Pardon me, but I must return the bullshit back apon you, Sir. What if you have no alarm clock and miss your 6AM appointment? Then what are you to do, starve?
How about we just use a different example?: "Sleeping in the park (or your car)." Around here that's punishable by 30 days in jail. And puts you ar risk for missing court and further incarceration. If you've previously missed court for any reason, you're considered a flight risk and might be held in jail for several months awaiting trial, whereby you will likely lose your car and/or all worldly possessions. When finally released, are you then less likely to sleep in the park, after having been "effectively punished"? (By "effectively" I mean "achieved some benefit for society." And it's in quotes to imply that the term questionable.)
The OP suggests that many people being punished in jail did not want to break the law but had no viable alternative at the time, other than perhaps starving or being divested of what little assets they may have had. His point was that, in such cases, punishment does not serve society.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we agree with your point, you've not refuted the OP's statement that there are many other lesser crimes where punishment does not serve society.
IMHO, we citizens must petition our Gov't to use modern technology and scientific understanding to implement more useful alternatives to the current system of broadly applied incarceration. Isolation and punishment cannot crime, because they are crimes.
Does anyone know what happened to the HTML5 (non-plugin) based server-side version of cryptocat?
I don't care if it's less secure than the new plugin-required version.. it will still probably defend against an eavesdropper in my college dorm or at Starbucks.
WHAT WE CAN DO: Use the internet to promote government transparency, keep a record of who commits law/ethics/privacy violations, and a collaborative action plan. Use a distributed encrypted anonymous system of credibility ratings tied to individual user accounts to identify and minimize disinformation.
e.g. Example 1: A new user intent on disinformation pops into a slashdot thread, and starts grouping the "truthers" with some maligned group (hippies, racists, homeless, crazies, etc), or brings up off-topic hot-button subjects (abortion, gay rights, etc..) in an effort to derail the the thread. The user is downvoted and disappears similar to slashdot. Mod's high cred rating greatly lowers the shill's already low cred.
Example 2: User uploads tar.gz of 3-Letter-Org leaks info but has a 0 cred score. Moderator sees this and up-votes user. Mod's high cred rating means post quickly surfaces, and the new user gets awarded generous cred points.
Example 3: Someone pays 1000 Vietnamese users to make slashdot accounts and downvote post in Ex. #2. Since they are all new accounts, their 0 cred score does nothing....
Perhaps this "web cred" could be a combination of "Credibility", "Experience" and "Popularity". It should be portable, and follow you across sites (if you wish) and be totally anonymous through the use of encryption. You should be able to expose as much or as little of your own account's webcred as you wish. In this way, you can chose to expose which sites you patron. e.g., when you sign on to a new dating site, you are asked for your webcred identifier. You go to webcred.com and click on the sites where you've generated web cred: "okdate.com, and cupid.com" but omit "slashdot.org" because you have horrible webcred there. This generates a token which you give to your new site, and they give you increased account privileges because you have an established persona.
It's an idea that I've toyed with for a long time. If you have skills in math and cryptography, and would like to collaborate on an OSS solution, please email: i8@8drink.8pe8 (remove 8's)
Sorry you're right. Governments never lie. Thus, our government did not lie about 911, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And you're definitely not engaging in the classic disinformation tactic of associating non-believers with crazies.
"not fighting for truth?" What is fighting for truth then? What you're doing?
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." H.G. Citation.
It was uploaded 1.5 years ago, and has only 460,000 views. Obviously, it has not yet experienced the "Slashdot effect." Don't you think maybe, it should?
Are you giving me an example of a massive fuckup as evidence why we don't need SSNs?
*sigh* Here's a video suggesting why we're fucked by the rich through SS. Jump to 4:15 and 6:10 to to feel that fucked by the gov't (rich people, Bush, right-wing tools) feeling once again.
Really, capitalism is based on continual growth, which is impossible. I wish we humans could produce some smarter outlier individuals like Einstein, Newton, Aristotle, etc... A Tesla of Economics who could formulate provable optimal strategies for the world economy. Seems logically possible. The problem is these kind of economic/social theories are too complex to be understood in the context of a democracy (*cough* republicans, "Jesus says birth control is evil."). Then without a drastic switch in the "purpose" of our gov't, from "ensure no limit to individual power" to "ensure a sustainable way of life".... and/or, a benevolent dictator, we're all fucked.
I can imagine SSNs not existing. What's so bad about that? How would I identify myself? Like this: "Hello, here I am."
If SSNs didn't exist then it would stop a lot of identity theft. I have creditors calling me for things like unpaid phone and electric bills in states I never lived in. This could not happen if there were no SSNs. I can't think of one good reason for Gov't mandated unique identifiers except for the purposes of totalitarian oppression.
Take for example: wage taxes. An idea once fought against: "The power of direct taxation applies to every individual... it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments." And guess what, our so called "income taxes" supposedly temporarily enacted for national security during war time, has enabled our imperialist gov't to wage war ever since. IMHO, a wage tax, as opposed to a tax on true income which you earn passively from the sweat of others, such as a business's profit, is abhorrent. It makes murderers of us all as we have no way to avoid funding wars designed to secure the affects of the rich by grinding the blood and bones of the common man.
I suppose you'd counter with, "How would people buy small things on credit?" Well, they wouldn't. You secure credit with equity. Society still managed to progress ~70 years ago before credit cards. The SSN and small lines of credit are a bane on society used by people who lack critical thinking skills about the tools of totalitarianism and algebra. Giving a broke person a $100 line of credit which ends up costing them $800 in fees because they're broke is definitely not in their best interests. All the ridiculous profits made by credit card companies is money extracted from the local economy to the direct detriment of the poor.
Give me one good example of where an SSN is not used by a totalitarian regime to subjugate the poor.
The poor don't need credit cards. And they don't need SSNs. Wages are not income. Gasoline should not be cheaper than water. There is no news at 11. Question authority. Eat the rich!
Where is the article where he "shared his problems developing cryptocat"?
BTW, cryptocat.com is not the correct website, but it's interesting. Does anyone know of a Linux router firmware software package that does similar automatic decryption?
Nice claim. Exactly how is a computer program a mathematical formula? It's more accurately described as a binary string which can be interpreted by a turing compatible machine.
p.s. It wasn't the highly suspicious "confession tape" that finally gave the gov't proof. (really you should look into that) It was the dossiers and databases on the hijackers the gov't already had which linked them to Al Qaeda.
Very quickly (in just a couple of days according to my recollection) the media showed mosaics of a dozen+ of the hijackers. This was not airport footage. It seems likely this image was submitted to the media, as opposed to being due to investigative work on the part of the media..
It seems weird that you would claim our President lied to the American people saying our gov't quickly learned "the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda". But, perhaps we actually are in agreement here, in that there was something fishy about the "proof".
I thought it was strange how quickly the attacks were originally attributed to the Taliban... thinking that it was mighty convenient for them to so quickly solve the investigation considering the PNAC goals. But here I was playing devil's advocate stating that it would have been easy to identify the most likely perpetrators given the choices of A: 3 members of the Springfield Junior-high PTA, and B: 19 Arabs with ties to a terrorist organization. Really, do you require more proof that said terrorist organization was involved in planning the attacks? Or, are you really arguing that we ought to give those guys the benefit of the doubt because it might have just been a coincidence they were all on the planes?
Where it says "Charles Carreon [...] first incited all of his users to harass The Oatmeal anyway"
Since in this link the Oatmeal guy asks *if* he should send a C&D. Then at the bottom it seems to suggest contact (DOSing?) the other guy: "I felt I had to say something about what they're doing. Perhaps you should too".
Obviously I was talking about the general probability of a (weighted) fair coin toss. (8 of them)
Actually, you're totally right about the 4 games being all that matters. (assuming he doesn't alter the moves, and just plays them off each other).
For some reason I automatically assumed that the question was only talking about games that were either won or lost.
But, let's assume you're right. Then the con-artist only won his bet 4.1% of the time. This is not a very good con if the con-artist loses 95.9% of the time.
You suggested there was a 4.1% chance of winning the wager. In fact you have answered, "What is the probability that the next round of 4 games played will be all non-draws?" But, a figure of 4.1% wins is nonsensical for a bet.
The real wager must be, "I cannot be beaten more than 50% of the time." That's the point of playing the opponents off each other.. Because the claim will always be true.
However, as the AC who replied to me pointed out, I failed to notice the brain teaser here which is that "winning 4 or more out of 8 fair coin tosses is greater than 50%". In 8 fair coin tosses, on average there will be an even distribution of x heads per 8 tosses. So, 50-50. But you must add the probability of ((exactly 4 heads out of 8 tosses)/2) to 50% to get the answer. In other words whenever you get 4 heads, there are 4 tails, so it's a draw. The trick is, you're just deciding that all of those are wins.
Then the probability of getting at least x heads in n fair coin tosses is sum(from i = x to n, ((n choose x)/2^n)_i).
Taking your example: (where x = 2 and n = 4) we get: 0.687500 = ~69%
So, while you may have been correct on the literal interpretation of the given problem, showing I was wrong in that regard, you are arguing a moot point, and have provided only useless results. I would offer some constructive criticism, but unfortunately for you, they do not teach common sense in high-school.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: "Isolation and punishment cannot solve crime, because they are crimes."
Pardon me, but I must return the bullshit back apon you, Sir. What if you have no alarm clock and miss your 6AM appointment? Then what are you to do, starve?
How about we just use a different example?: "Sleeping in the park (or your car)." Around here that's punishable by 30 days in jail. And puts you ar risk for missing court and further incarceration. If you've previously missed court for any reason, you're considered a flight risk and might be held in jail for several months awaiting trial, whereby you will likely lose your car and/or all worldly possessions. When finally released, are you then less likely to sleep in the park, after having been "effectively punished"? (By "effectively" I mean "achieved some benefit for society." And it's in quotes to imply that the term questionable.)
The OP suggests that many people being punished in jail did not want to break the law but had no viable alternative at the time, other than perhaps starving or being divested of what little assets they may have had. His point was that, in such cases, punishment does not serve society.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we agree with your point, you've not refuted the OP's statement that there are many other lesser crimes where punishment does not serve society.
IMHO, we citizens must petition our Gov't to use modern technology and scientific understanding to implement more useful alternatives to the current system of broadly applied incarceration. Isolation and punishment cannot crime, because they are crimes.
You need help. If you make a good wage, hire a cheap coder to do your pet projects.
Does anyone know what happened to the HTML5 (non-plugin) based server-side version of cryptocat?
I don't care if it's less secure than the new plugin-required version.. it will still probably defend against an eavesdropper in my college dorm or at Starbucks.
WHAT WE CAN DO: Use the internet to promote government transparency, keep a record of who commits law/ethics/privacy violations, and a collaborative action plan. Use a distributed encrypted anonymous system of credibility ratings tied to individual user accounts to identify and minimize disinformation.
e.g. Example 1: A new user intent on disinformation pops into a slashdot thread, and starts grouping the "truthers" with some maligned group (hippies, racists, homeless, crazies, etc), or brings up off-topic hot-button subjects (abortion, gay rights, etc..) in an effort to derail the the thread. The user is downvoted and disappears similar to slashdot. Mod's high cred rating greatly lowers the shill's already low cred.
Example 2: User uploads tar.gz of 3-Letter-Org leaks info but has a 0 cred score. Moderator sees this and up-votes user. Mod's high cred rating means post quickly surfaces, and the new user gets awarded generous cred points.
Example 3: Someone pays 1000 Vietnamese users to make slashdot accounts and downvote post in Ex. #2. Since they are all new accounts, their 0 cred score does nothing....
Perhaps this "web cred" could be a combination of "Credibility", "Experience" and "Popularity". It should be portable, and follow you across sites (if you wish) and be totally anonymous through the use of encryption. You should be able to expose as much or as little of your own account's webcred as you wish. In this way, you can chose to expose which sites you patron. e.g., when you sign on to a new dating site, you are asked for your webcred identifier. You go to webcred.com and click on the sites where you've generated web cred: "okdate.com, and cupid.com" but omit "slashdot.org" because you have horrible webcred there. This generates a token which you give to your new site, and they give you increased account privileges because you have an established persona.
It's an idea that I've toyed with for a long time. If you have skills in math and cryptography, and would like to collaborate on an OSS solution, please email: i8@8drink.8pe8
(remove 8's)
damn... that's fucked up
Sorry you're right. Governments never lie. Thus, our government did not lie about 911, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And you're definitely not engaging in the classic disinformation tactic of associating non-believers with crazies.
"not fighting for truth?" What is fighting for truth then? What you're doing?
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." H.G. Citation.
You like your GUI for the opposite reason of the parent, so you have not refuted each other.. You use your GUI and be happy, ok?
Doncha think it might have something to do with Flash being dropped (and with it in-browser H.264 decoding)?
Please take a look at this video.
It was uploaded 1.5 years ago, and has only 460,000 views. Obviously, it has not yet experienced the "Slashdot effect." Don't you think maybe, it should?
Are you giving me an example of a massive fuckup as evidence why we don't need SSNs?
*sigh* Here's a video suggesting why we're fucked by the rich through SS. Jump to 4:15 and 6:10 to to feel that fucked by the gov't (rich people, Bush, right-wing tools) feeling once again.
Really, capitalism is based on continual growth, which is impossible. I wish we humans could produce some smarter outlier individuals like Einstein, Newton, Aristotle, etc... A Tesla of Economics who could formulate provable optimal strategies for the world economy. Seems logically possible. The problem is these kind of economic/social theories are too complex to be understood in the context of a democracy (*cough* republicans, "Jesus says birth control is evil."). Then without a drastic switch in the "purpose" of our gov't, from "ensure no limit to individual power" to "ensure a sustainable way of life".... and/or, a benevolent dictator, we're all fucked.
I can imagine SSNs not existing. What's so bad about that? How would I identify myself? Like this: "Hello, here I am."
... it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments." And guess what, our so called "income taxes" supposedly temporarily enacted for national security during war time, has enabled our imperialist gov't to wage war ever since. IMHO, a wage tax, as opposed to a tax on true income which you earn passively from the sweat of others, such as a business's profit, is abhorrent. It makes murderers of us all as we have no way to avoid funding wars designed to secure the affects of the rich by grinding the blood and bones of the common man.
If SSNs didn't exist then it would stop a lot of identity theft. I have creditors calling me for things like unpaid phone and electric bills in states I never lived in. This could not happen if there were no SSNs. I can't think of one good reason for Gov't mandated unique identifiers except for the purposes of totalitarian oppression.
Take for example: wage taxes. An idea once fought against: "The power of direct taxation applies to every individual
I suppose you'd counter with, "How would people buy small things on credit?" Well, they wouldn't. You secure credit with equity. Society still managed to progress ~70 years ago before credit cards. The SSN and small lines of credit are a bane on society used by people who lack critical thinking skills about the tools of totalitarianism and algebra. Giving a broke person a $100 line of credit which ends up costing them $800 in fees because they're broke is definitely not in their best interests. All the ridiculous profits made by credit card companies is money extracted from the local economy to the direct detriment of the poor.
Give me one good example of where an SSN is not used by a totalitarian regime to subjugate the poor.
The poor don't need credit cards. And they don't need SSNs. Wages are not income. Gasoline should not be cheaper than water. There is no news at 11. Question authority. Eat the rich!
Considering your sig, would your statement perhaps be born out of self-reflection?
That's cool. I do that too. But, I'd rather be right on the Internet than hang out with a bunch of imprecise idiots and their stupid boobs.
Where is the article where he "shared his problems developing cryptocat"?
BTW, cryptocat.com is not the correct website, but it's interesting. Does anyone know of a Linux router firmware software package that does similar automatic decryption?
Seems like a simple circuit could deactivate the flush device until the toilet needed flushing.
Any citation for the gut bacteria swapping reference? I'd really like to forward that to a family doctor who refuses to prescribe me some baby poop.
Every time the police violate the civil rights of (a friend who isn't me) the police video recording equipment was coincidentally broken that day.
Yeah, fuck that guy.
sudo aptitude install youtube-dl
Nice claim. Exactly how is a computer program a mathematical formula? It's more accurately described as a binary string which can be interpreted by a turing compatible machine.
p.s. It wasn't the highly suspicious "confession tape" that finally gave the gov't proof. (really you should look into that) It was the dossiers and databases on the hijackers the gov't already had which linked them to Al Qaeda.
Very quickly (in just a couple of days according to my recollection) the media showed mosaics of a dozen+ of the hijackers. This was not airport footage. It seems likely this image was submitted to the media, as opposed to being due to investigative work on the part of the media..
Oh, wikipedia confirms all of this: On September 14, three days after the attacks, the FBI announced the names of 19 persons.
It seems weird that you would claim our President lied to the American people saying our gov't quickly learned "the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda". But, perhaps we actually are in agreement here, in that there was something fishy about the "proof".
I thought it was strange how quickly the attacks were originally attributed to the Taliban... thinking that it was mighty convenient for them to so quickly solve the investigation considering the PNAC goals. But here I was playing devil's advocate stating that it would have been easy to identify the most likely perpetrators given the choices of A: 3 members of the Springfield Junior-high PTA, and B: 19 Arabs with ties to a terrorist organization. Really, do you require more proof that said terrorist organization was involved in planning the attacks? Or, are you really arguing that we ought to give those guys the benefit of the doubt because it might have just been a coincidence they were all on the planes?
Where it says "Charles Carreon [...] first incited all of his users to harass The Oatmeal anyway"
Since in this link the Oatmeal guy asks *if* he should send a C&D. Then at the bottom it seems to suggest contact (DOSing?) the other guy: "I felt I had to say something about what they're doing. Perhaps you should too".
So, maybe funnyjunk got crowd-DOSed first?
There can still be regulations.
All you're saying is, "Since suing is hard, it should be impossible to sue."
Obviously I was talking about the general probability of a (weighted) fair coin toss. (8 of them)
Actually, you're totally right about the 4 games being all that matters. (assuming he doesn't alter the moves, and just plays them off each other).
For some reason I automatically assumed that the question was only talking about games that were either won or lost.
But, let's assume you're right. Then the con-artist only won his bet 4.1% of the time. This is not a very good con if the con-artist loses 95.9% of the time.
You suggested there was a 4.1% chance of winning the wager. In fact you have answered, "What is the probability that the next round of 4 games played will be all non-draws?" But, a figure of 4.1% wins is nonsensical for a bet.
The real wager must be, "I cannot be beaten more than 50% of the time." That's the point of playing the opponents off each other.. Because the claim will always be true.
However, as the AC who replied to me pointed out, I failed to notice the brain teaser here which is that "winning 4 or more out of 8 fair coin tosses is greater than 50%". In 8 fair coin tosses, on average there will be an even distribution of x heads per 8 tosses. So, 50-50. But you must add the probability of ((exactly 4 heads out of 8 tosses)/2) to 50% to get the answer. In other words whenever you get 4 heads, there are 4 tails, so it's a draw. The trick is, you're just deciding that all of those are wins.
Then the probability of getting at least x heads in n fair coin tosses is sum(from i = x to n, ((n choose x)/2^n)_i).
Taking your example: (where x = 2 and n = 4) we get: 0.687500 = ~69%
So, while you may have been correct on the literal interpretation of the given problem, showing I was wrong in that regard, you are arguing a moot point, and have provided only useless results. I would offer some constructive criticism, but unfortunately for you, they do not teach common sense in high-school.
oooo burn
Hey, j/k man, I'm an idiot.