> All of the proposed plans are based on the... assumption that > humans can add significant value
Not really. The cover story says this is all about scientific curiosity regarding our universe, and maybe someday commercial mining. But lurking beneath the surface is the uncomfortable truth that life on Earth has an expiration date.
This is about extra-terrestrial colonization. That's why we focus so much on discovering liquid water, and that's why eventually humans have to make the trip.
> A quantity of small "coulds" coming together at the wrong time and place is how a lot of accidents happen
That is absolutely correct. That is how accidents happen. But if you or I or McVeigh planned to force "a critical density of 'coulds'," it would never work. Hollywood allows for failures on cue and long chains of helpful improbabilities, but outside the movies perfect storms don't follow a plan.
you should be listening to free music. There are plenty of... real bands that care more about their fans and who actually tour rather than live off the royalties of overprocessed studio shit.
...
I suggest supporting those bands by buying their records
If I understand this, it's a really interesting perspective. In citing the heat death of the universe, you seem to worry more about our generating heat than particulate pollution.
You imply we'd postpone our demise longest by postponing the conversion of our stored energy into heat.
Or even better, converting ambient heat into other forms of energy.
Such technology exists, and as a bonus it doesn't involve pulling carbon from deep in the earth and shooting it into the sky. Stirling Engines and Geothermal Power FTW.
You know what we should do? We should go ahead and continue to extract carbon from the bowels of the earth, pulverize it and shoot it into the atmosphere. That just makes economic sense. But then - you're going to like this - we go chase down all the carbon in the sky, catch it, and put it under the rug.
Although I generally take "security through obsurity" to mean "the algorithm is the secret". If the whole system relies on exactly these ten blots, this seems more like "the secret is the algorithm". You can't even re-key the lock.
It's broken, they've been given responsible disclosure, and it's already in the wild. Refusal to patch will just make them idiots, and refusal to publish makes Wikipedia complicit.
> Who am I to determine what my child is going to be like to that degree?
You are the person choosing to reproduce, the person selecting a mate. If someone is a redhead, and they mate with a redhead, aren't they choosing the color of their kids' hair? And if an athlete mates with an athlete, aren't they choosing to have athletic children?
In this case, you have eight fertile embryos, and you get to choose which gets implanted. Do you want to number them from 1 - 8 and roll an eight-sided dice, or do you want to look at their DNA?
> do I have the right to rob my child of the experiences he/she is going to have growing up?
Weird question. You might try to guide a life, but you can't rob anything of the experiences it will have. Except by not letting it experience anything, which is the choice you'll be making for six or seven of those embryos.
> with the abundance of soup kitchens and charity groups out there Not sure what you base that claim of "abundance" on, but it's not the number of groups that matter, its access to actual food and beds. And there are more homeless than plates in my city. A couple times I picked up panhandlers to show them how easy it was to get a meal and a bed. It turned out to be not so easy at all - those resources are finite, and they actually turn people away.
It might interest you to try the same - escort a homeless person to the abudant resources in your town. Hopefully you'll have more luck than me. And if not, maybe you can split a lunch and wish him well.
Communism in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
> It has never worked that way in any implemented version of Communism
My original point was that Communism has never been implemented, not at the state level anyway. Probably it's impossible to get it working at such a large scale.
>> To make [command economy] work requires force, and the only entity which can use force is the State.
"Capitalist" states also use force to make their economy work. They use price controls, tax policy, subsidies, tariffs, monopolies, and central banks, all enforced by federal organizations like Treasury, SEC, IRS, and FBI.
No government adheres purely to any economic ideal. Even if they did, probably capitalism is the worst - except for all the other systems out there.
... is that the word no longer means communism. Now it means oppressive government, ala Soviet Union, China, North Vietnam. But these places show no sign of following the idealist philosophy people like Karl Marx set forth.
The concept of owning resources in common isn't anti-individualistic - having neighborhood parks or sharing roads and pipes and cables is just smart resource usage. Probably few people want absolutely everything to be publicly owned and managed, but most slashdotters probably like software and the internet that way.
1) Humans have some powers 2) Some hypothetical cosmic being, God, is alleged to have all powers 3) Living as a human on earth is one of His alleged powers 4) Carpentry is one of His alleged powers 5) Foot-washing is one of His alleged powers 6) Public speaking is one of His alleged powers 7) Smashing atoms is one of His alleged powers 8) Morphing curious women into salt pillars is one of His alleged powers
If humans share the power to be human, do carpentry, wash feet, speak in public, and smash atoms, whose to say one day mortals won't be able to morph curious women into pillars of salt?
If something can be done by God, who's to say it can't be done by anyone else?
And if something is physically impossible for mortals, how can one verify the claim that it's actually been done by a hypothetical undetectable cosmic non-human?
> private interests are beholden to foreign countries that do not
> share our interests... and cannot be trusted I don't know about that, but it's safe to say that the American government itself is beholden to the private interests you so distrust.
> government policy is not something in his league You got it backwards - the US government's data security is not in Schneier's league.
> Take your "bash government" speech elsewhere. Where would you suggest nerds go to discuss cybersecurity policy issues?
Definition of an Arrest
You are under arrest if a law enforcement officer (or sometimes a private citizen) takes you into "custody." This means that you believe you are not free to walk away from the scene of the contact with the officer.
That would seem to confirm what you said. But the definition continues:
Not every stop by a police officer means you are under arrest. If stopped only for a short time, then you may have been "detained," rather than legally arrested.
The article continues, to suggest an arrest warrant is generally required except for a felony or a misdemeanor the officer witnessed:
A warrant generally is not required to make an arrest if there is probable cause to believe the person arrested has committed a felony. Also, a warrant may not be required when a misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or in certain misdemeanors, outside his or her presence.
The main point of my original post was to show how to not dig yourself a deeper hole if you are stopped. Here's what the Washington State Bar Association says about that:
Your Rights if You Are Stopped by Police
You may ask why you were stopped. Also, you can ask if you are under arrest and, if not, whether you are free to leave.
If an officer stops you, you have a right to ask whether you are under investigation for a crime. If the officer suggests you are under investigation, then you have the right to decline to answer any questions. Also, you do not have to be under arrest to decline to answer questions from an officer. Ordinarily, you may be required to identify yourself. If you wish, you may answer the officer's questions. You should remember that whatever you say to the officer may be used if charges are filed against you at a later time (whether or not you give a formal "statement"), so long as:
1. You were properly advised of your constitutional rights before making a statement; or
2. You voluntarily tell the officer anything and you were not under arrest.
They go on to discuss "formally arrested":
By law, if formally arrested, you may be required to be photographed and fingerprinted after your arrest.
Slashdot Mirror
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken
Irony Can Be So Ironic (Massachusetts Edition)
> All of the proposed plans are based on the ... assumption that
> humans can add significant value
Not really. The cover story says this is all about scientific curiosity regarding our universe, and maybe someday commercial mining. But lurking beneath the surface is the uncomfortable truth that life on Earth has an expiration date.
This is about extra-terrestrial colonization. That's why we focus so much on discovering liquid water, and that's why eventually humans have to make the trip.
> A quantity of small "coulds" coming together at the wrong time and place is how a lot of accidents happen
That is absolutely correct. That is how accidents happen. But if you or I or McVeigh planned to force "a critical density of 'coulds'," it would never work. Hollywood allows for failures on cue and long chains of helpful improbabilities, but outside the movies perfect storms don't follow a plan.
> I have it on good authority that God doesn't approve of the latter group.
What authority would that be? That "latter group" may "have it on good authority" that God doesn't approve of your group.
Just sayin'.
you should be listening to free music. There are plenty of ... real bands that care more about their fans and who actually tour rather than live off the royalties of overprocessed studio shit.
...
I suggest supporting those bands by buying their records
You're a hard one to please.
They hypothesize that people with this gene with high IQs are creative, while those with lower IQs are simply prone to the hallucinations
Why do they hypothesize that? There are plenty of geniuses with mental health issues. Take John Nash.
If I understand this, it's a really interesting perspective. In citing the heat death of the universe, you seem to worry more about our generating heat than particulate pollution.
You imply we'd postpone our demise longest by postponing the conversion of our stored energy into heat. Or even better, converting ambient heat into other forms of energy.
Such technology exists, and as a bonus it doesn't involve pulling carbon from deep in the earth and shooting it into the sky. Stirling Engines and Geothermal Power FTW.
I agree - mod parent up.
You know what we should do? We should go ahead and continue to extract carbon from the bowels of the earth, pulverize it and shoot it into the atmosphere. That just makes economic sense. But then - you're going to like this - we go chase down all the carbon in the sky, catch it, and put it under the rug.
Mod parent up.
Although I generally take "security through obsurity" to mean "the algorithm is the secret". If the whole system relies on exactly these ten blots, this seems more like "the secret is the algorithm". You can't even re-key the lock.
It's broken, they've been given responsible disclosure, and it's already in the wild. Refusal to patch will just make them idiots, and refusal to publish makes Wikipedia complicit.
Cool. We burn our pee in the car, collect pure water from the tailpipe, drink the water and pee again.
Perpetual urination FTW.
> Who am I to determine what my child is going to be like to that degree?
You are the person choosing to reproduce, the person selecting a mate. If someone is a redhead, and they mate with a redhead, aren't they choosing the color of their kids' hair? And if an athlete mates with an athlete, aren't they choosing to have athletic children?
In this case, you have eight fertile embryos, and you get to choose which gets implanted. Do you want to number them from 1 - 8 and roll an eight-sided dice, or do you want to look at their DNA?
> do I have the right to rob my child of the experiences he/she is going to have growing up?
Weird question. You might try to guide a life, but you can't rob anything of the experiences it will have. Except by not letting it experience anything, which is the choice you'll be making for six or seven of those embryos.
Agreed - the government should be transparent, and its dealings should be public and open.
Private lives, however, literally require privacy.
> Congress and President Obama should turn to another agency without a record of creating mistrust
I'm afraid we have No Such Agency.
> I *do* know that H1N1 is not a very specific name ...
> in light of this I think a more appropriate name would be "Mexican Flu".
DOES NOT COMPUTE
Perhaps the US Army?
> As a white male, I've ... had two friends kill themselves
Aha! She's had three friends commit suicide. So there, "tanman"!
> with the abundance of soup kitchens and charity groups out there
Not sure what you base that claim of "abundance" on, but it's not the number of groups that matter, its access to actual food and beds. And there are more homeless than plates in my city. A couple times I picked up panhandlers to show them how easy it was to get a meal and a bed. It turned out to be not so easy at all - those resources are finite, and they actually turn people away.
It might interest you to try the same - escort a homeless person to the abudant resources in your town. Hopefully you'll have more luck than me. And if not, maybe you can split a lunch and wish him well.
Communism in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
> It has never worked that way in any implemented version of Communism
My original point was that Communism has never been implemented, not at the state level anyway. Probably it's impossible to get it working at such a large scale.
>> To make [command economy] work requires force, and the only entity which can use force is the State.
"Capitalist" states also use force to make their economy work. They use price controls, tax policy, subsidies, tariffs, monopolies, and central banks, all enforced by federal organizations like Treasury, SEC, IRS, and FBI.
No government adheres purely to any economic ideal. Even if they did, probably capitalism is the worst - except for all the other systems out there.
... is that the word no longer means communism. Now it means oppressive government, ala Soviet Union, China, North Vietnam. But these places show no sign of following the idealist philosophy people like Karl Marx set forth.
The concept of owning resources in common isn't anti-individualistic - having neighborhood parks or sharing roads and pipes and cables is just smart resource usage. Probably few people want absolutely everything to be publicly owned and managed, but most slashdotters probably like software and the internet that way.
1) Humans have some powers
2) Some hypothetical cosmic being, God, is alleged to have all powers
3) Living as a human on earth is one of His alleged powers
4) Carpentry is one of His alleged powers
5) Foot-washing is one of His alleged powers
6) Public speaking is one of His alleged powers
7) Smashing atoms is one of His alleged powers
8) Morphing curious women into salt pillars is one of His alleged powers
If humans share the power to be human, do carpentry, wash feet, speak in public, and smash atoms, whose to say one day mortals won't be able to morph curious women into pillars of salt?
If something can be done by God, who's to say it can't be done by anyone else?
And if something is physically impossible for mortals, how can one verify the claim that it's actually been done by a hypothetical undetectable cosmic non-human?
I like your logic.
Assume A.
Assume ~B.
Since ~B, maybe A.
QED
Is it just me, or do he Pirates seem to be more virtuous than the Judges?
I'm waiting to see what they can do with Monkey HIV Digital.
> private interests are beholden to foreign countries that do not
> share our interests... and cannot be trusted
I don't know about that, but it's safe to say that the American government itself is beholden to the private interests you so distrust.
> government policy is not something in his league
You got it backwards - the US government's data security is not in Schneier's league.
> Take your "bash government" speech elsewhere.
Where would you suggest nerds go to discuss cybersecurity policy issues?
[Citation Needed]
I think the issue is fuzzier than that. Since this guy was in Seattle, let's defer to the Washington State Bar Association:
Definition of an Arrest
You are under arrest if a law enforcement officer (or sometimes a private citizen) takes you into "custody." This means that you believe you are not free to walk away from the scene of the contact with the officer.
That would seem to confirm what you said. But the definition continues:
Not every stop by a police officer means you are under arrest. If stopped only for a short time, then you may have been "detained," rather than legally arrested.
The article continues, to suggest an arrest warrant is generally required except for a felony or a misdemeanor the officer witnessed:
A warrant generally is not required to make an arrest if there is probable cause to believe the person arrested has committed a felony. Also, a warrant may not be required when a misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or in certain misdemeanors, outside his or her presence.
The main point of my original post was to show how to not dig yourself a deeper hole if you are stopped. Here's what the Washington State Bar Association says about that:
Your Rights if You Are Stopped by Police
You may ask why you were stopped. Also, you can ask if you are under arrest and, if not, whether you are free to leave.
If an officer stops you, you have a right to ask whether you are under investigation for a crime. If the officer suggests you are under investigation, then you have the right to decline to answer any questions. Also, you do not have to be under arrest to decline to answer questions from an officer. Ordinarily, you may be required to identify yourself. If you wish, you may answer the officer's questions. You should remember that whatever you say to the officer may be used if charges are filed against you at a later time (whether or not you give a formal "statement"), so long as:
1. You were properly advised of your constitutional rights before making a statement; or
2. You voluntarily tell the officer anything and you were not under arrest.
They go on to discuss "formally arrested":
By law, if formally arrested, you may be required to be photographed and fingerprinted after your arrest.