the real story here is putin's absurd demand or all of the internet's encryption keys.
That is absurd to twilightzone levels.
Oh darn Putin, I guess you will mad that I didnt give you my exclusive access (only given in person to close friends) 4096bit public key. I mean, it is clearly evil of me to deny plotsylvania access to my correspondence concerning internet cat pics and jokes. A real loss to your nation's intelligence agency, i am sure.
no, I wont give you a copy. Not even if you ask nicely.
That is NOT what they wrote. They explicitly stated "ever released". 3.11 was not only released publicly, it was a flagship product in its day-- it was WIDELY released.
the only thing i learned from you today is that you are an apologist for language arts professionals that fail at language arts, AC. Or perhaps that you dont understand that a journalist has a responsibility to use precise language, and research thier story to present a factual accounting of the story. Perhaps both.
In either case, the main thrust is that you are a disreputable idiot.
how else will Tina in payroll make her TPS reports!? She has problems sending faxes out, just imagine if she had to follow a rigid security policy insead of just clicking a button on her in-house programmed VBA front end for Access (or excel)!!
{because competent employees are worth less than pretty ones, if you believe the statistics on employment retention and wages earned. we get what we deserve.}
ISA kinda-sorta did PnP. Rather, the cards that did it best had a small nvram in them that picked which hardware IRQ lines on the card edge the card should listen on. Several NICs and some audio cards did this. Others used a realmode driver to set it using a hard set IO range.
The real issue was that every single ISA card wanted to live on 5, or {2}9. only modems were usually able to be put on 10, 3, or 4. (12 was usually eaten by the PS\2 port) That really made things hard, because ISA was hard wired IRQ, and could not "share". When PCI came out, it had that lovely PCI IRQ abstraction done by the chipset, so devices could use the same IRQ, as long as they had different PCI IRQs. (A, B, C, or D) The issue then was that some boards only exposed certain PCI IRQs on certain slots, and some cards only wanted to listen on certain PCI irqs. Thats why moving a card to another slot could solve mysterious problems.
I dont really consider that to be voodoo black magic at all. It was standard reading in peter norton's book, back in the day. These days nobody wants to actually know what the omputer is doing though, and just want it to immediately do what they want like magic, which is why you have lazy shits like the article's author, complaining about it being hard, when its easier than it has ever been. I dont even have to worry about slot assignments much anymore, or even bother with assuring that certain IRQs arent all gangbanged by 10 different cards, like I used to.
The people like the article author want magic computers that do magic, like the computers on startrek. They dont want or care to know how the magic works.
A society that caters to wealthy people is a plutocracy.
A society that worships money, is a theocracy.
Our society worships money. "The Economy" and "Jobs jobs jobs!" are the matras of the religion, and its tenets are written in the rules of economics.
Our culture considers "capitalism" sacrosanct-- the actions of "the invisible hand" are divine. Perpetual growth is a religious proclamation, and unquestionable.
It is not a plutocracy. If it were, we would say that the Rothschilds, the Rockafellers, Kennedies, and other wealthy families are our natural leaders, and would not hold any semblance of democratic governance. No. We hold that becoming wealthy is the divine goal of all people.
Note, that the theory relies on the understanding that other people have beliefs, feelings, and thoughts that are different from your own. It is directly tied to knowledge, and understanding how another person will feel, act, or believe is directly tied to those things.
Human beings have a demonstrable deficit when confronted with social groupings larger than 300 persons-- they cannot keep track of all the information necessary to properly ascertain and theorize the actions of other humans, when this threshold is breached. To cope with the deficit, humans rely on "group identities", (AKA, stereotypes) when dealing with outsiders. EG, "Chinese people believe..." rather than 'Lu believes"
Stereotypes are not people. Stereotypes are not capable of human agency. You are capable of abstractly being aware of "Chinese cultural beliefs", but you are not capable of understanding Lu, because you have never met Lu, and will likely never meet Lu. Even if you DID meet Lu, and he told you what he personally believes, you will quickly forget it, because he is not a person you regularly interact with, and your brain will cull the information for you automatically.
You are either purposefully or incorrectly misconstruing what I said to imply that I mean that people who are strangers to you are not humans-- No, they most certainly are-- You are just not capable of ascertaining their theory of mind, and thus cannot treat them as humans.
Example-- You hear about China's execution statistic. Does it have the same effect on you as having your own relative executed by the state?
People you interact with regularly, will fall into your "approximately 300 persons" social relationship tree that you can keep track of. All other people get sidelined into abstractionisms.
The people in say-- Madagascar-- (I am presuming you are not from there.) You know that there are people there, and that they must have dreams and ambitions-- but what are they?
Now-- The people you live with-- what are THIER dreams and ambitions?
You cannot answer one, but CAN answer the other, because of the limitation I have pointed out. You can only give an abstraction as to what the dreams and ambitions of the people "over there" are. You are incapable of knowning-- and even if they told you, you could not remember it. Your brain would cull the information, because it is not practical nor useful to you in your immediate social setting. Since you do not have all the needed information to engage them as fully self-actualized actors with individual wants, needs, and ambitions, you have no choice but to group them into an abstract group identity. That is dehumanization in action.
It is not "Demonstrably untrue" as you incorrectly state. It is actually quite demonstrably true. The value I specified is not a made up one either. The original estimate on human capacity for social network size was proposed by Dunbar in the 1950s, based on comparative brain sizes of primates. Later researchers did more empirical testing of social network size, and found the number to be around 290 persons. (Roughly 300, the number I gave you.) Their figures were a repeatable finding.
We need a better social dynamic where the forces of greed and graft aren't out to secure everyone's dirty laundry for big profit. (you know. Extortion, blackmail, protection rackets, basically what the NSA is out for, along with the basic "Oh, you like porno with big giant dicks in it? We offer a wide assortment of novelty giant dildos for you to buy! Isn't that GREAT!?" that seems to have infested the internet lately.)
I may be a greybeard by today's standards, but I remember when the internet was more about community, sharing news and jokes, and intellectual pursuits. Eternal September was the death of the internet. What we have now is a superhighway of advertisements directed into your eyeballs, and automated grabber arms reaching for your banking information.
Gay people still produce material goods for the society, without producing children to consume those resources. For a total society, they increase the survival chances of the offspring that are produced, simply by being part of the society, and producing material goods for that society.
The condemnation of homosexual relationships has more to do with "ethics" (or more specifically, the set of rules a society likes to claim are correct and proper behavior) than it does on evolutionary tendencies.
Take for instance, ant colonies. Only a single reproductive member, with hundreds if not thousands of individuals in the societal framework contributing to the colony's survival. If the worker ants also had homosexual sex without producing offspring, it would have very little negative effect on the colony, and may actually prove beneficial in other ways.
Dehumanization is, sadly, a requirement for any society greater than 300 persons.
The human brain is simply not equipped to handle additional humans as fully operating human actors at population densities greater than this.
EG-- the people you live with are real people-- the people across town are an abstract conception.
Unless you want to make a society that does not have humans in it (instead, having post-humans of some kind), the grim reality is that dehumanization of some degree is going to be necessary.
The morlocks are the descendants of the working class-- Factory workers, specifically. The Time Machine is strongly colored by the industrial age it was written in. There was a huge divide between the landed gentry, who owned everything-- and the working poor, who despite automation, were now slaves to the machines they maintained and operated.
The Eloi were the descendants of the privileged classes.
The mismanagement of the Eloi's descendants toward the living and working conditions of the Morlocks, led to a degeneracy of both-- The eloi lost all concept of what must actually be done for things to come to fruition, and the morloks became degenerate subhumans, who's management of the mechanistic side of things was purely instinctual.
Due to this divide, the eloi failed to meet the needs of the morlocks, and the morlocks satisfied those needs, by eating the eloi. The eloi continue to be sustained by the instinctual actions of the morlocks in the tunnels underneath their havens-- and the two, now distinctly inhuman populations, live in a delicate symbiotic balance, both through pure instinct, and not through reason.
Indeed. The parable version, soma, has the current real world counterpart: The antidepressant.
Huxley did a fine job of demonstrating that the ideal is likely to be a local maxima-- not perfectly ideal-- it has warts-- but it is quantitatively better than the alternatives without those warts.
That does not resolve the reason why Huxley included Deltas and Gammas. Again, they were purposefully created through chemical intervention of fetal development, specifically to create a labor class that has insufficient intellectual capacity to comprehend a reason to be unhappy while satisfying that societal role.
When that role can be satisfied by a machine that is incapable of emotional distress in any capacity, it becomes nonsensical to produce Gammas and Deltas-- especially when the narrative indicates that even lackluster genetic combinations can be prodded toward being betas through selective tank environments. There is no reason to produce betas and gammas, and no compelling reason not to produce betas.
the premise for having deltas and gammas was that there is labor that no intelligent person would want to do. (cleaning toilets all day, for instance.)
Given sufficient advancement in technology, there is no legitimate reason to produce deltas and gammas (which were created on purpose, specifically to fulfill these service roles), since artificial servitors can fill those roles, both more reliably, and more affordably.
Since we are "Nearly there" in terms of automation eclipsing manual labor in service industry positions, his supposition is not incorrect.
Huxley just did not envision an artificial servitor class satisfying the necessary role. That's why he created the Delta and Gamma classes in his fiction.
This is not entirely correct. Humans will respond poorly to situations that do not favor their happiness. As another poster pointed out, the issue with any optimization strategy is defining the utility function-- what are you trying to maximize?
For a society, there are a number of things that you could try to maximize. Wealth, for instance. However, wealth is really only useful when there is a disproportion of it, since otherwise it becomes useless. (a thing that is universally ubiquitous has no trade value.)
I proposed "utilitarian happiness" as the utility function. That is a composite value, derived from the sum total of the society's basic satisfaction, after all the things that make them dissatisfied are weighed in.
Failure to consider the implications of crushing human emotions would result in a serious negative to the total utilitarian happiness of the society, and would be a measurable metric that a rational society could then evaluate, and make adjustments for-- assuming utilitarian happiness is the utility metric.
Being a composite metric, such an optimized system will likely enter a local maxima state, where after that point, additional policy changes would only be demonstrably detrimental. The cynic in me says that this would be the death of the civilization's government, because after that point, government officials would have very little to do besides analyzing data that tells them they are doing things perfectly, and most people attracted to political positions, seek them to enact changes-- the very thing their data says is contraindicated. I feel it would be this conundrum between the irrational wants of the leadership, against the rational data their government is founded on, that would lead to the ultimate dissolution of such a government.
Right now, our society(ies) are being managed for the increase in happiness of the 1%, which is contradictive to maximizing utilitarian happiness (which seeks the highest degree of happiness for all members of the society.)
It appears to me that a scientifically guided society would favor utilitarian happiness as the utility function.
The little poison pills of "Windows only" hooks, offered through the posix api subsystem. If your project relies on those hooks, and Microsoft does not release enough information to implement in Linux correctly, (or Linux refuses to implement), then Microsoft can drive users back into its camp through that kind of "extend".
If Microsoft can get enough users their way, they can then start the extinguish phase.
Slashdot Mirror
dandy donald wont get his fat fingers on my key either. even if he asks really nice.
the real story here is putin's absurd demand or all of the internet's encryption keys.
That is absurd to twilightzone levels.
Oh darn Putin, I guess you will mad that I didnt give you my exclusive access (only given in person to close friends) 4096bit public key. I mean, it is clearly evil of me to deny plotsylvania access to my correspondence concerning internet cat pics and jokes. A real loss to your nation's intelligence agency, i am sure.
no, I wont give you a copy. Not even if you ask nicely.
No, the north american mario butt lickers association.
(they get off when anything "nintendo" comes out.)
That is NOT what they wrote. They explicitly stated "ever released". 3.11 was not only released publicly, it was a flagship product in its day-- it was WIDELY released.
the only thing i learned from you today is that you are an apologist for language arts professionals that fail at language arts, AC. Or perhaps that you dont understand that a journalist has a responsibility to use precise language, and research thier story to present a factual accounting of the story. Perhaps both.
In either case, the main thrust is that you are a disreputable idiot.
Dumbass.
how else will Tina in payroll make her TPS reports!? She has problems sending faxes out, just imagine if she had to follow a rigid security policy insead of just clicking a button on her in-house programmed VBA front end for Access (or excel)!!
{because competent employees are worth less than pretty ones, if you believe the statistics on employment retention and wages earned. we get what we deserve.}
hell, before 3.11, windows was not even network aware!
That's a pretty impressive exploit! /s
(idiot journalists...)
Does he have a passionate hatred for spacebar indents too?
it isnt always ideal to tab indent.
really, bitching over comment style? i cant wait to see the commit logs--"correct unapproved comment style, no changes in function."
what a brave new world...
ISA kinda-sorta did PnP. Rather, the cards that did it best had a small nvram in them that picked which hardware IRQ lines on the card edge the card should listen on. Several NICs and some audio cards did this. Others used a realmode driver to set it using a hard set IO range.
The real issue was that every single ISA card wanted to live on 5, or {2}9. only modems were usually able to be put on 10, 3, or 4. (12 was usually eaten by the PS\2 port) That really made things hard, because ISA was hard wired IRQ, and could not "share". When PCI came out, it had that lovely PCI IRQ abstraction done by the chipset, so devices could use the same IRQ, as long as they had different PCI IRQs. (A, B, C, or D) The issue then was that some boards only exposed certain PCI IRQs on certain slots, and some cards only wanted to listen on certain PCI irqs. Thats why moving a card to another slot could solve mysterious problems.
I dont really consider that to be voodoo black magic at all. It was standard reading in peter norton's book, back in the day. These days nobody wants to actually know what the omputer is doing though, and just want it to immediately do what they want like magic, which is why you have lazy shits like the article's author, complaining about it being hard, when its easier than it has ever been. I dont even have to worry about slot assignments much anymore, or even bother with assuring that certain IRQs arent all gangbanged by 10 different cards, like I used to.
The people like the article author want magic computers that do magic, like the computers on startrek. They dont want or care to know how the magic works.
A society that caters to wealthy people is a plutocracy.
A society that worships money, is a theocracy.
Our society worships money. "The Economy" and "Jobs jobs jobs!" are the matras of the religion, and its tenets are written in the rules of economics.
Our culture considers "capitalism" sacrosanct-- the actions of "the invisible hand" are divine. Perpetual growth is a religious proclamation, and unquestionable.
It is not a plutocracy. If it were, we would say that the Rothschilds, the Rockafellers, Kennedies, and other wealthy families are our natural leaders, and would not hold any semblance of democratic governance. No. We hold that becoming wealthy is the divine goal of all people.
That is theocracy.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about, or have not actually thought about this problem honestly.
In psychology, there is this thing called "Theory of Mind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note, that the theory relies on the understanding that other people have beliefs, feelings, and thoughts that are different from your own. It is directly tied to knowledge, and understanding how another person will feel, act, or believe is directly tied to those things.
Human beings have a demonstrable deficit when confronted with social groupings larger than 300 persons-- they cannot keep track of all the information necessary to properly ascertain and theorize the actions of other humans, when this threshold is breached. To cope with the deficit, humans rely on "group identities", (AKA, stereotypes) when dealing with outsiders. EG, "Chinese people believe..." rather than 'Lu believes"
Stereotypes are not people. Stereotypes are not capable of human agency. You are capable of abstractly being aware of "Chinese cultural beliefs", but you are not capable of understanding Lu, because you have never met Lu, and will likely never meet Lu. Even if you DID meet Lu, and he told you what he personally believes, you will quickly forget it, because he is not a person you regularly interact with, and your brain will cull the information for you automatically.
You are either purposefully or incorrectly misconstruing what I said to imply that I mean that people who are strangers to you are not humans-- No, they most certainly are-- You are just not capable of ascertaining their theory of mind, and thus cannot treat them as humans.
Example-- You hear about China's execution statistic. Does it have the same effect on you as having your own relative executed by the state?
Why or why not? A human life was lost either way.
Here's the skinny:
People you interact with regularly, will fall into your "approximately 300 persons" social relationship tree that you can keep track of. All other people get sidelined into abstractionisms.
The people in say-- Madagascar-- (I am presuming you are not from there.) You know that there are people there, and that they must have dreams and ambitions-- but what are they?
Now-- The people you live with-- what are THIER dreams and ambitions?
You cannot answer one, but CAN answer the other, because of the limitation I have pointed out. You can only give an abstraction as to what the dreams and ambitions of the people "over there" are. You are incapable of knowning-- and even if they told you, you could not remember it. Your brain would cull the information, because it is not practical nor useful to you in your immediate social setting. Since you do not have all the needed information to engage them as fully self-actualized actors with individual wants, needs, and ambitions, you have no choice but to group them into an abstract group identity. That is dehumanization in action.
It is not "Demonstrably untrue" as you incorrectly state. It is actually quite demonstrably true. The value I specified is not a made up one either. The original estimate on human capacity for social network size was proposed by Dunbar in the 1950s, based on comparative brain sizes of primates. Later researchers did more empirical testing of social network size, and found the number to be around 290 persons. (Roughly 300, the number I gave you.) Their figures were a repeatable finding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If the number they derived is so "Demonstrably wrong", please present the research that shows it as such.
We need a better social dynamic where the forces of greed and graft aren't out to secure everyone's dirty laundry for big profit. (you know. Extortion, blackmail, protection rackets, basically what the NSA is out for, along with the basic "Oh, you like porno with big giant dicks in it? We offer a wide assortment of novelty giant dildos for you to buy! Isn't that GREAT!?" that seems to have infested the internet lately.)
I may be a greybeard by today's standards, but I remember when the internet was more about community, sharing news and jokes, and intellectual pursuits. Eternal September was the death of the internet. What we have now is a superhighway of advertisements directed into your eyeballs, and automated grabber arms reaching for your banking information.
there are various ways that could be employed.
An implanted chemical sensor in your hypothalamus for instance.
You are forgetting that what you call cognition, is increasingly being shown to be an elaborate chemical process inside your brain.
Statement made with incomplete or incorrect data.
Gay people still produce material goods for the society, without producing children to consume those resources. For a total society, they increase the survival chances of the offspring that are produced, simply by being part of the society, and producing material goods for that society.
The condemnation of homosexual relationships has more to do with "ethics" (or more specifically, the set of rules a society likes to claim are correct and proper behavior) than it does on evolutionary tendencies.
Take for instance, ant colonies. Only a single reproductive member, with hundreds if not thousands of individuals in the societal framework contributing to the colony's survival. If the worker ants also had homosexual sex without producing offspring, it would have very little negative effect on the colony, and may actually prove beneficial in other ways.
I would argue against.
"Ethics" is whatever the current population says it is.
quantitative reality is always the same, regardless of who sees it.
Dehumanization is, sadly, a requirement for any society greater than 300 persons.
The human brain is simply not equipped to handle additional humans as fully operating human actors at population densities greater than this.
EG-- the people you live with are real people-- the people across town are an abstract conception.
Unless you want to make a society that does not have humans in it (instead, having post-humans of some kind), the grim reality is that dehumanization of some degree is going to be necessary.
Not exactly.
The morlocks are the descendants of the working class-- Factory workers, specifically. The Time Machine is strongly colored by the industrial age it was written in. There was a huge divide between the landed gentry, who owned everything-- and the working poor, who despite automation, were now slaves to the machines they maintained and operated.
The Eloi were the descendants of the privileged classes.
The mismanagement of the Eloi's descendants toward the living and working conditions of the Morlocks, led to a degeneracy of both-- The eloi lost all concept of what must actually be done for things to come to fruition, and the morloks became degenerate subhumans, who's management of the mechanistic side of things was purely instinctual.
Due to this divide, the eloi failed to meet the needs of the morlocks, and the morlocks satisfied those needs, by eating the eloi. The eloi continue to be sustained by the instinctual actions of the morlocks in the tunnels underneath their havens-- and the two, now distinctly inhuman populations, live in a delicate symbiotic balance, both through pure instinct, and not through reason.
Indeed. The parable version, soma, has the current real world counterpart: The antidepressant.
Huxley did a fine job of demonstrating that the ideal is likely to be a local maxima-- not perfectly ideal-- it has warts-- but it is quantitatively better than the alternatives without those warts.
That does not resolve the reason why Huxley included Deltas and Gammas. Again, they were purposefully created through chemical intervention of fetal development, specifically to create a labor class that has insufficient intellectual capacity to comprehend a reason to be unhappy while satisfying that societal role.
When that role can be satisfied by a machine that is incapable of emotional distress in any capacity, it becomes nonsensical to produce Gammas and Deltas-- especially when the narrative indicates that even lackluster genetic combinations can be prodded toward being betas through selective tank environments. There is no reason to produce betas and gammas, and no compelling reason not to produce betas.
No, I am a morlock. I have never imagined otherwise. I even have the seemingly perverse pleasure in repairing and maintaining machines.
the premise for having deltas and gammas was that there is labor that no intelligent person would want to do. (cleaning toilets all day, for instance.)
Given sufficient advancement in technology, there is no legitimate reason to produce deltas and gammas (which were created on purpose, specifically to fulfill these service roles), since artificial servitors can fill those roles, both more reliably, and more affordably.
Since we are "Nearly there" in terms of automation eclipsing manual labor in service industry positions, his supposition is not incorrect.
Huxley just did not envision an artificial servitor class satisfying the necessary role. That's why he created the Delta and Gamma classes in his fiction.
This is not entirely correct. Humans will respond poorly to situations that do not favor their happiness. As another poster pointed out, the issue with any optimization strategy is defining the utility function-- what are you trying to maximize?
For a society, there are a number of things that you could try to maximize. Wealth, for instance. However, wealth is really only useful when there is a disproportion of it, since otherwise it becomes useless. (a thing that is universally ubiquitous has no trade value.)
I proposed "utilitarian happiness" as the utility function. That is a composite value, derived from the sum total of the society's basic satisfaction, after all the things that make them dissatisfied are weighed in.
Failure to consider the implications of crushing human emotions would result in a serious negative to the total utilitarian happiness of the society, and would be a measurable metric that a rational society could then evaluate, and make adjustments for-- assuming utilitarian happiness is the utility metric.
Being a composite metric, such an optimized system will likely enter a local maxima state, where after that point, additional policy changes would only be demonstrably detrimental. The cynic in me says that this would be the death of the civilization's government, because after that point, government officials would have very little to do besides analyzing data that tells them they are doing things perfectly, and most people attracted to political positions, seek them to enact changes-- the very thing their data says is contraindicated. I feel it would be this conundrum between the irrational wants of the leadership, against the rational data their government is founded on, that would lead to the ultimate dissolution of such a government.
No, he's right. It is a theocracy. They worship the all mighty dollar.
How about "Greatest utilitarian happiness?"
http://utilitarianphilosophy.c...
Right now, our society(ies) are being managed for the increase in happiness of the 1%, which is contradictive to maximizing utilitarian happiness (which seeks the highest degree of happiness for all members of the society.)
It appears to me that a scientifically guided society would favor utilitarian happiness as the utility function.
Which only really works on the Corp version.
Nice try there AC. That canard is pretty well worn by now.
The little poison pills of "Windows only" hooks, offered through the posix api subsystem. If your project relies on those hooks, and Microsoft does not release enough information to implement in Linux correctly, (or Linux refuses to implement), then Microsoft can drive users back into its camp through that kind of "extend".
If Microsoft can get enough users their way, they can then start the extinguish phase.