The president could, during a scheduled speech, ask people never to buy anything advertised with unsolicited email. He could talk about several ways such email is dishonest.
Please say spam when you say dishonest. For spam is spam because of dishonesy and not because it is advertising nor because it is unsolicited. The problem with spam is that it treats a peer-to-peer network like the Internet as a mass medium, sending out messages indiscriminately, while often making making it hard to track the actual sender or, ironically, even the company advertising.
If the sender can be established and the message is catered to the right audience (e.g. not treating people's INBOX as a mass medium), the unsolicited part becomes irrelevant.
SPF aids the first bit because it prevents forgeries. It battles dishonesty, not unsolicited emails. In fact, the ability to verify the sender will make it more like you'll accept unsolicited e-mail from some parties because you can easily establish whether they can be trusted. SPF aids honest unsolicited email, and that's a good thing, for the Internet depends on it.
Temperatures might rise despite emission reduction. Dykes would at least solve part of that problem, alternative energy sources would not. I'm actually a huge fan of the ITER project - don't conclude I'm anti-clean energy just because I am skeptic about global warming as currently defined.
That's exactly the point: consensus is not proof, so science must disregard it. There used to be consensus that the earth was flat. That didn't make the claim scientific. There is consensus amongst the world population that there is some sort of devine being. That's not science either.
See, science depends on falsifiable theories. Mere consensus has never falsified the impact of, for example, sunspots. Moaning about the source of theories is meaningless because it is equally naive to suggest that climate scientists do not have their own agendas, including securing (more) funding.
It's simple: the global warming theory fails to explain temperatures in the middle ages and cannot falsify theories which include alternative causes of climate change. And it has led to proposed solutions which solve only a fraction of the problem even if global warming is indeed 100% man-made. And even a smaller fraction when it turns out to be incorrect.
Worst of all is, you claim I have a preconceived view while I actually keep all options open. It is the global warming crowd who shuts down every single alternative viewpoint. I do not even deny that man contributes to climate change. I'm just saying that as long as we're not entirely sure about our role, we should invest in more research and ways to protect us against change instead of taking a single-minded risk by focusing on one viewpoint which might ignore several other factors.
By the way: I don't care much for FOX and would not be even if they were broadcasting here in Europe.
I get the point! We should have more pirates! Or even better, more people should read Michael Crichton's aliens cause global warming and discover the difference between correlation, consensus and actual science.
No one is saying the climate is not changing, criticism of the global warming theory raises uncertainty about the actual cause. Until that uncertainty has been eliminated, I'd rather invest in science and protection against rising sea levels and extreme weather (such as the Dutch Delta works) than investments in cleaner fossil fuels (Kyoto) which will only cause fossil fuels to be used for a longer time because industries won't reach their ROI for another few decades.
It might very well make it okay when informing the Chinese people helps to bring forth change. They might begin to ask themselves why exactly things are being censored.
Pure speculation, I know, but it might have positive consequences.
In my opinion there really isn't a big difference though. People are sheep here as well and media control is much more singular in Europe than many are aware of.
Any suspension of democracy to the extent you describe would definitely not be tolerated by US citizens, nor by present US allies, even in the case of such an attack.
When it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq, it's also very easy to cherry-pick bad news. Major parts of each country are actually quiet and have not seen any kind of hostile action for years now.
Was opposition to Hitler in 1933 near 49%? I'd have to check on that, but that's probably hard to say because people weren't as vocal nor had the ability to communicate as we have these days.
Either way.. I suspect there will be elections in the US in 2008 and that none of the above will come true.
What's your definition of getting pretty fucking close? As far as I know no elections were cancelled in the US and I recall that some were actually added to the world of politics in those so-called conquered nations.
There are perfectly fine reasons to be concerned about a numbr of policies of the Bush administration, including foreign operations, but my thumb of rule is that in a country where 49% cries fascism and walks freely, there is very little of it.
Europeans don't hate ordinary American people as such. But it's not ordinary American people who are running the show. Most ordinary American people don't even know or understand what their government are doing, including (especially) most the ones who think they *do* know. The only problem we have with (some) ordinary Americans is their slavish tendency to believe whatever line of bullshit they are fed by the political and corporate establishment on Fox and CNN and disbelieve everybody else.
Very well said, we Europeans don't hate Americans, we just think ourselves superior. Must be some sort of slavish tendency to believe whatever line of bullshit we are fed by government-run, left-wing channels such as the BBC, NOS, et cetera.
I wouldn't even assume human life could be sustained in this alternative dimension. Though maybe with major advances in robotics we could make use of it to prepare remote habitats somewhere. (Ignoring the fact that unproven theoretical babble engines are not at all Warp engines in development.)
Well of course, it depends on how you use your devices. I frequent gigs and often take some pictures of the band or with people I meet, exchanging those immediately by Bluetooth is so amazingly convenient.. I do however indeed use USB to transfer them to my laptop, although I can also immediately upload them to my website using MMS.
Battery drain bothers me not, I didn't notice a significant increase when I put a 2GB memorystick in my phone and it's quite efficient anyway: I can call for hours, take umpteen pictures and listen to hours of mp3 on any day and I still don't have to recharge every night.
I wouldn't use it for work documents either, but I do keep my phone as primary addressbook and exchanging v-cards over Bluetooth works brilliantly as well.
I suppose cell phones indeed have no extra value for files that merely need to be exchanged because it matters not whether you bring a USB stick with it or a USB cable, but for (media) files one would like to use, exchange or generate on the road/while out.. it's wonderful. Bye camera, bye iPod, bye P2P software.
By the way: I'm sure Bluetooth will be faster and 100% out of the box in the near future. Years ago USB was sometimes a hassle as well, but do not be surprised if within a few years it's completely normal to easily pair your mediaphone with any PC, TV, stereo/speakerset, access point..
Why assume your desktop PC is the ultimate and for ever most important device?
My cell phone works out of the box as removable device with my stock FreeBSD and USB cable by the way. But can you quickly transfer a file from your USB stick to another while on the road without additional hardware, as easily I as exchange files between phones/PDAs with Bluetooth?
Anyone else not getting very excited? USB sticks are totally boring. You can only manage files on them by plugging them into other devices. If you want to share files, you'd better bring such a device. I'll (USB) stick (haha) my files elsewhere:
Almost every new cell phone model takes some sort of memory card (mine takes up to 2GB), provides a management interface and.. Bluetooth. Tap, tap, click and you're sharing files. No need to lend your precious USB wristband to a friend. No need to bring the laptop to see what's even on it.
Oh, and you can make/view pictures with it as well (mine up to 2mpx), listen to your music, play games, surf the Internet (anyone else noticing there's a massive WAP revival?), add GPS functionality (some models), send text messages and even make the occasional call (within a few years based on Skype and high bandwidth GPRS/UMTS).
So basically we're able to carry around mobile devices that would make Mr. Spock turn green of envy and people get excited about USB wristbands? Puhleeze.
We can already suspend and reanimate consciousness (reviving people from a braindead state as top of the line example, but arguably even sleep does just that to a certain extent).
So who says we can't duplicate consciousness? Not with current technology, but a perfect quantum state copy might just do that for us.
As two objects cannot occupy the same time-space coordinates, the copy would probably realise being the copy by being at a different location and/or time at quantum state reconstruction than he/she was during quantum state analysis.
But note that we're talking about teleporting here, which simply requires one to accept being a mere reconstruction in the first place. And to knowingly take the risk the original might not be removed at all, or that the quantum state is altered between reconstruction, without getting all sentimental about being yourself or not.
It'll be like mind altering drugs: just don't do it if you worry about losing yourself.
If teleports work, there can not be a difference between self and copy, nor even the perception of a difference. The glass is both half empty and half full: you are fully aware you've been copied and deleted, yet you totally remain yourself and this is legally, morally and spiritually accepted as such.
They are all the real deal, being exact copies. When you copy a file, neither instance is more or less real than the other either.
In practice it will be up to whomever is in control of the duplication process, or some sort of protocol will develop depending on legal status, consent, and so on.
Yes, it can be. Teleportation depends on the principle that the perception is indeed recreated in the quantum state clone. If the teleported person (or bystanders) would in any way not perceive the recreation to be the same self as the destroyed original, teleportation would not be seen as transportation but death-with-birth-of-a-clone.
This becomes clear when malfunctions happen:
If the original is deconstructed but no clone is created (not even at the original location), it would indeed be seen as death - but that's not teleporting, it's a malfunction.
If the original is not deconstructed while a clone is created, the clone would probaby eventually have to accept that in this case he/she is not perceived as the true self and will be forced to perceive him/herself as the clone (see: Thomas Riker) - but again, that's not proper teleporting, that's a malfunction.
If however everything works as advertised and there is no original but only the clone.. then the perception has been transfered. Why? Again, simply because that's how we all would accept it to be.
So teleportation doesn't raise the question whether perception can be recreated, teleportation would answer it positively.
Also, if you write something that could sound a little strange out of context (paintball, for example), you could end up with some big hassles because you seemed a bit "suspect".
You will write and say many such things anyway. If not by e-mail, then perhaps at the stadium/high street/pub. Whereever.
You might get hassled more when half your communication is encrypted than when all of it being open, in which case everyone involved will soon find out you're as boring as most other people. After all, if you can't trust the government to be ethical or legal about surveillance, why trust them to be ethical or legal about people who use encryption?
The phrase "mostly independent" doesn't sound completely reliable to me in a world where a single 0 or 1 can change the entire meaning of data or functionality of software.
Still, with some engineering experience it's easy to fill in what the article omits. Science moved forward and technology implementations will catch up and find a way to overcome issues like these. In fact, some data mirroring with checksums might already be more than sufficient and quantum particles offer sufficient improvements in data/space ratios that duplication should not be a concern.
Thirteen years means nothing in a world where "climate" is defined as the weather over a thirty year period, which is already completely arbitrary in itself. Various patterns exist that take place over longer periods, including sunspot activity.
Also, is the thirty percent a decrease from some sort of primal mean value? Or perhaps from a peak period with softer weather?
It's impossible to make any meaningful statement on climate and climate variabilities, let alone climate change, without taking all those questionmarks and other factors into account. I'm sure this report will cause another hype amongst environmentalists. So be it. If people want to call a decade of colder winters a "mini ice age", that's fine by me, but I for one will not panic.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent means the Chinese government could intercept HTTP traffic towards and from Google and then analyse it themselves.
The president could, during a scheduled speech, ask people never to buy anything advertised with unsolicited email. He could talk about several ways such email is dishonest.
Please say spam when you say dishonest. For spam is spam because of dishonesy and not because it is advertising nor because it is unsolicited. The problem with spam is that it treats a peer-to-peer network like the Internet as a mass medium, sending out messages indiscriminately, while often making making it hard to track the actual sender or, ironically, even the company advertising.
If the sender can be established and the message is catered to the right audience (e.g. not treating people's INBOX as a mass medium), the unsolicited part becomes irrelevant.
SPF aids the first bit because it prevents forgeries. It battles dishonesty, not unsolicited emails. In fact, the ability to verify the sender will make it more like you'll accept unsolicited e-mail from some parties because you can easily establish whether they can be trusted. SPF aids honest unsolicited email, and that's a good thing, for the Internet depends on it.
Alas there is no global warming doctor and Kyoto suggests we should stop feeding the kid alltogether. ;)
I am not even completely opposed to emission reductions, I am mostly concerned about the single-minded focus on it.
Temperatures might rise despite emission reduction. Dykes would at least solve part of that problem, alternative energy sources would not. I'm actually a huge fan of the ITER project - don't conclude I'm anti-clean energy just because I am skeptic about global warming as currently defined.
That's exactly the point: consensus is not proof, so science must disregard it. There used to be consensus that the earth was flat. That didn't make the claim scientific. There is consensus amongst the world population that there is some sort of devine being. That's not science either.
See, science depends on falsifiable theories. Mere consensus has never falsified the impact of, for example, sunspots. Moaning about the source of theories is meaningless because it is equally naive to suggest that climate scientists do not have their own agendas, including securing (more) funding.
It's simple: the global warming theory fails to explain temperatures in the middle ages and cannot falsify theories which include alternative causes of climate change. And it has led to proposed solutions which solve only a fraction of the problem even if global warming is indeed 100% man-made. And even a smaller fraction when it turns out to be incorrect.
Worst of all is, you claim I have a preconceived view while I actually keep all options open. It is the global warming crowd who shuts down every single alternative viewpoint. I do not even deny that man contributes to climate change. I'm just saying that as long as we're not entirely sure about our role, we should invest in more research and ways to protect us against change instead of taking a single-minded risk by focusing on one viewpoint which might ignore several other factors.
By the way: I don't care much for FOX and would not be even if they were broadcasting here in Europe.
I get the point! We should have more pirates! Or even better, more people should read Michael Crichton's aliens cause global warming and discover the difference between correlation, consensus and actual science.
No one is saying the climate is not changing, criticism of the global warming theory raises uncertainty about the actual cause. Until that uncertainty has been eliminated, I'd rather invest in science and protection against rising sea levels and extreme weather (such as the Dutch Delta works) than investments in cleaner fossil fuels (Kyoto) which will only cause fossil fuels to be used for a longer time because industries won't reach their ROI for another few decades.
It might very well make it okay when informing the Chinese people helps to bring forth change. They might begin to ask themselves why exactly things are being censored.
Pure speculation, I know, but it might have positive consequences.
Heh, I am European. :-)
In my opinion there really isn't a big difference though. People are sheep here as well and media control is much more singular in Europe than many are aware of.
Any suspension of democracy to the extent you describe would definitely not be tolerated by US citizens, nor by present US allies, even in the case of such an attack.
When it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq, it's also very easy to cherry-pick bad news. Major parts of each country are actually quiet and have not seen any kind of hostile action for years now.
Was opposition to Hitler in 1933 near 49%? I'd have to check on that, but that's probably hard to say because people weren't as vocal nor had the ability to communicate as we have these days.
Either way.. I suspect there will be elections in the US in 2008 and that none of the above will come true.
What's your definition of getting pretty fucking close? As far as I know no elections were cancelled in the US and I recall that some were actually added to the world of politics in those so-called conquered nations.
There are perfectly fine reasons to be concerned about a numbr of policies of the Bush administration, including foreign operations, but my thumb of rule is that in a country where 49% cries fascism and walks freely, there is very little of it.
Europeans don't hate ordinary American people as such. But it's not ordinary American people who are running the show. Most ordinary American people don't even know or understand what their government are doing, including (especially) most the ones who think they *do* know. The only problem we have with (some) ordinary Americans is their slavish tendency to believe whatever line of bullshit they are fed by the political and corporate establishment on Fox and CNN and disbelieve everybody else.
Very well said, we Europeans don't hate Americans, we just think ourselves superior. Must be some sort of slavish tendency to believe whatever line of bullshit we are fed by government-run, left-wing channels such as the BBC, NOS, et cetera.
I wouldn't even assume human life could be sustained in this alternative dimension. Though maybe with major advances in robotics we could make use of it to prepare remote habitats somewhere. (Ignoring the fact that unproven theoretical babble engines are not at all Warp engines in development.)
Well of course, it depends on how you use your devices. I frequent gigs and often take some pictures of the band or with people I meet, exchanging those immediately by Bluetooth is so amazingly convenient.. I do however indeed use USB to transfer them to my laptop, although I can also immediately upload them to my website using MMS.
Battery drain bothers me not, I didn't notice a significant increase when I put a 2GB memorystick in my phone and it's quite efficient anyway: I can call for hours, take umpteen pictures and listen to hours of mp3 on any day and I still don't have to recharge every night.
I wouldn't use it for work documents either, but I do keep my phone as primary addressbook and exchanging v-cards over Bluetooth works brilliantly as well.
I suppose cell phones indeed have no extra value for files that merely need to be exchanged because it matters not whether you bring a USB stick with it or a USB cable, but for (media) files one would like to use, exchange or generate on the road/while out.. it's wonderful. Bye camera, bye iPod, bye P2P software.
By the way: I'm sure Bluetooth will be faster and 100% out of the box in the near future. Years ago USB was sometimes a hassle as well, but do not be surprised if within a few years it's completely normal to easily pair your mediaphone with any PC, TV, stereo/speakerset, access point..
Why assume your desktop PC is the ultimate and for ever most important device?
My cell phone works out of the box as removable device with my stock FreeBSD and USB cable by the way. But can you quickly transfer a file from your USB stick to another while on the road without additional hardware, as easily I as exchange files between phones/PDAs with Bluetooth?
No, I'm saying that they already have, while adding a gazillion other goodies as well.
No science degree? What are you talking about, Kelvin has at least 43.
Anyone else not getting very excited? USB sticks are totally boring. You can only manage files on them by plugging them into other devices. If you want to share files, you'd better bring such a device. I'll (USB) stick (haha) my files elsewhere:
Almost every new cell phone model takes some sort of memory card (mine takes up to 2GB), provides a management interface and.. Bluetooth. Tap, tap, click and you're sharing files. No need to lend your precious USB wristband to a friend. No need to bring the laptop to see what's even on it.
Oh, and you can make/view pictures with it as well (mine up to 2mpx), listen to your music, play games, surf the Internet (anyone else noticing there's a massive WAP revival?), add GPS functionality (some models), send text messages and even make the occasional call (within a few years based on Skype and high bandwidth GPRS/UMTS).
So basically we're able to carry around mobile devices that would make Mr. Spock turn green of envy and people get excited about USB wristbands? Puhleeze.
We can already suspend and reanimate consciousness (reviving people from a braindead state as top of the line example, but arguably even sleep does just that to a certain extent).
So who says we can't duplicate consciousness? Not with current technology, but a perfect quantum state copy might just do that for us.
As two objects cannot occupy the same time-space coordinates, the copy would probably realise being the copy by being at a different location and/or time at quantum state reconstruction than he/she was during quantum state analysis.
But note that we're talking about teleporting here, which simply requires one to accept being a mere reconstruction in the first place. And to knowingly take the risk the original might not be removed at all, or that the quantum state is altered between reconstruction, without getting all sentimental about being yourself or not.
It'll be like mind altering drugs: just don't do it if you worry about losing yourself.
If teleports work, there can not be a difference between self and copy, nor even the perception of a difference. The glass is both half empty and half full: you are fully aware you've been copied and deleted, yet you totally remain yourself and this is legally, morally and spiritually accepted as such.
So basically, it's up to us.
They are all the real deal, being exact copies. When you copy a file, neither instance is more or less real than the other either.
In practice it will be up to whomever is in control of the duplication process, or some sort of protocol will develop depending on legal status, consent, and so on.
Yes, it can be. Teleportation depends on the principle that the perception is indeed recreated in the quantum state clone. If the teleported person (or bystanders) would in any way not perceive the recreation to be the same self as the destroyed original, teleportation would not be seen as transportation but death-with-birth-of-a-clone.
This becomes clear when malfunctions happen:
If the original is deconstructed but no clone is created (not even at the original location), it would indeed be seen as death - but that's not teleporting, it's a malfunction.
If the original is not deconstructed while a clone is created, the clone would probaby eventually have to accept that in this case he/she is not perceived as the true self and will be forced to perceive him/herself as the clone (see: Thomas Riker) - but again, that's not proper teleporting, that's a malfunction.
If however everything works as advertised and there is no original but only the clone.. then the perception has been transfered. Why? Again, simply because that's how we all would accept it to be.
So teleportation doesn't raise the question whether perception can be recreated, teleportation would answer it positively.
Also, if you write something that could sound a little strange out of context (paintball, for example), you could end up with some big hassles because you seemed a bit "suspect".
You will write and say many such things anyway. If not by e-mail, then perhaps at the stadium/high street/pub. Whereever.
You might get hassled more when half your communication is encrypted than when all of it being open, in which case everyone involved will soon find out you're as boring as most other people. After all, if you can't trust the government to be ethical or legal about surveillance, why trust them to be ethical or legal about people who use encryption?
GPS with an accuracy of 1cm.. sounds pleasant. Maybe I'll live to see the day when "computer, locate keys" actually gives a proper response.
The phrase "mostly independent" doesn't sound completely reliable to me in a world where a single 0 or 1 can change the entire meaning of data or functionality of software.
Still, with some engineering experience it's easy to fill in what the article omits. Science moved forward and technology implementations will catch up and find a way to overcome issues like these. In fact, some data mirroring with checksums might already be more than sufficient and quantum particles offer sufficient improvements in data/space ratios that duplication should not be a concern.
Thirteen years means nothing in a world where "climate" is defined as the weather over a thirty year period, which is already completely arbitrary in itself. Various patterns exist that take place over longer periods, including sunspot activity.
Also, is the thirty percent a decrease from some sort of primal mean value? Or perhaps from a peak period with softer weather?
It's impossible to make any meaningful statement on climate and climate variabilities, let alone climate change, without taking all those questionmarks and other factors into account. I'm sure this report will cause another hype amongst environmentalists. So be it. If people want to call a decade of colder winters a "mini ice age", that's fine by me, but I for one will not panic.