Comment Re:Blaming the victims ?? (Score 1) 273
Does this come to mind, Sir?
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me
I'd like to add to that:
Fool me every two years, politics as usual!
Does this come to mind, Sir?
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me
I'd like to add to that:
Fool me every two years, politics as usual!
As long a you don't intend to get work from it, there are tons of alternatives for learning the information that would be contained in the course.
One of the key differences is that taking a formal course on it forces you to study the boring and hard parts as well as the fun bits; often they're important for gaining a real level of understanding. (I suppose that's true for pretty much any subject.)
If you do intend to use it for the purposes of obtaining employment, you'll need to actually take the exams at an accredited institution. Otherwise the employers won't know you from some random jerk walking in off the street claiming something which isn't true. No accusations, but from their perspective, self-taught is indistinguishable from untaught (unless you've got a solid portfolio of work or a good history of working in the area, in which case nobody will really care about the degree).
While, CS is definitely applying math, it lies somewhere between Math and Software Engineering.
Anything to do with user interfaces will have a fair chunk of applied psychology as well (and some appreciation of parts of physiology too). What's more, people doing theoretical CS tend to go much deeper into discrete math than the normal math student does.
And there are some valid criticisms of PHP, particularly from the domain of purity.
The major problems that most people have with PHP stem from the metric buttload of problems with SQL injection and XSS bugs that they're infested with. I know these are not the language's fault exactly, but it's usually very close to the epicenter of trouble and pain. I suspect that it's the legacy of poor community practice that's the biggest troubling thing in reality (as opposed to what people perceive), and that's very hard to fix; all those badly written applications and tutorials need work.
if you can build a nuclear engine which burns 100% of it's neutron flux
True 100%? In something that can fly under its own power? Then you can use in an atmosphere and you're powering it all by fairy tears and unicorn farts, because you're using magic and not technology.
On the contrary. The only evidence we have is that it cannot yet be observed. Thus the moniker of being dark.
We can observe that there must be something there (from the gravitational effects) but we can't actually see it (though there's been a few hints of annihilations that might be consistent with something like a sterile neutrino). It's like looking for a black cat in a coal cellar: we might not see the cat, but we can feel the mice it has killed and (maybe) hear the meow.
If there is a sterile neutrino out there, directly observing it is going to be absurdly hard.
And they're both right!
Only if you also include "venal".
Thankfully, this is not a large area, population-wise, that this could be handled quickly. I can only imagine how difficult it could be in a large city.
While there might be more people, there are also more judges in a large city, and the problems with dealing with probate are still the same. The law in this area doesn't depend on the local density of population. (That would be ultra-dumb and against the principles of the legal system for thousands of years.)
You mean cops go out and actually do work?! BAHAHAHA. They're too busy being bullies and thugs. Property theft is left to insurance companies.
Doesn't that depend on whether you're a donut shop employee?
I'd thought that Spain might have bigger fish to fry... such as access to Scottish waters for their fishing boats. Fishing is about the only thing of any value to their economy right now, and they're in a serious financial funk, but they'll just throw away the access they get to Scottish waters on a whim, will they?
You overestimate the importance of that, and the number of people employed in fishing in Spain, and underestimate the number of other places that they can go fish (e.g., off western Africa). If you think that fishing will save your asses, whereas there's the counter-example of the trouble caused by the separatist movement would trigger in Catalonia, I suggest you should visit reality sometime. The government in Madrid does not want Scotland to go independent, and doesn't want things to go easily for Scotland if they do go independent, and this is entirely for their own selfish domestic political reasons.
There are quite a few where there's no enlargement, such as the Gall–Peters projection and the Mollweide projection. (Assuming "no enlargement" means "equal area". No; you won't get zero distortion maps. A spherical - well, approximate spherical - surface can't be flattened perfectly.)
Check the math. This is not actually true.
Link please. While I'm happy to check math, computing it all from the raw data (which I don't know the locations of in the first place) is rather more effort than I've got time for.
I'm not a xenobiologist, but wouldn't a high-pressure hydrogen-rich atmosphere conceivably be home to organisms similar to those that live around deep sea volcanic vents?
We don't know. Right now, we have only one sample of the set "worlds with life" (I say "worlds" to not unfairly discriminate against moons) and our current technological capabilities can't really figure it out for many more worlds yet. Because of this, we do not have enough data to know how prevalent life is or what it really requires. We truly don't know, but at least we know we're really ignorant.
About the only things we can be sure of are that there's a lot of planets out there, that there's a really good chance that some will have conditions at least somewhat similar to earth, and that many of the ingredients for life as we know it are manufactured by cosmological processes involving dust and ice. Oh, and that the universe has a neverending capacity to surprise us.
Will we be going to war with/conquered by giant tubeworms?
Unless someone (either ourselves or the tubeworms) invents a way to travel significantly faster than light with practical levels of energy consumption, no. Even Alpha Centauri, our nearest neighbour, is one hell of a long way away.
MIPS had some presence in network and set top boxes, but this is ending.
It's gone. The hotel I was staying in last week had all of its set-top boxes running Android. (Irritating when you switched the device on and had to wait while it booted, but that's not ARM's fault.)
Really, why would you trust a system where someone you dont know or trust is in charge of the private keys for the encryption?
Failing to secure your connections is just wilfully stupid. SSL is the best option we've got to avoid a whole range of attacks (it's far easier than the alternatives) but it does require correct implementations and careful selection of who to trust; SSL itself does not specify who to trust (and how can it? It's just a technical protocol for how to establish a secure channel over an insecure connection, typically implemented with TCP/IP).
Explicitly listing who to trust is best, but it's extremely hard to scale up (since you have to pre-share the keys). A web-of-trust scales better, but once someone makes a mistake (easily done) it all crumbles. Using a certificate authority scales much better, and isn't quite as brittle as a WoT, but it does rely on the CAs (especially the root CAs; non-roots are easier to discipline) being very highly trustworthy. Commercial pressures are unlikely to make limiting the scope of domains that any CA can issue for practical (and in any case, certificates are not tied to domains in general; that's a feature of some particular types of certificates only).
Every time someone suggests "oh we can't trust SSL" it is invariably because they don't know what it does and doesn't do, and because they think that there's only one kind of threat. That's incredibly wrong-headed and foolish.
The best laid plans of mice and men are held up in the legal department.
