Well, it is indeed very rare these days to have a rational discussion in Slashdot regarding a volatile topic such as this, so kudos to you too for upholding a polite debate.
The butterfly does indeed explain chaos, but it explains restricted and limited chaos, within some sort of parameter, that is why weather can be predicted, because it's a system; it just has some entropy, otherwise we wouldn't have a limited set of weather conditions. The butterfly effect is definitely not an example of the creation of the universe, because it explains how a change can ripple through many dimensions, rendering it a completely unpredictable, but not necessarily un-systematic, which I kinda did not explain optimally in the previous post. If there weren't limited sets of possibilities, the computer you're typing on could have just evaporated before you clicked submit, yet the atoms making the computer can have some entropy; but it's controlled entropy; a mere tolerance in a system. The butterfly effect, in a complete chaos form cannot possibly explain the creation of the universe. Probability doesn't just fail to explain the creation of such a complex related system, it also can't explain its sustainability, the very complex laws governing its relations such as the laws of thermodynamics. If you won't make sense of the previous example of a car suddenly forming up and running from ashes, how can one explain the creation and sustainability of this universe, which is so systematic, yet it preserves some sort of little entropy; giving it some flexibility, it's the contrary of what you explain; not lots of chaos that resulted in a system, but rather a system that has some entropy or 'freedom' in little minute fragments.
The butterfly effect goes against a systematic universe. When talking systematic, I'm talking about a system of uniform design, such as; the law of gravity; it's a system that doesn't break when applicable. Yes, we can get theoretical for decades about it, but consider another example, the clockwork of the time, for instance. What chance is that the system of the universe goes for the same and the laws of the physics remain the same, and what chance is that universe started from something that resulted in such great and gigantic structure instead of just plain chaos. I know there is something called chance, but I think it's way too absurd(sorry for the word) that the universe in its current form resulted from chance. Seriously, what chance do you have to guess a private key right? Very little, almost non-existent, well, what chance do you have to keep guessing it the same if pure chance was involved?
I'm not sure that was the original point, dear friend. The original point, I believe, is how the universe is so complex, yet so systematic, like clockwork. It couldn't have happened by chance, and even if one believed in chances; the chances of that happening are nothing compared to the 'chances' of the universe being 'created', if you want to play with probabilities. Why would anyone accept the idea of the universe happening by chance (Oh, and I'm not talking about evolution here, so sorry if any confusions ensued), but they wouldn't accept somebody coming late for a date or a meeting with the excuse that their car burned to ashes, then by random chance the molecules of the ash changed into molecules of the original components, then suddenly flew up in the air, got glued together and formed the car back up again, with the same memory cells being stored in the 'revived' car computer cells to form the original firmware of the car.
What if a certain faith believed that thousands of faiths before it, and billions of faithfuls before it, were also enlightened? Good enough for you? It's called Islam. It acknowledges many of the original faiths before they were altered by their people, because God didn't send just one prophet, that wouldn't be fair.
Multiply by trillions and trillions in magnitude, into this gigantic universe, and see the irony of atheists not accepting your little idea but accepting that the Universe was created this way.
Let's not make a big corporate drama over everything. Every programmer that enters a contest knows (or should know) that his work may go unrewarded AND into the hands of the contest arrangement panel.
If the programmer has enough free time to make something really great for a contest, then he's already a big name or capable of making lots of money and great projects, so somebody making use of his contest entry should be but a little blip on his radar; if his contest entry was that great then he surely can go big time.
Stop this make-believe bullshit. The terrorists aren't out to get you every frakking second.
If you don't want terrorists to attack you, force your government to stop doing whatever you're doing that's provocating their minds everywhere around the world.
Perhaps start by stopping your video-game and rap music generation kids from wielding deadly weapons against people they don't understand in lands they don't belong to?
If the profiles are private does that mean it is illegal to exchange them in public?
Does that mean the downloading or uploading parties are subject to prosecution for spying on private information that was collected illegally?
What bigger picture? That the military is invading lands that it can use as bases to expand its military reach, test weapons (as evident in this news article) and harvest money?
Do you honestly think the US soldiers are making the US a better place by killing others in their native land and endangering themselves? (which initiates a vicious cycle of survival: The invading soldier doesn't want to die, and the invaded insurgents don't want to die, and then endangered civilians choose one of the sides to try and survive)
Do you honestly believe that the world is too gullible to see that the 'accidents' of your military are a direct result of your military not giving a shit about the civilians in the first case?
They aren't accidents anyways, we're not stupid. You call the whole military pyramid knowing about tortures in, for example, Abu Gharib, and not doing anything about it an accident? You think the terrorist US soldiers perpetrating these torture acts are doing it unknowingly? "Here, let me let force this prisoner to take his clothes off while I strap live wires to his body and let the dog terrorize him" Doesn't like an accident to me. And why aren't those war criminals put behind bars for their actions?
Or maybe "How about we torture the fuck of those Arabs in Gitmo although we really don't know why they're here; we'll probably release them after a few years" looks like an accident to you?
It is completely absurd to believe that those are accidents were not a direct result of your military treating the civilians in those countries as dirt, because every military system that isn't a pyramid of terror would value the lives of civilians and would certainly punish the soldiers who do otherwise. Your military failed to do both, as the war criminals of the American war machine are roaming America freely under the protection of your law.
Your soldiers, when in convoys, have so much disregard for human life that they easily ram away civilian cars that drive near them. It happened even where I live, in fact, my uncle saw it with his own eyes.
Are you going to say the actions of Black Water were accidents, too? Is letting them go free an accident too?
And what is this talk about invalidating a system? Invalidating a system of invasion? The system itself is corrupted, bottom-up and top-down. When the system consists of commanders agreeing to the acts of torture, promoting and defending them, and also protecting the perpetrators of the torture; you know the system is corrupted, and so is your mind, unfortunately.
And no, military systems that DON'T INVADE other countries certainly do not have this type of accidents.
Why are you saying that torture is accidental? It isn't, it can't be and it never will. Why are you saying that those incidents are tragic but are excusable because they're accidents? They happened because your military didn't give two shits about lives of civilians in those countries.
Are you saying all of that because you're American? In this case you're an American alright, but you're not a human being, not in any decent sense.
What kind of soldier thinks he is a hero while torturing people or gunning down at targets he knows nothing about? If he felt proud doing that, he's just another hitler, even if that soldier happened to be your friend or cousin.
The soldiers pulling triggers and perpetrator torture are capable of refraining to do that; yet they didn't refrain. How noble of them.
You also have a wrong understanding of the term bad guys. When you invade a country, you are the bad guy. When the people of this country get mad at your invading force and raise arms against you, and you fight them, you are still the bad guy.
There is so much to say in this regard, but I'm afraid it will be useless because you clouded by the illusion of patriotism. Look at how your government treats you and spies on you, are you one of the sheeple that believe it is for your own safety? The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan
How about this: The military deserves what it gets when it goes to places where it isn't welcome (Afghanistan and Iraq) and so the civilians have every fucking right to protest day and night, and your military trying to disperse the civilians (in their own country) is just more violations to add to the invasion of the civilians' land.
The preferred thing would be for the military to respect its advertised principles and leave the protesters alone. Have to disperse them? Do it peacefully without hurting them or simply don't try.
Use your often-neglected brain for a second here, your military is fighting against a ghost enemy: Unrecognized entity, unrecognized lands, and unrecognized faces. Your ghost enemy easily recruits more personnel because of your military's abuses and violations of the civilians, day in and day out; including maiming kids, killing innocent civilians and turning wedding parties into funerals. Your ghost enemy easily recruits civilians who wish to take (rightfully so) revenge against your armed forces.
So using this method to disperse crowds simply adds more fuel to the fire burning inside the hearts of the civilians of the invaded countries and therefore turning them into easy-to-manipulate would-be members of your ghost enemy.
There, now what would you like to have?
Case 1: Using this method to enable your ghost enemy to recruit even more personnel.
Case 2: Try to disperse the crowds peacefully, in order to drain their anger instead of elevating it.
I'm sorry, but you have no grip on reality for other reasons, such as:
Although I didn't specifically say 'gangmembers', instead I said nincompoops and aggressors; which many of them simply are. Reasons? Tell me what would you call things such as torture, killing civilians, firing at civilians without checking targets... as well as lots and lots of aggressive actions against the civilians.
Do you think we've forgotten Gitmo and Abu Ghareeb? Do you think we've forgotten that Afghani taxi driver? Or that wedding that was bombed?
Your military has a extravagant record of war crimes and violations against civilians in the world, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, and then you want us to praise it and stop doubting its integrity and principles? Face it, a large sum of your armed forces are just as bad as the 'terrorists' they're after; which is what anybody with a brain can conclude after seeing with eyes unclouded by bias the horrible acts your military does against people in invaded countries.
Oh, and don't tell me those are actions of a few crazy and defective soldiers; those are the principles encouraged by your entire military pyramid, starting with the president (Bush and Obama) through your defense secretary (Dick) and then down through your generals and commanders.
If your military had any sense of integrity, then why did the aggressors of Abu Gharib and Black Water go free? What about the US military personnel who raped girls, killed their families or did both in Iraq and Afghanistan go free, simply getting deployed somewhere else or kicked from military?
Give me a break, your military earned many good reasons to be labeled as aggressors, and everybody in this world has a right to label them as aggressors.
Great, now high school dropouts can test it against all sorts of wheel-chair ridden Afghani people, they can also use it against veiled Afghani women so they can see how fast the veil burns.
Yes, I'm not kidding, you all know the fools of military will be having some fun with it against innocent people under the excuse of crowd control, where a crowd might be less than 20 people lining up for bread.
Slashdot Mirror
His comment is proof enough that he should be nowhere near the controls of this Command Post.
Nerd Wars going global. I don't see any other explanation.
Mrs. Zuckerberg?
Well, it is indeed very rare these days to have a rational discussion in Slashdot regarding a volatile topic such as this, so kudos to you too for upholding a polite debate.
The butterfly does indeed explain chaos, but it explains restricted and limited chaos, within some sort of parameter, that is why weather can be predicted, because it's a system; it just has some entropy, otherwise we wouldn't have a limited set of weather conditions. The butterfly effect is definitely not an example of the creation of the universe, because it explains how a change can ripple through many dimensions, rendering it a completely unpredictable, but not necessarily un-systematic, which I kinda did not explain optimally in the previous post. If there weren't limited sets of possibilities, the computer you're typing on could have just evaporated before you clicked submit, yet the atoms making the computer can have some entropy; but it's controlled entropy; a mere tolerance in a system. The butterfly effect, in a complete chaos form cannot possibly explain the creation of the universe. Probability doesn't just fail to explain the creation of such a complex related system, it also can't explain its sustainability, the very complex laws governing its relations such as the laws of thermodynamics. If you won't make sense of the previous example of a car suddenly forming up and running from ashes, how can one explain the creation and sustainability of this universe, which is so systematic, yet it preserves some sort of little entropy; giving it some flexibility, it's the contrary of what you explain; not lots of chaos that resulted in a system, but rather a system that has some entropy or 'freedom' in little minute fragments.
The butterfly effect goes against a systematic universe. When talking systematic, I'm talking about a system of uniform design, such as; the law of gravity; it's a system that doesn't break when applicable. Yes, we can get theoretical for decades about it, but consider another example, the clockwork of the time, for instance. What chance is that the system of the universe goes for the same and the laws of the physics remain the same, and what chance is that universe started from something that resulted in such great and gigantic structure instead of just plain chaos. I know there is something called chance, but I think it's way too absurd(sorry for the word) that the universe in its current form resulted from chance. Seriously, what chance do you have to guess a private key right? Very little, almost non-existent, well, what chance do you have to keep guessing it the same if pure chance was involved?
I'm not sure that was the original point, dear friend. The original point, I believe, is how the universe is so complex, yet so systematic, like clockwork. It couldn't have happened by chance, and even if one believed in chances; the chances of that happening are nothing compared to the 'chances' of the universe being 'created', if you want to play with probabilities. Why would anyone accept the idea of the universe happening by chance (Oh, and I'm not talking about evolution here, so sorry if any confusions ensued), but they wouldn't accept somebody coming late for a date or a meeting with the excuse that their car burned to ashes, then by random chance the molecules of the ash changed into molecules of the original components, then suddenly flew up in the air, got glued together and formed the car back up again, with the same memory cells being stored in the 'revived' car computer cells to form the original firmware of the car.
What if a certain faith believed that thousands of faiths before it, and billions of faithfuls before it, were also enlightened? Good enough for you? It's called Islam. It acknowledges many of the original faiths before they were altered by their people, because God didn't send just one prophet, that wouldn't be fair.
Multiply by trillions and trillions in magnitude, into this gigantic universe, and see the irony of atheists not accepting your little idea but accepting that the Universe was created this way.
Because it's their internal insecurity, unfortunately.
Someone tell India that Gluttony and Greed are two of the seven sins.
Do you check your connections periodically to try and make sure your PC isn't calling back to the mother(bot)ship?
Would you be so kind as to tell us the name of your employer?
I'm not sure about that.
Let's not make a big corporate drama over everything. Every programmer that enters a contest knows (or should know) that his work may go unrewarded AND into the hands of the contest arrangement panel. If the programmer has enough free time to make something really great for a contest, then he's already a big name or capable of making lots of money and great projects, so somebody making use of his contest entry should be but a little blip on his radar; if his contest entry was that great then he surely can go big time.
The public has been neutered.
Snip snip, as Captain Jack Sparrow so eloquently put it.
I love Mozilla. They can do no wrong! If Apple fanboys and MSFT apologists can do it, so can I!
Hahah, the poetic justice of this whole WikiLeaks vs US situation is so entertaining and euphoric.
Stop this make-believe bullshit. The terrorists aren't out to get you every frakking second.
If you don't want terrorists to attack you, force your government to stop doing whatever you're doing that's provocating their minds everywhere around the world.
Perhaps start by stopping your video-game and rap music generation kids from wielding deadly weapons against people they don't understand in lands they don't belong to?
If the profiles are private does that mean it is illegal to exchange them in public? Does that mean the downloading or uploading parties are subject to prosecution for spying on private information that was collected illegally?
Or use a fresh install of XP.
What bigger picture? That the military is invading lands that it can use as bases to expand its military reach, test weapons (as evident in this news article) and harvest money?
Do you honestly think the US soldiers are making the US a better place by killing others in their native land and endangering themselves? (which initiates a vicious cycle of survival: The invading soldier doesn't want to die, and the invaded insurgents don't want to die, and then endangered civilians choose one of the sides to try and survive)
Do you honestly believe that the world is too gullible to see that the 'accidents' of your military are a direct result of your military not giving a shit about the civilians in the first case?
They aren't accidents anyways, we're not stupid. You call the whole military pyramid knowing about tortures in, for example, Abu Gharib, and not doing anything about it an accident? You think the terrorist US soldiers perpetrating these torture acts are doing it unknowingly? "Here, let me let force this prisoner to take his clothes off while I strap live wires to his body and let the dog terrorize him" Doesn't like an accident to me. And why aren't those war criminals put behind bars for their actions?
Or maybe "How about we torture the fuck of those Arabs in Gitmo although we really don't know why they're here; we'll probably release them after a few years" looks like an accident to you?
It is completely absurd to believe that those are accidents were not a direct result of your military treating the civilians in those countries as dirt, because every military system that isn't a pyramid of terror would value the lives of civilians and would certainly punish the soldiers who do otherwise. Your military failed to do both, as the war criminals of the American war machine are roaming America freely under the protection of your law.
Your soldiers, when in convoys, have so much disregard for human life that they easily ram away civilian cars that drive near them. It happened even where I live, in fact, my uncle saw it with his own eyes.
Are you going to say the actions of Black Water were accidents, too? Is letting them go free an accident too?
And what is this talk about invalidating a system? Invalidating a system of invasion? The system itself is corrupted, bottom-up and top-down. When the system consists of commanders agreeing to the acts of torture, promoting and defending them, and also protecting the perpetrators of the torture; you know the system is corrupted, and so is your mind, unfortunately.
And no, military systems that DON'T INVADE other countries certainly do not have this type of accidents.
Why are you saying that torture is accidental? It isn't, it can't be and it never will. Why are you saying that those incidents are tragic but are excusable because they're accidents? They happened because your military didn't give two shits about lives of civilians in those countries. Are you saying all of that because you're American? In this case you're an American alright, but you're not a human being, not in any decent sense.
What kind of soldier thinks he is a hero while torturing people or gunning down at targets he knows nothing about? If he felt proud doing that, he's just another hitler, even if that soldier happened to be your friend or cousin.
The soldiers pulling triggers and perpetrator torture are capable of refraining to do that; yet they didn't refrain. How noble of them.
You also have a wrong understanding of the term bad guys. When you invade a country, you are the bad guy. When the people of this country get mad at your invading force and raise arms against you, and you fight them, you are still the bad guy.
There is so much to say in this regard, but I'm afraid it will be useless because you clouded by the illusion of patriotism. Look at how your government treats you and spies on you, are you one of the sheeple that believe it is for your own safety? The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan
People who can read and see past Fox News and NY Times.
You are disconnected from reality.
How about this: The military deserves what it gets when it goes to places where it isn't welcome (Afghanistan and Iraq) and so the civilians have every fucking right to protest day and night, and your military trying to disperse the civilians (in their own country) is just more violations to add to the invasion of the civilians' land.
The preferred thing would be for the military to respect its advertised principles and leave the protesters alone. Have to disperse them? Do it peacefully without hurting them or simply don't try.
Use your often-neglected brain for a second here, your military is fighting against a ghost enemy: Unrecognized entity, unrecognized lands, and unrecognized faces. Your ghost enemy easily recruits more personnel because of your military's abuses and violations of the civilians, day in and day out; including maiming kids, killing innocent civilians and turning wedding parties into funerals. Your ghost enemy easily recruits civilians who wish to take (rightfully so) revenge against your armed forces.
So using this method to disperse crowds simply adds more fuel to the fire burning inside the hearts of the civilians of the invaded countries and therefore turning them into easy-to-manipulate would-be members of your ghost enemy.
There, now what would you like to have?
Case 1: Using this method to enable your ghost enemy to recruit even more personnel.
Case 2: Try to disperse the crowds peacefully, in order to drain their anger instead of elevating it. I'm sorry, but you have no grip on reality for other reasons, such as:
Although I didn't specifically say 'gangmembers', instead I said nincompoops and aggressors; which many of them simply are. Reasons? Tell me what would you call things such as torture, killing civilians, firing at civilians without checking targets... as well as lots and lots of aggressive actions against the civilians.
Do you think we've forgotten Gitmo and Abu Ghareeb? Do you think we've forgotten that Afghani taxi driver? Or that wedding that was bombed?
Your military has a extravagant record of war crimes and violations against civilians in the world, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, and then you want us to praise it and stop doubting its integrity and principles? Face it, a large sum of your armed forces are just as bad as the 'terrorists' they're after; which is what anybody with a brain can conclude after seeing with eyes unclouded by bias the horrible acts your military does against people in invaded countries.
Oh, and don't tell me those are actions of a few crazy and defective soldiers; those are the principles encouraged by your entire military pyramid, starting with the president (Bush and Obama) through your defense secretary (Dick) and then down through your generals and commanders.
If your military had any sense of integrity, then why did the aggressors of Abu Gharib and Black Water go free? What about the US military personnel who raped girls, killed their families or did both in Iraq and Afghanistan go free, simply getting deployed somewhere else or kicked from military?
Give me a break, your military earned many good reasons to be labeled as aggressors, and everybody in this world has a right to label them as aggressors.
Great, now high school dropouts can test it against all sorts of wheel-chair ridden Afghani people, they can also use it against veiled Afghani women so they can see how fast the veil burns. Yes, I'm not kidding, you all know the fools of military will be having some fun with it against innocent people under the excuse of crowd control, where a crowd might be less than 20 people lining up for bread.