So, with the publication of Logical Leap, has the age-old "problem of induction" now been solved?
Nope
Look up "Bayesian epistemics" if you're unfamiliar with it. It provides a perfectly nice, probabilistic mathematically-grounded resolution of the problem of induction, and a foundational basis for "knowledge" which doesn't demand epistemic certainty.
There is nothing more irritating than people approaching a broad, complicated field of study and assuming there's nothing to it. Think about armchair scientist climate-change skeptics who don't know how to do partial differential equations, yet spend their time picking "holes" in the body of work of people who have been working on the problem for decades longer than they have.
Perhaps, given that this fellow was a trained and intelligent philosopher of science who devoted years of his life to this topic, we can assume he isn't actually equating those. Now, I haven't invested the time to understand the nuance of what Feyerabend's saying, but if it were a claim which could be simply common-sensed away by some Slashdot nerd restating a high-school definition of the scientific method, I'm reasonably confident he wouldn't be making it. Don't be an armchair philosopher.
Oh, we almost forgot: objects in freefall, subject to any number of gravitational pulls, are not actually subject to any forces but are merely following a straight path through a non-flat region of spacetime.
"Pictures or it didn't happen" is a perfectly idiomatic, Internetty way of saying "provide support for your claim". That said, I apologize for that guy's tone. It was inappropriate, and you haven't been "stomping your foot like a spoiled child." I am actually interested in seeing your links, if you have them. I suspect your point might even be correct. So please, for the benefit of any number of Slashdot readers who are more interested in the facts than the personalities presenting them, humiliate this guy by proving him wrong, rather than just quitting 'cause he's a jerk. I wanna see what you got.
Huh! Could this much-bemoaned "litigator culture" full of coffee-scalds and warning labels actually produce some sort of mysterious, unexplainable corporate incentives which compel them to (now and again) act in line with the best interests of the public? I can't imagine how! It is a mystery for the ages.
There is nothing inherent in 3D that should be problematic. It is, after all, our normal environment, and 2D is what should be problematic.
This isn't quite correct. In our normal environment, there's a correspondence between the parallax depth of objects (their displacement in the left eye image vs. the right eye image) and their focal depth (the curvature of the cornea required to produce a sharp image on the retina). On any 3D TV/film display, no such correspondence exists.
In a cinema, the distance to the screen is far enough that this generally isn't a big deal: the rays coming from one point on the screen, by the time they hit your pupil, have diverged along such a narrow angle that they might as well be parallel (as if from an infinitely distant source.) But when you're in a living room with a screen in front of you, it's potentially a much bigger deal. We have plenty of reasons to suppose that the brain 'trains' itself on this depth-correspondence, and exposing kids to a lot of visual stimulus which lacks this correspondence could easily throw a wrench into this training process. We just don't know yet.
Unless they can get every publisher to send the hashes for every version of every game they have sent to the CD press, some people will find their games broken
But Sony already possesses them - they had to sign them in the first place! Either that or they entrusted all those publishers with with their private signing key. Which would be a terrible idea.
people who bought their PS3's before Sony manages to rush a new firmware image through the factory, and who hold back their online updates before Sony manages to rush a new one through the update system. Remember, if they can update the signing keys, they can also update the key checking code, so there's no reason the second key has to be as easily compromised as the first.
Anyone who can emancipate their PS3 in this (presumably) short window of time is gonna be able to keep their PS3 well-stocked with spoofed updates from this day forward. But this doesn't break all PS3 security forever.
It could stick to random-access and store checksums of 10MB chunks, or 100MB, or whatever gives them the best tradeoff of space/speed. There's no reason the entire disk has to be verified at once, except that a disk-verifying process running in the background would steal some CPU cycles away from the game.
Depending on the specifics of the checksum procedure, this could be far from trivial. If Sony has any sense they will use a hash function that makes collisions extremely hard to find.
Name one telco company in the US that is a monopoly and inherited all of the benefits formerly granted by a charter from the government. Just one. I won't have to wait very long.
for their customers This misses the point. The point is that people can be punished for peeing in public, and there is no legal guarantee that they will be able to pee on private property. (as this is contingent on them either having their own or else being able to pay someone to use theirs) So it would appear that only people who can afford a Coke or a cup of coffee have any effective 'right' to pee. If you're broke and find yourself in the unfortunate situation of being surrounded by businesses with a "customers only" policy as far as the eye can see, you can choose between breaking the law and injuring your bladder.
In any case, the criminalisation of messy relationship problems aside, what is most suspicious is not the behaviour of the women (whose motivation for revenge is only natural), but the amazingly heavy-handed approach to the investigation taken by the Swedish authorities.
Again I'm gonna take issue with the one-eyed interpretation here. If the accusations are legit, then the women's motivation is still only natural. More natural, even.
But you're right; the really fishy part here is not the accusers, it's the way the local law enforcement has moved mountains for them, without ever appearing to give a shit about any of the thousands of other unsolved sex crimes on their plate at the moment.
The referrer should still be present in the request though, which would seem to make filtering trivial (if not for the site itself, for the upstream providers)
This would require that the upstream providers perform deep packet inspection and look at HTTP payload data - which is an awkward and expensive thing for an upstream provider to have to do. Filtering at the site itself would be ineffectual; by the time the HTTP request has been examined and discarded, it's already done its job, jamming up the internet connection feeding that server.
Slashdot Mirror
So, with the publication of Logical Leap, has the age-old "problem of induction" now been solved?
Nope
Look up "Bayesian epistemics" if you're unfamiliar with it. It provides a perfectly nice, probabilistic mathematically-grounded resolution of the problem of induction, and a foundational basis for "knowledge" which doesn't demand epistemic certainty.
There is nothing more irritating than people approaching a broad, complicated field of study and assuming there's nothing to it. Think about armchair scientist climate-change skeptics who don't know how to do partial differential equations, yet spend their time picking "holes" in the body of work of people who have been working on the problem for decades longer than they have.
Perhaps, given that this fellow was a trained and intelligent philosopher of science who devoted years of his life to this topic, we can assume he isn't actually equating those. Now, I haven't invested the time to understand the nuance of what Feyerabend's saying, but if it were a claim which could be simply common-sensed away by some Slashdot nerd restating a high-school definition of the scientific method, I'm reasonably confident he wouldn't be making it. Don't be an armchair philosopher.
Oh, we almost forgot: objects in freefall, subject to any number of gravitational pulls, are not actually subject to any forces but are merely following a straight path through a non-flat region of spacetime.
The EFF provides all sorts of legal services to deserving projects. I thing volunteering tor them would be a fantastic use of time.
Newsworthy!?? THIS... IS... http://idle.slashdot.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorg !!!!!
"Pictures or it didn't happen" is a perfectly idiomatic, Internetty way of saying "provide support for your claim". That said, I apologize for that guy's tone. It was inappropriate, and you haven't been "stomping your foot like a spoiled child." I am actually interested in seeing your links, if you have them. I suspect your point might even be correct. So please, for the benefit of any number of Slashdot readers who are more interested in the facts than the personalities presenting them, humiliate this guy by proving him wrong, rather than just quitting 'cause he's a jerk. I wanna see what you got.
What's childish is deciding to wuss out of a debate because someone mentioned a 4chan meme. oh WHATEVER can you DO, ALL DISCUSSION FOREVER IS RUINED.
Really?
BRB, hitting "Boxing Week" sales.
You're quite right. I hadn't considered that.
Huh! Could this much-bemoaned "litigator culture" full of coffee-scalds and warning labels actually produce some sort of mysterious, unexplainable corporate incentives which compel them to (now and again) act in line with the best interests of the public? I can't imagine how! It is a mystery for the ages.
There is nothing inherent in 3D that should be problematic. It is, after all, our normal environment, and 2D is what should be problematic.
This isn't quite correct. In our normal environment, there's a correspondence between the parallax depth of objects (their displacement in the left eye image vs. the right eye image) and their focal depth (the curvature of the cornea required to produce a sharp image on the retina). On any 3D TV/film display, no such correspondence exists.
In a cinema, the distance to the screen is far enough that this generally isn't a big deal: the rays coming from one point on the screen, by the time they hit your pupil, have diverged along such a narrow angle that they might as well be parallel (as if from an infinitely distant source.) But when you're in a living room with a screen in front of you, it's potentially a much bigger deal. We have plenty of reasons to suppose that the brain 'trains' itself on this depth-correspondence, and exposing kids to a lot of visual stimulus which lacks this correspondence could easily throw a wrench into this training process. We just don't know yet.
Unless they can get every publisher to send the hashes for every version of every game they have sent to the CD press, some people will find their games broken
But Sony already possesses them - they had to sign them in the first place! Either that or they entrusted all those publishers with with their private signing key. Which would be a terrible idea.
And that helps:
people who bought their PS3's before Sony manages to rush a new firmware image through the factory, and who hold back their online updates before Sony manages to rush a new one through the update system. Remember, if they can update the signing keys, they can also update the key checking code, so there's no reason the second key has to be as easily compromised as the first.
Anyone who can emancipate their PS3 in this (presumably) short window of time is gonna be able to keep their PS3 well-stocked with spoofed updates from this day forward. But this doesn't break all PS3 security forever.
It could stick to random-access and store checksums of 10MB chunks, or 100MB, or whatever gives them the best tradeoff of space/speed. There's no reason the entire disk has to be verified at once, except that a disk-verifying process running in the background would steal some CPU cycles away from the game.
Depending on the specifics of the checksum procedure, this could be far from trivial. If Sony has any sense they will use a hash function that makes collisions extremely hard to find.
Mod parent up, folks. This is exactly the fix we should expect from them.
Heh. "fit."
govern according to the actual interests of your constituents.
You can make my cheque out to "cash."
Name one telco company in the US that is a monopoly and inherited all of the benefits formerly granted by a charter from the government. Just one. I won't have to wait very long.
And that's why everyone hates pennies.
for their customers
This misses the point. The point is that people can be punished for peeing in public, and there is no legal guarantee that they will be able to pee on private property. (as this is contingent on them either having their own or else being able to pay someone to use theirs) So it would appear that only people who can afford a Coke or a cup of coffee have any effective 'right' to pee. If you're broke and find yourself in the unfortunate situation of being surrounded by businesses with a "customers only" policy as far as the eye can see, you can choose between breaking the law and injuring your bladder.
And come to think of it, is any establishment required by law to give you a place to pee?
Oh, and Junior? The sheer depth of his portrayal... He was like a real live pregnant man!
In any case, the criminalisation of messy relationship problems aside, what is most suspicious is not the behaviour of the women (whose motivation for revenge is only natural), but the amazingly heavy-handed approach to the investigation taken by the Swedish authorities.
Again I'm gonna take issue with the one-eyed interpretation here. If the accusations are legit, then the women's motivation is still only natural. More natural, even.
But you're right; the really fishy part here is not the accusers, it's the way the local law enforcement has moved mountains for them, without ever appearing to give a shit about any of the thousands of other unsolved sex crimes on their plate at the moment.
The referrer should still be present in the request though, which would seem to make filtering trivial (if not for the site itself, for the upstream providers)
This would require that the upstream providers perform deep packet inspection and look at HTTP payload data - which is an awkward and expensive thing for an upstream provider to have to do. Filtering at the site itself would be ineffectual; by the time the HTTP request has been examined and discarded, it's already done its job, jamming up the internet connection feeding that server.