So people came to South Carolina 25,000 years ago and left no traces on the rest of the continent for 12,000 years? Yeah right. Off the top of my head, here are several more likely explanations:
Are the stones really man-made or just geofacts (naturally occuring rocks that almost sorta look like primitive stone tools if you squint your eyes really hard. After botched Lasik surgery.)? Sounds likely from the CNN writeup.
Did they date enough samples? You need several samples that return the same age to be reliable.
If so, were the samples contaminated? Carbon isn't exactly rare, particularly if it was in the Appalachians (coal deposits).
INAABMFWIARDL (I'm not an archaeologist but my friend works in a radio-carbon dating lab). People have been scouring the continents for over 50 years and found nothing earlier than ~13,000 BP and suddenly these guys stumble across something twice as old? Even if the site is legit it's gonna take a lot more finds to convince archaeologists people were here that early. People don't exactly confine themselves to small areas and leave no traces for thousands of years.
Sounds to me like more bogus science "journalism". Write about the crazy new theory to draw eyeballs and devote two paragraphs to the established consensus that this guy's a nut. The author oughta be run out of town on a rail.
You fools! That's exactly what they expect! You can't fight the system playing by their rules! It should end with a tangent. Or an introduction. They'll never see that coming!
You damned fools, you've played right into their hands! We're doomed, doomed, doomed...
Not to mention that only those lucky few with mod points at the moment get to participate. I see several underated questions and all I can do is post "Yeah, what he said". Everyone with good karma should be given points to moderate just in this thread.
Cringely walks a very thin line between troll and pundit. The only divider is that line at the top of your browser which says "pbs.org".
Can we get a Cringely topic in the prefs? His columns appear here with some frequency.
Quantum "encryption" is for the most part useless. It's just another way to exchange symmetric keys. The advantages are purely information-theoretic; in the real world, classical methods are just as good and a whole lot cheaper.
It's like replacing a steel deadbolt with titanium, meanwhile the door is still wooden, the hinges are brass, and there's a large window right next to it.
The only uses are extremely high-value applications like banking and the military. Even then I'd spend my money elsewhere.
Even if you can detect the evesdropping, by that time, it's too late; the evesdropper already has part of the message.
Actually you use quantum crypto to exchange key material. It's just meaningless random data at that point. You run the evesdropping detection protocol before you send any real data. The attacker may get a few bits of the key undetectably, but with a strong cipher that won't help him much.
Quantum crypto is a solution looking for a problem. It's only advantage over conventional methods is the "gee whiz" factor.
I have two very naive questions about a global flooding happening few thousands yrs ago
Geologists debated these and other puzzles in the 19th century. In the end, they conclusively proved there was no world-wide deluge in the required time period. The issue is dead for but a few fundamentalist fanatics, but how we resolved the question is a fascinating story in its own right.
Of course if science and religion just respect their respective boundaries (material reality for one, spiritual/moral "reality" for the other), it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether the Bible is factually accurate or not. But I guess old habits die hard.
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible.
It goes much further than that. Suppose all the material facts of the Bible did prove correct. That would have absolutely no bearing on the factuality of the Bible's supernatural claims. We know the city of Troy existed, do we therefore believe every word of the Iliad? Historical accuracy does not and can not imply supernatural validity.
consistent with archaeological evidence. Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven based on ancient findings by any reputable scientific investigation.
Historical accuracy is not the issue. We found the city of Troy, do we therefore believe Achilles was invulnerable except for his heels, as the Iliad tells us? There's a huge gulf between material and supernatural factuality of ancient texts; the former does not imply the latter.
The "ark" falls more into the supernatural category. While a physical object, the circumstances of its supposed construction and usage are entirely supernatural. Geologists resolved the issue of a worldwide flood conclusively in the 19th century (hint: no), there's no point repeating it here. Suffice it to say, intellectually honest christians treat the stories in Genesis as allegories, not literal occurences.
Is some of the resistance to this story knee-jerk religion bashing? Absolutely. Could there be a historical basis for the legend of Noah? Definitely. But the story as recorded is so improbable, the odds of finding an actual ark of the proper dimensions atop a mountain that verifies the Genesis account is essentially nil.
It's just as easy for religious people to think about those "heathen scientists" as it is for scientists to think about those "religious kooks."
And if they'd both just chill out, they'd realize Vader was right: there is no conflict. Each side just has to respect the domain of the other. Questions about material reality? Science's turf. Supernatural/spiritual/moral issues? Religion. No intrusions into the other domain, no problems.
your paper also doesn't really provide any emphasis or responsibility on ISP's to police their traffic
If ISPs are really to be treated as common carriers, they can't be filtering traffic. Moreover, doing so violates the end-to-end nature of the internet -- some ends become more equal than others. I don't think that's worth sacrificing in the name of fighting spam. If you disagree, then we've run smack into a philosophical difference of opinion.
On a more practical level, chasing ISPs is just a game of whack-a-mole. You'll never beat the spammers that way.
If the choice is this or nothing, I'll take nothing. Would you be happy with this if you lived in Spain?
Now if you want to do something constructive, switch to cryptographic tagged aliasing (basically, what Spam Gourmet does). It works, you're in control, and it doesn't break anything. My recent paper shows why this approach is much more suitable than white|black-listing.
Secondly, even if they were related, you're appear to be suggesting we might as well not bother patching one future security hole because a different one also exists? Thats crazy. We should tackle all security risks, not just one particular one.
What you say is true. The catch is that in this instance, quantum cryptography doesn't "fix" anything. Classical crypto is more than adequate for financial transactions; no one ever breaks the communications (as grandparent stated). QC offers no new security benefits, just a lot of "gee whiz" factor.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: quantum crypto is useless. It's a solution looking for a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
And where can we donate unwanted retina-burning purple backgrounds? The Stevie Wonder Foundation?
satire
Darn.
A cursory glance at ape anatomy shows that it is impossible for man to have 'evolved' from one.
From my observations of both ape and human behavior, the only reasonable conclusion is that apes evolved from us. :)
So people came to South Carolina 25,000 years ago and left no traces on the rest of the continent for 12,000 years? Yeah right. Off the top of my head, here are several more likely explanations:
INAABMFWIARDL (I'm not an archaeologist but my friend works in a radio-carbon dating lab). People have been scouring the continents for over 50 years and found nothing earlier than ~13,000 BP and suddenly these guys stumble across something twice as old? Even if the site is legit it's gonna take a lot more finds to convince archaeologists people were here that early. People don't exactly confine themselves to small areas and leave no traces for thousands of years.
Sounds to me like more bogus science "journalism". Write about the crazy new theory to draw eyeballs and devote two paragraphs to the established consensus that this guy's a nut. The author oughta be run out of town on a rail.
Except that name doesn't fit. He's never shown the slightest sign of paranoia. Just call him Marvin and leave it at that.
I call dibs on the chainsaw hands and D-cups of justice! Barbot-bot away!
Someone please add a Cringley topic so we can ignore this buffoon. He makes Jon Katz look like Bob Woodward.
Sadly, he's probably not. A sizable portion of the country say such things in all seriousness.
You fools! That's exactly what they expect! You can't fight the system playing by their rules! It should end with a tangent. Or an introduction. They'll never see that coming!
You damned fools, you've played right into their hands! We're doomed, doomed, doomed ...
Not to mention that only those lucky few with mod points at the moment get to participate. I see several underated questions and all I can do is post "Yeah, what he said". Everyone with good karma should be given points to moderate just in this thread.
Cringely walks a very thin line between troll and pundit. The only divider is that line at the top of your browser which says "pbs.org". Can we get a Cringely topic in the prefs? His columns appear here with some frequency.
It's like replacing a steel deadbolt with titanium, meanwhile the door is still wooden, the hinges are brass, and there's a large window right next to it.
The only uses are extremely high-value applications like banking and the military. Even then I'd spend my money elsewhere.
Couldn't find anything better for the front page? Must be a slow rumor day.
He works at the Harvey Birdman Center? Cool, is he the guy with the eye patch?
They've already struck. Their insidious plan is to blind people with horrible web page colors. Ah my eyes! I'm hit! Man down, man down!
Actually you use quantum crypto to exchange key material. It's just meaningless random data at that point. You run the evesdropping detection protocol before you send any real data. The attacker may get a few bits of the key undetectably, but with a strong cipher that won't help him much.
Quantum crypto is a solution looking for a problem. It's only advantage over conventional methods is the "gee whiz" factor.
Geologists debated these and other puzzles in the 19th century. In the end, they conclusively proved there was no world-wide deluge in the required time period. The issue is dead for but a few fundamentalist fanatics, but how we resolved the question is a fascinating story in its own right.
Of course if science and religion just respect their respective boundaries (material reality for one, spiritual/moral "reality" for the other), it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether the Bible is factually accurate or not. But I guess old habits die hard.
It goes much further than that. Suppose all the material facts of the Bible did prove correct. That would have absolutely no bearing on the factuality of the Bible's supernatural claims. We know the city of Troy existed, do we therefore believe every word of the Iliad? Historical accuracy does not and can not imply supernatural validity.
Historical accuracy is not the issue. We found the city of Troy, do we therefore believe Achilles was invulnerable except for his heels, as the Iliad tells us? There's a huge gulf between material and supernatural factuality of ancient texts; the former does not imply the latter.
The "ark" falls more into the supernatural category. While a physical object, the circumstances of its supposed construction and usage are entirely supernatural. Geologists resolved the issue of a worldwide flood conclusively in the 19th century (hint: no), there's no point repeating it here. Suffice it to say, intellectually honest christians treat the stories in Genesis as allegories, not literal occurences.
Is some of the resistance to this story knee-jerk religion bashing? Absolutely. Could there be a historical basis for the legend of Noah? Definitely. But the story as recorded is so improbable, the odds of finding an actual ark of the proper dimensions atop a mountain that verifies the Genesis account is essentially nil.
And if they'd both just chill out, they'd realize Vader was right: there is no conflict. Each side just has to respect the domain of the other. Questions about material reality? Science's turf. Supernatural/spiritual/moral issues? Religion. No intrusions into the other domain, no problems.
Is it any relation to Jeebus?
If ISPs are really to be treated as common carriers, they can't be filtering traffic. Moreover, doing so violates the end-to-end nature of the internet -- some ends become more equal than others. I don't think that's worth sacrificing in the name of fighting spam. If you disagree, then we've run smack into a philosophical difference of opinion.
On a more practical level, chasing ISPs is just a game of whack-a-mole. You'll never beat the spammers that way.
If the choice is this or nothing, I'll take nothing. Would you be happy with this if you lived in Spain?
Now if you want to do something constructive, switch to cryptographic tagged aliasing (basically, what Spam Gourmet does). It works, you're in control, and it doesn't break anything. My recent paper shows why this approach is much more suitable than white|black-listing.
What you say is true. The catch is that in this instance, quantum cryptography doesn't "fix" anything. Classical crypto is more than adequate for financial transactions; no one ever breaks the communications (as grandparent stated). QC offers no new security benefits, just a lot of "gee whiz" factor.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: quantum crypto is useless. It's a solution looking for a problem.