That's not a prediction - think about it, what about all the other methods which were also predicted which *didn't* come up with the same number.
That's like you picking a card, and my saying that I "predicted" it by reciting all the cards in the deck!
This isn't that hard a concept..... the actual result there is that it contains possibilities which correspond to observable data.... i.e. your card *might* be in the deck I'm listing.
Err.... that chapter provides some examples of factors which can be used as evidence, but no actual terms for *falsifiability*, which is the essential conceptual problem. The potential universes thing, whilst it may be correct, needs something like this: "In absolutely none of the universes are there green jellybabies", which is what you won't claim, making your defense entirely sacred when you say that you won't claim that you could find a particle not predicted...
I'd reckon they think "Damn, he spent 5 years on it and didn't remember to put any lights in. I just wasted 3 hours running into walls, then they took my flashlight away." then uninstall the thing.
Since I'm doing a Mathematics and Philosophy degree in the UK, I'd probably agree with this. After all, I go to physics lectures for fun........and do programming (Free as in speech, of course) during holidays. They're both very abstract subjects and complement each other in unusual ways. Also, I get to do essays *and* equations.
Of course, because that would stop it happening.....
And such things can be done other ways. What if everyone else *chooses* to display their voting openly and you don't? Getting passed over for promotion is damned difficult to prove, especially when your colleagues won't be inclined to support the commie/redneck who didn't vote like they did.
Hmm? Just because you need a few years of graduate school to understand the work doesn't mean that the next Einstein will need it. In fact, the next Einstein probably won't need to understand all of it before he/she realises the next breakthrough which rewrites it. After all, if there's a new way of looking at it which makes it much simpler, getting entrenched in the current methods could be counterproductive.
You think people own their houses? I'm in the UK, and if interest rates go up, a whole bunch of people are going to realise that they *don't* own their houses.
And yes, I can imagine a wonderful feudal solution being proposed when this happens. The more things change....
Anyone who took up the license must re-release their changes under the CC license. Say I made the change of altering one character, I then release that in the future, meaning that although *you* are no longer releasing it under that license, others can still acquire it under that license until the copyright expires.
approach to fighting people bashing in the heads of spammers. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. (x) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and bash your head in! ( ) Wow, this might work!
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting people bashing in the heads of spammers. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(x) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and bash your head in!
( ) Wow, this might work!
Well done, a very concise summary of christian values. That is indeed what we're meant to be doing. The fact that people claim to be christian while doing the opposite may damage the public reputation of the religion, but it can't alter the truth. I assume that you yourself try to follow those statements then?
You could also look into Thomas More's "Utopia" if you wanted something with communist overtones which was written in such a style that it was not taken seriously.
Mind you, he evetually got done in by Henry VIII, but it's the same idea of commenting through a veil of deniability.
Because from the laws we see in *nature* like conservation are about causation. Hence we need to go one step beyond to something, I dunno, above natural:P
God cannot make a self-contradictory universe. The universe as it is is the best we could have. The fact it sucks is one ofthe things which makes free will possible.
Actually, even if God chose not to see the future, the fact he could still screws free will. As C.S. Lewis says, it *has* to be impossible for God to see the future.
Either that or the threat of terrorists is hyped up to an extreme level. But hell, the daily attacks on american soil disprove that theory. Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Um.......
Errr... I am against IVF. What's your point? Admittedly I'm not part of the american right-wing, but I reckon you've a point that people need to look closer at the methods, because it is the methods which are usually inhumane i.e. fertility treatment good, specific methods for certain treatments bad. It helps neither side to simplify the science here.
'Tis late, this could be incoherent.... but I hope it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for the record, if you can't the beat QIII early levels on the easiest mode, there's nothing wrong with the game, you're just crap at deathmatch.
Hey, I can't play beat'em up games, but I don't go around saying that they're *broken*.
I can't imagine what you think of Serious Sam.....
That's not a prediction - think about it, what about all the other methods which were also predicted which *didn't* come up with the same number.
That's like you picking a card, and my saying that I "predicted" it by reciting all the cards in the deck!
This isn't that hard a concept..... the actual result there is that it contains possibilities which correspond to observable data.... i.e. your card *might* be in the deck I'm listing.
Err.... that chapter provides some examples of factors which can be used as evidence, but no actual terms for *falsifiability*, which is the essential conceptual problem. The potential universes thing, whilst it may be correct, needs something like this: "In absolutely none of the universes are there green jellybabies", which is what you won't claim, making your defense entirely sacred when you say that you won't claim that you could find a particle not predicted...
I'd reckon they think "Damn, he spent 5 years on it and didn't remember to put any lights in. I just wasted 3 hours running into walls, then they took my flashlight away." then uninstall the thing.
Since I'm doing a Mathematics and Philosophy degree in the UK, I'd probably agree with this. After all, I go to physics lectures for fun..... ...and do programming (Free as in speech, of course) during holidays. They're both very abstract subjects and complement each other in unusual ways. Also, I get to do essays *and* equations.
Of course, because that would stop it happening.....
And such things can be done other ways. What if everyone else *chooses* to display their voting openly and you don't? Getting passed over for promotion is damned difficult to prove, especially when your colleagues won't be inclined to support the commie/redneck who didn't vote like they did.
But if you've nothing to hide.....
Hmm? Just because you need a few years of graduate school to understand the work doesn't mean that the next Einstein will need it. In fact, the next Einstein probably won't need to understand all of it before he/she realises the next breakthrough which rewrites it. After all, if there's a new way of looking at it which makes it much simpler, getting entrenched in the current methods could be counterproductive.
You think people own their houses? I'm in the UK, and if interest rates go up, a whole bunch of people are going to realise that they *don't* own their houses.
And yes, I can imagine a wonderful feudal solution being proposed when this happens. The more things change....
IANAL, so this may be wrong but...
Anyone who took up the license must re-release their changes under the CC license. Say I made the change of altering one character, I then release that in the future, meaning that although *you* are no longer releasing it under that license, others can still acquire it under that license until the copyright expires.
Unless I'm misunderstanding it somehow.
"If the server is outside the USA, it will be blocked."
AHAHAHA!!
Ahahahah!
Hahahah.
Haahaha.
haha...
Oh man..
Well done... you fail it!
Welcome to the Internet.
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting people bashing in the heads of spammers. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(x) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and bash your head in!
( ) Wow, this might work!
Your post advocates a ( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting people bashing in the heads of spammers. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (x) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook and the following philosophical objections may also apply: ( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough Furthermore, this is what I think about you: ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. (x) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and bash your head in! ( ) Wow, this might work!
Wow, being able to say what you like.... that'd be great.
Pity that there's no universal principle about that or anything, we could make one up, call it... umm... open speech.
Hell yeah! I mean, I hired this guy, seemed nice enough when I interviewed him, turns out he's jewish!
I can tell you, glad I can fire him just like that - I have to sell to some people who really don't like jews - he wass a huge liability!
Wait, you mean that *isn't* acceptable? Woah, what kind of pinko commie state are we living in where you can't fire a guy for something like that...
Well done, a very concise summary of christian values. That is indeed what we're meant to be doing. The fact that people claim to be christian while doing the opposite may damage the public reputation of the religion, but it can't alter the truth. I assume that you yourself try to follow those statements then?
Endings like that of Time Bandits should be compulsory.
"Don't touch it! It's evil!"
You could also look into Thomas More's "Utopia" if you wanted something with communist overtones which was written in such a style that it was not taken seriously. Mind you, he evetually got done in by Henry VIII, but it's the same idea of commenting through a veil of deniability.
Because from the laws we see in *nature* like conservation are about causation. Hence we need to go one step beyond to something, I dunno, above natural :P
God cannot make a self-contradictory universe. The universe as it is is the best we could have. The fact it sucks is one ofthe things which makes free will possible.
Actually, even if God chose not to see the future, the fact he could still screws free will. As C.S. Lewis says, it *has* to be impossible for God to see the future.
Or rather, it'll merely be auto-modded to funny by the machines.
Either that or the threat of terrorists is hyped up to an extreme level. But hell, the daily attacks on american soil disprove that theory. Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Um.......
You wouldn't need him to - you would have found out one month before then what he'd say :D
Yeah, I mean imagine how horrific it would be without the ending? Without the Scouring of the Shire it'd just feel incomplete and lame, wouldn't it?
Errr... I am against IVF. What's your point? Admittedly I'm not part of the american right-wing, but I reckon you've a point that people need to look closer at the methods, because it is the methods which are usually inhumane i.e. fertility treatment good, specific methods for certain treatments bad. It helps neither side to simplify the science here.
'Tis late, this could be incoherent.... but I hope it isn't.