The universe clearly has a large number of points within it where results are sensitive to initial conditions. And the results interact. This is clearly true in, say, the genetic code, to pick something below human scale, in the spin of a die, to pick something at human scale, and in the multi-body problem, to pick something larger than human scale.
They don't need to be random to be unpredictable. Note that the time scale tends to be inverse to the size scale. so we appear to be able to predict planetary orbits, but we can't project them indefinitely into the future. 100,000 years is not a problem, but a few million is. We have reason to believe that at some point the Earth's orbit will become unstable, and it will either leave the solar system or be swallowed by the sun (presuming the sun doesn't change)...but we can't tell either which, or exactly how long it will take. But it won't be within a couple of million years, unless there's an effect from outside the solar system. (If Nemesis existed, it might produce such an effect, but it appears to not exist, and it's arguably outside the solar system.)
I think you don't understand insect colonies very well. Just because one particular insect is called the Queen, doesn't mean she has any control. Generally she has less control than do the workers, even at an individual level.
Of course, you *could* be asserting this about the heads of state, but it didn't sound like it.
Others have reported that the quality of the software was such that no backdoors would be needed. I haven't examined the equipment myself, so I don't know, but don't let your paranoia lead you to make foolish decisions. The NSA having a backdoor is one thing. Every cracker who feels like it having a backdoor is something a bit worse.
I think you overestimate China's dependence on the US. Certainly China is quite willing to use us for it's benefit, but dependence means that we produce something they need, and the only such thing is dollars, of which they already have more than they can expect to use.
OTOH, China directly and through middle men probably owns over half of the US. It's hard to be sure. Certainly more than 30%. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they "own" over half of the politicians at the federal level.
realnames aren't necessary, and can be a real hinderance. Handles, however, do seem to be necessary, so that one can evaluate their trustworthiness. And slashdot id#s are useful, as they let one easily gague how long a particular handle has been in use (in case you don't recognize it), but dates might be better.
P.S.: What's your handle? OK, your realname? Don't want to say?
He doesn't need to worry as long as fuel cells require a platinum catalyst. He's right about the "expensive" part. OTOH, his other points aren't very convincing, and I've heard reports that a lab has an iron based catalyst that splits out hydrogen. It may not be practical, but then again it may. And I'm not real thrilled by large batteries. (I'd been hoping that supercondensers would have seemed more promissing by now...but the development seems to have stagnated, so they may have run into significant problems.)
It's true they do have other venues, but often experts like to share their expertise and interest with others. But if you make it difficult to publish, then they'll only publish where they get significant benefits. That frequently means paywalls. If you want it to be without paywalls, then don't make them fight a bunch of ignorant assholes to publish, because they'll only try a couple of times, and then not only will they quit, but they'll tell their associates not to bother.
The specialists I heard of (in this case mathematics) say that their articles and edits are rejected without acceptable explanations, so they've stopped trying. Others have reported the same experience in different fields, but those I only know of from the internet.
That doesn't sound to me like they want to improve the system...though some have said it's a great source for Pokemon.
Whatever. I once contributed an article, but it's gone, and I'm not likely to waste time trying to restore it.
The point was they have little inherent desire to implement decent security. This was highlighted by a specific example, but don't take the example as the argument.
You don't even need to be animate. "Observer" is just something that exchanges energy with the thing observed. A photon makes a dandy observer (and it's what they used). Personally I tend to think photons move to fast, and generally prefer electrons, but it's a matter of taste, and what you're trying to do.
I don't like the idea of determinism, but that doesn't prove that it's wrong. And even if it's correct, Chaos theory means that you can't predict the system from within it.
And to me it seems that the statement "Colors exist in the world", intending to exclude perception of the world, doesn't make any sense. Photon energies exist in the world, but they aren't colors. Colors only exist in the context of perception.
I got a Brother InkJet, and the driver was so terrible, that it's sitting unused. Perhaps their Laser printers are better.
P.S.: Not only was the driver terrible, but I had to jump through seven hoops to even get it to install. On a Debian system. And during the installation I ran across a message saying (paraphrase:)"This deb file is substandard. Please contact the manufacturer for an improved version.", but I'd just downloaded it and there wasn't any other choice.
No. Instead: There's a reason it is done this way, and it has nothing to do with convoluted logic like yours -- it is because in the several hundred years of common law and over two hundred years of case law in the United States, the way we do it has proven to be the one most likely to result infavoritism to those with the most wealth and power.
No. You don't need a compiler you can trust to start with, merely one that you know hasn't been compromised by people colluding with those who may have compromised the first one.
E.g., you could take a C compiler written in, say, Algol and use it to compile the GCC C compiler. That would give you a full C compiler that you could trust. You can be pretty sure that whoever wrote the C compiler in Algol wasn't talking to the people who wrote GCC, so any tricks they slipped into the C compiler wouldn't be recognized. And a compiler written in Algol is unlikely to have sneaky C routine recognizers.
Actually, most Algol implementations were interpreters, so change that to Modula 2. But then you need to pick a Modula 2 compiler that wasn't written in C.
Notice that you never get truely trustable computation. E.g., all current CPU chips are microcoded, and nobody that I know of understands what those microcodes do. Even if you compiler is good, your CPU could sabotage you. Of course, the problem there is it needs to figure out what it's executing to know how and whether to sabotage it. So with every level of remove it gets trickier.
You're believing government propaganda. I've yet to meet ANYONE who believes that the TSA is a good idea. We are continually told it is so by the government, so I suspect that some people now believe it, but we never asked for it. It was the government's idea from the start, and I believe that the people who voted for it and signed it into law should all be shot for treason. But believeing this doesn't do anything to make it happen. And I don't see anything practical that I can do to prevent things getting worse. (And they'd need to get a lot worse before some of the things that occur to me as potential responses would make sense.)
However, would everyone please note that the Democrats haven't done anything to make the government less repressive than it was made by the Republicans, and also that their attempts to make it more desireable (health care, etc.) have been not only half-hearted, but so designed that more money ends up in the hands of their friends than is used for actually helping people (as opposed to corporations, which are NOT people, no matter what court says they are).
I though that BetaMax allowed you to back frame the tape and VHS didn't? I've got to admit, I never missed that feature. Also that towards the end I KNOW that JVC had players that could backframe the tape, and also allow frame by frame advance. But I'm talking about towards the beginning, when BetaMax was still a viable contender.
No. If people don't believe they'll get caught, then harsher penalties are discounted, especially as it makes it less likely that they'll be quickly imposed.
The most important is certainty of punishment. Second in importance is the speed with which punishment is delivered. PerhapsSeverity of punishment is third. I doubt it's even that important, though I can't think of a proper in-betweener.
Slashdot Mirror
The universe clearly has a large number of points within it where results are sensitive to initial conditions. And the results interact. This is clearly true in, say, the genetic code, to pick something below human scale, in the spin of a die, to pick something at human scale, and in the multi-body problem, to pick something larger than human scale.
They don't need to be random to be unpredictable. Note that the time scale tends to be inverse to the size scale. so we appear to be able to predict planetary orbits, but we can't project them indefinitely into the future. 100,000 years is not a problem, but a few million is. We have reason to believe that at some point the Earth's orbit will become unstable, and it will either leave the solar system or be swallowed by the sun (presuming the sun doesn't change)...but we can't tell either which, or exactly how long it will take. But it won't be within a couple of million years, unless there's an effect from outside the solar system. (If Nemesis existed, it might produce such an effect, but it appears to not exist, and it's arguably outside the solar system.)
I think you don't understand insect colonies very well. Just because one particular insect is called the Queen, doesn't mean she has any control. Generally she has less control than do the workers, even at an individual level.
Of course, you *could* be asserting this about the heads of state, but it didn't sound like it.
Others have reported that the quality of the software was such that no backdoors would be needed. I haven't examined the equipment myself, so I don't know, but don't let your paranoia lead you to make foolish decisions. The NSA having a backdoor is one thing. Every cracker who feels like it having a backdoor is something a bit worse.
I think you overestimate China's dependence on the US. Certainly China is quite willing to use us for it's benefit, but dependence means that we produce something they need, and the only such thing is dollars, of which they already have more than they can expect to use.
OTOH, China directly and through middle men probably owns over half of the US. It's hard to be sure. Certainly more than 30%. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they "own" over half of the politicians at the federal level.
Given that trustworthy means "You can predict how they will react to any particular situation.", you may be right.
Do I think they do less spying? No. But they they don't pretend to be friends, either.
realnames aren't necessary, and can be a real hinderance. Handles, however, do seem to be necessary, so that one can evaluate their trustworthiness. And slashdot id#s are useful, as they let one easily gague how long a particular handle has been in use (in case you don't recognize it), but dates might be better.
P.S.: What's your handle? OK, your realname? Don't want to say?
He doesn't need to worry as long as fuel cells require a platinum catalyst. He's right about the "expensive" part. OTOH, his other points aren't very convincing, and I've heard reports that a lab has an iron based catalyst that splits out hydrogen. It may not be practical, but then again it may. And I'm not real thrilled by large batteries. (I'd been hoping that supercondensers would have seemed more promissing by now...but the development seems to have stagnated, so they may have run into significant problems.)
Why shouldn't they?
It's true they do have other venues, but often experts like to share their expertise and interest with others. But if you make it difficult to publish, then they'll only publish where they get significant benefits. That frequently means paywalls. If you want it to be without paywalls, then don't make them fight a bunch of ignorant assholes to publish, because they'll only try a couple of times, and then not only will they quit, but they'll tell their associates not to bother.
The specialists I heard of (in this case mathematics) say that their articles and edits are rejected without acceptable explanations, so they've stopped trying. Others have reported the same experience in different fields, but those I only know of from the internet.
That doesn't sound to me like they want to improve the system...though some have said it's a great source for Pokemon.
Whatever. I once contributed an article, but it's gone, and I'm not likely to waste time trying to restore it.
A part of the point was that secondary references aren't necessarily any more trustworthy than personal recollections.
I do agree that that's their policy, and it's also why I never trust them, and don't take part. They need some better policy.
The point was they have little inherent desire to implement decent security. This was highlighted by a specific example, but don't take the example as the argument.
An intersting question is "What do you think money is, except a promise made by the state?"
AFAICT, that's ALL it is, and all it has ever been. (Croesus founded money by promising that the gold with his treasury stamp was pure gold.)
You don't even need to be animate. "Observer" is just something that exchanges energy with the thing observed. A photon makes a dandy observer (and it's what they used). Personally I tend to think photons move to fast, and generally prefer electrons, but it's a matter of taste, and what you're trying to do.
P.S.: IANAQP.
P.P.S.: I am not a Quantum Physicist.
I don't like the idea of determinism, but that doesn't prove that it's wrong. And even if it's correct, Chaos theory means that you can't predict the system from within it.
And to me it seems that the statement "Colors exist in the world", intending to exclude perception of the world, doesn't make any sense. Photon energies exist in the world, but they aren't colors. Colors only exist in the context of perception.
I got a Brother InkJet, and the driver was so terrible, that it's sitting unused. Perhaps their Laser printers are better.
P.S.: Not only was the driver terrible, but I had to jump through seven hoops to even get it to install. On a Debian system. And during the installation I ran across a message saying (paraphrase:)"This deb file is substandard. Please contact the manufacturer for an improved version.", but I'd just downloaded it and there wasn't any other choice.
So I can't recommend Brother InkJets.
No. Instead:
There's a reason it is done this way, and it has nothing to do with convoluted logic like yours -- it is because in the several hundred years of common law and over two hundred years of case law in the United States, the way we do it has proven to be the one most likely to result in favoritism to those with the most wealth and power.
If the file hasn't been deleted, then that information is available. If it has, and only fragments remain to be reconstructed by forensics....
Given the way the newspapers use the term "hacker", that's probably what the judge heard.
I'm not sure how bad the idea was, but I'll agree that the implementation was terrible.
No. You don't need a compiler you can trust to start with, merely one that you know hasn't been compromised by people colluding with those who may have compromised the first one.
E.g., you could take a C compiler written in, say, Algol and use it to compile the GCC C compiler. That would give you a full C compiler that you could trust. You can be pretty sure that whoever wrote the C compiler in Algol wasn't talking to the people who wrote GCC, so any tricks they slipped into the C compiler wouldn't be recognized. And a compiler written in Algol is unlikely to have sneaky C routine recognizers.
Actually, most Algol implementations were interpreters, so change that to Modula 2. But then you need to pick a Modula 2 compiler that wasn't written in C.
Notice that you never get truely trustable computation. E.g., all current CPU chips are microcoded, and nobody that I know of understands what those microcodes do. Even if you compiler is good, your CPU could sabotage you. Of course, the problem there is it needs to figure out what it's executing to know how and whether to sabotage it. So with every level of remove it gets trickier.
You're believing government propaganda. I've yet to meet ANYONE who believes that the TSA is a good idea. We are continually told it is so by the government, so I suspect that some people now believe it, but we never asked for it. It was the government's idea from the start, and I believe that the people who voted for it and signed it into law should all be shot for treason. But believeing this doesn't do anything to make it happen. And I don't see anything practical that I can do to prevent things getting worse. (And they'd need to get a lot worse before some of the things that occur to me as potential responses would make sense.)
However, would everyone please note that the Democrats haven't done anything to make the government less repressive than it was made by the Republicans, and also that their attempts to make it more desireable (health care, etc.) have been not only half-hearted, but so designed that more money ends up in the hands of their friends than is used for actually helping people (as opposed to corporations, which are NOT people, no matter what court says they are).
Arrest means basically "stop from moving". The no-fly list is a sort of low-level arrest that they can get away with because they don't call it that.
I though that BetaMax allowed you to back frame the tape and VHS didn't? I've got to admit, I never missed that feature. Also that towards the end I KNOW that JVC had players that could backframe the tape, and also allow frame by frame advance. But I'm talking about towards the beginning, when BetaMax was still a viable contender.
No. If people don't believe they'll get caught, then harsher penalties are discounted, especially as it makes it less likely that they'll be quickly imposed.
The most important is certainty of punishment.
Second in importance is the speed with which punishment is delivered.
PerhapsSeverity of punishment is third. I doubt it's even that important, though I can't think of a proper in-betweener.