The Specials (not the yellow bus type) - full body amour, full powers, part timers, normally attend Friday and Saturday night pissed up punch-ups and football matches. Hated because they do it for free - it's all about gaining power and gold stars.
Community Service Officers - no power, only report crimes. Jumped up little Hitlers. The next step up from a traffic warden. Useless waste of money as they get paid a wage.
Sounds like both groups provide no value to society in your eyes. I wonder if you can rephrase your comment from their perspective.
"-1 Citation Needed" seems like you're trying to turn the moderation into a measure of truth. It's not. It's a measure of the interest/insight/humor/flamebait to the mods that day.
We don't need mods to become another comment system. Let the comments flow, but keep the mod buckets narrow.
Actually, be neither. I want/. to be transparent. I would like the editors to pick up from the firehose, expand/research/decline stories and then post them without editorial bias.
I would dislike any strong appearance of a "personality" to/. We chew on the news, that's it.
You should note that Ars suffered heavily from trolling and childish debate style for a long time. They are now in a "heavily mod/boot" operational mode. This only lasts as long as the editors have the effort. It also discourages participation since many folks don't know how to say something without being smarmy, but the central point may be valid. It's a blurry line.
- there is no one true way
- people learn a skill and want to continue using it
- concise syntax / small footprint / fast load times
- high confidence shell scripts will run on unknown systems
- can be layered on years of useful scripts
- distrust of your options for doing work
Overall, Ted Nelson seems to want to build an internet where he controls all of the rules, and a series of authorities dictate stricter rules of participation than today's model. That's fine, he can create that.
However, there will always be another entity to allow for most of these rules to be ignored, broken, and redesigned. One cannot remove the chaos of the group, I believe. There are just tiers of agreed upon rule sets that each subgroup in society will use, and there just isn't "one ring to rule them all".
It seems much more fun to get in a protecting browser and wander in the wild, open network than it is to click through what seems like an authoritarian wiki / online mall. The micropayment system seems uniquely like a ubiquitous paywall, which has been shown for two decades to not work - folks simply search for another site offering the same info for free.
Every Xanadu server is uniquely and securely identified.
This seems like a tilt to remove rogue members of a trusted network. But the "trust provider" is just lifting the issue to another set of players with the same problem. Who is the registrar for identification? How do we trust them? How is a registry of servers co-managed efficiently?
Every Xanadu server can be operated independently or in a network.
This seems like stating the obvious, but combined with the above, can I operate independently without being "uniquely and securely identified" ?
Every user is uniquely and securely identified.
Anonymity is gone? Is there no belief in the "anonymous suggestion box" psychology that by staying anonymous, more participation can be encountered? This seems like another tilt towards tracking all actions and statements. Again, who is the identifier? What are the rules of privacy?
Every user can search, retrieve, create and store documents.
Just like a Wiki. Can we comment on documents? Can we copy them? Can we derive new works based on them? Can we delete them?
Every document can consist of any number of parts each of which may be of any data type.
Which means a document is a compound object that requires any number of translators from storage format to human-interface. Just like a, um, web site. Can a new data type be introduced? By whom?
Every document can contain links of any type including virtual copies ("transclusions") to any other document in the system accessible to its owner.
You cannot link to documents you do not own? You cannot link to general server locations, when therein it completes the query (index,default,home)?
Links are visible and can be followed from all endpoints.
"Visible" seems ambiguous. Is the blue underlined word required? This seems to imply all links are bi-directional. Do I really want to see all the links to article (like those inane "trackback" comments on blogs)?
Permission to link to a document is explicitly granted by the act of publication.
What about deep linking? Can someone link to be bank statement? My email inbox? What is meant by "publication"? Not everything online should be public.
Every document can contain a royalty mechanism at any desired degree of granularity to ensure payment on any portion accessed, including virtual copies ("transclusions") of all or part of the document.
So all links and downloads have a micropayment mechanism. Who is ensuring payment? How do public terminals (libraries, coffee shops) with anonymous users pay for content? What if someone operates a server "independently" and refuses payment but has captured and is serving the same content, or derived content? Do we have a "download police" ?
Every document is uniquely and securely identified.
By whom? How? What is a document? How are documents revoked?
No, this is on par for such devices. There is little to no file system mgmt for field devices or EDRs. Just write and write. The file table is always apart from the circular memory. The amount of capacity to report is a known hack performed long ago for USB memory sticks. This is the same thing in a different package. This is probably all one chip.
You can buyyourown (some come with the circular write as an option) and although the capacity is probably truthful, you can put it in a hard drive case and sell it to all the fools you can find.
These devices aren't even made specifically for this hack. These are common data recorders for weather stations, EDR's for autos, etc. The genius here was probably more in the acquisition of the case and label.
"Science" is a process of organized curiosity, investigation and explanation. It's worked for all topics of human knowledge - if there's a better way to accurately grow our body of knowledge, Science uses it (there is a science behind the improvement of the scientific method). From the bounds of the universe to mathematical theories for the building blocks of matter - and experiments to test them - we've been able to successfully harness our environment to do our will . It's even been able to explain the specific energy ranges where the properties of physics combine/erode. (Under the energy ranges of things like massive bodies like black holes, the same physics applies everywhere - which means we know what any space travel would entail for a given mass, for example)
Your "current science" term is something I don't understand. Research is a massively dynamic area, across many areas. I would be very skeptical of anyone purporting to know the "latest" on all scientific realms.
Also, your term "that phenomenon" seems to refer to something earlier in the conversation, but I don't know which, since there's been so many straws grasped at.
Cutting to the chase, you can take this away from my perspective overall, since I doubt I'll be checking back again:
- There is little possibility of life traveling to Earth from another planet to act as we have described in alien pop-culture. I would be more inclined to see a message from an intelligent source than a physical object. Given the thousands of years it takes for light to span these distances, it's not a communication we should egotistically expect given that we've relatively just arisen from the stone age and started making noises.
- The endless searching among the clouds and photos for aliens/angels/ghosts is a huge waste of time. Each and every investigation has not resulted in any massive upheaval in common knowledge or a press conference where something amazing is presented. In fact, it's repeatedly only embarrassed and confused the believers into questioning why they are the only ones who "get it" - simply because they refused to look at their methods. The web allows these folks to band together and feel good about holding to their untestable theories, but it doesn't make them any more true.
- There is a pathological issue with people who deride our own scientific might while claiming that "higher intelligence" resides just around the corner. We have comes close to explaining almost all of physics for many levels of energy (most of the colder states of space), and folks who think we haven't figured out much are vastly underestimating the huge steps we've taken. The technology we use every day are the final layer of consumer product that is built upon a strong and proven scientific method to explain our universe. One cannot simultaneously use the technology and yet claim we're "too stupid" to understand how aliens would arrive. On the contrary, most people are too ignorant to understand the details behind academic press releases.
- A huge, huge number of people claiming otherworldly or supernatural sources for phenomenon have been debunked, revealed as a hoax, or simply forgotten. There are several centuries of alchemists, sages, priests, pseudo-scientists and quacks that have tried to get the population around them to believe in something without scientific proof it works or is real. They're all been left behind since their results have no purpose or have never been able to be used. There's no Ouija board, crystal ball, alien technology, spiritual talisman, magical photo/video or ghostly consultant that has pushed mankind into a larger body of workable knowledge. At best, we learn how we can dream things up and fool ourselves.
"Unexplained" means investigate - don't guess (without being able to test your guess with a repeatable experiment). Every time that happens in UFO investigation, it never results in finding aliens. Sorry, reality is not on your side here.
- the projector-based "cloaking" you mention is highly limited. (single point-of-view) it's more of a camouflage. - rare-tribe isolation is an anthropological and humanitarian choice. underdeveloped immunity to disease is a strong reason to avoid contact alone. - quantum mechanics does not purport to having built time machines for anything with mass. In fact, you may learn that it affirms that mass still cannot travel faster than light.
None of this can be extrapolated to "aliens are among us".
Science doesn't flourish on the idea of "keep an open mind" alone. If you look into the science of things, you may conclude that getting aliens all the way to Earth just to hide in the clouds doesn't have a high probability or make much sense. Or, you may conclude that all the world is mistaken and only you know the truth, in which case I can only offer that famous quote "How's life in Crazytown? Must be fun over there."
So don't explain it with other-world theories, since you cannot test this theory. You can, however, test ideas like social belief systems, hoax creation, and personal bias. A hoax means that evidence isn't. Without any evidence, one can generate a theory of anything-not-explained-yet based on Woodland Pixies just as easily, and endlessly discuss the possibilities, but it's not science, that's for sure.
God/Aliens/etc only lives in the cracks that science has not explained (yet). This has been slowly shrinking for hundreds of years.
Shady dealings at MUFON?! Like endlessly cataloging poor quality videos of frisbees, hubcaps and now cheap CG? Have they merged with the Society Of Tree Faeries and Wood Gnomes yet? Seems like they have similar databases and could possibly share a server.
"has been the discussion of ufology circles" and yet "goes without discussing" "If you argue otherwise, i would like to.. [present a logical fallacious argument]"
You, sir, have no sense of irony.
The entertainment level in the UFO world is outstanding as it is tiresome.
He published something, allowed comments on it, didn't like the comments, and wants to take it down? No problem.
But even after taking down your file, others are allowed to use that captured content under fair use terms, like all news of a public servant making a public speech where the press was invited.
Is he going to all the newspapers that published a written account of his speech?
How about knocking on doors requesting to cut the article out of the delivered newspaper, only after he overhears people in the town square laughing at it?
Essentially, removing the proof of his idiocy doesn't change the truth, but the evidence sure is fun to look at.
And now with this action - we have just more story of the idiocy, making for the Streisand effect. Some people don't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
The Specials (not the yellow bus type) - full body amour, full powers, part timers, normally attend Friday and Saturday night pissed up punch-ups and football matches. Hated because they do it for free - it's all about gaining power and gold stars.
Community Service Officers - no power, only report crimes. Jumped up little Hitlers. The next step up from a traffic warden. Useless waste of money as they get paid a wage.
Sounds like both groups provide no value to society in your eyes. I wonder if you can rephrase your comment from their perspective.
My revision is based on your set, which I like:
+1 Interesting
+1 Funny
-1 Wrong
-1 Unnecessary
"-1 Citation Needed" seems like you're trying to turn the moderation into a measure of truth. It's not. It's a measure of the interest/insight/humor/flamebait to the mods that day.
We don't need mods to become another comment system. Let the comments flow, but keep the mod buckets narrow.
If you only get 6 mods, which would you choose?
Actually, be neither. I want /. to be transparent. I would like the editors to pick up from the firehose, expand/research/decline stories and then post them without editorial bias.
I would dislike any strong appearance of a "personality" to /. We chew on the news, that's it.
Preview works. Use it. Playing editor is a tough job. I strongly dislike the concept of updates on posts. Forgive yourself and post a response.
If there a filter for mod types? Sometimes I just want to see the Funny.
I wrote about opinions in the article summaries. Editors should simply throw opinions into the comments, if they have any.
5) Take a note from Ars Technica..
You should note that Ars suffered heavily from trolling and childish debate style for a long time. They are now in a "heavily mod/boot" operational mode. This only lasts as long as the editors have the effort. It also discourages participation since many folks don't know how to say something without being smarmy, but the central point may be valid. It's a blurry line.
Poop and hair. where is the poop and hair?
I say the same thing to my dog when he looks guilty.
definition of 'scientist'.
Poop and hair. where is the poop and hair?
i say the same thing to my dog when he looks guilty.
HOAs make one "neighbor from hell" into many "neighbors from hell".
Uniformity in housing is an appeal to create an aesthetic of order where it really doesn't exist. Life isn't tidy no matter how your dress it up.
wow. how many ways can i answer that?
- there is no one true way
- people learn a skill and want to continue using it
- concise syntax / small footprint / fast load times
- high confidence shell scripts will run on unknown systems
- can be layered on years of useful scripts
- distrust of your options for doing work
Overall, Ted Nelson seems to want to build an internet where he controls all of the rules, and a series of authorities dictate stricter rules of participation than today's model. That's fine, he can create that.
However, there will always be another entity to allow for most of these rules to be ignored, broken, and redesigned. One cannot remove the chaos of the group, I believe. There are just tiers of agreed upon rule sets that each subgroup in society will use, and there just isn't "one ring to rule them all".
It seems much more fun to get in a protecting browser and wander in the wild, open network than it is to click through what seems like an authoritarian wiki / online mall. The micropayment system seems uniquely like a ubiquitous paywall, which has been shown for two decades to not work - folks simply search for another site offering the same info for free.
Every Xanadu server is uniquely and securely identified.
This seems like a tilt to remove rogue members of a trusted network. But the "trust provider" is just lifting the issue to another set of players with the same problem. Who is the registrar for identification? How do we trust them? How is a registry of servers co-managed efficiently?
Every Xanadu server can be operated independently or in a network.
This seems like stating the obvious, but combined with the above, can I operate independently without being "uniquely and securely identified" ?
Every user is uniquely and securely identified.
Anonymity is gone? Is there no belief in the "anonymous suggestion box" psychology that by staying anonymous, more participation can be encountered? This seems like another tilt towards tracking all actions and statements. Again, who is the identifier? What are the rules of privacy?
Every user can search, retrieve, create and store documents.
Just like a Wiki. Can we comment on documents? Can we copy them? Can we derive new works based on them? Can we delete them?
Every document can consist of any number of parts each of which may be of any data type.
Which means a document is a compound object that requires any number of translators from storage format to human-interface. Just like a, um, web site. Can a new data type be introduced? By whom?
Every document can contain links of any type including virtual copies ("transclusions") to any other document in the system accessible to its owner.
You cannot link to documents you do not own? You cannot link to general server locations, when therein it completes the query (index,default,home)?
Links are visible and can be followed from all endpoints.
"Visible" seems ambiguous. Is the blue underlined word required? This seems to imply all links are bi-directional. Do I really want to see all the links to article (like those inane "trackback" comments on blogs)?
Permission to link to a document is explicitly granted by the act of publication.
What about deep linking? Can someone link to be bank statement? My email inbox? What is meant by "publication"? Not everything online should be public.
Every document can contain a royalty mechanism at any desired degree of granularity to ensure payment on any portion accessed, including virtual copies ("transclusions") of all or part of the document.
So all links and downloads have a micropayment mechanism. Who is ensuring payment? How do public terminals (libraries, coffee shops) with anonymous users pay for content? What if someone operates a server "independently" and refuses payment but has captured and is serving the same content, or derived content? Do we have a "download police" ?
Every document is uniquely and securely identified.
By whom? How? What is a document? How are documents revoked?
Every document can have secure access controls.
No, this is on par for such devices. There is little to no file system mgmt for field devices or EDRs. Just write and write. The file table is always apart from the circular memory. The amount of capacity to report is a known hack performed long ago for USB memory sticks. This is the same thing in a different package. This is probably all one chip.
You can buy your own (some come with the circular write as an option) and although the capacity is probably truthful, you can put it in a hard drive case and sell it to all the fools you can find.
See Data Logger
These devices aren't even made specifically for this hack. These are common data recorders for weather stations, EDR's for autos, etc. The genius here was probably more in the acquisition of the case and label.
"Science" is a process of organized curiosity, investigation and explanation. It's worked for all topics of human knowledge - if there's a better way to accurately grow our body of knowledge, Science uses it (there is a science behind the improvement of the scientific method). From the bounds of the universe to mathematical theories for the building blocks of matter - and experiments to test them - we've been able to successfully harness our environment to do our will . It's even been able to explain the specific energy ranges where the properties of physics combine/erode. (Under the energy ranges of things like massive bodies like black holes, the same physics applies everywhere - which means we know what any space travel would entail for a given mass, for example)
Your "current science" term is something I don't understand. Research is a massively dynamic area, across many areas. I would be very skeptical of anyone purporting to know the "latest" on all scientific realms.
Also, your term "that phenomenon" seems to refer to something earlier in the conversation, but I don't know which, since there's been so many straws grasped at.
Cutting to the chase, you can take this away from my perspective overall, since I doubt I'll be checking back again:
- There is little possibility of life traveling to Earth from another planet to act as we have described in alien pop-culture. I would be more inclined to see a message from an intelligent source than a physical object. Given the thousands of years it takes for light to span these distances, it's not a communication we should egotistically expect given that we've relatively just arisen from the stone age and started making noises.
- The endless searching among the clouds and photos for aliens/angels/ghosts is a huge waste of time. Each and every investigation has not resulted in any massive upheaval in common knowledge or a press conference where something amazing is presented. In fact, it's repeatedly only embarrassed and confused the believers into questioning why they are the only ones who "get it" - simply because they refused to look at their methods. The web allows these folks to band together and feel good about holding to their untestable theories, but it doesn't make them any more true.
- There is a pathological issue with people who deride our own scientific might while claiming that "higher intelligence" resides just around the corner. We have comes close to explaining almost all of physics for many levels of energy (most of the colder states of space), and folks who think we haven't figured out much are vastly underestimating the huge steps we've taken. The technology we use every day are the final layer of consumer product that is built upon a strong and proven scientific method to explain our universe. One cannot simultaneously use the technology and yet claim we're "too stupid" to understand how aliens would arrive. On the contrary, most people are too ignorant to understand the details behind academic press releases.
- A huge, huge number of people claiming otherworldly or supernatural sources for phenomenon have been debunked, revealed as a hoax, or simply forgotten. There are several centuries of alchemists, sages, priests, pseudo-scientists and quacks that have tried to get the population around them to believe in something without scientific proof it works or is real. They're all been left behind since their results have no purpose or have never been able to be used. There's no Ouija board, crystal ball, alien technology, spiritual talisman, magical photo/video or ghostly consultant that has pushed mankind into a larger body of workable knowledge. At best, we learn how we can dream things up and fool ourselves.
But here on /. you'll see this summed up as
"it's bullshit son, move on"
"Unexplained" means investigate - don't guess (without being able to test your guess with a repeatable experiment). Every time that happens in UFO investigation, it never results in finding aliens. Sorry, reality is not on your side here.
- the projector-based "cloaking" you mention is highly limited. (single point-of-view) it's more of a camouflage.
- rare-tribe isolation is an anthropological and humanitarian choice. underdeveloped immunity to disease is a strong reason to avoid contact alone.
- quantum mechanics does not purport to having built time machines for anything with mass. In fact, you may learn that it affirms that mass still cannot travel faster than light.
None of this can be extrapolated to "aliens are among us".
Science doesn't flourish on the idea of "keep an open mind" alone. If you look into the science of things, you may conclude that getting aliens all the way to Earth just to hide in the clouds doesn't have a high probability or make much sense. Or, you may conclude that all the world is mistaken and only you know the truth, in which case I can only offer that famous quote "How's life in Crazytown? Must be fun over there."
Most military tech is made by non-military sources. Some of whom read this site.
Lay off the weed kid, your slip is showing.
So don't explain it with other-world theories, since you cannot test this theory. You can, however, test ideas like social belief systems, hoax creation, and personal bias. A hoax means that evidence isn't. Without any evidence, one can generate a theory of anything-not-explained-yet based on Woodland Pixies just as easily, and endlessly discuss the possibilities, but it's not science, that's for sure.
God/Aliens/etc only lives in the cracks that science has not explained (yet). This has been slowly shrinking for hundreds of years.
Shady dealings at MUFON?! Like endlessly cataloging poor quality videos of frisbees, hubcaps and now cheap CG? Have they merged with the Society Of Tree Faeries and Wood Gnomes yet? Seems like they have similar databases and could possibly share a server.
"has been the discussion of ufology circles" and yet "goes without discussing"
"If you argue otherwise, i would like to.. [present a logical fallacious argument]"
You, sir, have no sense of irony.
The entertainment level in the UFO world is outstanding as it is tiresome.
He published something, allowed comments on it, didn't like the comments, and wants to take it down? No problem.
But even after taking down your file, others are allowed to use that captured content under fair use terms, like all news of a public servant making a public speech where the press was invited.
Is he going to all the newspapers that published a written account of his speech?
How about knocking on doors requesting to cut the article out of the delivered newspaper, only after he overhears people in the town square laughing at it?
Essentially, removing the proof of his idiocy doesn't change the truth, but the evidence sure is fun to look at.
And now with this action - we have just more story of the idiocy, making for the Streisand effect. Some people don't get it.
Funny enough, the decrypted doesn't make any more sense:
#include
typedef unsigned int uint;
char ctb[512]="33733b2663236b763e7e362b6e2e667bd393db0643034b96de9ed60b4e0e4\
69b57175f82c787cf125a1a528fca8ac21fd999d10049094190d898d001480840913d7d35246\
d2d65743c7c34256c2c6475dd9dd5044d0d4594dc9cd4054c0c449559195180c989c11058185\
081c888c011d797df0247074f92da9ad20f4a0a429f53135b86c383cb165e1e568bce8ec61bb\
3f3bba6e3a3ebf6befeb6abeeaee6fb37773f2267276f723a7a322f6a2a627fb9f9b1a0e9a9e\
1f0b8f8b0a1e8a8e0f15d1d5584cd8dc5145c1c5485cc8cc415bdfdb5a4edade5f4bcfcb4a5e\
cace4f539793120692961703878302168286071b7f7bfa2e7a7eff2bafab2afeaaae2ff";
typedef unsigned char uchar;uint tb0[11]={5,0,1,2,3,4,0,1,2,3,4};uchar* F=NULL;
uint lf0,lf1,out;void ReadKey(uchar* key){int i;char hst[3]; hst[2]=0;if(F==\
NULL){F=malloc(256);for(i=0;i>2)^(lf0>>16))b=((lf1\
>>12)^(lf1>>20)^(lf1>>21)^(lf1>>24))lf0=(lf0>1)\
|(a>1)|(b>8)+x+y;} void \
CSSdescramble(uchar *sec,uchar *key){uint i;uchar *end=sec+0x800;uchar KEY[5];
for(i=0;i=0;\
i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[i+1]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key[tb0[i]];}void CSStitlekey2\
(uchar *key,uchar *im){uchar k[5];int i;ReadKey(im);for(i=0;i=0;i--)key[tb0[i+1]]=k[tb0[i+1]]^F[key[tb0[i+1]]]^key\
[tb0[i]];}void CSSdecrypttitlekey(uchar *tkey,uchar *dkey){int i;uchar im1[6];
uchar im2[6]={0x51,0x67,0x67,0xc5,0xe0,0x00};for(i=0;i6;i++)im1[i]=dkey[i];
CSStitlekey1(im1,im2);CSStitlekey2(tkey,im1);}