It may be perfectly legal from a criminal standpoint, but you'd open yourself up to huge libel and slander lawsuits. This is actually not such a bad situation, in my opinion. The government should not be able to silence you for your speech, but if you directly harm other people with false speech they should be able to sue you for damages
If the rules aren't deterministic, then it's not "our" will that's free; it's some random weird effect of the universe that makes us behave in ways that we can't possibly understand or control. That doesn't sound fun to me.
To me it's obvious that every atom doesn't have a measurable effect in the brain. For instance we can absorb RF, walk through large magnetic fields, drink lots of alcohol, take blows to the head, have some portions of the brain removed, etc. and still manage to remain pretty normal. That means the brain is pretty redundant and obviously uses a lot of its atoms to maintain its stable state and not to actually compute.
The best thing about downloading random numbers from the Internet is that if you ever lose them, the server you got them from probably still has a copy.
There are two general cases that I can imagine; one is the typical cloud computing environment with a remotely hosted virtual machine on a mostly trusted host, and the second is local usage of a virtual machine on a secure system for isolation, security, or simply to run multiple operating system instances. In the former case, one doesn't know for sure whether the host system is giving high quality entropy from its own/dev/random or maybe just using/dev/zero. Since the source of randomness is ultimately untrusted, it makes sense to just use/dev/urandom as the entropy source for each virtual machine because it will be good enough for general cryptographic purposes like IV and nonce generation, and operations like key generation should be avoided.
In the latter case where a VM is running on a fully trusted host it makes a lot of sense to give the VM direct access to the host's/dev/random. Starving the host system or other concurrently running VMs of entropy may be completely appropriate if the user needs a lot of high quality entropy in the VM they are currently working in, and not in any of the others.
In short, I think it would be best to give users the option of choosing/dev/random or/dev/urandom as the virtual random number generator for each VM.
Password protect the BIOS, disable post-boot BIOS flashing, and only boot from a CD that you carry with you at all times. That's a pretty effective way to get rid of software only attacks. Once the hardware is involved (which includes vulnerabilities that allow flashing the BIOS after it's booted or without a password), you're screwed.
There is a difference between the kernel and the userspace apps. If Apple had a lot of time on their hands, they could get OS X running on a Linux kernel with great drag and drop support. Specifically, the kernel is one development team with one leader and the userspace apps that run on X (which provides a perfectly fine clipboard) are all made by independent teams with no real incentive to support perfect drag and drop.
It's kind of like wishing you could drag and drop things from a Mac to a Windows PC.
For an example of this on a smaller scale, just consider the UK health situation. The high cost of treating macular degeneration (which leads to blindness) means that in the UK, an elderly patient must be at risk of total blindness before treatment is approved. That is, you don't get treatment for the second eye until you're already blind in the first.
Given the choice of spending money on both of an old person's eyes instead of a child's curable cancer, I know which one I'd pick. Even if it was my eyes. You may think this is a false dilemma, but in the end health care is just the knapsack problem: Given a set of treatments for people at a given value to society for a specific cost, how many of them can you pay for with a health care budget knapsack of X dollars while maximizing the total value? The problem is NP-complete even if you ignore the fact that no one knows how to assign the values accurately in the first place. But the fact remains that denying or allowing treatment to one individual directly affects the treatment options available to other individuals.
Humans decide what is right and wrong, so just ask humans what they think is wrong, and what they think is right. Weight their opinions based on the importance they attach to them and the opinions' logical consistency and compatibility with other opinions. Then define what is "right" is the optimal solution which produces the greatest compliance with the definitions of "right" while minimizing the existence of "wrong" situations. Utilitarianism with some measure of fairness, basically.
Because someday you're going to run some program locally that for whatever reason wants to bind the 0.0.0.0 address and listen on some port. Web server, database server, chat client, p2p client, whatever. Unless you run netstat -a all the time, you don't *know* that there isn't something listening.
Online banking is safe over HTTPS, as long as your PC can't be immediately compromised by some root hole and you don't click through the SSL warnings from the fake certificates the attacker tries to get you to accept.
I think my point was, if your church's holy books are so ambiguous that 23,000 churches can't agree on enough common ground, then maybe the fault never lay in any of the individual churches.
Yes, mutual cooperation works in iterated prisoner's dilemma, as opposed to real life where the first time you meet someone you say "cooperate" or "betray" and that's the end of the story until you die.
In real life, the game iterates until you're dead (unless you're an immortal superhero in which case the game may *never* end).
Assuming intelligent superheroes who choose the optimal strategy of tit for tat with random forgiveness, the long term trend will be toward permanent mutual cooperation.
So very long iterated games like "real life" that take 70 years on average might benefit from mutual cooperation?
Two players using the optimal tit for tat strategy with random forgiveness will tend toward permanent mutual cooperation as the number of iterations increases.
I don't want to miss out on my future planetary-mass brain, and definitely not my galactic-massed brain of the far distant future, just because of some silly 640g limit.
A full drive is going to weigh a bit more from all the dust that gets sucked in while filling it up. A running drive in a perfect clean room would weigh a little bit less because the air inside would warm up and have a lower density. The frame dragging effect of the rotating disk platters might affect the apparent weight a bit, too.
AC doesn't have to come from electricity.
You can either pipe cold water around, or you can pipe waste steam around town and use that heat to run a heat driven refrigerator.
No, it went from one Christian church to many because the original was corrupted by men who pretended to be pious while actually being athiests, pulling all sorts of nonsense (like selling salvation). If your church is run by corrupt men, you need a new church.
Don't you mean "if your church is run by corrupt men, you need 23,000 new churches"?
Heros don't hang out and chat with villains. They fight. What we have here was people that didn't actually want to play the game. They just wanted to rack up (dubious) "achievements".
Perhaps you've heard of prisoner's dilemma? Mutual cooperation wins every time. E.g. in the Real World<TM> super heroes and super villains would join forces to do whatever they want (which would almost certainly be less than heroic but short of true villainy).
Slashdot Mirror
It may be perfectly legal from a criminal standpoint, but you'd open yourself up to huge libel and slander lawsuits. This is actually not such a bad situation, in my opinion. The government should not be able to silence you for your speech, but if you directly harm other people with false speech they should be able to sue you for damages
If the rules aren't deterministic, then it's not "our" will that's free; it's some random weird effect of the universe that makes us behave in ways that we can't possibly understand or control. That doesn't sound fun to me.
To me it's obvious that every atom doesn't have a measurable effect in the brain. For instance we can absorb RF, walk through large magnetic fields, drink lots of alcohol, take blows to the head, have some portions of the brain removed, etc. and still manage to remain pretty normal. That means the brain is pretty redundant and obviously uses a lot of its atoms to maintain its stable state and not to actually compute.
The best thing about downloading random numbers from the Internet is that if you ever lose them, the server you got them from probably still has a copy.
There are two general cases that I can imagine; one is the typical cloud computing environment with a remotely hosted virtual machine on a mostly trusted host, and the second is local usage of a virtual machine on a secure system for isolation, security, or simply to run multiple operating system instances. In the former case, one doesn't know for sure whether the host system is giving high quality entropy from its own /dev/random or maybe just using /dev/zero. Since the source of randomness is ultimately untrusted, it makes sense to just use /dev/urandom as the entropy source for each virtual machine because it will be good enough for general cryptographic purposes like IV and nonce generation, and operations like key generation should be avoided.
In the latter case where a VM is running on a fully trusted host it makes a lot of sense to give the VM direct access to the host's /dev/random. Starving the host system or other concurrently running VMs of entropy may be completely appropriate if the user needs a lot of high quality entropy in the VM they are currently working in, and not in any of the others.
In short, I think it would be best to give users the option of choosing /dev/random or /dev/urandom as the virtual random number generator for each VM.
Password protect the BIOS, disable post-boot BIOS flashing, and only boot from a CD that you carry with you at all times. That's a pretty effective way to get rid of software only attacks. Once the hardware is involved (which includes vulnerabilities that allow flashing the BIOS after it's booted or without a password), you're screwed.
There is a difference between the kernel and the userspace apps. If Apple had a lot of time on their hands, they could get OS X running on a Linux kernel with great drag and drop support. Specifically, the kernel is one development team with one leader and the userspace apps that run on X (which provides a perfectly fine clipboard) are all made by independent teams with no real incentive to support perfect drag and drop.
It's kind of like wishing you could drag and drop things from a Mac to a Windows PC.
Problem: You copy an object from a web page, and its only action is "format hard disk when pasted anywhere".
For an example of this on a smaller scale, just consider the UK health situation. The high cost of treating macular degeneration (which leads to blindness) means that in the UK, an elderly patient must be at risk of total blindness before treatment is approved. That is, you don't get treatment for the second eye until you're already blind in the first.
Given the choice of spending money on both of an old person's eyes instead of a child's curable cancer, I know which one I'd pick. Even if it was my eyes. You may think this is a false dilemma, but in the end health care is just the knapsack problem: Given a set of treatments for people at a given value to society for a specific cost, how many of them can you pay for with a health care budget knapsack of X dollars while maximizing the total value? The problem is NP-complete even if you ignore the fact that no one knows how to assign the values accurately in the first place. But the fact remains that denying or allowing treatment to one individual directly affects the treatment options available to other individuals.
Humans decide what is right and wrong, so just ask humans what they think is wrong, and what they think is right. Weight their opinions based on the importance they attach to them and the opinions' logical consistency and compatibility with other opinions. Then define what is "right" is the optimal solution which produces the greatest compliance with the definitions of "right" while minimizing the existence of "wrong" situations. Utilitarianism with some measure of fairness, basically.
Because someday you're going to run some program locally that for whatever reason wants to bind the 0.0.0.0 address and listen on some port. Web server, database server, chat client, p2p client, whatever. Unless you run netstat -a all the time, you don't *know* that there isn't something listening.
Online banking is safe over HTTPS, as long as your PC can't be immediately compromised by some root hole and you don't click through the SSL warnings from the fake certificates the attacker tries to get you to accept.
I think my point was, if your church's holy books are so ambiguous that 23,000 churches can't agree on enough common ground, then maybe the fault never lay in any of the individual churches.
Yes, mutual cooperation works in iterated prisoner's dilemma, as opposed to real life where the first time you meet someone you say "cooperate" or "betray" and that's the end of the story until you die.
In real life, the game iterates until you're dead (unless you're an immortal superhero in which case the game may *never* end).
Assuming intelligent superheroes who choose the optimal strategy of tit for tat with random forgiveness, the long term trend will be toward permanent mutual cooperation.
So very long iterated games like "real life" that take 70 years on average might benefit from mutual cooperation?
Two players using the optimal tit for tat strategy with random forgiveness will tend toward permanent mutual cooperation as the number of iterations increases.
I don't want to miss out on my future planetary-mass brain, and definitely not my galactic-massed brain of the far distant future, just because of some silly 640g limit.
How much does all that weigh?
Since all the humans in a non-negligible constant acceleration field measured it to be close to g.
A full drive is going to weigh a bit more from all the dust that gets sucked in while filling it up. A running drive in a perfect clean room would weigh a little bit less because the air inside would warm up and have a lower density. The frame dragging effect of the rotating disk platters might affect the apparent weight a bit, too.
AC doesn't have to come from electricity. You can either pipe cold water around, or you can pipe waste steam around town and use that heat to run a heat driven refrigerator.
Car parts... mac users... yeah, I can understand the lack of Safari.
No, it went from one Christian church to many because the original was corrupted by men who pretended to be pious while actually being athiests, pulling all sorts of nonsense (like selling salvation). If your church is run by corrupt men, you need a new church.
Don't you mean "if your church is run by corrupt men, you need 23,000 new churches"?
Heck, why would Paul leave his life of luxury as a Jewish leader stoning Christians if he didn't experience something supernatural?
Why would L. Ron Hubbard give up his writing career to spawn a religion?
Rationality doesn't enter into it.
Perhaps you've heard of prisoner's dilemma? Mutual cooperation wins every time. E.g. in the Real World<TM> super heroes and super villains would join forces to do whatever they want (which would almost certainly be less than heroic but short of true villainy).