In medieval Japan the justification of why only men are allowed to play women roles in Kabuki theatre was... that supposedly women are too close to feminity to play it accurately. At first read it sounds like a major WTF. If they're closer to feminity, wouldn't that make them _more_ believable in a woman's role?
That sounds like a straw-man argument to me. More likely, the argument was that women didn't have the self-control to act like the woman portrayed in the script rather than herself.
Or, if acting was the men's livelihood, they didn't want members of their cast being out-of-commission for a few days every month, or getting pregnant and going on the equivalent of maternity leave---leaving everyone else without a full cast, which could jeopardize their ability to put food on the table.
Not that those are bulletproof arguments, but if you're going to ridicule someone's position, try to refute their best arguments. Otherwise, you end up looking like an Intelligent Design creationist.
I think you make a good point, though, about how meeting your audience's stereotypes makes you more believable than being totally realistic.
... is some numbers, broken down by distro and amount of time used. Apple might be getting a fair number of people switching from Mandriva or CentOS (neither of which are quality distros, IMNSHO), but I doubt they're getting too many long-time Debian or Ubuntu users.
I used to be a fan of Mac OS X before I actually tried using it. Once I used it (10.3.9, which is what my girlfriend has) I found it to be very fragile underneath the GUI. For example, packages have no "uninstall" option...wtf?
I still like OS X better than Windows, but that's not too difficult.
I think that's precisely the point: we cannot readily conceive a universe in which even our laws of mathematics don't apply, because we have no frame of reference for such a thing.
I call into question your understanding of mathematics.
There are no "laws of mathematics" like there are "laws of physics". 2+2 equals 4 not because of some physical law, but because of how we've arbitrarily defined "2", "4", "+" and "equality". You can define those things differently, as is done in finite field arithmetic versus integer arithmetic.
Physics constrains what we ultimately consider to be interesting and useful mathematics. In our universe, addition and multiplication of integers and rational numbers are "cheap", so we focus our research efforts on areas that make use of them. In another universe where e.g. factoring were cheap, we would perhaps focus our research efforts elsewhere, and Mathematics as a whole would look different, but "2+2=4", as we currently define it, would be no less true.
It's equivalent to the machine losing power at the point where you did the suspend. If you're using a database or filesystem that can't recover from a power outage, you're screwed anyway.
If you're running on Xen using Linux Volume Manager (LVM) logical volumes as your virtual block devices, you can just snapshot the logical volumes (LVs). If you have more than one LV for a given virtual machine, then you can do:
Not only that, but according to the article, Chen is not actually challenging the Chinese Communist Party. He's alleging that lower-level government officials are not adhering to the official policies of the CCP.
Just because there aren't a lot of stupid attacks like this targeted on *nix system doesn't mean that it isn't possible.
I'm not proposing *nix as a solution to the problem.
And I don't really see how sandboxin everything solves the problem with trojans.
I wouldn't say it completely solves the problem, but it would go a long way. If everyday things could be installed into some sort of sandbox, then a user could be taught to think twice before giving some process extra privileges. (Which is partly why *nix is somewhat better in practise---you don't generally run stuff as root---but it doesn't go far enough in that respect.)
Please run this as root: rm -rf/
So every *nix version is a stupid, broken OS where stuff like this is bound to happen?
On the contrary. "rm -rf/" doesn't violate user expectations.
"Screensavers" and "games" that can do malicious things with files unrelated to their own operation, for example, violate user expectations. I find it amazing that Microsoft---a company that makes US $14.06 billion a year in profit---still hasn't produced an operating system that does proper sandboxing. That the same company can barely compete technically with a few geeks hacking in their basements is a testament to its utter lack of innovative ability.
So the real news is don't trust Kaspersky Lab's antivirus software.
Perhaps. I'd say the "news" is that Windows is a stupid, broken OS where stuff like this is bound to happen because it's designed to need antivirus software in the first place.
Exactly what part of installing a piece of HARDWARE requires you to search the entire HD for media files??
It's a DVD burner, right? One way to test a DVD burner you've just installed would be to burn media files to a disc.
It might not even have gone that far. The accused might have had the files on his desktop, or in "My Documents" (which the DVD burner program might pull up by default), or in "Recent Documents". He might even have gone into Firefox to get some drivers typed "http://", and Firefox auto-completed (based on the history) "http://www.naked-little-boys-and-girls-getting-it-on.com/".
There are plenty of reasonable scenarios where the employee did nothing wrong and stumbled upon this guy's child porn. From what I understand, the courts are just deciding that attorney-client privilege does not extend to a person and his computer repair man.
I don't mean to belittle your work, which is important, but I want to pre-empt Microsoft salesmen who might decide to point to this as evidence that Microsoft protocols are as open as, say, NFSv4.
Without reading the article, what I'm guessing they're saying is that the evidence is not inadmissible in criminal court, because the person installing the hardware (and software, i.e. drivers) had blanket permission to boot up the computer and use it for the purpose of doing the installation. If, in the course of performing the installs, the person stumbles upon evidence that a crime has been committed, you can't retroactively claim that they didn't have permission to use the computer.
What they're probably not saying is that you have no recourse if that person posts the embarassing (but legal) video you made for your spouse folder to YouTube, or even gossips about it.
Just from reading the summary, I have no reason to believe that there's been anything new happening here. The police are held to the same standard all the time.
Taking a quick look at the agreement, it looks like PFIF can't release the documentation to the public. So, as a user of Samba, if I find a bug in Samba's handling of the protocols, how do I fix it? If I have to rely on the "Samba Team" to fix the problem, this isn't much better than source-available proprietary software---I'm still tied to a single vendor.
Let's be serious, they're still confidential, proprietary protocols, aren't they? Way to go, Microsoft.
Burning coal and oil adds CO2 from millions of years ago, which is the real problem.
s/real/same/;
---emissions--->[atmosphere]---recovery--->
Unless the total greenhouse gases recovered from the atmosphere are greater than or equal to those emitted, you still have a problem. It doesn't matter whether the fuel comes from recently-dead trees or million-year-old dead trees.
In order to offset the carbon emissions involved in harvesting and transporting trees (which, as far as I know, can't be done by burning more trees, and requires more energy than e.g. oil, since trees can't be pumped through pipelines), we would have to grow bigger and bigger forests, or replace existing forests with genetically-engineered trees that sink more and more carbon.
Biomass fuel might be useful, but it's not without problems.
Now, let's say that the substance is already half decayed. So, to introduce 16 mg of substance A into the patient's body, you need to introduce 32 mg of the A+B alloy. Then you get:
Slashdot Mirror
It's a popular topic, and his signature line is: "Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!"
Mysteriously, the domain is suddenly unavailable.
Look it up on Wikipedia
That sounds like a straw-man argument to me. More likely, the argument was that women didn't have the self-control to act like the woman portrayed in the script rather than herself.
Or, if acting was the men's livelihood, they didn't want members of their cast being out-of-commission for a few days every month, or getting pregnant and going on the equivalent of maternity leave---leaving everyone else without a full cast, which could jeopardize their ability to put food on the table.
Not that those are bulletproof arguments, but if you're going to ridicule someone's position, try to refute their best arguments. Otherwise, you end up looking like an Intelligent Design creationist.
I think you make a good point, though, about how meeting your audience's stereotypes makes you more believable than being totally realistic.
... is some numbers, broken down by distro and amount of time used. Apple might be getting a fair number of people switching from Mandriva or CentOS (neither of which are quality distros, IMNSHO), but I doubt they're getting too many long-time Debian or Ubuntu users.
I used to be a fan of Mac OS X before I actually tried using it. Once I used it (10.3.9, which is what my girlfriend has) I found it to be very fragile underneath the GUI. For example, packages have no "uninstall" option...wtf?
I still like OS X better than Windows, but that's not too difficult.
I call into question your understanding of mathematics.
There are no "laws of mathematics" like there are "laws of physics". 2+2 equals 4 not because of some physical law, but because of how we've arbitrarily defined "2", "4", "+" and "equality". You can define those things differently, as is done in finite field arithmetic versus integer arithmetic.
Physics constrains what we ultimately consider to be interesting and useful mathematics. In our universe, addition and multiplication of integers and rational numbers are "cheap", so we focus our research efforts on areas that make use of them. In another universe where e.g. factoring were cheap, we would perhaps focus our research efforts elsewhere, and Mathematics as a whole would look different, but "2+2=4", as we currently define it, would be no less true.
Why not? What in math is tied to the observable universe?
It's equivalent to the machine losing power at the point where you did the suspend. If you're using a database or filesystem that can't recover from a power outage, you're screwed anyway.
If you're running on Xen using Linux Volume Manager (LVM) logical volumes as your virtual block devices, you can just snapshot the logical volumes (LVs). If you have more than one LV for a given virtual machine, then you can do:
There's nothing new about using a "nuclear tool" in medicine.
Not only that, but according to the article, Chen is not actually challenging the Chinese Communist Party. He's alleging that lower-level government officials are not adhering to the official policies of the CCP.
Basically, he's fighting for rule of law.
I'm not proposing *nix as a solution to the problem.
And I don't really see how sandboxin everything solves the problem with trojans.I wouldn't say it completely solves the problem, but it would go a long way. If everyday things could be installed into some sort of sandbox, then a user could be taught to think twice before giving some process extra privileges. (Which is partly why *nix is somewhat better in practise---you don't generally run stuff as root---but it doesn't go far enough in that respect.)
Uh, I'm pretty sure that filling an iPod with podcasts won't cost that much.
So every *nix version is a stupid, broken OS where stuff like this is bound to happen?
On the contrary. "rm -rf /" doesn't violate user expectations.
"Screensavers" and "games" that can do malicious things with files unrelated to their own operation, for example, violate user expectations. I find it amazing that Microsoft---a company that makes US $14.06 billion a year in profit---still hasn't produced an operating system that does proper sandboxing. That the same company can barely compete technically with a few geeks hacking in their basements is a testament to its utter lack of innovative ability.
On the contrary. The two fundamental truths exposed in Voyager are:
Perhaps. I'd say the "news" is that Windows is a stupid, broken OS where stuff like this is bound to happen because it's designed to need antivirus software in the first place.
If someone pulls on one of these doorhandles who's more to blame? The designer or the user?
The designer.
Convoluted is exactly how I'd describe that horrible piece of buggy, platform-specific code that should be replaced by:
raw = os.listdir(".")It's a DVD burner, right? One way to test a DVD burner you've just installed would be to burn media files to a disc.
It might not even have gone that far. The accused might have had the files on his desktop, or in "My Documents" (which the DVD burner program might pull up by default), or in "Recent Documents". He might even have gone into Firefox to get some drivers typed "http://", and Firefox auto-completed (based on the history) "http://www.naked-little-boys-and-girls-getting-it-on.com/".
There are plenty of reasonable scenarios where the employee did nothing wrong and stumbled upon this guy's child porn. From what I understand, the courts are just deciding that attorney-client privilege does not extend to a person and his computer repair man.
I don't mean to belittle your work, which is important, but I want to pre-empt Microsoft salesmen who might decide to point to this as evidence that Microsoft protocols are as open as, say, NFSv4.
Without reading the article, what I'm guessing they're saying is that the evidence is not inadmissible in criminal court, because the person installing the hardware (and software, i.e. drivers) had blanket permission to boot up the computer and use it for the purpose of doing the installation. If, in the course of performing the installs, the person stumbles upon evidence that a crime has been committed, you can't retroactively claim that they didn't have permission to use the computer.
What they're probably not saying is that you have no recourse if that person posts the embarassing (but legal) video you made for your spouse folder to YouTube, or even gossips about it.
Just from reading the summary, I have no reason to believe that there's been anything new happening here. The police are held to the same standard all the time.
Taking a quick look at the agreement, it looks like PFIF can't release the documentation to the public. So, as a user of Samba, if I find a bug in Samba's handling of the protocols, how do I fix it? If I have to rely on the "Samba Team" to fix the problem, this isn't much better than source-available proprietary software---I'm still tied to a single vendor.
Let's be serious, they're still confidential, proprietary protocols, aren't they? Way to go, Microsoft.
Innovation cannot be measured by counting patents.
s/real/same/;
Unless the total greenhouse gases recovered from the atmosphere are greater than or equal to those emitted, you still have a problem. It doesn't matter whether the fuel comes from recently-dead trees or million-year-old dead trees.
In order to offset the carbon emissions involved in harvesting and transporting trees (which, as far as I know, can't be done by burning more trees, and requires more energy than e.g. oil, since trees can't be pumped through pipelines), we would have to grow bigger and bigger forests, or replace existing forests with genetically-engineered trees that sink more and more carbon.
Biomass fuel might be useful, but it's not without problems.
s/random noise/perl/
This was the grandparent's point:
Let's say you have substance A that decays into substance B. Substance A is what you want, and substance B is dangerous in large quantities.
Let's say you introduce 16 mg of substance A into a patient's body. This is what you'll get over time:
Now, let's say that the substance is already half decayed. So, to introduce 16 mg of substance A into the patient's body, you need to introduce 32 mg of the A+B alloy. Then you get:
So to get the same dose of substance A, you've already had to double the dose of substance B.
...
This is what you wrote:
Ha ha, that was good, it's going to decay in your body anyways.Kind of missing the point, isn't it?