No. You don't understand their logic. Nothing will work on them. They can always say that you staged it all for them. That you tricked their senses. Etc. Always! ^^
The problem here is, that their indicator of trust is defective. Which does not surprise me at all, considering how much you can get tricked by assholes, scammers, partners, the government, companies, etc. So you have to work on fixing that indicator, if you really want them to believe it.:)
Of course, you have no right to do this, without their consent. And doing without asking them, actually proves their view of not trusting you. ^^
So you have to
1. Win their trust. Really. Deeply. 2. Use this trust to get their consent, to fix the indicator, in case it were wrong. 3. Fix the indicator. Only then can you finally show them what you call proof, and expect them to believe it.:)
This raises a philosophical question: You can't really call it proof, if you have to believe in it, instead of knowing it, can you? (As I said in my other post, there is no thing that you can have proof of. It can all be imaginary, a hallucination, or the whole world stating something wrong. So we have to just trust some things.)
We must face it: We pretty much have no proof for anything at all. We can only be as sure as we trust your sources, trust our sources to trust their sources, and even truest our own senses.
How many things have you actually checked for yourself? And at how many of those can you be sure that nobody manipulated/tricked your senses?
Hell, we can't even prove, that anything except ourself exists. (It could all be a product of our own imagination. And for some people with schizophrenia this sadly really is the case.)
So in the end, we should learn how to properly handle trust relationships, shouldn't we?
So all in all, we have a Beowulf cluster of Linux-driven cars that form a moon, which explains why it's not a real moon. And it is protected by space-sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads. But we do not know it, because we never were there? And in Soviet Russia, that "moon" never was on YOU? It only was IN the Goatse guy, who at that time had a relationship with Natalie Portman, and so "poured" an insensitive clod of hot grits over her. But we, for one, would welcome them, just as Natalie welcomed the hot grits?
Bah. In Korea, only old people and CowboyNeal would believe that, you insensitive clod!
Oh, I get it. This scam-site is a NetworkSolutions site. Apparently they intercept some sites, and show ads in-between them. There is a link on the scam site, taking me to this "explanation": http://js.kolmic.com/underconstructionnotice.php?d=Wowwee.com
I just now got to that site from WowWee's OWN link on its OWN page, linking to THE SAME domain. WTF? What a bunch of asshats (NetworkSolutions)!
I wonder, why the "wings" flap horizontally instead of vertically. Looks like except for the flapping part, it has nothing to do with how birds fly, but instead is just using uplift like traditional plane wings, but moves the wings quickly trough air for an added effect. This thing could not glide for example.
I am seated in the smallest room in my house. I have your review in front of me, and very soon it will be behind me.
Answer: I am also seated in the smallest room in my house. I have your book's pages in front of me, and very soon they will be behind me.
Realization: Hey, Tweets have the perfect size to be printed on one sheet of toilet paper. I think I have a business idea! *runs to venture capitalist*
Yeah. We "younger" people know, that our beloved ICQ or SMS, are just what Twitter is, if you put the log file of the IM client up on the net for everyone to "subscribe". And we also know that it is pointless, except for karma whores.
Oh damn. I just noticed that I read trough the whole comment, previewed it, and STIL missed that the <pre> tags around the second paragraph did not get trough, and that I wrote AEO instead of AES.
It makes my penis go from A to Z on an US keyboard, when I think about this.;) . . .:(
So in the most basic words: AEO just now got 512 times simpler to crack. And they say they they will get it down to 262144 times simpler than it originally had been. (262144 = 512 * 512) Which would be a huge improvement. But still, as you can see from the number behind the 2^110, it would be an incredibly large number of tries before you tried all combinations to this "lock".:)
Now if you wanted to know how long, you would have to multiply that huge number by the time it takes your target computer system, to try one key, and check if it worked. The only thing that would "help" here, were rainbow tables. But they would be so large, that we could not store them on this planet, or even solar system alone (from what I heard about the number of atoms being in it).
Now you might start to get a feeling for its security, even if you know nothing about cryptography at all.:)
Well, if your data is more important than your life, just use an encrypted keyfile on a USB stick, and destroy that stick on capture. Then even you won't be able to decrypt the data.
It's called a "package manager". (Woooh! What a newfangled term! back in the days, we didn't have that! And we still wore an onion on our belt, as it was the style at the time.)
Well, I would want to try that in reality. BUT, only if it does not hurt anybody! That is the key, isn't it?
It's the only reason why murder is bad. Because it hurts somebody we care about. (Even if it is ourself because someone who cared about him will hurt us.)
And, oh imagine that, for pretty much any life and all times of this planet, except for "modern" humans, killing is part of daily life. You have to do it to survive. To eat. To not be attacked. Etc. No wonder we are used to it, and the natural default is that it's OK, as long as nobody important (you know how I mean this, so no need to attack me for misunderstanding it) is hurt.
By the way: Playing is also a preparation for real life. Why do dog puppies fight each other? To train for it. One could say, we train for war, or bad times.
Whatever... As long as nobody is hurt, who is anybody to say what you can do and what not? Controlling people that way would be the real crime here. It would actually hurt people. (Not that much, but it would take much fun and freedom away. Which is very important to human sanity.)
...the rule is clear: 1. Everything is allowed. 2. Except if it hurts someone. 3. What hurts, is relative, and defined differently for everyone. 4. To work as a team/society, you, in advance, agree upon a set of rules for what is defined as hurting someone. This is called the "law".
So the descision about "virtual murder" is also clear: Absolutely nobody gets hurt by it. There is no link between killing in games and killing in real life. Statistically, you could even say, that there is a link between killing in games, and not killing in real life. (In Germany, there is roughly a likeliness of 1 in 32 million of a player of such a game going on a killing spree (German Blog.) It's not much different elsewhere.) So one could build on that, and argue that those who want to stop those games, want more killings to happen. But I will not. ^^ I'm just saying...
What I'm asking myself now, is what advantage anyone could gain from banning those games? The votes of badly informed people? Or is it, because that person is badly informed itself? The only one who got hurt by the sale of the games, is the music industry. I'm not kidding you. Here is the chart: http://11k2.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/090612games-music-dvds.png People just don't have the money for both.
Now I could of course wildly speculate about a link...;) But I think I will not go down to that level. I leave that to others.
Wait until 2012. Then Wine will be able to do that, and support pretty much everything in XP.:)
(Please, Wine team, make this happen! It would give you all those that want to stay with XP and walk another way than Microsoft wants them to. Especially huge inert/inflexible companies with thousands of computers.)
Hey, we should do it like them, and simply add any copy of any Linux distribution ever into one big number, for the most successful OS *ever*. I recommend also counting all updates via the (emerge --sync|apt-get update|portsnap fetch update|yum update|...) commands. ^^
Slashdot Mirror
No. You don't understand their logic. Nothing will work on them. They can always say that you staged it all for them. That you tricked their senses. Etc. Always! ^^
The problem here is, that their indicator of trust is defective. Which does not surprise me at all, considering how much you can get tricked by assholes, scammers, partners, the government, companies, etc. :)
So you have to work on fixing that indicator, if you really want them to believe it.
Of course, you have no right to do this, without their consent. And doing without asking them, actually proves their view of not trusting you. ^^
So you have to
1. Win their trust. Really. Deeply. :)
2. Use this trust to get their consent, to fix the indicator, in case it were wrong.
3. Fix the indicator.
Only then can you finally show them what you call proof, and expect them to believe it.
This raises a philosophical question: You can't really call it proof, if you have to believe in it, instead of knowing it, can you?
(As I said in my other post, there is no thing that you can have proof of. It can all be imaginary, a hallucination, or the whole world stating something wrong. So we have to just trust some things.)
We must face it: We pretty much have no proof for anything at all. We can only be as sure as we trust your sources, trust our sources to trust their sources, and even truest our own senses.
How many things have you actually checked for yourself?
And at how many of those can you be sure that nobody manipulated/tricked your senses?
Hell, we can't even prove, that anything except ourself exists. (It could all be a product of our own imagination. And for some people with schizophrenia this sadly really is the case.)
So in the end, we should learn how to properly handle trust relationships, shouldn't we?
Oh noes, dawg, I forgot that of course the grits accidentially in her base, forming babby. So Goatse now can pour hot grits while he pours hot grits.
So all in all, we have a Beowulf cluster of Linux-driven cars that form a moon, which explains why it's not a real moon. And it is protected by space-sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads. But we do not know it, because we never were there?
And in Soviet Russia, that "moon" never was on YOU? It only was IN the Goatse guy, who at that time had a relationship with Natalie Portman, and so "poured" an insensitive clod of hot grits over her. But we, for one, would welcome them, just as Natalie welcomed the hot grits?
Bah. In Korea, only old people and CowboyNeal would believe that, you insensitive clod!
How much combo points do I ge%!$*%& [NO CARRIER]
Oh, I get it. This scam-site is a NetworkSolutions site. Apparently they intercept some sites, and show ads in-between them. There is a link on the scam site, taking me to this "explanation": http://js.kolmic.com/underconstructionnotice.php?d=Wowwee.com
I just now got to that site from WowWee's OWN link on its OWN page, linking to THE SAME domain. WTF?
What a bunch of asshats (NetworkSolutions)!
Wait, I'm wrong too. Somehow your link took me to a scam site for no reason. Damn, I hope I don't have a man-in-the-middle! That would be very bad.
There is a w too much in your link. The site is called "wowee.com". "wowwee.com" is a scam / domain squatter site.
Nope. As you can see, the wings flap horizontally, which means it is a completely different concept, from what birds do.
I wonder, why the "wings" flap horizontally instead of vertically. Looks like except for the flapping part, it has nothing to do with how birds fly, but instead is just using uplift like traditional plane wings, but moves the wings quickly trough air for an added effect. This thing could not glide for example.
I am seated in the smallest room in my house. I have your review in front of me, and very soon it will be behind me.
Answer: I am also seated in the smallest room in my house. I have your book's pages in front of me, and very soon they will be behind me.
Realization: Hey, Tweets have the perfect size to be printed on one sheet of toilet paper. I think I have a business idea! *runs to venture capitalist*
Yeah. We "younger" people know, that our beloved ICQ or SMS, are just what Twitter is, if you put the log file of the IM client up on the net for everyone to "subscribe".
And we also know that it is pointless, except for karma whores.
Oh damn. I just noticed that I read trough the whole comment, previewed it, and STIL missed that the <pre> tags around the second paragraph did not get trough, and that I wrote AEO instead of AES.
It makes my penis go from A to Z on an US keyboard, when I think about this. ;) :(
.
.
.
Just for you binary noobs without a calculator out there:
2^128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 = ~ 3,4028237 * 10^38 = ~ 340282.4 decillion
2^119 = 664,613,997,892,457,936,451,903,530,140,172,288 = ~ 6.64614 * 10^35 = ~ 664.6 decillion
2^110 = 1,298,074,214,633,706,907,132,624,082,305,024 = ~ 1.2980742 * 10^33 = ~ 1.3 decillion
So in the most basic words: AEO just now got 512 times simpler to crack. And they say they they will get it down to 262144 times simpler than it originally had been. (262144 = 512 * 512) :)
Which would be a huge improvement. But still, as you can see from the number behind the 2^110, it would be an incredibly large number of tries before you tried all combinations to this "lock".
Now if you wanted to know how long, you would have to multiply that huge number by the time it takes your target computer system, to try one key, and check if it worked.
The only thing that would "help" here, were rainbow tables. But they would be so large, that we could not store them on this planet, or even solar system alone (from what I heard about the number of atoms being in it).
Now you might start to get a feeling for its security, even if you know nothing about cryptography at all. :)
Well, if your data is more important than your life, just use an encrypted keyfile on a USB stick, and destroy that stick on capture. Then even you won't be able to decrypt the data.
It's called a "package manager". (Woooh! What a newfangled term! back in the days, we didn't have that! And we still wore an onion on our belt, as it was the style at the time.)
This has nothing to do with the rights of the artists. It's purely about the copyright.
May they live forever, only wishing they could finally die from the horrors.
Uuum... Have you ever tried this: http://btjunkie.org/search?q=any-dvd
I'm just sayin'...
The time of real media that you can hold in your hand is over anyway. I only watch what comes as a file. :)
Why, they all are compatible to every hdd, and work wonderfully. As long as you have ffmpeg (or ffdshow) installed. ^^
Actually, it never was.
It's one of those things that are like the hairstyles and clothes of the 80s. We will some day wonder, why people bought them. :)
Well, I would want to try that in reality. BUT, only if it does not hurt anybody!
That is the key, isn't it?
It's the only reason why murder is bad. Because it hurts somebody we care about. (Even if it is ourself because someone who cared about him will hurt us.)
And, oh imagine that, for pretty much any life and all times of this planet, except for "modern" humans, killing is part of daily life. You have to do it to survive. To eat. To not be attacked. Etc.
No wonder we are used to it, and the natural default is that it's OK, as long as nobody important (you know how I mean this, so no need to attack me for misunderstanding it) is hurt.
By the way: Playing is also a preparation for real life. Why do dog puppies fight each other? To train for it. One could say, we train for war, or bad times.
Whatever... As long as nobody is hurt, who is anybody to say what you can do and what not? Controlling people that way would be the real crime here. It would actually hurt people. (Not that much, but it would take much fun and freedom away. Which is very important to human sanity.)
...the rule is clear:
1. Everything is allowed.
2. Except if it hurts someone.
3. What hurts, is relative, and defined differently for everyone.
4. To work as a team/society, you, in advance, agree upon a set of rules for what is defined as hurting someone. This is called the "law".
So the descision about "virtual murder" is also clear:
Absolutely nobody gets hurt by it. There is no link between killing in games and killing in real life.
Statistically, you could even say, that there is a link between killing in games, and not killing in real life.
(In Germany, there is roughly a likeliness of 1 in 32 million of a player of such a game going on a killing spree (German Blog.) It's not much different elsewhere.)
So one could build on that, and argue that those who want to stop those games, want more killings to happen.
But I will not. ^^ I'm just saying...
What I'm asking myself now, is what advantage anyone could gain from banning those games? The votes of badly informed people? Or is it, because that person is badly informed itself?
The only one who got hurt by the sale of the games, is the music industry. I'm not kidding you. Here is the chart: http://11k2.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/090612games-music-dvds.png
People just don't have the money for both.
Now I could of course wildly speculate about a link... ;)
But I think I will not go down to that level. I leave that to others.
Wait until 2012. Then Wine will be able to do that, and support pretty much everything in XP. :)
(Please, Wine team, make this happen! It would give you all those that want to stay with XP and walk another way than Microsoft wants them to. Especially huge inert/inflexible companies with thousands of computers.)
Hey, we should do it like them, and simply add any copy of any Linux distribution ever into one big number, for the most successful OS *ever*.
I recommend also counting all updates via the (emerge --sync|apt-get update|portsnap fetch update|yum update|...) commands. ^^