Things goes to something that has been bothering me recently. This isn't something that is new, I'm sure it's been around as long as we've had intelligent (hah!) expression. But it seems a bit more prevalent recently. I'm talking about presumably basically honest people being willing to misrepresent something to their (perceived) advantage as long as some loose interpretation of their words can be considered to be true. And by 'some' interpretation, I mean an interpretation other than what they hope the majority of their audience will make.
I don't know the first thing about Schartz, so maybe he's just a slime ball or maybe he just didn't understand the underlying concepts of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, but this sort of behaviour seems to be considered fair ball play these days. And I think it is something that should be left behind on the playground. Heck, it wasn't that common on most the playgrounds of my childhood, outside of certain particular types of debates (where it was understood that different rules of conduct held sway).
Am I right? Is there more of this in the public sphere these days? Or is it just the same-old, same-old?
suspect that an internal-combustion engine such as one already used in production motorcycles could be tuned to burn a hydrogen mix, and that 6 liters (at what pressure? liquid?) for that mileage is not really news.
Aside from the question of measuring the fuel, I do think that a hybrid fuel (hydrogen/gasoline) IC engined car might be a better way forward than a electric/gasoline hybrid. I don't have a link, but according to Consumer Reports, the actual mileage of the Toyota Prius is much less than its EPA rating. And one of the concerns facing the adoption of hydrogen fuel cell cars is the lack of infrastrure (the other is the technology itself and the cost thereof). So with a hybrid fuel vehicle, you could foster the development of the distribution network while waiting for the technology to catch up.
None of these alternative technologies have even a significant fraction of the investment that internal combustion and petroleum technologies have. You can't build an ecological dream car with off-the-shelf components right now. I think we all know that.
But every time someone finds a new angle (whether or not this is the case here) or some new refinement, we get just a little bit closer.
Going back to the storage issue, if we're lucky someone will figure out these storage matrix thingies that were mentioned here a while back. Who was it that was working on them? Dupont? I think it used some kind of silicon matrix with an internal surface area in the square meters per gram range. Although I could be halucinating. Again.
... and that 6 liters (at what pressure? liquid?)...
The article seems to say 6 liters of 'water-based solution of sodium borohydride' not of pure hydrogen. So I guess the question would be, what concentration?
Seriously though, are we supposed to be impressed by a freshman english paper that you can't find?
Actions influence thoughts. Thoughts influence actions. And you can add in speech, as well. This doesn't mean that X hours of CS will make you a murderer; it doesn't turn you into a zombie. But, IMO, violence begets violence, whether it is abstract or concrete, real or imaginary.
There is always the matter of degree, and because most of us can distinguish between a game and reality, the influence of the game is greatly lessened. Throw in other mitigating factors like the fact that playing these games often relieves stress and is fun, and the net effect may even be positive. (I stress the word 'may').
I make this argument mostly philosophically. And I don't necessarily practice what I preach, as I like to play such games when I get the chance. I just think that the position that there is _no_ influence or correlation is naive or ignorant. But most of all, it is self-serving.
Some posters are doubting whether the alleged perps were really dressed specifically as CS characters, and not as generic swat team members or terrorists. I'd give them the benefit of a doubt for the time being, but keep in mind that just because the linked article didn't say what the supporting evidence is doesn't mean there isn't any.
There is one small clue, however. Look at his name. Is Sophear Em really his birth name?
I drew that conclusion purely from the parts that I quoted. The second quote was a footnote to the first quote, but I wasn't sure how to use superscript here.
Reasons for going public now...
on
So, Who Wrote Sobig?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Leaving aside the validity of their arguments for the time being (though I found them persuasive), I was wondering why exactly they felt the need to release this now. I think there are a few clues in the document:
"Sobig was so virulent that on November 5, 2003 Microsoft, in coordination with the FBI, Secret Service, and Interpol, setup the Anti-Virus Reward Program. Backed by $5 million from Microsoft, the program offered a $250,000 bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the Sobig author."
And they add in a footnote to that sentence:
"Ironically, our investigation into the identification of the likely Sobig author(s) and corresponding findings had already been concluded and passed on to law enforcement over two months prior to the Microsoft bounty offer. The bounty was not our incentive."
So they say they had submitted their research prior to Nov. 5, '03. Why go public now? Though they don't say it, I can't help but think that it was frustration. Their own explanations for why they are going public seem thin to me.
A techinical solution would be great, but what I describe wouldn't entail very heavy government involvement. Most of the work could be done a standards body like ISO or ANSI.
Let me clarify a little. Common paragraphs, clauses, or even whole contracts, would each be given a unique number by the standards body or relevent government department. If they didn't desire anything special, vendors would simply put the data in an xml file or something. It is just a form of standardized short hand. You don't reread the GPL everytime you use software that falls under it, do you? This is a similar idea with the addition of automated preferences.
What if someone put together the most common paragraphs, and a government agency tracked them and gave them all numbers? That way, you could set up your preferences with your browser to permit whatever standard agreements were fine with you. Then, you'd only need to read or be suscipicious of EULAs that had nonstandard language.
Ouch. California would definitely be the place to try it first, I guess. They already have tighter emmissions standards.
If a state government is going to spend much money on it, whether through tax breaks or through direct subsidies, it might be better to put the subsidies into the consumption end. Ie, make the alternate fuel as cheap or cheaper than gas (per mile with a good engine, not per gallon). Of course, that might be just too expensive, but at least the state would know that their expenditure was tied to the effectiveness of the overall program.
Keeping to my original post's idea, I wouldn't necessarily recommend this strategy for pushin _any_ alternate fuel, but rather for hydrogen, or fuels that can be rectified into hydrogen, for use in fuel cells when the technology gets there.
The project is cool overall, but the thing that interested me the most was the dashboard switch. How hard is it to make an IC engine that can run off of two different fuels without sacrificing much efficiency? The reason I ask is, people often say that a large problem for the adoption of hydrogen fuel cars is the chicken or the egg problem of popularity and infrastructure. I'm not saying there aren't other problems, but you hear that one a lot.
If we started out with switchable IC engines, then people could buy the cars as long as there was some chance of using hydrogen part of the time - regular gas would always be available for backup. I bet the state of California would be interested in conceding some CAFE (do they still use that?) points to manufacturers who came out with such vehicles.
Some people want it to change, some don't, many are not aware that there is a question. It is a democracy, and it is a republic, the two are not mutually exclusive unless you take the strictest form of democracy as your defintion. You're right that part of the public, or even most of the public, wanting something doesn't automatically make it so. But widely-felt opinions do have a way of creeping into politics - such is a representative democracy. Some popular topics, for one reason or another, do get marginalized for various reasons.
You say, "... John Q. Public can't initiate anything..." but surely that is an overly-cynical point of view?
I should have said, "... Significant change will happen if and when..." rather than just "when" but my point was that while the obstacles to such major changes may seem overwhelming, they need not be if taken one step at a time.
In all of these electoral issues; the electoral college, congressional districtiong, voting methods, and campaign finance reform, magical, all-at-once reform is practically impossible. However, incremental reform is possible at the national level, and quite possible at the state level. We have already seen the states make some motions in these matters over the years, and I expect to see more. Significant change will happen when a solution has a large enough 'presence', so to speak, on the national stage that it becomes a topic of real debate.
In case you didn't explore the site fully, this page explains their arguments against IRV. Personally, I find them very compelling.
What you say here leads into their arguments:
Yes there are contrived conditions where you can show that some mathematically disproportionate fraction of the populace would be "happier" with a different candidate, but look at the reality of voting in the US. 90-99% of the voters split their votes relatively evenly between the two major parties. The rest split them fairly unevenly between the remaining minor contenders.
As long as the minor parties are quite minor, IRV will just provide more interesting protest votes. And there is probably some value in that, but it isn't enough. As soon as a party or candidate becomes big enough to challenge the main two, the spoiler effect comes right back into play.
But please read the above linked page for a much clearer and more thorough explanation.
Apply this to the current election. Assume you are a big Naderhead, you can tolerate Kerry, and you hate Bush. If you've got half a brain, you'll give all your points to Kerry. Just like the existing plurality system.
What's your point? The parent to my post seemed say think that the grandparent had made up the summarization and that #3 was disputable. In fact, all the gp was doing was quoting the article directly.
The grandparent isn't summarizing on its own, it's quoting the creator of the code in question as quoted in the first of the two Newsforge stories. At the end of that article is a rebuttal by Emir Sakic (the coder) to the allegations made by Brian Connolly. The rebuttal contains the above five points.
Well you RTFAed rather poorly. The article never said that the Annenburg poll targeted Factor viewers, it said the following:
Comedy Central used its viewers' test scores Tuesday to strike back at Fox News Channel and O'Reilly's viewers.
It also trotted out stats from Nielsen Media Research to show that Stewart's viewers are not only smart, but more educated than O'Reilly's.
Then it when on to quote Comedy Central siting some of the statistics from Nielsen.
Also, if 48% of 18-29 yro Daily Show viewers got all 6 questions right, it may not be that impressive, but it is a lot higher than just guessing! The questions are multiple choice: 5 with 2 choices, and 1 with 4. You do the rest of the math, I'm way too tired.
Slashdot Mirror
Things goes to something that has been bothering me recently. This isn't something that is new, I'm sure it's been around as long as we've had intelligent (hah!) expression. But it seems a bit more prevalent recently. I'm talking about presumably basically honest people being willing to misrepresent something to their (perceived) advantage as long as some loose interpretation of their words can be considered to be true. And by 'some' interpretation, I mean an interpretation other than what they hope the majority of their audience will make.
I don't know the first thing about Schartz, so maybe he's just a slime ball or maybe he just didn't understand the underlying concepts of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, but this sort of behaviour seems to be considered fair ball play these days. And I think it is something that should be left behind on the playground. Heck, it wasn't that common on most the playgrounds of my childhood, outside of certain particular types of debates (where it was understood that different rules of conduct held sway).
Am I right? Is there more of this in the public sphere these days? Or is it just the same-old, same-old?
Aside from the question of measuring the fuel, I do think that a hybrid fuel (hydrogen/gasoline) IC engined car might be a better way forward than a electric/gasoline hybrid. I don't have a link, but according to Consumer Reports, the actual mileage of the Toyota Prius is much less than its EPA rating. And one of the concerns facing the adoption of hydrogen fuel cell cars is the lack of infrastrure (the other is the technology itself and the cost thereof). So with a hybrid fuel vehicle, you could foster the development of the distribution network while waiting for the technology to catch up.
None of these alternative technologies have even a significant fraction of the investment that internal combustion and petroleum technologies have. You can't build an ecological dream car with off-the-shelf components right now. I think we all know that.
But every time someone finds a new angle (whether or not this is the case here) or some new refinement, we get just a little bit closer.
Going back to the storage issue, if we're lucky someone will figure out these storage matrix thingies that were mentioned here a while back. Who was it that was working on them? Dupont? I think it used some kind of silicon matrix with an internal surface area in the square meters per gram range. Although I could be halucinating. Again.
It does if you remove the space that the lameness filter inserts. Ofc, if it was a link ,then it wouldn't happen.
Yeah, but you're obviously biased.
Seriously though, are we supposed to be impressed by a freshman english paper that you can't find?
Actions influence thoughts. Thoughts influence actions. And you can add in speech, as well. This doesn't mean that X hours of CS will make you a murderer; it doesn't turn you into a zombie. But, IMO, violence begets violence, whether it is abstract or concrete, real or imaginary.
There is always the matter of degree, and because most of us can distinguish between a game and reality, the influence of the game is greatly lessened. Throw in other mitigating factors like the fact that playing these games often relieves stress and is fun, and the net effect may even be positive. (I stress the word 'may').
I make this argument mostly philosophically. And I don't necessarily practice what I preach, as I like to play such games when I get the chance. I just think that the position that there is _no_ influence or correlation is naive or ignorant. But most of all, it is self-serving.
Some posters are doubting whether the alleged perps were really dressed specifically as CS characters, and not as generic swat team members or terrorists. I'd give them the benefit of a doubt for the time being, but keep in mind that just because the linked article didn't say what the supporting evidence is doesn't mean there isn't any.
There is one small clue, however. Look at his name. Is Sophear Em really his birth name?
... this one, I mean. And I'm convinced it is one of those Magic Eye things.
I drew that conclusion purely from the parts that I quoted. The second quote was a footnote to the first quote, but I wasn't sure how to use superscript here.
And they add in a footnote to that sentence:
So they say they had submitted their research prior to Nov. 5, '03. Why go public now? Though they don't say it, I can't help but think that it was frustration. Their own explanations for why they are going public seem thin to me.
A techinical solution would be great, but what I describe wouldn't entail very heavy government involvement. Most of the work could be done a standards body like ISO or ANSI.
Let me clarify a little. Common paragraphs, clauses, or even whole contracts, would each be given a unique number by the standards body or relevent government department. If they didn't desire anything special, vendors would simply put the data in an xml file or something. It is just a form of standardized short hand. You don't reread the GPL everytime you use software that falls under it, do you? This is a similar idea with the addition of automated preferences.
What if someone put together the most common paragraphs, and a government agency tracked them and gave them all numbers? That way, you could set up your preferences with your browser to permit whatever standard agreements were fine with you. Then, you'd only need to read or be suscipicious of EULAs that had nonstandard language.
Ouch. California would definitely be the place to try it first, I guess. They already have tighter emmissions standards.
If a state government is going to spend much money on it, whether through tax breaks or through direct subsidies, it might be better to put the subsidies into the consumption end. Ie, make the alternate fuel as cheap or cheaper than gas (per mile with a good engine, not per gallon). Of course, that might be just too expensive, but at least the state would know that their expenditure was tied to the effectiveness of the overall program.
Keeping to my original post's idea, I wouldn't necessarily recommend this strategy for pushin _any_ alternate fuel, but rather for hydrogen, or fuels that can be rectified into hydrogen, for use in fuel cells when the technology gets there.
The project is cool overall, but the thing that interested me the most was the dashboard switch. How hard is it to make an IC engine that can run off of two different fuels without sacrificing much efficiency? The reason I ask is, people often say that a large problem for the adoption of hydrogen fuel cars is the chicken or the egg problem of popularity and infrastructure. I'm not saying there aren't other problems, but you hear that one a lot.
If we started out with switchable IC engines, then people could buy the cars as long as there was some chance of using hydrogen part of the time - regular gas would always be available for backup. I bet the state of California would be interested in conceding some CAFE (do they still use that?) points to manufacturers who came out with such vehicles.
Do you measure gas mileage in miles per liter?
Some people want it to change, some don't, many are not aware that there is a question. It is a democracy, and it is a republic, the two are not mutually exclusive unless you take the strictest form of democracy as your defintion. You're right that part of the public, or even most of the public, wanting something doesn't automatically make it so. But widely-felt opinions do have a way of creeping into politics - such is a representative democracy. Some popular topics, for one reason or another, do get marginalized for various reasons.
..." but surely that is an overly-cynical point of view?
..." rather than just "when" but my point was that while the obstacles to such major changes may seem overwhelming, they need not be if taken one step at a time.
You say, "... John Q. Public can't initiate anything
I should have said, "... Significant change will happen if and when
In all of these electoral issues; the electoral college, congressional districtiong, voting methods, and campaign finance reform, magical, all-at-once reform is practically impossible. However, incremental reform is possible at the national level, and quite possible at the state level. We have already seen the states make some motions in these matters over the years, and I expect to see more. Significant change will happen when a solution has a large enough 'presence', so to speak, on the national stage that it becomes a topic of real debate.
I've already posted in this discussion, or I'd mod you up. I agree completely with all that you said.
In case you didn't explore the site fully, this page explains their arguments against IRV. Personally, I find them very compelling.
What you say here leads into their arguments:
Yes there are contrived conditions where you can show that some mathematically disproportionate fraction of the populace would be "happier" with a different candidate, but look at the reality of voting in the US. 90-99% of the voters split their votes relatively evenly between the two major parties. The rest split them fairly unevenly between the remaining minor contenders.
As long as the minor parties are quite minor, IRV will just provide more interesting protest votes. And there is probably some value in that, but it isn't enough. As soon as a party or candidate becomes big enough to challenge the main two, the spoiler effect comes right back into play.
But please read the above linked page for a much clearer and more thorough explanation.
Apply this to the current election. Assume you are a big Naderhead, you can tolerate Kerry, and you hate Bush. If you've got half a brain, you'll give all your points to Kerry. Just like the existing plurality system.
What's your point? The parent to my post seemed say think that the grandparent had made up the summarization and that #3 was disputable. In fact, all the gp was doing was quoting the article directly.
The grandparent isn't summarizing on its own, it's quoting the creator of the code in question as quoted in the first of the two Newsforge stories. At the end of that article is a rebuttal by Emir Sakic (the coder) to the allegations made by Brian Connolly. The rebuttal contains the above five points.
Which is to say, "You aren't dead so you can't be sick."
Well you RTFAed rather poorly. The article never said that the Annenburg poll targeted Factor viewers, it said the following:
Comedy Central used its viewers' test scores Tuesday to strike back at Fox News Channel and O'Reilly's viewers.
It also trotted out stats from Nielsen Media Research to show that Stewart's viewers are not only smart, but more educated than O'Reilly's.
Then it when on to quote Comedy Central siting some of the statistics from Nielsen.
Also, if 48% of 18-29 yro Daily Show viewers got all 6 questions right, it may not be that impressive, but it is a lot higher than just guessing! The questions are multiple choice: 5 with 2 choices, and 1 with 4. You do the rest of the math, I'm way too tired.
Why is the modded 'Informative'? Surely it is supposed to be sarcastic. Was it because it contained a link?