"People are unwittingly trusting the information they find on Wikipedia, yet experience has shown it can be wrong, incomplete, biased, or misleading," she said. "Parents and teachers think it is [okay], but it is a light-weight model of knowledge and people don't know about the underlying model of how it operates." And you could "s/Wikipedia/Encyclopedia Brittanica" on that statement and it would still be 100% accurate. Encyclopedias are summaries of available knowledge and nothing more. Wikipedia is just one example of an encyclopedia.
As any first-year college student can tell you, an encyclopedia is not meant to be an authoritative source, nor can it be used a primary source in a properly-written research paper. It is meant to be a starting point for research only. If you quote anything from an encyclopedia in a research paper, then you need to cite two additional primary souces, which must by definition be from scholarly books, journals or other information published from scholarly sources, which very clearly back up that material.
Wikipedia's achilles heal for scholarly research isn't that anyone can edit it (a statement which, in and of itself, is not 100% complete or accurate and deliberately misrepresents what Wikipedia is and is not), it's that it is an encyclopedia and nothing more.
The bottom line is that Microsoft here sounds like a drug addict blaming his problems on everybody else. They are essentially blaming application vendors for their security fuckups. Here's all you, as a logical person, need to know:
1) Who is the purveyor of the most popular development tools for use on Windows? Microsoft. 2) Who is the purveyor of the most popular development training materials for use by budding Windows developers? Microsoft. 3) Who certifies Microsoft Certified Developers? Duh. Microsoft. 4) Who is supposed to be leading their ISVs by example? Microsoft. 5) What's the common denominator here? Microsoft.
Microsoft is responsible for making their platform insecure. They are responsible for training developers to use unnecessary security elevations. And they do it themselves.
If Microsoft, like a drug addict, would just admit that their past and present security failings are their own fault, they would be one step closer to recovery.
(2) Except as provided in s. 316.1001(2), any person cited for an infraction under this section must sign and accept a citation indicating a promise to appear. The officer may indicate on the traffic citation the time and location of the scheduled hearing and must indicate the applicable civil penalty established in s. 318.18.
Since with a traffic camera you aren't given the abilitiy to sign and accept a citation, they can't issue you one. The only exception is 316.1001, which deals with the cameras at the toll booths.
Yep. That's one of things under consideration here in Florida. They want to install traffic cameras at more intersections, but a state law prohibits their use to pass out tickets because, currently, a cop must see you running the red.
The insurance industry and several other groups are opposed to eliminating the state law because they think there will be more rear-end collisions resulting from traffic cameras, precisely because studies done in other cities with traffic cameras actually bear this out. People don't want a ticket, so they slam on their brakes to stop, short yellow or no. OTOH, the studies show that there would be fewer T-bone collisions, which are the most common types of accidents involving intersections and amongst the most lethal.
So, they could always just use the fewer "T-bone" accidents as an excuse, and I think this is, in fact, what many cities have done in order to get the traffic cameras.
Welcome to 1984, citizen. Big Brother is watching you.
Over-the-air television, too, particularly the news organizations. Cable news like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and even cable-company-run outfits like Bay News 9 have replaced the likes of NBC, CBS and ABC in this department.
I don't run OpenBSD, either. But, having followed the project for sometime, I'd say that given how much attention the project pays to security, security is part of their culture.
Personally, I run Ubuntu, which I find to be quite flexible and easy enough for my non-techie wife to use on her machine. And it's good enough in the security department -- a competent sysadmin such as myself can easily secure the OS and network from most attacks. At the same time, a total n00b who does nothing more than keep his security patches up-to-date and who doesn't install anything that's not supported by Canonical will find the system secure enough for home use as well.
Even a RISC processor such as the Power6, not all instructions execute in one clock cycle. Granted, the vast majority do, but I see your point. Of course, if the chip is 5GHz, then 5 billion instructions per second (5,000 MIPS) isn't realistic in the real world because system buses aren't nearly that fast an no amount of caching is going to completely eliminate wasted clock cycles.
I'd be surprised if any from-scratch operating system designed for internet-facing use today, didn't also have 'security as a culture'. Yeah. It's called OpenBSD.
Whether a faster clock speed or more cores will work in for any given application, is, of course, application dependent.
If the work you wish to do can be parallelized -- that is, broken into smaller pieces and then either reassembled when all the pieces are complete or, even, better, no assembly required -- and, more importanlty, your application is written to take advantage of parallelization then you will most certainly benefit from a CPU that can handle simultaneous threads.
OTOH, if your tasks can't be parallelized -- one task depends much on the other, than you should focus more on clock speed and less on simultaneous threads.
The bottom line is that the best CPU for you, as always, depends on what you're doing and how you're doing it. And there's usually more than one way to skin a cat, so... different strokes for different folks as they say.
What's a 'task'? If you think of a 'task' for a CPU to be an instruction, then any modern desktop or notebook CPU currently in production would meet Myerson's description:
In less time than it would take a beam of light to travel from your knuckle to your fingertip, the new IBM chip would complete one task and start looking for the next, he said
C'mon. That's horrible. Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?
Slashdot Mirror
As any first-year college student can tell you, an encyclopedia is not meant to be an authoritative source, nor can it be used a primary source in a properly-written research paper. It is meant to be a starting point for research only. If you quote anything from an encyclopedia in a research paper, then you need to cite two additional primary souces, which must by definition be from scholarly books, journals or other information published from scholarly sources, which very clearly back up that material.
Wikipedia's achilles heal for scholarly research isn't that anyone can edit it (a statement which, in and of itself, is not 100% complete or accurate and deliberately misrepresents what Wikipedia is and is not), it's that it is an encyclopedia and nothing more.
Maybe now they do, but as someone who has taken Microsoft training in the past, that wasn't always the case.
I call bullshit. Also, see this search for more.
Am I the only person who looked at the 'Heliophysics' section and thought that it said "Hellophysics?"
I thought, in a Cartman voice: "Hellophysics? Wow. That's hellacool!"
I'm not your buddy, pal!
The bottom line is that Microsoft here sounds like a drug addict blaming his problems on everybody else. They are essentially blaming application vendors for their security fuckups. Here's all you, as a logical person, need to know:
1) Who is the purveyor of the most popular development tools for use on Windows? Microsoft.
2) Who is the purveyor of the most popular development training materials for use by budding Windows developers? Microsoft.
3) Who certifies Microsoft Certified Developers? Duh. Microsoft.
4) Who is supposed to be leading their ISVs by example? Microsoft.
5) What's the common denominator here? Microsoft.
Microsoft is responsible for making their platform insecure. They are responsible for training developers to use unnecessary security elevations. And they do it themselves.
If Microsoft, like a drug addict, would just admit that their past and present security failings are their own fault, they would be one step closer to recovery.
Yeah, that's why I just made a joke about it. I mean, who cares what other people do?
F.S. Ch 318.14:
Since with a traffic camera you aren't given the abilitiy to sign and accept a citation, they can't issue you one. The only exception is 316.1001, which deals with the cameras at the toll booths.
No. I only floor it through yellow lights. :-D
*ducking*
Maybe his reply wasn't meant to be in paragraphs. Maybe it was 'free verse' poetry. :)
Face-to-face? Is that like when you put your Myspace pic on a page next to someone else's?
I take it you've never lived in Detroit.
Yep. That's one of things under consideration here in Florida. They want to install traffic cameras at more intersections, but a state law prohibits their use to pass out tickets because, currently, a cop must see you running the red.
The insurance industry and several other groups are opposed to eliminating the state law because they think there will be more rear-end collisions resulting from traffic cameras, precisely because studies done in other cities with traffic cameras actually bear this out. People don't want a ticket, so they slam on their brakes to stop, short yellow or no. OTOH, the studies show that there would be fewer T-bone collisions, which are the most common types of accidents involving intersections and amongst the most lethal.
So, they could always just use the fewer "T-bone" accidents as an excuse, and I think this is, in fact, what many cities have done in order to get the traffic cameras.
Welcome to 1984, citizen. Big Brother is watching you.
Over-the-air television, too, particularly the news organizations. Cable news like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and even cable-company-run outfits like Bay News 9 have replaced the likes of NBC, CBS and ABC in this department.
Well, at least they're not scammers like cheaper registrars such as GoDaddy ... oh wait ...
That image is just fscking hilarious.
Now s/AIM guy/Steve Ballmer
Now that would be creepy.
Yes. That thought was pretty scary. Even for you.
Fsck both of those words. I would say that the word is "Karmically".
I don't run OpenBSD, either. But, having followed the project for sometime, I'd say that given how much attention the project pays to security, security is part of their culture.
Personally, I run Ubuntu, which I find to be quite flexible and easy enough for my non-techie wife to use on her machine. And it's good enough in the security department -- a competent sysadmin such as myself can easily secure the OS and network from most attacks. At the same time, a total n00b who does nothing more than keep his security patches up-to-date and who doesn't install anything that's not supported by Canonical will find the system secure enough for home use as well.
An RFID tag can't be used to track something very far from the RFID tag reader, let alone globally.
Even a RISC processor such as the Power6, not all instructions execute in one clock cycle. Granted, the vast majority do, but I see your point. Of course, if the chip is 5GHz, then 5 billion instructions per second (5,000 MIPS) isn't realistic in the real world because system buses aren't nearly that fast an no amount of caching is going to completely eliminate wasted clock cycles.
I think it was a reference to Motorola's 68000 processor, but I'm not sure.
Whether a faster clock speed or more cores will work in for any given application, is, of course, application dependent.
... different strokes for different folks as they say.
If the work you wish to do can be parallelized -- that is, broken into smaller pieces and then either reassembled when all the pieces are complete or, even, better, no assembly required -- and, more importanlty, your application is written to take advantage of parallelization then you will most certainly benefit from a CPU that can handle simultaneous threads.
OTOH, if your tasks can't be parallelized -- one task depends much on the other, than you should focus more on clock speed and less on simultaneous threads.
The bottom line is that the best CPU for you, as always, depends on what you're doing and how you're doing it. And there's usually more than one way to skin a cat, so