Sorry... I was going for the joke and didn't pitch it very well. My actual views are more like yours.
As for the reality of the subject matter, I would borrow the concept of "probably approximately correct" from machine learning, and give it a 90-95% chance of being ~80% correct. (The 80% is lower to allow room for some more big discoveries like inflation.)
Unfortunately, people will be (hopefully) studying this for thousands of years on top of the <100 we have so far, and none of us will live to see how it turns out in the long term.
My first cynical thought was "shoot them down if they blow up". But one bomber claimed to be on board, so they could have reasonably been concerned that the planes would be hijacked and used as missiles.
A state spying on it's own citizens... shameful. I'd be outraged, unless of course they said it was part of the war on terror, or whatever China's current favorite boogeyman is.
If you can think of as many distinct sexual activities as there are symbols in your wrinting system, make a table and encode your secret messages as porn movies. (Spies will probably watch them, but probably also forget that they're supposed to be looking for messages.)
Actually, science "states" (or rather, simply recognizes) that it can't investigate anything that doesn't leave any observable evidence. It's religion that works hard to ensure that their cherished phenomena all stay in that category.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry... I was going for the joke and didn't pitch it very well. My actual views are more like yours.
As for the reality of the subject matter, I would borrow the concept of "probably approximately correct" from machine learning, and give it a 90-95% chance of being ~80% correct. (The 80% is lower to allow room for some more big discoveries like inflation.)
Unfortunately, people will be (hopefully) studying this for thousands of years on top of the <100 we have so far, and none of us will live to see how it turns out in the long term.
And I'm guessing that the publishers who use region codes cry like babies whenever governments impose artificial barriers to free trade.
It's like the old Texan saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, can't get fooled again."
I always heard it as: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
And of course, the word of choice usually wasn't "fool".
(Is this really a regional saying?)
This is the comic book version of what happened.
Like all esoteric fields of study, we outsiders can't understand it because we don't have The Right Stuff.
(Presumably that's something they smoke.)
My first cynical thought was "shoot them down if they blow up". But one bomber claimed to be on board, so they could have reasonably been concerned that the planes would be hijacked and used as missiles.
Yeah. If you make threats on Slashdot you get picked up by men in white coats instead of black helicopters.
``the number of escapees was so small as to be undetectable``.
This doesn`t exactly sound encouraging.
It means no one had died yet, as far as they know.
A state spying on it's own citizens... shameful. I'd be outraged, unless of course they said it was part of the war on terror, or whatever China's current favorite boogeyman is.
What do we know about the security of systems such as onStar?
But will a wearing a dongle help?
If you can think of as many distinct sexual activities as there are symbols in your wrinting system, make a table and encode your secret messages as porn movies. (Spies will probably watch them, but probably also forget that they're supposed to be looking for messages.)
"...serious newspapers and comedy TV shows..."
This is so stupid I don't even know where to start criticizing you...
Free speech means it's ok for him to post when he's off his meds.
Which is something that knowing a programming language isn't much help with.
We found your stoned script writers.
Don't forget the British Charm Unit, asswipe.
No, I'm an advocate of not having children. And yes, I started with myself.
I didn't have myself either. It's acually pretty common.
Actually, science "states" (or rather, simply recognizes) that it can't investigate anything that doesn't leave any observable evidence. It's religion that works hard to ensure that their cherished phenomena all stay in that category.
It is also impossible to disprove the existence of anyone's god(s).
FTFY
Reading their editorials in the first place is kind of like eating their dogfood and washing it down with their kool-aide.
"If there is a God then lie is a miracle. If there is no God then life is an even bigger miracle".
I disagree: God+life is a bigger miracle than life alone.
Which of those categories does UNIX editors fit under?
Is that what I think it is?
Francises/sequels: 4
New movie projects: 0
There will be fallout.
Hopefully not nuclear...