virginity of Mary remaining intact [after sex with God]
I think there's a translation error creeping in here; the word originally used that gets translated into "virgin" (one who hasn't had sex) can also mean "young, unmarried woman" (`bachelorette', no?).
A young unmarried woman bearing children and remaining a young, unmarried woman doesn't surprise me.
WEP [...] It's almost always the implementation of a provided algortihm that falters, not the algorithm itself!
As I understand it, the specification of WEP gets the crypto wrong---the checksum is linear, which is epic fail. In this case, it was the algorithm designers who failed, and needed more cryptography doctorates (not just math, that's too generic; I'd think cryptography doctorate studies tend to contain all the necessary math).
If the specification was sound and a particular implementation was broken, you'd probably get "WEP is insecure on D-BroadSys Router T-800/850 Model 101", not "WEP is insecure, period." But as it happens, you get the latter.
(My specialty is doctorate level math and cryptography but not WEP in particular; take me with half a grain of salt.)
Am I going to find out they've been abducting little girls from daycare and shipping abroad as sex slaves to fund human mind control research?
You could read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine", the parts about the CIA.
[side note: If you do, and if you read anything about Milton Freedman, I encourage you to read the Cato Institute's rebuttal. And maybe Listen to four episodes of EconTalk: the two with Freedman himself on it, and the two with Mike Munger (one of the "Chicago boys") about Chilean busses.]
[Look at Jaws. Think of the opening scene, when you never even see the shark as the woman is being torn apart. How often that movie is positively compared to Hitchcock. Yet that's not the movie Spielberg set out to make! Jaws front and center the whole time literally chewing up the scenery.]
That reminds me of polar space bears and a certain cave on Hoth:(
("Oh noes, my ice planet is melting; curse you, galactical warming!")
the drastically decreasing numbers of people who actually create stuff on a computer.
I think it's the rate of producers vs. consumers that's been falling, not the absolute numbers. That makes the "computer society" and consumer society in general, but it isn't like that everywhere.
This has secondary effects due to economies of scale and mass production of consumption-friendly but production-hostile devices.
Compare the keyboards of an iPhone and the N900; keyboards are essential for production, clicky-clicky is good enough for viewing funny kitten videos on youtube. (Not my original point; I stole that from somewhere)
Cite me one example of a "well functioning" free market that has existed without externalities, regulation, protectionism, network effects, AND which operates with consumers with perfect knowledge making rational choices.
I'll show you one when you can show me a spherical vacuum of uniform density;-)
That's to say, Free Markets are a model of reality. Like any other model, one of my (Comp.Sci.) professors' quotes applies: "Of course it's wrong---it's a model".
Being wrong due to it being an oversimplification, I can't show you perfect information or perfect rationality or perfect deregulation or [...].
But I can point you to empirical evidence that economics has gotten a thing right or two; I'm not going to look it up now, but somewhere in the first nine chapters of Hal Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics, he references an observation study which suggests that 93% of consumer decisions with respect to transportation choices can be explained from an interpolated linear utility function, in accordance with fairly standard Consumer Theory.
For more: see maybe EconTalk's archives and EconLib; they have a strong austrian bent, at least Russ Roberts does, FWIW. Or the intertubes.
Based on my somewhat shallow understanding of the US ISP market, it seems that "Competitive Market" is a less accurate model than "Oligopoly" or "Cartel". The latter are still wrong because they're models, but they're less wrong because they're better models (again: in my head).
Further, we can explain why there's an Oligopoly by Network Effects (although I think Large Fixed Costs To Entry hold quite a bit of explanatory power too, to the extent they're different).
Also, if Free Markets are not the best models of the following sectors, please let me know what you think the most accurate model is and why:
Bicycles, bicycle repair services, food (e.g. at the grocer's), restaurant meals, gold/silver/(each other metal), wood, glasses and optician services, soda, glassware/ceramics and kitchen utensil, household machinery (washing machines, spin dryers, dishwasher, vacuum cleaners,...), furniture, storage space.
A completely orthogonal question is this: "are de/unregulated markets the best way for society to run?" I think the answer varies depending on sector. Some sectors are natural monopolies, or have built-in externalities, or are non-rival/non-exclusive goods, or have other market failures. It makes sense to do something other than "Free Markets" in those situations. In other situations, letting free markets do their thing is best.
Finally, I'm surprised by your strong reaction. It looks (and I'm guilty of exaggerating here) to me like you think I just killed your puppy. I'm curious; Why is that?
Sigh...not even sure what I'm trying to say other than I'm not sure what the end goal of a capitalistic society is.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "capitalistic", because different people mean different things, but here's one take.
One meaning of "capitalism" might be equivalently named "Economic rationalism"; that is, the meta-policy of doing what makes sense under the assumption that the theories of economics are an reasonably accurate model of the world.
That includes free markets as they optimize [consumer surplus + producer surplus]. It also includes regulation to internalize externalities, and to limit the deadweight losses of monopoly and with [mono=oligo and/or poly=psony], and deadweight losses (inefficiencies) of cartels. There are arguments to be made that economic rationalism includes copyrights ("the incentive to produce is not big enough without"), and there are arguments against ("the first-mover advantage is incentive enough").
In my view, it also includes some results of behavioral economics. People are generally risk-averse, let's take that into account when shaping society. The utility of money seems to be sub-linear, which seems to favor redistributing wealth until everyone is equal. There might be arguments based on negative incentive effects against that, though.
Now, the purpose or end-goal of this?
Well, the set of values one might pick up from an economics textbook is "don't impoverish people", i.e. make the sum of all wealth and happiness* across people as large as it can go; favor the policies that enhance rather than diminish wealth and well-being.
(* economics tends to favor the measurable, in particular wealth. In that sense, it's the guy looking for his keys under the lamp rather than where he dropped them, because of the favorable lighting conditions.)
So, in that interpretation, the goal of capitalism doesn't exist; it has no goal. It is the tool by which we achieve the social goal of making as many people as happy as can be.
(Now, whether it exists anywhere and whether it works are two different questions...)
Attention people -- keyboards are use for more than posting comments.
Welcome to the new internet, where you only use your keyboard for posting comments in forums; the celebrity porn videos (and circuses) you *click* on (duh!)
resulted in attackers exchanging the offered source files for ProFTPD 1.3.3c with a version containing a backdoor. It is thought that the attackers took advantage of an unpatched security flaw in the FTP daemon in order to gain access to the server.
So instead of downloading an FTP server with a security hole, you could download one with... a security hole.
Hi, I'm a non-US company. I'm going to track you american consumers, and there is nothing your government can do about it, unless it wants to violate my country's national sovereignty, which we know from the history it would neve---oh crap:\
Seriously, are you going to include this in extradition treaties?
It seems to me adoption could have been a lot quicker and less painless.
Whether we write down numbers in base 16 or base 256 (each digit in base 10) doesn't make one iota of difference to the upgrade difficulties.
The real problem, one of them at least, as far as I understand, is the lack of incentive for individual people and organizations to move towards IPv6: it's all cost no gain, because none of the parties you want to talk to are on IPv6, and the IPv4 address space isn't embedded in the IPv6 space.
Slashdot Mirror
(If anyone wants to send me even a single IPv6 /64 network worth of pennies, please email me for contact information.)
Not exactly, but I have this chessboard, you see...
Your post makes me salivate. That makes me scared :(
this does have the benefit being one of the best legal protection for free-speech in the world [i.e. in the US].
Q: what do you get if you register free-speech.us at a DNS provider?
A: a free-speech zone.
virginity of Mary remaining intact [after sex with God]
I think there's a translation error creeping in here; the word originally used that gets translated into "virgin" (one who hasn't had sex) can also mean "young, unmarried woman" (`bachelorette', no?).
A young unmarried woman bearing children and remaining a young, unmarried woman doesn't surprise me.
Except if god has a +5 Dick of Aging.
WEP [...] It's almost always the implementation of a provided algortihm that falters, not the algorithm itself!
As I understand it, the specification of WEP gets the crypto wrong---the checksum is linear, which is epic fail. In this case, it was the algorithm designers who failed, and needed more cryptography doctorates (not just math, that's too generic; I'd think cryptography doctorate studies tend to contain all the necessary math).
If the specification was sound and a particular implementation was broken, you'd probably get "WEP is insecure on D-BroadSys Router T-800/850 Model 101", not "WEP is insecure, period." But as it happens, you get the latter.
(My specialty is doctorate level math and cryptography but not WEP in particular; take me with half a grain of salt.)
Am I going to find out they've been abducting little girls from daycare and shipping abroad as sex slaves to fund human mind control research?
You could read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine", the parts about the CIA.
[side note: If you do, and if you read anything about Milton Freedman, I encourage you to read the Cato Institute's rebuttal. And maybe Listen to four episodes of EconTalk: the two with Freedman himself on it, and the two with Mike Munger (one of the "Chicago boys") about Chilean busses.]
a handful of nerds who sell their freedom for a shiny iPhone
Get an N900, it only costs half a soul plus one quarter of your freedom, and it's almost as shiny as the iPhone.
Free Tethering! ;-)
no company has the rights to remotely disable your copy.
I could say the same about the Project Gutenberg books I have on my Nokia N900.
If people know about DRM and don't like it, why do they keep buying into it? Do they care more about having a nifty gadget?
Yes, it's called a Joymaker
That is much more work-safe than it sounds like :-(
[Look at Jaws. Think of the opening scene, when you never even see the shark as the woman is being torn apart. How often that movie is positively compared to Hitchcock. Yet that's not the movie Spielberg set out to make! Jaws front and center the whole time literally chewing up the scenery.]
That reminds me of polar space bears and a certain cave on Hoth :(
("Oh noes, my ice planet is melting; curse you, galactical warming!")
the drastically decreasing numbers of people who actually create stuff on a computer.
I think it's the rate of producers vs. consumers that's been falling, not the absolute numbers. That makes the "computer society" and consumer society in general, but it isn't like that everywhere.
This has secondary effects due to economies of scale and mass production of consumption-friendly but production-hostile devices.
Compare the keyboards of an iPhone and the N900; keyboards are essential for production, clicky-clicky is good enough for viewing funny kitten videos on youtube. (Not my original point; I stole that from somewhere)
his gun affliction
Are you thinking of Eric Raymond here?
Cite me one example of a "well functioning" free market that has existed without externalities, regulation, protectionism, network effects, AND which operates with consumers with perfect knowledge making rational choices.
I'll show you one when you can show me a spherical vacuum of uniform density ;-)
That's to say, Free Markets are a model of reality. Like any other model, one of my (Comp.Sci.) professors' quotes applies: "Of course it's wrong---it's a model".
Being wrong due to it being an oversimplification, I can't show you perfect information or perfect rationality or perfect deregulation or [...].
But I can point you to empirical evidence that economics has gotten a thing right or two; I'm not going to look it up now, but somewhere in the first nine chapters of Hal Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics, he references an observation study which suggests that 93% of consumer decisions with respect to transportation choices can be explained from an interpolated linear utility function, in accordance with fairly standard Consumer Theory.
For more: see maybe EconTalk's archives and EconLib; they have a strong austrian bent, at least Russ Roberts does, FWIW. Or the intertubes.
Based on my somewhat shallow understanding of the US ISP market, it seems that "Competitive Market" is a less accurate model than "Oligopoly" or "Cartel". The latter are still wrong because they're models, but they're less wrong because they're better models (again: in my head).
Further, we can explain why there's an Oligopoly by Network Effects (although I think Large Fixed Costs To Entry hold quite a bit of explanatory power too, to the extent they're different).
Also, if Free Markets are not the best models of the following sectors, please let me know what you think the most accurate model is and why:
Bicycles, bicycle repair services, food (e.g. at the grocer's), restaurant meals, gold/silver/(each other metal), wood, glasses and optician services, soda, glassware/ceramics and kitchen utensil, household machinery (washing machines, spin dryers, dishwasher, vacuum cleaners, ...), furniture, storage space.
A completely orthogonal question is this: "are de/unregulated markets the best way for society to run?" I think the answer varies depending on sector. Some sectors are natural monopolies, or have built-in externalities, or are non-rival/non-exclusive goods, or have other market failures. It makes sense to do something other than "Free Markets" in those situations. In other situations, letting free markets do their thing is best.
Finally, I'm surprised by your strong reaction. It looks (and I'm guilty of exaggerating here) to me like you think I just killed your puppy. I'm curious; Why is that?
They have a monopoly
Epic Oligofail...
Welcome to the "free" market
Welcome to a Natural Monopoly due to Network Effects and a lack of regulation---quite different from a (well-functioning) Free Market.
Sigh...not even sure what I'm trying to say other than I'm not sure what the end goal of a capitalistic society is.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "capitalistic", because different people mean different things, but here's one take.
One meaning of "capitalism" might be equivalently named "Economic rationalism"; that is, the meta-policy of doing what makes sense under the assumption that the theories of economics are an reasonably accurate model of the world.
That includes free markets as they optimize [consumer surplus + producer surplus]. It also includes regulation to internalize externalities, and to limit the deadweight losses of monopoly and with [mono=oligo and/or poly=psony], and deadweight losses (inefficiencies) of cartels. There are arguments to be made that economic rationalism includes copyrights ("the incentive to produce is not big enough without"), and there are arguments against ("the first-mover advantage is incentive enough").
In my view, it also includes some results of behavioral economics. People are generally risk-averse, let's take that into account when shaping society. The utility of money seems to be sub-linear, which seems to favor redistributing wealth until everyone is equal. There might be arguments based on negative incentive effects against that, though.
Now, the purpose or end-goal of this?
Well, the set of values one might pick up from an economics textbook is "don't impoverish people", i.e. make the sum of all wealth and happiness* across people as large as it can go; favor the policies that enhance rather than diminish wealth and well-being.
(* economics tends to favor the measurable, in particular wealth. In that sense, it's the guy looking for his keys under the lamp rather than where he dropped them, because of the favorable lighting conditions.)
So, in that interpretation, the goal of capitalism doesn't exist; it has no goal. It is the tool by which we achieve the social goal of making as many people as happy as can be.
(Now, whether it exists anywhere and whether it works are two different questions...)
n00b> HELLO EVERYBODY!! :(
l33t> try pressing caps lock
n00b> THANKS IT SO MUCH EASIER TO TYPE NOW
l33t> oh fuck me
(bash.org says connection refused, I'm quoting from memory; the names are likely wrong, FWIW)
Attention people -- keyboards are use for more than posting comments.
Welcome to the new internet, where you only use your keyboard for posting comments in forums; the celebrity porn videos (and circuses) you *click* on (duh!)
http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves.html
resulted in attackers exchanging the offered source files for ProFTPD 1.3.3c with a version containing a backdoor. It is thought that the attackers took advantage of an unpatched security flaw in the FTP daemon in order to gain access to the server.
So instead of downloading an FTP server with a security hole, you could download one with... a security hole.
If observing it would be mandatory [...]
Hi, I'm a non-US company. I'm going to track you american consumers, and there is nothing your government can do about it, unless it wants to violate my country's national sovereignty, which we know from the history it would neve---oh crap :\
Seriously, are you going to include this in extradition treaties?
Sarah Palin thinks? This isn't news
I beg to differ *ducks*
Nor the US Army overthrowing the government of Norway
People might get the impression that the US was after the Norwegian North Sea oil in the first place...
the union of [foo] and [bar] is the empty set
So foo = bar = \emptyset? Or did you mean intersection?
It seems to me adoption could have been a lot quicker and less painless.
Whether we write down numbers in base 16 or base 256 (each digit in base 10) doesn't make one iota of difference to the upgrade difficulties.
The real problem, one of them at least, as far as I understand, is the lack of incentive for individual people and organizations to move towards IPv6: it's all cost no gain, because none of the parties you want to talk to are on IPv6, and the IPv4 address space isn't embedded in the IPv6 space.