1) what the fuck? shut up. 2) you pay or you get the fuck out. Society is an immutable collection. You pay for education, even if you have none and no kids to benefit from it. You pay for health care, even if you aren't sick. Because you have no control over wether or not you get sick, and saying "but since i'm not using the health care right now I shouldn't pay" is assholery and thievery. So what happens when you get sick? You pay your own way? 100k/week? For how long Mr. Rich? And why shouldn't the workers who provided the wealth for you get the same treatment?
How is any of that a problem? Those a fabricated arguments against subset of a whole, arguments that can easily be dealt with.
- Elective surgery is not covered with public health care. Why would it be? Why would this even be a problem? - Why not help the old? What have YOU done that's so great recently? Old people have paid taxes for far longer than you, why should they not be allowed to live their life to the fullest? Remember, old people are just ex-workers who, you know, got old.
1) What? Health care does not give free access to someone else's labor any more than calling the police when you've been robbed does. What a fucking moronic thing to say. 2) Yes you pay for it, because everybody gets covered equally. And when you're down on your luck in a auto accident, looking at loosing both your legs, I bet you will shut the fuck up and take the treatment.
Reading your reply is like listening to those fuckwits who drone on and on about how global warming might not be real, so we shouldn't strive to make the world a better, cleaner place to live in. To you and to them: shut the fuck up and move over, real people live here and you're wasting our space.
While I agree in some respect he got lucky, I'm also pretty sure he knows a LOT more about the technology behind what his company does than you or I. He and Sergei Brin weren't "suits" who sold ads, they were Computer Science PhD students at Stanford who invented many of the early concepts behind Google's core search engine.
They invented Page Rank which is the only novel idea in Google's playbook. An idea they have since diluted to such a degree that in order to get 10 relevant hits on the front page, you'd have to be searching for porn or mainstream news items. Google has become such a nuisance with their "I know what you want" bullshit, that using Duck Duck Go is better, even though they serve raw search results and have a much smaller database.
Not even a little. Google is all about profits; profits do not generally go very well with trust, unless you are an investor.
I can see the benefit of having control over my own medical records via a service provider. I can make corrections and don't have to rely on my useless GP to get them to specialists when I need to see them.
Making corrections to medical records should only be allowed if you're a medical professional. What makes you think you know jack shit about medicine, that you have the knowledge to make such corrections? If your GP is useless, find a new one.
Fucktard. Being forced to ensure people does not in any way force you to offer it in a price range "people" can afford. As long as there even is a business model around gambling with people's health, this problem is going to resurface over and over.
You seem to think that an idea can only ever be had once, why is that? There is no problem in keeping something innovative a secret, and the idea will only be lost until someone picks up on it again. If it truly was a good idea then someone will think of it. If it was a bad idea, then that's the reason the business failed.
[*words*]In this case why should I even bother trying to innovate?
Because innovating will give you what is called a first mover advantage and for the most part that is enough, if your idea is truly innovative. The closer your idea is to an already existing product, the less of an advantage you'll get. I posit that zero patents could just as easily spur even more innovation. Patents as they are now do not, since once you have even the slightest new idea you're set for life + the lifespan of your grandchildren. That does not encourage innovation.
Who said that art and math are mutually exclusive, and why would you believe a person who said that? What part of playing back a video on Youtube do you think is not mathematics at work? Elaborate on your point.
[*snip*...] people were bemoaning flight simulators as "terrorism trainers".
What. The. Fuck? These people of yours, were they singular and perhaps a conservative politician? That I would believe, conservatives anywhere say some really dumb shit sometimes. Besides, what does that have to do with the article? And how is that a catch 22 in any case?
Actually no, we're not in a court room. Wanting proof that a computer is a mathematical construction as being a pure fuckwit and deserves ridicule. The entire basis of computers is mathematical, any fucking textbook on this subject will deal with this very fucking fact in the first 20 pages (if it's any good).
The problem with that logic is that with sufficient effort you could show that any problem can be reduced to math. The question is not can something be reduced to math, but is it math itself. For example: geometry is a mathematical field, but not everything created using geometry is math. Another example: every video on Youtube. Every one of them is reduced to mathematics before being displayed (and quite often when it is made), but arguing that the video itself is math or a mathematical algorithm is patently ridiculous.
You are making arbitrary distinctions based on abstractions. Videos on Youtube are pure math and that 99.9% (yes, I pulled that stat out of my ass) of users don't know the simplest algorithms behind it does not make it any less math. The real problem here is that we are forced to make distinctions in the first place, because patent law requires us to. The writers of the law didn't seem to know these simple facts, and now we're stuck with a piece of shit legislation that is being pushed on the rest of the world as truth. Math is not patentable, but abstractions based on math are. Fuck that, let's just go back to nothing being patentable and be done with. Survive in the free market on merit alone, or not at all.
Oh, and also the burden of proof isn't on him to prove the statement isn't math, it's on people who claim it is math to prove it is.
We are not filing a lawsuit and this is not a court room. The poster i replied to was being lazy so I reversed his argument to highlight his fallacy. If he had taken more than 2 seconds thinking about it, this whole subthread would not exist, and the world would be a better place.
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Yes, your point being? As you seem to understand yourself, anything in our known universe can be expressed by math. Our math breaks down to a certain degree when we enter the realm of quantum mechanics, or rather determinism breaks down, math describes this fine enough.
To me, the line is drawn wherever it is most convenient and fair.
Back on topic though, you're right that we have to draw the line somewhere; I'd rather draw the line at zero. Nothing can be patented, and no business idea deserves any kind of special protection. If your idea cannot survive in the free market on merit alone it has no place in the market at all.
Prove that it is not math. Start by showing that it is not represented by 1s and 0s at the hardware level. Then prove that it is not all NAND gates that do the manipulating and that all the hardware operations are not mathematical. Bonus: Prove that add, subtract, divide, multiply, mov are not mathematical functions.
I2P certainly will not solve the problem, because onion routing was never an answer to the question asked. Onion routing helps protect privacy, and I2P does so by erecting a network within the network. In order to go "outside" you need an outproxy (and it is explicitly stated that you would need to put a great deal of trust in this proxy). Once you're at the outproxy, everything functions as normal - meaning the problem is still there, all you've done is add a layer of complexity for a part of the route from the client to the server.
The bitcoin philosophy I'm referring to is the one that has you expend CPU cycles to store "coins" in order to spend these "coins" on actions within the protocol. That is how Namecoin works, you save up coins and spend them on registering your domain, updating or transfering. Or did you not read past the hype when you googled it? But no, I don't know of a way to make P2P DNS work, that was the whole point. There really is none, and with that I'm fully aware that I'm discounting Namecoin as an option, because well, it's ridiculous.
1) Tor is not a peer-to-peer approach. It does not remove the central server, it only makes the routers individually unaware of the contents of a package. You still have to serve replies from a central server subject to a jurisdiction (the problem we were pretending we could solve). Tor works if you wish to obscure who wants what, but it is still an overlay to the client-server paradigm.
2) Assuming we buy the premise that BitCoins are a good idea and we'd want to use those for our domains in the future, there are a couple of issues with this approach aswell. For starters, it still does not get rid of the server, it just verifies that the reply is correct for a domain. There are a number of other solutions that will do this without getting the convoluted Bitcoin philosophy involved.
The worst problem with the central server approach is not squatting, that is a minor annoyance to some people's vanity. The worst problem with the central server is that it is a central server, and thus is vulnerable to whomever has juristiction over the physical location it resides in. However, a peer-to-peer solution (as they look right now) is much worse. There are two major problems with a P2P approach to DNS, that you don't have with the central server.
1) Privacy: when requesting a lookup, you're telling an arbitrary number of strangers which site you would like to visit next. With the server, you're only telling the server, but this is a trust issue and can be resolved. The P2P approach by it's nature cannot be trusted. 2) Poisoning: all you'd have to do to poison a swarm is join it, and start pushing bogus replies to requests. There is no barrier like with a central DNS server, which you'd have to hack into in order to poison.
An approach like you suggest is a central DNS server in disguise and not really a solution to any problem, since you get the worst of both worlds.
A planet doesn't need to be in the Goldilocks zone to be habitable, it's just the safest bet we have for estimating habitability. It's dangerous to exclude planets that are too big, too far out or in general unlike Earth. Moons around gaseous giants might very well be just as habitable as Earth is, but for a different reason than being close to a star. All that is really needed is enough energy to keep water liquid, which could be had via volcanism or gravitational pressure from a larger neighbor.
Or stop trying to be clever and use the fucking number system invented a gazillion years ago to, I dunno, number your versions? Pick a number and start from there; whenever you fuck something up that needs a new compile, increment the number. There you go, fool proof versioning that even works with the age old less than and greater than comparers. The only reason people think they need major/minor/build numbers is because some dumbfuck a handful of decades ago decided that the version number needed to be part af the product name, but he wanted to cover up the fact that he sucked at development and had to tack on a lesser number to not completely outrun the integer system with new builds.
Agreed, hence the subject title "dumbass". He's an idiot and gets off blabbing on the internet instead of doing real work that helps real people. Put in a backdoor and let it simmer for however long it takes. Build a whole library of secrets to leak. There is no end to all the fun that could have been had at these terrorist's expense. Shit, if he'd been lucky, he might have been able to implicate quite a number of western corporations for all kinds of dubious shit, it is an oil state remember.
Well I guess that's your view then. I specifically didn't mention any nation, only "the job".
It's about high fucking time people in the western world realise that freedom cannot be passive. You can't just sit back in your armchair and blab. Be offensive, do a number on these scumbags. If he really, really cared about privacy he would have fought for the millions of people who are going to be spied on anyway, just not with his tool. This applies equally to the UK as it does to Saudi Arabia, this story just happens to be set in a country most people around here don't like.
People like the guy in the story makes me fucking sick. You realise that where you are born and the freedoms you enjoy are all PURE LUCK, and one of the few things in your life you have no control over. Why should freedom be restrained to people lucky enough to be born under a constitution? Spread the wealth.
Running to/. and bitching about it is not going to make the situation better. Had he been serious about privacy concerns, he would have fucking taken the job and added a backdoor that leaked directly into wikileaks or some shit. Instead we have this for a story; not surprising and not even news, way to go.
Joining the armed forces carries a risk, and if the OPs kid is about as smart as his/her parent sounds, he's not going to be able to keep out of the front line. And subsequently, they're going to run a very high risk of getting fucking shot in the face. Granted, there is a high risk of getting shot in the face just going to school in the US. Looking at it, the best choice for OP might just be to emmigrate the fuck out.
Yeah, and millions died in the 40s, what's your fucking point? Pick any decade you want, I'll pick a decade that'll beat yours in military death ratio.
Slashdot Mirror
1) what the fuck? shut up.
2) you pay or you get the fuck out. Society is an immutable collection. You pay for education, even if you have none and no kids to benefit from it. You pay for health care, even if you aren't sick. Because you have no control over wether or not you get sick, and saying "but since i'm not using the health care right now I shouldn't pay" is assholery and thievery.
So what happens when you get sick? You pay your own way? 100k/week? For how long Mr. Rich? And why shouldn't the workers who provided the wealth for you get the same treatment?
How is any of that a problem? Those a fabricated arguments against subset of a whole, arguments that can easily be dealt with.
- Elective surgery is not covered with public health care. Why would it be? Why would this even be a problem?
- Why not help the old? What have YOU done that's so great recently? Old people have paid taxes for far longer than you, why should they not be allowed to live their life to the fullest? Remember, old people are just ex-workers who, you know, got old.
1) What? Health care does not give free access to someone else's labor any more than calling the police when you've been robbed does. What a fucking moronic thing to say.
2) Yes you pay for it, because everybody gets covered equally. And when you're down on your luck in a auto accident, looking at loosing both your legs, I bet you will shut the fuck up and take the treatment.
Reading your reply is like listening to those fuckwits who drone on and on about how global warming might not be real, so we shouldn't strive to make the world a better, cleaner place to live in. To you and to them: shut the fuck up and move over, real people live here and you're wasting our space.
While I agree in some respect he got lucky, I'm also pretty sure he knows a LOT more about the technology behind what his company does than you or I. He and Sergei Brin weren't "suits" who sold ads, they were Computer Science PhD students at Stanford who invented many of the early concepts behind Google's core search engine.
They invented Page Rank which is the only novel idea in Google's playbook. An idea they have since diluted to such a degree that in order to get 10 relevant hits on the front page, you'd have to be searching for porn or mainstream news items. Google has become such a nuisance with their "I know what you want" bullshit, that using Duck Duck Go is better, even though they serve raw search results and have a much smaller database.
Oh do shut the fuck up or get your facts straight you fucking ignorant moron.
So the question is do you trust Google?
Not even a little. Google is all about profits; profits do not generally go very well with trust, unless you are an investor.
I can see the benefit of having control over my own medical records via a service provider. I can make corrections and don't have to rely on my useless GP to get them to specialists when I need to see them.
Making corrections to medical records should only be allowed if you're a medical professional. What makes you think you know jack shit about medicine, that you have the knowledge to make such corrections? If your GP is useless, find a new one.
Fucktard.
Being forced to ensure people does not in any way force you to offer it in a price range "people" can afford. As long as there even is a business model around gambling with people's health, this problem is going to resurface over and over.
You seem to think that an idea can only ever be had once, why is that? There is no problem in keeping something innovative a secret, and the idea will only be lost until someone picks up on it again. If it truly was a good idea then someone will think of it. If it was a bad idea, then that's the reason the business failed.
[*words*]In this case why should I even bother trying to innovate?
Because innovating will give you what is called a first mover advantage and for the most part that is enough, if your idea is truly innovative. The closer your idea is to an already existing product, the less of an advantage you'll get. I posit that zero patents could just as easily spur even more innovation. Patents as they are now do not, since once you have even the slightest new idea you're set for life + the lifespan of your grandchildren. That does not encourage innovation.
Who said that art and math are mutually exclusive, and why would you believe a person who said that? What part of playing back a video on Youtube do you think is not mathematics at work? Elaborate on your point.
[*snip*...] people were bemoaning flight simulators as "terrorism trainers".
What. The. Fuck? These people of yours, were they singular and perhaps a conservative politician? That I would believe, conservatives anywhere say some really dumb shit sometimes. Besides, what does that have to do with the article? And how is that a catch 22 in any case?
Actually no, we're not in a court room. Wanting proof that a computer is a mathematical construction as being a pure fuckwit and deserves ridicule. The entire basis of computers is mathematical, any fucking textbook on this subject will deal with this very fucking fact in the first 20 pages (if it's any good).
The problem with that logic is that with sufficient effort you could show that any problem can be reduced to math. The question is not can something be reduced to math, but is it math itself. For example: geometry is a mathematical field, but not everything created using geometry is math. Another example: every video on Youtube. Every one of them is reduced to mathematics before being displayed (and quite often when it is made), but arguing that the video itself is math or a mathematical algorithm is patently ridiculous.
You are making arbitrary distinctions based on abstractions. Videos on Youtube are pure math and that 99.9% (yes, I pulled that stat out of my ass) of users don't know the simplest algorithms behind it does not make it any less math. The real problem here is that we are forced to make distinctions in the first place, because patent law requires us to. The writers of the law didn't seem to know these simple facts, and now we're stuck with a piece of shit legislation that is being pushed on the rest of the world as truth. Math is not patentable, but abstractions based on math are. Fuck that, let's just go back to nothing being patentable and be done with. Survive in the free market on merit alone, or not at all.
Oh, and also the burden of proof isn't on him to prove the statement isn't math, it's on people who claim it is math to prove it is.
We are not filing a lawsuit and this is not a court room. The poster i replied to was being lazy so I reversed his argument to highlight his fallacy. If he had taken more than 2 seconds thinking about it, this whole subthread would not exist, and the world would be a better place.
That's like saying that a chair is just a representation of geometrical shapes which can be expressed as mathematical formulas.
Yes, your point being? As you seem to understand yourself, anything in our known universe can be expressed by math. Our math breaks down to a certain degree when we enter the realm of quantum mechanics, or rather determinism breaks down, math describes this fine enough.
To me, the line is drawn wherever it is most convenient and fair.
Back on topic though, you're right that we have to draw the line somewhere; I'd rather draw the line at zero. Nothing can be patented, and no business idea deserves any kind of special protection. If your idea cannot survive in the free market on merit alone it has no place in the market at all.
printf("Hello World!\n");
Convince me where the math is in that.
Prove that it is not math. Start by showing that it is not represented by 1s and 0s at the hardware level. Then prove that it is not all NAND gates that do the manipulating and that all the hardware operations are not mathematical. Bonus: Prove that add, subtract, divide, multiply, mov are not mathematical functions.
I2P certainly will not solve the problem, because onion routing was never an answer to the question asked. Onion routing helps protect privacy, and I2P does so by erecting a network within the network. In order to go "outside" you need an outproxy (and it is explicitly stated that you would need to put a great deal of trust in this proxy). Once you're at the outproxy, everything functions as normal - meaning the problem is still there, all you've done is add a layer of complexity for a part of the route from the client to the server.
The bitcoin philosophy I'm referring to is the one that has you expend CPU cycles to store "coins" in order to spend these "coins" on actions within the protocol. That is how Namecoin works, you save up coins and spend them on registering your domain, updating or transfering. Or did you not read past the hype when you googled it? But no, I don't know of a way to make P2P DNS work, that was the whole point. There really is none, and with that I'm fully aware that I'm discounting Namecoin as an option, because well, it's ridiculous.
1) Tor is not a peer-to-peer approach. It does not remove the central server, it only makes the routers individually unaware of the contents of a package. You still have to serve replies from a central server subject to a jurisdiction (the problem we were pretending we could solve). Tor works if you wish to obscure who wants what, but it is still an overlay to the client-server paradigm.
2) Assuming we buy the premise that BitCoins are a good idea and we'd want to use those for our domains in the future, there are a couple of issues with this approach aswell. For starters, it still does not get rid of the server, it just verifies that the reply is correct for a domain. There are a number of other solutions that will do this without getting the convoluted Bitcoin philosophy involved.
The worst problem with the central server approach is not squatting, that is a minor annoyance to some people's vanity. The worst problem with the central server is that it is a central server, and thus is vulnerable to whomever has juristiction over the physical location it resides in. However, a peer-to-peer solution (as they look right now) is much worse. There are two major problems with a P2P approach to DNS, that you don't have with the central server.
1) Privacy: when requesting a lookup, you're telling an arbitrary number of strangers which site you would like to visit next. With the server, you're only telling the server, but this is a trust issue and can be resolved. The P2P approach by it's nature cannot be trusted.
2) Poisoning: all you'd have to do to poison a swarm is join it, and start pushing bogus replies to requests. There is no barrier like with a central DNS server, which you'd have to hack into in order to poison.
An approach like you suggest is a central DNS server in disguise and not really a solution to any problem, since you get the worst of both worlds.
Read TFA, the answer is inthere waiting for you. I won't spoil the ending for you.
A planet doesn't need to be in the Goldilocks zone to be habitable, it's just the safest bet we have for estimating habitability. It's dangerous to exclude planets that are too big, too far out or in general unlike Earth. Moons around gaseous giants might very well be just as habitable as Earth is, but for a different reason than being close to a star. All that is really needed is enough energy to keep water liquid, which could be had via volcanism or gravitational pressure from a larger neighbor.
Or stop trying to be clever and use the fucking number system invented a gazillion years ago to, I dunno, number your versions?
Pick a number and start from there; whenever you fuck something up that needs a new compile, increment the number. There you go, fool proof versioning that even works with the age old less than and greater than comparers.
The only reason people think they need major/minor/build numbers is because some dumbfuck a handful of decades ago decided that the version number needed to be part af the product name, but he wanted to cover up the fact that he sucked at development and had to tack on a lesser number to not completely outrun the integer system with new builds.
Agreed, hence the subject title "dumbass". He's an idiot and gets off blabbing on the internet instead of doing real work that helps real people. Put in a backdoor and let it simmer for however long it takes. Build a whole library of secrets to leak. There is no end to all the fun that could have been had at these terrorist's expense. Shit, if he'd been lucky, he might have been able to implicate quite a number of western corporations for all kinds of dubious shit, it is an oil state remember.
Well I guess that's your view then. I specifically didn't mention any nation, only "the job".
It's about high fucking time people in the western world realise that freedom cannot be passive. You can't just sit back in your armchair and blab. Be offensive, do a number on these scumbags. If he really, really cared about privacy he would have fought for the millions of people who are going to be spied on anyway, just not with his tool. This applies equally to the UK as it does to Saudi Arabia, this story just happens to be set in a country most people around here don't like.
People like the guy in the story makes me fucking sick. You realise that where you are born and the freedoms you enjoy are all PURE LUCK, and one of the few things in your life you have no control over. Why should freedom be restrained to people lucky enough to be born under a constitution? Spread the wealth.
Running to /. and bitching about it is not going to make the situation better. Had he been serious about privacy concerns, he would have fucking taken the job and added a backdoor that leaked directly into wikileaks or some shit. Instead we have this for a story; not surprising and not even news, way to go.
Joining the armed forces carries a risk, and if the OPs kid is about as smart as his/her parent sounds, he's not going to be able to keep out of the front line. And subsequently, they're going to run a very high risk of getting fucking shot in the face.
Granted, there is a high risk of getting shot in the face just going to school in the US. Looking at it, the best choice for OP might just be to emmigrate the fuck out.
Yeah, and millions died in the 40s, what's your fucking point? Pick any decade you want, I'll pick a decade that'll beat yours in military death ratio.