I've got this electron right here () - could you please tell me where it's going to be in 5 seconds?
Theology and Science do not conflict, and cannot conflict by definition (unless you define a deity who is relegated to the limits of your understanding.) Guess what? - the universe isn't wholly deterministic, but that doesn't mean that god is toying with us, or maybe it does... All we can say for certain is that observations (science) in the past has lead us to useful and exploitable conclusions that have bettered our lives, so it behooves us to continue to observe things.
Unless of course we were all created last Thursday.
Sorry Mr. Perot, but this wouldn't work either, some of us have jobs, and can't vote on everylittle thing, let alone try to become educated on every bill as written in the obtuse language of government. Neither are we all qualified to voice opinions on all matters of government, nor is the majority always right. I am very afraid what the current state of civil rights would be if we had a direct democracy.
People only care about themselves, and often in a very short sighted manner, so it makes sence to have one person represent an agglomeration of interests, hopefully things will sort out alright in the averages. It isn't perfect but it's better than what you propose.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, the problem with democracy (and all political systems) is that they don't scale infinately.
Communism for instance works great in small communities, Kibbutzes and the early Catholic church - when you have to look your neighbor in the face and explain why you're not contributing.
Monarchy works with medium sized populations, the monarch is removed from your daily interactions giving them an apperance of aloofness, but not in societies so large that each citizen has to answer to several intermediates before the monarch.
Democracy works well for largish populations, electing local, regional and national representatives. The problems that arise are the ones you described and the symptom is voter apathy, the voters don't feel connected to the politicians.
What works for really large populations, I don't know but I'm sure China and India will let us know if they ever manage to sort it out.
Um didn't you say that math was powerful because it didn't have theories, oh yes here it is
...real hard science such as Math where there are no real "theories"
So you have the only theoretical science, only it has no theories hmmm sounds to me like you are trying to have it both ways. You should really join the rest of us who think that math is extremely useful, but not a science.
Wow you seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding of the nature of science.
For starters mathematics isn't a science - it tells us nothing about the physical world, mathematics is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I have the highest esteem for mathematics, but it's not science.
Secondly science has never proved anything. The requirement of the scientific method is that hypothesis be falsifiable. If its predicted results turn out to be reproducably observed you have the makings of a good theory.
I don't know what your gripe about "stub fields" is, but unfortunately kinematics and Newtonian ballistics have been pretty well explained, so physicists have been compelled to move into more arcane fields. Too bad they've never produced anything of value like the computer chip or GPS.
Anyhow this rant reminds me of a joke I heard once whose punchline was something like "When I went to college I learned that all sociologists are really psycologists, who are really biologists, who are really chemists, who are really physicist, who use mathematics - The mathematicians just think they're god."
No matter what the subject, one has to admire a book written by an astronaut and former US senator
Really, so if an astronaut becmoe senator writes a cheesy fictionaly thriller novel, or My Ten Favorite Women's Undergarments we'd still have to admire it because of the author?
Yeah I got that, but if this was a backdoor, with a purposely invalid "key", for legitimate purposes how did someone find out about it? Did someone stumble across it, was it leaked, or uncovered some other way?
I mean as I understand it if you are going to go ahead and put in a backdoor you are going to design to be as difficult to find unless you already know its there. So what gives? how did we find out about the exploit in the first place?
Can someone explain to me (or provide a link to information on) how this "key" was discovered? I haven't been following the story, and I'm not really an IT guy but this has piqued my interest
To pass the Turing test it just has to supply more plausible responses than a human would, and I'm not so sure any of those questions have ever been plausibly answered on slashdot.
Really? While I suppose it's possible I was under the impression that gas stations in particular would be only too eager to get rid of CC sales all together - they eat into veery narrow margins.
Besides doesn't the legal tender text on your sawback indicate that they have to accept the bill as payment?
It's not like that at all. The nature of transportation doens't cause pollution, but rather the fact that we burn oil based hydro-carbons in in IC engines that does.
Saying you want the benifits of tech and the benifits of no tech is more akin to saying we want to burn oil without producing pollution. It can't happen.
What the OP is asking for is for people to stop talking to eachother, yet still have a functional society. It can't happen.
The nature of society prevents all information regarding you to be solely your property.
I'd like to add that there is precious little information that only belongs to one person, even if it is personally identifiable. In fact information that is solely yours is limited to unpublished works that you created on your own time - and that is largely without value.
Your birth certificate belongs not just to you, but also the hospital, probably the state, and maybe even the doctor who signed it. Your driver's license and Social Security card are probably more the state's property than they are yours.
The unalterable fact is that we live in a society, are social animals, and as such share information. I'm with the parent saying that it is right that we should try to influence what information is distributed to whom, but to claim that any information regarding you belongs solely to you is (IMO) a bit silly.
Breaking news! Sugar makes you fat, and can lead to Diabetes! Also apperently if you feed animals sugar, as opposed to what they normally eat they rapidly put on weight.
I'm sure there is actually interesting work actually being done here on the Uric acid pathway, but the headline inspires a yawn, and the summary is just a place for the submitter to air his personal economic pet peive.
Add to that that slashdoters are not the average consumer. If everything moves to a subscription style service we will have reality tv with fantastic production value, (Survivor - International Space Station) and geeky shows or new shows that can't get popular because they're filming on 8mm.
It works about as well as communism, both in theory (works great) and in reality (fails miserably).
to, "... both in theory and reality (fails miserably)." I can make almost any idea sound good on paper, but that's a far cry from it actually being a good idea if you examine it.
Communism and Laissez Faire both fail to account for the human element of selfishness in their theories. Communism fails to recognize that people need success/failure motivation, and laissez faire fails to recognize that people hoard resources, and put very little value on other people's health, wealth, or happiness.
Both systems are flawed because they fail to see trees for the forest. It's not coincidental that there has never been a true economy (of more than a couple hundred people) that is either truly communist or truly capitalist.
Additionally, there is no perfect balance, and deliberately remaining in a static system due to some philosophical conviction (e.g. "we can't do that it's anti-American) is potentially more dangerous than tweaking the system at the wrong time or the wrong way.
Bullshit. Investors are held accountable for the actions of a company, but their liability is limited to the purchase price of the stock. Perhaps you forgot that lots of people lost lots of money on Enron, especially employees. Tell them they weren't accountable.
Unscroupulous insiders will be able to decieve the investors regardless of the level of accountability of the investors. So you would have it that employee investors would loose not only their retierment, but now their house as well, AND be facing jail time. All because the board pulled the wool over their eyes.
All snippiness aside [snip] If that is really your opinion, I'd avoid sharing it anymore because it's moronic.
So, because I disagree with you I'm a moron? I think you are the one in need of a better argument.
"I consider carrying weapons in public a danger to me"
Justify that with a better argument than "because I said so".
From my previous post: "If Jonny the usually upstanding bouncer has a glock in his coat and some drunk asshat starts something Jonny may feel compeled to fire at him in a crowded bar."
I wouldn't say I equate DUI to concealed carry, but I do think they're analogous. I consider both to be reckless, dangerous, and potentially lethal. I would only extend the analogy to members of the public, excluding police officers.
First they came for the kazoo players/ I remained silent/ I did not have a kazoo When they locked up the harmonica players/ I remained silent/ I did not have a harmonica When they came for the triangles/ I remained silent/ I did not play the triangle When they came for the cowbell/ there was no one left to speak out.
Go for it, trot out the quote. I've got one handy about swinging arms and noses.
If what you're doing is dangerous to me then it is not your right to do so. I consider carrying wepons in public a danger to me, therefore I belive that your right to "have and bear arms" doesn't extend to public places.
IMO your right to carry a wepon in public is equivalent to your right to drive while drunk, i.e. eclipsed by my right not to die.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you 100% - you've made my friends list.
I've got this electron right here () - could you please tell me where it's going to be in 5 seconds?
Theology and Science do not conflict, and cannot conflict by definition (unless you define a deity who is relegated to the limits of your understanding.) Guess what? - the universe isn't wholly deterministic, but that doesn't mean that god is toying with us, or maybe it does... All we can say for certain is that observations (science) in the past has lead us to useful and exploitable conclusions that have bettered our lives, so it behooves us to continue to observe things.
Unless of course we were all created last Thursday.
Sorry Mr. Perot, but this wouldn't work either, some of us have jobs, and can't vote on everylittle thing, let alone try to become educated on every bill as written in the obtuse language of government. Neither are we all qualified to voice opinions on all matters of government, nor is the majority always right. I am very afraid what the current state of civil rights would be if we had a direct democracy.
People only care about themselves, and often in a very short sighted manner, so it makes sence to have one person represent an agglomeration of interests, hopefully things will sort out alright in the averages. It isn't perfect but it's better than what you propose.
It may be semantic, but it's the differance between being a science and not.
Additionally most people don't know what theory means, hence the Intelligent Design debacle.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, the problem with democracy (and all political systems) is that they don't scale infinately.
Communism for instance works great in small communities, Kibbutzes and the early Catholic church - when you have to look your neighbor in the face and explain why you're not contributing.
Monarchy works with medium sized populations, the monarch is removed from your daily interactions giving them an apperance of aloofness, but not in societies so large that each citizen has to answer to several intermediates before the monarch.
Democracy works well for largish populations, electing local, regional and national representatives. The problems that arise are the ones you described and the symptom is voter apathy, the voters don't feel connected to the politicians.
What works for really large populations, I don't know but I'm sure China and India will let us know if they ever manage to sort it out.
So you have the only theoretical science, only it has no theories hmmm sounds to me like you are trying to have it both ways. You should really join the rest of us who think that math is extremely useful, but not a science.
Wow you seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding of the nature of science.
For starters mathematics isn't a science - it tells us nothing about the physical world, mathematics is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I have the highest esteem for mathematics, but it's not science.
Secondly science has never proved anything. The requirement of the scientific method is that hypothesis be falsifiable. If its predicted results turn out to be reproducably observed you have the makings of a good theory.
I don't know what your gripe about "stub fields" is, but unfortunately kinematics and Newtonian ballistics have been pretty well explained, so physicists have been compelled to move into more arcane fields. Too bad they've never produced anything of value like the computer chip or GPS.
Anyhow this rant reminds me of a joke I heard once whose punchline was something like "When I went to college I learned that all sociologists are really psycologists, who are really biologists, who are really chemists, who are really physicist, who use mathematics - The mathematicians just think they're god."
Maybe they'll try to aquire the DNS root servers and redirect all Quaero.com and google.com requests to their site.
Now how would they go about doing that?
So some security expert just happened to test just the right combination of factors to open the exploit?
Is this how it happened? Anyone know?
Really, so if an astronaut becmoe senator writes a cheesy fictionaly thriller novel, or My Ten Favorite Women's Undergarments we'd still have to admire it because of the author?
Yeah I got that, but if this was a backdoor, with a purposely invalid "key", for legitimate purposes how did someone find out about it? Did someone stumble across it, was it leaked, or uncovered some other way?
I mean as I understand it if you are going to go ahead and put in a backdoor you are going to design to be as difficult to find unless you already know its there. So what gives? how did we find out about the exploit in the first place?
Can someone explain to me (or provide a link to information on) how this "key" was discovered? I haven't been following the story, and I'm not really an IT guy but this has piqued my interest
To pass the Turing test it just has to supply more plausible responses than a human would, and I'm not so sure any of those questions have ever been plausibly answered on slashdot.
Really? While I suppose it's possible I was under the impression that gas stations in particular would be only too eager to get rid of CC sales all together - they eat into veery narrow margins.
Besides doesn't the legal tender text on your sawback indicate that they have to accept the bill as payment?
It's not like that at all. The nature of transportation doens't cause pollution, but rather the fact that we burn oil based hydro-carbons in in IC engines that does.
Saying you want the benifits of tech and the benifits of no tech is more akin to saying we want to burn oil without producing pollution. It can't happen.
What the OP is asking for is for people to stop talking to eachother, yet still have a functional society. It can't happen.
The nature of society prevents all information regarding you to be solely your property.
Well said.
I'd like to add that there is precious little information that only belongs to one person, even if it is personally identifiable. In fact information that is solely yours is limited to unpublished works that you created on your own time - and that is largely without value.
Your birth certificate belongs not just to you, but also the hospital, probably the state, and maybe even the doctor who signed it. Your driver's license and Social Security card are probably more the state's property than they are yours.
The unalterable fact is that we live in a society, are social animals, and as such share information. I'm with the parent saying that it is right that we should try to influence what information is distributed to whom, but to claim that any information regarding you belongs solely to you is (IMO) a bit silly.
This is exactly what Hitler and the SS did leading up to WWII.
(You're welcome)
More on this argument here
Breaking news! Sugar makes you fat, and can lead to Diabetes! Also apperently if you feed animals sugar, as opposed to what they normally eat they rapidly put on weight.
I'm sure there is actually interesting work actually being done here on the Uric acid pathway, but the headline inspires a yawn, and the summary is just a place for the submitter to air his personal economic pet peive.
Add to that that slashdoters are not the average consumer. If everything moves to a subscription style service we will have reality tv with fantastic production value, (Survivor - International Space Station) and geeky shows or new shows that can't get popular because they're filming on 8mm.
Communism and Laissez Faire both fail to account for the human element of selfishness in their theories. Communism fails to recognize that people need success/failure motivation, and laissez faire fails to recognize that people hoard resources, and put very little value on other people's health, wealth, or happiness.
Both systems are flawed because they fail to see trees for the forest. It's not coincidental that there has never been a true economy (of more than a couple hundred people) that is either truly communist or truly capitalist.
Additionally, there is no perfect balance, and deliberately remaining in a static system due to some philosophical conviction (e.g. "we can't do that it's anti-American) is potentially more dangerous than tweaking the system at the wrong time or the wrong way.
Bullshit. Investors are held accountable for the actions of a company, but their liability is limited to the purchase price of the stock. Perhaps you forgot that lots of people lost lots of money on Enron, especially employees. Tell them they weren't accountable.
Unscroupulous insiders will be able to decieve the investors regardless of the level of accountability of the investors. So you would have it that employee investors would loose not only their retierment, but now their house as well, AND be facing jail time. All because the board pulled the wool over their eyes.
From my previous post: "If Jonny the usually upstanding bouncer has a glock in his coat and some drunk asshat starts something Jonny may feel compeled to fire at him in a crowded bar."
I wouldn't say I equate DUI to concealed carry, but I do think they're analogous. I consider both to be reckless, dangerous, and potentially lethal. I would only extend the analogy to members of the public, excluding police officers.
First they came for the kazoo players/ I remained silent/ I did not have a kazoo
When they locked up the harmonica players/ I remained silent/ I did not have a harmonica
When they came for the triangles/ I remained silent/ I did not play the triangle
When they came for the cowbell/ there was no one left to speak out.
Go for it, trot out the quote.
I've got one handy about swinging arms and noses.
If what you're doing is dangerous to me then it is not your right to do so. I consider carrying wepons in public a danger to me, therefore I belive that your right to "have and bear arms" doesn't extend to public places.
IMO your right to carry a wepon in public is equivalent to your right to drive while drunk, i.e. eclipsed by my right not to die.