(sorry, cut & paste url.. never bothered to learn html)
You've got to be kidding me. I've never bothered to "learn" html either, but I still know how to write a link. Knowing had a make a link is not called "learning" html.
I don't really understand the details of it, but it's my understanding that using quantum optical encryption (or whatever) you can set it up so that you can detect if someone is eavesdropping, so that they couldn't even retransmit the signal if they wanted.
I thought the problem with one-time-pad systems were actually DISTRIBUTING your key. Whatever you mean by "the entropy level of your key," it seems insignificant if people can just intercept your key easily.
Adbusters is just a commodification of the whole anti-consumer counterculture. Try Stay Free! Though, it's published much less frequently than adbusters.
You're probably right about the first part, and you're also right about the ad hominem attacks. I try to avoid those, but I was really just trying to explain that I used to have that point of view, and while it's true, it's not looking at the whole picture.
I'm not posting here just to get modded up.
To be honest, I'm sure I've posted many times in the past, elaborating on this idea, as you're suggesting I should've done. I guess I'm just tired of talking to myself, and writing the same thing over and over.
Is this really true? I mean, if I were the one being threatened by the DMCA here, and I just went to court without a lawyer, and without even a basic understanding of the law, can the judge rule in my favor? More specifically, can a judge consider arguments not presented by a lawyer? If the answer were yes and judges were honest, then having a lawyer would have little effect. So either the answer is no, or judges aren't honest, or both.
The reason why you see this phenomenon mainly among the middle- (and upper-) class is because of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. People who *haven't* grown up pampered have their own concerns to worry about, and therefore they cannot concern themselves with other peoples or less important problems. You should be thankful for people like this, because without them the world would never improve.
You remind me of a sixth grader who has just discovered evolution. You probably also believe that morality is "stupid." The thing is, I don't believe that morality supersedes evolution, I just believe that evolution can actually explain where morality comes from. I'm sure you'll understand all this and more, one day.
You really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not aware of anyone who protests rats for cancer research. What people protest are scientists who do gratuitous studies, just because they want to do a study, stuff that has been tried a hundred times before. Example: testing bleach in the eyes of rabbits locked in boxes, just to gather "data" on exactly how harmful bleach is to your eyes. Then, of course, other scientists have reproduce the results, because that's what science is about. Then another group of scientists test out some other brand of bleach, you know, to gather data.
I very much understand the idea that sometimes animals have to die and suffer, and that it's an acceptable trade-off if it will save human lives. But you use that concept to immediately dismiss any claims that some of the research might be unnecessary and immoral. You should read K a href=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060011572/qid=1037736355/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-9 040435-2712769?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. As the author explains, he argues that the current state of affairs is wrong based on values you most likely already accept as true. He doesn't try to give you or teach you a new set of morals, but shows that even according to your current set of morals, what is going on is wrong.
Personally, I eat meat; I am not committed enough, not yet anyway, to change my life based on the truths in the book. But most people try to justify their current habits, and I think it's important to acknowledge you're wrong, even if you're not ready to change.
It kind of reminds me of those people who dismiss anyone who is against any particular war as "naive hippies." Again, I understand the concept of self-defense, and I *do* think that people who believe that there is never need for war are naive, but that doesn't mean people who are against a particular war are all naive. Listen to what they're actually saying, instead of just giving plausible explanations for why they're likely wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you have no plans to travel there...then no, you shouldn't be concerned.
Isn't hydrogen burn "pure"? Just plain water.
overrated and underrated don't appear in metamod
(sorry, cut & paste url.. never bothered to learn html)
You've got to be kidding me. I've never bothered to "learn" html either, but I still know how to write a link. Knowing had a make a link is not called "learning" html.
ceiling
Dude, that's redundant, not recursive.
I don't really understand the details of it, but it's my understanding that using quantum optical encryption (or whatever) you can set it up so that you can detect if someone is eavesdropping, so that they couldn't even retransmit the signal if they wanted.
I thought the problem with one-time-pad systems were actually DISTRIBUTING your key. Whatever you mean by "the entropy level of your key," it seems insignificant if people can just intercept your key easily.
Wait, if the only problem you have is when you CHARGE for it, then what's the problem with file sharing?
Actually, I HAVE seen minority report, and this just confirms it for me.
this feels a lot like ping pong.
wait, what's 1334? I must be out of touch.
So then how exactly does the US define its enemies?
how do you do that exactly?
It's not slashdotted, it's just blocking slashdot referalls or whatever you call it. Just open up another window and copy the link into there.
email me
You need to revamp that sig. I like the idea, but it just doesn't flow right.
Adbusters is just a commodification of the whole anti-consumer counterculture. Try Stay Free! Though, it's published much less frequently than adbusters.
You're probably right about the first part, and you're also right about the ad hominem attacks. I try to avoid those, but I was really just trying to explain that I used to have that point of view, and while it's true, it's not looking at the whole picture.
I'm not posting here just to get modded up.
To be honest, I'm sure I've posted many times in the past, elaborating on this idea, as you're suggesting I should've done. I guess I'm just tired of talking to myself, and writing the same thing over and over.
Is this really true? I mean, if I were the one being threatened by the DMCA here, and I just went to court without a lawyer, and without even a basic understanding of the law, can the judge rule in my favor? More specifically, can a judge consider arguments not presented by a lawyer? If the answer were yes and judges were honest, then having a lawyer would have little effect. So either the answer is no, or judges aren't honest, or both.
So, I guess that means athletes and actors are among the most educated in America.
The reason why you see this phenomenon mainly among the middle- (and upper-) class is because of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. People who *haven't* grown up pampered have their own concerns to worry about, and therefore they cannot concern themselves with other peoples or less important problems. You should be thankful for people like this, because without them the world would never improve.
You remind me of a sixth grader who has just discovered evolution. You probably also believe that morality is "stupid." The thing is, I don't believe that morality supersedes evolution, I just believe that evolution can actually explain where morality comes from. I'm sure you'll understand all this and more, one day.
You really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not aware of anyone who protests rats for cancer research. What people protest are scientists who do gratuitous studies, just because they want to do a study, stuff that has been tried a hundred times before. Example: testing bleach in the eyes of rabbits locked in boxes, just to gather "data" on exactly how harmful bleach is to your eyes. Then, of course, other scientists have reproduce the results, because that's what science is about. Then another group of scientists test out some other brand of bleach, you know, to gather data.
- /0060011572/qid=1037736355/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-9 040435-2712769?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. As the author explains, he argues that the current state of affairs is wrong based on values you most likely already accept as true. He doesn't try to give you or teach you a new set of morals, but shows that even according to your current set of morals, what is going on is wrong.
I very much understand the idea that sometimes animals have to die and suffer, and that it's an acceptable trade-off if it will save human lives. But you use that concept to immediately dismiss any claims that some of the research might be unnecessary and immoral. You should read K a href=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/
Personally, I eat meat; I am not committed enough, not yet anyway, to change my life based on the truths in the book. But most people try to justify their current habits, and I think it's important to acknowledge you're wrong, even if you're not ready to change.
It kind of reminds me of those people who dismiss anyone who is against any particular war as "naive hippies." Again, I understand the concept of self-defense, and I *do* think that people who believe that there is never need for war are naive, but that doesn't mean people who are against a particular war are all naive. Listen to what they're actually saying, instead of just giving plausible explanations for why they're likely wrong.
This one is less cetchy.