derleth

> I would argue that if there are no technological access controls in place, there is no such thing as "unauthorized access" You can't be unauthorized if there is no authorization. The default on the internet is "can access"

Or is it like walking into someone's private home because they left the door open? Or merely unlocked?

The law likes to operate on analogies, because analogous situations are ones for which we have precedent, and precedent makes the law predictable. The sad thing is, precedent goes back to the pre-computer era, too, and isn't necessarily overturned just because new technology with new social expectations is involved. Maybe in a couple generations.

> However I think there is a problem in America of young people rejecting what you are saying not because they think it is wrong, but because they don't like it.

Like how they expect Social Security to still be there even if they cut taxes, and how 'Socialized Medicine' is evil but Medicaid is utterly sacrosanct and untouchable, and ...

Oh, wait, that's what old people are on about now.

This sounds like the Torre Bert recordings, which are almost certainly a hoax: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4115

Of course, the Torre Bert story goes further, with a whole passel of cosmonauts going missing and unreported on except for these two guys in Italy, the Judica-Cordiglia brothers, with a lash-up radio rig, who weren't influenced at all by all the publicity they were getting every time they reported a new cosmonaut dying in pain. Not at all. Also, in their world, spacecraft can just kind of 'drift' out of Earth orbit without any additional engine thrust.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2433/are-there-real...

"llvmpy" kind of looks like an Ancient Roman trying to write down a Welsh word.

And for good reason: The 'v' glyph was used for both the 'v' sound and the vowel 'u' sound before 'u' became its own letter.

Are your notions of correctness defined by who can get publishing deals?

Those sources don't define correctness. Especially Strunk and White, which is pretty well debunked at this point:

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003463.php

If you look at the evidence, especially the Gini coefficient, Republicans are a lot more plutocratic than Democrats: http://www.zompist.com/liberalism.html

And I'd begin with basic mathematics.

Automated translation of East Asian languages into English is typically a source of much unintended hilarity. People therefore don't trust it.

Aside from that, Google Translate can be downright odd sometimes. Like what it did to Lorem Ipsum:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2010/10/google-tra...

http://www.zagg.com/community/blog/lorem-ipsum-text-translat...

> It wasn't that bad, especially if you take the time to learn how to do string manipulation properly (which isn't really that hard).

It's hard in the way that counts: It's tedious and prone to precisely the kinds of errors humans make when a task is tedious. Worse, string manipulation is precisely where all of the potentially dangerous bugs can live in the average C program, especially if you're accepting data from untrusted sources.

> Come to think of it, even though we consider C to be "low level", that's really only a temporary problem that solves itself the longer you work with it and the more you build with it.

Aside from the fact you can say the same about assembly, this is another reason to disfavor C: Reinventing the wheel. Over and over again.

I say all this as someone who actually likes C, and even somewhat enjoys doing string processing in C. I even know about strstr(3), which never seems to get mentioned. The main thing I know, however, is that it isn't worth it unless you live in a contrived circumstance.

Yes, you can go really fast by strapping yourself to that rocket, and if you remove the helmet you'll reduce your weight and go even faster. Nobody's doubting you. However, very few people want to stand downrange of you.

To expand on what Osmium said, a "golden age" is more like a "goldrush age": A big breakthrough opens up a new conceptual frontier, and the golden age is scientists rushing in to homestead and start mining the new landscape.

This isn't to say that all progress is done in goldrushes, but the most basic and, therefore, best-known work of a given field will be done in that period.

'Bloat' is 'any feature I'm not using right now'.

We expect more out of our software, so we write more code to do it, and we complain about bloat because no individual person uses, or expects to use, every feature in every piece of software. However, when anyone comes along to remove features, people complain even worse because, of course, nobody can agree about which features to axe! Everyone is using different subsets!

So... your notions of 'correctness' in a language are determined by who can get publishing deals?

> There ain't no such thing as a prestige dialect in English.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm.

> In all of them, "affect change" is just plain wrong.

Cite?

> Because the teacher's puppet touched me in a bad place, and I project my self-hatred onto others.

And now you're making fun of molestation victims to score points on a website.

You have no idea what kind of history the people here have with molestation, and you're potentially dragging up some very painful memories just to score points on me. Why? People commit suicide over this stuff.

Downvoting linguistic knowledge doesn't make it any less true.

Depends on the variety of English. What you said is true for the prestige dialect, certainly.

> America doesn't have free speech.

Yes, it does. It has severe restrictions on what kinds of speech the government is capable of punishing you for expressing. That's what free speech is.

Free speech does not mean that you have the right to come into my house and scream obscenities at me. Nobody, nowhere has that right, regardless of where they're from.

> Reddit doesn't have free speech.

The corporation known as 'Reddit' has free speech, which means they have the right to ban people from using their forum in ways they disapprove of. I'm pretty sure that's what the poster you replied to meant.

Do a Google search on 'algebra vs analysis' (without quotes) and you'll see that analysis (the broad field of mathematics where calculus lives) and algebra (the broad field of mathematics where the kind of logic you likely studied lives) are two different mindsets more than anything else. Different kinds of mathematicians are attracted to each of those fields.

This is, of course, another reason why calculus shouldn't be the barrier course (you can't graduate without it!) that it is. Some people just don't do that, and they shouldn't be penalized for it if their field doesn't require calculus (or any analysis) in the first place.

This thread is interesting: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=619519

This was said by Donald Knuth, in case anyone here doesn't know that specific bit of trivia.

> you're just a moron!

If you're so much smarter than me, why do you resort to insults?

> Nice job editing your comment to remove the attack, you fucking dipshit.

I can edit to remove insults, but you can only edit to add them. What does that say about you?

> Turkey and Afghanistan share a border

At this point, I'm pretty certain you've confused Afghanistan with Iraq, which also has a pretty important Kurdish minority.

> I'd dropped out of college because I'd failed calculus - twice - and was basically told I'd never graduate without passing calculus

One of the biggest pieces of BS is forcing calculus on people who have neither the need nor the desire to know calculus.

CS majors, for example, would be better served by a Discrete Math course instead of calculus: That's formal logic (first-order predicate logic, in specific) along with combinatorics and big-O notations (big-O, big-Theta, big-Omega, etc.), and some emphasis on writing proofs. If they later decide to learn calculus, they can either take freshman formula-grind calculus or Real Analysis, which is where you learn where stuff like the chain rule actually comes from by deriving calculus from first principles. Real Analysis is a lot more interesting.

Gradually getting back to my point, the focus on calculus is outdated and at odds with any STEM program that isn't exclusively or even primarily about creating civil engineers and physicists.

> I believe the answer in this case is you latch the signal, and use a local copy.

So the latch is local to both, and therefore not using a signal from another module?

> Every utterance, every decision has the inherent option of an opposition.

To the extent this is meaningful at all, it implies that it is not true in the slightest, which makes it difficult to take seriously.

> This is not fundamentally different to the scientific method. The atom was thought to be the smallest, inseperable unit (hence the name) before it could be found. However, in finding the atom, we realised that it is, indeed, made up of smaller parts, which in turn are again made up of smaller parts.

Until that process bottomed out, of course, and bottomed out based on evidence, not philosophy.

I'm a p-zombie. When is anyone going to write a book about what it's like to be me?

> "A Novel Method for Applying a Trivial Modification of an Already-Known Algorithm to Some Type of Specific Data"

This is how science builds on itself. Every well-known paper has citations to 'lesser' works which laid the foundations.

> Why do we need to bother with repeatable experiments for social sciences?

So we aren't lead into error by well-known cognitive biases and/or outright fraud, both of which are known to exist as they can be demonstrated through repeatable experiments.

It's a juvie, which is what Young Adult (YA) fiction was called back when Heinlein was writing for that market.

However, I called it a 'juvie' because the book fits the older style better: A young person Gets Into Trouble and uses Native Wit, Loyal Friends, and a few Helpful Adults to Solve The Problem. It not incidentally teaches Moral Lessons by example, like how important it is to stand up for yourself and so on. Modern YA stuff is more psychologically deep and less focused on Solving The Problem.

Anyway, the target audience is middle school to high school. The protagonist is in high school, but it's a rule in kid lit that kids will gladly read things meant for older kids but never stuff meant for younger kids.