Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Remove politics from the survey (Score 1) 258

Second, ignoring what you know to and instead holding to ideological positions even though they are in opposition to what you know about science is not evidence of ignorance of science but rather evidence of a strong ideological association.

One could well argue that this is a deep degree of ignorance: it indicates on a very fundemental level that people do not understand that science is a matter of "belief". And fundementally if disbelieve it because of ideological reasons that shows such a fundemental misunderstanding of what it is that it is a better indication than any number of facts.

Comment: Re:Gender and sex (Score 1) 258

This isn't logically valid reasoning. There is debate, therefore differences are subtle? There is a debate about creationism too. I guess that proves the jurys still out on creationisms scientific validity then.

OK fine. There is very serious debate among the people who actually study this about what the nature of the differences are and if there are really any significant ones at all. There's a slew of papers, counter claims and so on and so forth. That means there aren't any obvious, glaring differences.

Hard scientific data, as in meta studies in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and linguistics, tells us there are significant and fundamental differences between the sexes. There is very little data supporting the opposing argument.

I've never seen any evoloutionary biology studies which support it, so [citation needed]. And define significant. If there was a significant difference, you could pick a man and a woman from the population at random and make some prediction about mental capacity (discounting any cultural factors) and be right some "reasonable" amount of time.

"reasonable" of course is the core of how significant it is. There might be a provable prediction you can get right 50.0001% of the time, which would mean there is a difference but it wouldn't be very significant.

Comment: Re:Remove politics from the survey (Score 1) 258

If you are ACTUALLY interested in scientific literacy, then ask questions on which no major political faction has any stake.

I disagree: if you're willing to spew political talking points than pay attention to actual science, then that is a pretty good measure of being scientifically illiterate because that's more or less ignoring science because you don't like the conclusions it comes to.

Just because someone is politically and culturally invested in the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, doesn't make them any more scientifically literate than if they they were simply a nutcase.

Comment: Re:Gender and sex (Score 1) 258

I did reference Steve Pinker

Specifically, you told me he has written several books. Saying, I have a point but you're going to have to read several books to figure out what the point is never mind the arguments for and against is not really very solid. I mean sure, you might have a point and you might be right, but I'm not going to do several weeks of reading just to find out.

and that there are no inherent differences between men and womens brains is the corner stone of post modern feminism.

The differences between male and female brains seems to be a subject of intense debate, whichpretty much means that the differences are subtle. There is undeniably more variation across humans as a whole than between genders on average. Secondly where on earth do you get your definitions of feminism from?
 

Comment: Re:Gender and sex (Score 1) 258

Well you've done nothing except make a wild, axe-grindy claim that "feminists" are responsible for something. You haven't even elucidated what you're even blaming them for or why you think they're to blame.

So, while that lack of stuff doesn't make you wrong, it does make you lack credibility.

Comment: Re:Lack of corruption (Score 1) 416

The bombast is strong with this one!

Or in England, where party that received the most support is kept out of power by a similar coalition.

How on earth does that make no sense? The coalition combined got much more support than Labour. Therefore it makes much more sense for them to share power than to hand it all to Labour.

It has the highest rate of worker productivity, the economy is growing, it has the largest manufacturing economy in the world by a large margin,

It also has higher rates of poverty and longer working hours, with fewer holidays than anywhere in the EU. Is that good? Is it worth the tradeoff. As for largest, well it helps being a large country. China has a very large industry sector, comparable to the US. Germany has a smaller one, about 1/3 of the size but then again it's about 1/4 of the size in overall GDP and population, too.

top colleges are basically all US,

Because Oxford and Cambridge don't exist? Actually if you look at the top university rankings woirldwide it's nearly an even split these days between the US and the UK. And the UK is much, much smaller (about 1/6 of the size in most economic measures).

Nobel prize winners are more US than elsewhere,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Yep looks like the US has most, but not by any factor out of proportion to the size of the country. 353 winners according to wikipedia. That compares to 115 for the UK (remember about 1/5 of the size), 26 for Switzerland (1/37 of the population), 30 for Sweden (1/30 of the population), 13 for Norway (1/60 of the population), 19 for the Netherlands (1/18 of the population --- this is about the same proportion), 12 for Israel (1/18 of the population), Germany (102, about 1/4 of the population), France 67 (1/5 of the population --- this is about the same proportion) and etc. I've got bored working through the list backwards from the US.

End point: yes the US has more but it's also much larger. Weighted by population, it's up there with the best developed countries, but is quite a bit below the top of the heap. Even if you discount the very small ones as statistical errors, you still have the big hitters like the UK, Germany and France which have respectively better and comparable numbers of prizewinners per capita.

and the US has won the world series for like 20 years in a row

That's becauese everyone else (to a first order approximation) is busy playing football. That's soccer to you guys.

The lack of government subsidizing of ethernet to some bumfuck exurb is just a sign that the US doesn't treat broadband as an inherent right of being a citizen, and personally I would agree.

I'm a Brit (you might have guessed). I actually like the US and would move there if I had the chance, but mate, you need to pull your head out of your arse. If you go and live in almost any other civilised country you will realise that everyone else has telecoms figured out much, MUCH better. Basically, it's faster, cheaper, more readily available and less abusive in almost any other country.

Some countries are just crap at things. What's more this is often a result of mass blindness on the part of the population who refuse to acknowledge that things are better elsewhere. In the UK we're like that about property purchasing (all fucked up 6 ways to Sunday here) and, rather entertainingly, mixer taps. Seems you Americans are like that about telecoms.

Comment: Re:Worst idea ever. (Well, one of them). (Score 1) 168

by shaitand (#48936139) Attached to: FDA Approves Implantable Vagus Nerve Disruptor For Weight Loss
"I don't think taxpayer money should be invested in large Phase III trials (which can cost almost $1 billion) when they have a pretty low chance of succeeding. Moreover, you really do need teams of people to be competitive in today's research world - I work in a lab in academia, and there's no way you could do much drug development all by yourself."

Which is why Pharma companies are all bankrupt? No part of what I proposed involved taxpayer money or prevented working in teams. What I proposed are loans from the federal reserve on the same terms they are given to banks. The fed does not loan out tax payer money to banks, it loans out shiny newly created money at ridiculously low rates. We have an inflationary fiat currency and it actually depends on us putting new currency into circulation. Traditionally the finance industry gets all the benefits from this system. Advanced technology and especially medicine is certainly at least one obvious alternative place we could inject this money which benefits everyone in the nation.

"You absolutely shouldn't be allowed to make something that's going to go into people in a lab like you described"

I didn't actually describe a lab. Maybe you are mentally projecting your own assumption of some sort of inferior facility? Last I checked there is nothing magical about the pharma corps that makes them more capable than anyone else.

"I'm also not sure what you have against profits in general. For-profit companies aren't inherently bad, and non-profits aren't inherently good."

In general I agree. I just don't think healthcare and medicine is an appropriate for-profit industry. The costs are the same whether for-profit or non-profit. Profit has to come from somewhere and in the case of healthcare the result is higher costs which means less people benefit from the care. A for profit has an interest in maximizing profit and you maximize profit by providing as little as possible for as much as possible. This isn't in the interest of our nation. We all benefit if the health industries provide as much as possible at the lowest cost possible.

I don't propose blocking the for profit drug industry. I propose they shouldn't be allowed to use infrastructure that exists to provide an alternative to them and tie up those resources just to increase their own profits. Non-profits and partnerships still allow for teams to group together in a more established structure and work and allow for those people to profit from that work in the form of salaries in the case of a non-profit and in the system I proposed all the net profit derived from the fruits of their labor.

Comment: Re:that's the problem. 3/16th" hole = opened (Score 1) 351

by hey! (#48935183) Attached to: Why ATM Bombs May Be Coming Soon To the United States

The issue as I'm sure you know isn't "opened", but rather "opened within a certain length of time." Obviously given unlimited time you can get into anything, and you probably can get into an ATM a lot faster than a decent safe. But once you have the explosion routine down pat, you can probably be away with the ATM money in *seconds*. In terms of practicality and low risk, that's hard to beat.

Comment: Re:If it's accessing your X server, it's elevated (Score 1) 367

by serviscope_minor (#48930363) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

First bear in mind the attacker has local code execution. If they can put up a fake screengrabber, it's just a logout/reboot away from running a trojaned compositor (if you use Wayland), a trojaned screenlocker (if you use X) and on either system without even a reboot, a trojaned browser, terminal, ssh program and so on and so forth. So to say this is a serious flaw with X is hyperbole.

The next case is that you also claim Wayland is secure. Therefore X11 running on Wayland is secure. Therefore in that case X11 is being run in a secure manner. I claim that if that is the case, then X11 could very easily be secured, because it's eassy to see it in operation nowrunning in a way that the additional insecuritu doesn't break things.

I'm not really sure how creating yet another way for a "designated program" to monitor input events is supposed to address the problem that any X11 client can monitor keyboard events on any window in the absence of a grab, unless you intend to rewrite all existing software to grab the keyboard on receiving input focus, and force all the desktop environments to implement support for the extension and move their global keybindings into a specially designated client. At that point you might was well switch to a system designed for secure I/O from day oneâ"like Wayland.

OK, I'm lightly lost so I'm going to swing back to the original point.

First there's the one about server grabs which prevent other windows from opening. Well, you could easily have a protocol extension that allows only one connected client to bring up windows anyway. The continuation of the grab could either be faked to the grabber, or killed outright (the latter feature---killing grabs---was removed from Xorg by the wayland people because they decided we didn't need it!). Let's say it's first come, first serve, so that the first client to request this feature is the only one to get it. Or the screenlocker could get that command. This requires the WM and screenlocker to be run on boot before a trojan, but as I pointed out, if the system is that deeply trojanned anyway, then this is all pointless.

That requires some rewriting to whichever screenlockers you want to add the feature to, hardly a major undertaking since there's about 3 in common use and a few, more obscure, ones.

The other problem---a designated screen lock key combo. Well, if the screen locker has a passive grab on ctrl-alt-delete, then the fake screenlocker can't grab that, so that already works.


It's easy to implement the insecure X11 model on top of a secure system. The reverse is much more difficult.

Why? Why not have exactly the same security model? You haven't explained, only asserted, that your chosen security feature couldn't be easily available under X.

In fact when it comes to locking things down, there are things like the X security protocol, which blocks untrusted programs from executing various protocol commands. This already exists and could (I haven't checked if it does) easily block things like receiving events from a window on another connection, reparenting or redirecting a window on another connection, diddling with the global keymap and so on.

Anyway if there's unsanboxed local code execution, you're basically screwed on any system.

Comment: Re:Screen locker == physical access == ... (Score 1) 367

by serviscope_minor (#48930269) Attached to: Why Screen Lockers On X11 Cannot Be Secure

You're not going to get any of my data that way, which is what is actually important.

I'm not sure I follow. Surely if I had unlocked access to your phone, I could simply read whatever data was on there? Also, can you install free apps without an additional password? If so what stops me installing a keyboard app trojan?

Honest question: I don't own an iPhone. If it stops those kind of attacks it would be great to know how.

"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann

Working...