Did you do a study? I bet you did not. If you can carry on a meaningful conversation about Coca Cola, rest assured the advertisers have done their job. Because think of all the brands that you can't hold a conversation about. Assuming you know about any that don't advertise.
They'll go after the ad block authors, first with incentives, then with threats. They'll try to get laws passed, they'll try to hook into existing property rights violations like DMCA. They'll fight and fight to shit up your life because they've been able to get paid for it up until this point.
"U.S. websites won't be able to injure people to the tune of 22 billion dollars, due to the fact that people own their own machines that they paid for themselves, maintain themselves, and house in their own homes, with their own dollars."
Advertisements work on you. Unless you aren't human, or are a retard or something. If your brain functions, ads work on you.
Period.
Wanna argue? You personally never X or Y? Bullshit. Not only would you be very likely to lie to yourself about that, you don't have an objective observer to verify. And lets be real- they wouldn't spend billions advertising if the effects weren't both real and immediate. It's a massive industry for a reason.
May as well claim cars don't work because you didn't drive one this morning.
Apple (OS X) seems a lot better in a lot of ways right now. Certainly it respects privacy more and doesn't randomly key log and shit. And you can actually control it. It still has the same downsides it has always had, but these are orthogonal problems.
From the perspective of stuff being discussed in this thread, yes, Apple is better. And so are many OSes.
> It stands to reason that if such old graphics can handle win10, so can more modern Core iX integrated graphics
Lewlz. Why on earth would you make this assumption? This is a really fucking terrible assumption. New doesn't mean better. It means new. It definitely means different, and if the code that works on things A, B, and D doesn't work on C, that's par for the course. Someone fucked up the C driver, that's all.
No, it's like saying that you take your car in for a 20,000 mile service call and they replace it with an entirely different car that only runs on a certain road that exists in Alaska. You use the OS to run your programs. If it doesn't do that, it's useless.
You should be a little bit burnt though. What's to say it won't turn itself back on? Or that you'll need to bend over to get the service pack? The Windows 10 policies are super hostile.
While I suspect the Windows 7 -> 10 autopatch is actually a bug, I will point out this- Enterprise plays by TOTALLY different rules. In Enterprise Win 10, you can disable auto updates. In Pro (and the free Home) 10, you can NOT do so without all manner of hacky-sack.
Enterprise Windows 10 is kind of still an OS. You can't buy it as an individual, of course.
APK, YOU need "anti adblock killer" too, right? These scripts try to retrieve an image from an ad domain, and if they fail to do so (because an adblocker or HOSTS ENGINE prevents that), then they shit all over your screen like the idiot pirates that they are.
These user script workarounds aren't just for browser based adblocks, they are for host based adblock too. Because they have to modify or neuter a content-domain hosted script that is trying to ruin the browsing experience.
I think you use these scripts ALONG WITH your ad blocker or hosts engine or whatever.
Yes, and it will probably come to this. You may find that there's a local program on your machine pretending to be you viewing the ads for you, running their scripts, and feeding them false data about everything.
Right now, ad blockers simply leave out the offending content, saving you bandwidth, preventing the ads from playing, and preventing the exploits from owning your browser. A much more complex solution would not save you bandwidth, but it would be absolutely undetectable from the remote, who will think you are a good little piggie eating up their stupid ads.
The more sites that get aggressive, the quicker we run towards that.
> Any intuitive jump a human can 'miraculously' do that seems illogical can be done by the genetic algorithm on a sufficiently large dataset with a certain (not huge) amount of initial randomness and bad answers to recombine
Is this something that is actually and literally proven? Like specifically over all general problems, and specifically with genetic algos?
Roddenberry wanted a post capitalistic society with no currency. That's what he wrote, and the few things that did revolve around scarcity economics were things that weren't subject to straight economic deals. Dilithium was rare enough that an unlimited supply couldn't be put on every ship, so if something happened they would need to acquire more unexpectedly, but it wasn't just traded on the NYSE.
The "problem" (from an analysis perspective) is that Roddenberry didn't go on record with enough details. He would sometimes come down on a story that involved economics, but not always, and didn't lay it out in an explicit "this is how their system works" setup. This is fair- he's positing a warp drive, transporters, invisibility cloaks, and several types of lasers and states of matter, it's by no means impossible that an advanced society would have solved economics by some method as well, and it's unfair to expect him to deliver a detailed economic model for a post scarcity society - it's interesting to claim that one could exist, and write stories in that world.
So when people in this thread point out various inconsistencies, or point to specific times where "federation credits" were used, or whatever, the fact is that the ramifications of those plot elements were not considered by all the writers, and often not really "meant" to describe a coherent system.
But here's what we do see consistently:
We see that there are some private citizens who have their own ships, and some that simply work jobs that aren't well respected or all that interesting. We see that the Federation has a lot of ships, but they aren't war ships, and they aren't preposterous in numbers normally. We see that the majority of Earth and other core worlds doesn't own starships. We also don't see flying cars or privately owned skiffs or whatever. We see that there's some mechanism for gearing up for wars- the Federation absolutely has to fight wars at times. We see that energy is thrown around trivially in most cases, but not in all cases. We never see anyone going hungry if they are anywhere near functioning civilization. We don't see anyone rebelling or fighting the Federation in a way that we can really sympathize with. The closest we get to understanding their position is mindless revenge, and mostly it's useless external conquest. We don't see signs of over or under population.
It stands to reason that there's some manner of rationing going on- stuff isn't infinite. It stands to reason that almost everyone is ok with the state of affairs, and that they feel represented or are otherwise ok with stuff. If we go with Roddenberry's "there's no money" position- and I think that's fair, because that was one of his overriding design concerns- we're left with some kind of command economy that leaves some amount of resource distrribution as discretionary, and has enough resources that this finite limit is totally reasonable for essentially everyone. No one is busy *championing* a different form of government- there's no group of capitalists in Newest York or whatever claiming that the Federation will do better if it only really puts the squeeze on people, or something.
Now, for him to claim that this space computer communism is effective would require diving into all manner of crap, and that's what this thread is about. So I'll answer the question:
Yes, it could work, but not without a serious understanding of how individual and group psychology works. Not without a serious understanding of what motivates people. I don't think we really have that, because most of the studies in these areas are set up to fight battles politically, not uncover truth- and certainly not to figure out what's going on for any reason other than maybe advertising to people more effectively. Everyone we see in Star Trek ranges from highly talented and trained to ludicrously talented and heroically experienced- is education really that good? Is it really that capable? In the real world, people don't just see
> Show a person from 715 the world of 1215, and your 500 years will not have covered much.
We say that, but is it *really* true? I mean, it's not medieval historians saying this normally, is my point, it's technological futurists. How many monarchs worldwide can you name between 715 AD and 1215 AD? Is your conclusion that they probably had about the same kings over that time period, because you aren't an expert on them?
Plenty of places in the world went from the bronze age to the iron age in that time. If you had a sword from 715 AD, it would have changed dramatically by 1215 AD. The 1215 AD sword would, in Europe have gained the cruciform pommel and benefited from much better metallurgy. Gunpowder would have gone from being invented in China with not many uses, to have changed the face of warfare and would have just been around the time the Mongols were using it as a seige weapon. Windmills would have gone from being an absolute rarity, and horizontal in nature, to a modern vertical form and much more common. The population would have doubled.
The other piece of the analysis is that you are sort of only counting the top of technology. So if a huge tech growth happens in South America, but doesn't top what China did a hundred years prior, that doesn't get counted right.
Anyway, I don't dispute that a lot of change, usually including technology, has happened in small periods throughout history. But I would dispute that the past was as unchanging as it appears from our vantage points.
Pale Moon is based on an older Firefox base, but I'm very curious as to whether it will continue to support NPAPI after Firefox axes them. Anyone know for sure?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you do a study? I bet you did not. If you can carry on a meaningful conversation about Coca Cola, rest assured the advertisers have done their job. Because think of all the brands that you can't hold a conversation about. Assuming you know about any that don't advertise.
Set your read bit to true, then GOTO 10. Good grief.
They'll go after the ad block authors, first with incentives, then with threats. They'll try to get laws passed, they'll try to hook into existing property rights violations like DMCA. They'll fight and fight to shit up your life because they've been able to get paid for it up until this point.
We'd better have a plan for all of these points!
"U.S. websites won't be able to injure people to the tune of 22 billion dollars, due to the fact that people own their own machines that they paid for themselves, maintain themselves, and house in their own homes, with their own dollars."
Great news.
Agreed. Ad blockers are helping us move towards this, and no other thing.
The biggest problem with ads is ads.
The malware is just because they figured out how to infect your firmware AND your wetware
Advertisements work on you. Unless you aren't human, or are a retard or something. If your brain functions, ads work on you.
Period.
Wanna argue? You personally never X or Y? Bullshit. Not only would you be very likely to lie to yourself about that, you don't have an objective observer to verify. And lets be real- they wouldn't spend billions advertising if the effects weren't both real and immediate. It's a massive industry for a reason.
May as well claim cars don't work because you didn't drive one this morning.
Apple (OS X) seems a lot better in a lot of ways right now. Certainly it respects privacy more and doesn't randomly key log and shit. And you can actually control it. It still has the same downsides it has always had, but these are orthogonal problems.
From the perspective of stuff being discussed in this thread, yes, Apple is better. And so are many OSes.
> It stands to reason that if such old graphics can handle win10, so can more modern Core iX integrated graphics
Lewlz. Why on earth would you make this assumption? This is a really fucking terrible assumption. New doesn't mean better. It means new. It definitely means different, and if the code that works on things A, B, and D doesn't work on C, that's par for the course. Someone fucked up the C driver, that's all.
Can Windows 7 be installed in a VM without drama?
No, it's like saying that you take your car in for a 20,000 mile service call and they replace it with an entirely different car that only runs on a certain road that exists in Alaska. You use the OS to run your programs. If it doesn't do that, it's useless.
You should be a little bit burnt though. What's to say it won't turn itself back on? Or that you'll need to bend over to get the service pack? The Windows 10 policies are super hostile.
While I suspect the Windows 7 -> 10 autopatch is actually a bug, I will point out this- Enterprise plays by TOTALLY different rules. In Enterprise Win 10, you can disable auto updates. In Pro (and the free Home) 10, you can NOT do so without all manner of hacky-sack.
Enterprise Windows 10 is kind of still an OS. You can't buy it as an individual, of course.
> If anyone doesn't like it then just replace the Microsoft start menu with Classic Shell, problem solved.
Don't you get tired of having to endlessly configure Windows? Can't it just work out of the box with sensible defaults, like other OSes?
> Even if they make it a violation of the TOS or EULA or whatever to do so. I'll still turn it off.
Why not use a product that doesn't require you to break the law in order to use correctly?
I mean, I sure as shit do.
He's got connections and is mostly still shielded. We definitely aren't seeing his full power level in this yet.
APK, YOU need "anti adblock killer" too, right? These scripts try to retrieve an image from an ad domain, and if they fail to do so (because an adblocker or HOSTS ENGINE prevents that), then they shit all over your screen like the idiot pirates that they are.
These user script workarounds aren't just for browser based adblocks, they are for host based adblock too. Because they have to modify or neuter a content-domain hosted script that is trying to ruin the browsing experience.
I think you use these scripts ALONG WITH your ad blocker or hosts engine or whatever.
Then have a program that spoofs that crap and sends the "yessir, it has been viewed" back to the server.
I own the machine. It will do what I want.
Yes, and it will probably come to this. You may find that there's a local program on your machine pretending to be you viewing the ads for you, running their scripts, and feeding them false data about everything.
Right now, ad blockers simply leave out the offending content, saving you bandwidth, preventing the ads from playing, and preventing the exploits from owning your browser. A much more complex solution would not save you bandwidth, but it would be absolutely undetectable from the remote, who will think you are a good little piggie eating up their stupid ads.
The more sites that get aggressive, the quicker we run towards that.
> Any intuitive jump a human can 'miraculously' do that seems illogical can be done by the genetic algorithm on a sufficiently large dataset with a certain (not huge) amount of initial randomness and bad answers to recombine
Is this something that is actually and literally proven? Like specifically over all general problems, and specifically with genetic algos?
Roddenberry wanted a post capitalistic society with no currency. That's what he wrote, and the few things that did revolve around scarcity economics were things that weren't subject to straight economic deals. Dilithium was rare enough that an unlimited supply couldn't be put on every ship, so if something happened they would need to acquire more unexpectedly, but it wasn't just traded on the NYSE.
The "problem" (from an analysis perspective) is that Roddenberry didn't go on record with enough details. He would sometimes come down on a story that involved economics, but not always, and didn't lay it out in an explicit "this is how their system works" setup. This is fair- he's positing a warp drive, transporters, invisibility cloaks, and several types of lasers and states of matter, it's by no means impossible that an advanced society would have solved economics by some method as well, and it's unfair to expect him to deliver a detailed economic model for a post scarcity society - it's interesting to claim that one could exist, and write stories in that world.
So when people in this thread point out various inconsistencies, or point to specific times where "federation credits" were used, or whatever, the fact is that the ramifications of those plot elements were not considered by all the writers, and often not really "meant" to describe a coherent system.
But here's what we do see consistently:
We see that there are some private citizens who have their own ships, and some that simply work jobs that aren't well respected or all that interesting.
We see that the Federation has a lot of ships, but they aren't war ships, and they aren't preposterous in numbers normally.
We see that the majority of Earth and other core worlds doesn't own starships. We also don't see flying cars or privately owned skiffs or whatever.
We see that there's some mechanism for gearing up for wars- the Federation absolutely has to fight wars at times.
We see that energy is thrown around trivially in most cases, but not in all cases.
We never see anyone going hungry if they are anywhere near functioning civilization.
We don't see anyone rebelling or fighting the Federation in a way that we can really sympathize with. The closest we get to understanding their position is mindless revenge, and mostly it's useless external conquest.
We don't see signs of over or under population.
It stands to reason that there's some manner of rationing going on- stuff isn't infinite. It stands to reason that almost everyone is ok with the state of affairs, and that they feel represented or are otherwise ok with stuff. If we go with Roddenberry's "there's no money" position- and I think that's fair, because that was one of his overriding design concerns- we're left with some kind of command economy that leaves some amount of resource distrribution as discretionary, and has enough resources that this finite limit is totally reasonable for essentially everyone. No one is busy *championing* a different form of government- there's no group of capitalists in Newest York or whatever claiming that the Federation will do better if it only really puts the squeeze on people, or something.
Now, for him to claim that this space computer communism is effective would require diving into all manner of crap, and that's what this thread is about. So I'll answer the question:
Yes, it could work, but not without a serious understanding of how individual and group psychology works. Not without a serious understanding of what motivates people. I don't think we really have that, because most of the studies in these areas are set up to fight battles politically, not uncover truth- and certainly not to figure out what's going on for any reason other than maybe advertising to people more effectively. Everyone we see in Star Trek ranges from highly talented and trained to ludicrously talented and heroically experienced- is education really that good? Is it really that capable? In the real world, people don't just see
> Show a person from 715 the world of 1215, and your 500 years will not have covered much.
We say that, but is it *really* true? I mean, it's not medieval historians saying this normally, is my point, it's technological futurists. How many monarchs worldwide can you name between 715 AD and 1215 AD? Is your conclusion that they probably had about the same kings over that time period, because you aren't an expert on them?
Plenty of places in the world went from the bronze age to the iron age in that time. If you had a sword from 715 AD, it would have changed dramatically by 1215 AD. The 1215 AD sword would, in Europe have gained the cruciform pommel and benefited from much better metallurgy. Gunpowder would have gone from being invented in China with not many uses, to have changed the face of warfare and would have just been around the time the Mongols were using it as a seige weapon. Windmills would have gone from being an absolute rarity, and horizontal in nature, to a modern vertical form and much more common. The population would have doubled.
The other piece of the analysis is that you are sort of only counting the top of technology. So if a huge tech growth happens in South America, but doesn't top what China did a hundred years prior, that doesn't get counted right.
Anyway, I don't dispute that a lot of change, usually including technology, has happened in small periods throughout history. But I would dispute that the past was as unchanging as it appears from our vantage points.
Forgot quotes around "help".
I don't think your reply is topical?
Pale Moon is based on an older Firefox base, but I'm very curious as to whether it will continue to support NPAPI after Firefox axes them. Anyone know for sure?