Diffie is definitely the guy to be talking about this. Considering a main form of private key-exchange is called Diffie-Hellman.
But, nontheless, it's silly that people don't know this inherently. A secure system is only as secure as its weakest point. If that point is compromised and cannot be easily fixed and/or repaired. It's useless.
Depending on the secrecy of the code or "Security through Obscurity" is useless. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a quack or is trying to sell you something and doesn't want to do all the work necessary to do the proper job.
If you want a secure system, you have to instantly assume that the system, code, and key will eventually be completely compromised, and then you can begin to think about. Now, if any of these were compromised, how can I fix the problem. The current solution is to reset the keys, and using modern mathematics (most of which was developed by Dif) You can do this securely.
Now, the only problem that remains with modern cryptography, is if the factoring problem is solved _and_ the elliptic curve problem is solved efficiently, then modern crypto becomes useless, and we are back to square one.
Albeit, Quantum Cryptography has some potential as it provides a mathematically verifiable form of perfect cryptography, since it is one time pads. It just currently cannot be done over long enough distances to be completely effective. When the technical/engineering details are solved for QC, then crypto is guaranteed secure. Assuming no one compromises your system directly (Human Error).
Dependence on Security through Obscurity is bad, incredibly bad, and I hope anyone programming security software out there will realize that, and begin to use proper cryptographic techniques.
** I am going to write a couple of journal articles soon reviewing the various techniques for those who are interested. **
You know the states is looking more and more like Germany earlier in the last century now then ever before, and it really scares me.
The similarities are just way to close, and now more and more people I find are trying to get out of the country.
I am in Canada right now, and I am very happy here, but I just hope we don't end up being "anschl\b\b\b\b\b\babsorbed' by that piece of land below us.
But, hey man, you and your wife are welcome to join us up here in Canada.:-)
He used social engineering to get me to buy it!
on
The Art of Deception
·
· Score: 2
he proved to me how skilled he is at social engineering when he used it to get me to buy it. At my bookstore he gave away a small chapter sample of the book, but it was enough that after reading it I had to purchase the rest of the book...
Being sharp isn't a good thing... It's actually common for singers who don't know how to sing to sing sharp... Yet, Microsoft likes C#, and X# (X isn't even a note this time.) I am excited though. I am waiting for someone to tune Microsoft a bit and perhaps release b-flat, or perhaps D##.
Sometimes being sharp is useful (in the right key), but if you already know the key is C, C# is not a good note to hit.
CS people tend to only ever concentrate at one thing at a given time
I don't know about that. I don't consider myself exactly a CS person, (My major is Pure Math) but I do think that I can fit in that set of people, and I find my biggest problem is the fact that I am always working on 5 or 6 different things at the same time.
Eg. Working on one of my web pages in one window, managing a client in another, sketching on a notepad, talking to friends, reading slashdot, and reading a book that I purchased.
A lot of my friend multitask like this too, and I know this is true for me because I have had friends comment on it while I am doing it.
It drives me absolutely up the wall to be concentrating on only one thing at a time.
But, perhaps I am not representative of CS students, but rather Pure Mathematicians and Academics.
But I do appreciate your response which clarified a few points which I wasn't aware of.
Personally, I find it disgusting the way the american justice system forces their laws on other nations haphazardly (Look at Dmitri for example). But I do understand what you are saying, and that your "Question A" has a lot of merit.
Naturally though, you should be able to understand my frustration (as a non-American) with the way the Americans do things. Sometimes it is aggravating.
I do appreciate you taking the time to explain the finer details of the judicial system to me, though, and although I agree that the Americans can sue KaZaa (by what you said), I believe that they have no right to since KaZaa is not an American company and doesn't have substantial contacts in California. (It's only on the internet.)
I hope now, you understand where my initial rant came from.:-)
U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said a lawsuit against Sharman Networks (the makers of Kazaa) could proceed.
(The Australia-/Vanuatu-based company had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it was not bound by U.S. laws since it did not have substantial contacts with California.)"
Wow... Why isn't this a surprise. The Americans decide that people outside their own country are bound by their laws.
If the RIAA wants to take on Kazaa, take them on in Australia. Oh wait, no that wouldn't work, because the Australian justice system wouldn't waste their time on this.
Someone need to go let the states know that they don't own the world, yet, and until they do, companies from other countries do not lie under their jurisdiction.
This is just like the episode of Dilbert TV called Ethics.
-- From episode (roughly)
Boss: Due to some ethical problems, management has decided to send all you engineers for ethics training Dilbert: is this because we are working with the mafia? (And a few other reasons that slip my mind right now) Boss: Yes... So, your training begins on Saturday. Dilbert: Will management be there Boss: No.. Dilbert: But management is guilty of the most ethical offenses. Boss: I know, but we're all too important to go to ethical training... Dilbert: But... Boss: no buts...
--
Man, this form is hilarious, Dilbert come true, S2S(so to speak). I betcha management doesn't even have to sign it, even though they are the ones that are "ethically challenged" in the companies in the news.
Some of the psycho links aren't actually as insane as you may think...
I used to play the game Majestic online, and I know for a fact they set up a lot of "pseudo-pages" of companies, home pages, etc. to go along with the storyline, and some of these links that have been given are directly from that game, and a few may be from further down the road (then I was in the game), because they seem to read almost exactly the pages I saw when I was playing.
Sure there are psychos online, but there's also a lot of pages set up for other less insiduous or insane reasons.
Does that have roughly the same effect? If so, I won't feel so guilty when I'm... not studying.. yeah, that's it.
Re:Moral Authority (Ethical Calculus)
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 2
So, you are discussing that an ethical calculus may be possible.
I personally have thought over this many times, and I believe it is possible, but a new form of logical (not the currently formal logic) would be needed for ethical calculus to work. Deontic Logic took a shot at it, but IMHO failed miserably. (If one this should be then all things should be.)
What we need to initially do is establish a Moral "algebra" or a discrete system in which we can test and evaluate the logic we use to come to moral decisions. If overall it seems to work, then a moral calculus which deals with these probabilities and shades of grey can be created.
The reason we can start with a discrete system first is the same reason that you cannot tell the difference between a discrete and a continuous system in the real world. A discrete system could just be a continuous system taken in step intervals, and a continuous system could just be a discrete system with incredibly small intervals (that we cannot observe). So, if we can develop one that works discretely and then move it towards a more continuum based calculus, then I believe we can create an ethical calulus.
Unfortunately though, the sheer amount of data and randomness required... well.. It would take more than a lifetime of pure work to create a system that actually worked. (and ironically, the system would have to let you know no what is right and what is wrong, but more what the majority of the population will be believe is right and what would be most helpful to the majority of the population.)
Overall, where we are now is still in the stone age of moral thought. We are about 2 levels above cavemen because we developed religion (which forces people to be moral or go to hell), and laws (which forces those who don't belive religion to at least make life somewhat easier for the rest of us.) As well, people are beginning to realize that morals are personal decisions arbitrated by the social group. So maybe we are getting closer and closer to a breakthrough in morals...
Or if you look at the southern states, maybe we're going to get forced back a level to where relgion is the only authority.
Morality is a subjective thing, that cannot be defined in any real terms. Since what is moral to some people might be taboo to others.
What I am saying though is for people to grow up and stop blaming their moral quandries on other people, and accept the fact that they are making the "moral" decisions, no one else.
Also, I think that people who disagree morally with other people's moral viewpoints should simply leave eachother alone. Hell, if it requires it, don't even associate with eachother. Everyone has the right to decide for themselves what is moral.
Moral Authority
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
*sigh*
I know I am going to get killed for saying this... but here we go...
Who decides what is effectively the moral authority. In my personal opinion the only reason the bible exists and other "moral authorities" exist is because people don't want to take it upon themselves to make the hard decisions as to what is right and what is wrong. If a person can blame his decisions on a book, person, church, etc. that's even better, because he never has to take it upon himself to accept when what he did is actually wrong.
Well, here's the reality check people... Let's remove everything that you need to have "faith" in to believe, and reduce it to what the real world is. There is no more afterlife, there is no more God, nothing, let's say all of that is wrong (not saying I believe that.) What do we have... well, we have the world as you experience it right now. Your decisions are judged almost solely by you, if you feel bad after doing something, that is because you feel it is wrong, not because some book tells you so. If you don't feel bad, then you don't feel it's wrong... Wow, simple, eh?
Now, how's this for a reality check. You do something, then you evaluate the "morality" of it, based on what you feel is right or wrong. Now, if you feel guilty, than to you it is morally wrong (even though to someone else it may not be.)
Okay, so now we have a theory of morals that works with an individual, lets work with a group.
Now, let's say for example that a person feels killing is not morally wrong, yet overall the group disagrees. What happens, well the group will in someway punish the person who is harming the good of the group. Thus, the person will feel wrong about what he did because he knows he'll be punished. (this is for those people who need rewards and punishments to do things.)
So, what do we create. We create a "Moral Structure" in which the person need not be immediately punished to fear doing something that overall the group considers wrong... What is this... this sounds like religion... hey.. That's odd..
Something to ponder. (and by no means is this a complete thesis of my ideas... I'll probably write about it in my journal sometime.)
I don't know which movie the reviewers saw...
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 2
*** WARNING MAYBE SPOILER, NOT SURE ***
But I went to see it, worried that it would be another disappointment, and was pleasantly surprised.
While it wasn't the ever morale, ever boring flics that you see with the TNG. It has some great moments and overall is a great sci-fi action flick... NOT a hard sci-fi or moral tale though...
The storyline is straightforward, and almost a cookie-cutter replica of ST II, TWoK. 'cept this time since there was no really good adversary from the series for picard (That is still alive) they use something just as useful... picard himself.
For some reason though, it seems that the guys who wrote the reviews, either watched only half the movie and left, watched the wrong movie, or went to the movie with the attitude that it is a bad ST movie and thus will suck. Their reviews have no content at all as to all of the good features of the movie, and the content they do have refers to what I would consider is the _only_ bad features of the movie, or I disagree that it's a bad thing... ie. Referring to the dim lighting, for God's sake, is something I've read in first year English essays by people who didn't pay any attention to the movie. ugh. Get better reviewers/reviews people.
Anywayz... I had a roommate who is definitely _not_ a trekkie that I dragged kicking and screaming to this one, and he really enjoyed it. "It's actually a pretty decent action film" is a direct quote from him, and this is the guy who gets violently mad when we watch star trek in the house... so if nothing else that should say something.
Well, personally I really liked this movie, and I recommend it as an action film to anyone who is interested. Not very deep, but exciting and fun.:-)
The Canadian Space Agency is just as bad, if not worse.
I was really excited when I got employed by them a few years back, and I have some great memories, but I just cannot work for a organization whose largest department is "communications" or more correctly "stickers, posters, and advertising."
The most aggravating thing about the space agency I found while I was working for them was the fact that they heralded every little success they've had and didn't pay attention to the people who were actually accomplishing work and doing stuff of use.
The public doesn't like experiments as much as giant big useless toys that the engineers send to space. It was quite sad really. That's why I left after a short while.
I may one day go back (or go work for the Canadian Arrow, if they get anywhere), but I just remember how disappointed I was when my illusion of the space agency was shattered by the realization of how much of that space agency goes towards advertising and promotion of itself.
With our more party-centric system. A company has to purchase out the entire ruling party to get the vote as they want it, or if the leader has undue influence they can just purchase him. (but when that happens it's blatantly obvious.)
Purchasing back-benchers, and even cabinet members doesn't accomplish as much in Canada as purchasing senators and governors does in the states.
This is why our party-based system has a neat little check and balance.:-) You have to pretty much buy a party to gain as much influence in Canada as purchasing politicians in the states gives you. Thus, the general populous maintains a decent amount of power.
But then again, I am a proud Canadian. So I'm a bit biased.:-)
All that irrational software they've been buying lately.
I just see the meeting now...
BoardMember1: So we are going to purchase Rational software? BoardMember2: Don't we always purchase rational software? BoardMember1: No, we've never purchased Rational software, we've purchased other software before. BoardMember3: Other software? What, we've been running on irrational software for years? BoardMember1: No, no, no! The other software we buy isn't irrational, it's just not Rational software. BoardMember2: Isn't non-rational software irrational? BoardMember3: I think he's right Bob. BoardMember1: Okay, okay whatever... We've always bought irrational software.. Now all those in favour of purchasing Rational Software say aye. Everyone: Aye.
** Meeting Ends **
BoardMember3 to BoardMember2: We're going to have to talk with the older board members... No wonder we've had to much problem.. with all that irrations software we've bought.
*** thank you... thank you... I'll be here all night people. ***:-)
is how he slips in a advertisement for the book he sells on his main page within the articles...
Man... this is bad science at its absolute worst. (I hope enough people notice the "it's funny... laugh" and don't think it's the "science" section one.) Considering that the only site google has that refers to this particular Glitch <laugh> is this site. Science ain't changing anytime soon.
Oh, but if you do think this is for real, I have a beautiful bridge I am selling...:-)
The employees should be allowed to do pretty much anything they want when they go home. (apart from selling non-disclosure agreement secrets.) This is kinda like firing a doctor for curing someone without charging them. Seems kinda silly to me.
But then again, the tech market is in a slump, and they may need the money.
If this is during work though, it's somewhat understandable (note: I am not condoning it (IANCI).). Some offices prefer you work for them during work hours, and not work for free online.
As well, if these techies are giving out details that they aren't allowed to (due to some agreement or another). Then again, it is understablable (IANCI). Businesses have their "intellectual property" that they'd prefer to sell then give away.
Seem odd though for a company to do this and risk the bad press.
A few things... (also, the book Solaris)
on
Solaris: Another View
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
He does take shots that pay homage to the 2001 movie. Albeit, like you say, he doesn't do a quality job of them. Like the shots where he in his suit, and they have a close up of his helmet. The lighting and pretty much everything in that scene matches up with another scene in 2001.
Other than that though, I was quite disappointed with this movie. Esp. considering I was waiting for it to come out. The book Solaris is far better than the movie. I just found the movie was trying to hit on far too many points to successfully get any one particular one well.
There is a discussion of the existance and substance of God throughout the movie (with Solaris being a "God-like" entity)
There is a question of nihilism that slides through, but really isn't hit upon well.
There are "Star Trek"-like scenes, where all of a sudden a buch of techno-babble is spouted that solves everything and advances the plot.
But overall, he seems to be trying to discuss the existance of love, and what love is... Personally, I feel he failed miserably, or his definition of love is quite shallow.
The book Solaris, written by Lem, a French author (Thus, you'd need to be able to read French or find a translation to read it.) is a good book, and I recommend that it is worth reading.
The movie on the other hand... Well... like the review says...:-)
10^trillion is 1 followed by 1 trillions 0's... Assuming we are following the american system that would be equivalent to.
10^(10^12)
Okay... now.. let's get some interesting facts with this.
The absolutely smallest length measurable by quantum theory is the planck length which is approx 10^-34 m. Needless to say, if we have a diameter of an incredibly small perfect circle, we'll know it's circumference beyond what is possible by quantum theory (but since there are no perfect circles, and quantum theory adds probability, this doesn't mean anything really useful.:-P)
Now, since we know the smallest measurable... lets look at what the estimates for the size of the universe are. Recent estimates put it as 10 billion light years in radius source Which works out to about... (assuming american notation on billion)
10^9 * 300,000,000 m/s* 365*24*3600 ~= 10^25 m
Okay... now if we were to measure the circumference to as accurate as allowed by quantum theory we'd have.
pi*2.10^25 ~= 6.28*10^26 10^27 with an accuracy of about 34 decimals...
So... to get perfect accuracy as allowed by quantum theory we would have at most 35 decimal places afterwards... therefore, we'd need pi with an accuracy of
~10^63...
We have pi with an accuracy of 10^(10^12) which is 63 : 10^12 ~= 1: 1.59x10^11 Way more accuracy then we really need.:-)
Yeah. I thought about this after I published the first comment. I own a website where the IP forwarding is conducted this way as well.
But, I am guessing reasonably that it wouldn't be hard to get to those websites as well if you know the IP and the domain name. you just have to be able to get the server to think connecting via Domain, and not IP, even though the initial connection is via IP.
Slashdot Mirror
Diffie is definitely the guy to be talking about this. Considering a main form of private key-exchange is called Diffie-Hellman.
But, nontheless, it's silly that people don't know this inherently. A secure system is only as secure as its weakest point. If that point is compromised and cannot be easily fixed and/or repaired. It's useless.
Depending on the secrecy of the code or "Security through Obscurity" is useless. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a quack or is trying to sell you something and doesn't want to do all the work necessary to do the proper job.
If you want a secure system, you have to instantly assume that the system, code, and key will eventually be completely compromised, and then you can begin to think about. Now, if any of these were compromised, how can I fix the problem. The current solution is to reset the keys, and using modern mathematics (most of which was developed by Dif) You can do this securely.
Now, the only problem that remains with modern cryptography, is if the factoring problem is solved _and_ the elliptic curve problem is solved efficiently, then modern crypto becomes useless, and we are back to square one.
Albeit, Quantum Cryptography has some potential as it provides a mathematically verifiable form of perfect cryptography, since it is one time pads. It just currently cannot be done over long enough distances to be completely effective. When the technical/engineering details are solved for QC, then crypto is guaranteed secure. Assuming no one compromises your system directly (Human Error).
Dependence on Security through Obscurity is bad, incredibly bad, and I hope anyone programming security software out there will realize that, and begin to use proper cryptographic techniques.
** I am going to write a couple of journal articles soon reviewing the various techniques for those who are interested. **
You know the states is looking more and more like Germany earlier in the last century now then ever before, and it really scares me.
:-)
The similarities are just way to close, and now more and more people I find are trying to get out of the country.
I am in Canada right now, and I am very happy here, but I just hope we don't end up being "anschl\b\b\b\b\b\babsorbed' by that piece of land below us.
But, hey man, you and your wife are welcome to join us up here in Canada.
he proved to me how skilled he is at social engineering when he used it to get me to buy it. At my bookstore he gave away a small chapter sample of the book, but it was enough that after reading it I had to purchase the rest of the book...
He's a sneaky guy, this Kevin.
OT: I know...
Yeah, but even then, that flat-9 is added for the effect that it is out of tune..
C# has it's place in a key of C song, just it shouldn't be used totally.
Being sharp isn't a good thing... It's actually common for singers who don't know how to sing to sing sharp... Yet, Microsoft likes C#, and X# (X isn't even a note this time.) I am excited though. I am waiting for someone to tune Microsoft a bit and perhaps release b-flat, or perhaps D##.
Sometimes being sharp is useful (in the right key), but if you already know the key is C, C# is not a good note to hit.
CS people tend to only ever concentrate at one thing at a given time
I don't know about that. I don't consider myself exactly a CS person, (My major is Pure Math) but I do think that I can fit in that set of people, and I find my biggest problem is the fact that I am always working on 5 or 6 different things at the same time.
Eg. Working on one of my web pages in one window, managing a client in another, sketching on a notepad, talking to friends, reading slashdot, and reading a book that I purchased.
A lot of my friend multitask like this too, and I know this is true for me because I have had friends comment on it while I am doing it.
It drives me absolutely up the wall to be concentrating on only one thing at a time.
But, perhaps I am not representative of CS students, but rather Pure Mathematicians and Academics.
IANAL, as is obvious from my profile...
:-)
But I do appreciate your response which clarified a few points which I wasn't aware of.
Personally, I find it disgusting the way the american justice system forces their laws on other nations haphazardly (Look at Dmitri for example). But I do understand what you are saying, and that your "Question A" has a lot of merit.
Naturally though, you should be able to understand my frustration (as a non-American) with the way the Americans do things. Sometimes it is aggravating.
I do appreciate you taking the time to explain the finer details of the judicial system to me, though, and although I agree that the Americans can sue KaZaa (by what you said), I believe that they have no right to since KaZaa is not an American company and doesn't have substantial contacts in California. (It's only on the internet.)
I hope now, you understand where my initial rant came from.
Microsoft raises the price of all of it's products on sale in California to $1.2 Billion dollars.
From the article posting:
U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said a lawsuit against Sharman Networks (the makers of Kazaa) could proceed.
(The Australia-/Vanuatu-based company had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it was not bound by U.S. laws since it did not have substantial contacts with California.)"
Wow... Why isn't this a surprise. The Americans decide that people outside their own country are bound by their laws.
If the RIAA wants to take on Kazaa, take them on in Australia. Oh wait, no that wouldn't work, because the Australian justice system wouldn't waste their time on this.
Someone need to go let the states know that they don't own the world, yet, and until they do, companies from other countries do not lie under their jurisdiction.
This is just like the episode of Dilbert TV called Ethics.
-- From episode (roughly)
Boss: Due to some ethical problems, management has decided to send all you engineers for ethics training
Dilbert: is this because we are working with the mafia?
(And a few other reasons that slip my mind right now)
Boss: Yes... So, your training begins on Saturday.
Dilbert: Will management be there
Boss: No..
Dilbert: But management is guilty of the most ethical offenses.
Boss: I know, but we're all too important to go to ethical training...
Dilbert: But...
Boss: no buts...
--
Man, this form is hilarious, Dilbert come true, S2S(so to speak). I betcha management doesn't even have to sign it, even though they are the ones that are "ethically challenged" in the companies in the news.
Some of the psycho links aren't actually as insane as you may think...
I used to play the game Majestic online, and I know for a fact they set up a lot of "pseudo-pages" of companies, home pages, etc. to go along with the storyline, and some of these links that have been given are directly from that game, and a few may be from further down the road (then I was in the game), because they seem to read almost exactly the pages I saw when I was playing.
Sure there are psychos online, but there's also a lot of pages set up for other less insiduous or insane reasons.
Just something to think about.
I found Mathlab to be the more commonly used program, while Mathematica has more features. (but I haven't used either enough to be an authority.)
I have though found another product, Maple, to be a quality mathematics program. Perhaps you may want to consider that one as well.
Masturbation?
Does that have roughly the same effect? If so, I won't feel so guilty when I'm... not studying.. yeah, that's it.
So, you are discussing that an ethical calculus may be possible.
I personally have thought over this many times, and I believe it is possible, but a new form of logical (not the currently formal logic) would be needed for ethical calculus to work. Deontic Logic took a shot at it, but IMHO failed miserably. (If one this should be then all things should be.)
What we need to initially do is establish a Moral "algebra" or a discrete system in which we can test and evaluate the logic we use to come to moral decisions. If overall it seems to work, then a moral calculus which deals with these probabilities and shades of grey can be created.
The reason we can start with a discrete system first is the same reason that you cannot tell the difference between a discrete and a continuous system in the real world. A discrete system could just be a continuous system taken in step intervals, and a continuous system could just be a discrete system with incredibly small intervals (that we cannot observe). So, if we can develop one that works discretely and then move it towards a more continuum based calculus, then I believe we can create an ethical calulus.
Unfortunately though, the sheer amount of data and randomness required... well.. It would take more than a lifetime of pure work to create a system that actually worked. (and ironically, the system would have to let you know no what is right and what is wrong, but more what the majority of the population will be believe is right and what would be most helpful to the majority of the population.)
Overall, where we are now is still in the stone age of moral thought. We are about 2 levels above cavemen because we developed religion (which forces people to be moral or go to hell), and laws (which forces those who don't belive religion to at least make life somewhat easier for the rest of us.) As well, people are beginning to realize that morals are personal decisions arbitrated by the social group. So maybe we are getting closer and closer to a breakthrough in morals...
Or if you look at the southern states, maybe we're going to get forced back a level to where relgion is the only authority.
Yeah, that's the annoyance...
Morality is a subjective thing, that cannot be defined in any real terms. Since what is moral to some people might be taboo to others.
What I am saying though is for people to grow up and stop blaming their moral quandries on other people, and accept the fact that they are making the "moral" decisions, no one else.
Also, I think that people who disagree morally with other people's moral viewpoints should simply leave eachother alone. Hell, if it requires it, don't even associate with eachother. Everyone has the right to decide for themselves what is moral.
*sigh*
I know I am going to get killed for saying this... but here we go...
Who decides what is effectively the moral authority. In my personal opinion the only reason the bible exists and other "moral authorities" exist is because people don't want to take it upon themselves to make the hard decisions as to what is right and what is wrong. If a person can blame his decisions on a book, person, church, etc. that's even better, because he never has to take it upon himself to accept when what he did is actually wrong.
Well, here's the reality check people... Let's remove everything that you need to have "faith" in to believe, and reduce it to what the real world is. There is no more afterlife, there is no more God, nothing, let's say all of that is wrong (not saying I believe that.) What do we have... well, we have the world as you experience it right now. Your decisions are judged almost solely by you, if you feel bad after doing something, that is because you feel it is wrong, not because some book tells you so. If you don't feel bad, then you don't feel it's wrong... Wow, simple, eh?
Now, how's this for a reality check. You do something, then you evaluate the "morality" of it, based on what you feel is right or wrong. Now, if you feel guilty, than to you it is morally wrong (even though to someone else it may not be.)
Okay, so now we have a theory of morals that works with an individual, lets work with a group.
Now, let's say for example that a person feels killing is not morally wrong, yet overall the group disagrees. What happens, well the group will in someway punish the person who is harming the good of the group. Thus, the person will feel wrong about what he did because he knows he'll be punished. (this is for those people who need rewards and punishments to do things.)
So, what do we create. We create a "Moral Structure" in which the person need not be immediately punished to fear doing something that overall the group considers wrong... What is this... this sounds like religion... hey.. That's odd..
Something to ponder. (and by no means is this a complete thesis of my ideas... I'll probably write about it in my journal sometime.)
*** WARNING MAYBE SPOILER, NOT SURE ***
:-)
But I went to see it, worried that it would be another disappointment, and was pleasantly surprised.
While it wasn't the ever morale, ever boring flics that you see with the TNG. It has some great moments and overall is a great sci-fi action flick... NOT a hard sci-fi or moral tale though...
The storyline is straightforward, and almost a cookie-cutter replica of ST II, TWoK. 'cept this time since there was no really good adversary from the series for picard (That is still alive) they use something just as useful... picard himself.
For some reason though, it seems that the guys who wrote the reviews, either watched only half the movie and left, watched the wrong movie, or went to the movie with the attitude that it is a bad ST movie and thus will suck. Their reviews have no content at all as to all of the good features of the movie, and the content they do have refers to what I would consider is the _only_ bad features of the movie, or I disagree that it's a bad thing... ie. Referring to the dim lighting, for God's sake, is something I've read in first year English essays by people who didn't pay any attention to the movie. ugh. Get better reviewers/reviews people.
Anywayz... I had a roommate who is definitely _not_ a trekkie that I dragged kicking and screaming to this one, and he really enjoyed it. "It's actually a pretty decent action film" is a direct quote from him, and this is the guy who gets violently mad when we watch star trek in the house... so if nothing else that should say something.
Well, personally I really liked this movie, and I recommend it as an action film to anyone who is interested. Not very deep, but exciting and fun.
The Canadian Space Agency is just as bad, if not worse.
I was really excited when I got employed by them a few years back, and I have some great memories, but I just cannot work for a organization whose largest department is "communications" or more correctly "stickers, posters, and advertising."
The most aggravating thing about the space agency I found while I was working for them was the fact that they heralded every little success they've had and didn't pay attention to the people who were actually accomplishing work and doing stuff of use.
The public doesn't like experiments as much as giant big useless toys that the engineers send to space. It was quite sad really. That's why I left after a short while.
I may one day go back (or go work for the Canadian Arrow, if they get anywhere), but I just remember how disappointed I was when my illusion of the space agency was shattered by the realization of how much of that space agency goes towards advertising and promotion of itself.
We have a double-edged sword.
:-) You have to pretty much buy a party to gain as much influence in Canada as purchasing politicians in the states gives you. Thus, the general populous maintains a decent amount of power.
:-)
With our more party-centric system. A company has to purchase out the entire ruling party to get the vote as they want it, or if the leader has undue influence they can just purchase him. (but when that happens it's blatantly obvious.)
Purchasing back-benchers, and even cabinet members doesn't accomplish as much in Canada as purchasing senators and governors does in the states.
This is why our party-based system has a neat little check and balance.
But then again, I am a proud Canadian. So I'm a bit biased.
All that irrational software they've been buying lately.
:-)
I just see the meeting now...
BoardMember1: So we are going to purchase Rational software?
BoardMember2: Don't we always purchase rational software?
BoardMember1: No, we've never purchased Rational software, we've purchased other software before.
BoardMember3: Other software? What, we've been running on irrational software for years?
BoardMember1: No, no, no! The other software we buy isn't irrational, it's just not Rational software.
BoardMember2: Isn't non-rational software irrational?
BoardMember3: I think he's right Bob.
BoardMember1: Okay, okay whatever... We've always bought irrational software.. Now all those in favour of purchasing Rational Software say aye.
Everyone: Aye.
** Meeting Ends **
BoardMember3 to BoardMember2: We're going to have to talk with the older board members... No wonder we've had to much problem.. with all that irrations software we've bought.
*** thank you... thank you... I'll be here all night people. ***
is how he slips in a advertisement for the book he sells on his main page within the articles...
:-)
Man... this is bad science at its absolute worst. (I hope enough people notice the "it's funny... laugh" and don't think it's the "science" section one.) Considering that the only site google has that refers to this particular Glitch <laugh> is this site. Science ain't changing anytime soon.
Oh, but if you do think this is for real, I have a beautiful bridge I am selling...
Free time during work time or when they go home?
The employees should be allowed to do pretty much anything they want when they go home. (apart from selling non-disclosure agreement secrets.) This is kinda like firing a doctor for curing someone without charging them. Seems kinda silly to me.
But then again, the tech market is in a slump, and they may need the money.
If this is during work though, it's somewhat understandable (note: I am not condoning it (IANCI).). Some offices prefer you work for them during work hours, and not work for free online.
As well, if these techies are giving out details that they aren't allowed to (due to some agreement or another). Then again, it is understablable (IANCI). Businesses have their "intellectual property" that they'd prefer to sell then give away.
Seem odd though for a company to do this and risk the bad press.
He does take shots that pay homage to the 2001 movie. Albeit, like you say, he doesn't do a quality job of them. Like the shots where he in his suit, and they have a close up of his helmet. The lighting and pretty much everything in that scene matches up with another scene in 2001.
:-)
Other than that though, I was quite disappointed with this movie. Esp. considering I was waiting for it to come out. The book Solaris is far better than the movie. I just found the movie was trying to hit on far too many points to successfully get any one particular one well.
There is a discussion of the existance and substance of God throughout the movie (with Solaris being a "God-like" entity)
There is a question of nihilism that slides through, but really isn't hit upon well.
There are "Star Trek"-like scenes, where all of a sudden a buch of techno-babble is spouted that solves everything and advances the plot.
But overall, he seems to be trying to discuss the existance of love, and what love is... Personally, I feel he failed miserably, or his definition of love is quite shallow.
The book Solaris, written by Lem, a French author (Thus, you'd need to be able to read French or find a translation to read it.) is a good book, and I recommend that it is worth reading.
The movie on the other hand... Well... like the review says...
A google only has 100 zeros, thus 100 places.
:-P)
:-)
10^trillion is 1 followed by 1 trillions 0's... Assuming we are following the american system that would be equivalent to.
10^(10^12)
Okay... now.. let's get some interesting facts with this.
The absolutely smallest length measurable by quantum theory is the planck length which is approx 10^-34 m. Needless to say, if we have a diameter of an incredibly small perfect circle, we'll know it's circumference beyond what is possible by quantum theory (but since there are no perfect circles, and quantum theory adds probability, this doesn't mean anything really useful.
Now, since we know the smallest measurable... lets look at what the estimates for the size of the universe are. Recent estimates put it as 10 billion light years in radius source
Which works out to about... (assuming american notation on billion)
10^9 * 300,000,000 m/s* 365*24*3600 ~= 10^25 m
Okay... now if we were to measure the circumference to as accurate as allowed by quantum theory we'd have.
pi*2.10^25 ~= 6.28*10^26 10^27 with an accuracy of about 34 decimals...
So... to get perfect accuracy as allowed by quantum theory we would have at most 35 decimal places afterwards... therefore, we'd need pi with an accuracy of
~10^63...
We have pi with an accuracy of 10^(10^12) which is
63 : 10^12 ~= 1: 1.59x10^11
Way more accuracy then we really need.
That's absolutely insane, but it is fun math.
Just some food for thought.
Yeah. I thought about this after I published the first comment. I own a website where the IP forwarding is conducted this way as well.
But, I am guessing reasonably that it wouldn't be hard to get to those websites as well if you know the IP and the domain name. you just have to be able to get the server to think connecting via Domain, and not IP, even though the initial connection is via IP.