Obviously we're discussion chocolate and vanilla given that we're discussing a purely subjective material =)
For me, I think the caricature nature of the models in Shrek2 put it on the left of the valley. Their features are exaggerated and I think that anything which doesn't try wholly to be realistic in every aspect will always be on the left. I think these exaggerations are exactly how they can use so many really realistic effects without quite entering the valley.
In my book, anything on the right of the valley, you would have to look at it closely to determine if it were a photograph or a CGI. Shrek's characters are clearly CGI.
However since there's so many aspects to making a good looking model, it's logical that different people would assign different weights to different aspects. Each aspect has its own separate valley curve, and the cumulative effect makes up its own curve which is weighted by how much you value each of the individual aspects. You seem to value texture over shape, while I seem to value shape over texture. The movements are motion capture for the most part, so very very far right on the curve, while hair and clothing are really just physics equations which they seem to have very nearly perfect, and so also fairly far right on the curve.
I actually think Shrek2 was on the left side of The Uncanny Valley Graph rather than on the right side. I think the left side, starting to dip, but definitely still above the 0-line on Y (they were not repulsive like, for example, EQ2's or Oblivion's models can be, though they were just a little uncanny).
Noone says, "The holocaust happened so these other mass-murders are meaningless."
But if you want to work on that scoreboard, lets do so.
10M Eastern Slavs 6M in concentration camps (presumably mostly Jews) 3M prisoners of War 2M forced laborers Thats ~21M civilians from the Holocaust and related activity
Your numbers add up to ~18 million. I'm not saying that 18 million people mass murdered should be dismissed, but I sure as hell am saying that 21 million people mass murdered should not be dismissed.
Note in advance: I don't disagree with your point. However I would like to point out that some people are employed as OSS developers. Also some people like myself are employed wholly by writing custom software for target markets far too small to ever be of any use other than for the entity for which it was originally written (except that if it were leaked in advance, it'd be quite abusable from a corporate espionage perspective).
Essentially I write software to support internal company procedures and external company one-time offers. Even if every COTS software package out there was free and open source, my job would still exist.
Just because it changes the landscape doesn't mean it eliminates it.
My grumble is that, note, CPA only cared about attacks on Coalition troops, not about attacks on Iraqis
Although I enjoy your cynicism, it's much more likely that the purpose of the document was to speculate on why the attacks against coalition troops nearly disappeared. If the attacks against Iraqi's were consistent through this time, there's nothing really to speculate on about that. If there was something to speculate about on that front, it would belong in a different document, and at most these two documents would reference each other.
I use SpamMeNot, and since I installed it I haven't seen a single spam since.
The problem with a mark-as-spam & report is that the spammers are using throw-away free accounts and using them nonstop until that one gets banned, then they create another free account and proceed as before, doing this on the broadest possible networks they can (such as AOL) so that IP-based banning would hit too many innocents.
The real solution though is to make it so that the free accounts can only send a message to a total of 5 unique characters in any 1-hour period (on an account level), and can't talk on public channels at all. Also they should not be able to send any in-game mail until level 5. It would raise the difficulty of spamming large numbers of people high enough that it couldn't possibly be worth it.
He didn't say that his manager changed his priorities so frequently that he was unable to be productive. He didn't say that his manager was unable to actually prioritize his work meaningfully. He also didn't say that his manager held him accountable for decisions the manager made. He said he didn't like the manager deciding what he worked on.
Maybe he misspoke, but since there were other equally qualified candidates who had reasonable reasons for leaving their previous jobs, we went with one of them. Incidentally the guy we went with at that time left his previous position because he was expected to work 90+ hours per week including hours on every Friday and Saturday, without any extra compensation for all this insane overtime.
That's the danger of interviewing badly, and it's why you want to have your response to questions like this prepared in advance, so that when they come up, you have a good response. Other questions to have good responses to include, "What is your greatest strength," "What is your greatest weakness," "How would you handle a manager which makes a technical decision about your work which you disagree with," "What would you do if you discovered a major security issue with the work a peer produced," "What if you felt that security issue was intentionally created as a back door or other illicit access mechanism," "How would you handle a situation where you are working for the first time in a piece of code which you strongly feel needs to be completely rewritten, but you don't have enough time to do so within your project," "How would you handle being assigned more tasks that you had time to complete," "What if you could get those tasks done, but it meant spending less time than usual doing unit and integration testing".
There's lots of others. Obviously you can't prepare for every possible question, but thinking about things like this before you go into the interview means that you'll be able to come up with decent answers for whatever questions they do ask.
By the way, around here we're typically looking for answers which involve looking to management or peers for guidance when the answer is not clear. The reason is our managers are all very technical and they probably have a better idea of the organizational priorities than you, so for example, if that piece of code really needs reworking, and it'll add 2 weeks, but the project you're working on is really low priority, maybe they'll ask you to rework that chunk then finish the rest of the project next month when there's some spare time. Or maybe they'll realize that the project is both mission critical, and incredibly time sensitive, so they'll pull resources off another project to help you get it done right. Meanwhile your peers will either have a good idea of how the situation is usually handled, or they'll be able to tell you who does.
We also angle the candidates down a path that helps discover where they escalate when a manager is being unreasonable. For example we'll commonly ask how you handle your manager telling you to leave a GAPING security hole in a project because there's simply not enough time to fix it within the release schedule.
You certainly don't have any obligation to explain to me why you left your previous position. I also don't have any obligation to hire someone who as far as I can tell has something to hide about the circumstances under which they left their previous job.
Never get hostile like this in an interview if you hope to get the job (though if the question makes you not want to work there, then I guess get hostile). Answer reasonable questions, and why you left your previous job is a reasonable question since it can say a lot about a person. For example, one guy responded that he didn't appreciate his previous boss prioritizing which things he worked on so he quit. This says two things about him. 1) he doesn't take direction from managers, and 2) he's willing to quit over something which would be at worst a pretty small annoyance.
It wasn't wanting to restrict access to the data center to which I objected. It was the "or else he wouldn't be a janitor" parenthetical. Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words, but it certainly harked to an undeserved attitude which subtly but pervasively infects the interaction between many white collar workers and their blue collar counterparts.
he probably has no clue about (or else he wouldn't be a janitor)?
Fresh out of high school I was a janitor who happened to clean the data center at a big business. I was in this job because I needed to raise money for college (it paid $12/hr believe it or not, which was a fair sight better than pretty much any other job I could have landed at the time). It was a foot in the door, and I eventually worked my way through college and up the corporate ladder in the very same company. Now I'm responsible for the servers which occupy that same space which I used to clean.
Fortunately the guys working in the data center weren't as narrow-minded as you; while working as a janitor I would regularly take a few minutes to help them diagnose some problem with their Windows boxes or just help them put together some new hardware. While it's possible they were patronizing me because they saw in me some spark of what they saw in themselves, I also genuinely believe that they were grateful for the assistance, and at the very least at least they didn't judge me because of my position in life.
I have never since worked as hard in my life as I did while a janitor. I have never since in my life been looked down on by as many people. You cannot imagine how being constantly surrounded by people who look down on you saps your self confidence and opinion of yourself. Working to clean the filth that other people generate, and in service to these people, they will often not even acknowledge your presence even if you address them directly. It was one of the worst periods of my life, and I also regard it as one of the most valuable.
Today I use people's attitude toward janitorial or maintenance staff as a litmus test of their personal character and it has yet to let me down. For example, once while interviewing a job candidate, the janitor came into the room to empty the trashcans. The candidate showed obvious distaste, and I recommended against this person for the job. They got the job in spite of my recommendation, but within 8 months they were shown the door; this same attitude, which they were not even able to mask during an interview infested the rest of their inter-personal relationships. They were a nightmare to work with or even just be around.
Whenever you think you are better than someone else because of what they do or because of who they are, that self-same thought makes it not so.
The PHP developers acknowledge that safe mode is a failure and PHP6 will not offer this feature. It was never meant to really be a complete sandbox environment, just a way to give a higher-than-usual level of isolation. People took this and expected more out of it than it was really designed to deliver, then criticized it for not being what they hoped it would be. It is already recommended that you use Xen or some other virtualization layer if you wish to sandbox your users.
The gun is the internet connection (the tool used to perpetrate the crime). An open wireless network is if you were in the habit of keeping your gun sitting in plain sight on a table next to an open window. So a crime was committed, they traced it back to your gun. This is probable cause to search your house for further evidence. This guy is claiming essentially that the fact that many people have access to his gun means that he shouldn't have been searched at all.
If they had turned up no further evidence, then he could probably make a pretty compelling case. Just because he owns the gun doesn't mean he did the shooting. However, they found the defendant's blood on the clothes in his apartment. He claims that those clothes were his roommate's who used the defendant's gun to do the crime (in this claim, the accessibility of the gun by the open window is immaterial, all that matters is whether the roommate had access to the gun).
I can't say, from what I know by reading the article, even assuming it is accurate, whether this guy is actually guilty of the crime. I would say there's reasonable doubt (which has nothing to do with the wireless network) unless they have his fingerprints on the CD's, and the CD's are also labeled (or if they found the pictures on his computer without him making a reasonable claim that the roommate frequently used his computer). In any event I would say that there is now probable cause to suspect the roommate, and the roommate deserves further investigation before the defendant is sentenced.
The wireless network thing was only a bid for attention and has no real bearing on the case that I can see.
Of the money society is currently spending on pharmaceuticals, less than 20% gets used for R&D.
Just out of curiosity, what's your source for that figure? Lots of people like to toss around "more than half is spent on marketing" style figures but 20% is the lowest I've ever heard.
These are the people we want teaching our children?
No, these are just the best people taxpayers are willing to pay to hire to teach our children.
I seriously researched switching careers to teach computers at a high school level since the school where my wife teaches has a converted English teacher filling this role who is clearly out of her element. However I'd barely have made a third the salary compared to my current day job -- after tenure.
Also, though not pertinent to this discussion, you need a business degree (not computer science or some related discipline) to teach computers in schools here-abouts if you weren't already teaching computers when the law went into effect, so it'd have been a minimum of 2 years full-time education to get the necessary business & education degrees.
Even if so it wouldn't affect the HTTP request referrer header.
Better than this is for the server to give the real page request a random token that is unique per session and which it uses for its ajax calls to verify that it's legitimate. The malicious website would have to guess or otherwise intercept which token had been sent. Remember, only the cookies are sent with the call, and the malicious site can't read the cookies, they can only use them. EvilSite.com site wouldn't be able to access other page variables and so would have no way to reproduce the auth token.
I'll admit I haven't followed this stuff very carefully; there are no diabetics in or immediately off of my blood line as far back as I am able to find medical information.
However it sounds like that might be confusing correlation with causation. It's quite possible both high sugar consumption and diabetes are caused by the same root. For example, it's possible that the body is already a little out of whack on its sugar and insulin processing, which makes sugar more desirable, and hence people who will eventually develop diabetes are more likely to consume too much sugar.
Do you know if the studies have examined, for example, multiple siblings (or better, maternal twins) whose sugar consumption was initially comparable, and where one during the course of the study has made a conscious effort to avoid excess sugar intake, while the other has indulged? Given enough such data, you could establish a causational relationship, but such a study would be incredibly hard to control and so you'd want a really large data set.
Normally don't nibble at AC trolls, but just in case you do actually come back to read responses to your own, or in case someone else reads your drivel, it will make me feel better =)
Whoopee fuckin doo! Somebody call the press! Lets have a party!
Now that there is a browser that passes the all-important-almighty-mission-critical-life-or-de ath ACID 2 test, I guess we'll have to come up with a new cool sounding buzzword browser compliance test in order to perpetuate the browser snobbery that so many have come to depend upon for their routine pointless pissing and moaning.
The CSS Acid2 test is actually a very important milestone for any browser which is making forward progress in areas other than user interface. A properly implemented CSS engine means that your pages can look the same in all browsers without browser-specific hacks. However and more importantly it means you can create web pages which are layout-rich without having to alter your page structure to accommodate the layout you chose. The reason this is important is that it makes your pages orders of magnitude more accessible to disabled users. However I'm far less qualified to extol the virtues of CSS than many other people are.
Besides, who the hell base64 encodes pngs in stylesheets? Is it simply an exercise in the absurd? Just an obscuree css wankfest? I mean come on...
People who wish to store those files, complete with their images, as an atomic unit. People who wish to make the most optimized initial display possible (no second or subsequent connection to retrieve the image data). People who wish to guarantee that an image is updated every time the user gets a new copy of the page no matter how aggressive some caching proxy between them and the site might be. People who wish to serve image data which is always generated on the fly based on a large amount of data which is already in memory for the serving page, without having to store it temporarily or use a separate request (which would require re-loading that memory). Heck, these are just off the top of my head. Just because you don't have the creativity to think of reasons why something might be useful doesn't make it not so.
I understand your point and agree with its core meaning.
I'd like to point out though that most likely the vast majority of these letters were served to corporations, and probably 90% of them hit the same dozen or so corporations (big ones specializing in communications like Verizon & AT&T). You don't get to be a big corporation like these by standing on principle.
If you're a bad parent, and you have an idiot kid, they're invariably going to grow up to be idiots.
If you're a bad parent, and you have a good kid, they'll know better than to kill someone because they saw it on TV.
You're right, environment has nothing to do with how people turn out, contrary to all established psychology.
If you're a good parent, and you have an idiot kid, you'll be able to regulate their exposure to violence. If you're concerned about TV violence, just don't let them have one in their room.
IMHO no kid should have a TV in their room. What if you're a good parent who can't afford child care, but your kid is a teenager now so you let him/her be a latchkey kid until you get home from work, should you just not have a TV (not that I necessarily think that's a bad thing)? Or perhaps every good parent is at least middle class.
If you're a good parent, and you have a good kid, you'll be just fine.
It's true, and I doubt such restrictions would really be targeted at such people.
Exactly where genetics' and environment's realms of influence on the outcome of human beings lie is still up for much debate; the sorts of experiments which would lend the most insight into these areas are unethical (for example, the Forbidden Experiment). However there's no doubt that environment has a substantial impact on outcome of psychological traits (see Twin Study, particularly the correlational charts on psychological characteristics [Fig 2]).
In the end, no matter what else you examine, environment is a substantial factor in child raising, and not all parents have the luxury of establishing a police state in which to raise their children, even good parents. As such even if an excellent parent could pull their child out of a damaging psychological state which was partially induced by exposure to material the child was mentally ill-equipped to experience, they will be devoting their efforts here instead of some other effort that otherwise benefits their child.
All this is to say that parenting, environment, and genetics are each contributing factors. A good kid raised in a good environment by a good parent will turn out better than the same kid raised in a bad environment by the same parent. Likewise a bad kid raised in a good environment by a bad parent will turn out better than the same in a bad environment. A good middle class parent will make sure their child's environment is good. A good lower class parent probably doesn't have this option.
Re:Is Roland Piquepaille paid for Slashdot stories
on
A Single-Photon Server
·
· Score: 1
That's interesting. Also, on the first page of search results for Roland's name here on Slashdot, which includes stories going back to November, ScuttleMonkey, Zonk, and kdawson posted all but 2 of the Roland stories. Of the two that weren't one of these three posters one was Rob Malda's annual "Physics of Santa Clause" post.
Maybe the conspiracy isn't as deeply rooted as being all of Slashdot, but then again maybe these three posters just like Roland's style. Although some of these stories looked like press releases, there were a fair share of posts that seemed to have no commercial purpose behind them (though of course you can never be certain).
How's this?. Put it on your external server under a UN/PW and on https, and you have yourself a free dedicated locally anonymizing proxy that will work through existing filtering proxies, and not permit them to sniff any of your traffic or even know what you're doing thanks to the https. The admins of the filtering proxy won't even be able to tell that it IS a proxy since they won't have your UN/PW. All they'll know is that you're doing a certain amount of https traffic to this external IP.
It's not exactly in your face as far as visibility, but you can avoid editing xorg.conf at all in Ubuntu by going into Synaptic Package Manager and choosing to configure Xserver-Xorg. It will walk you through a wizard and let you choose several paths based on how advanced you want to get. You can get down to authoring mode lines in it if you want to get that incredibly technical. But you can also easily specify which resolutions and color depths your monitor is capable of if it doesn't detect them automatically.
If you're stuck at a command line and can't run Synaptic, then you can also accomplish the same task with an ncurses (text-mode gui) based interface to the same wizard with: dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg
It's accessible to anybody with a blue light or decent eyes. Blue LED's work pretty well. Typically it's just a code representing the manufacturer and the serial number for the printer, laid out as a repeating grid of yellow dots across the image in binary. Print an all white sheet and shine a blue light and they'll pop out pretty clearly.
When I was in high school, our computers didn't have Internet access at all, and today I'm a web developer. Not having access to the Internet at all didn't seem to hold me back. I don't see that it's that different for kids today except that somehow people have developed an opinion that kids need this to learn meaningfully all the sudden.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously we're discussion chocolate and vanilla given that we're discussing a purely subjective material =)
For me, I think the caricature nature of the models in Shrek2 put it on the left of the valley. Their features are exaggerated and I think that anything which doesn't try wholly to be realistic in every aspect will always be on the left. I think these exaggerations are exactly how they can use so many really realistic effects without quite entering the valley.
In my book, anything on the right of the valley, you would have to look at it closely to determine if it were a photograph or a CGI. Shrek's characters are clearly CGI.
However since there's so many aspects to making a good looking model, it's logical that different people would assign different weights to different aspects. Each aspect has its own separate valley curve, and the cumulative effect makes up its own curve which is weighted by how much you value each of the individual aspects. You seem to value texture over shape, while I seem to value shape over texture. The movements are motion capture for the most part, so very very far right on the curve, while hair and clothing are really just physics equations which they seem to have very nearly perfect, and so also fairly far right on the curve.
I actually think Shrek2 was on the left side of The Uncanny Valley Graph rather than on the right side. I think the left side, starting to dip, but definitely still above the 0-line on Y (they were not repulsive like, for example, EQ2's or Oblivion's models can be, though they were just a little uncanny).
Noone says, "The holocaust happened so these other mass-murders are meaningless."
But if you want to work on that scoreboard, lets do so.
10M Eastern Slavs
6M in concentration camps (presumably mostly Jews)
3M prisoners of War
2M forced laborers
Thats ~21M civilians from the Holocaust and related activity
Your numbers add up to ~18 million. I'm not saying that 18 million people mass murdered should be dismissed, but I sure as hell am saying that 21 million people mass murdered should not be dismissed.
Good day sir.
Note in advance: I don't disagree with your point. However I would like to point out that some people are employed as OSS developers. Also some people like myself are employed wholly by writing custom software for target markets far too small to ever be of any use other than for the entity for which it was originally written (except that if it were leaked in advance, it'd be quite abusable from a corporate espionage perspective).
Essentially I write software to support internal company procedures and external company one-time offers. Even if every COTS software package out there was free and open source, my job would still exist.
Just because it changes the landscape doesn't mean it eliminates it.
I use SpamMeNot, and since I installed it I haven't seen a single spam since.
The problem with a mark-as-spam & report is that the spammers are using throw-away free accounts and using them nonstop until that one gets banned, then they create another free account and proceed as before, doing this on the broadest possible networks they can (such as AOL) so that IP-based banning would hit too many innocents.
The real solution though is to make it so that the free accounts can only send a message to a total of 5 unique characters in any 1-hour period (on an account level), and can't talk on public channels at all. Also they should not be able to send any in-game mail until level 5. It would raise the difficulty of spamming large numbers of people high enough that it couldn't possibly be worth it.
He didn't say that his manager changed his priorities so frequently that he was unable to be productive. He didn't say that his manager was unable to actually prioritize his work meaningfully. He also didn't say that his manager held him accountable for decisions the manager made. He said he didn't like the manager deciding what he worked on.
Maybe he misspoke, but since there were other equally qualified candidates who had reasonable reasons for leaving their previous jobs, we went with one of them. Incidentally the guy we went with at that time left his previous position because he was expected to work 90+ hours per week including hours on every Friday and Saturday, without any extra compensation for all this insane overtime.
That's the danger of interviewing badly, and it's why you want to have your response to questions like this prepared in advance, so that when they come up, you have a good response. Other questions to have good responses to include, "What is your greatest strength," "What is your greatest weakness," "How would you handle a manager which makes a technical decision about your work which you disagree with," "What would you do if you discovered a major security issue with the work a peer produced," "What if you felt that security issue was intentionally created as a back door or other illicit access mechanism," "How would you handle a situation where you are working for the first time in a piece of code which you strongly feel needs to be completely rewritten, but you don't have enough time to do so within your project," "How would you handle being assigned more tasks that you had time to complete," "What if you could get those tasks done, but it meant spending less time than usual doing unit and integration testing".
There's lots of others. Obviously you can't prepare for every possible question, but thinking about things like this before you go into the interview means that you'll be able to come up with decent answers for whatever questions they do ask.
By the way, around here we're typically looking for answers which involve looking to management or peers for guidance when the answer is not clear. The reason is our managers are all very technical and they probably have a better idea of the organizational priorities than you, so for example, if that piece of code really needs reworking, and it'll add 2 weeks, but the project you're working on is really low priority, maybe they'll ask you to rework that chunk then finish the rest of the project next month when there's some spare time. Or maybe they'll realize that the project is both mission critical, and incredibly time sensitive, so they'll pull resources off another project to help you get it done right. Meanwhile your peers will either have a good idea of how the situation is usually handled, or they'll be able to tell you who does.
We also angle the candidates down a path that helps discover where they escalate when a manager is being unreasonable. For example we'll commonly ask how you handle your manager telling you to leave a GAPING security hole in a project because there's simply not enough time to fix it within the release schedule.
You certainly don't have any obligation to explain to me why you left your previous position. I also don't have any obligation to hire someone who as far as I can tell has something to hide about the circumstances under which they left their previous job.
Never get hostile like this in an interview if you hope to get the job (though if the question makes you not want to work there, then I guess get hostile). Answer reasonable questions, and why you left your previous job is a reasonable question since it can say a lot about a person. For example, one guy responded that he didn't appreciate his previous boss prioritizing which things he worked on so he quit. This says two things about him. 1) he doesn't take direction from managers, and 2) he's willing to quit over something which would be at worst a pretty small annoyance.
It wasn't wanting to restrict access to the data center to which I objected. It was the "or else he wouldn't be a janitor" parenthetical. Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words, but it certainly harked to an undeserved attitude which subtly but pervasively infects the interaction between many white collar workers and their blue collar counterparts.
Fresh out of high school I was a janitor who happened to clean the data center at a big business. I was in this job because I needed to raise money for college (it paid $12/hr believe it or not, which was a fair sight better than pretty much any other job I could have landed at the time). It was a foot in the door, and I eventually worked my way through college and up the corporate ladder in the very same company. Now I'm responsible for the servers which occupy that same space which I used to clean.
Fortunately the guys working in the data center weren't as narrow-minded as you; while working as a janitor I would regularly take a few minutes to help them diagnose some problem with their Windows boxes or just help them put together some new hardware. While it's possible they were patronizing me because they saw in me some spark of what they saw in themselves, I also genuinely believe that they were grateful for the assistance, and at the very least at least they didn't judge me because of my position in life.
I have never since worked as hard in my life as I did while a janitor. I have never since in my life been looked down on by as many people. You cannot imagine how being constantly surrounded by people who look down on you saps your self confidence and opinion of yourself. Working to clean the filth that other people generate, and in service to these people, they will often not even acknowledge your presence even if you address them directly. It was one of the worst periods of my life, and I also regard it as one of the most valuable.
Today I use people's attitude toward janitorial or maintenance staff as a litmus test of their personal character and it has yet to let me down. For example, once while interviewing a job candidate, the janitor came into the room to empty the trashcans. The candidate showed obvious distaste, and I recommended against this person for the job. They got the job in spite of my recommendation, but within 8 months they were shown the door; this same attitude, which they were not even able to mask during an interview infested the rest of their inter-personal relationships. They were a nightmare to work with or even just be around.
Whenever you think you are better than someone else because of what they do or because of who they are, that self-same thought makes it not so.
The PHP developers acknowledge that safe mode is a failure and PHP6 will not offer this feature. It was never meant to really be a complete sandbox environment, just a way to give a higher-than-usual level of isolation. People took this and expected more out of it than it was really designed to deliver, then criticized it for not being what they hoped it would be. It is already recommended that you use Xen or some other virtualization layer if you wish to sandbox your users.
Along the same gun analogy:
The gun is the internet connection (the tool used to perpetrate the crime). An open wireless network is if you were in the habit of keeping your gun sitting in plain sight on a table next to an open window. So a crime was committed, they traced it back to your gun. This is probable cause to search your house for further evidence. This guy is claiming essentially that the fact that many people have access to his gun means that he shouldn't have been searched at all.
If they had turned up no further evidence, then he could probably make a pretty compelling case. Just because he owns the gun doesn't mean he did the shooting. However, they found the defendant's blood on the clothes in his apartment. He claims that those clothes were his roommate's who used the defendant's gun to do the crime (in this claim, the accessibility of the gun by the open window is immaterial, all that matters is whether the roommate had access to the gun).
I can't say, from what I know by reading the article, even assuming it is accurate, whether this guy is actually guilty of the crime. I would say there's reasonable doubt (which has nothing to do with the wireless network) unless they have his fingerprints on the CD's, and the CD's are also labeled (or if they found the pictures on his computer without him making a reasonable claim that the roommate frequently used his computer). In any event I would say that there is now probable cause to suspect the roommate, and the roommate deserves further investigation before the defendant is sentenced.
The wireless network thing was only a bid for attention and has no real bearing on the case that I can see.
I seriously researched switching careers to teach computers at a high school level since the school where my wife teaches has a converted English teacher filling this role who is clearly out of her element. However I'd barely have made a third the salary compared to my current day job -- after tenure.
Also, though not pertinent to this discussion, you need a business degree (not computer science or some related discipline) to teach computers in schools here-abouts if you weren't already teaching computers when the law went into effect, so it'd have been a minimum of 2 years full-time education to get the necessary business & education degrees.
Even if so it wouldn't affect the HTTP request referrer header.
Better than this is for the server to give the real page request a random token that is unique per session and which it uses for its ajax calls to verify that it's legitimate. The malicious website would have to guess or otherwise intercept which token had been sent. Remember, only the cookies are sent with the call, and the malicious site can't read the cookies, they can only use them. EvilSite.com site wouldn't be able to access other page variables and so would have no way to reproduce the auth token.
I'll admit I haven't followed this stuff very carefully; there are no diabetics in or immediately off of my blood line as far back as I am able to find medical information.
However it sounds like that might be confusing correlation with causation. It's quite possible both high sugar consumption and diabetes are caused by the same root. For example, it's possible that the body is already a little out of whack on its sugar and insulin processing, which makes sugar more desirable, and hence people who will eventually develop diabetes are more likely to consume too much sugar.
Do you know if the studies have examined, for example, multiple siblings (or better, maternal twins) whose sugar consumption was initially comparable, and where one during the course of the study has made a conscious effort to avoid excess sugar intake, while the other has indulged? Given enough such data, you could establish a causational relationship, but such a study would be incredibly hard to control and so you'd want a really large data set.
The CSS Acid2 test is actually a very important milestone for any browser which is making forward progress in areas other than user interface. A properly implemented CSS engine means that your pages can look the same in all browsers without browser-specific hacks. However and more importantly it means you can create web pages which are layout-rich without having to alter your page structure to accommodate the layout you chose. The reason this is important is that it makes your pages orders of magnitude more accessible to disabled users. However I'm far less qualified to extol the virtues of CSS than many other people are.
People who wish to store those files, complete with their images, as an atomic unit. People who wish to make the most optimized initial display possible (no second or subsequent connection to retrieve the image data). People who wish to guarantee that an image is updated every time the user gets a new copy of the page no matter how aggressive some caching proxy between them and the site might be. People who wish to serve image data which is always generated on the fly based on a large amount of data which is already in memory for the serving page, without having to store it temporarily or use a separate request (which would require re-loading that memory). Heck, these are just off the top of my head. Just because you don't have the creativity to think of reasons why something might be useful doesn't make it not so.
Yes, it does completely pass the Acid 2 CSS compliance test.
I understand your point and agree with its core meaning.
I'd like to point out though that most likely the vast majority of these letters were served to corporations, and probably 90% of them hit the same dozen or so corporations (big ones specializing in communications like Verizon & AT&T). You don't get to be a big corporation like these by standing on principle.
You're right, environment has nothing to do with how people turn out, contrary to all established psychology.
IMHO no kid should have a TV in their room. What if you're a good parent who can't afford child care, but your kid is a teenager now so you let him/her be a latchkey kid until you get home from work, should you just not have a TV (not that I necessarily think that's a bad thing)? Or perhaps every good parent is at least middle class.
It's true, and I doubt such restrictions would really be targeted at such people.
Exactly where genetics' and environment's realms of influence on the outcome of human beings lie is still up for much debate; the sorts of experiments which would lend the most insight into these areas are unethical (for example, the Forbidden Experiment). However there's no doubt that environment has a substantial impact on outcome of psychological traits (see Twin Study, particularly the correlational charts on psychological characteristics [Fig 2]).
In the end, no matter what else you examine, environment is a substantial factor in child raising, and not all parents have the luxury of establishing a police state in which to raise their children, even good parents. As such even if an excellent parent could pull their child out of a damaging psychological state which was partially induced by exposure to material the child was mentally ill-equipped to experience, they will be devoting their efforts here instead of some other effort that otherwise benefits their child.
All this is to say that parenting, environment, and genetics are each contributing factors. A good kid raised in a good environment by a good parent will turn out better than the same kid raised in a bad environment by the same parent. Likewise a bad kid raised in a good environment by a bad parent will turn out better than the same in a bad environment. A good middle class parent will make sure their child's environment is good. A good lower class parent probably doesn't have this option.
That's interesting. Also, on the first page of search results for Roland's name here on Slashdot, which includes stories going back to November, ScuttleMonkey, Zonk, and kdawson posted all but 2 of the Roland stories. Of the two that weren't one of these three posters one was Rob Malda's annual "Physics of Santa Clause" post.
Maybe the conspiracy isn't as deeply rooted as being all of Slashdot, but then again maybe these three posters just like Roland's style. Although some of these stories looked like press releases, there were a fair share of posts that seemed to have no commercial purpose behind them (though of course you can never be certain).
How's this?. Put it on your external server under a UN/PW and on https, and you have yourself a free dedicated locally anonymizing proxy that will work through existing filtering proxies, and not permit them to sniff any of your traffic or even know what you're doing thanks to the https. The admins of the filtering proxy won't even be able to tell that it IS a proxy since they won't have your UN/PW. All they'll know is that you're doing a certain amount of https traffic to this external IP.
It's not exactly in your face as far as visibility, but you can avoid editing xorg.conf at all in Ubuntu by going into Synaptic Package Manager and choosing to configure Xserver-Xorg. It will walk you through a wizard and let you choose several paths based on how advanced you want to get. You can get down to authoring mode lines in it if you want to get that incredibly technical. But you can also easily specify which resolutions and color depths your monitor is capable of if it doesn't detect them automatically.
If you're stuck at a command line and can't run Synaptic, then you can also accomplish the same task with an ncurses (text-mode gui) based interface to the same wizard with:
dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg
It's accessible to anybody with a blue light or decent eyes. Blue LED's work pretty well. Typically it's just a code representing the manufacturer and the serial number for the printer, laid out as a repeating grid of yellow dots across the image in binary. Print an all white sheet and shine a blue light and they'll pop out pretty clearly.
Here's a list of printers that do this:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/list.php
When I was in high school, our computers didn't have Internet access at all, and today I'm a web developer. Not having access to the Internet at all didn't seem to hold me back. I don't see that it's that different for kids today except that somehow people have developed an opinion that kids need this to learn meaningfully all the sudden.