Let me be the first one to congratulate them. So long as those idiots stick to keyboard attacks instead of suicide bombings I think we are moving in the right direction.
If anyone is dumb enough to connect nuclear power plants to the internet... well, let's just say we'll learn that lesson and never make that mistake again.
I don't think this exists, but I could see it working:
1. Take existing eye-tracking technologies. (I'm not familiar with any but I know they exist) 2. Put up a virtual keyboard in front of your sister-in-law. 3. Track what letters her eyes trace over. 4. Use statistical analysis to guess which words they are trying to spell (like Swipe/Android keyboard).
This should allow her to spell words fairly quickly, although swipe keyboards can be frustrating at times.
Our biggest problem is letting political correctness get in the way of moral clarity. These people are trying to kill us. The more of them we eliminate or delegitimize, the better.
Most people don't need NoSQL. Last I checked, most people aren't Facebook or Google. And ironically those two companies are lining up behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
ACID is here to stay. We will see conventional databases improve in the latency space and NoSQL will (mostly) go away.
The entire premise behind NoSQL is trading consistency for availability (which actually means "latency" since everything is eventually available). You will never ever get ACID from NoSQL databases.
Aside from the technical advantages that people keep on bringing up, one of the main non-technical advantages that Thunderbolt has is its certification process. Any USB chipset that is faster than USB2's theoretical speed is certified as USB3, whereas in order to get certified as Thunderbolt 1 or 2 you must actually reach the advertised speed.
When you buy a USB device (unless it's from a reputable manufacturer such as Intel), its actual speed is usually an order of magnitude worse than the advertised speed. That is a huge difference!
1. "code works": Easy to say, hard to check. It might work today in some circumstances but fail tomorrow in other circumstances. 2. "is maintainable": That's a subjective criteria which is impossible to enforce. 3. "is to spec": Again, easy to check for common pathways, but hard to catch all the nuances (for the same reason that no one has 100% code coverage in their unit tests). 4. "passing a security audit": This helps, but as well all know by now it does not guarantee that the code is secure. Code usually depends on 100s of transitive dependencies. No one in their right mind includes transitive code in their security audits, unless you're the military and have that kind of money.
I'm not saying that building a house is any easier. I'd simply point out that we evaluate houses and bridges after a 30-year track record. If bad things happen, people get sued and there is some form of liability.
How many people behind software development (from the programmers up to the project managers) are liable for their work 30 years later?
Until we become liable for our work there will be no incentive to measure and improve some of these metrics. Just my 2 cents.
The Christian ethnically cleansed the region of Jews, then the Arabs came and did the same. The Arabs of 1946 are not natives of the region by any stretch of the imagination. They did the same in Egypt. Hint: Today's Egyptians have nothing to do with Egypt's native population from a thousand years ago. They are just Arab colonists who invaded the area and ethnically cleansed it of non-Muslims.
False as always. The "Strong Arab Presence" is 1/128th while representing 33% of the population. And that isn't ALL arabs, only those who have sworn allegiance to the Jewish State. All told, the "democracy" in Palestine represents only 41% of the total population. Everyone else is without proportional representation.
You might want place the blame where it's due. Arab leaders have repeatedly instructed their people to abstain during votes. You can't have representation in government if your people refuse to vote for you:)
Actually, Israel is set to pass a new law that will effectively disallow Arab parties from running for elections. There is systematic anti-Arab racism in Israel, it won't end soon, and the Palestinians don't even have human right as far as Israeli courts are concerned.
No need to make a big deal about apartheid. We still put up with Israel doing it.
Give it a rest, will you?
Arabs have a strong representation in the Knesset (parliament) and a higher standard of living than Arabs living anywhere else in the Middle-East. Not to mention the various other minorities in Israel which are literally being slaughtered in the surrounding Arab countries but finding refuge in Israel.
If the government really wanted to assert control, it could use tanks, jets, nukes and many other weapons which you don't have access to. Syria is a prime example of why arming everyone does not guarantee anything.
Canada is a second example that arming everyone is both unnecessary and needlessly increases gun-related deaths.
Yes. I would recommend starting your development with Java 8. Any compatibility problems you run into will likely go away within the month as more libraries add Java 8 support. Most of them already work fine out of the box. Some of them depend on bytecode internals (e.g. the ASM library) so it'll take them a bit longer to run properly under Java 8.
Of course not. Not yet. The cost of tracking joe nobody currently exceeds the extra value (whether financial or psychological) that can be extracted from him if he's monitored. Of course, it's not just whether he's monitored or not. It's his right to know whether he is, to know what's being said about him by various databases gatekeepers tap into when he applies for jobs, loans, licenses, or just about anything. When the cost drops to a point where it's possible, it will happen.
Just because jack steals one stick of candy and points to joe who stole 6, doesn't mean we should ignore what jack is doing. It is likely he will emulate joe at some point in the future. Frankly, I don't care what other countries are doing. If their citizens want liberty, they need to stand up for it. Our failed attempts at 'nation building' over the last half century have proven that. I am comparing the USA of the past to the USA of now. The trend is getting worse and looks to get a lot worse. This obsession over 'safety' IS the problem. Talk about crying over spilled milk. We're told daily by the media of all these 'threats', and yet less than 1% of them materialize. I tire of this narrative. I see no threat that justifies the power grabs washington has engaged in over the last 20 years or so. If anyone is making fallacious slippery slope arguments, it's the politicians in DC.
If there ARE threats out there that are subverting our society, then it's congress' duty to declare war on the countries harboring them. War, not useless perpetual 'police actions' that sound like something out of orwell's 1984 (we were always at war with al quada). Wars have a finite goal: hit the enemy until he is no longer a threat. We don't defend our way of life by supplicating and compromising with these people like our politicians do now.
No. The government is already failing. We're starting to realize that throwing more money at it is just magnifying the scope of failure. In fact, it's time for daddy to take the credit card away from his16yo princess spendthrift daughter.
Congress can't declare war because the American people have been brainwashed to believe that all wars are wrong. If WW2 were to happen tomorrow, we'd still sit on the sidelines as long as possible and you can be sure that the second we declare war there will be protests in the street.
The country is polarized in every which direction. How can you expect the government to do anything when the people can't figure out what they want to do themselves?
"All this crying about it being a slippery slope isn't making us any safer."
I don't know anything about slippery slopes, but I do seem to recall a famous quote about something to do with eternal vigilance and freedom.
Yes, vigilance is important... but nothing is absolute. Good governance requires trust. The level of cynicism we've reached makes it absolutely impossible to run an efficient government. This remind me of someone who micromanages their employees: nothing gets done.
We need to find a middle ground between vigilance and trust. Either extreme will kill this country.
Slashdot users are waaaaaaaaaay too paranoid. The government doesn't care about going after Joe Nobody. Somewhere down the line you guys confused real tyrants with people who intercept your mail. No one cares what you had for lunch. Seriously.
Please take a minute of your time to read about what *real* tyrants do to their people in the rest of the world and then come back to complain. All this crying about it being a slippery slope isn't making us any safer. It's just leading to a dysfunctional government that can't get anything done. You spend more energy keeping the government politically correct than efficient and in the end the very tyrants you aim to prevent will take over your country by pure economic force (think China).
All I'm saying is... please keep things in perspective. You have legitimate points, but a government that is untrusted by its people (and by all accounts Americans don't trust any existing political party) cannot effect effective governance. In other words, you're asking your government to fail and then whining when they do. That's not very productive.
There is nothing more I hate than websites that made me adhere to their arbitrary password security rules. The more hoops you make me jump through, the harder the password is to remember, and the dumber the password I pick (in the hopes of making it easier to remember).
This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.
That isn't what was promised. What was promised is that the countries would make an appeal to the UN. Russia sits on the UN security council and has a veto, and thus the appeal to the UN has no effect.
They should make the appeal nonetheless and at worse shame Russia. The fact that they failed to live up to their end of the bargain is shameful.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.
Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?
The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory. Not Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or any other country. There are plenty of countries in the Middle-East that make up conflicts on a monthly basis that have no grounding in fact. So long as Arabs are slaughtering Arabs in the Middle-East, even within their own countries, I think it is safe to say the probability of an Muslim-Jewish peace is very low (if they can't even get along with themselves, how can we expect them to play nice with others?)
Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, not Syrian. As such, they have no legitimacy in demanding the return of the Sheba Farms region to Lebanon. This territory was never part of Lebanon and Israel is fully in the right according to international law in that it withdrew 100% from Lebanon. Syria is more than welcome to restart peace negotiations with Israel if it so wishes. Please don't open up this discussion to other conflicts, as this is a separate discussion.
The fact of the matter is: the International Community made political and military guarantees with respect to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, and it failed to adhere to them. The same is true in the case of Ukraine. Had Ukraine kept their nuclear weapons you can be sure Russia would not have invaded.
This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders. A short while later, Hezbollah started threatening Israel again, claiming it was occupying some fictitious piece of land that was never part of Lebanon. Instead of the UN and international bodies backing Israel's claim that it had fully withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they publicly referred to this piece of land as "disputed territory". This taught us two things:
1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed". 2. International guarantees are utterly meaningless.
Countries are better off retaining their weapons and enforcing the peace themselves. Regardless of how much political pressure you're under, ignore it, because at the end of the day you cannot outsource your citizens security.
And on the flip side: the international community should shut the !#@ up until they gain a record of walking the walk instead of talking the talk. It's criminal to play with other people's lives in this way.
So you're telling me that North Korean and Iranian scientists are just as likely to contribute malicious code to libraries used by Western agencies as anyone else? I think not.
Open-source is supposed to be about maximum transparency, not about hiding information that might actually be relevant. Imagine having to apply security at airports if you had no idea whether the person you are about to scan is a 90 year old grandmother or an 18-25 male from the Middle East. Statistics and common sense tells you that one is a lot more likely to be malicious than the other, so why throw common sense out the window?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me be the first one to congratulate them. So long as those idiots stick to keyboard attacks instead of suicide bombings I think we are moving in the right direction.
If anyone is dumb enough to connect nuclear power plants to the internet ... well, let's just say we'll learn that lesson and never make that mistake again.
That's great news for OP.
PS: The correct link is http://www.tobii.com/en/assist...
I don't think this exists, but I could see it working:
1. Take existing eye-tracking technologies. (I'm not familiar with any but I know they exist)
2. Put up a virtual keyboard in front of your sister-in-law.
3. Track what letters her eyes trace over.
4. Use statistical analysis to guess which words they are trying to spell (like Swipe/Android keyboard).
This should allow her to spell words fairly quickly, although swipe keyboards can be frustrating at times.
+1000
Our biggest problem is letting political correctness get in the way of moral clarity. These people are trying to kill us. The more of them we eliminate or delegitimize, the better.
Most people don't need NoSQL. Last I checked, most people aren't Facebook or Google. And ironically those two companies are lining up behind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
ACID is here to stay. We will see conventional databases improve in the latency space and NoSQL will (mostly) go away.
Impossible.
The entire premise behind NoSQL is trading consistency for availability (which actually means "latency" since everything is eventually available). You will never ever get ACID from NoSQL databases.
It's as beneficial as sailing on top of a rock. No carbon footprint there either!
Aside from the technical advantages that people keep on bringing up, one of the main non-technical advantages that Thunderbolt has is its certification process. Any USB chipset that is faster than USB2's theoretical speed is certified as USB3, whereas in order to get certified as Thunderbolt 1 or 2 you must actually reach the advertised speed.
When you buy a USB device (unless it's from a reputable manufacturer such as Intel), its actual speed is usually an order of magnitude worse than the advertised speed. That is a huge difference!
1. "code works": Easy to say, hard to check. It might work today in some circumstances but fail tomorrow in other circumstances.
2. "is maintainable": That's a subjective criteria which is impossible to enforce.
3. "is to spec": Again, easy to check for common pathways, but hard to catch all the nuances (for the same reason that no one has 100% code coverage in their unit tests).
4. "passing a security audit": This helps, but as well all know by now it does not guarantee that the code is secure. Code usually depends on 100s of transitive dependencies. No one in their right mind includes transitive code in their security audits, unless you're the military and have that kind of money.
I'm not saying that building a house is any easier. I'd simply point out that we evaluate houses and bridges after a 30-year track record. If bad things happen, people get sued and there is some form of liability.
How many people behind software development (from the programmers up to the project managers) are liable for their work 30 years later?
Until we become liable for our work there will be no incentive to measure and improve some of these metrics. Just my 2 cents.
No. It does not.
The Christian ethnically cleansed the region of Jews, then the Arabs came and did the same. The Arabs of 1946 are not natives of the region by any stretch of the imagination. They did the same in Egypt. Hint: Today's Egyptians have nothing to do with Egypt's native population from a thousand years ago. They are just Arab colonists who invaded the area and ethnically cleansed it of non-Muslims.
False as always. The "Strong Arab Presence" is 1/128th while representing 33% of the population. And that isn't ALL arabs, only those who have sworn allegiance to the Jewish State. All told, the "democracy" in Palestine represents only 41% of the total population.
Everyone else is without proportional representation.
You might want place the blame where it's due. Arab leaders have repeatedly instructed their people to abstain during votes. You can't have representation in government if your people refuse to vote for you :)
Actually, Israel is set to pass a new law that will effectively disallow Arab parties from running for elections. There is systematic anti-Arab racism in Israel, it won't end soon, and the Palestinians don't even have human right as far as Israeli courts are concerned.
Bullshit. References?
No need to make a big deal about apartheid. We still put up with Israel doing it.
Give it a rest, will you?
Arabs have a strong representation in the Knesset (parliament) and a higher standard of living than Arabs living anywhere else in the Middle-East. Not to mention the various other minorities in Israel which are literally being slaughtered in the surrounding Arab countries but finding refuge in Israel.
If the government really wanted to assert control, it could use tanks, jets, nukes and many other weapons which you don't have access to. Syria is a prime example of why arming everyone does not guarantee anything.
Canada is a second example that arming everyone is both unnecessary and needlessly increases gun-related deaths.
Yes. I would recommend starting your development with Java 8. Any compatibility problems you run into will likely go away within the month as more libraries add Java 8 support. Most of them already work fine out of the box. Some of them depend on bytecode internals (e.g. the ASM library) so it'll take them a bit longer to run properly under Java 8.
That didn't really work all that well in WW2, did it? :)
Guess what? Not all wars are created equal. Some wars are good to get involved in, and others are bad.
Of course not. Not yet. The cost of tracking joe nobody currently exceeds the extra value (whether financial or psychological) that can be extracted from him if he's monitored. Of course, it's not just whether he's monitored or not. It's his right to know whether he is, to know what's being said about him by various databases gatekeepers tap into when he applies for jobs, loans, licenses, or just about anything. When the cost drops to a point where it's possible, it will happen.
Just because jack steals one stick of candy and points to joe who stole 6, doesn't mean we should ignore what jack is doing. It is likely he will emulate joe at some point in the future. Frankly, I don't care what other countries are doing. If their citizens want liberty, they need to stand up for it. Our failed attempts at 'nation building' over the last half century have proven that. I am comparing the USA of the past to the USA of now. The trend is getting worse and looks to get a lot worse. This obsession over 'safety' IS the problem. Talk about crying over spilled milk. We're told daily by the media of all these 'threats', and yet less than 1% of them materialize. I tire of this narrative. I see no threat that justifies the power grabs washington has engaged in over the last 20 years or so. If anyone is making fallacious slippery slope arguments, it's the politicians in DC.
If there ARE threats out there that are subverting our society, then it's congress' duty to declare war on the countries harboring them. War, not useless perpetual 'police actions' that sound like something out of orwell's 1984 (we were always at war with al quada). Wars have a finite goal: hit the enemy until he is no longer a threat. We don't defend our way of life by supplicating and compromising with these people like our politicians do now.
No. The government is already failing. We're starting to realize that throwing more money at it is just magnifying the scope of failure. In fact, it's time for daddy to take the credit card away from his16yo princess spendthrift daughter.
Congress can't declare war because the American people have been brainwashed to believe that all wars are wrong. If WW2 were to happen tomorrow, we'd still sit on the sidelines as long as possible and you can be sure that the second we declare war there will be protests in the street.
The country is polarized in every which direction. How can you expect the government to do anything when the people can't figure out what they want to do themselves?
"All this crying about it being a slippery slope isn't making us any safer."
I don't know anything about slippery slopes, but I do seem to recall a famous quote about something to do with eternal vigilance and freedom.
Yes, vigilance is important... but nothing is absolute. Good governance requires trust. The level of cynicism we've reached makes it absolutely impossible to run an efficient government. This remind me of someone who micromanages their employees: nothing gets done.
We need to find a middle ground between vigilance and trust. Either extreme will kill this country.
Slashdot users are waaaaaaaaaay too paranoid. The government doesn't care about going after Joe Nobody. Somewhere down the line you guys confused real tyrants with people who intercept your mail. No one cares what you had for lunch. Seriously.
Please take a minute of your time to read about what *real* tyrants do to their people in the rest of the world and then come back to complain. All this crying about it being a slippery slope isn't making us any safer. It's just leading to a dysfunctional government that can't get anything done. You spend more energy keeping the government politically correct than efficient and in the end the very tyrants you aim to prevent will take over your country by pure economic force (think China).
All I'm saying is... please keep things in perspective. You have legitimate points, but a government that is untrusted by its people (and by all accounts Americans don't trust any existing political party) cannot effect effective governance. In other words, you're asking your government to fail and then whining when they do. That's not very productive.
There is nothing more I hate than websites that made me adhere to their arbitrary password security rules. The more hoops you make me jump through, the harder the password is to remember, and the dumber the password I pick (in the hopes of making it easier to remember).
Please, leave me alone.
Do you honestly believe that even 25% of the people in question are receiving military pensions? I highly doubt it.
This sounds like a strawman argument to me.
This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.
That isn't what was promised. What was promised is that the countries would make an appeal to the UN. Russia sits on the UN security council and has a veto, and thus the appeal to the UN has no effect.
They should make the appeal nonetheless and at worse shame Russia. The fact that they failed to live up to their end of the bargain is shameful.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.
Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?
The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory. Not Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or any other country. There are plenty of countries in the Middle-East that make up conflicts on a monthly basis that have no grounding in fact. So long as Arabs are slaughtering Arabs in the Middle-East, even within their own countries, I think it is safe to say the probability of an Muslim-Jewish peace is very low (if they can't even get along with themselves, how can we expect them to play nice with others?)
Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, not Syrian. As such, they have no legitimacy in demanding the return of the Sheba Farms region to Lebanon. This territory was never part of Lebanon and Israel is fully in the right according to international law in that it withdrew 100% from Lebanon. Syria is more than welcome to restart peace negotiations with Israel if it so wishes. Please don't open up this discussion to other conflicts, as this is a separate discussion.
The fact of the matter is: the International Community made political and military guarantees with respect to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, and it failed to adhere to them. The same is true in the case of Ukraine. Had Ukraine kept their nuclear weapons you can be sure Russia would not have invaded.
This isn't the first time that international bodies have promised to protect a country's borders in return for it withdrawing from some territory, or giving up arms... but when it is time for those same international bodies to act they do not.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders. A short while later, Hezbollah started threatening Israel again, claiming it was occupying some fictitious piece of land that was never part of Lebanon. Instead of the UN and international bodies backing Israel's claim that it had fully withdrawn from all of Lebanon, they publicly referred to this piece of land as "disputed territory". This taught us two things:
1. All it takes is one idiot to claim ownership of some land, and regardless of the facts that land becomes "disputed".
2. International guarantees are utterly meaningless.
Countries are better off retaining their weapons and enforcing the peace themselves. Regardless of how much political pressure you're under, ignore it, because at the end of the day you cannot outsource your citizens security.
And on the flip side: the international community should shut the !#@ up until they gain a record of walking the walk instead of talking the talk. It's criminal to play with other people's lives in this way.
So you're telling me that North Korean and Iranian scientists are just as likely to contribute malicious code to libraries used by Western agencies as anyone else? I think not.
Open-source is supposed to be about maximum transparency, not about hiding information that might actually be relevant. Imagine having to apply security at airports if you had no idea whether the person you are about to scan is a 90 year old grandmother or an 18-25 male from the Middle East. Statistics and common sense tells you that one is a lot more likely to be malicious than the other, so why throw common sense out the window?