Actually, you clearly are the one that doesnt understand.
Toddlers have racial biases.
No they dont.
Even babies just a few months old will prefer to look at a picture of someone with the same skin color as them.
No, they prefer to look at pictures of those who more closely resemble thei individuals who are familiar parts of their environment already - typically caregivers/family members.
This is not a racial bias, but demonstrates a set of innate abilities evolved to allow us to distinguish individuals on the basis of extremely tiny variations in appearance. Skin colour being quite possibly the most obvious of the set, and thus one that becomes noticeable most quickly.
"Racial" bias requires a concept of race, a peculiar and illusionary social construction which is still well beyond the capability of a toddler.
The sad thing is that by doing the right thing and attempting to report this responsibly, the articles author has now set himself up to be scapegoated. If the exploit is leaked now, whether he does it or not, the vendor will blame him for it and focus as much on destroying his career as on fixing the problem. This is the reason many security professionals decided long ago *not* to report these things "responsibly" but simply to leak them anonymously in every case. Doing this forces the vendor to deal with the vulnerability without making the reporter vulnerable.
I don't know how codecs/formats work, but can someone tell me if the theora format can be improved to the point that it rivals H.264, while still being the theora format?
Dont get sucked in by the group-think. Theora already rivals H.264 - in real most applications it's highly unlikely anyone would ever notice the difference.
And yes, encoder and decoder development is at least as important than the underlying algorithm.
Well, in fact, we *do* "know [...] for a fact" that humans evolved from earlier species. Some relatively minor details may be subject to uncertainty but the basic fact is clear and incontrovertible.
But you are right, this doesnt rule out an ultimate creator. The teacher that got me really interested in evolution, in fact, was a pretty conservative and deeply religious southern baptist as well as a biologist. Scientific knowledge certainly rules out the naïve literalist reading of the bible that a few ignorant loudmouths reliably push, but even in conservative religious circles that isnt a respectable reading and probably never has been, and you dont need modern science to debunk it, it's untenable even on its own terms. Darwin was religious and most scientists historically have been - many people have and do pursue the natural sciences as disciplines which glorifies the creator by helping us to understand and appreciate his work and methods. From this point of view, evolution doesnt denigrate the creator, but reveals his sublime genius and foresight.
And in an eery mirror image to the fundamentalist religious idiots, we also have fundamentalist anti-religious idiots who add lots of heat but no light to the conversation by loudly proclaiming that evolution disproves theïsm - a position no more accurate than that of the most irrational bible thumpers who agree wholeheartedly with the false proposition that the two are fundamentally incompatible.
But while I believe I see and sympathise with your point here, and as devils advocate I will even postulate that the results *in part* reflect a healthy skepticism, a population which is less inclined to simply believe whatever someone who appears authoritative tells them and is more willing to reject assertions without proof and/or has some awareness that theories change over time and rarely if ever represent ultimate truth, experience also leads me to believe that the bulk of the difference is better explained by the abysmal state of science education in the US and a significant number of irational and ignorant "believers" who simply accept the pronunciations of the loudest and least authoritative religous authorities then refuse to consider anything else, unfortunately.
All the stuff you mention plus keybindings and WM choice. Once upon a time I was totally in love with Gnome. Unix keybindings and WindowMaker integration made it very useable and useful for me. Gnome2 took away all that - took away everything I liked about it - and to ad insult to injury the developers made it a practice to abuse anyone that didnt like the change. It's true I havent tried it recently, and it's also true I probably never will. I am not a masochist.
I have used a number of cruise control systems in GM, Ford, and Toyota vehicles of various vintages from the 70s on to brand new vehicles. I have NEVER ONCE seen a cruise control that would do what you describe. All of them refuse to activate below a minimum speed (over 25mph, over 30 in most cases.)
The monetary loss was significant BUT so was the profit that resulted from the criminal activity. Pfizer will simply write it off as the cost of doing business and try not to get caught next time. This is not justice.
The prosecutor by his own account conspired with the defendant to prevent the penalty the law calls for from being effectively imposed. This prosecutor needs to be prosecuted as well.
Neither necessary nor proper. Federal involvement in education has been an unmitigated disaster, and is clearly unconstitutional.
On another note your username appears very well chosen however.
It has noticeably better MSOffice compatibility than OO.org
Noticeable? Really? I have yet to notice any problems importing MS files to OO so that's hard to see.
and it's much more lightweight, as well.
Well that part does sound good.
I suspect it would be something that quite a few Linux users could use - so long as they aren't morally opposed to shelling out $50 (or whatever it is these days) for software.
I have no objection to shelling out money (it's actually closer to $100 US but no matter) for good software, however best I can tell you dont actually get any software for your money here, just a binary blob. I wont pay for that.
This is exactly it. The Nouveau driver team would happily write and support a proper free driver for the Nvidia cards if Nvidia would simply provide the specs rather than obfuscating and obstructing their work. But since they obstinantly refuse to quit being obstructionists and hinder these good folks, the upshot is that I get better performance with a simple Intel on-board graphics system than with a much more expensive Nvidia card. So I have no motivation to buy Nvidia - why would I pay more to get less?
There is no time or cost because no one wants them to write a free driver. Others are more than willing to write and maintain the driver for them for free. All they need to do to have their hardware properly supported is quit obfuscating the necessary communication protocols used to access the more advanced functions of the cards.
You dont know what you are talking about. At best the binary blob "supports" a limited subset of linux-based systems, and even that not properly. You may find it "works well" for you on your specific setup, and you may be myopic enough to not care about anyone or anything else, but fortunately not everyone is so short-sighted. To properly support a free system requires that the actual software (NOT a derivative blob) be available and free as well. To properly support linux specifically means to comply with the requirements of the kernel team so that the driver appears in the kernel tree and is maintained as part of the kernel. A binary blob has never and will never constitute support, period.
It's not the only issue where the courts have a long and ignoble history of adopting painfully contorted positions to completely ignore the plain the text of the Constitution and produce a more politically "desirable" answer than the plain text of the law could permit. Ultimately, in a democratic republic, it is the duty of the citizen to practice civil disobedience when the branches of government collude together to violate the law.
Whether they count it or not is their problem, it is the scientifically correct answer, if in abbreviated form. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the race of all human alive today. There once were other races of humans but all have been extinct for quite some time now.
Or just answer truthfully, Race: Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Human.) Unless you are a surviving Neanderthal in which case a number of researchers will need to speak with you immediately...
But that is assuming they actually allow such input. I dont believe they do. I believe it is a multiple-choice question with a pre-defined selection of colours and ethnic backgrounds (but of course no races) as the only allowed answers.
The Constitution not only permits but requires that they count the population, and I have no problem cooperating with that. That justifies gathering two pieces of information, the number of people in the household, and the name (as that is really required to make the count verifiable.) But the rest of the questions? All about encouraging citizens to think of ourselves not as citizens, but as members of their haphazardly misdefined groups whose purpose is to compete politically, with the winners using the state as a weapon to improve their collective position at the expense of the others.
I used to the f-prot scanner on a boot floppy. They quit making the dos version though. I guess a keydrive with busybox and one of the linux scanners would be the way to go today.
Regardless of OS, there is a logical problem with scanning the partition you booted from. Therefore the best policy is to always scan after booting from a clean (preferably write-protected) partition *before* scanning anyhow.
It hides the increased complexity from the programmer.
That is what I said.
Which resources do you think are the most valuable?
That is not a question for which a single good answer can be given, other than "it depends." There are so many variables. Just how often will how many processors do extra work (that will allow you to calculate the lost electricity - it is a real and calculable cost.) RAM usage also has real costs associated, including electricity, but calculating the final price tag is far more complicated there. But the bottom line is that it is way too much work to really track down and calculate to the penny the costs of innefficient code, even in the narrowest of sense, so no one does. We just sort of guess-timate, and we work within systems that dont encourage us to account for costs that can be passed on unaccounted for, so we generally do it in that manner. That the outcome is naturally for many actors to weigh the decision purely in terms of their own personal and immediate costs and benefits (15 minutes of my time vs. small performance hit to whomever uses) without accounting at all for many less personal and less immediate effects.
And often enough that works just fine. But there are cases where it will bite you hard. Knowing which situation is which is important. How are you going to do that if you only know quick-and-cheap method without understanding the larger picture?
But it really is much simpler. The reason your 'average first year comp sci student' might find it less understandable is because they dont actually understand the bloated version either. Using a high-level language doesnt reduce complexity, quite the opposite in fact, it greatly increases actual complexity. It simply makes it easier to get something done without understanding it, and thus makes it easier to kid yourself into thinking you know what you are doing, when you dont.
The south would have done the same were they able to. They did, after all, initiate the hostilities.
You actually seem pretty well informed to this point. But this is nonsense.
The south did NOT initiate hostilities, nor did the south ever make any territorial claims over the north at any point. The first point is the only one that is even arguable, and it hardly so with a straight face. Lincoln 'fans' talk about as admirable maneuvering. But keeping federal troops inside a sovereign state, occupying and in cases destroying the states property and refusing to comply with lawful orders was certainly a hostile act, and an act of war.
Beyond that the southron aspiration was to independence not conquest. This is why we refuse to call it 'civil war' to this day - a civil war is a conflict between two groups over control of a common territory or state, but the southron patriots never made any claim towards the northern states or to control the federal government, only a right to be left alone by them. In some of the border states there were civil wars going on during the time period, but the broader conflict cannot be a civil war since the confederacy never made the slightest claim to rule the north.
The invasion of Pennsylvania was an act of despair taken late in the war once the tide had turned against the south and only a miracle could have saved her. But during the earlier days of the war there were several occasions when the south had the upper hand and could have effectively invaded the north but held back to her borders instead, believing that they could simply hold the invaders at the border until they got tired of trying.
I'm not sure of the mechanism, but more than once I've seen IE pop up to handle a specific file on a machine where firefox was set as the only browser allowed to run. So no, it may be less likely, but it is not impossible.
if he's trying to communicate or just challenge the system. If it's the former, he should upload a video that can't be removed on the basis of copyright fair use or not. If it's the latter, well, he's made his point by being censored.
The two goals are not mutually exclusive, it is quite possible he is trying to do both.
What is truly sad here is that even if you only use firefox and even "disable" IE (the closest they will allow you to get to uninstalling it) you are still vulnerable.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you clearly are the one that doesnt understand.
No they dont.
No, they prefer to look at pictures of those who more closely resemble thei individuals who are familiar parts of their environment already - typically caregivers/family members.
This is not a racial bias, but demonstrates a set of innate abilities evolved to allow us to distinguish individuals on the basis of extremely tiny variations in appearance. Skin colour being quite possibly the most obvious of the set, and thus one that becomes noticeable most quickly.
"Racial" bias requires a concept of race, a peculiar and illusionary social construction which is still well beyond the capability of a toddler.
The sad thing is that by doing the right thing and attempting to report this responsibly, the articles author has now set himself up to be scapegoated. If the exploit is leaked now, whether he does it or not, the vendor will blame him for it and focus as much on destroying his career as on fixing the problem. This is the reason many security professionals decided long ago *not* to report these things "responsibly" but simply to leak them anonymously in every case. Doing this forces the vendor to deal with the vulnerability without making the reporter vulnerable.
Dont get sucked in by the group-think. Theora already rivals H.264 - in real most applications it's highly unlikely anyone would ever notice the difference.
And yes, encoder and decoder development is at least as important than the underlying algorithm.
Well, in fact, we *do* "know [...] for a fact" that humans evolved from earlier species. Some relatively minor details may be subject to uncertainty but the basic fact is clear and incontrovertible.
But you are right, this doesnt rule out an ultimate creator. The teacher that got me really interested in evolution, in fact, was a pretty conservative and deeply religious southern baptist as well as a biologist. Scientific knowledge certainly rules out the naïve literalist reading of the bible that a few ignorant loudmouths reliably push, but even in conservative religious circles that isnt a respectable reading and probably never has been, and you dont need modern science to debunk it, it's untenable even on its own terms. Darwin was religious and most scientists historically have been - many people have and do pursue the natural sciences as disciplines which glorifies the creator by helping us to understand and appreciate his work and methods. From this point of view, evolution doesnt denigrate the creator, but reveals his sublime genius and foresight.
And in an eery mirror image to the fundamentalist religious idiots, we also have fundamentalist anti-religious idiots who add lots of heat but no light to the conversation by loudly proclaiming that evolution disproves theïsm - a position no more accurate than that of the most irrational bible thumpers who agree wholeheartedly with the false proposition that the two are fundamentally incompatible.
But while I believe I see and sympathise with your point here, and as devils advocate I will even postulate that the results *in part* reflect a healthy skepticism, a population which is less inclined to simply believe whatever someone who appears authoritative tells them and is more willing to reject assertions without proof and/or has some awareness that theories change over time and rarely if ever represent ultimate truth, experience also leads me to believe that the bulk of the difference is better explained by the abysmal state of science education in the US and a significant number of irational and ignorant "believers" who simply accept the pronunciations of the loudest and least authoritative religous authorities then refuse to consider anything else, unfortunately.
This is my impression also.
All the stuff you mention plus keybindings and WM choice. Once upon a time I was totally in love with Gnome. Unix keybindings and WindowMaker integration made it very useable and useful for me. Gnome2 took away all that - took away everything I liked about it - and to ad insult to injury the developers made it a practice to abuse anyone that didnt like the change. It's true I havent tried it recently, and it's also true I probably never will. I am not a masochist.
I have used a number of cruise control systems in GM, Ford, and Toyota vehicles of various vintages from the 70s on to brand new vehicles. I have NEVER ONCE seen a cruise control that would do what you describe. All of them refuse to activate below a minimum speed (over 25mph, over 30 in most cases.)
The monetary loss was significant BUT so was the profit that resulted from the criminal activity. Pfizer will simply write it off as the cost of doing business and try not to get caught next time. This is not justice.
The prosecutor by his own account conspired with the defendant to prevent the penalty the law calls for from being effectively imposed. This prosecutor needs to be prosecuted as well.
Dont hold your breath.
Neither necessary nor proper. Federal involvement in education has been an unmitigated disaster, and is clearly unconstitutional. On another note your username appears very well chosen however.
Noticeable? Really? I have yet to notice any problems importing MS files to OO so that's hard to see.
Well that part does sound good.
I have no objection to shelling out money (it's actually closer to $100 US but no matter) for good software, however best I can tell you dont actually get any software for your money here, just a binary blob. I wont pay for that.
This is exactly it. The Nouveau driver team would happily write and support a proper free driver for the Nvidia cards if Nvidia would simply provide the specs rather than obfuscating and obstructing their work. But since they obstinantly refuse to quit being obstructionists and hinder these good folks, the upshot is that I get better performance with a simple Intel on-board graphics system than with a much more expensive Nvidia card. So I have no motivation to buy Nvidia - why would I pay more to get less?
There is no time or cost because no one wants them to write a free driver. Others are more than willing to write and maintain the driver for them for free. All they need to do to have their hardware properly supported is quit obfuscating the necessary communication protocols used to access the more advanced functions of the cards.
You dont know what you are talking about. At best the binary blob "supports" a limited subset of linux-based systems, and even that not properly. You may find it "works well" for you on your specific setup, and you may be myopic enough to not care about anyone or anything else, but fortunately not everyone is so short-sighted. To properly support a free system requires that the actual software (NOT a derivative blob) be available and free as well. To properly support linux specifically means to comply with the requirements of the kernel team so that the driver appears in the kernel tree and is maintained as part of the kernel. A binary blob has never and will never constitute support, period.
It's not the only issue where the courts have a long and ignoble history of adopting painfully contorted positions to completely ignore the plain the text of the Constitution and produce a more politically "desirable" answer than the plain text of the law could permit. Ultimately, in a democratic republic, it is the duty of the citizen to practice civil disobedience when the branches of government collude together to violate the law.
It is but it shouldnt be, and that is the point.
Whether they count it or not is their problem, it is the scientifically correct answer, if in abbreviated form. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the race of all human alive today. There once were other races of humans but all have been extinct for quite some time now.
Or just answer truthfully, Race: Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Human.) Unless you are a surviving Neanderthal in which case a number of researchers will need to speak with you immediately...
But that is assuming they actually allow such input. I dont believe they do. I believe it is a multiple-choice question with a pre-defined selection of colours and ethnic backgrounds (but of course no races) as the only allowed answers.
The Constitution not only permits but requires that they count the population, and I have no problem cooperating with that. That justifies gathering two pieces of information, the number of people in the household, and the name (as that is really required to make the count verifiable.) But the rest of the questions? All about encouraging citizens to think of ourselves not as citizens, but as members of their haphazardly misdefined groups whose purpose is to compete politically, with the winners using the state as a weapon to improve their collective position at the expense of the others.
I used to the f-prot scanner on a boot floppy. They quit making the dos version though. I guess a keydrive with busybox and one of the linux scanners would be the way to go today. Regardless of OS, there is a logical problem with scanning the partition you booted from. Therefore the best policy is to always scan after booting from a clean (preferably write-protected) partition *before* scanning anyhow.
And slavery is only illegal because free labour works harder and costs less (over the long term.)
That is what I said.
That is not a question for which a single good answer can be given, other than "it depends." There are so many variables. Just how often will how many processors do extra work (that will allow you to calculate the lost electricity - it is a real and calculable cost.) RAM usage also has real costs associated, including electricity, but calculating the final price tag is far more complicated there. But the bottom line is that it is way too much work to really track down and calculate to the penny the costs of innefficient code, even in the narrowest of sense, so no one does. We just sort of guess-timate, and we work within systems that dont encourage us to account for costs that can be passed on unaccounted for, so we generally do it in that manner. That the outcome is naturally for many actors to weigh the decision purely in terms of their own personal and immediate costs and benefits (15 minutes of my time vs. small performance hit to whomever uses) without accounting at all for many less personal and less immediate effects.
And often enough that works just fine. But there are cases where it will bite you hard. Knowing which situation is which is important. How are you going to do that if you only know quick-and-cheap method without understanding the larger picture?
But it really is much simpler. The reason your 'average first year comp sci student' might find it less understandable is because they dont actually understand the bloated version either. Using a high-level language doesnt reduce complexity, quite the opposite in fact, it greatly increases actual complexity. It simply makes it easier to get something done without understanding it, and thus makes it easier to kid yourself into thinking you know what you are doing, when you dont.
You actually seem pretty well informed to this point. But this is nonsense.
The south did NOT initiate hostilities, nor did the south ever make any territorial claims over the north at any point. The first point is the only one that is even arguable, and it hardly so with a straight face. Lincoln 'fans' talk about as admirable maneuvering. But keeping federal troops inside a sovereign state, occupying and in cases destroying the states property and refusing to comply with lawful orders was certainly a hostile act, and an act of war.
Beyond that the southron aspiration was to independence not conquest. This is why we refuse to call it 'civil war' to this day - a civil war is a conflict between two groups over control of a common territory or state, but the southron patriots never made any claim towards the northern states or to control the federal government, only a right to be left alone by them. In some of the border states there were civil wars going on during the time period, but the broader conflict cannot be a civil war since the confederacy never made the slightest claim to rule the north.
The invasion of Pennsylvania was an act of despair taken late in the war once the tide had turned against the south and only a miracle could have saved her. But during the earlier days of the war there were several occasions when the south had the upper hand and could have effectively invaded the north but held back to her borders instead, believing that they could simply hold the invaders at the border until they got tired of trying.
I'm not sure of the mechanism, but more than once I've seen IE pop up to handle a specific file on a machine where firefox was set as the only browser allowed to run. So no, it may be less likely, but it is not impossible.
The two goals are not mutually exclusive, it is quite possible he is trying to do both.
What is truly sad here is that even if you only use firefox and even "disable" IE (the closest they will allow you to get to uninstalling it) you are still vulnerable.
Time is just natures way of keeping everything from happening at once.