The whole system of transitive trust is messed up. Fatally flawed at the foundation, promoted because certain large vendors of system software find the transitive trust concept easier to systemize and monetize than the way it should really work.
(Every system has vulnerabilities. It's a feature of systems in general, not just software or information systems.)
You can't really trust anyone you don't know, and that's the real problem with the current state of the computer/information systems industries. It's also the reason why the methods of developing Linux and the BSDs are the correct methods of developing software. (As opposed to what the "traditional" companies do.)
If one wants a little more insurance, add minors in physics, math, CS, and/or a foreign language.
Even though I'm partial to CS, I don't think there is a school around that can teach it right. The most important pieces of CS are the math -- grammars and formal languages and the stuff that builds up to that.
If one absolute must pursue a second major, physics is going to complement ME best. And the internships will help keep the extra time in school from warping one's perspective.
I only have a BSCS, so maybe it's just sour grapes, but I've never really had much of an opinion of a university-only education.
You might do well to consider yourself, if you're willing to keep after the PhD, to be on a much better track than your fellow students getting the free ride.
In a school environment where, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the goal of business is still said to be the making of money, you'd do yourself a favor to avoid the indoctrination you'd get from that department. (On the other hand, if you already understand where Marx really went wrong, scouting out the enemy can be useful. Might be worth a minor.)
Economics?
There isn't a school in the world that can give you a valid education in economics. Getting a BA in comparative religion would teach you more about the fundamentals of economics than getting a PHD in economics.
Statistics?
No reason to major in statistics unless you want to become a Wican.
The statistics you'll get in a BS course in computer science is good enough for much of what requires statistics. The same course will come with most good engineering courses at the bachelors level. About half that course is often taught in a good associates level program in information science.
If a double major is a must, physics also includes the statistics, and a bunch of other stuff that will help in mechanical engineering.
ARPANET predates the OSI model, and the current Internet Protocols came after the definition of the OSI stuff. (That's a little hard to see in the current wikipedia articles, but it's there.) The IETF in fact deliberately chose to combine two of the OSI layers.
The article does have some issues. I'm not sure if the author actually doesn't understand the paper he or she is trying to summarize. Maybe the intent was to make it easier for the lay person to understand. But there is some creativity going on, and parts of the summary don't really reflect the paper.
The paper itself is offering a framework of analysis of the evolution of the Internet Protocols. It might have been interesting to see a bit more analysis of ARPANET and some of the other protocols the IP protocols eventually replaced. It might have been interesting to see them address the OSI model a bit more, but the OSI model never was really implemented fully, and might be considered not part of the evolution.
I see that the take IPv6 up as a competitor of IPv4 instead of the heir apparent, which is probably a useful thing to do, if we want to understand why so many IT managers are still failing to move in a timely manner.
I'm not sure I understand their work well enough to either agree or disagree, but I think it offers food for thought, including the idea that IPv4/6 doesn't actually have to be the only protocol existing at that layer.
Why do you take the trouble to come back to a thread no one else will ever see and defend incest?
(Why do I bother to respnd to your half-thought-through specious reasoning?)
Are you so sure wine is no worse than water? I drink two liters of water a day on average, and, for my body, that seems to be about right. Would you advise your child, were he over 180 cm and 80 kg, to drink two liters of wine a day? You can argue that wine is not completely evil, but saying you can die from too much water is missing the point.
Although, if you live in an area where clean drinking water is hard to get, that's a slightly separate issue. But I'd still say it would be better to be working on getting clean drinking water than to just say let's give the children wine to drink. Wine is no more a substitute for water than unfermented fruit juices.
Prophylaxis is not just about pregnancy. Sure, people don't get pregnant just from oral or anal sex. But STDs can definitely be transmitted by either oral or anal sex. And people lose their judgment in the heat of arousal. Don't say it doesn't happen. All too often it doesn't stop with anal sex, and the women ends up with both a pregnancy and a life-threatening illness.
And prophyactics do fail. Asking how many people get pregnant from oral or anal is, again, missing (deliberately?) the point.
Asking how you can get STDs from people who don't have them in this context is just begging for trouble, not to mention begging huge questions and apparently trying to hide from reality. If you defend incest, how to propose to prevent promiscuity? Are we talking about forcibly keeping one's sibling or child away from all other people he or she may have interest in? Do I have to ask whether that is not also abuse?
Marriage has its share of problems, as I said before, as you choose to ignore. Doing away with marriage as a social institution always causes more problems than it solves. (Chattelry is a separate issue.)
There are fantasy writers who write about a world in which no one has STDs and in which the reproductive systems can be turned off at will to allow sex completely without consequences. I have to wonder why. There are other ways to get high, even without stimulating substances. And there are ways to help each other feel good about ourselves, about each other, and about life, without trying to make each other be happy.
But, anyway, that fantasy world is definitely not this world, and I don't see any of the suggestions about how to get there from here working.
People can believe that the operation of the principle of evolution is evidence of intelligence in the design without buying the whole bag that some group of so-called Creationists is selling. (Even if such a fine distinction offends some atheists and agnosticists who assert that selection principles must not be seen as evidence of intelligence.)
I think the judge may have been right in dismissing the case. Faith is generally strengthened by a bit of contact with opposing viewpoints.
On the other hand, someone from the BOE needs to take the teacher aside and point out that a broad brush of crudely constructed cynicism probably does not teach what he thinks he should be teaching.
No, that was a short way of saying that we have not eliminated any of the problems inherent in random sex, much though our libidios would induce us to believe otherwise.
Here is a moderately more long-winded version:
Parents should not give children wine, even in France, because wine can cause health problems, and at the same time, it tends to be habit forming. Neither should siblings. Children should have the right to choose their own poisons, and the right to postpone the choice until they are both physically and emotionally mature enough to make the decisions responsibly. That includes both the abstract responsibility of choice and and the physiological and emotional capability of changing their minds.
Sexual relations have similar issues. Condoms still slip. No matter what prophylactic you use, there is a finite, and actually significant, probability of both pregnancy and infection, and STDs are still difficult and costly to treat (without subsidies) and generally debilitating. There absolutely are health issues, and no amount of hiding from those issues will make those problems go away.
And even if those problems could be eliminated, there is still the issue of induced habits. There is also the right to choose whether one wants to be stimulated in a certain way or not, and by whom. And when. And if it is a brother or sister or parent or child asking, begging, threatening, pouting, etc., there is a lot more implicit pressure that goes way beyond mere social pressures.
Figuring out when the partner is okay with it is hard enough without sibling or parent/child relationships getting mixed into things. Those conflicts are at once the primary reason the social institution of marriage tends to occur in all societies, and the primary reason for some members of society wanting to do away with the social institution. But getting out of a bad sibling relationship when incest is involved tends to be even harder than getting out of a bad marriage when abuse is involved.
That's why incest is almost impossible to untangle from abuse.
So there are still reasons siblings might or might not want to have sexual relations with each other. Or might not know whether they do or don't. And it's the might-not-know part, along with the how-do-I-know-she-or-he-is-really-okay-with-this part that makes it wrong. Even if the other problems could be solved, which they are not.
And you have posted anonymous, so I can only assume you will never read this response, so why do I bother?
Okay, if you insist, both (or all) those arguments go back to (and predate) the Greek philosophers.
So do the refutations. For example, a perfect God should have no problem inducing genetic diversity.
In one argument, we are not barred from assuming that a perfect God could use/allow a few well-placed "stray" gamma rays to induce any particular variation such a God might deem/recognize to be necessary. Genetic drift could be helped along in such a way. And this would be the case, whether from Adam and Eve, or from Noah and his wife at the time he would have entered the ark with his three sons and their wives.
Trying to prove religion wrong is an uphill battle, and not really worth the effort put into it. I would prefer to waste/spend time discussing the use of computers in elections or the efficacy of certificate authorities or the relative danger of breader reactors versus non-breader reactors. Or, if you insist on talking about metaphysics, discussing ways to discern between social mores and personal, for example.
Speaking of which, the court was right in this case, to allow the stupid teacher to say stupid things. Saying stupid things is one of the rights that must be protected in a free society. Whether the offended believer was right in suing or not, I can't guess. There are many ways to defend one's faith, but I tend to think that doing so in the courtroom is not very productive. Tends to produce more wind than understanding. But there could be circumstances justifying the suit, some of which may not actually even involve the teacher in question or the local BOE's policies.
I hear that, in France, many parents put wine on the dinner table for their children at a very early age.
Good or bad?
Sexual relations have consequences other than pregnancy. In ideal world where sex never resulted in pregnancy without some sort of post-sex opt-in, and without the spread of diseases, and without emotional confusion, maybe you could argue what you appear to be arguing, but I don't think so. Siblings are too close emotionally to start with.
Besides, if you remove the emotionally confusing effects of sex, what is left to make it interesting?
You were in such a hurry to type that, you missed the replies with the (rather obvious?) counter that the bottleneck you assert is derived from what could be considered imperfections in the DNA, and people who believe in a perfect God are quite free to believe such a perfect God could have created Adam with perfect DNA. And could have pulled the "rib" out of Adam's DNA to create Eve with in such a way that both DNA remained, sexual differentiation aside, perfect.
It's an old argument, really, dating well before the philosophers who incorporated several versions of it (somewhat incorrectly) into the Catholic philosophies. Thousands of years old.The use of DNA in the argument just makes it sound new.
Actually, I'm not sure the reason you get out of the car is that you trust the policeman. Unless you mean that you trust that the policeman is more likely to cause you problems than not if you don't follow his invitation.
We're not trying to threaten your lifestyle by pointing out that some people, at some times in their lives, really don't handle fans well.
Fans can be lifesavers at other times and/or for other people.
And people have been known to choke on spaghetti. We don't stop eating it, but you may need to chop it up into bite-size pieces for elderly folks and for people who for one reason or another don't have full control over the muscles in their throat.
Lots of variety in this world.
And things that at first sound strange about other cultures can be understood with a little effort.
That's not the primary reason for the timer, and it doesn't take a lot of thinking to realize the real reason for the timer.
I haven't seen Korean death certificates, but I'm going to assume, first, that the "death by fan suffocation" is going to be read as a final straw contributing factor in an invalid or elderly person. Also, I'm going to guess that "suffocation", when/if that is the actual term used, is going to be intended as a reference to all the ways that fans can aggravate health issues in people who are not healthy: dry sinus, body temperature, breathing rhythm, etc.
OK, sure, your brain is fogged over from lack of sleep or too much.
I live in Japan, which shares a lot of cultural artifacts with Korea. Also shares a similar climate and similar crowding.
There was a similar tradition in Japan about leaving the fan on all night here some thirty years ago, although what I remember had mostly to do with catching a cold from it, if you took the time to really understand what the people were saying.
The timer is there for several reasons, the primary one being that people who don't want the fun running all night don't want to have to set an alarm clock so they can shut it off.
Why should they want the fan to not run all night?
Saving electricity is one good reason.
Not wanting to dry the sinuses out is another.
Messing with the body temperature while the body is partially inactive is another.
Not so much now, but electrical insulation 60 years ago was not reliable, and fans left running all night were known to sometimes cause house fires. (And when your neighbor's house is as close as it tends to be in Japan and Korea, a house fire is a community problem, not just an individual problem.)
Translation issues in some cases did cause foreigners whose Japanese skills didn't match their imagination to misinterpret the reasons stated. Not saying that there weren't any strange superstitions involved. There was some of that, too. But there were translation problems as well and I have heard some really strange things from time to time that I've now traced to (mostly) mistranslation.
The sensations felt when you sleep under a fan too long, especially a steady, non-oscillating fan, can be remarkably like what the wikipedia article describes.
The sinuses drying can feel suffocating. The motion of the air, also, can interrupt the breathing rhythm. Both of these things can be a contributing factor in death for elderly or invalid people.
A vent fan pushing kitchen air outside can cause issues with air pressure inside, and, again, can aggravate other issues and become a partial cause of death. Depends on the construction of the building and the health of the occupants, of course.
And the body does partially lose its ability to regulate its temperature during sleep. A constant breeze can screw up temperature regulation as well, and the combination can give a person serious chills on a hot day. (I've felt those chills.) Again, this can combine with other problems and cause death.
So, yeah, the mass media is trying to sell advertisements with alarmist reporting, taking a core of reality and stretching it beyond all belief.
But I'm going to assume that the people who really believe the weird theories are among the fringe, which every country has its share of. Oh, and the foreigners whose Korean language skills don't help them distinguish between primary and contributing causes in reports.
If you say our whole society is reliant on inherited trust, either your society is not my society, or the trust of which you speak is not the trust in which root CAs tell everyone whom to trust.
There are two kinds of trust in operation here, and the current implementations fail to distinguish them properly.
You think what the government has done with passports and driver's licenses (and SSNs) so far has been better than the mess made by the Joe Random guys who decided to be the root CAs?
I'm not sure. I'm also not sure the government should do a better job. I'm not sure it's the government's job to tell me my wife is my wife or my children are my children. Or my friend is my friend. Etc. If I have to ask such questions, I think there are fundamental issues that ID simply cannot deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole system of transitive trust is messed up. Fatally flawed at the foundation, promoted because certain large vendors of system software find the transitive trust concept easier to systemize and monetize than the way it should really work.
(Every system has vulnerabilities. It's a feature of systems in general, not just software or information systems.)
You can't really trust anyone you don't know, and that's the real problem with the current state of the computer/information systems industries. It's also the reason why the methods of developing Linux and the BSDs are the correct methods of developing software. (As opposed to what the "traditional" companies do.)
If you found your CS to theoretical or something, I think you may have missed the point.
Or maybe the CS program at your school is not being taught very well.
Highly recommend the work in formal languages if you need to understand controls systems.
Get out of school, get experience, go back.
If one wants a little more insurance, add minors in physics, math, CS, and/or a foreign language.
Even though I'm partial to CS, I don't think there is a school around that can teach it right. The most important pieces of CS are the math -- grammars and formal languages and the stuff that builds up to that.
If one absolute must pursue a second major, physics is going to complement ME best. And the internships will help keep the extra time in school from warping one's perspective.
I only have a BSCS, so maybe it's just sour grapes, but I've never really had much of an opinion of a university-only education.
You might do well to consider yourself, if you're willing to keep after the PhD, to be on a much better track than your fellow students getting the free ride.
So, you're saying that the human race has a hard time focusing on anything?
Business?
In a school environment where, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the goal of business is still said to be the making of money, you'd do yourself a favor to avoid the indoctrination you'd get from that department. (On the other hand, if you already understand where Marx really went wrong, scouting out the enemy can be useful. Might be worth a minor.)
Economics?
There isn't a school in the world that can give you a valid education in economics. Getting a BA in comparative religion would teach you more about the fundamentals of economics than getting a PHD in economics.
Statistics?
No reason to major in statistics unless you want to become a Wican.
The statistics you'll get in a BS course in computer science is good enough for much of what requires statistics. The same course will come with most good engineering courses at the bachelors level. About half that course is often taught in a good associates level program in information science.
If a double major is a must, physics also includes the statistics, and a bunch of other stuff that will help in mechanical engineering.
I don't see the sarcasm tags in there.
Hit post without thinking again. This AC post down the way a bit links the original paper.
Courtesy of this AC post down the page a bit.
ARPANET predates the OSI model, and the current Internet Protocols came after the definition of the OSI stuff. (That's a little hard to see in the current wikipedia articles, but it's there.) The IETF in fact deliberately chose to combine two of the OSI layers.
The article does have some issues. I'm not sure if the author actually doesn't understand the paper he or she is trying to summarize. Maybe the intent was to make it easier for the lay person to understand. But there is some creativity going on, and parts of the summary don't really reflect the paper.
The paper itself is offering a framework of analysis of the evolution of the Internet Protocols. It might have been interesting to see a bit more analysis of ARPANET and some of the other protocols the IP protocols eventually replaced. It might have been interesting to see them address the OSI model a bit more, but the OSI model never was really implemented fully, and might be considered not part of the evolution.
I see that the take IPv6 up as a competitor of IPv4 instead of the heir apparent, which is probably a useful thing to do, if we want to understand why so many IT managers are still failing to move in a timely manner.
I'm not sure I understand their work well enough to either agree or disagree, but I think it offers food for thought, including the idea that IPv4/6 doesn't actually have to be the only protocol existing at that layer.
Why do you take the trouble to come back to a thread no one else will ever see and defend incest?
(Why do I bother to respnd to your half-thought-through specious reasoning?)
Are you so sure wine is no worse than water? I drink two liters of water a day on average, and, for my body, that seems to be about right. Would you advise your child, were he over 180 cm and 80 kg, to drink two liters of wine a day? You can argue that wine is not completely evil, but saying you can die from too much water is missing the point.
Although, if you live in an area where clean drinking water is hard to get, that's a slightly separate issue. But I'd still say it would be better to be working on getting clean drinking water than to just say let's give the children wine to drink. Wine is no more a substitute for water than unfermented fruit juices.
Prophylaxis is not just about pregnancy. Sure, people don't get pregnant just from oral or anal sex. But STDs can definitely be transmitted by either oral or anal sex. And people lose their judgment in the heat of arousal. Don't say it doesn't happen. All too often it doesn't stop with anal sex, and the women ends up with both a pregnancy and a life-threatening illness.
And prophyactics do fail. Asking how many people get pregnant from oral or anal is, again, missing (deliberately?) the point.
Asking how you can get STDs from people who don't have them in this context is just begging for trouble, not to mention begging huge questions and apparently trying to hide from reality. If you defend incest, how to propose to prevent promiscuity? Are we talking about forcibly keeping one's sibling or child away from all other people he or she may have interest in? Do I have to ask whether that is not also abuse?
Marriage has its share of problems, as I said before, as you choose to ignore. Doing away with marriage as a social institution always causes more problems than it solves. (Chattelry is a separate issue.)
There are fantasy writers who write about a world in which no one has STDs and in which the reproductive systems can be turned off at will to allow sex completely without consequences. I have to wonder why. There are other ways to get high, even without stimulating substances. And there are ways to help each other feel good about ourselves, about each other, and about life, without trying to make each other be happy.
But, anyway, that fantasy world is definitely not this world, and I don't see any of the suggestions about how to get there from here working.
You've heard of the broad brush?
People can believe that the operation of the principle of evolution is evidence of intelligence in the design without buying the whole bag that some group of so-called Creationists is selling. (Even if such a fine distinction offends some atheists and agnosticists who assert that selection principles must not be seen as evidence of intelligence.)
I think the judge may have been right in dismissing the case. Faith is generally strengthened by a bit of contact with opposing viewpoints.
On the other hand, someone from the BOE needs to take the teacher aside and point out that a broad brush of crudely constructed cynicism probably does not teach what he thinks he should be teaching.
No, that was a short way of saying that we have not eliminated any of the problems inherent in random sex, much though our libidios would induce us to believe otherwise.
Here is a moderately more long-winded version:
Parents should not give children wine, even in France, because wine can cause health problems, and at the same time, it tends to be habit forming. Neither should siblings. Children should have the right to choose their own poisons, and the right to postpone the choice until they are both physically and emotionally mature enough to make the decisions responsibly. That includes both the abstract responsibility of choice and and the physiological and emotional capability of changing their minds.
Sexual relations have similar issues. Condoms still slip. No matter what prophylactic you use, there is a finite, and actually significant, probability of both pregnancy and infection, and STDs are still difficult and costly to treat (without subsidies) and generally debilitating. There absolutely are health issues, and no amount of hiding from those issues will make those problems go away.
And even if those problems could be eliminated, there is still the issue of induced habits. There is also the right to choose whether one wants to be stimulated in a certain way or not, and by whom. And when. And if it is a brother or sister or parent or child asking, begging, threatening, pouting, etc., there is a lot more implicit pressure that goes way beyond mere social pressures.
Figuring out when the partner is okay with it is hard enough without sibling or parent/child relationships getting mixed into things. Those conflicts are at once the primary reason the social institution of marriage tends to occur in all societies, and the primary reason for some members of society wanting to do away with the social institution. But getting out of a bad sibling relationship when incest is involved tends to be even harder than getting out of a bad marriage when abuse is involved.
That's why incest is almost impossible to untangle from abuse.
So there are still reasons siblings might or might not want to have sexual relations with each other. Or might not know whether they do or don't. And it's the might-not-know part, along with the how-do-I-know-she-or-he-is-really-okay-with-this part that makes it wrong. Even if the other problems could be solved, which they are not.
And you have posted anonymous, so I can only assume you will never read this response, so why do I bother?
Okay, if you insist, both (or all) those arguments go back to (and predate) the Greek philosophers.
So do the refutations. For example, a perfect God should have no problem inducing genetic diversity.
In one argument, we are not barred from assuming that a perfect God could use/allow a few well-placed "stray" gamma rays to induce any particular variation such a God might deem/recognize to be necessary. Genetic drift could be helped along in such a way. And this would be the case, whether from Adam and Eve, or from Noah and his wife at the time he would have entered the ark with his three sons and their wives.
Trying to prove religion wrong is an uphill battle, and not really worth the effort put into it. I would prefer to waste/spend time discussing the use of computers in elections or the efficacy of certificate authorities or the relative danger of breader reactors versus non-breader reactors. Or, if you insist on talking about metaphysics, discussing ways to discern between social mores and personal, for example.
Speaking of which, the court was right in this case, to allow the stupid teacher to say stupid things. Saying stupid things is one of the rights that must be protected in a free society. Whether the offended believer was right in suing or not, I can't guess. There are many ways to defend one's faith, but I tend to think that doing so in the courtroom is not very productive. Tends to produce more wind than understanding. But there could be circumstances justifying the suit, some of which may not actually even involve the teacher in question or the local BOE's policies.
Lessee.
I hear that, in France, many parents put wine on the dinner table for their children at a very early age.
Good or bad?
Sexual relations have consequences other than pregnancy. In ideal world where sex never resulted in pregnancy without some sort of post-sex opt-in, and without the spread of diseases, and without emotional confusion, maybe you could argue what you appear to be arguing, but I don't think so. Siblings are too close emotionally to start with.
Besides, if you remove the emotionally confusing effects of sex, what is left to make it interesting?
You were in such a hurry to type that, you missed the replies with the (rather obvious?) counter that the bottleneck you assert is derived from what could be considered imperfections in the DNA, and people who believe in a perfect God are quite free to believe such a perfect God could have created Adam with perfect DNA. And could have pulled the "rib" out of Adam's DNA to create Eve with in such a way that both DNA remained, sexual differentiation aside, perfect.
It's an old argument, really, dating well before the philosophers who incorporated several versions of it (somewhat incorrectly) into the Catholic philosophies. Thousands of years old.The use of DNA in the argument just makes it sound new.
Why MSWIndows with a cable card?
Why not Apple TV with a USB tuner? Makes about as much sense.
I'll just buy a tuner card or USB box for the Fedora box I use here. Or not. We've done fine without TV for about seven years now.
Actually, I'm not sure the reason you get out of the car is that you trust the policeman. Unless you mean that you trust that the policeman is more likely to cause you problems than not if you don't follow his invitation.
We're not trying to threaten your lifestyle by pointing out that some people, at some times in their lives, really don't handle fans well.
Fans can be lifesavers at other times and/or for other people.
And people have been known to choke on spaghetti. We don't stop eating it, but you may need to chop it up into bite-size pieces for elderly folks and for people who for one reason or another don't have full control over the muscles in their throat.
Lots of variety in this world.
And things that at first sound strange about other cultures can be understood with a little effort.
That's not the primary reason for the timer, and it doesn't take a lot of thinking to realize the real reason for the timer.
I haven't seen Korean death certificates, but I'm going to assume, first, that the "death by fan suffocation" is going to be read as a final straw contributing factor in an invalid or elderly person. Also, I'm going to guess that "suffocation", when/if that is the actual term used, is going to be intended as a reference to all the ways that fans can aggravate health issues in people who are not healthy: dry sinus, body temperature, breathing rhythm, etc.
OK, sure, your brain is fogged over from lack of sleep or too much.
I live in Japan, which shares a lot of cultural artifacts with Korea. Also shares a similar climate and similar crowding.
There was a similar tradition in Japan about leaving the fan on all night here some thirty years ago, although what I remember had mostly to do with catching a cold from it, if you took the time to really understand what the people were saying.
The timer is there for several reasons, the primary one being that people who don't want the fun running all night don't want to have to set an alarm clock so they can shut it off.
Why should they want the fan to not run all night?
Saving electricity is one good reason.
Not wanting to dry the sinuses out is another.
Messing with the body temperature while the body is partially inactive is another.
Not so much now, but electrical insulation 60 years ago was not reliable, and fans left running all night were known to sometimes cause house fires. (And when your neighbor's house is as close as it tends to be in Japan and Korea, a house fire is a community problem, not just an individual problem.)
Translation issues in some cases did cause foreigners whose Japanese skills didn't match their imagination to misinterpret the reasons stated. Not saying that there weren't any strange superstitions involved. There was some of that, too. But there were translation problems as well and I have heard some really strange things from time to time that I've now traced to (mostly) mistranslation.
The sensations felt when you sleep under a fan too long, especially a steady, non-oscillating fan, can be remarkably like what the wikipedia article describes.
The sinuses drying can feel suffocating. The motion of the air, also, can interrupt the breathing rhythm. Both of these things can be a contributing factor in death for elderly or invalid people.
A vent fan pushing kitchen air outside can cause issues with air pressure inside, and, again, can aggravate other issues and become a partial cause of death. Depends on the construction of the building and the health of the occupants, of course.
And the body does partially lose its ability to regulate its temperature during sleep. A constant breeze can screw up temperature regulation as well, and the combination can give a person serious chills on a hot day. (I've felt those chills.) Again, this can combine with other problems and cause death.
So, yeah, the mass media is trying to sell advertisements with alarmist reporting, taking a core of reality and stretching it beyond all belief.
But I'm going to assume that the people who really believe the weird theories are among the fringe, which every country has its share of. Oh, and the foreigners whose Korean language skills don't help them distinguish between primary and contributing causes in reports.
If you say our whole society is reliant on inherited trust, either your society is not my society, or the trust of which you speak is not the trust in which root CAs tell everyone whom to trust.
There are two kinds of trust in operation here, and the current implementations fail to distinguish them properly.
We are asking the math to do something it can't do.
No semantics in mathematical symbols, no matter how hard we try to impose them from the outside.
"Root of trust" is a wrong idea. Just Plain Wrong.
We aren't broken. We are supposed to be this way.
This conscept of trust is broken. Misapplied, as well.
You think what the government has done with passports and driver's licenses (and SSNs) so far has been better than the mess made by the Joe Random guys who decided to be the root CAs?
I'm not sure. I'm also not sure the government should do a better job. I'm not sure it's the government's job to tell me my wife is my wife or my children are my children. Or my friend is my friend. Etc. If I have to ask such questions, I think there are fundamental issues that ID simply cannot deal with.