The purpose of a computer is to do busy computational work. That is, a computer can't create a weather model, but it can read data from sensors, plug the numbers into the human-created model, and then spit out an answer. In effect, computers are there to automate and simplify hard tasks, and eliminate menial ones.
Organization is one of the last frontiers of automation, if not the last frontier. For the most part, everybody has a "system" of organization. There are rules to this system that are by and large strictly followed. The rules vary between people, but organization cannot happen without the rules.
In the past, what is required of the user is to set up the organization structure, and then set up the rules. Then the computer will take input, and spit it out in the organized form based on the rules.
The future is to automatically create the rules based on the user's behavior. That's what a lot of these new "paradigms" are aiming for. This eliminates the step where the user explicitly defines the rules. In fact, they're going on step further, and trying to elimiate the initial structure setup, so that the computer can infer the structure based on the user's behavior. The combination results in looser rules, but also a more dynamic structure.
But honestly, it doesn't look like anybody's gotten past the "throw everything on the floor" step of organizing yet.
I'd be willing to bet most people in general lack the ability to fully appreciate the difficulty of such moves, and the amount of skill required to pull off the more incredible things olympic-level gymnasts can do. I'll bet if most people so much as attempted to do a full twist in mid-air, they'd be wheeling themselves to see their chriopractor for the next month or two. And these guys do two or three.
I mean, olympic athletes are at the top of their game, the best of the best from around the world. But some of the things these athletes have done are even amazing by their standards.
You pay insurance to insure yourself against such major catastrophes, so that if this happens, the collective absorbs most the cost. If you pay up the wazoo the moment you start getting sick, that's not insurance anymore. That's like putting your money into a savings account for a rainy day.
Passwords can't be saved if your access is controlled by something like a RSA secureID. Include a user-generated portion (like a password or PIN), and hide it within the secureID number, and it becomes even more secure.
I use fiber optics. Well, not so much fiber, just optics in the form of morse code with a flashlight. And if they even dare try to figure out what I'm saying, it's a violation of the DMCA.
If it makes you feel any better, I remember when the old cell phones were the size of an adult forearm and before that, when the battery was a separate unit the size of a backpack.
We still used little black books to keep track of our contacts back then. I actually had nine or ten numbers memorized, that I could recite and dial on the fly. Nowadays, I'm lucky to even be able to incant my home phone without hesitating.
The problem is that they don't really do anything that the individual bands cannot do. Their effectiveness comes from size. Who would a major marketing agency or retail outlet pay more attention to, a band of 4 kids with a few albums and marginal CD sales (a small account), or a huge media company (a huge account)? The labels are effectively doing the job of a union. Unfortunately, you don't really need a label anymore for those things, you just need a union.
If he's allowed to say those things, then her father/brother/boyfriend should be allowed to brutally murder the AC to protect her from rape (he did say he'd rape her).
Bullshit. Who made her father/brother/boyfriend judge and jury? Anyone is allowed to say those things. It's up to a judge and jury to determine what to do about the offender.
IANAL, but I believe you can say you'll cause bodily harm to someone, but if that person cannot show that you're in a position to carry out the threat, and that person cannot show that they could reasonably deduce that you were in such a position, self-defense does not apply.
Which is to say, if you were drunk off your ass and proclaimed you were going to strangle your recently-acquainted female companion with a noodle, she might not be able to claim self-defense if she kills you or causes bodily injury to you. Now, if you skipped the noodle part, and you displayed the ability to strangle her with your bare hands despite being drunk, that's another story.
I think this lawsuit (and any such lawsuit) is meant to humiliate the trolls more than to lock them up. It's meant to expose them for who they are, and let them face the ridicule of their peers and the public.
Of course, if the trolls had been halfway intelligent, they would've secured themselves by posting anonymously, through TOR or some such.
Unfortunately, you can't actually play any of the two, as they are proper nouns. However, you can play "Scrabble," and get a scrabble if you do manage to make the word.
As a friend once told me, the two most dangerous situations a cop will ever find himself in are traffic stops and responding to domestic violence calls.
The reason is that for everything else, there's an expectation of what they'll have to face, and they're typically trained for most such scenarios. However, in both traffic stops and domenstic violence situations, they're pretty much going in blind. They don't know what type of person they're going to encounter, whether it be some average law-abiding citizen, or a drug kingpin.
Knowing this is a good reason to not set cops off during a traffic stop. They're already on edge from the moment they pull you over, in case you should be holding a gun loaded with armor-piercing rounsd to the car door or something. The same goes for domestic violence, but I don't imagine many of us would find ourselves at the wrong end of such a call.
No, you'd want them to remain as they are, closed, hostile, and blatantly untrustworthy. You can predict their next moves so long as they remain consistent. However, if they're open and friendly and trustworthy, then it'll be too late when they turn around and stab you in the back.
Remember, the three E's begins with Embrace and Extend. That means "I'm going to be all friendly towards you, and help you out whenever you need it." But never forget the last E, Extinguish.
Slashdot Mirror
No, those are the ones who actually have a significant other.
The purpose of a computer is to do busy computational work. That is, a computer can't create a weather model, but it can read data from sensors, plug the numbers into the human-created model, and then spit out an answer. In effect, computers are there to automate and simplify hard tasks, and eliminate menial ones.
Organization is one of the last frontiers of automation, if not the last frontier. For the most part, everybody has a "system" of organization. There are rules to this system that are by and large strictly followed. The rules vary between people, but organization cannot happen without the rules.
In the past, what is required of the user is to set up the organization structure, and then set up the rules. Then the computer will take input, and spit it out in the organized form based on the rules.
The future is to automatically create the rules based on the user's behavior. That's what a lot of these new "paradigms" are aiming for. This eliminates the step where the user explicitly defines the rules. In fact, they're going on step further, and trying to elimiate the initial structure setup, so that the computer can infer the structure based on the user's behavior. The combination results in looser rules, but also a more dynamic structure.
But honestly, it doesn't look like anybody's gotten past the "throw everything on the floor" step of organizing yet.
I'd be willing to bet most people in general lack the ability to fully appreciate the difficulty of such moves, and the amount of skill required to pull off the more incredible things olympic-level gymnasts can do. I'll bet if most people so much as attempted to do a full twist in mid-air, they'd be wheeling themselves to see their chriopractor for the next month or two. And these guys do two or three.
I mean, olympic athletes are at the top of their game, the best of the best from around the world. But some of the things these athletes have done are even amazing by their standards.
I smell late-night open-door pizza parties, courtesy of the RIAA.
You pay insurance to insure yourself against such major catastrophes, so that if this happens, the collective absorbs most the cost. If you pay up the wazoo the moment you start getting sick, that's not insurance anymore. That's like putting your money into a savings account for a rainy day.
Passwords can't be saved if your access is controlled by something like a RSA secureID. Include a user-generated portion (like a password or PIN), and hide it within the secureID number, and it becomes even more secure.
After all, any country is safer if nobody wants to go and destroy it anymore.
I know you're being tongue-in-cheek, but I fixed it for you.
I could be a random resistance element that could be used as a random number seed.
The fact that you're on /. alone disqualifies you from being used as a seed for anything.
the sea is full of hydroxide
We must make every effort to cleanse our seas of this life-threatening chemical!
And while we're at it, we should filter out all the DHMO as well.
Sounds like all we need to do now is send the governator there and put his hand on top of the machine.
I use fiber optics. Well, not so much fiber, just optics in the form of morse code with a flashlight. And if they even dare try to figure out what I'm saying, it's a violation of the DMCA.
If it makes you feel any better, I remember when the old cell phones were the size of an adult forearm and before that, when the battery was a separate unit the size of a backpack.
We still used little black books to keep track of our contacts back then. I actually had nine or ten numbers memorized, that I could recite and dial on the fly. Nowadays, I'm lucky to even be able to incant my home phone without hesitating.
I'm sorry, but Foobar is not open source.
The problem is that they don't really do anything that the individual bands cannot do. Their effectiveness comes from size. Who would a major marketing agency or retail outlet pay more attention to, a band of 4 kids with a few albums and marginal CD sales (a small account), or a huge media company (a huge account)? The labels are effectively doing the job of a union. Unfortunately, you don't really need a label anymore for those things, you just need a union.
The most effective way to control over people is to make them think their are in control of themselves.
I hear Fox news is quite popular here in the US.
Unfortunately, "friendlier countries" are a little hard to come by these days.
If he's allowed to say those things, then her father/brother/boyfriend should be allowed to brutally murder the AC to protect her from rape (he did say he'd rape her).
Bullshit. Who made her father/brother/boyfriend judge and jury? Anyone is allowed to say those things. It's up to a judge and jury to determine what to do about the offender.
IANAL, but I believe you can say you'll cause bodily harm to someone, but if that person cannot show that you're in a position to carry out the threat, and that person cannot show that they could reasonably deduce that you were in such a position, self-defense does not apply.
Which is to say, if you were drunk off your ass and proclaimed you were going to strangle your recently-acquainted female companion with a noodle, she might not be able to claim self-defense if she kills you or causes bodily injury to you. Now, if you skipped the noodle part, and you displayed the ability to strangle her with your bare hands despite being drunk, that's another story.
I think this lawsuit (and any such lawsuit) is meant to humiliate the trolls more than to lock them up. It's meant to expose them for who they are, and let them face the ridicule of their peers and the public.
Of course, if the trolls had been halfway intelligent, they would've secured themselves by posting anonymously, through TOR or some such.
Unfortunately, you can't actually play any of the two, as they are proper nouns. However, you can play "Scrabble," and get a scrabble if you do manage to make the word.
As a friend once told me, the two most dangerous situations a cop will ever find himself in are traffic stops and responding to domestic violence calls.
The reason is that for everything else, there's an expectation of what they'll have to face, and they're typically trained for most such scenarios. However, in both traffic stops and domenstic violence situations, they're pretty much going in blind. They don't know what type of person they're going to encounter, whether it be some average law-abiding citizen, or a drug kingpin.
Knowing this is a good reason to not set cops off during a traffic stop. They're already on edge from the moment they pull you over, in case you should be holding a gun loaded with armor-piercing rounsd to the car door or something. The same goes for domestic violence, but I don't imagine many of us would find ourselves at the wrong end of such a call.
Obviously untrue. I found about 3,800,000 hits.
In some places, it is legal to shoot trespassers.
Look on the bright side: At least they're not whacking you with the stick and calling it "spanking."
No, you'd want them to remain as they are, closed, hostile, and blatantly untrustworthy. You can predict their next moves so long as they remain consistent. However, if they're open and friendly and trustworthy, then it'll be too late when they turn around and stab you in the back.
Remember, the three E's begins with Embrace and Extend. That means "I'm going to be all friendly towards you, and help you out whenever you need it." But never forget the last E, Extinguish.
Yeah, go figure. Of the tens of definitions, the one that's most popular is missing.
Makes you wonder how comprehensive that reference is...
BTW, "Shit outta luck" is probably more accurate, since nobody actually enunciates the "of" when using that particular phrase.