What if the Everett Interpretation [wikipedia.org] of quantum mechanics is correct, and time-travel simply allows access to (or creation of) alternate worlds?
And again. Creation of alternate worlds is not backward time travel. So it's not surprise that there are no "paradoxes" (this euphemistic word should actually be replaced by phrase "proofs of impossibility"). It is exactly what I criticized in my previous post in this thread.
But what you did say was in the same class as the statements I listed.
You are just a troll and I shouldn't feed you. That time "slows down" (as you laically put it) is a practically proven fact. That backward time travel is possible is not only not proven, but there it can be easily shown that it is impossible due to causality.
How is something that is proven and in the same class with something that is not proven (rather proven impossible) is beyond me.
What if causality is a local condition and not a global one?
This is yet another nonsense. What the linked "document" calls (so nicely and euphemistically) "paradoxes", we call proofs that backward time travel is impossible.
you have not come up with a brand new objection to time travel, or even one that hasn't been answered before.)
The document you linked to, which you said "answers" the objection actually does not answer it. It avoids the causality issue by "inventing" backward time travel that is creating alternate (new) reality. Concretely it says: "When you travel back in time, you really create a whole new universe where your changes take place in." Well, son, this isn't exactly time travel. You're not travelling to the past that way, are you?
I should not feed the troll, but I hope I will be forgiven:
And time can't slow down when
I didn't say that. This has been proven and it is perfectly obvious that it is possible. All physical processes just "slow down". There is nothing impossible about it.
And things can't act like both a particle and a wave!
Same reply as above.
You have not come up with a brand new objection to time travel.
No it's not new and it's not an objection. It's a proof. Causality prevents time travel and only an idiot would not understand it.
If it does work, you could receive the signal 50 microseconds before you send
It is easy to show that that can never happen in reality. If you saw the signal for instance 5 seconds before you send it, you would be able to decide to not send the signal eventually (and in such case you would not see the signal 5 seconds before -- you wouldn't see any signal at all). This is a simple proof of causality that cannot be "circumvented" or "defeated". Nothing can "travel back in time". Period.
> I was trying to say that Shuttleworth is the leader of the Ubuntu project
No problem with that. He may be the leader, but not "the creator". There are many creators, including the main folks -- kernel developers and the GNU folks.
Sorry to disappoint, but go check the facts and statistics on the US and EU economy. Small business are the majority of the economy entities. Fortune 500 companies or whatever are just a tiny fraction of it. And they may buy about 500,000 Windows licenses a year. Compare that figure with the hundreds of millions of copies of Windows that are in use in the world right now.
that without the competition and innovation from Mozilla Firefox, there (probably) wouldn't have been an IE 7 project
It's good to see the word "probably" in this context. Because, it's highest time to wake up to reality.
1) There was a new major version of Internet Explorer released each time a new major version of Windows was released. Vista + IE7. Simple. Right. I hope it was the last time I've seen the nonsense that without Firefox there would be no IE7.
2) As for inovation: It would be great if someone told us at last what exactly Mozilla/Firefox inovated. They certainly didn't invent tabbed browsing, which was invented by Opera.
That pretty much sums up this garbage. This is what SSL is supposed to already be
Actually, no.
SSL certificates can have various purposes. The purposes for which a certificate is issued is stated in the certificate (see the "Properties" of the certificate in your browser). The purpose of the cheap site/domain certificate is the following (and I quote from the certificate info): 'Ensures the identity of a remote computer.'
Just FYI, if you steal a certificate from say www.ebay.com and use it on www.e-day.com (or whatever), you'll get a warning from the browser that the certificate is potentially insecure (the domain name doesn't match).
sell certificates for hundreds of dollars which take milliseconds to make....
To be fair, the price is not for the actual making of the certificate (that obviously costs them something close to zero). The fee is mainly for the financial liability which they undertake, and for the verification process. This involves making calls to verify the validity and authenticity of provided documents, etc. It should be something like a detective work. If they do the job, they deserve the money.
The problem is that some issuers (GoDaddy comes to mind) started issuing "domain only" SSL certificates;
What problem are you exactly talking about? If a visitor only needs to be sure that he or she is communicating with the real and correct server and not some phishing site, he/she just needs to verify a site certificate. The email address in the WHOIS record (via which the CA verifies that the recipient of the certificate is the site owner or admin) is absolutely sufficient. Anyone who controls the email account can transfer the domain name or point it to other DNS servers, etc. So the email address does matter and is crucial security-wise.
The bottom line is, these certificates are perfectly secure and they are not intended to prove the identity of a business but they prove that you communicate with the correct server/site (and not with a phishing scammer). That's all.
First, I'm not paranoid and I don't use proxies at all. Second, I was helping that poster to understand that there ARE WAYS TO PREVENT HIS ISP FROM KNOWING EVERYTHING HE DOES. GOT IT?
Where did your other "points" and "counter-points" came from is truly beyond me.
> Besides, setting up a secure proxy is a hell of a lot more work than simply disabling the anti-phishing feature in Opera.
In case you missed it, I didn't talk in regard to Opera. I responded to the statement that your ISP knows everything anyway. The point was that if you want, your ISP doesn't have to know everything.
Why via proxy and via SSL? Because why would a nerdy admin working for your ISP should be allowed to read everything I read, download and upload, and why should he know the URLs where I do?
You missed the point. It was to prove that ISP doesn't have to know everything you do.
And if you connect to a proxy via SSL, you can browse any sites without your ISP knowing. The ISP will only know you connected to a proxy in China (or wherever) and that's it. No URLs, no domains, just strongly encrypted packets.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, the linked document did not provide any answer to the causality "objection". Thanks for confirming that.
What if the Everett Interpretation [wikipedia.org] of quantum mechanics is correct, and time-travel simply allows access to (or creation of) alternate worlds?
And again. Creation of alternate worlds is not backward time travel. So it's not surprise that there are no "paradoxes" (this euphemistic word should actually be replaced by phrase "proofs of impossibility"). It is exactly what I criticized in my previous post in this thread.
But what you did say was in the same class as the statements I listed.
You are just a troll and I shouldn't feed you. That time "slows down" (as you laically put it) is a practically proven fact. That backward time travel is possible is not only not proven, but there it can be easily shown that it is impossible due to causality.
How is something that is proven and in the same class with something that is not proven (rather proven impossible) is beyond me.
Enough of troll feeding today.
What if causality is a local condition and not a global one?
This is yet another nonsense. What the linked "document" calls (so nicely and euphemistically) "paradoxes", we call proofs that backward time travel is impossible.
you have not come up with a brand new objection to time travel, or even one that hasn't been answered before.)
The document you linked to, which you said "answers" the objection actually does not answer it. It avoids the causality issue by "inventing" backward time travel that is creating alternate (new) reality. Concretely it says: "When you travel back in time, you really create a whole new universe where your changes take place in." Well, son, this isn't exactly time travel. You're not travelling to the past that way, are you?
I should not feed the troll, but I hope I will be forgiven:
And time can't slow down when
I didn't say that. This has been proven and it is perfectly obvious that it is possible. All physical processes just "slow down". There is nothing impossible about it.
And things can't act like both a particle and a wave!
Same reply as above.
You have not come up with a brand new objection to time travel.
No it's not new and it's not an objection. It's a proof. Causality prevents time travel and only an idiot would not understand it.
Can you really decide not to send the signal ? :o
That's the point. You can. And that's why you can't see the signal 5 seconds before you send it. Causality.
If it does work, you could receive the signal 50 microseconds before you send
It is easy to show that that can never happen in reality. If you saw the signal for instance 5 seconds before you send it, you would be able to decide to not send the signal eventually (and in such case you would not see the signal 5 seconds before -- you wouldn't see any signal at all). This is a simple proof of causality that cannot be "circumvented" or "defeated". Nothing can "travel back in time". Period.
> I was trying to say that Shuttleworth is the leader of the Ubuntu project
No problem with that. He may be the leader, but not "the creator". There are many creators, including the main folks -- kernel developers and the GNU folks.
1) Shuttleworth is the CREATOR of Ubuntu.
So he created Debian, from which Ubuntu is derived? You know it's the definite article ("the" creator), which I have a problem with.
Sorry to disappoint, but go check the facts and statistics on the US and EU economy. Small business are the majority of the economy entities. Fortune 500 companies or whatever are just a tiny fraction of it. And they may buy about 500,000 Windows licenses a year. Compare that figure with the hundreds of millions of copies of Windows that are in use in the world right now.
Of course, it should. All you need is an "Advanced" tab. Gee, who designs these programs?
Two rather difficult attacks would have to succeed at once. Not very probable. Maybe one, but not two.
that without the competition and innovation from Mozilla Firefox, there (probably) wouldn't have been an IE 7 project
It's good to see the word "probably" in this context. Because, it's highest time to wake up to reality.
1) There was a new major version of Internet Explorer released each time a new major version of Windows was released. Vista + IE7. Simple. Right. I hope it was the last time I've seen the nonsense that without Firefox there would be no IE7.
2) As for inovation: It would be great if someone told us at last what exactly Mozilla/Firefox inovated. They certainly didn't invent tabbed browsing, which was invented by Opera.
That pretty much sums up this garbage. This is what SSL is supposed to already be
Actually, no.
SSL certificates can have various purposes. The purposes for which a certificate is issued is stated in the certificate (see the "Properties" of the certificate in your browser). The purpose of the cheap site/domain certificate is the following (and I quote from the certificate info):
'Ensures the identity of a remote computer.'
Nothing more, nothing less.
Just FYI, if you steal a certificate from say www.ebay.com and use it on www.e-day.com (or whatever), you'll get a warning from the browser that the certificate is potentially insecure (the domain name doesn't match).
sell certificates for hundreds of dollars which take milliseconds to make....
To be fair, the price is not for the actual making of the certificate (that obviously costs them something close to zero). The fee is mainly for the financial liability which they undertake, and for the verification process. This involves making calls to verify the validity and authenticity of provided documents, etc. It should be something like a detective work. If they do the job, they deserve the money.
The problem is that some issuers (GoDaddy comes to mind) started issuing "domain only" SSL certificates;
What problem are you exactly talking about? If a visitor only needs to be sure that he or she is communicating with the real and correct server and not some phishing site, he/she just needs to verify a site certificate. The email address in the WHOIS record (via which the CA verifies that the recipient of the certificate is the site owner or admin) is absolutely sufficient. Anyone who controls the email account can transfer the domain name or point it to other DNS servers, etc. So the email address does matter and is crucial security-wise.
The bottom line is, these certificates are perfectly secure and they are not intended to prove the identity of a business but they prove that you communicate with the correct server/site (and not with a phishing scammer). That's all.
First, I'm not paranoid and I don't use proxies at all. Second, I was helping that poster to understand that there ARE WAYS TO PREVENT HIS ISP FROM KNOWING EVERYTHING HE DOES. GOT IT?
Where did your other "points" and "counter-points" came from is truly beyond me.
What a red-herring comment. The actual point is that your US/EU ISP doesn't have to know everything.
> Besides, setting up a secure proxy is a hell of a lot more work than simply disabling the anti-phishing feature in Opera.
In case you missed it, I didn't talk in regard to Opera. I responded to the statement that your ISP knows everything anyway. The point was that if you want, your ISP doesn't have to know everything.
Yes, and do you expect a proxy admin in North Korea to disclose your searching habits to someone from the US?
Why via proxy and via SSL? Because why would a nerdy admin working for your ISP should be allowed to read everything I read, download and upload, and why should he know the URLs where I do?
You missed the point. It was to prove that ISP doesn't have to know everything you do.
However, the point probably was that there actuall ARE many reasons to look at Vista for possible good reasons to upgrade.
And if you connect to a proxy via SSL, you can browse any sites without your ISP knowing. The ISP will only know you connected to a proxy in China (or wherever) and that's it. No URLs, no domains, just strongly encrypted packets.