But if you don't have a conscience nor a gun to your head, the end result will be you neglecting your responsibilities and simply looting the society. Just like corporations do.
Why would anyone want to intentionally make a password case insensitive? I have never seen anybody else use such a system intentionally.
Do the banks lose anything if their customer's account gets hacked? If not, then they have no incentive to not use such as system. Do they collect fees for cancelling transfers and whatever else can be done to sort out the mess? If yes, then they have plenty of incentive to employ less than good security.
Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by greed.
My fear is we won't listen to scientists until it is too late
It is too late. Temperatures drag behind carbon dioxide levels because the Earth needs time to warm up, and positive feedback loops - such as methane release from melting tundra - are already kicking in. At this point it's impossible to stop climate change, so the focus should be shifted on adapting and maintaining civilization's cohesion until the new climate stabilizes in a few hundred years.
we once more have a broad set of different processors and architectures to choose from. Competition will stimulate more creative designs and solutions.
Just as long as they're all x86-32/64 compatible. I, for one, would hate a situation where I'm forced to choose between programs A or B not working.
A good driver, by definition, mitigates the bad driver by taking appropriate actions to reduce the risk.
So how will you reduce the risk of someone next to you suddenly deciding to switch the lanes without checking that you're there? How do you reduce the risk of someone deciding he just has to pass the car in front of him even when there's incoming traffick? How do reduce the risk of someone deciding to test his engine and losing control?
It doesn't matter how good a driver you are; if someone else screws up bad enough, you're dead.
Well the last time I tried OpenJDK with freenet it didn't work right.
To be fair, many (most?) Freenet builds don't work right with any JRE. "Due to insufficient testing" is at the very top of the news page as of this writing. Hardly a surprise, seeing how Freenet is very much a work in progress, and has been for over a decade.
It makes sense to say: "You can't directly to illegal stuff"
No, it doesn't. If a page links to illegal stuff, then that page is also illegal under this rule. That makes all pages linking to it also illegal, making all pages linking to them illegal, and so forth.
Furthermore, torrent files don't themselves contain any copyrighted stuff. They contain hashes of data blocks, filenames these blocks are associated with, a hash for the whole thing, and optionally one or more "tracker" (directory server) address. They don't contain anything illegal, they don't necessary even contain any links to anywhere with anything illegal. They simply contain identification/verification codes for data. So, under this rule, Pirate Bay itself isn't illegal, and since pretty much all web-based copyright ignoring nowadays happens through torrents, almost no site is.
It also makes sense to say: "You can't link to pages that link directly to illegal stuff"
Assuming the above-mentioned daisy-chaining of illegality is specifically ruled out by the law (otherwise all your examples are identical): no, it doesn't make sense. It makes me responsible for other people's actions, and in particular makes it very difficult to link to pages in foreign countries which, after all, are operating under different set of laws.
Also, I can't help be suspicious of the purpose of such a law. After all, it is common practice to mention - or link on the Internet - to one's sources to back one's arguments. Suppose the subject under discussion is whether or not something - such as using cannabis - should be illegal. We can reasonable assume that someone who is in favour of legalizing might link to a cannabis-user forum on Tor to back his arguments of cannabis-users being generally sane; and one might also assume that such a forum might have posts linking to Silk Road, the infamous Tor drug marketplace. Is either Slashdot or the poster now a criminal? And if they are, was that the very intent of the law - to produce a chilling effect against discussing any existing laws?
It makes NO sense to say: "You can't link to pages that link to something which through further links eventually links to illegal stuff"
While I agree, I must ask: why does the degree of separation make a difference? Once you make it illegal to associate with criminals, and people who associate with criminals, why stop there?
Of course, you won't be going to heaven yourself if you do this; but that's a small price to pay, if you save all those children at the same time.
Except that it isn't. The price is infinite, which is incomparable with the benefit (also infinite). You can't make rational decisions if you start assigning infinite (positive or negative) utility to outcomes, because it becomes impossible to compare them.
It's just that western religions tend to be. Christianity especially have been used for lots of bad, and has always been used to control other people and is manipulative and evil by design. It also tries to hinder people's thinking, and tries to tell people how everything is without anyone needing to think.
How familiar are you with Abrahamic religions, and how familiar with Eastern ones? Because it seems to me that it's extremely unlikely that Eastern rulers haven't tried to use the local religions to reinforce their control - the Hindu caste system certainly has been (and still is) used for this, for example.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that someone's shit doesn't stink just because you are too far away to smell it.
Geez, the economy is in the shitter, these guys are probably hurting just like everyone else and simply can't afford to keep giving the service away, yet listen to all the bitching.
The economy is in the shitter, so of course people complain about increasing expenses, since they can't afford them either.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Genghis Khan are the biggest murderers in history. None of them were Christians (though Hitler adopted appearances of it), three of them were socialists.
Neither Hitler, Mao nor Stalin gave a shit about the welfare of their people, so no, they were not socialists. At the best they were nationalists; but frankly, I think they were just egoists.
Or, if we're talking about the kind of atheists who are bothered because it's Christmas, a proper name might be "someone mentioned god help I'm being oppressed-mas".
Yes, yes, yes, all the things that happened here are so incredibly unlikely to happen... but then again, the universe is incredibly large and here the law of the large number fits perfectly: NO matter how insignificantly unlikely something is, if there is ONE case where it is true and your sample size is (nearly) infinitely large, the chance to find another case is 1.
No matter how many times you flip a coin, there's no guarantee that you get heads. And no matter how many previously unknown planets you examine, there's no guarantee you find one with given properties (as long as these are not properties shared by all planets by definition, obviously). So no, the chance to find another Earth is not 1, not even with an infinite sample size (which the Universe may or may not have).
Of course, one might wonder: what does it matter? The Universe does contain at least one Earth, and that's quite enough to get life started. Now all that remains is to advance technology to space colonization stage to get this show on the road.
So what can humans do in space that robots can't, besides waste lots of weight on support equipment and make bad press when shit happens?
You want to think that question through the rest of the way. If your reasoning held any water, we wouldn't have hundreds or thousands of willing volunteers for a one-way mission to Mars.
That is a complete non-sequiter. How an Earth does "I want to go to Mars" imply "I can do more than a robots on a similar weight budget on Mars"?
Food for thought: what can humans experience on a mountaintop that they couldn't experience in their own warm, safe basements, just by taking the right drugs?
I said do, not experience. You want an experience, climb that mountain or buy those drugs. You want a ticket to Mars? Pay for it yourself, or give me some reason to pay for it rather than spending the money on probes and basic research.
Cover more ground in a single day than a Mars rover has covered in several years?
How much supplies does a human being need to survive a single day on Mars? And how many rovers could be sent on the same weight budget?
While I agree that we should be sending robots around the solar system rather than launching humans in cans to float around in orbit doing little that's useful, when you want to do real exploration there's little substitute for humans on the ground, and there's little point in going into space unless we plan to live there.
I agree. However, currently we don't have the technology needed to colonize space. Given that, sending up humans is a waste of resources that should instead be put into achieving said technology. Engine tests, material tests, self-sufficient biome tests, automated miner robot tests... There are a million small, boring, but necessary things to take care of before we can seriously start planning colonization, and manned spaceflight simply distracts from them.
Religions should be considered for what they are, CULTS and should be forbidden to take any part of the political life
And how would you go about it? Make a religious test for holding a public office, or for being eligible to vote? And would you still hold that the people so disenfranchised would be required to pay taxes (without representation), serve in the military, or obey the laws they have no say in?
It's all fine and good to call for banning religion, but unless you're actually going to back that up with force - and remember, feeding all caught cult members to lions wasn't sufficient level of force - you're just making noise, and if you are, you're just another tyrant.
You know, every time I tell people this on/. I'm the on that gets called a bigot and a racist.
Well, quite a few people have trouble differentiating between race and culture, thus taking any criticism of the latter to be an instance of racism. That has some unfortunate results, such as the kind of multiculturalism where the advocates pretend there are no actual differences between cultures beyond music, food and clothes. This, in turn, has led to a counter-reaction where actual racism is seen as increasingly acceptable due to "anti-racists" repeatedly making absurd (hypocritical - promoting equal validity for cultures that claim their own superiority (pretty much all of them) yet claiming it's evil if we do it) claims.
This has been seen lately in many European countries, where the practical effect of anti-racist activism - specifically the reflexive "you're racist!" reply to any attempt to discuss any immigration-related problem - has led to people getting fed up and increasingly turning to the extremist national parties.
Explain that robots cannot, in fact, do everything a human might usefully do in space;
So what can humans do in space that robots can't, besides waste lots of weight on support equipment and make bad press when shit happens?
Why leave a video? Because sooner or later, one of the private US-based launch efforts is going to kill one or more of its crew members. Strong men will cry on TV, flags will wave solemnly, Jesus will be praised, and America will enter its usual 10-years-of-sackcloth-and-ashes routine. Politicians will compete to see who can ban X, Y, or Z first. No further progress will be made because, fuck, man, somebody got killed the last time!
Perhaps you shouldn't send people up, then? Because the progress of launch vehicles doesn't depend on what the cargo is. Keep on sending up satellites and probes until it's safe - not that a chemical-based rocket ever will be, because it simply doesn't have enough power to make it sturdy and still capable of reaching orbit.
Besides, there's plenty more than just sending people up in establishing a self-sufficient colony. Projects like this need to be succesfully completed to build them something to go to. This requires sending up a lot of materials, which requires a cheap cargo ship - so that's what we should focus on right now.
Remind them that if we have to wait until space travel is as safe as boarding an airplane in order to make any forward progress, we will end up in the same place we would've ended up in if we had insisted on delaying aeronautical research until flying was as safe as walking.
Automation has come a long way since then. Early airplanes couldn't be flown by autopilot, current spacecraft can and do. Trying to draw analogues between the two very different situations doesn't really help your position.
EVERY govt will censor something. It is censoring political expression that is the problem
By definition, every act of government is a political act, therefore all content censored by them was censored for political reasons and thus is political content. Furthermore, I don't care at all if Time Cube Party can air their propaganda or not, while I care a lot if I can't access Wikipedia because some asshole is trying to cover up something.
When did politics turn from merely making common decisions to some kind of end in itself?
We are not talking about experiments. We are talking about data acquisition. Acquiring data faster than you can record is a failure of logistics. That's all there is to it - and, frankly, it's a rathe pathetic problem, seeing how cheap hard drive space is, even during this time of a spike (100 euros/terabyte).
Slashdot Mirror
But if you don't have a conscience nor a gun to your head, the end result will be you neglecting your responsibilities and simply looting the society. Just like corporations do.
Do the banks lose anything if their customer's account gets hacked? If not, then they have no incentive to not use such as system. Do they collect fees for cancelling transfers and whatever else can be done to sort out the mess? If yes, then they have plenty of incentive to employ less than good security.
Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by greed.
So they claim. But believing them requires trusting them, which gets us back to square one.
It is too late. Temperatures drag behind carbon dioxide levels because the Earth needs time to warm up, and positive feedback loops - such as methane release from melting tundra - are already kicking in. At this point it's impossible to stop climate change, so the focus should be shifted on adapting and maintaining civilization's cohesion until the new climate stabilizes in a few hundred years.
Just as long as they're all x86-32/64 compatible. I, for one, would hate a situation where I'm forced to choose between programs A or B not working.
So how will you reduce the risk of someone next to you suddenly deciding to switch the lanes without checking that you're there? How do you reduce the risk of someone deciding he just has to pass the car in front of him even when there's incoming traffick? How do reduce the risk of someone deciding to test his engine and losing control?
It doesn't matter how good a driver you are; if someone else screws up bad enough, you're dead.
To be fair, many (most?) Freenet builds don't work right with any JRE. "Due to insufficient testing" is at the very top of the news page as of this writing. Hardly a surprise, seeing how Freenet is very much a work in progress, and has been for over a decade.
No, it doesn't. If a page links to illegal stuff, then that page is also illegal under this rule. That makes all pages linking to it also illegal, making all pages linking to them illegal, and so forth.
Furthermore, torrent files don't themselves contain any copyrighted stuff. They contain hashes of data blocks, filenames these blocks are associated with, a hash for the whole thing, and optionally one or more "tracker" (directory server) address. They don't contain anything illegal, they don't necessary even contain any links to anywhere with anything illegal. They simply contain identification/verification codes for data. So, under this rule, Pirate Bay itself isn't illegal, and since pretty much all web-based copyright ignoring nowadays happens through torrents, almost no site is.
Assuming the above-mentioned daisy-chaining of illegality is specifically ruled out by the law (otherwise all your examples are identical): no, it doesn't make sense. It makes me responsible for other people's actions, and in particular makes it very difficult to link to pages in foreign countries which, after all, are operating under different set of laws.
Also, I can't help be suspicious of the purpose of such a law. After all, it is common practice to mention - or link on the Internet - to one's sources to back one's arguments. Suppose the subject under discussion is whether or not something - such as using cannabis - should be illegal. We can reasonable assume that someone who is in favour of legalizing might link to a cannabis-user forum on Tor to back his arguments of cannabis-users being generally sane; and one might also assume that such a forum might have posts linking to Silk Road, the infamous Tor drug marketplace. Is either Slashdot or the poster now a criminal? And if they are, was that the very intent of the law - to produce a chilling effect against discussing any existing laws?
While I agree, I must ask: why does the degree of separation make a difference? Once you make it illegal to associate with criminals, and people who associate with criminals, why stop there?
Except that it isn't. The price is infinite, which is incomparable with the benefit (also infinite). You can't make rational decisions if you start assigning infinite (positive or negative) utility to outcomes, because it becomes impossible to compare them.
How familiar are you with Abrahamic religions, and how familiar with Eastern ones? Because it seems to me that it's extremely unlikely that Eastern rulers haven't tried to use the local religions to reinforce their control - the Hindu caste system certainly has been (and still is) used for this, for example.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that someone's shit doesn't stink just because you are too far away to smell it.
The economy is in the shitter, so of course people complain about increasing expenses, since they can't afford them either.
Neither Hitler, Mao nor Stalin gave a shit about the welfare of their people, so no, they were not socialists. At the best they were nationalists; but frankly, I think they were just egoists.
Winter Solstice?
Or, if we're talking about the kind of atheists who are bothered because it's Christmas, a proper name might be "someone mentioned god help I'm being oppressed-mas".
He had too much potency.
Project Orion would take 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri. Granted, that's a non-braking version, but still...
No matter how many times you flip a coin, there's no guarantee that you get heads. And no matter how many previously unknown planets you examine, there's no guarantee you find one with given properties (as long as these are not properties shared by all planets by definition, obviously). So no, the chance to find another Earth is not 1, not even with an infinite sample size (which the Universe may or may not have).
Of course, one might wonder: what does it matter? The Universe does contain at least one Earth, and that's quite enough to get life started. Now all that remains is to advance technology to space colonization stage to get this show on the road.
That is a complete non-sequiter. How an Earth does "I want to go to Mars" imply "I can do more than a robots on a similar weight budget on Mars"?
I said do, not experience. You want an experience, climb that mountain or buy those drugs. You want a ticket to Mars? Pay for it yourself, or give me some reason to pay for it rather than spending the money on probes and basic research.
How much supplies does a human being need to survive a single day on Mars? And how many rovers could be sent on the same weight budget?
I agree. However, currently we don't have the technology needed to colonize space. Given that, sending up humans is a waste of resources that should instead be put into achieving said technology. Engine tests, material tests, self-sufficient biome tests, automated miner robot tests... There are a million small, boring, but necessary things to take care of before we can seriously start planning colonization, and manned spaceflight simply distracts from them.
And how would you go about it? Make a religious test for holding a public office, or for being eligible to vote? And would you still hold that the people so disenfranchised would be required to pay taxes (without representation), serve in the military, or obey the laws they have no say in?
It's all fine and good to call for banning religion, but unless you're actually going to back that up with force - and remember, feeding all caught cult members to lions wasn't sufficient level of force - you're just making noise, and if you are, you're just another tyrant.
Well, quite a few people have trouble differentiating between race and culture, thus taking any criticism of the latter to be an instance of racism. That has some unfortunate results, such as the kind of multiculturalism where the advocates pretend there are no actual differences between cultures beyond music, food and clothes. This, in turn, has led to a counter-reaction where actual racism is seen as increasingly acceptable due to "anti-racists" repeatedly making absurd (hypocritical - promoting equal validity for cultures that claim their own superiority (pretty much all of them) yet claiming it's evil if we do it) claims.
This has been seen lately in many European countries, where the practical effect of anti-racist activism - specifically the reflexive "you're racist!" reply to any attempt to discuss any immigration-related problem - has led to people getting fed up and increasingly turning to the extremist national parties.
So what can humans do in space that robots can't, besides waste lots of weight on support equipment and make bad press when shit happens?
Perhaps you shouldn't send people up, then? Because the progress of launch vehicles doesn't depend on what the cargo is. Keep on sending up satellites and probes until it's safe - not that a chemical-based rocket ever will be, because it simply doesn't have enough power to make it sturdy and still capable of reaching orbit.
Besides, there's plenty more than just sending people up in establishing a self-sufficient colony. Projects like this need to be succesfully completed to build them something to go to. This requires sending up a lot of materials, which requires a cheap cargo ship - so that's what we should focus on right now.
Automation has come a long way since then. Early airplanes couldn't be flown by autopilot, current spacecraft can and do. Trying to draw analogues between the two very different situations doesn't really help your position.
They've even allocated special Free Speech Zones where you can practice it!
By definition, every act of government is a political act, therefore all content censored by them was censored for political reasons and thus is political content. Furthermore, I don't care at all if Time Cube Party can air their propaganda or not, while I care a lot if I can't access Wikipedia because some asshole is trying to cover up something.
When did politics turn from merely making common decisions to some kind of end in itself?
He reached Moscow. So I'd say it worked for him far better than most "conquer Russia" strategies have.
We are not talking about experiments. We are talking about data acquisition. Acquiring data faster than you can record is a failure of logistics. That's all there is to it - and, frankly, it's a rathe pathetic problem, seeing how cheap hard drive space is, even during this time of a spike (100 euros/terabyte).