From what I've seen, both MSNBC and Fox are both pretty much all opinion all the time, to the point of being detrimental rather than useless as sources of news.
Right, but thankfully we don't have to rely on your opinion of what you've seen. This source found that 90% of MSNBC programming is opinion versus 55% of Fox News. So, in fact, MSNBC is pretty much opinion all the time and Fox News is pretty much opinion half the time.
You're assuming quite a lot. You assume that because a large viewership means that somehow people changed by watching it. This assumes that people didn't do what people do which is to find within the information presented, something that confirms what they already know. It also assumes that not everyone who watched it knew the information presented. But aside from these simple logical errors you make, I'm not quite sure what point you are making. I am guessing (but not assuming) that you mean to say that somehow getting non-scientists to know what is already known by scientists somehow advances science. I am not quite sure how that works.
I remember all of it. Again the point was to do what the article said no one would do.
However, in defense of the question's validity, the question is not whether or not he was a well known figure involved in computing but rather was Steve Jobs just a part of a larger, inevitable computing movement? Did he make something happen that wouldn't have otherwise? Would no one else have developed the Xerox PARC idea of the GUI?
To your point, would computing today be more or less just as pervasive without Jobs only with, say, more Amigas? I'm not saying definitively it would or wouldn't, but seriously, nobody has ever asked that question? And there are no takers that it would?
The point was to question what someone said no one had questioned. If you can't see that your reasoning is already flawed and you really shouldn't be one to throw down another challenge.
BTW, I know quite a bit about the path computing and graphical user interfaces have taken and I still think it is a valid question. Would no one else have continued the work from Xerox PARC? Jobs was not in charge of Apple from 1985 until 1997. Computing and adoption of graphical user interfaces as the norm soared in that time. And I don't think it was due to what he was doing at NeXT.
"Nobody has questioned Jobs' seismic impact on computing and our communication culture"
Challenge accepted.
Did he really change how many people use computers or how much influence those computers have in their lives or did he just change which brand of computer they purchased?
An excellent point, but not relevant here. However, in the United States, searches can be with a warrant issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Allegations can be supported by Oath, e.g. several friends and family members say they saw child porn on your laptop. Allegations can be supported by affirmation, e.g. they set up a sting operation whereby they do, in fact, know that at one time a computer in your house had downloaded child porn. But being very certain that it was downloaded onto a machine in the house just isn't the same as knowing on what machine and by whom. It also isn't the same thing as knowing it is still there. Finally, the burden of proof you mention isn't required until any subsequent trial.
I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, but post-Christmas and the Fall update for the XBox, I would wonder how many more searches were driven by additional traffic from the Bing search from XBox, especially the voice search via Kinect. I think that would amount to a very sizable increase alone, because I still don't know, like most posters, anyone who goes to bing.com via browser deliberately for a search.
Thank you. I have actually read the entire bill and I really fail to see what all the hatred is about. That said, I tend to agree partially with Rackspace in that I don't believe the bill will actually be very effective to the end of Stopping Online Piracy but it could provide some modicum of relief for copyright holders, e.g. shutting down access to allofmp3 clones, etc. I would invite everyone to actually read the entire bill for themselves.
But this is Slashdot. So, barring that I would invite everyone to at least assume that laws are not generally drafted by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. They are likewise not generally passed by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. And they are not generally to be enforced by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. That kind of shrill dialog only serves to dumb down any discussion.
I am not digging. Your original statement remains incorrect. You are correct, IDE does not equal interface design. But, as you also point out, some IDEs are used for interface design. It is this very real case that I used as a counter example to your original post, where you suggested that in no case was an IDE better than vim. That was then and remains an inflammatory, ill-informed, misguided, and incorrect statement. There are, as I mentioned, other counter examples. I will not provide them, however. A single counter example will suffice to disprove your suggestion. If you would like others, I suggest you gather some software development experience.
Here's the conclusion I jumped to: you felt there are no benefits to ever using a graphical IDE because no graphical IDE works better than vim. This was based on what you said:
What is the benefit of using something "more powerful" than a console for development? I've yet to meet a graphical IDE that actually works better than vim
The conclusion I drew was correct. Also correct was where I mentioned that if you believe that, you are wrong. You have gone on now to point out why for your particular situation a console only approach is best. Fantastic. Some specific cases are best suited that way. In other cases however, there are a number of uses for graphical IDEs, even if you lack the experience to have ever been able to see the benefit of one. Also, one day, with some experience, you may find that suggesting that different solutions have no benefit for different requirements is foolish.
What is the benefit of using something "more powerful" than a console for development? I've yet to meet a graphical IDE that actually works better than vim
Stop this. Forever. If you need to design GUIs in your software development, a console only approach is undoubtedly inferior. Not using an unquestionably inferior development environment would be a benefit. There are loads of other examples. For some development, absolutely, a console meets the needs perfectly. But different requirements often require different solutions. If you don't know that as a developer, I do not want to use your software.
Right, I agree, there may be some ease of use by having it built-in and officially supported, but I think the failure rate of Siri to this point has perhaps rendered that moot. In this case: doesn't work? Join the club, it's failing for many.
To be fair, saying that Siri is better than Android's voice functionality is not really a meaningful comparison of device capability. It is more a comparison of out of the box capability; there are several applications out there, Edwin and Vlingo are free examples, that provide very similar functionality for Android phones. And, of course, that is all Siri is: a 3rd party application for iOS available for some time, that Apple bought and pre-installed on their newer devices and is no longer available for their older devices. It is a marketing approach to convince people of the inherent superiority of the device based on it's bundled software, but not anything to do with actual capability. And that may well have some merit for ease of use, but the rather disappointing failure rate of Siri to date probably mitigates that ease of use.
By what definition? I provided no definition. But the provision of air is not a cost directly paid by anyone and would be hard to pin down. The costs of providing a university education are explicit and well known and most decidedly not 'free' no matter if the government subsidizes it or not.
Correction: In many parts of the world, the costs associated with university level educations provided to students are subsidized by those who are not attending university.
I think it sounds more positive to say that education is paid by those who have already received it. But what you wrote is not wrong.
While it does sound more positive to say so, and is in the general case is probably the case, it would only be true to say that education is paid by those who have already received it if all those who currently pay to subsidize the formal, government provided education received a formal, government provided education. And in this case, that would be a formal, government provided, university education. It's a quibble, though; what you say is the more likely case.
No, digital education is not new. But are you suggesting that there are no resources involved in providing it? No professors spending time creating the material and reviewing the coursework of the students? No costs of providing the online bandwidth? No costs of providing the student with the tools and environment in which to learn?
I think the grade and the associated credits do matter. Otherwise, Stanford would have some explaining to do as to why they are still charging people for those things.
To be fair, I think it is neat that they are allowing people to view their course material and provide feedback to people attempting to learn the material. In this case this is Computer Science. However, in this case, there are already many existing resources, both offline and online, that can provide people with the ability to learn. The difference here is that some of those same materials are being provided by a renowned university. However, while the knowledge to be gained is not enhanced by that, the marketability of those who do get a grade and credit is.
Correction: In many parts of the world, the costs associated with university level educations provided to students are subsidized by those who are not attending university.
Correction: Free education would be something new, since finding a way to provide education without a cost of resources that could be applied elsewhere would be entirely unheard of.
These are not free courses. The ability to audit these courses is what is free. If you are not a Stanford student, you will receive neither credit nor a grade.
...in my opinion. To me, it seems clear that a good formal education is simply a vetting process. Specifically, a provision of a certification of work completed by an accredited, dispassionate entity. It has very little to do with teaching. Universities expect students to achieve passing grades in their classes regardless of how much or little the professors of those classes are interested in actively teaching versus simply requiring students to cover the material on their own. It also has very little to do with learning. Anyone can learn, say, architecture or mathematics independently of a university. While that is great it, in reality, means very little if there is no one can verify that you did in fact learn it, i.e. no one is going to have you design their building just because you say you know how. While employers or even universities (for advanced degrees) could attempt to verify this knowledge independently, it costs a lot of money and quality of that would be all over the board. However, universities really can't say that students learned the material, either. They can just say that students completed work that should require knowledge of that material. This is why cheating wrecks the system, i.e. it is a way to complete the work without the knowledge.
Universities exist for this verification process and are accredited based on the quality of this verification process. That is, they are not just trying to be greedy or hoard knowledge nor are they trying to provide great environments and contacts and experiences. Rather, when they issue a degree they are signing off on a person. If that person doesn't know what they said the person should, it diminishes the perceived quality of their degree.
The point: it is very difficult, and costly, to provide the same quality of verification with online classes as you can with face to face classes. Cheating becomes a much more prevalent factor. Getting more and more students through the courses increases the likelihood that a false positive will be issued. Evaluating a student's commitment to their education is more difficult when it is impossible to determine how much time the student has spent "in class", i.e. viewing lectures. And more. This is why universities hesitate to go that route.
I think you have missed the point as well. WrongSizeGlass was not saying that Macs are secure because they are less prevalent but rather they are less vulnerable because they are less prevalent. You seem to be conflating the two concepts of vulnerability and security. Vulnerability is the possibility of attack and security is how well such an attack may be thwarted. Attacking more prevalent systems provides a much greater reward of exploit. This makes the most popular operating system far more vulnerable, that is more likely to be attacked, regardless of whether or not it is more or less secure than any other.
The real canard here is what WrongSizeGlass alluded to: the notion that Macs are less vulnerable because they are more secure. They could be more secure, but they are less vulnerable because they are less prevalent.
Storing passwords as hashes instead of plain text is now illegal in France,
No, it is not. Nowhere in the article (yes, I read it) does it say that. The law that is being challenged by Google and others is one that requires them to store users' information for one year.
It is still completely possible for Google to use hashed passwords to authenticate users and only "save" the plain password in a "write only" file (text or separate database) with the unhashed passwords...
I read the article as well. The summary is completely wrong, but I think you missed something. The law doesn't mean that the information must be stored plaintext somewhere. The law seems to just require that a plaintext password be obtainable by authorities upon demand. That would mean Google or whomever could keep things like passwords encrypted and decrypt when asked.
I can confirm the resource greediness issues with VS2010. Featurewise, it's really very nice - the code window is great; the tooltip objectbrowser dealie is great. With few exceptions however, e.g. adding references to a project is now loads faster, it generally a sluggish hog compared to VS2008. I would wait for SP1 before putting it on your laptop. That said, all of the above is for versions with the development tools, i.e. using the VS2010 shell with only the Team Foundation Server Client is pretty snappy.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I've seen, both MSNBC and Fox are both pretty much all opinion all the time, to the point of being detrimental rather than useless as sources of news.
Right, but thankfully we don't have to rely on your opinion of what you've seen. This source found that 90% of MSNBC programming is opinion versus 55% of Fox News. So, in fact, MSNBC is pretty much opinion all the time and Fox News is pretty much opinion half the time.
You're assuming quite a lot. You assume that because a large viewership means that somehow people changed by watching it. This assumes that people didn't do what people do which is to find within the information presented, something that confirms what they already know. It also assumes that not everyone who watched it knew the information presented. But aside from these simple logical errors you make, I'm not quite sure what point you are making. I am guessing (but not assuming) that you mean to say that somehow getting non-scientists to know what is already known by scientists somehow advances science. I am not quite sure how that works.
I remember all of it. Again the point was to do what the article said no one would do.
However, in defense of the question's validity, the question is not whether or not he was a well known figure involved in computing but rather was Steve Jobs just a part of a larger, inevitable computing movement? Did he make something happen that wouldn't have otherwise? Would no one else have developed the Xerox PARC idea of the GUI?
To your point, would computing today be more or less just as pervasive without Jobs only with, say, more Amigas? I'm not saying definitively it would or wouldn't, but seriously, nobody has ever asked that question? And there are no takers that it would?
The point was to question what someone said no one had questioned. If you can't see that your reasoning is already flawed and you really shouldn't be one to throw down another challenge.
BTW, I know quite a bit about the path computing and graphical user interfaces have taken and I still think it is a valid question. Would no one else have continued the work from Xerox PARC? Jobs was not in charge of Apple from 1985 until 1997. Computing and adoption of graphical user interfaces as the norm soared in that time. And I don't think it was due to what he was doing at NeXT.
"Nobody has questioned Jobs' seismic impact on computing and our communication culture"
Challenge accepted.
Did he really change how many people use computers or how much influence those computers have in their lives or did he just change which brand of computer they purchased?
An excellent point, but not relevant here. However, in the United States, searches can be with a warrant issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Allegations can be supported by Oath, e.g. several friends and family members say they saw child porn on your laptop. Allegations can be supported by affirmation, e.g. they set up a sting operation whereby they do, in fact, know that at one time a computer in your house had downloaded child porn. But being very certain that it was downloaded onto a machine in the house just isn't the same as knowing on what machine and by whom. It also isn't the same thing as knowing it is still there. Finally, the burden of proof you mention isn't required until any subsequent trial.
I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, but post-Christmas and the Fall update for the XBox, I would wonder how many more searches were driven by additional traffic from the Bing search from XBox, especially the voice search via Kinect. I think that would amount to a very sizable increase alone, because I still don't know, like most posters, anyone who goes to bing.com via browser deliberately for a search.
Thank you. I have actually read the entire bill and I really fail to see what all the hatred is about. That said, I tend to agree partially with Rackspace in that I don't believe the bill will actually be very effective to the end of Stopping Online Piracy but it could provide some modicum of relief for copyright holders, e.g. shutting down access to allofmp3 clones, etc. I would invite everyone to actually read the entire bill for themselves.
But this is Slashdot. So, barring that I would invite everyone to at least assume that laws are not generally drafted by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. They are likewise not generally passed by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. And they are not generally to be enforced by the specifically and only evil and stupid for a negative end. That kind of shrill dialog only serves to dumb down any discussion.
I am not digging. Your original statement remains incorrect. You are correct, IDE does not equal interface design. But, as you also point out, some IDEs are used for interface design. It is this very real case that I used as a counter example to your original post, where you suggested that in no case was an IDE better than vim. That was then and remains an inflammatory, ill-informed, misguided, and incorrect statement. There are, as I mentioned, other counter examples. I will not provide them, however. A single counter example will suffice to disprove your suggestion. If you would like others, I suggest you gather some software development experience.
What is the benefit of using something "more powerful" than a console for development? I've yet to meet a graphical IDE that actually works better than vim
The conclusion I drew was correct. Also correct was where I mentioned that if you believe that, you are wrong. You have gone on now to point out why for your particular situation a console only approach is best. Fantastic. Some specific cases are best suited that way. In other cases however, there are a number of uses for graphical IDEs, even if you lack the experience to have ever been able to see the benefit of one. Also, one day, with some experience, you may find that suggesting that different solutions have no benefit for different requirements is foolish.
What is the benefit of using something "more powerful" than a console for development? I've yet to meet a graphical IDE that actually works better than vim
Stop this. Forever. If you need to design GUIs in your software development, a console only approach is undoubtedly inferior. Not using an unquestionably inferior development environment would be a benefit. There are loads of other examples. For some development, absolutely, a console meets the needs perfectly. But different requirements often require different solutions. If you don't know that as a developer, I do not want to use your software.
Right, I agree, there may be some ease of use by having it built-in and officially supported, but I think the failure rate of Siri to this point has perhaps rendered that moot. In this case: doesn't work? Join the club, it's failing for many.
To be fair, saying that Siri is better than Android's voice functionality is not really a meaningful comparison of device capability. It is more a comparison of out of the box capability; there are several applications out there, Edwin and Vlingo are free examples, that provide very similar functionality for Android phones. And, of course, that is all Siri is: a 3rd party application for iOS available for some time, that Apple bought and pre-installed on their newer devices and is no longer available for their older devices. It is a marketing approach to convince people of the inherent superiority of the device based on it's bundled software, but not anything to do with actual capability. And that may well have some merit for ease of use, but the rather disappointing failure rate of Siri to date probably mitigates that ease of use.
xkcd reference
By what definition? I provided no definition. But the provision of air is not a cost directly paid by anyone and would be hard to pin down. The costs of providing a university education are explicit and well known and most decidedly not 'free' no matter if the government subsidizes it or not.
Correction: In many parts of the world, the costs associated with university level educations provided to students are subsidized by those who are not attending university.
I think it sounds more positive to say that education is paid by those who have already received it. But what you wrote is not wrong.
While it does sound more positive to say so, and is in the general case is probably the case, it would only be true to say that education is paid by those who have already received it if all those who currently pay to subsidize the formal, government provided education received a formal, government provided education. And in this case, that would be a formal, government provided, university education. It's a quibble, though; what you say is the more likely case.
No, digital education is not new. But are you suggesting that there are no resources involved in providing it? No professors spending time creating the material and reviewing the coursework of the students? No costs of providing the online bandwidth? No costs of providing the student with the tools and environment in which to learn?
I think the grade and the associated credits do matter. Otherwise, Stanford would have some explaining to do as to why they are still charging people for those things.
To be fair, I think it is neat that they are allowing people to view their course material and provide feedback to people attempting to learn the material. In this case this is Computer Science. However, in this case, there are already many existing resources, both offline and online, that can provide people with the ability to learn. The difference here is that some of those same materials are being provided by a renowned university. However, while the knowledge to be gained is not enhanced by that, the marketability of those who do get a grade and credit is.
Correction: In many parts of the world, the costs associated with university level educations provided to students are subsidized by those who are not attending university.
Correction: Free education would be something new, since finding a way to provide education without a cost of resources that could be applied elsewhere would be entirely unheard of.
These are not free courses. The ability to audit these courses is what is free. If you are not a Stanford student, you will receive neither credit nor a grade.
...in my opinion. To me, it seems clear that a good formal education is simply a vetting process. Specifically, a provision of a certification of work completed by an accredited, dispassionate entity. It has very little to do with teaching. Universities expect students to achieve passing grades in their classes regardless of how much or little the professors of those classes are interested in actively teaching versus simply requiring students to cover the material on their own. It also has very little to do with learning. Anyone can learn, say, architecture or mathematics independently of a university. While that is great it, in reality, means very little if there is no one can verify that you did in fact learn it, i.e. no one is going to have you design their building just because you say you know how. While employers or even universities (for advanced degrees) could attempt to verify this knowledge independently, it costs a lot of money and quality of that would be all over the board. However, universities really can't say that students learned the material, either. They can just say that students completed work that should require knowledge of that material. This is why cheating wrecks the system, i.e. it is a way to complete the work without the knowledge.
Universities exist for this verification process and are accredited based on the quality of this verification process. That is, they are not just trying to be greedy or hoard knowledge nor are they trying to provide great environments and contacts and experiences. Rather, when they issue a degree they are signing off on a person. If that person doesn't know what they said the person should, it diminishes the perceived quality of their degree.
The point: it is very difficult, and costly, to provide the same quality of verification with online classes as you can with face to face classes. Cheating becomes a much more prevalent factor. Getting more and more students through the courses increases the likelihood that a false positive will be issued. Evaluating a student's commitment to their education is more difficult when it is impossible to determine how much time the student has spent "in class", i.e. viewing lectures. And more. This is why universities hesitate to go that route.
I think you have missed the point as well. WrongSizeGlass was not saying that Macs are secure because they are less prevalent but rather they are less vulnerable because they are less prevalent. You seem to be conflating the two concepts of vulnerability and security. Vulnerability is the possibility of attack and security is how well such an attack may be thwarted. Attacking more prevalent systems provides a much greater reward of exploit. This makes the most popular operating system far more vulnerable, that is more likely to be attacked, regardless of whether or not it is more or less secure than any other.
The real canard here is what WrongSizeGlass alluded to: the notion that Macs are less vulnerable because they are more secure. They could be more secure, but they are less vulnerable because they are less prevalent.
Storing passwords as hashes instead of plain text is now illegal in France,
No, it is not. Nowhere in the article (yes, I read it) does it say that. The law that is being challenged by Google and others is one that requires them to store users' information for one year.
It is still completely possible for Google to use hashed passwords to authenticate users and only "save" the plain password in a "write only" file (text or separate database) with the unhashed passwords...
I read the article as well. The summary is completely wrong, but I think you missed something. The law doesn't mean that the information must be stored plaintext somewhere. The law seems to just require that a plaintext password be obtainable by authorities upon demand. That would mean Google or whomever could keep things like passwords encrypted and decrypt when asked.
I can confirm the resource greediness issues with VS2010. Featurewise, it's really very nice - the code window is great; the tooltip objectbrowser dealie is great. With few exceptions however, e.g. adding references to a project is now loads faster, it generally a sluggish hog compared to VS2008. I would wait for SP1 before putting it on your laptop. That said, all of the above is for versions with the development tools, i.e. using the VS2010 shell with only the Team Foundation Server Client is pretty snappy.
Isn't the increase in volume how Tivo know what are commercials to skip them? If so, isn't this what advertisers would want to do anyways?