No, falsifiability means you could at least envision a test by which the theory would fail.
Given the scope of what is defined as "evolution", as I said every apparently-possible scenario involving reproduction, what would you propose that test to be?
We have not causal explanation for abiogenesis at this point. It is, scientifically, not understood better than "magic", the only difference being your self-contradictory characterization.
"Fiat", fine. Now you just have to point out an actual issue with that, rather than just trying to linguistically smear what you can't refute.
And if we find a case where it doesn't behave that way, the current model is falsified. That's why theories of what gravity is and how it works is falsifiable, and therefore science.
What is the case in which you would -not- call a biological change "evolution", and how is that different from the mere criteria for "reproduction"?
Your assumption is that "the evidence" is only open to one interpretation. Like the Interpretations of QM, that is not the case here.
If you could give me a generalized description of how you would methodologically know that an organism we -know- is designed, because we did it ourselves, if you had not read the news saying we did it and found rather partial remains, then you'd have a strong argument. Rather, though, you are assuming your conclusion by fiat. You have no actual differentiating evidence between the two cases.
Sometimes organisms adapt to selection pressure, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they go extinct.
As for your assertion about genes, depends on what specifically is scoped by "evolution", which was really my point. I certainly can believe in genes and also believe that the mainline factors proposed are causally exhaustive, because that assumption, often driven by worldview bias, is both untestable and unfalsifiable.
It the difference between necessary but not sufficient, and necessary and sufficient. It's the latter I'm trying to get a falsifiable notion of.
If it happens fast, it's evolution. If it happens slowly, it's evolution. If it happens due to selection pressure, it's evolution. If it happens without selection pressure (i.e. genetic drift), it's evolution.
So, basically, if reproduction occurs in there somewhere, it's evolution.
I'd really like to see a falsifiable rendering of "evolution". It would make discussion so much easier.
They say a password must withstand 1,000,000 guesses to survive an online attack...
Feel free to state if you think this phrase, which my post addresses, is or is not present in TFS. If we agree it is, that is what I was responding to, on the basis that one can respond to something in any way they wish, in whole or in part. If you feel I am required to have responded to some other part of the summary, or in some other way per your preferences, feel free to explain why. Otherwise, your own independent post making your own points seems appropriate.
Well, I wouldn't argue that on a theoretical level that a password of any size or complexity can't be compromised by a botnet of arbitrarily large size. The article opens with what is "enough", and with an arbitrary number of IPs over an arbitrarily large amount of time, no password complexity would be "enough".
However, I think simply doing this:
1. Delay 5 seconds after an incorrect login 2. Double the delay after every subsequent login attempt 3. Block the IP after 10 sequential failed logins 4. Lock out the account after 100 sequential failed logins, and require a CAPTCHA or e-mail process to re-enable the account...would be very difficult to brute-force even given a very large IP pool, and that size is ultimately limited by cost.
As you say, though, it doesn't stop someone from executing a DDOS attack, but the potential exposure and damage there is quite different.
Correct, absolutely, as stated, that the ability to inject delays into the supposed 1,000,000 online attempts makes the notion superfluous as a theoretical security concern.
Here, I am using "online" to me specifically the use of "online" clearly called for by the premise of the topic.
Again, no problem. I am using it in the way relevant to the question.
Again, my parsing of the sentence is fine, and was the one pertinent to the suggestion that 10,000,000 online attempts is a reasonable possibility to be addressed.
Under the direct control of another device
Under the direct control of the system with which it is associated
Available for immediate use on demand by the system without human intervention
Apparently a more specific usage was intended, though. Fair enough.
There are infinite varieties of ways to inject a delay between login attempts, or lock out the console/IP entirely, after N failed attempts. N should be on the order of 10, not 1,000,000 or 100,000,000,000,000.
This has been well-understood by the entirety of the competent developer world for years, and implemented extensively as such. I hope security "analysts" catch on to reality soon.
Some of us have a problem when you post to Slashdot about it. If you could provide actual evidence, which you can't, or even say how it's falsifiable, I think it would go over better.
Of course, I don't care in the least what you or the entirety of Slashdot have "a problem with", as is appropriate, because it simply could not in any way factually matter.
That said, though, again, this is an issue of interpretation. Insofar as a given IC structure does not currently have, within the scope of science, a definitive explanation, it is -evidence-. No amount of equivocation around "of course we will determine the particular route to the transition" or "we've thoroughly politically smeared IC and ID, so don't bother bringing it up" or handwaving reasoning-by-analogy to other biological structures will alter this. If you want to make up you own notion of what "evidence" is, that's fine, but if we go by what evidence actually is, apparently improbable biological transitions are -each-, -individually-, evidence. They are evidence until they -all- are refuted.
I have been accused of setting unreasonable criteria for this, in that it is claimed that the current state of science does not allow for these to be exhaustively analyzed. Well... too bad. Difficulty of analysis does not enable redefinition of words.
And, likewise, that is the route to falsifiability. Explain all the transitions. Specifically.
Even then, you have a major issue in that at some point we have to address the unstated causal factors contained in the placeholder-word for the not actually present causal explanation that is the term "random".
You'd need to show the "random" mutations are "unknown quantum effect random" rather than "designer-directed random"--neither of these, likely, is falsifiable.
However, we can address that when the baseline criteria for falsification is reached. All the proposed IC structures explained. Yes, all of them. Specifically. At a resolution of the specific mutations and specific biochemistry transitions resulting therefrom. At that point, if you can meet the previous criteria, and show that the former is more plausible, in that as the effect of the Big Bang, that is, on the first and only "try" (insofar as we have evidence, feel free to forward a conjectural model and we'll do some epistemological comparisons), we end up with intelligent life rather than a mass of "spacetime goo", thus removing the strong flavor of teleology from empirical existence, I'll be personally satisfied.
In the interim, I'll assume forebearance enough (though, as noted, I don't care if it's not given, and given typical responses, it probably hypocritically won't be) to support my position on this question -indirectly- as, say, is considered perfectly acceptable for most pro-atheism writers today (Dawkins, Harris) etc., to combine broader inferential and worldview arguments into their exegesis along with the narrow, specific biological questions around evolution.
So, in that regard, here is peer-reviewed evidence of firsthand quantified eyewitness (e.g. empirical, the unusual circumstances being something I'm quite willing to argue) of the predictive accuracy of mainstream conceptualizations of a particular notion of that designer.
When and if you respond with an alternate possible interpretation of this evidence (as is the standard response), will it then cease to be evidence for my model, rather than at best (from your perspective) evidence for -both-?
This has nothing to do with what Occam's Razor says.
It continues to astonish me how consistently erroneous the understanding of this is on Slashdot, and how suddenly this mass-misperception of this statement of my fellow theist Occam has propagated.
I can only conjecture this is due to the mass-misdirection efforts of Dawkins et al.
Occam's Razor says nothing about probability. Occam's Razor says nothing about the validity of inferences from given observable phenomena. Occam's Razor says, and -only- says, that -all else being equal-, the simplest model for a given phenomena should be used -for its conceptual economy-. This is on the basis of methodological efficiency, not truth-value. Note: In no way whatsoever can "not true" or "less probably true" or "inferior" be derived from this. It is not the case that Occam's Razor says "simpler = truer".
And plausible is entirely subjective on things for which there is no proof one way or the other. At that point, you can be agnostic about your beliefs, and that'd be reasonable. But going any further and you're just fantasizing.
Wow, what an amazing limitation on your thought processes. Applying that must keep you at approximately the intellectual range of someone severely mentally handicapped. Fortunately, it's complete nonsense, according to science and... well, everything. A chain of inference from a plausible basis is also plausible. Plausible things can have extensive content and elaboration, well... always. Say, the various Interpretations of QM. Copenhagen, Everett (Many Worlds), Consistent Histories, etc., etc. All are entirely plausible. All are backed by the scientific observations. All have significant individual content. None are provable. And, well, this is the case with almost everything you think about every day. I'd encourage you to be willing to think more than one step ahead, because not doing so isn't enlightened, it's idiocy, and you won't survive long actually applying what you say should be done here to anything else.
No, that's precisely it. The ecosystem killed off all the non-mice, non-rats, non-humans, etc who couldn't survive in it. Hence, the ecosystem fulfills their needs. But that leaves lots of totally non-human things that exist...just because? More or less because while there are plenty of niches across the globe that repeat themselves, they're not all filled nor when they're filled are they filled with synonymous creatures (although it happens a lot that similar creatures do evolve). Look no further than all the Old World (aka Europe/Asia) creatures which came to the New World (aka North/South America).
I suppose you'll have to specify which ones exist "just because". We have good reason to think that, say, the elimination of bees would have a cascading effect on plant life and ultimately animal and human life. Which ones are you saying are irrelevant?
Easy. Neither I nor any of my close relatives have kids.:) But more generally, particular organisms do not, except under specific circumstances, make a particularly strong influence to the long-term evolution of species. Why? Because there's billions of other organisms with remarkably similar genetics all competing in the same environment, so it's very difficult to stand out in a competition. Now, ship me and a few women to an isolated island and we can talk... Species, after all, are more than just one individual and the fate of one rarely has but a negligible impact over the future.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The long-term direction of evolution won't be affected by your elimination. I never suggested it would be. I simply pointed out your elimination. Which, is part of the process of evolution. You are deselected and your DNA doesn't propagate. You become irrelevant, according to you. You're putting this one in the "win" column for yourself?
You think it bizarre and funny. I think it sad and misguided. When a little man with a little voice wants to be noticed, he may start big fights with big people. That one would merely have the fights in their head and argue about their own greatness or pepper the universe with "I am great" signs says more about how pathetic that person is than anything else. To need greatness to have self-worth or view humbleness as a vice....
You aren't big, you have not the ability to ever engage in any discussion even notable, much less "big". Be that as it may, though, any notions of my "greatness" is coming from you, not from me. I have made no claim resembling this.
Well don't overstate my position. I mean, I do heed Darwin's concise summary of his Origin of the Species and the social turmoil implications of it, in 1859:
"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
Slashdot Mirror
No, falsifiability means you could at least envision a test by which the theory would fail.
Given the scope of what is defined as "evolution", as I said every apparently-possible scenario involving reproduction, what would you propose that test to be?
We have not causal explanation for abiogenesis at this point. It is, scientifically, not understood better than "magic", the only difference being your self-contradictory characterization.
"Fiat", fine. Now you just have to point out an actual issue with that, rather than just trying to linguistically smear what you can't refute.
And if we find a case where it doesn't behave that way, the current model is falsified. That's why theories of what gravity is and how it works is falsifiable, and therefore science.
What is the case in which you would -not- call a biological change "evolution", and how is that different from the mere criteria for "reproduction"?
Your assumption is that "the evidence" is only open to one interpretation. Like the Interpretations of QM, that is not the case here.
If you could give me a generalized description of how you would methodologically know that an organism we -know- is designed, because we did it ourselves, if you had not read the news saying we did it and found rather partial remains, then you'd have a strong argument. Rather, though, you are assuming your conclusion by fiat. You have no actual differentiating evidence between the two cases.
Sometimes organisms adapt to selection pressure, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they go extinct.
As for your assertion about genes, depends on what specifically is scoped by "evolution", which was really my point. I certainly can believe in genes and also believe that the mainline factors proposed are causally exhaustive, because that assumption, often driven by worldview bias, is both untestable and unfalsifiable.
It the difference between necessary but not sufficient, and necessary and sufficient. It's the latter I'm trying to get a falsifiable notion of.
If it happens fast, it's evolution.
If it happens slowly, it's evolution.
If it happens due to selection pressure, it's evolution.
If it happens without selection pressure (i.e. genetic drift), it's evolution.
So, basically, if reproduction occurs in there somewhere, it's evolution.
I'd really like to see a falsifiable rendering of "evolution". It would make discussion so much easier.
I really wish I could convey how much I appreciate the poseur irony of this post, particularly with the "coincidental" CAPTCHA.
Maybe a song will help.
Did you read TFS?
Yes.
They say a password must withstand 1,000,000 guesses to survive an online attack...
Feel free to state if you think this phrase, which my post addresses, is or is not present in TFS. If we agree it is, that is what I was responding to, on the basis that one can respond to something in any way they wish, in whole or in part. If you feel I am required to have responded to some other part of the summary, or in some other way per your preferences, feel free to explain why. Otherwise, your own independent post making your own points seems appropriate.
Slashdot is getting really OCD-strange lately...
Well, I wouldn't argue that on a theoretical level that a password of any size or complexity can't be compromised by a botnet of arbitrarily large size. The article opens with what is "enough", and with an arbitrary number of IPs over an arbitrarily large amount of time, no password complexity would be "enough".
However, I think simply doing this:
1. Delay 5 seconds after an incorrect login ...would be very difficult to brute-force even given a very large IP pool, and that size is ultimately limited by cost.
2. Double the delay after every subsequent login attempt
3. Block the IP after 10 sequential failed logins
4. Lock out the account after 100 sequential failed logins, and require a CAPTCHA or e-mail process to re-enable the account
As you say, though, it doesn't stop someone from executing a DDOS attack, but the potential exposure and damage there is quite different.
Speaking of parsing...
Before Slashdot's got ahold of it, that read "offline [subqualifier]". Need to watch my > and < too, apparently...
Yes, it is. And I've been here a long time.
People getting emotionally irate at reading "offline" as "not online" rather than "offline " is reasonably rare here, fortunately.
So now I have trolls accusing me of trolling and ACs deriding me for supposedly posting AC...
But no, wasn't me. My emoticons are dashless. ;)
So, back to my original statement:
Correct, absolutely, as stated, that the ability to inject delays into the supposed 1,000,000 online attempts makes the notion superfluous as a theoretical security concern.
Here, I am using "online" to me specifically the use of "online" clearly called for by the premise of the topic.
Again, no problem. I am using it in the way relevant to the question.
Fine, be done.
Particularly envious of dev salaries today, or what?
Again, my parsing of the sentence is fine, and was the one pertinent to the suggestion that 10,000,000 online attempts is a reasonable possibility to be addressed.
Which is what I intended to convey.
Sorry, I can in fact parse the sentence as an attack that occurs "offline", as well as a more selective usage parsing it as "offline attack".
Good luck with your emotional self-control.
Linked below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Under the direct control of another device
Under the direct control of the system with which it is associated
Available for immediate use on demand by the system without human intervention
Apparently a more specific usage was intended, though. Fair enough.
No need to. "Offline" means precisely how I used it. That you have a more qualified usage in mind is something I'd address when it was stated.
Try entering multiple incorrect passwords into your offline *nix box of choice. See how it responds.
There are infinite varieties of ways to inject a delay between login attempts, or lock out the console/IP entirely, after N failed attempts. N should be on the order of 10, not 1,000,000 or 100,000,000,000,000.
This has been well-understood by the entirety of the competent developer world for years, and implemented extensively as such. I hope security "analysts" catch on to reality soon.
Some of us have a problem when you post to Slashdot about it. If you could provide actual evidence, which you can't, or even say how it's falsifiable, I think it would go over better.
Of course, I don't care in the least what you or the entirety of Slashdot have "a problem with", as is appropriate, because it simply could not in any way factually matter.
That said, though, again, this is an issue of interpretation. Insofar as a given IC structure does not currently have, within the scope of science, a definitive explanation, it is -evidence-. No amount of equivocation around "of course we will determine the particular route to the transition" or "we've thoroughly politically smeared IC and ID, so don't bother bringing it up" or handwaving reasoning-by-analogy to other biological structures will alter this. If you want to make up you own notion of what "evidence" is, that's fine, but if we go by what evidence actually is, apparently improbable biological transitions are -each-, -individually-, evidence. They are evidence until they -all- are refuted.
I have been accused of setting unreasonable criteria for this, in that it is claimed that the current state of science does not allow for these to be exhaustively analyzed. Well... too bad. Difficulty of analysis does not enable redefinition of words.
And, likewise, that is the route to falsifiability. Explain all the transitions. Specifically.
Even then, you have a major issue in that at some point we have to address the unstated causal factors contained in the placeholder-word for the not actually present causal explanation that is the term "random".
You'd need to show the "random" mutations are "unknown quantum effect random" rather than "designer-directed random"--neither of these, likely, is falsifiable.
However, we can address that when the baseline criteria for falsification is reached. All the proposed IC structures explained. Yes, all of them. Specifically. At a resolution of the specific mutations and specific biochemistry transitions resulting therefrom. At that point, if you can meet the previous criteria, and show that the former is more plausible, in that as the effect of the Big Bang, that is, on the first and only "try" (insofar as we have evidence, feel free to forward a conjectural model and we'll do some epistemological comparisons), we end up with intelligent life rather than a mass of "spacetime goo", thus removing the strong flavor of teleology from empirical existence, I'll be personally satisfied.
In the interim, I'll assume forebearance enough (though, as noted, I don't care if it's not given, and given typical responses, it probably hypocritically won't be) to support my position on this question -indirectly- as, say, is considered perfectly acceptable for most pro-atheism writers today (Dawkins, Harris) etc., to combine broader inferential and worldview arguments into their exegesis along with the narrow, specific biological questions around evolution.
So, in that regard, here is peer-reviewed evidence of firsthand quantified eyewitness (e.g. empirical, the unusual circumstances being something I'm quite willing to argue) of the predictive accuracy of mainstream conceptualizations of a particular notion of that designer.
http://www.thelancet.com/journ....
http://profezie3m.altervista.o...
When and if you respond with an alternate possible interpretation of this evidence (as is the standard response), will it then cease to be evidence for my model, rather than at best (from your perspective) evidence for -both-?
No.
This has nothing to do with what Occam's Razor says.
It continues to astonish me how consistently erroneous the understanding of this is on Slashdot, and how suddenly this mass-misperception of this statement of my fellow theist Occam has propagated.
I can only conjecture this is due to the mass-misdirection efforts of Dawkins et al.
Occam's Razor says nothing about probability. Occam's Razor says nothing about the validity of inferences from given observable phenomena. Occam's Razor says, and -only- says, that -all else being equal-, the simplest model for a given phenomena should be used -for its conceptual economy-. This is on the basis of methodological efficiency, not truth-value. Note: In no way whatsoever can "not true" or "less probably true" or "inferior" be derived from this. It is not the case that Occam's Razor says "simpler = truer".
Ever.
And plausible is entirely subjective on things for which there is no proof one way or the other. At that point, you can be agnostic about your beliefs, and that'd be reasonable. But going any further and you're just fantasizing.
:) But more generally, particular organisms do not, except under specific circumstances, make a particularly strong influence to the long-term evolution of species. Why? Because there's billions of other organisms with remarkably similar genetics all competing in the same environment, so it's very difficult to stand out in a competition. Now, ship me and a few women to an isolated island and we can talk... Species, after all, are more than just one individual and the fate of one rarely has but a negligible impact over the future.
Wow, what an amazing limitation on your thought processes. Applying that must keep you at approximately the intellectual range of someone severely mentally handicapped. Fortunately, it's complete nonsense, according to science and... well, everything. A chain of inference from a plausible basis is also plausible. Plausible things can have extensive content and elaboration, well... always. Say, the various Interpretations of QM. Copenhagen, Everett (Many Worlds), Consistent Histories, etc., etc. All are entirely plausible. All are backed by the scientific observations. All have significant individual content. None are provable. And, well, this is the case with almost everything you think about every day. I'd encourage you to be willing to think more than one step ahead, because not doing so isn't enlightened, it's idiocy, and you won't survive long actually applying what you say should be done here to anything else.
No, that's precisely it. The ecosystem killed off all the non-mice, non-rats, non-humans, etc who couldn't survive in it. Hence, the ecosystem fulfills their needs. But that leaves lots of totally non-human things that exist...just because? More or less because while there are plenty of niches across the globe that repeat themselves, they're not all filled nor when they're filled are they filled with synonymous creatures (although it happens a lot that similar creatures do evolve). Look no further than all the Old World (aka Europe/Asia) creatures which came to the New World (aka North/South America).
I suppose you'll have to specify which ones exist "just because". We have good reason to think that, say, the elimination of bees would have a cascading effect on plant life and ultimately animal and human life. Which ones are you saying are irrelevant?
Easy. Neither I nor any of my close relatives have kids.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The long-term direction of evolution won't be affected by your elimination. I never suggested it would be. I simply pointed out your elimination. Which, is part of the process of evolution. You are deselected and your DNA doesn't propagate. You become irrelevant, according to you. You're putting this one in the "win" column for yourself?
You think it bizarre and funny. I think it sad and misguided. When a little man with a little voice wants to be noticed, he may start big fights with big people. That one would merely have the fights in their head and argue about their own greatness or pepper the universe with "I am great" signs says more about how pathetic that person is than anything else. To need greatness to have self-worth or view humbleness as a vice....
You aren't big, you have not the ability to ever engage in any discussion even notable, much less "big". Be that as it may, though, any notions of my "greatness" is coming from you, not from me. I have made no claim resembling this.
Well don't overstate my position. I mean, I do heed Darwin's concise summary of his Origin of the Species and the social turmoil implications of it, in 1859:
"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
Oh wait.