All the same?

I think that you can come up with a few key differences if you put some effort into it.

It is exactly the same problem (in terms of ethical responsibility that is, not the other details) if the facebook cannot see the content of what is transmitted because it is heavily encrypted for example. It is impossible to in principle detect a message is heavily encrypted and not just random characters lol (without content intrusion efforts- and even then people may be simply communicating in code form that is other words that make sense in other ways too offering multiple possible meanings so gl with that). If it is possible to detect details of messages that is also violation of secrecy in communication unless these details are publicly available and can be monitored and they fail to do so.

Yahoo messenger can support communication between people in which they can exchange all kinds of secrets about terrorism or nasty crimes and send encrypted files too with details. How the hell is yahoo responsible if people do such things? Telephone companies are also responsible in the past and today in that sense for sending old technology modem messages with nasty content and even plans to do crimes etc? Of course not, you cant claim such responsibility over private communications.


Only if what is done is open to public scrutiny and they fail to monitor they have a problem.

But how would they be responsible if a predator is trying to exploit teenagers etc? They need to monitor all messages exchanged that are not public also. They can also block communications between adults and teens but this is bs actually.

All these are unavoidable evils of technology that come with all the good things. You cant assign responsibility on all these cases that are technically protected by either encryption or privacy.

Are cell phone companies responsible also for people recording with their camera video criminal events and emailing them? There is no end to this.

On occasion it may be possible to argue they are enabling certain things that they can monitor better though or offer services to eg parents to control various details or record things. If there are public forums or open exchanges or they fail to create software restrictions one can criticize them for lack of some initiative etc but only if the problem is very clear and it doesnt involve other legitimate processes that are close to impossible to monitor and which are essential for the service for >99% of the people using it etc.

My essential argument is that in principle i can send a very criminal file over 10 days breaking it in pieces and inserting them inside legitimate files etc. How the hell will they be able to know what is happening here? They would be needed to open say doc files, jpg files , mp4 etc and scan all characters etc and then connect them with other files in all possible combinations etc ie impossible things. If you cant defend against this you cant defend period as a matter of principle. You can make it harder but not impossible and you cant be held responsible for 0.001% nasty events on something people use for legitimate reasons all the time. This risk cannot be a reason to stop the legitimate services to initiate large scale content intrusion and violation of privacy.

On very extreme occasion is the risk from individual rare events can produce large scale damage to society one can make a judgement decision to block everything or heavily restrict it. Eg if you can kill millions of people through a process millions use for other reasons then one can argue the service must be restricted or eliminated.

Then you have gun companies and crimes made with their products, cars in accidents etc. There is no end to this "blame"/responsibility game.

And of course if it all goes back to free will it all breaks down at all levels again anyway and we all share responsibility for all evil and good things everywhere even if the law needs to take a different position that ignores the real physics of it lol. It may be necessary to have laws that assign responsibility to individuals based on last actions in a chain of events etc but those are just simplifications to create a more manageable world using wisdom gained before. A much better world sees things at a deeper level.

I just found out the number 1729 is a very interesting number. If you don't know why already I doubt you'll figure it out. It's called the "taxicab of 2" for a story behind it and the barest of hints.

PairTheBoard

It shows how much Ramanujan was comfortable with power sums from previous work to instantly recognize it in the taxicab story of Hardy. I bet you could give him all kinds of midsize numbers and there would be a story about most from prior work on other topics and identities.

It gets even more interesting that the story lead Hardy and Wright years later to prove that for every natural number n there is at least one other natural number that can be written as sum of 2 cubes in exactly n different ways (and a way to create such numbers but not the minimum of them).

So much work in mathematics is delivered in trying to solve seemingly random problems elsewhere. Free will lol once again! From a cab company to a theorem in the memory of a genius friend in a hospital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_number
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1729_(number)

https://youtu.be/MKrqL9qQgKI


Cheers!

Enter... scientific society. Probably more obvious in the first video. But many will use the satire implied in the original (here) to imagine a new dictatorship in the dream. But logic is not a dictatorship. We either unite is some sensible free from of cooperation that is permanently self critical of its design (exactly like science is) or live to witness unimaginable disasters remaining divided and conflicted under irrational systems.


A film by Chaplin just as WW2 is starting

The Cricketers in Brighton is an excellent pub.

"Hale knew, before he had been in Brighton three hours, that they meant to murder him."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddr...-Brighton.html

I used google to solve it. This is because I am too clever to worry about whether I am clever.

I just want to know. I don't take any pride in how I come to know.

I also avoid using a hammer to drive a screw in or take to reinventing the automobile.

Bing is reinventing Google and calling it Cortana. Cortana drinks Dos Equis.

PairTheBoard

1+7+2+9=19, 19*91=1729 lol

Sum[Sum[Sum[
Sum[If[(x + y + z +
w)*(10*(Mod[(x + y + z + w), 10]) + ((x + y + z + w) -
Mod[(x + y + z + w), 10])/10) ==
1000*x + 100*y + 10 z + w, 1, 0]*
q^(1000*x + 100*y + 10*z + w), {x, 0, 9}], {y, 0, 9}], {z, 0,
9}], {w, 0, 9}]=

=1 + q^10 + q^810 + q^1458 + q^1729

So 1458 is also 1+4+5+8=18, 18*81=1458

810=8+1+0=09 09*90=810

10=1+0=01 01*10=10



So 1458 is another 4 digit interesting number. Probably less interesting than 1729 unless you can make it one lol! So make it!

27^2+27^2=3^6+3^6=1458
3^4+3^4+6^4=1458
6^2+5^3+6^4+1^5=1458 (related to mdZ or 2345 conjecture lol, all but a finite set of natural numbers can be written as a sum of a square, a cube, a 4th and a 5th power of other natural numbers- can you help disprove or settle this?)


Interesting can be many things of course.

So far 1458 has helped me learn things i didnt know about these places and times;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_College,_Oxford

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Verde

1458 The Turks issue a decree to protect the Acropolis after they conquer Athens. (ok at least this started better than it ended lol)

While philosophy is dead, how can it still be asked "what does philosophy really mean?"

So cleverly human to relate death with change and talk about it. What's that make philosophers? Ghosts!

https://youtu.be/TOdfu5vMbtI

https://youtu.be/JOXAKD3rEyg

Dont trust even 50% of what Hawking says in my opinion lol (even in black holes lol). Philosophy can never be dead, just more connected to science than ever before by necessity.

I appreciate Hawking and trust physicists. That's not the point though.

I mean whatever Is said about the deaths of philosophy can be measured in contrast by the birth of philosophers, the expressions of philosophical concepts in some accurate measure of clear relationship with times now.

Plus I really enjoyed that interview collection. I Would suggest it is material from which to draw upon contrast how well philosophy is doing along the subsumption process with science from a near past vantage point.

Do we have the tools from science to ease fear and fanaticism while guiding for cope of uncertainty?

What does it mean now that the answer may be a partial yes? Word is born.

Wales vs Portugal game on Wednesday. The French are screwing with the fans by calling an air traffic strike. Yet another reason to hate the French. See links:

Euro 2016 fans' 'uncertainty' at French air strike

wales-news

France vs Germany on Thursday. Trench warfare predicted.


I believe England voted themselves out of the 2016 Euro football games.

Legit Cruyff turn.

The real question is wtf is the 3rd defender with the long dark hair doing being on the side (right side as goalkeeper sees it) that the other near guy is covering anyway and not on his back that is entirely open and a simple turn can release without any obstacle to the keeper. I mean why is his inertia indicating movement to an irrelevant position (was another attacker getting there, i dont recall and its not visible here?). Of course in reallife its easier said than done but it seems a more sensible placement is needed not a motion in a completely irrelevant direction since the guy has 2 others near him anyway.

Nice to see brains working in the game though.

##

PairTheBoard

He doesn't know how to flop?

He was doing what is called, "running towards where the ball will be."

In other words, he was playing correctly.

The alternative explanation is that he was moving randomly because he has never played the game before.

***

Shorter: That wasn't the "real question."

Yeah, Fellaini fouls him. I saw him play once, and he fouls opponents constantly. Doesn't show up on TV how much he does it.

The ball was never going to be there unless an other attacker was getting there that could receive it (but there was no hint he was planning to send it there and inf atc no attacker was going that way either). Also the other short hair defender was controlling that side in such case and he (9) would have had to overcome him, rotate and shoot and its very hard to do it from where he was that way to the right of the keeper. The ball was never moving in that direction by the way, it was kind of stationary (no left-right motion) and the time it takes to rotate and get back to shoot is more than enough to run towards that direction to cover his back that is free and needs only a rotation to shoot. My point is he should not have had inertia towards that direction but towards the center. He might have not have had enough time to get there and obstruct him but where he was running there was never any reason for the ball to get as it was being handled unless an attacker was getting there to receive it and there was none as you can see here next;

He simply ran in the wrong place that the ball wasnt likely to have found itself. He should have ran towards the player to cover his back not on that far side.

Of course you are being objecting as always, whats new.

For a goal to happen the defense has to fail sometimes too. This is one of them but the move of the player is genius anyway, also proving he was very well ware of what was going on around him. Modern soccer is entirely game theory like poker with pretenses and bluffing etc ie creative ball handling to keep them guessing.

It is dumb not to flop there. Granted, it was a highly skilled play, but a penalty kick would have been much more sure.

In other news, I met a fairly famous brothel worker today. I am now, once again, a commission salesperson.

From the link:


Pulling had led a sheltered life hitherto; Greene had not. When he wasn’t exploring murky corners of even more exotic parts of the globe, he returned to Brighton at regular intervals and made a beeline for The Cricketers.


His letters to a former landlord are framed on a wall of a Thirties cocktail bar upstairs. Inevitably dubbed the Greene Room, it’s let out for private functions. On my most recent visit, it was occupied by a theatre group rehearsing Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis for the Festival Fringe.

My Bold

*************

I would love to attend that. I would go dressed up like a Mexican cockroach.

I'm thinking of making a semi-serious post about the rise of the printing press, compulsory education in Europe, so called globalization, and the rise of social media; which gives every moron on the planet a platform to espouse drivel. And the fog bank we are headed for. But first, I need a few more beers to lubricate the brain cells.

The attacker clearly had open space and was heading towards it, and the defender was moving to cut him off.

The defender made the correct move.

The defender who closed too quickly to foul made the only mistake.