'So, you don't pay taxes and you're either looking for a new place to live after you surrender your citizenship or you're actively working to overthrow this evil regime?'
Love it or leave it? Actually yes, I actively work in a non-violent manner to change and/or overthrow this regime. I pay its taxes and obey its laws, just as I would obey any violent psychopath who forced me at gunpoint to do as he says. But when time comes to resist, you resist, be it an evil regime or an individual psychopath.
'Because I'm sure someone who feels as strongly as you do wouldn't want to benefit from anything the US government or other citizens do to improve your life.'
You act as if the two are related. The US government is not representative of my citizens or community, that is the point.
Give me a break, the US does every dirty trick in the book. Just because our cruelty is more subtle and hidden behind flowery prose does not make the US 'the good guys'.
The US violates virtually every treaty established for the good of mankind. They violate the geneva convention, they continue to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal, they are developing and deploying space weapons, they are developing and utilizing chemical weapons, they ignore unfavorable WTO rulings, they are committing wars of aggression throughout the world in response to a simple police matter.
Further the US has rounded up its own people during world war II, forced them into concentration camps and imposed forced sterilization. The US employs a public education system that creates a fabricated version of US history to teach to its youth to instill a false sense of patriotism. Those same impressionable young minds are forced to swear allegiance to their central government.
Lets see, spying on citizens. Requiring 'permits' to openly protest. A well established youth 'education' program. Centralized power. Incarceration without trial. The great atrocities of Nazi Germany really had nothing to do with Jews you know.
Notice I do not include myself as part of the US. I may have been born within its borders and I certainly consider myself part of the PEOPLE but I want no part in the festering evil that is the government in this nation. I do not claim it, I do not recognize its right to exert authority over me by force of arms, and I don't want it.
The "two party" system they say makes this country great always cracks me up. Particularly the way they try to tell you how superior it is to a 'one party' system.
Give me a break, without the two party system you don't have one party, you have a dozen independents and voters who pick one based on issues instead of mindless party loyalty.
On the contrary, licenses are not required for copyrighted works. They are only required to distribute or copy them. The license is to allow us to modify, change, and redistribute the works.
They could also have rendered the works into the public domain.
Its easier to shutdown a supercomputer than it is to shut down millions of drops of rain. Also, there is the fact that the raindrops can be outside the US.
Bot networks have been shown to be very powerful, whether used to mass email or launch a DDOS attack. So I suggest creating an official defense botnet client that civilians can download to help our military from home.
Naturally, the military wouldn't use this every day, but if this effort were heavily publicized through major media outlets and made easy to download and install (initiates contact with home so it bypasses most consumer firewalls without port forwarding, etc). I think you would find the number of cyber patriots to be large indeed.
Of course, if the military ever attempted to tie a backdoor of any kind into this bot client it would create a serious backlash so I would recommend hard coding that this should never be done into the orders to create it as well as public statements. This will help reduce the possibility of a future commander doing so either.
The other possibility is that the bot net could fall into the hands of a third party. While this is possible, and it probably isn't possible to make it impenetrable all you really need to do is make it secure enough that its easier to establish your own illicit botnet. People are doing just that every day so that barrier can't be that high.
This won't win their case. This is nothing more or less than SNCP attempting to float SCO long enough to embezzle a profit from the other shareholders with a loan. Of course the other shareholders have no say in the matter since SNCP now has a controlling interest. In other words, its simple fraud.
Even if they have no income, as long as they sell stock they have cash flow and you can bet that case flow will go back into paying the 21% interest and minimum payment on whatever SNCP loans them. I'm sure they've projected the numbers and determined that at the rate they loan versus the incoming cash flow they will turn a tidy profit before the ship sinks. I bet they even have a projected date to stop loaning. Hell, it might even work out that $95m is what they have determined it will take to float the company long enough to embezzle the most out of it.
What are the chances that SNCP is running a distinct risk of being considered to be embezzlers. Especially since SCO has no income and that interest they expect to return a profit over the principle and the $5m buyin is coming directly out of the other shareholder pockets.
It could be legit. The company only cost them $5m and they are loaning SCO $100m at 17% on which they will make sure SCO makes minimum payments for as long as the SCO roller coaster can be run. They may figure they can float SCO long enough to make a profit before it sinks.
'However, that said, we haven't done DNA testing of every murderer or rapist, much less the general population. Nor have we done that for 60% of the population'
It is in fact 60% of those sent for testing. I had come away with the impression that the statistic was a projection to the total murder and/or death row population.
That said, your point about volunteering might make be a stronger one if there were a consequence to a bad result. Saying that only innocent people would volunteer is like saying that only innocent people would file an appeal. Even if they are guilty they hope to beat the system. DNA is not anywhere near as accurate as people believe, especially when you take lab/human errors into account. If you are going to die anyway and aren't going to be any more dead if fail then why not volunteer?
Yes but the 60% statistic isn't relative to those tested but relative to the total population. If there are 10 prisoners and 2 are tested, half of those found innocent the rate is 10% not 50%. That is obviously simplified and the sample is larger but you get the idea.
It's possible that we are less effective at catching murderers than those convicted of lesser crimes but somehow I suspect its the other way around.
We aren't, we are on a U.S. forum that permits foreigners to post. Since this is a U.S. forum and not an international one 'the' anything is by default 'the U.S.' anything.
Obviously. If you are rolling a six sided die and guess the result will be 4 you have a one in six chance of being correct. Where the roulette junkies get led astray is that they think if the result was not 4 then the chances of getting 4 are better on the next roll since 4 is "due" or if the result was 4 they think the chances of rolling a subsequent 4 are lower. Those are all false, if you have rolled twenty fours in a row your chances of rolling a 4 on the next toss are still just 1 in 6.
You are also suggesting that Hans has to provide reasonable doubt, Hans is innocent until the prosecution proves that he killed his wife beyond any reasonable doubt. Hans gets the benefit of the doubt.
"Life isn't fiction. If you see a man fleeing a house with a bloody knife, 99.9% of the time, he's the killer.
If you take fiction for reality, you are a fool."
Life is stranger than fiction. There were dozens of instances where my arse was tanned because it was 'clear' I had done something wrong when in fact I was innocent. If there was anyone else in the house then anyone can reason that it is possible the someone else committed the crime, it doesn't matter if you think the fleeing man did it because there is a reasonable doubt.
If the current rate of convict DNA testing remains consistent then over 60% of those incarcerated are not guilty of the crime they were convicted of. The police and prosecutors attack the first person they can build a case against and most of the time scare them into plea bargains with threats of even greater persecution. Our justice system doesn't function in a manner that discovers what happened when a crime is committed, the goal is to successfully prosecute someone for the crime.
As for the great majority of murders going unsolved, there aren't even suspects or real investigations for most murders. The victims are homeless, gangbangers, prostitutes, and drug dealers in the inner city and no real investigation is conducted in the first place.
Exhibiting criminal tendencies may be relative to intelligence but having criminal tendencies certainly is not. You just don't hear about the bright criminals very often because *gasp* they don't get caught.
Its not surprising really. The police aren't interested in catching bad guys or solving crimes. The police would rather ignore as much crime as possible, the less crime that is reported the lower the crime rate and the more effective they appear. When a crime is reported the police aren't especially interested in discovering what occurred either, they are interested in finding someone they can pin the crime on. The first person the police believe they have sufficient evidence to convict they will arrest and prosecute, whether they believe that person committed the crime or not. Again, the more often the police arrest someone in relation to a crime the better their stats look.
'Umm, criminals? They aren't the smartest bunch, you know.'
That is a silly philosophy, while there are certainly dimwitted criminals there are no shortage of bright criminals either. You do realize that only a very tiny fraction of criminals get caught and even those generally get away with dozens of crimes before they ever get caught. If you want dimwits I'd look to your local law enforcement;)
'Many people seem to believe that, but it's not how science works. (Or even art, for that matter, Picasso took extensive training in classical art before he started his revolution in painting, for example...)'
First, science and art are not special exceptions. The same principles that apply to every other topic known to man apply to them. Ninety-nine times in a hundred a new discovery will come from someone well versed in current theory. Someone well versed in current theory is certainly more likely to come up with an Einstein-like vast and complex theory of relativity.
A fundamental discovery that runs contrary to what every expert knows to be fact is more likely to be discovered by someone who is ignorant in some respects, for example a student. Complete ignorance is unlikely, someone who is completely ignorant is unlikely to know they have discovered something in the first place. Students will challenge things BECAUSE they are ignorant, in almost every case the proof they are ignorant of is accurate and students beat the same dead horse again and again, if not there would be breakthroughs every day. But every so often a student (or a young scientist who is new to the field and therefore ignorant in respects) challenges a principle that is thought basic successfully.
Most scientists I know wouldn't argue with what I've just said, but they fail to realize that a classroom isn't the only place to learn. There is nothing taught in a classroom these days that can't be learned from self experimentation and books. A student can be found in a garage just as easily as classroom. A self-taught student will have holes in his education but he will also have covered some material more thoroughly than regimented formal education. The problem with scientists is that they believe they are open minded and that they question and challenge everything and so are not subject to the problems of the stuffy unenlightened arts. At the same time most of those scientists will say things like "Scientific theories are really more like fact." nonsense, the distinction is made for a reason yet scientists often think of that distinction as mere lip service to satisfy the anal.
'I think EU is allowed to fine a company for antitrust issues up to 100% of the income, not profit.'
Yes but I would be surprised if they couldn't make it retroactive to when the offense was committed, such that the past 5 or 6 years of income would apply and not just future incomes. If someone has made illicit gains the loss of the total amount of the gains should be a given and fines should be above and beyond that.
'Or do you think scientists are so stupid that, after more than a hundred years of research, they would have overlooked a basic principle that a dyslexic cook can discover by himself?'
Yes. A hundred years is a very short period of time. I think dyslexic cooks will be making science redefine its principles in 10,000 years. It may not be this dyslexic cook but a scientist is only trained in what is currently known, their thinking processes are trapped in the box of current theory and they are unlikely to come across any fundamental groundbreaking change. That doesn't mean there aren't fundamental groundbreaking changes to be found it just means that those who have traveled too far down the academic path will be constricted to changes that are mostly consistent with what they have experienced and that experience is anecdotal evidence.
We did not get to our current state of understanding in one hundred years, it has taken billions of years. To think we have unraveled all there is to know about the universe from a mere hundred years worth of observation is folly. It isn't even sensible. We have all seen processes that appear to be perpetual if you don't watch long enough, in the scale of the universe that could mean effects or limits on effects that appear to be 'laws of the universe' and are really only local phenomena that persist for a billion years.
We are ants and we no more know how the universe works than ants do. If we lived on their scale we would no doubt believe the universe to be a forest on a plane that extends forever because after a hundred years the best instrumentation we have been able to develop can not find an end to it. You keep your forest and I'll keep my lawn tyvm.
But that is the beauty of this discovery, it is more likely an effect that will increase the efficiency of the motors than perpetual energy. By studying this effect they are pushing toward free energy and increased motor efficiency at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
'So, you don't pay taxes and you're either looking for a new place to live after you surrender your citizenship or you're actively working to overthrow this evil regime?'
Love it or leave it? Actually yes, I actively work in a non-violent manner to change and/or overthrow this regime. I pay its taxes and obey its laws, just as I would obey any violent psychopath who forced me at gunpoint to do as he says. But when time comes to resist, you resist, be it an evil regime or an individual psychopath.
'Because I'm sure someone who feels as strongly as you do wouldn't want to benefit from anything the US government or other citizens do to improve your life.'
You act as if the two are related. The US government is not representative of my citizens or community, that is the point.
Only if it is allowed. Here in the US we obviously need a constitutional amendment to address this issue.
Give me a break, the US does every dirty trick in the book. Just because our cruelty is more subtle and hidden behind flowery prose does not make the US 'the good guys'.
The US violates virtually every treaty established for the good of mankind. They violate the geneva convention, they continue to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal, they are developing and deploying space weapons, they are developing and utilizing chemical weapons, they ignore unfavorable WTO rulings, they are committing wars of aggression throughout the world in response to a simple police matter.
Further the US has rounded up its own people during world war II, forced them into concentration camps and imposed forced sterilization. The US employs a public education system that creates a fabricated version of US history to teach to its youth to instill a false sense of patriotism. Those same impressionable young minds are forced to swear allegiance to their central government.
Lets see, spying on citizens. Requiring 'permits' to openly protest. A well established youth 'education' program. Centralized power. Incarceration without trial. The great atrocities of Nazi Germany really had nothing to do with Jews you know.
Notice I do not include myself as part of the US. I may have been born within its borders and I certainly consider myself part of the PEOPLE but I want no part in the festering evil that is the government in this nation. I do not claim it, I do not recognize its right to exert authority over me by force of arms, and I don't want it.
The "two party" system they say makes this country great always cracks me up. Particularly the way they try to tell you how superior it is to a 'one party' system.
Give me a break, without the two party system you don't have one party, you have a dozen independents and voters who pick one based on issues instead of mindless party loyalty.
Engineering students is good, but bring back the damn babes!!!
On the contrary, licenses are not required for copyrighted works. They are only required to distribute or copy them. The license is to allow us to modify, change, and redistribute the works.
They could also have rendered the works into the public domain.
'you can presumably shutdown the major peering points as well, taking the internet off-line.'
;)
ummm... mission accomplished? Why bother with the whole internet? Why not just unplug that cord, that will stop those pesky packets
Its easier to shutdown a supercomputer than it is to shut down millions of drops of rain. Also, there is the fact that the raindrops can be outside the US.
Bot networks have been shown to be very powerful, whether used to mass email or launch a DDOS attack. So I suggest creating an official defense botnet client that civilians can download to help our military from home.
Naturally, the military wouldn't use this every day, but if this effort were heavily publicized through major media outlets and made easy to download and install (initiates contact with home so it bypasses most consumer firewalls without port forwarding, etc). I think you would find the number of cyber patriots to be large indeed.
Of course, if the military ever attempted to tie a backdoor of any kind into this bot client it would create a serious backlash so I would recommend hard coding that this should never be done into the orders to create it as well as public statements. This will help reduce the possibility of a future commander doing so either.
The other possibility is that the bot net could fall into the hands of a third party. While this is possible, and it probably isn't possible to make it impenetrable all you really need to do is make it secure enough that its easier to establish your own illicit botnet. People are doing just that every day so that barrier can't be that high.
This won't win their case. This is nothing more or less than SNCP attempting to float SCO long enough to embezzle a profit from the other shareholders with a loan. Of course the other shareholders have no say in the matter since SNCP now has a controlling interest. In other words, its simple fraud.
Even if they have no income, as long as they sell stock they have cash flow and you can bet that case flow will go back into paying the 21% interest and minimum payment on whatever SNCP loans them. I'm sure they've projected the numbers and determined that at the rate they loan versus the incoming cash flow they will turn a tidy profit before the ship sinks. I bet they even have a projected date to stop loaning. Hell, it might even work out that $95m is what they have determined it will take to float the company long enough to embezzle the most out of it.
What are the chances that SNCP is running a distinct risk of being considered to be embezzlers. Especially since SCO has no income and that interest they expect to return a profit over the principle and the $5m buyin is coming directly out of the other shareholder pockets.
It could be legit. The company only cost them $5m and they are loaning SCO $100m at 17% on which they will make sure SCO makes minimum payments for as long as the SCO roller coaster can be run. They may figure they can float SCO long enough to make a profit before it sinks.
'However, that said, we haven't done DNA testing of every murderer or rapist, much less the general population. Nor have we done that for 60% of the population'
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:8a-wOGW35sQJ:www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,30506,00.html+60%25+innocent+dna+testing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
It is in fact 60% of those sent for testing. I had come away with the impression that the statistic was a projection to the total murder and/or death row population.
That said, your point about volunteering might make be
a stronger one if there were a consequence to a bad result. Saying that only innocent people would
volunteer is like saying that only innocent people would file an appeal. Even if they are guilty they hope to beat the system. DNA is not anywhere near as accurate as people believe, especially
when you take lab/human errors into account. If you are going to die anyway and aren't going to be
any more dead if fail then why not volunteer?
pretty much
Yes but the 60% statistic isn't relative to those tested but relative to the total population. If there are 10 prisoners and 2 are tested, half of those found innocent the rate is 10% not 50%. That is obviously simplified and the sample is larger but you get the idea.
It's possible that we are less effective at catching murderers than those convicted of lesser crimes but somehow I suspect its the other way around.
We aren't, we are on a U.S. forum that permits foreigners to post. Since this is a U.S. forum and not an international one 'the' anything is by default 'the U.S.' anything.
'I'm no mathematician'
Obviously. If you are rolling a six sided die and guess the result will be 4 you have a one in six chance of being correct. Where the roulette junkies get led astray is that they think if the result was not 4 then the chances of getting 4 are better on the next roll since 4 is "due" or if the result was 4 they think the chances of rolling a subsequent 4 are lower. Those are all false, if you have rolled twenty fours in a row your chances of rolling a 4 on the next toss are still just 1 in 6.
You are also suggesting that Hans has to provide reasonable doubt, Hans is innocent until the prosecution proves that he killed his wife beyond any reasonable doubt. Hans gets the benefit of the doubt.
"Life isn't fiction. If you see a man fleeing a house with a bloody knife, 99.9% of the time, he's the killer.
If you take fiction for reality, you are a fool."
Life is stranger than fiction. There were dozens of instances where my arse was tanned because it was 'clear' I had done something wrong when in fact I was innocent. If there was anyone else in the house then anyone can reason that it is possible the someone else committed the crime, it doesn't matter if you think the fleeing man did it because there is a reasonable doubt.
If the current rate of convict DNA testing remains consistent then over 60% of those incarcerated are not guilty of the crime they were convicted of. The police and prosecutors attack the first person they can build a case against and most of the time scare them into plea bargains with threats of even greater persecution. Our justice system doesn't function in a manner that discovers what happened when a crime is committed, the goal is to successfully prosecute someone for the crime.
As for the great majority of murders going unsolved, there aren't even suspects or real investigations for most murders. The victims are homeless, gangbangers, prostitutes, and drug dealers in the inner city and no real investigation is conducted in the first place.
Exhibiting criminal tendencies may be relative to intelligence but having criminal tendencies certainly is not. You just don't hear about the bright criminals very often because *gasp* they don't get caught.
Its not surprising really. The police aren't interested in catching bad guys or solving crimes. The police would rather ignore as much crime as possible, the less crime that is reported the lower the crime rate and the more effective they appear. When a crime is reported the police aren't especially interested in discovering what occurred either, they are interested in finding someone they can pin the crime on. The first person the police believe they have sufficient evidence to convict they will arrest and prosecute, whether they believe that person committed the crime or not. Again, the more often the police arrest someone in relation to a crime the better their stats look.
'Umm, criminals? They aren't the smartest bunch, you know.'
;)
That is a silly philosophy, while there are certainly dimwitted criminals there are no shortage of bright criminals either. You do realize that only a very tiny fraction of criminals get caught and even those generally get away with dozens of crimes before they ever get caught. If you want dimwits I'd look to your local law enforcement
'Many people seem to believe that, but it's not how science works. (Or even art, for that matter, Picasso took extensive training in classical art before he started his revolution in painting, for example...)'
First, science and art are not special exceptions. The same principles that apply to every other topic known to man apply to them. Ninety-nine times in a hundred a new discovery will come from someone well versed in current theory. Someone well versed in current theory is certainly more likely to come up with an Einstein-like vast and complex theory of relativity.
A fundamental discovery that runs contrary to what every expert knows to be fact is more likely to be discovered by someone who is ignorant in some respects, for example a student. Complete ignorance is unlikely, someone who is completely ignorant is unlikely to know they have discovered something in the first place. Students will challenge things BECAUSE they are ignorant, in almost every case the proof they are ignorant of is accurate and students beat the same dead horse again and again, if not there would be breakthroughs every day. But every so often a student (or a young scientist who is new to the field and therefore ignorant in respects) challenges a principle that is thought basic successfully.
Most scientists I know wouldn't argue with what I've just said, but they fail to realize that a classroom isn't the only place to learn. There is nothing taught in a classroom these days that can't be learned from self experimentation and books. A student can be found in a garage just as easily as classroom. A self-taught student will have holes in his education but he will also have covered some material more thoroughly than regimented formal education. The problem with scientists is that they believe they are open minded and that they question and challenge everything and so are not subject to the problems of the stuffy unenlightened arts. At the same time most of those scientists will say things like "Scientific theories are really more like fact." nonsense, the distinction is made for a reason yet scientists often think of that distinction as mere lip service to satisfy the anal.
'I think EU is allowed to fine a company for antitrust issues up to 100% of the income, not profit.'
Yes but I would be surprised if they couldn't make it retroactive to when the offense was committed, such that the past 5 or 6 years of income would apply and not just future incomes. If someone has made illicit gains the loss of the total amount of the gains should be a given and fines should be above and beyond that.
'Or do you think scientists are so stupid that, after more than a hundred years of research, they would have overlooked a basic principle that a dyslexic cook can discover by himself?'
Yes. A hundred years is a very short period of time. I think dyslexic cooks will be making science redefine its principles in 10,000 years. It may not be this dyslexic cook but a scientist is only trained in what is currently known, their thinking processes are trapped in the box of current theory and they are unlikely to come across any fundamental groundbreaking change. That doesn't mean there aren't fundamental groundbreaking changes to be found it just means that those who have traveled too far down the academic path will be constricted to changes that are mostly consistent with what they have experienced and that experience is anecdotal evidence.
We did not get to our current state of understanding in one hundred years, it has taken billions of years. To think we have unraveled all there is to know about the universe from a mere hundred years worth of observation is folly. It isn't even sensible. We have all seen processes that appear to be perpetual if you don't watch long enough, in the scale of the universe that could mean effects or limits on effects that appear to be 'laws of the universe' and are really only local phenomena that persist for a billion years.
We are ants and we no more know how the universe works than ants do. If we lived on their scale we would no doubt believe the universe to be a forest on a plane that extends forever because after a hundred years the best instrumentation we have been able to develop can not find an end to it. You keep your forest and I'll keep my lawn tyvm.
But that is the beauty of this discovery, it is more likely an effect that will increase the efficiency of the motors than perpetual energy. By studying this effect they are pushing toward free energy and increased motor efficiency at the same time.