What part of "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." implies that this site is just about tech? Nerds find all sorts of things interesting. I'm a nerd, and I find it interesting.
Could one not make 2 encryption devices that would go on either end of the phone conversation that are pre-populated with identical large sets of random data to be used as a one-time pad? Or some kind of real-time random number generators that share a common seed? Seems like that would be pretty tough to crack...
I think the RSMediabot would sell like hotcakes if it had a less voltron-like, more humanoid body and it had a face that could look like it was singing. How sweet would it be to have a tiny Elvis that you could say "Hey Elvis, sing us a song!" and then he'd put on a show. Every once in a while, he could even say "Look how big that lamp is, man! That's hu-u-uge!"
It was a clear and very effective demonstration that there was some sort of statistical model at play in the interplay of all those minds.
That doesn't sound so much a statistical model in the interplay of the minds as it is a statistical model operating on data received from all those minds. If you have 50 minds (or however many) doing their best to control a pong paddle and you average the input you are receiving from them, is it really all that surprising that you would get closer to optimal control? Even the less-skillful players would probably overshoot and undershoot their targets equally. It only makes sense that they would collectively be more accurate as long as everyone is cooperating and trying to play well. It would be interesting to see this applied to other applications.
Clearly some brave Dutch company needs to stand up for our rights and deliver marijuana to the oppressed American people! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, Help, I'm being repressed!
As long as we have mutually assured destruction, getting attacked with nuclear missiles by Russia or any other State is not likely to happen because they know it would be suicide.
The only reason one would create a missile shield would be to be able to attack with impunity. Even then, unless you can guarantee that the system would be 100% effective (an impossible task) you wouldn't want to risk attacking and relying on your shield. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I think the idea of America launching a nuclear missile attack on ANYONE from safely behind a missile shield is quite un-American.
The only vaguely plausible threat would be from rogue groups somehow infiltrating a missile silo and somehow managing to launch one. Considering how heavily guarded those probably are, and that the perpetrators would probably still need launch codes, etc, the idea is unrealistic. If the security is that weak, our money would be much better spent helping those countries secure their missiles.
You can already create buttons that function like those in this toolbar using Firefox. You can also move them up to the menu bar to save space. See the bottom of my tutorial on optimizing Firefox.
That's what I'm saying- every time this discussion comes up people talk like it'll be just like it is now but a little warmer, with the ocean levels a little higher, and maybe some minor changes here and there. They also talk like the global warming people think the Earth is going to turn into Venus or something.
The world doesn't have to turn into Venus in order for it to become uninhabitable for humans. It could look very much like it does today, but with dead oceans and no oxygen left in the atmosphere. Our oceans are already stressed as it is with pollution, overfishing, etc. Global warming, or a reversal of the currents, etc, could push it over the edge and knock our ecosystem's foundation right out from under it.
I don't think we'll have any way of knowing for certain what WILL happen until it's already happening, or if we're definitely the cause of it. But we certainly could be, and it makes sense to try and minimize our net environmental impact.
Your assumption that Earth will remain about the same is based on what? While I agree that the odds are in favor of things remaining about the same, you can't rule out that these changes could set off a chain of events that would significantly affect the planet's ability to support human life.
The bit about 95% of the coral reefs dying off is particularly alarming. You have no guarantees that a couple degrees of change here and there, a few more billion tons of CO2 in the air, etc, won't do something like cause phytoplankton levels to plummet, which could then cause all ocean life to die off, and oxygen levels to plummet. People want to believe that global warming could only make the world uninhabitable by making it too hot, or by desertification or something. Our ecosystem is chaotic- the tiniest change can have unforeseen effects- and there is currently no way to predict what will happen no matter what we do, and probably won't be for many years.
I'll believe you when you say the world will be perfectly fine 200 years from now when you can accurately predict the weather a year in advance. Until then, I think the best course of action is to minimize our environmental impact as much as possible. Progress doesn't have to halt- we just need to move to renewable or nuclear power and use environmentally neutral production processes.
Yes, a single search engine which people seem to favor over all the others and quickly grow accustomed to using on a daily basis. We've made a friggin' verb out of it, fer chrissakes. Do you think Google's arrival in China will have any less of an impact on their culture than it did on ours? Something whose existence makes such a heavy impact will be missed greatly if suddenly banned.
Maybe it's just because I can't read Chinese (okay, I don't even have the Chinese character set installed, so I just get a bunch of question marks) but I don't see anything on this page that looks like a "some results have been censored"-type notice. Can any Chinese-reading/.ers verify this?
The best thing is for Google to comply with the censorship, get everyone used to using it (like the rest of the world), then stop complying. The government would be forced to either give up on censorship or tell all their citizens that the Google which they have all grown accustomed to (which they surely will) is no longer allowed. What better way to make the Chinese people painfully aware of what their government is doing? I think if the US government were to suddenly decide to censor Google it would have a lot of seriously, seriously pissed off people to answer to. Getting and then losing Google could be a catalyst for change over there...
Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?
Because the only thing more powerful than greed is fear?
Agreed. These are the same people who continually refer to the President as our "Leader". He may be the Commander-in-Chief of the military, and thus the military's leader, but he is not "OUR" leader. The President is the Chief servant of the people, and should regularly be reminded of that fact. I think a lot of the problems we have today would be greatly diminished if the President were required by law to hold a weekly Q&A w/Congress where the congressmen are free to dress him down and demand answers. Much like the Prime Minister has to do in Britain. It may not prevent every bad thing from happening, but it would at least hopefully ensure that the President is someone who is eloquent and can defend their ideas logically and remind the both the President and the People that he is not infallible and that his actions must be considered critically. I know Britain made the same decision to go to Iraq that we did, but I feel ten times better every time I hear Tony Blair talk about it than when our stammering idiot opens his trap.
yet be stupid enough not to impeach the worst President since Lincoln
Your statement implies that Lincoln was worse than Bush. Is that what you meant? If that's the case, I don't think many historians would agree with you.
I said that Earth would be uninhabitable. Apparently that may mean something different to you, but to me, a planet whose atmosphere requires that you have to wear an artificial breathing apparatus is not habitable by itself, and there's no way you could distribute 6 billion oxygen masks to ensure that everyone who would otherwise be living would not suffocate. Is losing an atmosphere capable of sustaining human life by itself a trivial matter? Is keeping it worth second-guessing our head-first dive into "progress"?
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." implies that this site is just about tech? Nerds find all sorts of things interesting. I'm a nerd, and I find it interesting.
Could one not make 2 encryption devices that would go on either end of the phone conversation that are pre-populated with identical large sets of random data to be used as a one-time pad? Or some kind of real-time random number generators that share a common seed? Seems like that would be pretty tough to crack...
I think the RSMediabot would sell like hotcakes if it had a less voltron-like, more humanoid body and it had a face that could look like it was singing. How sweet would it be to have a tiny Elvis that you could say "Hey Elvis, sing us a song!" and then he'd put on a show. Every once in a while, he could even say "Look how big that lamp is, man! That's hu-u-uge!"
It was a clear and very effective demonstration that there was some sort of statistical model at play in the interplay of all those minds.
That doesn't sound so much a statistical model in the interplay of the minds as it is a statistical model operating on data received from all those minds. If you have 50 minds (or however many) doing their best to control a pong paddle and you average the input you are receiving from them, is it really all that surprising that you would get closer to optimal control? Even the less-skillful players would probably overshoot and undershoot their targets equally. It only makes sense that they would collectively be more accurate as long as everyone is cooperating and trying to play well. It would be interesting to see this applied to other applications.
I must not be familiar with the reference you are making. Care to elaborate?
On the way out my arse!
That sounds painful!
Clearly some brave Dutch company needs to stand up for our rights and deliver marijuana to the oppressed American people! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, Help, I'm being repressed!
Don't worry- Western Union still handles the kind of transmissions that Congressmen pay attention to.
indeed, you're right... clearly what is needed is an AAAMMMM
As long as we have mutually assured destruction, getting attacked with nuclear missiles by Russia or any other State is not likely to happen because they know it would be suicide. The only reason one would create a missile shield would be to be able to attack with impunity. Even then, unless you can guarantee that the system would be 100% effective (an impossible task) you wouldn't want to risk attacking and relying on your shield. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I think the idea of America launching a nuclear missile attack on ANYONE from safely behind a missile shield is quite un-American. The only vaguely plausible threat would be from rogue groups somehow infiltrating a missile silo and somehow managing to launch one. Considering how heavily guarded those probably are, and that the perpetrators would probably still need launch codes, etc, the idea is unrealistic. If the security is that weak, our money would be much better spent helping those countries secure their missiles.
I think you need another missile in there-
;)
- Missile
- Anti-Missile
- Anti-Anti-Missle-Missile
- Anti-Anti-Anti-Missle-Missle-Missile
Just because I love being a pedant.
id est
You can already create buttons that function like those in this toolbar using Firefox. You can also move them up to the menu bar to save space. See the bottom of my tutorial on optimizing Firefox.
That's what I'm saying- every time this discussion comes up people talk like it'll be just like it is now but a little warmer, with the ocean levels a little higher, and maybe some minor changes here and there. They also talk like the global warming people think the Earth is going to turn into Venus or something.
The world doesn't have to turn into Venus in order for it to become uninhabitable for humans. It could look very much like it does today, but with dead oceans and no oxygen left in the atmosphere. Our oceans are already stressed as it is with pollution, overfishing, etc. Global warming, or a reversal of the currents, etc, could push it over the edge and knock our ecosystem's foundation right out from under it.
I don't think we'll have any way of knowing for certain what WILL happen until it's already happening, or if we're definitely the cause of it. But we certainly could be, and it makes sense to try and minimize our net environmental impact.
Your assumption that Earth will remain about the same is based on what? While I agree that the odds are in favor of things remaining about the same, you can't rule out that these changes could set off a chain of events that would significantly affect the planet's ability to support human life.
The bit about 95% of the coral reefs dying off is particularly alarming. You have no guarantees that a couple degrees of change here and there, a few more billion tons of CO2 in the air, etc, won't do something like cause phytoplankton levels to plummet, which could then cause all ocean life to die off, and oxygen levels to plummet. People want to believe that global warming could only make the world uninhabitable by making it too hot, or by desertification or something. Our ecosystem is chaotic- the tiniest change can have unforeseen effects- and there is currently no way to predict what will happen no matter what we do, and probably won't be for many years.
I'll believe you when you say the world will be perfectly fine 200 years from now when you can accurately predict the weather a year in advance. Until then, I think the best course of action is to minimize our environmental impact as much as possible. Progress doesn't have to halt- we just need to move to renewable or nuclear power and use environmentally neutral production processes.
Yeah, I found it once I loaded the Chinese language pack... go figure :)
FYI, his wife's name is Melinda, not Linda. People always forget about ME. :)
Yes, a single search engine which people seem to favor over all the others and quickly grow accustomed to using on a daily basis. We've made a friggin' verb out of it, fer chrissakes. Do you think Google's arrival in China will have any less of an impact on their culture than it did on ours? Something whose existence makes such a heavy impact will be missed greatly if suddenly banned.
Maybe it's just because I can't read Chinese (okay, I don't even have the Chinese character set installed, so I just get a bunch of question marks) but I don't see anything on this page that looks like a "some results have been censored"-type notice. Can any Chinese-reading /.ers verify this?
The best thing is for Google to comply with the censorship, get everyone used to using it (like the rest of the world), then stop complying. The government would be forced to either give up on censorship or tell all their citizens that the Google which they have all grown accustomed to (which they surely will) is no longer allowed. What better way to make the Chinese people painfully aware of what their government is doing? I think if the US government were to suddenly decide to censor Google it would have a lot of seriously, seriously pissed off people to answer to. Getting and then losing Google could be a catalyst for change over there...
Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?
Because the only thing more powerful than greed is fear?
So tell me how Lincoln single-handedly destroyed the Constitution, and tell me what was noble about the southern states' cause...
Agreed. These are the same people who continually refer to the President as our "Leader". He may be the Commander-in-Chief of the military, and thus the military's leader, but he is not "OUR" leader. The President is the Chief servant of the people, and should regularly be reminded of that fact. I think a lot of the problems we have today would be greatly diminished if the President were required by law to hold a weekly Q&A w/Congress where the congressmen are free to dress him down and demand answers. Much like the Prime Minister has to do in Britain. It may not prevent every bad thing from happening, but it would at least hopefully ensure that the President is someone who is eloquent and can defend their ideas logically and remind the both the President and the People that he is not infallible and that his actions must be considered critically. I know Britain made the same decision to go to Iraq that we did, but I feel ten times better every time I hear Tony Blair talk about it than when our stammering idiot opens his trap.
yet be stupid enough not to impeach the worst President since Lincoln
Your statement implies that Lincoln was worse than Bush. Is that what you meant? If that's the case, I don't think many historians would agree with you.
I said that Earth would be uninhabitable. Apparently that may mean something different to you, but to me, a planet whose atmosphere requires that you have to wear an artificial breathing apparatus is not habitable by itself, and there's no way you could distribute 6 billion oxygen masks to ensure that everyone who would otherwise be living would not suffocate. Is losing an atmosphere capable of sustaining human life by itself a trivial matter? Is keeping it worth second-guessing our head-first dive into "progress"?