This was done back in the 1970s in the Pacific Northwest with Tansy Ragweed. Don't remember the moth specifically- but boy did we have a lot of those cute little yellow and black furry catepillars around when I was a kid.
From his creator of course- on back to an infinity of meta-universes deep- or for that matter, if you take the circular time argument instead- from your descendants. See why abortion is such an important issue to some people?:-)
RTFA- you'll only buy this TC0 argument if you want to 0wn systems (to send out spam or viruses) or if you don't mind your company's systems being hacked.
Why should there be flame wars? Asside from SP2- which really hasn't been fire tested yet- even Windows developers admit that Windows has a lower TC0 than Linux. The part that surprised me in this was that OS X had a lower TC0 than Windows.
It's a TC0, not a TCO- and I doubt you could come to any other conclusion with a TC0 comparing Linux to Windows. Total cost of 0wnership- that is, total cost to hack the box and get it to send out a bunch of spam or viruses.
Of which I have not previously been aware! Good job! And a much better apples-to-apples comparison than I've seen done by either the open or closed source side- since this form of 0wnership totally removes the initial cost of licensing the install.
Not entirely true- many SMS providers such as Verizon, TMobile, Sprint and AT&T provide e-mail addresses that are linked to the SMS system. Of course, any e-mail to those addresses gets truncated at 160 chars- but just look at slashdot sigs which get trunc'd at 120 chars. Well written spam COULD get through- if you tried hard at the writing. And basically free to the sender- though likely 10-15 cents a message to the receiver if it isn't in their calling plan.
Err, omniscience is infinite awareness. The very definition of prescience, in Merriam-Webster, is devine omniscience...
I never trusted Webster after I found out that in their first edition they defined a Tory as "A damned fool". However- this leads us back to the definition of scope. Say, for the sake of argument that we have a three-dimensional God much like us. Tri-omni three dimensional God at that. But since he's three dimensional, though his knowledge, power, and benevolence stretch out infinitely in all three dimensions- the future is closed to him, as is the past, he's living in the present. This is why scope is oh so important in these discussions. Infinity Alph-Null is not equal to Infinity Alph-one- yet both are still infinite. Therefore- while prescience is divine omnicience; it does not automatically follow that the subset of mere omnicience is always prescient.
Likewise, the creator of this universe, would have to be external to this universe- but would not neccessarily be outside of a greater metauniverse. Like an onion- the core is as much a part of the onion as the skin, but the skin contains the core.
Because it is all-knowing and all-powerful. Such a being could do literally anything-- even that which to us is impossible or unimaginable
All knowing/All powerfull within what scope, would be the question?
And if you don't know the purpose, how do you know what scope constitutes "harm" vs "not harm".
Look, personally I have no idea if there's some kind of creator. If there is, and if we ever discover it, it will no doubt be through scientific process, just like everything we currently know about the world has been.
Exactly my point to begin with (and actually, the begining of science itself was the "search for clues to the mind of the creator through observation of the creation"). And no on kicking God out of holes- because for every hole you kick God out of, six more show up. It's pretty much become an unwritten rule of science that the more questions you answer, the more questions you discover. If there's any purpose to the universe at all, then there MUST be a creator- and if there is no purpose to the universe at all, then we've got some troubling and non-rational constants that need explaining that simply could not have come about by accident.
Slashdot Mirror
No virii, or no successfull infections? I have close to the same setup, and get at least 30 virii a week- none actually infecting, but 30 attacks.
It isn't if you were smart enough to put your number on the Federal DNC list- I haven't had a *sales* call since last October, on either home or cell.
I finally figured that out- Macs are also used by noobs, and therefore have people running as root on their own boxen on cablemodem networks...
National Football League- but the goal is 20 feet wide and 15 feet high.
What do you mean? 0wned boxen are free- they've already been paid for by the company or person you hacked into.
From the terms of this paper- SP2 will raise the TC0 of Windows quite a bit- so I guess the facts in the article are only good until August 16th.
All your BOXEN are belong to us.
This was done back in the 1970s in the Pacific Northwest with Tansy Ragweed. Don't remember the moth specifically- but boy did we have a lot of those cute little yellow and black furry catepillars around when I was a kid.
From his creator of course- on back to an infinity of meta-universes deep- or for that matter, if you take the circular time argument instead- from your descendants. See why abortion is such an important issue to some people? :-)
0wnership= box hacked and turned into a zombie. Understand now?
Idiot- they don't want to be 0wned- they want to 0wn others.
RTFA a bit closer- TC0 not TCO. In other words, this paper proves what you say.
RTFA- you'll only buy this TC0 argument if you want to 0wn systems (to send out spam or viruses) or if you don't mind your company's systems being hacked.
Why should there be flame wars? Asside from SP2- which really hasn't been fire tested yet- even Windows developers admit that Windows has a lower TC0 than Linux. The part that surprised me in this was that OS X had a lower TC0 than Windows.
It's a TC0, not a TCO- and I doubt you could come to any other conclusion with a TC0 comparing Linux to Windows. Total cost of 0wnership- that is, total cost to hack the box and get it to send out a bunch of spam or viruses.
Actually, if you RTFA closely enough you'll find that OSX, despite being a "toy", has the lowest TC0.
My question- why does OSX have a lower TC0 than Windows? Wouldn't fewer vunerabilities make exploiting those vunerabilities harder?
Of which I have not previously been aware! Good job! And a much better apples-to-apples comparison than I've seen done by either the open or closed source side- since this form of 0wnership totally removes the initial cost of licensing the install.
Not entirely true- many SMS providers such as Verizon, TMobile, Sprint and AT&T provide e-mail addresses that are linked to the SMS system. Of course, any e-mail to those addresses gets truncated at 160 chars- but just look at slashdot sigs which get trunc'd at 120 chars. Well written spam COULD get through- if you tried hard at the writing. And basically free to the sender- though likely 10-15 cents a message to the receiver if it isn't in their calling plan.
This was in reply to the first post, I just clicked on the wrong reply link.
So the Californian colony will never threaten Washington State because the winters are too cold and wet?
And I'd give you 50/50 chances in court. But you'd better keep a damn good log of the notifications.
Err, omniscience is infinite awareness. The very definition of prescience, in Merriam-Webster, is devine omniscience...
I never trusted Webster after I found out that in their first edition they defined a Tory as "A damned fool". However- this leads us back to the definition of scope. Say, for the sake of argument that we have a three-dimensional God much like us. Tri-omni three dimensional God at that. But since he's three dimensional, though his knowledge, power, and benevolence stretch out infinitely in all three dimensions- the future is closed to him, as is the past, he's living in the present. This is why scope is oh so important in these discussions. Infinity Alph-Null is not equal to Infinity Alph-one- yet both are still infinite. Therefore- while prescience is divine omnicience; it does not automatically follow that the subset of mere omnicience is always prescient.
Likewise, the creator of this universe, would have to be external to this universe- but would not neccessarily be outside of a greater metauniverse. Like an onion- the core is as much a part of the onion as the skin, but the skin contains the core.
Because it is all-knowing and all-powerful. Such a being could do literally anything-- even that which to us is impossible or unimaginable
All knowing/All powerfull within what scope, would be the question?
And if you don't know the purpose, how do you know what scope constitutes "harm" vs "not harm".
Look, personally I have no idea if there's some kind of creator. If there is, and if we ever discover it, it will no doubt be through scientific process, just like everything we currently know about the world has been.
Exactly my point to begin with (and actually, the begining of science itself was the "search for clues to the mind of the creator through observation of the creation"). And no on kicking God out of holes- because for every hole you kick God out of, six more show up. It's pretty much become an unwritten rule of science that the more questions you answer, the more questions you discover. If there's any purpose to the universe at all, then there MUST be a creator- and if there is no purpose to the universe at all, then we've got some troubling and non-rational constants that need explaining that simply could not have come about by accident.
Planck's God anybody?
Either God has free will, or we do, not both?
Also, since when did omniscient cover prescient?