Making it worst for 1 or 2 persons or even a hundred (realistically, how many people can you break into home and put a bug) will make it better for the privacy of a few dozen million. Go for it do your worst. Bug the shit out of those few houses. Physically. Like you used to. And like you probably already do as anyway computer communication is only 1 form. Woopy-doo.
1) people nearly always want to answer a question rather than admit "i don't know" if it is a question which is knowledge oriented.
2) if you frame a question in about "do you think people should be informed about substance A being in consumer product B" many people will simply answer Yes no matter the substance. Try it with something innocuous : it works nearly always.
So the study is not really about that specific question, but about a known psychological pitfall.
Most important password institution including banks , have strong password policy which would reject "123456", and "password" (heck bank even have a second factor where you use the bank card decoder device but I have no idea on how secure it is).
Those password are most probably email or forums password. And as secure as i want to be, I do the same. Email not linked to a bank account and used for spam registration or whatnot => weak password like "jodie123" like my slashdot password. Bank account and email linked to it get something more like "bY7&!-;+#ASumn)(". Yeah sure you might find my jodie123 password leaked. So what ?
1) still take a very good looking guy able to go into "action scene" mode as heroe (not to count all trope which comes with it rsp the female lead)
2) the hacking is... Well as hollywoodian as ever
3) the film villain reach is unebliavable and cartoonish
4) it ends with ana ction scene.
Let us get real a real hacker film would be boring for your average hollywood audience. But that does not excuse the rest above which is your average poor heroe trope full film with just "hacking" thin coated over.
In particular, devoting some educational effort towards eradication of irrational beliefs
If that worked religion would have disappeared a some tiems ago with the itnernet. But it does not, because you cannot use rationality to convince people (rare exception may happen) that belief they came to in irrational way are wrong. Try thisd : go into a creationist forum and try to argue that radiometric dating works and explain why. Good luck with that. So if we are not even able to get ride of creationism in the west , a domain (natural selection) where there is a lot of supportive and solid science, what chance do you think you have with other irrational belief ? I will tell you what, as soon as the GOP accept as a whole global warming I will give you a smmmmaaal bit of chance.
In the absence of obvious abuse, the simple test should be: is the child fed, clothed, sheltered, and schooled?
Actually science has given us evidence to think that simplistic thought wrong. There were studies made on monkeys which showed the monkey child would prefer a "caring" mother to a feeding one which is uncaring. Further study IIRC showed that placing kids in a big home where they are all feds but not "cared" for make a lot of fucks up.
Take this with a grain of salt naturally as i am not a psychologist, I just read that.
"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs."
here is a non provocation "you are going to hell because you do not believe, suicide is a mortal sin and you land in hell, gay and lesbian are doing a sin"
Here is a provocation:"god does not exists, you have no evidence for this, and what is written in your holy book about bashing male baby head against rocks, or how slave should be handled is immoral."
basically all they believe told to others => not provocatif because it is their belief. All they do not believe told to them => provocatif.
I used christianity as an example but frankly all those who feel blasphemed or insulted or provocated function on the same level.
Bunch of goddamn hypocrite, that's why they like to have "limit" or freedom of expression : because they count on THEIR speech to be the one as being recognized as unprovocative, as they are the majority. But if you limit freedom of speech to what is not provocatif... Then you ain't a shit worth freedom of speech.
If you preach that XYZ needs to be :
* lose right they have now
* ened to be "eliminated", "purged", "kicked out of the countries"
Then your speech is most probably extreme.
Most Left political ideology in the US did not meet those criteria. In fact witch hunt from holywood and the FBI *did* meet that criteria.
Finally in europüe we have many hate speech law. I may be wrong, but they are speaking not of new law, which already cover the case, but rather speed up enfrocement.
We already have law on the book with respect to speech and hatred, and those being forbidden... It sounds to me it is only required to really enforce those law now in a speedy manner.
The novel was incredible for the time (that and "Friday" it was called, the one with the intersex assassin?).
Spoiler below:
In the novel in the end practically all protagonist are the same persons on different point of the time line, in a very paradoxical way (e.g. , the main protagonist his himself, herself before the sex change, and her own daughter).
Actually more than you would think. Still no justification for moslem to do the same or christian or anybody. I view both extremist as both equally sociopathic assholes.
You have that a little wrong. God *can* (in principle) be proven. If the sky breaks open, choirs of angels break forth, a 10km-long arm reaches down from the skies and an 8km golden-haired, bearded face looks down upon humanity and utters words of unshakable truth...then God is proven
No you have only proven an entity is capable of that. You have not provided evidence that that entity is a god or similar avatar. Misquoting clark : sufficientely advanced science can look like magic. How do you prove that entity you describe is a god, or in reality is not but a very advanced technologically civilisation with very advanced tech, with an unknown agenda wanting to make us believe they have/are god ? You can't.
God is essentially unknowable, as no matter what feat it does, there could be a technological ET having mastered tech being able to reproduce that. God can neither be proven nor disproven, except maybe if you meet him after death, instead of oblivion.
I mean other countries had president which believed in an apocalyptic religion (revelation) or that atheist should not given the right to vote. Being from outside, the apocalyptic believer make me far more fear than the plane-to-other-planet Veda believer.
"without knowing how the drive "failed" the court cannot prove that there was no evidence to destroy."
correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIR the US justice system, It is up to the prosecution side to prove there was evidence on teh HD, not on the side of the defense there was not. Therefore from the court in absence of proof of existence of evidence, the assumption should be by default there was no evidence. IF the prosecution has proof tehre was evidence they are free to provide them. But until then by presumption of innocence, the court has to assume the recyclage was lawful. Otherwise if the presumption was it was destruction of evidence, then it amounts of a presumption of guiltiness.
Especially not true in many countries where Uber was banned or is in the process of scrutinity. I have never had any dirty in Seoul, or in germany where I live, or in england (as a matter of disclosure I had a few dirty taxi in NY, true, but the vast majority of taxi I took in Dallas or other metropole in teh US were squicky clean). I had a few dirty taxi in Paris, but that was so long ago, and the few taxi I took in the last decade in france were clean too.
Anyway at least for germany I support the regulation and uber being forced to obey it. After all we do not have a medaillon system like in the US, everybody with the proper training driver licence, and the proper governemental check of their money counter, as well as the proper insurance (commercial passenger transport insurance) can become a taxi. In my city we have a lot of different taxi companies, some being simply a single person having repainted their own car (and having the proper papers). Nothing outrageous really, in fact those regulations make a lot of sense.
NBC and CNN are far more likely to cave, foreign outfit much less. Now the problem would be for you to interrest them into your story. An alternatrive would be to publish it on ACLU or EFF forums or similars.
See if you increase the temperature to overcome some bonds which are too strong, you get confronted that other bonds become too weak (remember for any kT you have a temperature gaussian spread so your bonds are likely not surviving the high end) and you seriously limit some of the chemistry we know (oxy/reduction, what most likely any life is based on). C is good because it allows for a zone of relative stability which can still be broken. I am not a high pressure or high temperature chemist, but the few I know shows me that such island of stability does not exists in the "high" zone. Keep in mind my expertise is QM, so not the subject at hand which I know only from my studying years.
Email can be said to be a copyrighted work. They are also distributed only to one person, other person do not have the distribution right. Distirbution right is given temporary to an itnermediate to facilitate the email reaching its goal. Frankly I will take the contrary direction : DMCA is over reaching in all case, but using it for email is not an overreach.
Barring utterly unknown chemistry, other atoms offer limited chemistry, bonds too strong, bonds too weak, limited atoms to which they can bond. That's why we concentrate on carbon based chemistry, with Oxygen or sulfure. Sure we could be missing something, but is it likely ? We have to concentrate on what we know we CAN find, as we can't send too many intruments out there like on the mars rover.
If the approach followed here allows for a good detection of KNOWN organic life with p0.05, then it sounds a good approach.
I contend that anyone who achieves true objectivity on this issue will opt for agnosticism and just leave the debate behind.
Agnosticism alone is only about the contention that the existence of gods are unknowable and says nothing about the belief of the person.
The real category are IMNSHO :
* gnostic theist , I believe in god(s) existance and I know god(s) existence are knowable
* gnostic atheist , god(s) non existence is demonstrable (and logically do not believe in gods existence)
* agnostic theist , I believe in god(s) existance but god(s) existence cannot ever be demonstrated e.g. it is faith only, all the rest miracle and so forth is bunk
* agnostic atheist , god(s) are a construction of human mind, but this cannot ever be demonstrated to the point of knowing that god(s) do not exists.
In the very end if you shrug and say I do not know, but live your life without any token prayer , then you are de facto agnostic atheist. There are a few agnostic theist I met, they are quite rare, the vast majority of self declared "agnostic" I met, are actually agnostic atheist, but unwilling to admit the atheist part to themselves. I am an agnostic atheist by the way.
Some airline have an "efraud" concept where for example if you try to take leg out of order, you are refused check in and even refund. Among others. Note that they are fully in their right, as you accept term and conditions, and among those conditions is that you will respect the fare conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
Making it worst for 1 or 2 persons or even a hundred (realistically, how many people can you break into home and put a bug) will make it better for the privacy of a few dozen million. Go for it do your worst. Bug the shit out of those few houses. Physically. Like you used to. And like you probably already do as anyway computer communication is only 1 form. Woopy-doo.
1) people nearly always want to answer a question rather than admit "i don't know" if it is a question which is knowledge oriented.
2) if you frame a question in about "do you think people should be informed about substance A being in consumer product B" many people will simply answer Yes no matter the substance. Try it with something innocuous : it works nearly always.
So the study is not really about that specific question, but about a known psychological pitfall.
Most important password institution including banks , have strong password policy which would reject "123456", and "password" (heck bank even have a second factor where you use the bank card decoder device but I have no idea on how secure it is). Those password are most probably email or forums password. And as secure as i want to be, I do the same. Email not linked to a bank account and used for spam registration or whatnot => weak password like "jodie123" like my slashdot password. Bank account and email linked to it get something more like "bY7&!-;+#ASumn)(". Yeah sure you might find my jodie123 password leaked. So what ?
1) still take a very good looking guy able to go into "action scene" mode as heroe (not to count all trope which comes with it rsp the female lead)
2) the hacking is... Well as hollywoodian as ever
3) the film villain reach is unebliavable and cartoonish
4) it ends with ana ction scene.
Let us get real a real hacker film would be boring for your average hollywood audience. But that does not excuse the rest above which is your average poor heroe trope full film with just "hacking" thin coated over.
If that worked religion would have disappeared a some tiems ago with the itnernet. But it does not, because you cannot use rationality to convince people (rare exception may happen) that belief they came to in irrational way are wrong. Try thisd : go into a creationist forum and try to argue that radiometric dating works and explain why. Good luck with that. So if we are not even able to get ride of creationism in the west , a domain (natural selection) where there is a lot of supportive and solid science, what chance do you think you have with other irrational belief ? I will tell you what, as soon as the GOP accept as a whole global warming I will give you a smmmmaaal bit of chance.
Actually science has given us evidence to think that simplistic thought wrong. There were studies made on monkeys which showed the monkey child would prefer a "caring" mother to a feeding one which is uncaring. Further study IIRC showed that placing kids in a big home where they are all feds but not "cared" for make a lot of fucks up.
Take this with a grain of salt naturally as i am not a psychologist, I just read that.
here is a non provocation "you are going to hell because you do not believe, suicide is a mortal sin and you land in hell, gay and lesbian are doing a sin"
:"god does not exists, you have no evidence for this, and what is written in your holy book about bashing male baby head against rocks, or how slave should be handled is immoral."
Here is a provocation
basically all they believe told to others => not provocatif because it is their belief. All they do not believe told to them => provocatif.
I used christianity as an example but frankly all those who feel blasphemed or insulted or provocated function on the same level.
Bunch of goddamn hypocrite, that's why they like to have "limit" or freedom of expression : because they count on THEIR speech to be the one as being recognized as unprovocative, as they are the majority. But if you limit freedom of speech to what is not provocatif... Then you ain't a shit worth freedom of speech.
If you preach that XYZ needs to be : * lose right they have now
* ened to be "eliminated", "purged", "kicked out of the countries"
Then your speech is most probably extreme.
Most Left political ideology in the US did not meet those criteria. In fact witch hunt from holywood and the FBI *did* meet that criteria.
Finally in europüe we have many hate speech law. I may be wrong, but they are speaking not of new law, which already cover the case, but rather speed up enfrocement.
We already have law on the book with respect to speech and hatred, and those being forbidden... It sounds to me it is only required to really enforce those law now in a speedy manner.
The novel was incredible for the time (that and "Friday" it was called, the one with the intersex assassin?). Spoiler below:
In the novel in the end practically all protagonist are the same persons on different point of the time line, in a very paradoxical way (e.g. , the main protagonist his himself, herself before the sex change, and her own daughter).
I thoought the title of the previous post would lead people to google it. Nonetheless here is an example among others :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Actually more than you would think. Still no justification for moslem to do the same or christian or anybody. I view both extremist as both equally sociopathic assholes.
No you have only proven an entity is capable of that. You have not provided evidence that that entity is a god or similar avatar. Misquoting clark : sufficientely advanced science can look like magic. How do you prove that entity you describe is a god, or in reality is not but a very advanced technologically civilisation with very advanced tech, with an unknown agenda wanting to make us believe they have/are god ? You can't.
God is essentially unknowable, as no matter what feat it does, there could be a technological ET having mastered tech being able to reproduce that. God can neither be proven nor disproven, except maybe if you meet him after death, instead of oblivion.
I mean other countries had president which believed in an apocalyptic religion (revelation) or that atheist should not given the right to vote. Being from outside, the apocalyptic believer make me far more fear than the plane-to-other-planet Veda believer.
"without knowing how the drive "failed" the court cannot prove that there was no evidence to destroy."
correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIR the US justice system, It is up to the prosecution side to prove there was evidence on teh HD, not on the side of the defense there was not. Therefore from the court in absence of proof of existence of evidence, the assumption should be by default there was no evidence. IF the prosecution has proof tehre was evidence they are free to provide them. But until then by presumption of innocence, the court has to assume the recyclage was lawful. Otherwise if the presumption was it was destruction of evidence, then it amounts of a presumption of guiltiness.
Especially not true in many countries where Uber was banned or is in the process of scrutinity. I have never had any dirty in Seoul, or in germany where I live, or in england (as a matter of disclosure I had a few dirty taxi in NY, true, but the vast majority of taxi I took in Dallas or other metropole in teh US were squicky clean). I had a few dirty taxi in Paris, but that was so long ago, and the few taxi I took in the last decade in france were clean too.
Anyway at least for germany I support the regulation and uber being forced to obey it. After all we do not have a medaillon system like in the US, everybody with the proper training driver licence, and the proper governemental check of their money counter, as well as the proper insurance (commercial passenger transport insurance) can become a taxi. In my city we have a lot of different taxi companies, some being simply a single person having repainted their own car (and having the proper papers). Nothing outrageous really, in fact those regulations make a lot of sense.
Which is why some country are using QWERTZ and AZERTY. And also why some electricity transportation and usage are DC.
NBC and CNN are far more likely to cave, foreign outfit much less. Now the problem would be for you to interrest them into your story. An alternatrive would be to publish it on ACLU or EFF forums or similars.
See if you increase the temperature to overcome some bonds which are too strong, you get confronted that other bonds become too weak (remember for any kT you have a temperature gaussian spread so your bonds are likely not surviving the high end) and you seriously limit some of the chemistry we know (oxy/reduction, what most likely any life is based on). C is good because it allows for a zone of relative stability which can still be broken. I am not a high pressure or high temperature chemist, but the few I know shows me that such island of stability does not exists in the "high" zone. Keep in mind my expertise is QM, so not the subject at hand which I know only from my studying years.
Email can be said to be a copyrighted work. They are also distributed only to one person, other person do not have the distribution right. Distirbution right is given temporary to an itnermediate to facilitate the email reaching its goal. Frankly I will take the contrary direction : DMCA is over reaching in all case, but using it for email is not an overreach.
Barring utterly unknown chemistry, other atoms offer limited chemistry, bonds too strong, bonds too weak, limited atoms to which they can bond. That's why we concentrate on carbon based chemistry, with Oxygen or sulfure. Sure we could be missing something, but is it likely ? We have to concentrate on what we know we CAN find, as we can't send too many intruments out there like on the mars rover.
If the approach followed here allows for a good detection of KNOWN organic life with p0.05, then it sounds a good approach.
Agnosticism alone is only about the contention that the existence of gods are unknowable and says nothing about the belief of the person.
The real category are IMNSHO :
* gnostic theist , I believe in god(s) existance and I know god(s) existence are knowable
* gnostic atheist , god(s) non existence is demonstrable (and logically do not believe in gods existence)
* agnostic theist , I believe in god(s) existance but god(s) existence cannot ever be demonstrated e.g. it is faith only, all the rest miracle and so forth is bunk
* agnostic atheist , god(s) are a construction of human mind, but this cannot ever be demonstrated to the point of knowing that god(s) do not exists.
In the very end if you shrug and say I do not know, but live your life without any token prayer , then you are de facto agnostic atheist. There are a few agnostic theist I met, they are quite rare, the vast majority of self declared "agnostic" I met, are actually agnostic atheist, but unwilling to admit the atheist part to themselves. I am an agnostic atheist by the way.
that's not spirituality that's psychology/psychiatry and that is another science.
Some airline have an "efraud" concept where for example if you try to take leg out of order, you are refused check in and even refund. Among others. Note that they are fully in their right, as you accept term and conditions, and among those conditions is that you will respect the fare conditions.