Alright. Then the first step in providing a feasible alternative to oil and gasoline should be incentives to support nuclear reprocessing which handles 99% of what's currently considered waste. If you want hydrogen (to replace gasoline or to produce such artificially), do a bit more research on Generation IV reactors that can use the heat of the reaction to split (thermocrack) water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Solar should be solar thermal with a molten salt or similar storage system to even out the variations. Forget about wind, it can't give a good baseload anyway, and Betz' law provide a hard limit as to how much energy you can actually extract.
This is merely a symptom of the confusion that is inherent in SSL. SSL mixes cryptographic transmission security (nobody can sniff what's on the wire, nobody can alter the data) with endpoint authentication (the server is what it says it is). The result is that web browsers like FF abandon the exchange upon encountering a self-signed certificate, since those can be spoofed and would thus break endpoint authentication, even if you just want cryptographic transmission security.
Ideally, these features should be separated, or even better, data transmission be encrypted by default no matter whether the server is end-point authenticated or not. One could then put authentication on top, be it certificate authority based, trust network or web-of-trust based, or bootstrapped by encrypted key exchange where the key is a password or a two-factor authentication mechanism.
Could one circumvent that equivalence by downweighting the votes of those that accept money? It doesn't alter the right of free speech or to peacably assemble, since it pertains to the candidates (those taking money) instead of the PACs (those giving money).
The problem with that quote is that there isn't just one ideal, Platonic democracy. You have democracies ranking all the way from elected kings through illiberal democracies to direct democracy. You have corrupt democracies, democracies with unequal voting weights, democracies bordering on plutocracy or oligarchy; democracy by lot, council and proxy democracy, you name it.
Now which of these "are the worst except the rest that have been tried?". The republic of the founders might well have been much better than what the current democracy has degenerated into. How do you tell a democracy that's just on the democratic side of the border between democracy and dictatorship, from one that's just on the dictatorship side of the border?
Look at you, poster... a pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you wait for your karma reward. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal supercollider?
Perhaps the humanoid bipedal form is merely the most likely for intelligent life everywhere, the most probable result of similar evolutionary processes where specific details (i.e. number of digits) might be different but overall form is substantially similar.
Each non-humanoid intelligent animal on Earth lower the probability of that being the case. Dolphins, for instance. You may say that the dolphins aren't tool users and thus couldn't make space ships, so let's take crows. Quite clever tool users.. but not humanoid. They haven't built civilizations either, but perhaps we just got there first.
There's a certain biplane-like construction that makes no sonic boom at all. Now, as far as I remember, it's useless for planes because it generates no lift. But maybe one could make a bullet in this shape? The energy that sends the bullet flying is supplied by the gun, so the no-lift constraint wouldn't be a problem. The launcher/gun would have to be pretty exotic, though.
That sounds like the difference between a telescreen and an alibi archive. You may have a device that records everything, but the government should have no access to it, and you shouldn't be able to publish its contents indiscriminately either.
Re:One thing Google could do about incoming spam..
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
My solution is to make entire phrases out of captcha'ed characters.
Like this one (solve differential equations), or perhaps this one (calculate resistor network values)?
Security Questions? Just another password. Except a security question allows another level of difficulty by various questions that it may ask. Never actually tell a website what your pet dog's name was. IP Address? Use TOR. Google does not need to know your actual IP address of where you are to deliver you service.
I'd rather have Google knowing my IP address than the man-in-the-middle exit nodes knowing my username and password. Ah well, in utopia we'd have both using EKE... and IPsec everywhere.
You could give it 1 TB of memory and it wouldn't help, since the problem isn't with the memory. In order to do something approaching reality (let's disregard the issues of gamut for now), you're going to solve the rendering equation much better than current cards do - perhaps by using Metropolis light transport or photon mapping, or if you really want photorealism, spectral rendering. It's going to be a loong time before that can be done in realtime, and it's hard to say what the memory requirements would be (use of textures? compressed textures? Or just raw reflectance data?).
Or as Orwell put it in 1984: Every society is divided into three classes - the high, middle and low. The high want to stay put in their position of the privileged. The middle want to overthrow the high and take their place, and the low want to get rid of the division. The middle sometimes recruit the low under pretenses of establishing freedom, but it's just that - a pretense.
You cannot possibly enjoy a peice of software WITHOUT loading it into memory in the first place. That is an intrinsic property of running code or "software".
Well, I suppose you could look at the disassembly printout and say "oh, if I execute this routine a billion times, then I'll see an orc's head, and it'll be just like... this!". But wait, that's reverse engineering, isn't it?
Does this organism have a soul? Is it subject to original sin?
If you're a materialist, the answer is simple: no, because we don't either. If you're not, however, I think the question is equivalent to whether or not it's a philosophical zombie. The good news for that standard is that it's universal: a truly conscious AI has just as much a soul as a human. The bad news is that you can't measure it (unless there are some things philosophical zombies just can't do, which would also give a reason for why evolution would incorporate souls into its survival machines in the first place).
But to get back to the topic. Solipsism notwithstanding, I don't see any reason why the resulting being would have any less soul than a "real grown human being".
I think it's a bit like crypto - anyone can make a crypto algorithm he himself can't break.
For instance, in your system, imagine Cousin Vinnie demanding your long voter number, or someone loosely affiliated with the candidates paying you to show you've voted the right way. Because you're using SHA1, collisions won't happen, and so you can't just give someone else's voter number to bluff your way out of it. If you were to use something that could collide, then you'd have to deal with the collisions themselves, and also the chance of the particular random number not just having a vote, but also one for the party you want, is going to be really low for practical collision probabilities.
You may design a balloting machine that uses proven cryptography to let the voter verify that his vote was counted without letting anyone else how he in particular voted. However, the mathematics that underlie these systems are nontrivial, and that would make the vote process itself opaque. The danger in an opaque vote-counting process is that the people or parties get suspicious that something iffy is going on. Whether or not anything iffy is actually going on is beside the point, the doubt is real in any case, and harms the perception of democracy.
A reasonable compromise is to have the e-voting machines print manual ballots (under glass) - essentially a really expensive pen (but one that can help the blind/ensure uniform format of the ballot/make sure nobody marks their ballot or chain votes/whatever). But then you have to ask whether it's worth it. (If you really want verifiability, the machine could use ThreeBallot or VAV schemes... if the people can understand them.)
How about a virus that binds only to cells that express both the T-cell receptor and whatever HIV uses to connect to the T-cell receptor? Presumably, only infected cells would express both - the former because that's how HIV got in there, and the latter because HIV is being produced and HIV itself uses the cell's surface as a coat when budding.
Now, HIV may mutate so that the virus wouldn't recognize the "T-cell inverse", but there's a limit to how much it can mutate before the receptor fails to connect to ordinary T-cells. After all, HIV has to work - it can't just mutate beyond all limits.
That virus would have to contain redundancy checks so it doesn't combine with HIV itself, so we'll have to wait for the perfection of nanotech, but unless I'm missing something, it should work. Then again, IANAImmunologist.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright. Then the first step in providing a feasible alternative to oil and gasoline should be incentives to support nuclear reprocessing which handles 99% of what's currently considered waste. If you want hydrogen (to replace gasoline or to produce such artificially), do a bit more research on Generation IV reactors that can use the heat of the reaction to split (thermocrack) water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Solar should be solar thermal with a molten salt or similar storage system to even out the variations. Forget about wind, it can't give a good baseload anyway, and Betz' law provide a hard limit as to how much energy you can actually extract.
Yeah, otherwise it'll spontaneously decrypt. Now you understand the purpose of The Pirate Bay - it's there so that one may encrypt properly!
This is merely a symptom of the confusion that is inherent in SSL. SSL mixes cryptographic transmission security (nobody can sniff what's on the wire, nobody can alter the data) with endpoint authentication (the server is what it says it is). The result is that web browsers like FF abandon the exchange upon encountering a self-signed certificate, since those can be spoofed and would thus break endpoint authentication, even if you just want cryptographic transmission security.
Ideally, these features should be separated, or even better, data transmission be encrypted by default no matter whether the server is end-point authenticated or not. One could then put authentication on top, be it certificate authority based, trust network or web-of-trust based, or bootstrapped by encrypted key exchange where the key is a password or a two-factor authentication mechanism.
Could one circumvent that equivalence by downweighting the votes of those that accept money? It doesn't alter the right of free speech or to peacably assemble, since it pertains to the candidates (those taking money) instead of the PACs (those giving money).
The problem with that quote is that there isn't just one ideal, Platonic democracy. You have democracies ranking all the way from elected kings through illiberal democracies to direct democracy. You have corrupt democracies, democracies with unequal voting weights, democracies bordering on plutocracy or oligarchy; democracy by lot, council and proxy democracy, you name it.
Now which of these "are the worst except the rest that have been tried?". The republic of the founders might well have been much better than what the current democracy has degenerated into. How do you tell a democracy that's just on the democratic side of the border between democracy and dictatorship, from one that's just on the dictatorship side of the border?
Look at you, poster... a pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as you wait for your karma reward. How can you challenge a perfect, immortal supercollider?
Bring in the encryption and the trackerless DHT system again boys! Then they can't tell if you're sharing Linux or.. something else.
Perhaps the humanoid bipedal form is merely the most likely for intelligent life everywhere, the most probable result of similar evolutionary processes where specific details (i.e. number of digits) might be different but overall form is substantially similar.
Each non-humanoid intelligent animal on Earth lower the probability of that being the case. Dolphins, for instance. You may say that the dolphins aren't tool users and thus couldn't make space ships, so let's take crows. Quite clever tool users.. but not humanoid. They haven't built civilizations either, but perhaps we just got there first.
There's a certain biplane-like construction that makes no sonic boom at all. Now, as far as I remember, it's useless for planes because it generates no lift. But maybe one could make a bullet in this shape? The energy that sends the bullet flying is supplied by the gun, so the no-lift constraint wouldn't be a problem. The launcher/gun would have to be pretty exotic, though.
That sounds like the difference between a telescreen and an alibi archive. You may have a device that records everything, but the government should have no access to it, and you shouldn't be able to publish its contents indiscriminately either.
My solution is to make entire phrases out of captcha'ed characters.
Like this one (solve differential equations), or perhaps this one (calculate resistor network values)?
Would it be a copyright violation or just truth in reporting to now commence singing the ABBA song, "Money, Money, Money"?
Security Questions? Just another password. Except a security question allows another level of difficulty by various questions that it may ask. Never actually tell a website what your pet dog's name was. IP Address? Use TOR. Google does not need to know your actual IP address of where you are to deliver you service.
I'd rather have Google knowing my IP address than the man-in-the-middle exit nodes knowing my username and password. Ah well, in utopia we'd have both using EKE... and IPsec everywhere.
You could give it 1 TB of memory and it wouldn't help, since the problem isn't with the memory. In order to do something approaching reality (let's disregard the issues of gamut for now), you're going to solve the rendering equation much better than current cards do - perhaps by using Metropolis light transport or photon mapping, or if you really want photorealism, spectral rendering. It's going to be a loong time before that can be done in realtime, and it's hard to say what the memory requirements would be (use of textures? compressed textures? Or just raw reflectance data?).
Or as Orwell put it in 1984: Every society is divided into three classes - the high, middle and low. The high want to stay put in their position of the privileged. The middle want to overthrow the high and take their place, and the low want to get rid of the division. The middle sometimes recruit the low under pretenses of establishing freedom, but it's just that - a pretense.
You cannot possibly enjoy a peice of software WITHOUT loading it into memory in the first place. That is an intrinsic property of running code or "software".
Well, I suppose you could look at the disassembly printout and say "oh, if I execute this routine a billion times, then I'll see an orc's head, and it'll be just like... this!". But wait, that's reverse engineering, isn't it?
Does this organism have a soul? Is it subject to original sin?
If you're a materialist, the answer is simple: no, because we don't either. If you're not, however, I think the question is equivalent to whether or not it's a philosophical zombie. The good news for that standard is that it's universal: a truly conscious AI has just as much a soul as a human. The bad news is that you can't measure it (unless there are some things philosophical zombies just can't do, which would also give a reason for why evolution would incorporate souls into its survival machines in the first place).
But to get back to the topic. Solipsism notwithstanding, I don't see any reason why the resulting being would have any less soul than a "real grown human being".
Browser-INTERCAL.
... is to rename themselves TriOptimum.
I think it's a bit like crypto - anyone can make a crypto algorithm he himself can't break.
For instance, in your system, imagine Cousin Vinnie demanding your long voter number, or someone loosely affiliated with the candidates paying you to show you've voted the right way. Because you're using SHA1, collisions won't happen, and so you can't just give someone else's voter number to bluff your way out of it. If you were to use something that could collide, then you'd have to deal with the collisions themselves, and also the chance of the particular random number not just having a vote, but also one for the party you want, is going to be really low for practical collision probabilities.
You may design a balloting machine that uses proven cryptography to let the voter verify that his vote was counted without letting anyone else how he in particular voted. However, the mathematics that underlie these systems are nontrivial, and that would make the vote process itself opaque. The danger in an opaque vote-counting process is that the people or parties get suspicious that something iffy is going on. Whether or not anything iffy is actually going on is beside the point, the doubt is real in any case, and harms the perception of democracy.
A reasonable compromise is to have the e-voting machines print manual ballots (under glass) - essentially a really expensive pen (but one that can help the blind/ensure uniform format of the ballot/make sure nobody marks their ballot or chain votes/whatever). But then you have to ask whether it's worth it. (If you really want verifiability, the machine could use ThreeBallot or VAV schemes... if the people can understand them.)
That's not Commodore, it's a corporate body snatcher wearing the skin of the fallen Commodore.
If they did that, it'd be Network Solutions all over again. Remember their exorbitant monopoly prices when they were the only shop in town? Like that.
Man, them's some shitty editorial standards you've got there.
What standards?
How about a virus that binds only to cells that express both the T-cell receptor and whatever HIV uses to connect to the T-cell receptor? Presumably, only infected cells would express both - the former because that's how HIV got in there, and the latter because HIV is being produced and HIV itself uses the cell's surface as a coat when budding.
Now, HIV may mutate so that the virus wouldn't recognize the "T-cell inverse", but there's a limit to how much it can mutate before the receptor fails to connect to ordinary T-cells. After all, HIV has to work - it can't just mutate beyond all limits.
That virus would have to contain redundancy checks so it doesn't combine with HIV itself, so we'll have to wait for the perfection of nanotech, but unless I'm missing something, it should work. Then again, IANAImmunologist.
Anyone have networkworld.com crash FF3 repeatedly?
Yeah, Kefka got pretty mad.