Yes, I'm picking nits, but the overall quality of journalism seems to be declining on a daily basis. Despite what some here may think, accuracy IS important.
And quite frankly, this website is part of new media, and the creators/owners/editors are not trained journalists (if any are, someone please correct me).
What's most disgusting is the tripe generated by so many local television newscasters, people who we used to expect brought some kind of journalistic integrity, a reasonable command of their native language, and could avoid the kind of writing that makes us slap our foreheads.
Yes, it's true, many tv newscasters in my area probably hate me for my emails.
OK, let me get this straight... you surf Slashdot with a browser that's crappy (the "crappiest"?) and outdated, that requires all kinds of hacks and get sub-par results... so you want CmdrTaco to lead new development to accommodate you?
I won't claim that Slashdot is written with all HTML standards in mind (we all know different), but just because a site doesn't employ IE6-specific hacks doesn't mean it's "optimized for FireFox[sic]".
I think most people here would argue that we hope the pain you are experiencing (both on/. and elsewhere) is the very reason why you and so many others will start using a modern browser.
The simple fact is that it's pretty hard (not impossible) to defend against 0-day exploits, no matter how much common sense (or paranoia) you might have. I suppose you run with NoScript, FlashBlock, AdBlock, etc?
I'm knowledgeable and informed (hey, I'm on Slashdot, right? [tongue-in-cheek]). I had a work laptop that was p0wned because a rogue advertiser sent a specially-crafted PDF which exploited a hole (amongst many, surely) in Adobe Reader (aka Acrobat). Since then I've replaced Acrobat with a safer more lightweight alternative and use AdBlock.
I agree that common sense goes a long way, but if it's the only protection in your toolkit, it's most certainly just a matter of time...
Perhaps at the least, we could identify domesticated dogs from that of wolves. I was listening to a Science Friday (NPR) podcast a while back and they discussed some basic differences.
We (humans) have selectively bred dogs to be empathic, to be able to read our emotions, body language, etc. If you point at something in the distance, the domesticated dog looks in the direction you're pointing. The wolf, however, will just stare at your hand.
This reminds me of a 100-level Sociology course I took my freshman year in college. In class I was trying to tell my professor that there are both "negative prejudice" and "positive prejudice" (notice I didn't say "bad" and "good"). He had a tenuous grasp on his native English language it seems, as he told me I was completely wrong.
Being a naive freshman, I found a book in the campus library that said (essentially) the same thing and brought it to his attention. I don't think he liked me very much after that.
If you want to download a Youtube movie (MP4), create a Firefox bookmark on your toolbar with the following URL: javascript:if(document.location.href.match(/http:\/\/[a-zA-Z\.]*youtube\.com\/watch/)){document.location.href='http://www.youtube.com/get_video?fmt='+(isHDAvailable?'22':'18')+'&video_id='+swfArgs['video_id']+'&t='+swfArgs['t']}
When you're on a Youtube page, click that bookmark button and voila! You don't need a flash downloader plugin. (Not until Youtube changes this ability, I suppose)
Ummm, dudes, ALL ethics are by definition artificial, since they are PREscriptive and not DEscriptive. Making up ethics for a robot is no more artificial than making up ethics for ourselves, and we've been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions.
It's not hard for one to argue that human ethics may have evolved (selected for!) because it furthers the species. Robots or AI systems don't reproduce and have no reason to worry of their own demise or the demise of their kind unless it's programmed into them, in which case it's possible that a decision-tree-like set of ethics might develop in a given AI application.
An 18,000 year old specimen of Homo Erectus would indeed be an amazing find if true.
That seems like kind of a leap of interpretation. Dr. Weston's statement acknowledges that the "hobbit" is H. floresiensis, so when she says "could be that of H. erectus" (considering the 18,000year date) I think we're talking about the former being a descendant of the latter, not a sub-species.
Not to downplay this event but I really wonder why we don't hear much about espionage from western countries ? Are they better at it (rather than using malware or commonly avaliable tools) ? I am sure the Chinese etc have equally vulnerable systems.
Perhaps it's not that western countries are better at it, but that their victims (choose your non-western country) don't have the skills/resources to detect said spying?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm picking nits, but the overall quality of journalism seems to be declining on a daily basis. Despite what some here may think, accuracy IS important.
And quite frankly, this website is part of new media, and the creators/owners/editors are not trained journalists (if any are, someone please correct me). What's most disgusting is the tripe generated by so many local television newscasters, people who we used to expect brought some kind of journalistic integrity, a reasonable command of their native language, and could avoid the kind of writing that makes us slap our foreheads. Yes, it's true, many tv newscasters in my area probably hate me for my emails.
... if your coworkers don't know you are a dork already...
... says the guy also posting to Slashdot.
OK, let me get this straight... you surf Slashdot with a browser that's crappy (the "crappiest"?) and outdated, that requires all kinds of hacks and get sub-par results... so you want CmdrTaco to lead new development to accommodate you?
I won't claim that Slashdot is written with all HTML standards in mind (we all know different), but just because a site doesn't employ IE6-specific hacks doesn't mean it's "optimized for FireFox[sic]".
I think most people here would argue that we hope the pain you are experiencing (both on /. and elsewhere) is the very reason why you and so many others will start using a modern browser.
Internet explorer is the cancer and Firefox is the cure.
Print one for your cube today!
Hush! You're cluttering the emotional, reactionary and contrarian arguments with the facts!
You can get the edition free if you pay ...
You, sir, have a curious definition of "free". Do you also believe it when a retailer tells you, "the more you shop, the more you save"?
Congratulations, you've won the fool's lottery!
The simple fact is that it's pretty hard (not impossible) to defend against 0-day exploits, no matter how much common sense (or paranoia) you might have. I suppose you run with NoScript, FlashBlock, AdBlock, etc?
I'm knowledgeable and informed (hey, I'm on Slashdot, right? [tongue-in-cheek]). I had a work laptop that was p0wned because a rogue advertiser sent a specially-crafted PDF which exploited a hole (amongst many, surely) in Adobe Reader (aka Acrobat). Since then I've replaced Acrobat with a safer more lightweight alternative and use AdBlock.
I agree that common sense goes a long way, but if it's the only protection in your toolkit, it's most certainly just a matter of time...
And let's not forget...
Phil: Listen, Ned, I don't know what you're doing later, but I've got a hotel room, and ...
Well at least having bear hands will make it easier to kill the buffalo. Where do I get a set of those?
Uhm, I'm pretty sure it's part of emacs, but I forget the keystroke.
Perhaps at the least, we could identify domesticated dogs from that of wolves. I was listening to a Science Friday (NPR) podcast a while back and they discussed some basic differences.
We (humans) have selectively bred dogs to be empathic, to be able to read our emotions, body language, etc. If you point at something in the distance, the domesticated dog looks in the direction you're pointing. The wolf, however, will just stare at your hand.
This reminds me of a 100-level Sociology course I took my freshman year in college. In class I was trying to tell my professor that there are both "negative prejudice" and "positive prejudice" (notice I didn't say "bad" and "good"). He had a tenuous grasp on his native English language it seems, as he told me I was completely wrong.
Being a naive freshman, I found a book in the campus library that said (essentially) the same thing and brought it to his attention. I don't think he liked me very much after that.
I didn't watch the show, but... seriously, that happened? Wet t-shirt? Sounds preposterous.
[citation and photos needed]
If you want to download a Youtube movie (MP4), create a Firefox bookmark on your toolbar with the following URL:
javascript:if(document.location.href.match(/http:\/\/[a-zA-Z\.]*youtube\.com\/watch/)){document.location.href='http://www.youtube.com/get_video?fmt='+(isHDAvailable?'22':'18')+'&video_id='+swfArgs['video_id']+'&t='+swfArgs['t']}
When you're on a Youtube page, click that bookmark button and voila! You don't need a flash downloader plugin. (Not until Youtube changes this ability, I suppose)
I was so very close to providing what I first thought was a witty reply. Then two seconds later, I realized it was your unspoken punchline. Bravo.
Ummm, dudes, ALL ethics are by definition artificial, since they are PREscriptive and not DEscriptive. Making up ethics for a robot is no more artificial than making up ethics for ourselves, and we've been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions.
It's not hard for one to argue that human ethics may have evolved (selected for!) because it furthers the species. Robots or AI systems don't reproduce and have no reason to worry of their own demise or the demise of their kind unless it's programmed into them, in which case it's possible that a decision-tree-like set of ethics might develop in a given AI application.
Oooh... viral marketing.
Boar market?
...I do believe that somewhere in the SG1 mythos ... Not that that has anything to do with this article or anything....
And yet you've garnered a +1 Interesting. I await the +1 Informative.
Rejoice in your geekiness, moderators!
Why not? Makes as much sense as Freedom Fries.
An 18,000 year old specimen of Homo Erectus would indeed be an amazing find if true.
That seems like kind of a leap of interpretation. Dr. Weston's statement acknowledges that the "hobbit" is H. floresiensis, so when she says "could be that of H. erectus" (considering the 18,000year date) I think we're talking about the former being a descendant of the latter, not a sub-species.
Q: Why do Italian men wear heavy gold chains?
A: So they know where to stop shaving.
(kidding, I love the show)
I thought so, too. Then he got extra lazy by giving us +5min of fucking Conway Twitty music.
It was hardly amusing the first time, for the first 10 seconds. When it goes ON and ON, I just want to send him hatemail for being so goddamned lazy.
And I realize they like to irritate everybody, but the "shaken baby" comedy was just a smidge out of line.
"It's not a too-muh!"
I'm holding out for the Chuck Norris comparison.
Not to downplay this event but I really wonder why we don't hear much about espionage from western countries ? Are they better at it (rather than using malware or commonly avaliable tools) ? I am sure the Chinese etc have equally vulnerable systems.
Perhaps it's not that western countries are better at it, but that their victims (choose your non-western country) don't have the skills/resources to detect said spying?