... if someone hacks your network to 'gain evidence' the counter-claim should be that the hacking was done to PLANT evidence. Force an end to the assault on your freedom and your character before the struggle itself becomes your downfall.
For instance, if you flip a coin you have a 50/50 chance of it landing on heads. If I just flipped a coin, and it landed on heads, would I now say that the chance of the coin flip landing on heads was 1? I think I would still say it had a 50/50 chance at the time.
Sure, but in this case, the universe is flipping a coin, and if it's tails, you don't ever exist. The fact that you're even asking this question depends on the outcome of the experiment.
The sensitivity is likely a result of both the specific frequency range of the light they emit, as well as their stroboscopic nature ("blinking" at 60Hz or so).
Modern fluorescent lights that are working correctly don't blink, as far as I know.
I don't understand the mentality that places some portion of the blame on me for not locking up my possessions against someone stealing them.
It's not so much to prevent them being stolen as it is to prevent a child or a drunken adult (or a drunken child, I guess) from hurting himself or others with firearms that are laying around.
The likelihood of them being stolen is pretty low and the likelihood of the police actually finding them if they are is too small to even bother considering.
Unlikely to be stolen? Perhaps. Unlikely to be found by police? Not true (on a large scale, anyway). Often it's the same fools who are being arrested by the police for other crimes, and the cops "know" their guns are stolen, but since they can't prove it (because the guns weren't reported stolen) the cops have to give them their stolen guns back when they're released.
But I do have the serial numbers recorded (and backed up!), but mostly because I am a geek and I enjoyed building the database. And my insurance company required them to extend my policy.
Anyway, look at the converse of your argument. You are saying that the likelihood of intelligent life is equated with the likelihood of there being a God?
If humans were the only such outcome of evolution then the chance involved gets smaller and smaller. The smaller the chance that evolution could have occurred the more surprised we should be for finding that it has occurred.
It's nonsensical to talk about the probability of one's own existence, since one's own existence is a given, i.e. its probability is 1.
Even more likely, aliens were about to visit us using warp drive, but our experiments with the Omega molecule (what we call "buckyballs") screwed up subspace so badly that warp drive is completely unusable in our region of space.
On the positive side, it should keep away all those short-sighted Federation officers who think that the prudent course of action when you encounter powerful technology you don't understand is to destroy it.
Yes I'm a gun-toting libertarian. I own all sorts of 'scary' guns. They haven't hurt anybody, at least since I've gotten them. Got a problem with that?
It depends. Are they locked up properly when not in use? Do you have their serial numbers recorded so that the police can seize them when they catch the asshat(s) who stole your guns?
Vaccines are provided to prevent diseases not currently present, however, even vaccines should be a matter of personal choice and no one should be forced to take them.
Do you think it is really that simple? Consider this information about herd immunity:
Although no vaccine offers 100% protection, the spread of disease from person to person is much higher in those who remain unvaccinated. Virologists have found that when a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, the spread of the disease is effectively stopped. This critical percentage depends on the disease and the vaccine, but 90% is not uncommon.
Vaccines are different. If enough people make the "personal choice" to refuse to be vaccinated, you lose herd immunity, and the result will almost certainly be the death of people who were vaccinated, but for whom the vaccine was ineffective.
I think when it comes to something like GMO, which is an artificial food, I would rather play it safe and go with the same foods humans have been eating for thousands of years, that is, non-GMO natural foods. For me, the risk in life and health is not worth it, to allow for agribusiness to make a little more profit
What about as an alternative to dumping large amounts of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers into the environment, where they eventually end up in your food, air, and water (not to mention screwing up the ecosystem)?
You seem to have missed my entire point, which is that it is invalid to group all "GMOs" together.
It's not about whether or not anyone supports or opposes copyright law. The MPAA has claimed in public that copyright infringement is immoral and unethical. Their motivation for doing this is obvious: If they inform the public that some action is illegal, while the public thinks there's nothing wrong with the action morally and ethically, then they risk having the law changed to reflect the public's opinion. Convincing people that they have the moral/ethical high ground ensures that they can continue to benefit from the current legal system, or even lobby successfully for stricter measures in their favour.
Remember their ad campaign:
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A HANDBAG
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A TELEVISION
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A DVD
DOWNLOADING PIRATED FILMS IS STEALING
The message that they are obviously trying to advance is that copyright infringement is stealing, and therefore is immoral, unethical, and illegal. However, their blatant disregard for the exclusive legal rights of others under copyright law demonstrates the hypocrisy of this claim to the moral and ethical high ground. It shows that even the people behind the MPAA are not themselves convinced that the issue is as simple as "copyright infringement is stealing". How, then, do they expect the rest of the public to be convinced?
They're saying Prob({impact} AND {pacific ocean}) = 1/45000.
Assuming the probability of hitting any point on the surface of the earth is uniform, we have:
Prob({impact} AND {pacific ocean}) = Prob({pacific ocean} GIVEN {impact}) * Prob({impact}) = 1/45000
Prob({impact}) = Prob({impact} AND {pacific ocean}) / Prob({pacific ocean} GIVEN {impact}) = (1/45000) / (70.8%) = 1/31860
So, the probability of the asteroid hitting the earth (assuming uniform probability distribution across the entire earth's surface) is a little higher than 1 in 32000, not 1 in 45000.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem..
(Follow-up)
Bruce Perens threatens people with physical/gun violence?
Did you mean "Threatens people (like Bruce Perens) with physical/gun violence . . . "?
What about corporations consisting of one person?
EXTERMINATE!!!
... if someone hacks your network to 'gain evidence' the counter-claim should be that the hacking was done to PLANT evidence. Force an end to the assault on your freedom and your character before the struggle itself becomes your downfall.Nit-pick: That's a defence, not a counterclaim.
... when one of the songs was titled "Acidjazzed Evening"?
Sure, but in this case, the universe is flipping a coin, and if it's tails, you don't ever exist. The fact that you're even asking this question depends on the outcome of the experiment.
This comment explains it quite well.
No kidding. That way, the people who NEED them can still get them, while everyone else will just buy the cheaper bulbs.
Then again, that might require that politicians and the general public understand a tiny bit about economics.
The sensitivity is likely a result of both the specific frequency range of the light they emit, as well as their stroboscopic nature ("blinking" at 60Hz or so).
Modern fluorescent lights that are working correctly don't blink, as far as I know.
It's not so much to prevent them being stolen as it is to prevent a child or a drunken adult (or a drunken child, I guess) from hurting himself or others with firearms that are laying around.
The likelihood of them being stolen is pretty low and the likelihood of the police actually finding them if they are is too small to even bother considering.Unlikely to be stolen? Perhaps. Unlikely to be found by police? Not true (on a large scale, anyway). Often it's the same fools who are being arrested by the police for other crimes, and the cops "know" their guns are stolen, but since they can't prove it (because the guns weren't reported stolen) the cops have to give them their stolen guns back when they're released.
But I do have the serial numbers recorded (and backed up!), but mostly because I am a geek and I enjoyed building the database. And my insurance company required them to extend my policy.Excellent.
Excellent.
... this region of space is scheduled for demolition to make way for a hyperspace bypass.
No, he isn't. Now you're denying the antecedent.
It's nonsensical to talk about the probability of one's own existence, since one's own existence is a given, i.e. its probability is 1.
Even more likely, aliens were about to visit us using warp drive, but our experiments with the Omega molecule (what we call "buckyballs") screwed up subspace so badly that warp drive is completely unusable in our region of space.
On the positive side, it should keep away all those short-sighted Federation officers who think that the prudent course of action when you encounter powerful technology you don't understand is to destroy it.
Who sets the clocks? Who generates the keys?
It depends. Are they locked up properly when not in use? Do you have their serial numbers recorded so that the police can seize them when they catch the asshat(s) who stole your guns?
Aren't DoS attacks already illegal by way of tort law?
Do you think it is really that simple? Consider this information about herd immunity:
Although no vaccine offers 100% protection, the spread of disease from person to person is much higher in those who remain unvaccinated. Virologists have found that when a certain percentage of a population is vaccinated, the spread of the disease is effectively stopped. This critical percentage depends on the disease and the vaccine, but 90% is not uncommon.Vaccines are different. If enough people make the "personal choice" to refuse to be vaccinated, you lose herd immunity, and the result will almost certainly be the death of people who were vaccinated, but for whom the vaccine was ineffective.
I think when it comes to something like GMO, which is an artificial food, I would rather play it safe and go with the same foods humans have been eating for thousands of years, that is, non-GMO natural foods. For me, the risk in life and health is not worth it, to allow for agribusiness to make a little more profitWhat about as an alternative to dumping large amounts of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers into the environment, where they eventually end up in your food, air, and water (not to mention screwing up the ecosystem)?
You seem to have missed my entire point, which is that it is invalid to group all "GMOs" together.
It's not about whether or not anyone supports or opposes copyright law. The MPAA has claimed in public that copyright infringement is immoral and unethical. Their motivation for doing this is obvious: If they inform the public that some action is illegal, while the public thinks there's nothing wrong with the action morally and ethically, then they risk having the law changed to reflect the public's opinion. Convincing people that they have the moral/ethical high ground ensures that they can continue to benefit from the current legal system, or even lobby successfully for stricter measures in their favour.
Remember their ad campaign:
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CARYOU WOULDN'T STEAL A HANDBAG
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A TELEVISION
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A DVD
DOWNLOADING PIRATED FILMS IS STEALING
The message that they are obviously trying to advance is that copyright infringement is stealing, and therefore is immoral, unethical, and illegal. However, their blatant disregard for the exclusive legal rights of others under copyright law demonstrates the hypocrisy of this claim to the moral and ethical high ground. It shows that even the people behind the MPAA are not themselves convinced that the issue is as simple as "copyright infringement is stealing". How, then, do they expect the rest of the public to be convinced?
Thanks for the link and the summary! It's intelligent posts like yours that prevent me from kicking my addiction to Slashdot.
Indeed.
BTW since when did the Pacific Ocean cover 70.8% of the surface of the Earth?Oops. Good point. I wrote "Pacific Ocean" but I used the figure for the water-covered fraction of Earth's surface.
How did that get modded informative? That's not informative. This is informative.
What? So the part about which variables are correlated with drive failures (which is what the report was about) wasn't interesting to you? Too bad.
They're saying Prob({impact} AND {pacific ocean}) = 1/45000.
Assuming the probability of hitting any point on the surface of the earth is uniform, we have:
Prob({impact} AND {pacific ocean}) = Prob({pacific ocean} GIVEN {impact}) * Prob({impact}) = 1/45000
Prob({impact}) = Prob({impact} AND {pacific ocean}) / Prob({pacific ocean} GIVEN {impact})
= (1/45000) / (70.8%) = 1/31860
So, the probability of the asteroid hitting the earth (assuming uniform probability distribution across the entire earth's surface) is a little higher than 1 in 32000, not 1 in 45000.
They're trying to hide the real odds!!~!