umm, dumbass, it has something to do with height. In fact, people have been working to reason out such correlations since the 70s, when they were first collected and analyzed. But thanks for backing up your assumptions with fact when in fact you obviously have never taken any kind of Psychology class, ever. And Height has a lot to do with an active childhood, anyway. If you had a completely inactive childhood, i.e. never moving, you would die, obviously.
Anyway, the point was, whatever it is that makes people tall could be the relating link, and I didn't mean to say that being active as a child would necessarily lead to height, which should be obvious to any person who can read the english language.
While they claim that certain variables like weight, gender, etc. were controlled, I suspect there are other variables that come into play here.
Yes, obviously, this is the case. It's not like the researchers are jumping to the conclusion that it's wrong that tall people earn more, they leave that to the reader. But consider this: people who are exceptionally intelligent are much more likely to be tall, as well.
This all probably has to do with the fact that a person who is adequately physically satiated in his formative years (i.e. so as to have enough food/exercise/whatever to grow tall) is also much more likely to have had a well-fostered intellectual development as well.
So no, it's not a correlation in a void of inexplicable connected correlations, no. But nothing in human behavior is.
This is likely one of those "research causes cancer in rats" conclusions.
And you think that those conclusions are somehow useless or invalid? If it's consistently provable, there's something TO it, whether it fits your "common sense" view of the world or not. That's what research is all about. If it turned out that twitching your left pinky finger frequently resulted in higher cancer rates, I would still think there was something true that we could learn from those results, even though my conception of left-pinky-action has nothing to do with my conception of cancer. If it happens consistently, there's probably a reason for it, and it would do you/us well to accept it =P.
I think you need to see if people prefer beautiful chickens before you can jump to that conclusion.
No, that's not what the researcher is saying. The research is this: There are two opposing views.
1) Human sexual/aesthetic preferences for other humans arise from biological grounds.
2) These sexual/aesthetic preferences arise from social norms and a lifetime of training.
This research assumes that if chickens prefer "attractive" human faces, for which they have no social training, this must necessarily eliminate number 2), above. Thus, chickens prefer "pretty" humans, just as humans prefer "pretty" humans. Thus, we can argue that there is some grounding for "prettiness" in the nervous systems of both organisms.
This is called cognitive dissidence in psychology--bring your attitudes inline with your actions when your original attitudes contradict acted behavior.
Actually, that's cognitive dissonance, which actually refers to the desire to make beliefs align. The phenomenon of having out-of-sync beliefs is cognitive dissonance, the attempt to resolve that dissonance is just that: resolution.p
You can believe what you want, but it's not true. You can get third-party logging programs, but there is nothing even in the same zip code as linux logging in any native Windows installation.
And if I were wrong, on some off-chance, I am 100% sure that some geek would have already told us the name of the tool. The closest thing is the management console -- mmc.
Please, dumb one, refer to my original post. Once you realize that your server is compromised, you assume that any modified source has only been modified once (why code a hole into something more than once unless necessary?) by the attacker. Thus, the package on the server IS the compromised software. So if you MD5 sum that file, and throw out all checksums that are the same as the md5 for the compromised file that you have on the server, then you are left with the set of checksums that belong to something BESIDES the compromised software.
Checksum P is part of set X, where X is all respondent MD5 sums (i.e. all the sums everyone sent to them).
Checksum P belongs to the compromised package residing on the gnu.org software. This can be calculated by summing the software on the server.
Thus, if a respondent checksum=P, then exclude it from set X of all respondent checksums. (X-P)
The mode of (X-P) will be the correct checksum, if and only if:
1. Most of the respondents are trustworthy, i.e. not collaborating in an attempt to thwart gnu.
2. The package has not been modified more than once.
Next time, understand the concepts before posting.
then they can't really use 3rd parties to verify the files are correct - coz the 3rd parties have been getting the stuff from their server.
"Uh," Unless they are smart enough to do a checksum on THEIR files (which of course they are), then reject all MD5 submissions that are the same. Then, they collect all the other MD5s submitted for that file, and take the most frequently occurring one, assuming that most people are honestly trying to help. That's your MD5.
I nominate Al Gore. He's the one who invented this whole intrenat thingy anyways.
That's *just* what we need -- a loser who wins, but loses anyway, and then lays down to acknowledge the dubious supremacy of the person who just lost to him, but won anyway.
The parent is possibly the most idotic slashdot post I have ever read -- and that goes a long way. The first sentence is the only one that even begins to make sense -- but that is the general flavor of the entire story! Of COURSE he might be guilty if convicted, duh.
And then, after that, we hear "he looks like a terrorist(as laughable as that idea is)! He must support terrorism! Kill him!"
Let's turn the tables for a second: What if I had gone to live in China after marrying someone there, and had become a citizen. Let's also assume that I am originally a citizen of Canada (to establish the Pakistan-Afghanistan type of relationship). Then, out of anger at sanctions, China declares war on the U.S. The Chinese start doing all sorts of stuff to Americans in that country that are outside global human rights' agreements, and grossly immoral from almost any view. All over the world, similar views are being adopted, and it seems as if the Asians of the world are out to eradicate everyone who is, say, white and North American. I might be kinda pissed off -- maybe I'd even go to America and try to join the army, to protect my own and my family's right to freedom and non-discrimination. Doesn't sound so crazy, I think.
And finally, here is a great point: He obviously didn't care THAT much. After being turned away from Afghanistan, it's not like he went nuts and started shooting the border patrol. He didn't even DO anything. If he'd been that upset, he would have not come home to the U.S., but instead waited for an opportunity to get into Afghanistan.
In fact, I find it deplorable that we can even convict him of anything. He was going to go to a combat area to fight -- it's not terrorism. If he wanted to fight for what he believed is right in a way that doesn't involve non-combatants, I don't think that is terrorism in any way, shape or form. Instead, it's the most American way of voting possible, the same way the Revolutionaries voted. Though faced with impossible odds and nothing but his own ideals, "Mike" was willing to lay down his life for what he believed in sanctioned military conflict. Though he didn't get a chance to act upon those ideals, I would find it hard to believe that anyone could label such action criminal.
"To reduce this to the ever popular "invisible pink unicorn" debate, I can't prove there are invisible pink unicorns. I also can't prove there aren't."
That's funny -- I can prove that an invisible pink unicorn can't exist, if you count the principle of non-contradiction as proof that something does not exist (I.E. there can be no person that is both a man and not a man, or living and dead). Here's how:
1. "Pink" is a color.
2. Colors are frequencies of electro-magnetic waves that the human organism can interpret through the visual system.
3. Thus, colors must be inherently visible.
4. Thus, "pink" must be inherently visible.
5. Thus, all objects that are "pink" must be inherently visible.
6. Invisible is the polar opposite of visible.
7. Thus, no object can be both "pink" and invisible.
----
8. Therefore, an "invisible pink unicorn" cannot exist.
Bruce,
Assuming that governments and corporations form the foundation of the adoption base (considering that many people would first come into contact with free software at work, and then later be comfortable enough to use it at home), and noting also that governments and corporations are not generally that money-conscious (meaning that the "free"-ness of free software is not a large selling point over win32), then
What incentive do you think GNU/Linux and other free software offerings give these entities to use free software? What functionality does it enhance in practical terms for both governments and corporations? (and security doesn't count; it's not like the penguin is devoid of known holes, and under a whole lot less scrutiny than Windows)
And finally, if the functionality/effectiveness differences between free and closed OSs really are as minor as they seem at first corporate glance, what path do you think the Open Source community should take in regards to making free software distinctive and superior?
All the best,
~Tris.
PS (to all slashdot flamewar-starters) -- No, I don't like Windows. Yes, Linux might well be the second coming (ra ra ra, join the hurd (hoho mildly clever)). It's for the sake of argumentation and making a point. Now, go ahead and subject me to the Spanish-Linux Inquisition
Slashdope 1: Do you worship only one Linux? Slashdope 2: You mean GNU/Linux!
Slashdope 1: Erm... yes. Well, do you? Me: I suppose so. Slashdope 1: Not good enough! Send him to the --- comfy chair!
Why is this comment coming up so much? This seems like a no-brainer to me. For 20 bytes in the header, and no decrease in efficiency due to an increase in Minimum Transmission Unit size, this is not a question of "why would you need 879430380423849023809 addresses," it is a question of "why the hell not?"
First off, I can think of a billion ways we could increase the number of IPs used. For example, in the future, each internet-connected software application could have its own IP, if we wanted. That would address a ton of security concerns, as well as minimizing port allocation problems within the machine. Let's imagine this new world, shall we:
1) No scans for active hosts -- nobody is going to waste their time scanning trillions of addresses, I don't think. Even if latency improved a thousandfold, it would take forever to find an active host, especially if each "host" is an application with an assigned IP that does not respond to pings. Think of it this way -- you would have to scan all of the ports of every possible host out of trillions just to find a POSSIBLY active application, not even a computer, since the other programs on the computer have other IPs. This is true even if the computer were running 100,000 processes, all with unique IPs.
2) People are harping about how they would prefer to have "private" addresses. What they don't seem to understand is that this, in a way, could be a private IP system. It's just a different kind of privacy. If you want something public, make it public with broadcast dns, or whatever replaces dns. If you want it private, just don't announce it. If I have a web server running but nobody can find it, that is effectively private. But rather than being a private like "behind locked doors," it is private like "one grain of sand on the beach that only I know the location of."
So I suppose that is my answer to your question -- why not? Having that many IP addresses will allow programmers and engineers to start making things in new ways. It will be fast, easy, and probably more secure, all at the cost of 20 bytes per packet. Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
Well, actually, I can tell you that a) Der Wille zur Macht is better known to us as The Will to Power, a nice collection of some of Nietzsche's later writings, and published posthumously. The most important idea in this work is eternal recurrence -- interesting stuff.
and Jenseits von Gut und Boese is more commonly known as "Beyond Good and Evil," another important Nietzsche work that details why the set of morals of any superior man must be based not on good/evil but on strength and survival of his genes, i.e. the strong species. Also note that the translation loses something in "Jenseits" -- means more accurately, "something else outside of good and evil."
"How many individuals in the WTC had 'bad behavior'?"
Depends who ya ask, now doesn't it? I know we heroize the poor souls that were needlessly killed on GWB-day, but I think that the terrorists flying the planes thought that there was indeed 'bad behavior' going on in those buildings, mostly in the oppression of a group of people that they believe deserves to be masters of the earth. And if you look at their situations, you see why! Sure, we think it's awful for them to kill a few thousand civilians, and it is, but they see daily US bombings in Iraq (even before our current war started), economic sanctions that kept several Arab states poor enough that starvation was a primary killer of millions of innocents, not to mention the fueling of warfare between Arab nations with weapons contributions, etc. But I rant. Think of it this way -- are the acts of that day more or less justified than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The people who dropped the A-bombs were not considered, terrorists, they were 'heroes,' they 'ended the war.' But they killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. That makes the WTC attacks look like chump change. And yes, they do think they are at War.
Sorry to rant -- comments like this just show a one-sidedness of knowledge that I refuse to ignore.
Your first point is conceded -- good point. I thought I had already read through that thoroughly enough, but apparently not.
To your second point: "How does listening to a stolen CD violate any of those rights?"
This is where things get a bit sticky, and I still disagree with you. This is exactly what the first poster was talking about: if he steals my legally copied CD, and I still retain the original, he commits copyright infringement when he listens to it. It is absurd to think that it is legal for him to listen to the CD under copyright law. A similar question was posed earlier on slashdot -- under your interpretation, it would be completely legal to:
1. Make copies of all your CDs, one for each friend and family member. 2. Fall victim to the theft of your copied CDs, with each of your friends and family members taking one of each CD. (gasp) 3. Don't press charges. 4. Profit!
This is, effectively, distribution of a copy, willful or not. When my friend steals my burned CD, it is in effect absolutely no different than my friend downloading that same music from me on Kazaa. It is exactly identical to me making a legal fair rights copy of my favorite top-100 hit on my computer so that I can listen to it on my computer. Once it "leaves" my computer (or in the case of the CD, possession,) it is no longer covered under fair rights laws governing the right to copy, and presumably, to distribute.
"It's not a public performance. While it is not really defined in the copyright statutes, it is accepted that playing music for small groups of friends is not a public performance. There is also a small business exception in which if your business is smaller than a particular size, playing music is not a public performance."
Accepted, yes -- legislated, no. That is why I said it was technically illegal; not that any judge would care or impose any penalty. The small business bit is interesting -- thanks.
"Where did you get that idea from? It is theft. Only. If you stole a CD from a Best Buy, you are not guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is from copying, publicly performing, distributing. Stealing a CD fits into none of those categories."
Here you are wrong -- my point is that he is both stealing AND infringing on copyright. As the sole owner of the license to listen to the music on a CD that I own, stealing MY cd is both 1) a theft of my physical property and 2) copyright infringement of the record company's intellectual property when the person listens to the stolen CD. This is different from selling a CD -- when I sell that same CD, I also sell my right to listen to it.
Actually, in this situation, there would be at least two commissions of copyright infringement, and one commission of theft. Since you are the sole owner of the right to listen to the music you purchased the license to, playing it with your friend present is technically illegal, but may in fact be covered by fair use. This is theoretically a "public performance" of copyrighted art -- but stuff like that happens all the time, like when you hum your favorite tune, for which you have no license. Absurd, isn't it.
The second violation would be his stealing the copied CD from you -- he did not purchase the music, so any listening he might engage in later (I assume that's what he stole the CD for) would constitute copyright infringement. It would also be theft -- you own the blank CD physically, and you also own the fair use license to the music on it. Technically, it is still a crime, even if no charges are pressed. Everything else is null -- you cannot be held accountable for your friend's actions, nor have you committed any crimes by copying and listening to your licensed music, only by playing the music with others around you.
In sum:
Copyright infringements: 2 (your public performance, your friend listening to your cd after theft)
Criminal acts: 1 (Theft of your property)) ......
The fact that nobody except the RIAA cares about any of those crimes: $92 billion (mostly paid by poor college students)
"Also the "real" sciences that you talk about are simple compared to the "soft" ones"
That is exactly my point. Simple generally means that it is easier to determine the truth-value of the statement. This is BECAUSE one can control the environment variables. You seem to be arguing the opposite -- I think. You argument gets clearer later in the post. But anyway, the point is, if you're in court, and you say "there are 2 bullet-holes in two fixed objects in the room, so we know (within reason) the trajectory of the bullet." That is fair, simple, and easy to determine with "real" science. With "soft" science, one might claim that "The SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) that the patient was taking interfered with the stimulated dopamine production from his cocaine use, and this interaction has been shown in studies X, Y, and Z to increase violent tendencies in rats and sometimes in humans. Thus, we conclude that it was the drugs that made him do it." Now try evaluating that statement. That's about as simple as it gets in the court with soft science.
"Thats science. Maybe it would be better to rely on intuition or dogma for our perception of the universe? None of them are right or wrong."
Actually, that's not science. Science (i.e. experimentation) is only necessarily valid (in the logical sense of the term) in systems where we a)know all of the variables and b) can account for the effects of all variables except one, within acceptable tolerant limits. While we can fairly well do both (to our knowledge) for subjects such as classical physics, chemistry, etc. We can CONTROL the system.
Not so in psychology. You can never control a human system. Likewise, even with statistics, you cannot account for all variables in such a huge system. This is why psychology has so much contradiction, and the hard sciences do not. There are competing theories in hard science, but only infrequently outright experimental contradiction. To wit, you can't drop an apple on someone's head 20 times and then drop it the same way with the same situation again and have it miss for no reason. We can DETERMINE why it would miss. You can't determine why such statistical variance exists in psychology, at least not with any credible validity.
"The result you talk about something that was observed and measured by an imperfect person. How is this any different than Newton being hit by an apple?"
Because if that same apple dropped under "scientifically controlled circumstances" with Newton under the same tree a thousand times, it seems likely that it would hit him in the head 1000 times. If that accuracy rate were on psychological scale, it might hit him one out of three times, and sometimes, the apple would fall up.
"So lets just say fuckit and have 1 person determine what will be presented in court. Thats not very scientific, now is it?"
Actually, it might very well be scientific, in the end. Science != Democracy. Anyway, SOMEONE is going to have to make the decision sometime. Wouldn't you rather it be someone in touch with the actual circumstances of the case? Time and time again, it has been shown that these decisions cannot be mandated -- they must be decided with sensitivity and then reviewed if necessary (side note: yay Aristotle!). It's not saying "fuckit," as you so delicately put it, it is saying "how do we solve this problem in the most efficient and effective manner possible?" I challenge anyone to come up with a better workable solution.
The major problem that is addressed in the Daubert ruling is far greater than the misuse of "real" sciences, i.e. physics, chemistry, etc. The Daubert ruling is mostly effective in halting ridiculous pseudo-science and soft sciences, especially "scientifically conducted" psychological studies.
For almost every study in psychology, there are at least 2 studies that contradict the results of that study, and there are studies to contradict those studies. The whole thing becomes one big mess, and is far too nebulous and confusing to be presented as evidence for a jury.
The real problem is drawing the line. Headlines in newspapers claim that "Daubert ruling excludes legitimate scientific evidence" and whatnot, but what is legitimate? Obviously, somebody believes in every scientific theory publicly available, or else it wouldn't be a theory at all, it would just be stupid. And especially in psychology, any result can be reproduced, given the right amount of time, and good resources =P.
The solution, I think, is on a per-case basis: have the judge evaluate the relevant science before the trial begins. If it is accepted, it is admissible. If it is not submitted for approval, or if it is not accepted, then it is not admissible.
Imaging[sic] if the Honda insight made it to market first, the image of hybrids would have been ruined. People would think a small impractical ugly car every time someone said hybrid and wouldn't like the idea of hybrids.
I imagine that you meant "imagine" and not "imaging." However, though you idea was kinda right, your facts were flat-out wrong. The Honda Insight DID in fact hit the market before any other hybrid vehicle in the USA. And it got rave reviews, and continues to get rave reviews. Admittedly, most people don't like the aesthetics that much, but I think the novelty appeal appeases most owners anyway.
As someone else points out, what if that in turn causes a third party to claim that THEY need a rebuttal printed too? Where does it end??
Fortunately for us, they've already thought of that. The whole Right of Reply system is based on the method of debate in the Parliament. And the basic rule is that you can't Right of Reply a Right of Reply. Thus, if:
1) I slam Microsoft on my webpage, and
2) Microsoft demands right of reply, with which I comply, and
3) Microsoft says nasty things about me or some other entity in that right of reply, then
-------
4) None of those entities can claim a right of reply to that statement, since it is already a right of reply.
Slashdot Mirror
umm, dumbass, it has something to do with height. In fact, people have been working to reason out such correlations since the 70s, when they were first collected and analyzed. But thanks for backing up your assumptions with fact when in fact you obviously have never taken any kind of Psychology class, ever. And Height has a lot to do with an active childhood, anyway. If you had a completely inactive childhood, i.e. never moving, you would die, obviously. Anyway, the point was, whatever it is that makes people tall could be the relating link, and I didn't mean to say that being active as a child would necessarily lead to height, which should be obvious to any person who can read the english language.
Yes, obviously, this is the case. It's not like the researchers are jumping to the conclusion that it's wrong that tall people earn more, they leave that to the reader. But consider this: people who are exceptionally intelligent are much more likely to be tall, as well.
This all probably has to do with the fact that a person who is adequately physically satiated in his formative years (i.e. so as to have enough food/exercise/whatever to grow tall) is also much more likely to have had a well-fostered intellectual development as well.
So no, it's not a correlation in a void of inexplicable connected correlations, no. But nothing in human behavior is. This is likely one of those "research causes cancer in rats" conclusions.
And you think that those conclusions are somehow useless or invalid? If it's consistently provable, there's something TO it, whether it fits your "common sense" view of the world or not. That's what research is all about. If it turned out that twitching your left pinky finger frequently resulted in higher cancer rates, I would still think there was something true that we could learn from those results, even though my conception of left-pinky-action has nothing to do with my conception of cancer. If it happens consistently, there's probably a reason for it, and it would do you/us well to accept it =P.
No, that's not what the researcher is saying. The research is this: There are two opposing views.
1) Human sexual/aesthetic preferences for other humans arise from biological grounds.
2) These sexual/aesthetic preferences arise from social norms and a lifetime of training.
This research assumes that if chickens prefer "attractive" human faces, for which they have no social training, this must necessarily eliminate number 2), above. Thus, chickens prefer "pretty" humans, just as humans prefer "pretty" humans. Thus, we can argue that there is some grounding for "prettiness" in the nervous systems of both organisms.
Hope that clears things up.
Actually, that's cognitive dissonance, which actually refers to the desire to make beliefs align. The phenomenon of having out-of-sync beliefs is cognitive dissonance, the attempt to resolve that dissonance is just that: resolution.p
And if I were wrong, on some off-chance, I am 100% sure that some geek would have already told us the name of the tool. The closest thing is the management console -- mmc.
Checksum P is part of set X, where X is all respondent MD5 sums (i.e. all the sums everyone sent to them).
Checksum P belongs to the compromised package residing on the gnu.org software. This can be calculated by summing the software on the server.
Thus, if a respondent checksum=P, then exclude it from set X of all respondent checksums. (X-P)
The mode of (X-P) will be the correct checksum, if and only if:
1. Most of the respondents are trustworthy, i.e. not collaborating in an attempt to thwart gnu.
2. The package has not been modified more than once.
Next time, understand the concepts before posting.
"Uh," Unless they are smart enough to do a checksum on THEIR files (which of course they are), then reject all MD5 submissions that are the same. Then, they collect all the other MD5s submitted for that file, and take the most frequently occurring one, assuming that most people are honestly trying to help. That's your MD5.
I believe the word you're looking for is "certify" -- just a guess. Cheers
That's *just* what we need -- a loser who wins, but loses anyway, and then lays down to acknowledge the dubious supremacy of the person who just lost to him, but won anyway.
I'm in =).
And then, after that, we hear "he looks like a terrorist(as laughable as that idea is)! He must support terrorism! Kill him!"
Let's turn the tables for a second: What if I had gone to live in China after marrying someone there, and had become a citizen. Let's also assume that I am originally a citizen of Canada (to establish the Pakistan-Afghanistan type of relationship). Then, out of anger at sanctions, China declares war on the U.S. The Chinese start doing all sorts of stuff to Americans in that country that are outside global human rights' agreements, and grossly immoral from almost any view. All over the world, similar views are being adopted, and it seems as if the Asians of the world are out to eradicate everyone who is, say, white and North American. I might be kinda pissed off -- maybe I'd even go to America and try to join the army, to protect my own and my family's right to freedom and non-discrimination. Doesn't sound so crazy, I think.
And finally, here is a great point: He obviously didn't care THAT much. After being turned away from Afghanistan, it's not like he went nuts and started shooting the border patrol. He didn't even DO anything. If he'd been that upset, he would have not come home to the U.S., but instead waited for an opportunity to get into Afghanistan.
In fact, I find it deplorable that we can even convict him of anything. He was going to go to a combat area to fight -- it's not terrorism. If he wanted to fight for what he believed is right in a way that doesn't involve non-combatants, I don't think that is terrorism in any way, shape or form. Instead, it's the most American way of voting possible, the same way the Revolutionaries voted. Though faced with impossible odds and nothing but his own ideals, "Mike" was willing to lay down his life for what he believed in sanctioned military conflict. Though he didn't get a chance to act upon those ideals, I would find it hard to believe that anyone could label such action criminal.
That's funny -- I can prove that an invisible pink unicorn can't exist, if you count the principle of non-contradiction as proof that something does not exist (I.E. there can be no person that is both a man and not a man, or living and dead). Here's how:
1. "Pink" is a color.
2. Colors are frequencies of electro-magnetic waves that the human organism can interpret through the visual system.
3. Thus, colors must be inherently visible.
4. Thus, "pink" must be inherently visible.
5. Thus, all objects that are "pink" must be inherently visible.
6. Invisible is the polar opposite of visible.
7. Thus, no object can be both "pink" and invisible.
----
8. Therefore, an "invisible pink unicorn" cannot exist.
What incentive do you think GNU/Linux and other free software offerings give these entities to use free software? What functionality does it enhance in practical terms for both governments and corporations? (and security doesn't count; it's not like the penguin is devoid of known holes, and under a whole lot less scrutiny than Windows)
And finally, if the functionality/effectiveness differences between free and closed OSs really are as minor as they seem at first corporate glance, what path do you think the Open Source community should take in regards to making free software distinctive and superior?
All the best,
~Tris.
PS (to all slashdot flamewar-starters) -- No, I don't like Windows. Yes, Linux might well be the second coming (ra ra ra, join the hurd (hoho mildly clever)). It's for the sake of argumentation and making a point. Now, go ahead and subject me to the Spanish-Linux Inquisition
Slashdope 1: Do you worship only one Linux?
Slashdope 2: You mean GNU/Linux!
Slashdope 1: Erm... yes. Well, do you?
Me: I suppose so.
Slashdope 1: Not good enough! Send him to the --- comfy chair!
First off, I can think of a billion ways we could increase the number of IPs used. For example, in the future, each internet-connected software application could have its own IP, if we wanted. That would address a ton of security concerns, as well as minimizing port allocation problems within the machine. Let's imagine this new world, shall we:
1) No scans for active hosts -- nobody is going to waste their time scanning trillions of addresses, I don't think. Even if latency improved a thousandfold, it would take forever to find an active host, especially if each "host" is an application with an assigned IP that does not respond to pings. Think of it this way -- you would have to scan all of the ports of every possible host out of trillions just to find a POSSIBLY active application, not even a computer, since the other programs on the computer have other IPs. This is true even if the computer were running 100,000 processes, all with unique IPs.
2) People are harping about how they would prefer to have "private" addresses. What they don't seem to understand is that this, in a way, could be a private IP system. It's just a different kind of privacy. If you want something public, make it public with broadcast dns, or whatever replaces dns. If you want it private, just don't announce it. If I have a web server running but nobody can find it, that is effectively private. But rather than being a private like "behind locked doors," it is private like "one grain of sand on the beach that only I know the location of."
So I suppose that is my answer to your question -- why not? Having that many IP addresses will allow programmers and engineers to start making things in new ways. It will be fast, easy, and probably more secure, all at the cost of 20 bytes per packet. Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
and Jenseits von Gut und Boese is more commonly known as "Beyond Good and Evil," another important Nietzsche work that details why the set of morals of any superior man must be based not on good/evil but on strength and survival of his genes, i.e. the strong species. Also note that the translation loses something in "Jenseits" -- means more accurately, "something else outside of good and evil."
hope that clears everything up
Well, actually, there are a lot, though they don't JUST target CEOs, they also target other members of the work force that piss them off. Even though they may not be as effective as mass terrorists like those seen on (and after) the dreaded day two years gone, they too get the job done. Now which type of terrorism do YOU think is more popular?
"How many individuals in the WTC had 'bad behavior'?"
Depends who ya ask, now doesn't it? I know we heroize the poor souls that were needlessly killed on GWB-day, but I think that the terrorists flying the planes thought that there was indeed 'bad behavior' going on in those buildings, mostly in the oppression of a group of people that they believe deserves to be masters of the earth. And if you look at their situations, you see why! Sure, we think it's awful for them to kill a few thousand civilians, and it is, but they see daily US bombings in Iraq (even before our current war started), economic sanctions that kept several Arab states poor enough that starvation was a primary killer of millions of innocents, not to mention the fueling of warfare between Arab nations with weapons contributions, etc. But I rant. Think of it this way -- are the acts of that day more or less justified than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The people who dropped the A-bombs were not considered, terrorists, they were 'heroes,' they 'ended the war.' But they killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. That makes the WTC attacks look like chump change. And yes, they do think they are at War.
Sorry to rant -- comments like this just show a one-sidedness of knowledge that I refuse to ignore.
To your second point: "How does listening to a stolen CD violate any of those rights?"
This is where things get a bit sticky, and I still disagree with you. This is exactly what the first poster was talking about: if he steals my legally copied CD, and I still retain the original, he commits copyright infringement when he listens to it. It is absurd to think that it is legal for him to listen to the CD under copyright law. A similar question was posed earlier on slashdot -- under your interpretation, it would be completely legal to:
1. Make copies of all your CDs, one for each friend and family member.
2. Fall victim to the theft of your copied CDs, with each of your friends and family members taking one of each CD. (gasp)
3. Don't press charges.
4. Profit!
This is, effectively, distribution of a copy, willful or not. When my friend steals my burned CD, it is in effect absolutely no different than my friend downloading that same music from me on Kazaa. It is exactly identical to me making a legal fair rights copy of my favorite top-100 hit on my computer so that I can listen to it on my computer. Once it "leaves" my computer (or in the case of the CD, possession,) it is no longer covered under fair rights laws governing the right to copy, and presumably, to distribute.
Logical enough?
Accepted, yes -- legislated, no. That is why I said it was technically illegal; not that any judge would care or impose any penalty. The small business bit is interesting -- thanks.
"Where did you get that idea from? It is theft. Only. If you stole a CD from a Best Buy, you are not guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is from copying, publicly performing, distributing. Stealing a CD fits into none of those categories."
Here you are wrong -- my point is that he is both stealing AND infringing on copyright. As the sole owner of the license to listen to the music on a CD that I own, stealing MY cd is both 1) a theft of my physical property and 2) copyright infringement of the record company's intellectual property when the person listens to the stolen CD. This is different from selling a CD -- when I sell that same CD, I also sell my right to listen to it.
The second violation would be his stealing the copied CD from you -- he did not purchase the music, so any listening he might engage in later (I assume that's what he stole the CD for) would constitute copyright infringement. It would also be theft -- you own the blank CD physically, and you also own the fair use license to the music on it. Technically, it is still a crime, even if no charges are pressed. Everything else is null -- you cannot be held accountable for your friend's actions, nor have you committed any crimes by copying and listening to your licensed music, only by playing the music with others around you.
In sum:
Copyright infringements: 2 (your public performance, your friend listening to your cd after theft)
Criminal acts: 1 (Theft of your property))
......
The fact that nobody except the RIAA cares about any of those crimes: $92 billion (mostly paid by poor college students)
Conceded -- I noted this after I had written the post. All apologies.
That is exactly my point. Simple generally means that it is easier to determine the truth-value of the statement. This is BECAUSE one can control the environment variables. You seem to be arguing the opposite -- I think. You argument gets clearer later in the post. But anyway, the point is, if you're in court, and you say "there are 2 bullet-holes in two fixed objects in the room, so we know (within reason) the trajectory of the bullet." That is fair, simple, and easy to determine with "real" science. With "soft" science, one might claim that "The SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) that the patient was taking interfered with the stimulated dopamine production from his cocaine use, and this interaction has been shown in studies X, Y, and Z to increase violent tendencies in rats and sometimes in humans. Thus, we conclude that it was the drugs that made him do it." Now try evaluating that statement. That's about as simple as it gets in the court with soft science.
"Thats science. Maybe it would be better to rely on intuition or dogma for our perception of the universe? None of them are right or wrong."
Actually, that's not science. Science (i.e. experimentation) is only necessarily valid (in the logical sense of the term) in systems where we a)know all of the variables and b) can account for the effects of all variables except one, within acceptable tolerant limits. While we can fairly well do both (to our knowledge) for subjects such as classical physics, chemistry, etc. We can CONTROL the system.
Not so in psychology. You can never control a human system. Likewise, even with statistics, you cannot account for all variables in such a huge system. This is why psychology has so much contradiction, and the hard sciences do not. There are competing theories in hard science, but only infrequently outright experimental contradiction. To wit, you can't drop an apple on someone's head 20 times and then drop it the same way with the same situation again and have it miss for no reason. We can DETERMINE why it would miss. You can't determine why such statistical variance exists in psychology, at least not with any credible validity.
"The result you talk about something that was observed and measured by an imperfect person. How is this any different than Newton being hit by an apple?"
Because if that same apple dropped under "scientifically controlled circumstances" with Newton under the same tree a thousand times, it seems likely that it would hit him in the head 1000 times. If that accuracy rate were on psychological scale, it might hit him one out of three times, and sometimes, the apple would fall up.
"So lets just say fuckit and have 1 person determine what will be presented in court. Thats not very scientific, now is it?"
Actually, it might very well be scientific, in the end. Science != Democracy. Anyway, SOMEONE is going to have to make the decision sometime. Wouldn't you rather it be someone in touch with the actual circumstances of the case? Time and time again, it has been shown that these decisions cannot be mandated -- they must be decided with sensitivity and then reviewed if necessary (side note: yay Aristotle!). It's not saying "fuckit," as you so delicately put it, it is saying "how do we solve this problem in the most efficient and effective manner possible?" I challenge anyone to come up with a better workable solution.
For almost every study in psychology, there are at least 2 studies that contradict the results of that study, and there are studies to contradict those studies. The whole thing becomes one big mess, and is far too nebulous and confusing to be presented as evidence for a jury.
The real problem is drawing the line. Headlines in newspapers claim that "Daubert ruling excludes legitimate scientific evidence" and whatnot, but what is legitimate? Obviously, somebody believes in every scientific theory publicly available, or else it wouldn't be a theory at all, it would just be stupid. And especially in psychology, any result can be reproduced, given the right amount of time, and good resources =P.
The solution, I think, is on a per-case basis: have the judge evaluate the relevant science before the trial begins. If it is accepted, it is admissible. If it is not submitted for approval, or if it is not accepted, then it is not admissible.
it should be GNU/Linuxtag
Expect me for "tea."
Imaging[sic] if the Honda insight made it to market first, the image of hybrids would have been ruined. People would think a small impractical ugly car every time someone said hybrid and wouldn't like the idea of hybrids.
I imagine that you meant "imagine" and not "imaging." However, though you idea was kinda right, your facts were flat-out wrong. The Honda Insight DID in fact hit the market before any other hybrid vehicle in the USA. And it got rave reviews, and continues to get rave reviews. Admittedly, most people don't like the aesthetics that much, but I think the novelty appeal appeases most owners anyway.
Correct -- which is why Right of Reply doesn't work as well in print as it does in debate.
=)
As someone else points out, what if that in turn causes a third party to claim that THEY need a rebuttal printed too? Where does it end??
Fortunately for us, they've already thought of that. The whole Right of Reply system is based on the method of debate in the Parliament. And the basic rule is that you can't Right of Reply a Right of Reply. Thus, if:
1) I slam Microsoft on my webpage, and
2) Microsoft demands right of reply, with which I comply, and
3) Microsoft says nasty things about me or some other entity in that right of reply, then
-------
4) None of those entities can claim a right of reply to that statement, since it is already a right of reply.
Hope that clarifies.