...Microsoft will lose before it manages to put out a new and more secure version of IE (assuming that is even possible;-)). I keep hearing from friends who work as IT managers that they are systematically blocking access to IE and installing Firefox on their corporate clients (although that doesn't really shut IE down). IE's getting a really bad rap even in those environments where Microsoft marketing used to have more influence than cold hard facts... and if they don't do something decisive about it rather than releasing ad-hoc patches they're going to have a hell of a time restoring confidence in their product. Then again, they've been able to boounce back before... and it's not like they don't have the money to spend on marketing!
FWIW, I don't think you should be modded down. And actually, I do know English. In fact, lo and behold, I know it well enough that I even happen to be aware of the etymology of the world genocide. Part of its root is the Latin word "genus," and one of the accepted meaning of that word is "the human people" (genus hominum), so the most generic form of "person" that one can come across.
But let's forget that--perhaps it's a bit too complex for someone whose first language is English. Let's instead focus on the fact that genocide is generally recognized as a crime against humanity. This makes my mother driving and committing a crime against humanity particularly funny because it's an exaggeration. Take my word for it, it's a well accepted technique in most languages--it's called "hyperbole". You may want to look that up, too. Just make sure you don't confuse it with "hyperbola"--I wouldn't want you to accuse me of offending the sensibility of mathematicians, too:)
I really think that the language police should step down from their own high horse (that's an expression born in 1782, btw, in case you were wondering whether I was paying attention to my English) and appreciate that humour should be taken at face value, rather than inferring in it all sorts of ulterior motives. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is nothing but bigotry (which might as well be a synonym for trolling).
Yeah. I'm beginning to think that PC may be the perfect solution to paring down the overgrown English dictionary. Give it a few more years and we'll be finally limited down to about 100 words--I guess "joke" will definitely be out.
Sorry, but I gotta disagree with that. A Ferrari with a whole bunch of safety features is still a Ferrari--and you can still slam into the wall if you go too fast. Similarly, a computer is a far more powerful tool than most people are capable of controlling... but they are allowed to anyway;-)
I know you're making a joke, but on a serious note in the Windows world the comment is not too far off-center. In the world of computer-illiterate (not meant in a offending way) end users, security is somewhat connected to usability. A bit like taking a Ferrari and then adding enough features that my mom could drive it in the snow without causing a genocide;-)
Non-Windows people--Linux in particular--reason in completely different terms, which result in overall safer, but far less usable for the layman, software. I prefer the Linux way, too... but not everybody thinks the same way:)
On the other hand, in the unlikely case where a particular potential impact event persists until the orbit is relatively well constrained, the impact probability and associated risk will tend to increase as observations are added. This is not too paradoxical: If an asteroid is indeed going to come very near the Earth then a collision cannot be ruled out early on. The impact probability will tend to grow as the orbit is refined and alternative and safer trajectories are eliminated. Eventually, the impact probability will drop (usually quite abruptly) to zero or, if the asteroid is really on a collision trajectory, it will continue to grow until it reaches 100%.
Without pushing this ad-nauseam and try to apply combinatory math to layman journalist expressions, I'll note simply that, in my opinion, you don't have "42 draws"--at most you have 42 possible outcomes, but even that is incorrect because as far as the ultimate problem goes, there are only two possible outcomes: either the asteroid hits or it doesn't. There could be a 1 in 10000 chance of the asteroid hitting and any one observation could immediately restrict the range of possible solutions for the interpolation of the asteroid's orbit to one: a hit. Again--it's like trying to play roulette by counting numbers: completely useless (and that's why casinos not only let you count at the r. table--they even give you pen and paper).
Any one observation does not necessarily rule out either of the two possible outcomes--and that's why the possibility of impact is cumulative based on all the observations. OTOH, I'd say the the possibility of any particular obervation making a difference is inversely proportional to its position along the timeline: the further away from the potential impact, the less influenece will the observation have on the outcome. You must consider this: an observation made today takes in no consideration the events that the asteroid will experience in the course of the next 30 years. We can calculate its current trajectory down to the meter if you want, but there is the possibility that the asteroid will collide with another body before Earth (perhaps one we don't yet know about), and it is virtually impossible to take into account the gravitational effects of all the bodies that the asteroid encounters, particularly given its relatively small size and our relatively large ignorance of the universe around us.
By contrast, an observation made 10 minutes before the asteroid is about to hit us will have a great impact on the final outcome, because the total number of variables will be much smaller then. (Of course, the 10 minutes are just a ploy to get moderated up to funny, but you get my point, I hope).
My guess is that, with a trajectory that's close enough to Earth's, you would see the probability of impact go up until, at a certain point, it either reaches 100% or drops abruptly to zero because of one decisive observation.
I'm not so sure that I follow you. The impact happening or man being able to predict it are two independent concepts. We can predict that it will happen and still be wrong; likewise, we can predict that it won't happen and be dead wrong (literally). The impact probability is cumulative, but every observation introduces a certain amount of error, some of which can be compensated for (known quantities like the CCD resolution of the telescope that took the measurement), while others can't (human error, poor calibration, the fact that every observation is performed at a different place, time and by different people, and so on). Therefore, the probability that any one observation will change the impact probability either way is unknown--because you don't know how many observations will be made between now and the estimated time of impact and you don't know the final result--a bit like playing roulette with a wheel that has infinite numbers.
Oh right, because they never went after technologies designed for file sharing. I'm sorry, your dickness. I'll go back being a moron and living in the real world then. Let me know when you're back from la la land.
And there are plenty of reasonable uses for systems like bittorrent--for example downloading RPM isos. If they go after the pirates, I couldn't care less--they deserve it. But going after the technology would be like suing car manufacturers because their products are used as getaways in robberies. Pure genius...
Amen. I have this five-year-old Sony with one incredible feature: it almost never drops phone calls. They'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers before I give it up for one of these new toys!
Well, thank god you're here to help us!:)
Fastcgi doesn't solve all problems. Pconnect is not always a good way to connect to a database. Clearly, every set up is different and has different requirements. CGI also has shortcomings that mod_php does not have.
Why blame the PHP group? PHP wasn't designed to run under Ap2. Period. If it runs, great. If it doesn't, either don't use one or the other. The question boils down to whether having Ap2 is more important than having PHP.
Slashdot Mirror
...Microsoft will lose before it manages to put out a new and more secure version of IE (assuming that is even possible ;-)). I keep hearing from friends who work as IT managers that they are systematically blocking access to IE and installing Firefox on their corporate clients (although that doesn't really shut IE down). IE's getting a really bad rap even in those environments where Microsoft marketing used to have more influence than cold hard facts... and if they don't do something decisive about it rather than releasing ad-hoc patches they're going to have a hell of a time restoring confidence in their product. Then again, they've been able to boounce back before... and it's not like they don't have the money to spend on marketing!
But let's forget that--perhaps it's a bit too complex for someone whose first language is English. Let's instead focus on the fact that genocide is generally recognized as a crime against humanity. This makes my mother driving and committing a crime against humanity particularly funny because it's an exaggeration. Take my word for it, it's a well accepted technique in most languages--it's called "hyperbole". You may want to look that up, too. Just make sure you don't confuse it with "hyperbola"--I wouldn't want you to accuse me of offending the sensibility of mathematicians, too :)
I really think that the language police should step down from their own high horse (that's an expression born in 1782, btw, in case you were wondering whether I was paying attention to my English) and appreciate that humour should be taken at face value, rather than inferring in it all sorts of ulterior motives. To do otherwise, in my opinion, is nothing but bigotry (which might as well be a synonym for trolling).
Yeah. I'm beginning to think that PC may be the perfect solution to paring down the overgrown English dictionary. Give it a few more years and we'll be finally limited down to about 100 words--I guess "joke" will definitely be out.
Sorry, but I gotta disagree with that. A Ferrari with a whole bunch of safety features is still a Ferrari--and you can still slam into the wall if you go too fast. Similarly, a computer is a far more powerful tool than most people are capable of controlling... but they are allowed to anyway ;-)
I know you're making a joke, but on a serious note in the Windows world the comment is not too far off-center. In the world of computer-illiterate (not meant in a offending way) end users, security is somewhat connected to usability. A bit like taking a Ferrari and then adding enough features that my mom could drive it in the snow without causing a genocide ;-)
Non-Windows people--Linux in particular--reason in completely different terms, which result in overall safer, but far less usable for the layman, software. I prefer the Linux way, too... but not everybody thinks the same way :)
On the other hand, in the unlikely case where a particular potential impact event persists until the orbit is relatively well constrained, the impact probability and associated risk will tend to increase as observations are added. This is not too paradoxical: If an asteroid is indeed going to come very near the Earth then a collision cannot be ruled out early on. The impact probability will tend to grow as the orbit is refined and alternative and safer trajectories are eliminated. Eventually, the impact probability will drop (usually quite abruptly) to zero or, if the asteroid is really on a collision trajectory, it will continue to grow until it reaches 100%.
Without pushing this ad-nauseam and try to apply combinatory math to layman journalist expressions, I'll note simply that, in my opinion, you don't have "42 draws"--at most you have 42 possible outcomes, but even that is incorrect because as far as the ultimate problem goes, there are only two possible outcomes: either the asteroid hits or it doesn't. There could be a 1 in 10000 chance of the asteroid hitting and any one observation could immediately restrict the range of possible solutions for the interpolation of the asteroid's orbit to one: a hit. Again--it's like trying to play roulette by counting numbers: completely useless (and that's why casinos not only let you count at the r. table--they even give you pen and paper).
Any one observation does not necessarily rule out either of the two possible outcomes--and that's why the possibility of impact is cumulative based on all the observations. OTOH, I'd say the the possibility of any particular obervation making a difference is inversely proportional to its position along the timeline: the further away from the potential impact, the less influenece will the observation have on the outcome. You must consider this: an observation made today takes in no consideration the events that the asteroid will experience in the course of the next 30 years. We can calculate its current trajectory down to the meter if you want, but there is the possibility that the asteroid will collide with another body before Earth (perhaps one we don't yet know about), and it is virtually impossible to take into account the gravitational effects of all the bodies that the asteroid encounters, particularly given its relatively small size and our relatively large ignorance of the universe around us.
By contrast, an observation made 10 minutes before the asteroid is about to hit us will have a great impact on the final outcome, because the total number of variables will be much smaller then. (Of course, the 10 minutes are just a ploy to get moderated up to funny, but you get my point, I hope).
My guess is that, with a trajectory that's close enough to Earth's, you would see the probability of impact go up until, at a certain point, it either reaches 100% or drops abruptly to zero because of one decisive observation.
I'm not so sure that I follow you. The impact happening or man being able to predict it are two independent concepts. We can predict that it will happen and still be wrong; likewise, we can predict that it won't happen and be dead wrong (literally). The impact probability is cumulative, but every observation introduces a certain amount of error, some of which can be compensated for (known quantities like the CCD resolution of the telescope that took the measurement), while others can't (human error, poor calibration, the fact that every observation is performed at a different place, time and by different people, and so on). Therefore, the probability that any one observation will change the impact probability either way is unknown--because you don't know how many observations will be made between now and the estimated time of impact and you don't know the final result--a bit like playing roulette with a wheel that has infinite numbers.
Oh right, because they never went after technologies designed for file sharing. I'm sorry, your dickness. I'll go back being a moron and living in the real world then. Let me know when you're back from la la land.
And there are plenty of reasonable uses for systems like bittorrent--for example downloading RPM isos. If they go after the pirates, I couldn't care less--they deserve it. But going after the technology would be like suing car manufacturers because their products are used as getaways in robberies. Pure genius...
Amen. I have this five-year-old Sony with one incredible feature: it almost never drops phone calls. They'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers before I give it up for one of these new toys!
Well, thank god you're here to help us! :)
Fastcgi doesn't solve all problems. Pconnect is not always a good way to connect to a database. Clearly, every set up is different and has different requirements. CGI also has shortcomings that mod_php does not have.
Why blame the PHP group? PHP wasn't designed to run under Ap2. Period. If it runs, great. If it doesn't, either don't use one or the other. The question boils down to whether having Ap2 is more important than having PHP.