to the days when not everyone had a credit card? I abhore the concept of credit cards as they encourage people to buy things they don't have the money for. For this reason I don't like taking out loans, and if I could live life without doing so I would (unfortunately if you want to own your house it is impossible for the average person to achieve this without a loan).
There are two ways to spend money:
1. Save it up and then spend it
2. Borrow then spend then repay it
I prefer to do the first thing myself. After all, you're eventually going to have to pay for the thing (and possibly with interest) so why not do without for a time until you can afford it.
But new technology is only favouring the second payment option with credit cards getting all this new fandangled tech, but bank cards aren't getting anything. Seems strange to me.
The only thing that's talked more about then WiFi is how insecure RFid tags are. Go have a look, you'll see plenty of people commenting on how secure and insecure it is.
You would have to devise a test to prove something isn't self-aware. Then you apply it to human babies and you'll get a definitive answer. The problem is, all animal's brains are hard-wired differently. People say "how would score in an IQ test?" Well it's an unfair question as IQ tests are devised for humans. If the English tested American-Indians I'm sure the Indians would have scored very low, and they're of the same species!
This is a problem for lots of tests (IMO). They're designed for one particular species. How would a human do if dogs devised an IQ test for other dogs and a human tried to sit it?
We originally embarked on the quest for teaching apes language because we felt that it would be a good indication on our successfulness to speak with aliens if we ever found them. To communicate with sentient non-humans we would need an ambassador that could speak their language.
So we grabbed our closest relatives. The apes. There is plenty of proof they have some intelligence, for example wild chimpanzees will not allow incest within their social circles.
We tried to teach apes how to speak our language. We kidnapped babies and raised them like human children. We forced their mouths around words and were able to teach them a couple of words at best. The chimpanzees simply couldn't learn our spoken language. We were stuck.
Then came ASL. We began to teach apes ASL. We were much more successful with this. We could now communicate with another species. So we had them interact with non-sign language speaking apes. But it was a failure. The sign-language ape knew as much about wild apes as ourselves. To the "speaking" ape, the non-speaking ape was a wild beast whereas itself was an intelligent beast, like humans. When asked to identify themselves speaking apes will identify themself in the human category, rather then the ape category. They identify themselves in a category. To me, that is more then enough proof apes (of the kind that have shown this quality. I don't know which species does this) are self-aware.
There was a lot more then one gorilla. There have been many animals who have been taught sign language. Experiments have also been shown that chimpanzees are able to pass on sign language to Chimpanzees that cannot speak it.
We just avoid certain words such as "biscuit" and "carol's" and "ruby"
We also had to avoid him seeing the fridge bag as 9 times out of 10 it meant we were going to my aunt's (who has a dog that my dog likes). We don't need to do that anymore as my dad started taking it to work. After a week he realised it didn't mean my aunt's place.
What are you talking about? This is slashdot. There's no room for intelligent debate here.
Then create a login/sign in, post what you think. If you're not a depraved moron most people will like some of your comments, so you're likely to get up to at least a 1 (if I can do it anyone can) at which point some people will have to mod you down (but it means they'll read you). If enough people do this people might change.
On the other hand bitching about it as an AC gets achieves nothing.
By your logic, this wouldn't be happening. Mainly because lawyers are also supported by a bad patent system. All the lawsuits give money to the lawyers, yet they're helping out with this.
If this gains support, I think it's quite possible a politician will try to reform the patent system to get voted into power.
so it's good to hear there is something like that. But then again, if we were FORCED to download patches, it wouldn't be possible.
As for living in 1995, let's see:
* Programs crash regularly (anything from office to mozilla)
* Its programs are resource hogs
* In 2 months I have had my entire harddrive crash completely thanks to Microsoft.
I think Microsoft criticizing is warranted. Bashing is the act of immediately saying how bad something is without proof. Criticizing is thought out judgements on something based on facts.
If they say "we're only going to mars" they're more likely to fail. Why? Because there are more obstacles (food and water and air for one). But if they say they're going to the moon then mars, they can just stop at the moon and there be considered some success.
I'd agree with you if the goal was to reach mars. But it's not. It's to look good.
Black-hatters are the people who will hack into your computer for malicious purposes. They're not going to report anything to developers, but they will report it to everyone else.
who conscientiously look for reports to protect their systems. I'm thinking sysadmins would rely on these heavily.
If reports aren't and patches aren't made the holes will be found and will be reported on in the black-hatter community. If reports aren't made but patches are, some (the smart) people will not install patches without knowing exactly what they are installing (especiallly important for Windows users).
Those who do not look after the security of their systems make that decision. Those who decide to look after their security shouldn't be hindered.
if the patch breaks an application and the machine goes unpatched there is a loss in security because of potential intrusion. If the patch is applied there is a potential loss of productivity.
Not all patches are security patches. Many patches fix problems, such as the spell check function doesn't work correctly. Or some other function doesn't work correctly. These won't compromise security, but they may interfere with other programs.
I'll move to a browser that people don't exploit as much. One of the big reasons I use Mozilla is for security. Security through obscurity doesn't work, unless no-one knows about the program/not enough users use it to make exploiting vulnerabilities productive.
In principle, I agree that automatically installing patches is a good thing in principle. But Microsoft has a habbit of changing their licenses and installing DRM when people "upgrade" and/or "install patches."
Also, imagine I have 2 programs. Both automatically install patches. Unpatched they both work fine. But when program #1 is patched, program #2 cannot run at all. Now this will probably be fixed eventually, but in the mean-time, I cannot run program #2 at all. If I need both programs, I'm fucked with the system of auto-patches.
However when I have a choice, how likely am I to install a patch? Not as likely (due to laziness). So the effectiveness decreases significantly.
Slashdot Mirror
just too hard
to the days when not everyone had a credit card? I abhore the concept of credit cards as they encourage people to buy things they don't have the money for. For this reason I don't like taking out loans, and if I could live life without doing so I would (unfortunately if you want to own your house it is impossible for the average person to achieve this without a loan). There are two ways to spend money: 1. Save it up and then spend it 2. Borrow then spend then repay it I prefer to do the first thing myself. After all, you're eventually going to have to pay for the thing (and possibly with interest) so why not do without for a time until you can afford it. But new technology is only favouring the second payment option with credit cards getting all this new fandangled tech, but bank cards aren't getting anything. Seems strange to me.
The only thing that's talked more about then WiFi is how insecure RFid tags are. Go have a look, you'll see plenty of people commenting on how secure and insecure it is.
that my post was moderative informative.
You would have to devise a test to prove something isn't self-aware. Then you apply it to human babies and you'll get a definitive answer. The problem is, all animal's brains are hard-wired differently. People say "how would score in an IQ test?" Well it's an unfair question as IQ tests are devised for humans. If the English tested American-Indians I'm sure the Indians would have scored very low, and they're of the same species!
This is a problem for lots of tests (IMO). They're designed for one particular species. How would a human do if dogs devised an IQ test for other dogs and a human tried to sit it?
I have one request. Prove humans can reason and not only react to their surroundings as dictated by their instincts.
We originally embarked on the quest for teaching apes language because we felt that it would be a good indication on our successfulness to speak with aliens if we ever found them. To communicate with sentient non-humans we would need an ambassador that could speak their language.
So we grabbed our closest relatives. The apes. There is plenty of proof they have some intelligence, for example wild chimpanzees will not allow incest within their social circles.
We tried to teach apes how to speak our language. We kidnapped babies and raised them like human children. We forced their mouths around words and were able to teach them a couple of words at best. The chimpanzees simply couldn't learn our spoken language. We were stuck.
Then came ASL. We began to teach apes ASL. We were much more successful with this. We could now communicate with another species. So we had them interact with non-sign language speaking apes. But it was a failure. The sign-language ape knew as much about wild apes as ourselves. To the "speaking" ape, the non-speaking ape was a wild beast whereas itself was an intelligent beast, like humans. When asked to identify themselves speaking apes will identify themself in the human category, rather then the ape category. They identify themselves in a category. To me, that is more then enough proof apes (of the kind that have shown this quality. I don't know which species does this) are self-aware.
There was a lot more then one gorilla. There have been many animals who have been taught sign language. Experiments have also been shown that chimpanzees are able to pass on sign language to Chimpanzees that cannot speak it.
We just avoid certain words such as "biscuit" and "carol's" and "ruby"
We also had to avoid him seeing the fridge bag as 9 times out of 10 it meant we were going to my aunt's (who has a dog that my dog likes). We don't need to do that anymore as my dad started taking it to work. After a week he realised it didn't mean my aunt's place.
How can they not know etcetera!? That's an outrage :P
What are you talking about? This is slashdot. There's no room for intelligent debate here.
Then create a login/sign in, post what you think. If you're not a depraved moron most people will like some of your comments, so you're likely to get up to at least a 1 (if I can do it anyone can) at which point some people will have to mod you down (but it means they'll read you). If enough people do this people might change.
On the other hand bitching about it as an AC gets achieves nothing.
people do not agree with the statement, and it is a touchy subject (for some) and is therefore flaimbait.
I don't agree with it, but hey. That's how things work around here.
Score: -1, Offtopic/Flame-bait.
I always wanted to have sex with 16 year olds when I was 6. Damn age of consent laws stopped me everytime though :P
By your logic, this wouldn't be happening. Mainly because lawyers are also supported by a bad patent system. All the lawsuits give money to the lawyers, yet they're helping out with this.
If this gains support, I think it's quite possible a politician will try to reform the patent system to get voted into power.
and it was quite successful here.
so it's good to hear there is something like that. But then again, if we were FORCED to download patches, it wouldn't be possible. As for living in 1995, let's see: * Programs crash regularly (anything from office to mozilla) * Its programs are resource hogs * In 2 months I have had my entire harddrive crash completely thanks to Microsoft. I think Microsoft criticizing is warranted. Bashing is the act of immediately saying how bad something is without proof. Criticizing is thought out judgements on something based on facts.
If they say "we're only going to mars" they're more likely to fail. Why? Because there are more obstacles (food and water and air for one). But if they say they're going to the moon then mars, they can just stop at the moon and there be considered some success.
I'd agree with you if the goal was to reach mars. But it's not. It's to look good.
female-on-female action just isn't popular with bush administration. Or so they say ;)
Post: Offtopic -1
Report it to the developer, not the whole world.
Black-hatters are the people who will hack into your computer for malicious purposes. They're not going to report anything to developers, but they will report it to everyone else.
who conscientiously look for reports to protect their systems. I'm thinking sysadmins would rely on these heavily.
If reports aren't and patches aren't made the holes will be found and will be reported on in the black-hatter community. If reports aren't made but patches are, some (the smart) people will not install patches without knowing exactly what they are installing (especiallly important for Windows users).
Those who do not look after the security of their systems make that decision. Those who decide to look after their security shouldn't be hindered.
if the patch breaks an application and the machine goes unpatched there is a loss in security because of potential intrusion. If the patch is applied there is a potential loss of productivity.
Not all patches are security patches. Many patches fix problems, such as the spell check function doesn't work correctly. Or some other function doesn't work correctly. These won't compromise security, but they may interfere with other programs.
I'll move to a browser that people don't exploit as much. One of the big reasons I use Mozilla is for security. Security through obscurity doesn't work, unless no-one knows about the program/not enough users use it to make exploiting vulnerabilities productive.
I'm less likely to read a PDF then a HTML file.
I hate PDF.
In principle, I agree that automatically installing patches is a good thing in principle. But Microsoft has a habbit of changing their licenses and installing DRM when people "upgrade" and/or "install patches."
Also, imagine I have 2 programs. Both automatically install patches. Unpatched they both work fine. But when program #1 is patched, program #2 cannot run at all. Now this will probably be fixed eventually, but in the mean-time, I cannot run program #2 at all. If I need both programs, I'm fucked with the system of auto-patches.
However when I have a choice, how likely am I to install a patch? Not as likely (due to laziness). So the effectiveness decreases significantly.
the second a cure for the common cold is ;)