You do realize that we have fully functional RO and WoW servers. These are WAY WAYYYY more complex. This looks easy in comparison. If it doesn't get done it will be purely lack of interest. The only way to ensure it getting hacked is boasting that people can't do it.
Yeah. CPU cycles aren't really an issue in this situation. But errors would be REALLY bad. Think of it as optimizing for low error rate rather than speed.
Did the zone the van was in make taller vehicles illegal? If not they've got fuck all to complain about. Hopping the dude's fence would have been trespassing. But driving by the place in a moving van isn't illegal. Google van shouldn't be either. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2219/2051749701_5b81783834.jpg --- Not taller than a moving van window.
It is a giant ass blue van that is well labeled. And stalking/harassment are illegal. If google made a van follow you around they'd be in shit. Sitting outside your house for a few days is probably 100% legal unless it falls under stalking laws where you happen to be. Hanging out by a school is also legal. Putting a ladder against someone's house is illegal. Upskirts are illegal and I've no idea how you would upskirt with a van unless you have a thing for giants. CCTV cams also legal obviously...
So yeah, we cannot easily legislate privacy in the situations you listed. So it isn't illegal. So you should expect little or no privacy while in those places. Perhaps buy better blinds. You make it sound like a big deal 'omg they could know when I'm not at home'. But tbh that is happening anyways. If you are worried about someone targeting your child then they shouldn't be walking home alone. Not complicated really.
That's total BS FUD. Not to mention 'future quoting' doesn't make any sense and is CLEARLY slander.
Not to mention that the quote in your sig is totally out of context. Eric was referring to criminals leaving evidence of their crime online. Then Google being subject to US law handing over said info. Which really is just saying that they follow the law and leaving evidence online is stupid. Something that everyone on/. knows but many people don't (re. girls posting boobies online and being shocked her classmates find them).
"It's a turd of a bill." Yeah but the risk of ignoring Republican input would have resulted in law that the republicans would undo first chance they got into power.
Hackers are paranoid. Hell look at/. users and how insane half of them are about privacy. And hackers, ones in north america rather than russia/china are generally pretty young. Often university or even highschool aged. Older than that and most of them get out of it or get a job. I mean not everyone has money to full time hack. And hacking is 50% contacts and being on the cutting edge. You won't be the best unless you spend a lot of time at it.
As for mature, they are (mostly) doing something criminal for fun. And they are very very smart. Which only leaves immature to explain their actions.
#5 succcks, she basically stops stupid people that put themselves in bad situations from learning any lessons. Stopping drunk chicks from leaving with guys is stupid. To top it off she's sexist: "I protect the single girl living in the big city," Terrifica told ABC in 2002. "I do this because women are weak. They are easily manipulated, and they need to be protected from themselves and most certainly from men and their ill intentions toward them."
However, these are other human beings living now, for which I do have empathy, and therefore protecting them benefits me, by not making me feel the remorse after the fact, if I chose my life over theirs. I don't have that feeling of empathy to future generations of people that do not yet exist.
I find that surprising. The human mind is an impressive piece of machinery. People often feel empathy for fictional characters in books. Nevermind that you KNOW or can determine that there will be future generations and your actions could affect them. Since you know this, then I don't see how never personally meeting them assuages your empathy. What of people in other countries or cities?
I don't think me shutting off the computer....
I completely agree. Being slightly aware and picking and choosing makes way more sense. Screw most of that stuff. I'm thinking a few big things. Perhaps looking seriously into electric when you are picking your next car. It might be annoying a few times over its life but the vast majority of CO2 you cause is your vehicle. Another one might be to buy local on occasion. I don't mean anything difficult. I mean, don't buy raspberries way out of season since you are guaranteed they were shipped a looong way. (This also saves money and makes food better since you get fresher stuff). Maybe when roofing look into sticking up a solar panel, in some areas it is actually a decent investment nvm good for the environment.
Most environmentalists hate nuclear though, and we can't yet do it with wind turbines and solar cells.
I do wonder sometimes if they are purposely trying to block progress from getting anything done. Solar shows some promise but wind power will never ever EVER be worth it. There literally isn't enough wind, even if we harvested it all! I wish nuclear power supporters could get their own title or that 'environmentalist' (a good thing!) wasn't a term getting tainted by stupidity.
Sure. Again, that's progress, you're not asking me to give up anything. I'm not going to go against any of that.
Only sort of. I am asking you to support these things. And support means money. I personally would take money from war and stick it into tech... But generally speaking I want to see an increase in research funding double or triple. This would be a political movement and needs people to push for this change. The few billion a year into tech would be great for the field and for the world. I simply think it isn't nearly as much of a priority as it could be. ATM a lot of tech coming from the US is actually military because they have such a huge budget that the research wing of the military eclipses all the other research. Scary.
I'm all for leaving a better world behind if it doesn't involve my life in the current world being worse off.
There probably will be a tradeoff tbh. But it can be fairly minimal in terms of impact on your daily life. I mean, residential only produces what, 3~4% of CO2. It is mostly policy that needs to change.
It doesn't follow that helping others would be illogical. Our axioms if you will come through evolution and social darwinism. So while self-preservation is important we find that species preservation and preservation of life is also important as these features can be seen throughout the animal kingdom.
1. The harm is far more minor than it is being made out to be. Plus, depending on your age you may need to pay for it towards the end of your life anyways.
2. True, I suppose the contract is of a form that doesn't normally exist. Being born you were brought into a world that is pretty nice. You are expected to keep it that way. An example of this is parenthood. You were raised and helped through school, got to leech off your parents. You aren't expected to pay them back for this. But you are expected to do the same for children if you have any. (There are real world examples of deals you don't get an option on, being part of society for example.)
3. Human population is to peak soon and shall drop ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png ) most estimates saying we'll stabilize at around 7.5BN (1BN more). Coal plants produce 1kg per KwH, gas 380, Nuclear can produce a net 0 carbon output. Next we need to switch cars to electric, this can be mostly done over 20 years. And lastly cement manufacture can be modified fairly easily. ( http://www.pscleanair.org/programs/climate/chart-co2.jpghttp://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/art/graph3.jpg... all these stupid charts give different figures but the three things I mentioned that we can fix are most of it). I believe we need to hit it from all fronts, less humans, greater efforts to get off this rock, more efficient tech, better power plants (fusion?) and changed farming practices.
After all that I think you are right we still won't make it because people kind of suck. But if you we can make it less doomsday and more survivable that would be helpful. Even if we only delay runaway warming 15 years it could be a big help. I believe we will need scientists to do some crazy crazy geo-engineering to save our asses in the end. But using less would be nice.
Killing a pet takes joy from the owner as well which is an issue. And while I'm not fully vegetarian I only eat meat occasionally. Another mistake is that a dead cow makes 600lbs of meat, that'd be my meat intake for a year or more. The MAIN issue is the fallacy of choice you've set up. Why not get super heavy drapes fro your room instead?
And I'm a secular humanist / utilitarian btw (prolly says a few 1000words right there). My reasoning for being 'good' is partially game theory. But mostly it is that I find intrinsic value in a good life. As I enjoy living a good life I can use empathy and see that it is universal. So if I can do good to others without significant self harm it creates a net increase in good then I should do so.
Why choose this as the basis of my ethical rules? Because being purely in it for myself wouldn't satisfy me as much. That part I believe is 60:40 nature:nurture.
I think in reality these might be cost effective in one situation. UPS replacement! UPS costs a shit ton already if this doubles as UPS and saves some electrical costs then it could be a good idea.
Note the list of companies supporting it are tech companies, places that need a good UPS system. If that didn't matter then I believe we would see companies from all sectors coming on board.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that we have fully functional RO and WoW servers. These are WAY WAYYYY more complex. This looks easy in comparison. If it doesn't get done it will be purely lack of interest. The only way to ensure it getting hacked is boasting that people can't do it.
I am more curious what happens if you teabag an npc. Technically its e-rape still.
15$ a month doesn't buy you cable.
What letter is that?
Yeah. CPU cycles aren't really an issue in this situation. But errors would be REALLY bad. Think of it as optimizing for low error rate rather than speed.
Did the zone the van was in make taller vehicles illegal? If not they've got fuck all to complain about. Hopping the dude's fence would have been trespassing. But driving by the place in a moving van isn't illegal. Google van shouldn't be either. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2219/2051749701_5b81783834.jpg --- Not taller than a moving van window.
It is a giant ass blue van that is well labeled. And stalking/harassment are illegal.
If google made a van follow you around they'd be in shit.
Sitting outside your house for a few days is probably 100% legal unless it falls under stalking laws where you happen to be.
Hanging out by a school is also legal.
Putting a ladder against someone's house is illegal.
Upskirts are illegal and I've no idea how you would upskirt with a van unless you have a thing for giants.
CCTV cams also legal obviously...
So yeah, we cannot easily legislate privacy in the situations you listed. So it isn't illegal. So you should expect little or no privacy while in those places. Perhaps buy better blinds. You make it sound like a big deal 'omg they could know when I'm not at home'. But tbh that is happening anyways. If you are worried about someone targeting your child then they shouldn't be walking home alone. Not complicated really.
That's total BS FUD. Not to mention 'future quoting' doesn't make any sense and is CLEARLY slander.
/. knows but many people don't (re. girls posting boobies online and being shocked her classmates find them).
Not to mention that the quote in your sig is totally out of context. Eric was referring to criminals leaving evidence of their crime online. Then Google being subject to US law handing over said info. Which really is just saying that they follow the law and leaving evidence online is stupid. Something that everyone on
What about people across the street? Tokyo is a pretty tall city....
No... But you do bring up a good point... Why not just take SIX big-ass flatscreen TVs?
"It's a turd of a bill."
Yeah but the risk of ignoring Republican input would have resulted in law that the republicans would undo first chance they got into power.
Hackers 1 had topless Lara Croft .. I mean Angelina Jolie in it. So I dunno what you are talking about.
Hackers are paranoid. Hell look at /. users and how insane half of them are about privacy. And hackers, ones in north america rather than russia/china are generally pretty young. Often university or even highschool aged. Older than that and most of them get out of it or get a job. I mean not everyone has money to full time hack. And hacking is 50% contacts and being on the cutting edge. You won't be the best unless you spend a lot of time at it.
As for mature, they are (mostly) doing something criminal for fun. And they are very very smart. Which only leaves immature to explain their actions.
I think everyone thinking I can take over cities on a whim is treated well... Hackers are good guys more than they are bad guys in movies.
#5 succcks, she basically stops stupid people that put themselves in bad situations from learning any lessons. Stopping drunk chicks from leaving with guys is stupid. To top it off she's sexist:
"I protect the single girl living in the big city," Terrifica told ABC in 2002. "I do this because women are weak. They are easily manipulated, and they need to be protected from themselves and most certainly from men and their ill intentions toward them."
Bet he'd be really pissed if he's had the name for a decade or so.
You must be new here. Look at how most e-crimes have worked out. What seems sensible rarely ends up occurring.
It was 4am so there was no sun and he's not stylish. And he's was sshing into his voice controlled server.
Won't be running til 2068 though :/
You mean planetes?
http://www.kumby.com/planetes-episode-1/
I find that surprising. The human mind is an impressive piece of machinery. People often feel empathy for fictional characters in books. Nevermind that you KNOW or can determine that there will be future generations and your actions could affect them. Since you know this, then I don't see how never personally meeting them assuages your empathy. What of people in other countries or cities?
I completely agree. Being slightly aware and picking and choosing makes way more sense. Screw most of that stuff. I'm thinking a few big things. Perhaps looking seriously into electric when you are picking your next car. It might be annoying a few times over its life but the vast majority of CO2 you cause is your vehicle. Another one might be to buy local on occasion. I don't mean anything difficult. I mean, don't buy raspberries way out of season since you are guaranteed they were shipped a looong way. (This also saves money and makes food better since you get fresher stuff). Maybe when roofing look into sticking up a solar panel, in some areas it is actually a decent investment nvm good for the environment.
I do wonder sometimes if they are purposely trying to block progress from getting anything done. Solar shows some promise but wind power will never ever EVER be worth it. There literally isn't enough wind, even if we harvested it all! I wish nuclear power supporters could get their own title or that 'environmentalist' (a good thing!) wasn't a term getting tainted by stupidity.
Only sort of. I am asking you to support these things. And support means money. I personally would take money from war and stick it into tech... But generally speaking I want to see an increase in research funding double or triple. This would be a political movement and needs people to push for this change. The few billion a year into tech would be great for the field and for the world. I simply think it isn't nearly as much of a priority as it could be. ATM a lot of tech coming from the US is actually military because they have such a huge budget that the research wing of the military eclipses all the other research. Scary.
There probably will be a tradeoff tbh. But it can be fairly minimal in terms of impact on your daily life. I mean, residential only produces what, 3~4% of CO2. It is mostly policy that needs to change.
It doesn't follow that helping others would be illogical. Our axioms if you will come through evolution and social darwinism. So while self-preservation is important we find that species preservation and preservation of life is also important as these features can be seen throughout the animal kingdom.
... all these stupid charts give different figures but the three things I mentioned that we can fix are most of it). I believe we need to hit it from all fronts, less humans, greater efforts to get off this rock, more efficient tech, better power plants (fusion?) and changed farming practices.
1. The harm is far more minor than it is being made out to be. Plus, depending on your age you may need to pay for it towards the end of your life anyways.
2. True, I suppose the contract is of a form that doesn't normally exist. Being born you were brought into a world that is pretty nice. You are expected to keep it that way. An example of this is parenthood. You were raised and helped through school, got to leech off your parents. You aren't expected to pay them back for this. But you are expected to do the same for children if you have any. (There are real world examples of deals you don't get an option on, being part of society for example.)
3. Human population is to peak soon and shall drop ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png ) most estimates saying we'll stabilize at around 7.5BN (1BN more). Coal plants produce 1kg per KwH, gas 380, Nuclear can produce a net 0 carbon output. Next we need to switch cars to electric, this can be mostly done over 20 years. And lastly cement manufacture can be modified fairly easily. ( http://www.pscleanair.org/programs/climate/chart-co2.jpg http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/art/graph3.jpg
After all that I think you are right we still won't make it because people kind of suck. But if you we can make it less doomsday and more survivable that would be helpful. Even if we only delay runaway warming 15 years it could be a big help. I believe we will need scientists to do some crazy crazy geo-engineering to save our asses in the end. But using less would be nice.
Killing a pet takes joy from the owner as well which is an issue. And while I'm not fully vegetarian I only eat meat occasionally. Another mistake is that a dead cow makes 600lbs of meat, that'd be my meat intake for a year or more. The MAIN issue is the fallacy of choice you've set up. Why not get super heavy drapes fro your room instead?
And I'm a secular humanist / utilitarian btw (prolly says a few 1000words right there). My reasoning for being 'good' is partially game theory. But mostly it is that I find intrinsic value in a good life. As I enjoy living a good life I can use empathy and see that it is universal. So if I can do good to others without significant self harm it creates a net increase in good then I should do so.
Why choose this as the basis of my ethical rules? Because being purely in it for myself wouldn't satisfy me as much. That part I believe is 60:40 nature:nurture.
I think in reality these might be cost effective in one situation. UPS replacement! UPS costs a shit ton already if this doubles as UPS and saves some electrical costs then it could be a good idea.
Note the list of companies supporting it are tech companies, places that need a good UPS system. If that didn't matter then I believe we would see companies from all sectors coming on board.
I've noticed a few posts vanish as well. I assume they had DB issues and ended up losing things. Seems possible that /. has issues with it given /code.