Actually, you only need one monkey typing gibberish for an infinite amount of time to get Shakespeare. Also, a scientist tried this experiment and they just peed on the keyboard.
That is very interesting. Why would the media assume that a large vote for a single person is a "mandate". It just means they are less offensive at the worst and only at best do they have a mandate.
Even if you use a lockout interval of 1 second, you make it highly unlikely that they can brute force your system as it would take a very long time. The problem, as has been stated above, is when the attacker gets ahold of your hash and can try to match his stuff against the hash before attempting to log in.
Actually, you DO have to watch your wording because not everyone reads carefully or thinks critically about what you're trying to say. They'll read things into it you didn't mean and attribute it to you. Also, yes, I did understand what you were saying, but even I thought you worded it badly even before I read the rest of this thread.
Careful wording is a good idea. Don't blame your audience, adapt to it.
This is how domains would work if there weren't any bad people in the world. Suppose I start a web site and I get a lot of traffic. A LOT of traffic and it's because I provide a well known and well liked service. When domain registration time comes around, I'm going to depend a LOT on getting that domain name again, so I'll bid very high for it. Now some asshole or a competitor wants to hurt me so they bid high, but not as high as I would actually bid. I have to pay a huge amount simply because someone is malicious, or if they bid more, my business could very well fail as people can't find the site again. As far as I can see, the current system is pretty good with the exception of those unlimited free trials.
I don't think it's fair to equate this rule to the fairness doctrine which I also disagree with. The fairness doctrine made sure each side had equal time. What this rule tries to do is create more voices, regardless of their opinion. Media is not a business like others as their primary purpose is to get many opinions out. Media consolidation defeats the point of having a free press as the government can get into bed with just a few big players.
Suppose I'm in a firefight. I want to serpentine to get under cover. All the sudden, one of my packets goes into the great bit bucket in the sky. What should my character do without any data to the server for that.1 sec? Stop? Move in a straight line? Or more ideally, continue to serpentine to cover. The slight difference in reaction is the difference between *cough* life and death. The point is for the server to correctly predict your motion in the absence of explicit instructions. If it does, the game goes smoothly, if it doesn't, the server has to resynch the game state. If the server can guess correctly based on a few bits of data, then it removes some clog from the tubes. Note that you are still controlling the character because if the server guesses wrong, it has to resynch the gamestate. The server is essentially guessing interpret one instruction fd as fd X4 based on prior knowledge of similar situations when you have no packet data.
What's important is that if you can get an algorithm that guesses 99% of the time what the next step is based on something like the last 5 steps or so, then you have just made available a 1/6 reduction in bandwidth usage as you can have the client only send those 5 steps and skip the 6th, which is HUGE. What remains to be seen is what happens when it guesses wrong, how long does it take to reconstruct the previous events and how much extra bandwidth. If you're still saving bandwidth, and the game stays synched in realtime, it's all good.
Heh, I was about to yell at you before I read your 2nd comment.
The thing is, while free choice is a whole philosophical issue unto itself, I think that people are born with certain predispositions. For instance, their visual system might recognize curves, soft skin, or shiny hair as a special stimulus more easily, just from genes and the hormones they were exposed to in development as well as other factors once they are born. If this is true, this is not like chocolate and vanilla, although I agree both are delicious, this is more like having a reduced capacity to sense chocolate vs vanilla. Yes, it is possible to acquire a taste for both, but if you have a hard sensing chocolate, you're more likely to go for vanilla. If choosing vanilla and chocolate have no broader implications (unlike choosing sexual orientation as society taxes you for it), people aren't going to care which one they choose so long as they like it.
Yes, it's true that hard science hasn't found enough data to really base a conclusion on, but I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to make my claim and use it as a working hypothesis for the moment. I think it's a better position than most of the popular ones out there as it's not telling you to hate or kill anyone:-). Also what is this neuro-linguistic idea? I'm intrigued.
Wtf? I hate spam as much as the next guy, but the obscene materials charge is definitely a violation of free speech. Miller test be damned. Yelling penis (or something more graphic) in a crowded theater won't harm anyone.
If you know that someone will have a psychotic episode if you yell something specific, then that is closer to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Yelling something in a group of random people without intent to induce psychotic episodes or other kinds of violent reactions shouldn't be a crime, no matter where you live. If parents don't want their kids to see or hear graphic things, though. They live in the real world, and other people shouldn't have to bolster the fantasy land they live in. You wouldn't throw me in jail for telling some little kid Santa doesn't exist would you?
Ok, it IS plausible that they wouldn't do anything, however all I'm suggesting is that sexual behavior is learned with some helping cues. The reason I suggested the island is so that the kids would be free of any cultural influence. I AGREE with you that there is a definite disposition toward opposite sex attraction, but I do not think that it is BINDING. It is merely a predisposition.
The reason I think that it is merely a predisposition is because it is a HARD problem to recognize the opposite sex. While we do seem to detect MHC genes via smell, detecting curves is a hard visual computation, which means that part of it is probably learned (not all waists and boobs look the same you know). Why can't there be a module in the brain that assigns pleasure to an input that it detects as sexual, but if the input is corrupted, it provides the wrong reenforcement. As we well know, you can also, via the proper reenforcement, assign different values to certain stimuli (why do masochists exist, because they pair pain with pleasure of a kind). I am merely conjecturing that learning who is male and who is female is a HARD problem and requires some learning.
Thus, the reason I conjecture that the kids on the island would likely sex each other up is because they would see human shapes, and then, by coincidence, associate a sexual feeling with another person, leading to a positive feedback loop in the absence of a culture that provides some sort of punishment for those "evil homosexual thoughts". Even more likely, they would masturbate and wonder if they could do it with another person, or if other people could do it too. After all, sexual highs are NOT your normal state of consciousness. Inducing abnormal states is always interesting when it's not scary.
So prove to me, with some kind of logical argument based on physiology that would show that it's easy for males and females to recognize each other with close to 100% accuracy and no learning. That is what you are implying. Show me mechanisms, for instance, a biochemical pathway attached to a chemosensory organ. Or perhaps women have some sort of violently pink flag attached to them that is visible from all sides to make them easily recognizable.
Oh wait, hey what about that time you thought that guy was a girl... or that girl was a guy. Hmm, didn't that turn you on, if only for a second? Hmm.... I suppose that implies a 100% recognition success rate. I also suppose that, what if that guy was gay, and really looked like a girl. What if "she" didn't take off her clothes and gave you a nice blow job? Bet you'd like that wouldn't you - until the pants came off. But then, it wasn't that it's a guy that threw you off, it's the fact that your culture made it anathema. I guess that doesn't count because it wasn't really a girl. No, the physiological reaction of you ejaculating to a guy stimulating your nerve bundles doesn't count because you don't like it. It's unnatural despite the fact it is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the physical universe - which as far as I know is the only valid definition of natural.
Yes humans do. Do you feel the need to eat? Why that's instinct! Just because we have elaborate strategies for satisfying our basic drives doesn't mean that we don't have instincts. What we lack is innate unlearned procedures for doing things (babies have to learn to walk, focus their eyes, acquire food, speak...). We do have basic drives to: Sleep, Eat, Engage in Sexuality, Speak, Be Social. I'm probably missing a few, but the list is small.
Why do you find women attractive - assuming you're heterosexual? It doesn't make sense. Why should you want to stick your penis in a hole? It's an instinct. We now know there are good macroscopic reasons involving recursion and culling of entities. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the primary instinct is to stimulate a bundle of nerves by any means necessary and that getting aroused by the opposite sex is achieved by operant and classical conditioning. Of course, there are probably some instinctual predispositions.
For instance an experiment )showed that you can smell people who have different genes than you. The test IIRC had men and women wear a tshirt for a few days without showering and then asking them to smell each other's shirts in a double blind test. I think it was only smelling the opposite sex's shirt, but the ones people said smelled the best tended to have the most different genomes and I believe it was speculated that they were selecting for divergent Major Histocompatibility Complexes (MHC genes).
As many people have stated previously, there is a lot of history of people and animals engaging in homosexual and interspecies relationships. This seems to indicate to me that the only thing we have a large disposition for is finding warm tight wet holes (at least for guys) or other means of stimulating ourselves. If you put a bunch of one sex on an island from a young age, and they managed to survive, they would find ways of stimulating each other.
The major prohibitions in modern societies against homosexuality is probably an emergent behavior of natural selection. Since humans reproduce best in societies, the societies pick people that reproduce best in a positive feedback loop. If you lived in a tribe where it's continued existence depended on people having babies to continue hunter gathering or farming and two guys (or even worse two girls as the are a more important rate limiting step in the baby production cycle) were being gay and not doing their part, you'd likely get pissed off at them. After all, them not screwing girls would be putting YOUR ass on the line as the tribe might not have enough of a labor force to produce above a viable threshold.
In modern society, the fact simply is that we don't care so much if a bunch of individuals cannot produce children as our food supply is amazingly big. I suppose it does reduce the workforce, but it's rather evil of someone to impose conditions on other people simply because they want a bigger iPod. Since we are all Google Fanboi's here, I say, don't be evil and let other people have their fun with warm wet holes.
I use firefox 2.0.0.7 on windows XP Pro and I can testify that if you leave your computer on for a long time, sometimes, depending on the phase of the moon, firefox's memory footprint will get freakishly large. This is pretty rare and you can just kill the process if it locks up or something. Of course, this happens when I'm working on a freakishly large image in gimp resulting in my HD thrashing....
I made a mistake with that last post, it's not that it's redistributed, something is created where there was none which is why there is a short term advantage. If you steal the jewelry, its a zero sum game - no additional pieces are created.
Moral component aside, the goods are redistributed much more efficiently, making the economic pie bigger for everyone (at least in the short term until the companies stop producing those bits and bytes).
Or even better, just use the crop tool and drag a box around what you want to crop. I don't even know what that guy is doing that it's popping up in the middle of the screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you only need one monkey typing gibberish for an infinite amount of time to get Shakespeare. Also, a scientist tried this experiment and they just peed on the keyboard.
That is very interesting. Why would the media assume that a large vote for a single person is a "mandate". It just means they are less offensive at the worst and only at best do they have a mandate.
Even if you use a lockout interval of 1 second, you make it highly unlikely that they can brute force your system as it would take a very long time. The problem, as has been stated above, is when the attacker gets ahold of your hash and can try to match his stuff against the hash before attempting to log in.
:-/
Actually, you DO have to watch your wording because not everyone reads carefully or thinks critically about what you're trying to say. They'll read things into it you didn't mean and attribute it to you. Also, yes, I did understand what you were saying, but even I thought you worded it badly even before I read the rest of this thread.
Careful wording is a good idea. Don't blame your audience, adapt to it.
This is how domains would work if there weren't any bad people in the world. Suppose I start a web site and I get a lot of traffic. A LOT of traffic and it's because I provide a well known and well liked service. When domain registration time comes around, I'm going to depend a LOT on getting that domain name again, so I'll bid very high for it. Now some asshole or a competitor wants to hurt me so they bid high, but not as high as I would actually bid. I have to pay a huge amount simply because someone is malicious, or if they bid more, my business could very well fail as people can't find the site again. As far as I can see, the current system is pretty good with the exception of those unlimited free trials.
I don't think it's fair to equate this rule to the fairness doctrine which I also disagree with. The fairness doctrine made sure each side had equal time. What this rule tries to do is create more voices, regardless of their opinion. Media is not a business like others as their primary purpose is to get many opinions out. Media consolidation defeats the point of having a free press as the government can get into bed with just a few big players.
Wow, you guys are REALLY missing the point.
Suppose I'm in a firefight. I want to serpentine to get under cover. All the sudden, one of my packets goes into the great bit bucket in the sky. What should my character do without any data to the server for that .1 sec? Stop? Move in a straight line? Or more ideally, continue to serpentine to cover. The slight difference in reaction is the difference between *cough* life and death. The point is for the server to correctly predict your motion in the absence of explicit instructions. If it does, the game goes smoothly, if it doesn't, the server has to resynch the game state. If the server can guess correctly based on a few bits of data, then it removes some clog from the tubes. Note that you are still controlling the character because if the server guesses wrong, it has to resynch the gamestate. The server is essentially guessing interpret one instruction fd as fd X4 based on prior knowledge of similar situations when you have no packet data.
What's important is that if you can get an algorithm that guesses 99% of the time what the next step is based on something like the last 5 steps or so, then you have just made available a 1/6 reduction in bandwidth usage as you can have the client only send those 5 steps and skip the 6th, which is HUGE. What remains to be seen is what happens when it guesses wrong, how long does it take to reconstruct the previous events and how much extra bandwidth. If you're still saving bandwidth, and the game stays synched in realtime, it's all good.
ahem *especially script tags that cointain
What if you just regarded the javascript as invalid HTML (especially any script tags that contain ? At least some of it is in the same file.
Is that like getting a red mushroom in Mario? Wouldn't that be BAD for anyone who disagrees with them?
I bet it means that they are waiving some (probably most of IANAL) of their "all rights reserved" by freely transmitting their code.
MY EARS!!!!! *pop* ARGH I'M DEAF.
Heh, I was about to yell at you before I read your 2nd comment.
The thing is, while free choice is a whole philosophical issue unto itself, I think that people are born with certain predispositions. For instance, their visual system might recognize curves, soft skin, or shiny hair as a special stimulus more easily, just from genes and the hormones they were exposed to in development as well as other factors once they are born. If this is true, this is not like chocolate and vanilla, although I agree both are delicious, this is more like having a reduced capacity to sense chocolate vs vanilla. Yes, it is possible to acquire a taste for both, but if you have a hard sensing chocolate, you're more likely to go for vanilla. If choosing vanilla and chocolate have no broader implications (unlike choosing sexual orientation as society taxes you for it), people aren't going to care which one they choose so long as they like it.
Yes, it's true that hard science hasn't found enough data to really base a conclusion on, but I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to make my claim and use it as a working hypothesis for the moment. I think it's a better position than most of the popular ones out there as it's not telling you to hate or kill anyone :-). Also what is this neuro-linguistic idea? I'm intrigued.
Wtf? I hate spam as much as the next guy, but the obscene materials charge is definitely a violation of free speech. Miller test be damned. Yelling penis (or something more graphic) in a crowded theater won't harm anyone.
If you know that someone will have a psychotic episode if you yell something specific, then that is closer to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Yelling something in a group of random people without intent to induce psychotic episodes or other kinds of violent reactions shouldn't be a crime, no matter where you live. If parents don't want their kids to see or hear graphic things, though. They live in the real world, and other people shouldn't have to bolster the fantasy land they live in. You wouldn't throw me in jail for telling some little kid Santa doesn't exist would you?
Ok, it IS plausible that they wouldn't do anything, however all I'm suggesting is that sexual behavior is learned with some helping cues. The reason I suggested the island is so that the kids would be free of any cultural influence. I AGREE with you that there is a definite disposition toward opposite sex attraction, but I do not think that it is BINDING. It is merely a predisposition.
The reason I think that it is merely a predisposition is because it is a HARD problem to recognize the opposite sex. While we do seem to detect MHC genes via smell, detecting curves is a hard visual computation, which means that part of it is probably learned (not all waists and boobs look the same you know). Why can't there be a module in the brain that assigns pleasure to an input that it detects as sexual, but if the input is corrupted, it provides the wrong reenforcement. As we well know, you can also, via the proper reenforcement, assign different values to certain stimuli (why do masochists exist, because they pair pain with pleasure of a kind). I am merely conjecturing that learning who is male and who is female is a HARD problem and requires some learning.
Thus, the reason I conjecture that the kids on the island would likely sex each other up is because they would see human shapes, and then, by coincidence, associate a sexual feeling with another person, leading to a positive feedback loop in the absence of a culture that provides some sort of punishment for those "evil homosexual thoughts". Even more likely, they would masturbate and wonder if they could do it with another person, or if other people could do it too. After all, sexual highs are NOT your normal state of consciousness. Inducing abnormal states is always interesting when it's not scary.
So prove to me, with some kind of logical argument based on physiology that would show that it's easy for males and females to recognize each other with close to 100% accuracy and no learning. That is what you are implying. Show me mechanisms, for instance, a biochemical pathway attached to a chemosensory organ. Or perhaps women have some sort of violently pink flag attached to them that is visible from all sides to make them easily recognizable.
Oh wait, hey what about that time you thought that guy was a girl... or that girl was a guy. Hmm, didn't that turn you on, if only for a second? Hmm.... I suppose that implies a 100% recognition success rate. I also suppose that, what if that guy was gay, and really looked like a girl. What if "she" didn't take off her clothes and gave you a nice blow job? Bet you'd like that wouldn't you - until the pants came off. But then, it wasn't that it's a guy that threw you off, it's the fact that your culture made it anathema. I guess that doesn't count because it wasn't really a girl. No, the physiological reaction of you ejaculating to a guy stimulating your nerve bundles doesn't count because you don't like it. It's unnatural despite the fact it is a naturally occurring phenomenon in the physical universe - which as far as I know is the only valid definition of natural.
Enjoy your rationalizing!
Yes humans do. Do you feel the need to eat? Why that's instinct! Just because we have elaborate strategies for satisfying our basic drives doesn't mean that we don't have instincts. What we lack is innate unlearned procedures for doing things (babies have to learn to walk, focus their eyes, acquire food, speak...). We do have basic drives to: Sleep, Eat, Engage in Sexuality, Speak, Be Social. I'm probably missing a few, but the list is small.
Why do you find women attractive - assuming you're heterosexual? It doesn't make sense. Why should you want to stick your penis in a hole? It's an instinct. We now know there are good macroscopic reasons involving recursion and culling of entities. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the primary instinct is to stimulate a bundle of nerves by any means necessary and that getting aroused by the opposite sex is achieved by operant and classical conditioning. Of course, there are probably some instinctual predispositions.
For instance an experiment )showed that you can smell people who have different genes than you. The test IIRC had men and women wear a tshirt for a few days without showering and then asking them to smell each other's shirts in a double blind test. I think it was only smelling the opposite sex's shirt, but the ones people said smelled the best tended to have the most different genomes and I believe it was speculated that they were selecting for divergent Major Histocompatibility Complexes (MHC genes).
As many people have stated previously, there is a lot of history of people and animals engaging in homosexual and interspecies relationships. This seems to indicate to me that the only thing we have a large disposition for is finding warm tight wet holes (at least for guys) or other means of stimulating ourselves. If you put a bunch of one sex on an island from a young age, and they managed to survive, they would find ways of stimulating each other.
The major prohibitions in modern societies against homosexuality is probably an emergent behavior of natural selection. Since humans reproduce best in societies, the societies pick people that reproduce best in a positive feedback loop. If you lived in a tribe where it's continued existence depended on people having babies to continue hunter gathering or farming and two guys (or even worse two girls as the are a more important rate limiting step in the baby production cycle) were being gay and not doing their part, you'd likely get pissed off at them. After all, them not screwing girls would be putting YOUR ass on the line as the tribe might not have enough of a labor force to produce above a viable threshold.
In modern society, the fact simply is that we don't care so much if a bunch of individuals cannot produce children as our food supply is amazingly big. I suppose it does reduce the workforce, but it's rather evil of someone to impose conditions on other people simply because they want a bigger iPod. Since we are all Google Fanboi's here, I say, don't be evil and let other people have their fun with warm wet holes.
I'm not gay! He was sucking MY dick!
You win the thread.
Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyMyxV4uzSA
I use firefox 2.0.0.7 on windows XP Pro and I can testify that if you leave your computer on for a long time, sometimes, depending on the phase of the moon, firefox's memory footprint will get freakishly large. This is pretty rare and you can just kill the process if it locks up or something. Of course, this happens when I'm working on a freakishly large image in gimp resulting in my HD thrashing....
I made a mistake with that last post, it's not that it's redistributed, something is created where there was none which is why there is a short term advantage. If you steal the jewelry, its a zero sum game - no additional pieces are created.
Moral component aside, the goods are redistributed much more efficiently, making the economic pie bigger for everyone (at least in the short term until the companies stop producing those bits and bytes).
...because they might sue HIM for pirating music.
Or even better, just use the crop tool and drag a box around what you want to crop. I don't even know what that guy is doing that it's popping up in the middle of the screen.
*woosh* That was a troll, and not a very good one. :P