The problem I have with this (and a lot of other people) is that standards isn't the default behavior. I personally would prefer IE8 to be standards first, with a button hidden down the bottom that can change the rendering mode.
Example:
- I view website1, which is standards compliant. It works
- I visit website2, which was hacked to work in IE6. It doesn't look right. IE8 recognizes certain elements of the HTML code (such as overuse of tables or 1x1 pixel images) and a balloon pops up "If this website doesn't look right, please click here to try another rendering option" (of course, a more user-friendly message would appear). I click the button, it switches to IE6 mode and the website works. The website is added to a list and in future always displays in IE6 mode.
- I visit website3, which contains poorly built HTML. IE8 recognizes this and the same balloon pops up.
It is win-win. IE looks all smart by being able to display anything (which would be great advertising) and they actually FIX the problem by encouraging future websites to follow standards, which benefits everyone. If IE8 comes out and still defaults to IE6-first-mode, then it can be seen as being obvious that they are really pushing their own agenda here.
Implementing something like this, you need to understand why it needs to be implemented.
Most of what you want can be implemented by encrypting/decrypting on the fly as files are opened by signed in users. That is how most programs work. If that won't work for you then you need to organize how the program/files will be accessed in order to establish what control is needed.
In a perfect world, you also need to factor in the costs of the police to track down and arrest the person, the prosecutor to convict the person and the prison to hold the person in the case they don't pay their fine. Complete justice would involve the cost to society being 0, not the criminal.
Over-fining is much better then working this out. Especially if you don't know the correct percentage that the person will be caught.
An excellent comment. Wish I had mod points to give.
The only real technical hurdle that I can think of that would work would be to block access to MySpace at the entry point of broadband into the house. Naturally, this doesn't stop kids accessing it from their friend's house or from school, work (if they have a casual office job) or anywhere else, but it would stop it happening so much at home.
The much better idea would be monitor, not stop the usage of internet sites. Either tell the kid or do it silently, but monitor so that you can be better informed if there is a problem.
The problem is generally found in introverts. Extroverts have a very difficult time understanding that introverts are not social outcasts or anything worrying like that, it is just that introverts get tired having to socialize. This means that some take the easiest way out of a conversation they can, by just being blunt etc.
This book is great because it gives simple guidelines to follow to at least let these types of people do what comes unnaturally to them. Unfortunately, a lot of business decisions are based on areas that extroverts are more natural at and so introverts often need help to overcome this initial obstacle.
As a sideline, I also have a theory that it is majorly extroverts that call humans "social creatures", while introverts are less likely to use that phrase, preferring "intelligent creature" or something similar (note: I am absolutely not implying that introverts are smarter).
On the seatbelts: I believe the fee is $AU160 and a loss of 1 to 3 points from your drivers license (you have 12 points, lose them and lose your license for a period of time).
On the emergency wards: I don't see how forcing an emergency ward to treat people regardless of being able to pay is a bad thing. Having that rule allows treatment if the person is unable to read/speak/comprehend anything required to give staff knowledge of their situation. I would imagine that it help people to not die waiting for forms to be cleared in the waiting room.
On compulsary voting: I've never understood why we (Australians), must vote. I've always been of the opinion "no vote is better then a mis-informed vote" and if someone doesn't want to vote, then I wouldn't imagine that they would look too deeply to pick the right candidate for them. One of my friend votes on the "funniest last name" principle, simply because she is forced to vote.
Re:The best tools stay out of the way...
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 1
The best way around this would be to design a base interface, then run the user through a few quick questions at the start to determine what alterations would be the most beneficial to them. Then let the user adjust the changes themselves for any tweaking.
The main problem with traditional AI research has been an overstating of the possibilities. Natural language processing isn't as far off as most people think it is, but when it hits, people are going to criticize it by saying "why doesn't it understand me when I say 'lol, r u 4 reals?'?".
Most AI talk is marketing hype, but the main idea to keep in mind when discussing AI is, as one of my lecturers said "AI, after it has been developed, is no longer AI". Think the minimax algorithm, when it was first used in chess, it was groundbreaking AI. Now it is considered a boring and obvious mathematical process.
Another problem is that most scenarios people think "need" AI can be solved using standard processes. I don't need an agent to "(an ISA) making sure you don't get fast food restaurant references when you need a poet's name" (from TFA), I just type in "Poet" as another search query.
I am a little biased, as I plan to move into smart computing after Uni, but there is a lot of good people doing good research into AI. It is a pity that most only see the marketing fluff and past overestimates by a few vocal researchers, rather then the good work being done by most in the field.
The big deal with Vista, yes it's not that bad, but even in its best possible light, its a minor improvement on XP. In its worst light, it is actually worse then the product that was released before it.
Put simply, it is not worth the cost of upgrading for all of the new features.
I have found a great use for it though. I have officially taken the stance that I will "never buy Vista" and will also "not support Vista", which frees me from the usual role of having to do tech support for anyone that knows I am in IT. I will happily support a Linux distro and most XP problems have solutions on the net by now, so my "personal favours" workload has reduced dramatically.
I believe the parents were referring mainly to hard drive usage for the swap. If the swap were a static size and never changed, then the whole thing can be placed in one large block in the hard drive. This speeds up performance when accessing. With a variable size (like Windows has), it places it anywhere it can fit it in the hard drive. If the entire lot doesn't fit in this spot, it puts as much as it can there and then puts the rest somewhere else. This means to access the entire swap file, the hard drive needs to access several parts of the hard drive (find the first part, read, find the next part, travel there, read, etc). In Linux, you set a swap partition so that all of it is in the one spot.
I could be wrong, as I am not an expert on this, but I believe that is how it all works.
When you sold the software, your company should of sold a service agreement. This should indicate how long you have to fix bugs (depending on the nature of them) including lots of other stuff.
If they have asked for a fix in less then that time, you can try, but your customer should be made aware that if they want the fix faster, they should be paying for the priviledge.
If other people in your company are telling the customer something different, then you need to speak with your manager. The entire company should be giving the customer the same message. If that message requires you to have bug fixes out within a short amount of time, you need to inform your manager that you need extra resources (people, machines) to be able to do that. Obviously you can't get a fix out as soon as you hear about a bug, but any small bug should be fixable within a day or two, provided you have the resources to find the bug, determine the cause, implement a fix and test it within that timeframe. If you don't have the resources, your company shouldn't be selling the product (whether that is at the time the customer is buying the product or when support is answering a call) in a way that gives the customer the impression this is possible.
I don't know what your work load is, but it sounds like you don't have the resources to do this. Either get the resources or ask management to give their customers relistic expectations. I know its one of those "harder then it sounds" things, but either the company will get a bad name because they can't fix bugs, or the company will have a high staff turnover (and ultimately a bad name).
Are you American? The reason I ask is that when they rolled out chat, I couldn't access it for a long time. I changed my location to USA and there it was. They might be doing the same thing here (USA only first, others later)
I believe the last story we had on MS FUD came back to "Balmer said it in the UK, so it can't be a US crime".
I'd imagine that MS are doing just enough to stay out of that country. If Linux didn't have the support of IBM then I'd imagine it would be a different story. They would then just say what they like on the assumption that the Linux userbase couldn't mount a significant challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
Knowing where something came from allows more insight into where it is going...
33% of 100,000 attempts per day is 33,000 posts per day. The idea of Captchas is to reduce this to nearly 0 successful hits per day.
I originally read the title as "Scientologists Build Possibly The First Man-Made Genome"...
But do they run linux?
My bad, must of missed that comment.
The problem I have with this (and a lot of other people) is that standards isn't the default behavior. I personally would prefer IE8 to be standards first, with a button hidden down the bottom that can change the rendering mode.
Example:
- I view website1, which is standards compliant. It works
- I visit website2, which was hacked to work in IE6. It doesn't look right. IE8 recognizes certain elements of the HTML code (such as overuse of tables or 1x1 pixel images) and a balloon pops up "If this website doesn't look right, please click here to try another rendering option" (of course, a more user-friendly message would appear). I click the button, it switches to IE6 mode and the website works. The website is added to a list and in future always displays in IE6 mode.
- I visit website3, which contains poorly built HTML. IE8 recognizes this and the same balloon pops up.
It is win-win. IE looks all smart by being able to display anything (which would be great advertising) and they actually FIX the problem by encouraging future websites to follow standards, which benefits everyone. If IE8 comes out and still defaults to IE6-first-mode, then it can be seen as being obvious that they are really pushing their own agenda here.
Implementing something like this, you need to understand why it needs to be implemented.
Most of what you want can be implemented by encrypting/decrypting on the fly as files are opened by signed in users. That is how most programs work. If that won't work for you then you need to organize how the program/files will be accessed in order to establish what control is needed.
In a perfect world, you also need to factor in the costs of the police to track down and arrest the person, the prosecutor to convict the person and the prison to hold the person in the case they don't pay their fine. Complete justice would involve the cost to society being 0, not the criminal.
Over-fining is much better then working this out. Especially if you don't know the correct percentage that the person will be caught.
An excellent comment. Wish I had mod points to give.
The only real technical hurdle that I can think of that would work would be to block access to MySpace at the entry point of broadband into the house. Naturally, this doesn't stop kids accessing it from their friend's house or from school, work (if they have a casual office job) or anywhere else, but it would stop it happening so much at home.
The much better idea would be monitor, not stop the usage of internet sites. Either tell the kid or do it silently, but monitor so that you can be better informed if there is a problem.
The problem is generally found in introverts. Extroverts have a very difficult time understanding that introverts are not social outcasts or anything worrying like that, it is just that introverts get tired having to socialize. This means that some take the easiest way out of a conversation they can, by just being blunt etc.
This book is great because it gives simple guidelines to follow to at least let these types of people do what comes unnaturally to them. Unfortunately, a lot of business decisions are based on areas that extroverts are more natural at and so introverts often need help to overcome this initial obstacle.
As a sideline, I also have a theory that it is majorly extroverts that call humans "social creatures", while introverts are less likely to use that phrase, preferring "intelligent creature" or something similar (note: I am absolutely not implying that introverts are smarter).
On the seatbelts: I believe the fee is $AU160 and a loss of 1 to 3 points from your drivers license (you have 12 points, lose them and lose your license for a period of time).
On the emergency wards: I don't see how forcing an emergency ward to treat people regardless of being able to pay is a bad thing. Having that rule allows treatment if the person is unable to read/speak/comprehend anything required to give staff knowledge of their situation. I would imagine that it help people to not die waiting for forms to be cleared in the waiting room.
On compulsary voting: I've never understood why we (Australians), must vote. I've always been of the opinion "no vote is better then a mis-informed vote" and if someone doesn't want to vote, then I wouldn't imagine that they would look too deeply to pick the right candidate for them. One of my friend votes on the "funniest last name" principle, simply because she is forced to vote.
The best way around this would be to design a base interface, then run the user through a few quick questions at the start to determine what alterations would be the most beneficial to them. Then let the user adjust the changes themselves for any tweaking.
The main problem with traditional AI research has been an overstating of the possibilities. Natural language processing isn't as far off as most people think it is, but when it hits, people are going to criticize it by saying "why doesn't it understand me when I say 'lol, r u 4 reals?'?".
Most AI talk is marketing hype, but the main idea to keep in mind when discussing AI is, as one of my lecturers said "AI, after it has been developed, is no longer AI". Think the minimax algorithm, when it was first used in chess, it was groundbreaking AI. Now it is considered a boring and obvious mathematical process.
Another problem is that most scenarios people think "need" AI can be solved using standard processes. I don't need an agent to "(an ISA) making sure you don't get fast food restaurant references when you need a poet's name" (from TFA), I just type in "Poet" as another search query.
I am a little biased, as I plan to move into smart computing after Uni, but there is a lot of good people doing good research into AI. It is a pity that most only see the marketing fluff and past overestimates by a few vocal researchers, rather then the good work being done by most in the field.
The big deal with Vista, yes it's not that bad, but even in its best possible light, its a minor improvement on XP. In its worst light, it is actually worse then the product that was released before it.
Put simply, it is not worth the cost of upgrading for all of the new features.
I have found a great use for it though. I have officially taken the stance that I will "never buy Vista" and will also "not support Vista", which frees me from the usual role of having to do tech support for anyone that knows I am in IT. I will happily support a Linux distro and most XP problems have solutions on the net by now, so my "personal favours" workload has reduced dramatically.
No. If previous methods let through one in 100 (1%) then a 10x improvement would result in one in 1000 getting through (0.1%).
popularity != quality
So, if a security bug is present an exploit could happen...?
I believe the parents were referring mainly to hard drive usage for the swap. If the swap were a static size and never changed, then the whole thing can be placed in one large block in the hard drive. This speeds up performance when accessing. With a variable size (like Windows has), it places it anywhere it can fit it in the hard drive. If the entire lot doesn't fit in this spot, it puts as much as it can there and then puts the rest somewhere else. This means to access the entire swap file, the hard drive needs to access several parts of the hard drive (find the first part, read, find the next part, travel there, read, etc). In Linux, you set a swap partition so that all of it is in the one spot.
I could be wrong, as I am not an expert on this, but I believe that is how it all works.
When you sold the software, your company should of sold a service agreement. This should indicate how long you have to fix bugs (depending on the nature of them) including lots of other stuff.
If they have asked for a fix in less then that time, you can try, but your customer should be made aware that if they want the fix faster, they should be paying for the priviledge.
If other people in your company are telling the customer something different, then you need to speak with your manager. The entire company should be giving the customer the same message. If that message requires you to have bug fixes out within a short amount of time, you need to inform your manager that you need extra resources (people, machines) to be able to do that. Obviously you can't get a fix out as soon as you hear about a bug, but any small bug should be fixable within a day or two, provided you have the resources to find the bug, determine the cause, implement a fix and test it within that timeframe. If you don't have the resources, your company shouldn't be selling the product (whether that is at the time the customer is buying the product or when support is answering a call) in a way that gives the customer the impression this is possible.
I don't know what your work load is, but it sounds like you don't have the resources to do this. Either get the resources or ask management to give their customers relistic expectations. I know its one of those "harder then it sounds" things, but either the company will get a bad name because they can't fix bugs, or the company will have a high staff turnover (and ultimately a bad name).
To summarise, discuss this with your manager.
... and then the naked pictures of Natalie Portman appear?
Ironically, Microsoft even makes a product that only half supports this format.
Our solar system has more then that...
Are you American? The reason I ask is that when they rolled out chat, I couldn't access it for a long time. I changed my location to USA and there it was. They might be doing the same thing here (USA only first, others later)
I believe the last story we had on MS FUD came back to "Balmer said it in the UK, so it can't be a US crime".
I'd imagine that MS are doing just enough to stay out of that country. If Linux didn't have the support of IBM then I'd imagine it would be a different story. They would then just say what they like on the assumption that the Linux userbase couldn't mount a significant challenge.
Person comments about poor state of an industry. Offers own product instead. We will be following this story with regular updates as it happens.