Dunno but I just sent a donation a few minutes ago. I donated a bit not too long ago to a side-project. I forgot the name but it was for saving some old manuals in text form - the guy from textfiles.com as I recall. I should probably set up a recurring monthly donation but I try to limit my monthly spending and then, at the end of the month, I'll often just donate what I have left to some needy projects or whatnot. I kind of divide it all up between them if I'm under my monthly budget.
Hmm... I wonder how difficult it will be to get some sort of trust configured and setup? Something that can donate the profits from a bunch of shares or interest - a managed trust where I can just add companies to donate to. I should look into that. It's probably not all that difficult and would probably be better than my current haphazard system where I do one round at the start of the year and then I just do things monthly as I feel like it or notice.
At any rate, it wasn't a very big donation. I spent a lot of money in the past few months - up to and including having someone accompany my dog on a flight from Maine to Florida and they just got here yesterday. I'm not actually sure what I've spent. It's been a while now that I've been on the road. It'd be better, for me at least, if they'd done this closer to the start of the year. At least then I'd know better what I've spent and what a reasonable figure might be. Maybe one of them is here and can let me know if they prefer a larger, single, payment or if they'd like smaller payments at a more consistent rate of, say, monthly payments instead?
If you scroll up the thread there are a few posts saying that this law is a good law, that it is a long time coming, and things of that nature. In other words, people spinning it as a good thing. It was not in reference to you, hopefully you didn't think it was. If it were in reference to you, I'd have just responded to you.;-)
But no, there's a few posts where people seem to think this is a good thing. That it is a law that we should have. I have taken a gander at the text and some other information (linked from the article - I cheated and looked earlier) and I'm not really seeing why this is a requirement. If it's for prosecution then the government gets to get a warrant or the company can already turn it over if they want. They're already able to share data, pretty much without restriction, among themselves with US laws.
Basically, it looks like it does nothing but add complexity with no real oversight and no real benefit that we'd not already have except maybe some benefit of being given notice and that looks to have a whole host of exclusions but my legalese isn't as refined as it once was.
Actually, quite the opposite is true. I was suggesting people calm down, that they think before responding, that they be careful about what they asked for, and that this was a rare thing with no need to go crazy in response. I was called a troll, an idiot, a traitor, and worse. So, no... I did not want this. I did not want it then. I do not want it now. I still stand by my statements made back then. "This is a statistical anomaly and it sucks but let's not lose our shit and end up doing stupid things just to respond and to be doing something." (That's probably close to verbatim.)
Anyhow, no... I wasn't even alone in my cautioning. We were called trolls. We were derided. We were called insensitive jerks. We were called terrorists, abettors, and stupid. Why? For suggesting we not do stupid shit like the Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, no-fly lists, etc.... But, here you have it and no, not all of us wanted it then or now. I prefer freedom to false security. Hell, I prefer freedom to complete security. I accept the risks. I was not alone in my posting. A few others dared to speak up. I think more felt that way but didn't dare speak up. I'm not sure that I blame them for not speaking up. We were drowned out by stupid people knee-jerking because they were afraid. They're still cowards.
It's sad, really. One of the things about liberty is that you allow others their liberties until they've proven they are unable to handle them responsibly and, at that point, you take away their liberties or freedom.
To explain my thinking: I'm free to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so. I do not have a right to kill you without justification. If I'm justified to kill you then I've the liberty to do so provided I've the freedom to do so.
I say that to establish what, exactly, the differences are between those phrases. Chances are rather good that you're already aware of them but I find that many people use them interchangeably or without actually knowing there are differences between them. Freedoms are taken by force or coercion. I have a pot of soup analogy that I've been working on for a few years now. I'll share it, if you're curious. You may have read my prior posts on the subject.
At any rate, the irony is thick here. He's now claiming open source is wrong and that he's no longer a "freetard." I can think of no better way to describe it than to say that I'm disappointed. Like, seriously, disappointed. I've never been a fan of zealots and he's always seemed to be one of the least zealous of the lot. I'm not sure what more to add to it. He's free to be his own person and he shouldn't care how I feel (and I hope he doesn't let my feelings influence him) but, at the same time, this is quite a change from the responses I've come to expect.
He's still got the technical chops and the domain knowledge so I'm sure that I'll still happily enjoy his posts. I'll just have to discount his opinions on a variety of subjects. I kind of hope he's just having a bad week or something. I dunno? It's sad, really. An example would be seeing RMS do ads for Microsoft and actually using their products. Now, I don't like zealots or anything but I'd be really disappointed to find him with a Hotmail account, Windows 10, an MSDN subscription, and doing a Superbowl ad for Microsoft. I might not like him exactly but I'd still be really disappointed to see the change.
As much as I dislike zealots, well, I think we kind of need them and I'm probably a bit zealous about some things. For example, if we had had a reasonable change in heart, as a nation, that had successfully negated the 2nd Amendment then I'd probably side with the law (there's no chance of that happening) or I'd just move. The only way that they'd be taking the firearms is by force and without the rule of law - it's the only way. Any other way is so improbable that we can safely call it impossible in this country and at this time. So, I'd not say that I'm really a zealot. I'd adhere to a lawful order to turn my firearms in or I'd move before the law took effect. That situation is impossible so the only conclusion is that it would have to have come down outside of the law and with an illegitimate government. I'd not turn my firearms over at that point.
Hmm... I'm not sure that I articulated that well.:/ Ah well... I'll elaborate if you need me to.
Yup. Pretty much agreed entirely. The things he proposes are not outlandish. Yes, I'll pay more in taxes (I imagine) but I'm okay with that. I don't mind my taxes, I mind what they're spent on.
It confuses the hell out of many people when I tell them I'm a Libertarian and yet further left than any elected Democrat. Hell, I'm further left than Bernie, probably. I've just reached the conclusions that I have because I can think long-term, not be greedy, and recognize value for the dollar. For instance, I'm in favor of a strong social safety net because it's cheaper for me to feed you and help you become productive than it is for me to hire goons to keep you from breaking into my house and stealing my stuff.
It's cheaper for me to pay insurance for you than it is to pay your unpaid hospital bills. It's better if I can get you educated, productive, and happy than it is to let you work some minimum wage job, unhappy, and doing the least amount you can get away with while still collecting a paycheck.
I'd have a bit more respect for Sanders if he'd just run as an American Socialist Party candidate. He might as well. I'd still vote for him, regardless. I'd actually respect him a bit more for having done so. Bernie, if elected, will probably make my life a little more expensive. That's okay. I only get taxed when I move or spend money and I don't even always get taxed for moving it. I don't do short term investing so I'm taxed at Capital Gains rates almost exclusively. Sure, it's "bad" for me but it's much better for you if he's elected.
I'm okay with that. Thus, he has my support. The world does not, for example, revolve around me. Sometimes my personal desires need to ride at the back of the bus. If my taxes go up, honestly, I won't be impacted at all nor will it curb my spending habits one bit. You could double my taxes and I'd not even really notice. I'd not even mind *if* the money were spent wisely.
As it stands now, I generally pay the least amount allowed by law. (Tax avoidance is legal, evasion is not.) I don't always keep track of things like donations or I wish to donate anonymously so I don't get to write all of that off. Otherwise, lots gets written off and a lot is in trusts, LLCs, etc. I'm comfortable paying more in taxes, I just don't want to pay for giving more tax breaks to those who do not need it, bombing little brown men, or a military industrial complex that is simply far larger than it needs to be.
Ah well... I'm doing what I can to help. Well, what I have time for. I want Sanders to win because he's the best chance you've got. We may be at some sort of tipping point. He may not be best for me and my personal situation and I'm okay with that. I'm fine, I'll be just fine. In fact, I'll be great. It's you (generic you - not you personally) that I worry about.
I don't think that I'd want an autonomous automobile because I enjoy driving. I enjoy it even when it's a mundane drive - I even enjoy it in traffic. The novelty has not yet worn off and, given my age, it seems likely to stick around. That said, I'll probably want something like this when I'm no longer able to drive myself in a safe manner.
The thing about 4WD is that most people don't understand what it is. I liken it to 4WD meaning that you're able to go faster in situations where you probably shouldn't. It certainly can help with deceleration and cornering but not necessarily in ways that people expect. I live in Maine and drive on things like ice and snow. It's not uncommon to have to actually use the gas to keep the vehicle in a controlled skid to negotiate a corner due to poor road conditions that would otherwise force your car into the ditch.
I worked in the industry tangentially, at least, and I once read a study that put something like 70% of all reported accidents having taken place in parking lots. So, I've no qualms with taking your insurance claim at face value. It seems rather likely. I'm in a fortunate position and will be able to drive myself regardless of any price increases. So long as it is not forbidden and isn't prohibitively expensive then I don't mind.
I do, on the other hand, have some privacy concerns. I worked in traffic modeling (expanding later to include pedestrian traffic) and I know the complexity. It's almost certainly going to need a mesh network and a central controlling office to ensure the system flows smoothly enough to avoid gridlock. It's going to take a lot of compute cycles and they're going to know where each vehicle is, in real time, and be able to optimize the flow of traffic around each vehicle to get an optimal throughput. I simply do not believe there will be another way - with full autonomy.
I see it more as a gradual thing and I suspect it's going to be longer than many are expecting before we reach full autonomous driving vehicles as the majority of privately owned passenger vehicles. Unless, of course, we're willing to subject ourselves to some rather slow-moving traffic - if that's the case then it may be sooner than I expect.
As for your other post, I agree. I'd see it in professional areas first. Things where there's reasonable expectations and routine. I know some docks now have fully autonomous vehicles that are used for off-loading containers and moving containers around the yards. I also seem to recall someone mentioning that there was at least one mine that had this sort of thing in place. Anything routine or closed is prime for autonomous, fully autonomous, vehicles and there's bound to be market disruption there.
As for the majority? I think that's going to be a while before it's even half the vehicles on the road. The average age of an automobile, in the United States, is 11 years old. Actually, it might be 13 now. This tech is still a ways out. I'd be surprised to see it as a majority within twenty years. Given my age, well, I'd wager on it but I don't think that'd do either of us any good.
I'd expect stuff like long-haul trucking to be taken over, perhaps with a human at the end-points. I'd not be too surprised to see it in taxis and buses. Each programmed, and controlled, for one specific area. GPS isn't all that good in a city where you've things like tall buildings and tunnels. Some folks like to claim that the majority of the population, in the United States, now lives in an urban area but they don't actually know that they're confused. An urban area, as defined by the census folks, is a town with a population of just 1500 people unless they have an institution and then it's a town of 2500 people. It used to be a metric of population density (something like 50 people per square mile) but that's no longer the metric used which is why people are confused or they simply never knew in the first place.
So, there's a lot of work to be done still. People like control - even if it means they're worse than a comp
My father was one of the ones who stomped ashore at Inchon and then was at Chosin. He's a Frozen Chosin or, alternatively, one of The Chosin Few. We are, almost to a man, all going to celebrate the USMC's birthday. "Back in 1775, my Marine Corps came alive." Alternatively, "November 11, in 75, my Marine Corps came alive in Tun's Tavern, PA."
Quantico has a Tun's Tavern themed restaurant/bar. The original is no longer there in PA. I think it burned but I'd not swear to it. My memory is a bit fuzzy.
I think, and don't quote me on this, that it is probably the American who would not expect a Marine to be able to quote literature. We've got a *very* good reputation across the globe. We're expected to be bright, strong, polite, determined, and successful. The barrier to entry isn't all that hard but the barrier to actually be called a Marine is quite a bit higher. There were a few washouts, more than any other force that I'm aware of, during boot.
Some folks can not be Marines. They just can't do it. You do end up with something that's a bit cookie-cutter in a way but that wears off a bit - after they've finished boot and/or gotten out. I did my four years and got out. I went to school and wanted to go further. So, I reenlisted and was able to get some schooling done in there the second time as well as being able to tap the GI Bill for a second round. Depending on your age, there have been some changes to the GI Bill over time. I attended MIT so it was expensive and I had a family at the time.
But, to the brainwashing thing... You know, I can't take it wrong. It's required. Seriously, I don't think you can be a Marine without it. They take a human and turn it into a Marine. They can't do it with every human, some of them are just broken. It's hard to describe.
That said, if you get the time and want to try a quasi-non-fiction book then read Leon Uris' book Battle Cry some time. I imagine you can find it cheap online or, if you're creative, probably free in PDF, epub, mobi, or whatever formats. Somebody might have shared it by now. It's an excellent book written by a Marine who then went on to work in Hollywood. I'd offer to loan, or give, you a copy but I am nowhere near my actual home. (This isn't my home, I do have a house here.)
I don't know how much is in you before you're a Marine or how much they have to mold you into a Marine. I imagine it varies for everyone. I was already fairly familiar with the program (I'd an older sibling, father, uncles, grandfather, etc who'd all been in the Marines. I lived on/near base for most of my childhood until I was sent off to prep school.)
Hmm... I thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, that MOND was rather specifically meant to be used to deal with situational results that were unexpected or did not conform to the existing theories and maths? So, in other words, one area of the galaxy would use a slightly different model than another as there might be different effects seen in those areas.
An example would be that we'd find different areas of the galaxy with a greater concentration of dark matter than we'd find in other areas and thus, perhaps by mapping or observation, we'd adjust the maths to suit and work with that as the premise to account for things unknown, unmeasured, or unseen. Perhaps I'm not articulate enough but I've edited this a couple of times as I thought about it. Hopefully I'm expressing my curiosity well enough and clear enough.
I think that, and I may be missing something, the most important thing is not the actual images (those are awesome) but that the prediction turned out to be true in this particular case. I'd absolutely hate to see the maths involved in this. Well, no... I guess I'd like to see them and have someone actually explain them to me - so long as I don't have to solve them.
The more I think about it, well... It's quite fascinating. I've been lucky to have been alive at this particular time. I was born in the late 1950s and so much has changed. The refining of the maths, the discoveries, and the implications are fantastic to the point where I'd, as a young adult, have had difficulty believing we'd have come this far.
I do wish Feynman were alive to see this. I guess I wish Einstein could see this too. Meh, at least we've still got Susskind, Gates, Cox, and Greene. There are surely more to add to the list but it has been great to see the progress made. I don't always understand it, not everything, but I'm frequently able to understand enough, just enough, to be fascinated.
And another near brilliant observation on your part. That makes me strangely happy.;-) The last half dozen threads about Dark Matter had me feeling a bit disappointed with people. I love to learn new things and that's why I'm here.
At any rate, and correct me if I'm mistaken, that's why it is so important and impressive. This made a testable prediction and, yet again, we've determined that the math has been accurate enough to reasonably conclude that, well, the math is correct. This may, of course, imply more than that. What's important is that the prediction was made, tested, and verified.
Now, in line with an above comment and two prior threads, I'm pretty sure that Dark Matter is actually a result of Purple Unicorn Farts. They are concentrated and have magical properties (that are consistent) and are causing the lensing effects that the maths hadn't previously accounted for. I've seen a few other strange theories, shall we say.
At any rate, I think it was some guy from Russia who was postulating that if we could fingerprint this DM we might be able to find differences in where they are as to where they should be and those differences might be indicative of us having bumped into another universe. I'm suspecting that they'll prove no such thing but it will be really interesting to see what happens. I highly doubt that any consensus will be found in the dwindling numbers of years that I've remaining to me, but it's not against any of the laws of physics that I'm aware of. (Of course, I'm certainly not aware of all of them. Contrary to popular opinion, I do not know everything.)
I guess my point in replying is that someone needs to thank you for taking the time to post. Sometimes mods don't know or aren't familiar with the subjects and you end up with very good posts not being recognized as such.
Nice! That's my thinking as well. This means, at least, that the maths that predict the results of Dark Matter are correct in this instance. This means that we're one step closer to, maybe, getting to figure it out a bit more. I read a bit of a study about some findings of "strands" (I think that's what they were calling them) that were quite close (around the moon) and that we're able to actually see, specifically, where the lensing is happening at it's greatest effect.
Unfortunately, there has been some serious harm done by the title - in my humble opinion. Too many people see "Dark Matter" and, maybe, read a article about it where a wild prediction is made as to what it is and assume that it is something other than what it is. The reality is, buggered if they know. But, this shows that the math is correct (for this instance) and that they are on the right track.
Frankly, I find it amazing and am a little giddy about it. I'm quite hopeful that they'll get me a new documentary out in the next six months or so. I find a good writer and presenter do better justice, for me, as it's not a scholarly pursuit but a general entertainment pursuit.
This tells us that the math is probably correct. I'm a layman but I'll try to explain. The resultant lensing is different than it would be if we did not know about DM. (We don't actually know what DM is, really.) We can observe the effects of DM. This is demonstrating that we're not getting the results we'd expect without DM but we're getting the results we expect *with* DM taken into account and, because of this, we were able to accurately predict where and when we'd be able to get a picture of it.
It's quite significant, I think. Note, the word "we" is "we the humans" and not "we" as in I am involved. I am purely a laymen with an interest in physics and astrophysics. I even have an interest in QM but I find that very confusing at times. Some of it, I get. Others? Well... The multiverse thing confuses me. But, I digress...
Well no, I don't digress... See, if we can find out more about DM then we may be able to check the expected fingerprint, compare it with the maths, and then determine if, perhaps, we've ever collided with another universe. That is, of course, not my theory but one from Greene, Gates, Susskind, et al. Add to this the recent detection of the effects around the moon (perhaps in some sort of waves or strands) and a recent launch from China that is coming online soon well... Hopefully I end up getting some new documentaries to learn from.
Speaking of documentaries, I really much prefer those like Cox or Green. Susskind should do some as should Gates. I appreciate when they say things like, "Well, if you believe in the current physics." Or, "This is what it might be..." Or, "Current mathematical models predict..." I appreciate them being open and honest and suggesting that things are not laws when they're simply theories (often at best, using a strict definition).
Now that is digression but still fairly topical. At any rate, I look forward to learning more about this in the near future. I'm actually kind of excited.;-)
Yeah, I think I understand that now. Thanks. I've taken a look at a few links and I kind of grok it now. I'm mostly unfamiliar with cryptography though it was briefly, very briefly, discussed. It had nothing to do with the things I was planning on and so I never took an interest and never did any additional study. I probably should but I probably won't except to pick up bits and pieces here and there for curiosity.
I appreciate your honesty and I appreciate that you've a right to hold and voice an opinion. I've never been an open source zealot but I do hold those who are in high esteem so long as they're not forcing everyone to follow their lead. They've a right to their beliefs but no right to force others to adhere to their standards.
I think we're through here. Thank you for the response and confirmation.
Thank you for explaining and I see where you're coming from. I'm an applied mathematics grad, actually. I know, literally, almost nothing about encryption as it was simply not something that interested me and we barely covered it in any of the classes that I took.
And I think I get it now. We can go on and on about randomness. Now that I understand, I hope, one wouldn't really need true random in order to make use of this - even outside of a perfect world.
Hmm... I read that and, well, I noted the part below your link. Namely, the problems section. Allow me to quote, if you will and do not object, to your own link:
Despite Shannon's proof of its security, the one-time pad has serious drawbacks in practice because it requires:
Truly random (as opposed to pseudorandom) one-time pad values, which is a non-trivial requirement. See Pseudorandom number generator.
Also, this but not as important:
The theoretical perfect security of the one-time-pad applies only in a theoretically perfect setting; no real-world implementation of any cryptosystem can provide perfect security because practical considerations introduce potential vulnerabilities.
I surmise that, simply, the proof is wrong as we have no true random and may never have true random. Hard as fuck, yes. Perfect? I object.
I'm pretty sure that I am missing something. Again, I thank you for your patience. Some things sink in slowly - I'm thinking that I'm not explaining it well.
If you send a cypher via OTP and someone goes and kills Harry then, by reasonable conclusion, with enough time - we can find that you, who sent the message, told that someone to go kill poor Harry (well, he probably deserved it). Random does not, as far as we know, exist. What we do have are probabilities. They are not the same.
I could have sworn so but I don't know if it was you or not but there was a huge thread about it and it might have been an AskSlashdot that ended up devolving into odd sub-threads. I might have been smoking weed.
Pfft... Have you not seen the past half dozen, or so, threads where DM was mentioned? I'm awaiting it for the amusement factor. Why else would I be here? You've gotta be new here.
The night before my divorce was finalized, I had a bachelor party. It was huge and I was very drunk. They tell me that I had a good time.
Not that this matters. I just figured I'd add it to the list of absurdities that are being posted in this thread. I don't get why people are spinning this as a good thing.
I get where you are missing my point which, I admit, was probably made in a separate thread. This is, of course, simply defeated and (probably) unbreakable by sending "PINKANDPURPLEGARBONZOBEANS" which will mean nothing to you but there are five of us on the planet who will absolutely know what it means and giggle like little school girls. So, it's useful but is it *truly* unbreakable if the message is "GOKILLHARRY" or the likes? By truly unbreakable, I don't mean damned hard - I mean truly unbreakable, that it can *never* be solved?
Thank you for your patience, by the way. It's hard for me to grasp the idea that there's something (like this) that math can not do - eventually. Maybe, before I die, I'll make a random OTP and cypher the digits to a Swiss bank account and whoever gets it right (and the password) will get the money in it. I guess I could do GPS coordinates.
Heh... We used Lotus back in the day. I must admit, I don't recall ever liking it. At the time, I wasn't really able to find anything better that could be rolled out as quickly and I had other things to do and no real IT staff as of yet. I made those poor bastards put up with it for years. I am sorry. But, in my defense, it did *kind of* work, most of the time, and for some definition of work.
We don't really know. The naming is unfortunate. It makes people come to all sorts of conflated confused conclusions - often without any help from others.;-) I liken it to calling it the God Particle. A very unfortunate naming process.
What DM is, and I'm just a layman, is what ever it is that causes this effect. Now, we've got some ideas and some maths and some of it even works. Proving this seems to be a bit of a stretch at this point but there are some folks thinking we might be able to really test it a bit more and draw some conclusions. We seem to be able to detect something, something new, and that something is where the effect, gravitational lensing, is coming from.
Given that they were able to make this prediction and then have it come true means we're getting a bit closer to at least detecting concentrations of DM if not actually finding out what it really is. The Chinese just sent up a satellite the other day. That may get us somewhere closer. This isn't going to be quick or easy and we're going to go through a lot of theories before we're able to come up with a consensus. The word "we" is "we as in humans." I am not a physicist. I am a maths geek and I find the subject fascinating. I do find QM a bit confusing.:/
That reminds me of one of my favorite jokes from childhood. Keep in mind, jokes were a bit different back then. We weren't so very clever, I guess. Anyhow, you may have heard it...
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno but I just sent a donation a few minutes ago. I donated a bit not too long ago to a side-project. I forgot the name but it was for saving some old manuals in text form - the guy from textfiles.com as I recall. I should probably set up a recurring monthly donation but I try to limit my monthly spending and then, at the end of the month, I'll often just donate what I have left to some needy projects or whatnot. I kind of divide it all up between them if I'm under my monthly budget.
Hmm... I wonder how difficult it will be to get some sort of trust configured and setup? Something that can donate the profits from a bunch of shares or interest - a managed trust where I can just add companies to donate to. I should look into that. It's probably not all that difficult and would probably be better than my current haphazard system where I do one round at the start of the year and then I just do things monthly as I feel like it or notice.
At any rate, it wasn't a very big donation. I spent a lot of money in the past few months - up to and including having someone accompany my dog on a flight from Maine to Florida and they just got here yesterday. I'm not actually sure what I've spent. It's been a while now that I've been on the road. It'd be better, for me at least, if they'd done this closer to the start of the year. At least then I'd know better what I've spent and what a reasonable figure might be. Maybe one of them is here and can let me know if they prefer a larger, single, payment or if they'd like smaller payments at a more consistent rate of, say, monthly payments instead?
If you scroll up the thread there are a few posts saying that this law is a good law, that it is a long time coming, and things of that nature. In other words, people spinning it as a good thing. It was not in reference to you, hopefully you didn't think it was. If it were in reference to you, I'd have just responded to you. ;-)
But no, there's a few posts where people seem to think this is a good thing. That it is a law that we should have. I have taken a gander at the text and some other information (linked from the article - I cheated and looked earlier) and I'm not really seeing why this is a requirement. If it's for prosecution then the government gets to get a warrant or the company can already turn it over if they want. They're already able to share data, pretty much without restriction, among themselves with US laws.
Basically, it looks like it does nothing but add complexity with no real oversight and no real benefit that we'd not already have except maybe some benefit of being given notice and that looks to have a whole host of exclusions but my legalese isn't as refined as it once was.
Actually, quite the opposite is true. I was suggesting people calm down, that they think before responding, that they be careful about what they asked for, and that this was a rare thing with no need to go crazy in response. I was called a troll, an idiot, a traitor, and worse. So, no... I did not want this. I did not want it then. I do not want it now. I still stand by my statements made back then. "This is a statistical anomaly and it sucks but let's not lose our shit and end up doing stupid things just to respond and to be doing something." (That's probably close to verbatim.)
Anyhow, no... I wasn't even alone in my cautioning. We were called trolls. We were derided. We were called insensitive jerks. We were called terrorists, abettors, and stupid. Why? For suggesting we not do stupid shit like the Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, no-fly lists, etc.... But, here you have it and no, not all of us wanted it then or now. I prefer freedom to false security. Hell, I prefer freedom to complete security. I accept the risks. I was not alone in my posting. A few others dared to speak up. I think more felt that way but didn't dare speak up. I'm not sure that I blame them for not speaking up. We were drowned out by stupid people knee-jerking because they were afraid. They're still cowards.
It's sad, really. One of the things about liberty is that you allow others their liberties until they've proven they are unable to handle them responsibly and, at that point, you take away their liberties or freedom.
To explain my thinking: I'm free to kill you. I am not at liberty to do so. I do not have a right to kill you without justification. If I'm justified to kill you then I've the liberty to do so provided I've the freedom to do so.
I say that to establish what, exactly, the differences are between those phrases. Chances are rather good that you're already aware of them but I find that many people use them interchangeably or without actually knowing there are differences between them. Freedoms are taken by force or coercion. I have a pot of soup analogy that I've been working on for a few years now. I'll share it, if you're curious. You may have read my prior posts on the subject.
At any rate, the irony is thick here. He's now claiming open source is wrong and that he's no longer a "freetard." I can think of no better way to describe it than to say that I'm disappointed. Like, seriously, disappointed. I've never been a fan of zealots and he's always seemed to be one of the least zealous of the lot. I'm not sure what more to add to it. He's free to be his own person and he shouldn't care how I feel (and I hope he doesn't let my feelings influence him) but, at the same time, this is quite a change from the responses I've come to expect.
He's still got the technical chops and the domain knowledge so I'm sure that I'll still happily enjoy his posts. I'll just have to discount his opinions on a variety of subjects. I kind of hope he's just having a bad week or something. I dunno? It's sad, really. An example would be seeing RMS do ads for Microsoft and actually using their products. Now, I don't like zealots or anything but I'd be really disappointed to find him with a Hotmail account, Windows 10, an MSDN subscription, and doing a Superbowl ad for Microsoft. I might not like him exactly but I'd still be really disappointed to see the change.
As much as I dislike zealots, well, I think we kind of need them and I'm probably a bit zealous about some things. For example, if we had had a reasonable change in heart, as a nation, that had successfully negated the 2nd Amendment then I'd probably side with the law (there's no chance of that happening) or I'd just move. The only way that they'd be taking the firearms is by force and without the rule of law - it's the only way. Any other way is so improbable that we can safely call it impossible in this country and at this time. So, I'd not say that I'm really a zealot. I'd adhere to a lawful order to turn my firearms in or I'd move before the law took effect. That situation is impossible so the only conclusion is that it would have to have come down outside of the law and with an illegitimate government. I'd not turn my firearms over at that point.
Hmm... I'm not sure that I articulated that well. :/ Ah well... I'll elaborate if you need me to.
Yup. Pretty much agreed entirely. The things he proposes are not outlandish. Yes, I'll pay more in taxes (I imagine) but I'm okay with that. I don't mind my taxes, I mind what they're spent on.
It confuses the hell out of many people when I tell them I'm a Libertarian and yet further left than any elected Democrat. Hell, I'm further left than Bernie, probably. I've just reached the conclusions that I have because I can think long-term, not be greedy, and recognize value for the dollar. For instance, I'm in favor of a strong social safety net because it's cheaper for me to feed you and help you become productive than it is for me to hire goons to keep you from breaking into my house and stealing my stuff.
It's cheaper for me to pay insurance for you than it is to pay your unpaid hospital bills. It's better if I can get you educated, productive, and happy than it is to let you work some minimum wage job, unhappy, and doing the least amount you can get away with while still collecting a paycheck.
I'd have a bit more respect for Sanders if he'd just run as an American Socialist Party candidate. He might as well. I'd still vote for him, regardless. I'd actually respect him a bit more for having done so. Bernie, if elected, will probably make my life a little more expensive. That's okay. I only get taxed when I move or spend money and I don't even always get taxed for moving it. I don't do short term investing so I'm taxed at Capital Gains rates almost exclusively. Sure, it's "bad" for me but it's much better for you if he's elected.
I'm okay with that. Thus, he has my support. The world does not, for example, revolve around me. Sometimes my personal desires need to ride at the back of the bus. If my taxes go up, honestly, I won't be impacted at all nor will it curb my spending habits one bit. You could double my taxes and I'd not even really notice. I'd not even mind *if* the money were spent wisely.
As it stands now, I generally pay the least amount allowed by law. (Tax avoidance is legal, evasion is not.) I don't always keep track of things like donations or I wish to donate anonymously so I don't get to write all of that off. Otherwise, lots gets written off and a lot is in trusts, LLCs, etc. I'm comfortable paying more in taxes, I just don't want to pay for giving more tax breaks to those who do not need it, bombing little brown men, or a military industrial complex that is simply far larger than it needs to be.
Ah well... I'm doing what I can to help. Well, what I have time for. I want Sanders to win because he's the best chance you've got. We may be at some sort of tipping point. He may not be best for me and my personal situation and I'm okay with that. I'm fine, I'll be just fine. In fact, I'll be great. It's you (generic you - not you personally) that I worry about.
I don't think that I'd want an autonomous automobile because I enjoy driving. I enjoy it even when it's a mundane drive - I even enjoy it in traffic. The novelty has not yet worn off and, given my age, it seems likely to stick around. That said, I'll probably want something like this when I'm no longer able to drive myself in a safe manner.
The thing about 4WD is that most people don't understand what it is. I liken it to 4WD meaning that you're able to go faster in situations where you probably shouldn't. It certainly can help with deceleration and cornering but not necessarily in ways that people expect. I live in Maine and drive on things like ice and snow. It's not uncommon to have to actually use the gas to keep the vehicle in a controlled skid to negotiate a corner due to poor road conditions that would otherwise force your car into the ditch.
I worked in the industry tangentially, at least, and I once read a study that put something like 70% of all reported accidents having taken place in parking lots. So, I've no qualms with taking your insurance claim at face value. It seems rather likely. I'm in a fortunate position and will be able to drive myself regardless of any price increases. So long as it is not forbidden and isn't prohibitively expensive then I don't mind.
I do, on the other hand, have some privacy concerns. I worked in traffic modeling (expanding later to include pedestrian traffic) and I know the complexity. It's almost certainly going to need a mesh network and a central controlling office to ensure the system flows smoothly enough to avoid gridlock. It's going to take a lot of compute cycles and they're going to know where each vehicle is, in real time, and be able to optimize the flow of traffic around each vehicle to get an optimal throughput. I simply do not believe there will be another way - with full autonomy.
I see it more as a gradual thing and I suspect it's going to be longer than many are expecting before we reach full autonomous driving vehicles as the majority of privately owned passenger vehicles. Unless, of course, we're willing to subject ourselves to some rather slow-moving traffic - if that's the case then it may be sooner than I expect.
As for your other post, I agree. I'd see it in professional areas first. Things where there's reasonable expectations and routine. I know some docks now have fully autonomous vehicles that are used for off-loading containers and moving containers around the yards. I also seem to recall someone mentioning that there was at least one mine that had this sort of thing in place. Anything routine or closed is prime for autonomous, fully autonomous, vehicles and there's bound to be market disruption there.
As for the majority? I think that's going to be a while before it's even half the vehicles on the road. The average age of an automobile, in the United States, is 11 years old. Actually, it might be 13 now. This tech is still a ways out. I'd be surprised to see it as a majority within twenty years. Given my age, well, I'd wager on it but I don't think that'd do either of us any good.
I'd expect stuff like long-haul trucking to be taken over, perhaps with a human at the end-points. I'd not be too surprised to see it in taxis and buses. Each programmed, and controlled, for one specific area. GPS isn't all that good in a city where you've things like tall buildings and tunnels. Some folks like to claim that the majority of the population, in the United States, now lives in an urban area but they don't actually know that they're confused. An urban area, as defined by the census folks, is a town with a population of just 1500 people unless they have an institution and then it's a town of 2500 people. It used to be a metric of population density (something like 50 people per square mile) but that's no longer the metric used which is why people are confused or they simply never knew in the first place.
So, there's a lot of work to be done still. People like control - even if it means they're worse than a comp
My father was one of the ones who stomped ashore at Inchon and then was at Chosin. He's a Frozen Chosin or, alternatively, one of The Chosin Few. We are, almost to a man, all going to celebrate the USMC's birthday. "Back in 1775, my Marine Corps came alive." Alternatively, "November 11, in 75, my Marine Corps came alive in Tun's Tavern, PA."
Quantico has a Tun's Tavern themed restaurant/bar. The original is no longer there in PA. I think it burned but I'd not swear to it. My memory is a bit fuzzy.
I think, and don't quote me on this, that it is probably the American who would not expect a Marine to be able to quote literature. We've got a *very* good reputation across the globe. We're expected to be bright, strong, polite, determined, and successful. The barrier to entry isn't all that hard but the barrier to actually be called a Marine is quite a bit higher. There were a few washouts, more than any other force that I'm aware of, during boot.
Some folks can not be Marines. They just can't do it. You do end up with something that's a bit cookie-cutter in a way but that wears off a bit - after they've finished boot and/or gotten out. I did my four years and got out. I went to school and wanted to go further. So, I reenlisted and was able to get some schooling done in there the second time as well as being able to tap the GI Bill for a second round. Depending on your age, there have been some changes to the GI Bill over time. I attended MIT so it was expensive and I had a family at the time.
But, to the brainwashing thing... You know, I can't take it wrong. It's required. Seriously, I don't think you can be a Marine without it. They take a human and turn it into a Marine. They can't do it with every human, some of them are just broken. It's hard to describe.
That said, if you get the time and want to try a quasi-non-fiction book then read Leon Uris' book Battle Cry some time. I imagine you can find it cheap online or, if you're creative, probably free in PDF, epub, mobi, or whatever formats. Somebody might have shared it by now. It's an excellent book written by a Marine who then went on to work in Hollywood. I'd offer to loan, or give, you a copy but I am nowhere near my actual home. (This isn't my home, I do have a house here.)
I don't know how much is in you before you're a Marine or how much they have to mold you into a Marine. I imagine it varies for everyone. I was already fairly familiar with the program (I'd an older sibling, father, uncles, grandfather, etc who'd all been in the Marines. I lived on/near base for most of my childhood until I was sent off to prep school.)
Hmm... I thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, that MOND was rather specifically meant to be used to deal with situational results that were unexpected or did not conform to the existing theories and maths? So, in other words, one area of the galaxy would use a slightly different model than another as there might be different effects seen in those areas.
An example would be that we'd find different areas of the galaxy with a greater concentration of dark matter than we'd find in other areas and thus, perhaps by mapping or observation, we'd adjust the maths to suit and work with that as the premise to account for things unknown, unmeasured, or unseen. Perhaps I'm not articulate enough but I've edited this a couple of times as I thought about it. Hopefully I'm expressing my curiosity well enough and clear enough.
I think that, and I may be missing something, the most important thing is not the actual images (those are awesome) but that the prediction turned out to be true in this particular case. I'd absolutely hate to see the maths involved in this. Well, no... I guess I'd like to see them and have someone actually explain them to me - so long as I don't have to solve them.
The more I think about it, well... It's quite fascinating. I've been lucky to have been alive at this particular time. I was born in the late 1950s and so much has changed. The refining of the maths, the discoveries, and the implications are fantastic to the point where I'd, as a young adult, have had difficulty believing we'd have come this far.
I do wish Feynman were alive to see this. I guess I wish Einstein could see this too. Meh, at least we've still got Susskind, Gates, Cox, and Greene. There are surely more to add to the list but it has been great to see the progress made. I don't always understand it, not everything, but I'm frequently able to understand enough, just enough, to be fascinated.
And another near brilliant observation on your part. That makes me strangely happy. ;-) The last half dozen threads about Dark Matter had me feeling a bit disappointed with people. I love to learn new things and that's why I'm here.
At any rate, and correct me if I'm mistaken, that's why it is so important and impressive. This made a testable prediction and, yet again, we've determined that the math has been accurate enough to reasonably conclude that, well, the math is correct. This may, of course, imply more than that. What's important is that the prediction was made, tested, and verified.
Now, in line with an above comment and two prior threads, I'm pretty sure that Dark Matter is actually a result of Purple Unicorn Farts. They are concentrated and have magical properties (that are consistent) and are causing the lensing effects that the maths hadn't previously accounted for. I've seen a few other strange theories, shall we say.
At any rate, I think it was some guy from Russia who was postulating that if we could fingerprint this DM we might be able to find differences in where they are as to where they should be and those differences might be indicative of us having bumped into another universe. I'm suspecting that they'll prove no such thing but it will be really interesting to see what happens. I highly doubt that any consensus will be found in the dwindling numbers of years that I've remaining to me, but it's not against any of the laws of physics that I'm aware of. (Of course, I'm certainly not aware of all of them. Contrary to popular opinion, I do not know everything.)
I guess my point in replying is that someone needs to thank you for taking the time to post. Sometimes mods don't know or aren't familiar with the subjects and you end up with very good posts not being recognized as such.
Nice! That's my thinking as well. This means, at least, that the maths that predict the results of Dark Matter are correct in this instance. This means that we're one step closer to, maybe, getting to figure it out a bit more. I read a bit of a study about some findings of "strands" (I think that's what they were calling them) that were quite close (around the moon) and that we're able to actually see, specifically, where the lensing is happening at it's greatest effect.
Unfortunately, there has been some serious harm done by the title - in my humble opinion. Too many people see "Dark Matter" and, maybe, read a article about it where a wild prediction is made as to what it is and assume that it is something other than what it is. The reality is, buggered if they know. But, this shows that the math is correct (for this instance) and that they are on the right track.
Frankly, I find it amazing and am a little giddy about it. I'm quite hopeful that they'll get me a new documentary out in the next six months or so. I find a good writer and presenter do better justice, for me, as it's not a scholarly pursuit but a general entertainment pursuit.
This tells us that the math is probably correct. I'm a layman but I'll try to explain. The resultant lensing is different than it would be if we did not know about DM. (We don't actually know what DM is, really.) We can observe the effects of DM. This is demonstrating that we're not getting the results we'd expect without DM but we're getting the results we expect *with* DM taken into account and, because of this, we were able to accurately predict where and when we'd be able to get a picture of it.
It's quite significant, I think. Note, the word "we" is "we the humans" and not "we" as in I am involved. I am purely a laymen with an interest in physics and astrophysics. I even have an interest in QM but I find that very confusing at times. Some of it, I get. Others? Well... The multiverse thing confuses me. But, I digress...
Well no, I don't digress... See, if we can find out more about DM then we may be able to check the expected fingerprint, compare it with the maths, and then determine if, perhaps, we've ever collided with another universe. That is, of course, not my theory but one from Greene, Gates, Susskind, et al. Add to this the recent detection of the effects around the moon (perhaps in some sort of waves or strands) and a recent launch from China that is coming online soon well... Hopefully I end up getting some new documentaries to learn from.
Speaking of documentaries, I really much prefer those like Cox or Green. Susskind should do some as should Gates. I appreciate when they say things like, "Well, if you believe in the current physics." Or, "This is what it might be..." Or, "Current mathematical models predict..." I appreciate them being open and honest and suggesting that things are not laws when they're simply theories (often at best, using a strict definition).
Now that is digression but still fairly topical. At any rate, I look forward to learning more about this in the near future. I'm actually kind of excited. ;-)
Yeah, I think I understand that now. Thanks. I've taken a look at a few links and I kind of grok it now. I'm mostly unfamiliar with cryptography though it was briefly, very briefly, discussed. It had nothing to do with the things I was planning on and so I never took an interest and never did any additional study. I probably should but I probably won't except to pick up bits and pieces here and there for curiosity.
I appreciate your honesty and I appreciate that you've a right to hold and voice an opinion. I've never been an open source zealot but I do hold those who are in high esteem so long as they're not forcing everyone to follow their lead. They've a right to their beliefs but no right to force others to adhere to their standards.
I think we're through here. Thank you for the response and confirmation.
Thank you for explaining and I see where you're coming from. I'm an applied mathematics grad, actually. I know, literally, almost nothing about encryption as it was simply not something that interested me and we barely covered it in any of the classes that I took.
And I think I get it now. We can go on and on about randomness. Now that I understand, I hope, one wouldn't really need true random in order to make use of this - even outside of a perfect world.
Hmm... I read that and, well, I noted the part below your link. Namely, the problems section. Allow me to quote, if you will and do not object, to your own link:
Despite Shannon's proof of its security, the one-time pad has serious drawbacks in practice because it requires:
Truly random (as opposed to pseudorandom) one-time pad values, which is a non-trivial requirement. See Pseudorandom number generator.
Also, this but not as important:
The theoretical perfect security of the one-time-pad applies only in a theoretically perfect setting; no real-world implementation of any cryptosystem can provide perfect security because practical considerations introduce potential vulnerabilities.
I surmise that, simply, the proof is wrong as we have no true random and may never have true random. Hard as fuck, yes. Perfect? I object.
I'm pretty sure that I am missing something. Again, I thank you for your patience. Some things sink in slowly - I'm thinking that I'm not explaining it well.
If you send a cypher via OTP and someone goes and kills Harry then, by reasonable conclusion, with enough time - we can find that you, who sent the message, told that someone to go kill poor Harry (well, he probably deserved it). Random does not, as far as we know, exist. What we do have are probabilities. They are not the same.
I could have sworn so but I don't know if it was you or not but there was a huge thread about it and it might have been an AskSlashdot that ended up devolving into odd sub-threads. I might have been smoking weed.
Pfft... Have you not seen the past half dozen, or so, threads where DM was mentioned? I'm awaiting it for the amusement factor. Why else would I be here? You've gotta be new here.
The night before my divorce was finalized, I had a bachelor party. It was huge and I was very drunk. They tell me that I had a good time.
Not that this matters. I just figured I'd add it to the list of absurdities that are being posted in this thread. I don't get why people are spinning this as a good thing.
I get where you are missing my point which, I admit, was probably made in a separate thread. This is, of course, simply defeated and (probably) unbreakable by sending "PINKANDPURPLEGARBONZOBEANS" which will mean nothing to you but there are five of us on the planet who will absolutely know what it means and giggle like little school girls. So, it's useful but is it *truly* unbreakable if the message is "GOKILLHARRY" or the likes? By truly unbreakable, I don't mean damned hard - I mean truly unbreakable, that it can *never* be solved?
Thank you for your patience, by the way. It's hard for me to grasp the idea that there's something (like this) that math can not do - eventually. Maybe, before I die, I'll make a random OTP and cypher the digits to a Swiss bank account and whoever gets it right (and the password) will get the money in it. I guess I could do GPS coordinates.
Heh... We used Lotus back in the day. I must admit, I don't recall ever liking it. At the time, I wasn't really able to find anything better that could be rolled out as quickly and I had other things to do and no real IT staff as of yet. I made those poor bastards put up with it for years. I am sorry. But, in my defense, it did *kind of* work, most of the time, and for some definition of work.
We'll have to tack it onto the next budget.
I wish I were kidding.
I contacted them in the past. They log.
I believe, if certain Slashdot posters are to be taken as the consensus, it's the Republicans and they want us to die.
Actually, I think they just don't actually give a shit any more.
We don't really know. The naming is unfortunate. It makes people come to all sorts of conflated confused conclusions - often without any help from others. ;-) I liken it to calling it the God Particle. A very unfortunate naming process.
What DM is, and I'm just a layman, is what ever it is that causes this effect. Now, we've got some ideas and some maths and some of it even works. Proving this seems to be a bit of a stretch at this point but there are some folks thinking we might be able to really test it a bit more and draw some conclusions. We seem to be able to detect something, something new, and that something is where the effect, gravitational lensing, is coming from.
Given that they were able to make this prediction and then have it come true means we're getting a bit closer to at least detecting concentrations of DM if not actually finding out what it really is. The Chinese just sent up a satellite the other day. That may get us somewhere closer. This isn't going to be quick or easy and we're going to go through a lot of theories before we're able to come up with a consensus. The word "we" is "we as in humans." I am not a physicist. I am a maths geek and I find the subject fascinating. I do find QM a bit confusing. :/
That reminds me of one of my favorite jokes from childhood. Keep in mind, jokes were a bit different back then. We weren't so very clever, I guess. Anyhow, you may have heard it...
Q: How do you keep a turkey in suspense? ;-)