Capitalism as an econmonic system has existed since the beginning of writing. There are price records for ancient Sumerian and Assyrian markets that date back to around 2500 BC (or close if I remember the dates of the first records found near the northern part of the Tigres) The offical economies were fixed price barter economies. independent monitary mediums did not exist until coins were used in Lydia around 900 BC. The price records show inflation due to declining supply of certain goods, something that should not happen in a fixed price economy. The capitalistic law of supply and demand is the basis for EVERY economic system in history. I hate to break it to you, but that is how the evidence we have shows it. You should note that I am not at all advocating pure capitalism as a political structure as Ayn Rand does.
I hate those bastards that use anything other than pdf and doc formats. how dare them. (Note sarcasm) Copyrights now are just a political way to structure our economy. With the advent of personal computing and the ability of anyone to make virtually free copies of any piece of information the supply of any piece of information will always match the demand. We are now entering the information age where most information will be free in both the political and economic sense, no matter what kinds of protections governments try to enforce. We have entered an age where anyone and everyone can publish information to the entire world. Changes in how information is distributed can controlled cause massive changes in societies. The first western information revolution started when Martin Luther nailed the 95 thesis to a church door. These ideas spread like wildfire throughout europe. These ideas of freedom from complete control and religious freedom eventually led to the constitution of the US. Now we have reached a new technological level concerning information. Now everyone can publish, not just those with economic power. The changes in the next century will be drastic, sorry to those who continue to think they can control information but it doesn't work anymore.
First off, why the hell do we still keep nuclear info secret. The only institutions with enough money to build them can just buy former Soviet scientists to give them a hand. The fact that Americans think we are sooooo far ahead technologically is absurd. Yes, much innovation does take place here, but innovation takes place in other countries as well. Secondly, any terrorists interested in terrorizing the us would not use nuclear devices. They cost far more than just as harmful biological weapons, some of which you can order from US biological supply stores (Bubonic plague in NY water supply would have HUGE terror effects) The posts about Clinton being the incarnation of evil are just stupid and dont even deserve a response. There are a couple posts about crypto weakness up above, please read some fucking math books before you comment on crypto. Everyone seems real worried about terrorists getting our secrets and killing us. Maybe if we, as a Nation, addressed the reasons of why other nations hate us we wouldnt have such problems. Very few people hate America for no reason. We are pretty much HUGE assholes on the world political scene. Its a wonder we are still alive and havent been killed yet. All out wars between developed nations do not seem likely anymore either. In the past a nation could expand its economy (and the leaders personal wealth) very cost effectively by taking over land. It seems now that our modern economy makes it far more effective to engage in free-market business practices than to wage a war to make money. Recent exception: oil in the mid-east. Not to many nations with developed economies though will wage an all out war at this point though. Suggestion: the US stop being international dicks and maybe help other countries fairly and openly (no more of this israel unquestionably good, arab unquestionably bad shit). Rant over, flame away.
The advances in technology that have resulted in the internet will make fundamental changes in society. Now everyone can publish whatever they want for free. Before one had to have a considerable amount of capital in order to start a publishing company. This resulted in the control of information by a few people. Now information can no longer be controlled by anyone, a very fundamental change. One way to look at this result is to see it as a change in the levels of communication available to society at general. It used to be that we had person to mass communication in that one person, or group, could talk to everyone. Now we have mass to mass communication where everyone can talk to everyone, a drastic change. Everytime in history that there has been a change in the levels of communication available to a society there have been tremendous upheavels. Just ask the Catholic Church about the printing press.
If I was capable of breakthroughs like what would be necessary, I would much rather have a chance at a Fields Metal than any salary offered by the NSA. If you are that smart, you know it.
Most biometric systems seem extremely hard to fool. Take Iris scans for instance. Most that I have seen check the iris pattern multiple times. each time they check, they make sure the iris has changed size (your iris changes size continuously) and changed position in relation to your face. Many also check for heat signatures. I cannont think of a way to fake this. pictures would not work. contacts with and iris pattern painted on would not work (size checks would prevent this), and dead bodies held in front of the camera would not work. The only way to comprimise this is kidnapping, but then if they are willing to go to that extreme the security of the system doesnt matter.
Yes it is possible that the NSA can decode most or all encryption schemes in common use today. It is, however, extremely unlikely. The advances in mathematics that seem to be needed for this are WAY to big to be all thought of in one institution. And I think that many of the mathematicians capable of such breakthroughs probably dont give a shit about national security, etc, they probably care more about the beauty of mathematics than anything else. There are probably not too many people capable of such breakthroughs, and why the hell would they all be working for the NSA.
Too bad there aren't more algebraic topologists to help give the physists some tools to work with. If you want to get into this from a mathematical standpoint do algebraic topology. If your university doesnt have anyone doing alg. top. find algebraists and see them.
There are a number of books, small and large, about geometric projections. Go to an art library or a science library at your local univeristy and get the librarians to find you some. It takes some work to actually get the idea (you end up talking about points at infinity and stuff like that, if you are interested in elliptic curves you would need this too:) and a bit of drawing on paper. Unfortuneately most college grads in mathematics never get to this stuff either. You would need to take non-euclidean geometry, elliptic curve theory, or a topology of surfaces class (rare to find that one now a days). Hope that points you in a direction to finding some information. Projections are pretty when you understand them.
PS on paper you will be projecting 4 to 2 dimensions which makes it even harder to abstract at first.
No it is not possible to *prove* a scientific theory. It is only possible to create a theory that fits empirical evidence, and then search for more evidence that supports or does not support it. Proof only exists in mathematics.
This is crap. There are tons of problems out there N != NP sounds like an interesting one. Solution could possible add tons to operations. Only MS innovates?!?!??!!?? I consider the napster idea innovative. Freenet. Research is always going on and is always important. As I recall mathematicians have always said things like this, usually right before mathematical theory is pushed forward at astounding rates. It surprises me that anyone here would even pay attention to crap like this.
Could the ISP get their ISP to place a restriction on the number and size of packets comming to each ip address that the first ISP owns? I would think that would not allow DDoS (at the backbone level). Of course it would be a restriction on bandwidth.
Yes, large numbers of people set their own moral standards for their society. There is an arguement for inalienable human rights though. The problem with those rights is that not everyone respects them so one must continually defend them. Socially, you are probably right; morals are set by the majority (or louder minority), but it pleases me to think there are innate rights (from which morals like dont kill others come from) that every human has.
Yes you can sue them for slander or libel (not really clear if IRC etc is publishing or talking). You would have to go a long way to prove that it was defaimation though. And it is not really cussing, they have to make untrue accusations in front of others with intent to harm your reputation. The implications of this case though are rediculous, that one can be imprisioned for protected speach.
If every agency of government limited itself to Constitutional acts, there would be no need for a judiciary to review them.
Not everything is defined in the constitution. Decisions still need to be made and the Constitution refined. If there was no judicial review civil rights would never have been an issue. thankfully the constitution is continually challenged and strengthed.
Jailing people for unproven libel??? What does that teach kids? that they dont have free speech protections? The only reason print has been held to a higher 'moral' (who's morals anyway?) is because publishing cost has been prohibitive to most people. Now its not. The internet is not lawless at all. In this case though, it appears, that the state acted unlawfully (imagine that:). I hope you never teach my children, you are ignorant (sue me bitch, I defamed you)
Hmmm, there are exceptions to free speech yes. Like you cant endanger national security, or you cant put large numbers of people in immediate danger, and a couple others. But unforetuneately for you, sucker, these are not in the amendment. (I just called you a sucker, sue me if you dont think I have the right to say that:) The right to speak the truth freely (and anonymously) is protected though.
where did you learn logic. given a set of axioms one can prove certain statements true or false. sounds like, given a set of axioms you can prove a negative.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism as an econmonic system has existed since the beginning of writing. There are price records for ancient Sumerian and Assyrian markets that date back to around 2500 BC (or close if I remember the dates of the first records found near the northern part of the Tigres) The offical economies were fixed price barter economies. independent monitary mediums did not exist until coins were used in Lydia around 900 BC. The price records show inflation due to declining supply of certain goods, something that should not happen in a fixed price economy. The capitalistic law of supply and demand is the basis for EVERY economic system in history. I hate to break it to you, but that is how the evidence we have shows it. You should note that I am not at all advocating pure capitalism as a political structure as Ayn Rand does.
I hate those bastards that use anything other than pdf and doc formats. how dare them. (Note sarcasm) Copyrights now are just a political way to structure our economy. With the advent of personal computing and the ability of anyone to make virtually free copies of any piece of information the supply of any piece of information will always match the demand. We are now entering the information age where most information will be free in both the political and economic sense, no matter what kinds of protections governments try to enforce. We have entered an age where anyone and everyone can publish information to the entire world. Changes in how information is distributed can controlled cause massive changes in societies. The first western information revolution started when Martin Luther nailed the 95 thesis to a church door. These ideas spread like wildfire throughout europe. These ideas of freedom from complete control and religious freedom eventually led to the constitution of the US. Now we have reached a new technological level concerning information. Now everyone can publish, not just those with economic power. The changes in the next century will be drastic, sorry to those who continue to think they can control information but it doesn't work anymore.
First off, why the hell do we still keep nuclear info secret. The only institutions with enough money to build them can just buy former Soviet scientists to give them a hand. The fact that Americans think we are sooooo far ahead technologically is absurd. Yes, much innovation does take place here, but innovation takes place in other countries as well. Secondly, any terrorists interested in terrorizing the us would not use nuclear devices. They cost far more than just as harmful biological weapons, some of which you can order from US biological supply stores (Bubonic plague in NY water supply would have HUGE terror effects) The posts about Clinton being the incarnation of evil are just stupid and dont even deserve a response. There are a couple posts about crypto weakness up above, please read some fucking math books before you comment on crypto. Everyone seems real worried about terrorists getting our secrets and killing us. Maybe if we, as a Nation, addressed the reasons of why other nations hate us we wouldnt have such problems. Very few people hate America for no reason. We are pretty much HUGE assholes on the world political scene. Its a wonder we are still alive and havent been killed yet. All out wars between developed nations do not seem likely anymore either. In the past a nation could expand its economy (and the leaders personal wealth) very cost effectively by taking over land. It seems now that our modern economy makes it far more effective to engage in free-market business practices than to wage a war to make money. Recent exception: oil in the mid-east. Not to many nations with developed economies though will wage an all out war at this point though. Suggestion: the US stop being international dicks and maybe help other countries fairly and openly (no more of this israel unquestionably good, arab unquestionably bad shit). Rant over, flame away.
The advances in technology that have resulted in the internet will make fundamental changes in society. Now everyone can publish whatever they want for free. Before one had to have a considerable amount of capital in order to start a publishing company. This resulted in the control of information by a few people. Now information can no longer be controlled by anyone, a very fundamental change. One way to look at this result is to see it as a change in the levels of communication available to society at general. It used to be that we had person to mass communication in that one person, or group, could talk to everyone. Now we have mass to mass communication where everyone can talk to everyone, a drastic change. Everytime in history that there has been a change in the levels of communication available to a society there have been tremendous upheavels. Just ask the Catholic Church about the printing press.
If I was capable of breakthroughs like what would be necessary, I would much rather have a chance at a Fields Metal than any salary offered by the NSA. If you are that smart, you know it.
Most biometric systems seem extremely hard to fool. Take Iris scans for instance. Most that I have seen check the iris pattern multiple times. each time they check, they make sure the iris has changed size (your iris changes size continuously) and changed position in relation to your face. Many also check for heat signatures. I cannont think of a way to fake this. pictures would not work. contacts with and iris pattern painted on would not work (size checks would prevent this), and dead bodies held in front of the camera would not work. The only way to comprimise this is kidnapping, but then if they are willing to go to that extreme the security of the system doesnt matter.
Yes it is possible that the NSA can decode most or all encryption schemes in common use today. It is, however, extremely unlikely. The advances in mathematics that seem to be needed for this are WAY to big to be all thought of in one institution. And I think that many of the mathematicians capable of such breakthroughs probably dont give a shit about national security, etc, they probably care more about the beauty of mathematics than anything else. There are probably not too many people capable of such breakthroughs, and why the hell would they all be working for the NSA.
No mention of Everquest, the most addictive game in the world.
Too bad there aren't more algebraic topologists to help give the physists some tools to work with. If you want to get into this from a mathematical standpoint do algebraic topology. If your university doesnt have anyone doing alg. top. find algebraists and see them.
There are a number of books, small and large, about geometric projections. Go to an art library or a science library at your local univeristy and get the librarians to find you some. It takes some work to actually get the idea (you end up talking about points at infinity and stuff like that, if you are interested in elliptic curves you would need this too :) and a bit of drawing on paper. Unfortuneately most college grads in mathematics never get to this stuff either. You would need to take non-euclidean geometry, elliptic curve theory, or a topology of surfaces class (rare to find that one now a days). Hope that points you in a direction to finding some information. Projections are pretty when you understand them.
PS on paper you will be projecting 4 to 2 dimensions which makes it even harder to abstract at first.
No, you just find evidence to support or not support the theory. There is no logical proof because there are no axioms to derive anything from.
No it is not possible to *prove* a scientific theory. It is only possible to create a theory that fits empirical evidence, and then search for more evidence that supports or does not support it. Proof only exists in mathematics.
This is crap. There are tons of problems out there N != NP sounds like an interesting one. Solution could possible add tons to operations. Only MS innovates?!?!??!!?? I consider the napster idea innovative. Freenet. Research is always going on and is always important. As I recall mathematicians have always said things like this, usually right before mathematical theory is pushed forward at astounding rates. It surprises me that anyone here would even pay attention to crap like this.
Could the ISP get their ISP to place a restriction on the number and size of packets comming to each ip address that the first ISP owns? I would think that would not allow DDoS (at the backbone level). Of course it would be a restriction on bandwidth.
Yes, large numbers of people set their own moral standards for their society. There is an arguement for inalienable human rights though. The problem with those rights is that not everyone respects them so one must continually defend them. Socially, you are probably right; morals are set by the majority (or louder minority), but it pleases me to think there are innate rights (from which morals like dont kill others come from) that every human has.
Is this a troll are are you just fucking stupid? I think you are just stupid (sue me I defamed you)
the unfortuneate part is that other kids grow up in buttwipe land. I truely feel sorry for them.
TRUTH IS A DEFENSE fucknut (sue me I defaimed you)
Yes you can sue them for slander or libel (not really clear if IRC etc is publishing or talking). You would have to go a long way to prove that it was defaimation though. And it is not really cussing, they have to make untrue accusations in front of others with intent to harm your reputation. The implications of this case though are rediculous, that one can be imprisioned for protected speach.
If every agency of government limited itself to Constitutional acts, there would be no need for a judiciary to review them.
Not everything is defined in the constitution. Decisions still need to be made and the Constitution refined. If there was no judicial review civil rights would never have been an issue. thankfully the constitution is continually challenged and strengthed.
Calling the cops is not the first step in a CIVIL case fucknut (sue me I defamed you)
Jailing people for unproven libel??? What does that teach kids? that they dont have free speech protections? The only reason print has been held to a higher 'moral' (who's morals anyway?) is because publishing cost has been prohibitive to most people. Now its not. The internet is not lawless at all. In this case though, it appears, that the state acted unlawfully (imagine that :). I hope you never teach my children, you are ignorant (sue me bitch, I defamed you)
No truth is a proper defense. well and defaimation is not criminal, but civil so you cant go to jail anyway.
Hmmm, there are exceptions to free speech yes. Like you cant endanger national security, or you cant put large numbers of people in immediate danger, and a couple others. But unforetuneately for you, sucker, these are not in the amendment. (I just called you a sucker, sue me if you dont think I have the right to say that :) The right to speak the truth freely (and anonymously) is protected though.
where did you learn logic. given a set of axioms one can prove certain statements true or false. sounds like, given a set of axioms you can prove a negative.