Allow me to speculate what libraries of the future looks like... Before this, I'll start by saying that the process of information retrieval begins with a question. Then, we use some methods to get answers from a 'library' . If the library is an actual traditional library, we start by looking for books of the same subject index as the question. If the library is the internet, we use key-words to retrieve pages of information. Either way, once we have those books/web-pages, we read and understand those books and pages to find the answer to the original question.
I think libraries of the future would be more efficient, in that it would make use of information held by itself, and answer the questions you have for you. Library users would no longer have to parse through books and web-pages to decide whether those sources are relevant or not. Instead, the library would answer the original question, and provide references from the information sources backing up the answer. The user is left with one task: ask questions intelligently to arrive at the desired information.
Funny. I was just discussing the complexity of Go with a co-worker the other day. Looking through the post, a lot has been said about 'Go', exhaustive search, search optimization, pruning and what not. Here, I like to offer my approach to writing a 'Go' AI.
As a 'Go' player, I think 'Go' has two aspects embedded in it: a strategic aspect and a tactical aspects. Because the players are free to place stones anywhere on the board, this extra degree of freedom allows players to play the game for a time without significant affect on your opponent. When this is the case, the goal of the players are to place stones in such a way to secure a more solid formation for future engagements. This is what I call the strategic aspect of the game. Eventually, players would place stone close to each other. Then, the placement of stones are important. This is what I call the tactical aspect of the game, and I believe this could be solved by exhaustive search.
This design approach allows an AI program to divide an conquer the Go search problem. At any moment, the AI program would evaluate whether it needs to address the strategic needs (setting up good positions for future engagements) or tactical needs (place stones to secure territory or capture opponent stones.)
I think I didn't make myself clear. What I was trying to say is that the assumption doesn't necessarily hold, and both the Big Bang theory and the belief that God created the everything share the same illogical assumption.
In the same manner, one can say, if you want to believe that the Big Bang started it all, feel free. Just don't pretend that your belief is completely logical.
And finally, I agree, religion is more emotional and experience-based than logic based. Attempts to rationalize religious teachings deny the component of faith.
Deep Blue's victory over Kasparov has been a significant boost of confidence to AI researchers. That said, I like to point out that the match is one that places a handicap on the human player. Why? Kasparov has to deal with life's problems as well, beside playing Chess. Given a set computational capability, the bigger the problem spaces, the slower the computational time. If Kasparov is modeled as an organic search engine, then the fact that it's in the same league as Deep Blue hints that Kasparov's computational capability is higher than Deep Blue, because his problem space would include such things as finding a job, finding shelter, finding food, etc. In short, Kasparov is a general intelligence machine, while Deep Blue is highly specialized one.
One advantage, I think, human has over over a computer is that human can self-learn to solve general search problems, while computers have to be programmed. Correct me if I am wrong, but although neural nets and other stochastic implementations can learn to produce good responses, they have always been applied in a very narrow scope. On the other hand, human can learn to play Chess, play Go, pay taxes, get a job, etc...
In the AI classes I attended, right from the get-go, the profs always talk about AI in a limited sense because there has been no success in the development of a generalized AI. I think we were not able to see our own advantages, because we have all been trained to think of AI, thus intelligence in general, as a specialized problem. In fact, our intellectual adaptability is, I think, what makes us special. You know, animals survive much better than us human. Yet, we can learn to survive (though not as well), learn to build cars (something I do see monkeys doing), and learn to build computers...
I was wondering about your question of how God came into existence.
First, I made the assumption that "in order for anything to exist, it must be first be created."
Then, I re-examine your question, which was "how God came to exist, if He brought everything into existence?" I concluded that this is a perfectly valid question that shows circular thinking of all who believed that God created the world, so long as the assumption I made above holds.
My question would be, why must that assumption hold? Why must all existence proceed from being created?
What's also interesting is this: the Big Bang theory may explain how every matter and energy came into existence. If that's the case, what existed before the Big Bang? Nothing? Just some "flat" space-time curvature? If so, then what existed before that?
In comparison, I think that being unable to answer "who created God" is just as ridiculous as being unable to answer "what existed before the Big Bang". That's my 2 cents.
It's futile for creationists to find flaws in the theory of evolution in an attempt to promote their own ideas. Even if a flaw (however great it may be) is found, it only follows that evolution is a theory that needs modification and refinement. Ultimately, finding flaws in evolution will never show that God created everything.
This discussion reminds me of a joke about a sculptor pointing at a block of marble and said, "There is a human head inside." Then, he proceeded to sculpt a human head from the marble. Is there a human head in the block of marble? Certainly. Is it necessary that there is a human head in the block of marble? Certainly not.
It is my humble opinion that both evolution and the various versions of creationism try to fit what's readily observable in nature into an imaginary framework. Creationism is based on an imaginary framework that an Entity started everything. Evolution, though more supported, still has an imaginary element to it, in that it is based on interpretations of what're observed. The supporting evidence for evolution, once again IMHO, does not necessarily exclude every interpretations but the right one, the truthful one, and the real one. In short, both of these point to a block of marble, which is nature, and make claims. Then, they proceed to interpret what's observed in nature conforming to the claim.
I would dare say that all scientific theories are creations of someones' minds. Therefore, we should approach all theories, including evolution, with a dose of skepticism. Though many in here would treat evolution as an objective FACT. I would regard it as a well-defended theory at best.
As for creationism I only have one question: is this a search for the truth, or a movement for public indoctrination of the creationists' ideals? If it's the former I think creationists have a lot to learn from scientists about methodologies. If it's the latter, then, it is sad. I understand that the creationists' ideals are really the Christians' ideals. I understand that Christians are commanded to spread the word of God, and that Christians honestly promote Christ out of sincerity. However, arguing the creationists' case under veil of science do nothing but encourages discord; it won't change any lives for the better and that is, supposedly, motivation behind it all...
Much has been, and will be, said on the topics of faith. Much of these discussions, however, are made without actually defining the subject itself. So, as a step forward, I like to propose a definition of 'faith' so as to move this discussion forward in a conductive manner.
Faith is a belief without evidence or proof. It is not something a person possesses or not, since a person can believe in one thing without evidence, while being critical about another. Along the same train of thoughts, faith is not a boolean yes/no state. Rather, faith is the product of a process developed over time. A simple example we all experience is that of buying mutual funds. When we buy a mutual fund, there are past records and evidence to prove that the fund's year-over-year interest is X%. Based on this number, you can decide whether this is a good fund or not. Your faith in the fund being a good one improves over time, if the fund continues to perform well into the future, and vice versa.
At this point, I like to point out that a faithful person begins by being rational, and perhaps even critical. As he/she gains more confidence in the subject, he/she may require less proof/evidence in the subject. Also, the same faithful person may begin to believe in statements that are related to the subject. For example, the parents of a child feed him every day. The child concludes, from observation, that his parents are nice to him. Then, he may have faith in the niceness of his parents that they would buy him toys when he asks for it, even if there may be no evidence to support the belief.
I hope this post has been conductive to understand faith and an the faithfuls. It's never useful to simply label them as unthinking, irrational, or stupid.
I like to further question the implicit assumption made by the author of this article: that simplicity is always equal to better security. Yes, a system with a simpler, more elegant design feels better to work with. Yet, it doesn't necessarily means better security.
Rather than looking at a system's design, I think a more meaningful measurement of a system's security is to look at: 1) the number of people looking for new security flaws, and 2) the time it takes for patches to be released given an exploit. (1) measures how much effort is put into finding not-yet-discovered exploits. If there are not enough people who are looking for new security flaws, then at best, the system is secured by obscurity. (2) measures the responsiveness and effort to fix known exploits. Naturally, if an exploit is found, a user wants that exploit fixed ASAP.
Looking a system's design (graph), then drawing conclusions about the system's security, is like saying that a system can be done right in the first cut. If the design is done well, then it necessarily results in a good implementation. (Granted, if design is poor, then it's harder to make the implementation good...)
I like to question the implicit assumption made by the author of this article: that simplicity is always equal to better security. Yes, a system with a simpler, more elegant design feels better to work with. Yet, it doesn't necessarily means better security.
Rather than looking at a system's design, I think a more meaningful measurement of a system's security is to look at: 1) the number of people looking for new security flaws, and 2) the time it takes for patches to be released given an exploit. (1) measures how much effort is put into finding not-yet-discovered exploits. If there are not enough people who are looking for new security flaws, then at best, the system is secured by obscurity. (2) measures the responsiveness and effort to fix known exploits. Naturally, if an exploit is found, a user wants that exploit fixed ASAP.
Looking a system's design (graph), then drawing conclusions about the system's security, is like saying that a system can be done right in the first cut. If the design is done well, then it necessarily results in a good implementation. (Granted, if design is poor, then it's harder to make the implementation good...)
First of all, I agree that some rights are inalienable.
That said, I like to comment on your fingers analogy. If I understand your post correctly, you are saying the fact that the Constitution mentioned something about Mr. Gonzales' fingers, then those fingers reasonably exist, right?
If that's the case, I like to point out that the analogy assumes the conclusion that you wish to draw. Sorry to be picky, but in my humble opinion, I think that many court cases went sour not because of the "spirits" behind the argument, but because the way the arguments are presented. In our common law legal system, it's quite possible to lose some of these 'inalienable' rights in a court case simply because of the ineptness of those defending those rights.
In an argument with legal precision, assumptions are often questioned to make it very clear that both parties acknowledge those assumptions; it may be true that both parties find the assumptions reasonable, but the assumptions are stated out loud nevertheless. This situation would be tragic, if we lost the Habeas Corpus rights because some legal defenders fail to see that the Constitution does assume the right's existence to begin with.
Most remote attacks targeting Windows are related to buffer-overflowing. The whole point is, you overflow an input buffer in such a way to actually take control of the Program Counter register and with that, you can inject and execute all sorts of assembly instructions. Since you are talking about assembly instructions, I can see why attacks targeting Windows system do not work against the Mac OS.
This article makes me wonder: how vulnerable is a Mac? First of all, Intel processors now get to live life in a Mac. Does that mean now, new Mac's are vulnerable? As well, does Mac OS handle the sub-routine stacks the same way as Windows? If so, then all attackers need to do is inject PowerPC specific assembly instructions. One would expect, then, that a Mac is really just as vulnerable as a PC.
Can someone technical offer their opinions on these questions? Thanks.
I like to point out that most Windows based attacks get around the OS level security mechanisms. For example, buffer overflow attacks essentially allow attackers to execute assembly instructions remotely. From there, an attacker can do all sorts of things to get around whatever security mechanisms (e.g. password based access control) in the OS.
The original article says a Mac is more secure because the current Trojans that are wide-spreaded do not affect a Mac. That does not mean a Mac OS has less vulnerabilities to be exploited. What it does mean is that there are more KNOWN vulnerabilities with a Windows-based system than a Mac. The difference is subtle, and for all practical purposes, Mac users may have to deal with less vectors of attacks.
In computer security, there is a notion that security through obscurity is ineffective. Also, false sense of security is worse than using something that is known to be vulernable; at least with the latter, you would do something to address the vulnerabilities. What I worry about is that the public has been educated to "trust" a Mac, without knowing the true story: that a Mac seems more secure because not as many black-hats bother to attack a Mac.
Thanks for your comments. Yet, I think your analogy of jumping ship is misleading. With jumping ships, those who leave the ship never get back on the ship. In the case of switching to Guild Wars, you can switch between the two at ease. As well, in the case of jumping ships, being off a ship is a... highly detrimental thing. In the case of switching to Guild Wars, you are getting entertained instead of waiting to logon/being frustrated about server shut-downs.
Mind you, I suggest Guild Wars because it's another MMORG... Everyone is free to do whatever they want while waiting. Go for a run, read a book, study for finals, etc.
I have a solution to your WoW server problems. It's call, "Guild Wars". Size, that's WoW's server woes. The more popular something is, the more traffic it generates, and the more traffic related problems it has. There are two approaches to solve traffic related problems. 1) you wait until the engineers at Blizzard to fix these problems, or 2) you lessen the traffics. Now, looking at real life, it seems that WoW traffic problems are being created faster than the engineers can fix them. So, we should pick the second option: play something else while server is down to lessen the traffics. Eventually, there will be an equilibrium between server problems generated by inflow of people, to outflow of people leaving (temporary) to play out Guild Wars. When this equilibrium is achieved, the software engineers at Blizzard can start to resolve server issues without being flooded by new ones.
I suggested Guild Wars because it's a pretty good game, without monthly cost.
As a side note, I think Blizzard realizes that the market for their MMORG is so big, that they can start another MMORG (say, World of Starcraft) in another network and charge two subscriptions instead of one. When players have problem logging into one MMORG, they can just play the other... This way, Blizzard gets paid both ways.
Pardon my ignorance, I have some questions I like to have answered:
* When they say they found fossils of eight individual primitive hominids, what exactly did they find? How complete are the fossils in terms of percentage?
* Would you explain to me how an anthropologist can classify a whole animal and infer its evolutionary stage, given a few small pieces of bone fragments?
I ask these questions humbly. Thank you in advance.
Just a quick comment here. We must be very careful to separate the science and the people who study science. The formal should be evaluated as objectively as possible, but the formal you can choose to like or dislike based on their personalities. If the dissenters are getting suppressed then that's a human/subjectivity problem. It should not be allowed in the scientific community. Do not let the fact that the pro-global warming side suspress dissenters lead you to discredit the global warming model... Doing so would be Ad hominem.
When I was reading the article, I get a distinct feeling that the global warming model has been too quickly classified as, and I quote, "junk science". Yes, some actual data do not fit the model, but I would call that model incomplete, not junk.
Interesting... If it is possible to shoot down an enemy missile, would it not be possible to shoot down a plane?
Without going into whether an air-borne laser missile defense is feasible or not, I wonder what counters an "enemy rogue state" would do in response to this?
* Send more missiles in an attempt to overwhelm the system, a twisted version of denial of service?
* Plan software trojans in the control system to hijack it.
* Use more low-tech approach... With payload assembled and planted within the border.
* Another low-tech approach... Get the payload shipped to Mexico or Canada first, and then smuggle into our land...
The list goes on and on... What I am trying to say is, you close one hole, but there are still many others to fill. We are still not yet ready to impose our policies on others without repercussion yet.
I like to quote from a book considered by the Intelligent Design (ID) camp to be the defacto authority in this debate. I hope to settle this once and for a long time, because much debate wearies the mind.
' And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Luke 18:6-8 '
I like to highlight that last rhetorical question in the passage. When I read that, I think it is saying "Sure, the Lord avenges his chosens. However, if He does it, when He returns He would not find anyone who believes in Him based on faith." In other words, the Christian God, by His own will, withholds so that there is an opportunity for people to believe in Him by faith, not by reason or ample evidence. If the ID's own authority places value on faith, why do they spend so much effort to prove things in a logical manner, and subsequently work against their own authority?
Thank goodness that Einstein thought the Newtonian theory of gravity was incorrect, and came up with general relativity...
Not every publicly acknowledged statements are correct, and in the academia, sometimes you do have to prove those statements. For something such as evolution vs intelligent design, which is still under debate (regardless of whether the debate should continue or not), from the academia's perspective it still warrants some good evidence. The fact evolution is established in the mind of the public means that the job for the prof is easier.
I like to point out that the MAIN issue in the article has been lost due to the North American cultural war between Evolution and Intelligent Design. Sparked by this event, there will be many posts made to debate whether evolution is correct or not. Yet, at the end, these posts will all be irrelevant to the main issue. Here is the summary of the article I read:
"A funding request for an academic study has been denied by a review board, due to, and I quote, 'he(the professor of the study)'d failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.'"
Reading the article, it seems that the author has tried to put the issue into the context of an ongoing debate between evolution and intelligent design. That debate is absolutely irrelevant here. What is this article about? It is about the professor of a study not providing enough support in his proposal for funding. The board may very well acknowledge that evolution IS correct, but for the purpose of due academic diligence, the review board decided that NOT ENOUGH evidence has been provided to support "a theory acknowledged to be correct".
Reading this article more in details, the research study in question has little to do with the science of evolution itself. The title of the study is "how the rising popularity in the United States of intelligent design" - a controversial creationist theory of life - is eroding acceptance of evolutionary science in Canada". This is a cultural study: it's about how a controversial theory and the effect it has on the Canadian scientific community. In short, this is a study about people, not about evolution...
Finally, I like to point out that the rejection message was read in front of a public lecture... As a graduate student, I applied for funding and got rejected all the time. Yet, I have never heard of a rejection letter being read in public before... It sounds as if the focus has been shifted, the public roused, and attention redirected to a direction that is, ultimately, irrelevant to the main issue. (picture of many people, flaming torches, and pitch forks in mind...)
I just like to make a comment about the realism as described in the article, without getting into whether I agree with the article or not. One thing that the author of this articles seem to miss is that realism is defined as "life-like". Though making a game looks and sounds real is a part of it, but it's not the only part. For instance, a game of "go" or "weichi" has been around for a long long time, and still enjoy a cult-like following in some parts of the world. One of the reasons for its appeal is that the game has very life-like philosophies behind it. In other words, the presentation is abstract, yet the lessons one can learn from playing may be applied to real life.
On another train of thoughts, one can push the article's main idea and arrive at the conclusion that the best game is not playing at all... I.e. the most realistic experience one can get is... real life.
I like to point out that the court is deciding a civil case (i.e. a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal court case). The civil court is about damage-assessment. In this case, the question is, "Could Rock Star be responsible for the damage as a result of three people dying and one youth being sentenced to death?" The key word here is "Could". Obviously, the criteria to be used in a civil court is less restrictive than a criminal court.
You said, "If the game does not turn 100% of its consumers into crazed killers, then the chances that the game is the vector are rather low". I like to point out that in this case, your point is irrelevant. For the plaintiff to succeed, he/she does not need to show that the game turns 100% of its customers (or even a majority of its customers) into killers; he just need to show is the game influenced the individual Mr. Moore to cause this damage. Since Mr. Moore admits he was inspired by the game, the court cannot dismiss the case. The easy counter-argument against would be to claim that Mr. Moore is insane, and therefore cannot give reliable assessment to his own mental state. At the very least, the court has to proceed with the case to assess the issues.
Finally, you mentioned that the Bible has more violence than the game. I guess you are hinting at another question, "why not sue the people who publish the Bible?" The answer is, "Yes, you can sue them in a civil court". However, in this case, the case would most likely be thrown out. Why? The violences contained in the Bible are there for many reasons other than to glorify them. I.e. the Bible does not encourage violence. On the other hand, it would be difficult to say that GTA does not encourage. Simply put, the game contains mission where killing others is encouraged, if not required.
I am a gamer with some legal background. I just like to illuminate the situation a bit here. Personally, I think the legal system has lost its spirit and intention.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi all:
Allow me to speculate what libraries of the future looks like... Before this, I'll start by saying that the process of information retrieval begins with a question. Then, we use some methods to get answers from a 'library' . If the library is an actual traditional library, we start by looking for books of the same subject index as the question. If the library is the internet, we use key-words to retrieve pages of information. Either way, once we have those books/web-pages, we read and understand those books and pages to find the answer to the original question.
I think libraries of the future would be more efficient, in that it would make use of information held by itself, and answer the questions you have for you. Library users would no longer have to parse through books and web-pages to decide whether those sources are relevant or not. Instead, the library would answer the original question, and provide references from the information sources backing up the answer. The user is left with one task: ask questions intelligently to arrive at the desired information.
B. Pascal
Hi all:
Funny. I was just discussing the complexity of Go with a co-worker the other day. Looking through the post, a lot has been said about 'Go', exhaustive search, search optimization, pruning and what not. Here, I like to offer my approach to writing a 'Go' AI.
As a 'Go' player, I think 'Go' has two aspects embedded in it: a strategic aspect and a tactical aspects. Because the players are free to place stones anywhere on the board, this extra degree of freedom allows players to play the game for a time without significant affect on your opponent. When this is the case, the goal of the players are to place stones in such a way to secure a more solid formation for future engagements. This is what I call the strategic aspect of the game. Eventually, players would place stone close to each other. Then, the placement of stones are important. This is what I call the tactical aspect of the game, and I believe this could be solved by exhaustive search.
This design approach allows an AI program to divide an conquer the Go search problem. At any moment, the AI program would evaluate whether it needs to address the strategic needs (setting up good positions for future engagements) or tactical needs (place stones to secure territory or capture opponent stones.)
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hi c6gunner:
I think I didn't make myself clear. What I was trying to say is that the assumption doesn't necessarily hold, and both the Big Bang theory and the belief that God created the everything share the same illogical assumption.
In the same manner, one can say, if you want to believe that the Big Bang started it all, feel free. Just don't pretend that your belief is completely logical.
And finally, I agree, religion is more emotional and experience-based than logic based. Attempts to rationalize religious teachings deny the component of faith.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
Deep Blue's victory over Kasparov has been a significant boost of confidence to AI researchers. That said, I like to point out that the match is one that places a handicap on the human player. Why? Kasparov has to deal with life's problems as well, beside playing Chess. Given a set computational capability, the bigger the problem spaces, the slower the computational time. If Kasparov is modeled as an organic search engine, then the fact that it's in the same league as Deep Blue hints that Kasparov's computational capability is higher than Deep Blue, because his problem space would include such things as finding a job, finding shelter, finding food, etc. In short, Kasparov is a general intelligence machine, while Deep Blue is highly specialized one.
One advantage, I think, human has over over a computer is that human can self-learn to solve general search problems, while computers have to be programmed. Correct me if I am wrong, but although neural nets and other stochastic implementations can learn to produce good responses, they have always been applied in a very narrow scope. On the other hand, human can learn to play Chess, play Go, pay taxes, get a job, etc...
In the AI classes I attended, right from the get-go, the profs always talk about AI in a limited sense because there has been no success in the development of a generalized AI. I think we were not able to see our own advantages, because we have all been trained to think of AI, thus intelligence in general, as a specialized problem. In fact, our intellectual adaptability is, I think, what makes us special. You know, animals survive much better than us human. Yet, we can learn to survive (though not as well), learn to build cars (something I do see monkeys doing), and learn to build computers...
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hi c6runner:
I was wondering about your question of how God came into existence.
First, I made the assumption that "in order for anything to exist, it must be first be created."
Then, I re-examine your question, which was "how God came to exist, if He brought everything into existence?" I concluded that this is a perfectly valid question that shows circular thinking of all who believed that God created the world, so long as the assumption I made above holds.
My question would be, why must that assumption hold? Why must all existence proceed from being created?
What's also interesting is this: the Big Bang theory may explain how every matter and energy came into existence. If that's the case, what existed before the Big Bang? Nothing? Just some "flat" space-time curvature? If so, then what existed before that?
In comparison, I think that being unable to answer "who created God" is just as ridiculous as being unable to answer "what existed before the Big Bang". That's my 2 cents.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hi all:
It's futile for creationists to find flaws in the theory of evolution in an attempt to promote their own ideas. Even if a flaw (however great it may be) is found, it only follows that evolution is a theory that needs modification and refinement. Ultimately, finding flaws in evolution will never show that God created everything.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
This discussion reminds me of a joke about a sculptor pointing at a block of marble and said, "There is a human head inside." Then, he proceeded to sculpt a human head from the marble. Is there a human head in the block of marble? Certainly. Is it necessary that there is a human head in the block of marble? Certainly not.
It is my humble opinion that both evolution and the various versions of creationism try to fit what's readily observable in nature into an imaginary framework. Creationism is based on an imaginary framework that an Entity started everything. Evolution, though more supported, still has an imaginary element to it, in that it is based on interpretations of what're observed. The supporting evidence for evolution, once again IMHO, does not necessarily exclude every interpretations but the right one, the truthful one, and the real one. In short, both of these point to a block of marble, which is nature, and make claims. Then, they proceed to interpret what's observed in nature conforming to the claim.
I would dare say that all scientific theories are creations of someones' minds. Therefore, we should approach all theories, including evolution, with a dose of skepticism. Though many in here would treat evolution as an objective FACT. I would regard it as a well-defended theory at best.
As for creationism I only have one question: is this a search for the truth, or a movement for public indoctrination of the creationists' ideals? If it's the former I think creationists have a lot to learn from scientists about methodologies. If it's the latter, then, it is sad. I understand that the creationists' ideals are really the Christians' ideals. I understand that Christians are commanded to spread the word of God, and that Christians honestly promote Christ out of sincerity. However, arguing the creationists' case under veil of science do nothing but encourages discord; it won't change any lives for the better and that is, supposedly, motivation behind it all...
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hi all:
Much has been, and will be, said on the topics of faith. Much of these discussions, however, are made without actually defining the subject itself. So, as a step forward, I like to propose a definition of 'faith' so as to move this discussion forward in a conductive manner.
Faith is a belief without evidence or proof. It is not something a person possesses or not, since a person can believe in one thing without evidence, while being critical about another. Along the same train of thoughts, faith is not a boolean yes/no state. Rather, faith is the product of a process developed over time. A simple example we all experience is that of buying mutual funds. When we buy a mutual fund, there are past records and evidence to prove that the fund's year-over-year interest is X%. Based on this number, you can decide whether this is a good fund or not. Your faith in the fund being a good one improves over time, if the fund continues to perform well into the future, and vice versa.
At this point, I like to point out that a faithful person begins by being rational, and perhaps even critical. As he/she gains more confidence in the subject, he/she may require less proof/evidence in the subject. Also, the same faithful person may begin to believe in statements that are related to the subject. For example, the parents of a child feed him every day. The child concludes, from observation, that his parents are nice to him. Then, he may have faith in the niceness of his parents that they would buy him toys when he asks for it, even if there may be no evidence to support the belief.
I hope this post has been conductive to understand faith and an the faithfuls. It's never useful to simply label them as unthinking, irrational, or stupid.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hi Ietxa2000:
I agree with your post.
I like to further question the implicit assumption made by the author of this article: that simplicity is always equal to better security. Yes, a system with a simpler, more elegant design feels better to work with. Yet, it doesn't necessarily means better security.
Rather than looking at a system's design, I think a more meaningful measurement of a system's security is to look at: 1) the number of people looking for new security flaws, and 2) the time it takes for patches to be released given an exploit. (1) measures how much effort is put into finding not-yet-discovered exploits. If there are not enough people who are looking for new security flaws, then at best, the system is secured by obscurity. (2) measures the responsiveness and effort to fix known exploits. Naturally, if an exploit is found, a user wants that exploit fixed ASAP.
Looking a system's design (graph), then drawing conclusions about the system's security, is like saying that a system can be done right in the first cut. If the design is done well, then it necessarily results in a good implementation. (Granted, if design is poor, then it's harder to make the implementation good...)
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hi fellow slashdoters:
I like to question the implicit assumption made by the author of this article: that simplicity is always equal to better security. Yes, a system with a simpler, more elegant design feels better to work with. Yet, it doesn't necessarily means better security.
Rather than looking at a system's design, I think a more meaningful measurement of a system's security is to look at: 1) the number of people looking for new security flaws, and 2) the time it takes for patches to be released given an exploit. (1) measures how much effort is put into finding not-yet-discovered exploits. If there are not enough people who are looking for new security flaws, then at best, the system is secured by obscurity. (2) measures the responsiveness and effort to fix known exploits. Naturally, if an exploit is found, a user wants that exploit fixed ASAP.
Looking a system's design (graph), then drawing conclusions about the system's security, is like saying that a system can be done right in the first cut. If the design is done well, then it necessarily results in a good implementation. (Granted, if design is poor, then it's harder to make the implementation good...)
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hi:
I can almost see the following as a product feature for a future popular electronic product.
"Our [product name] does not deploy DRM technologies, which gives you the freedom to do with our product whatever you wish."
Sad...
B. Pascal
Hi Dr. Donuts:
First of all, I agree that some rights are inalienable.
That said, I like to comment on your fingers analogy. If I understand your post correctly, you are saying the fact that the Constitution mentioned something about Mr. Gonzales' fingers, then those fingers reasonably exist, right?
If that's the case, I like to point out that the analogy assumes the conclusion that you wish to draw. Sorry to be picky, but in my humble opinion, I think that many court cases went sour not because of the "spirits" behind the argument, but because the way the arguments are presented. In our common law legal system, it's quite possible to lose some of these 'inalienable' rights in a court case simply because of the ineptness of those defending those rights.
In an argument with legal precision, assumptions are often questioned to make it very clear that both parties acknowledge those assumptions; it may be true that both parties find the assumptions reasonable, but the assumptions are stated out loud nevertheless. This situation would be tragic, if we lost the Habeas Corpus rights because some legal defenders fail to see that the Constitution does assume the right's existence to begin with.
B. Pascal
Hello all:
Most remote attacks targeting Windows are related to buffer-overflowing. The whole point is, you overflow an input buffer in such a way to actually take control of the Program Counter register and with that, you can inject and execute all sorts of assembly instructions. Since you are talking about assembly instructions, I can see why attacks targeting Windows system do not work against the Mac OS.
This article makes me wonder: how vulnerable is a Mac? First of all, Intel processors now get to live life in a Mac. Does that mean now, new Mac's are vulnerable? As well, does Mac OS handle the sub-routine stacks the same way as Windows? If so, then all attackers need to do is inject PowerPC specific assembly instructions. One would expect, then, that a Mac is really just as vulnerable as a PC.
Can someone technical offer their opinions on these questions? Thanks.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello God's Duck:
I like to point out that most Windows based attacks get around the OS level security mechanisms. For example, buffer overflow attacks essentially allow attackers to execute assembly instructions remotely. From there, an attacker can do all sorts of things to get around whatever security mechanisms (e.g. password based access control) in the OS.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello all:
I like to agree with davmoo.
The original article says a Mac is more secure because the current Trojans that are wide-spreaded do not affect a Mac. That does not mean a Mac OS has less vulnerabilities to be exploited. What it does mean is that there are more KNOWN vulnerabilities with a Windows-based system than a Mac. The difference is subtle, and for all practical purposes, Mac users may have to deal with less vectors of attacks.
In computer security, there is a notion that security through obscurity is ineffective. Also, false sense of security is worse than using something that is known to be vulernable; at least with the latter, you would do something to address the vulnerabilities. What I worry about is that the public has been educated to "trust" a Mac, without knowing the true story: that a Mac seems more secure because not as many black-hats bother to attack a Mac.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello pandrijeczko:
Thanks for your comments. Yet, I think your analogy of jumping ship is misleading. With jumping ships, those who leave the ship never get back on the ship. In the case of switching to Guild Wars, you can switch between the two at ease. As well, in the case of jumping ships, being off a ship is a... highly detrimental thing. In the case of switching to Guild Wars, you are getting entertained instead of waiting to logon/being frustrated about server shut-downs.
Mind you, I suggest Guild Wars because it's another MMORG... Everyone is free to do whatever they want while waiting. Go for a run, read a book, study for finals, etc.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
I have a solution to your WoW server problems. It's call, "Guild Wars". Size, that's WoW's server woes. The more popular something is, the more traffic it generates, and the more traffic related problems it has. There are two approaches to solve traffic related problems. 1) you wait until the engineers at Blizzard to fix these problems, or 2) you lessen the traffics. Now, looking at real life, it seems that WoW traffic problems are being created faster than the engineers can fix them. So, we should pick the second option: play something else while server is down to lessen the traffics. Eventually, there will be an equilibrium between server problems generated by inflow of people, to outflow of people leaving (temporary) to play out Guild Wars. When this equilibrium is achieved, the software engineers at Blizzard can start to resolve server issues without being flooded by new ones.
I suggested Guild Wars because it's a pretty good game, without monthly cost.
As a side note, I think Blizzard realizes that the market for their MMORG is so big, that they can start another MMORG (say, World of Starcraft) in another network and charge two subscriptions instead of one. When players have problem logging into one MMORG, they can just play the other... This way, Blizzard gets paid both ways.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
Pardon my ignorance, I have some questions I like to have answered:
* When they say they found fossils of eight individual primitive hominids, what exactly did they find? How complete are the fossils in terms of percentage?
* Would you explain to me how an anthropologist can classify a whole animal and infer its evolutionary stage, given a few small pieces of bone fragments?
I ask these questions humbly. Thank you in advance.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
Just a quick comment here. We must be very careful to separate the science and the people who study science. The formal should be evaluated as objectively as possible, but the formal you can choose to like or dislike based on their personalities. If the dissenters are getting suppressed then that's a human/subjectivity problem. It should not be allowed in the scientific community. Do not let the fact that the pro-global warming side suspress dissenters lead you to discredit the global warming model... Doing so would be Ad hominem.
When I was reading the article, I get a distinct feeling that the global warming model has been too quickly classified as, and I quote, "junk science". Yes, some actual data do not fit the model, but I would call that model incomplete, not junk.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
Interesting... If it is possible to shoot down an enemy missile, would it not be possible to shoot down a plane?
Without going into whether an air-borne laser missile defense is feasible or not, I wonder what counters an "enemy rogue state" would do in response to this?
* Send more missiles in an attempt to overwhelm the system, a twisted version of denial of service?
* Plan software trojans in the control system to hijack it.
* Use more low-tech approach... With payload assembled and planted within the border.
* Another low-tech approach... Get the payload shipped to Mexico or Canada first, and then smuggle into our land...
The list goes on and on... What I am trying to say is, you close one hole, but there are still many others to fill. We are still not yet ready to impose our policies on others without repercussion yet.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello everyone who contributed to this thread:
I like to quote from a book considered by the Intelligent Design (ID) camp to be the defacto authority in this debate. I hope to settle this once and for a long time, because much debate wearies the mind.
'
And the Lord said, "Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Luke 18:6-8
'
I like to highlight that last rhetorical question in the passage. When I read that, I think it is saying "Sure, the Lord avenges his chosens. However, if He does it, when He returns He would not find anyone who believes in Him based on faith." In other words, the Christian God, by His own will, withholds so that there is an opportunity for people to believe in Him by faith, not by reason or ample evidence. If the ID's own authority places value on faith, why do they spend so much effort to prove things in a logical manner, and subsequently work against their own authority?
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello Tommy:
Thank goodness that Einstein thought the Newtonian theory of gravity was incorrect, and came up with general relativity...
Not every publicly acknowledged statements are correct, and in the academia, sometimes you do have to prove those statements. For something such as evolution vs intelligent design, which is still under debate (regardless of whether the debate should continue or not), from the academia's perspective it still warrants some good evidence. The fact evolution is established in the mind of the public means that the job for the prof is easier.
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
I like to point out that the MAIN issue in the article has been lost due to the North American cultural war between Evolution and Intelligent Design. Sparked by this event, there will be many posts made to debate whether evolution is correct or not. Yet, at the end, these posts will all be irrelevant to the main issue. Here is the summary of the article I read:
"A funding request for an academic study has been denied by a review board, due to, and I quote, 'he(the professor of the study)'d failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.'"
Reading the article, it seems that the author has tried to put the issue into the context of an ongoing debate between evolution and intelligent design. That debate is absolutely irrelevant here. What is this article about? It is about the professor of a study not providing enough support in his proposal for funding. The board may very well acknowledge that evolution IS correct, but for the purpose of due academic diligence, the review board decided that NOT ENOUGH evidence has been provided to support "a theory acknowledged to be correct".
Reading this article more in details, the research study in question has little to do with the science of evolution itself. The title of the study is "how the rising popularity in the United States of intelligent design" - a controversial creationist theory of life - is eroding acceptance of evolutionary science in Canada". This is a cultural study: it's about how a controversial theory and the effect it has on the Canadian scientific community. In short, this is a study about people, not about evolution...
Finally, I like to point out that the rejection message was read in front of a public lecture... As a graduate student, I applied for funding and got rejected all the time. Yet, I have never heard of a rejection letter being read in public before... It sounds as if the focus has been shifted, the public roused, and attention redirected to a direction that is, ultimately, irrelevant to the main issue. (picture of many people, flaming torches, and pitch forks in mind...)
Cheers.
B. Pascal.
Hello all:
I just like to make a comment about the realism as described in the article, without getting into whether I agree with the article or not. One thing that the author of this articles seem to miss is that realism is defined as "life-like". Though making a game looks and sounds real is a part of it, but it's not the only part. For instance, a game of "go" or "weichi" has been around for a long long time, and still enjoy a cult-like following in some parts of the world. One of the reasons for its appeal is that the game has very life-like philosophies behind it. In other words, the presentation is abstract, yet the lessons one can learn from playing may be applied to real life.
On another train of thoughts, one can push the article's main idea and arrive at the conclusion that the best game is not playing at all... I.e. the most realistic experience one can get is... real life.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
Hello Thing1:
I like to point out that the court is deciding a civil case (i.e. a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal court case). The civil court is about damage-assessment. In this case, the question is, "Could Rock Star be responsible for the damage as a result of three people dying and one youth being sentenced to death?" The key word here is "Could". Obviously, the criteria to be used in a civil court is less restrictive than a criminal court.
You said, "If the game does not turn 100% of its consumers into crazed killers, then the chances that the game is the vector are rather low". I like to point out that in this case, your point is irrelevant. For the plaintiff to succeed, he/she does not need to show that the game turns 100% of its customers (or even a majority of its customers) into killers; he just need to show is the game influenced the individual Mr. Moore to cause this damage. Since Mr. Moore admits he was inspired by the game, the court cannot dismiss the case. The easy counter-argument against would be to claim that Mr. Moore is insane, and therefore cannot give reliable assessment to his own mental state. At the very least, the court has to proceed with the case to assess the issues.
Finally, you mentioned that the Bible has more violence than the game. I guess you are hinting at another question, "why not sue the people who publish the Bible?" The answer is, "Yes, you can sue them in a civil court". However, in this case, the case would most likely be thrown out. Why? The violences contained in the Bible are there for many reasons other than to glorify them. I.e. the Bible does not encourage violence. On the other hand, it would be difficult to say that GTA does not encourage. Simply put, the game contains mission where killing others is encouraged, if not required.
I am a gamer with some legal background. I just like to illuminate the situation a bit here. Personally, I think the legal system has lost its spirit and intention.
Cheers.
B. Pascal