The numerous old are living off a smaller number of young.
Thus, we are all forced to work beyond our capacity to tolerate it with no appreciable reward.
No one is motivated by anything beyond fear. They don't value the system, they hate it.
Thus, things are falling apart.
There is no alternative, only stopgap measures to try to keep them all working, which will eventually fail.
Before it's all done, we will have to abandon the system, we will have to fight those who hang on till the end, and we will have to find another way to stay alive. Most won't.
But they're still trying to establish a fascist state, with locked borders, police acting in an arbitrary fashion for political reasons, etc.
There is no way out of any of this. None at all.
Just wait till it hits the tipping point. Then things are really going to get interesting.
The point is not about the currency fluctuating compared to external markers.
The point is that when there is less available, there is less available, and if no one is selling, you're not getting.
You can have situations where no one is paying for anything and everyone stops doing anything and suddenly there is abject poverty everywhere where only a short time ago there was plenty. But it's not because the money went away, it's because the people stopped having an organizational system, so they just stopped doing anything. Turns out money doesn't mean shit if no one is being industrious.
I think it's important to make the distinction that money isn't wealth, it's leverage. People like to confound the issue by talking about money going away from the artists, writers, musicians, technologists etc and depict scenarios where creativity disappears because no one is paying for it.
It's put forth as an inevitable consequence, but it isn't. The wealth that was putting food in those peoples stomaches, roofs over their heads, and the small little pleasures that make life worth living within their reach didn't just disappear. We don't suddenly not have the capacity to provide for them where before we did.
That's the most important point that needs to be addressed. If you can't break people out of the money-is-wealth mindset, you've already lost, because you really are destroying wealth in the terms a typical economist would use to describe it.
If we don't give them leverage the old-fashioned way, what system will we put in its place to see to it that these people are still cared for by our society.
If we answer that question, and do it well, there is no longer any reason why you, "The One And Only", cannot have a personal copy of the Library of Alexandria for yourself. Seriously, would you like one? I really, really want you to have one dude, that's why I mouth off and try to get people to think outside the box.
Terrorism is about creating fear in a population by attacking targets that have no military significance. When the IRA blows up a grocery store, that's terrorism.
The US wasn't attacked by terrorists. They were attacked by a tight knit military group that went after their critical infrastructure. The world trade center, the center of their economy. The pentagon, center of their military. And the commander in chief.
There have been no grocery stores blown up, no shopping malls, no attacks with Nuclear, Chemical or Biological agents, not even drive by shootings.
So basically, any time you hear the word "Terrorist" used to describe attacks on the US, you're listening to spin and lies, because it's never happened.
Money is not wealth, it's just a way to figure out how to split the pie.
Don't agree? Check out some footage of elderly people paying for food with wheelbarrows of money when the USSR fell.
Expect to watch the baby boomers frantically waving money and deeds around in the coming years, desperate for some young person to care for them, only to be confronted by the fact that they traded those who might have been able and willing in exchange for birth control, a desk job and an extra zero on their bank statement long ago.
Anyways.
When life improves because plenty is created, whatever there is plenty of becomes worthless.
Oxygen is worthless for this reason.
However, it would be difficult to argue that we'd be better off with less oxygen.
It would be hard to argue that we'd be better off if we found a way to hoard it and make people pay for it.
But that's the argument being put forth by those who defend copyrights.
They feel that when people are kept away from art, music, etc, and only allowed to enjoy it if they pay, then wealth is created.
This is nonsense.
The truth is, leverage is created. Which is really what money represents.
And in a world where everything you might possibly need or want has been stamped with a "Property of so and so" marking, and police with guns will show up if you touch it without permission, leverage can seem pretty important.
Thing is, stupid, ignorant and desperate neighbors make bad neighbors, they make poor allies, and they make problems for everyone.
At this point, if we wanted to, we could put every book ever written on earth, every song ever sang, every play ever performed, every newscast, every scientific paper, the lot, we could put it on one little cube of holographic storage and distribute it far and wide across the earth. The tech was new two years ago.
So, aside from the collective "Intellectual Property" laws, which are intended to promote the creation and distribution of works of art and science for the common good, there is nothing stopping us from giving every human on earth a copy of the Library of Alexandria.
Wouldn't you think that the reward of having 6 billion and counting educated, informed neighbors to be your peers, partners and friends would be worth the price of finding a better system to fund creative works that doesn't require them to be locked away in order to properly operate?
Seriously. These intellectual property laws time has passed, and when you look at it in this fashion, it's pretty fucking glaringly obvious.
Lets get talking with open minds about alternatives economic structures that don't leave the creators out in the cold and don't require the poor people to flounder in ignorance any longer than they already have, hey?
Space race, nuclear power, this kind of technology. Just goes to show, if you have a good idea, find a way to use it to further the war machine and political agendas and prepare to get buried in money. Can someone please figure out a way to weaponize a cure for cancer?
1) Find a cure for cancer
2) Indiscriminantly irradiate the globe, giving everyone cancer
3) Distribute the cure only to card carrying citizens
There you go. Where do I get my money?
Another good tactic is to create diseases which, based on the existing habitual behavior of your group, you are unlikely to be at risk of catching, but which will propagate quickly through groups that oppose your agenda because of the way in which they live.
Don't even need a cure for that one, and co-incidentally, it catches subversive elements within your group too.
Man, I bet the British would have loved to have such a tool when they were occupying Ireland and Scotland. All those filthy Scottish and Irish terrorists would have been no trouble at all.
The reason Torvalds stays with GPLv2 because he doesn't own the rights to the whole code base, so he can't change the license it's under. He's stuck with it.
He's acting as a talking head for his position, but he doesn't actually have any options to do other than what he's doing.
If people en mass decided they weren't interested in his GPLv2 kernel, he's suddenly a famous nobody, and he's got kids to feed, so he's hardly going to say "You should all switch to something else and I'll go look for a job", now is he?
I suspect I was modded flamebait because there is a group of people who have been cyberstalking me on an ongoing basis, modding me down, attempting to depict me as a karma whore, muddying the waters in my posts with reactionary, inflammatory crap, and otherwise attempting to silence my voice for personal or political reasons.
The whole point of the GPL is that it's subversive, and destroys traditional economic value by creating plenty and subverting efforts to legislate scarcity and ownership.
That's why I like it, that's why I take the time to teach myself about software released in this fashion, that's why I support it.
FreeBSD isn't going to deliver that to me.
Linus has made it clear that he doesn't care about the politics interfering with getting work done.
But the only reason I ever looked away from Windows in the first place was because of the politics and economics.
I'm seriously thinking that Solaris is where I should start looking. They seem to have a project more consistent with my ideals, and I have a great deal of respect for and trust in Ian Murdocks integrity. But I'd like to know of other options.
All those secrets and all that confidentiality is contrary to ethics. It's an attempt to keep your enemy from making intelligent decisions so you can destroy his capacity to act effectually and take what is his.
The capitalist economic system, with all its little trappings, is about war. That's why Sun Tzus book is one of the top selling books for executives.
It's not ethical to make war on your neighbours. Thus, there are no ethical guidelines for it.
Eventually you become numb. The young call it selling out, the numb call it growing up.
If you want to be ethical, find a way to not participate, and encourage people to live the way you found. If you want to be in business, you better lose the thin skin.
Google ran a perfectly successful search engine out of their garage. That's a fact. The advertising money they got didn't fund the search engine. Ever. It was already done.
They've come out with a bunch of "Me-Too" products since they got all that money. They didn't do anything novel or interesting. Not one thing. Mail, now with more storage! A first person shooter, now no enemies and satellite photos for floor textures! A database indexing your hard drive, with a text search!
Personally, I just want it to be Free as in Speech. I didn't want to learn all that Unix shit in the first place, I just learned it because I agree with the ideology.
I really don't like Linus, or his attitude, and I'd love to kick his code to the curb and replace it just because of the shit that comes out of his mouth.
Apparently HURD doesn't work, so what alternatives? Solaris?
I find it tremendously amusing that when big media companies try to defend their right to their business model, and put a stop to all these websites that are subverting it, everyone jumps to stick up for the web, but when users materially express their dissatisfaction with the "publish stuff I want bundled with crap I hate and get paid by the creators of the crap" business model, suddenly the shoe is on the other foot.
I don't care how they get their funding, as long as they're not selling eyeballs to psychological manipulation by advertisers.
Google was created in a garage. Its value rested in the fact that it was not selling eyeballs, its creation rested in the progression of the capacity of the tools, not that it was a particularly clever or wonderful. It's not as big a task as it's made out to be, and it's not a big deal to support the efforts of a couple of guys to do it again if they can't find a way to fund their search engine without betraying the public good.
So basically, find a way to fund yourself without advertising, index the worlds information privately and feel special in your house sharing your creation with no one, let someone else pick up the torch, let the tool disappear, whatever.
If you need to resort to commercial advertising for funding, you should go out of business, and we're all better off without you.
I've had long arguments with teachers and other parents about the phonetic learning methods because of this type of thing.
I think good, fast, accurate reading comes from developing the ability to recognize words, and eventually sentences and paragraphs, as discrete compound glyphs that have an associative meaning, rather than as a composition of a series of sounds.
This is the way I read, and I am a very fast reader compared to most and quite possibly all other people I have met.
I am also known by all my friends for using words that I cannot say, because they are the word that most accurately represents what I'm trying to express, but I've never heard them used in conversation before.
I think that people who learn to read phonetically and compositionally are taking the letters, turning them into a sound in their head, then referencing the auditory sections of the brain looking for a match to achieve comprehension.
The fact that they do it that way means they're more likely to parrot a word they do not understand based on the letters and do it correctly, but not to attempt to communicate with the word unless someone has said it in conversation and they got the meaning there, prompting them to attempt to use the word.
I contrast that with my own internal approach, which is that these markings on the page are a single glyph that means something, and the fact that they are composed of these other letter glyphs is kind of arbitrary and irrelevant.
Which leads to me attempting to translate the glyph into letters, then the letters into sounds, then the sounds into a spoken word, and all this during conversation. So I'll say words wrong that I've read a thousand times but never had anyone say to me.
Eventually I'll create a sound symbol for the glyph, but it happens during the "talking about what you read" phase, rather than during the "reading and understanding what you're reading" phase.
I think this is important, because one model will let you pass a standardized test under scrutiny without being a good reader or understanding what you're reading, while the other will let you consume vast amounts of written material with great speed and comprehension but sound a little funny in conversations about obscure subjects with experts on those subjects.
I'd disagree with the premise that compassion is born of intelligent self-interest. Compassion is typical in the sphere of animals. It's instinctive. Because it truly is in ones intelligent self interest, it is a survival trait that has evolved.
Animals show compassion to each other, even across species. Most of them have a level of empathy and compassion that is higher than ours. Pack instincts are stronger in animals than they are in humans, symbiotic relationships are prevalent in the animal kingdom, and humans are unusual in the callousness with which they kill each other compared to other animals.
I'd intuit that it is our intelligence, the capacity to create abstract ideas and predictive models within ourselves, which causes us to have a greater sense of individuation from each other and from our instincts. I think our capacity for intelligence is contrary to compassion and empathy, and that's why we have so little of it compared to other living creatures.
We shouldn't expect an artificially created intelligent life form to have an evolved instinctive system for compassion, so we could expect it to either operate without compassion, or operate with compassion because of an enlightened and reasoned sense of self interest based on what it values, but to do whatever it does ruthlessly and without a compassionate legacy system to create internal conflict.
Perhaps the evolved legacy system creating internal conflict would be us. Doesn't speak well for the compassionate capacities this theoretical thing would have.
You don't understand what random means, or the nature of the hardware you're looking at.
The level of electrical noise in the system at launch is predictable.
In some bits, the electrical noise is predictably higher than the tipping point to count it as "1".
In some bits it is predictably lower than the tipping point to count it as "0".
In some bits, it is predictably proximate to the tipping point to count it as either "1" or "0".
In ALL cases, it is predictable.
If I have a die that is weighted to land on 5 or 6 almost every time, it's not random.
If you decide to use 5 as 1 and 6 as 0, and treat them as equal probabilities because you are ignorant to the fact that 5 is weighted higher than 6, you will not see a random result. And if you play against me, you will lose because I am aware of the predictable nature of the results and you are not.
This system is not random, and is subject to gaming of any system that treats it as though it was.
Women don't want a gentleman, they want someone who is going to shove their face in a pillow, smack their asses and fuck them like animals. They just want to pick which one, instead of having the choice made for them, that's all.
That's why the more you try to schmooze and win them over, the less interested they are.
But I like the woman that I have, so I'm going to sit tight with her.
I'm trying to say that anyone who thinks such a thing is possible is seriously overestimating themselves and modern technology, and seriously underestimating the human intellect.
It's a ridiculous idea that only a person who reads too much science fiction could take seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
The numerous old are living off a smaller number of young.
Thus, we are all forced to work beyond our capacity to tolerate it with no appreciable reward.
No one is motivated by anything beyond fear. They don't value the system, they hate it.
Thus, things are falling apart.
There is no alternative, only stopgap measures to try to keep them all working, which will eventually fail.
Before it's all done, we will have to abandon the system, we will have to fight those who hang on till the end, and we will have to find another way to stay alive. Most won't.
But they're still trying to establish a fascist state, with locked borders, police acting in an arbitrary fashion for political reasons, etc.
There is no way out of any of this. None at all.
Just wait till it hits the tipping point. Then things are really going to get interesting.
Can't wait, personally.
The average person isn't suitable to use or own a computer. They don't want one, they don't like them, and they never will.
They want an appliance.
If it does anything cool and unusual, it's less of an appliance, so they don't like it.
It's not hard to understand.
The point is not about the currency fluctuating compared to external markers.
The point is that when there is less available, there is less available, and if no one is selling, you're not getting.
You can have situations where no one is paying for anything and everyone stops doing anything and suddenly there is abject poverty everywhere where only a short time ago there was plenty. But it's not because the money went away, it's because the people stopped having an organizational system, so they just stopped doing anything. Turns out money doesn't mean shit if no one is being industrious.
I think it's important to make the distinction that money isn't wealth, it's leverage. People like to confound the issue by talking about money going away from the artists, writers, musicians, technologists etc and depict scenarios where creativity disappears because no one is paying for it.
It's put forth as an inevitable consequence, but it isn't. The wealth that was putting food in those peoples stomaches, roofs over their heads, and the small little pleasures that make life worth living within their reach didn't just disappear. We don't suddenly not have the capacity to provide for them where before we did.
That's the most important point that needs to be addressed. If you can't break people out of the money-is-wealth mindset, you've already lost, because you really are destroying wealth in the terms a typical economist would use to describe it.
If we don't give them leverage the old-fashioned way, what system will we put in its place to see to it that these people are still cared for by our society.
If we answer that question, and do it well, there is no longer any reason why you, "The One And Only", cannot have a personal copy of the Library of Alexandria for yourself. Seriously, would you like one? I really, really want you to have one dude, that's why I mouth off and try to get people to think outside the box.
Terrorism is about creating fear in a population by attacking targets that have no military significance. When the IRA blows up a grocery store, that's terrorism.
The US wasn't attacked by terrorists. They were attacked by a tight knit military group that went after their critical infrastructure. The world trade center, the center of their economy. The pentagon, center of their military. And the commander in chief.
There have been no grocery stores blown up, no shopping malls, no attacks with Nuclear, Chemical or Biological agents, not even drive by shootings.
So basically, any time you hear the word "Terrorist" used to describe attacks on the US, you're listening to spin and lies, because it's never happened.
The first thing is, money means nothing.
Money is not wealth, it's just a way to figure out how to split the pie.
Don't agree? Check out some footage of elderly people paying for food with wheelbarrows of money when the USSR fell.
Expect to watch the baby boomers frantically waving money and deeds around in the coming years, desperate for some young person to care for them, only to be confronted by the fact that they traded those who might have been able and willing in exchange for birth control, a desk job and an extra zero on their bank statement long ago.
Anyways.
When life improves because plenty is created, whatever there is plenty of becomes worthless.
Oxygen is worthless for this reason.
However, it would be difficult to argue that we'd be better off with less oxygen.
It would be hard to argue that we'd be better off if we found a way to hoard it and make people pay for it.
But that's the argument being put forth by those who defend copyrights.
They feel that when people are kept away from art, music, etc, and only allowed to enjoy it if they pay, then wealth is created.
This is nonsense.
The truth is, leverage is created. Which is really what money represents.
And in a world where everything you might possibly need or want has been stamped with a "Property of so and so" marking, and police with guns will show up if you touch it without permission, leverage can seem pretty important.
Thing is, stupid, ignorant and desperate neighbors make bad neighbors, they make poor allies, and they make problems for everyone.
At this point, if we wanted to, we could put every book ever written on earth, every song ever sang, every play ever performed, every newscast, every scientific paper, the lot, we could put it on one little cube of holographic storage and distribute it far and wide across the earth. The tech was new two years ago.
So, aside from the collective "Intellectual Property" laws, which are intended to promote the creation and distribution of works of art and science for the common good, there is nothing stopping us from giving every human on earth a copy of the Library of Alexandria.
Wouldn't you think that the reward of having 6 billion and counting educated, informed neighbors to be your peers, partners and friends would be worth the price of finding a better system to fund creative works that doesn't require them to be locked away in order to properly operate?
Seriously. These intellectual property laws time has passed, and when you look at it in this fashion, it's pretty fucking glaringly obvious.
Lets get talking with open minds about alternatives economic structures that don't leave the creators out in the cold and don't require the poor people to flounder in ignorance any longer than they already have, hey?
Space race, nuclear power, this kind of technology. Just goes to show, if you have a good idea, find a way to use it to further the war machine and political agendas and prepare to get buried in money. Can someone please figure out a way to weaponize a cure for cancer?
1) Find a cure for cancer
2) Indiscriminantly irradiate the globe, giving everyone cancer
3) Distribute the cure only to card carrying citizens
There you go. Where do I get my money?
Another good tactic is to create diseases which, based on the existing habitual behavior of your group, you are unlikely to be at risk of catching, but which will propagate quickly through groups that oppose your agenda because of the way in which they live.
Don't even need a cure for that one, and co-incidentally, it catches subversive elements within your group too.
Man, I bet the British would have loved to have such a tool when they were occupying Ireland and Scotland. All those filthy Scottish and Irish terrorists would have been no trouble at all.
See what I mean?
The reason Torvalds stays with GPLv2 because he doesn't own the rights to the whole code base, so he can't change the license it's under. He's stuck with it.
He's acting as a talking head for his position, but he doesn't actually have any options to do other than what he's doing.
If people en mass decided they weren't interested in his GPLv2 kernel, he's suddenly a famous nobody, and he's got kids to feed, so he's hardly going to say "You should all switch to something else and I'll go look for a job", now is he?
I suspect I was modded flamebait because there is a group of people who have been cyberstalking me on an ongoing basis, modding me down, attempting to depict me as a karma whore, muddying the waters in my posts with reactionary, inflammatory crap, and otherwise attempting to silence my voice for personal or political reasons.
It's flattering, I must say.
The whole point of the GPL is that it's subversive, and destroys traditional economic value by creating plenty and subverting efforts to legislate scarcity and ownership.
That's why I like it, that's why I take the time to teach myself about software released in this fashion, that's why I support it.
FreeBSD isn't going to deliver that to me.
Linus has made it clear that he doesn't care about the politics interfering with getting work done.
But the only reason I ever looked away from Windows in the first place was because of the politics and economics.
I'm seriously thinking that Solaris is where I should start looking. They seem to have a project more consistent with my ideals, and I have a great deal of respect for and trust in Ian Murdocks integrity. But I'd like to know of other options.
You can trust people over 30. But they look more like RMS.
It's simple.
All those secrets and all that confidentiality is contrary to ethics. It's an attempt to keep your enemy from making intelligent decisions so you can destroy his capacity to act effectually and take what is his.
The capitalist economic system, with all its little trappings, is about war. That's why Sun Tzus book is one of the top selling books for executives.
It's not ethical to make war on your neighbours. Thus, there are no ethical guidelines for it.
Eventually you become numb. The young call it selling out, the numb call it growing up.
If you want to be ethical, find a way to not participate, and encourage people to live the way you found. If you want to be in business, you better lose the thin skin.
Google ran a perfectly successful search engine out of their garage. That's a fact. The advertising money they got didn't fund the search engine. Ever. It was already done.
They've come out with a bunch of "Me-Too" products since they got all that money. They didn't do anything novel or interesting. Not one thing. Mail, now with more storage! A first person shooter, now no enemies and satellite photos for floor textures! A database indexing your hard drive, with a text search!
Wow.
Why is this marked as a troll? It's a serious question.
Personally, I just want it to be Free as in Speech. I didn't want to learn all that Unix shit in the first place, I just learned it because I agree with the ideology.
I really don't like Linus, or his attitude, and I'd love to kick his code to the curb and replace it just because of the shit that comes out of his mouth.
Apparently HURD doesn't work, so what alternatives? Solaris?
I find it tremendously amusing that when big media companies try to defend their right to their business model, and put a stop to all these websites that are subverting it, everyone jumps to stick up for the web, but when users materially express their dissatisfaction with the "publish stuff I want bundled with crap I hate and get paid by the creators of the crap" business model, suddenly the shoe is on the other foot.
Find another business model.
I don't care how they get their funding, as long as they're not selling eyeballs to psychological manipulation by advertisers.
Google was created in a garage. Its value rested in the fact that it was not selling eyeballs, its creation rested in the progression of the capacity of the tools, not that it was a particularly clever or wonderful. It's not as big a task as it's made out to be, and it's not a big deal to support the efforts of a couple of guys to do it again if they can't find a way to fund their search engine without betraying the public good.
So basically, find a way to fund yourself without advertising, index the worlds information privately and feel special in your house sharing your creation with no one, let someone else pick up the torch, let the tool disappear, whatever.
If you need to resort to commercial advertising for funding, you should go out of business, and we're all better off without you.
I've had long arguments with teachers and other parents about the phonetic learning methods because of this type of thing.
I think good, fast, accurate reading comes from developing the ability to recognize words, and eventually sentences and paragraphs, as discrete compound glyphs that have an associative meaning, rather than as a composition of a series of sounds.
This is the way I read, and I am a very fast reader compared to most and quite possibly all other people I have met.
I am also known by all my friends for using words that I cannot say, because they are the word that most accurately represents what I'm trying to express, but I've never heard them used in conversation before.
I think that people who learn to read phonetically and compositionally are taking the letters, turning them into a sound in their head, then referencing the auditory sections of the brain looking for a match to achieve comprehension.
The fact that they do it that way means they're more likely to parrot a word they do not understand based on the letters and do it correctly, but not to attempt to communicate with the word unless someone has said it in conversation and they got the meaning there, prompting them to attempt to use the word.
I contrast that with my own internal approach, which is that these markings on the page are a single glyph that means something, and the fact that they are composed of these other letter glyphs is kind of arbitrary and irrelevant.
Which leads to me attempting to translate the glyph into letters, then the letters into sounds, then the sounds into a spoken word, and all this during conversation. So I'll say words wrong that I've read a thousand times but never had anyone say to me.
Eventually I'll create a sound symbol for the glyph, but it happens during the "talking about what you read" phase, rather than during the "reading and understanding what you're reading" phase.
I think this is important, because one model will let you pass a standardized test under scrutiny without being a good reader or understanding what you're reading, while the other will let you consume vast amounts of written material with great speed and comprehension but sound a little funny in conversations about obscure subjects with experts on those subjects.
I'd disagree with the premise that compassion is born of intelligent self-interest. Compassion is typical in the sphere of animals. It's instinctive. Because it truly is in ones intelligent self interest, it is a survival trait that has evolved.
Animals show compassion to each other, even across species. Most of them have a level of empathy and compassion that is higher than ours. Pack instincts are stronger in animals than they are in humans, symbiotic relationships are prevalent in the animal kingdom, and humans are unusual in the callousness with which they kill each other compared to other animals.
I'd intuit that it is our intelligence, the capacity to create abstract ideas and predictive models within ourselves, which causes us to have a greater sense of individuation from each other and from our instincts. I think our capacity for intelligence is contrary to compassion and empathy, and that's why we have so little of it compared to other living creatures.
We shouldn't expect an artificially created intelligent life form to have an evolved instinctive system for compassion, so we could expect it to either operate without compassion, or operate with compassion because of an enlightened and reasoned sense of self interest based on what it values, but to do whatever it does ruthlessly and without a compassionate legacy system to create internal conflict.
Perhaps the evolved legacy system creating internal conflict would be us. Doesn't speak well for the compassionate capacities this theoretical thing would have.
Does anyone here have trouble telling the difference between paid ad placements and non-paid search results on Google?
Yes. Lots of people.
Since when does a website legally have to tell you what is an isn't an ad?
Couldn't happen soon enough for me. I think advertisers should be tortured to death, personally.
You don't understand what random means, or the nature of the hardware you're looking at.
The level of electrical noise in the system at launch is predictable.
In some bits, the electrical noise is predictably higher than the tipping point to count it as "1".
In some bits it is predictably lower than the tipping point to count it as "0".
In some bits, it is predictably proximate to the tipping point to count it as either "1" or "0".
In ALL cases, it is predictable.
If I have a die that is weighted to land on 5 or 6 almost every time, it's not random.
If you decide to use 5 as 1 and 6 as 0, and treat them as equal probabilities because you are ignorant to the fact that 5 is weighted higher than 6, you will not see a random result. And if you play against me, you will lose because I am aware of the predictable nature of the results and you are not.
This system is not random, and is subject to gaming of any system that treats it as though it was.
And I'm most definitely not an idiot.
They are, actually.
Women don't want a gentleman, they want someone who is going to shove their face in a pillow, smack their asses and fuck them like animals. They just want to pick which one, instead of having the choice made for them, that's all.
That's why the more you try to schmooze and win them over, the less interested they are.
But I like the woman that I have, so I'm going to sit tight with her.
You hit the nail precisely on the head as to why this is a bunch of bollocks.
If the startup state of the RAM banks are so predictable that you can base a fingerprint on it, it's not even vaguely random, is it?
Oh, I understand what's being talked about.
I'm trying to say that anyone who thinks such a thing is possible is seriously overestimating themselves and modern technology, and seriously underestimating the human intellect.
It's a ridiculous idea that only a person who reads too much science fiction could take seriously.