For example, if i sue you over the rights to your property, even if I don't have ANY proof, I can prevent you from selling your home for as long as I can keep appealing the courts (hopefully) sane decision. Just think about what would happen if you were about to move and I did that.
Just think about what if your lawsuit had merit, and someone sold the property you had ownership rights on?
It is a known fact that the demoscene came from the warez scene due to cracktros. Some of the site/box/shell/crax0rlamers also have ties into the 0day part of the scene.... Guy gets busted, feds find his pftp-nonwoof, cracks bookmarks, voila, loads of sites to bust.
Where do we get to the part where what you say makes sense?
Economist Paul Erdman feels that we will see gas prices hit $4 per gallon sometime in the next five years.
I hope so... it will hurt, but it's probably the impetus needed to spur nuclear growth and other alternate energy sources.
As further evidence that this prediction is not as crazy as it first sounds, I submit this photo.
Keep in mind a lot of the pricing of gas is also related to the taxation on gas done in certain areas (like California), the special requirements certain areas put on their gas ingredients (like California), the difficulty in getting the gas there, the cost of living in the area, etc.
I was driving through a mountainous region in CA 6 months ago, and came to a gas station charging $3.80 per gallon... but in addition to the other "california factors" affecting gas, you have to factor in the lack of competitors near this station, etc.
Can it do my laundry? Can it Walk the dog? Can it cook my meals? Hrmm... Guess its not a replacement for Wife 1.0, I never shoulda upgraded in the first place.
I was going to break your heart and let you in on something ELSE that robot can't do with you, but then I realized you said WIFE 1.0 and not GIRLFRIEND 1.0, so the point is likely moot?
Actually, the word compiler has one meaning: A compiler is simply a person or thing that compiles. It does not define what they compile. It is not specific to source code or encyclopedias, however those may be the two most common usages today.
These days the former may also be regarded as the latter, as the compiler sifts through information (source code) and makes it into binary code (their computer database).
A site registered and hosted using stolen funds from my credit card is still online following phoned and faxed demands for revocation and refund sent to the registrar/host. Can I somehow use this to send an entire domain to a black hole until the hosting/domain are revoked?
No, only posting their link on Slashdot would have that effect.
You need to OWN the site that was searched. This is no different than keyword bombing tricks of old; it is merely a bait-and-switch.
Not news.
I agree it's old, even the guy that wrote the article admits it goes back a few years. But you are wrong about how it works. These aren't just extra pages... these pages can actually REPLACE yours in the search results, since Google sees the two pages as duplicates of each other, but doesn't realize it has been "tricked."
So, when one of these turkeys calls me, I can keep them on the line until I traceroute where his call is coming from, then go after him and his ISP with any number of legal charges as well as possible DDoSs.
Yes, that sounds like a GREAT way to make money.
Your theory is working wonderfully for the existing email spam problem, right? Oh wait, it's not. This is probably because 99% of the people that get spam are not geeks, don't know what "headers" are, don't know what traceroute is, don't have time to spend on vigilantism, and just want to get some shit done. It only takes a tiny fraction of that majority of people to make a profit from spam.
Why hasn't someone implemented one of them in an "Email 2.0" style service with the single feature being "not compatible with existing email, including spam"?
1. These exist already. They're called whitelists.
2. In addition to blocking spam, they block email from many legitimate sources, such as companies/mailing lists/etc trying to send you email from an address you aren't expecting. We get subscribers all the time who sign up and yet never get on because they have a whitelist service and are too stupid to let our email through.
A scientist accepts only those possibilities that are falsifiable and subject to the scientific method. If a hypothesis is not testable, it's no better than random guesswork, and therefore not worthy of consideration.
There is a huge difference between "worthy of consideration" and "I'm going to try and do an experiment to prove or disprove something."
The latter is the only one a scientist needs to worry about something being falsifiable. You are trying to put words in my mouth. I never stated a scientist would do an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of pink elephants. Rather, a scientist would simply RESERVE JUDGEMENT due to LACK OF EVIDENCE.
This is analogous to agnosticism.
Again, you're not talking about real atheism. So-called "strong" atehism is what you're talking about
Gee, I have some more hairs here we could split if you want to?
A thoughtful atheist merely says "There is no justification for a belief in God, therefore, I do not believe in God." Belief without evidence is faith. Belief in the face of counter-evidence is blind faith.
So, (1) atheists believe something because there is no evidence to support the corollary, and (2) belief in something without evidence is faith. Therefore atheists have faith that there is no God. Doesn't really sound scientific to me?
Contrast that with agnostics, who will reserve judgement on the issue because there is no evidence either way. Sounds pretty scientific.
Doh! I guess it should have been obvious, what with the atom-splitting going on in the 30's and 40's, eh??;)
Re:What I found interesting.
on
Donald Knuth On NPR
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, actually, it's not. Having an open mind is one thing, having a mind so open your brain falls out is quite another.
I have heard this quip before, but you are mis-using it when applying it to scientific and critical thinking. The original quote is making reference to people who will BELIEVE anything. Scientists must consider all possibilities until proven wrong.
This means invisible elephants MIGHT exist. However, as there is no proof that they do, and no theory for why they might, a scientist will not ponder the question long.
This also means wormholes might exist, and even though there is no evidence of them, scientists are open to the possibility because they'd fit in with other theories that are out there, and so they do consider these.
If someone told you there were invisible pink elephants in his back yard, you would keep an open mind about that and not think that maybe your buddy had flipped his lid? Even after going out and pointing out to your buddy that these elephants left no tracks, dung, or anything else behind to show their presence, or that you could walk over every inch of his back yard and not run into one, you would still choose not to disbelieve him if he insisted they existed and were there? Seriously? That's not science or critical thinking, that's just being foolish.
Would I disbelieve him? Of course. Would I go further and, without proof, tell him there is no way on Earth? For pink elephants -- probably so. For something much more mysterious, why bother?
I know you keep wanting to bring up these pink elephants, however the reality is that agnostics do not worry themselves over the question of God. There is neither proof or disproof, and so it is an interesting but pointless thought experiment.
For someone to see a lack of evidence and firmly come down against something is just as bad as firmly coming down in favor of it. This is why people often call Atheism a religion.
In addition, I would wager that many people that refer to themselves as atheists actually mean they are agnostic, but are perhaps not familiar with that terminology. Many of my so-called atheist friends would admit they are agnostic if you questioned them about what they really think.
Re:What I found interesting.
on
Donald Knuth On NPR
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is saying "There is no evidence for God, but I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve." How crazy is that?
Not crazy at all, it is the foundation of science and critical thinking.
Do you also choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in invisible pink elephants? There's no evidence for them either, but if someone told you they existed, would you keep an open mind about that?
Yes.
An agnostic, however, sees the lack of evidence and yet continues to hedge his bets. Why?
It is not "hedging your bets." And there is no way of seeing a lack of evidence. That's the point -- get it? A scientific mind can only consider the evidence and form hypotheses, not the lack of evidence.
Here's a thought-experiment for you. It's 1940. The atom is the smallest element known to man. Does this mean there is nothing smaller?
It is not open or closed. It is a network that Verizon is building, and in the sense that they are letting other businesses provide service over it for a fee, it is open, and in the sense that they aren't letting businesses provide service over it for free, it is closed.
But I think everyone knew what he meant by "open."
BUT, corporations are, by law, required to do whatever it takes to keep their investors profits up, which equals inherent evil.
Corporations are not, by law, required to do whatever it takes to keep their profits up.
If you think you are right, please try to prove this statement with a link to the applicable law. You will not be able to do it.
In addition, I disagree with your thought process that a corporation that does try to maximize profits is doing something inherently "evil." This is such a childish and ignorant viewpoint. It's like listening to teenagers talk about which bands "sold out."
Click the link I had earlier to TheCorporation.com...it's a very insightful look at why corporations are a problem.
Corporations are not a problem. Do you think the United States of America would be as successful as it is today without free market capitalism and corporations? Bill Gates, villified on Slashdot, contributes billions of dollars to charity.
Rich DeVos, founder of Amway and also a billionaire, is renowned for his generosity and kindness, even as a CEO. Some of his books:
How to Be Like Rich DeVos: Succeeding with Integrity in Business and Life
and
Compassionate Capitalism: People Helping People Help Themselves
There are some corporations that are run by scumbags, no doubt. And there are many people who equate richness with being evil, these are usually socialists, but also ignorant folks who don't think through anything. Most of the people who complain about corporations and outsourcing are the same folks that would be bitching at paying higher prices on goods and services without outsourcing and without those hated corporations.
That money's needed for faith based initiatives, abstinence-only education and 'my-granpappy-ain't-no-monkey' stickers for textbooks. Question; can they save money by shutting down the analysis portion and just collecting raw data until more generous hands are on the budgetary purse strings?
Half of our budget goes to Medicare and Social Security. How much of that money do you think is wasted due to government bureacracy?
Now, how much of the budget goes to the (albeit stupid) programs you mentioned?
Yet no spending cuts* can make it through Congress, because both sides are weighed down by lobbyists who will paint any cuts* in the most drastic light possible to sway public opinion. Everyone wants to cut spending, but not on THEIR projects, which means nothing gets cut.
* Note: 'cuts' are a misnomer. No spending is ever actually cut by Congress. When they use this word, what they really mean is they are just SLOWING the GROWTH in spending on a particular program. Most programs have built in "raises" each year in spending. That way, Congress can say, "Instead of giving your program 2% more money this year, we're only giving it 1% more -- we're cutting spending!"
Slashdot Mirror
For example, if i sue you over the rights to your property, even if I don't have ANY proof, I can prevent you from selling your home for as long as I can keep appealing the courts (hopefully) sane decision. Just think about what would happen if you were about to move and I did that.
Just think about what if your lawsuit had merit, and someone sold the property you had ownership rights on?
It is a known fact that the demoscene came from the warez scene due to cracktros. Some of the site/box/shell/crax0rlamers also have ties into the 0day part of the scene.... Guy gets busted, feds find his pftp-nonwoof, cracks bookmarks, voila, loads of sites to bust.
Where do we get to the part where what you say makes sense?
Isn't their a law regarding this? Something about consent from a parent if the child is 13 or younger?
Why should their be a law on guessing the age or birthday of someone?
"Hey kid, you look 11, and judging by the fact that you're blowing candles out at a Chuck E Cheese, I will wager your birthday is TODAY!"
"Lock him up and throw away the key!"
No, thankfully the law is only regarding whether or not your can ask children under 13 for personal information.
Because not doing research in order to give idle humans busy-work is retarded.
BTW, it was a bit surreal to read the BBC quoting the robots in the article...
Economist Paul Erdman feels that we will see gas prices hit $4 per gallon sometime in the next five years.
I hope so... it will hurt, but it's probably the impetus needed to spur nuclear growth and other alternate energy sources.
As further evidence that this prediction is not as crazy as it first sounds, I submit this photo.
Keep in mind a lot of the pricing of gas is also related to the taxation on gas done in certain areas (like California), the special requirements certain areas put on their gas ingredients (like California), the difficulty in getting the gas there, the cost of living in the area, etc.
I was driving through a mountainous region in CA 6 months ago, and came to a gas station charging $3.80 per gallon... but in addition to the other "california factors" affecting gas, you have to factor in the lack of competitors near this station, etc.
Can it do my laundry? Can it Walk the dog? Can it cook my meals? Hrmm... Guess its not a replacement for Wife 1.0, I never shoulda upgraded in the first place.
I was going to break your heart and let you in on something ELSE that robot can't do with you, but then I realized you said WIFE 1.0 and not GIRLFRIEND 1.0, so the point is likely moot?
gas prices are up 50% for the last 12 months
Yes, to an average of $2.06 per gallon, which means they'd have to increase another 50% to match the all-time high. "In March of 1981, gasoline cost $3.08 a gallon, adjusted for inflation."
"Slowly but surely" is the most bullshit phrase in the English language.
While that is true now, slowly but surely it is gaining respect!
Actually, the word `compiler' has two meanings:
Actually, the word compiler has one meaning: A compiler is simply a person or thing that compiles. It does not define what they compile. It is not specific to source code or encyclopedias, however those may be the two most common usages today.
These days the former may also be regarded as the latter, as the compiler sifts through information (source code) and makes it into binary code (their computer database).
Uh huh..............
A site registered and hosted using stolen funds from my credit card is still online following phoned and faxed demands for revocation and refund sent to the registrar/host. Can I somehow use this to send an entire domain to a black hole until the hosting/domain are revoked?
No, only posting their link on Slashdot would have that effect.
You need to OWN the site that was searched. This is no different than keyword bombing tricks of old; it is merely a bait-and-switch.
... these pages can actually REPLACE yours in the search results, since Google sees the two pages as duplicates of each other, but doesn't realize it has been "tricked."
Not news.
I agree it's old, even the guy that wrote the article admits it goes back a few years. But you are wrong about how it works. These aren't just extra pages
Don't all compilers convert a program's source code into binary instructions?
Nope.
Oh, did you mean all SOURCE CODE compilers?
See, the word compiler was around before computers, and is only synonymous with "source code compiler" to geeks like us.
Therefore in your attempt to be pedantic, you clearly were not being pedantic enough, thus the joke is on you.
Ha-ha...
So, when one of these turkeys calls me, I can keep them on the line until I traceroute where his call is coming from, then go after him and his ISP with any number of legal charges as well as possible DDoSs.
Yes, that sounds like a GREAT way to make money.
Your theory is working wonderfully for the existing email spam problem, right? Oh wait, it's not. This is probably because 99% of the people that get spam are not geeks, don't know what "headers" are, don't know what traceroute is, don't have time to spend on vigilantism, and just want to get some shit done. It only takes a tiny fraction of that majority of people to make a profit from spam.
What happens if the cost of each almost-continuous call is incremental?
Spammers start providing their own VoIP services that don't include these extra charges?
Why hasn't someone implemented one of them in an "Email 2.0" style service with the single feature being "not compatible with existing email, including spam"?
1. These exist already. They're called whitelists.
2. In addition to blocking spam, they block email from many legitimate sources, such as companies/mailing lists/etc trying to send you email from an address you aren't expecting. We get subscribers all the time who sign up and yet never get on because they have a whitelist service and are too stupid to let our email through.
A scientist accepts only those possibilities that are falsifiable and subject to the scientific method. If a hypothesis is not testable, it's no better than random guesswork, and therefore not worthy of consideration.
There is a huge difference between "worthy of consideration" and "I'm going to try and do an experiment to prove or disprove something."
The latter is the only one a scientist needs to worry about something being falsifiable. You are trying to put words in my mouth. I never stated a scientist would do an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of pink elephants. Rather, a scientist would simply RESERVE JUDGEMENT due to LACK OF EVIDENCE.
This is analogous to agnosticism.
Again, you're not talking about real atheism. So-called "strong" atehism is what you're talking about
Gee, I have some more hairs here we could split if you want to?
A thoughtful atheist merely says "There is no justification for a belief in God, therefore, I do not believe in God." Belief without evidence is faith. Belief in the face of counter-evidence is blind faith.
So, (1) atheists believe something because there is no evidence to support the corollary, and (2) belief in something without evidence is faith. Therefore atheists have faith that there is no God. Doesn't really sound scientific to me?
Contrast that with agnostics, who will reserve judgement on the issue because there is no evidence either way. Sounds pretty scientific.
Doh! I guess it should have been obvious, what with the atom-splitting going on in the 30's and 40's, eh?? ;)
No, actually, it's not. Having an open mind is one thing, having a mind so open your brain falls out is quite another.
I have heard this quip before, but you are mis-using it when applying it to scientific and critical thinking. The original quote is making reference to people who will BELIEVE anything. Scientists must consider all possibilities until proven wrong.
This means invisible elephants MIGHT exist. However, as there is no proof that they do, and no theory for why they might, a scientist will not ponder the question long.
This also means wormholes might exist, and even though there is no evidence of them, scientists are open to the possibility because they'd fit in with other theories that are out there, and so they do consider these.
If someone told you there were invisible pink elephants in his back yard, you would keep an open mind about that and not think that maybe your buddy had flipped his lid? Even after going out and pointing out to your buddy that these elephants left no tracks, dung, or anything else behind to show their presence, or that you could walk over every inch of his back yard and not run into one, you would still choose not to disbelieve him if he insisted they existed and were there? Seriously? That's not science or critical thinking, that's just being foolish.
Would I disbelieve him? Of course. Would I go further and, without proof, tell him there is no way on Earth? For pink elephants -- probably so. For something much more mysterious, why bother?
I know you keep wanting to bring up these pink elephants, however the reality is that agnostics do not worry themselves over the question of God. There is neither proof or disproof, and so it is an interesting but pointless thought experiment.
For someone to see a lack of evidence and firmly come down against something is just as bad as firmly coming down in favor of it. This is why people often call Atheism a religion.
In addition, I would wager that many people that refer to themselves as atheists actually mean they are agnostic, but are perhaps not familiar with that terminology. Many of my so-called atheist friends would admit they are agnostic if you questioned them about what they really think.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is saying "There is no evidence for God, but I choose to neither believe nor disbelieve." How crazy is that?
Not crazy at all, it is the foundation of science and critical thinking.
Do you also choose neither to believe nor disbelieve in invisible pink elephants? There's no evidence for them either, but if someone told you they existed, would you keep an open mind about that?
Yes.
An agnostic, however, sees the lack of evidence and yet continues to hedge his bets. Why?
It is not "hedging your bets." And there is no way of seeing a lack of evidence. That's the point -- get it? A scientific mind can only consider the evidence and form hypotheses, not the lack of evidence.
Here's a thought-experiment for you. It's 1940. The atom is the smallest element known to man. Does this mean there is nothing smaller?
It is not an open network
It is not open or closed. It is a network that Verizon is building, and in the sense that they are letting other businesses provide service over it for a fee, it is open, and in the sense that they aren't letting businesses provide service over it for free, it is closed.
But I think everyone knew what he meant by "open."
And let's describe Attila the Hun as someone with "an active, outdoor lifestyle."
--George Carlin
BUT, corporations are, by law, required to do whatever it takes to keep their investors profits up, which equals inherent evil.
...it's a very insightful look at why corporations are a problem.
Corporations are not, by law, required to do whatever it takes to keep their profits up.
If you think you are right, please try to prove this statement with a link to the applicable law. You will not be able to do it.
In addition, I disagree with your thought process that a corporation that does try to maximize profits is doing something inherently "evil." This is such a childish and ignorant viewpoint. It's like listening to teenagers talk about which bands "sold out."
Click the link I had earlier to TheCorporation.com
Corporations are not a problem. Do you think the United States of America would be as successful as it is today without free market capitalism and corporations? Bill Gates, villified on Slashdot, contributes billions of dollars to charity.
Rich DeVos, founder of Amway and also a billionaire, is renowned for his generosity and kindness, even as a CEO. Some of his books:
How to Be Like Rich DeVos: Succeeding with Integrity in Business and Life
and
Compassionate Capitalism: People Helping People Help Themselves
There are some corporations that are run by scumbags, no doubt. And there are many people who equate richness with being evil, these are usually socialists, but also ignorant folks who don't think through anything. Most of the people who complain about corporations and outsourcing are the same folks that would be bitching at paying higher prices on goods and services without outsourcing and without those hated corporations.
Won't these problems be solved with OLEDs?
Absolutely.
However, one downside is a 15" OLED display will run you about $20,000.
Not really.
Everything is black and white. The rich and the capitalists are evil. The poor and the socialists are good.
I am sure your life is not filled with double standards, right?
That money's needed for faith based initiatives, abstinence-only education and 'my-granpappy-ain't-no-monkey' stickers for textbooks. Question; can they save money by shutting down the analysis portion and just collecting raw data until more generous hands are on the budgetary purse strings?
Half of our budget goes to Medicare and Social Security. How much of that money do you think is wasted due to government bureacracy?
Now, how much of the budget goes to the (albeit stupid) programs you mentioned?
Yet no spending cuts* can make it through Congress, because both sides are weighed down by lobbyists who will paint any cuts* in the most drastic light possible to sway public opinion. Everyone wants to cut spending, but not on THEIR projects, which means nothing gets cut.
* Note: 'cuts' are a misnomer. No spending is ever actually cut by Congress. When they use this word, what they really mean is they are just SLOWING the GROWTH in spending on a particular program. Most programs have built in "raises" each year in spending. That way, Congress can say, "Instead of giving your program 2% more money this year, we're only giving it 1% more -- we're cutting spending!"