Well if you run a real OS, then the browser runs only with the permissions of a particular user.
... Which is enough, in ANY OS that doesn't do sandboxing, to do things like run a simple spyware program, connect to the internet, send mail, delete your home/My Documents directory, etc. The prevalence of viruses and worms on windows has nothing to do with the fact that most users are "Administrator," and the lack thereof on unix/mac has nothing to do with the fact that most users aren't. You're confusing one windows issue with another.
Simple: because it shows the anonymous masses got it wrong, which undermines the very foundation of Wikipedia.
The "very foundation of Wikipedia" is not that the "anonymous masses" will get everything 100% correct. Claiming that this is the case is a pretty disingenuous strawman. I see you got 5 insightful points out of it, too, which points to a growing, somewhat confusing, anti-wikipedia fever on Slashdot.
If nothing else, what does it say for the accuracy of the vast majority of Wikipedia biographies about people who *don't* closely monitor their own entries?
This has nothing to do with biographies, but rather is about all articles on wikipedia: There are going to be some mistakes. Don't use an encyclopedia as a primary source. Nothing new here, please move along.
While I do think that the breadth of Pokemon information on Wikipedia is a bit silly, it still refers to fictional characters that are present in actual works of fiction that actually exist. ELOTH:TES, on the other hand, isn't even a real work of fiction. Its content is made up by the PA guys and their fans as they go. It's definitely not something for Wikipedia.
And ln also has a very concrete definition -- in fact there are several ways to do it. One way: Define ln(x) (for x>1) to be the area of the region under the graph of 1/x from 1 to x. For 0
Yes, ln(x) can be defined as the area under the graph of 1/x from 1 to x. But "area under the graph" is just a definite integral -- your equation is still not in closed form!
I think your problem is that you're confusing "closed form" and "concrete definition." I'm no super-math-man, but "closed form" is more along the lines of "can be exactly represented with a finite formula using only certain operations (addition, division, multiplication, radicals, etc)" -- note that "measurement" is definitely not included.
(Of course, practically, one allows well-known-functions and constants such as sin(x) or pi to be part of "closed form" equations, even though those functions don't have closed-form representations themselves, which was the OP's point.)
"the Internet's core systems", "control of the internet", "the internet's core infrastructure"
What the hell, people? What's so hard about saying "the DNS root zone file" anyway? I thought this was slashdot, not channel n morning news. All the above descriptions are horribly misleading anyway (the infrastructure of the internet is distributed among and controlled by many disparate owners, public and private alike).
especially considering the club down the street is cat piss free?
But there aren't any cat piss free bars. Or at least, they're exceedingly rare. The cat-piss enthusiasts are numerous enough that any one bar deciding to ban it would immediately lose enough business to go out of business. So, against their best judgement and the opinions of their non-cat-pissing patrons (who are probably in the majority), they keep allowing cat-pissing in their establishments.
Of course, the cat pissers get up in arms when people start talking about banning cat pissing in bars, saying "people can just not come in if they don't like it!"
Unfortunate situation, overall.
It's also a workplace safety issue
on
Safe Cigarettes?
·
· Score: 1
Everyone in this discussion seems to be missing one of the biggest reasons that smoking bans have been successful -- it's a workplace safety issue.
Stop thinking of the "selfish masses" who don't like the smell of smoke on their clothes (though the asthmatic who can never go to bars or restaurants due to small amounts of smoke triggering an attack may have a point...) -- and start thinking about the bartenders and other staff working those places day in and day out.
Suddenly the research that shows consistent exposure to 2nd-hand smoke being harmful is applicable, isn't it?
Here in the US we have plenty of regulations regarding workplace safety. Indoor smoking bans are a logical part of this, once you look at it in the correct light.
(Banning smoking outside is a more difficult stance to argue for)
how was it that the authority to go to war went 99 to nothing in the senate?
Because the bill authorized violence as a last resort after all diplomatic channels had been exhausted.
But George didn't exhause the diplomatic channels. He didn't even allow the friggen inspections to complete. He abused the power that the bill gave him.
The few people I've ever know anyone dumb enough to be swayed by a last minute campaign nasty-ad are also the people who don't trouble themselves to go vote anyway.
Perhaps, but I bet that in 2004 you knew several people who wouldn't vote for Kerry because he was a "flip-flopper" -- a term that was essentially the kernel of the GOP campaign strategy (hell, they even had a flash animation on their official campaign site called the "flip flop olympics"!!!)
$1,000/piece reference monitors in the studio that the musicians mastered from...are usually $1,000/piece because they're flat and nondistorting, not because they're bassy. Most hi-fi stereos have more bass than most studio monitors even without the mega-bass.
However, most smart engineers account for this by also listening to the mixes on hi-fi systems and with subwoofers
So, does the mega-bass button give you more bass than the musician intended? MAYBE.
If they succeed in showing that the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection doesn't have the power to generate the complex information found in living things, then the search will be on for a mechanism that can do this.
No, the search won't "be on." They already have their answer, and it's right in the name of the freaking theory -- it was an Intelligence that did the Designing. No "mechanism," no investigation into what created the Intelligence or what it is. That's the answer they've presupposed and that's the only place that ID theory is willing to go.
Investigating whether information theory is compatible with the current state of evolutionary theory is a valid one, but the IDers aren't doing that. They're just trying to find some magical weak point that will cause all of evolution and secular science to fall apart and stop bothering them.
I'd be willing to bet that they're are some real scientists looking into the information theory aspect of genetic evolution right now -- and they probably think that ID is hogwash, as well.
The problem here is that the big MMORPGs can't decide if they want to be roleplaying experiences, or mass-marketable ones. Not saying that these are necessarily mutually-exclusive propositions, but the focus is certainly different in each area. And this duality leads to exactly these kinds of inconsistent and frustrating rule sets.
In a roleplaying game, your character is not you, but is a part of the world. You are playing with the goal of having your character act as they really would (along with exploration, accomplishment, etc -- obviously role-players still want their characters to succeed.)
In a mass-marketed experience, however, you are the character, and you are playing with the goal of winning the game (along with socializing, exploring, and whatever else).
Obviously this is a very simplified and polarized way of looking at it, but my point is this: In a roleplaying experience, it makes sense that your character is not named the same as you. Their name should be consistent with the world. However, in a mass-marketed experience, your character should be identifiable directly as you.
I think a good solution would be for each account in the game have one name -- your individual recognizable "handle." But then have your character have a different name. In OOC chat, you use your handle. In IC interactions, you use your character's name. Other players can quickly see the true "handle" behind any given in-game character they run across. You could have several characters under one account with different names, but all the same "handle." Are there any games that implement a system like this?
Point 1. yes, there are assholes and personal clashes on wikipedia. And it seems like you an tverbeek have some issues to work out. Generally, however, if you are patient and considerate to those on the wiki with you, you will get more people on your side than the asshole, and they will lose out. I've seen it happen numerous times. I've also seen two assholes going at it indefinitely, ruining it for the rest of us. One usually ends up quitting, and things are back to normal.
Point 2. you must be trolling. The whole "my article! Don't edit it" problem is almost exclusively reserved for newbies who haven't figured out the wiki concept yet.
Whats truly scary is the number of people defending the use of the Wikipedia as a de facto source of information.
Where are all these people? In any conversation about wikipedia the grand majority of the comments are either: 1) wikipedia is useless!, or: 2) wikipedia is a good starting point for research but make sure to follow up!, or: 3) wikipedia is a good collaborative effort that's not finished yet!
These crazy wikipedia zealots that you're afraid of seem to be much exaggerated in your mind.
You propose students do up to date research using static versions of source material?
One of the guidelines of wikipedia is that it does not allow any original research. This means that any fact on wikipedia should be backed up elsewhere -- ie, in a "static version of source material." This teacher simply wants the students to find those primary sources and use them, instead of the possibly mangled, and constantly changing (not to mention often completely unsourced) summary appearing on wikipedia.
Note that all encyclopedias are disallowed for the same reason.
Wiki might be a good reference, but it's not magically exempt from the rules of good research.
Maybe someday there're be a Wikipedia 2.0 that harnesses all that effort but offers better crap filters.
Wikipedia 1.0 hasn't come out yet. In fact, "1.0" is a vague plan for a milestone in which the best articles are selected out and put through a rigorous editorial process, producing a quality encyclopedia.
So I think you mean to say "maybe someday there'll be a wikipedia 1.0"
It seems to me that Apple shouldn't even need to prove prior art to kill this patent where it stands -- the defense that the invention is obvious, and therefore unpatentable, should be all they need.
Are there any lawyers in the audience who know exactly how the "obviousness" requirement is treated in courts of law these days?
(that shows me for posting right after going jogging... damn shaky hands)
Except you've just described what's wrong with how most people treat./'s moderation system. You aren't supposed to mod up what you agree with and mod down what you don't. This is not a democratic election of ideas!
You're supposed to mod up what contributes to a good discussion, and mod down what doesn't. Any favoratism shown toward ideas that reflect the "majority opinion" is rightly labeled as bias.
Except you've just described what's wrong with how most peopl treat./'s moderation system. You aren't supposed to mod up what you agree with and mod down what you don't. This is a democratic election of ideas!
You're supposed to mod up what contributes to a good discussion, and mod down what doesn't. Any favoratism shown toward ideas that reflect the "majority opinion" is rightly labeled as bias.
If you can PROVE Global Warning beyond a doubt just as the laws of physics are, then do so, otherwise shut up about it.
The laws of physics aren't proven beyond a doubt. In fact, quantum physics and general relativity outright contradict each other -- does this mean that all physicists should just "shut up about it"?
When we have a planet that is 4 BILLION years old and we have a record of perhaps 1-5 Million years, that is NOT significant.
Global warming is a short-term phenomenon, on the order of centuries or even decades. The life of the planet is an irrelevent time scale.
Also look at this chart: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/land_o_ C.all You'll see that the raw data and you can see there is very little to indicate a warming. The data goes up and down, with overall a tiny positive trend but not significant.
a) Do you even know how much change per decade is considered "significant"? (clue: obviously not, given the quote you used just before this)
b) I look at that chart, and the numbers are overwhelmingly positive since 1979
atmospheric CO2 levels do not fit changes in the CET [Central England Temperature] at all well
So what? Global warming is defined as the change in the global average temperature. CET is irrelevant. Some places in the world are actually cooling currently, but that doesn't change the fact that the world, on average, is warming.
And the amount that the world's climate is changing coincides very closely with our current models of CO2's effect on the atmosphere (along with all other climate forcings such as sunspots and volcano eruptions).
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you run a real OS, then the browser runs only with the permissions of a particular user.
... Which is enough, in ANY OS that doesn't do sandboxing, to do things like run a simple spyware program, connect to the internet, send mail, delete your home/My Documents directory, etc. The prevalence of viruses and worms on windows has nothing to do with the fact that most users are "Administrator," and the lack thereof on unix/mac has nothing to do with the fact that most users aren't. You're confusing one windows issue with another.
MSFT doesn't care about security.
Kanye West? Is that you?
its time to deliver
Why? It's free. Wikipedia doesn't owe anyone anything.
Simple: because it shows the anonymous masses got it wrong, which undermines the very foundation of Wikipedia.
The "very foundation of Wikipedia" is not that the "anonymous masses" will get everything 100% correct. Claiming that this is the case is a pretty disingenuous strawman. I see you got 5 insightful points out of it, too, which points to a growing, somewhat confusing, anti-wikipedia fever on Slashdot.
If nothing else, what does it say for the accuracy of the vast majority of Wikipedia biographies about people who *don't* closely monitor their own entries?
This has nothing to do with biographies, but rather is about all articles on wikipedia: There are going to be some mistakes. Don't use an encyclopedia as a primary source. Nothing new here, please move along.
While I do think that the breadth of Pokemon information on Wikipedia is a bit silly, it still refers to fictional characters that are present in actual works of fiction that actually exist. ELOTH:TES, on the other hand, isn't even a real work of fiction. Its content is made up by the PA guys and their fans as they go. It's definitely not something for Wikipedia.
Actually, since it's ridiculous to claim that saying someone assassinated JFK could lead to monetary damages, wouldn't it be "neither"?
But isn't its horrible RAW-import quality just a bit troublesome? That seems like the fatal flaw as a "RAW workflow tool" to me.
And ln also has a very concrete definition -- in fact there are several ways to do it. One way: Define ln(x) (for x>1) to be the area of the region under the graph of 1/x from 1 to x. For 0
Yes, ln(x) can be defined as the area under the graph of 1/x from 1 to x. But "area under the graph" is just a definite integral -- your equation is still not in closed form!
I think your problem is that you're confusing "closed form" and "concrete definition." I'm no super-math-man, but "closed form" is more along the lines of "can be exactly represented with a finite formula using only certain operations (addition, division, multiplication, radicals, etc)" -- note that "measurement" is definitely not included.
(Of course, practically, one allows well-known-functions and constants such as sin(x) or pi to be part of "closed form" equations, even though those functions don't have closed-form representations themselves, which was the OP's point.)
"the Internet's core systems", "control of the internet", "the internet's core infrastructure"
What the hell, people? What's so hard about saying "the DNS root zone file" anyway? I thought this was slashdot, not channel n morning news. All the above descriptions are horribly misleading anyway (the infrastructure of the internet is distributed among and controlled by many disparate owners, public and private alike).
But isn't ATM used widely in telecommunications networks?
Also: why is a packet size not being power-of-2 (or being prime) such a bad thing, beyond just "computers like powers of 2!"?
especially considering the club down the street is cat piss free?
But there aren't any cat piss free bars. Or at least, they're exceedingly rare. The cat-piss enthusiasts are numerous enough that any one bar deciding to ban it would immediately lose enough business to go out of business. So, against their best judgement and the opinions of their non-cat-pissing patrons (who are probably in the majority), they keep allowing cat-pissing in their establishments.
Of course, the cat pissers get up in arms when people start talking about banning cat pissing in bars, saying "people can just not come in if they don't like it!"
Unfortunate situation, overall.
Everyone in this discussion seems to be missing one of the biggest reasons that smoking bans have been successful -- it's a workplace safety issue.
Stop thinking of the "selfish masses" who don't like the smell of smoke on their clothes (though the asthmatic who can never go to bars or restaurants due to small amounts of smoke triggering an attack may have a point...) -- and start thinking about the bartenders and other staff working those places day in and day out.
Suddenly the research that shows consistent exposure to 2nd-hand smoke being harmful is applicable, isn't it?
Here in the US we have plenty of regulations regarding workplace safety. Indoor smoking bans are a logical part of this, once you look at it in the correct light.
(Banning smoking outside is a more difficult stance to argue for)
how was it that the authority to go to war went 99 to nothing in the senate?
Because the bill authorized violence as a last resort after all diplomatic channels had been exhausted.
But George didn't exhause the diplomatic channels. He didn't even allow the friggen inspections to complete. He abused the power that the bill gave him.
I would be pissed, too.
The few people I've ever know anyone dumb enough to be swayed by a last minute campaign nasty-ad are also the people who don't trouble themselves to go vote anyway.
Perhaps, but I bet that in 2004 you knew several people who wouldn't vote for Kerry because he was a "flip-flopper" -- a term that was essentially the kernel of the GOP campaign strategy (hell, they even had a flash animation on their official campaign site called the "flip flop olympics"!!!)
$1,000/piece reference monitors in the studio that the musicians mastered from ...are usually $1,000/piece because they're flat and nondistorting, not because they're bassy. Most hi-fi stereos have more bass than most studio monitors even without the mega-bass.
However, most smart engineers account for this by also listening to the mixes on hi-fi systems and with subwoofers
So, does the mega-bass button give you more bass than the musician intended? MAYBE.
If they succeed in showing that the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection doesn't have the power to generate the complex information found in living things, then the search will be on for a mechanism that can do this.
No, the search won't "be on." They already have their answer, and it's right in the name of the freaking theory -- it was an Intelligence that did the Designing. No "mechanism," no investigation into what created the Intelligence or what it is. That's the answer they've presupposed and that's the only place that ID theory is willing to go.
Investigating whether information theory is compatible with the current state of evolutionary theory is a valid one, but the IDers aren't doing that. They're just trying to find some magical weak point that will cause all of evolution and secular science to fall apart and stop bothering them.
I'd be willing to bet that they're are some real scientists looking into the information theory aspect of genetic evolution right now -- and they probably think that ID is hogwash, as well.
The problem here is that the big MMORPGs can't decide if they want to be roleplaying experiences, or mass-marketable ones. Not saying that these are necessarily mutually-exclusive propositions, but the focus is certainly different in each area. And this duality leads to exactly these kinds of inconsistent and frustrating rule sets.
In a roleplaying game, your character is not you, but is a part of the world. You are playing with the goal of having your character act as they really would (along with exploration, accomplishment, etc -- obviously role-players still want their characters to succeed.)
In a mass-marketed experience, however, you are the character, and you are playing with the goal of winning the game (along with socializing, exploring, and whatever else).
Obviously this is a very simplified and polarized way of looking at it, but my point is this: In a roleplaying experience, it makes sense that your character is not named the same as you. Their name should be consistent with the world. However, in a mass-marketed experience, your character should be identifiable directly as you.
I think a good solution would be for each account in the game have one name -- your individual recognizable "handle." But then have your character have a different name. In OOC chat, you use your handle. In IC interactions, you use your character's name. Other players can quickly see the true "handle" behind any given in-game character they run across. You could have several characters under one account with different names, but all the same "handle." Are there any games that implement a system like this?
Point 1. yes, there are assholes and personal clashes on wikipedia. And it seems like you an tverbeek have some issues to work out. Generally, however, if you are patient and considerate to those on the wiki with you, you will get more people on your side than the asshole, and they will lose out. I've seen it happen numerous times. I've also seen two assholes going at it indefinitely, ruining it for the rest of us. One usually ends up quitting, and things are back to normal.
Point 2. you must be trolling. The whole "my article! Don't edit it" problem is almost exclusively reserved for newbies who haven't figured out the wiki concept yet.
Point 3. see point 1
Whats truly scary is the number of people defending the use of the Wikipedia as a de facto source of information.
Where are all these people? In any conversation about wikipedia the grand majority of the comments are either:
1) wikipedia is useless!, or:
2) wikipedia is a good starting point for research but make sure to follow up!, or:
3) wikipedia is a good collaborative effort that's not finished yet!
These crazy wikipedia zealots that you're afraid of seem to be much exaggerated in your mind.
I'm seriously at a loss here.
Yes, you seem to be.
You propose students do up to date research using static versions of source material?
One of the guidelines of wikipedia is that it does not allow any original research. This means that any fact on wikipedia should be backed up elsewhere -- ie, in a "static version of source material." This teacher simply wants the students to find those primary sources and use them, instead of the possibly mangled, and constantly changing (not to mention often completely unsourced) summary appearing on wikipedia.
Note that all encyclopedias are disallowed for the same reason.
Wiki might be a good reference, but it's not magically exempt from the rules of good research.
Maybe someday there're be a Wikipedia 2.0 that harnesses all that effort but offers better crap filters.
Wikipedia 1.0 hasn't come out yet. In fact, "1.0" is a vague plan for a milestone in which the best articles are selected out and put through a rigorous editorial process, producing a quality encyclopedia.
So I think you mean to say "maybe someday there'll be a wikipedia 1.0"
It seems to me that Apple shouldn't even need to prove prior art to kill this patent where it stands -- the defense that the invention is obvious, and therefore unpatentable, should be all they need.
Are there any lawyers in the audience who know exactly how the "obviousness" requirement is treated in courts of law these days?
Oh, I see. So you believe that the climate of the earth has permanently stabilized and will never change ever again?
(that shows me for posting right after going jogging... damn shaky hands)
./'s moderation system. You aren't supposed to mod up what you agree with and mod down what you don't. This is not a democratic election of ideas!
Except you've just described what's wrong with how most people treat
You're supposed to mod up what contributes to a good discussion, and mod down what doesn't. Any favoratism shown toward ideas that reflect the "majority opinion" is rightly labeled as bias.
Except you've just described what's wrong with how most peopl treat ./'s moderation system. You aren't supposed to mod up what you agree with and mod down what you don't. This is a democratic election of ideas!
You're supposed to mod up what contributes to a good discussion, and mod down what doesn't. Any favoratism shown toward ideas that reflect the "majority opinion" is rightly labeled as bias.
Please tell me this is a troll.
_ C.all You'll see that the raw data and you can see there is very little to indicate a warming. The data goes up and down, with overall a tiny positive trend but not significant.
If you can PROVE Global Warning beyond a doubt just as the laws of physics are, then do so, otherwise shut up about it.
The laws of physics aren't proven beyond a doubt. In fact, quantum physics and general relativity outright contradict each other -- does this mean that all physicists should just "shut up about it"?
When we have a planet that is 4 BILLION years old and we have a record of perhaps 1-5 Million years, that is NOT significant.
Global warming is a short-term phenomenon, on the order of centuries or even decades. The life of the planet is an irrelevent time scale.
Also look at this chart: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/land_o
a) Do you even know how much change per decade is considered "significant"? (clue: obviously not, given the quote you used just before this)
b) I look at that chart, and the numbers are overwhelmingly positive since 1979
atmospheric CO2 levels do not fit changes in the CET [Central England Temperature] at all well
So what? Global warming is defined as the change in the global average temperature. CET is irrelevant. Some places in the world are actually cooling currently, but that doesn't change the fact that the world, on average, is warming.
And the amount that the world's climate is changing coincides very closely with our current models of CO2's effect on the atmosphere (along with all other climate forcings such as sunspots and volcano eruptions).