It's probably the cookies left by the Like button that's all over the Internet now, that works even if you're not logged on (even if you don't have an account). That's why I blocked all facebook cookies on my browser along time ago.
You misunderstand. Defending speech != defending idea. Besides, how will you know if an idea will affect anything or not unless you allow it to be expressed in free speech?
Besides the term doesn't apply -- in a man in the middle attack, the man in the middle needs to be invisible. Though I suppose you could argue that the vast majority of people using FB don't understand how the Internet works enough to know that they are really sharing information through a third party that holds on to everything, instead thinking of their communication as analogous to sending a paper letter...
This is very risky logic. A physical equivalent to your argument would be if I took documents with possibly incriminating evidence on them, encased them in a 100 ton block of reinforced concrete, and dropped it in the Mariana Trench. If the documents had been subpoenaed before then, I'm pretty sure that would incur the same punishment as, say, burning them would (at least I hope so -- in spirit, the two actions are equivalent). Now, destroying the only object in the world that would allow access to encrypted data is very similar to the concrete example -- in both cases, as a direct consequence of your actions it becomes practically impossible to gain access to information that the court deemed you had to provide access to. So what, just because the information is encoded as magnetic fields on a disc instead of toner on paper the law should be different? Not buying it.
Nobody will probably ever read this comment, but I just need to get this out there. The idea you had is certainly interesting, and has probably been had by many people, but I don't think it can ever really have a significant impact, and this is why. If only a few of the richest people/corporations throw their money behind something, you would need an impossibly large portion of the population to oppose it to have any hope of balancing out the numbers. This is why I think the notion of allowing any kind of financial contribution in politics, beyond a tiny amount per individual that a significant portion of the population should be able to afford (e.g. $100), is deeply flawed in a mathematical sense.
There may be rare exceptions to this -- your idea might be effective if for example there is no corporate interest on certain topic, and the few thousand $ you raise happens to catch someone's attention enough to make it worth for them to bother spending any amount of time on it, but I think you'll agree that this is pretty rare. Another instance would be if there really is immense popular support for one side of an issue that can actually counterbalance the corporate opposition, but at those levels of popular support I think it really isn't a matter of money anymore, i.e. any reasonable politician would be more worried about public perception at that point than about campaign funding or whatnot.
I don't think this is meant to be used as a primary display for long term sessions, just as a terminal for quick tasks (e.g. see time/weather, check flight schedules, etc.).
"11. Eighty per cent of the world will have gay marriage (Likelihood 8/10)"
Seriously? We have so much widespread extremism in the world that you probably couldn't get a majority of countries to agree that milk is white, and they think this'll get done in a measly 90 years?
"12. California will lead the break-up of the US (Dev 2) (Likelihood 8/10)"
The US has survived a civil war, a depression that makes this recession look like good times, corporate tyranny that even today seems unthinkable, they have the balls to call this that likely? Look, I'm not saying it can't happen -- it definitely can. But given how (increasingly) inter-dependent and weak the states are (compared to federal gov't powers), this prediction is brave to say the least.
"13. Space elevators will make space travel cheap and easy (Ahdok) (Likelihood 8/10)"
To be fair he says it won't be so cheap that the average person can afford it, but I think even suggesting that it could be done within 100 years is again brave. There are just so many obstacles that need to be overcome to make this happen; it could even turn out to be theoretically impossible to create materials that would be necessary.
"16. Deserts will become tropical forests (jim300) (Likelihood 7/10)"
More like 1/10. Where's the water coming from? Barring a breakthrough in energy tech that would allow us to cheaply distill sea water, it's never gonna happen (read: it's never gonna happen). The trend today is pretty much the opposite, and I don't see that trend reversing anytime soon in light of increasingly aggressive farming practices and global warming.
this part: "In addition to advocating the adoption of this new calendar, Hanke and Henry encourage the abolition of world time zones and the adoption of “Universal Time” (formerly known as Greenwich Mean Time) in order to synchronize dates and times worldwide, streamlining international business."
Ah, good point. There's no way of knowing how prevalent true mourning for his death is. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if it was highly so, given all the propaganda and brainwashing, and some of the other stories people have told here about defectors' views of him.
You know, that's pretty fucking depressing. Not Kim's death, that's a reason to celebrate; but much like when Stalin died, it's really fucked to see the people actually, honestly mourning... Makes you wonder about a few things, doesn't it?
What the hell is that thing made of? Article doesn't seem to say, and I'm sure nobody is 100% certain, but any guesses as to its composition based on its orbit? Also what would the temperature of such an object likely be?
Holy shit, I had never thought of this... Of course it's really unlikely, and we might even have seen evidence of it if true (e.g. stars blinking in and out), but it's still a really cute idea!
Well, this is getting convoluted and vague, so I can't respond point by point, but consider this -- perhaps empathy is, in fact, "condition / response", but because the stimulus is being generated in regions of the brain more subject to conscious control, we can actually cut it off? Much like we (some of us) can stick out fingers in our ears to drown out the screams of a Saudi woman being lashed to death for looking in the direction of a, let's say, banana.
Wat? I wasn't saying you're the one spilling bile, I was talking about the AC you replied to (hence saying "he" when directing myself to you). I fully agreed with you -- he did post a completely unrelated xkcd.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably the cookies left by the Like button that's all over the Internet now, that works even if you're not logged on (even if you don't have an account). That's why I blocked all facebook cookies on my browser along time ago.
You misunderstand. Defending speech != defending idea. Besides, how will you know if an idea will affect anything or not unless you allow it to be expressed in free speech?
Besides the term doesn't apply -- in a man in the middle attack, the man in the middle needs to be invisible. Though I suppose you could argue that the vast majority of people using FB don't understand how the Internet works enough to know that they are really sharing information through a third party that holds on to everything, instead thinking of their communication as analogous to sending a paper letter...
Ah, so you only defend speech you agree with. Like most people, it seems.
Ah, but there's a loophole! Why else do you think he's running for president?
As a statistician, I can assure you that this is perfectly reasonable and safe.
This is very risky logic. A physical equivalent to your argument would be if I took documents with possibly incriminating evidence on them, encased them in a 100 ton block of reinforced concrete, and dropped it in the Mariana Trench. If the documents had been subpoenaed before then, I'm pretty sure that would incur the same punishment as, say, burning them would (at least I hope so -- in spirit, the two actions are equivalent). Now, destroying the only object in the world that would allow access to encrypted data is very similar to the concrete example -- in both cases, as a direct consequence of your actions it becomes practically impossible to gain access to information that the court deemed you had to provide access to. So what, just because the information is encoded as magnetic fields on a disc instead of toner on paper the law should be different? Not buying it.
Nobody will probably ever read this comment, but I just need to get this out there. The idea you had is certainly interesting, and has probably been had by many people, but I don't think it can ever really have a significant impact, and this is why. If only a few of the richest people/corporations throw their money behind something, you would need an impossibly large portion of the population to oppose it to have any hope of balancing out the numbers. This is why I think the notion of allowing any kind of financial contribution in politics, beyond a tiny amount per individual that a significant portion of the population should be able to afford (e.g. $100), is deeply flawed in a mathematical sense.
There may be rare exceptions to this -- your idea might be effective if for example there is no corporate interest on certain topic, and the few thousand $ you raise happens to catch someone's attention enough to make it worth for them to bother spending any amount of time on it, but I think you'll agree that this is pretty rare. Another instance would be if there really is immense popular support for one side of an issue that can actually counterbalance the corporate opposition, but at those levels of popular support I think it really isn't a matter of money anymore, i.e. any reasonable politician would be more worried about public perception at that point than about campaign funding or whatnot.
*shudder* just imagine... THE SITUATION in congress... OK, I'm not sleeping tonight.
OK, now you HAVE to do this and post the result on YouTube. (OP will surely deliver!)
I don't think this is meant to be used as a primary display for long term sessions, just as a terminal for quick tasks (e.g. see time/weather, check flight schedules, etc.).
Interesting; I wonder how they compare in terms of delta-quality-of-life, assuming a reasonable way of measuring that exists.
How absurd! Next you're going to suggest that religious disagreements will be a source of conflict and unrest in the world!
"11. Eighty per cent of the world will have gay marriage (Likelihood 8/10)"
Seriously? We have so much widespread extremism in the world that you probably couldn't get a majority of countries to agree that milk is white, and they think this'll get done in a measly 90 years?
"12. California will lead the break-up of the US (Dev 2) (Likelihood 8/10)"
The US has survived a civil war, a depression that makes this recession look like good times, corporate tyranny that even today seems unthinkable, they have the balls to call this that likely? Look, I'm not saying it can't happen -- it definitely can. But given how (increasingly) inter-dependent and weak the states are (compared to federal gov't powers), this prediction is brave to say the least.
"13. Space elevators will make space travel cheap and easy (Ahdok) (Likelihood 8/10)"
To be fair he says it won't be so cheap that the average person can afford it, but I think even suggesting that it could be done within 100 years is again brave. There are just so many obstacles that need to be overcome to make this happen; it could even turn out to be theoretically impossible to create materials that would be necessary.
"16. Deserts will become tropical forests (jim300) (Likelihood 7/10)"
More like 1/10. Where's the water coming from? Barring a breakthrough in energy tech that would allow us to cheaply distill sea water, it's never gonna happen (read: it's never gonna happen). The trend today is pretty much the opposite, and I don't see that trend reversing anytime soon in light of increasingly aggressive farming practices and global warming.
I'd love to be wrong though.
This is very clearly stated. Thanks. I've tried to make a similar point before, and failed.
My kingdom for mod points! This is the best way to demonstrate this concept I have ever seen!
this part: "In addition to advocating the adoption of this new calendar, Hanke and Henry encourage the abolition of world time zones and the adoption of “Universal Time” (formerly known as Greenwich Mean Time) in order to synchronize dates and times worldwide, streamlining international business."
Also Chiropractic. Don't forget Chiropractic.
Ah, good point. There's no way of knowing how prevalent true mourning for his death is. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if it was highly so, given all the propaganda and brainwashing, and some of the other stories people have told here about defectors' views of him.
You can hear the sound of wailing outside.
You know, that's pretty fucking depressing. Not Kim's death, that's a reason to celebrate; but much like when Stalin died, it's really fucked to see the people actually, honestly mourning... Makes you wonder about a few things, doesn't it?
What the hell is that thing made of? Article doesn't seem to say, and I'm sure nobody is 100% certain, but any guesses as to its composition based on its orbit? Also what would the temperature of such an object likely be?
What state man, WHAT STATE?
Holy shit, I had never thought of this... Of course it's really unlikely, and we might even have seen evidence of it if true (e.g. stars blinking in and out), but it's still a really cute idea!
Well, this is getting convoluted and vague, so I can't respond point by point, but consider this -- perhaps empathy is, in fact, "condition / response", but because the stimulus is being generated in regions of the brain more subject to conscious control, we can actually cut it off? Much like we (some of us) can stick out fingers in our ears to drown out the screams of a Saudi woman being lashed to death for looking in the direction of a, let's say, banana.
Wat? I wasn't saying you're the one spilling bile, I was talking about the AC you replied to (hence saying "he" when directing myself to you). I fully agreed with you -- he did post a completely unrelated xkcd.