After seeing this: """ What we're now seeing in the USA is that a large portion of the children here are impoverished and hungry, even though there's plenty of food. This is because the middle (and upper) classes, who have plenty of money for food (even if they lose a job, they have savings), choose not to have many children, and are able to sustain themselves just fine, but the lower classes, including many illegal immigrants, choose to have tons of children even when they're broke and unemployed, thinking the government will help them (which it does--food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing, free medical care at ERs, etc.). These kids grow up with no education because of bad parenting, and at best become just like their parents (living off social programs and having tons more kids), or at worst become gang members and criminals and cause even more problems for society. """
Only one word springs to mind - "Idiocracy". If you've not seen it - grab a torrent of it now!
If Apple pulled out of China, Chinese manufacturing companies would drop their prices to attract more business from other companies, including Apple's competitors. Pareto optimality would be restored swiftly.
Even most people familiar with the glam-metal band (yes, let's call a spade a spade) seem not to realise is that there was a progressive rock band from Ireland, featuring both Phil Lynott and Gary Moore of Thin Lizzy and solo fame, in the cusp of the 60s/70s which had the name first. Oh dear, I hope I don't have to explain who Thin Lizzy were, now...
Already posted (saying roughly the same thing), so I have one modpoint left that I now can't use here. It needs to be repeated. "Trusted" seems to simply means "money changed hands".
However, have you looked at some of the certs it already includes? Big guy right at the core we have no option but trusting signs a cert for large national body we have no particular worries about. Large national body signs a cert for small ISP/hosting/security business run purely for profit we know nothing about. Small ISP/hosting/security company will sign anything you pay them to.
All those certs are bundled with your default firefox (or IE, or Opera, or...) install. All signatures by any of those companies are treated equally by firefox - sites either get the green padlock or they don't.
Look at your list - do you actually, through a position of knowledge about them, trust those signing authorities? That one from Turkey, for example - what do you know about them? How would you compare their trustworthiness to the new Chinese one? With facts, figures, and dates, please?
So what happed to the web of trust, as originally proposed? All fractions got rounded up to 1 at every point in the process, and made a mockery of the whole scheme. Call me paranoid - or simply not trusing by default - but I've removed about 90% of the certificates bundled with my browser. I think that should be the default. Every time there's a certificate signed by someone you don't already trust, the browser should pop up a box saying "there's a company called SecuroPlus who are saying 'trust me' - do you trust them?", with the options Yes, No, and NFI, with NFI being the default. (If their signing cert is signed by a company you do or don't trust you should be informed of that additional information). After a while I think you'll find that 99.99% of the world's 'secure' web browsing will fall under the NFI banner. In which case, where was the security?
It's another case of security being nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling.
Just for a laugh I did the following. Hopefully it will go down in history as the FatPhil Gas Giant Equation, and I'll be as famous as Drake!
V_j = M_j * P_h * V_h
Where: V_j = the value of jupiter M_j = the mass of jupiter P_h = the proportion of jupiter which is hydrogen V_h = the value of hydrogen
Unlike the Drake equation, these values are all known very accurately (several significant digits) M_j = 1.8986×10^27 kg P_h = 0.71 V_h = 0.15 $/kg
We don't know what Abraham's view of god's instruction was, so it's not fair to assert that he considered it moral because it was a command from his god. Of course, as it's a fairy-story, it's as useful an argument as one about whether Cinderella considered corsets moral or not.
However, you make some good points in all your responses to the right-to-be-ashamed-of-his-anachronistic-point-of-view anonymous one.
My personal view is that in the early formation of societies, one had to codify for-the-common-good (apparent good, not always actual good) in whatever ways would work. The creation of religions that provide both carrots and sticks, was certainly an effective one. And that's why religions often have a moralistic core - they're easier to sell if you can see that they are clearly for the common good. (Do unto others, etc..) And of course, laws evolved the same way. (But have since evolved in utterly bizarre unrelated directions.)
Cracking cost is not proportional to time. Cracking cost is proportional to the product of the amount of equipment used times the time it's being used. In order to reduce the time cost by 2^56, you need to multiply the equipment cost by 2^56 - that's what MITM does. The total real cost has remained the same - 2^168. The Biham approach, as applied by Lucks to 3DES, while reducing the time to 2^90, increase the space to 2^88, for a total cost of 2^178 - a net loss. 2 keys are clearly weaker than 3.
"Well, what happens when the guy robbing the store sees you dialing and decides to shoot you?"
You're not expected to be making a videophone call of the event to 911 and interview the perpetrator, merely to report it. If you are not intelligent to find somewhere safe to make a discrete call, then your swift termination was probably for the better anyway.
I used to be the same. I then realised by not giving money I was imposing a moral judgement upon the prospective recipient about what I considered good things to spend money on. This was an uncomfortable realisation, in particular as some of the things they would spend it on might be very similar to things I would spend it one (an alcoholic drink, for example). I've not solved that dilemma, but fortunately I tend to find the ones that do appreciate food. Then again, since then I've emigrated to a country where the social welfare system makes vagrancy quite a viable way of life.
How can you say that?! RTW already "typically contains more information about companies (e.g., SAP , Hyundai) and sports teams (e.g., Bulls , Mets) than other entity types."
So the bulls is almost certainly a sports team, and very likely plays basketball! Stop the presses - that's almost as much information as can be gleaned by doing the search:
"chicago bulls are *" site:wikipedia.org (But far less than if you actually follow any links or read more than the first sentence returned.)
Check your maths. I know that IE was available for my DEC Alpha back in the late 90s, so a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation makes it at least 11 years old. (And it was IE2, IIRC. And of course, the Alpha lagged behind other architectures.)
Unless perhaps when the amazon page is rendered after following an affiliate's link, the 'buy now' or 'add to basket' button is the only thing that propagates the affiliate id. If it wasn't direct, it's not a close enough correlation.
You've not paid any attention to the original context I was responding to, and you've ended up contradicting yourself or talking about wildly different things. If you can't keep your argument straight, there's no point having the discussion.
While a lot of the words you use make sense in this context, the complete sentences do not. The inner ear tracks the force exerted by the liquid on the solid shell, for example, not the other way round. Of course, one is the reaction to the other's action, and they will be equal and opposite, but if you're trying to be precise, then pedantry is required. And the inner ear's irrelevant to your perception of the downward pull of gravity, the body can do that without the inner ear. The inner ear merely tells you where your head is pointing (relative to the ingrained downward gravity vector), and proprioception tells you where the rest of your body is relative to that. It's the body itself that senses the downward pull of gravity. If you tip your head to the side, forwards, or backwards, does your body's perception of the weight on/of your arse as you sit down change? I've never found that tipping my head in different directions changes the pain in my feet if I have to stand up for too long, the inner ear's irrelevant to the feeling of force on most of the body. (The bits its rigidly attached to, yes, clearly).
Slashdot Mirror
After seeing this:
"""
What we're now seeing in the USA is that a large portion of the children here are impoverished and hungry, even though there's plenty of food. This is because the middle (and upper) classes, who have plenty of money for food (even if they lose a job, they have savings), choose not to have many children, and are able to sustain themselves just fine, but the lower classes, including many illegal immigrants, choose to have tons of children even when they're broke and unemployed, thinking the government will help them (which it does--food stamps, WIC, Section 8 housing, free medical care at ERs, etc.). These kids grow up with no education because of bad parenting, and at best become just like their parents (living off social programs and having tons more kids), or at worst become gang members and criminals and cause even more problems for society.
"""
Only one word springs to mind - "Idiocracy". If you've not seen it - grab a torrent of it now!
"the most lowly of cleaners make around $10/hour"
The Estonian and Polish construction workers in Finland don't earn anything near that.
If Apple pulled out of China, Chinese manufacturing companies would drop their prices to attract more business from other companies, including Apple's competitors. Pareto optimality would be restored swiftly.
Even most people familiar with the glam-metal band (yes, let's call a spade a spade) seem not to realise is that there was a progressive rock band from Ireland, featuring both Phil Lynott and Gary Moore of Thin Lizzy and solo fame, in the cusp of the 60s/70s which had the name first. Oh dear, I hope I don't have to explain who Thin Lizzy were, now...
You youngsters...
Unrestricted's a straw man - all I wanted was chapter 1, and the image from page 40.
You work for a publishing house. Might you have books that google would want to copy and distribute in electronic form? Oh, yes you do!
Already posted (saying roughly the same thing), so I have one modpoint left that I now can't use here. It needs to be repeated. "Trusted" seems to simply means "money changed hands".
However, have you looked at some of the certs it already includes? Big guy right at the core we have no option but trusting signs a cert for large national body we have no particular worries about. Large national body signs a cert for small ISP/hosting/security business run purely for profit we know nothing about. Small ISP/hosting/security company will sign anything you pay them to.
All those certs are bundled with your default firefox (or IE, or Opera, or...) install. All signatures by any of those companies are treated equally by firefox - sites either get the green padlock or they don't.
Look at your list - do you actually, through a position of knowledge about them, trust those signing authorities? That one from Turkey, for example - what do you know about them? How would you compare their trustworthiness to the new Chinese one? With facts, figures, and dates, please?
So what happed to the web of trust, as originally proposed? All fractions got rounded up to 1 at every point in the process, and made a mockery of the whole scheme. Call me paranoid - or simply not trusing by default - but I've removed about 90% of the certificates bundled with my browser. I think that should be the default. Every time there's a certificate signed by someone you don't already trust, the browser should pop up a box saying "there's a company called SecuroPlus who are saying 'trust me' - do you trust them?", with the options Yes, No, and NFI, with NFI being the default. (If their signing cert is signed by a company you do or don't trust you should be informed of that additional information). After a while I think you'll find that 99.99% of the world's 'secure' web browsing will fall under the NFI banner. In which case, where was the security?
It's another case of security being nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling.
Just for a laugh I did the following. Hopefully it will go down in history as the FatPhil Gas Giant Equation, and I'll be as famous as Drake!
V_j = M_j * P_h * V_h
Where:
V_j = the value of jupiter
M_j = the mass of jupiter
P_h = the proportion of jupiter which is hydrogen
V_h = the value of hydrogen
Unlike the Drake equation, these values are all known very accurately (several significant digits)
M_j = 1.8986×10^27 kg
P_h = 0.71
V_h = 0.15 $/kg
Therefore:
V_j = 1.8986×10^27 * 0.71 * $0.15 = $ 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Which is quite literally billions and billions of dollars!
Precisely how cheap do you think the electricity bill of 2-3 million SETI users is?
Oh, yeah - energy's cheap and plentiful I forgot - how silly of me.
We don't know what Abraham's view of god's instruction was, so it's not fair to assert that he considered it moral because it was a command from his god. Of course, as it's a fairy-story, it's as useful an argument as one about whether Cinderella considered corsets moral or not.
.) And of course, laws evolved the same way. (But have since evolved in utterly bizarre unrelated directions.)
However, you make some good points in all your responses to the right-to-be-ashamed-of-his-anachronistic-point-of-view anonymous one.
My personal view is that in the early formation of societies, one had to codify for-the-common-good (apparent good, not always actual good) in whatever ways would work. The creation of religions that provide both carrots and sticks, was certainly an effective one. And that's why religions often have a moralistic core - they're easier to sell if you can see that they are clearly for the common good. (Do unto others, etc.
Cracking cost is not proportional to time. Cracking cost is proportional to the product of the amount of equipment used times the time it's being used. In order to reduce the time cost by 2^56, you need to multiply the equipment cost by 2^56 - that's what MITM does. The total real cost has remained the same - 2^168. The Biham approach, as applied by Lucks to 3DES, while reducing the time to 2^90, increase the space to 2^88, for a total cost of 2^178 - a net loss. 2 keys are clearly weaker than 3.
Where do you live such that your laws don't have a moralistic root? I know of no such democracy.
"Well, what happens when the guy robbing the store sees you dialing and decides to shoot you?"
You're not expected to be making a videophone call of the event to 911 and interview the perpetrator, merely to report it. If you are not intelligent to find somewhere safe to make a discrete call, then your swift termination was probably for the better anyway.
I see nothing in the linked-to article which conflates reporting with intervening. Why have you so done?
I used to be the same. I then realised by not giving money I was imposing a moral judgement upon the prospective recipient about what I considered good things to spend money on. This was an uncomfortable realisation, in particular as some of the things they would spend it on might be very similar to things I would spend it one (an alcoholic drink, for example). I've not solved that dilemma, but fortunately I tend to find the ones that do appreciate food. Then again, since then I've emigrated to a country where the social welfare system makes vagrancy quite a viable way of life.
Nope.
And they seem to be saying that on average 0.5% of people are (perceived as) democrat. (See image 3)
I think you'll find Microsoft are world leaders in security. They should be by now, they've issued more security patches than any other company ever!
How can you say that?! RTW already "typically contains more information about companies (e.g., SAP , Hyundai) and sports teams (e.g., Bulls , Mets) than other entity types."
And here's what it knows about the Bulls:
"""
bulls
generalizations
sports_team
source
OLv1-Iter:0-From:sports_team 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full Seal-using-OLversion1 2009/02/26-06:52:20 full-relation-test
probability
0.98752
literalString
Bulls bulls
plays_against
cavs blazers knicks
source
OLv1-Iter:2-From:plays_against 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full OLv1-Iter:2-From:plays_against 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full fromInverse OLv1-Iter:2-From:plays_against 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full fromInverse OLv1-Iter:2-From:plays_against 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full OLv1-Iter:6-From:plays_against 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full OLv1-Iter:6-From:plays_against 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full fromInverse
probability
0.9 0.9 0.9
team_members
michael_jordan ben_gordon
source
OLv1-Iter:0-From:plays_for 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full fromInverse OLv1-Iter:10-From:plays_for 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full fromInverse
probability
0.9 0.9
plays_sport_team
basketball
source
OLv1-Iter:11-From:plays_sport_team 2009/03/19-09:41:52 rtw-full
probability
0.9
"""
So the bulls is almost certainly a sports team, and very likely plays basketball! Stop the presses - that's almost as much information as can be gleaned by doing the search:
"chicago bulls are *" site:wikipedia.org
(But far less than if you actually follow any links or read more than the first sentence returned.)
Check your maths. I know that IE was available for my DEC Alpha back in the late 90s, so a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation makes it at least 11 years old. (And it was IE2, IIRC. And of course, the Alpha lagged behind other architectures.)
Unless perhaps when the amazon page is rendered after following an affiliate's link, the 'buy now' or 'add to basket' button is the only thing that propagates the affiliate id. If it wasn't direct, it's not a close enough correlation.
If they follow a link from page A to page B, then page B will have A as its referrer. You don't need cookies for that.
You've not paid any attention to the original context I was responding to, and you've ended up contradicting yourself or talking about wildly different things. If you can't keep your argument straight, there's no point having the discussion.
While a lot of the words you use make sense in this context, the complete sentences do not. The inner ear tracks the force exerted by the liquid on the solid shell, for example, not the other way round. Of course, one is the reaction to the other's action, and they will be equal and opposite, but if you're trying to be precise, then pedantry is required. And the inner ear's irrelevant to your perception of the downward pull of gravity, the body can do that without the inner ear. The inner ear merely tells you where your head is pointing (relative to the ingrained downward gravity vector), and proprioception tells you where the rest of your body is relative to that. It's the body itself that senses the downward pull of gravity. If you tip your head to the side, forwards, or backwards, does your body's perception of the weight on/of your arse as you sit down change? I've never found that tipping my head in different directions changes the pain in my feet if I have to stand up for too long, the inner ear's irrelevant to the feeling of force on most of the body. (The bits its rigidly attached to, yes, clearly).
Noooo! The 6th sense is heat. Or cold, depending on how you order them.
Anyway, as you imply, anyone believing there are only 5 normal senses is living in a state of ignorance.