1 accountant (not better/worse than any other accountant) should be paid more than Obama 10 accountants (not better/worse than any other accountant) should be paid the same as the ceo 300 accountants (not better/worse than any other accountant) should be paid the same as a burger flipper
Repeat for all jobs. After all, doing so will result in short order in class divisions (and class wars, it seems to me). That would be what you want, right ? Quotas based on socioeconomic background, pay based on random chance, rather than demonstrated ability. Or perhaps you are a communist, wishing "the same" pay for everyone (except yourself obviously) ?
And btw, this is not what other cultures want, not what black panthers want, not what communists want, not what muslims want, not... Just about every culture wants to have direct power to impose itself on others.
extreme blacks (say the black panthers) : only blacks in government, direct advantages for any black person anywhere (paying less at stores, lesser requirements for attaining a grade, automatic preference for blacks for higher jobs,...) muslims : only muslims in government, no taxes for muslims, strict segregation with clear superiority for them (e.g. separate toilets was done in the last caliphate, also separate drinking water,...) nazis : only nazis in government, taxes differentiated based on race (as long as one race is near 100% nazi, then taxes based on party affiliation) communists : only communists in government, 100% tax on everybody, redivided as they choose...
Lots of these groups around. If you think you can make any of these groups happy without allowing yourself to be 100% subjugated, you're beyond delusional.
I've only got a PhD in mathematics. What do I know about science, or philosophy, or research ?
Funny how nobody states what specifically is wrong about the argument. Clearly science and math must be this omnipotent/omniscient magical thing that cannot have any limitations whatsoever.
And the fact that you are unaware of the tiny little detail that we know the basic natural numbers axioms to be flawed (we just don't know how to fix them, or even if they can be fixed at all). This is something that is taught every second-year student of any exact science field at my university at least. Presumably in the hopes that they might have an idea about fixing them. Few advances have been made in the 40 years now that they do this though.
So your being unaware of such important details mostly illuminates the limits of your education and understanding.
Of course every single little tidbit of any exact science relies extensively on those axioms. Generally they rely also on the flat-out-wrong real numbers axioms, which we don't know how to fix either.
The fact that you respond offensively also illustrates a great problem in today's world. Science is politicized to the extent that the known truth about so many fields is actively opposed by the majority of the population. Every year a few fields get themselves added to this very, very sad list. It started just with fields like social studies and psychology, but these days (obviously) climate scientists and economists are complaining about interference, and last year I heard 2 astrophysicists complaining about political pressure about their refusal to accept certain highly speculative theories as truth. Even theoretical statistics doesn't seem to be safe, although it's been getting better now that it's not blamed for the financial crisis of last year anymore.
I don't know what "the culture war" is, but I do fear science is losing whatever war it is fighting.
So wait, you get to push your truth, but they don't get to push their truth ?
"That does not make it so ?". Of course it does. After all, postmodernism, which is (equally forcibly) taught at universities, clearly states it does in fact make it so.
Stating something is true or false, postmodernism teaches, involves being certain about facts. And nobody is certain about any facts at all.
Furthermore, it seems strange to dismiss theories as "not science", when any definition of such has been thrown out either for including the most utter lunacy, or excluding things like social sciences (any non-exact science). Some definitions like "anything we can prove" were thrown out for only allowing 1 or 2 obscure mathematical theories.
Of course, without postmodernism, things like equality of races would directly be dismissed out of hand. After all, equality means that properties match, meaning that even if the only difference was skin color, there would be no equality (equality before the law would, of course, be another thing. Equality without qualifiers means exact sameness, and is therefore obviously untrue). With only reasonably proven things allowed, stuff like global warming, medicine and psychology based solely on statistics of large-error-margin data series would not stand up to scrutiny. In fact most non-exact sciences, excluding perhaps (some parts of) biology and other purely descriptive sciences, would not pass munster.
And then there is the other beauty of "science", the "scientific consensus". Unfortunately, when analysed closely, "scientific consensus" turns out to mean that a small group of government-selected people mostly agree on a specific, speculative conclusion. This does not exclude these groups from calling things "scientific consensus" that are blatantly wrong. Just follow theoretical physics for 6 months, you'll see 3 theories become "consensus" and then get thrown out.
And of course, the consensus that creationism is based on is much more democratic (anyone can join, and, at least in Chrsitianity, anyone can leave, even if that specific quality is not shared by most other religions). It is also much, much larger. Any "scientific consensus" means 500 people in practice (people who are accepted experts and have done research themselves). Best possible case it means 5000 people.
The creationism consensus total for all religions is somewhere between 2 and 4 BILLION people (if not 5 by now).
And of course, both forms of consensus have been known to be utterly wrong. Both types of groups, scientists and clerics (mostly everyone, during 99.99% of history) have been known to not just be wrong, but to actively use violence, fraud and even murder (including genocide, even if large scale genocide is mostly limited to non-Christian religions and ideologies) to push their viewpoint on others. The muslim genocides (of which there have been many) were started by clerics, communist and national socialist exterminations counted lots of scientists in their upper echelons)
In reality, a postmodernist would say, you merely differ in opinion. The truth doesn't exist, and so it is on nobody's side. And, at least according to today's universities, we're all supposed to be good little postmodernists.
(needless to say, this post is mostly an attack on the bullshit that is postmodernism, not a defense of creationism. I do, however, loathe with all my soul, the fact that the opposition to creationism is a social phenomenon. It should be a rational phenomenon. People should be taught both creationism and evolution, and they should be taught to identify and think about the differences. And only then should one, properly equipped, decide for oneself. And of course, whatever decision is made should be accepted, which is something the parent post is not exactly promoting. It is just social-based "I get to make fun of 'dumb' people because they're creationist". The post is an example, not of science, but of socially-imposed conformity. Ironically this soci
The right I was referring to is the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
I seriously doubt that right requires anything more than the government proving that an alternative method exist. Like (jokingly) a bike shop next to the airport and a canoo shop at the atlantic coast...
Personally I think that if they say, "don't want to be searched ? don't fly" that will be enough.
Seriously? Your instincts compel you to violence over a disagreement?
One wonders how you can say something like that ? Without physical force used against people, any and every thought would be a valid one. Which would, and in a tempo that would amaze the fastest olympic sprinter, lead to people not having any coherent thoughts at all.
The only reason people care about reality at all is physical force. Violence forcing ideas on people is all around us, surrounds us, and it's a very positive thing that it does so.
Besides, I have a degree in AI. There is NO single learning algorithm that would work if there was no constant application of physical force against nearly everyone (including animals). The human brain (or any animal brain for that matter, or evolution itself) would not be able to work without bumping, painfully, into the real world. "No violence" is equal to "no feedback", if you think about it, and would end all thought.
Besides, pray tell, what will you do if I use physical force against you in an argument ? Note : obviously calling the police counts as using physical force against me, as does calling in anyone who'll use physical force against me on your behalf.
Your "ideology" of "why don't we all just get along" therefore fails if a single human disagrees with you. If there is one human being on the whole planet that is prepared to use force, the ideology is a total failure.
Except of course that your table ignores that the cost would be different (much lower). Additionally, there is competition, which means ("in the limit", sorry I like maths, meaning after a while) that different companies have to have similar margins, independant of price (which additionally tend to evolve towards zero over time), so here's the real table (after, say, a year of the new oil-making method is available, your table might be accurate for day 1, though):
Since they also pay a cost in lives, which could be drastically reduced by making oil in non-medieval non-stupid countries (*cough* may have something to do with non-islamic *cough*), it seems to me that they would be
It takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears + negotiations with religions ("states") that still stone women. Personally, I'm pretty convinced they'd like to skip that part.
Don't you think that companies like BP and such will embrace this to make oil cheaper ? Oil is not just used for energy, there are other major uses : 1) plastics (and additives for everything else) 2) medicines 3) fertilizer
Using basically unlimited power, perhaps even Co2 + H2o => oil processes can become possible.
Are you really so deluded to think that people without a moral compass and strict control over their behavior could live in a democracy ? The amount of self-control a democracy requires is a hell of a lot more than your basic religion. You certainly can be a good Christian, yet be much too violent to live in a democracy, same (I think) can be said about any other religion (/"non-religion").
I don't know about you but my first instinct when someone disagrees with me (and prevents me from doing something) is to knock him/her out of the way. If that leads to any reaction other than submission my instinct is to beat the crap out of the asshole.
How exactly would a democracy work if people acted like that in general ?
It seems to me a LOT of instincts involve the application of direct physical violence. I'm sure that's just me.
Ever notice how everyone underprovisions their network ?
Let's see... do you give your computers 100 Mbit synchronous connections ? Of course you pay your ISP for 100 Mbit synchronous business connection, right ? Or do you have gigabit links inhouse ?
If not, you're doing that most horrible of things... underprovisioning. Like everyone else.
You shouldn't punish people for following their basic herd instincts as righteous and moral as it might make you feel.
Then let's make gangrape legal too, shall we ? Talk about your basic herd instinct.
The whole point of morality, religion, and by extension laws and such is that we can do better than these stupid instincts. Modern society (or any city with more than 50 people) would be utterly impossible without actively punishing people for following their instincts.
If you continue the discussion this way you're going to eventually face that allowing people to make judgements on obvious characteristics is... well, logical (and it's what our brains do, but somehow applying rationality to people is wrong, ie. racist).
And lots of groups will kill to prevent that. Everybody is equal and all that. Except, of course, they themselves, who are in fact more equal than others.
And what if Comcast claimed that transferring bittorrent content puts unreasonable stress on the network ? It certainly puts higher-than-normal stresses on the network, and it necessitates massive capacity upgrades (like any other p2p application used to share large files) ?
Bittorrent is a lot heavier on the net than, say http (and if you compare it with email or nntp, dear God is it heavier). Making a network capable of serving large amounts of bittorrent traffic therefore necessitates price rises on all customers, to pay for the extra infrastructure and links.
Power is not hard to come by on the lunar surface. The intensity of solar radiation is about the same as a half-power microwave (1.35 kW/m.sq.). This is a lot more than on earth. Furthermore, the soil on the moon gets irradiated a lot, making radioactive helium-3 isotopes very common indeed. You could just harvest the sand, put it between 2 metal plates, and you'll have electrical power.
Of course you'd have to deal with getting bombarded with a 200 kg projectile moving at a few tens of thousands kilometers per hour every month or so (depending on area used). I doubt even Israelis are prepared for that.
I did not talk about hopeless problems. I talked about:
problems caused by the "victims" of that problem (like Haiti before the earthquake, or, say Zimbabwe).
More or less contained within the above would be problems caused by laziness (like, say, our political system)
Problems that are only problems because we perceive them as such, where someone else might know better. All statistical and scientific problems could fall under this, like, say global warming, or animal migrations, or diseases.
One might defend the point that if evolution is true, then Haitians should be left alone, or totally conquered and oppressed. Either they can deal with nature's calamities, and they deserve their place on the world, or they can't deal with the calamity. If we help only one of two options will be the result : (a) we destroy the Haitians (b) we destroy ourselves. So whether even a disaster as heartbreaking as Haiti's earthquake might not get classified as a problem in an omniscient mind.
(you'd think that this sort of thing would make people think twice about defending evolution's application to humans, but apparently nobody cares what the second part of "adapt or die" is, and that that second part is the default option most individuals will be confronted with)
Or there are many other options. Problems can be hopeless, even to an omnipotent being, if said being himself adhered to rules (even self-designed rules), or otherwise chose to limit his actions. The bible would certainly seem to indicate this to be the case.
Furthermore it is not, at all, clear what "omnipotent" means, scientifically or mathematically. After all there still is that nasty mathematical proof that there is no such thing as a "universe", and it is not clear how certain forms of infinite collections would fit within it (if they can fit at all). Loads of problems to be solved before the meaning of a concept like omnipotence can be ascertained, even on a purely theoretical level.
You could range omnipotence all the way from the (relatively "weak") ability to create infinite forces right up to the ability to move freely in time and totally change the state of any point in space, including full control over any consequences. You could include the ability to fully predict the consequences of doing so, or you could leave it out. Lots of flexibility here, lots of consequences for the question you're asking.
Any of these forms of omnipotence would certainly enable one to create any miracle described in the bible, even the "weaker" principles, and would certainly enable one to create the human race, and earth, and everything.
Things like omnipotence are also very dependant on what the universe actually is. If the universe is relativistic and describes the environment in which God lives, changing the past would be a big no-no, even for God, no matter how absolute his power. If quantum mechanicists' ideas about 9 or 10-dimensional (or was it 27 ?) unified spacetime (including FTL particles, and their counterparts, particles whose future lies in the past) is true, omnipotence would include much more than "merely" changing the past, but would include the ability to locally affect the strength of any force at will without disturbing any other phenomenon.
And of course, we don't even know which is true. "Quantum mechanics", may be proven, but only 2 very limited 3-dimensional theories are proven, nearly all of the other stuff (ie. String theory, extra dimensions, even spacetime as 4-dimensional) is conjecture. Sure, widely accepted by scientists, but NOT validated by experiment (unlike general relativity).
General relativity would seem to mean that changing the past would be impossible, even for an omnipotent being, as past, present and future would be as absolute divisions to him as they are to us. Such a being could of course kill us and start over, but it would not be able to change what has happened.
Furthermore there are lots of unsolved questions. Such an omnipotent being that could change the
(this is a guess, obviously. Full netflow data would tell me more, but only way to be really sure would be a full packet trace)
This just shows that you're being scanned with random source IP adresses (that's why the vertical stripe lights up). It is essentially a check to see if part of the botnet has more firewall access than other parts, or if a loadbalancer directs stuff to different firewalls, or if you have additional BGP uplinks, some of which might not be quite as secure.
Then the real scan starts, which uses the information gained in the first phase to make sure it tests out all the firewalls the target network has. Especially in the case of backup bgp links, where traffic comes in on physically and administratively different lines (say 1 verizon, 1 at&t, if you've got money to burn, and most govt. idiots feel the need to burn money). If the company in addition to the multiple uplinks outsources firewalls to those ISPs (or "security", not knowing what they're buying and getting nothing more than a smug false sense of security), again this is done by too many govt. agencies, you are bound to find holes this way. This uses actual bandwidth, and cannot be done on some networks. So what you're seeing is a disproportionate amount of scanning traffic coming from countries with fast networks and few watchful netadmins (or netadmins that just don't care, in Turkey's case), and many unsecured computers (and dear God, Turks and Russians really do not see any need for virusscanners, but generally you'd see a few other countries in there too. Heh the Russians are probably worried that running a virusscanner will interfere with their development of new viruses)
The regular repeats of vertical lines are probably to rescan reachability information, in case something changed. BGP can be twitchy, especially with incompetent local admins (on the botnet side of the network I mean)
From the (low) speed of the attack you can further deduce that it was an advanced attack, meant to stay below rate limiters, and presumably meant to stay below the radar. And from the resources required to pull this off you can deduce that this was not a lone hacker. Perhaps an organization (these days, tracing source ip's for security attacks almost invariably yields an IP address in far inland China, which is not because the russians have stopped attacking networks, but the Chinese are putting quantity above quality it seems these days).
And frankly, if someone has this kind of patience, generally they will find at least something, even in a well maintained network. Best hope it was only some files left out in the "public" folder or ~username folders. It's a good bet they probed the network security in other ways too (esp. googling), with IP's that will tell you much more about where the attack is coming from (using many hops is possible, but results in very slow page loads. And we're all human)
Btw : looking up a net's country can be done quickly via dns, no need for external company, no need for any tax dollars :
[kimmy@t61 ~]$ host -t TXT 104.79.125.74.cc.iploc.org 104.79.125.74.cc.iploc.org descriptive text "US"
(don't forget to reverse the IP address : looking up 1.2.3.4 is done by host -t TXT 4.3.2.1.cc.iploc.org)
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, they have to hire based on skin color.
That would be called the very definition of racism by anyone consulting the dictionary, of course.
So in other words :
1 accountant (not better/worse than any other accountant) should be paid more than Obama
10 accountants (not better/worse than any other accountant) should be paid the same as the ceo
300 accountants (not better/worse than any other accountant) should be paid the same as a burger flipper
Repeat for all jobs. After all, doing so will result in short order in class divisions (and class wars, it seems to me). That would be what you want, right ? Quotas based on socioeconomic background, pay based on random chance, rather than demonstrated ability. Or perhaps you are a communist, wishing "the same" pay for everyone (except yourself obviously) ?
And btw, this is not what other cultures want, not what black panthers want, not what communists want, not what muslims want, not ... Just about every culture wants to have direct power to impose itself on others.
extreme blacks (say the black panthers) : only blacks in government, direct advantages for any black person anywhere (paying less at stores, lesser requirements for attaining a grade, automatic preference for blacks for higher jobs, ...) ...) ...
muslims : only muslims in government, no taxes for muslims, strict segregation with clear superiority for them (e.g. separate toilets was done in the last caliphate, also separate drinking water,
nazis : only nazis in government, taxes differentiated based on race (as long as one race is near 100% nazi, then taxes based on party affiliation)
communists : only communists in government, 100% tax on everybody, redivided as they choose
Lots of these groups around. If you think you can make any of these groups happy without allowing yourself to be 100% subjugated, you're beyond delusional.
I've only got a PhD in mathematics. What do I know about science, or philosophy, or research ?
Funny how nobody states what specifically is wrong about the argument. Clearly science and math must be this omnipotent/omniscient magical thing that cannot have any limitations whatsoever.
And the fact that you are unaware of the tiny little detail that we know the basic natural numbers axioms to be flawed (we just don't know how to fix them, or even if they can be fixed at all). This is something that is taught every second-year student of any exact science field at my university at least. Presumably in the hopes that they might have an idea about fixing them. Few advances have been made in the 40 years now that they do this though.
So your being unaware of such important details mostly illuminates the limits of your education and understanding.
Of course every single little tidbit of any exact science relies extensively on those axioms. Generally they rely also on the flat-out-wrong real numbers axioms, which we don't know how to fix either.
The fact that you respond offensively also illustrates a great problem in today's world. Science is politicized to the extent that the known truth about so many fields is actively opposed by the majority of the population. Every year a few fields get themselves added to this very, very sad list. It started just with fields like social studies and psychology, but these days (obviously) climate scientists and economists are complaining about interference, and last year I heard 2 astrophysicists complaining about political pressure about their refusal to accept certain highly speculative theories as truth. Even theoretical statistics doesn't seem to be safe, although it's been getting better now that it's not blamed for the financial crisis of last year anymore.
I don't know what "the culture war" is, but I do fear science is losing whatever war it is fighting.
So wait, you get to push your truth, but they don't get to push their truth ?
"That does not make it so ?". Of course it does. After all, postmodernism, which is (equally forcibly) taught at universities, clearly states it does in fact make it so.
Stating something is true or false, postmodernism teaches, involves being certain about facts. And nobody is certain about any facts at all.
Furthermore, it seems strange to dismiss theories as "not science", when any definition of such has been thrown out either for including the most utter lunacy, or excluding things like social sciences (any non-exact science). Some definitions like "anything we can prove" were thrown out for only allowing 1 or 2 obscure mathematical theories.
Of course, without postmodernism, things like equality of races would directly be dismissed out of hand. After all, equality means that properties match, meaning that even if the only difference was skin color, there would be no equality (equality before the law would, of course, be another thing. Equality without qualifiers means exact sameness, and is therefore obviously untrue). With only reasonably proven things allowed, stuff like global warming, medicine and psychology based solely on statistics of large-error-margin data series would not stand up to scrutiny. In fact most non-exact sciences, excluding perhaps (some parts of) biology and other purely descriptive sciences, would not pass munster.
And then there is the other beauty of "science", the "scientific consensus". Unfortunately, when analysed closely, "scientific consensus" turns out to mean that a small group of government-selected people mostly agree on a specific, speculative conclusion. This does not exclude these groups from calling things "scientific consensus" that are blatantly wrong. Just follow theoretical physics for 6 months, you'll see 3 theories become "consensus" and then get thrown out.
And of course, the consensus that creationism is based on is much more democratic (anyone can join, and, at least in Chrsitianity, anyone can leave, even if that specific quality is not shared by most other religions). It is also much, much larger. Any "scientific consensus" means 500 people in practice (people who are accepted experts and have done research themselves). Best possible case it means 5000 people.
The creationism consensus total for all religions is somewhere between 2 and 4 BILLION people (if not 5 by now).
And of course, both forms of consensus have been known to be utterly wrong. Both types of groups, scientists and clerics (mostly everyone, during 99.99% of history) have been known to not just be wrong, but to actively use violence, fraud and even murder (including genocide, even if large scale genocide is mostly limited to non-Christian religions and ideologies) to push their viewpoint on others. The muslim genocides (of which there have been many) were started by clerics, communist and national socialist exterminations counted lots of scientists in their upper echelons)
In reality, a postmodernist would say, you merely differ in opinion. The truth doesn't exist, and so it is on nobody's side. And, at least according to today's universities, we're all supposed to be good little postmodernists.
(needless to say, this post is mostly an attack on the bullshit that is postmodernism, not a defense of creationism. I do, however, loathe with all my soul, the fact that the opposition to creationism is a social phenomenon. It should be a rational phenomenon. People should be taught both creationism and evolution, and they should be taught to identify and think about the differences. And only then should one, properly equipped, decide for oneself. And of course, whatever decision is made should be accepted, which is something the parent post is not exactly promoting. It is just social-based "I get to make fun of 'dumb' people because they're creationist". The post is an example, not of science, but of socially-imposed conformity. Ironically this soci
To all engineers involved.
And a careful pat on the back for not blowing up the project for all managers
The right I was referring to is the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.
I seriously doubt that right requires anything more than the government proving that an alternative method exist. Like (jokingly) a bike shop next to the airport and a canoo shop at the atlantic coast ...
Personally I think that if they say, "don't want to be searched ? don't fly" that will be enough.
Seriously? Your instincts compel you to violence over a disagreement?
One wonders how you can say something like that ? Without physical force used against people, any and every thought would be a valid one. Which would, and in a tempo that would amaze the fastest olympic sprinter, lead to people not having any coherent thoughts at all.
The only reason people care about reality at all is physical force. Violence forcing ideas on people is all around us, surrounds us, and it's a very positive thing that it does so.
Besides, I have a degree in AI. There is NO single learning algorithm that would work if there was no constant application of physical force against nearly everyone (including animals). The human brain (or any animal brain for that matter, or evolution itself) would not be able to work without bumping, painfully, into the real world. "No violence" is equal to "no feedback", if you think about it, and would end all thought.
Besides, pray tell, what will you do if I use physical force against you in an argument ? Note : obviously calling the police counts as using physical force against me, as does calling in anyone who'll use physical force against me on your behalf.
Your "ideology" of "why don't we all just get along" therefore fails if a single human disagrees with you. If there is one human being on the whole planet that is prepared to use force, the ideology is a total failure.
Except of course that your table ignores that the cost would be different (much lower). Additionally, there is competition, which means ("in the limit", sorry I like maths, meaning after a while) that different companies have to have similar margins, independant of price (which additionally tend to evolve towards zero over time), so here's the real table (after, say, a year of the new oil-making method is available, your table might be accurate for day 1, though):
Cost | SellPrice | Units@SalePrice | Profit
$1 | $0.75 | 10000 | -$2500
$4.75 | $5 | 1000 | $250
$2.25 | $2.50 | 2000 | $500
$3.75 | $4.00 | 1500 | $375
$0.75 | $1 | 10000 | $2500
Since they also pay a cost in lives, which could be drastically reduced by making oil in non-medieval non-stupid countries (*cough* may have something to do with non-islamic *cough*), it seems to me that they would be
Especially on oil. A lot of people would like to drive a lot more, but hold back due to oil prices. Seems to me the perfect candidate to make cheaper.
It takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears + negotiations with religions ("states") that still stone women. Personally, I'm pretty convinced they'd like to skip that part.
Don't you think that companies like BP and such will embrace this to make oil cheaper ? Oil is not just used for energy, there are other major uses :
1) plastics (and additives for everything else)
2) medicines
3) fertilizer
Using basically unlimited power, perhaps even Co2 + H2o => oil processes can become possible.
Are you really so deluded to think that people without a moral compass and strict control over their behavior could live in a democracy ? The amount of self-control a democracy requires is a hell of a lot more than your basic religion. You certainly can be a good Christian, yet be much too violent to live in a democracy, same (I think) can be said about any other religion (/"non-religion").
I don't know about you but my first instinct when someone disagrees with me (and prevents me from doing something) is to knock him/her out of the way. If that leads to any reaction other than submission my instinct is to beat the crap out of the asshole.
How exactly would a democracy work if people acted like that in general ?
It seems to me a LOT of instincts involve the application of direct physical violence. I'm sure that's just me.
The question was, "what if people start banning bittorrent because it overloads networks ?".
Note how the word "illegal" is not to be found in that sentence ?
Ever notice how everyone underprovisions their network ?
Let's see ... do you give your computers 100 Mbit synchronous connections ? Of course you pay your ISP for 100 Mbit synchronous business connection, right ? Or do you have gigabit links inhouse ?
If not, you're doing that most horrible of things ... underprovisioning. Like everyone else.
And president Obama passed 2-3 laws at least stating there would be no economic crisis after their passage.
Nothing has changed.
You shouldn't punish people for following their basic herd instincts as righteous and moral as it might make you feel.
Then let's make gangrape legal too, shall we ? Talk about your basic herd instinct.
The whole point of morality, religion, and by extension laws and such is that we can do better than these stupid instincts. Modern society (or any city with more than 50 people) would be utterly impossible without actively punishing people for following their instincts.
What *we* think is completely and utterly irrelevant. This is politicians we're talking about. News media.
It's very progressive, and very surreal. Both fit perfectly in California.
If you continue the discussion this way you're going to eventually face that allowing people to make judgements on obvious characteristics is ... well, logical (and it's what our brains do, but somehow applying rationality to people is wrong, ie. racist).
And lots of groups will kill to prevent that. Everybody is equal and all that. Except, of course, they themselves, who are in fact more equal than others.
So you mean there is one single truth and it should be pushed on everyone as the one and final truth ?
Perhaps you should move to North Korea, or China. Bet you'd enjoy their schooling system.
And what if Comcast claimed that transferring bittorrent content puts unreasonable stress on the network ? It certainly puts higher-than-normal stresses on the network, and it necessitates massive capacity upgrades (like any other p2p application used to share large files) ?
Bittorrent is a lot heavier on the net than, say http (and if you compare it with email or nntp, dear God is it heavier). Making a network capable of serving large amounts of bittorrent traffic therefore necessitates price rises on all customers, to pay for the extra infrastructure and links.
Power is not hard to come by on the lunar surface. The intensity of solar radiation is about the same as a half-power microwave (1.35 kW/m.sq.). This is a lot more than on earth. Furthermore, the soil on the moon gets irradiated a lot, making radioactive helium-3 isotopes very common indeed. You could just harvest the sand, put it between 2 metal plates, and you'll have electrical power.
Of course you'd have to deal with getting bombarded with a 200 kg projectile moving at a few tens of thousands kilometers per hour every month or so (depending on area used). I doubt even Israelis are prepared for that.
It's been relatively accurate for me. Perhaps the servers you looked up were colocated ?
I did not talk about hopeless problems. I talked about :
problems caused by the "victims" of that problem (like Haiti before the earthquake, or, say Zimbabwe).
More or less contained within the above would be problems caused by laziness (like, say, our political system)
Problems that are only problems because we perceive them as such, where someone else might know better. All statistical and scientific problems could fall under this, like, say global warming, or animal migrations, or diseases.
One might defend the point that if evolution is true, then Haitians should be left alone, or totally conquered and oppressed. Either they can deal with nature's calamities, and they deserve their place on the world, or they can't deal with the calamity. If we help only one of two options will be the result : (a) we destroy the Haitians (b) we destroy ourselves. So whether even a disaster as heartbreaking as Haiti's earthquake might not get classified as a problem in an omniscient mind.
(you'd think that this sort of thing would make people think twice about defending evolution's application to humans, but apparently nobody cares what the second part of "adapt or die" is, and that that second part is the default option most individuals will be confronted with)
Or there are many other options. Problems can be hopeless, even to an omnipotent being, if said being himself adhered to rules (even self-designed rules), or otherwise chose to limit his actions. The bible would certainly seem to indicate this to be the case.
Furthermore it is not, at all, clear what "omnipotent" means, scientifically or mathematically. After all there still is that nasty mathematical proof that there is no such thing as a "universe", and it is not clear how certain forms of infinite collections would fit within it (if they can fit at all). Loads of problems to be solved before the meaning of a concept like omnipotence can be ascertained, even on a purely theoretical level.
You could range omnipotence all the way from the (relatively "weak") ability to create infinite forces right up to the ability to move freely in time and totally change the state of any point in space, including full control over any consequences. You could include the ability to fully predict the consequences of doing so, or you could leave it out. Lots of flexibility here, lots of consequences for the question you're asking.
Any of these forms of omnipotence would certainly enable one to create any miracle described in the bible, even the "weaker" principles, and would certainly enable one to create the human race, and earth, and everything.
Things like omnipotence are also very dependant on what the universe actually is. If the universe is relativistic and describes the environment in which God lives, changing the past would be a big no-no, even for God, no matter how absolute his power. If quantum mechanicists' ideas about 9 or 10-dimensional (or was it 27 ?) unified spacetime (including FTL particles, and their counterparts, particles whose future lies in the past) is true, omnipotence would include much more than "merely" changing the past, but would include the ability to locally affect the strength of any force at will without disturbing any other phenomenon.
And of course, we don't even know which is true. "Quantum mechanics", may be proven, but only 2 very limited 3-dimensional theories are proven, nearly all of the other stuff (ie. String theory, extra dimensions, even spacetime as 4-dimensional) is conjecture. Sure, widely accepted by scientists, but NOT validated by experiment (unlike general relativity).
General relativity would seem to mean that changing the past would be impossible, even for an omnipotent being, as past, present and future would be as absolute divisions to him as they are to us. Such a being could of course kill us and start over, but it would not be able to change what has happened.
Furthermore there are lots of unsolved questions. Such an omnipotent being that could change the
(this is a guess, obviously. Full netflow data would tell me more, but only way to be really sure would be a full packet trace)
This just shows that you're being scanned with random source IP adresses (that's why the vertical stripe lights up). It is essentially a check to see if part of the botnet has more firewall access than other parts, or if a loadbalancer directs stuff to different firewalls, or if you have additional BGP uplinks, some of which might not be quite as secure.
Then the real scan starts, which uses the information gained in the first phase to make sure it tests out all the firewalls the target network has. Especially in the case of backup bgp links, where traffic comes in on physically and administratively different lines (say 1 verizon, 1 at&t, if you've got money to burn, and most govt. idiots feel the need to burn money). If the company in addition to the multiple uplinks outsources firewalls to those ISPs (or "security", not knowing what they're buying and getting nothing more than a smug false sense of security), again this is done by too many govt. agencies, you are bound to find holes this way. This uses actual bandwidth, and cannot be done on some networks. So what you're seeing is a disproportionate amount of scanning traffic coming from countries with fast networks and few watchful netadmins (or netadmins that just don't care, in Turkey's case), and many unsecured computers (and dear God, Turks and Russians really do not see any need for virusscanners, but generally you'd see a few other countries in there too. Heh the Russians are probably worried that running a virusscanner will interfere with their development of new viruses)
The regular repeats of vertical lines are probably to rescan reachability information, in case something changed. BGP can be twitchy, especially with incompetent local admins (on the botnet side of the network I mean)
From the (low) speed of the attack you can further deduce that it was an advanced attack, meant to stay below rate limiters, and presumably meant to stay below the radar. And from the resources required to pull this off you can deduce that this was not a lone hacker. Perhaps an organization (these days, tracing source ip's for security attacks almost invariably yields an IP address in far inland China, which is not because the russians have stopped attacking networks, but the Chinese are putting quantity above quality it seems these days).
And frankly, if someone has this kind of patience, generally they will find at least something, even in a well maintained network. Best hope it was only some files left out in the "public" folder or ~username folders. It's a good bet they probed the network security in other ways too (esp. googling), with IP's that will tell you much more about where the attack is coming from (using many hops is possible, but results in very slow page loads. And we're all human)
Btw : looking up a net's country can be done quickly via dns, no need for external company, no need for any tax dollars :
[kimmy@t61 ~]$ host -t TXT 104.79.125.74.cc.iploc.org
104.79.125.74.cc.iploc.org descriptive text "US"
(don't forget to reverse the IP address : looking up 1.2.3.4 is done by host -t TXT 4.3.2.1.cc.iploc.org)
What exactly is preventing you from watching other things ?
Sorry to say the obvious but here it is : laziness.