danielrm26

We'll be dead soon. Enjoy the little things.

Seriously?

What's the licensing situation for these VMs?

What can I use them for, for how long, and what limitations are in place?

This reads like a hit piece for some reason.

Maybe it won't need to be dramatic. Maybe a relatively slow and natural deflation.

Media can raise awareness so it's not a needle pop.

Seems like an obvious competitor to Slack.

This is one of the main things I test when doing application security assessments.

I look at the various clients/interfaces and test each of them to see how their controls compare. It's quite often that certain clients or interfaces have far less security on them than others because it simply isn't convenient.

One example would be two-factor on a VPS administration page. It's on the main site, but if you download the mobile app it's password only.

Which means...it's password only (assuming you know how to use a proxy like Burp).

So important to ensure that all interfaces to your app have the same minimum requirements for security.

I hate to be the one, but I wonder if Jenny McCarthy is looking into this research as a possible alternative explanation for what she went through.

Man tries to help the world with his money and he's greeted with criticism.

Super glue will be needed to hold the title together as well, since an Oxford comma wasn't used.

The whole causation / correlation thing is a big part of this, I think. Many will likely read this and think that there's brain power in your legs, when in fact it's most likely saying that leg health -> physical activity in general -> brain health.

I think the writing about the study should be more clear about this, as I'm sure the original work is.

and repeats, sadly

Are you doing satire as well?

If they can't finally get the iPhone 7 right, I'm not sure what's going to become of them.

While I can see potential danger in hiring friends, I think it's wrong to say outright that it's a bad idea.

Most bad hiring of friends comes from being bad at hiring in general. If you hire someone BECAUSE they're your friend, then you're doing it wrong. The idea is to hire people who are qualified and who you know to be quality over a long period of time.

Used properly, friendship can just be considered a source for good references in this case, and potentially some additional glue during tough times.

It's true there are risks to hiring friends, especially if it's done poorly or for the wrong reasons, but it's also true that there can be extraordinary benefits.

1. Randomness is part of the laws.

2. Determining the source of the randomness is like figuring out why the strong and weak force constants were set the way they were. They exist at the ends of our epistemological limits.

3. You seem to be missing that even if we were a source of randomness, we would not be in control of it. Free Will isn't about a lack of predictability, it's about control.

It is true that the program doesn't show free will is completely impossible for all instants in time (because it cannot test infinite instants), but one has to wonder why any instant n would be different than the first.

Your second point equates to, "Well, we don't know everything about everything in the universe, so there might be a mechanism for free will we haven't discovered."

True, but that also applies to every other proposition that we can safely disregard because there's no good reason to accept it.

In the case of free will, we as potential authors of action need a lever for injecting ourself into the universe's chain of events. We need a hook. We need an influence point. But since we ourselves are products of that universe, such a mechanism is purely speculative.

The only reason we think free will exists is because we experience it. But given our understanding of the brain and its propensity for projecting all manner of illusions onto our consciousness, I submit we should not consider this evidence.

Show us how we have gained control over a previous state of the universe in one of the instants between the big bang and now, or show us how we can control the physics of transition from one state to the next.

Only then will one have made a case for free will.

I think he's asserting that if experimenters have free will, then particles do, which means we do as well.

This isn't a proof of particles having free will. That's an intermediary step to saying we have it as well, and therefore you can start with a step that says we do.

The knight's move seems to be the following:

1. Experimenters have free will 2. They're made up of particles 3. Those particles therefore have free will 4. Therefore we have free will (that's why it's called a proof of free will)

Item #1 above assumes the conclusion.

I'm not sure where to start.

The first diagram of the proof starts with "there exists some experimenter with at least some free will". That's a problem, as it uses the argument's conclusion as one of its premises.

Using a simpler example, it'd be like saying, "To prove that aliens exist, let me show you three simple steps: 1) let's assume aliens exist, 2) ...

The second problem here is that he seems to be trying to illustrate that if things cannot be predicted that we have free will. This is a common fallacy in the free will debate. Randomness is an attack on fatalism, but offers ZERO degree of control to humans, and therefore has no place in the free will debate.

Finally, if you want to see a much better argument, in the other direction, check out my Two Lever Argument Against Free Will that uses 25 lines of Ruby.

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/two-lever-free-will-ruby/

Good points.

The main point (which I think was still conveyed) was to show that hackers and developers were programmers, but not necessarily the same.

Great analysis. Reminds me of an updated, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us", by Bill Joy.

Noble words, and quite possible. But it also sounds like a great way of protecting his leak source.

Either way, good form.

You're being that guy.

Fixed, thanks!

I'll add this. Thanks!

My apologies. Can you tell me what tripped you up and what you would have liked to have seen?

This is the author, and you're absolutely correct. I'm going to add it soon. Thanks!

> (massive paragraphs of text)

You just proved the point. I'm going to read what you wrote, but most people will not.

The point of my resource was to approachable and consumable within seconds.

> First of all author stated that Unfortunately, many with computer science degrees have a weak understanding of the concept—let alone those without any training on it. but the explanation he gave is actually identical to those that are given in colleges and this is why people have weak understanding of NP problems.

In a computer science class you should be going into the details. This was not designed to do that. It was designed to give a general overview of the concept, as is clearly stated in the beginning.

And I think the latter is more needed than the former. There are plenty of deep explanations of this topic, and very few approachable ones.