Mathematics show that all encryption can be broken, it's simply a matter of time. That time is reduced by the power of you computing wich is only restrained by the size of your budget. That makes it almost certain that the NSA has has methods for decrypting common algorithms. Considering their mission it would be irresponcible of them to not reaserch it.
Knowone uses 2048 bit keys. Considering the nature of encryption as it relates to the nature of the NSA's mission and also the size of their budget it would be naive to think that they aren't ahead of the curve.
These people are in diffrent countries, the US can't supoena anything out of them. As for the private key being being destroyed, you would have to proove that it was destroyed after the government served the supoena, otherwise there was no obstruction (and thats of course assuming they're even in your jurisdiction).
"Objective" assesments of the work (brush technique, type of paints/colors used and so on)do not affect the a person's process of assigning value to a work of art.
If your making a subjective assesment of that art, then no it wouldn't. But if you're making an objective assesment of it, then yes it would.
I am saying that some people do not share your subjective opinion that "objective evaluation" is a way to determine artistic value.
And I'm saying that they are wrong. Not all people choose to make objective decisions about a work, that does not mean that that process does not exist.
Their opinions wont be based on subjective interpretation. Interpretation is not at all tied to how good art is, the same piece of art can be interpreted in multiple diffrent ways by even the same person. That's why it good. Their opinions will be more accurate because they will not be subjective opinions, they will be objective assesments.
The opinions of a person who is well educated in a field are going to be more accurate then the opinions of someone who has no education in that field. That does not change depending on the field, be it math, astrophysics, or aesthetics.
Re:Done before - at the New York Experience Theatr
on
Giant Sub-Woofer
·
· Score: 1
Not exactly, the equation changes depending on how you have the amp wired. Plus you generally run amps full on and then adjust the volume going into an amp. So even if it's wired for 660dB to be the output that would be the max possible. He can always turn the volume down.
I the late 19th century the "better informed" never really knew about van Gogh, that was the problem. His lack of success was due to the fact that he didn't have a wide enough audience to reach the "better informed". His worth as an artist doesn't lie in communal judgements of his work, his worth lies in the innovation and lasting impact he's had on expressionism and abstraction. In addition arguing that those judgements don't hold any weight is futile. Those judgements come from people far more educated in art history then you or I. It's equivilent to me arguing with a NASA engineer about what's inside the sun. He can't physically proove he's right, but that doesn't lessen the weight of his claim against me. The claims certainly hold weight, you don't have standing to dispute that, I told you if you wanted to refute his worth as an artist produce a credible source that validates your side of the argument. If someones judgement is based on a wider base of knowledge and they are better informed, that certainly makes their judgement better then those less informed. That's no more pretentious then a teacher assuming he knows more then the average person about his subject. The reason the great pieces of art have lasted is because they are great, not because they are popular. That much is evidenced by the fact that painters like van Gogh were so unsuccessful in their time and because some of the most popular artists of today fade away if they haven't put out a single in the last week. One of the values of art is that good art can be interpreted many diffrent ways, it doesn't get boring, there are nuances that come out only after you're familiar with the work. That is why personal interpretation and quality of art are two seperate things. Your idea works very well in abstraction, but once you apply it to the real world it becomes obviose that some artists were just better at what they did. Mozart, van Gogh, da Vinci; those people's works stand by and far above the rest. Their contributions to the art world can be traced through history, not because everyone in the world want to buy one for their living room, but because the experts in the field, the people that really study art, can show exactly what these people did to set them above the rest.
You don't look stupid, at least not to me, I enjoy debates like these.
I think it can be stated as a fact that there is more to learn about this universe then what we already know. Life is defined (in my dictionary at least) as "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms." I looked up organic and the definition had to do with a class of chemical compounds containing carbon. So I guess your right, if we encounter a life form that is not carbon based then we'll need to expand our definitions. Of course, those are only the textbook definitions. I think the common idea of what constitues life and what doesn't constitute life is signifigantly broader. If it wasn't then we would never expand our definitions because we would never find something that didn't already fit what we considered 'alive'.
As to the other point, an ecosystem refers to the process as a whole. It's the place as well as what lives in it and how it's all related. So when they say they're going to study the ecosystem I think they refering to the fact that they would like to not only learn what lives down there, but also how it lives, how is the process of life sustained and all. I don't know if microbes eat per se, but they have to take in something to produce the energy needed to keep going.
it is pretentious to assume that you (or your groups') values should apply to everyone. Similarly it is pretentious to act as if people who do not share your system of evaluation are somehow less knowledgeable, intelligent or music savvy.
That would be pretentious, if I had done that. I have said multiple times that everyone is free to enjoy what they will.
finding some indie rock/folk/classical music loving friends and aligning your tastes with theirs in a sad attempt to be cool (I'm not saying you do this - but it does happen). It's even worse if a person has a little knowledge - say a year or two of basic music theory. People think they know it all when really they know very little.
That much we certainly agree on...
Anyway, 1 thread is enough, I'm vacating this thread in favor of this one.
I knew I said I was done with you but - I'm bored at work so - on we go. You are one of those people that loves to have the last word right? We could go on forever because you will never let go!!
Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black... I'm fully aware of my stubborn nature, don't pretend that it doesn't exist in you also. I may give up eventually, but for now I've got time to kill and these little write ups don't account for much of it.
As proof to my theory that the value of art is not intrinsically linked to an induviduals enjoyment we can look at Vincent van Gogh as an example. Probably every art history book in use today will tell you he was one of the best of his time. It will also tell you that his success during his lifetime was minimal at best, people at the time simply did not enjoy his work. But as the content of his paintings have not changed neither has their value.
To say that everything is subjective is to deny the basics of human perception. Quality is always determined through comparison. So if you have been exposed to a limited amount of music then you may comparitively deem a song good. But if another person has been exposed to a wider base of music and he comparitivly deems your song bad, is that him being pretentious or better informed? The more informed repondent produces a more informed answer. To simply state that it's all relative is a cop out intended to excuse you from standing by your beliefs. As an argument it's weak, that's something I've gone through great pains to try and express to you. But not so unexpectadly you have ignored the evidence and focused on ad hominem. The ad nauseam of your claim that I am pretentious is indicative of the lack of substance behind that claim as well as the lack of substance behind your argument as a whole.
Like the Mozart example I'm sure you will just declare that van Gogh is not universally accepted as a great artist. Wishing does not make it so, if you'd like to refute that feel free to find a credible source that believes otherwise. Moving on.
What proof can you offer that your position is correct? Can you give an example of a great artist who is suddenly deemed worthless because you say so? No, that would be riddiculus. There's a reason these people have made it into history books, because they are good, not because the person writing the history books has an affinity for them. Their worth as an artist is not subjective, it is lasting and tangible.
Your also confusing interpretation with quality. Knowone is arguing that the interpretation of art is not subjective. That's one of the things that makes art great.
Are you stupid? Haha! The argument flew entirely over your head. Mozart is universally accepted by every knowledgable authority as being good art. It obviosly not relative. Your responce was "is so". Of course I made no further points. I didn't need to make any further points because you failed to refute my first point.
Also I've never had a class in music theory. You assumptions about me are as patently false as your arguments.
You are truely a troll in the worst sense of the word. You try and glorify yourself by claiming a victory in an argument that never reached a conclusion. At the same time you run from that argument because you know you have lost. It nonsensical.
Btw, calling someone a pretentios snob in every single post is obviosly trolling, it's kind of retarded to be proud of getting the default responce to immature behavior.
Also, what part of your argument is logical? All you did was repeat if I like it then it must be good, over and over again while ignoring all other points.
If the shoe fits how about we call you a hypocrite? From another of your posts: The industry promotes the hell out of its crappy pop releases The sad fact is that many people have no musical taste - they enjoy the manufactured pop stars and the tired chord progressions that form the base for modern rock.
The point is that many people like crap.
I's fairly obviose that you agree with my assertion that what is good and what people like are not always the same thing. Stop trolling.
Of course there's a scale of musical goodness. Some songs are obviosly better then others. Not even talking about pop, have you ever seen a local band that just sucked balls? A band so bad it gets booed off the stage. Compare that to a band that gets everyone dancing and their is obviosly a scale of goodness, people don't always agree as to where artists fall on that scale but the scale certainly exists. I understand your need to grant validity to other people's enjoyment of music but as I've said time and again something doesn't have to be great for you to like it. The saying goes 'there's no accounting for taste'. Most people take that as derision towards those who like diffrent music but I take it as the simple fact that what is good and what is enjoyable are not always solidly linked in a persons mind.
A collection of atoms can form something that is 'alive', but it has to be more then simply the sum of it's parts. We are made up of the same basic atoms that are in everything around us, but you don't consider water to be alive, or dirt, or air.
There's a diffrence between a simple mistake and completely leaving out one of the major factors of the scientific method. One's a brain fart, the other is incompetence.
If our galaxy or our universe turns out to be an atom in another universe it would still not be considered alive because atoms are not considered alive.
Also the assertion that if it looks like something then it must be something is fundamentally flawed. To state something is inevitable is premature considering even the most fringe scientific theories in theoretical physics have only begun to incorporate the idea. I won't discount the idea, it's one that I've held as possible for quiet some time as it certainly matches with my larger scale beliefs, and as beliefs go it's not an entirely uncommon one. But to make the jump from 'possible' (or even from 'likely') to 'inevitable' without a single shred of supporting evidence is unwarranted.
Well thank for the high school history lesson;) but I really am not too worried about where Vespucci did or did not come. The fact is that in common usage the term "America" refers to the United States. So the term "American Football" logically applies to the sport that "Americans" call football.
Yes but to enter into the country the customs agents have to inspect and approve your passport. They make sure that, among other things, the photo on the passport is that of the person standing in front of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Mathematics show that all encryption can be broken, it's simply a matter of time. That time is reduced by the power of you computing wich is only restrained by the size of your budget. That makes it almost certain that the NSA has has methods for decrypting common algorithms. Considering their mission it would be irresponcible of them to not reaserch it.
Knowone uses 2048 bit keys. Considering the nature of encryption as it relates to the nature of the NSA's mission and also the size of their budget it would be naive to think that they aren't ahead of the curve.
Those methods aren't so secret. There are methods to attack all of the popular cytosystems that are more efficient then brute force.
These people are in diffrent countries, the US can't supoena anything out of them. As for the private key being being destroyed, you would have to proove that it was destroyed after the government served the supoena, otherwise there was no obstruction (and thats of course assuming they're even in your jurisdiction).
If your making a subjective assesment of that art, then no it wouldn't. But if you're making an objective assesment of it, then yes it would.
I am saying that some people do not share your subjective opinion that "objective evaluation" is a way to determine artistic value.
And I'm saying that they are wrong. Not all people choose to make objective decisions about a work, that does not mean that that process does not exist.
Their opinions wont be based on subjective interpretation. Interpretation is not at all tied to how good art is, the same piece of art can be interpreted in multiple diffrent ways by even the same person. That's why it good. Their opinions will be more accurate because they will not be subjective opinions, they will be objective assesments.
The opinions of a person who is well educated in a field are going to be more accurate then the opinions of someone who has no education in that field. That does not change depending on the field, be it math, astrophysics, or aesthetics.
I was always told that was at 4 Hertz....
Not exactly, the equation changes depending on how you have the amp wired. Plus you generally run amps full on and then adjust the volume going into an amp. So even if it's wired for 660dB to be the output that would be the max possible. He can always turn the volume down.
I the late 19th century the "better informed" never really knew about van Gogh, that was the problem. His lack of success was due to the fact that he didn't have a wide enough audience to reach the "better informed". His worth as an artist doesn't lie in communal judgements of his work, his worth lies in the innovation and lasting impact he's had on expressionism and abstraction. In addition arguing that those judgements don't hold any weight is futile. Those judgements come from people far more educated in art history then you or I. It's equivilent to me arguing with a NASA engineer about what's inside the sun. He can't physically proove he's right, but that doesn't lessen the weight of his claim against me. The claims certainly hold weight, you don't have standing to dispute that, I told you if you wanted to refute his worth as an artist produce a credible source that validates your side of the argument. If someones judgement is based on a wider base of knowledge and they are better informed, that certainly makes their judgement better then those less informed. That's no more pretentious then a teacher assuming he knows more then the average person about his subject. The reason the great pieces of art have lasted is because they are great, not because they are popular. That much is evidenced by the fact that painters like van Gogh were so unsuccessful in their time and because some of the most popular artists of today fade away if they haven't put out a single in the last week. One of the values of art is that good art can be interpreted many diffrent ways, it doesn't get boring, there are nuances that come out only after you're familiar with the work. That is why personal interpretation and quality of art are two seperate things. Your idea works very well in abstraction, but once you apply it to the real world it becomes obviose that some artists were just better at what they did. Mozart, van Gogh, da Vinci; those people's works stand by and far above the rest. Their contributions to the art world can be traced through history, not because everyone in the world want to buy one for their living room, but because the experts in the field, the people that really study art, can show exactly what these people did to set them above the rest.
Maybe he's not christian.
I think it can be stated as a fact that there is more to learn about this universe then what we already know. Life is defined (in my dictionary at least) as "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms." I looked up organic and the definition had to do with a class of chemical compounds containing carbon. So I guess your right, if we encounter a life form that is not carbon based then we'll need to expand our definitions. Of course, those are only the textbook definitions. I think the common idea of what constitues life and what doesn't constitute life is signifigantly broader. If it wasn't then we would never expand our definitions because we would never find something that didn't already fit what we considered 'alive'.
As to the other point, an ecosystem refers to the process as a whole. It's the place as well as what lives in it and how it's all related. So when they say they're going to study the ecosystem I think they refering to the fact that they would like to not only learn what lives down there, but also how it lives, how is the process of life sustained and all. I don't know if microbes eat per se, but they have to take in something to produce the energy needed to keep going.
That would be pretentious, if I had done that. I have said multiple times that everyone is free to enjoy what they will.
finding some indie rock/folk/classical music loving friends and aligning your tastes with theirs in a sad attempt to be cool (I'm not saying you do this - but it does happen). It's even worse if a person has a little knowledge - say a year or two of basic music theory. People think they know it all when really they know very little.
That much we certainly agree on...
Anyway, 1 thread is enough, I'm vacating this thread in favor of this one.
Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black... I'm fully aware of my stubborn nature, don't pretend that it doesn't exist in you also. I may give up eventually, but for now I've got time to kill and these little write ups don't account for much of it.
As proof to my theory that the value of art is not intrinsically linked to an induviduals enjoyment we can look at Vincent van Gogh as an example. Probably every art history book in use today will tell you he was one of the best of his time. It will also tell you that his success during his lifetime was minimal at best, people at the time simply did not enjoy his work. But as the content of his paintings have not changed neither has their value.
To say that everything is subjective is to deny the basics of human perception. Quality is always determined through comparison. So if you have been exposed to a limited amount of music then you may comparitively deem a song good. But if another person has been exposed to a wider base of music and he comparitivly deems your song bad, is that him being pretentious or better informed? The more informed repondent produces a more informed answer. To simply state that it's all relative is a cop out intended to excuse you from standing by your beliefs. As an argument it's weak, that's something I've gone through great pains to try and express to you. But not so unexpectadly you have ignored the evidence and focused on ad hominem. The ad nauseam of your claim that I am pretentious is indicative of the lack of substance behind that claim as well as the lack of substance behind your argument as a whole.
Like the Mozart example I'm sure you will just declare that van Gogh is not universally accepted as a great artist. Wishing does not make it so, if you'd like to refute that feel free to find a credible source that believes otherwise. Moving on.
What proof can you offer that your position is correct? Can you give an example of a great artist who is suddenly deemed worthless because you say so? No, that would be riddiculus. There's a reason these people have made it into history books, because they are good, not because the person writing the history books has an affinity for them. Their worth as an artist is not subjective, it is lasting and tangible.
Your also confusing interpretation with quality. Knowone is arguing that the interpretation of art is not subjective. That's one of the things that makes art great.
Also I've never had a class in music theory. You assumptions about me are as patently false as your arguments.
You are truely a troll in the worst sense of the word. You try and glorify yourself by claiming a victory in an argument that never reached a conclusion. At the same time you run from that argument because you know you have lost. It nonsensical.
Btw, calling someone a pretentios snob in every single post is obviosly trolling, it's kind of retarded to be proud of getting the default responce to immature behavior.
Also, what part of your argument is logical? All you did was repeat if I like it then it must be good, over and over again while ignoring all other points.
If the shoe fits how about we call you a hypocrite? From another of your posts:
The industry promotes the hell out of its crappy pop releases
The sad fact is that many people have no musical taste - they enjoy the manufactured pop stars and the tired chord progressions that form the base for modern rock.
The point is that many people like crap.
I's fairly obviose that you agree with my assertion that what is good and what people like are not always the same thing. Stop trolling.
Of course there's a scale of musical goodness. Some songs are obviosly better then others. Not even talking about pop, have you ever seen a local band that just sucked balls? A band so bad it gets booed off the stage. Compare that to a band that gets everyone dancing and their is obviosly a scale of goodness, people don't always agree as to where artists fall on that scale but the scale certainly exists. I understand your need to grant validity to other people's enjoyment of music but as I've said time and again something doesn't have to be great for you to like it. The saying goes 'there's no accounting for taste'. Most people take that as derision towards those who like diffrent music but I take it as the simple fact that what is good and what is enjoyable are not always solidly linked in a persons mind.
A collection of atoms can form something that is 'alive', but it has to be more then simply the sum of it's parts. We are made up of the same basic atoms that are in everything around us, but you don't consider water to be alive, or dirt, or air.
That's the point of having more employee's. If one doesn't want to come in, you call the next.
There's a diffrence between a simple mistake and completely leaving out one of the major factors of the scientific method. One's a brain fart, the other is incompetence.
Also the assertion that if it looks like something then it must be something is fundamentally flawed. To state something is inevitable is premature considering even the most fringe scientific theories in theoretical physics have only begun to incorporate the idea. I won't discount the idea, it's one that I've held as possible for quiet some time as it certainly matches with my larger scale beliefs, and as beliefs go it's not an entirely uncommon one. But to make the jump from 'possible' (or even from 'likely') to 'inevitable' without a single shred of supporting evidence is unwarranted.
Well thank for the high school history lesson ;) but I really am not too worried about where Vespucci did or did not come. The fact is that in common usage the term "America" refers to the United States. So the term "American Football" logically applies to the sport that "Americans" call football.
Damn... and you almost got through that whole thing without being snooty....
Yes but to enter into the country the customs agents have to inspect and approve your passport. They make sure that, among other things, the photo on the passport is that of the person standing in front of them.