the nearly two years since the war began still keeps us below the totals of either side in the 3 days in 1863.
Feel free to nipick the actual numbers all you want, just know war is far less deadly today than it used to be.
""Very little" collateral damage of possibly in excess of 100,000 deaths, according to some reasonable estimates."
I've refuted the 100,000 civilian death count numeroustimes already. Nobody considers that a "reasonable estimate".
"and I seriously doubt the robots will be better able to avoid inadvertently killing innocents while killing the enemy than human soldiers
Why not? They will allow us to safely enter hostile areas without just blowing the place up. I would think a lone robot with a mounted shotgun would be even less likely to kill innocent people or cause damage to buildings than a smart missile. And they are said to be better shots than their human counterparts (with platform mounted guns instead of shoulder mounted) which should reduce collateral damage from stray bullets.
"In the near-term, were these things actually employed in the conflict in Iraq to such an extent that they replaced significant numbers of American troops on the battlefield, there'd be an even more uneven distribution of deaths than there is now, with very very few US troops killed (relatively speaking) versus huge numbers of Iraqis killed (both insurgents and innocent civilians)."
Careful now, you almost sound like you are arguing that it would be better if more American soldiers had died.
"Oh, certainly. Furthermore, I'm sure many in Iraq would have loved it if "we" weren't willing to back him and help him hold power in the ten years before that."
Good point. Had we had the military power to take out both Iran and Iraq back then, we could have avoided this whole mess. I'll have to remember that one.
"Fewer deaths on one side of the line. It's still equipped with a shotgun."
And the soldiers that it is replacing were equipped with what, pixie dust? And believe it or not, technology has lowered the body count on both sides, not just on ours.
No, actually those were totals. I considered using just American deaths, that would make it 50 times more people dying in Gettysburg than who died during the entire Iraq war, but I decided the total deaths would be more convincing.
"Might doesn't make right and technology certainly doesn't make right."
Does weakness make right? If not, whats your point? Thats its possible the good guys might lose? In that case we should do everything possible to ensure they have the best technology to give them the best chance at winning.
"
Why would you think that THIS technological devellopment in death-delivery would be any less murderous in it's results?"
Uh, the goal of your example was a technology to cause more deaths. This is a technology designed to cause fewer deaths. If anything your example actually supports my point that lower body counts does not translate to more fighting.
"Lancet: >100,000"
I just discussed that number in my last post. Its really a meaningless statistical study which concludes the number of deaths is somewhere between 8 and 200 thousand. Here is the whole story. But as someone who frequents/. I'm sure you have enough of a grasp of statistics to know that when you get one study that is a factor of ten larger than any other, you treat it with skepticism anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
He also claims that the fact that a large sum of money being withdrawn in Eastern Europe should have raised red flags. Remind me never to travel to Eastern Europe if accessing my bank accounts there is going to require days of bureaucratic paperwork.
Sorry about that, I must have missed that quote. I'm always bad at finding statements when they don't exist in the first place.
I think your standards are too high if you think anything under a 100% success rate is a failure.
Oh please. We already restrict the sale of many products based on age. Porn, beer, firearms, etc. Yes, kids do find ways around each of these restrictions, but that doesn't mean they are useless.
No one is complaining that operating systems (like Linux or Windows) are written in languages such as C or C++ because an operating system written in Java or C# is not feasible.
You may disagree with these attitudes, but guess what protects them? Yep, you guessed it. The First Amendment.
Yep, his stereotype. Thank you and goodnight.
Christ, I knew Mac users were for the most part dense, but you take the cake.
BTW, it was the ggp that said Macs were for grandmothers, not me. It would be nice if you were to RTFT next time. And I really don't see what "aesthetic beauty" has to do with the number of buttons on a mouse, which in case you didn't notice was what this entire story was about. Learning to RTFA (or even just the headline) would be nice as well.
Damn ACs...
But, by that logic, consider the story of the old lady who thought her CD-Rom was really a drink holder. Does that mean CD-Roms should be removed from computers? What about Homer Simpson, who struggled to find the "Any Key"? Should computer manufacturers add a button labeled "Any Key"? Do you see the problems that occur when you try to design a machine so that no one, no matter how stupid, can use it?
Besides, if Apple really wanted to make computers that are usable by both normal users and grandmothers, they would offer this thing called "options". You know, allow users to buy computers with one, two, or three buttons, depending on which they prefer. Grandma could get the one button mouse, the rest of us who prefer being able to carry out basic tasks using only one input device could get the 2+ button mice.
And with regard to buying a new mouse with more buttons to replace the standard issue, maybe this hasn't occured to you, but most of us whining about one button mice don't own our own Macs. Our interactions with one button mice are not with our own machines but with machines we encounter in our daily life. For instance back in school, our math lab contained only Macs. Were we supposed to go to class with an extra mouse in our backpacks just in case we encountered a computer designed more for grandmother stereotypes than for college students?
This guy wrote a virus that caused serious damage. If he got off with the minimum sentence, the judge has in effect legitimized the "The Internet made me do it" defense.
...that we don't live in a computer simulation. Otherwise we would have destroyed our planet a dozen times already.
Funny thing about this is not only are they claiming DVORAK is superior to QWERTY (the common urban legend), but they are actually claiming it is a standard. Last I checked, being a standard requires having more than one or two gullible users.
Isn't an "open letter" directed to an individual a contradiction?
Which is exactly why I'm not using those numbers.
"You seem to be treating it as a very reliable, close approximation of the total, when you can't know that. "
And you all are not treating this 100,000 number with too much certainity?
I didn't even mention any other count in this particular thread, how the hell am I treating anything as a "very reliable, close approximation"?
"I doubt robots can make the kinds of determinations that are needed as effectively as human beings, though, at least at the present time."
I think you have been watching too many science fiction movies. These things are not early versions of Roy Batty chasing his prey through an abandoned apartment complex, they are remote controlled robots controlled by a marine half a mile away.
"I think it'd be better if fewer people had died, period."
So you admit that using robotic drones in place of marines, a technology which saves lives, is clearly a good thing, contrary to what the origional poster said? Thats all I needed to hear.
Excuse me? My "confident assertion" was claiming the number was "closer to between 15 and 17 thousand" in response to someone stating the civilian total was 100,000+ not including Falluja (now that I think about it, I don't know why he was not willing to include Falluja in there as it was included in the study, nor do I know why he thought that number only included civies as the study sure didn't).
Who when first reading this thought it was an article about some KDE application? Or am I the only one?
Fine, put it at 20-25 thousand. Or better yet, lets double their number. Lets assume for every body we find, another disappears, never to be seen again. On the order of 30,000, still not 100,000.
" The count was only of civilian deaths anyway, and you were talking about total deaths. Do you dispute this?"
Origionally, yes. However, the AC I was responding to specifically said civilian deaths, not total.
"That was not their claim. Their claim was "more than 100,000"."
The claim was a statistical estimate with a huge margin of error.
"The bell-curve I was talking about is the statistical distribution of probable Iraqi deaths from the deaths investigated by the researchers."
Yes, I know how statistics work. However, its irrelevant what the statistical probability that any given number corresponds to Iraqi war deaths. All that matters is the one actual data point which, based on the statistics in the paper, has a 95% chance of being between 8 and 200 thousand. That is not a reasonable range. All it tells us is that it is hard to estimate war casualties by using such a small random sample (which just happens to include Falluja).
Furthermore we have actual verified data that places the number closer to 17000. We also have a number of other sources (including some hostile to the war in Iraq) that don't place their estimates much higher.
It wasn't a logical argument, it was a warning. If someone told you that since it has been raining all week you might want to bring an umbrella, would you accuse them of making a logical fallacy?
"The Lancet paper is the only scientific study"
No, it was a statistical study with a margin of error large enough to make the results meaningless. The others were actual body counts.
Ok, so lets go with the high number, 17,000. Still far fewer than 100,000.
"Published in one of the world's most respected journalists, heavily peer-reviewed, and "refuted" by a journalist with absolutely no idea about statistics."
The published and peer-reviewed claim (8-200 thousand) was not the number that was refuted.
"It's a bell curve. 100,000 is rather more likely than either extreme. "
No, it (the number of civilians killed in Iraq) is one data point. One data point cannot be a bell curve. It is just virtually impossible to estimate using the methods used by the researchers. Hence why they ended up with such a huge range. Thus the statistic is rather meaningless, and I'll stick with the verified body counts.
Feel free to nipick the actual numbers all you want, just know war is far less deadly today than it used to be.
I've refuted the 100,000 civilian death count numerous times already. Nobody considers that a "reasonable estimate".
"and I seriously doubt the robots will be better able to avoid inadvertently killing innocents while killing the enemy than human soldiers
Why not? They will allow us to safely enter hostile areas without just blowing the place up. I would think a lone robot with a mounted shotgun would be even less likely to kill innocent people or cause damage to buildings than a smart missile. And they are said to be better shots than their human counterparts (with platform mounted guns instead of shoulder mounted) which should reduce collateral damage from stray bullets.
"In the near-term, were these things actually employed in the conflict in Iraq to such an extent that they replaced significant numbers of American troops on the battlefield, there'd be an even more uneven distribution of deaths than there is now, with very very few US troops killed (relatively speaking) versus huge numbers of Iraqis killed (both insurgents and innocent civilians)."
Careful now, you almost sound like you are arguing that it would be better if more American soldiers had died.
"Oh, certainly. Furthermore, I'm sure many in Iraq would have loved it if "we" weren't willing to back him and help him hold power in the ten years before that."
Good point. Had we had the military power to take out both Iran and Iraq back then, we could have avoided this whole mess. I'll have to remember that one.
And the soldiers that it is replacing were equipped with what, pixie dust? And believe it or not, technology has lowered the body count on both sides, not just on ours.
No, actually those were totals. I considered using just American deaths, that would make it 50 times more people dying in Gettysburg than who died during the entire Iraq war, but I decided the total deaths would be more convincing.
"Might doesn't make right and technology certainly doesn't make right."
Does weakness make right? If not, whats your point? Thats its possible the good guys might lose? In that case we should do everything possible to ensure they have the best technology to give them the best chance at winning.
Uh, the goal of your example was a technology to cause more deaths. This is a technology designed to cause fewer deaths. If anything your example actually supports my point that lower body counts does not translate to more fighting.
"Lancet: >100,000"
I just discussed that number in my last post. Its really a meaningless statistical study which concludes the number of deaths is somewhere between 8 and 200 thousand. Here is the whole story. But as someone who frequents /. I'm sure you have enough of a grasp of statistics to know that when you get one study that is a factor of ten larger than any other, you treat it with skepticism anyways.