200 out of 2000 is a 10% success rate which is pretty good compared to randomly trying stuff out until something works. Given that they found one out of the 200 that was better than the state of the art, I'd say score one for applying the scientific method to traditional medicine.
It seems like we are at our industrious best when working in concert during a time of great conflict.
Working in concert can indeed produce great things quite fast. War is not required (e.g. the Apollo program), but in our typically competitive and anarchistic cultures, the people with money to invest prefer personal profit to the common good, so sharing and working in concert does not apply to the competition. The government can step in and enforce cooperation, which sometimes happen during a war economy, but it also means limiting the rights of the rich and powerful, sometimes with a big, fat lump of cash as compensation.
I hit a blank advertising slide between 6 and 7. Also, if you feel the urge to avoid the java script, you can just look at the source - links to all images are there. The caption to the first image is "Map of Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor".
If I pay for a phone, I *expect* to have the ability to remove any single program on it, and that is what crow was writing about. Phone manufacturers have choices, but it reeks of strong arming when wanting to include the largest Android app store results in a requirement that the manufacturer include a number of other apps *and* prohibits users from removing them. And yes, like it or not, while there are other choices, Android is in the same dominant position on the phone/tablet market as Windows is on the desktop market, and lack of access to Google Play is a deal breaker for many looking for a new phone.
Some 20-30 years back when wind turbines were being set up near the village where my father lives, the company approached the locals who were none too happy and suggested that a few percent of the proceeds from the wind turbines were given to the local community for local activities, e.g. playgrounds, community halls and so on. It silenced a lot of the dissent, and it is my impression that the villagers are very happy with the wind turbines.
However, interstellar travel is likely extremely expensive, time consuming (...)
For the crew of an hypothetical alien ship traveling close to the speed of light, the journey would not be time consuming at all [refer to Time Dilation]
I was thinking in terms of interstellar trade to generate revenue for the expense of interstellar flight. Even assuming that it would be possible to reach 100% of the speed of light (and that is in itself a huge if), goods from Proxima Centauri would be in transit for 4.2 years from the point of view of the producers and consumers. Assuming physical goods, a more reasonable estimate of 10% of the speed of light as the top speed would result in a 42 year journey. Extrapolating that to even more distant star systems, interstellar trade is on a timescale of centuries, way beyond human life expectancy. My point is that it is very unlikely that it will be profitable compared to local production, which removes an essential reason to explore the option in the first place. Science Fiction writers Ken MacLeod and Charles Stross have explored this issue, from different vantage points.
I'm not saying that's the answer to the Fermi paradox but civilisations of any sort might simply have a far smaller footprint on a galactic level than anyone imagined, and while explorers could have passed by a hundred thousand years ago, five hundred thousand years ago or ten million years ago and found little of interest, there's no reason to believe they might stop by exactly right now and ask to be taken to our leader.
Well... Earth has supported life for 3.6 billion years, and complex life for 600 million years. So, if ET have been investigating the solar system, they would have noticed life and could feasibly have left a probe behind, relaying information to where ever their local hub is. However, interstellar travel is likely extremely expensive, time consuming and yields little more than satisfaction of scientific curiosity, so it is unlikely that advanced ET civilizations would want to commit the expense. Even if we humans manage to avoid a catastrophic collapse of our civilizations over the next 1000 years, I doubt that we will even manage to build a self-sufficient colony outside of Earth.
I don't quite see how that makes a Dragonlance movie impossible? Depending on the contract between Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman and TSR and any ill will they may harbor against each other, that is.
The last 15 years of superhero comic book adaptions has proved otherwise. Back in the 90s and before most adaptions were somewhere between passable and excruciatingly bad, typically low budget. Now this staple of geek culture has become main stream and immensely popular, due to a number of very good movie adaptions.
I was actually thinking something along those lines, myself. Those three books more than anything defined that world for me. They have lots of action, comedy and mystery to them, and they are a full stand-alone series. The first book could even stand on its own.
They don't have to suck. Dead Gentlemen Productions and Zombie Orpheus made the Gamers series where the tabletop RPG fused with the action in the game. Sure, they are cheap indie productions, poking good hearted fun at ourselves, and unlikely to become smash its, but... they are quite a lot of fun. If you are into foreign movies, Astrópía is pretty good, and could, feasibly be interesting to a wider audience.
Depends on what you actually mean. If by making a D&D movie, you mean an interactive experience with friends, you are right. Movies are not interactive.
If you mean making a movie that captures how you and your friends act when playing, Zombie Orpheus and Dead Gentlemen Productions have made a number of awesome comedies in the Gamersseries.
If you mean making a movie that features a party of adventurers having adventures... there are a lot of those. Most Hollywood movies of that type follow the hero and his sidekicks (Lord of the Rings being one exception), but the indie scene is a lot more interesting. Some of them are actually okay. In the comedy arena, JourneyQuest is quite a lot of fun. Mythica is more serious, but definitely also worth watching.
Can Hollywood make a good D&D movie? Can TSR or Wizards of the Coast? Going by past experiences, the answer is no. On the other hand... the new Captain America movies are quite good, whereas the old ones from the 80s were utter crap, so maybe?
No, but they *do* have the right to ask the Irish government to get an Irish company to hand over data on an Irish server. Depending on the validity of the US request, the Irish courts may or may not issue a court order for the data. There is no legal mess here. Just the US government trying to claim jurisdiction over a sovereign nation.
Can anyone here please share with us in what way we can protect ourselves from being infected with those malwares/ransomwares?
The summary notes that the criminals use a Flash exploit and target Internet Explorer. So, a good guess would be to uninstall Flash and stop using Internet Explorer. If that is too grand a step, you could go for a Flash block addon for your browser, so you get to choose if Flash is allowed to run.
How, realistically, are we going to stop them from spying?
That is a good question. I very much doubt that we can argue with them to get them to stop. The leadership of the spy organizations are both very certain that they are right, and it is to their personal advantage to continue down the current road. Political leaders tend to either agree, not care or be open for manipulation (with terrorism and pedos giving the spies leverage). Agreement comes from that insidious group of political leaders who want to control their own population. Technology can give some protection against spying, but the large governments have huge budgets, and can apply pressure to get back doors. The only alternative left (as I see it) is to create pressure on the political system from the outside, however, that requires getting a lot of people to care enough to get off their asses and demand change. Alas, it does not look like that is happening.
Most dictators, even the vicious ones, try to keep up appearances. They want to make it look like they are just and that their rule is benevolent. This is partly for their own self image, but it is also a very efficient way to keep the masses from rising up. Pulling on the iron boot and stomping out an uprising is very expensive and potentially dangerous for the dictator. As nasty as Saddam Hussein was, if you kept your head down and did your job, there was a good chance that you would not be picked up and tortured by the secret police. Any functioning society also need courts to handle all those legal issues that crop between people, from commerce to violent crime.
You seem to have unspoken assumption that propping up dictators actually make us safer or more prosperous.
This assumption is very popular among the powers that be, because it gives them a moral standing for being ruthless monsters: Their monstrosity protects their people. It even creates a self image that they are sacrifice themselves to make the world safer for their people. The same thing happened with the American slave trade: At first it was to help the poor uncivilized Africans find Christ, but when the slaves started converting to Christianity, and the slave owners did not want to give up their "property", they created the myth that Africans were stupid and childlike, so the slaves needed a firm hand (a.k.a. slavery was a good, Christian thing to do).
But that was a detour. Back to the issue at hand, we could start with an example: Iran. In 1953 the US and UK conspired with the Shah of Iran to bring down a democratically elected government (oil), and institute the most vicious dictatorship in the Middle East at the time. The Shah continued in power until he was overthrown by the 1979 revolution. When the dust settled, and the Islamists came out victorious, US ally Iraq invaded the country. Naturally, the people of Iran knew of the role that the US had played, and hated the country for its crimes against Iranians. Even now relations are strained to say the least. Iran is allying itself with Iraq, and the US and the UK is on the sidelines, slowly but surely loosing ground in the oil rich Middle East. *That* is the price of instigating the 1953 coup, and I doubt the US and UK are done paying for that nasty business. Fortunately for the physical safety of westerners, the rulers of Iran are reasonably sane, and neither train nor fund terrorism against Western targets.
Adding to my previous reply, one could also note that when the dictatorships fell in Southern Europe, the standard of living in Spain was comparable to Chile that experienced a military coup in 1973. Modern day Spain is a lot more prosperous than Chile. Yes, yes, I know that Spain is part of the European Union and received development support, so the two are not easily comparable.
Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy were dictatorships until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Overall, I think they did alright. Staying in Europe, one could also mention East Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. Leaving Europe, I also think Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina are doing okay. That makes 12. More could be found, if one cared to look.
Some of Brittains closest allies are brutal despots. Keeping Amnesty International from "Rocking the Boat" directly supports an ally, and therefore supports national security. Yes this is immoral and illegal, but you can't pretend it isn't in the countries best interest.
In the best of times, it may be that our overlords perceive that keeping brutal despots in power is to the advantage of the entire country and/or supports national security. But that does not mean that it is the truth. The people arguing that dealing with vicious dictators is a good long term strategy are the same that argue that war is a good way to fight Islamic State. Propping up dictators may give cheap access to resources and markets (e.g. for weapon sales), but it will cause widespread resentment against the Brits among the subjects of the dictator as well as immigrants in Britain, possibly leading to acts of terrorism or increased recruitment for Islamic State and their ilk.
As a long term strategy, I also think that it is flawed. Dictatorships are not as vibrant and dynamic as societies where people have a reasonable amount of freedom, safety and general quality of life. If the dictators fall and are replaced by something nicer (yes, that is a big if), they tend to develop faster, bringing more wealth, stability and safety for all of us.
Why spy on Amnesty? They try to help political prisoners and such.
That is a very good reason for most intelligence agencies to spy on Amnesty: Amnesty has a lot of contacts on the ground in many oppressive countries. These contacts could be recruited as spies by intelligence agencies, sold out to their local government, spied upon to learn of coming activities, leaned on to start certain activities, or something else entirely. Some of these people could even know some of the dirty secrets of the intelligence agencies and their governments. Unfortunately, their spying is likely to make it harder for Amnesty to do their work, and significantly increases the risk of their contacts. In my opinion, the spying should stop.
With US normally being the first market targeted (huge market, single set of requirements), my guess would be a decision not to go there would have to do with patents or legal risks, not wanting to be pwned by one of the big players.
Jolla is based in Finland and was founded by a lot of former Nokia employees (Nokia is also based in Finland). This makes Finland (and the EU) their obvious home market.
Jolla is, to my knowledge, not subservient to Apple, Google or Microsoft. I suspect that GP suggested Jolla+keyboard because you specifically mentioned N900, rather than many of the other vintage phones out there.
Slashdot Mirror
200 out of 2000 is a 10% success rate which is pretty good compared to randomly trying stuff out until something works. Given that they found one out of the 200 that was better than the state of the art, I'd say score one for applying the scientific method to traditional medicine.
It seems like we are at our industrious best when working in concert during a time of great conflict.
Working in concert can indeed produce great things quite fast. War is not required (e.g. the Apollo program), but in our typically competitive and anarchistic cultures, the people with money to invest prefer personal profit to the common good, so sharing and working in concert does not apply to the competition. The government can step in and enforce cooperation, which sometimes happen during a war economy, but it also means limiting the rights of the rich and powerful, sometimes with a big, fat lump of cash as compensation.
I hit a blank advertising slide between 6 and 7. Also, if you feel the urge to avoid the java script, you can just look at the source - links to all images are there. The caption to the first image is "Map of Rohan, Gondor, and Mordor".
If I pay for a phone, I *expect* to have the ability to remove any single program on it, and that is what crow was writing about. Phone manufacturers have choices, but it reeks of strong arming when wanting to include the largest Android app store results in a requirement that the manufacturer include a number of other apps *and* prohibits users from removing them. And yes, like it or not, while there are other choices, Android is in the same dominant position on the phone/tablet market as Windows is on the desktop market, and lack of access to Google Play is a deal breaker for many looking for a new phone.
Some 20-30 years back when wind turbines were being set up near the village where my father lives, the company approached the locals who were none too happy and suggested that a few percent of the proceeds from the wind turbines were given to the local community for local activities, e.g. playgrounds, community halls and so on. It silenced a lot of the dissent, and it is my impression that the villagers are very happy with the wind turbines.
However, interstellar travel is likely extremely expensive, time consuming (...)
For the crew of an hypothetical alien ship traveling close to the speed of light, the journey would not be time consuming at all [refer to Time Dilation]
I was thinking in terms of interstellar trade to generate revenue for the expense of interstellar flight. Even assuming that it would be possible to reach 100% of the speed of light (and that is in itself a huge if), goods from Proxima Centauri would be in transit for 4.2 years from the point of view of the producers and consumers. Assuming physical goods, a more reasonable estimate of 10% of the speed of light as the top speed would result in a 42 year journey. Extrapolating that to even more distant star systems, interstellar trade is on a timescale of centuries, way beyond human life expectancy. My point is that it is very unlikely that it will be profitable compared to local production, which removes an essential reason to explore the option in the first place. Science Fiction writers Ken MacLeod and Charles Stross have explored this issue, from different vantage points.
I'm not saying that's the answer to the Fermi paradox but civilisations of any sort might simply have a far smaller footprint on a galactic level than anyone imagined, and while explorers could have passed by a hundred thousand years ago, five hundred thousand years ago or ten million years ago and found little of interest, there's no reason to believe they might stop by exactly right now and ask to be taken to our leader.
Well ... Earth has supported life for 3.6 billion years, and complex life for 600 million years. So, if ET have been investigating the solar system, they would have noticed life and could feasibly have left a probe behind, relaying information to where ever their local hub is. However, interstellar travel is likely extremely expensive, time consuming and yields little more than satisfaction of scientific curiosity, so it is unlikely that advanced ET civilizations would want to commit the expense. Even if we humans manage to avoid a catastrophic collapse of our civilizations over the next 1000 years, I doubt that we will even manage to build a self-sufficient colony outside of Earth.
I don't quite see how that makes a Dragonlance movie impossible? Depending on the contract between Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman and TSR and any ill will they may harbor against each other, that is.
Why is Dragonlance off the table?
The last 15 years of superhero comic book adaptions has proved otherwise. Back in the 90s and before most adaptions were somewhere between passable and excruciatingly bad, typically low budget. Now this staple of geek culture has become main stream and immensely popular, due to a number of very good movie adaptions.
I was actually thinking something along those lines, myself. Those three books more than anything defined that world for me. They have lots of action, comedy and mystery to them, and they are a full stand-alone series. The first book could even stand on its own.
They don't have to suck. Dead Gentlemen Productions and Zombie Orpheus made the Gamers series where the tabletop RPG fused with the action in the game. Sure, they are cheap indie productions, poking good hearted fun at ourselves, and unlikely to become smash its, but ... they are quite a lot of fun. If you are into foreign movies, Astrópía is pretty good, and could, feasibly be interesting to a wider audience.
Depends on what you actually mean. If by making a D&D movie, you mean an interactive experience with friends, you are right. Movies are not interactive.
If you mean making a movie that captures how you and your friends act when playing, Zombie Orpheus and Dead Gentlemen Productions have made a number of awesome comedies in the Gamers series.
If you mean making a movie that features a party of adventurers having adventures ... there are a lot of those. Most Hollywood movies of that type follow the hero and his sidekicks (Lord of the Rings being one exception), but the indie scene is a lot more interesting. Some of them are actually okay. In the comedy arena, JourneyQuest is quite a lot of fun. Mythica is more serious, but definitely also worth watching.
Can Hollywood make a good D&D movie? Can TSR or Wizards of the Coast? Going by past experiences, the answer is no. On the other hand ... the new Captain America movies are quite good, whereas the old ones from the 80s were utter crap, so maybe?
Yeah, that is pretty much how I understand it as well.
No, but they *do* have the right to ask the Irish government to get an Irish company to hand over data on an Irish server. Depending on the validity of the US request, the Irish courts may or may not issue a court order for the data. There is no legal mess here. Just the US government trying to claim jurisdiction over a sovereign nation.
Can anyone here please share with us in what way we can protect ourselves from being infected with those malwares/ransomwares?
The summary notes that the criminals use a Flash exploit and target Internet Explorer. So, a good guess would be to uninstall Flash and stop using Internet Explorer. If that is too grand a step, you could go for a Flash block addon for your browser, so you get to choose if Flash is allowed to run.
How, realistically, are we going to stop them from spying?
That is a good question. I very much doubt that we can argue with them to get them to stop. The leadership of the spy organizations are both very certain that they are right, and it is to their personal advantage to continue down the current road. Political leaders tend to either agree, not care or be open for manipulation (with terrorism and pedos giving the spies leverage). Agreement comes from that insidious group of political leaders who want to control their own population. Technology can give some protection against spying, but the large governments have huge budgets, and can apply pressure to get back doors. The only alternative left (as I see it) is to create pressure on the political system from the outside, however, that requires getting a lot of people to care enough to get off their asses and demand change. Alas, it does not look like that is happening.
Most dictators, even the vicious ones, try to keep up appearances. They want to make it look like they are just and that their rule is benevolent. This is partly for their own self image, but it is also a very efficient way to keep the masses from rising up. Pulling on the iron boot and stomping out an uprising is very expensive and potentially dangerous for the dictator. As nasty as Saddam Hussein was, if you kept your head down and did your job, there was a good chance that you would not be picked up and tortured by the secret police. Any functioning society also need courts to handle all those legal issues that crop between people, from commerce to violent crime.
You seem to have unspoken assumption that propping up dictators actually make us safer or more prosperous.
This assumption is very popular among the powers that be, because it gives them a moral standing for being ruthless monsters: Their monstrosity protects their people. It even creates a self image that they are sacrifice themselves to make the world safer for their people. The same thing happened with the American slave trade: At first it was to help the poor uncivilized Africans find Christ, but when the slaves started converting to Christianity, and the slave owners did not want to give up their "property", they created the myth that Africans were stupid and childlike, so the slaves needed a firm hand (a.k.a. slavery was a good, Christian thing to do).
But that was a detour. Back to the issue at hand, we could start with an example: Iran. In 1953 the US and UK conspired with the Shah of Iran to bring down a democratically elected government (oil), and institute the most vicious dictatorship in the Middle East at the time. The Shah continued in power until he was overthrown by the 1979 revolution. When the dust settled, and the Islamists came out victorious, US ally Iraq invaded the country. Naturally, the people of Iran knew of the role that the US had played, and hated the country for its crimes against Iranians. Even now relations are strained to say the least. Iran is allying itself with Iraq, and the US and the UK is on the sidelines, slowly but surely loosing ground in the oil rich Middle East. *That* is the price of instigating the 1953 coup, and I doubt the US and UK are done paying for that nasty business. Fortunately for the physical safety of westerners, the rulers of Iran are reasonably sane, and neither train nor fund terrorism against Western targets.
Which problem do you want to solve?
Adding to my previous reply, one could also note that when the dictatorships fell in Southern Europe, the standard of living in Spain was comparable to Chile that experienced a military coup in 1973. Modern day Spain is a lot more prosperous than Chile. Yes, yes, I know that Spain is part of the European Union and received development support, so the two are not easily comparable.
Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy were dictatorships until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Overall, I think they did alright. Staying in Europe, one could also mention East Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. Leaving Europe, I also think Chile, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina are doing okay. That makes 12. More could be found, if one cared to look.
Some of Brittains closest allies are brutal despots. Keeping Amnesty International from "Rocking the Boat" directly supports an ally, and therefore supports national security. Yes this is immoral and illegal, but you can't pretend it isn't in the countries best interest.
In the best of times, it may be that our overlords perceive that keeping brutal despots in power is to the advantage of the entire country and/or supports national security. But that does not mean that it is the truth. The people arguing that dealing with vicious dictators is a good long term strategy are the same that argue that war is a good way to fight Islamic State. Propping up dictators may give cheap access to resources and markets (e.g. for weapon sales), but it will cause widespread resentment against the Brits among the subjects of the dictator as well as immigrants in Britain, possibly leading to acts of terrorism or increased recruitment for Islamic State and their ilk.
As a long term strategy, I also think that it is flawed. Dictatorships are not as vibrant and dynamic as societies where people have a reasonable amount of freedom, safety and general quality of life. If the dictators fall and are replaced by something nicer (yes, that is a big if), they tend to develop faster, bringing more wealth, stability and safety for all of us.
Why spy on Amnesty? They try to help political prisoners and such.
That is a very good reason for most intelligence agencies to spy on Amnesty: Amnesty has a lot of contacts on the ground in many oppressive countries. These contacts could be recruited as spies by intelligence agencies, sold out to their local government, spied upon to learn of coming activities, leaned on to start certain activities, or something else entirely. Some of these people could even know some of the dirty secrets of the intelligence agencies and their governments. Unfortunately, their spying is likely to make it harder for Amnesty to do their work, and significantly increases the risk of their contacts. In my opinion, the spying should stop.
With US normally being the first market targeted (huge market, single set of requirements), my guess would be a decision not to go there would have to do with patents or legal risks, not wanting to be pwned by one of the big players.
Jolla is based in Finland and was founded by a lot of former Nokia employees (Nokia is also based in Finland). This makes Finland (and the EU) their obvious home market.
Jolla is, to my knowledge, not subservient to Apple, Google or Microsoft. I suspect that GP suggested Jolla+keyboard because you specifically mentioned N900, rather than many of the other vintage phones out there.