If the head of any prominent nation had to drive through traffic jams and walk through crowded plazas where anybody with an ax to grind could take him out, they just wouldn't do it.
Well, if their security isn't good enough to stop someone wielding a dull ax, they probably should stay home.
It's equivalent to 5 out of 10 grocery stores accepting a check presented by someone not the account holder and with no signature on it.
I think you're skewing the statistics a bit. The author said, "[T]hese were all low-budget hosting companies[.]" An equivalent analogy would be something like "5 out of 10 'mom and pop' convenience stores accepting a check presented by someone not the account holder and with no signature on it." The expected level of competence is typically lower when you talk about small operations when compared to large corporations with greater resources to develop and implement policies and training.
The author clearly picked companies in a way that he anticipated would generate a non-trivial number of successful "hacks". He probably expected to trick 2 or 3 of the 10 companies and was surprised that 5 fell for it.
However painful it may seem, most industries are born of one or more men inventing something truly interesting. However, their first growth spurt comes when someone else copies that invention and popularizes it. This is, in effect, the respective roles of Baer and Bushnell.
I'm not sure if I agree that the invention has to be copied by someone outside the organization (although this is frequently the case), but I think you are on to something with the rest of your thought. There are two key parts of "birthing an industry":
Creating something new and innovative
Recognizing the potential of the invention and having the vision to build a market for it
Frequently these roles are filled by different types of people. (They require different personalities / skills.) "The Inventor" typically spends all his time "behind the scenes" working on things and keeps a low profile. "The Visionary" typically goes out and "sells" the idea to the public and gets all the press coverage. It's not surprising that the guy who talks to the media is the one people associate with the invention. That's the main reason Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the first names that come to mind when you think about "the personal computer industry". They took products that started as someone's "pet project", saw the potential, and made the right moves to build an industry.
I'm not sure there's a hard method that can make that sort of determination. It seems like it's something we should be cognizant of when we make any alterations, we should make efforts to preserve the original, and note (to the audience) which changes have been made.
In this day and age, we should always be aware of the importance of preserving original documents (or replicating them as accurately as possible). If something in the latest revision needs clarification, it is often insightful to examine where and when things changed.
I think that, even if this new way of reading Moby Dick is easier, I would probably choose to read the original block-formatted version instead. However, I might prefer reading the scientific paper formatted in this new system, particularly because I'm trying to grab information rather than absorb the voice of the author.
I think that ideally we should be able to access the information we want in any format we want. If your objective is to "read the author" then the original format is likely the best. If you just want the info, pick the format that works best for you.
On a related note about translation, in spite of the translator's best efforts, you often learn a lot more by reading the original language as written by the author. Just as you say you'd prefer to read Moby Dick in its original formats, I never hear anyone calling for "Modern English" translations of Shakespeare. People would rather "muddle through" the original text even though a translation would be much easier to read. And one of these days, I'd like to read some Cervantes in the original language in spite of my quite rusty Spanish skills.
I would agree that changing paragraph breaks is a good example of "a change that will in some way affect how many readers interpret the text" and may be problematic. However, I'm not certain what measures we should use to determine if the result is:
Only incidentally different from the original
Different in meaning from the original, but still retaining the original's "character" (an editted work)
Different in language or media from the original while maintaining the author's "voice" as much as possible (a translation)
A re-telling of the story in a different media (an adaptation)
A new work in its own right (an "inspired work")
These lines traditionally have been blurred, but this type of formatting throws a whole new wrench in the works.
Consider if someone published a copy of Moby Dick with new punctuation, periods and commas where they weren't before, and dropping some commas and periods. Let's say they broke up paragraphs how they wanted and not how Melville wrote them. Could they make it more readable? Perhaps. But it's trickier to ask whether such an act would be appropriate.
That brings up some great literary / philosophical questions:
Is Moby Dick still Moby Dick if you reformat it?
Should this be considered a "translation" of the original work?
Do you need to inform consumers that they are not purchasing Moby Dick in its original format?
The human mind's capacity to build sentences through the recursive process of nesting language units inside other units is the essential feature that enables human language to represent an infinite number of meanings.
I find it hard to argue that that's not easier to understand on first inspection than the original.
Actually, I have a hard time reading it when it's formatted like that because my brain is trying to "build sentences through the recursive process of nesting language units inside other units" when someone has already done so. I find it hard to "turn off" the part of my brain that does that, and it trips me up. I have to read slowly and carefully or I get "derailed".
Perhaps this is something that comes naturally to some people and others (like myself) have to work to learn. Maybe this will lead to some new insights on how different people process written language.
"The prosodic cues in spoken language are more complex than simple pauses at phrase boundaries; subtle variations in pitch, volume, and the duration of word pronunciation have been shown to convey hierarchical structures in syntax (Ferreira & Anes, 1994)."
OK, so the spoken word contains more information that the written word. I'm sure we've all experienced this effect when someone misinterprets what we say in an e-mail.
"When these prosodic-syntactic cues of speech are experimentally stripped away from audiorecordings of sentences, listeners' comprehension drops (Cutler, Dahan, & van Donselaar, 1997). This finding has important implications for reading because, when language is written down, many of these same syntactic cues are similarly stripped away"
If the information is stripped away, how can it be accurately re-created? Take the following statements: "You spend so much time reading Slashdot. I'm not surprised you didn't finish that project on time." Did the author mean this as a joke, or is he / she angry at you? Are these statements even related, or did the author abruptly change subjects? With the "prosodic-syntactic cues" stripped away, any attempt to recreate them relies largely on knowledge of the author's personality, knowledge of recent events / conversations, and a lot of "intuition". I have my doubts about how successfully this program can re-create this lost information when humans so often fail.
"If an adult who appears to be a child chooses to be photographed naked, that is perfectly legal. "
actually in may places that is NOT legal.
In fact, if you go someplace to have that developed, they are obligated to notify the authorities.
In the US, that is.
I used to work in a photo lab, and yes, you are required to contact authorities if you see anything you believe to be illegal on the photos. We once had some photos where it looked like some kids were committing murder, it was reported, the police investigated, and no charges were ever filed because it was all "an art project".
If you report suspected child porn, the police should investigate, the owner of the photo should say "She's not a child, she's 18. Call her at 555-1234." The police track her down, check her id, and the case is closed.
Re:Who Reads Politician's Web Site to Get the Fact
on
Obama's MySpace Drama
·
· Score: 1
What could you possibly have learned about Obama at this point, beyond the fact that he's a good speaker and a relatively well-liked freshman Senator?
Here in the Chicago-area, he's been a household name since early in his Senate campaign. I'm certain the Chicago media is biased, but I don't think you should blindly assume that I have learned nothing over the past 4 years.
I'm not going to debate the "first impressions" of the candidates. I'm just saying that some tend to do and say things that make me respect them more, and others do the opposite. I believe I'm entitled to my opinions.
I don't think it is legal in the US either. I recall some law against any nudity by characters who were supposed to be under 18, even if the actor is over the age of majority.
Does that make American Pie kiddie porn? Or are we expected to believe all the characters are 18?
In Germany photographs/videos of adults who look like children performing sexual activities are considered child porn.
How does that work? A person's age is a documented fact. How do you determine in an objective way if someone looks like a child?
I've got a weird mental image of naked 18 year-olds parading through a courtroom of stern-looking German judges requesting permision to be in pornography. (Nein, das ist nicht gut! You're only a B-cup. Come back when you've gotten some implants.)
I'm certainly not condoning the activity, but I have to ask...
If an adult who appears to be a child chooses to be photographed naked, that is perfectly legal. So why is an adult who looks like a kid online different?
You misunderstand - I have never _owned_ an automatic.
The statement "I've always driven cars with a manual box" logically implies "I've never driven a car with an automatic transmission", so you can see how I might have gotten the wrong idea.
Re:Who Reads Politician's Web Site to Get the Fact
on
Obama's MySpace Drama
·
· Score: 1
If the vote wasn't for going to war, then voting for a budget with a timetable attached isn't really a vote to end the war. You can't have it both ways.
I never said it wasn't, in fact, I'll go on the record right now and say that it is.
So I'm not trying to have it both ways. Stop trying to change the subject.
I did not intend to imply that you were. I was pointing out that Hillary's statement (if you agree with it) logically implies something else that would reflect negatively on her.
Americans feel they already know who Senator Clinton is (for better or worse).
Americans may feel that way, but we are wrong. Prior to her election to the Senate, she was certainly famous, but no more experienced than Arnold was prior to becoming the Governator. New Yorkers didn't really know what they were getting when they elected her, and none of us really know what we would be getting if she were elected President. The question is, who do you want to gamble the countries future on?
Obama is an unknown, and furthermore he's an unknown with no executive experience and precious little legislative experience at the federal level.
So, Obama as President is a gamble as well. It all comes back to personal opinions. All I can say is, since the day she became First Lady, most of the things Hillary has done have made me respect her less*. Most of the things I have learned about Barrack Obama have made me respect him more.
* No, I'm not including the things Bill has done. I only blame Hillary for the things she personally does.
I'm curious why the US seems to be so attached to automatic transmission (which is less efficient than manual). For me I've always driven cars with a manual box - the idea of automatic transmission just doesn't appeal at all.
You publically claim that you've never driven an automatic and don't feel like trying it, and then you wonder why "Joe from Anytown, USA", who has never driven a manual transmission, would not want to try one?
I like the feeling of being fully in control of my car, and automatics feel very much like I'm nolonger in control of an important aspect of my vehicle (as well as having no control over the gear you're in you also have no clutch!).
Well, I agree that driving a small car with a manual transmission is fun (I have a Honda Civic), but a large portion of the vehicles on U.S. roads are SUVs, trucks, or vans. Much of the appeal of precise control goes away when you're driving a giant, boxy vehicle.
The average time spent in a car is also much higher for americans than many other countries. If "Joe from Anytown" spends 10 hours / week (two hours each way, five days / week) sitting in a car stuck in heavy traffic, he might prefer not to have to constantly hold the clutch half-way in. When you spend that much time in the car, you just want it to be comfortable and easy to drive.
Statistically, the percentage of US cars with manual transmissions has not changed significantly over the last few decades. The percentage of US trucks / vans / SUVs with manual transmissions is falling (excluding commercial trucks), and the percentage of US vehicles that are not "cars" is increasing. You do the math.
Or, more to the point, realise that the break and accelerator are analogue controls. Particularly in the USA, a lot of drivers I've seen seem to treat them as digital; you are either accelerating hard or breaking hard. The concept of engine breaking didn't even seem to have ever been explained to them.
Hmmm... let's look at what you're really saying by your last sentence: "A lot of US drivers do not intentionally use engine breaking to slow their cars."
Statistically speaking, most of the cars in the US have automatic transmissions. Many US drivers have never driven a manual-transmission vehicle. (I didn't learn how until I was 25, and that is because I bought a manual-transmission car so I would have to learn.) Engine breaking with an automatic transmission, while possible, is much less effective.
So you have a bunch of drivers who never developed the habit of engine breaking in a bunch of vehicles that don't engine break very well, and you wonder why they don't use engine breaking?
Slashdot Mirror
I suspected as much... but I thought you might be talking about this guy.
Well, if their security isn't good enough to stop someone wielding a dull ax, they probably should stay home.
Who is JFL?
I think you're skewing the statistics a bit. The author said, "[T]hese were all low-budget hosting companies[.]" An equivalent analogy would be something like "5 out of 10 'mom and pop' convenience stores accepting a check presented by someone not the account holder and with no signature on it." The expected level of competence is typically lower when you talk about small operations when compared to large corporations with greater resources to develop and implement policies and training.
The author clearly picked companies in a way that he anticipated would generate a non-trivial number of successful "hacks". He probably expected to trick 2 or 3 of the 10 companies and was surprised that 5 fell for it.
I'm not sure if I agree that the invention has to be copied by someone outside the organization (although this is frequently the case), but I think you are on to something with the rest of your thought. There are two key parts of "birthing an industry":
Frequently these roles are filled by different types of people. (They require different personalities / skills.) "The Inventor" typically spends all his time "behind the scenes" working on things and keeps a low profile. "The Visionary" typically goes out and "sells" the idea to the public and gets all the press coverage. It's not surprising that the guy who talks to the media is the one people associate with the invention. That's the main reason Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the first names that come to mind when you think about "the personal computer industry". They took products that started as someone's "pet project", saw the potential, and made the right moves to build an industry.
When you do it well, it's art. When you do it poorly, it's stealing.
In this day and age, we should always be aware of the importance of preserving original documents (or replicating them as accurately as possible). If something in the latest revision needs clarification, it is often insightful to examine where and when things changed.
I think that ideally we should be able to access the information we want in any format we want. If your objective is to "read the author" then the original format is likely the best. If you just want the info, pick the format that works best for you.
On a related note about translation, in spite of the translator's best efforts, you often learn a lot more by reading the original language as written by the author. Just as you say you'd prefer to read Moby Dick in its original formats, I never hear anyone calling for "Modern English" translations of Shakespeare. People would rather "muddle through" the original text even though a translation would be much easier to read. And one of these days, I'd like to read some Cervantes in the original language in spite of my quite rusty Spanish skills.
I would agree that changing paragraph breaks is a good example of "a change that will in some way affect how many readers interpret the text" and may be problematic. However, I'm not certain what measures we should use to determine if the result is:
These lines traditionally have been blurred, but this type of formatting throws a whole new wrench in the works.
Actually, I have a hard time reading it when it's formatted like that because my brain is trying to "build sentences through the recursive process of nesting language units inside other units" when someone has already done so. I find it hard to "turn off" the part of my brain that does that, and it trips me up. I have to read slowly and carefully or I get "derailed".
Perhaps this is something that comes naturally to some people and others (like myself) have to work to learn. Maybe this will lead to some new insights on how different people process written language.
OK, so the spoken word contains more information that the written word. I'm sure we've all experienced this effect when someone misinterprets what we say in an e-mail.
If the information is stripped away, how can it be accurately re-created? Take the following statements: "You spend so much time reading Slashdot. I'm not surprised you didn't finish that project on time." Did the author mean this as a joke, or is he / she angry at you? Are these statements even related, or did the author abruptly change subjects? With the "prosodic-syntactic cues" stripped away, any attempt to recreate them relies largely on knowledge of the author's personality, knowledge of recent events / conversations, and a lot of "intuition". I have my doubts about how successfully this program can re-create this lost information when humans so often fail.
Well, if you didn't get proof of her age, then you're screwed anyways*.
* In the figurative sense at least...
I used to work in a photo lab, and yes, you are required to contact authorities if you see anything you believe to be illegal on the photos. We once had some photos where it looked like some kids were committing murder, it was reported, the police investigated, and no charges were ever filed because it was all "an art project".
If you report suspected child porn, the police should investigate, the owner of the photo should say "She's not a child, she's 18. Call her at 555-1234." The police track her down, check her id, and the case is closed.
Here in the Chicago-area, he's been a household name since early in his Senate campaign. I'm certain the Chicago media is biased, but I don't think you should blindly assume that I have learned nothing over the past 4 years.
I'm not going to debate the "first impressions" of the candidates. I'm just saying that some tend to do and say things that make me respect them more, and others do the opposite. I believe I'm entitled to my opinions.
Does that make American Pie kiddie porn? Or are we expected to believe all the characters are 18?
How does that work? A person's age is a documented fact. How do you determine in an objective way if someone looks like a child?
I've got a weird mental image of naked 18 year-olds parading through a courtroom of stern-looking German judges requesting permision to be in pornography. (Nein, das ist nicht gut! You're only a B-cup. Come back when you've gotten some implants.)
I'm certainly not condoning the activity, but I have to ask...
If an adult who appears to be a child chooses to be photographed naked, that is perfectly legal. So why is an adult who looks like a kid online different?
The statement "I've always driven cars with a manual box" logically implies "I've never driven a car with an automatic transmission", so you can see how I might have gotten the wrong idea.
I did not intend to imply that you were. I was pointing out that Hillary's statement (if you agree with it) logically implies something else that would reflect negatively on her.
Americans may feel that way, but we are wrong. Prior to her election to the Senate, she was certainly famous, but no more experienced than Arnold was prior to becoming the Governator. New Yorkers didn't really know what they were getting when they elected her, and none of us really know what we would be getting if she were elected President. The question is, who do you want to gamble the countries future on?
So, Obama as President is a gamble as well. It all comes back to personal opinions. All I can say is, since the day she became First Lady, most of the things Hillary has done have made me respect her less*. Most of the things I have learned about Barrack Obama have made me respect him more.
* No, I'm not including the things Bill has done. I only blame Hillary for the things she personally does.
Fair enough. But the form has clearly been established as "* Area Network" = "*AN". VAR just doesn't fit the pattern.
You publically claim that you've never driven an automatic and don't feel like trying it, and then you wonder why "Joe from Anytown, USA", who has never driven a manual transmission, would not want to try one?
Well, I agree that driving a small car with a manual transmission is fun (I have a Honda Civic), but a large portion of the vehicles on U.S. roads are SUVs, trucks, or vans. Much of the appeal of precise control goes away when you're driving a giant, boxy vehicle.
The average time spent in a car is also much higher for americans than many other countries. If "Joe from Anytown" spends 10 hours / week (two hours each way, five days / week) sitting in a car stuck in heavy traffic, he might prefer not to have to constantly hold the clutch half-way in. When you spend that much time in the car, you just want it to be comfortable and easy to drive.
Statistically, the percentage of US cars with manual transmissions has not changed significantly over the last few decades. The percentage of US trucks / vans / SUVs with manual transmissions is falling (excluding commercial trucks), and the percentage of US vehicles that are not "cars" is increasing. You do the math.
OK, that's enough. I'm supposed to be the grammer nazi around here, so don't you go picking on my mistakes!
Vehicular Area Network = VAR ???
I would think that VAN would be a more memorable acronym anyway.
That could be more than 33%...
Toyota 2007 Yaris 4 cyl, 1.5 L, Manual(5), Regular -- 34 (City) / 40 (Highway)
Ford 2007 Roush Performance Stage 3 F150 4WD,8cyl, 5.4L, Auto(4) -- 12 (City) / 15 (Highway)
Hmmm... let's look at what you're really saying by your last sentence: "A lot of US drivers do not intentionally use engine breaking to slow their cars."
Statistically speaking, most of the cars in the US have automatic transmissions. Many US drivers have never driven a manual-transmission vehicle. (I didn't learn how until I was 25, and that is because I bought a manual-transmission car so I would have to learn.) Engine breaking with an automatic transmission, while possible, is much less effective.
So you have a bunch of drivers who never developed the habit of engine breaking in a bunch of vehicles that don't engine break very well, and you wonder why they don't use engine breaking?