No one ever said "Tobacco kills." It does not. It probably causes emphysema, but it doesn't kill you any faster than sunlight (UV-C) will. What kills you is smoking the 300+ carcinagens and poisons that are synthetically and intentionally added by Big Tobacco in order to make it more addictive than natural tobacco. Pipe smokers, who smoke natural tobacco, live longer than anyone (FACT!). If tobacco kills, the Native Americans wouldn't have been here by the time the Spanish came to the New World.
It is very strange that Big Tobacco lost one of the largest lawsuits in the history of lawsuits, and yet they are allowed to continue manufacturing and selling death. Recently, the remainder of their financial punishment was forgiven... and they still produce their product (which is technically not even "tobacco," it is substituted, shreded, poison PAPER, that looks like tobacco) identically to how they produced it before the lawsuit in the 1990's.
Science will never have enough money to win the war on global warming.
... so long as denying global warming is profitable. Raise the carbon-emmission fines, raise them up fierce, and fucking the environment will no longer be profitable. Give insentives to corps and manufacturers to not only produce their own clean energy, but to stop poluting. Make being a responsible global citizen profitable... and the scientists can get back in their labs where they belong. Its not going to be enough, we're going to feel the effects, our children and their children will live through some shitty weather, but eventually the planet will reverse the effectsi itself and find equilibrium.
...The problem of reverse cultural integration mainly seems to be an issue with Islam....
Only Islam seems to advocate violence before peaceful protest.
You are confusing legitimate Islam with extremism, and making a fallacious argument. After watching David Koresh burn himself, his family, and his followers to death, did you think "all Christians are homicidal nuts!"
There are mostly ordinary faithful non-extremist Muslims in the world, civilized, rational, and peaceful. They have nothing to do with the absurd extremist fringes of Islam, which could be successfully argued isn't even Islam, and taking all their numbers only counts for a fraction of a percent of the entirety of the population of Islamic followers. Don't do that. Even 500,000 douche bag Muslims does not mean all 1.8Billion Muslims are douche bags.
Can you really generalize that all the internal network must be from the 10.0.0.0/8 block? What prevents those addresses from being used other than convention and router setup. Perhaps they are only for the internal government computers to make them completely invisible to outside networks.
he immediately realized that every time the browser loads, its first move is to make a request to a non-routable IP address, http://10.76.1.11./
Its written poorly, but it sounds to me merely like the default site on the browser is set to http://10.76.1.11.../ so its possible whomever built that first instance is using a private network, used that internal address to test that his build worked, or is using an IP is not live, somehow left the default in there when it was distributed... or maybe all home routers in N.Korea have that as the internal IP address, and to make set up convenient, the browser just loads the home router's set up page at its internal address.. It is a massive leap to say all of N. Korea is a single private network just because the browser loads some arbitrary address. Its possible N. Korea is doing this, but this is not the kind of isolated evidence I would stake my life on, or bet money on.. I'd sooner believe TFA author made an error in judgement if he believes this absolute evidence of his theory simply because the browser loaded that IP first rather than www.getfirefox.com, www.mozilla.org, or whatever mozilla usually sets it to by default. If someone looked at your browser, and noticed when launched, it loads http://slashdot.org/ you really cannot make any conclusions from that, such as that you're a slashdot reader, because just because the browser tries to connect does not mean it can or will.
Another summary written by a clueless, not a nerd.
10/8 network is a perfectly routable IP range.
http://10.76.1.11./ is a URL, not an IP address.
It also has an extra dot before the closing slash.
"News for _nerds_", sure...
Good stuff! I hope you're kidding. That's not a URL, nor an extra dot before the trailing slash (see TFA) because most sentences in English end in a period. And if you can route to it, you're probably in N. Korea or running the same private network elsewhere.
...and realize the youngest of those birds was more than 30 years old. Which is pretty well EOL for airliners.
fleet age
You'd be surprised how many airlines operate how many big jets close to that age... and I doubt they see 30 as EOL. Some airlines, in the north, operate planes averaging 80 years old, but its well understood you don't want to be flying in anything else that in cold, the old planes are the safest. I don't think that translates to the big jets (like Boeing 700 series) though. Chances are about equal you've never been on a Boeing that is under 30 years old.
Its even less complicated. If my dog bites you, who is to blame? If my empty parked car's breaks fail, roles down a hill and over your grandmother, killing her, who is to blame?
This is not an interesting legal question, and it is not new legal ground. Whomever owns the instance of code, whomever owns the computer, whomever owns the currency that is spent, and whomever's address it is the drugs arrive at, would be places to start for culpability.
Perhaps I'm reading more into what they were saying, because I don't believe those behind Mt. Gox, as a profitable company, would risk what they have, and have coming, on petty fraud. The problem is motive. What would motivate a rich ceo to defraud his investors? Nothing. So if the GP is and the article is talking about insiders like employees with more clearance, then ok, I'll buy that. But its really wacky to junp to a conclusion that the Mt. Gox leadership, or an individual among them would risk a secure lucritive future for petty embezzlement. Also, considering that something like 300K bitcoins unrelated to the missing bitcoins were recovered from somewhere... looks like there's a good bit of incompetance. Maybe there is NO fraud, and entirely (legally culpable?) financial incompetance?
you need to look up the definition of fraud. You most definitely can defraud people without hacking, especially when you are on the inside such as those within MT Gox. taking coins from peoples accounts and selling them is defrauding them and would require no hacking from someone within Gox.
It would have been nice if TFA explained what it was talking about, re: fraud, because I doubt its what you suggest.
Don't worry about your stinking retirements! The very hard working, surprisingly ethical, very attractive, very tolerant Catholic Mexican-American's are picking up the slack at 10 kids per couple, on average, and actually beating immigration numbers. Don't worry, racists! Its a good thing. I can not fucking wait for them to take elective power in the United States and for racism to finally be dead dead dead.
Regarding the respective groups at the NSA as ordinary IT criminals is in fact a rather accurate model, as in the end, they are just after money and power.
Do you really believe any member of this particular NSA team is really an anarchist and has the lifegoal of robber-baron?
I'm going to assume you have more, and a much better education than I do, and that you're just a little smarter than me (because I know how smart I am and the likelihood of anyone being smarter).
if you create an atomically perfect simulation of a human brain then you are telling me that it will still not be conscious?
Exactly. Let me make it clear. YES, THAT's WHAT I, AND PHILOSOPHERS OF MIND, AND COMPUTER SCIENTISTS (i.e. not "programmers" or "techies") ARE TELLING YOU.
I'm not going to give you citations. I'm only going to attempt to show you the petitio principii fallacy you're making, if you believe, and believe strongly, the opposite (which you obviously do, strongly, and think you can't possibly be wrong. But you are, sorry.).
You're assuming that mind is merely its physical constituents, and that synthetic duplication is possible for anything if even subatomic duplication were possible, when that isn't shown to be true. So really, that's two instances of the same fallacy. But first of all, there was this guy Heisenberg... etc... so your dreams of supreme technology are flawed. There's a limit to what will ever be possible, and what you propose, on its face, will never be possible (re: atomic-level duplication yada yada vapopsychoware and handwaving the existence human consciousness). And second of all, no matter how many subscribe to the computational theory of mind, it is flawed, and has been left behind by all serious academics about 20 years ago... including its strongest proponant, Putnam! We may someday figure out mind... but assuming we will do so by examing matter and whatever you throw at this... is a huge unknown. Then to assume its possible to duplicate mind... when we don't fully understand what mind/consciousness (externally) is... other than some weird effect of living brain.... again, is, upon the loose foundation that we may understand mind someday, to build this further belief that we can then synthtically create it... well... you're really a dreamer. A double-dreamer. That's good. But the limit, unfortunately, is that... StrongAI, true synthetic consciousness... not actually obtainable, again, unfortunately. Its analagous to magnets and coiled wire... and electricity... as mind/consciousness is an effect of living brain, so current is an effect of taking this stuff and moving it around in a certain way. The trouble is the living brain part... unless your simulator has some of that, its not going to get to consciousness... and if there is some real counterexample out there, of something dead, becoming alive.... I'd like to hear it. Once you get your head around Searle's Chinese Room, you realize its game over for the Reductionists, at least in "Mind," they're still pretty useful in Physics, Chemistry... etc.
But I'm working on Strong AI - and I can tell you definitively that while it is very difficult, it is not impossible. Consciousness is only impossible if you don't understand it.
You don't understand it, and even if you did, your strong AI will never ever ever be conscious. It may fool you into not being able to tell if it is conscious or not, but we know it can never be --the same way we know a dead human brain will never ever be conscious again. Consciousness is an effect of living brain. You're not going to get that in a clever subroutine. And if you can't realize that, you have deeper issues. Strong AI is a worthy pursuit, just as is, say, developing fast propulsion.. but those engineers that ultimately build the fastest engine know what the speed limit is... in an ideal sense, light speed. True artificial consciousness is your light speed... you can never quite get there.
You mean like manned flight, the atomic bomb, or travelling faster than light?
Not really. None of those things you list are philosophically impossible. No matter how smart you think your AI is, it is never conscious, but cleverly responding to stimulus as programmed. Weak AI is ready for commercialism. Hard AI is impossible.
The more this unravels the more I smell false flag.
Only now do we feel the loss of President Ronald Reagan. The moment President Obama failed to dispatch Senator Fred Thompson with an elite-ops "A" team including Candice Bergen and Vice-President Dan Qualye, to deal with this egrigious crime, I smelled something, too.
the UEFI standard which is nothing to do with Microsoft
Since its inception, Microsoft has ever been trying to control open standards, and UEFI is merely one example of their success at doing so. If you think Microsoft is not actively attempting to control every standard conceivable, you're a shill or an idiot, and probably the latter. I understand software is complicated, but Microsoft intentionally mandates their vendor lockin with every single thing they release, from new versions to updates to patches. I'm not going to bother with providing a trolling AC with examples, because since the 1980's there must be thousands if not tens of thousands of examples of Microsoft pushing this anti-competitive agenda. I'm not anti-MS, either. There's a lot of great software they have. But Microsoft is BAD for EVERYONE because of their business practices. Adobe, IBM, Apple, and Google have many examples of similar shenanigans, but all pale in comparison to what Microsoft has done and continues to do. We can only imagine how good Windows could be if Microsoft wasn't obsessed with fleecing everyone.
When did it become the "quantum" uncertainty principle? I'm sure Heisenberg was not happy when we switched to the truncated "uncertainty principle," and even further to simply "uncertainty." But who's the asshole that added a superfluous and nearly meaningless word to an old concept? WHO REBOOTED? AND WHY?
if you think you can just suck the MONEY out of the system
This isn't stealing bread from a starving family. The sales inventory at all the studios remains constant. Explain to me how all the non-enterprise copyright violators cost production studios or entertainers even one cent? Theft it is, but it is not the same as crime because the victim has NO DAMAGES.
Do ya think that's what makes this stupid? Well, consider the fact that a single ship polutes the atmosphere with more carbon in a day than all the cars in the United States in a year... then reassess this idea.
Slashdot Mirror
It is very strange that Big Tobacco lost one of the largest lawsuits in the history of lawsuits, and yet they are allowed to continue manufacturing and selling death. Recently, the remainder of their financial punishment was forgiven... and they still produce their product (which is technically not even "tobacco," it is substituted, shreded, poison PAPER, that looks like tobacco) identically to how they produced it before the lawsuit in the 1990's.
Science will never have enough money to win the war on global warming.
... so long as denying global warming is profitable. Raise the carbon-emmission fines, raise them up fierce, and fucking the environment will no longer be profitable. Give insentives to corps and manufacturers to not only produce their own clean energy, but to stop poluting. Make being a responsible global citizen profitable... and the scientists can get back in their labs where they belong. Its not going to be enough, we're going to feel the effects, our children and their children will live through some shitty weather, but eventually the planet will reverse the effectsi itself and find equilibrium.
The thing is, you're employing another fallacy. There's lots of crime, you don't seem to be doing anything to stop it. You must endorse crime.
...The problem of reverse cultural integration mainly seems to be an issue with Islam....
Only Islam seems to advocate violence before peaceful protest.
You are confusing legitimate Islam with extremism, and making a fallacious argument. After watching David Koresh burn himself, his family, and his followers to death, did you think "all Christians are homicidal nuts!"
There are mostly ordinary faithful non-extremist Muslims in the world, civilized, rational, and peaceful. They have nothing to do with the absurd extremist fringes of Islam, which could be successfully argued isn't even Islam, and taking all their numbers only counts for a fraction of a percent of the entirety of the population of Islamic followers. Don't do that. Even 500,000 douche bag Muslims does not mean all 1.8Billion Muslims are douche bags.
Can you really generalize that all the internal network must be from the 10.0.0.0/8 block? What prevents those addresses from being used other than convention and router setup. Perhaps they are only for the internal government computers to make them completely invisible to outside networks.
Its written poorly, but it sounds to me merely like the default site on the browser is set to http://10.76.1.11.../ so its possible whomever built that first instance is using a private network, used that internal address to test that his build worked, or is using an IP is not live, somehow left the default in there when it was distributed... or maybe all home routers in N.Korea have that as the internal IP address, and to make set up convenient, the browser just loads the home router's set up page at its internal address.. It is a massive leap to say all of N. Korea is a single private network just because the browser loads some arbitrary address. Its possible N. Korea is doing this, but this is not the kind of isolated evidence I would stake my life on, or bet money on.. I'd sooner believe TFA author made an error in judgement if he believes this absolute evidence of his theory simply because the browser loaded that IP first rather than www.getfirefox.com, www.mozilla.org, or whatever mozilla usually sets it to by default. If someone looked at your browser, and noticed when launched, it loads http://slashdot.org/ you really cannot make any conclusions from that, such as that you're a slashdot reader, because just because the browser tries to connect does not mean it can or will.
Another summary written by a clueless, not a nerd.
10/8 network is a perfectly routable IP range.
http://10.76.1.11./ is a URL, not an IP address. It also has an extra dot before the closing slash.
"News for _nerds_", sure...
Good stuff! I hope you're kidding. That's not a URL, nor an extra dot before the trailing slash (see TFA) because most sentences in English end in a period. And if you can route to it, you're probably in N. Korea or running the same private network elsewhere.
...and realize the youngest of those birds was more than 30 years old. Which is pretty well EOL for airliners.
fleet age You'd be surprised how many airlines operate how many big jets close to that age... and I doubt they see 30 as EOL. Some airlines, in the north, operate planes averaging 80 years old, but its well understood you don't want to be flying in anything else that in cold, the old planes are the safest. I don't think that translates to the big jets (like Boeing 700 series) though. Chances are about equal you've never been on a Boeing that is under 30 years old.
You're probably thinking of the Constellation Program, its progeny Orion is repurposed and still in development, very much alive.
Its even less complicated. If my dog bites you, who is to blame? If my empty parked car's breaks fail, roles down a hill and over your grandmother, killing her, who is to blame?
This is not an interesting legal question, and it is not new legal ground. Whomever owns the instance of code, whomever owns the computer, whomever owns the currency that is spent, and whomever's address it is the drugs arrive at, would be places to start for culpability.
and the odd error was the malware *trying* (and failing) to encrypt files on an ext4 filesystem...
WHAT!!? Does this malware come with its own CPU?
Perhaps I'm reading more into what they were saying, because I don't believe those behind Mt. Gox, as a profitable company, would risk what they have, and have coming, on petty fraud. The problem is motive. What would motivate a rich ceo to defraud his investors? Nothing. So if the GP is and the article is talking about insiders like employees with more clearance, then ok, I'll buy that. But its really wacky to junp to a conclusion that the Mt. Gox leadership, or an individual among them would risk a secure lucritive future for petty embezzlement. Also, considering that something like 300K bitcoins unrelated to the missing bitcoins were recovered from somewhere... looks like there's a good bit of incompetance. Maybe there is NO fraud, and entirely (legally culpable?) financial incompetance?
you need to look up the definition of fraud. You most definitely can defraud people without hacking, especially when you are on the inside such as those within MT Gox. taking coins from peoples accounts and selling them is defrauding them and would require no hacking from someone within Gox.
It would have been nice if TFA explained what it was talking about, re: fraud, because I doubt its what you suggest.
Don't worry about your stinking retirements! The very hard working, surprisingly ethical, very attractive, very tolerant Catholic Mexican-American's are picking up the slack at 10 kids per couple, on average, and actually beating immigration numbers. Don't worry, racists! Its a good thing. I can not fucking wait for them to take elective power in the United States and for racism to finally be dead dead dead.
Regarding the respective groups at the NSA as ordinary IT criminals is in fact a rather accurate model, as in the end, they are just after money and power.
Do you really believe any member of this particular NSA team is really an anarchist and has the lifegoal of robber-baron?
says the plastid to the other: "I don't have to prove the cell exists, if you believe in the cell, you prove it! I have no need of the cell."
overhearing, neurons laugh, "the brain is all around us!"
cynically, the id says to the ego "can't prove there is a mind"
Ouroborus, muffled, might add "where's the rest of this snake!"
I'm going to assume you have more, and a much better education than I do, and that you're just a little smarter than me (because I know how smart I am and the likelihood of anyone being smarter).
if you create an atomically perfect simulation of a human brain then you are telling me that it will still not be conscious?
Exactly. Let me make it clear. YES, THAT's WHAT I, AND PHILOSOPHERS OF MIND, AND COMPUTER SCIENTISTS (i.e. not "programmers" or "techies") ARE TELLING YOU.
I'm not going to give you citations. I'm only going to attempt to show you the petitio principii fallacy you're making, if you believe, and believe strongly, the opposite (which you obviously do, strongly, and think you can't possibly be wrong. But you are, sorry.).
You're assuming that mind is merely its physical constituents, and that synthetic duplication is possible for anything if even subatomic duplication were possible, when that isn't shown to be true. So really, that's two instances of the same fallacy. But first of all, there was this guy Heisenberg... etc... so your dreams of supreme technology are flawed. There's a limit to what will ever be possible, and what you propose, on its face, will never be possible (re: atomic-level duplication yada yada vapopsychoware and handwaving the existence human consciousness). And second of all, no matter how many subscribe to the computational theory of mind, it is flawed, and has been left behind by all serious academics about 20 years ago... including its strongest proponant, Putnam! We may someday figure out mind... but assuming we will do so by examing matter and whatever you throw at this... is a huge unknown. Then to assume its possible to duplicate mind... when we don't fully understand what mind/consciousness (externally) is... other than some weird effect of living brain.... again, is, upon the loose foundation that we may understand mind someday, to build this further belief that we can then synthtically create it... well... you're really a dreamer. A double-dreamer. That's good. But the limit, unfortunately, is that... StrongAI, true synthetic consciousness... not actually obtainable, again, unfortunately. Its analagous to magnets and coiled wire... and electricity... as mind/consciousness is an effect of living brain, so current is an effect of taking this stuff and moving it around in a certain way. The trouble is the living brain part... unless your simulator has some of that, its not going to get to consciousness... and if there is some real counterexample out there, of something dead, becoming alive.... I'd like to hear it. Once you get your head around Searle's Chinese Room, you realize its game over for the Reductionists, at least in "Mind," they're still pretty useful in Physics, Chemistry... etc.
But I'm working on Strong AI - and I can tell you definitively that while it is very difficult, it is not impossible. Consciousness is only impossible if you don't understand it.
You don't understand it, and even if you did, your strong AI will never ever ever be conscious. It may fool you into not being able to tell if it is conscious or not, but we know it can never be --the same way we know a dead human brain will never ever be conscious again. Consciousness is an effect of living brain. You're not going to get that in a clever subroutine. And if you can't realize that, you have deeper issues. Strong AI is a worthy pursuit, just as is, say, developing fast propulsion.. but those engineers that ultimately build the fastest engine know what the speed limit is... in an ideal sense, light speed. True artificial consciousness is your light speed... you can never quite get there.
You mean like manned flight, the atomic bomb, or travelling faster than light?
Not really. None of those things you list are philosophically impossible. No matter how smart you think your AI is, it is never conscious, but cleverly responding to stimulus as programmed. Weak AI is ready for commercialism. Hard AI is impossible.
The more this unravels the more I smell false flag.
Only now do we feel the loss of President Ronald Reagan. The moment President Obama failed to dispatch Senator Fred Thompson with an elite-ops "A" team including Candice Bergen and Vice-President Dan Qualye, to deal with this egrigious crime, I smelled something, too.
quote>Oh come on. That statement doesn't stand up to the slightest snifftest.
You shouldn't breath that black stuff... that's all I meant. Perhaps I exaggerated with orders of magnitude...what of it?
the UEFI standard which is nothing to do with Microsoft
Since its inception, Microsoft has ever been trying to control open standards, and UEFI is merely one example of their success at doing so. If you think Microsoft is not actively attempting to control every standard conceivable, you're a shill or an idiot, and probably the latter. I understand software is complicated, but Microsoft intentionally mandates their vendor lockin with every single thing they release, from new versions to updates to patches. I'm not going to bother with providing a trolling AC with examples, because since the 1980's there must be thousands if not tens of thousands of examples of Microsoft pushing this anti-competitive agenda. I'm not anti-MS, either. There's a lot of great software they have. But Microsoft is BAD for EVERYONE because of their business practices. Adobe, IBM, Apple, and Google have many examples of similar shenanigans, but all pale in comparison to what Microsoft has done and continues to do. We can only imagine how good Windows could be if Microsoft wasn't obsessed with fleecing everyone.
MS bad
When did it become the "quantum" uncertainty principle? I'm sure Heisenberg was not happy when we switched to the truncated "uncertainty principle," and even further to simply "uncertainty." But who's the asshole that added a superfluous and nearly meaningless word to an old concept? WHO REBOOTED? AND WHY?
if you think you can just suck the MONEY out of the system
This isn't stealing bread from a starving family. The sales inventory at all the studios remains constant. Explain to me how all the non-enterprise copyright violators cost production studios or entertainers even one cent? Theft it is, but it is not the same as crime because the victim has NO DAMAGES.
Interesting that it is a philosopher's ideas, because she should know very well hard AI is philosophically impossible.
Do ya think that's what makes this stupid? Well, consider the fact that a single ship polutes the atmosphere with more carbon in a day than all the cars in the United States in a year... then reassess this idea.