You're overlooking one critical aspect of responsibility: it's not an external decision imposed on you. It's an internal decision you impose on yourself.
Actually, it's not. To be responsible for something is precisely to be answerable for it.
Perhaps as a civilization this sort of thing may help us grow up and realize that the right of free speech comes with the duty to exercise it responsibly. More generally, all rights come with a corresponding duty.
This is the kind of BS which people come up with in order to neuter rights. Free speech does not come with any such duty; if it came with that duty, it would not be free.
The general formula demostrates this quite clearly: "You have the right to X. You have the corresponding duty to only do X in the ways we approve."
I realize this will either be wildly popular with you or you'll hate it, but what I'd like to see someone do is infiltrate the botnet somehow (either by vulnerability or crack their key or whatever) and send a command to the herd to zero the boot sector and shut down their host. (the zombies, not the herder's machines)
All that will do is get law enforcement after the vigilantes. Law enforcement is much more concerned with effective competition than they are with ordinary lawbreakers, so they won't stop botnet-building spammers but they will come down hard on vigilantes.
So, don't do that. Instead of shutting down the machines, take them over. And take precautions against anyone taking them back. Set up Bittorrent seeds for pirated films on them, if you like, and watch the MPAA go after the zombie owners. If you just look like another criminal, you probably won't get much attention from law enforcement.
(disclaimer: the above is a hypothetical scenario. Actually trying to pull it off may result in arrest, hospital time, or death depending on who gets to you first).
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I'm rather certain Jefferson was not referring to government-mandated community service by that, but rather violent revolution. He was a bit of a firebrand before he became President. You should see some of the stuff he'd written earlier about the British.
Now calculate the cost of the ACTUAL outages, and subtract that from the cost of the outages that COULD have happened. The difference is what you saved the firm.
Exactly. And the best part of this is you can just make up the first number (be sure to include a lot of ass-pulled estimates in the "calculation") in order to make the total what your boss wants it to be. He'll know you're doing it, but he'll accept it anyway because that's what HIS boss wants. Welcome to the business world.
I swear, it needs to become harder for people to form not-for-profit corporations and become "advocates" and activists. Too often such groups are good for nothing other than raising a stink over nothing, suing others, acting in petty, partisan ways, etc.
Why don't you found a 501(c)(3) corporation to work for the banning of such groups?
So this the Obama admin's version of "Freedom isn't Free"?
I think they're actually drawing from Orwell's original -- "Freedom is Slavery" (Bush, of course, was much more fond of the other two Ingsoc slogans -- "War is Peace" and especially "Ignorance is Strength").
Read the actual page the GP was quoting (here). That was a real quote, not made-up text: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
Who would have thought that a black man would be in favor of involuntary servitude?
Protect American Intellectual Property at Home: Intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age. Barack Obama believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.
I see a slightly different version of that paragraph on Obama's site (quoted above)
That does not bode at all well. Looks like Obama is firmly on the side of the xxAAs.
Your summary of the proof of the non-computability of the halting problem is not right; the answer to whether the theoetical halting program itself halts; it's "true" for all inputs. You need a diagonalization proof. You construct a goofy program takes as input another program, returns false and halts if that program returns "false" using itself as an input, otherwise it loops forever. Then you ask the halting program if the goofy program halts on the halting program. That leads to a contradiction; the only way the goofy program halts on the halting program is if the halting program returns false, and the halting program by definition can't return false ("does not halt") when executed on itself.
None of this has anything to do with using a computer to assist in formal mathematical proofs, however.
Well, that's still very much an open question, but notice that we (humans) can't seem to think of anything better than Turing machines, at least not yet.
The Church-Turing thesis states that there isn't any computing device more powerful than a turing machine. It's unproven, however.
Also, a google search for "more powerful than a turing machine" brings up a claim that a "real valued neural network" (that is, a neural network where the weights can take on any real-numbered value rather than rational-numbered value) is more powerful than a Turing machine. I assume this claim is not widely accepted, or Church-Turing would be considered refuted.
Can we please cut it out with the everybody-interested-in-technology-is-a-fat-slob jokes? And the everybody-interested-in-technology-is-socially-inept-and-has-no-luck-with-the-opposite-gender jokes? Seriously, it's getting old.
Sure, we'll stop right after we stop the jokes about lawyers being unethical, plumbers showing way too much buttcrack, politicians lying, and sharks wearing frickin' lasers. (OK, that last one may not fit in)
seems to me that having a cloak showing a "complementary object" is only going to work if the original object doesn't destroy information about the background. If it does, the object is going to show via the distortion of the background.
Do you find the touch-screen's calibration is always slightly off, so you always hit the wrong thing?
This particular interface has enough space between active areas to avoid that, but actually hitting the part of the button which is actually active is a problem for the same reason.
The results are interesting and in some cases counter-intuitive (for example, adding noise to channel can increase its steganographic capacity and in some cases, mounting two attacks on a channel instead of one can do the same)
I find the second counterintuitive, but the first not so. Perhaps the article-writers intended for the first to be "interesting" and the second "counter-intuitive", but to be fair to the summary-writer, it's not that clear.
Every time I see "Diebold" I still think ATMs, and oddly, that seems to make your comment even more insightful.
My bank recently replaced their Diebold ATMs with NCR ATMs. I have to give the devil his due -- the Diebold ATMs were easier to use and faster. The NCR ATMs have a combination touch-screen and keypad interface with a horrible-feeling keypad and odd points in which you have to switch from screen to keypad and back.
Same thing at wal-mart. Nobody on the floor will know you are doing it, but EVERY person in the security room will immediately see the TVBG light up like a white beacon on any camera pointed your way, of which at a wal mart is a good dozen or more at any given time. You'll have about 20 seconds before one of their security personnel to get a call on their radio from the security room and is standing beside you and in a bad mood. The guard may not know what to look for and won't see the light, so the people in the room will tell them to get rid of you. If the guard sees a camera in your hand, there's his excuse.
Wow. That's some universe you live in, where the Wal-Mart security personnel are not only competent, but responsive to things that aren't obviously shoplifting.
It's not counter-intuitive at all that adding noise to a channel can increase its steganographic capacity, since steganographic data can look like noise.
No, not Bush. Just the campaign. I voted against one Republican candidate (not for President, for state senate) precisely because I was constantly getting campaign ads from him; frequently two a day in the mail, and often some stuck on my door. It was just too much. Also the ads didn't have any specifics, just said what a great guy he was.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not. To be responsible for something is precisely to be answerable for it.
This is the kind of BS which people come up with in order to neuter rights. Free speech does not come with any such duty; if it came with that duty, it would not be free.
The general formula demostrates this quite clearly: "You have the right to X. You have the corresponding duty to only do X in the ways we approve."
All that will do is get law enforcement after the vigilantes. Law enforcement is much more concerned with effective competition than they are with ordinary lawbreakers, so they won't stop botnet-building spammers but they will come down hard on vigilantes.
So, don't do that. Instead of shutting down the machines, take them over. And take precautions against anyone taking them back. Set up Bittorrent seeds for pirated films on them, if you like, and watch the MPAA go after the zombie owners. If you just look like another criminal, you probably won't get much attention from law enforcement.
(disclaimer: the above is a hypothetical scenario. Actually trying to pull it off may result in arrest, hospital time, or death depending on who gets to you first).
I'm rather certain Jefferson was not referring to government-mandated community service by that, but rather violent revolution. He was a bit of a firebrand before he became President. You should see some of the stuff he'd written earlier about the British.
Exactly. And the best part of this is you can just make up the first number (be sure to include a lot of ass-pulled estimates in the "calculation") in order to make the total what your boss wants it to be. He'll know you're doing it, but he'll accept it anyway because that's what HIS boss wants. Welcome to the business world.
Why don't you found a 501(c)(3) corporation to work for the banning of such groups?
I think they're actually drawing from Orwell's original -- "Freedom is Slavery" (Bush, of course, was much more fond of the other two Ingsoc slogans -- "War is Peace" and especially "Ignorance is Strength").
They're nondischargable in bankruptcy, so the only way out of them is paying them off or committing suicide.
Who would have thought that a black man would be in favor of involuntary servitude?
I see a slightly different version of that paragraph on Obama's site (quoted above) That does not bode at all well. Looks like Obama is firmly on the side of the xxAAs.
Oh, I can see where THAT one is going: The Homer Automobile
Your summary of the proof of the non-computability of the halting problem is not right; the answer to whether the theoetical halting program itself halts; it's "true" for all inputs. You need a diagonalization proof. You construct a goofy program takes as input another program, returns false and halts if that program returns "false" using itself as an input, otherwise it loops forever. Then you ask the halting program if the goofy program halts on the halting program. That leads to a contradiction; the only way the goofy program halts on the halting program is if the halting program returns false, and the halting program by definition can't return false ("does not halt") when executed on itself.
None of this has anything to do with using a computer to assist in formal mathematical proofs, however.
The Church-Turing thesis states that there isn't any computing device more powerful than a turing machine. It's unproven, however. Also, a google search for "more powerful than a turing machine" brings up a claim that a "real valued neural network" (that is, a neural network where the weights can take on any real-numbered value rather than rational-numbered value) is more powerful than a Turing machine. I assume this claim is not widely accepted, or Church-Turing would be considered refuted.
Sure, we'll stop right after we stop the jokes about lawyers being unethical, plumbers showing way too much buttcrack, politicians lying, and sharks wearing frickin' lasers. (OK, that last one may not fit in)
Widely held misconception. A digital ATSC channel takes up 6MHz, same as an analog NTSC channel.
seems to me that having a cloak showing a "complementary object" is only going to work if the original object doesn't destroy information about the background. If it does, the object is going to show via the distortion of the background.
I run one called "man_in_the_middle". Best pay attention to those certificate warnings when you're using it.
Funny, Belkin still seems to be around.
Pretty much no doubt the NAB is going to sue over this, right?
This particular interface has enough space between active areas to avoid that, but actually hitting the part of the button which is actually active is a problem for the same reason.
I find the second counterintuitive, but the first not so. Perhaps the article-writers intended for the first to be "interesting" and the second "counter-intuitive", but to be fair to the summary-writer, it's not that clear.
My bank recently replaced their Diebold ATMs with NCR ATMs. I have to give the devil his due -- the Diebold ATMs were easier to use and faster. The NCR ATMs have a combination touch-screen and keypad interface with a horrible-feeling keypad and odd points in which you have to switch from screen to keypad and back.
Wow. That's some universe you live in, where the Wal-Mart security personnel are not only competent, but responsive to things that aren't obviously shoplifting.
It's not counter-intuitive at all that adding noise to a channel can increase its steganographic capacity, since steganographic data can look like noise.
No, not Bush. Just the campaign. I voted against one Republican candidate (not for President, for state senate) precisely because I was constantly getting campaign ads from him; frequently two a day in the mail, and often some stuck on my door. It was just too much. Also the ads didn't have any specifics, just said what a great guy he was.