Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's not just you. I also find this "intelligence" in browsers annoying as hell. In Firefox, there's a search field right next to the address bar - don't they think I'd use that if I wanted to do a search?
I'm sure a large part of the/. audience uses hostnames only. That's why we have domains in the DNS system, don't we? So I can put my home machine in there, too, and it knows that by "mail" I mean mail.lemuria.org and not mail.google.com And I most certainly don't want it to Google for "mail" - thank you, but I don't think you'll find my mail somewhere in the Google cache.
This is America, the corporations ARE the government.
No, they are not. Actually being the government would leave them with all the bothersome stuff, like the national debt or the responsibility to run a country and provide at least basic services to people. Also the whole problem of elections.
Being "just very influential" to the point of control is much better, as it leaves you with the profits, but without the costs.
That's how politics come to a close about an issue. Those who lost complain, publicly, loudly, and with no effect whatsoever on the process itself. Then everyone goes back to business.
You can love it or hate it, but if you watch enough politics closely enough, you see this pattern repeat over and over and over again.
You're thinking of ancient European wars, which occured "sporadically", and were very rare. Several generations could live without seeing war.
Actually, no. I was thinking predominantly of ancient Africa and tribal wars. Those kinds of wars were extremely common, there'd be one every other year or so.
In that situation women obviously all want a man that was a commander of the defending forces, not a soldier of the attackers (and they want a man that is a lot older). He'd be present, and might actually live to see his children (and, hopefully, help).
That's not about the point we discussed at all, and is equally valid for a primitive farming society where starvation was a real and present danger. Even during wartime, more people died in Europe of malnutrition than died in any actual battles. It took WW1 to change that, and WW1 increased casualties by at least one order of magnitude compared to anything seen before. That's why they called it "The Great War" afterwards and until WW2.
It isn't that simple. Those rules were also from different times where, for example, position and wealth were less flexible. In 1500 by the age of 25 you were what you'd be the rest of your life (minor career progress not considered) and by 20 you would know what that'd be. At 15 you had maybe 2 or 3 options left, mostly depending on whether you'd inherit the farm or whether the guild would allow another master of your craft or not.
So when you married at 16 or 17, you knew who and you could plan a life. Even scaling up for changes in life expectancy, longer schooling, etc. - when you marry at 20-25 today, you largely don't. You're probably still in university or you just started your career, and it all could turn out either way.
With that much uncertainty, arranged marriages are quite a bit more complicated than they used to be, because neither party knows what will be in the bargain.
If you intend to wage unceasing war ("live off the land" (and the passersby)), for example, monogamy would be a bad idea, since lots of men will die, leaving behind women, even though some limit would be good (say you expect 50% of the men to be involved in war, then you should allow 2 women to one man, if you expect between 75 and 90% of your society to be dedicated to war, then 4 women to 1 man seems appropriate (and obviously only to men who can afford not to be on the frontlines, who should basically stay away from women, except the occasional rape of a succesful raid)
A very short look into history tells us that this is bullshit.
Men's part in reproduction is pretty small, and throughout history has been solved by giving them a few days off every few months so they can go home, have fun with their wives and (hopefully) produce the next generation of soldiers.
Especially in ancient times, very few wars were fought far away from home, and even fewer lasted more than a month or two. We know that from the customs of those people (see Frazer's books, for example).
He probably just wanted to stress "monogamous". However, there are extremists in all circles, and the same way that polygamous people were at times treated as lunatics or even killed, some of the extremist polygamous of today think that theirs is the natural way and monogamous people have some kind of mental problem.
Hell when I was a teen, most of us were pretty monogamous; its not that we all married our first crush, but rather that our teen years were a succession of monogamous relationships of varying lengths, some quite brief, and punctuated with periods of being 'single'.
Many people - both from the religious right and the polygamous circles - don't consider that actual monogamy. The term "serial polygamy" is one I've heard used. It's interesting how all those things rely on very fine details of definitions of words.
That all depends on your theory regarding pre-history human society.
One theory says we lived in closely-knit tribes. In that scenario, it is possible that essentially everyone fooled around with everyone else and the kids were raised as a group effort. It might not even have mattered who the father was.
But if you think pre-history man was not so different from us, then family might have been the unit, not tribe. In that case, sex defines relationship and it becomes very important who sleeps with whom. In addition, if the raising of kids is a project for a couple, then staying together until they're at least a few years old is absolutely necessary for survival.
However, there's a second one I see fairly often, too: With health care and life expectancy being what they are, people not only live longer, they live "well" longer, too. Lots of "old" people (60-70) simply don't feel as if they're "too old". Lots of them also fear being, essentially, unemployed. At that age, a lot of your friends and relatives are already dead, or in retirement homes, or have alzheimer, cancer, whatever. Work is a place of social life, too. And social life is very important for old people, because being lonely is one of their main problems.
From what I see, a lot of "retired" people pick up part-time jobs in something they like, in order to meet people and to continue being an active part of society. Sometimes even in something they don't especially like, because the other two reasons beat that.
I disagree. Simulation is a good method to check your basics and verify patterns. Like all things, it's a tool that you need to know how to use and what to use it for. Only in very well understood fields do simulations give you good numbers to work with. But even in poorly understood fields, then are a way to check your theories, by letting them "run" and see if the results coincide with the expectations and/or actual observations.
So if, for example, you have a theory about how planets are formed, and put it into a simulation, and your simulation comes up with a result that no matter what you tweak in variables, there are never planets formed like we see them in our solar system, then you know your theory is false because there is at least one case where it did happen. Likewise, if it shows that systems like ours are formed x% of the time, you can try to match it against observations. For large values of x, you would expect to find a few samples in the observable space around us.
I wouldn't sign "praised", but like any "should not happen" event, there are lessons to be learnt here. That doesn't mean you should praise the culprit. A fire, a plane crash, every bad event tells us what we've missed so far and allows us to improve things.
Yeah, someone had to mention the obvious. But the iPhone is really great to develop for. Once you've learnt Objective-C, the whole dev environment is very good, and I've heard that from quite a few people, many professional software developers among them.
Yet, we're formulating our opinions on the war based on that coverage. Hmmm... As for Chavez, I could care less what becomes of it. He's a piece of shit.
And you're formulating your opinion on Chavez based on what ?;-)
"funny or not" isn't the right question to ask here.
The right question is: "Why was customer service able to access his plain text password?" - when every book about security tells you to store passwords hashed. They should never even know what his password actually is.
Yeah, because someone crashing an A340F full of explosives into central Manhattan would be any less destructive? We've all seen 9/11 and those were smaller planes and no explosives (just jet fuel). Crash your attack plane low into broadway (just try to land on broadway, you'll hit a couple buildings on the way down, no need to aim) and tell me that won't kill a whole lot of people.
A pyramid shape, btw., is a lot more stable and less likely to come tumbling down than a skyscraper.
AFAIGT (as far as I get it) - the idea is that if all notaries show the certificate changed on the same day, it's likely it was a renewal or actual change. If some show a change, or all do but on different dates, then something fishy is going on.
Google for "Credence", that's a trust system developed specifically for situations where your "web of trust" can be assumed to be under attack (torrent ratings, we know the music and movie industry employ companies to seed crap and rate it up, while rating down actual releases).
It would be possible to adapt Credence to this situation, or come up with something similar.
However, technically speaking, even in that case the system works as advertised, because what it says is basically "I got conflicting answers, something is wrong here" - and that's true, even in your case, something is wrong. Finding out what is a whole different beast.
Two: Hijacking the website in, or all connections from a datacenter is usually a lot more difficult and expensive than going down to your local cable/DSL/whatever hub and playing maintainance crew, or taking over your WLAN router (or the one in the hotel you're staying in).
Case in point: Not very many banks are robbed anymore the old-fashioned way. But there's a lot more going on with ATM machines than the banks let us know.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just you. I also find this "intelligence" in browsers annoying as hell. In Firefox, there's a search field right next to the address bar - don't they think I'd use that if I wanted to do a search?
I'm sure a large part of the /. audience uses hostnames only. That's why we have domains in the DNS system, don't we? So I can put my home machine in there, too, and it knows that by "mail" I mean mail.lemuria.org and not mail.google.com
And I most certainly don't want it to Google for "mail" - thank you, but I don't think you'll find my mail somewhere in the Google cache.
This is America, the corporations ARE the government.
No, they are not. Actually being the government would leave them with all the bothersome stuff, like the national debt or the responsibility to run a country and provide at least basic services to people. Also the whole problem of elections.
Being "just very influential" to the point of control is much better, as it leaves you with the profits, but without the costs.
That's how politics come to a close about an issue. Those who lost complain, publicly, loudly, and with no effect whatsoever on the process itself. Then everyone goes back to business.
You can love it or hate it, but if you watch enough politics closely enough, you see this pattern repeat over and over and over again.
You're thinking of ancient European wars, which occured "sporadically", and were very rare. Several generations could live without seeing war.
Actually, no. I was thinking predominantly of ancient Africa and tribal wars. Those kinds of wars were extremely common, there'd be one every other year or so.
In that situation women obviously all want a man that was a commander of the defending forces, not a soldier of the attackers (and they want a man that is a lot older). He'd be present, and might actually live to see his children (and, hopefully, help).
That's not about the point we discussed at all, and is equally valid for a primitive farming society where starvation was a real and present danger. Even during wartime, more people died in Europe of malnutrition than died in any actual battles. It took WW1 to change that, and WW1 increased casualties by at least one order of magnitude compared to anything seen before. That's why they called it "The Great War" afterwards and until WW2.
It isn't that simple. Those rules were also from different times where, for example, position and wealth were less flexible. In 1500 by the age of 25 you were what you'd be the rest of your life (minor career progress not considered) and by 20 you would know what that'd be. At 15 you had maybe 2 or 3 options left, mostly depending on whether you'd inherit the farm or whether the guild would allow another master of your craft or not.
So when you married at 16 or 17, you knew who and you could plan a life. Even scaling up for changes in life expectancy, longer schooling, etc. - when you marry at 20-25 today, you largely don't. You're probably still in university or you just started your career, and it all could turn out either way.
With that much uncertainty, arranged marriages are quite a bit more complicated than they used to be, because neither party knows what will be in the bargain.
If you intend to wage unceasing war ("live off the land" (and the passersby)), for example, monogamy would be a bad idea, since lots of men will die, leaving behind women, even though some limit would be good (say you expect 50% of the men to be involved in war, then you should allow 2 women to one man, if you expect between 75 and 90% of your society to be dedicated to war, then 4 women to 1 man seems appropriate (and obviously only to men who can afford not to be on the frontlines, who should basically stay away from women, except the occasional rape of a succesful raid)
A very short look into history tells us that this is bullshit.
Men's part in reproduction is pretty small, and throughout history has been solved by giving them a few days off every few months so they can go home, have fun with their wives and (hopefully) produce the next generation of soldiers.
Especially in ancient times, very few wars were fought far away from home, and even fewer lasted more than a month or two. We know that from the customs of those people (see Frazer's books, for example).
He probably just wanted to stress "monogamous". However, there are extremists in all circles, and the same way that polygamous people were at times treated as lunatics or even killed, some of the extremist polygamous of today think that theirs is the natural way and monogamous people have some kind of mental problem.
Hell when I was a teen, most of us were pretty monogamous; its not that we all married our first crush, but rather that our teen years were a succession of monogamous relationships of varying lengths, some quite brief, and punctuated with periods of being 'single'.
Many people - both from the religious right and the polygamous circles - don't consider that actual monogamy. The term "serial polygamy" is one I've heard used. It's interesting how all those things rely on very fine details of definitions of words.
That all depends on your theory regarding pre-history human society.
One theory says we lived in closely-knit tribes. In that scenario, it is possible that essentially everyone fooled around with everyone else and the kids were raised as a group effort. It might not even have mattered who the father was.
But if you think pre-history man was not so different from us, then family might have been the unit, not tribe. In that case, sex defines relationship and it becomes very important who sleeps with whom. In addition, if the raising of kids is a project for a couple, then staying together until they're at least a few years old is absolutely necessary for survival.
Yes, shortage of money certainly is one reason.
However, there's a second one I see fairly often, too: With health care and life expectancy being what they are, people not only live longer, they live "well" longer, too. Lots of "old" people (60-70) simply don't feel as if they're "too old". Lots of them also fear being, essentially, unemployed. At that age, a lot of your friends and relatives are already dead, or in retirement homes, or have alzheimer, cancer, whatever. Work is a place of social life, too. And social life is very important for old people, because being lonely is one of their main problems.
From what I see, a lot of "retired" people pick up part-time jobs in something they like, in order to meet people and to continue being an active part of society. Sometimes even in something they don't especially like, because the other two reasons beat that.
Correct. But you can usually test for that much better than for the existence of unusual solar systems. :-)
That's why we have science and peer-review: So people can spot whether the bug is in the theory or in the simulation, analysis, experiment, whatever.
I disagree. Simulation is a good method to check your basics and verify patterns. Like all things, it's a tool that you need to know how to use and what to use it for. Only in very well understood fields do simulations give you good numbers to work with. But even in poorly understood fields, then are a way to check your theories, by letting them "run" and see if the results coincide with the expectations and/or actual observations.
So if, for example, you have a theory about how planets are formed, and put it into a simulation, and your simulation comes up with a result that no matter what you tweak in variables, there are never planets formed like we see them in our solar system, then you know your theory is false because there is at least one case where it did happen.
Likewise, if it shows that systems like ours are formed x% of the time, you can try to match it against observations. For large values of x, you would expect to find a few samples in the observable space around us.
People who know why they should remove the crap know how to do it themselves.
Yes, but once they're out of college, their hour is worth more than $30, so it's still economical to have it done instead of doing it yourself.
I wouldn't sign "praised", but like any "should not happen" event, there are lessons to be learnt here. That doesn't mean you should praise the culprit. A fire, a plane crash, every bad event tells us what we've missed so far and allows us to improve things.
Yeah, someone had to mention the obvious. But the iPhone is really great to develop for. Once you've learnt Objective-C, the whole dev environment is very good, and I've heard that from quite a few people, many professional software developers among them.
Yet, we're formulating our opinions on the war based on that coverage. Hmmm...
As for Chavez, I could care less what becomes of it. He's a piece of shit.
And you're formulating your opinion on Chavez based on what ? ;-)
darn :-/
oops
Because you don't want incentives for sources to create stories (or forgeries).
"funny or not" isn't the right question to ask here.
The right question is: "Why was customer service able to access his plain text password?" - when every book about security tells you to store passwords hashed. They should never even know what his password actually is.
but I am pretty sure a pyramid can be easily unbalanced.
Actually, I think they intend to build this one broad side downwards. :)
Yeah, because someone crashing an A340F full of explosives into central Manhattan would be any less destructive? We've all seen 9/11 and those were smaller planes and no explosives (just jet fuel). Crash your attack plane low into broadway (just try to land on broadway, you'll hit a couple buildings on the way down, no need to aim) and tell me that won't kill a whole lot of people.
A pyramid shape, btw., is a lot more stable and less likely to come tumbling down than a skyscraper.
AFAIGT (as far as I get it) - the idea is that if all notaries show the certificate changed on the same day, it's likely it was a renewal or actual change. If some show a change, or all do but on different dates, then something fishy is going on.
Not true.
Google for "Credence", that's a trust system developed specifically for situations where your "web of trust" can be assumed to be under attack (torrent ratings, we know the music and movie industry employ companies to seed crap and rate it up, while rating down actual releases).
It would be possible to adapt Credence to this situation, or come up with something similar.
No, you're not, and this is a possible attack.
However, technically speaking, even in that case the system works as advertised, because what it says is basically "I got conflicting answers, something is wrong here" - and that's true, even in your case, something is wrong. Finding out what is a whole different beast.
One: See angio/Dave's reply.
Two: Hijacking the website in, or all connections from a datacenter is usually a lot more difficult and expensive than going down to your local cable/DSL/whatever hub and playing maintainance crew, or taking over your WLAN router (or the one in the hotel you're staying in).
Case in point: Not very many banks are robbed anymore the old-fashioned way. But there's a lot more going on with ATM machines than the banks let us know.