> To debunk a popularly quoted study which found that prayer does help hospital patients.
From the article:
Half received daily prayer for four weeks from five volunteers who believed in God and in the healing power of prayer. The other half received no prayer in conjunction with the study.
So how did they control for unauthorized prayers? Did they have little badges like radiation detectors, to ensure that the control group wasn't getting some unauthorized prayers?
> no matter how hard I try to figure out the reasoning behind creating such devices of invasion, the more confused I get. The only thing that it sounds like is that since they can't physically bully people around they figure they'll do it cyberally(?). If its a point they're trying to prove, besides the fact that they are complete jackasses, then I do believe it has been lost in the translation. I'd much rather be known for creating something terribly awesome, not awesomely terrible.
Some people enjoy creating, others enjoy disrupting. Defacements, viruses, trolls... just different ways of doing the same thing.
To all appearences, you posted it under the wrong story. This one is about bagelized rootkits; that one is about how cool some people think it is to use a Mac.
> All in all, I'll be surprised to see a truly genetic algorithm virus ever.
I think with the continual increase in CPU power and connectivity, it's just a matter of time before they become feasible.
> The closest we might see are self tuning ones - eg ones that spot the user is using the machine and back off their spamming activities so that they aren't obvious.
Probably the first generation will use mutations to change their AV signatures. (And that will result in genuine survival of the fittest!)
> The only thing that hasn't advanced for some reason is the way human necks are modeled. Flight sim cockpit views still shift around as if the player's head is a perfect sphere mounted on top of a pole.
> Oh boy. Twenty years ago, I was 19. And that's probably around that time that I bought my Amiga (a short while after I bought an Atari ST). And, yes, I played the Bard's Tale on it. *sigh*
I was an Apple ][ Wizardry addict, back when they rendered perspective line drawings to show you what you saw of the dungeon.
I'm still afraid of running into a maelific somewhere...
> The problem with the academic research system is that it's an unsustainable pyramid scheme.
Yeah, 'cause we'd know so much more about life, the universe, and everything, if all those academic scientists spent their time surfing or making hot rods instead.
> A warmer Gulf means the risk of more storms and stronger storms.
Interestingly, scientists don't seem to be blaming "more storms" on global warming, only "stronger storms". From what I've read, they seem to think "more storms" has a different cause.
> Funny thing about that comment is that the big bang actually helps support creationism. Something caused the bang and God's pretty tough so it fits perfectly into Genesis.
"They both had a start" is just about all they have in common. You can add the next stray cat you see to the same set.
> I thought most evolutionists were moving away from the big bang because of this.
Biological evolution doesn't depend on the big bang. Most "evolutionists" believe it simply because they credit the professionals of that field as knowing more about what they're talking about than dopes like Hamm and Hovind.
> > hmmm... whats missing is the fact that the Genesis account begins with the earth already existing, and with water everywhere on it. It does not begin with the creation of the universe.
> Huh? Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The very first first of the first book in the Bible describes that the earth was created, not that it already exists.
If you read the next nine verses it's clear that 1:1 is a statement of what's about to be explained in more detail. And that detailed explanation seems to portray a hero-god stamping order on a pre-existing chaos, just as in other versions of the common Near Eastern mythology.
> Now, the important question: Why is inflationary theory is correct? So the universe decides to expand massively and abnormally right after it begins to exist.
Why do you call it 'abnormally'? We've got a sample size of 1.
As to your question, presumably it's the result of a phase change in the growing universe. We already know of others, such as when it cooled down enough to be transparent to photons. Maybe inflation is what happens to universes at a certain temperature and density.
> Because the script and the dialogs were dreadful.
I thought it was a yawner too, though I'm surprised to see several people posting to that effect. For some reason it seems to have a reputation of being a cool movie. I couldn't understand that even back then; how anyone could rave about it now is beyond mystery.
Slashdot Mirror
> As summed up on BoingBoing.. Maybe they were praying to the wrong god?
Thanks, but I'd rather leave Cthulhu sleeping.
From the article:So how did they control for unauthorized prayers? Did they have little badges like radiation detectors, to ensure that the control group wasn't getting some unauthorized prayers?
> I AM V'GER, YOU ARE NOT TRUE LIFE FORMS.
You'd think V'GER would get along fine with beings named ON6UG, G3RUH, DL1YDD, DH2VA/HB9DUN, and DJ5YM of the IUZ Bochum.
> no matter how hard I try to figure out the reasoning behind creating such devices of invasion, the more confused I get. The only thing that it sounds like is that since they can't physically bully people around they figure they'll do it cyberally(?). If its a point they're trying to prove, besides the fact that they are complete jackasses, then I do believe it has been lost in the translation. I'd much rather be known for creating something terribly awesome, not awesomely terrible.
Some people enjoy creating, others enjoy disrupting. Defacements, viruses, trolls... just different ways of doing the same thing.
> How in the f*ck is this "Offtopic" you nimrod?
To all appearences, you posted it under the wrong story. This one is about bagelized rootkits; that one is about how cool some people think it is to use a Mac.
> All in all, I'll be surprised to see a truly genetic algorithm virus ever.
I think with the continual increase in CPU power and connectivity, it's just a matter of time before they become feasible.
> The closest we might see are self tuning ones - eg ones that spot the user is using the machine and back off their spamming activities so that they aren't obvious.
Probably the first generation will use mutations to change their AV signatures.
(And that will result in genuine survival of the fittest!)
Next headline:News at 11...
> Shaky camera work and giggling do not make a business case in most organizations.
Whereas shaky camera work and jiggling is a sure path to riches...
> Amazon CTO Werner Vogels turned to his personal blog to...
Will corporations someday have a Chief Blogging Officer?
> If they do it again tomorrow with text from nytimes.com would that be another story?
And will it be safe to read about it at BBC?
> Valeri Polyakov was not available for comment at the time of going to press.
Actually he was available, but too weak to type a reply to the questions...
> This election sponsored by Diebold
s/sponsored/decided/
As opposed to Distributed Denial of Service, DDoS, which is when all the girls you know conspire not to give you any.
> The only thing that hasn't advanced for some reason is the way human necks are modeled. Flight sim cockpit views still shift around as if the player's head is a perfect sphere mounted on top of a pole.
Yours isn't?
What planet are you posting from?
> Oh boy. Twenty years ago, I was 19. And that's probably around that time that I bought my Amiga (a short while after I bought an Atari ST). And, yes, I played the Bard's Tale on it. *sigh*
I was an Apple ][ Wizardry addict, back when they rendered perspective line drawings to show you what you saw of the dungeon.
I'm still afraid of running into a maelific somewhere...
Sounds like the cybernym of a beatnik or a pedophile.
Wouldn't it be "news" if you posted a story when a Windows release wasn't delayed?
> If you see Moorse's law as applied to electronics
Moorse's law: the number of people who know Moorse code is halving every decade.
> The problem with the academic research system is that it's an unsustainable pyramid scheme.
Yeah, 'cause we'd know so much more about life, the universe, and everything, if all those academic scientists spent their time surfing or making hot rods instead.
> A warmer Gulf means the risk of more storms and stronger storms.
Interestingly, scientists don't seem to be blaming "more storms" on global warming, only "stronger storms". From what I've read, they seem to think "more storms" has a different cause.
> Funny thing about that comment is that the big bang actually helps support creationism. Something caused the bang and God's pretty tough so it fits perfectly into Genesis.
"They both had a start" is just about all they have in common. You can add the next stray cat you see to the same set.
> I thought most evolutionists were moving away from the big bang because of this.
Biological evolution doesn't depend on the big bang. Most "evolutionists" believe it simply because they credit the professionals of that field as knowing more about what they're talking about than dopes like Hamm and Hovind.
> > hmmm... whats missing is the fact that the Genesis account begins with the earth already existing, and with water everywhere on it. It does not begin with the creation of the universe.
> Huh? Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The very first first of the first book in the Bible describes that the earth was created, not that it already exists.
If you read the next nine verses it's clear that 1:1 is a statement of what's about to be explained in more detail. And that detailed explanation seems to portray a hero-god stamping order on a pre-existing chaos, just as in other versions of the common Near Eastern mythology.
> Incidentally, I'm a fundamentalist, and I lean toward a literal understanding of Genesis and a 6000-year earth
So how come you reject all the evidence that Genesis is a collection of a myths?
> and even I accept that the "Big Bang" is probably a pretty good model for what happened.
It's certainly not anything like what's described in Genesis.
> Now, the important question: Why is inflationary theory is correct? So the universe decides to expand massively and abnormally right after it begins to exist.
Why do you call it 'abnormally'? We've got a sample size of 1.
As to your question, presumably it's the result of a phase change in the growing universe. We already know of others, such as when it cooled down enough to be transparent to photons. Maybe inflation is what happens to universes at a certain temperature and density.
> Because the script and the dialogs were dreadful.
I thought it was a yawner too, though I'm surprised to see several people posting to that effect. For some reason it seems to have a reputation of being a cool movie. I couldn't understand that even back then; how anyone could rave about it now is beyond mystery.