write your own insightful posts, and let real people reply to them.
And be displaced by this guy who first-posts and then replies to himself multiple times? Am I now supposed to believe that he's being defended by a cadre of ACs?? I don't buy it.
Complaints are warranted every time this happens. Maybe once his karma gets negative enough (on all his accounts), we won't be having this discussion anymore.
I can think of a couple of reasons to meet face to face, but the vulnerability of PGP is not one of them. There are scientific reviews of the implementation, so it's disingenuous to characterize it as a fanboy technology. Besides, if you really doubted it, you could make a single trip to your client and set up a supply of unbreakable one-time pads.
I think it's funny how willing some people are to speculate that US Intelligence agencies have superhuman powers. Haven't their obvious limitations dispelled the idea that nothing gets by them?
"but this article clearly shows, they still have a long ways to go."
Did you notice all of the good points? I didn't get the impression that it was so far to go. Also, the test was measuring someone's very first exposure to Linux. Does a distro need to perform better than this for an absolute newbie to be viable on the desktop? A good comparison would be to have someone who's never seen Windows perform these same tasks on Vista.
I do appreciate the good suggestions that came out of the article, but I think you're taking it too hard. People usually get help with basic tasks from people they know when they're first starting up. Who else here has had to help their parents with Windows? More often than I care to remember.
That's the main reason why I want an adblocker for FF that loads the ads, but doesn't display them. The other reason is that I don't want to be detected blocking ads, although that hasn't been a problem so far.
"People who think they can't be manipulated are among the simplest to trick."
Could you provide some examples? These people annoy me and I'd like to have some fun.
Also, I don't really believe you. While they may be in denial, I think that their obstinance and paranoia makes them a little harder to trick than most people.
Don't misread that I think these things have been proven to be bad, but there are indication that it is bad. That's good enough for me, since I don't see TV as necessary nor even particularly useful to a child's education.
Some points I think you're missing:
Correlation does indeed suggest causation (read your link). Don't forget that a parent is guessing what the best course of action is, not trying to prove the best action scientifically.
TV is NOT play, although it is entertainment. This is an important distinction for me. I'd much rather have a child playing.
The "bad for vision" item, was told to me by a pediatrician that I respect. You have somewhat less standing in that regard. So, while it may be proven incorrect one day, it is utterly false to characterize it as a wives' tale from the 50s. That sort of exaggeration is discernible throughout your response.
Please grasp that this is not an academic question for parents. The goal of most parents I know is not to deprive their children or clone them into our image, but to give them advantages and protect them from unnecessary risks, especially at a young age. In both cases, I don't see the advantage, and there are probably some risks, your emphatic, unsubstantiated denials notwithstanding.
Either way, you have absolutely nothing to compare it to. Unless you've measured other processors as beams of light traversing your anatomy. I don't know anyone who has an intuitive grasp of the speed of light, much less the significance of a single processor "task" on the operation of an application.
He should have gone on to say, "multiply that by 500 trillion, and that's how fast Excel will open after you click it."
Just like you can send mass and light into a black hole, but you won't get a reply.
You can send mass and light into a planet and not get a reply. The black hole analogy is flawed, I think, especially as these routing anomalies can be temporary. And what do you call those that can be reached from some routes, but not others? Grey holes?
And TV's education abilities are proven in iron-clad studies to be more effective than traditional methods?
A parent without the resources and time to conduct their own studies must weigh the possible risks and benefits of television and video games:
Maybe: -Very young children don't yet distinguish completely between real and pretend. -Children who watch TV excessively are more passive are less creative. -TV takes away from play time, which is more valuable for developing children. -TV is a risk factor for childhood obesity and poor social development. -TV correlates to lower reading scores. -TV may diminish short-term memory in children. -TV is linked to more aggressive behavior and short attention span. -Video games are especially bad for vision under 3 years-old due to the typical proximity to the screen.
Maybe they could learn their letters faster from Tux Typing than I can teach them, but I doubt it. Plus, there is the fact that generations of children have learned the old-fashioned way.
So, if they're wrong, maybe my child doesn't become a Unreal Tournament XXI champion. If they're right, maybe my child doesn't become a 30-year-old couch potato. Easy choice, if you ask me.
We should also note that studies indicate that video games, like television, have detrimental effects on the attention span of the very young. I wouldn't consider it for kindergarten age children. They're just learning self control, how to listen, and follow instructions. Sitting them down in front of a computer isn't likely to teach them the most important things they need top learn at that age. Even in the area of fine motor skills, I'd rather they learn to use a pencil than a game controller.
"The question is about whether we invest in extra capacity or go to the consumer and ask them to pay a BBC tax,"
Maybe they should shut up and do exactly that. Then see how many consumers want to choose that ISP for their internet access. The notion that the BBC would ever pay anything should be out of the question. Just block the service if you can't handle it.
I'm guessing that this ISP guy is anti-Net-Neutrality.
Relax, they didn't really leave the CD drive out to restrict the kids. They just found out it was a really good spin for the design decision to leave it out. Teachers love the idea that children won't be allowed to do something. They're thinking, "Now, they will respect my authority."
That sure sounds like a "business decision that only we have the right to make." It's common for manufacturers to release different sets of features on the same hardware using software disabling to offer different price ranges, but to remove features that have already been released is a bit underhanded.
All the Apple patches in the world won't save you from this exploit
How about Firefox + NoScript? Actually I was hoping for an OS vulnerability, something where you can be targeted, but I suppose everyone deserves credit this time around.
Too bad David Maynor wasn't there. He woulda hacked the MacBook Air in 5 minutes!
You don't need fiber for 15 access points. The total equipment cost on this would be a small fraction of that money, and much of the hardware is being donated by Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Verizon Wireless and Tropos Networks. They must be holding back the money to pay for operating costs, like network management and internet access.
What is a "load capable access point", btw? One 11n Wi-Fi radio has about the same load capacity as any other. It's a zero sum game with the available bandwidth. If you want more capacity, deploy more radios. If this were mesh, then maybe the APs would matter more.
No, it's comforting to believe that you could be good at anything given the right circumstances, but it's a fantasy. I've seen enough people with talent to know that it is more than just learned skill.
I think it's funny that you to claim that the debate over nature vs. nurture has already been decided in your favor, and the result was 100% environmental factors and no natural ability - and if someone disputes this they are tilting at windmills? That is simply not the case. Many reputable studies support the concept of fluid intelligence: "on-the-spot reasoning ability, a skill not basically dependent on our experience." (Belsky, 1990, p. 125)
I suppose it won't hurt you to believe this way, because you won't really spend years trying to become a renaissance man, mastering diverse fields... but you'll tell yourself you could, if you wanted to.
> "everyone is" and "anyone can be" are quite distinct logical propositions.
No, since you want to claim that anyone can do anything, I figured why not just call anyone who can't expertly play music yet an untrained musician. It's a mere formality for you, right?
> This is not my conclusion, but the consensus of researchers in the field.
I doubt your references will say that there is no such thing as "native ability". Can a dog learn higher mathematics with enough time and effort. I can't prove the negative, because you could always claim they didn't have enough time. Your standard was also undefined. Could we call anyone banging on a drum a musician? If so, then you are right, but only trivially so.
Obviously, people have different abilities. Some cannot do good engineering and music, whether you want to believe it or not. Not enough time? If it takes more than the average lifespan, it shouldn't count. In fact, if it's more time or resources than is practical, then it also doesn't count. At some point you should recognize when someone is not really an engineer. To not do so at all is patently absurd.
Maybe you just meant whether someone could be taught to earn an engineering degree. That would be an easier standard than I had in mind, but can you honestly say you've never met someone who couldn't do this? I have.
There is no such thing as "native ability". The only thing that really matters is amount of practice and motivation. Anyone can be a musician. Anyone can be an engineer.
You may as well have said, everyone is an engineer, and everyone is a musician. Either you are making the terms meaningless, or you are out of touch with reality.
Genetic or innate factors account for a vanishingly small amount of variability on task performance (any task performance, whether it is music or math). So much so that they will only make a real difference if you are in the top 1% in the entire world for the chosen task.
Your ability to measure a vague term, with exactitude and on a global scale, is truly amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
They are trying to popularize something. Same rule applies: Try not to choose unappealing names.
write your own insightful posts, and let real people reply to them.
And be displaced by this guy who first-posts and then replies to himself multiple times? Am I now supposed to believe that he's being defended by a cadre of ACs?? I don't buy it.
Complaints are warranted every time this happens. Maybe once his karma gets negative enough (on all his accounts), we won't be having this discussion anymore.
No. No MiniPCI nor PCI-X. No room for the cards either. His USB EDVO was smaller than a PCI-X card, and he used a dremel to saw open more space.
The summary suggests that he removed two cards, but Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are on the same card in a MacBook Air. It's all or nothing.
I can think of a couple of reasons to meet face to face, but the vulnerability of PGP is not one of them. There are scientific reviews of the implementation, so it's disingenuous to characterize it as a fanboy technology. Besides, if you really doubted it, you could make a single trip to your client and set up a supply of unbreakable one-time pads.
I think it's funny how willing some people are to speculate that US Intelligence agencies have superhuman powers. Haven't their obvious limitations dispelled the idea that nothing gets by them?
"but this article clearly shows, they still have a long ways to go."
Did you notice all of the good points? I didn't get the impression that it was so far to go. Also, the test was measuring someone's very first exposure to Linux. Does a distro need to perform better than this for an absolute newbie to be viable on the desktop? A good comparison would be to have someone who's never seen Windows perform these same tasks on Vista.
I do appreciate the good suggestions that came out of the article, but I think you're taking it too hard. People usually get help with basic tasks from people they know when they're first starting up. Who else here has had to help their parents with Windows? More often than I care to remember.
That's the main reason why I want an adblocker for FF that loads the ads, but doesn't display them. The other reason is that I don't want to be detected blocking ads, although that hasn't been a problem so far.
Too subtle for you? He was describing an argument that begs the question. I'd elaborate further, but apparently you know what it means.
Which begs the question, does free will exists or not?
"People who think they can't be manipulated are among the simplest to trick."
Could you provide some examples? These people annoy me and I'd like to have some fun.
Also, I don't really believe you. While they may be in denial, I think that their obstinance and paranoia makes them a little harder to trick than most people.
Don't misread that I think these things have been proven to be bad, but there are indication that it is bad. That's good enough for me, since I don't see TV as necessary nor even particularly useful to a child's education.
Some points I think you're missing:
Correlation does indeed suggest causation (read your link). Don't forget that a parent is guessing what the best course of action is, not trying to prove the best action scientifically.
TV is NOT play, although it is entertainment. This is an important distinction for me. I'd much rather have a child playing.
The "bad for vision" item, was told to me by a pediatrician that I respect. You have somewhat less standing in that regard. So, while it may be proven incorrect one day, it is utterly false to characterize it as a wives' tale from the 50s. That sort of exaggeration is discernible throughout your response.
Please grasp that this is not an academic question for parents. The goal of most parents I know is not to deprive their children or clone them into our image, but to give them advantages and protect them from unnecessary risks, especially at a young age. In both cases, I don't see the advantage, and there are probably some risks, your emphatic, unsubstantiated denials notwithstanding.
Either way, you have absolutely nothing to compare it to. Unless you've measured other processors as beams of light traversing your anatomy. I don't know anyone who has an intuitive grasp of the speed of light, much less the significance of a single processor "task" on the operation of an application.
He should have gone on to say, "multiply that by 500 trillion, and that's how fast Excel will open after you click it."
Just like you can send mass and light into a black hole, but you won't get a reply.
You can send mass and light into a planet and not get a reply. The black hole analogy is flawed, I think, especially as these routing anomalies can be temporary. And what do you call those that can be reached from some routes, but not others? Grey holes?
And TV's education abilities are proven in iron-clad studies to be more effective than traditional methods?
A parent without the resources and time to conduct their own studies must weigh the possible risks and benefits of television and video games:
Maybe:
-Very young children don't yet distinguish completely between real and pretend.
-Children who watch TV excessively are more passive are less creative.
-TV takes away from play time, which is more valuable for developing children.
-TV is a risk factor for childhood obesity and poor social development.
-TV correlates to lower reading scores.
-TV may diminish short-term memory in children.
-TV is linked to more aggressive behavior and short attention span.
-Video games are especially bad for vision under 3 years-old due to the typical proximity to the screen.
Maybe they could learn their letters faster from Tux Typing than I can teach them, but I doubt it. Plus, there is the fact that generations of children have learned the old-fashioned way.
So, if they're wrong, maybe my child doesn't become a Unreal Tournament XXI champion. If they're right, maybe my child doesn't become a 30-year-old couch potato. Easy choice, if you ask me.
We should also note that studies indicate that video games, like television, have detrimental effects on the attention span of the very young. I wouldn't consider it for kindergarten age children. They're just learning self control, how to listen, and follow instructions. Sitting them down in front of a computer isn't likely to teach them the most important things they need top learn at that age. Even in the area of fine motor skills, I'd rather they learn to use a pencil than a game controller.
I have full Compiz support although the limited graphics speed seems to limit the "cube" to a two-sided plane (two desktops) with full speed.
I think you just need to add more workspaces.
"The question is about whether we invest in extra capacity or go to the consumer and ask them to pay a BBC tax,"
Maybe they should shut up and do exactly that. Then see how many consumers want to choose that ISP for their internet access. The notion that the BBC would ever pay anything should be out of the question. Just block the service if you can't handle it.
I'm guessing that this ISP guy is anti-Net-Neutrality.
Relax, they didn't really leave the CD drive out to restrict the kids. They just found out it was a really good spin for the design decision to leave it out. Teachers love the idea that children won't be allowed to do something. They're thinking, "Now, they will respect my authority."
That sure sounds like a "business decision that only we have the right to make." It's common for manufacturers to release different sets of features on the same hardware using software disabling to offer different price ranges, but to remove features that have already been released is a bit underhanded.
And then we can mod you to -5 offtopic, and well... just wow.
All the Apple patches in the world won't save you from this exploit
How about Firefox + NoScript? Actually I was hoping for an OS vulnerability, something where you can be targeted, but I suppose everyone deserves credit this time around.
Too bad David Maynor wasn't there. He woulda hacked the MacBook Air in 5 minutes!
You don't need fiber for 15 access points. The total equipment cost on this would be a small fraction of that money, and much of the hardware is being donated by Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Verizon Wireless and Tropos Networks. They must be holding back the money to pay for operating costs, like network management and internet access.
What is a "load capable access point", btw? One 11n Wi-Fi radio has about the same load capacity as any other. It's a zero sum game with the available bandwidth. If you want more capacity, deploy more radios. If this were mesh, then maybe the APs would matter more.
> It is comforting to believe this notion
No, it's comforting to believe that you could be good at anything given the right circumstances, but it's a fantasy. I've seen enough people with talent to know that it is more than just learned skill.
I think it's funny that you to claim that the debate over nature vs. nurture has already been decided in your favor, and the result was 100% environmental factors and no natural ability - and if someone disputes this they are tilting at windmills? That is simply not the case. Many reputable studies support the concept of fluid intelligence: "on-the-spot reasoning ability, a skill not basically dependent on our experience." (Belsky, 1990, p. 125)
I suppose it won't hurt you to believe this way, because you won't really spend years trying to become a renaissance man, mastering diverse fields... but you'll tell yourself you could, if you wanted to.
> "everyone is" and "anyone can be" are quite distinct logical propositions.
No, since you want to claim that anyone can do anything, I figured why not just call anyone who can't expertly play music yet an untrained musician. It's a mere formality for you, right?
> This is not my conclusion, but the consensus of researchers in the field.
I doubt your references will say that there is no such thing as "native ability". Can a dog learn higher mathematics with enough time and effort. I can't prove the negative, because you could always claim they didn't have enough time. Your standard was also undefined. Could we call anyone banging on a drum a musician? If so, then you are right, but only trivially so.
Obviously, people have different abilities. Some cannot do good engineering and music, whether you want to believe it or not. Not enough time? If it takes more than the average lifespan, it shouldn't count. In fact, if it's more time or resources than is practical, then it also doesn't count. At some point you should recognize when someone is not really an engineer. To not do so at all is patently absurd.
Maybe you just meant whether someone could be taught to earn an engineering degree. That would be an easier standard than I had in mind, but can you honestly say you've never met someone who couldn't do this? I have.
There is no such thing as "native ability". The only thing that really matters is amount of practice and motivation. Anyone can be a musician. Anyone can be an engineer.
You may as well have said, everyone is an engineer, and everyone is a musician. Either you are making the terms meaningless, or you are out of touch with reality.
Genetic or innate factors account for a vanishingly small amount of variability on task performance (any task performance, whether it is music or math). So much so that they will only make a real difference if you are in the top 1% in the entire world for the chosen task.
Your ability to measure a vague term, with exactitude and on a global scale, is truly amazing.