A trade secret is only secret if nobody knows about it. If Verizon failed to protect that secret it's their fault, and they can't do anything about it once it's revealed.
Even discarding the "social sciences", which is to my thinking a prerequisite of discussing what science really is, there is a limit to what science can reveal.
Just a nit...I don't think that it's right to throw out social sciences as not being real science. I think the problem is that for a long time social sciences have suffered from two things: unscientific theories taking hold and being very difficult to discard, and the sheer difficulty of the problem and lack of tools to analyze the data.
By unscientific theories I am thinking of things such as Freud's theories, or Marx's theories, or even Rand's theories.
As I see it, social sciences are harder to dig into than physics because there's serious problems with establishing a proper viewpoint for the observer, and also serious problem separating and even identifying what the important variables are. We should all have some idea of how intertwined things like culture and language are in what we see and consider important to study.
But, there's new techniques that are being used now by some researchers that can provide some leverage. To give an analogy: a complex sound is made up of many component parts, which might appear to be inseparable. But a Fourier transform can shed a lot of light into what makes up a complex sound. Advanced statistics are starting to really transform the social sciences in the same way, and that can at least partially help those fields to make some sense of the muddle.
Even if you disliked the tone of my original comment, there was a distinct difference between that and what you wrote in response. That difference was that my post attempted to say something in response to your idea. Your reply was just a cliché insult and a statement that I was wrong, and didn't mention a thing I wrote.
Waaaaah! Mommy he yelled back at me!
I didn't mean to sound originally so personally insulting.
I think you did. Calling hypocracy is just about as bad as walking into a feminist convention and yelling out "Cu** and Bi***". It's not something that is done by accident.
First of all, my rudeness to you is a response to your rude post. You seem to dish it out just fine, but when I throw that shit back in your face you cry foul. Who's the hypocrite?
You seemed to make the point of "sHE kNOWS wHAT iS wRONG wITH tHIS", therefore, she should be able to tell the difference between different capitalizations in the file system, and we shouldn't assume they are dumb.
There, you have correctly stated my point. You get a cookie.
It doesn't matter for email addresses and (most) URLs.
That's right, and they are broken. We've got to fix that problem right away. I'm serious.
And maybe that's fine... maybe you don't want to encourage the mainstream users to use unix. Because then you do have to deal with stuff like that.
Maybe you like to pull hypotheses out of your ass? Maybe you like straw men? Maybe that really IS a monster under my bed? Or maybe I never said that, I never implied it, and you just made it up.
Don't join the Army. You'll have a very hard time if you try to interpret the Sarge's orders as loosely as you interpret what I write.
Case sensitivity is something that must be applied if you want to support Unicode and language independence. That benefit overrides all else. As other threads pointed out, it's not possible to be consistent about Unicode and support case independence.
God forbid you should respond to the points I made.
That applies to you. Your first message in the thread was an obvious misunderstanding of the point I made. Why not make another attempt at a coherent reply to the actual point I was making?
In English it is very uncommon to say "go to the bank" in the river context. The program could have a simple rule to display the most common option, unless a context rule was triggered, such as a mention of a river in the past N sentences, in which case it would also display the alternate/less used version.
Desert Storm should be referred to as "The Mother of all Battles." Hussein did a fine job of christening that one, and we ought to adopt the name. The war with Iraq that is coming up (someone once said wars cannot be avoided, only postponed) should therefore be called something in line with that. Perhaps "The Mother of all Battles to end all Mothers of Battles." Or maybe "The Middle East Super-Heavyweight/Bantam Title Fight 2003."
A better place to put the bite pressure sensor would be in the jaw muscle. Or better yet, just construct the teeth out of a material that has a load capacity in compression higher than the maximum force the jaw muscle can apply. Then you can do away with the bite pressure sensor entirely.
They probably have been paying attention to the HP fiasco of a couple weeks ago. That was a marketing disaster for HP, and if Microsoft is anything they are good marketers.
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
You're misunderstanding or reading into the results. The result is that contrails hold heat like greenhouse gases, or yes, like a cloudy day. That's all it said. It wasn't trying to say that jet contrails do any of the funky chemistry that greenhouse gases cause.
BTW, CFC-Ozone reactions aren't really greenhouse gas related. Think more about CO2 and methane.
And dammit it's right on the tip of my index finger. Biometric systems need to be able to account for variation over time. What happens if a person gets a tan? Or develops some new freckles, or a mole?
These devices really have to be perfect. False negatives are one thing, but even one false positive completely destroys the usefulness of the device.
We're not in a closed system. That's where your thinking is going wrong, and that's why the second law doesn't apply.
Also, entropy is a global value. Locally, entropy doesn't have to always increase. That's why it's possible for you to pile up bricks and call it a wall. If entropy always increased, then you wouldn't be able to build a house!
Gravity is only a theory. So are we justified in thinking that we could just float away from the surface of the earth?
The word "theory" means an idea that has the heavy and full support of fact and observation.
And no, evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the thing that attempts to explain the fact of evolution.
Unfortunately, that's why I don't have an open wireless access point. If someone started hacking through my DSL connection, the nice men with the badges would be knocking on my door. This would probably happen right when I was busy doing something else.
I see this as a bit different than Starbucks though. Starbucks only gives you a connection. If you bring a laptop with a burner in, Starbucks should not be liable. This place looks like they're providing the entire computer, with a burner installed. If they're going to do that they need to watch themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
A trade secret is only secret if nobody knows about it. If Verizon failed to protect that secret it's their fault, and they can't do anything about it once it's revealed.
At this point I am content to leave you in ignorance.
Even discarding the "social sciences", which is to my thinking a prerequisite of discussing what science really is, there is a limit to what science can reveal.
Just a nit...I don't think that it's right to throw out social sciences as not being real science. I think the problem is that for a long time social sciences have suffered from two things: unscientific theories taking hold and being very difficult to discard, and the sheer difficulty of the problem and lack of tools to analyze the data.
By unscientific theories I am thinking of things such as Freud's theories, or Marx's theories, or even Rand's theories.
As I see it, social sciences are harder to dig into than physics because there's serious problems with establishing a proper viewpoint for the observer, and also serious problem separating and even identifying what the important variables are. We should all have some idea of how intertwined things like culture and language are in what we see and consider important to study.
But, there's new techniques that are being used now by some researchers that can provide some leverage. To give an analogy: a complex sound is made up of many component parts, which might appear to be inseparable. But a Fourier transform can shed a lot of light into what makes up a complex sound. Advanced statistics are starting to really transform the social sciences in the same way, and that can at least partially help those fields to make some sense of the muddle.
Even if you disliked the tone of my original comment, there was a distinct difference between that and what you wrote in response. That difference was that my post attempted to say something in response to your idea. Your reply was just a cliché insult and a statement that I was wrong, and didn't mention a thing I wrote.
Waaaaah! Mommy he yelled back at me!
I didn't mean to sound originally so personally insulting.
I think you did. Calling hypocracy is just about as bad as walking into a feminist convention and yelling out "Cu** and Bi***". It's not something that is done by accident.
Luke: I want to be a RSA Knight like my father!
Schneier: You might, but first you must learn. And build your own CipherSaber.
First of all, my rudeness to you is a response to your rude post. You seem to dish it out just fine, but when I throw that shit back in your face you cry foul. Who's the hypocrite?
You seemed to make the point of "sHE kNOWS wHAT iS wRONG wITH tHIS", therefore, she should be able to tell the difference between different capitalizations in the file system, and we shouldn't assume they are dumb.
There, you have correctly stated my point. You get a cookie.
It doesn't matter for email addresses and (most) URLs.
That's right, and they are broken. We've got to fix that problem right away. I'm serious.
And maybe that's fine... maybe you don't want to encourage the mainstream users to use unix. Because then you do have to deal with stuff like that.
Maybe you like to pull hypotheses out of your ass? Maybe you like straw men? Maybe that really IS a monster under my bed? Or maybe I never said that, I never implied it, and you just made it up.
Don't join the Army. You'll have a very hard time if you try to interpret the Sarge's orders as loosely as you interpret what I write.
I just tried it on my Debian box. With CAPS lock on, it also switches to all caps mode. Weird, but it works.
Case sensitivity is something that must be applied if you want to support Unicode and language independence. That benefit overrides all else. As other threads pointed out, it's not possible to be consistent about Unicode and support case independence.
God forbid you should respond to the points I made.
That applies to you. Your first message in the thread was an obvious misunderstanding of the point I made. Why not make another attempt at a coherent reply to the actual point I was making?
You're the one insulting people's intelligence if you think the problem is that they don't grasp the ability to even distinguish upper- and lowercase.
You wouldn't know what an insult to intelligence was. By definition, it can't happen to you.
My comment was in fact stating the very opposite of what you think it stated.
iF yOU wROTE a lETTER tO yOUR aUNT gINNY lIKE tHIS wOULD sHE nOTICE sOMETHING wRONG wITH iT?
If you think she would, then she can grasp the concept that case makes a difference. Give her a little credit.
In English it is very uncommon to say "go to the bank" in the river context. The program could have a simple rule to display the most common option, unless a context rule was triggered, such as a mention of a river in the past N sentences, in which case it would also display the alternate/less used version.
If you're coming in handy, you'll definitely need toilet paper to wipe up.
As far as I can tell, there's absolutely no glass armonicas or glass harmonicas that have ever sold on EBay. Some music has though.
What do these things cost?
Desert Storm should be referred to as "The Mother of all Battles." Hussein did a fine job of christening that one, and we ought to adopt the name. The war with Iraq that is coming up (someone once said wars cannot be avoided, only postponed) should therefore be called something in line with that. Perhaps "The Mother of all Battles to end all Mothers of Battles." Or maybe "The Middle East Super-Heavyweight/Bantam Title Fight 2003."
Hypothetically speaking of course, spit.
I'm volunteering to do the interview this week in lieu of the European patent examiner who unfortunately could not do the interview.
Go ahead, ask me anything.
A better place to put the bite pressure sensor would be in the jaw muscle. Or better yet, just construct the teeth out of a material that has a load capacity in compression higher than the maximum force the jaw muscle can apply. Then you can do away with the bite pressure sensor entirely.
At least, that's how I'd do it...
They probably have been paying attention to the HP fiasco of a couple weeks ago. That was a marketing disaster for HP, and if Microsoft is anything they are good marketers.
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
You're misunderstanding or reading into the results. The result is that contrails hold heat like greenhouse gases, or yes, like a cloudy day. That's all it said. It wasn't trying to say that jet contrails do any of the funky chemistry that greenhouse gases cause.
BTW, CFC-Ozone reactions aren't really greenhouse gas related. Think more about CO2 and methane.
We've got to combine these things
-something you are - biometric data
-something you have - a physical key of some kind
-something you know - a password or PIN
And dammit it's right on the tip of my index finger. Biometric systems need to be able to account for variation over time. What happens if a person gets a tan? Or develops some new freckles, or a mole?
These devices really have to be perfect. False negatives are one thing, but even one false positive completely destroys the usefulness of the device.
We're not in a closed system. That's where your thinking is going wrong, and that's why the second law doesn't apply.
Also, entropy is a global value. Locally, entropy doesn't have to always increase. That's why it's possible for you to pile up bricks and call it a wall. If entropy always increased, then you wouldn't be able to build a house!
Gravity is only a theory. So are we justified in thinking that we could just float away from the surface of the earth?
The word "theory" means an idea that has the heavy and full support of fact and observation.
And no, evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the thing that attempts to explain the fact of evolution.
Unfortunately, that's why I don't have an open wireless access point. If someone started hacking through my DSL connection, the nice men with the badges would be knocking on my door. This would probably happen right when I was busy doing something else.
I see this as a bit different than Starbucks though. Starbucks only gives you a connection. If you bring a laptop with a burner in, Starbucks should not be liable. This place looks like they're providing the entire computer, with a burner installed. If they're going to do that they need to watch themselves.