And you missed the reply which showed that the Amazon cable was twice as long and pointed out that the "Apple" cable was not actually sold by Apple and, likely, counterfeit, linking to the actual Apple cable which sells for $11 more than the Amazon cable (which is still twice as long), or $21 more for the same length.
They were testing against a specific and predetermined subset of the population (e.g. the people who have previously taken their test), then. I know I'm wasting my time providing these links since, if you were actually interested in learning what IQ actually is and how it is actually calculated, you'd have spent the 5 seconds to google it yourself, but, here is the requisite Wikipedia link, as well as one to a more reputable source. In case you're more interested in unreliable and unverifiable sources (which wouldn't surprise me, given your unwillingness to do your own research), here's a Quora question about IQ, as well.
Some highlights:
From Wikipedia: When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less,[2] although this was not always so historically.
(Norming Sample: Synonym for Standardization Sample: a large sample of test takers who represent the population for which the test is intended. This standardization sample is also referred to as the norming group.)
From the MENSA website: Standardized tests, including the tests American Mensa offers, are “normed” to provide a “bell curve” distribution of scores in the general population, with an average (mean) score of 100. Norms are statistics that describe the test performance of a well-defined, broad population. Normed tests compare a person's score against the scores of a large group of people who have already taken the same exam, called the "norming group."
From Quora: Meh. Really nothing useful there, I just figured it might be more your speed.
The point is, a given IQ test is scored against a norming group. In the broader population, IQ tests are normed by age, sometimes also by gender or race; though, if the group you are looking at is too small to be broken into smaller groups (such as, say, the software development industry), the group is taken as a whole.
As for where you can find tests geared toward, say, a specific industry? Simple: take any standardized IQ test, have your sample group take it, then normalize the results.
And, as for the test you took? You might want to find out whose scores you were being compared against, so you know what your score actually means. For reference, my last IQ test, which was very recent, was normalized by age group and geographic location and placed me in the top 5% of Americans age 32-35. The score itself is meaningless as a comparison of my intelligence against yours, unless you also took the same version of the same test and fall into the same norming group as myself.
However, that you couldn't be assed to do a little basic research before opening your mouth (via your keyboard) would indicate that your score on the same test might be much lower than mine. Intelligent people tend to only speak up when they actually know what they're talking about; and, when they speak out of turn, quickly learn from their mistake and admit they were wrong, often thanking the person who corrected them.
I was arguing against "send automatically to an analytics/logging server" in the context of a software vendor. Surely that was evident when I mentioned Microsoft.
You do realize that IQ is population-adjusted, right? That is, a given subset of the population has their own IQ baseline. That could be the entire population of the planet as a whole, the US, a single state, a county, a city, a school, an industry, or a single workplace. That means that, yes, within your organization, 50% of the population will have a below average IQ. And, even ignoring that, most developers do, in fact, develop for the general population.
Right, and if those situations aren't handled, it is because the human who wrote the software chose not to handle them. Sometimes there is a good reason, sometimes there is not, but it is always because of humans. I'd also like to point out that none of what you said was counter to my point; your response would have been better placed under the parent of my post.
Yes, because that's the kind of thing your customers want. It's certainly not like a big cimpany like Microsoft has ever faced backlash for doing that, so a smaller developer shoukd be fine. Let's also not consider HIPAA or other laws that aoply in places where our software might be used, which might prohibit such data collection.
No, but your inability to understand that, by the very definition of "average IQ", 50% of the population will be below that (and if they're not, by definition, the average is adjusted until they are) is a strong indicator that you fall into that category.
Even when 100% of the population is tech savvy and fully understands computers and how they operate both internally and externally, 50% of that population will still have a below-average IQ.
If the program generates a fault, it's because a human wrote it. Error messages describing a fault are for the person the user calls for help. One could argue that they're for the user to read to the person the user calls for help, but that's just semantics; they're ultimately for the person the user calls for help, then, for the developer tasked with fixing the issue (and introducing two more).
I dare say if your code is perfect, you've not got enough people looking at it. And if your programs never generate faults, you don't have enough users.
ASCAP and BMI rake in money from cover bands with a "play it safe" attitude. Care to show me a cover band successfully being sued for their performance?
As for the seven notes, I guess whoever came up with the 2 - 4 - 6 - 4 progression should be raking it in right now, no?
You may not have expressed outrage, but the highly moderated post [slashdot.org], to which I first replied, did.
Indeed, and I was simply making it clear that I did not. I even went on to explain that it was my intent to assume that you were not calling me out.
And it is this upmodding — coupled with the downmodding of my reply — that proves, how misguided the sentiment of the "silent majority" of Slashdot readers is.
Please don't tell me you're just now realizing this.;)
So, the cause for outrage this time is that there is no cause for outrage?
We don't have all the facts we need to determine whether or not there is cause for outrage. In absence of facts, we must make assumptions; the problem (and I think we can both agree) is that a seeming majority of the population is all too ready to base their outrage on assumptions rather than facts. I explain this in more detail in what follows the snippet you quoted.
There must be a comma there in both Ukrainian and Russian
Understood; it's just fun to point these things out sometimes (and I have a former boss - of 5 years - who used commas like salt and pepper, they went literally everywhere; as long as there as at least one word between them they were fair game, so I might be a bit more sensitive to it than others).
Actually, the copyright owner in a musical work has exclusive right to the music in sheet form (if they composed it) and their performances of it (if they performed it). If you obtain the sheet music, or can play it by ear, you are entitled to your own performance; this is how cover bands are allowed to exist. When you hear of an artist being sued over sampling, that's because sampling is, as its name implies, taking a sample of someone else's performance of the work and using it in your own. There's a pretty big difference between playing seven notes yourself and using someone else recording of those same seven notes; Vanilla Ice was sued for the former, but could have done the latter with impunity.
First of all, your UID is too low to have actually read the article; I know you're not new here. Second, it is precisely due to the lack of facts in the case (including details we will never truly know, such as whether or not the cops knew of the Tor node or if the judge knew what a Tor node was at the time) that I did not assign blame to or express outrage at the actions of the cops. It's hard to tell from the text of your post (tone doesn't carry through text) of your post whether you were calling me out for (perceived, not real) unfouned outrage, or simply adding additional details to the conversation, so I'll err on the side of caution and assume it was the latter.
Police have done their work most professionally and there is no cause for outrage whatsoever.
For once; and that's the problem. If, instead of covering each other when they screw up (a form of corruption IMO), they police would police themselves, they wouldn't have the public image of a bunch of corrupt thugs who flaunt the very laws they're supposed to be upholding. Justified in this case, or not, the outrage you see in this page's "insightful" comments is directly fed by that image. It's hard to imagine cops doing the right thing when they know they can get away with breaking the law.
And I get it, cops don't want to out bad cops because that gives the bad cops publicity and there is a fear that doing so will hurt the public image of all police; that's wrong thinking, but I understand it. The reality is that outing bad cops would show the public (A) that there are good cops out there, (B) that it is not and should not be acceptable for cops to break the law or be lazy at their jobs, and (C) that bad cops are removed from the police force, thereby improving the overall quality of the force, along with the public's perception of them. As it stands now, every time it comes out that a bad cop has gotten away with something because other (bad) cops covered for them, it make all cops look bad and pushes public opinion against them, leading to a general assumption that they did not do their jobs properly in cases like this, where we simply don't have the facts. Why? Because it's more likely that they didn't than it is that they did; and that's actually a correct way of thinking when you do not have and can not get (emphasis important) all the facts.
All of that being said, I only have so much outrage in me. While I assume they cops left information out of the warrant paperwork in order to more easily obtain the warrant, because there is so much history of things like that being done and so little history of good cops standing up to put a stop to it, I refuse to waste my preciously limited outrage on the matter until facts come to light that prove my position. And I certainly don't agree with anyone who thinks it's proper to assign fault based on intuition rather than facts; if that becomes acceptable, screw RADAR and LIDAR devices (which you can call into question to get out of a ticket), the cop only has to say he thinks you were speeding and that ticket stands; or, worse, the prosecutor thinks you killed that guy, and there is a lack of evidence (because why look at that point?) pointing to anyone else. Seriously, people; this guy is right (aside from a superfluous comma): I can't see how you can fault Seattle cops in this case. Go ahead and assume they did it, but save the blame and outrage for cases where you have actual facts and not just gut feelings; don't let judgment without facts become the norm or you might find yourself on the wrong side of it someday.
Do distributors of child pornography become immune to prosecution by simply hosting a tor node on one of their computers?
No, but defense attorneys raise issues like these sorts of details being left out of warrant paperwork and judges typically don't like being left in the dark and manipulated. Even if the judge's decision would have been the same either way, they tend to get pissed and find in favor of the defense when they feel LE and prosecution are manipulating them, and rightly so; how else are they trying to manipulate? And that's how criminals go free.
Nevermind, I should have left it at "simple enough to google it"; after reading the summary again, it looks like it's been edited to be more incorrect, in accordance with Slashdot tradition. And, in case it's not simple enough for you: this should help.
So, then, explain how I'm able to access the config interface of my Arris SB6141 at 192.168.100.1 from my laptop at 10.0.0.243? Simple, that is the modem's (hardcoded) address, it sees a packet destined for that address and acts accordingly. Incidentally, this is how (some) managed switches (e.g. those which provide LAN-based management in addition to - or instead of - console-based management) operate, as well. Or are those also routers now?
If we're talking about a consumer router (and we are), be aware that the "do not route private IP space" or similar option on most consumer routers only blocks unestablished inbound connections from the WAN port to "non-routable" addresses. If the connection is established (e.g. the user attempts to connect to 192.168.100.1), it will work.
It's worked that with every consumer router I've ever owned that had such an option for the past 15 years, everything ranging from Belkin to Netgear to Asus to D-Link, with stock firmware, DD-WRT, and Tomato. It's working that way for me right now.
That's all the thought I need to give it. In fact, it's more thought that strictly necessary, simply for having to explain it to you.
The file is one line in length, a couple dozen characters. You're literally changing all except the first 8 or so characters of the file; more is changed than unchanged. That falls under fair use no matter what, in the worst case. It would be similar to trying to publish a book where that was nothing like "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" except for one of the characters being named Dumbledore.
I don't even play WoW; I just did 45 seconds of research before I spoke. Try it next time.
Slashdot Mirror
And you missed the reply which showed that the Amazon cable was twice as long and pointed out that the "Apple" cable was not actually sold by Apple and, likely, counterfeit, linking to the actual Apple cable which sells for $11 more than the Amazon cable (which is still twice as long), or $21 more for the same length.
Missed the Quora link. Sorry about that.
They were testing against a specific and predetermined subset of the population (e.g. the people who have previously taken their test), then. I know I'm wasting my time providing these links since, if you were actually interested in learning what IQ actually is and how it is actually calculated, you'd have spent the 5 seconds to google it yourself, but, here is the requisite Wikipedia link, as well as one to a more reputable source. In case you're more interested in unreliable and unverifiable sources (which wouldn't surprise me, given your unwillingness to do your own research), here's a Quora question about IQ, as well.
Some highlights:
From Wikipedia: When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less,[2] although this was not always so historically.
(Norming Sample: Synonym for Standardization Sample: a large sample of test takers who represent the population for which the test is intended. This standardization sample is also referred to as the norming group.)
From the MENSA website: Standardized tests, including the tests American Mensa offers, are “normed” to provide a “bell curve” distribution of scores in the general population, with an average (mean) score of 100. Norms are statistics that describe the test performance of a well-defined, broad population. Normed tests compare a person's score against the scores of a large group of people who have already taken the same exam, called the "norming group."
From Quora: Meh. Really nothing useful there, I just figured it might be more your speed.
The point is, a given IQ test is scored against a norming group. In the broader population, IQ tests are normed by age, sometimes also by gender or race; though, if the group you are looking at is too small to be broken into smaller groups (such as, say, the software development industry), the group is taken as a whole.
As for where you can find tests geared toward, say, a specific industry? Simple: take any standardized IQ test, have your sample group take it, then normalize the results.
And, as for the test you took? You might want to find out whose scores you were being compared against, so you know what your score actually means. For reference, my last IQ test, which was very recent, was normalized by age group and geographic location and placed me in the top 5% of Americans age 32-35. The score itself is meaningless as a comparison of my intelligence against yours, unless you also took the same version of the same test and fall into the same norming group as myself.
However, that you couldn't be assed to do a little basic research before opening your mouth (via your keyboard) would indicate that your score on the same test might be much lower than mine. Intelligent people tend to only speak up when they actually know what they're talking about; and, when they speak out of turn, quickly learn from their mistake and admit they were wrong, often thanking the person who corrected them.
I was arguing against "send automatically to an analytics/logging server" in the context of a software vendor. Surely that was evident when I mentioned Microsoft.
You do realize that IQ is population-adjusted, right? That is, a given subset of the population has their own IQ baseline. That could be the entire population of the planet as a whole, the US, a single state, a county, a city, a school, an industry, or a single workplace. That means that, yes, within your organization, 50% of the population will have a below average IQ. And, even ignoring that, most developers do, in fact, develop for the general population.
Right, and if those situations aren't handled, it is because the human who wrote the software chose not to handle them. Sometimes there is a good reason, sometimes there is not, but it is always because of humans. I'd also like to point out that none of what you said was counter to my point; your response would have been better placed under the parent of my post.
Yes, because that's the kind of thing your customers want. It's certainly not like a big cimpany like Microsoft has ever faced backlash for doing that, so a smaller developer shoukd be fine. Let's also not consider HIPAA or other laws that aoply in places where our software might be used, which might prohibit such data collection.
Google certainly "reads" international news. If Google doesn't know of it... well... got a link?
And you're also not wrong. Mostly.
No, but your inability to understand that, by the very definition of "average IQ", 50% of the population will be below that (and if they're not, by definition, the average is adjusted until they are) is a strong indicator that you fall into that category.
Even when 100% of the population is tech savvy and fully understands computers and how they operate both internally and externally, 50% of that population will still have a below-average IQ.
Speaking of arrogant asshats...
If the program generates a fault, it's because a human wrote it. Error messages describing a fault are for the person the user calls for help. One could argue that they're for the user to read to the person the user calls for help, but that's just semantics; they're ultimately for the person the user calls for help, then, for the developer tasked with fixing the issue (and introducing two more).
I dare say if your code is perfect, you've not got enough people looking at it. And if your programs never generate faults, you don't have enough users.
ASCAP and BMI rake in money from cover bands with a "play it safe" attitude. Care to show me a cover band successfully being sued for their performance?
As for the seven notes, I guess whoever came up with the 2 - 4 - 6 - 4 progression should be raking it in right now, no?
You may not have expressed outrage, but the highly moderated post [slashdot.org], to which I first replied, did.
Indeed, and I was simply making it clear that I did not. I even went on to explain that it was my intent to assume that you were not calling me out.
And it is this upmodding — coupled with the downmodding of my reply — that proves, how misguided the sentiment of the "silent majority" of Slashdot readers is.
Please don't tell me you're just now realizing this. ;)
So, the cause for outrage this time is that there is no cause for outrage?
We don't have all the facts we need to determine whether or not there is cause for outrage. In absence of facts, we must make assumptions; the problem (and I think we can both agree) is that a seeming majority of the population is all too ready to base their outrage on assumptions rather than facts. I explain this in more detail in what follows the snippet you quoted.
There must be a comma there in both Ukrainian and Russian
Understood; it's just fun to point these things out sometimes (and I have a former boss - of 5 years - who used commas like salt and pepper, they went literally everywhere; as long as there as at least one word between them they were fair game, so I might be a bit more sensitive to it than others).
Actually, the copyright owner in a musical work has exclusive right to the music in sheet form (if they composed it) and their performances of it (if they performed it). If you obtain the sheet music, or can play it by ear, you are entitled to your own performance; this is how cover bands are allowed to exist. When you hear of an artist being sued over sampling, that's because sampling is, as its name implies, taking a sample of someone else's performance of the work and using it in your own. There's a pretty big difference between playing seven notes yourself and using someone else recording of those same seven notes; Vanilla Ice was sued for the former, but could have done the latter with impunity.
Police have done their work most professionally and there is no cause for outrage whatsoever.
For once; and that's the problem. If, instead of covering each other when they screw up (a form of corruption IMO), they police would police themselves, they wouldn't have the public image of a bunch of corrupt thugs who flaunt the very laws they're supposed to be upholding. Justified in this case, or not, the outrage you see in this page's "insightful" comments is directly fed by that image. It's hard to imagine cops doing the right thing when they know they can get away with breaking the law.
And I get it, cops don't want to out bad cops because that gives the bad cops publicity and there is a fear that doing so will hurt the public image of all police; that's wrong thinking, but I understand it. The reality is that outing bad cops would show the public (A) that there are good cops out there, (B) that it is not and should not be acceptable for cops to break the law or be lazy at their jobs, and (C) that bad cops are removed from the police force, thereby improving the overall quality of the force, along with the public's perception of them. As it stands now, every time it comes out that a bad cop has gotten away with something because other (bad) cops covered for them, it make all cops look bad and pushes public opinion against them, leading to a general assumption that they did not do their jobs properly in cases like this, where we simply don't have the facts. Why? Because it's more likely that they didn't than it is that they did; and that's actually a correct way of thinking when you do not have and can not get (emphasis important) all the facts.
All of that being said, I only have so much outrage in me. While I assume they cops left information out of the warrant paperwork in order to more easily obtain the warrant, because there is so much history of things like that being done and so little history of good cops standing up to put a stop to it, I refuse to waste my preciously limited outrage on the matter until facts come to light that prove my position. And I certainly don't agree with anyone who thinks it's proper to assign fault based on intuition rather than facts; if that becomes acceptable, screw RADAR and LIDAR devices (which you can call into question to get out of a ticket), the cop only has to say he thinks you were speeding and that ticket stands; or, worse, the prosecutor thinks you killed that guy, and there is a lack of evidence (because why look at that point?) pointing to anyone else. Seriously, people; this guy is right (aside from a superfluous comma): I can't see how you can fault Seattle cops in this case. Go ahead and assume they did it, but save the blame and outrage for cases where you have actual facts and not just gut feelings; don't let judgment without facts become the norm or you might find yourself on the wrong side of it someday.
Do distributors of child pornography become immune to prosecution by simply hosting a tor node on one of their computers?
No, but defense attorneys raise issues like these sorts of details being left out of warrant paperwork and judges typically don't like being left in the dark and manipulated. Even if the judge's decision would have been the same either way, they tend to get pissed and find in favor of the defense when they feel LE and prosecution are manipulating them, and rightly so; how else are they trying to manipulate? And that's how criminals go free.
Nevermind, I should have left it at "simple enough to google it"; after reading the summary again, it looks like it's been edited to be more incorrect, in accordance with Slashdot tradition. And, in case it's not simple enough for you: this should help.
SB6141 = modem only. Simple enough to google it or, you know, read the summary. And yes, I have a separate router; because the SB6141 is just a modem.
So, then, explain how I'm able to access the config interface of my Arris SB6141 at 192.168.100.1 from my laptop at 10.0.0.243? Simple, that is the modem's (hardcoded) address, it sees a packet destined for that address and acts accordingly. Incidentally, this is how (some) managed switches (e.g. those which provide LAN-based management in addition to - or instead of - console-based management) operate, as well. Or are those also routers now?
If we're talking about a consumer router (and we are), be aware that the "do not route private IP space" or similar option on most consumer routers only blocks unestablished inbound connections from the WAN port to "non-routable" addresses. If the connection is established (e.g. the user attempts to connect to 192.168.100.1), it will work.
It's worked that with every consumer router I've ever owned that had such an option for the past 15 years, everything ranging from Belkin to Netgear to Asus to D-Link, with stock firmware, DD-WRT, and Tomato. It's working that way for me right now.
That's all the thought I need to give it. In fact, it's more thought that strictly necessary, simply for having to explain it to you.
Affected, not addected...
I think you'll still be able to access it, as evident by the fact that I have the addected modem an can access it in that configuration.
That's all well and good (I do as well), but Motorola/Arris modems have the IP 192.168.100.1 hardcoded, so this will still work regardless.
Your browser is, ostensibly, running on a computer local to your network; you might want to think through this once more.
The file is one line in length, a couple dozen characters. You're literally changing all except the first 8 or so characters of the file; more is changed than unchanged. That falls under fair use no matter what, in the worst case. It would be similar to trying to publish a book where that was nothing like "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" except for one of the characters being named Dumbledore.
I don't even play WoW; I just did 45 seconds of research before I spoke. Try it next time.