> Sure, the output of those people is zero, but they spend money on things.
Think of those things as the rolling of dice. Sometimes they happen to come up with a good result from bad initial givens by luck, and it helps all of us. Yes, some dice are better than others, and some groups are rolling more dice than others, but you can still get a good result sometimes.
Yea. The quote itself is from an article linked from the article linked by the summary, and appears terse. If actual billionaires are talking about this, then they would probably mean (or will once they thought about it) that a simulation is possibly testable, and could yield advancement in sciences.
Here's my TOP THREE thoughts on the issue:P
1)- A simulation is possibly testable. It is not falsifiable. Just as Michael, the archangel that around 60% of humanity believes in, could show up tomorrow and specify exactly which subset of that 60% was correct all along (if any) about their other ecclesiastical details, a simulation could be proven true by any action that is provably from a substrate layer. Unlike religious suppositions, however, there's plenty of OTHER tests that could be done to point very strongly in the direction of a simulation. You could, for instance, notice things that the universe "likes" to do- for instance, the universe "likes" to flow from order to disorder, and very arguably "likes" to not do the math for any interaction until it has no other choice. You could then propose a model that governs this, and, in some area, or of some magnitude that is not commonly observed in nature, go against this tendency, and see if anything happens. You could also try to "signal" to the "system admins" by creating things that are extremely rare in nature, in high density in a small area, see if you can make the audit logs, whatever.
But the lack of falsifiability, and the literally infinite numbers of possible rules of a substrate doing the simulation, means that unless these experiments produce a positive result, no conclusion can be drawn in the negative direction. How much of that is science?
2)- A positive test might just be a philosophical footnote The best case isn't instantiating us in the gelatinous five dimensional homeworld of our simulators, the best case would be something like free energy or even the removal of natural constraints over death, space, place, and time, with a risk that you would disrupt the functioning of the system in some way. But more likely is that any simulation that is able to effectively run an entire universe is pretty well proof against any machinations, for good or ill. In that case, the idea that we are "just a simulation" would go away exactly as soon as "we are a simulation" was proven. After all, "I think, therefore I am" doesn't change- we still have existence relative to everything we can see, remember, and understand, and the simulating layer is unwilling or unable to be interacted with- that yields no actual change in anything. We could discover this simulation thing, and change absolutely nothing in the process. Just as it doesn't seem to matter for the course of human history which religion, if any, is correct, finding that the true nature of the universe is some school PC left on overnight by accident would be meaningless for predictions, actions, morality, etc.
3)- A positive test might end the universe, and seems likely to end humanity We haven't seen any signs of intelligent life, despite monumental distances being able to be observed to some degree. Assuming a materialist universe or uniform simulation, we expect there to be millions to trillions of intelligent species around, somewhere. At least one of them should be trying to turn their galaxy into the goatse guy to troll the rest of the universe. If that sounds silly, it shouldn't- there's stupidly huge amounts of space and matter. A simulation theory being correct provides some other possible answers to the great filter question: intelligent life could have been designed to be nonexistent, and signalling our presence to whatever runs the substrate could mean a brief pause, and then a continuation with DROP TABLE Earth; having been run, or intelligent life could be something that is actively scanned for and eliminated, an expected and disliked eventuality, a development that occ
> Generally computers are used to speed up simulations.
I think you misunderstand exactly how alien this supposition actually is. If we are in a simulation, then we know precious little about the substrate that the simulation is running on, or the physical laws in question. Not only could you hand-wave away time itself, you could be subject to limitations that we are not- it may be feasible to run a quintillion simulations at one millionth the speed, which could be useful if the act of simulating was the important part, not the end result of any given simulation. Or, frankly, *literally whatever*.
First, everyone should always block ads. Second, I'm pretty sure all of 4chan knows this. Third, 4chan is... lets just go with "special". I think it's pretty charming that you refer to them as "customers", too.
1- This isn't about some mx redirect thing (or a domain name), this is about storing the emails on a private server. 2- No, they don't necessarily. If you wanted to email a private email server, why would the government have that on record? At least one of the two parties would need to have their emails on a government controlled system. Which one seems like the better plan to you: you, me, and everyone else in the world, needs to somehow have accounts on a government server -OR- the secretary of state keeps emails on a state department server as per policy? 3- I don't know what you mean here. She used the clintonemail.com server for her work in the state department. There were tens of thousands of emails that were in question. 4- You are wrong. She announced her candidacy in April 2015. Here's a wired article from March 2015: http://www.wired.com/2015/03/c... (and archive: http://archive.is/2015.03.05-0... )
"The person who may had broke the law is the person who sent classified information to her email address."
That's not really how this works. But pretend it did. Here's Comey on it: "For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters."
"However she is a politician not a IT expert."
She employed numerous IT experts, however, and certainly could be expected to know the implications.
"If it was an average guy who did this... Chances are they may had lost their job, but not had criminal activity put on him."
Clinton doesn't have any criminal charges being placed on her. She's never been indicted. Comey pretty much stated that anyone else would be in hot steaming shit. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
Quite honestly man, you can google this. You've been able to google this for awhile. To me, the most interesting part isn't the emails, it's the consistent stream of bad information out of Clinton herself. On March 10th, 2015 (before she announced for president), she said "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."
That was either an omission or a lie. But if you follow it forward, it just gets sillier- at almost every chance to discuss this, she dissembled, provided false information, or maybe even straight fucking lied. The fact that you or I would never work again if we made this kind of mistake, the bizarre deletions, the possible foreign intel implications- that's all whatever compared to the fact that this was just deny, deny, deny until the evidence caught up.
It doesn't matter that Russia wants to "interfere" with our elections. What matters is how they go about it. If they go about it by dumping what is actually going on- the hidden truth- who could argue against that?
Given the highly political nature of the topics, and the fact that there's a lot to be gained by blaming a state actor instead of discussing the improprieties and casual ethical violations disclosed... well, even if it isn't the Bear-pair behind it, there would be plenty of people claiming that it was for personal and political advancement.
This is hardly new news. Envelope information is available on many platforms.
Apple cooperates fully with the law. The parts that make the news are when they correctly construct some part of their system such that they don't have the key to it, and refuse to do their best to crack it.
The fact that Apple logs their own queries to route messages (each one can be delivered over their network, or over SMS) is unsurprising. The fact that they deliver a log should be completely unsurprising. iMessage is end to end encrypted, but that doesn't mean it magically loses the need to be routed. When you send an iMessage, your destination address is a PHONE NUMBER. The fallback delivery message is SMS. Of course it needs to have some method of figuring out who gets an iMessage and who gets an SMS.
You know, the third amendment prevents you from having to quarter troops in your house. Why buy all these "Internet of Things" devices, and quarter the troops of a cyber war? DDoS provides the censorship dreamed of by the worst governments and the casual keyboard tyrant alike. These "things" are just malicious tools.
> Keep routers and access points separate... > low power atom device to run something like pfsense > cheap managed switch > wireless ap as a dumb bridge > Create separate VLANs
Once you're done making this server room you describe, you'll be in the.0000001% of people qualified to run an IoT device, many of which are BORN malicious and sending pictures of your bedroom/front lawn/children to a central server in China, a decent number of which are fundamentally insecure with no possible way to change passwords or a default password they forgot (or "forgot") to strip out that you can't fix, and at least some of which will fail to work on a VLAN that can only see the outside internet (for some goddamned reason, they want to ping a router or something).
The short version is this: If you want your IoT devices to not be part of a botnet, DO NOT BUY ANY. Once you buy those components, you have to set them up. Then configure them. Then maintain them. And almost no one will jump through any of those hoops.
Most iPhone jailbreaks rely on the phone opting in to the exploit, they usually aren't just "get text message, get owned". That's a different class of security vulnerability.
Of course, there are exceptions, like the one used recently that got patched within days.
It really is relevant. There's quite a bit of domain knowledge needed to do that with modern devices, so someone who has had a lot less time to acquire that knowledge doing something like this is definitely notable.
Well, he's winning in some of the polls. And he won the nomination versus a field of over a dozen Republicans, some of whom spent all their money attacking him.
So... you SURE he won't win? I've been hearing everyone saying Trump was about to wash out since he announced.
There were multiple bombs. If there were multiple bombs in MY city, I wouldn't be driving downtown back and forth in it, one or more of the other bombs might blow up. Even if there had just been ONE bomb, it isn't like you know that.
It seems reasonable that the contractors would want extra compensation for the risks they were taking to their life and property. Even soldiers get combat pay, and they have a full time job, not a series of gigs.
> If there's a bug, I catch it and release it outside
What if there's fifty bugs? What if there's a hundred bugs and a dozen mice? Someone is keeping your apartment free of bullshit parasitic creatures that spread disease and filth. It's not you, apparently, but someone is doing the fucking job out of your sight.
No one is trying to kill your pets. Rats are filthy and violent. They destroy food, spread disease, and even hurt the animals we WANT to keep around and well cared for. Varmints are going to be killed, if you don't do that you don't even have a civilization.
You definitely speak like someone who has never had to deal with an actual infestation, or thought much about that situation much.
If technologically superior aliens come here wanting earth (or whatever), I don't particularly care about how humane their human-extermination methods are. I'm more concerned about if our alien-extermination methods are effective enough to stop them, and perhaps whether or not our methods of alien-extermination are MORE effective than their methods of human-extermination.
Slashdot Mirror
> Sure, the output of those people is zero, but they spend money on things.
Think of those things as the rolling of dice. Sometimes they happen to come up with a good result from bad initial givens by luck, and it helps all of us. Yes, some dice are better than others, and some groups are rolling more dice than others, but you can still get a good result sometimes.
> if you stop the simulation, they cease to exist
Yea. The quote itself is from an article linked from the article linked by the summary, and appears terse. If actual billionaires are talking about this, then they would probably mean (or will once they thought about it) that a simulation is possibly testable, and could yield advancement in sciences.
Here's my TOP THREE thoughts on the issue :P
1)- A simulation is possibly testable. It is not falsifiable. Just as Michael, the archangel that around 60% of humanity believes in, could show up tomorrow and specify exactly which subset of that 60% was correct all along (if any) about their other ecclesiastical details, a simulation could be proven true by any action that is provably from a substrate layer. Unlike religious suppositions, however, there's plenty of OTHER tests that could be done to point very strongly in the direction of a simulation. You could, for instance, notice things that the universe "likes" to do- for instance, the universe "likes" to flow from order to disorder, and very arguably "likes" to not do the math for any interaction until it has no other choice. You could then propose a model that governs this, and, in some area, or of some magnitude that is not commonly observed in nature, go against this tendency, and see if anything happens. You could also try to "signal" to the "system admins" by creating things that are extremely rare in nature, in high density in a small area, see if you can make the audit logs, whatever.
But the lack of falsifiability, and the literally infinite numbers of possible rules of a substrate doing the simulation, means that unless these experiments produce a positive result, no conclusion can be drawn in the negative direction. How much of that is science?
2)- A positive test might just be a philosophical footnote
The best case isn't instantiating us in the gelatinous five dimensional homeworld of our simulators, the best case would be something like free energy or even the removal of natural constraints over death, space, place, and time, with a risk that you would disrupt the functioning of the system in some way. But more likely is that any simulation that is able to effectively run an entire universe is pretty well proof against any machinations, for good or ill. In that case, the idea that we are "just a simulation" would go away exactly as soon as "we are a simulation" was proven. After all, "I think, therefore I am" doesn't change- we still have existence relative to everything we can see, remember, and understand, and the simulating layer is unwilling or unable to be interacted with- that yields no actual change in anything. We could discover this simulation thing, and change absolutely nothing in the process. Just as it doesn't seem to matter for the course of human history which religion, if any, is correct, finding that the true nature of the universe is some school PC left on overnight by accident would be meaningless for predictions, actions, morality, etc.
3)- A positive test might end the universe, and seems likely to end humanity
We haven't seen any signs of intelligent life, despite monumental distances being able to be observed to some degree. Assuming a materialist universe or uniform simulation, we expect there to be millions to trillions of intelligent species around, somewhere. At least one of them should be trying to turn their galaxy into the goatse guy to troll the rest of the universe. If that sounds silly, it shouldn't- there's stupidly huge amounts of space and matter. A simulation theory being correct provides some other possible answers to the great filter question: intelligent life could have been designed to be nonexistent, and signalling our presence to whatever runs the substrate could mean a brief pause, and then a continuation with DROP TABLE Earth; having been run, or intelligent life could be something that is actively scanned for and eliminated, an expected and disliked eventuality, a development that occ
"Did you know that you can upgrade to our unlimited energy plan for less than half the cost of the leading competing simulations?"
> Generally computers are used to speed up simulations.
I think you misunderstand exactly how alien this supposition actually is. If we are in a simulation, then we know precious little about the substrate that the simulation is running on, or the physical laws in question. Not only could you hand-wave away time itself, you could be subject to limitations that we are not- it may be feasible to run a quintillion simulations at one millionth the speed, which could be useful if the act of simulating was the important part, not the end result of any given simulation. Or, frankly, *literally whatever*.
First, everyone should always block ads.
Second, I'm pretty sure all of 4chan knows this.
Third, 4chan is... lets just go with "special". I think it's pretty charming that you refer to them as "customers", too.
I can't imagine a more perfect match for 4chan than Martin Shkreli. They absolutely and completely deserve each other forever.
1- This isn't about some mx redirect thing (or a domain name), this is about storing the emails on a private server.
2- No, they don't necessarily. If you wanted to email a private email server, why would the government have that on record? At least one of the two parties would need to have their emails on a government controlled system. Which one seems like the better plan to you: you, me, and everyone else in the world, needs to somehow have accounts on a government server -OR- the secretary of state keeps emails on a state department server as per policy?
3- I don't know what you mean here. She used the clintonemail.com server for her work in the state department. There were tens of thousands of emails that were in question.
4- You are wrong. She announced her candidacy in April 2015. Here's a wired article from March 2015:
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/c...
(and archive: http://archive.is/2015.03.05-0... )
"The person who may had broke the law is the person who sent classified information to her email address."
That's not really how this works. But pretend it did. Here's Comey on it:
"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters."
"However she is a politician not a IT expert."
She employed numerous IT experts, however, and certainly could be expected to know the implications.
"If it was an average guy who did this... Chances are they may had lost their job, but not had criminal activity put on him."
Clinton doesn't have any criminal charges being placed on her. She's never been indicted. Comey pretty much stated that anyone else would be in hot steaming shit.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press...
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
Quite honestly man, you can google this. You've been able to google this for awhile. To me, the most interesting part isn't the emails, it's the consistent stream of bad information out of Clinton herself. On March 10th, 2015 (before she announced for president), she said "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."
That was either an omission or a lie. But if you follow it forward, it just gets sillier- at almost every chance to discuss this, she dissembled, provided false information, or maybe even straight fucking lied. The fact that you or I would never work again if we made this kind of mistake, the bizarre deletions, the possible foreign intel implications- that's all whatever compared to the fact that this was just deny, deny, deny until the evidence caught up.
I bet the accepted answer uses a turkey instead of a chicken for some reason, and the one with the most votes rants about meat being murder.
It is exactly what we should expect from solid state components. Demand no less!
It doesn't matter that Russia wants to "interfere" with our elections. What matters is how they go about it. If they go about it by dumping what is actually going on- the hidden truth- who could argue against that?
Given the highly political nature of the topics, and the fact that there's a lot to be gained by blaming a state actor instead of discussing the improprieties and casual ethical violations disclosed... well, even if it isn't the Bear-pair behind it, there would be plenty of people claiming that it was for personal and political advancement.
This is hardly new news. Envelope information is available on many platforms.
Apple cooperates fully with the law. The parts that make the news are when they correctly construct some part of their system such that they don't have the key to it, and refuse to do their best to crack it.
The fact that Apple logs their own queries to route messages (each one can be delivered over their network, or over SMS) is unsurprising. The fact that they deliver a log should be completely unsurprising. iMessage is end to end encrypted, but that doesn't mean it magically loses the need to be routed. When you send an iMessage, your destination address is a PHONE NUMBER. The fallback delivery message is SMS. Of course it needs to have some method of figuring out who gets an iMessage and who gets an SMS.
You know, the third amendment prevents you from having to quarter troops in your house. Why buy all these "Internet of Things" devices, and quarter the troops of a cyber war? DDoS provides the censorship dreamed of by the worst governments and the casual keyboard tyrant alike. These "things" are just malicious tools.
#ThatsSoCalifornia
> Keep routers and access points separate...
> low power atom device to run something like pfsense
> cheap managed switch
> wireless ap as a dumb bridge
> Create separate VLANs
Once you're done making this server room you describe, you'll be in the .0000001% of people qualified to run an IoT device, many of which are BORN malicious and sending pictures of your bedroom/front lawn/children to a central server in China, a decent number of which are fundamentally insecure with no possible way to change passwords or a default password they forgot (or "forgot") to strip out that you can't fix, and at least some of which will fail to work on a VLAN that can only see the outside internet (for some goddamned reason, they want to ping a router or something).
The short version is this: If you want your IoT devices to not be part of a botnet, DO NOT BUY ANY. Once you buy those components, you have to set them up. Then configure them. Then maintain them. And almost no one will jump through any of those hoops.
Most iPhone jailbreaks rely on the phone opting in to the exploit, they usually aren't just "get text message, get owned". That's a different class of security vulnerability.
Of course, there are exceptions, like the one used recently that got patched within days.
> Mentioning the age does nothing for the story
It really is relevant. There's quite a bit of domain knowledge needed to do that with modern devices, so someone who has had a lot less time to acquire that knowledge doing something like this is definitely notable.
>..for the time being
Just because Apple has a bad idea doesn't mean everyone else has to copy it.
> Trump isn't winning shit.
Well, he's winning in some of the polls. And he won the nomination versus a field of over a dozen Republicans, some of whom spent all their money attacking him.
So... you SURE he won't win? I've been hearing everyone saying Trump was about to wash out since he announced.
Apparently, "be willing to lie to congress and the FBI to defend your employer" is under "preferred skills".
There were multiple bombs. If there were multiple bombs in MY city, I wouldn't be driving downtown back and forth in it, one or more of the other bombs might blow up. Even if there had just been ONE bomb, it isn't like you know that.
It seems reasonable that the contractors would want extra compensation for the risks they were taking to their life and property. Even soldiers get combat pay, and they have a full time job, not a series of gigs.
> Fleas.
No, rats. The fleas are just a vector to get it from rats to people. The fleas come with the rats.
> falls back into normal air
They need a gas that sinks, though.
> If there's a bug, I catch it and release it outside
What if there's fifty bugs? What if there's a hundred bugs and a dozen mice? Someone is keeping your apartment free of bullshit parasitic creatures that spread disease and filth. It's not you, apparently, but someone is doing the fucking job out of your sight.
No one is trying to kill your pets. Rats are filthy and violent. They destroy food, spread disease, and even hurt the animals we WANT to keep around and well cared for. Varmints are going to be killed, if you don't do that you don't even have a civilization.
You definitely speak like someone who has never had to deal with an actual infestation, or thought much about that situation much.
If technologically superior aliens come here wanting earth (or whatever), I don't particularly care about how humane their human-extermination methods are. I'm more concerned about if our alien-extermination methods are effective enough to stop them, and perhaps whether or not our methods of alien-extermination are MORE effective than their methods of human-extermination.