why should hackers change their name if others don't get it right? Thats nonsense.
You've elegantly summarized the basic problem with most classic-sense "hackers": Lack of awareness that the ideal world is not the real world, and the self-centered arrogance to think that the ideal world will take over simply because they embrace it.
There are exceptions. I would argue that Linus is both pragmatic and humble, which is probably why he has done great things.
I must drink beer. Beer is the mind-killer. Beer is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my beer. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. When the beer has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Am I the only one who thinks this is to keep Linux and other free operating systems out of third world countries? In that sense it would be a strategic move.
Looks like Microsoft is finally listening to their poorer customers.
Yeah, I read that too late. But they can do what my gf and I do -- gift banking. She likes jewelry, but the kind she likes costs roughly twice my typical gift budget. Rather than getting her crap that she wouldn't like, we agreed to "bank" the gifts and combine them later. It helps if you also buy small, fun, inexpensive gifts when the larger gift is deferred.
If he already has an IPod, or if that's too expensive -- get him the mini IPod. Or get him IPod accessories, like the dock that doubles as a set of speakers. Check it out at www.store.apple.com
Re:the map is not the territory
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 1
I'm reminded of the chinese room problem. Briefly, suppose chinese speakers can submit queries to an "oracle" who lives in a room; queries are submitted by writing them on a card and slipping them under the door. The "oracle" examines the symbols on the card, and without understanding the symbols, consults an arbitrarily large database of queries and responses. Each set of query symbols corresponds to a set of response symbols, which the "oracle" writes on a new card and slides back under the door. Thus, a chinese speaker could have a conversation in chinese with the "oracle" -- so can it be said that the oracle plus the database "understand" chinese?
In the same way we can examine the behaviour of an animal or an alien and conclude that their behavior is consistent with what we know of mathematics, even if their thought processes are obscure to us. Does that mean they "understand" math?
I would argue that, outwardly, if another species experiences the physical laws as we experience them (which is something we could observe), then we could understand their interpretations of those laws using mathematics, and probably communicate with them using the concepts of mathematics.
Re:the map is not the territory
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 1
Let's just deal with galactic distance scales. Because we can look over these scales and see countable objects (i.e., stars), a civilization on the other side of the galaxy that could also observe stars would have some idea of counting. Thus they would presumably have some idea of addition and subtraction. This idea doesn't depend on time, so even if they didn't perceive time (or something else wacky), they could still count.
Over these scales, our science predicts that macroscopic concepts like gravity hold much as they do here, and there is ample evidence to suggest that this is true. So an alien civilization observing gravity on the other side of the galaxy couldn't help but notice the inverse square law. This would lead them to multiplication, division, and the real numbers; probably quadratic equations as well. So a civilization with the four basic mathematical operations and the real numbers could calculate the golden ratio for themselves.
This is what I'm arguing: basic mathematical concepts are encoded in basic physical laws. So if our system of mathematics is totally different from their equivalent, it stands to reason that they don't have physical laws that are similar to ours, which would be a surprise.
I dislike the idea that, when discussing alien civilizations, we throw up our hands and declare defeat because they could be strange. We both live in the same universe; at least we can start there as a point of reference.
I think that's interesting, and like I said in a different thread, I'm not without sympathy to the postmodern critics of science. However, the foundation of science is the idea that, given the same circumstances, any two humans will observe the same thing. Science spends a lot of time and effort to eliminate subjective and social aspects to convert subjective perception to objective measurement. And beyond a certain point, the labels that different cultures apply to various things, including the colors, are not relevant, because they can be easily translated back and forth, and be understood.
Furthermore, scientific knowledge is not always taught as a social process. When discoveries are made, they can be made by individual researchers observing a phenomenon never observed before. Thus, you can argue that the passing along of those discoveries is not purely social, either, because those to whom the discovery is passed down can perform the experiment for themselves and "rediscover" the phenomenon (otherwise, the discovery is not valid science).
In some sense I can see that the way in which one perceives the world could be a social construct, for the vast majority of people who are not equipped to challenge the reality they have been taught. We cannot all be astronomers, so if we were taught (in a scenario from Orwell) that the stars were 5000 miles away, most people would accept it, and that would form part of their "reality". However, such assertions would not be internally consistent to a person who was capable of investigating them. So in that sense I believe there is an objective reality.
As the matrix runs from beginning to end you take each of these states and concatenate them into a really supermassive integer. Is the mere existence of this supermassive integer sufficient for the entities to experience the reality?
I thought this was a really cool idea. But then I thought about it a bit more. Since the state machine is not specified, the labels attached to the states don't matter -- so, for instance, the first stage of the machine could be a "translator" that changed the state label to the one required for the machine. This would mean that I could re-label the states to 1, 2, 3,... and get the same result -- or any arbitrary other mapping. The implication is that every sequence gives rise to the same universe. So either the mere existence of the integer is not sufficient to generate reality, or the universe is trivial. This is not a counter-proof, but the result is sufficiently dissatisfying that I think it's not the case. And, like you say, time for my medication.
You say that they can only percieve countable objects. So their mathematical knowledge, such as it was, is on the integers, let's say. So we would probably agree on such operations as addition, subtraction, and multiplication on the integers, since the integers are closed under those operations (e.g., integer + integer = integer). Since subtraction is the inverse of addition, we can argue that there exists an operation -- call it "division" -- that is the inverse of multiplication. However, big surprise, the integers are not closed under division, because (as you say) 1/2 is not an integer. So we have to expand our knowledge of numbers into numbers that can be expressed as one integer divided by another -- the rational numbers. This is exactly how our own mathematics works -- take some mathematical construction, find where it breaks down, and extend it. This is where we get our own complex numbers.
Your alien mathematician would even have the satisfaction of realizing that the set of rational numbers is countable (i.e., isomorphic to the integers)!
True, but very simple mathematical axioms may be gleaned from physical laws -- such as the inverse square law. This is what I'm arguing, that a basic description of the physical universe cannot be isolated from basic mathematics. A civilization that cannot comprehend mathematics as we know it would probably not experience the basic physical laws as we know them, either.
I agree. In fact Feynman's lectures on science described exactly this kind of thinking: if two hypotheses gave all the same predictions, you could believe in either one -- which one was "real" is irrelevant.
What I'm saying about mathematics is that certain functions must be universal, because they are encoded in physical laws. An alien civilization might not have a concept of an electron, but surely they would notice something like the inverse square law, through effects like static electricity. They might not even have similar cartesian algebra, but if they had a means of coming up with a prediction that agreed with observations, we could argue that our mathematical systems were basically the same, up to some sort of translation between them.
And since such simple, "physical" mathematics are the basis of more complicated generalizations, an alien civilization should be able to understand those as well.
Re:Arguments against postmodern deconstructionists
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"What else is natural science than a common set of rules for perception" is their answer and I can't answer it.
In a sense this is what science does. But my question is, who makes the rules? The postmodernist would argue that society does, that is, science is altered by our perceptions of it. The scientist (and, indeed, the philosophy of science) requires that the rules are cast by something external to humanity, that is, the rules are unalterable and are the same for each person. This is the basis of repeatable experimentation, and has proven itself far more successful than the alternative explanation.
I'm not totally unsympathetic to the postmodernists. You can look into the past and see where the "softer" sciences, especially psychology and medicine, have made errors based on prevailing social beliefs. But more fundamentally, I believe there are limits to scientific thought. For instance, perception is an important place to attack science, since science hasn't had much success in probing perception. This is probably because science deals in concrete concepts that can be described cleanly with language (e.g., the universe is expanding, the Earth goes around the sun every 365 1/4 days, every cell contains protein, etc.), but we can't describe perceptions in any way that is simple or concrete. For example, how would you explain the taste of an apple to someone who has only eaten meat?
Re:Mathematics not universal?
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, but what would we have in common with them? We both exist in the universe, and can make observations about the universe. Thus, assuming they have a certain amount of technological advancement, we could communicate with them and ask, "How does your planet move around your star?". It would take a whlie for us to communicate our respective definitions of "ellipse" and "gravitation", but surely we would agree that the path is elliptical due to gravitation, even if they had three purple heads and were fifty feet tall.
Then again, if they have no concept of "time" or "movement", then I would argue that they don't exist in the universe in the same way we do.
Mathematics not universal?
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Didn't read the book.
If mathematics are not universal, then the mathematical reasoning that can be conducted to deduce the laws of nature is also not universal. Hence, if a different civilization has different mathematics, they have different physical laws as well.
This is basically a postmodern viewpoint, that reality is socially constructed. This viewpoint has been largely derided by the scientific community, and has failed to replace science because it hasn't really offered a compelling alternative. The only way I can see it being true is if other civilizations don't "exist" in the universe as humans do.
Do a google search for Alan Sokal for a scientist's viewpoint of postmodern scientific criticism.
In the 68000, you have address registers and data registers, and the commands always treat them as such. It's been a while, but I think they are numbered: D0, D1,... for data, and A0, A1,... for addresses. Aside from that the commands treat them equally. Also, memory is flat (a problem with 68000-era x86 chips, though probably not anymore).
The register structure under x86 is byzantine. The registers don't have particular significance and keep swapping roles, which will bite you in the ass if you're not meticulously careful. I'm sure others can say more; like I said, it's been years for me.
I'm not a great programmer, but I never really understood programming -- especially C programming -- until I took 68000 assembly. It also took a digital logic course so I could imagine how a processor was built. It's just abstract manipulation of symbols until you can imagine exactly how your printf("Hello World!\n"); gets broken up into neat little binary chunks.
ps. Don't make them learn x86 assembly. I think that's banned under the Geneva convention.
You know, we're moving towards a world in which computer users and computers themselves are licensed, much as drivers and their cars are licensed.
Is that a good or bad thing? It has its drawbacks, but on the whole I would say good. Fewer viruses, less spam, a modicum of sense from lusers. Less anonymity, yes, but there are always tradeoffs.
come on kids. Have we not learned our lessons? Even as a one time pad, this is lame
You are very much missing the point. Yes, security through obscurity is terrible when it is the only security method you use. However, it can be used to augment a better security system. Even if somebody figured out the secret knock, they would still have to get past your sshd. And if an sshd exploit was found, your secret knock might give you enough time to patch the system before it could be exploited. More security is always a good thing.
Disbelief in security through obscurity doesn't mean you have to paint a bull's eye on your head and dare people to attack you.
The problem is forcing mega machines on people that only need an information appliance
Oh, nobody's forcing anything. Too bad that, for one of the two genders on Earth, having the biggest, fastest, most powerful of anything is a means of establishing alpha status. This goes for computers as well as cars, televisions, houses, and so on.
Imagine the following conversation around the water cooler: "I went out and bought a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a 100 gig hard drive and the latest video card, and then I got a DSL hookup. What did you buy, Bob?" "Oh, I only need an information appliance, so I bought a WebTV console." Who made the logical choice? Who lost the respect of his peers? Discuss.
So visiting a web site is immoral? That's pretty ignorant of reality.
What I'm referring to is the editors' behaviour. They chose to post a story about a site getting Googled -- any reasonable person could anticipate that posting the link to Slashdot would compound the problem. If I were the site's owner, I would be pissed.
As far as the link-clickers go, I don't blame them too much; they're just sheep.
Yes! It's the radical concept that your ability to do something doesn't imply you should do it. In this case, a little advance planning and neighborly behaviour by either Google or Slashdot would have prevented disaster. Then everyone could have seen the site, rather than have it come crashing down, possibly not to return for days or weeks.
Furthermore, this is not a business -- it's some poor guy's small server used for research. And you had the ability to tell the camps "no thanks" when they called in a pizza order -- this guy didn't, the deluge just came.
You could argue that the guy is getting exposure for his work in spite of the slashdotting, but I'm sure there are other, unrelated people getting hosed by this as well. What if the e-mail server and web server are the same machine? Or, more likely, they are different machines but share the same pipe? Would you enjoy going without e-mail or net access for a while because one of your colleagues did something cool that got slashdotted? And who pays for the bandwidth and the admin's time (assuming there is an admin)?
The concept of moral behavior, or simply thinking before acting, is actually pretty radical on the internet. But more of it should be happening.
If a kid hits their ball in your yard, you can just keep the gate locked and throw the ball in the trash.
Good point, and I agree with your post, but I think it goes deeper than that. Here we have two big internet engines (Google and Slashdot) piling hits on small research servers that can't take them. You can make the case that this is the net equivalent of a major corporation dumping toxic waste -- or some similar "big guy dumps on little guy" analogy. In your example, throwing out the ball is likely to get your house egged. But what leverage do you have to force Slashdot to be a good net citizen? Arguably very little.
Slashdot Mirror
why should hackers change their name if others don't get it right? Thats nonsense.
You've elegantly summarized the basic problem with most classic-sense "hackers": Lack of awareness that the ideal world is not the real world, and the self-centered arrogance to think that the ideal world will take over simply because they embrace it.
There are exceptions. I would argue that Linus is both pragmatic and humble, which is probably why he has done great things.
I must drink beer. Beer is the mind-killer. Beer is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my beer. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. When the beer has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
reference
Am I the only one who thinks this is to keep Linux and other free operating systems out of third world countries? In that sense it would be a strategic move.
Looks like Microsoft is finally listening to their poorer customers.
for (i = 1; i < 5; i++) { foo(i); } /* one line */
/* three lines, same code */
for (i = 1; i < 5; i++) {
foo(i);
}
Yeah, I read that too late. But they can do what my gf and I do -- gift banking. She likes jewelry, but the kind she likes costs roughly twice my typical gift budget. Rather than getting her crap that she wouldn't like, we agreed to "bank" the gifts and combine them later. It helps if you also buy small, fun, inexpensive gifts when the larger gift is deferred.
I've often wondered why there are no girls on slashdot. Now I know.
If he already has an IPod, or if that's too expensive -- get him the mini IPod. Or get him IPod accessories, like the dock that doubles as a set of speakers. Check it out at www.store.apple.com
Good point. But there are some studies that suggest animals can count and do very simple arithmetic. This indicates (but does not prove) that counting is fundamental.
I'm reminded of the chinese room problem. Briefly, suppose chinese speakers can submit queries to an "oracle" who lives in a room; queries are submitted by writing them on a card and slipping them under the door. The "oracle" examines the symbols on the card, and without understanding the symbols, consults an arbitrarily large database of queries and responses. Each set of query symbols corresponds to a set of response symbols, which the "oracle" writes on a new card and slides back under the door. Thus, a chinese speaker could have a conversation in chinese with the "oracle" -- so can it be said that the oracle plus the database "understand" chinese?
In the same way we can examine the behaviour of an animal or an alien and conclude that their behavior is consistent with what we know of mathematics, even if their thought processes are obscure to us. Does that mean they "understand" math?
I would argue that, outwardly, if another species experiences the physical laws as we experience them (which is something we could observe), then we could understand their interpretations of those laws using mathematics, and probably communicate with them using the concepts of mathematics.
Let's just deal with galactic distance scales. Because we can look over these scales and see countable objects (i.e., stars), a civilization on the other side of the galaxy that could also observe stars would have some idea of counting. Thus they would presumably have some idea of addition and subtraction. This idea doesn't depend on time, so even if they didn't perceive time (or something else wacky), they could still count.
Over these scales, our science predicts that macroscopic concepts like gravity hold much as they do here, and there is ample evidence to suggest that this is true. So an alien civilization observing gravity on the other side of the galaxy couldn't help but notice the inverse square law. This would lead them to multiplication, division, and the real numbers; probably quadratic equations as well. So a civilization with the four basic mathematical operations and the real numbers could calculate the golden ratio for themselves.
This is what I'm arguing: basic mathematical concepts are encoded in basic physical laws. So if our system of mathematics is totally different from their equivalent, it stands to reason that they don't have physical laws that are similar to ours, which would be a surprise.
I dislike the idea that, when discussing alien civilizations, we throw up our hands and declare defeat because they could be strange. We both live in the same universe; at least we can start there as a point of reference.
I think that's interesting, and like I said in a different thread, I'm not without sympathy to the postmodern critics of science. However, the foundation of science is the idea that, given the same circumstances, any two humans will observe the same thing. Science spends a lot of time and effort to eliminate subjective and social aspects to convert subjective perception to objective measurement. And beyond a certain point, the labels that different cultures apply to various things, including the colors, are not relevant, because they can be easily translated back and forth, and be understood.
Furthermore, scientific knowledge is not always taught as a social process. When discoveries are made, they can be made by individual researchers observing a phenomenon never observed before. Thus, you can argue that the passing along of those discoveries is not purely social, either, because those to whom the discovery is passed down can perform the experiment for themselves and "rediscover" the phenomenon (otherwise, the discovery is not valid science).
In some sense I can see that the way in which one perceives the world could be a social construct, for the vast majority of people who are not equipped to challenge the reality they have been taught. We cannot all be astronomers, so if we were taught (in a scenario from Orwell) that the stars were 5000 miles away, most people would accept it, and that would form part of their "reality". However, such assertions would not be internally consistent to a person who was capable of investigating them. So in that sense I believe there is an objective reality.
As the matrix runs from beginning to end you take each of these states and concatenate them into a really supermassive integer. Is the mere existence of this supermassive integer sufficient for the entities to experience the reality?
... and get the same result -- or any arbitrary other mapping. The implication is that every sequence gives rise to the same universe. So either the mere existence of the integer is not sufficient to generate reality, or the universe is trivial. This is not a counter-proof, but the result is sufficiently dissatisfying that I think it's not the case. And, like you say, time for my medication.
I thought this was a really cool idea. But then I thought about it a bit more. Since the state machine is not specified, the labels attached to the states don't matter -- so, for instance, the first stage of the machine could be a "translator" that changed the state label to the one required for the machine. This would mean that I could re-label the states to 1, 2, 3,
You say that they can only percieve countable objects. So their mathematical knowledge, such as it was, is on the integers, let's say. So we would probably agree on such operations as addition, subtraction, and multiplication on the integers, since the integers are closed under those operations (e.g., integer + integer = integer). Since subtraction is the inverse of addition, we can argue that there exists an operation -- call it "division" -- that is the inverse of multiplication. However, big surprise, the integers are not closed under division, because (as you say) 1/2 is not an integer. So we have to expand our knowledge of numbers into numbers that can be expressed as one integer divided by another -- the rational numbers. This is exactly how our own mathematics works -- take some mathematical construction, find where it breaks down, and extend it. This is where we get our own complex numbers.
Your alien mathematician would even have the satisfaction of realizing that the set of rational numbers is countable (i.e., isomorphic to the integers)!
True, but very simple mathematical axioms may be gleaned from physical laws -- such as the inverse square law. This is what I'm arguing, that a basic description of the physical universe cannot be isolated from basic mathematics. A civilization that cannot comprehend mathematics as we know it would probably not experience the basic physical laws as we know them, either.
I agree. In fact Feynman's lectures on science described exactly this kind of thinking: if two hypotheses gave all the same predictions, you could believe in either one -- which one was "real" is irrelevant.
What I'm saying about mathematics is that certain functions must be universal, because they are encoded in physical laws. An alien civilization might not have a concept of an electron, but surely they would notice something like the inverse square law, through effects like static electricity. They might not even have similar cartesian algebra, but if they had a means of coming up with a prediction that agreed with observations, we could argue that our mathematical systems were basically the same, up to some sort of translation between them.
And since such simple, "physical" mathematics are the basis of more complicated generalizations, an alien civilization should be able to understand those as well.
"What else is natural science than a common set of rules for perception" is their answer and I can't answer it.
In a sense this is what science does. But my question is, who makes the rules? The postmodernist would argue that society does, that is, science is altered by our perceptions of it. The scientist (and, indeed, the philosophy of science) requires that the rules are cast by something external to humanity, that is, the rules are unalterable and are the same for each person. This is the basis of repeatable experimentation, and has proven itself far more successful than the alternative explanation.
I'm not totally unsympathetic to the postmodernists. You can look into the past and see where the "softer" sciences, especially psychology and medicine, have made errors based on prevailing social beliefs. But more fundamentally, I believe there are limits to scientific thought. For instance, perception is an important place to attack science, since science hasn't had much success in probing perception. This is probably because science deals in concrete concepts that can be described cleanly with language (e.g., the universe is expanding, the Earth goes around the sun every 365 1/4 days, every cell contains protein, etc.), but we can't describe perceptions in any way that is simple or concrete. For example, how would you explain the taste of an apple to someone who has only eaten meat?
Yes, but what would we have in common with them? We both exist in the universe, and can make observations about the universe. Thus, assuming they have a certain amount of technological advancement, we could communicate with them and ask, "How does your planet move around your star?". It would take a whlie for us to communicate our respective definitions of "ellipse" and "gravitation", but surely we would agree that the path is elliptical due to gravitation, even if they had three purple heads and were fifty feet tall.
Then again, if they have no concept of "time" or "movement", then I would argue that they don't exist in the universe in the same way we do.
Didn't read the book.
If mathematics are not universal, then the mathematical reasoning that can be conducted to deduce the laws of nature is also not universal. Hence, if a different civilization has different mathematics, they have different physical laws as well.
This is basically a postmodern viewpoint, that reality is socially constructed. This viewpoint has been largely derided by the scientific community, and has failed to replace science because it hasn't really offered a compelling alternative. The only way I can see it being true is if other civilizations don't "exist" in the universe as humans do.
Do a google search for Alan Sokal for a scientist's viewpoint of postmodern scientific criticism.
In the 68000, you have address registers and data registers, and the commands always treat them as such. It's been a while, but I think they are numbered: D0, D1, ... for data, and A0, A1, ... for addresses. Aside from that the commands treat them equally. Also, memory is flat (a problem with 68000-era x86 chips, though probably not anymore).
The register structure under x86 is byzantine. The registers don't have particular significance and keep swapping roles, which will bite you in the ass if you're not meticulously careful. I'm sure others can say more; like I said, it's been years for me.
I'm not a great programmer, but I never really understood programming -- especially C programming -- until I took 68000 assembly. It also took a digital logic course so I could imagine how a processor was built. It's just abstract manipulation of symbols until you can imagine exactly how your printf("Hello World!\n"); gets broken up into neat little binary chunks.
ps. Don't make them learn x86 assembly. I think that's banned under the Geneva convention.
You know, we're moving towards a world in which computer users and computers themselves are licensed, much as drivers and their cars are licensed.
Is that a good or bad thing? It has its drawbacks, but on the whole I would say good. Fewer viruses, less spam, a modicum of sense from lusers. Less anonymity, yes, but there are always tradeoffs.
come on kids. Have we not learned our lessons? Even as a one time pad, this is lame
You are very much missing the point. Yes, security through obscurity is terrible when it is the only security method you use. However, it can be used to augment a better security system. Even if somebody figured out the secret knock, they would still have to get past your sshd. And if an sshd exploit was found, your secret knock might give you enough time to patch the system before it could be exploited. More security is always a good thing.
Disbelief in security through obscurity doesn't mean you have to paint a bull's eye on your head and dare people to attack you.
The problem is forcing mega machines on people that only need an information appliance
Oh, nobody's forcing anything. Too bad that, for one of the two genders on Earth, having the biggest, fastest, most powerful of anything is a means of establishing alpha status. This goes for computers as well as cars, televisions, houses, and so on.
Imagine the following conversation around the water cooler: "I went out and bought a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a 100 gig hard drive and the latest video card, and then I got a DSL hookup. What did you buy, Bob?" "Oh, I only need an information appliance, so I bought a WebTV console." Who made the logical choice? Who lost the respect of his peers? Discuss.
So visiting a web site is immoral? That's pretty ignorant of reality.
What I'm referring to is the editors' behaviour. They chose to post a story about a site getting Googled -- any reasonable person could anticipate that posting the link to Slashdot would compound the problem. If I were the site's owner, I would be pissed.
As far as the link-clickers go, I don't blame them too much; they're just sheep.
So am I missing something dramatically new here?
Yes! It's the radical concept that your ability to do something doesn't imply you should do it. In this case, a little advance planning and neighborly behaviour by either Google or Slashdot would have prevented disaster. Then everyone could have seen the site, rather than have it come crashing down, possibly not to return for days or weeks.
Furthermore, this is not a business -- it's some poor guy's small server used for research. And you had the ability to tell the camps "no thanks" when they called in a pizza order -- this guy didn't, the deluge just came.
You could argue that the guy is getting exposure for his work in spite of the slashdotting, but I'm sure there are other, unrelated people getting hosed by this as well. What if the e-mail server and web server are the same machine? Or, more likely, they are different machines but share the same pipe? Would you enjoy going without e-mail or net access for a while because one of your colleagues did something cool that got slashdotted? And who pays for the bandwidth and the admin's time (assuming there is an admin)?
The concept of moral behavior, or simply thinking before acting, is actually pretty radical on the internet. But more of it should be happening.
If a kid hits their ball in your yard, you can just keep the gate locked and throw the ball in the trash.
Good point, and I agree with your post, but I think it goes deeper than that. Here we have two big internet engines (Google and Slashdot) piling hits on small research servers that can't take them. You can make the case that this is the net equivalent of a major corporation dumping toxic waste -- or some similar "big guy dumps on little guy" analogy. In your example, throwing out the ball is likely to get your house egged. But what leverage do you have to force Slashdot to be a good net citizen? Arguably very little.