What's the difference? Where did the watermelon (and the dynamite) come from in the first case?
Did it come from any different place then it did in the second case?
And just because you can't give pieces of watermelon velocity doesn't mean that god can't. I mean hello--- if he can create a watermelon out of nothing, I think he can make it move.
I've heard lots of arguments both ways, some good ones, even though none can be proved. But this one is a really poor argument.
No, not exactly. The resolving power of the human eye varies with location. In the center of vision it's quite high, but toward the edges it gets less and less.
So you don't need quite as many pixels as you might think, but you do need some way of having an non uniform pixel density.
If you just meant concatenate, i.e. abc and def = abcdef then you are correct.
But usually you don't want to do that since it makes the hash longer, usually you use some function to combine them together, so that abc and def = tyu or something like that.
Lets say you use xor as the combining function (which is the first impulse) and you are combining two similar hashes: 01001 and 00110 you end up with 10000 which is much weaker then what you started with.
That's why combining similar hashes is dangerous - even if you don't use xor you need to be very sure you don't end up with one hash canceling out the other.
Or if your combining function is no good it may give one hash more weight then the other - for example lets say you add two numbers as the combining function: 445 and 003 = 448. If one hash has a tendency to give larger hashes then then the other then it carries more weight then the other (2 out of 3 digits are from the first hash) - so if it's a weaker hash you end up making the final hash weaker then what you started with.
Everybody keeps asking this - but you really need to learn more about MD5. Combining hashes is EXACTLY how MD5 work!
MD5 is based on the fact that it's hard to find two different backs that happen to have the same hash - this is what makes it secure.
And be very careful when combining hashes, most hashes for all that the have different names (MD5, SHA, etc) are all based on the same algorithm. If you combine them poorly you may end up with something weaker then you started. (Since they can cancel each other out - since they are basically the same.)
Switching to SHA-1 may not help very much. Although there is no such attack on SHA-1 right now, MD5 and SHA are all variants of the same algorithm.
Actally ALL secure hashes are based on the same algorithm with only some modifications each time the hash has been broken. (Except MD4, which was new - but broke quickly.)
I'm afraid you don't know much about MD5. Combining hashes IS how MD5 works!
That's exactly what makes it work - you run the data through two different hashes, then combine the hashes - it's very hard to make data that happens to get the same result for both hashing functions, and that's how MD5, SHA, and all other secure hasing functions works.
I HATE those stupid idiots who set these up. I get thousands!!! of emails like this a month! I'm not exagerating. 99.999% of my spam is these emails, vacation messages, and bounces due to people who forged my domain name. I get 10,000-15,000 spams a month.
When you install a challenge/response system like this you BECOME a spammer!
ALL spam has a forged return address. Don't make other people do your spam filtering work for you.
Just another humbling experience for those who think humans are something special apart from the rest of creation.
I do think humans are something special, and this one is easy: the difference between humans and animals is the ability to speak.
If this hybrid can speak it's human, if it can't it's not. (And don't give me nonsense about humans who can't speak - that's always either a physical problem, or deafness so they never learned how. Fix those problem and they can speak.)
Even the most retarded person you'll ever meet can speak. And the smartest animal ever, can't - and it's not due to a lack of proper physical apparatus - give an animal human vocal equipment (or an electronic version of one), and they still won't be able to speak.
I can imagine a case of someone so retarded that some animals would be "smarter" and yet the human can speak and the animal can not. Smarter can defined as, for example, problem solving (eg: how to reach the food), puzzles, mazes, memory, etc.
The implications of a "humanzee" is enough to keep philosophers and religious thinkers busy for quite a while.
I'm a "religious thinker" and this didn't take long. The definition of human in Jewish law is the ability to speak. (In fact that's the name of the human soul: the "speaker".)
The situation is quite different for over the air free broadcasts.
In fact it's far from clear to me that's it's illegal to download those in the first place.
And don't tell me the it's because commercials are edited out of the downloads: if I want to I have the right to ask someone to edit commercials out of a tv show I recorded, and then watch the show (for example someone who's time is quite valuable could hire someone to do this).
I can see arguments both ways for this, but it's not a clear one in any direction, so lawsuits are quite unlikely.
I'll repeat myself, there are different levels of souls, the dead animal lost it's animating soul. The soul of physical existence is still there of course.
And about your mass-less particles, of course they do (they do exist don't they?) why should mass or the lack thereof have anything to do with a soul?
Personally I've wondered if the whole thing with entanglement happens precisely because those particles share the same soul. But I have no way of knowing one way or another.
You confusion stems from the fact that you read 'soul' and you think of the human soul. I'm not defining soul that way. I'm defining it as that which gives something it's physical existence, and/or life force.
Judaism holds that there is no existence separate from god, and that if god for a even a moment stopped animating the world it would not exist. Every single particle is constantly being animated by god at every moment. The soul of the particle is that small piece of god that is animating it.
Just as a side note it lets you imagine just how far beyond your grasp god is - imagine thinking about every single particle in the universe at every instant and deciding exactly what that particle will do - and not just that, actually doing it. (Do you have any idea of how many particles there are in the universe - and how many interactions they have in combination at any instant? If you learned physics you do, and it's a staggeringly incomprehensibly large number.)
And all of that is hidden inside natural laws for the purpose of allowing you to believe, if you want to, that there is no god: thus free fill.
This is why Jews laugh at most religions idea of 'god', anything with less that that much ability is nothing in comparison. It's also why you can't have more then one god - if the 'second god' is not animating the entire universe, it's simply not god.
I can see that you didn't read what I wrote.
I'll repeat myself, there are different levels of souls, the dead animal lost it's animating soul. The soul of physical existence is still there of course.
And about your mass-less particles, of course they do (they do exist don't they?) why should mass or the lack thereof have anything to do with a soul?
Personally I've wondered if the whole thing with entanglement happens precisely because those particles share the same soul. But I have no way of knowing one way or another.
You confusion stems from the fact that you read 'soul' and you think of the human soul. I'm not defining soul that way. I'm defining it as that which gives something it's physical existence, and/or life force.
Judaism holds that there is no existence separate from god, and that if god for a even a moment stopped animating the world it would not exist. Every single particle is constantly being animated by god at every moment. The soul of the particle is that small piece of god that is animating it.
Just as a side note it lets you imagine just how far beyond your grasp god is - imagine thinking about every single particle in the universe at every instant and deciding exactly what that particle will do - and not just that, actually doing it. (Do you have any idea of how many particles there are in the universe - and how many interactions they have in combination at any instant? If you learned physics you do, and it's a staggeringly incomprehensibly large number.)
And all of that is hidden inside natural laws for the purpose of allowing you to believe, if you want to, that there is no god: thus free fill.
This is why Jews laugh at most religions idea of 'god', anything with less that that much ability is nothing in comparison. It's also why you can't have more then one god - if the 'second god' is not animating the entire universe, it's simply not god.
Of course animals have a soul. It's what makes the difference between a living animal and a dead one.
What you possibly meant to say is that they don't have a sentient soul.
According to the jewish religion everything has a soul, and more then one.
They go in layers:
First the soul that means the object exists (like a rock or an atom). Then the soul that gives life (like a plant). Then the soul that give movement and will/desire to do something (an animal). Then the soul that provides speech (also sentience), (humans - and that's why monkeys will never talk BTW). And more after that, which have to do with connection to god.
In hebrew each soul has a specific name some of the higher ones that humans can have: nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya, yechidah.
And within each soul there can be levels, so for example, to distinuish a bacteria from a fly from a dolphin.
Also souls can combine, so you can speak of the rock's (as a whole) soul, and of the souls of the individual pieces of the rock.
Of course animals have a soul. It's what makes the difference between a living animal and a dead one.
What you possibly meant to say is that they don't have a sentient soul.
According to the jewish religion everything has a soul, and more then one.
They go in layers:
First the soul that means the object exists (like a rock or an atom).
Then the soul that gives life (like a plant).
Then the soul that give movement and will/desire to do something (an animal).
Then the soul that provides speech (also sentience), (humans - and that's why monkeys will never talk BTW).
And more after that, which have to do with connection to god.
In hebrew each soul has a specific name some of the higher ones that humans can have: nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya, yechidah.
And within each soul there can be levels, so for example, to distinuish a bacteria from a fly from a dolphin.
Also souls can combine, so you can speak of the rock's (as a whole) soul, and of the souls of the individual pieces of the rock.
PDA's are just another gadget that gets outdated after a year.
I quite don't agree - I've had my Palm V for 4 maybe 5 years now, and it works quite well. So far the only reason I have to replace it is that it is physically falling appart.
I upgraded to 8MB, but other then that it's working great for 5 years now - I sometimes use it more then my PC. I store mostly databases (for example client billable hours), and PIM type things in it. Also lots of books (fiction, and reference).
[blockquote]PDA's are just another gadget that gets outdated after a year.[/blockquote]
I quite don't agree - I've had my Palm V for 4 maybe 5 years now, and it works quite well. So far the only reason I have to replace it is that it is physically falling appart.
I upgraded to 8MB, but other then that it's working great for 5 years now - I sometimes use it more then my PC. I store mostly databases (for example client billable hours), and PIM type things in it. Also lots of books (fiction, and reference).
Did anyone else get the feeling from the Lawyer Press release that they were disapointed that the case was over so quickly? Loss of billable hours and all that?
Has no one here actually driven a real car? You CAN'T turn off the ignition if the gear shift is not in park, so it's impossible to lock the steering wheel.
I was going to suggest exactly the same thing. Ozone. It's the only thing that actually works on smoke (the extra O reacts with the carbon and make CO2). It's used to prepare smokers houses for sale.
And I'll bet that it would work on other odors too. It would basically have the effect of burning the material, but without the fire.
The math is wrong about patents. Think about it: if you infringe on a patent you get fined and are forced to pay royalties. How much? Usually a resonable amount. In the eolas case it seems to be about $1 per copy of IE.
So, what you you prefer? Pay $1 in the event of a patent - or pay $500 for the program in question?
(Yes, my numbers are just guesses, but I think you understand my point: paying for a patent infringment, if it happens, is cheaper then buying from someone who will "protect" you.)
Slashdot Mirror
What's the difference? Where did the watermelon (and the dynamite) come from in the first case?
Did it come from any different place then it did in the second case?
And just because you can't give pieces of watermelon velocity doesn't mean that god can't. I mean hello--- if he can create a watermelon out of nothing, I think he can make it move.
I've heard lots of arguments both ways, some good ones, even though none can be proved. But this one is a really poor argument.
No, not exactly. The resolving power of the human eye varies with location. In the center of vision it's quite high, but toward the edges it gets less and less.
So you don't need quite as many pixels as you might think, but you do need some way of having an non uniform pixel density.
This thing can recieve HDtv - so you can ignore the broadcast flag. That obviously makes it a terrorist tool.
You didn't specify what "combine" means.
If you just meant concatenate, i.e. abc and def = abcdef then you are correct.
But usually you don't want to do that since it makes the hash longer, usually you use some function to combine them together, so that abc and def = tyu or something like that.
Lets say you use xor as the combining function (which is the first impulse) and you are combining two similar hashes: 01001 and 00110 you end up with 10000 which is much weaker then what you started with.
That's why combining similar hashes is dangerous - even if you don't use xor you need to be very sure you don't end up with one hash canceling out the other.
Or if your combining function is no good it may give one hash more weight then the other - for example lets say you add two numbers as the combining function: 445 and 003 = 448. If one hash has a tendency to give larger hashes then then the other then it carries more weight then the other (2 out of 3 digits are from the first hash) - so if it's a weaker hash you end up making the final hash weaker then what you started with.
Everybody keeps asking this - but you really need to learn more about MD5. Combining hashes is EXACTLY how MD5 work!
MD5 is based on the fact that it's hard to find two different backs that happen to have the same hash - this is what makes it secure.
And be very careful when combining hashes, most hashes for all that the have different names (MD5, SHA, etc) are all based on the same algorithm. If you combine them poorly you may end up with something weaker then you started. (Since they can cancel each other out - since they are basically the same.)
Switching to SHA-1 may not help very much. Although there is no such attack on SHA-1 right now, MD5 and SHA are all variants of the same algorithm.
Actally ALL secure hashes are based on the same algorithm with only some modifications each time the hash has been broken. (Except MD4, which was new - but broke quickly.)
I'm afraid you don't know much about MD5. Combining hashes IS how MD5 works!
That's exactly what makes it work - you run the data through two different hashes, then combine the hashes - it's very hard to make data that happens to get the same result for both hashing functions, and that's how MD5, SHA, and all other secure hasing functions works.
I HATE those stupid idiots who set these up. I get thousands!!! of emails like this a month! I'm not exagerating. 99.999% of my spam is these emails, vacation messages, and bounces due to people who forged my domain name. I get 10,000-15,000 spams a month.
When you install a challenge/response system like this you BECOME a spammer!
ALL spam has a forged return address. Don't make other people do your spam filtering work for you.
Figure out the pattern of dots.
Then add in artificial dots in somewhat the same pattern.
Now you can't tell which dots are the real ones from the printer and which are the ones you added.
If this hybrid can speak it's human, if it can't it's not. (And don't give me nonsense about humans who can't speak - that's always either a physical problem, or deafness so they never learned how. Fix those problem and they can speak.)
Even the most retarded person you'll ever meet can speak. And the smartest animal ever, can't - and it's not due to a lack of proper physical apparatus - give an animal human vocal equipment (or an electronic version of one), and they still won't be able to speak.
I can imagine a case of someone so retarded that some animals would be "smarter" and yet the human can speak and the animal can not. Smarter can defined as, for example, problem solving (eg: how to reach the food), puzzles, mazes, memory, etc.
I'm a "religious thinker" and this didn't take long. The definition of human in Jewish law is the ability to speak. (In fact that's the name of the human soul: the "speaker".)But that's (showtime) a pay access cable channel.
The situation is quite different for over the air free broadcasts.
In fact it's far from clear to me that's it's illegal to download those in the first place.
And don't tell me the it's because commercials are edited out of the downloads: if I want to I have the right to ask someone to edit commercials out of a tv show I recorded, and then watch the show (for example someone who's time is quite valuable could hire someone to do this).
I can see arguments both ways for this, but it's not a clear one in any direction, so lawsuits are quite unlikely.
I can see that you didn't read what I wrote.
I'll repeat myself, there are different levels of souls, the dead animal lost it's animating soul. The soul of physical existence is still there of course.
And about your mass-less particles, of course they do (they do exist don't they?) why should mass or the lack thereof have anything to do with a soul?
Personally I've wondered if the whole thing with entanglement happens precisely because those particles share the same soul. But I have no way of knowing one way or another.
You confusion stems from the fact that you read 'soul' and you think of the human soul. I'm not defining soul that way. I'm defining it as that which gives something it's physical existence, and/or life force.
Judaism holds that there is no existence separate from god, and that if god for a even a moment stopped animating the world it would not exist. Every single particle is constantly being animated by god at every moment. The soul of the particle is that small piece of god that is animating it.
Just as a side note it lets you imagine just how far beyond your grasp god is - imagine thinking about every single particle in the universe at every instant and deciding exactly what that particle will do - and not just that, actually doing it. (Do you have any idea of how many particles there are in the universe - and how many interactions they have in combination at any instant? If you learned physics you do, and it's a staggeringly incomprehensibly large number.)
And all of that is hidden inside natural laws for the purpose of allowing you to believe, if you want to, that there is no god: thus free fill.
This is why Jews laugh at most religions idea of 'god', anything with less that that much ability is nothing in comparison. It's also why you can't have more then one god - if the 'second god' is not animating the entire universe, it's simply not god.
I can see that you didn't read what I wrote. I'll repeat myself, there are different levels of souls, the dead animal lost it's animating soul. The soul of physical existence is still there of course. And about your mass-less particles, of course they do (they do exist don't they?) why should mass or the lack thereof have anything to do with a soul? Personally I've wondered if the whole thing with entanglement happens precisely because those particles share the same soul. But I have no way of knowing one way or another. You confusion stems from the fact that you read 'soul' and you think of the human soul. I'm not defining soul that way. I'm defining it as that which gives something it's physical existence, and/or life force. Judaism holds that there is no existence separate from god, and that if god for a even a moment stopped animating the world it would not exist. Every single particle is constantly being animated by god at every moment. The soul of the particle is that small piece of god that is animating it. Just as a side note it lets you imagine just how far beyond your grasp god is - imagine thinking about every single particle in the universe at every instant and deciding exactly what that particle will do - and not just that, actually doing it. (Do you have any idea of how many particles there are in the universe - and how many interactions they have in combination at any instant? If you learned physics you do, and it's a staggeringly incomprehensibly large number.) And all of that is hidden inside natural laws for the purpose of allowing you to believe, if you want to, that there is no god: thus free fill. This is why Jews laugh at most religions idea of 'god', anything with less that that much ability is nothing in comparison. It's also why you can't have more then one god - if the 'second god' is not animating the entire universe, it's simply not god.
Here's a nice summary of the various soul levels. (These are only the ones that humans have.)
Of course animals have a soul. It's what makes the difference between a living animal and a dead one.
What you possibly meant to say is that they don't have a sentient soul.
According to the jewish religion everything has a soul, and more then one.
They go in layers:
First the soul that means the object exists (like a rock or an atom).
Then the soul that gives life (like a plant).
Then the soul that give movement and will/desire to do something (an animal).
Then the soul that provides speech (also sentience), (humans - and that's why monkeys will never talk BTW).
And more after that, which have to do with connection to god.
In hebrew each soul has a specific name some of the higher ones that humans can have: nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya, yechidah.
And within each soul there can be levels, so for example, to distinuish a bacteria from a fly from a dolphin.
Also souls can combine, so you can speak of the rock's (as a whole) soul, and of the souls of the individual pieces of the rock.
Of course animals have a soul. It's what makes the difference between a living animal and a dead one. What you possibly meant to say is that they don't have a sentient soul. According to the jewish religion everything has a soul, and more then one. They go in layers: First the soul that means the object exists (like a rock or an atom). Then the soul that gives life (like a plant). Then the soul that give movement and will/desire to do something (an animal). Then the soul that provides speech (also sentience), (humans - and that's why monkeys will never talk BTW). And more after that, which have to do with connection to god. In hebrew each soul has a specific name some of the higher ones that humans can have: nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya, yechidah. And within each soul there can be levels, so for example, to distinuish a bacteria from a fly from a dolphin. Also souls can combine, so you can speak of the rock's (as a whole) soul, and of the souls of the individual pieces of the rock.
Anyone else think it's strange that the BB is still up? Quick someone cache it before it's gone forever :)
Over the years? Just how many times have you had to do this?!?
I upgraded to 8MB, but other then that it's working great for 5 years now - I sometimes use it more then my PC. I store mostly databases (for example client billable hours), and PIM type things in it. Also lots of books (fiction, and reference).
[blockquote]PDA's are just another gadget that gets outdated after a year.[/blockquote] I quite don't agree - I've had my Palm V for 4 maybe 5 years now, and it works quite well. So far the only reason I have to replace it is that it is physically falling appart. I upgraded to 8MB, but other then that it's working great for 5 years now - I sometimes use it more then my PC. I store mostly databases (for example client billable hours), and PIM type things in it. Also lots of books (fiction, and reference).
Did anyone else get the feeling from the Lawyer Press release that they were disapointed that the case was over so quickly? Loss of billable hours and all that?
Has no one here actually driven a real car? You CAN'T turn off the ignition if the gear shift is not in park, so it's impossible to lock the steering wheel.
And I'll bet that it would work on other odors too. It would basically have the effect of burning the material, but without the fire.
So, what you you prefer? Pay $1 in the event of a patent - or pay $500 for the program in question?
(Yes, my numbers are just guesses, but I think you understand my point: paying for a patent infringment, if it happens, is cheaper then buying from someone who will "protect" you.)