I have no precise memory why I added you as a friend on/., save it being repeated high quality posts, but it's nice to know that my radar spots sound people.
OT3 was posted to slashdot some time in 2001 by an A/C. CoS requested it be deleted, and/. did that. It was the first ever time they'd folded to such a request. They saved face by posting a whole load of links to other places where CoS nonsense was revealed.
If the internet is populated with pondlife who can't remember even as recently as 2008, CoS has nothing to fear.
Project Chanology achieved almost nothing.
It brought to the attention of the US media that there are thousands of law-breakers in the world who don't like Scientology. Do you really think that was progress?
No, I believe it because it's written in the Bible, and the bible is the infallable word of God, so must be true.
(And yes, there are irony tags around that, it's a failed attempt at parody. I say "failed", as it's not a humerous distortion, it's exactly what some christains say.)
> Scientology are no less ridiculous than those of other religions.
If you measure the believability of the fairy stories, then all religions come in at zero, give or take.
However, if you measure *un*believability of the fairy stories, then some religions definitely out-rank others, and I think Scientology can definitely look down its nose at many others in that regard.
Consider how Christianity feeds you its woo-woo stuff right from the start (old and new testament miracles, life after death, big man in the sky, damnation,...), it's not afraid of how woo-woo it is. Scientology, however, deliberately shields you from much of its woo-woo stuff until you're already hooked. I'm sure it knows that some of the stuff (xenu, volcanos,...) is too woo-woo that it would put anyone rational off immediately.
I can accept that. Your viewpoint is clearly internally consistent. I think I attach intangibles to the word "faith" which exclude it from being appropriate to things like the foundations of pure mathematics.
The problem is that they've not defined enough properties of dark matter in order for "it's consistent with our model of dark matter" to actually mean much. I guess that gets funding and press interest more quickly than "it's consistent with our current inability to explain everything we see exactly under the widely accepted model".
As there's supposed to be way more invisible stuff then visible stuff, why has nobody seen evidence of visible stuff in orbit around invisible stuff? We've seen plenty of visible stuff in orbit around visible stuff, there should be more visible stuff in orbit around invisible stuff. We've seen plenty of visible stuff smash into and be ripped up by visible stuff - where's the visible stuff that's smashing into invisible stuff, or vice versa? Shouldn't there be more of that happening if there's more invisible stuff than visible stuff? Where is it, if it's so prevalent? With all the properties they've ascribed to it (having way more mass than all the visible stuff in the universe), it should surely be making itself more obvious.
There needs to be an equivalent of profmattstrassler.com for Dark Matter.
His preferred explanation had no "before" at all, therefore he was not speculating about anything before the big bang. You have woven a straw man. You shouldn't criticise his razor, as it's your dullness that's showing.
When pure mathematicians say "there exists an empty set", and "two sets are equal if every element of each set is in the other set", is that "faith" too?
At some point you have to simply assert axioms and postulates, with no capability of deriving them from anything else. I don't consider the word "faith" to be the most appropriate for all such situations.
And let's not forget that it was a Jew who gave the particle both the fated "goddamn particle" and successful "god particle" name. The Christains will now have to find another particle...
(Don't get me wrong, I've been a part-time linux-ite since 1993, and have been exclusively linux (OK, apart from one NetBSD box) for the last 12 years. However, it's far from perfect even in my nerdy little corner of the world.)
I'm curious - at the Higgs announcement at CERN - were they showing overhead slides? I'm sure you can see where I'm heading - were they MS Powerpoint slides?
Your phrase evokes an image for you to remember. The image then later evokes a sequence of words.
If you're lucky, they're the words in your phrase, in the right order. However, images do not distinguish synonyms.
I can't prove it, but I bet that for the first few times you (y'all, not you personally) wanted to make reference to the xkcd phrase, you ran off and reminded yourself of it by doing a google search for "xkcd password" or similar. I know I did.
I don't have it visible in front of me as I type this, and even though I've seen it recently, and the image, and I've even had to wrack my brains for other sequences of works that could be related to an image like the xkcd one, and even now I can only narrow it down to two options, not one - is it "staple battery" or "battery staple"? The "you remember it already!" (or whatever it says on the cartoon - have I even got that bit right?) is false for at least the segment of the population I am part of. (Then again, when I sing along to some of my favourite songs, that I've heard, and sung along to, dozens to hundreds of times, I still occasionally replace words with synonyms providing equal or better scansion. It's entirely possible my memory is just truly truly shit.)
I don't see how "you can have the bytes that encode the audio track and the bytes that encode the video track" can be true whilst "you can have the bytes that encode the audio track" is false.
Fair use rights and precedent imply that I should be able to store what I download to play when is most convenient for me.
This guy's just making what ought to be legal easy? That shouldn't be illegal.
Expanded in another of my posts just a few minutes back - xkcd recommends 2^44 difficulty, but hackers are claiming they can crack 2^48 difficulty. (Some even more than that, it seems)
Alas, we lost half of the team, including some of the best ones, last year. They were snapped up by big names (intel, google, nvidea, TI,...) almost immediately. However, some of the stragglers are actively talking about still continuing to do the same old stuff the same old way. I'm guessing "3. profit" will not be included in our equations any time soon, if ever. The best we can hope for is that people actually want to hunt us out, and come on board.
"These people aren't simply saying that they heard someone else say something."
About 2/3rds of it was *exactly* that. There were even times where one of them mentioned hearing someone else talk about what someone else had said.
From what I heard and saw, I do not believe any of them are credible. I do not believe they are qualified to scientifically evaluate anything that they claim they witnessed. They *presented* absolutely *no* evidence at that talk.
You may call them "reputable". I call them "loons". I have at least as much right to come to my conclusion as you do to yours. Concluding they are loons is the logical from the input I have at my disposal (namely that video).
I see a 136GB rainbow table that claims to cover 99% of a 2^48 gamut..
An alphabet of 100000 symbols is *waaay* bigger than what I consider "simple english words". 12 bits per word (4000 words) seems reasonable, and that comes in at 2^48 again. IIRC, xkcd itself quoted 2^44 from 4 simple words (so 2048 simple english words).
I would argue from that data, which as you say might be based on an unsupportable premise, that we should not consider the xkcd recommendation as being clearly safe. I don't believe I'm stretching credibility too far by making that claim.
The more words you throw in the dictionary, the more likely you are to (mis-)remember a synonym, I'm sure. Alas I can't find a readable copy of the paper you recommend (firefox/googlebooks give me nothing but blank pages currently), perhaps they address that, but I shall keep looking.
It's good to see such a clear and unambiguous statement as your first paragraph said non-anonymously to such a wide audience as slashdot.
I've felt similar for a very long time. As a rabid atheist (me, not him) I was particularly worried to see him chosen for the "good without god" campaign a few years back. I can't remember the biggest nail in the coffin, the one that actually made me think "that's just plain evil", but it was something to do with the malaria research (I just asked my g/f if she remembers what narked me, and all she could offer was "was it to do with malaria?"). There were a lot of links in TFA, but I couldn't see one that exactly matched my memory.
I'm curious, do you have one "most evil" point, or is it just a (un)healthy level of evil across the board?
Slashdot Mirror
Respect!
/., save it being repeated high quality posts, but it's nice to know that my radar spots sound people.
I have no precise memory why I added you as a friend on
There is precedent.
/. did that. It was the first ever time they'd folded to such a request. They saved face by posting a whole load of links to other places where CoS nonsense was revealed.
OT3 was posted to slashdot some time in 2001 by an A/C. CoS requested it be deleted, and
If the internet is populated with pondlife who can't remember even as recently as 2008, CoS has nothing to fear.
Project Chanology achieved almost nothing.
It brought to the attention of the US media that there are thousands of law-breakers in the world who don't like Scientology. Do you really think that was progress?
No, I believe it because it's written in the Bible, and the bible is the infallable word of God, so must be true.
(And yes, there are irony tags around that, it's a failed attempt at parody. I say "failed", as it's not a humerous distortion, it's exactly what some christains say.)
> Scientology are no less ridiculous than those of other religions.
...), it's not afraid of how woo-woo it is. Scientology, however, deliberately shields you from much of its woo-woo stuff until you're already hooked. I'm sure it knows that some of the stuff (xenu, volcanos, ...) is too woo-woo that it would put anyone rational off immediately.
If you measure the believability of the fairy stories, then all religions come in at zero, give or take.
However, if you measure *un*believability of the fairy stories, then some religions definitely out-rank others, and I think Scientology can definitely look down its nose at many others in that regard.
Consider how Christianity feeds you its woo-woo stuff right from the start (old and new testament miracles, life after death, big man in the sky, damnation,
> Take a serious good look at what the US have done to the world in the last 10 years
What tosh!
50 years, at least. Arguably 110+ (e.g. Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba)
I can't think of any decade where the US hasn't fucked over some other country, either from without (war) or within (CIA+puppets).
> Yes.
I can accept that. Your viewpoint is clearly internally consistent. I think I attach intangibles to the word "faith" which exclude it from being appropriate to things like the foundations of pure mathematics.
The problem is that they've not defined enough properties of dark matter in order for "it's consistent with our model of dark matter" to actually mean much. I guess that gets funding and press interest more quickly than "it's consistent with our current inability to explain everything we see exactly under the widely accepted model".
As there's supposed to be way more invisible stuff then visible stuff, why has nobody seen evidence of visible stuff in orbit around invisible stuff? We've seen plenty of visible stuff in orbit around visible stuff, there should be more visible stuff in orbit around invisible stuff. We've seen plenty of visible stuff smash into and be ripped up by visible stuff - where's the visible stuff that's smashing into invisible stuff, or vice versa? Shouldn't there be more of that happening if there's more invisible stuff than visible stuff? Where is it, if it's so prevalent? With all the properties they've ascribed to it (having way more mass than all the visible stuff in the universe), it should surely be making itself more obvious.
There needs to be an equivalent of profmattstrassler.com for Dark Matter.
You need negative square mass for FTL, i.e. imaginary mass.
"riteously"?
His preferred explanation had no "before" at all, therefore he was not speculating about anything before the big bang. You have woven a straw man. You shouldn't criticise his razor, as it's your dullness that's showing.
When pure mathematicians say "there exists an empty set", and "two sets are equal if every element of each set is in the other set", is that "faith" too?
At some point you have to simply assert axioms and postulates, with no capability of deriving them from anything else. I don't consider the word "faith" to be the most appropriate for all such situations.
And let's not forget that it was a Jew who gave the particle both the fated "goddamn particle" and successful "god particle" name. The Christains will now have to find another particle...
Comic Sans? I'm almost lost for words. Thanks for that!
Quite what did I write that made you think that I might possibly think that powerpoint was critical for getting any actual work done?
Your ability to leap to absurd conclusions is worrying.
Including the null substitution.
(Don't get me wrong, I've been a part-time linux-ite since 1993, and have been exclusively linux (OK, apart from one NetBSD box) for the last 12 years. However, it's far from perfect even in my nerdy little corner of the world.)
I'm curious - at the Higgs announcement at CERN - were they showing overhead slides? I'm sure you can see where I'm heading - were they MS Powerpoint slides?
Is this the question one simply shouldn't ask?!?
You misspelt either transfusion or transplant, I can't work out which.
Your phrase evokes an image for you to remember. The image then later evokes a sequence of words.
If you're lucky, they're the words in your phrase, in the right order. However, images do not distinguish synonyms.
I can't prove it, but I bet that for the first few times you (y'all, not you personally) wanted to make reference to the xkcd phrase, you ran off and reminded yourself of it by doing a google search for "xkcd password" or similar. I know I did.
I don't have it visible in front of me as I type this, and even though I've seen it recently, and the image, and I've even had to wrack my brains for other sequences of works that could be related to an image like the xkcd one, and even now I can only narrow it down to two options, not one - is it "staple battery" or "battery staple"? The "you remember it already!" (or whatever it says on the cartoon - have I even got that bit right?) is false for at least the segment of the population I am part of. (Then again, when I sing along to some of my favourite songs, that I've heard, and sung along to, dozens to hundreds of times, I still occasionally replace words with synonyms providing equal or better scansion. It's entirely possible my memory is just truly truly shit.)
I don't see how "you can have the bytes that encode the audio track and the bytes that encode the video track" can be true whilst "you can have the bytes that encode the audio track" is false.
Fair use rights and precedent imply that I should be able to store what I download to play when is most convenient for me.
This guy's just making what ought to be legal easy? That shouldn't be illegal.
Expanded in another of my posts just a few minutes back - xkcd recommends 2^44 difficulty, but hackers are claiming they can crack 2^48 difficulty. (Some even more than that, it seems)
Alas, we lost half of the team, including some of the best ones, last year. They were snapped up by big names (intel, google, nvidea, TI, ...) almost immediately. However, some of the stragglers are actively talking about still continuing to do the same old stuff the same old way. I'm guessing "3. profit" will not be included in our equations any time soon, if ever. The best we can hope for is that people actually want to hunt us out, and come on board.
"These people aren't simply saying that they heard someone else say something."
About 2/3rds of it was *exactly* that. There were even times where one of them mentioned hearing someone else talk about what someone else had said.
From what I heard and saw, I do not believe any of them are credible. I do not believe they are qualified to scientifically evaluate anything that they claim they witnessed. They *presented* absolutely *no* evidence at that talk.
You may call them "reputable". I call them "loons". I have at least as much right to come to my conclusion as you do to yours. Concluding they are loons is the logical from the input I have at my disposal (namely that video).
I see a 136GB rainbow table that claims to cover 99% of a 2^48 gamut..
An alphabet of 100000 symbols is *waaay* bigger than what I consider "simple english words". 12 bits per word (4000 words) seems reasonable, and that comes in at 2^48 again. IIRC, xkcd itself quoted 2^44 from 4 simple words (so 2048 simple english words).
I would argue from that data, which as you say might be based on an unsupportable premise, that we should not consider the xkcd recommendation as being clearly safe. I don't believe I'm stretching credibility too far by making that claim.
The more words you throw in the dictionary, the more likely you are to (mis-)remember a synonym, I'm sure. Alas I can't find a readable copy of the paper you recommend (firefox/googlebooks give me nothing but blank pages currently), perhaps they address that, but I shall keep looking.
It's good to see such a clear and unambiguous statement as your first paragraph said non-anonymously to such a wide audience as slashdot.
I've felt similar for a very long time. As a rabid atheist (me, not him) I was particularly worried to see him chosen for the "good without god" campaign a few years back. I can't remember the biggest nail in the coffin, the one that actually made me think "that's just plain evil", but it was something to do with the malaria research (I just asked my g/f if she remembers what narked me, and all she could offer was "was it to do with malaria?"). There were a lot of links in TFA, but I couldn't see one that exactly matched my memory.
I'm curious, do you have one "most evil" point, or is it just a (un)healthy level of evil across the board?