In a piston engine, small amounts of lubricating oil will always sneak into the combustion chamber. Usually by leaking past the piston rings or valve seals.
These things usually use a natural noise source as a random seed and then mathematically normalize them to produce random numbers that are useful. It's pretty standard stuff.
Unfortunately, it's also true that past a certain point it's impossible for software or administrators to completely correct the failings of stupid, lazy, or irresponsible users.
Encouraging users (or anyone) to shoulder a little responsibility isn't always a bad thing.
Who's gonna find anything about the host? That's the whole point. Let them see what I want them to see, satisfy them them that everything is A-OK, and keep the rest of the box fee from their snooping.
Every printed circuit board we make gets washed in a sink with tap water then dried with compressed air. In over 20 years, it's never been a problem.
It could be more of an issue in places with harder water, but in that case ordinary distilled water would be a poor choice too. You really want deionized water as the ordinary distilled stuff is ridiculously reactive.
Nope. As long as they're not endangering the whale population, I don't care how they interpret their traditions. What seems silly is an outsider telling them what their traditions are supposed to be.
The number of whales killed is already monitored and regulated, so that's hardly an issue.
How do you figure the right historical period at which to freeze whale hunting technology? What makes late 19th century methods acceptable in comparison with pre-gunpowder methods while 20th century methods are unacceptable?
First, that "bunch of Yayhoo's" was a group of native Americans with the legal right to hunt whales for food, just like they've done for a very long time.
Second, how the hell were they supposed to know how old the whale was? And why should it matter? Is it a little less unethical to kill younger whales in your eyes?
Only if all the force of the rail gun is applied to only the back end of the pole. If the force is applied equally to the entire pole at once, there shold be no distortion.
Your shove on the pole would travel down it's length as a compression wave. I'm not sure but I suspect the the wave would travel at the speed of sound in whatever your pole was made from (if it was steel @ 4500 m/s it would take 1,111.1 hours for the compression wave to travel 3,000,000 meters)
As a believer in the non-aggression principle, I find your "ethics" entirely repugnant. I guess I'll just have to end this by saying I couldn't possibly disagree with you more.
Fortunately I've never needed to use a gun, I just believe in taking responsibility for my own welfare. I don't expect to be attacked on a regular basis due, at least in part, to the fact that many people like myself go armed in my area.
Police don't do anything to prevent crime, they take reports and draw chalk outlines after the fact. When was the last time you heard about the police preventing a murder, kidnapping, rape, or robbery?
I happen to think it's the only philosophy with any hope of not allowing thugs and scammers to prosper. Everything else seems to put the thugs and scammers in charge.
Everyday I go prepared to defend my life if necessary. In the long run, fighting predatory criminals is much less risky than kowtowing to them. The only way you can expect to be treated as a free man is to act like one.
To whom would you be accountable to, then ? You would be accountable to everyone you hope to do business with.
It is impossible to enforce anything without being willing to use coercion. That is the very meaning of "enforce" - to back with force. Maybe enforce was a bad choice of word. Simply put, if you don't behave yourself nobody will buy from you, or sell to you. There is a strong incentive to act in a way that doesn't piss people off, because if you don't it will rapidly become difficult for you to survive. All without physical coercion.
So he'll simply takes what he wants with force. Assuming he survives the attempt. Anyone trying to make a living that way would lead a very short and difficult life.
The word organized in organized crime means that the lowlife isn't alone, but backed by dozens if not hundreds of other lowlifes, all packing guns and acting in an organized manner. This means that it is you who is going to be made an example of in such incident. This is why people need to be willing to refuse to be victims. Organized criminals are businessmen, there's not much profit in getting your people killed.
Besides, without government to make laws, there is by definition no crime or criminals. You just shot someone to defend your interests. What's stopping anyone from shooting you - after all, they aren't going to be punished for it ? Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. If you punch me in the nose without provocation you are a criminal. Criminals are those that would initiate violence and violate the property rights of others. Private courts can make the call on who is a criminal. People that don't abide by the courts rulings become persona non grata.
This also touches on the point that without government there would be far less incentive to crime. If it weren't for things like the war on drugs making drug smuggling extremely profitable, crime wouldn't be such an attractive alternative to legitimate business.
Speaking of protection money - what's stopping me from simply printing out any desired amount of it, leading to huge inflation and collapse of economy (not that it's not already going to collapse with contracts being non-enforceable since there's no one enforcing them) ? Don't you know that anyone can issue money right now? Just like government issued money, it will always be worth exactly what people give you for it - usually based on how much you trust the issuer to give you something for it. Nobody is going to trust someone that doesn't honor their contracts.
Anarchy leads to chaos, always. When the government collapses, various power factions will start fighting each other for power, resulting at best in unstable social conditions and at worst in a civil war. I offer medieval Iceland and the American western frontier of the 19th century as examples to the contrary.
That is true. Military dictatorships, for example, are essentially nothing but armed gangs holding power over a certain area and populace. Other forms of government may or may not be kinder, gentler versions, but they ultimately derive their power from the ability and willingness to back their orders with force. This certainly limits the freedom of those governed. I withhold my consent to be governed by the government of The United States of America. Since they are entirely willing to initiate force against me for violations of a legal code that I never explicitly consented to, I declare them to be an immoral, unethical, outlaw organization (for all the good it will do me).
You don't need anyone to be organized to resist a gang. You just need a populace with enough backbone (and hardware) to refuse to provide any victims. Criminals like easy targets and don't enjoy sticking their necks out any more than anyone else.
Also, I should point out that government actively encourages organized crime. Alcohol Prohibition, The War On (some) Drugs, Gun Control, Tarrifs, Taxes. These are the things that organized crime thrives on. Without the government's artificial manipulation of market dynamics there wouldn't be any profit in 90% of the business that organized criminals indulge in.
True, that's a much more accurate analogy and further illustrates the flaws in coercive charity by proxy. I was just going for an illustration of the difference between simple generosity and coerced altruism.
I'd hate to see someone come back with an argument that if it weren't for corruption it would be okay to rob people as long as your intentions are pure.
Slashdot Mirror
There will always be money to be made in catering to morons, but it's not really something we all need to aspire to.
I'm sure that far more people still use Google, and most of those people would be even less satisfied with Yahoo!.
In a piston engine, small amounts of lubricating oil will always sneak into the combustion chamber. Usually by leaking past the piston rings or valve seals.
This is all probably because of a misunderstanding caused by a bad Hungarian-English dictionary.
These things usually use a natural noise source as a random seed and then mathematically normalize them to produce random numbers that are useful. It's pretty standard stuff.
What you say is true.
Unfortunately, it's also true that past a certain point it's impossible for software or administrators to completely correct the failings of stupid, lazy, or irresponsible users.
Encouraging users (or anyone) to shoulder a little responsibility isn't always a bad thing.
Who's gonna find anything about the host? That's the whole point. Let them see what I want them to see, satisfy them them that everything is A-OK, and keep the rest of the box fee from their snooping.
I'd probably just set up a sandbox in VMware or something similar, to do all my online banking.
Steam engines are obsolete? WTF?
How do you get electricity out of your nuclear power plant?
I work in electronics manufacturing.
Every printed circuit board we make gets washed in a sink with tap water then dried with compressed air. In over 20 years, it's never been a problem.
It could be more of an issue in places with harder water, but in that case ordinary distilled water would be a poor choice too. You really want deionized water as the ordinary distilled stuff is ridiculously reactive.
First off, we have to allow scientists to determine whether global warming is a problem, without political interference.
Nope. As long as they're not endangering the whale population, I don't care how they interpret their traditions. What seems silly is an outsider telling them what their traditions are supposed to be.
The number of whales killed is already monitored and regulated, so that's hardly an issue.
How do you figure the right historical period at which to freeze whale hunting technology? What makes late 19th century methods acceptable in comparison with pre-gunpowder methods while 20th century methods are unacceptable?
First, that "bunch of Yayhoo's" was a group of native Americans with the legal right to hunt whales for food, just like they've done for a very long time.
Second, how the hell were they supposed to know how old the whale was? And why should it matter? Is it a little less unethical to kill younger whales in your eyes?
Only if all the force of the rail gun is applied to only the back end of the pole. If the force is applied equally to the entire pole at once, there shold be no distortion.
Your shove on the pole would travel down it's length as a compression wave. I'm not sure but I suspect the the wave would travel at the speed of sound in whatever your pole was made from (if it was steel @ 4500 m/s it would take 1,111.1 hours for the compression wave to travel 3,000,000 meters)
Wow. Just wow.
As a believer in the non-aggression principle, I find your "ethics" entirely repugnant. I guess I'll just have to end this by saying I couldn't possibly disagree with you more.
Fortunately I've never needed to use a gun, I just believe in taking responsibility for my own welfare. I don't expect to be attacked on a regular basis due, at least in part, to the fact that many people like myself go armed in my area.
Police don't do anything to prevent crime, they take reports and draw chalk outlines after the fact. When was the last time you heard about the police preventing a murder, kidnapping, rape, or robbery?
I happen to think it's the only philosophy with any hope of not allowing thugs and scammers to prosper. Everything else seems to put the thugs and scammers in charge.
Also remember that the non-aggression principle isn't pacifism, I believe in dealing with aggressors quickly, decisively, and (if necessary) brutally.
Everyday I go prepared to defend my life if necessary. In the long run, fighting predatory criminals is much less risky than kowtowing to them. The only way you can expect to be treated as a free man is to act like one.
Criminals are those that would initiate violence and violate the property rights of others. Private courts can make the call on who is a criminal. People that don't abide by the courts rulings become persona non grata.
This also touches on the point that without government there would be far less incentive to crime. If it weren't for things like the war on drugs making drug smuggling extremely profitable, crime wouldn't be such an attractive alternative to legitimate business. Speaking of protection money - what's stopping me from simply printing out any desired amount of it, leading to huge inflation and collapse of economy (not that it's not already going to collapse with contracts being non-enforceable since there's no one enforcing them) ? Don't you know that anyone can issue money right now? Just like government issued money, it will always be worth exactly what people give you for it - usually based on how much you trust the issuer to give you something for it. Nobody is going to trust someone that doesn't honor their contracts. Anarchy leads to chaos, always. When the government collapses, various power factions will start fighting each other for power, resulting at best in unstable social conditions and at worst in a civil war. I offer medieval Iceland and the American western frontier of the 19th century as examples to the contrary. That is true. Military dictatorships, for example, are essentially nothing but armed gangs holding power over a certain area and populace. Other forms of government may or may not be kinder, gentler versions, but they ultimately derive their power from the ability and willingness to back their orders with force. This certainly limits the freedom of those governed. I withhold my consent to be governed by the government of The United States of America. Since they are entirely willing to initiate force against me for violations of a legal code that I never explicitly consented to, I declare them to be an immoral, unethical, outlaw organization (for all the good it will do me).
I am an anarcho-capitalist and I believe in the non-aggression principle.
You don't need anyone to be organized to resist a gang. You just need a populace with enough backbone (and hardware) to refuse to provide any victims. Criminals like easy targets and don't enjoy sticking their necks out any more than anyone else.
Also, I should point out that government actively encourages organized crime. Alcohol Prohibition, The War On (some) Drugs, Gun Control, Tarrifs, Taxes. These are the things that organized crime thrives on. Without the government's artificial manipulation of market dynamics there wouldn't be any profit in 90% of the business that organized criminals indulge in.
True, that's a much more accurate analogy and further illustrates the flaws in coercive charity by proxy. I was just going for an illustration of the difference between simple generosity and coerced altruism.
I'd hate to see someone come back with an argument that if it weren't for corruption it would be okay to rob people as long as your intentions are pure.
Gangs don't start out big and powerful. They need to be nipped in the bud. Either way they don't go away until they're forced to.
I guess it's a good thing we have a government and organized crime doesn't exist.