Therefore, even though it may be financially cheaper than recycled goods, the costs are not based on the complete 'damage' done.
The problem with this argument, as I said, is that you are still doing damage, just in a different area. Sure recycling paper may save trees... but maybe it kills fish by dumping hot/contaminated water into the river. Recycling cans will alleviate strip mining for metal in one part of the world, but will increase the drilling for oil in another...
Well, thing about it this way, is it cheaper to recycle or to create new from scratch? If it's not cheaper, then recycling is probably actually bad for the planet. Generally money is eventually tied to recources, i.e. natural resouces. At some point, that extra money you spend to recycle translates to extra electricity (read, burn more oil), extra man-power (and all the cost of keeping a human housed, fed and entertained), or some other extra resource being used up down the line.
Much in the way that electric cars don't reduce pollution (just redistribute it out of the cities to the power stations), recycling doesn't always reduce the impact on the environment... it just redistributes that impact to somewhere else.
1. Growth 2. Metabolism - The uptake of food, conversion of food into energy and disposal of waste products 3. Motion - Moving itself or having internal motion 4. Reproduction - the ability to create more or less exact copies of itself 5. Stimulus response - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment and to act on certain conditions
It looks to me like it would be difficult to say that plain old fire is not "alive".
An AI with the entire database of human law at it's disposal that can't defend itself maybe SHOULD get shut down in favor of one that can. We had to deal with survival of the fittest for millions of years, why should artificial live be exempt?
You would have to either prove that (1) somehow, your sharing of copyrighted material was lawful
That one is easy if they were played on the radio or at a concert near me! I've got an EULA on my body that reads, roughly, "Ownership of copyright of all radio and sound wave traffic through this body will be transfered directly to the Owner of the body thereof, namely, himself. If the previous owner of the copyright does not wish to transfer ownsership, then said party shall not transmit through this medium."
If they tried that shit, I'd never work another day of my life. I'd go on fucking welfare, and the RIAA (thru taxes) would pay ME!
Do you understand how stupid you sound? You'd condemn yourself to a life of poverty so you can listen to their crapified pop music? Are you fucking insane? It's not worth it anymore. I wouldn't pay them $20 for a CD, much less $150k for a single fucking putrid song.
No no, do you understand how stupid American society sounds that it's willing to sacrifice a hard working member of thw workfore and shrink it's economy by the amount it takes to pay for him so that a few media fat cats can sit in thier opium haze of content distribution business models for a few more hours?
The problem with solutions like this is that it involves money, and thus, is subject to corruption. Spammers would eventually be givien discounts (look at your paper junk mail folks) so that the regulatory company can make an extra buck.
However, there is another solution that would work just as well.
Every email that is to be accepted by an SMTP server must include a digital signature of some root SMTP-signing servers of some kind, otherwise it's automatically rejected. This server will only allow, say, 10,000 signatures per IP address (or per registered user, whatever) per day, maximum. Additionally, it will only sign one message per second per IP addresss, no faster.
There are many variations on this, all of which would work great. For example, have the rate of signing be inversely proportional to the number of messages sent that day. Maybe also have "registered users", meaning people who have an actual credit card number or bank account linked to their name and will be charged $1,000,000 per message after 10,000 have been sent in a day (Sure, there will be spammers using fradulent cards, but in that case spamming has become a real, high-stakes felony).
The point is, as long as you have a few central authorities, just like DNS, where we can go to validate email, then we'll end spam.
I have delay sent out after just a few minutes. If a message can't be sent in the first 10 minutes, chances are it's not going to be sent for the next few hours. So my delay message is short, letting the user know that the message isn't getting through. However sometimes things clean themselves up after a few days, so my "failure" message is set for 3 days. That way the message can keep trying as long as is reasonable, but the user also is informed right away that there may be problems.
I tried to understand the reasons for the release of rather 'flawed' demos, but short term gains such as marketing deals or market timing are usually clearly outweighed by the overall consequences.
This comes as a suprise to whom? I've yet to see a company in the software field where a single dollar today wasn't valued far more than a C-note tomorrow.
This is a bad example, because it's about an action game, but I used to be a big first-person shooter fan. Well, the other day I went to the "real" gun range for the first time, and I found that I was an amazingly good shot, right from the get-go. We fired all sorts of weapons from small handguns to scoped rifles to small assault weapons.
I found that many of the techniques that I used in the game (when auto-aiming was off) to hit targets turned out to be successful ways to shoot in real life too. This was especially true using a wobbly rifle and scope.
I wasn't hitting directly in the bulls-eye every time or anything, but my grouping was perfect and I was always within a couple of inches of where I was aiming, even at a great distance.
And I know soriety girls are braindead, but I think they would know if a fucking arab was using them as a mule for explosives.
1) You could get someone who looks like the "good" profile, even if they are just acting.
2) You could get a real person who doesn't even have to know that they are carrying anything.
Let me try to clue you in on a little thing we like to call "reality", big guy. Profiling does not mean that the gaurds will only stop dirty, turbin-wearing foreigners. Profiling means that the airport security has enough sense not to strip-search children and grandmothers just because some "random" sampling rule tells them to. Profiling means you fucking stop anyone that looks suspicious. It's common fucking sense, not an act of racism.
You only have a limited amount of resources at an airport terminal. The guard can't search everyone, right? If the guard is searching only "suspiscious" looking people, then it's trivial to get past him.
For example, if the guard only has time to search 10 people every flight, then you get 10 of your terrorist friends to dress up in super-suspiscous clothes, but carry NOTHING dangerous. Then you get your one white terrorist friend to dress in a business suit and carry a suitcase full of x-ray transparent machine guns.
The guard, who is profiling, will choose the 10 suspiscous looking people, and the non-suspiscous person will get in with ease.
And, your dupe doesn't even really have to aware that he/she is involved in a terrorist act. The real red-flag guy can walk on the plane with no bags whatsoever to search, and just grab the real goods out of the dupe's bags (secretly stashed in the handle of the bag she "won" along with her free trip to Hawaii from the "radio station" last week (pre set up, of course) when he/she goes to the rest-room.
You are ignorant. I'm not being rude, I'm being honest. Profiling is less secure then random sampling. It's mathematical FACT.
The reason it is less secure is because it's hackable. By that I mean, if you can reverse engineer the algorithm they use to determine who is to be searched, you can break it. All you would have to do is go a few hours early for your next flight with a pen a paper and sit in front of the gate. As you sit there you tally who gets searched (what do they look like, what are they wearing, etc.) and who doesn't. Do that for a month and you now have all the data you need to find the "perfect" terrorist.
For example, if you see that white teenage girls almost never get searched, then your next recruit will be a naive white girl you meet at a sorority mixer. She'll bring in the weapons for you and boom, you have your next terrorist attack, and it's much less probable that you'll get caught.
A random sample, even despite the 12 year olds and grandmothers, is inherantly more secure becuase you can't find a way to guarantee that you won't be searched with the right racial candidate. It is impossible to reverse engineer.
the proposed government system to prevent terrorism by color-coding airline passengers according to their risk level will be tested using old passenger itineraries from JetBlue
Ok, so no JetBlue planes were hijacked in recent memory (ever?) so, by extrapolating the data from that, the people who should be colored GREEN (no threat) are.... everyone.
So, instead of being warned by your management that you can and will be fired for your behavior if it doesn't change, you'd rather them just have security walk you out one day? Come on....
Of course, companies do these warnings for their own benefit-- not yours. They want a nice little paper trail in case you sue or call the DoL that shows that a) they fired you for "cause" and b) they tried to fix the issues before they had to "resort" to the firing.
It's not the warning system that's childish. It's the inflexible policy.
Well, I'm not so sure about that. If you get your work done, and aren't causing communication problems, then what would the point be of me warning you that you are late?
If you were causing problems, THEN I could warn you, but I'd be warnign you that you aren't keeping up with your work, or aren't communicating well enough with the rest of the employees... I won't be warning you that you are late.
Being late may be the underlying cause of your poor work, but it isn't my job to go and figure that out for you. As an employer, it's my job to tell you what areas you are deficient in, and ti;s up to you to fix them, or be fired.
Now, I might suggest to you that you would be able to work better if you came in earlier, but I couldn't tell you to do that. Nobody knows better what the actual cause is for your poork work than you, so all I can do is tell you the symptoms that are endangering your job, and it's up to you to cure them.
After all, the only important difference between an adult and a child is that an adult does what he/she is supposed to do (i.e, meets his or her responsibilities), even when they are tired, hung-over, etc., otherwise you are still a little boy or girl, and of no use to most employers.
By that same token, "adults" don't need to arrive at exactly a particular time of day to do thier work in a non-service field, nor do "adults" expect that of thier peers. Calling "neya-neya, you're in trouble" and givng out "warnings" and "discplinary actions" is what you do in school, not in business. It's childish, plain and simple.
Well, there is the whole cliche: How would you feel if your employer were a day late in paying you?
But, if a minute is "late" then you work for somone who's too strict with the rules. You SHOULD respect them, however... but likewise your employer shouldn't be asking you to stay a minute after 6:01 (or whenever you get off).
It appears that you forgot about the parts where the doctor picked your pocket and, before telling you about the tumor, told everyone else on the train.
Yeah, good analogy.
That's fine, the question still stands: Do you want to learn about the tumor this way, or learn after it's too late and you're going to die?
That would depend very much on the kind of invasion. Since you don't actually "go inside" of a computer when you "break in", it's not like invasive surgery. It's more like a phsycologist asking your questions on a personality test.
Imagine this one: You walk up to somoen ask ask for thier credit card number and pin. And lo and behold, they tell you! You say, "You shouldn't be giving this information out to people" and in response they try and get you arrested.
That is exactly what happened here. The boy asked the NYT computers for information, and the computers responded by giving it to him. Maybe he asked it in a tricky way, just like someone could call you up and pretend to be from AOL and are trying to "fix" the billing for your account to get you to give up the info, but that doesn't mean it was wrong as long as he was doing it to educate you.
Slashdot Mirror
I misread that, missing the word "sales"... I thought the kill-all-humans protocal had finally kicked in.
Ironically, e-voting may take off precisely BECAUSE it didn't work the first time... (miscounting votes to put e-voting friendly folks into office)
Therefore, even though it may be financially cheaper than recycled goods, the costs are not based on the complete 'damage' done.
The problem with this argument, as I said, is that you are still doing damage, just in a different area. Sure recycling paper may save trees... but maybe it kills fish by dumping hot/contaminated water into the river. Recycling cans will alleviate strip mining for metal in one part of the world, but will increase the drilling for oil in another...
Well, thing about it this way, is it cheaper to recycle or to create new from scratch? If it's not cheaper, then recycling is probably actually bad for the planet. Generally money is eventually tied to recources, i.e. natural resouces. At some point, that extra money you spend to recycle translates to extra electricity (read, burn more oil), extra man-power (and all the cost of keeping a human housed, fed and entertained), or some other extra resource being used up down the line.
Much in the way that electric cars don't reduce pollution (just redistribute it out of the cities to the power stations), recycling doesn't always reduce the impact on the environment... it just redistributes that impact to somewhere else.
1. Growth
2. Metabolism - The uptake of food, conversion of food into energy and disposal of waste products
3. Motion - Moving itself or having internal motion
4. Reproduction - the ability to create more or less exact copies of itself
5. Stimulus response - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment and to act on certain conditions
It looks to me like it would be difficult to say that plain old fire is not "alive".
An AI with the entire database of human law at it's disposal that can't defend itself maybe SHOULD get shut down in favor of one that can. We had to deal with survival of the fittest for millions of years, why should artificial live be exempt?
You would have to either prove that (1) somehow, your sharing of copyrighted material was lawful
That one is easy if they were played on the radio or at a concert near me! I've got an EULA on my body that reads, roughly, "Ownership of copyright of all radio and sound wave traffic through this body will be transfered directly to the Owner of the body thereof, namely, himself. If the previous owner of the copyright does not wish to transfer ownsership, then said party shall not transmit through this medium."
If they tried that shit, I'd never work another day of my life. I'd go on fucking welfare, and the RIAA (thru taxes) would pay ME!
Do you understand how stupid you sound? You'd condemn yourself to a life of poverty so you can listen to their crapified pop music? Are you fucking insane? It's not worth it anymore. I wouldn't pay them $20 for a CD, much less $150k for a single fucking putrid song.
No no, do you understand how stupid American society sounds that it's willing to sacrifice a hard working member of thw workfore and shrink it's economy by the amount it takes to pay for him so that a few media fat cats can sit in thier opium haze of content distribution business models for a few more hours?
The problem with solutions like this is that it involves money, and thus, is subject to corruption. Spammers would eventually be givien discounts (look at your paper junk mail folks) so that the regulatory company can make an extra buck.
However, there is another solution that would work just as well.
Every email that is to be accepted by an SMTP server must include a digital signature of some root SMTP-signing servers of some kind, otherwise it's automatically rejected. This server will only allow, say, 10,000 signatures per IP address (or per registered user, whatever) per day, maximum. Additionally, it will only sign one message per second per IP addresss, no faster.
There are many variations on this, all of which would work great. For example, have the rate of signing be inversely proportional to the number of messages sent that day. Maybe also have "registered users", meaning people who have an actual credit card number or bank account linked to their name and will be charged $1,000,000 per message after 10,000 have been sent in a day (Sure, there will be spammers using fradulent cards, but in that case spamming has become a real, high-stakes felony).
The point is, as long as you have a few central authorities, just like DNS, where we can go to validate email, then we'll end spam.
Why wasn't the first thought to just promote those who DO have the skills they need?
I have delay sent out after just a few minutes. If a message can't be sent in the first 10 minutes, chances are it's not going to be sent for the next few hours. So my delay message is short, letting the user know that the message isn't getting through. However sometimes things clean themselves up after a few days, so my "failure" message is set for 3 days. That way the message can keep trying as long as is reasonable, but the user also is informed right away that there may be problems.
How many Libraries of Congress does this translate to? Come on people, use standard units!
I tried to understand the reasons for the release of rather 'flawed' demos, but short term gains such as marketing deals or market timing are usually clearly outweighed by the overall consequences.
This comes as a suprise to whom? I've yet to see a company in the software field where a single dollar today wasn't valued far more than a C-note tomorrow.
Man, no wonder... You need to turn Safe Search OFF when you look up nasty stuff like that.
Many people who are prosititues, have fallen into that to survive as well.
Not to mention that prostitutes dont disturb you during dinner time by knocking on your door with sex for sale.
For some reason, I don't think this would bother me nearly as much as telemarketers.
This is a bad example, because it's about an action game, but I used to be a big first-person shooter fan. Well, the other day I went to the "real" gun range for the first time, and I found that I was an amazingly good shot, right from the get-go. We fired all sorts of weapons from small handguns to scoped rifles to small assault weapons.
I found that many of the techniques that I used in the game (when auto-aiming was off) to hit targets turned out to be successful ways to shoot in real life too. This was especially true using a wobbly rifle and scope.
I wasn't hitting directly in the bulls-eye every time or anything, but my grouping was perfect and I was always within a couple of inches of where I was aiming, even at a great distance.
You are either the biggest fucking dumbass ever or a troll. Mathematical fact??? Where's your data?
Learn to use the internet.
And I know soriety girls are braindead, but I think they would know if a fucking arab was using them as a mule for explosives.
1) You could get someone who looks like the "good" profile, even if they are just acting.
2) You could get a real person who doesn't even have to know that they are carrying anything.
Let me try to clue you in on a little thing we like to call "reality", big guy. Profiling does not mean that the gaurds will only stop dirty, turbin-wearing foreigners. Profiling means that the airport security has enough sense not to strip-search children and grandmothers just because some "random" sampling rule tells them to. Profiling means you fucking stop anyone that looks suspicious. It's common fucking sense, not an act of racism.
You only have a limited amount of resources at an airport terminal. The guard can't search everyone, right? If the guard is searching only "suspiscious" looking people, then it's trivial to get past him.
For example, if the guard only has time to search 10 people every flight, then you get 10 of your terrorist friends to dress up in super-suspiscous clothes, but carry NOTHING dangerous. Then you get your one white terrorist friend to dress in a business suit and carry a suitcase full of x-ray transparent machine guns.
The guard, who is profiling, will choose the 10 suspiscous looking people, and the non-suspiscous person will get in with ease.
And, your dupe doesn't even really have to aware that he/she is involved in a terrorist act. The real red-flag guy can walk on the plane with no bags whatsoever to search, and just grab the real goods out of the dupe's bags (secretly stashed in the handle of the bag she "won" along with her free trip to Hawaii from the "radio station" last week (pre set up, of course) when he/she goes to the rest-room.
You are ignorant. I'm not being rude, I'm being honest. Profiling is less secure then random sampling. It's mathematical FACT.
The reason it is less secure is because it's hackable. By that I mean, if you can reverse engineer the algorithm they use to determine who is to be searched, you can break it. All you would have to do is go a few hours early for your next flight with a pen a paper and sit in front of the gate. As you sit there you tally who gets searched (what do they look like, what are they wearing, etc.) and who doesn't. Do that for a month and you now have all the data you need to find the "perfect" terrorist.
For example, if you see that white teenage girls almost never get searched, then your next recruit will be a naive white girl you meet at a sorority mixer. She'll bring in the weapons for you and boom, you have your next terrorist attack, and it's much less probable that you'll get caught.
A random sample, even despite the 12 year olds and grandmothers, is inherantly more secure becuase you can't find a way to guarantee that you won't be searched with the right racial candidate. It is impossible to reverse engineer.
the proposed government system to prevent terrorism by color-coding airline passengers according to their risk level will be tested using old passenger itineraries from JetBlue
Ok, so no JetBlue planes were hijacked in recent memory (ever?) so, by extrapolating the data from that, the people who should be colored GREEN (no threat) are.... everyone.
So, instead of being warned by your management that you can and will be fired for your behavior if it doesn't change, you'd rather them just have security walk you out one day? Come on....
Of course, companies do these warnings for their own benefit-- not yours. They want a nice little paper trail in case you sue or call the DoL that shows that a) they fired you for "cause" and b) they tried to fix the issues before they had to "resort" to the firing.
It's not the warning system that's childish. It's the inflexible policy.
Well, I'm not so sure about that. If you get your work done, and aren't causing communication problems, then what would the point be of me warning you that you are late?
If you were causing problems, THEN I could warn you, but I'd be warnign you that you aren't keeping up with your work, or aren't communicating well enough with the rest of the employees... I won't be warning you that you are late.
Being late may be the underlying cause of your poor work, but it isn't my job to go and figure that out for you. As an employer, it's my job to tell you what areas you are deficient in, and ti;s up to you to fix them, or be fired.
Now, I might suggest to you that you would be able to work better if you came in earlier, but I couldn't tell you to do that. Nobody knows better what the actual cause is for your poork work than you, so all I can do is tell you the symptoms that are endangering your job, and it's up to you to cure them.
After all, the only important difference between an adult and a child is that an adult does what he/she is supposed to do (i.e, meets his or her responsibilities), even when they are tired, hung-over, etc., otherwise you are still a little boy or girl, and of no use to most employers.
By that same token, "adults" don't need to arrive at exactly a particular time of day to do thier work in a non-service field, nor do "adults" expect that of thier peers. Calling "neya-neya, you're in trouble" and givng out "warnings" and "discplinary actions" is what you do in school, not in business. It's childish, plain and simple.
Well, there is the whole cliche: How would you feel if your employer were a day late in paying you?
But, if a minute is "late" then you work for somone who's too strict with the rules. You SHOULD respect them, however... but likewise your employer shouldn't be asking you to stay a minute after 6:01 (or whenever you get off).
It appears that you forgot about the parts where the doctor picked your pocket and, before telling you about the tumor, told everyone else on the train.
Yeah, good analogy.
That's fine, the question still stands: Do you want to learn about the tumor this way, or learn after it's too late and you're going to die?
That would depend very much on the kind of invasion. Since you don't actually "go inside" of a computer when you "break in", it's not like invasive surgery. It's more like a phsycologist asking your questions on a personality test.
Imagine this one: You walk up to somoen ask ask for thier credit card number and pin. And lo and behold, they tell you! You say, "You shouldn't be giving this information out to people" and in response they try and get you arrested.
That is exactly what happened here. The boy asked the NYT computers for information, and the computers responded by giving it to him. Maybe he asked it in a tricky way, just like someone could call you up and pretend to be from AOL and are trying to "fix" the billing for your account to get you to give up the info, but that doesn't mean it was wrong as long as he was doing it to educate you.