Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Do what they did with GPG (Score 1) 496

by EaglemanBSA (#43680133) Attached to: DoD Descends On DEFCAD

Compress the file then print it out in easily OCR'able format (QR codes, perhaps), then physically carry it out of the country.

"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

STL files are nothing but sets of vertices - 3d points. The Zimmerman defense is easily applicable here. MY guess - the DoS is about to have their asses handed to them. Whether the files do fall under the purview of ITAR is irrelevant - with its current form, ITAR's restrictions on the dissemination of information are simply unconstitutional, and cannot be enforced as 3d design and printing technologies become so mainstream that people are building their own with little to no experience.

Comment: Re:Not really (Score 1) 640

The problem is with YEC... the universe really is billions of years old. The earth *is* ancient. The thing is, most Christians ignore the fact that the scriptures actually point to earth existing prior to Adam and Eve, and it was a prevalent belief among Christians in the US until about 100 years ago. Genesis has a specific structure to the first few sentences which give a key to the puzzle:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."

Now, note the translation. Note that the second sentence does not begin with "And" but verse 3, 4, and numerous following it start with "And". The reason for this grammatically incorrect translation in the NIV version of the Bible was to point to the original word thought formation in the original Hebrew Torah. In Hebrew, there is a structure for sentences that indicates the thought or statement immediately follows the preceding thought or statement. English doesn't really have a clear cut way to show this concept of chronologically adjacent vs. ambiguous times between events. Essentially, the above "And" means "Immediately following this, God said". Now, you can see that between the initial creation of the heavens and the earth, there is no "And". The word "Now" was to indicate the Hebrew method of essentially saying "now we're starting a concept that is separate from the one preceding this".

Take all of the above understanding of the original Hebrew, and you find that the first sentence "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." followed by "Now, " literally (wow, nice to use that word in it's true sense) means that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [end of idea/concept/chronological concept] [Begin new concept and bring it forward to a more recent time concept] Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep".

Now, we take a look further and you'll see a slight mistranslation here... The Hebrew word "hayah" in verse 2 had been translated to "was". However, "hayah" means "to become" or "to come to pass" (see: Strong's Concordance).

So let's try that translation again:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [end of idea/concept/chronological concept] [Gap in time - length unknown] [Begin new concept and bring it forward to a more recent time concept] Now the earth [became] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep"

Notice something there that wasn't there before? So, what we have is that God created the universe, including earth. In other sections of scripture in Isaiah, we find that it is described that God created the earth "not void" or "not in chaos" or "not [chaotic, void]", and this same word used in Isaiah is the word used here, so we know that at some point before this, it was *not* void, and became void, so let's try it one more time:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [end of idea/concept/chronological concept] [Gap in time - length unknown] [Begin new concept and bring it forward to a more recent time concept] Now the earth [became] [chaotic, a void], darkness was over the surface of the deep".

So we have a creation of the universe, an unknown amount of time passing, then a world utterly devoid of everything, and we get to the "creation" story:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."

The Hebrew word used here for "Let" can be just as accurately translated as "to allow to return to it's original state". So we see that God was allowing light to return to earth (separating a dense cloud cover, perhaps, allowing the sun and stars to bathe the earth again) and it's followed by the first "night and day" following the catastrophe.

So lets tell it much more like it sounds from the original texts in plain language that might actually make sense:

In the beginning, God created everything, including the earth. An indeterminate amount of time passed (in which evolution could have been the method used to create all of life on earth, supporting all of the scientific evidence of dinosaurs, early hominids, neanderthals, etc.), some major catastrophe occurred, destroying all life on earth (think:Noah's flood, but 1000 times worse, and no ark, perhaps the moon was a rogue planet that struck a colder earth, knocking us into closer orbit, knocking the earth onto it's tilted orbit, and melted the icecaps, flooding the entire earth), and the earth became empty and void. God hovered over the dead planet and decided to start again. He broke the cloud cover of the planet, allowing light to return to it's original state, including day and night.

I could go on and on with this, such as how the Hebrew word "yom" has three literal meanings - a 12-hour period of time (sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour period of time from sunset to sunset (the Hebrew day), and an indefinite period of time - and how the very activities occurring on the days described in scripture ("day" 6, for example has the earth producing plants which then produced seed which then produced more plants!) could not truly mean a literal 12 or 24 hour period, so the meaning of "yom" in this passage has to refer to some indefinite period of time, and that Adam, upon seeing Eve, remarked "at last!" implying the "day" or period of time had been very long indeed (long enough for him to have named every animal on the face of the earth), so it was 7 periods of indeterminate length, allowing for all sorts of "wiggle room" on exactly how God created the current earth and current human beings we know on this planet today.

When honestly reviewed, the creation story can be seen to support the idea that man who is alive today is not directly related to the early hominids we find in the fossil records, and that man today is a unique being separate from that line (which explains the "missing link" issue) while still allowing for every single finding of science, including evolution as a whole. Science is the study of God's creation to understand it inside an out. I see absolutely no conflict with science and faith, and I find your *certainty* that the idea that God created the universe and all in it is absolutely falsifiable a bit unscientific.

Yes, YECists are not in line with the facts that present themselves, but that does not invalidate the possibility of a talking reptile creature existing at some point in history that is now extinct (how many animals "talk" today - the human vocal chords are not the only ones that can "talk" and humans are not the only creatures that communicate with sound), nor invalidates the possibility that some plant altered Adam and Eve's minds so that their state of nakedness went from innocent to something they felt ashamed of (a plant that makes you feel awkward, ashamed, and induces irrational fear of others... not completely unreasonable, right?).

Be a true scientist. Seek the truth, and examine *all* possibilities, even if they contradict your world view or make you uncomfortable. Anything less is hypocritical.

Comment: Re:Why is education socialized anyway? (Score 1) 463

by I'm not really here (#38184338) Attached to: China To Cancel College Majors That Don't Pay

Socialism isn't dirty, nor is capitalism, nor are they exclusive, and I'd not say that Classism is a direct counter to socialism either, though it is a better one than capitalism or democracy. Socialism just says that everyone should equally receive benefits. Classism says that specific groups should receive specific honor or position. These two, while at odds, can also coexist to a certain extent. Anyways, because I'm daydreaming, and the topic grows depressing... how about we dream a little?

I'd like to live in a world where the richest of the rich are no more than 100 times as rich as the poorest of the poor (at this point, the richest are more like 100,000 times richer than the poorest in the world, if not millions of times richer), and that the poorest human on earth had at least 100 square feet to call his or her own, food and water meeting the requirements for a proper diet, enough clothes for a week's wear, with replacements when those clothes wear out, public free transportation to get to any job they may be able to find and hold down, and free education that actually means something and can get them a job in some field.

On the flip side, I also want to live in a world where working hard and building something from nothing can eventually get you to being in the rich position, making 100 times the poorest of the poor, but knowing that the poorest of the poor still have food, shelter, clothes, transport, education and opportunity, so you did not have to swindle the poor to get rich. (Without some disparity in income, there would be little to no incentive for people to work harder to do the harder jobs, but make that disparity too great, and people despair at ever reaching the top). Oh, and while we're dreaming, I'd like a real republic, please... where sovereignty lies with the individual, and only a group of individuals can enact laws (as opposed to the mess of government agencies imposing laws on me that I never had a chance to even discuss, argue, or vote against/for that I live in now).

So, since we're now off in la-la land of dreams and everyone gets a pony... a capitalist social republic sounds rather nice to me.

Sorry for the rant, just felt like dreaming a happy dream before returning to reality.

Comment: Re:Since when is college supposed to be about jobs (Score 1) 463

by I'm not really here (#38184174) Attached to: China To Cancel College Majors That Don't Pay

I came out of high school knowing enough about networking and programming to run circles around my teachers, yet I was stuck as a pizza driver because I didn't have a degree. I finally caved in, and went to a "Technical College" to get my so-called "marketable trade skill" in networking with emphasis on software development to show a balanced understanding of computers. I skated through this degree because there was nothing they were teaching that I didn't already know (except perhaps a little of the stuff in my CCNA focused 2 year course). What did this get me? Debt, and still no career. I continued to work as a pizza driver, eventually as in-store, then as an assistant manager, then (after moving across the country to marry my online sweetheart), I moved into full time pizza management. It lasted 3 months... I ended up quitting out of severe depression, frustration, and disgust at the whole situation.

So, you're suggestion of Vo-Tech? Well, it got me to a point where I was flat broke while trying to marry my sweetheart and give her the wedding of her dreams. After a beautiful (but heavily underfunded and not quite up to what she had dreamed of having) wedding ceremony (to which she still to this day insists was perfect, but I know she wanted more), paid for by family and friends, I continued to search for work while she supported our needs with a secretary position. I finally gave in yet again, took a third shift backup tape operator position (barely an IT job) for a horrible salary, but it provided enough income that I could do an 18 month accelerated education weeknights course to get a 4 year Bachelors of Science in Business Administration without going more than about $15,000 in debt over the long haul. During that job, I was able to get a slightly better position, working as phone technical support (I will never do that again, but everyone in IT / Software should have to experience it so they have pity on the folks on the other end of the line). While this job was slightly less depressing and allowed more normal hours of sleep, the pay was still dismal compared to what my co-workers were making... the only difference between me and them? Not knowledge (I knew more about programming than most of the guys they were hiring fresh out of college)... the difference was they had 4 year degrees.

This is why I crammed for 18 months 3 nights a week to finish a 4 year degree in anything... because my 2 year associates degree meant squat to hiring managers. I had to practically beg to get the technical support position since I had no "real degree". So, I do 18 months to get a BS in BA with a minor in Networking, and suddenly I'm a much more qualified to be a Software Architect than I was before I got the BS in BA? Now that's what I call BS. Now I have tens of thousands in debt because there was no other way to get a real decent paying job in my field of expertise. I fought for 6 years to try and prove that you don't need a college degree to get into a technical job if you have good enough skills as a developer. What I got for it was a lesson that the world doesn't work as I think it should, and a 9 year delayed start at my career.

So get over yourself and your sanctimonious crap about "You go to college to study subjects you enjoy and want to learn more about" (No, I read books in my spare time to study subjects I enjoy and want to learn more about), and drop the crappy insult of "If you simply want a job, you should not be going to college."

This is not the way the job market works in the US, and you're naive as hell if you truly think it works any other way.

Comment: Re:Is it that bad? (Score 1) 463

by I'm not really here (#38183956) Attached to: China To Cancel College Majors That Don't Pay

I recommend you read "Invitation to the Game" by Monica Hughes: (caution, wikipedia article has serious spoilers). It's about a United States where 90% of graduates from high school are determined to be unemployable and are essentially dumped into "Designated Areas" to live out the rest of their days on a welfare pittance.

Comment: Re:Rights? (Score 1) 133

by EaglemanBSA (#37800704) Attached to: Senator Introduces Bill To Stop Warrantless GPS Tracking
Incorrect again. The amendment has never been interpreted by the courts to have these limitations - thus far, limitations have been enforced either through executive mandate or by legislation through the Congress. The limitations on our ability to purchase fully automatic weapons is not based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it applies to individuals - it's based in a 1968 and a 1986 law that is yet to be challenged at the bench on that level. The only auspices under which those limitations remain constitutional involve the interstate sale of the firearms (the commerce clause). As yet, the court hasn't ruled on privately produced and owned firearms that don't leave the boundaries of a state.

Comment: Re:Paleontologist using the term "Kraken" (Score 1) 135

by I'm not really here (#37683716) Attached to: Ancient Krakens Making Self-Portraits?

A simple reference to the "Kraken-like creature" would have sufficed. The author should have refrained from treating the creature as if it were an actual Kraken and instead continued to refer to it as "Kraken-like" to make it clear that it s an unknown type of creature that is similar to a Kraken. Just saying "the kraken" implies it is a Kraken, and not just something like one.

Comment: Re:Dampener too? (Score 1) 101

by I'm not really here (#37411406) Attached to: MIT Researchers Create New Tiny Energy Harvester

That was my thought exactly. Couldn't this technology be integrated into muffler systems to generate additional electrical power for hybrid vehicles? Instead of just dampening the sound, you harness it to generate electricity. The car gets quieter and more efficient at the same time. I wonder if this could be applied to motor compartments or built into motor mounts. Also, trains passing by make enormous amounts of vibration that creates an irritating low rumble for those living close to the tracks... there has got to be a way to integrate this technology into train stations or tracks or nearby structures to quiet things. Also could be applicable to all of those freeway noise blocking walls... just coat the walls in these devices and generate considerable power from all the noise.

Center meeting at 4pm in 2C-543.