Well, if we've seen any farther then others, then it's probably because we've stood on the shoulders of giants.
That's one of the neat things about science and the grand whole of human knowledge, it gets better with time. Ideally, yeah, each generation is more enlightened and has a better understanding of how all this stuff works then the generation before it.
But relax, there's still plenty of stuff we still don't know. Possibly an infinite amount, but I'm not sure about that.
Well the problem with that argument is assuming that the universe has any order similar to the order and function of a watch. Shake up a box of gears and springs, and yep, you've got a mess of gears and springs. Shake up a universe of matter and, just as assuredly, you'll get a bunch of galaxies, suns, and planets. Just in different places.
This is one of those lame arguments about irreducible complexity, which argues against evolution, and not the cause of the big bang. And for that, a watch isn't the best example, because it doesn't have any sort of evolutionary forces being applied to it.
But what if it did? (awesome video and nifty alife study)
Agreed, but for slightly different reasons. People are a resource, not a burden. It's only when you mis-manage that resource that they appear to be a burden.
But we have plenty of food for the world. We have so much, we grow food to feed our food just so it tastes slightly better.
Dude, they're just cartoons. The green ones are not sexy. They're just food with some advertising mascots.
But if they did have a religion, I imagine this guy would fit the bill.
That's the same sort of counselor bullshit like yelling at people to give 110%. Throughout highschool I had to put up with a barrage of meaningless bullshit like this, and it did not positively influence my personality. I will never be motivated by trivial shit like this, and god help anyone that tries.
Fun note, I had to google how to spell barrage. "Birage" isn't close enough apparently. I think the same thing that's happening with Chinese is happening with english and grammar. Use it or lose it, and anything that helps is a crutch. Spell-checking and GPS included. My reaction, meh.
Ok, so I had an insightful chat with my wife the other day. She's "green conscious". A recycling nazi, buys CFLs, wants an electric or hybrid car, buys organic*, even bought me an electric mower (thanks honey), but still bought a biggish house, wants a big TV, and is getting fancy furniture. Kinda the stereotypical greenie. She had a hard believing this thing she read where the slums of Bangladesh are the greenest urban environment. So I explained that it's all about absolute consumption. I got her to kinda understand that having kids isn't green. She had a real hard time accepting that mass murder is very green. And it is, if you kill off a swath of people, then the absolute consumption, CO2 generated, energy used, resources destroyed, and all that jazz will be significantly reduced. The greenest thing is absence. And that's why Scott Adams points out that not having a house is the greenest.
But that's moot. It's not really important. The quest shouldn't be to "be green", but rather to help society in some way PER "green unit". Whatever the hell a "green unit" would be. So building a house helps society, it gives someone a place to live. But building a house that doesn't need gallons of exotic water shipped from out of state every week is better, because it provides the same benefit while being greener. Likewise, if you can feed a bunch of orphans, but you have to tear down pristine rain forest to do it, then that's arguably a bad thing.
So I want to redirect the quest to be green. That one doesn't lead anywhere nice. People should try to be green when it's an option, but still try to do something good for the world.
Yeah, it's when you think you should be modded up when you're full of shit that you know you're a wingbat.
"I'm right, so you should mod me up"
"I'm wrong, so you should mod me up"
Ladies and Gentlemen, you need this level of doublethink to blame the gulf oil ecopocalypse on Obama. Now, if you want to blame his reaction, handleing, or future planned response, then go for it.
"...are doubling in capacity every six months. That translates into a thousandfold increase in..."
No. This is wrong. If you FOLD something, you double it. So in five years, with ten folds, that makes an increase by a factor of 512. Nice and easy. But it's not 1000 (that would take another 6 months), and it's nowhere near a "thousandfold", which would be a factor of 5.3E300.
While it may sound good for the marketers, please don't use descriptors that are factually wrong on Slashdot.
Also, people are behind the cutting edge of technology? I am shocked.
Let's make a template for this story that takes in keywords, and shuffles the order around a bit. That way we can publish it every other year and hardly anyone will notice.
You're arguing that an ISP should get charged when they block a virus from spilling over into the internet... when it's a researcher's pet?
Dude. wtf? No. That's a meaningless distinction. ISPs can block viruses and spam. (well, some do what they can). Even with the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act", they'll still be able to legally do what they're doing now. What you're arguing against, does not exist. It is a strawman. If you think otherwise, then your bias has spun your comprehension into oblivion.
Well now, those bills probably did come about under the guise of network neutrality. Network Neutrality is about a lot of things, and it's tempting to simplify it to "don't do anything to my connection (other then, you know, actually deliver stuff to me)". But it's not that simple. UDP is not TCP, and there are a lot of good technical reasons why an ISP would influence their traffic. But it's ripe for abuse. And doing so in selective ways where the motive is only profits and doesn't benefit the customer is blatantly wrong.
By the way, who wrote those bills, where can I read them, and did they ever have any real traction? Cause any loon can submit junk to his rep. Seriously, will_die, gimme a link showing a proposed bill that prevents an ISP from blocking spam. Otherwise you're just spouting general fears that have no real basis in reality. It's good to mention those sort of fears, least we stumble into them, but "Net neutrality has not been about preventing the ISP from making a special deal with company A where they slow down the Company B site for a long time." is just plain wrong. That's one specific sort of a breakdown of NN that everyone in the know wants to prevent. Yeah, even now.
Wow you're ignorant. Or a very subtle form of funny.
Randomly generated one-time pads are definitely unbreakable. But the problems are generating the key and getting the key to the target as the key is as big as the text. So if you're using this to encrypt a connection, you need to split a 1Gig key, physically hand it to the target, and then you have 1Gig of communication before you need to hand him another stack of pads. It's good for sending code-words and like, emergency e-mails or something, but not constant communication channels.
Wait... you're using a pad for the key to a WEP2 encryption? And you're using books to generate the pads... that's... wow dude. Just wow.
Slashdot Mirror
That, fine sir, is a compact, precise, and insightful description of our current prediciment. Well done.
"erp, I never thought of that." And in a puff of logic god ceased to exist
Well, if we've seen any farther then others, then it's probably because we've stood on the shoulders of giants.
That's one of the neat things about science and the grand whole of human knowledge, it gets better with time. Ideally, yeah, each generation is more enlightened and has a better understanding of how all this stuff works then the generation before it.
But relax, there's still plenty of stuff we still don't know. Possibly an infinite amount, but I'm not sure about that.
Well the problem with that argument is assuming that the universe has any order similar to the order and function of a watch. Shake up a box of gears and springs, and yep, you've got a mess of gears and springs. Shake up a universe of matter and, just as assuredly, you'll get a bunch of galaxies, suns, and planets. Just in different places.
This is one of those lame arguments about irreducible complexity, which argues against evolution, and not the cause of the big bang. And for that, a watch isn't the best example, because it doesn't have any sort of evolutionary forces being applied to it.
But what if it did? (awesome video and nifty alife study)
Agreed, but for slightly different reasons. People are a resource, not a burden. It's only when you mis-manage that resource that they appear to be a burden.
But we have plenty of food for the world. We have so much, we grow food to feed our food just so it tastes slightly better.
Dude, they're just cartoons. The green ones are not sexy. They're just food with some advertising mascots.
But if they did have a religion, I imagine this guy would fit the bill.
Gee, I dunno guys... I'm a big fan of the discovery channel. Maybe we should give it a shot.
So women are like cats then?
I don't think anyone is stopping you.
But that's entirely because Legalese is it's own language.
That's the same sort of counselor bullshit like yelling at people to give 110%. Throughout highschool I had to put up with a barrage of meaningless bullshit like this, and it did not positively influence my personality. I will never be motivated by trivial shit like this, and god help anyone that tries.
Fun note, I had to google how to spell barrage. "Birage" isn't close enough apparently. I think the same thing that's happening with Chinese is happening with english and grammar. Use it or lose it, and anything that helps is a crutch. Spell-checking and GPS included. My reaction, meh.
No, because you're a lay citizen who isn't going to bother with this sort of thing. The jammer will only be used if you're a smart crook.
Smart crooks will be able to read a map.
Speaking of which, how did Soviet Russia fall apart?
Oh yeah, they went broke.
This has already been circumvented.
So the cops are going after lay citizens and stupid crooks, a fair number of which really do deserve to be caught.
Alright buddy, so what was the last game you played on an Amiga?
Fuck the mafRIAA and their extorting goons.
Ok, so I had an insightful chat with my wife the other day. She's "green conscious". A recycling nazi, buys CFLs, wants an electric or hybrid car, buys organic*, even bought me an electric mower (thanks honey), but still bought a biggish house, wants a big TV, and is getting fancy furniture. Kinda the stereotypical greenie. She had a hard believing this thing she read where the slums of Bangladesh are the greenest urban environment. So I explained that it's all about absolute consumption. I got her to kinda understand that having kids isn't green. She had a real hard time accepting that mass murder is very green. And it is, if you kill off a swath of people, then the absolute consumption, CO2 generated, energy used, resources destroyed, and all that jazz will be significantly reduced. The greenest thing is absence. And that's why Scott Adams points out that not having a house is the greenest.
But that's moot. It's not really important. The quest shouldn't be to "be green", but rather to help society in some way PER "green unit". Whatever the hell a "green unit" would be. So building a house helps society, it gives someone a place to live. But building a house that doesn't need gallons of exotic water shipped from out of state every week is better, because it provides the same benefit while being greener. Likewise, if you can feed a bunch of orphans, but you have to tear down pristine rain forest to do it, then that's arguably a bad thing.
So I want to redirect the quest to be green. That one doesn't lead anywhere nice. People should try to be green when it's an option, but still try to do something good for the world.
Yeah, it's when you think you should be modded up when you're full of shit that you know you're a wingbat.
"I'm right, so you should mod me up"
"I'm wrong, so you should mod me up"
Ladies and Gentlemen, you need this level of doublethink to blame the gulf oil ecopocalypse on Obama. Now, if you want to blame his reaction, handleing, or future planned response, then go for it.
no, you're making up your own (unusual) definition for a common word.
Damnit, you're right...
ok, fine.
But I contend that it SHOULD be more like actual folding. Which, yeah, doesn't count for much.
"...are doubling in capacity every six months. That translates into a thousandfold increase in..."
No. This is wrong. If you FOLD something, you double it. So in five years, with ten folds, that makes an increase by a factor of 512. Nice and easy. But it's not 1000 (that would take another 6 months), and it's nowhere near a "thousandfold", which would be a factor of 5.3E300.
While it may sound good for the marketers, please don't use descriptors that are factually wrong on Slashdot.
Also, people are behind the cutting edge of technology? I am shocked.
Let's make a template for this story that takes in keywords, and shuffles the order around a bit. That way we can publish it every other year and hardly anyone will notice.
You're arguing that an ISP should get charged when they block a virus from spilling over into the internet... when it's a researcher's pet?
Dude. wtf? No. That's a meaningless distinction. ISPs can block viruses and spam. (well, some do what they can). Even with the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act", they'll still be able to legally do what they're doing now. What you're arguing against, does not exist. It is a strawman. If you think otherwise, then your bias has spun your comprehension into oblivion.
Viruses are lawful content? In what situations?
Well now, those bills probably did come about under the guise of network neutrality. Network Neutrality is about a lot of things, and it's tempting to simplify it to "don't do anything to my connection (other then, you know, actually deliver stuff to me)". But it's not that simple. UDP is not TCP, and there are a lot of good technical reasons why an ISP would influence their traffic. But it's ripe for abuse. And doing so in selective ways where the motive is only profits and doesn't benefit the customer is blatantly wrong.
By the way, who wrote those bills, where can I read them, and did they ever have any real traction? Cause any loon can submit junk to his rep. Seriously, will_die, gimme a link showing a proposed bill that prevents an ISP from blocking spam. Otherwise you're just spouting general fears that have no real basis in reality. It's good to mention those sort of fears, least we stumble into them, but "Net neutrality has not been about preventing the ISP from making a special deal with company A where they slow down the Company B site for a long time." is just plain wrong. That's one specific sort of a breakdown of NN that everyone in the know wants to prevent. Yeah, even now.
Education the THE long term solution to EVERY problem we face. But it doesn't pay off right now, so it's not a real hot seller.
Wow you're ignorant. Or a very subtle form of funny.
Randomly generated one-time pads are definitely unbreakable. But the problems are generating the key and getting the key to the target as the key is as big as the text. So if you're using this to encrypt a connection, you need to split a 1Gig key, physically hand it to the target, and then you have 1Gig of communication before you need to hand him another stack of pads. It's good for sending code-words and like, emergency e-mails or something, but not constant communication channels.
Wait... you're using a pad for the key to a WEP2 encryption? And you're using books to generate the pads... that's... wow dude. Just wow.