"The theoretical reason for deleting articles is that if they're not notable, there's likely to be inaccuracies due to nobody looking at the page on a regular basis. And even if it was accurate when it went up things change."
This doesn't make a lot of sense. If it's not notable, then the significance of errors, if any, is trivial because nobody is ever looking at it. Oh noes, some text sits on a page nobody looks at? Doesn't that describe the bulk of myspace pages anyway?
Even little kids know that Wiki's not trustworthy as a critical source, it's a handy reference to get general facts. If it was accurate and things change, then you LEAVE IT UP FOR SOMEONE TO CORRECT...wasn't that kind of the essentially POINT of Wiki?
Sorry, but the 'notability' thing is bullshit. OK, granted, we may not want trivial facts about John Q Public as an 'entry' in Wiki. Then again, why not? If at least 100 people care about something, that's probably notable enough, it's not like there aren't enough pages or a critical space shortage. The WORST that happens is a requirement for a disambiguation page.
In this particular case, I've read the comments on the page, and I'm even more convinced 'notability' is nonsense. It was abundantly clear that OMM was widely recognized, at least to a level needed to show up in Wiki, and this d-baggery claiming that there weren't enough attributable facts is nothing but spin.
Humans are notoriously bad at estimating real risk. We're afraid of flying in airplanes, while we cheerfully get in our cars for the drive in rush-hour traffic.
Nuclear power has risks, indeed, but aside from pie-in-the-sky fantasies about renewables that simply are either unproven or nowhere near competitive, the fact is that all power-generation systems have dangers.
Humanity needs power, and lots of it.
The successful effort by the left to derail nuclear power through much of the 1980s and 1990s led to the establishment of many more power plants using conventional coal or gas - which have their own pernicious effects. Is an X% increase in cancers over a large area "better" than a Y% risk of nuclear plant catastrophe?
Arguably, Germany has shown the way toward intrinsically-safe nuclear systems with PBRs being a truly fail-safe design as long as there is gravity.
I guess my point is that nothing is "safe"; everything is a tradeoff between economy, risk, and value. The first time some caveman accidentally dropped a haunch of antelope into a fire and realized that it was WAAAAY more tasty than the raw stuff they were all chewing, I'm sure there was some other caveman on the other side of the clearing whinging about the dangers of increased carcinogens and obesity.
Sure, continue to invest and develop renewable technologies. But right now "hoping" for renewables to supply our appetite for power?....one might as well wish for a team of unicorns to do it.
...but the only way it's going to matter is if it impacts the bottom line.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or take the game back. If gamestop goes back to EA and says "yeah, we had 66% returns, many commenting that the ability to ban someone from playing what they bought for unconnected behavior" then EA might care.
But raging in an internet forum? Meaningless.
Personally, the repeated 'online validate' for a single player game long since drove me away.
"...A biodegradable frame built out of material known for thousands of years to be highly durable and strong..."
You must be a 'cyclist'....second only to 'audiophiles' in their inability to parse numeric data when presented in association with the object of their obsession.
You saw that, and were blown away. I was too.
Of course, I was blown away because saw that a frame made of glorified GRASS cost $4200.
...because women, generally, don't want them? They by & large run the reproductive sweepstakes, even back in the "me big strong caveman, me conk woman on head" days when "consent" was a little more broadly interpreted.
And which came first, male lack of spines, or female concealed ovulation?
When analyzing the genetic record, how can one 'sort out' the distinction between DNA changes that have happened due to mutation, compared to the changes induced by broad and consistent female choice?
If they're using it for cooling, I doubt they're generating temps that actually evaporate the water...aren't they just essentially heating it and then returning it to the water table?
FWIW I'd point out that as much as Americans have an 'issue' about sex (which is happening everywhere right now, and something that (self-evidently) has been part of humanity forever), Euros seem to have just as much a hang up about violence (which is happening everywhere right now, and something that has been part of humanity forever).
Granted we all hope sex happens, and the sane ones hope violence doesn't, but in either case, ignorance can kill you. Arguably, familiarity with violence may more immediately benefit your survivability if confronted with it unexpectedly.
Alexis de Tocqueville called, he'd like his comments on the general anti-intellectualism of the United States from 1830 back.
So, you're saying a political party is trying to ride a cultural hobbyhorse to power? Let's see, the Right says that the world is ending because of Communism, Liberals, Secularism, Abortion, and Homosexuality. The left claims the world is ending because of Pollution, Oppression, Religion, Industry, and Republicans. It's perhaps An Inconvenient Truth that grossly narcissistic politicians from BOTH sides like to try to wave FUD at us to hand them more power. I guess they don't all get Nobel Prizes or Academy Awards for it?
Not sure, but I'm pretty certain that the world will keep changing, it's not going to "end" anytime soon (LHC notwithstanding:) ), and life is better now for most people than it's ever been in the larger scale of human history.
Anti-intellectualism (like religiosity, or our tendency to be community-oriented) is one of the very basic paradigms of American culture, and has always been. What's perhaps more interesting is that this culture nevertheless managed to become (somehow) an industrial and scientific leader.
That article, however, is a thinly-veiled anti-Republican screed, nothing more.
And while I know that this will bring the worms out of the woodwork, one might say that there are at least 165 climate science experts who significantly doubt the conclusions from the data: http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64 Facts are, of course, not decided democratically. But the inviolable certitude of the AGW proponents seems like zealotry. I think theres room to believe that (both) - AGW is a fallacious, narcissistic religion advanced by 3-decades failed environmentalists, scientists desperate for funding, and anti-west, anti-industrial marxists. - you don't want to sh*t where you live, so we should generally try to keep the place clean and toxin-induced mutations to a minimum.
If you believe that, then you already have a tinfoil hat on.
Not all speech is, or should be, protected and inviolate.
Here's a hypothetical: someone is murdered. Someone posts details about the scene/incident anonymously that were never released publicly.
Defamation (as in this case) is a slipperier slope, imo. So you're saying that people are entitled to say the most slanderous, horrific, libelous, lies about someone without any recourse to the victim being able to refute or deny? I'd say that's unreasonable.
FWIW I *also* think it's unreasonable that there be NO anonymity - our legal system is too broken at this time, and too subject to punitive legal action just to "shut people up".
Theyâ(TM)ll rename Blade Runner to be âoeBlade Runner IV: A New Hopeâ
Blade Runner V â" Roy Batty Strikes Back! Blade Runner VI â" The Return of Roy Batty! Blade Runner I â" The Replicant Menace Blade Runner II â" Attack of the Replicants Blade Runner III â" The Revenge of the Replicants
If he felt that his action was morally necessary, he must accept the potential consequences.
Truly gross amounts of information that should be in the public domain are classified by the US gov't. Some of us are working to change that system. Going 'vigilante' and deciding to release that information yourself (and let's assume he did it for moral reasons, and not primarily attention-whoring), well, you play the game and take your chances.
I know if I or someone I knew was put in danger by their names being leaked, I'd want the death penalty, too.
I'd be curious how many of his "free information!" supporters were faux-outraged by the 'leaking' of Valerie Plame's former covert status? (ie motivated primarily by politics, not ethics)
Actually, there are metallized films that would serve just as well as a metal case in terms of blocking RF. If they're laminated onto one of the board layers or in lieu of fluting, it would probably do it.
That box is damned ugly, and it wouldn't take much effort or cost to make it look a little less like some crappy cardboard box someone didn't want.
You neglect the obvious corollary. Where in the past the prices of books were set at a level that would both compensate for the physical cost of the media and the author's intellectual contribution, now essentially the media cost is zero.
You're right, John Q Author won't get to sell books through massive publishers. But JQA can sell his books directly to his fans for almost nothing and make a nice profit.
Further, his market is no longer the 'segment' identified by a marketer, it's EVERYONE with an internet connection.
We're moving from an old paradigm that dealt with the realities and limits of physical media, to a new one where people will be paying the authors DIRECTLY for their value. I would cheerfully pay for a new Neil Gaiman book on my kindle, or Peter Gabriel on my ipod...if the prices weren't set by BOOKSELLERS and RECORD SALES at a market rate based on physical media, which is complete bullshit.
In fact, I daresay I'd probably cheerfully pay either of these creative, talented individuals probably DOUBLE what they're getting per-creation from their publishers, and it would be a bargain. From what I understand a top-20 NYT mass market bestseller makes about 6-8% on an $8 book. After agent commission, taxes, expenses, etc. that nets to about $0.41/book. Would you voluntarily pay your favorite author $1 for their next book? Hell I sure would, even if it was available for download for free elsehwere.
I'd cheerfully pay Gaiman $10 today (direct) for the next 3 books he'll write on spec, and count myself gleefully happy. I *won't* pay $14 for a new book for my kindle, just because paper copies sell for $15. That's nonsensical.
The 'increased metabolic rate' noted is trivial, and generally below the level of normal system variation (or variations tied to autonomic processes that we're not comprehensively aware of...ie 'static noise').
You can get an order of magnitude more metabolic change in the visual processing centers by opening your eyes, for example. Temperature changes, interest level, even something as transient boredom can cause the metabolic rate in specific areas of the brain to fluctuate wildly.
In fact, just the warmth generated by an operating cellphone on that side of the head could have caused this spike.
"A good many Tolkien scholars are very grateful for CJRT's efforts." And CJRT should be compensated in turn for the work he did, to the level of appreciation these scholars have for it - ie the worth of his work.
I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
It's another thing entirely for CJRT & family to employ a circling mob of vulture lawyers, to be sicc'ed on anyone who dares tread near the oh-so-sacred (and profitable) precincts of the paterfamilias, dead nearly 40 years, regardless of the merit, non-commerciality(?), or constructiveness of the trespasser's efforts.
The first is laudable scholarship. The second is naked greed.
You could get probably 1500 classic used books if you bought them in bulk. These wouldn't die when the power goes out. They could be dropped, stepped on, even get wet and probably still be usable. Then 1500 people could read them instead of...one.
I don't "get" the compulsion some people seem to feel that tech is the solution to everything. I'd guess chalkboards and writing slates would be a better investment to teach them basic reading skills.
I honestly thought this was going to be an article about military technology, since a (pathetic or humorous, take your pick) segment of insurgents seem to believe that wearing a "life jacket" is somehow protecting them from being shot.
Ah, the wave of righteous anger from the (mostly childless) crowd of commenters.
I entirely agree that it's legitimate to keylog your kids. As long as they're minors, it's your responsibility, it's also simple good sense.
I have no problem with an 8- or 9-year old using email, fb, etc to communicate with their friends (or whatever age you feel your child is reasonably able to be "in the world" to some degree). They have one email they use for friends and relatives and school, and another junkname account to use to sign up for disney.com or whatever sites need logins. Nevertheless, there are lots of ways to make trivial safety mistakes that can end up exposing one to all sorts of ugly stuff on the web.
The question (and what so much righteousness in \.'s comments seems to be getting at, in reality) is what you do with this information. If you *freak* out at reasonable conduct - a 10 year old looking at boobs, or some tweeners emailing back and forth about penises - then the issue isn't the keylogging, it's your unrealistic understanding of the normal sexual development of humans. However, if your 8-year-old stumbles into some of the sicker fetish crap, or you see emails from someone supposedly their age that are suspiciously interrogative or trying to arrange a contact? Then you're absolutely entitled to intervene.
To suggest that a 5-minute talk with a kid about "here, honey, is what you shouldn't do on the web" is sufficient to allow your child unsupervised access to the web, or to believe that 'checking every hour' or some nonsense is enough, is so obviously advice from sophomoric ignorance it's laughable.
I agree that putting the computer in a 'public' area is a good idea, but imo some of the more seriously dangerous stuff on the web can happen in emails and text, without a giant obvious goatsex pic on the screen.
You're in turn saying "because I can't think of how we could do it, it can't be done."
Really? Ridiculous.
This is human ingenuity, dad. To suggest that the only way that they're going to be stopped is by physically interposing giant walls of lead is... medieval. Looking up, I haven't noticed the earth encased in a "couple miles of lead" yet we're not dead from cosmic rays, are we?
Of course, we're largely (although not completely) protected from cosmic rays right now by the heliosheath and Earth's magnetic field. To suggest that - with our currently incomplete understanding of the interactions, sources, and even extent of these fields - we'll therefore NEVER be able to understand or replicate these fields to the same effect is simply silly negativism.
I'm not saying it's possible. The energy requirements could exceed the controllable limits of human tech, or figuring it out may take longer than the lifespan of the univers. But Never is a really long time, and I suspect we'll get there before time runs out on humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
"The theoretical reason for deleting articles is that if they're not notable, there's likely to be inaccuracies due to nobody looking at the page on a regular basis. And even if it was accurate when it went up things change."
This doesn't make a lot of sense.
If it's not notable, then the significance of errors, if any, is trivial because nobody is ever looking at it. Oh noes, some text sits on a page nobody looks at? Doesn't that describe the bulk of myspace pages anyway?
Even little kids know that Wiki's not trustworthy as a critical source, it's a handy reference to get general facts. If it was accurate and things change, then you LEAVE IT UP FOR SOMEONE TO CORRECT...wasn't that kind of the essentially POINT of Wiki?
Sorry, but the 'notability' thing is bullshit. OK, granted, we may not want trivial facts about John Q Public as an 'entry' in Wiki. Then again, why not? If at least 100 people care about something, that's probably notable enough, it's not like there aren't enough pages or a critical space shortage. The WORST that happens is a requirement for a disambiguation page.
In this particular case, I've read the comments on the page, and I'm even more convinced 'notability' is nonsense. It was abundantly clear that OMM was widely recognized, at least to a level needed to show up in Wiki, and this d-baggery claiming that there weren't enough attributable facts is nothing but spin.
Clearly, we're running out of internets, and need to delete stuff to keep the drive clear for more "important" information.
Humans are notoriously bad at estimating real risk.
We're afraid of flying in airplanes, while we cheerfully get in our cars for the drive in rush-hour traffic.
Nuclear power has risks, indeed, but aside from pie-in-the-sky fantasies about renewables that simply are either unproven or nowhere near competitive, the fact is that all power-generation systems have dangers.
Humanity needs power, and lots of it.
The successful effort by the left to derail nuclear power through much of the 1980s and 1990s led to the establishment of many more power plants using conventional coal or gas - which have their own pernicious effects. Is an X% increase in cancers over a large area "better" than a Y% risk of nuclear plant catastrophe?
Arguably, Germany has shown the way toward intrinsically-safe nuclear systems with PBRs being a truly fail-safe design as long as there is gravity.
I guess my point is that nothing is "safe"; everything is a tradeoff between economy, risk, and value. The first time some caveman accidentally dropped a haunch of antelope into a fire and realized that it was WAAAAY more tasty than the raw stuff they were all chewing, I'm sure there was some other caveman on the other side of the clearing whinging about the dangers of increased carcinogens and obesity.
Sure, continue to invest and develop renewable technologies. But right now "hoping" for renewables to supply our appetite for power?....one might as well wish for a team of unicorns to do it.
...but the only way it's going to matter is if it impacts the bottom line.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or take the game back.
If gamestop goes back to EA and says "yeah, we had 66% returns, many commenting that the ability to ban someone from playing what they bought for unconnected behavior" then EA might care.
But raging in an internet forum? Meaningless.
Personally, the repeated 'online validate' for a single player game long since drove me away.
"...A biodegradable frame built out of material known for thousands of years to be highly durable and strong..."
You must be a 'cyclist'....second only to 'audiophiles' in their inability to parse numeric data when presented in association with the object of their obsession.
You saw that, and were blown away. I was too.
Of course, I was blown away because saw that a frame made of glorified GRASS cost $4200.
...because women, generally, don't want them? They by & large run the reproductive sweepstakes, even back in the "me big strong caveman, me conk woman on head" days when "consent" was a little more broadly interpreted.
And which came first, male lack of spines, or female concealed ovulation?
When analyzing the genetic record, how can one 'sort out' the distinction between DNA changes that have happened due to mutation, compared to the changes induced by broad and consistent female choice?
...because when GPS inevitably goes down, stupid people will be that much clearer to identify.
...but are data centers really consuming water?
If they're using it for cooling, I doubt they're generating temps that actually evaporate the water...aren't they just essentially heating it and then returning it to the water table?
FWIW I'd point out that as much as Americans have an 'issue' about sex (which is happening everywhere right now, and something that (self-evidently) has been part of humanity forever), Euros seem to have just as much a hang up about violence (which is happening everywhere right now, and something that has been part of humanity forever).
Granted we all hope sex happens, and the sane ones hope violence doesn't, but in either case, ignorance can kill you. Arguably, familiarity with violence may more immediately benefit your survivability if confronted with it unexpectedly.
Alexis de Tocqueville called, he'd like his comments on the general anti-intellectualism of the United States from 1830 back.
So, you're saying a political party is trying to ride a cultural hobbyhorse to power? Let's see, the Right says that the world is ending because of Communism, Liberals, Secularism, Abortion, and Homosexuality. The left claims the world is ending because of Pollution, Oppression, Religion, Industry, and Republicans. It's perhaps An Inconvenient Truth that grossly narcissistic politicians from BOTH sides like to try to wave FUD at us to hand them more power. I guess they don't all get Nobel Prizes or Academy Awards for it?
Not sure, but I'm pretty certain that the world will keep changing, it's not going to "end" anytime soon (LHC notwithstanding :) ), and life is better now for most people than it's ever been in the larger scale of human history.
Anti-intellectualism (like religiosity, or our tendency to be community-oriented) is one of the very basic paradigms of American culture, and has always been. What's perhaps more interesting is that this culture nevertheless managed to become (somehow) an industrial and scientific leader.
That article, however, is a thinly-veiled anti-Republican screed, nothing more.
And while I know that this will bring the worms out of the woodwork, one might say that there are at least 165 climate science experts who significantly doubt the conclusions from the data: http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
Facts are, of course, not decided democratically. But the inviolable certitude of the AGW proponents seems like zealotry. I think theres room to believe that (both)
- AGW is a fallacious, narcissistic religion advanced by 3-decades failed environmentalists, scientists desperate for funding, and anti-west, anti-industrial marxists.
- you don't want to sh*t where you live, so we should generally try to keep the place clean and toxin-induced mutations to a minimum.
...why is that named "R'lyeh"?
I'd like to check out Creatures just to see what he'd been working on.
Of course, Amazon is selling this (released in 1999 game) for $46.
Yeah, right. 12 year old software for $46?
If you believe that, then you already have a tinfoil hat on.
Not all speech is, or should be, protected and inviolate.
Here's a hypothetical: someone is murdered. Someone posts details about the scene/incident anonymously that were never released publicly.
Defamation (as in this case) is a slipperier slope, imo. So you're saying that people are entitled to say the most slanderous, horrific, libelous, lies about someone without any recourse to the victim being able to refute or deny? I'd say that's unreasonable.
FWIW I *also* think it's unreasonable that there be NO anonymity - our legal system is too broken at this time, and too subject to punitive legal action just to "shut people up".
Theyâ(TM)ll rename Blade Runner to be âoeBlade Runner IV: A New Hopeâ
Blade Runner V â" Roy Batty Strikes Back!
Blade Runner VI â" The Return of Roy Batty!
Blade Runner I â" The Replicant Menace
Blade Runner II â" Attack of the Replicants
Blade Runner III â" The Revenge of the Replicants
If he felt that his action was morally necessary, he must accept the potential consequences.
Truly gross amounts of information that should be in the public domain are classified by the US gov't. Some of us are working to change that system. Going 'vigilante' and deciding to release that information yourself (and let's assume he did it for moral reasons, and not primarily attention-whoring), well, you play the game and take your chances.
I know if I or someone I knew was put in danger by their names being leaked, I'd want the death penalty, too.
I'd be curious how many of his "free information!" supporters were faux-outraged by the 'leaking' of Valerie Plame's former covert status? (ie motivated primarily by politics, not ethics)
Actually, there are metallized films that would serve just as well as a metal case in terms of blocking RF. If they're laminated onto one of the board layers or in lieu of fluting, it would probably do it.
That box is damned ugly, and it wouldn't take much effort or cost to make it look a little less like some crappy cardboard box someone didn't want.
You neglect the obvious corollary.
Where in the past the prices of books were set at a level that would both compensate for the physical cost of the media and the author's intellectual contribution, now essentially the media cost is zero.
You're right, John Q Author won't get to sell books through massive publishers. But JQA can sell his books directly to his fans for almost nothing and make a nice profit.
Further, his market is no longer the 'segment' identified by a marketer, it's EVERYONE with an internet connection.
We're moving from an old paradigm that dealt with the realities and limits of physical media, to a new one where people will be paying the authors DIRECTLY for their value. I would cheerfully pay for a new Neil Gaiman book on my kindle, or Peter Gabriel on my ipod...if the prices weren't set by BOOKSELLERS and RECORD SALES at a market rate based on physical media, which is complete bullshit.
In fact, I daresay I'd probably cheerfully pay either of these creative, talented individuals probably DOUBLE what they're getting per-creation from their publishers, and it would be a bargain. From what I understand a top-20 NYT mass market bestseller makes about 6-8% on an $8 book. After agent commission, taxes, expenses, etc. that nets to about $0.41/book.
Would you voluntarily pay your favorite author $1 for their next book? Hell I sure would, even if it was available for download for free elsehwere.
I'd cheerfully pay Gaiman $10 today (direct) for the next 3 books he'll write on spec, and count myself gleefully happy. I *won't* pay $14 for a new book for my kindle, just because paper copies sell for $15. That's nonsensical.
The 'increased metabolic rate' noted is trivial, and generally below the level of normal system variation (or variations tied to autonomic processes that we're not comprehensively aware of...ie 'static noise').
You can get an order of magnitude more metabolic change in the visual processing centers by opening your eyes, for example. Temperature changes, interest level, even something as transient boredom can cause the metabolic rate in specific areas of the brain to fluctuate wildly.
In fact, just the warmth generated by an operating cellphone on that side of the head could have caused this spike.
"...surely there has to be a minimal standard for reporting on a technical site..."
I'd have said "new here?" until I saw your 5-digit tag number. Now I'm just confused that this is surprising to you?
We can only hope he manages the MPAA as well as he managed the oversight responsibilities of the Senate Banking Committee.
That worked out so well for us all.
"A good many Tolkien scholars are very grateful for CJRT's efforts."
And CJRT should be compensated in turn for the work he did, to the level of appreciation these scholars have for it - ie the worth of his work.
I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
It's another thing entirely for CJRT & family to employ a circling mob of vulture lawyers, to be sicc'ed on anyone who dares tread near the oh-so-sacred (and profitable) precincts of the paterfamilias, dead nearly 40 years, regardless of the merit, non-commerciality(?), or constructiveness of the trespasser's efforts.
The first is laudable scholarship.
The second is naked greed.
You could get probably 1500 classic used books if you bought them in bulk.
These wouldn't die when the power goes out.
They could be dropped, stepped on, even get wet and probably still be usable.
Then 1500 people could read them instead of...one.
I don't "get" the compulsion some people seem to feel that tech is the solution to everything. I'd guess chalkboards and writing slates would be a better investment to teach them basic reading skills.
I honestly thought this was going to be an article about military technology, since a (pathetic or humorous, take your pick) segment of insurgents seem to believe that wearing a "life jacket" is somehow protecting them from being shot.
Ah, the wave of righteous anger from the (mostly childless) crowd of commenters.
I entirely agree that it's legitimate to keylog your kids. As long as they're minors, it's your responsibility, it's also simple good sense.
I have no problem with an 8- or 9-year old using email, fb, etc to communicate with their friends (or whatever age you feel your child is reasonably able to be "in the world" to some degree). They have one email they use for friends and relatives and school, and another junkname account to use to sign up for disney.com or whatever sites need logins.
Nevertheless, there are lots of ways to make trivial safety mistakes that can end up exposing one to all sorts of ugly stuff on the web.
The question (and what so much righteousness in \.'s comments seems to be getting at, in reality) is what you do with this information. If you *freak* out at reasonable conduct - a 10 year old looking at boobs, or some tweeners emailing back and forth about penises - then the issue isn't the keylogging, it's your unrealistic understanding of the normal sexual development of humans.
However, if your 8-year-old stumbles into some of the sicker fetish crap, or you see emails from someone supposedly their age that are suspiciously interrogative or trying to arrange a contact? Then you're absolutely entitled to intervene.
To suggest that a 5-minute talk with a kid about "here, honey, is what you shouldn't do on the web" is sufficient to allow your child unsupervised access to the web, or to believe that 'checking every hour' or some nonsense is enough, is so obviously advice from sophomoric ignorance it's laughable.
I agree that putting the computer in a 'public' area is a good idea, but imo some of the more seriously dangerous stuff on the web can happen in emails and text, without a giant obvious goatsex pic on the screen.
You're in turn saying "because I can't think of how we could do it, it can't be done."
Really? Ridiculous.
This is human ingenuity, dad. To suggest that the only way that they're going to be stopped is by physically interposing giant walls of lead is... medieval. Looking up, I haven't noticed the earth encased in a "couple miles of lead" yet we're not dead from cosmic rays, are we?
Of course, we're largely (although not completely) protected from cosmic rays right now by the heliosheath and Earth's magnetic field. To suggest that - with our currently incomplete understanding of the interactions, sources, and even extent of these fields - we'll therefore NEVER be able to understand or replicate these fields to the same effect is simply silly negativism.
I'm not saying it's possible. The energy requirements could exceed the controllable limits of human tech, or figuring it out may take longer than the lifespan of the univers. But Never is a really long time, and I suspect we'll get there before time runs out on humanity.