Actually, he almost understands epistemology: the word "exist" in his statement has no meaning. I like Wittgenstein's treatment of this usage: what would the opposing thesis be like? If someone told you "I don't exist", would you ask them for a proof or presume that you are being joked (philosophized) at? And if you had good reasons to believe that the person was dead serious, would you not doubt his sanity or at least his grasp of language?
As much as I loved NoScript, I uninstalled it the moment the story broke. But After reading Giorgio's apology I was totally convinced that he meant no harm and learned his lesson, so I reinstalled NoScript only a few days later.
So now it induces nerds to stock op on GPU hardware? I get it! BitCoin is not currency at all, is just a new game genre: MMOM (pronounced like "mom"), Massively Multiplayer Online Money. The hottest MMOM in town. Spread the word.
Copyright exists to give the creator exclusive rights to profit from the creation
This is wrong twice. The actual purpose of copyright is to give publishers, not creators, exclusive rights. This goes back to the Statute Of Anne which assigned copyrights directly to printers and hosed writers both retroactively and in the future. US law fixed the language, but neither the purpose nor the effect. It is still virtually impossible to collect monopoly profits unless you are a publisher. As a lone artist, you invariably find that in order to make any money at all, you have to become very famous first. There are two good ways to do it, and both involve giving up the exclusive right. Let your fans share your work or sign your copyright over to a publisher.
But even if you disagree with this observation, this is still wrong because no copyright law provides exclusive rights to profit. Rather, it's an exclusive right to make copies. Come on people, it's in the effing name.
"He was a 17-year-old, and the curator of the museum was close, like a father to him," said Seattle attorney Daniel Harris, who is representing Anderson.
After the museum fire and cleanup, garbage trucks were sent in to haul off the remaining debris, and Anderson claims he was combing through it when he discovered the plaque, which was coated with a thick layer of melted materials.
The lawsuit said Anderson left with the plaque in full view of the garbage-removal workers.
Gutheinz also pointed out that the wooden plaque shows no sign of fire damage.
He knew exactly what he was looking at, but decided to be all coy, even if we are to believe his story. I am sure that curators would have taken the rocks if notified, but somehow this never occurred to him. <gollum, gollum> He decided that the state gave up on a moon rock because garbage removal workers missed it in a pile of rabble. He should consider himself lucky for keeping it for so long, but IMHO, he should have returned it to a museum back then, and it's definitely not too late to return it now. On the other hand, it's just a rock, so it really is not a big deal one way or the other.
Anyway, here is your moment of Zen:
Three state governors accidentally took their state's rocks home after leaving office.
Depending on what hung, it may be a bit more than 'init 6'. It is a bit strange though, that something expected to be highly available wast't powered through a remote-controlled unit. They are, like, less than $50 for an outlet.
Actually, the fish was sculpting the rock with a clam, but then the clam broke and the fish got distracted. Not merely an instance of tool use, this is clearly an attempt at creating an enduring cultural artifact.
The basic idea behind the patent system is sound. There's no economic incentive for individuals and small to medium-sized businesses to invent things when a big company can just take the idea and easily outcompete due to greater resources.
Bzzzz. On the contrary, there is little incentive to come up with anything novel under the patent regime: big corporations will always find something in your invention or manufacturing process that seems to infringe and simply bleed you to death in court. This is especially true for the most complicated inventions like software and (I imagine) drug cocktails. Without patents, inventors still have the first mover advantage and the trade secrets on their side, and no one can take that away.
Actually, even if it's a separate physical network as you described, there is no benefit. The size will be its downfall. Every node where encryption/decryption happens — that is, at least every terminal — has to be physically secure all the time, or it's all for nothing. How many users do we want it to have? A million? Out of the million, a thousand will have their password posted on their monitor.
IMHO, the critical infrastructure should be isolated. In order to authenticate and enter, one has to be present on site. The building or whatever has to be designed that way. Literally, no wires exposed. To transfer data in/out of the system, one has to go into a room with closed-circuit TV and authenticate in person.
So do I want a completely-deanonymized Internet? Hell no.
You are in luck! It's just a legislative fiction. In the real world, impersonating someone else on the Internet is very cheap and 100% effective. One only needs to steal credentials, which is VERY hard to detect, since nothing goes missing. The size really matters here. Anything with a million members will be breached within weeks and will remain breached for the rest of its existence. A much smaller network with carefully selected participants may be able to remain secure. This just seems like a trivial hurdle for criminals to overcome.
HAHAHA According to Micro$oft, your new and shiny Windows 7 is three times less likely to be botted than old and crufty XP, with infection rate still above 1%. In the real world, however, the infection rate is certainly above this estimate. Also, unlike 7, 98 was kind enough not to spy on you and phone home every day. The reason GP's comment goes well with this crowd is the fact that Windows 7 is a botnet by any sensible definition, made legal via EULA.
The science is not going to say "There is no God" because that would be an untestable hypothesis. It could prove, however, that there is no major difference between various deities. That is, they could use statistics to show that believing in Jesus Christ over Mohammed or Buddha or Gandalf does not produce a detectable intrinsic benefit to a believer. A very long-term study could be conducted to show the same for entire nations. The end result will be much worse than any disproof of the existence of God: religions will be exposed as harmless superstitions at best, or deliberate scams at worst. And it is the biggest players who are also the biggest hustlers, so obviously they will not go quietly.
IMHO, there just got to be a better, more effective way to define ethics and morals than reading them out of a 2000 year old collection of letters written by a guy named Paul, or may be Saul. I will sound crazy, but we could reconsider norms which seem to produce effects opposite to the ones intended. We could start with that, I mean.
A specific part of a religious ritual may confer a benefit, but it's never the fairy tale part. It's usually something very simple, like "don't use toxic drugs". Mormons may be healthier than most Americans, but they can't blame Jesus for that. They are reaping the benefit of valid scientific reasoning: don't eat poison, and you will live longer.
May be what we need is an open-source approach to religion. A collection of moral, ritualistic, and scientific knowledge designed specifically to improve the life of every individual and of the humanity as a whole. Of course, what constitutes an improvement differs among people, so this amalgamated religion will contain a lot of contradictory material. But it will also contain a body of scientific evidence showing correlation (if any) between specific moral precepts and the observed results. Over time, a remarkable consensus may be achieved on what is "good". And I do believe that morals directly affect the way the society operates, so I do expect to see a lot of very interesting, and sometimes very surprising correlation.
Will Joe do it? You bet he will! Can Linux prevent that infection? Hardly, without taking away Joe's control over his own box.
Actually, many current GNU/Linux do make this scenario very unlikely. If you use Debian or Ubuntu, you are led to install from signed repos. Even adding a custom repo is too complex for regular users. What am I saying... Regular users find synaptic incomprehensible. Raving idiots like Joe you described (people who heard about "spoofed IP address" but will download and run a strange binary) are extremely rare. And you are right, there is no cure for them.
There is, however, a cure for almost everyone else, and it should not be dismissed. People need to recognize that proprietary closed-source software is insecure by design, and there is never a good reason to use it. I bet that many more people get rooted through either Flash, Internet Explorer, Outlook, or Office than by downloading and running a program. The latter requires one to be an ignorant moron. The former will happen sooner or later if you trust a proprietary software vendor. Hell, vendors themselves root you whenever they think they can get away with it. How else would you characterize copy-protection? You are essentially rooted for their pleasure, after having paid.
We as consumers need to get our shit together and start paying directly for free software development. We also need to get it through our thick skulls that no form of entertainment is worth giving up control of your general-purpose computer. The outcome will be much cheaper (2-20 times), much more secure, and all-around higher quality commodity software.
If nanobots are intelligent enough to build a space-station at Alpha Centauri, then why would they need us there at all? When Humans arrive, they will be treated as tourists at best, or at worst as original Italian immigrants to US.
If they wished to enforce, rather then persuade, they'd run into the unpleasant set of problems [...]
Hehehehe... I am perpetually amazed that people who probably never even contributed to Wikipedia cannot sleep at night because a site this popular refuses to make money by abusing its users. It seems like every interview with Jimmy Wales starts with "have you thought of putting ads on Wikipedia"? Yes. I am sure he had. I am sure he probably figured out how this would be a checkmate in 2 moves:
Black: put commercial ads or scripts on Wikipedia.
White: create a $1e7/year non-profit and fork the project. Checkmate.
Thanks to copyleft, the same fate awaits anybody who tries to hijack a popular free software/content project for selfish gain.
All tax-payers are bad. As long as we have unjust laws, cops will be charged with enforcing those laws, and tax-payers will be charged with financing those cops. Anyone who finances the enforcement of an unjust law is a bad person. Do you see anything wrong with my reasoning?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it.
Yes, let's all worship bacteria an d fungi!
Actually, he almost understands epistemology: the word "exist" in his statement has no meaning. I like Wittgenstein's treatment of this usage: what would the opposing thesis be like? If someone told you "I don't exist", would you ask them for a proof or presume that you are being joked (philosophized) at? And if you had good reasons to believe that the person was dead serious, would you not doubt his sanity or at least his grasp of language?
As much as I loved NoScript, I uninstalled it the moment the story broke. But After reading Giorgio's apology I was totally convinced that he meant no harm and learned his lesson, so I reinstalled NoScript only a few days later.
I just think that cargo ships are awesome. If I ever have time and money for a long vacation, I'll ride one to Japan.
You can travel with a cargo ship. It is much slower and somewhat more expensive than air, but it's definitely an option.
You had me at "two racks".
So now it induces nerds to stock op on GPU hardware? I get it! BitCoin is not currency at all, is just a new game genre: MMOM (pronounced like "mom"), Massively Multiplayer Online Money. The hottest MMOM in town. Spread the word.
Copyright exists to give the creator exclusive rights to profit from the creation
This is wrong twice. The actual purpose of copyright is to give publishers, not creators, exclusive rights. This goes back to the Statute Of Anne which assigned copyrights directly to printers and hosed writers both retroactively and in the future. US law fixed the language, but neither the purpose nor the effect. It is still virtually impossible to collect monopoly profits unless you are a publisher. As a lone artist, you invariably find that in order to make any money at all, you have to become very famous first. There are two good ways to do it, and both involve giving up the exclusive right. Let your fans share your work or sign your copyright over to a publisher.
But even if you disagree with this observation, this is still wrong because no copyright law provides exclusive rights to profit. Rather, it's an exclusive right to make copies. Come on people, it's in the effing name.
I have no sympathy for this dude.
"He was a 17-year-old, and the curator of the museum was close, like a father to him," said Seattle attorney Daniel Harris, who is representing Anderson.
After the museum fire and cleanup, garbage trucks were sent in to haul off the remaining debris, and Anderson claims he was combing through it when he discovered the plaque, which was coated with a thick layer of melted materials.
The lawsuit said Anderson left with the plaque in full view of the garbage-removal workers.
Gutheinz also pointed out that the wooden plaque shows no sign of fire damage.
He knew exactly what he was looking at, but decided to be all coy, even if we are to believe his story. I am sure that curators would have taken the rocks if notified, but somehow this never occurred to him. <gollum, gollum> He decided that the state gave up on a moon rock because garbage removal workers missed it in a pile of rabble. He should consider himself lucky for keeping it for so long, but IMHO, he should have returned it to a museum back then, and it's definitely not too late to return it now. On the other hand, it's just a rock, so it really is not a big deal one way or the other.
Anyway, here is your moment of Zen:
Three state governors accidentally took their state's rocks home after leaving office.
How? Did they confuse them with office supplies?
That actually doesn't surprise me: why would anyone but the system administrator(s) have routine access to the hardware?
Depending on what hung, it may be a bit more than 'init 6'. It is a bit strange though, that something expected to be highly available wast't powered through a remote-controlled unit. They are, like, less than $50 for an outlet.
Actually, the fish was sculpting the rock with a clam, but then the clam broke and the fish got distracted. Not merely an instance of tool use, this is clearly an attempt at creating an enduring cultural artifact.
The basic idea behind the patent system is sound. There's no economic incentive for individuals and small to medium-sized businesses to invent things when a big company can just take the idea and easily outcompete due to greater resources.
Bzzzz. On the contrary, there is little incentive to come up with anything novel under the patent regime: big corporations will always find something in your invention or manufacturing process that seems to infringe and simply bleed you to death in court. This is especially true for the most complicated inventions like software and (I imagine) drug cocktails. Without patents, inventors still have the first mover advantage and the trade secrets on their side, and no one can take that away.
Actually, even if it's a separate physical network as you described, there is no benefit. The size will be its downfall. Every node where encryption/decryption happens — that is, at least every terminal — has to be physically secure all the time, or it's all for nothing. How many users do we want it to have? A million? Out of the million, a thousand will have their password posted on their monitor.
IMHO, the critical infrastructure should be isolated. In order to authenticate and enter, one has to be present on site. The building or whatever has to be designed that way. Literally, no wires exposed. To transfer data in/out of the system, one has to go into a room with closed-circuit TV and authenticate in person.
So do I want a completely-deanonymized Internet? Hell no.
You are in luck! It's just a legislative fiction. In the real world, impersonating someone else on the Internet is very cheap and 100% effective. One only needs to steal credentials, which is VERY hard to detect, since nothing goes missing. The size really matters here. Anything with a million members will be breached within weeks and will remain breached for the rest of its existence. A much smaller network with carefully selected participants may be able to remain secure. This just seems like a trivial hurdle for criminals to overcome.
HAHAHA According to Micro$oft, your new and shiny Windows 7 is three times less likely to be botted than old and crufty XP, with infection rate still above 1%. In the real world, however, the infection rate is certainly above this estimate. Also, unlike 7, 98 was kind enough not to spy on you and phone home every day. The reason GP's comment goes well with this crowd is the fact that Windows 7 is a botnet by any sensible definition, made legal via EULA.
I agree. I use Ubuntu, even. It's kind of fun. But I started recommending Debian to converts, for reasons outlined above.
Watson, is that you???
The science is not going to say "There is no God" because that would be an untestable hypothesis. It could prove, however, that there is no major difference between various deities. That is, they could use statistics to show that believing in Jesus Christ over Mohammed or Buddha or Gandalf does not produce a detectable intrinsic benefit to a believer. A very long-term study could be conducted to show the same for entire nations. The end result will be much worse than any disproof of the existence of God: religions will be exposed as harmless superstitions at best, or deliberate scams at worst. And it is the biggest players who are also the biggest hustlers, so obviously they will not go quietly.
IMHO, there just got to be a better, more effective way to define ethics and morals than reading them out of a 2000 year old collection of letters written by a guy named Paul, or may be Saul. I will sound crazy, but we could reconsider norms which seem to produce effects opposite to the ones intended. We could start with that, I mean.
A specific part of a religious ritual may confer a benefit, but it's never the fairy tale part. It's usually something very simple, like "don't use toxic drugs". Mormons may be healthier than most Americans, but they can't blame Jesus for that. They are reaping the benefit of valid scientific reasoning: don't eat poison, and you will live longer.
May be what we need is an open-source approach to religion. A collection of moral, ritualistic, and scientific knowledge designed specifically to improve the life of every individual and of the humanity as a whole. Of course, what constitutes an improvement differs among people, so this amalgamated religion will contain a lot of contradictory material. But it will also contain a body of scientific evidence showing correlation (if any) between specific moral precepts and the observed results. Over time, a remarkable consensus may be achieved on what is "good". And I do believe that morals directly affect the way the society operates, so I do expect to see a lot of very interesting, and sometimes very surprising correlation.
Will Joe do it? You bet he will! Can Linux prevent that infection? Hardly, without taking away Joe's control over his own box.
Actually, many current GNU/Linux do make this scenario very unlikely. If you use Debian or Ubuntu, you are led to install from signed repos. Even adding a custom repo is too complex for regular users. What am I saying... Regular users find synaptic incomprehensible. Raving idiots like Joe you described (people who heard about "spoofed IP address" but will download and run a strange binary) are extremely rare. And you are right, there is no cure for them.
There is, however, a cure for almost everyone else, and it should not be dismissed. People need to recognize that proprietary closed-source software is insecure by design, and there is never a good reason to use it. I bet that many more people get rooted through either Flash, Internet Explorer, Outlook, or Office than by downloading and running a program. The latter requires one to be an ignorant moron. The former will happen sooner or later if you trust a proprietary software vendor. Hell, vendors themselves root you whenever they think they can get away with it. How else would you characterize copy-protection? You are essentially rooted for their pleasure, after having paid.
We as consumers need to get our shit together and start paying directly for free software development. We also need to get it through our thick skulls that no form of entertainment is worth giving up control of your general-purpose computer. The outcome will be much cheaper (2-20 times), much more secure, and all-around higher quality commodity software.
If nanobots are intelligent enough to build a space-station at Alpha Centauri, then why would they need us there at all? When Humans arrive, they will be treated as tourists at best, or at worst as original Italian immigrants to US.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/files/2008/04/mr-fusion.jpg
If they wished to enforce, rather then persuade, they'd run into the unpleasant set of problems [...]
Hehehehe... I am perpetually amazed that people who probably never even contributed to Wikipedia cannot sleep at night because a site this popular refuses to make money by abusing its users. It seems like every interview with Jimmy Wales starts with "have you thought of putting ads on Wikipedia"? Yes. I am sure he had. I am sure he probably figured out how this would be a checkmate in 2 moves:
Black: put commercial ads or scripts on Wikipedia.
White: create a $1e7/year non-profit and fork the project. Checkmate.
Thanks to copyleft, the same fate awaits anybody who tries to hijack a popular free software/content project for selfish gain.
All tax-payers are bad. As long as we have unjust laws, cops will be charged with enforcing those laws, and tax-payers will be charged with financing those cops. Anyone who finances the enforcement of an unjust law is a bad person. Do you see anything wrong with my reasoning?