Starting nmap V. 2.53 by fyodor@insecure.org ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) No tcp,udp, or ICMP scantype specified, assuming vanilla tcp connect() scan. Use -sP if you really don't want to portscan (and just want to see what hosts are up). Host www.wehavethewayout.com (192.61.1.15) appears to be up... good. Initiating TCP connect() scan against www.wehavethewayout.com (192.61.1.15) Adding TCP port 80 (state open). The TCP connect scan took 655 seconds to scan 1523 ports. For OSScan assuming that port 80 is open and port 30836 is closed and neither are firewalled For OSScan assuming that port 80 is open and port 31259 is closed and neither are firewalled For OSScan assuming that port 80 is open and port 39772 is closed and neither are firewalled Interesting ports on www.wehavethewayout.com (192.61.1.15): (The 1522 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered) Port State Service 80/tcp open http
Sequence numbers: 82181185 82194841 821AAEC1 821BB8B4 821CAAE6 821E1005 No OS matches for host (If you know what OS is running on it, see http://www.insecure.org/cgi-bin/nmap-submit.cgi). TCP/IP fingerprint: TSeq(Class=RI%gcd=1%SI=32F9) TSeq(C lass=RI%gcd=1%SI=2083) TSeq(Class=RI%gcd=1%SI=2F0 A) T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=402E%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNW NNT) T2(Resp=N) T3(Resp=N) T4(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=0%A CK=O%Flags=R%Ops=) T5(Resp=N) T6(Resp=N) T7(Res p=N) PU(Resp=N)
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 677 seconds
CSV output of traceroute:
18,157.130.99.246,528ms,unisys-70-gw.customer.ALTE R.NET 19,192.61.1.15,474ms,www.wehavethewayout.co m
Conclusion: Machine cannot be positively identified. Feel free to extract information from the fingerprint, if you can.
Please, by all means, describe a contractible loop on a donut that produces a "definable surface" and doesn't cheat in its construction (e.g., assume the donut cannot be cut, and neither can the rubber band). It has been my belief such a loop does not exist, but I am, as always in such matters, eager to have someone prove me wrong.
I'm aware of the existence of handles on teacups. However, by wrapping such that the rubber band extends over the top of the cup, across the bottom of the cup, and along a side that does not additionally protrude to form a handle, one has a definate surface (the bottom of the cup) with which to work.
Actually, a teacup does not equal (!=, or <> for you freaky folks) a donut. Properly wrapped, a "rubber band" could become smaller and smaller while maintaining definition, since the bottom of the teacup is a definite surface. Now, were said rubber band wrapped around the rim, you'd be correct.
What does this amount to? Look at the difference between a donut and the "donut holes" sold by some bakeries. A donut is a surface with a hole in the center; a donut hole is a hole with a surface in the center. From this, is becomes clear that ANYTHING can be said to be encased within a larger "hole".
Feel free to do your own extrapolation from there--personally, I stop just short of a unified field theory before logic stemming from that conjecture breaks down.
Quite frankly, don't OSS teams produce comercial closed source software, or am I wrong.
Actually, the GNU Project utilizes non-free software only so long as there is not a free software equivalent (click here and search for "Donated Computers"). It's been quite a while since they eliminated non-free software from their day-to-day activities; they pretty much only touch it now so they can understand it while they make a GPL'd or LGPL'd port of it.
...but I hit the "Rate this page" button and gave the license the lowest rating. What with all the/.'ing, betcha it becomes the lowest-rated page on M$'s site.
Jouster
P.S. Didja notice M$ lawyers actually managed to type "GPL" without their fingers burning off?
Okay, wow, people, calm down. I am not advocating, by any means, that we stop research into this field, nor am I suggesting that this child being cured is a bad thing. I am trying to point out that, just like any other major scientific advance, this has the potential to injure a great many of us. With that in mind, I am reminding us all to watch out for ways in which that could come to pass, and to move to prevent them when you see them. In the meantime, this is a wonderful and fruitful area of study that I sincerely hope is not stifled, and I apologize if, in reminding people of their duty to maintain the ethics of humanity, I came across as being in opposition, instead.
Bluetooth, so I can have my cellphone call the grocery store to deliver more to my home, and have my printer spit out appropriate imagery, proportionate to my blood alcohol level. (0.0 = Pamela Anderson, 0.2 = anything remotely human)
Thank you for your very insightful comment. If I had one of those nice little "spare" users with moderation points like the one that started this whole thread, I'd mod you up quite a bit.
As you've succeeded in killing this argument, I'd like to ask you to read my example a little lower on the thread that discusses hyperfocus disorder.
Again, my congratulations and thanks for a very nice comment!, Jouster
Three years of college-level biology. I'm convinced that, if my cell organelles aren't self-aware yet, they should be.;)
Furthermore, I don't necessarily believe that fear is killed by knowledge; sometimes, it is exacerbated by it. For example, let's say we live in a society that fears genetic engineering. Somebody comes out with a bacterium that will change tRNA in real-time based on a set of criteria. Those without the knowledge say, "Oh, so it isn't changing DNA? Then it's not GE, and I'm not afraid." Meanwhile, those with the knowledge see it for what it is--GE by any other name.
Perhaps it would be the case with GE that ignorance would breed fear, but too many people have too much tied up in this to ever notice there's a bad side. Most of them are going to say, "Oh, this could cure Granny's cancer," or, "If I ever have a kid with HIDD, this will cure him/her." The opposition to this will mostly come from the religious right, further diminishing the small chorus of far-left voices, such as myself. We are trying to instill just the right amount of healthy fear in the populace, without removing the potential this development brings with it.
And as for your "obtw", Van Gogh was an example designed to appeal to the masses. For those with more specialized knowledge, I offer the example that Einstein's brain was malformed. The malformation allowed him to concentrate extensively on math and logic, but largely destroyed any chance he might ever have had at a long-term social life.
Okay, this is my fourth try at posting this, and I'm not going to retype everything.
Basically, I certainly wouldn't say that. My example may have been too extreme. Instead, I can certainly see many situations in which parents choose to remove questionable genetic material which, if left in, might benefit the person. In particular, my parents would have probably removed my hyperfocus disorder, which would have reduced, in my opinion, my ability to program well.
The logical next step, then, is to determine if a particular borderline disorder would be beneficial to the person. "Oh," they say, "he has a propensity towards logical thought. He'll be a programmer or mathematician or somesuch. Better leave the hyperfocus in." And once you're leaving things in, why not add things. "Ooh," they say, "he'll be sitting on it a lot, so let's give him an unusually large butt."
So now we're left with two issues.
I could win many programming jobs over a non-engineered programmer with equal qualifications. Now, if parents want their kid to get ahead in life, they have to direct him or her into a specific career path, even if that career path is "diversity".
So here I am with a big rear end and a propensity for logic, but I really want to be a classical ballet dancer. Yo soy out of luck, more than likely.
Genetic engineering isn't bad, but it is disturbing. We must critically examine each step we take with it, as we do with anything else, because it could very quickly and very easily turn into something none of us want.
My statement was to defend my use of the word "disturbing". I feel it is most certainly disturbing that we are facing a technology that may one day destroy that which we think of as "human". I certainly don't think--and even more stridently, don't hope--that that will be the case, but the possibility exists. Just as the discovery of the principles of atomic energy allowed us to produce massive amounts of power at exceedingly low cost, it could just as easily have meant an end to every intelligent being on the planet.
Thus, is the discovery of these new bioengineering principles disturbing? Possibly; I certainly believe so, but it could be argued. Unsettling? Without a doubt. We can no longer sit on our rear ends and let our children and our children's children decide what to do with this technology; it just landed in our laps. Will we use it to cure cancer, to prevent genetic ailments, to identify those who will suffer from male pattern baldness? Or will we use it to replace humanity with a homogenized mass of tissue, each unit performing the task for which it is programmed?
Certainly not. But it is disturbing because it forces us, once again, to deal with issues that we haven't had to deal with before. I look at it as similar to the "Someone will die--either choose one or I'll choose fifty" scenario. It's certainly better to be able to save the forty-nine lives (or forty-nine artistic talents, or whatever) via genetic engineering, but do you want to be the one who has to decide which one must lose theirs?
It's absolutely glorious, to answer your question.
Tomorrow, when a doctor acts to correct a mental disorder on your child and winds up deleting the spark for the next Van Gogh, what will you think? Science does not get judged by its first example, it gets judged by the eventual results of the full range of its uses.
It isn't "on-topic" for the article, but it's on-topic for the thread!
That kind of shit can only come from the damaged brain of AOL. Go away. You ruined the Usenet and I'm still fucking bitter about it. If I see ROTFLMAO again I swear somebody is really going to be rolling on the floor, trying to hold their guts in.
However bitter you may think you are, I'm more so. They also screwed up MUDs and brought in the current state of spelling and punctuation ("omg i cant believ its u, girl").
(Braces himself for the -1 offtopic, but it had to be said...)
The only thing that's more disturbing than genetic engineering is the fact that this comment's parent got modded up for verbatim copy-and-paste. The AC didn't even use linebreaks.
Jouster
Re:What about my old perl code?
on
Exegesis 4 Out
·
· Score: 1
No, you won't. Although I forget what it is at the moment, there is a command-line switch for the interpreter to target a specific release.
Of course, should you rewrite your code to take advantage of the new improvements? Yes. If nothing else, improved block structure parsing will probably locate errors you didn't even know existed.
First Windows removes its real-mode command line, now Debian loses its undecipherable installation syntax? What will all the esoteric-knowledge gurus do?
Civilian: this is what anyone can access. This was discontinued because companies were about to come out with units that compensated for the programmatic imperfections the satellites were feeding the receivers. It was accurate to within one hundred meters, and is still applied on a regional basis (for instance, Iraq still has Civilian-level GPS accuracy).
Military: this is now what both civilians and the general military share. It is accurate to within approximately twenty meters.
SpecOps: this is what the SEALs, DEVGRU and all their friends use. It is accurate to within approximately one meter.
An interesting page on accuracy and, specifically, the impact of the removal of Selective Availability, the scrambling algorithm for the old "Civilian" accuracy level, is available here, information on the SA shutdown's impact worldwide is here, and, finally, the IGEB, in charge of all this, is here.
Except (from the EULA displayed when installing the Kazaa software):
(b) You hereby grant BDE the right to access and use the unused computing power and storage space on your computer/s and/or internet access or bandwidth for the aggregation of content and use in distributed computing. The user acknowledges and authorizes this use without the right of compensation. Notwithstanding the above, in the event usage of your computer is initiated by a party other than you, BDE will grant you the ability to deny access.
You hit "I agree" on this thing in order to install the software. Thus, they are not exceeding the rights you have explicitly granted them.
No, as I understand it, it was the result of an actors' strike, sort of like the actors and writers strike from 2001, in which the live-action orcs demanded to be paid more per hour for their cutscene roles.
It has been the case, on several occasions, that bills have been sent to the "wrong" committee to avoid a hostile chair. Since the Speaker (who decides where bills go) is Republican and is known to be tightly linked with Hollywood, this seems a very real possibility. The only thing stopping it is that the bill has already been assigned, but when the next round of bills comes to the fore, watch for incorrect assignment to occur.
There are physical printouts, as well as magnetic and optical media backups, of this data in offsite bank vaults. I have seen them.
Besides, in many cases where someone would WANT to squat, the owner is obvious and/or recorded in the outside media. Admittedly, it might be a hassle, but even in situations where all the records were destroyed, ownership information could be determined.
Slashdot Mirror
Server tested negative for non-trivial vulnerabilities that are OS-specific.
nmap output:
CSV output of traceroute:
Conclusion: Machine cannot be positively identified. Feel free to extract information from the fingerprint, if you can.
Jouster
Please, by all means, describe a contractible loop on a donut that produces a "definable surface" and doesn't cheat in its construction (e.g., assume the donut cannot be cut, and neither can the rubber band). It has been my belief such a loop does not exist, but I am, as always in such matters, eager to have someone prove me wrong.
Jouster
I'm aware of the existence of handles on teacups. However, by wrapping such that the rubber band extends over the top of the cup, across the bottom of the cup, and along a side that does not additionally protrude to form a handle, one has a definate surface (the bottom of the cup) with which to work.
Jouster
Actually, a teacup does not equal (!=, or <> for you freaky folks) a donut. Properly wrapped, a "rubber band" could become smaller and smaller while maintaining definition, since the bottom of the teacup is a definite surface. Now, were said rubber band wrapped around the rim, you'd be correct.
What does this amount to? Look at the difference between a donut and the "donut holes" sold by some bakeries. A donut is a surface with a hole in the center; a donut hole is a hole with a surface in the center. From this, is becomes clear that ANYTHING can be said to be encased within a larger "hole".
Feel free to do your own extrapolation from there--personally, I stop just short of a unified field theory before logic stemming from that conjecture breaks down.
Jouster
Jouster
Of course, there's no way to be sure their fingers didn't burn off....
...but I hit the "Rate this page" button and gave the license the lowest rating. What with all the /.'ing, betcha it becomes the lowest-rated page on M$'s site.
Jouster
P.S. Didja notice M$ lawyers actually managed to type "GPL" without their fingers burning off?
Okay, wow, people, calm down. I am not advocating, by any means, that we stop research into this field, nor am I suggesting that this child being cured is a bad thing. I am trying to point out that, just like any other major scientific advance, this has the potential to injure a great many of us. With that in mind, I am reminding us all to watch out for ways in which that could come to pass, and to move to prevent them when you see them. In the meantime, this is a wonderful and fruitful area of study that I sincerely hope is not stifled, and I apologize if, in reminding people of their duty to maintain the ethics of humanity, I came across as being in opposition, instead.
Jouster
Bluetooth, so I can have my cellphone call the grocery store to deliver more to my home, and have my printer spit out appropriate imagery, proportionate to my blood alcohol level. (0.0 = Pamela Anderson, 0.2 = anything remotely human)
Jouster
Thank you for your very insightful comment. If I had one of those nice little "spare" users with moderation points like the one that started this whole thread, I'd mod you up quite a bit.
As you've succeeded in killing this argument, I'd like to ask you to read my example a little lower on the thread that discusses hyperfocus disorder.
Again, my congratulations and thanks for a very nice comment!,
Jouster
Three years of college-level biology. I'm convinced that, if my cell organelles aren't self-aware yet, they should be. ;)
Furthermore, I don't necessarily believe that fear is killed by knowledge; sometimes, it is exacerbated by it. For example, let's say we live in a society that fears genetic engineering. Somebody comes out with a bacterium that will change tRNA in real-time based on a set of criteria. Those without the knowledge say, "Oh, so it isn't changing DNA? Then it's not GE, and I'm not afraid." Meanwhile, those with the knowledge see it for what it is--GE by any other name.
Perhaps it would be the case with GE that ignorance would breed fear, but too many people have too much tied up in this to ever notice there's a bad side. Most of them are going to say, "Oh, this could cure Granny's cancer," or, "If I ever have a kid with HIDD, this will cure him/her." The opposition to this will mostly come from the religious right, further diminishing the small chorus of far-left voices, such as myself. We are trying to instill just the right amount of healthy fear in the populace, without removing the potential this development brings with it.
And as for your "obtw", Van Gogh was an example designed to appeal to the masses. For those with more specialized knowledge, I offer the example that Einstein's brain was malformed. The malformation allowed him to concentrate extensively on math and logic, but largely destroyed any chance he might ever have had at a long-term social life.
Jouster
My sincere apologies, AC, you are correct.
Of course, if it were a hacker speaking, you'd see |}3|_33\/.
Jouster
Basically, I certainly wouldn't say that. My example may have been too extreme. Instead, I can certainly see many situations in which parents choose to remove questionable genetic material which, if left in, might benefit the person. In particular, my parents would have probably removed my hyperfocus disorder, which would have reduced, in my opinion, my ability to program well.
The logical next step, then, is to determine if a particular borderline disorder would be beneficial to the person. "Oh," they say, "he has a propensity towards logical thought. He'll be a programmer or mathematician or somesuch. Better leave the hyperfocus in." And once you're leaving things in, why not add things. "Ooh," they say, "he'll be sitting on it a lot, so let's give him an unusually large butt."
So now we're left with two issues.
- I could win many programming jobs over a non-engineered programmer with equal qualifications. Now, if parents want their kid to get ahead in life, they have to direct him or her into a specific career path, even if that career path is "diversity".
- So here I am with a big rear end and a propensity for logic, but I really want to be a classical ballet dancer. Yo soy out of luck, more than likely.
Genetic engineering isn't bad, but it is disturbing. We must critically examine each step we take with it, as we do with anything else, because it could very quickly and very easily turn into something none of us want.Jouster
My statement was to defend my use of the word "disturbing". I feel it is most certainly disturbing that we are facing a technology that may one day destroy that which we think of as "human". I certainly don't think--and even more stridently, don't hope--that that will be the case, but the possibility exists. Just as the discovery of the principles of atomic energy allowed us to produce massive amounts of power at exceedingly low cost, it could just as easily have meant an end to every intelligent being on the planet.
Thus, is the discovery of these new bioengineering principles disturbing? Possibly; I certainly believe so, but it could be argued. Unsettling? Without a doubt. We can no longer sit on our rear ends and let our children and our children's children decide what to do with this technology; it just landed in our laps. Will we use it to cure cancer, to prevent genetic ailments, to identify those who will suffer from male pattern baldness? Or will we use it to replace humanity with a homogenized mass of tissue, each unit performing the task for which it is programmed?
Jouster
Certainly not. But it is disturbing because it forces us, once again, to deal with issues that we haven't had to deal with before. I look at it as similar to the "Someone will die--either choose one or I'll choose fifty" scenario. It's certainly better to be able to save the forty-nine lives (or forty-nine artistic talents, or whatever) via genetic engineering, but do you want to be the one who has to decide which one must lose theirs?
Jouster
It's absolutely glorious, to answer your question.
Tomorrow, when a doctor acts to correct a mental disorder on your child and winds up deleting the spark for the next Van Gogh, what will you think? Science does not get judged by its first example, it gets judged by the eventual results of the full range of its uses.
Jouster
Jouster
(Braces himself for the -1 offtopic, but it had to be said...)
The only thing that's more disturbing than genetic engineering is the fact that this comment's parent got modded up for verbatim copy-and-paste. The AC didn't even use linebreaks.
Jouster
No, you won't. Although I forget what it is at the moment, there is a command-line switch for the interpreter to target a specific release.
Of course, should you rewrite your code to take advantage of the new improvements? Yes. If nothing else, improved block structure parsing will probably locate errors you didn't even know existed.
Jouster
First Windows removes its real-mode command line, now Debian loses its undecipherable installation syntax? What will all the esoteric-knowledge gurus do?
Jouster
An interesting page on accuracy and, specifically, the impact of the removal of Selective Availability, the scrambling algorithm for the old "Civilian" accuracy level, is available here, information on the SA shutdown's impact worldwide is here, and, finally, the IGEB, in charge of all this, is here.
Jouster
Except (from the EULA displayed when installing the Kazaa software):
(b) You hereby grant BDE the right to access and use the unused computing power and storage space on your computer/s and/or internet access or bandwidth for the aggregation of content and use in distributed computing. The user acknowledges and authorizes this use without the right of compensation. Notwithstanding the above, in the event usage of your computer is initiated by a party other than you, BDE will grant you the ability to deny access.
You hit "I agree" on this thing in order to install the software. Thus, they are not exceeding the rights you have explicitly granted them.
Jouster
No, as I understand it, it was the result of an actors' strike, sort of like the actors and writers strike from 2001, in which the live-action orcs demanded to be paid more per hour for their cutscene roles.
Jouster
It has been the case, on several occasions, that bills have been sent to the "wrong" committee to avoid a hostile chair. Since the Speaker (who decides where bills go) is Republican and is known to be tightly linked with Hollywood, this seems a very real possibility. The only thing stopping it is that the bill has already been assigned, but when the next round of bills comes to the fore, watch for incorrect assignment to occur.
Jouster
There are physical printouts, as well as magnetic and optical media backups, of this data in offsite bank vaults. I have seen them.
Besides, in many cases where someone would WANT to squat, the owner is obvious and/or recorded in the outside media. Admittedly, it might be a hassle, but even in situations where all the records were destroyed, ownership information could be determined.
Just my four 1825 half-cent pieces,
Jouster