An 8-character password using 92 possible characters leaves 736 possibilities, or just over 9 bits.
No, my friend, it's not 92*8 but 92 to the 8th power (92**8, if you like). Thats 5,132,188,731,375,616 which is a good deal more than 736.
How effective is spam?
on
AOL Sues Spammers
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just how effective is spamming from the point of view of the spammer? If I advertise a silly product to 10 million email addresses, how likely am I to get an order?
Compatibility with a bad system is bad. Compatibility with a good system is good.
As someone once put it: "The good thing about X is that the underlying operating system is still visible. The bad thing about Windows is that the underlying operating system is still visible."
Technology by itself is not bad. However certain applications of it can certainly be evil.
This is an oversimplification at best. Certain technologies lend themselves more easily to evil uses than others.
As an obvious example, consider research in instruments of torture.
Once the technique is perfected, we'll have a supermarket of acceptable clone sources. Which person do you wish to clone? The smart one or the dumb one? The beautiful one or the plain one? The white one or the black one?
And, given the choice, would you rather have a child the natural way, or a clone of someone with admirable genes?
But has there ever in the history of mankind been a case where scientific/technological research has been dropped because the goal was deemed unethical?
Could it be that they are confusing cause and effect?
I would guess that many healthy persons lead busy lives and therefore have less time for sleep. Whereas some people with poor health may need more sleep.
I find the following quote in the article quite revealing: "Creationists have argued that any big
jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn't be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one's been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome."
This particular problem has frequently been pointed out by creationists, but evolutionists have dismissed it as a non-issue. Until now. Now when they have found an answer to the problem, it suddenly makes sense to address the issue.
So a creationist claim that evolutionists cannot answer is irrelevant. A creationist claim that evolutionists can answer is relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my friend, it's not 92*8 but 92 to the 8th power (92**8, if you like). Thats 5,132,188,731,375,616 which is a good deal more than 736.
Just how effective is spamming from the point of view of the spammer? If I advertise a silly product to 10 million email addresses, how likely am I to get an order?
If I advertise a silly product to 50 million email addresses, how likely am I to get customers?
Can I be legally bound by an agreement I haven't signed? Does simply clicking on an "I accept" button amount to a legal obligation?
It is possible that we are alone in the universe. We don't know, but it's possible. Why is this possibility dismissed as heresy by so many?
As someone once put it: "The good thing about X is that the underlying operating system is still visible. The bad thing about Windows is that the underlying operating system is still visible."
This is an oversimplification at best. Certain technologies lend themselves more easily to evil uses than others. As an obvious example, consider research in instruments of torture.
The selection process, for one.
Once the technique is perfected, we'll have a supermarket of acceptable clone sources. Which person do you wish to clone? The smart one or the dumb one? The beautiful one or the plain one? The white one or the black one?
And, given the choice, would you rather have a child the natural way, or a clone of someone with admirable genes?
But has there ever in the history of mankind been a case where scientific/technological research has been dropped because the goal was deemed unethical?
I would guess that many healthy persons lead busy lives and therefore have less time for sleep. Whereas some people with poor health may need more sleep.
If I press the "Accept" button on a license splash screen, is that as legally binding as a signature?
And what about software wrappings that say, "By opening this package you indicate your acceptance of the following terms..."?
Doesn't a contract need a signature to be binding?
This particular problem has frequently been pointed out by creationists, but evolutionists have dismissed it as a non-issue. Until now. Now when they have found an answer to the problem, it suddenly makes sense to address the issue.
So a creationist claim that evolutionists cannot answer is irrelevant. A creationist claim that evolutionists can answer is relevant.
Interesting!