FriendlyHacker
-
Posts
377 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by FriendlyHacker
-
-
Im a technology guy and I feel like this guy really doesn't know what he's talking about. I dont understand what he means by politics in technology.
Why people choose one programming language and not the other? Why this framework instead of that one? Politics. Reality is you can get the job done in pretty much any language, but you have to go where the community in general is going, else you will be stuck with code very few people understand and are able to update.
The Free Software Foundation is clearly a political and philosophical movement, there is a lot of politics in licensing so maybe there is more politics going around than you realize. Or maybe you think that politics is something that only applies to government, which it isn't.
-
There is no question about whether or not carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and methane can capture heat in the atmosphere, the surface temperature of Venus is almost 500°C because of the runaway greenhouse effect some gases produce when in dense quantities at the atmosphere.
There is also no question about whether or not climate change is actually happening in our planet, some scientists disagree on the cause of it but an analyses of temperatures over the last 2 centuries and the observation by satellites on the amount of heat that gets in and the amount of heat that gets out, show a clear pattern of increasing temperature.
The human caused climate change is now called Anthropogenic Climate Change, to differentiate itself from other causes.
Some of the "arguments" against climate change are quite simplistic and show no understanding of the concept of climate, climate is recorded in centuries, weather is recorded in days. So if someone says that the climate can't be increasing temperature because they are getting snow storms, is like saying that there is no Sun because you can't see it during the night, whether or not there are a few colder or hotter days and years, is not saying much about where the climate is heading to.
About the positive feedback loop, it is basically about the ocean reaching a certain temperature that will liberate the methane trapped there in ocean floor, and since methane is a much worse greenhouse gas it is said the temperature will increase much faster once it happens.
I like to think about this like if you were boiling milk, milk will continue to increase temperature in a positive feedback loop until it boils and overflows, but at any time someone can go there and turn the oven off, there are many ways to "turn the oven off" on our planetary climate change, but those things will probably only happen when climate disasters are happening in a big enough frequency to justify pouring the money to fixing the problem.-
1
-
3
-
-
I would be suspicious of images an narrative alone if I ran into an entrepreneur with that business model who was looking for investors.
I would be suspicious too and I sure hope nobody out there is dealing nukes as a business model!
-
Short answer is: Nobody knows, cause there is no evidence either way.
I'm on a team working on an Ethical AI, once I figure out how to test UPB, will let you know.
-
Maybe the confusion we are having here is how we define the word evidence, and your complete unwillingness to comment on what I have presented as evidence. Mathematics is not evidence. Equations are not evidence. Video, pictures and narratives are evidence. In a court motivation is considered in drawing a conclusion. If it can be demonstrated that what is presented as evidence is fictional, and that those who contrived it had a powerful motivation to have done so, the equations are immaterial as is the layman's understanding of such equations.
My question to you is: What do you have invested in this particular narrative that makes it impossible for you to answer whether the video evidence presented is contrived or not? Do you really believe that they fired nuclear shells out of a cannon? Those videos are presented as facts. I find them nothing short of ridiculous fabrications. Don't cannons jam or misfire? Did a bunch of military personnel stand around watching this thing be shot out of a cannon knowing the potential for mishap? These are common sense questions and don't require an advanced degree. Why do you refuse to comment on the imagery? Please pardon me if you are visually impaired, it is not my intention to be rude and if you do not have full visual capabilities, please accept my sincere apologies.
From Wiki about Fat Man (strange that this stuff is even on Wiki, but whatever):
-
...beryllium–210polonium "urchin" is crushed,[33] pushing the two metals together and thereby releasing a burst of neutrons into the compressed... -
...pit of the nickel-plated delta-phase alloy of 239plutonium–240plutonium–gallium (96%–1%–3% by molarity).[34][35] A fission chain reaction then begins. The tendency of the fissioning pit to blow itself apart prematurely is reduced by the inward momentum of the... -
...natural-uranium "tamper" (inertial containment). The tamper also reflects neutrons back into the pit, accelerating the chain reaction. If/when sufficient fast neutrons are produced, the tamper itself undergoes fission, accounting for up to 20% of the weapon's yield.[30]
I don't care about movies being fake or not, even if you find fake movies out there it certainly can't disprove the feasibility of nuclear bombs, since correlation is not causation.
I can show you some Youtube movies of people floating and it won't disprove gravity, cause gravity is determined by mathematics, statistics and reliable data gathering tools, not by evaluating Youtube videos.
-
-
My point is that whacking two pieces of metal together (even enriched uranium) will create enough force to level an entire city is an extraordinary claim and, a la the title of latest call in show podcast, requires extraordinary evidence. I question the evidence.
Seems you question a lot of things you don't understand, but these highly complex issues can't be explained in a messaged board. You need years of study so you can begin to understand the evidence, so I would suggest taking this amazing curiosity you have, and use it to learn how to evaluate the evidence for the things you question.
The reason I ask about knowing the rocket equation, is because if you understand the equation and look into the amount of fuel and weight of rockets that went to the moon, you will notice they have the exact amount of fuel to do it. And you might have never thought about this little piece of information as evidence, because it's evidence only visible for those who understand how rockets work.
-
1
-
1
-
-
My point is and has been, that the evidence provided to support the existence of nuclear bombs is weak.
Your point was that whacking things together can't create huge explosions, if you're wrong about that since this is how the Sun works, and you never noticed it for lack of any training in astrophysics, what else are you wrong about? Do you realize that you will only be able to tell fact from fiction if you understand the issue yourself, and refusing to read books on physics will not get you closer to the truth?
-
1
-
-
I get a suntan, therefore whacking metal together makes terrific explosions? I experience gravity, I don't believe in it.
You get a suntan, or a third degree burn depending of your exposure, because a massive object 92 billion miles away is whacking hydrogen gas together.
If you don't believe in nuclear fusion, please tell me how the Sun actually works, because it seems every astrophysicist in the world is wrong, and you are correct, so you must have a much better explanation.
-
1
-
-
by John Perry Barlow
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.
You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.
You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.
Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.
Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.
In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.
You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.
In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.
Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.
These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
Davos, Switzerland
February 8, 1996
-
1
-
-
How many years have to pass with no further evidence to bolster a narrative have to pass before the story simply becomes a myth? If there hasn't been a bomb used in one hundred years, is that enough time? I may be around for that, in fact. I would hope people begin to doubt something they have seen no actual evidence of in one hundred years, but there are a lot of people that believe in the bible, so I have my doubts.
So far, anyone who has posted a contrary response to the OP's proposition has made assertions based on their beliefs, which are comprised of argument ad vericundium, and have not addressed the points which are referenced from Heiwa's site. Also presented have been the conflict of interest argument, the contradictory narratives and the contradictory imagery, none of which have been addressed.
So, in essence, the statements could be summarized as: what is proposed conflicts with long held beliefs, the idea that those beliefs could be false creates discomfort, that discomfort can be discharged by posting base assertions that continue to reinforce the beliefs.
So far FDR has done some good work in dislodging the faith held in the state, religion and the family, but there seems to be a particular reverence for state funded science that is curious, to say the least.
You're missing the point, you don't have to believe in gravity, gravity cares not about what we believe, it will still be there long after we are gone. You don't have to believe in nuclear fission or fusion, it will continue to be the very thing that allows you and any life form in Universe to be possible.
-
Why nobody has attacked another country with nukes again? Because it means the end of the human species, and even the craziest people in government are not willing to do it. Currently available Nukes are thousands of times more powerful than the ones dropped in Japan, the reason the people in government don't fight wars themselves, is the same reason this bomb won't go off, they don't want to die.
-
1
-
-
Wearing anything that covers your face, avoiding large urban centers, blocking all cameras (use black tape) in any device you have, paying things by cash. Don't use xBox, playstation, wii or anything that has facial recognition, don't use skype or google hangouts.
If you don't want people with facial recognition software to easily find you on facebook or google, you need to remove your facebook account, and then google yourself and remove any result you can find.
There are things you can carry that will potentially jam the signal, but not really useful unless in very specific situations. -
The official story is that there were thousands of people working feverishly on the development of the bomb and that the work was done in total secrecy. Then as now, even if someone had wanted blow the whistle, there would have been no means for the message to have been heard beyond whom they could have told directly and that conversation would likely have been met with the same level of receptivity demonstrated here.
You need to read books from the physicists who worked on the Manhattan project, there is no secret anymore about what they were doing and who worked there, except for the technical details of how the bomb is actually made it's pretty clear what was going on over Los Alamos at the time.
And even though you say it was something that happened in total secrecy, the reality is that both the Germans and the Russians knew about it, in fact, the reason Russia later managed to develop the bomb is because they had a spy inside the Los Alamos complex.
-
Am I right in that you are saying professions do not keep people from being duped by topics out of their expertise? For example, a biologist should know that artificial chemicals have never been in nature before, and that all life thus do not recognize it, but that doesn't stop people in white coats from pushing it on gullible people.
When I was able to question what I had taken for granted about 7 years ago, I started trying to help other people in my country question what they had been told, on a forum I frequented. And was met with a hailstorm of swear words and banter and condescendment.
I know what you saying here, I was misdiagnosed with a mental disorder myself and took medication that only caused me harm for 10 years, many things are not what they seem to be, there's a reason people from other fields of medicine don't take psychiatry seriously, and the reason is that the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders don't properly follow the scientific method.
If you listen to my recent call to the show, I explain the relation between truth and science, and you will notice that science is not about truth, it's about an ever increasing self-correcting approximation to the truth, psychiatry is still very new and there are many things in it that will be corrected in time, but I'm certain that one day it will become a reliable field of medicine.
-
May I ask y'all ... why do you care? What would change in your life, if you found out that infinity is a number, or that it is not? I ask not to shut down the discussion, which could spark an interest in certain areas of mathematics and of thinking about the infinite, which could certainly be very valuable for some of you.
A person who loves math, and enjoys doing hard math problems for fun or for challenging him or herself.Example:
James: "Math Rocks"Student 1: "Nerd"!
Student 2: "Bum!"
Student 3: "Math sucks nerd!"
Stduent 4: "You are retarded!"
Student 5: "Math sucks!"
James: "You guys only think math sucks cause you can't do a simple math problem!"
Student 3: "No, we just don't wanna do math problems and do other crappy stuff! We have lifes you know!"
Student 3: "Your a Math Nerd!"
-
There are different types of infinities, and yes some infinities are larger than others.
There are infinity of natural numbers:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11..... to infinity
There is the integer numbers infinity:
to infinity...-11, -10, .9, -8, -7, -6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11..... to infinity
There is the infinity that includes fractions and negative fractions:to infinity... -4/3, -3/4, -3/2,-2/3, -2/1............1/2, 2/1, 2/3, 3/2, 3/4, 4/3…to infinity
The interesting thing is that infinite fractions will never actually reach a single whole number, and you have infinite fractions for infinite whole numbers, and there are probably more infinities than these.
Another thing about infinity, is that real objects can have infinite numbers. EX: Pi is an infinite number that can be calculated from real objects.-
1
-
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Rockets need to reach a certain speed to leave orbit, the more the rocket weights the more fuel it will need, the more fuel you add heavier it gets so you will need to add even more fuel to carry the fuel, as the fuel burns the rocket becomes lighter and requires less fuel to maintain speed, as the rocket goes up gravity and air resistence also reduces and you need even less fuel to mantain the speed. If you want to know how far a rocket can go, you need to take all that into account and do the calculation.Healing arts? No idea what that means.
The issue with homeopathy is that the thing gets so diluted there's not a single molecule of the active ingredient left. Some people try explaining this by saying that water has a memory and still remembers the active ingredient, though there is no evidence for water having a memory.
-
I have spent atleast 600 hours on the 911 staged event. (I will call a spade a spade)
I have spent atleast 250 hours getting informed about health and what the body needs from nature to function well, and how artificial chemicals reverses your health.
I have spent atleast 250 hours on the faked moon landings.
I have spent atleast 150 hours on the nonexisting link between HIV and AIDS, and what people actually get AIDS from.
I have spent atleast 100 hours trying to find evidence for gas chambers but all I found was evidence against.
I have spent atleast 100 hours on the sandy hook staged event.
I have spent atleast 80 hours on the boston smoke bombing drill.
I have spent atleast 60 hours finding natural cures for cancer, like hemp oil.
I have spent atleast 40 hours brushing off all the lies about Osama.
I have probably spent another 200 hours on miscellaneous stuff.
I have only spent around 8 hours on nuclear bombs so far.
I can spend over 10000 hours learning about Deepak Chopra's quantum voodoo, and not get any closer of how particles behave.
How much time have you spent learning science? Do you understand the rocket equation?
Another way to have an informed opinion is to have an expert give you his opinion about something. Like photographic experts can tell you that the pictures were not taken on the moon. And rocket engineers can tell you that it would be almost impossible to hear the astronauts in the lunar lander while the thrusters were on, and that the dust from the surface would engulf the lander and would make a significant crater beneath the landing point. The landing pads were clean in photos, so there goes logic out the window.
I have an aunt who is a doctor with over 30 years of experience, she believes in homeopathy and regularly prescribes it, being an experienced doctor does not keep you from believing in this bullshit, and anyone who understands a bit of chemistry can see through the bs, but the thing is, you need to understand it yourself, because if you don't understand it you won't be able to tell fact from fiction, and there is a lot of fiction out there.
-
2
-
-
This is common sense to me, the inner workings of how things are built is very messy. Consider that a piece of software is a lump of bugs that's somehow stable enough to perform the necessary tasks.
-
1
-
-
The audio can be out of sync, because the audio is being filtered for noise reduction, volume adjustment and then being added back to the video.
-
If you want to discuss why nuclear weapons are not real or why global warming is made up, or why 9/11 and the moon landing never happened, the first thing you must do is understand the evidence against such claims, and also the evidence for it, this takes learning meteorology, cosmology, the rocket equation, structural engineering, particle physics and chemistry, that means you need to read a lot of books and master many different subjects to be able to have an informed opinion about it.
But I have a feeling that the reason you're so confrontational about these subjects is completely unrelated to technical details.
-
1
-
-
Pretending that there's no problem might be psychologically healthier for you, but I have a need to understand how things work, and that empowers me to do something productive about it. If you don't want to understand how the bombs work, don't read the paragraphs below.
Fission bombs work for the same reason nuclear energy works, radioactive atoms become unstable from having too many neutrons and protons inside, so they release energy as those atoms slowly decay, which generates the heat necessary to boil water and move the turbines of nuclear power plants. What a fission bomb does is split the atom by throwing a slow moving one to it, which makes the radioactive atom so unstable that it splits into two, therefore releasing all that stored energy immediately instead of in thousands of years.
Fusion bombs work for the same reason that we have a Sun, the light we see from the Sun and stars are a result of extreme gravity merging two atoms into a single heavier atom, and releasing huge amounts of energy in the process. But instead of using the massive gravity of the Sun to fuse atoms, what a fusion bomb does is explode a fission bomb first, and that will generate enough energy to fuse two hydrogen atoms together and cause an explosion a 1000 times bigger (and potentially end life on the planet from nuclear winter).I've never had any first hand evidence that radiation is dangerous, but yes you are right, I still believe radiation is dangerous. Better safe than sorry I guess.
If you ever used a microwave oven, a X-Ray machine, cellphones or got a nice tan from the Sun, that means you already have evidence for radiation, you don't understand the evidence but you have it.
-
Yes, it does make sense MMX2010 and prolix. You are right.
-
1
-
-
If you are even checking to see if an idea is valid or not then you are showing it "respect". Maybe it just comes down to semantics then. But if you are disrespecting valid ideas and empirical based arguments then you are doing something that is not useful. I, personally, from what I know about the "idea" or concept of respect, find it very useful in a wide variety of situations. I guess it comes down to, "what do you mean by respect". What does "respect" look like to you? How does it manifest? Certainly one could use respect to support invalid ideas, IE; "you should respect the xyz authority regardless of the validity of their ideas". Certainly. But also simply recognizing validity and virtue can fall under the umbrella of respect. so, given the broad definition of the word it is much like any tool or state of consciousness, it can be both useful and harmful. You can use a fork to eat, or you can use it to jab your eyes out.
These are just my ideas on the topic, you may say that you give them no respect. But if you read them and consider these ideas, you have given them a certain level of respect. If you choose to respond to them, then you have added to that level of respect. Even if it is minimal...
Respect means that ideas are protected from skepticism in the manner you mention about respecting authority, if you question the idea of God many will feel personally offended by it, because they respect the idea so much that they will not allow it to be challenged, what I'm saying is that if an idea cannot be challenged it speaks volumes about how much it can stand on its own.
This also happens in science, when some physicists say that entropy cannot be challenged, or when a biologist says that whoever believes Lamarck was right must be an idiot. Though I can think on a few ways to violate entropy and Lamarck's idea that the parent's environment can affect the offspring has been shown to be valid.
-
1
-
Will AI be more ethical than humans?
in Science & Technology
Posted
Homicidal AI is what the military is working on right now, send the bots to kill people instead of soldiers, so if AI becomes homicidal you can be sure it did not come from Hackers.