FriendlyHacker

Not a sign of trauma to me, it's a sign that people are still following tribal traditions.

I'm saying that the very concept of respect is bullshit when it comes to ideas, respecting people makes sense but ideas deserve absolutelly no respect. Ideas either work or don't, and even if they do work having respect for them is useless.

You can only think and express things you are familiar with, ideas do not come from nowhere, they come from other people and are adjusted/combined according to your immediate needs. And in order to be familiarized with many kinds of concepts that allow for a good mix of unexpected arguments, all you need to do is read and learn a shitload of different ideas. The good thing about reading books is that you can learn lifelong experiences of other people, without the trouble of going through all trial and error yourself. In the end you will become a combination of all the people you have read and learned from, so choose carefully what you want to learn. You can check what I wrote about the creative process here, if you want to read about these ideas more in-depth. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42727-what-is-creativity-and-how-it-shapes-our-future/

Very good, but is missing the most common problem of all, the most common problem is that an argument can't be refuted if the opponent is unable to understand the argument. This combined with confirmation bias usually leads to straw man falacy.

Religions deserve no respect, political views deserve no respect, opinions deserve no respect, ideas not based in reality are bullshit. Ideas based on reality also deserve no respect. The truth needs not to be respected because ignoring the truth is insanity.

I have to explain the Jailbreak thing I mentioned, because is probably a technical term most people do not understand: Imagine that you buy a house, the house is yours so you can do anything you want with it as long as it's not harming anyone else, but Sony sold you a house you can't actually get in because you don't have the keys to the front door. So some people figured out how to get full control of their own property and the response they got from Sony is that they should be in prison for it, and this is why hackers are not happy with Sony. Hacking is fundamentally about harmless reverse engineering, figuring out how things work so you can get them to work better, or in a way that it was not built for but is what you actually need it to do. What I just mentioned above resulted in many of the technologies we use on daily basis, hacking is not some kind of criminal activity, it is about tinkering and figuring things out, and in the same way that a knife can be used to save lives in the hands of a surgeon, it can also be used to harm people. Would surgeons be happy if people thought that anyone carrying a knife is a criminal?

Graphene is a material composed of a 1 atom thick horizontal mesh of carbon, and that means that the mesh has enough space between the carbon atoms for hydrogen and oxigen to go through the mesh, but not enough space for organisms composed of many atoms to fit into the holes, or even not enough space for larger (often radioactive) atoms to go through. So you would be able to pour raw sewage from one side and collect pure h2o on the other side. The big issue with this technology is that it is quite fucking hard to build 1 atom thick meshes in large industrial scale.

About the shift in power mentioned on the video, here is the interesting thing: Attacking is always easier than defending and all it takes is intelligence. People who are smart enough can hack into anything they want regardless of the amount of money they can invest in the attack. You will find that most hackers are really nice people who just want to help, but the scary thing of course is that some of those really smart hackers might actually be downright evil. Another very important thing to mention: Many people in the hacker community are completely against these types of attacks, because even though the intentions behind many attacks are for the common good, physics says that every action has a reaction of equal strength in the opposite direction, and I am afraid that while our community pushes the limits of freedom of speech and freedom of information, it has created a monster with equal power within the NSA and has given them the reason they were looking for to completely remove freedom from the Internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ifOpgqHgM

Why many hackers hate Sony? Ever since Sony tried to sue people who managed to jailbreak the Playstation, instead of rewarding them for figuring out the vulnerabilities, they really got into the bad side of the hacker community. The IP's attacks come from are usually decoys, because they usually come from botnets (infected computers) and not from the attacker's personal computer.

My Distro has all you need from a Desktop, plus it has the Steam Session enabled so you can login into SteamOS if you want to.

Did I say that? Don't assume my intentions and don't assume that I'm statist, the technology needs to be as far as possible from military use. Have you seen Terminator? Robots were created with the goal of killing people and became too good at it, do you think I support going to that direction? Do you understand what quantum computing can do to an already alarming surveillance state?

Little known fact: US Defense Department is the biggest source of funding in AI research. Another little known fact: The quantum computers being funded and built in governmental facilities, will one day end up in commercial devices you can watch porn on, but first it will be used to spy everyone on the planet and to encrypt/decrypt messages that would be impossible to eavesdrop otherwise.

Free Software is a philosphical position applied to technology. You will notice that Free Software is the best term possible when considered in a philosophical sense, but a terrible one once you realize how many people only think of the word free in the monetary sense.

You can argue that using force to fund science is wrong, and you're absolutelly correct. But here is one thing that can only be argued by someone who does not understand how technology works: "Is simply impossible to find, econometrical data, in the national level, which shows that government funding science has any positive impact at all." The issue I have with statements like those, is that is simply not true, people who deal with economy and law usually don't have any idea how the basic science works, and why every component inside the iPhone, and even a lot of the software is directly resulted from basic science done in governamental facilities or in government funded programs. And of course an economist would not understand what I just said, because it takes understanding how the technology works, how it was created, the history of science and which physical principles it follows. Things like lasers, transistors, the internet, computers, microwave-ovens, satelites and all the computer based technology, would not be here without tax payers money. And if someone here is willng to understand how things such as lasers work, and why government is crucial in the development of it. Don't waste your time asking me how it works, pick a bunch of books on physics and spend a few years studing the technology, and you will know why. And if you don't want to spend a few years to understand the technology and science behind it, you should stop making assumptions about what you do not understand.

The issue with reinventing education is that every attempt to automate the process has fell into the problem of learning being a social behaviour, it requires that people have someone to talk to and get mutually motivated. The way I think about solving the education problem, is also by stripping down everything that does not work and improving the things that work, but my approach is a bit different because my ultimate goal is to replace the social aspects of it by augumented reality and artifical inteligence, in that way, student to student interaction happens in virtual/augumented reality, but the actual teachers are replaced by AI. And of course replacing theachers with beliavable human-like avatars, that are programmed to understand human emotion and react accordinly, is still many years away from currently available technology.

Education is centered in conformity because that is how you get law abiding citzens, as some smart guy once said: "If people knew how much they are being fucked over by the system, there would be a revolution tomorrow." Conformity in education and even the kind of sports being practice in schools, is what a government needs to convince people to serve and protect the illusion of a country, and the disease of nationalism, ultimatelly there is no such thing as a "government", government is an idea, a concept, the actual government are the individuals who protect the idea. As a kid in Brazlilian public school, I had to sing the national athemn every friday, and if you read into the lyrics you realize that this song is a promise to kill and die for the country. All of this was not created to serve either men or women, the idea of the Leviathan is that in middle ages people were too violent for their own good, so they had to fear something in order to behave, that something turned out to be hell and the use of force by governments. It is not fundamentally related to the difference in sexes you have mentioned, but these issues you mention are a result of middle age politics being applied to a modern technological civilization.

Being creative is about coming up with the unexpected. Mixing peanut butter and jelly might have seemed weird at first, an accident maybe, but the sum of two parts can become something greater than the parts could ever be individually. Creativity is reached by learning a wide range of disciplines. In order to connect seemly unrelated ideas in a creative way, one first needs to understand the ideas well enough to see the connection. The statements above seem in stark contrast with the current educational model though, how are students expected to learn to be creative, when they learn by memorization and teachers teach by repetition? How is Academia reaching new levels of understanding, when it places higher value in specialization than in understanding many disciplines? How are people expected to learn from their mistakes when they are not allowed to err? Edison had to try thousands of different materials before finding one that would work on his newly invented lamp. Mistakes are expected to happen when trying things that were never tried before, mistakes are the stuff invention is made of, so when someone is punished for failure in school, there is a hidden lesson being taught, the lesson of conformism, the lesson to never try something new but instead closely follow the footsteps of those in position of authority. This results in the denial of the very thing that moves civilization forward: The ability to not accept things as they are. And also acts as a clear incentive for individualism instead of teamwork, on covering ones tracks instead of teaching how to avoid mistakes, and more importantly, it teaches that it's OK to lie and cheat as long as nobody is caught doing it. Children that get punished for making mistakes are more likely to repeat the behavior when parents and educators are not watching, and more likely to lie about it if they get caught. This happens because focusing on the negative aspect of a behavior teaches nothing about turning it around into something positive. Children need parents and educators who can show the way by example, they need to understand and be understood. When one understands the consequences of one's actions, it makes it difficult to justify the repetition of said actions. A population that can't understand the consequences of its actions will be held hostage by the few who do. In this regard the educational system is incredibly successful, it takes in highly creative individuals and delivers obedient workers. But is obedient workers what the world needs? Einstein was not always considered a genius, in fact, his groundbreaking theories were created on the spare time of the only job he could find: office clerk. An integral part of what made Einstein a genius was questioning authority, but when Einstein told his teachers that they were wrong, instead of recognition he received a bad recommendation letter. There is resentment in being wrong, there's resentment in failing to grasp new ideas, but is there resentment in keeping things as they are and avoiding conflicts? The problems being faced today need to be solved by new technologies and new ways of thinking. A population of 7 billion would have been unsustainable had agriculture not gone through radical changes the past decades, and this never before seen population guarantees a constant stream of new problems that won't be solved by obedient workers. As long as people with an Einstein level of ingenuity have to pretend being something they're not, they will end up working as clerks, driving the bus and bagging groceries instead of changing the world. But civilization will continue to march forward on the backs of a great few who reject authority and suffer the consequences of social ostracism, that invent by striving in failure and fight for progress every step of the way, they will risk their lives for a chance of shaping the future, while countless others never reach their true potential, for society rather pay lip service to the end result of invention than to reward the process that makes innovation possible. In closing, the future is uncertain, but progress is not to be found in blindly going where every man has gone before.

Sal9000 in chat said that this is a Chewbacca defense, so I would want to change the title to: The Chewbacca defense of philosophical placebo's

I was just playing around with the idea of writing meaningless bullshit, and seeing how far I could go without it losing grammatical structure or the appearance of meaning.

There's no such thing as violent language, so fuck off the planet before I bust a cap in your ass. According to UPB, language is violent if used in a credible threat against someone's life.

I'm absolutely positively certain and to be frank the odds are incredibly high in favor of this statistically proven double-blind verified philosophical placebo, in fact it may or may not turn out to be kinda true in the future for this non specific way that only Jesus would maybe know for sure. especially when you consider the possibility of God having a cognitive bias in favor of a free market of empirically determined nihilistic ideals, and that is a given as long as they are debated in an aesthetically pleasing non-Socratic way while facing the abyss of existence in concrete Keynesian economics.

What do you want to know about facial recognition technology? I'm one of those people developing it.

The impressive thing to me about the Moon landing Hoax, is that people somehow think it was not technologically possible, when the technology being used was made possible by Newton 300 years earlier. And if you don't understand what I mean here, maybe you should not be talking about how rockets can't reach the Moon and back, if you don't understand the physics of it.