Hmm... so if you're buying a 40kg spool, that's 16,000 Lego pieces for $1800.
400 pieces of Lego are $30. That's $1200 for 16,000 Lego pieces.
So, for an extra 66% markup, you get the ability to customize each piece. That's about the same markup you get from Lego, and they custom screen the pieces and have multiple colors.
Not offhand (other than by polls and surveys)... but it seems to me that the languages requiring the most documentation and support libraries would be the ones that would rise to the top via that method. Thus, more open languages, languages used more for internet-related functions, and languages that involve heavy compartmentalization would show up, while things like shell scripting and ASM, no matter how prevalent, would be unlikely to show up.
The fact that the Vaults of Parnassus no longer exists, but you can get the same stuff via non-web locations probably contributes to Python's fall.
As an alternative, it's possible that we're already doing something that's been wiping out sentient life all over the galaxy.... and who's to say that those modulating stars aren't actually part of the structure of some sentient being?
That's the thing Win 7 is a good, but not great OS, and is solidly mediocre in most respects.
It's far more secure than it used to be but still lacks things like security levels and separate configuration files like has been the case for many, many years with Linux and *BSD. For as long as I've used FreeBSD I've had security levels to work with, and one program doesn't need to be able to write to a configuration file for another. If it's needed then I, myself, have to make it happen.
Windows has gotten a lot better, but it is indeed mediocre.
??? Normally I don't think much of Windows security, but the OS has had most of the ACLs and other security level systems it has needed since NT3 -- that's not really the problem. The problem is that nobody uses these features. Windows 7 made that a bit better by forcing programmers to use some of them, or end up with code that wouldn't work. Full use of mandatory access controls, ring levels, etc. that are ALREADY THERE would significantly improve security. Unfortunately, most people don't understand how to use these tools, and Microsoft still doesn't make it easy with the development environments it provides... they want to make things easy for the programmer, not more difficult.
You could also look at it another way... after 50 years of treatment, the only variants of TB that are doing well are the ones that are resistant to the treatment. Standard natural selection.
Of course, this is invalidated by the fact that TB is now more common than it was 20 years ago....
As others have posted, the problem isn't even overuse... overuse would just end up with people defenceless against bad bacteria, as they will have killed off the good bacteria that were previously protecting them.
The problem is misuse... specifically, not taking enough antibiotics to fully kill off the bacteria you are targeting. This results in the survival of resistant bacteria, against which the antibiotics eventually become useless.
All of this raises a question: instead of using the equivalent of chemotherapy for bacteria, why hasn't someone attempted to breed a bacteria that either feeds on tuberculosis bacteria, or provides an autodefence against them? This should work much better than antibiotics, especially if you create the bacteria with a few limitations, such as a kill switch and a generational limiter.
Maybe I should have air-quoted "lies to children" -- this is a term commonly used to refer to the oversimplification of scientific processes to put them in terms that children can understand, but which aren't necessarily totally scientifically correct.
As such, "Fuel," "fire," "burn," and "lies to children" are all semantics.
Burning falls under the same category as, say jumping. We describe jumping as using our legs to push our bodies up and away from the ground to overcome the effects of the earth's gravity -- but what's really happening is we're using our legs to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth on our body AND our body on the earth, as well as the other gravitational and frictional forces in play. In both cases, the words and description are true as far as they go, but they are not fully describing the event taking place. This is fine, until you start making incorrect conclusions based on those simplifications (such as all matter containing "fire" which can be released when the object is warmed up and exposed to air)
Indeed... you can even use that time off to further your education -- either for personal interest's sake, or to get some new certificate or work towards some skill that will make you more valuable in your job. Of course, you may also find that your employer will actually *give you paid time off* to do such things, outside of vacation time. And they won't consider it slacking off, either.
The rich are rich because they bribe politicians to make loopholes for them.
I disagree... The rich get richer/stay rich because they hire people to find loopholes for them. Bribing politicians to make loopholes is mostly for corporate finance -- this is how rich corporations get richer/stay rich. Of course, the corporate veil is one of the techniques used by the rich to stay rich, but that's another matter....
This falls in the same category as "people who take smoke breaks are more likely to be promoted".
Depends on the working culture of the company under discussion.
Where I work, cross-training is the mantra... they don't want any single person to be a choke point for ANYTHING in the company. People who don't take vacations are sometimes looked on as people who can't schedule themselves responsibly and meet deadlines.
Every other country understands that this makes people healthier and creates a better workforce.
Perhaps other countries' businesses are more about making money for the stockholders and less about reminding the management that they have power over the working stiffs.
Perhaps other countries' businesses are more about producing profit for the company as a whole and less about maximizing shareholder profit (management usually has significant shares in a company).
The logic is this: Person 1 is a long-term asset to the company. They are more stable, less likely to take shortcuts on the job, or quit and go find other work, and they tend to have better time management. Person 2 is a short-term asset to the company. They can achieve impressive bursts of productivity, followed by stretches of goofing off.
While person 2 spends more time at the office, I think you'll find that often, they both get the same amount of work done, and often the quality of that work is higher for person 1.
Talk to HR: there are a number of reasons that most HR departments actually prefer person 1, even if the CEO and CFO and CTO often prefer person 2 at crunch time.
the hour we got out of work has gone from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. and this did not happen only in america - almost any part of the world
Except Europe.
And pretty much everywhere else in the western world. Common working hours I know are 7-3, 8-4, 8-5, 9-5:30, and the most common: split shifts of 9-1, 1-5, 5-9 and the cover shift of 3-7.
Of course, there's also weekend work, on-call shifts, and being required to monitor your phone for emails without actually being on-call.
Due to rejecting socialism, America lacks the social protections most western countries have -- but it has a higher cost of living than the eastern countries to which it offshores. End result? Niche work.
Of course, this completely ignores non-city work, such as farming. It used to be a sunup to sundown job, with some extended hours in the winter. Now it's mostly automated, and those people are out of work, or working 9-7 jobs and being thankful they have something.
Pseudopress: when you stand around the bench putting increasingly heavy weights on the bar, talking to others, but with no intention of actually doing anything involving effort, like pressing the bar.
The only place I can see biometrics being useful is as part of a hashing algorithm where some other factor is a secret. In this case, it's not the primary securing factor, but it is yet another piece of information about you that the attacker must have to generate the appropriate hash.
Of course, "biometrics" is awfully hand-wavy. Because fingerprints/retina scans/vein topology/etc aren't digital, the actual algorithms that digitize them have a large margin of error, and any hash in the appropriate set will be valid, to a certain standard deviation.
As a result, biometrics are only as good as the worst of: 1) implementation and 2) application. They're really just a way to allow an individual to carry around a personal hash, and NOT a way to carry around a secret.
Implemented the right way, your fingerprint, for example, will be used to generate a hash, from which the significant bits are extracted to form a sub-hash. This value would be computed but not be left at rest -- it would then be further hashed with a passphrase or private key to generate the public key which would be stored. As a result, the data credential at rest will be specific to the application, and will not be used in other circumstances. It will be unique, more complex than an easy-to-remember passphrase, and repeatable.
It doesn't really matter if someone else has a copy of your fingerprint in this situation, as that is the lesser factor of authentication. If the reader itself is compromised, the only data leaked is the passphrase/OTP/print combo for that implementation, which should not affect other uses of your fingerprint.
However, to play Devil's advocate... Do you really care if the OS portions of your computer are compromised? These areas can be overwritten with a clean install with minimal difficulty.
The portion of your computer you really want to protect is the user data -- you know, the stuff that doesn't require admin privs to access. The stuff that only has backups if you've personally backed it up. The stuff that is irreplaceable, and is extremely valuable to data thieves and ransomware artists.
There can be no complete solution, as any complete solution would require appliance computing (one fixed activity). As soon as you want to do something unique, you need to allow for some process to perform that task, and the process you grant those privileges to could easily be compromised.
You must be new here.... I remember when 16MB USB sticks ran about $250... it wasn't all that long ago. Then again, I remember when the only storage computers had was 4KB of RAM... and I'm sure some on here can remember when you had to fit it all on a punch card. Those were a bit bulky to carry on a flight, I'm sure.
After all, no matter how you present it, it's just a chemical reaction: 2 molecules and some energy. "Fuel" and "fire" and "burn" are all just lies to children. Either that, or Iron is also a "fuel" with an end result of "rust" ash. Low "burning" temperature, and low heat output, as it doesn't take much for Iron to react with oxygen.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh... but I left out the part about the savings you get after the first spool.
Hmm... so if you're buying a 40kg spool, that's 16,000 Lego pieces for $1800.
400 pieces of Lego are $30. That's $1200 for 16,000 Lego pieces.
So, for an extra 66% markup, you get the ability to customize each piece. That's about the same markup you get from Lego, and they custom screen the pieces and have multiple colors.
Gives a good perspective, anyway.
Not offhand (other than by polls and surveys)... but it seems to me that the languages requiring the most documentation and support libraries would be the ones that would rise to the top via that method. Thus, more open languages, languages used more for internet-related functions, and languages that involve heavy compartmentalization would show up, while things like shell scripting and ASM, no matter how prevalent, would be unlikely to show up.
The fact that the Vaults of Parnassus no longer exists, but you can get the same stuff via non-web locations probably contributes to Python's fall.
I do notice that Forth is missing from that list as well... but I'm not surprised. Most people don't want to deal with hardware these days.
I see you prefer Python :D
As an alternative, it's possible that we're already doing something that's been wiping out sentient life all over the galaxy.... and who's to say that those modulating stars aren't actually part of the structure of some sentient being?
That's the thing Win 7 is a good, but not great OS, and is solidly mediocre in most respects.
It's far more secure than it used to be but still lacks things like security levels and separate configuration files like has been the case for many, many years with Linux and *BSD. For as long as I've used FreeBSD I've had security levels to work with, and one program doesn't need to be able to write to a configuration file for another. If it's needed then I, myself, have to make it happen.
Windows has gotten a lot better, but it is indeed mediocre.
??? Normally I don't think much of Windows security, but the OS has had most of the ACLs and other security level systems it has needed since NT3 -- that's not really the problem. The problem is that nobody uses these features. Windows 7 made that a bit better by forcing programmers to use some of them, or end up with code that wouldn't work. Full use of mandatory access controls, ring levels, etc. that are ALREADY THERE would significantly improve security. Unfortunately, most people don't understand how to use these tools, and Microsoft still doesn't make it easy with the development environments it provides... they want to make things easy for the programmer, not more difficult.
You could also look at it another way... after 50 years of treatment, the only variants of TB that are doing well are the ones that are resistant to the treatment. Standard natural selection.
Of course, this is invalidated by the fact that TB is now more common than it was 20 years ago....
WTH? If the drug kills people then it's not an antibiotic, it's just a poison.
The difference between most drugs and poisons comes down to dosage.
As others have posted, the problem isn't even overuse... overuse would just end up with people defenceless against bad bacteria, as they will have killed off the good bacteria that were previously protecting them.
The problem is misuse... specifically, not taking enough antibiotics to fully kill off the bacteria you are targeting. This results in the survival of resistant bacteria, against which the antibiotics eventually become useless.
All of this raises a question: instead of using the equivalent of chemotherapy for bacteria, why hasn't someone attempted to breed a bacteria that either feeds on tuberculosis bacteria, or provides an autodefence against them? This should work much better than antibiotics, especially if you create the bacteria with a few limitations, such as a kill switch and a generational limiter.
Please cease from sullying the name of Terry Pratchett any further with such prose.
However, I do hope it gives him an idea for a new book :D
Maybe I should have air-quoted "lies to children" -- this is a term commonly used to refer to the oversimplification of scientific processes to put them in terms that children can understand, but which aren't necessarily totally scientifically correct.
As such, "Fuel," "fire," "burn," and "lies to children" are all semantics.
Burning falls under the same category as, say jumping. We describe jumping as using our legs to push our bodies up and away from the ground to overcome the effects of the earth's gravity -- but what's really happening is we're using our legs to overcome the gravitational pull of the earth on our body AND our body on the earth, as well as the other gravitational and frictional forces in play. In both cases, the words and description are true as far as they go, but they are not fully describing the event taking place. This is fine, until you start making incorrect conclusions based on those simplifications (such as all matter containing "fire" which can be released when the object is warmed up and exposed to air)
Indeed... you can even use that time off to further your education -- either for personal interest's sake, or to get some new certificate or work towards some skill that will make you more valuable in your job. Of course, you may also find that your employer will actually *give you paid time off* to do such things, outside of vacation time. And they won't consider it slacking off, either.
The rich are rich because they bribe politicians to make loopholes for them.
I disagree... The rich get richer/stay rich because they hire people to find loopholes for them. Bribing politicians to make loopholes is mostly for corporate finance -- this is how rich corporations get richer/stay rich. Of course, the corporate veil is one of the techniques used by the rich to stay rich, but that's another matter....
This falls in the same category as "people who take smoke breaks are more likely to be promoted".
Depends on the working culture of the company under discussion.
Where I work, cross-training is the mantra... they don't want any single person to be a choke point for ANYTHING in the company. People who don't take vacations are sometimes looked on as people who can't schedule themselves responsibly and meet deadlines.
Every other country understands that this makes people healthier and creates a better workforce.
Perhaps other countries' businesses are more about making money for the stockholders and less about reminding the management that they have power over the working stiffs.
Perhaps other countries' businesses are more about producing profit for the company as a whole and less about maximizing shareholder profit (management usually has significant shares in a company).
The logic is this:
Person 1 is a long-term asset to the company. They are more stable, less likely to take shortcuts on the job, or quit and go find other work, and they tend to have better time management.
Person 2 is a short-term asset to the company. They can achieve impressive bursts of productivity, followed by stretches of goofing off.
While person 2 spends more time at the office, I think you'll find that often, they both get the same amount of work done, and often the quality of that work is higher for person 1.
Talk to HR: there are a number of reasons that most HR departments actually prefer person 1, even if the CEO and CFO and CTO often prefer person 2 at crunch time.
Except Europe.
And pretty much everywhere else in the western world. Common working hours I know are 7-3, 8-4, 8-5, 9-5:30, and the most common: split shifts of 9-1, 1-5, 5-9 and the cover shift of 3-7.
Of course, there's also weekend work, on-call shifts, and being required to monitor your phone for emails without actually being on-call.
Due to rejecting socialism, America lacks the social protections most western countries have -- but it has a higher cost of living than the eastern countries to which it offshores. End result? Niche work.
Of course, this completely ignores non-city work, such as farming. It used to be a sunup to sundown job, with some extended hours in the winter. Now it's mostly automated, and those people are out of work, or working 9-7 jobs and being thankful they have something.
Pseudopress: when you stand around the bench putting increasingly heavy weights on the bar, talking to others, but with no intention of actually doing anything involving effort, like pressing the bar.
I see the pseudopress at the gym all the time.
The only place I can see biometrics being useful is as part of a hashing algorithm where some other factor is a secret. In this case, it's not the primary securing factor, but it is yet another piece of information about you that the attacker must have to generate the appropriate hash.
Of course, "biometrics" is awfully hand-wavy. Because fingerprints/retina scans/vein topology/etc aren't digital, the actual algorithms that digitize them have a large margin of error, and any hash in the appropriate set will be valid, to a certain standard deviation.
As a result, biometrics are only as good as the worst of: 1) implementation and 2) application. They're really just a way to allow an individual to carry around a personal hash, and NOT a way to carry around a secret.
Implemented the right way, your fingerprint, for example, will be used to generate a hash, from which the significant bits are extracted to form a sub-hash. This value would be computed but not be left at rest -- it would then be further hashed with a passphrase or private key to generate the public key which would be stored. As a result, the data credential at rest will be specific to the application, and will not be used in other circumstances. It will be unique, more complex than an easy-to-remember passphrase, and repeatable.
It doesn't really matter if someone else has a copy of your fingerprint in this situation, as that is the lesser factor of authentication. If the reader itself is compromised, the only data leaked is the passphrase/OTP/print combo for that implementation, which should not affect other uses of your fingerprint.
However, to play Devil's advocate...
Do you really care if the OS portions of your computer are compromised? These areas can be overwritten with a clean install with minimal difficulty.
The portion of your computer you really want to protect is the user data -- you know, the stuff that doesn't require admin privs to access. The stuff that only has backups if you've personally backed it up. The stuff that is irreplaceable, and is extremely valuable to data thieves and ransomware artists.
There can be no complete solution, as any complete solution would require appliance computing (one fixed activity). As soon as you want to do something unique, you need to allow for some process to perform that task, and the process you grant those privileges to could easily be compromised.
It's a USB drive... wipe it and install TrueCrypt.
You must be new here.... I remember when 16MB USB sticks ran about $250... it wasn't all that long ago.
Then again, I remember when the only storage computers had was 4KB of RAM... and I'm sure some on here can remember when you had to fit it all on a punch card. Those were a bit bulky to carry on a flight, I'm sure.
After all, no matter how you present it, it's just a chemical reaction: 2 molecules and some energy. "Fuel" and "fire" and "burn" are all just lies to children. Either that, or Iron is also a "fuel" with an end result of "rust" ash. Low "burning" temperature, and low heat output, as it doesn't take much for Iron to react with oxygen.
I believe they've since found there's nothing bovine about that fecal matter....