Except that he didn't hack anything. Anyone could do this. All you need to do is run tor as an exit node and log all of the traffic going in and out. Mixed in with the piles of useless data are going to be lots of unencrypted user names and passwords. It's only if he actually uses one that he becomes a hacker.
Do bees have morals? How about packs of dogs? How about any other social animal on the planet? Morals are just what evolution has found that works for being a social animal. As long as most members of a species follow those rules, the species will continue to be successful. There is no transcendent "good" or "evil" involved, only what works best.
>But noone uses meth recreationally. It's an all or nothing drug.
That's weird. I know quite a few people who use it recreationally. I also know a couple of people who can't handle it. Just like any other drug, really.
>And, frankly I specifically see agnosticism as intellecutaly lazy/bankrupt, because if you think it through to its logical consequences it simply doesn't make sense.
As an agnostic, I see your atheism as equally faith-based as Catholicism. You do not know that god does not exist any more than the religious know that he does. Agnosticism is honest. I do not know if any gods exist, and until I see some evidence one way or another it will remain that way.
>What practical relevance to your life do you derive from the statement, that we will never know if God exists or not?
Why do you think it has to have any practical relevance? Not knowing something rarely does.
>How does this "knowledge" guide your thoughts and actions?
Most vinyl sounds like crap. No highs, no lows, and horrible wobbly distortion all the time. Even on the best turntable, you're still talking about early 20th century technology.
My guess is that life is very common throughout the universe, probably showing up wherever conditions allow it in any form. Most of it will be single-celled organisms, as most of the time that life has existed on earth, single-celled was the norm. Rarer will be planets with a wide variety of life forms as we have here on Earth. Intelligence, however is going to be extremely rare. Consider that of all the species of the billions that have ever existed here, humans are the only ones who have developed the ability to build a technological society.
>I also find it amusing that people always bring up 1984 in regards to CCTV when the main point of 1984 wasn't the surveillance but the use of propaganda and a false war to keep citizens in tow.
The main point was that if you give the government that much power over your lives, they will abuse it. The surveillance *was* one of the main points - you never knew when Big Brother was watching for subversive activities.
I would guess that the vast majority of the world would be too poor to ever afford the price of creating an album. Even so, 160TB seems huge...until you think that 4GB was huge 10 years ago.
>So perhaps I shouldn't have said "all the music anyone would want" since that is subjective.
Perhaps you should have said "all the music". Does anyone know of an estimate of how much space it would take up to store literally every piece of music ever professionally recorded? A few dozen terabytes? It's not even surprising that such amounts of data will fit on thumb drives in a couple of years...
"A star of less than about 0.5 solar mass will never be able to fuse helium even after the core ceases hydrogen fusion. There simply is not a stellar envelope massive enough to bear down enough pressure on the core. These are the red dwarfs, such as Proxima Centauri, some of which will live thousands of times longer than the Sun. Recent astrophysical models suggest that red dwarfs of 0.1 solar masses may stay on the main sequence for almost six trillion years, and take several hundred billion more to slowly collapse into a white dwarf."
>No matter how you slide and dice a curve, you will always have steps, this is the nature of digital and you cannot cheat C, no matter how hard you try. An OpAmp or VCO or whatever circuit that is designed to reconstruct the analog signal, will always be taking a step voltage as an input to attempt to reproduce an analog signal that is an infinite curve of infinite potential.
You seem intelligent, yet you completely fail to understand that you *can* reproduce a sine wave perfectly using samples up to any arbitrary frequency as long as you are sampling at twice that frequency. The analog wave output will be exactly the same as the input for those frequencies. Period.
>The forgoing is the reason that a properly mastered vinyl record, mastered with analog equipment, will always be a superior reproduction.
You are utterly wrong. The waveforms reproduced by the best pressing of vinyl on the best record player will be far less perfect than those reproduced by a well produced cd on a mediocre player. Try it. Run them both through a spectrum analyzer and look at all the distortion in the highs on the vinyl. It's not even close, really. No cartridge has ever been measured with less than 0.1% distortion at any level, so unless you have magic needles, it's just not happening.
You may *like* the sound of vinyl better, but it is nowhere near as accurate as a cd.
No, but they were punished for their disobedience, original *sin*, yet they could not have known it was wrong to disobey since they didn't know what "wrong" meant.
>Sharing the song isn't "saying NO". Not listening to their music at all is "saying NO".
But I'm only saying no to the *paying* part. The recording industry has screwed people for years, and now it's their turn.
>The truth is that the majority of people sharing music are the ones who have heard a song on the radio or TV or wherever, and decided they want that song. But they also decided they don't want to pay for it. I want a Ferrari, but I am not willing to pay the price, so I drive a Honda instead.
The day someone invents a car duplication device, you too can have a Ferrari. And why not?
>Why shouldn't we try to actually prevent crime every now and then?
Ok, that's fine. Now demonstrate that making the possession and use of the drugs a crime does anything to stop real crimes committed, or at least doesn't cause more real crime by their illegality.
>How about, if you take the drug out of the equation? Parents don't need drug money, so they can feed the children. Child neglect prevented. Or someone didn't become physically dependant on some drug, and doesn't rob/kill anyone to get the money.
Fuckups will be fuckups with or without drugs.
>Drunk driving is such a crime. How would you feel if some jerk drank two whole kegs of beer and hit the road, and the police couldn't arrest him because he hasn't hurt anybody yet?
By driving drunk, you are *actually* putting other drivers in danger. Simply being drunk doesn't put anyone else in danger.
>Or how about someone walks into a bar with a pocket full of date rape drugs?
How about the fact that what's behind the bar is used as a date rape drug much more than what's in his pocket? You gonna arrest him just for walking in?
>Yes, when parents don't feed their children because they need drug money, its a victimless crime, no one other than the parent is hurt!
Child neglect is already a crime.
>When people cant think properly because they've taken too many drugs, or can't afford what they a mentally or physically dependant on, and rob/kill others for drug money, its a victimless crime. The people robbed/killed certainly weren't hurt.
Robbery and murder are already crimes.
>People dealing drugs to others, even when the others haven't been shown how dangerous the drugs are, is a victimless crime. The people who recieved the drugs certainly weren't hurt!
I don't see any crime with this one at all. Drug companies do the same all the time.
>Honestly, I could care less about the people who know the risks, and still use the drugs to the point of harming themselves.
And what about the majority who use drugs and never harm themselves or break any other laws?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that he didn't hack anything. Anyone could do this. All you need to do is run tor as an exit node and log all of the traffic going in and out. Mixed in with the piles of useless data are going to be lots of unencrypted user names and passwords. It's only if he actually uses one that he becomes a hacker.
Large government isn't allowed by the constitution. All of the extra-constitutional departments should be defunded.
Do bees have morals? How about packs of dogs? How about any other social animal on the planet? Morals are just what evolution has found that works for being a social animal. As long as most members of a species follow those rules, the species will continue to be successful. There is no transcendent "good" or "evil" involved, only what works best.
That name is oddly familiar.
>But noone uses meth recreationally. It's an all or nothing drug.
That's weird. I know quite a few people who use it recreationally. I also know a couple of people who can't handle it. Just like any other drug, really.
LSD can be illegal and still be consumed recreationally. Even on cereal. It doesn't change the situation at all.
A "friend of mine" always just swallows it straight off and has no problem with getting the desired effects.
>Religion is responsible for more wars and killing than anything else in history.
Nobody would ever accuse me of being religious, but this statement is simply false on its face.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm
Notice how the 'religious conflicts' section is only a small subset?
>And, frankly I specifically see agnosticism as intellecutaly lazy/bankrupt, because if you think it through to its logical consequences it simply doesn't make sense.
As an agnostic, I see your atheism as equally faith-based as Catholicism. You do not know that god does not exist any more than the religious know that he does. Agnosticism is honest. I do not know if any gods exist, and until I see some evidence one way or another it will remain that way.
>What practical relevance to your life do you derive from the statement, that we will never know if God exists or not?
Why do you think it has to have any practical relevance? Not knowing something rarely does.
>How does this "knowledge" guide your thoughts and actions?
It doesn't.
Most vinyl sounds like crap. No highs, no lows, and horrible wobbly distortion all the time. Even on the best turntable, you're still talking about early 20th century technology.
My guess is that life is very common throughout the universe, probably showing up wherever conditions allow it in any form. Most of it will be single-celled organisms, as most of the time that life has existed on earth, single-celled was the norm. Rarer will be planets with a wide variety of life forms as we have here on Earth. Intelligence, however is going to be extremely rare. Consider that of all the species of the billions that have ever existed here, humans are the only ones who have developed the ability to build a technological society.
>I also find it amusing that people always bring up 1984 in regards to CCTV when the main point of 1984 wasn't the surveillance but the use of propaganda and a false war to keep citizens in tow.
The main point was that if you give the government that much power over your lives, they will abuse it. The surveillance *was* one of the main points - you never knew when Big Brother was watching for subversive activities.
I would guess that the vast majority of the world would be too poor to ever afford the price of creating an album. Even so, 160TB seems huge...until you think that 4GB was huge 10 years ago.
Are you joking? Where have you seen that 128 bit encryption has been broken at all, let alone "for a few cycles more"?
>So perhaps I shouldn't have said "all the music anyone would want" since that is subjective.
Perhaps you should have said "all the music". Does anyone know of an estimate of how much space it would take up to store literally every piece of music ever professionally recorded? A few dozen terabytes? It's not even surprising that such amounts of data will fit on thumb drives in a couple of years...
>Christ, stars don't last that long
Some do.
"A star of less than about 0.5 solar mass will never be able to fuse helium even after the core ceases hydrogen fusion. There simply is not a stellar envelope massive enough to bear down enough pressure on the core. These are the red dwarfs, such as Proxima Centauri, some of which will live thousands of times longer than the Sun. Recent astrophysical models suggest that red dwarfs of 0.1 solar masses may stay on the main sequence for almost six trillion years, and take several hundred billion more to slowly collapse into a white dwarf."
>No matter how you slide and dice a curve, you will always have steps, this is the nature of digital and you cannot cheat C, no matter how hard you try. An OpAmp or VCO or whatever circuit that is designed to reconstruct the analog signal, will always be taking a step voltage as an input to attempt to reproduce an analog signal that is an infinite curve of infinite potential.
You seem intelligent, yet you completely fail to understand that you *can* reproduce a sine wave perfectly using samples up to any arbitrary frequency as long as you are sampling at twice that frequency. The analog wave output will be exactly the same as the input for those frequencies. Period.
>The forgoing is the reason that a properly mastered vinyl record, mastered with analog equipment, will always be a superior reproduction.
You are utterly wrong. The waveforms reproduced by the best pressing of vinyl on the best record player will be far less perfect than those reproduced by a well produced cd on a mediocre player. Try it. Run them both through a spectrum analyzer and look at all the distortion in the highs on the vinyl. It's not even close, really. No cartridge has ever been measured with less than 0.1% distortion at any level, so unless you have magic needles, it's just not happening.
You may *like* the sound of vinyl better, but it is nowhere near as accurate as a cd.
>Obedience doesn't require a knowledge of evil.
No, but they were punished for their disobedience, original *sin*, yet they could not have known it was wrong to disobey since they didn't know what "wrong" meant.
The GP is correct. Aleph-null has no size when compared to aleph-1.
If they didn't know that being naked was evil, how could they have known that disobeying god was?
>Sharing the song isn't "saying NO". Not listening to their music at all is "saying NO".
But I'm only saying no to the *paying* part. The recording industry has screwed people for years, and now it's their turn.
>The truth is that the majority of people sharing music are the ones who have heard a song on the radio or TV or wherever, and decided they want that song. But they also decided they don't want to pay for it. I want a Ferrari, but I am not willing to pay the price, so I drive a Honda instead.
The day someone invents a car duplication device, you too can have a Ferrari. And why not?
>Or, they consciously, deliberately, knowingly rejected the one command given to them.
So what? Without the knowledge of good and evil, they could not have known it was wrong to disobey god.
>Why shouldn't we try to actually prevent crime every now and then?
Ok, that's fine. Now demonstrate that making the possession and use of the drugs a crime does anything to stop real crimes committed, or at least doesn't cause more real crime by their illegality.
>How about, if you take the drug out of the equation? Parents don't need drug money, so they can feed the children. Child neglect prevented. Or someone didn't become physically dependant on some drug, and doesn't rob/kill anyone to get the money.
Fuckups will be fuckups with or without drugs.
>Drunk driving is such a crime. How would you feel if some jerk drank two whole kegs of beer and hit the road, and the police couldn't arrest him because he hasn't hurt anybody yet?
By driving drunk, you are *actually* putting other drivers in danger. Simply being drunk doesn't put anyone else in danger.
>Or how about someone walks into a bar with a pocket full of date rape drugs?
How about the fact that what's behind the bar is used as a date rape drug much more than what's in his pocket? You gonna arrest him just for walking in?
>Yes, when parents don't feed their children because they need drug money, its a victimless crime, no one other than the parent is hurt!
Child neglect is already a crime.
>When people cant think properly because they've taken too many drugs, or can't afford what they a mentally or physically dependant on, and rob/kill others for drug money, its a victimless crime. The people robbed/killed certainly weren't hurt.
Robbery and murder are already crimes.
>People dealing drugs to others, even when the others haven't been shown how dangerous the drugs are, is a victimless crime. The people who recieved the drugs certainly weren't hurt!
I don't see any crime with this one at all. Drug companies do the same all the time.
>Honestly, I could care less about the people who know the risks, and still use the drugs to the point of harming themselves.
And what about the majority who use drugs and never harm themselves or break any other laws?
>It's appalling how many people think Darwin's theory implies we (humans) evolved from apes.
Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans *are* apes.