In learning about thermodynamics I had learned that, where there's a gradient, you can extract energy, be it a gradient of temperature, electrical field... or even chemical concentration. But it's one thing to know it's theoretically possible, and another thing to actually pull it off in a way that extracts meaningful energy. Good work, scientists and engineers.
Well, perhaps members of Anonymous could be investigated. Perhaps an equally talented security firm could identify the best hackers in Anonymous and then inform them that their names will be exposed if they don't come forth and help find the hackers behind Sony's breach.
She would probably have wanted to sleep with you after that. Duh. j/k
Anyway, regarding simulations like these, if you have agents that reproduce, and whose governing algorithms can change, and which are limited in which ones can reproduce, then you will see shift toward reproduction-favoring agents through "natural" selection. (Artificial in that it's a simulation, natural in that you do not have to separately program it.)
Depending on how the environment is set up, agents that "help" others (for certain definitions of help) may find themselves selected for -- perhaps because other agents stumble onto an algorithm "help those who helped you", or perhaps for some more complex or less complex reason.
And when they do, you see these kinds of results, where altruism "evolves" -- you still have to be careful about extrapolating this to human history: did the same altruism-favoring mechanisms appear in human history? Was it a fluke, where a re-run would see altruist weeded out? Where there particulars that made altruism unusually helpful to reproduction?
But of course, that doesn't fit simplistic narratives like "Robots decided to be altruistic, so that's obviously the logical thing to do, like my pastor/ethical theorist was telling me all along!"
#2) The Apple II board was built by a hacker, for hackers. That makes it the obvious choice in a nutshell. This is exactly the kind of stuff Woz wanted people to do with his creation.
Wow, kind of a reminder of how much they've changed. These days it's, "You need an Apple technician to replace the battery / hard drive / casing / logo..."
The presumption of innocence and a trial doth only apply to subjects of His Majesty George III, not to those in open rebellion against the Monarchy.... yeah, I don't know the finer points of law here, but it's exactly that mentality that led to its victims creating the Bill of Rights. Everyone deserves those rights, not just people we like.
If everyone carried ziplocs full of baking soda in their car's cabin, police would no longer be able to use the presence of "backs of white powder" as a reason to search your car.
I think it's important because the white iPhone is likely to perform very well, and not be plagued with all the problems black ones have been giving us, not have the high maintenance cost, not be used as a channel for criminality, etc.
But correct me if I'm wrong (I've read about salt but am still confused about what defenses it does and doesn't provide), that doesn't stop hackers who can guess the password (from a common list), since they can still check that hash(salt + plaintext_password), iterated as necessary, matches the hash stored in the password file.
So it would require them to generate new hashes for a common password list, but not make the passwords stronger than their being on the common list permits.
Then again, I guess you're hosed anyway if the attacker can guess the password, so the system doesn't even attempt to be secure against that kind of attacker.
Hey, those PhDs are useful. Imagine what would happen if it turned out the religion experts we were relying on weren't grounding their advice in the scientific method? What if they weren't accustomed to the *top* theology?
So you don't know how to make valid comparisons. That's nice. Please stay out of engineering. Med school or nursing school should work out for you: they don't allow obective tests of effectiveness when you're on the job, so you can stay in mediocrity forever.
You ever notice how in police videos, they always say "suspect" rather than "perp[etrator]", "killer", "bad guy", etc. even if he shoots a hostage right on camera? I always assumed they adhere strictly to that protocol so that, when used as evidence, the defense won't be able to claim that the recording is prejudicial -- and more generally, to avoid announcing a legal determination about someone before a conviction.
I further assume that they have good reasons to adhere *very* strictly to this rule.
So I'm wondering how much a good defense attorney could do with police who call him a pedophile during arrest, especially when they have guns trained on him on he's no threat?
Of course without the "internet" Greenpeace wouldn't have a means to complain about the internet.
More importantly, if you're going to tabulate the CO2 emissions that the internet is responsible for, it's only fair to subtract off all the emissions that the internet renders unnecessary through more efficient distribution of information.
For example, how much CO2 would have to be emitted to allow 10 million people, all over North America and Europe, to read a copy of one issue of the New York times without the internet? That is, using dead trees and ink?
Then, how much does it cost when you can instantly "print" and distribute all of that through the internet?
Greenpeace seems to be counting wasted pennies and ignoring the huge gold-bar savings.
Journalism *is* social engineering: you're either tricking someone into giving you info you're not supposed to be given, or tricking someone to go on the record saying something that, taken out of context, supports the narrative the paper wants.
Anyone who lacks $1,000,000 in their bank account will fall behind their more moneyed peers. Is being rich now a right?
Please, PLEASE don't give the Federal Reserve any more asinine ideas than it already has. Heck, they're already implementing policies that are less efficient, less equitable versions of "give everyone free money".
Fine, "I'm paying taxes to benefit *everyone*, and this project doesn't benefit everyone so I'm going to try to get some of my money back for it by fraudulently applying for benefits."
Take that line up with the taxman sometime, see how it works out. "Hey, I'm paying taxes to benefit *myself*, and I don't *benefit* from that project, so I shouldn't have to..."
Slashdot Mirror
In learning about thermodynamics I had learned that, where there's a gradient, you can extract energy, be it a gradient of temperature, electrical field ... or even chemical concentration. But it's one thing to know it's theoretically possible, and another thing to actually pull it off in a way that extracts meaningful energy. Good work, scientists and engineers.
Well, perhaps members of Anonymous could be investigated. Perhaps an equally talented security firm could identify the best hackers in Anonymous and then inform them that their names will be exposed if they don't come forth and help find the hackers behind Sony's breach.
What could go wrong with such a plan? Oh, wait.
She would probably have wanted to sleep with you after that. Duh. j/k
Anyway, regarding simulations like these, if you have agents that reproduce, and whose governing algorithms can change, and which are limited in which ones can reproduce, then you will see shift toward reproduction-favoring agents through "natural" selection. (Artificial in that it's a simulation, natural in that you do not have to separately program it.)
Depending on how the environment is set up, agents that "help" others (for certain definitions of help) may find themselves selected for -- perhaps because other agents stumble onto an algorithm "help those who helped you", or perhaps for some more complex or less complex reason.
And when they do, you see these kinds of results, where altruism "evolves" -- you still have to be careful about extrapolating this to human history: did the same altruism-favoring mechanisms appear in human history? Was it a fluke, where a re-run would see altruist weeded out? Where there particulars that made altruism unusually helpful to reproduction?
But of course, that doesn't fit simplistic narratives like "Robots decided to be altruistic, so that's obviously the logical thing to do, like my pastor/ethical theorist was telling me all along!"
#2) The Apple II board was built by a hacker, for hackers. That makes it the obvious choice in a nutshell. This is exactly the kind of stuff Woz wanted people to do with his creation.
Wow, kind of a reminder of how much they've changed. These days it's, "You need an Apple technician to replace the battery / hard drive / casing / logo..."
The presumption of innocence and a trial doth only apply to subjects of His Majesty George III, not to those in open rebellion against the Monarchy. ... yeah, I don't know the finer points of law here, but it's exactly that mentality that led to its victims creating the Bill of Rights. Everyone deserves those rights, not just people we like.
Believe it or not, the issue of possible systematic names gets a decent discussion in Wikipeda.
What ... the ... fuck?
If everyone carried ziplocs full of baking soda in their car's cabin, police would no longer be able to use the presence of "backs of white powder" as a reason to search your car.
Hopefully.
I think it's important because the white iPhone is likely to perform very well, and not be plagued with all the problems black ones have been giving us, not have the high maintenance cost, not be used as a channel for criminality, etc.
Okay, thanks, that clears up the confusion I was having about how salt helps.
But correct me if I'm wrong (I've read about salt but am still confused about what defenses it does and doesn't provide), that doesn't stop hackers who can guess the password (from a common list), since they can still check that hash(salt + plaintext_password), iterated as necessary, matches the hash stored in the password file.
So it would require them to generate new hashes for a common password list, but not make the passwords stronger than their being on the common list permits.
Then again, I guess you're hosed anyway if the attacker can guess the password, so the system doesn't even attempt to be secure against that kind of attacker.
(Did I get all that right?)
Hey, those PhDs are useful. Imagine what would happen if it turned out the religion experts we were relying on weren't grounding their advice in the scientific method? What if they weren't accustomed to the *top* theology?
We'd be doomed, I tell you. DOOMED!
I recall the USPS *was* planning to do this 10 years ago. I did a quick search and found an article criticizing the plan.
I think that was what prompted me to think of asking for the email address soggyballz6969@usps.gov. (Probably wouldn't allow it.)
So you don't know how to make valid comparisons. That's nice. Please stay out of engineering. Med school or nursing school should work out for you: they don't allow obective tests of effectiveness when you're on the job, so you can stay in mediocrity forever.
You ever notice how in police videos, they always say "suspect" rather than "perp[etrator]", "killer", "bad guy", etc. even if he shoots a hostage right on camera? I always assumed they adhere strictly to that protocol so that, when used as evidence, the defense won't be able to claim that the recording is prejudicial -- and more generally, to avoid announcing a legal determination about someone before a conviction.
I further assume that they have good reasons to adhere *very* strictly to this rule.
So I'm wondering how much a good defense attorney could do with police who call him a pedophile during arrest, especially when they have guns trained on him on he's no threat?
Because no amount of moving speeches can ever make an airframe withstand its design loads.
Of course without the "internet" Greenpeace wouldn't have a means to complain about the internet.
More importantly, if you're going to tabulate the CO2 emissions that the internet is responsible for, it's only fair to subtract off all the emissions that the internet renders unnecessary through more efficient distribution of information.
For example, how much CO2 would have to be emitted to allow 10 million people, all over North America and Europe, to read a copy of one issue of the New York times without the internet? That is, using dead trees and ink?
Then, how much does it cost when you can instantly "print" and distribute all of that through the internet?
Greenpeace seems to be counting wasted pennies and ignoring the huge gold-bar savings.
Translation: "Lustig" is German for funny (and similar concepts.
Journalism *is* social engineering: you're either tricking someone into giving you info you're not supposed to be given, or tricking someone to go on the record saying something that, taken out of context, supports the narrative the paper wants.
Fun fact #2: Japanese uses the same word for "husband" and "master".
Fun fact #3: So does English.
Anyone who lacks $1,000,000 in their bank account will fall behind their more moneyed peers. Is being rich now a right?
Please, PLEASE don't give the Federal Reserve any more asinine ideas than it already has. Heck, they're already implementing policies that are less efficient, less equitable versions of "give everyone free money".
Did you miss the last 100+ years of Congress collectively making the "jerk off/roll eyes" gesture whenever the issue of Constitutionality is raised?
That's not talking to me like a child, that's talking to me like a queen, thweetie.
Fine, "I'm paying taxes to benefit *everyone*, and this project doesn't benefit everyone so I'm going to try to get some of my money back for it by fraudulently applying for benefits."
Same diff.
Take that line up with the taxman sometime, see how it works out. "Hey, I'm paying taxes to benefit *myself*, and I don't *benefit* from that project, so I shouldn't have to ..."