U2 spyplane is flying through the stratosphere more or less horizontally.
Space dust is falling through the stratosphere more or less vertically.
Paths of plane and space dust intersect.
Space dust particles, being in general much smaller than a U2 spyplane*, stick to the plane rather than the other way around.
*) If the dust particles are large enough, however, it is possible for the plane, or at least pieces of it, to stick to the particle as it plummets towards the Earth. Space dust particles of such size are usually called meteors, and their encounters with high-altitude spyplanes are usually referred to as "shit happens".
While the issues you point out may well be relevant, it should be pointed out that the proposal for the new law has existed in more or less the same form as it has now for several years already. Recent events may be important in determining whether the law gets passed, but they did not influence its drafting.
If only we could mount some lasers on stars to project those helpful constellation lines.
Actually, Cassiopeia is one of those "can't miss it" constellations, lines or no lines. Just look for five stars arranged in a big "W" overhead. They're all pretty bright stars, too, so you can find them easily even if you live in the middle of the city.
Now finding the actual nova candidate in question, that's more of a challenge. You can estimate the place where it should be, but actually seeing it is going to take a clear dark sky. Which are getting harder and harder to find, these days, unless you go way out in the middle of nowhere, away from all city and road lights...
Now what I don't understand is how Sierpinski-ness can be proven, how they know there's not some huge n that makes 78557*2^n+1 prime after all; and I can't find the info.
Here's some info, though the exact construction of the proof isn't give. Apparently, it's possible to prove that for any n, 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by one of a finite (and quite small) number of primes. As to how, ask the guy who proved it...
You don't see Best Buy closing its doors because one in every hundred people walking in off the street are there to shoplift.
If one in every hundred people (that's quite many, really) walking into a given store started knocking down shelves, throwing water balloons, spraypainting everything red, and generally making it impossible for everyone else to shop, you bet they'd close down that store.
That is, assuming they for some reason couldn't set up better security or do something else to stop such insane behavior. Apperently, in the analogous case on EFNet, they can't. It's 25 bans or nothing.
With the rest of your post I agree. The real problem is indeed a technical one. 25 bans is not enough to allow fine-grained access control, particularly if they can't be overridden. Given this, the ops are stuck between letting the troublemakers in or banning whole countries. And innocent users suffer the consequences.
Now, unless we actually find someone here who can do something about these technical issues, why don't we just conclude that the whole thing sucks, and leave it at that?
I'm always a bit skeptical when I'm told I'm about to be surveyed anonymously, and I can't think of a way that this can be implemented (or at least is likely to be implemented) that would reassure me.
There is a fairly well-known survey technique called randomized response that implements just this. The way to ensure trust is simply to let the user generate the random noise, for example by flipping a coin.
For example, to answer a sensitive yes/no question, you could be instructed to flip a coin. If you get heads, you answer the question truthfully. If you get tails, you flip the coin again, and answer "yes" for heads / "no" for tails. Thus, there is a 50% probability that any given answer is completely random, but the noise can easily be removed from the aggregate statistics.
Mind you, I don't think that's what the NYT article is describing. The text is too vague to to be sure, but it does seem as if they're describing a server-side randomization system. If so, I wouldn't trust that either.
Try reading some Greg Egan..
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
There were several posts I could've replied to with this, but I thought it'd be nice to counter one SF reference with another..
Basically, people had filtering software so powerful, that they could filter out anything they didn't want to see - bad news, people they didn't agree with, etc. By doing this, they warped their worldview to the extent that they were no longer capable of understanding what was going on out there.
This whole thing hinges on the assumption that people in general have dislike anything that might change the way they think. But if we all had such hermetic memes, why would we ever read this discussion?
Those who want to ignore things can always do it - whether it's by using a filter, an outlook (as in Diaspora - not the M$ program, though I suppose that'd apply too) or their own mind. All those different levels accomplish the same thing, and the fact that we haven't turned into solipsist lotus-eaters already proves that we won't be doing so in the future either.
Some hacker wrote a virii (I use hacker on purpose on here - this I consider a cool hack, not a crack) which randomized people's settings, forcing them to be aware of other things that were going on.
This I would indeed consider a good thing, but it has little to do with the debate. (How much it has to do with Katz's original text depends on how one interprets it.) If you wear a bag over your head and bump into things, the bag is not to blame. A culture that doesn't want to learn and be aware of the world surrounding it is self-destructive, and can only recover through harsh and invasive treatment.
Luckily, we in general can and want to perceive reality, and that trait isn't likely to vanish - even if everything else fails, natural selection will take care of that, by favoring those not bumping blindly into things. What has gotten us this far from the trees is a desire to learn new things, and no filter is going to elminate that.
But would anyone mind if someone broke into your house, didn't touch anything, and left a note telling you when he broke in, how he broke in, and how to prevent any future break-ins?
Ah yes, this (or more precisely the comment made in an oddly misplaced reply about shooting said intruder) is what I like to call the Santa Claus fallacy.
Following that logic to its conclusion, these people would arrest Ol' St. Nick for breaking and entering[1] - after all, how could you know he wasn't going to stash your stereos in that sack - possibly along with several other offenses ranging from smuggling to violating flight regulations.
The underlying circular legalism (breaking the law is wrong <-> things are illegal because they are wrong) makes this IMO false, but what really turns it into a fallacy is the fact that the very same people who hold the belief that laws should be followed without exception are usually quite willing to make an exception whenever confronted with a specific case not obsured by generalizations and prejudices.
In particular, before any of you jump to reply that Santa doesn't really exist, ask yourself: If I (and perhaps a whole movement of other altruists) were to get a red suit, beard and a sackful of toys and go sneaking into your house on christmas eve, what would you do?
If you say that the very act of entering your house without consent is illegal, and that regardless of my intentions I still would have the opportunity to replace the toys in the sack with your property[2], fine. I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But why are you then not telling your kids that Santa Claus is a notorious criminal? Why are you teaching them that it is right for a stranger to break into your house in the middle of the night, as long as he only intends to give presents?
or whatever offense would be applicable in your jurisdiction for someone climbing down your chimney
Is it that ASCII text and animated chat room icons lets us hide behind a false face: One we can draw ourselves and discard at anytime.
Perhaps, but in my personal experience there are other reasons as well. I can recognize myself from the general description of someone more open on the 'net than in RL, but the explanation doesn't quite add up.
While I've always followed the principle of not revealing more about myself than is relevant to the situation, I've never hidden behind a throw-away identity - I've used this same nick since I was 13, when the first BBS I called asked me to come up with an alias. It's not that I wouldn't like creating new aliases for specific situations - I do have a few in various MUDs etc. - but I consider these to be merely further aspects of my identity. Some people may know me only as my old, no longer used MUD character, but doing something stupid under that name would still leave them thinking that whoever was behind it was an idiot.
IMHO the 'net reveals at least as much about people as it hides, by removing (sometimes!) all those layers of stereotypes that get between personalities. The comments about people with female-sounding names getting harrassed online are a case of RL preconceptions leaking onto the 'net - the other side of the coin is that people with neutral identification can engage in discussions without their gender getting in the way.
But aside from the openness, I feel the main reason it is easier for me to converse on the 'net is the very medium itself. I know several people who are more fluent when writing than when speaking, and I know that applies to myself. I suppose it comes from a type of introverted personality, subtly perfectionist to the point that I dislike uttering anything without having considered the phrasing and its possible interpretations fully.
While I'm nonetheless fairly relaxed in normal social circumstances, and have also been getting more and more open IRL as well, I know there are even those who take this kind of behavior to such extremes that it becomes not just another personality type, but a pathological feedback loop. Even for these people the 'net may be a way to communicate free of nervousness and uncertainty. Nobody stutters when typing.
Of course, this in itself may be enough to place me in a minority here - I have watched people I know join chat lines under fake names, tossing around flame bait, and then suddenly switch to honest personal discussion when someone gives a sensible reply. For me even trying that would probably either split my personality terminally, or simply fail.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd assume it goes something like this:
*) If the dust particles are large enough, however, it is possible for the plane, or at least pieces of it, to stick to the particle as it plummets towards the Earth. Space dust particles of such size are usually called meteors, and their encounters with high-altitude spyplanes are usually referred to as "shit happens".
While the issues you point out may well be relevant, it should be pointed out that the proposal for the new law has existed in more or less the same form as it has now for several years already. Recent events may be important in determining whether the law gets passed, but they did not influence its drafting.
Actually, Cassiopeia is one of those "can't miss it" constellations, lines or no lines. Just look for five stars arranged in a big "W" overhead. They're all pretty bright stars, too, so you can find them easily even if you live in the middle of the city.
Now finding the actual nova candidate in question, that's more of a challenge. You can estimate the place where it should be, but actually seeing it is going to take a clear dark sky. Which are getting harder and harder to find, these days, unless you go way out in the middle of nowhere, away from all city and road lights...
Here's some info, though the exact construction of the proof isn't give. Apparently, it's possible to prove that for any n, 78557*2^n+1 is divisible by one of a finite (and quite small) number of primes. As to how, ask the guy who proved it...
I've seen the same effect happen with Google and Referer (sic) logs. Consider:
Once the loop gets started, it may keep going even after the entry that started the loop falls off the front page, endlessly perpetuating itself.
If one in every hundred people (that's quite many, really) walking into a given store started knocking down shelves, throwing water balloons, spraypainting everything red, and generally making it impossible for everyone else to shop, you bet they'd close down that store.
That is, assuming they for some reason couldn't set up better security or do something else to stop such insane behavior. Apperently, in the analogous case on EFNet, they can't. It's 25 bans or nothing.
With the rest of your post I agree. The real problem is indeed a technical one. 25 bans is not enough to allow fine-grained access control, particularly if they can't be overridden. Given this, the ops are stuck between letting the troublemakers in or banning whole countries. And innocent users suffer the consequences.
Now, unless we actually find someone here who can do something about these technical issues, why don't we just conclude that the whole thing sucks, and leave it at that?
There is a fairly well-known survey technique called randomized response that implements just this. The way to ensure trust is simply to let the user generate the random noise, for example by flipping a coin.
For example, to answer a sensitive yes/no question, you could be instructed to flip a coin. If you get heads, you answer the question truthfully. If you get tails, you flip the coin again, and answer "yes" for heads / "no" for tails. Thus, there is a 50% probability that any given answer is completely random, but the noise can easily be removed from the aggregate statistics.
Mind you, I don't think that's what the NYT article is describing. The text is too vague to to be sure, but it does seem as if they're describing a server-side randomization system. If so, I wouldn't trust that either.
There were several posts I could've replied to with this, but I thought it'd be nice to counter one SF reference with another..
This whole thing hinges on the assumption that people in general have dislike anything that might change the way they think. But if we all had such hermetic memes, why would we ever read this discussion?
Those who want to ignore things can always do it - whether it's by using a filter, an outlook (as in Diaspora - not the M$ program, though I suppose that'd apply too) or their own mind. All those different levels accomplish the same thing, and the fact that we haven't turned into solipsist lotus-eaters already proves that we won't be doing so in the future either.
This I would indeed consider a good thing, but it has little to do with the debate. (How much it has to do with Katz's original text depends on how one interprets it.) If you wear a bag over your head and bump into things, the bag is not to blame. A culture that doesn't want to learn and be aware of the world surrounding it is self-destructive, and can only recover through harsh and invasive treatment.
Luckily, we in general can and want to perceive reality, and that trait isn't likely to vanish - even if everything else fails, natural selection will take care of that, by favoring those not bumping blindly into things. What has gotten us this far from the trees is a desire to learn new things, and no filter is going to elminate that.
(Oh, and I really shouldn't be posting at 4am..)
Ah yes, this (or more precisely the comment made in an oddly misplaced reply about shooting said intruder) is what I like to call the Santa Claus fallacy.
Following that logic to its conclusion, these people would arrest Ol' St. Nick for breaking and entering[1] - after all, how could you know he wasn't going to stash your stereos in that sack - possibly along with several other offenses ranging from smuggling to violating flight regulations.
The underlying circular legalism (breaking the law is wrong <-> things are illegal because they are wrong) makes this IMO false, but what really turns it into a fallacy is the fact that the very same people who hold the belief that laws should be followed without exception are usually quite willing to make an exception whenever confronted with a specific case not obsured by generalizations and prejudices.
In particular, before any of you jump to reply that Santa doesn't really exist, ask yourself: If I (and perhaps a whole movement of other altruists) were to get a red suit, beard and a sackful of toys and go sneaking into your house on christmas eve, what would you do?
If you say that the very act of entering your house without consent is illegal, and that regardless of my intentions I still would have the opportunity to replace the toys in the sack with your property[2], fine. I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But why are you then not telling your kids that Santa Claus is a notorious criminal? Why are you teaching them that it is right for a stranger to break into your house in the middle of the night, as long as he only intends to give presents?
Perhaps, but in my personal experience there are other reasons as well. I can recognize myself from the general description of someone more open on the 'net than in RL, but the explanation doesn't quite add up.
While I've always followed the principle of not revealing more about myself than is relevant to the situation, I've never hidden behind a throw-away identity - I've used this same nick since I was 13, when the first BBS I called asked me to come up with an alias. It's not that I wouldn't like creating new aliases for specific situations - I do have a few in various MUDs etc. - but I consider these to be merely further aspects of my identity. Some people may know me only as my old, no longer used MUD character, but doing something stupid under that name would still leave them thinking that whoever was behind it was an idiot.
IMHO the 'net reveals at least as much about people as it hides, by removing (sometimes!) all those layers of stereotypes that get between personalities. The comments about people with female-sounding names getting harrassed online are a case of RL preconceptions leaking onto the 'net - the other side of the coin is that people with neutral identification can engage in discussions without their gender getting in the way.
But aside from the openness, I feel the main reason it is easier for me to converse on the 'net is the very medium itself. I know several people who are more fluent when writing than when speaking, and I know that applies to myself. I suppose it comes from a type of introverted personality, subtly perfectionist to the point that I dislike uttering anything without having considered the phrasing and its possible interpretations fully.
While I'm nonetheless fairly relaxed in normal social circumstances, and have also been getting more and more open IRL as well, I know there are even those who take this kind of behavior to such extremes that it becomes not just another personality type, but a pathological feedback loop. Even for these people the 'net may be a way to communicate free of nervousness and uncertainty. Nobody stutters when typing.
Of course, this in itself may be enough to place me in a minority here - I have watched people I know join chat lines under fake names, tossing around flame bait, and then suddenly switch to honest personal discussion when someone gives a sensible reply. For me even trying that would probably either split my personality terminally, or simply fail.