Well, as it's technologically possible for a computer to identify a song over the phone, I'm sure having a quality digital recording to work off of only makes it easyer. That is a good point about the latency though, how long would the identification take? It would have to stall the packet delivery untill it could be sure it was non copyrighted material.
That would be a good point..... except, it's not an either or thing. Social attacks are the most dangerous, yes. Do you the people that use QC have completely ignored that? I doubt it. What evidence do you have that they're not doing both?
At present, there is no known (implementable for less than billions within 50 years) method of factoring these large prime numbers that are used to store the keys, so why spend money on this when you could actualy prevent a security hole.
I agree that this is a cool experiment and that it's important in terms of understanding special relativity. But considering that this equipment is the most sensitive made yet and still might not be sensitive enough to detect what it's measuring. Why do you think a GPS satellite is going to care?
I have no standing to offer any kind of legal opinion on this. But personally I don't think you should be required to produce an ID if you've done nothing wrong. I also think that allowing police officers to detain people until there ID is verified when they haven't committed a crime is fairly equivilent to requiring ID's.
I don't think anyone can truely conceptualise shapes in more then 3 dimentions. What you can do though, is you can do wierd kinda rotational analysis things to see that hey, this 4 dimentional shape acts exactly like a 3 dimentional cube, so we're gonna call this a 4 dimentional cube. In the case of 4 dimentions you can ascribe one as time and create an animation of the object, but that's kinda misleading because it doesn't accurately convey the fact that this object exists in one point in time. The other thing I've seen done is that you can use computers to model the object and view it's shadow. A three dimentional object leaves a 2 dimentional shadow, likewise a 4 dimentional object creates a 3 dimentional shadow. Then you turn the object and observe what kind of affect that has on the shadow. This is all pretty crazy stuff. I saw a vid on it in school once. Showed them mapping points in the three dimentional shadow while it rotates and stuff. Wierd.
Your taking the map analogy a little too far. The point is some believe that the universe has a finite size but is without bounds. Like the surface of the earth is finite in size but without bounds. If you continue in a straight line starting at one point on the earth you'll eventually end up in the same spot. In the universe it's believed that if you keep going in a straight line in any direction you'll eventually end up where you started. Of course it's also been shown that if relativity holds true (meaning you can't travel faster then the speed of light) the amount of time it would take to do that would exceed the lifespan of the universe.
I'm very much a believer in auteur theory. The directors job, as I see it, is to realize the artistic vission of the movie. I don't care whether he was able to get the money, or he was a financial nitwit who had a best friend able to get the money, or whatever. The measure of a director is in his art, not his buisness sense.
Awww. looks like I've upset you.... so sad...
A person's ability to gain funding = financial means
That's exactly what you said, and its fucking retarded.
Well, if you'll re-read the posts again you'll notice that knowone was talking smack about the steadycam, the guy you responded to was saying that image stabilization won't account for everything, he was arguing IN FAVOR of the steadycam. And then you responded saying that lack of financial means is somehow a reflection of someones talent. Personally, I think that idea is fucking stupid, and I said so.
What about Kevin Smith? He does projects very low budget, casts his friends. He makes good movies. There are diffrent levels. Not everyone is out to make a hollywood blockbuster, and not everyone makes a hollywood blockbuster as their very first movie.
What you are saying here is that not only are there no tests of gods' existence, there is also infinitely small amount of evidence for that even if they do in fact exist
Not evidence, I said there's an infinately small amount of chance that god would appear to you. There are diffrent types of evidence required for diffrent types of judgements. To prove for certain that there is a god the evidence required for that proof would have to be factual and emperical. To believe that there is a god the evidence needs only to be anecdotal and can be a judgement based on the combining of other such beliefs.
If we are to believe the bible, then god interefered with the world quite often. Sometimes directly, by appearing to humans, sending angels or causing clearly supernatural events, and sometimes through prayers (which were answered in the bible pretty much with 100% reliability). It seems reasonable to extrapolate that to this day and assume that if god existed, he would be showing himself here pretty often.
Not necisarily. Not even christians agree 100% that the bible can be taken as a historical record, but we've already covered that topic. If we assume (for the sake of this line of reasoning) that it can be taken as historically accurate we can also assume that the purpose of the bible is to document gods interaction with this world. The bible would not mention the people who prayed and weren't answered for one reason or another, nor would it mention the vast periods of time in which god did not interfere with the world. There is no reason to assume that god would actively interfere with a world in which humans have largely learned to take care of ourselves (in comparison to the time of the bible that is...).
You keep stating that god/no god hypothesises are equal, as if you can somehow prove it. But the assumption you make about 50/50 probabilities is dubious. Think of it, what if we state a thousand hypothesises - one for each religion and one for atheism. Will all of them have 0.1% chance of being true, even the christian one (which christian, by the way?)?
I have never claimed to be able to prove it. All I am claiming is that you cannot disprove them. If you can't disprove any of them then you can't claim that your beliefs are superior to them. In short yes, I believe that all religious beliefs are valid, no one is more or less likely then the other. Also you can't exactly seperate every religion into it's own catagory. Not all religions are mutually exclusive. The Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) all stem from some of the same texts. They all believe in the same god as well as the existance of a person named Jesus. The split comes in the diffrences of approach that the believers follow, differing opinions on the role of Jesus as well as on biblical cannon. Many religions believe that the one god is simply represented in diffrent forms to diffrent people who believe in diffrent things and thus create diffrent religions. We've also only covered organized religions. As much as they claim to, the church does not have a monopoly on interpreting the bible. There are many people who are 'spiritual', not 'religious', because they believe in a god but do not subscribe to any organized religion. I put the question in terms of higher power or no higher power because those were the simplest non-exclusionary terms I could come up with.
Your argument against a simple mass following is convincing. I don't think anyone should just believe what they're told. But true freedom of thought means if some people choose to just believe the 'company line' then they are allowed to do so. Any freedom begines and ends with tolerance, so for there to be freedom of thought it means you need to tolerate other peoples beliefs in when they consist of ideas or are formed in a manner that strikes you as incredibly ignorant or wrong. Unless you can prove your views to be correct it all comes down to your belief vs. their belief. As much as you believe that they are wrong, they believe that you are wrong. There is no cause to put one above the other.
You still don't grasp the diffrence between concrete factual evidence and anecdotal evidence. Concrete factual evidence is not required to produce a valid belief.
Slashdot Mirror
We're exploring the effects of zero gravity as well as all the observational explorations that our atmosphere prevents us from undertaking.
Well, as it's technologically possible for a computer to identify a song over the phone, I'm sure having a quality digital recording to work off of only makes it easyer. That is a good point about the latency though, how long would the identification take? It would have to stall the packet delivery untill it could be sure it was non copyrighted material.
Then why are they so damn complicated....?
That would be a good point..... except, it's not an either or thing. Social attacks are the most dangerous, yes. Do you the people that use QC have completely ignored that? I doubt it. What evidence do you have that they're not doing both?
Because someone could figure it out tomorrow.
yes
oops... make that general relativity, not special relativity....
I agree that this is a cool experiment and that it's important in terms of understanding special relativity. But considering that this equipment is the most sensitive made yet and still might not be sensitive enough to detect what it's measuring. Why do you think a GPS satellite is going to care?
Marx didn't propose death squads or any other form of tyranny. That's like blaming George Bush on George Washington.
I have no standing to offer any kind of legal opinion on this. But personally I don't think you should be required to produce an ID if you've done nothing wrong. I also think that allowing police officers to detain people until there ID is verified when they haven't committed a crime is fairly equivilent to requiring ID's.
I don't think anyone can truely conceptualise shapes in more then 3 dimentions. What you can do though, is you can do wierd kinda rotational analysis things to see that hey, this 4 dimentional shape acts exactly like a 3 dimentional cube, so we're gonna call this a 4 dimentional cube. In the case of 4 dimentions you can ascribe one as time and create an animation of the object, but that's kinda misleading because it doesn't accurately convey the fact that this object exists in one point in time. The other thing I've seen done is that you can use computers to model the object and view it's shadow. A three dimentional object leaves a 2 dimentional shadow, likewise a 4 dimentional object creates a 3 dimentional shadow. Then you turn the object and observe what kind of affect that has on the shadow. This is all pretty crazy stuff. I saw a vid on it in school once. Showed them mapping points in the three dimentional shadow while it rotates and stuff. Wierd.
"Penalty", "5" "yards". "Overuse" of "quotes".
Let me know if you find one with two blue stripes...
I've read one to many Hawking books.....
I'm very much a believer in auteur theory. The directors job, as I see it, is to realize the artistic vission of the movie. I don't care whether he was able to get the money, or he was a financial nitwit who had a best friend able to get the money, or whatever. The measure of a director is in his art, not his buisness sense.
Financial means = you can get the money.
Learn english before you try and call someone else retarded.
It also a generic term that's been used on the packaging of similar products that aren't name brand. They have no control over it anymore.
Bubblewrap
Awww. looks like I've upset you.... so sad... A person's ability to gain funding = financial means That's exactly what you said, and its fucking retarded.
Well, if you'll re-read the posts again you'll notice that knowone was talking smack about the steadycam, the guy you responded to was saying that image stabilization won't account for everything, he was arguing IN FAVOR of the steadycam. And then you responded saying that lack of financial means is somehow a reflection of someones talent. Personally, I think that idea is fucking stupid, and I said so.
Dumbass, I wasn't the one who posted that.
What about Kevin Smith? He does projects very low budget, casts his friends. He makes good movies. There are diffrent levels. Not everyone is out to make a hollywood blockbuster, and not everyone makes a hollywood blockbuster as their very first movie.
You honestly think they'll have a hard time finding people to volenteer?
Not evidence, I said there's an infinately small amount of chance that god would appear to you. There are diffrent types of evidence required for diffrent types of judgements. To prove for certain that there is a god the evidence required for that proof would have to be factual and emperical. To believe that there is a god the evidence needs only to be anecdotal and can be a judgement based on the combining of other such beliefs.
If we are to believe the bible, then god interefered with the world quite often. Sometimes directly, by appearing to humans, sending angels or causing clearly supernatural events, and sometimes through prayers (which were answered in the bible pretty much with 100% reliability). It seems reasonable to extrapolate that to this day and assume that if god existed, he would be showing himself here pretty often.
Not necisarily. Not even christians agree 100% that the bible can be taken as a historical record, but we've already covered that topic. If we assume (for the sake of this line of reasoning) that it can be taken as historically accurate we can also assume that the purpose of the bible is to document gods interaction with this world. The bible would not mention the people who prayed and weren't answered for one reason or another, nor would it mention the vast periods of time in which god did not interfere with the world. There is no reason to assume that god would actively interfere with a world in which humans have largely learned to take care of ourselves (in comparison to the time of the bible that is...).
You keep stating that god/no god hypothesises are equal, as if you can somehow prove it. But the assumption you make about 50/50 probabilities is dubious. Think of it, what if we state a thousand hypothesises - one for each religion and one for atheism. Will all of them have 0.1% chance of being true, even the christian one (which christian, by the way?)?
I have never claimed to be able to prove it. All I am claiming is that you cannot disprove them. If you can't disprove any of them then you can't claim that your beliefs are superior to them. In short yes, I believe that all religious beliefs are valid, no one is more or less likely then the other. Also you can't exactly seperate every religion into it's own catagory. Not all religions are mutually exclusive. The Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) all stem from some of the same texts. They all believe in the same god as well as the existance of a person named Jesus. The split comes in the diffrences of approach that the believers follow, differing opinions on the role of Jesus as well as on biblical cannon. Many religions believe that the one god is simply represented in diffrent forms to diffrent people who believe in diffrent things and thus create diffrent religions. We've also only covered organized religions. As much as they claim to, the church does not have a monopoly on interpreting the bible. There are many people who are 'spiritual', not 'religious', because they believe in a god but do not subscribe to any organized religion. I put the question in terms of higher power or no higher power because those were the simplest non-exclusionary terms I could come up with.
Your argument against a simple mass following is convincing. I don't think anyone should just believe what they're told. But true freedom of thought means if some people choose to just believe the 'company line' then they are allowed to do so. Any freedom begines and ends with tolerance, so for there to be freedom of thought it means you need to tolerate other peoples beliefs in when they consist of ideas or are formed in a manner that strikes you as incredibly ignorant or wrong. Unless you can prove your views to be correct it all comes down to your belief vs. their belief. As much as you believe that they are wrong, they believe that you are wrong. There is no cause to put one above the other.
You still don't grasp the diffrence between concrete factual evidence and anecdotal evidence. Concrete factual evidence is not required to produce a valid belief.