You have; 1. Truecrypt binaries somewhere 2. A partition that is unformatted. 3. Optional: you are known to be technical enough to find and read a how-to on using Truecrypt to create a hidden partition.
Thats enough to point that you have an encrypted hidden partition.
The good thing about Truecrypt vs. say LUKS is that you can't tell the file container is an encrypted file container. (LUKS scares the crap out of me with its multiple passwords)
>I don't think he should be worried - as long as his (the "genuine") program appears higher up in Google for the name and the important search terms, people will ignore the plagiarist.
>You do what it takes to keep a roof over your family's head, food in their mouths, shoes on their feet. After that, then you can work towards personal satisfaction.
The key is that you striving to do it at the same time. Not one first and then another.
>The entire point of copyright, a government granted monopoly, is to the artist encourage the artist to make more art. This is not so much a sit back and relax bonus, it's a keep up the good work fee.
Thats an interesting way of looking at it.
But who says how long the person can take before he stops being rewarded and forced to create something else? One person could do it weekly but others, depending on the art and personality and life-situation, may need years. Also, it may lead to more blatently commercial works of art (which may or may not be a good thing). "I need to replace this part of income very soon, I need something else to replace it quickly. Too bad I don't have the time to develop my artform as I would like."
>There are plenty of monotheistic religions out there.
I know, the details are not important. I'm just pointing out that using your argument you can "prove as correct and true" anything that is popular.
>So we have something we can test and a large population of human lives to test against. We can also test other beings.
Exactly where is your test that involves a large population? Other theories in biology? Say there are about 100 alternate "scientific methods"-like techniques that "scientific method" has beaten. Well you can easily image a community or church of 100 people that my religion has "won over". If this is good enough proof for "scientific method", why isn't good enough proof from my religion? Again, my point here is that even if you say "it true in this population" its not sufficient for proof.
>For example, how do the predictions of this religion do for cetaceans (dolphins and whales), primates, artificial intelligences, intelligent extra-terrestrials, and other intelligent beings?
For my religion, it says nothing about dolphins or primates or other non-human intelligent beings.
But this is going off the original point. Can you prove that "scientific method" is valid? Well you can't because its just a tool, it just does what it does and nothing inhiert in its techniques will do anything. The same as glass blowing techniques will automatically produce anything (eg a vase) except maybe a lump of glass. You can say that properly used, glass blowing techniques will produce a lovely vase. So you can say that properly used, "scientific method" allows impartial scientists to develop models, but (when going down to the nitty gritty details) in the end the models are ultimately determined by applying Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor, to me, seems like an arbiratry method. (e.g. Why the least assumptions and not, say, the second least.) But then you have to have a "belief without proof" that Ockham's razor will eventually produce the truth or "better models" (or else, again, why use Ockham's razor in scientific study?).
I hope I made myself clear, because I do appechate the time you spent.
>According to my observations, the only really effective rivals are variants of evolution,
Ok fine. Singular personal observations and consesous opinion can be used to prove the validity of something.
Hypothesis: My specific religion, involving God, is literally correct in all manners. Observation: My specific religion appears to be the concensus opinion of all members of my family, church and community. Prediction: My specific religion, since it has replaced a number of different religions (Either rejected or altered religions), should predict better changes of personal life and interpersonal relationships over generations and time than the religions it replaced. Further, since it is still concensus, it should do a better job of explain this sort of phenomena than contemporary rival models of some age like tribalism.
Now, can I say that my specific religion has been proven in the the same manner you are saying you have proven "scientific method"?
>Suppose the scientific method has found the best model possible and just as important, we figure out it is the best model possible.
To clarify my reason for raising up this "ultimate model";
You are saying that scientific method will always find superior models; >For example, that humans barring some collapse of scientific effort, will eventually find superior models
So Model2 is superior than Model1 and Model3 is superior to Model2 and so on. Well, if we find the "ultimate model" no matter how much time passes, we will find no superior model, there is no ModelUltimate+1 that scientific method can find. So I was trying to show a specific condition that is a counterpoint to your statement.
But still, you raise another interesting point in that if we get the ultimate model then "behold, scientific method works!". But suppose we got the "ultimate model" by being told by aliens, or a guy in a cave or some other method that does not fall strictly into "scientific method". I didn't specify how we got to it (I actually was thinking that it was via communications with aliens).
>A casual reading of the history and research of evolution will indicate that it has used the scientific method
How does that conclude to the scientific method leads to better models? Its used in the development of a theory. That doesn't prove anything except its being used.
>According to my observations,... the scientific method is adequate and will asymptotically find the true model of how something works.
According to my observations Newton's Three laws are true in all cases. Now is that true? Does my conclusion make for good "scientific method"? You can't build a case from personal observation alone because it opens up a wider world of trouble.
>humans.. will eventually find superior models to physics, the cosmos, creation of life, or other areas where there are glaring unknowns.
First of all I don't think that the "scientific method" implies anything like this. Second of all, suppose we get to the final model, the ultimate truth of how everything works. Then there is no "superior model" after this and this conclusion will never occur no matter how much we apply the "scientific method".
>I trust my hammer, and I trust the scientific method, because the makers of hammers and the designers (yes, designers) of experiments invite me not only to use their tools, but to examine every mechanism, every fact, that lead to their conclusions.
There are three different things in the sentence; the hammer, the experiment and the "scientific method" that you trust. You seem to be mixing up the later two. Scientific method is the reason to verify/formulate the experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
You trust the hammer because the maker of hammers invite you to test it. And you wack it around hitting things, seeing if it performs what you expect it to. You trust the experiment because the makers of the experiment invite you to test it. And you reproduce the experiment, seeing if it performs what you expect it to. You trust the scientific method because of what? The makers of "scientific method " invite you to wack it around or what experiment can you perform on the "scientific method"? How do you verify or disprove "scientific method"? How do you provide proof of anything about the "scientific method"? What supporting evidence is there of "scientific method"? So why do you trust the "scientific method"?
>I do have faith in the scienfitic method, and in my hammers, but it is not of a religious variety.
This is not what the original post is talking about. He is saying that biology doesn't require any faith. I am saying that it does exactly for the reasons you are pointing out (faith in the scientific method). I am not saying its a religious belief, but its still is "faith".
>The best scientists get that way because they don't treat anything as an axiom.
I would love to see their papers. I find it hard to believe that they could publish anything starting at first-principles. For example, if they are in the physics field, don't they treat general theory of relativity/Newtons Three Laws as axioms?
>But that is different from ignoring an entire huge body of evidence.
Does a "Huge" body of evidence equal the scientific truth/universally "valid" axiom or is just convenient? I think I can find millions of people though-out time that would testify that their religious belief is correct. Is that "huge" enough evidence for you to become scientific?
>Watching ships disappear hull first as they sail over the horizon.
High waves of water block the hull and at large distances high waves will definitely occur between me and the ship. "Atmospheric particles" are denser closer to the surface and so cause the hull to be visually blocked first, then the sail/mast. The Earth is a very large cylinder.
>The fact that there *is* a horizon.
The earth is very very big and we are observing it at a low height to create a "horizontal vanishing point"
>Observing the earth's round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
Thats not the Earth's shadow. ("Its a space station.":) )
"The process makes it nearly impossible for forensics experts to restore the data later."
Notice the wording: _nearly_ impossible. But not impossible, huh?
Lessoned learned: don't trust a seven-pass DOD 5220.22-M. Use a 35 pass ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutmann_method ) because you never know who wants your private collection of pr0n.
>nobody asks for faith that biology or the rules it follows is constant.
The reality is that modern science requires faith. Faith in the scientific method.
The way ideally : I say that that this is true, but it may not be. Who knows, lets find out.
The way in reality : Listen, you really really should believe us, look at all these published papers and what your collegues say and how many people's careers are at stake and what others who are much smarter/higher ranking than you say. If you want X (acceptance, research money, publication) then treat this theory as an axiom. Its too troublesome and inconvenient to do otherwise.
Google didn't wait; so the story is that they gave the information when they didn't need to. (and they would give you up too if simply nudged by authority) Google waited; its a interesting story but Google was forced to do so (obey laws of the land, good corporation, it would be "evil" not to do so.)
Big different in waiting for an official court ruling.
1. Do nothing. Then they would be accused of sitting around not helping others. 2. Join/assist OLPC. Then they would be accused of joining for the purpose of taking over. 3. Produce competing product? Then they would be accused of future actions ask you outline.
I can't think of action that Microsoft or Intel could have done that wouldn't lead to the exact same/. comments here.
Exactly why doesn't this have any bearing? Isn't it the small things that generates bigger rewards. Isn't Recycling movement based on this? Isn't micro-loan banks like Grameen Bank, another example? Also, NASA own programs need money (see below).
What is the issue here is the question of is this a wise and responsible use of NASA's budget within its mandate? Its your taxpayer's money so its a valid question. "It doesn't matter" is an answer only government contractor sales people love to hear.
The argument that its such a small amount of money doesn't really hold up because for that $4 million NASA could have created 2-4 more Centennial Challenges. http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/
>Would you like to work in a company that pays you a little more than competition, but it's a nightmare to work there? Or would you instead want to work in a company where there is normal pay, but you have parties?
I would rather have the company that pays more. A party a few times a year is not going to get rid of any nightmares during work hours 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
With the extra money I can afford to throw my own party a few times a year with people I like, not forced to spend more time with people who I associate with a "nightmare".
Even when its right in front of you, on the evening news of a major network? Thats not carefully preserving your valuable time and energy; thats just lazy.
If you let those things that are right in front of you go, then you teach people thats its ok to waste and then it gets bigger and bigger. Thats how you get into the budget troubles what has been mentioned.
>you'd identify the biggest places where we're spending tons of money, and not getting anything out of it.
Exactly what are you getting out of a dinner in Florida for Boeing contractors? (Yes, $4 million is tons of money, just ask what a NASA scientist/engineer could do with it, besides partying.)
They are not a private company with private money, its tax payer's money. If you had a box that said "NASA 4-star hotel celebration party" box on your tax form, how much would you put in? What if it was a "United States Postal Service celebration party"?
As had been mentioned here many times, NASA has an important and worthwhile job yet lacks funding for many things. Is this how they spend their funds instead of spending it to do what they are mandated for? As you said, they are getting things done, so why should their budget increase (or in fact decrease) when they can just easily cut back the big budget parties?
Slashdot Mirror
You have;
1. Truecrypt binaries somewhere
2. A partition that is unformatted.
3. Optional: you are known to be technical enough to find and read a how-to on using Truecrypt to create a hidden partition.
Thats enough to point that you have an encrypted hidden partition.
The good thing about Truecrypt vs. say LUKS is that you can't tell the file container is an encrypted file container. (LUKS scares the crap out of me with its multiple passwords)
>I don't think he should be worried - as long as his (the "genuine") program appears higher up in Google for the name and the important search terms, people will ignore the plagiarist.
Then definitely he should be worried.
>You do what it takes to keep a roof over your family's head, food in their mouths, shoes on their feet. After that, then you can work towards personal satisfaction.
The key is that you striving to do it at the same time. Not one first and then another.
>The entire point of copyright, a government granted monopoly, is to the artist encourage the artist to make more art. This is not so much a sit back and relax bonus, it's a keep up the good work fee.
Thats an interesting way of looking at it.
But who says how long the person can take before he stops being rewarded and forced to create something else? One person could do it weekly but others, depending on the art and personality and life-situation, may need years.
Also, it may lead to more blatently commercial works of art (which may or may not be a good thing). "I need to replace this part of income very soon, I need something else to replace it quickly. Too bad I don't have the time to develop my artform as I would like."
>There are plenty of monotheistic religions out there.
I know, the details are not important. I'm just pointing out that using your argument you can "prove as correct and true" anything that is popular.
>So we have something we can test and a large population of human lives to test against. We can also test other beings.
Exactly where is your test that involves a large population? Other theories in biology? Say there are about 100 alternate "scientific methods"-like techniques that "scientific method" has beaten. Well you can easily image a community or church of 100 people that my religion has "won over". If this is good enough proof for "scientific method", why isn't good enough proof from my religion? Again, my point here is that even if you say "it true in this population" its not sufficient for proof.
>For example, how do the predictions of this religion do for cetaceans (dolphins and whales), primates, artificial intelligences, intelligent extra-terrestrials, and other intelligent beings?
For my religion, it says nothing about dolphins or primates or other non-human intelligent beings.
But this is going off the original point. Can you prove that "scientific method" is valid? Well you can't because its just a tool, it just does what it does and nothing inhiert in its techniques will do anything. The same as glass blowing techniques will automatically produce anything (eg a vase) except maybe a lump of glass.
You can say that properly used, glass blowing techniques will produce a lovely vase. So you can say that properly used, "scientific method" allows impartial scientists to develop models, but (when going down to the nitty gritty details) in the end the models are ultimately determined by applying Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor, to me, seems like an arbiratry method. (e.g. Why the least assumptions and not, say, the second least.) But then you have to have a "belief without proof" that Ockham's razor will eventually produce the truth or "better models" (or else, again, why use Ockham's razor in scientific study?).
I hope I made myself clear, because I do appechate the time you spent.
>According to my observations, the only really effective rivals are variants of evolution,
Ok fine. Singular personal observations and consesous opinion can be used to prove the validity of something.
Hypothesis: My specific religion, involving God, is literally correct in all manners.
Observation: My specific religion appears to be the concensus opinion of all members of my family, church and community.
Prediction: My specific religion, since it has replaced a number of different religions (Either rejected or altered religions), should predict better changes of personal life and interpersonal relationships over generations and time than the religions it replaced. Further, since it is still concensus, it should do a better job of explain this sort of phenomena than contemporary rival models of some age like tribalism.
Now, can I say that my specific religion has been proven in the the same manner you are saying you have proven "scientific method"?
>Suppose the scientific method has found the best model possible and just as important, we figure out it is the best model possible.
To clarify my reason for raising up this "ultimate model";
You are saying that scientific method will always find superior models;
>For example, that humans barring some collapse of scientific effort, will eventually find superior models
So Model2 is superior than Model1 and Model3 is superior to Model2 and so on.
Well, if we find the "ultimate model" no matter how much time passes, we will find no superior model, there is no ModelUltimate+1 that scientific method can find. So I was trying to show a specific condition that is a counterpoint to your statement.
But still, you raise another interesting point in that if we get the ultimate model then "behold, scientific method works!". But suppose we got the "ultimate model" by being told by aliens, or a guy in a cave or some other method that does not fall strictly into "scientific method". I didn't specify how we got to it (I actually was thinking that it was via communications with aliens).
>A casual reading of the history and research of evolution will indicate that it has used the scientific method
... the scientific method is adequate and will asymptotically find the true model of how something works.
.. will eventually find superior models to physics, the cosmos, creation of life, or other areas where there are glaring unknowns.
How does that conclude to the scientific method leads to better models? Its used in the development of a theory. That doesn't prove anything except its being used.
>According to my observations,
According to my observations Newton's Three laws are true in all cases. Now is that true? Does my conclusion make for good "scientific method"? You can't build a case from personal observation alone because it opens up a wider world of trouble.
>humans
First of all I don't think that the "scientific method" implies anything like this. Second of all, suppose we get to the final model, the ultimate truth of how everything works. Then there is no "superior model" after this and this conclusion will never occur no matter how much we apply the "scientific method".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence
I wonder what is the theory erasing solid-state memory....
... $1100 for a tech guy or at least ten times that amount for a lawyer explaining what was on the hard-drive. Score.
>I trust my hammer, and I trust the scientific method, because the makers of hammers and the designers (yes, designers) of experiments invite me not only to use their tools, but to examine every mechanism, every fact, that lead to their conclusions.
There are three different things in the sentence; the hammer, the experiment and the "scientific method" that you trust. You seem to be mixing up the later two. Scientific method is the reason to verify/formulate the experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
You trust the hammer because the maker of hammers invite you to test it. And you wack it around hitting things, seeing if it performs what you expect it to.
You trust the experiment because the makers of the experiment invite you to test it. And you reproduce the experiment, seeing if it performs what you expect it to.
You trust the scientific method because of what? The makers of "scientific method " invite you to wack it around or what experiment can you perform on the "scientific method"? How do you verify or disprove "scientific method"? How do you provide proof of anything about the "scientific method"? What supporting evidence is there of "scientific method"?
So why do you trust the "scientific method"?
>I do have faith in the scienfitic method, and in my hammers, but it is not of a religious variety.
This is not what the original post is talking about. He is saying that biology doesn't require any faith. I am saying that it does exactly for the reasons you are pointing out (faith in the scientific method). I am not saying its a religious belief, but its still is "faith".
>The best scientists get that way because they don't treat anything as an axiom.
I would love to see their papers. I find it hard to believe that they could publish anything starting at first-principles. For example, if they are in the physics field, don't they treat general theory of relativity/Newtons Three Laws as axioms?
>But that is different from ignoring an entire huge body of evidence.
Does a "Huge" body of evidence equal the scientific truth/universally "valid" axiom or is just convenient? I think I can find millions of people though-out time that would testify that their religious belief is correct. Is that "huge" enough evidence for you to become scientific?
>Watching ships disappear hull first as they sail over the horizon.
:) )
High waves of water block the hull and at large distances high waves will definitely occur between me and the ship.
"Atmospheric particles" are denser closer to the surface and so cause the hull to be visually blocked first, then the sail/mast.
The Earth is a very large cylinder.
>The fact that there *is* a horizon.
The earth is very very big and we are observing it at a low height to create a "horizontal vanishing point"
>Observing the earth's round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
Thats not the Earth's shadow. ("Its a space station."
"The process makes it nearly impossible for forensics experts to restore the data later."
Notice the wording: _nearly_ impossible. But not impossible, huh?
Lessoned learned: don't trust a seven-pass DOD 5220.22-M. Use a 35 pass ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutmann_method ) because you never know who wants your private collection of pr0n.
>nobody asks for faith that biology or the rules it follows is constant.
The reality is that modern science requires faith. Faith in the scientific method.
The way ideally : I say that that this is true, but it may not be. Who knows, lets find out.
The way in reality : Listen, you really really should believe us, look at all these published papers and what your collegues say and how many people's careers are at stake and what others who are much smarter/higher ranking than you say. If you want X (acceptance, research money, publication) then treat this theory as an axiom. Its too troublesome and inconvenient to do otherwise.
3,000 years ago how could you have a scientific review of planetary structures, e.g. is the the world is round or not?
Because the Jesus Seminar occurred, does Bible study qualify as a science? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
>they ought to have the brains to understand how damaging that would be to their brand when it's the god damn core of their business model.
I value my privacy enough to NOT trust it others based on a fact/promise/hope/dream that they will stick to a business model in the distant future.
Its all about perception.
Google didn't wait; so the story is that they gave the information when they didn't need to. (and they would give you up too if simply nudged by authority)
Google waited; its a interesting story but Google was forced to do so (obey laws of the land, good corporation, it would be "evil" not to do so.)
Big different in waiting for an official court ruling.
What should Microsoft and Intel do?
/. comments here.
1. Do nothing. Then they would be accused of sitting around not helping others.
2. Join/assist OLPC. Then they would be accused of joining for the purpose of taking over.
3. Produce competing product? Then they would be accused of future actions ask you outline.
I can't think of action that Microsoft or Intel could have done that wouldn't lead to the exact same
>that's 2.15805661 × 10^29 years, based on my quick envelope-back numbers.
I know this is slashdot but I refuse to define a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation as having 8 significant digits.
Database Servers.
>While technically true it would have no bearing.
Exactly why doesn't this have any bearing? Isn't it the small things that generates bigger rewards. Isn't Recycling movement based on this? Isn't micro-loan banks like Grameen Bank, another example? Also, NASA own programs need money (see below).
What is the issue here is the question of is this a wise and responsible use of NASA's budget within its mandate? Its your taxpayer's money so its a valid question. "It doesn't matter" is an answer only government contractor sales people love to hear.
The argument that its such a small amount of money doesn't really hold up because for that $4 million NASA could have created 2-4 more Centennial Challenges.
http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/
>Would you like to work in a company that pays you a little more than competition, but it's a nightmare to work there? Or would you instead want to work in a company where there is normal pay, but you have parties?
I would rather have the company that pays more. A party a few times a year is not going to get rid of any nightmares during work hours 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
With the extra money I can afford to throw my own party a few times a year with people I like, not forced to spend more time with people who I associate with a "nightmare".
>We simply just CAN'T look at every little thing.
Even when its right in front of you, on the evening news of a major network? Thats not carefully preserving your valuable time and energy; thats just lazy.
If you let those things that are right in front of you go, then you teach people thats its ok to waste and then it gets bigger and bigger. Thats how you get into the budget troubles what has been mentioned.
>you'd identify the biggest places where we're spending tons of money, and not getting anything out of it.
Exactly what are you getting out of a dinner in Florida for Boeing contractors? (Yes, $4 million is tons of money, just ask what a NASA scientist/engineer could do with it, besides partying.)
They are not a private company with private money, its tax payer's money. If you had a box that said "NASA 4-star hotel celebration party" box on your tax form, how much would you put in? What if it was a "United States Postal Service celebration party"?
As had been mentioned here many times, NASA has an important and worthwhile job yet lacks funding for many things. Is this how they spend their funds instead of spending it to do what they are mandated for? As you said, they are getting things done, so why should their budget increase (or in fact decrease) when they can just easily cut back the big budget parties?
Don't watch the tv show, "In Search of Perfection, for the food; watch it for the theme music. (I want to see the lyrics sheet for it.)